Request 1
Our Ref: s92 Further Information Request
File: 1598 / 12763 335 00
21 August 2023
Barker & Associates
Attention:
Katherine Hu
Email:
[email address]
Dear Ms Hu
SECTION 92 RMA FURTHER INFORMATION REQUEST – APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION
OFFICIAL
AND LANDUSE, KAINGA ORA AND RUAPEHU DISTRICT COUNCIL, 6 TEI TEI DRIVE,
OHAKUNE (RDC Ref: RC 1598)
1982
This letter is in relation to your application for Subdivision and Land use consents on land legally
THE
described as Lot 2 DP 54909.
ACT
Section 92(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 allows for a consent authority at any
reasonable time before its decision to request further information in relation to the application.
You are required to provide the following additional information in relation to the above application:
Extent of Works
UNDER
1. Please clarify the extent and nature of works shown on the various plans in the
Engineering Drawing set with regards to works in and around proposed Lot 205 (Local
Purpose Reserve). The Wetland Assessment recommends that in order to offset the direct
effects of the proposed subdivision works on Wetland 2, that the wetland should be
extended into the area contained within Proposed Lot 205. The Wetlands and Stormwater
Memorandum sets out the potential for a small stormwater wetland in the area of Proposed
Lot 205. It would thus appear that works will be required in the area of Proposed Lot 205
which is currently shown as outside the extent of works.
INFORMATION
Wetlands
RELEASED
2. The Stage 1 Earthworks Proposed Contour Plan provided in Appendix 4 to the application
indicates that the 10m wetland buffer zone extends onto Proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3.
Assuming that the “buffer zone” relates to the National Environmental Standard for
Freshwater (“NES-F”),
please clarify what the implications of the NES-F “buffer zone” is for
the construction of dwellings on Proposed Lots 1-3 in the future, and confirm whether or not
the consents to be sought for the project from Horizons under the NES-F address that
matter.
Concept Masterplan
3. Noting that earlier concepts of the Masterplan for the site indicated retention of the existing
Page 2
Our Ref: [DocumentNo]
Date
shared path from Snowmass Drive to Tei Tei Drive on its existing alignment,
please
provide an explanation of the rationale for the proposal to realign the shared path to in part
require path users to use local streets in the subdivision (see also information requests later
in this letter under the Integrated Transportation Assessment heading).
4. Please confirm whether the indicative size of the water tank notation shown on the
Indicative Lot Layouts is accurate to the size that will actually be provided. This is
particularly important on the Lots that are proposed to be under 450m2 in site area given
the outdoor stacked parking arrangement that is proposed on those lots.
5. Please clarify whether the Indicative Lot Layouts recognize and provide for the building
foundation restriction within the 45 degree zone of influence from pipe inverts as set out at
section 8.4.2 of the Geotechnical Interpretative Report. Please provide alternative
complying layouts if not.
6. With respect to the Typical Stream Interface plan at page 18 of the Concept Masterplan,
please clarify how the desired shared path along the length of the reserve can be
achieved while taking into account the recommendations set out in the Stream Assessment
OFFICIAL
Report, particularly with regards to ecological restoration planting for at least 10m either
side of Waterway B.
1982
Stream Assessment
THE
7. Please clarify how the recommendations of the Stream Assessment in terms of ecological
enhancement and restoration are proposed to be implemented.
ACT
Arboricultural
8. Please clarify whether the trees and vegetation that are recommended to be retained as
set out in the Arboricultural report are proposed to be retained as part of the proposed
UNDER
subdivision. If they are not, please provide an assessment of the effect of not retaining
them along with any required measures to remedy, mitigate or offset their loss.
Construction Noise and Vibration
9. The site will require bulk earthworks to form the subdivision. The Geotechnical report
submitted with the application sets out that a large area of uncontrolled fill exists on the
subject site that will need to be dug out and replaced with engineered fill as part of
subdivision formation works. The compaction process may require multiple phases and will
require rolling/compaction of the fill. The area affected is adjacent to existing residential
INFORMATION
development on neighbouring sites.
