You are on page 1of 308

I hereby give notice that a hearing by commissioners will be held on:

Date: Wednesday 2 May and Thursday 3 May 2018


Time: 9.30am
Meeting Room: Totara Room
Venue: Civic Annex, Manukau Service Centre, 31-33
Manukau Station Road,
Manukau, Auckland

HEARING AGENDA
VOLUME TWO
190 JACK LACHLAN DRIVE, BEACHLANDS
PINE HARBOUR MARINA LIMITED

COMMISSIONERS

Chairperson Philip Brown


Commissioners Karyn Kurzeja

Paulette Kenihan
SENIOR HEARINGS ADVISOR

Telephone: 09 890 8148 or 021 706 729


Email: Paulette.kenihan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as a
decision of Council. Should commissioners require further information relating to any reports, please
contact the hearings advisor.
WHAT HAPPENS AT A HEARING
At the start of the hearing, the Chairperson will introduce the commissioners and council staff and will
briefly outline the procedure. The Chairperson may then call upon the parties present to introduce
themselves to the panel. The Chairperson is addressed as Mr Chairman or Madam Chair.

Any party intending to give written or spoken evidence in Māori or speak in sign language should
advise the hearings advisor at least five working days before the hearing so that a qualified
interpreter can be provided.

Catering is not provided at the hearing. Please note that the hearing may be audio recorded.

Scheduling submitters to be heard

A timetable will be prepared approximately one week before the hearing for all submitters who have
returned their hearing attendance form. Please note that during the course of the hearing changing
circumstances may mean the proposed timetable is delayed or brought forward. Submitters wishing
to be heard are requested to ensure they are available to attend the hearing and present their
evidence when required. The hearings advisor will advise submitters of any changes to the timetable
at the earliest possible opportunity.

The Hearing Procedure

The usual hearing procedure is:


• The applicant will be called upon to present his/her case. The applicant may be represented by
legal counsel or consultants and may call witnesses in support of the application. After the
applicant has presented his/her case, members of the hearing panel may ask questions to clarify
the information presented.
• The relevant local board may wish to present comments. These comments do not constitute a
submission however the Local Government Act allows the local board to make the interests and
preferences of the people in its area known to the hearing panel. If present, the local board will
speak between the applicant and any submitters.
• Submitters (for and against the application) are then called upon to speak. Submitters may also
be represented by legal counsel or consultants and may call witnesses on their behalf. The
hearing panel may then question each speaker. The council officer’s report will identify any
submissions received outside of the submission period. At the hearing, late submitters may be
asked to address the panel on why their submission should be accepted. Late submitters can
speak only if the hearing panel accepts the late submission.
• Should you wish to present written information (evidence) in support of your application or your
submission please ensure you provide the number of copies indicated in the notification letter.
• Only members of the hearing panel can ask questions about submissions or evidence.
Attendees may suggest questions for the panel to ask but it does not have to ask them. No
cross-examination - either by the applicant or by those who have lodged submissions – is
permitted at the hearing.
• After the applicant and submitters have presented their cases, the chairperson may call upon
council officers to comment on any matters of fact or clarification.
• When those who have lodged submissions and wish to be heard have completed their
presentations, the applicant or his/her representative has the right to summarise the application
and reply to matters raised by submitters. Hearing panel members may further question the
applicant at this stage.
• The chairperson then generally closes the hearing and the applicant, submitters and their
representatives leave the room. The hearing panel will then deliberate “in committee” and make
its decision.
• Decisions are usually available within 15 working days of the hearing.
190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands
Date: Wednesday 2 May and Thursday 3 May 2018

A NOTIFIED NON-COMPLYING ACTIVITY RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION BY


PINE HARBOUR MARINA LIMITED

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.

VOLUME ONE

Reporting officer’s report 7 - 60

Attachment One Application Material – Not re-produced. View via the


following link;
https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say/have-
your-say-notified-resource-consent/notified-resource-
consent-applications-open-
submissions/Pages/ResourceConsentApplication.aspx?it
emId=74&applNum=LUC60305157

Attachment Two Section 92 Material 61 - 84

Attachment Three Carparking Plan 85 - 86

Attachment Four Auckland Council Specialist Reviews 87 – 132

Attachment Five Section 95 Notification Determination 133 - 138

Attachment Six Approved Consent and Drawings 139 - 208

Attachment Seven Map of Submitters 209 - 210

Attachment Eight Changes to Submitters’ Position 211 - 228

Attachment Nine Submissions - REFER TO VOLUME TWO -

Attachment Ten Summary of Submitters 229 - 230

Attachment Eleven Consultation with Fire and Emergency 231 - 236

Attachment Twelve Auckland Transport Assessment 237 - 238

Attachment Thirteen Water Supply 239 - 256

VOLUME TWO

Attachment Nine Submissions 257 - 556

Page 3
190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands
Date: Wednesday 2 May and Thursday 3 May 2018

Reporting Officer, Rashida Sahib, Planner

Reporting on an application to construct four buidlings along the edge of the Pine Harbour
marina for commercial and residential activities at 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands. The
reporting officer is recommending, subject to contrary or additional information being
received at the hearing, that the application be CONSENTED, subject to certain conditions.

APPLICANT: PINE HARBOUR MARINA LIMITED

SUBMITTERS:

Page 257 Sarah Meikle Not supplied

Page 259 John and Darryl Lynn 54 Pine Harbour Pde Beachlands

Page 261 Adrian and Jan Rhodes Not supplied

Page 268 Craig Anderson 32 Pony Park Place Beachlands

Page 270 David Worsnop 5 Tercel Place Pakuranga

Page 272 Spencer Walesby PO Box 13914 Onehunga

Page 274 Leoanard Ross Sneddon 158 Second View Ave Beachlands

Page 276 HPA Group Ltd 62 Marendellas Drive Bucklands Beach

Page 279 Pine Harbour Marina


Management Ltd 190 Jack Lachlan Drive Beachlands

Page 281 Pine Harbour Trustee


Company Ltd 190 Jack Lachlan Drive Beachlands

Page 283 Craig Hunger 17 Sunkist Bay Road Beachlands

Page 285 Tracey Leigh Anderson PO Box 124 Beachlands

Page 297 Paul Stephen McKay 15 Tui Brae Beachlands

Page 300 Neil and Heather A Wagstaff 31 Omana Esplanade Maraetai

Page 307 Malcolm David Cryer 2A The Glebe Cockle Bay

Page 309 Lew Gerick Hansen 10 Tui Brae Beachlands

Page 311 Scott Gregory McAlpine 19 Lucca Crescent Flat Bush

Page 317 Leigh Jackson 9 Lydiard Place Beachlands

Page 325 Michael Gordon Good 60 Maraetai School Rd Maraetai

Page 327 Elizabeth Kempthorne 3 Tui Brae Beachlands

Page 4
190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands
Date: Wednesday 2 May and Thursday 3 May 2018

Page 344 Jeremy Clegg 122 Second View Ave Beachlands

Page 346 Jon Brett 5 Island View Terrace Cockle Bay

Page 352 Kevin Andrew McColl 94 Polo Lane RD 1

Page 354 Barklie Allsopp-Smith 48 Oak River Drive RD 5

Page 356 Christine Sandra Maslowski 11 Carlton Crescent Maraetai

Page 358 Kevin Pike 3 Albacore Way Maraetai

Page 360 Alan Gregory - Berth Owner 55a Pukakura Road RD 2

Page 364 Keith Manktelow 209 Exelby Road RD 8

Page 366 Grant Bowring PO Box 204104 Highbrook

Page 368 Bruce Herbert Martin 186 Fisher Parade Farm Cove

Page 374 John and Robyn van


Lieshout 19 Tui Brae Beachlands

Page 381 Ian and Elizabeth 66 Pine Harbour


Scarborough Parade Beachlands

Page 383 Lynne Wayne Richardson 51 Pinebrook Lane Maraetai

Page 385 Michael Smith 46 Second View Ave Beachlands

Page 387 Michael and Helen May 19 Ealing Crescent Beachlands

Page 389 Dave Cochrane 507 Creightons Road RD 2

Page 391 John Robert Snell PO Box 175 Beachlands

Page 393 Stephen Alexander Horton 31 Maraetai School Rd Maraetai

Page 395 Graeme Benn Fox 235A Ostrich Road RD 4

Page 402 Brian George Cumming 115A PVR 67 Valley Road

Page 405 Pine Harbour Berth Holders


Association Inc. c/o 52 Castleton Drive Howick

Page 449 Richard and Alecia Steel 52 Castleton Drive Howick

Page 493 Kim Munro 11 Bath Street

Page 495 Pepperjacks Restaurant &


Bar 190 Jack Lachlan Drive Beachlands

Page 500 Graeme Caskey 97 Prince Charles Rd Belrose

Page 5
190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands
Date: Wednesday 2 May and Thursday 3 May 2018

Page 546 Bayswater Marina Berth


Holders Association PO Box 32344 Devonport

Page 548 John McCormack and Louise


Pether 9/58 Wellington Street Ponsonby

Page 553 Pam Scott PO Box 281016 Maraetai

Page 6
ATTACHMENT NINE

SUBMISSIONS
Submission 1 (2 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Rashida Sahib


Sent: Thursday, 11 January 2018 10:28 a.m.
To: Melanie Sopoaga
Subject: FW: Pine Harbour Marina
Attachments: Estuary destruction.pdf

Hi Mel
Please include as informal submission in the database.

Thanks Rashida

From: The Meikle Family [mailto:themeiklefamily@outlook.co.nz]


Sent: Thursday, 11 January 2018 10:23 a.m.
To: Rashida Sahib
Subject: Pine Harbour Marina
 

Good Morning Rashida, 
 
I obtained your email address from the NZ Herald advertisement regarding work to be undertaken at Pine 
Harbour Marina.  
 
I will not be putting forward a formal submission, as I live on the North Shore and know nothing about the 
area.  However, I felt compelled to write to you as Senior Planner of Auckland Council, as I noted that removal 
of trees was part of the application. 
 
Since tree protection has been lifted by Council, we have lost an alarmingly large number of mature trees, many 
over 100 years old.  As a Senior Planner, hopefully you are in a position to ensure that consideration is given to 
the invaluable and irreplaceable nature of such trees.  
 
Sadly, it seems that since the Council amalgamated, those responsible for Resource Consents appear to be far 
removed from the communities they serve, and are either unable or unwilling to ensure the environment is 
protected. 
 
I attach an article from the New Zealand Herald that highlights this, and would also refer to the removal of a 
150‐year‐old Norfolk Pine in the same area, that was gifted to Auckland by Governor Grey. 
 
Thank you for taking the time to read my email, I’m aware you have a heavy work‐load, and are restricted in 
what you can achieve.  I write in hope that your position as Senior Planner in Council will enable you to have a 
positive influence on decisions that affect the retention of mature trees wherever possible. Where it is not 
possible, it is imperative that mitigating plantings are carried out that include large trees, as it is these that are 
vital, not only for birdlife, but they help prevent flooding by absorbing water, provide shade, absorb carbon‐
dioxide and supply oxygen.   
 
Kind regards 
Sarah Meikle 
Birkenhead 
 
1

257
258
Submission 2 (2 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Ngaire Knowsley on behalf of Resource Consent Authority


Sent: Tuesday, 16 January 2018 1:44 p.m.
To: Melanie Sopoaga
Subject: FW: [ID:4] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: Robyn Pilkington On Behalf Of Central RC Submissions
Sent: Tuesday, 16 January 2018 12:55 p.m.
To: Resource Consent Authority; Robert Chieng
Subject: FW: [ID:4] Submission received on notified resource consent

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, 15 January 2018 7:31 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:4] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: JOHN and Darryl Lynn

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021678902

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

259
Postal address:
54 Pine Harbour Parade Beachlands Auckland 2018

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:


To stop any earthworks and buildings until the berth holders have been consulted , no removal of trees ,

What are the reasons for your submission?


We object to the construction of the building as this will reduce the ammenities of the berth holders , which we
have paid for. No consultation has been made with berth holders , many will loose their car parks and easy
access to their piers and boats.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
No reduction in car parking and access to our boats.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

260
Submission 3 (7 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Jan Rhodes <ajrhodes@xtra.co.nz>


Sent: Tuesday, 16 January 2018 8:35 p.m.
To: Resource Consent Authority
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: Submission on notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive

Categories: Submissions to log

Hello

Please see my submission below. Also, I would like to attend the hearings, if you could please advise
dates and times.

Kind regards

Adrian Rhodes

re Pine Harbour Marina Apartment Consent


I have owned a marina berth at Pine Harbour for more than 30 years -
presently owing C16
On behalf of the majority of berth owners on Piers A,B and C (the worst
affected by the proposed development) I wish to record our strong
opposition to the block of 28 apartments and retail outlets being squeezed
into our existing car park that we have use of since the marina was first
developed. I was told initially that the development would allow short
term parking in front of the proposed development - but there is no space
for any berth holder parking at the end of piers A,B &C.
The plans I have seen have the buildings right up to the edge of the
marina leaving only a walk way. There is no space to service our boats
from land. Further, in our view the development is not in the best interests
of the Marina environment in total.
A number of other issues that Council should consider before consenting
the development
1. The height of the existing car park above “mean high water spring
tides” I have tried with out success to get this information from the
developers agent. I suspect the existing car park is less than 1.5 m above
MHWS and thus from existing scientific data in relation to global
warming approval should be turned down if the car park is less than the
1.5m mark.
2. The plan as I have been told have the car parks for the apartments
below ground level i.e. below sea level with the sea only a few meters
away!
3.The car park where the apartments are planned was flooded by the
stream overflowing at the back of the development (less than 10m away)
in March. I am led to believe this is not the first time this has happened.
Thus the development is threatened at the back (fresh water) and front
(salt water) in the future.
4 With the Down -Town ferry service based at the marina there is already
a shortage of parking at the Marina during weekdays. With no where to
1

261
expand car parking at the Marina precinct, 28 apartments with retail space
underneath will not only reduce the existing car space area but will result
in significantly more cars wishing to park in this very limited parking
area. On this ground alone I would strongly question Council consenting
to the development.
If you would like to discuss any of the above personally I can be
contacted on 09 5367366 or 0275367366
kind regards
Adrian & Jan Rhodes

262
263
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Ngaire Knowsley on behalf of Resource Consent Authority


Sent: Monday, 22 January 2018 8:55 a.m.
To: Melanie Sopoaga
Subject: FW: Submission re Pine Harbour
Attachments: mime-attachment

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: Jan Rhodes [mailto:ajrhodes@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, 19 January 2018 9:16 p.m.
To: Resource Consent Authority
Subject: Submission re Pine Harbour

Please add these photos to my earlier submissions.

Kind regards

Adrian Rhodes

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Renee Fraser-Smith <Renee@civilplan.co.nz>


Date: 16 January 2018 at 6:44:48 PM GMT
To: Jan Rhodes <ajrhodes@xtra.co.nz>
Subject: FW: Pine Harbor Marina apartment consent

Hi Adrian – forwarded photos that you emailed to me on 8 Jan as requested.
 
Kind Regards
 
Renee Fraser‐Smith
Senior Planner 
 
CivilPlan Consultants Limited
P: 09 222 2445 Extn 703
M: 0272 382 937
Level 3, 3 Osterley Way, Manukau 2104
PO Box 97796, Manukau 2241
www.civilplan.co.nz
 

 
Confidentiality: The information contained in this e‐mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, 
you may not read, use, copy or disclose this email or any attachments hereto. If you are not the intended recipient, please let us 
know by reply e‐mail immediately and then delete this email from your system. CivilPlan Consultants Limited shall not be responsible 
for any changes to, or interception of this email or any attachment after it leaves our information systems.
 
1

264
From: Adrian and Jan Rhodes [mailto:ajrhodes@xtra.co.nz]  
Sent: Monday, 8 January 2018 7:48 AM 
To: Renee Fraser‐Smith <Renee@civilplan.co.nz> 
Subject: Fwd: Pine Harbor Marina apartment consent

Hi Renee
Further to my submission apposing the Pine Harbour Apartment Marine Consent I attach
a photo of the water level at the proposed apartment site 90 minutes before the King
high tide the other day. The picture speaks louder than words. It would be incredibly
short sited if Council approved the development with present known high tide levels and
the clear scientific knowledge of future projected sea level changes. With existing
knowledge Council would be open to future legal claims by owners of the proposed
complex - at a cost to all ratepayers.

Kind regards
Adrian Rhodes

Hi Renee

re Pine Harbour Marina Apartment Consent

I have owned a marina berth at Pine Harbour for more than 30 years -
presently owing C16

On behalf of the majority of berth owners on Piers A,B and C (the worst
affected by the proposed development) I wish to record our
strong opposition to the block of 28 apartments and retail outlets being
squeezed into our existing car park that we have use of since the marina
was first developed. I was told initially that the development would allow
short term parking in front of the proposed development - but there is no
space for any berth holder parking at the end of piers A,B &C.

The plans I have seen have the buildings right up to the edge of the
marina leaving only a walk way. There is no space to service our boats
from land. Further, in our view the development is not in the best
interests of the Marina environment in total.

A number of other issues that Council should consider before consenting


the development

1. The height of the existing car park above “mean high water spring
tides” I have tried with out success to get this information from the
developers agent. I suspect the existing car park is less than 1.5 m above
MHWS and thus from existing scientific data in relation to global
warming approval should be turned down if the car park is less than the
1.5m mark.

265
2. The plan as I have been told have the car parks for the apartments
below ground level i.e. below sea level with the sea only a few meters
away!

3.The car park where the apartments are planned was flooded by the
stream overflowing at the back of the development (less than 10m
away) in March. I am led to believe this is not the first time this has
happened. Thus the development is threatened at the back (fresh water)
and front (salt water) in the future.

4 With the Down -Town ferry service based at the marina there is already
a shortage of parking at the Marina during weekdays. With no where to
expand car parking at the Marina precinct, 28 apartments with retail space
underneath will not only reduce the existing car space area but will result
in significantly more cars wishing to park in this very limited parking
area. On this ground alone I would strongly question Council consenting
to the development.

If you would like to discuss any of the above personally I can be


contacted on 09 5367366 or 0275367366

kind regards

Adrian & Jan Rhodes

266
Melanie Sopoaga

From: pine-harbour-berth-owners-assoc@googlegroups.com on behalf of Wout


gmail <wout37south@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, 5 January 2018 11:36 a.m.
To: pine-harbour-berth-owners-assoc@googlegroups.com
Subject: [pine-harbour-berth-owners-assoc] Fw: High tide and storm surge 5th January
taken 90 minutes before 3.6 metre high tide
Attachments: IMG_5069.JPG; ATT00001.txt

From: Bruce Hales


Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 10:03 AM
To: phberthowners@gmail.com
Subject: High tide and storm surge 5th January taken 90 minutes before 3.6 metre high tide

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pine Harbour berth
owners assoc" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pine-harbour-berth-
owners-assoc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to pine-harbour-berth-owners-assoc@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pine-harbour-berth-owners-
assoc/F53C4ABDA07B462B8D608E4AF30D3A01%40WoutMacmini.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

267
Submission 4 (2 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Ngaire Knowsley on behalf of Resource Consent Authority


Sent: Monday, 22 January 2018 11:29 a.m.
To: Melanie Sopoaga
Subject: FW: [ID:5] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: Robyn Pilkington On Behalf Of Central RC Submissions
Sent: Monday, 22 January 2018 11:08 a.m.
To: Resource Consent Authority; Robert Chieng
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: FW: [ID:5] Submission received on notified resource consent

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Friday, 19 January 2018 11:15 a.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:5] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Craig anderson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0212861510

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

268
Postal address:
32 Pony Park Place Beachlands Auckland 2018

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:


Parking requirements and access to piers for emergency services.

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Buildings should not be up against the sea wall as this restricts access to existing berths both for parking
(reduces the number of available parks) and for emergency services in the event of a fire. It also requires the
removal of rubbish and waste oil collection points

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

269
Submission 5 (2 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Ngaire Knowsley on behalf of Resource Consent Authority


Sent: Monday, 22 January 2018 11:29 a.m.
To: Melanie Sopoaga
Subject: FW: [ID:6] Submission received on notified resource consent

Follow Up Flag: Follow up


Flag Status: Completed

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: Robyn Pilkington On Behalf Of Central RC Submissions
Sent: Monday, 22 January 2018 11:09 a.m.
To: Resource Consent Authority; Robert Chieng
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: FW: [ID:6] Submission received on notified resource consent

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Friday, 19 January 2018 12:00 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:6] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: David Worsnop

Organisation name:

270
Contact phone number: 0212416160

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
5 Tercel Place Pakuranga Auckland 2010

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:


-Ferry user and berth holder access and potential congestion on roads and footpaths leading to vehicle and
public safety risks. -Parking issues

What are the reasons for your submission?


I am a berth owner (E 82). The proposal takes away a significant proportion of berthholder carparks(
approximately 234 current down to 194 for 570 berths) There has been a significant uplift in ferry users which will
only increase with the significant developments in the area and the traffic queues at peak times for vehicle
commuters driving to the city and Manukau. Already the existing public carpark "over fills" The proposed
development will impact significantly on safety. The public and all berth holders ( now the access gate has been
relocated to accommodate the proposed development) will pass directly past the development garages which
have ( apparently) blind exits directly onto a road that vehicles traverse on a bend. I consider this to be a
significant safety risk. There does not seem to be consideration of emergency services access to A,B , C e.g. Fire

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
The council itself look at the short, medium and long term needs of the area to ensure this development does not
impact untowardly on the needs of the greater community particularly related to accommodating growth in ferry
users and safety risks associated with the location and scale of the development. Require the developers to go
back to the drawing on the design to ensure that the safety risks are adequately addressed e.g. garage access

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

271
Submission 6 (2 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Ngaire Knowsley on behalf of Resource Consent Authority


Sent: Monday, 22 January 2018 11:29 a.m.
To: Melanie Sopoaga
Subject: FW: [ID:7] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: Robyn Pilkington On Behalf Of Central RC Submissions
Sent: Monday, 22 January 2018 11:09 a.m.
To: Resource Consent Authority; Robert Chieng
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: FW: [ID:7] Submission received on notified resource consent

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Sunday, 21 January 2018 10:30 a.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:7] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Spencer Walesby

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274788579

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

272
Postal address:
P.O Box 13914 Onehunga Auckland 1061

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:


The Marina

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
The proposed development limits access to three piers of the Marina.The marinas day to day running should be
the first priority and this development will cut access to to the people who already own the berths there (If
someone was to build a house in front of your driveway at home blocking access I’m sure the council wouldn’t
allow it.)The second greatest issue will be parking The ferries are increasing numbers due to the population
growth in the area What will happen when they start running weekends trying to share the car park the the
marina berth holders 194 spaces for over 500 berths!

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

273
Submission 7 (2 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Ngaire Knowsley on behalf of Resource Consent Authority


Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018 3:43 p.m.
To: Melanie Sopoaga
Subject: FW: [ID:8] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: Robyn Pilkington On Behalf Of Central RC Submissions
Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018 12:22 p.m.
To: Resource Consent Authority; Robert Chieng
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: FW: [ID:8] Submission received on notified resource consent

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, 22 January 2018 2:15 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:8] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Leoanard Ross Sneddon

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 5367174

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

274
Postal address:
158 Second View Ave Beachlands Auckland 2018

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:


A complete disregard for the harmful affect of the development on the marina berth holders whose berths are in
the immediate vicinity and , in particular those on Piers A,B and C.

What are the reasons for your submission?


Reduced access, convenience and services.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Disallow the project unless the lost facilities can be replaced with alternative facilities with the same benefits as
currently exist.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

275
Submission 8 (3 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Ngaire Knowsley on behalf of Resource Consent Authority


Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2018 10:58 a.m.
To: Melanie Sopoaga
Subject: FW: [ID:14] Submission received on notified resource consent
Attachments: Existing Parking.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow up


Flag Status: Completed

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: Robyn Pilkington On Behalf Of Central RC Submissions
Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2018 9:03 a.m.
To: Resource Consent Authority; Robert Chieng
Subject: FW: [ID:14] Submission received on notified resource consent

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 January 2018 3:31 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:14] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Terence Patrick Coombs

Organisation name: HPA Group Ltd

276
Contact phone number: 0274301 461

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
62 Marendellas Drive Bucklands Beach AUCKLAND 2014

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:


Parking, access to marina piers A, B & C, waster disposal, drop-off areas

What are the reasons for your submission?


Being significantly disadvantaged by the absence of facilities adjacent to Pier B

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
The parking area to the South of the access way between buildings 2 and 3 should be reserved as a drop-off
area and rubbish bin area. Alternatively, the space between buildings 2 and 3 should be trafficable such that
berth holders can park temporarily while loading and offloading trolleys. Trolleys should also be stored in this
area.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:
Existing Parking.pdf

277
Existing Parking Adjacent to Piers A, B & C Legend

278

N
20 m
Submission 9 (2 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Ngaire Knowsley on behalf of Resource Consent Authority


Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2018 10:57 a.m.
To: Melanie Sopoaga
Subject: FW: [ID:15] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: Robyn Pilkington On Behalf Of Central RC Submissions
Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2018 9:04 a.m.
To: Resource Consent Authority; Robert Chieng
Subject: FW: [ID:15] Submission received on notified resource consent

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 January 2018 3:46 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:15] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Pine Harbour Marina Management Ltd

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0276890586

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

279
Postal address:
190 Jack Lachlan Drive Beachlands Auckland 2018

Submission details

This submission: supports the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:


Support the application in its entirety

What are the reasons for your submission?


The effects are less than minor, and the proposal is consistent with the relevant statutory provisions, and the
granting of this consent will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Grant the consent as sought.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

280
Submission 10 (2 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Ngaire Knowsley on behalf of Resource Consent Authority


Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2018 10:57 a.m.
To: Melanie Sopoaga
Subject: FW: [ID:16] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: Robyn Pilkington On Behalf Of Central RC Submissions
Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2018 9:05 a.m.
To: Resource Consent Authority; Robert Chieng
Subject: FW: [ID:16] Submission received on notified resource consent

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 January 2018 4:01 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:16] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Pine Harbour Trustee Company Ltd

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0276890586

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

281
Postal address:
190 Jack Lachlan Drive Beachlands Auckland 2018

Submission details

This submission: supports the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:


Support the application in its entirety

What are the reasons for your submission?


The effects are less than minor, and the proposal is consistent with the relevant statutory provisions, and the
granting of this consent will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Grant the consent as sought.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

282
Submission 11 (2 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Ngaire Knowsley on behalf of Resource Consent Authority


Sent: Friday, 2 February 2018 12:06 p.m.
To: Melanie Sopoaga
Subject: FW: [ID:23] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: Robyn Pilkington On Behalf Of Central RC Submissions
Sent: Friday, 2 February 2018 11:54 a.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:23] Submission received on notified resource consent

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 1 February 2018 7:46 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:23] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Craig hunger

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021689535

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

283
Postal address:
17 Sunkist bay Rd Beachlands Auckland 2018

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:


Disagree with high density apartments in that area. Loss of parking and beach access

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
To not allow consent

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

284
Submission 12 (12 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 9:22 a.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:25] Submission received on notified resource consent
Attachments: s92 request.pdf; S92 Reply Letter.pdf; King Tide 050118 1.pdf

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Friday, 2 February 2018 1:16 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:25] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Tracey Leigh Anderson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 807220

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
P O Box 124 Beachlands Auckland 2147

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

285
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
Resource Consent – Application Numbers 50852, P50852 was granted to Pine Harbour Marina Ltd (“PHM”) in
June 2017 for a similar development consisting of four buildings for commercial/retail use only – refer excerpt
below. Commercial Activities 46. Commercial activities undertaken within the proposed buildings shall be limited
to: a. Offices; b. Food and beverage activities, on the ground floor only; c. Marine retail activities, on the ground
floor only; and d. A single dairy, on the ground floor only and no greater than 150 m2 in GFA. e. Any other
permitted activity listed in Activity Table I431.4.3. In July 2017, PHM, represented by Craig Shearer of Shearer
Consulting Ltd, quickly submitted a further application for Consent for four buildings of similar footprint, but three
levels high, and mixed use commercial/residential. This is clearly contrary to the rules of the Auckland Unitary
Plan, which for Precinct F allows for a Maximum height of 9m, and Maximum number of storey - 2, with activity
listed as commerce and industry. Refer: Letter dated 30th August 2017 from Renee Fraser-Smith, Consultant
Planner for Auckland Council and response from Craig Shearer, Shearer Consulting Ltd dated 18th September
2017. Full copies of letters attached for reference. Note excerpt from Renee Fraser-Smith's letter: "5. It is noted
that the potential for inclusion of residential activities in Sub Precinct F was declined by the Independent Hearing
Panel for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Please provide additional comment and assessment regarding:
(a) The necessity and appropriateness for residential activities in this location, compared to its zoned purpose. (b)
Please provide an economic report with confirms that the total area of commercial activities provided at ground
floor is sufficient to meet the needs of the Precinct, and addresses/identifies any wider effects resulting in the loss
of commercial land at this location..." And an excerpt from Craig Shearer’s response: "In response to sub-
questions (a) (b) and (c) above, based on the information in Table 1 and in the above Background, the demand
for marine commercial and office activities is limited at Pine Harbour Marina..." My question: When PHM applied
for the original consent, which was granted in June 2017, they were clearly aware that there was 'limited' demand
for commercial and office activities at Pine Harbour Marina. Craig also mentions: "... it should be noted that there
is a strong desire to be located adjacent to the water edge by potential residential users. This demand for water's
edge can been seen across the wider Auckland region as evidenced by the demand for water side property. The
desire to be located adjacent to the water requires the need to provide dwellings located adjacent to the water."
My question: While it is accepted that there has in recent years been demand for ‘water’s edge’ dwellings - this
trend may slowly reverse. With more and more extreme weather events, I would suggest that ‘water’s edge’ living
is becoming less attractive. The loss of foreshore and section frontages due to the rising level of the sea, storm
surges, inadequate drainage and king tides are evident in many coastal areas of Auckland. In this particular case,
do people paying in the vicinity of $1.4m - $2.5m, really want to live right next to water that is polluted, smells at
low tide, has constant noise emissions and is prone to flooding over the Marina seawall in King Tides – refer
photos of 5th January 2018 high tide when it came extremely close to breaching the basin perimeter. The area
also flooded completely in March 2017 – so it is hardly a 50-100 year storm event. NOISE The Marina
environment is noisy – there are boats and ferries coming and going, using noisy bow thrusters, twin engine
thrusts and the skipper barking orders to his deckies, to manoeuvre into berths. There are fishermen arriving
early in the morning, wide awake and jovial at the prospect of a day’s fishing. Those same fishermen will arrive
back sometimes late at night, even more jovial after celebrating their efforts with a couple of beers. There are
ferry commuters arriving and departing from 6am until midnight – many of these will have had a few drinks in
town. EMERGENCY SERVICES There is always the risk of a boat fire in the Marina environment. Containing the
fire quickly and efficiently is of utmost importance to stop the fire spreading from vessel to vessel and causing a
major disaster and potential loss of life. How are firetrucks, ambulances, water tankers etc., going to be able to
reach any vessel on A, B, C Piers? REFUSE The new rubbish bins supplied by PHM are functional in their
current positions. How will PHM stop apartment dwellers and commercial tenants, and the public visiting, from
using the berth holder bins for their own use? There is likely to be more and more rubbish overflows, with the
resulting odour and scattered rubbish attracting seagulls, rats and other scavengers. Rats recently invaded some
boats on B Pier, and caused significant damage to wiring and hoses. CONSTRUCTION PLANNING There
doesn’t seem to be any information available in relation to the mitigation of the negative effect to berth holders
throughout the construction phase. For instance, how are berth holders on Piers A, B and C going to access their
piers safely and practically through extremely tight channels in close vicinity to an active construction site? Has
this even been considered? There are approximately 169 berths affected. How will dust and debris from the
building site be contained so that it doesn’t end up on boats or in the marina basin? BERTH HOLDER PARKING
The plans allow for 176 berth holder car parks. I believe the standard number for new marinas is .35/berth. This
would provide for at least 199 car parks if this were a new marina. We had approximately 234 secured car parks
behind the barrier arms prior to the commencement of this development, and even then it filled up at peak times.
While you might say it is only at peak times that the this quantity of parking is necessary, it is at peak times that it
is most important. Berth holders will be forced to leave their cars for long periods - weeks sometimes - in the
unsecured public car park, leaving them susceptible to theft and vandalism. My question: How was the figure of
176 car parks determined? FERRY COMMUTER PARKING The public are regularly reminded to use the public
transport options available to them, to ease the congestion on Auckland roads. My question: Why, when you
have an excellent and popular ferry service, that is only going to be more in demand as the population grows, do
you then reduce the car parks? TRAFFIC I note that a traffic report was undertaken by Auckland Transport in
December 2017, when most people would be preparing for Xmas festivities, or away. The Access Way is used
by: Ferry Commuters Board Sailers Small craft operators Berth Holders Dog Walkers Campervans and Tourists
Tradespeople working on boats The population is increasing from an estimated 9,000, to a projected 17,000

286
people, many of whom will want to use the ferry service. In Buildings 2,3 and 4, the garages exit directly into the
Access Way. The Access Way is narrow, with several blind corners from the security hut through to the end of
the public and berth holder car park. This represents an extremely dangerous situation. My question: What steps
will be put in place to prevent vehicle collisions and danger to pedestrians? Has the population explosion been
considered and allowed for?

What are the reasons for your submission?


I co-own a berth at Pine Harbour Marina on C Pier. I am also a resident of Beachlands. I would like the
opportunity in the future to use the ferry service to Auckland City, and be assured that there will be adequate
parking. I want to see waterfront areas preserved for all to enjoy for whatever purpose, and not be sacrificed for
profit.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
I would like Auckland Council to reject this consent application lodged by Pine Harbour Marina Ltd. There is no
clear justification for this apartment development, other than to profit the developer. It will negatively affect many
local residents and berth holders. Pine Harbour is a Marina - it is wide open spaces that can be enjoyed by many
- it should remain just that for our future generations.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:
s92 request.pdf
S92 Reply Letter.pdf
King Tide 050118 1.pdf

287
30 August 2017

Pine Habrour Marina Limtied


c/- Shearer Consulting
PO Box 60240
Titirangi

Attnetion: Craig Shearer

Dear Sir

Request for Further Information under Section 92 of the Resource Management


Act 1991 (RMA)
Application number(s): LUC60305157
Applicant: Pine Habrour Marina Limtied
Proposed activity(s): To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall,
construct four buildings for commercial and residentail
activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an
existing private road, removal of trees and construct a
pedestrian and cycle path.
Site address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Further to the receipt of the above-mentioned application, it has been determined that the information
provided with your application is not sufficient to enable us to undertake an adequate analysis of
your proposal. We are therefore unable to assess and determine your application until we receive
further information, as required under Section 92 of the RMA.

The following information is requested:

Planning Matters:
1. Please provide more detail of the interface between buildings, particularly provide
comment/additional drawings showing sill heights/opaque glass etc. to address the potential
for adverse privacy/outlook effects resulting from bedroom and bathroom windows directly
facing either other (i.e. between Buildings 1 and 2, Buildings 2 and 3 and Buildings 3 and 4).
As a guide it would be useful to compare the proposed privacy against the required outlook
control of the Terraced House and Apartment Zone (which is the underlying zone for the
"apartments" area within the Precinct).
2. As residential activities are not anticipated in the Marina zone, the general noise standards of
that zone may not be suitable for residential uses. Please provide an acoustic report which
identifies what level of noise is considered appropriate for this location to mitigate potential
effects and please confirm that suitable acoustic treatment and mechanical ventilation will be
provided for all dwellings.

288
3. Please provide more detail on the allocation of parking. In particular, whether the application
assumes that some of the car parks in the private road space will be allocated to either the
residential units or staff of the retail component of the activity (as opposed to just visitors to the
site), and/or how the internal garage parking will be allocated between units to ensure that long
stay parking requirements are "off street". If long term on street parking is assumed, please
provide additional comment on how this will be managed and whether this is appropriate in the
easement (which requires the area to be available for public use).
4. The revised application does not address cycle parking requirements under the AUP – or is it
proposed to infringe the requirements for short and long term cycle facilities?
5. It is noted that the potential for inclusion of residential activities in Sub Precinct F was declined
by the Independent Hearing Panel for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Please provide
additional comment and assessment regarding:
(a) The necessity and appropriateness for residential activities in this location, compared to
its zoned purpose.
(b) Please provide an economic report which confirms that the total area of commercial
activities provided at ground floor is sufficient to meet the needs of the Precinct, and
addresses/identifies any wider effects resulting from the loss of commercial land at this
location.
(c) Any cumulative effects resulting from this application (i.e. will the loss of commerical
space be required to be offset somewhere else on the site which is not envisaged by the
Precinct?)
(d) What measures will be put in place to ensure that residents of units do not convert the
unit to any other permitted activity in Sub - Precinct F, and if there is no such measure
proposed, what is the potential for reverse sensitivity effects in the event that this occurs.
You must provide this information within 15 working days. If you are unable to provide the information
within 15 working days, then please contact the reporting planner named below so that an alternative
timeframe can be mutually agreed.

If you do not respond within 15 working days, refuse to provide the information or do not meet an agreed
alternative timeframe between Council and yourself, this application must be publicly notified as required
by section 95C of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Under section 88C of the RMA, the processing of your application is suspended until the above matters
have been addressed, or the 15 working day time limit has expired. If Council considers that the
information provided is incomplete, your application will remain on hold and you will receive a further
information request.

If you have any queries regarding the above, please feel free to contact me at
renee@civilplan.co.nz / 0272382937.

Yours sincerely

Renee Fraser-Smith

Consultant Planner

289
shearer consulting PO Box 60240
Titirangi Auckland
mob: 021 735 914
e: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

·· Strategy ·· Policy ·· Planning ··

18 September 2017

Renee Fraser-Smith
Consultant Planner
Auckland Council
Renee@civilplan.co.nz

Dear Renee

Request for Further Information under Section 92 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)
– Application LUC60305157

Thank you for your letter of 30 August in which you set out on behalf of Council the request for
further information for Application number LUC60305157.

This letter serves to answer those questions in the order they were requested.

1. Please provide more detail of the interface between buildings, particularly provide
comment/additional drawings showing sill heights/opaque glass etc. to address the potential for
adverse privacy/outlook effects resulting from bedroom and bathroom windows directly facing
either other (i.e. between Buildings 1 and 2, Buildings 2 and 3 and Buildings 3 and 4). As a guide
it would be useful to compare the proposed privacy against the required outlook control of the
Terraced House and Apartment Zone (which is the underlying zone for the "apartments" area
within the Precinct).

Response:

Please see amended drawings from Paul Brown Architects, attached as Appendix 1.

The buildings are generally a minimum of 5.7m apart, thus providing ample opportunity for
good access to daylight and a sense of spaciousness. The changes to the drawings show vertical
louvers mounted on the outside of the windows between the buildings. These will ensure
access to daylight is maintained, enable those living in the apartments a good standard of visual
privacy by preventing adjacent apartments from having direct viewing access, and provide good
views towards the marina basin and water.

290
2. As residential activities are not anticipated in the Marina zone, the general noise standards of
that zone may not be suitable for residential uses. Please provide an acoustic report which
identifies what level of noise is considered appropriate for this location to mitigate potential
effects and please confirm that suitable acoustic treatment and mechanical ventilation will be
provided for all dwellings.

Response:

Please see response from Marshall Day Acoustics, attached as Appendix 2. The report from
Marshall Day has assessed the architectural drawings and has recommended a condition be
applied to the dwellings to achieve appropriate internal acoustic amenity, including acoustic
limits in bedrooms and sleeping areas. To achieve the standards these areas will require a
façade capable of achieving a 25 decibel noise reduction if the permitted 60 dB LAeq occurs in
the Marina Zone. The report recommends constructions to achieve the façade design
requirements.

3. Please provide more detail on the allocation of parking. In particular, whether the application
assumes that some of the car parks in the private road space will be allocated to either the
residential units or staff of the retail component of the activity (as opposed to just visitors to the
site), and/or how the internal garage parking will be allocated between units to ensure that long
stay parking requirements are "off street". If long term on street parking is assumed, please
provide additional comment on how this will be managed and whether this is appropriate in the
easement (which requires the area to be available for public use).

Response:

The on road spaces will not be allocated to the residential units or retail staff parking. The car
parking will be managed to ensure that all long term uses are off street. To achieve this all “on
street” parking (where located in easement) will be time limited. It is proposed that time limits
be set for various time intervals of 15 minute, 30 minute and 180 minutes.

4. The revised application does not address cycle parking requirements under the AUP – or is it
proposed to infringe the requirements for short and long term cycle facilities?

Response:

By design each apartment has a garage. Our understanding is that where residential units have
designated garages they are not required to provide additional space for cycle parking.

For completeness we note that for a residential activity with greater than 20 dwellings the AUP
requires 1 space per unit without a garage plus 1 space per 20 dwellings for visitors.

For retail the AUP requires 1 / 350 sqm for visitors and 1/300 for staff (food and beverage is
worst case). Therefore for the retail 3 visitor and 3 staff spaces are required. Overall a total of 4
visitor spaces and 3 staff spaces are required.

291
On the site plan there is a triangle area between Buildings 3 and 4 already labelled “bicycle
parks”. It is considered this area can easily cater for 7 spaces. We will install a secure cycle stand
where cycles can be locked and the three staff ones will be provided with weather protection.

5. It is noted that the potential for inclusion of residential activities in Sub Precinct F was declined
by the Independent Hearing Panel for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Please provide
additional comment and assessment regarding:

(a) The necessity and appropriateness for residential activities in this location, compared to its
zoned purpose.

(b) Please provide an economic report which confirms that the total area of commercial
activities provided at ground floor is sufficient to meet the needs of the Precinct, and
addresses/identifies any wider effects resulting from the loss of commercial land at this location.

(c) Any cumulative effects resulting from this application (i.e. will the loss of commercial space be
required to be offset somewhere else on the site which is not envisaged by the Precinct?)

Response:

Background
The Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) agreed with the reasons set out in the report from the
reporting officer to the hearings. In reference to sub-precinct F this report said the area “has
been specifically identified for marina commercial and office activity and has been provided in
this location due to its close proximity to the marina itself so that land based marina related
activity or marina complementary activity can be established there”. The report adds there is a
clear functional need for these activities to be in this sub-precinct which cannot be easily
located elsewhere.

Pine Harbour Marina Limited agrees that these activities could be provided at this location and
has ample capacity for them to do so.

The question really is, will these activities be adequately provided for at the Marina, taking into
account current and future demand? The proposed development, in conjunction with other
buildings in the precinct, provides for these activities in excess of existing and foreseeable future
demand. An analysis has been undertaken of the floor space currently available and its use for
marina commercial and office activity – activities which have a functional need to be at this
location.

At present there is a total of 1,424m² available in three buildings on Sub-Precincts F and A –


Ranger House, Reliance House and Nor-West House - for marina commercial and office activity.
The new proposed development will add a further 807m² of additional floor area. The take-up
for such activities is set out in the table below:

Table 1: Pine Harbour Marina – Existing Marine Commercial/Office Capacity

292
Building and floor Total area available Area used for marine Area used for non-
area (m²) for Marine related uses marine related uses
Commercial/Office including Food &
Activity Beverage (brackets)

Ranger House 836m² 87.5m² 748.5m (123m²)

Reliance House 445m² 243m² 202m² (all F & B)

Nor-West House 142m² (vacant) 0 0

Proposed new 807m² NA NA


building

Totals 2258m² 330.5m² 950.5

% of total floor area 14.6% 42%


available (23% of existing
available floor space)

From this table it is obvious there is very little demand for uses that have a functional need for
this location. Of the existing available space, 23% is used for such activities. Therefore 77% is
available for “functional need” uses if there is the demand, and the proposed development will
add an additional 807m² (on the ground floor) to this total. In summary, there is currently a
surplus of capacity and this will be increased by the proposal. As a consequence, activities with
no functional need for this location fill the vacuum. Current users are food and beverage
outlets, hairdresser, dentist, a freight company, building contractor, consultant, security
contractor and a contracts company. None of these uses have a functional need to be located
near the CMA and most are located on the 2nd floor of Ranger House, with the exception of the
food and beverage.

There are two marine related offices located in sub-precinct G, but these are directly related to
workshops in that sub-precinct.

The Marina keeps a log of all lease enquiries. In the last three years the Marina has been
approached 27 times by prospective tenants. Only one has been for a use related to the CMA –
a boat design company, although this use has no direct functional need to be at this location.
The rest were for a range of retail and office uses such as an accountant, fitness centre, liquor
store, art gallery, lawyer, a variety of cafes, bar etc. This demonstrates demand for the type of
uses the IHP considered appropriate is low. That said the capacity is available if the demand
changes in the future.

Questions (a) (b) and (c)

293
In response to sub-questions (a) (b) and (c) above, based on the information in Table 1 and in
the above Background, the demand for marine commercial and office activities is limited at Pine
Harbour Marina. Of the Permitted Activities in the zone, only offices seem to be in demand and
with one exception (Marina management) none of these have a functional need to be located
near to the CMA. There is one marine retail use (marine chandlery). The addition of a further
807m² of commercial floor space (ground floor) in the new building will add further to the floor
area available for the uses the IHP had envisaged for the Precinct.

Although residential uses are not a physical necessity at this location, the information provided
above demonstrates there is sufficient capacity to meet the needs in the Precinct for
commercial activities on the ground floor of the proposed building and within the other existing
commercial buildings to cater for marina commercial and office activity well into the future.
This will not lead to wider effects resulting from the loss of commercial land in this location –
there appears already to be an over-supply of floor space for the type of activity envisaged by
the IHP. However it should also be noted that there is a strong desire to be located adjacent to
the water edge by potential residential users. This demand for water’s edge can been seen
across the wider Auckland region as evidenced by the demand for water side property. The
desire to be located adjacent to the water requires the need to provide dwellings located
adjacent to the water.

In respect of the necessity and appropriateness for residential activities in this location the only
activities likely to locate above ground floor are offices and there is already sufficient capacity
for this use within the proposed building and within other buildings in the Precinct. With
passenger transport services (ferry and bus stops) immediately adjacent to the proposed
building, it is appropriate to have residential development at this location as the locational
advantages encourage the use of this mode of transport as opposed to private vehicles.

No cumulative effects will result from this application because as explained above, the supply of
commercial space within the building and elsewhere in the Precinct is well in excess of the
current and the future demand. There is no requirement to off-set the loss of commercial space
to other parts of the marina.

(d) What measures will be put in place to ensure that residents of units do not convert the unit to
any other permitted activity in Sub - Precinct F, and if there is no such measure proposed, what is
the potential for reverse sensitivity effects in the event that this occurs.

Response:

Under the Sub-Precinct F provisions, permitted activities in the zone are Clubrooms for marine
related clubs, dairies with a gross floor area up to 100m², offices, and marine retail with a gross
floor area up to 100m². Such activities will be encouraged on the ground floor but not on those
above.

294
The applicant has given some thought to this question and believes, of the four activities, only
offices are a possibility on the levels set aside for dwellings – levels one and two. Marine retail
and dairies would not attract customers on the first or second level and are not considered a
possibility. Clubs rooms are also possible but there has been no demand to this point and such a
use is extremely unlikely. Offices could potentially occur on the floors set aside for residential
development, and offices as a home occupation in particular would certainly be appropriate and
likely to occur.

In terms of reverse sensitivity effects, the main potential effects have been assessed as being
noise. Marshall Day Acoustics have assessed the potential for noise effects elsewhere in this
section 92 response and have determined that with appropriate insulation and façade design
any potential effects can be avoided or mitigated.

However, there is the potential conflict in other areas such as access issues – especially
expanded use of lifts. To avoid the possibility of reverse sensitivity occurring it is proposed to
register consent notices on each of the dwellings prohibiting these activities from the first and
second levels, with the provision that this excludes offices as home occupations.

Yours Sincerely

Craig Shearer
Principal
Shearer Consulting Limited

295
296
Submission 13 (3 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 9:23 a.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:26] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Friday, 2 February 2018 1:46 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:26] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Paul Stephen McKay

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021575494

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
15 Tui Brae Pine Harbour, Beachlands Auckland 2018

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

297
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
Apartment Buildings: The Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP1431 Pine Harbour Precinct) clearly states that any
development in Sub Precinct F must comply with the criteria laid out in the plan. 1. Any development must be
restricted to a maximum of 2 levels - this resource consent application is for 3 levels. 2. Any proposed
development must not exceed 9 meters in total height - the building plans for this development clearly show the
lift overuns, air conditioning units, and mechanical rooms on each block all being above the 9 meter maximum
height consent. 3. Any proposed development can only be commercial on the ground floor and office facilities on
the second level - this development is for commercial on the ground floor and 2 levels of residential
accommodation above. The above resource consent application criteria are clearly in breach of the existing AUP
and should at the very least require an amendment to the AUP before any consideration can be given to granting
a resource consent for this development. The placement of lift overuns, air con units, and mechanical rooms
being positioned above the roof of each building also presents a reverse sensitivity effect for nearby residents in
Tui Brae which is situated less than 75 meters from the proposed development and at a height of 4 meters above
the roof line of the development footprint. The visual effect and potential noise from lifts and air conditioning units
does not appear to have been considered in this application. The proposed public roadway adjacent to the
development and feeding into the southern council car park will have a much greater volume of traffic as ferry
services increase with future growth in the area, and following the relocation of the berth holders car park access
further to the south west of the council car park.Peak traffic movements are assessed as being 132 - 135 during
peak hours, and daily vehicle trips between 1293 - 1337. These numbers appear to only consider retail and
residential activity with no assessment of increased ferry movements or marina or visitor traffic with the area
growth. The planned residential development also has apartment residents entering the roadway directly from
their garaging area, without any clear visibility until well into the roadway, this has the potential for serious road
crashes and is an additional cause for concern. Noise - with the proposed commercial development on the
ground floor, and increased vehicle, ferry, and foot traffic associated with this development, how will noised
control be managed within the consent? Berth Holder access to piers A,B,C and D: There appears to be no
consideration provided with the resource consent application for current berth holders with regard to : Parking in
the immediate area - berth holders currently have access to the waterside, and designed parking close to the pier
heads, as part of their berth license, to enable loading and unloading provisions and equipment. Safe access to
the marina pier heads - under the proposed consent berth holders will have to cross the roadway behind the
development, move through the narrow access ways between the buildings, and walk along the pathway
bordering the marina, with other members of the general public. With any commercial development on the ground
floor, the narrow pathway along the marina frontage, and associated congestion with the general public, there is
the potential for accidents with foot traffic as berth holders access the pier heads with trolleys and boating
equipment. Short term ferry drop off and pickup - there does not appear to be any provision for short term parking
near the ferry base where passengers can be dropped off and picked up from departing and arriving ferries.
Rubbish disposal - presently each pier has a large rubbish bin (1.5m3), plus 3 recycling bins and a 1 waste oil
container. Under this resource consent there appears to be no provision for these facilities to be available in a
reasonably accessible position for berth holders on these piers. A remote location for bins presently servicing
these piers appears to have little benefit and has the potential to create a vermin and odour issue as rubbish is
discharged and awaiting removal. Emergency Services access - once completed there appears to be very limited
immediate access to the marina basin in the event of a boat fire or serious injury on board a vessel. Health and
safety - during the construction phase of this development (12 to 18 months) there appears to be little
consideration for berth holders safe access to and from the pier heads. It is suggested that covered walkways
affording safe 24 hour access to the pier heads and a footpath at the waters edge are minimum safety
requirements for this construction. A cantilevered covered section over the waters edge may be an option to
afford safe walking passage in front of any construction. Parking - due to the limited space available in front of the
development during construction there is a concern that the one road way through the construction area could be
blocked for extended periods while construction vehicles undertake deliveries, and in so doing restrict the access
to both public and marina parking. Noise factor - recreational boating is enjoyed at all times of the day and night.
With a planned residential development alongside the marina basin the potential for noise from boat owners
loading and unloading boats and moving trolleys along the walkways and piers, does not appear to have been
considered in this application.

What are the reasons for your submission?


The Pine Harbour Marina is first and foremost a boating marina, designed specifically for boating, with supporting
services to enhance the enjoyment of all who partake in boating activities. The purpose of the precinct plan is to
integrate with, and not displace or detract from the marina as an amenity for marine users, including the ferry
operator and the general public. There appears to be more than adequate residential development in the current
precinct plan, and as there are presently 2 vacant commercial areas within the precinct I have to question any
further commercial development at this time.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
It is my strong belief that in the event the above issues cannot be successfully mitigated this resource consent
should be declined

298
Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

299
Submission 14 (3 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 9:23 a.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:27] Submission received on notified resource consent
Attachments: Submission to Council re L175 Apartment Development.docx

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Friday, 2 February 2018 8:46 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:27] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Neil J and Heather A Wagstaff

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0211687384

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
31 Omana Esplanade Maraetai Auckland 2018

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

300
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
The apartment development which will make access to the affected piers by berth holders very difficult &
inconvenient. The narrow accessway to affected piers. The removal of most of the established native trees. The
removal of many car parks when car parks are already at a premium for berth holders & ferry users. The danger
of flooding during high tides & stormy conditions. The height of 3 storeys affecting the private homes behind
whose owners purchased at a premium to enjoy the view over the marina which will now be blocked by the back
of the apartment blocks.

