BEFORE HEARINGS COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED BY PORIRUA CITY COUNCIL AND GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND applications for resource consent under Part 6 BETWEEN WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL Local Authority AND PORIRUA CITY COUNCIL Local Authority AND JAGGER NZ LIMITED Applicant

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF BRYCE SELWYN HOLMES ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

2

INTRODUCTION 1. My full name is Bryce Selwyn Holmes. I am a Principal Planner with Land Matters Limited

and a Director of that company. I hold a Bachelor of Resource and Environmental Planning (with Honours) 2001, from Massey University. I specialised in economics as part of my planning degree. I am a current and full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute (NZPI).

2. I have had some 15 years experience as a planner. I have worked in both the public and

private sectors and am currently employed by Land Matters Limited. Land Matters is a consultancy that specialises in not only the resource management aspects of projects, but also property expertise.

3. I have been engaged by the Applicant - Jagger NZ Limited (“Jagger” or “the Applicant”) to

provide planning evidence on their behalf in relation to the applications currently before the Commissioners.

4. Past experience included a policy and consents position with Taupo District Council and after

that a consents officer for the Manawatu Whanganui Regional Council (“Horizons Regional Council”). In my current role with Land Matters I undertake planning work for a range of public and private clients throughout New Zealand. This work typically involves project management, policy analysis, resource consent preparation, and expert planning input to land acquisition for public projects. More recently this has included analysing the impact of the proposed Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (RWSS) and associated Plan Change 6 to the Hawkes Bay Regional Plan on behalf of a client whose land will be inundated by a dam reservoir. I have had experience in presenting expert planning evidence before local authorities throughout New Zealand, the Environment Court, the High Court and Board of Inquiry matters.

5. Relevant to the current applications, I have had more specific experience in subdivision, land

use and water resource management through the following projects and applications:

a) Processing subdivision and land use consents, water permits, and discharge permits for Local Authorities;

b) Preparation of applications for consent for subdivision, use and developments in locations with sensitive receiving environments. For example:

i. Lakeside Terraces – a 65 lot residential subdivision adjacent to Lake Taupo;

ii. Tree Tops – 24 lot residential subdivision adjacent to Lake Taupo and the Omori Scenic Reserve, Kuratau.

iii. Wakelin Station Riverfront Estate – Haruru Falls next to the Waitangi River in Northland. 28 lifestyle lots with conservation initiatives for the enhancement of water quality and habitat for the New Zealand North Island Brown Kiwi.

3

iv. Waterstone in Paraparaumu – mixed density residential development (approximately 150 lots) next to the Mazengarb Stream in Kapiti.

c) More than 2 years experience in providing independent planning advice to Porirua

City Council’s (PCC) Water Assets Team (now part of Wellington Water (WW)) including preparation of resource consents for stormwater, water, flood protection activities in Porirua East, Whitby (Discovery Drive), and Titahi Bay. I also assisted the PCC water assets team with comments on draft provisions of the Proposed Natural Resource Plan (Proposed Regional Plan). The draft provisions were circulated to that local authority as a key stakeholder in that process.

6. In relation to the Applications currently before you I can confirm that I was responsible for preparing the Assessment of Environmental Effects, coordinating the specialist reports and plans accompanying the applications, and compiling the applications (including responding to further information requests). Along with the Directors of Jagger, I have been involved in consulting stakeholders and members of the community about the Brookside development.

7. Although this matter is not before the Environment Court, I can confirm that I have read the

Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses outlined in the Environment Court’s Consolidated Practice Note and have complied with it in preparing this evidence. I also agree to follow the Code when presenting evidence before the Commissioners. I confirm that the issues addressed in this brief of evidence are within my area of expertise and that I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from my opinions. Where my opinions are based on areas outside of my expertise through reference to other evidence then I have indicated as such in this statement.

SCOPE AND SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 8. In preparing this statement of evidence I have read:

• The application and further information;

• All submissions received as a result of public notification;

• The section 42A reports prepared for Greater Wellington Regional Council

(GWRC)1 and Porirua City Council2;

• Statements of Evidence in Chief (EiC) filed on behalf of the applicant; and

• The relevant provisions of the planning documents applicable to these

applications. This includes a Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP)

prepared for the land in 2011 and the Porirua Harbour and Catchment

Strategy and Action Plan (PHCSAP March 2012). The last 2 are non-

1 Report by Mr Douglas Fletcher dated 11 March 2016 2 Report by Mr Andrew Jones dated 11 March 2016

4

statutory documents that I consider relevant in the Commissioners

assessment of the applications3.

9. I have visited the site on a number of occasions. Where possible all ‘natural’ boundaries

have been walked. The stream margin has also been investigated. To get a ‘feel’ for the

land in context with the surrounding communities I have also walked the perimeter

pedestrian paths, driven all surrounding road networks, and visited the Whitby shopping

village. Given I reside in nearby Mana, I frequent the surrounding network of paths in the

Whitby area.

10. My statement will deal with:

a) Background to the Proposal;

b) The Issues to Resolve;

c) Section 104 - The Planning Framework – Summary;

d) Effects on the Environment and comment on relevant provisions of the

Planning Documents – Summary;

e) Other Matters – Non – Statutory Documents; and

f) Part II Summary, Conclusions and Recommended Decision.

To avoid repetition and allow for an efficient hearing process I have not quoted large passages from planning provisions or legislation (unless emphasis is required). Where possible I have also set out areas of agreement with the other planning witnesses to avoid ‘doubling up’ on matters already before you in the Applications and the s42A reports. Key assessment areas and matters of disagreement will be the focus.

BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSAL 11. Parts 2 and 3 of Mr. Fletcher’s report sets out the background to the Duck Creek North site

and a description of the location. It is a useful account of the history behind the community planning for the land through the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) process and the involvement of the former owner Whitby Coastal Estates Limited (WCEL). For the benefit of the Commissioners I believe it is worth while outlining the further evolution of the project over the past 2 years.

