I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Waitākere Ranges Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 8 May 2014

6.30pm

Waitakere Ranges Local Board Office
39 Glenmall Place
Glen Eden

 

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Sandra Coney, QSO

 

Deputy Chairperson

Denise Yates, JP

 

Members

Neil Henderson

 

 

Greg Presland

 

 

Steve Tollestrup

 

 

Saffron Toms

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Glenn Boyd

(Relationship Manager)

Local Board Services (West)

 

 

Riya Seth

Democracy Advisor

 

2 May 2014

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 839 3512

Email: riya.seth@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               6

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          6

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       6

7          Update from Ward Councillors                                                                                    6

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    6

8.1     Keep Waitakere Beautiful                                                                                    6

8.2     Safer West Community Trust                                                                             7

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  7

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                7

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          8

12        Proposal to locate wastewater infrastructure on Harold Moody Reserve, 44 Glendale Road, Glen Eden                                                                                                            9

13        Consultation Findings for the Piha Beach Reserves Ecological Restoration Programme and Revised Programme of Work                                                                              23

14        Local & Sports Parks West Draft 2014/2015 Capital Works Programme              51

15        Auckland Transport Update Report – Waitakere Ranges Local Board                55

16        Local Board Transport Capital Fund – Overview of Total Programme for the Current Local Boards                                                                                                                73

17        Waitakere Quarry - use of the land following Quarry closure                               87

18        Waitakere Quarry - Proposed Extension into Adjacent Reserve Land               105

19        Financial Planning for Extreme Weather Events                                                   127

20        Chairperson’s Report                                                                                                135

21        Portfolio update: Member Sandra Coney                                                               137

22        Portfolio update: Member Denise Yates                                                                 143

23        Portfolio update: Member Neil Henderson                                                             147  

24        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Welcome

 

2          Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

Specifically members are asked to identify any new interests they have not previously disclosed, an interest that might be considered as a conflict of interest with a matter on the agenda.

At its meeting on 28 November 2013, the Waitakere Ranges Local Board resolved (resolution number WTK/2010/5) to record any possible conflicts of interest in a register. 

            Register

Board Member

Organisation / Position

Sandra Coney

·       Waitemata District Health Board – Elected Member

·       Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee

·       Women’s Health Action Trust – Patron

Neil Henderson

·       Portage Trust – Elected Member

·       Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee

·       West Auckland Trust Services (WATS) Board – Trustee/Director

·       Weedfree Trust – Employee

·       Living Cell Technologies Animal Ethics Committee - Member

Greg Presland

·       Portage Trust – Elected Member

·       Lopdell House Development Trust Trustee

·       Titirangi Residents & Ratepayers Group Treasurer

Steve Tollestrup

·       Waitakere Licensing Trust – Elected Member

·       Community Waitakere – Trustee

·       West Auckland Trust Services (WATS) Board – Trustee/Director

·       Henderson Valley Residents Association – Committee Member

Saffron Toms

No current conflicts of interest

Denise Yates

·       Ecomatters Environment Trust – Deputy Chair

·       Keep Waitakere Beautiful Trust Board Member

·       Huia-Cornwallis Ratepayers & Residents Association – Co-chairperson

·       Charlotte Museum Trust – Trustee

 


4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)         Confirms the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 10 April 2014, as a true and correct record.

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.

 

7          Update from Ward Councillors

 

An opportunity is provided for the Waitakere Ward Councillors to update the board on regional issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

 

8          Deputations

 

8.1       Keep Waitakere Beautiful

Purpose

1.       Fiona McCallum, Keep Waitakere Beautiful Programme Manager will be in attendance to present Keep Waitakere Beautiful six-monthly report to the Waitākere Ranges Local Board.

“Keep Waitakere Beautiful delivers environmental education and beautification projects throughout the three Western Local Board areas. The programme includes Little Sprouts, Clean Stream and Stream Watch, War on Weeds, Operation Spring Clean, Sweet Streets, and the Trees for Babies event series. We would like to provide a presentation to update the Waitākere Ranges Local Board Members on what we’ve been up to over the last year.”

 

Recommendation

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Receives the deputation from Fiona McCallum, Keep Waitakere Beautiful Programme Manager and thank her for the presentation.

 

Attachments

a          Presentation from Keep Waitakere Beautiful...................................... 153

 

 

8.2       Safer West Community Trust

Purpose

1.      Coral Timmins from Safer West Community Trust (SWCT) will be in attendance to present the West Auckland Safety Plan to the Waitākere Ranges Local Board.

Executive Summary

2.      West Auckland Safety Plan is the result of working collaboratively with key community organisations and agencies delivering community safety initiatives or projects in West Auckland for the 2014/2015 financial year.

3.      The West Auckland Safety Plan is a result of the work being delivered by the following organizations:

·      Accident Compensation Corporation

·      Alcohol HealthWatch

·      Auckland Council

·      Auckland Transport

·      Waitakere Anti Violence and 

·      WaterSafe Auckland

 

Recommendation

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Receives the presentation from Coral Timmins of Safer West Community Trust and thank her for the presentation.

 

 

 

9          Public Forum

 

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

 

(a)        The local authority by resolution so decides; and

 

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

 

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

 

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

 

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

 

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

 

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

 

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

 

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

11        Notices of Motion

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

Proposal to locate wastewater infrastructure on Harold Moody Reserve, 44 Glendale Road, Glen Eden

 

File No.: CP2014/07816

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek the approval of the Waitākere Ranges Local Board on a proposal for an easement by Watercare Services Limited (WSL) to locate a new underground wastewater storage tank and associated above ground utility kiosk, and related underground pipe infrastructure, on Harold Moody Reserve (44 Glendale Road, Glen Eden).

Executive summary

2.       Watercare Services Ltd. (WSL) is seeking landowner approval by way of easement  to construct an underground storage tank with above ground utility kiosk, and related pipe infrastructure, on Harold Moody Reserve, 44 Glendale Road, Glen Eden.  Harold Moody Reserve is owned by Auckland Council and classified and gazetted as Recreation Reserve under the Reserve Act 1977, Harold Moody Reserve and the adjacent Duck Park are contained in one title, of approximately 4.6 hectares.

3.       The proposal is part of a wider project to upgrade the upper Glen Eden Branch sewer which is necessary to reduce the number and frequency of wastewater overflows and provide for growth in the catchment. At present upwards of 20 wastewater overflows occur each year into private property and local watercourses resulting in unsanitary public health conditions and pollution to the environment.

4.       The footprint of the infrastructure in the reserve would be approximately 500m2, with a temporary construction area of approximately 2,340m2. The future access area/easement area required is illustrated on Drawing 2010363.004 Rev. A in Attachment A.

5.       The Parks, Sports and Recreation Department requested that WSL consider alternative sites to Harold Moody Reserve, due to concerns that it could be difficult for WSL to address some of the short and long term negative impacts of the proposal on the utilisation and enjoyment by the public of the park, and on the parks values.  WSL investigated a number of alternative options and these were considered by the Local Board at workshops in May and July 2013 (see Attachment B for option assessments).

6.       The Local Board at its meeting on 25 September 2013 resolved to support in principle the proposal from WSL to locate an underground storage tank in Harold Moody Reserve within the carpark adjacent to the playground (Resolution Number WTK/2013/200). The Local Board requested that it be consulted about the detailed design in particular that three aspects be considered - the protection of the Trees for Babies plantings, minimising the impact on the sportsfield and playground, and investigating the potential for a rectangular tank instead of a circular tank within the carpark area.

7.       WSL have investigated, in conjunction with the Local Board and Parks, Sport and Recreation Department, options for the location of the storage tank within the carpark. It was clarified at an onsite visit with the Local Board that the final location of the tank should also avoid the two Pin Oak trees between the playground and the carpark.

8.       WSL has subsequently consulted with an arborist and been advised that in order to protect the two Pin Oak trees, a 6m separation zone between the trees and the earthworks footprint is required. Based on this advice, WSL presented the Local Board at a workshop on 30 January 2014 with the option of locating an underground circular tank 6m away from the two Pin Oak trees within the carpark, which would protrude into the playing fields by 9m. At the end of the workshop, the Local Board indicated that it would like the matter brought to a Local Board meeting for it to formally record its advice on the proposal.

9.       The Parks, Sports and Recreation Department initially had concerns about the proposal because of the length of construction time which would take the playground and adjoining carparks out of usage for approximately 12 to 18 months. A further concern was the long term impact on the values of the reserve and potential restrictions on the usage of the reserve affected by the infrastructure for parks purposes.

10.     The preferred option under the carpark will have the least impact on the reserve as it will not require the removal of trees, or the playground to be closed for the duration of construction or permanently resited elsewhere. The area of sports field under which the tank will partially be sited is used for training practice and it will not have any permanent impact on the use or maintenance of the sports field. Effects during the construction phase of the project will be the loss of 37 carparks (approximately a third of the reserve’s parking); increased vehicle congestion during sports events; construction noise and dust; and temporary reduction in reserve amenity and enjoyment of park users.

11.     If the carpark location option is supported by the Local Board, the impact on the reserve and its users could be partly mitigated through conditions requiring WSL to: develop and implement a stakeholder communications plan leading up to and during the construction period; implement a tree protection methodology for the two Pin Oak trees and any other vegetation; ensure that construction noise adheres to the New Zealand Standard Acoustics – Construction Noise; prepare a Noise Construction Management Plan; limit construction activities to weekdays unless changes are approved by the Manager Local and Sports Parks West in writing; develop and implement a traffic management plan for sporting events impacted by the reduction in parking; and fully reinstate the areas affected by construction on completion of the works to the Manager Local and Sports Parks West’s satisfaction.

12.     Parks, Sports and Recreation Department staff have discussed with WSL other appropriate mitigation for the works and long term use of the reserve which has yet to be finalised.

13.     The wastewater infrastructure proposed to be located in Harold Moody Reserve requires an easement under s48 of the Reserves Act 1977. As easements are considered to be a divestment, the delegation for granting approval resides with the Governing Body if considered to be significant, and with the Manager – Parks, Sports and Recreation if considered minor. The level of significance is determined by the scale and impact of the proposal and whether the easement needs to be publicly notified under the requirements of the Reserves Act.

14.     The Local Board’s role is to recommend to the Governing Body or Manager to approve or decline the application. Taking into account the mitigation measures outlined above, Parks, Sports and Recreation Department staff consider that the proposal does not need to be publicly notified and is of a level of significance where it could be approved by the Manager – Parks, Sports and Recreation. If the Local Board supports this recommendation, a report will be prepared to the Manager – Parks, Sports and Recreation seeking his approval of the proposal.

Recommendations

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Recommends to the Manager - Parks, Sports and Recreation to grant an easement under section 48(1) of the Reserves Act to Watercare Services Limited to construct a new underground wastewater storage tank and associated infrastructure at Harold Moody Reserve, 44 Glendale Road, Glen Eden, as outlined in Drawing 2010363.004 Rev. A. dated 28/3/14.

b)      Notes the mitigation measures outlined in paragraph 39 to 48 of this report will be included as conditions of landowner approval in the report to the Manager - Parks, Sports and Recreation.

c)      Notes that final mitigation for the adverse effects related to construction will be agreed between Watercare, Parks and the Waitākere Ranges Local Board Parks Portfolio Holder.

Comments

Proposal

15.     WSL are seeking an easement to construct a new underground 3,900 m3 wastewater storage tank with above ground utility kiosk (approximately 2.0 m x 1.3 m x 0.5 metres), and related underground pipe infrastructure at Harold Moody Reserve.  The application excludes other components of the upgrade of the upper Glen Eden Branch sewer that affect other park land.

16.     The infrastructure is part of a wider project to upgrade the upper Glen Eden Branch sewer which is necessary to reduce the number and frequency of wastewater overflows and provide for future growth in the catchment. At present more than 20 wastewater overflows occur each year to private property and local watercourses resulting in unsanitary public health conditions and pollution of the environment. WSL is under increasing pressure to build capacity in the network to cater for future growth which is currently being constrained.

17.     A number of network upgrade options were considered by WSL. The preferred option is a network upgrade with storage tank at Harold Moody Reserve, and engineered overflow.  This option will include a discharge point at the nearby watercourse for emergency overflows, of which WSL anticipate there would be an average of no more than 2 discharge events per annum consistent with regional plan requirements.

18.     The footprint of the infrastructure is approximately 500m2, with a construction area of approximately 2,340m2 for the preferred carpark option.  The future access area/easement area required is illustrated on Drawing 2010363.004 Attachment A.

Site Options

19.     Applications to locate non-park related infrastructure on reserves are carefully considered.  Council follows precautionary principles in managing the intrinsic values of parks, and requires alternative sites to be considered to that of parkland.

20.     Analysis of the provision of open space in relation to forecasted population growth indicate that by 2021 Glen Eden will have one of the lowest levels of open space provision in comparison to other areas of Auckland.

21.     From the outset, WSL has expressed an interest in Harold Moody Reserve for locating its infrastructure, as it considers it to be the optimum site for this purpose.  While it is acknowledged that at times wastewater infrastructure needs to be located on parkland, this reserve is likely to be very problematic due to its high utilisation and values of the reserve. Parks staff requested that WSL give fuller consideration to alternative sites and if necessary, to purchasing a more suitable site.

22.     WSL have considered a number of alternative sites, which were outlined in the report to the Waitākere Ranges Local Board dated 25 September 2013 (CP2013/20746) (Attachment B). None of these sites were suitable due to technical reasons, insufficient land area being available, construction effects on neighbouring properties or adverse effects on significant vegetation. WSL have also ruled out purchasing property due to the length of time under the Public Works Act process and acquisition costs.

23.     Harold Moody Reserve has been chosen as the optimum site for this project due to its strategic location within WSL’s wastewater network and the ability to include increased wastewater flows from Glen Eden town centre.

Harold Moody Reserve

24.     Harold Moody Reserve is owned by Auckland Council and held under the Reserves Act 1977 as a recreation reserve. There is no reserve management plan for the reserve. WSL currently hold a water supply easement in its favour over the reserve. Harold Moody Reserve and the adjacent Duck Park are contained in one title, of approximately 4.6 hectares.  Waikumete Stream divides Harold Moody Reserve from Duck Park, and a footbridge provides public access linking the two sportsgrounds on the reserves.

25.     Harold Moody Reserve (and Duck Park) is considered the main sporting ground in Glen Eden.  Several clubs utilise the grounds, and a hall is leased by the Glen Eden Community and Recreation Centre Incorporated. Over the years a considerable amount of investment has been made in draining, improving and maintaining the grounds, and more recently in 2005 floodlighting was installed for the sportsfield adjacent to the site.

26.     In the vicinity of the site there is a training area and sportsfield used by the Glenora Bears Rugby Club and the Glenora Eagles Softball Club. Towards the watercourse is the “Trees for Babies” area which commemorates babies born in 2003 in Waitakere City. A pathway runs from the carpark to a children’s medium sized playground which is in close proximity.  The playground services the Glen Eden township and surrounding catchment.

27.     WSL have investigated various options for the location of the storage tank within Harold Moody Reserve. On 25 September 2013, the Local Board considered two options - partially under the carpark, and under the existing playground.  The Local Board resolved to support in principle a tank being located under the carpark and requested that it be consulted about the detailed design in particular three aspects. These are the protection of the Trees for Babies plantings, minimising the impact on the sportsfield and playground, and investigating the potential for a rectangular tank within the carpark area.

28.     Following the Local Board resolution, WSL undertook preliminary design of two options: a rectangular wastewater storage tank and a circular tank.  These were discussed with the Parks, Sports and Recreation Department at a site visit on 19 November 2013 and then subsequently with the Local Board at a workshop on 28 November 2013. At its business meeting (on the same day), the Local Board received submissions in the Public Forum from the Glen Eden Tennis Club, Glenora Rugby League Club, Glenora Softball Club and the Harold Moody Park Hall Committee regarding concerns with the construction and future impacts of the proposed wastewater infrastructure.

29.     The Local Board requested that WSL address potential impacts on sporting clubs and games being held on the reserve arising from the loss of parking, review the need to remove the two Pin Oak trees between the playground and the carpark, and report back to the Local Board in January 2014.

30.     Due to public concerns about the proposal, WSL held an information evening on 2 December 2013 with a number of affected community groups, sports grounds and members of the public and was attended by Local Board member, Steve Tollestrup, and Grant Jennings, Council’s Local and Sports Parks Manager West. At this meeting, stakeholders were able to express their concerns and ask questions about the proposal. WSL undertook to take these into account as it continued to develop the design and to keep stakeholders informed about progress.

31.     At a workshop held with the Local Board on 30 January 2014, WSL reported back on the key areas of concern that had been raised by the Local Board and stakeholders: the removal of trees, noise and loss of parking.

32.     As a result of the Local Board requesting that options for avoiding the need to remove the two Pin Oak trees between the playground and carpark be investigated, WSL presented a revised option for the construction works and circular tank’s location in the carpark. Based on arboricultural advice recommending a separation distance of 6m between earthworks and the two Pin Oak trees, the circular tank will need to move further south into the carpark and protrude into the playing field area by approximately 9m (compared to 5.3m for the option presented to the Local Board on 28 November 2013).

33.     WSL confirmed that their construction works will adhere to Construction Noise Standard NZS 6803:1999 and limits for permitted activity status under the District Plan. Lastly, WSL have agreed to develop options for resolving traffic management and parking during sporting events during the detailed design phase of the project. Options to be investigated include a drop off zone, alternative parking and shuttle, or reconfiguring remaining carparks in the reserve.

34.     Following the workshop presentation, the Local Board requested that a report be prepared on the proposal for consideration at the next available business meeting.

Analysis

35.     The construction phase will be approximately 12 to 18 months with works scheduled to commence in November 2014 if landowner approval and resource consent is granted. The main potential adverse effects include: the reduction of 37 carparks (a third of the available parking at the reserve); the temporary loss of public land and exclusion of the public; closure of part of the training area; impact on the adjacent sportsfield and training area; increased traffic and construction noise; dust nuisance; the general impact on users of the parks and their enjoyment; vegetation effects.

36.     Once commissioned, the visual and adverse effects of access covers and the above ground kiosk as well as traffic arising from weekly servicing of the tank are expected to be no more than minor. The storage tank will place some physical limitations on usage and future development in this area of the reserve but being underground will not compromise the existing open space values.

37.     In its report to the Local Board dated 25 September 2013, the Parks, Sports and Recreation Department advised that it did not support the WSL proposal due to the impacts on the values and purpose of this recreation reserve, the high degree of public use and space constraints, and that the temporary and permanent adverse impacts of the proposal cannot be adequately addressed or mitigated by the applicant. However, if the Local Board wished to support the proposal, the option of locating the tank in the carpark would be preferred to the playground.

38.     Since that time, WSL, the Local Board, and Parks, Sports and Recreation Department staff have held a number of workshops and discussions to reach a design solution that will reduce (but not eliminate) the impacts of the proposed wastewater infrastructure and its construction in the reserve. Taking into account the mitigation measures outlined below, the Parks, Sports and Recreation Department staff consider that the proposal can be approved.

Construction effects

39.     The reduction in carparks during the construction period will significantly impact the amount of parking available for parks users, and sporting codes and events which use Harold Moody Reserve and to some extent the adjacent Duck Park and Glen Eden Tennis Club. It will also impact playground users as the carpark represents the primary and safest entry point to the playground. These impacts will be partly mitigated by WSL keeping the fenced area to the minimum required to undertake works effectively and efficiently, and adopting a staged approach to of the works which will mean that the maximum area will not be required for the full duration of the construction period. Secondly, WSL have undertaken to develop options for managing traffic and parking during sporting events as described in paragraph 33. Thirdly, WSL will be required to provide safe pedestrian access to the playground which avoids the risk of users conflicting with others on the playing fields or children inadvertently straying onto Glendale Road. A condition limiting the construction works to weekdays unless otherwise approved by the Manager Local and Sports Parks West will also be included.

40.     The temporary loss of public land and exclusion of the public is necessary for WSL to be able to undertake the works in a safe and efficient manner. As noted above, the construction area will be adjusted as works progress to reduce the impact on reserve users, although there may be times when the adjacent playground needs to be closed. WSL have committed to working with the Parks, Sports and Recreation Department on staging to ensure that this happens in the winter months.

 

41.     The closure of the training area will potentially impact the Glenora Rugby League Club who use it for training during the league season. The training area also contains subsurface irrigation and drainage lines which will be impacted by the proposal. Conditions will be included requiring WSL to engage an agronomist to provide a condition assessment of the affected area and recommended actions to move irrigation and drainage systems while construction is underway. On completion of the works, WSL will be required to reinstate the affected area as determined by the agronomist.

42.     WSL will ensure that construction activities comply with the conditions of the resource consent at all times which will include conditions relating to the management of construction noise, traffic and dust. With respect to dust Council contractors will undertake more frequent cleaning of the adjacent playground if required.

43.     The wider impacts on reserve users and adjoining landowners will be managed through requiring WSL to develop a stakeholder communication plan during the detailed design phase of the project to be developed in conjunction with the Manager Local and Sports Parks West, or his nominated representative. It is also recommended that information signage panels be developed to explain the project and the outcomes it is seeking to achieve.

44.     The construction area contains a number of trees and vegetation that require protection during the works period including a ‘Trees for Babies’ area at the northern end of the playground area. WSL have engaged an arborist who has recommended that a minimum separation of 6m be allowed between the bases of the two Pin Oak trees and the outermost edge of the earthworks footprint of the tank. Excavation equipment would be confined to the existing asphalted areas thereby avoiding effects on the permeable dripline areas of the trees. Two Thuja trees on the western boundary of the playground which have sparse canopy and low vigour could be removed if desirable or retained. All other trees will have tree protection measures adopted including protective fencing being installed around them.

Long-term effects

45.     WSL have advised that odour control is not necessary as the wastewater storage tank will be empty under most circumstances and even when in use, will only store diluted wastewater and stormwater for a short period.  The storage tank will also be self-cleaning and fully sealed which will also minimise any risk of odour.  WSL have advised that there would be minimal to no noise emitted by the control kiosk.

46.     Once installed and the reserve reinstated, the only visible signs of WSL’s infrastructure will be access covers to the underground tank and the control kiosk to be located at the northwestern corner of the carpark. The access covers will be flush mounted with the paved surface of the carpark and have minimal visual effects. The position of the control kiosk will have less visual effects than if it were located adjacent to the storage tank. WSL have agreed to mitigate the visual effects of the kiosk through commissioning art for the exterior surface.

47.     Following construction, WSL will require vehicular access to the tank for maintenance purposes estimated to be once per week, dependant on the frequency of wet weather events. No permanent restrictions on parking are required for WSL to undertake this work and WSL will reinstate the carpark to a standard suitable for service vehicles. It is considered that traffic generated from this activity will have a less than minor effect on reserve users.

48.     The storage tank will place some physical limitations on usage and future development in this area of the reserve and works over permission will be required from Watercare for any such development. Such approvals are already required for other infrastructure in the reserve including a major trunk watermain, the Glen Eden Branch Sewer and a local wastewater reticulation sewer.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

49.     WSL presented at Local Board Workshops on 1 May and 3 July 2013 canvassing the proposal and alternative sites.  At the Local Board workshop on 31 July 2013 with Parks, Sports and Recreation staff, members present formed the preliminary view that Harold Moody Reserve appeared to be the only feasible site, and provided the wastewater storage tank is sited at the carpark location, (or further to the south and more fully under the carpark as suggested in this report), that any adverse impacts of the proposal on Harold Moody Reserve might be able to be adequately addressed.

