Before Independent Hearings Commissioners At Wellington · behalf of Upper Hutt City Council, for the construction, operation ... Christchurch City Council for the development of

89 The Terrace P +64 4 472 7877 PO Box 10246 F +64 4 472 2291 Wellington 6143 DX SP26517

Solicitor: N McIndoe/L D Bullen E [email protected]/[email protected]

8037668

Before Independent Hearings Commissioners At Wellington

Under the Resource Management Act 1991

In the matter of Applications for resource consents, and a Notice of

Requirement for Designation by Wellington Water Limited on

behalf of Upper Hutt City Council, for the construction, operation

and maintenance of the structural flood mitigation works

identified as the Pinehaven Stream Improvements Project.

Statement of evidence of David John Compton-Moen for Wellington Water Limited (Landscape and Visual)

Dated 20 July 2020

8037668.2 1

Table of contents

1 Qualifications and experience ...................................................................... 2

2 Code of conduct ........................................................................................... 3

3 Scope of evidence ........................................................................................ 4

4 Executive summary ...................................................................................... 4

5 Existing landscape and visual environment ................................................. 5

6 Effects – Landscape character and Values ................................................. 6

7 Effects – Visual ............................................................................................. 8

8 Recommended mitigation ............................................................................ 9

9 Responses to issues in submissions ........................................................... 10

10 Response to section 42A report ................................................................... 12

11 Conclusions .................................................................................................. 12

Appendix A Updated landscape plans ................................................................... 14

8037668.2 2

Statement of evidence of David Compton-Moen

1 Qualifications and experience

1.1 My full name is David John Compton-Moen.

1.2 I am a Director Landscape Architect / Urban Designer at DCM Urban Design

Limited (‘DCM Urban’). I founded DCM Urban in August 2016. Prior to this, I

worked at Kamo Marsh Landscape Architects (18 months), Jacobs/SKM (2.5

years) and MWH NZ Ltd (now Stantec – 5.5 years).

1.3 I hold the qualifications of a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture (Hons) and a

Bachelor of Resource Studies (Planning and Economics), both obtained from

Lincoln University. I am a Registered Landscape Architect of the New Zealand

Institute of Landscape Architects (‘NZILA’), since 2001, a Full member of the

New Zealand Planning Institute, since 2007, and a member of the Urban Design

Forum since 2012. I am currently studying a Masters in Urban Design through

the University of Auckland. I was branch Chair of the Canterbury/ Westland

Branch of the NZILA for 4 years from 2013 to 2016.

1.4 I have worked in the landscape assessment and design, urban design, and

planning fields for approximately 20 years, here in New Zealand and in Hong

Kong. During this time, I have worked for both local authorities and private

consultancies, providing expert evidence for urban design, landscape and visual

impact assessments on a wide range of major infrastructure and development

proposals, including the following relevant projects:

• 2013 – 2016 – I provided Landscape and Visual impact assessment and

evidence services for Watercare Services Limited for a proposed 33km long

water pipe between Waitakere and Albany, 2 water reservoirs and a

pumping station. The proposal included the removal of native vegetation,

crossing three significant stream corridors and developing detailed mitigation

measures;

• 2018-2020 – I have recently provided design services and assessment for

the development of a 171Ha aggregate quarry in the Selwyn District,

Canterbury. The project involved providing landscape and visual impact

evidence, development of detailed planting plans and landscape bunds

around the perimeter of the site, and the development of photo-illustrations

to show how the proposal would look from public viewpoints;

8037668.2 3

• 2019 – I provided Landscape and Visual impact assessment services to

Christchurch City Council for the development of the Cashmere Valley Dam.

The project involved extensive earthworks, the creation of a 4m high bund

(dam), public pathways and extensive native planting;

• 2008 - I provided Landscape and visual evidence for the extraction of gravel

from the Kowai River and creation of a new processing plant, for Winstone

Aggregates, a division of Fletcher Concrete and Infrastructure Limited;

• 2008-11 – I provided Landscape and Visual impact assessment, evidence

and landscape design services for the Pines Wastewater Treatment Plant on

the outskirts of Rolleston, for Selwyn District Council. The project involved

extensive landscape planting around the outskirts of the site (5.6km) to

provide a landscape strip to capture potential spray drift.

1.5 My evidence relates to a Notice of Requirement (‘NOR’) for Designation and

associated resource consent applications for the construction, operation and

maintenance of the structural flood mitigation works identified as the Pinehaven

Stream Improvements Project (‘the Project’). Wellington Water Limited (‘WWL’)

has lodged the resource consent applications and NOR on behalf of Upper Hutt

City Council (‘UHCC’).

1.6 I am familiar with the area that the Project covers, and have been involved with

the Project in a Landscape Assessment and Design role since April 2013 when I

prepared some initial concept sketches to illustrate possible options. I have

visited the site on numerous occasions.

2 Code of conduct

2.1 While these applications are not before the Environment Court, I have read and

am familiar with the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in the current

Environment Court Practice Note (2014). I have complied with the Code in the

preparation of this evidence, and will follow it when presenting evidence at the

hearing.

2.2 The data, information, facts and assumptions I have considered in forming my

opinions are set out in my evidence to follow. The reasons for the opinions

expressed are also set out in my evidence to follow.

2.3 Unless I state otherwise, my evidence is within my sphere of expertise and I have

not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from

the opinions that I express.

