ara tūhono - pūhoi to wellsford road of national
TRANSCRIPT
BOARD OF INQUIRYAra Tūhono – Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of
National Significance:
Pūhoi to Warkworth Section
Final Report and Decisionof the Board of Inquiry into the
Ara Tūhono - Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance: Pūhoi to Warkworth Section
Volume 1 of 4: Final Report and Decision
Produced under Section 149R of the Resource Management Act 1991
September 2014Prepared by the Board of Inquiry into the Ara Tūhono - Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance: Pūhoi to Warkworth Section
BEFORE THE BOARD OF INQUIRY CONCERNING REQUESTS FOR NOTICES OF REQUIREMENT AND APPLICATIONS FOR RESOURCE CONSENTS TO ALLOW THE ARA TŪHONO — PŪHOI TO WELLSFORD ROAD OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE: PŪHOI TO WARKWORTH SECTION PROPOSAL
IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the deliberations of a Board of Inquiry appointed under Section 149J of the Act to consider request for notices of requirement and applications for resource consents by New Zealand Transport Agency, in respect of the Ara Tūhono — Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance: Pūhoi to Warkworth Section Proposal.
FINAL DECISION AND REPORT OF BOARD OF INQUIRY UNDER SECTION 149R OF THE ACT
Board: Hon John Priestley CNZM, QC (Chairperson)
Michael Parsonson (Board Member)
Alan Withy (Board Member)
Bronwyn Hunt (Board Member)
David Chandler (Board Member)
Legal representation: Ms Paula Brosnahan and Mr Luke Hinchey appearing for the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)
Ms Teall Crossen and Ms Shona Bradley appearing for the Director-General of Conservation (DGC)
Mr Christian Brown appearing for Auckland Council
Mr Gerald Lanning appearing for Auckland Transport
Mr Jeremy Brabant appearing for J & C Christophersen
Mr Ross Dillon appearing for Asia Pacific International Group New Zealand Limited
Mr Daniel Sadlier appearing for the National Trading Company of New Zealand
Mr Russell Bartlett QC appearing for Pūhoi Motorway Access Retention Society Incorporation (PuMARSI)
Ms Rebecca Macky appearing for Fernbrook Farms
Mr Robert Enright appearing for Campaign for Better Transport
Mr Richard Gardner appearing for Federated Farmers of New Zealand
Ms Jen Vella appearing for Board of Inquiry
Appearances: See Appendix 6 for appearances
Hearing at: Auckland commencing on 7 April 2014 and ending on 5 June 2014
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
Glossary of Terms ...................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 1
1.1 Outline of the Project .............................................................................. 1
1.2 Reasons for the Project .......................................................................... 2
1.3 Project History ........................................................................................ 3
1.4 Claimed benefits of the Project............................................................... 4
2. Statutory Applications and Approvals Needed .................................. 6
3. The Board’s Establishment, Function and Jurisdiction .................. 10
3.1 RMA Part 6AA ...................................................................................... 10
3.2 Ministers’ Direction and Reasons ......................................................... 10
3.3 Function and Jurisdiction...................................................................... 12
4. Procedure ........................................................................................... 14
4.1 Submissions Summary ........................................................................ 14
4.2 Evidence .............................................................................................. 15
4.3 Pre-hearing Conference ....................................................................... 15
4.4 Format of the Hearing .......................................................................... 16
4.5 Party Representations .......................................................................... 16
4.6 Emphasis on Flexibility ......................................................................... 17
4.7 Witness Conferencing .......................................................................... 17
4.8 Facilitated Meetings ............................................................................. 17
4.9 Parties Withdrawing Submissions and Right to be Heard ..................... 18
4.10 Site Visits ............................................................................................. 18
4.11 Counsel to assist the Board ................................................................. 19
4.12 The refining process ............................................................................. 19
5. Reports to the Board ......................................................................... 20
5.1 Section 149G(3) ................................................................................... 20
5.2 Section 42A reports .............................................................................. 23
6. Statutory Context ............................................................................... 25
6.1 Provisions relevant to NoRs and designations ..................................... 25
6.2 Provisions relevant to resource consent applications ........................... 29
6.3 Other relevant matters ......................................................................... 33
ii
6.4 Conditions ............................................................................................ 33
6.5 Part 2 ................................................................................................... 34
7. Relevant Planning Instruments ......................................................... 37
7.1 National planning instruments .............................................................. 37
7.2 Regional planning instruments ............................................................. 41
7.3 District planning instruments ................................................................ 42
8. Key Legal Issues ................................................................................ 44
8.1 Applicant’s request for flexibility ........................................................... 44
8.2 Enforceability (in the absence of a Condition 1) and Delegation ........... 45
8.3 Moving the designation ........................................................................ 46
8.4 Stance and engagement of Director-General of Conservation ............. 48
8.5 Economics ........................................................................................... 49
8.6 Alternatives .......................................................................................... 49
8.7 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan .......................................................... 49
8.8 Whether bundling of consents is appropriate........................................ 52
8.9 Hill Street Intersection .......................................................................... 53
9. Issues which are agreed or not contested ....................................... 55
9.1 Cultural ................................................................................................ 55
9.2 Heritage ............................................................................................... 56
9.3 Contamination ...................................................................................... 57
9.4 Air Quality ............................................................................................ 58
9.5 Terrestrial Ecology (excluding Site 15A) ............................................... 61
10. Critical and Contentious issues ........................................................ 64
10.1 No condition 1 and adaptive management ........................................... 64
10.2 Okahu Viaducts .................................................................................... 68
10.3 Site 15A and Eco-viaduct ..................................................................... 76
10.4 Construction Access ............................................................................ 84
10.5 Alternative Routes and Economics ....................................................... 85
10.6 Sedimentation ...................................................................................... 89
10.7 Culverts, Bridges and Streams ........................................................... 129
10.8 Noise and Vibration ............................................................................ 135
10.9 Construction Traffic ............................................................................ 146
10.10 Hill Street Intersection ........................................................................ 155
10.11 Operational Water (including Flooding) .............................................. 166
iii
10.12 Wyllie Road Overpass and Valerie Close Residents .......................... 175
10.13 Moirs Hill Road ................................................................................... 177
10.14 Moirs Hill Walkway ............................................................................. 179
10.15 Hydrogeology ..................................................................................... 180
10.16 Cycleway and service centres ............................................................ 184
10.17 Other on/off ramps ............................................................................. 187
10.18 Pre-Cast Yard .................................................................................... 190
10.19 Landscape and visual ........................................................................ 192
11. Appraisal .......................................................................................... 199
11.1 Statutory Considerations .................................................................... 199
11.2 Consideration of Ministers’ reasons for making direction .................... 203
11.3 Overall Judgment under Part 2 .......................................................... 207
12. Affected Residents and Landowners .............................................. 210
13. Decision ............................................................................................ 213
Appendix 1: Proposed Designation and indicative alignment ............................. 214
Appendix 2: Summary of Application Documentation ......................................... 216
Appendix 3: List of Activities Sought .................................................................... 218
Appendix 4: List of Submissions ........................................................................... 222
Appendix 5: Summary of Issues Raised in Submissions .................................... 228
Appendix 6: List of Representations and Evidence Provided ............................. 236
Appendix 7: List of documents produced during the hearing or otherwise presented to the Board as relevant to the proposal ............................................. 242
Appendix 8: List of Submitters who urged the Board to decline the applications on basis that there were feasible or more economic alternatives .............................................................................................................. 246
Appendix 9: List of submitters who filed submissions and evidence on Hill Street ................................................................................................................. 248
Appendix 10: Routes used to assess travel times through the Hill Street intersection (Figure 1 of Mr Andrew Bell’s Evidence-in-Chief) ............................ 252
Appendix 11: Photograph produced by Mr Roger Williams .............................. 254
Appendix 12: List of Submitters who mentioned on/off ramps ........................... 256
Appendix 13: Land Requirement Plans ................................................................. 258
i
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Abbreviation Description
AC Auckland Council
ACDP:R Auckland Council District Plan — Operative Rodney Section 2011
AC/Auckland Council Report
Section 149G(3) RMA ‘key issues’ report prepared by Auckland Council
ACRP:ALW Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water
ACRP:C Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal
ACRP:SC Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control
ACRPS Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement
Act Resource Management Act 1991
ADP Accidental Discovery Protocol
AEE Assessment of Effects on the Environment (prepared by the Further North Alliance and dated August 2013)
AEP Annual Exceedance Probability
ALPURT Orewa To Pūhoi Motorway
AP Auckland Plan
Applicant New Zealand Transport Agency
ARI Average Recurrance Interval
ASCV Area of Significant Conservation Value
Asia Pacific Asia Pacific International Group (NZ) Limited
BNZ Basin New Zealand
Board Board of Inquiry
BPO Best Practicable Option
CDMP Constuction Dust Management Plan
CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan
CESCP Construction Erosion and Sediment Contol Plan
CMA Coastal Marine Area
CNVMP Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan
CoC Certificate of Compliance
CPA Coastal Protection Area
CPA1 Coastal Protection Area 1
CTMP Construction Traffic Management Plan
CWAR Construction Water Assessment Report
dbh Diameter at breast height
DEBs Decanting Earth Bunds
DGC Director-General of Conservation
ii
DoC Department of Conservation
DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon
DSI Destailed Site Investigation
EiC Evidence in Chief
ENE East-north-east
EPA Environmental Protection Authority
ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan
FEAR Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report
ff And following
GHD GHD Limited. A consultancy forming part of the Further North Alliance.
GLEAMS Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems
GPS Government Policy Statement
GPS LTF Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding
HAIL Site Hazardous Activities and Industries List Site
HGMPA Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000
HSAPLU Highly Sensitive Air Pollution Land Uses
Inlet Okahu Inlet
IPENZ Institution of Professional Engineers of New Zealand
Inter alia Among other things
LTMA Land Transport Management Act
MCI Macroinvertibrate Community Values
MEAR Marine Ecology Assessment Report
MEQMMAMP Marine Ecology Quality Monitoring Methodology and Adaptive Management plan
MHWS Mean High Water Spring
Minister The Minister for the Environment
Ministers The Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation
MMP Marine Monitoring Plan
MfE Ministry for the Environment
NAL North Auckland Line (Railway)
NES AQ National Environmental Standards for Air Quality
NES Soil National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health
NES DW National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water
NES ET National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission Activities
NGTR Northern Gateway Toll Road
iii
NoR Notice of Requirement
NPS National Policy Statement
NPSFM National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011
NSMA Natural Stream Management Areas
NSSIB Proposed National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity
NZCPS New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010
NZHPT New Zealand Historic Places Trust
NZTA New Zealand Transport Agency
OGPA Open Graded Porous Asphalt
ONAR Operational Noise Assessment Report
ONF Outstanding Natural Feature
ONL Outstanding Natural Landscape
OPW Outline Plan of Works
OWAR Operational Water Assessment Report
PAUP Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
PC8 Proposed Change 8 to the ACRPS
PPF Protected Premises and Facilities
Project Ara Tūhono — Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance: Pūhoi to Warkworth Section New Zealand Transport Agency’s project to designate land and obtain resource consents for the construction, operation and maintenance of a four-lane motorway, between the Northern Gateway Toll Road at Johnstone’s Hill Tunnels and State Highway 1 (SH1) near Kaipara Flats Road to the north of Warkworth.
PTA Phytophthora taxon Agathis (kauri dieback disease)
RMA Resource Management Act 1991
RoNS Road of National Significance
RPS Regional Policy Statement
s and ss Section and Sections
SEA Significant Ecological Area
SEV Stream Ecological Valuation
SH State Highway
SH1 State Highway 1
SH16 State Highway 16
SKM Sinclair Knight Merz. A consultancy forming part of the Further North Alliance.
SNA Significant Natural Area
SSTMP Site-Specific Traffic Management Plan
TEAR Terrestrial Ecology Assessment Report
The Further North A planning alliance established to achieve the statutory approvals for
iv
Alliance the Proposal. The alliance comprises NZTA, SKM, GHD and Chapman Tripp.
TGP Transmission Gully Project
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TP 90 Auckland Council Technical Publication 90 - Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region 1999 (updated 2007)
TR Technical Report
TSS Total Suspended Soilds
URS URS Corporation. A consultancy providing planning support to the Board of Inquiry.
ULDF Urban and Lanscape Design Framework
ULDSP Urban and Landscape Design Sector Plan
USLE Universal Soil Loss Equation
UV Ultra violet
VPH Vehicles per Hour
WAFR Water Assessment Factual Report
Watercare Watercare Services Limited
1
1. INTRODUCTION
[1] This Report addresses applications by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA, the Applicant) for Notices of Requirement (NoRs) and resource consents for the Pūhoi to Warkworth Section (the Project) of the Ara Tūhono — Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance (RoNS). The Report has been prepared by the Board of Inquiry (the Board) in accordance with s 149R of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).
[2] In accordance with s 149R(1)(a) – (c) and s 149R(3)(a) – (d) of the RMA, this Report sets out the Board’s final decision and reasons for that final decision, including a statement of the principal issues that were in contention and the main findings on these issues.
[3] The Project is to establish a new road in the Pūhoi to Warkworth Area. The details of the Project and why NZTA wishes to undertake it follow below.
1.1 OUTLINE OF THE PROJECT
[4] NZTA has lodged NoRs and resource consent applications for the construction, operation and maintenance of a four-lane motorway, between the Northern Gateway Toll Road at Johnstone’s Hill Tunnels and State Highway 1 (SH1) near Kaipara Flats Road to the north of Warkworth. This proposed new section of motorway will provide an alternative to the existing SH1 route north. A map showing the Project is included as Appendix 1 of this Report.
[5] The Project is based on an indicative alignment and design, to be refined through detailed design after the designation is confirmed and consents are granted. It is described in the application documents and Assessment of Effects on the Environment (AEE) prepared by the Further North Alliance, dated August 2013. The Further North Alliance is a planning alliance established to achieve the statutory approvals for the Project. The alliance comprises NZTA, Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM), GHD Limited (GHD) and Chapman Tripp.
[6] The main components of the Project, as shown on the indicative alignment, can be summarised as follows:
(a) The construction, operation and maintenance of an 18.5km section of four-lane, dual carriageway motorway;
(b) A southern tie-in, connecting the new motorway with SH1 immediately north of the Johnstone’s Hill Tunnels (including a reconfigured connection with the Hibiscus Coast Highway);
(c) A northern tie-in, connecting the new motorway with SH1 by way of a roundabout south of Kaipara Flats Road on the northern side of Warkworth town;
2
(d) An interchange at Pūhoi, providing motorway access to and from the south only;
(e) Construction of seven major viaducts, including a viaduct across the Okahu Estuary (in the Coastal Marine Area) and an ‘eco-viaduct’ over a stand of mature kauri to the west of Perry Road;
(f) Construction of five bridges where the motorway crosses local roads and a floodway;
(g) Upgrade of Moirs Hill Road, the Woodcocks Road Carran Road intersection, and the intersection of Kaipara Flats Road and SH1;
(h) The construction of a new access road extending southwards from Wyllie Road through private land and some land now owned by NZTA;
(i) Two major stream diversions, and the culverting of a number of streams; and
(j) Extensive earthworks — comprising approximately 8 million cubic metres of cut and approximately 6.2 million m3 of fill, with approximately 1.8 million m3 of surplus cut to be placed at spoil disposal sites within the designation.
[7] The term of construction proposed is five years. There is no specific date to start construction, although 2015 has been mentioned as a possibility1.
1.2 REASONS FOR THE PROJECT
[8] The Project objectives as stated in the AEE are:
(a) To increase long-term corridor capacity, improve route quality and safety (e.g. gradient, alignment, overtaking), improve freight movement and provide resilience in the wider State highway network through the addition of a four-lane route;
(b) To increase travel time consistency and decrease travel times to and from the north end of the Johnstone’s Hill Tunnels and the north end of Warkworth; and
(c) To alleviate congestion at Warkworth by providing a Warkworth bypass for through traffic; and
(d) To ensure the Warkworth to Wellsford Section of the Pūhoi to Wellsford Project is not compromised.
1 Transcript, Ridley, p 1878, para 20.
3
1.3 PROJECT HISTORY
[9] In 2006, NZTA commissioned a strategic assessment of SH1 and State Hightway 16 (SH16) between Auckland and Wellsford2. The purpose of the study was to identify the future function and form of SH1 and SH16, and to provide guidance on what level of transport investment would be required on each of those State highway corridors.
[10] The study concluded that the SH1 corridor was the preferred route for future development to meet the long-term inter-regional transport needs of Auckland and Northland. Furthermore, SH1 should be developed to four lanes to accommodate anticipated future demand.
[11] As part of the study, a number of potential corridors were considered for a future upgrade of SH1 to four lanes between the northern terminus of the Northern Gateway Toll Road (NGTR) and Warkworth. Two broad corridors were considered suitable for the purpose identified in the study given the land use constraints in the area. These two corridors included a western route heading north-west of SH1 from Pūhoi, before broadly following the North Auckland Line railway north to Wellsford, and a route broadly following the existing State highway corridor.
[12] In March 2009 the Government announced the seven Roads of National Significance (RoNS), which included the Pūhoi to Wellsford RoNS.
[13] In 2010 NZTA commissioned a strategic assessment3 of land transport needs between Auckland and Whangarei in support of the decision to declare SH1 between Pūhoi and Wellsford a RoNS. The Auckland to Whangarei Strategic Assessment: Strategic Context Report concluded that by 2021, SH1 between Pūhoi and Wellsford would experience significant congestion during the peak traffic periods as a result of inadequate capacity in the current network.
[14] Following the Auckland to Whangarei Strategic Assessment, NZTA in 2010 developed a Network Plan for SH1 between Auckland and Whangarei for the long-term future (2050). The key purpose of the Network Plan4 is to support on-going integrated planning, optimisation of benefits and decision making for the local network and activities and infrastructure associated with the Pūhoi to Wellsford RoNS and wider Auckland and Northland Regional networks.
[15] During 2010 – 2012, the Scheme Assessment for the full length of the Ara Tūhono Pūhoi to Wellsford RoNS was undertaken. From this initial work it became clear that the Warkworth to Wellsford section would be more challenging from a cost and consenting perspective than originally
2 NZTA 2008, SH1/SH16 Auckland to Wellsford Strategy Study, prepared by SKM. 3 NZTA 2010, Auckland to Whangarei Strategic Assessment, prepared by SKM. 4 NZTA 2010, Draft Network Plan for SH1 between Auckland and Whangarei for the long-term future (2050).
4
anticipated. As a result, NZTA decided to split the Ara Tūhono Pūhoi to Wellsford RoNS into two sections, and subsequent reporting of the Scheme Assessment focused on the Pūhoi to Warkworth section.
[16] The Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding 2012/13 – 2021/225 (GPSLTE) outlines the government’s funding and strategic policies for the land transport network. Through the National Land Transport Programme and National Land Transport Fund, it allocated approximately $40 million for property acquisition and investigation work for the Ara Tūhono Pūhoi to Wellsford RoNS.
[17] The Pūhoi to Warkworth Scheme Assessment focused on determining concept road alignment options in order to identify the preferred alignment. The process involved development of a range of corridor options, including assessment of an on-line upgrade of the current SH1 corridor. The development and assessment of the options led to the selection of the preferred option.
1.4 CLAIMED BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT
[18] Threading through the entirety of NZTA’s evidence and submissions were a number of claimed benefits. Such benefits, of course, must be assessed and weighed by the Board when it comes to its decisions on NZTA’s application. The AEE6 sets out six claimed benefits. These are:
(a) Improved route security and resilience of the State highway network north of Auckland;
(b) Improved safety performance in comparison with the existing SH1 between Pūhoi and Warkworth with the indicative alignment being designed to RoNS standards;
(c) Reduced travel times and travel time for reliability along the State Highway north of Auckland (thus increasing accessibility along many parts of the region’s road network);
(d) Potential for economic development flowing from travel time savings and improvements and inter-regional accessibility between Auckland and Northland;
(e) Increasing economic activity in Northland and Auckland by construction (expenditure, employment etc) during the projected 5 year construction phase; and
(f) Improved local, regional, national and strategic functions by a provision of “… a safe, integrated, efficient and responsive route
5 Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding 2012/13 – 2021/22 (2011). 6 AEE, Vol 2, Section 2.5.
5
for the movement of goods and people.” This improved function will reduce vehicle operating costs for residents and businesses in the region. Allied to that will be increased potential for residential and commercial development in the relevant regions.
[19] Falling under these various claimed benefits will be:
A motorway with greater resilience to natural hazards than the current SH1;
An alternative route between Pūhoi and Warkworth which will in its turn improve traffic flows when there is an incident or accident south of Warkworth;
Better vertical and horizontal alignment (the new motorway to be constructed in accordance with RoNS standards) which will result in improved safety performance and a decrease in injury crashes;
Reduction of congestion between Pūhoi and Warkworth and in particular during peak periods and summer, weekend and holiday periods; and
Positive economic effects flowing from increased activity and related commercial and residential growth in Warkworth.
6
2. STATUTORY APPLICATIONS AND APPROVALS NEEDED
[20] In accordance with the provision of s 145(3) of the RMA, NZTA has lodged two NoRs with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA):
An alteration to an existing designation (Designation No. 401, Auckland Council District Plan: Rodney Section) at the southern end of the alignment at the Johnstone’s Hill Tunnels (EPA ref 33/002); and
A new requirement to designate the remainder of the route (EPA ref 33/001).
[21] NZTA has lodged applications for 15 resource consents under s 145(1)(a) of the RMA. The resource consents cover activities under s 9 (earthworks), s 12 (coastal activities), s 13 (works in watercourses), s 14 (water) and s 15 (discharges to air, land and/or water). The activities to which they relate can be summarised as follows (the relevant EPA consent reference number is provided in brackets):
(a) Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control (ACRP:SC)
Land Use Consent — Project-wide consent for land disturbing activities (earthworks) (33/003);
(b) Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (ACRP:ALW)
Discharge Permit — discharge of stormwater to water within the Pūhoi catchment (33/004);
Land Use Consent and Water Permit — streamworks — use, placement and erection of structures within the Pūhoi River and its tributaries, and any associated diversion of water (33/005);
Water Permit — diversion of groundwater (33/006);
Discharge Permit — discharge of stormwater to water within the Mahurangi catchment (33/007);
Land Use Consent and Water Permit — streamworks — use, placement and erection of structures within the Mahurangi River and its tributaries, and any associated diversion of water (33/008);
7
Water Permit and Discharge Permit — stormwater diversion and discharge — culvert works in the vicinity of Hungry Creek (33/0013);
Water Permit and Discharge Permit — stormwater diversion and discharge — increase in impervious surface associated with widening of Moirs Hill Road (33/014);
Water Permit and Discharge Permit — stormwater diversion and discharge — discharge from construction access through property at 1509 State Highway 1 (33/015); and
Discharge Permit — discharge of contaminants to land and/or water from a precast concrete yard (industrial or trade premises) (33/016);
Discharge Permit — discharge of contaminants to air from a mobile rock crusher (33/017).
(c) Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal (ACRP:C)
Coastal Permit — structures within the Coastal Marine Area () (33/009);
Coastal Permit — undertaking an activity, being the operation of a State highway (33/010);
Coastal Permit — occupation of part of the CMA (33/011); and
Coastal Permit — disturbance, including removal of mangroves and use of motor vehicles in Coastal Protection Area 1 (CPA1) (33/012).
[22] The various resource consent applications for land-based activites seek approval for controlled, restricted discretionary, and discretionary activities. The resource consent applications for activities within the CMA are for discretionary and non-complying activities.
[23] NZTA advised the Board that a number of supplementary statutory approvals will be sought for the Project under other statutes outside of this RMA approval process. These include:
Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 — authority from the Heritage New Zealand will be required to destroy or modify any registered archaeological sites, whether or not those sites are recorded or otherwise identified;
8
Wildlife Act 1953 — authority from the Department of Conservation will be required to relocate any protected fauna;
Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983 – authority relating to fish passage may be required depending on whether the detailed design leads to any fish passage being impeded by the Project; and
Land Transport Management Act (LTMA) tolling process — matters of whether the Project road will be tolled are dealt with under the LTMA.
[24] The Board accepts that NZTA will seek these other statutory approvals after the designations and resource consents which are the subject of this Report have been determined and prior to commencing construction of the Project.
[25] The following information was provided with the NoRs and the applications for resource consents:
(a) AEE Report;
(b) Technical reports and supporting documents;
(c) Draft conditions; and
(d) A plan set.
[26] A summary of the applications documentation appears in Appendix 2 to this Report.
[27] Since June 2010, NZTA undertook extensive consultation with interested parties along the designation route7.There were meetings and interviews with businesses, stakeholders and property owners. Information was displayed at Wellsford and Warkworth locations8. Affected landowners were informed and consulted on regarding the indicative alignment from November 20109. Wider public consultation was undertaken through public information days where members of the Project design team were in attendance10.
[28] Over the course of consultation NZTA met with the public, community groups, road user organisations, government and non-government
7 Statement of Evidence, Kelly, para 13 8 Ibid, para 14 9 Ibid, para 16 10 Ibid, para 18
9
organisations, local businesses, directly affected landowners and landowners close to the proposed designation11.
[29] NZTA lodged the applications with the EPA on 30 August 2013. The applications were notified on 16 November 2013, with information available for viewing at the Wellsford War Memorial and Pūhoi Town Libraries, Auckland Council service centres, EPA Auckland and Wellington offices and also on NZTA’s website.
11 Ibid, para 22
10
3. THE BOARD’S ESTABLISHMENT, FUNCTION AND JURISDICTION
3.1 RMA PART 6AA
Background and Lodgement
[30] The applications comprised NoRs for two designations under the Auckland Council District Plan: Rodney Section (ACDP:R); and 15 resource consents under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (ACRP:ALW); the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal (ACRP:C) and the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control (ACRP:SC).
[31] Following lodgement of the application on 30 August 2013, the EPA co-ordinated two concurrent processes under ss 88 and 146 of the RMA respectively:
(a) Auckland Council, being the local authority, reviewed the AEE Report for completeness against the requirements of their respective plans. Identified information gaps were provided to the EPA.
(b) The EPA prepared its recommendation to the Minister for the Environment and Minister of Conservation on national significance and the referral options.
EPA Recommendation
[32] When such applications are lodged with the EPA, s 146 of the RMA requires the EPA to seek a direction from the Minister for the Environment (the Minister) under s 147. As this proposal also relates, in part, to the Coastal Marine Area, s 148(2) of the RMA applies and the direction needs to be made jointly with the Minister of Conservation, hereafter known as the Ministers. On 11 September 2013, the EPA recommended to the Ministers that the matters constitute a proposal of national significance and should be referred to a board of inquiry for a decision.
3.2 MINISTERS’ DIRECTION AND REASONS
[33] On 8 October 2013, the Ministers confirmed that the applications seek to allow works which form part of a proposal of national significance, and directed that these matters be referred to a board of inquiry for determination under ss 104 to 112 and 171 of the RMA. In accordance with s 149C, on 16 November 2013, the applications were publicly notified, calling for submissions. Submissions closed on 13 December 2013.
[34] The Ministers announced the members of the Board of Inquiry (the Board) on 20 December 2013.
11
[35] Section 142(3) of the RMA sets out a number of matters the Minister may have regard to in determining whether or not a matter is, or is part of, a proposal of national significance. The Ministers’ reasons for directing the matters to the Board, in accordance with s 142(3) were:
“The proposal will involve significant use of natural and physical resources, particularly as it will require approximately 189 hectares of bulk earthworks, including approximately 8.0 million cubic metres of cut material, 6.2 million cubic metres of fill material and 1.8 million cubic metres of surplus material. Approximately 2km of structures (including seven major viaducts and five bridges) are required as part of the proposal, in addition to two interchanges and 40 major culverts.
The designation area is proposed to be 673 hectares and multiple areas of land will need to be acquired by the NZTA for the proposal from 46 landowners, including 18 Crown owned parcels.
The proposal is likely to result in significant and irreversible changes to the environment. It will extend through steep terrain requiring cut slopes ranging in height up to 60 metres with many being above 10 metres high and embankments up to 50 metres above ground level. The character of the predominately rural environment will change significantly as a result of the proposal particularly due to the earthworks and large structures required, until such time as the motorway becomes integrated into the rural environment when proposed mitigation planting becomes established and views are screened.
Construction activities, particularly earthworks and vegetation clearance, are also likely to contribute to the release of large volumes of sediment across the two affected catchments if not adequately managed.
The proposal will result in the exclusive use of this designated land for State highway purposes. This is a significant change to current land uses which includes rural activities, plantation forestry, private residences, rural residential subdivisions and businesses.
The proposal has aroused widespread public interest regarding its actual or likely effect on the environment including effects on visual amenity, landscape and noise, the proposal’s potential economic impact on Warkworth, safety concerns relating to the existing highway, access to Woodcocks Road and Pūhoi and the financial costs of the proposal. Concerns have also been raised relating to the need for the road and consideration of alternatives. This includes media coverage of the proposal with various articles published in the local, regional and national newspapers and coverage on nationwide radio stations.
The proposal is likely to assist the Crown in fulfilling its public safety obligations by providing a safe, reliable, secure and resilient road as an alternative route between Pūhoi and north of Warkworth. The proposal is likely to reduce the effects of incidents on travel through the Pūhoi to Warkworth corridor, is designed to the latest standards and will result in more efficient movement of people and freight.
The proposal is likely to affect an area of national significance as the proposal is located within the Pūhoi and Mahurangi catchments, both of which are catchments of the Hauraki Gulf.
12
The Okahu viaduct will be within the Pūhoi Estuary and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. Adverse effects on the coastal environment may occur as a result of discharge of sediment during the construction phase, particularly during high rainfall events and the construction of bridge piers within the coastal marine area. The discharge of stormwater from the motorway surfaces once it is operational may also affect the marine environment.
The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (HGMPA) 2000 recognises the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf and requires the HGMPA to be treated as a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under the RMA.
The proposal relates to a network utility operation (road) that, although physically contained within the boundaries of the Auckland Council, as part of the wider State Highway network and a section of the Ara Tūhono: Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance, is likely to extend to more than one region or district.”
3.3 FUNCTION AND JURISDICTION
[36] The RMA provides the framework for the Board’s deliberations. Of particular relevance are provisions detailing the jurisdiction of the Board and the process regarding NoRs and resource consent applications.
[37] The Board must determine the applications in accordance with s 149P of the RMA which specifies the matters that the Board is required to consider in making its decision. Section 149P relevantly provides:
(1) A board of inquiry considering a matter must—
(a) have regard to the Minister's reasons for making a direction in relation to the matter; and
(b) consider any information provided to it by the EPA under section 149G; and
(c) act in accordance with subsection (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), or (9) as the case may be.
(2) A board of inquiry considering a matter that is an application for a resource consent must apply sections 104 to 112 and 138A as if it were a consent authority.
… (4) A board of inquiry considering a matter that is a notice of
requirement for a designation or to alter a designation—
(a) must have regard to the matters set out in section 171(1) and comply with section 171(1A) as if it were a territorial authority; and
(b) may—
(i) cancel the requirement; or
(ii) confirm the requirement; or
(iii) confirm the requirement, but modify it or impose conditions on it as the board thinks fit; and
13
(c) may waive the requirement for an outline plan to be submitted under section 176A.
[38] An NoR for an alteration to a designation falls under section 181 of the RMA, which makes the provisions of s 171 applicable to the alteration.
[39] An NoR for a designation may only be issued by a requiring authority. Section 166 defines a requiring authority as:
(a) A Minister of the Crown; or
(b) A local authority; or
(c) A network utility operator approved as a requiring authority under section 167.
[40] NZTA was approved under s 167(3) of the RMA as a requiring authority by Resource Management (Approval of Transit New Zealand as Requiring Authority) Notice 1994, which was notified in the Gazette on 3 March 1994.
[41] Under s 149P of the RMA, the Board is required to:
(c) In respect of a NoR for a designation or an alteration to a designation, have regard to the matters set out in s 171(1) of the RMA and comply with s 171(1A) as if it were the territorial authority; and
(d) In respect of resource consent applications, apply the provisions of s 104 to ss 112 and 138A of the RMA as if it were a consent authority.
[42] The relevant statutory context for the Board’s consideration of these matters is addressed in the chapters which follow.
[43] Hereafter in this Report the RMA will be referred to as “the Act”.
14
4. PROCEDURE
4.1 SUBMISSIONS SUMMARY
[44] A total of 187 submissions were received on the various applications.
[45] This included one late submission which was received after the close of the statutory submission period and a further submission received during the Hearing period. NZTA did not oppose these late submissions being accepted and the Board accepted them.
[46] Of the 187 submissions received:
(a) 116 submitters (62%) supported the Project either in full or in part;
(b) 46 submitters (25%) opposed the Project either in full or in part;
(c) 12 submitters (6%) were neutral; and
(d) 13 submitters (7%) had a range of views.
[47] The majority of submitters were from the town of Warkworth (42%), with 47% of the submitters from the greater Auckland area. Submissions were also received from other regions, including Northland, Taranaki, Wellington and Dunedin.
[48] 76 (41%) of submitters wished to be heard on their submissions.
[49] Of those who wished to be heard, 24 (34%) were from Warkworth and 40 (57%) were from the greater Auckland area.
[50] Of the 187 submissions received, two submitters (Asia Pacific International Group, Submission 103974, and John Oakes, Submission 105192) indicated that they are trade competitors. As addressed below, neither of these submitters are trade competitors.
[51] A wide range of concerns were raised in the submissions. The majority related to the positive benefits brought to the Auckland and Northland regions by the Project, or to adverse effects. There was also some focus on appropriate conditions.
[52] Of the 187 submissions received:
Those that were in support mostly cited connectivity between Warkworth and Auckland area and assisting growth and economic development of Northland;
Those that were in opposition mostly cited issues with noise, other alternatives, effects on air quality (dust) and health and visual effects. The claimed economic benefits were questioned; and
15
Those that had neutral views cited visual, noise, health effects and proximity in their submissions.
[53] A summary of the issues raised can be found in Appendix 5.
4.2 EVIDENCE
[54] NZTA’s evidence in chief was received by the EPA on 24 January 2014. Expert evidence on behalf of the submitters was received on 28 February 2014. NZTA provided rebuttal evidence to the EPA on 19 March 2014.
[55] Appendix 6 to this Report includes a list of all representations and evidence received (regardless of whether the author appeared at the Hearing or not) and the topics covered by them.
[56] The Campaign for Better Transport filed a submission on 14 March 2014, after the deadline closed on 28 February 2014. NZTA indicated in a facilitated meeting report that it did not object to the late submission from this party if it were received by 14 March 2014. The Board approved and accepted the submission on 17 March 2014.
[57] The Board excused the attendance of Ms Deborah Ryan, NZTA witness for air quality as there were no requests to cross-examine her and the Board had no questions. Ms Ryan’s evidence was then provided in affidavit form.
[58] The Board also received supplementary evidence from the following:
Mr G Ridley (NZTA, Construction Water);
Dr S De Luca (NZTA, Marine Ecology);
Dr A Beauchamp (Director-General of Conservation, Terrestrial Ecology);
Mr M Edmonds (NZTA, Assessment of Alternatives and Project Design);
Mr B Handyside (Director-General of Conservation, Erosion and Sediment Control);
Dr L Bull, NZTA (Marine Avifauna); and
Dr T Fisher, NZTA (Operational Water).
[59] Mr B Fountain did not file evidence but was called to appear before the Board at the Hearing to answer any questions from the Board on coastal modelling processes.
4.3 PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE
[60] A pre-hearing conference was held on 5 March 2014 in the lead-up to the Hearing. The purpose of this conference was to outline procedures for the
16
Hearing and to allow NZTA and submitters to raise any issues they had with the Hearing procedures and any other procedural matters.
[61] Directions from this pre-hearing conference were contained in a minute of the Board, 26 February 2014.
4.4 FORMAT OF THE HEARING
[62] Pursuant to s 37(1)(a) of the Act, the Board extended the time between the close of the submission period and the commencement of the Hearing from 40 working days to 80 working days.
[63] Copies of statements of evidence were posted on the EPA website as they became available.
[64] The Hearing was held at Northridge Country Lodge, Silverdale, Auckland, between 7 April 2014 and 16 April 2014; then Ascension Wine Estate, Warkworth, between 29 April and 16 May 2014; and then again at Northridge Country Lodge between 19 May and 30 May 2014, with a final Hearing day at the Environment Court, Auckland, on 5 June 2014. Actual sitting days were limited to 26 days. The venue at Ascension Wine Estate was of assistance to the many Warkworth-based submitters and accorded with the policy of s 149L(3) of the Act.
[65] All evidence, documents and exhibits produced and referred to at the Hearing have been made available on the EPA website, along with a daily transcript of proceedings.
[66] The Board approved requests by Mahurangi Matters and Radio New Zealand to record the Hearing.
[67] The Board adjourned the Hearing phase on 5 June 2014.
4.5 PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
[68] Representations were received from 37 submitters.
[69] Most of these submitters appeared at the Hearing and spoke in support of their submissions.
[70] Mr T Mackie, Hill Young Cooper Limited, was appointed by the EPA as the Friend of Submitter to assist lay submitters on procedural issues. Mr Mackie attended 5 full and 2 part days of the Hearing and provided direct assistance to 54 submitters. While some submitters only required information and advice about the process, others requested review of submission and evidence drafts, organisation and participation in facilitated meetings and procedural advice at The Hearing. Mr Mackie’s participation involved more than just a phone call or email. Mr Mackie also assisted with the organisation of a facilitated meeting where around 90 to 100 submitters were contacted for their views on whether a facilitated meeting would assist their submission.
17
4.6 EMPHASIS ON FLEXIBILITY
[71] The Board has put a high value on procedural flexibility. Although EPA, quite properly, stipulated time lines and closing dates for lodging submissions and evidence, the Board has been at pains to avoid excluding representations and submissions when dates have not been met. For many residents in the Pūhoi to Warkworth area, the consequences of NZTA’s proposal have been significant. Some felt overwhelmed, and considered their concerns would be ignored. The Chair of the Board emphasised flexibility as a priority for the Board at the initial conference in Silverdale on 5 March 2014. Thus extensions of time have been granted; notice to cross-examine was loosely applied; and documents from lay parties have been received late. As a result all unrepresented parties who have appeared before the Board were assured their views and concerns have been heard and understood.
4.7 WITNESS CONFERENCING
[72] The Board directed expert conferencing on selected topics, which was arranged by the EPA.
[73] The Board requested that the Board’s planning expert participate in some conferencing discussions with NZTA experts. His participation was as an observer.
[74] Conferencing occurred for the following topics:
Planning;
Sedimentation;
Terrestrial Ecology;
Marine Ecology; and
Freshwater Ecology.
[75] Joint Witness Statements were received from these conferencing sessions and are included in Volume 2 of this Report.
4.8 FACILITATED MEETINGS
[76] The Board encouraged facilitated meetings between NZTA and submitters. Facilitators were provided by the EPA.
[77] Reports from these meetings are annexed to this Report, in Volume 2.
18
4.9 PARTIES WITHDRAWING SUBMISSIONS AND RIGHT TO BE HEARD
[78] NZTA undertook direct discussions with individual submitters after the close of the submitters’ evidence period. As a result of that, the following party formally withdrew their submission:
Ms M Leigh (Submission 106433)
[79] Of those that first indicated their wish to be heard at the Hearing, some later elected not to appear at the Hearing but did not withdraw their submission:
Mr N and Mrs A Moon (Submission 104331);
National Road Carriers (Submission 104842);
Omaha Beach Residents Society INC (Submission 105278);
Omaha Beach Community Inc. (Submission 105280);
Mr A Pickering (Submission 105561);
Mr M and Mrs K Dudley (Submissions 105666 and 105769);
Mr P White (Submission 105778);
Mr B Blair (Submission 106026);
New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga (Submission 106232);
Mr J Beaumont (Submission 106435);
Straka Family Trust12 (Submission 105560); and
Archer Furniture Group Limited (Submission 105197).
4.10 SITE VISITS
[80] A preliminary site visit was undertaken on 4 March 2014 of various portions of the route. The Board was accompanied by Mr C Donnelly, an employee of GHD Limited which is part of the Further North Alliance. EPA staff also accompanied the Board on this site visit, as did the Board’s planner and legal advisors.
12 The Straka Family Trust filed a written representation that was tabled during the Hearing.
19
[81] The Board conducted a second site visit on 27 March 2014 to several specific view points and also various affected properties. The Board was accompanied by the same guide as on its first site visit. EPA staff also accompanied the Board.
[82] After the Hearing the Board visited relevant portions of the Project, accompanied by Messrs Donnelly of GHD and N Waipara of Auckland Council, on 20 June. Counsel were notified of this visit in advance and offered no objection.
[83] Throughout the three site visits, Mr Donnelly acted as a driver and provided factual guidance on the location of the indicative alignment and submitters’ properties. Mr Donnelly did not present evidence or submissions at the Hearing.
4.11 COUNSEL TO ASSIST THE BOARD
[84] The Board retained the services of Berry Simons Environmental Law. Legal advice on some issues was received from Mr S Berry and Ms J Vella. Ms Vella also assisted the Board by undertaking cross-examinations of various experts.
4.12 THE REFINING PROCESS
[85] Throughout the Hearing NZTA, as a result of its consultation with other parties, revised the various conditions it proposed. The Board found this process helpful. Conditions were progressively updated and refined as a result of expert conferencing and cross-examination. The following are the various versions of conditions that the Board were provided with:
Proposed conditions as notified — 16 November 2013;
Evidence in chief — 24 January 2014;
Rebuttal evidence — 19 March 2014;
Proposed conditions — 10 April 2014;
Proposed conditions — 25 April 2014;
Agreed conditions pertaining to Freshwater Ecology from expert conferencing — 7 May 2014;
Proposed conditions — 5 June 2014; and
Proposed conditions — 9 June 2014.
20
5. REPORTS TO THE BOARD
5.1 SECTION 149G(3)
[86] Section 149G requires the EPA to commission a report from the relevant local authorities on the key issues in relation to the matter. The EPA commissioned a report from Auckland Council, dated 5 November 2013, which was provided to the Board for its consideration.
[87] This Report responded to a Statement of Work from the EPA which defined the scope of the reports to identify the key issues arising from the Project. The Statement of Work specified that the reports should address the following:
“(a) any relevant provisions of a national policy statement, a New Zealand coastal policy statement, a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement, and a plan or proposed plan.
(b) a statement on whether all required resource consents in relation to the proposal to which the matter relates have been applied for.
(c) if applicable, the activity status of all proposed activities in relation to the matter.
(d) confirmation of the status, and weighting if proposed, of any relevant regional policy statement, and or relevant plan.
(e) detail of the permitted baseline and existing environment for the resource consents applied for within the local authority’s jurisdiction. This will include:
(i) The permitted baseline, and details of any relevant consents held in the area that form the existing environment within the local authority’s jurisdiction.
(ii) Comment on whether the proposed consents applied for within the local authority’s jurisdiction will affect any relevant existing consent holder’s ability to implement their existing consents, should the proposed consents be granted.
(f) any other matter which is relevant to the key issues associated with the applications.”
Auckland Council
[88] The Report noted that the Project is for an indicative alignment only, with no detailed design or full investigations provided at the lodgement stage. The key issues outlined in the Report are summarised below:
The scope of resource consents lodged needed to be clarified and further details provided so they could be assessed against the relevant planning instruments;
21
The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) was notified after the consent applications were lodged. As such, those relevant rules that had immediate legal effect should be confirmed by the Applicant, with further information provided as necessary to confirm compliance/non-compliances;
The proposed alignment and designation boundary should also be mapped in respect of the PAUP maps so they could be assessed against the relevant planning instruments;
All objectives and policies of the PAUP needed to be addressed and, in particular, there were some ‘policy shifts’ or new overlays/policies that needed further consideration. The key matters that had been introduced that should be addressed further are:
o Places and sites of value to mana whenua;
o Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs);
o The incorporation of both intermittent and permanent streams into the definitions of ‘river or stream’;
o The inclusion of Outstanding Natural Landscapes (ONLs) in the PAUP; and
o The identification of Warkworth as a future urban expansion area;
Generally the mitigation measures discussed were broad in their nature and not necessarily specific to any one site or proposal within the Project area;
It was also noted that mitigation measures proposed had not addressed the full extent of streams that would be subject to consent under PAUP. Given that consent would be required under the PAUP for these works, mitigation for the loss of intermittent streams should also be addressed;
The application material had included a range of specialist reports, which in turn refer to factual reports or other reports that had not been provided with the application;
The Project had the potential to impact permitted activity and consented water takes from groundwater or surface water (that is, the Mahurangi River). In
22
particular the Project may result in effects on both water quality and quantity available for water takes;
The proposed works in the CMA will be undertaken in areas identified as being important feeding and breeding grounds for nationally vulnerable coastal birds. While the application material states that the mangrove removal will be undertaken outside of the breeding season, there may still be the potential for adverse effects on the birds during construction which should be further considered;
Given the indicative nature of the proposed alignment and early stage in the design process, there was some uncertainty about the final extent of cut and fill slopes, fill sites, and the finished landform;
Given the scale of the earthworks and changes to the landform as a result of the Project, there was the potential for adverse physical and visual amenity/landscape effects above those addressed to result. Exactly how these effects will be avoided, remedied, or mitigated is a key matter that needs to be addressed;
It is also noted that earthworks would be undertaken in ONLs, Aquifer management areas, streams, SEAs, Natural Stream Management Areas (NSMAs) and High Use Stream Management Areas under the PAUP. Assessment of the effects of the earthworks on such areas is required under Policy 1, Part 2, Chapter C, 5.2: Earthworks of the PAUP;
The proposed stormwater management approach did not incorporate peak flow attenuation to maintain pre-development hydrological conditions;
The application material did not clearly define how much stream habitat (both permanent and intermittent) is being modified or lost (through culverting, reclamation and/or diversion). Correspondingly, this has not been detailed for individual streams, with minimal details of proposed mitigation. As such, it is difficult to understand the effects of the loss of streams and how the loss will be mitigated;
The classification of intermittent streams within the Freshwater Ecology Report recognises that the assessment was undertaken during drought conditions and, as such, further assessments will be required to confirm the classification of the streams at detailed
23
design stage. The report also assessed all intermittent streams as being ‘poor quality’. Council’s specialists have raised concerns over the classification of the streams as being intermittent, and considered that the ‘poor quality’ of those streams needed to be expanded on to identify freshwater ecology effects;
The timing and survey methodologies undertaken for the identification of terrestrial flora and fauna had not been provided in detail. This was essential to understand how representative the surveys were. Council’s specialist notes that, in particular, if surveys for snails were undertaken in summer there would only be a remote chance of finding them, particularly the Paryphanta busbyi busbyi which is nocturnal and known to inhabit Pine forest (which the alignment will traverse);
The Project will also affect Scheduled Activity 208 under the ACDP:R. An important aspect of that Scheduled Activity was the rehabilitation and restoration of native forest from exotic pine forest, thereby providing robust habitat corridors. How the Project provides or affects habitat corridors should be addressed;
Within the vicinity of the Project there was provision for future rural residential development (Scheduled Activity 208) in the ACDP:R and future urban extension to Warkworth town in the PAUP. No assessment of how the Project will impact upon these future development areas has been provided; and
The proposed route was largely through existing rural land and would result in an increase in traffic volumes and associated fumes, noise, and light in a predominantly rural area. There was the potential for reverse sensitivity effects in this regard. The PAUP had also introduced objectives and policies that relate to significant infrastructure and reverse sensitivity effects.
5.2 SECTION 42A REPORTS
[89] Under s 42A of the Act, the Board commissioned URS Limited to prepare a report detailing:
Key themes and likely issues of contention identified in public submissions on the Project;
24
The relevant statutory framework and identification of any gaps or issues in relation to the Applicant’s assessment against that framework;
Actual and potential environmental effects arising from the Project, and the Applicant’s assessment of effects; and
An initial review of the draft designation and resource consent conditions proposed by the Applicant.
[90] Mr R Jenkins of URS Limited was the primary author of this report (the Planning Report). The report was broken into three stages:
(a) 24 February 2014: Stage One of the Planning report identified gaps and issues in NZTA’s assessment of key statutory provisions and key issues from submissions and evidence prepared by NZTA;
(b) 13 March 2014: Stage Two of the Planning Report provided an overview of the submitters’ evidence and NZTA’s rebuttal evidence; and
(c) 31 March 2014: Stage Three of the Planning Report provided supplementary comment and evaluation of the conditions proposed by NZTA. It also described the key issues that emerged from the conferencing process which had taken place between the experts.
25
6. STATUTORY CONTEXT
[91] As noted in Chapter 3, the Board has been appointed under s 6AA of the Act to hear and determine the NoRs and resource consent applications lodged by NZTA to authorise the Project. This section will provide an overview of the statutory context in the Act which are relevant to the Board’s decision making with respect to the NoRs and resource consent applications.
6.1 PROVISIONS RELEVANT TO NORS AND DESIGNATIONS
[92] In undertaking its functions under s 149P in relation to NoRs, the Board is required to have regard to the matters set out in s 171(1) and comply with s 171(1A) as if it were the territorial authority. It may then cancel, confirm or confirm but modify or impose conditions as it thinks fit, in accordance with section 149P(4)(b).
Relevant considerations — section 171
[93] Section 171(1) provides:
(1) When considering a requirement and any submissions received, the territorial authority must, subject to Part II, consider the effects on the environment of allowing the requirement, having particular regard to —
(a) any relevant provisions of -
(i) a national policy statement;
(ii) a New Zealand coastal policy statement;
(iii) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement;
(iv) a plan or proposed plan; and
(b) whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes, or methods of undertaking work if -
(i) The requiring authority does not have an interest in the land sufficient for undertaking the work; or
(ii) It is likely that the work will have a significant adverse effect on the environment; and
(c) whether the work and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the requiring authority for which the designation is sought; and
26
(d) any other matter the territorial authority considers reasonably necessary in order to make a recommendation on the requirement.
[94] In short, the Board is required to consider the effects on the environment of allowing the NoRs, having particular regard to:
(a) Relevant national, regional and district planning instruments;
(b) Whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes or methods of undertaking the work; and
(c) Whether the work and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of NZTA for which the designations are sought.
Definitions of ‘environment’ and ‘effect’ — Section 171(1)
[95] In considering effects under s 171, the Board is mindful of the very broad definition of both the terms “environment” and “effect” in ss 2 and 3 of the Act. The term “environment” (s 2) is defined as follows:
(a) Ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; and
(b) All natural and physical resources; and
(c) Amenity values; and
(d) The social, economic, aesthetic, and cultural conditions which affect the matters stated in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this definition or which are affected by those matters.
[96] The Board has thus had regard to effects on the environment as provided for in this definition, including the potential effects of the Project, both positive (Project benefits) and adverse, on the people and communities along the proposed route or otherwise affected by the Project.
[97] The term ‘effect’ (s 3) is defined as follows:
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the term effect… includes—
(a) Any positive or adverse effect; and
(b) Any temporary or permanent effect; and
(c) Any past, present, or future effect; and
(d) Any cumulative effect which arises over time or in combination with other effects—
27
regardless of the scale, intensity, duration, or frequency of the effect, and also includes—
(e) Any potential effect of high probability; and
(f) Any potential effect of low probability which has a high potential impact.
[98] The Board is therefore entitled to consider not only potential adverse effects of the Project but also any positive effects (benefits) of the Project. These include broad issues relating to the benefits of such infrastructure in terms of safety and capacity improvements, decreased travel times and alleviation of traffic congestion.
[99] It is also relevant to note that ‘effect’ includes a potential effect of low probability which has a high potential impact — a point which was emphasised by counsel for Director General of Conservation (DGC) in the context of the potential sedimentation effects resulting from a high rainfall event. The Board has accordingly had due regard to the full scope of the definition in that context.
[100] These comments are also applicable in the context of the Board’s consideration of the resource consent applications under section 104 (see below).
Consideration of alternatives — section 171(1)(b)
[101] In terms of section 171(1)(b), there is a significant body of case law13 which addresses the scope of the Board’s jurisdiction in relation to the consideration of alternatives. The relevant legal principles can be briefly summarised as follows:
(a) The requirement to consider alternatives only arises where the requiring authority does not have an interest in the land required for the work, or where the Project is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the environment;
(b) The purpose of this requirement to consider alternatives is to ensure that the requiring authority has not acted arbitrarily in its selection of the site or route. The focus is on the process undertaken by the requiring authority and whether or not realistic alternatives have been considered; and
13 Re Queenstown Airport Corporation Limited [2012] NZEnvC 206; Waimari District Council v Christchurch
City Council C30/83; Estate of P Moran v Transit New Zealand W55/99; Te Runanga I Ati Awa ki Whakarongotai Inc v Transit New Zealand W23/2002; Wymondley Against the Motorway Action Group v Transit New Zealand A22/2003.
28
(c) The relative merits of the alternatives are not relevant and it is not within the Board’s powers to find that the requiring authority has selected the ‘wrong’ alternative or to substitute its own selection for that of the requiring authority.
[102] This matter is addressed in more detail later in this decision in the context of the Board’s analysis of issues raised with respect to alternative routes and options available to NZTA.
Trade competition — section 171(1A)
[103] Section 171(1A) precludes the Board from having regard to trade competition or the effects of trade competition. Section 171(1A) provides:
When considering a requirement and any submissions received, a territorial authority must not have regard to trade competition or the effects of trade competition
[104] What constitutes ‘trade competition’ was considered by the Environment Court in General Distributors Limited v Foodstuffs Properties (Wellington) Limited14. The Court noted in that case that ‘trade competitor’ and ‘trade competition’ are not defined in the Act. Taking guidance from the Concise Oxford Dictionary, it held trade competition occurs where "two or more organisations [are] striving to establish superiority over other(s) in the buying and selling of (in this case) goods".
[105] While two submitters15 identified themselves as trade competitors, the Board is satisfied that neither of those parties are trade competitors in terms of the meaning of that term in the Act.
Outline Plan of Works — section 176A
[106] Section 176A is also relevant in the context of the Board’s decision. That section obliges the requiring authority to submit an outline plan of work (OPW) to the territorial authority (in this case, Auckland Council) to enable the territorial authority to request changes before construction commences. The OPW must show specific details of the work (such as height, bulk, location, contour, access and parking, landscaping) and any other matters to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects of the work. The territorial authority is entitled to request changes and has a right to appeal to the Environment Court if those changes are not accepted by the requiring authority.
[107] The Board has the power to waive the requirement for an OPW (s 149P(4)(c)). NZTA has not applied for a waiver. The Board has not
14 [2011] NZEnvC 112. 15 Asia Pacific International Group 103974, John Oakes, Submission 105192.
29
granted one. NZTA will be required to submit an OPW to Auckland Council prior to the commencement of construction of the Project.
[108] The requirement to furnish an OPW is particularly relevant to the Board’s consideration of the approach to conditions proposed by NZTA in respect of the NoR, namely NZTA’s request not to include the traditional condition (referred to during the Hearing as ‘Condition 1’) which requires general compliance with all of the information submitted in support of the application.
6.2 PROVISIONS RELEVANT TO RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATIONS
Relevant considerations — section 104
[109] The starting point for the Board’s consideration of the resource consent applications is s 104. The relevant aspects of s 104 are set out below.
(1) 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—
(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
(c) any other matter the consent authority considered relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.
[110] Section 104(3) precludes the Board from granting a discharge consent contrary to s 107 (addressed below).
30
[111] The Board notes at this stage that one of the matters it is required to ‘have regard to’ under s 104 is the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS). The recent Supreme Court decision in Environmental Defence Society v King Salmon16 is relevant in that regard and is discussed in more detail when addressing the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement in the next chapter of this report dealing with the relevant planning framework.
[112] Suffice it to say, at this juncture, while the King Salmon decision contains important dicta which are relevant to the Board’s consideration of NZTA’s applications (to the extent that they relate to the coastal environment), counsel for NZTA, DGC and Auckland Council all submitted that caution must be exercised in directly applying all of the principles of that case. This is because:
(d) The King Salmon decision related to an application for a plan change which is required to ‘give effect to’ the NZCSP; and
(e) In the context of resource consent applications (and NoRs), the NZCPS is only one of the matters which the decision-maker is required to ‘have regard to’.
[113] The Board accepts the rationale of those submissions, but in doing so, does not consider it is appropriate to diminish the Supreme Court’s decision, particularly as regards the importance of the NZCPS and the directive policies it contains. In that regard, in considering the Project under s 104, the Board has given the relevant policies of the NZCPS (including those which require the avoidance of adverse effects on outstanding natural landscapes and the protection of indigenous biological diversity) significant weight17. The Board considers it is required to do so for the clear policy reasons set out in the Supreme Court decision, alongside the other matters which the Board is required to consider under s 10418.
Matters relevant to consideration of discharge consents — sections 105(1) and 107
[114] Sections 105(1) and 107 are relevant to the Board’s consideration of the discharge consents.
[115] Section 105(1) states:
(1) If an application is for a discharge permit or a coastal permit to do something that would contravene section 15 or section
16 Environmental Defence Society Incorporated v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited – [2013]
NZSC 101. 17 See para [318]. 18 This approach is consistent with that taken by the Environment Court in its recent decision KPF Investments
Limited v Marlborough District Council [2014] NZEnvC 152 at para [200] in which the Court determined that, while it is required to ‘have regard to’ the matters in section 104(1) and there are no absolute bottom lines in that context, NZCPS is an important document and in the circumstances of that case its policies were “a heavy weight in the side of the scales against granting consent”.
31
15B, the consent authority must, in addition to the matters in section 104(1), have regard to—
(a) the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects; and
(b) the applicant’s reasons for the proposed choice; and
(c) any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge to any other receiving environment.
[116] The Board has considered these matters in the context of NZTA’s applications to discharge contaminants. It will be clear from the analysis which follows that the Board considers the conditions that it has imposed address issues relating to the nature of the discharge and sensitivity of the receiving environment. The Board accepts the reasons for the discharges and does not consider that there are any other viable alternative methods of discharge (including alternative receiving environments). This is dealt with in more detail in various sections of Chapter 8.
[117] Section 107 provides that:
(1) Except as provided for in subsection (2), a consent authority shall not grant a discharge permit or a coastal permit to do something that would contravene section 15 or section 15A allowing—
(a) The discharge of a contaminant or water into water; or
(b) A discharge of a contaminant onto or into land in circumstances which may result in that contaminant (or any other contaminant emanating as a result of natural processes from that contaminant) entering water; or
…
if, after reasonable mixing, the contaminant or water discharged (either by itself or in combination with the same, similar or other contaminants or water) is likely to give rise to all or any of the following effects in the receiving waters—
(c) The production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scums or foams, or floatable or suspended materials;
(d) Any conspicuous change in the colour or visual clarity;
(e) Any emission of objectionable odour;
(f) The rendering of freshwater unsuitable for consumption by farm animals;
(g) Any significant adverse effects on aquatic life.
32
(2) A consent authority may grant a discharge permit or a coastal permit to do something that would otherwise contravene section 15 or section 15A that may allow any of the effects described in subsection (1) if it is satisfied—
(a) That exceptional circumstances justify granting the permit; or
(b) That the discharge is of a temporary nature; or
(c) That the discharge is associated with necessary maintenance work —
and that it is consistent with the purpose of this Act to do so.
[118] These matters are addressed in the relevant chapters and the Board is satisfied that the Project will not give rise to any of the effects listed in s 107 in any more than a minor and temporary way.
Non-complying activities — section 104D
[119] The proposed viaducts at the Okahu Inlet require resource consents under the ACRP:C as it crosses the CMA19. It is a non-complying activity under the relevant rules of that plan. For reasons outlined later, the Board has determined that it is appropriate for these consents to be ‘unbundled’ from the other resource consents required for the Project, with the other activities for which consent is sought being considered as discretionary activities.
[120] Section 104D precludes the Board from granting consent to the Okahu Viaducts Inlet unless the Project can pass one of the so-called ‘gateway tests’ in that section. In that regard, s 104D provides that:
(1) Despite any decision made for the purpose of section 95A(2)(a) in relation to adverse effects, 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
19 This viaduct could consist of two parallel structures – one for each carriageway.
33
(ii) the relevant proposed plan, if there is a proposed plan but no 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.
