A6 Civil Engineering Report Part 1 of 3

8.
A6 – Civil Engineering
Report
Engineering Assessment Report
Proposed House Development
at:
234 Laing Road, Karaka, Auckland
Prepared for:
Wayne Valder
Date: May 2018

Project No.: P18-102
Proposed House Development, 234 Laing Road, Karaka
Document Control
Revision Date Author Status Issued To:
Final 21 May 2018 K Wyborn Original Vance Hodgson, HPC
Planning Limited
Rev Final 24 May 2018 K Wyborn Revision 1 Vance Hodgson, HPC
1 Planning Limited
Use and Reliance

This report has been prepared by Kepa Consulting Limited on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our
Client’s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of works. Kepa Consulting
Limited does not accept any liability or responsibility in relation to the use of this report contrary to the above, or to
any person other than the Client. Any use or reliance by a third party is at the party’s own risk. Where information has
been supplied by the Client or obtained from other external sources, it has been assumed that it is accurate, without
independent verification, unless otherwise indicated. No liability or responsibility is accepted by Kepa Consulting
Limited by the Client or any external source.
File Ref: C:\Kepa Consulting\Projects\P18-102_234 Laing Road, Karaka\5 Design\P18-102_234 Laing Road_Engineering Assessment_Rev
Final 1 24-05-18.docx
Kepa Consulting Limited

Address: 59 Jackson Way, RD3, Silverdale, Auckland 0993
Telephone: 021 228 1007
Website: www.kepaconsulting.co.nz
Email: Kevin@kepaconsulting.co.nz
Page i
234 Laing Road, Karaka
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Summary.................................................................................................................................. 3
1.2 Background .............................................................................................................................. 3
2. Site Description .................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Site Location and Identification ............................................................................................... 3
2.2 Zoning ...................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Topography and Land Use ....................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................... 4
3. Earthworks ........................................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Required Earthworks ............................................................................................................... 4
4. Stormwater .......................................................................................................................... 5
4.1 Existing Stormwater ................................................................................................................ 5
4.2 Hydrological Neutrality............................................................................................................ 5
4.3 Discharge from the Developed Site ......................................................................................... 5
4.4 Stormwater Disposal ............................................................................................................... 6
4.5 Level Spreader Dispersal Device Configuration....................................................................... 6
5. Flooding and Coastal Inundation ........................................................................................... 6
5.1 Existing Flood Mapping ........................................................................................................... 6
6. Water Supply........................................................................................................................... 7
6.1 Potable water Supply............................................................................................................... 7
6.2 Fire Fighting Water Supplies.................................................................................................... 8
7. Wastewater.......................................................................................................................... 8
7.1 Wastewater Servicing Limitations ........................................................................................... 8
7.2 Geotechnical and Effluent Disposal Investigations ................................................................. 8
7.2.1 Control of Surface water runoff .................................................................................. 8
7.2.2 Design Wastewater Production and Water Management ......................................... 9
7.2.3 Wastewater Treatment Concept ................................................................................ 9
7.2.4 Land Application System ........................................................................................... 10
Site Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 10
8. Assessment of Actual or Potential Effects on the Environment ............................................. 11

24 May 2018 Page | 1
8.1 Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 11

8.2 Erosion and Sediment Control............................................................................................... 11
8.2.1 Hydrological .............................................................................................................. 11
8.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................. 12
8.3.1 Stabilised Construction Entrance .............................................................................. 12
8.3.2 Wheel Wash .............................................................................................................. 12
8.3.3 Silt and Super Silt Fences .......................................................................................... 12
8.3.4 Runoff Diversion Channels and Clean Water Diversion Bunds ................................. 12
8.3.5 Earth Decanting Bund ............................................................................................... 13
8.3.6 Mulching and Granular Hardfill................................................................................. 14
8.3.7 Dust Control .............................................................................................................. 14
8.3.8 Management and Maintenance if Sediment Control Measures .............................. 14
8.4 Universal Soil Loss Equation .................................................................................................. 15
8.5 Construction Traffic Management ........................................................................................ 16
9. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................... 16
Appendices
Appendix A – Report Figures and Drawings
- Figure 1 – 234 Laing Road – Location Plan

- Figure 2 – 234 Laing Road - Catchment & Hydrology
- Kepa Consulting Drawing C000 Locality Plan and Drawing Register
- Kepa Consulting Drawing C100 Existing Layout Plan
- Kepa Consulting Drawing C101 Proposed Layout Plan
- Kepa Consulting Drawing C110 Earthworks Design Contours
- Kepa Consulting Drawing C120 Earthworks Cut Fill Plan
- Kepa Consulting Drawing C150 Sediment Control Plan
- Kepa Consulting Drawing C160 Sediment Control Details
Appendix B – Calculations
- Cleanwater Diversion Bund sizing

- Dirtywater Diversion Bund sizing
- ULSE
Appendix C - Geotechnical Investigation Report for Proposed New Dwelling at 234 Laing Road,
Karaka dated 21 May 2018

24 May 2018 Page | 2
1. Introduction
1.1 Summary
Kepa Consulting Limited has been engaged by Wayne Valder to prepare an Engineering
Assessment Report with respect to a proposed new dwelling at 234 Laing Road in Karaka.
This report is based on development data provided by Wayne Valder and Auckland Council GIS.
The information is current to the proposed development at the time of this report’s production.
Should alterations be made which impact on the proposed development not otherwise
authorised by this report then the design/comments/recommendations contained in this report
may no longer be valid.
This Engineering Assessment Report has been prepared in accordance with the Resource
Management Act and the Auckland Unitary Plan operative version (AUP Op.).
This report considers the following:
• Background information on the site and matters relevant to the resource consent
application for subdivision
• Earthworks
• Stormwater management
• Flood risk assessment
• Water supply
• Wastewater servicing
1.2 Background
Wayne Valder is proposing to develop a new dwelling on land that he owns at 234 Laing Road,
Karaka. The proposed Layout Plan is shown on Drawing No. C110 included in Appendix A.
2. Site Description
2.1 Site Location and Identification
The subject site, legally described as Lot 1 DP 463009, is a 1.214 ha rural residential property
located on the eastern side of Laing Road, approximately 1200m north of the intersection of
Laing Road and Linwood Road.
Vehicular access to the subject site is gained from Laing Road, via a formed access.
There are a number of large rural residential properties on the western side of Laing Road, with
two being located opposite the entrance to the subject property.

24 May 2018 Page | 3
Based on Auckland Council GIS data there is a minor overland flow path originating midway
along the northern boundary of the site which heads northwards towards an unnamed stream,
which heads north to the Manukau Harbour.
The location of the site in relation to the surrounding properties and road network is shown in
Figure 1 – 234 Laing Road – Location Plan included in Appendix A.
2.2 Zoning
The site is zoned Rural – Mixed Rural Zone under AUP-Op.
2.3 Topography and Land Use

The topography of the site is gently sloping from south to north, generally from RL 66 to RL 52.
Towards the middle of the northern boundary the topography is steeper.
The site and the surrounding area consist of rural lifestyle residential properties and farm land.
2.4 Geology and Soils

GNS digital QMaps indicate that the site is underlain by the Puketoka Formation of the
Tauranga Group. In our field investigation however, we encountered volcanic ash likely from
the South Auckland Volcanic Field overlying the Puketoka Formation which in turn was
underlain by local volcanic material of unclear geologic age and origin.
The South Auckland Volcanic Field (S.A.V.F, 1.6Mya to 0.5Mya) consists of fine grained basaltic
lava flows and scoria cones along with volcanic ejecta including lapilli, lithic tuff and fine-grained
ash.
The Puketoka Formation consists of Pliocene to middle Pleistocene (3.6Mya to 0.071Mya)

alluvial clays silts and sands and can include pumiceous and organic content in areas.
The geology was confirmed by geotechnical engineers from Lander Geotechnical. The
investigation found groundwater at 7.51m and 6.02m below ground level. Refer “Geotechnical
Investigation Report for Proposed New Dwelling at 234 Laing Road, Karaka dated 21 May
2018” prepared by Lander Geotechnical included in Appendix C.
3. Earthworks
3.1 Required Earthworks
Earthwork plans are included in Appendix A and illustrate the extent of the proposed
earthworks.
Earthworks will be necessary for the construction of the building platform, driveway area and
parking spaces. The area of earthworks is 9,570m2 and the total volume of earthworks is
9,740m3 cut and 1,980m3 fill. The maximum depth of cut = 5.5m and the maximum height of fill
= 2.5m.

24 May 2018 Page | 4
Two wingwalls will be constructed to retain the fill faces of the proposed earthworks.
4. Stormwater
4.1 Existing Stormwater
Information on the Auckland Council GIS indicates the site has a single minor overland flow path
that drains in a northerly direction across the northern most part of the site. – refer Figure 2
234 Laing Road – Catchment & Hydrology included in Appendix A.
There is no formalised point of discharge for stormwater runoff from the existing site.
Stormwater runoff from the site discharges via dispersal and sheet flow to ground.
Overland flow is generated from within the existing site to the minor overland flow path on the
northern boundary, which heads towards the unnamed stream north of the site and which
eventually discharges to the Manukau Harbour.
There are no flood prone areas identified within the site from the Auckland Council GIS Flood
Hazard Mapping.
4.2 Hydrological Neutrality

Hydraulic neutrality is required for new developments for the following reasons:
• Stormwater disposal should as practically as possible mimic natural drainage;

• Modifications to existing natural drainage patterns should be keep to a minimum;
• Stormwater should not be discharged directly into streams from piped systems;
• Impervious areas should be kept to a minimum;
• Methods should be employed to detail rainfall before dispersal to waterways.
The specific aspects of hydrological neutrality that are to be addressed include the rate of flow,
the volume of flow and time of concentration. Hydrological neutrality is required for the 10-
year storm.
4.3 Discharge from the Developed Site

The main pattern of stormwater runoff will not change once the site is developed, however the
stormwater runoff (volume and peak flow) generated will increase due to the additional
impermeable surfaces created by the new dwelling roof area, driveway and paving.
Any increase in stormwater runoff volume for the 1 in 10-year event will be mitigated by the
use of rainwater harvesting tanks which will reuse the majority of runoff from the roof areas. In
addition, peak flows will be reduced due to the detention effect of the rainwater harvesting
tanks.

24 May 2018 Page | 5
4.4 Stormwater Disposal

The runoff from the roof area, on the proposed site, will be diverted to rainwater harvesting
tanks via a sealed pipe system. It is recommended that to provide adequate water supply that
two rainwater tanks with a total storage capacity of 44,000L is provided (refer Section 6.1
below). The rainwater tanks will also provide peak rainfall storage, preventing peak rainfall from
becoming runoff.
The overflow outlet from the roof harvesting tanks should be connected to a level spreader
dispersal device and the discharge should be as sheet flow over grassed areas to natural
drainage.
The driveway/paving on the site should be constructed with crossfalls and where practical the
runoff will be collected in catchpits and piped to a level spreader dispersal device or may
optionally be allowed to discharge as sheet flow over grassed areas to natural drainage.
Detailed design of the proposed stormwater disposal system should be developed and provided
at Building Consent stage.
4.5 Level Spreader Dispersal Device Configuration

The overflow from the roof rainwater harvesting tanks and flows from the driveway and paving
catchpits, if these are used, should be piped to a level spreader dispersal device for sheet flow
treatment over grassed areas.
The dispersal device must be situated clear of the building platform, wastewater disposal field
and earthworks batters that could contribute to land instability or erosion and will be as a
dispersal trench or an above ground tee bar used to dissipate concentrated flows and discharge
velocities to allow for even sheet flow over grassed areas to drainage.
The devices selected will depend on the practicality for the site and must be situated well clear
of the building platform, wastewater disposal field and earthwork batters that could contribute
to land instability or erosion.
The dispersal devices must be installed in compliance with any geotechnical requirements and
parallel to the contours to achieve an even discharge over its length to avoid scouring and
erosion from concentrated flows.
5. Flooding and Coastal Inundation

5.1 Existing Flood Mapping
Auckland Council’s GIS provides flood hazard mapping based on rapid flood hazard mapping for
the 100-year ARI event. The extent of flooding predicted by the flood mapping and the
corresponding overland flow paths is shown on Figure 2 – 234 Laing Road – Catchment &
Hydrology included in Appendix A.