50.     On 25 September 2013, the Local Board resolved to support in principle the proposal from WSL to locate an underground storage tank within the carpark adjacent to the playground (Resolution number WTK/2013/200). The Local Board requested that it be consulted about the detailed design in particular that three aspects be considered - the protection of the Trees for Babies plantings, minimising the impact on the sportsfield and playground, and investigating the potential for a rectangular tank within the carpark area.

51.     Further workshops and a site visit were held with the Local Board on 28 November 2013 and 30 January 2014. At the latter workshop, the Local Board requested that the option of locating an underground circular tank 6m away from the two Pin Oak trees within the carpark adjacent to the playground be presented at a formal Local Board meeting.

Maori impact statement

52.     Iwi consultation has been commenced by WSL. Consulted Iwi have advised that they are supportive of the project as it will have a positive impact on human, environmental and cultural health. There are no sites of significance to mana whenua identified in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan in this reserve.

Implementation

53.     Section 48 of the Reserves Act allows for grants of rights of way and other easements, for “any public purpose”, and (e) for “the provision of water systems”.  This section requires that the proposal be publicly notified under s120 of the Act, if it is considered that the reserve would be materially altered or permanently damaged; and the rights of the public are likely to be permanently affected by the establishment and exercise of an easement.

54.     Whilst the construction works will take 12 to 18 months, once completed the only visible sign of WSL’s infrastructure will be the control kiosk (dimensions 2.0 m x 1.3 m x 0.5 metres) in the northwestern corner of the carpark, and access covers flush mounted with the carpark. The maintenance and development of the training area will not be unduly restricted due to the tank’s depth and the absence of any surface access covers in this area. The rights of the public to use this part of Harold Moody Reserve will not be permanently affected by the proposed infrastructure. It is therefore considered that public notification is not required.

55.     Easements are considered to be divestments and therefore the delegation for considering whether to grant this easement under section 48(1) of the Reserves Act rests with the Governing Body or Manager - Parks, Sport and Recreation under delegation for minor land purchases or sales for public works.

56.     Section 48(1) of the Reserves Act requires that the Minister of Conservation give consent to an easement.  In June 2013 the Minister gave delegation to local authorities to grant this type of approval (amongst others) and this has been delegated to Council’s Tier 3 Managers either Property, or Parks, Sports and Recreation.

57.     If the Board recommends that the proposal be approved, a report will be prepared to the Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation seeking his approval for the proposal and consent to the easement acting under delegation from the Minister of Conservation. The Local Board on considering the significance of the impacts of proposal may prefer that the recommendation is reported to the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee.

58.     If the proposal is approved, then it is understood that WSL wish to designate the area required for the infrastructure, and the construction site area. The Notice of Requirement to designate the area would function as its resource consent application. The area of designation will be reviewed in consultation with Parks, Sports and Recreation Department once physical works have been completed.

59.     The construction is programmed to commence in November 2014, and be completed April 2016.

60.     As built plans with full details shall be provided of all infrastructure installed on the reserve on completion of works, and will be loaded onto Council’s GIS system. An easement agreement will be entered into between Council and WSL. Any associated costs will be borne by WSL.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Watercare Services Ltd - Layout Plan - Drawing No. 2010363.004 Rev. A

17

bView

Alternative sites considered for WSL underground wastewater tank

21

      

Signatories

Author

Matthew Ward - Team Leader Parks and Open Space Specialists (North/West)

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

Consultation Findings for the Piha Beach Reserves Ecological Restoration Programme and Revised Programme of Work

 

File No.: CP2014/04356

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To report findings of consultation undertaken on the Piha Beach Reserves ecological restoration programme and to seek approval for a revised programme of work.

Executive Summary

2.       Consultation for a programme of work of ecological restoration on the Piha Beach Reserves was undertaken from 20 December 2013 to 7 February 2014 with known stakeholders and local residents.

3.       Consultation findings showed support for weed control in the reserves with a preference for manual control or the use of non-spray methods of chemical control such as cut and pasting.  It was also requested that follow up planting is minimised but where required that plants are no higher than 2 metres at maturity.

4.       A revised programme of work has been developed considering feedback received during the consultation process.

 

Recommendations

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Receives the consultation findings for the Piha Beach Reserves Ecological Restoration Programme and Revised Programme of Work report

b)      Approves the revised work programme for ecological restoration of the Piha Beach Reserves.

 

Discussion

5.       It was requested by the Waitakere Ranges Local Board that a proposed programme of work for the ecological restoration of the Piha beach reserves be consulted upon with the local residents and known stakeholders. 

6.       The Piha beach Reserves are:

·    North Piha Esplanade

·    Les Waygood Park

·    Piha Esplanade Reserve

·    North Piha Strand

·    Piha Domain

7.       Consultation was carried out between 20 December 2013 and 7 February 2014.  21 responses were received – 13 supported the programme in principle, 2 did not support the programme and 4 submissions related to feedback not related to the proposed plan.  These submissions can be viewed in Attachment A.

8.       All ecological restoration work is carried out in accordance with the Auckland Council Weed Management Policy which seeks to undertake such work using best practice methods of weed control and to minimise the use of agrichemicals and minimise non-target effects of their use.  This can be directly supported by the involvement from community members and groups wishing to undertake control by hand pulling weeds.

9.       Stakeholder feedback was considered and a revised programme of work includes the following:

·    Minimise the use of agrichemicals, spray only when required, use manual control or cut and paste method as a preference;

·    Minimise planting but where required, plant species which grow to a mature height of 2 metres.  Plants will be ecosourced and no karo or pohutukawas are to be included in the planting programme;

·    Involvement from the community will be sought to assist with weed removal; and

·    Work will be reviewed for its success as the programme progresses and methods adjusted as required.

10.     The revised work programme will better enable natural regeneration of native flora and slow the spread of environmentally damaging pest plants.

11.     Additional feedback was also received for consideration which includes:

·    Spray Onehunga weed on roadside verges;

·    Remove posts and fences on dune walkways;

·    Review the Piha Coastcare Memorandum Of Understanding and supervise their work; and

·    Support from the council to assist adjacent land owners with weed control on private property.

These points are currently being considered by the Waitakere Ranges Local Board for action.

Consideration

Local Board Views

12.     Skateholder feedback was discussed with the Local Board chair and Environment Portfolio Holder and they proposed changes to the work programme to better reflect community requests.

Maori Impact Statement

13.     Local iwi groups were invited to provide feedback on the proposal however none was received. 

General

14.     Implementation of the work programme is expected to be carried out with both interested community groups and individuals, and Council approved contractors. The proposed work is expected to take a minimum of five years.

15.     Work priorities include the control of climbing asparagus and cape ivy in Piha Domain, and the control of lupin and vetch where found in all other reserves.

Implementation Issues

16.     Budget availability will determine the speed and volume of work to be undertaken each financial year. 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

North Piha Esplanade - Figure 1

27

bView

North Piha Esplanade work plan

29

cView

Les Waygood Park - Figure 2

31

dView

Les Waygood Park work plan

33

eView

Piha Esplanade Reserve - Figure 3

35

fView

Piha Esplanade Reserve work plan

37

gView

North Piha Strand - Figure 4

39

hView

North Piha Strand work plan

41

iView

Piha Domain - Figure 5

43

jView

Piha Domain work plan

45

kView

Piha Ecological Restoration Plan Feedback

47

     

Signatories

Author

Helen Biffin - Team Leader Parks Liaison and Development

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

 

North Piha Esplanade
(Figure 1)

 

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

Area 4

Area 5

Area 6

Area 7

Area 8

Year 1 (14/15) - weed control

Control all agapanthus & lupin.
Reduce gazania population by 10% spread across area.
Control kikuyu around native plants.

Control 50% of lupin.

Control gazania, gladiolus and lupin.

Control agapanthus.
Control gazania.

Control kikuyu around native plants.

Control gazania & gladiolus.
Control 50% of lupin.
Control kikuyu around native plants.

Control lupin.
Control kikuyu around native plants.

Control all gladiolus, veldt grass and vetch.
Control kikuyu around native plants.

Year 1 (14/15) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$300/visit

Nil

Nil

Nil

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$400/visit

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$300/visit

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$300/visit

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$400/visit

Year 1 (14/15) - planting

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Year 2 (15/16) - weed control

Follow up control of agapanthus, lupin & vetch.
Control all vetch.
Reduce gazania population by a further 10% spread across area.
Control kikuyu around native plants.

Control 100% of lupin.

Follow up control of gazania & gladiolus.
Follow up control of lupin.

Follow up control of agapanthus & gazania.
Control lupin.

Control kikuyu around native plants.

Follow up control of gazania & gladiolus.
Control 50% of lupin.
Control all vetch.
Control kikuyu around natve plants.

Follow up control of lupin.
Control kikuyu around native plants.

Follow up control all gladiolus, veldt grass and vetch.
Control kikuyu around native plants.

Year 2 (15/16) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$300/visit

Nil

Nil

Nil

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$300/visit

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$200/visit

Follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$200/visit

Follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$250/visit

Year 2 (15/16) - planting

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year 3 (16/17) - weed control

Follow up control of agapanthus, lupin & vetch.
Reduce gazania population by a further 10% spread across area.
Control kikuyu around native plants.

Follow up control of lupin.
Control 10% of gazania, spread across area.

Follow up control of gazania, gladiolus & lupin.
Control kikuyu growing around native plants.

Follow up control of agapanthus, gazania & lupin.

Control kikuyu around native plants.

Follow up control of gazania, gladiolus & vetch.
Control 100% of lupin.
Control kikuyu around natve plants.

Follow up control of lupin.
Control kikuyu around native plants.

Follow up control all gladiolus, veldt grass and vetch.
Control kikuyu around native plants.

Year 3 (16/17) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$300/visit

Nil

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$200/visit

Nil

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$300/visit

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$200/visit

Follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$200/visit

Follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$250/visit

Year 3 (16/17)- planting

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

Area 4

Area 5

Area 6

Area 7

Area 8

Year 4 (17/18)- weed control

Follow up control of agapanthus, lupin & vetch.
Reduce gazania population by a further 10% spread across area.
Control kikuyu around native plants.

Follow up control of lupin.
Control 10% of gazania, spread across area.

Follow up control of gazania, gladiolus & lupin.
Control kikuyu growing around native plants.

Follow up control of agapanthus, gazania & lupin.

Control kikuyu around native plants.

Follow up control of gazania, gladiolus, vetch & lupin.
Control kikuyu around natve plants.

Follow up control of lupin.
Control kikuyu around native plants.

Follow up control all gladiolus, veldt grass and vetch.
Control kikuyu around native plants.

Year 4 (17/18) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$250/visit

Nil

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$200/visit

Nil

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$300/visit

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$200/visit

Follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$150/visit

Follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$200/visit

Year 4 (17/18)- planting

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Year 5 (18/19) - weed control

Follow up control of agapanthus, lupin & vetch.
Reduce gazania population by a further 10% spread across area.
Control kikuyu around native plants.

Follow up control 25% of lupin.
Control 10% of gazania, spread across area.

Follow up control of gazania, gladiolus & lupin.
Control kikuyu growing around native plants.

Follow up control of agapanthus, gazania & lupin.

Control kikuyu around native plants.

Follow up control of gazania, gladiolus, vetch & lupin.
Control kikuyu around natve plants.

Follow up control of lupin.
Control kikuyu around native plants.

Follow up control all gladiolus, veldt grass and vetch.
Control kikuyu around native plants.

Year 5 (18/19) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$250/visit

Nil

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$200/visit

Nil

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$300/visit

2 x follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$200/visit

Follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$150/visit

Follow up control of kikuyu around native plants.
$200/visit

Year 5 (18/19) - planting

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

 

Les Waygood Park
(Figure 2)

 

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

Area 4

Area 5

Area 6

Year 1 (14/15) - weed control

Control of marram.
Control 50% of lupin.
Control 10% of gazania - spread across the area.
Control kikuyu growing around native plants.

Control gazania & gladiolus, lupin and Tasmanian ngaio.

Control fruit salad plant, garden nasturtium, gazania, lupin & Tasmanian ngaio.

Control lupin.

Control boneseed & gladiolus.

Control of gazania.
Control 50% of lupin & vetch.

Year 1 (14/15) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

2 x follow up control of kikyu around native plants.
$300/visit

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Year 1 (14/15) - planting

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

0

0

0

0

0

0

Year 2 (15/16) - weed control

Follow up control of marram.
Control 50% of lupin.
Control 10% of gazania - spread across the area.
Control kikuyu growing around native plants.

Follow up control of gazania, gladiolus, lupin and Tasmanian ngaio.
Control Kikuyu growing around native plants on the western side of the area.

Follow up control of fruit salad plant, garden nasturtium, gazania, lupin & Tasmanian ngaio.
Control kikuyu growing around native plants.
Control 25% of vetch.

Follow up control of lupin.
Control 5 plots of 3x3m areas of vetch and kikuyu.

Follow up control of boneseed & gladiolus. Control 25% vetch.

Follow up control of gazania.
Control 50% of lupin & vetch.

Year 2 (15/16) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

2 x follow up control of kikyu around native plants.
$300/visit

2 x follow up control of kikyu around native plants.
$150/visit

2 x follow up control of kikyu around native plants.
$200/visit

2 x follow up control of all weeds in planted areas.
$200/visit

Nil

Nil

Year 2 (15/16) - planting

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

Plant plots in kikuyu and vetch.
9 x pb 3 per plot @ 1m spacing:
mix of Muehlenbeckia complexa, Coprosma repens, Coprosma robusta, Austroderia fulvida, Austroderia splendens

No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

0

0

0

45

0

0

Year 3 (16/17) - weed control

Follow up control of marram.
Control lupin.
Control 10% of gazania - spread across the area.
Control kikuyu growing around native plants.

Follow up control of gazania, gladiolus, lupin and Tasmanian ngaio.
Control Kikuyu growing around native plants on the western side of the area.

Follow up control of fruit salad plant, garden nasturtium, gazania, lupin & Tasmanian ngaio.
Control kikuyu growing around native plants.
Control 25% of vetch.

Follow up control of lupin.
Control 5 plots of 3x3m areas in vetch and kikuyu.

Follow up control of boneseed & gladiolus. Control 25% vetch.

Follow up control of gazania.
Control remaining lupin & vetch.

Year 3 (16/17) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

2 x follow up control of kikyu around native plants.
$150/visit

2 x follow up control of kikyu around native plants.
$150/visit

2 x follow up control of kikyu around native plants.
$200/visit

2 x follow up control of all weeds in planted areas.
$250/visit

Nil

Nil

Year 3 (16/17)- planting

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

Plant plots in kikuyu and vetch.
9 x pb 3 per plot:
mix of Muehlenbeckia complexa, Coprosma repens, Coprosma robusta, Austroderia fulvida, Austroderia splendens

No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

0

0

0

45

0

0

 

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

Area 4

Area 5

Area 6

Year 4 (17/18)- weed control

Follow up control of marram & lupin.
Control 10% of gazania - spread across the area.
Control kikuyu growing around native plants.
Control 10% of vetch.

Follow up control of gazania, gladiolus, lupin and Tasmanian ngaio.
Control Kikuyu growing around native plants on the western side of the area & expand.

Follow up control of fruit salad plant, garden nasturtium, gazania, lupin & Tasmanian ngaio.
Control kikuyu growing around native plants.
Control 25% of vetch.

Follow up control of lupin.
Control 5 plots of 3x3m areas in vetch and kikuyu.

Follow up control of boneseed & gladiolus. Control 25% vetch.

Follow up control of gazania, lupin & vetch.

Year 4 (17/18) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

2 x follow up control of kikyu around native plants.
$150/visit

2 x follow up control of kikyu around native plants.
$150/visit

2 x follow up control of kikyu around native plants.
$200/visit

2 x follow up control of all weeds in planted areas.
$300/visit

Nil

Nil

Year 4 (17/18)- planting

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

Plant plots in kikuyu and vetch.
9 x pb 3 per plot:
mix of Muehlenbeckia complexa, Coprosma repens, Coprosma robusta, Austroderia fulvida, Austroderia splendens

No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

0

0

0

45

0

0

Year 5 (18/19) - weed control

Follow up control of marram & lupin.
Control 10% of gazania - spread across the area.
Control kikuyu growing around native plants.
Control 10% of vetch.

Follow up control of gazania, gladiolus, lupin and Tasmanian ngaio.
Control Kikuyu growing around native plants on the western side of the area.

Follow up control of fruit salad plant, garden nasturtium, gazania, lupin & Tasmanian ngaio.
Control kikuyu growing around native plants.
Control 25% of vetch.

Follow up control of lupin.
Control 5 plots of 3x3m areas in vetch and kikuyu.

Follow up control of boneseed & gladiolus. Control 25% vetch.

Follow up control of gazania, lupin & vetch.

Year 5 (18/19) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

2 x follow up control of kikyu around native plants.
$150/visit

2 x follow up control of kikyu around native plants.
$150/visit

2 x follow up control of kikyu around native plants.
$150/visit

2 x follow up control of all weeds in planted areas.
$350/visit

Nil

Nil

Year 5 (18/19) - planting

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

Plant plots in kikuyu and vetch.
9 x pb 3 per plot:
mix of Muehlenbeckia complexa, Coprosma repens, Coprosma robusta, Austroderia fulvida, Austroderia splendens

No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

0

0

0

45

0

0

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

 

   

Piha Esplanade Reserve
(Figure 3)

 

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

Area 4

Area 5

Area 6

Area 7

Year 1 (14/15) - weed control

Control garden nasturtium, gazania, gladiolus, nasturtium and montbretia.

Control of climbing asparagus, gorse, lupin, montbretia & vetch.

Control lupin, umbrella sedge & vetch.

Control of agapanthus, boneseed, gladiolus, lupin and vetch.

Control 10% of gazania.

Control 50% of lupin.

Control gladiolus, kikuyu, lupin, veldt grass & vetch.

Control marram and gladiolus.

Year 1 (14/15) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Year 1 (14/15) - planting

No planting.

 No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

 No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Year 2 (15/16) - weed control

Follow up control of garden nasturtium, gazania, gladiolus, nasturtium and montbretia.

Follow up control of climbing asparagus, gorse, lupin, montbretia and vetch.

Follow up control of lupin, umbrella sedge and vetch.

Control of agapanthus, boneseed, gladiolus, lupin and vetch.

Control 10% of gazania.

Control 50% of lupin.

Follow up control gladiolus, kikuyu, lupin, veldt grass & vetch.

Follow up control of marram and gladiolus.
Control nasturtium and 10% of veldt grass.

Year 2 (15/16) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Year 2 (15/16) - planting

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Year 3 (16/17) - weed control

Follow up control of garden nasturtium, gazania, gladiolus, nasturtium and montbretia.

Follow up control of climbing asparagus, gorse, lupin, montbretia and vetch.

Follow up control of lupin, umbrella sedge and vetch.

Control of agapanthus, boneseed, gladiolus, lupin and vetch.
Control 10% of buffalo grass - spread across the area.

Control 10% of gazani.

Control 50% of lupin.

Follow up control gladiolus, kikuyu, lupin, veldt grass & vetch.

Follow up control of marram and gladiolus.
Control nasturtium and 10% of veldt grass.

Year 3 (16/17) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Year 3 (16/17)- planting

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Year 4 (17/18)- weed control

Follow up control of gazania, gladiolus, nasturtium and montbretia.

Follow up control of climbing asparagus, gorse, lupin, montbretia and vetch.

Follow up control of lupin, umbrella sedge and vetch.
Control 10% vedlt grass spread across the area.

Control of agapanthus, boneseed, gladiolus, lupin and vetch.
Control 10% of buffalo grass - spread across the area.

Control 25% of gazania.

Control remaining lupin.

Follow up control gladiolus, kikuyu, lupin, veldt grass & vetch.

Follow up control of marram and gladiolus.
Control nasturtium and 10% of veldt grass.

Year 4 (17/18) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

 

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

Area 4

Area 5

Area 6

Area 7

Year 4 (17/18)- planting

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Year 5 (18/19) - weed control

Follow up control of garden nasturtium, gazania, gladiolus, nasturtium and montbretia.

Follow up control of climbing asparagus, gorse, lupin, montbretia and vetch.

Follow up control of lupin, umbrella sedge and vetch.
Control 10% vedlt grass spread across the area.

Control of agapanthus, boneseed, gladiolus, lupin and vetch.
Control 10% of buffalo grass - spread across the area.

Follow up control of lupin.

Control 25% of gazania.

Follow up control gladiolus, kikuyu, lupin, veldt grass & vetch.

Follow up control of marram and gladiolus.
Control nasturtium and 10% of veldt grass.

Year 5 (18/19) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

Nil

Nil

Nil

NIl

Nil

Nil

Nil

Year 5 (18/19) - planting

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

 

North Piha Strand
(Figure 4)

 

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

Area 4

Area 5

Year 1 (14/15) - weed control

Control gazania, German ivy, gladiolus & lupin.

Control boneseed & lupin.

Control agapanthus, gladiolus, lupin & montbretia.

Control buffalo grass, cape ivy & lupin.
Control 20% of marram.

Control lupin.

Year 1 (14/15) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

Nil

Nil

nil

Nil

Nil

Year 1 (14/15) - planting

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

0

0

0

0

0

Year 2 (15/16) - weed control

Follow up control of gazania, German ivy, gladiolus & lupin.
Control 50% of vetch.

Follow up bonseed & lupin control.
Control 10% of gazania
Control 50% of vetch.

Follow up control agapanthus, gladiolus, lupin & montbretia.
Control 25% of vetch and gazania.

Follow up control buffalo grass, cape ivy & lupin.
Control 20% of marram.

Follow up lupin control.
Control 10% of gazania.

Year 2 (15/16) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

Nil

Nil

nil

Nil

Nil

Year 2 (15/16) - planting

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

0

0

0

0

0

Year 3 (16/17) - weed control

Follow up control of gazania, German ivy, gladiolus & lupin.
Control 50% of vetch.

Follow up bonseed & lupin control.
Control 10% of gazania.
Control 50% of vetch.

Follow up control agapanthus, gladiolus, lupin  & montbretia.
Control 25% of vetch and gazania.

Follow up control buffalo grass, cape ivy & lupin.
Control 20% of marram.
Control 10% of gazania - spread of the area.

 

Follow up lupin control.
Control 10% of gazania.

Year 3 (16/17) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Year 3 (16/17)- planting

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

0

0

0

0

0

Year 4 (17/18)- weed control

Follow up control of gazania, German ivy, gladiolus & lupin.
Control 50% of vetch.

Follow up bonseed & lupin control.
Control 10% of gazania.
Control 50% of vetch.

Follow up control agapanthus, gladiolus, lupin  & montbretia.
Control 25% of vetch and gazania.

Follow up control buffalo grass, cape ivy & lupin.
Control 20% of marram.
Control 10% of gazania - spread of the area.

Follow up lupin control.
Control 10% of gazania.
Control 10% of buffalo grass.

Year 4 (17/18) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

Nil

Nil

Nil

 

Nil

Year 4 (17/18)- planting

No planting.

No planting.

 No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

0

0

0

0

0

 

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

Area 4

Area 5

Year 5 (18/19) - weed control

Follow up control of gazania, German ivy, gladiolus & lupin.
Control remaining vetch.

Follow up bonseed & lupin control.
Control 10% of gazania.
Control 50% of vetch.

Follow up control agapanthus, gladiolus, lupin  & montbretia.
Control 25% of vetch and gazania.

Follow up control buffalo grass, cape ivy & lupin.
Control 20% of marram.
Control 10% of gazania - spread of the area.

Follow up lupin control.
Control 10% of gazania.
Control 10% of buffalo grass.

Year 5 (18/19) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Year 5 (18/19) - planting

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

No planting.

Plant no.

