Sky Path Decision 20150602

Decision following the hearing of an
application for resource consents under

the Resource Management Act 1991
Proposal
To construct, maintain and operate a combined pedestrian/cycle pathway (SkyPath).
RESOURCE CONSENTS, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 104B AND 104D

OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT, ARE GRANTED.
THE FULL DECISION IS SET OUT BELOW
Application numbers
Site address
Applicant
Hearing location
Hearing commenced
Independent Hearing
Commissioners
Appearances
R/LUC/2014/3364, R/REG/2014/3365 and R/REG/2015/720

Princes Street, Northcote Point; Auckland Harbour Bridge;
Curran Street and Westhaven Drive, Westhaven
Woodward Infrastructure Limited
Town Hall, Auckland Central and Takapuna Service Centre
2 June 2015
Ms Karyn Sinclair - Chairperson
Ms Jenny Hudson
Ms Melean Absolum
Mr Mark Farnsworth
For the Applicant:
Mr Daniel Minhinnick - Counsel
Mr Bevan Woodward - Trustee
Mr Chris Guenter - Patronage
Mr Don McKenzie - Transport
Mr Garth Falconer - Urban Design
Mr Bruce McKenzie - Visual/Landscape
Ms Sally Peake - CPTED
Mr Chris Concannon - Engineering
Mr Rhys Hegley - Noise
Mr Richard Bracebridge - Lighting
Mr Richard Blakey - Planning
For the Submitters:
Henry Barfoot
Christine Rose
Greg Nikoloff

Curren Street and Westhaven Drive, Westhaven SkyPath
Page 1
NZ Transport Agency:
Cameron Law
Ernst Zollner
Jim Sephton
Barry Wright
Deepak Rama
Kumaran Nair
Waterfront Auckland:
Matthew Twose
Tom Warren
Todd Langwell
Janette Miller
Jeremy Richards
Little Shoal Bay Protection Society:
Mr J Richards
ATEED:
B OReilly
Mezzanine Capital:
Bianca Tree
and The Wharf:
Martin Smith
Westhaven Marina Users Association:
Alan Webb
Cycle Advocates Network:
Richard Barter
Michael Smythe and Helen Schamroth
Kevan Walsh
Richard Thumath
Anthony Holman
Lucy Whineray
Carol Scott
Frank Swanberg
Peter Sawyer
Graham and Sarah Hughes
Herne Bay Residents Association:
Brian Putt
Northcote Point Action Group:
Kevin Clarke
Tianna Hall
Northcote Residents Association:
Kevin Clarke
Northcote Point Heritage Preservation Society:
Stephanie de Groot
Dinah Holman

Page 2
Brian Putt
Sarah Hughes
Erica Hannam
Rodney Brown
David Welch
No 1 Estate:
Caryle Blanche
Generation Zero:
Niko Elsen
Emma McInnes
Luke Christensen
Harbour Sport:
Justine Martin
Cycle Action Auckland:
Barbara Cuthbert
Richard Tout and Erica Hannam
Rodney and Carol Brown
Viv Armstrong
Andrew Braggins
Michael Pearson
Carl Armstrong
George Wood
For the Council:
Ms Jennifer Valentine - Lead Senior Planner
Mr Mike Nixon - Traffic Engineer
Ms Nicola Williams - Urban Designer
Mr Heath Miller - Noise Consultant
Ms Bridget Gilbert - Landscape Architect
Mr George Farrant - Built Heritage
Mr John McKensey - Lighting Engineer
Ms Paulette Gagamoe - Democracy Advisor (Hearings)
Hearing adjourned
Commissioners site visit
Hearing closed
10 June 2015
27 May 2015 and 11 June 2015
12 June 2015

Page 3
Introduction
1.
This decision is made on behalf of the Auckland Council (the Council) by Independent
Hearing Commissioners Ms Karyn Sinclair, Ms Jenny Hudson, Ms Melean Absolum
and Mr Mark Farnsworth appointed and acting under delegated authority pursuant to
sections 34 and 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).
2.
The application for resource consents was publicly notified on 5 December 2014. A
total of 11,586 submissions were received, with 11,413 in support, 5 neutral and 168 in
opposition. Of the 11,586, 27 were received out of time. The Commissioners passed
a motion at the beginning of the hearing to accept these late submissions.
Summary of proposal and activity status

3.
The Applicant proposes to construct, maintain, and operate a combined pedestrian

and cycle pathway (SkyPath) attached below the eastern lane of the Auckland
Harbour Bridge (AHB), with entrance and exit locations at Princes Street, Northcote
Point (northern end), and Westhaven Drive/Curran Street (southern end).
4.
The proposal requires resource consent for the following reasons:

R/LUC/2014/3364
Section 9 land use consent under the Auckland Council District Plan (North
Shore City Section) for the activity, construction of the structure and
compliance with ancillary rules relating to location and development controls;
Section 9 land use consent under the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland
City Isthmus Section) for development control infringements, earthworks, tree
removal and lighting;
Section 9 land use consent under the National Environmental Standard for
Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NES);
Section 9 land use consent under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)
for structures on a scheduled heritage building/structure, archaeological
investigations and earthworks;
R/REG/2015/720
Section 15 discharge permit under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air,
Land and Water for discharge of contaminants from the structure; and
R/REG/2014/3365
Section 12 coastal permit for the structure, use of the structure and occupation
in the coastal marine area (under both the Auckland Council Regional Plan:
Coastal and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP).
5.
For completeness we have relied on the extensive breakdown of consents outlined in

the section 42A report.
6.
As noted in the section 42A report, the activity status is as follows:

Page 4
Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore City Section) - non-complying
Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) - non-complying
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - discretionary
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land Water - discretionary
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal discretionary
Overall the proposal has been considered as a non-complying activity.
Late submissions
7.
Pursuant to Sections 37 and 37A of the RMA, the time limit for the receipt of
submissions is waived to accept the late submissions of:
Mezzanine Capital Limited;
Ariki Spooner;
Helen Griffin;
Tabitha Roder;
Eion Scott;
June Bartlett;
Ian and Robyn Bogue;
Gavin John Tiplady;
Stephen Giles;
Number One Estate Limited;
Kevin Clarke;
Northcote Point Action Group Inc;
Janice Fiddles;
Andrew Gordon Cochrane;
Beau and Lisa Evans;
Rohan Packard;
Donald Smith;
Eva Walton-Keim;
David Kennedy;

Page 5
Phil James;
Rodger Kerr;
Matt Harrison;
Daniel Skerlj-Rovers;
Ben Kenobi;
Richard Evans;
David Klein; and
Chris Hopkins.
For the following reasons:
The submissions were received within the period to extend the time frames
under section 37 of the RMA and
The Applicant had no opposition to the late submissions being accepted.
8.
The Council planning officers recommendation report (hereafter referred to as the

section 42A report) was circulated to the Applicant, the submitters and the
Commissioners prior to the hearing. The officers report was taken as read.
9.
This decision contains the findings of the Commissioners deliberations on the

application for resource consent and has been prepared in accordance with section
113 of the RMA.
Relevant statutory provisions considered

10.
In accordance with section 104 of the RMA, the Commissioners have had regard to
the relevant statutory provisions including the relevant sections of Part 2 of the RMA
and section(s) 104, 104D, 105, 107 and 108.
Other relevant standards, policy statements and plan provisions considered

11.
In accordance with section 104(1)(b)(i)-(vi) of the RMA, the Commissioners have had
regard to the relevant policy statements and plan provisions of the following
documents:
National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in

Soil to Protect Human Health
New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement
Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000
Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement
Part 1 Chapter B of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore City Section)

Page 6
12.
Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section)
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal
Part 2 Chapter C Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
The Commissioners also considered the following other matters to be relevant and
reasonably necessary to determine the application in accordance with section
104(1)(c) of the RMA:
The Auckland Plan
Stokes Point Te Onewa Reserve Management Plan
Waterfront Plan
Government Policy Statement on Land Transport
Summary of evidence heard

13.
The evidence presented at the hearing responded to the issues and concerns
identified in the section 42A report, the application itself and the submissions made on
the application.
For the Applicant

14.
The evidence presented by the Applicant at the hearing addressed the following
matters:
15.
Mr Minhinnick gave legal submissions at the outset.

(among other things) the following points:
His submissions covered
An opinion on the section 104D threshold tests for non-complying activities;
Property rights, especially with respect to the license to occupy that is

necessary with the NZ Transport Agency (the Transport Agency);
Effects of the project, including positive effects, and irrelevant concerns.
16.
Matters that Mr Minhinnick considered to be not relevant to our consideration of the

matter include the viability and need for SkyPath, Councils financial involvement and
the proposed charging scheme.
17.
Mr Minhinnick provided an updated version of conditions which addressed issues

raised by submitters in submissions and evidence.
18.
Mr Woodward (for the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Trust) outlined the history of
the SkyPath concept, noting that the original Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB) had
included provisions for walking and cycling, which were abandoned as a cost saving
measure. He outlined the benefits of SkyPath, consultation with stakeholders, dating
back to 2010, and how the SkyPath would operate.
19.
Mr Guenter (patronage) outlined the methodologies for the surveys undertaken to

Page 7
estimate likely patronage numbers on SkyPath. He noted that there was no

precedent for this type of activity but some comparative analysis was undertaken to
validate the data based on previous work undertaken by Opus, Maunsell/AECOM and
Ernst and Young. Mr Guenter confirmed his belief that the methodology used
resulted in realistic patronage numbers across three groups of users, being
commuters, tourists and recreational users.
20.
Mr D McKenzie (traffic/transport) produced three statements of evidence, including

evidence in chief, supplementary evidence and reply evidence. Mr D McKenzie
outlined the wider transport network and the context of SkyPath within that network.
He outlined his assessment of SkyPath on the Southern and Northern Landing,
making a series of conservative (ie over estimations) calculations with respect to
users who might walk, cycle and/or park in the vicinity to access SkyPath. He was of
the opinion that the transportation effects of the proposal could be appropriately
managed via the conditions of consent.
21.
Mr D McKenzies supplementary evidence addressed issues raised by submitters in

evidence. He acknowledged that SkyPath would be complemented by, but doesnt
rely on, the SeaPath proposal being considered by the Transport Agency. He
confirmed the peak activity levels (as being summer Saturdays) and design and
safety matters.
22.
Mr D McKenzie assisted the understanding of the implications of the predicted peak

usage at the Northern Landing in his reply evidence, providing video evidence to
illustrate how the predicted numbers could be represented on the ground. He went
on to address site specific issues raised by submitters, including the impacts on No 1
Queen Street, and the potential for conflict given the increased number of pedestrians
in the immediate vicinity of the propertys garage. Mr D McKenzie addressed the
refinements made by the Applicant in the conditions of consent tabled subsequently
by Mr Minhinnick.
23.
Mr Falconer (urban design) provided two statements of evidence. He discussed the

key aspects of the design, how the design responded to submissions and issues
raised in the section 42A report. Mr Falconer discussed the SkyPath design following
the gradient of the AHB, how the Northern and Southern Landing designs were
derived and how the project has responded, design wise, to stakeholder concerns.
Mr Falconer discussed submitter concerns as they related to the mainspan, Southern
Landing and Northern Landing. He addressed residual issues in the section 42A
report, the most notable being the colour of the rods and ribs of the SkyPath structure.
24.
Mr Falconers supplementary evidence addressed issues raised by Mrs D Holman in

her evidence on behalf of the Northcote Point Heritage Preservation Society
(NPHPS), with respect to perceived effects on heritage character and amenity of
Northcote Point. Mr Falconer addressed expert evidence of Mr Putt on behalf of the
same submitter, especially in relation to the plaza space and the unique space under
the AHB at the Northern Landing.
25.
Mr B McKenzie (landscape and visual) provided a statement of evidence addressing

the landscape and visual effects of the proposal. He supported Mr Falconers
comments in support of white ribs and rods, especially as a means of making the
SkyPath legible and distinctive but complementary to the AHB. Mr B McKenzie
discussed the character of the Northern Landing in the context of the wider Northcote
Point area, concluding that any changes in the character of the Harbour Bridge
northern abutment will be contained within the immediate area and not affect the

Page 8
wider character of Northcote Point. 1

26.
Mr B McKenzie discussed the amendments made to the Northern Landing location

between the lodgement of the resource consent applications and the hearing, with the
landing now being a compressed loop rather than the previous serpentine design.
He assessed the relationship of dwellings that have a relationship with the AHB
undercroft space and noted that submitters referred to the effects from the number of
users of the SkyPath rather than the structure itself, including issues such as privacy,
overlooking and amenity.
27.
Ms Peake (crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)) addressed

issues of safety in design. Among other issues Ms Peake specifically addressed
issues relating to passive surveillance, entrapment and access. In addressing
submissions, Ms Peake considered perceptions of increase in crime, safety and
security. Overall her assessment was that, subject to appropriate conditions, the
proposal would not generate adverse effects on safety and security for users or
residents local to the landings.
28.
Mr Concannon (structural design and infrastructure) outlined the preliminary findings

in relation to structural matters relating to the fixing of the SkyPath structure to the
AHB, the effects from users (including vibration effects), wind tunnelling and fire
safety. Mr Concannon addressed issues in relation to existing services fixed to the
AHB and matters raised by submitters pertaining to engineering matters. The matters
raised by Mr Concannon will primarily be addressed through the Licence to Occupy to
be issued by the Transport Agency and through the building consent process.
29.
Mr Hegley (noise) confirmed his opinion that the noise effects of any users of the
SkyPath would be well under the existing noise levels generated by vehicles on the
AHB. Mr Hegley confirmed that construction noise and vibration would be best
managed through a construction noise and vibration management plan (CNVMP). In
response to submissions Mr Hegley noted in his discussions with the Transport
Agency that they had received noise complaints from locals about the AHB and that
echo effects have been considered in his assessment.
30.
Mr Bracebridge (lighting) outlined the lighting design for the SkyPath, including
modelled spill, lux levels and likely effects on the local neighbourhood. He suggested
an amendment to the draft conditions relating to the Harbourmasters requirement for
no red or green lights (to avoid navigational confusion), noting that, given the
requirement for satisfaction of the Harbourmaster and as there are so many colour
variants within red and green, that such a condition was overly and unnecessarily
constraining.
31.
Mr Blakey (planning) produced three statements of evidence, including evidence in

chief, supplementary evidence and reply evidence. Mr Blakey addressed the project
from a planning perspective, including outlining a summary of the effects, responding
to planning related aspects of submissions and the section 42A report and
commenting on conditions. Mr Blakey confirmed the underlying zoning of the
SkyPath structure within the undercroft of the AHB at Northcote Point. Mr Blakey
confirmed his opinion that the proposal met both tests of section 104D of the RMA,
and that the application merited being granted.
32.
In the supplementary evidence Mr Blakey addressed the evidence of Mr Rama on

behalf of the Transport Agency with respect to proposed conditions of consent. Mr
B McKenzie statement of evidence para 3.7

Page 9
Blakey countered the evidence of Mrs Holman on behalf of the NPHPS in relation to
her contention that the proposal failed to achieve the purpose of the RMA, due to the
effects of the proposal on the quality of the heritage character of Northcote Point
through inappropriate activity. In rebutting Mr Putts evidence on behalf of the
NPHPS, with respect to the area that the Northern Landing would occupy, Mr Blakey
confirmed it would cover approximately 665m2, not 1,500m2 as stated in Mr Putts
evidence. Mr Blakey stated that the objectives and policies of the Residential 3 zone
(the underlying zoning) were not particularly relevant to an activity such as SkyPath.
Mr Blakey addressed Mr Putts evidence on behalf of the Herne Bay Residents
Association and stated his preference to rely on the traffic and transport assessment
of Mr D McKenzie, a qualified traffic engineer, over Mr Putts assertions.
33.
Mr Blakeys reply evidence addressed matters raised by submitters to the

Commissioners relating to amenity, especially at the Northern Landing, including
sunlight access, privacy, dominance and views, traffic and people movement. In part
response Mr Blakey appended an updated Mitigation Plan MP02 revision H. He
provided a more specific breakdown of an assessment against the objectives and
policies of the Residential 3 zone, building on his original analysis in the AEE.
For the Submitters

34.
In summarising the evidence of the submitters we acknowledge a number of wider

concerns and issues are beyond the scope of the application for resource consents,
and have not been discussed below. Such issues include the desire for opening
hours beyond those sought by the Applicant and the funding/financial model proposed
by the Applicant. The Commissioners are grateful to the submitters for their
participation in the process and for their significant contribution to our understanding
of the Project. The evidence presented by the submitters is summarised as follows:
35.
Henry Barfoot, a local Northcote resident, gave evidence in support of SkyPath. He

noted he was a member of the Northcote Residents Association. He supported
SkyPath on the basis that it would open up opportunities that do not currently exist to
reduce travel times to the city and offers a mode of commute that would be attractive
for him. Mr Barfoot tabled several email messages in support of SkyPath from local
Northcote residents.
36.
Christine Rose supported the SkyPath on the basis of it making economic sense,
being of public health benefit and in her opinion would have no significant adverse
effects.
37.
Greg Nikoloff spoke in support of SkyPath. Mr Nikoloff was the only submitter who
used an electric bike, and spoke of how he travels around the city to work and visit
clients. He noted with SkyPath he would have an opportunity to visit clients in
Takapuna that he cannot ride to currently. He noted that the AHB is already quite
commercial, with lots of utilities, the bungy jump and bridge walk operations.
NZ Transport Agency:
38.
Cameron Law noted in legal submissions that the Transport Agency manages many
relationships via Licence to Occupy agreements and side agreements to resource
consent requirements. He confirmed that the Transport Agency would manage
concerns about the loading risk from SkyPath via the licence to occupy.
39.
Ernst Zollner (Transport Agency Regional Director Auckland and Northland)

presented evidence about the strategic context of cycling within the Transport

Page 10
Agencys land transport programme. He noted that the Government Policy Statement
on Land Transport (GPS) included recognition of appropriate transport choices and
that there are opportunities for cycling to take a greater role in providing transport
system capacity in our urban areas. 2 Mr Zollner then outlined the Transport
Agencys objectives to make cycling a safe and attractive transport choice 3 and
cycle initiatives throughout Auckland both constructed (such as Grafton Gully) and
planned.
40.
Barry Wright (National Structures Manager for the Transport Agency) explained the
structural constraints of the AHB and noted that the Transport Agency would have to
ensure that the SkyPath operation could manage pedestrian and cycle numbers to
ensure robust management of live loads. 4 This is an issue that is proposed to be
managed via the Licence to Occupy.
41.
Jim Sephton is the Transport Agencys Project Sponsor for the Auckland walking and
cycling portfolio. He outlined the existing initiatives for walking and cycling on the
North Shore, and gave some context to SeaPath, which is a Transport Agency
proposal to provide a walking and cycling facility between Northcote Point and
Esmonde Road following the Northern Motorway alignment. Mr Sephton noted that
irrespective of SkyPath, SeaPath would provide a connection to the Northcote Point
ferry wharf, and to the Akoranga Busway station enabling some degree of connection
to the city centre for pedestrians and cyclists (albeit by connection to bus or ferry). 5
Mr Sephton noted that the SeaPath project was currently at the indicative business
case stage. He concluded by noting the Transport Agency has a strong commitment
to providing a high quality network for cyclists in Auckland and in particular providing
a connection between the North Shore and the City. 6
42.
Deepak Rama, Principal Planning Advisor for the Transport Agency, provided some
planning context for the SkyPath proposal. Mr Rama considers that the proposal will
support the relevant strategic transport objectives of the Proposed Auckland Unitary
Plan (notably C1.2.1 and C1.2.2). Mr Rama addressed the conditions of consent and
noted that some of the construction work would require night works on the vehicle
deck of the AHB to avoid significant disruption to the operation of the motorway
network. Mr Rama sought to have such works exempt from construction noise limits.
43.
Kumaran Nair (Auckland Harbour Bridge Contract Manager) confirmed that the
SkyPath proposal at the Northern Landing may have some impact on currently design
works but that there were no major concerns and that he considered the SkyPath
could integrate with existing initiatives such as the trestle works.
Waterfront Auckland:
44.
Matthew Twose, Manager Planning and Consents for the Auckland Waterfront
Development Agency (Waterfront Auckland) gave some background to the ownership
and management of Westhaven Marina, including the relationship of Waterfront
Auckland, Westhaven Marina Limited and the beneficiaries of the Trusts. What was
made clear to the Commissioners was that SkyPath could not rely on the availability
of public parking within Westhaven Marina for the project. Mr Twose noted that
Waterfront Auckland supported SkyPath and confirmed that the residual issues
Ernst Zollner statement of evidence para 10

Ibid para 16
4
Barry Wright statement of evidence para 17
5
Jim Sephton statement of evidence para 11
6
Ibid para 24
3

Page 11
(relating to parking and bus drop off) were resolvable and could be addressed
through conditions of consent and agreements outside the RMA process.
45.
Todd Langwell, an independent traffic engineer, reviewed the parking and traffic
aspects of the proposal on behalf of Waterfront Auckland. He outlined the allocation
of parking (exclusive use for marina users compared to public parking), the existing
parking controls, confirming that Waterfront Auckland is responsible for enforcement,
and the impact of the recently consented development on Platform 2 at the western
end of the Marina.
46.
Mr Langwell confirmed that for the peak periods, SkyPath could potentially put
pressure on the public parking within Westhaven Marina, creating a significant effect
on the operation of the Marina activities and its associated parking areas. 7 He noted
that appropriate changes would have to be made within Westhaven to deter SkyPath
visitors from having the perception that parking is readily available. 8 To this end Mr
Langwell recommended that the parking controls and parking management changes
necessary as part of the proposed Operational Plan should be implemented prior to
opening of the facility.
47.
Tom Warren (Marina Manager for Waterfront Auckland) appeared at the hearing with
Mr Twose and Mr Langwell and answered specific questions in relation to Westhaven
Marina activities.
48.
Janette Miller provided a video in support of her submission in opposition to SkyPath.

