direct referral in the matter joint expert witness ... · planning joint witness statement i 2...

Planning Joint Witness Statement 11

DIRECT REFERRAL

WAIHEKE MARINAS LTD (ENV 2013 AKL 00174)

DIRECT REFERRAL FROM CONSENT AUTHORITY OF RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION

IN THE MATTER

AND

IN THE MATTER

of the Resource Management Act 1991

of a Notice of Motion under s87G of the Resource Management

Act 1991

JOINT EXPERT WITNESS STATEMENT PLANNING

DATED: 3 SEPTEMBER 2014

Abbreviations used:

AEE

ARP:C

CMA

HGMPA

LGA

MHWS

MMA

MZ

NZCPS

ODP

PAUP

RMA

Section 87F Report

The Assessment of Effects on the Environment prepared by the applicant

Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal

Coastal Marine Area

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act

Local Government Act

Mean High Water Springs

Mooring Management Area (ARP:C)

Mooring Zone (PAUP)

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

Auckland Operative District Plan - Hauraki Gulf Islands Section 2013

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Resource Management Act

A report on the applications prepared by the Auckland Council

1

Planning Joint Witness Statement I 2

INTRODUCTION

1. This signed joint witness statement is written in response to the Court's Minute dated 4 April

2014 which directed Environment Commissioner facilitated conferencing. This requires that the

experts seek to identify and reach agreement with the other expert witness(es) on the issues

and matters within their field of expertise, and at the conclusion of the conference, prepare and

sign a joint witness statement that includes:

• the issues/matters on which the expert witnesses agree;

• the issues/matters on which they do not agree, including the reasons for their

disagreement.

2. This report relates to the conferencing topic of planning

3. A conferencing meeting was held on 29th day of August 2014 and reconvened on 1st day of

September 2014.

4. Participants were:

• Nicole Bremner (NB) (for Auckland Council)

• Max Dunn (MD) (for Waiheke Marinas Ltd)

• Dave Serjeant (OS) (for Direction Matiatia Inc.)

5. In preparing this statement, the experts have read and understood the Code of Conduct for

Expert Witnesses as Included in the Environment Court of New Zealand Practice Note 2011.

6. Description of the Site and Project

The experts adopted the information contained in the AEE and Section 87F report.

7. Activity status of the applications

a. The experts noted that the application involves two options being a reclamation-based

marina and a deck-based marina. The reasons for the addition of the deck-based marina

are outlined in the Memorandum from Richard Brabant, the applicant's legal counsel,

dated 9 April 2014.

b. There is agreement between the experts that the reclamation-based marina is a Non

Complying Activity.

c. In the event of a deck-based marina, the experts agree that the proposal is a

Discretionary Activity under the ARP:C and the ODP. The proposal is a Non-Complying

Activity under the PAUP. The PAUP was publicly notified after the date that the

application was lodged, but before the deck-based option was introduced. There Is a

difference of opinion in the evidence of MD considering the deck-based marina to be

Discretionary overall, and OS considering the deck-based marina to be Non-Complying

overall. NB's evidence accords with OS, however, she considers that section 88A needs

to be taken into account. The experts agree that this is primarily a legal interpretation

matter that is expected to be dealt with in legal submissions by the respective parties.

2


8. Bundling of applications

a. In their evidence, the experts agreed that bundling of the applications is an appropriate

approach. MD is reviewing his position on this matter and will be addressing this in his

rebuttal evidence.

Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal - Mooring areas

a. There is some uncertainty from the evidence of the different experts, notably Mr Dilley

and OS, as to the number of boats that can be moored in the Bay in the future. The

planning experts are of the view that the maximum number of moorings is currently

addressed through limits in the ARP:C

b. The ARP:C limits the number of moorings within the two Matiatia MMA's to 98. The PAUP

does not limit the number of moorings for the two Matiatia MZ's, although this could

change as a result of the submission and hearing process. MD will cover this matter in

rebuttal evidence. Also as noted below the two MZ's are significantly larger than the two

MMA's.

c. The northern MMA in the ARP:C is 2.7 hectares (approx), and the area of the southern

MMA is 3.5 hectares. The areas of the northern MZ and southern MZ in the PAUP are

larger at 4.5 hectares and 5.6 hectares respectively. These areas are indicative only,

based on scaled dimensions from small maps in the two plans.

d. The significance of this is that it is unclear what the overall increase in the number of

moored boats in the Bay could be under the PAUP, either with or without a marina. This

matter is discussed further below in relation to the Chapter 24 - Moorings, objectives and

policies on efficient use of the bay and whether the marina can be expected to result in

any rationalisation or limit on the number of moorings, as proposed in the evidence of OS.

9. Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal - Objectives and Policies

a. The experts have identified the following objectives and poliCies of the ARP:C where

there is disagreement on whether the proposal is contrary or not:

b. NB advised that her only outstanding issues of concern relate to cultural and spiritual

considerations (predominantly Chapter 6) and the remaining question of whether there

are preferable alternatives to reclamation and dredging (predominantly Chapters 13 and

15). NB's comments on these chapters are provided below.

c. Chapter 3 - Natural Character

The only provisions under contention between OS and MD are Objective 3.3.1 and Policy

3.4.1 in relation to the preservation and protection of natural character from inappropriate

development. One of the key matters of difference concerns the impact of future

development within the Matiatia Gateway Land Unit as provided for in the District Plan.

This matter is also noted in item 14 of the Joint Witness Statement of the landscape

experts.

3

Planning Joint Witness Statemenl14

d. Chapter 6 - Maori Matters of Significance

e. The experts were unable to take this discussion any further than as stated in their

respective briefs of evidence. The experts reviewed the Joint Witness Statement from the

cultural conferencing and understand that item 7.1.1 confirms the presence of koiwi in the

bay, but the area in relation to the marina is not specified. OS and NB noted that not all

relevant parties attended the cultural conferencing. MO understands that Pita Rikys will

be considering this matter further in rebuttal evidence on behalf of the applicants.

f. Chapter 10 - General

OS considered that the proposal is contrary to Objective 10.3.3 in terms of maintaining

the open space nature of the coastal environment and Policies 10.4.5(a), 10.4.5(c),

10.4.8, and 10.4.15 in relation to existing character, cumulative adverse effects, efficient

use and cross-boundary resource management as provided for in the OOP Matiatia

Gateway Land Unit. MO considers the policy is met, although notes the different

landscape expert opinions on natural character. MO intends to address this and the other

policy matters in rebuttal evidence. In relation to Policy 10.4.12 OS's evidence was that

the proposal appeared to be contrary to this policy, however he accepts the conclusions

in the Navigation Safety Joint Witness Statement in relation to the safe and efficient

passage of vessels. MO considers the policy is met with reference to this same joint

witness statement.

g. Chapter 11- Activities

OS considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy 11.4.1 (b) in relation to the

accommodation of landward development and the effects of this on traffic, parking and

natural character. MO considers that the policy is more specific than OS is indicating and

relates more to a requirement that appropriate land-based provisions are made. NB noted

that the wording at the start of the Chapter indicates that these provisions specifically

apply to the boardwalk, viewing deck and pile mooring components of the proposal.

h. Chapter 13 - Reclamation

i. OS considers that reclamation Is contrary to Policy 13.4.1 (a). NB considers this is

the case when read in absolute terms, but notes the introductory phrase refers to

'generally inappropriate' suggesting that exceptions may be contemplated, MO

refers to the 'generally inappropriate' prefacing rather than 'prohibitive' wording of

the policy, the non-complying activity provisions, the non-complying reclamations

approved as part of the Sands pit marina (under construction) and the proposal

not being repugnant to the policy.

ii. OS also considers that reclamation is contrary to Policy 13.4.1 (b) in relation to an

existing land based site for marina parking not being demonstrated as being

practicable. NB agrees, and also notes that the deck-based proposal appears to

4


present a feasible alternative to a reclamation. MD advises that the parking deck

is an alternative CMA based method, that alternative land based sites have been

investigated and are not practicable and that the applicants will address this

matter in rebuttal evidence.

i. Chapter 23 - Marinas

i. DS considers that the proposal fails to meet Policy 23.4.6 in relation to the

appropriateness and size of the marina.