24 May 2018 Page | 6
Information on the Auckland Council GIS indicates the site has a single minor overland flow path
that originates on the northern part of the site and drains in a northerly direction across the
northern boundary towards an unmade stream north of the site.
The overland flow is generated solely from within the site as the site sits at the head of the
catchment.
Based on the above it is not considered that a detailed flood risk assessment is required for the
subject site.
6. Water Supply
6.1 Potable water Supply
Potable water is not available from a reticulated source for the site. It is therefore proposed to
capture and store water by means of rainwater harvesting using runoff from the roof areas
discharging to rain tanks.
For the assessment of water demand for future development of the additional lot created by
the development, it has been assumed the following for design purposes:
• Development of the site will be a five-bedroom house

• a roof area of 770m2
• occupancy of 8 people (based on TP58 Table 6.1 – Occupancy Allowances)
• house would have 6/3 flush toilet(s) and standard water reduction fixtures and no
garbage grinder
Based on the above, a typical water demand of 160 litres per person per day (refer Auckland
Council, “Technical Publication No. 58 – On-Site Wastewater Systems: Design and Management
Manual”, Third Edition 2004 Table 6.2 domestic Wastewater Flow Allowances – Per Capita) was
adopted and equates to a maximum daily demand of 1.28m3/day.
For rainwater harvesting it is proposed to collect 100% of the roof runoff via a sealed piped
system. Tank sizing and capacity is determined on the basis that 100% of the rainwater in the
driest month (January or February) can be supplied at the design flow rate of 1.28m3/day.
Based on hydrological data the mean daily rainfall for January and February is 73.3mm/month
and 66.1 mm/month respectively. For the roof area of 770m2, the runoff per month generated
will be 56.5 m3/month in January and 50.9m3/month in February. This equates to 1.82m3/day
for both months (based on 31 days in January and 28 days in February).
Using a single 22,000L tank only, would mean that there is inadequate water supply storage for
water generated from the roof runoff in January and February to meet the predicted demand
assuming full occupancy. Therefore, it is recommended that additional rainwater harvesting
storage is provided in the form of a second 22,000L tank.

24 May 2018 Page | 7
It is noted that imported water may be required where there is higher demand or in dry
weather periods.
6.2 Fire Fighting Water Supplies

It is assumed that either on-site firefighting water supply using the rain harvesting tanks,
swimming pool, fire tender water or pumped water from the nearby stream will be used for
firefighting purposes and no additional on-site fire water storage would be required.
7. Wastewater
7.1 Wastewater Servicing Limitations
The site is located outside of an area where there is no public wastewater and water supply
reticulation. Therefore, on-site wastewater treatment and disposal will be required for the
development. To service the proposed development an evaluation of the site was undertaken,
and the findings of this evaluation is set out in the sections below.
7.2 Geotechnical and Effluent Disposal Investigations

Based on the recommendations from the geotechnical investigations a soil classification of
Category 5 in accordance with Auckland Regional Council (ARC) Technical Publication No. 58
(TP58) Table 5.1 has been adopted - refer “Geotechnical Investigation Report for Proposed
New Dwelling at 234 Laing Road, Karaka dated 21 May 2018” prepared by Lander Geotechnical
included in Appendix C.
Category 5 soils allow moderate to low areal loading rates (2mm to 4mm/day) within the
proposed wastewater disposal area to ensure adequate assimilation during periods of high
discharge. This means that the area required to provide adequate discharge to land is more
extensive than that required in areas of free draining soils. The disposal area will also require
planting to assist in evapotranspiration. A design discharge rate of 2.5mm/day has been
adopted in the on-site wastewater disposal design.
7.2.1 Control of Surface water runoff

The flat nature of the site and relative footprint area of the development means that
stormwater runoff from the impermeable areas (excluding the roof areas which will discharge
to rain tanks) will be dispersed evenly but away from the wastewater disposal area.
As discussed in the Flood Risk section of this report based on the rapid flood assessment
information included on Auckland Council GIS database the site is not located in a flood hazard
area.
Stability
The site is flat and located in a rural area and there should be no stability issues on the site.

24 May 2018 Page | 8
7.2.2 Design Wastewater Production and Water Management

Site Occupancy
It has been assumed the following for design purposes:
• Development of the site will be a five-bedroom house

• a roof area of 770m2
In accordance with TP 58 Table 6.1 Occupancy Allowances, the occupancy for design purposes
has been taken as eight people.
Design Flow Allowances Per Person
The site will be supplied via on-site roof water tanks.
TP58 Table 6.2 outlines flow allowances for residential dwellings where the dwelling is supplied
via on-site roof water tanks of between 160 – 220l/person/day, depending on whether
wastewater reducing fixtures are installed.
For the proposed development, it is proposed to install the following devices to reduce water
usage and wastewater production:
• Dual flush (6/3 litre) waster cisterns

• Aerated faucets on all taps (6l/min)
• Shower flow restrictions (9l/min)
• Water conserving automatic washing machines
In addition, garbage grinders will not be permitted.
Based on the proposed use of standard water reduction fixtures, a flow allowance 160 l/p/d has
been adopted to calculate the design wastewater flow. The total average daily discharge is
1,280 litres/day.
7.2.3 Wastewater Treatment Concept

It is proposed to construct a system that will be capable of collecting, treating to a high
standard and discharging the treated wastewater to landscaped areas within the site in a
sustainable manner.
The system will consist of a gravity reticulation main discharging to a proprietary domestic
wastewater treatment and disposal device such as a Biocycle or Hynds Lifestyle Advanced
system.
Both systems operate in a similar manner and are known as Aerated Wastewater Treatment
Systems (ATWS). A typical unit will incorporate a primary septic tank with the overflow
transferred to the aeration compartment that may incorporate an outlet filter. Air is supplied
for aeration and mixing of the suspension of activated biological slimes by either a blower and
sparge pipe, or a rotating impellor/aspirator unit. The overflow from the aeration compartment

24 May 2018 Page | 9
is then passed to a settling compartment for suspended sludge recovery and return before the
final treated effluent enters a pump well for distribution to a land disposal system.
7.2.4 Land Application System

Site Evaluation
As previously described (Section 7.2), a comprehensive subsurface investigation has not been
undertaken but a conservative approach has been used to determine a soil category for
preliminary design purposes.
The following summary shows the characteristics of the subsurface soils located within the
proposed land discharge area.
Table 7.2.4 - Site Characteristics Summary
Consideration Result
Topsoil/Organic Layer Depth 0.15m – 0.2m
Groundwater Level >2m
Soil Category Category 5
Typical Land Slope 8%
Separation to Surface Water (m) 30m
Proposed Land Application System
The proposed land application system will comprise a low pressure subsurface (LPSSIR) drip
irrigation system utilising a low-pressure network of 16mm diameter pipe with evenly spaced,
self-compensating drippers providing uniform distribution of the wastewater to the land
disposal area. The drip lines will be laid on the ground surface with a minimum of 100mm of
modified soil in accordance with AS/NZS 1547:2012. The drip lines will be pressure
compensating to allow then to be laid over uneven ground topography. The advantages of the
proposed irrigation system are:
• Low loading rates to minimise the potential for ground saturation

• Maximise evapotranspiration by trees and grass
• Effluent is spread over a large area for better assimilation by soil, bacteria and
vegetation.
The drip irrigation system should be laid generally at 1m minimum centres to provide a uniform
loading rate of no more than 2.5mm/day in the proposed land discharge area.
Based on a daily wastewater discharge flow rate of 1280 litres and a loading rate of 2.5mm/day
an area of 512m2 is required for the proposed land disposal area plus 50% future proofing area
(reserve area) of 256m2.

24 May 2018 Page | 10
8. Assessment of Actual or Potential Effects on the Environment

This assessment of environmental effects focusses on the matters to be addressed under E11
and E12 of AUP Op.
8.1 Objectives
Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures will be provided on site in accordance with
the AUP Op. and Auckland Council Technical Publication GD05 Erosion and Sediment Control
Guide for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region June 2016 (Guidance Document
2016/005) “GD05”.
The main rationale and objectives of the measures proposed are:
• Minimise disturbance to areas where erosion may occur, including steep slopes and
exposed land;
• Stage the filling operations to minimize the area worked on the site at any one time;
• Minimise the extent and duration of exposed areas to ensure revegetation can occur in
a staged and progressive manner, so as to reduce the risk of sediment runoff from the
site entering the downstream environment;
• Ensure exposed areas are stabilised as soon as practicable by encouraging appropriate
grass growth;
• Maintain the gravel surface on the site access to minimise the potential for sediment to
be tracked off site;
• Provide guidance in the case of unforeseen events including poor weather and ensure
all control measures are inspected and repaired, if required, after storm events;
• Mitigate dust emissions from the site during earthwork operations so as not to
adversely affect any nearby properties;
• Minimise potential environmental effects.
8.2 Erosion and Sediment Control

The management and design of the sediment, erosion and dust control measures proposed
have been assessed on the total area of the earthwork activities. The following outlines the
methods to mitigate the effects of the proposed land disturbing activities and provides
preliminary design of specific devices based on the proposed construction methodology.
8.2.1 Hydrological
Hydrological analysis was undertaken using the methods in Auckland Regional Council Technical
Publication No. 108 Guidelines for Stormwater Runoff Modelling in the Auckland Region to
assess the design stormwater runoff flows contributing to possible erosion and sediment
control measures. Guidance from GD2016/005 was used to determine the selection of storm
events.

24 May 2018 Page | 11
Plans showing how the site has been divided into clean and sediment-laden water catchments
are included in Appendix A. Calculations included in Appendix B provide catchment
characteristics for the and site and the resulting peak flow rates for the 20-year ARI (5% Annual
Exceedance Probability (AEP)) events required in GD2016/005.
8.3 Mitigation Measures

The following techniques will be used by the contractor to control sediment-laden runoff and to
prevent erosion of exposed ground. These techniques follow GD2016/005. Typical details are
shown on Kepa Consulting drawings C800 included in Appendix A.
8.3.1 Stabilised Construction Entrance

A stabilised construction entrance off Laing Road will utilise the existing gravelled access road.
This will prevent tracking of soil onto public roads. The following specifications will be used for a
typical stabilised entrance.
Table 7.3.1: Stabilised Construction Entrance Aggregate Specifications
Aggregate Size 50mm to 150mm washed aggregate

Thickness 150mm minimum or 1.5 x aggregate size
Length 8m
Width 4m
8.3.2 Wheel Wash
A wheel wash facility is not proposed at the site exit point onto Laing Road as the length of
gravelled access is sufficiently long to preclude the need of a wheel wash.
8.3.3 Silt and Super Silt Fences

Silt fences and super silt fences will be used at various locations and times during construction.
The silt fences will detain flows from the construction area, so deposition of transported
sediment can occur through settlement. The design and implementation of these silt fences will
be in accordance with GD05.
8.3.4 Runoff Diversion Channels and Clean Water Diversion Bunds

Runoff diversion channels will be used to intercept silt-laden runoff and divert into earth
decants. The channels have been designed for the 20-year ARI rainfall event and include a 0.3m
freeboard.
The land immediately upstream of the southern boundary of the site provides the upstream
perimeter control where cleanwater diversions are required within the site to limit catchment
areas contributing to the earthwork areas. The cleanwater diversions have been designed for
the 20-year ARI storm event and will minimise cleanwater runoff entering the earthworks site.