0

0

0

0

0

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

 

Piha Domain
(Figure 5)

 

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

Area 4

Year 1 (14/15) - weed control

Follow up marram and agapanthus control.

Control lupin.

Control agapanthus, cape ivy, gazania, lupin and vetch, carefully releasing native plants.
Control kikuyu around all native plants.

Control agapanthus, climbing dock, gladiolus & lupin.
Control 40 plots of 3x3m areas in climbing asparagus, across the site starting at the top section of the slope.

Year 1 (14/15) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

Nil

Nil

2 x follow up control of agapanthus, cape ivy, gazania, lupin and vetch, carefully releasing native plants.
Follow up control of kikuyu around all native plants.
$600/visit

2 x follow up control of all weeds in planted areas.
$500/visit

Year 1 (14/15) - planting

No planting.

No planting.

Plant where opportunity arises with:
Coprosma robusta
Cordyline australis
Phormium tenax
Austroderia fulvida
Austroderia splendens

Plant plots in kikuyu and vetch.
20 x pb 3 per plot @ 0.5m spacing:
mix of Muehlenbeckia complexa, Cordyline australis, Coprosma repens, Coprosma robusta, Austroderia fulvida, Austroderia splendens

Plant no.

0

0

200

800

Year 2 (15/16) - weed control

Follow up control of marram and agapanthus control.
Control 10% of gazania.
Control 10% of lupin.

Follow up control of lupin.  Control Mauritius hemp and Tasmanian ngaio.

Follow up control of agapanthus, cape ivy, gazania, lupin and vetch, carefully releasing native plants.
Follow up control of kikuyu around all native plants.

Follow up control of agapanthus, climbing dock, gladiolus & lupin.
Control climbing dock and gladiolus.
Control 40 plots of 3x3m areas in climbing asparagus.

Year 2 (15/16) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

Nil

Nil

2 x follow up control of agapanthus, cape ivy, gazania, lupin and vetch, carefully releasing native plants.
Follow up control of kikuyu around all native plants.
$400/visit

2 x follow up control of all weeds in planted areas.
$550/visit

Year 2 (15/16) - planting

No planting.

No planting.

Plant where opportunity arises with:
Coprosma robusta
Cordyline australis
Phormium tenax
Austroderia fulvida
Austroderia splendens

Plant plots in kikuyu and vetch.
20 x pb 3 per plot @ 0.5m spacing:
mix of Muehlenbeckia complexa, Cordyline australis, Coprosma repens, Coprosma robusta, Austroderia fulvida, Austroderia splendens

Plant no.

0

0

100

800

Year 3 (16/17) - weed control

Follow up control of marram and agapanthus control.
Control 10% of gazania.
Control 10% of lupin.

Follow up control of lupin, Mauritius hemp and Tasmanian ngaio.  Control 50% of veldt grass.

Follow up control of agapanthus, cape ivy, gazania, lupin and vetch, carefully releasing native plants.
Control kikuyu around all native plants.

Follow up control of agapanthus, climbing dock, gladiolus & lupin.
Control climbing dock and gladiolus.
Control 40 plots of 3x3m areas in climbing asparagus.

 

Year 3 (16/17) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

Nil

Nil

2 x follow up control of agapanthus, cape ivy, gazania, lupin and vetch, carefully releasing native plants.
Follow up control of kikuyu around all native plants.
$400/visit

2 x follow up control of all weeds in planted areas.
$550/visit

 

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

Area 4

Year 3 (16/17)- planting

No planting.

No planting.

Plant where opportunity arises with:
Coprosma robusta
Cordyline australis
Phormium tenax
Austroderia fulvida
Austroderia splendens

Plant plots in kikuyu and vetch.
20 x pb 3 per plot @ 0.5m spacing:
mix of Muehlenbeckia complexa, Cordyline australis, Coprosma repens, Coprosma robusta, Austroderia fulvida, Austroderia splendens

Plant no.

0

0

100

800

Year 4 (17/18)- weed control

Follow up control of marram and agapanthus control.
Control 10% of gazania.
Control 10% of lupin.

Follow up control of lupin, Mauritius hemp and Tasmanian ngaio.  Control 50% of veldt grass.

Follow up control of agapanthus, cape ivy, gazania, lupin and vetch, carefully releasing native plants.
Control kikuyu around all native plants.

Follow up control of agapanthus, lupin, climbing dock and gladiolus.
Control 40 plots of 2x2m areas in climbing asparagus.

Year 4 (17/18) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

Nil

Nil

2 x follow up control of agapanthus, cape ivy, gazania, lupin and vetch, carefully releasing native plants.
Follow up control of kikuyu around all native plants.
$400/visit

2 x follow up control of all weeds in planted areas.
$600/visit

Year 4 (17/18)- planting

No planting.

No planting.

Plant where opportunity arises with:
Coprosma robusta
Cordyline australis
Phormium tenax
Austroderia fulvida
Austroderia splendens

Plant plots in kikuyu and vetch.
20 x pb 3 per plot @ 0.5m spacing:
mix of Muehlenbeckia complexa, Cordyline australis, Coprosma repens, Coprosma robusta, Austroderia fulvida, Austroderia splendens

Plant no.

0

0

50

800

Year 5 (18/19) - weed control

Follow up control of marram and agapanthus control.
Control 10% of gazania.
Control 10% of lupin.

Follow up control of lupin, Mauritius hemp and Tasmanian ngaio.  Control 50% of veldt grass.

Follow up control of agapanthus, cape ivy, gazania, lupin and vetch, carefully releasing native plants.
Control kikuyu around all native plants.

Follow up control of agapanthus, climbing dock, gladiolus & lupin.
Control climbing dock and gladiolus.
Control 40 plots of 3x3m areas in climbing asparagus.

Year 5 (18/19) - weed control
follow up visit x 2

Nil

Nil

2 x follow up control of agapanthus, cape ivy, gazania, lupin and vetch, carefully releasing native plants.
Follow up control of kikuyu around all native plants.
$300/visit

2 x follow up control of all weeds in planted areas.
$600/visit

Year 5 (18/19) - planting

No planting.

No planting.

Plant where opportunity arises with:
Coprosma robusta
Cordyline australis
Phormium tenax
Austroderia fulvida
Austroderia splendens

Plant plots in kikuyu and vetch.
20 x pb 3 per plot @ 0.5m spacing:
mix of Muehlenbeckia complexa, Cordyline australis, Coprosma repens, Coprosma robusta, Austroderia fulvida, Austroderia splendens

Plant no.

0

0

50

800

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

 

Fig 1 – North Piha Esplanade

Fig 2 – Les Waygood Park

Fig 3 – Piha Esplanade Reserve

Fig 4 – North Piha Strand

Fig 5 – Piha Domain

No.

Date Received

Comments

1

27/12/13

-     Fig 1 - Do not need the toxic weed killer added to the arsenic and boric acids leaching from the posts used to guide people over the sand dunes.
-     Fig 2 - The signage and idiotic chain fences are a visual pollutant and you want to add invisible pollutants.
-     Fig 3 - Weed seeds will quickly replace those you have sprayed. How many years is this proposed nonsense going to be undertaken?
-     Fig 4 - Does this proposal also involve signage, which will only be imposed on us once your project is started? If so consult the district plan whereby minimal signage is to be placed on the dunes and the beach this has been repeatedly ignored as there has been more signage introduced to Piha in the last 10 years than in all the previous decades of human occupation here.
-     Other comments:  This seems like a way of keeping your parks and reserves people occupied rather than a necessary requirement, which is ultimately doomed to fail. Besides many international tourist have commented on how attractive the roadside flowers are in the summer

2

18/01/14

-     Fig 1 - Spray Onehunga weed off road verges if we're going to do something for the community and have to spray and you feel the need to spray.
-     Fig 2 - No problem with gazania.
-     Fig 3 - Sand paths are already in place, remove posts and fences.  Fences don't make a difference; sand is building up in pathways.
-     Fig 4 - Don't plant pohutukawas.  Leave Piha alone and go away.  Take posts and signage with you.
-     Fig 5 - Coastcare have too much leverage over Council.
Other comments: 
-     Do not approve of this at all.

3

22/12/13 & 07/02/14

-     Fig 1 - I totally support weed spray.  I oppose anything taller than two meters being planted.
-     Fig 2 - Support weed spray.  Please concentrate on appropriate stream side planting.  No tall trees.
-     Fig 3 - Support weed spray.  Appropriate stream side planting only.  No karo etc . . .  no tall trees.
-     Fig 4 - Strongly support weed spray.  Low growing 'mid-dune' planting only.
-     Fig 5 - Support weed spray.  No tree planting at all.  Please refer to 'Piha Reserve Management Plan 7.5:  'No planting of tall trees to ensure that views are unimpeded'.  Requires appropriate stream side planting.
Other Comments: 
-     To complete weed control please spray all Onehunga weed in domain.  It is being spread all over Piha.

4

13/01/14

(The Piha Ratepayers’ and Residents Association have been actively representing property owners and residents in the Piha area since 1939. Members are either bach owners, who use their properties as holiday places, permanent residents,  property owners or tenants. The Association owns and operates a post office, owns the library, has monthly meetings, and annual general meeting, special meetings when required, has an informative website and Facebook page with regular communications to members).

Piha Beach Reserve restoration programme.
The Piha Ratepayers and Residents Committee discussed the above proposal at its monthly meeting 7th February ‘14
.

Weed Spray
:  The Committee understand that there is occasion when spraying is the only option to eradicate and control weeds.  We are however concerned about the amount of spray that is planned.  It is our request that the least amount of spraying possible is done and that the least toxic chemicals are used.
Planting:  The Committee is not happy with the amount and height of the taller plants included in the plan.  We would request that no plants be planted that have a mature height greater than 2 meters maximum.

5

14/01/14

1.    Have said that they support the Ecological Restoration programme and that it looks good.

6

15/01/14 & 24/01/14

-      Yes. (was against Fig 1 only)  Under the conditions outlined in Page 2 of this feedback form.  Onehunga weed needs addressing and no view restricting species planted in view corridors.
Other comments:
-     Please ensure that your plant species does not grow to hinder our present sea view on North Piha Road.  Can we please have this assurance in writing.
-     Your plan seems to ignore the annual infestation of Onehunga weed.  Can you please coordinate a programme that addresses this on the walking accesses to the beach.  A spray say every November.  That would be great.
-     Also is there any reason at our own costs that we could trim the Karo's in front of the residents sections on the Esplanade?  They have increased in size over the years and has impacted on our sea views.
    

7

18/01/14

Fig 1 - 5  - Status quo!  Leave alone.

8

18/01/14

Fig 1 - 5  - Yes.  Remove fences.  No Pohutukawas.
Other comments: 
-     MOU between Auckland Council and Coastcare which has not had enough supervision.

9

18/01/14

-    The control of weeds is fantastic that you plan to do.  But please have eco sourced plants replacing only.
-     Local plants only sourced from renown local sources, our local species are quiet unique to our area. 
-     In the past here has not been enough effort put into finding what actually was growing here 100 years ago. 
-     Those karo are not local / pohutukawa that have been sourced from east coast have been planted!
-     Please don't repeat these mistakes of the past.
-     No karo, it's like planting agapanthus!!
-     I am a native specialist and would love to give you any information you need.
 

10

18/01/14

Other comments: 
-     No more karo thanks.
-     Where possible hand-dig weeds, rather than spraying.
-     Consult Jeff McCauley re: suitability and local species.

11

28/01/14

Other comments: 
-     I support the plan and agree it will make a positive improvement to this area.
-     Although it would be great to eliminate the kikuyu I query whether the resources needed could achieve more impact spent elsewhere.  Suspect it will take significant ongoing effort to eliminate.
-    Offering to spray some target species on private land in adjoining areas would help with the long term success and would not be a large cost.  Eg Agapanthus, Cape Ivy, German Ivy.
-     A leaflet drop to households with these species apparent would be effective means to communicate.
-     It would be great to extend this level of attention to weeds to the rest of Piha and Titirangi.

12

30/01/14

Other comments: 
-     Piha Coastcare Trust would like to commend the Council for initiating this plan to eradicate weeds and restore the ecology of the Piha Beach Reserves.
-     As you know, Piha Coastcare has been engaged in related work on the dunes for the past12 years.  It is very encouraging to see Council taking such a comprehensive approach to care of our foreshore reserves ecology.
-     While the planting plan appears to be generally appropriate, we have some reservations about the planting of additional Karo in this area.  We would like to work with Council in further refining the planting plans, with the assistance of Coastcare Trust member Jeff McCauley.

13

01/07/14

-     I have read your plan and would like to register my objection to the continued use of toxic herbicides in public places and near water.
-     I acknowledge that the plan includes minimising agrichemical use by using manual methods in some cases, but it is now well known that even the least toxic of the herbicides you are intending to use -     Glyphosate- is actually very dangerous, so bad that scientists are calling for a worldwide ban, and saying it is worse that DDT. It has also been found to be toxic to bees.   What of all the others on the list- they are surely even worse?
-      If the lowest toxicity herbicide available is to be used- then why are none of the many organic herbicides or steam treatment used by Auckland Council included in this plan?
-      The plan states that pest plants will be controlled in accordance with Council's current herbicide policy, yet this report came out in 2012, and now there is a new Weed Management Policy.     I am not sure which policy they were referring to- Waitakere or Auckland, and how they compare exactly with the new policy in regards to herbicide use; but I know that Auckland city had probably the most progressive policy as far as herbicide reduction was concerned, and that Waitakere had an Agrichemical Reduction policy.
-      If this plan is in accordance with the new WMP, then these objectives must be followed:
1. Take an integrated approach to weed management and vegetation control.
2. Ensure best practice in weed management and vegetation control.
3. Minimise agrichemical use.
4. Minimise non-target effects of agrichemical use.
5. Ensure public health and safety.
6. Protect and enhance the environment.
7. Empower the community to manage weeds in accordance with the policy.
8. Deliver weed management and vegetation control which is value for money.
-     To ensure public health and safety, and protect and enhance the environment, then none of the herbicides in this plan should be used.     I didn't see anything in the plan about protecting public health. How do you propose to let people know who may be walking near or on these reserves, that herbicides have been applied?
-     Piha is a very popular beach with many inhabitants, a lot of whom choose to be there for the beauty and enjoyment of nature.     There will always be roaming animals and wildlife, people walking barefoot, and winds and rain to carry any chemicals used into the air and water for weeks and months after application. Some of these reserves are near streams; all are near the sea- both of which will surely be polluted.
-     While there is scope for improving the landscape with replanting, there is really no need for agrichemicals at all, and surely it is time to see if the council can find ways of enhancing and protecting the environment without the use of poison?
-      Our beautiful natural environment should be able to be enjoyed by all, without the risk of breathing in, walking on, or bathing in these dangerous chemicals.
-     As there were no Total Control pest plants, and only 1 Containment pest plant (gorse) found in the project area, there is no urgency to continue with this plan. There is time to look at other options, and perhaps find  a consultant that is able to reach the same outcome without the use of agrichemicals.

14

7/02/14

Fig 1 - Support weed spray.  I oppose anything taller than two meters being planted.
Fig 2 - Support weed spray.  Please concentrate on appropriate stream side planting.  No tall trees.
Fig 3 - Support weed spray.  Appropriate stream side planting only.  No karo etc . . .  no tall trees.
Fig 4 - Strongly support weed spray.  Low growing 'mid-dune' planting only.
Fig 5 - Support weed spray.  No tree planting at all.  Please refer to 'Piha Reserve Management Plan 7.5:  'No planting of tall trees to ensure that views . . . . . are unimpeded'.  Requires appropriate stream side planting.
-     Other comments:  These are the comments of another member of the Piha community but I couldn't put it better so have quoted verbatim.
-     I live on Marine Parade North and only want low planting in the dunes.

15

7/02/14

Fig 1 - Support weed spray.  I oppose anything taller than two meters being planted.
Fig 2 - Support weed spray.  Please concentrate on appropriate stream side planting.  No tall trees.
Fig 3 - Support weed spray.  Appropriate stream side planting only.  No karo etc . . .  no tall trees.
Fig 4 - Strongly support weed spray.  Low growing 'mid-dune' planting only.
Fig 5 - Support weed spray.  No tree planting at all.  Please refer to 'Piha Reserve Management Plan 7.5:  'No planting of tall trees to ensure that views . . . . . are unimpeded'.  Requires appropriate stream side planting. Fig 1 -
-     Other comments:  To complete weed control please spray all  'Onehunga weed'  (prickles)  in the Domain.  It is being spread all over Piha.

16

7/02/14

Fig 1 - Oppose weed spray.  I oppose anything taller than 2 meters being planted.
Fig 2 - Oppose weed spray.
Fig 3 - Oppose weed spray.
Fig 4 - Oppose weed spray.
Fig 5 - Oppose weed spray.
-     Other comments:  Piha is a nature reserve. It is the crown in the jewel of the Waitakere Ranges and I believe it is completely hypocritical to encourage native diversity and yet to be dousing the village in poison.  The councils most recent dump of rabbit poison in the dunes with no leaflet notification and extremely poor signage is embarrassing, not to mention dangerous. Several residents had to rush dogs to the vet to have stomachs emptied.
-     With current concerns of the unsafe swimming water in the lagoon the last thing Piha needs is more chemical and toxic compounds entering our waterways. The streams are home to many native fish, reptiles, our native frog & is used by local bees. We all know too well the current compounding effect of pesticides on our bee populations.  from Wikipedia:  If glyphosate reached surface water, it would not be broken down readily by water or sunlight.[19]
-     I would love it if the council took some initiative on long term poison-free weed control and pest management in Piha.
-     I'd love to see an incentive for locals to use something like the below:
Perhaps some kind of rebate on poison free rodent control?  ttp://goodnature.co.nz/index.php?pageID=products&productId=4   This would also mean native birds are not picking up poisoned rats.
-     A labour scheme for manual weed removal?   A business arm of Waitakere council that turns weeds into resaleable compost and garden products.  http://wellington.govt.nz/services/environment-and-waste/landfill/compost-and-garden-products
-     Every day more information is released on the toxic effects of glyphosphate based weed sprays.
https://vimeo.com/82810923

17

09/02/14

-     Other comments:  I am a property owner of a bach on Marine Pde North adjacent to the North Piha Strand. While agreeing in principal with the proposal to improve the quality of the flora on the sand dunes I have several concerns that I would like to receive feedback that they have been addressed.
     • the report does not appear to address the fauna present in the vegetation. Pheasants and quail inhabit the current vegetation. It is unclear how they will be treated and whether the works, including any control measures will affect them.
     • numerous attempts to replant the dunes have been undertaken over the 60+ years I have been staying in Piha. They have invariably had limited success and rapidly degrade or require frequent care. The lupins, kikuyu etc appear to have the resilience necessary to survive the extreme conditions with little nutrient and maintenance. Some of the proposed plants do not appear to have the same capacity to survive.
• the current cover provides protection from erosion, in fact the sand hills in the North Piha Strand have progressively built up over the years. I have strong concern that the works will expose the sand in areas currently covered and the sand will be eroded by the wind, depositing it on the properties to the east of Marine Parade North.
-     I understand the work will be carried out over several years. I would be supportive of an initial trial area to demonstrate that the works can be completed without impacting on the existing fauna and the ground cover can be maintained without excessive erosion, need for exclusion zones and constant care.

18

11/02/14

Fig 1 - We are against any spraying in any of the reserve areas listed.  Spraying damages the delicate eco-system in particular, pollinating insects such as the many native bees now relying on the flowering 'weeds'.  The residual seed base will mean many, not 4 years of spraying - the cost / result a waste of precious rate payers funds. 
Fig 2 - Suggest hand eradication of larger weeds if necessary (as Fig 1).  Not in favour of large tree mass planting.
Fig 3 - As per Fig 1 and Fig 2.
Fig 4 - As per Fig 1 and Fig 2.
Fig 5 - As per Fig 1 and Fig 2.  Plus - the rampant growth of Spinifex on the dunes in area (1) is encroaching onto the sand / beach area at an alarming rate causing the lagoons natural tidal flushing to be restricted.

19

18/01/14

- Save Pohutukawa planting along stream.
- Access for kayaks etc into stream.
- Cuter photo of Penguin.Fig 3 -

20

 18/01/14

- Could we please have a council supported campaign to manage the predator problem in Piha - rats, stoats, wild cats
- and the dog and rubbish bag problem.  (Until we get a (better?) solution) we have on a rubbish collection day eg; broken bags by dogs.
- Maybe some joint plan with Forest and Bird, Ark in the Park, Rangers Protection (?) etc and local residents and property owners.  - Thanks!

 



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

Local & Sports Parks West Draft 2014/2015 Capital Works Programme

 

File No.: CP2014/01952

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek approval from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board for the draft capital work programme proposed by Local & Sports Parks West (LSPW) for the 2014/2015 financial year.

Executive Summary

2.       The Local Board’s Parks capital work budget for 2014/2015 is $1,975,892.  The programme has been developed from information received through asset condition auditing, requests from the Local Board and from residents through the Councils service request system.

 

Recommendation

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Approves the Local & Sports Parks West Draft 2014/2015 Capital Works Programme.

 

Discussion

3.       LSPW manages a range of assets on local parks and sports parks. The programme includes the renewal of existing assets and development of new assets.  These include sport fields, carparks, playgrounds, amenity lighting, park furniture and signage, changing room and toilet facilities, walkways and footbridges, stormwater and drainage requirements.  Provision is made for the programme in the Long Term Plan.

4.       The Waitakere Ranges Local Board Local and Sports Park capital budget for 2014/2015 financial year is $1,975,892.

5.       $686,833 of deferrals has been identified in the 2013/2014 financial year.  This work is now planned to be undertaken during the 2014/2015 financial year.

6.       LSPW is seeking Local Board approval of their capital work programme for the 2014/2015 financial year.  The following are the key projects:

·  Armour Bay Reserve – carpark and driveway upgrade;

·    Harold Moody Park – changing room block refurbishment, court renewal and minor asset upgrade;

·    Laingholm Scenic Reserve – renewal of walkway and park furniture;

·    Parrs Park – renewal of no 2 sports field;

·    Little Muddy Creek Walkway construction: and

·    Piha Domain – remediation of stream erosion.

7.    The costs shown on the attached programme are estimates only and the actual cost will not be known until the project work is taken through the procurement process.  Adjustments to the programme may be required when the actual costs are identified.  Changes of over $50,000 will be reported to the Local Board for their approval. 

 

 

Consideration

Local Board Views

8.       Workshops where held with the Waitakere Ranges Local Board during January and February to discuss and agree the programme.

9.       The Glenesk Stream Remediation Project was reclassified by the Local Board as a high priority following the geotech engineers recommendation at the Local Board workshop held on 3 April 2014.

Maori Impact Statement

10.     Consultation will be undertaken with iwi on all projects identified to be within areas of value or significance to Maori or having known or historic interest. 

Implementation Issues

11.     There are no known implementation issues arising from this programme.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

LSPW Draft 2014/2015 Draft Capital Work Programme

53

     

Signatories

Author

Helen Biffin - Team Leader Parks Liaison and Development

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

 

Local Board

Park Name

Project Title

Suburb

Description of Works

Renewal or Development

 Deferrals

 2014/2015

 2015/2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 $        686,833

 $     1,975,892

 $       985,000

Waitakere Ranges

Ceramco Park

Bridge and footpath upgrade

Glen Eden

Armour footbridge footings and replace steps into park with all accessible footpath.