8037668.2 4

3 Scope of evidence

3.1 This evidence addresses the following matters:

a Existing landscape and visual environment;

b Effects – Landscape character and values;

c Effects – Visual;

d Recommended mitigation;

e Responses to issues in submissions;

f Response to section 42A reports.

4 Executive summary

4.1 In terms of landscape elements and character, residual effects (with mitigation

approximately 5 years after construction works finish) will be less than minor.

There will be some loss of vegetation and modification of stream banks during

construction, but the quality of the receiving environment is mixed, with areas of

well-established native vegetation but also areas where there is a high level of

modification and infestation of weeds species. The proposed landscape works

combined with the engineering works will improve the amenity of the corridor over

time, but there will be short term more than minor adverse effects (up to 5 years)

when earthworks occur and vegetation is initially removed during construction,

and before new plantings become established. There are some positive

outcomes likely with the removal of some existing bridges and structures, and the

consolidation of others.

4.2 The proposal will have less than minor adverse effects on the landscape values

identified in the District Plan. The site is not located in an area with a landscape

overlay, and does not affect any Notable Trees, but does move through two

Urban Tree Groups identified in the District Plan resulting in the some loss of

trees.

4.3 In terms of visual effects, the proposal will have the greatest visual effects on the

residents of 26, 30-38 Blue Mountains Road and 10-12 Birch Grove who will all

experience minor residual adverse effects (i.e. with mitigation), due to their

proximity to stream widening works. The proposal to create a shared or partially

shared accessway for 30-38 Blue Mountains Road will, in my opinion, have a

positive effect on the character of the stream and Blue Mountains Road.

8037668.2 5

4.4 Residents at 10, 12 Birch Grove and 26, 30-38 Blue Mountains, will all

experience significant adverse effects during construction with the loss of

vegetation and significant encroachment on to their properties. With mitigation,

the residual effects for these residents will reduce to minor once vegetation is

established after approximately five years, but there will still be some loss of flat

land. All other residual visual effects are less than minor or indiscernible.

4.5 Overall, from a landscape and visual effects perspective, I consider the residual

effects of the Project acceptable.

5 Existing landscape and visual environment

5.1 The landscape character of Pinehaven is typical of many low-density residential

suburbs in New Zealand. The density is low, with a mix of single and two storey

dwellings on mid-sized sections. There are some multi-unit developments, but

typically most dwellings are single units on a single lot. In general, the existing

urban character, while being residential, has an eclectic range of building styles,

setbacks and orientation, with little cohesion.

5.2 Well established landscape planting helps to ‘tie’ all the disparate elements

together. Vegetation in the valley is well established with numerous trees, both

native and exotic, over twenty metres in height. Undergrowth is also well-

established.

5.3 Pinehaven Stream runs through the middle of the suburb and is sometimes highly

visible, but in most situations is hidden from public view either by vegetation,

buildings, topography, or a combination of all three. Each of the landscape

elements which make up the landscape character are described in further detail

below.

5.4 Overall, in relation to the sensitivity to change of each landscape element:

a Topography - I consider to have a low-to-medium sensitivity to change;

b Existing vegetation - I consider to have a medium sensitivity to change;

c Waterway and natural character - I consider have a medium sensitivity to

change;

d Built structures – I consider to have a low sensitivity to change.

5.5 The visual catchment of the proposal is limited to a relatively narrow corridor due

to the nature of the works combined with the large amount of existing vegetation

8037668.2 6

present in the area. Of the dwellings which border the stream, views of the

stream are typically open with large, well established native trees lining the banks

of the stream, including kowhai and beech. Views of the water itself though are

largely screened by either the steep banks, existing vegetation or a combination

of the two with the exception of the stretch within Willow Park. The quality of the

views vary from low to high, dependent on the presence of large trees and/or

weed species.

5.6 The majority of visually sensitive receptors (generally being residents) are

considered to have a high sensitivity to change, with the exception of Church

goers (medium), Willow Park users (medium), and motorists (low).

6 Effects – Landscape character and Values

Landscape character

6.1 The framework for describing landscape character is divided into the categories

of topography; land cover; built form, structures, and human elements; and

natural character. Section 6(a) of the RMA requires preservation of natural

character, which for the purposes of this report can be seen as a subset of

landscape character. Together these categories combine to create the receiving

‘Landscape Character’.

6.2 Without mitigation the effects on the overall Landscape Character will be minor

resulting from localised vegetation clearance, earthworks and removal of three

dwellings.

6.3 However, the (short term) effects on vegetation with mitigation minimising the

number of large trees being removed will be more than minor, reducing to less

than minor with the proposed planting. The table below is a summary of the

effects, prior to mitigation and post mitigation:

Landscape Character /

Element

Effect (before

mitigation)

Residual Effect (after

mitigation and 5 years

plant growth)

Landscape Character

(Overall effect)

Minor Less than Minor

Topography Less than minor Less than Minor

8037668.2 7

Landscape Character /

Element

Effect (before

mitigation)

Residual Effect (after

mitigation and 5 years

plant growth)

Vegetation More than minor Less than Minor

Waterways More than minor Less than Minor

Built Structures Minor Less than Minor

6.4 Overall, the stream works are considered to have less than minor effects after

mitigation on the existing landscape character and landscape elements along the

alignment. The quality of the receiving environment is mixed with areas of well-

established native vegetation but also areas where there is a high level of

modification and infestation of weed species. The proposed landscape works

combined with the engineering works will improve the amenity of the corridor over

time, but there will be short term more than minor adverse effects when

vegetation is initially removed, and before new plantings become established.