RELEASED
10. Further, the Geotechnical Report (para 8.3.2) sets out that given the high moisture content
of the silts and clays that will be encountered during earthworks the material will need to be
carefully managed to ensure it is worked at optimum moisture content in order to achieve
required compaction, and that if intermittent rainfall occurs during the summer months the
earthworks period could be lengthened considerably. A lengthened earthworks period will
mean lengthened duration of potential effects on adjacent properties.
11. The application (Section 8.3.3) states that “
noise and vibration effects to adjacent
properties during earthworks can be appropriately managed, and a number of consent
conditions are anticipated to ensure all works are carried out in accordance with best
practice”. Appendix 2 to the application records that the proposed activity will be able to
comply with Rule DR 3.3.2 which in turn requires compliance with the noise limits of NZS
6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise. No further information or analysis is provided.
Page 3
Our Ref: [DocumentNo]
Date
12. Accordingly,
please provide a report from a suitably qualified and experienced
acoustic/vibration expert that sets out in more detail what measures will be employed to
ensure that construction noise and vibration effects will be avoided, remedied or mitigated
on the occupants of and buildings on adjoining and adjacent sites, including those sites
fronting Tei Tei Drive.
Geotechnical/Services
13. Please provide a copy of the Geotechnical Factual Report dated 17 February 2023.
14. The Geotechnical Interpretative Report (“GIR”) assumes that the formation of the
subdivision will require minor cuts and fills in the order of 1m. The Assessment of Effects
(“AEE”) report at section 4.1 sets out that “
fill depths of up to approximately 2.3m are
proposed within the low-lying parts of the site and cut depths of up to approximately 1.7m”.
Accordingly, given the cut and fill assumptions in the GIR are proposed to be exceeded,
please provide either (i) confirmation from the authors of the GIR that the
recommendations it contains remain applicable, and/or (ii) any additional geotechnical
analysis and recommendations to address actual cut and fill depths.
OFFICIAL
15. In order to accurately identify which of the proposed lots are within the areas of the site
currently containing uncontrolled fill,
please provide a plan showing the scheme plan of
1982
subdivision overlaid on CMW Drawing 2 “Geotechnical Hazard Plan”.
THE
16. Section 6.3 of the GIR notes that during geotechnical testing in the late spring/early
summer period groundwater was encountered at relatively shallow levels. Section 8.4.4 of
ACT
the GIR notes that due to the high groundwater table, disposal of concentrated stormwater
flows to ground is not considered suitable.
Please clarify how this finding has been taken
into account in the design of the proposed drainage swales and what the implications of the
high groundwater table are for the functioning of the swales.
17. Section 8.2 of the GIR sets out that a building restriction line set back at least 5m from the
UNDER
crest of the open drains on the site is required to define a Slope Instability Hazard Zone for
structures, unless alternative slope instability mitigation measures are implemented.
Please confirm which of the methods set out in Section 8.2 are to be employed, and in the
event that the Slope Instability Hazard Zone is preferred, provide a plan showing the 5m
building restriction line overlaid on the scheme plan of subdivision.
18. Given that the prevailing wind in the Ohakune area is from the west/nor’west towards
adjoining residential development, control of dust during the earthworks phase will be
important. While the AEE (Section 7.5.2) notes that water will be applied to the site to
INFORMATION
control dust during construction,
please provide information on any other specific dust
control measures to be utilised (eg will soil stockpiles be covered?) to ensure that Ruapehu
RELEASED
District Plan Standard RE3.3.11 is able to complied with.
19. Please provide information that demonstrates that the proposed depth of reticulated
services and associated invert levels to be installed in the proposed subdivision is
appropriate taking into account adjacent reticulation depths.
20. Please provide any other information that has been prepared to respond to the last bullet
point in Section 10 (Further Work) of the Geotechnical Interpretative Report.
Page 4
Our Ref: [DocumentNo]
Date
Hydrology
21. Section 3.1.3 of the Hydrology Assessment sets out parameters for channel design to
accommodate a 1:400 ARI storm event. One of the parameters is to have 1:1 side slopes.
Please provide information to demonstrate that this recommendation, along with the
expected channel section set out in Enclosure 3 to the Hydrology report, can be reconciled
with the recommendations in Section 8.2 of the GIR as to channel slope stability.