24 May 2018 Page | 12
The typical worst-case dimensions and locations of the channels/bunds used during the
earthworks are summarised in Table 7.3.2: Runoff Diversion Channel and Table 7.3.3
Cleanwater Diversion Drain below.
Table 7.3.2: Runoff Diversion Channel
Location/Description Catchment Design Flow Typical Total Depth Lining/Rock

Area (ha) (m3/s) Grade (m)* Checks
Required
Earth Decanting 0.3 0.019 8% 0.38 Yes
Bund
*Channels to have 1:3 side slopes and total depths include 300mm freeboard unless stated. Channel size based on maximum
catchment
Table 7.3.3: Cleanwater Diversion Drain
Location/Description Catchment Design Flow Typical Total Depth Lining/Rock

Area (ha) (m3/s) Grade (m)* Checks
Required
Southern Catchment 0.12 0.007 5% 0.34 Yes
*Total depth includes 300mm freeboard. Drain size based on maximum catchment
The channels and bunds generally have longitudinal gradients greater than 3%. Where the
grade exceeds 3%, or the flow velocities are high, the channel shall be lined with either rocks or
geotextile fabric to prevent erosion if the underlying soils. Calculations undertaken for the
above sediment control measures are included in Appendix B.
8.3.5 Earth Decanting Bund

Three earth bunds incorporating floating decant structures will be used to reduce the amount
of sediment leaving the site by detaining the runoff. The bunds have been sized to
accommodate a volume of 1% of the catchment (where the maximum contributing catchment
areas to each bund is approximately 0.3ha). The bunds have been designed to pass the 1% AEP
rainfall storm event. Details have also been included to prevent erosion of the exposed soils (i.e.
geotextile lining). The decants shall also incorporate a level spreader at the inlet and have a 3:1
length/width ratio.
Floating decant structures for the earth decants will be incorporated to reduce the amount of
sediment leaving the site by detaining the runoff. The use of a floating decant in accordance
with GD05 guidelines for a sediment retention pond will further facilitate settlement of
sediments before discharge. Table 7.3.4: Earth Decanting Bunds below details the typical
criteria for an earth decant structure with a maximum contributing area.

24 May 2018 Page | 13
Table 7.3.4: Earth Decanting Bunds
Location/Description Maximum Storage Volume Spillway Cross

Catchment Area (m3) Section (m)
(m2)
DEB 1-3 3,000 30 1.0 x 0.25
8.3.6 Mulching and Granular Hardfill

Mulching will be used to provide protection of exposed soils where earthworks require
immediate stabilisation. Mulching would be manually applied given the relatively small area of
earthworks. The mulch will protect exposed soils from the erosive forces of raindrop impact and
overland flow. Mulching also prevents the drying of the exposed soil by retaining moisture,
controlling weeds, and promoting the establishment of desirable vegetation. The mulch
comprises unrotten small grain straw and would be applied at a minimum rate of 0.6kg/m2 or
until no bare soil is visible through the mulch layer.
It is unlikely that significant areas of mulching will be required as surface will be progressively
stabilised with compacted granular hardfill once subgrade levels have been achieved.
8.3.7 Dust Control

Exposed earthwork areas will be maintained to minimise the release of dust into the
atmosphere. In the event of dust generation becoming obvious through earthwork activities,
appropriate measures to reduce the dust release to acceptable levels would be undertaken.
Methods to be adopted for the dust control measures are as follows:
• Ensure the exposed earthwork areas remain in a damp condition, utilising water trucks as
necessary, until surfaces have been stabilised;
• Limit site traffic speed to a level to reduce the production of dust;
• Stage earthworks during construction in order to isolate and reduce the area of exposed
earthworks;
• Stabilise entrance at the entry/exit points of the site;
• If necessary, earthwork activities may be limited in specific areas during periods of high
wind.
8.3.8 Management and Maintenance if Sediment Control Measures

As part of the earthworks contract, the contractor will be responsible for providing adequate
sediment and erosion control measures, in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan (E&SCP), to protect downstream environments from excessive sedimentation and water
quality degradation.
Regular maintenance should be carried out during the operational life of the sediment, dust and
erosion control devices by the contractor. Inspections should be carried out by the contractor

24 May 2018 Page | 14
after every significant rainfall event and during periods of prolonged rainfall. Checks should
include inspection for scour and signs of a possible breach in devices, such as the earth bund or
diversion bund. Signs of failure should be repaired immediately. Accumulated sediment should
be removed to ensure the design capacity of the device is maintained. Devices should be
maintained until the construction areas are secure and stabilised.
The contractor shall inspect the site boundaries when weather conditions are dry and windy in
order to monitor the levels of dust emission from the site. If there are signs of unacceptable
levels of dust emission, the contractor shall carry out suitable measures to reduce dust
generation.
Accidental Dust or Sediment Emission
The measures employed in the event of an accidental dust emission or sediment runoff are as
follows:
• Cease earthworks being carried out in the contributing area;

• Duct Emission – apply water to the exposed surfaces in order to reduce the production
of dust into the atmosphere. Reduce traffic movements across the site;
• Sediment – repair existing sediment control devices and/or construct secondary devices
to intercept and prevent further mitigation of sediment laden runoff from entering the
downstream system;
• Notify the site engineer of the event. The contractor shall provide details of the
mitigation measures employed to the site engineer prior to recommencing earthworks.
The contractor will nominate an appropriately qualified and experienced person to be

responsible for the control of sediment and dust in the course of earthworks construction on
the site. The contractor will nominate a point of contact for receipt of any complaints. The
contractor will erect a sign at the entrance with their 24-hour contact details for the purpose of
responding to complaints, A typical procedure for responding to a complaint is as follows:
• The contractor’s nominated representative should contact the client and provide details
for the cause of the complaint.
• The contractor shall liaise with the complainant to discuss the mitigation options, if
applicable;
• The contactor shall carry out the remedial measures.
8.4 Universal Soil Loss Equation

It has been assumed that the enabling works and bulk earthworks will take approximately six
weeks to complete. Reinstatement period will be four weeks as most surfaces will be stabilised
with hardfill and topsoil progressively.
From the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), it has been estimated approximately 1.84 tonnes
of sediment could be released to the receiving environment from the construction works, if no

24 May 2018 Page | 15
mitigation measures are adopted. Utilising the methodology and mitigation measures discussed
above, the USLE indicates that the sediment loss reduces to approximately 0.55 tonnes over the
construction and re-establishment period. Approximately 0.11 tonnes are normally discharged
from a pre-development scenario (refer USLE calculations included in Appendix B).
From the USLE results, it is considered that the works area is low risk given the small catchment.
8.5 Construction Traffic Management

The site is accessed from Laing Road, which is a minor local road serving small numbers of local
traffic movements. Therefore, it is unlikely that there will be any capacity issues regarding
construction traffic. Traffic movements associated with the earthworks construction at its peak
when material is being carted off site is 40 trips daily (20 trips from site /20 trip to site) over a 3-
week period.
9. Conclusions and Recommendations

This Engineering Assessment has been prepared in accordance with relevant statutory
requirements and technical guidelines.
Wayne Valder is applying for consent to develop a new dwelling at 234 Laing Road.
Based on information provided by Auckland Council’s GIS the site is not located within a flood
plain and so a detailed flood assessment is not required.
The proposed development can be adequately serviced for wastewater using a proprietary on-
site wastewater treatment and disposal system.
Erosion and sediment controls will be provided through the provision a decanting earth bund
(DEB), clean water and dirty water bunds or channels, stabilising of the exposed areas of fill and
the continued stabilising of the site access road;
Works should be carried out in general accordance with GD005.
We consider the effects on the environment due to suspended sediments arising from the
proposed earthworks activities on the site will be adequately addressed by the mitigation
measures detailed in this assessment.
Kepa Consulting Limited
May 2018

24 May 2018 Page | 16
Appendix A: Report Figures and Drawings

- Figure 1 – 234 Laing Road – Location Plan
- Figure 2 – 234 Laing Road - Catchment & Hydrology
- Kepa Consulting Drawing C000 Locality Plan and Drawing Register
- Kepa Consulting Drawing C100 Existing Layout Plan
- Kepa Consulting Drawing C101 Proposed Layout Plan
- Kepa Consulting Drawing C110 Earthworks Design Contours
- Kepa Consulting Drawing C120 Earthworks Cut Fill Plan
- Kepa Consulting Drawing C150 Sediment Control Plan
- Kepa Consulting Drawing C160 Sediment Control Details

24 May 2018
Auckland Council Map
35
30
´
40
40
137
30
50
45
45
50
40
45
55
40
35
35
30
40
50
35
45
45
55
45
50
40 50
35
45
50
50
55 55
50
50
60
35
45
40
55
55
40
45
45
40
45
50
55
60
55 55
50
60
50 60
60
45
60
127
120
55
50 65
55 60
55
65
60 60
65
65 119 55
55
65
50
45
60
40 50
60
60
Lai
55
ng
35
65
45
Ro
115
ad
55
60
60
50 55 50
45
65
60
35
50
60
40
65
111
70
40
60 55
50
65
45
45
55
60
30
35
50
107
50
y
50 Wa
a na
55
60
Mur
55
30
25
55
65
55
60
45
35
55
40
50
0 25 50 75
DISCLAIMER:
This map/plan is illustrative only and all information should be Meters
independently verified on site before taking any action. Copyright
Auckland Council. Land Parcel Boundary information from LINZ Scale @ A3
(Crown Copyright Reserved). Whilst due care has been taken,
Auckland Council gives no warranty as to the accuracy and plan
Figure 1 - 234 Laing Road Location Plan = 1:2,500
completeness of any information on this map/plan and accepts no
liability for any error, omission or use of the information. Date Printed:
Height datum: Auckland 1946. 21/05/2018
Auckland Council Map
35
30
´
40
40
137
30
50
45
45
50
40
45
55
40
35
35
30
40
50
35
45
45
55
45
50
40 50
35
45
50
50
55 55
50
50
60
35
45
40
55
55
40
45
45
40
45
50
55
60
55 55
50
60
50 60
60
45
60
127
120
55
50 65
55 60
55
65
60 60
65
65 119 55
55
65
50
45
60
40 50
60
60
Lai
55
ng
35
65
45
Ro
115
ad
55
60
60
50 55 50
45
65
60
35
50
60
40
65
111
70
40
60 55
50
65
45
45
55
60
30
35
50
107
50
y
50 Wa
a na
55
60
Mur
55
30
25
55
65
55
60
45
35
55
40
50
0 25 50 75
DISCLAIMER:
This map/plan is illustrative only and all information should be Meters
independently verified on site before taking any action. Copyright
Auckland Council. Land Parcel Boundary information from LINZ Scale @ A3
(Crown Copyright Reserved). Whilst due care has been taken,
Auckland Council gives no warranty as to the accuracy and plan
Figure 2 - 234 Laing Road Catchment & Hydrology = 1:2,500
completeness of any information on this map/plan and accepts no
liability for any error, omission or use of the information. Date Printed:
Height datum: Auckland 1946. 21/05/2018
SURVEYED APPROVED DATE
DESIGNED KPW 5-18

DRAWN KPW 5-18
CAD
CHECKED
REVISION CHANGES CHECKED DATE
A ISSUED FOR RESOURCE CONSENT KPW 17.5.18
NOTES
HOUSE SITE
LOCALITY PLAN CLIENT
PROJECT
VALDER HOUSE
LAING ROAD, KARAKA
TITLE
LOCALITY PLAN
DRAWING REGISTER
DRAWING REGISTER
The copyright of this design and drawing is vested in Kepa

Consulting Ltd, unless otherwise indicated.
SCALE
1:500 (A1) 1:1000 (A3)
DRAWING No REVISION
C000 A
DESIGNED KPW 5-18

