Achini Ranasinghe - Auckland Council
Transcript of Achini Ranasinghe - Auckland Council
1
Achini Ranasinghe
From: Adam muncey <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 28 October 2020 12:01 amTo: Premium SubmissionsSubject: Sandspit developement
Categories: email submissions
Hi, My submission is shortly to follow by email (few minutes!) as the website closed out early part the way through! Many Thanks, Adam Muncey
1
Achini Ranasinghe
From: Adam muncey <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 28 October 2020 12:01 amTo: Premium SubmissionsSubject: Sandspit developement
Categories: email submissions
Hi, My submission is shortly to follow by email (few minutes!) as the website closed out early part the way through! Many Thanks, Adam Muncey
Adam Muncey & Family Submission 27/10/2020
Our submission is in opposition to the application. As this application is for direct referral, if any of
the following points are unclear please do not hesitate to contact me –happy to discuss. Many of my
concerns are aligned with my neighbours and local societies and so I will not dwell on these but
instead focus on technical aspects. While I appreciate the court gives weighting to expert evidence,
please consider that at the previous hearing my technical concerns were acknowledged, leading to a
condition of consent and direct follow-up meetings with Watercare. Fortunately, my background as
an engineer (Master of Engineering) enables me to review and raise concerns over some of the
technical details in the application.
Of particular concern are the wastewater calculations which contain errors/omissions and models
that don’t match reality. For example, the café’s waste water is not included in capacity
calculations - the previous application also missed this and was highlighted in my submission.
Furthermore, both staff and students are modelled at the same wastewater levels (15L/day) where
the code stipulates 45L/day for staff – leading to an underestimate. When these errors are
corrected, capacity issues may be more apparent - both peak wet weather flows (PWWF) and dry
weather thresholds (e.g. 50% utilisation and self-cleaning velocities) may be breached (5.3.5.3 from
waste water code of practice).
Capacity calculations for critical sections of wastewater pipe with gradients under <0.4% which were
a primary focus in the last application are not considered this time. Regardless of mathematical
models and errors, the reality is that this critical section, neighbouring my property, leads to dry
weather raw sewage overflows out of the manhole in my garden into the creek. An overflow that is
set to greatly multiply moving from 7 houses to 7+ 54 + café above us in the network with no
capacity upgrade planned. The development location is unfortunately at the top of the hill and so
places all properties and the majority of the networks below it at risk.
This creek is a great natural environment enjoyed by our kids and many others down to the beach -
one of the areas amenities under threat. However, the creek land also correlates to high
groundwater levels during rains and related flooding up out of the ground for us (hydrostatic
pressure) and other forms of flooding elsewhere. Any potential exacerbation of these issues is
deeply concerning.
Other concerns include:
Any high cost/detrimental effect/environment damaging ‘unforeseen’ network upgrades
may only ever benefit this development. As the applicant noted, there are limited
development opportunities in the area and amalgamation of SHZ sites unlikely. Should the
costs, risks and effects of any foreseen or otherwise work be considered in this consent and
costs fully attributed to the applicant through liability insurance?
Similarly for public transport, an isolated high density development may not justify
investment, leading to chaos/safety with cars around the busy school zone.
Alternatively would amalgamation of sites in SHZ lead to domino effect of development
undermining the AUP?
Noise assessment (section 4.1.1) states assessment made on peak of 20 vehicles per hour
(36BUN60356953aee15nva). Yet traffic assessment (19BUN) stated peak of 44
vehicles/hour
The IRD definition doesn’t have an upper size limit in m2?
An amalgamated site appears to be treated as a single entity against standards –this means
a compliant design if broken to the original sites could be non-compliant and detrimental..
o For example, one of the single house sites, now amalgamated may exceed
impervious area standards for that single site location, resulting in no absorption
and flooding for neighbours, however the amalgamated site as a whole complies.
o Another example is that all sites amalgamated discharge into a single original sites
outlet, again concerning.
Traffic– safety and congestion concern around the schools. However, by evening the area is
quiet and safe currently, with kids playing on the cul-de-sac. This would be at risk with traffic
extending into the evenings.
Out of character – exceeding standards in many places, and bulk of building below ground
level makes the building and its impact even larger than it appears on paper (height
restrictions don’t include basement)
o Also as a top-of-hill position, any height standard infringements apperances are
magnified for those below it on the hill
Sediment retention pond during construction (yuk) could overflow into storm water
‘network’ (creek). Asbestos/hydrocarbons etc.…
Construction period accuracy – timeframe unchanged when moving from working outside of
school peak hours to including such hours. Concern it’s likely to exceed 2 year period,
especially including unforeseen infrastructure upgrades. This is a long time for families and
school children to have disruptions. Furthermore why did the developer drop the avoidance
of school peak hours – this was a sensible suggestion for safety!
In summary, with the contentious legal issues with their associated costs, environmental damage
risk from its top-of-hill/network position, hard to justify public transport investment for a single
higher density site this doesn’t sound like the right location or opportunity for affordable or higher
density housing.
Detailed points - Wastewater calculation errors I have attempted to suggest a ‘desired response’ as I note the submission form states “What
decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?”
Omissions and simplifications in the application calculations on a network which already has regular
dry weather overflows, including in our garden:
1. The Café is NOT included in the wastewater calculations - therefore a gross underestimate of
wastewater peak wet weather flow (PWWF). This was highlighted at the last hearing by myself
and yet again has been forgotten – is this Café a serious proposal or a token amenity for IRD
purposes?
The applicant references and cites wastewater chapter 5 of the Code of Practice (CoP). It can
easily be found that the Café should be considered as ‘Wet Retail’ with an allowance of 15L per
day per m2. The application also already identifies the cafe net area so the data for the workings
is readily available?