What are the reasons for your submission?


We hold a berth at Pine Harbour marina. Berth holders pay a very large annual amount for their lease of the berth
but increasingly the services & ambience of the marina is decreasing due to buildings rather than boats.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
I would like the application to be denied. A village complex has recently been rejected only 1 kilometre from this
site, on a seaside site that would not affect neighbours or that site's current use.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:
Submission to Council re L175 Apartment Development.docx

301
Neil & Heather Wagstaff H24 Pine Harbour Marina

We oppose the L175 application.

Our submission to the L175 application of the L175 Apartment Development – LUC60305157 Public Notification.

We strongly support Pine Harbour Berth Holders’ Association opposing this development as most inappropriate.

The marina was established with the intent of providing a safe workable area for recreational boats with ample
facilities for its operation.

Building the proposed apartments jeopardises not only the necessary parking & access to affected piers, but also
destroys the ambience of the marina cramming the apartments into a narrow area currently necessary to the actual
marina.

We note commissioners have recently rejected a village complex only 1 kilometre away from this site, on a seaside
site that would not affect neighbours or that site’s current use.

We feel it would be most inappropriate to allow this development to proceed with all its attendant inconveniences,
destroying most of the native trees already established, & inconveniencing the marina leaseholders who pay a
perhaps larger fee than most marina berth holders in the greater Auckland area, & who are after all the reason this
marina is here.

302
Submission 15 (4 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Rashida Sahib


Sent: Wednesday, 14 March 2018 11:34 a.m.
To: Melanie Sopoaga
Subject: submission
Attachments: Support letter 45 Pepperjacks.pdf; Withdrawal letter 13 Alex
Bell.jpg

Pepper jacks - 45 now support


Alex Bell is withdarwn

303
304
305
306
Submission 16 (2 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 9:28 a.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:30] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 3 February 2018 11:30 a.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:30] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Malcolm David Cryer

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: (09)5343249

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
2A The Glebe Cockle Bay Auckland 2014

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

307
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
Due to the extremely constrained area within which the development is to be constructed, have you considered
how the safe management of the vehicle and pedestrian, control of dust and building debri, and noise during the
anticipated 12 to 18 month construction period might affect all users of the access road, waterfront access way
and ferry terminal. * Access to the waterfront for the berthholders is considered "maintained" even though Peirs
A, B & C will no longer have direct access to their berths. Public access will only be restricted to dwelling areas.
*As the new buildings butt directly up to the existing rock wall footpath there will be limited room for any carry
carts or rubbish / oil disposal facilitiesfor Peirs A, B & C. Current Peir rubbish and used oil collectionfor these
Peirs comprise 3 X large general bins, 3 X recycling binsand one oil receiver tank. These will likely be a
considerable distance from the Peirsand unlikely to be the same sizedue to the planned available space. This will
led to rubish overflows in the surrounding area. * Apartment carparks largely face the access waywith two bus
stops provisionedfor outside Ranger House with parallel parking on the opposite side of the access way, Access
way conjestion is not discussed or perceived as a problem in this notification. * It is noted that carparks in
surrounding areas will be displaced by the proposal and no consideration has been made for the berth holders in
Peirs A, B & C, apartment guests / visitors or any additional carparks for apartment tennants. The 94 spaces
provided for the development are to support 24parks displaced in the Ranger House carpark by building 4, 38
allocated for retail, 28 allocated for residential (1 per unit) 4 tandem parks for residents. * Within the consent
application documentation, the current carpark allocation of 176 is consideredremaining unchanged. Prior to the
erection of the preveiw apartment unit ( illegal builing work as no builing consent issued. Being used as a
commercial building), the total berth holders carparks behind the barrier arms was in the vicinity of 234. The
carpark plan provided by PHMM in the new formatshows approximately 194. Is this appropriate for 570 berths.
*No apparent considerartion of emergency services access to Peirs A, B & C in the event of vessel fire. In the
event of fire in the apartment building, has the means of escape from Peirs A, B & C been considered.

What are the reasons for your submission?


I don't believe the siting of the apartment building is appropriate for the safe operation of the marina. Car parking
and increased traffic movement causing congestion.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Siting changed so as not to impact on the marina berth holders access

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

308
Submmission 17 (2 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 9:29 a.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:31] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 3 February 2018 12:30 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:31] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Lew Gerick Hansen

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274934336

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
10 Tui Brae Beachlands Auckland 2018

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

309
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
The location of the of the applicants project.

What are the reasons for your submission?


The building would negatively affect my/our access to our marina berth.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Require the applicant(s) to amend the location of the building and its relative services so as to allow parking and
access to all piers to remain no less convenient to all berth users than has been the case since the marina
opened in1988

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

310
Submission 18 (6 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 9:29 a.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:32] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 3 February 2018 12:30 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:32] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Scott Gregory McAlpine

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0272941421

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
19 Lucca Cres Flat Bush Auckland 2019

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

311
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
AUP Submission A) AUP 2017 – Pine Harbour Marina Precinct Use • PHM Precinct 6 is classified as Commercial
Only • June 2017 IHS heard from both planning authority and PHM. • Representative for PHM Mr Hay requested
changes to wording to allow Reclassified which in turn would allow residential dwelling as part of the commercial
mix. • Representative for AUP planning Mr Scott declined this change to wording • AUP for PHM Precinct 6
remained as commercial only B) AUP 2018 – Pine Hour Marina Precinct Use Update January 2018 • AUP as
notified on Auckland City Council website updated January 2018 details PHM Precinct 6 as “Commercial Only”
Note: As the current AUP clearly states PHM Precinct 6 as Commercial (not residential) the Auckland City
Council cannot approve the current application that includes consent for residential as part of the existing
commercial application. C) Pedestrian Access To Marina Berths / Facilities During Construction • Pedestrian
access to marina piers A, B & C will be required to be suitable width to allow general pedestrian traffic for ferry
users, general public and berth users. • The berth users also move larger wheel trolleys to load vessels. • The
construction boundary is at the current foot path gutter line and then if required construction safety zone wall is
erected to protect passers-by there will be insufficient room between this wall and marina basin wall to provide
room for safe passing of people. This will not provide suitable Health & Safety requirements. D) Parking • Existing
parking spaces inside secure area prior to development approx. 234 • Revised parking spaces inside secure
parking area approx. 197 • This limits secure parking and causes a loss of access and services to marina berth
holders / users • The development removes all close proximity parking to marina piers A, B, & C. This limits
access for berth holders who have as part of their berth licence had access to these carparks. • There is no
provision under the revised parking to provide close proximity parking for A, B, & C pier berth holders and so is a
loss of existing service. • The distance from proposed revised parking is a greater distance from piers and to
provision vessels from this distance is an inconvenience. For some elderly or physically impaired boaters this will
impede their boating activities and in some cases may cause their forced sale of their vessels or moving to
another marina - Why? Note: The building of a dwelling adjacent to piers A, B, & C removes current access and
causes convenience to berth holders and service providers to berth holders vessels. E) Rubbish • Current
rubbish bins are located at pier A, B, & C entrance. The revised rubbish bins are at rear of development which
causes access issues. • Boating people fish and fishing requires the dumping of fish by-products, these by-
products deteriorate and the decomposing cause odour which will not be pleasant for tenants of the
development. The marina and use of is the primary use and the continued use of for the berth holders cannot be
deprived. F) Commercial / Residential Need • I note that in various hearing held the question has been raised of
the need for any more commercial / residential development in the marina area. There is currently under
construction several residential apartments / houses and there is currently commercial office / shop space empty
in the existing buildings • In very close proximity to the Marina development there is already a varied number of
shops, supermarket and commercial offices that also are not 100% occupied – why the need for more?
Conclusion • The key consideration for this resource consent is “Type Of Use Request” • The Pine Harbour
Marina Precinct F is designated Commercial Only. • All hearings prior to the final AUP plan rejected the inclusion
of Residential as part of Precinct F • There is already a varied amount of commercial / residential developments
under construction or what is constructed are not 100% in use • Auckland City Council cannot approve this
consent simply on that basis as this surely requires a change to AUP first before any other consideration is made

What are the reasons for your submission?


I have been a berth owner since 1998. The berth licience was purchased with use of amenities such as carparks,
rubbish and oil waste all at close proximity to berth pier location, this has now been taken away without any
consultation. The removal of these amenities is an absolute loss of current services to what was purchased with
berth. This is no different to having part of your residential address taken away with no consultation or
compensation. There is a loss of services and value to the title. There is already many other commercial shops /
office develpoments nearby in the new beachland development so why the need for more? The primary use of
this area was for a "Marina" for boat owners and sufficient services to support this. Allowing this development to
proceed is drastically changing the original purpose of the marina and for those who are owner licenced berth
holders. Also it begs belief that the Auckland City Council can approve a consent that blantantly breaches the
AUP as updated January 2018

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Decline the complete application

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

312
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 9:31 a.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Cc: scott.mcalpine@xtra.co.nz
Subject: FW: Application number: LUC60305157 - Scott G McAlpine Submission -
Amendment to Wording - Precinct F

Categories: Submissions to log

Please note as below 
 
From: Scott [mailto:scott.mcalpine@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 3 February 2018 12:51 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Subject: Application number: LUC60305157 - Scott G McAlpine Submission - Amendment to Wording - Precinct
F

To Whom It May Concern 
 
I Note that when I received my submission confirmation by email for unknown reason some of the wording was 
changed. 
 
Please amend wording “Precinct 6” to read “Precinct F” 
 
Regards 
 
Scott McAlpine 
19 Lucca Cres 
Flat Bush 
Auckland 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 3 February 2018 12:27 PM
To: scott.mcalpine@xtra.co.nz
Subject: Thank you for your submission

Thank you for providing your opinion on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

We have received your submission and will be in contact in due course.

If you have any queries about this request, send an email to CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz.

Details of your submission


Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

313
Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Your contact details

Full name: Scott Gregory McAlpine

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0272941421

Email address: scott.mcalpine@xtra.co.nz

Postal address:
19 Lucca Cres
Flat Bush
Auckland 2019

Your submission

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:


AUP Submission

A) AUP 2017 – Pine Harbour Marina Precinct Use

• PHM Precinct 6 is classified as Commercial Only

• June 2017 IHS heard from both planning authority and PHM.

• Representative for PHM Mr Hay requested changes to wording to allow Reclassified which in turn would allow
residential dwelling as part of the commercial mix.

• Representative for AUP planning Mr Scott declined this change to wording

• AUP for PHM Precinct 6 remained as commercial only

B) AUP 2018 – Pine Hour Marina Precinct Use Update January 2018

• AUP as notified on Auckland City Council website updated January 2018 details PHM Precinct 6 as
“Commercial Only”

Note:
As the current AUP clearly states PHM Precinct 6 as Commercial (not residential) the Auckland City Council
cannot approve the current application that includes consent for residential as part of the existing commercial
application.

C) Pedestrian Access To Marina Berths / Facilities During Construction

• Pedestrian access to marina piers A, B & C will be required to be suitable width to allow general pedestrian
traffic for ferry users, general public and berth users.

• The berth users also move larger wheel trolleys to load vessels.

• The construction boundary is at the current foot path gutter line and then if required construction safety zone
wall is erected to protect passers-by there will be insufficient room between this wall and marina basin wall to
2

314
provide room for safe passing of people. This will not provide suitable Health & Safety requirements.

D) Parking

• Existing parking spaces inside secure area prior to development approx. 234

• Revised parking spaces inside secure parking area approx. 197

• This limits secure parking and causes a loss of access and services to marina berth holders / users

• The development removes all close proximity parking to marina piers A, B, & C. This limits access for berth
holders who have as part of their berth licence had access to these carparks.

• There is no provision under the revised parking to provide close proximity parking for A, B, & C pier berth
holders and so is a loss of existing service.

• The distance from proposed revised parking is a greater distance from piers and to provision vessels from this
distance is an inconvenience. For some elderly or physically impaired boaters this will impede their boating
activities and in some cases may cause their forced sale of their vessels or moving to another marina - Why?

Note:
The building of a dwelling adjacent to piers A, B, & C removes current access and causes convenience to berth
holders and service providers to berth holders vessels.

E) Rubbish

• Current rubbish bins are located at pier A, B, & C entrance. The revised rubbish bins are at rear of development
which causes access issues.

• Boating people fish and fishing requires the dumping of fish by-products, these by-products deteriorate and the
decomposing cause odour which will not be pleasant for tenants of the development. The marina and use of is
the primary use and the continued use of for the berth holders cannot be deprived.

F) Commercial / Residential Need

• I note that in various hearing held the question has been raised of the need for any more commercial /
residential development in the marina area. There is currently under construction several residential apartments /
houses and there is currently commercial office / shop space empty in the existing buildings

• In very close proximity to the Marina development there is already a varied number of shops, supermarket and
commercial offices that also are not 100% occupied – why the need for more?

Conclusion

• The key consideration for this resource consent is “Type Of Use Request”

• The Pine Harbour Marina Precinct F is designated Commercial Only.

• All hearings prior to the final AUP plan rejected the inclusion of Residential as part of Precinct F

• There is already a varied amount of commercial / residential developments under construction or what is
constructed are not 100% in use

• Auckland City Council cannot approve this consent simply on that basis as this surely requires a change to AUP
first before any other consideration is made

What are the reasons for your submission?


I have been a berth owner since 1998.
The berth licience was purchased with use of amenities such as carparks, rubbish and oil waste all at close
proximity to berth pier location, this has now been taken away without any consultation.

The removal of these amenities is an absolute loss of current services to what was purchased with berth. This is
no different to having part of your residential address taken away with no consultation or compensation. There is
a loss of services and value to the title.
3

315
There is already many other commercial shops / office develpoments nearby in the new beachland development
so why the need for more?

The primary use of this area was for a "Marina" for boat owners and sufficient services to support this.
Allowing this development to proceed is drastically changing the original purpose of the marina and for those who
are owner licenced berth holders.

Also it begs belief that the Auckland City Council can approve a consent that blantantly breaches the AUP as
updated January 2018

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Decline the complete application

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

CAUTION: This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you
are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. We do not accept responsibility
for any viruses or similar carried with our email, or any effects our email may have on the recipient computer system or network. Any views
expressed in this email may be those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Council.

316
Submission 19 (8 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 9:31 a.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:33] Submission received on notified resource consent
Attachments: Leighs submission LUC60305157 content final.docx

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 3 February 2018 2:30 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:33] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Leigh Jackson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0212272278

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
9 Lydiard Place Beachlands Auckland 2018

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

317
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
Compliance with the Auckland Unitary Plan and Sub-Precinct F - Marina Commercial. Amenity value for Berth
Licence Holders and the environment impact Health and Safety of users of the marina

What are the reasons for your submission?


As a resident of Beachlands, being the owner of a Pine Harbour berth licence and commuting daily on the Pine
Harbour ferry to down town Auckland, I have a number of concerns regarding this application (LUC60305157)
that need further investigation and clarification by Council. As a berth holder I can confirm there has been no
consultation with Pine Harbour Berth Licence holders and it would appear there has been little assessment of the
long term environmental impact. The applicant removed trees and carparks, constructed an apartment display
suite, height observation tower and marketing of the Longitude 175 apartments prior to any council consent being
granted for such a “residential” complex. This indicates that the original non-notifiable consent granted by Council
was submitted purely as a mechanism to get Sub-precinct F – Marina Commercial usage changed via a non-
notifiable application process. My view is that the Amenity value for Berth Holders is diminished, and the
environmental impact is not completely recognised and Health and Safety of users of the marina is not
satisfactory mitigated in this application.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
In regards to the proposal to change the usage specified in Auckland Unitary Plan and Sub-Precinct F - Marina
Commercial then the Council needs to either undertake the correct process to change the usage of precinct F
under the AUP or reject the application outright. For the Amenity value of the marina and environment Council to
consider the environment affects in the attached supporting document and to identify and enforce suitable risk
mitigation strategies in advance of approving the application. For the Health and Safety of users of the marina,
Council puts risk mitigation measures in place prior to approving the application rather than as caveats of an
approved application.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:
Leighs submission LUC60305157 content final.docx

318
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on Formatted Table

Compliance with the Auckland Unitary Plan and Sub-precinct F - Marina Commercial.

Amenity value for Berth Licence Holders and environment

Health and Safety of users of the marinaHelp us to Help you!

You can help us to help you by engaging with Ferry Users, Local Residents and other
Berth Holders, now. Make sure they are aware that resource consent submissions for
L175 Pine Harbour Waterfront apartments must be received in Council by Thu 8th Feb.

This is your only opportunity to ensure that this unique 4 building, 3 level, 28-unit
development meets your environmental expectations for the future. Please take the
time to understand the issues and how you can make an online submission here.

Have you considered the following in regard to this public notification?

Auckland Council Resource Consent Application link and documents are here

BERTH HOLDERS
• Access to the waterfront for Berth holders is considered “maintained” even though
Piers A, B & C will no longer have adjacent access to their berths. Public access will
only be restricted to dwelling areas.
As the new buildings butt directly up to the existing rock wall foot path there will be
limited room for any carry carts or rubbish / oil disposal facilities for Piers A, B & C.
None are referenced on the submitted plans.
• Current Pier rubbish and used oil collection for Piers A, B & C comprise 3 x large
general bins, 3 x recycling bins and one oil receiver tank. These will likely be a
considerable distance from the Piers and unlikely to be the same size due to the
planned available space.
• Apartment carparks largely face the access way with two bus stops provisioned for
outside Ranger house with parallel parking on the opposite side of the access way.

319
Access way congestion is not discussed or perceived as a problem in this notification.
• It is noted that carparks in surrounding areas will be displaced by the proposal and
no consideration has been made for the Berth holders in Piers A, B & C, apartment
guests / visitors or any additional carparks for apartment tenants. The 94 spaces
provided for in the development are to support 24 parks displaced in the Ranger
House carpark by building 41, 38 allocated for retail, 28 allocated for residential (1
per unit), 4 tandem parks for residents.
• For the 570 berth holders the current car park allocation of 176 is considered
remaining unchanged.
• No consideration of emergency services access to Piers A, B & C in the event of
vessel fire.

FERRY USERS
• Walking access to the Jack Lachlan Drive Esplanade Reserve parking will be only via
the marina frontage. As the traffic assessment identifies pedestrians will be forced
to walk in a relatively narrow (1m) section of footpath / berm therefore it is
recommended a pedestrian barrier is to be constructed on top of the marine rock
wall to ensure pedestrian safety is not compromised. No consideration of berth
holder versus pedestrian congestion at peak ferry times.
• The current Jack Lachlan Drive Esplanade Reserve parking of 230 car parks remains
in consideration for all ferry patronage / parking growth.
• No assessment of commuter traffic that is “kiss and ride” (i.e. dropped off by private
vehicles) or any required number of drop off zones
• The majority of garages for the development back directly onto Jack Lachlan Drive.
There is no recognition that vehicles leaving the apartments will have limited
visibility and exit directly into live traffic lanes.

LOCAL RESIDENTS
• This notification proposes to change the currently consented 2-level development to
a 3-level development. (The Auckland Unitary Plan currently specifies a maximum of
2 floors).
• This notification changes the currently consented office tenancies to be residential
which is a Auckland Unitary Plan change.
• Peak traffic movements are accessed at being 132 – 135 during peak hours, Daily
Vehicle Trips between 1,283 – 1,337. These numbers appear to only consider Retail
and Residential activity with no assessment of increased ferry movements, marina
or visitor traffic with the growth of area.
• No perceived impact of increased noise due to increased ferry traffic, retail,
apartment use or helipad usage.
• Nearly all 128 existing trees will be removed.
• Acknowledges Retail spaces could have coastal inundation (flooding) risk but this is
acceptable.

320
SUMMARY

We encourage Individual Members and associates to get involved in the process and
make their own submissions if they are able to do so. Weight of numbers will be a
factor in getting the best outcome.

Disclaimer - PH BHA committee members have interpreted the above from the public
notified consent documents (link at top of page). We encourage you to read the same
public documents and make your own interpretation of them in your own words when
making your individual submission to the notified consent.

Please feel free to contact any committee member directly for assistance or email
info@phbha.nz.

Auckland Council Application for Resource Consent Notice


Auckland Council Submission Form
Guide to Making a Submission

Leigh Jackson Formatted: Font: Not Bold

9 Lydiard Place
Beachlands
Auckland 2018

Submission for application number: LUC60305157 Formatted: Font: Bold

Site Address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands Formatted: Font: Bold

Formatted: Font: Not Bold


As a resident of Beachlands, being the owner of a Pine Harbour berth licence and
commuting daily on the Pine Harbour ferry to downtown Auckland, I have a number of
concerns regarding this application (LUC60305157) that need further investigation and
clarification by Council.
Compliance with the Auckland Unitary Plan and Sub-Precinct F - Marina Commercial. Formatted: Font: Bold
The Auckland Unitary Plan (I431. Pine Harbour Precinct) clearly states that any development in Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Sub Precinct F – Marina Commercial must comply with the criteria laid out in the plan. Formatted: Font: Not Bold

321
• Any proposed development must be restricted to a maximum of 2 storeys – this Formatted: Font: Not Bold
application is for 3 storeys Formatted: Font: Not Bold
• Any proposed development must be restricted to a maximum height of 9m – the Formatted: Font: Not Bold
building plans for this development clearly show the roof top mechanicals to be clearly in Formatted: Font: Not Bold
excess of 9m
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
• Any proposed development must be commercial on the ground floor and office
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
facilities on the second level – this development is for commercial on the ground floor and 2
levels of residential accommodation (as currently marketed and advertised by Ray White
and Empire Capital. Ref Longitude 175 - Apartments prior to this application being
approved) Formatted: Font: Not Bold

The application is clearly in breach of the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) and should at the Formatted: Font: Not Bold
very least require an amendment to the AUP through the correct planning process before Formatted: Font: Not Bold
any consideration be given to granting a Resource Consent for this development or
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
conversely the application rejected outright.
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Amenity value for Berth Licence Holders and the environmental impact
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
As a berth holder I can confirm there has been no consultation with Pine Harbour Berth Formatted: Font: Bold
Licence holders, specifically for Berth holders on Piers A, B, C & D, of which I am one and
Formatted: Font: Bold
there is also the potential for significant detrimental effects in that.
• Adjacent vehicle access/parking to the piers / pontoons (especially Pier’s B & C) is
removed. World class marinas (5 bells) that I have visited (e.g. Singapore) have at a
minimum golf cart throughways (in lieu of roads) all the way down to the piers so
that equipment, maintenance and repairs can be undertaken on vessels with ease by Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Font color:
owners or contractors. This application at best will have congested walkways. Text 1
• Security of the piers / pontoons is compromised by increasing the public (ferry & Formatted: List Paragraph,
retail foot traffic) in this area of the marina. Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at:
• The relocation of environmental waste and oil facilities to locations well away from 0.63 cm + Indent at: 1.27 cm

the piers increases the chance of spillage, loss of rubbish in transit (especially on Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Font color:
windy / inclement days) and potential environmental impact. Text 1

• In the footpath pinch zone of Building One (1m noted in the plans) the conflict Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Font color:
between berth holders, ferry users and public will become very real as foot traffic Text 1

converges with carts, trolleys, and equipment). Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Font color:
Text 1
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Font color:
Amenity value is also potentially compromised in that early relinquishment / re-specification Text 1
of the usage of Sub-Precinct F may in future years impact on the ability to provide adequate Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Font color:
and cost effective maintenance, replacement, repair of rock walls, piers, pontoons, fingers, Text 1
poles and required space required for servicing the marina and vessels, as vessels, size, Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Font color:
usage and required services grow. Sub-Precinct F is zoned for this. (i.e. future commercial Text 1
buildings servicing the marina and marine-related uses). It was put there for a reason. Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Font color:
There are plenty of other Sub-Precincts for residents; Text 1
• Sub-precinct B – Transition Residential North Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Font color:
• Sub-precinct C – Transition Residential South Text 1
• Sub-precinct D – Southern Apartments Formatted: List Paragraph,
• Sub-precinct E – Northern Apartments. Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at:
0.63 cm + Indent at: 1.27 cm

322
Environmental: Reverse sensitivity. Recreational boating / fishing is enjoyed at all times of Formatted: Font: Bold
the day and night. Now that dredging has finally got underway marina usage will increase.
With a planned residential development alongside the marina basin the potential for noise
from boat owners loading and unloading boats and moving trolleys along the walkways and
piers, does not appear to have been considered appropriately in this application. Yes,
acoustic measurements have been taken and apartment cladding and materials considered.
However, it is also noted that the apartment development marketing emphasises the
apartment flow i.e. decks, balconies, indoor/outdoor flow etc. Would this have the same
effect on retail and office workers as two stories of residents? Will they be prepared to be
shut inside when marina noise increases to an unacceptable level due to the proximity of
these apartments to the piers / pontoons, berths and helipad?

Health and Safety of users of the marina Formatted: Font: Bold

The biggest concern I have with the application regarding Health and Safety is timely, easy
access for emergency services to Piers A, B, C & D. With the mixture of diesel, petrol and
LPG onboard vessels, the throughput of ferries between piers A & B, and the concession of
Pine Harbour Marine to allow overnight live aboards. In the event of a major vessel collision
or onboard vessel fire (as recently evidenced in the 2009 Picton Marina fire here) lives could
be at risk due to the loss of direct access for emergency services / vehicles that currently
exists (Especially to Piers A, B, C &D).

The application / plans also do not seem to consider from a health and safety perspective;
• The anticipated increase volume of traffic from an increased ferry schedule / ferry Formatted: Font: Not Bold
patronage (Already this year passengers have been left waiting on the dock for the Formatted: Font: Not Bold
next scheduled ferry)
• Bus turning areas for the two new bus parks, therefore buses will be required to
navigate through the access road, car parks, foot traffic from the south west car Formatted: Font: Not Bold
parking area to effect turning around.
• Loading areas for the pick-up / drop off of ferry passengers “kiss and ride”
• Overnight motorhome parking (which is being promoted on social media)
• Extra parking required for apartment residents. In practise apartment purchasers will
largely have more than 1 car park.

These considerations along with apartment garaging backing on to the access way without Formatted: Font: Not Bold
clear visibility until well into the roadway, presents the potential for serious accidents. Formatted: Font: Not Bold
It is noted that the assessment of car movements was conducted in the quiet month of Formatted: Font: Not Bold
December. The Consent Application documentation indicates that the current car park Formatted: Font: Not Bold
allocation of 176 for Berth Holders is considered remaining unchanged, however, prior to
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
the erection of the Preview/Demonstration Apartment Unit and Height Observation Tower,
the total berth holder carparks behind the barrier arms for berth holders was in the vicinity
of 234. The carpark plan provided by PHMM in the new format shows approximately 194.
Is this appropriate for 570 berths?
Formatted: Font: Bold

323
Summary
None of the above considers the Health and Safety risks whilst construction is underway in
this very tight area of the Marina. I recommend whatever Council mitigation strategies are
required, they be formally put in place prior to approving the application rather than as
caveats of an approved application. This will make it clear to the developers the consent
requirements and ensure that they will be monitored by Council inspection.

It is my strong belief that in the event the above issues cannot be successfully mitigated Formatted: Font: Not Bold
then this resource consent application should be declined. Formatted: Font: Not Bold

324
Submission 20 (2 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 9:31 a.m.
To: Resource Consent Authority; Robert Chieng
Subject: FW: [ID:34] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 3 February 2018 5:15 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:34] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Michael Gordon Good

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 01202763292

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
60 Maraetai School Road Auckland Auckland 2018

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

325
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
Concerns regarding the lack of information on certain aspects of safety, impact on the environment and
disruption during and possibly post the construction. A given is the ongoing disruption to the berth holders
affected by the changes.

What are the reasons for your submission?


I am concerned that in view of the recent weather events, responsible parties are considering building residential
accommodation that is less than 1.5 meters above the spring high tide mark. I am a berth holder and spend a lot
of time at the marina. Recent changes to vehicle access to the marina has resulted in several close calls with
other vehicles as the 550 berth holders and 100 plus ferry commuters are using a narrow road which is the only
access now to the public parking and the marina. This is also the only access that the public has to the public
boat ramp , beach and water front which I understand is council land. Many cars are parking on corners to reduce
their distance to the ferry and this is introducing hazards. This will be aggravated by the proposed development
as residents will back out onto this busy and narrow road that has provision for parking on the south side.
Residents will not be able to see passing traffic until they are well onto the road, which introduces yet another
hazard. As a professional safety consultant, I would never sanction the hazards that I see in this arrangement. I
also have a concern at the lack of any land available for the proposed development. There is absolutely no space
available for the heavy equipment and vehicles that will be required to be onsite for the construction of the
buildings. Any accidental spillage will contaminate both the marina and stream immediately to the south of the
marina and affect marine and water fowl. I will personally be affected by the very restricted access to my berth
and will have to carry provisions to and from my boat over a much greater distance. The proposed loading area is
not working now as it is constantly full and cannot be used as a loading zone as originally intended and shown in
the application. During construction it will be the only area that the tradesmen working on the building can park
introducing further chaos and hazards. Another consideration is the foot traffic disembarking from the ferry and
walking to their cars parked behind the proposed development. These passengers will now have to walk through
the construction area and also use the busy narrow road as a footpath during the construction period.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Reject the application as in my opinion it is not a suitable location for this development

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

326
Submission 21 (17 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Rashida Sahib


Sent: Wednesday, 14 March 2018 11:32 a.m.
To: Melanie Sopoaga
Subject: FW: Pine Harbour Marina Apartment Development - Application
Number: LUC60305157
Attachments: 201803 Pine Harbour Marina Apartment Development Support
Ltr.pdf; KAM-149974-14-32-1 NZ Titles LINZ CT Search With
Diagram CT NA120B761.pdf; TJG-149974-14-37-1 D35075110
no objection.pdf

Submitter 21 – now support

From: Maree Kempthorne [mailto:maree.kempthorne@staplesrodway.co.nz]


Sent: Tuesday, 6 March 2018 4:05 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Rashida Sahib
Cc: Elizabeth Kempthorne (elizabeth.k@xtra.co.nz); david.boersen@empirecapital.co.nz
Subject: Pine Harbour Marina Apartment Development - Application Number: LUC60305157
 
Dear Robert and Rashida

Pine Harbour Marina Apartment Development


Application Number: LUC60305157

By way of introduction, my name is Maree Kempthorne, Elizabeth Kempthorne’s daughter. My mother


made a submission in respect of the Pine Harbour Marina Apartment Development.

My mother has been advised by David Boersen (Development Manager, Empire Capital Limited) that she
is legally required to withdraw her submission and support the development. On the basis that my
mother is legally required to do so, please find attached the relevant documents.  

We are currently seeking legal advice in respect of this matter and will update you if my mother was not
legally required to take this action.

If you have any queries, please contact me. 

Kind regards

Maree 
Maree  Kempthorne | Director Proud supporters of

Taxation Services

STAPLES RODWAY LIMITED


D +64 (9) 373 1113| M +64 21 220 0796
T +64 (9) 309 0463| F +64 (9) 309 4544
Level 9, 45 Queen Street| PO Box 3899, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140| New Zealand
maree.kempthorne@staplesrodway.co.nz | www.staplesrodway.co.nz

NEED CAR PARKING INFORMATION? Click Here

Staples Rodway is an Independent Member of Baker Tilly International

Thank you for considering the environment before printing this communication.
1

327
Warning:The information in this email is CONFIDENTIAL and may be privileged. It is solely intended for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient,
not read, use, copy or distribute this email or attachment, as such action may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immed
return email, facsimile or telephone (can call us collect) and delete the message. Where addressed to a client, any views expressed or advice given in
this communication are subject to our engagement terms and conditions. This may be a 'Tax Advice Document' subject to non-disclosure rights under the
Tax Administration Act 1994. You should not disclose the content of this email (including any attachment) to any party without first obtaining professional adv
Disclosure may void said non-disclosure right. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically st
to be otherwise. Staples Rodway in New Zealand is an association of independent firms. Independent Staples Rodway firms will in no way be accountable for
for advice given by another independent Staples Rodway firm. Staples Rodway is an independent member of Baker Tilly International.

328
329
COMPUTER FREEHOLD REGISTER
UNDER LAND TRANSFER ACT 1952

Search Copy

Identifier NA120B/761
Land Registration District North Auckland
Date Issued 22 January 1999

Prior References
NA112D/747
Estate Fee Simple
Area 777 square metres more or less
Legal Description Lot 2 Deposited Plan 190483
Proprietors
Elizabeth Frances Kempthorne and Maree Frances Kempthorne

Interests
Appurtenant hereto is an underground services right created by Transfer C060768.15
D350751.3 Consent Notice pursuant to Section 221(1) Resource Management Act 1991 - 22.1.1999 at 2.28 pm
Land Covenant in Transfer D350751.9 - 22.1.1999 at 2.28 pm
Fencing Covenant in Transfer D350751.9 - 22.1.1999 at 2.28 pm
D350751.10 Encumbrance to (now) Pine Harbour Living Limited - 22.1.1999 at 2:28 pm

Transaction Id Search Copy Dated 21/02/18 9:06 am, Page 1 of 2


Client Reference wdavidson001 330
Register Only
Identifier NA120B/761

Transaction Id Search Copy Dated 21/02/18 9:06 am, Page 2 of 2


Client Reference wdavidson001 331
Register Only
T/
0>35075!- !o

MEMORANDUM OP ENCUMBRANCE

332
MEMORANDUM OF ENCtTBIBRANCE

PARTIES

PINE HARBOUR.MARINA LIMITED at Auckland together with its successors


and assies (“Encumbrancer9)

PINE HARBOUR MARINA LIMITED at Auckland together with its successors


and assigns (“Encumbrancee”}

WHEREAS

The Encumbrancer is registered as proprietor of the land more particularly


described in the First Schedule.

B The Encumbrancee is the registered proprietor of, is entitled to use, or may


acquire rigjhts to use the land, seabed and associated coastal marine areas
(together with all buildings and structures affixed to, or as may be affixed to,
such land or areas from time to time), more particularly described in the
Second Schedule.

C. The Encumbrancer has agreed:

(a) to grant and make the rent charge with the Encumbrancee as set out,
in this memorandum subject to the conditions set out below; and

(b) to enter into the covenants in the Encumbrancee's favour as set out in
the Third Schedule.

COVENANTS

1. DEFINITIONS

In this Memorandum and its Schedules, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) the following terms have the following meanings:

“Coastal Marine Area” has the same meaning as set out in section 2
of the Resource Management Act 1991.

“Encumbered Land" means the land of the Encumbrancer described


in the First Schedule.

"Encumbrancee" includes its successors, assigns, lessees, licensees,


occupiers, contractors, employees or agents.

"Encumbrancer” includes its successors, assigns, lessees, licensees,


occupiers, contractors, employees or agents.

333
“Marina Activities" includes all activities occurring or as may occur
from time to time on Marina. Land relating to the use, operation and
maintenance of a harbour for vessels, and adjacent coastal
development including, without limitation:

the berthing, refuelling, cleaning, rep;airing, provisioning,


maintaining, storing, altering or cons tructing of vessels;

(ii) the embarking and disembarking of passengers, crew, visitors,


contractors, or other persons from any vessel whether private
or commercial;

(iii) the loading and unloading of cargo, freight and similar items
from any vessel whether private or commençai;

(iv) the cleaning, repairing, replacing, altering or maintaining of


improvements and structures on Marina Land;

(v) the dredging or otherwise disturbing or dealing with those


areas of Marina Land which comprise foreshore and seabed
[uding the discharge or disposal of dredgings into the
coastal marine area as a result of such dredging or
disturbance;

(vi) the demolition, reclaniaxion, construction and maintenance of


improvements, structures, harbours or land on Marina Land
including earthworks, traffic movements and construction
activities associated with such demolition, reclamation,
construction or maintenance;

(vii) the construction, use; and operation of facilities to service


berth, holders and mexnbers of the public utilising or otherwise
associated with the marina such as ship broking agents, off-
licence outlets, chandleries, club houses, licensed restaurants
and bars, dairies, retail outlets, motels, hotels, dry docks,
workshops and all related services;

(viii) the development and construction of residential housing on


Marina Land or in association with canals on such land,
including the construction of such canals and the sub-division
of land associated with such residential or canal
developments.

"Marina Landtf means the land, seabed and coastal marine areas c

owned, entitled to be used, or as may be used from time to tim e for


existing and future Marina Activities (together with all buildings and
structures affixed to such land or areas from time to time), more
particularly described in the Second Schedule.

(b) "Schedule" refers to the several Schedules attached to this


memorandum.

(c) References to clauses are references to clauses of this memorandum.

23003$

334
(d) Words importing the singular number or plural number shall include
the plural number and singular number respectively and words
importing the masculine gender shall include the feminine or neuter
gender.

2. ENCUMBRANCE

2.1 The Encumbrancer encumbers the. Encumbered Land for the benefit of the
Encumbrancee in accordance with clause 3 and covenants with the
Encumbrancee as set out in the Third Schedule.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ENCUMBRANCE

3.1 The term of the encumbrance is 999 years commencing from the date of this
memorandum subject only to earlier determination in accordance with clause
3.6.

3.2 The rent charge is ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) per annum to be paid to the
Encumbrancee by the 1st day of Jajjuary in each year if demanded by that
date. The first payment if so demanded is due on or before the Ist day of
January next succeeding the date of this memorandum.

3.3 The covenants in the Third Schedule shall be enforceable against the owners
and occupiers for the time being of the Encumbered Land and all successors
in title to the Encumbered Land.

3.4 Section 104 of the Property Law Act 1952 applies to this Memorandum of
Encumbrance but otherwise (and without prejudice to the Encumbrancee's
rights of action at common law as a rent chargée):

(a) The Encumbrancee shall not be entitled to any of the powers and
remedies given to encumbrancee's by the Land Transfer Act 1952 and
the Property Law Act 1952; and

(b) No covenants on the part of the Encumbrancer and its successors in


title are implied in this mejtnorandum other than the covenants for
further assurance implied by Section 154 of the Land Transfer Act
1952

3.5 The Encumbrancee shall conduct all Marina Activities in accordance with the
provisions of any relevant plans and/or of any resource consents granted to it,
and/or any existing use rights, in relation to Marina Activities, from time to
time.

3.6 The Encumbrancee shall be entitled at any time on the giving of one month's
notice to the Encumbrancer, or any one or more of them, to surrender this
Memorandum of Encumbrance and the parties will take all steps as may be
necessaiy to register such surrender m the Land Titles Office.

3.7 If the Encumbrancer, or any person having or claiming an interest in the


Encumbered Land, makes an application to the Court to have the
encumbrance created by this memorandum discharged pursuant to section
151 of the Property Law Act 1952 (or any provision replacing that section), or

330035

335
takes any steps towards making sucii application, or takes any similar action,
then the rent charge payable pursuant to clause 3.2 will increase to $500,000
per annum payable in advance with, effect from the time the Encumbrancer or
such person first takes such action.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Memorandum has been executed this H day of


1998.

pmi£ HARBOUR MARINA LIMITED


as E;ncumbrancer in the presence of:

Directoi

Direct^F

PINE HARBOUR MARINA LIMITED


as Encumbrancee in the presence of:

Director f

Director

220035

336
FIRST SCHEDULE
(The Encumbered Land)

Lef'Hj Du^cription Certificate of Title

Lot 1 DP 190483 120B/760

Lot 2 DP 190483 120B/761

Lot 3 DP 190483 120B/762

Lot 4 DP 190483 120B/763

Lot 5 DP 190483 120B/764

Lot 6 DP 190483 120B/765

Lot 7 DP 190483 120B/766

Lot 8 DP 190484 120B/767

Lot 9 DP 190484 120B/768

Lot 10 DP 190484 and an undivided one 120B/769


half share of Lot 12 DP 190484

Lot 11 DP 190484 and an undivided one 120B/770


half share of Lot 12 DP 190484

220035

337
SECOND SCHEDUIX

AU land and coastal marine areas occupied and used, by the Encumbrancee as
at the date of this Memorandum or at any time hereafter, more particularly
described as:

(a) Lots 1 and 4 DP 181934 (CT 112D/746 - North Auckland Registry)

(b) Hiat area of seabed comfniseci in Lot 1 DP 125200 (CT 82C/86 - North
Auckland Registry).

{c) Lot 4 DP 125200 (included in CT 118B/140 North Auckland


Registiy).

id) Lot 1 DP 119524 (CT 68D/81-North Auckland Registry)

(e) Hiat area of seabed licensed to the Encumbrancee for use as a boat
harbour by the Manukau Council leuat to the Local
Legislation Act 1986) by deed of seabed licence dated 9 December
1988 comprising 6.900 hectares more particularly described as tihiat
area marked "A* on SO Pkm 67375,

That area of reclaimed land" utilised and ïamtame by the


,compri^ng 3.744
hectares more particularfy described as that area marked "A" on SO
Plan 59501.

(g) Hiat area of the coastal marine area shown as "Pine Harbour Marinsi
Marina Management Area3 on Map 1,Sheet 23 of the AucMand
Regional Council's proposed Regional Coastal
Version, August 1998);

(h) That area of the coastal miarin(e area identified as Coastal Protection
Areas 1 and 2 (designated iterns 43a, 43b and 091)on Map 1,Sheet 23
of the Auckland Regional Council's proposed Regional Plan: Coastal
(Decisions Version, August 1998)

32003S

338

UCHEDdL
THZRD
{Covenants
w

r+trg^^
Thnrapoumbranccr pcknowlndgrow

Therancumbrancnla)oderates p marinp and undertakes Manna


(a)

Activities fro Marina Land which, result and are likely to result m
noise, lights, vibration, disturbance andotller usual incidences oi"
01
sucti activities which mav liave eifectscreyond the •boundaneM
Manna Land.

s The Mncu日! jrancee cras


also aJit^orisatlons to extend and mtensi^
cr
ofrerthw
increasing tlla)numh>e c manna
pr+r+ <5
Marma. AC mtieM a'y rt '-t

whichi will involve sutjwtantial con tmction activitieM


tfl incidental
construction-related effects.

n ThQ Mncumcrrancee 日 ay from tune Ho time undertake other Manna.


)
ープ作 intensification of existing Marina Activities on
Activities including
MarinpLand whictr 日 ay require rewu
o o
c
l-e3
。 MWr+crg^ t: r
M<TItlr+« Î( m iw n!

defined in wection 87 of the resources目 agfî日 nnt Act 1991 ("RMA")


OM
and. thaï applications for sucti consents may require aDpro<als
W
adiolning landowners under the M A .

s oî land ace.acent to Marina Land, Thre


Thewncum"brancer is tne owner
5-
EncumtKrancee concerned to ensure that thewncuma'rancer and.
ttre

ro
t w a numo 'er e d t-and and any0 )art oi,
successors m title the
a
cre retor+ricted, in accoirdance with the termM
interest in that l§d,
thlw semorandum:

s in their ability to ocrlect to or limder anv lawfully authorised


Marina Activities carried on, or as may a*e earned on, on
^
OM.
MarinfflLand from time t;o time;

(ii) で
r+peir rights as adjoining landownersOM. otenually affectied.
in 日 ay
r+o any Marma
r+o withh-old consent Acuvides ttiat
parties
reQulre wntîen approvals under the!RMA.


2 *Th.e Encumcrrancer further acknowledges:

亙 O
îliaîtha) cndertaklnJ
QM Marin ActivitieMb B
JecnsM anlv mvoiveMOJ.

involve operational or construction noise, traffic move entw, noastal
development and. other environmental effects whichi tlie
Encumbrancer may c n a 泛 sturbinIQand mconvenient irom time
time; and

(b) that the Encumbl-anoeeM« entitled to cany out existing Marma.


日 time to time,
ActivitiewOM. tfplon application fro
日 ay become enutled
作 -»
to cairv put: oth Marma. Activities.
,

o
Throughout tlie term, tlie Hncumcrrancer covenants and agrees that it will not
object to, drevent, prohicrit or in anv way interfere with or restrain anv Marma
Activities lawfullv carried out by the Enoumbrancee on Marinp)Land anci wdïi
sow loCLgeow. r +
ft'0 (^e lodgedwkcrr+lle Manuprau City Council,tïre Auckland
JpgJ-JJl

339
Regional Council or any other territorial authority or agency from whom the
Encumbrancee may require approvals, permits or consents to undertake
Marina Activities, or renewals of such approvals^ permits or consents to
continue Marina Activities, any submission objecting to the conducting of
existing or future Maiinâ Activities from Marina Land.

With respect to Activities not currently undertaken by the


Encumbrancee on Marina Land but which may in future be proposed to be
developed and implemented on such land, the Encumbrancer hereby
covenants and agrees that pursuant to the RMA or any legislation replacing
the RMA, it approves of and consents to those activities and/or developments
occurring on Land and will, if called upon to do so by the
Encumbrancee execute all documents or do all things as may be necessary to
evince that approval and consent in writing to any consent authority when
called upon to do so by the Encumbrancee.

5. The Encumbrancer hereby covenants that it shall throughout the term save
harmless and keep indemnified the Encumbrancee from all proceedings, costs,
claims and demands in respect of breaches by the Encumbrancer of the
covenants and restrictions herein contained and implied on behalf of the
Encumbrancer which occurred while the Encumbrancer was the registered
proprietor of the Encumbered Land or any part of or interest in the
Encumbered Land.

6. Where the Encumbrancer is the registered proprietor of a separate and


definable interest in the Encumbered Land in respect of which a separate
instrument of title has issued ("separate interest"), the obligations of the
Encumbrancer set out in this memorandum shall relate only to the
Encumbrancer's separate interest and not a separate interest of any other
registered proprietor in the Encumbered Land or any part of or interest in the
Encumbered Land.

220035

340
MEMORANDUM OF EMCUMBRANCiS Correct for the purposes of the Land
Transfer Act 1952

PINE HARBOUR MARINA LIMITED


Solicitor for parties
Encumbrancer

V.
PINE HARBOUR MARI NA LIMITED

Encuxnbrancee

_ ÊI_
..L A N L
^ST.

228 ZZJANS
ARS
D ARg
EG IS環
RE
TR Y屋N S T H /^ ^
ENTERED

0cogo,
… 1

tsmv

8邊
-
.
s-

i
:

b±ニ
づr i 01.
®r

Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet & Co


Solicitors
Auckland
ニ:、、
341
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 9:32 a.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:35] Submission received on notified resource consent

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Sunday, 4 February 2018 11:00 a.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:35] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Elizabeth Frances Kempthorne

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 500548

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
3 Tui Brae Beachlands Auckland 2018

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:


The loss of parking and facilities for Piers A, B and C will affect the safety of all users of Pine Harbour Marina.

342
What are the reasons for your submission?
This Marina was designed as a boating marina for the enjoyment and safety of berth holders and general public.
Specific areas for parking by berth holders gave safe access to marina pier heads for loading and unloading.
Piers A, B and C will no longer have these safety factors.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
I want the Council to decline the consent in its entirety. It will create an unsafe environment for berth holders,
ferry users and the general public,

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

343
Submission 22 (2 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 9:32 a.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:36] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Sunday, 4 February 2018 1:00 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:36] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Jeremy clegg

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0210493214

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
122 second view ave Beachlands Auckland 2018

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

344
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
Car parking, less rubbish bins so over load of council bins, more storm water into the waterways

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Not allow it to go ahead

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

345
Submission 23 (6 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 9:33 a.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:37] Submission received on notified resource consent
Attachments: Parking Pandemonium and Trolley Trauma.pdf

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Sunday, 4 February 2018 9:15 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:37] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Jon Brett

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 022 075 4800

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
5 Island View Terrace Cockle Bay Auckland 2014

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

346
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
► F3.4.2 (A5). This Dwelling development must be assessed as a Non Complying Activity, despite the
Discretionary activity consent granted 26 June 2017 which was for Commercial Buildings. ► C1.6, the overall
activity status of a proposal is that of the most restrictive rule which applies to the proposal. In order for the
Council to consider allowing this Non Complying Activity, ALL other applicable regulations must be complied with.
In other words, Council should not apply discretion. ► F3.3(10a) The proposed activities will conflict with and
limit the operation of marina activities and maritime passenger operations, mainly because of reduced parking.
Unlike some marinas where dwellings are integrated into the original design, this development significantly
compromises the Marina Zone activities and reduces the resale value of 570 existing berths for whose benefit?
► I431.4.3(A24) Marine retail with a gross floor area greater than 100m2 is RD, but because the overall status of
the proposal is Non Compliant, discretion should not be applied. Also, it is clear from all existing marinas in NZ
that the demand for marine retail is minimal, and that any dairy, food and beverage or other retail will depend on
the general public, adding further foot and vehicle traffic congestion. ► F3.3(7d) There is no proposal for how to
mitigate the removal of 82 Pohutukawas, all more than 3m tall.

What are the reasons for your submission?


As a berth owner since July 2007, I have paid for the convenience of parking within 5 to 50m of the pier. ► In the
proposed development, piers A, B, C and D are all accessed via the same corner of the carpark. Imagine the
parking pandemonium with four piers of boaties, all vying for exactly the same closest empty parking space. ►
Currently we simply tow our carts full of supplies across the car park and across the footpath to our nearby pier.
Imagine the cart catastrophe going down a shared footpath, with no balustrade, against the foot traffic of up to: •
4 piers of other boaties returning their carts, • plus ferry passengers, • plus retail customers, • plus crews
returning to their cars. ► Why do they not specify where the bins and carts will be kept for piers A - D?
Presumably in one large cart and rubbish bin area, hopefully not replacing even more car parks.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
This proposal must be declined. They admit this Dwelling activity is Non Compliant, but give no explanation why
this should be overridden. They do admit: Under s104D a consent authority may grant a resource consent for a
non-complying activity only if it is satisfied that the adverse effects of the activity on the environment will be
minor. However, there are 20 compelling reasons listed below that are not minor: 1. F3.4.2(A5), Dwellings are
Non Compliant in the Marina Zone. Surely this is enough to reject the proposal! 2. F3.2(5) Activities in the
Coastal – Marina Zone that have a functional need for a coastal location have priority over those that do not.
Berth holders' need for parking has priority over Non Compliant dwellings. 3. F3.3(10a) Allow activities that do not
have a functional need for a coastal location only where ...adequate provision remains for existing activities.
Forcing berth holders and ferry passengers to park further away in fewer parking spaces and then walk down a
constricted footpath is inadequate. 4. F3.3(10c) Allow activities that do not have a functional need for a coastal
location only where ...the proposed activities will not conflict with, or limit, the operation of marina activities,
maritime passenger operations or other marine-related activities Forcing berth holders and ferry passengers to
park further away in fewer parking spaces and then walk down a constricted footpath is a severe limitation. 5.
F3.2(6) Access to the waterfront for berth holders and the public is maintained or enhanced. On the contrary,
access is severely compromised, creating congested traffic, parking and footpaths. 6. F3.3(7d) Require any
marina development to be of a scale, design and location that remedies or mitigates adverse effects on the
coastal environment, particularly in relation to ... effects on the landscape elements. There is no proposal for
where or how many trees will be planted to mitigate the removal of 82 Pohutukawas, all more than 3m tall. 7.
F3.3(4) Provide for adequate and convenient facilities ... There is no proposal for where the each pier's rubbish
bins and carts will be relocated to. 8. E27.6.2.4 (T77) 0.35 parking spaces per berth are not provided. For piers A,
B and C, no nearby parking is supplied, and only 177 of the 199 requirement are supplied exclusively for berth
owners. 9. I431.2(2) Reduced parking makes Pine Harbour a less efficient passenger transport node. The
proposed bus stops have no provision for where the buses turn. Also, their traffic assessment was conducted
during December, the least busy month of the year for the marina. 10. F3.8.2(1 a ii) adversely effects the amenity
values because the development will lower the resale value of the berths on piers A, B, C and D. 11. F3.8.2(1 a
xii) The development reduces car and trailer parking 12. F3.2(6) Access to the waterfront for berth holders and
the public is not maintained or enhanced, but significantly reduced and compromised. 13. F3.2(7) There will be
inadequate infrastructure (parking) for the inevitable expansion of ferry services. 14. F3.3(10a) The proposed
activities will conflict with and limit the operation of marina activities and maritime passenger operations, because
of reduced parking. 15. F3.3(10c) inadequate provision remains for existing activities of berth holders and ferry
commuters, especially if the number of commuters increases. 16. E15.4.1(A21) the removal of 82 Pohutukawa
indigenous trees over 3m in height. They have already unnecessarily felled 7 of these Pohutukawa trees, just to
feature their signage. Their Arboricultural Assessment claims: Native tree removal can be mitigated by replanting
with native trees within the site, but there is no room within Precinct F, and presumably they are referring to the
adjacent Jack Lachlan Drive Esplanade Reserve which is public land. 17. F3.6.6 The total cumulative gross floor
area of retail activities within the marina will exceed 1000m2 if you include all Sub-Precincts. 18. I431.4.3(A24)
Marine retail with a gross floor area of 870m2 is greater than 100m2 and that is only counting Sub-Precinct F. 19.
I431.4.3(A19) Food and Beverage RD. There are already two food and beverage places and a third one did not
survive. More places will only survive if they attract lots of people from outside the marina zone, causing further
2

347
congestion. 20. I431.4.3(A21) Dairies with a gross floor area greater than 100m2 RD. They are proposing a
larger Dairy of 150m2, presumably to service the Dwellings which are already Non Complying and there is no
need for a large Dairy with the new Countdown a few minutes away.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:
Parking Pandemonium and Trolley Trauma.pdf

348





349
350
351
Submission 24 (2 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 9:33 a.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:38] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 9:31 a.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:38] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Kevin Andrew McColl

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095308623

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
94 Polo Lane, RD1, Manurewa Whitford Auckland 2576

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

352
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
Any work not in total beneficial in total to the operation and function of the Marina as a facility with the principle
function being the place to store and maintain boats. This was why it was originally constructed and which basis it
was given permission to be build. It is in addition a significant departure from from all pass planing approvals and
the Unitary Plan for the region.