ii. NB identifies a conflict with the policy to the extent that a practicable alternative to

reclamation has been presented. As to the second part of the policy NB agrees

that the size of the reclamation has been minimised.

iii. MD remains of the view stated in his evidence that the reclamation is appropriate

and minimised.

iv. DS also has concerns relating to Policies 23.4.10 and 23.4.11, however the

content of these policies is addressed more specifically in other policies. The

views of MD and NB are unchanged from their evidence.

j. Chapter 24 - Moorings

i. In his evidence, DS considered the proposal was contrary to Objectives 24.3.2

and 24.3.3. Having considered the Navigation Safety Joint Witness Statement,

DS considers that Objective 24.3.2 is met.

ii. DS' concerns with Objective 24.3.3 remain in relation to efficient use and the

proliferation of boat moorings in the Bay, particularly in the enlarged southern

mooring zone in the PAUP in the future. NB had no particular concerns with this

policy, but considers it would be relevant to consider the potential for significant

increases in boat numbers moored compared to current levels as a result of the

marina. MD will investigate further the position under the PAUP, including any

submissions seeking a limit on moorings in the Bay, and clarify his position in

rebuttal evidence.

10. Auckland Operative District Plan - Hauraki Gulf Islands Section 2013

a. Land Units and Notations

i. Matiatia Gateway Land Unit

The experts note that the ODP land unit provisions provide for significant JTlixed

use development and transport facilities to be developed at Matiatia,

ii. Mixed Use and Transport Areas

MD noted that there are differences between the Mixed Use and Transport

Areas in the ODP and the Plan Change to the previous Operative District Plan

1996 that formed the basis of the current Matiatia Land Unit provisions. MD will

5


be covering this matter in rebuttal evidence in response to matters raised in the

landscape and traffic/transport joint witness statements.

b. Objectives and Policies

The experts have identified the objectives and policies of the ODP listed below where

there is disagreement on whether the proposal is contrary or not.

c. Chapter 3 - Strategic Management Areas (Waiheke)

i. DS considers the proposal to be contrary to Policies 1 and 4. Policy 1 of

Objective 3.3.4 provides for 'village' style activities and development. DS

considers that the scale of the proposal makes it contrary to this provision. MD

questions the application of the 'village' part of the policy to the Matiatia transport

gateway provisions in the ODP and even if it does, MD notes that marinas are

part of villages e.g. Gulf Harbour and Opua. NB considers that as the

reclamation will become part of the District this needs to be considered in the

village context of Policy 1.

ii. Policy 4 relates to landscape character. DS considers that the reference to

coastal landscapes in this policy takes in both the land and water areas of the

Bay. NB agrees that the assessment encompasses the proposed reclamation

area as this would become part of the District. The planners noted that the

subject matter of this policy is addressed in expert landscape evidence and the

differences between experts in both landscape and planning evidence remain.

d. Chapter 7 - Heritage

NB advised that the outstanding issue of concern relates to cultural and spiritual

considerations and has not changed her views as a result of the evidence. DS agrees.

MD position is generally unchanged, but may be updated in rebuttal evidence, based on

rebuttal evidence from Mr Rikys.

e. Chapter 13 - Transport

DS considers the proposal to be contrary to Objective 13.3.1 and Policy 2 thereafter on

Wharves, and also Policy 2 relating to Objective 13.3.3 Roading, because of the conflict

between marina-related traffic and the main wharf's primary function as a transport hUb.

NB noted her view that elements of inconsistency with the provisions of Chapter 13

remain as appended in Annexure 8 to her 11 July 2014 evidence-in-chief. The planning

experts will review this matter after reading the proposed conditions that will come from

the Traffic and Transport Joint Witness Statement.