[121] A full analysis of the Okahu Viaducts against the gateway tests is addressed in the Board’s consideration of the proposed viaducts. It is sufficient to indicate at this stage that the Board has determined that the viaducts satisfy both gateway tests. Section 104D does not prevent the Board from granting consent to that aspect of the Project. The upshot is that there is no bar to the Board considering the merits of that aspect of the Project in terms of s 104.
6.3 OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS
[122] Under s 171(1)(d) and s 104(1)(c) of the Act, the Board is required to have regard to any matters beyond those specified in those sections that we consider ‘relevant and reasonably necessary’ to determine the NoR or resource consent. In that regard, a range of documents were produced during the Hearing or otherwise presented to the Board as being relevant to the Project. Those documents are set out in Appendix 7. The Board has reviewed these documents and has had regard to them to the extent that they are considered relevant and reasonably necessary to make its determinations under ss 104 and 171. It is not necessary to specifically address each of these documents.
6.4 CONDITIONS
[123] The Board is entitled to impose conditions on the resource consents and designation.
[124] Section 108 establishes a broad jurisdiction to impose conditions on resource consents as follows:
(1) Except as expressly provided in this section and subject to any regulations, a resource consent may be granted on any condition that the consent authority considers appropriate, including any condition of a kind referred to in subsection (2).
[125] The Board’s jurisdiction to impose conditions on a designation is set out in section 149P(4)(b), which says:
A board of inquiry considering a matter that is a notice or requirement for a designation or to alter a designation—
…
(b) may—
34
…
(iii) confirm the requirement, but modify it or impose conditions on it as the board thinks fit…
[126] The power to impose conditions is limited by the established Newbury20 principles. These principles set out that conditions are to:
(a) Be for a resource management purpose, not an ulterior one;
(b) Fairly and reasonably relate to the development authorised by the resource consent; and
(c) Not be so unreasonable that a reasonable planning authority, duly applying its statutory duties could not have approved it.
[127] Conditions must also be certain and enforceable.21
6.5 PART 2
[128] The assessment of NoRs and resource consent applications are expressed to be “subject to Part 2” of the Act. Part 2 commences with the purpose of the Act, which is set out in s 5.
[129] Section 5 states that:
(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.
(2) In this Act, “sustainable management” means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while —
(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonable foreseeable needs of future generations; and
(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and
(c) avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.
20 Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578 at pp 599 – 600, 607 –
608, 618 – 619, as applied by Waitakere City Council v Estate Homes Ltd [2007] 2 NZLR 149, at para [66]. 21 Bitumix Ltd v Mt Wellington Borough Council [1979] 2 NZLR 57.
35
[130] Section 6 of the Act sets out the matters of national importance which the Board must ‘recognise and provide for’ to the extent that they are relevant as follows:
(a) The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development;
(b) The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development;
(c) The protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna;
(d) The maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers;
(e) The relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga;
(f) The protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development; and
(g) The protection of protected customary rights.
[131] Section 7 identifies other matters to which the Board is to have particular regard. The aspects of s 7 that the Board consider to be relevant in terms of this Project are:
(a) Kaitiakitanga:
(aa) The ethic of stewardship:
(b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources:
…
(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:
(d) Intrinsic values of ecosystems:
…
(f) Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment:
[132] Section 8 of the Act addresses Treaty of Waitangi issues. It provides:
36
In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).
[133] It is well settled law that, in making its determination, the Board is to apply an ‘overall broad judgement’ to be made having regard to various competing considerations which might arise in any given set of circumstances. The classic enunciation of that proposition is contained in North Shore City Council v Auckland Regional Council22 , which was affirmed on appeal to the High Court in Green & McCahill Properties Limited v Auckland Regional Council,23 :
“The method of applying section 5 … involves an overall broad judgment of whether a proposal would promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. This recognises that the Act has a single purpose. Such an approach allows for the comparison of conflicting considerations and the scale and degree of them, and also their relative importance or proportion in the final outcome.”
[134] Dealing, in a s 5 context, with NZCPS and the King Salmon judgment, there is still a need to carry out an overall balancing test. The Board accepts the submissions made by counsel in their closing submissions on the application of the King Salmon decision24. The judgment remains, along with all other matters relevant under ss 104 and 171, a salutary reminder from New Zealand’s superior appellate court on the importance of ‘environmental bottom lines’ set out in NZCPS25.
[135] The Board has reached its overall assessment and appraisal of the Project against the statutory requirements and explanations set out in this chapter.
22 [1997] NZRMA 59; [1996] 2 ELRNZ 305. 23 [1997] NZRMA 519. 24 This approach has also been adopted by the Environment Court in KPF Investments, in which that Court
specifically considered the ‘overall judgement’ approach to be relevant in the context of resource consent applications, given the requirement to ‘have regard to’ the fully range of section 104 matters. KPF Investments Limited v Marlborough District Council [2014] NZEnvC 152 at para [200].
25 In that regard, the majority of the Supreme Court held that Policies 13(1)(a) and (b) and 15(a) and (b) do, in its view, provide ‘something in the nature of a bottom line’ — EDS v King Salmon [2014] NZSC 38 at para [132].
37
7. RELEVANT PLANNING INSTRUMENTS
[136] The previous chapter is an overview of the statutory context applying to the Board. This chapter provides an overview of the framework of planning instruments relevant to the Board’s consideration of the Project. It therefore addresses, at a relatively high level, the planning instruments which the Board is required to have regard to under ss 171(1) and 104(1)(b) of the Act.
[137] An agreed list of relevant provisions was provided in the Joint Conferencing Statement of planners acting on behalf of NZTA, Auckland Council, DGC and the Board. The Board accepts that list and, in addition, considers that the National Environmental Standards referred to below are also relevant to its consideration.
[138] It is not proposed in this Report to undertake a forensic analysis of all of the relevant planning instruments and the evidence which the Board heard relating to those provisions. Rather, it has considered all of the instruments addressed below in coming to its determination and have addressed specific planning instruments or provisions where the Board considered that to be necessary or desirable to assist in providing reasons for its decision.
7.1 NATIONAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS
[139] Central government has issued a number of national policy documents which are relevant to this Project. They are addressed in turn below.
National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water (NES DW)
[140] The NES DW came into effect on 20 June 2008 with the intent of reducing the risk of contaminating drinking water sources such as rivers and groundwater. The NES DW requires regional councils to ensure that effects on drinking water sources are considered in decisions on resource consents and regional plans. Watercare Services Limited (Watercare) operates a water take from the Mahurangi River, downstream of the Project. A submission was received from Watercare requesting additional monitoring and other matters, many of which were accepted by NZTA. The submission did not make reference to the NES DW. Nor did Watercare respond to NZTA’s rebuttal evidence or appear at the Hearing. The Watercare submission is examined more fully in a subsequent chapter of this Report. On the basis of the evidence and submissions, NES DW was not directly engaged in respect of the Board’s consideration of the Project.
38
Other National Environmental Standards
[141] The AEE26 addresses the National Environmental Standard for Air Quality (NES AQ) but notes that it is not relevant because the Project area is outside the Warkworth airshed. The Board accepts that the NES AQ is not relevant to the Project.
[142] The relevance of other NESs was raised, namely the National Environmental Standards for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soils to Protect Human Health (NES Soil) and the National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission (NES ET).
[143] The Board does not consider that the NES Soil is relevant because the scope of activities for which consent is sought does not cover contaminated land. No significant contamination has been identified through the indicative design. Additional consents will need to be obtained later (when and if necessary).
[144] The Board considered that the NES ET is not relevant given that the power lines affected by the Project are local power lines not covered by that NES (which relates to the National Grid).
New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS)
[145] The NZCPS is a national policy statement under the Act. The purpose of the NZCPS is to state policies in order to achieve the purpose of the Act in relation to New Zealand’s coastal environment.
[146] The Board is required to have regard to the relevant provisions of the NZCPS. The Board has already noted that it must do so in the context of all of the relevant considerations provided for in sections 104 and 171 while attributing the appropriate weight to those provisions, particularly in light of the King Salmon decision. In that regard, various aspects of the NZCPS are relevant, particularly to the proposed viaducts at Okahu Inlet which traverse the coastal environment and to the discharges to the CMA which will result from the construction and operation of the Project.
[147] A question arises as to how the Board is to apply the NZCPS to these applications in light of the King Salmon decision. This has already been mentioned in the previous chapter.
[148] The Supreme Court in that case was considering plan changes to facilitate the development of a marine farm in an area of outstanding natural character and outstanding natural landscape. The Court was therefore required to address the provisions of the NZCPS relating to those aspects of the coastal environment, namely Policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a). A key issue was whether those policies established ‘environmental bottom lines’ that
26 Air Quality Assessment Report, Volume 3, Part 1, p 18.
39
needed to be strictly applied or whether an ‘overall broad judgement’ in accordance with hitherto accepted practice needed to be exercised. The Court concluded that the policies in question require the avoidance of adverse effects on areas of the coastal environment that have outstanding natural character, outstanding natural features and outstanding natural landscapes. In those circumstances, where the regional coastal plan was required to ‘give effect to’ the NZCPS, strict adherence to directive policies contained in the NZCPS was required. It was not appropriate for decision makers on plan changes to make an ‘overall broad judgment’ in terms of Part 2 of the Act.
[149] Of particular importance, the majority considered the use and relevance of the verb ‘avoid’ in relation to Policies 13(1)(a) and (b) and 15(a) and (b).
“[96] … We consider that ‘avoid’ has its ordinary meaning of ‘not allow’ or ‘prevent the occurrence of’. In the sequence of ‘avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment’ in s 5(2)(c), for example, it is difficult to see that ‘avoid’ could sensibly bear any other meaning. Similarly in relation to policies 13(1)(a) and (b) and 15(a) and (b), which also juxtaposed the words ‘avoid’, ‘remedy’ and ‘mitigate’. This interpretation with objective two of the NZCPS which is, in part, ‘[t]o preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and protect natural features and landscape values through … identifying those areas where various forms of subdivision, use, and development would be inappropriate and protecting them from such activities.’
…
[97] However, taking that meaning [of avoid] may not advance matters greatly: whether ‘avoid’ (in the sense of ‘not allow’ or ‘prevent the occurrence of’) bites depends on whether the ‘overall judgment’ approach or the ‘environmental bottom line’ approach is adopted under the ‘overall judgment’ approach, a policy direction to ‘avoid’ adverse effect is simply one of a number of relevant factors to be considered by the decision maker, albeit that it may be entitled to greater weight; under the ‘environmental bottom line’ approach, it has greater force.”
[150] The Board has given careful consideration to these dicta relating to NZCPS by New Zealand’s final appellate court. It is clear from the Supreme Court decision that the NZCPS, particularly the directive policies such as Policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a), are clearly entitled to very significant weight. The Board has accorded those policies such weight in deference to the Supreme Court’s decision. However, as already noted, the Board is required by ss 104 and 171 only to ‘have regard to’ (not to ‘give effect to’) the NZCPS. It is required to consider that instrument alongside other factors made relevant by those sections in making a balanced judgement taking account of all such factors. That is the approach it has adopted, as will be apparent from its specific consideration of this issue in the context of the applications before the Board.
[151] In that regard, the Okahu Inlet is of course, covered by the NZCPS. It falls short of being a site of outstanding natural character and is already crossed by SH1. But it is located adjacent to an outstanding natural landscape and
40
has been identified to be within an outstanding natural feature in the proposed regional planning instruments. The Board has therefore considered these matters in detail in the section of this Report which deals with the Okahu Inlet and NZTA’s proposal to cross it with viaducts.
[152] Similarly, NZCPS provisions (particularly Policy 11) are relevant to the issue of sedimentation in the CMA and are closely considered in later chapters.
Hauraki Marine Park Gulf Act 2000
[153] This is also considered in a previous chapter of this Report. It is also noted here because ss 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Marine Park Gulf Act (HGMPA) must be treated as a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement issued under the Act. The HGMPA provides that if there is a conflict between those provisions and the NZCPS, then the NZCPS prevails.
[154] The Board is therefore required to have regard to those sections of the HGMPA, particularly in its consideration of that aspect of the Project relating to the discharge of sediment.
National Policy Statement Freshwater Management 2011 and 2014
[155] The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM 2011) came into effect on 1 July 2011. The NPSFM 2011 was amended by the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (NPSFM), which was gazetted on 4 July 2014 and comes into effect on 1 August 2014. The Board has therefore had regard to the NPSFM 2014 which is now the relevant NPS in that regard. In doing so, the Board notes that the NPSFM 2014 expands upon, rather than materially or significantly altering, the existing provisions of the NPSFM 2011. The Board considers that the evidence with respect to the NPSFM remains relevant.
[156] The NPSFM 2014 sets out objectives and policies in relation to the management of freshwater quality and quantity and is therefore relevant to aspects of the Project that affect freshwater, such as discharges to freshwater and stream diversions.
[157] The provisions of the NPSFM 2014 establish national bottom lines for the identified compulsory national values, being ecosystem health and human health (secondary contact). Regional councils are to establish planning regimes within specified time frames in order to ensure that those national bottom lines are met over time.
[158] In the interim period, while regional councils are establishing the required planning framework to implement the objectives and policies of the NPS FW 2014, it directs regional councils to include specific policies in regional plans
41
which require decision makers to consider freshwater management issues. In that regard, the NPSFM 201427 and ACRP:ALW require the Board:28
“When considering any application for a discharge the consent authority must have regard to the following matters: a. the extent to which the discharge would avoid contamination that will have an adverse effect on the life-supporting capacity of fresh water including on any ecosystem associated with fresh water and
b. the extent to which it is feasible and dependable that any more than minor adverse effect on fresh water, and on any ecosystem associated with fresh water, resulting from the discharge would be avoided.”
[159] The Board has done so. The potential effects of the Project on freshwater resources are addressed in the sections that follow.
Proposed National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity
[160] The National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB) is a proposed NPS (and has been for some years). The Board is not required to have regard to that NPS but may do so if it considers it to be relevant and reasonably necessary for assessing the Project.
[161] NZTA’s view is that the Project is generally consistent with the NPSIB29. DGC did not offer a view in that regard. The Board accepts NZTA’s position but as the NPS is only a proposed policy statement, the Board has not given it any weight or further consideration.
7.2 REGIONAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS
[162] There are a range of regional planning instruments, both operative and proposed, that are relevant to the Project — particularly the resource consent applications. These are briefly addressed below and have been considered throughout the Board’s deliberations. This Report addresses specific aspects of those documents where necessary.
Auckland Regional Policy Statement and Proposed Change 8
[163] The Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ACRPS) was notified in 1994 and became operative in August 1999. It is the overarching regional policy document which identifies the key issues faced by the region and establishes high level objectives and policies in relation to those issues. The various objectives and policies relevant to this Project have been identified and addressed in the AEE (section 27.4), the Auckland Council Report (section 3.3) and the evidence in chief of Ms Sinclair.
27 NPSFM 2014, Policy A4. 28 It is noted that the NPSFM inserted a similar requirement with respect to human health (secondary contact),
but that does not apply to these applications which were lodged before the NPSFM came into effect. 29 AEE, Section 29.4.6.
42
[164] Proposed Change 8 (PC8) to the ACRPS was notified in 2005. PC8 introduces outstanding natural landscapes to the ACRPS along with relevant objectives and policies. PC8 is therefore particularly relevant to the Board’s consideration of the Okahu Viaducts. PC8 is still subject to appeal and is not therefore operative. However, Mr Turbott’s expert planning evidence for Auckland Council was that the appeals had been heard and that they did not affect the mapping of the ONLs, although the wording of the policies may change. Thus, as far as the identification of ONLs (including in proximity to Okahu Inlet), the Board has accorded PC8 due weight.
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal
[165] The ACRP:C was notified in 1995 and became operative in 2004. It addresses activities in the coastal environment, both on land and the CMA. In particular, it governs the location of structures such as the Okahu Viaduct in the CMA and is the reason that the Okahu Viaduct requires consent as a non-complying activity. The ACRP:C is therefore particularly relevant to the Board’s consideration of the Project in that context and due consideration of the relevant provisions is given in that section of this Report.
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control
[166] The ACRP:SC was notified in 1993 and became operative in 2001. That plan addresses the issue of sediment discharge, and defines the mechanisms the Auckland Council has chosen for avoiding, mitigating or remedying any adverse effect on the environment due to sediment discharge from bare earth surfaces. The various erosion and sediment control measures to be adopted are implemented in response to the requirements of the ACRP:SC and it is therefore highly relevant to the Board’s consideration of NZTA’s proposed approach to erosion and sediment control measures.
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water
[167] The ACRP:ALW was notified in 2001 and became operative in 2012. It establishes the policy and rule framework for all activities not covered by the ACRP:C or ACRP:SC which fall within the jurisdiction of Auckland Council in performing its regional council duties. It is therefore relevant to the remainder of the resource consents sought.
7.3 DISTRICT PLANNING INSTRUMENTS
Auckland Council District Plan: Rodney Section
[168] The ACDP:R was notified in 2000 and became operative in 2011. It is the plan which establishes the policy and rule framework for all activities which fall within the jurisdiction of Auckland Council in performing its district council duties and is therefore relevant to the Board’s consideration of the NoRs. It establishes Significant Natural Areas and has therefore been
43
considered in the context of those and is also relevant to the Board’s consideration of matters relating to land use.
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
[169] PAUP is the first planning instrument promulgated by the new Auckland Council following the amalgamation of the regional and various district councils in the Auckland Region. It contains all planning instruments required to be promulgated under the Act by regional and district councils (namely, a regional policy statement, regional plan and district plan) and will therefore replace all of the regional and district plans and policy statements referred to above.
[170] Of particular note, PAUP establishes Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) (of which the kauri grove at Site 15A is one), carries over the outstanding natural landscape provisions of PC8 in the vicinity of Okahu Viaduct and identifies the Okahu Inlet as an outstanding natural feature. PAUP also extends the extent that resource consents apply to activities in streams.
[171] PAUP was notified on 30 September 2013. Submissions closed on 28 February 2014 and the further submission period closed on 22 July 2014. Thus, while the Board has considered the provisions of the PAUP in coming to its decision, it has given those provisions very little weight as it is entitled to do, given the very early stage of its promulgation.
[172] The various planning instruments set out in this chapter have all been considered and weighed by the Board and have been reflected in its various findings and conclusions in subsequent chapters of this Report.
44
8. KEY LEGAL ISSUES
[173] Shortly after the Board was constituted, the EPA engaged the Auckland firm Berry Simons Environmental Law to be the Board’s independent legal advisers.
[174] Both before and during the course of the Hearing, the Board sought legal advice on a variety of topics. The nature of that advice is of course, privileged. The function of providing the Board with legal advice has been undertaken by Mr S Berry, a principal of the firm, and Ms J Vella, an associate. During some phases of the Hearing Ms Vella, in the capacity of counsel to assist, cross-examined certain witnesses to ensure that evidential topics of interest to the Board were adequately or comprehensively covered.
[175] In terms of s 149V of the Act, a right of appeal is conferred on parties stipulated in s 149Q(4) to the High Court, but only on a question of law. Any appeal beyond the High Court (but only on a question of law) is to the Supreme Court if leave is granted. The Court of Appeal is excluded from the appellate process.30
[176] The Board of course, will ensure that, to the best of its endeavours it complies with the provisions of the Act and avoids errors of law. The purpose of this chapter is not to provide a quarry for hopeful appellants. Rather, it is, in the interests of transparency, to catalogue briefly some of the legal issues which arose during the course of the Board’s deliberations.31 To varying degrees, these may have influenced the Board’s approach. Exposition and amplification of the legal issues mentioned is unnecessary and has been avoided.
8.1 APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR FLEXIBILITY
[177] NZTA’s counsel, in her opening submissions, informed the Board that the Applicant was specifically not seeking and did not want the imposition of what is frequently a standard Condition 1.
[178] The reason NZTA advanced for this request was that, with a large project of this type, there needed to be a degree of flexibility which permitted changes to construction methodologies and designs inside the motorway’s designation. The standard Condition 1, if imposed, would (in general terms) require the consent holder to undertake its project in accordance with, or generally in accordance with, the plans and specifications lodged as part of the application.
30 Section 149V(5) and (6). 31 Other legal issues, such as the application of NZCPS are canvassed in other chapters of this Report.
45
[179] Thus, submitted counsel, the nature of underlying rock and/or soil might lead a contractor, once on site, to decide to move the alignment of the motorway to a different portion of the designation from that shown on the plans which NZTA had lodged and notified. Similarly, the lengthening or shortening of proposed viaducts, embankments and cuttings might be preferred as construction progressed. There might even be substitution of one such engineering work (a viaduct, say) by an embankment, and vice versa.
[180] Imposition of a Condition 1 would require the consent holder to seek variations of consent conditions. Any perceived disadvantages by not imposing Condition 1 would be adequately met by ensuring that all conditions which the Board imposed were adequate to meet environmental bottom lines and to avoid, remedy, or mitigate the effects of NZTA’s Project.
[181] The Board has given close and anxious consideration to this proposed approach. It resolved not to impose a Condition 1 but instead to ensure that relevant conditions imposed on NZTA were adequate to avoid, mitigate or remedy all adverse effects which might flow from the types of changes NZTA had in mind. A fuller discussion of this issue appears in Chapter 10.1 of this Report.
[182] It is, in any event, doubtful — or at least arguable — that the imposition or otherwise of a Condition 1 is a ‘legal’ matter. In general terms, a required degree of specificity inside a designation is required by s 176A and in particular subs (3). Rather, the imposition of Condition 1, particularly helpful and relevant to smaller projects, and motorway proposals in urban and residential areas, seems to be a matter of planning practice rather than a specific legal requirement. There are obvious difficulties with deploying a Condition 1 with a large project of this sort where contractors have yet to be engaged and engineering solutions are yet to be finalised.
8.2 ENFORCEABILITY (IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONDITION 1) AND DELEGATION
[183] The policy which underlines the power a consent authority has to attach conditions to a resource consent is self-evident. Granting a consent does not give untrammelled permission to an applicant to alter or modify the environment. Rather, the terms and parameters of the consent granted are delineated by conditions and the extent of effects assessed, regardless of the absence of a Condition 1.
[184] Despite the broadly cast nature of s 108(1), which permits a consent authority to grant resource consent “… on any condition that [it] considers appropriate”, the law imposes certain constraints. Subsection 108(2) sets out various types of conditions which may be included in the class. Obviously a condition imposed must be reasonable and not capricious or arbitrary. The s 5 purpose must overarch and inform the condition and control its lawfulness. In any event, it is clear law that a consent authority is
46
entitled to assume that a consent holder will comply with conditions imposed.32
[185] Compliance with conditions is ultimately the responsibility of the relevant regional or territorial authority. In this case enforcement will be the province of Auckland Council. The evidence the Board has heard satisfies it that the relevant officers and employees of Auckland Council are well able to monitor the construction of the Project and enforce compliance with conditions. In some cases this responsibility is contracted out.33 But day-to-day supervision on a construction site does not relieve the territorial authority of ultimate responsibility for enforcing compliance. That core function is not delegated. Many of the conditions the Board has crafted confer considerable powers of oversight, monitoring and enforcement with Auckland Council’s designated Team Leader for the Project.
[186] NZTA has proposed that a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP)34 be prepared which would include, inter alia, methods for responding to queries and complaints. The Board agrees, and has imposed a condition setting out more fully the details it considers are required.35
[187] The resource consent conditions proposed by NZTA include two conditions36 to deal with incident management. The Board has consolidated and improved these by adding sub-clauses to clarify and focus actions to be taken.
8.3 MOVING THE DESIGNATION
[188] During the course of the Hearing the Board asked a number of witnesses specific questions about Site 15A. This site is adjacent to Perry Road and contains a large stand of regenerated native forest. One of the prominent tree species in the forest is kauri. A portion of the stand is skirted by the upper right branch of the Mahurangi River. The forest stand itself is currently designated as an SEA under PAUP. Across the river lies a residential property owned by the submitter Ms Court (whose cooperation and interest throughout the Hearing the Board acknowledges) and a fish farm, until recently tenanted, owned by Genesis Aquaculture Limited (Genesis).
[189] The designation proposed in Site 15A is, compared with other parts of the designation, narrow. The Project envisages the motorway descending a hill towards the river and then crossing the eastern-most finger of the forest by
32 New Zealand Kennel Club Inc v Papakura District Council (A01/2006); Blueskin Bay Forest Heights Limited
v Dunedin City Council, [2010] NZ EnvC 177; Nelson City Council v King CRI-2008-042-000144. 33 Transcript, Byrne, p 2183. 34 Condition R10. 35 Condition R10B. 36 Conditions R19(e) & R32.
47
means of an eco-viaduct. NZTA’s Terrestrial Ecology Assessment Report envisages that up to approximately 375 kauri trees, many young, would need to be felled or topped to accommodate the eco-viaduct37. Additionally it was proposed that the Mahurangi River be diverted for approximately 200m through a new open channel.
[190] The Board’s initial reaction during a site visit, expressed by the Chairman during an exchange with a witness, was that it was indeed a bold move in this day and age to destroy kauri trees to accommodate a viaduct carrying a motorway38. The effects on both the river and the forest stand would largely be avoided if the designation was shifted approximately 150m to the east crossing the land (and excavated fish tanks occupied by Genesis) and inevitably moving closer to the property owned by Ms Court. To their credit, both Ms Court and Mr Willcox for Genesis candidly stated in evidence that they could not really justify prioritising their own land over the kauri grove. Nonetheless, both were understandably opposed to shifting the designation. Nor was NZTA prepared to contemplate a late amendment to the designation in Site 15A which it sought.
[191] The Board is satisfied that, as a matter of jurisdiction, it has no power to move the designation to the east in the manner tentatively contemplated. The first obstacle would clearly be procedural. The submissions of interested parties who appeared, and indeed the stance of various residents of Perry Road who chose not to make representations, were all based on the premise that the designation would be in the location proposed. To modify (by moving) the designation would require re-notification and would inevitably undercut and derail the Part 6AA processes.
[192] Secondly, the Board was satisfied (also as a matter of jurisdiction) that the power it had under s 149P(4), which incorporated the power of a territorial authority to modify the requirement (s 171(2)(b)), could not properly be exercised. The type of modification permitted, on the authorities,39 was limited to modifications which did not alter the ‘essential nature or character’ of the Project and which additionally did not give rise to a greater environmental impact or new effects on land owners or the public.
[193] The Board’s overall approach, given the principles just discussed was:
(a) A modification power was limited, having regard to the need to observe procedural fairness to both the public and affected land owners; and
37 Terrestrial Ecology Assessment Report, Appendix C. 38 Transcript, p 649. 39 Although ‘modify’ is not defined in the Act, it has been subjected to scrutiny in Quay Property Management
Ltd v Transit New Zealand, Decision W28/2000, and Hope t/a Victoria Lodge v Rotorua District Council [2010] NZ EnvC 7 [40] – [41]. See also as authority for whether or not an application is materially or significantly different as the focus for allowing a modification Waitakere City Council v Estate Homes Limited [2006] 2 NZLR 149 and Ayburn Farm Estates Limited v Queenstown District Council [2011] NZ EnvC 98.
48
(b) Moving the designation to the east would constitute a significant alteration rather than a modification.
[194] The Board’s approach has thus been to deal with the environmental issues surrounding Site 15A solely on the basis that the designation remains where it is. The Board was assisted in part by NZTA’s decision to contract the designation boundary on its western side, thus further narrowing what was described as a choke point.
[195] Parts of this Report deal with NZTA’s examination and assessments of alternatives to its proposed designation at Site 15A40 and with the full assessment of Site 15A with the balancing of ecological and other relevant issues41.
8.4 STANCE AND ENGAGEMENT OF DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CONSERVATION
[196] DGC was represented throughout the Hearing by counsel. It would be fair to state that, for the purposes of s 149(2)(c), one of the major issues in contention were those ecological issues (particularly sedimentation and the marine environment) where the experts of NZTA and DGC disagreed.
[197] There were occasions when counsel for DGC sought indulgences in respect of timetables and recalling witnesses. Given the importance of the receiving environment (including the Pūhoi Estuary, Mahurangi Harbour, and the Hauraki Gulf itself) the Board granted DGC's requests. No useful purpose is served by itemising these procedural issues.
[198] Both during the Hearing and during closing submissions, Ms Crossen advanced a number of propositions and stances which it is helpful (in general outline) to record. They are:
(a) Were the Board to adopt unaltered the various conditions propounded by DGC, its environmental concerns, particularly as they related to sedimentation, would be satisfied;
(b) The sedimentation modelling relied upon by NZTA and its expert witnesses was inexact and did not neccessarily minimise sedimentation risk. The evidence on modelling and the approach of DGC's expert witness, Mr Handyside, was to be preferred;
(c) NZTA’s request for a ‘flexible’ approach in the absence of a Condition 1 was unacceptable; and
40 Chapter 8.3. 41 Chapter 10.3.
49
(d) DGC, in respect of the kauri trees at Site 15A, requested the Board to confirm the NoR, subject to conditions requiring the alignment to be moved as far east as possible within the designation boundary and prohibiting any further westward movement. Were at some future date NZTA to seek an alteration to the designation boundary by moving it in the region of Site 15A further east, DGC would support such an application.
[199] DGC’s role in the Hearing and its stance are not technically “legal issues”. Rather, the Board includes this subsection to mark out the clear battle line.
8.5 ECONOMICS
[200] It is necessary to consider the economic impacts of the Project in the context of the Act. These impacts are particularly relevant to the Part 2 assessment that the Board conducts later in this Report.
[201] The purpose of the Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in a manner which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing (s 5). Under s 7 of the Act it is necessary to have particular regard to certain matters including the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources.
[202] A number of representations and submissions questioned the adequacy of NZTA’s consideration of alternatives. Also questioned were the wisdom of the use of public monies on the motorway Project and whether or not there had been an adequate cost-benefit analysis. These issues are dealt with in another section of this Report.42
8.6 ALTERNATIVES
[203] This issue is dealt with in Chapter 10.5 of the Report.
8.7 PROPOSED AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN
[204] PAUP, as its name suggests, is a provisional planning document which seeks to rationalise, amalgamate, and improve the various Plans which were in existence before previous territorial authorities became part of the
42 Chapter 10.5.
50
new and expanded Auckland Council.43 PAUP was notified on 30 September 2013. As the Board understands it, PAUP has attracted over 9,000 initial submissions and further submissions are now being sought. The final provisions of PAUP await decisions by a Board of Inquiry. NZTA’s applications were lodged with EPA on 30 August 2013 (a month before PAUP’s notification) and in turn were notified on 16 November 2013.
[205] The issue arises whether the provisions of PAUP (which can properly be described as a plan which is not yet operative) must be considered by the Board, and if so, which provisions and with what weight. These were issues on which the Board directed submissions from both NZTA and Auckland Council. Those submissions were provided to and considered by the Board in February 2014.
[206] A proposed plan is clearly caught by Part 3 of the Act. However, in that regard, the 2009 amendments to the Act are relevant. In general terms rules in a proposed plan do not have legal effect until a decision on such rules has been notified.44 However, under s 86B(3) certain specified rules have immediate legal effect. They are rules which:
(a) Protect or relate to water, air, or soil (for soil conservation); or
(b) Protect areas of significant indigenous vegetation; or
(c) Protect areas of significant habitats of indigenous fauna; or
(d) Protect historic heritage; or
(e) Provide for or relate to aquaculture activities.
[207] Under that umbrella, counsel for both Auckland Council and NZTA agreed that PAUP required consents for the following activities which were not previously needed, being:
(a) Works in intermittent streams; and
(b) Vegetation removal in Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs).
[208] The deeming nature of the 2009 legislation is clear. Although ‘legal effect’ is not defined in the Act, there can be no doubt that the relevant rules referred to above must be complied with45.
[209] It is unnecessary, for the purpose of this Report, to analyse in any depth the issue of whether or not the notification of PAUP requires an amendment to NZTA’s application.46 The central issue was quite simply whether the
43 The ‘Super City’ as it was colloquially known. Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. 44 Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009. 45 See Re New Plymouth District Council [2013] NZ EnvC 56; see also to similar effect Wilson v Selwyn
[2003] NZRMA 350. 46 See the issues raised and discussed by the Court of Appeal in Sutton v Moule (1992) 2 NZRMA 41.
51
additional factors for which PAUP now required consents were self-evident from NZTA’s applications, thus obviating the need to renotify. Clearly the Board (under s 104(1)(b)(iv) – (vi)) must have regard to the proposed plan.
[210] Dealing first with intermittent streams, clearly the proposed works in and around intermittent streams fell within the scope of NZTA’s application. This is addressed in more detail in Chapter 10.7. With regard to PAUP and intermittent streams, it was clear from the application that the consents related to all watercourses, including intermittent streams in the Pūhoi and Mahurangi catchments.
[211] The position of Site 15A, designated a SEA under PAUP — a status not previously conferred on it — is equally clear. Although NZTA’s application did not refer specifically to the removal of vegetation in SEAs, it referred to land-disturbing activities, earthworks, roading, tracking and trenching, and also stipulated that the AEE would encroach on existing Significant Natural Areas as identified in the ACDP:R. Furthermore, Chapter 14 of the AEE and the Terrestrial Ecology Assessment Report assessed the impact on vegetation of the indicative alignment at each site.
[212] So far as vegetation removal is concerned (with particular regard to the SEA in Site 15A), the Board considers NZTA’s application, involving as it does vegetation removal inside a SEA, is clearly and unequivocally stated in the AEE and the accompanying Terrestrial Ecology Report. The then proposed resource consent conditions also touch on sediment control measures required as a result of vegetation removal.
[213] The Board considers that NZTA’s decision not to seek and notify an amendment as a result of the supervening arrival of PAUP creates no jurisdictional problem. Resource management law is not driven by matters of form47. Both vegetation removal and crossing of intermittent streams are, as is abundantly clear from NZTA’s application documents, consistent with the observation of the Court of Appeal in Sutton v Moule.48 The application:
“Related in substance and in effect to the use of the land and that the Council was entitled to deal with it on that basis.”
[214] Importantly, there is absolutely no prejudice to any member of the public or interested party. Site 15A and the intermittent streams in catchments (now both covered by PAUP) remain unchanged. Unchanged too, is the effect of NZTA’s proposals on those features. Submissions on those features, particularly by DGC, remain unchanged. The approach adopted by the Board was effectively common ground between counsel for NZTA and Auckland Council. No submission has been received to the contrary.
47 Body Corporate 970101 v Auckland City Council [2000] NZRMA 329. 48 Op cit at 48.
52
8.8 WHETHER BUNDLING OF CONSENTS IS APPROPRIATE
[215] When considering an application which requires multiple consents of different classes, it is usual, but not mandatory, to ‘bundle’ the activities requiring consent together and to assess them having regard to the most restrictive activity status of the consents needed.
[216] The proposed structures, use, and occupation of the CMA by the twin viaducts over the Okahu Inlet are non-complying activities. The remainder of the Project is wholly within the proposed designation and, as discussed elsewhere,49 trigger consents for controlled, restricted discretionary and discretionary activities.
[217] Auckland Council took the position that all activities should be ‘bundled’ with the most stringent activity status, that is, non-complying activity applying to all consents50. If bundling was considered appropriate, it would be necessary for NZTA to satisfy the Board that the activities in respect of which the resource consents are sought for the entire Project satisfied one of the gateway tests of s 104D.
[218] Section 104D of the Act applies to applications for resource consent for a non-complying activity. The Board may only grant such an application if satisfied that either:
(a) The adverse effects of the activity on the environment will be minor; or
(b) The application is for an activity that will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant plan or proposed plan.
[219] NZTA was of a contrary view. It submitted that coastal permit applications can be unbundled and assessed separately as non-complying activities with the rest being considered as discretionary activities.51
[220] The Board decided to follow Darby v Queenstown Lakes District Council.52 Applying the test in paragraph [33] of Darby, the Board is of the view that the coastal permit applications for the Okahu Viaducts can be appropriately unbundled from the other consents sought for the Project.
[221] These coastal permits are plainly limited in their scope and nature, in that:
The coastal permits sought relate to the construction of a structure in a discrete section of the Project;
49 Chapter 10.2. 50 Auckland Council Key Issues Report, November 2013, p 50. 51 Assessment of Environmental Effects, section 29.4.1. 52 [2007] NZRMA 420.
53
The nature of the site is significantly different from the rest of the Project area (CMA) and governed by a different planning document (ACRP:C); and
The viaduct is a non-complying activity because of the specific coastal ecological issues arising in the CPA1 area, which are not relevant to any other location in the Project area.
[222] Further, the effects of exercising the consents will be limited to the CMA and are unlikely to overlap or have consequential or flow-on effects on the other elements of the Project.
[223] Accordingly, the Board has rejected Auckland Council’s position. The construction of the twin viaducts and their occupation of the CMA will consequently be considered separately as coastal permits requiring consents as non-complying activities, with the rest of the consents for projects being assessed as discretionary activities.
8.9 HILL STREET INTERSECTION
[224] A subsequent chapter of this Report deals with the Hill Street intersection issue in greater detail53 .
[225] The Board’s assessment of the various legal issues arising out of the submissions it received on the Hill Street intersection led to the following conclusions which informed the Board’s approach:
(a) A condition requiring a general upgrade of the Hill Street intersection could not be validly imposed having regard to the specific direction of s 149P(4). NZTA’s NoR and various applications did not specifically seek any consents or conditions relating to Hill Street;
(b) For the Board to have jurisdiction to impose conditions relating to Hill Street it would have to be satisfied NZTA’s proposal would have an adverse effect on the intersection, either during the construction phase or as a result of the motorway’s general operations on completion;
(c) The Board considered that it could not validly impose a condition requiring a general upgrade of the Hill Street intersection in the absence of evidence of adverse effects flowing from the construction phase or the final general operations of the
53 Chapter 10.10.
54
motorway (the Board considered traffic management conditions during the construction phase were justified by the evidence); and
(d) The evidence the Board heard satisfied it that current problems relating to the Hill Street intersection had existed for some time; were likely to increase over the next five or six years. But these problems were not or would not be caused by NZTA’s proposal (currently inchoate) or by construction for the Project (yet to commence).
55
9. ISSUES WHICH ARE AGREED OR NOT CONTESTED
[226] At pre-hearing conferences and during the course of the Hearing, experts continued to have constructive dialogues. As a result, agreements were reached regarding several issues, which are discussed below or elsewhere in this Report. Some issues were uncontested.
9.1 CULTURAL
[227] The cry from many iwi and hapū across New Zealand has always been for Crown agencies, local government or their representatives to engage at an appropriate level with them before any draft proposals for initiatives that will affect them environmentally, socially, culturally or economically being released for consultation.
[228] NZTA in the very early stages of the Project formed a robust Treaty partner based relationship with Hōkai Nuku who have provided specialist advice across a range of matters relevant to the Project.
“We haven’t got a policy agreement with the NZTA but we do have an awesome MoU54 which is signed at a high level and that is specified in that agreement and has been all along our relationship”55
[229] The main outcomes of this relationship were to;
(a) Develop the cultural footprint section of the AEE, which identifies the connections and relationships of Hōkai Nuku with the Project area;
(b) Identify the effects of the Project on the cultural footprint; and
(c) Make recommendations to NZTA to manage these effects.56
[230] The Project as stated by Ms Moses-Tekani: “…now incorporates a range of measures in the conditions of the designation and resource consent which help mitigate the cultural effects. The most significant of these is the appointment of an Iwi Advisor to provide advice from Hōkai Nuku to the Transport Agency’s contractor during the planning, construction and implementation of the project”57
54 Memorandum of Understanding. 55 Transcript, Moses-Te Kani, p 893. 56 Statement of evidence, Moses-Te Kani, para 7. 57 Statement of evidence, Moses-Te Kani, para 53.
56
[231] NZTA, consistent with being a Treaty partner, purchased the site where Te Pā o Te Hēmara (R10/921) was previously recorded. This pā (situated inside the designated area), together with the rediscovered pā R10/1369 (which sits mostly outside the designated area) will now be subject to a long term management plan, developed and implemented in conjunction with Hōkai Nuku (D77 and D78).
[232] The Board applauds NZTA for the nature of the relationship that has been set in place and it is confident that this relationship will be sustained over a long period of time, post construction.
[233] The inclusion of Hōkai Nuku in all aspects of the development of the Project itself is probably the reason why there were no submissions made by any iwi or hapū groupings. The Board was informed at the outset of the Hearing that there were no disputes over cultural issues. The Board is satisfied that all Part 2 provisions which engage iwi interests have been considered.
9.2 HERITAGE
[234] A specialist advisor was commissioned to provide advice on the historic heritage of the designated area and immediate surrounds. The assessment involved providing input into the route options and preparing a heritage assessment report which involved a number of people.
[235] Dr Clough submitted that “there are relatively few historic heritage sites within the proposed designation boundary. Nine sites in total were identified, of which three can be avoided. There was some potential for adverse effects on unidentified subsurface archaeological remains exposed during construction, but this was largely confined to the Pūhoi sector”58
[236] He also stated: “I consider the provision of public access to sites that were previously inaccessible, and information on the history of the area and its heritage sites will be a positive effects of the Project, as will ongoing future management of the pa sites in partnership with Hōkai Nuku”59
[237] New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) submissions were in general support of the Project and agreed that the proposed conditions are compliant with their policies.
[238] Auckland Council had very few concerns and like NZHPT believed that consultation and compliance would address any accidental discoveries made during the construction phase.
58 Statement of evidence, Clough, para 27. 59 Ibid, para 57.
57
Assessment
[239] The Board is confident the relevant proposed conditions will preserve heritage sites of significant value and will generally mitigate any adverse effects on heritage areas.
9.3 CONTAMINATION
[240] Section 20 of NZTA’s AEE addresses the potential for contaminated soils to be encountered during the construction of the Project. It stated60:
“Certain activities, such as excavation of soil, extraction or lowering of groundwater and filling of land will be subject to consent under the National Environmental Standard (NES) for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health120
and the ARP:ALW.
The process of obtaining consent under the NES to disturb soil on a HAIL site itself requires a number of measures aimed at avoiding, remedying and mitigating potential adverse effects.
Given that the Contaminated Land Assessment Report is based on an indicative alignment, and detailed design is yet to be undertaken, the NZTA will seek any necessary consent under the NES and/or the ARP:ALW prior to construction of the Project.
Works on or in proximity to contaminated sites will be identified, assessed and managed on a case by case basis through the NES consenting process.
The Contaminated Land team undertook a preliminary site investigation for the entire Project area. 10 detailed site investigations (DSIs) were then undertaken. The DSIs were limited to areas of potential soil disturbance based on the indicative alignment and construction methodology. DSIs were not undertaken where no soil disturbance was anticipated.”
[241] Only four isolated sites were identified during the detailed site investigation (DSI), based in the indicative alignment61, being:
3 Pūhoi Road — a possible sheep dip;
517 SH1 — cottage industry mechanical repair workshop;
815 SH1 — possible sheep dip and treated timber; and
173 Carran Road — automotive workshop.
[242] No parties contested the above AEE approach. The Board accepts that this is the pragmatic and sensible way to address the management of potential contaminated land that may be encountered during the construction of the
60 AEE, section 20.1, p 288. 61 AEE, section 20.2.1, pp 288 and 289.
58
Project. With the exception of the Okahu Inlet, the alignment is entirely within pasture or forestry and there does not appear to be a high risk of encountering areas of significant contamination.
[243] The Board considers it appropriate to defer, until the detailed design stage, the final identification of any contaminated land and obtaining consents for the management of such land. Necessary consents may include that required under the NES, as well as a potential discharge consent under the relevant rules of ACRP:ALW and PAUP. Legally, if the disturbance of any land triggered those consent requirements, work lawfully could not commence until the consents have been obtained. The Board is satisfied that the deferral of any such consents will not result in any greater risk to human or environmental health.
9.4 AIR QUALITY
Effects
[244] The Project has the potential to affect air quality in two ways:
(a) During construction principally through the generation of dust; and
(b) During its operation by the emission of gases and particulate matter from the exhausts of vehicles, especially heavy commercial vehicles.
[245] Ms D Ryan gave expert evidence by way of affidavit to the Board on behalf of NZTA. No other expert witnesses gave evidence before the Board. Over 30 submitters included concerns about air quality in their written submissions. The submissions fall into six categories:
(a) Health effects of air pollution from construction activities and vehicle emissions during operation;
(b) Dust from construction activities causing contamination;
(c) Dust from the precast yard and site office (Yard 2);
(d) Construction traffic emissions;
(e) Dust from the rock crusher; and
(f) Effects on the operation of a fish farm.
[246] Ms Ryan has dealt comprehensively with these issues62 and has proposed a number of conditions.
62 Statement of evidence, Ryan, p 47 ff (onwards).
59
[247] Considering each of the above categories in turn, she has concluded:
(a) The effects of the Project on ambient air levels for key indicator contaminants for vehicle emissions will be less than minor;
(b) Dust from earthworks is typically coarse and tends to settle out, rather than be inhaled. The Construction Dust Management Plan (CDMP) and related conditions will ensure that quantities of small airborne particulate matter will not exceed ambient air quality guidelines;
(c) Deposition of dust from the Project, construction works has a potential to affect roof-collected water supplies, buildings, pasture and vegetation. Ms Ryan considers the CDMP63 will appropriately avoid as far as practicable dust arising from Project construction activities. In addition a complaints procedure has been included in the designation conditions64 to enable specific concerns to be addressed promptly. Notwithstanding these measures NZTA has offered a condition65 applying to all occupied dwellings within 200m of the designation boundary; and to identified dwellings to refill their potable water tanks every four months; and to conduct exterior house and window washing at the conclusion of construction works in the vicinity;
(d) Where construction traffic will use a metal road which is within 50m of a residential dwelling, NZTA have offered to seal such a road for at least 100m either side of the dwelling66;
(e) The risk of dust forming the surfaces of the pre-cast yard (Number 15 Woodcocks Road and Yard 2 at Pūhoi) will be avoided by requiring these yards to be sealed67;
(f) One submitter68 is concerned about air pollution from construction traffic along Woodcocks Road. Ms Ryan has stated that construction traffic will not cause ambient air quality guidelines to be exceeded69. The Board accepts that opinion. Also construction traffic is prohibited from using part of Woodcocks Road during specified hours,70 thus limiting air pollution risk;
(g) The rock crusher will be operated at least 150m from any dwelling71. A rock crusher management plan will be required72 and
63 Condition RC41. 64 Condition D6CA. 65 Condition RC45. 66 Condition RC42. 67 Condition RC43(c)(d). 68 Mahurangi College, Submission 105295. 69 Statement of evidence, Ryan, p 13, para 60. 70 Condition D16A(d). 71 Statement of evidence, Ryan, p 9, para 39.
60
Ms Ryan considers there will be no adverse effects from dust73. Ms Ryan also notes that blast material feedstock for the rock crusher is generally damp and will not result in any significant emissions of dust. The Board accepts this assessment; and
(h) The possibility of air quality affecting the operations of its fish farm was raised by Genesis Aquaculture74. A report commissioned by NZTA by Bioresearches noted that the findings of the air quality effects assessment75 indicated the predicted ambient concentrations were well below all standards guidelines and NZTA trigger points for all contaminants. Also the potential for adverse effects from construction dust could be minimised by the implementation of the mitigation measures presented. Ms Ryan notes76 that the Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report concludes that the fish are not sensitive to any suspended solids in the ponds that may result from dust deposition during construction.
Assessment
[248] Ms Ryan, NZTA’s expert witness, assessed the submissions77 and proposed a number of conditions78 to ensure that potential adverse effects will be avoided, remedied or mitigated.79 Her evaluations also considered the potential effect of a shift in the indicative alignment within the proposed designation boundary80.
[249] For dust generated by construction works Ms Ryan noted the acceptable criterion is that there should be no objectionable or offensive effects from dust deposition beyond the designation boundary. As noted above NZTA has voluntarily extended this boundary outside of the designation area for a further 200m and included certain specified properties as well for mitigation purposes81.
[250] For operational effects, the criteria used for air quality relate to the limits on the level of nitrogen dioxide gas and the amounts of air borne particulate matter, as set out in Ms Ryan’s Air Quality Assessment Report.82 Ms Ryan concluded83 that the effect on air quality from the road operation will be less than minor.
72 Condition RC83. 73 Statement of evidence, Ryan, p 13, para 59. 74 Submiission 109614 75 Sinclair Knight Merz 2011. 76 Statement of evidence, Ryan, p 9, para 3.1. 77 Affidavit, Ryan, p 10, para 46 ff 78 Conditions RC40B – 46, 82 – 86 and D55. 79 Affidavit, Ryan, p 5, para 22. 80 Affidavit, Ryan, p 8, para 34. 81 Condition RC45 and 45A. 82 Air Quality Assessment Report, Section 4, p 18. 83 Affidavit, Ryan, p 14, para 62.
61
[251] With regard to dust generated by construction activities, Ms Ryan considers adherence to the CDMP will be adequate to avoid significant adverse effects for the majority of the Project84. For sensitive areas in close proximity to construction, Ms Ryan has recommended specific measures, which include wind fencing and the sealing of metalled construction access roads where they run within 50m of a house85.
[252] In particular, Ms Ryan has identified two Highly Sensitive Air Pollution Land Uses (HSAPLUs), namely the residents at 466 SH1 (where she suggests specific measures such as wind fencing may help to mitigate effects); and a second property being the Hungry Creek Art School. The Board considers that site-specific CDMPSs should be developed for each of these two sites in consultation with the owners and occupiers and a condition to this effect has been included86.
[253] The Board has reviewed the proposed conditions and made some changes better to reflect Ms Ryan’s mitigation measures, and has also included a more robust condition to deal with complaints generally87.
[254] The Board is satisfied with these conditions and finds that the effects of the Project on air quality will be minor or less than minor.
9.5 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY (EXCLUDING SITE 15A)
[255] Mr Don in his evidence described the area as: “ …characterised by large areas of pine plantation (Hungry Creek, Schedewys Hill and Moirs Hill Road Sectors) managed pasture, and several smaller fragments of native secondary forest and scrub. Pine plantations provide habitat for threatened long tailed bats, “At Risk” North Island fernbird and “At Risk” New Zealand pipit. Smaller fragments of native vegetation provide habitat for other native fauna, particularly land snail and lizard populations. No native frogs were found within the project area. Of the 40ha of native vegetation within the proposed designation area. Less than 8.5ha falls within the indicative alignment”88
[256] Fauna and flora assessments carried out consisted of desktop reviews of a number of documents and databases and site visits. These site visits involved a number of experts who confirmed the presence of various species and habitats, both common and rare. The results showed that:
(a) Three ‘notable plants’ were found, those being green mistletoe, taraire orchid and short hair plume grass. These plants will not be adversely affected as they fall outside the alignment. A
84 Affidavit, Ryan, p 14, para 64. 85 Affidavit, Ryan, p 14, para 64 and Condition RC42. 86 Condition RC41B. 87 Condition D6CA. 88 Statement of evidence, Don, p 4, para 20 and 21.
62
management condition has been proposed to avoid potential dust effects on green mistletoe;
(b) It was determined that the overall effects of the Project were considered low to moderate, the highest being the loss of native vegetation, though in small areas along the alignment itself;
(c) Generally the effects of the Project on vegetation include; direct loss through the construction phase, edge effects, shading, and rain shadow effects on vegetation adjacent to the bridges and viaducts;
(d) Up to nine wetland sites will be lost to the Project. However, through the assessment phase it was determined that these sites were small and had low botanical value. Potentially there are other wetlands within the designation that will not be affected but may be worthy of preservation and restoration;
(e) Native land snails (Amborhytida dunniae), Copper skink and forest geckos (both native species), Fernbirds and the ‘nationally vulnerable’ long tailed bats are at risk during the construction period as vegetation is removed;
(f) Hochstetters frog — site visits over a defined period confirmed no presence of frogs within the designation area; and
(g) Terrestrial birds have been recorded in the wider area surrounding the Project. Of those species identified, 16 were native and 22 introduced. Only a single NZ pipit, considered an ‘At-Risk’ species, was located within the designated area.
Dr Beachamp:
(a) Agreed with the proposed conditions aimed at enhancing bat roosting and suggested that the condition be amended to require that the structures underneath viaducts include places for bats to roost, as they are ideal to protect bats from predators;89
(b) Recommended that suitable sites to relocate Rhytid Snail be selected, ensured that they are predator free and controlled prior to and post construction by at least three years, so that when they are found, they can be moved immediately after they have undergone a ‘cleansing process’ to reduce the risk of them transporting PTA;
89 Statement of evidence, Beauchamp, p 33.
63
(c) Raised concern over the “considerable lack of data provided by the applicant in relation to birds”90 and the reliance on literature as opposed to ensuring that field investigations are carried out over an appropriate period and time prior to construction;
(d) Stated that lizards are widespread along the indicative route, that DGC itself admits that it has “not managed to detect substantial recovery of lizard populations in any of its long term mainland islands sites”91. This, from DoC’s perspective, highlights the need to provide for those lizard populations that may be affected by the project in a manner similar to the recovery and relocation of the land snail;
(e) Commented that the matter of timing of surveys to be undertaken was considered vital to instil confidence in the success of all translocation efforts to reduce adverse impacts on the fauna of the forest;
(f) Supported the intent to develop a strategy in conjunction with other relevant parties, such as Auckland Council, to minimise and prevent the spread of kauri dieback;
(g) Noted that there may be conflict between the proposed designation conditions and the protocols to manage kauri dieback.
Assessment
[257] In conclusion the Board accepts that the Project does have the potential to affect adversely fauna and flora within the designated area, particularly during the construction period. However, it also accepts the overall assessment of Mr Don. The Board acknowledges some areas that were assessed as having high ecological values were able to be avoided as adjustments have been made to both the indicative alignment and designation. The Board finds that the effects of the Project will be mitigated through adoption of the conditions that have been imposed and that biodiversity may well be enhanced in the long term.
[258] Following expert conferencing on terrestrial ecology, a number of meetings took place between NZTA, DGC and Auckland Council resulting in an agreed set of conditions to address terrestrial ecology (excluding Site 15A).
90 Ibid, p 4, para 5.1. 91 Ibid, p 7, para 8.2.
64
10. CRITICAL AND CONTENTIOUS ISSUES
[260] Having outlined in the previous chapter issues that have been agreed or are not principal issues in contention, the Board now turns to those issues which remain in contention. Indeed most of them are critical to the Board’s final decision.
10.1 NO CONDITION 1 AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Condition 1
[261] Counsel for NZTA, in her opening submissions, signalled what she termed a ‘novel approach’ to conditions. This approach, in short, was that there should be no standard Condition 1.
[262] Without traversing past practice, a standard Condition 1 imposed on a consent-holder requires a project to be undertaken ‘in accordance with’ or ‘generally in accordance with’ such plans and specifications as are lodged as part of an application under the Act or alternatively tabled at the consent authority’s Hearing.
[263] NZTA has indeed lodged a series of design drawings covering sectors of the designation and proposed motorway. NZTA’s submissions, however, were that the various conditions it was inviting the Board to impose would appropriately address all potential adverse effects flowing from the Project. It was thus unnecessary to prescribe in precise or significant detail the works which would be undertaken within the designation corridor. In short, the conditions imposed would constitute “environmental bottom lines”, all of which would be met through the various construction methods contained in NZTA’s management plans.
[264] The justification for such an approach was that, environmental bottom lines being safeguarded, there would be no need to seek variations to the consent conditions imposed if, at the outset or during the course of the construction phase, contractors decided to vary or alter aspects of construction inside the designation. For instance, a contractor may decide that, instead of constructing an embankment to carry the motorway inside a sector of the designation, a viaduct might be preferable, or vice versa. The number of piers a viaduct required might be altered. The actual path of the motorway (but still inside the designation) might be moved, althought the extent of such movement may be limited92.
[265] In short, lodged plans and specifications were not cast in stone. The absence of a Condition 1 would permit flexibility, thus giving NZTA and contractors room for innovation; an ability to respond to construction techniques and the physical characteristics of the terrain once the Project
92 Transcript, Edmonds, p 193.
65
commenced; but not compromising at all conditions which the Board imposed to mitigate adverse effects. Such an approach was supported by Auckland Council.
[266] Two possible conceptual difficulties arise out of such an approach, being:
(a) Whether conditions imposed would remain adequate to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any effects which might flow from changes arising out of this flexibility; and
(b) Whether parties who had been notified and/or presented submissions would be prejudiced by the proposed construction being qualitatively or conceptually different from the Project of which they had notice.
[267] Focusing at the outset on NZTA’s proposed designation (designations being addressed under Part 8 of the Act), the Board sees little difficulty. In that regard, a NoR for a designation essentially secures the route or site for the future intended use and specifies the purpose for which the site will be used. Designations are therefore deliberately broader in scope and purpose than resource consents and it is common practice for NoRs to be issued over an indicative alignment for a motorway, with details of the work to be undertaken to be provided to the territorial authority later via an OPW under section 176A of the Act. There can be no contest over that approach. NZTA has not applied for a waiver of the requirement to provide an OPW. The Board considers that particularly relevant because the detailed design of the Project will be submitted to Auckland Council prior to the commencement of construction, with the Council having the right to request changes in order to address adverse effects and appeal to the Environment Court if NZTA objected to those changes.
[268] The constrained degree of flexibility that the absence of a Condition 1 would permit does not, in the Board’s view, transgress the mandatory requirements of Part 8. Indeed, no party has submitted to the contrary. The effects assessment has assumed that the alignment could be anywhere within the designation boundary. Having said that, the Board is also entitled to ‘pin down’ elements of the Project on sensitive parts of the route and impose specific conditions, if necessary, to control effects in that particular area and the Board has done so.
[269] A greater degree of scrutiny is required, however, on the effect of the absence of a Condition 1 in the context of conditions imposed by resource consents. The Board’s power to impose conditions (provided by s 149P(2), ranging as it does across ss 104 to 112 and 139A of the Act, includes the broad power contained in s 108 to impose conditions it considers appropriate (s 108(1)). It is trite to observe that such conditions must meet
66
the validity tests of Newbury.93 In addition to conditions being valid, they need to be certain and enforceable.94
[270] At the outset of the Hearing, it seemed to the Board that some of the initial conditions imposed by NZTA displayed some inconsistency (doubtless because of different drafting styles). Sometimes environmental bottom lines were unclear. Some conditions seemed aspirational rather than specific. However, as a result of the many redrafts and amendments which occurred,95 most of the Board’s concerns have dissipated.
[271] Areas of particular sensitivity along the proposed designation are listed briefly below. So too is one specific variation possibility which might have impacted on the approach of the relevant landholder. Listed too is a critical adverse effect (sedimentation). In all these areas the Board is satisfied that the conditions it has imposed flow from a full assessment of impacts, including consideration of potential worst case scenarios, and that the environmental bottom lines alluded to by NZTA’s counsel are preserved. These areas are:
(a) The Okahu Inlet
The conditions the Board has imposed provide for a building envelope stipulating the vertical and horizontal dimensions within which the proposed viaduct will be constructed over the inlet; the number of piers which will intrude into the inlet; and take sufficient cognisance of the inlet’s status under the relevant national and regional coastal management plans;
(b) The Pūhoi Viaduct
A viaduct which crosses the Pūhoi River passes close to various residences in Pūhoi Village as it tracks north. Some residents filed submissions expressing concern that the designation and/or the proposed motorway might be constructed further to the west than shown on NZTA’s lodged applications. The Board agrees that a significant westward movement would have a significant impact on these residents. Accordingly it has imposed a designation condition96 which prohibits the motorway moving any further west than 10m as currently shown on the lodged plans;
(c) Site 15A and the Eco-viaduct
The narrowing of the designation (proposed by NZTA) and the conditions imposed are designed to minimise adverse effects on the kauri grove and the channelling of the upper branch of the
93 Newbury District Council (full citation) [1981] AC 578. 94 Bitumix Ltd . Mt Wellington Borough Council [1979] 2 NZLR 57 95 Chapter 4.12. 96 Condition D2B.