Natural character

6.5 In terms of natural character aspects, the stream channel will be enhanced with

the proposed widening of the stream corridor, given the existing modified nature

of some stream reaches. An open channel will be maintained, with no parts of

the existing open stream proposed to be piped. There are some locations (south

of the Pinehaven / Blue Mountains intersection) where the banks are somewhat

naturalised and rocks in the stream bed are visible but for the most part the

stream channel is modified with either concrete or timber banks. The residual

effects (effects that cannot be mitigated) on natural character aspects are

considered less than minor.

Landscape values (District Plan)

6.6 Landscape values are those classifications and listings which have been

identified in the district plan which relate to Landscape elements.

6.7 In terms of Landscape Values, the proposed works are not located in an

Outstanding Natural Landscape (ONL), with works located in the Residential,

Open Space and Residential Conservation zones of the UHCC District Plan

which do not have any Landscape overlays. I agree with this classification and

8037668.2 8

do not consider the receiving environment to be a ONL or an area worthy of a

special landscape protection overlay.

6.8 The project footprint moves through two Urban Tree Group (Tree Groups 99 and

102) areas, which are within 48 and 50 Blue Mountains Road and 2A Freemans

Way and adjacent to 11 Birch Grove. One Black Beech within Urban Tree Group

99 at 12 Birch Grove and one Black Beech within Tree Group 102 at the reserve

on the corner of Pinehaven and Blue Mountains Road will be removed.

6.9 There are several mature native trees in the immediate area which will not be

affected by the works and can be retained to ensure the amenity of the wider

area is maintained. The southern section of the works, past the intersection with

Pinehaven and Blue Mountains Road, is located in the Residential Conservation

Area. Some trees will be removed as part of the works in this area, including

some well-established native trees. However, given the scale of the proposed

works and the large number of plants which are proposed as mitigation (refer to

the Landscape Concept Plans in Appendix A for details), there will be only a

minor, short term effect on amenity, which reduces to less than minor once new

planting becomes established.

7 Effects – Visual

7.1 In terms of visual effects, the Project will have the greatest visual effects during

construction, with the loss of vegetation and also the work occurring in the stream

both being clearly visible to a number of properties and from public viewpoints.

During construction and prior to mitigation, adverse visual effects are considered

to range from minor through to significant with the residents of 26 and 30-38 Blue

Mountains Road and 10-12 Birch Grove experiencing the largest magnitude of

change.

7.2 Effects will reduce over time with the completion of the works and the

establishment of the proposed landscape planting.1 After 5 years, the residual

visual effects will in my view be minor for the most affected properties (residents

of 26 and 30-38 Blue Mountains Road and 10-12 Birch Grove) but there will still

be some loss of flat land. All other properties will experience less than minor or

indiscernible residual effects.

1 Section 92 response to GWRC dated 21 February, 2020, Appendix J.

8037668.2 9

8 Recommended mitigation

8.1 The mitigation measures outlined in Section 4 of Appendix V (Landscape and

Visual Impact Assessment) and shown in Appendix F (Landscape Plans) to the

AEE are designed to either avoid, remedy or mitigate any potential effects on

Landscape Values, Landscape Character or existing Visual Amenity values. The

plans2 have identified existing significant trees along the corridor and provided for

their retention where shown.

8.2 Since the development of the set of landscape plans shown in the AEE3, the

proposed L2 riparian planting (partially wet)4 is no longer proposed for the

constructed stream bed due to advice from the Hydrological Engineer. The

engineer’s advice was to the effect that any planting (L2) within the stream bed

would have been physically removed during the first major flood event and would

cause issues downstream. Not carrying out the L2 planting will in my view have a

Indiscernible effect on residual landscape, visual or amenity values when

compared to the overall scope of works. The updated landscape plans are

appended to my evidence, dated 5 February 2020 (see Appendix A).

8.3 A concept plan and detailed drawings have been prepared for Willow Park to

ensure pedestrian connectivity is maintained through the space5. The design will

improve access to the water as well as improve the park from a ‘crime prevention

through environmental design’ (‘CPTED’) perspective. The current, narrow and

long (over 60m in length) pedestrian path linking through to Tapestry Grove will

be removed, replaced by a more direct and open link through to Sunbrae Drive.

This constitutes a positive effect or benefit of the Project from a CPTED

perspective.

8.4 While removing significant numbers of weed species along the stream corridor

including bamboo, the proposed landscape plantings are mostly native, with all

native species eco-sourced where possible, combined with some exotic tree

species for amenity purposes. The proposed landscape works, in summary, will

result in the planting of:6

a 134 no. of trees, of which 101 are native species;

b 5,741 no. of native riparian species (L3 mix – rarely wet);

2 AEE, Appendix F 3 AEE, Appendix F. 4 Refer the ‘Plant Palette’ at page 15 of Appendix F. 5 AEE, Appendix F. 6 See Appendix A to my evidence

8037668.2 10

c 1,486 no. of native tree and shrub species (L4 – buffer mix);

d 180 climbers

8.5 The suggested landscape conditions of consent require:

a The retention of existing large trees within the designation, where possible.