DRAWN KPW 5-18
CAD
CHECKED
NOTES
1. Levels are in terms of LINZ, Auckland Mean Sea Level Datum 1946.
58.75 2. Coordinates are in terms of Geodetic Datum 2000 Mt Eden Circuit.
59.00
59.25
59.50
5 59.75
58.7 60.00
5
59.00 60.2
5 .5 0
59.2 60
60.75
59.50
//
61.00
59.75 61.25
//
60.00 61.50
60.25 61.75
//
60.50 62.00
//
60.7 5
.2
5 62
//
61.00
61 . 5 0
//
.2 5 62 .75
61 62.00
//
//
61 .5 3
// 0 6
//
5
.7
.2
//
// 5 5 0
63
//
62 .2 .5
//
.00 61 63.75
//
//
50 63 0//0
62
61.
//
// .
.25
64 5
//
62 .75
//
.50 61 .00 .2
//
// //
64
62.75
62
//
//
25 //
.50
//
62. .50
63.00
//
4
//
//
62 .75 0 // 6 5
//
//
62 3.0 5 .7
63.25
//
//
// //
6 3.2 // 64
// 0
63.50
//
// 6 // 0 .0
// // 63.5 65 5
//
75
63.
//
2
63. .
//
//
65 0
64.00
// CLIENT
//
//
.00
75
// //
64 .5
65 5
// //
//
//
5 //
25
.2
//
// //
64 5 .7
64.
50 6
64.
//
//
00
0
//
66.
//
//
64.5
//
64.
//
6 .25
//
//
6
75
65
//
.0
//
50
0
.
//
66
//
//
PROJECT
. 7 5
//
66
//
VALDER HOUSE
5
LAI
0
.2
.75
.5
.00
.00
63
//
.25
63
.50
67
//
63
//
5
64
LAING ROAD, KARAKA
NG
64
.7
0
64
5
.50
.0
.75
64
00
.2
//
25
5
//
65
50
65
.2
.75
65
//
66.
65
66.
67
66.
RO
66
//
//
//
AD
// TITLE
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
EXISTING LAYOUT PLAN
//
//
//

SCALE
1:500 (A1) 1:1000 (A3)
0 10 20 50
DRAWING No REVISION
Scale 1:500 (A3) C100 A

DESIGNED KPW 5-18

DRAWN KPW 5-18
CAD
CHECKED
NOTES
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
// //
//
//
//
// CLIENT
// //
//
//
// //
// //
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
PROJECT
//
//
VALDER HOUSE
LAI
//
//
//
NG
//
LAING ROAD, KARAKA
//
//
RO
//
//
//
AD
//
TITLE
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
PROPOSED LAYOUT PLAN

//
//
//

SCALE
1:500 (A1) 1:1000 (A3)
0 10 20 50
DRAWING No REVISION
Scale 1:500 (A3) C101 A

DESIGNED KPW 5-18

DRAWN KPW 5-18
CAD
CHECKED
NOTES
58.75 2. Coordinates are in terms of Geodetic Datum 2000 Mt Eden Circuit.
59.00
. 00 59.25
59
59.50
0 .75
559
58.7
5 59.
60.00
5
.5
59
5
59.00 60.2
0
59.2
5 60.5
60.75
-1.1%
.00
59.50
//
-0.3% 61.00
60
59.75 0
0.5
661.25
//
0
.7
1.0
5
59
.7
60.00 661.50
59
-13.4%
0
1.575
60
60.25
%
661.
.00
-1.1
62.00
62.00
60.5
60.50
60.7 5
62.50 .2
.2%
61
0
5 62
30
-761
//
.0
.00
5
63.0050
.
60.50
64
0
.7
61 2.75
61
59
//
9 .25 636.5 .0
611.4
.5
00 62.00
-16
0
61.
//
61 6 .50 646.030
50
//
//
.2%
5
.7
61. 0
.2
5
30
2
//
5 0
63
62 .0
.2
62 .2 .5
.
64
.00
64
//
61 63.75
50 63 00 64.50
62
61.
//
.
.25
64 5
//
62 .75
?
.50 -4. .2
??
61 .00
0
//
7% 64
.5
62.75
62
//
62
//
25 .50
//
62. .50 .00
63.00
//
62 .75 0 64 5 65
//
-0.6%
//
62 3.0 5 -1.8% .7
63.25
???
//
// 6 3.2 64
// 0
63.50
6 0 .0 .50
63.5
40
5
65
// //
6 5
.
75
64
63.
63. .2
//
//
-5.7%
0
5
64.00
//
6 0
.00
63.0
CLIENT
75
//
64 .5
65 5
// //
//
-3.
//
25 //
25
//
. .7
6%
64
// //
63.50
65
64.
50
64.
//
//
6
00
0
//
66.
.2
//
//
64.5
64
.3
//
64.
64
25
66.
//
//
0
//
75
65
64.0
?
0
//
??
.3
.0
.50
64
//
-1.0%
0
//
66
//
//
9
0
.1
PROJECT
.3
.75
64
64
//
66
63 .23
//
-2.3%
VALDER HOUSE
1
63
LAI
.50
.2
-1.8%
.0
.75
.00
.00
63
64
//
-1.0%
.25
8
67
.50
//
63
//
.3
64
.099
NG
64
64
.7
0
LAING ROAD, KARAKA
64
0
6653.
.75
64
00
.2
.5
//
25
5
//
50
65
.2
.75
65
//
66.
65
66.
67
66.
RO
66
8
//
.9
//
63
//
AD
//
TITLE
//
-1.0%
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
EARTHWORKS
//
//
//
//
//
//
DESIGN CONTOURS
//
//
//

SCALE
1:500 (A1) 1:1000 (A3)
0 10 20 50
DRAWING No REVISION
Scale 1:500 (A3) C110 A

DESIGNED KPW 5-18

DRAWN KPW 5-18
CAD
CHECKED
NOTES
Area of Earthworks: 9,570m²

Cut Volume: 9,740m³
59.00 Fill Volume: 1,980m³
2. Coordinates are in terms of Geodetic Datum 2000 Mt Eden Circuit.
60.00 3. Volumes are based on assumed topsoil stripped depth of 200mm,
and 150mm depth from finished level to subgrade level (and 300mm
59.00 for building slab at ground level).
4. Volumes are measured solid in place.
//
61.00
//
60.00
//
62.00
//
//
61.00
//
//
//
.0
63
//
//
//
// //
62 //
// .0 0 //
//
.00
//
//
64
//
//
//
// //
62.00
//
//
//
//
63.00
//
//
// //
//
.00
//
//
63
//
// // //
// 0
//
//
// .0
// //
// // 65
//
//
64.00
//
//
//
.00
// // CLIENT
//
64 //
//
//
// //
// //
//
//
00
//
66.
//
//
//
//
//
//
65
//
.0
//
0
//
//
//
PROJECT
//
//
VALDER HOUSE
LAI
.00
.00
//
67
//
//
64
NG
0
LAING ROAD, KARAKA
.0
00
//
//
65
//
66.
RO
//
//
//
AD
//
TITLE
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
EARTHWORKS
//
//
//
//
//
//
CUT FILL PLAN

//
//
//
Min. Max. Volume

No. Colour (m³)
Level Level
1 -6.00 -5.00 44
2 -5.00 -4.00 438
3 -4.00 -3.00 947
4 -3.00 -2.00 1254
5 -2.00 -1.00 2301
6 -1.00 0.00 4753
7 0.00 1.00 1537
8 1.00 2.00 397
9 2.00 3.00 44

SCALE
1:500 (A1) 1:1000 (A3)
0 10 20 50
DRAWING No REVISION
Scale 1:500 (A3) C120 A

DESIGNED KPW 5-18

DRAWN KPW 5-18
CAD
CHECKED
NOTES
Decanting Earth Bund 58.75 2. Coordinates are in terms of Geodetic Datum 2000 Mt Eden Circuit.
>
59.00
>R >> >

3. Erosion and sediment control measure are to be undertaken in
59.25 accordance with Auckland Council Erosion and Sediment Control
>R 59.50 Guide for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region
59.75
>R GD2016/005.
5
58.7
>R 4. Construct sediment and erosion control measure before undertaking
60.00
>>
any earthworks.
5
59.00 60.2 5. Refer to Drawing C160 for specific details.
>R
>>
0
59.2
5 60.5
>R 60.75
>R0
>>
59.5
>R
59.75
61.00
>R 61.25
>>
>R 60.00 61.50
>R 60.25 61.75
>>
>R 62.00
>R 60.7
60.50
.2
5
LEGEND
>R
>>
61.00
5 62
>R 61
.25
.50
62 .75 Clean Water Diversion Channel >> >> >> >>
61
>>
.5 62.00
61
>>
0 63
5
.7 Dirty Water Collection Channel
.2
5 5 0 >R >R >R
63
62
>>
.00 .2 .5
61 63.75 Silt Fence
>>
50 63 00
62
61. .
.25
62 64 5
.75
>>
.50 >> 61 .00 .2
64
62.75
62
25 .50
>> 62. .50
>>
63.00
62 .75 0 64 5
>> 62 3.0 5 .7
63.25
6 3.2 64
>>
0
63.50
>> 6 0 .0
63.5 5
6 5
>> 75
63.
63. .2
>>
5
64.00
6 0
.00
CLIENT
75
64 .5
65 5
>>
>>
25
25
. .7
64 65
64.
50
64.
>>
00
0
66.
>>
64.5
64.
25
66.
>>
75
65
>>
.0
.50
0
66
>>
PROJECT
.75
>>
66
VALDER HOUSE
63>>
5
LAI
0
.2
.75
.5
.00
.00
>>
.25
63
67
.50
63
64
5
NG
64
.7
0
>>
LAING ROAD, KARAKA
64
0
.0
.75
64
00
.2
.5
25
5
65
50
65
.2
.75
65
>>
66.
65
66.
67
66.
RO
>>
66
>>
>>
>>
AD
>> TITLE
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN

SCALE
1:500 (A1) 1:1000 (A3)
0 10 20 50
DRAWING No REVISION
Scale 1:500 (A3) C150 A

DESIGNED KPW 5-18

DRAWN KPW 5-18
CAD
CHECKED
NOTES
DECANTING EARTH BUND
CLIENT
PROJECT
VALDER HOUSE
SILT FENCE
LAING ROAD, KARAKA
TITLE
CONTOUR DRAIN
SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS
`DIRTY WATER` COLLECTION CHANNEL

`CLEAN WATER` DIVERSION CHANNEL The copyright of this design and drawing is vested in Kepa
SCALE
N.T.S.
DRAWING No REVISION
C160 A
Appendix B: Calculations
- Cleanwater Diversion Bund sizing
- Dirtywater Diversion Bund sizing
- ULSE

24 May 2018
CALCULATION SHEET
Project : 234 Laing Road Description: SW Management Sheet No. : 1
Project No: P18-102 Designed: KPW
Date: 21 May 2018 Checked:
Calculation of Stormwater Peak Flow, Runoff Depth and Runoff Volume

(In accordance with TP 108 graphical method)
Outfall: Natural surface - sheet flow
Option: Dirtywater diversion- Bottom of earthworks
On-site area S1 (Ha) = 0.3000 Ha

Upstream Catchment area C1 (Ha) = 0.0000 Ha
PRE-DEVELOPMENT
1. Runoff Curve Number (CN) and Initial Abstraction (la) (See Table 1)
Curve
Cover Description (Cover type, treatment and hydrological Area Product of
Soil Name and Classification Number
condition) (ha) CN x Area
CN*
Pasture and lawns cover 74 0.3 22.200
Roof 98 0.0000 0.000
Driveway 98 0.0000 0.000
TOTALS 0.3000 22.200
* from Table 3.3

CN (weighted) = total product 22.200 = 74.0
total area 0.3000
la (weighted) = 5 x pervious area 1.500 = 5.00 mm

total area 0.3000
2. Time of Concentration (See Table 2)
Channelisation factor (choose C = 0.6 piped, or C = 0.8 engineered grass channel) C= 0.8 (Averaged)
Catchment length (measured along drainage path) L= 0.095 km
Catchment slope (calculated by equal area method) Sc = 0.032 m/m
' Runoff factor = CN = RF = 0.59
200-CN
tc = 0.14*C*L^0.66*RF^-0.55*Sc^-0.30 = tc = 0.09 hrs
0.17 hrs Adopt 0.17
SCS lag for HEC-HMS = tp = 2/3*tc = tp = 0.11 hrs
3. Graphical Peak Flow Rate
Soil Storge Parameter S = ((1000/CN)-10)*25.4 = 89.2 mm
WQV EDV 50%AEP 10% AEP 1% AEP