67
Mahurangi River. These are adequate to protect the environment and minimise to a very large extent NZTA’s ability to change or vary what is imposed;
(d) The proposed Hikauae Viaduct
This viaduct to the west of Schedewys Hill crosses property owned by Fernbrook Farms. Counsel for Fernbrook Farms, by memorandum dated 12 June 2014, has confirmed that it is immaterial to her client whether the farm property is crossed by either a viaduct or an embankment, provided that access for stock and those operating the farm underneath the obstacle is provided.
The risk that other members of the public or interested parties might have lost an opportunity to make submissions should the Hikauae Viaduct be replaced by an embankment is, in the Board’s opinion, an insignificant risk. More importantly, it does not prejudice such a hypothetical person, given that no submissions other than from Fernbrook Farms were received on any specific aspect of the Hikauae Viaduct. The Board finds that such a hypothetical person would not be plausible and further finds that the effects of an embankment (were it to replace a viaduct) would in any event be identical; and
(e) Sedimentation
The Board addresses the relevance of a Condition 1 to potential sediment effects in the corresponding section of this Report. In summary, the Board is satisfied that the comprehensive conditions it imposes will satisfactorily minimise and mitigate the effects of sedimentation in the Pūhoi and Mahurangi catchments.
[272] In essence, the Board’s conclusion is that, given the range, detail and scope of the conditions it has imposed, imposition of an additional Condition 1 is unnecessary and would serve no useful purpose. The Board notes Ms Brosnahan’s closing submission97 that NZTA accepts the general principle that its activities would be limited, not only by the conditions, but also by the scope of its supporting documentation.98 The Board agrees with Ms Brosnahan’s broad comment that the consents which NZTA seeks would not sanction some undisclosed intention to do something which would result in effects outside what this Board has assessed. The various documents submitted by NZTA do not contain the confirmed alignment,99 or design or construction methodology. But, construction methodologies and Project
97 Closing submission, NZTA, Para 423, p 87. 98 In that context the Court of Appeal decision of Gillies Waiheke Ltd v Auckland Council Council [2004]
NZRMA 385, is relevant. 99 Rather, it is an ’indicative’ alignment.
68
design methods are, in the Board’s view, captured and controlled by the conditions the Board has imposed.
[273] The Board notes that counsel for DGC sought imposition of a Condition 1. In particular Ms Crossen sought to include in the ambit of such condition a Construction Water Assessment Report (CWAR). The Board does not consider that imposition of a Condition 1 in that area would add anything to the safeguards which have been constructed. Nor would such a condition, because of possible ambiguity, be enforceable. Both Mr Byrne and Mr Turbott, witnesses for Auckland Council, gave evidence to similar effect confirming this approach100. The Board has, however, included reference to the CWAR in specific conditions.
[274] Counsel for the Campaign for Better Transport, Mr Enright, sought in his submissions an orthodox Condition 1. Counsel cited as benefits which would flow from the imposition of such condition certainty of outcome and effect, access to source documentation, and the salutary effect of holding NZTA to its assurances. Although the Board accepts these benefits would flow from the imposition of Condition 1, it nonetheless concludes that the conditions which it has constructed and will impose on NZTA are sufficiently clear, focused and enforceable to secure all the outcomes Mr Enright sought.
10.2 OKAHU VIADUCTS
Description
[275] NZTA’s applications propose the motorway spans the Okahu Inlet by a viaduct — in fact two parallel viaducts crossing the CMA. The conceptual plan of the Okahu Viaducts indicates two separate structures, 524m long with up to a total of 14 piers, constructed on concrete pad foundations. The main spans are 70m101. Eight of the piers would be located within the coastal flat of the Okahu Inlet102. The indicative width of each pier is 4m.103 The pad foundations for six of the piers would be below mean high water spring (MHWS)104 and would occupy an area of about 150m2.
[276] To enable construction temporary access tracks will be necessary from each side through mangroves into the inlet. These will be removed once the construction is finished.
[277] The Okahu Inlet (the Inlet) is within an outstanding natural feature (ONF)105 as defined in PAUP and adjacent to ONLs as defined in PC8 to the ACRPS
100 Transcript, pp 2320 and 3046 – 3048. 101 Refer Plan ES-071. 102 Ridley and Sands, Construction Water Assessment Report, p 82, para 6.1.7(a). 103 Refer Plan ES-072. 104 Ridley and Sands, Construction Water Assessment Report, p 82, para 6.1.7(a). 105 Transcript, Sinclair, p 2904.
69
and PAUP. Regionally significant landscapes as defined in ACRP:C is located around the margins of the Inlet.
[278] The drawings show106 two of the piers from each viaduct (four in total) to be sited below MHWS, that is, within the CMA. Two others are sited at the edge of the inlet. The remaining piers will be outside the direct zone’s tidal influence (the CMA) and they, together with the viaducts’ superstructure will be within the proposed designations.
[279] The Inlet is a branch of the Pūhoi Estuary. The Inlet is visible from its north and south sides for those who travel down small local roads. Outside its channels the Inlet is populated by mangroves. The Inlet has been crossed for many years by SH1.
[280] Within the CMA, the viaducts are to be constructed within the building envelope prescribed107.
Principal effects
The viaducts will affect the landscape, visual and natural character of the Okahu Inlet and the surrounding terrain108;
The foundation pads of the piers will affect the bed of the estuary below MHWS, that is, the CMA109; and
The temporary access road necessary for the construction of the viaducts will affect mangroves and other saline vegetation in the littoral, and also marine organisms in the benthic material within the CMA110.
Evidence
[281] Section 22 of the AEE provides an assessment of the landscape and visual effects. Mr Pryor, NZTA’s landscape witness, discusses these111 and concludes that the viaducts will have minor landscape and visual effects in part due to the modified natural landscape. Under cross-examination, after establishing that the existing modified landscape round the inlet was classed as being regionally significant,112 Mr Pryor confirmed the view given in his assessment report113 that the viaducts were prominent structures.
106 Plan ES-071. 107 Condition RC69AA. 108 Statement of Evidence, Pryor ,p9, para 39 and transcript, p 633 and 634. 109 Drawings ES-071 and ES-072. 110 AEE, p 213 and 214, para 12.2.1; Statement of Evidence, De Luca p6, para 31; Transcript pp 2672 and
2676, para 4.2(b). 111 Statement of Evidence, Pryor, p 9, para 39. 112 As shown on maps ACRP:C. See also transcript p 639. 113 P 14, para 5.1.1.
70
[282] Under further cross-examination, Mr Pryor agreed the viaducts would have a more than minor effect on the existing landscape and visual values 114. He did not, however, describe these effects as adverse. Nor was he cross-examined further on this issue. Nor was his description of the visual values of the viaducts explored in re-examination.
[283] He conceded that if the bridge spans were increased in length, resulting in fewer piers, then this type of structure would better meet ACRP:C Policy 10.3.3, which relates to maintaining the open space nature of the inlet, and that a single arch viaduct would “certainly assist”115.
[284] Ms Sinclair, NZTA’s planning witness, in relation to objective 10.3.3 of the ACRP:C, considered that “the Project doesn’t compromise the wider open space nature of the environment”116. She argued that to be the case in spite of Mr Pryor’s view. The thrust of her evidence was that there were no adverse effects of the viaducts which were more than minor. She was considering all effects including visual and landscape effects.
[285] Mr Turbott, a witness for Auckland Council, did not address the Okahu Inlet or the proposed viaducts in his evidence in chief. In response to questioning he agreed in general terms with Ms Sinclair’s assessment. He accepted the proposed viaduct had a visual impact and that it would be viewed most often from SH1 and possibly also from the Pūhoi Estuary. The “proposed design” would have a “fairly low visual profile”; and importantly that in the context of relevant policies the viaduct was “… certainly not inappropriate”. He also assessed the natural character of the site as “ not a pristine site”117.
[286] Ms Hillock, an expert marine ecologist, gave written evidence118 on behalf of DGC. She considered that the Okahu Inlet had medium marine ecological values.
[287] Dr De Luca, NZTA’s marine ecologist, gave evidence about the effects on the seabed and the coastal margin. She considered119 the six concrete pad foundations that are to be placed in the inter-tidal habitat for the Okahu Viaducts and noted the area of occupation is anticipated to be approximately 70m2. She further expects120 that “all biota beneath the access track will die and the sediment will become increasingly anoxic”. However, “once the access track is removed, biological process will, over a period of several years, restore the area affected”121.
114 Transcript, Pryor, pp 633 and 634. 115 Transcript, Pryor, p 635. 116 Transcript, Sinclair, p 2886. 117 Transcript, Sinclair, pp 3096 – 3098 and transcript, Passim. 118 Statement of evidence, Hillock, p 2. 119 Marine Ecology Assessment Report, p 91, para 4.2.1(a). 120 Para 4.2.1(b). 121 Transcript, De Luca, p 2676.
71
[288] Dr De Luca considered that the Okahu Inlet has a medium ecological value. She thus agrees with Ms Hillock’s assessment. Dr De Luca used the terms “medium” and “moderate” interchangeably122. She considered123 that the proposed works in the Okahu Inlet would not significantly affect the ecological values. Her evidence in chief states124 that the construction of the piers would have negligible adverse effects. The existing mud snails would be collected by hand and relocated.
[289] The Board notes that there were no submissions specifically addressing the twin viaducts. Submissions endorsing the Project as a whole impliedly approve of the viaducts in that location.
Activity unbundling
[290] The proposed structures, use and occupation of the CMA by the twin viaducts over the Okahu Inlet are non-complying activities under Rule 12.5.22 of the ACRP:C. The remainder of the Project is wholly within the proposed designation and is treated as a discretionary activity. The whole issue of unbundling is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 8.8.
[291] The coastal permits sought by NZTA are plainly limited in their scope and nature, in that:
The coastal permits sought relate to the construction of a structure in a discrete section of the Project;
The nature of the site is significantly different from the rest of the Project area (coastal marine area) and governed by a different planning document (ACRP:C); and
The viaduct is a non-complying activity because of the specific coastal ecological issues arising in the CPA1 area, which are not relevant to any other location in the Project area.
[292] Further, the effects of exercising the consents will be limited to the CMA and are unlikely to overlap or have consequential or flow-on effects on the effects of the other elements of the Project. Accordingly, the Board has rejected Auckland Council’s position. The construction of the twin viaducts and their occupation of the CMA will consequently be considered separately as coastal permits requiring consents as non-complying activities.
122 Transcript, De Luca, p 2671. 123 Transcript, De Luca, p 2671. 124 Statement of evidence, De Luca, para 50.
72
Section 104D assessment
Gateway tests
[293] Section 104D of the Act requires the Board to be satisfied that at least one of two criteria are met, commonly called the gateway tests. They are:
the adverse effects of the activity on the environment will be minor; or
the application is for an activity that will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant plans.
First test
[294] In the light of Mr Pryor’s comments about increasing the bridge spans to minimise the number of piers in the CMA and their effects125, the Board questioned Mr Edmonds126. He agreed the central 70 metre spans could be increased to a maximum of 75m without significant changes to the design and construction127. Spans of 75m would enable two of the piers shown128 to be sited clear of the edge of the CMA, leaving just four piers (two supporting each viaduct) within the CMA, which has an indicative width of about 190m129. Any greater spans would incur substantially greater costs which could not be justified in Mr Edmond’s opinion.
[295] Mr Pryor also considered the effects of the viaducts on the surrounding ONL130. The viaducts do not cross an ONL but there is an ONL adjacent to the proposed crossing131. Mr Pryor’s evidence was that the ONL and the eastern side of the designation are separated by the current SH1. His view was that the viaducts would not adversely affect the ONL particularly because of its proximity to SH1.
[296] The variance between the 70m2 of piers occupying the benthic layer, on which Dr De Luca based her assessments, and the 150m2 area of the pile caps assessed in the CWAR has been considered by the Board. By constructing four CMA pile caps wholly below the benthic level,132 their 150m2 occupation of the seabed will not affect Dr De Luca’s assessment of the magnitude of the effects on the biota in the benthic layer. The relevant condition specifies this.
125 Transcript, Pryor, pp 633 and 634. 126 Transcript, Edmonds p 2811. 127 Transcript, Edmonds, pp 2011 – 2012. 128 Piers N3 and S3, drawing number ES-071. 129 Refer Plan ES-071, showing the area subject to tidal inundation. 130 Transcript, Pryor, p 614. 131 Transcript, Pryor, p 614. 132 Refer Condition RC69AA(b).
73
[297] The effect of the removal of mangroves at the edge of the Okahu Inlet to enable the viaducts to be constructed was addressed by Dr De Luca133. Dr De Luca said “I still don’t believe that taking a few mangroves out will have any adverse effects on the ecological values of the Okahu Inlet. Mangroves will quickly regenerate, they are very fast to colonise and they are not rare or threatened in anyway.” The Board accepts this statement and the restrictions proposed by NZTA included as conditions RC74 and RC75 regarding mangrove and saltmarsh removal. It finds accordingly.
[298] The Board accepts the evidence of Dr De Luca that the effects of the access tracks on biota will be temporary and did not justify an alternative construction methodology134. It finds accordingly.
[299] The views of NZTA’s expert witnesses, Mr Pryor and Dr De Luca, have been summarised above. The Board considers that the visual effects of the viaducts can be mitigated by requiring the design to be subject to an Urban and Landscape Design Sector Plan, and by limiting the number of piers to a practical maximum of two for each viaduct within the CMA.
[300] Ms Sinclair was of the opinion that the adverse effects on the Okahu Inlet were minor to negligible, even without taking into account the positive effects135. The evidence of Mr Turbott was essentially in agreement136. Positive effects include elevated views of the landscape from the proposed viaducts137.
[301] Although the effects have been evaluated on the indicative alignment as shown on the drawings, the Board is satisfied that provided the viaducts fit within the envelope prescribed in the conditions,138 the nature of these effects would not materially alter.
Second test
[302] Objective 12.3.1 of the ACRP:C Plan provides for appropriate structures in the CMA while avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment. What is appropriate is considered in Rule 12.4.7. Under this rule, structures of benefit to the regional or national community are considered to be appropriate where there is no reasonable or practical alternative to their location. Clearly, the viaducts over the Okahu Inlet are appropriate structures within the CMA in relation to this rule.
[303] Ms Sinclair considers the ACRP:C in the AEE for the Project139. She quoted Objective 10.3.3 as “to maintain where appropriate, the open space nature
133 Transcript, De Luca, p 2672. 134 Transcript, De Luca p 2676. 135 Transcript, Sinclair, p 2863. 136 Transcript, Turbott, p 3093. 137 Transcript, Pryor, p 635. 138 Condition RC69AA. 139 AEE, p 360.
74
of the coastal environment” Ms Sinclair considers that “The project doesn’t compromise the wider open space nature of the environment”140. Other objectives and policies have been considered by Ms Sinclair. She states141 “that the Project is not contrary to the objectives and policies of the ARP:C plan, being the only relevant plan in this instance”. The Board accepts this.
[304] Objective 12.3.1 and Policy 12.4.7 permit appropriate structures (subject to avoiding, remedying and mitigating) of benefit to the regional or national community. The Okahu Inlet is already crossed by SH1. The proposed highway is indisputably of regional and national benefit. The Board is satisfied that adverse effects are avoided, remedied, and mitigated.
[305] In the case of the twin viaducts, the existing Johnstone’s Hill Tunnels on the south side of the inlet, the two Pā sites on the northern side, and the Hibiscus Highway on the east, effectively rule out any alternative location from outside the building envelope specified142.
[306] Under PAUP, the Okahu Inlet has been identified as being within an Outstanding Natural Feature (ONF). Ms Sinclair has analysed the Project against specific criteria for ONFs under Rule I6.1.10143. Rule I6.1.4 (disturbance including mangrove removal) is also relevant.
[307] The Board also noted low weighting to be accorded to PAUP at this time, it having been notified on 30 September 2013. Although the Okahu Inlet is shown as being an ONF, the Board considered little weight can be accorded to this. The hearing of the submissions and decisions are some months away.
[308] Ms Sinclair, in the AEE, evidence in chief and under cross-examination, assessed all of the relevant objectives and policies of the ACRP:C and PAUP and concluded that the Okahu Viaduct would not be contrary to the objectives and policies of either of those plans. The Board has had regard to these matters and finds that the proposal of crossing the Okahu Inlet is not contrary to the objectives and policies of these plans. Again, there were no submissions to the contrary.
Section 104D assessment
[309] The Board has discussed the principal effects of the proposed viaducts. It has also summarised the evidence from the various experts. The Board’s conclusion is that, although there will undoubtedly be an effect flowing from the construction of the viaducts, the adverse effects which will result will, on the basis of the evidence it has heard, be minor. The Board finds accordingly and it is satisfied that the criteria of the first gateway (s 104D(a)) are met.
140 Transcript, Sinclair, p 2886. 141 AEE, section 29.4.2.. 142 Condition RC69AA. 143 Statement of evidence, Sinclair, p 10, para 55.
75
[310] Notwithstanding any ambiguity in the evidence and statements received from experts in relation to effects, the Board is satisfied that the proposed viaducts are not contrary to the objectives and policies of the ACRP:C or PAUP. This finding satisfies the second gateway.
[311] Having carefully considered the viaducts against s 104D and weighed the expert evidence, the Board is satisfied the Project passes both the gateway tests, although only one is necessary. The viaducts can thus be fully considered under s 104(1).
Section 104(1) assessment
[312] Having found that the effects of the viaducts are minor, the remaining matters to be considered under s 104(1) include NZCPS and other relevant planning provisions.
[313] In terms of the regional planning instruments, the Board has noted the key provisions above and, in that regard, considers that those provisions support the location of the viaducts across Okahu Inlet, particularly given the public importance of the structure, the physical constraints it faces and the already modified nature of that environment by the current route of SH1.
[314] With regard to NZCPS, counsel for NZTA summarised the way the Project meets the relevant policies of the NZCPS144 as follows:
“Policy 2 — Treaty of Waitangi, tāngata whenua and Māori Heritage clause(2a).
The indicative route of the project recognises the traditional cultural relationships by avoiding two pa sites.
Policy 6 — Activities in the Coastal environment Clause 6(1)(a)
The project recognises that the provision for infrastructure in the coastal environment is important.
Policy 13 — Preservation of natural character Clause 13(1)(b)
Significant adverse effects on natural character have been avoided, remedied or mitigated. The use of the CMA for the Okahu Viaducts is an appropriate use of the CMA.
Policy 15 — Natural features and landscapes Clause 15(1)(a)
ONLs surround the Okahu Viaducts and are avoided by the viaducts through route selection. Piers in the Okahu Inlet will not adversely affect the ONF (geological feature).”
[315] Policy 15(a) and (b) refer respectively to ‘adverse effects’ and ‘significant adverse effects’. Thus the issue is not whether route selection avoids the ONL as counsel suggests, but rather whether the effects of that activity will adversely affect the ONL.
144 NZTA closing submissions, p 75, para 363.
76
[316] The Board directed all counsel to deal with the recent Supreme Court decision Environmental Defence Society v NZ King Salmon Co Ltd145 in their closing submissions. No counsel, including counsel for DGC saw the Supreme Court judgment as an obstacle to the proposed viaducts. Nor was it contended that NZCPS policies meant the viaducts should be avoided or was inappropriate. The dicta in the judgment, however, have been carefully considered by the Board in the context of the relevant policies of NZCPS as they apply to the viaducts and the Okahu Inlet.
[317] The Board finds that the Project will avoid adverse effects on the ONL and the ONF. The Board is also mindful that little weight is to currently be afforded the ONF identified in PAUP, given the early stage of development of that plan.
Conclusion
[318] The Board concludes that the Project meets both gateway tests under s 104D.
[319] The Board is satisfied, having regard to all relevant matters, including the effects of the viaducts and the relevant planning instruments, that the viaducts are appropriate in this location.
10.3 SITE 15A AND ECO-VIADUCT
Site 15A
[320] Site 15A is located east of Wyllie Road and the designation. Mr Don notes that it “…takes in the eastern-most 10 ha or so of large (24 ha) native forest remnant on a steep south facing slope between a tributary of the Mahurangi River Right Branch and Wyllie[s] Road”146.
[321] The landowners of this site are Mr P White, Ms W Court and the Crown. Auckland Council owns an unformed legal road which runs through the forest.
[322] The forest stand itself is shown as a SEA in the PAUP.
[323] The vegetation within this block is described as mature secondary forest made up of a variety of native species, the bulk of which is taraire/ podocarp forest with small areas of kauri on the east facing ridges. The forest, on the evidence, has regenerated over the past century.
[324] Of highest ecological value is a 3ha area where kauri is the dominant species, ranging from 20m tall and 25 – 30cm in diameter. They are dense
145 Environmental Defence Society Incorporated v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited – [2013]
NZSC 101. 146 Terrestrial Ecology Assessment Report, p 21.
77
in the lower half of the northern-most ridge in the block. It is thought that these trees range in age between 75 – 100 years. Other notable species within this area are tanekaha and rimu. Broad leafed podocarp occupies most of the remainder of the forest. While there are smaller stands of kauri elsewhere within the designated area, there are none that are as densely populated by kauri as this one.
[325] The kauri that are the greatest size and density are those west of the indicative alignment area on the ridge crest. On the south-west facing side of the ridge are stands of smaller kauri, alongside podocarps and taraire. Heading down to the valley bottom the forest is less dense, with rimu in the canopy and black ponga in the understory.
[326] There is another small stand of kauri near the top of the ridge, outside the designated area.
[327] Kauri are shallow rooted and potentially susceptible to drought should any change occur to drainage.
[328] There appeared to be no signs or symptoms nor was there any evidence of kauri dieback within the designated area. However, as with other stands of kauri in Northland and Auckland, the possibility of the kauri dieback pathogen being in the soil cannot be excluded.
[329] Present also within the designated area, but outside that of the proposed alignment, is a mature kawaka tree measuring 58cm diameter at breast height (dbh) along with a number of seedlings. This species has a threat classification of “naturally uncommon”147.
[330] To the north there is a riparian forest made up of rimu, kahikatea, totara and tanekaha with scattered kauri. This area is partially fenced. To the south of the main forest block is an area similar to the northern area of partially protected riparian forest running 600m southwards along the stream banks of the Mahurangi River upper right branch. Parts of this forest are within the proposed designated area.
[331] Land snails, in particular Amborhytida dunniae, were identified and found not more than 20m inside the existing edge of the forest within dense leaf litter in the understory. These snails are classified as ‘at risk’ but, strangely, are not listed as a protected species. Because of this, approval to disturb under the Wildlife Act 1953 is not required.
[332] Reptiles were surveyed using artificial refuges (deployed over a number of weeks), night spotting and manual habitat searches.148 Forest geckos were the only reptiles found within Site 15A. No copper skink, ornate skink, Auckland green gecko or pacific geckos were found at the site despite the
147 De Lange et al, 2009. 148 Terrestrial Ecology Assessment Report (TEAR), sections 3.4.1 to 3.4.5, pp 15-16.
78
Department of Conservation (DoC) database containing records of these species within 3km of the designation149.
[333] Bats were not found within Site 15A. It is, however, noted that this site was in close proximity to where bats were located150 and there was a potential communal roost habitat present which could be used by bats occasionally.
[334] Birds identified consisted of Fantail, Grey Warbler, Silvereye, Tui, Kereru, Morepork, Harrier, Shining Cuckoo, Kingfisher, Spur-winged Plover and Paradise Shelduck — none of which have had a ‘threat classification’151 tag placed upon them.
Issues
[335] The proposed alignment traverses the eastern edge of Site 15A and is predicted to avoid, as much as practicable, most of the kauri stand. In particular it avoids the densest part of the forest.
[336] A 220m long viaduct is proposed to pass over most of the affected area within the designation at a height of between 6m – 20m. Approximately 374 kauri trees of varying age and height might be lost.
[337] The indicative alignment is not expected to affect more than 50m into the forest from the existing edge.
[338] Earthworks associated with the viaduct abutment will occur on the north-eastern edge of the forest. It is also proposed that seven of the 14 support piers be placed within the forest itself. This will require a temporary access track to be formed through the site.
[339] The scale of the proposed cut to the northern abutment will not, on the evidence result in any significant change to the natural drainage system enjoyed by the kauri.
[340] The riparian vegetation to the north alongside the Mahurangi River right upper branch may be affected. However, it is considered that generally the vegetation will remain contiguous.
[341] The indicative alignment avoids the mature Kawaka tree. However, having said that, it is likely that seedlings may well be in the area, given that there are mature Kawaka trees present only 4kms away.
[342] It is intended that trees located under the proposed viaduct will be trimmed. However, it is also likely that some of these, such as kauri and rimu, will be lost as a result of their inability to adapt to their altered habitat either during or after construction.
149 Terrestrial Ecology Assessment Report (TEAR), section 4.4, p 27.. 150 Terrestrial Ecology Assessment Report (TEAR). 151 Miskelly et al, 2008.
79
[343] The viaduct will run north to south. As such, it is expected that penetration of light will continue underneath most of it. Since the viaduct is also located at the base of a long ridge and valley system, the smaller vegetation (that which is not cleared away for construction purposes) will not be affected by rain shadow effects. Any surface water will tend to flow under the viaduct from the ridge above it.
[344] It is predicted that there will be edge effects as there will be “new” forest edges created as a result of the earthworks associated with the construction of the viaduct along the cut face, the abutment on the western side and the stream diversion. There is a risk of plants being lost as a result of ‘wind-throw’.
Effects
[345] According to NZTA152 the key effects of the Project are:
(a) Loss of a total area of 1.6ha of mature secondary forest and riparian planting;
(b) Loss of an area of circa 0.44ha of kauri forest, estimated to be 75 – 100 years old, containing some trees of medium size;
(c) Moderate edge effects;
(d) Potential for weed invasion along the newly created forest edges; and
(e) The potential for kauri dieback disease to be introduced and/or invade the site153.
(f) A reduction in habitat with the clearance of vegetation will have a negative impact on the Rhytid Snail154.
Submissions
Lay-submitters
[346] Various submitters addressed the potential adverse effects on Site 15A. Some were expert witnesses acting on behalf of Crown or local government agencies. Others were affected land owners or interested parties. The concerns raised were generally about the loss of native vegetation and birdlife, both during the construction phase and once the highway was operational. Erosion and sedimentation, noise and light pollution in the designation area were also referred to. These matters are dealt with
152 Terrestrial Ecology Assessment Report, p 36. 153 Ibid, p 36. 154 Amborhytida dunniae.
80
elsewhere in more detail within this decision Report. More specifically, submissions received were as follows;
(a) Mr P White (105778), owner of a Wyllie Road property opposed in part the Project requested a minor change to shift the designated area by 12m. This was agreed to by NZTA who shifted the boundary by 20m eastwards, made possible by the change from an embankment to a viaduct;
(b) Genesis Aquaculture Ltd (109614) which operates a land based fish farm located to the east of the designated area, opposed in part. It continues to have serious misgivings about the Project and is concerned that it has no guarantee that the motorway would not have a negative impact on its commercial aspirations;
(c) Ms W Court (103679), who has a residential property across the river opposed in full the Project which will cross the flattest third of her property. Proximity to the motorway was a core concern; and
(d) Generation Zero (105776), while not specifically referring to Site 15A expressed concern over the lack of evidence in terms of how the Project will avoid areas of native vegetation, especially those within an ONL.
NZTA
[347] In summary, the issue of the Site 15A was noted as an area of concern to NZTA and was addressed in the evidence of expert witnesses.
[348] Mr Don, in his evidence in chief155 confirmed that Site 15A is a SEA under PAUP. To mitigate potential adverse effects the forest itself would be mostly spanned by an eco-viaduct designed explicitly to avoid vegetation clearance. He acknowledged that there may be significant effects on the fauna residing within the forest area, during the construction period. However, there may also be longer term effects on long tailed bats and common birds as the replanted vegetation would take some time to mature enough to be of value to those species.
[349] He also considered the need for strict measures to reduce the risk of kauri dieback as a result of both construction activities and, potentially, in the operational phase of the motorway. Mr Don stated with respect to the replacement planting:
“….that about 1500 kauri seedlings would need to be planted to replace the estimated 374 kauri trees that would be lost from the estimated 0.44ha of kauri-dominated forest at 283 Wyllie Road. At 100 seedlings per hectare this is 1.5ha or 3ha if the stocking rate is set at 500 stems per hectare. The stocking rate represents
155 Statement of evidence, Don.
81
a theoretical compensation ratio of between 1:3.4 and 1:6.8 in terms of actual area. However, such ratios are arbitrary in the sense of replacement and take no account of the quality of the replanted area which in this case is high. In addition to kauri planting will be replacement planting of totara, puriri, rimu and tanekaha etc., at this site which would add to the total area that will be replanted is difficult to calculate without identifying and measuring all of the trees over 15cm dbh that fall within the construction footprint.”156
[350] The process undertaken, as stated by Mr M Edmonds, to determine the most suitable route took into account a range of constraints and concluded with the following three options that were then fully considered, these being:157
(e) A route to the west of the Genesis fish farm (western option);
(f) A route over the fish farm (central option); and
(g) A route to the east of the fish farm (eastern option).
[351] Dr Donovan assessed NZTA’s proposal that the Mahurangi River upper right branch would be diverted. This issue is dealt with elsewhere in the Report.158
[352] Hōkai Nuku stated the following, and while not limited to Site 15A it is indeed relevant:159
“The removal of any of the remaining indigenous flora and the use of introduced species for replanting has a significant impact on the ability of Hōkai Nuku to hauhake / Kohikohi — harvest and gather food, medicines and resources. It also impacts on our ability as kaitiaki to maintain and restore indigenous ecosystems and habitats. Hōkai Nuku recommends that all replanting should support indigenous bio-diversity and be eco-sourced as per Auckland Council guidelines. Replanting should also enhance the environment and be at a rate higher than 1:1.”160
Auckland Council
[353] Dr N Waipara, on behalf of Auckland Council, proposed conditions aimed at reducing biosecurity risks associated with Phytophthora Taxon Agathis (PTA), commonly known as kauri dieback. Dr Waipara explained that:
“ ….kauri dieback is a soil borne disease and is associated with a collar rot causing large bleeding basal lesions on the trunk, canopy dieback, and tree death. All stages of the kauri lifecycle
156 Statement of Evidence, Don, p 17, para 82. 157 Statement of supplementary evidence, Edmonds. 158 See Chapter 10.7. 159 Statement of evidence, Moses Te-Kani, para 37. 160 Statement of evidence, Moses Te-Kani, para 37.
82
and age/size classes are infected and killed. PTA is therefore pathogenic to kauri.”161
[354] PTA has been detected within kauri stands in both the Rodney and Kaipara districts. Therefore the prevention (if not already present) of PTA spreading into this area is a matter of critical importance. Dr Waipara contributed greatly to the draft designation conditions.
[355] Mr C Turbott presented evidence on three matters: planning evidence on the management of the effects of the Project where agreement had not been reached with NZTA; planning evidence in support of the Project; and on matters understood to be agreed with NZTA. The matters covered specific to Site 15A included: relocation of native fauna; construction of a viaduct; and modification of the designation areas to protect the kauri stand; the replacement planting regime; and control of the spread of kauri dieback. Other matters he mentioned are covered elsewhere in this Report.
Director-General of the Department of Conservation (DGC)
[356] DGC submitted: “The one significant area that remains outstanding in the area of terrestrial ecology is potential adverse effects of the project on the stand of kauri trees at Site 15A. In DoC’s view, the road should be moved as far east as legally and practically possible and that this should be reflected in the conditions, to minimise adverse effects on the kauri trees. The trees at Site 15A are identified in the PAUP as being within a Significant Ecological Area”162
[357] Throughout the Hearing a number of facilitated and non-facilitated meetings took place between NZTA and DGC resulting in an agreement that they would actively share information aimed at reducing the issues about the kauri trees. This was carried out and subsequently the proposed conditions reflect the outcome of the continued communication between those two parties.
[358] The expert witness on terrestrial ecology called by DGC, Dr A Beauchamp acknowledged potential effects on site 15A would be reduced if the proposed alignment was moved slightly east.
[359] The Statement of planning evidence provided by Mr Scott on behalf of DGC concurred with Dr Beauchamp.
Factual Findings
[360] As discussed in Chapter 10.5, the Board finds that NZTA has met its obligations to assess alternative alignments. This has included a detailed
161 Statement of evidence, Waipara. 162 Opening legal submissions, DGC, para 55.
83
consideration of balancing the potential effects in its selection of the route across site 15A.
Realignment of the designated area Site15A
[361] As discussed in Chapter 8.3, the Board considered whether it had the power to shift the designation further east to avoid the kauri stand, in response to submissions received and their own concerns. The Board considered that it did not have the power to modify the designation boundary to an extent sufficient to achieve that outcome. Such a modification would create effects that had not been anticipated by submitters or potential submitters, or assessed in detail by NZTA. However as a result of engagement with the Board on this issue, NZTA agreed to contract the width of the designation at that location so as to further limit the horizontal extent the eco-viaduct could move from the indicative alignment.
Avoidance of Kauri stand
[362] It is common ground between all parties that the alignment must do its utmost to ensure the least adverse effect on the kauri stand. In the closing submission for NZTA it was stated;
“ …if the designation could not be moved, the conditions appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated the loss of kauri trees. The experts were comfortable with the conditions proposed…”163
[363] The risk of kauri dieback was seen as a significant issue and as such the conditions agreed by Dr Waipara, NZTA and DGC are seen as sufficient in order to mitigate the risk of the spread of this disease throughout the forest across the entire designation.
Assessment
[364] The Board accepts; that the effects of the Project on the amenity values of neighbouring properties of Site 15A will be significant given the fact that their existing outlook is that of a peaceful vista in a quiet rural setting and will certainly change once construction begins. As one resident stated:
“I chose Perry Road because it was perfectly positioned to capture the rural lifestyle I was looking for, and this property was privately positioned at the quiet end of a cul de sac, offering security and quiet surroundings, which is important to me…”164
[365] The Board also accepts that the proposed alignment within the designation has been moved as far as possible to the east in order to reduce the negative effects on the kauri stand, while balancing other factors including amenity, the commercial viability of the fish farm and possible geotechnical
163 Closing submissions, NZTA, para 211. 164 Submission, Wendy Court, 103679.
84
constraints. The Board broadly accepts the closing submission of NZTA’s counsel on this issue which was:
“The potential effects of the project on the Perry Road area have been managed appropriately. The designation in this area is undoubtedly between a rock and a hard place. However, the loss of indigenous vegetation, including kauri trees, and the amenity of surrounding neighbours have been carefully considered throughout the options evaluation and assessment of the environmental effects process. After mitigation strategies are taken into account, the residual effects in this are not significant and have been appropriately managed, recognising the delicate balance of consideration in the area”165
[366] The Board generally accepts the overall assessment of NZTA and its willingness to work with other parties to come to an agreement to avoid, minimise and mitigate the effects of the Project on the Site 15A. The measures identified in the proposed conditions, while not providing a solution acceptable to all parties, has resulted in an outcome that will address the various adverse effects which the evidence identified. In particular the destruction of kauri trees in the site 15A SEA has been minimised by the narrowing of the designation.
[367] Overall the Board finds that the adverse effects of the construction of the motorway and its designation through Site 15A are minimised and mitigated by the various conditions imposed.
10.4 CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
[368] There are seven, at least, points of access to the Project proposed for construction. These are:
Pūhoi;
Fernbrook Farm below Schedewys Hill;
Moirs Hill Road;
1488 SH1 opposite Lee Family Trust property;
From Wyllie Road to Construction Yard 11 (opposite Valerie Close);
Woodcocks Road at the casting yard; and
The junction between the northern end of the Project and SH1.
165 Closing submissions, NZTA, para 9.9.
85
[369] The effects associated with construction traffic are assessed in Chapter 10.9.
[370] Effects that are specific to the other points of construction access are also addressed separately.
[371] The Board is satisfied that the potential effects of construction access will be appropriately managed, by way of conditions imposed.
10.5 ALTERNATIVE ROUTES AND ECONOMICS
[372] A small number of submitters166 urged that the Board decline NZTA’s various applications on the basis that there were feasible and/or more economic alternatives to the proposed motorway.
[373] These submissions, in summary form, suggested as alternatives:
(a) To leave and use the current SH1 as it is (‘do nothing’). Providing a motorway would encourage undesirable urban spread; encourage greater use of fossil fuels; waste expenditure of taxpayer money on an unsound or unproved basis; was (as a motorway) unnecessarily destructive of the environment; was a continuation of an undesirable trend of creating and upgrading highways; discouraged use of other public transport options;
(b) A more efficient and economic use of resources would be to upgrade and widen (by either providing three lanes or four lanes) the current SH1;
(c) A preferable route would be well to the west following where possible the North Auckland Rail Line (NAL);
(d) In terms of fatalities and accidents, the most dangerous part of SH1 between Auckland and Whangarei was the section between Warkworth and Wellsford, particularly where the highway crossed the Dome Valley. NZTA’s applications left this notorious section of SH1 unimproved;
(e) Instead of the proposed designation, more sensible options to access the North were continuations of SH1 by more westerly or coastal (easterly) routes; and
(f) There had been an inadequate cost-benefit analysis of the proposed Project.
[374] One of the difficulties with which these submissions posed the Board is that no expert evidence was called to challenge the economic and cost-benefit
166 See Appendix 8
86
assumptions on which NZTA’s applications were based. Nonetheless, the submissions generally, and the statutory status of “alternatives” in particular, require the Board to deal briefly with these issues.
[375] Section 88(2)(b) of the Act requires NZTA to conform (with its resource consent applications) with Schedule 4 of the Act. The AEE must include167 a description of possible alternative locations or methods for the exercise of a proposed activity. Importantly, s 171(1)(b) of the Act requires this Board to consider whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites and routes, but only where it is likely that the activity will result in any significant adverse effect on the environment.
[376] In his closing submissions, Mr R Enright, counsel for Campaign for Better Transport, cited the recent High Court decision of Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council168 where Whata J has stated:
“[122] There is authority, however, that a suppositious or hypothetical alternative need not be considered. But given the statutory requirement to have particular regard to the adequacy of the consideration given to alternatives, it is not sufficient to rely on the absence of a merits assessment of an alternative or on the assertion of the requiring authority. Provided there is some evidence that the alternative is not merely suppositious or hypothetical, then the Court must have particular regard to whether it was adequately considered …
[132] There is nothing in the language of ss 7(b) or 171(1)(b) that imposes a legal duty on the requiring authority to prepare a cost-benefit analysis or requires the Court to consider a cost-benefit analysis. As the Court noted, such analysis may be very helpful and the failure to do so may mean that the Court finds that the assessment of efficiency and/or alternatives is inadequate but rarely will the failure of the Court to require a cost-benefit analysis amount to an error of law …. In short, the assessment of efficiency and/or alternatives is essentially an assessment of fact, on the evidence, not readily amenable to appeal on a point of law.”
[377] Mr Enright relied on this High Court judgment as authority for the proposition that it was open to this Board to find that the failure to undertake a cost-benefit analysis meant that the consideration of alternative routes, sites and methods by NZTA was inadequate. Such a consideration, submitted counsel, might also extend to an analysis under s 5 and even trigger the s 7(b) principle (the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources).
[378] In addition to the High Court judgment there are Environment Court authorities, Waimairi District Council and Christchurch City Council169 to the
167 1(b) of Schedule 4. 168 [2013] NZHC 2347. 169 PT C30/82, 13 July 1982.
87
effect that, in route selection, the focus should be on whether an applicant has acted arbitrarily or given only cursory consideration to alternatives. The consideration of alternatives must be adequate. There is no need for an applicant to establish that there are no alternative sites, routes or methods.170 There is nothing inconsistent with these well established principles in Whata J’s judgment. There is no evidence that the various alternatives considered by NZTA were based on supposition or were hypothetical. Nor, as the Board has stated, is there evidence that NZTA’s consideration was anything other than adequate.
[379] The application documents filed by NZTA are comprehensive. Consultation with interested and affected groups has been extensive, spanning in some cases several years. Section 7 “alternatives” in the AEE sets out in detail the process whereby NZTA considered the various options and alternatives open to it. The Board is satisfied that the consideration of alternatives to the proposed route and designations by NZTA was conscientious and comprehensive. Many evaluation criteria were deployed, including a “value for money” criterion. Seven broad corridor options were evaluated. Inside the various sectors of the proposed motorway short-listed route options were considered and assessed.
[380] Section 7.6 of AEE volume 2 states: “The Project has been selected following a rigorous options development, evaluation and design process undertaken during the Scheme Assessment phase for the Pūhoi to Warkworth section of [the highway] and the current statutory approvals phase. This process involved a long-list of potential alignments being reduced to a short-list and refinement through additional investigation and design advancement in two phases of consultation with the Project’s stakeholders and the wider community to select the indicative alignment.
The indicative alignment will avoid major environmental, social and cultural constraints within the Project area and provide a large number of benefits.
To summarise, the indicative alignment will provide the following:
Opportunities for positive economic development for the north Auckland and Northland Regions and wider areas;
Better value for money (when compared to other options);
Improved safety and personal security through a better quality road with less travel times and better safety features for road users;
Protection and promotion of public health, including a reduction of through traffic in Warkworth and in proximity to sensitive receivers, such as Mahurangi College;
170 See also Beda Family Trust v Transit New Zealand N EnvC A139/2004, 10 November 2004, at [57], and
Quay Property Management Limited v Transit New Zealand N EnvC W28/2000, 29 May 2000, at [148].
88
Route security and resilience through the provision of alternative options to SH1; and
Avoidance of impacts on sensitive environmental areas such as the Pohuehue Scenic Reserve and overall lower impacts on environmental values in comparison to the other options assessed.”
[381] In the ‘Executive Summary’ under the heading “Alternatives to the Project”, in addition to the long-list of corridor options and the short-list of options referred to above, the following appears:
“Refinements of the route occurred in response to staged community inputs and the findings of further, more targeted environmental investigations.
The ‘do nothing’ option was addressed during the earliest strategic studies and assessments, and was found to be unacceptable in terms of transport, economic development, community and environmental outcome. The ‘do nothing’ scenario did not progress beyond the Scheme Assessment.
The NZTA investigated an online upgrade of SH1 between Pūhoi and Warkworth in response to community feedback. The online option did not perform as well as an off-line motorway option. It did not provide comparable benefits in terms of improved travel times and travel efficiencies, safety improvements and route security. The online upgrade would involve significant off-line sections to achieve the RoNS design standards, further reducing the benefits of this option.”
[382] The Board is satisfied, on the basis of the evidence it has heard from NZTA witnesses, that the above statements contained in the application documents fairly represent the process whereby the proposed designation was reached. Such process involved the consideration and assessment of various alternatives. Amongst the assessment criteria used were financial and economic considerations.
[383] The Board has not overlooked submissions presented by The Campaign for Better Transport, Dr Civil, and others which challenged NZTA’s assessment methodology in a number of areas including, cost and justification for the Project. However, it is not for the Board to substitute its own judgement in these areas provided that it is satisfied NZTA has given adequate consideration to alternatives and has not acted in an arbitrary fashion. The matters raised by The Campaign for Better Transport are really high policy matters which pass into the political arena. NZTA’s statutory objectives and functions cannot properly be challenged in the context of the Hearing before the Board.
[384] The ‘do nothing’ option and alternatives proposed by some submitters of upgrading the current SH1 also merits a brief comment. The benefits (assuming appropriate mitigation) of the proposed motorway over the current SH1 route are compelling in terms of road safety, travel times and more efficient fuel consumption. Schedewys Hill features large. The effect of slow heavy vehicles travelling north up this hill on speed, travel time and
89
fuel consumption of other traffic is considerable. The cost of converting the current SH1 alignment on the hill to three or four lanes would be significant, requiring cantilevering over the edge of the hill feature, quite apart from considerations of gradient.171
[385] In another part of this Report172 the Board examines issues arising out of the proposed designation through Site 15A (the eco-viaduct and the upper right branch of the Mahurangi River which skirts the kauri grove near Perry Road). The route of the designation on this sector of the proposed motorway is problematic. Nonetheless, as is apparent from Mr Edmonds’ supplementary affidavit of 28 April 2014, various options and sub-options were appraised, as a result of which NZTA made the decision which in essence weighed the interests of a fish farm owned by Genesis Aquaculture and the Perry Road community over the ecological value of a small portion of the kauri grove. Given that this Board has no legal power to move the designation,173 it is not for this Board to reassess the various options and sub-options considered by NZTA and substitute its own decision. Again, although an alternative slightly to the east of the current designation might have been preferable, there is no evidence, particularly on the basis of the evidence from Mr Edmonds and NZTA’s planner, Ms Sinclair, that the merits of alternatives were ignored or inadequately weighed.
[386] In short, the Board is satisfied, on the basis of the evidence it has heard, that NZTA’s consideration of alternatives has been broad, robust, and adequate. The requirements of s 171(1)(b) and Schedule 4 of the Act have been met, and indeed exceeded.
10.6 SEDIMENTATION
The Proposal
[387] While seeking flexibility in terms of detailed design and the extent of works, NZTA has assessed the Project as comprising a predicted 8 million m3 of cut and 6.2 million m3 of fill over an area of approximately 189ha. It will also include the construction of multiple culverts (approximately 40) across intermittent and permanent streams, up to seven viaducts (including the crossing of the Okahu Inlet), and five bridges174. Other works will be required including establishment works, formation of access roads and tracks, and an upgrade of Moirs Hill Road.
[388] NZTA has specifically requested that the designation be confirmed and the resource consents be granted without a General Condition 1, which links the proposed earthworks to drawings and documents submitted in support of the applications. The stated reason is to maximise the potential for
171 Statement of rebuttal evidence, Edmonds, para 33. 172 Chapter 10.3. 173 See Chapter 8.3. 174 Construction Water Assessment Report, section 1.3, p 4.
90
innovation in detailed design. NZTA presented a suite of conditions that it considers sufficiently limit the range of adverse effects that could occur during construction.
[389] Modelling was undertaken for a 5 year and 10 year construction period, to determine background sediment loads and the additional sediment loads that would occur during the construction phase. This was based on two focus areas (Hill and Flat)175. Indicative design erosion and sediment control plans where prepared for each focus area, based on the proposed conditions.
[390] An annual average sediment yield was estimated for the Project area, using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems (GLEAMS) model, based on a staged increase in open earthworks areas176.
[391] Event-based daily sediment yields were derived for the 2, 10 and 50 year average recurrance interval (ARI) rain events, again for 5 and 10 year construction periods, using the GLEAMS model to predict sediment yield from the focus areas and extrapolating to provide an estimate of Project sediment loads177. This modelling assumed that the full open area limits would occur during each event (rather than the staged approach taken for the annual sediment load modelling).
[392] In each case the background sediment loads for the catchments were derived from the Basin New Zealand (BNZ) model.
[393] The outputs were used to provide a comparison of the sediment yields reaching the marine receiving environments with and without the Project. The predicted sediment loads within the Mahurangi River catchment, Mahurangi Harbour catchment and Pūhoi River catchment (based on a 5 year construction programme) are summarised below178.
Catchment Background mean annual sediment load (t/year)
Additional mean annual sediment load (t/year)
Increase (%)
Mahurangi River catchment 12193 1553 12.7%
Mahurangi Harbour catchment 45931 1553 3.4%
Pūhoi River catchment 18311 1261 6.9%
175 Ibid, Table 26, page 119. 176 Water Assessment Facutal Report 1, Appendix A; CWAR, Table 31, p 126. 177 Construction Water Assessment Report, section 7, p 104. 178 Construction Water Assessment Report, Table 34, p 135.
91
[394] The rainfall used in the sediment modelling was based on HIRDS data for the USLE modelling, and daily rainfall data from a 50 year climate record from rainfall stations in the Mahurangi Harbour catchment for the GLEAMS modelling. The applicability of the rainfall database was checked by comparison to actual rainfall records. For flood analysis purposes the rainfall used was based on a frequency analysis of actual rainfall records from the Mahurangi and Warkworth areas.
[395] NZTA applied the outputs of the sediment yield modelling to a coastal processes model to predict the distribution and depth of sediment that may result from the Project in the 2, 10 and 50 year rainfall events179.
[396] A freshwater ecology assessment was undertaken180 using the sediment yield predictions, and analysis of existing data and in-stream assessments, including the Stream Ecological Valuation (SEV) methodology.
[397] A marine ecology assessment181 was undertaken using the outputs of the coastal processes model, and:
Literature review of the existing marine ecological values;
Benthic invertebrate infaunal and epifaunal surveys;
Analysis of common stormwater contaminants in sediment; and
Sediment grain size analysis.
[398] Based on the modelled outputs and ecological assessments, NZTA determined what it considered an appropriate envelope of effects within which the Project will operate during the construction phase182, based on a likely five-year construction period. In summary, potential adverse effects of the Project on freshwater183 and marine184 receiving environments were assessed as minor, with the exception of potential sedimentation within the middle and lower reaches of the Pūhoi Estuary during a 50 year ARI rainfall event. In that scenario, the potential adverse effects were predicted to be moderate.
[399] An erosion and sediment control methodology has been proposed to ensure that the construction of the Project operates within the modelled and assessed envelope of effects.
179 Water Assessment Factual Report 5, section 3.2, p 9. 180 Feshwater Ecology Assessment Report, section 3. 181 Marine Ecology Assessment Report, section 2. 182 Water Assessment Factual Report. 183 Feshwater Ecology Assessment Report, sections 5.1(c) and 5.1(f). 184 Marine Ecology Assessment Report, tables 24 and 25, p 87;
92
[400] Pre-construction monitoring of receiving environments is proposed. Monitoring of erosion and sediment control measures and receiving environments is proposed during construction and responses are specified in relation to trigger rainfall and effects events. These monitoring requirements comprise what NZTA refers to as the ‘adaptive monitoring programme’185.
[401] NZTA has not proposed to progressively increase open area limits as the Project proceeds. Rather, a single set of open area limits are proposed for the three main sectors of the Project: Pūhoi Hills, Mahurangi Hills and Mahurangi Flat of 41ha, 41ha and 21.5ha respectively. This approach is based on the outputs of the modelling.
[402] NZTA has also sought the flexibility to temporarily increase those limits under specified circumstances. The results of the adaptive monitoring programme are intended to support that flexibility186.
Key Elements of the Receiving Environments
[403] As noted, the Project alignment traverses the catchments of the Pūhoi Estuary and the Mahurangi Harbour. The catchment boundary is at Moirs Hill Road.
[404] When considered from south to north, the catchments typically comprise steep to moderate hill country, with gradients easing to the north of Perry Road after which the proposed alignment traverses rolling to flat land up to the proposed new intersection with the existing State Highway 1 north of Warkworth. Approximately 45% of the earthworks footprint is predicted to occur on land steeper than 15º187, and approximately 9.2% will be within land steeper than 30º188.
[405] The Project alignment is predominantly underlain by Waitemata Group sandstone and mudstone geology (Pakiri Formation). The section in the vicinity of Fernbrook Farm (Hikauae Viaduct) crosses Northern Allochthon geology, and sections north of Perry Road cross Tauranga Group alluvium and colluviums in valley floors, including peat soils.189
[406] Land uses along the alignment are generally production forestry and pastoral farming. Various countryside living properties will also be affected.
[407] The freshwater and marine receiving environments have been described in detail by NZTA and are summarised as follows.
185 Statement of evidence, Ridley, para 59 to 60. 186 Ibid, para 61. 187 Construction Water Assessment Report, section 3.2.2, p 26. 188 Ibid, table 7. 189 Ibid, section 3.3, p 28.
93
Pūhoi Catchment
[408] The sectors through the Pūhoi catchment (Pūhoi, Hungry Creek and Schedewys Hill)190 will cross 25 streams, of which 12 have been assessed as permanent191, using the definition applied under the ARCP:ALW. Those south of Pūhoi Road drain directly to the Pūhoi Estuary, while those to the north drain to the Hikuaue Creek, which is the main waterbody draining the northern part of the catchment. The Project will cross the upper reaches of the Hikuae stream within Fernbrook Farm.
[409] The intermittent streams were described as having poor quality habitat192. The permanent streams where described as having poorer quality than the Pūhoi River193, and being impacted by stock194.
[410] The extent of floodplains within the Pūhoi catchment was raised during the Hearing, and is commented on later.
[411] The Pūhoi Estuary has a contributing catchment area of approximately 53km2 (approximately half that of the Mahurangi Harbour) and an open water area of approximately 1.5km2 (less than 10% of that of the Mahurangi)195. It was described as a “mature, highly infilled, tidal lagoon with extensive intertidal flats fringed by dense mangrove stands and saltmarsh that provide important habitat for indigenous birds and fish”, with water clarity observed as high, but “diversity, richness and abundance of benthic invertebrates in subtidal and upper estuary intertidal sites are low and dominated by tolerant organisms”196. The estuary is used for kayaking, and boat moorings and a boat ramp are located nearer the mouth.
[412] It is denoted in the ACRP:C as comprising Coastal Protection Areas (CPA) 1 and 2, with the majority of the extent immediately adjacent to the Project alignment being CPA 1. These have corresponding SEA Marine 1 and 2 overlays in the PAUP. Its values described in the ACRP:C include intertidal feeding grounds for a variety of wading birds, and “some of the best saltmarsh and mangrove in the district”197, as well as providing habitat for a variety of secretive coastal fringe birds. It is also denoted as a Protected Natural Wildlife Area in the ACRP:C.
[413] The Estuary is also denoted as an ONF 245 in the PAUP, attributed to a geological feature Wenderholm Sand Barrier and Pūhoi Estuary.
190 Ibid, figure 1, p 5. 191 Memorandum of counsel on behalf of NZTA responding to the Board’s direction regarding intermittent and
permanent streams, 3 July 2014. 192 Statement of evidence, Donovan, para 38. 193 Ibid, para 46.1. 194 Ibid, para 47. 195 Water Assessment Factual Report 5 CPMR, section 2.2, p 3. 196 Marine Ecology Assessment Report, section 3, p 28. 197 Ibid, section 1.6.1, p 7.
94
[414] DOC has recognised the Pūhoi Estuary as an Area of Significant Conservation Value (ASCV 115)198, for reasons consistent with the values described in the ACRP:C.
[415] A notable feature of the estuary is the Ohaku Inlet, which is located just north and west of the existing northern portal of the Johnstone’s Hill Tunnel. The Project proposes to cross this inlet by a viaduct, with piers being installed into the inlet and a temporary construction access being formed across the inlet (excluding the permanent channel). The inlet is within the CPA 1 extent of the Estuary but the SEA imposed by the PAUP does not include the area of the inlet that would be affected by the proposed viaduct.
[416] Based on NZTA’s indicative works programme199, approximately 38% of the predicted open earthworks area will be within the Pūhoi catchment (based on a five year programme).
Mahurangi Catchment
[417] The sectors through the Mahurangi catchment (Moirs Hill Road, Perry Road, Carran Road)200, will cross 34 streams, of which 20 have been assessed as permanent201, using the definition applied in the ARCP:ALW. Runoff from works areas between Moirs Hill Road and Wyllie Road will drain to the Mahurangi River right branch, and works between Wyllie Road and State Highway 1 to the north of Warkworth will drain to the Mahurangi River left branch. Runoff will ultimately enter the main stem of the Mahurangi River through Warkworth and into the Mahurangi Harbour.
[418] The intermittent streams that will be affected by the Project in this catchment were described as having poor quality habitat202, although some were also noted as providing passage for migrating fish when in flow203. The quality of the permanent streams of the Mahurangi River catchment where described as ranging from poor (within exotic forest and pasture land) to very good in native forested areas204.
[419] The Mahurangi River catchment includes floodplain areas in the vicinity of Woodcocks and Carran Roads, and to a more limited extent further upstream in the right branch of the river.
[420] The Mahurangi Harbour has a contributing catchment of approximately 121km2, and an open water area of approximately 24km2. It extends some 14km from the mouth of the Mahurangi River to the mouth of the harbour.
198 Ibid, section 1.6.2, p 8. 199 Construction Water Assessment Report, table 31, p 126. 200 Ibid, figure 1, p 5. 201 Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, 4.3, p 31. 202 Statement of evidence, Donovan, para 39 – 40. 203 Memorandum of counsel on behalf of NZTA responding to the Board’s Direction regarding intermittent and
permanent streams, 3 July 2014. 204 Statement of evidence, Donovan, para 50 – 51.
95
The Harbour is used for recreational boating and fishing, and aquaculture (oyster farming)205.
[421] The Harbour was described206 as a “drowned river valley, with vast intertidal flats and subtidal areas present in its middle to lower reaches”. Water quality stated as being ranked as excellent by Auckland Council. Benthic invertebrate community species diversity and richness was described as moderate to high in middle and lower reaches, and diversity as being low in the upper harbour. A large range of fish and birds were noted as using the harbour, including several threatened bird taxa. NZTA’s assessment is that the Harbour has moderate to high values in the middle and lower reaches, and low to moderate values in the upper reaches.207
[422] Sedimentation rates over the last century are reported as being in the order of 24mm/yr in the upper estuary, and quickly falling with distance from the river mouth to less than 5mm/yr in the lower estuary208. Depths of sedimentation occurring in the upper estuary over the past century are suggested to be in the order of 2m209.
[423] The Mahurangi Harbour is denoted in the ACRP:C as comprising mainly CPA 2, with CPA 1 areas in the upper reaches , and other isolated areas. These have corresponding SEA Marine 1 and 2 overlays in the PAUP. The ACRP:C describes the harbour as a “classic example of a ria or drowned coastline”. Its values described in the ACRP:C include intertidal feeding grounds for a variety of wading birds, and “some of the best mangrove areas in the district”210, as well as providing habitat for a variety of secretive coastal fringe birds. It is also denoted as a Protected Natural Wildlife Area in the ACRP:C.
[424] DOC has recognised almost the entire Mahurangi Harbour as an Area of Significant Conservation Value (ASCV 024)211, for reasons consistent with the values described in the ACRP:C.
[425] One ONF is identified in the PAUP, being the geological features of Grants Island old hat. It is located near the midpoint of the harbour.
Submissions
[426] Various submitters raised issues relevant to the potential adverse effects of sediment discharged during the construction of the Project. However, all those matters were addressed in detail through the submissions and participation of DGC and his various expert witnesses. On that basis the
205 Water Assessment Factual Report 5 CPMR, section 2.1, p 3. 206 Marine Ecology Assessment Report, section 3, p 28. 207 Marine Ecology Assessment Report, section 3, p 28. 208 Water Assessment Factual Report 5 CPMR, section 2.1, p 3. 209 Transcript, Fountain, p 2501. 210 Marine Ecology Assessment Report, section 1.6.1, p 7. 211 Ibid, section 1.6.2, p 8.
96
Board has focussed on the key areas of contention between DGC and NZTA.
NZTA
[427] In brief, NZTA submitted that through site investigations and modelling, it had derived an adequate understanding of the values of the receiving environments and the potential likelihood and significance of adverse effects that may occur. Based on that knowledge, a set of conditions had been proposed that would ensure that the Project operated within NZTA’s anticipated envelope of minor effects.
Director General of Conservation
[428] DGC provided extensive submissions and technical evidence and appearances by expert witnesses. The fundamental elements of DCG’s position on the Project were well summarised in Ms Crossen’s closing submissions212. They are outlined as follows:
(a) The Pūhoi Estuary and the Mahurangi Harbour are nationally important waterways with significant ecological values;
(b) The flexibility sought by NZTA in consenting the Project is inconsistent with the relevant statutory framework and would not achieve the purpose of the Act, as it does not provide sufficient environmental protection. The reason for that is due to the range of uncertainty in potential adverse effects that may result from the discharge of sediment in larger storm events;
(c) The modelling on which NZTA’s proposed consent conditions are based is not as conservative as stated by NZTA;
(d) Significant adverse effects attributable to the Project could occur during 10 year and 50 year ARI storm events; and
(e) The adaptive management proposed by NZTA does not accord with the usual interpretation of that, that is rather than starting at a reduced scale and proving the appropriateness to expand, the Project seeks the full open area limits from Day 1.