Refer to the landscape plans for those trees which are to be retained.7

b Planting of disturbed areas with either riparian or buffer species as per the

landscape plans, 2017_009 /L101-108 revision 7 dated 5 February 2020. All

native species are to be eco-sourced where possible.8

c Planting is to occur in the first available planting season following completion

of the stream improvement works. All areas to be planted are to have at

least a 300-millimetre depth of topsoil. A 24-month establishment period is

recommended to ensure good plant growth is achieved and any failed

plantings can be replaced.9

d Replacement of existing bridges where shown on the General Arrangement

Plans to ensure connectivity (e.g. pedestrian access) is maintained.

e Construction of a path through Willow Park as shown in the landscape

plan10, L102-103, to provide an all-weather access route through to Sunbrae

Drive and Tapestry Grove. The finished height of the path is to be above the

25-year flood event with a new pedestrian bridge required to cross the

stream.11

f Willow Park is to be planted with a mix of exotic and native species to

reduce maintenance costs for grass mowing as well as to mitigate for the

loss of the willow trees.12

9 Responses to issues in submissions

9.1 I have reviewed the submissions lodged in relation to the resource consent

applications for the Project. Where I am able to respond to the matters raised, I

do this below.

7 GWRC Section 42A Report, Appendix 5, Condition 23. 8 GWRC Section 42A Report, Appendix 5, Condition 23 and 33. 9 GWRC Section 42A Report, Appendix 5, Condition 23. 10 AEE, Appendix F. 11 GWRC Section 42A Report, Appendix 5, Condition 22. 12 GWRC Section 42A Report, Appendix 5, Condition 24.

8037668.2 11

Willow Park

9.2 Submitter 1 (Karyn Mills) has raised concerns that the improvement works for

Willow Park will occur and that the willow trees are being cut down. The

submission raises concerns over the concrete areas, disappearance of a local

walkway and no replacement planting of apple or plum trees.

9.3 In response, I note that the Willow Park concept design includes several new

willow trees to be placed, but in locations where they will not affect stream flows.

Willows are a fast-growing species and will quickly establish in this location.

Steps have been designed to provide access to the water edge, are not extensive

in the area that they cover, and have been shown in other locations to provide a

positive amenity to local residents giving access to the water and to feed eels. A

new path is to be established through the park where it will be less susceptible to

flood events and provides improved, safer access. The walkway’s route,

connecting with Sunbrae Cres rather than Tapestry Grove, is considered an

improvement from a CPTED perspective. The existing path runs through a

narrow corridor for over 60m which is not overlooked by adjoining properties, nor

does it provide options for users to easily escape if they were to become

entrapped.

9.4 With the exception of the willows and some street trees, all plantings are native

species. The intention is provide plants we know will establish well in the area

with limited maintenance requirements. For this reason, apple and plum trees

were not included in the proposed palette.

9.5 Submitter 4 (Deborah Griffiths) has raised concerns that the removal of trees will

have adverse effects on her view as well as adverse privacy effects. I agree

there will be some localised, short term effects on privacy and changes to views

where existing trees and vegetation will be removed as part of the works. This

has been acknowledged in the Landscape and Visual impact assessment report

with proposed landscape plantings designed to re-establish vegetation along the

stream corridor as quickly as possible.

Silverstream Reformed Church

9.6 Submitter 10 (David Kyle) raised concerns about the deposition of excavated

material at the Silverstream Reformed Church and associated privacy effects on

local residents.

8037668.2 12

9.7 The fill proposed to be deposited on the Silverstream Reformed Church site is no

longer proposed to be included in the Project works.13

10 Response to section 42A report

10.1 I have read the UHCC’s Section 42A report and agree with its conclusions and

proposed conditions. I consider the proposed landscape conditions appropriate.

11 Conclusions

11.1 In terms of landscape elements and character, residual effects (with mitigation

approximately 5 years after construction works finish) will be less than minor.

11.2 The proposal will have less than minor adverse effects on landscape values as

identified in the District Plan with the loss of some trees in a Protected Urban

Tree Group.

11.3 In terms of visual effects, the proposal will have the greatest visual effects on the

residents of 26, 30-38 Blue Mountains Road and 10-12 Birch Grove who will all

experience minor residual adverse effects (i.e. with mitigation) due to their

proximity to stream widening works. With mitigation, the residual effects for these

residents will reduce to minor once vegetation is established after approximately

five years, but there will still be some loss of flat land. All other residual visual

effects are less than minor or Indiscernible.