22. Please clarify, in light of the earthworks that are proposed to be undertaken at the site,
what the recommended minimum building floor level to apply to the proposed residential
lots is.
23. Allied to above, please provide information that reconciles the statement in the Engineering
Services report (page 11) that “
Care will need to be given when elevating the building
platforms to mitigate the flood waters as this potentially could exacerbate flooding on
neighbouring properties” with .
Integrated Transport Assessment (“ITA”)
OFFICIAL
24. The cross-sections for the 18m wide Primary Road and the 14m wide Secondary Road
1982
indicate allowance for recessed parking within the sidewalk, with swales next to the
sidewalk.
Please clarify and assess the safety and efficiency of how this arrangement will
work for pedestrians where recessed parking occurs (ie will they be required to walk on the
THE
carriageway or in the swale to get around parked cars?).
ACT
25. Allied to the above the Masterplan for the site proposes to realign the existing straight line
shared path from Snowmass Drive to Tei Tei Drive to require path users to in part use
Road E (Rural Lane) and Road A (Primary Road). Both of these proposed carriageway
cross-sections require cyclists to share the carriageway with vehicles with no specific
provision for cyclists.
Please provide additional assessment of the safety and efficiency of
UNDER
this arrangement compared to the existing and any alternative cross-sections to address
the issue.
26. Please provide details of the proposed traffic calming measures to be implemented on the
various proposed carriageways. It is noted that given the climate in Ohakune with snow
and ice occurring during the colder months, traditional measures such as speed humps
may in themselves become a hazard and not be appropriate. Allied to this, one of the
traffic calming measures set out in the ITA (Section 3.5) is to avoid the establishment of
long, straight roads. On the face of it, Roads A and C would appear to be long and straight
meaning the implementation of other traffic calming measures takes on additional
INFORMATION
importance.
RELEASED
27. In light of the increased traffic movements that would be generated on Tei Tei Drive from
the residential subdivision,
please provide details of what design measures are proposed
to allow pedestrians and cyclists to safely cross the existing/extended Tei Tei Drive to and
from the destinations on the northern side of the street (eg Carrot Park, Ohakune town
centre). These measures should also take into account the proposed provision of the local
purpose reserve (Lot 205) along the northern frontage of the site, which it appears is to be
extended if future stages of subdivision at the site occur, and which is noted in the Concept
Masterplan as “Additional Amenity Space for the community - linking in with the
playground”.
28. Please provide comment from NZ Transport Agency/Waka Kotahi on the adequacy of the
existing Tei Tei Drive/SH 49 intersection to safely and efficiently cater for vehicle
movements from the proposed residential subdivision.
Page 5
Our Ref: [DocumentNo]
Date
Service Confirmation
29. Please provide correspondence from the relevant utility service provider confirming that
the proposed subdivision can be supplied with electricity connections.
Proposed Consent Conditions
30. Please provide a consolidated set of proposed consent conditions that address the
recommendations in the various technical reports and the AEE.
The consent authority is requesting this information to enable it to determine the potential for
adverse effects to be created by your proposal. Your application will remain on hold awaiting this
information.
The time period starting at the date the further information was requested and ending when you
provide the information will be excluded from the processing time in accordance with Section 88C
of the Resource Management Act 1991.
OFFICIAL
Section 92A of the Resource Management Act 1991 applies to further information requests. This
1982
section states:
“92A Responses to request
THE
(1) An applicant who receives a request under section 92(1) must, within 15 working days
ACT
of the date of the request, take one of the following options:
(a) provide the information; or
(b) tell the consent authority in a written notice that the applicant agrees to provide the
information; or
UNDER
(c) tell the consent authority in a written notice that the applicant refuses to provide the
information.
(2) A consent authority that receives a written notice under subsection (1)(b) must –
(a) set a reasonable time within which the applicant must provide the information; and
(b)
tell the applicant in a written notice the date by which the applicant must provide the
information.”
Please provide the Council with the requested information by 11 September 2023, or advise the
INFORMATION
consent authority whether you agree or refuse to provide the requested information.