[429] The expert witnesses appearing for DGC addressed the following matters:
Mr B. Handyside — erosion and sediment control
Mr Handyside accepted the particular erosion and sediment control measures proposed represent best
212 Closing Submissions, DGC.
97
practice, but considered additional conditions need to be included for three reasons213, namely:
Some standard good practice conditions were missing;
Some measures offered in the CWAR were not reflected in conditions; and
Tighter staging restrictions (open area limits) and additional controls were required in reflection of the uncertainty in the modelled effects.
Dr M. Pingram — freshwater ecology
Dr Pingram provided evidence raising concerns about potential sediment effects on freshwater biota. However, Dr Pingram stated at the Hearing that the changes to conditions that had been developed through pre-hearing conferencing and discussions will adequately address any concerns he had regarding effects on freshwater receiving environments214.
Ms K. Hillock — marine ecology
Ms Hillock agreed with some of Dr De Luca’s findings but differed in her interpretation of some aspects of the data and assessed in the MEAR. The key points of Ms Hillock’s evidence were:
Agreed with Dr De Luca that the predicted cumulative increase in project-related sediment within the Mahurangi Harbour and Pūhoi Estuary over the five year construction period is minor in an RMA context and the key issue is the potential sedimentation effects from extreme rainfall events215;
Agreed with Dr De Luca’s effects threshold with respect to the total suspended sediment (TSS)216;
Agreed with Dr De Luca’s findings on TSS effects for the Pūhoi Estuary but considered slightly greater effects may occur in parts of the Mahurangi Harbour (minor to moderate)217.
Agreed with Dr De Luca’s assessment of the marine ecological values of the Mahurangi Harbour;
213 Transcript, Handyside, p 2047. 214 Transcript, Pingram, p 1773. 215 Transcript, Hillock, p 2732. 216 Statement of evidence, Hillock, para 2.2. 217 Ibid, para 2.3.
98
Disagreed with Dr De Luca’s assessment of the marine ecological values of the Pūhoi Estuary218. Ms Hillock interpreted the estuary to have high values in the middle and lower reaches, medium values in the Ohaku Inlet, and low to medium values in the upper reaches. Dr De Luca considered the middle and lower reaches, and Okahu Inlet to have moderate values, with low values in the upper reaches.
Disagreed with Dr De Luca’s findings in relation to the significance of effects that may occur based on the modelled extent of sedimentation for the 10 year and 50 year ARI event. Specifically,
a. that the correct depth threshold for potentially adverse (sub-lethal) effects on benthic invertebrates is 3mm or greater, rather than the >5mm stated by Dr De Luca;
b. that the correct depth threshold for adverse effects on benthic invertebrates is 5mm or greater, rather than the >10mm or greater stated by Dr De Luca; and
c. given (i) and (ii) above, the extent of potentially significant adverse effects that may occur in a 10 year and 50 year ARI event are greater than described by Dr De Luca.
Expressed concern that if sedimentation depths are greater than predicted, effects will be even greater, and if sedimentation is sufficiently extensive, some benthic communities may not recover;
Identified changes to the monitoring conditions that she considered necessary to establish baseline information and monitoring effects that the Project may have on benthic invertebrates and wading birds; and
Agreed with Dr De Luca that it is difficult to remedy sedimentation that has occurred within the marine environment. In her view the only options are to reduce the amount of sedimentation that may occur, and provide off-setting mitigation for that which does occur.219
Dr A Beauchamp — wading birds 218 Ibid, table 1, p 6. 219 Ibid, section 7, p 14.
99
Dr Beauchamp considered that direct monitoring of wading birds was necessary to adequately assess the potential adverse effects of the Project on their feeding grounds. This differed from the evidence of Dr Bull, who considered that the proposed monitoring of benthic invertebrates would provide an appropriate proxy for potential effects on birds.
Mr R Scott — planning
Mr Scott emphasised the relevant statutory provisions that should necessitate the precautionary approach. A key element of Mr Scott’s evidence was to outline the difference between his understanding of the concept of adaptive management, compared to the adaptive monitoring proposed by NZTA.
[430] In his original submission, DGC requested a number of changes and additions to consent conditions to address the matters listed above. Many of those have now been adopted in full or part by NZTA. However, DGC retains the concerns listed above and consequently in closing, sought the following changes220:
(a) Slope minimisation during construction;
(b) Stabilisation of the Project in response to a forecast rainfall trigger event;
(c) Reduction and staged increase in open area limits;
(d) Increased monitoring of receiving environments, including the development of a Marine Ecology Quality Monitoring Methodology and Adaptive Management Plan (MEQMMAMP), including an agreement with DGC on marine monitoring sites, and the monitoring of wading birds;
(e) Introduction of a Peer Review Panel to review management plans, monitoring results and responses;
(f) Specifying sediment control device treatment efficiencies that must be complied with; and
(g) DGC considered that all proposed conditions should be adopted to adequately minimise the risk of adverse sediment effects on Mahurangi Harbour and Pūhoi Estuary.
220 Closing Submissions, DGC, pp 19 and 20.
100
Auckland Council
[431] Auckland Council did not present any expert evidence with respect to potential effects on marine ecology.
[432] Evidence was presented by Dr Neale and Mr Surrey regarding potential effects of the Project on freshwater receiving environments. At the Hearing both experts confirmed they had achieved agreement with NZTA and DGC regarding those matters221.
[433] Mr Byrne addressed the proposed erosion and sediment control methodology, and adaptive monitoring programme. His evidence and Auckland Council’s closing legal submissions were largely in agreement with NZTA’s proposed conditions, and offered only minor changes. Of specific note, Mr Byrne did not support the need for more restrictive open area staging, the need for a peer review panel, the imposition of a condition specifying minimum sediment pond efficiencies, or a condition requiring the Project to be stabilised in response to a forecast trigger rainfall event.
[434] Overall, Mr Byrne considered that the Project could be successfully implemented without significant adverse sediment-related effects on the receiving environments.
[435] Mr Byrne did not support a condition that would allow the open area limits to be further increased over those sought by NZTA, on the basis that he considered it unlikely such an increase would be required. However, he did not oppose such a condition on an effects basis222. Mr Byrne did support the inclusion of ability requirement for the Team Leader to require areas to be stabilised in response to adverse effects being identified and that is the only change to the conditions that Auckland Council still sought at the close of the Hearing223.
[436] Dr Waipara provided evidence in relation to avoiding the introduction of kauri dieback during the construction of the Project. In summary, he was satisfied that the proposed designation condition, which had been developed in consultation with Auckland Council, would satisfactorily address that matter224.
[437] Mr Turbott provided planning evidence. In general he supported the conditions proposed by NZTA. The areas of most concern to Mr Turbott in his evidence related to the determination of the effects of piping and culverting225. Those matters were subsequently resolved through expert conferencing. At the Hearing, Mr Turbott provided detailed commentary on the matters raised by parties in relation to conditions, as follows:
221 Transcript, Neale, p 1741; Transcript Surrey, p 1762. 222 Transcript, Byrne, p 3402. 223 Transcript, Byrne, p 3400. 224 Transcript, Waipara, p 743. 225 Statement of evidence, Turbott, section 12, p 17.
101
[438] He did not support general Condition 1 as proposed by DGC, as it may result in ambiguity between the documents referenced and the requirements of conditions. In relation to the earthworks, Mr Turbott considered that such a condition was not necessary and stated that in his view “enough research has been done to ensure that the effects can be managed through the other conditions”226.
[439] He did not support DGC’s proposal for a Peer Review Panel. He succinctly stated227:
“But my understanding from listening to those experts that there isn’t a huge difference of opinion about the actual detailed methods that should be used for sediment and erosion control, there is a difference about the adaptive monitoring program but that is a matter of degree rather than one person saying that there should be absolutely nothing of this at all.
But apart from that there seems to be broad agreement between those experts about how you go about managing sediment and erosion control, and that is the nitty gritty part of those conditions.
So that leads me to conclude that there really isn’t such a huge difference of opinion about the practice that there is a need for a review panel. Also, I think based on my experience with the Council specialist, we actually have a specialist expertise or how can acquire it quickly through consultants if we need to, so I don’t think there is a particular reason from that point of view to rely on a panel.”
[440] Mr Turbott also expressed concern that the inclusion of a Peer Review Panel could diffuse responsibility between the consent holder and Auckland Council.
Mahurangi Action Incorporated
[441] The only other party who made any specific representation regarding potential sediment related effects was that provided by Mr Cimino Cole on behalf of Mahurangi Action Incorporated. That group is a community-based stakeholder in the management of the Mahurangi Harbour, contributing stewardship to the protection and enhancement of the values of the area.
[442] Mr Cole accepted that projects such as this will necessitate earthworks. But his view was that because the Project was not, for various reasons, necessary the risks associated with sediment discharge were not justified. If the Project was to occur, it was his view that the earthworks necessitated by the Project must be minimised in extent and appropriately managed to minimise the risk of effects228.
226 Transcript, Turbott, p 3046. 227 Transcript, Turbott, p 3049. 228 Transcript, Cole, p1292.
102
[443] Mr Cole did not offer any comment on specific conditions.
Watercare Services Limited
[444] Watercare takes water, under an existing water right, from the Mahurangi River downstream of the proposed Project alignment.
[445] Watercare lodged a neutral submission on the applications, but sought relief by way of the inclusion of various matters into the designation and consent conditions. Those matters were:
Inclusion of emergency and incident management details for Watercare personnel;
An additional baseline monitoring site upstream of their water take;
Additional testing parameter (Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) and ultra violet (UV) absorbance);
Formal inclusion of Watercare as a stakeholder;
Identification of the Mahurangi River as a high risk area; and
Strengthening of conditions imposing the requirement to avoid, remedy, and mitigate effects.
Factual Findings
[446] All the works will require the exposure of soil to accelerated erosion. If not appropriately managed, that accelerated erosion would, under normal rainfall patterns, result in significant adverse effects on receiving environments and in particular the Mahurangi Harbour and Pūhoi Estuary.
[447] The BNZ and GLEAMS models have been developed in New Zealand, and in particular in the Auckland Region229. The BNZ model has been applied to the Mahurangi catchment since 1997230. It has been calibrated against measured data231. Both models allow the consideration of event-based sediment yields, and allow a more detailed analysis than the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) model.
[448] A key input of the sediment yield modelling is the assumed sediment control efficiencies, as provided in Table 20 of the CWAR, which are detailed in Figure 1:
229 Transcript, Fountain, p 2500. 230 Water Assessment Facutal Report 4, section 2.2, p 18. 231 Transcript, Fountain, p 2504.
103
Sediment Control Device Type
Sediment Removal Efficiency (%) by Return Period
2 year ARI 10 year ARI 50 year ARI
Super Silt Fence 80% 65% 50%
Decanting Earth Bund – Chemically Treated
90% 80% 60%
Sediment Retention Pond – Chemical Treated
95% 85% 65%
Figure 1: Assumed Sediment Control Efficiencies
[449] Only the 2 year ARI sediment retention pond efficiency is based on measured values232. The performance of the ponds in 10 and 50 year events, and the other measures in all events are extrapolations and estimates.
[450] Based on the outputs of the Coastal Processes Model, project-related sediment discharges may have an adverse effect of at least a moderate significance on some parts of the marine receiving environments in a 50 year rainfall event.
[451] NZTA has focussed its overall assessment on a five year construction period. No party has explicitly contended that the Project should adopt a 10 year works programme. The Board accepts that the five year programme is the appropriate basis for assessment, being the more likely construction period, recognising the basis for modelling inputs, and the slightly reduced probability of encountering larger storm events.
[452] As agreed by Mr Handyside233 and Mr Byrne, the general erosion and sediment control methodology presented in the CWAR represents good practice234 235. However, Mr Handyside and DGC consider that additional controls and monitoring responses should be imposed to further reduce the risk of significant adverse effects. Mr Handyside and Mr Byrne disagreed on the necessary extent of erosion and sediment control measures and monitoring responses.
[453] As agreed by the freshwater ecologists who appeared before the Board236 237, the discharge of sediment from the Project will not result in significant
232 Transcript, Ridley, p 1856. 233 Statement of evidence, Handyside, para 2 and 15. 234 Expert conferencing joint statement, 10 March 2014, para 7 and 10. 235 Transcript, Byrne, p 2320 236 Transcript, Donovan p 1711; Pingram p 1776. 237 Memorandum of counsel NZTA, 7 May 2014.
104
adverse effects on the freshwater receiving environments, even if the sediment yields were greater than predicted238.
[454] Other than through natural process, there are limited practical options (if any) for remedying Project-related sedimentation within the marine receiving environment. Consequently, an appropriate suite of conditions must be imposed to adequately minimise the Project-related sediment loads entering the marine receiving environments.
Evaluation and Conclusion
[455] In this evaluation, the Board will not address every technical detail of the application and information presented. Rather, it will focus on the elements of critical relevance to potential sediment-related effects, as expressed through the points of dispute between NZTA and DGC.
[456] In assessing the sediment-related effects of the Project, the Board must consider:
(a) The significance of potential adverse effects based on the modelled sediment yields, particularly in relation to the marine receiving environments;
(b) The degree of uncertainty in the modelled effects that may occur as a result of predicted Project-related and background sediment yields;
(c) The appropriateness and practicality of the additional erosion and sediment control measures, monitoring and responses promoted by DGC; and
(d) The relevance of the precautionary approach and the extent that NZTA has addressed that matter.
The Significance of Effects as Modelled
Marine Receiving Environments
[457] Dr De Luca and Ms Hillock agreed on the ecological values of the Mahurangi Harbour. Ms Hillock drew different conclusions regarding the values of the middle and lower reaches Pūhoi Estuary. Her position was based on a different interpretation of Table 2 of the MEAR (which lists characteristics of estuarine sites with low, medium and high ecological values), and the caution she expressed on using species richness and diversity as a proxy for habitat value239.
238 Transcript, Donovan, p 1711. 239 Transcript, Hillock, p 2704.
105
[458] In response, Dr De Luca explained that her assessment was based on a suite of habitat value criteria240 that she has developed, using a modified version of an international system241. Her reasons were explained in detail242, and listed as:
“(a) the average diversity and richness of benthic invertebrate organisms being moderate;
(b) both tolerant and sensitive invertebrates being present in moderate abundance;
(c) habitat modification being low, but the estuary being regarded as highly infilled; and
(d) the benthic sediment being dominated by fine grain sediment.”243
[459] Dr De Luca noted that her approach has been accepted by the Boards of Inquiry for the Waterview Connection and Transmission Gully as well as having directly relevant experience in the assessment of sediment related effects in adjacent receiving environments (Orewa River and Estuary, Long Bay-Okura Marine Reserve, and Waitemata Harbour)244. She acknowledged that some of the criteria are subjective and “can be interpreted differently by different experts”245.
[460] Dr De Luca considered that sub-lethal effects on benthic invertebrates may occur from a sedimentation depth of 5mm. Ms Hillock considered that sub-lethal effects may occur from 3mm depth, and quoted in particular Lohrer et. al. 2004246 which measured experimental effects in plots located within the Whitford Embayment. In particular, she noted that benthic communities did not recover after repeated depositional events247.
[461] In her rebuttal evidence248, Dr De Luca expressed the view that the Lohrer et. al. 2006249 study was more relevant and included a site within the Mahurangi Harbour. That study and others were promoted by her as supporting the view that deposition of 3 – 5mm will not result in sub-lethal effects. She also noted250 that the ambient sediments present in the Whitford study were coarser than those present in the middle and lower reaches of the Pūhoi Estuary. For that reason she would anticipate more
240 Statement of rebuttal evidence, De Luca, para 11, p 2. 241 Regini, K. 2002. Draft Guidelines for Ecological Evaluation and Impact Assessment. Institute of Ecology
and Environmental Management (IEEM). 242 Statement of rebuttal evidence De Luca, para 12 to 19, pp 2 and 3. 243 Ibid, para 10, p 2. 244 Statement of rebuttal evidence, De Luca, para 5. 245 Statement of rebuttal evidence, De Luca, para 11, p 2. 246 Lohrer, A.M., Thrush, S.F., Hewitt, J.E., Berkenbusch, K., Ahrens, M., Cummings, V., 2004. Terrestrial
derived sediment: response of marine macrobenthic communities to thin terrigenous deposits. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 273.
247 Statement of evidence, Hillock, para 5.6, p 9. 248 Statement of rebuttal evidence, De Luca, para 22 – 29, pp 4 – 6. 249 Lohrer, A.M., Thrush, S.F., Lundquist, C.J., Vopel, K., Nicholls, P.E., 2006. Deposition of terrigenous
sediment on marine macrobenthos: response of two contrasting community types. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 307.
250 Transcript, De Luca, p 2633.
106
change in community composition in response to fine sediment inputs. In response, Ms Hillock251 stated that the Lohrer 2006 study sites were sub-tidal and not inter-tidal. She did not consider the 2006 study to be directly relevant to the potential effects of concern.
[462] In relation to the relevance of the two studies, the Board also notes that the Lohrer et. al. 2004 study applied an experimental methodology of depositing sediment on the test plots on a monthly basis for 6 months. That scenario is not anticipated or modelled for this Project. The two events of specific concern are the 10 year and 50 year ARI rainfall events and it is reasonable to assume that a period of recovery would occur after such an event that significantly exceeds that provided during the Lohrer et. al. 2004 study. The Board also recognises that Dr De Luca was not solely reliant on the Lohrer 2006 study, and took account of a range of studies in forming her opinion on the likely effects of the Project252, including a number specifically relevant to the Mahurangi Harbour and Pūhoi Estuary.
[463] Dr De Luca commented that the high fraction of clay and silt in the sediments of the Mahurangi Harbour and Pūhoi Estuary further emphasised that “the communities that live in those habitats are more tolerant of the deposition of silt and clay on top of them and the research indicates that a 5mm threshold is appropriate”253.
[464] Dr De Luca described her understanding of how benthic invertebrates rework sediment through bioturbation, resulting is re-suspension and disbursement of sediments and re-colonisation from adjacent unaffected areas254. In her opinion, recovery after a sedimentation event will occur. Ms Hillock did not contend that such recovery would not occur, but cautioned that in some circumstances, a ‘tipping point’ can occur after which the estuary may not fully recover and may continue to gradually degrade255. She noted that “more degraded systems are closer to that tipping point and I do not know how close these estuaries are to that. Likewise, a healthier system will have a higher degree of resilience to an impact; it is likely to recover faster”256. The Board accepted that Ms Hillock was expressing a general concern about the “cumulative impacts on already degraded systems”, taking account of background and Project sedimentation257.
[465] The matters raised regarding the potential cumulative effect are highly relevant to the significance of the potential impact that the Project may have on the marine receiving environments, and in particular during a 50 year ARI event. In response to a request by DGC, Dr De Luca provided
251 Transcript, Hillock, p 2708. 252 Marine Ecology Assessment Report, section 9 (References), pp 104 – 108. 253 Transcript, De Luca, p 2576. 254 Transcript, De Luca, p 2606. 255 Transcript, Hillock, p 2726. 256 Ibid, p 2727. 257 Ibid, p 2754.
107
supplementary evidence258 that included a table and maps to illustrate the modelled additional areas of sedimentation that are predicted to occur by the Coastal Processes Model. That information presented the additional Project-related sedimentation at depths of 3 – 5mm, 5 – 10mm and 10+ mm for each receiving environment, based on the 10 year and 50 year events under two wind scenarios (calm and east-north-east(ENE)). The two experts disagreed on the significance of the additional sedimentation, with Ms Hillock considering the extra extent and depth occurring in the 50 year event to be significant, particularly in the lower Pūhoi estuary259.
[466] On this matter the Board acknowledges the variance in the subjective views expressed by the experts. It is also mindful of the cross examination of Mr Ridley and Mr Handyside regarding Table 3-3 of the Water Assessment Factual Report (WAFR 3). That table provided the predicted daily background sediment loads for 2, 10 and 50 year ARI events, with associated 95% lower and upper confidence limits. Ms Bradley on behalf of DGC identified this as an indication of the uncertainty inherent in the modelling, noting the significant range in loads between those confidence limits. However, as noted by Ms Brosnahan, the significance of the Project-related sediment loads must be taken in context with the corresponding range in background loads. The Board accepts there are a myriad of factors influencing actual loads in any given storm. But it also accepts that the potential effects of the Project will be relative to the effect of background sediment loads for a given storm. On the basis of the information presented, including the nature of the existing sediments and benthic invertebrate communities, the Board leans towards the view of Dr De Luca in that the predicted additional extent and depth of Project-related sediment is not clearly significant when taken in the context of the predicted background sediment loads.
[467] Dr De Luca discussed the circumstances that, in her view, would influence recovery time of benthic communities, which included the extent of the harbour that is covered in sediment, and in particular at depths of 10mm or greater260. In the context of the modelled extent of Project-related sedimentation in the 50 year ARI event, Dr De Luca considered that the effects on the middle and lower reaches of the Pūhoi Estuary to be ‘significant’ but not permanent261, and noted:
“It is in my opinion a short term effect and probably within five years those communities would have recovered and in fact there is some research by Simon Thrush at NIWA that he produced in 2008 which documents 80 percent recovery of the communities within 394 days so they are quite resilient”88.
258 Statement of supplementary evidence, De Luca 259 Transcript, Hillock, p 2712. 260 Transcript, De Luca, p 2578. 261 Ibid, p 2579.
108
[468] At this point the Board must comment on Dr De Luca’s use of the term significant. Her analysis of the significance of the potential effect on the middle and lower reaches of the Pūhoi Estuary was that it would be ‘moderate’, on a scale of ‘very low – low – moderate – high – very high’262. This discrepancy between her ecological effects scale and the RMA concept of minor or more than minor is an important subtlety in understanding the findings of her report. Ms Hillock stated her understanding that the predicted effect was one of ‘moderate significance’263, and in her view more than minor in the RMA context. Ms Hillock expressed the view that the extent of additional Project-related sedimentation shown in Dr De Luca’s supplementary evidence would be significant.
[469] Neither marine ecologist considered that the modelled effects of a 50 year ARI event on the middle and lower reaches of the Pūhoi Estuary will be highly significant or catastrophic. The Board also notes that while Ms Hillock considers the potential adverse effects to be more significant than reported in the MEAR, Dr De Luca considers her own finding of ‘moderate significance’ to be conservative in that, by directly applying her assessment matrix, it could have been found to be of low significance. So the conclusion of ‘moderate significance’ presented in the MEAR does sit within the range of subjective views expressed by the experts.
[470] On balance, the Board accepts Dr De. Luca’s findings that the significance of predicted adverse sedimentation effects of a 10 year ARI event will be very low or low in the Mahurangi Harbour and Pūhoi Estuary, and ranging from very low to moderate in a 50 year ARI. The Board’s view the moderately significant effects may be considered as somewhat more than minor in an RMA context, but not of a scale or nature that imposes a limitation to the Project proceeding. In forming that view, the Board takes account of the likelihood and rate of natural recovery after such an event (it being a temporary effect), that such an event will occur very infrequently, if at all, during the construction phase of the Project.
[471] In terms of the potential adverse effects of suspended sediment within the Mahurangi Harbour and in particular Dyers Creek in a 50 year ARI event, Ms Hillock expressed the view that the effect could be minor to moderate. Dr De Luca refuted that view, concluding that such an effect would be negligible. This was not a critical issue of contention between the experts. Moreover, the differing views are regarding a potential effect that may be negligible, minor or slightly more than minor in an RMA context. Again, the evidence suggests that such an effect would be temporary, and likely to occur very infrequently, if at all, during the construction phase of the Project. Therefore, the Board does not consider the risk of that effect to be reason to impose a limitation on the Project proceeding.
262 Marine Ecology Assessment Report, table 4, p 27. 263 Transcript, Hillock, p 2733.
109
Mitigation
[472] As noted and agreed by both experts264, there are limited practical options for remedying Project-related sedimentation within the marine receiving environment. However, it is appropriate to discuss opportunities for off-setting mitigation that could be implemented if a significant Project-related adverse sediment event did occur.
[473] One condition proposed by NZTA references off-set mitigation (Condition RC36ea), which states that off-set mitigation must have a direct benefit to the marine environment. Such measures were suggested by Dr De Luca265, based on planting of land to reducing existing background sediment loads. The Board recognise one option would be to establish a mitigation programme with Auckland Council and Mahurangi Inc. However, any specific option that relies on participation by other parties or activities on third party land cannot be imposed as a condition. On that basis, the Board accepts that the conditions may specify the requirement to develop and implement mitigation. That mitigation may, with separate agreements, include works undertaken in conjunction with other parties.
[474] The Board notes that the proposed adaptive monitoring conditions will trigger receiving environment investigations after rainfall events significantly smaller than the 10 year or 50 year ARI. Furthermore, the sedimentation trigger depths for remedial action, including on-site responses, are below that which will have an adverse effect (in Dr De Luca’s opinion) and at worst at a level that would have only a minor or moderate effect (Ms Hillock’s opinion). Consequently, the Board is satisfied that the investigation and response to rainfall and sedimentation are such that the need for off-setting mitigation is unlikely.
[475] In response to the contention that a significant area of existing commercial forest would be retired as a result of the Project (Ms Brosnahan speculated approximately 300ha), Ms Hillock agreed that that would be a benefit to the marine environment266. The Board accepts that the reduction in the area of commercial forestry within the designation, combined with the area of the Project carriageway that will be sealed, will reduce the background sediment yield.
Monitoring
[476] DGC sought to include a suite of additional and different monitoring conditions, and conditions relating to responses to trigger events. Many of those conditions are similar to those adopted for the Transmission Gully Project. The Board’s findings on these matters are discussed later in this section in the context of the adaptive monitoring programme
264 Transcript, De Luca, p 2653; Hillock, p 2729. 265 Transcript, DeLuca, p 2654. 266 Transcript, Hillock, p 2741.
110
Freshwater Receiving Environments
[477] The Board accepts agreement between freshwater ecologist that the Project is unlikely to result in significant sediment-related effects on freshwater receiving environments. For that reason it accepts the monitoring and response conditions proposed for those environments.
Modelling Uncertainty
[478] Having generally accepted NZTA’s assessment of modelled effects, the validity of the modelling must be tested to ensure that that assessment is valid. The consideration of sediment-related effects must address the likelihood that the modelled predictions presented by NZTA represent the envelope of effects that are likely to occur, particularly in the 10 and 50 year ARI events.
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) Predictions
[479] Mr Handyside asserted that the USLE model can significantly under-estimate sediment yield267. He also questioned the applicability of the USLE for this scale of analysis268. Mr Ridley noted that in his experience, the USLE can over estimate sediment yield269. Mr Handyside provided a very detailed assessment of the various USLE inputs270 used by NZTA and illustrated the range of predicted yields that could occur if different assumptions were made. The Board accepts the limitations of the USLE.
[480] The Board accepts Mr Ridley’s comment271 regarding the similarity in results derived for the annual sediment yield between the USLE and the GLEAMS models. Moreover, it was apparent that the focus of DGC concerns throughout the Hearing became focussed on the likely sediment yields and potential effects of the larger storm events (10 year and 50 year ARI).
[481] The USLE was not used for the event-based predictions and is recognised as being more commonly used to assess the variability of potential sediment yields within a Project area272. There appears to be a range of experience with the accuracy of the ULSE, with experts considering that it under or over estimates sediment yield under various conditions.
[482] The Board accepts the USLE as one of the decision support tools presented at the Hearing but it has inherent limitations. However, as the determination of risk in this Project is not solely dependent on the USLE predictions, the Board does not consider it necessary to focus on this particular aspect of the modelling.
267 Statement of evidence, Handyside, para 29. 268 Ibid, para 27. 269 Transcript, Ridley, p 1825. 270 Statement of evidence, Handyside, attachment A, section 5.2. 271 Transcript, Ridley, p 1825. 272 Transcript, Byrne, p 2216.
111
Predicted Efficiencies
[483] The doubts that Mr Handyside raised with regard to predicted sediment control efficiencies are, however, very relevant to the consideration of predicted event-based sediment yields. A significant input to the modelling is the assumed sediment control efficiencies. As noted, only the performance of sediment ponds in a 2 year ARI event is based on measured performance. The rest of the values are extrapolations or estimates and are not intuitively conservative. For instance, the extrapolated 85% efficiency for a sediment retention pond in a 10 year ARI storm is based on the measured efficiency of 75% in a 13 year ARI event273. For that reason alone, conservatism is warranted in the approach taken for erosion and sediment control for this Project.
[484] This actual efficiency of controls in the larger rainfall events cannot be resolved by the Board as it will require monitoring of the performance of the stated control measures during specific events. Because that data is not currently available, it is logical to include monitoring of sediment control devices during the construction works, to prove or adjust the erosion and sediment control methodology. This approach is proposed by NZTA to a degree, by proposing that the sediment yield of four sediment retention ponds will be monitored via automatic sampling of the outlets. This will not provide an understanding of pond efficiency, but will allow a comparison of actual pond yield against the yield predicted by the modelling, on which the assessment of effects is based.
[485] Monitoring of pond influent (inputs) in combination with monitoring effluent (discharge) would also provide an understanding of pond efficiency, and this is promoted by Mr Handyside and DGC. Mr Ridley has maintained the view that this is not useful information274, as a pond may have a lower efficiency but may well be operating within the predicted yields. Alternatively, he suggests that it may be operating at a high efficiency but the volume of residual sediment being discharged may be significant, that is for a large contributing catchment. The Board is not convinced by this argument in the context of this Project. While the Board accepts the general principle of the points made by Mr Ridley, the predicted sediment control efficiencies are fundamental to NZTA’s assessment of effects and the adaptive monitoring programme. Those efficiencies are relevant to any given pond and contributing earthworks catchment. Therefore, just as measuring actual yield will provide useful comparative information, so will understanding the actual efficiency of the pond. A consent condition is included in that regard.
[486] Mr Handyside considered that the original proposal to monitor only two ponds would not be sufficiently representative of the Project as a whole. NZTA now proposes to monitor four ponds, two in the Mahurangi catchment and two in the Pūhoi. DGC position is that one pond in three should be
273 Transcript, Ridley, p 1908; Statement of supplementary evidence, Ridley, annexure A, p 13. 274 Transcript, Ridley, p 1847.
112
monitored275. The Board does not accept that that intensity of monitoring to be necessary. Its view is that four ponds across the alignment will provide an appropriate range of data, provided that they are appropriately located to include steeper catchments. A consent condition is included in that regard.
Conservatism
[487] NZTA, through Mr Ridley276 and others, considered the output of their modelling to be conservative, because it assumes:
(a) That the maximum open areas during the storm, that is 41ha for Pūhoi, 41ha for Mahurangi Hills and 21.5ha for Mahurangi Flat;
(b) Correspondingly, that the storm occurs during the main October to April inclusive earthworks season, that is outside the winter earthworks shutdown period;
(c) That no areas have been progressively stabilised;
(d) The pre-existing steeper slope gradients remain at the time of the storm, that is it ignores the reduction in cut and fill gradients that will occur as works progress; and
(e) It assumes all sediment will be deposited directly into the marine receiving environment277.
[488] The Board accepts that there is an aggregation of factors that is likely to reduce the possibility that the worst case susceptibility to erosion will occur at the time of any given storm. The Board does not go so far as to accept the specific percentage reductions offered by Ms Brosnahan in her submissions278, but it does accept that various factors reduce the actual risk of the predicted sediment effects in the marine receiving environment. This offsets some, but not all, of the uncertainty in the modelling outputs.
[489] First, within the proposed open area limits, the actual open area at any given time will be determined by the contractor undertaking the works. Therefore, while the degree to which that maximum is reached in any year of construction will probably vary, it should not be assumed.
[490] Secondly, in noting a NIWA study that suggested that up to 50% of sediment generated in a storm may be deposited on floodplains or stream beds, Mr Fountain suggested an argument could be made that some of the sediment from this Project would be similarly deposited279. For that reason he considered an element of conservatism in the modelling to be that it
275 Closing submissions, DGC, para 18(a), p 6. 276 Transcript, Ridley, throughout. 277 Transcript, Fountain, page 2506. 278 Closing submissions, NZTA, table 1, para 273. 279 Transcript, Fountain p 2506.
113
assumes that all sediment generated in a storm is transferred directly to the marine environment. However, Dr Donovan has stated that as the sediment that passes through the sediment control devices will be the finer fraction, it will more likely pass rapidly through the freshwater systems280. With respect to flood plains, the Board accepts that the lower reaches of some branches of the Mahurangi River do appear to have obvious floodplains. However, as noted by the DCG281 and observations of the Board, the extent of floodplains downstream of the Project alignment within the Pūhoi catchment appear to be limited. Consequently, there is some doubt as to the degree of conservatism suggested by Mr Fountain.
[491] Mr Fountain noted282 that the combination of BNZ and GLEAMS modelling was also conservative because, when combining the background and Project sediment yield, the Project area was not subtracted from the background. So the contribution of the Project area was included twice, once under existing land use and once as earthworks during construction.
[492] Mr Byrne expressed the view that progressive stabilisation would probably reduce the actual open area at any given time283. The Board agrees with that observation but notes that there is no proposed condition that would prevent the contractor progressively increasing earthworks areas to balance areas stabilised. Therefore, the Board has included a consent condition to give relevance to Mr Byrne’s observation.
[493] NZTA proposed additional measures that have been adopted in the Long Bay development, which it claims goes beyond what is currently considered as industry best practice284. Those were:
“reverse slopes in sediment ponds,
pond baffles,
double flocc sheds,
sediment sumps in all diversion channels, and
“last line of defence” sediment controls, over and above the primary controls.”
[494] The Board accepts that double flocc sheds will provide treatment for a larger storm that would be serviced by a single shed. This will potentially improve the performance of the ponds over a larger storm, albeit that the exact storm size has not been determined.
[495] Sediment sumps will capture some of the heavier fraction of sediment entrained in runoff so are accepted as contributing some benefit, albeit not quantified.
280 Donovan evidence in chief, para 98 p 20: Hearing transcript, pp 1718 and 1719. 281 Closing submissions, DGC, p 9. 282 Transcript, Fountain, p 2505. 283 Transcript, Byrne, p 2340 284 Construction Water Assessment Report, section 5.4.2, p 61.
114
[496] As Mr Ridley noted, the measured pond performance at Long Bay has not been compared to a control pond based on TP 90285. Therefore, the benefits of the reverse pond floor and baffles are assumed rather than proven.
[497] The ‘last line of defence’ controls are accepted as providing some additional protection at specific locations. However, the Board has not had any evidence about the results these would bring in a large storm, or in the event of a significant failure of other sediment control devices.
[498] Overall, these additional measures are likely to provide some benefit, but that benefit is not assumed when considering the likely effects of a Project of this scale or the outputs of the modelling.
Coastal Process Modelling
[499] DGC maintained a position that a contributing factor to the modelling uncertainty is the lack of independent assessment of the coastal processes model286, which predicts the distribution and depth of sedimentation within the Mahurangi Harbour and Pūhoi Estuary during 10 year and 50 year ARI events. Mr Fountain described the inputs and outputs of the model, and outlined the findings of the Coastal Processes Modelling Report287. The development of the model included field data collection288, bathymetric data from various sources289, and previous research290 on the Mahurangi Harbour. Having considered that report, the evidence presented by Mr Fountain and his replies to questions, the Board is satisfied that the coastal processes modelling does not require further independent assessment.
Modelling Uncertainty — Conclusion
[500] The Board finds that the modelling undertaken for this Project is more extensive and catchment-specific than that described for other projects. Mr Fountain expressed a significant level of confidence in the BNZ and GLEAMS models in relation to the Mahurangi catchment291. They have been previously applied to the catchment, were adapted for local conditions and have been calibrated against historic rates of sedimentation. The Board has heard no evidence to dispute that view.
[501] The Board also notes the views of Dr Fisher where he expressed a greater level of confidence in the type and extent of modelling undertaken in this Project when compared to previous NZTA projects, and in particular Transmission Gully. The Board considers Dr Fisher’s independent
285 Transcript, Ridley, p 1908. Auckland Council Technical Publication 90 - Erosion and Sediment Control
Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region 1999 (updated 2007). 286 Closing submissions, DGC, para 14(f) and (g), p 9. 287 Water Assessment Factual Report 5. 288 Ibid, section 4.1, p 21. 289 Ibid, section 4.2, p 21. 290 Transcript, Fountain, p 2498. 291 Transcript, Fountain, pp 2504 and 2507.
115
professional view to have significant relevance, given his involvement in both projects.
[502] As implied by various participants, modelling is a predictive tool. It cannot be proven right or wrong until the event that has been modelled has occurred. On balance, the Board considers that the modelling undertaken provides a sufficient level of certainty over the likely envelope of effects that may occur, and in particular sediment related effects up to the 50 year ARI storm. However, the Board accepts that it is appropriate to adopt a slightly more conservative approach than that proposed by NZTA with respect to monitoring of the performance of sediment retention ponds, and the minimisation of erosion during construction. This has been addressed by both the adoption of some conditions sought by DGC, and by other amendments imposed by the Board.
Open Area Limits and Progressive Stabilisation
[503] As noted, NZTA has proposed what it terms an ‘adaptive monitoring programme’, as explained in the CWAR and detailed in the proposed consent conditions. Conceptually, this has been promoted by NZTA as analogous to an adaptive management approach292 but the Board does not accept this analogy. It prefers the explanation of adaptive management provided by Mr Scott, that is commencing a project at a smaller scale and expanding the scale where monitoring indicates that effects do not exceed those predicted. The proposed adaptive monitoring programme is, in effect, reactive management. This distinction lies at the heart of the concerns expressed by DGC, and underpins a number of changes to conditions proposed by DGC.
[504] Flowing from his concern over the uncertainty of potential adverse effects on the marine receiving environment, DGC has proposed various conditions that would require a reduction in the area of earthworks exposed during specific rain events. In addition, DGC has proposed an alternative open area limits condition providing a progressive increase, based on NZTA’s indicative works programme and monitoring results. This approach has been adapted from the conditions imposed on the Transmission Gully Project.
[505] The Board recognises the relevance of this staged approach to open area limits in other projects, but does not accept that it is necessary for this Project, for the following reasons:
(a) As discussed, on balance the modelling is considered to provide a reasonable level of confidence with respect to the likely sediment yield and distribution;
292 Transcript, Ridley, p 1824.
116
(b) The Board accepts Dr De Luca’s assessment of the modelled effects;
(c) Additional conditions will be imposed with respect to temporary stabilisation and monitoring of erosion and sediment control performance; and
(d) DGC’s condition imposes a level of uncertainty for the works programme that is not warranted in this case.
[506] DGC’s condition would require the Auckland Council Team Leader to approve the expansion of open areas, taking account of the monitored performance of the Project when determining whether to allow an increase in open area limits in any given year. However, if no significant rainfall events occurred during the preceding period (which is the likely scenario), there will be little information on which to base the decision. Therefore, the Board is not satisfied that for this Project, the staged approach will provide any greater level of protection for the receiving environment. In the context of the Board’s other findings, it did not support its inclusion.
[507] NZTA has proposed a condition that would allow an increase in the proposed open area limits for one or more of the Project stages. This has been sought to provide for flexibility for the construction programme. It would require approval by the Auckland Council Team Leader and would be supported by monitored performance of the Project. The Board notes that the proposed open area limits are based on the indicative works programme on which the modelling was based. Moreover, Mr Handyside and Mr Byrne considered that the limits were large when compared to similar projects, and Mr Byrne considered it unlikely that a contractor would need to extend such generous limits. While the Board recognises Mr Byrne’s observation as somewhat speculative, the Board does not accept allowance provision for a further expansion of the open area limits beyond those used in the modelling. For the same reason as noted above, in the event that no significant rainfall had occurred, there will be little information on which to base the decision. Given the scale of the proposed staging limits, the Board does not consider it necessary to provide for further expansion, although it does accept as appropriate the ability to balance the open areas limits between the Mahurangi Hills and Flats, as sought by NZTA. Although it may be slight, allowing further expansion of open area limits increases risk and dilutes conservative approach.
[508] DGC also requested a condition that would require the Project to be fully stabilised in response to a forecast stabilisation trigger event. This approach was based on the conditions imposed for Transmission Gully. DGC defined the Stabilisation Trigger Event as meeting or exceeding 50mm in one 24 hour period. The appropriateness of that event within the subject catchments was not tested. However, it appeared to the Board, on the
117
basis of the hydrological information presented by NZTA, that a 50mm event may occur quite frequently and may be significantly smaller than the 10 and 50 year events on which the assessment of marine effects was based. The Board is also persuaded by the view of Mr Byrne293 that such a requirement could be onerous given that that some forecast rainfall is less than predicted. Correspondingly, some rainfall is significantly greater than predicted. When considering the evidence presented in relation to effects, and in the context of the other conditions that will be imposed, the Board does not consider a stabilisation trigger event condition to be necessary. The Board is not convinced that such a condition passes the Newbury Test in the sense that it would be difficult to achieve compliance with, and is not clearly necessary to address the scale of effects that have been considered.
[509] Auckland Council sought a modification of proposed Condition 36(f) to allow the Team Leader to require open earthworks areas to be reduced in relation to a specific stage of works. The intention of this condition is to minimise the reoccurrence of discharges that have had an identified adverse effect, and have not been otherwise addressed to a satisfactory extent by the consent holder.
[510] The Board acknowledges comments by Mr Byrne, and repeated in Auckland Council’s closing submissions294, that Auckland Council always retains the ability to take enforcement action if a consent holder or their agent has not undertaken their obligations imposed by conditions. The Board accepts that proposed Condition RC36(f) requires the consent holder to consider various measures to reduce the risk of a sedimentation effect re-occurring. The Board assumes that NZTA will be responsible in its implementation of the Project or compliance with conditions. However, none of the conditions proposed by NZTA specifically require open areas to be reduced in response to a trigger event. Therefore, the Board supports the inclusion of a condition to that effect, as proposed by Auckland Council. It imposes this as a separate condition worded so that it will only apply in the event that the consent holder has not satisfactorily addressed the matters covered by Condition RC36(f).
Adaptive Monitoring
[511] DGC suggested a number of changes to the adaptive monitoring conditions presented by NZTA, including condition based on the Transmission Gully Project. These conditions include:
The development of a MEQMMAMP;
Pre-construction baseline monitoring over two summers and two winters;
293 Transcript, Brown, p 3334. 294 Closing submissions, Auckland Council, para 27, p 5.
118
A higher frequency of coastal monitoring during and post construction;
Direct monitoring of wading birds;
Imposing minimum treatment efficinies and response triggers;
Establishment of monitoring control points; and
A stated minimum extent of the site that must be treated through sediment ponds.
[512] The Board has provided modifications to the conditions that address marine monitoring, and imposes the requirement for a Marine Monitoring Plan (MMP). This includes a requirement for the monitoring locations within the Mahurangi Harbour and Pūhoi Estuaries to be determined in consultation with DOC, thus addressing a specific matter of concern to DGC. The MMP will work in conjunction with the adaptive monitoring programme. In the context of the conditions proposed at the close of the Hearing, the Board did not consider it necessary to establish a combined monitoring and response management plan as proposed by DGC.
[513] The Board was not fully satisfied with NZTA’s proposed marine monitoring frequency of once in each year prior to construction. The evidence of Ms Hillock and the originally proposed conditions convinced the Board that monitoring of at least one summer and one winter period prior to construction commencing is appropriate, to establish to a minimum degree the seasonal variation within those environments. It was also considered appropriate to make a clear distinction between the pre-construction and during-construction monitoring. The Board has also modified the timing of monitoring during the Project works, in recognition of the likelihood that a contractor will seek an early start to each earthworks season.
[514] With regard to monitoring triggers in the marine environment, the Board notes that the trigger depth for investigation proposed by NZTA is the same as the 3mm threshold at which Ms Hillock suggests potentially adverse (sub-lethal) effects could occur. Therefore, adopting the 3mm trigger for investigation as proposed by NZTA does, by default, address the concern raised by Ms Hillock, albeit without the conservatism anticipated by NZTA. On that basis the Board accepts the 3mm as the appropriate sedimentation event depth to trigger an investigation within the marine receiving environment.
[515] With respect to wading birds, the Board accepts the views of Dr Bull295 that the monitoring of benthic invertebrates is an appropriate proxy for sediment-related effects on wading birds. The Board accepted Dr Bull’s view that the
295 Statement of evidence, Bull, para 22 and 23.
119
presence or absence of birds at any given time could be attributable to a range of factors296, most of which may not be Project-related. However, given Dr Bull’s appropriate involvement in the drafting of conditions297, and as an expert witness, the Board has imposed a requirement that the MMP be developed in consultation with an ornithologist. This inclusion is consistent with that proposed by NZTA in relation to the assessment of a sedimentation trigger event within the marine environment.
[516] The Board has accepted the appropriateness of monitoring inflow and monitoring the inflow and outflow of four ponds, and comparing sediment yields and pond efficiencies with those predicted in the CWAR. It does not consider it necessary to impose minimum treatment efficiencies as the understanding of the pond performance will be established through other adaptive monitoring, including that noted above. Correspondingly, the Board does not consider it necessary to impose treatment efficiency response triggers.
[517] Given the relief of much of the Project alignment, the Board does not consider it practical to impose a minimum extent that must be treated through sediment ponds. It accepts that the contractor will need to fit the devices to match the topography.
[518] Finally, the Board does not consider additional monitoring control points within streams to be necessary. This finding is made in recognition of the agreed position expressed by the freshwater ecologists regarding potential effects on those environments, and in the context of other monitoring conditions to be imposed.
[519] Overall, the adaptive monitoring programme, within the modifications that have been made by the Board, will allow the Project to establish satisfactory baseline information and react to potential effects before they become significant.
Other Conditions
[520] The Board has suggested the adoption of various conditions throughout the Hearing, and has imposed or altered others through its consideration of the applications. The Board does not comment on every condition herein, but provide an explanation of findings on various conditions, particularly those promoted by DGC that have not been addressed above.
General Condition 1
[521] As noted, NZTA seeks to have resource consents granted without the inclusion of a general condition that requires the Project to be implemented in general accordance with various documents submitted in support of the
296 Ibid, para 44 – 50. 297 Transcript, De Luca, p 2657.
120
applications. Its reasons were that the other conditions proposed would sufficiently define the envelope of effects that may occur, the reference to application documents may introduce inconsistency and ambiguity with conditions, and maximum flexibility and innovation was sought for the detailed design of the Project. NZTA noted that in previous similar projects changes to consent conditions have been sought and granted subsequent to detailed design. They seek to avoid the need for that process in this case. As noted, Auckland Council did not consider a General Condition 1 to be necessary.
[522] At the close of the Hearing DGC maintained the position that the Project should be defined by the relevant documents on which the application was assessed. With respect to sediment effects, the key documents are the AEE, the CWAR and the plans and other reports presented.
[523] The Board held some sympathy to DGC’s position and tested it extensively with various NZTA witnesses. However, on balance, the Board recognises that the conditions have evolved through the Hearing and inclusion of a general reference to reports such as the CWAR would create ambiguity. The Board considers that it is appropriate to reference the CWAR within specific conditions, and have made the relevant inclusions to ensure that the implementation of conditions is based on the assumptions on which the condition is based.
Best Practicable Option
[524] NZTA proposed a number of conditions were qualified by the consideration of the Best Practicable Option (BPO) in determining the outcome of the condition, based on the Act definition of BPO. By the close of the Hearing the number of conditions that referenced BPO has been significantly reduced. DGC opposed the use of BPO, as in his view, that implied the consideration of financial implications in determining the option to be implemented. The Board had some sympathy with that concern. None of the remaining conditions that included the BPO clearly needed that qualifier. They were all conditions that established simple outcomes or compliance with stated design parameters. For that reason, and to maximise certainty for the consent holder, the contractor and for Auckland Council, all references to the BPO have been removed from the consent document, including the definition.
Peer Review Panel
[525] A key condition sought by DGC was the requirement for a Peer Review Panel to be established, and to that panel to provide expert overview of the draft management plans and monitoring plans, and the outcomes of trigger event investigations and responses. This approach has been adopted for the Transmission Gully Project, as well as other projects such as the Orewa
121
to Pūhoi Motorway (ALPURT)298. Ms Crossen also confirmed that a key input of the panel would be in assisting to determine the appropriateness of increasing open area limits in any given year.299 The Board has addressed that matter separately.
[526] Mr Byrne300 did not consider a Peer Review Panel to be necessary. In his view, NZTA’s contractor and Auckland Council would have access to the most experienced erosion and sediment control practitioners and that the additional review/input from the panel would not add benefit to the development and review of erosion and sediment control plans. Moreover, Mr Byrne and Dr Neale301 considered that Auckland Council has access to appropriately experienced and qualified specialist (for example freshwater or marine ecologists) who will be able to review management plans, monitoring data and any other information that maybe be submitted by the consent holder throughout the construction of the Project.
[527] The Board recognises that peer review panels do have a valuable role to play in some circumstances. This can be in the review of specialist design and monitoring or in the specific design or performance measures are not specified. In the case of the Project, the proposed conditions include explicit design parameters for all erosion and sediment control measures, as well as reference to the accepted erosion and sediment control standard for the Auckland Region, that is TP 90. Departures from that standard are clearly described. Therefore, the Board considers that NZTA’s contractor and Auckland Council will be able to efficiently design and assessed erosion and sediment control plans, without undue ambiguity or conjecture.
[528] In terms of monitoring and investigations, the conditions require those plans, investigations and responses to be prepared by specialists in specific technical fields. The Board accepts Dr Neale’s assurance that Auckland Council does have access to appropriately qualified and experienced specialist to review, comment and approve those documents.
[529] For the above reasons, the Board does not consider the imposition of a peer review panel to be necessary for this Project.
Size of diversion channels (20yr v 100yr)
[530] Mr Handyside302 suggested that if the sediment control measures are designed to pass the 100 year ARI event then diversion channels should be sized to accommodate such flows, and that increasing the sizing to the 100 year ARI event will provide greater certainty that those flows can be accommodated. The Board accepts that logic.
298 Transcript, Handyside, pp 2054 – 2055. 299 Transcript, Crossen, p 3315. 300 Transcript, Byrne, p 2192. 301 Transcript, Neale, p 1745 – 1746. 302 Transcript, Handyside, p 2079 – 2080.
122
[531] Mr Ridley stated that from his experience and understanding of the Project alignment, physical constraints would prevent the construction of 100 year ARI sized diversion channels in all locations303. On that basis NZTA did not want a condition that imposed a diversion size that could not be achieved. Mr Ridley also presented evidence304 that showed how a diversion channel sized to carry a 20 year ARI flow plus 300mm freeboard would retain freeboard in a 100 year ARI event. On that basis, the Board accepts that diversion channels and bunds sized to the 20 year ARI event plus 300mm freeboard is the appropriate practical standard.
[532] The Board considers an appropriate requirement to be that diversion channels and bunds are to be sized to the 100 year ARI event where practicable, and as a minimum to be sized to the 20 year ARI event plus 300mm freeboard.
As-built Certification
[533] The level of detail required to be submitted to Auckland Council to support as-built certification of erosion and sediment controls was debated. The initial position by NZTA was that a simple statement by an appropriately qualified and experienced practitioner was satisfactory. Through the Hearing further details were added, but not to the full satisfaction of DGC.
[534] The Board considers that an appropriate level of detail is essential to allow Auckland Council to certify the erosion and sediment controls as complying with the relevant Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (CESCP) and consent conditions. This also provides the contractor an opportunity to identify and justify (if appropriate) any variations to the CESCP. The Board has added additional requirements to the as-built condition in that regard.
Winter Works — Pakiri Formation
[535] DGC considered that all works areas should be subject to the winter works limitation. NZTA proposed conditions that provided for works within the Pakiri Formation rock to continue through winter without the need for specific approval from the Auckland Council Team Leader.
[536] The Board considers that excluding the works in the Pakiri Formation from the winter works approval process will encourage the contractor to focus on those areas during winter. However, the Board is satisfied from Mr Handyside’s comments that works in those areas can result in sediment discharges if not appropriately managed. Therefore, the Board imposed a requirement for an updated CESCP to be submitted to Auckland Council for those areas prior to the winter earthworks period.
303 Transcript, Ridley, pp 1917. 304 Statement of rebuttal evidence, Ridley, para 31 and 32, p 8.
123
Slope minimisation
[537] DGC, through Mr Handyside, proposed a condition that would require (unless otherwise agreed with the Team Leader) that all cut and fill grades, excluding batter slopes and haul roads, be worked to maintain a slope that is no greater than the finished slope of the road in any given location. This condition was one of a suite of conditions aimed at minimising the extent of steep slopes, which present a higher risk of erosion.
[538] In the Hearing Mr Ridley did not support that condition on the basis that the predicted envelope of effects had been derived without the assumption of that construction technique occurring. Mr Ridley did reiterate his view expressed in relation to the conservatism of the modelling, that is the modelling assumed the existing steep gradients of much of the alignment, while those gradients would progressively reduce as the Project was formed. Therefore, he did not consider the additional condition to be necessary. For the reasons stated by Mr Ridley, and in recognising that the condition could impose a limitation on the efficiency of the contractor to complete various sections of cut and fills, the Board has not imposed that condition.
Stabilising 5m cuts and lifts
[539] DGC, through Mr Handyside, proposed a condition that would require the progressive stabilisation of completed cut faces and fill batters in 5m ‘lifts’. This was another condition with the objective of progressively limiting the extent of steeper slopes. Mr Handyside explained how a similar condition had been imposed and implemented for the ALPURT Project, and had also been imposed on the Transmission Gully Project.
[540] Again, Mr Ridley did not support that condition on the basis that the predicted envelope of effects had been derived within the assumption of such an approach.
[541] Mr Byrne initially stated that he would consider the necessity for that condition. However, he subsequently considered that the addition of the general progressive stabilisation condition agreed to with NZTA would suffice.
[542] The Board accepts the view of Mr Byrne, but considers it appropriate to slightly modify the general progressive stabilisation condition to make specific reference to completed sections of vertical cut faces and fill batters.
New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010
[543] Both the Pūhoi catchment and the Mahurangi catchment are significant habitats for various species of birds.305
305 Refer to Chapters 9 and 10.
124
[544] The risk can be obviously stated. In the event of sedimentation destroying or otherwise adversely impacting the benthic invertebrates, on which various species of wading birds feed, the natural habitats of avian life inhabiting the Pūhoi Estuary and Mahurangi Harbour might be threatened. There has been no evidence that the benthic invertebrates are threatened species. Rather, it is a threat to the birds which feed on those invertebrates. One particular threatened species, according to the evidence, which the Board accepts, is the New Zealand Dotterel which is found in small numbers, particularly in the Pūhoi Estuary and probably in the Mahurangi Harbour.
[545] Ms Crossen, counsel for DGC, addressed NZCPS issues in a robust and focused way306. She said that there was a very real risk that, in a high rainfall event, both the Pūhoi Estuary and the Mahurangi Harbour would be “significantly adversely affected”. This, counsel submitted, was inconsistent307 with the relevant objectives and policies of NZCPS and the Coastal Plan. Both the Pūhoi Estuary and the Mahurangi Harbour are coastal protection areas and accordingly should be protected. Significant adverse effects should be avoided, and certainly any sediment discharge should be minimised.
[546] Ms Crossen submitted that objectives 1, 2 and 6 of NZCPS were directly relevant308. So too were Policy 3 (Precautionary Approach), Policy 11 (Indigenous Biological Diversity) and Policy 13 (Preservation of Natural Character).
Policy 3
[547] DGC has emphasised the need to apply the precautionary approach of Policy 3 of the NZCPS to the consideration of this Project.
“Policy 3
1. Adopt a precautionary approach towards proposed activities whose effects on the coastal environment are uncertain, unknown, or little understood, but potentially significantly adverse.
2. In particular, adopt a precautionary approach to use and management of coastal resources potentially vulnerable to effects from climate change, so that:
(a) avoidable social and economic loss and harm to communities does not occur;
(b) natural adjustments for coastal processes, natural defences, ecosystems, habitat and species are allowed to occur; and
306 Closing submissions, DGC 307 Closing submissions, DGC, para 3, p1 308 Closing submissions, DGC, para 17, p10
125
(c) the natural character, public access, amenity and other values of the coastal environment meet the needs of future generations.”
[548] The Board finds that NZTA has addressed the matters specifically identified in Clause 1 of Policy 3 by identifying and quantifying the likely adverse sediment-related effects that may occur within the coastal environment. Further, the matters addressed in Clause 2 are not directly applicable in the context of the Project, given its likely construction timeframe. On that basis Policy 3 does not, in the Board’s view, necessitate the full adoption of all additional conditions proposed by DGC, for the reasons discussed above. However, the Board accepts that the policy reinforces the need to ensure that the implementation of the Project will, as a minimum, operate within the modelled envelope of effects. It is for that reason that the Board has a adopted a number of the changes and additions to the conditions proposed by DGC, and made further changes to address various issues raised through the Hearing.
Policy 11
[549] The Board is satisfied that the other Policy of great significance to sedimentation is Policy 11. This was the principal issue in contention between NZTA and DGC. The other objectives and policies cited by Ms Crossen have been briefly canvassed in the chapter of this Report dealing with the Okahu Inlet.309
[550] Policy 11 is clear and specific. Policy 11(a) (designed to protect indigenous biological diversity in the coastal environment) states as a policy that adverse effects on activities are to be avoided in respect of (inter alia) indigenous taxa (which includes the New Zealand Dotterel), and arguably the habitats of indigenous species at the limit of their natural range or being naturally rare.310
[551] The verb avoid is also used in Policy 11(b). Significant adverse effects are to be avoided. Other adverse effects of activities are to be avoided, remedied or mitigated. Policy 11(b)(iii) refers to indigenous eco systems and habitats only found in the coastal environment, which are particularly vulnerable to modification. Estuaries, lagoons and tidal zones are specified.
[552] Counsel for NZTA’s submission on Policy 11 was succinct. She referred to the evidence of Dr Bull and submitted there were no adverse effects on threatened indigenous avian taxa listed as such. It was also clear from Dr De Luca’s evidence that no threatened benthic invertebrate species would be affected.
309 Or are not of central relevance to the sedimentation issue. 310 Policy 11(a)(i) and (iv).
126
[553] Elsewhere the Board has mentioned the importance of the recent Supreme Court judgment in EDS v NZ King Salmon Co Limited311 so far as NZCPS is concerned. NZCPS, to some extent, fleshes out the s 5 policy of the Act. The majority of the Supreme Court observed (at [24](d)) that the use of the word ‘protection’ in s 5(2), coupled with the use of the word ‘avoiding’ in s 5(2)(c):
“Contemplates that particular environments may need to be protected from the adverse effects of activities in order to implement the policy of sustainable management …”
[554] NZCPS, and in particular Policy 11 which is engaged by NZTA’s applications, highlight the central relevance here of the s 5 purpose.
[555] The majority of the Supreme Court, referring to (but in relation to other policies) the word ‘avoid’ in NZCPS, interpreted these words as ‘not allow’ or ‘prevent the occurrence of’312. The Supreme Court saw the policies with which it was concerned (Policies 13 and 15) as providing “… something in the nature of a bottom line”. The Court saw this as consistent with the sustainable management definition in s 5(2), which contemplated protection as well as use and development.
[556] The Board has recognised that its consideration of the resource consent applications must include a balanced regard of the NZCPS, rather than being required to give effect to that policy statement. Nonetheless, it is against the backdrop of avoidance and counsel’s submissions, the Board has given anxious thought to the application of Policy 11, and the threatened avian species (Policy 11(a)(i)).
[557] The birds (threatened and otherwise) sit at some distance down a causation chain. First, there must be an extreme weather event. Secondly, such event must take place in one (or both) of the two catchments at a time when significant soil is exposed. Thirdly, there would have to be a serious failure of the conditions which the Board has imposed which are designed to minimise and mitigate the risk of sedimentation. Fourthly, significant quantities of sediment would have to find their way into the Pūhoi Estuary and/or the Mahurangi Harbour. Fifthly, such sedimentation would have to destroy or have a significant adverse effect on the eco systems which are the habitat of the benthic invertebrates. Finally, the destruction of such benthic invertebrates would have to have an adverse effect on the bird life (particularly threatened species) which feed on those invertebrates. In addition, and in no way trivialising the risk, the sedimentation would have to destroy benthic invertebrate communities beyond the point of recovery.