What are the reasons for your submission?


Object strongly to the compromising (further comprising) of the rights of boat owners. The development will do
nothing to improve the services to boat owners, in fact it will distract from them significantly. There has already
been significant abuse by the new Owner of the marina berth owners and this would just be further abuse of their
position.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Refused the application in Total

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

353
Submission 25 (2 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 11:08 a.m.
To: Resource Consent Authority; Robert Chieng
Subject: FW: [ID:39] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 10:31 a.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:39] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Barklie Allsopp-Smith

Organisation name: N/A

Contact phone number: 021974119

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
48 Oak River Drive Matakana Auckland 0985

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

354
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
The development is largely residential which is contrary to the designated Marina Zone and is also contrary to the
Unitary Plan. The development reduces existing carparks for berth owners and severely compromises access
and services to Piers A, B and C

What are the reasons for your submission?


The proposed development severely ,adversely impacts on current use of the Marina by berth owners. The Pine
Harbour Marina was developed as a Marina and purchased by the current owner, as such. It is also contrary to
the Unitary Plan and current designation as a Marina Zone

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
As there is no proven need to change the Marina Zone classification, other than the developers profit motive,
reject the proposal in total as it contravenes Unitary Plan F3.2.4 (A5) and severely impacts on existing use
conditions of the Marina by berth owners

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

355
Submission 26 (2 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 11:08 a.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:40] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 10:46 a.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:40] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Christine Sandra Maslowski

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0210460679

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
11 Carlton Crescent Maraetai Auckland 2018

Submission details

This submission: is neutral regarding the application in whole or in part

356
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
Mitigation for negative effects on berth holders

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
If Council decides to grant this consent please include a condition that requires the developer to make a
significant contribution to the Pohutukawa Coast Rotary Club Recreational Trails Fund - a joint venture with
Auckland Council. The contribution should be of the order that there be sufficient funds to connect Pine Harbour
Marina to the Clifton Peninsula, Whitford recreational trails thus enhancing the off road linkages in the wider
community. Care will be needed to construct the trail on the existing esplanade reserve in such a way as to
protect nesting sites of the NZ dotterel and Variable Oyster catcher which use the shell banks in this area.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

357
Submission 27 (2 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 2:49 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:41] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 11:46 a.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:41] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Kevin Pike

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274457577

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
3 Albacore Way Maraetai Auckland 2018

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

358
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
1. The Unitary Plan (chapter F3.4.2(A5)) specifically says Dwellings are non compliant in the Marina Zone which
Pine Harbour is in. 2. F3.3.3 The total cumulative gross floor area of retail activities within the marina will
exceed 1000m2 3. Parking spaces per berth are not provided. For piers A, B and C, no nearby parking is
supplied, and only 177 of the 199 requirement are supplied exclusively for berth owners. 4. 431.2(2) Reduced
parking makes Pine Harbour a less efficient passenger transport node. 5. F3.8.2(1 a ii) adversely effects the
amenity values because the development will lower the resale value of the berths on piers A, B, C and D. 6.
F3.8.2(1 a xii) The development reduces car and trailer parking 7. F3.2(6) Access to the waterfront for berth
holders and the public is not maintained or enhanced, but significantly reduced and compromised. 8. F3.2(7)
There will be inadequate infrastructure (parking) for the inevitable expansion of ferry services. 9. F3.3(10a) The
proposed activities will conflict with and limit the operation of marina activities and maritime passenger
operations, because of reduced parking. 10. F3.3(10c) inadequate provision remains for existing activities of
berth holders and ferry commuters. 11. Cutting down native trees more than 3m high. Actually they have already
cut down some, and should be required to plant replacements before consent is granted. 12. The Unitary Plan
clearly is intent on improving public transport, and there are strong arguements for the Dwellings to severely limit
this. Also, the proposed bus stop is kind of silly because there is nowhere for the bus to turn around. 13. The
traffic count is based on estimates of traffic on a count during December which is probably the least busy month
of the year.

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Reject the application

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

359
Note: Spoke to Alan Gregory on 14 Feb 2018, he confirmed it's ok to combine his two submissions received on 5 Feb 2018, as long as all the
information he provided was there.
Submission 28 (2 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 2:49 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:42] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 12:16 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:42] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: alan gregory

Organisation name: Berth Owner

Contact phone number: 021338255

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
55a Pukakura Rd Katikati Katikati 3178

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

360
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
Removal of mature phohutukawa trees. Removal of berth owners car parks. Parking congestion from above plus
growing ferry customers cars and cars for proposed appartments and their visitors. H&S conconcerns re
conjestion on narrow foot path on waters edge in front of proposed apartments as berth owners with trolleys
visitors general public and apartment owners and their visitors all try to use the foot path. Proposed appartments
are in a flood zone where stream has overflowed in the past - rapid infill housing in its catchment will accent this
issue. Proposed appartments garaging is below High Tide Level. The proposed development is not in tune with
the functioning of the marina taking away ammenities from berth holders greatly devaluing their investment.

What are the reasons for your submission?


As above but feel the application is not accurate and omits or down grades any negative impacts environmental
or personal.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Reject this application

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

361
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 2:50 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:44] Submission received on notified resource consent

Follow Up Flag: Follow up


Flag Status: Completed

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 1:01 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:44] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: alan gregory

Organisation name: Berth Owner

Contact phone number: 021338255

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
55a Pukakura Rd Katikati Katikati 3178

Submission details
1

362
This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:


In breach of Unitary Plan - dwellings non compliant. F3.4.2 (A5)

What are the reasons for your submission?


F3.3(10a) proposed activities will conflict and limit the operation of marina and maritime operations. F3.3(10c)
inadequate provision remains for existing activities of berth holders and ferry. F3.8 2(1a xii) reduced car and
trailer parking. F3.2 (6) access to waterfront is not maintained or enhanced . F3.2 (7) inadequate infrastructure for
ferry expansion. F3.3 retail m2 exceeds 1000m2. E27.6.2.4(T77) Parking for berth holders not provided for .
Piers ABC nil. I431.2 (2) reduced parking creates less efficient transport node. F3.8.2 (1aii) Amenty value greatly
diminished . Insufficient space for a bus to turn around comprises transport hub functionality.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Reject outright this application .

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

363
Submission 29 (2 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 2:49 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:43] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 12:46 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:43] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Keith Manktelow

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274632497

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
209 Exelby road Rd8 Hamilton 3288

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

364
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
Parking and traffic flow. Residential buildings within a marine and industrial environment.

What are the reasons for your submission?


It will be detrimental to the operation and efficiency of the marina.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Traffic flow of berth holders and ferry users cars who will no longer be able to park near their berth and will have
to trolley anything they need on their boat down narrow alleyways past apartments along the same alleyways as
people going to catch the ferry. Already a section of the marina handstand has been removed and had residential
apartments built on and this has had a negative effect on boat owners wanting a space on the hard. The berth
owners purchased their berth in the beleif that there would always be a carpark beside piers A to D.The marina is
a working environment that has the associated noise of people working on boats or boat rigging rattling in the
wind. When the owner purchased the marina it was already an established marina not bare land able to be
subdivided as a residental subdivision. I would like the marina and associated carpark to remain as it is a Marina.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

365
Submission 30 (2 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 2:50 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:45] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 1:31 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:45] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Grant Bowring

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021955642

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
PO Box 204104, Highbrook Auckland Auckland 2161

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

366
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
Car Parking Waste placement and useage Access to Piers and Marina Residential non complying

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Not to allow Residential as against AUP intentions Revisit Commercial and decline as it impacts greatly on
existing Marina

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

367
Submission 31 (3 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2018 2:20 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:46] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 3:16 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:46] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Bruce Herbert Martin

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021-1690382

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
186 Fisher Parade, Farm Cove Auckland 2012

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

368
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
Traffic and Road safety Waste Disposal Health and Safety Amenity Value for Berth Licence Holders and the
environmental impact Growth of district Compliance with Auckland unitary Plan and Sub-Precinct F - Marina
Commercial

What are the reasons for your submission?


This submission opposes the application in whole or in part. In preparing this submission I am submit the
following 1. Background to Submission I am a retired CEO and a qualified accountant with a directorship in a
medium sized Automotive Servicing company in Auckland. I have been a resident of Auckland for 45 years.
Together with my wife we purchased our first berth licence on “C” pier 28 years ago. We chose Pine harbour
because the Marina facilities provided were world class with extensive Marine infrastructure , haul out facilities,
repair, maintenance and security in close proximity to the berth at a fair and reasonable annual licence fee and
with the all important easy access to the pier heads from adjacent parking zones. Access with trolleys from car to
pier heads and berth was an important factor as our age ( over 70) impacts on our ability to carry heavy loads
long distances. In 2006 we purchased an alternative 12 metre Berth Licence on E pier having sold the original
one. I am the secretary of the Pine harbour berth holders Association. I was made aware of the intended
apartment development within Sub-Precinct F at a meeting of representatives of PHML and its parent company
Empire Capital in September 2017. I was advised by fellow berth holders of berths on piers a,b,c,and d, that the
development would have a significant detrimental effect on the amenity value and use on these above piers. That
the reduce facilities for piers a, b, c, & d would impact on all other parking areas and rubbish disposal units as
demand pushed berth holders to look for options as close as possible to the above mentioned pier heads. As a
committee member and licence holder I made PHML management aware of my concerns that such a
development could have on the marina environment including but not limited to: • Loss of secured ( for berth
holder use only) vehicle access due to competition (berth holders from a,b, and c piers) for close berth access,
and at each affected pier head for drop off and pick up of boat maintenance equipment, provisions, fishing gear,
travel bags etc. • Loss of immediate access at each pier head to trolleys for the movement of such loads.
Compromised access at pier heads to the current convenient refuse and recycling bins and waste product
disposal. • Potential conflict of use and interest between berth holders, ferry users , marine service providers,
maintenance crew and development residents due to restricted parking and reduced access ways. • A deficient
road traffic plan and layout to ensure safe and acceptable access and parking facilities. • Compliance with
Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in (chapter F3.4.2(A5)) specifically says Dwellings are non compliant in the
Marina Zone which Pine Harbour is in. • The fact that the initial consent was given (AUP Operative-I 431.6.2
Number of floors) for a two storey ( ground plus one storey)commercial office block which has now been
amended to a three storey residential apartments with some commercial space on the ground floor. AUP I431.3.
Policies (1) Require land use, subdivision and development to be generally in accordance with Pine Harbour:
Precinct plan 1. (2) Provide for increased development density to promote the role of precinct as a passenger
transport node. (3) Provide for a range of activities at a scale complementary with the amenity values of the
precinct. (4) Require the layout, form and design of buildings, roads and open spaces within the precinct to: (b)
address potential adverse effects on adjoining land uses; (c) assist with the implementation of transportation
connections between Beachlands and Pine Harbour; (d) assist with the integration of passenger transport
services; (e) create opportunities for multi-functional, safe, passive or active recreation; The planned apartment
block is in direct conflict with all of the above and as there are numerous other Sub-Precincts for residential
space ie; Sub Precincts B, C, D and E making this project neither appropriate or necessary. Not only does the
planned apartments conflict with the above it fails to meet the AUP rules in other areas. These states that-
Developers must • (4) (f)ensure ongoing public access to the coastal marine area; • (g) ensure the provision of
walkways providing pedestrian linkages through the precinct; and • (h) recognise and provide for the character of
the coastal environment and its associated amenity values. • (5) Require potential adverse effects (including
reverse sensitivity) of any development and activities within the precinct on the character of the coastal
environment and on the amenity values of the surrounding area to be avoided, remedied or mitigated. • The
Auckland-wide and underlying zone policies apply in this precinct in addition to those specified Accordingly in
respect to many of the above bullet points I must oppose this apartment development by PHML.as it fails to
adequately acknowledge these requirements. I wish to address my concerns about this development under the
following headings; 1. Traffic and Road safety a. Irregular and uncontrolled Traffic flows to the current public car
park in Jack Lachlan drive and the access route via this to the secure berth holders park has drivers turning right
at the first “Y” junction into on -coming traffic. As demand for available parks increases the prospect of a head on
crash increases. b. The introduction of a park and ride bus station in its planned location ( precinct F) will strain
the narrow road access ( at the minimum allowed 7.0m width) to the both marina and public parking areas and
compromise ferry passenger access where large buses are trying to stop to pick up passengers. This may
increase the risk of accident to all users in particular resident users who need to execute a 180 degree turn into
their apartment parks. c. The majority of garages for the development back directly onto Jack Lachlan Drive.
There is no recognition that vehicles leaving the apartments will have limited visibility and exit directly into live
traffic lanes. 2. Waste Disposal As the new buildings butt directly up to the existing rock wall foot path there will
be limited room for any carry carts or rubbish disposal facilities for Piers A, B & C. None are referenced on the
submitted plans The relocation of environmental waste and oil disposal facilities so far away from pier heads will
increase the risk of spillage and garbage falling into marina.. The reduced width of access ways for carts trolleys
2

369
and equipment adds to this risk. 3. Health and Safety -Access to Marina piers in the case of an emergency, Fire
to vessels on piers , serious health issues of berth holders and guests requiring off loading to ambulances.
Access to the waterfront for berth holders is considered “maintained” even though Piers a, b, c, will no longer
have adjacent access to their berths. Public access will only be restricted to dwelling areas. Emergency access
for fire, ambulance and other providers is seriously compromised by the proposed apartment buildings as
emergency vehicles will be unable to get access to the pier heads of a, b, and c, pier.. There are numerous
recorded incidents of serious Health and Fire issues on marinas which require convenient wide access for
service providers vehicles. This would also apply to helicopter services. 4. Amenity Value for Berth Holders and
Environmental Impact Reduction in the numbers and diminished convenience of available car parks a. Due to the
reconfiguration of the berth holders and road side ( Jack Lachlan drive ) car parks, a reduced number of available
park spaces is planned. Congestion at peak times in the remaining and size reduced parking areas will likely give
rise to increased risk of vehicle damage. Some risk to pedestrian when accessing from vehicle to pier heads or
ferries if forced to use the roadway as the quickest route to the ferry. b. Adding to this congestion will be other
vehicles and boat trailer units wishing to launch from the public ramps at the western end of the public car park in
Jack Lachlan drive. c. Walking access to the Jack Lachlan Drive Esplanade Reserve parking will in the main
continue to be via the marina frontage. The planned walkway on the southern side of the storm water creek is
unlikely to see much use. As the traffic assessment identifies pedestrians will be forced to walk in a relatively
narrow (1m) section of footpath / berm therefore it is recommended a pedestrian barrier is to be constructed on
top of the marine rock wall to ensure pedestrian safety is not compromised. No consideration of berth holder
versus pedestrian congestion at peak ferry times. d. Before the display unit was built we had 234 parks which
included 7 disabled parks. e. Closing A, B, and C parking reduces 34 parks, including 3 disabled spaces. f.
Reconfiguring the turning areas eliminates another 8 parks. Total available present parks = 176 well below the
original consent levels of 0.7parks per berth ie: 400 parks for a 570 berth Marina. At the new rate of 0.30 car
parks per berth parking availability would be deficient. 5. Growth of the district of Beachlands/Mareitai Residential
district. There does not appear to be adequate consideration given to the potential growth of population in the
district and its effects on this restricted area. The impact of a residential property at the centre of a narrow street
access to a high demand park and ride zone will add stress and risk to this location . The current Jack Lachland
Drive Esplanade Reserve parking of 230 car parks remains in consideration for all ferry patronage /parking
growth. I do not believe this will adequately provide for the expected growth rates in ferry service over the next 5-
10 years • 6. Compliance with Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in (chapter F3.4.2(A5)) specifically says
Dwellings are non compliant in the Marina Zone which Pine Harbour is in. • The fact that the initial consent was
given (AUP Operative-I 431.6.2 Number of floors) for a two storey ( ground plus one storey)commercial office
block which has now been amended to a three storey residential apartments with some commercial space on the
ground floor. SUMMARY:It is my personal opinion that unless the council can ensure that such a development
adheres to the AUP in both principle and tenor that this resource consent should be declined.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
A. In regard to the proposal to change the usage specified in the AUP and Sub –Precinct F –Marina Commercial,
the council needs to abide by the correct process for change or reject the application. Further the council should
put greater thought to improving the Ferry users facilities, infrastructure and traffic management to avoid potential
traffic bottlenecks and accidents by users in such a congested vehicle access way.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

370
Submission 32 (10 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2018 2:20 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:46] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, 5 February 2018 3:16 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:46] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Bruce Herbert Martin

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021-1690382

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
186 Fisher Parade, Farm Cove Auckland 2012

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

371
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
Traffic and Road safety Waste Disposal Health and Safety Amenity Value for Berth Licence Holders and the
environmental impact Growth of district Compliance with Auckland unitary Plan and Sub-Precinct F - Marina
Commercial

What are the reasons for your submission?


This submission opposes the application in whole or in part. In preparing this submission I am submit the
following 1. Background to Submission I am a retired CEO and a qualified accountant with a directorship in a
medium sized Automotive Servicing company in Auckland. I have been a resident of Auckland for 45 years.
Together with my wife we purchased our first berth licence on “C” pier 28 years ago. We chose Pine harbour
because the Marina facilities provided were world class with extensive Marine infrastructure , haul out facilities,
repair, maintenance and security in close proximity to the berth at a fair and reasonable annual licence fee and
with the all important easy access to the pier heads from adjacent parking zones. Access with trolleys from car to
pier heads and berth was an important factor as our age ( over 70) impacts on our ability to carry heavy loads
long distances. In 2006 we purchased an alternative 12 metre Berth Licence on E pier having sold the original
one. I am the secretary of the Pine harbour berth holders Association. I was made aware of the intended
apartment development within Sub-Precinct F at a meeting of representatives of PHML and its parent company
Empire Capital in September 2017. I was advised by fellow berth holders of berths on piers a,b,c,and d, that the
development would have a significant detrimental effect on the amenity value and use on these above piers. That
the reduce facilities for piers a, b, c, & d would impact on all other parking areas and rubbish disposal units as
demand pushed berth holders to look for options as close as possible to the above mentioned pier heads. As a
committee member and licence holder I made PHML management aware of my concerns that such a
development could have on the marina environment including but not limited to: • Loss of secured ( for berth
holder use only) vehicle access due to competition (berth holders from a,b, and c piers) for close berth access,
and at each affected pier head for drop off and pick up of boat maintenance equipment, provisions, fishing gear,
travel bags etc. • Loss of immediate access at each pier head to trolleys for the movement of such loads.
Compromised access at pier heads to the current convenient refuse and recycling bins and waste product
disposal. • Potential conflict of use and interest between berth holders, ferry users , marine service providers,
maintenance crew and development residents due to restricted parking and reduced access ways. • A deficient
road traffic plan and layout to ensure safe and acceptable access and parking facilities. • Compliance with
Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in (chapter F3.4.2(A5)) specifically says Dwellings are non compliant in the
Marina Zone which Pine Harbour is in. • The fact that the initial consent was given (AUP Operative-I 431.6.2
Number of floors) for a two storey ( ground plus one storey)commercial office block which has now been
amended to a three storey residential apartments with some commercial space on the ground floor. AUP I431.3.
Policies (1) Require land use, subdivision and development to be generally in accordance with Pine Harbour:
Precinct plan 1. (2) Provide for increased development density to promote the role of precinct as a passenger
transport node. (3) Provide for a range of activities at a scale complementary with the amenity values of the
precinct. (4) Require the layout, form and design of buildings, roads and open spaces within the precinct to: (b)
address potential adverse effects on adjoining land uses; (c) assist with the implementation of transportation
connections between Beachlands and Pine Harbour; (d) assist with the integration of passenger transport
services; (e) create opportunities for multi-functional, safe, passive or active recreation; The planned apartment
block is in direct conflict with all of the above and as there are numerous other Sub-Precincts for residential
space ie; Sub Precincts B, C, D and E making this project neither appropriate or necessary. Not only does the
planned apartments conflict with the above it fails to meet the AUP rules in other areas. These states that-
Developers must • (4) (f)ensure ongoing public access to the coastal marine area; • (g) ensure the provision of
walkways providing pedestrian linkages through the precinct; and • (h) recognise and provide for the character of
the coastal environment and its associated amenity values. • (5) Require potential adverse effects (including
reverse sensitivity) of any development and activities within the precinct on the character of the coastal
environment and on the amenity values of the surrounding area to be avoided, remedied or mitigated. • The
Auckland-wide and underlying zone policies apply in this precinct in addition to those specified Accordingly in
respect to many of the above bullet points I must oppose this apartment development by PHML.as it fails to
adequately acknowledge these requirements. I wish to address my concerns about this development under the
following headings; 1. Traffic and Road safety a. Irregular and uncontrolled Traffic flows to the current public car
park in Jack Lachlan drive and the access route via this to the secure berth holders park has drivers turning right
at the first “Y” junction into on -coming traffic. As demand for available parks increases the prospect of a head on
crash increases. b. The introduction of a park and ride bus station in its planned location ( precinct F) will strain
the narrow road access ( at the minimum allowed 7.0m width) to the both marina and public parking areas and
compromise ferry passenger access where large buses are trying to stop to pick up passengers. This may
increase the risk of accident to all users in particular resident users who need to execute a 180 degree turn into
their apartment parks. c. The majority of garages for the development back directly onto Jack Lachlan Drive.
There is no recognition that vehicles leaving the apartments will have limited visibility and exit directly into live
traffic lanes. 2. Waste Disposal As the new buildings butt directly up to the existing rock wall foot path there will
be limited room for any carry carts or rubbish disposal facilities for Piers A, B & C. None are referenced on the
submitted plans The relocation of environmental waste and oil disposal facilities so far away from pier heads will
increase the risk of spillage and garbage falling into marina.. The reduced width of access ways for carts trolleys
2

372
and equipment adds to this risk. 3. Health and Safety -Access to Marina piers in the case of an emergency, Fire
to vessels on piers , serious health issues of berth holders and guests requiring off loading to ambulances.
Access to the waterfront for berth holders is considered “maintained” even though Piers a, b, c, will no longer
have adjacent access to their berths. Public access will only be restricted to dwelling areas. Emergency access
for fire, ambulance and other providers is seriously compromised by the proposed apartment buildings as
emergency vehicles will be unable to get access to the pier heads of a, b, and c, pier.. There are numerous
recorded incidents of serious Health and Fire issues on marinas which require convenient wide access for
service providers vehicles. This would also apply to helicopter services. 4. Amenity Value for Berth Holders and
Environmental Impact Reduction in the numbers and diminished convenience of available car parks a. Due to the
reconfiguration of the berth holders and road side ( Jack Lachlan drive ) car parks, a reduced number of available
park spaces is planned. Congestion at peak times in the remaining and size reduced parking areas will likely give
rise to increased risk of vehicle damage. Some risk to pedestrian when accessing from vehicle to pier heads or
ferries if forced to use the roadway as the quickest route to the ferry. b. Adding to this congestion will be other
vehicles and boat trailer units wishing to launch from the public ramps at the western end of the public car park in
Jack Lachlan drive. c. Walking access to the Jack Lachlan Drive Esplanade Reserve parking will in the main
continue to be via the marina frontage. The planned walkway on the southern side of the storm water creek is
unlikely to see much use. As the traffic assessment identifies pedestrians will be forced to walk in a relatively
narrow (1m) section of footpath / berm therefore it is recommended a pedestrian barrier is to be constructed on
top of the marine rock wall to ensure pedestrian safety is not compromised. No consideration of berth holder
versus pedestrian congestion at peak ferry times. d. Before the display unit was built we had 234 parks which
included 7 disabled parks. e. Closing A, B, and C parking reduces 34 parks, including 3 disabled spaces. f.
Reconfiguring the turning areas eliminates another 8 parks. Total available present parks = 176 well below the
original consent levels of 0.7parks per berth ie: 400 parks for a 570 berth Marina. At the new rate of 0.30 car
parks per berth parking availability would be deficient. 5. Growth of the district of Beachlands/Mareitai Residential
district. There does not appear to be adequate consideration given to the potential growth of population in the
district and its effects on this restricted area. The impact of a residential property at the centre of a narrow street
access to a high demand park and ride zone will add stress and risk to this location . The current Jack Lachland
Drive Esplanade Reserve parking of 230 car parks remains in consideration for all ferry patronage /parking
growth. I do not believe this will adequately provide for the expected growth rates in ferry service over the next 5-
10 years • 6. Compliance with Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in (chapter F3.4.2(A5)) specifically says
Dwellings are non compliant in the Marina Zone which Pine Harbour is in. • The fact that the initial consent was
given (AUP Operative-I 431.6.2 Number of floors) for a two storey ( ground plus one storey)commercial office
block which has now been amended to a three storey residential apartments with some commercial space on the
ground floor. SUMMARY:It is my personal opinion that unless the council can ensure that such a development
adheres to the AUP in both principle and tenor that this resource consent should be declined.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
A. In regard to the proposal to change the usage specified in the AUP and Sub –Precinct F –Marina Commercial,
the council needs to abide by the correct process for change or reject the application. Further the council should
put greater thought to improving the Ferry users facilities, infrastructure and traffic management to avoid potential
traffic bottlenecks and accidents by users in such a congested vehicle access way.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

373
374
375
376
377
378
379
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Van Lieshout <robynvl@xtra.co.nz>


Sent: Thursday, 8 February 2018 8:20 a.m.
To: Resource Consent Authority
Subject: Submission
Attachments: Pine Harbour Submission.pdf

Categories: Submissions to log

380
Submission 33 (2 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2018 2:21 p.m.
To: Resource Consent Authority; Robert Chieng
Subject: FW: [ID:47] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 February 2018 12:01 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:47] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Ian and Elizabeth Scarborough

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095354444

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
66 Pine Harbour Parade, Beachlands Manukau Auckland 2018

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

381
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
F3.4.2 Dwellings are Non Compliant in Marina-Coastal Zone F3.2 (5) F3.2 (6) F3.3 (4) F3.6.6 E27.6.2 E15.4.1
1431.2 F3.8 (1 a xii)

What are the reasons for your submission?


Access will be severely compromised with insufficient parking: congestion caused by pedestrians for ferries,
berth holders with trolleys and many locals walking with and without dogs. Increased volume of ferry traffic as
population of Beachlands and surrounds grow. When ferries relocate as per Pine Harbour Sub-precinct B, ferry
users will have further to walk. Berth holders need for parking is essential. 0.3 parking spaces are not provided
Only 177 of 199 requirements are supplied for berth owners At times it is impossible to get a parking space.
Tradesmen also use these spaces. Distance walking adds to boat owners cost. Reduced parking will not make
Pine Harbour more efficient as a transport node. Where will buses turn? Apartment garages as planned show
drivers will reverse onto the road on which ferry users,berth users and tradesmen utilise. Total retail to not
exceed 1000sq m there are currently two eating establishments in Sub-Precinct A already plus Hairdresser
Marine Broker Dentist PHM reception and office ADS security There was a Marine Chandlery (Utilising 2 units)
which has folded recently because of high Lease costs. More eating places : to survive would mean more foot
and vehicle congestion F3.3 A B C D Piers have no allocation for adequate trolley depots, rubbish bins or oil
collection containers. E15.4.1 removal of 82 mature pohutukawa trees is just not able to be mitigated.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
This submission opposes the application in whole.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

382
Submission 34 (2 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2018 2:22 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:48] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 February 2018 2:01 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:48] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Lynne Wayne Richardson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095365448

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
51 Pinebrook Lane Maraetai Auckland 2018

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

383
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
Parking spaces for berths, effect on resale value of berths, inadequate infrastructure, traffic issues

What are the reasons for your submission?


That as a user of a berth at Pine Harbour Marina, and a regular user of the ferry, that the proposed development
of apartments and commercial units will not improve the facilities and will actually create problems that currently
do not exisit

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
To wholly decline the application for development, to return the space currently used as a sales office to a car
park, to reinstate the throughfare for traffic, and to reinstate the native trees that were felled

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

384
Submission 35 (2 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2018 2:24 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:49] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2018 9:01 a.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:49] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Michael Smith

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021713500

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
46 Second View Beachlands AUCKLAND 2018

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

385
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
The whole application for the apartments

What are the reasons for your submission?


This is a marina not a residential sub division, as a berth owner I have lost car parking and easy access to toilet
facilities. Will destroy the atmosphere of the marina.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Not to go ahead with the development.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

386
Submission 36 (2 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2018 2:25 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:50] Submission received on notified resource consent

Follow Up Flag: Follow up


Flag Status: Completed

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2018 10:01 a.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:50] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Michael and Helen May

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021800160

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
19 Ealing Crescent, Beachlands Auckland Auckland 2018

Submission details
1

387
This submission: is neutral regarding the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:


Lack of consultation with berth holders prior to the original application. The proposed three level design and size
of structures is incompatible with the marina layout. Reduced amenities and access for berth holder on A, B, and
C piers, and also ferry users.

What are the reasons for your submission?


We have been a berth holder at Pine Harbour since its opening back in 1988. One of the pleasures of the marina
has been its Mediterranean feel, and good layout. We have always viewed the marina as a valuable asset to the
community. The proposed development reduces this feeling. Ferry commuter growth is a certainty, and the
affected area is part of an AT transport hub. The proposed footpath is reduced to one meter in parts. This
footpath will have to cater for ferry computers, berth holders trying to get to their boats with trolleys etc, dog
walkers and others. The road layout is wrong, and allowing vehicles to back out into traffic is dangerous. People
late to catch ferries do not obey the speed limits. A, B, and C Berth holders will be unfairly affected by the
proposal, reduced parking, reduced rubbish disposal\ There is an excess of commercial and residential buildings
in the area. Building in close proximity to a marina and ferry terminal makes no sense. Noise will be a major
problem. Will new residents demand the ferries dont start till 9.00am?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Reject this proposal in total.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

388
Submission 37 (2 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2018 2:58 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:51] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2018 2:31 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:51] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Dave Cochrane

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021951719

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
507 Creightons Road, RD 2 Papakura Auckland 2582

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

389
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
The entire plan.

What are the reasons for your submission?


Car parking can already be at a premium. Whilst there is a plan to change the layout, the new plan jams cars in
tight. Will also effect where one can park as suddenly the berth users from A, B and C piers are now parking
outside D, E and further afield. This will be shambolic. Will only get worse with the increase in ferry sailings (
more demand from new residents in the new sub divisions up the road ) and the car park pressure that will arise
from that. Even before any work was started the berth users carpark was full from time to time requiring berth
users to park outside the gate. When you have a load of gear to move to / from your berth, you obviously need to
park as close as possible. Indeed is what we paid for. I also have concerns about where rubbish bins and used
oil tank will be placed. Obviously any tenants will not want them right in front of the apartments like where they
are now. They are where they are now for the convenience of the berth users / owners. There would also appear
to be potential for flooding both from the front and the back of the units. The recent storms and king tides are
evidence of that. Sure you will receive pxts of that from others.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
I would like this stopped in its tracks. This is a marina for boat owners, not a new sub division to plonk people in
to live. We paid to have facilities such as a berth, a handy carpark and other amenities - not this plan that is
getting airtime. It is ridiculous that it is even getting considered !!!

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

390
Submission 38 (2 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Thursday, 8 February 2018 12:28 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:52] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2018 3:46 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:52] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: John Robert Snell

Organisation name: John Robert Snell

Contact phone number: +6495366133

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
P O Box 175 Beachlands Beachlands 2147

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

391
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
Loss of Parking for Birth Holders,Access to marinas from parking for AB&C Piers with roll on effect to other piers.

What are the reasons for your submission?


As a Birth Holder since the Marina opened I believe Pine Harbour Marina is a marine business not a high density
housing subdivision with not enough land to support the development

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Comply to the Unitry Plan and more importantly use some common sense

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

392
Submission 39 (2 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Thursday, 8 February 2018 12:28 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:53] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2018 4:16 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:53] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Stephen Alexander Horton

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 356211

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
31 Maraetai School Road Maraetai Auckland 2018

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

393
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
The whole concept

What are the reasons for your submission?


As a berth holder I find it totally unacceptable to have the parking and access to A,B and C piers removed along
with limited access for trolleying provisions to and from the boats which would apparently need to be through a
thoroughfare consisting of retail and coffee shops on a narrow path. The complex would cause way too much
congestion and also devalue the berths

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Decline the application

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

394
Submission 40 (7 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Thursday, 8 February 2018 12:33 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:54] Submission received on notified resource consent
Attachments: Submission on Pine Harbour.docx; Submission on Pine Harbour_
20180207180233.420.docx

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2018 6:16 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:54] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Graeme Benn fox

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274903391

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
235A Ostrich Road R D 4 Pukekohe 2679

Submission details

395
This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:


Coastal Marina objectives and policies related to the Pine Harbour marina. In summary lack of car parking
facilities, the removable and accessability of vessel rubbish and recycling/waste oil. the width of the proposed
footpath infront of the proposed development, and the resultant reverse sensitivity of any commercial and
residential development on sub precinct F

What are the reasons for your submission?


We believe berth owners are significantly compromised in this application

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
We wish council to maintain the coastal zone as an operative and functional marina, first and foremost.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:
Submission on Pine Harbour.docx
Submission on Pine Harbour_20180207180233.420.docx

396
Submission on Pine Harbour (previous consent 50852) to Erect a new building and undertake
commercial and Apartment living activities at 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Pine Harbour. This submission
is from Julie & Graeme Fox. We are currently berth owners at Pine Harbour and wish to OPPOSE the
development.

Re application for Resource consent - 5. Applicant Assessment

Re 5.2.1 Existing environment from developers Resource Application.

We dispute that this resource consent is “virtually identical” to RC 50852, when the addition of
dwellings, which is a non-complying activity in Sub Precinct F of the Marina zone, and has major
effects on the existing environment by adding 82 bedroom accommodation, potentially housing up
to 162 residents, with its increased traffic, parking requirements, foot traffic and disruption to
marina activities etc. The developers are wanting to put residential housing into a marina zone.
Surely there is enough residential in residential zoned land without impinging on the marina zone
under the Auckland unitary Plan. We as berth holders consider the effect on the Marina of housing
in sub- precinct F to be major.

Re 5.2.2 Acutal and Potential Effects on the Environment (from Developers Resource Consent
application

Re 5.2.2 – Scale and Existing design

No consideration has been given to the 220 approx berth holders on Piers A, B, C, and half of D
where the building will be directly opposite their access to their boats. This section considers only
ferry users and recreational walkers. This seems illogical considering this building is in a Marina
zone and there has been no thought to the workings of the marina berth owners.

Re 5.2.2 - Transport effects including traffic, parking and public transport

There is already a considerable increase in traffic with the increased population from subdivisions in
Beachlands. This is putting pressure on the car parking available there at present and pressure from
population growth from the significant housing developments, will only increase. There appears to
be no future proofing for this increased population in regard to car parking and road width to ferry
car parking. I do not understand how the applicant can claim there will be less vehicle movements
with this development changing to having a potential to house 162 residents as opposed to the
office development.

Under the Auckland Unitary Plan - Marina Zone E27.6.2.4 (T77) there are provisions for 0.35
parking spaces per berth. For piers A,B, and half of C there is no parking supplied. For the total
berths of 570, this equates to 200 car parks. Under this application the parking for berth holders is

397
reduced to 176. As berth holders we have paid for our parking in our berth purchase and in our
monthly operational costs. We have already experienced times when we cannot get a berth owners
park. This will only be exacerbated by decreasing parks for berth holders and also the available car
parking will be taken up with weekend parking from residents and guests. The answer is not to
squeeze in more parking spaces into the existing parking area – as mentioned before vehicles are
utes and 4 WD, not tiny city commuter cars. I believe councils 0.35 spaces per berth should remain
in force.

We would like more info on the public transport proposed, given New Zealanders non-use of public
transport due to infrequent services and associated inconvenience, I think the introduction of public
transport needs to be investigated further and quantified. Who will run this public bus, what will its
capacity be, what will be the frequency of the trips, what days will it run, where will it run from and
to where? Where the parking for the increased population, ferry is services etc. With most
transport hubs, the limiting factor is parking. Even with park and ride facilities these park and ride
areas fill up so quickly, people end up taking their cars. Without the provision for a park and ride, I
believe that parking will limit growth as a transport hub at Pine Harbour.

Where/how will the buses turn around? There appears to be no area for a bus to turn around at
present. Seems rather an oversight on the developer’s part.

We note the parking opposite the new building on the Western side of Jack Lachlan Drive is very
narrow and the parks being at the angle shown, means 4 wheel drive vehicles parking in these
parks, will have to dangerously swing out into the path of oncoming traffic to enable them to make
the tight turn into the parking space. Many boaties have outdoor type cars, utes, 4 Wheel drives etc
which do not have tight turning circles and are large vehicles.

We note that the residents of the apartments must reverse out at 90 degrees onto a very narrow
road, at times, into heavy rush hour ferry traffic. This is dangerous and badly planned.

We wonder how a potential 162 bed development needs only 90 car parks for the building and
guests. Could the council please recheck parking requirements? Is 2.5 people per unit still a
reasonable rate per apartment? In the rental in Auckland, accomodation is now being advertised as
per bedroom rather than per unit?

We note that 24 car spaces are required to compensate for the loss of equivalent number of parks
for use by the existing Ranger House car parking area and the loss of some Ranger House car parks
on the accessway to make room for the buses. Where is the mention of the loss of carparks for
berth owners due to these new buildings? Without an overlay before/after drawing of the proposal,
it is purely an estimate on my part that berth holders, as well as loss of convenience, also stand to
loose an estimated 50+ car parks. Where will these berth holders of A, B and C now park and
unload? Where will the recycle bins and waste oil and rubbish skips be located?

398
We note that the traffic volumes from Commute submitted with this application were done in
December when that is probably the lowest month for boaties, many have left the marina for their
annual vacation. We do not agree that “the parking layout of the proposed development is similar
to that of the consented development but over the commercial/residential development now
proposed will require significantly less car parks..” Surely potentially 164 residents will require
parking 24/7 as opposed to the office/commercial requirement of 9-5 parking.

Re 5.2.2 - Reverse Sensitivity – from Developers Resource Consent application

Reverse sensitivity issues will arise by increased public usage of the marina walkways and parking.
Whilst on paper it sounds great to have new residents, and the public walk unrestricted around the
1m (too narrow & dangerous for users) pathway on the Northern side of the building – in practise
this is a working marina foremost and problems will become apparent if the marina becomes
“entertainment or a place to hang out” for the public, which may impede the workings of the marina
and berth holders.

Berth holders need to transport parts and machinery, (often unwieldy, heavy, dirty and dangerous –
such as sharp propeller blades on outboard motors etc, waste oil, , tenders etc ), as well as
provisions and luggage along this north facing pathway. This has not been a problem in the past as
there has been room to do this safety with other users, but will become extremely difficult given the
narrow (1m) pathway proposed and the increase in foot traffic from the proposed new apartments
and their guests. Also where will the rubbish bins, waste oil and recycling facilities for berth holders,
previously conveniently situated at the end of the piers, now be located? With more people
wandering around the marina, the occurrence of theft off boats becomes more of an issue. It may be
necessary to restrict entry on piers to berth holders only in future – who will pay for this? Will this
charge be passed onto berth holders?

It seems nowhere in this application are the berth holders, who pay a substantial amount of money
to have their boats at this marina, are recognised. It seems that ferry passengers and apartment
residents, shoppers and walkers are all accommodated for with no thought or care for the berth
holders who help to create the ambience that will entice people to these apartments.

Re 5.2.2 – flooding and Coastal Hazards

Flooding has already been a problem with some of the housing near the marina. With king tides the
water rises and the carpark has been flooded in past storms/king tides.

Re 5.2.2 – Tree Removal

The Pohutakawas are well established and are home to many birds. How can they be replaced? The
palms, although native are also well established and give the marina a tropical ambience. I would be
very saddened to see these removed to make way for a concrete building. They are visible from the
boats and from the restaurant and removing them would leave the marina foreshore bare and
barren.

399
5.34 Auckland Unitary Plan

14131.2(1) This proposal does not achieve the objectives. The marina based community is being
squeezed out and the area available for hard stand and parking has diminished since the original
resource consent was granted. There was already space allocated for a marina chandlery which
supplied the marina based community with dairy necessities such as milk and a limited amount of
grocery items and fish bait until fairly recently etc. This business has now left the marina, I am
unsure of the reason, but I have heard it was due to unreasonable rental charges?. Fish bait is
available at Beachlands and grocery items are readily available at the countdown supermarket
nearby. There is no real commercial need for other stores at the marina which are being proposed
for the resource consent sought by Pine Harbour. Boat sales brokers are already located near
Pepper jacks restaurant. Take out coffees are already available at least two outlets. There are
already at least 3 restaurant’s on site at other buildings. I cannot see what other reasons there are
for consenting these commercial buildings in sub precinct F. Sub precinct F is losing its “distinctive”
marina based feel and will become just another residential area.

1431.2 (4) Option for the use of private motor vehicle – Assessment this is at the cost of the berth
holders parking

1431.2 (5) “Nice all – weather walkway” for pedestrians and shoppers – perhaps a separate lane to
enable berth holders to access their boats unimpeded when carrying heavy, large, unwieldy loads on
the trolley would be a good solution? However there is no room for this compromise when the
walkway is 1m wide - the path is too narrow to solve this issue. Can council consider making this
walkway wider and providing a separate lane for berth holders? A 1m wide path is too narrow for

1. population growth in area,

2 walkers with dogs

3. Ferry commuters

4 Berth owners

5 the proposed new residential development – apartment owners and guests?

We disagree - the additional people using this proposed walkway will impede and create tension in
some cases between berth holders and the public. This is a working marina! That is why it was
built/locatied in a marina zone.

1431.2(8) With increased bore water draw off due to the 28 apartments, is there any back up
planning if salt water intrusion of the bore occurs? With Increased usage by apartments – what is
considered the maximum bore capacity? Is the 2.5 person per unit occupancy still relevant in
Aucklands housing market? Should the expected draw off be increased to reflect Auckland housing
market/persons per unit?

400
Conclusion

In conclusion we believe the resource consent should be declined due to:

Insufficient car parking for berth owners under Auckland Unitary Plan (177 v 200 car parking spaces)

This development does not enhance the original planning zone of the Marina Zone – Sub precinct F.
Originally consented as an operational working marina. The whole marina zone has been severely
compromised by commercial and residential buildings which . How can the essence of Auckland –
known as the city of Sails be upheld if we do not have functional working marinas- protected from
being turned into residential housing?

Refer “The Auckland Unitary Plan” F3. Coastal – Marina Zone. The main objectives of the marina
zone are being severely compromised as laid out in the objectives and policies F3.2 and F3.3.

401
Submission 41 (2 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Thursday, 8 February 2018 12:33 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:55] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2018 6:16 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:55] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Brian George Cumming

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274962636

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
115A PVR, 67 Valley Road, Pukekohe Pukekohe 2120

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

402
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
The tree removal and loss of carparking and other facilities for berth holders in Pine Harbour Marina. The moving
away from the character of a coastal zone marina

What are the reasons for your submission?


Parking is already at a premium. the proposed 1m walkway is insuffiecient for the intended biking, walking and
berth users.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
To refuse the applicants consent due to breaching the original intentions of the marina as per the Auckland
Unitary plan as this development does not enhance or maximize the berthage or contribute to the development of
a transport hub. if anything this application compromises both. Refer F3 - Coastal Marina Zone. These objectives
cannot be met with this proposal from Pine Harbour.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

403
Submission 42 (45 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Richard and Alecia Steel <richard.alecia.steel@gmail.com>


Sent: Thursday, 8 February 2018 7:10 a.m.
To: RCregulatorysupport south
Subject: Submission Relating to Application for Resource Consent - Application
Number LUC60305171
Attachments: LUC60305157 - PHBHA Submission - Main and Appendices.pdf

Categories: Submissions to log

ATTENTION: 
 
Auckland Council 
Manager: Southern Resource Consents 
 
Please find attached a submission from Pine Harbour Berth Holders Association Inc in relation to Application 
Number LUC6030571. 
 
Please confirm receipt. 
 
Sincerely 
 
 
 
Richard Steel – Chairman Pine Harbour Berth Holders Association Inc 
Home +64 9 537 3450 
Mobile +64 21 537 349 
Email – richard.alecia.steel@gmail.com 
 
 
Richard and Alecia Steel 
Home +64 9 537 3450 
Mobile – Richard +64 21 537 349 
Mobile – Alecia +64 21 537 348 
Email – richard.alecia.steel@gmail.com 
 

404
405
406
Date: 7th February 2018

To: Auckland Council


Manager, Southern Resources Consents
Private Bag 92300
Auckland 1142
ATTENTION:- Regulatory Support Team (Manukau)

Application number: LUC60305157

Application details: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four
buildings for commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public
footpath, upgrade an existing private road, removal of trees and construct a
pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Applicant: Pine Harbour Marina Limited


Craig Shearer
Email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Shearer Consulting Limited
PO Box 60240
Titirangi, Auckland 0644

Submission From: Pine Harbour Berth Holders Association Inc.


PO Box 124, Beachlands, Auckland 2147
Email: info@phbha.nz
Phone: 021 537 349

SUBMISSION

1. INFORMATION CONSIDERED IN THIS SUBMISSION


In preparing our submission we have referred to the following:

1. Auckland Unitary Plan and Precinct Plan for Pine Harbour Marina

2. Original Application and s92 Requests and Responses in respect of Application number(s):
50852, P50852

3. Section 104 Report in respect of Application number(s): 50852, P50852

4. Final Notification Decision in respect of Application number(s): 50852, P50852

5. Notification Report in respect of Application number(s): LUC60305157

6. Final Notification Report in respect of Application number(s): LUC60305157

407
7. Application LUC60305157 details comprising:

a. Application Cover Letter

b. Application and AEE

c. Appendices 1 to 5

d. S92 questions and response, Acoustic Report and Updated Architectural Drawings

8. AUP Independent Hearings Panel, Precincts South Hearings, Report dated July 2016

9. Schedule to Pine Harbour Marina Zone Plan Change No 34.

10. We note that the Application references an approved consent for a commercial development of
similar scale and effects; Application number(s): 50852, P50852.
It has been necessary to refer to the consented development to fully understand and comment
on the effects of the current Application LUC60305157.

2. BACKGROUND TO SUBMISSION
Richard Steel is Chairman of the Pine Harbour Berth Holders Association (PHBHA) which was
formed in October 2016. The membership of PHBHA currently stands at 185. Pine Harbour is
advertised as a 570 berth marina. He is a chartered civil engineer (UK) and a Member of the
Institution of Civil Engineers and a Member of the Institution of Highways and Transportation.
He has been resident in New Zealand since 1989 and is a New Zealand citizen.

Richard was employed by Beca Ltd and related and predecessor companies from 1981. He was
a senior shareholder in the Beca group and has been a Project Director for transport related
projects from planning through to construction, including projects for Auckland Transport and
New Zealand Transport Agency. Before retiring from full time employment in January 2015 he
held the position of Business Director – Infrastructure.

Together with his wife, Alecia, Richard holds Marina Berth Licences (Recreational Long Term) for
berths E72 and B18 at Pine Harbour Marina. The term of the licences (leases) currently extends
to 2035. Both berths are currently rented under monthly sub lease arrangements managed by
Pine Harbour Marina Management Limited (PHMML). They have retained the licences for these
berths for their possible future use.

Richard Steel has led the preparation of this submission on behalf of the PHBHA.

The Association canvassed members to gauge support for this submission. Following an
electronic vote approach, members were asked:

Q. Should the Pine Harbour Berth Holders Association Committee prepare and submit a
submission opposing the L175 Apartment Development - LUC60305157 Public
Notification for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive Beachlands, on behalf of members?

YES – because I oppose the L175 Apartment Consent Application


NO – because I support the L175 Apartment Consent Application
DON’T KNOW – I am neutral

PHBHA has 185 members, of which 182 (those that have email addresses) were sent the
electronic communication. The result was 121 votes were cast.

110 voted YES – because I oppose the L175 Apartment Consent Application

408
2 voted NO – because I support the L175 Apartment Consent Application

9 voted DON’T KNOW – I am neutral

PHBHA became aware of a proposed apartment development within Sub-Precinct F when Pine
Harbour Marina Limited (PHML) contacted PHBHA and invited representatives, including the
chairman of PHBHA, to meet with representatives of PHML and parent company Empire Capital.
That meeting took place on 19 September 2017.

On or about 14 September 2017 PHML advised all berth holders of a proposed development
through an emailed letter. The timing of the letter from PHML and the meeting of 19
September 2017 coincided with the start to construction of the showroom that currently
occupies part of the site. The Application cover letter for LUC60305157is dated July 2017 and
we note that PHML only contacted PHBHA and all berth holders at the start to construction of
the showroom, rendering the consultation undertaken by PHML almost meaningless.

We also note that there is no mention of the meeting with PHBHA or the concerns we raised in
the Final notification report or the s92 responses from PHML

At the 19 September 2017 meeting PHML advised they were seeking a non-notified consent for
an apartment development. Only limited information was provided by PHML at that time and
there were no binding commitments offered by PHML to remedy or mitigate the effects on
berth holders. As a consequence PHBHA contacted Council and the Council’s consultant
planner requesting notification and explaining some of the concerns raised with PHML.

PHBHA’s communication to Council noted that there are a number of significant adverse
amenity value effects related to the proposed development in sub precinct F; namely:

“PHBHA is extremely concerned that the proposed development has the potential to
inflict significant detrimental effects on the amenity value and use of berths on A, B and
C and also D piers. We have made ECL and PHML aware of specific concerns, including
but not limited to:

1. Loss of secured (for berth holder use only) vehicle access at each pier head for
the drop off and pick up of boat maintenance equipment, provisions, fishing
gear, travel bags, bedding etc etc.

2. Loss of immediate access at each pier head to trolleys for the movement of
the above loads.

3. Loss of immediate access at the pier heads to refuse and recycling bins.

4. Potential conflict of use and interest between berth holders, ferry users and
development residents.

5. Apparent inconsistency with the provisions of the Precinct Plan which appears
to limit developments to a max of 2 storeys (Ground plus one upper floor?)

ECL and PHML are aware of these concerns but currently have no detailed plans that
address these issues to the satisfaction of PHBHA. PHBHA is concerned that consents
for the development should be formally consulted and/or appropriate conditions
imposed to protect the interests of berth holders and the use and amenity value of the
affected berths.”

In addition to the above it has since become apparent that the proposed development will
result in the loss of 34 conveniently located car parks immediately adjacent to piers A, B and C.

409
As will be explained in this submission, consideration of the detailed information for the
Application has both reinforced the above concerns and identified a number of further
concerns.

PHBHA are grateful to the Duty Commissioner for his decision to publicly notify consent
application LUC60305157.

We note that the consent in respect of Application number(s): 50852, P50852 was non-notified.
To the best of our knowledge PHML did not contact PHBHA or any berth holders to discuss the
application for the consented commercial development. Consequently we and others were
unaware of Application number(s): 50852, P50852 and the related consent until the
documentation for Application LUC60305157 was made available as a result of public
notification.

We note that PHML have not contacted PHBHA to discuss the Application since Public
Notification on 10 January 2018. We also note that Pine Harbour Marina recently published a
newsletter to all berth holders on 25 January 2018 and have made no reference to the public
notification.

We have read the Final Notification Report for Application number(s): 50852, P50852 and have
been unable to find any mention of berth holders as affected parties. It appears that Section 7
Public Notification Assessment (sections 95A, 95C-95D) did not consider that there are some
169 berth holders directly affected by significantly diminished marina amenity value due to the
consented commercial development and consequently also the proposed residential
development.