The video addressed issues of whether the facility would be safe for users.
49.
Jeremy Richards spoke to his submission in opposition expressing his scepticism

about the viability and lack of alternatives analysis. He noted that the neighbourhood
(at the Northcote Point end) was gridlocked on New Years Eve when large numbers
of people came to Te Onewa Pa to view fireworks displays. He did not support the
number of people who would be entering and exiting the facility at the south end of
Princes Street and supported the idea of shifting the exit at the Northern Landing to
better connect with SeaPath.
Little Shoal Bay Protection Society:

50.
Mr Richards represented the Little Shoal Bay Protection Societys submission. He

was concerned about the amount of traffic that might be generated by the proposal
and its effect on Little Shoal Bay. He did not think it appropriate that people might
park in the Little Shoal Bay area and walk to SkyPath. He was concerned that the
traffic passing through Little Shoal Bay at the weekends would make it difficult for
people to get across the road, between the grass reserve area and the waterfront part
of the reserve.
ATEED:
51.
Brett OReilly is the chief executive of Auckland Tourism, Events & Economic
Development (ATEED) and is the Project Sponsor on behalf of the Auckland Council
group (including Auckland Transport) in relation to SkyPath. He confirmed that
SkyPath would complete a critical missing link for walking and cycling access across
the Waitemata Harbour. 9 He confirmed that the project aligned with the Council
Mr Langwell statement of evidence para 38

Ibid para 39
9
Brett OReilly statement of evidence para 4.1
8

Page 12
groups strategic direction for Auckland, including the Auckland Plan 2012, The Long
Term Plan, City Centre Masterplan 2012, the Waterfront Plan 2012 and the Auckland
Cycle Network. Mr OReilly went on to outline the expected benefits for transport,
tourism, recreation and iwi that would be delivered by SkyPath.
Mezzanine Capital Limited:
52.
Mezzanine Capital (owners of The Wharf) was represented by counsel, Ms Bianca

Tree. She was accompanied by Martin Smith (General Manager for Collective
Hospitality, operator of The Wharf). Ms Tree submitted that the existing consent for
The Wharf (dating back to 1963) entitled the operation of The Wharf to rely on onstreet parking at the southern end of Queen Street, Northcote Point. She relied on
the recently granted variation providing for an extension to hours of operation which
noted that parking within the immediate environment is sufficient for accommodating
the demand generated by the function centre 10 The Commissioners noted that the
decision provided by Ms Tree was not signed. Ms Tree submitted that it was
inappropriate to leave the management of parking relating to the SkyPath to review
once operational, and supported implementation of restrictions prior to opening, on
the proviso that the entitlements accorded to The Wharf were recognised and
provided for. Ms Tree raised concerns about the noise levels that might be generated
during construction. She submitted that the management plan approach needed to
be undertaken in accordance with the body of case law that provides guidance on
how these can rightfully be incorporated as conditions of consent. She provided a
number of amendments to conditions that would satisfy her client.
53.
Mr Martin confirmed that The Wharf was used both throughout the day for corporate
events as well as for evening and weekend functions including weddings. He noted
that the venue did not have a designated loading zone, and that loading was
undertaken out the front of the venue or from the nearest available public parking
space. He raised concerns about construction noise interfering with both events
being undertaken, but also when prospective clients were surveying the premises,
when loud noise might put them off hiring the venue.
Westhaven Marina Users Association (WMUA):

54.
Alan Webb, counsel for the Association, gave submissions on its behalf. The WMUA
is an incorporated society that formally represents the rights of the berth holders and
berth renters at Westhaven. He submitted that the Association was very concerned
about the lack of clarity with respect to traffic issues. Mr Webb submitted that the two
landings were poorly served by public transport and relying on Mr D McKenzies
assessment concluded that, as walking 2- 3 kilometres from any public transport
facility to SkyPath was not realistic, there would be pressure brought to bear on the
parking within Westhaven Marina. Mr Webb submitted that Westhaven already has
serious competing demands for space 11 and that in spite of the lack of expert
evidence the Associations concerns are derived from a long and continuous
association with Westhaven 12 and that resolution of these issues needs to be
undertaken prior to consent being granted.
Cycle Advocates Network (CAN):

55.
Richard Barter spoke on behalf of CAN, an organisation established to promote safe
10
Legal submission of Ms Tree for Mezzanine Capital Limited para 16 b

Mr Webb legal submission on behalf of Westhaven Marina Users Association para 22
12
ibid
11

Page 13
cycling. He confirmed the organisations support for the project and believes that
SkyPath will help change active transport in the regions beyond Auckland.
56.
Michael Smythe and Helen Schamroth addressed and expanded on points in their
submission in opposition to the proposal. They considered that SkyPath should be
integrated with either SeaPath and or the NaturePath being promoted through
Onepoto Domain. They thought that the predicted user volumes would cause
significant pedestrian, cycle, bus and car congestion. They submitted that the
application should be rejected until it can be evaluated in the context of an integrated
network plan including SeaPath.
57.
Kevan Walsh stated that SkyPath was a great concept but falls over in detail. He
thought it was nave to consider that people wouldnt drive to SkyPath, and that the
increase in traffic it would generate would be to the detriment of Northcote Point.
58.
Richard Thumath gave evidence that the proposal was completely contradictory to the
existing environment and was unable to be realistically mitigated. It was his opinion
that the proposal would create more than minor adverse effects on the residential and
coastal recreational areas.
59.
Anthony Holman spoke in support of his submission, primarily in relation to the effect
on Little Shoal Bay, outlining its values from botanical and recreation perspective. He
considered the effects of SkyPath would be considerable from traffic and other
matters, and would degrade the reserve which would be contrary to the Reserve
Management Plan. He noted that part of Council Terrace is within reserve land. He
submitted that the proposal would conflict with the Little Shoal Bay Reserve
Management Plan and Part 2 of the RMA, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement
and the Regional Policy Statement.
60.
Lucy Whineray considered that the negative effects of SkyPath would not be limited to
its immediate surroundings and that it would have a detrimental effect on traffic,
parking and the heritage character of the residential area. She did not consider there
were adequate solutions to mitigate the effect of SkyPath traffic on the local road
network.
61.
Carol Scott was concerned that the large scale commercial enterprise and traffic
volumes were contrary to the district, regional and unitary plans. She considered that
the large traffic volumes would be exacerbated by the constriction caused by the
peninsula geography. She considered the streetscape and heritage architecture
would be severely affected by the high volumes of traffic and parking.
62.
Frank Swanberg considered Northcote Point to be a backwater, and that the

consent should be declined unless the terminus on the North Shore was at Barrys
Point Road or Smales Farm.
63.
Peter Sawyer considered that the CPTED report was not sufficient to ensure that
potential effects of a criminal nature were adequately assessed. He was concerned
that SkyPath was detached from SeaPath and wanted to see greater connectivity
between the two. He concluded that he would like to see it a safe structure with
connected infrastructure in place.
64.
Graham and Sarah Hughes live immediately adjacent to the AHB undercroft at the
southern end of Princes Street. They noted that there was no issue with crime or
graffiti at present, and that they are confident letting their children play in the space
beneath the AHB as it has a very low number of cars and or pedestrians at any given

Page 14
time. Their concerns stemmed from the patronage projections and the potential for
significant adverse effects at the Northern Landing, including noise, traffic and
parking, safety, security and privacy and the visual effects. They were also
concerned that the activity was inconsistent and contrary to the objectives, policies
and provisions of the operative plan and PAUP.
65.
Mr Hughes provided an analysis of the likely patrons per hours, using simple
mathematical manipulation. 13 Based on those calculations it was his assessment
that the number of users would have a significantly more than minor effect on the
residences adjacent to the Northern Landing. Mr Hughes considered that the noise
effects had been minimised, citing the recent removal of a flying fox in a playground
as evidence that the effects of such recreational activities should be taken into
consideration. He did not believe that the proposed mitigation measures would be
sufficient and that the measures would impose restrictions on the accessibility to the
local resident community when currently they were not required. He considered that
the landing structure would be a visual imposition, dividing the cul de sac community
and adversely affecting natural lighting.
66.
Mr Hughes read a written statement from his neighbours Mr G Rogers and Ms J

White in support of their submission.
Herne Bay Residents Association (HBRA):

67.
Brian Putt, a qualified and experienced town planner, raised issues relating to the
traffic assessment, with respect to the availability of on-street parking that might be
used by users of SkyPath. In his view, the provision of parking for SkyPath users
within Waterfront Auckland land would go some way to mitigating the adverse effect
created by the on-street parking demand. However, he acknowledged that the
Applicant could not provide this parking as the land is not under its control. In his
opinion the proposal fails to achieve the threshold test for adverse effects, as the
parking effects are not adequately mitigated. He conceded that the proposal would
most likely pass the objectives and policies test under section 104D. However Mr
Putt considered that there was not sufficient regard for the maintenance and
enhancement of amenity values and the quality of the environment. In his opinion the
single adverse effect (generation of on street parking demand where there could be
competing demand) was sufficient to decline the resource consent.
Northcote Point Action Group (NPAG):

68.
Kevin Clarke spoke on behalf of NPAG. He gave some background as to the genesis
of the Group. He stated that if they were not so directly affected it would be a great
idea but that the converse applies. He stated that the Group was concerned about
the effects of having such a large number of people visiting permanently to Northcote
Point.
69.
Tianna Hall lives in the immediate vicinity of the undercroft of the northern abutment
of the AHB. She was concerned that any security measures (such as staff and
CCTV) would be focused on the facility itself rather than the wider community who
would be susceptible to an increase in crime. She was concerned about the likely
parking demand within Northcote Point.
13
G Hughes statement of evidence para 4.4

Page 15
Northcote Residents Association (NRA):

70.
Kevin Clarke spoke on behalf of the NRA. He stated that he opposed the SkyPath on
the basis of its many unresolved technical, safety and operational problemswhich
impact detrimentally.. upon all residents of Northcote Point .. 14 Mr Clarke raised
concerns about the Traffic Planning Group Limited traffic assessment In relation to
parking and how the traffic and parking would be managed. He did not consider the
design to be sufficiently compliant with relevant guides and recommendations for
cycleways and pedestrian pathways. He considered that there were significant non
compliances. He claimed the patronage assessment was grossly over estimated. Mr
Clarke considered that the progressing of the SkyPath consent applications ahead of
any other integrated cycle/pedestrian facility such as SeaPath was premature. He did
not believe that the Northern Landing location was in the right place.
Northcote Point Heritage Preservation Society (NPHPS):

71.
Stephanie de Groot gave legal submissions on behalf of the Society. She set out the
Societys rules and submitted that the Northern Landing was inappropriate in the
proposed setting under the AHB, that the space was confined, and the proposed
structure was obtrusive. She submitted that the landing in a residential heritage area
was also inappropriate and that such an intensive use was contrary to the zoning of
the area. Ms de Groot submitted that the proposal could not pass the gateway tests of
section 104D of the RMA as the adverse effects (notably traffic, safety and security,
privacy, visual and noise, heritage character and amenity) would be more than minor.
Further, she submitted, the proposal would fail with regard to the second gateway test
as the proposal was clearly contrary to the objectives and policies of the operative
Auckland Council District Plan: North Shore City Section and the PAUP specifically as
they relate to the Residential 3 Built Heritage zone. Ms de Groot submitted that the
High Court case of Queenstown Central Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council
[2013] 15 should prevail with respect to the interpretation of section 104D(1)(b), and
that the proposal must not be contrary to any relevant objective and policy. Ms de
Groot called five witnesses as follows.
72.
Dinah Holman appeared as an expert witness on behalf of the NPHPS. We note that
Mrs Holman has made a submission opposing the proposal in her personal capacity.
She outlined the historic character of the Northcote Point area, the heritage provisions
of the RMA and relevant plan provisions and her concerns with respect to the effect of
the project on the heritage and character of Northcote Point. She considered the
Applicant had failed to undertake a proper assessment of the effects of the project on
the heritage character and amenity of Northcote Point. She stated the effects could
be significant, 16 if the intensive use and associated effects conflicted with the
traditional heritage character and amenity. From her evidence it appeared that these
concerns were derived from vehicle trips associated with SkyPath, rather than cycling
and pedestrians per se. 17
73.
Brian Putt provided planning evidence in support of the NPHPS. He concluded that
the application would not pass either test of section 104D of the RMA. The
Commissioners note that this is contradictory to his statement on behalf of the Herne
Bay Residents Association. The adverse effects would be, in his view, more than
minor given the number of people arriving and departing from the Northern Landing,
14
Northcote Residents Association Kevin Clarke statement of evidence para 5

NZHC817
16
NPHPS Statement of evidence D Holman para 59
17
Ibid refer para 62 - 63
15

Page 16
and the associated traffic, lack of suitable facilities (such as toilets) and limited space
available for the public beneath the AHB in the immediate area of the landing site. He
considered the proposal to be contrary to the Residential 3B and C zone provisions of
the operative District Plan.
74.
Sarah Hughes, a local resident, gave evidence on behalf of the NPHPS. Her
evidence was based on the adverse amenity effects, noise, traffic and parking, safety,
security and privacy, and adverse visual effects. These issues are common to many
submitters and have been well traversed previously. Additional issues to those raised
previously include potential difficulty in accessing homes with the increased
congestion and traffic flow and the effect of overlooking and loss of privacy from the
higher parts of the SkyPath structure as it winds down into the Northern Landing. Mrs
Hughes considered the architectural design to have limited design appeal.
75.
Rodney Brown is also a local resident from the southern end of Princes Street. In
addition to issues common to Mrs Hughes and other submitters in opposition, he
noted that people would be able to pass his property three times in any single trip,
that the quiet area is defined as that given the very limited number of people who
pass by (mostly local residents walking, or Total Bridge Services staff). Mr Brown
was concerned that the proposed conditions of consent were inadequate and would
be like trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. 18
76.
Erica Hannam completed the evidence of the NPHPS. She too is a local resident
from the southern end of Princes St/Queen Street. She stated her concern that the
projected patronage numbers were conservative, 19 that the limitations on numbers
accessing the facility at any one time might result in people congregating at the
Northern Landing entry, creating issues of safety and congestion for locals to
negotiate. She was concerned that any security guard might have a limited role
beyond the structure itself should issues arise. Ms Hannam considered the only way
to appropriately mitigate these effects would be to relocate the Northern Landing.
Contrary to evidence of Mr Falconer she confirmed that sun does reach under the
AHB onto her house in the mornings in mid-summer.
77.
David Welch appeared in support of the project. He cycles to work and with his family
but cannot cycle to the Shore and the ferry schedule is limited. Mr Welch considered
there is a significant gap in the network, which breaks the benefits of a network. He
recognised the parking issues but considered on street parking was for the benefit of
all.
No 1 Estate:
78.
18
19
Caryle Blanche read a statement of evidence on behalf of herself and Mr and Mrs
Holloway, all residents of 1 and 1A Princes Street. Ms Blanch considered the effects
from the level of disturbance to be inappropriate in the small residential cul-de-sac.
She considered the structure to be intrusive and dominating, especially since the
redesign during the submission period brought it closer to the eastern side of the AHB
structure. Ms Blanche considered the effects from parking and access would be
disruptive to the local residents and stated there were no real parking spaces during
the weekends. She was concerned about safety, like Ms Hannam, with respect to
people backing out of driveways and garages into queues of SkyPath users. She
noted that there is often maintenance staff within the undercroft working on the AHB,
PSHPS statement of evidence Mr Brown para 30

The Commissioners note that in the context that conservative is often used, it represents the worst case scenario or
highest likely numbers.

Page 17
but that the anticipated level of activity generated by SkyPath would be incompatible
with the residential nature of this neighbourhood. Ms Blanche considered that the
proposal was contrary to the objectives and policies of the residential zone, especially
where these seek to protect the amenity of residential areas.
Generation Zero:
79.
Niko Elsen, Emma McInnes, and Luke Christensen addressed the Generation Zero
submission and noted that SkyPath would complete a network of cycle paths within
Auckland and that it would be celebrated by users into the future. They noted that
public transport opportunities were improving, especially when new schedules are
operative in 2017, including more frequent ferries to and from Northcote Point wharf.
They noted trends regarding vehicle use compared to public transport and active
modes of transport, noting that younger generations were not seeking drivers
licences in the same number as previous generations, were more likely to use public
transport and less likely to own cars.
Harbour Sport:
80.
Justine Martin provided an overview of the initiatives Harbour Sport is undertaking to

increase cycle use within the North Shore. She outlined the intergenerational
approach to cycle use, including introducing preschool children to cycling, and
extending to educating immigrant communities about the road code and safe cycle
behaviours. She indicated that SkyPath would be a welcome addition to cycle routes
that were safe for users, including those under Harbour Sport tutelage.
Cycle Action Auckland:

81.
Barbara Cuthbert spoke on behalf of Cycle Action Auckland. Ms Cuthbert noted that
walking and cycling joins communities together, and the cycling networks extend the
ferry and public transport networks by increasing the reach of those who may wish to
take a ferry or bus, and can cycle part of the way to achieve that. She recalled that
when SkyPath was first mooted 10 years ago, there was little in the way of cycle
networks within the city, and she has personally seen the growth of cycle networks in
that time. She disputed the potential effect on heritage character by stating that
cycling and heritage were not incompatible, and that in her view, large numbers of
users driving to the Northern Landing would not eventuate, noting that people werent
driving to the Grafton Gully cycleway.
82.
Richard Tout and Erica Hannam spoke in opposition to the proposal, noting that
SkyPath seemed like a good idea, but that landing at Northcote Point was
inappropriate. Mr Tout was concerned at the number of bikes disgorging at the
narrow end of Princes Street, near the abutment to the AHB, and was concerned
about the conflict of his garage with pedestrians and cyclists who he would not be
able to see. He confirmed earlier questions of Ms Hannam regarding sunlight,
confirming that sun came in under the AHB during summer months, noting that this
side of the house (closest to the undercroft) was their kitchen and conservatory
space.
83.
Rodney and Carol Brown spoke in opposition to the proposal, adding to previous
evidence on behalf of NPHPS, stating that they thought the Northern Landing needed
more space and far better connectivity. The combination of being overlooked and the
intensity of use were key concerns to them.
84.
Viv Armstrong stated that in her view the number of users would paralyse the

Page 18
Northcote Point road network. She did not believe the parking concerns were minor,
noting that many houses do not have garages and rely on on-street parking. She
considered that there would be demand for toilets and other facilities such as a caf
and that such activities had not been assessed.
85.
Andrew Braggins gave evidence in support of the proposal, subject to amendments to

conditions relating to traffic management and public toilets being addressed
adequately.
86.
Michael Pearson spoke in support of SkyPath, stating it would be transformational. In

his opinion the proposal would benefit the wider community, including providing for a
healthier and balanced lifestyle for families. He thought that connection to SeaPath
would be a key mitigating factor with respect to the concerns of the residents at the
southern end of Princes Street.
87.
Carl Armstrong spoke in opposition to the proposal, on the basis that it would be a
difficult facility to use as a cyclist and that it was not a safe design. He did not believe
there was a great deal of support to cycle/ferry to the CBD, as illustrated by
Birkenhead wharfs cycle lock up facilities being empty. He considered the original
landing of the AHB to be ill conceived, and thought that this proposal would be poor
planning, especially given that Northcote Point would become a thoroughfare. He
considered that it would be more appropriate to have all the linkages in place before
such a facility was consented.
88.
George Wood spoke in his personal capacity to his submission. He considered that
Northcote Point was the wrong landing place for SkyPath, and that it should be
somewhere like Sulphur Beach. He considered that the conditions would have to be
very stringent to enable the project to go ahead.
Applicants Right of Reply

89.
The Applicants right of reply was given by Mr Minhinnick and addressed the following
matters:
90.
Mr Minhinnick reiterated that, in his opinion, under section 104D only one gateway
test needed to be passed, and that based on the evidence presented, the effects are
minor and the proposal is consistent with the relevant statutory provisions.
91.
He addressed Ms de Groots legal submission with respect to the non-complying

activity status, the contention that we are bound by the High Court decision in
Queenstown Central 20 and that a single objective or policy would essentially render
the proposal contrary to the relevant objectives and policies. Mr Minhinnick
maintained his legal position, relying the Court of Appeal decision of Dye 21 over
Queenstown Central.
92.
Mr Minhinnick confirmed Mr D McKenzies expert evidence in reply addressed issues

raised by the Commissioners and by submitters, including Mr Hughes.
93.
In response to the Council officers position, maintaining the preference for grey over
white rods and ribs, Mr Minhinnick stated that the Applicants preference was for
white, citing the evidence of Mr Falconer and Mr B McKenzie that the structure should
sit alongside, rather than as part of, the AHB
20
21
Queenstown Central v Queenstown Lakes District Council 2013 NZHC 817