11.4 Overall I consider the residual effects of the proposal acceptable.

David John Compton-Moen

20 July 2020

13 Section 92 response to GWRC dated 21 February, 2020, appendices F and G.

8037668.2 14

Appendix A Updated landscape plans

V

P: 001

P: 002

P: 003

P: 004

P: 005

P: 00

6

P: 007

P: 008

P: 009

P: 010-012

P: 013

P: 014

P: 015

P: 016

P: 017-021

P: 022

P: 022

P: 023

P: 024

P: 025

P: 026

P: 027

P: 028

P: 029

P: 030

P: 031

P: 032

P: 033

P: 033P: 034

P: 035

P: 036

P: 037

P: 039

P: 038

P: 040P: 041

P: 042

P: 043

P: 0

44

P: 043

P: 045

P: 046-047

P: 048

P: 049

P: 050P: 051

P: 053-054

P: 052

P: 052

P: 057

P: 056

P: 058

P: 055

P: 060

P: 061

P: 059

P: 062

P: 063

P: 064

P: 065P: 066

P: 067

P: 0

68

P: 069

P: 069

P: 070

P: 071

P: 072

P: 074

P: 0

73-0

74

P: 075

P: 076-077

P: 079

P: 078

39A

35A

97

83

70

43A

39

7

4

8

79

10

46B

22

45

59

52

42

13

28

4

15

5

77

33

4

15

12

7

12

11

20

8

25

2

18

28

21

10

13

3

9

2

25

2

3

4

13

2914

30

9

30

21

4

7

39

15

1

31

26

40

41

3

9A

8

31

71

18A

10

99

1A

103

1

88

101

90

86

82

80

78

76

74

95

41

54

93

91

89

87

85

81

79

77

75

73

69

72

37A

45

37

42A

42

52A

84

48

6

41

43

47

49

51

53

55

2/57

57

6167

63

65

69

56

54

50

48

50

46C

43

46

44

40

34

38

36

32

30

26

46A

56

14

1A

31

10

35

4B

1

3

64

11

1/46

2/46

19

4

1

1

5

7

11

15

26

27

2

44

23

14

16

12

7

16

2

5

19

11

31

34

16

5A

35

47

40

52

9

73

3

13

20

18

16

22

6

12

3

9

14

6

10

4

5

10A

7

10C

10A

25

81

11

17

14

62

11

7

8

18

19

5

8

5

7

5

3

6

22

9

1

6

9

8

11

13

8

20

1

12

6

12

10

20

4A

10

66

7

2

24

4

3

1

11

18

11

9B

10

29

75

14

12

10

4

9

8

14

11

14

23

8

15

13

12

25A

3

5

6

6

3

1

16

8

30

28

26

24

22

18

16

12

10

4

3

9

9

26

9

32

7B

5

8

6

1

5

7

9

11

15

17

7C

10B

7

16

15

2

2

9

11

13

4

17

17

7

6

27

4

6

39

37

35

33

29

27

23

20

6

24

28

5

17

33

9C

4

1

13

8

27

1

3

2

12

1125

10

5

6

23

1

23

23A

25

27

29

29A

33

37

7

71

17

78

12

34

70

9

28

24

30

22

20A

20

18

16

17A

17B

50

45

8

14

7

1

10A

53

69

57

48

11

36

49

5

19

38

59

61

32

3

21

4

74

10

Sheet 1 of 1

2017_009 / L 100 / 7

LANDSCAPE WORKSCOVER SHEET

project no / drawing no / revision:

client / project name:

drawing name:

rev no. date description approved

revision:

note:Contractors to verify all dimensions on site prior tocommencing work. Contractors are responsible for confirmingthe location of all underground services on site prior tocommencing work. Figured dimensions to be taken inpreference to scaled dimensions

original issue date :

drawn by :scale :

drawing sheet:

legend:

DCM URBAN DESIGN LIMITEDLEVEL 3, 329 DURHAM STREET NORTHCHRISTCHURCH, NZWWW.DCMURBAN.COM

designed by :

0 26/09/2017 Client Approval DCM

PINEHAVEN STREAMIMPROVEMENTS

26 SEPT 17

BD1:5000 @ A3

DCM

SITE PLAN - Sheet 1 of 11:5000 @ A3

2017_009 L 101PLANTING PLAN

PINEHAVEN STREAM IMPROVEMENTSLANDSCAPE WORKS

Date Sheet Rev

DRAWING SCHEDULE - REV 7

05/02/2020 2017_009 L 100 Cover Sheet 7

05/02/2020 2017_009 L 101 Planting Plan - Sheet 1 5







05/02/2020 2017_009 L 108 Plant Schedule 7







4 16/09/2019 For Resource Consent DCM 5 18/09/2019 For Resource Consent DCM 6 24/09/2019 For Resource Consent DCM 7 05/02/2020 Removal of L2 Planting DCM