A word search reveals that the words “berth” or “berth holder” do not appear anywhere in the
AEE for Application number(s): 50852, P50852; although there is some reference in the AEE for
Application LUC60305157.

3. STRUCTURE OF THIS SUBMISSION


We understand that the consent for Application number(s): 50852, P50852 may have
established a “consented baseline”. For that reason we have focussed PART 1 of our submission
regarding Application No LUC60305157 on matters of process, the Gateway Test and significant
omitted effects, Objectives and Policies.

 Process – Consent or Plan Change - Standards Applicable to the Pine Harbour Precinct

 Gateway Test

o Significant adverse effects – notably related to visual intrusion and reverse sensitivity
as a result of residential occupation

o Assessment of Relevant Objectives and Policies

 Significant omitted effects – notably related to amenity value, and construction effects

PART 2 of our submission goes on to address other effects and/or aspects of the proposed
development which; while similar to the consented development, appear to create potentially
significant issues that may require further consideration; notably:

 Traffic safety

 Flooding

410
 Coastal Inundation

Our submission is supported by and includes the Appendices A (page28), B (pages 29 to 38) and
C (pages 39 to 44).

PART 1
4.1 PROCESS – CONSENT OR PLAN CHANGE - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE
PINE HARBOUR PRECINCT
4.1.1 Precinct Layout and Description

I431.1. Precinct description states:

The precinct is divided into seven sub-precincts compassing the land based marine industry,
residential and commercial activity and open space purposes. Pine Harbour: Precinct plan 1
also identifies the indicative location of the stormwater management area. This covers the
existing watercourse, stormwater pond and the area which may be required for the future
expansion of the pond.

Sub-precinct A – Open Space

Sub-precinct A overlooks the marina and will be bordered by a range of mixed use buildings.
It is to operate as a multi-functional area and is the “green heart” of Pine Harbour. The green
itself will be largely free of landscape interventions or buildings and can be used for a range
of passive recreational activities.

Sub-precinct A incorporates a future plaza area between Sub-precinct D (Southern


Apartments) and Sub-precinct E (Northern Apartments). This plaza is the pedestrian
extension of Ninth View Avenue into Pine Harbour from the Beachlands Precinct. The
landscape features of this plaza will provide a strong focal connection through to the marina
itself. Pine Harbour: Precinct plan 1 illustrates the location of the future excavation area to
extend the marina. The provisions of Sub-precinct A will continue to apply to this area until
resource consent for the extension of the marina is granted.

Sub-precinct B – Transition Residential North

Sub-precinct B is the transitional area between the existing low density residential
development in Beachlands and the higher density apartments within the precinct. The
purpose of Sub-precinct B is to ensure transitional quality and integration with the existing
Beachlands urban area and the Beachlands

Sub-precinct C – Transition Residential South

Sub-precinct C provides for a transition upon entering Pine Harbour. Houses within this
precinct are expected to allow shared views across the riparian corridor for the public and
occupants. The bulk and form of the dwellings should be compatible with existing
development adjoining to the south in Tui Brae.

Sub-precinct D – Southern Apartments

Sub-precinct D enables terrace housing and apartment building development. The majority of
this sub-precinct is to contain apartments up to three storeys high.

411
Sub-precinct E – Northern Apartments

Sub-precinct E enables terrace housing and apartment building development. The majority of
this sub-precinct is to contain apartments up to four storeys high.

Sub-precinct F – Marina Commercial

Sub-precinct F covers the existing commercial buildings and the additional area which may be
required for future commercial buildings servicing the marina and marine-related uses, such
as marine retail and offices. Sub-precinct F does not provide for marine industrial activities.
Sub-precinct F is located adjacent to the current ferry terminal.

Sub-precinct G – Marine Industry

Sub-precinct G provides specifically for marine industrial activities. Marine related uses which
are non-industrial in nature (such as offices and clubrooms) are non-complying activities to
recognise the limited spatial extent of sub-precinct G. This is to ensure that non-marine
industrial activities do not undermine the efficient use of this limited space.

Sub-precinct G has a maximum building height of 9m and a building restriction line to ensure
that coastal views from the established residential area along Pine Harbour Parade are
generally retained. Additional height to cater for the stacking of boats in non-enclosed
structures is enabled to 12m as a discretionary activity.

The additional height areas shown in Pine Harbour: Precinct plan 1 enables maximum height
of 18m, which allows for apartments of five storeys. These buildings are key marker buildings,
which require the design to clearly address each street frontage. The additional height will be
used to articulate the prominence of the corners.

A copy of I431.10.1 Pine Harbour Precinct Plan 1 is attached as Appendix A. The proposed
development is located in sub precinct F and as noted in the Precinct Description this is the only
area dedicated to “marina commercial”. As stated in the Application residential occupation
would be a non-complying activity.

4.1.2 Standards
The Application includes three areas of non-compliance with the standards set out in the
Precinct Plan for Pine Harbour; namely:-

 Activity
 Height
 Number of Floors
These are discussed in more detail below.

Activity

I431.4.3 Activity Table – Sub-precincts F and G

Activity Activity status


Sub-precinct F Sub-precinct G
Use
Commerce
(A17) Construction of new RD RD
buildings
(A18) Clubrooms for marine P NC
related clubs
(A19) Food and beverage RD NC

412
Activity Activity status
Sub-precinct F Sub-precinct G
(A20) Dairies with a gross P NC
floor area up to 100m2
(A21) Dairies with a gross RD NC
floor area greater than
100m2
(A22) Offices P NC
(A23) Marine retail with a P NC
gross floor area up to
100m2
(A24) Marine retail with a RD NC
gross floor area greater
than 100m2
Industry
(A25) Marine industry NC P
(A26) Boat stacks with a non- NA P
enclosed structures,
travel lifts and boat
haulage structures
complying with
Standard I431.6.16
(A27) Boat stacks with a non- NA D
enclosed structures,
travel lifts and boat
haulage structures not
complying with
Standard I431.6.16(1)
and the boat stack
height is between 9m –
12m.
(A28) Public transport P NA
facilities

It is clear from the Precinct Description and Precinct Plan 1 that the Plan makes substantial
provision for residential development whereas residential activities in the area proposed (sub
precinct F) are non-complying.

As noted in the Application residential occupation would be a non-complying activity. In our


opinion the Precinct Description and definitions related to the Permitted and Restricted
Discretionary activities (a) make it clear that sub precinct F is the only sub precinct that provides
for Marine Commercial activities, and (b) provide a clear guide to the nature of development
within Sub Precinct F. The operative words in the description are “Sub-precinct F covers the
existing commercial buildings and the additional area which may be required for future
commercial buildings servicing the marina and marine-related uses…….” Apartments are not
provided for and in our view the land needs to be retained for the identified purposes.

In addition the Precinct Plan and Standards contained in I431 were informed by and are
consistent with PINE HARBOUR MARINA ZONE PLAN CHANGE NO. 34. PC 34 also contains an
informative explanation for the Development Standards for Buildings contained therein.
Explanation/Reasons
A range of possible floor numbers along with a maximum permitted height have been provided to
guide the expected level of development while at the same time addressing the visual amenity
values of the coastal environment and views from the surrounding elevated residential areas. A

413
range of heights has been provided for to ensure a monotonous roof line does not result and
also to ensure more prominent buildings can be developed in key locations.

Lot widths and depths and front setbacks have been set for the Northern Terraces and Gateway
Integrated Housing Precincts which are likely to be developed for terrace housing or duplexes
respectively. These controls will ensure each lot is of an adequate size while at the same time
controlling, in part, potential adverse effects on adjoining sites or the streetscape.

Controls on building coverage, impermeable areas and permeable areas have been set for the
Northern Terraces and Gateway Integrated Housing Precincts where a lower density of
development is required and outdoor private open spaces are to be provided. Although a 100%
maximum impermeable area is provided in the in the Gateway Apartments, Village Apartments,
Marine Commercial and Marine Services, to allow for total coverage over these areas by the
basement car parking, a maximum above ground site coverage for individual precincts is
required. This will allow for the development of open space on the basement car parking “roof”
as part of the development within these precincts.

Building Height, Floors and Roofline


Table I431.6.3.1 Maximum height

Sub-precinct Maximum height

F 9m

Table 1431.6.2.1 Number of Floors

Sub Precinct Minimum number of Maximum number of storey


storey

F 2 2

We have a number of observations regarding the height, floors and roofline of the proposed
residential development compared to the consented commercial development.

 The Final Notification for the consented commercial development states.

 However; we have found no information in Application number(s): 50852, P50852 nor in the
related s92 information that explains the “up to 10m including mechanical plants” included
in the Final Notification Report for the consented commercial development.

 The consent for Application number(s): 50852, P50852 makes no mention of any relaxation
of the maximum height standard for mechanical plant projections.

 The Architectural Design Statement that formed part of Application number(s): 50852,
P50852 states:

o Mechanical plant and lift towers are integrated into the building structure and do not
project beyond the line of the roof. The line of the roof is broken by splitting the

414
development into a number of buildings. These buildings are further subdivided through
the inclusion of articulated stair cores to the south and balconies to the north.

 The Urban Design Report prepared by Ian Munro and submitted as part of the s92 response
for Application number(s): 50852, P50852 included the following statement on page 8.

 Based on the foregoing observations we understand that the consented baseline is for a
building with a maximum height of 9m and consistent building height – i.e. no projections for
mechanical plant or lift towers, nor any projection for screening.

Section 3.2 of the Application for Resource Consent for the Residential development states in
two separate paragraphs:

These statements are inconsistent with the Notification report for Application LUC60305157
which states:

We can find no dimensions on the architectural drawings (either in the Application or updated
drawings following the s92 request) that provide the finished levels for the screening to the
mechanical plan or the lift shafts.

Nor can we find any explanation for the differences between the statements in the Application
AEE, the development plans and Notification Report.

The architectural drawings for the residential development clearly show that the screening for
the mechanical plant extends right around the roof line of each block and the lift shafts and

415
stairwells extend above the screening, presumably by a further metre. We believe that the
dimensions of the screening and lift shafts and stairway roof access need to be verified.

Based on the drawings and dimension given in the Final Notification Report it is clear (if those
dimensions are correct) the actual building height based on screening right around the
roofline is 10m and the projecting lift shafts extend to 11m. The permitted height is 9m.

The application to increase the maximum permitted height appears to be driven by PHML’s
desire to accommodate the change from 2 to 3 floors which in turn is driven by the desire to
allow residential occupation.

We further note that the other buildings in the marina precinct are as far as is practicable free
of roof projections, mechanical plant and the like.

The additional visual intrusion as a result of the increase in height, and the presence of
projections from the roof are wholly inconsistent with the 9m maximum height standard and
appearance of the previously consented building.

The visibility of mechanical plant and lift shafts and stairs for roof access from elevated
properties in Tui Brae, Pine Harbour Parade and sub precincts D and E (where activities include
dwellings and permitted heights can extend to 18m) results in significant (not minor) visual
intrusion compared to the consented development.

4.1.3 Consent or Plan Change Process Considerations


Plan Change Precedents
The application to allow increased height as well as a 50% increase in gross floor area (2 floors
to 3 floors) and change to provide residential occupation are, in our view significant changes to
the consented application. They also represent a significant departure from the standards and
intent of the existing Precinct Plan.

We are aware of the Auckland Unitary Plan –Plan Change 4. Council has initiated Plan Change 4
to address technical errors or anomalies in the existing Precinct Plan and allow public
participation in that process.

Plan Change 4 indicates to PHBHA the level at which changes to Standards should be made.

The Precinct Plan and standards in the plan have come about as a result of a robust RMA
process and should not be deviated from lightly. Accordingly it seems inappropriate to consider
the changes proposed by the Application in isolation as a part of a resource consent.

416
Population Changes

Based on a pro rata assessment the population in 2015 was 9881 and in 2018 population was
11,364 - an increase of 1,483. i.e. some 15% of the population are new to the area and are
unlikely to have participated in PAUP at that time.

It is also clear from the above population growth estimates that current district planning
provides for further residential growth of some 8000 people between 2018 and 2041.

PHBHA considers that PHML have not included a level of detailed consideration of the future
growth of the area that is warranted by the proposal. In particular the AEE does not include a
level of detail that corresponds to the level of effects of a proposal.
In our view PHML should be required to provide a detailed strategic analysis of the future
growth of the area if they wish to deviate from the plan as this is how the original plan was
determined.

Activity Descriptions
Within the AEE there are statements that marina and marine-related activities such as marine
retail and offices are provided for in other sub precincts. Sub Precinct D includes for Dairies,
Offices and Retail activities but not marine retail although that would be a relatively minor
change and marine retail was previously located in this sub precinct. However the description
for sub precinct D states “The majority of this sub-precinct is to contain apartments up to three
storeys high.” The Precinct Description also states:-
Sub-precinct F – Marina Commercial
Sub-precinct F covers the existing commercial buildings and the additional area which may be
required for future commercial buildings servicing the marina and marine-related uses, such
as marine retail and offices. Sub-precinct F does not provide for marine industrial activities.
Sub-precinct F is located adjacent to the current ferry terminal.

Sub-precinct G – Marine Industry


Sub-precinct G provides specifically for marine industrial activities. Marine related uses which
are non-industrial in nature (such as offices and clubrooms) are non-complying activities to
recognise the limited spatial extent of sub-precinct G. This is to ensure that non-marine
industrial activities do not undermine the efficient use of this limited space.

417
We can see no other provision for Marina Commercial in the Precinct Plan other than in sub
precincts F and the limited provision in Sub Precinct D.

The precinct plan provides for extensive residential occupation within other sub-precinct areas
but limited area for ‘Marina Commercial’ activities. This allocation of activities is based on
detailed strategic planning and recognises the limited spatial extent of the wider marina area
and the need to ensure activities are situated in a manner that provides for future growth,
efficient servicing and the avoidance of reverse sensitivity effects.

The current proposal provides no justification for the deviation from this precinct plan and
potentially precludes the future development of ‘Marina Commercial’ activities, which are
necessary for the efficient functioning of the marina and wider environment.

Independent Hearings Panel July 2016


We also note the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) (July 2016) previously rejected an
application by PHML for residential occupation in Sub Precinct F and supported Council’s Mr
Scott whose evidence stated:

“This sub-precinct has been specifically identified for marina commercial and office
activity and has been provided in this location due to its close proximity to the marina
itself so that land based marina related activity or marina complementary activity can
be established there.

In my view, there is a clear functional need for these activities to be in this sub-
precinct (i.e. adjoining the marina) and as such it represents a scarce resource as
marina related activity cannot easily, or as efficiently, be located elsewhere in the
precinct. In contrast, the Pine Harbour precinct has provided for residential activity in
various forms and intensities throughout the precinct and residential activity can be
easily located in these other locations. The zones surrounding the precinct are also
exclusively residential. Furthermore, and notwithstanding the obvious amenity
advantages to being located directly adjacent to the CMA, residential activity has no
functional need to be located directly adjacent to the CMA. For these reasons, it is
my opinion that there should be no provision for residential activity in this sub-
precinct and it should remain a non-complying activity.”

We note PHM did not appeal the findings of the Independent Hearings Panel. In our view the
above comments are still highly relevant and are fully supported by PHBHA.

Urban Design in Relation to Sub Precinct F


In response to the Council’s s92 request regarding the commercial development Ian Munro
opened his Urban Design Letter (4 October 2016) with the following comments.

418
In our view Ian Munro’s comments clearly indicate that the current Precinct Plan with respect to
sub precinct F has some deficiencies and it may be possible to achieve a development outcome
that is more appropriate to the location.

It seems inappropriate to consider changes to height, floor and activity rules for sub precinct F
without wider consideration of the development that is already occurring within the marina,
the Beachlands – Maraetai area and the other factors that we have commented on above.

Application s92 Response


Council requested PHML to respond to a number of questions related to the Application;
including:

“5. It is noted that the potential for inclusion of residential activities in Sub Precinct F was
declined by the Independent Hearing Panel for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Please
provide additional comment and assessment regarding:

(a) The necessity and appropriateness for residential activities in this location, compared
to its zoned purpose.
(b) Please provide an economic report which confirms that the total area of commercial
activities provided at ground floor is sufficient to meet the needs of the Precinct, and
addresses/identifies any wider effects resulting from the loss of commercial land at this
location.
(c) Any cumulative effects resulting from this application (i.e. will the loss of commercial
space be required to be offset somewhere else on the site which is not envisaged by the
Precinct?)”

419
With respect to question (b) PHML provided an analysis of current use and capacity in the
marina zone and concluded there was ample capacity for marina commercial activities.

As stated previously PHBHA considers that PHML have not included a level of detailed
consideration of the future growth of the area that is warranted by the proposal. In particular
the AEE does not include a level of detail that corresponds to the level of effects of a proposal.
In our view PHML should be required to provide a detailed strategic analysis of the future
growth of the area and a comparative assessment with other marinas if they wish to deviate
from the plan.

In hindsight and given the scale of the consented development such an analysis (and/or s92
request) should have been undertaken before PHML applied for and were granted a consent for
that development.

With respect to question (a) the response notes that residential uses are not a physical
necessity at this location (sub precinct F) and goes on the state:

However it should also be noted that there is a strong desire to be located adjacent to the
water edge by potential residential users. This demand for water’s edge can been seen across
the wider Auckland region as evidenced by the demand for water side property. The desire to
be located adjacent to the water requires the need to provide dwellings located adjacent to
the water.
In respect of the necessity and appropriateness for residential activities in this location the
only activities likely to locate above ground floor are offices and there is already sufficient
capacity for this use within the proposed building and within other buildings in the Precinct.
With passenger transport services (ferry and bus stops) immediately adjacent to the
proposed building, it is appropriate to have residential development at this location as the
locational advantages encourage the use of this mode of transport as opposed to private
vehicles.

We do not believe PHML have made a compelling case for the “necessity and appropriateness
for residential activities”. In particular because:

1. There has been no analysis of the supply of residential accommodation – although there
appears to be sufficient provision for residential occupation elsewhere within the Precinct
and the surrounding residential areas.

2. We believe the effect of the proximity to the ferry terminal on ferry demand is “de
minimus” in the context of other residential buildings in the Precinct and the existing ferry
use from the area as a whole.

3. Waterfront space is a precious asset that has multiple potential uses and amenity values.

4. Because waterfront space is desirable residentially it is all the more important to consider
its wider amenity use before allowing such development.

5. The marina is the primary occupant in the marina zone (570 berths/berth holders) and
recreational boating is the primary activity. Preservation of the amenity values of the
marina should be the paramount consideration in the use of sub precinct F.

PHML have an understandable commercial interest in maximising the commercial return from
the ownership of Sub-precinct F. This creates a conflict of interest with respect to the
consideration and protection of the amenity values of the marina.

420
We believe it is appropriate to reconsider the use of this sub precinct but not through the
consent process. Ian Munro’s comments above under Urban Design in Relation to Sub
Precinct F emphasise the need for such reconsideration.
Coastal Inundation
We note that Council’s Technical Report 2016/017 Coastal Inundation by Storm-tides and Waves
in the Auckland Region was published in June 2016.

In this regard it appears the extent and probabilities of coastal inundation were not available at
the time the Pine Harbour Precinct Plan was developed and land use and rules determined.

We suggest that the coastal inundation risk alone justified reconsideration of the uses that
should be permitted in sub precinct F.

4.2 THE GATEWAY TEST


We refer to the Application AEE section 6 which addresses Section 104(d) of the RMA “The
Gateway Test”

The AEE states:-

The Act requires that one of the thresholds under s104D have to be met before a non-
complying application can be considered for granting.

The first test in, s104D(1)(a) is whether the adverse effects of the proposed activity on the
environment will be minor. For the reasons outlined in section 5.2 of this application, when
assessed against the existing environment created by the existing approved consent, the
effects of the activity on the environment will be less than minor.

The second test, s104D(1)(b) is whether the application is for an activity that will not be
contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant plan, in this case the Auckland Unitary
Plan. The assessment undertaken in section 5.3.4 and 5.3.5 above concludes that the
proposal is consistent with relevant provisions of the Plan and therefore also passes the
second test in that the proposal is not contrary to the objectives and policies of the plan.

As the application meets the both tests of section 104D of the Act the application can be
assessed under section 104 of the Act and a substantive decision made.

Given the critical importance of the “Gateway Test” we have included with our submission a
comparative assessment of the Relevant Objectives and Policies including the content from the
AEE. See Appendix B.

The assessment includes comments related to both of the above tests.

In our opinion there are a number of relevant objectives and policies that have not been
assessed in the Application. We have included those objectives and policies as highlighted text.
They have been included for completeness and to provide a more balanced assessment.

4.2.1 S104D(1)(a) Significant Adverse Effects


Visual Intrusion
As stated under Building Height, Floors and Roofline, section 4.1.2 of this submission we
understand that the permitted baseline is for a building with a maximum height of 9m and

421
consistent building height – i.e. no projections for mechanical plant or lift towers nor any
projection for screening.

We can find no dimensions on the architectural drawings that provide the finished levels for the
screening to the mechanical plan or the lift shafts. Nor can we find any explanation for the
differences between the statements in the Application AEE, the development plans and
Notification Report.

The architectural drawings for the residential development clearly show that the screening for
the mechanical plant extends right around the roof line of each block and the lift shafts and
stairwells extend above the screening, presumably by a further metre. We believe that the
dimensions of the screening and lift shafts and stairway roof access need to be verified.

Based on the drawings and dimension given in the Final Notification Report it is clear (if those
dimensions are correct) that the actual building height based on screening right around the
roofline is 10m and the projecting lift shafts extend to 11m.

We further note that the other buildings in the marina precinct are as far as is practicable free
of roof projections, mechanical plant and the like.

The proposed development creates and does not mitigate the significant adverse effects of
visual intrusion created by the increased height. Specifically the proposed development has
added screening of mechanical plant and unsightly lift and roof access projections above the
screening.

These additions are inconsistent with other buildings in the Precinct. In addition they will
impact on views from the elevated areas of Tui Brae, Pine Harbour Parade and sub precincts D
and E where permitted activities include dwellings and permitted heights that can extend to
18m.

The proposed development is inconsistent with the 9m maximum height statements in section
3.2 of the AEE and visual intrusion was not considered in AEE section 5.2 Section 104(1)(a)
Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment

We believe the visual intrusion effect of the proposed development is significant and adverse
when compared to the visual appearance of the previously consented building and the
permitted baseline.

The above comments should also be considered in the context of the existing development
within the Precinct as illustrated in Appendix C photos 1 and 2.

Reverse Sensitivity
The AEE states:

Reverse Sensitivity

There is potential for the mix of land uses proposed to be affected by normal marina
operations on a day to day basis, such as noise, thus creating reverse sensitivity issues. The
most noise however is likely to originate on the northern side of the marina where sub-
precinct G is located – the Marine Industry sub-precinct, where daily activities include loading
boats into and out of the water using the travel lift. Other industrial type activity occurs in
the area. This activity is confined to daylight hours and regardless is some 150m from the
proposed development and also shielded by a number of other buildings.

422
The area is however a working marina and those working and living in the proposed new
buildings will be aware that the environment is an active one with various boating and ferry
transport movements occurring on a regular basis. The reverse sensitivity effects of the
proposed development have been assessed as minor.

The reverse sensitivity effects arising from the change to residential occupation appear to be
understated and in our view would be significant (not minor) and render the location unsuitable
for residential occupation.

1. The noise levels generated from the marina are likely to be significant because:

a. Significant noise levels can be generated through wind and related harmonics in rigging
which are unrelated to halyard slap and not within the control of marina management.

b. Significant noise levels can arise from early morning and late night (currently only
Friday) ferry movements and ferry users. The current timetable has some 40 ferry
movements per day with sailings commencing at 6:20am and 7 sailings between 6:20am
and 8:20am. The existing ferry vessels are well utilised and carry up to 100 passengers.
Late night ferries (currently only on Fridays) arrive at about 9:40pm and 11:40pm. The
planned and current population growth in the Beachlands and Maraetai area can only
increase demand and the related effects.

While most berth holder arrivals and departures are during the day, fine weather and
dependency on tides due to limited depth in the channel and basin can result in late night
and early morning movements and related noise.

We note that in response to a s92 request Marshall Day have completed an acoustic
assessment in which they state:

The buildings are located within the Coastal – Marina Zone which has the following
noise rules:
E25.6.11 Noise levels in the Coastal – Marina Zone
1) The noise (rating) level arising from any activity in the Coastal – Marina Zone
measured within the boundary of any other site in this zone must not exceed the levels
in Table 25.6.7.11…
Table E25.6.7.1 Noise levels in the Coastal – Marina Zone
Time Coastal – Marina Zone
All times 60 dB LAeq

Marshall Day recommended a condition be applied to the dwellings to achieve an


appropriate internal acoustic amenity,
We note that E25.6.2. states:
(1) The noise (rating) levels and maximum noise level arising from any activity in the
Residential – Large Lot Zone, Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement Zone,
Residential – Single House Zone, Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone, Residential
– Mixed Housing Urban Zone and the Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment
Buildings Zone measured within the boundary of an adjacent site in these residential
zones must not exceed the levels in Table E25.6.2.1 Noise levels in residential zones
below:
Table E25.6.2.1 Noise levels in residential zones
Time Noise level

423
Monday to Saturday 7am-10pm
50dB LAeq
Sunday 9am-6pm
All other times 40dB LAeq
75dB LAFmax

While it appears that PHML are willing to design and insulate the dwellings to achieve
appropriate internal noise levels the need for such measures serves to illustrate the
significance of the reverse sensitivity related to noise and unsuitability of residential
occupation.

We also note that the Acoustic Assessment did not investigate or address the
characteristics of marina noise;

o when and where it occurs;

o its duration;

o physical characteristics, including the sound pressure level (loudness) and frequency
(pitch);

o its steadiness;

o variations of these properties; and

o whether special audible characteristics are present.

Given the significance of noise we question the adequacy of the assessment completed to
date and suggest that consideration is given to a further s92 request to fully understand the
noise effects.

2. Noise from helicopter traffic – there is an existing helipad point (which is used) located
immediately to the south of the stream and adjacent to the access road. We understand
the helipad may be relocated although the location will still be a similar distance from the
development. There appears to be no consideration of the noise and number of
movements in the Application AEE or s92 Acoustic Assessment prepared by Marshall Day.

3. Noise and odour and hazards from waste facilities - At the meeting with PHML on 19
September 2017 they indicated waste facilities could be relocated from pier heads to the
access ways between the development blocks but there is no such provision on the plans.
Architectural Drwg RC101 [6] shows an area for waste and oil collection close to the
intersection of grid lines 38 and 25. This area appears to be inadequate when compared to
the space required for current waste facilities for piers A, B, C and D; and inconvenient
when assessed against the existing arrangements (at pier heads) and Policy F3.3 (4).

The location on Drwg RC101(6) appears sized to suit only one pier and flammable waste oil
storage seems to create a fire hazard due to the proximity to residential units. If all waste
from piers A, B, C and D are to be services from this location there will be significant odour
and noise issues for residents with multiple movements to deposit waste.

We note also that the access pathway on the west side of Building 1 appears to be limited
to about 1m width increasing the risk of spillage.

In our view the proposal lacks a credible waste management plan for waste from the
marina piers A, B C and D that is consistent with AUP Policy F3.3 (4).

424
It would be possible to locate waste facilities to be convenient for berth holders (at the pier
heads) by taking the approach used at Half Moon Bay. Waste facilities and trundlers are
kept clear of the adjacent 3m walkway by locating the facilities on platforms projecting
over the bund wall. However; this solution would not resolve the significant reverse
sensitivity issues of odour and noise and visual intrusion (screening and secure access to
prevent use by the public). For similar reasons it may also be difficult to provide waste
facilities that match current provisions within the access ways between the blocks.

The foregoing comments should be read in conjunction with Appendix B and photographs in
Appendix C.

It appears to the PHBHA that the proposal fails the first Gateway Test on the basis of significant
adverse effects from visual intrusion and reverse sensitivity.

We request that Council decline to consider the Application for the reasons stated above.

4.2.2 S104D(1)(b) Objectives and Policies of the AUP

We refer to the comparative assessment contained under Appendix B. Appendix C includes


photographs that are referenced in Appendix B and this main document to illustrate specific
matters.

We believe the comparative assessment demonstrates flaws in the assessment included in the
AEE and shows that there are a significant number of aspects of the proposed development that
are contrary to the Objectives and Policies of the AUP.

In our view the proposal comprehensively fails the second Gateway test.

We request that Council decline to consider the Application for the reasons stated above.

4.3 Significant Omitted Effects


In this section we have drawn attention to a number of significant adverse effects that were not
considered in the AEE for the current Application and were also not considered in the AEE for
the consented development.

We have taken this approach as it seems unreasonable that significant adverse effects that are
not considered in an AEE or subsequent s92 response would form part of the consented
baseline.

Amenity Value

For the purposes of the RMA “amenity values” means those natural or physical qualities and
characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic
coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes.

We consider the proposed development has a significant adverse effect on the amenity value of
the marina as a whole due to its:

o location,
o bulk,
o visual appearance,
o negative impact on informal waterfront use and spaciousness,
o negative impacts on everyday marina activities,
o lack of consistency with other buildings in the marina zone and

425
o lack of recognition that Pine Harbour is first and foremost a marina that serves
recreational boating activity.

In addition the development creates issues of visual privacy as the apartments will overlook the
marina and therefore all the comings and goings and work on boats can be observed by future
residents.

In the context of the effects on marina activities and operation we note that Policy F3.3(4)
states:

Provide for adequate and convenient facilities in marinas for the containment, collection and
appropriate disposal of all of the following:

(a) rubbish from vessels;


(b) sewage from vessels;
(c) recyclable material including waste oils;
(d) residues from vessel construction and maintenance;
(e) spills from refuelling operations and refuelling equipment; and
(f) stormwater generated from the marina complex.

Consistent with other marinas Pine Harbour waste facilities for (a) and (c) together with
trundlers for transporting loads to and from boats are currently at the pier heads. Similarly
there is kerbside access for vehicles to facilitate loading and unloading to and from boats. These
features are a significant amenity value associated with marinas. Waste facilities located at the
ends of piers is typical for marinas and minimises the chance for spillage and provides easy
access for regular removal of odorous waste. Waste bins are currently cleared twice per week
by mechanical equipment.

The significant negative effects of the proposed development are:

1. Loss of convenient access to waste bins and trundlers. At the meeting on 19 September
2017 PHML indicated to effects of relocating waste facilities could be mitigated by relocating
these facilities from pier heads to the access ways between the development blocks but
there is no such provision on the plans and as noted previously this approach would not
mitigate the reverse sensitivity of noise and odour associated with the waste facilities.
Architectural Drwg RC101 [6] shows an area for waste and oil collection close to the
intersection of grid lines 38 and 25. This area appears to be inadequate when compared to
the space required for current waste facilities for piers A, B, C and D; and inconvenient when
assessed against the existing arrangements (at pier heads) and Policy F3.3 (4).

It does not seem possible to mitigate this effect within the proposed development. In this
regard we note that the current capacity is one large size bin (approx. 1.5m3 at the end of
each pier (See Appendix C Photo 8) plus an average of 3 wheelie bins per pier for recycling
and one waste oil receiver for every other pier. The total existing provision for piers A-D is
thus 6m3 general waste, 12 wheelie bins for recycling and 2 oil tanks. Large bins are
required for general waste rather than household type wheelie bins due to the nature of
waste from boats.

2. Loss of convenient and dedicated (for berth holder use only) vehicle access at each pier head
for the drop off and pick up of people, personal effects, boat maintenance equipment,
provisions, fishing gear, travel bags, bedding etc etc.

426
3. Conflict of use and interest between berth holders, ferry users and development residents
arising from reverse sensitivity.

4. Loss of immediate pier head access for emergency services, especially fire services, both
during and after construction.

5. The loss of 34 car parks conveniently situated in the immediate vicinity of piers A, B and C.
With respect to car parking I note that Drwg 674-RC100 shows 176 car parks for berth
holders. We understand that at the time the marina was developed (1988) the applicable
provision was 0.7 car parks/berth and that the requirement is still applicable. We also
understand that the requirement for new marinas is now 0.35 car parks/berth. By either
requirement the provision for berth holder car parking is deficient.

6. Loss of trailer parking. We note that PHML have begun relocation of car parking and car park
access. As a consequence of anticipated changes to the car park layout berth holders will
also lose the convenience of trailer access and parking within the designated car parking
area for berth holders.

We have been unable to locate any information in the current Application or Application
number(s): 50852, P50852 that identifies, assesses, remedies or mitigates these effects.

PHBHA request that Council considers the significant adverse effects on the amenity values of
the marina in the context of s104D(1)(a) requirements.

Construction Effects

The Application does not include a Construction Management Plan. The only comments on
construction effects and mitigations relate to dust, noise and sediment control.

The density of the proposed development means that this is an extremely constrained site that
borders a road and walk way that are in 24/7 use. There are also other significant construction
effects that will arise from:

1. The duration of construction which PHML have indicated will be 12-18 months

2. The encroachment on the 3m walk way between the development and top of bund to (a)
provide for safe working areas around the site and (b) for safety measures to protect
pedestrians and the consequent effects on pedestrian movements and access routes –
particularly for ferry users.

3. The cutting off of any informal pedestrian movements from the access road through the site
to pier heads and ferry terminal.

4. Encroachment on the adjoining access road and restriction of traffic movements and
increased safety risks arising from construction traffic, traffic accessing car parks and marina
berths, “kiss and rise” drop offs and buses.

5. The potential encroachment on remaining car park areas for construction facilities,
equipment and laydown areas and the like.

6. The potential impacts on access to piers, water and power utility services to the piers as well
as other marina amenities including:

a. Waste facilities

b. Trundlers

427
c. Loading and unloading areas

7. Emergency services access to pier heads, especially fire.

In our view the characteristics of the site are such that significant adverse effects will remain
even with a Construction Management Plan in place.

As a minimum the significance of effects requires thorough assessment and identification of


remedies and mitigations to ensure that the effects are minor. In this regard we note that the
conditions for the consented development required a Construction Management Plan. In our
opinion the construction effects identified above and the potential difficulties and costs of
appropriate management require consideration as input to the s104D(1)(a) test.

PHBHA request that Council considers:

 the potentially significant adverse construction effects in the context of s104D(1)(a)


requirements; and/or considers

 a s92 request for a thorough assessment of all identified construction effects including a
“proof of concept” Construction Management Plan to demonstrate that it is practicable to
manage the effects and enable appropriate consent conditions to be considered and
defined; for example:-

o Maintenance of 24/7 access to all pier heads with a minimum path width of 2m

o Maximum of 3 hours disruption to water and power to piers

o Limitations on single lane operation on the access road

5. PART 2: ISSUES THAT MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CONSIDERATION

5.1 Traffic Safety


The location of garages with ingress and egress directly onto the marina access road (Jack
Lachlan Drive) creates a significant road safety hazard due to the potential conflicts with vehicle
movements by ferry passengers, berth holders and general public (including freedom campers)
accessing the car parks, hammerhead area and boat ramp as well as the conflict with bus
movements.

The majority of garages are perpendicular to the access road which is narrower than most
urban streets and a number of parking spaces opposite the development are also perpendicular
to the access road.

The current ferries carry up to approx. 100 passengers and large proportion park in the public
car park or in the parallel parking spaces along the access road.

It is reasonable to expect that the peak period for ferry and bus related traffic movements will
coincide with movements in and out of the apartment garages and adjacent car parks. Similarly
it is reasonable to expect the conflicts will be greater with residential occupation than solely
marine commercial.

We have not found detailed consideration of these locally specific safety concerns in the
Application or the traffic assessment by Commute. We are concerned that the traffic safety risks

428
created by the development are contrary to the objective for a “safe” transport network. The
change to residential use could increase the safety risks created by the consented development.

5.2 Flooding
The proposed stormwater infrastructure that drains into the stream appears to overlook that
existing discharge locations will be submerged in times of flood.

If our understanding of the stormwater design is correct:-


 The construction of the flood protection wall will prevent the flood waters from spilling out
across the existing road way and car park area. Presumably the height of the flood waters
within the contained channel will be greater than if the wall had not been constructed.
 The discharge in the vicinity of Chainage 140 will be surcharged (see Engineering Drwgs C140
and C410) during flood events and waters from the stream therefore have the potential to
back up the pipe system and flood the development area.
 Flap valves on the discharges could be considered to prevent water backing up the pipes but
that leaves no drainage from the connected development area.

Further consideration of the above points may be required to determine whether the present
stormwater design will be as effective as intended.

5.3 Coastal Inundation


The Application has not addressed the marina refurbishment or reconstruction that may be
required to manage coastal inundation risk and future sea level rise. The Engineering report in
response to Council’s s92 request related to the consented development states:

5.4 Coastal Inundation


The natural resources and hazards sections of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)
are now in effect. The PAUP requires that habitable floors of buildings be 0.5m above the
current coastal inundation level (RL 2.44) plus 1m to allow for sea level rise. This would set
the minimum habitable floor levels at RL 3.94m.
The proposed buildings lower levels do not contain habitable floors. The proposed lower
levels will be used for garage and commercial/retail space, and are proposed at RL=3.0m.

In the plans for the current Application the retail space floor levels are set at 2.6m and garages
at 3.0m. Site plans indicate that bund height is about 2.5m in the vicinity of the development.

See the attached Appendix C photo nos 9 and 10 taken about the time of high water on 5
January 2018 which illustrate the threat posed by coastal inundation.

We note in the Application AEE includes the statement:


The Unitary Plan requires all habitable floor levels to be located 0.5m above the 1% coastal
inundation level plus sea level change (1m). As a consequence all habitable floors will be on
the two upper floors so they will not be impacted. The lower floors are to be used for
garaging and commercial/retail space.

While it may be possible to prevent habitation of the lower floors we question the lack of
concern for:
 Potential insurance difficulties, especially if personal effects or items of commercial value
are stored in the garages.
 Access to the residential floors which is via the lower levels

429
Similarly there appears to be a lack of consideration for the potential impact on commercial and
retail enterprises as well as the potential impact on building services; notably the location and
vulnerability of power and telecommunications facilities.

We question how a consent for any significant building development (residential or


commercial) in sub precinct F can be justified when the lower levels of the development are
acknowledged to be at risk of coastal inundation and the proposed development offers no
remedy or mitigation for that risk.

We suggest that consideration be given to mitigating the inundation risk for the lower floors by
limiting the development to the permitted 2 floors which would enable the lower floor level for
commercial and retail to be raised without infringing height limits. Unless road levels are raised
it appears that the garages could not be protected from this risk.

The PAUP requirements also indicate that that there is a need to consider the future protection
of the development site from coastal inundation.

It seems logical that future redevelopment of the marina will need to include measures to raise
the height of the marina bund as well as reposition related infrastructure such as access ramps
and extend/replace mooring poles. We can find no consideration of this issue in the Application.

If the marina bund is to be raised in the future initial consideration suggests that a concrete wall
similar to the stream flood prevention wall could be considered. However; the extent to which
this may impact on the waterfront walkway both in terms of space and amenity values during
and after its construction needs to be considered.

The cost effectiveness of any measures to protect against coastal inundation needs to be a part
of those considerations as the costs are likely to fall on berth licence holders.

As stated previously we note that Council’s Technical Report 2016/017 Coastal Inundation by
Storm-tides and Waves in the Auckland Region was published in June 2016. In this regard it
appears the extent and probabilities of coastal inundation were not available at the time the
Pine Harbour Precinct Plan was developed and land use and rules determined.

We suggest that the coastal inundation risk alone justifies reconsideration of the uses that
should be permitted in sub precinct F.

6. DECSION REQUESTED BY PHBHA


Pine Harbour Berth Holders Association would like Council to decline Application LUC60305157.
We do not believe the significant adverse effects of the proposed development can be remedied
or mitigated without substantial change to the scale and layout of the proposed development.

PHBHA also respectfully requests that Council consider the following noting that Application
number(s): 50852, P50852 were:

 non-notified and directly affected parties (berth holders) were unaware of the
Applications

 similarly inconsistent with the Objectives and Policies of the AUP

 submitted an AEE that did not address the effects on amenity values of the marina as a
whole and berth holders in particular.

430
In this regard we request that Council consider whether the information provided to Council in
the Application number(s): 50852, P50852, the response to s92 requests and the Final
Notification Report were sufficient to inform Council’s decision to grant a consent.

Pine Harbour Berth Holders Association Inc.


P O Box 124, Beachlands
Auckland 2147
Email: info@phbha.nz

431
Reference Consent Application number: LUC60305157
Appendix A to Submission Dated: 7th February 2018 by PINE HARBOUR BERTH
HOLDERS ASSOCIATION
Pine Harbour Marina I431.10.1 Pine Harbour: Precinct plan 1

432
Reference Consent Application number: LUC60305157
Appendix B to Submission Dated: 7th February 2018 by PINE HARBOUR BERTH HOLDERS ASSOCIATION

COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF RELEVANT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES

Relevant Objectives, Policies Assessment Submission Comments


I431 Pine Harbour Precinct I431.2 Objectives
(1) The precinct allows for the development of Achieved. The proposal does not compromise PHBHA do not believe this Objective has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
an integrated mix of residential, business, open this objective but reinforces it and helps achieve
space and marine related activities, creating a it. The proposed development assists in The current Precinct Plan sub precinct structure and activity definitions provide all of the opportunities necessary to achieve this objective.
distinctive marina based community. achieving the mix of activities referred to in the The Application provides no compelling information that supports a need for more residential accommodation within the Precinct and in our
objective within the Precinct. view more residential provision would detract from the objective due to the creation of a residential bias to the detriment of marina and
marine related activities.

Maintaining the current activities helps to ensure that a developer focusses on building infrastructure that is complementary to the marine
oriented commercial purposes of sub precinct F intended by the Precinct Plan. In the same context; including high covenant residential
occupation in sub-precinct F would substantially detract from the original purpose of directly linking the marina to marine related
businesses and interests.

Apart from limited activity provision in sub precinct D the only area noted as “marina commercial” is sub precinct F. The marine industrial
area is Sub Precinct G. The Precinct Plan states:-
Sub-precinct G – Marine Industry
Sub-precinct G provides specifically for marine industrial activities.
Marine related uses which are non-industrial in nature (such as offices and clubrooms) are non-complying activities to recognise the
limited spatial extent of sub-precinct G. This is to ensure that non-marine industrial activities do not undermine the efficient use of this
limited space.

Sub precincts B, C, D and E are all zoned for apartment and residential development and the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) - July
2016 - previously rejected an application by PHML for residential occupation in Sub Precinct F and supported Council’s Mr Scott whose
evidence stated:

“This sub-precinct has been specifically identified for marina commercial and office activity and has been provided in this location
due to its close proximity to the marina itself so that land based marina related activity or marina complementary activity can be
established there.

In our view, there is a clear functional need for these activities to be in this sub-precinct (i.e. adjoining the marina) and as such it
represents a scarce resource as marina related activity cannot easily, or as efficiently, be located elsewhere in the precinct. In
contrast, the Pine Harbour precinct has provided for residential activity in various forms and intensities throughout the precinct and
residential activity can be easily located in these other locations. The zones surrounding the precinct are also exclusively
residential. Furthermore, and notwithstanding the obvious amenity advantages to being located directly adjacent to the CMA,
residential activity has no functional need to be located directly adjacent to the CMA. For these reasons, it is our opinion that there
should be no provision for residential activity in this sub-precinct and it should remain a non-complying activity.”

The s92 Response submitted by PHBHA (Ques 5) does not address the existing provision for residential accommodation within the
Precinct or local area and does not consider the loss of amenity value or potential future demand. We also note that the assessment of
existing marine related commercial activity within the Precinct does not consider future demand, comparisons with other marinas or current
commercial terms offered by PHML which may be influencing current demand.

PHBHA see no new or compelling arguments in the Application by PHML to suggest that the findings of the IHP should be overturned.
(2) An appropriate development density and mix Achieved. The proposal contributes to this This objective appears to have been achieved. However; PHBHA consider the contribution to the development will be “de minimus”
of land uses are provided in the precinct to objective in the Precinct by firstly the because:-
support its function as an efficient passenger development of dwellings which will provide
transport node. potential ferry passengers living immediately In comparison with population growth in the area and the provisions for residential occupation already made in sub precincts B, C, D and E
adjacent to the ferry terminal, and secondly by the development will have “de minimus” effect on passenger transport demand.
providing for the establishment of two new bus
stops immediately adjacent to the ferry terminal. The peak hour journey times to and from central Auckland by road means that the ferry service is attractive to any occupiers of residential
The establishment of food and beverage will development within the Beachlands-Maraetai area. It is not necessary to provide residential accommodation within Precinct F to attract
ferry users. As has been evidenced by the Oteha Valley and Silverdale Park and Ride stations the facilitation of park and ride and kiss and

433
Relevant Objectives, Policies Assessment Submission Comments
encourage use of the ferry to Pine Harbour as a ride options will do far more for long term ferry patronage than a development for 28 apartments in a location intended for marine
destination for day trips for the CBD. commercial and related activities.

The provision of bus stops is not dependent upon the development proceeding.

Provisions for Dairies, Food and Beverage and Retail Activities are all included in the directly adjacent sub precinct D – see Table I431.4.2
Activity Table – Sub-precinct D. The establishment of general retail activities within sub precinct F would be a duplication. PHBHA believe
the impact of providing food and beverage in sub precinct F will have a “de minimus” effect in respect of encouraging “use of the ferry to
Pine Harbour as a destination for day trips for the CBD” when compared the provisions in sub precinct D.
(4) A safe and efficient transport network is Achieved. There are to be safe, multi-modal PHBHA do not believe this Objective has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
integrated and connected with the existing and transport options available for the development.
planned transportation network, including Firstly the ferry terminal is within 10m of the It appears the consideration “safe” has not been assessed in the context of vehicle manoeuvres and peak periods.
connections between Beachlands and Pine development. Bus stops are available outside
Harbour. the area to be developed. There is still the The location of garages with ingress and egress directly onto the marina access road (Jack Lachlan Drive) creates a significant road safety
option for use of private motor vehicles and the hazard due to the potential conflicts with vehicle movements by ferry passengers, berth holders and general public accessing the car
parking requirements are complied with. As part parks, hammerhead area and boat ramp as well as the conflict with bus movements.
of the development across the wider site a
connection is proposed to Beachlands, but The majority of garages are perpendicular to the access road which is narrower than most urban streets and a number of parking spaces
walking and cycling options already exist. opposite the development are also perpendicular to the access road.

The current ferries carry up to approx. 100 passengers and large proportion park in the public car park or in the parallel parking spaces
along the access road.

It is reasonable to expect that the peak period for ferry and bus related traffic movements will coincide with movements in and out of the
apartment garages and adjacent car parks. Similarly it is reasonable to expect the conflicts will be greater with residential occupation than
solely marine commercial.

In our view the development does not achieve the object for a “safe” transport network and the change to residential use would
significantly increase the safety concerns created by the commercial development.
(5) Public access is maintained, enhanced and Achieved. The walkway on public open space PHBHA agree that access has been maintained and integrated with open space.
integrated with the public open space zoned and on the marina side of the development will
land, coastal marine area and the Beachlands 1 be enhanced by providing an all-weather PHBHA do not agree it has been enhanced because:
precinct. veranda for those walking from the parking area
to the ferry and to provide access into and out of PHBHA believe the majority of pedestrian movements around the marina are associated with ferry traffic and people accessing the marina
the food and beverage premises proposed on berths. As such the existing car park area adjacent to Piers A, B, C and D (sub precinct F) serves as a wide informal walkway due to its
the ground floor of the development; a new low speed environment and awareness of berth holders and pedestrians alike.
footpath will be constructed on the side of the
vehicle access way passing through the site; a The new 3m wide walkway/cycleway on the southern side of the stormwater drain located on the site will link up with the walkway around
new 3m wide walkway/cycleway will be the marina and connecting with Beachlands but its location is unlikely to attract ferry passengers or berth holders.
constructed on the southern side of the
stormwater drain located on the site and it will The 3m walkway on the marina side of the development is more restrictive than the existing informal environment and will be enclosed by
link up with the walkway around the marina and the development itself, the overhanging canopy and safety rail at the top of the marina bund. These constraints could be exacerbated by
connecting with Beachlands. the use of larger ferries as demand grows and the possible need to raise the marina bund to protect against coastal inundation or erect
security gates on access points to marina piers.

(6) A high amenity environment is created Achieved. The development has been designed PHBHA do not believe this Objective has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
through the placement and design of buildings, to provide an active frontage to the north and to
roads and open spaces recognising the coastal the adjacent pedestrian walkway, to the marina In our opinion waterfront locations and in particular suburban and rural marinas should provide a transition from the built to the unbuilt
setting of Pine Harbour Marina. basin and the ferry terminal, and to the other environment and foster a sense of spaciousness. PHBHA believe the standards in the current Precinct Plan are sympathetic to that view.
developed areas of the marina, overlooking the While PHML have endeavoured to soften the impact of the development by creating gaps between blocks the bulk and location (3m from
public space area. Vehicle access is from the the top of bund) of the proposed building is completely out of character with the coastal setting and the remainder of the waterfront that
southern side. A new walkway and cycleway is borders Pine Harbour Marina.
to be provided in the southern side of the
stormwater drain. The building will fit well within The provisions for residential development within sub precincts B, C D and E make it unnecessary to place apartments in this location.
the marine environment and will be consistent
with the marina style established elsewhere in PHBHA also draw attention to our earlier comments in respect of Objective (1) above and in particular comments elsewhere in our
the precinct. submission related to the effects of the increases in building height and roof line changes; namely:-

 Other buildings in the marina precinct are as far as is practicable free of roof projections, mechanical plant and the like.
The additional visual intrusion as a result of the increase in height, and the presence of projections from the roof are

434
Relevant Objectives, Policies Assessment Submission Comments
wholly inconsistent with the 9m maximum height standard and continuous “ceiling” roof line appearance of the previously
consented building.
 The roof appearance will be inconsistent with other buildings within and close to the Precinct
 The addition of screening, combined with the visibility of mechanical plant, and lift shafts and roof access will be visible
from properties in Tui Brae, Pine Harbour Parade and sub precincts D and E where permitted activities include dwellings
and heights can extend to 18m.

The visual impact of these changes will substantially detract from the amenity environment and coastal setting of the Marina and is
contrary to this objective.

To provide context to the above comments PHBHA have included under Appendix C photos 1 and 2 which show the existing buildings
and rooflines.

To intensify residential development by means of a 3 level development on the waterfront of a rural marina when the local area is providing
for residential growth and also providing for commercial use as a part of the new Pohutukawa Coast Shopping Centre and older
Beachlands centre seems entirely contrary to this objective.
(7) Stormwater infrastructure is provided in an Achieved. Although new piped systems have PHBHA do not believe this Objective has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
effective and efficient way, including integration been designed, discharges locations will not
with the wider catchment. change. A new flood wall is to be constructed The proposed stormwater infrastructure appears to overlook that at least one of the existing discharge locations will be submerged in times
alongside the drain to prevent flooding derived of flood.
from stormwater discharged from developing
areas higher up the catchment. If our understanding of the stormwater design is correct:-
 The construction of the flood protection wall will prevent the flood waters from spilling out across the existing road way and car
park area and presumably the height of the flood waters within the contained channel will be greater than if the wall had not been
constructed.
 The discharge in the vicinity of Chainage 140 will be surcharged (see Engineering Drwgs C140 and C410) during flood events and
waters from the stream therefore have the potential to back up the pipe system and flood the development area.
 Flap valves on the discharges could be considered to prevent water backing up the pipes but that leaves no drainage from the
development area connected to the steam discharge points.

Specialist consideration of the above points would be required to determine whether the present stormwater design satisfies this objective

(8) Water and wastewater infrastructure is Achieved. Connections to the Beachlands- This objective appears to have been achieved however; PHBHA note that in addition to meeting the demands of existing and future
provided in an effective and efficient way, Maraetai Sewage Treatment Plant are available Precinct development PHBHA note that PHML is providing water to local cartage operators who supply water to local residents. A
including the ability to connect to the and water supply to NZ drinking water standards consent, if approved, should ensure that the water supply demand from Precinct occupants including berths is met before any wider
Beachlands-Maraetai Sewage Treatment Plant. is available from a local bore. distribution.