RELEASED
Should you require further information or assistance regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Yours sincerely
Grant Eccles
CONSULTANT PLANNER
Request 2 - part 2
OFFICIAL
1982
THE
ACT
UNDER
INFORMATION
RELEASED
OFFICIAL
1982
THE
ACT
UNDER
INFORMATION
RELEASED
Request 2, part 4
-----Original Message-----
From: Min Kim [mail to:[email address]]
Sent: 20 March 2023 12:20 PM
To: [email address] [mail to:[email address]],Ree Anderson [mail
to:[email address]],Giles Tait [mail to:[email address]],Colleen
McCorkindale [mail to:[email address]],[email address]
[mail to:[email address]],[email address] [mail to:[email address]]
CC: Richard Gibbs [mail to:[email address]],Min Kim [mail
to:[email address]],Vini Dutra [mail
to:[email address]],Grant Eccles [mail
to:[email address]],[email address] [mail
to:[email address]],Stuart Watson [mail
to:[email address]],Danielle Rogers [mail
to:[email address]]
Subject: Meeting Minutes - Pre-application meeting: 6 Teitei Drive development
OFFICIAL
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email address].
Learn
why this is important
CAUTION: External email. Do not click or open attachments unless you recognise the
1982
sender and know the content is safe. If unsure use the Report Phishing button.
THE
ACT
Good afternoon,
Please find the attached meeting minutes.
Katherine – Please forward this email to any attendees who are not listed on this email.
Thank you.
UNDER
Kind regards,
Min Kim
----------------------------
Min Kim
INFORMATION
Consents Manager
Ruapehu District Council
RELEASED
Ruapehu District Council | Private Bag 1001 | Taumarunui 3946 | New Zealand
Phone: 07 895 8188 ext: 237 | Fax: 07 895 3256 | Mobile:
email: [email address] | RDC website:
www.ruapehudc.govt.nz
If you are not the intended recipient of this email please notify the sender and immediately delete the email and any attachments - Thank you.
----------------------------
Request 2, part 4 - attachment
Pre-application meeting: 6 Teitei Drive development
15/03/2023 13:00-14:00pm, Microsoft Teams.
1
People
People present
•
Min Kim, Vini Dutra, Ewen Skinner, Stuart Watson, Ree Anderson – Ruapehu District Council
(RDC)
•
Sunil Prasad – Cheal Consultants (CC)
•
Colleen McCorkinsdale, Fletcher Wilson, Giles Tait – Kainga Ora (KO)
•
Katherine Hu, Fraser McNutt – Barker and Associates (B&A)
•
Todd Langwel – TPL (transport)
•
James Pattullo – Isthmus (urban design)
•
Grant Eccles, Danielle Rogers – Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T+T) - for RDC
Apologies
OFFICIAL
•
Richard Gibs – RDC
1982
2
Agenda
THE
•
Brief introduction and overview of the project background (Giles)
•
Overview of proposed concept plans and design approaches (James)
ACT
•
Resource consent (RC) pathways, activity status and key RC considerations, and information
requirements (Fraser)
•
Approaches on roading layouts and information/matters to be covered in technical report
(James / Fraser)
UNDER
•
Approach and initial design thinking of stormwater (Sunil)
3
Summary of questions & discussion
•
Giles (KO) – This is a shovel ready project with hard deadlines with an aim to be on site doing
works approved under resource consent by December 2023. The tight deadlines on the
project are from a financial point of view to work with funding provided to KO. The aim is to
lodge the resource consent application by end of April.
o
Ngāti Rangi have been involved in meetings and development agreements between KO
and RDC. B&A are waiting on a signed agreement between all parties.
INFORMATION
o
s 9(2)(g)(i)
RELEASED
•
James (Isthmus) – The project includes sports fields, good connectivity with walkways, roads
and town centre. No requirement for further facilities as everything is relatively local.
o
Amenity considered within the site with the proposed stream and the existing cycle way
on northern part being brought forward to front of houses rather than the back.
o
Stormwater - indicative locations of ponds are shown with the attempt to leverage that
value with the community.
o
Resilience of the site taken into account to allow future development to the south.
o
Allowance for SW swale in road width, flexibility with street layout.