Mr Minhinnick closing legal submission para 2.7

Page 19
94.
Mr Minhinnick submitted that the effects relating to parking and traffic at the southern
end could be adequately mitigated through the use of the Operational Plan as
proposed by conditions.
95.
With respect to effects at the Northern Landing, Mr Minhinnick noted that submitters
were not concerned with SkyPath as a concept but with amenity at the Northern
Landing. He considered that effects from loss of privacy, overlooking, visual
appearance and increased activity were adequately mitigated through the design
refinements (such as an increase in the number of rods at the Northern Landing).
96.
Mr Minhinnick submitted that we should prefer the expert evidence of Mr D McKenzie

over the evidence of Mr Clarke from the Northcote Residents Association and the
Northcote Point Action Group. He considered that the conditions requiring certain on
road activities be undertaken prior to SkyPath opening were sufficient to mitigate
effects associated with traffic and parking.
97.
Mr Minhinnick submitted that the Commissioners were entitled to put a condition on

the proposal requiring toilets, as this was within the scope of the original application
and several submitters thought them necessary.
98.
Notwithstanding the adverse effects, Mr Minhinnick concluded that the positive effects
needed reiterating, drawing on the evidence of a number of submitters in support. It
was his submission that the proposal merited approval.
Principal issues in contention

99.
After analysis of the application and evidence (including any proposed mitigation
measures), undertaking two site visits, reviewing the Council section 42A report and
expert reviews, reviewing the submissions and concluding the hearing process, the
proposed activity raises a number of issues for consideration. The principal issues in
contention are:
SOUTHERN LANDING
100. The Southern Landing is intended to become the main arrival point for SkyPath. The
landing area comprises a switchback ramp structure with turnstiles at its terminus next
to a kidney-shaped plaza and ticketing kiosk. 22 The ramp begins in a west-east
direction, parallel with an existing and proposed NZTA service yard (under the AHB)
and turns south then north before climbing above Curran Street and the roundabout at
the junction of Westhaven Drive/Shelly Beach Road.
101. About half of the landing 'site' is at present part of the NZTA service yard; however the
SkyPath switchback is to be constructed within an area of pohutukawa trees forming a
vegetative screen in front of the bridge structure and service yards. An observation
deck is also proposed which will be overlooked by a Pou Whenua marker between the
AHB and Westhaven Drive.
The effects on users
102. At the Southern Landing, the SkyPath structure will result in the displacement of the
existing NZTA and Waterfront Auckland marina workshop and storage yard, and the
relocation of existing wastewater services. The affected parties (NZTA and Waterfront
Auckland) have indicated their support for the proposal and are working towards
22
as shown on Visual Seven, Applicant's Core Visual Bundle, drawing 2719/GA01D

Page 20
resolving these matters. Mr Twose, the Manager of Planning and Consents at

Waterfront Auckland, said he was confident that a new area can be found and
consented, to accommodate these items. 23
103. There is a number of existing user groups within the AHB and Westhaven Marina
environs and we have referred above to the submission made by Mr Webb on behalf of
the WMUA. The effects on users will arise mainly from people arriving and departing,
and seeking parking, once the SkyPath is operational. There will also be temporary
effects arising from construction activity.
104. Mr Webb acknowledged that the main concern of WMUA was the effects of parking and
he did not see how it would be possible to discourage private vehicles in favour of using
public transport as assumed by the Applicant, particularly as there had not been any
robust assessment of the existing Westhaven traffic environment or suitable public
transport options. 24
105. Mr Putt was equally concerned that parking pressure would affect the amenity of
residents in the closest residential streets in Herne Bay and parking needs for users of
Point Erin Park.
106. These potential effects require an understanding of the potential causes of parking
demands, how those demands would manifest themselves and when they would be
most likely to occur.
107. We were told that SkyPath users will comprise three main groups, each of which will
have different effects on the areas around the Southern Landing:
Pedestrian and cycling commuters
Recreational users (Aucklanders visiting SkyPath for leisure)
Tourists and visitors, visiting SkyPath for leisure 25
108. Mr Hancock's assessment on behalf of the Council was that "walking accessibility to
SkyPath is poor" 26 and this was likely to encourage driving to SkyPath and result in
vehicular and parking constraints at both landing points. Mr D McKenzie did not accept
that walking access is poor, but agreed that "without measures to discourage parking
near the landings, likely car parking demand could lead to negative impacts around the
landings, especially in the immediate vicinity". 27 This was a view shared by Mr Langwell
who said that in the absence of effective management, "SkyPath visitors will find it
attractive to use their private vehicles and will drive and attempt to park in the
immediate environs of the Southern Landing, putting added pressure on the Westhaven
Marina parking areas and surrounding road network". 28
109. Return trips from the city centre side to SkyPath itself, ie recreation or tourist trips going
only to the top of the AHB, or touching down at Northcote Point would be 6-9 km return.
Mr D McKenzie considered that most SkyPath recreational and tourist trips are likely to
be dedicated trips for the express purpose of going to SkyPath. He thought that
23
Matthew Twose para 8.4

submissions of counsel for WMUA, para 11
25
D McKenzie EiC 12 May 2015, para 3.11
26
planner's report, page 23
27
D McKenzie EiC dated 12 May 2015, executive summary para M
28
T Langwell EiC para 7
24

Page 21
spending 2 - 3 hours on a recreational walk to and from such an iconic facility was quite
realistic. 29
110. Mr D McKenzie also agreed that the Britomart transport hub (which is within a 3km
walking catchment) would be a logical start and end point for many SkyPath users, and
that there may well in future be changes to tourist bus routes (such as the Explorer) to
serve Wynyard Quarter and SkyPath. In closing, Counsel for the Applicant confirmed
that a revised condition (43a) was proposed which would encourage both the Southern
Landing and "appropriate locations within the city centre such as Britomart", as the
starting point for SkyPath, acknowledging that "Britomart offers superior connectivity to
the rest of Auckland". 30
111. Based on these factors, combined with the proposed marketing of access options as
part of the SkyPath website and publicity materials, and with increasing reliability of
public transport services, Mr D McKenzie was confident that combined walking and
public transport trips to SkyPath would be a viable and reasonable option for large parts
of Auckland without requiring the use of a car. While Mr D McKenzie observed that the
Fanshawe Street bus stop is less than 2km away and provides good connectivity to
other transport services including the North Shore, we have reservations about the
practicalities of a 2km or more walk for many recreational visitors (for example family
groups with children, people with disabilities, or the elderly) before beginning a walk
over the SkyPath. Our concerns were shared by Mr Putt, Mr Webb and others. While
that distance may be reasonable for some recreational users, we nonetheless think that
in the absence of as yet unknown improvements to public transport links serving
SkyPath, limited walking accessibility is a very real issue with the potential to add
pressure to parking demand at the Southern Landing.
112. For cycling trips, distances at the approach to, and departure from SkyPath are not so
much of a constraint. The key issue is how recreational cyclists (as opposed to
commuter cyclists) would begin and end their trip on SkyPath. Mr D McKenzie
considered that this group would be able to choose safer but often less direct cycle
routes, particularly on the southern side of the harbour such as riding to the city centre
via the northwestern cycleway or Tamaki Drive paths. Mr D McKenzie referred to
projects currently being planned by the Council, Auckland Transport and NZTA that
would improve cycling conditions in the Auckland Cycle Network. On the southern side
of the bridge, these include Auckland City Centre priority cycle routes such as the
Nelson Street and Beaumont Street Cycleways and the Western Waterfront City
Connections project proposed by Auckland Transport for Urban Cycleway Fund
consideration. 31
113. We heard evidence in support of the proposal from two submitters residing on the
isthmus. Mr Nikoloff 32 and Mr David Welch 33 both cycle to work and for recreation. They
described their current cycling preferences and how they would use present and
planned cycle routes to get to the SkyPath if they wished to cycle to the North Shore
from their homes in St Johns and Grey Lynn respectively. They did not identify any
concerns with accessibility to SkyPath.
114. Ms Barbara Cuthbert, of Cycle Action Auckland, also referred to a project which has
recently gained support from NZTA to develop a cycleway using a redundant section of
29
D McKenzie EiC dated 12 May 2015, para 4.46 - 4.49

closing submissions by counsel for the Applicant, para 5.9
31
D McKenzie EiC dated 12 May 2015, para 4.53, with reference to Item 111, AT board meeting April 2014
32
submission #204
33
submission #115
30

Page 22
the Nelson Street motorway offramp.

115. Mr D McKenzie's conclusion was that SkyPath is adequately accessible for current
Auckland transport cyclist from both north and south while cycling accessibility is
somewhat poor for leisure cyclists from the north, is "adequate to good from the south a much larger catchment". 34 We discuss the accessibility issue for northern leisure
cyclists separately, below, but had no reason to doubt Mr D McKenzie's conclusions
regarding a reasonable (and improving) level of accessibility for cyclists from the south
and west.
Traffic generation
116. Mr D McKenzie told us that he had considered traffic generation and the parking and
traffic effects in detail. He assessed potential SkyPath-related car traffic impacts on the
surrounding road network on the basis of earlier estimations of the potential car parking
demand in the TAR 35 and has predicted the following additional vehicle traffic created
by SkyPath in the area of the Southern Landing as:
(a)
9 additional vehicle trips (inbound) during the AM peak hour, representing the
occasional walk/cycle user and early morning leisure user;
(b)
30 additional vehicle trips (half inbound, half outbound) during the PM peak hour,
representing mainly arriving and departing leisure users; and
(c)
254 additional vehicle trips (half inbound, half outbound) during the Saturday
midday peak hour, representing mainly arriving and departing leisure users. 36
117. Mr D McKenzie also assessed scenarios using double the above volumes to protect
against the risk of underestimation and to allow for circulation of car park search traffic,
as well as various other assumptions which he considered had several levels of
"significant conservatism". The worst case scenario resulted in an average delay of 5
seconds per vehicle during the busiest Saturday conditions, and with the intersections
staying at good levels of service overall.
118. While the basis for Mr D McKenzie's assumptions was challenged by Mr Putt on behalf
of the HBRA amongst others, we accept (as we discuss further in relation to the
Northern Landing) that the methodology adopted by Mr Guenter to produce the
patronage figures was sound and the model produces realistic numbers. Despite the
acknowledged uncertainties over the figures, we accept that the methodology adopted
by Mr D McKenzie to arrive at the traffic predictions includes an element of
conservatism. Mr D McKenzie had taken the Angus and Associates car preference
factors and added in all potential users who indicated they would use a ferry for access
to SkyPath (which is currently not a feasible option for most SkyPath demand times). A
series of steps were followed, as set out diagrammatically in Table 6.2 of the Traffic
Assessment Report which formed part of the application material, starting with the
number of people who indicated a preference to drive close to SkyPath and applying
various factors including car occupancy ratios, duration of parking and likely
northern/southern landing split to arrive at the likely car parking demand effect at each
landing. As Mr Nixon said in his reply on behalf of the Council, there are no published
trip generation rates on which to rely and there were no fatal flaws in the TDG
methodology.
34
D McKenzie EiC dated 12 May 2015, para 4.54

Traffic Assessment Report dated October 2014
36
D McKenzie EiC 12 May 2015 para 4.88
35

Page 23
119. In terms of traffic generation, we find that the predicted numbers of vehicles are unlikely
to have more than minor effects on the surrounding road network.
Parking availability
120. Mr D McKenzie's opinion that the main parking demand will occur primarily at
weekends, with a smaller peak during summer weekend evenings, was not disputed. 37
Nor was his assessment that the parking area most affected by SkyPath would be on
Waterfront Auckland land at the Marina, used primarily by marina users of various types
plus staff and visitors to local businesses.
121. Mr Langwell's evidence on behalf of Waterfront Auckland included a summary of all
available parking in and around Westhaven Marina. Mr Langwell described these as
four distinct carpark areas: the northern, western, southern and Z Pier carparks. Each
has a mixture of parking space types for different users and includes exclusive berth
holder spaces, loading zones, mobility parking, exclusive tenant spaces and special
use areas for trailers and boat parking. Publicly available parking is delineated by white
markings whereas allocated parking is identified by yellow markings.
122. Mr Langwell's analysis of existing carparking in Table 1 of his evidence 38 indicated that
there are currently 1,574 carparks in all four carpark areas, of which 844 are publicly
available (some with time restrictions). Once the Platform 2 development within the
western carpark takes place, the number of public spaces drops to 511. He considered
that the 'white spaces' would provide a highly attractive proposition for SkyPath visitors
to be used on a casual basis. Although they are within the Marina boundaries, and on
private land, they are available and free to access by any member of the public. He
considered, as did Mr D McKenzie, that visitors would seek to use these spaces first
before looking further afield as they are more accessible to the Southern Landing than
other areas such as the residential streets within St Mary's Bay. 39
123. However, he considered that if there is added pressure put on the white spaces by
SkyPath visitors, some spill over effect could be expected into the berth holder and
tenant spaces.
124. Mr Langwell also identified a further 50 - 60 spaces within Harbour Bridge Park to the
west of the AHB that are available for public use. He said that the area is typically used
as overflow parking when other areas around the Marina are occupied, or by
recreational users using the park and water's edge. From our observation, this area is a
popular fishing spot. Mr Putt stated in his evidence on behalf of the HBRA that "there is
no explanation as to why the vacant land owned by Waterfront Auckland fronting the
length of Curran Street within Westhaven is not made available for carparking to
service the SkyPath" noting that it is generally unused and has for many years been
used as storage for motorway and related construction equipment. 40
125. While clearly this area could be developed for parking, we heard from Waterfront
Auckland that its intention is to develop it as a park. We also are mindful of the
comments made by Mr D McKenzie that providing parking specifically for SkyPath will
simply encourage people to drive to the Southern Landing, which is against the
philosophy of providing a facility for walking and cycling which forms part of a network.
37
D McKenzie EiC 12 May 2015 para 4.108

T Langwell EiC 21 May 2015, para 18
39
40
B Putt EiC, 27 May 2015, para 4.2
38

Page 24
126. Mr Langwell referred to the drone survey work undertaken by Waterfront Auckland to
monitor the usage of its parking areas over the past 2 years, to understand the parking
demands over the whole week including weekday race nights and peak summer
holiday weekends. The highest occupancy rates occurred in the northern carpark,
which is more attractive to commuters working in Wynyard Quarter or visitors to the
nearby yacht clubs. The western carpark has occupancy rates of 18 - 24 % during the
week and 23% during a high demand weekend period. Mr Langwell thought that this
suggests little demand for this carpark primarily due to its remoteness from pier heads
and other activities, which in his opinion highlighted "the issue of promoting car travel to
SkyPath with uncontrolled parking to the Southern Landing". 41 While he considered that
there would be sufficient parking available in the future to accommodate the needs of
Marina users once various development projects are implemented (including the marine
centre on the western carpark), Mr Langwell concluded that any SkyPath visitors cars
will be in direct competition with other activities for the use of the white parking spaces
in the Westhaven area.
127. Using the TDG predictions of parking demand outlined by Mr D McKenzie of up to 82
cars on a weekday and 409 on a weekend during the summer months, Mr Langwell
estimated that the baseline demands above the current activity could be about 180
spaces during a weekday and 540 spaces on a high demand summer weekend. He
considered that this demand could be accommodated in the white spaces during
weekdays but the demand for parking at weekends would exceed supply within the
Marina, thereby "creating a significant effect on the operation of the Marina activities
and its associated parking areas".
128. Mr Langwell concluded that if SkyPath is granted consent it was important that
appropriate changes are made to the current parking controls within the Westhaven
area to deter SkyPath visitors from having the perception that parking is readily
available.
129. We found Mr Langwell's evidence helpful in understanding existing and future parking
needs at the Marina, and are satisfied that the work he had undertaken on behalf of
Waterfront Auckland provides a robust information base from which the impacts of
SkyPath and any other changes to parking supply as a result of further development at
Westhaven could be established.
130. Mr D McKenzie considered that the potential effects on the local road network,
including the effects and requirements of tour coaches, and the potential effects on car
parking, are provided for by a requirement to obtain necessary Licence to Occupy
agreements with Waterfront Auckland. These will include reference to a series of
parking and access measures subject to Waterfront Auckland approval prior to the
construction of SkyPath. 42
131. Mr D McKenzie also discussed options for managing Westhaven parking in future. He
considered that providing dedicated parking for berth holders and tenants was relatively
straightforward, but ensuring adequate parking for marina guests and business
customers was more difficult and complex as this group's requirements were not easily
separated out from berth holders or marina/SkyPath visitors. It is the latter group whose
parking usage needs to be managed or discouraged for the benefit of the first two
groups. There was general agreement between the traffic engineers regarding the
measures that could be employed to manage parking. These included:
41
42

D McKenzie EiC 12 May 2015, executive summary para J

Page 25
access controls
parking control and management
some pay and display areas
peak period parking enforcement
parking/directional wayfinding signage
a small bus station
provision for a drop off zone and mobility parking
parking controls on Curran Street west of the Southern Landing (currently

unrestricted)
132. These measures would need to be part of the Licence to Occupy as required with
Waterfront Auckland. Further review measures could include:
progressive extension of the gated parking system in the Westhaven Marina

area
extension of parking enforcement
establishment of residents' parking schemes in the Sarsfield/Curran and

Sarsfield/Shelly Beach Road areas
increasing SkyPath tolls during peak demand periods.
133. Mr Twose stated that Waterfront Auckland has a responsibility to its existing
leaseholders to plan for rather than react to congestion issues should SkyPath users
seek to park within Westhaven. He outlined the measures that Waterfront Auckland
considered would be necessary to discourage SkyPath related parking, while having
regard to the Waterfront Auckland's obligations to Westhaven Marina Ltd and the
marina users and berth holders.
134. He said that parking management techniques such as charging for public parking, or
installing prevention devices such as barrier arms were feasible but the implications
included capital and operational costs and resource consent requirements. These
measures were not under the Applicant's control and for that reason conditions
requiring such measures were not supported. However, Waterfront Auckland could
accept a condition stating that SkyPath could not commence operations until parking
management measures are in place (noting that this overlaps with the condition
proffered by the Applicant on the development agreement between the parties). 43
135. The Applicant has proposed a range of conditions relating to traffic management,
through the Operational Plan. By requiring this Operational Plan to be subject to
consultation with Waterfront Auckland prior to approval by Council the Commissioners
are confident that parking effects at the Southern Landing can be adequately mitigated.
136. It is clear to the Commissioners that while the existing public parking supply near the
Southern Landing would be an attractive and convenient option for recreational users
43
Matthew Twose EiC, para 7.4

Page 26
of SkyPath, there will only be a limited number of public spaces available and there will
be competition for them with other Westhaven users. We agree that the Applicant's
proposed strategy of promoting alternative modes of transport, combined with a preemptive set of measures to manage parking at Westhaven and the residential streets
nearby is appropriate. These measures will need to be adaptive and responsive, and
involve collaboration with other agencies including NZTA, Auckland Council and
Auckland Transport. Particular attention will also need to be given to managing parking
at Point Erin Park. We are generally satisfied that the proposed Operational Plan
required by condition 40 is sufficiently comprehensive to address the effects of traffic
and parking. However, we have included a reference in the Operational Plan to the
management of special events on SkyPath which may result in concentrations of
pedestrians and cyclists at certain times.
Bus and coach facilities
137. Mr Twose confirmed that Waterfront Auckland has sufficient land in the Harbour Bridge
Park area to provide for a future bus and coach drop-off area and supported the section
42A report recommendation for an advice note referring to this matter. He did not
support a consent condition, as the decision around location and configuration of such
a facility more properly rests with Waterfront Auckland and Council organisations
including both the Council and Auckland Transport. 44 There was no disagreement
regarding the need for, and ability to provide, a bus and coach drop off area in an
appropriate location.
Amenity issues
138. WMUA and other submitters have raised concerns in their submissions about the
removal of important amenity native trees and landscaping on the southern AHB
abutment for which there is no mitigation in the immediate vicinity. 45 The affected
vegetation comprises a strip of mixed Pohutukawa and Cabbage trees approximately
15m long. The trees are 6 - 8m high and were planted as part of the AHB abutment
works in the 1980's. 46 Initially, the Applicant proposed relocation of the trees but
advised in its response dated March 2015 to a request for further information by the
Council that on further advice this was no longer proposed, as the trees' location on the
bund will make relocation too difficult. 47 While the Council's specialist landscape
architect, Ms Gilbert, considered that relocation of the Pohutukawa trees should be
reconsidered by the Applicant, the section 42A report concluded that "any loss of visual
and natural character and amenity can be mitigated with some replacement replanting
and the quality of the structure". 48 We paid particular attention to the trees during our
site visit, and concur that reinstatement of the slope with a rock garden and landscaped
area with native specimen trees 49 is an acceptable outcome.
NORTHERN LANDING
139. The location of the Northern Landing, how it operates, and its net impacts on the
environment and the residents of the local area and surrounds attracted considerable
attention at the hearing.
44
Twose, para 9.4

WMUA submission signed by Barry Holton dated 21 May 2015
46
Memorandum from Bridget Gilbert to Suzanne Murray, 20 March 2015 page 9
47
section 92 response dated March 2015, section 6
48
section 42A report, page 32
49
section 92 response dated March 2015, section 7.4(d)
45