I431.3 Policies Assessment Submission Comments


(1) Require land use, subdivision and Achieved. Although the land use and PHBHA do not believe this policy has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
development to be generally in accordance with development does not strictly accord with the
Pine Harbour: Precinct plan 1. Pine Harbour: Precinct plan 1, a high level of The references to the new public access to the south of the stream, new footway alongside the marina bund and access road alignment do
public access is achieved with the development not seem relevant to this objective as all sit outside sub precinct F. If relevant at all they are minor matters in comparison to the building
of a new walkway/cycleway to the south of the development and activities guidance provided in the Precinct Plan.
drain, and a new footpath is to be located on the
northern side of the drain, providing a higher As noted previously the only sub precinct area dedicated to “marina commercial” is sub precinct F.
degree of safety for pedestrians and cyclists.
The access way alignment has not been The marine industrial area is Sub Precinct G. The Precinct Plan states:-
straightened at its western end as per Precinct Sub-precinct G – Marine Industry
plan1, as this would create a useable area on its Sub-precinct G provides specifically for marine industrial activities.
southern side which was considered to be Marine related uses which are non-industrial in nature (such as offices and clubrooms) are non-complying activities to recognise the
undesirable and a potential safety hazard. limited spatial extent of sub-precinct G. This is to ensure that non-marine industrial activities do not undermine the efficient use of this
limited space.

Provisions for Dairies, Food and Beverage and Retail Activities are all included in the directly adjacent sub precinct D – see Table I431.4.2
Activity Table – Sub-precinct D.

Sub precincts B, C, D and E are all zoned for apartment and residential development and the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) - July
2016 - previously rejected an application by PHML for residential occupation in Sub Precinct F.

435
I431.3 Policies Assessment Submission Comments
The Application acknowledges the proposed development is not strictly in accord with the Precinct Plan but fails to provide any information
to establish the need for changes to the Plan.

For these reasons PHBHA do not consider the development is consistent with this policy; nor should the consent process be used as a
mechanism to change the Precinct Plan, particularly where the changes are substantive (2 to 3 floors) (9m to 11m height) (allow residential
occupation) and have significant detrimental effects related to reverse sensitivity and visual intrusion.
(2) Provide for increased development density Achieved. 28 apartments and businesses close PHBHA do not believe this policy has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
to promote the role of the precinct as a to the ferry terminal will enhance density close
passenger transport node. to the terminal. Taken in isolation the proposed development does contribute to this objective however PHBHA believe the context for this policy is the
Precinct as a whole.

 As noted previously Sub precincts B, C, D and E are all zoned for apartment and residential development and are within easy
walking distance of the ferry terminal. Current development in the Precinct already meets the intent of this policy

 The Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) - July 2016 - previously rejected an application by PHML for residential occupation in Sub
Precinct F.

 In comparison with population growth in the Precinct and Beachlands-Maraetai area as a whole the development will have minimal
effect on passenger transport demand.

The Application does not provide any information to establish the need for increased development density and in our view any beneficial
impact on businesses and ferry patronage would be “de minimus”.

(3) Provide for a range of activities at a scale Achieved. The proposal provides for both PHBHA do not believe this policy has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
complementary with the amenity values of the commercial (eg food and beverage, dairies),
precinct. and residential which will complement the other PHBHA strongly believe the scale of the development will have a significant and detrimental effect on the amenity value of the marina
activities across the precinct. All activities face precinct and in particular for berth holders and the general public. PHBHA note that this is both a policy issue and environmental
the water, the marina walkway and the large effect.
reserve area which form the central feature of
the development. PHBHA have found no explanation in the AEE for the consented development (in the context of relevant objectives and policies) of the
need for some 750m2 of commercial and 1600m2 of office floor space in sub precinct F when compared, for example, with the provision
for offices, commercial and retail activities in sub precinct D and the provision for 5000m2 of retail and 1500m2 of office space within the
nearby Pohutkawa Coast Shopping Centre.

Similarly; PHBHA have reviewed the AEE for LUC60305157 and can find no explanation why there is a need for 28 new apartments or
why the current Precinct Plan fails to meet this objective.

While 80% plot coverage is permitted the scale of the development in 3 levels and very limited provision for any activities between the 3m
pedestrian walkway and ground level units as well as an overhanging canopy all serve to create a waterfront that is completely out of
character with any other marina PHBHA can think of in the Auckland area.

Pier head amenity value currently afforded berth holders at Pine Harbour is typical of other marinas around Auckland:- namely
 Ease of private vehicle access for loading and unloading vehicles and transferring loads to/from trolleys that are used to transport
boating equipment, sails, provisions bedding, clothing etc to and from the pier head to each berth. The photos included under
Appendix C numbered 3 to 8 were taken recently at Pine Harbour and Half Moon Bay and Gulf Harbour.
 The location of waste bins for household and boat related waste as well as recycling and oil waste at each pier head. The location
at the pier head minimises the risk of spillage, provides easy access for clearance and minimises the reverse sensitivity of odour
and noise as it maximises the distance of these facilities from the current residential, commercial and retail activities within sub
precincts C, D, and E and neighbouring properties.
 Ease of access for emergency services vehicles – notably fire

In our opinion waterfront locations and in particular suburban and rural marinas should provide a transition from the built to the unbuilt
environment and foster a sense of spaciousness. PHBHA believe the standards in the current Precinct Plan are generally sympathetic to
that view but have not prevented a consent for a development that is not complementary to the amenity values of the Precinct and serves
to maximise development within the spatial envelope created by the standards. The requested changes from 2-3 floors to accommodate
residential occupation increase the height and visual amenity of the development and increase the sense of enclosure and bulk and further
diminish any sense of spaciousness or transition to a waterfront space.

436
I431.3 Policies Assessment Submission Comments
It seems inappropriate to intensify residential development by means of a 3 level development on the waterfront of sub precinct F when (a)
sub precincts B, C D and E all provide for residential activity (b) the local area is providing for substantial residential growth and focussing
commercial development around the new shopping centre and older Beachlands centre.

The scale of development significantly detracts from the visual amenity values of the marina waterfront and the positive impacts of a
transition from the built to the unbuilt environment and a sense of spaciousness created by an informal and multi-purpose waterfront
margin. PHBHA believe the standards in the current Precinct Plan are sympathetic to that view. While PHML have endeavoured to soften
the impact of the development by creating gaps between blocks the bulk and location (3m from the top of bund) of the proposed building is
completely out of character with the coastal setting and the remainder of the waterfront that borders Pine Harbour Marina.
(4) Require the layout, form and design of Achieved:- PHBHA do not believe this Policy has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
buildings, roads and open spaces within the Walkway connects to Beachlands, road will
precinct to: connect elsewhere 4(b) – the proposed development creates and does not mitigate the significant adverse effects of visual intrusion created by (a) the
(a) integrate with the existing and future form of Good interconnection made with adjacent increased height due to screening of mechanical plant and unsightly lift and roof access projections above the screening that are
the Beachlands settlement (including alignment Ranger House including replacing car parks. inconsistent with other buildings in the Precinct and will impact on views from Tui Brae, Pine Harbour Parade and sub precincts D and E
of roads); Walkway/cycleway connection to Beachlands where permitted activities include dwellings and permitted heights can extend to 18m.
(b) address potential adverse effects on Two new bus stops provided; Dwellings close to
adjoining land uses; terminal, covered walkway provide for users. 4(h) – the 3m pedestrian walkway immediately adjacent to the marina bund (which requires a safety rail) and immediately adjacent ground
(c) assist with the implementation of New walkway/cycleway provided that links with level units as well as overhanging canopy all serve to create a waterfront that is completely out of character with (a) the remainder of the
transportation connections between Beachlands existing walkway; direct access to the marina Pine Harbour Marina waterfront, (b) any other marina PHBHA can think of in the Auckland area and (c) the form and character of existing
and Pine Harbour; berths. developments around the Beachlands and Maraetai waterfronts.
(d) assist with the integration of passenger No change to public access;
transport services; New walkway proposed; will link at both end to
(e) create opportunities for multi-functional, safe, walkways.
passive or active recreation; Buildings sited and designed to highlight
(f) ensure ongoing public access to the coastal interaction with coastal edge; cafes will be
marine area; located to encourage enjoyment of the coastal
(g) ensure the provision of walkways providing amenity
pedestrian linkages through the precinct; and
(h) recognise and provide for the character of
the coastal environment and its associated
amenity values.

(5) Require potential adverse effects (including Achieved. The buildings have been designed to PHBHA do not believe this policy has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
reverse sensitivity) of any development and comply with the standards set out in the AUP.
activities within the precinct on the character of The amenity values of the area will be enhanced 1. As noted elsewhere and compared to the consented development, the proposed development creates and does not mitigate the
the coastal environment and on the amenity by additional people using the ferry terminal, by significant adverse effects of visual intrusion created by (a) the increased height due to screening of mechanical plant and lift and
values of the surrounding area to be avoided, creating new places for people to visit (cafes), roof access projections above the screening that are inconsistent with other buildings in the Precinct and will impact on views from
remedied or mitigated. and by providing recreational amenity (eg Tui Brae, Pine Harbour Parade and sub precincts D and E where permitted activities include dwellings and permitted heights can
walkway). An active landscape planting extend to 18m.
programme has been prepared to soften the
presence of a new building at this location. The reverse sensitivity effects arising from the change to residential occupation appear to be understated and in our view would be
significant.

2. Apart from wind noise from the marina basin there is the potential for significant noise arising from early morning and late night
(currently only Friday) ferry users. The current timetable has some 40 ferry movements per day with sailings commencing at
6:20am and 7 sailings between 6:20am and 8:20am. The existing ferry vessels are well utilised and carry up to 100 passengers.
Late night ferries (currently only on Fridays) arrive at about 9:40pm and 11:40pm. The planned and current population growth in
the Beachlands and Maraetai area can only increase demand and the related effects.
3. While most berth holder arrivals and departures are during the day, fine weather and dependency on tides due to limited depth in
the channel and basin can result in late night and early morning movements and noise
4. Noise from helicopter traffic – there is an existing helipad point (which is used) located immediately to the south of the stream and
adjacent to the access road. There appears to be no consideration of the noise and number of movements in the Application AEE.
5. Location of and access to waste bins and trundlers. At the meeting with PHML on 19 September 2017 they indicated waste
facilities could be relocated from pier heads to the access ways between the development blocks but there is no such provision on
the plans. Architectural Drwg RC101 [6] shows an area for waste and oil collection close to the intersection of grid lines 38 and 25.
This area appears to be inadequate when compared to the space required for current waste facilities for piers A, B, C and D; and
inconvenient when assessed against the existing arrangements (at pier heads) and Policy F3.3 (4). Current capacity is one large
size bin (approx. 1.5m3 at the end of each pier (See Appendix C photo 8) plus an average of 3 wheelie bins per pier for recycling
and one waste oil receiver for every other pier. The total existing provision for piers A-D is this 6m3 general waste, 12 wheelie bins
and 2 oil tanks. Large bins are required for general waste rather than household type wheelie bins due to the nature of waste from

437
I431.3 Policies Assessment Submission Comments
boats. Location at the ends of piers is typical for marinas and minimises the chance for spillage and provides easy access for
removal of waste. Waste bins are currently cleared twice per week by mechanical equipment.
The loss of convenience could be mitigated by constructing platforms over the marina bund at each pier head. See Appendix C
photo 5 of a typical pier head location at Half Moon Bay. However if waste facilities are located as at present to be convenient for
berth holders (close to the pier heads) there will be significant reverse sensitivity issues of odour and noise and visual intrusion that
could include screening and secure access to prevent use by the public. For similar reasons it may also be difficult to provide
waste facilities that match current provisions within the more convenient access ways between the blocks.

(6) Require that all development is connected to Achieved. Will be connected to the Beachlands- This policy appears to be achieved.
a public reticulated wastewater treatment and Maraetai system.
disposal system.

F3. Coastal – Marina Zone


F3.2. Objectives [rcp/dp] Assessment Submission Comments
(2) Marina activities are located within the Achieved. Marina activities are set aside in sub- PHBHA do not believe this Objective has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
Coastal – Marina Zone which encompasses the precinct C; The ferry terminal will remain in its
coastal marine area and any adjoining land current location with enhanced facilities to As noted previously the only area dedicated as “marina commercial” is sub precinct F and activities listed include offices and clubrooms.
used for marina related activity. support it (dedicated bus stops) and increased
development close to it to support it. The marine industrial area is Sub Precinct G. The Precinct Plan states:-
Sub-precinct G – Marine Industry
Sub-precinct G provides specifically for marine industrial activities.
Marine related uses which are non-industrial in nature (such as offices and clubrooms) are non-complying activities to recognise the
limited spatial extent of sub-precinct G. This is to ensure that non-marine industrial activities do not undermine the efficient use of this
limited space.

(3) Marina and related supporting facilities are Achieved. Bus stops will support the ferry This objective appears to have been achieved respect of bus stops and marine retail only and overlooks other supporting facilities;
developed, used, maintained, refurbished, terminal. Provision is made for Marine Retail in including:-
reconstructed and berthage maximised. the new building if there is demand.
 Convenient trundler facilities
 Convenient waste collection facilities
 Utilities services to piers

The Application also appears to overlook future refurbishment/reconstruction needs as noted in response to F3.2(4) immediately below.
(4) Marina development and redevelopment There was no assessment for this Objective PHBHA do not believe this Objective has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
above and below mean high water springs is although there are marina development
integrated. issues that may need to be integrated with The Application has not addressed the marina development that may be required to manage coastal inundation risk and future sea level
any development within Sub Precinct F. rise. The Engineering report in response to Council’s s92 request related to the consented development states:

5.4 Coastal Inundation


The natural resources and hazards sections of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) are
now in effect. The PAUP requires that habitable floors of buildings be 0.5m above the current
coastal inundation level (RL 2.44) plus 1m to allow for sea level rise. This would set the
minimum habitable floor levels at RL 3.94m.
The proposed buildings lower levels do not contain habitable floors. The proposed lower levels
will be used for garage and commercial/retail space, and are proposed at RL=3.0m.

In the plans for the current Application the retail space floor levels are set at 2.6m and garages at 3.0m. Site plans indicate that bund
height is about 2.5m in the vicinity of the development.

See Appendix C photos 9 and 10 taken at about the time of high water on 5 January 2018 which illustrate the threat posed by coastal
inundation.

The above figures and photos included under Appendix C indicate that that there is a clear need to consider the future protection of the
development site from coastal inundation as well as flooding from the adjacent stream.

It seems logical that future redevelopment of the marina will need to include measures to raise the height of the marina bund as well as
reposition related infrastructure such as access ramps and extend/replace mooring poles. PHBHA can find no consideration of this issue
in the Application.

438
F3. Coastal – Marina Zone
F3.2. Objectives [rcp/dp] Assessment Submission Comments
If the marina bund is to be raised in the future initial consideration suggests that a concrete wall similar to the stream flood prevention wall
could be considered but the extent to which this may impact on the waterfront walkway both in terms of space and amenity values during
and after construction needs to be considered.

Any protection works on the marina basin side of the walkway would likely impact negatively on berthage.
(5) Activities in the Coastal – Marina Zone that Achieved. The proposal does not prevent PHBHA do not believe this Objective has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
have a functional need for a coastal location functional marina activities from locating in the
have priority over those that do not. wider precinct – they are prioritised in sub- While the development does not “prevent” functional marina activities the Application does not demonstrate a “need” for the location in Sub
precincts set down for functional activities such Precinct F. The reference to sub-precinct C appears to be a typographic error as sub-precinct C is existing residential (housing) area. The
as sub-precinct C (marina commercial) and the marine industrial area is Sub Precinct G. The Precinct Plan states:-
marina berthing area. Provision is made for Sub-precinct G – Marine Industry
potential Marina Retail within the new building. Sub-precinct G provides specifically for marine industrial activities.
Marine related uses which are non-industrial in nature (such as offices and clubrooms) are non-complying activities to recognise the
limited spatial extent of sub-precinct G. This is to ensure that non-marine industrial activities do not undermine the efficient use of this
limited space.

Apart from the limited provision within sub precinct D the only area noted as “marina commercial” is sub precinct F.

(6) Access to the waterfront for berth holders Achieved. Access is maintained. Access for the PHBHA do not believe this Objective has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
and the public is maintained or enhanced. public is enhanced with more activities eg cafes,
in the area enhanced walkways, and new bus The assessment undertaken by PHML dos not consider the current amenity value of access to the waterfront for berth holders. This
stops will improve access. amenity value is significantly and adversely effected by the proposed development.

The adverse impacts of restricted access are predominately:


1. Loss of convenient and dedicated (for berth holder use only) vehicle access at each pier head for the drop off and pick
up of boat maintenance equipment, provisions, fishing gear, travel bags, bedding etc etc.
2. Loss of convenient access at each pier head to trolleys for the movement of the above loads.
3. Loss of convenient access at the pier heads to refuse and recycling bins.
4. Potential conflict of use and interest between berth holders, ferry users and development residents arising from
reverse sensitivity.
5. Concerns relating to emergency services access especially fire services
6. The loss of 34 car parks conveniently situated in the immediate vicinity of piers A,B and C

PHBHA have been unable to locate any information in the current Application or Application number(s): 50852, P50852 that recognises or
provides adequate mitigation for these effects.

F3.3. Policies [rcp/dp] Assessment Submission Comments


There was no assessment for this Policy PHBHA do not believe this policy has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
(1) Provide for use, development, repair, although there are marina reconstruction
maintenance, refurbishment, and reconstruction and refurbishment development issues that The Application does not explain how marina refurbishment and reconstruction needs that may include management of coastal inundation
of existing marinas, and their expansion, that may need to be integrated with any risk and future sea level rise could be provided in a manner that would avoid adverse effects on the proposed development and its
avoids remedies or mitigates adverse effects on development within Sub Precinct F. occupants. Although similar the response to Objective F3.2(4) has been revised to respond to this Policy.
the coastal environment, including adjacent land
zoned for residential or open space purposes. It seems logical that future refurbishment, redevelopment and reconstruction of the marina will need to include measures to raise the
height of the marina bund, upgrade utility services to the marina piers as well as reposition related infrastructure such as access ramps
and the like. PHBHA can find no consideration of this issue in the Application.

While raising the bund is probably the most significant issue other refurbishment and reconstruction needs, and the extent to which these
may impact on the waterfront walkway both in terms of space and amenity values during and after construction, needs to be considered.
(2) Provide for marine-related and other Achieved. Marina activities are set aside in sub- PHBHA do not believe this policy has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
compatible business activities, while avoiding, precinct C; The ferry terminal will remain in its
remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the current location with enhanced facilities to As previously stated the only provision for non-industrial marine related activities is Sub Precinct F. Sub Precinct G (not C) is set aside for
coastal environment and adjacent land zoned support it (dedicated bus stops) and increased Marine Industry and the Precinct Plan states:-
for residential or open space purposes. development close to it to support it. Sub-precinct G provides specifically for marine industrial activities.
Marine related uses which are non-industrial in nature (such as offices and clubrooms) are non-complying activities to recognise
the limited spatial extent of sub-precinct G. This is to ensure that non-marine industrial activities do not undermine the efficient use
of this limited space.

439
F3.3. Policies [rcp/dp] Assessment Submission Comments
While there is some opportunity for marine retail in the proposed development, the opportunity for other compatible business activities is
significantly diminished by the conversion of some 1600m2 of office space in the consented development to residential occupation.

PHBHA do not see how the statements related to the ferry terminal and bus stops are relevant to this Policy.
(3) Provide for maritime passenger operations Achieved. Passenger facilities will be enhanced PHBHA agree that the proposed development maintains passenger operations and facilities but for the reasons stated under I431(2) - In
and maritime passenger facilities at marinas and there will be an increase in potential users comparison with population growth in the area and the provisions for residential occupation already made in sub precincts B, C, D and E
of the services. the development will have “de minimus” effect on passenger transport demand.
(4) Provide for adequate and convenient There is no assessment for this Policy in the PHBHA do not believe this policy has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
facilities in marinas for the containment, Application.
collection and appropriate disposal of all of the (4)(a) & (c) - At the meeting with PHML on 19 September 2017 they indicated waste facilities could be relocated from pier heads to the
following: Nor can PHBHA identify any assessment in access ways between the development blocks but there is no such provision on the plans. Architectural Drwg RC101 [6] shows an area
the Application or s92 information for the for waste and oil collection close to the intersection of grid lines 38 and 25. This area appears to be inadequate when compared to the
(a) rubbish from vessels; development approved under the existing space required for current waste facilities for piers A, B, C and D; and inconvenient when assessed against the existing arrangements (at
consent. Both the approved and the pier heads) and Policy F3.3 (4). Current capacity is one large size bin (approx. 1.5m3 at the end of each pier (See Appendix C photo 8)
(b) sewage from vessels; proposed development create clear and plus an average of 3 wheelie bins per pier for recycling and one waste oil receiver for every other pier. The total existing provision for piers
(c) recyclable material including waste oils; significant issues for berth holders.
A-D is thus 6m3 general waste, 12 wheelie bins and 2 oil tanks. Large bins are required for general waste rather than household type
wheelie bins due to the nature of rubbish from boats. Location at the ends of piers is typical for marinas and minimises the chance for
(d) residues from vessel construction and
spillage and provides easy access for removal of waste. Waste bins are currently cleared twice per week by mechanical equipment.
maintenance;
Waste facilities for rubbish and recyclable material including waste oils could be located conveniently by constructing platforms over the
(e) spills from refuelling operations and
marina bund at each pier head. See Appendix C photo 5 of a typical pier head location at Half Moon Bay. However if waste facilities are
refuelling equipment; and
located at the pier heads there will be significant reverse sensitivity issues of odour and noise and visual intrusion that could include
(f) stormwater generated from the marina screening and secure access to prevent use by the public. For similar reasons it may also be difficult to provide waste facilities that match
complex. current provisions within convenient distance from pier heads.

(7) Require any marina development to be of a Achieved to the extent that although the PHBHA do not believe this policy has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
scale, design and location that remedies or proposal is not a “marina development”, but it is
mitigates adverse effects on the coastal located within the marina zone: 7(b) – for the reasons stated under I431.2 Objectives (1) and (6) the proposed development has a significant adverse effect on visual and
environment, particularly in relation to the The proposed building complies with all amenity values in the locality. Notably the effects of the increases in building height and roof line changes compared to the consented
following matters: development standards for the zone. development; namely:-
(a) the natural character of the coastal The development is likely to encourage
environment; increased recreational use of the precinct by the - Other buildings in the marina precinct are as far as is practicable free of roof projections, mechanical plant and the like. The
(b) effects on the recreational, visual and provision of facilities that attract visitors. Lighting additional visual intrusion as a result of the increase in height, and the presence of projections from the roof are wholly inconsistent
amenity values in the locality, including lighting will not affect the marina area as lighting within with the 9m maximum height standard and continuous “ceiling” roof line appearance of the previously consented building.
effects; the apartments will be used in times when boats - The addition of screening, combined with the visibility of mechanical plant, and lift shafts and roof access will be visible from
(c) public access to, along and within the coastal rarely use the marina services. properties in Tui Brae, Pine Harbour Parade and sub precincts D and E where permitted activities include dwellings and heights can
marine area; Enhanced with the covered walkway being extend to 18m.
(d) effects on the landscape elements and proposed
features; Landscaping plan prepared to soften the effects The visual impact of these changes will substantially detract from the amenity environment and coastal setting of the Marina.
(e) effects on historic heritage or Mana Whenua of the development
values; No effects on historic heritage are proposed 7(f) – for the reasons stated under I431.3 Policy (5) PHBHA consider the noise effects and other reverse sensitivity effects have been
(f) noise effects including construction noise and Construction noise will be controlled by consent understated; namely:-
ongoing operational noise, such as halyard slap; conditions; halyard slap will be managed by
(i) the need for capital works and maintenance marina management to some extent, but that is 1. Apart from wind noise from the marina basin there is the potential for significant noise arising from early morning and late night
dredging within the marina and any part of normal marina noise. (currently only Friday) ferry users. The current timetable has some 40 ferry movements per day with sailings commencing at
approach/entrance channel; Passenger services will be enhanced by the 6:20am and 7 sailings between 6:20am and 8:20am. The existing ferry vessels are well utilised and carry up to 100 passengers.
proposal – better bus facilities, increased Late night ferries (currently only on Fridays) arrive at about 9:40pm and 11:40pm. The planned and current population growth in
(j) effects on other users of the coastal marine number of potential passengers from the 28 the Beachlands and Maraetai area can only increase demand and the related effects.
area including existing maritime passenger apartments. 2. While most berth holder arrivals and departures are during the day, fine weather and dependency on tides due to limited depth in
operations, moorings and public boat ramps; The road network has been assessed as the channel and basin can result in late night and early morning movements and noise
capable of accommodating the additional traffic 3. Noise from helicopter traffic – there is an existing helipad point (which is used) located immediately to the south of the stream and
(k) effects on navigation and safety and the movements from the development.
adjacent to the access road. There appears to be no consideration of the noise and number of movements in the Application AEE.
need for any aids to navigation; The Pine Harbour Precinct plan 1 has been
taken into consideration in the development In our view further investigation of possible remedies or mitigations is required.
(l) shore-based facilities including car and trailer proposal, which is largely in keeping with it.
parking, boat storage and maintenance areas, 7(i) – This part of the Policy was not addressed in the Application. As stated under F3.3(1) and (4) the proposed development does not
administration buildings, public toilets, boat There was no assessment of the highlighted appear to have considered future capital works needs for the marina. Namely:-
racks, lockers, public access and esplanade policies in the Application by PHML
reserves, landscaping and urban design - measures to raise the height of the marina bund, maintain surface water drainage, upgrade utility services to the marina piers as
treatment; well as reposition related infrastructure such as access ramps and the like.

440
F3.3. Policies [rcp/dp] Assessment Submission Comments
(m) the effects of additional traffic generation on 7(k) - This part of the Policy was not addressed in the Application. The change to residential occupation and 3 rather than 2 floors has the
the road network and any measures to mitigate potential to create a significant navigational hazard in the form of light glare and the effect on the night vision of people handling boats at
these effects; and night.

(n) consideration of any relevant council 7(l) - This part of the Policy was not addressed in the Application. The proposed development and Application in its current form does not
structure plans, concept plans, strategies, consider or remedy the effect of the loss of car parks dedicated for berth holder use nor does it consider the loss of convenience of the
reserve management plans, designations or berth holder car parking immediately adjacent piers A, B and C.
additional limitations that apply to the adjoining
land.

(8) Provide for public access to be restricted Achieved. There will be no public access to the This Policy appears to be achieved.
only where it is necessary for public health, dwelling areas.
safety, security or operational reasons.
(10) Allow activities that do not have a functional Achieved. The proposed activities do not PHBHA do not believe this policy has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
need for a coastal location only where all of the prevent functional marina activities from locating
following can be demonstrated: in the wider precinct – they are prioritised in (10)(a) and (c) – As previously stated under F3.3(2) the main provision for non-industrial marine related activities is Sub Precinct F. Sub
(a) the proposed activities will not conflict with, sub-precincts set down for functional activities Precinct G (not C) is set aside for Marine Industry and the Precinct Plan states:-
or limit, the operation of marina activities, such as sub-precinct C (marina commercial)
maritime passenger operations or other marine- and the marina berthing area. Provision is made Sub-precinct G provides specifically for marine industrial activities.
related activities that are undertaken in the for potential Marina Retail within the new Marine related uses which are non-industrial in nature (such as offices and clubrooms) are non-complying activities to recognise
Coastal – Marina Zone; building. the limited spatial extent of sub-precinct G. This is to ensure that non-marine industrial activities do not undermine the efficient use
The proposed activities, such as residential of this limited space.
(c) adequate provision remains for existing development will not conflict with but rather
activities that have a functional or operational complement the marina activities. Berth holders While there is some opportunity for marine retail in the proposed development, the opportunity for other compatible business activities is
need for a coastal location; will still have access to their marinas, will have significantly diminished by the conversion of some 1600m2 of office space in the consented development to residential occupation.
(d) public access to and use of the coastal the opportunity to live near their boats; and the
marine area will be maintained or enhanced; ferry services will have enhanced potential (10)(f) – For the reasons stated previously PHBHA do not believe the proposed development complements its particular coastal location.
(e) the development is integrated with public passengers and improved facilities (bus stops). Notably:-
transport, where relevant; and The proposal does not prevent functional marina - The 3m pedestrian walkway immediately adjacent to the marina bund (which requires a safety rail) and immediately adjacent ground
(f) the development is designed to complement activities from locating in the wider precinct – level units as well as overhanging canopy all serve to create a waterfront that is completely out of character with (a) the remainder of
its particular coastal location. they are prioritised in sub-precincts set down for the Pine Harbour Marina waterfront, (b) any other marina PHBHA can think of in the Auckland area and (c) the form and character of
functional activities such as sub-precinct C existing developments around the Beachlands and Maraetai waterfronts.
(marina commercial) and the marina berthing
area. Provision is made for potential Marina
Retail within the new building.
The coastal walkway/cycleway will be enhanced
with an additional stretch added to the network.
The walkway in front of the development will be
covered for all weather access.
Additional dwellings will be located within close
proximity to the ferry service; Improved bus
facilities are proposed.
The development has been designed to
integrate with existing development in the
locality and to enhance the coastal setting and
experience. All buildings will open out onto the
marina interface.

E27 Transport Assessment Submission Comments


E27.2. Objectives (1) – (6) Complies. See previous discussions on access No comment
These objectives promote integration of to ferries integrated with bus stops provided,
transport modes including walking, cycling, PT and the new cycle walkways.
and private vehicles, parking and loading that

441
E27 Transport Assessment Submission Comments
supports the development, pedestrian safety,
and crossings safety.
E27.3. Policies Achieved. The effects on the networks is PHBHA do not believe this Objective has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
The policies are divided into a number of minimal – see traffic report – and PT and other
categories. Firstly They aim for development to alternatives are provided next to the As previously stated under I431.2(4) It appears the consideration “safe” has not been assessed in the context of vehicle manoeuvres and
minimise effects on the safe, efficient and development. peak periods. Namely:-
effective operation of the transport network, and Achieved. The minimum parking requirements
to provide alternatives to private travel, and also are provided for in the application. - The location of garages with ingress and egress directly onto the marina access road (Jack Lachlan Drive) creates a significant road
require an integrated approach to travel in safety hazard on the safe operation of the road that serves the marina due to the potential conflicts with vehicle movements by ferry
proposals. passengers, berth holders and general public accessing the car parks, hammerhead area and boat ramp as well as the conflict with
bus movements.

- The majority of garages are perpendicular to the access road which is narrower than most urban streets and a number of parking
spaces opposite the development are also perpendicular to the access road.

- The current ferries carry up to approx. 100 passengers and large proportion park in the public car park or in the parallel parking
spaces along the access road.

- It is reasonable to expect that the peak period for ferry and bus related traffic movements will coincide with movements in and out of
the apartment garages and adjacent car parks. Similarly it is reasonable to expect the conflicts will be greater with residential
occupation than solely marine commercial.

In our view the development does not achieve the object for a “safe” transport network and the change to residential use would
significantly increase the safety concerns created by the consented development.
Secondly parking is to be provided in a way to Achieved. Adequate space is provided for PHBHA do not believe this Objective has been achieved. We consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
ensure safety, to encourage use of alternatives, loading in a safe and efficient manner.
and minimum numbers of parks are required on Achieved – see traffic report. - It appears no consideration has been given to the loading and unloading activities of berth holders
site. Achieved. An existing accessway is provided - Parking areas opposite the development are perpendicular to the access road – see E27.3 – and increased safety risks
A safe loading area is required in a way that immediately adjacent to the development. - Access to garages similarly increases traffic safety risk.
avoids conflicts with pedestrians and vehicles.
Parking areas are to be designed to avoid safety
issues especially on roads.
Safe access is to be provided.

442
Reference Consent Application number: LUC60305157
Appendix C to Submission Dated: 7th February 2018 by PINE HARBOUR BERTH
HOLDERS ASSOCIATION
Photographs

Photo 1- Ranger House – Shows 2 Level Development, Ferry Terminal (Part of Pier A) and Piers B and C

Photo 2 PHM Roof Lines and Development Sub Precincts C & D

443
Photo 3 Gulf Harbour Pier Head Access

Photo 4 Gulf Harbour Pier L Security Waste and Trundler Facilities

444
Photo 5 Half Moon Bay Security Waste and Trundler Facilities

Photo 6 Pine Harbour Existing Pier Access Pier G

445
Photo 7 Pine Harbour Pier C Waste and Trundler Facilities – Apartment Showroom and Floor Elevations
(Scaffolding) Shown to the Right.

Photo 8 Pine Harbour Pier D Waste and Trundler Facilities – Oil Waste Receiver Behind Blue Waste Bin

446
Photo 9 Pine Harbour Mooring Poles at About High Water 5 January 2018

447
Photo 10 Pine Harbour Marina Bund Adjacent to Pier D at About High Tide 5 Jan 2018

448
Submission 43 (44 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Richard and Alecia Steel <richard.alecia.steel@gmail.com>


Sent: Thursday, 8 February 2018 10:16 a.m.
To: RCregulatorysupport south
Subject: Submission Relating to Application for Resource Consent - Application
Number LUC60305171
Attachments: LUC60305157 - R&A Steel Submission - Main and Appendices.pdf

Categories: Submissions to log

ATTENTION: 
 
Auckland Council 
Manager: Southern Resource Consents 
 
Please find attached a submission from Richard and Alecia Steel in relation to Application Number LUC6030571.
 
Please confirm receipt. 
 
Sincerely 
 
 
 
Richard and Alecia Steel 
Home +64 9 537 3450 
Mobile – Richard +64 21 537 349 
Mobile – Alecia +64 21 537 348 
Email – richard.alecia.steel@gmail.com 
 

449
450
451
Date: 8th February 2018

To: Auckland Council


Manager, Southern Resource Consents
Private Bag 92300
Auckland 1142
ATTENTION:- Regulatory Support Team (Manukau)

Application number: LUC60305157

Application details: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four
buildings for commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public
footpath, upgrade an existing private road, removal of trees and construct a
pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Applicant: Pine Harbour Marina Limited


Craig Shearer
Email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Shearer Consulting Limited
PO Box 60240
Titirangi, Auckland 0644

Submission From: Richard and Alecia Steel


52 Castleton Drive
Howick
Auckland 2014
Phone: Home 09 5373450 Mobile (Richard) 021 537 349

SUBMISSION

1. INFORMATION CONSIDERED IN THIS SUBMISSION


In preparing my submission I have referred to the following:

1. Auckland Unitary Plan and Precinct Plan for Pine Harbour Marina

2. Original Application and s92 Requests and Responses in respect of Application number(s):
50852, P50852

3. Section 104 Report in respect of Application number(s): 50852, P50852

4. Final Notification Decision in respect of Application number(s): 50852, P50852

5. Notification Report in respect of Application number(s): LUC60305157

6. Final Notification Report in respect of Application number(s): LUC60305157

7. Application LUC60305157 details comprising:

a. Application Cover Letter

b. Application and AEE

c. Appendices 1 to 5

452
d. S92 questions and response, Acoustic Report and Updated Architectural Drawings

8. AUP Independent Hearings Panel, Precincts South Hearings, Report dated July 2016

9. Schedule to Pine Harbour Marina Zone Plan Change No 34.

10. I note that the Application references an approved consent for a commercial development
of similar scale and effects; Application number(s): 50852, P50852.
It has been necessary to refer to the consented development to fully understand and
comment on the effects of the current Application LUC60305157.

2. BACKGROUND TO SUBMISSION
I (Richard Steel) am a chartered civil engineer (UK) and a Member of the Institution of Civil
Engineers and a Member of the Institution of Highways and Transportation. I have been
resident in New Zealand since 1989 and I am a New Zealand citizen.

I was employed by Beca Ltd and related and predecessor companies from 1981. I was a senior
shareholder in the Beca group and have been a Project Director for transport related projects
from planning through to construction, including projects for Auckland Transport and New
Zealand Transport Agency. Before retiring from full time employment in January 2015 I held the
position of Business Director – Infrastructure.

Together with my wife Alecia, I hold Marina Berth Licences (Recreational Long Term) for berths
E72 and B18 at Pine Harbour Marina. The term of the licences (leases) currently extends to
2035. Both berths are currently rented under monthly sub lease arrangements managed by Pine
Harbour Marina Management Limited (PHMML). We have retained the licences for these
berths for our possible future use.

I am currently Chairman of the Pine Harbour Berth Holders Association (PHBHA) which was
formed in October 2016.

I became aware of a proposed apartment development within Sub-Precinct F when Pine


Harbour Marina Limited (PHML) contacted PHBHA and invited representatives, including myself
as the chairman of PHBHA, to meet with representatives of PHML and parent company Empire
Capital. That meeting took place on 19 September 2017.

On or about 14 September 2017 PHML advised all berth holders of a proposed development
through an emailed letter. The timing of the letter from PHML and the meeting of 19
September 2017 coincided with the start to construction of the showroom that currently
occupies part of the site. The Application cover letter for LUC60305157 is dated July 2017 and I
note that PHML only contacted all berth holders at the start to construction of the showroom,
rendering the consultation undertaken by PHML almost meaningless.

I also note that there is no mention of the meeting with PHBHA or the concerns that Ire raised
by PHBHA in the notification report or the s92 responses from PHML

At the 19 September 2017 meeting PHML advised they Ire seeking a non-notified consent for an
apartment development. Only limited information was provided by PHML at that time and
there were no binding commitments offered by PHML to remedy or mitigate the effects on
berth holders. As a consequence I contacted Council and the Council’s consultant planner on
behalf of PHBHA requesting notification and explaining some of the concerns raised with PHML.

453
PHBHA’s communication to Council was consistent with my own concerns and noted that there
were a number of significant adverse amenity value effects related to the proposed
development in sub precinct F; namely:

“PHBHA is extremely concerned that the proposed development has the potential to
inflict significant detrimental effects on the amenity value and use of berths on A, B and
C and also D piers. I have made ECL and PHML aware of specific concerns, including but
not limited to:

1. Loss of secured (for berth holder use only) vehicle access at each pier head for
the drop off and pick up of boat maintenance equipment, provisions, fishing
gear, travel bags, bedding etc etc.

2. Loss of immediate access at each pier head to trolleys for the movement of
the above loads.

3. Loss of immediate access at the pier heads to refuse and recycling bins.

4. Potential conflict of use and interest between berth holders, ferry users and
development residents.

5. Apparent inconsistency with the provisions of the Precinct Plan which appears
to limit developments to a max of 2 storeys (Ground plus one upper floor?)

ECL and PHML are aware of these concerns but currently have no detailed plans that
address these issues to the satisfaction of PHBHA. PHBHA is concerned that consents
for the development should be formally consulted and/or appropriate conditions
imposed to protect the interests of berth holders and the use and amenity value of the
affected berths.”

In addition to the above it has since become apparent that the proposed development will
result in the loss of 34 conveniently located car parks immediately adjacent to piers A, B and C.

As will be explained in this submission, consideration of the detailed information for the
Application has both reinforced the above concerns and identified a number of further
concerns.

I am grateful to the Duty Commissioner for his decision to publicly notify consent application
LUC60305157.

I note that the consent in respect of Application number(s): 50852, P50852 was non-notified.
To the best of my knowledge PHML did not contact PHBHA or any berth holders to discuss the
application for the consented commercial development. Consequently I and others Ire unaware
of Application number(s): 50852, P50852 and the related consent until the documentation for
Application LUC60305157 was made available as a result of public notification.

I note that PHML have not contacted berth holders or PHBHA to discuss the Application since
Public Notification on 10 January 2018. I also note that Pine Harbour Marina recently published
a newsletter to all berth holders on 25 January 2018 and have made no reference to the public
notification.

I have read the Final Notification Report for Application number(s): 50852, P50852 and have
been unable to find any mention of berth holders as affected parties. It appears that Section 7
Public Notification Assessment (sections 95A, 95C-95D) did not consider that there are some
169 berth holders (Piers A, B and C) directly affected by significantly diminished marina amenity

454
value due to the consented commercial development and consequently also the proposed
residential development.

A word search reveals that the words “berth” or “berth holder” do not appear anywhere in the
AEE for Application number(s): 50852, P50852. The only reference to “berth” or “berth holder”
in the AEE for Application LUC60305157 relates to maintenance of berth access.

3. STRUCTURE OF THIS SUBMISSION


I understand that the consent for Application number(s): 50852, P50852 may have established a
“consented baseline”. For that reason I have focussed PART 1 of this submission regarding
Application No LUC60305157 on matters of process, the Gateway Test and significant omitted
effects, Objectives and Policies.

 Process – Consent or Plan Change - Standards Applicable to the Pine Harbour Precinct

 Gateway Test

o Significant adverse effects – notably related to visual intrusion and reverse sensitivity
as a result of residential occupation

o Assessment of Relevant Objectives and Policies

 Significant omitted effects – notably related to amenity value, and construction effects

PART 2 of this submission goes on to address other effects and/or aspects of the proposed
development which; while similar to the consented development, appear to create potentially
significant issues that may require further consideration; notably:

 Traffic safety

 Flooding

 Coastal Inundation

This submission is supported by and includes the Appendices A (page27), B (pages 28 to 37) and
C (pages 38 to 43).

PART 1
4.1 PROCESS – CONSENT OR PLAN CHANGE - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE
PINE HARBOUR PRECINCT
4.1.1 Precinct Layout and Description

I431.1. Precinct description states:

The precinct is divided into seven sub-precincts compassing the land based marine industry,
residential and commercial activity and open space purposes. Pine Harbour: Precinct plan 1
also identifies the indicative location of the stormwater management area. This covers the
existing watercourse, stormwater pond and the area which may be required for the future
expansion of the pond.

Sub-precinct A – Open Space

455
Sub-precinct A overlooks the marina and will be bordered by a range of mixed use buildings.
It is to operate as a multi-functional area and is the “green heart” of Pine Harbour. The green
itself will be largely free of landscape interventions or buildings and can be used for a range
of passive recreational activities.

Sub-precinct A incorporates a future plaza area between Sub-precinct D (Southern


Apartments) and Sub-precinct E (Northern Apartments). This plaza is the pedestrian
extension of Ninth View Avenue into Pine Harbour from the Beachlands Precinct. The
landscape features of this plaza will provide a strong focal connection through to the marina
itself. Pine Harbour: Precinct plan 1 illustrates the location of the future excavation area to
extend the marina. The provisions of Sub-precinct A will continue to apply to this area until
resource consent for the extension of the marina is granted.

Sub-precinct B – Transition Residential North

Sub-precinct B is the transitional area between the existing low density residential
development in Beachlands and the higher density apartments within the precinct. The
purpose of Sub-precinct B is to ensure transitional quality and integration with the existing
Beachlands urban area and the Beachlands

Sub-precinct C – Transition Residential South

Sub-precinct C provides for a transition upon entering Pine Harbour. Houses within this
precinct are expected to allow shared views across the riparian corridor for the public and
occupants. The bulk and form of the dwellings should be compatible with existing
development adjoining to the south in Tui Brae.

Sub-precinct D – Southern Apartments

Sub-precinct D enables terrace housing and apartment building development. The majority of
this sub-precinct is to contain apartments up to three storeys high.

Sub-precinct E – Northern Apartments

Sub-precinct E enables terrace housing and apartment building development. The majority of
this sub-precinct is to contain apartments up to four storeys high.

Sub-precinct F – Marina Commercial

Sub-precinct F covers the existing commercial buildings and the additional area which may be
required for future commercial buildings servicing the marina and marine-related uses, such
as marine retail and offices. Sub-precinct F does not provide for marine industrial activities.
Sub-precinct F is located adjacent to the current ferry terminal.

Sub-precinct G – Marine Industry

Sub-precinct G provides specifically for marine industrial activities. Marine related uses which
are non-industrial in nature (such as offices and clubrooms) are non-complying activities to
recognise the limited spatial extent of sub-precinct G. This is to ensure that non-marine
industrial activities do not undermine the efficient use of this limited space.

Sub-precinct G has a maximum building height of 9m and a building restriction line to ensure
that coastal views from the established residential area along Pine Harbour Parade are
generally retained. Additional height to cater for the stacking of boats in non-enclosed
structures is enabled to 12m as a discretionary activity.

456
The additional height areas shown in Pine Harbour: Precinct plan 1 enables maximum height
of 18m, which allows for apartments of five storeys. These buildings are key marker buildings,
which require the design to clearly address each street frontage. The additional height will be
used to articulate the prominence of the corners.

A copy of I431.10.1 Pine Harbour Precinct Plan 1 is attached as Appendix A. The proposed
development is located in sub precinct F and as noted in the Precinct Description this is the only
area dedicated to “marina commercial”. As stated in the Application residential occupation
would be a non-complying activity.

4.1.2 Standards
The Application includes three areas of non-compliance with the standards set out in the
Precinct Plan for Pine Harbour; namely:-

 Activity
 Height
 Number of Floors
These are discussed in more detail below.

Activity

I431.4.3 Activity Table – Sub-precincts F and G

Activity Activity status


Sub-precinct F Sub-precinct G
Use
Commerce
(A17) Construction of new RD RD
buildings
(A18) Clubrooms for marine P NC
related clubs
(A19) Food and beverage RD NC
(A20) Dairies with a gross P NC
floor area up to 100m2
(A21) Dairies with a gross RD NC
floor area greater than
100m2
(A22) Offices P NC
(A23) Marine retail with a P NC
gross floor area up to
100m2
(A24) Marine retail with a RD NC
gross floor area greater
than 100m2
Industry
(A25) Marine industry NC P
(A26) Boat stacks with a non- NA P
enclosed structures,
travel lifts and boat
haulage structures
complying with
Standard I431.6.16
(A27) Boat stacks with a non- NA D
enclosed structures,
travel lifts and boat

457
Activity Activity status
Sub-precinct F Sub-precinct G
haulage structures not
complying with
Standard I431.6.16(1)
and the boat stack
height is between 9m –
12m.
(A28) Public transport P NA
facilities

It is clear from the Precinct Description and Precinct Plan 1 that the Plan makes substantial
provision for residential development whereas residential activities in the area proposed (sub
precinct F) are non-complying.

As noted in the Application residential occupation would be a non-complying activity. In my


opinion the Precinct Description and definitions related to the Permitted and Restricted
Discretionary activities (a) make it clear that sub precinct F is the only sub precinct that provides
for Marine Commercial activities, and (b) provide a clear guide to the nature of development
within Sub Precinct F. The operative words in the description are “Sub-precinct F covers the
existing commercial buildings and the additional area which may be required for future
commercial buildings servicing the marina and marine-related uses…….” Apartments are not
provided for and in my view the land needs to be retained for the identified purposes.

In addition the Precinct Plan and Standards contained in I431 Ire informed by and are consistent
with PINE HARBOUR MARINA ZONE PLAN CHANGE NO. 34. PC 34 also contains an informative
explanation for the Development Standards for Buildings contained therein.
Explanation/Reasons
A range of possible floor numbers along with a maximum permitted height have been provided to
guide the expected level of development while at the same time addressing the visual amenity
values of the coastal environment and views from the surrounding elevated residential areas. A
range of heights has been provided for to ensure a monotonous roof line does not result and
also to ensure more prominent buildings can be developed in key locations.

Lot widths and depths and front setbacks have been set for the Northern Terraces and Gateway
Integrated Housing Precincts which are likely to be developed for terrace housing or duplexes
respectively. These controls will ensure each lot is of an adequate size while at the same time
controlling, in part, potential adverse effects on adjoining sites or the streetscape.

Controls on building coverage, impermeable areas and permeable areas have been set for the
Northern Terraces and Gateway Integrated Housing Precincts where a lower density of
development is required and outdoor private open spaces are to be provided. Although a 100%
maximum impermeable area is provided in the in the Gateway Apartments, Village Apartments,
Marine Commercial and Marine Services, to allow for total coverage over these areas by the
basement car parking, a maximum above ground site coverage for individual precincts is
required. This will allow for the development of open space on the basement car parking “roof”
as part of the development within these precincts.

Building Height, Floors and Roofline


Table I431.6.3.1 Maximum height

Sub-precinct Maximum height

F 9m

458
Table 1431.6.2.1 Number of Floors

Sub Precinct Minimum number of Maximum number of storey


storey

F 2 2

I have a number of observations regarding the height, floors and roofline of the proposed
residential development compared to the consented commercial development.

 The Final Notification for the consented commercial development states.

 However; I have found no information in Application number(s): 50852, P50852 nor in the
related s92 information that explains the “up to 10m including mechanical plants” included
in the Final Notification Report for the consented commercial development.

 The consent for Application number(s): 50852, P50852 makes no mention of any relaxation
of the maximum height standard for mechanical plant projections.

 The Architectural Design Statement that formed part of Application number(s): 50852,
P50852 states:

o Mechanical plant and lift towers are integrated into the building structure and do not
project beyond the line of the roof. The line of the roof is broken by splitting the
development into a number of buildings. These buildings are further subdivided through
the inclusion of articulated stair cores to the south and balconies to the north.

 The Urban Design Report prepared by Ian Munro and submitted as part of the s92 response
for Application number(s): 50852, P50852 included the following statement on page 8.

 Based on the foregoing observations I understand that the consented baseline is for a
building with a maximum height of 9m and consistent building height – i.e. no projections for
mechanical plant or lift towers, nor any projection for screening.

Section 3.2 of the Application for Resource Consent for the Residential development states in
two separate paragraphs:

459
These statements are inconsistent with the Notification report for Application LUC60305157
which states:

I can find no dimensions on the architectural drawings (either in the Application or updated
drawings following the s92 request) that provide the finished levels for the screening to the
mechanical plan or the lift shafts.

Nor can I find any explanation for the differences between the statements in the Application
AEE, the development plans and Notification Report.

The architectural drawings for the residential development clearly show that the screening for
the mechanical plant extends right around the roof line of each block and the lift shafts and
stairwells extend above the screening, presumably by a further metre. I believe that the
dimensions of the screening and lift shafts and stairway roof access need to be verified.

Based on the drawings and dimension given in the Final Notification Report it is clear (if those
dimensions are correct) the actual building height based on screening right around the
roofline is 10m and the projecting lift shafts extend to 11m. The permitted height is 9m.

The application to increase the maximum permitted height appears to be driven by PHML’s
desire to accommodate the change from 2 to 3 floors which in turn is driven by the desire to
allow residential occupation.

I further note that the other buildings in the marina precinct are as far as is practicable free of
roof projections, mechanical plant and the like.

The additional visual intrusion as a result of the increase in height, and the presence of
projections from the roof are wholly inconsistent with the 9m maximum height standard and
appearance of the previously consented building.

The visibility of mechanical plant and lift shafts and stairs for roof access from elevated
properties in Tui Brae, Pine Harbour Parade and sub precincts D and E (where activities include

460
dwellings and permitted heights can extend to 18m) results in significant (not minor) visual
intrusion compared to the consented development.

4.1.3 Consent or Plan Change Process Considerations


Plan Change Precedents
The application to allow increased height as well as a 50% increase in gross floor area (2 floors
to 3 floors) and change to provide residential occupation are, in my view significant changes to
the consented application. They also represent a significant departure from the standards and
intent of the existing Precinct Plan.

I are aware of the Auckland Unitary Plan –Plan Change 4. Council has initiated Plan Change 4 to
address technical errors or anomalies in the existing Precinct Plan and allow public participation
in that process.

Plan Change 4 indicates to me the level at which changes to Standards should be made.

The Precinct Plan and standards in the plan have come about as a result of a robust RMA
process and should not be deviated from lightly. Accordingly it seems inappropriate to consider
the changes proposed by the Application in isolation as a part of a resource consent.

Population Changes

Based on a pro rata assessment the population in 2015 was 9881 and in 2018 population was
11,364 - an increase of 1,483. i.e. some 15% of the population are new to the area and are
unlikely to have participated in PAUP at that time.

It is also clear from the above population growth estimates that current district planning
provides for further residential growth of some 8000 people between 2018 and 2041.

I consider that PHML have not included a level of detailed consideration of the future growth of
the area that is warranted by the proposal. In particular the AEE does not include a level of
detail that corresponds to the level of effects of a proposal.
In my view PHML should be required to provide a detailed strategic analysis of the future
growth of the area if they wish to deviate from the plan as this is how the original plan was
determined.

461
Activity Descriptions
Within the AEE there are statements that marina and marine-related activities such as marine
retail and offices are provided for in other sub precincts. Sub Precinct D includes for Dairies,
Offices and Retail activities but not marine retail although that would be a relatively minor
change and marine retail was previously located in this sub precinct. However the description
for sub precinct D states “The majority of this sub-precinct is to contain apartments up to three
storeys high.” The Precinct Description also states:-
Sub-precinct F – Marina Commercial
Sub-precinct F covers the existing commercial buildings and the additional area which may be
required for future commercial buildings servicing the marina and marine-related uses, such
as marine retail and offices. Sub-precinct F does not provide for marine industrial activities.
Sub-precinct F is located adjacent to the current ferry terminal.

Sub-precinct G – Marine Industry


Sub-precinct G provides specifically for marine industrial activities. Marine related uses which
are non-industrial in nature (such as offices and clubrooms) are non-complying activities to
recognise the limited spatial extent of sub-precinct G. This is to ensure that non-marine
industrial activities do not undermine the efficient use of this limited space.
I can see no other provision for Marina Commercial in the Precinct Plan other than in sub
precincts F and the limited provision in Sub Precinct D.