311 Chapter 6.2. 312 King Salmon at [96].
127
Finally, the bird species would need to fail to find other nearby areas for replacement of viable sources of food.313
[558] Returning, therefore, to the central submission of Ms Crossen that there was a very real risk that a high rainfall event would significantly adversely affect the Pūhoi Estuary and the Mahurangi Harbour, the Board certainly accepts that this would be a risk were there no safeguards in place. The Board is satisfied that the conditions it has imposed provide those safeguards. In particular, the Board is satisfied that the conditions indeed avoid adverse effects to those species and eco systems to which Policy 11(a) of NZCPS applies. It is further of the view that significant adverse effects for the purposes of Policy 11(b) are avoided, or certainly mitigated.
[559] Thus, for s 104(1)(b)(iv) purposes, the Board has considered in a strict and conservative fashion the relevant policies, in particular Policy 11, of NZCPS. It has adopted the binding approach (as it applies to words used in NZCPS) of the Supreme Court. The Board is satisfied that it has not read down or diluted in any way the word ‘avoid’ and has addressed the sedimentation risk in a way consistent with the Act’s s 5 policy.
Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000
[560] In her closing submissions, Ms Brosnahan discussed the relevance of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA) in its function as a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement314. Ms Brosnahan identified section 7 of the HGMPA, which states:
“The interrelationship between the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments and the ability of that interrelationship to sustain the life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf and its islands are matters of national significance.”
[561] Ms Brosnahan accepted that the HGMPA was a relevant matter and considered the ‘interrelationship’ to be “directive of what is of national significance”. However, Ms Brosnahan expressed concern about DGC’s view that the Mahurangi Harbour and Pūhoi Estuary are nationally significant. In her words315:
“The section [s7 HGMPA] does not direct that the individual islands and catchments are, of themselves, “nationally significant”. To adopt the Director- General interpretation would suggest that any element of the Hauraki Gulf and extensive area of land that drains into the gulf (the catchments) is nationally important, which we submit is not based on any evidence or relevant planning document.”
313 Statement of rebuttal evidence, Bull. 314 Closing submissions, NZTA, para 371, p 77 315 Closing submissions, NZTA, para 372, p 78.
128
[562] Consequently, she did not consider the Mahurangi Harbour or the Pūhoi Estuary to be ‘nationally significant’ on an individual basis316.
[563] The Board accepts that all runoff from the Project will discharge within catchments of Hauraki Gulf and as such, the HGMPA is relevant to the consideration of sediment effects. The Board also accepts that sub-catchments of the Mahurangi Harbour or the Pūhoi Estuary are unlikely to be considered as nationally significant in their own right. On the other hand, Rangitoto Island would quite reasonably be considered nationally significant. The Mahurangi Harbour and Pūhoi Estuary lie somewhere on the spectrum of significance between those two extremes, possibly towards the more significant based on the other operative and proposed planning provisions that apply to them. The Board stops short of considering the Harbour and Estuary as ‘nationally significant’. But it does find that they are important waterways of the Gulf. Their function must be considered as contributing to the national significance, based on their interrelationship with the Gulf and the landward portions of their catchments. As such, this significance is not to be minimised.
Watercare Services Limited
[564] In considering the final version of the proposed conditions presented by NZTA, the Board is of the view that all but one of those matters has been addressed. The one area that has not been adopted is the requirement to include TOC, DOC and UV absorbance into the water quality sampling. Mr Ridley addressed Watercare’s submission in his evidence in chief, commenting that317:
“I consider that there is no significant linkage between the construction activities and the other water quality variables that Watercare suggest should be monitored. While the variables suggested by Watercare are indicators of water quality, I consider the key potential water quality effects will be related to suspended solids, turbidity, pH, nitrogen and phosphorus, all of which are currently included in the conditions.”
[565] Watercare did not appear at the Hearing or provide any further comment on NZTA’s evidence or revised conditions. However, the Board recognises Watercare’s role as a network utility provider and its responsibilities to ensure the efficient operation of their water treatment facilities and compliance with drinking water standards. Therefore, in the absence of any contrary water quality specialist evidence, the Board considers it appropriate to impose testing of those additional parameters on sampling undertaken upstream of Watercare’s water take.
316 Ibid. 317 Statement of evidence, Ridley, para 93.3, p 21
129
Overall Summary
[566] DGC presented a structured case that built on layers of uncertainty to support a more conservative approach to the management of the earthworks component of the Project. This case recognised the specific values of the marine receiving environments, as Areas of Significant Conservation Value.
[567] Correspondingly, NZTA presented a case supported by extensive technical reports and detailed catchment modelling. A range of inputs to the modelling were presented as conservative, with an overall position that the Board could have confidence that the Project would be constructed within the predicted envelope of effects. Auckland Council generally accepted that approach.
[568] The Board generally accepts the overall assessment of effects undertaken by NZTA, and in particular the potential effects on the marine receiving environments. The Board does not accept all NZTA’s claimed conservatism and is mindful of the particular status that the receiving environments have under various planning provisions, including the NZCPS. On that basis, additional measures are imposed to reduce further the risk of sediment-related effects exceeding those predicted, and to support the implementation of environmental monitoring and responses. These measures are considered necessary to ensure a sufficient level of certainty that the construction of the Project will remain within the envelope of effects that have been assessed.
[569] The consideration of potential sediment effects on this scale will always be a risk-based assessment. The Board considers that, with the modified conditions imposed, the Project will adequately address the risk of sediment related effects in the freshwater and marine receiving environments.
10.7 CULVERTS, BRIDGES AND STREAMS
The Proposal
[570] NZTA has provided an estimate of structures associated with the Project, comprising multiple culverts (approximately 40) across intermittent and permanent streams, up to seven viaducts (including the crossing of the Okahu Inlet which is in the CMA), and five bridges318.
[571] All intermittent and permanent freshwater streams that are anticipated to be affected by the Project have been identified, assessed and classified319. These freshwater environments have been summarised in the Board’s discussion on sediment effects.
318 Construction Water Assessment Report, section 1.3, p 4. 319 Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report.
130
[572] Intermittent and permanent streams are defined in the ACRP:ALW, with consent requirements being triggered by various activities that occur within permanent streams. Corresponding definitions are provided in the PAUP, but those rules apply further upstream, that is into reaches that are deemed intermittent under the ACRP:ALW. Because NZTA has assessed all streams, the consent application addresses all reaches that are subject to the rules of each plan.
[573] NZTA has provided a set of conditions, including maps identifying the streams that will be affected. They include a framework for determining the quantum of mitigation that will be necessary to off-set adverse effects that the Project will have on streams.
[574] Dr Keesing320 and Dr Donovan agreed that there was sufficient length of stream within the designation to accommodate the likely length of riparian mitigation that will be necessary to offset the predicted loss of stream channel.
[575] NZTA’s proposed conditions include design and performance standards for pipes, channels and bridges, impose an objective to minimise stream loss, incorporate fish passage, and require engagement with the iwi advisor during the detailed design stage.
[576] With the implementation of the proposed conditions, NZTA submits that the potential adverse effects of the structures in or over streams will be appropriately mitigated321.
Submissions
[577] Auckland Council in its submission and statements of evidence by Dr Neale and Mr Surrey proposed changes to conditions relating to the stream evaluation methodology and quantifying mitigation. Those concerns were subsequently addressed by NZTA in the revised and agreed conditions.
[578] DGC’s submission and the evidence of Mr Pingram supported the changes sought by Auckland Council. DGC raised concerns over the timing of stream ecological assessments being undertaken during a period of drought, a lack of sampling for freshwater fish, and there being insufficient detail on the extent of modification of freshwater habitats. All the matters of concern to DGC were resolved through expert conferencing322.
320 Transcript, Keesing, p 1792. 321 Statement of Evidence of Sinclair, para 104, p 20; Closing submissions, NZTA, para 306.4, p 64. 322 Memorandum of counsel, NZTA, 7 May 2014; Transcript, Neale, p 1741; Transcript, Surrey, p 1762;
Transcript, Pingram, pp 1775 and 1776.
131
Factual Findings
[579] The proposed stream ecological valuation (SEV)323 methodology (as agreed to be modified by the freshwater ecologists) is the appropriate mechanism for quantifying the mitigation necessary to off-set the loss of values that will result from structures to be constructed in or over streams.
[580] The owners of Fernbrook Farm do not oppose the crossing of the Hikauae Stream by a culvert and associated large fill embankment rather than a viaduct, provided that vehicle and stock access is maintained across the farm. This matter is discussed in detail below.
Evaluation and Conclusion
[581] The Board accepts that NZTA has adequately assessed and classified the freshwater environments that will be potentially adversely affected by the Project. That assessment is no longer disputed by Auckland Council or DGC.
[582] With the exception of its discussion on tributaries M18/19 below, the Board finds that the potential adverse effects of the installation of culverts and bridges necessary for the Project will be adequately mitigated. This conclusion is based on the agreed position by all freshwater ecologists and full implementation of the mitigation conditions proposed.
Tributaries M18/19
[583] The exception to the Board’s general conclusion relates to the M18/19 tributaries of the right branch of the Mahurangi River, specifically the reaches of those tributaries immediately west and south-west of the Genesis Fish Farm and the proposed Eco-viaduct. The indicative design provided with the consent application indicated an open channel diversion of those tributaries at that location, over a length of approximately 200m. The diversion would discharge back into the existing stream channel adjacent to the viaduct.
[584] Dr Fisher explained the need for the diversion, which is to accommodate construction of the southern abutment of the Eco-viaduct and stated that “a stream diversion [open channel] is preferable to a culvert because it means that the habitat is there and fully functional”324. The stream diversion, if constructed in accordance with the application, would be based on the relevant typology provided in conditions (in this case a lowland stream typology). However, as Dr Fisher confirmed325, the proposed conditions do not require the diversion to be an open channel. Rather, the choice of open
323 Memorandum of counsel, NZTA, 7 May 2014. 324 Transcript, Fisher, p 985. 325 Transcript, Fisher, p 989.
132
channel or culvert would be made through detailed design, with mitigation being based on the option chosen.
[585] Freshwater ecologists who appeared before the Board accepted that the proposed mitigation conditions would ensure that the appropriate quantum of mitigation would be derived, regardless of whether an open channel or culvert diversion was created. On that basis they did not express an insistence that the M18/19 diversion should an open channel. However, all freshwater ecologists expressed a preference for an open channel diversion on ecological grounds. As Dr. Pingram326 explained, an open channel would:
Maintain access to the riparian zone and linkages with terrestrial environment inputs of organic matter to the stream, which provide food for invertebrates and fish; and; and
Maintain natural flow variability throughout that section of the stream.
[586] Dr Neale327 also explained that: “In general we would be promoting the retention of open 15 channels that allows for a more fully functioning stream system because it doesn’t disconnect to the stream environment from the terrestrial environment from the riparian zone so I think I’d largely agree with Dr Donovan that if we can maintain it as an open channel that would be a preferable option.”
[587] The tributaries at this location have been classified as ‘permanent’ and have been assessed as having ‘good’ existing ecological value328. They are one of the two sites with the highest Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) values329 recorded in the NZTA assessment, and one of the three ‘representative permanent streams’330 in the Mahurangi catchment sections of the Project. The proposed stream diversion at this location has been assessed as an open channel diversion331 rather than a culvert, and is immediately upstream of a site identified as a location where effects would be avoided332 (by spanning the downstream section with the Eco-viaduct). On that basis, the potential adverse effects of the Project on the M18/19 site were assessed by Dr Donovan as minor333.
326 Transcript, Pingram, p 1777. 327 Transcript, Neale, p 1755. 328 Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, table 11, p 57. 329 Ibid, section 4.4, page 38. 330 Ibid, figure 1, page 18. 331 Statement of evidence, Donovan, annexure A, Table A-1. 332 Ibid, para 109, p 23. 333 Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, section 8.2, table 11, p 57.
133
[588] During questioning, Dr Donovan did not explicitly oppose a culvert option as in his view, the consent conditions would ensure that the appropriate quantum of mitigation would be provided for either option. However, Dr Donovan did support the open channel option on ecological grounds, based on the existing values of the tributaries.334 If he was involved in the detailed design, he would “be doing his best to persuade the design engineers that the [open channel] diversion would be favoured”335. He also noted some of the effects of culverting the tributaries as:
“... reducing the amount of light that can reach the streambed and therefore reducing the productivity, the primary productivity, reducing the effect of groundwater inflows from the sides of the stream, potentially, I guess, whether it is significant or not, reducing the nutrient input through that section, reducing the organic material that can get into that section…”336
[589] Through its desire to maximise flexibility in the detailed design phase of the Project, NZTA has suggested but not committed to an open channel diversion of the M18/19 tributaries. However, the application drawings show the diversion as an open channel, indeed the only significant stream diversion (being two tributaries feeding the Mahurangi Right Branch) within the Project alignment. Dr Fisher has explained the reasons for that and Dr Donovan has assessed them as being some of the higher value tributaries within the Project.
[590] The Board has not received compelling evidence to support the culverting of these tributaries. Rather, a general consensus has been presented by the freshwater ecologists that open channels should be retained wherever possible. In this case a feasible alignment has been presented that provides an open channel which will also provide an additional opportunity for mitigation planning along that section. Therefore, the Board imposes a condition that requires that if the M18/19 tributaries are to be diverted, that shall be by way of an open channel, constructed in accordance with the relevant stream typology specified in the conditions.
Upgrading Existing Culverts
[591] During the Hearing, Dr Donovan confirmed that a potential component of the mitigation package for streamworks could be the upgrading of fish passage within culverts passing under existing SH1. He considered such mitigation potential should be determined on a case by case basis, taking account of the upstream values of each watercourse.337 The Board considers this appropriate as the existing SH1 culverts are under the control of NZTA, and has added reference to this mitigation option in the conditions.
334 Transcript, Donovan, p 1728. 335 Ibid, p 1729. 336 Ibid, p 1731. 337 Ibid, p 1782.
134
Fernbrook Farm Limited — Hikauae Stream
[592] Finally, the Board turns to the proposed crossing of Fernbrook Farm Limited and the Hikauae Stream. Through questioning by the Board, NZTA conceded that through detailed design the crossing could be achieved by a culvert and large fill embankment, rather than the viaduct presented in the consent application documents. Dr. Donovan338 and Dr. Keesing339 confirmed that such a change would not alter their conclusions regarding the potential effects of the Project.
[593] When questioned by the Board, Ms J Pike representing Fernbrook Farm Limited stated that she had not considered the potential impact of a culvert and large fill embankment because that option had not been discussed with NZTA340. Subsequently, NZTA counsel expressed the view that Ms Pike’s response was a misunderstanding and that Fernbrook Farm Limited would not oppose a culvert and fill embankment option. To clarify the matter the Board issued the following Direction on 11 June 2014:
“1. Counsel for NZTA informed the Board that the owners of Fernbrook Farms assumed its land would be crossed by a viaduct and that their central concern was access from one part of the farm to another underneath the viaduct.
2. Would counsel please confirm that, so far as Fernbrook Farms is concerned, it is immaterial whether its land is crossed by a viaduct or an embankment provided access is retained”
[594] On 12 June 2014, the Board received the following response for counsel representing Fernbrook Farm:
“3. Counsel advises the Board her instructions that Fernbrook Farm Limited agrees that it is immaterial whether its land is crossed by a viaduct or an embankment, provided access is provided or retained:
a. To Fernbrook Farm and to any residences outside the designation; and
b. Under the viaduct or embankment to all parts of the farm.”
[595] The Board accepts that Fernbrook Farm Limited does not oppose a culvert and fill embankment across the Hikauae Stream. The Board considers it appropriate to reinforce by way of a condition341 the requirement to provide access across this property.
338 Transcript, Donovan, p 1709. 339 Transcript, Keesing, p 1793. 340 Transcript, Pike, p 1532. 341 Condition D79.
135
10.8 NOISE AND VIBRATION
[596] Most submitters living close to the alignment have concerns about noise from the construction and operation of the Project, and noise was one of the most commonly raised concerns. Some residents used acoustic devices and endeavoured to interpret the results themselves and produced their analysis at the Hearing.
[597] The only expert evidence was from Ms S Wilkening who is employed by Marshall Day Acoustics Limited and has had over 16 years’ experience in acoustic engineering in Germany and New Zealand. She specialises in environmental noise control and computer noise modelling. She has been involved over the last 15 years in investigating and reporting on traffic noise effects of numerous roading projects including State highways and RoNS projects.
[598] Ms Wilkening presented evidence in chief regarding both construction and operational noise. Her evidence made it clear that responses to noise are subjective, but it can be assessed objectively342. Influential factors include:
Distance from source;
Topography between source and recipient; and
Atmospheric conditions including:
o Wind direction;
o Temperature and humidity; and
o Temperature inversions and fog.
[599] Her involvement in the Project had included contributing an operational noise assessment report showing existing ambient noise levels for different parts of the alignment and their vicinities.
[600] She described her methodology, applying NZS6803:1999 for construction noise and NZS6806 for operational noise. She considered these to be the appropriate standards.
[601] She described the existing environment as generally quiet with noise levels ranging from 40 dB LAeq in the quietest rural areas to 73 dB LAeq adjacent to the existing SH1343.
342 Statement of evidence, Wilkening (Construction Noise), para 85. 343 Statement of evidence, Wilkening (Construction Noise)
136
Construction noise
[602] Ms Wilkening explained that her assessment of construction noise effects involved the following steps344:
“31.1 I determined those dwellings closest to the construction works;
31.2 Based on the predicted noise levels for each construction activity, I calculated the distances at which there is a low, medium and high risk of exceeding the relevant criteria;
31.3 For each construction activity, I determined the dwellings that may be at risk of receiving noise levels exceeding the day-time noise criteria;
31.4 For each Sector, I specifically reviewed the construction activities and affected dwellings, and recommended potential mitigation options. I noted where these mitigation options should result in compliance with the criteria; and
31.5 I assessed the mitigated construction noise levels against compliance with the relevant criteria.”
[603] Ms Wilkening acknowledged “construction activity is inherently noisy. Nevertheless, the RMA and NZS6803:1999 require that noise levels are managed and mitigated so as to not exceed a reasonable level.” 345 She advocated management and mitigation noise measures be formulated after detailed design is known and the contractor appointed, and explained that a CNVMP is to provide details for managing and mitigating noise issues346.
[604] She pointed out that blasting is likely to be the most intrusive noise but it could generally be undertaken in compliance with relevant noise limits. However, she identified one dwelling at 20 Pūhoi Close where exposure to noise could exceed the normal limit. She recommended using a reduced blast charge close to that property.347
[605] In addressing construction traffic noise, Ms Wilkening pointed to Moirs Hill Road as the only road in which truck noise could be a problem to residents because of that road’s current low volume of traffic. However she considered it would be within relevant construction noise criteria.348
[606] Ms Wilkening indicated she had read the submissions regarding noise and highlighted the following issues:
Hours and overall duration of construction;
344 Ibid, para 31. 345 Ibid, para 23. 346 Ibid, para 24 – 2.5 347 Ibid, para 33. 348 Ibid, para 35.
137
Blasting;
Pre-cast yard;
Construction traffic;
Insulation of dwellings;
Temporary relocation;
Barriers/bunds;
Planting;
Communication and complaints management;
Effects on business operations;
Meteorological conditions;
Vehicle reversing alarms; and
Noise level predictions.
Hours and overall duration of construction
[607] Various submitters sought restrictions on times of the day and days of the week. Ms Wilkening said “it is not practicable to allow for construction only during certain times of the day or days of the week because of programming issues.”349 She concluded that “construction noise effects can generally reasonably mitigated or managed, such that these restrictions are not required.”350
Blasting
[608] Ms Wilkening responded to various submitters concerned about blasting and said “issues relate to blast noise in general, the extent of risk area and potential effects on domestic animals”351. She recommended the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) would best provide for management and mitigation of blasting noise. She said “I did not consider that any temporary resident relocation would need to be offered, as with appropriate management and mitigation, the blasting criteria can be complied with.”352
[609] She acknowledged some animals may react adversely to blasting but considers from her literature research that “the reactions of horses and
349 Ibid, para 40. 350 Ibid. 351 Ibid, para 41. 352 Ibid, para 45.
138
other domestic animals…would be slight at most…domestic animals are unlikely to suffer effects from the proposed blasting.”353
[610] Ms Wilkening concluded that “with the recommended pre-warning management and compliance with the relevant criteria, blasting will have no significant adverse effect on people and animals in the vicinity of Project construction activities.”354
Pre-cast yard
[611] Submitters raised concerns particularly with respect to the proposed 24 hour/7 day per week operation at the pre-cast yard over the lengthy construction period. Ms Wilkening responded that “the night-time construction criterion of 45 dB LAeq is appropriate and would not result in adverse effects for residents in the vicinity…”355
Construction traffic
[612] Various submitters expressed concern about the noise from construction traffic using local and construction roads and the alignment itself. Ms Wilkening conceded that truck movements would be audible from houses close to such roads, but pointed out that such movements would not be numerous and would often blend with noise from other traffic on those roads. She referred particularly to the kennel and cattery on Moirs Hill Road and opined that “most pets would be used to most events occurring from time to time.”356She advocated mitigation on Moirs Hill Road “by laying a smooth and even road surface…and reducing truck speed to 70km/hr.”357
[613] The Board has imposed several conditions in relation to Moirs Hill Road which will reinforce the mitigation that Ms Wilkening refers to. See Chapter 10.13 of this Report on Moirs Hill Road.
Insulation of dwellings
[614] Several submitters sought insulation or double glazing for their residences. However Ms Wilkening recommended “mitigating construction noise at the source… rather than the receiver…which will protect the widest possible area while avoiding invasive work on residents’ dwellings.”358
353 Ibid, para 46. 354 Ibid, para 47. 355 Ibid, para 50. 356 Ibid, para 54. 357 Ibid, para 59. 358 Ibid.
139
Temporary relocation
[615] Some submitters sought temporary relocation during construction “for themselves, their tenants and/or their livestock”359. Ms Wilkening recommended relocation of people on a case-by-case basis where construction noise effects cannot be appropriately managed such as “where night-time works would be required in close proximity to dwellings…or…in particularly close proximity to possible blast sites.”360 She considered such temporary relocations should be dealt with in the CNVMP.
Barriers/bunds
[616] Several submitters requested barriers and/or bunds as mitigation and Ms Wilkening agreed to them “around some construction yards and some truck access routes.”361 She recommended they should be dealt with in the CNVMP.
Planting
[617] Several submitters sought planting prior to construction for noise mitigation. However Ms Wilkening opined such planting “would act only as a visual shield and would not reduce noise levels.”362
Communication and complaints management
[618] Ms Wilkening said “communication and public liaison are the most important noise management measures.”363 She recommended such matters be dealt with in the CNVMP.
Effects on business operations
[619] As well as the Moirs Hill Road kennel/cattery, the Hungry Creek Bed and Breakfast and the National Trading Company expressed concerns regarding construction noise. Ms Wilkening considered that their concerns were best dealt with in the CNVMP.
Meteorological conditions
[620] Some submitters expressed concerns about construction noise being exacerbated by wind and other weather conditions. Ms Wilkening said her “predictions include moderate adverse weather conditions…I consider that the noise levels I have predicted represent a reasonable case, weighted towards louder noise levels.”364
359 Ibid, para 60. 360 Ibid. 361 Ibid, para 63. 362 Ibid, para 65. 363 Ibid, para 68. 364 Ibid, para 77.
140
Reversing alarms
[621] Ms Wilkening identified one submitter’s concern about ‘reversing beepers’, and said she considered reversing alarms could be modified to be less intrusive and that was a matter to be addressed as part of the CNVMP.365
Noise level predictions
[622] One submitter (Pickering, 105561) alleged Ms Wilkening had only assessed noise intrusion within 200 metres of the alignment. Ms Wilkening responded that she had taken into account buildings outside the 200 metres and that her “predictions are for a reasonable worst case, not allowing for any topographical shielding.”366
Operational noise
[623] Ms Willkening’s assessment of operational noise was based on “short and long duration surveys to determine the existing noise environment along the length of the Project”367. She then undertook modelling to “take account of the many factors that affect the propagation of road traffic noise, such as atmospheric spreading, distance attenuation, ground attenuation and meteorological conditions”.368
[624] Inputs to the modelling included “the form of the terrain, the road alignment and dwelling locations…traffic volume, speed, road surface material, gradient and percentage of heavy vehicles.”369 Testing and calibrating of the modelling established “the required accuracy of plus and minus 2 decibels, which is within the accuracy expected by the standard.”370
[625] Ms Wilkening said she “tested other noise mitigation measures, such as barriers and bunds, in addition to the low noise road surface. However due to terrain restraints, such barriers would need to be very high and long to achieve a noticeable noise level reduction, which would create unrelated adverse effects, for instance in regards to visual impacts.”371
[626] A key finding of Ms Wilkening’s assessment was that open graded porous asphalt (OGPA) should be applied to sections from Pūhoi south, and Perry Road north. This has been included as a condition by NZTA.
[627] She also said “for some areas the noise level increase will be significant, particularly in areas where there is currently no influence from existing roads (e.g. Wyllie Road and Viv-Davie Martin Drive). For dwellings along the
365 Ibid, para 78. 366 Ibid, para 80. 367 Statement of evidence, Wilkening (Operational Noise), para 25. 368 Ibid, para 26. 369 Ibid. 370 Ibid, para 27. 371 Ibid, para 10.
141
existing SH1, I predict noise level reductions of up to 4 decibels, which will be a noticeable positive effect. Overall, the resultant noise levels from the Project will not adversely affect residential activities or cause sleep disturbance…I have read the submissions that relate to operational noise and my views … have not changed.”372
[628] The Board notes that in assessing predicted operational noise Ms Wilkening based her assessment on the indicative alignment rather than the precise distance of any dwellings from the designation boundary.373 Thus, if the motorway alignment were to move or be moved inside the designation noise calculations would alter. The Board considered this to be an important factor which lies behind the noise conditions it has imposed.
Issues identified by the Board
[629] The Board issued various directions374 based on feedback from Auckland Council. Ms Wilkening responded with helpful information and in her conclusions said:
“The noise criteria I recommend achieve a balance between the need for development to be progressed while avoiding adverse health effects of residents and mitigating amenity effects.375
I recommend the adoption of general mitigation measures throughout construction, such as responsible management of operations on and off-site and appropriate communication with affected residents. In addition, I recommend for the ‘at risk’ receivers targeted mitigation through individual engagement with residents. Because the project area is sparsely populated, only a small number of dwellings will be adversely affected by the construction works. As a result, the contractor will be able to give particular attention to each affected dwelling.376
Any potential exceedances of the recommended criteria can be managed and mitigated through a CNVMP. Guidance as to the contents of a CNVMP can be found in the NZTA ‘State highway construction and maintenance noise and vibration guide.”377
Submitters’ Evidence
[630] A number of submitters, especially those in rural areas and quiet locations filed evidence expressing their concerns about the effects of construction and operational noise. Without providing an exhaustive list, these submitters included Mr D Mason, Dr D Civil, Ms J Christophersen, Mr
372 Ibid, para 11 – 14. 373 Operational Noise Assessment Report, section 6, p 26. 374 Board Direction 01 – 01, issues nos. 79 – 84 and 98, based on Auckland Council’s feedback. 375 Statement of evidence, Wilkening (Construction Noise), para 91. 376 Ibid, para 92. 377 Ibid, para 93.
142
Thaller, Mr Endean, Mr and Mrs Gowing, Ms Court, Mr Woodley, Mr and Mrs Still, and Mr and Mrs Anderson.
[631] This evidence was considered by the Board. Importantly, many of these submitters also attended conferences, and to varying extents, some of their concerns, (particularly over construction noise) influenced the wording of relevant conditions.
Rebuttal evidence
[632] Ms Wilkening in rebuttal evidence dated 18 March 2014, responded to the evidence of Mr D Mason, Dr D Civil, Ms J Christophersen and the s 42A Report. Having dealt with the submissions point by point, she concluded “I remain of the opinion that the Project can be constructed and operated so that resultant noise levels would be within acceptable levels.”378
[633] Mr Jenkins in his s 42A Report had itemised a number of noise related issues which Ms Wilkening accepted. She concluded the CNVMP was the appropriate mechanism to address mitigation of noise effects to meet the proposed noise limits, and enable consultation with affected parties.379
Vibration
[634] The only expert evidence regarding vibration was from Mr J Whitlock who also works for Marshall Day Acoustics. He has 11 years’ experience in acoustics and has specialised in environmental vibration for the past 8 years.380
[635] Mr Whitlock has worked on two RoNS and other transport projects, and indicated he had been:
“… involved in reviewing plans (including geotechnical longsections), detailed discussions with the construction engineering team on methodology (particularly vibration-generating activities), review of vibration standards, collation and analysis of vibration data, a site visit to key locations of the route and preparation of the Vibration Assessment Report.”381
[636] He also advised he had reviewed the relevant submissions, s149 requests and Directions from the Board.382
[637] Mr Whitlock advised there are no current New Zealand standards addressing construction or traffic vibration.383 He had adopted criteria similar
378 Statement of rebuttal evidence, Wilkening, para 49. 379 Ibid, para 48. 380 Statement of evidence, Whitlock, para 2. 381 Ibid, para 8. 382 Ibid. 383 Ibid, para 11.
143
to those for other large infrastructure projects including RoNS. He assessed the Project against building damage and amenity criteria and concluded that no receivers along the route would suffer building damage but 15 receivers would experience daytime vibration in excess of these criteria. He explained this means that there may be some annoyance caused for these receivers. However “it is not practicable to predict how they will respond nor whether mitigation will be required.”384 Mr Whitlock advocated the CNVMP deal with these effects.385
[638] Once the motorway is operational Mr Whitlock predicted “traffic vibration effects… to be negligible (i.e. very unlikely to cause annoyance), provided the road surface is monitored and maintained in accordance with the Transport Agency policy…the primary mitigation tool, and I consider it to be the best practicable option for avoiding and mitigating traffic vibration effects.”386
[639] He said “If construction vibration were to cause substantiated damage to any building or property, then the CNVMP would require the Transport Agency to repair or compensate for the damage in full.”387 Mr Whitlock addressed the submitters’ concerns under several headings and items identified by the Board.388 He concluded that the CNVMP process was appropriate to manage and mitigate the effects of construction activities. He predicted that traffic vibration effects of the operation of the motorway will comply with Project criteria and that the effects would be negligible “provided that the Transport Agency maintains the road in accordance with its current policies.”389
Conferencing
[640] There were about 12 conferences in which noise was an issue, and Ms Wilkening was present at over half of those.
[641] Ms W Court was involved with NZTA representatives at a conference dated 4 April 2014. The Standard 6803 regarding construction noise was discussed and also the CNVMP process, including consultation requirements and the complaints procedure. Not only is Ms Court concerned about construction noise but also operational noise from the motorway as her residence looks across to the Eco-viaduct.
[642] Conferencing with Mr Starkey and Ms Rowsell-Starkey, Mr Donnellan and Dr Civil took place on 21 March 2014. Construction and operational noise was discussed, including the provisions for a CNVMP and its consultation and complaints procedures. The casting plant proposed in Woodcocks
384 Ibid, para 18. 385 Ibid, para 21. 386 Ibid, para 27. 387 Ibid, para 31. 388 Board Direction 01-01 Unresolved issues, 20 December 2013. 389 Ibid, para 47.
144
Road was discussed and a request made to NZTA that the casting activities be undertaken in an acoustically designed building, and that the site be surrounded by an acoustic fence. Ms Wilkening was present.
[643] Mr Fish and Ms Beech took part in conferencing on 24 March 2014 where blasting, construction and operational noise, and vibration were discussed. Ms Wilkening was not present.
[644] Mr Willcox of Genesis Aquaculture met with NZTA representatives including Ms Wilkening. The noise effects on fish and humans were discussed, and NZTA undertook to have Dr Donovan prepare a report regarding possible effects on fish. The Eco-viaduct was discussed and NZTA indicated side barriers were to be erected which would give some protection to the fish farm and also to Ms Court. It also indicated that the road surface in that vicinity would be OGPA, giving a reduction in noise levels.
[645] Ms Retimana, Messrs Gordon and Yu, and the Laifu Trust interests were discussed at a conference on 25 March 2014390. Ms Wilkening was present and the access road near these properties was discussed. The residents indicated concern with trucks on the access road, particularly at night and if utilising engine braking. The consultation requirements and complaints procedure were discussed. A fence between the access road and their properties was requested.
[646] Mr and Mrs Gowing, Mr and Mrs Woodley, and Mr Endean representing the Warkworth Estate all have properties near the end of Valerie Close. They took part in conferencing on 24 March 2014 and Ms Wilkening was present. The standards and guidelines were discussed, together with the expected noise levels from blasting. The consultation and complaints processes were discussed, together with noise barriers.391
[647] Ms Tisdall of Hungry Creek Bed & Breakfast took part in conferencing on 21 March 2014 but Ms Wilkening was not present.392 Air braking, night-time construction, blasting, consultation and complaints procedures were discussed. The record shows Ms Tisdall was satisfied with the conditions proposed and discussed by NZTA.
[648] Mr Lee, representing the Lee Family Trust, conferenced with NZTA representatives without Ms Wilkening present on 3 March 2014.393 Mr Lee indicated concern regarding a proposed dwelling on the land. He asserted that the proposed dwelling would not have been assessed and that, together with the existing dwelling, would suffer adverse noise effects, in spite of technically “complying” with standards. He asserted that even with compliance, amenity effects would be experienced.
390 Facilitated meeting, 25 March 2014. 391 Facilitated meeting, 24 March 2014. 392 Facilitated meeting, 21 March 2014. 393 Facilitated meeting, 3 March 2014.
145
[649] Mr Mansfield, Ms Walton and Mr Steinkamp conferenced with Ms Wilkening present on 25 March 2014.394 Their concern primarily related to the pre-cast yard on Woodcocks Road which had an access drive near their dwelling. They were also concerned about the hours of operation. NZTA indicated that trucks using that access would be less noisy than earthmoving machinery elsewhere on the Project.
[650] Mr Mason, representing himself, McCallum and Yarndley, conferenced with NZTA on 13 March 2014.395 Discussion included noise standards and guidelines, surfacing of the motorway, and the roundabout at the northern end of the Project. Mr Mason indicated that in spite of compliance with standards and guidelines and the provision of consultation and complaints procedures, he was concerned about noise levels, both in construction and operational phases. NZTA indicated that OGPA surfacing would be provided at the northern end of the Project, including the roundabout where it would join SH1.
[651] Messrs Thaller and Trotter conferenced with NZTA on 10 March 2014, without Ms Wilkening present.396 Their concerns were more with other issues, but did include noise.
[652] Mr and Mrs Wade of Wyllie Road, near the northern end of the Project, conferenced with NZTA without Ms Wilkening present.397 Construction and operational noise were of concern to them and they sought assurance that OGPA surfacing would be used and requested noise barrier walls between the motorway and their property.
[653] Although not mentioned in conferencing records, Mr and Mrs Anderson of Perry Road indicated concerns about noise. They were concerned about the effects of noise on their quiet lifestyle and animals.
General
[654] Various requests made by submitters have been agreed to by NZTA and are covered in the conditions.
[655] OGPA seal does give some noise reduction and every little bit would undoubtedly help nearby residents. NZTA, in closing submissions, agreed to provide OGPA sealing as shown in the figures appended to Condition D71(a) and (b) in Volume 3 of this Report.
[656] More than one witness produced photographs of the type of sound barriers used on motorways in the Auckland area. Several advocated their use for various portions of the Project.
394 Facilitated meeting, 25 March 2014. 395 Facilitated meeting, 13 March 2014. 396 Facilitated meeting, 10 March 2014. 397 Facilitated meeting, 14 May 2014.
146
[657] In cross-examination, NZTA witnesses were asked about sound barriers, but NZTA indicated reluctance to install such barriers. However it did concede that they could be appropriate in particular circumstances.
[658] NZTA’s position was that noise barriers are impracticable in the vicinity of Valerie Close because such a barrier would need to be 200m long with a height of 5m and would only give the submitters four or less decibels noise reduction.
[659] In relation to construction noise, NZTA’s position is that the provision of such noise barriers should only be considered at the CNVMP stage once more detailed design has been undertaken.
Conclusion
[660] With respect to operational noise the Board considers, on the basis of the evidence it has heard, that the likely noise levels will be within the levels predicted by Ms Wilkening in her Operational Noise Assessment Report (ONAR), if appropriate mitigation is adopted. However, there is inevitably an element of uncertainty. Currently the only mitigation offered is OGPA. Because the alignment on which the assessment is based is only indicative, a condition will be imposed to ensure that detailed design achieves or betters the level of operational noise effects predicted in the ONAR. Furthermore a monitoring condition is imposed to check that those level effects are met. The clear purpose of these conditions is to provide a check in the future on the level of operational noise once the current uncertainties are resolved.
[661] Regarding the construction phase of the Project, an OPW will be required under the Act, and subsequently a CNVMP.
[662] Both Ms Wilkening (noise) and Mr Whitlock (vibration) rely on the OPW and CNVMP processes to manage and mitigate noise and vibration effects. The Board finds accordingly.
[663] The Board has taken careful cognisance of the submitters’ concerns and representations, and the expert evidence produced by Ms Wilkening and Mr Whitlock. It finds that subject to the conditions imposed and the management and mitigation proposed, noise and vibration effects will be appropriately mitigated.
10.9 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC
[664] This section considers the effects of construction traffic movements on the users of the road network. The necessary mitigation requires identification of the proposed construction access locations and an assessment of the traffic volumes likely to use them. The effects of construction traffic on the performance of intersections (of construction access with public roads) and the effects of cumulative traffic volumes on the road network require evaluation.
147
[665] The existing road network will be affected by temporary traffic control measures which can cause localised capacity reductions and delays at places where access is gained to the Project.
[666] Potential effects on pedestrians and cyclists require consideration, as does the possible effect on passenger transport and emergency vehicles.
Key locations
Temporary traffic control methods
[667] These measures may be required at eight locations.398
Construction access locations
[668] Fourteen locations have been identified by NZTA.399
Pedestrians and cyclists
[669] These are mainly concentrated around Mahurangi College at the start and end of the school days. Pedestrians using Moirs Hill Road during its reconstruction will also need consideration.
Passenger transport
[670] School buses operate in the district. Mainline buses use the Pūhoi and the Moirs Hill Road junctions with SH1 as bus stops.
Hill Street Intersection
[671] This location is dealt with in a separate Chapter 10.10 of this Report.
Submissions
[672] Many submissions supporting the Project generally did not include specific reference to construction traffic on the road network, except for the Hill Street intersection.400 Submitters who raised concerns about the effects on the road network included the following:
[673] Mr and Mrs Christophersen.401 Mrs Christophersen has requested the imposition of conditions which explicitly describe mitigation measures to assist in limiting the effects of construction traffic on Moirs Hill Road. She has concerns about the ability to use the three gates into her property and the visitor parking alongside if Moirs Hill Road is reconstructed.
398 Construction Traffic Assessment Report, page 11. 399 Construction Traffic Assessment Report, page 22, map. 400 Refer Chapter 11.8. 401 Submitter 105772.
148
[674] Mr M Donnellan402 asked for construction traffic effects along Woodcocks Road — and number 372 in particular — to be minimised.
[675] Messrs Gordon and Yu403 opposed the construction access road near number 1447 SH1 and asked that the hours of proposed use be restricted.
[676] Mr I Gordon of Laifu Trust404 is concerned about the timing of activity/movement/use of the construction road near number 1447 SH1.
[677] Mrs L Gowing405 is concerned about the possible re-routing of construction traffic into Carran Road and then on to Kaipara Flats Road to rejoin SH1. She says this will result in major problems as local traffic from Kaipara Flats joins the construction traffic and tries to cross on to SH1 where there is no traffic controls or safety lanes, and the junctions at both ends of Carran Road are not currently wide enough for heavy lorries to negotiate safely so they would have to be upgraded.
[678] Mr R Graves406 is concerned about the safety of pedestrians and cyclists heading north out of Warkworth on the western side of SH1 and having to cross two lanes of traffic coming from the right, then two lanes of traffic coming from the new motorway on the left.
[679] Mr G Ladd,407 although not explicitly referring to construction traffic, asks that access for emergency vehicles, fire and ambulance, be maintained for people in the Pūhoi and Mahurangi areas.
[680] The Lee Family Trust408 is concerned about the construction road opposite 1488 SH1 and the high number of vehicles accessing/exiting the road on to the State Highway. Also, safety of access into/out of existing and proposed driveways and the impact of high numbers of vehicles at peak traffic times.
[681] Mr and Mrs T and M Lichthardt409 have asked that Wyllie Road or their neighbour’s driveway (number 12 Wyllie Road) not be used as an access to the work site.
[682] Mr D Mason has included in his submissions NZTA’s possible use of Carran Road and Kaipara Flats Road in lieu of Woodcocks Road for construction traffic for about an hour at the start and end of the school day. He noted that if Woodcocks Road is to be closed for short periods during construction works, use of these two roads is proposed as an alternative. He states that Carran Road has one blind corner and one very blind (sic) rise and it is generally quite narrow, and that Kaipara Flats Road has one fairly blind rise
402 Submitter 104542. 403 Submitter 105565. 404 Submitter 105566. 405 Submitter 105371. 406 Submitter 104667. 407 Submitter 105653. 408 Submitter 105559. 409 Submitter 104901.
149
and several bends — one very sharp. His suggested mitigation measures include:
(a) Enforcing a 70kph speed limit;
(b) The use of stop/go controls on Carran Road for periods when it is being used by heavy construction traffic; andThe upgrading of the key parts of Carran Road and Kaipara Flats Road prior to using them for construction traffic. This would include addressing blind bends, rises, road geometry, and in places the width.
[683] The National Trading Company of New Zealand Limited.410 This firm has land on the corner of SH1 and Hudson Road. They have requested, among other things, a condition requiring the retention of all turning movements into and out of their property through a Site Specific Traffic Management Plan (SSTMP) during the construction period.
[684] Mrs S Retimana411 is concerned about the volume of traffic using the proposed construction road near 1445 SH1 and the timing of activity/traffic movement. Mrs Retimana goes on to say: “We submit that NZTA be required to take necessary steps to mitigate noise, including limiting and enforcing restriction on engine braking, restriction on the hours of use and operation of the proposed road.”412 She asks for the installation of a high barrier wall along the boundary to assist with the reduction of noise. She is concerned also with the volume of traffic using the proposed construction road and the timing of activity/traffic movement. She asks that this be restricted to week days between the hours of 8 am and 6 pm, with a further restriction 9 am to 4 pm on Saturdays with no use allowed on Sundays or public holidays.
[685] Mrs V Rowsell-Starkey413 has concerns which include interruptions to the traffic flow caused by construction vehicles moving to and from the proposed pre-casting site in Woodcocks Road. Also slow speed vehicles entering and leaving the site causing issues with traffic. She suggests road signage and road widening will be required.
[686] Mr R Scott414 states: “The effects on local amenities will be very damaging during the construction period, with several hundred vehicle movements per day of heavy construction vehicles. The movement of huge numbers of vehicles to and from the pre-cast works in Woodcocks Road will certainly impact safety for pupils and visitors to Mahurangi College.”415
410 Submitter 103668. 411 Submitter 105568. 412 Submitter 105568. 413 Submitter 105734. 414 Submitter 104854. 415 Submitter 104854.
150
[687] Mr and Mrs G and A Still416 believe the Project will impact on traffic movements around Mahurangi College and they agree it is desirable to schedule heavy vehicle movements in Woodcocks Road outside school starting and finishing times. They ask that construction traffic be directed not to use Falls Road/Hill Street. They also note that the construction traffic assessment report identifies Carran Road/Kaipara Flats Road as an alternative route to and from construction sites 11, 12, 13 and 15. They state Carran Road has steep inclines, blind corners, and is narrow, and question its suitability for use by construction traffic.
[688] Mr E Thaller has requested at construction and associated traffic be limited to normal working hours 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday only. He also asks for that part of Wyllie Road to be used by construction vehicle be sealed.
NZTA’s response to submissions
[689] Mr A Bell was the NZTA’s expert witness. In his evidence in chief he responded to submissions made.
Woodcocks Road
[690] Mr Bell assessed the traffic generated by the construction activities at construction sites 11, 12, 13 and 15.417 He concluded that the effects would be no more than minor.418
[691] Mr Scott and Mr and Mrs Still expressed concerns about the impact of construction vehicles on Mahurangi College pupils. Mr Bell recommends the inclusion of a designation condition limiting the use of Woodcocks Road (past Mahurangi College) by Project-related heavy vehicles between 8 – 9 am and 3 – 4 pm.419 With this condition he believes the effects of construction traffic can be managed so that they are no more than minor.420
Woodcocks Road — Pre-cast yard access
[692] Mr Bell notes that there is good site distance provided on the approach to the proposed access to the pre-cast yard and that special treatments are not warranted.421 He notes that: “The access will need to be sealed and constructed so that large vehicles can access the site without their swept paths encroaching into opposing traffic lanes or running over verges.”422
416 Submitter 105194. 417 Refer to Plans C101 – C117. 418 Statement of evidence, Bell, p 12, para 65. 419 Condition D16A(d). 420 Statement of evidence, Bell, p 13, para 67. 421 Ibid, p 14, para 73. 422 Ibid, p 14, para 75.
151
[693] The Board has included a condition to this effect.423
Carran Road/Kaipara Flats Road
[694] Mr and Mrs Still,424 Mrs Gowing,425 and Mr Mason426 all questioned the use of Carran Road and the eastern part of Kaipara Flats Road by construction traffic, particularly at times around the starting and finishing hours of Mahurangi College. Their concern is principally with the substandard road geometry and the ability for heavy vehicles to pass safely. The controlling authority for these roads is Auckland Transport and the Board cannot require it to carry out any upgrading.
[695] Mr Bell notes: “Detailed consideration of the timing, volumes of traffic and safety implications would be required.”427 He considers the safe use of the Carran Road/Kaipara Flats Road route could be managed through the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and SSTMPs so that the traffic effects were no more than minor.
[696] The Board has imposed a condition to this effect.428
Kaipara Flats Road/SH1 intersection
[697] Mrs Gowing considers that there would be major traffic problems here if the Carran Road/Kaipara Flats Road were to be used by construction traffic. Mr Bell acknowledges429 that a detailed assessment of the path of heavy vehicles and the performance of the intersection would be required. “This assessment would be undertaken through the CTMP and SSTMP process.”430
[698] The Board has imposed a specific condition431 to ensure that not only is the intersection assessed but that also it is upgraded prior to construction beginning.
Wyllie Road
[699] This road will be used to access sites 11 and 12.
[700] Mr and Mrs Lichthardt ask that Wyllie Road or their neighbour’s driveway not be used by construction traffic. The driveway situation is agreed with NZTA and is covered by Condition D16Ac. Construction traffic in Wyllie
423 Condition D23(e). 424 Submitter 105194. 425 Submitter 105371. 426 Submitter 105634. 427 Statement of evidence, Bell, p 15, para 77. 428 Condition D23(d). 429 Statement of evidence, Bell, p 15, para 77. 430 Statement of evidence, Bell (Construction traffic), p 15, para 17. 431 Condition D70A.
152
Road will be covered by the CTMP and should construction activity vary from the normal traffic conditions, a SSTMP is required.
[701] Mr Bell considers that the construction traffic effects will be no more than minor.432
Falls Road
[702] Mr and Mrs Still have asked that Falls Road not be used by construction traffic. Mr Bell agrees that Falls Road is an inappropriate road for use by large numbers of heavy construction vehicles. Condition D16Aa addresses this.
Moirs Hill Road
[703] Mrs Christophersen’s433 submissions echoed by her husband’s resulted in the Board asking NZTA for detailed plans showing the Moirs Hill proposed designation in relation to her property boundary. As a result, a small amendment to the designation boundaries was made in agreement with NZTA. The retention of boundary trees is covered by condition D42B. With regard to the three gates to the property, Mr Bell states:434
“I consider that accesses will be reformed at all of the Christophersen’s gates. I also consider one vehicle access could be provided with room for vehicle and trailer but such access may require works on the Christophersen’s property.”
[704] With regard to safety for vehicles accessing the Christophersen property as a result of additional construction traffic, Mr Bell states435 that he does not consider that safe access will be adversely affected in anything more than a minor way.
[705] More generally, through the CTMP and SSTMP measures can be developed to ensure the safety of equestrian and pedestrian users of the road.436 In particular, Mr Bell recommends that accesses be formed that allow a vehicle to pull off the road at each of the three gates servicing the Christophersen property without protruding back into live traffic lanes.437
[706] Accordingly, the Board has imposed a condition to this effect.438
432 Statement of evidence, Bell (Construction traffic), p 15, para 81. 433 Submitter 105772. 434 Statement of rebuttal evidence, Bell, p 6, para 33. 435 Statement of evidence, Bell, p16, para 82. 436 Condition D23(a). 437 Statement of evidence, Bell, p 17, para 93. 438 Condition D23(a)(iii).
153
SH1/Hudson Road intersection
[707] The possible adverse effect of construction traffic on access to the land on the corner of SH1/Hudson Road was raised by the National Trading Company of New Zealand Limited.439
[708] Mr Bell considers that through the CTMP and SSTMP any access effects can be managed so that they are no more than minor.440
Access road to sites 10 and 11
[709] The Lee Family Trust441 at 1488 SH1 have raised safety concerns about the high number of vehicles accessing/exiting the proposed access road on Lot 1, DP321568. It has also identified an approved accessway to a consented development immediately opposite and an existing DOC walkway strip also opposite.
[710] Mr Bell opinion is that the construction access can be developed incorporating these features and if appropriate provision is made for turning bays, acceleration and deceleration facilities, there should only be minor adverse effects on safety and operation of the road network at this location.442
[711] The Board considers that the construction access road needs to incorporate Mr Bell’s suggestions, particularly since heavy traffic turning into and out of the access road would constitute a hazard for traffic using SH1. For these reasons the Board has imposed a specific condition.443 The Board that an SSTMP be prepared in consultation with the Lee Family Trust.
[712] Mr Gordon, together with Mr Yu, the Laifu Trust, and Mrs Retimana, wish to have the hours of construction traffic limited and also a restriction on engine braking for construction vehicles using the proposed access road on Lot 1, DP321568.
[713] The Board agrees and has included a suitable condition.444 A 2.5m high screening fence is also proposed.445
[714] Mrs Retimana notes that children catch the bus at their driveway. Mr Bell believes that the Project will not have any impact on bus set down and drop off at this location.446
439 Submitter 103668. 440 Statement of evidence, Bell, p 18, para 97. 441 Submitter 105559. 442 Statement of evidence, Bell, p 18, para 99. 443 Condition D23(b). 444 Condition D23(b)(iii) and (iv). 445 Condition D42. 446 Statement of evidence, Bell, p 18, para 100.
154
Passenger transport
[715] In assessing the effect of construction traffic on passenger transport Mr Bell identified sites of potential conflict. He recommends447 that NZTA provide suitable locations as set down areas for buses to enable passengers to board and alight at Pūhoi Road and Moirs Hill Road.
[716] The Board has imposed a Condition (D24) to this effect.
Pedestrians and cyclists
[717] Areas where there could be increased conflict between construction traffic and pedestrians and cyclists include Moirs Hill Road and Woodcocks Road by Mahurangi College. The conditions imposed448 will address these matters and more generally the development of a CTMP and SSTMP. As such, Mr Bell considers the effects of the construction activities on pedestrians and cyclists will be minor.
[718] Mr Graves449 raised questions about the safety of pedestrians and cyclists crossing the roundabout at the termination of the Project. Mr Bell in his evidence450 states that:
“NZTA in developing the Project CTMP and SSTMPs will need to give due consideration to the safe passage of pedestrians and cyclists through the areas controlled by TTM and routes used by construction traffic. We consider that the effects of construction activities on pedestrians and cyclists can be managed so that they are no more than minor.”
[719] The Board accepts this.
Emergency Vehicles
[720] Mr Ladd451 has requested that access for emergency vehicles be maintained to Pūhoi and Mahurangi Peninsula. Emergency vehicle access is important to the Project as a whole and this is reflected in Condition 19C(d)(ii).
General
[721] Overall, Mr Bell considers that the effects of Project-related to construction traffic can be effectively managed to ensure safety and minimise disruption through the implementation of a CTMP and SSTMPs.452 With NZTA’s proposed conditions in place, he believes the effects of construction
447 Ibid, p 9, para 42. 448 Designation Condition 16A(d) and 23(a). 449 Submitter 104667. 450 Construction Traffic Assessment Report, p 31. 451 Submission 105653. 452 Statement of evidence, Bell, p 8, para 37.
155
activities on the transport network will be no more than minor.453 The Board concurs and finds accordingly.
Assessment
[722] Except for the Hill Street intersection,454 no witness with traffic engineering qualifications or experience gave evidence about the effects of construction traffic on the roading network, either to support or rebut the evidence of the expert witnesses called by NZTA. The Board in considering the submissions and the representations made by the submitters at the Hearing is obliged to give greater weight to the opinions of the experts. Nevertheless, many of the concerns raised in the submissions have been incorporated into the conditions of consent. The Board finds that these conditions are necessary and appropriately mitigate the effects of construction traffic.
10.10 HILL STREET INTERSECTION
Introduction
[723] The Hill Street intersection is a traffic light controlled intersection at the northern end of SH1 as it passes through Warkworth. On the west side of the intersection is Hill Street. On the east side is a road which leads to a fork. The left hand fork is Matakana Road leading to Matakana, the Tawharanui Peninsula and other destinations. The right hand fork (Sandspit Road) leads to Sandspit and the urban areas of Snells Beach and adjacent residential areas.
[724] Before a vehicle reaches that fork, however, there is (approximately 30m from SH1) an intersection with Elizabeth Street which provides access to the Warkworth town centre. Additional complications in this section are a cul-de-sac (Millstream Place) and a vehicle entrance to Kowhai Park.
[725] The intersection is an amazing clutter of traffic signs and road markings. There is a pedestrian crossing across SH1 from the Hill Street side. There is a give way sign controlling west bound traffic (much of which would be turning south on SH1) at the Elizabeth Street junction. There is a give way sign controlling Sandspit Road, although traffic volumes on that road are considerably greater than on Matakana Road. There are give way signs controlling a slip road for south-bound traffic off SH1 turning east. Across the mouth of Elizabeth Street there are road markings preventing obstruction by stationary traffic.
[726] For short periods during weekday peak traffic, the evidence, which the Board accepts, is that the intersection is congested. During weekends when there is a considerable volume of traffic from Auckland using
453 Ibid, p 19, para 104. 454 Refer section 11.8 below.
156
Matakana Road and Sandspit Road for recreational purposes, the intersection is congested. During long holiday weekends, and in particular during peak periods of summer holiday traffic, congestion of the intersection is notorious, leading to tailbacks (especially for north-bound traffic on SH1) of many kilometres. There was no dispute over these matters.
[727] Unsurprisingly, the state of the Hill Street intersection attracted a large number of submissions to the Board, many of which were supported by evidence at the Hearing. Many of those submissions were from Warkworth residents, most of whom were not represented by counsel. So far as the Warkworth community and its inhabitants were concerned, the Board’s distinct impression was that, of all the issues arising out of NZTA’s Project, the Hill Street intersection excited the greatest attention.
[728] In addition to evidence and submissions received from NZTA and Auckland Transport, the Board heard from witnesses and submitters who names appear in Appendix 9.
[729] Traffic and engineering responsibility for the Hill Street intersection is currently shared by NZTA (which has responsibility for SH1) and Auckland Transport, which has responsibilities for the roading in and around Warkworth.
[730] The Hill Street intersection was the subject of facilitated conferences, the details of which are recorded elsewhere in this Report.455
[731] Unsurprisingly, the intersection and ways to improve it have been addressed at a political level.456 During the course of the Board’s Hearing there were also meetings, described as ‘political’, convened by the Member of Parliament for Rodney.
[732] The configuration of the Hill Street intersection is best seen from the annexed plans. The first is a plan showing various traffic flows, which appeared in the evidence of NZTA witness, Mr A Bell. The second is an aerial photograph of the intersection provided by Mr R Williams.
[733] It is not necessary, for the purposes of this Report, to describe the history of the Hill Street intersection in great detail. Over the years, NZTA (through its predecessor Transit New Zealand), Rodney District Council, and more recently Auckland Council (through its Transport arm, Auckland Transport) have been aware of the problems associated with the intersection.
[734] Some witnesses described to the Board the effect of the intersection’s confusing nature on the driving habits of motor vehicles passing through. Fortunately, the resulting uncertainties posed by the configuration of the intersection cause most drivers to proceed cautiously and at a slow speed.
455 Refer to Volume 2. 456 A resolution of the Rodney Local Board is referred to in para 742 of this Report.
157
[735] This cautious approach is reflected in the crash data available to NZTA contained in Mr Bell’s second Statement of Evidence dated 23 May 2014.457 Defining the intersection as including the Matakana Road/Sandspit Road intersection between 2008 and 2012, there is only one injury crash reported at the intersection. A further 16 non-injury accidents were reported.
[736] The history of the Hill Street intersection is adequately described in the evidence of Mr Williams:458
“The Hill St intersection has been recognised as a serious problem for SH1 traffic and for local Warkworth traffic for many decades. Ten years ago Opus International Consultants was working on the design of SH1 improvements within Warkworth. Detailed design was carried out for the SH1 that includes Woodcocks Rd and Whitaker St intersections on the understanding that the Hill St intersection would follow on as a continuation of the same works. The Woodcocks Rd and Whitaker St intersections have been completed for 3 years now but absolutely no progress has been made at the Hill St intersection. In the last 2 years the Hudson St intersection has been both designed and constructed whereas the more pressing intersection problem, that of Hill St intersection, has been totally ignored except for a traffic intersection monitoring camera and some pedestrian crossing improvements at SH1 for the disabled.”
[737] Mr Williams accurately describes the ‘major problems’ of the intersection, which he lists as follows:
(a) The State Highway traffic lanes are running near capacity at peak hours, even without the constraints of the intersection.
(b) Inadequate traffic stacking lanes/lengths on the State Highway. On SH1 a two lane SH1 bridge over the river near Shoesmith Street is a major constraint and once traffic stacks back towards this point, congestion rapidly compounds, sometimes as far as Pūhoi.
(c) The free stacking length north-bound SH1 traffic is only 40 metres before it gets blocked by turning traffic.
(d) The free stacking length for traffic entering from Matakana is 16 metres. A truck and trailer is 20 metres long. A truck and trailer will therefore block all movements out of Elizabeth Street until it is cleared.
(e) The free stacking length on Matakana Road back from Elizabeth Street is 40 metres before it blocks the otherwise free turn into Warkworth.
(f) The problems [with the free stacking length on Matakana Road] quickly blocks traffic exiting Sandspit Road. This problem currently occurs many times each day.
457 Paragraph 55. Reference to NZTA’s Crash Analysis System, their computer system which contains data
from all traffic crashes reported to NZ Police. 458 Statement of evidence, Williams. The Hudson St intersection now has traffic lights.
158
(g) Traffic turning right out of Elizabeth Street towards Matakana or Sandspit must give way to four other directions of traffic flow concurrently. Traffic exiting Kowhai Park must give way to five other directions of flow concurrently. The safety risk is obvious.
(h) [Constraints on turning out of Elizabeth Street] frequently block traffic back into Warkworth town creating a gridlock.
(i) These problems can occur at any time of the day. Only patience and goodwill allow this intersection to operate at all.
(j) Pedestrians from Matakana Road and Totara Park Retirement Village have an informal crossing point. It is completely inconspicuous from all traffic and in particular from the turning traffic.”