Page 27
140. As noted in the evidence summary above many of the submitters in opposition to the
proposal expressed the firm viewpoint that the location of the Northern Landing was not
appropriate, for example - Ms Lucy Whineray told us:
..the Northcote Point landing is in the wrong place.50
141. George Wood and others offered us similar viewpoints:
SkyPath terminates at the wrong location on Northcote Point 51
142. The reasons for questioning the location of the Northern Landing were many, they
included:
Introduction of 13,000 plus patrons a day into our quiet residential area. 52
The projected patronage numbers will clearly have a huge impact on Northcote
Point parking, access, transport, toilets, resident security and privacy. 53
It is not readily accessible to users. 54
The Northern Landing is inappropriate in its proposed setting because of the

structures bulk and intrusiveness. 55
Historic cul-de-sac with extremely limited ingress and egress. 56
SkyPath can only be evaluated in context of an integrated network plan. 57
The proposal imparts significantly more than minor adverse effects on the
neighbourhood and surrounds. 58
Impacts on the historic character of Northcote Point. 59
The SkyPath proposal creates a level of activity and physical intrusion that is
truly contrary to the Residential 3 zone in the Northcote Point setting. 60
Creates an unsafe and intolerable environment around Northcote and beyond.
The increase in the volume of traffic on the road across from the Little Shoal Bay
Reserve would be contrary to the provisions of the RMA. 61
Any increase in traffic would seriously threaten the welfare of children in what
50
Lucy Whinerays (#618) Representation Statement at [8]

George Woods (#546) Representation Statement at page 1
52
Caryle Blanche, Brian and Jay Holloway (#L10) Representation Statement at [4.2]
53
Erica Hannams (#62) Representation Statement at [6]
54
55
Legal Submission of S de Groot at [11]
56
Peter Sawyers (#65) Representation Statement at Page 1
57
Michael Smthe and Helen Schamroths (#615) Representation Statement at [4]
58
Graham Hughs (#107/#108) Representation Statement at [11]
59
Dinah Holmans Statement of Evidence
60
Brian Putts Statement of Evidence at [4.8]
61
Little Shoal Bay Protection Society Incorporateds (#550) Representation Statement at[5]
51

Page 28
should be a safe and protected environment. 62
possible effects associated with the predicted large numbers of patrons include
safety, security, privacy, noise, lighting effects, loss of parking, and the main
effects of large traffic volumes and all the attendant traffic by-products and
intrusive nuisances. 63
143. We also heard representations from submitters supporting the Northern Landing:
Generation Zero were highly enthusiastic in their support for SkyPath noting that
any adverse impacts at the landings could readily be overcome.
Michael Pearson, a Northcote Point resident, offered us general support for

SkyPath seeing the proposal as one the most transformational projects
Auckland has seen in a generation if not more.64
144. We were faced with competing evidence from the Northcote community and more
particularly from within the executive membership Northcote Residents Association. It
was not our role to adjudicate on whose viewpoint was the most relevant rather we
adopted the strategy of considering each submission made to us on its face value. We
agreed with the Mr Minhinnick 65 observation that the Northcote community is divided in
relation to SkyPath.
Patronage
145. It was very evident to us from the information put forward to us that patronage was the
principal driver underpinning many of the potential adverse effects associated with the
Northern Landing. Our attention was constantly drawn to the level of patronage and the
potential associated effects by the submitters in opposition.
146. Carol Browns viewpoint sums up the viewpoint of many of the submitters directly
associated with the Northern Landing: There is no mitigation for the huge numbers of people of a level similar to that
of the CBD pedestrian volumes that will be placed into the narrow southern tip of
Northcote Point that currently has, at best, some 20-50 visitors a day. This
intensive level of activity outside our homes is an adverse impact that is
significantly more than minor. 66
147. Mr Hughes questioned the Applicants patronage figures suggesting to us that the
patronage figures need to be adjusted upwards by a third to account for factors which
he named. Mr Hughes did acknowledge that the data as presented remains useful for
analysis, as it represented a significant material shift in the numbers looking to access
the facility. 67
148. Mr Kevin Clarke in his comprehensive statement of evidence also questioned
SkyPaths patronage figures in some detail. 68 It was his opinion that the patronage
figures have been under estimated. Mr Clarke expressed the opinion that even without
62
M Carol Scotts (#554) Representation Statement at page 2

Dinah Holamn Statement of Evidence at [56]
64
Michele Pearsons ((#25) Representation notes
65
Applicants Closing Legal Submission D Minhinnick at [3.4]
66
Carol Browns (#52)Statement of Evidence at [3.7]
67
Graham Hughes (#107/108) Representation Statement at [4.2]
68
Kevin Clarkes Statement of Evidence at section 6
63

Page 29
adjustment 13,000 visitors at the end of Northcote Point every weekend day by year 5
was not manageable for either the residential area immediately abutting SkyPaths
Northern Landing or the greater Northcote Point suburb. 69
149. Ms Hannan compared 70 the SkyPath patronage figures with Auckland Transport
patronage figures for the Britomart Train Station, Auckland Domestic Airport and the
Auckland Ferry Terminal, noting that these facilities are purpose built to handle
patronage with parking, toilet and catering facilities.
150. Ms Tianna Hall offered us a different perspective; Using more realistic figures of usage that actually reflect the current reality of
Auckland transport needs, I am going to explain that the market has no
demand for this extra service and that the numbers of patronage [sic] that the
SkyPath is relying on for self-funded success, are grossly overstated, leaving
the sky path an infiesible [sic] project that will inevitably cost the ratepayers.71
151. As noted above in our summary of the evidence presented, the Applicants expert Chris
Guenter provided us with evidence on patronage. As a direct result of our questioning
of Mr Guenter on the rationale for the figures he derived, he, in conjunction with Mr D
McKenzie, carefully worked us through how the patronage figures were generated. In
the process we were reminded that the aim of the patronage projection model was to
reflect reality. 72
152. Mr D McKenzie in his Statement of Reply evidence provided us with a refinement of the
patronage figures noting that gate trips represent the highest number of movements
through the landing turnstiles (both entering and exiting) the refined patronage figures
for Year 1 Gate Trips and Year 5 Gate Trips are:
Spring
Spring
Summer
Summer
Thursday
Saturday
Thursday
Saturday
1,107
4,289
1,929
8,015
1,833
7,101
3,194
13,286
Year 1 gate trips 73

Northern Landing
Year 5 gate trips
Northern Landing
153. Mr Guenter's evidence was the only expert evidence we heard on patronage. We do
however acknowledge that submitters raised pertinent questions both about Mr
Guenters approach and the patronage figures that were derived. Submitters also
provided us with comments on the patronage figures, their own analysis of patronage
figures and their best estimates on patronage based on what they believed would
eventuate.
154. In terms of the wider implications stemming from the patronage figures, we accept that
Mr Guenters model is based on a sound methodology and that the model produces
69
Ibid at [273]
Erica Hannams (#62) Representation Statement at [8-9]
71
Tianna Halls (#605) Representation Notes
72
Chris Guenters Evidence-in Chief at [3.2]
73
Don McKenzies Reply Evidence at [2.4 2.5]
70

Page 30
realistic figures; in particular it produces realistic peak figures.

155. It is very evident from all the patronage figures provided to us that there will be a
dramatic increase in the number of persons accessing this part of Northcote Point.
156. We have started our analysis of the Northern Landing issues with a consideration of
patronage as we generally agree with the observation of Kevin Clarke 74 (and others)
that:
Every aspect of SkyPaths impact upon directly affected people and the
environment is driven by the project's patronage assessments.
Traffic and parking effects
157. In addressing potential traffic and parking effects a number of key themes emerged
which were repeated by the submitters in opposition to the proposal, namely the
potential adverse traffic effects associated with on street parking, traffic generation and
amenity. 75
158. As noted, we recognised that patronage would have a marked influence on both traffic
generation and on street parking. As a result of hearing the submissions, it is very
evident to us that Mr Minhinnick, in his closing legal submission for the Applicant, made
a very germane observation. This is that it has been a complex process to arrive at the
projected patronage figures and then to project them on to the projected traffic effects
and parking demand. 76
159. A large number of submitters provided us with detailed observations and comments on
a range of potential adverse traffic effects. For example we were told by:
Carol Brown that there has been no assessment on the impact of increased
traffic on local streets. 77
Lucy Whinerary observed that no solutions have been given which mitigate the
difficulties of disgorging SkyPaths traffic from Northcote Point without gridlocking the entire neighbourhood. 78
Carle Blanche, Brian and Jay Holloway pointed out the increased demand for
parking as a direct result of more commuters using the ferry so there are no real
spaces for SkyPath users in the weekends. 79
Graham Hughes told us that it was his belief that the adverse impacts of this
proposal on traffic and parking in Northcote Point are significantly more than
minor. 80
Kevin Clarke was of the opinion that Northcotes very good road safety record
would not be maintained because of the unconsidered and very significant influx
of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicular traffic expected and needed for SkyPaths
74
Kevin Clarkes Summary of Evidence at [32]

Mike Nixons Staffs Submission at page 13
76
Applicants Closing Legal Submission D Minhinnick at [4.4]
77
Carol Browns Statement of Evidence at [8.3]
78
79
Caryle Blanche, Brian and Jay Hollways (#L10) Statement of Evidence at [4.7]
80
Graham Hughes (#107/108) Representation Statement at [8.1]
75

Page 31
operational requirements. 81
Richard Thumath was very direct stating one glaring omission is the lack of
planning for parking and traffic control. 82
Brain Putt offered us the opinion that the traffic engineering report both for the
Applicant and the Council, has failed in the assessments to match traffic
generation commensurate with the very high patronage numbers predicted. 83
160. We were reminded by a number of submitters that the TDG report noted that 42% of
the recreational users and 25% of the commuter users will arrive by car to use
SkyPath. 84
161. There were submitters in support of the transportation mitigation initially offered by the
Applicant:
Andrew Braggins noted that he supported the conditions (subject to

amendments) relating to traffic management and the Operational Plan. 85
Michael Pearson said: I fully support the protection of on-street parking for
those heritage properties with no provision for off-street parking, for others,
which includes us, it is harder to justify.86
Greg Nikoloff was of the viewpoint that parking was manageable resident
parking schemes do work and can work here. 87
Harbour Sports Justine Martin told us it is a perfect connection to the

Northcote Safe Cycle Way. 88
162. The Applicant provided us with comprehensive, expert traffic engineers assessments
of traffic impacts, underpinned by patronage model numbers. The Councils traffic
engineers also provided traffic assessments which basically supported the Applicants
approach. These were the only expert transport assessments we heard.
163. Mr D McKenzie concluded that with the range of mitigations measures now planned,
and the review conditions which have been put in place, he was confident that the
SkyPath related vehicle traffic could be appropriately managed. 89 Mr D McKenzie in his
reply evidence reinforced the proposed transportation measures which he opined would
best assist with the avoidance and mitigation of potential effects associated with
SkyPath at the Northern Landing. They included:
A residents parking scheme;
Signage directing SkyPath users away from accessing Princes Street (south of
Alma Street) by motor vehicle;
81
Kevin Clarkes (#l11) Statement of Evidence at section 206

Richard Thumath (#126) Representation Statement
83
Brain Putts Evidence-in Chief at [5.9]
84
TDG Transportation Assessment Report at page 158
85
Andrew Braggins (#58)Statement of Evidence at [2.2]
86
Michael Pearsons (#25) Representation Notes
87
Greg Nikoloffs Powerpoint presentation
88
Harbour Sports Powerpoint presentation
89
Don McKenzies Evidence-in Chief at [4.102]
82

Page 32
Provision of a vehicle drop area;
A CPTED assessment of the layout. 90
164. Mr Blakey (planning consultant for the Applicant) offered us the opinion that on-street
parking is not an adverse effect per se, but he did accept that the potential incidence of
such activity would be new to the particular area and different to the extent of on-street
parking that currently occurs. 91
165. Mr Nixon (traffic engineer for the Council) pointed out to us that the Applicant has
demonstrated that there will be significant parking demands on the northern side of the
bridge. However he was of the opinion that parking demand could be accommodated
through the utilisation of public on-street parking but in doing so, he also acknowledged
that for some summer Saturdays the parking demand could be exceeded. 92
166. Mr Nixon also considered that traffic effects could be managed but sounded a note of
caution by pointing out that the triggers for prescribed measures, and the form of the
measures, is unknown. 93
167. Mr D McKenzie addressed our concern (and others) over conditions that were
dependent on third-party approvals by stating:
Consent conditions requiring an Applicant to post-consent agree with
government bodies on the specific nature and extent of transport measures on
public roads are again absolutely standard.....As SkyPath will require multiple
post-consent management plans and approvals from Council, other Councilrelated entities and NZTA before proceeding, I consider this provides an
appropriate level of certainty that appropriate measures and review processes
will be in place.94
We accept that there will be noticeable changes in both the traffic environment, with an
increase traffic impacting on the level of service, and creating increased competition for
on street parking, especially during the weekends and public holidays. The
transportation conditions now offered by the Applicant have improved certainty about
the transport measures to be implemented.
168. We are satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated the transportation effects can be
managed and mitigated, and there are review mechanisms in place to ensure any
future problem that may emerge can be addressed.
Parking at The Wharf
169. Martin Smith on behalf of The Wharf Limited submitted that the continued availability of
carparking spaces adjacent to The Wharf was critical to their business. 95 Ms Tree, in
her legal submission for Mezzanine Capital Limited (the owners of The Wharf), opined
that if the SkyPath applications were to be granted consent, the Council must first
recognise and provide for the existing resource consent for The Wharf and provide for
the existing allocation of on-street carparking for The Wharfs patrons and servicing
90
Don McKenzies Reply Evidence at [5.1]

Richard Blakeys Evidence in Reply at [2.11]
92
Mike Nixon Staffs Submission at page 14
93
Mike Nixon Staffs Submission at page 15
94
Don McKenzies Supplementary Evidence at [2.15 2.16]
95
Martin Smiths (#557) Representation Statement at [14]
91

Page 33
requirements. 96
170. Ms Valentine (Council Lead Senior Planner), in addressing this issue 97 advised that she
had been unable to locate the original consent for The Wharf and she was of the
opinion that Auckland Transport (road asset owner) was unaware that The Wharf
considers the public on-street parking as theirs. She was of the viewpoint that The
Wharf needs to bring the matter up with Auckland Transport. We do not have the
original consent, so we have adopted the approach suggested by Ms Valentine that it is
a separate matter that should be taken up by The Wharf with Auckland Transport.
Privacy, safety and security
171. For those who live in the immediate vicinity of the Northern Landing privacy, safety and
security are important issues.
172. For example, in terms of privacy we were told:
The structure provides the opportunity to be overlooked. 98 We will have clear

views (of the structure) from several rooms, and so in turn will have users being
able to look down into our home. 99
Joan White and Geoff Rogers in their written representation said that their
sense of privacy would be totally compromised. Their living areas face east
(toward the structure), and the impact on their privacy will be major.
173. In terms of safety and security:
The safety of the residential environment in Northcote Point will be

considerably altered by the proposal. 100
There are no effective crime prevention measures in the report for Northcote
residents. Mention of signage, lighting, and user and local residents providing
surveillance does not provide any reassurance that these issues have been
properly considered. 101
The more people using the facility the more likely there are to be negative
effects caused by those people. 102
There will be anti-social behaviour and graffiti. 103
174. Nicola Williams (an urban designer), in addressing 104 urban design perspectives for the
Council, reiterated her initial position that the more than 15 metres between SkyPath
and the nearby properties is sufficient distance for addressing privacy concerns. She
outlined the changes to conditions that address privacy issues, in particular changing
the frequency of the rods above the handrail to be at 70mm intervals, to provide
additional visual mitigation. This change would extend to the entire length of the
96
Bianca Trees Legal Submission at [18]

Jennifer Valentine Staffs response at page 23
98
Carol Brown (#52) Statement of Evidence at [5.3]
99
ibid at [5.4]
100
Rodney Brown (#112) Statement of Evidence at [14]
101
102
Rodney Brown (#112)Statement of Evidence at [9-10]
103
104
Niccola Williams Staffs Submission at page 17
97

Page 34
eastern-most facade of the loop. The Applicant has offered planting and/or a fence
(condition 6) to the duplex at 6 / 8 Princes Street to address adverse privacy effects at
these properties.
175. Ms Peake gave evidence on behalf of the Applicant with respect to security issues and
how crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) principles could help
address security issues. She concluded that the revised conditions of consent have
incorporated CPTED principles and will adequately address safety concerns raised in
the submissions.
176. Ms Williams, in commenting 105 on safety and security issues, pointed out that wellconnected movement networks and the integration of these are two of the most
important factors in creating a safe suburban environment. She noted that she
appreciated the concerns over the projected number of patrons and agreed that
conditions of consent to implement and enable safety and privacy considerations were
initially weak. However, they have been addressed so that they are robust to ensure a
well-designed, safe proposal which minimises effects on privacy. Consent condition
(21) requires a detailed Safety Strategy that the Councils Safety Team will review.
177. Ms Williams was satisfied that the proposal is the best possible outcome with overall no
more than minor effects on the local environment. We could find no strong reasons to
disagree with Ms Williams.
178. Mr Minhinnick, in his closing submission for the Applicant, noted that the Councilproposed conditions strengthening CPTED have been accepted subject to minor
change. 106 He also noted that as part of the CPTED safety strategy, a lighting strategy
is required at the Northern Landing. One of the aims of the strategy is to ensure the
maximum light levels are reduced after operating hours, to reduce light spill. 107
Visual effects of the structure
179. There is no disagreement the proposed structure planned for the Northern Landing will
add a new visual element. The dimensions of the new structure and the area it is
projected to occupy was commented on by submitters. For example:
Rodney Brown expressed his concern about the proposed structure, noting that
it will be only 16.5 metres from his property and will create a significant structure
many metres high. It will create a division between the two sides of the street.
He could not understand what measures could possibly be put in place to
mitigate against the enormity and intrusiveness of the SkyPath structure. 108
The structure of SkyPath occupies considerable space and will be an obtrusive

and over dominating intrusion into our neighbourhood. 109
SkyPath will create a significant structure many metres high. This will mean that
every single user will be passing in close proximity to our house not once but
three times. 110
105
Ibid at page 18
Daniel Minhinnick Applicants Closing Legal Submission at [6.21]
107
ibid at [6.22]
108
Rodney Brown (#112) Statement of Evidence at [9-10]
109
110
106

Page 35
There was an acknowledgement from one submitter that they have oriented
their living rooms away from the street. 111
180. Ms Bridget Gilbert (Councils Landscape Architect) told us that any SkyPath landing
structure within the undercroft area is likely to compromise the existing spacious
character and will divide the area. However, within the context of a residential
community that, for the most part, appear to be orientated away from the space, it is
difficult to see how this will adversely impact on their residual visual amenity as such. 112
Our site visits confirmed Ms Gilberts observations.
181. We agree with Ms Gillbert 113 that the introduction of the SkyPath structure will not alter
the sheer scale and utilitarian, dominating character of the undercroft area and the
look of the SkyPath structure will not be adverse.
Heritage
182. The Northcote Point Heritage Preservation Society Incorporated (NPHPS) were
particularly concerned about the impact of SkyPath on heritage values. Mrs Dinah
Holman in her Statement of Evidence for NPHPS explained how SkyPath would
adversely impact on the heritage values of Northcote Point. Mrs Holmans viewpoint
was endorsed by a number of submitters.
183. Mr Farrant, the Councils Principal Heritage Adviser Central, opined that he remained
certain that there is no tangible physical impact on any projected heritage item. 114 We
totally concur with Mr Farrants observation that SkyPath will have zero impact on the
built heritage of Northcote Point.
Noise
184. Many of the submitters in the near vicinity of the Northern Landing indicated that
intensification of activity at the landing would generate an adverse noise impact. For
example we were told:
To present a case that 8,769 to 14,337 users would generate little if any adverse
noise would seem preposterous. 115
The proposal will introduce a range of new noises into the neighbourhood. 116
Noise created under the bridge by individuals and activities is significantly

magnified and can be heard from some distance. 117
The noise from some 13,286 user movement as being consistent with normal
use of a residential footpath massively disregards the huge numbers of people
and the character noise nuisance generated. 118
We are very concerned about the level of noise which is likely to be generated
111

Bridget Gilbert Staffs submission at page 10
113
Ibid at page 10
114
George Farrants Staffs submission at page 3
115
Graham Hughes (#107/108) Statement of Evidence at [7.1]
116
117
Erica Hannams (#229) Statement of Evidence at [29]
118
112

Page 36
by the huge number of people close to our property. 119

185. Mr Rhys Hegley provided the only expert noise assessment. Key points made by him
included:
The ambient sound in the area is controlled by road traffic noise. 120
There are no objective noise criteria for the activities associated with SkyPath to
comply with. 121
With the reconfiguration of the Northern Landing, the resulting level from a
single person talking will comfortably comply with the day and night time noise
limits that the District Plan considers appropriate for residential areas. 122
No provision has been made for parking buses, or tour coaches, on site. They
will be encouraged by SkyPath management to park at the Southern Landing
thereby avoiding any noise impacts on the neighbouring residents at the
Northern Landing. 123
The effects of construction noise will be addressed by way of the preparation,

and implementation of a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan as
required by condition 16. 124
186. We acknowledged that the increase in persons using the Northern Landing will bring a
range of new noises into the area and we are satisfied that consent conditions, as now
proposed, will address noise issues especially those associated with the construction of
SkyPath.
Lack of consultation
187. Submitters in opposition to the proposal, especially those close to the Northern Landing
expressed concerns over the level of consultation. We were told by:
Richard Thumath that he had been privy to and frustrated by the lack of
consultation. 125
Sarah Hughes noted that as an affected house owner living within metres of the
structure, she has never felt included nor had the opportunity to be part of any
extensive or meaningful consultation. She considered that meaningful
consultation is a process of engagement whereby views and ideas are
exchanged with the aim of coming to a satisfactory conclusion, where the views
and concerns of all parties were considered. She had not been part of any such
consultation. 126
188. Mr Bevan Woodward outlined the consultation that has taken place. 127 Despite the fact
that Mr Minhinnick reminded us that it is well established that resource consent
119
Joan White & Geoffrey Rogers Statement of Evidence