Av. Recurrence interval ARI = 2yr 10yr 100yr
24hr rainfall depth (mm) (From graphs in TP108) P24 = 70.1 106.9 180.8
24 hr rainfall depth + CC (mm) (From graphs in TP108) P24 + CC = 78.4 122.3 212.8
c* = (P24-2la)/(P24-2la+2S) c* = 0.28 0.39 0.53
Specific Flow Rate (from fig. 5.1 in TP 108) q* = 0.08 0.102 0.130
Peak flow rate (m3/s) A*P24*q/100 V24 = 0.019 0.037 0.083
Runoff Depth (mm) (P24-la)^2/(P24-la) + S Q24 = 33.1 66.6 145.4
3
Runoff Volume (m ) 1000*Q24*A/100 V24 = 99 200 436
C:\Kepa Consulting\Projects\P18-102 234 Laings Road\5 Design\Calculations\Earthworks\P18-102 234 Laing Road TP108 Peak Flow Calculator - Graphical Downstream dirtywaterPre-Developed
CALCULATION SHEET
Calculation of Stormwater Peak Flow, Runoff Depth and Runoff Volume

(In accordance with TP 108 graphical method)
Outfall: Natural surface - sheet flow
Option: Cleanwater diversion- Upstream of earthworks
On-site area S1 (Ha) = 0.1200 Ha

Upstream Catchment area C1 (Ha) = 0.0000 Ha
PRE-DEVELOPMENT
1. Runoff Curve Number (CN) and Initial Abstraction (la) (See Table 1)
Cover Description (Cover type, treatment and hydrological Curve Area Product of
Soil Name and Classification
condition) Number CN* (ha) CN x Area
Roof 98 0.0000 0.000
Driveway 98 0.0000 0.000
TOTALS 0.1200 8.880
* from Table 3.3

CN (weighted) = total product 8.880 = 74.0
total area 0.1200
la (weighted) = 5 x pervious area 0.600 = 5.00 mm

total area 0.1200
2. Time of Concentration (See Table 2)
Channelisation factor (choose C = 0.6 piped, or C = 0.8 engineered grass channel) C= 0.8 (Averaged)
Catchment length (measured along drainage path) L= 0.095 km
Catchment slope (calculated by equal area method) Sc = 0.083 m/m
' Runoff factor = CN = RF = 0.59
200-CN
tc = 0.14*C*L^0.66*RF^-0.55*Sc^-0.30 = tc = 0.07 hrs
0.17 hrs Adopt 0.17
SCS lag for HEC-HMS = tp = 2/3*tc = tp = 0.11 hrs
3. Graphical Peak Flow Rate
Soil Storge Parameter S = ((1000/CN)-10)*25.4 = 89.2 mm
WQV EDV 50%AEP 10% AEP 1% AEP

Av. Recurrence interval ARI = 2yr 10yr 100yr
24hr rainfall depth (mm) (From graphs in TP108) P24 = 70.1 106.9 180.8
24 hr rainfall depth + CC (mm) (From graphs in TP108) P24 + CC = 78.4 122.3 212.8
c* = (P24-2la)/(P24-2la+2S) c* = 0.28 0.39 0.53
Specific Flow Rate (from fig. 5.1 in TP 108) q* = 0.078 0.102 0.130
Peak flow rate (m3/s) A*P24*q/100 V24 = 0.007 0.015 0.033
Runoff Depth (mm) (P24-la)^2/(P24-la) + S Q24 = 33.1 66.6 145.4
Runoff Volume (m3) 1000*Q24*A/100 V24 = 40 80 174
C:\Kepa Consulting\Projects\P18-102 234 Laings Road\5 Design\Calculations\Earthworks\P18-102 234 Laing Road TP108 Peak Flow Calculator - Graphical Upstream cleanwaterPre-Developed
CALCULATION SHEET
Mannings Equation ofr an Irregular Trapezoidal Channel
Option: Dirtywater Diversion bund on downstream size of earthworks
3
Required Capacity 0.0190 m /s
Wetted Hydraulic
Depth y Flow Q Velocity V Width Area A
Parameters Perimeter Radius
3
Mannings n 0.025 (m) P R (m /s) (m/s) (m) (m2)
Channel Gradient (m/m) 0.036 0.01 0.363 0.008 0.001 0.307 0.36 0.003
Bed Width b (m) 0.3 0.02 0.426 0.014 0.003 0.443 0.42 0.006
Side Slope m (m) 3 0.03 0.490 0.019 0.005 0.533 0.48 0.009
Side Slope L 3 0.04 0.553 0.023 0.008 0.600 0.54 0.013
Freeboard z (m) 0.3 0.05 0.616 0.026 0.010 0.653 0.60 0.016
0.06 0.679 0.028 0.013 0.696 0.66 0.019
Depth increment (m) 0.01 0.07 0.743 0.030 0.017 0.732 0.72 0.023
0.08 0.806 0.032 0.020 0.763 0.78 0.026
0.09 0.869 0.034 0.023 0.790 0.84 0.030
Total depth including freeboard = 0.360m 0.1 0.932 0.036 0.027 0.814 0.90 0.033
0.11 0.996 0.037 0.031 0.836 0.96 0.037
0.12 1.059 0.039 0.035 0.856 1.02 0.041
0.13 1.122 0.040 0.039 0.875 1.08 0.045
0.14 1.185 0.041 0.043 0.892 1.14 0.049
0.15 1.249 0.042 0.048 0.908 1.20 0.053
0.16 1.312 0.043 0.052 0.923 1.26 0.057
0.17 1.375 0.044 0.057 0.937 1.32 0.061
0.18 1.438 0.045 0.062 0.951 1.38 0.065
0.19 1.502 0.046 0.067 0.964 1.44 0.069
0.2 1.565 0.047 0.072 0.976 1.50 0.073
0.21 1.628 0.048 0.077 0.988 1.56 0.078
0.22 1.691 0.049 0.082 1.000 1.62 0.082
0.23 1.755 0.049 0.088 1.011 1.68 0.087
0.24 1.818 0.050 0.093 1.022 1.74 0.091
0.25 1.881 0.051 0.099 1.033 1.80 0.096
0.26 1.944 0.052 0.105 1.043 1.86 0.101
0.27 2.008 0.052 0.111 1.053 1.92 0.105
0.28 2.071 0.053 0.117 1.063 1.98 0.110
0.29 2.134 0.054 0.123 1.072 2.04 0.115
0.3 2.197 0.055 0.130 1.082 2.10 0.120
0.31 2.261 0.055 0.136 1.091 2.16 0.125
0.32 2.324 0.056 0.143 1.100 2.22 0.130
0.33 2.387 0.057 0.150 1.109 2.28 0.135
C:\Kepa Consulting\Projects\P18-102 234 Laings Road\5 Design\Calculations\Earthworks\P18-102 234 Laing Road Mannings formula for irregular trapezoidal channel - Downstream DirtywaterPre-Developed
CALCULATION SHEET
Mannings Equation ofr an Irregular Trapezoidal Channel
Option: Cleanwater Diversion bund upstream of earthworks
3
Required Capacity 0.0070 m /s
Wetted Hydraulic
Depth y Flow Q Velocity V Width Area A
Parameters Perimeter Radius
3
Mannings n 0.025 (m) P R (m /s) (m/s) (m) (m2)
Channel Gradient (m/m) 0.036 0.01 0.363 0.008 0.001 0.307 0.36 0.003
Bed Width b (m) 0.3 0.02 0.426 0.014 0.003 0.443 0.42 0.006
Side Slope m (m) 3 0.03 0.490 0.019 0.005 0.533 0.48 0.009
Side Slope L 3 0.04 0.553 0.023 0.008 0.600 0.54 0.013
Freeboard z (m) 0.3 0.05 0.616 0.026 0.010 0.653 0.60 0.016
0.06 0.679 0.028 0.013 0.696 0.66 0.019
Depth increment (m) 0.01 0.07 0.743 0.030 0.017 0.732 0.72 0.023
0.08 0.806 0.032 0.020 0.763 0.78 0.026
Total depth including freeboard = 0.360 0.09 0.869 0.034 0.023 0.790 0.84 0.030
0.1 0.932 0.036 0.027 0.814 0.90 0.033
0.11 0.996 0.037 0.031 0.836 0.96 0.037
0.12 1.059 0.039 0.035 0.856 1.02 0.041
0.13 1.122 0.040 0.039 0.875 1.08 0.045
0.14 1.185 0.041 0.043 0.892 1.14 0.049
0.15 1.249 0.042 0.048 0.908 1.20 0.053
0.16 1.312 0.043 0.052 0.923 1.26 0.057
0.17 1.375 0.044 0.057 0.937 1.32 0.061
0.18 1.438 0.045 0.062 0.951 1.38 0.065
0.19 1.502 0.046 0.067 0.964 1.44 0.069
0.2 1.565 0.047 0.072 0.976 1.50 0.073
0.21 1.628 0.048 0.077 0.988 1.56 0.078
0.22 1.691 0.049 0.082 1.000 1.62 0.082
0.23 1.755 0.049 0.088 1.011 1.68 0.087
0.24 1.818 0.050 0.093 1.022 1.74 0.091
0.25 1.881 0.051 0.099 1.033 1.80 0.096
0.26 1.944 0.052 0.105 1.043 1.86 0.101
0.27 2.008 0.052 0.111 1.053 1.92 0.105
0.28 2.071 0.053 0.117 1.063 1.98 0.110
0.29 2.134 0.054 0.123 1.072 2.04 0.115
0.3 2.197 0.055 0.130 1.082 2.10 0.120
0.31 2.261 0.055 0.136 1.091 2.16 0.125
0.32 2.324 0.056 0.143 1.100 2.22 0.130
0.33 2.387 0.057 0.150 1.109 2.28 0.135
C:\Kepa Consulting\Projects\P18-102 234 Laings Road\5 Design\Calculations\Earthworks\P18-102 234 Laing Road Mannings formula for irregular trapezoidal channel - Upstream CleanwaterPre-Developed
EARTHWORKS SOIL LOSS ESTIMATES:
USLE CALCULATIONS
Project No: P18-102 K Values

Project Name: 234 Laing Road Clay 15% Prepared By: KPW
Site Address: 234 Laing Road Silt 70% Date 21 May 2018
Catchment: Site Sand 15%
Pre-Earthworks Scenario
D
e USLE Parameters Sediment Net
v Est. Gross Sediment Yield (tonnes/yr) Sediment
Control Net Sediment Duration Sediment
i Description Area (ha) Delivery
Slope Length (av. Slope steepness Efficiency Loss (tonnes/yr) (yrs) Loss
c R K LS C P Pre Construction Period Ratio
m) (av. %) (%) (tonnes)*
e
Pre-Construction
None Whole Site 1.214 54.7 0.38 95 15% 4.54 0.02 1.0 1.89 0.5 0% 0.94 0.12 0.109
* Construction and establishment period = 6 weeks
Unmitigated Earthworks Scenario

D
e USLE Parameters Time Sediment
Est. Gross Sediment Yield (tonnes) Sediment
v Control Net Sediment
i Description Area (ha) Delivery
Slope Length (av. Slope steepness Construction Re-Establishment Efficiency Loss (tonnes)*
c R K LS C P (weeks) Ratio
m) (av. %) Period Period (%)
e
Construction (unmitigated)
None Earthworks 0.9570 54.7 0.38 95 6% 1.19 1 1.2 6 3.4 0.00 0.5 0% 1.71
None Rest of Site 0.2570 54.7 0.38 90 4% 0.63 0.1 1.0 6 0.2 1.31 0.5 0% 0.08
Soil Loss Estimate (Earthworks) 1.79
Re-establishment (stabilised with aggregate)