12. From April 2014 through to June 2014 I assisted Jagger in a consultation process with a

number of stakeholders to inform its desire in purchasing the ‘lower 9 holes’ of the land 3 Relevant in terms of s104(1)(c) of the Act

5

known as Duck Creek North. Stakeholders included PCC (assets, reserves, policy, and resource consenting), Capacity Infrastructure (now Wellington Water), Greater Wellington (flood protection) and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). The process resulted in a draft outline for a framework plan for the land. Central to consideration of particularly PCC was the desire to provide for a reserve network through the development and along the stream corridor. Greater Wellington’s preference was to see bridges as opposed to culverts for stream crossings and Capacity were intent on working with the land owner to address the gravity main within the land which was some years old and we were told due for relining.

13. Unfortunately for Jagger the first purchase process embarked on was unsuccessful and it

wasn’t until 2015 that a new offer was accepted for the land. 14. At that point the Applicant approached Land Matters to assemble a team to embark on

resource consent preparation for a residential development for the land. During that period the proposed ‘framework plan’ was tested by Jagger’s consultants to ensure environmental concerns/factors were considered. This included urban design, ecology, flood and stream management, landscape, open space networks, and transportation considerations. The work achieved with the community through the CDP process was not forgotten and formed the primary basis for ‘shaping’ the layout.

15. Key considerations of the CDP process were the planning document overlays relating to the

site. For instance, and dealt with more formally later in this statement, the integration of regional council/city council functions to address flood plain management within the site consistent with the CDP including creating building areas clear of the calculated (modelled) flood event. The Applicants engineers considered the safest means is through filling the land to ensure infrastructure (roads/services) are also protected.

16. The ecology needed to be considered. In my view the Applicant took a responsible

approach on ecological values and wanted not only an enhancement of the important stream environment, also for the public at large to be able to still enjoy the amenity the stream provides. Setting Brookside apart from previous development in the Duck Creek catchment meant very little work is proposed within the active stream bed. The relatively small stream diversion within the site will mean 1 less permanent structure over Duck Creek than the CDP anticipated. The main result of removing the fourth bridge/structure, and introducing a creek diversion, is bringing in a Stream Ecological Valuation (SEV) process for addressing the effects on that reach of the creek. Although the SEV calculates an effect on the stream, the involvement of the Applicant’s ecology experts (Tonkin and Taylor) and landscape architect (Cardno) means almost the entire stream corridor through the site will be planted and managed. Jagger also asked its landscape architect to consider urban design matters and this resulted in a recognisable theme for the development so that it had a sense of place – “Brookside” - and an entry monument with macrocapa theme to tie in with the surrounding Whitby community.

6

17. In my view the Applicant brings with it beneficial experience for a new development in Whitby. The Applicant has Directors with related experience in not only land development but also building. Classic Builders (Director – Peter Cooney) are one of New Zealand’s largest house building companies. They intend to undertake a house and land package – ‘turn key’ operation. However that intent appears to be misunderstood in the PCC s42A report and that has been reflected in what I consider to be restrictive conditions, especially around a condition requiring only single storey dwellings. I will return to that matter later in evidence and under the heading of Urban Form and Landscape Effects.

18. I do not propose to outline further detailed descriptions of the site, its surrounds, or the

proposal. The site has been well described in the application documents4, the s42A report prepared by GW5, the s42A report prepared by PCC6, and the reports and statements of evidence on behalf of the Applicant. Full details of the proposed activities are found in section 5 of the AEE, part 1.0 of the PCC s42A report, and part 4 of the GW s42A report. The proposal has been amended through the process with the deletion of Lot 100 to make way for an updated stormwater treatment system detailed in the Cardno letter to Land Matters dated 29 February 2016. Along with the earthworks, roading, infrastructure provision, and reserve development, the proposal now includes the creation of 148 (rather than the original 149) new fee simple Computer Freehold Registers (CFR’s or residential lots).

THE ISSUES TO RESOLVE 19. In my opinion the broad issues to resolve are:

a) Having regard to the relevant matters in s104 of the Act, will the Applicant’s proposal achieve the sustainable management purpose of the Act while avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment; and

b) What conditions should be appropriately imposed on the development given the environmental benefits it proposes?

20. The remainder of my evidence focuses on the relevant matters in s104 of the RMA. SECTION 104 OF THE ACT – THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK - SUMMARY 21. Parts 4 and 8 of the respective PCC and GWRC s42A reports provide a helpful summary of

the relevant matters to consider in these applications which all planning witnesses agree are Discretionary Activities under both the Regional and District Plans. I agree with the 2 planning witnesses that the relevant planning provisions, effects of the activities, and ‘other matters’ (s104(1)(c)) need to be considered. The consideration is undertaken with the submissions in mind and subject to the purpose and principles of the Act (Part II).

22. However, and in considering the applications under s104, it is my opinion that we must look

4 Volume One – Applications and Assessment of Environmental Effects – Section 4 5 Refer to part 9.1 of that Report 6 Refer to part 2.0 of that Report

7

at them in context of the ‘natural hierarchy’ of planning documents relating to these activities. Part II matters (sections 5 – 8) are of primary importance in making decisions, with the national policy statements, NZCPS, the RPS, Regional Plans, and District Plan then providing more specific guidance on relevant matters in a descending but more detailed order as we work down through that hierarchy. The first minute of the Commissioners also provided guidance that they are looking for advice on including the role of some non -statutory documents (the PHCSAP). Although some of those matters are not canvassed directly in the s42A reports I have made reference to the relevant provisions in the following summary of effects on the environment, and later in evidence. Where the matters are outside my area of expertise I have relied on the expert evidence on behalf of the Applicant.