Both

 $                 -  

 $          65,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Piha Area

Dog Bylaw signage

Piha

Install dog bylaw signage

Both

 $                 -  

 $          22,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Waitakere Ranges Foothills Walkway

Waitakere Ranges Foothills Walkway

Various

Creation of walkway on council owned land in Waitakere Foothills

Development

 $        524,288

 $                 -  

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Waituna Stream/Landing Road/Little Muddy Creek Walkway

Waituna Stream/Landing Road/Little Muddy Walkway

Laingholm

Construction of new track network (Stage 1, 2, 3)

Development

 $                 -  

 $        204,800

 $       250,000

Waitakere Ranges

Piha Domain

Glenesk Road stream erosion

Piha

Erosion control of stream bank

Development

 $                 -  

 $        350,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Mahoe Walk, Paturoa Way, Titirangi War Memorial

Walkway/track upgrade

Titirangi

Construct boardwalks over Kauri roots

Development

 $                 -  

 $          20,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Armour Bay Reserve

Drainage on beach frontage

Parau

Install drainage on the beach reserve

Development

 $                 -  

 $          15,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Landing Road Walkway

Interpretational signage

Titirangi

Install interpretational signage on the walkway viewing platform

Development

 $                 -  

 $          10,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Les Waygood Park

Renewal of waste water system

Piha

Renewal of waste water system

Renewal

 $          79,967

 $          14,433

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Parrs Park

Sports field renewal

Glen Eden

Renewal of no 2 sand field

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $        204,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Harold Moody Reserve

Toilet/changing room renewal

Glen Eden

Renewal of existing toilet and changing room

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $        150,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Laingholm Scenic Reserve

Walkway/track renewal

Laingholm

Renewal of walkway/track throughout reserve

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          85,600

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Les Waygood Park

Relocation of existing playground

Piha

Relocation of existing playground

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          15,960

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Armour Bay Reserve

Renewal of driveway and carparks areas

Parau

Renewal of driveway and carparks. Management of stormwater.

Renewal

 $          20,325

 $          70,000

 $         70,000

Waitakere Ranges

Various Sites

Furniture and fixtures renewals

Various

Renewal of fixtures and furniture as required

Renewal

 $          62,253

 $          29,567

 $         75,000

Waitakere Ranges

Rahui Kahika Reserve

Walkway/track upgrade

Titirangi

Renewal of existing track, associated drainage and veg work

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          60,000

 $         50,000

Waitakere Ranges

Ceramco Park

Irrigation renewal

Glen Eden

Irrigation requires renewal in sports field

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          40,000

 

Waitakere Ranges

Harold Moody Reserve

Upgrade of public court facilities

Glen Eden

Resurface courts, install tennis nets and renew fences

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          50,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Harold Moody Reserve

Park refurbishment

Glen Eden

Renewal of signage, footpaths, park furniture, retaining walls

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          50,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Various Sites

Structure renewals

Various

Structure renewals required following completion of auditing

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          25,000

 

Waitakere Ranges

Huia Domain

Seawall upgrade

Huia

Seawall upgrade

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          45,000

 $       200,000

Waitakere Ranges

Huia Domain

Carpark renewal

Huia

Renew carparks x 2

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          40,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Warner Park

Walkway/track renewal

Laingholm

Track renewal - Metal, edging, stairs, some drainage, foliage clearance

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          40,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Various Sites

Playground renewals

Various

Renewal of playground components as required

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          25,000

 

Waitakere Ranges

Various Sites

Signage renewal

Glen Eden

Renewal of park ID signage

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          35,000

 

Waitakere Ranges

Armour Bay Reserve

Toilet/changing room renewal

Parau

Renewal of exsisting toilet/changing block

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          30,720

 $         90,000

Waitakere Ranges

Various Sites

Toilet/changing room renewal

Various

Toilet/changing room renewals

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          22,132

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Laingholm Scenic Reserve

Park refurbishment

Laingholm

Renewal of park furniture

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          30,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

French Bay Esplanade

Toilet/changing room renewal

Titirangi

Renewal of toilet block

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          30,000

 $       150,000

Waitakere Ranges

Various Sites

Carpark renewals

Various

Renewal of carparks as required

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          25,000

 

Waitakere Ranges

Withers Reserve

Playground renewal

Glen Eden

Renewal of existing playground

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          20,480

 $       100,000

Waitakere Ranges

Huia Domain

Renewal of skate ramp

Huia

Renewal of skate ramp

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          20,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Huia Domain

Park refurbishment

Huia

Upgrade of park furniture, barriers, footpaths

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          15,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Various Sites

Stormwater management

Various

Upgrade of stormwater systems

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          10,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Les Waygood Park

Roof replace to abultion block

Piha

Replace roof on women's abultion block in Les Waygood campground

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          30,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Foster Hill Lane

Carpark renewal

Huia

Carpark - Access Only. Used By Private Properties, At Row Between 2 & 4 Foster Ave.

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          10,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Various Sites

Walkway/track upgrade

Various

Renewal of walkway/tracks as required

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          20,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Various Sites

Fencing Contribution to Joint Boundary

Various

New Dev - Joint Boundary Fencing contribution

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          10,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Singer Park

Upgrade of sportsfield lighting

Glen Eden

Upgrade of sports field lighting

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $            7,200

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Bethells Beach

Dog Bylaw signage

Bethells

Install dog bylaw signage

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $            4,000

 $               -  

Waitakere Ranges

Piha Domain

Renewal of water supply

Piha

Replacement of multiple components in the water supply system

Renewal

 $                 -  

 $          25,000

 $               -  

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

Auckland Transport Update Report – Waitakere Ranges Local Board

 

File No.: CP2014/08424

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of the report is to respond to Local Board requests on transport-related matters and to provide information to Elected Members about Auckland Transport’s activities in the Board area.

 

Recommendation

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Receives Auckland Transport update report.

 

Comments

Monthly Overview and Implementation Issues Update

 

INFORMATION REPORTS

 

THANKS AUCKLAND - YOU’RE ONE IN 11 MILLION

2.       Aucklanders are getting on board with trains in record numbers – making a record 11 million trips in the past year.

3.       This milestone comes just weeks before Auckland’s new electric trains are introduced and is the highest number of passengers ever on the current rail network.

4.       Auckland Transport Chairman Dr Lester Levy says Aucklanders are using public transport more than ever as improvements to services make it a more attractive option. “We are now seeing 5,000 additional passenger journeys each business day compared to a year ago. People are responding to initial improvements such as integrated ticketing, better on-time performance and improved facilities like the new transport hub at Panmure and there’s a lot more to come.”

5.       When Britomart Transport Centre opened in 2003, just 2.5 million trips were made on trains.

6.       Auckland Mayor Len Brown says the milestone is very welcome.

7.       "One thing is certain with regard to public transport in Auckland. If you build it people will use it. I am confident that now integrated ticketing is in place and as our new electric trains go into service; this won't be the last patronage record we will break.

8.       The implementation of the New Network and the City Rail Link will also boost numbers."

9.       Transdev operates the trains for Auckland Transport. It says it is pleased to see that its major focus on performance over the past 12 months is translating to improved patronage.

10.     Transdev Managing Director Terry Scott says “We are working hard with our partners at Auckland Transport and KiwiRail to improve network performance and we are striving every day to achieve excellence in the customer experience.”

11.     Dr Levy says “the upward trend in numbers is pleasing given that during the past year rail services have been regularly disrupted due to electrification works on the network. “We are making strides with an ageing fleet of diesel trains which are now 60 years old, just imagine what we will do with new trains.”

 

 

AT PARKING STRATEGY WORKSHOP

12.     Parking impacts on every Aucklander in one way or another, every single day, whether it is parking outside your house, dodging a car parked on a traffic lane on the way home, or trying to find a parking space in the city or a town centre.  As our city grows and develops, there are a number of parking issues – small, medium and large – facing the region which need solutions now.  

13.     Auckland Transport has developed a set of principles to serve as the basis of a parking strategy, and will be discussed this with Elected Members in early/mid-May, prior to engaging with the wider public across the region in early June. Auckland Transport wants to find the best solutions and outcomes for the city, together.

14.     The two key drivers for this can be found in the transformational shifts outlined in Council’s Auckland Plan. Both these drivers potentially have significant impacts on how and where Auckland Transport provides parking:

·    A move to outstanding public transport within one network;

·    To radically improve the quality of urban living

15.     To support the economic development of the Auckland city centre and its metropolitan and town centres while implementing these transformational shifts, Auckland Transport needs to

·    Give priority to the safe and efficient movement of people, services and goods on the road network

·    Provide an outstanding customer experience at AT-operated on- and off-street parking facilities

·    Support place-making, amenity and good urban design outcomes

·    Ensure a fiscally responsible approach to providing, managing and pricing parking facilities, and to ensure that benefits cover costs

·    Prioritise the management of kerbside parking space in recognition of the importance of the public interest

16.     Once again, Auckland Transport is using the “cluster workshop” model to engage with as many Elected Members as possible, both Councillors and Local Board Members. There are three workshops across the region, and while Auckland Transport have envisaged regional groupings, Elected Members should feel free to attend any session if it suits them better.

17.     Supporting materials in preparation for these workshops will be e-mailed to Elected Members between now and the time of the workshops, so that they can start to think through some of the key issues in advance.

18.     It was really pleasing to see a good number of Elected Members attend the recent workshops on the RLTP and engage with Auckland Transport in a way that included some serious “blue sky” thinking about future priorities in the transport realm. Auckland Transport is looking forward to an equivalent level of engagement on parking.

 

AUCKLAND TRANSPORT’S LOCAL BOARD ENGAGEMENT PLAN

19.     Attached to the information report is a draft revision of Auckland Transport’s Local Board Engagement Plan. Some Elected Members may recall that Auckland Transport produced the current version in 2011. This version of the engagement plan is similar in philosophy to the 2011 plan, but has been reworked.  There are three new Annexes, though, which need some explanation:

·       Annex 1 is the current work programme for your Local Board area – this was distributed shortly before the end of the last term, and Auckland Transport plan to revise and distribute it again early in the new financial year (probably around August) to reflect the budget decisions taken in June. This will give advance warning of the projects on which some level of engagement will be likely.

 

·       Annex 2 is the current listing of advocacy issues for the Local Board, on which AT reports via our Quarterly Reports to Local Boards. It’s included as a reminder of the Board’s aspirations against which Auckland Transport are regularly reporting.

 

·       Annex 3 is a listing of all the kinds of projects that Auckland Transport might want to undertake in a typical Local Board area, with detailed guidelines as to how and with whom Auckland Transport might engage on each. Auckland Transport is aware that not all Local Board’s operate in the same way, and that communities’ expectations of them and AT in terms of engagement also vary widely across the region. Rather than imposing a “one-size-fits-all” approach, Auckland Transport is open to Local Boards and community organisations suggesting for any of these project types how they would like to be engaged with.

 

20.     Auckland Transport is therefore especially interested in the Board’s comments on Annex 3, as it may apply to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area. Specifically, for each of the categories of project listed:

21.     Is Auckland Transport proposing to deal with the “right” people for this project class? For example, is Auckland Transport proposing to liaise with the TPL in a situation where the whole Board wants visibility over the issue? Or, conversely, is Auckland Transport proposing to bring a project to the whole Board, when the TPL has been delegated by the Board to act on its behalf?

22.     Is Auckland Transport proposing to “consult” the Board on a matter that it only requires to be “informed” about? Or vice versa?

23.     Are there “notes” which should be added to clarify any aspect of Auckland Transport proposed engagement on a project? Broadly, Annex 3 as presented reflects the “status quo” for how AT operates in most Local Board areas.

24.    If, however, a local board has a particular interest in a class of project, then it may be possible to “beef up” Auckland Transport’s engagement on this to meet the Board’s aspirations. Likewise, if a Board has little interest in engaging over a class of project, then AT doesn’t want to waste resources by engaging unnecessarily.

25.     Proposed engagement on projects with community organisations is also outlined in this Annex. Auckland Transport understands that some Local Boards are happy to be the conduit for feedback from community organisations within their areas, but knows that other Local Boards are unwilling to take on this role. It would be useful for each local board to clarify how it sees this engagement occurring in the case of its own local board area. To ensure that community engagement is undertaken consistently, whether the responsibility lies with the Local Board or Auckland Transport, it needs to be clearly identified which community organisations have an interest in which suburbs within your Local Board area. Auckland Transport purposes that the organisations should “self-nominate” the suburbs that they have an interest in rather than this being prescribed by others.

26.     Auckland Transport is willing to consider all feedback in good faith, and to make adjustments to their processes where AT can reasonably do so. Ultimately, however, it will remain Auckland Transport’s decision as to the level of engagement that it can commit to, not least if the staff requirements or costs of the engagement proposed are out of proportion to the scale of the project.

27.     Notwithstanding these are strictly guidelines and that there may be reasons for any given project why Auckland Transport decides to deviate from them. In these circumstances, Auckland Transport would, however, advise the Local Board of the reasons for our decision, and be open to further discussion if the Local Board felt that its approach was unreasonable.

28.     Local Board your feedback is welcomed on the the body of the Engagement Plan and on Annex 3.

 

RESPONSES AND PROGRESS REPORTS  

 

WOODLANDS PARK ROAD - NSAAT LINES

29.     Auckland Transport has received a request from a resident to improve road safety at the two bends on Woodlands Park Road. One bend is close to the intersection of Woodlands Park Road and Rimutaka Place; the other bend is close to the intersection of Woodlands Park Road and Boylan Road.

30.     This section of road is classified as a Local Road and is situated between Boylan Road and Rimutaka Place in the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area. This road is in a predominantly residential area.

31.     To install NSAAT lines at these two bends as per attached drawing is the preferred option would address the limited visibility issue at these two bends, help reduce the risk of potential head-on crashes, and improve road safety at these two bends.

32.       14 consultation letters have been sent to the affected residents, property owners, on Woodlands Park Road, Boylan Road and Grovelands Way in December 2013. Consultation with the affected residents and property owners on Woodlands Park Road, Boylan Road and Grovelands Way has been completed.

33.     The following responses were received:

·    One supported the proposal, but would like Auckland Transport to extend the NSAAT lines on Boylan Drive to the existing pram crossing to allow his wheel truck and trailer to reverse out of No.3 Boylan Road.

·    One with no  comments

34.     From the vehicle tracking for No.3 Bolyan Road, it is confirmed that vehicles can access No.3 Bolyan Road with the proposal.

Local Board Response

35.     Auckland Transport hasn’t received any comments from the Local Board on this proposal.

 

MINOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENT WORKS - SEALING OF EXISTING METAL LAYBYS ALONG PIHA ROAD

36.     Auckland Transport is committed to improving road safety and reducing the number of people killed or injured on the road network. Piha Road has been identified as one of medium- to high-risk, with a number of crashes occurring along the route over the past five years.

37.     Loose gravel on the side of the road is a serious safety hazard for drivers, particularly along high speed rural roads. The proposal is to seal the existing metal laybys and two car park entrances along Piha Road to prevent stray metal migrating to the road surface and causing potential loss of control type crashes.  The areas proposed for sealing are detailed in the enclosed layout plans.

Local Board Response

38.     Auckland Transport hasn’t received any comments from the Local Board on this proposal.

 

MINOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENT WORKS - PIHA ROAD (BETWEEN KAREKARE ROAD TO TE AHUAHU ROAD)

39.     Auckland Transport wants to provide a safe passage within the road shoulder for pedestrians / hikers on the southern side of Piha Road between Karekare Road and Te Ahuahu Road.

40.     Vegetation (mainly weeds and gorse) has become overgrown along the road shoulder and the water table currently force walkers to walk on the live lane or close to the live lane. The proposal is to clear the overgrown vegetation along and over the road shoulder to provide a safe passage and reinstate a 1m wide metal shoulder from the existing white edge line to avoid weeds growing along the road shoulder.

41.     As part of the proposal, an arborist will be present on site to manage the vegetation clearance / maintenance and to address any potential issues, as well as to ensure that the proposed work is undertaken in accordance with the Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy and the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Act.

 

Local Board Response

42.     Auckland Transport hasn’t received any comments from the Local Board on this proposal.

 

GLENVIEW ROAD, GLEN EDEN CAR ADVERTISING

43.     The local residents on Glenview Road are concerned about the number of cars being parked on Glenview Road over the weekend being advertised for sale and the same people are conducting the sales. Auckland Transport was requested to look at parking restrictions or investigate other options that can be taken to reduce this concern.

Response

44.     Auckland Transport is investigating this matter and will report back the outcome of the investigation in due course.

 

HUIA ROAD – PEDESTRIAN AND DRIVER SAFETY

45.     Residents of Huia request Auckland Transport to urgently look at driver safety on Huia Road and address the issues of cars losing control.

Response

46.     Auckland Transport acknowledges and understands the concerns for safety in light of incidents along Huia Road.  Auckland Transport is now looking to improve the shape of the road outside number 260 Huia Road.

47.     Existing signage and roadmarking has been reviewed and Auckland Transport can confirm that no additional changes to the signage and roadmarking are being proposed at this stage.  However, it has been identified that some changes are required on the pavement.  As part of this work a high skid resistance surfacing material will be used to provide skid resistance.  The improvement of the road shape, coupled with the higher skid resistance surfacing, should be able to address the loss of control type crashes.  The improvement work at this site is due for implementation before June 2014.

 

HUIA ROAD – REDUCE THE SPEED LIMIT

48.     A request from residents of Huia Road for Auckland Transport to consider reducing the speed limited on Huia Road.

 

RESPONSE

49.     The speed limit on Huia Road was reviewed for a 50 km/h speed limit zone as per the request. The speed limit has been reviewed in accordance with the criteria prescribed under the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003. This is a central government regulation which seeks to achieve a consistent approach to speed limit setting across the entire country. While the speed limit rule does consider a large number of factors the outcome is largely driven by the level of road side development. Consequently the rule results in a speed limit of 70 km/h in the section which the customer is concerned with.

50.     However, as part of Auckland Transport’s safety improvement investigation, it is looking to improve the shape of the road outside number 184 Huia Road. As part of this work, a high skid resistance surfacing material will also be used to provide skid resistance. The improvement of the road shape coupled with the higher skid resistance surfacing should be able to address the loss of control type crashes.

51.     The improvement work at this site is due for implementation before June 2014.

 

LANDING ROAD FOOTPATH REQUEST

52.     A request ws received from a resident in Landing Road for a footpath as with the recent installation of the Grendon Road walkway foot traffic has increased and there are now 46 properties on Landing Road. Auckland Transport was requested to prioritise this footpath.

 

RESPONSE

53.     Auckland Transport is investigating this matter and will report back the outcome of the investigation in due course.

 

MATAMA ROAD, NANDANA DRIVE AND TAGOR STREET – SPEED CONCERNS

54.     The Local Board request Auckland Transport to investigate the speed concerns on Matama Road, Nandana Drive and Tagor Street.

RESPONSE

55.     Auckland Transport has undertaken an assessment of this area.  In particular Auckland Transport has considered the following factors: reported crashes in the street, traffic speed, traffic volume, numbers of large vehicles using the street, the topography of the street, the length of the street, and the road status i.e. Local Road, Collector Road or Arterial Road. 

56.     In order to assess requests of this type in a consistent manner, Auckland Transport investigate all requests against a set of policy guidelines for Local Area Traffic Management (LATM). This makes it possible to determine the roads with the most significant safety problems and that therefore need to receive a higher priority, given that there are limited funds for these types of projects. 

57.     In investigating the concerns about Matama Road, Nandana Drive and Tagor Street Auckland Transport has found that there have been no reported crashes relating to speed at this location in the past five years. Auckland Transport is unable to analyse the causes and contributing factors behind crashes that have not been reported. Overall, the crash record for Matama Road, Nandana Drive and Tagor Street does not suggest there is a significant issue with excessive speeds on these roads. A recent speed survey on Nandana Drive also showed that the vast majority of drivers are actually driving well within the speed limit.

58.     Whilst speeding does not seem to be a significant issue Auckland Transport does acknowledge that it would be preferable to keep through traffic volumes to a minimum through these residential streets. However, AT currently operates two bus routes along these roads and do not want to introduce any measures that would compromise the quality of these services.

59.     Auckland Transport has been unable to identify any treatment that would help to discourage through traffic that would not compromise the integrity of the bus route. Given the good safety record and the lack of available options no changes can be made at this present time.

 

ISSUES PENDING

Subject Name

Description

Date Requested

Request Due Date

Swanson Park And Ride

Auckland Transport will not be commencing construction until around August/September 2014, subject to weather permitting. The completion date for the car park is the end of 2014 with the main station enhancements to be completed in the 1st quarter of 2015.

 

 

 

ISSUES COMPLETED

Subject Name

Decision Description

Date Requested

Completion date

Request For Footpath To Be Extended From Henderson Valley Road (Carey Park End) To Grassmere Road

Auckland Transport can advise that its 13/14 programme for new footpath requests has been finalised. All new requests will be reviewed and this location will be considered for the 14/15 programme.   As the Local Board is aware, whether this scheme goes ahead depends upon how it scores against other requests.

November 2013

March 2014

Seaview Road – Speed Calming And Footpath Request

Auckland Transport has noted that some of the reflective raised pavement markers and edge marker posts are missing from this bend which will be rectified. This will improve visibility of the bend and will help to reduce the risk of drivers losing control on the bend. The concerns regarding speeding will be brought to the attention of the Police and they will be requested to undertake some speed enforcement in the area.  A number of issues need to be resolved before there is an extension to the footpath on Seaview Road. The footpath construction programme for 2013/14 has already been approved, but consideration can be given to assessing this request as part of the 2014/15 programme. Prioritisation of requests will be undertaken this year and will include a review of Seaview Road. The next step would then include discussions with the community groups and the Local Board to assess support for the project going forward.

November 2013

March 2014

Proposed Speed Limit Change – Candia Road

Auckland Transport is proposing to change the speed limit at Candia Road, Ranui.  The proposal, the extent of which is shown on the attached plan, is to extend the 50 km/hr speed limited from Swanson Road and the eastern part of Pooks Road to encompass the entirety of North Candia Road and the part of Candia Road north of Coulter Road.  The change will also include Burtons Drive and a short section of Pools Road through the roundabout at the intersection with Candia Road.  Both the Waitakere Ranges and Henderson/Massey Local Boards were happy with what was being proposed.

September 2013

February 2014

Scenic Drive / Konini Road - Safety Improvement

Given the positive feedback received, a decision has been made to proceed with the implementation of road safety improvements at this intersection. The safety improvement work will proceed with changes involving the relocation of the western red coloured “SLOW” pad further west of the Tawini Road / Scenic Drive Intersection to encourage slower speed through both Tawini Road and Konini Road intersections. The vegetation maintenance work is expected to commence which, will include removal of weeds to improve the sightlines for vehicles existing out of this intersection.

August 2013

March 2014

Carter Road – Speed Limit Reduction Request

The rule results in a speed limit of 70 km/h being applied to areas of large lot rural-residential developments such as Carter Road and the surrounding roads. However drivers using the road network are required to drive to the conditions present on a road at the time. Auckland Transport will not be making any changes at this time.

August 2013

March 2014

Brashier Circle - 26-30 - Shared Zone (Home Zone)  

The Local Board is happy with what was being proposed in regards to the Shared Zone (Home Zone) consent application.

February 2014

March 2014

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Woodlands Park Road - NSAAT Lines

63

     

Signatories

Author

Owena Schuster, Elected Member Relationship Manager (West), Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Roger Wilson, Council Engagement Manager

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 










Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

Local Board Transport Capital Fund – Overview of Total Programme for the Current Local Boards

 

File No.: CP2014/05892

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is advise all twenty-one Local Boards of the current status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund Programme, in particular the need to identify new project proposals that will enable the total budget that needs to be spent in the electoral term of the current Local Boards to be spent by the end of June 2016.