None Earthworks 0.9570 54.7 0.38 95 6% 1.19 0 1.2 4 0.0 0.00 0.5 0% 0.00
None Rest of Site 0.2570 54.7 0.38 90 4% 0.63 0.1 1.0 4 0.1 1.31 0.5 0% 0.05
Soil Loss Estimate (Re-Establishment) 0.05
Soil Loss Total 1.84

Mitigated Earthworks Scenario
D USLE Parameters Time Est. Gross Sediment Yield (tonnes)

e Sediment
v Sediment
Control Net Sediment
i Description Area (ha) Slope Length (av. Slope steepness Construction Re-Establishment Delivery
R K LS C P (weeks) Efficiency Loss (tonnes)*
c m) (av. %) Period Period Ratio
(%)
e
Construction (mitigated)
DEB Earthworks 0.9570 54.7 0.38 95 6% 1.19 1 1.2 6 3.4 0.00 0.5 75% 0.43
None Rest of Site 0.2570 54.7 0.38 90 4% 0.63 0.1 1.0 6 0.2 0.15 0.5 0% 0.08
Soil Loss Estimate (Earthworks) 0.50
Re-establishment (stabilised with aggregate)

None Earthworks 0.9570 54.7 0.38 95 6% 1.19 0 1.0 4 0.0 0.00 0.5 0% 0.00
None Rest of Site 0.2570 54.7 0.38 90 4% 0.63 0.1 1.0 4 0.1 0.10 0.5 0% 0.05
Soil Loss Estimate (Re-Establishment) 0.05
Soil Loss Total 0.55

Appendix C: Geotechnical Investigation Report for Proposed New Dwelling at 234 Laing
Road, Karaka dated 21 May 2018

24 May 2018
21 May 2018 Ref No: J00945
Pro-Floors Limited
Attention: Mr. W. Valder
Dear Wayne
RE: Geotechnical Investigation Report for Proposed New Dwelling at 234 Laing Road, Karaka
1 PROJECT BRIEF AND SCOPE

This report has been prepared for Pro-Floors Limited in support of an application to the Auckland
Council for Resource and Building Consent in accordance with the requirements of the Resource
Management Act 1991 and the Building Act 2004.
Where appropriate, it is in accordance with the recommendations of NZS 4404, Land Development
and Subdivision Engineering; Auckland Council Code of Practice for Land development and
Subdivision, Section 2 Earthworks and Geotechnical Requirements (version 1.6); and related
documents.
The scope of this report encompasses the geotechnical suitability and stability of the land having
regard for the nature of the development proposals.
Its principal objectives were to assess the nature, bearing qualities and relative uniformity of the
subsoils to the depths likely to be affected by proposed land development works and future building
loads
2 SITE DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

The site is legally described as Lot 1 DP 463009 and has a land area of approximately 1.2 Ha.
Presently the site consists of a gravel drive along the northern boundary upon which are some
stockpiles of fill material. The southern portion of the site is in grassed pasture and is presently used
for grazing livestock. A review of historic aerial photographs available on the Auckland Council GIS
database show the area in grassed pasture from the earliest available photograph (1996).
To the north of the dwelling is a gravel track that have been formed and some minor earthworks
associated with this are apparent.
We understand that a new dwelling is proposed to the central-east of the site to be one storey with a
basement of up to 4.55m deep. We understand that cuts of up to around 2m deep and fills of up to
around 2.5m high are proposed for landscaping purposes and further cuts of 4.55m are proposed to
facilitate construction of the basement, which will be fully retained. Proposed final landscape gradients
are up to around 1(v) in 2(h) near the proposed driveway area.
Lander Geotechnical Consultants Limited

Level 3, 3 Osterley Way, P O Box 97 385, Manukau, Auckland 2241
Phone: (09) 262 1528; (09) 262 1526
Email: contactus@landergeotechnical.co.nz www.landergeotechnical.co.nz
3 FIELDWORK AND FINDINGS
3.1 Fieldwork Programme

Our fieldwork commenced on 13 April 2018 and involved the drilling of two machine boreholes (10m
and 20m depth) and three hand auger boreholes (target depth of 5.0m) in the positions indicated on
the appended site plan (refer Figure 01).
To help assess the strength and consistency of the strata beyond the reach of the boreholes, we also
carried out base penetration resistance tests (scalas) in the base of each hand auger borehole.
Prior to the commencement of drilling a service locate was conducted and Council as-built services
plans were checked to ensure that there would be no conflict between these services and our
selected borehole locations.
The drilling contractor was Pro-Drill (Auck) Limited using an SLG rotary drilling rig. The method of
machine drilling was open barrel coring. An Engineering Geologist was on site at all times to carefully
log borehole samples to assist with the preparation of detailed borehole records. In addition, in-situ
soil shear strength and remould tests were carried out where possible in the end of the open barrel
coring tube prior to the ejection of the sample. Standard penetration (SPT) tests were also carried out
at selected intervals
Three push tube samples were recovered from various depths within various material types from
MH01 for subsequent Triaxial testing (Total Stress, Unconsolidated-Undrained), as well as Atterberg
Limit plasticity testing.
Piezometers were installed in each of the machine boreholes for the purposes of groundwater
monitoring. Several days following the completion of the drilling programme, the site was re-visited for
the purpose of checking water levels in the machine boreholes under assumed equilibrium conditions.
The use of water during drilling precludes immediate determination of water levels.
Results of all in-situ and laboratory soil tests and groundwater monitoring, together with detailed
descriptions and depths of strata encountered during the drilling of the boreholes are appended.
A summary of ground conditions encountered is as follows:
3.2 Findings Summary
3.2.1 Geology
GNS digital QMaps indicate that the site is underlain by the Puketoka Formation of the Tauranga
Group. In our field investigation however, we encountered volcanic ash likely from the South Auckland
Volcanic Field overlying the Puketoka Formation which in turn was underlain by local volcanic
material of unclear geologic age and origin.
The South Auckland Volcanic Field (S.A.V.F, 1.6Mya to 0.5Mya) consists of fine grained basaltic lava
flows and scoria cones along with volcanic ejecta including lapilli, lithic tuff and fine-grained ash.
The Puketoka Formation consists of Pliocene to middle Pleistocene (3.6Mya to 0.071Mya) alluvial
clays silts and sands and can include pumiceous and organic content in areas.
3.2.2 Borehole Findings
The following sub strata and ground conditions were encountered within our hand auger and machine
boreholes.
J00945 | 21 May 2018 2

• Topsoil was encountered to depths of between 0.1m and 0.3m in each of our boreholes
except HA03.
• Pre-existing filling was found in HA02 and HA03 to depths of 0.3m and 0.5m respectively. As
discussed in Section 2, the site encroaches onto an existing fill associated with a gravel track.
This filling consisted of brown and orange, stiff to very stiff clayey silts.
• South Auckland Volcanic Field (S.A.V.F.) ash deposits consisting of very stiff, orange/brown,
felsic silty clays and clayey silts, were encountered in each of our boreholes to depths of
between 0.5m and 1.1m depth. Shear strengths measured within the S.A.V.F. ash ranged
from 115 kPa to 188 kPa (very stiff). Sensitivities to disturbance ranged from 2.4 to 4.0
(moderately sensitive).
• Puketoka Formation alluvial soils were found to underlie the S.A.V.F. ash deposits. These
materials ranged from low plasticity clayey silts to high plasticity silty clays and had significant
quantities of volcanically derived material including pumiceous silts. Shear strengths
measured within the Puketoka Formation soils ranged from 54kPa (stiff) to 186kPa (very stiff).
SPT ‘N’ values ranged from 6 to 9 blows of the hammer per 300mm of penetration indicating
loose material.
• A thin to moderately thin bed of limonite (iron oxide deposit) formed a ‘Hard Pan’ at the
interface of the Puketoka Formation and the Local Ash deposits below (see below). This
occurred at between 2.3m and 4.4m below existing ground level. Hand auger HA01 was
unable to penetrate the limonite hard pan.
• Local Volcanic Ash and Tuff was found to underlie the limonite hard pan in each borehole
location (except HA01 below which these materials are inferred to exist) and consisted of a
relatively uniform, orange brown to red brown, low plasticity, felsic clayey silts that extended
to beyond the reach of each of our boreholes including MH01 (19.7m depth). The clayey silts
had measured shear vane readings of between 24kPa and 95kPa and had scala
penetrometer test results of generally 3 or more, blows of the hammer per 100mm of
penetration indicating the soils were medium dense.
SPT ‘N’ values within this material were notably low (generally between 0 and 2 blows of the
hammer per 300mm of penetration, very loose) and inconsistent with the shear vane strength
readings and the scala penetrometer test results. This may be due to the dynamic nature of
the test and the sensitivity of the soils to disturbance. As mentioned above, Triaxial Testing
was undertaken to confirm undrained cohesion values within this material as discussed below
in Section 3.2.3.
• Groundwater levels measured in the piezometers installed in MH01 and MH02 returned a
groundwater table depth of 7.51m and 6.02m below ground level respectively. No
groundwater was encountered in any of our hand auger borehole locations over the depths
drilled at the completion of our fieldwork.
3.2.3 Laboratory Test Results
Triaxial testing (Unconsolidated-Undrained) returned the following:
J00945 | 21 May 2018 3

Table 1: Laboratory Unconsolidated, Undrained, Single Stage Triaxial Test Results
Sample Depth Confining Pressure Cohesion

(below existing Ground Level)
MH01: 3.5m – 4.0m 60 kPa 93 kPa

Sample 1
MH01: 5.0m - 5.5m 90 kPa 37 kPa

Sample 2
MH01: 15.5m – 16.0m 260 kPa 68 kPa

Sample 3
4 PROJECT EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 General
Generally, basement excavations will expose the underlying variable strength volcanic deposits, with
stiff Puketoka Formation soils possibly remaining in isolated areas, leading to differential settlement
and bearing capacity concerns. A reduced geotechnical ultimate bearing capacity is therefore
imposed with a view to a stiffened pod-raft type foundation system. We also recommend 300mm of
ground improvement beneath proposed subgrade level. Further, appropriate considerations as to
temporary batter stability maintenance should be made during basement excavations / retaining wall
construction.
Notwithstanding, the undertaking of earthworks construction and drainage works in accordance with
the following specific subdivision and building development recommendations, NZS 4404, "Code of
Practice for Urban Land Subdivision" and related documents and Auckland Council's Code of Practice
where appropriate should ensure that the completed development is generally suitable for
conventional light timber framed dwellings constructed in accordance with the requirements of NZS
3604. However, AS 2870 expansive Site Class provisions will apply.
It is very important that we are advised if there are any significant changes to the development
philosophy prior to finalising the Engineering plans and applying for Building Consent.
Specific comments and recommendations follow:
4.2 Foundations
4.2.1 Shallow Foundations
Due to the presence of soft soils and the potential for differential ground conditions at basement
excavation level, a stiffened pod-raft foundation system should be employed to ensure that
building loads are uniformly spread and ensure that differential settlement is within code limits (i.e.
25mm of settlement per 6m building length; i.e. 1:240 angular distortion).
To improve the uniformity of ground conditions at cut subgrade level, we also recommend a 300mm
ground improvement undercut and reinstatement with a compacted GAP 40 (or similar hardfill) is
made immediately following the cut. The hardfill should be place is layers not exceeding 150mm in
thickness and compacted using a static steel wheel roller, to reduce pumping of sensitive soils. The
J00945 | 21 May 2018 4

need for a geotextile cloth (e.g. Bidim A24 or similar) should be made once the subgrade has been
cut and engineering inspection made. The hardfill improvement should also serve to reduce post
subgrade formation heaving / shrinkage due to moisture content change, and at the same time
provide reduce degradation of the foundation subgrade from heavy machinery trafficking during
basement excavations and foundation construction (refer Section 4.4.3).
A reduced geotechnical ultimate bearing capacity of 150 kPa should generally be available for the
design of strengthened pod-raft floor systems. This system should also be designed for AS2870
Class ‘H1’ expansive soils, which a characteristic ground movement (ys)of 60mm.
4.2.2 Strength Reduction Factors
As required by Section B1/VM4 of the New Zealand Building Code Handbook, a strength reduction
factor of 0.50 or 0.80 must be applied to all recommended geotechnical ultimate soil capacities in
conjunction with their use in factored design load cases for static and earthquake overload conditions
respectively.
4.3 Basement Retaining Walls
4.3.1 Lateral Loads
The basement walls are proposed to retain cuts of up to 4.55m. The following geotechnical
parameters may be adopted for any basement type walls that retain lateral soil loads. Local Volcanic
Ash/ Tuff should be assumed below 2.0m depth.
Table 2: Geotechnical Basement Retaining Wall Design Parameters
Cohesion Undrained Shear Internal Angle Unit Weight