SECTION 104(1)(a) OF THE ACT – EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT FROM ALLOWING THE ACTIVITIES - SUMMARY 23. Part 9 (volume 1) of the application documents provides an assessment of environmental

effects. Parts 9 and 6 of the respective Greater Wellington and PCC s42A reports also provide an assessment of adverse effects. In providing a judgement on those effects on the environment from allowing the proposed activities I believe it is helpful for the Commissioners to bring to the front of their minds the definition of “effect” from s2 of the Act. It says that an effect is defined as:

3 Meaning of “effect” In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the term effect includes –

(a) Any positive or adverse effect; and (b) Any temporary or permanent effect; and (c) Any past, present, or future effect; and (d) Any cumulative effect which arises over time or in combination with other effects –

regardless of the scale, intensity, duration, or frequency of the effect, and also includes -

(e) Any potential effect of high probability; and (f) Any potential effect of low probability which has a high potential impact.

24. I have emphasised what I consider to be some key words from the above definition because

a proper assessment as to whether or not an effect is significant or not should take into account matters of scale and significance, duration (temporary or permanent), and also a balancing of positive outcomes with negative or adverse effects. The s42A reports appear to mainly focus on the negative effects.

25. In part 9 of the GW report and part 6 of the PCC report I believe both planners have

accurately identified the actual and potential adverse effects of allowing the proposed activities. There is some cross over between the PCC and GW assessments, earthworks and ecology for example, so I will just provide a summary and my opinion if it differs from the reports. The main issues of focus are heritage and cultural, natural hazards, stream works including bank stability, ecology, earthworks including silt/sediment control, urban form and landscape, and infrastructure.

8

Heritage and Cultural Effects 26. Te Runanga o Toa Rangatira Inc and Heritage New Zealand have made submissions in

relation to the proposed activities. Mr. Jones’ s42A report contains an advice note with regard to the Applicant’s obligations under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. I agree that it is an advice note is appropriate method to alert the Applicant. The Applicant is aware of its obligations and has employed an archaeologist to manage those matters.

27. Mr. Jones gives his account of cultural matters he considers relevant in paragraphs 6.151 –

6.158 of the PCC s42A report. I agree with his overall conclusion that the methods included in the applications and recommended conditions of resource consent will adequately address known cultural effects. However at paragraph 6.151 he suggests the northern part of the application site contains a Ngati Ira Burial Area given it is part of Wai-o-Hata. That statement needs to be considered in context of known information. The plan that Mr. Jones relies on is attached to my statement as Appendix 1. That information shows a plan of an area with only a very small part of the application site. Most of the pink shading shown on the plan extends over the Observatory Close area and then eastward to the Pauatahanui roundabout. Schedule C.3 of the PNRP also describes that Wai-o-Hata has significance for a range of values – Kainga, wahi tapu, wahi tupuna, puna raranga, wai maori, kai awa, kai ngahere, rongoa, and wahi maumahara. There is nothing in this information to suggest that the Ngati Ira Burial Area is in the subject land.

28. Part of the Applicant’s desire to understand Ngati Toa’s concerns in its submission and their

relationship with the area, including Wai-o-Hata, has been to actively engage with the submitter. These discussions have been in good faith and with Directors of the Applicant’s company. I have been involved in facilitating some of those discussions. The email attached in Appendix 2 is an example of the fruitful discussions had with representatives on behalf of the Runanga. It was clear during those discussions that the Runanga were primarily concerned with the health of the water resource including Duck Creek and the nearby Pauatahanui Inlet. Those important considerations are included in the various management plans (drafts) submitted with the applications and now part of the recommended conditions of resource consent – particularly Mr. Fletcher’s report.

29. In my opinion the Applicant has appropriately taken the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi

(s8 of the RMA) into account seriously through active engagement and consultation, and then recognised and provided for known values consistent with s6(e) and 7(a) of the Act. The enhancement of the stream corridor through erosion protection and native planting along most of the existing stream within the land are also positive ecological contributions to the values expressed as important in schedule C.3 of the PNRP. Overall I consider the potential short term effects of construction on the water resources to be relatively minor in relation to the longer term management of the stream corridor. In my view the planting and stream management will be positive contributions to cultural values in the Wai-o-Hata area/catchment.

9

Natural Hazards Effects 30. There are 2 natural hazards that have the potential to affect people and property within the

subject land. Those hazards are surface water flooding ad the effects resulting from ground shaking – liquefaction. Flooding has been raised as an issue in submissions by Trevor and Lesley Roberts, Roy and Jacqueline Noble, Ashton and Claire Johnstone, Gary Saunders, Anthony Scabrook and Maria Gracie. Trevor and Lesley Roberts also focus on liquefaction as an issue as does David Wyatt.

31. Apart from some detailed design matters for stormwater contribution to surface water, and

the extent of stream erosion bank protection, the experts (Mott MacDonald and Cardno) are in agreement that the new residential lots will be provided with land above the calculated (modelled) flood hazard. The evidence of Mr. Christensen summarise that flooding issue and in a manner which concurs with the findings of both the s42A reports on behalf of the Local Authorities.

32. In my view Mr. Jones gives the Commissioners sound advice in relation to s106 RMA

circumstances – there are no outstanding circumstances that will likely leave the new residential lots subject to material damage by erosion, falling debris, subsidence, slippage, or inundation. However, in relation to liquefaction the PCC s42A report appears to have gone beyond the recommendations of the experts including the Abuild report through adding an advice note to proposed condition 102. That advice note relates to the potential situation whereby a consent notice can be imposed on new CFR’s, at PCC’s sole discretion, with respect to liquefaction. The application and Abuild Report (dated 17 November 2015) recommends ground improvement measures to mitigate against effects of liquefaction. In my view condition 102 already adequately provides for confirmation that the land in the subdivision will be fit for purpose. There is no need for the advice note and/or any consent notice given the content of the Abuild report which summarises:

“The mitigation option of ground improvement by compaction is considered to be routine and practical and an effective way to improve the density consistency of the near surface sandy subgrade soils and improved resistance to liquefaction. This will be achieved by specific supervision and inspections as the earthworks proceed.”