[738] Mr Williams was, until his retirement, employed by Opus International Consultants as a Civil Design Manager. He is a qualified civil engineer with 42 years’ experience, especially in the areas of highway design, transport engineering and road safety. He has been involved in transport planning projects in New Zealand and overseas.
[739] Mr Williams can fairly be described as having considerable expertise in the traffic engineering area which, in the Board’s view, means his observations and opinions on the Hill Street intersection are deserving of respect. However, Mr Williams did not appear as an expert witness on behalf of any other party. Rather, he gave evidence on his own behalf. Unlike other experts, his statement of evidence does not contain his agreement to comply with the Code of Conduct of Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court’s consolidated Practice Note (2011).
[740] In her closing submissions, Ms Brosnahan for NZTA laid considerable emphasis on Mr Williams’ status. In his submission, Mr Williams had given evidence on his own behalf as an advocate and not as an independent expert. Relying on an Environment Court decision,459 counsel submitted that very little weight should be given by the Board to Mr Williams’ evidence. The Environment Court in Briggs considered that where somebody claiming expertise gave opinion evidence in their own cause, there was an impact upon the administration of justice, particularly because it might seem that such a person was receiving preferential treatment. However, the Board considers Mr Williams’ situation at the Hearing before it was different from that facing the Environment Court in Briggs. Despite Ms Brosnahan’s submission we consider Mr Williams’ evidence was credible, helpful, and untainted by bias.
[741] We accept that Mr Williams was not, in a formal or technical sense, giving independent expert evidence in favour of one party. Rather, he is drawing on his extensive experience and local knowledge to point out the problems of the Hill Street intersection. His central submission was that delaying
459 Briggs v Christchurch City Council (C045/08) at [246].
159
improvements and upgrades to the intersection until the completion of NZTA’s proposed motorway was, from a traffic engineering perspective, irresponsible. Delays of some years would ensue before the Project was completed. During such period the problems of the Hill Street intersection would grow worse.
[742] Mr Williams advanced two constructive proposals whereby the intersection could be improved. It is not, in the circumstances, necessary for the Board to detail those alternative proposals. Suffice to say that one such proposal, the creation of a roundabout and link roads, commended itself to the Rodney Local Board. The Chair of the Board wrote to NZTA on 10 December 2013 conveying a resolution of the Local Board460 reinforcing the Board’s request:
“… for Hill Street intersection to be upgraded as soon as possible and that alternative options for the design of Hill Street intersection be considered such as the design by Roger Williams.”
[743] The Local Board went on to state in its letter that it saw ‘merit’ in NZTA considering Mr Williams’ alternative solution and noted Mr Williams’ view that a substantial rebuild of the Hill Street intersection should be carried out before the construction of the proposed motorway.
[744] The evidence satisfies the Board that NZTA has not been oblivious to the problems of the Hill Street intersection (after all, SH1 passes through it). Nor has it been unaware of the concerns of the intersection.461
[745] The evidence of Mr T Parker for NZTA462 put it this way: “A number of submitters asked that the Hill Street intersection be upgraded as soon as possible and before the Project is open. I acknowledge that this upgrade has been a cause of concern among the Warkworth community and other users of this intersection for some time.
The planning for the Hill Street improvements was undertaken before the RONS was introduced through the GPS and were allocated funding. There the current scheme plan for the Hill Street intersection which the transport agency was committed to delivering, does not take into account the impact of this Project. The Transport Agency’s current position is that the Hill Street improvements will need to be reassessed taking into account the effects of the Pūhoi to Warkworth Project. Any improvements will be carried out after the Project is complete. Undertaking the improvements after the Project is operational will assist with providing a bypass around the construction works.
In the meantime the Transport Agency accepts the advice from its expert (Mr Bell) that the Project will cause no more than minor
460 Resolution number RD/2013/1. 461 Some of the evidence the Board has heard included difficulties encountered by elderly drivers at the
intersection; risks to pedestrians; and distressing stories of family holiday reunions and Christmases being seriously disrupted by congestion on SH1 stemming from the intersection.
462 Statement of evidence, Parker.
160
adverse effects on the network (either during or post construction) that would require upgrade to the Hill Street intersection to take place prior to the commencement of construction of the Project.”
[746] The evidence of Mr Bell was to similar effect.
[747] It is not necessary for the Board to cover in any detail the evidence to it on the Hill Street intersection, received as it was from both experts and lay witnesses. The Board has, of course, considered all the evidence it heard on this topic. That includes evidence of the traffic counts, future projections, road engineering, and the local body history of dealings with the intersection. And it includes Mr Williams’ observations and conclusions. The Board has also observed and travelled through the intersection on various days and at different times.
[748] In the light of that evidence, and as a backdrop against which the effects of both the completed Project and the Project’s construction phase must be considered, the Board’s factual findings are:
(a) At times of light traffic flow, despite its unusual configuration, the performance of the intersection is unremarkable;
(b) The proximity of the Elizabeth Street intersection to SH1 and the ability of traffic to turn into and out of Elizabeth Street creates both confusion and risks, particularly for traffic proceeding to or from Matakana and Sandspit Road;
(c) The intersection is unreasonably congested at peak times and particularly during weekends and long weekends;
(d) The demise of Rodney District Council and the creation of expanded Auckland Council have unfortunately resulted in plans (inchoate or otherwise) to improve the intersection and address congestion problems being delayed; and
(e) The state of the Hill Street intersection is an understandable source of concern and irritation for Warkworth residents, many of whom have seen the convening of a Board to consider NZTA’s applications as an opportunity to bring about improvements to the intersection.
[749] During the course of the Hearing before the Board, NZTA’s stance changed. Although not resiling from Mr Bell’s view that the effects of the Project, when completed, would be less than minor and that no mitigation of the Hill Street intersection was required, and although maintaining that the construction phase of the Project would similarly have an insignificant effect on the Hill Street intersection, NZTA nonetheless accepted that some immediate upgrading was required. (This upgrading is assumed by NZTA in its current capacity as having responsibility for the performance and safety of SH1 on its current route, not as the Requiring Authority for the proposed new motorway).
161
[750] The Board applauds NZTA for agreeing to some immediate upgrades to address part of the problems of the Hill Street intersection and urges NZTA to look at further improvements over the next three or four years, in consultation with Auckland Transport. The Board however, in the light of its findings which follow, has no jurisdiction to compel such an approach. However, the Board considers constant monitoring of the Hill Street intersection by both NZTA and Auckland Transport, in combination with the proposed improvements, would be beneficial both for the Warkworth community and for users of SH1 on its current route, and will also improve public perceptions of NZTA and Auckland Transport as bodies willing to respond to local concerns and improve an unsatisfactory intersection.
[751] The pre-construction improvements to the Hill Street intersection which have been agreed by both NZTA and Auckland Transport are set out in a letter to the Board dated 30 May 2014, presented by counsel during closing submissions. Although this agreement cannot properly form part of the Board’s decision, its provisions are nonetheless set out. It is the Board’s expectation that the improvements will be adhered to and possibly accelerated. Both NZTA and Auckland Transport are applauded for this initiative.
[752] The improvements are:
(a) Widening the south-bound approach on SH1 and increasing the capacity of the left turn into Matakana Road;
(b) Widening the north-bound approach on SH1 and increasing the capacity of the right turn into Matakana Road;
(c) Removing the south-bound right turn lane from SH1 into Hill Street;
(d) Adding a slip lane to connect Sandspit Road and Elizabeth Street; and
(e) Constructing a shared walk and cycleway on the western side of SH1 between Hill Street and Hudson Road.
[753] These proposed improvements have been accepted by a number of community groups in the Warkworth region, including the Warkworth Area Liaison Group.
[754] Regarding these improvements as interim measures (as they are), both NZTA and Auckland Transport have further agreed to investigate:
(a) Adding another lane for north-bound traffic on SH1 turning right into Matakana Road;
(b) Improving pedestrian access from Hill Street to Elizabeth Street and from Matakana Road to Elizabeth Street;
162
(c) Access to Kowhai Park, including closing or restricting entry and exit points;
(d) Safer access to and from Shoesmith Street for motorists; and
(e) Improving signage for the town centre and at the north merge of Whittaker Road.
[755] Finally, Auckland Transport has ‘advanced funding’ to study potential transport improvements for the Warkworth area, including a potential Matakana link road. This funding was previously allocated many years hence in the 2020 – 2021 Annual Plan. The study will be conducted jointly with NZTA who will also contribute funding and work closely with Auckland Transport.
Submissions
[756] The submissions from Ms Brosnahan for NZTA, relying in the main on the evidence of Mr Bell, can be summarised as follows:
(a) The Hill Street intersection will operate similarly to what it does at the moment, or even better once the Project is in place;
(b) There will be no adverse effect on the Hill Street intersection during the Project’s construction phase; and
(c) Even without the improvements to the intersection NZTA proposes, once the Project is in place the Hill Street intersection will perform similarly or better than it would without the Project. The effects of construction traffic on the Hill Street intersection can be adequately mitigated through the CTMP and SSTMP. Nonetheless, NZTA proposes a designation condition which would require an SSTMP for Hill Street intersection.
[757] Auckland Transport, in both its opening and closing submissions, submits there is no legal basis to require the Hill Street intersection to be improved as a condition of the NoR for the Project. In addition to agreeing with NZTA to undertake a number of improvements to commence within a year (or late 2014), Auckland Transport and NZTA have agreed to ‘investigate’ further improvements at Hill Street, including the addition of another north-bound lane on SH1 for traffic turning right into Matakana Road and improved pedestrian access. It has also been agreed to study potential transport improvements in the Warkworth area, including a possible Matakana link road. Auckland Transport will be advancing funding for such a study.
[758] As stated earlier, the Board applauds this joint approach.
Findings and analysis
[759] On the basis of the evidence it has heard and its findings, the Board cannot conclude that there will be significant adverse effects on the Hill Street intersection once the Project is completed. The extent to which Warkworth
163
might become a more popular destination as a result of the motorway being completed was not a matter on which the Board heard evidence. Any such evidence would in any event be conjectural.
[760] Although the Board considers that increased traffic volumes along the current SH1 route; population growth in the Warkworth region; and increased traffic volumes to and from Matakana and Sandspit Roads will undoubtedly aggravate the current congestion of the Hill Street intersection, particularly at peak times, that situation is not caused by the proposed Project.
[761] The Board cannot use its statutory powers to compel improvements to the Hill Street intersection. Until the Project is completed that role is properly that of Auckland Transport and NZTA.
[762] The evidence the Board has heard satisfies it that, on completion, traffic flows at the Hill Street intersection will change. Certainly north-bound traffic along the proposed motorway destined for Warkworth and for Matakana and Sandspit Roads will need to pass through the Hill Street intersection (by travelling south from the roundabout at the northern terminus of the motorway). The approach direction of such traffic will be south-bound rather than north-bound as it currently is. There was also evidence, which the Board accepts, that truck traffic servicing the Woodcocks Road industrial area of Warkworth town will similarly travel north along the motorway and then south from the roundabout, passing through the Hill Street intersection to its ultimate destination.
[763] However, there will be a significant reduction in traffic passing through the Hill Street intersection once the motorway Project is completed. Most of the traffic which currently uses SH1 to travel from Auckland and the south northwards to Wellsford, Whangarei and beyond will avoid the Hill Street intersection. Similarly with traffic from the North travelling south which will join the proposed motorway at its northern roundabout.
[764] As a result, there is no qualifying adverse effect on traffic flows through the Hill Street intersection which gives the Board jurisdiction to compel improvements to it. As already stated, congestion at the Hill Street intersection may well increase before the completion of the proposed motorway. Such congestion, however, will not be caused by the motorway itself. On completion of the proposed motorway, the through traffic currently passing through the intersection on SH1 will diminish. In those respects, the Board upholds Ms Brosnahan’s submissions.
Construction
[765] The Board takes a different view, however, on the effects of the construction of the proposed Project on the Hill Street intersection.
[766] In his statement of evidence dated 23 January 2014 (dealing with construction traffic) Mr Bell had this to say:
164
“When undertaking my assessment, I assumed that all construction traffic will have destinations either north of Warkworth or south of Pūhoi on SH1. At Hill Street, I assessed the increase in vehicle movements associated with construction traffic to range from 10-55 vehicles per hour (VPH) in a north-bound and south-bound direction on a typical day. This extra traffic would equal a maximum of two vehicles per traffic signal cycle in each direction (based on 120 second traffic signal cycle). I consider this level of additional traffic will result in only minor effects.
I assessed a typical day as I considered this to be a representative scenario over the duration of the Project. As a worst case, if all sites were operating at the maximum of the peak day range at the same time (which I consider very unlikely), this extra traffic would equal a maximum of four vehicles per traffic signal cycle in each direction (based on 120 second traffic signal cycle). Of these vehicles I would expect that, on average, only half of them would be heavy vehicles. Again, I consider this level of additional traffic would result in only minor effects.
Even if some of the heavy traffic was to turn through the Hill Street intersection either to or from Matakana, this would only form a small proposition of intersection traffic and would be unlikely to significantly affect its operation.
I therefore do not consider that this level of additional construction traffic would result in any more than minor adverse effects on the operation of the Hill Street intersection.”
Mr Bell was cross-examined on this portion of his evidence during the Hearing but adhered to his view. However, this evidence takes only limited account of the effect of construction traffic “half of which will be heavy vehicles” on the Hill Street intersection during the peak times of congestion. On this basis the Board rejects Mr Bell’s conclusion that additional construction traffic would have only adverse minor effects.
[767] Some submitters had expressed concern that metal destined for the motorway construction would be sourced from quarries in the Matakana area with the result that heavy trucks carrying metal would pass through the Hill Street intersection aggravating current congestion. There is no firm evidence (nor could there be) about what quarries the eventual motorway construction contractor would use for road metal. The quantity and quality of such metal and the large number of quarries available throughout Auckland Province prevent any firm conclusion. Nonetheless, there must remain a distinct possibility, given their proximity, that the Matakana-area quarries might be used. And in any event, some heavy trucks carrying metal from other destinations would have to use the Hill Street intersection.
[768] Mr Bell’s approach to this issue463 was that it was preferable to wait and see where construction was going to direct traffic.
463 Transcript, Bell, p 304.
165
[769] Returning to Mr Bell’s evidence in chief, the Board does not accept his opinion464 that additional construction traffic will have only minor adverse effects on the operation of the Hill Street intersection. Even with the improvements which NZTA and Auckland Transport have agreed to carry out before construction commences, the intersection and its configuration leave much to be desired. North/south traffic on SH1 will, over the next few years (and during the construction phase) continue to increase. So too will traffic wishing to leave or enter SH1 bound for Matakana and Sandspit Roads. Added to that will be the steady population growth of the Warkworth region which will inevitably result in increased traffic access, both to the town itself and along SH1.
[770] NZTA, with a commendable degree of realism and pragmatism, accepted, towards the end of the Hearing, that an SSTMP specifically for the Hill Street intersection should appropriately be provided in a designation condition.465
[771] The Board, however, considers extra conditions are required to mitigate the effects of construction traffic and in particular heavy construction traffic such as trucks and trailer units carrying metal, earthmoving machinery and other heavy items. The effect on traffic flows of such traffic on an already chaotic intersection during peak hours will be considerable. Congestion will be compounded, delays aggravated, and safety risks to motorists and pedestrians increased during such times.
[772] The condition which the Board imposes will be a SSTMP to mitigate these adverse effects during the construction phase designed to prohibit construction traffic passing through the Hill Street intersection for specified hours during peak times, being:
(a) Weekday morning peaks;
(b) Weekday afternoon peaks;
(c) Late Friday afternoons and evenings;
(d) Saturday mornings;
(e) Sunday afternoons; and
(f) Public holiday Monday afternoons.
[773] The purpose of this condition, is to avoid the adverse effect of construction traffic increasing congestion on the Hill Street intersection during peak flow times through Warkworth town during weekdays, weekends, and holiday periods.
464 Statement of evidence, Bell, para 53. 465 Condition D23(c).
166
10.11 OPERATIONAL WATER (INCLUDING FLOODING)
Stormwater Quality and Stream Erosion
[774] NZTA provided an assessment of the potential effects of operation water from the alignment, that is stormwater runoff from the completed road carriageway, including viaducts and bridges466. That report describes the proposed management of operation stormwater from the Project, and those measures are also described and listed in Dr Fisher’s evidence in chief467. These measures are:
[775] Treatment for runoff from the new road carriageway to be provided via wetland to achieve a minimum total suspended solids (TSS) removal of at least 75% on an average annual basis.
[776] Wetlands to include:
(a) Outlets to be design to trap litter and floatables;
(b) Planting to include vegetation that will provide some shading;
(c) Provision of fish passage in locations that that will have benefit;
(d) Extended detention to be provided for all wetland discharging to streams, to avoid accelerated erosion of stream channels;
(e) Sediment traps upstream of wetlands to capture material that erodes from completed rock cut faces; and
(f) Vegetated swales to treat runoff from the construction access to the Perry Road Viaduct, the Wyllie Road access road, and the upgraded sections of Moirs Hill Road.
[777] The requirement for all these measures is reflected in the proposed consent conditions.
[778] Dr Donovan has assessed the potential effects of the discharge of operational water on freshwater receiving environments468. His conclusion is that the effect will be negligible to minor, and that the stormwater quality from the Project “will ensure that the quality of the receiving waters will be suitable for instream organisms, such as fish”469.
[779] Dr De Luca has assessed the potential effects of the discharge of operation water on the marine receiving environments470. Dr De Luca concludes that
466 Operational Water Management and Assessment Report (OWMAR). 467 Statement of Evidence of Fisher, para 49, p 13. 468 Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report, section 6.1, pp 48, 49 and 52. 469 Ibid, section 6.1, p 52. 470 Marine Ecology Assessment Report, section 5.1.
167
the significance of the potential adverse effect on the Mahurangi Harbour and Pūhoi Estuary will be low471 or negligible472.
Submissions
[780] No submission specifically expressed concern about the potential adverse ecological or stream morphological effects of operation water. No parties made representations on that matter at the Hearing.
Evaluation and Conclusion
[781] The Board accepts on the basis of the specimen design that the Project will be able to accommodate the proposed level of stormwater quality treatment and extended detention.
[782] The Board accepts that the potential adverse ecological and stream morphology effects of the discharge of stormwater can be adequately avoided or mitigated through the proposed stormwater management devices.
[783] The proposed consent conditions adequately reflect those requirements, with one proviso. For the reason expressed in other sections of this Report, the Board does not accept the need for, or appropriateness of the BPO qualifier in conditions relating to stormwater treatment. In the final version of proposed conditions presented by NZTA, two stormwater conditions retained reference to the BPO.
[784] The first related to the provision of erosion controls at stormwater outfalls. This is a standard requirement of consents granted for stormwater discharges. It implies standard engineering solutions and does not require any qualification by the BPO. Consequently, the reference to the BPO has been deleted.
[785] The second relates to the consideration of fish passage to wetlands where that can be shown to have an ecological benefit. The Board accepts that such benefit will only occur in some circumstances. However, it is also of the view that the intent of the condition does not require the inclusion of the BPO and as such, it has been deleted. The Board has made an amendment to that condition to the appropriateness of the fish passage to be addressed by an appropriately qualified and experienced freshwater ecologist. This amendment provides greater clarity for the consent holder and Auckland Council as to the information that will be used to confirm the appropriateness of fish passage at any given wetland.
[786] With the adoption of the changes to conditions noted above, the Board considers that the discharge of operational water from the completed
471 Ibid, table 30, p 99. 472 Statement of evidence, De Luca, para 55, p 11.
168
Project will have not more than a minor adverse effect on the ecological values or morphology of the freshwater and marine receiving environments.
Flooding
[787] The Project alignment traverses the catchments of the Pūhoi Estuary and the Mahurangi Harbour.
[788] Within the Pūhoi catchment, the two main streams are the Pūhoi River and the Hikauae Stream. The alignment through these sections crosses medium to steep hill country. The tributaries of the two main streams, and indeed the Hikauae Stream, are generally short and relatively steep. No areas upstream or downstream of the Project are vulnerable to flooding from the discharge of operational water.
[789] The alignment north of Moirs Hill Road lies within the Mahurangi catchment. All discharges within this section drain to the Mahurangi River.
[790] The Mahurangi River has a true right branch sourcing near Moirs Hill Road and flowing past the western end of Perry Road, to the east of Wyllie Road and meeting the true left branch in the vicinity of the Wyllie Road/Woodcocks Road intersection. The true left branch sources north-east of the northern junction of the proposed motorway with SH1 and flows westwards to the north of Viv Davie-Martin Drive, meeting the right branch as above, having traversed the land owned by the Civil Family interests.
[791] The following map shows the 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) floodplain of the Mahurangi River (that is the 100 year return period), as it currently is without the Project in place. The designation boundary and indicative alignment are also shown in Figure 2.
169
Figure 2: Proposed Designation and Indicative Alignment of the Project
[792] North-west of the Valerie Close properties the alignment of the Project leaves the higher ground and traverses the Mahurangi Flood Plain substantially on embankments until it crosses Woodcocks Road. This section is described as the Perry Road sector. From there to the northern intersection with SH1 it is called the Carran Road sector and it is these two sectors which cross the Flood Plain, which have a history of fairly extensive flooding.
[793] Dr Fisher, a civil engineer with Tonkin and Taylor seconded to the Further North Alliance gave evidence regarding flooding. He has had experience in the UK, Canada and New Zealand over 14 years, with expertise in stormwater and river engineering, and has been involved in several RoNS projects.
[794] On this Project, he was NZTA’s peer reviewer of water reports (hydrology, storm water, water quality and erosion, and sediment control) at the scheme
170
assessment stage (2011).473 He was the co-author of the Operational Water Assessment Report that informed the AEE in support of the Project.474
[795] His overview of the flooding mitigation proposals reads:475 “The water quantity effects are mitigated by extended detention systems in wetlands to minimise stream erosion. Overall, I consider the Project’s potential effects on water quantity to be minor.”
[796] He went on to say:476 “The water quality and human impact effects are mitigated by stormwater treatment systems that include wetlands throughout the Project and sediment traps at the base of rock cuts. Overall we consider the effects on water quality and human impacts to be less than minor to minor.”
[797] Addressing the Mahurangi Flood Plain he said:477 “Impacts on the existing Flood Plain of the Mahurangi left branch river are avoided by changing the alignment and are mitigated by the Woodcocks Road viaduct and Carran Road Flood Relief Bridge. The residual effect includes up to 100mm of afflux upstream of these structures for the 100 year ARI flood, which affects four properties by up to an 80mm increase in flood level. We predict three dwellings that already flood to have slightly worse flooding as a result of the Project, whereas the fourth dwelling does not flood and remains unaffected by flood water. Overall we consider the flooding effects to be minor to moderate”.
[798] Dr Fisher says in describing operational water management:478 “The indicative alignment of the motorway has been chosen to avoid floodplains and minimise hydraulic effects where it is necessary to cross floodplains with bridges. Two bridges, namely the Woodcocks Road Viaduct and the Carran Road Flood Relief Bridge, span the lower Mahurangi floodplain and have been designed to minimise effects on the floodplain.”
[799] In assessing the effects of flooding, Dr Fisher says:479 “The only location where 100 year ARI flood headwater extents are predicted to extend beyond the designation is at Culvert 49500. This culvert headwater floods a major branch of the Mahurangi River for approximately 500m of stream length beyond the Project designation (measured inclusive of stream meander). There are no dwellings that would be affected. The predicted headwater extent is contained within the floodplain of the rapid flood hazard assessment for the area outside the designation,
473 Statement of evidence, Fisher, para 4. 474 Ibid, para 6. 475 Ibid, para 11. 476 Ibid, para 12. 477 Ibid, para 13. 478 Ibid, para 25. 479 Ibid, para 43.
171
indicating that flooding in this location is not made worse by the Project.”
[800] He identifies an impact on flooding in the Carran Road sector as follows:480 “The flooding effects in this area are partly mitigated by avoidance and mitigation measures incorporated into the indicative Project design, but the residual effects remain minor to moderate. The avoidance and mitigation measures proposed have included the realignment of the route, the Woodcocks Road Viaduct (280m in length) and the Carran Road Flood Relief Bridge (60m in length). However, there remains a minor afflux of up to 100mm upstream of the Carran Road Flood Relief Bridge and up to 100mm in the vicinity of the Woodcocks Road Viaduct.”
[801] He goes on to say:481 “I consider this afflux effect will result in a slight increase in the floodplain extent. More significant however is the minor increase in flood levels predicted at four dwellings located beyond the designation. These dwellings will be subject to a potential increase in flood level/depth ranging from approximately 30mm to 80mm as a result of the Project. Three of these dwellings have floor levels below the pre-development flood level and will be subject to flood level increases by 30mm, 70mm and 80mm. Whereas, for the fourth dwelling at 152 Carran Road, the floor level remains above the flood level.”
[802] Having based his assessment described above on modelling changes in flow, volume and time to peak for the 2, 10 and 100 year ARI events482, Dr Fisher concluded the Project’s potential effect on flooding will be483:
“Small changes in flow, volume and time to peak for the 2, 10 and 100 year ARI events at locations downstream of the Project, which will have negligible effect on flooding and infrastructure. This conclusion is the basis for why attenuation of flood flows are not proposed in the indicative Project design.”
[803] Dr Fisher responded to submissions from Auckland Council, Mr Donnellan, Ms Rowsell-Starkey, counsel for the National Trading Company and Dr Civil, who represented family interests in a large area within the left branch river floodplain. They were all represented at the Hearing and made submissions.
[804] Auckland Council requested the following:
Amendments to Condition 40(b) regarding blockage of culverts from debris flow;
480 Ibid, para 45. 481 Ibid, para 46. 482 Operational Water Assessment Report, section 8, p 9. 483 Statement of evidence, Fisher, para 39.1, p 9.
172
Condition 41 amendments to incorporate fish passage for culverts;
Condition 41 amendments to requiring specific design features for culvert (Dr Fisher disagreed);
A new condition requiring fish passage to be assessed by an ecologist;
Condition 44 clarifications regarding hydraulic bridge designs (Dr Fisher regards as superfluous);
New condition regarding riparian planting (Dr Fisher regards as unnecessary);
New condition regarding peak discharges (Dr Fisher regards as superfluous);
Condition 49(b) amendment requiring increased wetland planting; and
Condition 52 — an additional clause clarifying that consent does not allow substitution from wetland treatment systems to pond only treatment systems.
[805] Dr Fisher supported the Council’s requests with the exception of those noted, and the amendments have been incorporated in the conditions presented with closing submissions.
[806] Mr Donellan’s property is near the corner of Carran and Woodcocks Roads. It is also near the confluence of the right and left tributaries of the Mahurangi River, and bounded on one side by the river. According to Mr Donellan, the river regularly floods but rarely overtops the banks. He is understandably concerned about increased flooding effects on his property and house.
[807] Dr Fisher says that he has assessed the effect of flooding on this property and a condition of consent “… limits the increase in maximum flood level to 100mm for the 100 year ARI event”.484 He goes on to say “… the proposed flood relief bridge is in my judgment the best practicable option, which balances bridge size and effects”.485
[808] Ms Rowsell-Starkey expressed concerns relating to the pre-cast yard across Woodcocks Road from her property. She also expressed concerns about increased flooding in the area that already affected land in close proximity to her property. She observed that flooding often occurs as high as the roadway, which is above much of the surrounding ground level.
484 Ibid, para 67. 485 Ibid.
173
[809] Dr Fisher responded:486 “The proposed mitigation will ensure that the pre-cast platform is outside the floodplain and to ensure the pre-cast yard in this area is above the 100 year ARI flood level.”
[810] The National Trading Company owns land on the corner of SH1 and Hudson Road Road which is subject to flooding. Counsel for the company asked that the Project not constrain development opportunities in the areas identified for future urban zone and not increase flooding effects on its land.
[811] Dr Fisher said in response that:487: “… culverts in the Project will not constrain development as they will be designed for the 100 year ARI flood event and for the land use permitted under the relevant planning documents.”
[812] Dr Civil gave extensive evidence regarding historic flooding patterns in the floodplain, particularly in relation to the various land holdings owned by her family, and produced rainfall records kept by the Farm Manager. She was very concerned that the proposed mitigation offered by NZTA would not contain the likely flooding, and sought conditions which would prevent future flooding exceeding historic levels. She also expressed concerns about moving stock from one part of the farm to another, particularly in times of flood.
[813] Dr Fisher produced rebuttal evidence dated 18 March 2014, in which he quoted Dr Civil as questioning whether future development will cause flooding to become more extreme in the Carran Road sector and challenging whether the flooding effects on the four affected dwellings in Carran Road and Woodcocks Road are “minor to moderate”.488 He says he assessed these effects as moderate as the dwellings “would already flood under a 100 year ARI flood event, and there is only a slight increase in flooding depth as a result of the Project. I stand by that assessment.”489
[814] He also asserted that:490 “Dr Civil identifies potential effects from the motorway from the displacement of flood waters and the increase in imperviousness, which I assessed in the OWAR.”
[815] He challenged some of Dr Civil’s interpretation of the flood maps and his evidence in chief, concluding that “I confirm that my assessment and conclusion in the OWAR and in my evidence-in-chief remain unchanged”.491
486 Ibid, para 69.1. 487 Ibid. para 72. 488 Statement of rebuttal evidence, Fisher, para 17 – 18. 489 Ibid. 490 Ibid, para 16. 491 Ibid, para 27.
174
[816] Dr Fisher also addressed the s 42A Report and the evidence of other submitters. He indicated that he had considered all those matters, and in spite of a correction to the operational Water Assessment Report,492 concluded that “… my assessment and conclusion in the OWAR and in my evidence-in-chief remain unchanged.”493
[817] He also provided a statement of supplementary evidence dated 13 May 2014 in which he responded to the Board’s request on 29 April 2014 for him to assess local rainfall data from the Civil Farms and confirm or revise his assessment of the flood effects in light of that information.494
[818] Dr Civil provided rainfall data collected at 91 SH1, Warkworth Middle Hill, from 1996 to 2000, and the cowshed at 111 Kaipara Flats Road, Warkworth, from 2004 to 2013. Dr Fisher compared that data to the other rainfall data available from other sources and found that it was not inconsistent. He concluded that “both the average annual rainfall and extreme storm rainfall observed at the Warkworth and farm sites are similar”.495 He said that his “flooding assessment used TP108 storm rainfall data that was higher than the observed rainfall at the Warkworth gauge and the Civil Farm”.496 It reinforced his confidence in his own assessments as being conservative.
[819] He concluded that:497 “I confirm that my assessment and conclusions in the OWAR and in my evidence-in-chief remains unchanged. The rainfall used for the assessment in the OWAR is appropriate and is validated by Dr Civil’s data, and therefore my flooding assessment remains unchanged.”
[820] Dr Fisher considered that the proposed conditions would adequately mitigate the Project in light of his review of relevant submissions, consideration of the issues in Auckland Council’s s 149G Key Issues Report and items identified by the Board. He confirmed that his assessments and conclusions remained unchanged.
[821] However, Dr Civil said in closing submissions:498 “It is of concern that an organisation like NZTA can propose a route for the new motorway knowing about … the extent of flooding that occurs regularly over the Civil farm and then not re-investigate alternatives before making the application.”
492 Ibid, para 25 – 26. 493 Ibid, para 27. 494 Statement of supplementary evidence, Fisher, para 4. 495 Ibid, para 24. 496 Ibid, para 8. 497 Ibid, para 24. 498 Closing submissions, Civil para 7.
175
Assessment
[822] The Board has carefully weighed the competing evidence, and given Dr Fisher’s expertise and experience, concludes it must accept on balance that the fears of the submitters are unlikely to eventuate. It therefore accepts the mitigation and conditions advocated by Dr Fisher as appropriate in the circumstances.
[823] The suggestion by Dr Civil that alternative alignments should be reinvestigated do not satisfy the Board that such action was required, given Dr Fisher’s analysis of the rainfall records she produced. Nor do the other concerns raised by the other submitters and her, justify reconsideration of the alignment chosen by NZTA.
10.12 WYLLIE ROAD OVERPASS AND VALERIE CLOSE RESIDENTS
[824] Submissions were made before the Board by Messrs Endean,499 Gowing and Woodley concerning the alignment of the motorway to the west of their properties and east of Wyllie Road. Their concerns arise from the proximity of the alignment to their properties across the Mahurangi River with consequential noise, dust, vibration and visual impacts.
[825] The alignment in that vicinity is partly in cut and partly on fill. The portions in cut will be visually screened from the properties, and noise generated and other effects will have less impact on them. However, the portions at grade and on fill will be in sight of the properties and will have direct noise and visual, and possibly dust and vibration effects. It is, of course, only visual effects which can be partially mitigated by planting.
[826] It was suggested that the alignment should be lowered and incorporate an underpass under Wyllie Road, rather than proceed on the indicative grades, to reduce impacts on the Valerie Close properties. The Board was advised of a facilitated meeting on 24 March where the above matters were discussed.
[827] NZTA agreed at that meeting to investigate a possible lowering of the alignment further, and in a subsequent letter500 advised of that reconsideration. The letter indicated that Mr Edmonds of the Further North Alliance had identified three considerations that were particularly pertinent:
Earthworks balancing between cut and fill along the route;
499 Affidavit, Endean dated 24 April 2014. 500 NZTA letter dated 27 April 2014.
176
Quantities of suitable engineering grade material that would be sourced in the vicinity versus material which would be unsuitable for construction purposes; and
The high pressure gas main near Wyllie Road which would need to be protected and possibly diverted.
[828] The letter, however, offered no hope of lowering the motorway in the relevant locality because of practical and engineering difficulties. NZTA offered within an Urban and Landscape Design framework process to include all the Valerie Close residents in consultation as part of that process. NZTA also provided an image showing the alignment of the motorway from the submitters’ properties. It indicated that landscaping would be provided to minimise the visual impact of the Project.
[829] Messrs Thaller and Trotter participated in a facilitated meeting on 10 March 14 when the above issues (amongst others) were discussed. Some areas of agreement were identified but no agreement was achieved regarding the levels of the motorway in the vicinity of the Thaller/Trotter property, the provision of an underpass for stock, impact of blasting and management of farm animals, restrictions on construction hours and noise impacts. Part or all of the property may be bought by NZTA. Mr Thaller advised the Board during the Hearing that negotiations for NZTA to purchase his property had begun. But if part remains in Thaller/Trotter ownership their concerns will have to be worked through as part of the management planning processes.
[830] The noise impacts were considered by Ms Wilkening, who estimated that there would be a 4 dBA reduction from the use of OGPA surfacing in the vicinity of the Gowing property, and a 2 – 3 dBA reduction for the Woodleys and Endeans properties. NZTA has agreed to use OGPA in this and other parts of the alignment.
[831] The Board accepts that an underpass for Wyllie Road with consequential lowering of the motorway to the west of Valerie Close is probably impracticable, but is not precluded.
[832] The Board notes that a condition requires the use of OGPA surfacing for the motorway in this vicinity, and concludes that surfacing, together with the landscaping proposed, will mitigate the adverse effects on Valerie Close residents to an appropriate level.
Access Road — Wyllie Road to Construction Yard 11
[833] The access road shown from the north and between the Project alignment and Mahurangi River could have considerable impact on the residents across the river both during construction and after the Project. Some residents, particularly Mr and Mrs Gowing, were deeply concerned by the visual and noise impacts of this access road The Board accepts that roadway may be necessary for construction purposes, but doubts any necessity for it to remain after the Project becomes operational.
177
[834] It has therefore, incorporated a condition501 to the decision requiring its removal and landscaping once construction has been completed. This will reduce the visual impact of the Project on the properties off the end of Valerie Close, and also reduce the noise generated by vehicles using such a roadway. The potential adverse effects of this access road post-construction are not justified in the context of the Project. The access road is not (post-construction) necessary to achieve the Project objectives. The Board does not support its retention.
[835] If the access road shown between Valerie Close and Wyllie Road, is utilised during construction purposes, then a SSTMP shall be prepared in accordance with Conditions D20 – D22. This will give the Valerie Close residents opportunity to be consulted regarding the access road directly across the river from their properties.
[836] The Board is satisfied that lowering of the alignment in the Wyllie Road vicinity as requested by residents has been properly investigated by NZTA and found to be impracticable. However benefits that might accrue to residents in that area can be at least partially obtained by the construction access being closed on completion of construction. That land can then be used together with surrounding land for landscaping mitigation for the benefit of residents.
10.13 MOIRS HILL ROAD
[837] Moirs Hill Road lies between the Windy Ridge and Pohuehue Viaduct. It presently serves various lifestyle blocks, Asia Pacific’s forest estate and the Christophersens’ home, pastures and cattery. The roadway is sealed but windy and narrow. It is used for access to silviculture operations on Asia Pacific land, and to logging operations in the past.
[838] The Christophersens’ cattery was inspected by the Board before the Hearing commenced. It was apparent that part of the cattery could be on legal road. The Board issued a directive to NZTA instructing them to arrange a land survey to establish where the boundaries lay in relation to the cattery and the Christophersens’ house.
[839] The results of that survey were provided to the Board on 17 April 2014. The plan showed the cattery as significantly intruding within the legal road.
[840] The Christophersens were represented by counsel Mr J Brabant, who addressed the Board on 5 May 2014. Ms J Christophersen gave evidence on behalf of her husband and self, who own the property known as Barndale. She later produced a ‘Statement Regarding Matters Arising’ dated 6 May 2014, in which she expressed opposition to proposals described in evidence given on behalf of Asia Pacific by Ms Shen. Those
501 Condition D38(d)
178
proposals included residential development and a full interchange where Moirs Hill Road met the motorway Project502.
[841] She and her husband have owned the property for over 20 years, it is 3.9ha in size and located on the north side of Moirs Hill Road between the proposed motorway and SH1. She described their business as ‘animal care’. The peaceful ambience of the area is valued and they fear the impact of the motorway on their business and lifestyle.
[842] Ms Christophersen explained that in 1997 Carter Holt used the road as an access for logging trucks and heavy vehicles servicing logging operations to the west. A residents’ group was formed at that time and litigation ensued, resulting in a consent order from the Environment Court503. She produced a copy of the order which included provisions for: mitigation; hours of operation; a reduced speed limit; signage; dust mitigation measures; reduced heavy traffic movements that could conflict with school bus movements; a cash contribution for planting; and a complaints procedure.
[843] She explained that notwithstanding those mitigation steps, the impacts on them and their property were significant. She and her husband had suffered from headaches caused by noise and vibration, and dust was also a problem.
[844] She also explained the effects of such activities on the animals that they care for. This provided a basis for their submitting on this proposal, together with fears for the impact it would have on them and their business.
[845] Ms Christophersen specifically sought relief regarding vegetation, fencing, conditions to limit the effects of construction traffic, and compensation for necessary costs involved as a consequence of the Project.
[846] There are various other properties fronting the portion of Moirs Hill Road between SH1 and the Project. Mr R Scott504 of Moirs Hill Road presented at the Hearing. He supported the submissions of the Christophersens and also those of Mr Pitches of the Campaign for Better Transport. He expressed doubts about the benefits of the Project and concerns about its impact on the community generally, but the residents of Moirs Hill Road in particular.
[847] NZTA acknowledges the adverse impact of construction traffic on properties in this portion of Moirs Hill Road. It proposes various mitigation measures which it contends will minimise those effects to acceptable levels. The residents, and particularly the Christophersens, are understandably concerned from past experience with Carter Holt logging operations.
502 Evidence, Shen, Country Representative for Australia and New Zealand. These aspirations of Asia Pacific
are irrelevant to the Board’s inquiry and would require a change of the underlying rural zoning. 503 Moirs Hill Residents Group Incorporated v Carter Holt Harvey Limited, October 1997 RMA 203/95 504 Submission 104854
179
[848] A Memorandum of Counsel on behalf of NZTA, dated 9 June 2014, was presented to the Board, which described meetings with the Christophersens and proposed amendments to the designation conditions. The memorandum recorded a side agreement with Mr and Mrs Christophersen on the basis of amended conditions relating to an SSMTP providing for pedestrian, cyclist and equestrian safety; liaison with local residents through a formal group; consultation specifically with the Christophersens; temporary speed limits no greater than 50kph for construction traffic; and minimising removal of trees on and adjacent to their property.
[849] The Board was advised the Christophersens have reached an agreement with NZTA. This together with the SSMTP and establishment of a liaison group is accepted by the Board as the best solution in the circumstances.
[850] It therefore finds that the concerns of the Moirs Hill Road residents, and the Christophersens in particular, have been addressed in a satisfactory manner.
[851] Additionally, the Board is satisfied that the agreed conditions which emerged are appropriate and comply with the requirements of the Act.
10.14 MOIRS HILL WALKWAY
[852] There is an existing 6.5km walkway505 through the Pohuehue Reserve and land owned by Asia Pacific and NZTA, between Moirs Hill Road and SH1 at the bottom end of the Pohuehue Viaduct. The northern portion of the walkway506 is formed and surfaced to a high standard, whilst the southern portion507 is more basic and in part follows logging access roads. The southern section would have to be realigned to accommodate the Project.
[853] The Department of Conservation, which administers the walkway, expressed concerns about the impact of the Project on the walkway. through Counsel and an affidavit508 from Ms T Wilson, a DOC Ranger. Ms Wilson opined that:
“…upgrading an existing walkway or creating a new walkway in the area should be considered to offset the loss of amenity values from the proposed motorway.” 509
[854] Counsel for Asia Pacific, Mr R Dillon, also expressed concerns about the impact of the Project on the walkway, part of which is on Asia Pacific land by agreement. In his closing submissions he asked for:
“… a pedestrian walkway along Moirs Hill Road in the areas affected by the construction project … and …the provision of full
505 Gazetted under the Walkways Act 1975. 506 Known as the Beverley Price Loop Track. 507 Known as the Pine Forest Track. 508 Statement of Evidence of Wilson. 509 Ibid, para 5.3.
180
pedestrian and cycle way separated from but associated with the motorway …” 510
[855] The first of Mr Dillon’s requests can be considered as addressed through the consultation and management plan work regarding use of Moirs Hill Road as an access for construction vehicles. His second request is dealt with elsewhere in this Report511.
[856] A facilitated meeting took place between DOC Officers and NZTA Representatives on 14 April 2014, at which the walkway was discussed along with the impact of the Project on the stand of kauri trees between the end of Perry Road and Wyllie Road.
[857] The Board was advised late in the Hearing process that an agreement had been reached between the DGC and NZTA regarding the walkway. That agreement dated 14 April 2014 records:
“… potential effects on Moirs Hill Walkway are potentially capable of resolution via mutual agreement. The participants are currently engaged in an agreed programme of further information exchange, aimed at achieving this outcome as soon as reasonably possible.” 512
[858] However the agreement also says:
“All issues discussed during the facilitation remain live … the parties hope they can now achieve a mutually acceptable resolution regarding the Moirs Hill Walkway …” 513
[859] The Board understands NZTA and DOC reached agreement before the end of the Hearing and that such agreement is reflected in the conditions.
10.15 HYDROGEOLOGY
[860] The only expert evidence presented regarding hydrogeology was from Mr J Williamson for NZTA. Mr Williamson has 18 years “specialist technical expertise in hydrology, hydrogeology and irrigation engineering”.514 He is employed by SKM and seconded to the Further North Alliance, and he “prepared the Hydrogeology Assessment Report that informed the Assessment of Environmental Effects lodged in support of the Project”.515
[861] Mr Williamson led a team which carried out investigations regarding the “lay of the land, … relationship between potential hydrogeological features, and
510 Closing submissions for Asia Pacific, para 35(iii) and (iv). 511 See Chapter 10.6. 512 Record of facilitated meeting on 14 April 2014, para 8. 513 Ibid, para 10 & 11. 514 Statement of evidence, Williamson, para 3. 515 Ibid, para 6.
181
the sites identified and available for drilling investigations”.516 During those investigations he provided advice on piezometer construction details and hydraulic testing setup procedures.
[862] He described the hydrogeological environment as comprising “several contrasting hydrogeological regimes … strongly influenced by the underlying geological units517 … The majority of the Project area is characterised by the steeply and incised elevated terrain of Pakiri Formation (part of the Waitemata Group), which comprises interbedded sandstone and mudstones”.518
[863] He also said: “Groundwater in the Pakiri Formation is strongly influenced by the incised valleys, with groundwater typically being elevated along ridge lines and depressed along valley sides and floors. Perched and leaky water tables may be present at higher elevations than the local water table.”519
[864] He described the methodology of, and results from his assessment of hydrological effects in Sections 13 and 14 – 16, concluding that the overall impact of the Project on the groundwater levels and their quality, during both the construction and operation phases was in his opinion likely to be “less than minor”.520
[865] His conclusion regarding monitoring and mitigation was: “No mitigation or monitoring was necessary for groundwater impacts because of the very low likelihood of any significant impacts, the fact that there are no affected third parties, and because any diversions are routed through the Project’s stormwater system or back into natural water courses”.521
[866] In paragraphs 17 – 28 he addressed the submissions, and indicated that he had read them and identified two individuals and one group of submitters who had raised concerns about the impact of the Project on groundwater. They had alleged likely reductions in water levels and quality in their bores.
[867] With respect to submissions from Mr Donnellan and the Slowater Lane and Pūhoi Close Residents Association, he referred to modelled groundwater drawdowns shown on Drawing ES-102 as indicating less than 0.1m in their areas. He said that in the area of interest to the Association, such drawdowns “would have no material impact on operation (level or quality) of the water supply bore, particularly given the depth (305m) and available drawdown (298m) in the bore”.522
516 Ibid, para 8. 517 Ibid, para 9. 518 Ibid, para 10. 519 Ibid. 520 Ibid, para 15.1 – 15.5. 521 Ibid, para 16. 522 Ibid, para 19.
182
[868] Specifically with respect to Mr Donnellan’s groundwater concerns, he said: “The Project will have no impact on a groundwater supply bore because there are no road cuts in this area, hence no mechanism to alter groundwater pressure profile or flow dynamics at the depth of the bore (130m).”523 It is noted that Mr Donnellan participated in a facilitated meeting on 21 March 2014 but the hydrogeological issues were not discussed.
[869] Fernbrook Farm’s evidence was given by Ms J Pike. She expressed concerns about the Project in relation to natural waterways and groundwater. She asked that monitoring of adverse effects be carried out and reported throughout construction and beyond.
[870] With respect to groundwater modelling predictions and the concerns of Fernbrook Farm (106186), Mr Williamson said:524
“I do not consider measuring the groundwater effects during construction to be necessary. The simulated effects for groundwater are negligible, even when considering the sensitivity of model hydraulic conductivity within a reasonable range. The likelihood of levels exceeding the range estimated is low and the consequence should levels exceed those predictions is still, in my opinion, insignificant because of the very small level of change possible.”
[871] Two submitters raised concerns regarding possible drying of wetlands due to changes in aquifer conditions (Thaller, 105691, and the Lee Family Trust, 105559). Mr Williamson said: “I do not expect any impact on wetlands. Any diverted groundwater will return to the natural watercourse downstream of the new road.”525
[872] Mr Thaller (and Mr S Trotter) had a facilitated meeting with NZTA personnel on 10 March 2014, when the following matters (amongst others) were agreed: “NZTA to seek information on this water bore … Wetlands/streams off the designation not to be impacted. Those within designation proposal are for 1:1 mitigation which would involve enhancement of selected wetlands to maintain overall quantum. Accept membership of ULDF Stakeholder Group as condition of designation.” 526
[873] Addressing Mr Thaller’s concerns about the artesian bore on his property, Mr Williamson said: “Loss of artesian pressures (and impact on wetlands) is not possible in the area of Mr Thaller’s property as there are no road cuts proposed (only embankment fills) in this area and hence no possibility for groundwater drawdown or depressurisation to occur.”527 Despite this, Mr Thaller's evidence made it clear that water supply and services were essential for his farming operations. Should his property not be acquired
523 Ibid, para 21. 524 Ibid, para 23. 525 Ibid, para 26. 526 Record of facilitated meeting on 10 March 2014. 527 Statement of evidence, Williamson, para 28.
183
compulsorily then it will be necessary to ensure that both during the construction and the operational stage water supply for farm animals and services are preserved on both sides of the Project.
[874] The Lee Family Trust was represented at the Hearing on 1 May 2014 by Mr K Lee, and he expressed various concerns about the Project. He indicated he was conditionally supportive of the Project, but wanted assurances that the Trust property (at 1488 SH1) would not be adversely affected by the motorway and particularly the construction access road proposed directly across the State Highway from the Trust property.
[875] Mr Lee produced a letter from Mr Richards of Alpha Landmarks in 2006 which highlighted the significant wetland on the Trust property which is adjacent to a DOC Reserve. He also produced a report by Ms Pegrune of Better Living Landscapes in 2008, which described mapping of the property, noting that grazing had ceased earlier that year with significant beneficial effects on the wetland. The Report noted on the property an extremely rare Syzgium Maire tree that is estimated to be one of only 30 – 60 in the North Island.
[876] Mr Lee’s concerns go well beyond hydrogeological issues but in that context his concerns for the wetland and associated vegetation will need careful consideration in the design and implementation of the construction access road across SH1. Any significant effects on aquifers in this vicinity could have adverse impact on the wetland and its hinterland on the Trust property and adjoining DOC Reserve. However, he did say when addressing the Board on 1 May that the facilitated meeting on 3 March had resulted in “pretty well all points being resolved.”528
[877] Given the special character of the Lee Family Trust wetland with its associated sphagnum moss, the Board has imposed a condition which requires a piezometer to be installed in that vicinity with the agreement of the trustees. The condition requires the piezometer to be monitored at intervals of no greater than two months. Its purpose is to ensure that both the property owner and NZTA can address in a timely fashion any reduction in water levels which might imperil the unique vegetation at this site.
[878] Mr Williamson addressed Items 71 – 76 of the Board’s Directions529 and commented that “consultation has been undertaken with affected landowners and my Report does not identify any significant modification to groundwater as a result of the Project.”530
[879] In his conclusion he said: “The most significant hydrogeological potential impact from the Project is the reduction in stream base flows or groundwater flows to wetland areas. … I consider impacts to these watercourses, which
528 Lee oral representations at the Hearing on 1 May 2014. 529 Unresolved items identified by the EPA’s contracted technical experts and Auckland Council. 530 Statement of evidence, Williamson, para 30.
184
would only be experienced during drought anyway, to be less than minor.”531 And: “The scale of effects from any changes to the groundwater regime through the development of the Project will be less than minor. Information provided by submitters has not changed this opinion.”532
[880] Mr Williamson was the only expert giving evidence on hydrogeology. The Board accepts his conclusions and accordingly finds that with the imposition of the conditions discussed the adverse hydrogeological effects will be minor.
10.16 CYCLEWAY AND SERVICE CENTRES
[881] Approximately 7 kilometres of the proposed motorway will pass across land owned by Asia Pacific International Group (NZ) Limited (Asia Pacific). Asia Pacific is a New Zealand registered forestry company. Its sole owner, on the evidence the Board heard, is a Singaporean national currently resident in Shanghai.
[882] NZTA proposes acquiring land and/or access rights from Asia Pacific and will pay appropriate compensation under the provisions of the Public Works Act. This is not a matter with which the Board will concern itself.
[883] Asia Pacific’s submissions described it as a “trade competitor”. This description apparently arose from its perception that it was ‘competing’ with NZTA over its land, currently used for forestry planting, which NZTA, for its part, wanted to acquire to construct a motorway. Clearly, for the purposes of s 171(1A), Asia Pacific is not a trade competitor.
[884] Asia Pacific, who was represented at the Hearing by counsel, Mr R M Dillon, called one witness, Ms X Shen, who is an employee of Asia Pacific.
[885] Asia Pacific advanced two submissions. The first was to oppose the proposed motorway on the basis of s 5 of the Act. Mr Dillon submitted that in terms of the ‘sustainable management’ definition under s 5(2), the adverse effects of a motorway were not adequately mitigated, particularly having regard to the socio-economic and cultural well being of the community and the health and safety of road users generally. Alternatives should be addressed. The issue of alternatives is addressed and resolved elsewhere in this Report.533
[886] Asia Pacific’s second submission was that if the motorway Project was approved, it should be amended. In particular, there should be a full motorway interchange constructed where the motorway crosses Moirs Hill Road. Associated with that interchange should be a service centre. In the same locality pedestrian walkways should be constructed. Additionally, a
531 Ibid, para 37. 532 Ibid, para 39. 533 See Chapter 8.6.
185
cycleway should be constructed, separate from but associated with the motorway. As the Board understood this last submission, such a cycleway was clearly justified. It would provide cyclists access to spectacular scenery. It would imitate extensive cycleway networks which have been constructed (and are approved by central governments) in other countries, particularly in Europe. It would, in terms of s 5(2), promote community health. It would be a tourist attraction and in particular, a useful addition to the Government’s proposed cycleway network. Importantly, it would avoid the ‘mistake’ made in the late 1950s of failing to provide cycle lanes across the Auckland Harbour Bridge.
[887] Expanding on his submissions, Mr Dillon pointed to projected residential development south of Warkworth. An interchange in the Moirs Hill Road region would cater for that projected urban development. A service centre was also needed to enhance the safety of motorists using the proposed motorway. The last service centre a northbound motorist would encounter was immediately south of Silverdale. For motorists travelling south on SH1, there would be no service centre (if the motorist chose not to exit the motorway) between Warkworth and south of Papakura. Echoing road safety messages, counsel submitted drivers needed to take regular breaks to avoid potentially fatal fatigue. Provision of a service centre would afford such an opportunity.
[888] Mr Dillon made no attempt to hide the clear commercial interest which Asia Pacific would have if it was able to operate a service centre on its land as part of the motorway system.
[889] Additional submissions by Asia Pacific, not pursued with vigour in its closing submissions, sought provision of a full interchange at Pūhoi (rather than limiting Pūhoi access to two south facing ramps), and the preservation of the coast to coast walkway significant to Māori.534
[890] Ms Shen’s evidence was that Asia Pacific’s plantations (largely pinus radiata) was in varying stages of maturity. Some of the stands had already been logged. Clearly the planted forests are a valuable resource of Asia Pacific and will be steadily logged in the future. Her evidence was largely confirmatory of counsel’s submissions. She saw benefits flowing from an interchange at Moirs Hill Road to residents generally in the Mahurangi area. She also accepted that the underlying zoning of Asia Pacific’s land (before it was designated for forestry) was rural and that planning changes would be necessary before any residential development encroached on its land.
[891] Ms Brosnahan’s submission for NZTA was that the provision of a service centre, a cycleway, and pedestrian facilities were unnecessary to mitigate the effects of the proposed highway. Although NZTA, under its empowering
534 Te Haurahi o Kahaumatamoemoe. This walkway, of significance to local iwi, is not a defined pathway.
Asia Pacific accepted that it would be inappropriate for it to be accessed by public walkways or to become a tourist attraction.
186
Act, the Land Transport Management Act 2003, had an obligation (s 5) to contribute to an effective, efficient and safe system of transport (which included a cycleway — s 94), there was no statutory obligation to provide for cyclists’ facitlities on every project undertaken by NZTA. The existing SH1 would remain available for use by cyclists. Reduced traffic flows on the current highway would enhance cyclists’ safety. There would be significant costs in providing a three metre wide cycleway, on counsel’s estimate approximately $45m. Provision of a service centre was unnecessary to meet the objectives of NZTA’s application and not required to mitigate any of the effects of NZTA’s proposal. Noting Mr Dillon’s submission that the absence of a service centre was a safety issue, Ms Brosnahan observed that there was no evidence to support such a conclusion.
[892] Counsel, in response to a Board direction, produced a map sourced from Auckland Transport of existing and proposed cycleways in the Auckland region. Mr Dillon observed that existing and proposed cycleways in both the Warkworth and the Silverdale/Whangaparaoa districts indicated that cycling in the area traversed by the proposed motorway was or would be an established activity. In particular, Warkworth being close to holiday destinations, Asia Pacific’s proposed cycleway would link directly with existing proposed cycleways in the Warkworth region, thus opening up access to holiday destinations. The proposed cycleway across the Auckland Harbour Bridge demonstrated the importance of avoiding the short-sightedness of previous generations. The Regional Network of cycleways demonstrated a commitment to increasing cycleway infrastructure. This should be reflected in the proposed motorway project.
[893] Asia Pacific’s first option (supra) of the Board declining to approve NZTA’s applications on the basis that there had been an inadequate cost-benefit analysis is rejected. Similar submissions made on alternatives are discussed and determined in another section of this Report.535
[894] On Asia Pacific’s second option (supra), there was no evidence, nor was there any compelling submission, which justifies the Board concluding the provision of an interchange in the Moirs Hill Road area and/or the incorporation into NZTA’s Project of a cycleway are necessary to mitigate adverse effects.536 Provision of an adjunct cycleway is not one of the objectives NZTA seeks to achieve. There is certainly no statutory obligation on NZTA to develop a cycleway in tandem with a motorway. The absence of a cycleway does not transgress the sustainable management purpose of s 5.
[895] Similarly with NZTA’s failure (for which the Board does not think NZTA can be criticised) to provide a service centre at any point along the 18.5km length of the proposed motorway. Facilities to take breaks, feed, visit restrooms, and refuel, are readily available at points north and south of the
535 See Chapter 10.5. 536 The issue of extra on and off ramps is dealt with in another section of this Report [10.17].
187
proposed motorway. Failure to provide a service centre at the Moirs Hill Road site proposed by Asia Pacific on its land does not give rise to any safety issues. The absence of a service centre is not an adverse effect which requires any mitigation.
[896] For these reasons, the proposals and submissions of Asia Pacific are rejected.
[897] There is force in Mr Dillon’s submission however, that Designation Condition 30 should have added to it Asia Pacific’s name as a party entitled to receive a copy of the Urban and Landscape Design Framework. The Board has accordingly added Asia Pacific’s name and its registered office to that designation condition.
10.17 OTHER ON/OFF RAMPS
[898] Both before (through submissions) and during the Hearing there were representations made by some suggesting that extra motorway on and off ramps and/or interchanges be constructed along the proposed highway.537
[899] There were three distinct categories of these submissions. The first was that, rather than having two south facing ramps to service the village of Pūhoi and its environs (approximately 2 kilometres north of the Okahu Inlet), there should instead be a full interchange. The second category was that there should be on and off ramps to the south of the proposed large roundabout at which all traffic would exit at the northern terminus of the proposed motorway (on the south side of Kaipara Flats Road). Additional ramps, perhaps in the vicinity of Woodcocks Road or even further south, would provide easier access for motorists whose destination was on the southern side of Warkworth town, and also for trucks servicing Warkworth’s industrial areas on and adjacent to Woodcocks Road.
[900] The third category, being the submission of Asia Pacific, proposed an interchange or ramps combined with a service area on Asia Pacific land at Moirs Hill Road. This third category (which embraced an element of the second category) is dealt with separately in the previous section of this Report.538
[901] The provision of two south facing ramps at Pūhoi stems from representations made to NZTA prior to filing the NoR. In the absence of on or off ramps, people wishing to visit or leave Pūhoi Village (or its surrounds) would have to travel along the current SH1.
[902] Pūhoi Village is a small village which provides a number of tourist and historical attractions. Its hotel (for many decades) and other restaurant facilities are an attraction for Aucklanders. NZTA thus considered it made
537 See Appendix 12. 538 Chapter 10.16.
188
sense to allow users of the motorway from the south to exit at Pūhoi and to rejoin the motorway there when returning to the south. These two south facing ramps also, on the evidence, served a further useful purpose for residents around the Mahurangi Harbour — an area accessed by Mahurangi West Road a short distance to the north of Pūhoi on SH1.
[903] The absence of two north facing ramps (or a full interchange) at Pūhoi means quite simply that south-bound traffic destined for Pūhoi, instead of joining the proposed motorway at its northern roundabout, would have to proceed along the old SH1 to the Pūhoi junction. So too, motorists at Pūhoi wanting to travel north to Warkworth or beyond would have to use the current SH1. The Board does not consider the absence of two north facing ramps at Pūhoi raises any issues under the Act. NZTA has proposed and agreed to a condition that access to Pūhoi from the north is not to be precluded by the Project539.