AutoCAD SHX Text

47.45

AutoCAD SHX Text

47.47

AutoCAD SHX Text

47.48

AutoCAD SHX Text

47.49

AutoCAD SHX Text

49.92

AutoCAD SHX Text

51.24

AutoCAD SHX Text

51.11

AutoCAD SHX Text

53.32

AutoCAD SHX Text

53.49

AutoCAD SHX Text

53.06

AutoCAD SHX Text

53.04

AutoCAD SHX Text

53.29

AutoCAD SHX Text

53.76

AutoCAD SHX Text

54.79

AutoCAD SHX Text

55.74

AutoCAD SHX Text

48.14

AutoCAD SHX Text

48.46

AutoCAD SHX Text

50.05

AutoCAD SHX Text

50.16

AutoCAD SHX Text

50.68

AutoCAD SHX Text

59.32

AutoCAD SHX Text

59.07

AutoCAD SHX Text

58.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

58.67

AutoCAD SHX Text

58.65

AutoCAD SHX Text

58.61

AutoCAD SHX Text

58.14

AutoCAD SHX Text

58.15

AutoCAD SHX Text

57.89

AutoCAD SHX Text

58.13

AutoCAD SHX Text

58.07

AutoCAD SHX Text

60.52

AutoCAD SHX Text

48.92

AutoCAD SHX Text

48.74

AutoCAD SHX Text

51.65

AutoCAD SHX Text

28 - low driveway

AutoCAD SHX Text

14 - low driveway

AutoCAD SHX Text

12 - low driveway

AutoCAD SHX Text

10- possible low driveway

AutoCAD SHX Text

1a - possible low driveway

AutoCAD SHX Text

10 - water flowing out of garage

AutoCAD SHX Text

4- low driveway

AutoCAD SHX Text

2 - entire property low

AutoCAD SHX Text


P: 001

P: 002

P: 003

P: 004

P: 005

P: 006

P: 007

P: 008

P: 009

P: 010-012

P: 013

P: 014

P: 015

P: 016

P: 017-021

P: 022

P: 022

P: 023

39

46B

33

15

41

54

37A

37

52A

48

50

46C

46A

56

2/46

31

52

WHITEM

ANS ROAD

2 QUE pal

L3

1

L4

L41 POD tot

3

2

4

5

6 7

89

12

10

11

L1 Specimen Tree

L5 Climber

L3 Riparian 2 - Rarely Wet

L4 Buffer

Turf

Proposed Timber Boardwalk

Concrete Pathway

Proposed Bridge Deck

Existing Retaining Wall

Gravel Pathway TBC

Designation Boundary

Existing Bridge Deck

Tree to be Removed

Tree to be RetainedRefer to tree survey

L3

L4

L5

Sheet 1 of 7

2017_009 / L 101 / 5

LANDSCAPE WORKSPLANTING PLAN



drawing name:


revision:



drawn by :scale :

drawing sheet:

legend:


designed by :



JOIN LINE REFER 2017_009 L 102

PLANTING PLAN - Sheet 1 of 71:500 @ A3

26 SEPT 17

BD1:500 @ A3

DCM

1 27/09/2017 Boundary alignment DCM 2 07/08/2019 Draft for comment DCM 3 16/09/2019 For Resource Consent DCM 4 18/09/2019 For Resource Consent DCM 5 05/02/2020 Removal of L2 Planting DCM

AutoCAD SHX Text

48.14

AutoCAD SHX Text

48.46

AutoCAD SHX Text

48.92

AutoCAD SHX Text

48.74

P: 024

P: 025

P: 026

P: 027

P: 028

P: 029

P: 030

P: 031

P: 032

P: 033

P: 033P: 034

P: 035

13

12

3

9

14

5

7

11

5

1 12

8

10A

4

10

CONCRETE PLATFORMSTO ALLOW ACCESS TOWATER

EXISTINGCARPARK

11

2

2

EXISTINGBRIDGE DECK

BLUE MO

UNTA

INS RO

AD

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE TOBE REMOVED

1 POD tot

1 SAL bab

1 DAC dac

1 FUS sol

3 SOP mic

L3

L3

L4- BUFFER PLANTINGREFER PLANT SCHEDULE

1 DAC dac1 DAC cup

2.2M WIDE PEDESTRIAN/CYCLE BRIDGE

5 QUE pal

1 DAC cup

1 POD tot

L3

L3

L3

L4

3 DIC squ

3 DIC squ

L4

L5 PLANT MIX21 CLEM pan21 MET car26 MUE ast

L5

1 SOP mic

3 SAL bab

1 POD tot

L4

13

14

2 FUS sol

L4

LAWN3 DAC dac

L4

2.2M WIDE EXPOSEDAGGREGATE CONCRETE PATH

300MM HIGH RETAININGWALL WITH 1.8M HIGHCLOSE BOARD TIMBERFENCE

EXISTING BRIDGETO BE REMOVED

L1 Specimen Tree

L5 Climber


L4 Buffer

Turf


Concrete Pathway



Gravel Pathway TBC



Tree to be Removed


L3

L4

L5

Sheet 2 of 7

26 SEPT 17

BD1:500 @ A3

2017_009 / L 102 / 6




drawing name:


revision:



drawn by :scale :

drawing sheet:

legend:


designed by :




DCM



2 07/08/2019 Draft for comment DCM 3 16/09/2019 For Resource Consent DCM 4 18/09/2019 For Resource Consent DCM 5 24/09/2019 For Resource Consent DCM 6 05/02/2020 Removal of L2 Planting DCM

AutoCAD SHX Text

49.92

AutoCAD SHX Text

50.05

AutoCAD SHX Text

50.16

AutoCAD SHX Text

50.68

P: 036

P: 037

P: 039

P: 038

P: 040

P: 041

7

5

4

3

1A

4B

1

5

3

8

4A

7

4

1

6

6

23A

20A

20

18

16

14

BLUE MO

UNTA

INS RO

AD

DEL

LER

GRO

VE

SUNBRAE DRIVE

3 FUS sol

L3

1 QUE pal1 DAC dac

1 SOP mic

L3

L3

3 SOP mic

L33 SOP mic

3 QUE palL4

L3

16

15

1515

1515

1515

15

3 FUS sol

3 SOP mic

17

L4

L3

18

19

2.2M WIDE EXPOSEDAGREGGATECONCRETE PATH

CONCRETE PAD AREAWITH INFORMATIONBOARDSCONCRETE RETAININGWALL

1M HIGH HANDRAILON RETAINING WALL

OPEN STYLE POOL FENCING BETWEENPARK AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIALPROPERTIES

1 SAL bab

L1 Specimen Tree

L5 Climber


L4 Buffer

Turf


Concrete Pathway



Gravel Pathway TBC



Tree to be Removed


L3

L4

L5

Sheet 3 of 7

2017_009 / L 103 / 6




drawing name:


revision:



drawn by :scale :

drawing sheet:

legend:


designed by :