Rhys Hegleys Statement of Evidence at [2.3]
121
ibid at [2.2]
122
ibid at [2.6]
123
ibid at [2.17]
124
Ibid at [2.19]
125
Richard Thumaths (#126) Representation Statement
126
Sarah Hughes (#229) Statement of Evidence at [31 -32]
127
Bevan Wood Statement of Evidence at [4.1- 4.4]
120

Page 37
applicants are not required to consult 128 we are satisfied that the Applicant did consult.
Public toilets
189. The provision of toilets was raised by a number of submitters:
Andrew Braggins asked that public toilets be established at the northern exit of
SkyPath. 129
Erica Hannam questioned the proposed lack of facilities, given the planned
number of patrons. 130
190. Mr Minhinnick in his closing legal submission noted:

Many of the Northcote residents expressed concern about the absence of
toilet facilities. Toilets were part of the original design, but were removed as
result of community feedback. Given the clear message received from
submitters during the course of the hearing, the Applicant has now (re)included
a proposed toilet location at the Northern Landing. 131
Location of the Northern Landing
191. The location of the Northern Landing was questioned by a number of submitters. There
were two distinct approaches advocated:
a)
SkyPath can only be evaluated in context of an integrated network plan. 132
b)
There are alternative locations; for example John Richards suggested there
was an alternative to the current version of the SkyPath Northern Landing
through the realignment of Princes Street. 133
192. Garth Falconer for the Applicant noted:The SkyPath design team has exhaustively looked at a range of alternative
layouts; they all suffer from either gradient issues, landscape effects, passing
over private property and blocking access.134
193. Our site visits confirmed the logistical difficulties that would accompany moving the
landing further northwards up Princes Street or, for that matter, any other northern
location. We find ourselves in disagreement with the submitters who have noted that
there are other more suitable places to locate the Northern Landing. 135
194. We accept that location of the Northern Landing has been the subject intense scrutiny
by the Applicant. We have a duty of care to make a decision on the location specified in
the application; we do not have the scope to consider another location.
128
Mr Minhinnick Closing legal Submission at [3.2]

Andrew Braggins (#58) Statement of Evidence at [3]
130
Erica Hannam (#62) Representation Statement at[7-9]
131
Minhinnick Closing legal Submission at [6.45]
132
Michael Smthe and Helen Schamroths (#615) Representation Statement at [4]
133
John Richards Representation Statement at [9]
134
Garth Falconers Evidence in Chief at [3.20]
135
Rodney Browns (#112) Statement of Evidence at [24] and John Richards Representation Statement at [9]
129

Page 38
Neighbourhood amenity
195. The impact of the Northern Landing on neighbourhood amenity was commented on by
a number of submitters, especially those who reside in the immediate area of the
landing. For example we were told:
The level of disturbance (created by the patrons) is not appropriate in a small

residential cul-de-sac. 136
The number of projected gateway trips at the Northern Landing would seem to
be completely out of all context with the surrounding neighbourhood and would
be equivalent to observed CBD pedestrian counts. 137
Carol Brown disagreed with the Applicants contention that SkyPath would
improve the amenity of the landing area, creating more liveable spaces through
improved lighting, safety and artworks. 138
The detrimental effects of the proposal are primarily caused by locating the
access to SkyPath within a cul-de sac where such an intense activity cannot be
dealt with, without severe disruption and detrimental impact on the whole of the
Northcote Point neighbourhood. 139
Sarah Hughes stated that she did not believe that the SkyPath proposal and its
associated effects are a normal feature in a residential neighbourhood. 140
Patronage projections are difficult to assess but modest predictions over 1,500
SkyPath visitors each weekday and 3,500 visitors each weekend will create an
unsafe and intolerable environment around Northcote Point and beyond. 141
196. Mr Minhinnick in his closing legal submission for the Applicant noted that Auckland is
being intensified and neighbourhood amenity will change. 142 They also pointed out that
while the daily numbers seem large, when they are reduced to a smaller temporal scale
the perception of huge numbers falls away. The Vancouver video clearly shows this. 143
Subsequent to the adjournment of the hearing, we received a communication dated 12
June 2105 from Ms de Groot, legal counsel for Northcote Point Heritage Preservation
Society Incorporated. She stated that:
The Society objects to the production of the Applicants rebuttal statements of
evidence on the basis that their scope and the timing of their introduction are
inconsistent with the Commissioners pre-hearing directions dated 22 April
2015.
The advice notes in the Commissioners directions provide for the Applicant to
produce supplementary statements of evidence at the hearing in response to
matters raised in pre-circulated expert evidence.
197. We are very cognisant of the need to ensure that the tenets of natural justice are evenly
136
Garham Hughes Representation Statement at [9.2]
138
Carol Brown (#52) Statement of Evidence at 4.4
139
Peter Sawyers (#65)Representation Statement
140
Sarah Hughes Statement of Evidence at [25]
141
John Richards Representation Statement at [8]
142
Minhinnick Applicants Closing Legal Submission at [6.12- 6.15]
143
Ibid at [6.15]
137

Page 39
applied. We also recognise that there is a fine line between clarification and the
provision of new evidence. Mr Hughes provided his opinion as to what the patronage
figures represented for the Northern Landing. Mr D McKenzie in his Statement of Reply
Evidence also provided patron dispersal figures and directions for the Northern
Landing. In a right of reply the Applicant has the ability to address issues which arise
during the hearing, and the Applicant has exercised that right. We have seen the video,
and the dispersal figures have been presented to us. From a decision-making viewpoint
they provided us with a useful illustration, but did not influence the decision we have
made on amenity.
198. Mr Minhinnick advocated that:
The Applicants position is that amenity effects are no more than minor.144
199. We do not concur with that statement; when considering the impacts of the SkyPath
patrons we agreed with the observation of Ms Gilbert that the introduction of the
numbers of people into this space suggested by the Applicants evidence (year 1:
8,769; year 5: 14,337) suggests a significant change to the perception of the area as a
relatively unbusy (sic) residential environment.145
200. Ms Gilbert ranked the neighbourhood character and amenity effects of SkyPath in Year
1 and Year 5 as falling between a moderate and high ranking. She provided us with the
following definitions:
High corresponds to a situation where the proposed activity is likely to

comprise an adverse effect on the character or quality of the existing
neighbourhood.
Moderate corresponds to a situation where the proposed activity may

comprise an adverse effect on the character or quality of the existing
neighbourhood. 146
201. Given the representations, the written submissions made to us and the expert evidence
placed before us, we have accepted the effects ranking of Ms Gilbert and have
determined that in terms of neighbourhood character and amenity effects, SkyPath will
have a moderate to high adverse effect.
MAIN BRIDGE STRUCTURE
Steepness of slope
202. A number of submitters raised concerns about the gradient of SkyPath as it crosses the
harbour and the potential dangers arising from cyclists speeding downhill. Mr D
McKenzie, for the Applicant, confirmed that the proposed path will be 5.4% (1:18.5) for
each of the 12.1m long ramp sections with a much flatter gradient of 1.8% (1:55.5) for
the intervening and regularly spaced 1.6m long mobility platforms. 147 This gives an
overall gradient of 5% (1:20) which Mr McKenzie accepted was not ideal for a cycle
route, but which is easily compliant with relevant industry standard pedestrian and
144
Ibid at [6.2.6]
Bridget Gilbert Staffs submission at page 11
146
ibid at page 21
147
EiC Don McKenzie, para 4.11
145

Page 40
mobility guidelines. 148

203. As Mr D McKenzie explained, a number of measures have been considered in the
design and operation of SkyPath to appropriately manage cyclists behaviour. Firstly,
the alternating ramp and platform sections will tend to create a bumpy ride if cyclists
do travel too quickly downhill. This was confirmed by Mr Nikoloff, who cited his
experience on the Dilworth Avenue footbridge which also utilises ramp and platform
gradients in its design. Secondly, the creation, communication and enforcement of a
share with care environment that acknowledges the presence of other people 149
where offenders can, if necessary be banned, is, in his opinion an appropriate way to
deal with the issue. He also pointed out that the review and monitoring processes
proposed as part of the operation of SkyPath also provide the opportunity to consider
additional measures if problems were to arise.
204. As Mr D McKenzies findings were endorsed by Mr Nixon, for the Council, and no other
expert evidence was produced to dispute these findings, we accept the Applicants
advice that the gradient of SkyPath is acceptable and that conditions of consent
requiring monitoring and review of ongoing operations provide the opportunity to deal
with any issues arising from this aspect of the design in future.
Air discharge
205. Mr Jeremy (John) Richards submission suggested that the wind patterns over the AHB
will cause the build up of carbon monoxide exactly where the proposed SkyPath clipon would be located thereby creating conditions that become a health risk to users of
SkyPath.150
206. In response, Mr Concannon, consulting civil/structural engineer for the Applicant,
recorded in his evidence 151 that carbon monoxide build up is not seen to be an issue
with SkyPath, explaining that the structure is open to the air and located below the
traffic deck of AHB and that no fuel powered vehicles of any sort will be permitted on
the path.
207. The Commissioners accept Mr Concannons advice and also note that further wind
testing of the structure is required, as part of the detail design process which will also
inform the Licence to Occupy agreement with NZTA. This will provide an opportunity to
confirm that carbon monoxide build up will not arise.
Risks of damage from ships masts
208. The Northcote Residents Associations submission criticised the notified Application for
not having adequately validated that the exposed SkyPath structure can withstand
collision from the standing rigging of large yachts or ships and to adequately protect its
occupants during such events. 152
209. In response, Mr Concannon explained in his evidence 153 [a]llowance has been made in
the structural design of SkyPath for the redundancy of critical structural items to
preclude a catastrophic failure due to an accident or malicious act. Such an incident
could also include a localised impact from say the structure of a ship or mast of a yacht
148
Ibid, para 4.12

Ibid, para 4.17
150
Submission #38, 4 Health
151
EiC Chris Concannon, para 3.14
152
Submission #513, para (g) xii
153
EiC Chris Concannon, para 2.8
149

Page 41
passing under the bridge. Should a primary support member be severed, the pathway
structure has been designed so that this will not overload adjacent sections of the
pathway to the point of collapse. We heard no expert evidence to the contrary and
accept Mr Concannons evidence.
Colour
210. One of the issues raised during the hearing was the proposed colour of the various
structural elements of SkyPath. Interestingly, this was not an issue raised by submitters
but was a matter of dispute between the Applicant and Council officers.
211. The Applicant made very clear, particularly through the evidence of Mr Falconer, that a
great deal of thought had been given to the question of the appropriate colour of
SkyPath, with many options considered and several illustrated in the Buildmedia
photomontages included in the application material. As a result, and in summary, the
Applicant proposes that the debris screen, the majority of the sidewall, the underdeck
and the supports will all be Columbia Grey, the colour of the existing AHB. The deck of
SkyPath is proposed to be blue, the handrail timber and the sidewall will have
decorative or information panels at the observation decks. The elements causing the
disagreement between the Applicant and the Council are the ribs and rods which make
up the majority of the external face of SkyPath. The Applicant proposes that these
should be white, while Ms Gilbert, for the Council, recommends that they be grey; either
the same grey as the rest of the bridge or a paler grey.
212. In her response to evidence heard, presented at the end of the hearing, Ms Gilbert
conceded that she agreed with Ms Peake, the Applicants CPTED advisor, that the use
of white ribs and rods was appropriate at the landings at either end of SkyPath,
particularly the Northern Landing, as it assists in providing a screen between those on
the pathway and those outside, thus enhancing privacy between SkyPath users and
residents at Northcote Point. She suggested that the rib and rod colour should change
at the northern and southern gateways (not the turnstiles). 154
213. In explaining her opinion, Ms Gilbert highlighted three matters she had considered, 155
the effect on the overall identity, sense of place or landmark quality associated with
AHB; the visual effects of a white structure in closer range views; and the visual
amenity effects for users of SkyPath. Ms Gilbert asserted 156 that [p]art of the landmark
quality of the existing AHB structure derives from its relatively utilitarian and heavy form
that lends a sense of solidity, strength and reliability. She went on to say [w]hilst a
grey finish will maintain this perception, ... a white finish will add visual complexity on
the bridges eastern side that serves to weaken this perception. In terms of visual
effects she believed that a white SkyPath will detract from the visual integrity of the
overall structure and lessen the perceived solidity and simple utilitarian character that
contributes to the identity of the structure as a landmark feature.
214. Although he did not directly respond to Ms Gilberts report, Mr B McKenzie, on behalf of
the Applicant, did provide an explanation of why he has come to a different opinion. He
stated that in his view, Legibility (visibility) improves the wider function and purpose of
the SkyPath as a cross harbour link and feature and [t]he visibility of the SkyPath
(through the use of the colour white) does not detract from the iconic landscape values
of the Harbour Bridge in relation to the overwhelming structural dominance of the
154
Illustrated on application drawings DD EL 01 and DD EL 02.

Landscape and visual specialist report, Attachment 4 of the s42A report, page 6
156
Ibid, page 7
155

Page 42
Harbour Bridge. 157

215. Having considered the detailed assessment and explanation provided by witnesses for
both the Applicant and the Council, the Commissioners agree with the opinions of the
Applicants witnesses. We consider that the subtle highlighting of SkyPath by the use
of white ribs and rods will promote its identification, without in any way detracting from
the Harbour Bridges heavy, utilitarian character or iconic status.
COASTAL EFFECTS
216. The peer review of the proposal with respect to matters relating to the coastal marine
area was undertaken by the Councils marine ecologist. The Commissioners note that
this assessment addressed a broad number of potential effects that might arise from
the development of SkyPath, including visual, noise, vibration and cultural heritage
effects. We noted that, given the expertise of the Council marine ecologist, we could
place little weight on many of the matters discussed in that assessment as they were
outside her technical expertise.
217. In the event, those effects were adequately addressed in the peer reviews of other
appropriate specialists and we were able to set aside those parts of the coastal peer
review which were beyond scope.
CULTURAL EFFECTS
218. Mana Whenua made submissions 158 on the proposal but did not present evidence at
the hearing. The section 42A report 159 provided us with a useful summary of the
ongoing interactions with Mana Whenua and the matters that need to be addressed by
the Applicant:
(a)
The Northern Landing is located on Te Onewa Pa which is culturally significant to

iwi.
(b)
Iwi have continued to work with the Applicant throughout the development of the
project and there is a commitment from the Applicant to an ongoing working
partnership with iwi as the proposal evolves, especially the detailed design
including artworks, planting and stormwater management.
(c)
Proffered conditions of consent require the establishment of a protocol for the

management of archaeological discoveries and providing opportunities for iwi to
monitor works.
The section 42A report offered us the opinion 160 that the actual and potential effects on
cultural values are acceptable and we can find no reason to move from that viewpoint.
SECTION 104D
219. Whether the proposal is able to pass either of the threshold tests of section 104D(1) of
the RMA was the main tenet of the evidence of Mr Putt and legal submissions by Ms de
Groot.
220. Section 104D(1) states:
157
EiC Bruce McKenzie, para 2.6 (b) and (c)

Ngati Whatua o Orakei provided a submission in support and Ngati Maru a submission in opposition
159
Section 42A Report pages 25-26
160
Section 42A Report page 26
158

Page 43
a consent authority may grant a resource consent for a non-complying activity

only if it is satisfied that either
(a)
the adverse effects of the activity on the environment (other than any effect
to which section 104(3)(a)(ii) applies) will be minor; or
(b)
the application is for an activity that will not be contrary to the objectives
and policies of
(i)
the relevant plan, if there is a plan but no proposed plan in respect of

the activity; or
(ii)
the relevant proposed plan, if there is a proposed plan but no

relevant plan in respect of the activity; or
(iii)
both the relevant plan and the relevant proposed plan, if there is both
a plan and a proposed plan in respect of the activity.
221. The relevant plan provisions are:

Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore City Section)
Residential zone objectives and policies Chapter 16
Recreation zone residential objectives and policies Chapter 19
Cultural Heritage Chapter 11
Natural Environment Chapter 8
Urban Growth Strategy - Chapter 6
Transport Chapter 12.
Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section)
Open Space 5 zone
Special Purpose 3 zone
Coastal Management Area (section 5B)
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal
Structures Chapter 12
Activities Chapter 11
General Chapter 10
Public Access Chapter 7
Natural Character Chapter 3
Landscape Chapter 4

Page 44
Coastal matters of significance to Tangata Whenua and Cultural Heritage

Chapters 6 and 8
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
Transport C.1.3
Coastal Zones, D.5.1.3
Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua E.5.2
Westhaven Precinct E.5.2
222. The AEE and the section 42A report included a comprehensive analysis of the proposal
against the relevant provisions. We do not intend to repeat that here. In his reply
evidence, Mr Blakey broke down the initial analysis against the Residential 3 zone
provisions from the Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore City Section). We
agree with the position regarding our task as submitted by Mr Minhinnick; that the
objectives and policies must be read as a whole, and that a narrow construct could not
be considered possible in circumstances such as this application, which sits across
three relevant plans.
223. Mr Minhinnick disputed the legal submission of Ms de Groot that a non-complying
activity, by the very nature of it being non-complying, was incompatible or unsuitable. 161
224. We were faced with competing planning evidence and many of the submitters also
commented of the District Plan provisions, for example:
We were reminded by Sarah Hughes that the PAUP has a policy for residential
heritage areas such as Northcote Point that anticipates that new buildings,
alterations, additions and modifications be sympathetic in design, scale and
massing and is of compatible form which contributes to, supports or defines the
special character of the area. 162
Caryle Blanche, Brian and Jay Holloway noted that they were not planners but
considered that, with regard residential objectives and policies, the proposal
was generally contrary to them. 163
225. Mr Putt, a town planner for the Northcote Point Heritage Preservation Society
Incorporated provided us with a reasoned, but we consider rather narrow, analysis of
the relevant objectives and policies. It was clear in his mind that:
SkyPath proposal creates a level of activity and physical intrusion that is truly
contrary to the Residential 3 Zone in the Northcote setting. The aggressive and
dynamic nature of the public recreational activity represented by SkyPath is
effectively the antithesis of what is expected and contemplated as a sustainable
land use in this setting.164
226. Mr Blakey, in his evidence-in-chief, provided a counter to Mr Putts evidence. 165 His
analysis of the Putt approach demonstrated that there was no basis on which the
161
Legal Submission Ms de Groot for NPHPS para 61(e)

Sarah Hughes Statement of Evidence at [25]
163
Caryle Blanche, Brian and Jay Holloways (#10) Representation Statement at [5.3]
164
Brian Putts Statement of Evidence at [4.8]
165
Richard Blakeys Evidence-in-chief at [4.1-4.17]
162

Page 45
Northern Landing component of SkyPath could be found to be contrary to the relevant

objectives of the PAUP. 166
227. Mr Minhinnick in the closing legal submission noted:
you have clear evidence before you from both Mr Blakey and the Reporting Officer
that the proposal is consistent with, and certainly not contrary to the relevant
objectives and policies. Mr Blakey in his reply evidence has carefully considered the
specific residential zone objectives and policies raised by Mr Putt.167
228. He made the following observations:
The Residential 3 zone provisions have not been designed to address structures
such as SkyPath. However that does not make them contrary to those provisions. 168
The evidence of the Mr Blakey and the Reporting Officer is the only planning
evidence that has looked at the project as a whole, and that has looked at all of the
relevant plan provisions and therefore be preferred to that of Mr Putt.169
229. The land at the Southern Landing is zoned Open Space 5 and Special Purpose 3 zone
with an overlay of Coastal Management Area. The relevant objectives and policies of
the Open Space 5 zone are identified in the AEE and section 42A report. We note for
completeness that there is no evidence before us that would contradict the AEE,
section 42A report and the evidence of Mr Blakey. Mr Putt considered, for the Herne
Bay Residents Association Inc, I cannot identify any objectives and policies that relate
to this matter (being on street parking) or even in the generality of the residential
amenity anticipated in the area of concern to the Association. 170 In Mr Putts opinion,
that silence was sufficient for the proposal to pass the section 104D threshold test.
230. With respect to the relevant provisions of the Coastal Plan we similarly rely on the
uncontested evidence contained in the AEE, section 42A report and Mr Blakeys
evidence.
231. With respect to the relevant provisions of the PAUP we heard representations from
many submitters who asserted that there was of a lack of consistency with the
provisions of the PAUP. Mr Putt in his evidence 171 provided a brief consideration of the
PAUP. We agree with Ms de Groot that the Operative Plan remains the dominant
planning framework for the consideration of the application 172. We accept that the
relevant provisions of the PAUP should be considered and we have carefully
considered the representation made to us on those provisions, and the evidence
provided by Mr Putt. We preferred the comprehensive assessments from the AEE,
section 42A report and Mr Blakeys expert evidence. SkyPath is unique and we find that
the proposal is not contrary to the relevant provisions of the PAUP.
232. We are of the view that, with respect to whether the proposal passes the threshold test
relating to objectives and policies, the whole project should be considered. We
therefore prefer the planning analysis provided by Mr Blakey and in the section 42A
report. In coming to that conclusion we prefer the complete analysis provided by the
166
Ibid at [4.27]
Daniel Minhinnick Applicants Closing Legal Submission at [2.12]
168
Ibid at [2.12]
169
Ibid at [2.13]
170
B Putt statement of evidence for Herne Bay Residents Association para 5.2
171
ibid at [4.7-4.8]
172
S de Groot-Legal Submission at [19]
167