[904] The 23 January 2014 evidence statement of Mr Edmonds deals, in the Board’s view, convincingly with the Pūhoi on/off ramp category. Mr Edmonds correctly refers to the large number of submissions which were received stressing the need to maintain current levels of access to Pūhoi, particularly for traffic using (in either direction) the NGTR. Approvals sought by NZTA and the conditions imposed indeed preserve such access. Similarly, the current north-bound (realigned) connection from Waiwera which joins SH1 just north of the Johnstone’s Hill Tunnels will be retained. However, except for emergency and maintenance vehicles there will be no connection to the motorway.
[905] As Mr Edmonds states:540 “In addition, whilst not included in the current proposal, the provision of north-facing ramps to/from the Project in the vicinity of Pūhoi Road/Mahurangi West Road are not precluded by the current Project, should travel demand and planning policies support such provision in the future.”
[906] It is unlikely, on the evidence the Board heard, given the geographic constraints imposed by the somewhat narrow Pūhoi Valley, that there will be significant urban growth around Pūhoi Village itself. Different considerations for the future may well apply to areas north of Pūhoi and in those areas serviced by Mahurangi West Road.
[907] There is, however, no evidence to justify a condition for provision of either a full interchange or north facing on and off ramps at Pūhoi. What is currently sought is, on the evidence, both appropriate and necessary. The planned Project does not, however, preclude the provision of two north-facing ramps at some future date.
539 Refer Condition D1. 540 Statement of evidence, Edmonds, para 81.
189
[908] NZTA’s response to submissions seeking further on/off ramps to the south of the motorway’s terminating roundabout for use by motorists wanting to access the south side of Warkworth town was succinctly put by Mr Edmonds in his evidence thus:541
“A number of submissions suggest alternative or additional access arrangements at Warkworth and in particular at Woodcocks Road, or to the south of the town centre, eg, in the vicinity of Perry Road/Valerie Close.
… [S]election of the location for the access/inter-change at Warkworth followed a rigorous assessment …
However, I note (particularly in response to submissions of Auckland Transport and Auckland Council) that I am of the opinion that the indicative route and proposed designation do not preclude the inclusion of a south Warkworth access if required in the future.”
[909] Auckland Transport’s submission542 noted that Warkworth had been identified in the Auckland Plan as a satellite town which would experience “significant population and employment growth over the next 30 years and will experience its own infrastructure challenges in facilitating this growth.” The submissions suggested that the number of dwellings in Warkworth would increase by 6,500 to 8,200 out to 2041, initially in the northern parts of Warkworth. Auckland Transport requested consideration be given to detailed design not precluding the ability to provide an interchange at some future date to the south of Warkworth.
[910] Auckland Council’s submission543 were to similar effect. Its concern was to “enable connections to the local roading network to facilitate growth in the area, including a possible future connection east to Matakana”. Again, as stated, the design of the Project does not preclude these future connections. There are, however, no statutory imperatives under the Act which require the Board to impose such conditions requiring provision of the additional on and off ramps which some submitters requested it declines to do so.
[911] There would, however, be no sense if over the next 15 or 20 years there is significant population growth south of Warkworth (and it must be remembered that motorways tend to encourage and hasten urban growth along their paths) in delaying the construction of additional on and off ramps. The road system would not be well served by heavy flows of traffic exiting the motorway at its northern roundabout and then proceeding south (through the Hill Street intersection) to residential and indeed industrial locations on Warkworth’s south side. That, however, is a matter for the future and not for this Board. The extent and whereabouts of population growth in the region is currently a matter of conjecture, guided in part by PAUP.
541 Statement of evidence, Edmonds [84] et seq. 542 Submission 105685. 543 Submission 106085.
190
10.18 PRE-CAST YARD
[912] NZTA have sought an Industrial Trade Activity consent for the operation of a pre-cast yard on Woodcocks Road. This site is to be offered to the contractor for use in the fabrication of components of concrete structures. It will not be used for concrete batching.
[913] Very little detail has been provided on the pre-cast yard. One condition has been proposed, which requires that pH levels for all discharges from the pre-cast yard be within the range of 6.5 – 8.5.
[914] The submitter who made the most direct representation on the potential adverse effects of the pre-cast yard was Mrs V. Rowsell-Starkey. The Rowsell-Starkey’s property is located at 438 Woodcocks Road, opposite the proposed site for the pre-cast yard. Mr M Donnellan also submitted in this aspect of the Project.
[915] Mrs Rowsell-Starkey and Mr Donnellan expressed concerns on the following matters:
(a) Potential loss of flood storage or increases in flooding that might result from the formation of the pre-cast yard at that location;
(b) Noise and traffic effects, particularly if the pre-cast yard was to operate after hours or throughout the night; and
(c) Dust that may be discharged from the yard.
[916] The potential flooding effects were discussed with Dr Fisher. He confirmed that the operational area of the yard will be located outside the 100 year ARI floodplain, while activities such as carparking for construction staff may occur within the floodplain544. No filling would be undertaken within the floodplain and the containment of runoff from within the yard could be bunded such that the bunding would not inhibit the capacity of the existing overland flow path that passes the site, as shown of the 100 year ARI floodplain maps prepared by NZTA. On that basis, Dr Fisher was confident that the pre-cast yard would not exacerbate any flooding on adjacent properties. The Board accepts this evidence and finds accordingly.
[917] The Board was concerned by the potential adverse effect that night time operation of the yard could have on neighbouring properties. As Mrs Rowsell-Starkey noted545 in the context that the yard would be operating for at least five years, “In our opinion five years is a long time to have an industrial site located on what is mixed rural land”. Mrs Rowsell-Starkey indicated that early discussions with NZTA had given her the impression that the pre-casting operations would be undertaken within a building.
544 Transcript, Fisher, pp 2360 and 2361. 545 Transcript, Rowsell-Starkey, p 1596.
191
However, more recently she was informed that that may not be the case. Ms Brosnahan confirmed that the housing of that operation is not part of the application. Consequently, Mrs Rowsell-Starkey requested a condition that imposes some form of noise barrier to reduce the noise effects of the activity. The Board has some sympathy for Mrs Rowsell-Starkey’s concerns regarding noise.
[918] Ms Wilkening specifically addressed the potential noise effects that may be occasioned by the use of the pre-cast yard, including traffic noise546. In her view, those effects would be appropriately addressed through the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan such that the effects would be minor.
[919] With respect to the general construction traffic effects of the yard, the Board accepts that the general behaviour of traffic travelling to and from the pre-cast yard will be addressed through the CTMPs that will be prepared. However, the Board does consider a specific traffic management plan should be prepared for the pre-cast yard.
[920] Notwithstanding the assessment of noise and traffic above, the Board is of the view that on balance, the potential industrial activity effects of the yard are not suited to night operations in a rural environment, when other noise and traffic generating activities that occur along Woodcocks Road have subsided. On that basis, a limitation is placed on the hours of operation of the yard, being 7am to 6:30pm Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm Saturdays, and no works on Sundays or public holidays.
[921] With respect to dust effects, the Board notes that the Rowsell-Starkey’s property is included in the list of properties that can receive water tanks refills and house washing. Mrs Rowsell-Starkey indicated that they had a total of three 5000l roof-water tanks on their property. NZTA’s condition provides for up to 30,000l to be provided every four months. While it is an obvious inconvenience to disconnect the tanks from the roof and otherwise dispose of the roof water, the Board considers the mitigation offered to be adequate.
[922] In its overall finding, the Board also considers that the pre-cast yard, as an industrial trade activity site, should be the subject of a specific site management plan that should include:
(a) Methods for monitoring the pH of yard runoff;
(b) Provisions for detention of all runoff during yard operation and measures to ensure runoff remains with a pH range of 6.5 – 8.5 (Condition RC27(e));
546 Construction Noise Assessment Report, sections 6.8 and 6.9, pp 32 and 33.
192
(c) The location and method of storage of any environmentally hazardous substances, in accordance with relevant regulations;
(d) Measures to avoid the discharge of dust beyond the pre-cast yard site boundary; and
(e) An emergency spill response plan specific to that site.
[923] A consent condition has been included to that effect.
[924] As noted, the management of construction traffic should be addressed through the specific management plan detailed above.
[925] With the imposition of the additional conditions described, the Board is satisfied that the potential adverse effects of the construction and operation of the pre-cast will be adequately mitigated.
[926] One final point raised by Mrs Rowsell-Starkey was her request that the site be reinstated for rural use on completion of the Project. Again, the Board accepts Mrs Rowsell Starkey’s point as a relevant matter in terms of potential long-term effects, and also as a matter of land use planning. The Board would not consider it appropriate that the pre-cast yard site be utilised for a commercial or industrial activity after the Project is completed. The Board accepts that the designation sought does not provide for a continuation of that activity after completion of the Project. But the Board does, to provide certainty and emphasis, impose a condition that requires that the pre-cast yard be reinstated to its prior state after completion of the Project.
10.19 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL
Introduction
[927] NZTA in its NoRs identified several factors arising from its public consultation to support their request for a referral of the Project to a Board of Inquiry. These factors included widespread public concern regarding likely effects on the environment and in particular the visual and landscape disturbance.
[928] As NZTA has made clear, the alignment of the Project, together with the extent of cuts and fills is indicative only547. It wishes to design and construct the Project so as to appropriately integrate the permanent works into the surrounding landscape and topography.548
[929] This is to be done through an Urban and Landscape Design Framework (ULDF) initially prepared by an urban designer and a landscape architect. It
547 Opening statement, NZTA, para 19. 548 Condition D26.
193
will then be used as a basis for consultation with the submitters and with owners of occupied dwellings within 500 metres of the designation boundary549.
[930] The ULDF is to be certified by the appropriate Auckland Council official.550 Following certification, Urban and Landscape Design Sector Plans (ULDSPs) will be prepared to implement the ULDF by integrating landscaping and visual screening for residential properties and other factors into the surrounding landscape and topography551.
[931] NZTA has offered a number of specific features to be taken into account552. The Board has accepted these.
Submissions
[932] Over 20 written submissions on the subject were received. Although some submitters made representations at the Hearing, none called an expert witness. NZTA’s landscape expert, Mr R Pryor, presented the Applicant’s proposals and responded to some of the concerns raised, both in his evidence in chief and in his rebuttal evidence. Submitters included the following:
[933] Mrs P Anderson553 says because of the elevated site, the 46m high Eco-viaduct will be an extremely ugly impairment on the landscape.
[934] Civil Farm Partnership,554 DIG Partnership,555 Southway: D and J Civil,556 and the Puriri Springs Trust.557 These submitters consider the visual impact has not been considered. They say the design parts of the route are visually intrusive, ugly, and do not blend in with the landscape.
[935] Ms W Court558 made a representation to the Board559 in which she quoted NZTA landscape expert Mr Pryor. His opinion560 was that initially there would be highly significant effects on the visual amenity values of her property. She asked the Board to set conditions by which she would not see the Project, or hear it, or otherwise be negatively impacted by it. She suggested the Eco-viaduct be painted black and the embankments be planted.
549 Condition D30. 550 Condition D32. 551 Condition D34. 552 Condition D36 and D37. 553 Submission 105089. 554 Submission 105998. 555 Submission 106016. 556 Submission 106011. 557 Submission 106003. 558 Submission 103679. 559 Transcript page 1671 560 Statement of Evidence of Pryor, para 92.
194
[936] Mr M Donnellan561 expressed concerns about the increased construction and operational landscape and visual adverse effects on his property in Woodcocks Road.
[937] Mr M Dudley562 asked for dense tree planting between Viv Davie-Martin Drive and the Project.
[938] Mrs K Dudley563 asks for dense planting of neighbouring properties to block views of the Project.
[939] Fernbrook Farm564 – two viaducts traverse this property, which together with embankments will initially have a high effect on the visual and rural amenity values, according to Mr Pryor. He notes that mitigation planting will have limitations on screening due to the elevated nature of the property. Fernbrook Farm has been included as a stakeholder in development of the ULDF and Sector Plans.565
[940] Generation Zero566 is concerned about effects on native bush and on ONLs of the area. No evidence of how the proposed motorway avoids areas of native bush identified in the DOC study 2012 covering ‘Natural Areas of the Rodney Ecological District.’
[941] Mrs L Gowing567 requested that the proposed ‘access track’ running from Wyllie Road to just south of Perry Road be removed from the plans.
[942] Ms M Mansfield568 wishes to have reassurance that planting will be made on embankments so that from Viv Davie-Martin Drive “we are unable to see traffic from our home”.
[943] Miss M Marks569 is concerned about visual aspects and asks that trees be planted on Yard 2 Pūhoi alongside the river to reduce the visual effects of the yard for residents of Pūhoi.
[944] Mr and Mrs N and A Moon570 ask for early planting of trees (possibly on a bund), so as to screen the visual construction of the bridge, and planting for benefit once construction has finished.
[945] Mr A Pickering571 and the Slowater Lane and Pūhoi Close Residents Association572 ask that planting be done alongside the edge of the western
561 Submission 104562. 562 Submission 105666. 563 Submission 105769. 564 Submission 106186. 565 Refer Condition D30. 566 Submission 105776. 567 Submission 105371
568 Submission 103652. 569 Submission 105749. 570 Submission 104331. 571 Submission 105561. 572 Submission 105741.
195
boundary of the designation and the eastern boundary of the Pūhoi River, just north of the Pūhoi Road, for approximately the length of the proposed viaduct.
[946] Mr C Powell573 asks that trees be planted around the proposed construction site at Pūhoi in advance of its use to screen activities from Pūhoi Close, and so that landscaping close to the riverbank will not be disturbed.
[947] The Queen Elizabeth II National Trust574 drew attention to the Wetland Covenant at 70 Wyllie Road. The Terrestrial Ecology Report describes it as a wetland of low botanical value and its loss would be a less than minor effect. The Trust disagrees.
[948] Mrs V Rowsell-Starkey575 suggests planting and maintaining rows of Leyland Cypress or similar dense, fast growing, evergreen trees around the pre-cast site in Woodcocks Road to assist in masking sound emanating from the site and to remedy the visual impact. She also asks for the planting and maintenance of Leyland Cypress or similar dense, fast growing, evergreen trees along the roadside and embankments.
[949] Mr P Steinkamp576 notes that 78A and 78B Viv Davie-Martin Drive are directly in the line of sight of the Project and asks that the residents be involved in landscaping of the motorway, particularly between chainage 49100 – 47200 (roundabout).
[950] Mr and Mrs G and A Still577 ask that Woodcocks Road viaduct be screened by vegetation, either by planting on designation land or by facilitating planting on their property. They wish to ensure all affected residents in Viv Davie-Martin Drive are provided with visual mitigation for their homes, for example, by extensive tree planting on the side of the Project towards their homes.
[951] Mr and Mrs D and K Wade578 ask that a noise fence be erected on the western side of the Project and the embankment be heavily planted with trees to screen the fence. This would be between Perry Road and the Wyllie Road Overpass.
[952] Mr F Walkington579 is concerned with, among other things, the visual impact on rural views.
[953] Mr W Endean of Warkworth Estate Limited580 seeks the screening of visual effects of the motorway.
573 Submission 105006. 574 Submission 106110. 575 Submission 105734. 576 Submission 105242. 577 Submission 105194. 578 Submission 104741. 579 Submission 105305.
196
[954] Mrs L Woodley581 of Valerie Close has concerns about visual impact, among other things, on her Bed and Breakfast business.
Mr Pryor’s Evidence
[955] Mr Pryor states582 that for areas with permanent residents, such as around Perry Road, Viv Davie-Martin Drive and Pūhoi Close, the indicative alignment will have a moderate-high to high adverse effect on existing rural character and amenity values. Mr Pryor notes that landscape and visual mitigation measures are contained within NZTA’s proposed Designation Conditions 26 – 42, which he is satisfied with,583 and will appropriately guide the development of the ULDF and ULDSP, focusing on key features and identified stakeholders.
[956] He points out that stakeholders will be able to review the ULDF and comment on whether they consider that their concerns are being addressed584. He observes that ULDSPs will also be prepared with affected stakeholders.585 These sector plans will ensure that the Project’s permanent works, including mitigation works, for landscaping and visual screening for residential properties are integrated into the surrounding landscape and topography586. He states587 that as detailed design for the Project has not yet been undertaken and may ultimately vary from the indicative alignment, the preparation of landscape concept plans for restoration and mitigation works cannot be undertaken at this stage of the Project. The Board agrees with these observations.
[957] Mr Pryor considered in detail the extensive representations made on behalf of the Civil farming interests588. Mr Pryor generally disagrees with the points made in these submissions589.
[958] In conclusion, Mr Pryor considers590 that the main visual effects of the Project will be during and soon after its construction. These effects will diminish over a short time (three to five years) once pasture and vegetation in disturbed areas re-establishes and the cut faces take on a more weathered appearance. The Board agrees.
Effects on landscape and coastal area
[959] The Board considers that the potential landscape, visual and natural character effects of the Project to be:
580 Submission 103715. 581 Submission 105456. 582 Statement of evidence, Pryor, p 10, para 43. 583 Statement of rebuttal evidence, Pryor, p 3, para 10.10. 584 Ibid p 4, para 12. 585 Ibid p 4, para 13. 586 Ibid p 4, para 13. 587 Ibid p 2, para 9. 588 Submissions 105998, 106003, 106011, 106016. 589 Statement of rebuttal evidence, Pryor, p 5, para 18; pp 7, para 32 and 34; p 8, para 36. 590 Statement of evidence, Pryor, p 25, para 134.
197
(a) Minor landscape and visual effects on the Okahu Inlet from the construction of the twin viaducts across it;
(b) Effects on the Regionally Significant Landscape surrounding the Okahu Inlet;
(c) Effects on various ONL’s within the hill country, harbour and estuary and coastal landscape;
(d) Effects on the visual amenity from the cut batters, fill embankments and the viaducts; and
(e) Effects on the visual amenity from the access track from Wyllie Road alongside the Mahurangi River (right branch) to construction site 11.
Assessment
[960] The Board notes that the majority of the Project traverses landscapes that are already highly modified by forestry and farming activities, including a fish farm.
[961] The Project’s effects on natural character are considered to be limited.
[962] ONL 43 is a kauri forest located in the vicinity of Perry Road. The area (also known as Site 15A) is classified as an SEA in the PAUP. The Project passes through a small portion of the forest by way of an Eco-viaduct. The concerns of the Board are expressed elsewhere591. From a landscape point of view, because of the proposed Eco-viaduct, Mr Pryor considers the effects of the Project on the kauri forest to be low to moderate.
[963] The effects of the Okahu Viaducts have been assessed separately592.
[964] The proposed access track referred to by Mrs Gowing runs between the right branch of the Mahurangi River and the indicative alignment of the Project. It connects construction yard 11 with the pre cast yard 12 at Wyllie Road. It is to be sealed to two lanes and for much of its length it will be in a sidling cut across foothills devoid of bush.
[965] The Board considers the visual effects of the track on the landscape to be significant. The land the track traverses is residue land, severed from its frontages to Wyllie Road by the Project. It presents an opportunity not only for remedial planting, once the construction use of the track has ceased, but also for replacement planting593 and for extensive compensatory planting to
591 Refer Chapter 10.3. 592 Refer Chapter 10.2. 593 See Condition D59.
198
offset other visual incongruences. The Board has included a condition594 directing this planting be done595.
[966] The Board considers it essential that residents whose visual amenity will be affected by the Project be given the opportunity to participate in preparation of the ULDF. Conditions D30 – D32 provide for this.
[967] With regard to the various ONL’s the Board considers the indicative alignment will not adversely affect the integrity of the ONL’s as the works impinge on them only to a minor extent.
[968] The Board acknowledges that immediately after construction and before the planting has matured, visual effects of the Project in some sectors will be noticeable. In the longer term the Board finds that with the Project better integrated into the landscape due to the weathering of cut batters and the maturing of requisite planting, the effects of the Project on the visual amenity of residents will have diminished and will be adequately mitigated.
594 See Condition D76. 595 Refer Chapter 10.4.
199
11. APPRAISAL
11.1 STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS
[969] The Board, constituted as it is under Part 6AA of the Act to consider NZTA’s proposal of national significance, exercises various statutory powers which are normally the preserve of consent authorities. The source of those statutory powers is found in s 149P(2) (in respect of resource consents) and s 149P(4) (in respect of a designation)596.
[970] In relation to NZTA’s applications for resource consents, the Board’s obligations clearly must include (for the purposes of NZTA’s proposal) include consideration of all factors that are relevant in terms of s 104. It is obligatory for the Board to have regard to the actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing NZTA’s proposal. The Board must have regard to relevant provisions of all relevant policy instruments, regional and district plans and regulations and any other relevant matters it considers reasonably necessary for making its decision. Section 104B applies to the Board’s power to grant (usually with conditions) or refuse consents for discretionary or non-complying activities. With regard to the latter, s 104D is relevant. In particular, s 104D(1) provides two gateways whereby a consent authority may grant consent for a non-complying activity.
[971] In relation to NZTA’s NoRs seeking designations, the Board is required to have regard to certain matters set out in section 171(1)(b) and (c) of the Act. Those particular matters which the Board must consider are (subject to Part 2):
(a) Whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative routes and methods of undertaking the work;
(b) Whether the work and designations are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of NZTA for which the designations are sought; and
(c) Any other matter which the Board considers reasonably necessary in order to make a recommendation on the NoRs, which is covered elsewhere in this Report.
[972] Further relevant matters include those contained in s 171(1)(a) and in particular the mandatory requirement to consider national policy statements, national policy statements (including NZCPS), operative and proposed regional policy statements, and operative and proposed regional and district plans (s 171(1)). These matters are set out in Chapters 6 and 7, as are the provisions of Part 2 of the Act. The Board has considered all of these
596 Section 149L(1) confers on the Board a consent authority’s hearing powers.
200
matters, both in the context of the issues set out in Chapters 8 and 9, and overall.
[973] Overarching all these considerations for consent authorities are the Part 2 Purpose and Principles of the Act. Section 5 sets out the ‘sustainable management’ purpose of the Act, with its well-known components of sustaining the potential of resources to meet the needs of future generations; safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, etc.; and avoiding, remedying and mitigating adverse effects. Section 6 requires the Board to recognise and provide for the stipulated s 6 matters of national importance. Relevant to NZTA’s application as matters of national importance are the preservation of the national character of the coastal environment (s 6(a)), the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate use and development (section 6(b)), the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation (s 6(c)) and the various cultural, historic and heritage matters mentioned in ss 6(e) and (f).
[974] Other matters (s 7) to which the Board must have particular regard include, in the context of NZTA’s application, the efficient use of natural and physical resources (s 7(b)), the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values (s 7(c)), the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment (s 7(f)), and the intrinsic value of ecosystems597(s 7(d)).
[975] In reaching its decision on the various consents sought by NZTA and in crafting and imposing the conditions, the Board, as the Act obliges it, has considered and weighed all these matters.
[976] It is apparent from the various submissions filed, a consequence perhaps of the large percentage of submissions which supported NZTA’s application in whole or in part, that a considerable number of the actual and potential environmental effects of the proposed motorway did not raise concerns and/or were not a matter of contest. Allied to the scope of contested matters is the obligation imposed on the Board by s 149R(3)(c) and (d). The Board’s final Report, must include a statement of the principal issues that were in contention and the Board’s main findings on those principal issues. Chapter 10 does this.
[977] It thus follows from the previous paragraph that the Board’s Report does not contain a minute or extensive analysis of every resource management issue arising out of NZTA’s application. Nonetheless, the Board has considered all environmental effects (both individually and collectively) and all other relevant matters before granting the consents sought and imposing the relevant conditions.
597 Kaitiakitanga, the ethic of stewardship, and the matters specified in subsections (g) to (h) inclusive were not
directly engaged or were not in contention. The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, as stated elsewhere in this Report, are reflected in the partnership between NZTA and Hōkai Nuku.
201
Consideration of potential effects and relevant planning provisions
[978] The Board has considered all potential adverse effects of the Project and all relevant provisions of any policy or planning instruments relevant to it. The Board’s findings as a result of this assessment are reflected throughout this Report and need not be repeated here.
[979] In addition to those factual findings the Board, having given careful consideration to all the evidence and to all the relevant statutory provisions, plans, policy statements, and instruments discussed in Chapters 6 and 7 makes a further factual finding. That finding is that all the benefits claimed by NZTA set out in Chapter 1.4 are indeed benefits which will flow from NZTA’s proposal. The Board does not have to prioritise those benefits or assess their respective weight. It is sufficient for it to find, which it does unhesitatingly, in light of the evidence, that those claimed benefits will indeed be a consequence of the motorway Project.
Alternative Routes
[980] Section 171(1)(b) of the Act requires the Board to have particular regard to whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative routes of undertaking the work if:
(a) NZTA does not have an interest in the land sufficient for undertaking the works; or
(b) It is likely that the work will have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
[981] NZTA does not own all the land in respect of which the designations are sought. But s 171(1)(b)(ii) is clearly engaged.
[982] Some of the submitters have argued that the route should be altered because of the adverse effect on their properties. Those individual submissions have been considered previously in this Report (Chapter 10.5) but the Board briefly revisit the ‘alternatives’ issued here.
[983] A number of witnesses, dealing with various sections of the proposed designation, outlined various alternatives which they preferred. These include upgrading of the existing SH1, a limited proposal that sought only to achieve a bypass of Warkworth and different interchange options (including, for example, an interchange at Moirs Hill Road).
[984] For instance, Dr Civil discussed598 an alternative route between Pūhoi and Wellsford via Ahuroa. She considered that this alternative route would result in cost savings, distance and travel time savings and would have less of an environmental impact due to the comparatively level terrain compared to the
598 Statement of evidence, Civil, para 48 – 51.
202
currently proposed Pūhoi to Warkworth section. Other submitters questioned the adequacy of NZTA’s cost-benefit analysis, the priorities of public expenditure, and the wisdom generally of motorways.
[985] Section 7 of the AEE discussed the alternative options considered by NZTA, and this is also addressed in the evidence in chief of Mr Edmonds (NZTA’s witness in relation to alternatives and Project design). The ‘Ahuroa’ option promoted by Dr Civil can be described as similar to ‘Corridor A’ as identified in NZTA’s long list of options. Section 7.3 of the AEE notes that initial work undertaken by NZTA “established that an inland corridor following close to the NAL (North Auckland Line (Railway)) was less favourable than the more direct corridor northwards to Warkworth and then on to Wellsford. Accordingly, the inland option did not progress to the shortlist analysis and the Scheme Assessment for the section of the corridor between Pūhoi and Warkworth was progressed”.599
[986] The history of the consideration of the alternatives is set out in Part 7 of the AEE Report. The Board is satisfied for the reasons set out in Chapter 10.5, that adequate consideration has been given alternatives and that s 171(1)(b) of the Act has been satisfied.
Reasonably Necessary
[987] Section 171(1)(c) of the Act requires the Board to have regard to whether the works are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of NZTA for which the two notices of requirement are sought.
[988] This provision requires the Board to have regard to whether the works are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of NZTA to which the applications relate.
[989] NZTA’s stated Project objectives600 are:
Increase long-term corridor capacity, improve route quality and safety (e.g. gradient, alignment, overtaking), improve freight movement and provide resilience in the wider State Highway network through the addition of a 4-lane route;
Increase travel time consistency and decrease travel times to and from the north end of the Johnstone’s Hill Tunnels and the north end of Warkworth;
Alleviate congestion at Warkworth by providing a Warkworth bypass for through traffic; and
599 AEE, At p137. 600 AEE.
203
Ensure the Warkworth to Wellsford section of the Pūhoi to Wellsford Project is not compromised.
[990] The evidence of NZTA witnesses addressed these objectives and described (from national, regional and local perspectives) how the proposed roading works relate to those four above objectives.
[991] The Board has heard and considered evidence from various submitters to the contrary. Points include NZTA’s alleged failure to address more serious safety and journey time issues, such as the Warkworth to Wellsford (Dome Valley) section of SH1; and only marginal improvements in travel time.
[992] The Board finds that, in terms of s 171(1)(c), the evidence demonstrates the Project is reasonably necessary to assist NZTA to achieve its wider objectives as well as the objectives of the Project.
[993] NZTA submitted that the notices of requirement are reasonably necessary because:
They will be shown on the relevant District Plans (Auckland Council) (section 175), and therefore alert those intending to buy or develop property nearby of the Project’s existence. Therefore it is preferable to achieve the objectives of NZTA through designations, rather than through resource consents;
They assist with the on-going requirement for construction, operation and maintenance of the road as it remains in place irrespective of changes to the local planning rules; and
On a practical level they are needed to enable the compulsory acquisition of land should this be required.
[994] The Board accepts these reasons for the designation mechanism (which really cannot be disputed) and in particular accepts that these aspects of the designation would not (or not as readily) accrue under a resource consent process and ss 104 – 112 approach.
11.2 CONSIDERATION OF MINISTERS’ REASONS FOR MAKING DIRECTION
[995] Under s 149P(1)(a), the Board is required to have regard to the Ministers’ reasons for directing that this matter to be considered by a board of inquiry. These are in no way determinative of the Board’s decision. Nonetheless,
204
they are the fons et origo601 of the Board’s existence and the invocation of Part 6AA.
[996] All sections of this Report, and particularly the critical issues and the principal matters in contention, are referred to in the Ministers’ reasons.602 These include the size of the Project; the volume of earthworks involved; the proposed viaducts and bridges; the nature of the terrain; the effects on visual amenity landscape and noise; the potential economic effects on Warkworth and the North; and importantly, the effects on areas of natural significance within the Pūhoi and Mahurangi catchments being part of the area enshrined in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.
Consideration of information provided by EPA
[997] Under s 149P(1)(b) the Board is required to consider any information provided to it by the EPA under section 149G of the Act.
[998] Under section 149G(2), the EPA has provided to the Board the application and all supporting documentation (in four volumes)603, and all the preliminary reports which it received and considered before making its recommendation to the Ministers. It has also provided all submissions received on the applications. The Board has considered all this material in coming to its conclusion.
[999] The EPA obtained a report under s 149G(3) of the Act from Auckland Council. That report is commented on in this Report. It has been considered, and all matters raised therein addressed.
[1000] The Board has considered all the information provided to it by the EPA under s 149G and taken into account the matters raised therein, in coming to its conclusions.
[1001] The Board received three Section 42A Reports at various stages along the procedural track, dated respectively 24 February, 13 March and 31 March 2014. Those three reports are annexed to the Board’s Report in Volume 2. Arising out of NZTA’s proposals and the various submissions received, the following actual and potential environmental effects, all of which the Board has considered and weighed, were identified:
(a) Traffic and transport
This covers the effects on traffic flows during the construction phase and the effect of construction traffic itself. It also includes (Volume 3, Part 4 of the AEE, Operational Traffic and Transport Effects);
601 The source and origin. 602 The Ministers’ reasons are found at Chapter 3.2 of this Report. 603 Some volumes comprised multiple folders.
205
(b) Noise and vibration
This includes the noise and vibration effects of the motorway when completed and noise generated during the construction phase, including blasting with explosives.;
(c) Air quality
Again, adverse effects during both the construction phase and the operation of the new motorway on adjacent and nearby residences needed consideration;
(d) Landscape and visual
Relevant here are the visual effects of NZTA’s proposal on the Okahu Estuary and on various ONLs in the hill country which the designation traverses. Also relevant is mitigating the visual effects of the motorway by screening the visual effects from rural homes and properties are included;
(e) Contaminated land
This issue, dealt with in Section 20 of the AEE, was not widespread and attracted no submissions. If contaminated land is encountered, the law will require a separate application under the Act;
(f) Urban design
The evidence satisfied the Board that NZTA’s pre-application consultation has led to most urban settlement areas being avoided. Minor adverse urban design effects are evident in Pūhoi village and the Perry and the Carran Road sections of the proposed motorway alignment;
(g) Hydrogeology
The effects on long-term groundwater quality and quantity and the impact on groundwater users needed assessment;
(h) Water quality
The potential effects of construction and operation on water quality needed assessment, particularly in respect of freshwater ecology and marine ecology. Adverse effects of construction water in connection with a fish farm operated by Genesis Aquaculture Ltd, contaminants from a pre-cast concrete yard, construction water management and, in particular, erosion and sediment controls needed examination;
(i) Freshwater ecology
206
Adverse effects on sedimentation in freshwater waterways and possible disruption to fish passage during construction and operation phases and also an assessment of potential habitat loss with stream culverting and soil disposal needed assessment;
(j) Marine and coastal ecology
The AEE and submissions under this head included the adverse effects of sediment discharge on marine ecological areas of value (particularly the Pūhoi and Mahurangi catchments); potential adverse effects from the piers of the Okahu Viaduct; adverse effects from discharge of stormwater from road surfaces; the risk of sedimentation and run-off from open earthworks to marine environments with the possible risk of temporary or permanent habitat loss. Sediment discharge and potentially adverse effects in the Pūhoi Estuary and Mahurangi Harbour on benthic and avian life was a major issue in contention. Expert witnesses disagreed on some aspects of this issue. The Board has given it close and anxious attention;
(k) Terrestrial ecology
Potential adverse effects on terrestrial ecology included vegetation loss and hydrogeological impacts on wetlands; habitat loss and direct mortality of bats as a result of vegetation clearance; direct loss of native forest vegetation; direct loss or mortality of birds, lizards and snails; the creation of edge effects on forest as a result of cutting; soil moisture changes relating to changes in surface hydrology; and the effects of dust on vegetation and wildlife;
(l) Heritage
Modification damage or removal of various known and unknown archaeological sites and heritage structures were raised. These included Pā sites, midden sites, early Pūhoi dwellings, and several United States Army military camp sites in the Perry Road and Wyllie Road sectors;
(m) Cultural
Māori cultural issues, and in particular those relevant matters stipulated in ss 6 and 7 had been identified and raised by NZTA and discussed productively with Hōkai Nuku, the mandated organisation for affected iwi and hapū. Hōkai Nuku is effectively engaged by NZTA as a Treaty partner to the Project. All cultural issues had been appropriately addressed in advance of the Hearing and were not a contested issue;
(n) (n) Economic
207
A number of economic effects (positive rather than negative) were identified in the AEE and by submitting parties, which included benefiting and increasing economic activity in Northland; improving communication links between Auckland and Northland; reducing vehicle operating costs; and other related matters; and
(o) Social
Effects raised by the Project included access; enhanced accessibility and connectivity; community cohesion; adverse social disruption flowing from compulsory property acquisitions; and the effect of construction and traffic flows during both construction and operational phases.
[1002] All of the above environmental issues and effects were correctly identified as arising out of the applications. As is apparent from the second and third Section 42A Reports received by the Board, many of these issues were also raised by the many submissions the Board received. During the course of various facilitated conferences, many of the identified adverse effects were appropriately and satisfactorily mitigated by the scope of conditions agreed by NZTA and the relevant party.
11.3 OVERALL JUDGMENT UNDER PART 2
[1003] The Board considers NZTA’s objectives will meet the s 5 requirements of the Act by:
Enabling people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety;
Providing significant community, social and transport benefits; and
Providing significant infrastructure which will help meet the future transportation needs of the region.
[1004] The Board acknowledges that there will be adverse effects but considers that they can be avoided, remedied and mitigated, both during construction and operation, through the design and the identification of specific mitigation measures which are to be included in the conditions for the designations and consent applications.
[1005] The Board’s overall conclusion in respect of Part 2 matters is that approval of the notices of requirement and resource consents to enable the Project to proceed will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Where relevant, the mandatory s 6 matters have been recognised and provided for. These include in particular the natural character of the coastal environment and wetlands, significant indigenous vegetation and fauna habitats, ONLs and Māori relationships with the land.
208
[1006] Section 7(f) has been carefully considered by the Board. It finds that relevant conditions across all activities covered by the sought consents maintain the quality of the environment and do not impede its enhancement.
[1007] Relevant to the Board’s decisions under ss 104 – 112 to grant consents and under s 171(2) to confirm the requirement sought by NZTA and to impose conditions are the Board’s factual findings.
[1008] Many issues were not contentious. Numerous factual matters were undisputed. The critical and contentious issues before the Board have been dealt with in the previous chapter604.
[1009] NZTA claimed at the outset a number of benefits on which it relied to support its various applications605. Some submitters contested the economic benefits which NZTA claimed. A large number of submitters, particularly from Warkworth and Northland supported NZTA’s proposals and gave evidence which supported the claimed benefits.
[1010] As a result, little of the evidence presented during the 26 days of The Hearing challenged the benefits which NZTA advanced. Rather a number of other issues proved to be contentious. The Board has considered and determined those issues in the previous chapter. It is thus not strictly necessary to catalogue in this chapter which contains the Board’s final appraisal, the various factual findings which have been made in the previous chapter. Those factual findings, of course, form the basis on which the various critical and contentious issues have been resolved.
[1011] All the Board’s findings have been reached as a result of a close attention to the submissions the Board received from all parties and the evidence it heard. As already stated, the number of “principal issues … in contention” (s 149Q(2)(c) and (d)) was low in comparison with the number of issues and effects which the applications raised.606
[1012] Against the backdrop of the above factual findings, the Board has considered the Project with particular regard to the provisions of NZCPS and all Regional Policy Statements and Plans (operative or proposed). It is also satisfied607 that adequate consideration has been given to alternative routes and methods of undertaking the work (s 171(a) and (b)).
[1013] The Board has carefully reviewed all received submissions, the minutes of facilitated conferences, and the conditions which evolved. As is apparent from the relevant sections of this Report, the Board has also applied the Act’s purpose and principles, and has further considered and applied ss 104 and 104D. Returning to s 149P, the Board, as is apparent from the earlier parts of this chapter, has given close consideration to the provisions of the
604 Chapter 10. 605These are set out in section 1.4. 606 Listed in [1001]. 607 Refer Chapter 10.5.
209
Act which inform the statutory powers conferred upon it. It has also (s 149P(1)) had regard to the Ministers’ reasons for making their direction to the Board. It has further considered all the information gathered for it by the Environmental Protection Authority.
[1014] On balance, the Board determines that the management and mitigation methods proposed, the conditions to be imposed, and the positive effects of the Project will achieve sustainable management of the natural and physical resources, and thus the Project is consistent with the purposes and principles of the Act set out in Part 2.
[1015] The Board is satisfied that by granting the relevant consents sought, subject to the conditions attaching to those consents, it is appropriately exercising its statutory powers and has struck the correct balance. The consents granted, subject to the conditions imposed, are consistent with the s 5(2) sustainable management purpose of the Act.
[1016] The Board’s decision is that, subject to the extensive and carefully-crafted conditions which are set out in a separate volume of this Report, NZTA’s NoRs should be confirmed and the various resource consent applications under the Act should be granted.
[1017] The reasons and analysis which led the Board to this decision are apparent from the discussion of various raised issues in previous chapters of this Report. Those chapters contain relevant factual findings germane to the issues discussed. Taking a step back, and considering NZTA’s applications overall and in their entirety, the Board is satisfied that its decision contained in the previous paragraph is appropriate, and in accordance with the statutory provisions and instruments set out in Chapters 5 and 6.
210
12. AFFECTED RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS
[1018] Despite its decision, the Board wants to acknowledge specifically the position of the affected residents and landowners.
[1019] The Board received a number of submissions from land owners and residents along the route of the designation who, quite understandably, were distressed by the prospect of a four-lane motorway passing close to them. In respect of some of those submitters, conditions imposed by the Board will mitigate, so far as such conditions can, the adverse effects, usually minor, which NZTA’s projected motorway will cause.
[1020] As will be apparent from this short chapter, some of the subjective concerns of submitters will not go away. Nonetheless, the Board wants to record those concerns and also express its appreciation to submitters in this category for the unfailingly courteous and helpful way in which they have assisted the Board. Such assistance has included permitting the Board to make site visits; generously showing to the Board during such visits the configuration and attractions of affected properties; and making well crafted, temperate submissions and presentations.
[1021] Seen through the lens of the purpose and principles of the Act, and in particular the inevitability of land use changes as a community develops, the largely subjective concerns of submitters in this category do not give consent authorities much room to manoeuvre. Over the course of 150 years, the face of the land which surrounds NZTA’s proposed designation has changed markedly. Indigenous forest has been replaced by farmlands. Small settlements have expanded in size. Human habitation has increased. The Pūhoi and Mahurangi catchments have changed dramatically.
[1022] During the past 60 years New Zealanders, both urban and rural, have had to adapt to a developing highway network which includes four-lane (or bigger) motorways. Social and economic benefits undoubtedly flow from New Zealand’s roading network. But some neighbourhoods (particularly in urban areas) have been destroyed or changed irrevocably. The older suburb of Thorndon in Wellington; the Symonds Street and Bolton Street cemeteries in Auckland and Wellington respectively; and the areas adjacent to and passed over by the Auckland Harbour Bridge, and the Newmarket Viaduct are a few examples.
[1023] The evidence the Board have heard makes it clear that, in addition to those whose lifestyles and land holdings are adversely impacted, there have been other residents who have sold their properties; or who have assessed that NZTA’s motorway Project is inevitable and that there is little they could do to resist. Other properties on or close to the designation have been acquired by NZTA.
[1024] Leaving to one side the obvious adverse effects, such as disruption during the construction phase and low level but constant noise during the operational phase, the submissions from affected residents and land owners have a common theme. They would much rather the motorway did not
211
come to pass, or if it does, was constructed much further away from their affected property. This stance is, in the Board’s view, not motivated by ‘nimbyism’608 but instead by an abrupt and unanticipated fracturing of hopes and dreams. Some submitters purchased property with a view to living in purpose-built and attractive homes during their retirement. From those properties they have enjoyed tranquillity; the sound of birds and running water; spectacular night skies; and the opportunity to plant and develop peaceful gardens and groves of trees. Instead they have been faced, over the past two years, with the stress and uncertainties of assessing and countering NZTA’s proposals. They will be faced with probably three or four years of construction noises, dust, visible access roads and vistas of bare earth during the construction phase. And the end result of an operational motorway will leave those residents with sometimes a vista and almost certainly always an audible background very different from what was hitherto enjoyed.
[1025] Some of these residents chose sites and built on them deliberately to leave a more noisy, less bucolic, urban environment. Many planned for their retirement. In at least two cases, affected farm properties across which the projected motorway will pass have remained in affected families for three or four generations. Some of these affected people have given distinguished service to New Zealand (or in one case the United States of America) in war zones.
[1026] It is of little comfort to such residents and land owners to tell them that the Act, as a matter of law, does not permit such historical, subjective, or emotional factors to be accorded significant weight. That must be the impassive and detached legal answer. The Board is satisfied from the evidence that before filing its NoR, NZTA, particularly when assessing alternative designation routes, gave as much weight as it could to avoiding significant areas of population and minimising the number of habitations affected. The Board, for its part, has been mindful of the plight of affected land owners and residents and has done its best to mitigate adverse effects to the extent that it is lawfully possible so to do.
[1027] The concerns of many submitters which thread through both opening and closing submissions (including in part the closing submissions of Dr D L Civil dated 27 May 2014 made on behalf of a number of submitters609) include the following:
(a) Common adverse effects are loss of amenity, effects of noise, dust and vibration, visual impact, and the effects on outlook and being overlooked;
608 Not in my backyard. 609 These include Ms W Court, M & L Woodley, E Thaller, A & G Still, J & L Gowing, M Donnellan and family, P
& J Anderson, A Starkey and V Rowsell-Starkey, T Walton and M Mansfield.
212
(b) Other effects relate (for all those submitters living close to Warkworth) to the Hill Street intersection;
(c) The effect on animals and stock;610
(d) The effects of vegetation removal in the Block 15A kauri grove, coupled with the appearance of access and construction roads;
(e) The significant rise in ambient noise from the concluded Project, there being a perception that NZTA’s noise expert, Ms S Wilkening, had an unusual subjective tolerance of urban and construction noise;
(f) A somewhat slanted approach in NZTA’s documentation coupled with inadequate consultation with ‘directly affected parties’;
(g) The inequality of arms, many lay submitters being unable to engage experts and legal counsel to the extent of NZTA; and
(h) Concerns that lack of specificity (see Condition 1 issue) might well result during construction in greater adverse effects than anticipated. Clear and tight conditions were required.
[1028] Some of these issues, being adverse effects which the Board can legitimately consider, have been dealt with in other sections of this Report.611 In fact, Dr Civil’s submission was focused and realistic. It concludes:
“Our hope is that you turn the application down but should you see fit to approve it, we trust that you will ensure the conditions to mitigate the adverse effects are robust.”
[1029] None of the disappointments and fractured dreams which affected land owners and residents have placed before the Board would justify it, for the reasons stated, refusing the application. But it can certainly assure submitters in this category that it has done its best to ensure that the many conditions it has attached are robust and designed to mitigate the many adverse effects which the construction of the proposed motorway and its operation will cause.
610 Mrs Anderson for some years on her rural property has tended to aged and infirm sheep with which she has
a close relationship, in respect of which she harbours doubts that they will easily cope with construction and operational noise.
611 Refer Chapters 9 and 10.
214
APPENDIX 1: PROPOSED DESIGNATION AND INDICATIVE ALIGNMENT
215
216
APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF APPLICATION DOCUMENTATION
217
Project documentation
The Project application documentation comprised a suite of four volumes as set out below —
Volume 1: Resource Management Act 1991 forms;
Volume 2: Assessment of Environmental Effects Report;
Volume 3: Technical reports and supporting documents; and
Volume 4: Plan Set.
Fifteen technical reports were included in Volume 3. These were:
Volume 3 Part 1
001 Air Quality Assessment Report
002 Construction Noise Assessment Report
003 Construction Traffic Assessment Report
004 Construction Water Assessment Report
Volume 3 Part 2
001 Freshwater Ecology Assessment Report
002 Heritage Assessment Report
003 Hydrogeology Assessment Report
004 Marine Ecology Assessment Report
Volume 3 Part 3
001 Terrestrial Ecology Assessment Report
002 Vibration Assessment Report
003 Cultural Effects Assessment Report
004 Landscape and Visual Assessment Report
005 Operational Noise Assessment Report
Volume 3 Part 4
001 Operational Water Assessment Report
002 Transportation and Traffic Assessment Report
218
APPENDIX 3: LIST OF ACTIVITIES SOUGHT
219
Notices of requirement and resource consents applied for under Auckland Council jurisdiction Notices of requirement NSP 33/001 A designation for a project being the construction, operation and maintenance of a
State highway, being the Ara Tūhono Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance — Pūhoi to Warkworth Section.
NSP 33/002 An alteration to a designation (Auckland Council District Plan — Operative Rodney Section 2011 Designation 401) for a project being the construction, operation and maintenance of a State highway, being the Ara Tūhono Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance — Pūhoi to Warkworth Section.
Resource consents NSP 33/003 Land use consent The use of land for land disturbing activities, including
earthworks, roading, tracking and trenching
NSP 33/004 Discharge permit The discharge of stormwater to water as a result of activities undertaken by a highway network operator within the Pūhoi catchment
NSP 33/005 Land use consent and water permit
Use, placement and erection of structures in, on, under, or over the bed of the Pūhoi River and its tributaries for the purposes of a river crossing(s), pipe culverts, bridges and associated erosion control structures and stormwater outlet structures, and any associated diversion of water
NSP 33/006 Water permit Diversion of groundwater
NSP 33/007 Discharge permit The discharge of stormwater to water as a result of activities undertaken by a highway network operator within the Mahurangi catchment
NSP 33/008 Land use consent and water permit
Use, placement and erection of structures in, on, under, or over the bed of the Mahurangi River and its tributaries for the purposes of a river crossing(s), pipe culverts, bridges and associated erosion control structures and stormwater outlet structures, and any associated diversion of water
NSP 33/009 Coastal permit Erection, placement, alteration, extension, removal or demolition of structures or any part of a structure that is fixed in, on, under or over the foreshore or seabed within the coastal marine area
NSP 33/010 Coastal permit Undertake an activity, being the operation of the State Highway
NSP 33/011 Coastal permit Occupation of part of the coastal marine area
NSP 33/012 Coastal permit Disturbance including removal of mangroves in the CPA1 and use of motor vehicles in CPA1
NSP 33/013 Water permit and discharge permit
Augmenting existing culverts draining road side drains under State Highway 1 in vicinity of Hungry Creek
220
NSP 33/014 Water permit and discharge permit
Widening of Moirs Hill Road and increasing impervious surface by between 5,000m2 and 10,000m2
NSP 33/015 Water permit and discharge permit
Discharge from construction access through 1509 State Highway 1 (Lot 1 DP321568) from State Highway 1 just south of Perry Road into the alignment
NSP 33/016 Discharge permit Discharge of contaminants to land and/or water from an industrial or trade premises being a pre-cast concrete yard
NSP 33/017 Discharge permit Discharge of contaminants to air from a mobile rock crusher
221
222
APPENDIX 4: LIST OF SUBMISSIONS
223
Submissions A full list of all submissions received is provided below — Submission Reference number612
Submitter Last Name/ Organisation Submitter First Name
SUBMISSION104686 Agnew Trevor SUBMISSION103629 Aitken Ross and Natalie SUBMISSION105535 Alban Massimo SUBMISSION105774 Alban Rochelle SUBMISSION105089 Anderson Paula SUBMISSION105562 Anderson Joseph SUBMISSION103616 Andrewes Peter SUBMISSION103624 Andrewes Annie SUBMISSION105197 Archer Furniture Group Ltd
SUBMISSION103974 Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited
SUBMISSION105742 Auckland Business Forum SUBMISSION106085 Auckland Council SUBMISSION105685 Auckland Transport SUBMISSION104337 Barber Alan SUBMISSION106435 Beaumont Jason SUBMISSION105675 BetterWorld NZ SUBMISSION105683 Blair Ross SUBMISSION106026 Blair Bruce SUBMISSION105191 Brown Dennis SUBMISSION103621 Burgess Dennis
SUBMISSION105744 Bus and Coach Association New Zealand Inc
SUBMISSION104461 Carter Catherine
SUBMISSION108113 Centre for Urban and Transport Studies (CUTS)
SUBMISSION109061 Chapman Hugh SUBMISSION105772 Christophersen Janet & Colin
SUBMISSION105998 Civil Farm Partnership: representing Ian Civil and Denise Civil
SUBMISSION104524 Connon Dave SUBMISSION105207 Cosmann Richard SUBMISSION105213 Cosmann Tiffany SUBMISSION103679 Court Wendy SUBMISSION103642 Crawford Jeff
612 The submission reference number is a unique number assigned to that submission and is not intended to be sequential.
224
SUBMISSION105454 Cycling Advocates Network Inc SUBMISSION105204 Darnell Helen Margaret SUBMISSION103618 Davis Chris SUBMISSION106436 Davis Hayley-Grace SUBMISSION106438 Davis Kitty SUBMISSION106439 Davis John SUBMISSION106441 Davis Jay SUBMISSION104007 de Pont Karena SUBMISSION106198 Director-General of Conservation
SUBMISSION105199 Dewes Theresa
SUBMISSION106016 DIG Partnership: representing Ian Civil, Dianne Civil and Gillian Dolinski
SUBMISSION104542 Donnellan Max
SUBMISSION106076 Donovan Geraldine SUBMISSION105756 Douglas Paul SUBMISSION105666 Dudley Mark SUBMISSION105769 Dudley Kara Jane SUBMISSION105702 Edgar Francis SUBMISSION105200 Edge David SUBMISSION104849 Faed Margaret
SUBMISSION105621 Federated Farmers of New Zealand (Auckland Province) Incorporated
SUBMISSION106186 Fernbrook Farm SUBMISSION103620 Fieldstone Trust SUBMISSION105722 Fish Alan SUBMISSION106029 Forbes Barbara SUBMISSION103615 Foster Elizabeth
SUBMISSION105695 Frith Farms (2033) Ltd SUBMISSION104975 Garner Graeme SUBMISSION109614 Genesis Aquaculture Ltd SUBMISSION105776 Generation Zero SUBMISSION104006 Gerard Richard SUBMISSION104902 Glasson John SUBMISSION105565 Gordon & Yu Ian & Hua SUBMISSION105371 Gowing Louisa SUBMISSION106013 Gowing John SUBMISSION104667 Graves Robert SUBMISSION106035 Gribble Alan SUBMISSION105193 Hancock Rebecca SUBMISSION105201 Hancock Maureen SUBMISSION105448 Hanne Michael SUBMISSION103617 Hanson Richard SUBMISSION105563 Hatfull Maxine SUBMISSION105602 Haycock Steve SUBMISSION103664 Haymes William
225
SUBMISSION103619 Hemphill Craig SUBMISSION104329 Herrick Roger SUBMISSION104330 Herrick Rosalie SUBMISSION105768 Herrick David SUBMISSION105567 Hoffmann Oliver SUBMISSION105195 Holgate Cathy and Mark SUBMISSION103636 Hooper Maurice SUBMISSION106080 Hopkins Michael SUBMISSION105775 Hungry Creek B & B SUBMISSION104663 Jackson Bryan SUBMISSION105476 Jeffery Sean SUBMISSION105058 Kaipara District Council SUBMISSION104335 Paddison L.G. & V.G. SUBMISSION105653 Ladd Geoff SUBMISSION105566 Laifu Trust SUBMISSION105559 Lee Family Trust SUBMISSION106433 Leigh Michelle SUBMISSION104901 Lichthardt Tami & Michael SUBMISSION104649 MacDonald Allan
SUBMISSION106021
Mahurangi Action Incorporated (established 1974 as Friends of the Mahurangi)
SUBMISSION105295 Mahurangi College
SUBMISSION105770 Mahurangi East Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc
SUBMISSION103652 Mansfield Megan SUBMISSION104336 Marcroft Bill & Susan SUBMISSION105749 Marks Marjorie SUBMISSION105634 Mason David SUBMISSION103662 Massey Maree SUBMISSION103663 Massey Dennis
SUBMISSION105365
Matakana Coast Wine Country, Omaha Beach Community, Matakana Village Businesses & Residents Associations, Warkworth Business Association
SUBMISSION105292 Maurice Vivien SUBMISSION105202 McGreal Jennifer SUBMISSION103805 Minson Robyn SUBMISSION104331 Moon Nicholas and Angela SUBMISSION105777 Morrison Bevan SUBMISSION103614 Munn Dennis SUBMISSION104842 National Road Carriers (Inc)
SUBMISSION106173 New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development
SUBMISSION106232 New Zealand Historic Places Trust: Pouhere Taonga
SUBMISSION105309 Newlove James
226
SUBMISSION103627 Northland District Council, NZ Automobile Association Inc.
SUBMISSION106222 Northland Regional Council
SUBMISSION106221 Northland Regional Council Regional Transport Committee
SUBMISSION106094 Northport Limited and Northland Port Corporation
SUBMISSION105544 NZ Heavy Haulage Association SUBMISSION105192 Oakes John SUBMISSION105280 Omaha Beach Comm INC SUBMISSION105278 Omaha Beach Residents Society INC SUBMISSION104968 Parton Alex and Diane SUBMISSION104008 Payne Greg SUBMISSION104905 Peacock Dell SUBMISSION105300 Pearman William SUBMISSION103625 Pelin Stephanie SUBMISSION104565 Petrie Marie SUBMISSION104591 Petrie Donald SUBMISSION105561 Pickering Andrew SUBMISSION103683 Piper N SUBMISSION105006 Powell Craig
SUBMISSION105196
Pūhoi Close Residents - households from number 12, 16, and 24 Pūhoi Close
SUBMISSION105779 Pūhoi Landcare
SUBMISSION106024 PuMARG (Pūhoi Motorway Access Retention Group) (Now PuMARSi)
SUBMISSION106110 Queen Elizabeth II National Trust SUBMISSION105746 Randerson Janie SUBMISSION105568 Retimana Sarah SUBMISSION104645 Robertson Warwick SUBMISSION105129 Rodgers and family Alex SUBMISSION105734 Rowsell-Starkey Verity SUBMISSION104904 Scanlen Sean SUBMISSION104854 Scott Robert SUBMISSION104582 Shaw Leigh SUBMISSION103685 Shirley Stewart SUBMISSION105986 Simons John SUBMISSION104906 Sinclair Ken
SUBMISSION105741 Slowater Lane and Pūhoi Close Residents Association
SUBMISSION103628 Smith Derek SUBMISSION105217 Smith Grant SUBMISSION105564 Smith David
SUBMISSION104867 Snells Beach Ratepayers Association Inc.
227
SUBMISSION103649 Southern Paprika Ltd
SUBMISSION106011 Southway: The Estate of the late Donald Civil (Ian Civil) and Joan Civil
SUBMISSION105242 Steinkamp Paul SUBMISSION103786 Stevenson Bob and Sue SUBMISSION105506 Stewart Rhys SUBMISSION105194 Still Geoffrey & Angela SUBMISSION105203 Straka Peter SUBMISSION105560 Straka Family Trust SUBMISSION104647 Taylor Diane SUBMISSION104646 Taylor Ian H SUBMISSION104334 Terry Lynda SUBMISSION105691 Thaller Ewald SUBMISSION105771 The Campaign for Better Transport
SUBMISSION103668 The National Trading Company of New Zealand Ltd
SUBMISSION106003
The Puriri Springs Trust: representing Ian Civil, Denise Civil and Michael Tisdall
SUBMISSION103651 Tindall Stephen SUBMISSION103654 Tindall Robert SUBMISSION103653 Tindall Margaret SUBMISSION103657 Tindall Jeremy SUBMISSION103656 Tindall Kate SUBMISSION103655 Tindall Elizabeth SUBMISSION103658 Tindall Benjamin SUBMISSION105246 Turner June SUBMISSION105519 Vision Wellsford SUBMISSION104741 Wade David SUBMISSION105305 Walkington Frank Stanton SUBMISSION106118 Walton Roger SUBMISSION103715 Warkworth Estate Limited SUBMISSION105740 Watercare Services Ltd SUBMISSION105650 Whangarei District Council SUBMISSION105778 White Paul SUBMISSION103818 Williams Roger SUBMISSION103826 Williams Roger SUBMISSION105456 Woodley Elizabeth SUBMISSION105464 Woodley Melvyn
228
APPENDIX 5: SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS
229
Reasons for submission Key words Count Indicative comments
Percentage (%) (Rounded to the nearest percent)
R
easo
ns fo
r sup
port
/ su
ppor
t in
part
Connectivity to and through the district
connectivity 47
The proposal will make it easier to travel through the district and the region. Improves movement of freight. Improves access for tourists. Connects Northland to Airport. Reduces time for transport of farm products. Improves delivery of goods and services to support farmers. Allows connection to Regional Parks. Improves access to business and industry.
40
Economic development and growth
growth 39
The proposal will lead to local, regional, and national growth and development. Includes future growth, community growth, housing growth, economic development, export businesses growth, increased productivity, more people living and working in the region.
33
Safety improvements safety 38 The proposal will be safer than the existing SH1. It will also decrease
response time for emergency services 32
Traffic flow and congestion improvements
traffic 35
The proposal will improve traffic flow. There will be less congestion and delays and shorter travel times. It will allow more efficient traffic flow/movement (less stop start) which will lead to lower travel cost, less pollution and lower energy consumption. The proposal is needed to cope with current traffic volumes and future traffic volume increases.
30
Planning issues planning 22
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) already identified growth for this area. This Project is essential for the development of Warkworth as a town of major growth. ‘Roads of National Significance’ (RONS) is government policy. Upper North Island Freight Story.
19
Effects can be mitigated mitigation 12
Environmental impacts of the proposal can be eliminated, mitigated, or appropriately managed. NZTA's track record (Northern Gateway Project).
10
Best option best option 7 The proposal is the best option. Less pollution than the existing route. 6
230
Reasons for submission Key words Count Indicative comments
Percentage (%) (Rounded to the nearest percent)
General support, including conditions
general 84 No reasons given. Support the motorway. Needs to be built as soon as possible. Support with conditions. 71
231
Rea
sons
for o
ppos
ition
/ ne
utra
l / o
ppos
e in
par
t/ su
ppor
t in
par
t/ ra
nge
of o
pini
ons
Reasons for submission Key words Count Indicative comments
Percentage (%) (Rounded to the nearest percent)
Noise effects & vibration noise 40 Construction and operation of the motorway will result in noise and
vibration effects. 41
There are better alternatives alternatives 32
Alignment goes through property, better located elsewhere. Position of ramps needs further discussion. Funding for local road upgrades. Work on upgrading existing SH1. Bypassing Warkworth.