Material
(C’) Strength (su) of Friction (Φ’) (λ)
Stiff Puketoka Formation

5 kPa 50 kPa 30o 17.5kN/m3
(above 2.0m depth)
Local Volcanic Ash/ Tuff

2 kPa 25 kPa 26o 17.5kN/m3
(below 2.0m depth)
The designer should decide whether active (Ka) or at rest (Ko) conditions are relevant to the
basement wall and will also need to accommodate back slope surcharges and toe slopes. However,
for basement walls we recommend Ko design.
Given the height of the proposed walls, a careful consideration should be given to the short-term
stability of the cut faces during construction (refer Section 4.4.2, below).
4.3.2 Wall Drainage
Standing groundwater was encountered only MH01 and MH02 at levels approximately 0.5m to 1.0m
below the proposed excavations We therefore consider drained basement walls to be appropriate for
this site.
It should be noted however, that seepages may still occur in the proposed excavations, especially
after periods of heavy rainfall. The Contractor should allow a contingency for the installation of sumps
and pumps during construction.
J00945 | 21 May 2018 5

All permanent basement walls should be constructed with appropriate toe drainage and should be
backfilled within 0.3m of their full height with free draining, lightly tamped granular material such as
SGC 50/14. Alternatively, a proprietary strip drain may be used. Toe drainage should be connected
into an approved stormwater disposal system. All waterproofing details should be specified by the
building designer.
4.3.3 Basement Excavation Assessment
With regards to the Auckland Council’s Unitary Plan E7 groundwater guidelines, we have assessed
the compliance to E7.6.1.6 and E7.6.1.10 of the proposed basement excavation as follows:
Table 3: E7.6.1.6 and E7.6.1.10 Assessment
Rule Activity Applicability to Site
E7.6.1.6 The water take must not be geothermal Complies: There will be no water take
(1) water.
E7.6.1.6 The water take must not be for a period of Complies: There will be no water take
(2) more than 10 days where it occurs in peat
soils, or 30 days in other types of soil or rock.
E7.6.1.6 The water take must only occur during Complies: There will be no water take
(3) construction.
E7.6.1.10 Any excavation that extends below natural Not Applicable: The excavation does
(2) groundwater level must not exceed: not extend below the natural
groundwater level, nor does it exceed
a) 1ha in total area; and the area of depths stipulated in this
b) 6m depth below the natural ground level clause
E7.6.1.10 The natural groundwater level must not be Complies: The excavation does not
(3) reduced by more than 2m on the boundary of extend below the natural groundwater
any adjoining site. level, therefore there will be no reduction
in natural water level.
E7.6.1.10 Any structure, excluding sheet piling that Complies: The excavation does not
(4) remains in place no more than 30 days, that extend below the natural groundwater
physically impedes the flow of groundwater level, therefore no structure will impede
through the site must not: the flow of groundwater.
a) Impeded the flow of groundwater over a

length of more than 20m; and
b) Extend more than 2m below the natural

groundwater level
J00945 | 21 May 2018 6

Rule Activity Applicability to Site
E7.6.1.10 The distance to any existing building or Complies: The excavation does not
(5a) structure (excluding timber fences and small extend below the natural groundwater
structures on the boundary) on an adjoining level.
site from the edge of any trench or open
excavation that extends below natural
groundwater level must be at least equal to
the depth of the excavation
As presented above, the proposed basement excavation complies with Rules E7.6.1.6 and E7.6.1.10
as the basement excavation will not extend into the water table.
4.4 Earthworks Operations
4.4.1 General
Earthworks for this development will include cuts of up to 2.0m deep and fills of up to 2.5m high for
landscaping purposes along with up to 4.55m of basement excavation cuts. Maximum cut depth from
the original ground level should be around 6.2m.
The proposed basement excavations should largely remove the pre-existing filling where it is present
below the proposed building platform. Where existing fill extends beyond the excavations it should be
undercut and replaced with engineer certified filling. The filling is relatively free of deleterious
inclusions and should be suitable for reuse in engineer certified fills, subject to engineering inspection
on site.
Elsewhere, it is understood that proposed filling is for landscaping purposes, however, given the
proposed final gradients of up to 1(v) in 2(h) at the edge of the driveway, it is recommended that the
filling is adequately compacted and prior slopes are benched to the placement of filling.
In areas affected by earthworks, all vegetation, topsoil and pre-existing filling and building debris
should be stripped and disposed of along with any excess cut material.
4.4.2 Basement Excavations
As described in Section 4.1, given the proposed depths of cuts, appropriate temporary works /
construction methodologies should be developed to ensure short-term stability is maintained.
Temporary cut batters (depicted below) should consist of a series of 2.5m high, 1.0m wide benches.
The lower bench will generally be within Volcanic Ash/ Tuff soils and should have a maximum grade
of 1(v) in 2(h) or angle of 26°. Following benches should be within stiff Puketoka Formation material
and may have a maximum grade of 1(v) in 1(h) or angle of 45°.
J00945 | 21 May 2018 7

This batter should be achievable within property boundaries and will be subject to engineering
observation during construction with particular regard to variation in ground conditions, groundwater
seepages and contacts between stiff (S.A.V.F and Puketoka) material and loose/ weaker Volcanic
Ash/ Tuff deposits.
Cut faces that are left exposed are at risk of degradation and erosion, and/ or slope stability failure,
especially in winter months and during periods of heavy rainfall. Protection from the elements can be
achieved by covering exposed batters with heavy duty PVC plastic sheeting, and redirecting an
overland flow paths at the crest (e.g. via a shallow swale drain). Due to the pumiceous content of the
Puketoka Formation and inferred sensitivity to disturbance of the Local Volcanic Ash/ Tuff, basement
excavation operations are likely to be problematic in the winter months especially when the subgrade
is wet.
Constructability and construction staging will also need to be considered as part of the basement wall
design and should be reviewed by the design engineer/s prior to works commencing.
It should be noted however that the Contractor will be responsible at all times for ensuring that all
necessary precautions are taken during construction to protect all aspects of the works and adjacent
buildings and foundations.
4.4.3 Basement Subgrade
The Local Volcanic Ash/ Tuff deposits at basement floor level are inferred to be highly sensitive and
exposure to trafficking and weather can lead to the reduction of sub-grade strength. To avoid
trafficking issues the final basement level should be over-excavated by 300mm and back filled with a
suitable hardfill material such as GAP 40 or similar (see Section 4.2.1 above). This should provide a
suitable subgrade for both trafficking during earthworks operations and provide improvement in
ground uniformilty for pod-raft foundations to be placed upon.
4.5 Driveways
The final driveway levels should be within the upper (S.A.V.F and Puketoka) soils and as such no
significant problems are anticipated in relation to driveway pavement construction. Following
earthworks and subgrade trimming, minimum CBR’s of between 2% and 4% are anticipated.
J00945 | 21 May 2018 8

However, the majority of the proposed basement entrance driveway (near the northern boundary) will
be constructed on clean fill material. Where proposed driveways are over existing clean fill material a
reduced CBR may apply.
We recommend that a programme of penetration resistance testing is carried out when the driveway
pavement areas are being formed to their final levels to confirm actual CBR values if this is a design
requirement.
4.6 On-Site Stormwater Disposal

It is important that due care is paid to the design and construction of the stormwater disposal system,
as uncontrolled water discharge can cause scour and slips especially where final site gradients are
more than 1(v) in 4(h).
Disposal of concentrated stormwater into soak pits is expressly excluded as a disposal option within
10m of areas where final site gradients exceed 1(v) in 4(h).
4.7 On-Site Wastewater Disposal

Based on local knowledge and visual-tactile observation of the soil types, we have classified the
upper (S.A.V.F and Puketoka) soils on this site as being category 5 to 6, as defined by Table 5.1 of
TP58. On-site effluent disposal should be specifically designed at building consent stage using an
aerial loading rate of 3 mm per day, as given in TP58.
We consider that there is room within to the west of the proposed building platform to locate primary
and reserve effluent disposal fields.
5 PLAN REVIEW AND FURTHER WORK

If significant changes are proposed to be made to the plans reviewed to date, we reserve the right to
revisit our evaluations and recommendations when they come to hand.
To this end, our involvement in the detailed earthworks design process especially in basement
excavations, is strongly recommended so that any likely geotechnical problems can be highlighted.
J00945 | 21 May 2018 9

6 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared solely for the use of our client, Pro-Floors Limited, its professional
advisers and the relevant Territorial Authorities in relation to the specific project described herein. No
liability is accepted in respect of its use for any other purpose or by any other person or entity. All
future owners of this property should seek professional geotechnical advice to satisfy themselves as
to its ongoing suitability for their intended use.
The opinions, recommendations and comments given in this report result from the application of
normal methods of site investigation. As factual evidence has been obtained solely from boreholes
which by their nature only provide information about a relatively small volume of subsoils, there may
be special conditions pertaining to this site which have not been disclosed by the investigation and
which have not been taken into account in the report.
If variations in the subsoils occur from those described or assumed to exist then the matter should be
referred back to us immediately.
For and on behalf of Lander Geotechnical Consultants Limited
Prepared By: Reviewed By:
J. Lam S.G. Lander
Engineering Geologist Principal Geotechnical Engineer

CMEngNZ, CPEng, IntPE(NZ)
cc: SatCivil Limited (Samir Altamimi)
Attachments: Glasgow Design Limited Drawings

Figure 01: Site Plan
Figure 02: Fence Diagrams
Borehole Records
Laboratory Test Results
J00945 | 21 May 2018 10

° 39' 30"
135.54 m 69
00"
65° 44'
87.22 m
LAING
20.05 m
32400
LOT 1
335° 11'
ROAD
' 00 " DP 463009

245° 44
85.61 m 262 LAING ROAD EXISTING LOT
00"
BOUNDARY
EXISTING LOT BOUNDARY
PROPOSED LOT BOUNDARY
6"
PROPOSED LOT BOUNDARY
45' 4
W
IN
180°
TE
R
SU
N
SE
RISE
40200
T
SUN
TER
WIN
8m
77.
ET
77
SU NS
107.3
ME R
SUM SU
m
M
NOR M
ER
TH SU
321
N
RI
SE
° 52
' 20
"
4500
9850
4500
73.41 m 254° 22' 00"
1 Site Plan
A102 A101 1 : 300
262 lLAING ROAD
Revision Schedule
Ref. Description Date
Locality Plan Client: Valder

GLASGOW DESIGN Project: No: 2111
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNERS Drawn By: M.J.G. Issue Date: 21/10/15
Valder House A1: SCALE AS SHOWN
A3: SCALE REDUCED x 0.5 Scale: As indicated
2 Gatland Road Opaheke Papakura 2113 Ph 2997407

*Contractor to check & verify all dimensions on site before
Address: Site Plan
234 Laing Road
Concept
commencing construction.
*All work to conform to NZS3604 - 2011 & The New Zealand
Building Code Karaka Sheet: A101
*These documents and the designs they portray are the property
of Glasgow Design (2012) Ltd.
3055
Level 2
0
Level 1
3 South
A102 1 : 100
3055
Level 2
0
Level 1
1 East
A103 A102 1 : 100
Revision Schedule
2 North
A102 1 : 100
G L A S G O W D E S IG N
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNERS
2 Gatland Road Opaheke Papakura 2113 Ph 2997407 Fax 2997126