Desired response – Include the café in the wastewater calculations.
2. The use of student flow wastewater allowances (15L/day) are applied to teachers, when the
code stipulates 45L/day - again this will lead to an underestimate of the wastewater PWWF.
Their reasoning is that this keeps the math straightforward….
Once again the data is available - the application cites the applicable table from the CoP with the
45L /day allowance and identifies the staff numbers. They also regularly apply the formula for
this calculation so again why would they miss this last trivial step and lead to an underestimate
of wastewater flow?
Desired response – take the last (trivial) step and calculate the school staff flow as the code
outlines.
3. No calculations or plan for upgrade of a known troublesome section of pipe where overflows
occur and will be made worse - the previous application specifically focussed on a known local
troublesome area, a section of pipe with a gradient less than 0.4%. This application has no
calculations for this section. Given the pipe’s proximity to our house and link to dry weather
overflows, I worked closely with Watercare and have been kept informed of CCTV inspections,
repair options, gradient surveys and flush outs conducted from the manhole in our garden. It is
concerning no particular focus has been applied here and any proposed downstream upgrades
do nothing to address the upstream bottlenecks.
Desired response – Further review of the trouble areas in the network – given that dry weather
overflows already occur it should presumably be acknowledged that any post-development
overflows will be made worse (higher volume of sewage). Also any planned or unforeseen
upgrades or work (repair/upgrade in back gardens) should be considered as an effect of the
application and considered during consent decisions. The combined effect of xx years of
construction followed by unforeseen network upgrades/repairs would be a more than minor
effect for those trying to live here…
4. Calculation correction knock-on effects Once again, from the Code of Practice (section 5.3.5.3), I
note that there are requirements for self-cleaning velocity and stipulations on Peak Dry Weather
Flow (PDWF) depth of 50% which may also be breached when the above is recalculated, along
with the calculated Peak Wet Weather Flows (PWWF) now at risk.
Desired response – please consider such parts of the code in calculations.
5. Mathematical theory post development (apparently OK) vs reality (NOT OK) – overflows will
be made worse. The theoretical modelling by the applicant show some areas very close to
capacity prior to making the corrections highlighted above, which may cross this threshold.
However, regardless of any modelling, there are clearly ongoing infrastructure issues at play
here. The reality (with pipe cracks, root intrusion, challenging repair access in steep creek back
gardens) is that dry and wet weather overflows occur in our garden and other areas
downstream. Currently there are 7 properties above my garden towards the development site.
This will increase by the 54 apartments and a café, needless to say when a future overflow
occurs the quantity of raw sewage will be greatly magnified – yuk!
Desired response – As an engineer myself, when simulating/modelling scenarios I regularly
revert to real world testing to increase model accuracy. There must be better practical ways to
‘test’ the capacity of the network rather than rely on theoretical models and the odd inspection?
Alternatively publish a costed /considered/propose a plan B – which locations will need
upgrades, what will their severity be and notify those involved – we just want to be aware of
what might happen in our neighbourhood.
6. Network upgrade (or not!) concerns – Unfortunately it’s hard to envision a good outcome for
the wastewater network with a high density development and many questions are raised in this
area where transparency/information/learning would be greatly appreciated to ease concerns:
Is it in the developers interest to fully and accurately estimate the risk – will they be fully liable
(with insurance) for any unforeseen upgrades or is the onus on Watercare to sign off and accept
responsibility? What level of construction is acceptable to people trying to live their lives in the
area with young children – xx years then xx month’s infrastructure construction to follow?
Useful References
Figure 1 From “29BUN60356953aee12wwcalcs_Part1.pdf”
Figure 2 - Staff vs student allowances
Figure 3 - Local area of concern, pipe gradient <0.4%
From Watercare’s Code of Practice, chapter 5:
“Below are the key technical criteria against which the impact of development on existing networks is assessed:
Dry weather overflows are not permitted.
Existing uncontrolled (e.g. from a manhole lid) wet-weather overflows shall not be made worse.”
From: Jack ChanTo: planhelpsouth; Russell ButchersSubject: Re: 30 Sandspit Road Shelly Park- under appealDate: Tuesday, 3 November 2020 10:16:48 AM
Thx Sharyn.
To Russell,
re 30 and 40 Sandspit apartment block application. Let me make it concise where I amcoming from.
I am on Cockle Bay Primary School board, and am concerned about 1. Trafficmanagement (it's directly opposite our school, imagine dropoff/pick up times withconstruction) and 2. Noise Control if the project is to go ahead.While it should bring more children to our school, however it needs to be managed well (ifit goes ahead)
Hence I am writing to express interests/concerns in the apparel process.
Let me start with some simple questions:Q1. I believe there was some appeal submission process which ended on 27th Oct 2020, Ibelieve I have missed it, are there any ways to submit concerns?Q2. How do we (as a school), or I get informed on future decisions/progress on thismatter?
if it's easier to have a conversation. Cell below.
br,Jack021839055Board Chair, Cockle Bay school
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 8:30 AM planhelpsouth <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Jack
Starting point- Principal Project Lead: Russell [email protected] 021301968
Ngā mihi
Sharyn Kashyap
Planning Information Officer | Front of House - Customer Advice
Resource Consents – South
Auckland Council
Phone: 09 3010101
Email: [email protected]
Visit our website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Unite against COVID-19
CAUTION: This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may beLEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message orattachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately anderase all copies of the message and attachments. We do not accept responsibility for any viruses or similar carriedwith our email, or any effects our email may have on the recipient computer system or network. Any viewsexpressed in this email may be those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Council.
-- Br, Jack Chan+64-21839055