33. That mitigation option occurs prior to subdivision completion and the proposed conditions

also require the mitigation and ground surety prior to the construction of any building. In my experience that is normal practice and there is no need to alarm people unnecessarily when they are using the land for residential purposes in the future, especially when the supervision and testing suggested in the Abuild Report will have already occurred. These conditions move past and supersede the outdated consent notice currently registered on the parent CFR (title) and the earlier 1993 Works Consultancy Report referenced in that notice.

34. Accordingly I recommend deleting the advice note under proposed condition 102, not

imposing additional consent notices around liquefaction, and am satisfied the potential adverse effects of natural hazards can be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated

10

through the performance conditions around engineering surety for the land in the subdivision.

Stream Works Including Bank Stability Effects 35. The s42A report on behalf of GWRC provides recommended conditions to manage the

potential effects of structures (particularly bridges) over the bed of Duck Creek. Those conditions seek management plans similar to the documents included with appendix 7 (volume 2) of the application documents. I support those conditions and consider the new structures are consistent with objective 7.1.1 and policy 7.2.1 of the Operative Regional Freshwater Plan (Operative RFP).

36. There does not appear to be any disagreement between the expert engineers as to the

actual and potential adverse effects of bridging the creek or removal of the existing structures in the bed. The bridges will have permanent effects of occupation but are minor in nature given they span across the creek and have very little influence on the bed of the stream. The removal of the existing structures will have temporary effects. There are also positive effects from removal of those structures which currently permanently occupy the active (flowing) bed of the stream. In addition, the removal of the existing structures (triple pipe culvert, stormwater structures and wooden retaining walls on the banks of the stream) are permitted activities under rule 33 of the Operative RFP and rule R118 of the PNRP. I consider the removal of the existing structures to be part of the Permitted Baseline and consistent with Policy 7.2.9 of the Operative RFP.

37. At page 66 of the GWRC s42A report Mr. Fletcher requests information from the Applicant

prior to the hearing. Point 1 of that conclusion recommends:

“The applicant amends the design of the proposed stream channel by increasing the amount of stream bank erosion protection to be constructed on and within the banks of Duck Creek; in order to address the stream bank erosion protection concern raised by Mr Joseph in his report Mott MacDonald-draft, 2016.

38. There is a point of disagreement on this recommendation between the Applicant’s river

engineer (Mr. Christensen) and Mott MacDonald. Cardno provide expert opinions through evidence and its reports that further stream bank protection is neither warranted from an erosion perspective, nor appropriate given the design philosophy to only provide erosion protection where absolutely necessary. They state that the introduction of further stream bank protection would only serve to remove existing established vegetation and natural banks that have survived flood events for a considerable period of time. The Cardno modelling and engineering experts have assessed those areas of the banks even in a post development scenario and still conclude the protection works suggested by Mott MacDonald are not required. From an ecological perspective Mr. Miller does not support additional bank protection work because of potential implications for the SEV/ECR.

39. The relevant planning documents for Duck Creek and its margins give guidance on when it

11

is appropriate to intervene in riparian areas with hard engineering methods for erosion protection. In my view there is a balanced approach in the planning provisions through policies 43(b) and 52(a) – (c) of the Operative RPS. Policy 43(b) guides decision makers to have regard to “maintaining or enhancing the ecological functions of riparian margins” whereas policy 52 seeks to minimise adverse effects of hazard (erosion) mitigation measures. Policy 52 asks decision makers to consider whether engineering measures are required in order to avoid unacceptable risk. Policy 7.2.4 of the Operative FRP seeks to avoid ad hoc erosion mitigation structures and aims to discourage the use of such methods. In my view there is policy support in the Operative RPS and FRP to adopt the erosion control approach put forward in the application and presented in evidence by Mr. Christensen. I favour that approach as a means of avoiding unnecessary vegetation removal and maintaining existing the riparian margins where possible. The margins subject to the Cardno erosion protection can then be integrated better with the restoration planting put forward by Tonkin and Taylor.

40. Overall, and for these reasons I recommend you accept the conceptual erosion protection

works shown on Cardno plans C251 – C253 to that proposed in the Mott MacDonald draft report.

Effects on Ecology – Aquatic and Terrestrial 41. The Commissioners have given direction on some of the key areas of focus with regard to

ecology and biodiversity7. Mr. Fletcher notes items he considers to be outstanding information at part 13 of its report8. Those matters are related to ecology through the SEV approach to the stream works. The PCC s42A report (through the evidence of Mr. Gray) seeks information on the actual effects of bridge 1 on the salt marsh area and also nearby ecosites. These ecological resources appear to straddle the boundaries common with the Applicant’s land holding.

42. Matters of ecology are also put forward in submissions made by David Wyatt, the

Department of Conservation, Te Runanga o Toa Rangatira Inc, Forest and Bird, and the Guardians of the Pauatahanui Inlet.

43. Noting the importance of ecological matters with regard to relevant s6 and s7 matters under

Part II of the Act, and also the provisions of the RPS, Operative RFP, PNRP and the District Plan, the Applicant commissioned extensive reports on those matters through Tonkin and Taylor and Cardno. Those reports are contained in volume 2 of the AEE. I consider the s42A reports have identified and commented on the appropriate provisions of the planning documents and concur with those assessments. They are also relevant for the updated information Mr. Miller has provided in evidence around matters of ecology. I note that the salt marsh and ecosites next to the Applicants site are not shown on the Operative District or Regional Planning Maps. They all stop at the boundary of the land. However in my view

7 See paragraph 13 “Aquatic Matters” and “Terrestrial Matters” of the 1st Minute dated 3 February 2016. 8 Refer to part 13 items 2. – 4.

12

you can consider the effects on those resources under the Act. The Tonkin and Taylor report and Mr. Miller’s evidence have assessed those effects including at the interface with the development.