6


f. Chapter 10a - Matiatia Land Unit

i. OS considers that Policy 1 to Objective 10a.18.3.1 about the prioritisation of public

transport over private vehicle use is not met by the proposal. MO is of the view that

passenger transport will continue to have priority. NB considers that the proposal is

partly inconsistent in that marina traffic will pass through a dedicated passenger

transport area that is specifically identified in the OOP for this purpose. However, NB

considers the proposal may not be contrary to this policy subject to appropriate

access controls for the marina car park that would maintain priority for wharf and

passenger transport.

ii. OS considers that Policy 2, on the further development of car parking areas which

enhance the safety and efficiency of the transport network, is not met by the marina

car parking proposal. NB considers that, provided the traffic and parking effects of

the proposal can be appropriately dealt with in the manner proposed by the traffic

experts, the proposal, while presenting some inconsistencies, will not be contrary to

the intent of the Policy. MO notes that the reclamation/deck are located adjacent to

the Transport area, where parking facilities, including buildings, are provided for, and

the priority of public transport in Ocean View Road will remain.

iii. OS considers that Policy 4, on the potential relocation of Ocean View Road, is not

met as the need for marina access will hamper outcomes for gateway redevelopment.

iv. NB considers the proposal to be inconsistent with the Policy, however given it is likely

that some form of vehicle thoroughfare for wharf traffic will be required in any future

design, Is of the view that the proposal is not contrary to the Policy.

v. MO considers the Policy is met, and notes that relocation of Ocean View Road is

provided for already, and does not appear to be a precursor to redevelopment of the

land unit, nor be affected by the marina proposal. MO will review this aspect further

and cover in rebuttal evidence.

vi. OS considers that Policy 6, on avoiding medium to large scale car parking areas

adjoining the esplanade or visible to those arriving at Matiatia, is not met by the

proposed car parking for the marina.

vii. NB agrees there is a partial inconsistency with aspects of the policy concerning the

siting of the reclamation car park, however adopts Mr Brown's expert landscape

advice that the adverse effects on landscape character are acceptable.

viii. MO considers the Policy is met, as the marina parking area will be located adjacent to

an historic reserve rather than an esplanade reserve, which is to the south of the

wharf. Also, MO also the marina parking area will be effectively screened from those

arriving at Matiatia by ferry by the existing and proposed structures.

7


g. Rules relating to parking activities on the reclamation

The difference of opinion in the evidence of MD and NB as to the status of activities upon

the reclamation remains. MD considers the parking to be an innominate (Discretionary)

activity and NB considers this to be Non-Complying. DS agrees with NB on this matter.

11. Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

a. Management Areas and Notations

i. Mooring Zone

See note in 9 j. above under ARP:C regarding the extent of the Mooring Zone

and the number of boats provided for therein.

ii. Historic Heritage (site or place of value to Mana Whenua) Overlay

The experts agree that the overlay shown in the PAUP relates to a single land

based, recorded archaeological site, which covers land area and water (CMA)

areas. Part of the proposed marina is affected by part of the overlay. The

experts note that, in s7.4.1 of the Cultural joint witness statement, there is

reference to a heritage protection overlay recording all known archaeological

sites in Matiatia Bay. The planners are not aware if this is intended to refer to the

same overlay, as there appears to be some potential conflict between the two

understandings.

b. Objectives and Policies

DS and NB agree that little weight should be given to the objectives and policies of the

PAUP. MD generally agrees, but in rebuttal evidence will give further attention to any

PAUP provisions where the Council has signalled a significant policy shift.

12. RMA Framework

a. Permitted Baseline - Under the ARP:C up to 98 moorings are permitted. There is no

numerical limit under the PAUP, but there is an area limit.

b. Existing Environment - The experts agree that the boat grid forms part of the existing

environment. The experts are not aware of any approved but unimplemented resource

consents that would have a bearing on their conclusions but will check prior to the

hearing.

13. Section 104 Gateway Test for Non-complying Activities

a. DS considers that the application is a non-complying activity irrespective of whether the

parking area is reclamation or deck-based, and that the application does not meet either

of the gateway tests. NB considers that the proposal fails the effects test, however, it

potentially passes the second (objectives and policies) gateway test. NB qualifies this

statement by reiterating that there are unresolved cultural and spiritual matters, and a

remaining issue of what alternatives there are to reclamation and dredging. MD has a

8


different view, and considers that both gateway tests are met as outlined in evidence.

MO expects that, with reference to the other jOint witness statements, that any more than

minor archaeological, navigation/safety and noise effects are able to be dealt with through

consent conditions and this is likely to be the same for ecological/water quality and

traffic/parking effects (once conditions are formulated), but that there are significant

remaining differences of opinion on cultural and landscape/natural character effects.

b. The experts noted that if the deck-based marina is a discretionary activity this does not

require an analysis under S1040 RMA.