•
Fraser (B&A) – 38 lots proposed for Stage 1 with the potential for more lots on western side
to total 44 lots.
1
o
Not applying under Comprehensive Residential Development Rule in the Ruapehu
Operative District Plan (ODP) and rather for a landuse consent for residential
development under Rule 3.2.4 as a non-complying activity due to failure of density
condition (RE 3.3.2). Feeling that with the effects aside, they are still achieving the
intentions of the ODP.
o
Working with Horizons Regional Council to check if consents are required.
o
Prelim discussions have already been undertaken with RDC.
•
Grant (T+T) – queried whether the application would
simply be a subdivision consent. Action
is to check the District Plan and see if landuse consent would be necessary to authorise the
houses on the under 450m2 lots on the assumption they were approved.
o
Interested if any wetlands present and how the 3 waters engineering is going to work.
o
As the proposal does not comply with density standards, and the development has its
sole access to the wider roading network via the TeiteiDrive/SH49 intersection, it is
highly likely that Waka Kotahi will be regarded as an affected party and their written
approval should be sought by the applicant – gaining their approval should not be an
issue if Teitei Drive/SH49 intersection adequately designed. A Traffic Impact Assessment
(TIA) will be required to support the application and address safety and efficiency in the
OFFICIAL
normal manner including specific consideration of any measures that may be required
on Teitei Drive to address pedestrian movements across the road coming and going
1982
from the development to the Carrot Park.
o
Vinny's team to advise on whether there is sufficient 3 waters capacity to handle the
THE
demand from the development.
o
Departure from roading standards not fatal as long as roading function still works and
ACT
integrates appropriately with adjoining landuse.
o
The more comprehensive the information, the better when applying. Expects that the
application will contain a full and thorough notification assessment and assessment of
effects. No opinion one way or the other on notification/non-notification at this point
but encouraged to see complying lot sizes along the site boundary with Snowmass.
UNDER
•
Ree (RDC) – Col een interested in Roading Hierarchy. Roads are not the only a transport
medium but also represent open space and can complement reserves.
•
Sunil (CC) – From a civil perspective, there are 44 lots for stage 1 and it will be chal enging to
get gravity feed to the network.
o
Proposing gravity main to stage 2 boundary and pump station and rising main further
north. Wastewater connecting to the 100mm pipe.
o
The groundwater table is 300m and shallower in some places. As this is quite shallow
and pond needs to be quite deep, more soil will need to be used to build up the pond.
INFORMATION
o
Storage tanks or retention devices are proposed for SW attenuation on each lot to
capture roof water. This wil help with SW on the site and keep the pond smaller.
RELEASED
o
Need to confirm rising main route, however, balance lot owned by RDC so no need for
easement.
•
Todd (TPL) – The application is working with design team to integrate the development with
surrounding environment.
o
In context the application for Stage 1 is only 44 lots and may not trigger anything at this
stage. Approximately 40 vehicle movements is not high volume.
o
James to provide more feedback on roads and hierarchy and SW requirements.
o
Flexibility available to widen carriageways or walkways etc.
o
Can't see any Significant issues with Stage 1 development.
2
4
Next steps/actions:
•
Ruapehu District Council to confirm whether a landuse consent (for residential activity) and/or
a subdivision consent is required for the activity – ASAP.
•
Applicant to continue with preparation of application and maintain contact with RDC
regulatory team as required.
OFFICIAL
1982
THE
ACT
UNDER
INFORMATION
RELEASED
3
Request 3, part 5 - email 1
-----Original Message-----
From: Ree Anderson [mail to:[email address]]
Sent: 5 March 2021 9:47 AM
To: Rachael Hurzeler [mail to:[email address]]
CC: Neil Mayo [mail to:[email address]],Rebecca Van Orden [mail
to:[email address]]
Subject: Fwd: LIM 6 Teitei Drive, Ohakune
Hi Rachael
Please find below a link to the LIM for the TeI Tei site in Ohakune.
Hopefully this means you have all the information needed.
Please can you confirm receipt and let me know if you have any further queries.
OFFICIAL
Most appreciated.