Building Code
Project: No: 2111

Valder House
Address:
234 Laing Road

Karaka
Concept
Client: Valder
Issue Date: 21/10/15
Drawn By: Author
4 West A1: SCALE AS SHOWN
Scale: 1 : 100
A3: SCALE REDUCED x 0.5
A103 A102 1 : 100
Elevations
Sheet: A102
4
1 2 3
A112
- D
A109 A110 A111 ---
40400
A B C
10000 20400 10000
A102
1 1
10000
10000
5 1000
A113 - -
2 2
1825 -
-
-
-
32400
32400
12400
12400
6
A114
- -
-
11428
3 3
5249 5249 3967
Revision Schedule
UP
10000
10000
7
- -
A115
G L A S G O W D E S IG N

4 4 commencing construction.
Building Code
1
A102
Project: No: 2111
Valder House
Address:
10000 20400 10000 234 Laing Road

40400 Karaka
A B C D
Concept
Client: Valder
Level 1 Issue Date: 21/10/15
1 1 : 100 Drawn By: M.J.G.
A1: SCALE AS SHOWN
A3: SCALE REDUCED x 0.5 Scale: 1 : 100
Main Floor Plan
Sheet: A103
A B C
3150 10000 20400
200 140 1330 200140 1140 200 140 1650 450 1005 90 6125 140 200 4999 90 5249 90 3967 Ensuite 90 5575 140 200
1597 90 2280
1 2 3 WC Shower 4
A109 A110 A111 A112
6 ENTRY 6
A114 POOL A114
DINING
200
140
LIFT
1900
1220
200 140
300
2200
1650 450 1005 90 1425 3500 1200

2945
KITCHEN
140 200
140 200
3 3
900
MAKE UP
VANITY
90
FREE STDNG
1340
2430 Ensuite
BATH
ENSUITE
Scullery
3950 Bedroom
BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 2
2300
SCULLERY
STAIRS
140
90
WC TILED SHOWER
Shwr
1425
11860
1295
UP
90 945 140
10000
90
90
6310
10000
9320
7
MASTER 7
4705 Office
A115 A115
LAUNDRY
3545 Dressing
OFFICE
3320 Office
2505 Ensuite
DRESSING
E/S WIR WIR E/S
REINFORCED STONE
WALL 3.0M HIGH
90
90
1600 Hall 90
1670
1600
140
140
140
140
4 4
200
200
200
200
90 1718 260 140 200
200 140 1825 90 2610 90 4705 90 2479 90 1590 90 1000 90 1000 90 1590 90 2479 90 3967 90 925 450 4200 140 200
3150 10000 20400 400
30400
A B C
1 2 3 4
A109 A110 A111 A112
Revision Schedule
Client: Valder
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNERS Drawn By: Author Issue Date: 21/10/15

Address: East Wing
Level 1 -East Wing *Contractor to check & verify all dimensions on site before
234 Laing Road
Concept
1 *All work to conform to NZS3604 - 2011 & The New Zealand
Karaka
1 : 50 Building Code
Sheet: A104
1 2 3 4
A109 A A110 B A111 A112 C
30400
10000 20400
200 140 7630 90 1600 90 2580 90 1590 90 1000 90 1000 90 1590 90 2530 90 1000 90 2000 90
200
140 200
140 200
1 1
140
Hall
HALL
1600
1600
BAR
34
5
90
90
GLAZING 5400x2100
1630
STORE
5329
Ensuite
2505
GYM E/S WIR WIR E/S
90
7655
2500 Sauna
140 945 90
10000
10000
10000
9320
5 5
A113
1000 SAUNA GAMES A113
90
90
POWDER
2236
3320 Bathroom
3950
BATHROOM
90
90
BEDROOM 4 BEDROOM 5
34
5
1600
140
34
5
140
90
140
2 2
4115
BENCH &
200
200
FRIDGE
2200
200
LIVING
140
1900
1220
COATS
200 140
4200
4200
6 6
A114 ENTRY POOL A114
DINING
140 200
LIFT
A 11428
Revision Schedule
Client: Valder

Level 1 -West Wing *Contractor to check & verify all dimensions on site before
Address: West Wing
1 234 Laing Road
Concept
1 : 50 *All work to conform to NZS3604 - 2011 & The New Zealand
Karaka
Building Code
Sheet: A105
A B C D
10000 20400 10000
1 1
2 2
32400
LIFT
Revision Schedule
3 3
PASSAGE
UP G L A S G O W D E S IG N
WINE CELLAR

PWDR
BAR

Building Code
Project: No: 2111

4 4
Valder House
Address:
40400 234 Laing Road
Karaka
Concept
Client: Valder
Issue Date: 21/10/15
Drawn By: M.J.G.
A1: SCALE AS SHOWN
Basement Floor Plan

A B C D
Sheet: A106
4
1 2 3
A112
- D
A109 A110 A111 ---
A B C
-
1--- 1
FALL 1:40
FALL 1:40
5
FFL:
A113
FALL 1:40
FALL 1:40
2 2
FALL 1:40
FALL 1:40
FALL 1:100
FALL 1:40
FALL 1:40
FALL 1:40
FFL:
6
A114
FALL 1:40
FALL 1:40
FALL 1:40
FALL 1:100
FALL 1:40
FALL 1:40
3 3
FALL 1:40
FALL 1:40
7
FFL
A115
FALL 1:40
FALL 1:40
4 4
A B C D
Revision Schedule
Level 1 slab Ref. Description Date
1 1 : 100 Client: Valder

Address: Level 1 Slab Plan
234 Laing Road
Concept
A B C
1 1
2 2
450
3 3
4 4
Roof Plan
1 1 : 100 A B C
Revision Schedule
Client: Valder

Address: Roof Plan
234 Laing Road
Concept
1 2 3 4
3055
Level 2
COAT LIFT
0
Level 1
BASEMENT
-4550
Level 3
1 Section 1
A103 A109 1 : 50
Revision Schedule
Client: Valder

Address: Section 1
234 Laing Road
Concept
1 2 3 4
3055
Level 2
GYM LIVING KITCHEN SCULLERY OFFICE HALL
0
Level 1
WINE CELLAR
BASEMENT BASEMENT
-4550
Level 3
Section 2
2 1 : 50
Revision Schedule
Client: Valder

Address: Section 2
234 Laing Road
Concept
1 2 3 4
3a
A116
3055
Level 2
3055
HALL WIR BEDROOM BEDROOM WIR HALL
0
Level 1
4550
BASEMENT
3730
-4550
Level 3
Section 3
3 1 : 50
Revision Schedule
Client: Valder

Address: Section 3
234 Laing Road
Concept
1 2 3 4
3055
Level 2
1
A117 MASTER
GAMES ROOM
0
Level 1
POOL
BASEMENT
BASEMENT
-4550
Level 3
Section 4
4 1 : 50
Revision Schedule
Client: Valder

Address: Section 4
234 Laing Road
Concept
C B A
3055
Level 2
GAMES ROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM GYM
0
Level 1
-4550
Level 3
Section 5
5 1 : 50
Revision Schedule
Client: Valder

Address: Section 5
234 Laing Road
Concept
C B A
3055
Level 2
3055
0
Level 1
4550
-4550
Level 3
Section 6
6 1 : 50
Revision Schedule
Client: Valder

Address: Section 6
234 Laing Road
Concept
C B A
1
A116
3055
Level 2
MASTER DRESSING BEDROOM BEDROOM OFFICE LAUNDRY
0
Level 1
-4550
Level 3
Section 7
7 1 : 50
Revision Schedule
Client: Valder

Address: Section 7
234 Laing Road
Concept
1
C
90x45 PURLINS @ 900c/c
THERMAKRAFT
COVERTEK 407
ROOFING UNDERLAY
COLORSTEEL
CORRUGATE PROFILE 38.00°
0.55 ROOFING LONGRUN
350
3055
Level 2
125x125 BOX COPPER R4.0 BATTS

GUTTER
3055
Level 2
35mm RONDO BATTENS @ 450c/c
160x50 CEDAR FASCIA 13mm GIBOARD CEILINGS
456
4.5mm HARDIFLEX
SOFFIT
150 NOM STONE

VENEER WITH PARTIAL
RENDER
7mm ECOPLY RAB
140x45 STUDS @ 600c/c

Section 7 - Callout 1
1 1 : 10
140x45 NOGS @ 800c/c
R3.2 BATTS TO WALLS

3055
10mm GIBOARD
DPC
0
Level 1
100
GL FINISHED
RIB
PRECAST BASEMENT WALL PANEL
Revision Schedule
Detail 3a
3a 1 : 10
Client: Valder

Address: Details
234 Laing Road
Concept
2
MEMBRANE TO CONCRETE
75mm TOPPING LAID TO 1:40 FALL
20mm THICK TILES WITH NO GROUT GUTTER
38mm THICK SILCA SYSTEM H3.2 JOISTS RIPPED TO FALL

75
0 POOL
Level 1
50
25
RIB AND INFILL STRUCTURAL FLOOR
Section 4 - Callout 1
1 1 : 10
Revision Schedule
Client: Valder

Address: Unnamed
234 Laing Road
Concept
Revision Schedule
Client: Valder
A3: SCALE REDUCED x 0.5 Scale:

Address: Full Site Plan
234 Laing Road
Concept

A6 Civil Engineering Report Part 1 of 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A6 Civil Engineering Report Part 1 of 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8.

Date: May 2018

Use and Reliance

Kepa Consulting Limited

Engineering Assessment Report

8.1 Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 11

Appendix A – Report Figures and Drawings

- Figure 1 – 234 Laing Road – Location Plan

- Cleanwater Diversion Bund sizing

Engineering Assessment Report

This report considers the following:

Engineering Assessment Report

2.3 Topography and Land Use

2.4 Geology and Soils

The Puketoka Formation consists of Pliocene to middle Pleistocene (3.6Mya to 0.071Mya)

Engineering Assessment Report

4.2 Hydrological Neutrality

• Stormwater disposal should as practically as possible mimic natural drainage;

4.3 Discharge from the Developed Site

Engineering Assessment Report

4.4 Stormwater Disposal

4.5 Level Spreader Dispersal Device Configuration

5. Flooding and Coastal Inundation

Engineering Assessment Report

• Development of the site will be a five-bedroom house

Engineering Assessment Report

6.2 Fire Fighting Water Supplies

7.2 Geotechnical and Effluent Disposal Investigations

7.2.1 Control of Surface water runoff

Engineering Assessment Report

7.2.2 Design Wastewater Production and Water Management

It has been assumed the following for design purposes:

• Development of the site will be a five-bedroom house

Design Flow Allowances Per Person

The site will be supplied via on-site roof water tanks.

• Dual flush (6/3 litre) waster cisterns

In addition, garbage grinders will not be permitted.

7.2.3 Wastewater Treatment Concept

Engineering Assessment Report

7.2.4 Land Application System

Table 7.2.4 - Site Characteristics Summary

Proposed Land Application System

• Low loading rates to minimise the potential for ground saturation

Engineering Assessment Report

8. Assessment of Actual or Potential Effects on the Environment

The main rationale and objectives of the measures proposed are:

8.2 Erosion and Sediment Control

Engineering Assessment Report

8.3 Mitigation Measures

8.3.1 Stabilised Construction Entrance

Table 7.3.1: Stabilised Construction Entrance Aggregate Specifications

Aggregate Size 50mm to 150mm washed aggregate

8.3.3 Silt and Super Silt Fences

8.3.4 Runoff Diversion Channels and Clean Water Diversion Bunds

Engineering Assessment Report

Table 7.3.2: Runoff Diversion Channel

Location/Description Catchment Design Flow Typical Total Depth Lining/Rock

Table 7.3.3: Cleanwater Diversion Drain

Location/Description Catchment Design Flow Typical Total Depth Lining/Rock

8.3.5 Earth Decanting Bund

Engineering Assessment Report

Table 7.3.4: Earth Decanting Bunds

Location/Description Maximum Storage Volume Spillway Cross