The precinct plan provides for extensive residential occupation within other sub-precinct areas
but limited area for ‘Marina Commercial’ activities. This allocation of activities is based on
detailed strategic planning and recognises the limited spatial extent of the wider marina area
and the need to ensure activities are situated in a manner that provides for future growth,
efficient servicing and the avoidance of reverse sensitivity effects.

The current proposal provides no justification for the deviation from this precinct plan and
potentially precludes the future development of ‘Marina Commercial’ activities, which are
necessary for the efficient functioning of the marina and wider environment.

Independent Hearings Panel July 2016


I also note the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) (July 2016) previously rejected an application
by PHML for residential occupation in Sub Precinct F and supported Council’s Mr Scott whose
evidence stated:

“This sub-precinct has been specifically identified for marina commercial and office
activity and has been provided in this location due to its close proximity to the marina
itself so that land based marina related activity or marina complementary activity can
be established there.

In my view, there is a clear functional need for these activities to be in this sub-
precinct (i.e. adjoining the marina) and as such it represents a scarce resource as
marina related activity cannot easily, or as efficiently, be located elsewhere in the
precinct. In contrast, the Pine Harbour precinct has provided for residential activity in
various forms and intensities throughout the precinct and residential activity can be
easily located in these other locations. The zones surrounding the precinct are also
exclusively residential. Furthermore, and notwithstanding the obvious amenity
advantages to being located directly adjacent to the CMA, residential activity has no
functional need to be located directly adjacent to the CMA. For these reasons, it is
my opinion that there should be no provision for residential activity in this sub-
precinct and it should remain a non-complying activity.”

462
I note PHM did not appeal the findings of the Independent Hearings Panel. In my view the
above comments are still highly relevant and I fully support those comments.

Urban Design in Relation to Sub Precinct F


In response to the Council’s s92 request regarding the commercial development Ian Munro
opened his Urban Design Letter (4 October 2016) with the following comments.

In my view Ian Munro’s comments clearly indicate that the current Precinct Plan with respect to
sub precinct F has some deficiencies and it may be possible to achieve a development outcome
that is more appropriate to the location.

It seems inappropriate to consider changes to height, floor and activity rules for sub precinct F
without wider consideration of the development that is already occurring within the marina,
the Beachlands – Maraetai area and the other factors that I have commented on above.

Application s92 Response


Council requested PHML to respond to a number of questions related to the Application;
including:

“5. It is noted that the potential for inclusion of residential activities in Sub Precinct F was
declined by the Independent Hearing Panel for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Please
provide additional comment and assessment regarding:

(a) The necessity and appropriateness for residential activities in this location, compared
to its zoned purpose.

463
(b) Please provide an economic report which confirms that the total area of commercial
activities provided at ground floor is sufficient to meet the needs of the Precinct, and
addresses/identifies any wider effects resulting from the loss of commercial land at this
location.
(c) Any cumulative effects resulting from this application (i.e. will the loss of commercial
space be required to be offset somewhere else on the site which is not envisaged by the
Precinct?)”

With respect to question (b) PHML provided an analysis of current use and capacity in the
marina zone and concluded there was ample capacity for marina commercial activities.

As stated previously I consider that PHML have not included a level of detailed consideration of
the future growth of the area that is warranted by the proposal. In particular the AEE does not
include a level of detail that corresponds to the level of effects of the proposed development.
In my view PHML should be required to provide a detailed strategic analysis of the future
growth of the area and a comparative assessment with other marinas if they wish to deviate
from the plan.

In hindsight and given the scale of the consented development such an analysis (and/or s92
request) should have been undertaken before PHML applied for and were granted a consent for
that development.

With respect to question (a) the response notes that residential uses are not a physical
necessity at this location (sub precinct F) and goes on the state:

However it should also be noted that there is a strong desire to be located adjacent to the
water edge by potential residential users. This demand for water’s edge can been seen across
the wider Auckland region as evidenced by the demand for water side property. The desire to
be located adjacent to the water requires the need to provide dwellings located adjacent to
the water.
In respect of the necessity and appropriateness for residential activities in this location the
only activities likely to locate above ground floor are offices and there is already sufficient
capacity for this use within the proposed building and within other buildings in the Precinct.
With passenger transport services (ferry and bus stops) immediately adjacent to the
proposed building, it is appropriate to have residential development at this location as the
locational advantages encourage the use of this mode of transport as opposed to private
vehicles.

I do not believe PHML have made a compelling case for the “necessity and appropriateness for
residential activities”. In particular because:

1. There has been no analysis of the supply of residential accommodation – although there
appears to be sufficient provision for residential occupation elsewhere within the Precinct
and the surrounding residential areas.

2. I believe the effect of the proximity to the ferry terminal on ferry demand is “de minimus”
in the context of other residential buildings in the Precinct and the existing ferry use from
the area as a whole.

3. Waterfront space is a precious asset that has multiple potential uses and amenity values.

4. Because waterfront space is desirable residentially it is all the more important to consider
its wider amenity use before allowing such development.

464
5. The marina is the primary occupant in the marina zone (570 berths/berth holders) and
recreational boating is the primary activity. Preservation of the amenity values of the
marina should be the paramount consideration in the use of sub precinct F.

PHML have an understandable commercial interest in maximising the commercial return from
the ownership of Sub-precinct F. This creates a conflict of interest with respect to the
consideration and protection of the amenity values of the marina.

I believe it is appropriate to reconsider the use of this sub precinct but not through the consent
process. Ian Munro’s comments above under Urban Design in Relation to Sub Precinct F
emphasise the need for such reconsideration.

Coastal Inundation
In addition I note that Council’s Technical Report 2016/017 Coastal Inundation by Storm-tides
and Waves in the Auckland Region was published in June 2016.

In this regard it appears the extent and probabilities of coastal inundation were not available at
the time the Pine Harbour Precinct Plan was developed and land use and rules determined.

I suggest that the coastal inundation risk alone justifies reconsideration of the uses that should
be permitted in sub precinct F.

4.2 THE GATEWAY TEST


I refer to the Application AEE section 6 which addresses Section 104(d) of the RMA “The
Gateway Test”

The AEE states:-

The Act requires that one of the thresholds under s104D have to be met before a non-
complying application can be considered for granting.

The first test in, s104D(1)(a) is whether the adverse effects of the proposed activity on the
environment will be minor. For the reasons outlined in section 5.2 of this application, when
assessed against the existing environment created by the existing approved consent, the
effects of the activity on the environment will be less than minor.

The second test, s104D(1)(b) is whether the application is for an activity that will not be
contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant plan, in this case the Auckland Unitary
Plan. The assessment undertaken in section 5.3.4 and 5.3.5 above concludes that the
proposal is consistent with relevant provisions of the Plan and therefore also passes the
second test in that the proposal is not contrary to the objectives and policies of the plan.

As the application meets the both tests of section 104D of the Act the application can be
assessed under section 104 of the Act and a substantive decision made.

Given the critical importance of the “Gateway Test” I have included with my submission a
comparative assessment of the Relevant Objectives and Policies including the content from the
AEE. See Appendix B.

The assessment includes comments related to both of the above tests.

In my opinion there are a number of relevant objectives and policies that have not been
assessed in the Application. I have included those objectives and policies as highlighted text.
They have been included for completeness and to provide a more balanced assessment.

465
4.2.1 S104D(1)(a) Significant Adverse Effects
Visual Intrusion
As stated under Building Height, Floors and Roofline, section 4.1.2 of this submission I
understand that the permitted baseline is for a building with a maximum height of 9m and
consistent building height – i.e. no projections for mechanical plant or lift towers nor any
projection for screening.

I can find no dimensions on the architectural drawings that provide the finished levels for the
screening to the mechanical plan or the lift shafts. Nor can I find any explanation for the
differences between the statements in the Application AEE, the development plans and
Notification Report.

The architectural drawings for the residential development clearly show that the screening for
the mechanical plant extends right around the roof line of each block and the lift shafts and
stairwells extend above the screening, presumably by a further metre. I believe that the
dimensions of the screening and lift shafts and stairway roof access need to be verified.

Based on the drawings and dimension given in the Final Notification Report it is clear (if those
dimensions are correct) that the actual building height based on screening right around the
roofline is 10m and the projecting lift shafts extend to 11m.

I further note that the other buildings in the marina precinct are as far as is practicable free of
roof projections, mechanical plant and the like.

The proposed development creates and does not mitigate the significant adverse effects of
visual intrusion created by the increased height. Specifically the proposed development has
added screening of mechanical plant and unsightly lift and roof access projections above the
screening.

These additions are inconsistent with other buildings in the Precinct. In addition they will
impact on views from the elevated areas of Tui Brae, Pine Harbour Parade and sub precincts D
and E where permitted activities include dwellings and permitted heights extend to 18m.

The proposed development is inconsistent with the 9m maximum height statements in section
3.2 of the AEE and visual intrusion was not considered in AEE section 5.2 Section 104(1)(a)
Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment

I believe the visual intrusion effect of the proposed development is significant and adverse
when compared to the visual appearance of the previously consented building and the
permitted baseline.

The above comments should also be considered in the context of the existing development
within the Precinct as illustrated in Appendix C photos 1 and 2.

Reverse Sensitivity
The AEE states:

Reverse Sensitivity

There is potential for the mix of land uses proposed to be affected by normal marina
operations on a day to day basis, such as noise, thus creating reverse sensitivity issues. The
most noise however is likely to originate on the northern side of the marina where sub-
precinct G is located – the Marine Industry sub-precinct, where daily activities include loading

466
boats into and out of the water using the travel lift. Other industrial type activity occurs in
the area. This activity is confined to daylight hours and regardless is some 150m from the
proposed development and also shielded by a number of other buildings.

The area is however a working marina and those working and living in the proposed new
buildings will be aware that the environment is an active one with various boating and ferry
transport movements occurring on a regular basis. The reverse sensitivity effects of the
proposed development have been assessed as minor.

The reverse sensitivity effects arising from the change to residential occupation appear to be
understated and in my view would be significant (not minor) and render the location unsuitable
for residential occupation.

1. The noise levels generated from the marina are likely to be significant because:

a. Significant noise levels can be generated through wind and related harmonics in rigging
which are unrelated to halyard slap and not within the control of marina management.

b. Significant noise levels can arise from early morning and late night (currently only
Friday) ferry movements and ferry users. The current timetable has some 40 ferry
movements per day with sailings commencing at 6:20am and 7 sailings between 6:20am
and 8:20am. The existing ferry vessels are well utilised and carry up to 100 passengers.
Late night ferries (currently only on Fridays) arrive at about 9:40pm and 11:40pm. The
planned and current population growth in the Beachlands and Maraetai area can only
increase demand and the related effects.

While most berth holder arrivals and departures are during the day, fine weather and
dependency on tides due to limited depth in the channel and basin can result in late night
and early morning movements and related noise.

I note that in response to a s92 request Marshall Day have completed an acoustic
assessment in which they state:

The buildings are located within the Coastal – Marina Zone which has the following
noise rules:
E25.6.11 Noise levels in the Coastal – Marina Zone
1) The noise (rating) level arising from any activity in the Coastal – Marina Zone
measured within the boundary of any other site in this zone must not exceed the levels
in Table 25.6.7.11…
Table E25.6.7.1 Noise levels in the Coastal – Marina Zone
Time Coastal – Marina Zone
All times 60 dB LAeq

Marshall Day recommended a condition be applied to the dwellings to achieve an


appropriate internal acoustic amenity,
I note that E25.6.2. states:
(1) The noise (rating) levels and maximum noise level arising from any activity in the
Residential – Large Lot Zone, Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement Zone,
Residential – Single House Zone, Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone, Residential
– Mixed Housing Urban Zone and the Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment
Buildings Zone measured within the boundary of an adjacent site in these residential

467
zones must not exceed the levels in Table E25.6.2.1 Noise levels in residential zones
below:
Table E25.6.2.1 Noise levels in residential zones
Time Noise level
Monday to Saturday 7am-10pm
50dB LAeq
Sunday 9am-6pm
All other times 40dB LAeq
75dB LAFmax

While it appears that PHML are willing to design and insulate the dwellings to achieve
appropriate internal noise levels the need for such measures serves to illustrate the
significance of the reverse sensitivity related to noise and unsuitability of residential
occupation.

I also note that the Acoustic Assessment did not investigate or address the characteristics
of marina noise;

o when and where it occurs;

o its duration;

o physical characteristics, including the sound pressure level (loudness) and frequency
(pitch);

o its steadiness;

o variations of these properties; and

o whether special audible characteristics are present.

Given the significance of noise I question the adequacy of the assessment completed to
date and suggest that consideration is given to a further s92 request to fully understand the
noise effects.

2. Noise from helicopter traffic – there is an existing helipad point (which is used) located
immediately to the south of the stream and adjacent to the access road. I understand the
helipad may be relocated although the location will still be a similar distance from the
development. There appears to be no consideration of the noise and number of
movements in the Application AEE or s92 Acoustic Assessment prepared by Marshall Day.

3. Noise and odour hazards from waste facilities - At the meeting with PHML on 19
September 2017 they indicated waste facilities could be relocated from pier heads to the
access ways between the development blocks but there is no such provision on the plans.
Architectural Drwg RC101 [6] shows an area for waste and oil collection close to the
intersection of grid lines 38 and 25. This area appears to be inadequate when compared to
the space required for current waste facilities for piers A, B, C and D; and inconvenient
when assessed against the existing arrangements (at pier heads) and Policy F3.3 (4).

The location on Drwg RC101(6) appears sized to suit only one pier and flammable waste oil
storage seems to create a fire hazard due to the proximity to residential units. If all waste
from piers A, B, C and D are to be serviced from this location there will be significant odour
and noise issues for residents with multiple movements to deposit waste.

468
I note also that the access pathway on the west side of Building 1 appears to be limited to
about 1m width increasing the risk of spillage.

In my view the proposal lacks a credible waste management plan for waste from the
marina piers A, B C and D which needs to be consistent with AUP Policy F3.3 (4).

It would be possible to locate waste facilities to be convenient for berth holders (at the pier
heads) by taking the approach used at Half Moon Bay. Waste facilities and trundlers are
kept clear of the adjacent 3m walkway by locating the facilities on platforms projecting
over the bund wall. However; this solution would not resolve the significant reverse
sensitivity issues of odour and noise and visual intrusion (screening and secure access to
prevent use by the public). For similar reasons it may also be difficult to provide waste
facilities that match current provisions within the access ways between the blocks.

The foregoing comments should be read in conjunction with Appendix B and photographs in
Appendix C.

It appears to me that the proposal fails the first Gateway Test on the basis of significant adverse
effects from visual intrusion and reverse sensitivity.

I request that Council decline to consider the Application for the reasons stated above.

4.2.2 S104D(1)(b) Objectives and Policies of the AUP

I refer to the comparative assessment of objectives and policies contained under Appendix B.

Appendix C includes photographs that are referenced in Appendix B and this main document to
illustrate specific matters.

I believe the comparative assessment demonstrates flaws in the assessment presented in the
AEE and shows that there are a significant number of aspects of the proposed development that
are contrary to the Objectives and Policies of the AUP.

In my view the proposal comprehensively fails the second Gateway test.

I request that Council decline to consider the Application for the reasons stated above.

4.3 Significant Omitted Effects


In this section I have drawn attention to a number of significant adverse effects that were not
considered in the AEE for the current Application and Ire also not considered in the AEE for the
consented development.

I have taken this approach as it seems unreasonable that significant adverse effects that are
not considered in an AEE or subsequent s92 response would form part of the consented
baseline.

Amenity Value

For the purposes of the RMA “amenity values” means those natural or physical qualities and
characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic
coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes.

I consider the proposed development has a significant adverse effect on the amenity value of
the marina as a whole due to its:

469
o location,
o bulk,
o visual appearance,
o negative impact on informal waterfront use and spaciousness,
o negative impacts on everyday marina activities,
o lack of consistency with other buildings in the marina zone and
o lack of recognition that Pine Harbour is first and foremost a marina that serves
recreational boating activity.

In addition the development creates issues of visual privacy as the apartments will overlook the
marina and therefore all the comings and goings and work on boats can be observed by future
residents.

In the context of the effects on marina activities and operation I note that Policy F3.3(4) states:

Provide for adequate and convenient facilities in marinas for the containment, collection
and appropriate disposal of all of the following:

(a) rubbish from vessels;


(b) sewage from vessels;
(c) recyclable material including waste oils;
(d) residues from vessel construction and maintenance;
(e) spills from refuelling operations and refuelling equipment; and
(f) stormwater generated from the marina complex.

Consistent with other marinas, Pine Harbour waste facilities for (a) and (c) above together with
trundlers for transporting loads to and from boats, are currently located at the pier heads.
Similarly there is kerbside access for vehicles to facilitate loading and unloading to and from
boats. These features are a significant amenity value associated with marinas. Waste facilities
located at the ends of piers is typical for marinas and minimises the chance for spillage and
provides easy access for regular removal of odorous waste. Waste bins are currently cleared
twice per week by mechanical equipment.

The significant negative effects of the proposed development are:

1. Loss of convenient access to waste bins and trundlers. At the meeting on 19 September
2017 PHML indicated to effects of relocating waste facilities could be mitigated by relocating
these facilities from pier heads to the access ways between the development blocks but
there is no such provision on the plans and as noted previously this approach would not
mitigate the reverse sensitivity of noise and odour associated with the waste facilities.
Architectural Drwg RC101 [6] shows an area for waste and oil collection close to the
intersection of grid lines 38 and 25. This area appears to be inadequate when compared to
the space required for current waste facilities for piers A, B, C and D; and inconvenient when
assessed against the existing arrangements (at pier heads) and Policy F3.3 (4).

It does not seem possible to mitigate this effect within the proposed development. In this
regard I note that the current capacity is one large size bin (approx. 1.5m3 at the end of each
pier (See Appendix C Photo 8) plus an average of 3 wheelie bins per pier for recycling and
one waste oil receiver for every other pier. The total existing provision for piers A-D is thus
6m3 general waste, 12 wheelie bins for recycling and 2 oil tanks. Large bins are required for
general waste rather than household type wheelie bins due to the nature of waste from
boats.

470
2. Loss of convenient and dedicated (for berth holder use only) vehicle access at each pier head
for the drop off and pick up of people, personal effects, boat maintenance equipment,
provisions, fishing gear, travel bags, bedding etc etc.

3. Conflict of use and interest between berth holders, ferry users and development residents
arising from reverse sensitivity.

4. Loss of immediate pier head access for emergency services, especially fire services, both
during and after construction.

5. The loss of 34 car parks conveniently situated in the immediate vicinity of piers A, B and C.
With respect to car parking I note that Drwg 674-RC100 shows 176 car parks for berth
holders. I understand that at the time the marina was developed (1988) the applicable
provision was 0.7 car parks/berth and that the requirement is still applicable. I also
understand that the requirement for new marinas is now 0.35 car parks/berth. By either
requirement the provision for berth holder car parking is deficient.

6. Loss of trailer parking. I note that PHML have begun relocation of car parking and car park
access. As a consequence of anticipated changes to the car park layout berth holders will
also lose the convenience of trailer access and parking within the designated car parking
area for berth holders.

I have been unable to locate any information in the current Application LUC60305171 or
Application number(s): 50852, P50852 that identifies, assesses, remedies or mitigates these
effects.

I request that Council considers the significant adverse effects on the amenity values of the
marina in the context of s104D(1)(a) requirements.

Construction Effects

The Application does not include a Construction Management Plan. The only comments on
construction effects and mitigations relate to dust, noise and sediment control.

The density of the proposed development means that this is an extremely constrained site that
borders a road and walk way that are in 24/7 use. There are also other significant construction
effects that will arise from:

1. The duration of construction which PHML have indicated will be 12-18 months

2. The encroachment on the 3m walk way between the development and top of bund to (a)
provide for safe working areas around the site and (b) for safety measures to protect
pedestrians and the consequent effects on pedestrian movements and access routes –
particularly for ferry users.

3. The cutting off of any informal pedestrian movements from the access road through the site
to pier heads and ferry terminal.

4. Encroachment on the adjoining access road and restriction of traffic movements and
increased safety risks arising from construction traffic, traffic accessing car parks and marina
berths, “kiss and rise” drop offs and buses.

5. The potential encroachment on remaining car park areas for construction facilities,
equipment and laydown areas and the like.

471
6. The potential impacts on access to piers, water and power utility services to the piers as Ill
as other marina amenities including:

a. Waste facilities

b. Trundlers

c. Loading and unloading areas

7. Emergency services access to pier heads, especially fire.

In my view the characteristics of the site are such that significant adverse effects will remain
even with a Construction Management Plan in place.

As a minimum the significance of effects requires thorough assessment and identification of


remedies and mitigations to ensure that the residual effects are minor.

I note that the conditions for the consented development required a Construction Management
Plan. In my opinion the construction effects identified above and the potential difficulties and
costs of appropriate management require consideration as input to the s104D(1)(a) test.

I request that Council considers the potentially significant adverse construction effects in the
context of s104D(1)(a) requirements. ; and/or considers a s92 request for a thorough
assessment of all identified construction effects including a “proof of concept” Construction
Management Plan to demonstrate that it is practicable to manage the effects and enable
appropriate consent conditions to be considered and defined; for example:-

o Maintenance of 24/7 access to all pier heads with a minimum path width of 2m

o Maximum of 3 hours disruption to water and power to piers

o Limitations on single lane operation on the access road

5. PART 2: ISSUES THAT MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CONSIDERATION

5.1 Traffic Safety


The location of garages with ingress and egress directly onto the marina access road (Jack
Lachlan Drive) creates a significant road safety hazard due to the potential conflicts with vehicle
movements by ferry passengers, berth holders and general public (including freedom campers)
accessing the car parks, hammerhead area and boat ramp as Ill as the conflict with bus
movements.

The majority of garages are perpendicular to the access road which is narrower than most
urban streets and a number of parking spaces opposite the development are also perpendicular
to the access road.

The current ferries carry up to approx. 100 passengers and large proportion park in the public
car park or in the parallel parking spaces along the access road.

It is reasonable to expect that the peak period for ferry and bus related traffic movements will
coincide with movements in and out of the apartment garages and adjacent car parks. Similarly
it is reasonable to expect the conflicts will be greater with residential occupation than solely
marine commercial.

472
I have not found detailed consideration of these locally specific safety concerns in the
Application or the traffic assessment by Commute. I am concerned that the traffic safety risks
created by the development are contrary to the objective for a “safe” transport network. The
change to residential use could increase the safety risks created by the consented development.

5.2 Flooding
The proposed stormwater infrastructure that drains into the stream appears to overlook that
existing discharge locations will be submerged in times of flood.

If my understanding of the stormwater design is correct:-


 The construction of the flood protection wall will prevent the flood waters from spilling out
across the existing road way and car park area. Presumably the height of the flood waters
within the contained channel will be greater than if the wall had not been constructed.
 The discharge in the vicinity of Chainage 140 will be surcharged (see Engineering Drwgs C140
and C410) during flood events and waters from the stream therefore have the potential to
back up the pipe system and flood the development area.
 Flap valves on the discharges could be considered to prevent water backing up the pipes but
that leaves no drainage from the connected development area.

Further consideration of the above points may be required to determine whether the present
stormwater design will be as effective as intended.

5.3 Coastal Inundation


The Application has not addressed the marina refurbishment or reconstruction that may be
required to manage coastal inundation risk and future sea level rise. The Engineering report in
response to Council’s s92 request related to the consented development states:

5.4 Coastal Inundation


The natural resources and hazards sections of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)
are now in effect. The PAUP requires that habitable floors of buildings be 0.5m above the
current coastal inundation level (RL 2.44) plus 1m to allow for sea level rise. This would set
the minimum habitable floor levels at RL 3.94m.
The proposed buildings lower levels do not contain habitable floors. The proposed lower
levels will be used for garage and commercial/retail space, and are proposed at RL=3.0m.

In the plans for the current Application the retail space floor levels are set at 2.6m and garages
at 3.0m. Site plans indicate that bund height is about 2.5m in the vicinity of the development.

See the attached Appendix C photo nos 9 and 10 taken about the time of high water on 5
January 2018 which illustrate the threat posed by coastal inundation.

I note the Application AEE includes the statement:


The Unitary Plan requires all habitable floor levels to be located 0.5m above the 1% coastal
inundation level plus sea level change (1m). As a consequence all habitable floors will be on
the two upper floors so they will not be impacted. The lower floors are to be used for
garaging and commercial/retail space.

While it may be possible to prevent habitation of the lower floors I question the lack of concern
for:

473
 Potential insurance difficulties, especially if personal effects or items of commercial value
are stored in the garages.
 Access to the residential floors which is via the lower levels

Similarly there appears to be a lack of consideration for the potential disruption impacts on
commercial and retail enterprises as well as the potential impact on building services; notably
the location and vulnerability of power and telecommunications facilities.

I question how a consent for any significant building development (residential or commercial)
in sub precinct F can be justified when the lower levels of the development are acknowledged
to be at risk of coastal inundation and the proposed development offers no remedy or
mitigation for that risk.

I suggest that consideration be given to mitigating the inundation risk for the lower floors by
limiting the development to the permitted 2 floors which would enable the lower floor level for
commercial and retail to be raised without infringing height limits. Unless road levels are raised
it appears that the garages could not be protected from this risk.

The PAUP requirements also indicate that that there is a need to consider the future protection
of the development site from coastal inundation.

It seems logical that future redevelopment of the marina will need to include measures to raise
the height of the marina bund as Ill as reposition related infrastructure such as access ramps
and extend/replace mooring poles. I can find no consideration of this issue in the Application.

If the marina bund is to be raised in the future initial consideration suggests that a concrete wall
similar to the stream flood prevention wall could be considered. However; the extent to which
this may impact on the waterfront walkway both in terms of space and amenity values during
and after its construction needs to be considered.

The cost effectiveness of any measures to protect against coastal inundation needs to be a part
of those considerations as the costs are likely to fall on berth licence holders.

As stated previously I note that Council’s Technical Report 2016/017 - Coastal Inundation by
Storm-tides and Waves in the Auckland Region - was published in June 2016. In this regard it
appears the extent and probabilities of coastal inundation were not available at the time the
Pine Harbour Precinct Plan was developed and land use and rules determined.

I suggest that the coastal inundation risk alone justifies reconsideration of the uses and extent
of development that should be permitted in sub precinct F.

6. DECSION REQUESTED
I would like Council to decline Application LUC60305157. I do not believe the significant adverse
effects of the proposed development can be remedied or mitigated without substantial change
to the scale and layout of the proposed development.

I also respectfully requests that Council consider the following noting that Application
number(s): 50852, P50852 Ire:

 non-notified and directly affected parties (berth holders) Ire unaware of the
Applications

 similarly inconsistent with the Objectives and Policies of the AUP

474
 submitted an AEE that did not address the effects on amenity values of the marina as a
whole and berth holders in particular.

In this regard I request that Council consider whether the information provided to Council in the
Application number(s): 50852, P50852, the response to s92 requests and the Final Notification
Report Ire sufficient to inform Council’s decision to grant a consent.

475
Reference Consent Application number: LUC60305157
Appendix A to Submission Dated: 8th February 2018 by Richard and Alecia Steel
Pine Harbour Marina I431.10.1 Pine Harbour: Precinct plan 1

476
Reference Consent Application number: LUC60305157
Appendix B to Submission Dated: 8th February 2018 by Richard and Alecia Steel

COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF RELEVANT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES

Relevant Objectives, Policies I431 Pine Harbour Precinct

I431.2 Objectives Assessment Submission Comments


(1) The precinct allows for the development of Achieved. The proposal does not compromise I do not believe this Objective has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
an integrated mix of residential, business, open this objective but reinforces it and helps achieve
space and marine related activities, creating a it. The proposed development assists in The current Precinct Plan sub precinct structure and activity definitions provide all of the opportunities necessary to achieve this objective.
distinctive marina based community. achieving the mix of activities referred to in the The Application provides no compelling information that supports a need for more residential accommodation within the Precinct and in my
objective within the Precinct. view more residential provision would detract from the objective due to the creation of a residential bias to the detriment of marina and
marine related activities.

Maintaining the current activities helps to ensure that a developer focusses on building infrastructure that is complementary to the marine
oriented commercial purposes of sub precinct F intended by the Precinct Plan. In the same context; including high covenant residential
occupation in sub-precinct F would substantially detract from the original purpose of directly linking the marina to marine related
businesses and interests.

Apart from limited activity provision in sub precinct D the only area noted as “marina commercial” is sub precinct F. The marine industrial
area is Sub Precinct G. The Precinct Plan states:-
Sub-precinct G – Marine Industry
Sub-precinct G provides specifically for marine industrial activities.
Marine related uses which are non-industrial in nature (such as offices and clubrooms) are non-complying activities to recognise the
limited spatial extent of sub-precinct G. This is to ensure that non-marine industrial activities do not undermine the efficient use of this
limited space.

Sub precincts B, C, D and E are all zoned for apartment and residential development and the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) - July
2016 - previously rejected an application by PHML for residential occupation in Sub Precinct F and supported Council’s Mr Scott whose
evidence stated:

“This sub-precinct has been specifically identified for marina commercial and office activity and has been provided in this location
due to its close proximity to the marina itself so that land based marina related activity or marina complementary activity can be
established there.

In my view, there is a clear functional need for these activities to be in this sub-precinct (i.e. adjoining the marina) and as such it
represents a scarce resource as marina related activity cannot easily, or as efficiently, be located elsewhere in the precinct. In
contrast, the Pine Harbour precinct has provided for residential activity in various forms and intensities throughout the precinct and
residential activity can be easily located in these other locations. The zones surrounding the precinct are also exclusively
residential. Furthermore, and notwithstanding the obvious amenity advantages to being located directly adjacent to the CMA,
residential activity has no functional need to be located directly adjacent to the CMA. For these reasons, it is my opinion that there
should be no provision for residential activity in this sub-precinct and it should remain a non-complying activity.”

The s92 Response submitted by PHML (Ques 5) does not address the existing provision for residential accommodation within the Precinct
or local area and does not consider the loss of amenity value or potential future demand. I also note that the assessment of existing
marine related commercial activity within the Precinct does not consider future demand, comparisons with other marinas or current
commercial terms offered by PHML which may be influencing current demand.

I see no new or compelling arguments in the Application by PHML to suggest that the findings of the IHP should be overturned.
(2) An appropriate development density and mix Achieved. The proposal contributes to this This objective appears to have been achieved. However; I consider the contribution to the development will be “de minimus” because:-
of land uses are provided in the precinct to objective in the Precinct by firstly the
support its function as an efficient passenger development of dwellings which will provide In comparison with population growth in the area and the provisions for residential occupation already made in sub precincts B, C, D and E
transport node. potential ferry passengers living immediately the development will have “de minimus” effect on passenger transport demand.
adjacent to the ferry terminal, and secondly by
providing for the establishment of two new bus The peak hour journey times to and from central Auckland by road means that the ferry service is attractive to any occupiers of residential
stops immediately adjacent to the ferry terminal. development within the Beachlands-Maraetai area. It is not necessary to provide residential accommodation within Precinct F to attract

477
I431.2 Objectives Assessment Submission Comments
The establishment of food and beverage will ferry users. As has been evidenced by the Oteha Valley and Silverdale Park and Ride stations the facilitation of park and ride and kiss and
encourage use of the ferry to Pine Harbour as a ride options will do far more for long term ferry patronage than a development for 28 apartments in a location intended for marine
destination for day trips for the CBD. commercial and related activities.

The provision of bus stops is not dependent upon the development proceeding.

Provisions for Dairies, Food and Beverage and Retail Activities are all included in the directly adjacent sub precinct D – see Table I431.4.2
Activity Table – Sub-precinct D. The establishment of general retail activities within sub precinct F would be a duplication. I believe the
impact of providing food and beverage in sub precinct F will have a “de minimus” effect in respect of encouraging “use of the ferry to Pine
Harbour as a destination for day trips for the CBD” when compared the provisions in sub precinct D.
(4) A safe and efficient transport network is Achieved. There are to be safe, multi-modal I do not believe this Objective has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
integrated and connected with the existing and transport options available for the development.
planned transportation network, including Firstly the ferry terminal is within 10m of the It appears the consideration “safe” has not been assessed in the context of vehicle manoeuvres and peak periods.
connections between Beachlands and Pine development. Bus stops are available outside
Harbour. the area to be developed. There is still the The location of garages with ingress and egress directly onto the marina access road (Jack Lachlan Drive) creates a significant road safety
option for use of private motor vehicles and the hazard due to the potential conflicts with vehicle movements by ferry passengers, berth holders and general public accessing the car
parking requirements are complied with. As part parks, hammerhead area and boat ramp as Ill as the conflict with bus movements.
of the development across the wider site a
connection is proposed to Beachlands, but The majority of garages are perpendicular to the access road which is narrower than most urban streets and a number of parking spaces
walking and cycling options already exist. opposite the development are also perpendicular to the access road.

The current ferries carry up to approx. 100 passengers and large proportion park in the public car park or in the parallel parking spaces
along the access road.

It is reasonable to expect that the peak period for ferry and bus related traffic movements will coincide with movements in and out of the
apartment garages and adjacent car parks. Similarly it is reasonable to expect the conflicts will be greater with residential occupation than
solely marine commercial.

In my view the development does not achieve the object for a “safe” transport network and the change to residential use would significantly
increase the safety concerns created by the commercial development.
(5) Public access is maintained, enhanced and Achieved. The walkway on public open space I agree that access has been maintained and integrated with open space.
integrated with the public open space zoned and on the marina side of the development will
land, coastal marine area and the Beachlands 1 be enhanced by providing an all-weather I do not agree it has been enhanced because:
precinct. veranda for those walking from the parking area
to the ferry and to provide access into and out of I believe the majority of pedestrian movements around the marina are associated with ferry traffic and people accessing the marina berths.
the food and beverage premises proposed on As such the existing car park area adjacent to Piers A, B, C and D (sub precinct F) serves as a wide informal walkway due to its low speed
the ground floor of the development; a new environment and awareness of berth holders and pedestrians alike.
footpath will be constructed on the side of the
vehicle accessway passing through the site; a The new 3m wide walkway/cycleway on the southern side of the stormwater drain located on the site will link up with the walkway around
new 3m wide walkway/cycleway will be the marina and connecting with Beachlands but its location is unlikely to attract ferry passengers or berth holders.
constructed on the southern side of the
stormwater drain located on the site and it will The 3m walkway on the marina side of the development is more restrictive than the existing informal environment and will be enclosed by
link up with the walkway around the marina and the development itself, the overhanging canopy and safety rail at the top of the marina bund. These constraints could be exacerbated by
connecting with Beachlands. the use of larger ferries as demand grows and the possible need to raise the marina bund to protect against coastal inundation or erect
security gates on access points to marina piers.

(6) A high amenity environment is created Achieved. The development has been designed I do not believe this Objective has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
through the placement and design of buildings, to provide an active frontage to the north and to
roads and open spaces recognising the coastal the adjacent pedestrian walkway, to the marina In my opinion waterfront locations and in particular suburban and rural marinas should provide a transition from the built to the unbuilt
setting of Pine Harbour Marina. basin and the ferry terminal, and to the other environment and foster a sense of spaciousness. I believe the standards in the current Precinct Plan are sympathetic to that view. While
developed areas of the marina, overlooking the PHML have endeavoured to soften the impact of the development by creating gaps between blocks the bulk and location (3m from the top
public space area. Vehicle access is from the of bund) of the proposed building is completely out of character with the coastal setting and the remainder of the waterfront that borders
southern side. A new walkway and cycleway is Pine Harbour Marina.
to be provided in the southern side of the
stormwater drain. The building will fit Ill within The provisions for residential development within sub precincts B, C D and E make it unnecessary to place apartments in this location.
the marine environment and will be consistent
with the marina style established elsewhere in I also draw attention to my earlier comments in respect of Objective (1) above and in particular comments elsewhere in my submission
the precinct. related to the effects of the increases in building height and roof line changes; namely:-

478
I431.2 Objectives Assessment Submission Comments
 Other buildings in the marina precinct are as far as is practicable free of roof projections, mechanical plant and the like.
The additional visual intrusion as a result of the increase in height, and the presence of projections from the roof are
wholly inconsistent with the 9m maximum height standard and continuous “ceiling” roof line appearance of the previously
consented building.
 The roof appearance will be inconsistent with other buildings within and close to the Precinct
 The addition of screening, combined with the visibility of mechanical plant, and lift shafts and roof access will be visible
from properties in Tui Brae, Pine Harbour Parade and sub precincts D and E where permitted activities include dwellings
and heights can extend to 18m.

The visual impact of these changes will substantially detract from the amenity environment and coastal setting of the Marina and is
contrary to this objective.

To provide context to the above comments I have included under Appendix C photos 1 and 2 which show the existing buildings and
rooflines.

To intensify residential development by means of a 3 level development on the waterfront of a rural marina when the local area is providing
for residential growth and also providing for commercial use as a part of the new Pohutukawa Coast Shopping Centre and older
Beachlands centre seems entirely contrary to this objective.
(7) Stormwater infrastructure is provided in an Achieved. Although new piped systems have I do not believe this Objective has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
effective and efficient way, including integration been designed, discharges locations will not
with the wider catchment. change. A new flood wall is to be constructed The proposed stormwater infrastructure appears to overlook that at least one of the existing discharge locations will be submerged in times
alongside the drain to prevent flooding derived of flood.
from stormwater discharged from developing
areas higher up the catchment. If my understanding of the stormwater design is correct:-
 The construction of the flood protection wall will prevent the flood waters from spilling out across the existing road way and car
park area and presumably the height of the flood waters within the contained channel will be greater than if the wall had not been
constructed.
 The discharge in the vicinity of Chainage 140 will be surcharged (see Engineering Drwgs C140 and C410) during flood events and
waters from the stream therefore have the potential to back up the pipe system and flood the development area.
 Flap valves on the discharges could be considered to prevent water backing up the pipes but that leaves no drainage from the
development area connected to the steam discharge points.

Specialist consideration of the above points would be required to determine whether the present stormwater design satisfies this objective

(8) Water and wastewater infrastructure is Achieved. Connections to the Beachlands- This objective appears to have been achieved however; I note that in addition to meeting the demands of existing and future Precinct
provided in an effective and efficient way, Maraetai Sewage Treatment Plant are available development I understand that PHML is providing water to local cartage operators who supply water to local residents. A consent, if
including the ability to connect to the and water supply to NZ drinking water standards approved, should ensure that the water supply demand from Precinct occupants including berths is met before any wider distribution.
Beachlands-Maraetai Sewage Treatment Plant. is available from a local bore.

I431.3 Policies Assessment Submission Comments


(1) Require land use, subdivision and Achieved. Although the land use and I do not believe this policy has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
development to be generally in accordance with development does not strictly accord with the
Pine Harbour: Precinct plan 1. Pine Harbour: Precinct plan 1, a high level of The references to the new public access to the south of the stream, new footway alongside the marina bund and access road alignment do
public access is achieved with the development not seem relevant to this objective as all sit outside sub precinct F. If relevant at all they are minor matters in comparison to the building
of a new walkway/cycleway to the south of the development and activities guidance provided in the Precinct Plan.
drain, and a new footpath is to be located on the
northern side of the drain, providing a higher As noted previously the only sub precinct area dedicated to “marina commercial” is sub precinct F.
degree of safety for pedestrians and cyclists.
The access way alignment has not been The marine industrial area is Sub Precinct G. The Precinct Plan states:-
straightened at its western end as per Precinct Sub-precinct G – Marine Industry
plan1, as this would create a useable area on its Sub-precinct G provides specifically for marine industrial activities.
southern side which was considered to be Marine related uses which are non-industrial in nature (such as offices and clubrooms) are non-complying activities to recognise the
undesirable and a potential safety hazard. limited spatial extent of sub-precinct G. This is to ensure that non-marine industrial activities do not undermine the efficient use of this
limited space.

Provisions for Dairies, Food and Beverage and Retail Activities are all included in the directly adjacent sub precinct D – see Table I431.4.2
Activity Table – Sub-precinct D.

Sub precincts B, C, D and E are all zoned for apartment and residential development and the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) - July
2016 - previously rejected an application by PHML for residential occupation in Sub Precinct F.

479
I431.3 Policies Assessment Submission Comments

The Application acknowledges the proposed development is not strictly in accord with the Precinct Plan but fails to provide any information
to establish the need for changes to the Plan.

For these reasons I do not consider the development is consistent with this policy; nor should the consent process be used as a
mechanism to change the Precinct Plan, particularly where the changes are substantive (2 to 3 floors) (9m to 11m height) (allow residential
occupation) and have significant detrimental effects related to reverse sensitivity and visual intrusion.
(2) Provide for increased development density Achieved. 28 apartments and businesses close I do not believe this policy has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
to promote the role of the precinct as a to the ferry terminal will enhance density close
passenger transport node. to the terminal. Taken in isolation the proposed development does contribute to this objective however I believe the context for this policy is the Precinct as
a whole.

 As noted previously Sub precincts B, C, D and E are all zoned for apartment and residential development and are within easy
walking distance of the ferry terminal. Current development in the Precinct already meets the intent of this policy

 The Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) - July 2016 - previously rejected an application by PHML for residential occupation in Sub
Precinct F.

 In comparison with population growth in the Precinct and Beachlands-Maraetai area as a whole the development will have minimal
effect on passenger transport demand.

The Application does not provide any information to establish the need for increased development density and in my view any beneficial
impact on businesses and ferry patronage would be “de minimus”.

(3) Provide for a range of activities at a scale Achieved. The proposal provides for both I do not believe this policy has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
complementary with the amenity values of the commercial (eg food and beverage, dairies),
precinct. and residential which will complement the other I strongly believe the scale of the development will have a significant and detrimental effect on the amenity value of the marina precinct
activities across the precinct. All activities face and in particular for berth holders and the general public. I note that this is both a policy issue and environmental effect.
the water, the marina walkway and the large
reserve area which form the central feature of I have found no explanation in the AEE for the consented development (in the context of relevant objectives and policies) of the need for
the development. some 750m2 of commercial and 1600m2 of office floor space in sub precinct F when compared, for example, with the provision for offices,
commercial and retail activities in sub precinct D and the provision for 5000m2 of retail and 1500m2 of office space within the nearby
Pohutkawa Coast Shopping Centre.

Similarly; I have reviewed the AEE for LUC60305157 and can find no explanation why there is a need for 28 new apartments or why the
current Precinct Plan fails to meet this objective.

While 80% plot coverage is permitted the scale of the development in 3 levels and very limited provision for any activities between the 3m
pedestrian walkway and ground level units as well as an overhanging canopy all serve to create a waterfront that is completely out of
character with any other marina I can think of in the Auckland area.

Pier head amenity value currently afforded berth holders at Pine Harbour is typical of other marinas around Auckland:- namely
 Ease of private vehicle access for loading and unloading vehicles and transferring loads to/from trolleys that are used to transport
boating equipment, sails, provisions bedding, clothing etc to and from the pier head to each berth. The photos included under
Appendix C numbered 3 to 8 Ire taken recently at Pine Harbour and Half Moon Bay and Gulf Harbour.
 The location of waste bins for household and boat related waste as Ill as recycling and oil waste at each pier head. The location at
the pier head minimises the risk of spillage, provides easy access for clearance and minimises the reverse sensitivity of odour and
noise as it maximises the distance of these facilities from the current residential, commercial and retail activities within sub
precincts C, D, and E and neighbouring properties.
 Ease of access for emergency services vehicles – notably fire

In my opinion waterfront locations and in particular suburban and rural marinas should provide a transition from the built to the unbuilt
environment and foster a sense of spaciousness. I believe the standards in the current Precinct Plan are generally sympathetic to that
view but have not prevented a consent for a development that is not complementary to the amenity values of the Precinct and serves to
maximise development within the spatial envelope created by the standards. The requested changes from 2-3 floors to accommodate
residential occupation and increased height increase the sense of enclosure and bulk and further diminish any sense of spaciousness or
transition to a waterfront space.

It seems inappropriate to intensify residential development by means of a 3 level development on the waterfront of sub precinct F when (a)
sub precincts B, C D and E all provide for residential activity (b) the local area is providing for substantial residential growth.

480
I431.3 Policies Assessment Submission Comments
The scale of development significantly detracts from the visual amenity values of the marina waterfront and the positive impacts of a
transition from the built to the unbuilt environment and a sense of spaciousness created by an informal and multi-purpose waterfront
margin. I believe the standards in the current Precinct Plan are sympathetic to that view. While PHML have endeavoured to soften the
impact of the development by creating gaps between blocks the bulk and location (3m from the top of bund) of the proposed building is
completely out of character with the coastal setting and the remainder of the waterfront that borders Pine Harbour Marina.
(4) Require the layout, form and design of Achieved:- I do not believe this Policy has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
buildings, roads and open spaces within the Walkway connects to Beachlands, road will
precinct to: connect elsewhere 4(b) – the proposed development creates and does not mitigate the significant adverse effects of visual intrusion created by (a) the
(a) integrate with the existing and future form of Good interconnection made with adjacent increased height due to screening of mechanical plant and unsightly lift and roof access projections above the screening that are
the Beachlands settlement (including alignment Ranger House including replacing car parks. inconsistent with other buildings in the Precinct and will impact on views from Tui Brae, Pine Harbour Parade and sub precincts D and E
of roads); Walkway/cycleway connection to Beachlands where permitted activities include dwellings and permitted heights can extend to 18m.
(b) address potential adverse effects on Two new bus stops provided; Dwellings close to
adjoining land uses; terminal, covered walkway provide for users. 4(h) – the 3m pedestrian walkway immediately adjacent to the marina bund (which requires a safety rail) and immediately adjacent ground
(c) assist with the implementation of New walkway/cycleway provided that links with level units as Ill as overhanging canopy all serve to create a waterfront that is completely out of character with (a) the remainder of the
transportation connections between Beachlands existing walkway; direct access to the marina Pine Harbour Marina waterfront, (b) any other marina I can think of in the Auckland area and (c) the form and character of existing
and Pine Harbour; berths. developments around the Beachlands and Maraetai waterfronts.
(d) assist with the integration of passenger No change to public access;
transport services; New walkway proposed; will link at both end to
(e) create opportunities for multi-functional, safe, walkways.
passive or active recreation; Buildings sited and designed to highlight
(f) ensure ongoing public access to the coastal interaction with coastal edge; cafes will be
marine area; located to encourage enjoyment of the coastal
(g) ensure the provision of walkways providing amenity
pedestrian linkages through the precinct; and
(h) recognise and provide for the character of
the coastal environment and its associated
amenity values.

(5) Require potential adverse effects (including Achieved. The buildings have been designed to I do not believe this policy has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
reverse sensitivity) of any development and comply with the standards set out in the AUP.
activities within the precinct on the character of The amenity values of the area will be enhanced 1. As noted elsewhere and compared to the consented development, the proposed development creates and does not mitigate the
the coastal environment and on the amenity by additional people using the ferry terminal, by significant adverse effects of visual intrusion created by (a) the increased height due to screening of mechanical plant and lift and
values of the surrounding area to be avoided, creating new places for people to visit (cafes), roof access projections above the screening that are inconsistent with other buildings in the Precinct and will impact on views from
remedied or mitigated. and by providing recreational amenity (eg Tui Brae, Pine Harbour Parade and sub precincts D and E where permitted activities include dwellings and permitted heights can
walkway). An active landscape planting extend to 18m.
programme has been prepared to soften the
presence of a new building at this location. The reverse sensitivity effects arising from the change to residential occupation appear to be understated and in my view would be
significant.

2. Apart from wind noise from the marina basin there is the potential for significant noise arising from early morning and late night
(currently only Friday) ferry users. The current timetable has some 40 ferry movements per day with sailings commencing at
6:20am and 7 sailings between 6:20am and 8:20am. The existing ferry vessels are Ill utilised and carry up to 100 passengers.
Late night ferries (currently only on Fridays) arrive at about 9:40pm and 11:40pm. The planned and current population growth in
the Beachlands and Maraetai area can only increase demand and the related effects.
3. While most berth holder arrivals and departures are during the day, fine weather and dependency on tides due to limited depth in
the channel and basin can result in late night and early morning movements and noise
4. Noise from helicopter traffic – there is an existing helipad point (which is used) located immediately to the south of the stream and
adjacent to the access road. There appears to be no consideration of the noise and number of movements in the Application AEE.
5. Location of and access to waste bins and trundlers. At the meeting with PHML on 19 September 2017 they indicated waste
facilities could be relocated from pier heads to the access ways between the development blocks but there is no such provision on
the plans. Architectural Drwg RC101 [6] shows an area for waste and oil collection close to the intersection of grid lines 38 and 25.
This area appears to be inadequate when compared to the space required for current waste facilities for piers A, B, C and D; and
inconvenient when assessed against the existing arrangements (at pier heads) and Policy F3.3 (4). Current capacity is one large
size bin (approx. 1.5m3 at the end of each pier (See Appendix C photo 8) plus an average of 3 wheelie bins per pier for recycling
and one waste oil receiver for every other pier. The total existing provision for piers A-D is this 6m3 general waste, 12 wheelie bins
and 2 oil tanks. Large bins are required for general waste rather than household type wheelie bins due to the nature of waste from
boats. Location at the ends of piers is typical for marinas and minimises the chance for spillage and provides easy access for
removal of waste. Waste bins are currently cleared twice per week by mechanical equipment.
The loss of convenience could be mitigated by constructing platforms over the marina bund at each pier head. See Appendix C
photo 5 of a typical pier head location at Half Moon Bay. However if waste facilities are located as at present to be convenient for

481
I431.3 Policies Assessment Submission Comments
berth holders (close to the pier heads) there will be significant reverse sensitivity issues of odour and noise and visual intrusion that
could include screening and secure access to prevent use by the public. For similar reasons it may also be difficult to provide
waste facilities that match current provisions within the more convenient access ways between the blocks.

(6) Require that all development is connected to Achieved. Will be connected to the Beachlands- This policy appears to be achieved.
a public reticulated wastewater treatment and Maraetai system.
disposal system.

F3. Coastal – Marina Zone


F3.2. Objectives [rcp/dp] Assessment Submission Comments
(2) Marina activities are located within the Achieved. Marina activities are set aside in sub- I do not believe this Objective has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
Coastal – Marina Zone which encompasses the precinct C; The ferry terminal will remain in its
coastal marine area and any adjoining land current location with enhanced facilities to As noted previously the only area dedicated as “marina commercial” is sub precinct F and activities listed include offices and clubrooms.
used for marina related activity. support it (dedicated bus stops) and increased
development close to it to support it. The marine industrial area is Sub Precinct G. The Precinct Plan states:-
Sub-precinct G – Marine Industry
Sub-precinct G provides specifically for marine industrial activities.
Marine related uses which are non-industrial in nature (such as offices and clubrooms) are non-complying activities to recognise the
limited spatial extent of sub-precinct G. This is to ensure that non-marine industrial activities do not undermine the efficient use of this
limited space.

(3) Marina and related supporting facilities are Achieved. Bus stops will support the ferry This objective appears to have been achieved respect of bus stops and marine retail only and overlooks other supporting facilities;
developed, used, maintained, refurbished, terminal. Provision is made for Marine Retail in including:-
reconstructed and berthage maximised. the new building if there is demand.
 Convenient trundler facilities
 Convenient waste collection facilities
 Utilities services to piers

The Application also appears to overlook future refurbishment/reconstruction needs as noted in response to F3.2(4) immediately below.
(4) Marina development and redevelopment There was no assessment for this Objective I do not believe this Objective has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
above and below mean high water springs is although there are marina development
integrated. issues that may need to be integrated with The Application has not addressed the marina development that may be required to manage coastal inundation risk and future sea level
any development within Sub Precinct F. rise. The Engineering report in response to Council’s s92 request related to the consented development states:

5.4 Coastal Inundation


The natural resources and hazards sections of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) are
now in effect. The PAUP requires that habitable floors of buildings be 0.5m above the current
coastal inundation level (RL 2.44) plus 1m to allow for sea level rise. This would set the
minimum habitable floor levels at RL 3.94m.
The proposed buildings lower levels do not contain habitable floors. The proposed lower levels
will be used for garage and commercial/retail space, and are proposed at RL=3.0m.

In the plans for the current Application the retail space floor levels are set at 2.6m and garages at 3.0m. Site plans indicate that bund
height is about 2.5m in the vicinity of the development.

See Appendix C photos 9 and 10 taken at about the time of high water on 5 January 2018 which illustrate the threat.

The above figures and photos included under Appendix C indicate that that there is a clear need to consider the future protection of the
development site from coastal inundation as Ill as flooding from the adjacent stream.