 

Recommendation

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Identifies new project proposals for the Local Board Transport Capital Fund programme by 31 August 2014 so that subsequent initial assessment, detailed design including consultation and statutory approvals, and construction can be completed by 30 June 2016.

 

Discussion

Background

2.    The total annual budget for the Local Board Transport Capital Fund is $10M. This was assigned to the twenty-one Local Boards based on population, except for the Waiheke and Great Barrier Local Boards who received nominated sums.

3.    The programme commenced in September 2012 following resolution of the use of the fund by the Auckland Council Strategy and Planning Committee in August 2012.

Budget Considerations

4.    One of the requirements of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund is that the budgets must be spent within the same electoral term. Budgets can be moved from year to year within the electoral term, subject to Auckland Transport having the ability to manage the cash flow, but carry forwards to subsequent political terms are not allowed.

5.    The total amount spent on Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects in the 2012-13 financial year was $1.3M. This was due to the late start of the programme in that year so Auckland Council was asked to relax the “no carry forward” rule in this inaugural year of the programme. This one-off carry forward of the unspent balance of $8.7M was subsequently approved.

6.    Therefore the total budget that must be spent on Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects in the current political term is as follows:

·           The carry forward from 2012-13 = $8.7M

·           The 2013-14 Budget = $10M

·           The 2014-15 Budget = $10M

·           The 2015-16 Budget = $10M

This is a total of $38.7M


7.    In order to fully spend this amount by 30 June 2016 the following spending profile will be required.

·   2013-14 Forecast =   $8.6M (actual current forecast)

·   2014-15 Forecast = $10.1M (latest forecast)

·   2015-16 Forecast = $20.0M (latest forecast)

8.    The 2013-14 figure is the currently expected end of year result for 2013-14. The end of the 2013-14 financial year is the end of the second year of the four year Local Board Transport Capital Fund programme that needs to be completed by 30 June 2016, and only $9.9M of the $40M will be spent. i.e. only 25% spent in half the available time.

9.    Conversely, the required spend in the last two years (2014-15 and 2015-16) is $30.1M, being a threefold increase in the spend compared to the first two years. At the current rate of spending this $30.1M target will not be achieved.

10.  In addition, the current Local Boards are allowed to spend some or all of the 2016-17 Local Board Transport Capital Fund budget as their elected term finishes three months into this financial year on approximately 30 Sept 2016. This means there is an additional $10M available that could also be spent.

Value of Projects

11.  Of the 228 proposals submitted to date 64 are not proceeding (not meeting criteria, funded elsewhere, deferred to future years, or not chosen by Local Boards). The total value of the remaining 164 projects that range from being in the initial assessment phase to having the construction fully complete is $14.9M.

12.  Assuming that all of these projects are completed they represent only 37% of the total Local Board Transport Capital Fund programme that needs to be delivered in the current electoral term.

13.  Conversely an additional $25.1M worth of projects need to be identified in order to deliver the programme by 30 June 2016.

Forward Planning to Ensure Programme Delivery

14.  Additional project proposals need to be identified urgently by ALL Local Boards in order for the programme to be delivered on time.

15.  As the spending of the budget is heavily weighted towards the 2015-16 financial year and to a lesser extent the 2014-15 financial year, the issue of Auckland Transport being able to manage the work in those years and the contracting industry being able to carry out the large volume of work become factors in the overall delivery of the programme.

16.  Accordingly construction approval will be required for all projects in the programme by 30 May 2015 at the latest so that the last of the physical works construction of the works (in fact half of the whole programme) can be spread out over the entire 2015-16 financial year. Many of these approvals will be required much earlier in order to deliver $10M of work in the 2014-15 year.

17.  In order to achieve the 30 May 2015 construction approval date, detailed design approval will need to be provided for all projects no later than 30 November 2014 in order to allow six months for detailed design including consultation and statutory approvals to be completed so that construction approval can be provided on time.  As with the construction approvals, much of this detailed design has to happen much sooner in order to deliver the 2014-15 programme.

18.  Accordingly the identification of new projects by Local Boards to the total value of at least $25.1M needs to happen by 31 August 2014 at the latest in order for them to be assessed and project scopes and rough orders of cost provided back to the Local Boards for their consideration for detailed design approval.  Ideally more projects need to be identified in case some don’t meet the necessary criteria.

19.  As the four year programme budgets for each Local Board can be considered as a single budget there is opportunity for Local Boards to consider larger projects that can be funded over more than one year, or that are funded jointly between more than one Local Board. A fewer number of larger projects will be easier to manage and will make delivery of the programme much easier.

20.  If the above programme timing is not met Auckland Transport cannot guarantee that the Local Board Transport Capital Fund programme will be able to be fully delivered in the current electoral term.

Project Management Process

21.  The time required for managing the various stages of a project can vary significantly depending on the nature and size of the project.

22.  Initial assessments of project proposals including the development of Rough Orders of Cost can be relatively quick in the case of simple projects such as new footpaths or the installation of new bus shelters where the work is straight forward and is carried out on a regular basis under other Auckland Transport work streams. In these cases typical costs are known and a turn-around of a few weeks can be achieved.

23.  However other one-off projects that may have safety implications that require the gathering of data (site specific surveys, and information such as traffic counts) to determine whether or not the project meets traffic warrants, standards or regulatory requirements, or projects that require initial community input can take up to three months to assess.

24.  Detailed design and the development of Firm Estimates of Cost can also vary significantly in terms of the overall time required. Some simple projects require very little design and can take a matter of a few weeks.

25.  Other more complex projects require time to gather detailed site information, to carry out consultation with stakeholders, to carry out design including inputs from specialists, to apply for resource consents, and to obtain regulatory approvals such as traffic resolutions or speed limit changes. These projects can take more than six months to design.

26.  Construction timeframes can vary significantly depending on the size of the project. Lead time to supply specialist materials for construction, often from overseas, can delay projects. Timing of works to avoid the wetter winter months can also impact on when tenders are let. Delaying of weather sensitive works to construct them at the right time of the year can impact on the overall timing of project delivery.

27.  In addition, spreading out the delivery of the construction of works over the whole year can provide a more even workload to the contractors which can result in more favourable overall costs to AT and the Local Boards.

28.  All of the above highlights that the timing of the various stages of projects can vary significantly. Straight forward projects can be delivered in a single year; whereas it is not possible to deliver more complex projects within a single year. Many of the Local Board projects fall into this second category.

Auckland Transport Programme Management Process

29.  A review of the internal Auckland Transport processes has highlighted a number of improvements that will be made in order to assist with the delivery of this programme of work.

30.  Timing of responses back to the Local Boards on initial assessments and on the completion of detailed designs will be monitored more closely to ensure there is no slippage in these approval processes.

31.  Rough Orders of Cost and Firm Estimates of Cost will be provided in ranges of price rather than a single dollar figure because of the uncertainty of providing exact figures in the early stages of projects. Rough Orders of Cost carried out at the start of the project can vary by up to 30%, whereas Firm Estimates of Cost carried out in the detailed design phase can vary by 15%.

32.  There are examples where previous estimates that have been provided have been too low and additional approvals have been required from the Local Boards. This has caused problems with the Local Board expectation of project costs. More care will be taken in future to provide accurate estimates.

33.  It should be remembered that these figures are still estimates and the true cost of the work will only be known when the construction is complete. The reason for this is that there are many factors that can affect the final cost of a project compared to the Firm Estimate of Cost. Three of these are the tendered price from the contractor, unforeseen ground conditions, and relocation/protection of underground services. Every endeavour will be made to keep project costs within the approved budgets.

Consequences of not Delivering the full Programme

34.  Auckland Transport CAPEX underspend including from within the Local Board Transport Capital Fund remains under sustained scrutiny by Auckland Council.

35.  Auckland Transport is accountable for the current underspend on this significant budget allocation, and reports every quarter to Auckland Council on the accuracy of its CAPEX spend forecasts.

36.  It is important that this fund is fully spent each year to ensure that neither its amount nor its process are put at risk when consistently reporting underspends to Council.

Summary of the Budgets and Project Values by Local Board

 

Local Board

Total Budget 2012-13 to 2015-16

(four years)

Total Value of all Approved Projects and Proposals Being Assessed

Value of New Projects Still to be Identified

Albert Eden

$2,659,732

$1,302,567

$1,357,165

Devonport Takapuna

$1,540,120

$1,104,960

$435,160

Franklin

$1,739,864

$946,555

$793,309

Great Barrier

$400,000

$278,476

$121,524

Henderson Massey

$2,993,512

$1,012,988

$1,980,524

Hibiscus and Bays

$2,399,540

$763,330

$1,636,210

Howick

$3,487,612

$1,147,000

$2,340,612

Kaipatiki

$2,318,064

$1,244,711

$1,073,353

Mangere Otahuhu

$2,071,016

$609,364

$1,461,652

Manurewa

$2,373,256

$472,116

$1,901,140

Maungakiekie Tamaki

$1,979,028

$800,000

$1,179,028

Orakei

$2,199,796

$852,633

$1,347,163

Otara Papatoetoe

$2,197,168

$1,098,584

$1,098,584

Papakura

$1,224,736

$904,747

$319,989

Puketapapa

$1,526,468

$373,000

$1,143,468

Rodney

$1,477,044

$733,000

$744,044

Upper Harbour

$1,348,264

$674,132

$674,132

Waiheke

$800,000

$211,943

$588,057

Waitakere Ranges

$1,324,608

$140,000

$1,184,608

Waitemata

$1,879,156

$192,470

$1,686,686

Whau

$2,071,016

$0

$2,071,016

TOTALS

$40,000,000

$14,862,576

$25,137,424

 

37.  It should be noted that the possible spend of the 2016-17 budget is not included in the above figures.

Suggestions of Projects to be funded from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund

38.  Attached is the Pick List of the types of projects that could be funded from the LBTCF programme that has previously been circulated to Local Boards for their information. This list will assist Local Boards to identify potential projects in their areas.

Consideration

Local Board Views

39.   This report is for the Local Board’s action.

Maori Impact Statement

40.   No specific issues with regard to the Maori Impact Statement are triggered by this report.

General

41.    The activities detailed in this report do not trigger the Significance Policy, all programmes and activities are within budget/in line with the Council’s Annual Plan and LTP documents and there are no legal or legislative implications arising from the activities detailed in this report.

Implementation Issues

42.    There are no implementation issues.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Projects that could be considered by Local Boards

79

bView

Financial Updates for the individual Local Boards

85

     

Signatories

Author

Phil Donnelly, Team Leader East, Road Design and Development, Capital Development Division, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Andrew Scoggins, Group Manager Road Design and Development, Capital Development Division, Auckland Transport

Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 






Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

Waitakere Quarry - use of the land following Quarry closure

 

File No.: CP2014/07931

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To provide information that will assist the Waitakere Ranges Local Board in determining the most appropriate end use of the quarry site, once the quarry operation has ceased.

Executive summary

2.       The Waitakere Quarry is owned by the Auckland Council.  The aggregate resource within the area of the quarry land allocated for quarry operations is now projected to run out several years earlier than anticipated, by March 2015.  A decision on the use to be made of the quarry following closure has therefore been brought forward. 

3.       The quarry contractor has proposed an extension of quarry operations into the adjacent quarry reserve land, which if approved, would extend the life of the quarry by around 10 years.  This is the subject of a separate report, which seeks a recommendation from the Local Board to the Parks, Recreation and Sports Committee.  Even if an extended quarry life is approved, an early decision on the use to be made of the land following quarry closure would be advantageous, as it would allow the necessary detailed planning to be undertaken, and a start to be made by the contractor on re-contouring works and vegetation planting in parallel with the quarry operation.

4.       Since the early 1990s, the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) (the operative District Plan) has included a Concept Plan providing for re-vegetation of the quarry footprint with native species and a water/wetland feature following quarry closure.

5.       A number of other suggestions for use of the quarry area have been put forward, including construction of walking paths and viewing points, use as a filming set, use for rock-climbing, use as a native plant nursery for Local Parks revegetation projects, and construction of a Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Education Centre.

6.       It is recommended that the Waitakere Quarry area be rehabilitated generally in accordance with the Concept Plan in the operative District Plan.  It is also recommended that the Concept Plan be further developed by exploring possible additional uses through limited public consultation.  Any additional uses should be low-key, small-scale and appropriate to the location of the quarry site within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area.  It is proposed that the results of the consultation and the possible additional uses be brought back to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board.

 

Recommendations

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Directs that the Waitakere Quarry area be rehabilitated generally in accordance with the Waitakere Quarry Special Area ‘Reinstatement and Landscaping’ Concept Plan as outlined in Rule 13 of Appendix A of the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section).

b)      Directs that the Concept Plan be further developed by exploring possible additional uses through limited public consultation.

c)      Requests the Community Policy and Planning team to undertake the consultation as promptly as possible.

d)      Directs that any possible future uses identified for the Waitakere Quarry site be low-key, small-scale and appropriate to the location of the quarry site on a scenic route within a bushed area of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area.

e)      Directs that the results of the consultation and the proposed additional uses be brought to a workshop of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board.

f)       Directs ACPL to request Perry Resources (2008) Limited to provide detailed maps and information showing the existing contours, location of overburden and topsoil stockpiles, planting locations, a species list for the plantings undertaken and a report on progress of the plantings, to assist with development of the detailed quarry landscape and revegetation plans.

 

Discussion

Background

7.       The Waitakere Quarry is located along Te Henga Road at the northern end of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area approximately 15 kilometres from Henderson.  The quarry is in a stream valley which runs from the south-east to the north-west, draining to the Waitupu Stream, the Waitakere River and the Te Henga Wetland. 

8.       The land is located within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area, established by the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act (2008).  This recognizes the national significance of the Waitakere Ranges and promotes the protection and enhancement of its heritage features, including natural scenic beauty, landscape qualities, indigenous ecosystems and fauna habitat. 

9.       The map (Attachment A),shows that the Auckland Council owns a total area of approximately 86.5 hectares at the Waitakere Quarry, made up of five major land parcels and eleven small parcels.  The major land purchases were made by Waitemata County in 1916 and 1918, with further land purchases in 1959. The Waitakere Quarry was established in the 1950s and has operated on the site for over 60 years.

10.     Of the 86.5 hectares of quarry land, active quarrying operations are provided for in only around 20.3 hectares at Lot 1 DP 193044 and Pt Lots 26 and 27, Lots 28 and 29 and Part Lot 32 DP40739 (the quarry footprint).  The quarry footprint is zoned ‘Quarry Special Area’ under the operative District Plan.  A ‘Special Purpose – Quarry Zone’ is applied under the proposed Unitary Plan.

11.     Outside the quarry footprint, the remainder of the quarry land (the quarry buffer land) is covered in native bush, and (apart from Lot 1 DP 31841 in the south and some of the small lots to the south-east) is zoned ‘open space’ in both the operative District Plan and the Unitary Plan. 

12.     The extraction of rock resources from the quarry footprint has been contracted to Perry Resources since 2006, with the most recent Licence to Operate granted in 2009 to Perry Resources (2008) Limited (Perry Resources).

13.     Auckland Council Properties Limited (ACPL) reported in their six monthly update to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board on 25 September 2013 that the quarry aggregate resource in the quarry footprint, which was expected to last until 2017, is now projected to be exhausted by March 2015.  Perry Resources has identified an area for a potential quarry extension.  The question of whether the quarry will close in 2015, or alternatively be expanded, thus extending the life of the quarry by an estimated 10 years, is the subject of a separate report seeking a recommendation from the Local Board to the Parks, Recreation and Sports Committee.

14.     The possible closure of the quarry next year means that a decision now needs to be made within a reduced timeframe on the use to be made of the land following the quarry closure.  Even if an expansion of the quarry is approved, an early decision on the use to be made of the quarry footprint land following quarry closure would be beneficial, to allow the necessary detailed planning to be undertaken and an early start to be made by the contractor on re-contouring works and establishment of a vegetation canopy, in parallel with the quarry operation.

15.     A Quarry Management Plan has been part of the operative District Plan since the 1990s (Appendix A, Rule 13, Auckland District Plan, Waitakere Section).  This Plan includes a ‘Reinstatement and Landscaping’ Concept Plan (Diagram QB) which specifies re-vegetation with native species and pond features (Attachment B). 

16.     Rules 13.5(a) and (c), 13.8(c), 13.12 and 13.14, of Appendix A (Quarry Management Plan) of the operative District Plan, as well as Section 3 of the Proposed Mining Plan appended to Contract QY09002A ‘Licence to Operate the Waitakere City Quarry’ envisage a quarrying sequence which would see the overburden stripped from the next section to be quarried, and used for backfilling of the previously quarried area.  This area would then be contoured, top-soiled and hydro seeded with a non-invasive grass species and with a selection of native plants similar to the surrounding landscape planted amongst the groundcover, to facilitate native vegetation regeneration, in accordance with the Concept Plan.  This operation would be undertaken progressively and in parallel with the quarry operations. 

17.     Clause 10.6 of the above contract requires that ‘the overburden is to be removed and replaced so as to retain the existing soil structure.  The topsoil and subsoil are to be separately removed and stockpiled.  The subsoil will be replaced in the new location first and the topsoil shall be placed on top of the subsoil.’  It is noted that the topsoil layer is quite thin, and additional topsoil may need to be brought in to ensure good plant growth.

18.     The Waitakere Quarry Consultative Committee was established in the early 1990s.  Rule 13.6 of the Auckland District Plan (Waitakere Section) requires the Council to maintain a consultative committee to liaise with local residents on matters affecting future operations of the Quarry Special Area. The District Plan directs that this Committee is to include at least one Council nominee, one quarry operator’s nominee and two resident nominees and shall meet at least quarterly.  The resident nominees represent local residents, the Waitakere Branch of the Royal Forest and Bird Society and the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society.  This Committee has served an important function in facilitating communication between all parties and assisting the Council with respect to operations and planning at the quarry.

19.     Since 2010, ACPL has provided the representative from the Council on this committee although a member of staff from Local and Sports Parks (West) has attended more recently.

20.     A number of suggestions for use of the quarry site (in addition to revegetation and landscaping) have been put forward in the past, including construction of walking paths and viewing points, use as a filming set, use for rock-climbing, use as a native plant nursery for Local Parks revegetation projects[1] and construction of a Heritage Area Education Centre.

21.     ACPL recently had discussions with Film Auckland, now integrated with Auckland Tourism Events & Economic Development Limited (ATEED), and reported to the Local Board workshop that the Te Henga Quarry has potential as a filming location, as it is close to the Auckland Central Business District.  Further consultation with the industry on desirable landscapes for filming that might be provided at the quarry (for example, bare cliff faces) would be required if filming is identified as appropriate.

22.     ACPL has suggested that if cleanfill is required for re-contouring in addition to the available overburden, this could provide additional revenue to the Council.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

Options

23.     The Local Board needs to determine the use to be made of the land following the end of the quarry’s life.  Options are:

a)      Develop detailed ecological and landscape plans based on the Quarry Management Plan ‘Reinstatement and Landscaping’ Concept Plan in Appendix 13 of the operative District Plan (Attachment B) without further consultation, and commence the work as soon as possible.

b)      The Concept Plan for the use of the Waitakere Quarry site (Attachment B) is further developed by exploring possible additional low-key, small-scale uses through limited public consultation with the local community and, for example, rock-climbing organisations, Film Auckland, the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society and the Royal Forest and Bird Society (western branch).  Additional uses would need to be generally in accordance with the Concept Plan and appropriate to the location within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area. The detailed ecological and landscape plans would follow the consultation.

c)      Undertake broader public consultation with the local community, environmental groups and sport and recreation organisations on future uses of the Waitakere Quarry land, such uses to be in accordance with the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act (2008). The detailed ecological and landscape plans would follow the consultation.

 

24.     Option 1 would see immediate detailed planning undertaken for landscaping and revegetation of the quarry site, and reinstatement commenced as soon as the plans are approved.  Such an outcome would be in line with the long-standing expectations of local residents, environmental groups, and the community nominees on the Quarry Consultative Committee.  These expectations have been in place since the early 1990s when the Quarry Management Plan was included in the operative District Plan.  Option 1 would also be clearly in accordance with the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act (2008), and would expedite the site rehabilitation work, which could potentially be commenced during the current calendar year.  Considerations against the option include the passage of more than 20 years since the community had an opportunity to discuss the issue, and the likely expectation of the local community that they will be consulted, rather than informed on the use of the quarry.  There would also be a loss of opportunity to explore both possible uses that may be considered by the Local Board to be appropriate at the site, and the design requirements of these possible uses, for example rock climbing, to ensure quarry landscaping and revegetation is carried out in a way that does not unnecessarily restrict the activity.

25.     Option 2 would provide a limited opportunity to explore possible low-key uses and their design needs within the context of the revegetation and landscaping envisaged in the concept plan in the operative District Plan.  Local residents would be consulted rather than informed on the future use of the quarry, through the upcoming Bethells Local Area Plan.  The design requirements of potential users could be considered.  Considerations against include the additional time needed to undertake the consultation and examine any new suggestions, given that the quarry may be closing in March 2015.

26.     Option 3, while it would provide the wider community with an opportunity to have input into the decision, would require a larger consultation exercise taking more time, and may attract more significant and potentially inappropriate proposals.

27.     It is recommended that limited consultation be undertaken in line with Option 2. 

Revegetation

28.     Perry Resources is responsible under the quarry contract for the revegetation work at the quarry, and has undertaken some recontouring and revegetation work, especially at the east of the quarry footprint.  However, it is clear that the Concept Plan (Attachment B) for reinstatement of the quarry site is very general, and needs to be further developed with more detailed revegetation and landscape/recontouring plans prior to undertaking significant reinstatement work.  It is recommended that work on detailed landscape and revegetation plans for the quarry site be commenced as soon as the future use of the site has been established.  Once the landscape and revegetation plans are approved, reinstatement work can be undertaken, either in parallel with the quarry operation or following closure.

29.     It is recommended that the Board seek detailed maps and information from Perry Resources showing the existing contours, location of overburden and topsoil stockpiles and plantings undertaken, a report on now the quarry plantings are progressing and any recommendations that could assist with development of the detailed landscape and revegetation plans.

Public Consultation

30.     The views of the resident and environmental group nominees on the Quarry Consultative Committee were sought at the Quarry Consultative meeting on 12 March 2014.  They indicated that their long-term expectations had been that the site would be re-vegetated and ponds/wetlands constructed, in accordance with the operative District Plan.  At the meeting, they were requested to refer back to those they represent and provide formal views.  As a result of this request, written responses from the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society, the Waitakere Branch of Forest and Bird and the local residents have been received ( Attachment C).  Note that the responses address both the issue of quarry extension (the subject of a separate report to the Local Board) and quarry use.  The local nominees on the Quarry Consultative Committee have put a great deal of voluntary effort into the Committee for many years, and will continue to be an important part of the quarry consultation process.

31.     A Local Area Plan (LAP) for the Bethells Valley is planned for 2014.  If the Local Board wishes to consult the local community on the use of the quarry site, once the quarry has closed, consultation could be undertaken as part of this process.  Otherwise, the LAP process could be used to distribute information to the community.

Maori impact statement

32.     Edward Ashby, the Heritage and Environment Manager for the Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority,  has viewed the list of possible future uses for the quarry site as set out in paragraph 18 of this report, and commented that ‘these all sound like reasonable community outcomes, and perhaps a mix of some can be done’.  However, Mr Ashby intends to discuss the issue with the Te Kawerau a Maki trustees, and will provide feedback following that discussion.

Costs

33.     A report to the Finance and Operational Performance Committee in August 2002 estimated the costs of comprehensive reclamation and revegetation of the Quarry to be approximately $1.5 million (net value). 