Page 46
AEE, Mr Blakey and the section 42A report, and find that the proposal will pass the
gateway test of section 104D(1)(b) as the proposal is not contrary to the objectives and
policies of the relevant planning provisions.
233. With respect to section 104D(1)(a) of the RMA (the other gateway test) as noted in the
analysis above, the effects of the proposal (including the mitigation proposed by the
Applicant) for the main span and the Southern Landing are considered to be minor and
for Northern Landing we have found that the effects on local amenity are moderate. Mr
Minhinnick in his opening legal submission 173 addressed the manner in which minor
has been defined, suggesting to us that a consideration of minor requires an evaluative
judgment with no absolute yardstick or measure. Even when we applied an evaluative
judgement to the whole proposal, it did not alter our finding that the amenity effects at
the Northern Landing are still moderate. We find that the effects of the proposal are
more than minor and accordingly the proposal does not pass the gateway test of
section 104D(1)(a).
234. As the application passes one of the gateway tests of section 104D, namely
section104D(1)(b), it can be considered under section 104(1).
SECTION 104(1)
235. Section 104(1) states:
When considering an application for a resource consent and any submissions
received, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to
(a)
any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity;
and
(b)
any relevant provisions of
(c)
(i)
a national environmental standard:
(ii)
other regulations:
(iii)
a national policy statement:
(iv)
a New Zealand coastal policy statement:
(v)
a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement:
(vi)
a plan or proposed plan; and
any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably
necessary to determine the application.
236. The potential adverse effects of the project have been comprehensively canvassed in
the section 104D analysis above, and we do not propose to repeat them here. Suffice
to say that we acknowledge there are potential adverse effects, especially on the local
Northcote Point community. Given the mitigation proposed by the Applicant, we are
satisfied that the potential adverse effects have been satisfactorily mitigated.
237. Mr Minhinnick in closing reiterated the positive effects of the proposal. The ability to
173
Daniel Minhinnick Applicants Opening Legal Submission at [5.3]

Page 47
walk and/or cycle across the harbour has been reinforced by a number of submitters in
support of the project. However the most telling of images, attached to several
submissions 174 is that of the existing and planned cycle network and the opportunities
that SkyPath will provide on both the northern and southern sides of the Waitemata
Harbour.
238. In considering the effects of the proposal we are mindful that the definition of effect
under section 3 of the RMA includes future effects. Quotes provided to us during the
presentation by Generation Zero that were captured from submissions illustrated the
future positive effect that SkyPath would have, including citing life-changing, transport
choice and increasing flexibility of transport mode choice. 175 The Commissioners are
very conscious that in considering the proposal the outcome will endure for generations
to come.
239. Based on the evidence provided in the application material, the section 42A report and
evidence given at the hearing, the Commissioners are satisfied that we have had
regard to actual and potential effects of the proposal as required under section
104(1)(a).
240. We rely on the section 42A report, AEE and evidence of Mr Blakey with respect to the
analysis of the NES, NZCPS and the Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement and
the PAUP (RPS section). There is no evidence to the contrary and these assessments
are considered by the Commissioners to be comprehensive. Based on the evidence
provided in the application material, the section 42A report and evidence given at the
hearing the Commissioners are satisfied that we have had regard to the relevant
provisions of the statutory documents as required under section 104(1)(b).
241. With respect to 'other matters' (section 104(1)(c)) we consider the following matters are
relevant to our consideration of the proposal:
The Auckland Plan
Stokes Point Te Onewa Reserve Management Plan
Waterfront Plan
Government Policy Statement on Land Transport
242. The AEE and section 42A report both considered the first three of those items. The
evidence of Mr Zollner, Regional Manager for the Transport Agency, addressed the
Transport Agency commitment to active transport modes such as cycling and walking,
as represented by the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport, the existing
and proposed investment in cycleways (illustrated by the Grafton Gully cycle path) and
the future integrated cycling facilities proposed by the Transport Agency in coordination
with Auckland Transport.
243. Based on the evidence provided in the application material, the section 42A report and
evidence given at the hearing the Commissioners are satisfied that we have had regard
to the other relevant documents as required under section 104(1)(c).
174
Refer attachment to evidence Mr Zollner Transport Agency Regional Manager, Proposed Walking and Cycling Programme
2015/2016
175
Generation Zero presentation slides

Page 48
PART 2 CONSIDERATION
244. Our evaluation under section 104 above is subject to Part 2 of the RMA. Part 2
comprises the Acts purpose (section 5) and the principles as set out in sections 6, 7
and 8. In undertaking a Part 2 assessment we need to consider: both the positive and
negative aspects stemming from the proposal; the measures needed to be
implemented to avoid, remedy or mitigate any identified adverse effects; and to ensure
that the guiding principles in sections 6, 7 and 8 RMA have been addressed.
245. The Commissioners have, in consideration of section 5 of the RMA had to consider
whether the proposal would achieve the purpose of the Act. The proposal consists of
three distinct elements - the Northern Landing; the main span of the Harbour Bridge
and the Southern Landing; we have had to take a holistic approach, with the
understanding that RMA is not a no effects Act. In looking at the total proposal we
consider that the effects (with the mitigation proposed) at a local level, notably
landscape and visual, amenity and traffic/parking at the Northern Landing, are not of
such significance that the broader strategic goals associated with the SkyPath project
connecting a regional cycling network; providing a tourism opportunity; giving
multimodal choice, and the existing investment at both regional and government levels
should be set aside. We believe that the proposal will meet the needs of current and
future generations in relation to both health and safety. It is our overall assessment that
SkyPath will promote the sustainable management purpose of the Act.
246. The section 6 Matters of National Importance that have to be recognised and provided
for in the context of the proposal are 6(d) maintenance and enhancement of public
access to and along the coastal marine area ; and 6(e) relationship of Maori and their
culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other
taonga. The proposal supports the provision of public access by offering an alternative
means by which the public can cross the Waitemata Harbour. The proposal recognises
the cultural significance of Te Onewa Pa (Stokes Point); consent conditions have been
tailored to ensure the potential adverse effects on the Pa as identified by iwi have been
addressed and can be satisfactorily mitigated. The provision of an accidental discovery
protocol requires the active participation of iwi.
247. With respect to section 7 (other matters) the Commissioners have had particular regard
to the following matters:
(b)
the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources:
(c)
the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:
(f)
maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment:
248. With regards to section 8 the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, the applicant is
committed to an ongoing working partnership with iwi as the proposal evolves,
especially the detailed design including artworks, planting and stormwater
management.
249. The proposal will provide greater optimisation for the use of the AHB, by offering a
broader range of modes available to users of the AHB. The amenity values will be
enhanced through greater accessibility to the Waitemata Harbour, offering accessibility
and views not currently available (aside from commercial activities such as the bungy
and bridge walk enterprises). We acknowledge that the residents immediately adjacent
to the AHB on Northcote Point value their current levels of amenity, including the
quietness of the area (being the lack of activity). However the increased activity

Page 49
generated by the SkyPath is considered to maintain that amenity through provision of

increased screening, directional signage, security and planting and/or fencing along
currently open boundary frontages. Overall the Commissioners consider that the
proposal will maintain and enhance the quality of the environment through the provision
of cycle/walking facilities that provide a crucial link across the Waitemata Harbour that
is not dependent on a timetable or motor vehicle.
250. We consider that the proposal meets the relevant provisions of Part 2 of the RMA as it
achieves the purpose of the Act being sustainable management of natural and physical
resources; in particular it provides for peoples social and economic wellbeing, while
avoiding remedying or mitigating the identified adverse effects on the environment.
Main findings on the principal issues in contention

251. The Commissioners main findings on the principal issues that were in contention are:
252. The traffic and parking effects associated with parties who chose to drive to SkyPath
will be adequately mitigated through provision, implementation, review and monitoring
of the Operational Plan. This finding applies to both the Southern Landing and the
Northern Landing.
253. The adverse amenity effects at the Northern Landing (primarily associated with
increased activity, privacy/overlooking, noise, and perceptions relating to safety and
security) can be adequately mitigated through design and site management as
proposed by the Applicant. We find that the scope of the consent would include the
provision of public toilets at the Northern Landing and have included a condition
requiring the location to be subject to CPTED review.
254. The design of the structure, including white rods and ribs, is appropriate. The
Commissioners are satisfied that it is appropriate that the SkyPath structure reads as
an addition to the bridge structure through the colour of the rods and ribs. The
Commissioners note in making this finding that any suggestion that the SkyPath
structure should not detract from the heritage value of the AHB is not something that
can be considered. The heritage value of the AHB should more appropriately be
protected through a public process to schedule the structure (including an appropriate
level of analysis from an expert) through either the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere
Taonga Act 2014 or the RMA.
255. We are satisfied that the further design assessments required by NZTA for the
SkyPath structure are not expected to require any substantial change in the SkyPath
structure.
256. We concur with Mr Farrant, the Council Principal Heritage Adviser Central, that
SkyPath will have zero impact on the built heritage of Northcote Point.
257. Lighting concerns will be addressed by the conditions of consent. The lighting
condition will address:
(a)
CPTED safety strategy, including for the areas around the landings.
(b)
Setting maximum light levels after operating hours at the Northern Landing to
minimise light spill.
(c)
Prohibits any motion-activated lighting or flashing lighting effects at the

Northern Landing.

Page 50
258. Construction activity (noise, dust etc) will have to be carried out in accordance with the
Construction Traffic Management Plan, Construction Management Plan and
Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan.
259. The cultural issues which have been identified have been addressed by the consent
conditions which will:
(a)
Provide iwi with the opportunity to monitor consent conditions.
(b)
Ensure that a protocol for the management of archaeological and waahi tapu
discoveries are developed by the consent holder in consultation with Ngati
Maru, Ngati Whatua o Orakei, Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, Te Kawerau a Maki iwi and
Heritage New Zealand.
Shorter duration of consent

260. We have determined that it is appropriate to set a term of 29 years for the Coastal
Permit for the following reasons:
The Applicant sought a term of 29 years to align with the expiry of the AHB
Coastal Permit on 1 July 2043. 176
Decision
In exercising our delegation pursuant to sections 34 and 34A of the RMA and having
regard to the foregoing matters, sections 104, 104D, 105, 107 and 108 and Part 2 of the
RMA, we determine that t h e f o l l o w i n g resource consents:
R/LUC/2014/3364
Section 9 land use consent under the Auckland Council District Plan (North
Shore City Section) for the activity, construction of the structure and
compliance with ancillary rules relating to location and development controls;
Section 9 land use consent under the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland
City Isthmus Section) for development control infringements, earthworks, tree
removal and lighting;
Section 9 land use consent under the National Environmental Standard for
Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NES);
Section 9 land use consent under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)
for structures on a scheduled heritage building/structure, archaeological
investigations and earthworks;
R/REG/2015/720
Section 15 discharge permit under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air,
Land and Water for discharge of contaminants from the structure; and
R/REG/2014/3365
176
Section 12 coastal permit for the structure, use of the structure and occupation
Volume One Application Material page 126

Page 51
in the coastal marine area (under both the Auckland Council Regional Plan:
Coastal and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP);
to enable the construction, maintenance and operation of a combined pedestrian/cycle
pathway (SkyPath) at Princes Street, Northcote Point; Auckland Harbour Bridge; Curran
Street and Westhaven Drive, Westhaven are granted for the following reasons and subject
to the conditions set out below.
Reasons for the decision

The reasons for this decision are included in the decision report above but can be
summarised as follows:
1.
In terms of section 104D(1)(a) of the RMA, the adverse effects of the activity on the
environment at the Northern Landing have been considered as moderate. Turning to
section 104(1)(a), mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the
proposal, and a range of consent conditions have been imposed to ensure that any
adverse effects on the environment for the entire proposal can be satisfactorily
avoided, remedied or mitigated.
2.
In terms of section 104D(1)(b) and section 104(1)(b) of the RMA, our finding is that the
application is for activities that will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the
operative Auckland Council District Plans (North Shore City Section and Auckland City
Isthmus Section) and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.
3.
The proposal is consistent with Part 2 of RMA as it achieves the sustainable

management of natural and physical resources by providing an alternative transport
option that promotes both personal health and social wellbeing, and positive economic
impacts.
4.
The proposal is in accordance with the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and the
Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act by providing public access within the coastal environment
and avoiding adverse effects on the natural character and quality of the environment.
5.
The proposal is consistent with the Auckland Regional Policy Statement by helping
remedy adverse effects on the transport environment.
6.
SkyPath is perceived, and acknowledged, as a critical transport link. It is a positive

gain for Aucklands transportation network.
7.
The proposal will help promote alternative transportation modes and active lifestyles,
and improve recreational options for Aucklanders and visitors to the region.
CONDITIONS
GENERAL CONDITIONS
These conditions apply to all resource consents.
1.
The activity shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and all information
submitted with the application, detailed below, and all referenced by the Council as
consent number R/LUC/2014/3364, R/REG/2014/3365 and R/REG/2014/720, except
where otherwise amended by the other conditions of this consent.

Page 52
177
Assessment of Environmental Effects prepared by Blakey Planning Ltd, dated

November 2014;
Addendum letters: dated 20th October 2014; 21st November 2014, 24th March
2015 and 16th April 2015 prepared by SkyPath Auckland Harbour Bridge
Pathway Trust;
Urban Design Report prepared by Reset Urban Design, dated 17th October
2014;
Engineering Report prepared by Airey Consultants Ltd, dated 14th August 2014;
Lighting Design Report prepared by Light Works Ltd, dated 5th August 2014
and addendums: Request for further information Lighting Fixture Type By
Area, dated 21st October 2014, letter dated 5th November 2014, and
memorandum attached as "Annexure Q" to further information received 24rd
March 2015;
Design and Colour Review; Northern landing re-design, landscape and visual
effects summary, prepared by Environmental Planning and Design Ltd, dated
16th October 2014;
Northern Landing Re-Design, Landscape and Visual Effects Summary,

prepared by Environmental Planning and Design Ltd, dated 17th October 2014;
Transportation Assessment prepared by TDG Ltd dated October 2014, and

Carpark Traffic Assessment dated October 2014;
Acoustic Report prepared by Hegley Acoustic Consultants, dated August 2014

and addendums: letter dated 22nd October 2014, and 16th March 2015;
CPTED Assessment prepared by Peake Design Ltd;
Resource Consent Drawing Package prepared by Reset Urban Design and

itemised as the following:
Reference
Plan title
Rev
Dated
CP01
Southern Landing Context Plan
30.06.14
CP02
Northern Landing Context Plan
30.06.14
MP01
Southern Landing Mitigation Plan
14.10.14
MP02
Northern Landing Mitigation Plan
09.06.15 177
NB not the drawing with the same number provided post-notification, and dated 23.03.2015.

Page 53
DD KP01
Key Plan
13.10.14
DD PL01
Southern Landing
13.10.14
DD PL02
Northern Landing
23.03.15
GA01
Southern Landing
13.10.14
GA02
Northern Landing
23.03.15
DD EL01
Overall Bridge Elevation, Elevation 1 of 2
30.06.14
DD EL02
Overall Bridge Elevation, Elevation 2 of 2
13.10.14
DD SE01
Southern Landing Long Section
13.10.14
DD SE02
Southern Landing Cross Section AA
13.10.14
DD SE03
Southern Landing Viewing Platform BB
30.06.14
DD SE04
Northern Landing Long Section
23.03.15
DD SE05
Northern Landing Cross Section CC
19.03.15
DD SE06
Northern Landing Detail Section
13.10.14
DD KP02
Module Layout Key Plan
16.07.14
T101
Type 1 Module
13.10.14
T201
Type 2 Module
13.10.14
T301-A
Type 3 Module (Pier 1&2)
13.10.14
T301-B
Type 3 Module (Pier 3&5)
13.10.14
T302-A
Type 3 Module Elevation (Pier 1&2)
12.08.14
T302-B
Type 3 Module Elevation (Pier 3&5)
12.08.14
DE01
2.
Design Elements
20.06.14
Lighting
15.10.14
Handrail Detail
30.06.14
This consent (or any part thereof) shall not commence until such time as the following
charges, which are owing at the time the Council's decision is notified, have been
paid in full:

Page 54
a.
All fixed charges relating to the receiving, processing and granting of this
resource consent under section 36(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991
(RMA); and
b.
All additional charges imposed under section 36(3) of the RMA to enable the
Council to recover its actual and reasonable costs in respect of this application,
which are beyond challenge.
3.
The consent holder shall pay any subsequent further charges imposed under section
36 of the RMA relating to the receiving, processing and granting of this resource
consent within 20 days of receipt of notification of a requirement to pay the same,
provided that, in the case of any additional charges under section 36(3) of the RMA
that are subject to challenge, the consent holder shall pay such amount as is
determined by that process to be due and owing, within 20 days of receipt of the
relevant decision.
4.
Under section 125 of the RMA, this consent lapses eight years after the date it is
granted unless:
5.
a.
The consent is given effect to; or
b.
The Council extends the period after which the consent lapses.
The consent holder shall pay the Council an initial consent compliance monitoring
charge of $5000.00 (inclusive of GST), plus any further monitoring charge or charges
to recover the actual and reasonable costs that have been incurred to ensure
compliance with the conditions attached to this consent.
Advice Note:
The initial monitoring charge is to cover the cost of inspecting the site, carrying out
tests, reviewing conditions, updating files, etc, all being work to ensure compliance
with the resource consent. In order to recover actual and reasonable costs,
inspections, in excess of those covered by the base fee paid, shall be charged at the
relevant hourly rate applicable at the time. The consent holder will be advised of the
further monitoring charge or charges as they fall due. Such further charges are to be
paid within one month of the date of invoice. Only after all conditions of the resource
consent have been met, will Council issue a letter confirming compliance on request
of the consent holder.
PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS
Pre-construction Mitigation
6.
Prior to commencement of construction, the consent holder shall make an offer to the
owners of 1, 3, 6, 8 and 10 Princes Street to provide planting and/or timber fencing in
general accordance with Mitigation Plan MP02, Rev H, prepared by Reset Urban
Design to provide screening for those properties. Evidence of this engagement shall

Page 55
be provided to the Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central). If

the landowner gives approval and provides access to their property, the relevant
planting and/or timber fencing shall be carried out by, and at the cost of, the consent
holder within 3 months of the landowner's approval being provided.
Community Liaison Group
7
At least 3 months prior to construction commencing, the consent holder shall

establish a Community Liaison Group. This Group shall be consulted as part of the
development of all Management Plans, and the Operational Management Plan.
Evidence of this consultation shall be provided to the Council (Team Leader
Compliance and Monitoring Central) on request. The Group shall also be
consulted on an ongoing basis regarding SkyPath operation. The Group shall be
provided with details of the key consent holder contact personnel during the
construction period and the ongoing operation of SkyPath.
The objectives of the Community Liaison Group are to:
a)
keep the community informed of developments associated with the construction

of SkyPath; and
b)
to provide a forum for community feedback, particularly in relation to

Management Plans and the Operational Plan.
The following groups shall be invited to join the Community Liaison Group: Northcote
Point Residents Association, Herne Bay Residents Association, Westhaven Marina
Users Association, St Marys Bay Association, Northcote Point Action Group,
Northcote Point Heritage Preservation Society, Little Shoal Bay Protection Society,
Kaipatiki Local Board, and SkyPath-related user groups. The owners and occupiers
of 1 14 Princes Street, 1 Queen Street and the owners and operators of The Wharf
function and event centre shall be invited to join the group. New Zealand Transport
Agency, Auckland Transport, Auckland Waterfront Development Agency (AWDA)
and the Council Project Sponsor shall also be invited to join the group.
The Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring - Central) shall be provided a
statement outlining those groups invited to join the Community Liaison Group, the
agreed members of the Group and the key contact of the Group prior to the
submission of any management plan to Council for approval.
Proximity to Transpower Assets
7.
The consent holder shall liaise with Transpower New Zealand Limited ("Transpower")
during the detailed design phase for SkyPath to ensure that provision is made to
protect and maintain security of Transpower's 'HOB-WRD A' transmission cable, in
particular:

Page 56
8.
a.
A minimum 2.0 metre clearance shall be maintained between the cables and
the Northern Landing cross-over or from any launch point or screen/cover that
may be accessible for maintenance use;
b.
A minimum 1.0 metre clearance shall be maintained between the outer limits of
the SkyPath structure and the outer edge of Transpower's protective cable
screens, so that regulatory limits of EMF exposure are not at risk of being
breached.
The consent holder shall provide Transpower a minimum of 10 working days' notice
prior to the commencement of the proposed works.
Site Access
9.
Subject to compliance with the consent holder's health and safety requirements and
provision of reasonable notice, the servants or agents of the Council shall be
permitted to have access to relevant parts of the surface construction sites controlled
by the consent holder at all reasonable times for the purpose of carrying out
inspections, surveys, investigations, tests, measurements and/or to take samples.
Construction Management Plan
10.
Prior to the commencement of any site works, the consent holder shall provide to the
satisfaction of Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring - Central) a
Construction Management Plan ("CMP") that shall include specific details relating to
the construction and management of all works associated with this development, and
include if required:
a.
The name and contact details (phone, email, postal address) of the site
manager;
b.
The location of a noticeboard at each construction site that clearly identifies the
name, telephone number and address for service of the site manager;
c.
Construction timetable;
d.
Confirmation of construction methodology, including:
details of any temporary structures in the coastal marine area (e.g. silt
fences);
methods to remedy any disturbance resulting from works.
e.
Contingency plans in case of discharges to the coastal marine area during

works;
f.
Site management, including details of:
site access;

Page 57
measures to ensure that no equipment or machinery is cleaned, or

refuelled or stored in any part of the coastal marine area;
g.
Measures to be adopted to maintain the site in a tidy condition in terms of

disposal/storage of rubbish, storage and unloading of building materials and
similar construction activities;
h.
Procedures for controlling sediment run off, dust and the removal of soil, debris
and construction materials from public roads or places (including identifying the
location of wheel wash facilities), or the harbour;
i.
Procedures for controlling and removal of construction materials from public

roads or places:
j.
Location of workers' conveniences (e.g. portaloos):
k.
Ingress and egress to and from the site for construction vehicles:
l.
Location of loading and storage areas:
m.
Location of any cranes or large equipment required to service the building

construction:
n.
The extent of any scaffolding and/or gantries required to construct the

structure:
o.
The extent of any screening required on or near boundaries of the site to

maintain safety and amenity:
p.
Any means of protection of services such as pipes and water mains within the
legal road;
q.
Proposed hours of work on the site; and
r.
Confirmation that the Community Liaison Group has been consulted during the
preparation of the plan.
Advice Note:
The purpose of the CMP is to confirm final project details to confirm that the works
remain within the limits and standards approved under these consents and that the
construction and operation activities avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the
environment.