33
Air quality and dust air 32 The motorway will increase air pollution and odours from dust during
construction and fumes during operation. 33
Visual and landscape effects visual 23 The motorway will act as a visual barrier and will block views. Visual
amenity affected. Lifestyle effects. 23
Health and social effects health 19
Potential effects on drinking water supplies and bore water quality and quantity. Health & safety for pedestrians. Affects communities and multiple families.
19
Bad economics economics 18 The country cannot afford to build the road and it is not economically viable. The benefits do not justify the cost. Money better spent for other projects. Proposed benefits do not add up.
19
Light pollution light 15 Fixed lights and vehicle lights will result in light pollution. 15
232
Reasons for submission Key words Count Indicative comments
Percentage (%)
(Rounded to the
nearest percent)
Effects on water water 15 Stormwater quality and quantity. Groundwater drawdown during construction will impact nearby bores and drinking water supply. Hydrology issues. Water availability. Flooding issues.
15
Effects on the natural environment
ecology 14
The proposal will affect flora and fauna. It will destroy habitat and wildlife corridors. Sediment issues in receiving environment. Lack of information and analysis necessary to understand the actual and potential adverse effects of the motorway on the environment. Inadequate proposed avoidance, remediation and mitigation, offsetting and compensation measures for adverse effects on freshwater, estuarine and marine values. Peer review of modelling in relation to sediment creation required.
14
Proximity proximity 14 The proposal will increase the proximity of the motorway to the dwelling. Privacy encroached. Amenity affected. 14
General environmental impact
env general 10 General environmental impact. 10
Construction traffic effects
construction traffic 10 Construction traffic to and from the Matakana Quarry passing through
Warkworth. Inadequate consideration given to traffic flows. 10
Commercial and retail effects commercial 9 The proposal will impact upon the commercial viability of the existing
business. 9
Property value decrease
property value 6
Properties near the designation have already experienced a decrease in value and the value will further decrease. Properties are difficult to sell so people can't move away if they want to. Financial compensation.
6
233
Reasons for submission Key words Count Indicative comments
Percentage (%)
(Rounded to the
nearest percent)
Inadequate consultation consultation 5 Consultation by NZTA was inadequate and/or misleading. Concerns
were not adequately addressed. 5
Geotechnical geotech 3 Geotech issues — slips and landslides. Northland Allochthon geology. 3
Access affected access 2 Access to property reduced / proposed change is inconvenient to residents / business. Land locking. 2
Coastal environment impacts
coastal 2 This Project does not preserve the natural character of the coastal environment. 2
Rea
sons
for o
ppos
ition
/ ne
utra
l /
oppo
se in
par
t/ su
ppor
t in
part
/ ra
nge
of o
pini
ons
Power networks power 2 Power line relocation required. 2
Resource Management Act (RMA)
RMA 2
No assessment against PAUP. This Project does affect significant areas of indigenous vegetation, notably kauri forests. Negative effect on Outstanding Natural Landscapes. Proposal in current form does not promote the sustainable management purpose of the RMA and do not meet the requirements of Part 2 of the RMA.
2
Cultural, heritage and archaeological effects
cultural 1 Within the motorway alignment area are significant cultural and heritage areas. 1
Waste water system wastewater 1 Septic field area encroachment. 1
Safety impacts unsafe 1 Negative driver and pedestrian safety at existing intersection. 1
234
Greenhouse gas emissions greenhouse 1 Proposal will contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. 1
Gen
eral
/ co
nditi
ons
Have suggestions/ conditions/ mitigation
conditions 97 Have provided suggestions, conditions or mitigation in the submission, including other upgrade options (e.g. Hill St), on and off ramps at Pūhoi and links to other suburbs.
53
235
236
APPENDIX 6: LIST OF REPRESENTATIONS AND EVIDENCE PROVIDED
237
The following parties presented evidence at the Hearing: Applicant — NZTA (represented by Ms Paula Brosnahan and Mr Luke Hinchey) provided the following evidence: Witness Name Topic Mr Tommy Parker Project Context Mr Patrick Kelly Consultation Mr Mark Edmonds Alternatives and Design Mr Andrew Bell Construction and Operational Traffic Ms Siiri Wilkening Construction and Operational Noise Mr Rob Pryor Landscape and Visual Dr Jonathan Williamson
Hydrogeology
Dr Tim Fisher Operational Water Mr Graeme Ridley Construction Water Dr Wayne Donovan Freshwater Ecology Dr Sharon De Luca Marine Ecology Ms Deborah Ryan Air Quality613 Mr James Whitlock Vibration Dr Rod Clough Heritage Ms Moses-Te Kani Cultural Ms Karyn Sinclair Planning Dr Leigh Bull Marine Avifauna Mr Ben Fountain Coastal Processes Modelling614
613 Evidence provided by affidavit and witness not required to be present at the Hearing. 614 Oral evidence only
238
Submitters — the following submitters provided evidence and/or representations:
Submitter Last Name/ Organisation
Submitter First Name
Represented by
Submitter / Witness Topic
Anderson Joseph - Mr Joseph Anderson
Representation
Anderson Paula - Ms Paula Anderson
Representation
Archer Furniture Group Limited
- Mr Lionel Don Representation615
Asia Pacific International Group (NZ) Ltd
Mr Ross Dillion Ms Xian (Sandra) Shen
General
Auckland Business Forum
- Mr Tony Garnier
Representation
Auckland Council
Mr Christian Brown
Mr Christopher Turbott
Planning
Dr Nicholas Waipara
Ecology - Biosecurity
Mr Graham Surrey
Ecology - Freshwater
Mr Matthew Byrne
Sediment
Dr Martin Neale
Ecology - Freshwater
Brown Dennis - Mr Dennis Brown
Representation
Auckland Transport
Mr Gerald Lanning
Mr Peter Clark Traffic and Transport
The Campaign for Better Transport
- Mr Cameron Pitches
Traffic and Transport
Chapman Hugh - Mr Hugh Chapman
Representation
Christophersen J and C Mr Jeremy Brabant
Ms Janet Christophersen
General
Civil Farm Partnership
- Dr Denise Civil General
Court Wendy - Ms Wendy Court
Representation
DIG Partnership
- Dr Denise Civil General
615 Tabled representation
239
Director-General of Conservation
Ms Teall Crossen
Mr Brian Handyside
Sediment
Ms Kristina Hillock
Ecology - Marine
Dr Michael Pingram
Ecology - Freshwater
Dr Antony Beauchamp
Ecology - Terrestrial
Mr Andrew Townsend
Ecology - Terrestrial
Ms Thelma Wilson
Ecology - Moirs Hill Walkway
Mr Robert Scott
Planning
Donnellan Max - Mr Max Donnellan
Representation
Federated Farmers of New Zealand (Auckland Province) Inc
Richard Gardner
Richard Gardner
Representation
Fernbrook Farms
Ms Rebecca Macky
Ms Jody Pike Representation
Garner Graeme - Mr Steven Garner
Representation
Generation Zero
- Mr Luke Christensen
Representation
Genesis Aquaculture Limited
- Mr Peter Wilcox
Representation
Gordon & Yu Ian & Hua - Mr Ian Gordon Representation
Gowing John - Mr John Gowing
Representation
Hoffmann Oliver - Mr Oliver Hoffmann
Representation
Laifu Trust - Mr Ian Gordon Representation
Lee Family Trust
- Mr Keith Lee Representation
Mahurangi Action Incorporated (established 1974 as Friends of the Mahurangi)
- Mr Cimino Cole
Representation
Matakana Coast Wine
- Mr Martin Representation
240
Country, Omaha Beach Community, Matakana Village Businesses and Residents Associations, Warkworth Business Association
Dancy
Mason David - Mr David Mason
General
The National Trading Company of New Zealand
Mr Daniel Sadlier
- Representation
New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development
- Mr Stephen Selwood
Representation
NZ Heavy Haulage
- Mr Jonathan Bhana-Thomson
Representation
New Zealand Historic Places Trust: Pouhere Taonga616
- Ms Beverley Parslow
Archaeology
Northland Regional Council
- Mr John Bain Representation
PuMARG (Pūhoi Motorway Access Retention Group) (now as Pūhoi Motorway Access Retention Society Incorporated (PuMARSI))
Mr Russell Bartlett QC
Mr Vaughan Smith
Planning
Robertson Warwick - Mr Warwick Representation
616 Party did not attend the Hearing and witness not called to give evidence.
241
Robertson Rowsell-Starkey
Verity - Ms Verity Rowsell-Starkey
Representation
Scott Robert - Mr Robert Scott
Representation
Southern Paprika Limited
- Mr Hamish Alexander
Representation
Southway: The Estate of the late Donald Civil (Ian Civil) and Joan Civil
- Dr Denise Civil General
Still Geoffrey & Angela
- Mr Geoffrey Still
Representation
Straka Family Trust
- Ms Julie Straka
Representation617
Thaller Ewald - Mr Ewald Thaller
Representation
Turner June - Ms June Turner
Representation
The Puriri Springs Trust
- Dr Denise Civil General
Vision Wellsford
- Mr Lionel Foster
Representation
Warkworth Estate Limited
- Mr William Endean
Representation
Whangarei District Council
- Representation
White Paul - Mr Paul White Representation
Woodley Melvyn - Mr Melvyn Woodley
Representation
Williams Roger - Mr Roger Williams
Traffic and Transport
617 Tabled representation
242
APPENDIX 7: LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED DURING THE HEARING OR OTHERWISE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD AS RELEVANT TO THE PROPOSAL
243
There are a number of transport related documents that do not have any regulatory function under the RMA, however they are also identified as relevant to the Project as “other matters” under sections 104(1)(c) and 171(1)(d). These include:
Connecting New Zealand 2011
National Freight Demand Study 2008
NZ Transport Agency Statement of Intent 2013 – 2016
2013/14 State Highway Plan
Auckland Regional Road Safety Plan 2009/12
Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding 2009/10 – 2018/19
National Infrastructure Plan 2011
New Zealand Transport Strategy 2008
Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010 – 2040
Safer Journeys: New Zealand’s Road Safety Strategy 2010 – 2010
Upper North Island Freight Story 2013
2012 – 2041 Integrated Transport Programme (Auckland Transport)
Regional Asset Management Plan 2012 – 2015
Auckland Regional Transport Programme 2012 – 2015
Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010
Northland Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010
Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement
Auckland Council Long Term Plan 2012 – 2022
Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding (GPS LTF)
National State Highway Strategy 2007
New Zealand Cycling and Walking Strategy — Getting There On Foot By Cycle 2005
Several other documents have been considered under section 104(1)(c) and 171(1)(d) of the RMA. These include:
The Auckland Plan 2020
Warkworth Structure Plan 2004
Pūhoi Structure Plan 2010
Mahurangi Action Plan 2010
Rodney Local Board Plan
244
New Zealand Urban Design Protocol (2005);
NZTA Environmental Plan (2008);
Wildlife Act 1953;
Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983.
245
246
APPENDIX 8: LIST OF SUBMITTERS WHO URGED THE BOARD TO DECLINE THE APPLICATIONS ON BASIS THAT THERE WERE FEASIBLE OR MORE ECONOMIC ALTERNATIVES
247
List of Submitters who urged the Board to decline the applications on basis that there were feasible or more economic alternatives —
Organisation Name Last Name First Name Anderson Paula Anderson Peter Andrewes Peter Andrewes Annie Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited
Ding Furu
BetterWorld NZ Woodward Bevan The Campaign for Better Transport Pitches Cameron Civil Farm Partnership: representing Ian Civil and Denise Civil
Civil Denise
Court Wendy Cycling Advocates Network Inc Morgan Patrick DIG Partnership: representing Ian Civil, Denise Civil and Gillian Dolinski
Civil Denise
Douglas Paul Fernbrook farm Pike Jody Foster Elizabeth Generation Zero Christensen Luke Gerard Richard Gowing Louisa Gowing John Hoffmann Oliver Marcroft Bill & Susan Piper N Powell Craig The Puriri Springs Trust: representing Ian Civil, Denise Civil and Michael Tisdall
Civil Denise
Scanlen Sean Scott Robert Southway: The Estate of the late Donald Civil (Ian Civil) and Joan Civil
Civil Denise
Stevenson Bob and Sue Still Geoffrey & Angela Walkington Frank Stanton Woodley Elizabeth Woodley Melvyn Woodley Lynette
248
APPENDIX 9: LIST OF SUBMITTERS WHO FILED SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE ON HILL STREET
249
List of lay submitters who filed evidence regarding Hill St: Organisation/ Company Name Last Name First Name
The Campaign for Better Transport Pitches Cameron
Civil Farm Partnership: representing Ian Civil and Denise Civil
Civil Denise
DIG Partnership Civil Denise Mahurangi East Residents and Ratepayers Association618
Scoggins Bruce
The Puriri Springs Trust Civil Denise Southway: The Estate of the late Donald Civil (Ian Civil) and Joan Civil
Civil Denise
Williams Roger List of lay submitters who gave formal submissions/representations on Hill St:
618 Supplementary evidence 619 Mr Steven Garner gave representation on behalf of Mr Graham Garner.
Organisation/ Company Name Last Name First Name
Brown Dennis Centre for Urban & Transport Studies
Willmott David
Garner Graham619 Hoffmann Oliver Williams Roger Mahurangi East Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc
Scoggins Bruce
Matakana Coast Wine Country, Omaha Beach Community, Matakana Village Businesses and Residents Associations, Warkworth Business Association
Dancy Martin
NZ Heavy Haulage Bhana-Thomson Jonathan Still Geoffrey & Angela Southern Paprika Ltd Alexander Hamish Turner June Vision Wellsford Foster Lionel Warkworth Estate Limited Endean William
250
List of lay submitters who raised concerns/conditions regarding Hill St in their written submissions (back in December 2013 during the public notification process) but did not speak at the Hearing: Organisation/ Company Name Last Name First Name Better World NZ Coleman Brian Edge David Faed Margaret Graves Robert Hatfull Maxine Haycock Steve Maurice Vivien Morrison Bevan Papworth Richard Smith Grant Stewart Rhys Taylor Diane Snells Beach Ratepayers Association Inc.
Leversha Lesley
251
252
APPENDIX 10: ROUTES USED TO ASSESS TRAVEL TIMES THROUGH THE HILL STREET INTERSECTION (FIGURE 1 OF MR ANDREW BELL’S EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF)
253
254
APPENDIX 11: PHOTOGRAPH PRODUCED BY MR ROGER WILLIAMS
255
256
APPENDIX 12: LIST OF SUBMITTERS WHO MENTIONED ON/OFF RAMPS
257
The following submitters requested extra motorway on/off ramps/interchanges be constructed along proposed highway —
Organisation/ Company Name Last Name First Name
Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited
Ding Furu
Auckland Business Forum Garnier Tony
Brown Dennis
Centre for Urban and Transport Studies Willmott David
Cosmann Tiffany
Fieldstone Trust Papworth Richard
Hopkins Michael
Jeffery Sean
Ladd Geoff
Leigh Michelle
Macdonald Allan
Maurice Vivien
Matakana Coast Wine Country, Omaha Beach Community, Matakana Village Businesses & Residents Associations, Warkworth Business Association
Dancy Martin
NZ Heavy Haulage Bhana-Thomson Jonathan
Peacock Dell
Sinclair Ken
Williams Roger
Warkworth Estate Limited Endean Bill
258
APPENDIX 13: LAND REQUIREMENT PLANS
PUK
AP
UKA ROAD
KRIPPNER ROAD
MAHUR AN
GI W
EST
ROA
D
HIB
I SC
US
CO
AS
T HIG
HWAY
HUN GRY CREEK RO
AD
MO
IRS
HILL
RO
AD
FID
DLE
RS
HILL
ROA
D
SALEYAR
DS
RO
AD
SC
HO
LLUM
AC
CESS ROAD
FOW
LER
AC
CE
SS
RO
AD
AHUROA ROAD
SHEET 01SHEET 08
SHEET 07
SHEET 06
SHEET 05
SHEET 02
SHEET 04
SHEET 03
DRAWN REVIEWED REVIEWEDDISCIPLINE MANAGER
APPROVED ALLIANCE MANAGER
PŪHOI TO WARKWORTH - FOR RMA APPROVALSARA TŪHONO - PŪHOI TO WELLSFORD
DESIGN REVIEWDESIGNEDSCALE CONTRACT No DRAWING No AMDT
DISCLAIMERThe information shown on this drawing issolely for the purposes of supporting RMAapplications for statutory approvals.All information shown is subjec to review for compliance with approved consentsand the outcomes of final design.
AMD DATE DESIGNREVIEW
REVDD. MGR
APPDA. MGR PURPOSE OF ISSUE / AMENDMENT
Path
: S:\F
urth
er N
orth
- PA
A\3
00 D
esig
n\30
0.5
Tech
nica
l\10
GIS
\MX
D\Z
_RE
PO
RT_
FIG
UR
ES
\PLA
NN
ING
\LR
P_1
00.m
xdD
ate:
29/
08/2
013
Tim
e: 9
:16:
58 A
M o
LAND REQUIREMENT PLAN
SHEET LAYOUT1:25,000 PA3748 LRP-100 0
JW
PKMRHKS TI
MAE0 30/08/13 KS KS TI ISSUE FOR NOR / CONSENT
0 10020050 Meters
LAND TO BE DESIGNATED
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
MORRISON DRIVE
ALBERT R
OA
D
FALLS ROAD
PER
RY
RO
AD
HUDSON ROAD
MANSEL DRIVE
KA
IPAR
A FLATS
ROAD
R ADI A
TA R
OA
D
PHIL
LIP
S R
OA
D
VALE
RI
E CLOSE
MAS ON HEIGHTS
GOATLEY ROAD
CARRAN ROAD
VIV DAVIE
-MAR TI N
DR
IVE
WO
ODC
OC
KS
RO
AD
WO
ODC
OCKS
RO
AD
COWAN BAY
ROAD
WYLLIE ROAD
SHEET 08
SHEET 14
SHEET 11SHEET 13
SHEET 12
SHEET 09
SHEET 10
o
Warkworth
Pūhoi
PŪH
OI R
OA
D
0 10.5 km
KEYLAND TO BE DESIGNATED
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
ÄÄ
1
ÄÄ
1
ÄÄ
1
ÄÄ
1
!
15
!
14
17
74
11
!
3
16
!
6 9
5
12
!
1
!
8
!
2
!
10BILLING ROAD
DRAWN REVIEWED REVIEWEDDISCIP LINE MANAGER AP P ROVED
ALLIANCE MANAGER
P ŪHOI TO WARKWORTH - FOR RMA AP P ROVALSARA TŪHONO - P ŪHOI TO WELLSFORD
DESIGN REVIEWDESIGNED SCALE CONTRACT No DRAWING No AMDT
DISCLAIMERThe info rm a tio n sho wn o n this dra wing isso lely fo r the purpo ses o f suppo rting RMAa pplic a tio ns fo r sta tuto ry a ppro va ls.All info rm a tio n sho wn is sub jec to review fo r c o m plia nc e with a ppro ved c o nsentsa nd the o utc o m es o f fina l design.
AMD DATE DESIGNREVIEW
REVDD. MGR
AP P DA. MGR P URP OSE OF ISSUE / AMENDMENT
Path:
S:\Fu
rther
North
- PAA
\300 D
esign
\300.5
Tech
nical\
10 G
IS\M
XD\Z_
REPO
RT_F
IGUR
ES\P
LANN
ING\
LRP_
101_
REV2
.mxd
Date:
19/06
/2014
Time
: 3:56
:23 P
M o
LAND REQUIREMENT P LANSHEET 1 OF 14
1:4,000 P A3748 LRP -101 2JW
CD TI0 30/08/13 KS KS TI ISSUE FOR NOR / CONSENT
0 100 20050 Meters
Okahu CreekCMA
JOINS DWG LRP -102
ÄÄ1
KEYLAND TO BE DESIGNATED P ROP ERTY BOUNDARIES
P KMRHMAE1 06/04/14 KS KS TI LEGAL SUBMISSION REMOVAL OF SEC 64 BLK III WAIWERA SD
2 05/07/14 CD CD TI P ROP ERTY ACQUISITION
LAND TO BE DESIGNATED TOTAL LAND1 Pt Lot 2 DP 96268 Her Majesty the Queen 0.0728 0.07282 ROAD Her Majesty the Queen 0.13163 Sec 2 SO 414559 Her Majesty the Queen 0.2265 0.35194 Pt Lot 1 DP 55676 Her Majesty the Queen 4.2853 4.28535 Pt Sec 8 Blk III Waiwera SD Her Majesty the Queen 2.1704 41.55066 Reclamation Deposited Plan 55676 Land Information New Zealand 0.1245 0.12457 Lot 1 DP 198509 Thelma Christina Hallett and Anthony Christopher Edward 1.0462 1.04628 Lot 3 DP 339166 Dickson Yachting Limited 0.3273 83.22959 Lot 6 DP 98771 Peter Harold Multrus and Suzanne Faye Multrus 0.4629 0.462910 ROAD Auckland Council 0.208511 Lot 1 DP 339166 John Lawrence Straka, Pamela Joan Straka, Matthew Lawrie Short 2.0290 10.060412 Lot 2 DP 205339 Her Majesty the Queen 1.7518 1.751813 left intentionally blank14 Allot 11A PSH OF Puhoi John Lawrence Straka, Pamela Joan Straka, Matthew Lawrie Short 0.2646 0.776515 Allot 3A PSH OF Puhoi Puhoi Road Farms Limited 0.2657 1.995116 Sec 65 Blk III Waiwera SD Puhoi Road Farms Limited 2.9517 2.951717 Pt Sec 3 Blk III Waiwera SD Puhoi Road Farms Limited 22.6934 50.2617
PROPERTY REFERENCE NUMBER LEGAL DESCRIPTION OWNERSHIP AREA OF LAND (HA)
NOR 1
34
!
25
!
38
24
17!
39
!
22
!
21
43
20
!
37
!
33
31
16
!
26
36
!
28
29
!
40
35
!
18
!
42
!
23
!
32
!
27
!
30
!
41
HUNGRY
CREE
KRO
ADDRAWN REVIEWED REVIEWED
DISCIP LINE MANAGERAP P ROVED ALLIANCE MANAGER
P ŪHOI TO WARKWORTH - FOR RMA AP P ROVALSARA TŪHONO - P ŪHOI TO WELLSFORD
DESIGN REVIEWDESIGNED SCALE CONTRACT No DRAWING No AMDT
DISCLAIMERThe info rm a tio n sho wn o n this dra wing isso lely fo r the purpo ses o f suppo rting RMAa pplic a tio ns fo r sta tuto ry a ppro va ls.All info rm a tio n sho wn is sub jec to review fo r c o m plia nc e with a ppro ved c o nsentsa nd the o utc o m es o f fina l design.
AMD DATE DESIGNREVIEW
REVDD. MGR
AP P DA. MGR P URP OSE OF ISSUE / AMENDMENT
Path:
S:\F
urthe
r Nor
th - P
AA\30
0 Des
ign\30
0.5 Te
chnic
al\10
GIS
\MXD
\Z_RE
PORT
_FIG
URES
\PLA
NNIN
G\LR
P_10
2.mxd
Date:
26/06
/2014
Time
: 10:5
5:17 A
M o
LAND REQUIREMENT P LANSHEET 2 OF 14
1:4,000 P A3748 LRP -102 0JW
KS TI0 30/08/13 KS KS TI ISSUE FOR NOR / CONSENT
0 100 20050 Meters
Pūhoi River
KEYLAND TO BE DESIGNATED P ROP ERTY BOUNDARIES
JOINS DWG LRP -103
JOIN
S DW
G LR
P -10
1PŪ HOI ROAD
PŪ HOI CLOSE
COOK ROAD (UNFORMED)
48
!
44
!
47!
45
!
50
!
4946
43
ÄÄ1
!
48
!
19
!
21
!
2217
P KMRHMAE
LAND TO BE DESIGNATED TOTAL LAND17 Pt Sec 3 Blk III Waiwera SD Puhoi Road Farms Limited 22.6934 50.261718 Pt Sec 45 Blk III Waiwera SD Puhoi Road Farms Limited 0.0020 0.002019 Pt Sec 44 Blk III Waiwera SD Puhoi Road Farms Limited 0.0056 0.005620 Pt Sec 12 Blk III Waiwera SD Puhoi Road Farms Limited 1.2479 13.033321 Pt Sec 67 Blk III Waiwera SD Puhoi Road Farms Limited 0.2423 0.242322 Pt Sec 43 Blk III Waiwera SD Puhoi Road Farms Limited 0.2915 0.291523 Sec 46 Blk III Waiwera SD Puhoi Road Farms Limited 0.0683 0.068324 Pt Sec 17 Blk III Waiwera SD Puhoi Road Farms Limited 1.3687 1.368725 Sec 62 Blk III Waiwera SD Puhoi Road Farms Limited 0.0004 0.006626 Sec 55 Blk III Waiwera SD Puhoi Road Farms Limited 0.0239 0.025327 ROAD Auckland Council 0.553328 Pt Okahu Department of Conservation 0.2216 0.404229 Sec 63 Blk III Waiwera SD Her Majesty the Queen 0.2843 0.417330 RIVER Department of Conservation 0.352431 Pt Okahu Maureen Brophy 5.0465 5.046532 Lot 1 DP 67330 Helenia Frances Browne, Bernard Patrick Schollum, Brian Joseph Schollum and Desmond William Schollum 0.0534 0.053433 Lot 1 DP 43288 Helenia Frances Browne, Bernard Patrick Schollum, Brian Joseph Schollum and Desmond William Schollum 0.0922 0.092234 Pt Okahu Desmond William Schollum 0.7679 0.767935 Pt Okahu Ross Michael Tolhopf and Coralie Gail Tolhopf 1.2874 3.635636 Sec 1 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 5.9944 5.994437 Sec 34 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Ross Michael Tolhopf and Coralie Gail Tolhopf 0.0051 0.005138 Sec 61 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Ross Michael Tolhopf and Coralie Gail Tolhopf 0.0164 0.016439 Sec 33 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.1593 0.159340 Sec 50 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.1141 0.114141 ROAD Auckland Council 2.305742 Sec 32 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.0379 0.037943 Lot 1 DP 203390 Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 37.0962 37.096244 Sec 25 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.0003 0.000345 Sec 56 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.0228 0.022846 Sec 55 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.0782 0.078247 Sec 57 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.0283 0.028348 Sec 54 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.5767 0.576749 Sec 52 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.0012 0.001250 Sec 53 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.0025 0.0025
NOR 1PROPERTY REFERENCE
NUMBER LEGAL DESCRIPTION OWNERSHIP AREA OF LAND (HA)
54
59
56
57
43 53
55
!
48
!
58
!
41
DRAWN REVIEWED REVIEWEDDISCIPLINE MANAGER
APPROVED ALLIANCE MANAGER
PŪHOI TO WARKWORTH - FOR RMA APPROVALSARA TŪHONO - PŪHOI TO WELLSFORD
DESIGN REVIEWDESIGNEDSCALE CONTRACT No DRAWING No AMDT
DISCLAIMERThe information shown on this drawing issolely for the purposes of supporting RMAapplications for statutory approvals.All information shown is subjec to review for compliance with approved consentsand the outcomes of final design.
AMD DATE DESIGNREVIEW
REVDD. MGR
APPDA. MGR PURPOSE OF ISSUE / AMENDMENT
Path
: S:\F
urth
er N
orth
- PA
A\3
00 D
esig
n\30
0.5
Tech
nica
l\10
GIS
\MX
D\Z
_RE
PO
RT_
FIG
UR
ES
\PLA
NN
ING
\LR
P_1
03.m
xdD
ate:
29/
08/2
013
Tim
e: 8
:45:
50 A
M o
LAND REQUIREMENT PLAN
SHEET 3 OF 141:4,000 PA3748 LRP-103 0
JWKS TI0 30/08/13 KS KS TI ISSUE FOR NOR / CONSENT
0 100 20050 Meters
KEYLAND TO BE DESIGNATED
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
JOIN
S D
WG
LRP
-104JO
INS
DW
G L
RP
-102
43
48
!
51
!
47
!
45
!
50
!
49
!
46
ÄÄ
1
!
52
LAND TO BE DESIGNATED TOTAL LAND41 ROAD Auckland Council 2.305743 Lot 1 DP 203390 Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 37.0962 37.096245 Sec 56 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.0228 0.022846 Sec 55 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.0782 0.078247 Sec 57 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.0283 0.028348 Sec 54 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.5767 0.576749 Sec 52 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.0012 0.001250 Sec 53 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.0025 0.002551 Lot 2 DP 203390 Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.0266 0.026652 Sec 51 Blk XV Mahurangi SD Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.0066 0.006653 Lot 1 DP 163758 Her Majesty the Queen 5.1333 5.133354 Lot 2 DP 163758 Frederick Leslie Gillies and Margaret Kay Gillies 4.6336 4.633655 Lot 1 DP 157269 Her Majesty the Queen 6.2943 6.294356 Lot 2 DP 157269 Her Majesty the Queen 3.4723 3.472357 Lot 1 DP 203389 Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 15.1848 36.905158 Pt Okahu Her Majesty the Queen 0.0860 0.086059 Lot 2 DP 74814 Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 20.4841 39.9506
NOR 1PROPERTY REFERENCE
NUMBERLEGAL DESCRIPTION OWNERSHIP
AREA OF LAND (HA)
PKMRH
MAE
61
75
59
!
70
!
71
60
!
67
73
!
69
!
68
!
72
!
74
MAHURANGI
WES
T ROAD
DRAWN REVIEWED REVIEWEDDISCIPLINE MANAGER
APPROVED ALLIANCE MANAGER
PŪHOI TO WARKWORTH - FOR RMA APPROVALSARA TŪHONO - PŪHOI TO WELLSFORD
DESIGN REVIEWDESIGNEDSCALE CONTRACT No DRAWING No AMDT
DISCLAIMERThe information shown on this drawing issolely for the purposes of supporting RMAapplications for statutory approvals.All information shown is subjec to review for compliance with approved consentsand the outcomes of final design.
AMD DATE DESIGNREVIEW
REVDD. MGR
APPDA. MGR PURPOSE OF ISSUE / AMENDMENT
Path
: S:\F
urth
er N
orth
- PA
A\3
00 D
esig
n\30
0.5
Tech
nica
l\10
GIS
\MX
D\Z
_RE
PO
RT_
FIG
UR
ES
\PLA
NN
ING
\LR
P_1
04.m
xdD
ate:
29/
08/2
013
Tim
e: 8
:50:
31 A
M o
LAND REQUIREMENT PLAN
SHEET 4 OF 141:4,000 PA3748 LRP-104 0
JWKS TI0 30/08/13 KS KS TI ISSUE FOR NOR / CONSENT
0 100 20050 Meters
KEYLAND TO BE DESIGNATED
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
JOIN
S DW
G LR
P-105JO
INS
DW
G L
RP
-103
61
!
62
!
65
!
66
!
60
67
64!
63
ÄÄ
1
PKMRH
MAE
LAND TO BE DESIGNATED TOTAL LAND59 Lot 2 DP 74814 Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 20.4841 39.950660 Lot 1 DP 74814 Fernbrook Farm Limited 15.3984 46.659861 Pt Allot 116 PSH OF Puhoi Richard Brimble Hyssett and Gaylene Iris Robyn Hyssett 4.0367 4.036762 Allot 186 PSH OF Puhoi Richard Brimble Hyssett and Gaylene Iris Robyn Hyssett 0.0101 0.010163 Lot 6 DP 52247 Richard Brimble Hyssett and Gaylene Iris Robyn Hyssett 0.0001 0.000164 Lot 4 DP 52247 Fernbrook Farm Limited 0.0377 0.037765 Lot 3 DP 52247 Richard Brimble Hyssett and Gaylene Iris Robyn Hyssett 0.0071 0.007166 Lot 7 DP 52247 Richard Brimble Hyssett and Gaylene Iris Robyn Hyssett 0.0220 0.022067 Lot 5 DP 52247 Fernbrook Farm Limited 0.5792 0.579268 Pt Allot 184 PSH OF Puhoi Fernbrook Farm Limited 0.2293 0.259369 Allot 409 PSH OF Puhoi Fernbrook Farm Limited 1.0114 1.011470 Lot 1 DP 52247 Fernbrook Farm Limited 0.1811 0.181171 Pt Allot 116 PSH OF Puhoi Fernbrook Farm Limited 0.0395 0.039572 ROAD Her Majesty the Queen 0.140773 Lot 1 DP 50685 Fernbrook Farm Limited 30.5217 69.279774 STREAM (Non tidal) Presumptive ownership right to adjoining owners 0.375675 Lot 6 DP 87207 Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 48.0137 101.7900
NOR 1PROPERTY REFERENCE
NUMBERLEGAL DESCRIPTION OWNERSHIP
AREA OF LAND (HA)
75
77
76a
DRAWN REVIEWED REVIEWEDDISCIPLINE MANAGER
APPROVED ALLIANCE MANAGER
PŪHOI TO WARKWORTH - FOR RMA APPROVALSARA TŪHONO - PŪHOI TO WELLSFORD
DESIGN REVIEWDESIGNEDSCALE CONTRACT No DRAWING No AMDT
DISCLAIMERThe information shown on this drawing issolely for the purposes of supporting RMAapplications for statutory approvals.All information shown is subjec to review for compliance with approved consentsand the outcomes of final design.
AMD DATE DESIGNREVIEW
REVDD. MGR
APPDA. MGR PURPOSE OF ISSUE / AMENDMENT
Path
: S:\F
urth
er N
orth
- PA
A\3
00 D
esig
n\30
0.5
Tech
nica
l\10
GIS
\MX
D\Z
_RE
PO
RT_
FIG
UR
ES
\PLA
NN
ING
\LR
P_1
05.m
xdD
ate:
29/
08/2
013
Tim
e: 8
:51:
57 A
M oLAND REQUIREMENT PLAN
SHEET 5 OF 141:4,000 PA3748 LRP-105 0
JWKS TI0 30/08/13 KS KS TI ISSUE FOR NOR / CONSENT
0 100 20050 Meters
KEYLAND TO BE DESIGNATED
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
JOIN
S DW
G LRP-1
06
JOIN
S D
WG
LR
P-10
4
NOTE:FOR 76b REFER LRP-106FOR 76c REFER LRP-107
LAND TO BE DESIGNATED TOTAL LAND75 Lot 6 DP 87207 Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 48.0137 101.7900
76a,b,c Lot 2 DP 199142 Iria Anne Friconnet 1.8247 74.419877 Lot 8 DP 344037 Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 31.4967 36.3532
NOR 1PROPERTY REFERENCE
NUMBERLEGAL DESCRIPTION OWNERSHIP
AREA OF LAND (HA)
PKMRH
MAE
75
!
82!
83
79
80
87
86
77
78
!
81
!76b
MOIRSHILL ROAD
DRAWN REVIEWED REVIEWEDDISCIP LINE MANAGER AP P ROVED
ALLIANCE MANAGER
P ŪHOI TO WARKWORTH - FOR RMA AP P ROVALSARA TŪHONO - P ŪHOI TO WELLSFORD
DESIGN REVIEWDESIGNED SCALE CONTRACT No DRAWING No AMDT
DISCLAIMERThe in form a tion shown on this dra win g issolely for the purposes of supportin g RMAa pplic a tion s for sta tutory a pprova ls.All in form a tion shown is sub jec to review for c om plia n c e with a pproved c on sen tsa n d the outc om es of fin a l design .
AMD DATE DESIGNREVIEW
REVDD. MGR
AP P DA. MGR P URP OSE OF ISSUE / AMENDMENT
Path:
\z-a
kl-fas
02\pu
hoi\F
urthe
r Nort
h - PA
A\300
Des
ign\30
0.5 Te
chnic
al\10
GIS\
MXD\
Z_RE
PORT
_FIG
URES
\PLAN
NING
\LRP_
106.m
xdDa
te: 19
/06/20
14 Ti
me: 4
:52:59
PM o
LAND REQUIREMENT P LANSHEET 6 OF 14
1:4,000 P A3748 LRP -106 0JW
KS TI0 30/08/13 KS KS TI ISSUE FOR NOR / CONSENT
0 100 20050 Meters
KEYLAND TO BE DESIGNATED P ROP ERTY BOUNDARIES
JOINS
DWG
LRP -1
08
JOINS DWG LRP -105
JOINS DWG LRP -107
NOTE:FOR 76a REFER LRP -105FOR 76c REFER LRP -107
P KMRHMAE
LAND TO BE DESIGNATED TOTAL LAND75 Lot 6 DP 87207 Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 48.0137 101.7900
76a,b,c Lot 2 DP 199142 Iria Anne Friconnet 1.8247 74.419877 Lot 8 DP 344037 Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 31.4967 36.353278 Lot 1 DP 334477 Marie Edith Turner and Peter Douglas Lawson 1.0430 1.043079 Lot 2 DP 334477 Her Majesty the Queen 2.4886 2.488680 Lot 3 DP 334477 Earl Aaron Berry and Andrea Marcelle Fox 2.4566 2.456681 ROAD Auckland Council 3.129182 Pt Allot NW72 PSH OF Ahuroa Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.1571 0.157183 Allot 124 PSH OF Ahuroa Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.5347 0.534786 Pt Allot 75 PSH OF Ahuroa Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 31.1778 46.472087 Pt Allot 75 PSH OF Ahuroa Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 52.8436 135.9643
NOR 1PROPERTY REFERENCE
NUMBER LEGAL DESCRIPTION OWNERSHIP AREA OF LAND (HA)
!
76c
86
75
80
86
77
!
85
!
84
!
81
!76b
SH 1
MOIRSH ILL
ROAD
DRAWN REVIEWED REVIEWEDDISCIPLINE MANAGER
APPROVED ALLIANCE MANAGER
PŪHOI TO WARKWORTH - FOR RMA APPROVALSARA TŪHONO - PŪHOI TO WELLSFORD
DESIGN REVIEWDESIGNED SCALE CONTRACT No DRAWING No AMDT
DISCLAIMERThe inform a tion shown on this d ra wing issolely for the p urp oses of sup p orting RMAa p p lic a tions for sta tutory a p p rova ls.All inform a tion shown is sub jec to review for c om p lia nc e with a p p roved c onsentsa nd the outc om es of fina l d esign.
AMD DATE DESIGNREVIEW
REVDD. MGR
APPDA. MGR PURPOSE OF ISSUE / AMENDMENT
Path:
S:\F
urthe
r Nor
th - P
AA\30
0 Des
ign\30
0.5 Te
chnic
al\10
GIS
\MXD
\Z_RE
PORT
_FIG
URES
\PLA
NNIN
G\LR
P_10
7_RE
V1.m
xdDa
te: 4/
06/20
14 Ti
me: 4
:20:44
PM o
LAND REQ UIREMENT PLANSHEET 7 OF 14
1:4,000 PA3748 LRP-107 1JW
KS TI0 30/08/13 KS KS TI ISSUE FOR NOR / CONSENT
0 100 20050 Meters
KEYLAND TO BE DESIGNATED PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
JOINS DWG LRP-106
NOTE:FOR 76a REFER LRP-105
PKMRHMAE1 04/06/14 KS KS TI LEGAL SUBMISSION AMENDMENT TO DESIGNATION BOUNDARY MOIRS HILL ROAD
LAND TO BE DESIGNATED TOTAL LAND75 Lot 6 DP 87207 Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 48.0137 101.7900
76a,b,c Lot 2 DP 199142 Iria Anne Friconnet 1.8247 74.419877 Lot 8 DP 344037 Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 31.4967 36.353281 ROAD Auckland Council 3.107584 Pt Allot 431 PSH OF Mahurangi Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.0783 0.078385 Pt Allot E157 PSH OF Ahuroa Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.4009 33.567486 Pt Allot 75 PSH OF Ahuroa Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 31.1778 46.4720
NOR 1PROPERTY REFERENCE
NUMBER LEGAL DESCRIPTION OWNERSHIP AREA OF LAND (HA)
90
!
91
!
94
89
93
87
86
88
92a
DRAWN REVIEWED REVIEWEDDISCIPLINE MANAGER
APPROVED ALLIANCE MANAGER
PŪHOI TO WARKWORTH - FOR RMA APPROVALSARA TŪHONO - PŪHOI TO WELLSFORD
DESIGN REVIEWDESIGNEDSCALE CONTRACT No DRAWING No AMDT
DISCLAIMERThe information shown on this drawing issolely for the purposes of supporting RMAapplications for statutory approvals.All information shown is subjec to review for compliance with approved consentsand the outcomes of final design.
AMD DATE DESIGNREVIEW
REVDD. MGR
APPDA. MGR PURPOSE OF ISSUE / AMENDMENT
Path
: S:\F
urth
er N
orth
- PA
A\3
00 D
esig
n\30
0.5
Tech
nica
l\10
GIS
\MX
D\Z
_RE
PO
RT_
FIG
UR
ES
\PLA
NN
ING
\LR
P_1
08.m
xdD
ate:
29/
08/2
013
Tim
e: 9
:03:
52 A
M o
LAND REQUIREMENT PLAN
SHEET 8 OF 141:4,000 PA3748 LRP-108 0
JWKS TI0 30/08/13 KS KS TI ISSUE FOR NOR / CONSENT
0 100 20050 Meters
KEYLAND TO BE DESIGNATED
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
JOIN
S DW
G LR
P-106
JOIN
S DW
G LR
P-109
NOTE:FOR 92b REFER LRP-109
LAND TO BE DESIGNATED TOTAL LAND86 Pt Allot 75 PSH OF Ahuroa Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 31.1778 46.472087 Pt Allot 75 PSH OF Ahuroa Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 52.8436 135.964388 Allot 415 PSH OF Mahurangi Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 9.0888 17.492489 Pt Allot M158 PSH OF Mahurangi Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 5.5344 17.343990 Pt Allot N158 PSH OF Mahurangi Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 4.6982 22.789291 Allot 147 PSH OF Ahuroa Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.7569 5.4505
92a,b Allot 78 PSH OF Ahuroa Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 14.1440 32.982393 Lot 4 DP 346523 Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 10.2653 61.880094 Allot 148 PSH OF Ahuroa Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.9080 2.4141
NOR 1PROPERTY REFERENCE
NUMBERLEGAL DESCRIPTION OWNERSHIP
AREA OF LAND (HA)
PKMRH
MAE
9594
97
93 99
96!
98
92a
!
92b
!
101a
DRAWN REVIEWED REVIEWEDDISCIP LINE MANAGER AP P ROVED
ALLIANCE MANAGER
P ŪHOI TO WARKWORTH - FOR RMA AP P ROVALSARA TŪHONO - P ŪHOI TO WELLSFORD
DESIGN REVIEWDESIGNED SCALE CONTRACT No DRAWING No AMDT
DISCLAIMERThe info rm a tio n sho wn o n this dra wing isso lely fo r the purpo ses o f suppo rting RMAa pplic a tio ns fo r sta tuto ry a ppro va ls.All info rm a tio n sho wn is sub jec to review fo r c o m plia nc e with a ppro ved c o nsentsa nd the o utc o m es o f fina l design.
AMD DATE DESIGNREVIEW
REVDD. MGR
AP P DA. MGR P URP OSE OF ISSUE / AMENDMENT
Path:
S:\Fu
rther
North
- PAA
\300 D
esign
\300.5
Tech
nical\
10 G
IS\M
XD\Z_
REPO
RT_F
IGUR
ES\P
LANN
ING\
LRP_
109_
REV1
.mxd
Date:
19/06
/2014
Time
: 4:12
:48 P
M o
LAND REQUIREMENT P LANSHEET 9 OF 14
1:4,000 P A3748 LRP -109 1JW
CD TI0 30/08/13 KS KS TI ISSUE FOR NOR / CONSENT
0 100 20050 Meters
KEYLAND TO BE DESIGNATED P ROP ERTY BOUNDARIES
JOIN
S DWG
LRP -
108
JOIN
S DWG
LRP-
111
JOINS DWG LRP -110
NOTE:FOR 101b REFER LRP -111
P KMRHMAE1 05/07/14 CD CD TI P ROP ERTY ACQUISITION
LAND TO BE DESIGNATED TOTAL LAND92a,b Allot 78 PSH OF Ahuroa Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 14.1440 32.9823
93 Lot 4 DP 346523 Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 10.2653 61.880094 Allot 148 PSH OF Ahuroa Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 0.9080 2.414195 Allot 97 PSH OF Ahuroa Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 7.4550 77.092696 Lot 4 DP 206041 Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 22.9336 33.486597 Lot 1 DP 321568 Her Majesty the Queen 20.8312 81.782098 STREAM (Non tidal) Presumptive ownership right to adjoining owners 0.620699 Lot 8 DP 113848 Grahame Gilbert Power and Mary Anne Cecelia Power 17.9589 22.9070
101a,b Lot 1 DP 198843 Her Majesty the Queen 15.5127 38.6325
NOR 1PROPERTY REFERENCE
NUMBER LEGAL DESCRIPTION OWNERSHIP AREA OF LAND (HA)
97
96
DRAWN REVIEWED REVIEWEDDISCIP LINE MANAGER AP P ROVED
ALLIANCE MANAGER
P ŪHOI TO WARKWORTH - FOR RMA AP P ROVALSARA TŪHONO - P ŪHOI TO WELLSFORD
DESIGN REVIEWDESIGNED SCALE CONTRACT No DRAWING No AMDT
DISCLAIMERThe info rm a tio n sho wn o n this dra wing isso lely fo r the purpo ses o f suppo rting RMAa pplic a tio ns fo r sta tuto ry a ppro va ls.All info rm a tio n sho wn is sub jec to review fo r c o m plia nc e with a ppro ved c o nsentsa nd the o utc o m es o f fina l design.
AMD DATE DESIGNREVIEW
REVDD. MGR
AP P DA. MGR P URP OSE OF ISSUE / AMENDMENT
Path:
S:\Fu
rther
North
- PAA
\300 D
esign
\300.5
Tech
nical\
10 G
IS\M
XD\Z_
REPO
RT_F
IGUR
ES\P
LANN
ING\
LRP_
110_
REV1
.mxd
Date:
19/06
/2014
Time
: 4:25
:49 P
M o
LAND REQUIREMENT P LANSHEET 10 OF 14
1:4,000 P A3748 LRP -110 1JW
CD TI0 30/08/13 KS KS TI ISSUE FOR NOR / CONSENT
0 100 20050 Meters
KEYLAND TO BE DESIGNATED P ROP ERTY BOUNDARIES
JOINS DWG LRP -109ÄÄ1
P KMRHMAE
LAND TO BE DESIGNATED TOTAL LAND96 Lot 4 DP 206041 Asia Pacific International Group (New Zealand) Limited 22.9336 33.486597 Lot 1 DP 321568 Her Majesty the Queen 20.8312 81.7820
NOR 1PROPERTY REFERENCE
NUMBER LEGAL DESCRIPTION OWNERSHIP AREA OF LAND (HA)
1 05/07/14 CD CD TI P ROP ERTY ACQUISITION
!
104b
!
106a
110
108
103
102
100
112
105
111
!
104a
107
99
109
!
106b
101a
101b
WYLLIE ROAD
PERRY ROAD
DRAWN REVIEWED REVIEWEDDISCIP LINE MANAGER
AP P ROVED ALLIANCE MANAGER
P ŪHOI TO WARKWORTH - FOR RMA AP P ROVALSARA TŪHONO - P ŪHOI TO WELLSFORD
DESIGN REVIEWDESIGNED SCALE CONTRACT No DRAWING No AMDT
DISCLAIMERThe info rm a tio n sho wn o n this dra wing isso lely fo r the purpo ses o f suppo rting RMAa pplic a tio ns fo r sta tuto ry a ppro va ls.All info rm a tio n sho wn is sub jec to review fo r c o m plia nc e with a ppro ved c o nsentsa nd the o utc o m es o f fina l design.
AMD DATE DESIGNREVIEW
REVDD. MGR
AP P DA. MGR P URP OSE OF ISSUE / AMENDMENT
Path:
S:\F
urthe
r Nort
h - PA
A\30
0 Des
ign\30
0.5 Te
chnic
al\10
GIS
\MXD
\Z_RE
PORT
_FIG
URES
\PLA
NNIN
G\LR
P_11
1_RE
V2.m
xdDa
te: 26
/06/20
14 Ti
me: 1
1:01:1
0 AM o
LAND REQUIREMENT P LANSHEET 11 OF 14
1:4,000 P A3748 LRP -111 2JW
CD TI0 30/08/13 KS KS TI ISSUE FOR NOR / CONSENT
0 100 20050 Meters
KEYLAND TO BE DESIGNATED P ROP ERTY BOUNDARIES
JOIN
S DW
G LR
P-10
9
JOIN
S DW
G LR
P-11
2
P KMRHMAE1 20/05/14 KS KS TI DESIGNATION REVISED AT KAURI FOREST
2 05/07/14 CD CD TI P ROP ERTY ACQUISITION
LAND TO BE DESIGNATED TOTAL LAND99 Lot 8 DP 113848 Grahame Gilbert Power and Mary Anne Cecelia Power 17.9589 22.9070
100 Lot 7 DP 113847 Her Majesty the Queen 3.1513 4.9988101a,b Lot 1 DP 198843 Her Majesty the Queen 15.5026 38.6325
102 Lot 2 DP 162354 Her Majesty the Queen 3.7703 3.8270103 Lot 2 DP 162291 Wendy Patricia Court 0.5890 1.9750
104a,b Lot 5 DP 113847 Paul Mainwaring White 0.3820 22.7320105 Lot 4 DP 169838 Her Majesty the Queen 0.3632 0.3632
106a,b ROAD Auckland Council 2.7940107 Lot 3 DP 113847 Her Majesty the Queen 9.6686 12.9360108 Lot 3 DP 169838 Her Majesty the Queen 2.1749 2.1749109 Lot 1 DP 169838 Her Majesty the Queen 4.3395 4.3395110 Lot 2 DP 169838 Her Majesty the Queen 1.1586 1.1586112 Lot 1 DP 198032 Her Majesty the Queen 12.9137 19.7642
PROPERTY REFERENCE NUMBER LEGAL DESCRIPTION OWNERSHIP AREA OF LAND (HA)
NOR 1
!
110
!
119
120
115
112
116
!
111
117
!
114
!
109
113
!
106!
118
WYLL IE
ROAD
DRAWN REVIEWED REVIEWEDDISCIP LINE MANAGER AP P ROVED
ALLIANCE MANAGER
P ŪHOI TO WARKWORTH - FOR RMA AP P ROVALSARA TŪHONO - P ŪHOI TO WELLSFORD
DESIGN REVIEWDESIGNED SCALE CONTRACT No DRAWING No AMDT
DISCLAIMERThe info rm a tio n sho wn o n this dra wing isso lely fo r the purpo ses o f suppo rting RMAa pplic a tio ns fo r sta tuto ry a ppro va ls.All info rm a tio n sho wn is sub jec to review fo r c o m plia nc e with a ppro ved c o nsentsa nd the o utc o m es o f fina l design.
AMD DATE DESIGNREVIEW
REVDD. MGR
AP P DA. MGR P URP OSE OF ISSUE / AMENDMENT
Path:
S:\Fu
rther
North
- PAA
\300 D
esign
\300.5
Tech
nical\
10 G
IS\M
XD\Z_
REPO
RT_F
IGUR
ES\P
LANN
ING\
LRP_
112_
REV1
.mxd
Date:
19/06
/2014
Time
: 4:41
:53 P
M o
LAND REQUIREMENT P LANSHEET 12 OF 14
1:4,000 P A3748 LRP -112 1JW
CD TI0 30/08/13 KS KS TI ISSUE FOR NOR / CONSENT
0 100 20050 Meters
KEYLAND TO BE DESIGNATED P ROP ERTY BOUNDARIES
JOIN
S DWG
LRP-
111
JOIN
S DWG
LRP -
113
P KMRHMAE
LAND TO BE DESIGNATED TOTAL LAND106 ROAD Auckland Council 2.9904109 Lot 1 DP 169838 Her Majesty the Queen 4.3395 4.3395110 Lot 2 DP 169838 Her Majesty the Queen 1.1586 1.1586111 Lot 3 DP 198032 Ross Neil Kennerley, Katherine Joanne Wade, David Phillip Wade 0.2257 1.0446112 Lot 1 DP 198032 Her Majesty the Queen 12.9137 19.7642113 Lot 2 DP 386317 Her Majesty the Queen 13.8721 19.0325114 Lot 1 DP 386317 Kenneth Lorrie Stirling and Elizabeth Susan Stirling & SCO Trustees No 1 Limited 0.0738 1.0280115 Lot 1 DP 587 Stephen David Trotter and Ewald Thaller 11.4616 20.2342116 Lot 4 DP 168411 Her Majesty the Queen 1.1003 1.1003117 Lot 4 DP 344497 John Teignmouth Wynyard 5.5607 35.9424118 ROAD Auckland Council 0.9163119 Lot 1 DP 199822 Fanie Karel Meyer and Anne Deirdre Meyer and Christie Meyer 0.6987 0.6987120 Lot 2 DP 199822 Her Majesty the Queen 4.4977 4.4977
NOR 1PROPERTY REFERENCE
NUMBER LEGAL DESCRIPTION OWNERSHIP AREA OF LAND (HA)
1 05/07/14 CD CD TI P ROP ERTY ACQUISITION
! 119
126
120
122
121
128
116
!
127124
123
117
130
131
!
118
!
129!125
WYLLIE ROAD
CARRAN ROAD
WOODCOCKS ROAD
WOODCOCKS ROAD
DRAWN REVIEWED REVIEWEDDISCIP LINE MANAGER AP P ROVED
ALLIANCE MANAGER
P ŪHOI TO WARKWORTH - FOR RMA AP P ROVALSARA TŪHONO - P ŪHOI TO WELLSFORD
DESIGN REVIEWDESIGNED SCALE CONTRACT No DRAWING No AMDT
DISCLAIMERThe in form a tion shown on this dra win g issolely for the purposes of supportin g RMAa pplic a tion s for sta tutory a pprova ls.All in form a tion shown is sub jec to review for c om plia n c e with a pproved c on sen tsa n d the outc om es of fin a l design .
AMD DATE DESIGNREVIEW
REVDD. MGR
AP P DA. MGR P URP OSE OF ISSUE / AMENDMENT
Path:
\z-a
kl-fas
02\pu
hoi\F
urthe
r Nort
h - PA
A\300
Des
ign\30
0.5 Te
chnic
al\10
GIS\
MXD\
Z_RE
PORT
_FIG
URES
\PLAN
NING
\LRP_
113.m
xdDa
te: 19
/06/20
14 Ti
me: 4
:46:31
PM o
LAND REQUIREMENT P LANSHEET 13 OF 14
1:4,000 P A3748 LRP -113 0JW
KS TI0 30/08/13 KS KS TI ISSUE FOR NOR / CONSENT
0 100 20050 Meters
KEYLAND TO BE DESIGNATED P ROP ERTY BOUNDARIES
JOINS DWG LRP -112JO
INS DW
G LRP
-114
P KMRHMAE
LAND TO BE DESIGNATED TOTAL LAND117 Lot 4 DP 344497 John Teignmouth Wynyard 5.5607 35.9424118 ROAD Auckland Council 0.9163119 Lot 1 DP 199822 Fanie Karel Meyer and Anne Deirdre Meyer and Christie Meyer 0.6987 0.6987120 Lot 2 DP 199822 Her Majesty the Queen 4.4977 4.4977121 Lot 1 DP 168411 Her Majesty the Queen 2.5185 4.2164122 Lot 2 DP 171314 Her Majesty the Queen 2.5678 2.9487123 Lot 3 DP 329024 Lifestyle Nursery Limited 0.8644 2.6424124 Lot 1 DP 329024 Brian Frederick Edwards 13.2616 24.4295125 ROAD Auckland Council 1.5540126 Lot 3 DP 77098 Ngaire Ruth Dramer and Michael William Tuck and Private Trust Company Limited 1.1780 7.9529127 Lot 2 DP 77098 Her Majesty the Queen 0.4896 0.4896128 Lot 1 DP 77098 Harold Maxwell Donnellan 1.2888 3.0015129 STREAM (Non tidal) Presumptive ownership right to adjoining owners 0.1533130 Pt Allot 55 PSH OF Mahurangi Joan Colleen Civil, Ian Donald Shepherd Civil 18.5260 40.0639131 Lot 3 DP 418913 Ian Donald Shepherd Civil and Denise Lyn Civil and Michael Charles Tisdall 10.1812 40.6712
NOR 1PROPERTY REFERENCE
NUMBER LEGAL DESCRIPTION OWNERSHIP AREA OF LAND (HA)
140
!
132
130
!
138131
136
!
141
!137
133
!
142
139a
139b
134a
134b
!
134c
135a
135b
!
135c
KAIPARA FLATS ROAD
DRAWN REVIEWED REVIEWEDDISCIPLINE MANAGER
APPROVED ALLIANCE MANAGER
PŪHOI TO WARKWORTH - FOR RMA APPROVALSARA TŪHONO - PŪHOI TO WELLSFORD
DESIGN REVIEWDESIGNEDSCALE CONTRACT No DRAWING No AMDT
DISCLAIMERThe information shown on this drawing issolely for the purposes of supporting RMAapplications for statutory approvals.All information shown is subjec to review for compliance with approved consentsand the outcomes of final design.
AMD DATE DESIGNREVIEW
REVDD. MGR
APPDA. MGR PURPOSE OF ISSUE / AMENDMENT
Path
: S:\F
urth
er N
orth
- PA
A\3
00 D
esig
n\30
0.5
Tech
nica
l\10
GIS
\MX
D\Z
_RE
PO
RT_
FIG
UR
ES
\PLA
NN
ING
\LR
P_1
14.m
xdD
ate:
29/
08/2
013
Tim
e: 9
:14:
53 A
M
o
LAND REQUIREMENT PLAN
SHEET 14 OF 141:4,000 PA3748 LRP-114 0
JWKS TI0 30/08/13 KS KS TI ISSUE FOR NOR / CONSENT
0 100 20050 Meters
KEYLAND TO BE DESIGNATED
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
JOINS DW
G LRP-113
ÄÄ1
LAND TO BE DESIGNATED TOTAL LAND130 Pt Allot 55 PSH OF Mahurangi Joan Colleen Civil, Ian Donald Shepherd Civil 18.5260 40.0639131 Lot 3 DP 418913 Ian Donald Shepherd Civil and Denise Lyn Civil and Michael Charles Tisdall 10.1812 40.6712132 Pt Allot 55 PSH OF Mahurangi Middle Hill Limited 0.2398 2.8885133 Lot 2 DP 343011 Ian Donald Shepherd Civil and Gillian Christine Dolinski and Dianne Elizabeth Civil 0.8761 29.3985
134a,b,c Lot 1 DP 343011 Middle Hill Limited 6.1819 27.5275135a,b,c Pt Allot 95 PSH OF Mahurangi Middle Hill Limited 5.0413 27.4594
136 Pt Al lot 56 DP 7361 Middle Hill Limited 2.4339 4.0469137 Pt Allot 95A PSH OF Mahurangi Middle Hill Limited 0.2175 0.8299138 Pt Allot 95A PSH OF Mahurangi Middle Hill Limited 0.3971 0.3971
139a,b Pt Allot 95 PSH OF Mahurangi Middle Hill Limited 9.7199 9.7199140 Lot 1 DP 208830 Harry Marsh Reader 0.7929 4.5530141 Pt Allot 94 PSH OF Mahurangi Sandra Diana Stephenson 0.5028 2.9662142 Pt Allot 283 PSH OF Mahurangi Sandra Diana Stephenson 0.0143 0.0701
NOR 1PROPERTY REFERENCE
NUMBERLEGAL DESCRIPTION OWNERSHIP
AREA OF LAND (HA)
PKMRH
MAE