1982
Kind regards, Ree
THE
ACT
Ree Anderson | Director |
[email address]
UNDER
Tel: +64 27 687 9709 | PO Box: 56097 Dominion Road, Auckland, 1446
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rebecca Van Orde
n <[email address]>
Subject: FW: LIM 6 Teitei Drive, Ohakune
Date: 5 March 2021 at 9:40:51 AM NZDT
INFORMATION
To: Clive Manley
<[email address]>, Tessa Owen
<[email address]>, Margaret Hawthorne
RELEASED
<[email address]>, Ree Anderso
n <[email address]>
Hi everyone,
Please see below link for completed LIM for 6 Teitei Drive.
Thanks
Rebecca
----------------------------
Rebecca Van Orden BMS (Hons)
Team Leader Community Property
Ruapehu District Council
Ruapehu District Council | Private Bag 1001 | Taumarunui 3946 | New Zealand
Phone: 07 895 8188 ext: 276 | Fax: 07 895 3256 | Mobile: s 9(2)(a)
email:
[email address] | RDC website:
www.ruapehudc.govt.nz
----------------------------
From: Claudia Zimme
r <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 5 March 2021 9:37 am
OFFICIAL
To: Rebecca Van Orden
<[email address]>
Subject: LIM 6 Teitei Drive, Ohakune
1982
Dear Rebecca
THE
Thank you for the application for LIM for the property 6 Teitei Drive, Ohakune
.
ACT
This is the link to your LIM. We recommend that you save the document to your computer to be
able to access it as we will delete it from One Drive on or after 5 April 2021.
Please advise if you have problems accessing the information. I am available in the office from 8am
to 5pm, Tuesday to Thursday on 07 895 8188 extension 201. For enquiries outside these days and
UNDER
hours, please contact Customer Services.
If you have any further questions in relation to this LIM, please do not hesitate to contact Council.
Yours sincerely
Claudia Zimmer
Land Information Memorandum (LIM) Officer
INFORMATION
RELEASED
----------------------------
Claudia Zimmer
ext: 201
Land Information Memorandum (LIM) Officer
----------------------------
CAUTION: External email. Do not click or open attachments unless you recognise the
sender and know the content is safe. If unsure use the Report Phishing button.
Request 3, part 5, email 2
-----Original Message-----
From: Ree Anderson [mail to:[email address]]
Sent: 2 March 2021 5:55 PM
To: Rachael Hurzeler [mail to:[email address]]
CC: Neil Mayo [mail to:[email address]],Clive Manley [mail
to:[email address]],Margaret Hawthorne [mail
to:[email address]],Rebecca Van Orden [mail
to:[email address]],Ewen Skinner | Morrison Low [mail
to:[email address]],Tessa Owen [mail
to:[email address]]
Subject: Information for Tei Tei Drive-Project 2 Ohakune
Kia ora Rachael
Please find responses to your information requests as follows:
1. CE Clive Manley has confirmed that there is flexibility in having some lots that are sold at
market price to offset overal costs to council.
OFFICIAL
2. An urgent LIM report has been requested and will be available on the 8 March 2021
1982
3. There has been no master plan / bulk and location studies for Tei Tei Drive. An aerial shot of the
site is attached below – general y the thinking was development would start on the northern
THE
sections of the site.
ACT
4. The site is 9.4536Ha in total size. This area contains a waterway that will reduce the land
available for development.
5. The CIP funding sought for TeiTei was $5,303,341 for the site development (Civils, infrastructure,
building platforms and planning) for 44 lots. There was also a component of project establishment /
UNDER
due diligence costs that we were seeking to recover – indicatively this would have been an additional
$200K.
6. Attached below is the Cheal feasibility report that has all geotechnical information on the site.
Hope this helps. Any queries please let me know.
Kind regards, Ree
INFORMATION
Click to Download
RELEASED Feasibility Report - Teitei Dr_Full.pdf
24.1 MB
Ree Anderson | Director |
[email address]
Tel: +64 s 9(2)(a)
| PO Box: 56097 Dominion Road, Auckland, 1446
CAUTION: External email. Do not click or open attachments unless you recognise the
sender and know the content is safe. If unsure use the Report Phishing button.
Document Outline