14. New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

a. The experts have identified the following objectives and policies of the NZCPS where

there is disagreement on whether the proposal has regard to:

b. Objective 3 and Policy 2 in relation to matters of significance to tangata whenua;

OS considers that the application does not have regard to these provisions. NB agrees

that further consideration of cultural and spiritual values is required under these

provisions. MO notes this matter will be covered in rebuttal evidence.

c. Policy 4 in relation to integrated management across the line of MHWS;

d. Policy 4 requires specific consideration of areas above and below MHWS in an integrated

way. OS considers that the application does not have regard to this policy. OS has

concerns as to how this applies to parking, and this is addressed in d. below. NB and MO

consider the proposal has been addressed in an Integrated way, including across MHWS.

e. Policy 6 (1) (b), (e) and (i) in relation to the rate of built development and infrastructure at

Matiatia (b), controlling development so as not to compromise the functioning of the

transport hub (e), and setting back the car park from the coastal marine area (which is

reasonable and practicable) so as to protect natural character, open space and amenity

values of the coastal environment (i).

f. OS considers the transport hub to be regionally significant infrastructure and that the

location of the marina parking will compromise the function of the hub, due to future

conflict between access to marina parking and passenger transport. NB agrees that

providing for future growth and operation of the transport hub is a critical consideration.

MO considers the policies are met as based on other expert evidence the marina will not

compromise the transport, natural character and other recorded values of the Matiatia

area.

g. Policy 6(2) (d) in relation to the car park being located in the CMA generally and whether

it has a functional need to.

9


OS considers that the car park does not need to be located in the CMA, and an option in

the mixed use area needs to be considered. NB reiterated that there is still a question of

what alternatives may exist to reclamation within the CMA. In response to a deck based

option, NB is of the view that an alternative on land would better meet the policy, but

constraints on available land are also noted. As stated earlier, MO confirmed that

practicable alternatives to a reclamation or deck will be covered in the applicants rebuttal

evidence.

h. Policy 10 (3) in relation to whether the reclamation and its intended purpose provides for

efficient operation of infrastructure, including ferry terminals and marinas;

i. OS considers that while the reclamation might be efficient for the marina, it does

not provide for the efficient use of the ferry terminal into the future.

ii. NB notes that the deck-based marina appears to provide a practicable alternative

to a reclamation.

iii. MO considers the policy is met as the joint witness statement on navigation safety

does not appear to identify any matters that will affect the efficiency of the wharf

based part of the ferry terminal.

i. Policy 23(5)(a) relates to managing discharges from marine facilities to take all

practicable steps to avoid contamination of coastal waters, substrate, ecosystems and

habitats, that is more than minor;

i. NB notes that while not all matters concerning the assessment of contamination

and ecological effects have been resolved in the Joint Witness Statement on

Coastal Ecology and Antifouling, proposed conditions of consent may enable this

policy to be met.

ii. MO understands that the ecological and water quality effects will generally be no

more than minor, with the possible exception of contaminant discharges from

boat hulls in the longer term, and the experts are preparing a set of conditions

that are expected to address this. MD also notes that legal submissions are

expected to be made on whether contaminant discharges from boat hulls in the

marina are able to dealt with through consent conditions.

iii. OS considers that the policy places an ongoing obligation on the consent holder

to ensure that effects are no more than minor and that this needs to be achieved

through conditions which set standards and require monitoring and review. MD

agrees with this approach and his view is based on a set of reasonable and

10


implementable consent conditions being agreed on by the ecology and planning

experts.

15. Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act

a. One set of provisions under contention are Sections 8(b), (e) and (f) in relation to the

protection of natural resources and the maintenance and enhancement of physical

resources.

i. OS considers that the application does not have regard to these provisions, in

particular the wharf and transport hub, that contribute to the recreation and

enjoyment of the Gulf by residents and visitors to Waiheke.

ii. MO considers these provisions are met as outlined in evidence-in-chief.

iii. NB has not identified any issue with these provisions that have not been covered

by other comments.

b. A second set of provisions under contention are Sections (6), 7(2)(a)(i), and 8(c)

i. NB considers that further analysis is required on matters of cultural and spiritual

significance.

ii. OS agrees with NB.

iii. MO considers these provisions are met as outlined in evidence-in-chief.