34.     Under contract No. 70390 operating at the quarry between 1999 and 2009, the former Waitakere City Council was responsible for the re-vegetation of the Quarry site.  A part of the income received by the Council from the quarry was contributed to a Quarry Aftercare Fund to fund the revegetation and rehabilitation of the quarry.  As at amalgamation of the Councils in October 2010, this fund was $1,338,506.11.  There is currently no provision in the Council accounts for this aftercare fund.

35.     Following the approval of the new contract in 2009, the contractor (Perry Resources) took responsibility for re-vegetation of the quarry site once the quarry is closed[2]. Both the minimum annual income receivable by the Council from the licensee and the rates paid to the Council per tonne of crushed and uncrushed rock were reduced accordingly. The report to the Tenders Subcommittee on 18 December 2009 stated:

‘The tendered minimum and annual payment to the Council by the licensee will be less, at $156,000, than the current minimum payment of $271,200.  The new licence will require the licensee to carry our revegetation of the quarry site, which has resulted in the submission by the tenderer of a lower rate per tonne for crushed and uncrushed rock payable to the Council.  The current licence requires the Council to revegetate the site.  Analysis shows that the difference in the minimum annual payments between the existing and proposed licence is almost exactly equal to the annual contribution by the Council to the Waitakere Quarry Aftercare Fund to pay for the revegetation.  The Council will therefore be in a financially neutral position under the new licence agreement.’

The same report noted that annual contributions to the Aftercare Fund were in the order of $115,000.

36.     It is noted that ACPL has funding set aside for the detailed revegetation and landscape plans required for the quarry, and any costs associated with consultation.

Implementation

37.     Following approval of the future uses to be made of the quarry site, detailed landscape and ecological restoration plans will be prepared for Lot 1 DP193044, for approval by the Local Board.  These plans will be based on the concept map in the operative District Plan (Attachment B), and will need to be integrated with the adjacent parkland.  They should also identify whether further cleanfill will be required for the site rehabilitation.

38.     Implementation would be the responsibility of ACPL with advice from Local and Sports Parks (West) if reinstatement occurs in parallel with the quarry operation.  Once the quarry has closed, responsibility for the quarry footprint area will be transferred to Local and Sports Parks (West).

39.     Once the future use of the quarry site has been established and the quarry has closed, an appropriate open space zoning for the quarry site under the Unitary Plan will need to be established.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Map of Waitakere Quarry

93

bView

Quarry Rehabilitation Plan

95

cView

Views of Quarry Consultative Committee

99

     

Signatories

Author

Jenny MacDonald - Strategic Advisor Waitakere

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

ATTACHMENT A

Map of Waitakere Quarry Land


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

ATTACHMENT B

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

ATTACHMENT C

Views of Representatives on the Quarry Consultative Committee

1.   Local Residents

 

Jenny Macdonald

Principal Policy Analyst,

Community Policy & Planning/Regional & Local Planning

Auckland Council

Private Bag 93109

Henderson 0650

7 April 2014

Dear Jenny

Re Resident’s Response to Proposed Expansion to the Waitakere Quarry

 

At the Quarry Consultation Committee meeting on 12 March 2014, I was requested to ascertain the attitudes of residents of properties near the quarry to the proposed expansion of the quarry. Since then, I have contacted almost all of the residents along Steam Hauler Track, and in addition owners of some properties in Aio Wira and Te Henga Rds.

Background information:

In 1993, after extensive consultation and an independent hearing leading to practical recommendations by the Commissioner, Mr Paul Cavanagh, the local residents accepted the expansion of the quarry as an agreed compromise because an absolute line had been drawn which unambiguously defined and limited the size of quarry operations and the exit date (2020). In 1994, in an open letter to residents, the Council confirmed that they had resolved to enact all of the Commissioner’s recommendations (including to vest the buffer area as a reserve to be a “permanent environmental asset for the City”).

The residents I have contacted regarding this proposed quarry expansion were all concerned and/or alarmed about the proposed expansion. They were incredulous that the proposed expansion would go into the reserve land to the north of the quarry – an area which has very high quality native forest. They were also concerned that there is a proposal to continue quarrying until 2025 – which is 5-10 years more than what was anticipated. All of these residents are currently negatively affected (to a varying degree) by the quarry operations.

For the past 20 years local residents have lived with the certainty that the quarry had a finite time and a finite space for quarrying. They were anticipating the end to the blasting and crushing noise, the vibrations and dust, the quarry trucks and other inconveniences, and they were aware that discussions on the rehabilitation of the quarry land were imminent. They now find it incomprehensible that in a complete turnaround, an expansion to the quarry has now been signalled.

To proceed with this proposal would bring a severe loss of amenities and reduction in property values, particularly those adjacent to the proposed extended quarry area. They would no longer enjoy a reserve on their boundaries, and instead would have quarry operations and huge hole.

Council’s integrity would be lost along with the loss of this “permanent environmental asset for the City”.

 

Colleen Pilcher

Residents’ representative on the Quarry Consultation Committee

(a signed copy of this letter is available if required)

2.  
Waitakere Ranges Protection Society

PO Box 15-668, New Lynn, Auckland 0640

 

Friday 28 March 2014

Jenny McDonald

Principal Policy Analyst

Auckland Council

Private Bag 93109

Henderson 0650

 

Re: Waitakere Ranges Protection Society Opposition to Waitakere Quarry Extension

Dear Jenny,

We write on behalf of the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society, without prejudice, to register our opposition to the proposed extension of the Te Henga Rd Waitakere Quarry. Our opposition is based on many considerations including, but not limited to, community impacts and expectations; noise, views and amenity impacts; planning certainty and confidence; ecological effects; and impacts on the integrity of Reserves, Regional Parkland and the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act.

1.    Community expectations and impacts.

It has long been signalled that the quarry would cease operation on or before 2017, at which time a target of $2m was to have been secured for quarry rehabilitation. In Waitakere City Council’s 2008 ten year plan for example, it was stated unequivocally, that the quarry “will not be expanded beyond its current boundaries”. Local residents, interested parties and the public therefore have legitimate expectations that the impacts of quarry activities will cease before or at that time. The fact that the quarry activity has excavated the aggregate in the existing quarry footprint faster than expected, is no reason to extend the quarry zone and operation.

 

The community and local residents have in the past suffered from the effects of noise and dust, as well as traffic impacts. The comfort that locals gained from the knowledge the quarry would operate for only a finite time, should not be undermined by an extension of operations. In addition, the extension may effect locals more than activity in the current footprint, due to increased sensitivity that prolonged quarrying will provoke, as well as activities potentially occurring closer to neighbours.

 

2.    Noise, views and amenity impacts.

Compared with the expected baseline of ceased quarry activities, an extension will create undue noise and amenity impacts, and may also lead to adverse landscape impacts affecting views.

 

Given the legitimate expectation that the quarry would be rehabilitated after 2017, these impacts may be significant.

 

3.    Ecological impacts

The proposed extension area has high ecological values. It’s an important habitat in its own right. It’s also a buffer against weed incursion and edge effects (light, drying of soil, weeds) between the existing quarry and the surrounding parkland forest.

 

Weed incursion and edge effects will mean that the effects of any extension are more profound than in just the quarried area.

 

Kokako are found in this area so any extension could threaten the breeding and establishment of this nationally threatened species. The Waitakere Ranges also host a nationally important population of kereru, and in the past experts have warned about the loss of habitat for kereru in any quarry extension.

 

An important local ecozone comprising rare forest sequences will be lost with the extension of quarrying. The area proposed for quarry extension contains an important example of recovering forest, showing 90 years of forest recovery, including some trees of pre-European heritage.

 

4.    Certainty and confidence in the District Plan

Because it has been signalled for many years that the quarry would cease operation in 2017, and that this has been made clear in statutory council plans and policies, any extension of the quarry would undermine public confidence in the consistent application of the Plans.

 

To continue quarry operation would erode certainty and faith in Council planning processes.

 

5.    Impacts on the integrity of relevant Plans and Policies, and the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act and Waitakere Ranges Regional Parkland.

The area proposed for quarry extension is unclassified Reserve, on Regional Parkland, and within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area. The planning provisions contained within past Waitakere City Council District Plans, the Regional Parks Management Plan and within the Reserves Act all indicate strongly that the quarry should not be extended. To go beyond the existing footprint would undermine public confidence in the consistent administration of the Plan, a matter of RMA concern in itself.

 

Reserves and Regional Parkland are to be held in perpetuity for their ecological, habitat, scenic and recreational values of the highest order. Classification and inclusion as Reserve parkland enshrine both objective ecological and community values and must not be undermined or overwhelmed by commercial interests.

 

The Waitakere Ranges Protection Society restate our concerns that the significant quarry rehabilitation fund totalling more than $1million and expected to reach a target of $2million by 2017, has been ‘lost’ with the amalgamation of Waitakere City into the Auckland Council. We are seriously concerned that this will threaten the capacity of the Council to undertake timely remediation of the site as required.

 

However, given the clear risk of weed incursion which threatens ecological recovery of the area (some say by up to 100 years if weeds like pampas are established – see evidence of Stephen King from 1989), and the commitment given to interested parties and the wider community, that rehabilitation would proceed, funding will need to be provided for this regionally significant project – and should commence sooner rather than later.

 

We recommend funding reinstatement so planning and site remediation can proceed forthwith.

 

We also support the development of plans for appropriate post-quarry activities on the site, fitting to the local environment within Regional Parkland. To this end the Society has been meeting in good faith with the Quarry Consultative Committee and Forest and Bird Society since May 2013 to discuss concepts for the rehabilitation and public use of the quarry when it closes in 2017. WRPS maintains that activities should be of sympathetic scale and effect, providing safe public access, passive (ie non-motorised) recreation opportunities, and including ecological recovery to connect with and restore habitats such as forest sequence and wetlands. 

 

We wish to be included in further discussions on the future of the quarry.

 

Thank you

 

Yours sincerely

 

J Edgar Sig small

John Edgar

President

Waitakere Ranges Protection Society

3.  
Forest and Bird – Waitakere Branch

 

Short submission on Waitakere Quarry April 2014

Our branch is strongly opposed to any extension of the existing quarry for the purpose of aggregate extraction. We are extremely disappointed that Auckland Council Property Ltd. appears to be actively supporting such a proposal. This would entail the destruction of precious native forest whose fine qualities have been inventoried in the past. It is our view that far from extending mining operations in the quarry, Council should, in conjunction with interested parties such as Forest & Bird and WRPS, consider full rehabilitation of the area and look seriously at making it an environmental taonga with an appropriate allocation of resources.

We lobbied successfully to have the quarry included in the Regional Park Network because we felt that this would accord it a good level of protection and facilitate its conversion into a  conservation project. The bowl shape of the area would lend itself to development as a wetland. Predator control would be relatively easy given the terrain and would open up the possibility of translocation of endangered native species such as Pateke (Brown Teal).

The quarry not only is surrounded by valuable native forest it also is immediately adjacent to the ‘Ark in the Park’ project. This project is a very successful partnership between Forest & Bird and Council. Ark in the Park has a buffer zone just outside the Ark which includes a range of private landowners including some along Bethells and Te Henga Roads. Predator control is undertaken in the buffer zone. A key concept behind the buffer zone is that of ‘wildlife corridors’. This enables the easy passage of, for instance, birds between food sources. It also encourages the successful rearing of young and enables them to expand into new territories.

A technical note: we understand that the Quarry material is not suitable for concrete manufacture because it has a strong ‘alkali-silica reaction’ and thus and requires treatment if it is to be used in high quality base courses. This surely must limit its value as a supply source to the Region.

A final point: we understand that before amalgamation Waitakere City Council had accrued the sum of over one million dollars for remediation work in the quarry. We are extremely concerned that this money appears to have simply vanished into thin air. It would have provided a substantial resource to aid in the environmental restoration of the quarry.

Robert Woolf 

Chairperson, Waitakere Forest & Bird


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

Waitakere Quarry - Proposed Extension into Adjacent Reserve Land

 

File No.: CP2014/08025

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To provide information that will assist the Waitakere Ranges Local Board in making a recommendation to the Parks, Recreation and Sports Committee on whether:

·        The Waitakere Quarry should close in approximately March 2015, when it is anticipated that the aggregate resource within the Quarry Special Area will be exhausted, or

·        The operating life of the Waitakere quarry should be extended for an expected further 10 years by supporting the proposal of the Quarry contractor, Perry Resources (2008) Limited, to quarry additional metal resource from adjacent reserve land.

Executive summary

2.       The Waitakere Quarry is owned by the Auckland Council.  The aggregate resource within the land that is zoned for quarry operations (the quarry footprint) is projected to run out earlier than expected, by March 2015. 

3.       The contractor at the quarry, Perry Resources (2008) Limited, has proposed an extension of quarry operations into 14.4 hectares of the adjacent reserve land (the ‘proposed quarry extension area’ identified on the map at Attachment A).  This would extend the operational life of the quarry by approximately ten years.

4.       Considerations in favour of closing the quarry once the aggregate is exhausted include its location within the nationally significant Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and the adverse impacts of any extension into the adjacent regional park on the integrity of the regional park, the high quality native vegetation, fauna habitat and landscape values, and adjoining residential amenity.

5.       Public expectations that the quarry footprint would not be extended, have been raised by the open space zoning in the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere section) (the operative District Plan), by the vesting of this land as reserve and by its inclusion in the Regional Park.  In addition, the proposal to extend would come up against a number of regulatory barriers under the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act (2008), the Reserves Act (1977), the Regional Park Management Plan (2010), the operative District Plan and the proposed Auckland Council Unitary Plan (the proposed Unitary Plan).

6.       Considerations in favour of an extension of the quarry are the importance of aggregate, both locally and city-wide to the construction and roading industries, especially with the projected increase in Auckland’s population.  In addition, there is an absence of any alternative quarries in the west and a decline in the number of quarries Auckland-wide.  Having an aggregate source closer to the area of demand would reduce transport effects and costs.  There are local employment benefits (eight employees) from the continuing operation of the quarry, and quarry closure would also result in the loss of a revenue source from quarry royalties to the Council.

7.       This report recommends that the Local Board request the Parks, Recreation and Sports Committee not to grant the extension of the operational area of the quarry into the adjacent reserve land.


 

Recommendation

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Recommends to the Parks, Recreation and Sports Committee that it does not support an extension of quarry operations at the Waitakere Quarry into the adjoining reserve area, due to the high quality of the native vegetation, the impact on the values of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and Waitakere Ranges Regional Park, and long-held community expectations that the quarry will close once rock aggregate in the quarry footprint is exhausted.

 

 

Discussion

Background

8.       The Waitakere Quarry is located along Te Henga Road at the northern end of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area, approximately 15 kilometres from Henderson (Attachment A).

9.       The quarry is located within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area, set up by the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act (2008) which recognizes the national significance of the Waitakere Ranges and promotes the protection and enhancement of its heritage features, including natural scenic beauty, landscape qualities, indigenous ecosystems and fauna habitat. 

10.     The map (Attachment A), shows that Auckland Council owns a total area of approximately 86.5 hectares at the Waitakere quarry in Te Henga Road, made up of five major land parcels and eleven small parcels in the south east (the quarry land).  The major land purchases were made by Waitemata County in 1916 and 1918, with further land purchases in 1959. The Waitakere Quarry was established in the 1950s and has operated on the site for over 60 years.

11.     Of the 86.5 hectares of quarry land, active quarrying operations are provided for in only around 20.3 hectares at Lot 1 DP 193044 and Pt Lots 26 and 27, Lots 28 and 29 and Part Lot 32 DP40739 (the quarry footprint).  The quarry footprint is zoned ‘Quarry Special Area’ under the operative District Plan.  A ‘Special Purpose – Quarry Zone’ is applied under the proposed Unitary Plan.

12.     The quarry rock at the Waitakere Quarry is derived from an andesite lava flow, with the quality of the rock being variable, but consistently suitable for a variety of roading and other products (Andrew Stewart 2008, p3)[3].  An evaluation of the rock reserves in the quarry land undertaken in 2004 by Fraser Thomas Ltd[4], found that the main rock reserves are north of the quarry pit face, where the main andesite layer dips in a westerly to north-westerly direction. 

13.     The extraction of rock resources from the quarry has been contracted to Perry Resources since 2006, with the most recent License to Operate granted in 2009 to Perry Resources (2008) Limited (Perry Resources).

14.     The resource consent for the quarry operation expires in 2020, and a report to the former Waitakere City Council in 2009 indicated an expected closure date of 2017.  However, quarry rock has been extracted more rapidly than anticipated, and Auckland Council Properties Ltd (ACPL) reported in their six monthly update to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board on 25 September 2013, that the resource is now projected to be exhausted around March 2015. 

15.     Perry Resources has proposed an area of 14.4 hectares within Lot 2 DP193044 to the north-west of the quarry footprint for a potential quarry extension (Attachment A).  This proposal was also reported to the Local Board by ACPL on 25 September 2013.  A site inspection was undertaken by the Local Board on 4 February 2014 and an opportunity for ACPL to provide further information on the potential resource extraction was provided at a workshop of the Local Board held on 13 February 2014.

16.     The proposed quarry extension area is covered in native bush, and under the operative District Plan is identified as ‘open space’ and ‘Managed Natural Area’, bringing it within the Green Network.  Under the proposed Unitary Plan, this land is zoned as ‘Open Space – Conservation’ and there are ‘Special Ecological Area’ and ‘Outstanding Landscape’ overlays over it. 

17.     In addition, Lot 2 DP 193044, site of the proposed quarry extension area, was vested in 2000 as unclassified reserve under the Reserves Act 1977.  In August 2013, the area was also added to the schedule of Regional Parks, bringing it under the jurisdiction of the Regional Parks Management Plan (2010).

18.     The Waitakere Quarry Consultative Committee was established in the early 1990s.  Rule 13.6 of the operative District Plan requires the Council to maintain a consultative committee to liaise with local residents on matters affecting future operations of the Quarry Special Area. The District Plan directs that this Committee is to include at least one Council nominee, one quarry operator’s nominee and two resident nominees and shall meet at least quarterly.  There are currently nominees on the Quarry Consultative committee representing local residents, the Royal Forest and Bird Society and the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society. 

19.     At the Quarry Consultative meeting on 12 March 2014 the resident and environmental group nominees on the Quarry Consultative Committee were requested to refer back to those they represent and provide formal views (Attachment B).

Considerations

Options

20.     The options for the Waitakere Quarry are:

·        That it closes in or around March 2015 when the aggregate resource within the quarry footprint is expected to be exhausted, or

·        The quarry life is extended by an estimated 10 years, by supporting the Quarry contractor (Perry Resources (2008) Limited) in its proposal to quarry an additional metal resource in reserve land to the north-west of the quarry footprint (the proposed quarry extension area shown on the map at Attachment A).

21.     This decision is one for the governing body to consider, as the land into which the quarry operation is proposed to be extended is Regional Park, and in addition the economic implications of aggregate availability are considered to have Auckland-wide significance.  However, the views of the Local Board will be reported for consideration by the governing body.

Option 1 – Considerations in favour of Quarry Closure

22.     The land lies within the jurisdiction of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 which promotes the protection and enhancement of the heritage features of the area, including ecological and landscape values.  Any proposal to quarry the adjacent reserve land would be scrutinized in terms of the provisions of that Act.  Further details of the Act are provided at Attachment C.

Previous Reports

23.     The proposed quarry extension area has been identified through past studies and in the operative District Plan as containing significant vegetation and fauna habitat.  Two ecologists’ reports on the quarry land undertaken in 1986[5] and 1989[6]  identified no rare or Waitakere-endemic species in the area of the proposed quarry extension.  However the studies found the area to contain high quality forests representing one of the more diverse and mature forest sequences in the north-eastern Waitakere Ranges, with native vegetation values higher than much of the adjacent Centennial Memorial Park (with the exception of the Cascade-Kauri stand).

24.     The reports identified the impacts of quarrying in the area as loss of more than a century of forest growth, including several very large Northern Rata and Kahikatea trees of pre-European vintage, the loss of food sources and breeding habitats for kereru (native wood pigeon) and edge effects on surrounding native forest (light, drying of soil, weed incursion).

25.     While the reports are now quite outdated, there is no reason to believe that the ecological values have significantly changed in the intervening years, except to further mature. The submission by the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society representative on the Quarry Consultative Committee (Attachment B) endorses the quality of the bush and identifies impacts of quarrying

Ark in the Park.

26.     More recently, the Ark in the Park, a partnership project of the Council and the Waitakere Branch of the Forest and Bird Society (Forest and Bird), was established in an area centred on Cascade Kauri Park adjacent to the Waitakere Quarry.  The Ark in the Park project seeks to restore the ecology of the area through the control or eradication of animal and plant pests and reintroduction of indigenous species originally present in the area.  Species successfully reintroduced to date are North Island Kokako, Whitehead and North Island Robin. 

27.     Since it was established in 2003, Ark in the Park has extended its activities into ‘buffer areas’, including trapping and baiting for animal pests within the proposed quarry extension area.  The native forest in the proposed quarry extension area contributes to the habitat and movement corridors for the birds released into the Ark in the Park, for example a kokako was found to be nesting in the quarry land south-east of the quarry footprint.  The submission by the Forest and Bird representative on the Quarry Consultative Committee (Attachment B) opposes the proposed quarry extension.

28.     Landscape assessment

29.     A landscape assessment undertaken in 1987[7] and another in 1989[8] identified that the quarry footprint is situated within a crescent shape formed by surrounding ridges which act to screen the quarry so that it is not readily visible to nearby residents and public places outside the site.  The slopes along the north-west side of the quarry land (the proposed quarry extension area) are part of this visual screening. The recommendation was that the topographical features and vegetation surrounding the quarry be retained to protect the visual environment.  Without a landscape visibility analysis addressing the removal of the ridge and forest cover within the proposed quarry extension area, the extent of the visual impact on residences and public places is uncertain.  However, the quarry could potentially be opened up visually to Steam Hauler Track and the residences along its south side.

30.     The ridge within the quarry extension area may also act to reduce noise from the quarry (particularly crusher noise) to the residences located to the north and west of the quarry, in Steam Hauler Track and Te Henga Road. While it is proposed that a 20 metre buffer be retained between the quarry and the boundary of adjacent private properties in Steam Hauler Track, an expert report would be required on the impact of ridge disturbance on noise levels at the quarry boundary, and noise mitigation required to comply with the noise standards.

Public Expectations

31.     The District Plan has signalled for many years that quarry operations would not extend beyond the existing quarry footprint.  Rule 13.12, Appendix A of the operative District Plan states:

‘During the quarrying operations the area defined for quarrying shall be progressively stripped, quarried and reinstated. Outside these limits the existing vegetation cover shall be retained.’

In 1989 when the existing quarry footprint was decided through a comprehensive plan change process with a hearing and decision by a commissioner, public submissions, and expert evidence, the commissioner stated: 

‘Objectors are entitled to draw an inference that these buffer areas are to be permanently protected from exploitation and that the present quarry management planning area is not but a first stage in the longer term exploitation of the resource. I recognise that by subsequent scheme change the boundary to the quarry management planning area can be changed, but this should only be achievable upon the basis that the present plan proposes land outside the present area is to be preserved, because of the inherent environmental values that are contained within it so that it would require demonstration of a compelling need before permission was given to exploit the mineral resource by extending that boundary at a later date[9].

The response from the local residents’ and the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society representatives on the Quarry Consultative Committee (Attachment B) confirms this expectation.

Regulations

32.     The proposed quarry extension land has been vested under the Reserves Act, given an Open Space zoning that precludes quarrying, and the quarry extension area has been incorporated into the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park.  All of these actions, together with the enacting of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act (2008), have raised public expectations that the parklands would be protected in perpetuity and that quarry operations would not extend beyond the quarry footprint. 