44. Mr. Miller has produced a detailed statement of evidence addressing the ecological matters

identified by the Commissioners, the s42A reports and by reference to what they consider to be the key submissions about ecological concerns.

45. Mr. Miller considers the key terrestrial and wetland values on and adjacent to the site are

located within areas classified as Ecosites in the Porirua City District Plan or as Significant

Urban Vegetation. Two forest patches are located adjacent to and slightly encroach into the

site. Small parts of those forest patches would be cleared as part of the proposed works.

The ecology report lodged with the application recommended that clearance is minimised by

only clearing vegetation necessary to form building platforms and cut batters and by

minimising edge effects through pest plant control at the reserve boundary interface. Mr.

Miller also recommends that infill planting is undertaken in that area and that lizard salvage

is undertaken. If those measures are implemented then he considers that the level of effect

would be no more than minor.

46. Tonkin and Taylor note a third area of vegetation clearance impacts on wetland buffer

vegetation within the Porirua City Council road and Ecosite bordering the Duck Creek

Scenic Reserve. The magnitude of the effect of this vegetation clearance is considered by

Mr. Miller to be moderate on the basis that there will be a loss relative to the baseline

condition although only a moderate proportion of higher value vegetation will be impacted.

To address this vegetation loss he has recommended buffer planting as mitigation. I

recommend this is added to the conditions of resource consent.

47. The project involves instream works in Duck Creek, including stream diversion and erosion

protection works. Mr. Fletcher has asked for clarification on this matter. Effects on stream

ecology have been addressed in detail based on the Stream Ecological Valuation (SEV) and

Environmental Compensation Ratio (ECR) methodologies and the assessment has been

subject to technical review. Mr. Miller has provided a summary of the updated SEV and

compensation assessment in evidence and incorporating review comments from GWRC

reviewers.

48. Given the evidence of Mr. Miller the stream compensation package for the Applicant’s

proposal should include that required for the main diversion (827m) and for the placement of

rock erosion protection and bridge structures (i.e. the instream works) of 146m. This comes

to a total compensation length of 973 m which is roughly equivalent to the length of stream

available for restoration work on site (986 m).

49. The landscape management plan (draft) in volume 2 of the AEE deals with appropriate

13

design and management of the riparian enhancement work. Recommended work will result

in an almost continuous vegetated riparian corridor through the site (excluding crossings)

and in my view will achieve no net loss of stream ecological value or function.

50. Overall, and although the Operative RPS and Plans do not require a ‘not net loss’ approach

to ecological matters, the SEV method has been applied to the stream works within the site

to determine a level of ecological improvement comparative to the adverse effects of the

activities. The Applicant has proposed to undertake those works as part of its activities. The

infill planting and mitigation planting suggested by Mr. Miller for the ecosites will restore the

edges of those areas. I agree with the planning witnesses that the conditions recommended

to be imposed will secure the ecological restoration works. I also consider there are other

positive outcomes from the proposed planting works including providing amenity for people

using the intended reserve network within the land. The improvement in biodiversity will

become a long term and permanent positive outcome of the proposed development.

Earthworks (including silt/sediment control) and Construction Effects 51. Construction effects silt control are dealt with at length in the s42A reports9. There are

understandable concerns from the submitters that surround the site given the presence of earthworks. However in reality the amenity effects from the activities will be for a limited duration for individual stages of the development and not focused in one location over time. The bulk earthworks for each stage is expected to occur over one summer period, rather than for the 10 year period of the consent. I consider those matters can be appropriately managed through the Environmental Management Plan for Construction lodged (in draft) with the Application (see Appendix 7, volume 2).

52. Given the sensitive nature of the water resources in the area, Mr. Fletcher’s s42A report

describes the Duck Creek, Scenic Reserve (Salt Marsh), and Pauatahanui Inlet environments at part 9.1 of his report. Because of these matters Mr. Fletcher considers there is outstanding information to be provided (see part 13. point 5) around water quality trigger limits for the Environmental Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan that is intended for the construction activities. The Commissioners have also sought an assessment of the NZCPS (policies 21, 22, and 3) as it relates to potential effects of increased sediment to the Pauatahanui Inlet. Those matters have been raised in submissions.

53. The s42A report on behalf of PCC recognises the NZCPS 2010 as relevant. However the

GWRC report does not explicitly mention the NZCPS. In my opinion that policy statement has no application on the site as the landward extent has not been defined in any of the relevant planning documents under policy 4 of the RPS. However the Commissioners have noted relevant policies as a consequence of the potential downstream receiving

9 See Para’s 6.37 – 6.83 of the PCC Report and Parts 9.3 – 9.4 of the GWRC s42A Report.

14

environment. Mr. Miller assessed those potential effects in his statement and I have summarised his findings below.

54. Tonkin and Taylor and Cardno have made an assessment of the effects of contaminant

discharges as a result of construction and the finished subdivision on the Pauatahanui Inlet receiving environment near the Duck Creek mouth.

55. Mr. O’Callaghan has had vast experience with development in the Duck Creek catchment.

He has provided evidence that the proposed controls for earthworks management can be implemented from an engineering perspective and also by contractors operating under those controls. He is confident significant adverse effects will not eventuate from the proposed activities.

56. The evidence of Mr. Miller is that significant sedimentation effects in Pauatahanui Inlet, as a

result of the Brookside Project, is not expected. Although sedimentation risks still remain because of large events coinciding with northerly winds, minimisation of the potential for sedimentation as a result of the Brookside Project can occur because of the robust erosion and sediment control practices, surveillance, monitoring and feedback. I concur with Mr. Miller’s recommendation for an increase in rainfall event triggered monitoring as part of the adaptive management framework and recommend it is included in the conditions of resource consent (Greater Wellington consents). Mr. Miller has assessed the potential sedimentation effects specifically with regard to NZCPS policies 21, 22 and 3 and the Porirua Harbour and Catchment Strategy and Action Plan. He finds that the proposed activities are consistent with those provisions and the objectives of the Action Plan.