26 SEPT 17

BD1:500 @ A3

DCM




AutoCAD SHX Text

51.24

AutoCAD SHX Text

51.11

AutoCAD SHX Text

51.65

P: 042

P: 043

P: 0

44

P: 043

P: 045

P: 046-047

P: 048

P: 049

P: 050P: 051

P: 053-054

P: 052

P: 052

15

12

13

21

31

26

19

23

25

22

10

18

9

14

11

16 17

20

24

33

37

28

24

30

22

32

3

3

WATERWAYREALIGNMENT

BLUE MO

UNTA

INS RO

AD

DEL

LER

GRO

VE

5 QUE pal

3 DIC squ

3 FUS sol

L3

L3

L3

L3

L3

L3

L4

L4

L4

SINGLE ROW L3

3 SOP mic

21

L5

1 SOP mic

1 POD tot

1 DAC cup L4

20

BRIDGE TO BEREMOVED

BRIDGE TO BEREPLACED

1 FUS sol

L5 PLANT MIX31 CLEM pan31 MET car42 MUE ast

BRIDGE TO BEREMOVED

3 DAC dac

L1 Specimen Tree

L5 Climber


L4 Buffer

Turf


Concrete Pathway



Gravel Pathway TBC



Tree to be Removed


L3

L4

L5

Sheet 4 of 7

2017_009 / L 104 / 5




drawing name:


revision:



drawn by :scale :

drawing sheet:

legend:


designed by :




26 SEPT 17

BD1:500 @ A3

DCM




AutoCAD SHX Text

53.32

AutoCAD SHX Text

53.49

AutoCAD SHX Text

53.06

AutoCAD SHX Text

53.04

AutoCAD SHX Text

53.29

AutoCAD SHX Text

53.76

P: 057

P: 056

P: 058

P: 055

P: 060

P: 061

P: 059

P: 062

P: 063

P: 064

4

8

30

39

40

41

26

27

2

10A

25

29

6

28

34

45

36

38

4

4

PINEHAVEN ROAD

BLUE MO

UNTA

INS RO

AD

DEL

LER

GRO

VE

3 QUE pal

1 POD tot

3 FUS sol

1 POD tot

L4

L4

L3

L3

22 23

24

SINGLE ROW L3

3 DIC squ

SINGLE ROW L3

L4

NEW BRIDGE

L4

L1 Specimen Tree

L5 Climber


L4 Buffer

Turf


Concrete Pathway



Gravel Pathway TBC



Tree to be Removed


L3

L4

L5

Sheet 5 of 7

2017_009 / L 105 / 5




drawing name:


revision:



drawn by :scale :

drawing sheet:

legend:


designed by :




26 SEPT 17

BD1:500 @ A3

DCM




AutoCAD SHX Text

54.79

P: 065P: 066

P: 067

P: 0

68

P: 069

P: 069

P: 070

12

15

13

10

1

3

9

11

7

5

50

48

49PINEHAVEN ROAD

BLUE MOUNTAINS ROAD

1 FUS sol

2 FUS sol

3 DIC squ

1 POD tot

3 FUS sol

L3

L4

L3L3

1 DAC dac1 DAC cup

1 DAC cup

1 SOP mic

1 POD tot

1 DAC dac

1 FUS sol

30

31

33

2829

26

27

INDICATIVE EXTENT OFPROPOSED WALL ALONGWESTERN PROPERTYBOUNDARY OF 48 & 50 BLUEMOUNTAINS ROAD

L4

L4

L4L3

3232

1 FUS sol

L1 Specimen Tree

L5 Climber


L4 Buffer

Turf


Concrete Pathway



Gravel Pathway TBC



Tree to be Removed


L3

L4

L5

Sheet 6 of 7

2017_009 / L 106 / 6




drawing name:


revision:



drawn by :scale :

drawing sheet:

legend:


designed by :




26 SEPT 17

BD1:500 @ A3

DCM


2 28/09/2017 Planting amendments DCM 3 07/08/2019 Draft for comment DCM 4 16/09/2019 For Resource Consent DCM 5 18/09/2019 For Resource Consent DCM 6 05/02/2020 Removal of L2 Planting DCM

AutoCAD SHX Text

55.74

AutoCAD SHX Text


P: 071

P: 072

P: 074

P: 0

73-0

74

P: 075

P: 076-077

3

29

31

11

5A

35

10A

10C

12

10

8

5

4

10B

27

6

33

BIRCH GROVE

PINEHA

VEN

ROA

D

NEW BRIDGE

REMOVE EXISTINGBRIDGE

REMOVE EXISTINGBRIDGE

1 POD tot

1 QUE pal

3 SOP mic

3 SOP mic

3 SOP mic

L3

L3

L3

L3

L3

L3

1 DAC dac1 DAC cup

3 FUS sol

L4

L4

L4

3 FUS sol

34

35

36

L1 Specimen Tree

L5 Climber


L4 Buffer

Turf


Concrete Pathway



Gravel Pathway TBC



Tree to be Removed


L3

L4

L5

Sheet 7 of 7

2017_009 / L 107 / 6




drawing name:


revision:



drawn by :scale :

drawing sheet:

legend:


designed by :




26 SEPT 17

BD1:500 @ A3

DCM

2 28/09/2017 Planting amendments DCM 3 07/08/2019 Draft for comment DCM 4 16/09/2019 For Resource Consent DCM 5 18/09/2019 For Resource Consent DCM 6 05/02/2020 Removal of L2 Planting DCM