Page 58
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS LAND USE CONSENT R/LUC/2014/3364

PRE- CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS
Urban Design and Landscape
12.
Prior to the commencement of construction an updated plan of the Northern Landing

of all ancillary structures to the SkyPath (including hard and soft landscaping and
street furniture) shall be submitted for approval of Council (Team Leader Compliance
and Monitoring - Central). These components, (in addition to the approved way
finding signage and lighting strategies outlined in Conditions 37 and 42) shall provide
the following:
Location and design details of all ground level privacy screens;
Location and species of any vegetation or boundary treatment (eg timber

fencing) agreed to under Condition 6 above;
Horizontal rods spaced at 70mm intervals, to a height of 1.4m above the

pathway along the full length of the eastern-facing section of the Northcote
Landing loop;
Means of directing pedestrian and cyclist movements along the route shown on
the Mitigation Plan MP02 Rev H prepared by Reset Urban Design and referred
to in Condition 1.
13.
Prior to the commencement of construction, the consent holder shall submit for the
approval of Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring - Central in
consultation with Landscape and Urban Design Specialists) the detailed plans of the
main structure, including balustrades, and debris screen. The detailed plans shall be
in general accordance with the plans referenced in Condition 1. These plans shall
also provide details of the materials to be used and include the location and design of
the privacy rods proposed at the Northern Landing.
14.
Prior to the commencement of construction, any revisions to the Southern Landing

shall be submitted to Council for approval (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring
- Central) and shall be in general accordance with the plans referenced in Condition
1. As part of this submission the consent holder shall provide confirmation of liaison
with and support from AWDA for these changes.
Management Plans
15.
Prior to the commencement of any work on the site, a Construction Traffic

Management Plan ('CTMP'), appropriate to the scale and nature of the development,
shall be submitted for the approval of the Council (Team Leader Compliance and
Monitoring - Central). The purpose of the plan is to set out the details of the steps to
be taken to ensure that construction traffic effects on the adjacent road network are

Page 59
minimised. The plan shall address all traffic management measures, as listed in
Appendix A to these conditions of consent.
16.
Prior to the commencement of any site works, the consent holder shall submit a
Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan ("CNVMP") to the satisfaction of
the Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring - Central). The CNVMP shall
be prepared by a person qualified in environmental acoustics and vibration, who has
been approved by the Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring - Central, in
consultation with the Environmental Health Officer). The purpose of the CNVMP is to
detail the measures to be implemented to comply with Conditions 27 - 29. The
CNVMP must include, but is not limited to:
a.
A description of the final construction methodology, including a list of potentially

noisy plant and equipment, the estimated noise levels and the approximate
locations within the site.
b.
Predicted noise and vibration levels and where the predicted noise levels may
exceed the relevant standards, specific mitigation measures to be implemented
which may include, but are not limited to, acoustic screening, the use of
alternative equipment, etc.
c.
Methods of noise and vibration monitoring to be undertaken during each phase

of the works. Additional monitoring shall be undertaken in the event of any
complaints received.
d.
A complaints management system will be implemented by the consent holder.

It must specify the person(s) responsible for maintaining the complaints
register, procedures to be followed in investigating and resolving complaints
and procedures for reporting complaints to Council.
Confirmation that in the event of the measured noise levels exceeding the
relevant standard, the Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central, in consultation with the Environmental Health Officer), will be notified
immediately and further mitigation options shall be investigated and
implemented with the prior approval of the Council.
f.
The name and contact telephone numbers of the Site Manager or other
persons responsible for supervision of the works, implementation of the
CNVMP and complaint receipts and investigations
Advice Note:
Conditions 27, 28 and 29 provide the maximum noise and vibration limits and
work hours.
17.
Any substantive change to the CMP, CTMP and the CNVMP shall be submitted to
the Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring - Central) for approval at least
ten working days prior to the proposed change taking effect.

Page 60
18.
The Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central) shall be informed
in writing at least 20 working days prior to the commencement of the works
authorised by these consents.
19.
For the purposes identified in the CMP, the consent holder shall hold a
preconstruction site meeting at each construction site between representatives of the
Council and all relevant parties, including the primary contractor, at least 10 working
days prior to commencement of works authorised by these consents.
Transport Safety Audit
20.
Prior to construction, the consent holder shall engage a suitably qualified expert to
undertake a detailed design Transport Safety Audit of SkyPath including the area
around the Landings. This Audit shall address all modes of transport. The findings of
this audit shall be submitted to Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central) for review. If any changes are required to improve safety these shall be
implemented as part of the detailed design and construction.
CPTED Safety Strategy
21
Prior to construction, the consent holder shall engage a suitably qualified CPTED
expert to prepare a detailed Safety Strategy of SkyPath including the area around the
Landings. This Strategy shall include details of the following:
i)
A review of the layout and portal entrances against CPTED principles;
ii)
Review of fencing and gates (territorial control) at either end of the SkyPath
portals;
iii)
Lighting strategy at the Northern Landing area in particular - including

integration with existing lighting;
iv)
the location of any public toilets at the Northern Landing
v)
Onsite security methodology for each landing detailing the timing and
frequency of security personnel stationing at either end;
vi)
Other security initiatives such as CCTVs;
vii)
Graffiti (zero tolerance) and litter eradication plan.
This Strategy shall be submitted to Council (Team Leader Compliance and

Monitoring - Central) for review. If any changes are required to improve safety these
shall be implemented as part of the detailed design and construction.
22.
Prior to any site works commencing, a pre-commencement site meeting shall be held
to identify trees to be removed at the Southern Landing. Present at this meeting shall
be Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring - Central) and all contractors or

Page 61
sub-contractors who will be working on site within the drip-line of, or adjacent to, any
protected vegetation.
23.
All tree removal shall be carried out in a manner that avoids damage to trees
identified for retention.
Advice Note:
The nominated arborist should involve the Council (Team Leader Compliance and
Monitoring - Central) in the decision making process where any tree roots over 50mm
are to be severed as works progress.
24.
Temporary protective fencing to protect the trees to be retained shall be installed

prior to any site works commencing. The purpose of the temporary protective fencing
is to provide an area around the retained trees that will facilitate their successful
retention during the construction process. The exact extent and location of the
temporary protective fencing shall be finalised on site before works begin, by the
nominated arborist. As a minimum, the temporary protective fencing shall utilise
hurricane mesh barriers of a minimum 1.8m in height firmly anchored into the ground
with steel waratah stakes unless otherwise agreed by the nominated arborist.
Signage (minimum size 600mm x 450mm) shall be attached to the temporary
protective fence at no greater than 10m intervals stating that it is a tree protection
area and there should be no unauthorised entry.
Cultural Heritage
25.
The consent holder shall offer iwi the opportunity to monitor the works associated
with this consent. This offer shall be provided to Ngati Maru, Ngati Whatua o Orakei,
Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki and Te Kawerau a Maki a minimum of 10 days prior to works
commencing. A copy of correspondence outlining the offer to iwi shall be submitted to
the Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring - Central).
DURING CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS
26.
All construction works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved CTMP,
CMP, CNVMP, and construction methodology required by foregoing conditions to the
satisfaction of Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring - Central).
Noise
27.
Construction work, other than any construction work utilising the traffic lanes of the
Auckland Harbour Bridge, shall be carried out, as far as is reasonably practicable, in
compliance with the construction noise limits set out in NZS 6803: 1999 for work
related to the Northern Landing and in Rule 4A.1D of the Auckland Council District
Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) for work related to the Southern Landing.
28.
Unless otherwise approved by the Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring
- Central), all construction works at the Northern and Southern Landings including

Page 62
mechanical equipment, except for the delivery, installation, breakdown and removal
of cranes to the site (if required) and any construction work utilising the traffic lanes of
the Auckland Harbour Bridge, shall be restricted to the hours of between 7.30am to
6.00pm Monday to Friday, and 9.00am to 1.00pm Saturday (for the Northern
Landing) and 8.00am to 1.00pm Saturday (for the Southern Landing). No works shall
be undertaken on Sundays and public holidays.
Advice Note:
This condition does not control the hours of construction work when utilising the
traffic lanes of the Auckland Harbour Bridge for construction. Those works hours are
controlled separately by New Zealand Transport Agency.
Vibration
29.
Vibration generated by construction activities shall be controlled to ensure any

resulting ground vibration does not exceed the limits set out in Table 1 of DIN
4150:31999: Structural vibration Part 3 Effects of vibration on structures when
measure on the foundation or the horizontal plane of the highest floor of an affected
building.
Sediment Control
30.
The consent holder shall take all necessary measures to control silt contaminated
stormwater at all times during the earthworks stage at either landing site, in
accordance with Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section
1999)) Annexure 14 Guidelines and/or Auckland Regional Council TP10
requirements. In particular, the sediment control measures shall consist of cesspit
controls, typically cloth covering and filter sock bunds to detain surface flows from
entering the stormwater system; the use of TP90 super silt fences and/or bunds at
the lower edge of excavated areas.
31.
After each rainfall event, the consent holder shall remove all sediment from
excavations immediately to an off-site location to reduce the risk of it going beyond
the excavation area.
32.
The consent holder shall ensure that the contractor undertakes the works in
accordance with good engineering practice. This shall include not undertaking
excavations immediately prior to forecast significant rainfall events, minimising the
amount of exposed area at any one time, and to rapidly stabilise exposed surfaces as
they progress.
Work in Transport Corridor
33.
Works within transport corridors shall be undertaken in accordance with the National
Code of Practice for Utility Operators' Access to Transport Corridors (November
2011), unless otherwise agreed between the consent holder and the Corridor
Manager.

Page 63
Proximity to Transpower Assets

34.
A Transpower representative shall be allowed access on-site during the construction

stage.
Advice Note:
Transpower (or a representative) has a right of access to its existing assets under
section 23 of the Electricity Act 1992. Any development must not preclude or obstruct
this right of access. It is an offence under section 163(f) of the Electricity Act 1992 to
intentionally obstruct any person in the performance of any duty or in doing any work
that the person has the lawful authority to do under section 23 of the Electricity Act
1992.
35.
Transpower cable protection covers shall not be interfered with at any time.
Cultural Heritage
36.
In the event of the accidental or unexpected discovery of archaeological features,

including human remains:
(a)
All work within the vicinity of the discovery shall cease immediately.
(b)
A buffer of at least 5 metres shall be set up around the discovery and this shall
be marked on the ground, preferably with pegs and tape, or similar.
(c)
All machinery and plant shall be removed from the buffer zone where this is
possible.
(d)
The following parties shall be informed within 24 hours of the discovery:

i
site archaeologist, or other qualified archaeologist
ii
The Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring - Central)
iii
Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (Heritage NZ)
iv
Ngati Maru, Ngati Whatua o Orakei, Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki and Te Kawerau
a Maki authorities shall be informed. Appropriate protocols (tikanga) shall
be observed.
If the discovery is of human remains, the New Zealand Police shall be

informed.
(e)
The archaeologist shall take relevant steps to secure the area of the discovery.
(f)
The archaeologist shall assess the discovery and advise Council, Heritage NZ
and the client on the relevant steps to be taken.

Page 64
(g)
Works in the area of the discovery shall not recommence until authorised in
writing by the archaeologist in consultation with the Council, any identified
affected parties and Heritage NZ.
Wayfinding Signage
37.
Prior to the opening of SkyPath, the consent holder shall prepare a signage and wayfinding strategy for approval of Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central in consultation with Urban Design Specialists) along with evidence of
consultation on the strategy that has been undertaken with AWDA and Auckland
Transport. The purpose of the signage and wayfinding strategy is to set out the
measures to be implemented to ensure that SkyPath users are informed of key
routes and linkages at the Northern Landing and Southern Landing to assist with
managing the effects arising from SkyPath users entering and / or exiting the facility.
This strategy shall provide details of the following:
i)
How members of the public will be directed to and from SkyPath at the landing
areas:
ii)
How members of the public will be directed to connect with other cycle,
pedestrian and public transport routes in the vicinity of the SkyPath landing
areas:
iii)
Signage addressing parking and bus/coach restrictions in the area;
iv)
Hours of operation and alternative routes;
v)
Emergency contact phone numbers;
vi)
The design and location of all proposed signs
This strategy shall be implemented prior to the use of SkyPath by the public.
Southern Landing Traffic Management Plan

38
Prior to the opening of SkyPath, the consent holder shall submit to the Council (Team
Leader Compliance and Monitoring - Central) for approval, a Traffic Management
Plan (TMP:SL) for the Southern Landing outlining the traffic and parking mitigation
measures that are to be implemented and in place prior to the opening of SkyPath.
The purpose of the Plan is to ensure that the traffic and parking effects of SkyPath at
the Southern Landing are appropriately managed so as to minimise effects on the
parking spaces within the Westhaven Marina and on the amenity of the surrounding
residential area. Proof of consultation or attempts to consult with Auckland Transport,
AWDA and the Community Liaison Group shall be provided with the TMP:SL. As a
minimum (unless otherwise agreed by the Council), the Plan shall include the
following:

Page 65
(a)
Provision for two to four tour coach and shuttle bus spaces and associated
manoeuvring access located no more than approximately 800m walking
distance from the Southern Landing turnstiles;
(b)
Provision of a vehicle drop-off area for four to six vehicles, subject to a P5 time
restriction, located no more than approximately 800m walking distance from the
Southern Landing turnstiles;
(c)
Provision of three to four mobility car parks, located as close as reasonably

possible to the Southern Landing turnstiles;
(d)
Provision of safe walking and cycling access from the surrounding existing road
and path network into the Southern Landing turnstile plaza, including
pedestrian and cyclist crossings over Curran Street, and Westhaven Drive in
the vicinity of the Harbour Bridge.
Advice Note
The consent holder is encouraged to work with AWDA in relation to parking
management measures at Westhaven in relation to SkyPath-related car parking,
particularly in Westhaven Marinas Northern Car Park and Western Car Park areas.
Northern Landing Traffic Management Plan
39
Prior to the opening of SkyPath, the consent holder shall submit to the Council (Team
Leader Compliance and Monitoring - Central in consultation with the Transport
specialist and Auckland Transport) for approval, a Traffic Management Plan
(TMP:NL) for the Northern Landing outlining the traffic and parking mitigation
measures that are to be implemented and in place prior to the opening of SkyPath.
The purpose of the Plan is to ensure that the traffic and parking effects of SkyPath
are appropriately managed so as to minimise the impacts on the amenity of the
surrounding areas.
Evidence of consultation or the attempt to consult with Auckland Transport, and the
Community Liaison Group shall be provided with the TMP:NL. As a minimum (unless
otherwise agreed by the Council), the Plan shall include the following:
a)
a residents' parking scheme;
b)
road signage directing SkyPath users away from accessing Princes Street
(south of Alma Street) by motor vehicle (other than vehicles accessing the
SkyPath mobility parking spaces); and
c)
Provision of a vehicle drop-off area for four to six vehicles, subject to a P5 time
restriction, located in the southern part of Queen Street and connecting via the
proposed pedestrian path to the Northern Landing turnstile plaza.

Page 66
Advice Note
A parking scheme is within the control of Auckland Transport, and requires public
consultation. The consent holder is encouraged to liaise with Auckland Transport in
relation to the development of such a scheme.
Operational Plan
40.
Prior to the opening of SkyPath for public use the consent holder shall prepare an
Operational Plan and submit this to Council (Team Leader Compliance and
Monitoring - Central) for approval. The purpose of the Operational Plan is to detail
the operational measures to be implemented to manage and minimise congestion,
safety and security and the ongoing engagement with the local community and key
stakeholders. The Plan shall include the following operational information and
measures:
a.
Encourage recreational and tourist users to commence their journey from the
Southern Landing, or appropriate locations within the city such as Britomart
Transport Centre;
b.
Encourage users to choose public transport or non-vehicular modes to access

SkyPath, or, if driving, direct users to appropriate public carpark facilities (this
may include internet/smartphone information), and identification of
walking/cycling routes, as well as possible integration with Auckland Transport
ITS systems (such as planned carparking smartphone applications).
c.
Provision of live patronage information and anticipated periods of high demand

to reduce the likelihood of patrons arriving when the facility is already operating
at maximum capacity.
e.
Provision of traffic management staff during an initial commencement period

(minimum of one month) stationed on adjacent roads to manage SkyPath users
(i.e. motorists, pedestrians and cyclists) to reduce effects for adjacent
properties.
Advice Note
The level of management may be dependent on when SkyPath is first opened,
e.g. if opening day falls in winter the actual "busiest" periods following the
opening may be the first public holiday or sunny Spring/Summer weekend
when additional staff may be required about the road network. Consideration
can then be given to having a team on stand-by.
f.
Provision/Implementation of signage (such as variable message sign or static),

that could be put in place to discourage extraneous traffic movements towards
the Landings (e.g. Southern Landing at the intersection of Westhaven
Drive/Beaumont Street and Curran Street/Sarsfield Street and Northern

Page 67
Landing at the end of Princes Street), and communicated as part of the

Operational Plan and any publicity.
g.
The ongoing liaison with the Community Liaison Group, user groups and the
surrounding community.
h.
The provision of a feedback register that is updated on a regular basis

identifying adverse effects that may arise through the day-to-day operation of
the facility, and from feedback from the surrounding community and the
Community Liaison Group and how these matters have been addressed by the
consent holder. This register shall be made available to Council on request as
part of any review.
i.
The ongoing liaison with the key stakeholders of Auckland Council, New
Zealand Transport Agency and Auckland Transport, and AWDA in terms of the
Southern Landing. These stakeholders shall be provided with the opportunity
to have input into the preparation of the Operational Plan.
j.
Management techniques to address safety and security on SkyPath for its

users.
k.
A media strategy shall be developed and implemented to communicate the

above outcomes to the public:
l.
i)
at least one week in advance of the SkyPath being opened to the public;
ii)
for at least one month after the SkyPath has been opened to the public
and for the first December and January that the SkyPath is open to the
public; and
iii)
during the summer peak season each year and to advise of any
restrictions or pre-bookings required in respect of special one-off events.
The Operational Plan shall be a living document that is to be regularly updated

in consultation with other stakeholders including Auckland Transport, the New
Zealand Transport Agency, Ngati Maru, Ngati Whatua o Orakei, Ngai Tai Ki
Tamaki and Te Kawerau a Maki authorities and the Community Liaison Group.
The Operational Plan shall be reviewed as a minimum at the times set out
below (and the consent holder shall establish a project team with membership
offered to each of the stated stakeholder groups to review the effectiveness of
the Operational Plan at stages i to iii below):
i)
On a daily basis for the first week that the SkyPath is open to the public;
ii)
At the end of each week for the first month that SkyPath is open to the
public;

Page 68
iii)
At the end of each month for the first 3 months that the SkyPath is open
to the public (if it does not coincide with another review);
iv)
At the end of the first December and the first January that the SkyPath is
open to the public (if it does not coincide with another review);
v)
At the end of the first year that the SkyPath is open to the public (if it does
not coincide with another review); and
vi)
Every 3 years following the SkyPath being opened to the public (if it does
not coincide with another review).
vii)
Prior to and following any one-off events where patronage of SkyPath is

anticipated to be unusually high (for example attractions on Waitemata
Harbour such as large yachting regattas or race starts).
Advice Notes:
i)
The measures set out in this section are those that the consent holder can
implement, within the application design, as later additions to the design (if they
become required) or as operational measures. These measures are either part
of the resource consent application to be in place from the start of operation of
SkyPath, or are suggested to be implemented later, if required, via the review
conditions of the resource consent.
ii)
A variety of these measures are yet to be defined in detail, especially those

covering operational aspects. This is in part because the consent holder
expects to discuss the appropriate parameters with all the relevant
stakeholders as part the resource consent process, and as part of conditions
imposed by this consent. This will allow these measures and their parameters
to be refined appropriately, together with other aspects relating to transport
network integration such as SkyPath's proposed opening hours.
POST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS

Operational Conditions
41.
Access to SkyPath by the public shall be limited to between the hours of 0600 and
2200, seven days a week.
Lighting
42.
Within 30 days of the commencement of the operation of the SkyPath, the consent
holder shall submit to Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central in
consultation with the Environmental Health Officer) a report from a suitably
experienced lighting expert accepted by Council, confirming that the added
illuminance from SkyPath at any residential property boundary does not exceed the
following levels in a horizontal or vertical plane at any height:

Page 69
43.
(a)
10 Lux between the hours of 6.00am and 10.30pm
(b)
5 Lux between the hours of 10.30pm and 6.00am
There shall be no motion-activated lighting, or flashing lighting effects at the Northern

Landing.
Noise
44.
Noise from the operational activities associated with SkyPath shall not exceed the
following noise limits at any point within the boundary of a site zoned residential or at
the notional boundary of The Wharf event and function centre:
(a)
10.00pm - 7:00am 45dBA Leq and 75dBA Lmax;
(b)
7:00am - 10:00pm 60dBA Leq.
Sound levels shall be measured in accordance with the provisions of NZS 6801
Acoustics - Measurement of environmental sound, and assessed in accordance with
the provisions of NZS 6802:2008 Acoustics - Environmental Noise.
Amplified sound at the Northern Landing shall be limited to announcements only and
no amplified music shall be permitted at any time.
Review Conditions
45
Pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and at a period no sooner than three months nor
later than 6 months following the opening of SkyPath, the consent holder shall
provide to Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring - Central in consultation
with the Auckland Design Office), a CPTED review of the Northern and Southern
Landings by a suitably qualified expert. If the review finds inadequacies with the
design and operation of the area, recommendations shall be made as part of the
review for changes to address the inadequacies, which the consent holder shall
implement within 3 months of the review being undertaken.
46.
Pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and at a period no sooner than three months nor
later than 6 months following the opening of SkyPath, the consent holder shall
provide to Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring - Central in consultation
with the Transport specialist) a Transportation Monitoring Assessment (by a suitably
qualified traffic engineer) of traffic movements and parking demand in the roading
network adjacent to the Northern and Southern Landings, including Westhaven
Marina parking areas (but not including Z Pier), associated with the use of SkyPath.
In undertaking this review, regard shall be given to:
a.
Identification of any changes in the local traffic environment, including changes

in pedestrian and cyclist route choices since the opening of SkyPath; and

Page 70
b.
The timing of other SkyPath related projects or other transportation-related

improvements in the area. This may include those identified at section 8.4 of
the Transportation Assessment Report identified in Condition 1.
Advice Note:
Flexibility is considered necessary in regards to the implementation of these
measures so as to not overburden the project with unnecessary requirements, as
well as to ensure that stakeholders and neighbours have confidence that potential
adverse effects can be effectively managed.
47.
Should the review required under Condition 46 identify an exceedance of a trigger

outlined in this condition that is directly attributable to the use of SkyPath, the Council
may require the consent holder, by notice in writing, to implement changes to the
patronage and traffic management measures, and/or the conditions of this consent.
These changes may include (but are not limited to):
a.
Changes that aim to address potential adverse transportation effects by

controlling access to the adjacent road network, particularly for private vehicles;
b.
Changes that aim to address potential adverse transportation effects by

encouraging access to SkyPath by travel modes that inherently have fewer
potential adverse effects, such as walking, cycling and public transport
including any localised improvement in pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure;
and
c.
Changes in the Operational Plan for SkyPath.