57. Overall I consider the effects or earthworks and sedimentation can be adequately avoided

and/or mitigated through the operation of the comprehensive environmental management plan for construction. The effects can also be monitored through the Adaptive Management Plan. Overall I agree with Mr. Fletcher that the proposed activities are consistent with particularly relevant RPS policies 40 and 41 and the policies contained in the Operative RFP. As pointed out by Mr. Miller the activities will not be inconsistent with the NZCPS. Given the proposed planting and enhanced management of the stream, I also expect there will be a potential long term benefit to the downstream Inlet and coastal water resource through arresting some sediment leaving the banks of the stream within the site. Although difficult to quantify, it is clear to see from the current state of the stream banks that there will be a natural contribution to sediment load to the Inlet.

Urban Form and Amenity Effects 58. The introduction of new residential development onto this greenfields site will change the

appearance of the land particularly for those that live on adjacent properties or can see into the land. Without consideration of urban form or existing amenity values there is potential for those changes to be adverse for people both within Brookside and those neighbouring

15

areas. Some submitters10 criticise the subdivision because they feel the density of the development is to high and because of amenity concerns.

59. PCC have provided an assessment of these issues under headings “Amenity Values” in Mr.

Jones’ s42A report. That report is supported by evidence prepared by Mr. Andrew Gray – PCC’s Landscape Architect.

60. In my experience many City and District Council’s in New Zealand deal with density by way

of minimum lot sizes and/or a maximum number of house equivalent units per hectare of land in the subdivision. However the Porirua District Plan does not do this. Policy C6.1.3 seeks to promote the creation of new allotments in the suburban zone which are capable of accommodating a complying dwelling. In my view it does not control density of dwellings, rather amenity considerations. The principal reason under the C6.1.3 states “this policy seeks to allow subdivision which reflects the demand for different residential properties while ensuring that the community interest is protected through containing the effects of development”.

61. In my view that is exactly what Jagger are trying to achieve. The subdivision design contains

a range of lot sizes all to accommodate suburban dwellings. Some of the smaller lots have been provided to attract the target market of the Applicant (retired people – or ‘empty nesters’ and young families). The Applicant considers that market desires low maintenance properties with less land to mow or tend to large gardens, but at the same time a high level of amenity through reserve space and landscaping to a high quality. No attached or semi detached dwellings are proposed in Brookside, and the application also includes a relaxation of some of the residential performance standards to provide flexibility in dwelling design and layout. Mr. Gray concurs generally with that design philosophy because most lots subject to an increased coverage standard (45%) are internal to the development.

62. However, Council’s landscape architect has recommended 3 additional conditions to be

imposed on future land use on some of the lots. Those conditions are found at paragraph 6.24 of the PCC s42A report. I provide my assessment of these.

63. Mr. Gray recommends dark colour roofs for each dwelling. I have consulted the Applicant’s

landscape architect (Michael Wright) and the Applicant and they do not have any issue with that recommended condition. I recommend that condition is imposed.

64. Mr. Gray is requesting a condition is imposed to require all houses to be single story to

preserve views into and across the site. Whilst that is the intent of the Applicant for most of the lots (where possible) there may be good reasons for providing for split level (technically two storey) dwellings on perimeter lots where some are sloping (lots 98 and 99 for example). In addition it should be noted that the District Plan does not have policy direction

10 Carolyn Anne Amos (27A Shackle Lane), Trevor and Lesley Roberts (12 Observatory Close), David Wyatt (4 Shoal Place, Neville and Joyce Glennie (2 Shoal Place), Ashton and Claire Johnstone (23 Observatory Close), Christopher and Susan Hooper (21 Observatory Close) and Mark Macfarlane (3 Shackle Lane).

16

to control landscape values within the suburban zone. The Applicant has not sought to operate outside of the height or height recession plane standards and they are relevant for sunlight and bulk of buildings within the site. There is a Whitby Landscape Protection Area in the District Plan but that is only relevant in the Pacific View and Endeavour Drive suburban areas.

65. From a planning perspective I do not support the blanket restriction for single storey

dwellings because it does not take into account the topography of the site or the option to retain a diversity in built form. I recommend that condition is deleted.

66. The third condition suggested by Mr. Gray is to limit lots 27, 28, 29, 132, 137, 141, and 142

to a site coverage of 40% (as opposed to the 45% sought in the Applications). Those lots are at the perimeter of the development and next to existing residential properties. I do not support that condition. Although Mr. Gray attaches a diagram at 5.3 of his evidence to support his view, those diagrams do not take into account the actual shape factor of the proposed lots. I attach diagrams of the lots shapes to my evidence as Appendix 3. As shown by the diagrams, the effect is perhaps not as dramatic as Mr. Gray outlines for those lots. Those subject lots are all well separated from the existing dwellings (both vertically and horizontally) on the neighbouring land.

67. I do not consider it is necessary to impose a 40% coverage on those lots. However if Mr.

Gray (and the Commissioners) continue to be concerned about the bulk of buildings on those lots, then perhaps the condition could be amended to the effect that they are subject to either a single storey restriction with 45% coverage, or 35% coverage but the ability to build a 2 storey dwelling.

68. Considering the relevant policy framework within the Porirua District Plan, the open space

provision within the development, the overall layout of the subdivision, proposed landform, and surrounding residential character I do not expect there will be an erosion of amenity values resulting from Brookside. Once complete I anticipate the area will positively contribute to amenity values through the construction of a modern and well designed residential community.

Effects on Infrastructure and Open Space Provision (Reserves and Esplanade Matters) 69. The Applicant and its consultants have been working with PCC and Wellington Water (WW)

for just over 2 years on appropriate provision for infrastructure to service a development of the subject land. Those discussions have included open space networks for the benefit of existing and future residents in the Porirua community. 2 submitters11 have opposed the applications on the basis of inadequate provision for infrastructure (including roads/access) and/or open space (esplanade reserves).