AutoCAD SHX Text

58.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

58.67

AutoCAD SHX Text

58.65

AutoCAD SHX Text

58.61

AutoCAD SHX Text

58.14

AutoCAD SHX Text

58.15

AutoCAD SHX Text

57.89

AutoCAD SHX Text

58.13

AutoCAD SHX Text

58.07

AutoCAD SHX Text

60.52

Sheet 7 of 7

2017_009 / L 108 / 7

LANDSCAPE WORKSPLANT SCHEDULE



drawing name:


revision:

note:Contractors to verify all dimensions on site prior to commencingwork. Contractors are responsible for confirming the location of allunderground services on site prior to commencing work. Figureddimensions to be taken in preference to scaled dimensions


drawn by :scale :

drawing sheet:


designed by :



PLANT SCHEDULE - REV 0A26 SEPT 17

BDNTS

DCM


Revision no:1

2

AmendmentInitial issue for construction

Removal of L2 planting

ApprovedDCM

DCM

Date9.12.2019

5.02.2020Project no / drawing no:

Client / project name:Drawing name:

Designed by:Drawn by:

Original issue date: Scales:

A. INDICATIVE LANDSCAPE CROSS SECTION TREATMENT

DCM URBAN DESIGN LIMITED3/329 DURHAM STREET NORTHCHRISTCHURCH 8013WWW.DCMURBAN.COM021 114 0337

JACOBS/PINEHAVEN STREAM IMPROVEMENT WORKSLANDSCAPE CROSS SECTION_TYPICALDave Compton-Moen DAVE COMPTON-MOEN9 DECEMBER 20191:50 Revision: 2

2017_009 / L101

DE

SIG

NA

TIO

N

BO

UN

DA

RY

L 4B U F F E R M I X

S T R E A ML 3R I P A R I A N

2

L 3R I P A R I A N

2

I N D I C A T I V E 2 5 Y E A R F L O O D L E V E LI N D I C A T I V E 2 5 Y E A R F L O O D L E V E L

PR

OP

ER

TY B

OU

ND

AR

Y

H E S S I A N / C O C O N U T F I B R E M A T T I N G W I T H S T E E L P I N S

O N 1 V : 2 H S L O P E S

3 0 0 M M L A Y E R O F T O P S O I L U N D E R L 3 A N D L 4 P L A N T

M I X E S

H E S S I A N / C O C O N U T F I B R E M A T T I N G W I T H S T E E L P I N S

O N 1 V : 2 H S L O P E S

P L A N T I N G O F B U F F E R S P E C I E S , T Y P I C A L L Y 3 - 5 M

I N H E I G H T T O P R O V I D E P R I V A C Y T O A D J O I N I N G

P R O P E R T I E S W H E R E V E G E T A T I O N A N D F E N C I N G

H A S B E E N R E M O V E D

1 1

2 2

16

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FIGURES

MIT IGATION MEASURES - LANDSCAPE CROSS SECTION (1)

DE

SIG

NA

TIO

N

BO

UN

DA

RY


B L U E M O U N T A I N SR O A D

S T R E A M

L 3 R I P A R I A N

2

L 3 R I P A R I A N

2

C L I M B E R S / B E N C HS P E C I E S


RO

AD

B

OU

ND

AR

Y

L A R G E P I N O A K S ( E X O T I C ) U N D E R P L A N T E D W I T H R I P A R I A N M I X 2 T O A L L O W V I E W S F R O M T H E R O A D T H R O U G H T O T H E S T R E A M

17


MIT IGATION MEASURES - LANDSCAPE CROSS SECTION (2) - WILLOW PARK

PR

OP

ER

TY B

OU

ND

AR

Y


B O A R D W A L K P R O V I D I N G A L L

W E A T H E R A C C E S S . T H E B O A R D W A L K I S

L O C A T E D A B O V E T H E 2 5 Y E A R F L O O D

L E V E L

E X I S T I N G G R A S S A R E A S A R E R E P L A C E D W I T H R I P A R I A N P L A N T I N G S W H I C H T O L E R A T E B E I N G

O C C A S S I O N A L L Y W E T . R E M O V A L O F T H E G R A S S W I L L R E D U C E M A I N T E N A N C E R E Q U I R E M E N T S A S

W E L L A S P R O V I D E A D D I T I O N A L E C O L O G I C A L B E N E F I T .

S T R E A M


E X I S T I N G T O P O F B A N KE X I S T I N G T O P O F B A N K

L 3R I P A R I A N

2 PR

OP

ER

TY B

OU

ND

AR

Y

18


MIT IGATION MEASURES - LANDSCAPE CROSS SECTION (3)

DE

SIG

NA

TIO

N

BO

UN

DA

RY


S T R E A ML 3R I P A R I A N

2

L 3R I P A R I A N

2


PR

OP

ER

TY B

OU

ND

AR

Y

P L A N T I N G O F B U F F E R S P E C I E S , T Y P I C A L L Y 3 - 5 M

I N H E I G H T T O P R O V I D E P R I V A C Y T O A D J O I N I N G

P R O P E R T I E S W H E R E V E G E T A T I O N A N D F E N C I N G

H A S B E E N R E M O V E D

Documents

Before Independent Hearings Commissioners At Wellington · behalf of Upper Hutt City Council, for the construction, operation ... Christchurch City Council for the development of