33.     The proposal would come up against a number of regulatory barriers under:

·        The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act (2008) which seeks to protect the area’s heritage features, including ecological and landscape values, and will be taken into account in any plan change or resource consent process and environment court hearing.

·        The operative District Plan - the proposed quarry extension area is identified as Open Space and Managed Natural Area, which is by definition part of the District Plan’s Green Network.  Extraction of minerals in the Green Network is a prohibited activity under Rule 1.0 (iii), and application for resource consent cannot be made while this rule remains.  In addition, vegetation removal is only permitted within the quarry footprint.  A Plan Change would be required to allow mining of the proposed quarry extension area.

·        The Proposed Unitary Plan - A ‘Public Open Space – Conservation’ zone and Regional Park precinct applies over the proposed quarry extension area, with Significant Ecological Area and Outstanding Landscape overlays.  Quarrying is not provided for and is non-complying. Policy 6.2.3 of the Proposed Unitary Plan seeks that new mineral extraction activities are undertaken, where possible, outside Significant Ecological Areas and Outstanding Natural Landscapes.

·        The Reserves Act (1977) - unauthorised quarrying of any scenic reserve constitutes an offence under Section 94 (1) (g) and (3) of the Reserves Act 1977, and the reserve status would need to be revoked to allow quarrying.  Revocation requires public notification and hearings of submissions, and the final decision lies with the Department of Conservation rather than the Council.

·        The Regional Park Management Plan (2010) - Mining is a prohibited activity under the RPMP.  Either the RPMP would need to be amended or the land would need to be removed from the Regional Park.

These regulatory issues are described in more detail at Attachment C. 

Option 2 – Considerations in favour of extending the quarry life

34.     A supply of rock aggregate is vital for the construction and roading industries both locally and Auckland-wide, contributing to Auckland’s economic strengths and prosperity.  Auckland’s growing population will increase demand for housing, business land, infrastructure and services, and thus for rock aggregate.

35.     The proposed Unitary Plan comments that Auckland’s quarries produce nearly 10 million tonnes of aggregate per annum, with aggregate also imported from outside the region, particularly the northern Waikato.  It identifies accessible supply of aggregate as a matter of regional importance.

36.     Much of Auckland’s aggregate resource is inaccessible. A study titled ‘Minerals - Technical Paper’ prepared by the Auckland Regional Council in 2008 concluded broadly that ‘the Auckland Region has a sufficient forward (potential) supply of future aggregates’[10].  Attachment D contains information and a map of potential geological sources of aggregate in Auckland.

37.     However, the technical paper identifies that most of the region’s basalt has become inaccessible due to urban encroachment and the progressive expansion of protected areas, and basalt production is steadily decreasing.  At least 12 quarries have closed in the past 20 years, including the largest of the basalt quarries, Winstone Aggregate’s Mt Wellington quarry, which closed in 2001.  Attachment E provides more information on location of quarries in Auckland and quarry closures. 

38.     The Aggregate and Quarry Association of New Zealand[11] projects that one third of Auckland's existing quarries will close by 2020, through exhaustion of their resource or the difficulty of gaining additional consents, and notes that currently it can take up to 10 years to gain a consent for a new quarry.

39.     In the west, the only potential geological source of aggregates is the Waitakere Ranges Andesite area, which extends north towards Muriwai (map at Attachment D).  Within this area, the andesite flow from which the Waitakere Quarry rock is extracted may be relatively unique (Stewart 2008, p3), as flows of rock of similar quality and quantity are not readily apparent at other locations in the Ranges. 

40.     Stewart (2008) notes the technical difficulties in the area of mapping the extent and thickness of the lava flow without high resolution drilling and field mapping exercises.  At the present time, no other deposits are known over a sufficiently large area to be suitable for development of an alternative aggregate quarry in the west.  Considerable effort in exploration and deposit confirmation would be required to confirm if any other location would be a likely source of aggregates and suitable for a new quarry. 

41.     There is an estimated 2.2 million tonnes of aggregate within the 14.4 hectare area proposed for possible quarry extension and if this area were to be released for quarrying, it is estimated the life of the quarry could be extended by 10 years.  ACPL reported to the Local Board that there has, to date, been no physical exploratory work at the Waitakere quarry to substantiate this estimate of the available resource in the proposed extension area, nor has there been a business case developed to justify the costs and time to extend the quarry.  These would be progressed only if governing body support for the proposed extension is gained.

42.     As illustrated by the map at Attachment E, the Waitakere Quarry is the sole commercial quarry operating out of the west of Auckland, and the Quarry has a good proximity to markets in which there is a lack of close competition.  In the past year, much of the quarry aggregate was delivered to the new housing subdivision at Huapai, the new Westgate Town Centre and the north-western motorway widening work.  It also supplies aggregate to the walking tracks within the Waitakere Ranges, thus reducing the risk of importing new pest plants.

43.     The Waitakere Quarry currently produces around 220,000 tonnes of aggregate per annum.  It supplies most of the rock aggregate needs of the West, with 90% of the aggregate supplied to projects within 20 kilometres of the quarry.  The average delivery distance from the quarry is 15 kilometres. 

44.     Perry Resources has estimated[12] that if the Waitakere Quarry closes, aggregate will have to be transported an average 20 kilometres further.  The map at Attachment D identifies the locations of other quarries within Auckland, and the approximate distances to these quarries from the west.  The Aggregate and Quarry Association of New Zealand estimates that the cost of transporting aggregates doubles every 30km.  Costs include increased maintenance of roads, more road congestion, increased costs of fuel consumption, higher carbon foot prints through diesel emissions and delays to construction projects.

45.     All of the eight staff employed on the site are residents of the west and north-west, with an annual wages payout of $660,000.  The quarry also supports local community events such as the Bethells Community Day, the Kumeu A&P Show, the Special Needs Childrens’ Christmas Party and provision of landscaping rocks to West Auckland schools.

46.     Perry Resources pays a royalty to Council based on sales of aggregate. The Income is part of Auckland Council’s revenue, to be distributed based on the council’s Long Term Plans.  ACPL has provided data on recent revenues generated by the quarry in annual royalties to the Council.

 

2010-2011

$233,364

 

Average annual revenue $216,338.000

 

2011-2012      

$214,051

2012-2013

$236,274

2013-2014 (Forecast)

$264,000

2014-2015(Forecast) 

$134,000

Over the period 2010 to 2015, the return to the Council (actual and forecast) from quarry royalties averaged around $216,300.  However, Perry Resources have noted that March 2014 was a record sales month with $53,000 being paid in royalties to the Council for the month[13].

Conclusion

47.     The aggregate from the Waitakere Quarry is a valuable resource for local people, businesses and infrastructure in the west.  The main consequences of quarry closure would be increased costs, both economic and environmental, of aggregate transport over greater distances, and loss of the quarry royalties to the Council.  These factors need to be set against the national importance of the outstanding landscapes and natural features (including the high quality native bush) of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park, the amenity of local residents and the long-held expectations that quarrying would not extend beyond the identified quarry footprint. 

48.     There is a clear case of needing to balance economic with environmental and local amenity concerns.  In particular, there are several issues that are considered to support a recommendation towards quarry closure in 2015.  These are the location of the quarry within the nationally important Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and a regional park, the high quality of the bush that would be removed, and the significant regulatory challenges faced by any proposed extension under the Reserves Act, the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act, the Resource Management Act and the Regional Parks Management Plan. 

49.     Setting aside the process of exploration and deposit confirmation, these regulatory processes are equally and perhaps more complex than would be the case if setting up a new quarry outside the Heritage Area and regional park boundaries.

General

Public Consultation

50.     Submissions from the resident and environmental groups represented on the Quarry Consultative Committee seek that the quarry not be extended into the adjacent reserve land (Attachment B).

51.     Should the Local Board wish to consult more widely in the community on the issue of the quarry extension, a Local Area Plan (LAP) for the Bethells Valley is planned for 2014, and consultation could be undertaken as part of this process. Given that the community has indicated that a ‘slow’ process is desired for the Bethells LAP, an answer may not emerge from the LAP process before the quarry aggregate in the existing operational footprint is exhausted around March 2015.

Process and Timeframe

52.     A report carrying the recommendation of the Local Board to the Parks, Recreation and Sports Committee is planned for June 2014.

Maori Impact Statement

53.     The Heritage and Environment Officer for the Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority, Edward Ashby, has indicated that the tribe is opposed to any extension of the quarry, as they consider that land and sites within their rohe have been damaged enough.  If an extension is approved, they would look for a substantial mitigation package.  However, Mr Ashby has not yet had the opportunity to discuss the issue with the Te Kawerau a Maki trustees, and will provide feedback when this has occurred.

Implementation

54.     As noted in the report and further elaborated in Attachment C, the regulatory processes required for any extension of the quarry are complex, and could take the timeframe for approval of the proposal out some years.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Waitakere Quarry Map

113

bView

Views of Representatives on the Quarry Consultative Committee

115

cView

Regulatory Issues Associated with an Extension to the Waitakere Quarry

121

dView

Geological Sources of Aggregate in Wider Auckland

123

eView

Location of Quarries in Wider Auckland

125

     

Signatories

Author

Jenny MacDonald - Strategic Advisor Waitakere

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

ATTACHMENT A

Location of the Waitakere Quarry

 

Proposed Quarry Extension Area


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

ATTACHMENT B

Views of Representatives on the Quarry Consultative Committee

1.   Local Residents

 

Jenny Macdonald

Principal Policy Analyst,

Community Policy & Planning/Regional & Local Planning

Auckland Council

Private Bag 93109

Henderson 0650

7 April 2014

Dear Jenny

Re Resident’s Response to Proposed Expansion to the Waitakere Quarry

 

At the Quarry Consultation Committee meeting on 12 March 2014, I was requested to ascertain the attitudes of residents of properties near the quarry to the proposed expansion of the quarry. Since then, I have contacted almost all of the residents along Steam Hauler Track, and in addition owners of some properties in Aio Wira and Te Henga Rds.

Background information:

In 1993, after extensive consultation and an independent hearing leading to practical recommendations by the Commissioner, Mr Paul Cavanagh, the local residents accepted the expansion of the quarry as an agreed compromise because an absolute line had been drawn which unambiguously defined and limited the size of quarry operations and the exit date (2020). In 1994, in an open letter to residents, the Council confirmed that they had resolved to enact all of the Commissioner’s recommendations (including to vest the buffer area as a reserve to be a “permanent environmental asset for the City”).

The residents I have contacted regarding this proposed quarry expansion were all concerned and/or alarmed about the proposed expansion. They were incredulous that the proposed expansion would go into the reserve land to the north of the quarry – an area which has very high quality native forest. They were also concerned that there is a proposal to continue quarrying until 2025 – which is 5-10 years more than what was anticipated. All of these residents are currently negatively affected (to a varying degree) by the quarry operations.

For the past 20 years local residents have lived with the certainty that the quarry had a finite time and a finite space for quarrying. They were anticipating the end to the blasting and crushing noise, the vibrations and dust, the quarry trucks and other inconveniences, and they were aware that discussions on the rehabilitation of the quarry land were imminent. They now find it incomprehensible that in a complete turnaround, an expansion to the quarry has now been signalled.

To proceed with this proposal would bring a severe loss of amenities and reduction in property values, particularly those adjacent to the proposed extended quarry area. They would no longer enjoy a reserve on their boundaries, and instead would have quarry operations and huge hole.

Council’s integrity would be lost along with the loss of this “permanent environmental asset for the City”.

 

Colleen Pilcher

Residents’ representative on the Quarry Consultation Committee

(a signed copy of this letter is available if required)

2.  
Waitakere Ranges Protection Society

PO Box 15-668, New Lynn, Auckland 0640

 

Friday 28 March 2014

Jenny McDonald

Principal Policy Analyst

Auckland Council

Private Bag 93109

Henderson 0650

 

Re: Waitakere Ranges Protection Society Opposition to Waitakere Quarry Extension

Dear Jenny,

We write on behalf of the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society, without prejudice, to register our opposition to the proposed extension of the Te Henga Rd Waitakere Quarry. Our opposition is based on many considerations including, but not limited to, community impacts and expectations; noise, views and amenity impacts; planning certainty and confidence; ecological effects; and impacts on the integrity of Reserves, Regional Parkland and the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act.

1.    Community expectations and impacts.

It has long been signalled that the quarry would cease operation on or before 2017, at which time a target of $2m was to have been secured for quarry rehabilitation. In Waitakere City Council’s 2008 ten year plan for example, it was stated unequivocally, that the quarry “will not be expanded beyond its current boundaries”. Local residents, interested parties and the public therefore have legitimate expectations that the impacts of quarry activities will cease before or at that time. The fact that the quarry activity has excavated the aggregate in the existing quarry footprint faster than expected, is no reason to extend the quarry zone and operation.

 

The community and local residents have in the past suffered from the effects of noise and dust, as well as traffic impacts. The comfort that locals gained from the knowledge the quarry would operate for only a finite time, should not be undermined by an extension of operations. In addition, the extension may effect locals more than activity in the current footprint, due to increased sensitivity that prolonged quarrying will provoke, as well as activities potentially occurring closer to neighbours.

 

2.    Noise, views and amenity impacts.

Compared with the expected baseline of ceased quarry activities, an extension will create undue noise and amenity impacts, and may also lead to adverse landscape impacts affecting views.

 

Given the legitimate expectation that the quarry would be rehabilitated after 2017, these impacts may be significant.

 

3.    Ecological impacts

The proposed extension area has high ecological values. It’s an important habitat in its own right. It’s also a buffer against weed incursion and edge effects (light, drying of soil, weeds) between the existing quarry and the surrounding parkland forest.

 

Weed incursion and edge effects will mean that the effects of any extension are more profound than in just the quarried area.

 

Kokako are found in this area so any extension could threaten the breeding and establishment of this nationally threatened species. The Waitakere Ranges also host a nationally important population of kereru, and in the past experts have warned about the loss of habitat for kereru in any quarry extension.

 

An important local ecozone comprising rare forest sequences will be lost with the extension of quarrying. The area proposed for quarry extension contains an important example of recovering forest, showing 90 years of forest recovery, including some trees of pre-European heritage.

 

4.    Certainty and confidence in the District Plan

Because it has been signalled for many years that the quarry would cease operation in 2017, and that this has been made clear in statutory council plans and policies, any extension of the quarry would undermine public confidence in the consistent application of the Plans.

 

To continue quarry operation would erode certainty and faith in Council planning processes.

 

5.    Impacts on the integrity of relevant Plans and Policies, and the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act and Waitakere Ranges Regional Parkland.

The area proposed for quarry extension is unclassified Reserve, on Regional Parkland, and within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area. The planning provisions contained within past Waitakere City Council District Plans, the Regional Parks Management Plan and within the Reserves Act all indicate strongly that the quarry should not be extended. To go beyond the existing footprint would undermine public confidence in the consistent administration of the Plan, a matter of RMA concern in itself.

 

Reserves and Regional Parkland are to be held in perpetuity for their ecological, habitat, scenic and recreational values of the highest order. Classification and inclusion as Reserve parkland enshrine both objective ecological and community values and must not be undermined or overwhelmed by commercial interests.

 

The Waitakere Ranges Protection Society restate our concerns that the significant quarry rehabilitation fund totalling more than $1million and expected to reach a target of $2million by 2017, has been ‘lost’ with the amalgamation of Waitakere City into the Auckland Council. We are seriously concerned that this will threaten the capacity of the Council to undertake timely remediation of the site as required.

 

However, given the clear risk of weed incursion which threatens ecological recovery of the area (some say by up to 100 years if weeds like pampas are established – see evidence of Stephen King from 1989), and the commitment given to interested parties and the wider community, that rehabilitation would proceed, funding will need to be provided for this regionally significant project – and should commence sooner rather than later.

 

We recommend funding reinstatement so planning and site remediation can proceed forthwith.

 

We also support the development of plans for appropriate post-quarry activities on the site, fitting to the local environment within Regional Parkland. To this end the Society has been meeting in good faith with the Quarry Consultative Committee and Forest and Bird Society since May 2013 to discuss concepts for the rehabilitation and public use of the quarry when it closes in 2017. WRPS maintains that activities should be of sympathetic scale and effect, providing safe public access, passive (ie non-motorised) recreation opportunities, and including ecological recovery to connect with and restore habitats such as forest sequence and wetlands. 

 

We wish to be included in further discussions on the future of the quarry.

 

Thank you

 

Yours sincerely

 

J Edgar Sig small

John Edgar

President

Waitakere Ranges Protection Society

3.  
Forest and Bird – Waitakere Branch

 

Short submission on Waitakere Quarry April 2014

Our branch is strongly opposed to any extension of the existing quarry for the purpose of aggregate extraction. We are extremely disappointed that Auckland Council Property Ltd. appears to be actively supporting such a proposal. This would entail the destruction of precious native forest whose fine qualities have been inventoried in the past. It is our view that far from extending mining operations in the quarry, Council should, in conjunction with interested parties such as Forest & Bird and WRPS, consider full rehabilitation of the area and look seriously at making it an environmental taonga with an appropriate allocation of resources.

We lobbied successfully to have the quarry included in the Regional Park Network because we felt that this would accord it a good level of protection and facilitate its conversion into a  conservation project. The bowl shape of the area would lend itself to development as a wetland. Predator control would be relatively easy given the terrain and would open up the possibility of translocation of endangered native species such as Pateke (Brown Teal).

The quarry not only is surrounded by valuable native forest it also is immediately adjacent to the ‘Ark in the Park’ project. This project is a very successful partnership between Forest & Bird and Council. Ark in the Park has a buffer zone just outside the Ark which includes a range of private landowners including some along Bethells and Te Henga Roads. Predator control is undertaken in the buffer zone. A key concept behind the buffer zone is that of ‘wildlife corridors’. This enables the easy passage of, for instance, birds between food sources. It also encourages the successful rearing of young and enables them to expand into new territories.

A technical note: we understand that the Quarry material is not suitable for concrete manufacture because it has a strong ‘alkali-silica reaction’ and thus and requires treatment if it is to be used in high quality base courses. This surely must limit its value as a supply source to the Region.

A final point: we understand that before amalgamation Waitakere City Council had accrued the sum of over one million dollars for remediation work in the quarry. We are extremely concerned that this money appears to have simply vanished into thin air. It would have provided a substantial resource to aid in the environmental restoration of the quarry.

Robert Woolf 

Chairperson, Waitakere Forest & Bird


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

ATTACHMENT C

 

Regulatory Issues Associated with an Extension to the Waitakere Quarry

 

Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act (2008)

The Waitakere Quarry is located within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area. The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 (the Act) recognises the national, regional and local significance of the Waitakere Ranges and promotes the protection and enhancement of its heritage features.  The heritage features of the area are defined.  Relevant features include

·    the terrestrial ecosystems of prominent indigenous character including rainforest, which provide habitat for indigenous flora and fauna, opportunities for ecological restoration, and have natural scenic beauty and landscape qualities of regional and national significance

·    The quietness and darkness of the Waitakere Ranges

·    The opportunities that the area provides for recreation close to Auckland and the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park

The Act also specifies the objectives of the Heritage Area, which include managing terrestrial ecosystems to protect and enhance indigenous habitat, landscape and amenity values, and maintaining the quality and diversity of landscapes in the area by restoring and enhancing degraded landscapes. The Act provides matters to consider when making a decision, such as

·    ensure that impacts on the area as a whole are considered when decisions are made affecting any part of it

·    adopt the following approach when considering decisions that threaten serious or irreversible damage to a heritage feature:

Carefully consider the risks and uncertainties associated with a course of action

Take into account the best information available

Endeavour to protect the heritage feature

·    Recognise that people live and work in the area … and enable those people to provide for their social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being.

 

Section 25 of the Act provides that Local Area Plans (LAPs) may be prepared and adopted to promote the purpose and objectives of the Act and provide objectives (particularly long-term objectives) for the future amenity, character and environment of the local area and the well-being of the local community. The intention of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board is that a LAP should be prepared for the Bethells area during 2014.

 

Reserves Act (1977)

Lot 2 DP193044 and Lot 3 DP193044 are held in fee simple by the Auckland Council as unclassified scenic reserve (Waitakere Quarry Scenic Reserve) and are subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.  The extension to the quarry proposed by Perry Resources is over Lot 2.  Unauthorised quarrying of any scenic reserve (whether classified or unclassified) constitutes an offence under Section 94 (1) (g) and (3) of the Reserves Act 1977.

 

In order to provide for quarrying on the reserve, the area that is proposed to be quarried would need to be defined by survey plan and the Council would need to publicly notify the proposal giving reasons why the reserve should be revoked (Section 24(2) of the Reserves Act 1977). Local iwi would also need to be consulted as required by Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987.  Both the Waitakere Ranges Local Board and the governing body would need to disallow any objections received and endorse the proposal before the information would pass to the Department of Conservation (DOC) together with an application seeking approval to the revocation.  Provided the proposal was approved, a gazette notice would be issued by DOC declaring the revocation of the reserve status over the affected portion.  It would then revert to being held in fee simple by the council under the Local Government Act 2002.

 

District Plan

The operative Auckland City District Plan (Waitakere Section) (the operative District Plan) identifies the area of active extraction as ‘Quarry Special Area, while Lot 2 DP 193044 (the area of the proposed quarry extension) is ‘Open Space Environment’. A ‘Managed Natural Area’ identification is also applied.

The Managed Natural Areas is, by definition, part of the District Plan’s Green Network, and extraction of minerals in the Green Network is a prohibited activity under Rule 1.0 (iii).  Quarrying is therefore a prohibited activity in Waitakere Quarry Buffer Land, and application cannot be made for a resource consent for quarrying in this area while this rule remains.  In addition, vegetation removal is only permitted within the ‘Quarry Special Area’ zone. A Plan Change would be required to allow mining of the proposed quarry extension area.

The quarry operation in the Quarry Special Area is regulated by Rule 13 of the District Plan.  This rule establishes the Waitakere Quarry operation as a permitted activity until the expiry of the Quarry Management Plan on 31 August 2020.  The Quarry Management Plan, in Appendix A, Rule 13 of the District Plan, sets out the rules relating to the operation of the quarry.

Under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (the Unitary Plan), the ‘Quarry Special Area’ has been identified as ‘Special Purpose – Quarry Zone’, a general quarry zone.  A ‘Public Open Space – Conservation’ zone is applied over the proposed quarry extension area, with Significant Ecological Area and Outstanding Landscape overlays.   Quarrying is not provided for and is non-complying. Policy 6.2.3 of the Proposed Unitary Plan seeks that new mineral extraction activities are undertaken, where possible, outside Significant Ecological Areas and Outstanding Natural Landscapes.

 

Regional Park Management Plan (2010)

In August 2013, around 35 hectares of the Quarry Buffer Land (Lot 2 DP 193044) were amalgamated into the adjacent Waitakere Ranges Regional Park, with decision making moving to the governing body. The policies of the Regional Parks Management Plan (2010) (RPMP) apply to this land. The RPMP includes the following policy and explanation:

 

Policy 13.6.1.4 - ‘Prohibit all mining activities, including prospecting, exploration and mining, within regional parks with the exception of mining activities approved by the Crown on Crown land administered as a regional park, where the Crown expressly reserved ownership of minerals.’

Explanation – ‘Mining, and the associated exploration and mining activities, substantially alter the affected landscape, ecosystem and flora and fauna. These activities are prohibited because they are not consistent with the vision of regional parks and would detract from the park values and the enjoyment and safety of park visitors.’

 

Any issues relating to Lot 2 DP 193044 would need to be reported to the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee and the RPMP would need to be formally amended to allow for the expansion of the quarry onto this land.