11 Wee Win Lau (49 Shackle Lane) and Trevor and Lesley Roberts (12 Observatory Close).

17

70. The PCC s42A report assesses infrastructural servicing matters through paragraphs 6.193 – 6.210. The report draws on extensive commentary on all public infrastructure provided in email summaries to the author by Mr. Phillip Rhodes (the Manager of Land Use and Subdivision Engineering (MLSE)). The summary at part 6.210 of Mr. Jones’ report is that “it is considered that the proposed servicing is suitable for the development”. Overall I concur with the statements of Mr. Jones and Mr. Rhodes as it relates to servicing. I also agree that the relevant infrastructure and open space objectives and policies from the District Plan have been identified and commented on in the s42A report. My advice to the Commissioners is that District Plan policies C3.1.2, and C6.1.4 are key in that regard.

71. However, at the time of writing his report Mr. Jones notes identifies what he considers to be

3 outstanding items: a) The works to occur for the Duck Creek waste water pump station (odour and

noise provision) that is located in stage 1 of the Brookside development. He recommends that this issue is secured via a consent notice on newly created CFR’s within the development – see para 6.200;

b) NZTA submission matters - Construction access to and from the site while bridge 1 is being commissioned, and the James Cook Drive/State Highway 58 intersection matters highlighted in the NZTA submission, and other SH58 implications during construction (roundabout damage and maintenance of the SH58 culvert draining to the Pauatahanui Inlet; and

c) A development agreement between Jagger and PCC under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2004 (recommended conditions 44, 128 and 129).

72. I would like to provide some comment and updated information on the matters listed in a) –

c) above. 73. Firstly in relation to the potential odour and noise issues. Mr. Jones’ report at para 6.200

suggests a consent notice on undefined proposed CFR’s prior to the pump station works being complete. No review condition is suggested and there is no ‘trigger’ to have it removed in the recommended conditions of resource consent. My understanding from consultation with PCC and WW is that the works will be undertaken this financial year and that the works would be to a standard fit for avoiding issues for the existing and new residential areas surrounding the pump station land. This has been conveyed to the Applicant by PCC and WW on a number of occasions. No suggestion of a consent notice or other registration has been outlined previously and only offers to work together on that matter – see the attached WW letter in Appendix 4. In my experience with land development projects the notice suggested by Mr. Jones has the potential to have a severe impact on the desirability of the properties affected by such a registration. In my opinion this is not a reasonable proposition given the prior commitments made by PCC/WW in relation to the scheduled works to the pump station. The Applicant has also pro-offered (through its landscape plans) to assist in screening the pump station from the surrounding lots through fencing, earthworks at the boundary interface, and planting. I recommend this condition is not included should consent be granted.

18

74. In relation to roading and transportation matters it is clear from the traffic experts (including

the MLSE) that all are in agreement that the internal Brookside network adequately provides access and parking sufficient for the new properties. Mr. Kelly for the Applicant has given a summary of potential traffic effects in his report contained in volume 2 of the AEE and in evidence.

75. Mr. Jones has left a gap in his proposed conditions to accommodate the unresolved matters

from the NZTA submission which primarily focusing on SH58 concerns. Mr. Kelly gives a summary of those matters in his EiC. NZTA have prepared a set of conditions to resolve its concerns mentioned in its submission. Those conditions deal with provision of a temporary construction access point from the existing road entry point to the land from SH58, a means to address potential damage to the Pauatahanui and Postgate roundabouts, maintenance of sediment levels in the SH58 culvert, and review of the Brookside traffic and the ongoing relationship with operation of the Transmission Gully project. The Applicant accepts the conditions requested by NZTA and I have attached those to my evidence as Appendix 5.

76. The third item outstanding in relation to the infrastructure and open space provision is a

development agreement. Mr. Jones provides his understanding that an existing development agreement with the former owner (WCEL) is not transferable to Jagger and therefore the Applicant has requested a new agreement be entered into. Having been directly involved in negotiating this matter along with Directors of Jagger, it is my understanding that PCC have requested a new development agreement to contract the Applicant to certain works within the land including the vesting of land for the benefit of the community. That draft agreement was served on the Applicant on Tuesday 8 March 2016 and is currently under review by the Applicant. Although the draft agreement is not signed, I can confirm it is consistent with the activities that are proposed by the applications which I consider benefits to the community. The activities included with the application include:

a) Reserves, Parks and Open Space Network – Over 3.4ha of land to vest in

PCC (consistent with policy C3.2.3 of the District Plan) b) Public Walkways – pedestrian linkages to the north/south/east/west. Formally

links the surrounding communities. A 2.6m wide walkway much of which is streamside and consistent with the existing Whitby Walkway – key linkage from Samuel Marsden area and Whitby Shops with the lower Duck Creek environment (consistent with policy 54 of the RPS);

c) Stormwater management – potential to bring some of the existing networks that piped directly to Duck Creek into the system proposed in the Cardno information dated 29 February 2016;

d) Ecological Restoration – the stream environment/reserve will be planted in accordance with the landscape management plan contained in volume 2 and 3 of the application (consistent with policy C9.1.14 of the District Plan);

e) Wastewater – A new gravity trunk main to replace the existing pipe system that was laid in the 1970’s (consistent with policy 58(b) of the RPS).

19

77. In my opinion the above matters are considered potential positive outcomes resulting from

the development. The benefits will be for the surrounding neighbourhoods and the wider community. The option to realign the main trunk sewer pipe provides an opportunity to decommission an old network and replace it with a modern (sealed) system. Although there is no direct evidence to suggest the current pipe is being intercepted by ground water, it is an old pipe and such networks (in my experience in Porirua City) have been known to seep into the surrounding ground water. There is a potential benefit to the water resource as a result of installing new infrastructure. Although not highlighted by the other planning witnesses, I consider the matters in the above paragraph to be potential long term positive effects for the environment.