It seems logical that future redevelopment of the marina will need to include measures to raise the height of the marina bund as Ill as
reposition related infrastructure such as access ramps and extend/replace mooring poles. I can find no consideration of this issue in the
Application.

If the marina bund is to be raised in the future initial consideration suggests that a concrete wall similar to the stream flood prevention wall
could be considered but the extent to which this may impact on the waterfront walkway both in terms of space and amenity values during
and after construction needs to be considered.

Any protection works on the marina basin side of the walkway would likely impact negatively on berthage.

482
F3. Coastal – Marina Zone
F3.2. Objectives [rcp/dp] Assessment Submission Comments
(5) Activities in the Coastal – Marina Zone that Achieved. The proposal does not prevent I do not believe this Objective has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
have a functional need for a coastal location functional marina activities from locating in the
have priority over those that do not. wider precinct – they are prioritised in sub- While the development does not “prevent” functional marina activities the Application does not demonstrate a “need” for the location in Sub
precincts set down for functional activities such Precinct F. The reference to sub-precinct C appears to be a typographic error as sub-precinct C is existing residential (housing) area. The
as sub-precinct C (marina commercial) and the marine industrial area is Sub Precinct G. The Precinct Plan states:-
marina berthing area. Provision is made for Sub-precinct G – Marine Industry
potential Marina Retail within the new building. Sub-precinct G provides specifically for marine industrial activities.
Marine related uses which are non-industrial in nature (such as offices and clubrooms) are non-complying activities to recognise the
limited spatial extent of sub-precinct G. This is to ensure that non-marine industrial activities do not undermine the efficient use of this
limited space.

Apart from the limited provision within sub precinct D the only area noted as “marina commercial” is sub precinct F.

(6) Access to the waterfront for berth holders Achieved. Access is maintained. Access for the I do not believe this Objective has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
and the public is maintained or enhanced. public is enhanced with more activities eg cafes,
in the area enhanced walkways, and new bus The assessment undertaken by PHML dos not consider the current amenity value of access to the waterfront for berth holders. This
stops will improve access. amenity value is significantly and adversely effected by the proposed development.

The adverse impacts of restricted access are predominately:


1. Loss of convenient and dedicated (for berth holder use only) vehicle access at each pier head for the drop off and pick
up of boat maintenance equipment, provisions, fishing gear, travel bags, bedding etc etc.
2. Loss of convenient access at each pier head to trolleys for the movement of the above loads.
3. Loss of convenient access at the pier heads to refuse and recycling bins.
4. Potential conflict of use and interest between berth holders, ferry users and development residents arising from
reverse sensitivity.
5. Concerns relating to emergency services access especially fire services
6. The loss of 34 car parks conveniently situated in the immediate vicinity of piers A,B and C

I have been unable to locate any information in the current Application or Application number(s): 50852, P50852 that recognises or
provides adequate mitigation for these effects.

F3.3. Policies [rcp/dp] Assessment Submission Comments


There was no assessment for this Policy I do not believe this policy has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
(1) Provide for use, development, repair, although there are marina reconstruction
maintenance, refurbishment, and reconstruction and refurbishment development issues that The Application does not explain how marina refurbishment and reconstruction needs that may include management of coastal inundation
of existing marinas, and their expansion, that may need to be integrated with any risk and future sea level rise could be provided in a manner that would avoid adverse effects on the proposed development and its
avoids remedies or mitigates adverse effects on development within Sub Precinct F. occupants. Although similar the response to Objective F3.2(4) has been revised to respond to this Policy.
the coastal environment, including adjacent land
zoned for residential or open space purposes. It seems logical that future refurbishment, redevelopment and reconstruction of the marina will need to include measures to raise the
height of the marina bund, upgrade utility services to the marina piers as Ill as reposition related infrastructure such as access ramps and
the like. I can find no consideration of this issue in the Application.

While raising the bund is probably the most significant issue other refurbishment and reconstruction needs, and the extent to which these
may impact on the waterfront walkway both in terms of space and amenity values during and after construction, needs to be considered.
(2) Provide for marine-related and other Achieved. Marina activities are set aside in sub- I do not believe this policy has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
compatible business activities, while avoiding, precinct C; The ferry terminal will remain in its
remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the current location with enhanced facilities to As previously stated the only provision for non-industrial marine related activities is Sub Precinct F. Sub Precinct G (not C) is set aside for
coastal environment and adjacent land zoned support it (dedicated bus stops) and increased Marine Industry and the Precinct Plan states:-
for residential or open space purposes. development close to it to support it. Sub-precinct G provides specifically for marine industrial activities.
Marine related uses which are non-industrial in nature (such as offices and clubrooms) are non-complying activities to recognise
the limited spatial extent of sub-precinct G. This is to ensure that non-marine industrial activities do not undermine the efficient use
of this limited space.

While there is some opportunity for marine retail in the proposed development, the opportunity for other compatible business activities is
significantly diminished by the conversion of some 1600m2 of office space in the consented development to residential occupation.

I do not see how the statements related to the ferry terminal and bus stops are relevant to this Policy.

483
F3.3. Policies [rcp/dp] Assessment Submission Comments
(3) Provide for maritime passenger operations Achieved. Passenger facilities will be enhanced I agree that the proposed development maintains passenger operations and facilities but for the reasons stated under I431(2) - In
and maritime passenger facilities at marinas and there will be an increase in potential users comparison with population growth in the area and the provisions for residential occupation already made in sub precincts B, C, D and E
of the services. the development will have “de minimus” effect on passenger transport demand.
(4) Provide for adequate and convenient There is no assessment for this Policy in the I do not believe this policy has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
facilities in marinas for the containment, Application.
collection and appropriate disposal of all of the (4)(a) & (c) - At the meeting with PHML on 19 September 2017 they indicated waste facilities could be relocated from pier heads to the
following: Nor can I identify any assessment in the access ways between the development blocks but there is no such provision on the plans. Architectural Drwg RC101 [6] shows an area
Application or s92 information for the for waste and oil collection close to the intersection of grid lines 38 and 25. This area appears to be inadequate when compared to the
(a) rubbish from vessels; development approved under the existing space required for current waste facilities for piers A, B, C and D; and inconvenient when assessed against the existing arrangements (at
consent. Both the approved and the pier heads) and Policy F3.3 (4). Current capacity is one large size bin (approx. 1.5m3 at the end of each pier (See Appendix C photo 8)
(b) sewage from vessels; proposed development create clear and plus an average of 3 wheelie bins per pier for recycling and one waste oil receiver for every other pier. The total existing provision for piers
(c) recyclable material including waste oils; significant issues for berth holders.
A-D is thus 6m3 general waste, 12 wheelie bins and 2 oil tanks. Large bins are required for general waste rather than household type
wheelie bins due to the nature of rubbish from boats. Location at the ends of piers is typical for marinas and minimises the chance for
(d) residues from vessel construction and
spillage and provides easy access for removal of waste. Waste bins are currently cleared twice per week by mechanical equipment.
maintenance;
Waste facilities for rubbish and recyclable material including waste oils could be located conveniently by constructing platforms over the
(e) spills from refuelling operations and
marina bund at each pier head. See Appendix C photo 5 of a typical pier head location at Half Moon Bay. However if waste facilities are
refuelling equipment; and
located at the pier heads there will be significant reverse sensitivity issues of odour and noise and visual intrusion that could include
(f) stormwater generated from the marina screening and secure access to prevent use by the public. For similar reasons it may also be difficult to provide waste facilities that match
complex. current provisions within convenient distance from pier heads.

(7) Require any marina development to be of a Achieved to the extent that although the I do not believe this policy has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
scale, design and location that remedies or proposal is not a “marina development”, but it is
mitigates adverse effects on the coastal located within the marina zone: 7(b) – for the reasons stated under I431.2 Objectives (1) and (6) the proposed development has a significant adverse effect on visual and
environment, particularly in relation to the The proposed building complies with all amenity values in the locality. Notably the effects of the increases in building height and roof line changes compared to the consented
following matters: development standards for the zone. development; namely:-
(a) the natural character of the coastal The development is likely to encourage
environment; increased recreational use of the precinct by the - Other buildings in the marina precinct are as far as is practicable free of roof projections, mechanical plant and the like. The
(b) effects on the recreational, visual and provision of facilities that attract visitors. Lighting additional visual intrusion as a result of the increase in height, and the presence of projections from the roof are wholly inconsistent
amenity values in the locality, including lighting will not affect the marina area as lighting within with the 9m maximum height standard and continuous “ceiling” roof line appearance of the previously consented building.
effects; the apartments will be used in times when boats - The addition of screening, combined with the visibility of mechanical plant, and lift shafts and roof access will be visible from
(c) public access to, along and within the coastal rarely use the marina services. properties in Tui Brae, Pine Harbour Parade and sub precincts D and E where permitted activities include dwellings and heights can
marine area; Enhanced with the covered walkway being extend to 18m.
(d) effects on the landscape elements and proposed
features; Landscaping plan prepared to soften the effects The visual impact of these changes will substantially detract from the amenity environment and coastal setting of the Marina.
(e) effects on historic heritage or Mana Whenua of the development
values; No effects on historic heritage are proposed 7(f) – for the reasons stated under I431.3 Policy (5) I consider the noise effects and other reverse sensitivity effects have been
(f) noise effects including construction noise and Construction noise will be controlled by consent understated; namely:-
ongoing operational noise, such as halyard slap; conditions; halyard slap will be managed by
(i) the need for capital works and maintenance marina management to some extent, but that is 1. Apart from wind noise from the marina basin there is the potential for significant noise arising from early morning and late night
dredging within the marina and any part of normal marina noise. (currently only Friday) ferry users. The current timetable has some 40 ferry movements per day with sailings commencing at
approach/entrance channel; Passenger services will be enhanced by the 6:20am and 7 sailings between 6:20am and 8:20am. The existing ferry vessels are Ill utilised and carry up to 100 passengers.
proposal – better bus facilities, increased Late night ferries (currently only on Fridays) arrive at about 9:40pm and 11:40pm. The planned and current population growth in
(j) effects on other users of the coastal marine number of potential passengers from the 28 the Beachlands and Maraetai area can only increase demand and the related effects.
area including existing maritime passenger apartments. 2. While most berth holder arrivals and departures are during the day, fine weather and dependency on tides due to limited depth in
operations, moorings and public boat ramps; The road network has been assessed as the channel and basin can result in late night and early morning movements and noise
capable of accommodating the additional traffic 3. Noise from helicopter traffic – there is an existing helipad point (which is used) located immediately to the south of the stream and
(k) effects on navigation and safety and the movements from the development.
adjacent to the access road. There appears to be no consideration of the noise and number of movements in the Application AEE.
need for any aids to navigation; The Pine Harbour Precinct plan 1 has been
taken into consideration in the development In my view further investigation of possible remedies or mitigations is required.
(l) shore-based facilities including car and trailer proposal, which is largely in keeping with it.
parking, boat storage and maintenance areas, 7(i) – This part of the Policy was not addressed in the Application. As stated under F3.3(1) and (4) the proposed development does not
administration buildings, public toilets, boat There was no assessment of the highlighted appear to have considered future capital works needs for the marina. Namely:-
racks, lockers, public access and esplanade policies in the Application by PHML
reserves, landscaping and urban design - measures to raise the height of the marina bund, maintain surface water drainage, upgrade utility services to the marina piers as Ill
treatment; as reposition related infrastructure such as access ramps and the like.

(m) the effects of additional traffic generation on 7(k) - This part of the Policy was not addressed in the Application. The change to residential occupation and 3 rather than 2 floors has the
the road network and any measures to mitigate potential to create a significant navigational hazard in the form of light glare and the effect on the night vision of people handling boats at
these effects; and night.

484
F3.3. Policies [rcp/dp] Assessment Submission Comments
(n) consideration of any relevant council 7(l) - This part of the Policy was not addressed in the Application. The proposed development and Application in its current form does not
structure plans, concept plans, strategies, consider or remedy the effect of the loss of car parks dedicated for berth holder use nor does it consider the loss of convenience of the
reserve management plans, designations or berth holder car parking immediately adjacent piers A, B and C.
additional limitations that apply to the adjoining
land.

(8) Provide for public access to be restricted Achieved. There will be no public access to the This Policy appears to be achieved.
only where it is necessary for public health, dwelling areas.
safety, security or operational reasons.
(10) Allow activities that do not have a functional Achieved. The proposed activities do not I do not believe this policy has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this policy because:
need for a coastal location only where all of the prevent functional marina activities from locating
following can be demonstrated: in the wider precinct – they are prioritised in (10)(a) and (c) – As previously stated under F3.3(2) the main provision for non-industrial marine related activities is Sub Precinct F. Sub
(a) the proposed activities will not conflict with, sub-precincts set down for functional activities Precinct G (not C) is set aside for Marine Industry and the Precinct Plan states:-
or limit, the operation of marina activities, such as sub-precinct C (marina commercial)
maritime passenger operations or other marine- and the marina berthing area. Provision is made Sub-precinct G provides specifically for marine industrial activities.
related activities that are undertaken in the for potential Marina Retail within the new Marine related uses which are non-industrial in nature (such as offices and clubrooms) are non-complying activities to recognise
Coastal – Marina Zone; building. the limited spatial extent of sub-precinct G. This is to ensure that non-marine industrial activities do not undermine the efficient use
The proposed activities, such as residential of this limited space.
(c) adequate provision remains for existing development will not conflict with but rather
activities that have a functional or operational complement the marina activities. Berth holders While there is some opportunity for marine retail in the proposed development, the opportunity for other compatible business activities is
need for a coastal location; will still have access to their marinas, will have significantly diminished by the conversion of some 1600m2 of office space in the consented development to residential occupation.
(d) public access to and use of the coastal the opportunity to live near their boats; and the
marine area will be maintained or enhanced; ferry services will have enhanced potential (10)(f) – For the reasons stated previously I do not believe the proposed development complements its particular coastal location.
(e) the development is integrated with public passengers and improved facilities (bus stops). Notably:-
transport, where relevant; and The proposal does not prevent functional marina - The 3m pedestrian walkway immediately adjacent to the marina bund (which requires a safety rail) and immediately adjacent ground
(f) the development is designed to complement activities from locating in the wider precinct – level units as Ill as overhanging canopy all serve to create a waterfront that is completely out of character with (a) the remainder of
its particular coastal location. they are prioritised in sub-precincts set down for the Pine Harbour Marina waterfront, (b) any other marina I can think of in the Auckland area and (c) the form and character of
functional activities such as sub-precinct C existing developments around the Beachlands and Maraetai waterfronts.
(marina commercial) and the marina berthing
area. Provision is made for potential Marina
Retail within the new building.
The coastal walkway/cycleway will be enhanced
with an additional stretch added to the network.
The walkway in front of the development will be
covered for all weather access.
Additional dwellings will be located within close
proximity to the ferry service; Improved bus
facilities are proposed.
The development has been designed to
integrate with existing development in the
locality and to enhance the coastal setting and
experience. All buildings will open out onto the
marina interface.

E27 Transport Assessment Submission Comments


E27.2. Objectives (1) – (6) Complies. See previous discussions on access No comment
These objectives promote integration of to ferries integrated with bus stops provided,
transport modes including walking, cycling, PT and the new cycle walkways.
and private vehicles, parking and loading that

485
E27 Transport Assessment Submission Comments
supports the development, pedestrian safety,
and crossings safety.
E27.3. Policies Achieved. The effects on the networks is I do not believe this Objective has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
The policies are divided into a number of minimal – see traffic report – and PT and other
categories. Firstly They aim for development to alternatives are provided next to the As previously stated under I431.2(4) It appears the consideration “safe” has not been assessed in the context of vehicle manoeuvres and
minimise effects on the safe, efficient and development. peak periods. Namely:-
effective operation of the transport network, and Achieved. The minimum parking requirements
to provide alternatives to private travel, and also are provided for in the application. - The location of garages with ingress and egress directly onto the marina access road (Jack Lachlan Drive) creates a significant road
require an integrated approach to travel in safety hazard on the safe operation of the road that serves the marina due to the potential conflicts with vehicle movements by ferry
proposals. passengers, berth holders and general public accessing the car parks, hammerhead area and boat ramp as Ill as the conflict with
bus movements.

- The majority of garages are perpendicular to the access road which is narrower than most urban streets and a number of parking
spaces opposite the development are also perpendicular to the access road.

- The current ferries carry up to approx. 100 passengers and large proportion park in the public car park or in the parallel parking
spaces along the access road.

- It is reasonable to expect that the peak period for ferry and bus related traffic movements will coincide with movements in and out of
the apartment garages and adjacent car parks. Similarly it is reasonable to expect the conflicts will be greater with residential
occupation than solely marine commercial.

In my view the development does not achieve the object for a “safe” transport network and the change to residential use would significantly
increase the safety concerns created by the consented development.
Secondly parking is to be provided in a way to Achieved. Adequate space is provided for I do not believe this Objective has been achieved. I consider the proposed development is contrary to this objective because:
ensure safety, to encourage use of alternatives, loading in a safe and efficient manner.
and minimum numbers of parks are required on Achieved – see traffic report. - It appears no consideration has been given to the loading and unloading activities of berth holders
site. Achieved. An existing accessway is provided - Parking areas opposite the development are perpendicular to the access road – see E27.3 – and increased safety risks
A safe loading area is required in a way that immediately adjacent to the development. - Access to garages similarly increases traffic safety risk.
avoids conflicts with pedestrians and vehicles.
Parking areas are to be designed to avoid safety
issues especially on roads.
Safe access is to be provided.

486
Reference Consent Application number: LUC60305157
Appendix C to Submission Dated: 8th February 2018 by Richard and Alecia Steel
Photographs

Photo 1- Ranger House – Shows 2 Level Development, Ferry Terminal (Part of Pier A) and Piers B and C

Photo 2 PHM Roof Lines and Development Sub Precincts C & D

487
Photo 3 Gulf Harbour Pier Head Access

Photo 4 Gulf Harbour Pier L Security Waste and Trundler Facilities

488
Photo 5 Half Moon Bay Security Waste and Trundler Facilities

Photo 6 Pine Harbour Existing Pier Access Pier G

489
Photo 7 Pine Harbour Pier C Waste and Trundler Facilities – Apartment Showroom and Floor Elevations
(Scaffolding) Shown to the Right.

Photo 8 Pine Harbour Pier D Waste and Trundler Facilities – Oil Waste Receiver Behind Blue Waste Bin

490
Photo 9 Pine Harbour Mooring Poles at About High Water 5 January 2018

491
Photo 10 Pine Harbour Marina Bund Adjacent to Pier D at About High Tide 5 Jan 2018

492
Submission 44 (2 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Thursday, 8 February 2018 12:34 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:56] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 8 February 2018 8:46 a.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:56] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Kim Munro

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 473752

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
11 Bath St Cambridge Cambridge 2334

Submission details

This submission: supports the application in whole or in part

493
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
Provision of residential living

What are the reasons for your submission?


Overcrowded Auckland would benefit from a marine residential development that provides quality living and easy
access to Auckland Harbour in a semi rural environment. Plus I want to live there

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Support the change to residential apartments from original consent. Including two floors of appartments

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

494
Submission 45 (5 pages)

495
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Yash Narula <yash@pepperjacks.co.nz>


Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2018 3:47 p.m.
To: Melanie Sopoaga; ':Rashida.Sahib@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz'
Cc: 'David Boersen'
Subject: RE:LUC60305157 Submission Received for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive
Beachlands
Attachments: Resource Consent - L175.pdf

Categories: URGENT

Attention Rashida Sahib


Please find attached a copy of our letter withdrawing our objection regarding the above application,
If you have any questions please contact me

Best Regards
Yash – 021895755

190 jack lachlan drive, pine harbour marina, beachlands, auckland.


T: 09 536 46 59 E: yash@pepperjacks.co.nz Web: www.pepperjacks.co.nz
FB : www.facebook.com/pepperjacksrestaurant

From: Melanie Sopoaga [mailto:Melanie.Sopoaga@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]  
Sent: Wednesday, 14 February 2018 1:26 p.m. 
Subject: LUC60305157 Submission Received for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive Beachlands 
 
Dear Sir/Madam
 
RESOURCE CONSENT SUBMISSION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Application Number: LUC60305157

Applicant: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

496
Proposal: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four
buildings for commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing
public footpath, upgrade an existing private road, removal of trees and
construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an
assessment of environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity

Site Address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Thank you for your recent submission to the above resource consent application. We note that the
submission period closed on Thursday, 8th February 2018.

Section 96(6) of the Resource Management Act 1991, requires you to serve a copy of your submission to the
applicant address for service as soon as possible. Please disregard if this has already been done.
 
In due course a Council hearing will take place to determine the application. You will receive at least 10
working days’ notice of the commencement date and time, and the place of the Council hearing.
 
If you have any queries about the application, please direct all queries to Rashida Sahib, Senior Planner at
Auckland Council on 09 2618859 or email rashida.sahib@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz .

Regards
 

Melanie Sopoaga
Regulatory Support Officer
Southern Resource Consenting - Manukau
Ph: 09 301 0101 | Auckland Council
Email: rcregulatorysupportsouth@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Visit our website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

  
 

CAUTION: This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not
the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in
error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. We do not accept responsibility for any viruses or similar
carried with our email, or any effects our email may have on the recipient computer system or network. Any views expressed in this email may be
those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Council.

497
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Thursday, 8 February 2018 12:36 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:57] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 8 February 2018 12:16 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:57] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Yash Narula

Organisation name: Pepperjacks Restaurant & Bar

Contact phone number: 021895755

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
190 Jack lachlan Drive Pine harbour marina, beachlands Auckland 2018

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

498
Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:
_ the development on the coastal waters is not desirable and has no economic benefit to the local community in
the long run. It does not take into account the encroachment and environment issues, with more traffic and more
resources being used with very little infrastructure to support

What are the reasons for your submission?


The businesses on the marina, are already suffering with the landlords rent hikes with one of them relocating
already from there to another location outside the area. Secondly with the existing eateries who struggle during
winter, will suffer further with extra pressure and some of them will fail to survive. The population growth is not to
such a degree that it will sustain new business. As we can see with the new development at the beachlands
round about

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Well to be blunt, this development should not go through, as it is just trying to maximize their benefits , clearly we
have seen this happening in Gulf harbour marina, which is a ghost town now.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

499
Submission 46 (45 pages)
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions


Sent: Thursday, 8 February 2018 12:37 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:58] Submission received on notified resource consent
Attachments: 190jacklachlandrive-02-applicationandAEE - Response7_
20180208121326.259.docx

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 8 February 2018 12:16 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:58] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Graeme Caskey

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 61403958800

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Postal address:
97 Prince Charles Road Belrose Sydney 2085

Submission details

500
This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:


Reduced amenity value.

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
Revoke the current consent. Decline this application Rezone precinct F to open air spaces

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:
190jacklachlandrive-02-applicationandAEE - Response7_20180208121326.259.docx

501
PINE HARBOUR MARINA LIMITED

APPLICATION FOR RESOURCE CONSENT

TO ERECT A NEW BUILDING AND UNDERAKE COMMERCIAL


AND APARTMENT LIVING ACTIVITIES AT

190 JACK LACHLAN DRIVE, PINE HARBOUR

July 2017

502
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY DETAILS


2. APPLICATION FORM A
3. THE PROPOSAL
4. REASONS FOR THE APPLICATION
5. APPLICATION ASSESSMENT
5.1 Statutory Considerations

5.2 Section 104(1)(a) Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment

5.3 Section 104(1)(b)(i) to (vi) Relevant Planning Documents

6. SECTION 104D GATEWAY TEST


7. STATUTORY CONCLUSION
8. NOTIFICATION
9. LAPSING OF CONSENT
8. CONCLUSION

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AND DESIGN REPORT

APPENDIX 2: ENGINEERING REPORT

APPENDIX 3: TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

APPENDIX 4: ARBORICULTURAL ASSESSMENT AND LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS

APPENDIX 5: EXISTING CONSENT GRANTED JUNE 2017

503
1. THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY DETAILS
Site Address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Pine Harbour

Legal Description: Lot 1 DP 489019 PAR_ ID 7625981

Site Area: 58,089m²

Applicant’s Name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Statutory Plan: Auckland Unitary Plan

Zoning: Marina zone, Open Space Informal Recreation

Brief Description of Proposal: Construct buildings to accommodate apartments and retail


activities

Reasons for Consent: Consent for the building and activities is required as a Non-
complying activity

Other information attached: Appendix 1. Architectural Drawings and Design Report


Appendix 2. Engineering Report
Appendix 3. Traffic Assessment Report
Appendix 4. Arboricultural Assessment
Appendix 5. Existing consent granted 26 June 2017

Applicant’s Agent: Shearer Consulting Limited

Agent’s Details: PO Box 60-240


Titirangi 0644
Attention: Craig Shearer
Phone: 021 735915
Email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

504
2. APPLICATION FORM A

- See following pages

505
3. THE PROPOSAL
3.1 Background

Pine Harbour Marina at Beachlands was originally developed after being consented in 1985
and is based around a 570 berth marina. As well as a 10 ha marina basin, Pine Harbour
Marina encompasses 11.85 hectares of land which is in use for a range of marine services,
ferry, hard stand, boat parking, car parking, commercial, industrial and residential activities.

The entire marina development was financed indirectly by marina berth holders who
purchased right to occupy licenses for their boats. Ongoing maintenance of the facility has
also been financed by berth holders. All operational costs plus a 15% margin are invoiced by
4 quarterly payments payable by each berth holder based on the size of their berth. Without
berth holders there would not be a marina or marina precinct. A high percentage of the
business’s operating out of the area do so by virtue of supplying services to berth holders or
berth users who are renting the berths. I purchased our Marina berth at a cost of $20,000 in
2012 and have contributed a further $20,000 in maintenance fees which presents the area
as you see it today. My berth is relatively small at 12.5 meters and many berth holders have
contributed much more and over a longer period of time. Berth holders are key
stakeholders in what is an operational marina.

The land is zoned Marina Zone and Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings
in the Auckland Unitary Plan. The Pine Harbour Precinct overlays the site. The precinct
plan and zoning provides for the development of the entire area into a vibrant mixed use
development to create a thriving community clustered around a world class marina. The
Precinct is divided into a number of sub-precincts, with the proposed development being
located within sub-precinct F, identified as being in the Marine Commercial Precinct.

The Marina precinct in question is deemed commercial and this proposal is based upon
residential. Furthermore, the proposal is high density. On that basis alone, it should be
declined.

It is important that this notified consent reconsiders the context and consequence of the
current consented development. It is also important to see this development in a similar
light to others in the Auckland region which are causing development issues. The current
consented application did not in any way consider the effects that developments such as
this which remove or degrade access and facilities have on the current users. In reviewing
this application and the documentation supplied to support it, it is clear that those users,
primary stakeholders have not been considered in setting further development and usage of
the area. The issue of how marina environments are consented and the process by which
these zones can be utilized needs to be overhauled to reflect the true impact changes such
as this proposal can have on those affected most.
In reference to document F3. Coastal – Marina Zone section, F3.8.1, 2 there is scope for
discretion however it is abundantly clear that current users must be considered as part of
applying discretion. There is no evidence that this ever happened, as a user and stakeholder
I was not asked for my views which could easily have happened through the Marina owners
who have direct communication with us all.
Please see document I431 Pine Harbor Precinct.
My overriding sentiment is that this does not become another environment court issue,
where berth holders who have already invested large sums of money are forced to fund an
appeal to decisions already made and which are flawed. Issues of costs can make action
prohibitive, we must take actions which preserves this area without risk to individuals who
have built what we have already.

On 26 June 2017 consent was granted by the Council for a similar development - see 506
Appendix 5. This provides for four buildings identical in bulk and location to the proposal.

The consent granted on the 26 June by the council should be revoked on the basis that
the planning and consultation process and consideration for key stakeholders was flawed.
Any other option has potential to create litigation issues surrounding council process.
A judicial review could also be considered given the magnitude of the effect this has on
berth holders.

3.2 The Proposal

Pine Harbour Marina Limited has decided that the upper floor of the consented development
would be better served for residential activities compared with the office uses originally
proposed. These floors are generous in height and the proposal is now to modify the
consented building so that there are two floors of residential development above the ground
floor retail area. Apart from the building now being three storeys, there are slight
consequential changes to the parking requirements and traffic generation, but these are less
than for the existing consented development. Apart from those changes, all aspects of the
development are identical to that approved with the effects likely to be less.

Approval is being sought for food and beverage, retail sales, and commercial services,
alongside apartment living and marine retail uses. The location of the site is as shown in the
aerial photograph below.

Figure 1: Development Location and Site (outlined in red)

507
The proposal is to construct four buildings, each consisting of three levels, standing a
maximum height of 9m above ground – see Appendix 1 for the architectural drawings. At the
ground level there will be carparks facing the road access, and to the north, facing the marina
basin and pedestrian walkway will be commercial spaces. On the floor above will be two levels
of apartments with balconies to provide active visual connection to the marina basin.

Buildings of this size in such a narrow space will create a significant shadow effect to the south
of their location. This area will also be the back of proposed business’s and residential building
and where condensed parking is proposed. The combination of these aspects will create a
poor visual aspect. It is proposed that a walkway be build behind the proposed development
however there will be a severe degradation in the environmental value to those who enjoy
spending time walking alongside the marina as the marina will not be seen, there will be an
increase in traffic congestion, the view will be into peoples and business back yards and
rubbish bins and not toward the marina and the sea beyond. In addition to this, berth holders
and their families will be in contest for parking space to access piers A through C.
A development to the south set back against and blending into the cliff face and screened out
with suitable vegetation might work. There were baches removed from Ngamotu beach in New
Plymouth, Taranaki a number of years ago. This was done to preserve the area for the general
public and future generations. This application is proposing the reverse. While housing issues in
Auckland are acknowledged they should not lead to this type of development. Residential does
not need to be at the water’s edge. Functional marina does. Given there is a ferry service out of
Pine Harbour, commuter packing is also a priority ranking above residential.

The buildings have been separated to provide for access between each building and to allow
view shafts to be exposed through to the marina basin. In addition the bulk and length of the
buildings are not so apparent by their separation. The buildings front on to the existing public
walkway and the marina basin and form a strong active connection. The development has been
designed to be consistent with the relevant AUP Precinct provisions, although the use of the
buildings for residential uses is a non-complying activity.

While it is reassuring that buildings for residential purposes does not comply, any construction
will have a detrimental effect on the marina environment. The area to the east of the ranger’s
hut continues to be built out in a high-density fashion, the current open space area to the west
provide much needed relief to that area. Where will people walk, where will people exercise
themselves and their pets? Where do people get away from high density? This construction is
based upon profit motives to the detriment of the functional, visual and aesthetic environment
and will ruin what is special about Pine Harbour Marina and surrounding areas.

Generally the buildings will comply with the standards in the Pine Harbour Precinct provisions of
the Auckland Unitary Plan. The maximum height will be no more than 9 metres; the
maximum site coverage does not exceed 80%; the setback requirements are complied with.
The exception is the number of storeys. The plan requires a minimum of two, but also a
maximum of two. The new proposal however can still fit within the requirements of all other
standards.

Residential buildings are not permitted in Precinct F so on a usage basis this does not comply.
Maximum site coverage will exceed 80%. Applicant has chosen to be remove the word ‘net’
and site coverage must consider current usage. Examples of this include displaced parking
spaces set aside by regulation in the original marina design for use by berth holders on piers A
through C. The 80% rule cannot be satisfied without including these parking spaces.
Clause 10 of the contract I hold states I have access and use of common waterways and
pathways. Clause 32 states ‘the Marina’ includes parking areas hence contractually those areas
must be retained in reasonable function as per the agreement binding on myself and the
developer. While this may not be of direct concern to the consent process it does support a

508
view that berth holders can reasonably expect existing car parking and access to be retained
for their use.

A number of uses are proposed within the building, including food and beverage, dairies, and
marine retail on the ground floor, alongside residential uses on the first and second floors. The
former are all either Controlled or Permitted Activities under the zone provisions, with
residential not provided for in this precinct and is therefore non-complying under the Marina
Zone rules.

Where do food and beverage customers and berth holders park? Under the current conditions
there is significantly congested parking for those accessing piers A through C. This will be
further compromised to a degree which would not be tolerable. The space between the water
at pier access points and proposed business’s is proposed to be that narrow that a wall is
required. How are berth holder and their families laden with bedding, suitcases and provisions
supposed to access their vessels in competition with business customers? Clearly, they won’t
be able to to the same degree and the facilities they have paid for and maintained will be
seriously degraded.

A traffic assessment report has been prepared by Commute and is attached to this report as
Appendix 3. This covers traffic, parking, road safety, loading and provisions for pedestrians. A
total of 90 car parks are required for the development by the AUP. However, 94 car parking
spaces are provided because there are 8 double stacked car parks which must be allocated to
residential uses. Included in the figure of 90 are 24 spaces provided in lieu of those car park
spaces displaced firstly because building four will be constructed over one of the Ranger House
(the adjacent building to the east) car parking areas, and secondly because some of the parking
spaces along the access road that are also currently allocated to Ranger House will now be
taken up by the two bus stops. 56 Car parking spaces are to be provided within the buildings to
be constructed with the balance provided along the accessway to the rear of the building.

The traffic report is based upon activity during the month of December, a month when
commuters are taking holidays and activity slows down in general.

There is no mentioned of road safety in the traffic impact report. Berth holders will be
accessing their vehicles from the rear boot, families often with young children will be exposed
to significant volumes of traffic. This is quite different to parking in areas such as supermarkets
and major retail areas. Apart from normal traffic movements, commuters arriving late to catch
ferries or the proposed bus services will create enhanced potential for serious injury or fatality.
Under the current arrangement berth holders have a private area which has controlled access
in which to unload and reload vehicles.

Careful design has been applied to the provision of pedestrian access to and through the
development. There is a change is surface treatment in several locations to slow traffic and
guide pedestrians to the new buildings. In respect of access to and from the ferry terminal, the
traffic assessment report has identified the potential for pedestrian safety issues with the
narrow walkway adjacent to the marina basin. A barrier is proposed to protect pedestrians
from falling onto the rock wall adjacent to the marina basin.

Overall traffic generation is assessed to be between 132 and 136 for peak hour trips, with a
daily total of 1283-1337. There are no traffic safety issues identified in the Traffic Report.

The traffic report makes no significant mention of or investigation into people often with small
children unloading and reloading significant volumes of bedding, suitcases and provisions for
sailing trips. It also does not review access for rubbish disposal which is now through a series of
large skip bins which are often full to overflowing in the area.

509
An engineering report has also been prepared and is attached as Appendix 2. This report
covers the land modification, development and utility issues associated with the proposal. In
order to protect the building from 1% AEP flooding a flood mitigation bund in the form of a
concrete wall is being proposed adjacent to the drain to the south of the site. This has been
designed to protect the development and all of the Pine Harbour Marina land from a
1% AEP flood event in accordance with the proposed mitigation works included in the
Integrated Catchment Management Plan for the wider catchment. The details of the design are
included in the appended Engineering report.

In order to provide the foundation platform for the flood mitigation bund, the buildings and for
the car parking areas, up to 1,000m³ of earthworks will be undertaken over the development
area. In addition Pohutukawa trees lining the stormwater drain will need to be removed as
well as similar trees located on the site of the proposed buildings.

Infrastructure services are readily available to the site. There is an existing water supply system
available and the wider Pine Harbour area is reticulated with a wastewater network. Although
there is an existing stormwater system, a new system will be installed that discharges to the
existing outlets.

4. REASONS FOR THE APPLICATION

Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part

Activity Auckland Council Planning Document Activity Status


Regional land use consents
Earthworks E11.4.1 (A9). ) for earthworks greater than Restricted
2,500m2 within the Sediment Control Protection Discretionary
Area. Specifically, the proposal includes
earthworks over an area of 6,481m2.
Vegetation removal E15.4.1(A19) pursuant to Rule for vegetation Restricted
alteration or removal within 10m of urban streams. Discretionary
A significant number of trees within 10 m of the Activity
drain to the south of the accessway are to be
removed (see Arboricultural Assessment).
Vegetation removal E15.4.1(A21) the removal of indigenous trees over Restricted
3m in height (and over an area greater than 25m2 Discretionary
of contiguous vegetation) within 20m of mean high Activity
water springs. A significant number of indigenous
trees are within 20 m of the coastal marine area
(including the marina) are to be removed. This does
not apply to the 22 bangalow palm trees, as they
are not indigenous. (see Arboricultural Assessment).

District Land Use Consents


Earthworks Rule E12.4.1(A6) for earthworks greater than Restricted
2,500m2. Specifically, the proposal includes Discretionary
earthworks over an area of 6,481m2. Activity

Earthworks in a Rule C1.9(2) for earthworks within the 1% AEP flood Restricted
floodplain plain that consists of a fill volume greater than Discretionary
10m3 (not complying with Standard E12.6.2(11)). Activity

510
Tree removal in Open Rule E16.4.1(A10) for tree removal in an Restricted
Space Zone open space zone where the tree is greater than 4m Discretionary
in height or greater than 400mm in Activity
girth. This applies to 22 bangalow palm trees at 33R
Puriri Road (the walkway).

Parking in areas prone Rule E36.4.1(A25) for surface parking areas in the Controlled Activity
to flooding 1% AEP floodplain that do not comply with Standard
E36.6.1.7. Prior to the establishment of the
proposed flood wall, parts of the proposed
accessway and ground floor parking area are to
be located where flood waters in a 1% AEP event
would be between 200 mm and 500 mm.

Building in a floodplain Rule E36.4.1(A37) for new buildings within Restricted


the 1% AEP floodplain not otherwise provided for. Discretionary
Prior to the establishment of the Activity
proposed flood wall, parts of the proposed buildings
are to be located within the floodplain.

Building (veranda) in Rule H7.9.1(A39) for new buildings in the Open Discretionary
Open Space zone Space –Informal Recreation zone that do not Activity
comply with one or more standards, as the walkway
veranda does not comply with Standard H7.11.3
Yards, as the veranda is closer than 3 m to the
boundary of Lot 1 DP 489019 (zoned Coastal –
Marina) and is closer than 20m from mean high
water springs
New building Rule I431.4.3(A17) for the construction of Restricted
new buildings in Pine Harbour Sub-precinct F. Discretionary
Activity
Food and beverage Rule I431.4.3(A19) for food and beverage Restricted
activities in Pine Harbour Sub-precinct F. A Discretionary
maximum GFA of 830m2 is proposed (all of Activity
the ground floor tenancies).

Dairies Rule I431.4.3(A21) for dairies with a gross Restricted


floor area greater than 100m2 in Pine Harbour Sub- Discretionary
precinct F. Only one of the proposed Activity
ground floor tenancies would contain a dairy, with a
GFA of up to 150m2.

Marine Retail Rule I431.4.3(A24) for marine retail activities Restricted


with a gross floor area greater than 100m2 in Pine Discretionary
Harbour Sub-precinct F. A maximum GFA of 830m2 Activity
is proposed (all of the ground floor tenancies).
Dwellings Rule F3.4.2 (A5) for the partial occupation of a Non Complying
building as dwellings Activity

Applying the bundling provisions, overall consent is required as a Non-Complying activity.

5. APPLICATION ASSESSMENT

511
5.1 Statutory Considerations
When considering an application for a non-complying activity the following matters are
relevant for the consent authority. Section 104(1) of the RMA sets out the matters to be
considered when determining an application for resource consent. Under s104B, after
considering an application for a resource consent for a non-complying activity a consent
authority may grant or refuse the application and if it grants the application, may impose
conditions under section 108.

Under s104D a consent authority may grant a resource consent for a non-complying activity
only if it is satisfied that either the adverse effects of the activity on the environment will be
minor or the application is for an activity that will not be contrary to the objectives and
policies of the relevant plan. Section 108 provides for consent to be granted subject to
conditions and sets out the kind of conditions that may be imposed.

There is a significant impact on the environment due to this proposal. It places between
4,000 and 5,000 square meters of building on the water line in a very congested area and
displaces those currently using and having paid for that space. This does not include car
parks and a host of activities which consume space by their very nature. From an aesthetics
aspect the proposal is very poor and severely degrades the amenity and environmental
value of the site. Further it is unnecessary given the amount of development already
undertaken to the east. Places like Whitianga have purpose built canal style developments,
almost without exception these developments have a green belt between the building and
the waterline.

The application of s5 of Part 2 involves an overall broad judgement of whether a proposal


will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Section 6 deals
with a number of matters of national importance to be recognised and provided for, section
7 other matters particular regard shall be given to, and section 8 the principles of the Treaty
of Waitangi to be taken into account of.

5.2 Section 104(1)(a) Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment

Section 104(1)(a) of the RMA requires that a council have regard to any actual or potential
effects on the environment of allowing the activity. These are set out in the assessment
below.

5.2.1 Existing Environment

The existing environment is the state of affairs that a consent authority must take into
account when assessing the effects of an activity and includes the current receiving
environment as it might be modified by the implementation of resource consents which have
been granted, where it appears likely that those resource consent will be implemented.1 In
the case of this application, the existing environment comprises the receiving environment,
and the Discretionary activity consent granted 26 June 2017. This consent approved an
application to undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four
buildings from commercial activities, upgrade an existing footpath, upgrade and existing
private road, removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path.

This application is virtually identical to the existing consented application with two
exceptions. Firstly residential activities are now being sought within the four buildings, and
secondly the consented second storey of those buildings will be modified to form two levels
of apartments. This will mean the building is now to be three storeys high instead of two,
although the external physical form of the buildings subject to this consent application will
be virtually identical in all aspects – height, form, and building coverage – to those buildings
already consented. All other aspects of the new development including the flood wall,
upgrade of existing footpaths, upgrade of the road, removal of trees and construction of
pedestrian and cycle path, will be identical to the existing consented project.
512
The existing environment includes the current users of the area. There is no mention of the
effects that this development will have on others. This is an omission and intentional as any
true consideration for berth holders would rule this development out.

5.2.2 Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment

1
Queenstown-Lakes District Council v Hawthorn Estate Ltd [2006] NZRMA 424 (CA) at [84]; Far North
District Council v Te Runanga-a-Iwi o Ngati Kahu [2013] NZCA 221.

513
The following effects have been considered as the effects on the environment

Scale and urban design


Reverse sensitivity
Transport effects including roading, traffic, parking and public transport
Flooding and coastal hazards effects
Tree removal
Sediment control
Services stormwater, wastewater

Scale and Urban Design

Overall the building footprint, height, general appearance and context are virtually identical
to the buildings already approved by consent 50852. They have been designed so that their
scale and type of development is consistent with the contemporary marina style established
elsewhere in the marina. Consideration has been given to the urban design elements of the
proposal and the relationship of the buildings within the marina environment.

As the site is very narrow, with a necessary vehicle access traversing through it, it is necessary
to have only one “frontage” and that is facing the marina and water’s edge. It is here that
the main pedestrian walking area will be located for those travelling from the ferry to the
main parking areas and for those recreational walkers wandering around the marina on the
recreational walkway. The downstairs commercial buildings will open up to this area
encouraging free movement from the walkway into and out of the buildings. This is also the
north facing side of the buildings so logically the upper level apartments will open out to look
over the marina, natural light and sunshine. The proposed veranda will provide all weather
shelter for those using the marina walkway.

The southern side of the building must of necessity locate the accessway through the site. It
is not practical with such a narrow site to accommodate double frontage, active buildings
with the associated car parking. Therefore this side of the development is more functional
than it is interactive with the environment.

This aspect has been noted previously in this submission. The southern aspect will be an eye
sore. Car parks, berth holders and business owners and any customers, residents and
commuters, rubbish bins and trucks and buses will be competing for space in an austere
environment more akin to the high density inner city living area seen in some poorly
designed major centers. In declining this application there is an opportunity to ensure this
does not occur in a place which is currently and should remain, relatively pristine.

Efforts have been made to adhere as much as possible to the Pine Harbour Precinct Plan.
Because of the need for vehicle access through the site and for safety reasons, the pedestrian
walkway and cycleway has been located on the southern side of the stormwater drain. This
enables a wide walkway (3m) and provides amenity advantages as this area is backed by a
bush clad escarpment. The only other variation from the Precinct Plan is maintaining the
accessway on its current alignment at its western end. This reflects the current easement
arrangements and avoids the need to locate buildings on its southern side if the alignment
was moved.

The height, setback, building coverage and maximum impermeable area all comply with the
standards set in the Precinct provisions.

Overall the scale and design of the buildings are considered appropriate and will have no
effects on the environment especially when they are assessed against the existing approved
environment.

514
I believe what this is really saying is that the plan has already approved something which is
not acceptable. The current approval should be revoked by any means possible and the
wider planning issues that relate to marina areas in Auckland reviewed through an extensive
consultation process. That process should include seeking submissions from stakeholders
including berth holders in marina communities.

There is a general belief that nobody ever thought a development such of this was possible.
It does not make sense or pass the ‘pub’ test in many ways so it is easy to imagine how this
could have been so. During the previous consenting process there was no berth holder
association in existence which is unfortunate. Individuals could have been consulted
however, there was a relatively simple mechanism through the marina owners for this to
have been managed. Hindsight enables us to see the flaws in what happened, this process
enables us to address these flaws and set a bench park for how marina development should
be consented.

Reverse Sensitivity

515
There is potential for the mix of land uses proposed to be affected by normal marina
operations on a day to day basis, such as noise, thus creating reverse sensitivity issues. The
most noise however is likely to originate on the northern side of the marina where sub-
precinct G is located – the Marine Industry sub-precinct, where daily activities include loading
boats into and out of the water using the travel lift. Other industrial type activity occurs in
the area. This activity is confined to daylight hours and regardless is some 150m from the
proposed development and also shielded by a number of other buildings.

The area is however a working marina and those working and living in the proposed new
buildings will be aware that the environment is an active one with various boating and ferry
transport movements occurring on a regular basis. The reverse sensitivity effects of the
proposed development have been assessed as minor.

Effects on reverse sensitivity are the responsibility of the developer. There is no mention of
movements and usage by berth holders other than a general comment about boating
movements. This is a significant under selling of the conflict that is already taking place and
will continue to develop with respect to the potential development. Berth holders on piers A
through C have already had their parking spaces removed and in general are being bullied
into accepting this proposal as fait-accompli.
There is also significant irony in the wording of this section as it considers the views of
potential residents as reverse sensitivity without in any way considering the impact on berth
holders. The developer has already subjected or forced the berth holders into a
considerable reduction in amenity value.

Transport effects including roading, traffic, parking and public transport

No changes to the transport aspects have been made to the already consented existing
environment development.

Several transport effects have been assessed. The main transport assessment has been set
out in the Traffic Assessment Report prepared by Commute Transportation Consultants; see
Appendix 3 to this application. Although the private road has not been relocated to strictly
accord with the Pine Harbour Precinct Plan, the proposal is more practical, maintaining the
existing alignment and is in accordance with the easement providing for public access
through the site. This alignment will also ensure there will be no application for development
on the southern and western side of the road as is possible in the Precinct Plan alignment.

Pedestrian access has been improved from the undeveloped site. A dedicated pedestrian
way is proposed on the south side of the stormwater drain, to be shared with cyclists, and a
dedicated footpath is now to be located on the northern side of the drain adjacent to the car
parks where none exists on either side at present. The pedestrian accessway alongside the
marina basin in front of the proposed development will be covered to provide all weather
protection form the elements.

This narrow area on the marina front should not be considered for all intents and purposes
to be pedestrian access. First and foremost, it is needed for berth holders to access their
boats as the area is a working marina. This area is narrow and designed more to support
access for business customers to shops. The fact a retaining wall is required supports this.
There will be issues with berth holders carrying bedding, suitcases and provisions in this
area as it is the only and seriously degraded access to their boats. Skip bins are currently
placed along this area so berth holders can sensibly dispose of rubbish. There is no mention
of how rubbish disposal will be catered for.

In respect of parking the proposal is able to accommodate the 90 car parking spaces required
by Auckland Unitary Plan. Note there are 24 spaces required to compensate for the loss of
516
an equivalent number of parks for use by the existing Ranger House building – parking spaces
that are to be lost by constructing building four over one Ranger House car parking area and
the loss of some Ranger House allocated par parks on the accessway to make way for the
two bus stops. Overall the proposal is for fewer car parks than required by the existing
approved proposal (114 required) and therefore the effects are assessed as being less.

There does not appear to be any mention of the car parks displaced adjacent to piers A
through C. Council regulations state that 0.35 car parks must be assigned per marina berth
for berth holder use. The car parks assigned to berth holders in piers A through C have had
their parking spaces removed permanently. In my case this is in contravention of the berth
license I hold.

Traffic movements created by the proposed development are similar to those required in the
existing environment consented development. The peak hour vehicle movements are
assessed as being less in the new proposed development compared with the consented
development – 132-136 during the peak hours compared with 153 for the consented
proposal. Daily Vehicle Trips in the new proposal are assessed as being between 1,283 and
1,337 in the new proposal compared with 1,319 in the consented development. The effects
of traffic movements are therefore assessed as being less for the new proposed
development.

Finally there will be positive effects on public transport from the new proposal. There are
now 28 apartments proposed whereas there were previously none. Assuming an average of
2.5 people per apartment this will locate 84 people in close proximity to the ferry terminal,
potentially supporting increased usage of the services and less use of roads than if these
apartments had been located elsewhere. As per the consented proposal, two new bus stops
have been located on either side of the accessway close to the ferry terminal. This should
promote use of bus services to access the ferry service.

There does not appear to be any provision for buses to turn around. A bus terminal is
supported but there needs to be more thought into how that can be achieved. A substantial
building as prp

Given the zoning of the land and the development already consented for this site, this
application is assessed as having no adverse transport effects upon the environment.

I believe which this is really saying is that the plan has already approved something which is
not acceptable. The current approval should be revoked by any means possible and the
wider planning issues that relate to marina areas in Auckland reviewed through an extensive
consultation process. That process should include seeking submissions from stakeholders
including berth holders in marina communities.

Flooding and coastal hazards

There is the potential for significant flooding to occur on the site and cause adverse effects,
due largely to the significant amount of urban development, and consequential impermeable
surfaces, occurring in the upper catchment which drains down to the marina environment.
There is also potential for coastal inundation on the site, with the potential for this to worsen
as a result of climate change.

The Unitary Plan requires all habitable floor levels to be located 0.5m above the 1% coastal
inundation level plus sea level change (1m). As a consequence all habitable floors will be on
the two upper floors so they will not be impacted. The lower floors are to be used for garaging
and commercial/retail space.

517
A flood protection wall is proposed along the existing open drain on the southern site of the
development site to provide flood protection in the event of a major storm and flood event.
Details of the wall and its design standards are set out in the Engineering Report prepared as
part of this application by Crang Civil. This wall has been designed to provide a 500mm
freeboard above the 1% flood level. Constructed of concrete the wall has been designed
using Council approved design standards.

Flooding and coastal hazards effects can be minimised through the installation of a flood wall
and through setting minimum floor levels for buildings.

This section further demonstrates the complete unsuitability of this area for this type of
development. It is narrow, it compromises current entitled usage to a significant degree and
is dangerous for those accessing boats (it is a marina).
And it floods.
It will also be subject to storm flood and/or rising sea levels.

Tree removal

A large number of trees within the site have been approved for removal in the consent issued
in June 2017. An arboricultural assessment has been undertaken by Greenscene NZ (see
Appendix 4) 3). Greenscene has surveyed the site and found 93 trees or groups of trees (128
individual trees) within the site with nearly all proposed to be removed. The trees are both
exotic and native in origin.

The removal of trees is necessary to facilitate the construction of the buildings, car parks,
flood bund, and footpaths. Although there will be a significant number of trees removed the
assessment has shown that they are relatively small and their contribution to the wider
environment is not significant. However a landscape plan (see Appendix 4) has been
prepared to mitigate the effects of the tree removal and a large number of replacement trees
and shrubs will offset the effects and enhance the area post development.

There are also Bangalore Palms on the Council reserve/walkway on the northern side of the
proposed development that will be removed once Council has given its approval. As these
trees are invasive and categorised as a research plant pest species in the Auckland Plant Pest
Management Strategy, their loss has been evaluated as having little significance.

The tree removal programme is identical to that proposed in the existing consented proposal
for the site and if the same conditions are applied to this consent the effects are assessed as
being minor.

Note a number of native trees have already been removed by the applicant. These trees
should be reinstated and the area returned to its previous state prior to the application
being further considered.
The trees in the wider Pine Harbour marina area are synonymous with the marina and its
development history. They have been there many years and are contributing to an
appealing visual outlook as well as shade for people using the area. It is unacceptable that
these trees have been removed and that more are proposed to be removed to be replaced
with a concrete structure. The environment at Pine Harbour is unique and it should be
retained for future generations. This includes the trees.

518
Sediment control

After the site has been cleared, minor earthworks will be necessary to prepare the site and
foundations for the new buildings, the parking areas and the flood wall. This will equate to
approximately 605m³ of cut and 270m³ of fill (903m³ in total) over an area of 7,000m².
Sediment controls involving silt fences at low points and the installation of geotextile
protection along the cess pits will be put in place.