For the purposes of this condition, the relevant triggers are:
a.
an increase in parking demand within the public kerbside parking

network, outside any operational resident parking scheme, where parking
occupancy is regularly above 85% occupancy at peak times, or
b.
an identified and quantified increase in the peak period intersection

average delay of more than 20 seconds per vehicle (and the resultant
intersection Level of Service is D or worse) at any of the following
intersections:
i)
Sarsfield Street / Shelly Beach Road
ii)
Sarsfield Street / Curran Street
iii)
Westhaven Drive / Shelly Beach Road
iv) Queen Street / Alma Street

v) Princes Street / Alma Street

Page 71
vi)
Queen Street / Onewa Road
48.
The Transportation Monitoring Assessment required by Condition 46, shall be

repeated on the first, second, third and fifth anniversary of the opening date of
SkyPath (or as appropriate depending on the opening date), to capture the summer
period.
49.
The Transportation Monitoring Assessment required by Condition 46, shall be

repeated on the 10th and / or 15th anniversary of the opening date, if requested in
writing by the Council (at least 3 months prior to such anniversary).
NES CONDITIONS
50.
Prior to earthworks commencing a Site Management Plan shall be prepared to the

satisfaction of the Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring - Central) and
any variations from the Site Management Plan shall be approved in writing by the
Council prior to the variation being actioned.
51.
A suitably qualified and experienced contaminated land specialist shall be engaged

to monitor the earthworks.
52.
The earthworks shall not result in any airborne or deposited dust beyond the project
area boundary of the site that is determined to be noxious, objectionable or offensive.
Good practice measures, such as those described in Section 8 of the Good Practice
Guide for Assessing and Managing the Environmental Effects of Dust Emissions,
Ministry for the Environment (2001), shall be adopted at all times.
54.
Appropriate control measures shall be put in place during the works to avoid the
discharge of contaminated water to the Waitemata Harbour.
55.
All excavated soil that requires off-site disposal shall be taken to a consented landfill
and evidence of the disposal shall be provided to the Council (Team Leader
Compliance and Monitoring - Central).
56.
Works shall cease in the vicinity of any contamination not previously identified and
the Council (Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring - Central) shall be advised
immediately.
57.
The contamination levels of any imported soil/fill shall comply with Auckland Council's
clean fill criteria.
58.
Within three months following completion of the remediation earthworks, a Site

Validation Report shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Council (Team Leader
Compliance and Monitoring - Central). The Site Validation Report shall include, but
not be limited to:
a.
confirmation that the remediation and bulk earthworks were carried out in
accordance with the approved Site Management Plan,

Page 72
b.
details of any variations to the approved Site Management Plan,
c.
description of any environmental incident including the discovery of unexpected

contamination and contingency actions undertaken,
d.
any test results for imported soil or spoil disposed offsite, and
e.
evidence of landfill disposal of all spoil.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COASTAL PERMIT R/REG/2014/3365

GENERAL
59.
The consent holder shall notify the Harbourmaster in writing of the date of the
proposed commencement of works, at least 10 working days prior to the proposed
start date.
60.
A copy of the conditions of consent shall be available at all times on the work site as
a requirement for contractors to be aware of restrictions.
61.
The consent holder shall undertake works in accordance with the approved
construction management plan required under Condition 10.
62.
For the duration of the works, the consent holder shall maintain the site in good order
to the satisfaction of the Team Leader - Coastal.
Duration
63.
Consent to occupy the coastal marine area by the SkyPath structure, and to use the
structure to provide for cycling and walking, shall expire on 01 July 2043 unless it has
lapsed, been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the
Resource Management Act 1991.
Lighting
64.
The lighting colour projected onto the Auckland Harbour Bridge support piers shall be
to the satisfaction of the Harbourmaster.
65.
Any proposed flashing lighting effects shall be agreed with the Harbourmaster prior to
use.
66.
Navigation aids shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Harbourmaster prior to the
use of the proposed structure.
67.
Within one week of the completion date, the Team Leader Coastal shall be notified
in writing of the date of completion of the works.

Page 73
68.
The consent holder shall, within two weeks following the completion of the works
remove any construction materials from the coastal marine area, to the satisfaction of
the Team Leader - Coastal.
69.
Within one month of the completion of the proposed works, a complete set of "as
built" plans shall be supplied to the Team Leader - Coastal.
70.
A copy of the "as built" plans shall be provided to the Hydrographic Office (Chief
Hydrographer, National Topo/Hydro Authority, Land Information New Zealand,
Private Box 5501, Wellington) within one month of the completion of the works.
Extent of Occupation
71.
The right to occupy part of the coastal marine area shall be limited to the area of the
structure identified in the documents listed in Condition 1 above.
72.
The right to occupy part of the coastal marine area shall be an exclusive right.
Maintenance Requirements
73.
The structure permitted to occupy the coastal marine area by this consent shall be
maintained in a good and sound condition, and any repairs that are necessary shall
be made, subject to obtaining any necessary resource consents.
Use
74.
The structure shall be used for the purpose of public walking, cycling and mobility aid
access.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DISCHARGE OF CONTAMINANTS R/REG/2015/720
Duration
75.
This consent shall expire on 3 July 2023 unless it has been surrendered or been
cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the RMA.
PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS
76.
At least ten (10) days prior to the commencement of the proposed earthworks activity
on the subject sites, a Site Management Plan shall be provided to the Team Leader
Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input, for
review. The Site Management Plan shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and
experienced contaminated land professional in accordance with Schedule 13 (A4) of
the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water.
77.
No earthworks activity on the subject sites shall commence until confirmation is

provided from the Team Leader Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural
Resources and Specialist Input, that the Site Management Plan satisfactorily meets
the requirements of Schedule 13 (A4) of the ACRP:ALW, and all measures identified

Page 74
in that plan as required to be put in place prior to the commencement of works have
been established.
Advice Note:
The Site Management Plan required by Condition 76 should contain sufficient detail
to address the following matters:
i.
The areas within the project site designated for the excavation works, including
depths and extent of the proposed works, and an updated map showing the
earthworks areas
ii.
Excavation, management, and disposal procedures for soil, sediment, dust,

surface run-off water, and groundwater, if encountered, and odour control
iii.
Dewatering of potential perched groundwater and disposal procedures,

including testing of groundwater or surface run-off water if disposal option to
the stormwater system or marine environment is considered
iv.
Contingency measures
vii.
Proposed sampling and analysis
viii.
Proposed Works Summary Reporting.
The Council acknowledges that the Site Management Plan is intended to provide
flexibility of the management of the works and contaminated site discharge.
Accordingly, the plan may need to be further updated. Any updates should be limited
to the scope of this consent and consistent with the conditions of this consent. If you
would like to confirm that any proposed updates are within scope, please contact the
Team Leader, Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist
Input, on (09) 301 0101.
78.
The Team Leader Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and
Specialist Input, shall be notified at least two (2) working days prior to the land
disturbance activity on the subject site.
Advice Note:
To comply with Condition 78 please contact the Team Leader, Earthworks and
Contaminated
Land,
Natural
Resources
and
Specialist
Input
at
david.hampson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz to advise of the start of works.
The
following details should also be provided:
Name and telephone number of the project manager and the site owner;
Site address to which the consents relate;
Activity to which the consents relate; and

Page 75
Expected duration of the works.
DURING CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS

79.
All disturbance of the contaminated and potentially contaminated soil for the
proposed earthworks shall be carried out in accordance with the Site Management
Plan required by Condition 76 and any changes to the plan shall be approved in
writing by the Team Leader Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources
and Specialist Input, prior to the change being carried out.
80.
All disturbance of potentially contaminated soil shall be supervised by a suitably

qualified contaminated land professional, who shall ensure that all soil sampling,
management procedures, and contingency measures outlined in the Site
Management Plan required by Condition 76, and all relevant consent conditions are
adhered to. Certification from the suitably qualified contaminated land specialist
responsible for supervising the works shall be provided within the Works Summary
Report required by Condition 89.
81
All soil disturbance works shall be managed to minimise any discharge of debris, soil,
silt, sediment or sediment-laden water from the subject site to either land, stormwater
systems or receiving marine environment.
Advice Note:
Discharge from the site includes the following:
infiltration of stormwater into open excavations that may be contaminated.
disposal of water (eg. perched groundwater or collected surface run-off water)

from excavations.
Measures such as covering excavations overnight and during heavy rainfall, diverting
overland flow around the works area, and appropriate disposal of any water collected
in an excavation may be required to comply with this condition.
82.
All earthworks shall be managed to avoid the potential for cross-contamination of

materials to occur, in particular movement of contaminated soil around the site and/or
deposition of contaminated soil on other parts of the site shall be avoided. Where
soils are identified for off-site disposal, they shall be loaded directly for removal,
where possible, and all material shall be covered during transportation off site.
83.
To minimise the spread of contaminated material, all stockpiles of excavated

potentially contaminated material shall be located within the catchment of erosion
and sediment controls for the site. All stockpiles shall be covered with either
polythene or an equivalent impermeable material when the site is not being worked
and during periods of heavy rain.

Page 76
84.
At all times dust shall be controlled in accordance with the publication titled Good
Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing the Environmental Effects of Dust
Emissions, Ministry for the Environment (2001).
85.
Excess soil or waste materials removed from the subject site shall be deposited at a
disposal site that holds a consent to accept the relevant level of contamination.
86.
Any perched groundwater, or surface run-off water, encountered within the

excavation area requiring removal shall be considered as potentially contaminated,
and shall either:
87.
a.
be disposed of by a licensed liquid waste contractor; or
b.
pumped to sewer, providing relevant permits are obtained; or
c.
discharged to the stormwater system or surface waters, provided testing

demonstrates compliance with the Australian and New Zealand Environment
Conservation Council (ANZECC) Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water
Quality (2000) for the protection of 95 percent of marine water species.
Where contaminants are identified that have not been anticipated by the application,
works in the area containing the unexpected contamination shall cease until the
contingency measures outlined in the Site Management Plan required by Condition
76 have been implemented, and have been notified to the Team Leader, Earthworks
and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input. Any unexpected
contamination encountered during the works and contingency measures
implemented shall be documented in the Works Summary Report required by
Condition 89.
Advice Note:
In accordance with Condition 87 any unexpected contamination may include
separate phase hydrocarbons, contaminated soil, perched water or groundwater.
The consent holder is advised that where unexpected contamination is significantly
different in extent and concentration from that anticipated, handling the contamination
may be outside the scope of this consent. Advice should be sought from the Team
Leader Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input
prior to carrying out any further work in the area of the unexpected contamination to
ensure this is within the scope of this consent.
88.
All sampling and testing of contamination on the site shall be overseen by a suitably
qualified contaminated land professional. All sampling shall be undertaken in
accordance with Contaminated Land Management Guidelines, No.5 Site
Investigation and Analysis of Soils, Ministry for the Environment (revised 2011).

Page 77
Advice Note:
All testing and analysis should be undertaken in a laboratory with suitable experience
and ability to carry out the analysis. For more details on how to confirm the suitability
of the laboratory please refer to Part 4: Laboratory Analysis, of Contaminated Land
Management Guidelines No.5.
89.
Within three months of the completion of earthworks on the site, a Works Summary
Report shall be provided to the Team Leader Earthworks and Contaminated Land,
Natural Resources and Specialist Input. The Works Summary Report shall be
prepared by a suitably qualified contaminated land professional in accordance with
Schedule 13 (A5) of the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water and
the Contaminated Land Management Guidelines, No.1 - Reporting on Contaminated
Sites in New Zealand, Ministry for the Environment (revised 2011).
Advice Note:
The Works Summary Report required by Condition 89 should contain sufficient detail
to address the following matters as a minimum:
i.
a summary of the works undertaken, including a statement confirming whether

the excavation of the site has been completed in accordance with the Site
Management Plan required by Condition 76.
ii.
the location and dimensions of the excavations carried out, including a relevant
site plan
iii. a summary of soil, perched water, and/or groundwater testing undertaken, if

applicable, including tabulated analytical results, and interpretation of the results
in the context of the Contaminated Land Rules of the Auckland Council Regional
Plan: Air, Land and Water, the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
iv. copies of the disposal dockets for the material removed from the site
v.
records of any unexpected contamination encountered during the works and

contingency measures undertaken, if applicable
vi. details regarding any complaints and/or breaches of the procedures set out in
the Site Management Plan required by Condition 76 and the conditions of this
consent
vii. results of testing of any imported fill material to ensure compliance with the
definition of 'cleanfill', as per 'A Guide to the Management of Cleanfills', Ministry
for the Environment (2002).

Page 78
GENERAL ADVICE NOTES

1.
The consent holder shall obtain all other necessary consents and permits, including
those under the Building Act 2004, and comply with all relevant Council Bylaws. This
consent does not constitute building consent approval. Please check whether a
building consent is required under the Building Act 2004. Please note that the
approval of this resource consent, including consent conditions specified above, may
affect a previously issued building consent for the same project, in which case a new
building consent may be required.
2.
The consent holder shall obtain all appropriate approvals from Watercare Services
Limited for works over their infrastructure prior to any works commencing.
3.
Terms of Reference have been established for the SkyPath project between the
consent holder and the Mana Whenua Working Group, which outline obligations and
undertakings for the consent holder based on a spirit of partnership.
4.
A copy of this consent shall be held on site at all times during the establishment and
construction phase of the activity.
5.
The consent holder is requested to notify Council, in writing, of their intention to begin
works, a minimum of seven days prior to commencement. Such notification should
be sent to the Team Leader: Compliance and Monitoring - Central, (fax: 353 9186)
and include the following details:
name and telephone number of the project manager and the site owner
site address to which the consent relates
activity to which the consent relates
expected duration of works
6.
This consent does not relieve the consent holder of his/her responsibility to apply for
any other consents which may be required by the Auckland Council and/or Heritage
New Zealand. This consent is issued under the Resource Management Act 1991
and does not remove the need to comply with all other applicable Acts (including the
Property Law Act), regulations, Bylaws, and rules of law.
7.
The scope of this resource consent is defined by the application made to Auckland
Council and all documentation supporting that application.
8.
All references to Council officers / roles or other entities shall include their
successors.
9.
The Consent holder shall obtain a licence to occupy from New Zealand Transport
Agency, a lease and air space licence from the Auckland Waterfront Development
Agency, and an air space licence from Auckland Council Parks Sport and Recreation

Page 79
department. It is recognised that New Zealand Transport Agency may require limits
on the number of users of SkyPath at any one time for structural or health and safety
reasons.
Karyn Sinclair
Chairperson
1 July 2015

Page 80
APPENDIX A (TO CONSENT CONDITIONS)

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR DEMOLITION & CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
The following is a list of issues that would need to be addressed in detail in any traffic
management plan being prepared for demolition and construction activity. In particular, the
plan is to include specific provision for site amenity as required by rule 5.6.1 of the Auckland
Council District Plan - Auckland City Central Area Section.
ingress/egress to/from site
materials storage
truck unloading/loading, particularly hours of operation and that truck movements shall be
outside of peak hours.
concrete deliveries
rubbish removal
truck movements to the site
truck waiting
truck cleaning
subcontractors vehicles
workers vehicles
cranage
cherry pickers
pedestrian movements and pedestrian control/safety
all weather protection for pedestrians
needs of other property owners/occupiers affected by the works and how those needs will
be met (including parking, servicing, access requirements).
equipment to be used for control of traffic
details of all signage
on street parking controls and liaison with Parking Services
impact on street lighting
liaison with emergency services
liaison with public transport and road transport organisations
how to keep footpaths and roadway clean and uncluttered
site sheds (on or over the street).
NB
The plan needs to take account of the full potential effects of the activity on public
space (road, footpath, etc).
The contractor will need to have evaluated:

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
The traffic conditions

Existing traffic and parking controls
Physical features
Visibility restrictions
Requirements of other properties re: access etc.
It is suggested that for significant construction sites there be someone appointed who has
responsibility and accountability for controlling traffic matters and ensuring that the agreed
traffic management plan is adhered to.

Page 81

Sky Path Decision 20150602

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sky Path Decision 20150602

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Decision following the hearing of an

application for resource consents under

RESOURCE CONSENTS, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 104B AND 104D

R/LUC/2014/3364, R/REG/2014/3365 and R/REG/2015/720

Princes Street, Northcote Point; Auckland Harbour Bridge;

Princes Street, Northcote Point; Auckland Harbour Bridge;

Princes Street, Northcote Point; Auckland Harbour Bridge;

Summary of proposal and activity status

The Applicant proposes to construct, maintain, and operate a combined pedestrian

The proposal requires resource consent for the following reasons:

For completeness we have relied on the extensive breakdown of consents outlined in

As noted in the section 42A report, the activity status is as follows:

Princes Street, Northcote Point; Auckland Harbour Bridge;

Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore City Section) - non-complying

Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) - non-complying

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - discretionary

Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land Water - discretionary

Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal discretionary

Overall the proposal has been considered as a non-complying activity.

Mezzanine Capital Limited;

Ian and Robyn Bogue;

Gavin John Tiplady;

Number One Estate Limited;

Northcote Point Action Group Inc;

Andrew Gordon Cochrane;

Beau and Lisa Evans;

Princes Street, Northcote Point; Auckland Harbour Bridge;

David Klein; and

For the following reasons:

The Applicant had no opposition to the late submissions being accepted.

The Council planning officers recommendation report (hereafter referred to as the

This decision contains the findings of the Commissioners deliberations on the

Relevant statutory provisions considered

Other relevant standards, policy statements and plan provisions considered

National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000

Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement

Part 1 Chapter B of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore City Section)

Princes Street, Northcote Point; Auckland Harbour Bridge;

Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section)

Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water

Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal

Part 2 Chapter C Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

The Auckland Plan

Stokes Point Te Onewa Reserve Management Plan

Government Policy Statement on Land Transport

Summary of evidence heard

For the Applicant

Mr Minhinnick gave legal submissions at the outset.

His submissions covered

An opinion on the section 104D threshold tests for non-complying activities;

Property rights, especially with respect to the license to occupy that is

Effects of the project, including positive effects, and irrelevant concerns.

Matters that Mr Minhinnick considered to be not relevant to our consideration of the

Mr Minhinnick provided an updated version of conditions which addressed issues

Mr Guenter (patronage) outlined the methodologies for the surveys undertaken to

Princes Street, Northcote Point; Auckland Harbour Bridge;

estimate likely patronage numbers on SkyPath. He noted that there was no

Mr D McKenzie (traffic/transport) produced three statements of evidence, including

Mr D McKenzies supplementary evidence addressed issues raised by submitters in

Mr D McKenzie assisted the understanding of the implications of the predicted peak

Mr Falconer (urban design) provided two statements of evidence. He discussed the