78. In addition, I agree with Mr. Jones that should the draft agreement not be executed, then

there is an alternative means by which to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the infrastructure and open space provision as a result of the subdivision and that means is via the standard financial and development contributions regimes under the combined RMA and LGA 2004.

79. In my opinion there is no impediment to the grant of consent because of impacts on

infrastructure or open space provision. OTHER MATTERS – NON – STATUTORY DOCUMENTS 80. Section 104(1)(c) provides for the consideration of other matters. In my opinion the CDP that

was prepared by WCEL for the land is relevant to the Applications as a framework for the public open space and connections to the surrounding communities. On completion the proposed subdivision will give effect to the main open space framework and linkages promoted in the CDP.

81. The Porirua Harbour and Catchment Strategy and Action Plan contains activities to achieve

its stated visions. Under action plan SA7 it seeks to improve the Duck Creek development environmental design through developer involvement. In this case Jagger have sought to have imposed on its consents a number of sediment retention, stormwater quality contols, and stream bank restoration initiatives through building in those matters into its resource consent application. The majority of those have been adopted as recommended conditions in the s42A reports before the Commissioners and also strengthened though evidence on behalf of particularly Mr. Miller. I consider those matters to be consistent with the Action Plan and vision for the Harbour.

PART II SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED DECISION 82. Both planning witnesses have given accounts of Part II matters in their s42A reports – Mr.

Fletcher at part 12 and Mr. Jones at paragraph 6.242. Both identify what I consider to be relevant s6, s7 and s8 considerations. Where possible I have either adopted their

20

assessments or added to it throughout my evidence. 83. Although Mr. Jones quotes s5 of the Act he does not give any assessment as to whether or

not (in his view) the proposed activities promotes the sustainable management purpose of the Act. Mr. Fletcher gives a brief and broad outline of s5 matters in part 12.1.4. These matters are important because the whole of the s104 consideration is subject to Part II matters.

84. In a broad sense the question is - will the proposed development achieve sustainable

management of this land resource? Since the Golf Course closed the land has been left without substantial use other than for informal walking at the ‘grace and favour’ of the land owner for the time being. It is fair to say that it is becoming relatively overgrown and not getting any better.

85. The Applicant’s proposal seeks to create 148 lots for residential purposes. Residential

growth in Porirua City is occurring and this is evident at The Banks, Silverwood, Aotea and Staiths Drive (to name a few). In my view new dwellings provide a place for social, economic and cultural well being and also basic health and safety of the family unit. The Brookside development will become a new part of the community over time. Within the development will be improved infrastructure, new infrastructure, reserve space, formal walkway linkages between communities, new areas of indigenous planting, maintenance of areas of existing plants, and following construction a streamside walkway in a planted environment. All of these elements will promote economic activity and employment opportunities for the Porirua City community. In my view these are all elements of sustainable management and achieve Porirua’s objectives C3.1 and C3.2 for the suburban zone which are “To encourage suburban activities to utilise land most suitable for that purpose” and “To encourage an environment which continues to sustain Porirua City’s suburban zone as an attractive, healthy and safe place in which to live”. This is consistent with policy C3.1.2 which is “To encourage the maximum utilisation of the existing infrastructure and resources by encouraging suburban areas which are already serviced”.

86. According to Mr. Miller there will be an overall improvement in ecological values over time

through the SEV planting required for the stream corridor and on going management of that riparian area. That is a significant stream from a cultural perspective and a habitat for significant indigenous fish species. Those are important s6 matters. Although Mr. Fletcher considers he wants to wait to see if there is enough length in the stream to compensate for the stream works (which there is according to Mr. Miller’s evidence) before he confirms his recommendation, I believe that issue needs to be weighed and evaluated in the overall proposal with regard to all matters. In my view the proposed activities are the reason or ‘trigger’ for the restoration activities to occur. It could be possible to design the subdivision without the realignment of the creek (which is the source of most of the SEV/ECR planting) but that would mean the applicant may not need to undertake the majority of the restorative planting. In my view the long term benefits of the stream bank protection, the restoration/compensation planting, and vesting in the Council will outweigh any short term

21

effect of the construction works. 87. Similarly with the earthworks and construction activities. These matters will need to be well

managed to minimise sedimentation to the Pauatahanui Inlet. That is an important coastal area for s6 reasons. The Applicant accepts the strict monitoring regime proposed by its ecologists and the construction management techniques suggested by its engineers. In my view those methods will recognise and provide for the protection of the stream and Inlet habitats and will be relatively short term effects in relation to the overall positive results of allowing the activities. My view is that the proposal, when considered under part II, will be consistent with s6 matters.

88. With regard to s7 I believe the proposal will make a more efficient use of land and

maintained and enhance the amenity values for surrounding communities. The potential effects during construction will be an understandable concern for local residents, but I expect they will be short lived and managed according to the evidence of Mr. O’Callaghan. In my opinion the benefits of fomalised public access to the new reserve land and linking the last piece in the Whitby Walkway network will outweigh any temporary effects from construction.

89. Taking into account s8 matters, I believe the Applicant has been genuine in its approach to

understand cultural issues and provide for these in its acceptance of a high level of environmental protection for the water resource within the land. I have consulted with the Applicant and Jagger remain open to discuss matters of concern to Ngati Toa and also share information on monitoring going forward should consent be granted.

90. For the reasons given in this statement, and having regard to the s42A reports, I consider

that the proposed activities will achieve the sustainable management purpose of the Act and, subject to the amendments to conditions outlined in this statement, will adequately avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment. In my opinion the proposal is consistent with the principles expressed in s6, s7 and s8 of the RMA. Overall I consider consent can be granted under section 104B.

B S Holmes 18 March 2016