It is anticipated standard sediment control conditions will be imposed requiring all sediment
control to comply with the requirements of GDO5, Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for
Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region 2016 (previously TP90). Consequently any
adverse effects arising from the proposal can be avoided, remedied or mitigated. In
particular, there will be control measures during the earthworks and construction phase to
minimise the likely impact of dust, noise and runoff on the surrounding environment and to
ensure on-site land stability, and conditions will ensure the appropriate management of any
contaminated material.

No earthworks changes are proposed for the consented development and it is anticipated
there will be no adverse significant effects.

Utility services including wastewater, water and stormwater

The engineering report from Crang Civil has assessed availability of water from the existing
bore at the end of Tui Brae. It is treated to NZ drinking water standards, has adequate
capacity to service the proposal and sufficient pressure to provide firefighting supply.

There is sufficient capacity in the wastewater network to absorb discharges from the
proposed development. A new sewer will be installed to replace one existing sewer line that
is to be removed as part of the project.

A Stormwater discharge consent issued for discharges from the marina has been transferred
to Auckland Council. This includes discharges from the proposed development. The proposal
has been designed to comply with this consent and as a consequence roof materials will be
constructed on inert materials to avoid any potential for contamination and cesspits along
the roads are to have smart sponge filter enviropods retrofitted to provide stormwater
treatment. All stormwater will be discharged to the same outlets as currently occurs.

There will be no adverse utility effects, and the proposal is almost identical to the consented
proposal with slightly varying water and wastewater volumes due to the proposal to create
apartment living in two upper levels of the buildings.

Suitable wastewater and stormwater disposal can be provided to service the proposed
development.

Conclusion – actual and potential effects on the environment

519
In summary the effects on the environment are assessed as being minimal and certainly no
greater, if as significant, as those generated by the already consented existing environment.
The effects are considered to be less than minor.

5.3 Section 104(1)(b) Relevant Planning Documents

Under Section 104(1)(b) when considering an application one must, subject to Part 2, have
regard to the relevant provisions of a national policy statement, regulations, the regional
policy statement and any plans, or any other matter considered reasonably relevant to
determine the application.

5.3.1 NZ Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS)

The NZCPS 2010 is considered to have limited relevance to this application.

Pine Harbour Marina and its environment are generally highly modified from any natural
state, and thus many of the objectives and policies are not relevant to this proposal as it is
already too late to protect high quality natural environments at this location. This highly
modified environment is recognised and provided for in Objective 6 of the NZCPS which
recognises that use and development enables people and communities to provide for their
social, economic and cultural wellbeing and their health and safety, recognising use and
development can occur in appropriate places. The natural Pine Harbour environment has
already been modified at this location so this is an appropriate place for the proposed
development which is reflected in the District Plan provisions.

The area in question has been modified but not highly modified. It provides open area
spaces and natural vista for a wide variety and many users.

Policy 6 in referring to activities in the coastal environment encourages the consolidation of


existing settlements, the avoidance of sprawl and presumably effects upon high quality
natural environments that are largely untouched by development.

Overall on assessing the NZCPS the proposed development is consistent with the provisions
of the Policy Statement. This reflects the provisions within the District Plan providing for the
development of the building as a Restrict Discretionary Activity.

There is no NES or other regulations or National Policy Statements in effect that applies to
this application.

5.3.2 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA)

A consent authority must, when considering an application for a resource consent within the
Hauraki Gulf or its catchments, ensure that the application does not conflict with sections 7
and 8 of the HGMPA. In respect of section 7, the proposal will not affect the capacity for the
Gulf to provide for historic, traditional, cultural and spiritual relationship of tangata whenua
with the Gulf or its islands. The proposal will provide for social, economic and recreational
well-being by providing opportunities for employment and by providing services for those
using the Gulf for recreational purposes. The proposal will not adversely affect the natural
ecosystems and water of the Gulf.

The proposed will degrade the functionality of berth holders accessing their vessels and the
overall experience of using Pine Harbour. It will create congestion and increase exposure to
hazards when accessing vessels. The look and feel of Pine Harbour will change forever in an
unacceptable way if this proposal proceeds.

Section 8 has also been assessed. Pine Harbour Marina has been sited to provide for easy
520
access for those wanting to carry our recreational pursuits to enjoy the resources of the
Hauraki Gulf. The proposed development is just one component of the wider marina area
which provides for access and the services of those wanting to access the Gulf. The proposal
will not compromise the objectives of section 8.

Easy access will be compromised. Pine Harbour provides more than simple access. It
provides a place for people with similar interests to meet and share knowledge and
experiences and a place for berth holders to generally tend to and enjoy using and
improving their boats. All of these aspects are in jeopardy. Is there parking space set aside
for tradespeople working on boats?
Berth holders have spent significant sums of money on this pursuit and there is evidence
this proposal has already lowered the value of berths at Pine Harbour.

521
Overall the proposal is consistent with sections 7 ac 8 of the HGMPA.

5.3.3 Regional Policy Statement – Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

The application has been generally assessed against the relevant provisions of the Regional
Policy Statement (RPS). The RPS is a strategic document aimed at setting the regional
direction for managing the use, development and protection of the natural and physical
resources of the Auckland region.

The strategic objectives promote, amongst others an appropriate urban form for the region,
the use of natural resources for not only environmental well-being but social economic and
cultural well-being, the use and development of resources in the coastal environment that
are in appropriate locations with appropriate form, and the management of development to
ensure risk from natural hazards is not increased.

In summary the proposed development is considered to be generally consistent with and will
give effect to the strategic provisions of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement by
concentrating development in the coastal environment where development has already
modified the environment significantly; by mitigating the effects of natural hazards - flooding
will be mitigated by the construction of a flood prevention wall, and the effects of coastal
inundation will be mitigated by ensuring habitable floor levels are located well above the 1%
AEP + 1m climate change inundation level; and by increasing the use of public transport by
locating development adjacent to the ferry terminal; The development will provide
incentives for more people to visit the coastline and will provide walking and cycling access
and connections within the Marina and to the neighbouring Beachlands.

Walking and cycling access will be compromised. The removal of trees, replacement with
concrete structures will result in less people using the area for recreational purposes. The
proposal turns the area into a dormitory for a relatively small group of people at the
expense of a much larger group, local residents and berth holders who have funded
development and maintenance of the area.

5.3.4 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

Relevant Objectives, Policies Assessment

I431 Pine Harbour Precinct

I431.2 Objectives

522
(1) The precinct allows for the development of an Achieved. The proposal does not compromise this
integrated mix of residential, business, open space
objective but reinforces it and helps achieve it. The
and marine related activities, creating a distinctive
proposed development assists in achieving the mix of
marina based community. activities referred to in the objective within the
Precinct.
Fails. This proposal does not meet the usage criteria
for precinct F. It seriously affects usage in terms of
marine related activities, it compromises a very
narrow and small space and creates congestion and
ruins what is currently distinctive and worth
preserving. It significantly reduces open air space in
an area currently used by many for recreation. The
area to the east is high density and the area for the
proposal should be left as is to provide relief to that
(2) An appropriate development density and mix of Achieved. The proposal contributes to this objective in
land uses are provided in the precinct to support the Precinct by firstly the development of dwellings
its function as an efficient passenger transport which will provide potential ferry passengers living
node. immediately adjacent to the ferry terminal, and
secondly by providing for the establishment of two
new bus stops immediately adjacent to the ferry
terminal. The establishment of food and beverage will
encourage use of the ferry to Pine Harbour as a
destination for day trips for the CBD.
Fails. Consumes many square meters of space for
residential purposes. The area to the east is high
density and the area for the proposal should be left as
is to provide relief to that fact. A relatively small
number of people will be resident here, access for all
will be compromised as the width of the area is not
sufficient for all the activities proposed.

(4) A safe and efficient transport network is integrated Achieved. There are to be safe, multi-modal transport
and connected with the existing and planned options available for the development. Firstly the
transportation network, including connections ferry terminal is within 10m of the development. Bus
between Beachlands and Pine Harbour. stops are available outside the area to be developed.
There is still the option for use of private motor
vehicles and the parking requirements are complied
with. As part of the development across the wider site
a connection is proposed to Beachlands, but walking
and cycling options already exist.

Fails. There are better options within the area for bus
stops. Bus operations will further exacerbate
congestion issues and there is no need to have a bus
stop within 10 metres of the ferry. This appears to be
an attempt to generate a selling point for a non-
complying activity however it lacks true
understanding of what is optimal in terms of car and
vehicle movements for all in a marina area.

523
Relevant Objectives, Policies Assessment

(5) Public access is maintained, enhanced and Achieved. The walkway on public open space and on
integrated with the public open space zoned land, the marina side of the development will be enhanced
coastal marine area and the Beachlands 1 by providing an all-weather veranda for those walking
precinct. from the parking area to the ferry and to provide
access into and out of the food and beverage premises
proposed on the ground floor of the development; a
new footpath will be constructed on the side of the
vehicle accessway passing through the site; a new 3m
wide walkway/cycleway will be constructed on the
southern side of the stormwater drain located on the
site and it will link up with the walkway around the
marina and connecting with Beachlands.
Fails, Southern side walkway looks into the back area
of shops and apartments and will be characteristic of
poorly designed high density areas seen in some
major cities
(6) A high amenity environment is created through the Achieved. The development has been designed to
placement and design of buildings, roads and provide an active frontage to the north and to the
open spaces recognising the coastal setting of Pine adjacent pedestrian walkway, to the marina basin and
Harbour Marina. the ferry terminal, and to the other developed areas
of the marina, overlooking the public space area.
Vehicle access is from the southern side. A new
walkway and cycleway is to be provided in the
southern side of the stormwater drain. The building
will fit well within the marine environment and will be
consistent with the marina style established
elsewhere in the precinct.
Fails. Reduces the amenity value, proposal is situated
in a congested area which will cause issues between
various stakeholders. Open space areas must be
retained. No evidence that the design is optimal, car
parking is stacked which will look completely out of
character. Marina berth values have declined due to
this proposal.

(7) Stormwater infrastructure is provided in an Achieved. Although new piped systems have been
effective and efficient way, including integration designed, discharges locations will not change. A new
with the wider catchment. flood wall is to be constructed alongside the drain to
prevent flooding derived from stormwater discharged
from developing areas higher up the catchment.
(8) Water and wastewater infrastructure is provided in Achieved. Connections to the Beachlands-Maraetai
an effective and efficient way, including the ability Sewage Treatment Plant are available and water
to connect to the Beachlands-Maraetai Sewage supply to NZ drinking water standards is available
Treatment Plant. from a local bore.
I431.3 Policies

524
(1) Require land use, subdivision and development to Achieved. Although the land use and development
be generally in accordance with Pine Harbour: does not strictly accord with the Pine Harbour:
Precinct plan 1. Precinct plan 1, a high level of public access is
achieved with the development of a new
walkway/cycleway to the south of the drain, and a
new footpath is to be located on the northern side of
the drain, providing a higher degree of safety for
pedestrians and cyclists. The accessway alignment
has not been straightened at its western end as per
Precinct plan1, as this would create a useable area on
its southern side which was considered to be
undesirable and a potential safety hazard.
Fails. Not compliant, precinct F is commercial use.
Safety and usability will be compromised by
squeezing many users into a small area at the
detriment of core marina usage.
(2) Provide for increased development density to Achieved. 28 apartments and businesses close to the
promote the role of the precinct as a passenger ferry terminal will enhance density close to the
transport node. terminal
Fails. Area is already significantly developed to the
east and the development consumes overall space
for what could be as little as 28 people. Additional
business’s imply a car parking requirement for non-
passenger transport node users.

525
Relevant Objectives, Policies Assessment

(3) Provide for a range of activities at a scale Achieved. The proposal provides for both commercial
complementary with the amenity values of the (eg food and beverage, dairies), and residential which
precinct. will complement the other activities across the
precinct. All activities face the water, the marina
walkway and the large reserve area which form the
central feature of the development.
Fails. The large reserve area will be reduced. The scale
and use of space compromises existing usage.

(4) Require the layout, form and design of buildings,


roads and open spaces within the precinct to: Achieved:-

(a) integrate with the existing and future form of Walkway connects to Beachlands, road will connect
the Beachlands settlement (including elsewhere
alignment of roads);
(b) address potential adverse effects on Good interconnection made with adjacent Ranger
adjoining land uses; House including replacing car parks.
(c) assist with the implementation of Walkway/cycleway connection to Beachlands
transportation connections between
Beachlands and Pine Harbour;
(d) assist with the integration of passenger Two new bus stops provided; Dwellings close to
transport services; terminal, covered walkway provide for users.
(e) create opportunities for multi-functional, New walkway/cycleway provided that links with
safe, passive or active recreation; existing walkway; direct access to the marina berths.
(f) ensure ongoing public access to the coastal No change to public access;
marine area;
(g) ensure the provision of walkways providing New walkway proposed; will link at both end to
pedestrian linkages through the precinct; and walkways.
(h) recognise and provide for the character of the
coastal environment and its associated Buildings sited and designed to highlight interaction
amenity values. with coastal edge; cafes will be located to encourage
enjoyment of the coastal amenity

Fails. Usage and design is out of character with Pine


Harbour, open areas are reduced, northern walkway
will be narrow and only facilitates assess to proposed
businesses.

(5) Require potential adverse effects (including reverse Achieved. The buildings have been designed to comply
sensitivity) of any development and activities with the standards set out in the AUP. The amenity
within the precinct on the character of the coastal values of the area will be enhanced by additional
environment and on the amenity values of the people using the ferry terminal, by creating new
surrounding area to be avoided, remedied or places for people to visit (cafes), and by providing
mitigated. recreational amenity (eg walkway). An active
landscape planting programme has been prepared to
soften the presence of a new building at this location.
Fails. The amenity value has to include the open area
spaces and the value seen and used by berth holders.
This is over and above contracted entitlement Berth
holder car spaces are proposed to be displaced, there
are safety and congestion issues with what is
proposed.
(6) Require that all development is connected to a Achieved. Will be connected to the Beachlands-
public reticulated wastewater treatment and Maraetai system.
disposal system.

F3. Coastal – Marina Zone 526


F3.2. Objectives [rcp/dp]
(2) Marina activities are located within the Coastal – Achieved. Marina activities are set aside in sub-
Marina Zone which encompasses the coastal precinct C; The ferry terminal will remain in its current
marine area and any adjoining land used for location with enhanced facilities to support it
marina related activity. (dedicated bus stops) and increased development
close to it to support it.
Fails, Proposal is not in concert with marina activites,
Car parking has been displaced., berth holders will be
expected to be carried through bedding suitcases and
provisions through commercial, residential areas and
will be exposed to increased hazards due to
congestion issues..

(3) Marina and related supporting facilities are Achieved. Bus stops will support the ferry terminal.
developed, used, maintained, refurbished, Provision is made for Marine Retail in the new
reconstructed and berthage maximised. building if there is demand.
Fails. There is no longer a chandlery at the Marina
and a number of businesses which support marine
activities are being jeopardized by the actions of the
new marina owner. The owners record in terms of
maintaining core functionality within the marina area
should be cause for significant concern. My berth
rent has increased 27% in 2 years. Service providers
have been subject to the similar levels of increase
which all falls back on either the viability of the
service business or the capacity of berth holders to
pay more. The berth holder’s association at Pine
Harbour was formed to oppose the action of the
owner prior to this proposal. Prior to the new owner
there was no berth holder’s association. The council
has a general role in making sure these areas are
maintained for the purpose they were originally
designed for, and that the developer has displayed
total understanding of and working towards this
objective.

527
Relevant Objectives, Policies Assessment

(5) Activities in the Coastal – Marina Zone that have a Achieved. The proposal does not prevent functional
functional need for a coastal location have marina activities from locating in the wider precinct –
priority over those that do not. they are prioritised in sub-precincts set down for
functional activities such as sub-precinct C (marina
commercial) and the marina berthing area. Provision
is made for potential Marina Retail within the new
building.
Fails See above. The functional and indeed contractual
need is being compromised.

(6) Access to the waterfront for berth holders and the Achieved. Access is maintained. Access for the public
public is maintained or enhanced. is enhanced with more activities eg cafes, in the area
enhanced walkways, and new bus stops will improve
access.
Fails. An open area space where people could meet,
exercise and enjoy is being built out. Berth holder
access and parking is severely compromised. Much is
being made of café’s, there is or was a coffee truck
sited new the rangers hut so this proposal is not
offering an more amenity value in that regards and
significant less from an overall perspective
F3.3. Policies [rcp/dp]
(2) Provide for marine-related and other compatible Achieved. Marina activities are set aside in sub-
business activities, while avoiding, remedying or precinct C; The ferry terminal will remain in its current
mitigating adverse effects on the coastal location with enhanced facilities to support it
environment and adjacent land zoned for (dedicated bus stops) and increased development
residential or open space purposes. close to it to support it.
Fails. Area is set aside for commercial but should
probably be set aside as an open area space.

(3) Provide for maritime passenger operations and Achieved. Passenger facilities will be enhanced and
maritime passenger facilities at marinas there will be an increase in potential users of the
services.

528
(7) Require any marina development to be of a scale, Achieved to the extent that although the proposal is
design and location that remedies or mitigates not a “marina development”, but it is located within
adverse effects on the coastal environment, the marina zone:
particularly in relation to the following matters:
(a) the natural character of the coastal The proposed building complies with all development
environment; standards for the zone.
(b) effects on the recreational, visual and amenity The development is likely to encourage increased
values in the locality, including lighting recreational use of the precinct by the provision of
effects; facilities that attract visitors. Lighting will not affect
People are attracted to open air spaces, trees and the marina area as lighting within the apartments will
natural areas. I cannot believe the developer be used in times when boats rarely use the marina
thinks that people will be attracted to a huge services.
structure on the waterline as opposed to the
natural beauty which currently exists. If these Enhanced with the covered walkway being proposed
people exist there are plenty of concrete
structures in central Auckland. Landscaping plan prepared to soften the effects of the
development
(c) public access to, along and within the coastal No effects on historic heritage are proposed
marine area;
(d) effects on the landscape elements and Construction noise will be controlled by consent
features; conditions; halyard slap will be managed by marina
(e) effects on historic heritage or Mana Whenua management to some extent, but that is part of
values; normal marina noise.
(f) noise effects including construction noise and
ongoing operational noise, such as halyard Passenger services will be enhanced by the proposal –
slap; better bus facilities, increased number of potential
passengers from the 28 apartments.

(j) effects on other users of the coastal marine The road network has been assessed as capable of
area including existing maritime passenger accommodating the additional traffic movements
operations, moorings and public boat ramps; from the development.
The Pine Harbour Precinct plan 1 has been taken into
(m) the effects of additional traffic generation on consideration in the development proposal, which is
the road network and any measures to largely in keeping with it.
mitigate these effects; and
(n) consideration of any relevant council structure In general, the development fails in most of these
plans, concept plans, strategies, reserve areas. Halyard slap will be managed by marina
management plans, designations or management to some extent? This is a clear case of a
one-line comment which will never be enforceable
on berth holder (nor should it be in an operational
marina) that is designed to appease a serious
concern. Halyard slap although a recognized issue will
be relatively minor in comparison to issues of berth
holders who in my case have contractual entitlement,
businesses and residents competing over a very small
space.

529
Relevant Objectives, Policies Assessment

additional limitations that apply to the


adjoining land.
(8) Provide for public access to be restricted only Achieved. There will be no public access to the
where it is necessary for public health, safety, dwelling areas.
security or operational reasons. Fail. Public access to these areas will be severely
impacted. If you take into account business owners,
berth holders and their vehicles and residents and
their vehicles there will be little room left for the
public

(10) Allow activities that do not have a functional need Achieved. The proposed activities do not prevent
for a coastal location only where all of the functional marina activities from locating in the wider
following can be demonstrated: precinct – they are prioritised in sub-precincts set
down for functional activities such as sub-precinct C
(marina commercial) and the marina berthing area.
Provision is made for potential Marina Retail within
the new building.
(a) the proposed activities will not conflict with, The proposed activities, such as residential
or limit, the operation of marina activities, development will not conflict with but rather
maritime passenger operations or other complement the marina activities. Berth holders will
marine-related activities that are undertaken still have access to their marinas, will have the
in the Coastal – Marina Zone; opportunity to live near their boats; and the ferry
Clearly they will as they impact berth holders services will have enhanced potential passengers and
improved facilities (bus stops).

The proposal does not prevent functional marina


(b) adequate provision remains for existing activities from locating in the wider precinct – they are
activities that have a functional or operational prioritised in sub-precincts set down for functional
need for a coastal location; activities such as sub-precinct C (marina commercial)
Clearly a residential development in an area and the marina berthing area. Provision is made for
set aside as a marina in such a compact area potential Marina Retail within the new building.
is going to impact functionality The coastal walkway/cycleway will be enhanced with
an additional stretch added to the network. The
walkway in front of the development will be covered
for all weather access.
Additional dwellings will be located within close
(c) public access to and use of the coastal proximity to the ferry service; Improved bus facilities
marine area will be maintained or enhanced; are proposed.
There is a clear and demonstrable reduction The development has been designed to integrate with
in open areas currently set aside for public existing development in the locality and to enhance
access. The apartment will provide views for the coastal setting and experience. All buildings will
a small minority at a loss for many others open out onto the marina interface.

E27 Transport
E27.2. Objectives (1) – (6)
These objectives promote integration of transport Complies. See previous discussions on access to ferries
modes including walking, cycling, PT and private integrated with bus stops provided, and the new cycle
vehicles, parking and loading that supports the walkways.
development, pedestrian safety, and crossings safety. Fail. The proposal consumes valuable space for car
parking (sits on an existing car park) and a variety of
other transport means

530
AIL

Achieved. The effects on the networks is minimal – see


traffic report – and PT and other alternatives are
provided next to the development.

Achieved. The minimum parking requirements are


provided for in the application.
Minimum marina car parking requirements no longer
exist.

531
Relevant Objectives, Policies Assessment

Secondly parking is to be provided in a way to ensure


safety, to encourage use of alternatives, and minimum Achieved. Adequate space is provided for loading in a
numbers of parks are required on site. safe and efficient manner.
A safe loading area is required in a way that avoids Achieved – see traffic report.
conflicts with pedestrians and vehicles. Pa
Parking areas are to be designed to avoid safety issues
especially on roads. Achieved. An existing accessway is provided
Safe access is to be provided. immediately adjacent to the development.

Fail. The proposal conflicts with an existing


requirement (and compliance) to supply 0.35 marina
car parks per marina berth

5.3.5 Conclusion – relevant planning documents

Regard has been had to the relevant planning provisions and the proposal has been
assessed overall as being consistent with and not contrary to the provisions and in
particular to the objectives and policies of the relevant plan – the Auckland Unitary Plan.
The minor changes to the proposal compared with the existing environment means that
overall the proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions.

6. SECTION 104D THE GATEWAY TEST


The Act requires that one of the thresholds under s104D have to be met before a non-
complying application can be considered for granting.

The first test in, s104D(1)(a) is whether the adverse effects of the proposed activity on
the environment will be minor. For the reasons outlined in section 5.2 of this
application, when assessed against the existing environment created by the existing
approved consent, the effects of the activity on the environment will be less than minor.

This test is completely dependent on the previous consent which must be revoked. A
judicial review could be considered

The second test, s104D(1)(b) is whether the application is for an activity that will not be
contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant plan, in this case the Auckland
Unitary Plan. The assessment undertaken in section 5.3.4 and 5.3.5 above
concludes that the proposal is consistent with relevant provisions of the Plan and
therefore also passes the second test in that the proposal is not contrary to the
objectives and policies of the plan.

The application is clearly non-compliant and fails across a wide range of objectives.
There is no mention of the significant impact to berth holders which is intentional as
they are the people most affected. They are also the key functional stakeholders and
indirect funders of both the original marina project and its maintenance from that time
on.

As the application meets the both tests of section 104D of the Act the application can be
assessed under section 104 of the Act and a substantive decision made.

7. STATUTORY CONCLUSION
As the application has been assessed as passing the S104D gateway test, it can now be
assessed overall against the provisions of section 104(1) and (2) and section 104B. The 532
application has been assessed as passing both gateway tests’ having effects that are less
than minor and being consistent with the relevant plan. The assessment in section 5.3.1
to 5.3.3 has shown the proposal to also be consistent with the NZ Coastal Policy
Statement, the Hauraki Gulf Marina Park Act, and the Regional Policy Statement
provisions in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

The assessment must be subject to Part 2 of the Act. Section 5 of the RMA identifies the
purpose and principles as being the sustainable management of natural and
physical resources. The proposed development and uses are consistent with and give
effect to the provisions in the relevant zones for the Pine Harbour area and promotes
sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Section 6 sets out a number
of matters of national importance which need to be recognised and provided for,
including the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment and the
protection of it from inappropriate subdivision use and development, the maintenance
and enhancement of public access to and along the coastal marine area, and the
protection of historic heritage. The proposal will not affect any areas of high natural
character and will maintain public access to the coastal area. With the opportunity for
more people to live and work in the proposed buildings public access to and along the
Coastal marine area will be enhanced.
Pine Harbour is a functional marina with the added benefits of being a unique setting
with open air spaces which is enjoyed by berth holders and the public alike. This
proposal if allowed to proceed will change that forever by compromising functionality
particularly for berth holders on piers A through C, by consuming open spaces and by
creating congestion and conflict. The area to the east is already high density, the area to
the west should be set aside for forever and for future generations as an open area for
the enjoyment of all. A faceless concrete structure will destroy all of those positive
aspects for the view of a small number of others.

Section 7 identifies a number of other matters to be given particular regard by the Council in
the consideration of any assessment for resource consent, and includes the efficient use and
development of natural and physical resources, and the maintenance and enhancement of
amenity values, the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment, any
finite characteristics of natural and physical resources and the effects of climate change. The
proposal is an efficient use of the land resource and will maintain the quality of the
environment around Pine Harbour.
The area is designated commercial. It should be modified to open area.

There are no known Treaty issues (section 8) at Pine Harbour Marina.

The proposals have been assessed against the provisions of Part 2 of the RMA and have been
determined to be consistent with them.

As the application passes the statutory tests it can be granted.

8. NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to section 95A to 95E, this application should be processed on a non notified basis
for the following reasons.

Under section 95A(2) of the RMA a consent authority must publicly notify the application if
it decides (under section 95D) that the activity will have or is likely to have adverse effects
on the environment that are more than minor. The assessment of effects undertaken in this
application demonstrates the adverse effects on the environment of the proposed activity
will be less than minor – this is particularly the case when the application is assessed against
the existing consented environment.
533
If a consent authority does not publicly notify an application for a resource consent for an
activity, it must decide whether there is any affected person in relation to the activity who
should be limited notified. Under section 95E a consent authority must decide that a person
is an affected person, in relation to an activity, if the activity’s adverse effects on the person
are minor or more than minor (but are not less than minor), except if written approval has
been given by the affected party. No written approvals have been sought or given, and the
assessment of effects undertaken in this application has shown that the effects of the
application are less than minor. The proposal has no greater, if as many, effects than the
existing consented proposal. Thus there is no person who can be assessed as being affected
by the effects of the application.

Written consent should have been sort from berth holders. They are the current ‘residents ‘
or users of an operational marina and are impacted as much if not more than in your typical
residential close neighbor situation .

534
9. LAPSING OF CONSENT
Section 125 of the RMA provides that if a resource consent is not given effect to within five
years of the date of the commencement (or any other time specified) it automatically
lapses unless the consent authority has granted an extension. In this case, it is considered
ten years would be appropriate given that this development is likely to be integrated and
coordinated with development being proposed elsewhere in the Precinct and so the timing
of this proposed development may need to be deferred to sequence other development
first.
There is clearly more development planned. The time and opportunity to protect Pine
Harbor is now.

10. CONCLUSION
Pine Harbour Marina Limited seeks resource consent to construct four buildings to
accommodate residential and commercial activities on its land at the Marina. This
application has undertaken a full assessment of effects of the application and has concluded
the effects of the activity are less then minor, and the proposal is consistent with the relevant
statutory provisions, particularly when assessed against the previously consented proposal
which is similar in nature to the application.

Conclusion

Having read the content of the application and responded to most of the content I apologize if it has
got a little wordy and at times a rant but I am deeply concerned that this non-compliant proposal has
reached this level of advancement and without intervention could have been already approved.
I applaud the Auckland Council for taking the step of making it subject to public notification. It shows a
true desired to seek the views of all parties however I am convinced that there is a need for review of
the process which have allowed a flawed consent to have been granted already. This consent should be
revoked and all means used to do so. Essentially this consent relies heavily on the previous one, the
issues which form the basis of my opposition equally apply in most cases to the former. There is no
hiding from this and the fact public consultation was sort on this occasion reflects the need for change
in how consents for marina environments are handled. Nevertheless, and sincerely, many thanks for
the first steps in addressing this; public notification.

I write this note as a formal submission against the proposed residential development at Pine Harbour
marina Beachlands Auckland called L175 Pine Harbour.
My interest in the matter is as a berth holder at Pine Harbour marina. I purchased the berth license in
April 2012 at a cost of $20,000, I also purchased our family yacht at that time from the same seller and
it has been moored at Pine Harbour since then (at a cost of approximately $20,000). The
commencement date of the original lease was the 1st of May 1988, I expect this aligns closely with
when the marina was first developed. My contribution would be minor, there are many people similarly
affected who have invested much more over a much longer period of time.
It is my view that it is essential that berth holders (right to occupy owners) are consulted as part of all
development proposals at Pine Harbour as they are significant stakeholders in the future of the marina
area. The berth holders indirectly financed the development of Pine Harbour and have been paying for
maintenance and upkeep of it since. They are also major functional users of the marina and surrounds.
Their views on changes to functionality are the most accurate. They pay fees to enable free and secure
24/7 access to their boats, to enable goods to be transported onto their boats, to dispose of rubbish
from their boats, to perform work and have work performed on their boats.
535
The proposed residential development is in my opinion completely out of character with the current
utilization and functionality of the marina area. It compromises the area from the ferry terminal west,
an area that is aesthetically pleasing and representative of New Zealand open air environs. The area to
the east is significantly developed with medium to high density housing. However, there is relief from
that to the west, an area which provides open air spaces for people to access the ferries, walk and run
and exercise their pets and for berth holders to access their boats. From an overall amenity
perspective, it is 100% consumed.
Owners with boats on piers A through C currently have safe access to the piers from a car park
accessible to berth holders only. This parking is part of the original marina development requirement to
have 0.35 parking spaces available per boat berth. The car park is located immediately adjacent to the
piers, however the proposal would see parking moved a considerable distance away to the opposite
side of the access road to an area used by all vehicular traffic (proposed residents, commuters, general
public and berth holders). This presents a significant increase in risk to berth holders and their families
which often includes small children. Unloading cars and transporting goods to a boat on these piers will
be significantly more dangerous and time consuming. The parking for these piers will no longer be
secure (locked or card access).
Access to the piers is currently a short distance from the back of one’s vehicle to the pier. This would
change under the proposal. Berth holders will be expected to compete with those accessing the ferries,
residents and their cars and those accessing the commercial businesses proposed for the area in a far
more congested area. Given the increase in ferries into and out of Pine Harbour, this cannot be
understated. At a time when space and efficient access to transport networks in Auckland which work
for all is very important, this proposal will compromise that by consuming a large area and providing
residency for a very small number of people. This is not for the greater good at any level.
The current marina owners now allow live aboard’ s at the marina. This has taken place without
consultation with berth holders and is putting additional pressure on limited resources. I am not
opposed to the live aboard concept especially when it is short term. It gives boat owners additional
options should weather be an issue especially for owners who are not resident in Auckland. There is a
big difference between this type of arrangement and a considerable construction at the end of piers A
through C. It does however need to be supported with improvements to infrastructure and will add to
the problems already envisaged by this proposal.
The stream immediately to the south of the proposal often floods. It is unclear how the proposal
intends to deal with this. While this issue is currently an inconvenience, matters would be more
complex with higher density use of the area.
High tide comes close to the footpath level on the marina wall. More research is required into this,
however it is safe to say any property developed under the proposal would be affected by any
significant storm surge.
There is evidence that the proposal is adversely affecting berth values on piers A through C. There are
other issues such as a 27% increase in berth holder fees in the last 2 years under the new owners and it
is not possible to discern whether the proposal or the new management is the biggest contributor to
falling values, probably a bit of both.
It should be noted that a similar development by the same company is causing problems at
Hobsonville. New Zealanders have a desire to preserve the urban - marine interface in a manner such
that it can be enjoyed by future generations. Please help us to this end.

In summary my objections and the reasons I believe this consent should be declined are;

• Precinct F is zoned commercial. Residential development is not supported.


• The area should be rezoned open space to protect it from further attempts at development.
• My berth license allows me access to all marina areas which at the time of signing included the
car parking area set aside for berth holders on piers A through C. My vessel is on pier B, my
access must be retained contractually.
• Berth holders must be formally consulted as they are significant stakeholders in the area. This
has not happened and the proposal has been presented as a fait accompli by the developers.

536
• The development is out of character with the area as it currently is. While the areas to the east
are medium to high density, the marina area itself must be preserved for the general
recreational use of all in perpetuity and as a transportation hub access point. I suggest a line
which extends from the eastern wall of the marina is a suitable break point.
• Changing the current parking and access arrangements presents a significant increase in risk to
boat owners and their families. They no longer have parking within a secure area.
• Changing the current parking and access arrangements will create congestion and issues
between residents, boat owners, commercial space lease holders, ferry goers and the general
public along a narrow walkway area alongside the marina boundary. Conflict is inevitable.
• The development is very close to the high tide mark and in an area that floods periodically. This
aspect further compromises what will become a very congested area.
• Any significant storm surge would be problematic for the development. With weather patterns
changing this needs to be considered.
• Similar proposals are rightly getting strong opposition. The process must work for established
stakeholders.
• This venture is designed to make money for the new owners, the welfare of the local area and
the berth holders appears to be of no consideration.
• There is ongoing degradation of Pine Harbor as an operational marina facility over and above
this proposal. It is obvious from the application that the owners have no interest in the
functional nature of the marina and their performance to date at Pine Harbor and other marina
in the Auckland area should be of great concern to those interested in protecting such areas
from high density encroachment and loss of marina facilities. The wording in the objectives set
out in this document appear to be correct however the developer’s responses are not accurate
and are those formed through a narrow lens and with no input or consultation with current
users. The developer has made it abundantly clear that increasing revenue is a key priority and
serious concerns expressed by the berth holder’s association on the basis for charges and
functionality issue have been ignored.
• Marina areas must have 0.35 car parks set aside, removal of car parks adjacent to piers A
through C makes Pine Harbour non-compliant.
• The proposal is consuming greater than 80% of available space on a net basis. The current car
parks for piers A through C have established functionality as part of an operational marina.
• Construction activity of the scale proposed will significantly magnify many of the above issues.

In finishing I leave you with 2 photos showing a here and now view of the area and how it is proposed
to will look in the future. There is also a short video. The irony is that both photographs came from
promotional material generated by this proposal and the video shows extensive footage of the
character and charm berth holders and other stakeholder bought into, as well as the public enjoy.
Unfortunately, you cannot have both options, destroying the character of this general area with a
building which I classify as an eyesore would be a huge mistake.

Kind Regards Graeme


Belrose 2085
Sydney Australia.

Ph +61 403 958800

graemeandvickiph@gmail.com

537
Current

Proposed

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11938466

APARTMENTS:
Hobsonville Marina is also facing some of the same problems - see link to recent article.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/north-harbour-news/98177025/west-harbour-residents-anger-at-
development-proposal-for-marina

Letter from berth holder association. Note this is the views of the committee only and presented believing the
consent was fait accompli.
Berth holders at Pine Harbour Marina have received (14 September 2017) the
attached letter regarding a proposed development immediately adjacent to the

538
marina basin. The development has direct and significant impacts on the existing
amenity use of piers A, B and C and a lesser impact on the amenity use of Pier D.

Receipt of this letter coincided with the start of construction of a show unit for the
development.

On 19 September representatives of the Pine Harbour Berth Holders Association


(PHBHA) met with representatives of Empire Capital Ltd (ECL) and Pine Harbour
Marina Management Limited (PHMM) to discuss the impacts of the development.

Based on those discussions PHBHA understands that the resource consent for this
development may be non-notifiable.

PHBHA is extremely concerned that the proposed development has the potential to
inflict significant detrimental effects on the amenity value and use of berths on A, B
and C and also D piers. We have made ECL and PHMM aware of specific
concerns, including but not limited to:

1. Loss of secured (for berth holder use only) vehicle access at each pier head for
the drop off and pick up of boat maintenance equipment, provisions, fishing gear,
travel bags, bedding etc etc.
2. Loss of immediate access at each pier head to trolleys for the movement of the
above loads.
3. Loss of immediate access at the pier heads to refuse and recycling bins.
4. Potential conflict of use and interest between berth holders, ferry users and
development residents.
5. Apparent inconsistency with the provisions of the Precinct Plan which appears to
limit developments to a max of 2 storeys (Ground plus one upper floor?)

ECL and PHMM are aware of these concerns but currently have no detailed plans
that address these issues to the satisfaction of PHBHA. PHBHA is concerned that
consents for the development should be formally consulted and/or appropriate
conditions imposed to protect the interests of berth holders and the use and amenity
value of the affected berths.

Could you please urgently advise what action we can take to address these concerns.

Richard Steel - Chairman - On Behalf of Pine Harbour Berth Holders Association

539
APPENDIX 1: ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AND DESIGN REPORT

540
APPENDIX 2: ENGINEERING REPORT AND DRAWINGS

541
APPENDIX 3: TRAFFIC AND PARKING ASSESSMENT REPORT

542
APPENDIX 4: ARBORICULTURAL AND LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENTS

543
APPENDIX 5: EXISTING CONSENT GRANTED JUNE 2017

544
Submission 47 (3 pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Brian Stafford-Bush <Brian.Stafford-Bush@opteonsolutions.com>


Sent: Thursday, 8 February 2018 4:28 p.m.
To: RCregulatorysupport south
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz; info@phbha.nz
Subject: Submission to LUC60305157
Attachments: DOC080218.pdf

Categories: Submissions to log

Hi Folks, 
Please see attached submission lodged by Bayswater Marina Berth Holders Assn. 
 
 
Kind regards, 
 
Brian Stafford‐Bush  | FNZIV FPINZ 
Consultant 
Opteon 
D. 09 929 2888 
M. +64 274 908 900 
E. Brian.Stafford‐Bush@opteonsolutions.com 
A. Ground Floor, 12‐14 Northcroft Street, Takapuna,  0622 New Zealand T. 0800 40 50 62 
OPTEONSOLUTIONS.COM Sheldons is proud to announce that our partnership with Opteon that started in 2016 
has taken another giant step forward. From July 1, Sheldons have rebranded to ‘Opteon’ and its name has been 
changed to Opteon New Zealand Limited (still Company Number 374178). As Opteon, we look forward to 
continuing to provide you with our quality service assisted by the systems, products and data analytics of our 
international partnership. We will build on the outstanding reputation provided by our local NZ team in 
providing solutions with excellence to our clients. 
 
 
This e‐mail message and any attachments to it are confidential and should only be read by those persons to 
whom this e‐mail message is addressed. This e‐mail and any attachments to it may contain copyright, personal 
or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, copying, or 
disclosure of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately 
notify the sender by return e‐mail and delete the original message and any copies. Any confidentiality, privilege 
or copyright is not waived or lost because this e‐mail has been sent to you in error. Any views expressed in this 
e‐mail are the views of the individual sender, except where specifically stated to be the views of Opteon. E‐mail 
is not secure and transmissions can be corrupted. Opteon accepts no liability for any damage that may occur as 
a result of the transmission of this e‐mail or any attachments to it to the recipient. 
Please consider the environment before printing 
 

545
546
547
Submission 48 (5 Pages)

Melanie Sopoaga

From: Ngaire Knowsley on behalf of Resource Consent Authority


Sent: Monday, 12 February 2018 8:46 a.m.
To: Melanie Sopoaga
Subject: FW: L175 Pine Harbour Marina apartments

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: Robyn Pilkington On Behalf Of Central RC Submissions
Sent: Monday, 12 February 2018 8:39 a.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: L175 Pine Harbour Marina apartments

 
 
From: Louise Pether [mailto:louisepether1@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 9 February 2018 4:22 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Subject: L175 Pine Harbour Marina apartments

Hi
I inadvertently submitted an earlier version of our submission first. Please only use the one sent second.
Thanks, Louise Pether

--
Louise Pether

+64 027 357 6121


louisepether1@gmail.com

548
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Ngaire Knowsley on behalf of Resource Consent Authority


Sent: Friday, 9 February 2018 3:27 p.m.
To: Melanie Sopoaga
Subject: FW: [ID:60] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Submissions to log

 
 
From: Robyn Pilkington On Behalf Of Central RC Submissions
Sent: Friday, 9 February 2018 12:36 p.m.
To: Robert Chieng; Resource Consent Authority
Subject: FW: [ID:60] Submission received on notified resource consent

 
 
From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
[mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 8 February 2018 3:01 p.m.
To: Central RC Submissions
Cc: craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: [ID:60] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands.

Details of submission
Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands

Application number: LUC60305157

Applicant name: Pine Harbour Marina Limited

Applicant email: craig@craigshearer.co.nz

Application description: To undertake earthworks, construct a flood protection wall, construct four buildings for
commercial and residential activities, upgrade an existing public footpath, upgrade an existing private road,
removal of trees and construct a pedestrian and cycle path. The application includes an assessment of
environmental effects and overall is a non-complying activity.

Submitter contact details

Full name: John McCormack and Louise Pether

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0273576121

Email address: CentralRCSubmissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

549
Postal address:
9/58 Wellington St Ponsonby Auckland 1011

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on:


permitting apartments - encroachment of marina and recreational facilities

What are the reasons for your submission?


Pine Harbour marina is a gateway to one of the world’s most beautiful sea-scapes. It allows us (along with all the
berth owners and their families and friends) to enjoy a recreational lifestyle that is the envy of people in other
places. Established on a site designated as a marina, with a caveat that it could not be used for other purposes
such as housing (as the applicants have acknowledged in their submission), it has provided a base for boat
owners and access to essential facilities (like the hard stand) and the services provided by specialist companies
(engineering, electrical, painting etc). Over the past few years we have accommodated developments such as
Ranger House and the expansion of the ferry service (and resulting loss of berths and car parks) because we
recognise that the marina can provide services to the local community (such as restaurants and the provision of a
transport hub and link to the city) without jeopardising its core function as a marina for our community of boat
owners. However the proposal to build apartments fronting onto the marina berths is a bridge too far. The core
function of the marina is taking a backseat to a commercial development. Land that is essential to a fully
functioning marina for boat owners is being lost to apartments. We don’t view the RMA simply as a vehicle for
disgruntled parties to throw a spanner in the works when confronted with a proposal that is at odds with their
aspirations. The RMA allows the Auckland Council to plan for the future and act for the communities of interest
that it is ultimately accountable to. We are part of a community of interest that values all that is good about
access to our sea-scape. Boating has been part of the lives of Aucklanders for generations, past and present,
and those to come in the future. It is deeply ingrained in the Auckland psyche as a city of sails. Marinas are
essential to this lifestyle on the water and, in our view, should not be sites for non-compliant developments, such
as the one proposed for Pine Harbour, that are at odds with the marina’s core function. Having introduced
ourselves as boaties and marina lovers, would like to outline our specific concerns about the proposed
development. These are set out below. Pine Harbour Marina, Application L175, for apartment development on
marina and recreational zoned land. The original approved planned purpose of PHM is for a recreational facility,
specifically ‘zoned marina and open space recreation’. The area for the proposed apartment development is
specified as a ‘marina facility area’. NB ‘The Existing environment is the state of affairs that a consent authority
must take into account when assessing the effects of an activity’… The L175 proposal to erect residential
buildings does not address the effect the development will have on the designated purpose of the site - a marina
recreational facility. We hope this is not overlooked by Auckland Council while considering the proposal due to
pressure in Auckland for new housing. We also note Franklin Board has ‘prioritised sport and recreational
facilities’ and are concerned about ‘ad-hoc development’. PHM describes itself as a ‘world class marina’ and ‘a
marina that ‘operates 24 hours a day, 365 days each year’. The impact of the development on marina users will
be hugely negative in many functional, operational, accessible and security areas. This is a very narrow piece of
land and a residential development crammed on this site, with immediate adjacency to a fully occupied, busy
marina, has the likelihood of leading to not only loss of amenity but conflict between marina berth users and
residences/retailers. It will create congestion of road use and footpath use adjacent to the marina piers, severely
compromising berth holders functional access. It may be worth noting there has been a reduction of marina
services at PHM over a number of years - substantially reduced hardstand area, where boaties can undertake
essential repairs and annual maintenance including ensuring hulls are clean and free of pests. The impact of this
reduction is illustrated by often long delays in being able to book the hardstand - rising rentals so essential
businesses to boat owners such as chandlery have closed - reduced berth holder car parking to provide for ferry
parkers and now further proposed reduced parking to build apartments (not a development for the benefit of
marina and recreational users) and garages. NB 28 apartments/ 40 parking spaces. Berth owners have been
advised informally that there will be only 1 park per berth and trailers are no longer provided for; and,
consequentially, that for A-D piers car parking will be a substantial distance for berth owners from their piers. A-D
piers hold approximately 200 boats (using the equation in the L175 application of apartment occupants to form an
equation of thos berth holders affected x2.5 = 500 people affected) Functional and Operational Effects Functional
and Operational facilities and services for boat and berth owners will be substantially compromised - these are
unforgiveable oversights in the proposal to construct apartments. The proposal ignores the functional and
operational requirements of those using the marina as a recreational facility for boating, with yet more substantial
reduction since incorporation (20 years plus) to marina services, particularly for boat owners on A-D piers
effecting over 200 berth owners. The majority of Auckland marinas provide utilities at the end of each pier for
rubbish facilities, trolley parks and convenient car parking - see Half Moon Bay marina, who also have an
adequate hardstand and site allocated for marina businesses. The current proposal removes this convenient
access and services to A-D piers - by eliminating current car parking, rubbish and recycling bins, trolley parking

550
and shower and toilet facilities adjacent to these piers, alongside a proposed further reduction of hardstand area
to only 12 boats…. . No mention has been made in the proposal as to how PHM intend to maintain these
essential, recreationally associated facilities for boating, and pier access. Safety and Access Effects Berths A-C
will no longer have adjacent road access and parking to their piers. The car parking provision is inadequate for
berth holders purposes. We have witnessed a boat explode into flames on the marina and the critical importance
of emergency services access. In such a situation, both fire engines and ambulance required immediate adjacent
access to the pier - to put out the fire and rush a severely burnt man to hospital in this incident. This emergency
access to piers should not be compromised in the future. The removal of easy, physical access will also cause
problems with contractors working on boats - the life blood of the businesses at the marina - who need to bring
heavy tools and equipment to boats. Many berth users are families, and an increasing number are people boating
into their 70s, so for these groups having to trundle trollies of provisions, supplies, rubbish, boat equipment,
which often includes heavy tools, unwieldy gear or engines etc, from a far distant car park or drop off point is not
fair and a substantial diminishing of services in a designated zoned ‘marina and recreational area’. ‘World class’
and the other Auckland marinas offer trolley parks and rubbish and recycling collection as well as car parks
immediately adjacent to each pier. With the proposed development none of this support will be available to the
200+ berth holders of A-D piers (500 users minimum) - and may lead to laziness in conveying rubbish to far
distant bins. Confrontation and conflict The proposed multi-purpose, narrow path in front of the retail spaces -
proposed for recreational walkers and bikers, shoppers, ferry patrons, dog walkers etc - in front of A-D piers used
by approx 200 berth holders, their families and guests loading and unloading laden trollies to their boats berth -
could be dangerous and likely lead to confrontation and aggravation due to a mismatch of users of a very small
foot path. Most Marinas with a non-marina business such as apartments, also provide gated piers for obvious
security in the more public environment. PHM berth holders have not insisted on this level of security to date,
consequently visitors have enjoyed unparalleled access to promenading the boats on the marina. This will not be
practical in the future and needs to be addressed by PHM as part of their development proposal before/if it is
approved. PHM advertise on their website ‘the marina is a 24 hour a day facility, 365 days a year’. We are
concerned at the activity and sound restrictions that will crop up in the future as apartment dwellers (estimated at
70 people) complain about the unavoidable noise from the activity of 200+ boats (x 2.5 = 500 people), work going
on on boats in the marina etc, due to the extraordinarily close proximity of the dwellings to the edge of the
marina. Curiously the number of boats berthed at Pine Harbour in the vicinity of the apartments seems to have
been left off the concept illustrations for the site! Construction and building impact Marinas contain boats with
highly sensitive and delicate engineering and technology and finishes. Since residential construction has taken
off at Beachlands and PH our boat has been consistently dirty for the last couple of years, within days of being
cleaned it needs it again. Therefore I'm concerned at the ‘18 months’ (plus) dust and dirt from close proximity of
this proposed development’s dig and construction on peoples delicate nautical engineering and technology.
While dust prevention is mentioned, how exactly is it going to be controlled and to what agreed level? There will
also be a security risk of an increased number of people thinking they can opportunistically amble down the piers
during the confusion of construction and movement of trucks and materials, concealing possible thefts - what
security controls are proposed? As inner city dwellers in central Auckland, over the past few years we have lived
with the experience of a lot of building going on in our vicinity - its going to be hell while the PHM development on
this narrow site is under way. Every current city building site seems to require the blocking off of at least one lane
of adjacent road while trucks and construction works are going on - for months on end and the majority of the
development - and all other adjacent space are also commandeered by diggers and other trades. While the
proposal mentions the impact on access to the marinas will be controlled, we request evidence of planning and
consultation with berth owners about the programme. How are PH going to manage unimpeded road and path
access to the marina during the construction on such a tight site and road to meet ‘24 hour access’? Figures
quoted for traffic frequency citing December activity is not reflective of the far busier months. Traffic Effects I also
question how a narrow road is going to cope with all the traffic additional to the marina users, from the new
residences and retailers. Especially near the dwellings with people exiting from garages, and car parks sited
opposite the dwellings, on a busy, curving road which does not have good sight lines. There will be a confluence
of marina visitors, ferry parkers and patrons, bus travellers, retail deliveries, rubbish collections, bikers and
pedestrians all meant to be strolling across the road and paths - in addition to marina users/berth holders,
businesses and contractors trying to commute along this road. Madness! The impact of the development will not
be ‘slight’ and the interim consent instruction to ensure vehicle movements are organised ‘to protect the amenity
of surrounding environment’ (marina and recreational users) will not be possible. Flooding In the recent Super-
moon king tide the high tide was inches away from the top of the rock wall on the North side of the discussed site.
No mention has been made of flooding prevention on the North side in the proposal. Will purchasers and retailers
be warned of the likely consequences of high tides on their retail areas and garages? Trees Pine Harbour - the
name signals trees. In recent years the owners have removed trees and replaced them with shrub planting. The
current abundance of mature trees adds significantly to the enjoyment and recreational feel of the land’s intended
purpose. It is disappointing to read of all these trees being removed with no imaginative plan to address the
picturesqe-ness of the marina and its name. Trees also provide excellent wind breaks. The current abundance of
trees does contribute significantly to ‘the wider environment’ of marina and recreational users of this site.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?
please see response above
3

551
Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing:
Yes

Supporting information:

552
553
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Rashida Sahib


Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2018 8:21 a.m.
To: Melanie Sopoaga; craig@craigshearer.co.nz
Subject: Pam Scotts submission
Attachments: Pam Scott Sub.pdf

Categories: URGENT

Hi Mel

It appears that we do not have Pam Scotts submission in our list, please kindly check and add. Craig I
assume the submission was received on 7/2.

Thanks Rashida

554
Melanie Sopoaga

From: Craig Shearer <craig@craigshearer.co.nz>


Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2018 10:05 a.m.
To: Rashida Sahib; Melanie Sopoaga
Cc: David Boersen
Subject: Re: Pam Scotts submission

Categories: URGENT

Hi Rashida
To be honest I didn't note the day I received it as I assumed I was just being copied in. However it raises no
new issues and thus I feel sure my client is happy to receive it.

Regards

Craig

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

-------- Original message --------


From: Rashida Sahib <Rashida.Sahib@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>
Date: 7/03/18 8:20 AM (GMT+12:00)
To: Melanie Sopoaga <Melanie.Sopoaga@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>, Craig Shearer
<craig@craigshearer.co.nz>
Subject: Pam Scotts submission

Hi Mel 
 
It appears that we do not have Pam Scotts submission in our list, please kindly check and add. Craig I
assume the submission was received on 7/2.  
 
Thanks Rashida 

555
556