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

ATTACHMENT D

 

Geological Sources of Aggregate in Wider Auckland

A 2008 Auckland Regional Council document titled ‘Minerals -Technical Paper’ outlines that the geology of the Auckland region is dominated by three rock types: Mesozoic greywacke that forms the Hunua Ranges and extends along the east coast into Northland, Tertiary sedimentary rocks that are generally unsuitable for aggregate, and basalt of Quaternary age that forms Auckland’s distinctive volcanoes and is confined to what is now the Auckland urban area. Other volcanic rock types (e.g. Waitakere basalt, Albany conglomerate and Tangihua volcanics) have been worked in the region also. Until the 1950s Auckland relied almost entirely on basalt rock derived from the scoria cones, and adjacent lava fields of the Auckland volcanic field. As this source became depleted and built over, the greywacke resources, mainly to the south of the city, received more focus from aggregate operators. Greywacke forms the Hunua range and adjacent hills to the west. It also crops out to the east and north of the region. The following map provides a broad outline of the potential aggregate resource areas for Auckland.

It is noted that this map does not take into account the land use and planning constraints that may restrict aggregate extraction.


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

ATTACHMENT E

Location of Quarries in Wider Auckland

A 2008 report[14] indicates that basalt production in Auckland is steadily decreasing and is likely to cease entirely within the next 10 years. The largest of the basalt quarries, Winstone Aggregates Lunn Avenue (Mt Wellington) quarry, that was producing up to 2 million tonnes per year, equivalent to about 25% of the region’s demand, closed in 2001. Others that have closed since 1990 include Puketutu Island, Three Kings, Reliable Way, Roscommon Road and Manukau quarries, Elletts Mountain, Coudreys, Kosoviches, East Tamaki (2 quarries) and Green Mountain.  The total remaining basalt rock resources in the Auckland region have been estimated at 630 million bank cubic metres which is equivalent to more than 1,500 million tonnes.  However, virtually all of this has become inaccessible due to urban encroachment and the progressive expansion of protected areas.

The map below of quarry locations in wider Auckland shows that the Waitakere Quarry (or Te Henga Quarry) is the only quarry in the west of Auckland, with quarry groupings in the south and north.  The closest quarries to Te Henga are Flat Top and Whitford, approximately 40 kilometres distant in a straight line.

Auckland Quarries – Distance from Te Henga

 

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

Financial Planning for Extreme Weather Events

 

File No.: CP2014/06788

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report provides an overview of the current financial management practice for dealing with extreme weather events in local parks across the region.  There are a number of issues and inconsistencies with the current practice and therefore it is recommended that a new and consistent approach be adopted. 

Executive Summary

2.       Auckland is prone to a range of extreme weather events including tornadoes, high tides, high winds, high rainfall and drought, all of which can contribute to sudden erosion, plant loss, tree fall, fixed asset damage and land slips.  12 local boards have some funding to deal with land slips and other effects from extreme weather but it is rarely sufficient when serious issues arise.  Nine boards have no inbuilt financial capacity to cope with the impact of weather events.

3.       Council has an obligation to plan for extreme weather events.  There is a legal and moral obligation to ensure that some rates funding is set aside for this purpose given that weather damage, while unpredictable in timing and location, is none-the-less a constant in the Auckland region as a whole. 

4.       Three options are considered in this report.  This first is to continue with the ad-hoc funding arrangement i.e. do nothing.  The second is to pool local board funding to essentially develop a regional self-insurance fund (local unallocated budget).  The third is to seek a regional fund, controlled by the governing body, which is applied for on a case by case basis.  The second approach is recommended.  The current arrangement will result in the need for local boards to cut existing budgets from time to time to react to weather events and overspend or approach the governing body regarding unforecast over expenditure.    The second option, which involves funding moving to the area of greatest need, is likely to cover most weather events, without changing existing regional expenditure, and minimizes the time delays/bureaucracy involved.

5.       In 2011, storms affected many areas and resulted in a number of severe slips on Waiheke Island.  In 2012 the Upper Harbour Local Board was hit by a major cyclone event and dealt with the extensive damage via cuts in their current work and over expenditure.  In 2013 all boards were affected by drought and a number of boards have been affected by slips and erosion.  However the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and the Waitemata Local Board, in particular, are finding their current liabilities well beyond their individual ability to fund the remedy.  In general terms, extreme weather events affect coastal areas and older suburbs more than rural, flat or inland areas however all areas are prone to wind, drought and flooding.

6.       The financial information relating to events that have occurred in the last three years is poor due to the fact that funds were taken from a variety of Auckland Council sources and expenses were not labelled consistently.  As such the average financial risk for the region over the last three years is not specifically known.  While it is possible for damage to be catastrophic and incalculable (if there is a regional disaster) it is only the common weather occurrence that is contemplated in this report.  Over the last three years costs have been in the realm of six figures every year and the burden has traversed boards. 

7.       Current budgets are operational.  However damage from extreme weather events often results in the need for the development of new retaining or structures to protect existing assets from ongoing slips or similar.  There is currently no capital funding sitting with local boards specifically tagged for storm damage remediation.  It is recommended that a portion of the existing funding be allocated to capital budgets to provide for this eventuality.

 

Recommendations

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Supports the development of a local unallocated fund to insure against unforeseen impact of extreme weather events to parks and that such funding can be on an as required basis.

b)      Supports a portion of the pooled operating budgets being allocated to local unallocated capital funding.

c)      Notes that expenditure against the local unallocated operational and capital storm damage budgets will be reported to all local boards annually.

 

 

Discussion

8.       Auckland is prone to a range of extreme weather events including tornadoes, high tides, high winds, high rainfall and drought all of which can contribute to sudden erosion, plant loss, tree fall, fixed asset damage and land slips. 

9.       The scale or impact of extreme weather events is particularly felt in urban parks where space is at a premium and landscapes are heavily developed.  Although weather events still have an impact on regional parks the scale of the regional park landscapes and the management of those landscapes (i.e. a lot more fully restored streams and coastal dunes) means the impact of extreme weather events can usually be tolerated without affecting the day to day use of the park.  In general terms, extreme weather events also affect coastal areas and older suburbs more than flat or inland areas however all areas are prone to wind, drought and flooding.

10.     The financial impact of managing damage associated with extreme weather events in the urban park environment has historically been dealt with in three ways:

·    Self-insurance – a fund is kept to call on for unforeseen damage

·    Reforecasting – no funds are set aside for unforeseen damage and as a result current projects and operational expenses are put on hold while funding is diverted to managing the impact of extreme weather events.

·    Overspend – where neither of the two options above are possible then some costs have been worn as an overspend

11.     Auckland City Council held specific “storm damage” budgets for parks and other Council’s had a level of self-insurance against unforeseen damage.  Others had nothing.

12.     Upon amalgamation the funding pool held by Auckland City Council was divided amongst the local boards in those areas, and local boards in the old Manukau City had some funding allocated to cater for this possibility in their local budgets.  This resulted in very small buckets of money being allocated to 12 local boards. 

13.     This local board budget allocation has largely defeated the purpose of the self-insurance fund as extreme weather events do not happen regularly in any given area. They can affect a localized area or a large scale area that has no correlation to board boundaries.  This means that individual local boards can go many years without an extreme weather event while its neighbor or another local board may have several events in short succession.  This random occurrence is normal and the current budget allocation does not befit this natural phenomenon.

14.     The current operational “storm damage” budgets held across the region are:

 

YTD Actual (Feb)

 Budget

 Albert-Eden

 

                       $77,558

 Maungakiekie-Tamaki

 

                       $96,947

 Orakei

                       $13,101

                    $109,874

 Puketapapa

                          $2,197

                       $64,632

 Waiheke

 

                       $19,389

 Waitemata

                          $7,508

                    $102,894

 Franklin

 

                       $20,371

 Howick

 

                       $30,451

 Mangere-Otahuhu

 

                       $15,515

 Manurewa

 

                       $16,926

 Otara-Papatoetoe

 

                       $16,715

 Papakura

 

                       $11,158

Total

               $22,806

             $582,431

 

Note: there are a number of commitments or costs expected in Waitemata and Orakei that are not yet shown in the these budgets

Consideration

15.     Council has an obligation to plan for extreme weather events.  Under property law there is term known as lateral support which is about the right of a landowner to have their land physically supported in its natural state by both adjoining land and underground structures. There are around 4000 local and sports parks and each of these parks have neighbours.  Any excavation or alteration Council makes to park land may, at a later time, damage and affect a neighbour and leave Council liable. Our neighbours have a right to enjoy their land in its natural condition.  This includes the right to have their land held in place from the sides by the neighbouring land unless both are subject to unforeseen natural events.

16.     In addition to this legal obligation to neighbours, some extreme weather events come at such a substantial cost that the budget available to an individual board is either unable to wear the cost of the recovery or the cost of recovery affects a range of other activities within a local board area.  This budget shortfall creates a liability and its own set of risks for Council and the community.

Options

17.     The following options have been considered for ongoing/future management of storm damage:

 

Option

Pro’s

Con’s

1

Do nothing:

Some boards have limited funds available, others have nothing

·   No change to boards budgets.  A small contingency fund remains available for those boards with funding.

·   No boards have sufficient funding to deal with medium size weather event – this exposes council to a range of risks

2

Create local unallocated fund (self-insurance):

This would be a ring fenced fund for all boards to access allocated to the local and sports parks activity.  It would be established from existing storm damage budgets held by some local boards. 

·   Funding is accessible across the region i.e. funds go where the storm goes

·   The size of the fund, pooled across the region, is more likely to accommodate regional extreme weather events than current arbitrary and small funding base available to those boards that have funding

·   Can be established immediately (providing all the boards agree) thereby helping with current liabilities

·   Risk of the fund being inappropriately used for day to day weather events.  This is a current risk and can be more readily mitigated as a local unallocated fund.  It is recommended that there would be a single Tier 4 manager with a regional view determining a consistency of approach.

·   Some boards contribute to this solution while others benefit without contribution – may be seen as inequitable

3

Ask governing body to cater for most impacts of extreme weather events on a case by case basis.

·   No change needed and governing body would pick up costs of damage (if agreed/funding found).  Local boards that have existing funding would potentially need to show expenditure of current budgets before being eligible.

·   The time delay and bureaucracy involved in making this happen means that most applications will be retrospective and expose the Council to financial risk

·   No funding is currently available at a governing body level.  May take time to advocate for/secure

 

Local Board Views

18.     This report is being circulated to all Local Boards to canvas their views on this issue.

Maori Impact Statement

19.     In many cases extreme weather events can damage archeological sites or sites of significance to Tangata Whenua. This can trigger the need for cultural impact assessments and more careful/expensive restoration works to protect the values of the site.  Without a fund to support rehabilitation or restoration work recently discovered or damaged sites of significance cannot be attended to as there are no funds.  A regional self-insurance fund would help to mitigate risk for Council.

General

20.     As previously mentioned a variety of extreme weather events have affected parks over the years.  For instance in 2011 storm damage caused extensive slips across Waiheke.  Repair work is ongoing and existing storm damage funding has been insufficient to cope. In 2012 a tornado hit Hobsonville causing widespread damage to trees and houses.  The arboricultural and general cleanup was unforeseen and no budget for this kind of work was available to the Upper Harbour Local Board.  In this case the cost of repair was funded by savings in the Local Board budget combined with a budget overspend. 

21.     During September last year, a major storm event hit the east coast beaches, particularly in the Hibiscus and Bays local board area but also affecting Rodney, Orakei and Howick Local Boards.  A storm surge of 0.8 metres on top of high tide caused substantial erosion. Orewa Beach was hit the hardest with significant sand loss and coastal structure damage. 

22.     Weather events are part of the life of Auckland.  The current inconsistent, and in many cases non-existent, planning for extreme weather events is a risk and exposes Council to a high likelihood of budget blowout in any given year and local board area. 

23.     The unpredictable nature of extreme weather events means that we cannot anticipate what portion of funding is needed for capital and operational funding.  However, based on the last three years weather events, we know that there is a need for both operational and capital funding.  It is therefore recommended that a portion of the current operational funds be allocated to capital funding to offset these costs.

Implementation Issues

24.     If a regional self-insurance fund, initially created from existing local board funds, is universally supported by formal resolution from all boards then this fund can be created in the current 2013/14 financial year.

25.     The expenditure against the local unallocated operational and capital storm damage budgets will be reported to all local boards annually.

26.     There are currently several areas affected by storm damage that have projected funding shortfalls that could benefit from immediate implementation of the regional solution. The beneficiaries from this fund will change from year to year. Some recent historical events and current events and associated funding requirements are detailed in Attachment A.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Historical and current events and associated funding requirements

133

     

Signatories

Authors

Jane Aickin, Manager Local and Sports Parks Central

Martin Van Jaarsveld, Manager Local and Sports Parks North

Malcolm Page, Manager Local and Sports Parks, South

Grant Jennings, Manager Local and Sports Parks West

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell, Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

Chairperson’s Report

 

File No.: CP2014/08622

 

  

 

Work on the Local Board Plan continues to be the major focus for the Local Board. This sets the priorities, programmes and funding for the next three years. We have already had informal engagement with stakeholders and communities to get feedback on our initial thoughts. By June we will have a draft plan to take out for formal consultation which goes through to August, with adoption of the final plan in October.

Running alongside this process, the Council is considering what the funding policy for local boards will be in the future. Various proposals have been put on the table which would have a considerable negative impact on this board.

Emerging from the Finance Department of Council have been various formulas to fund local boards. Up to now, we have been operating on the budgets rolled over from the legacy councils, in our case, Waitakere City Council.

This board is in a unique position in that it is the only board with national legislation sitting over us, the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008, which places obligations on Council to protect and enhance the heritage features of the Waitakere Ranges. In the last term, the Auckland Council divided up responsibilities between the Governing Body of Council and the WRLB.

The new proposed funding formulas for local boards take into account population, land area and deprivation, but not environmental need. This Local Board has a relatively small population, with a generally good standard of living, though we do have a large land area.  As a result, under all of the draft formulas being discussed, the WRLB does poorly and would see as much as 40% of what is called “discretionary funding” disappearing.

Currently much of this money is spent on what we would see as duties of the Local Board under the Act, for example, environmental work.

Of course we are arguing that caring for the environment is not optional, and that because of the legislation we are a special case, but we have yet to see whether we are making headway.

Allied to these arguments, is a proposal to bring in “local rates”. In other words, as well as the general rates paid to Council by property owners, a local board could introduce a special Local Rate to pay for things the Governing Body will not fund. This would mean ratepayers paid two rates, an extraordinary roll-back of the amalgamation process, and for me personally, an eerie reminder of the path the Auckland Regional Council took when it struck its own rate, and earned the severe anger of ratepayers.

Of course, at the end of the day, decisions on funding policy and rates are made by the Governing Body of the Council, not by Local Boards.

We will keep you informed of how this scenario plays out, but we are pretty dismayed that we are expected to consult the public on the Long Term Plan, when we do not know how much money we will have in our budget.

 

Recommendation

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Receives the Chairperson’s report.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Author

Sandra Coney, Chairperson – Waitākere Ranges Local Board

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

Portfolio update: Member Sandra Coney

 

File No.: CP2014/08623

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report provides an opportunity for Member Sandra Coney to give an update with regards to activity within her portfolio areas.

2.       Portfolio holders are responsible for leading policy development in their portfolio area, proposing and developing project concepts, overseeing agreed projects within budgets, being active advocates, accessing and providing information and advice.

3.       Member Coney has lead for the portfolios of Historic Heritage/Character and Parks area.

Executive Summary                                                              

Heritage and WW1 Portfolio

4.       Anzac Day was well-attended at all locations, and between them Local Board members were able to attend every one in our local board area. I was asked to speak at the 11 am Glen Eden RSA ceremony at Waikumete, and attach my words. I got good feedback on my words which drew attention to the centenary, and why our memorials and cenotaphs are so important in remembering the men with graves in foreign countries or listed amongst “the missing” on overseas battlefields.

5.       The War Graves Commission (predecessor of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission) made the decision during WW1 that no dead soldiers would be returned to their countries, so that there would be no division between officer and foot soldier, as there might be if well-to-do families could bring their sons home for burial but working families could not.

6.       This was the first service with the newly refurbished cenotaph at Waikumete with a sloping approach making it possible for those older and less firm to be able to place their wreaths.

7.       I had attended a number of meetings with cemetery managers, parks staff and local RSAs before Anzac Day, so it was good to see everything working so well, and that the rain held off.

8.       At Piha, a large crowd attended the service in front of the WW1 and WW2 plaques on Lion Rock, where a lone piper played the haunting Lament from high up the rock. The Mayor attended this one, and councillors Hulse and Cooper did too, and the RSA, like RSAs up and down the country, excelled itself with the after-event spread.

9.       In preparation for Anzac Day, the parks’ department had tidied up the “Soldiers Walk” at Titirangi, opposite Lopdell House, a long-held ambition of the Titirangi RSA. This walk once led to a lovely memorial which was later moved to outside Titirangi War Memorial Hall. Trees had grown up to obscure the view of the Manukau, the seat was tatty and there were far too many weeds.

7755.jpg

 

Titirangi War Memorial in its original location

10.     A new seat has been installed and a viewshaft judiciously created by some minor pruning. Gorse and some weeds were hand removed and there will be follow up with the climbing asparagus and plectranthus. We are also discussing some interpretation on the site so people know its history and where to now see the memorial obelisk.

11.     Now that Anzac Day is passed, I intend to call a meeting of groups interested in the WW1 Centenary, so we can coordinate what Council is doing with activities in the community.

12.     Regarding heritage, the board allocated funds for the commencement of work to update and improve the database and mapping of historic and cultural heritage sites in our area. This is being carried out under the direction of the Council’s Heritage team.

13.     There has also been some action with the matter I raised with other local board chairs of input of local boards into assessment of applications to demolish buildings covered by the pre-1944 demolition overlay in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Consents staff will make sure any demolition applications will be referred to local boards for comment, allowing local knowledge to be provided. Thank you to the member of the public who alerted me to this matter with regard to the shops on the corner of West Coast and Captain Scott Road.

14.     The board has also agreed to assist with two community heritage projects: A Friends of Arataki book on the history of Exhibition Drive, which was opened in 1914, 100 years ago; and the Friends of Waikumete with a contribution to the repair of a particularly splendid but falling angel.

 

Recommendation

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Receives the portfolio update from Member Sandra Coney.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Speech at Glen Eden RSA ceremony at Waikumete

141

     

Signatories

Author

Member Sandra Coney - Waitākere Ranges Local Board

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

Anzac Day, 25 April 2014

Waikumete Cemetery 11am

Returned servicemen and women, families of all who have gone to war wearing the New Zealand colours, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Today is an important occasion because this year is the centenary of New Zealand joining Britain in going to war.

It was predicted that this war would be short and sharp. We now know that this was sadly wrong and that New Zealand sent wave after wave of men over four years. Many of the survivors did not return until 1919.

A decision was made by the War Graves Commission (the predecessor of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission) that no fallen soldier would be returned to be buried in his native country.The Commission feared that wealthy British parents would bring home their sons for burial in the United Kingdom, while the sons of working families would be forever lying in “a foreign field”,  and that officers would  separated from their men. If not equal in life, soldiers were to be equal in death.

For the English, the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior in London was to be representative of all the men buried in other countries or with no known grave, and there was an extraordinary outpouring of grief when that one soldier was brought back to England,  symbolising all the fallen. In one month, half a million people filed past his coffin.

Of course, bringing fallen soldiers home would never be an option for New Zealand or Australian families. Their graves and memorials are a long way away, though many make the pilgrimage.

Instead at home our WW1 fallen are commemorated up and down the country in cenotaphs and memorials, like this one here. For the last century they have provided a focal point for families and communities to remember.

If all we have left of these men is their names, it is important that those names are engraved, and put up in permanent form for all to see, to read and to honour.

This cenotaph to the men who did not come home, is surrounded by the graves of the men who did come home but who subsequently died.

For many, their life span was shortened by injuries and harm they suffered in battle, and by the circumstances they have lived and fought in, with terrible living conditions and poor diet. Others lived a full life span, but came home to rest among the others who had fought alongside them.

Amongst them are men from local families, or who worked in the hills, farms and brickworks of the west.

Others were far from home.

One of these men buried here is Frederick Backholm, born in Finland. He started working on ships at the age of 16, stopped off in NZ, and ended up working in the Waitakere forests as a bushman. At the rather grand old age of 44, Freddie signed up and served in Egypt and the Western Front, was injured and hospitalised, before returning to New Zealand.

Keith Cowan was only 20 when he signed up, a young man from Rarotonga who had come to work with his Cowan cousins from Waitakere at the Piha sawmill. He came home from war, and worked in timber mills on the Auckland waterfront.  He had suffered a major injury to his leg during the war, which caused him pain for the rest of his life. He too is resting in Waikumete cemetery.

Outside the military section of the cemetery there are the also the graves of a number of soldiers in the civilian sections of the graveyard.

Amongst these is the grave of Peter Solomona, one of 500 men from the Cook Islands who responded to the call to come and join New Zealand, most becoming part of the Maori Pioneer Battalion.

They were healthy men, larger and often fitter than the New Zealand recruits, being pearl divers and fishermen in their home country.

But they had not been exposed to European diseases, and suffered greatly from the cold (in both NZ and on the Western Front).  Peter is one of a number who died from sickness at Narrow Neck Camp before even leaving New Zealand.  Most are buried at O’Neills Point Cemetery on the North Shore, but for some reason Peter is buried at Waikumete.

Every name and every grave has a story to tell, of courage, suffering and in the case of returned men, these weary men, tried to put their lives back together, find work and form new families.

Over the course of the next few years we have a chance to gather memories of the lives of these men and record them for all time, with photographs of them and their families.

We must also remember that this year is the 75th anniversary of the outbreak of World War 2.

 I was born at the end of that war and I grew up surrounded by men who had gone to war.

 It seems astonishing that in 2014, we now have so few returned servicemen here to honour in person.

This is a day we remember all our dead from all wars that New Zealand has taken part in.

We will remember them.

Sandra Coney

Chair Waitakere Ranges Local Board

 

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

08 May 2014

 

 

Portfolio update: Member Denise Yates

 

File No.: CP2014/08606

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report provides an opportunity for Member Denise Yates to give an update with regards to activity within her portfolio areas.

2.       Portfolio holders are responsible for leading policy development in their portfolio area, proposing and developing project concepts, overseeing agreed projects within budgets, being active advocates, accessing and providing information and advice.

3.       Member Yates has lead for the portfolios of Arts and Culture, Community Facilities, Libraries and Events.

Executive Summary                                                              

 

Events

4.       Planning is well progressed towards a High-Tea we are to host on 18 May to acknowledge Janet Clews’ 50 years service in Local Government. Janet started out on the Glen Eden Borough Council eventually becoming Mayor, moved onto Waitakere City Council and eventually onto the inaugural Waitakere Ranges Local Board – well worth celebrating!

5.       Plans are also progressing towards a Volunteer Recognition event in late June. Board members have been invited to identify groups and individuals to be invited to this event and to pass these names onto our PA, Sharon Davies.

6.       Other events worth noting include the recent launch of the Muddy Creeks Local Area Plan, Anzac Day Services, EcoDay, a Living Wage Event, Trees for Babies and a Peace event. It is good to note community interest in Waste-free events with this Board actively encouraging them.

7.       Feedback from previous events e.g. the Glen Eden Christmas Carnival, Movies in Parks indicates a good attendance level and expressions of appreciation from local people for these Board sponsored events have flown in.

Arts

8.       A big wooden sculptu