16. Auckland Regional Policy Statement

a. The experts have identified the following objectives and policies of the ARPS where there

is disagreement on whether the proposal has regard to the provisions listed below:

b. Chapter 3 -Matters of Significance to Iwi

i. OS considers that the OMI iwi evidence suggests that regard is not being had to

Objective 3.3, and Policy 3.4.1, and Objective 7.3.1.9 and Policy 7.4.7.6 on

recognising and providing for the relationship of Maori with special sites and

places.

ii. NB adds that Objective 7.3.9 sets out similar requirements. NB agrees with OS

to the extent that further assessment is required.

iii. MO's position is set out in evidence-in-chlef, and may be further addressed

through rebuttal evidence.

c. Chapter 7 - Coastal Environment

11


i. Objective 7.3.1.1 on preserving natural character, and associated Policy 7.4.4.1

(iii)

DS considers the application has not avoided, remedied or mitigated the adverse

effects of either the car-parking proposal (reclamation or deck), and the

proliferation of boats in the Bay. DS does not have concerns about the marina in

relation to this objective and policy.

NB and MD do not identify any concerns with either provision.

ii. Objective 7.3.1.3 on enabling appropriate development in the coastal

environment;

As set out in relation to 7.3.1.1 and other provisions of the NZCPS and HGMPA,

DS considers the proposal has not had regard to this objective.

NB and MD do not identify any concerns with this provision.

iii. Objective 7.3.10 on achieving integrating management.

17. Other Matters

As set out in relation to other provisions of the NZCPS and HGMPA, DS

considers the proposal has not had regard to this objective.

NB and MD do not identify any concerns with this provision.

a. The experts agree that the following documents are relevant to assessing the proposal

and that the applicant has given them appropriate regard:

i. Matiatia Transport and Directional Plans March 2008.

NB notes that these documents were produced after the date the then Proposed

District Plan 2006 was publicly notified.

ii. Essentially Waiheke (which is explicitly referred to in Part 3 Strategic

Management Areas, clause 3.3.2 of the ODP)

iii. Auckland Transport Plan 2009, Auckland Regional Land Strategy 2010, Auckland

Regional Public Transport Plan 2011 (these are strategic planning documents

which guide the Matiatia ferry terminal and parking area)

The documents in (i) and (ii) were specifically referenced in the section 87F

report.

b. The experts also considered the following documents:

12


i. Hauraki Gulf State of the Environment Report 2011 (referred to in MO evidence)

ii. Waiheke Local Board Plan 2011 (referenced in the s87F report).

The experts note that there is a new Waiheke Oraft Local Board Plan 2014. This has only

recently been released and was not taken into account in evidence-in-chief, nor in the

s87F report which was prepared in November 2013.

c. The experts are not aware of any Iwi Management Plans that are relevant.

18. Part 2 of RMA

a. The experts agree that there are matters in contention in relation to the following:

i. Section 5

ii. Section 6(a), (e) and (f)

iii. Section 7(a), (b), (c) and (f)

iv. Section 8

b. The matters in contention have been addressed in more detail in the sections on the

national, regional and district plans and policy statements which are set out above.

19. Outcomes from other expert witness conferencing

At the preliminary meeting on 26 August 2014, a number of issues were raised by Section 274

parties for consideration by the experts. The issues are listed below, together with the experts'

responses.

a. Integrated planning, infrastructure planning

At the meeting, questions were raised about how the project fits within an integrated

planning approach for the area, and in particular the planning for future infrastructure.

The experts consider integrated planning, including infrastructure planning, is the primary

responsibility of Auckland Council through higher level LGA and RMA processes, and the

applicant has limited ability to address this through a resource consent process. This

matter has also been addressed in the sections relating to the NZCPS, HGMPA and

ARPS above.

b. Top-down/bottom up planning approaches

At the meeting, a conflict of approach was identified between the local community's plans

(bottom up) and wider RMA-based plans (top down). The experts have assessed the

application in accordance with s104 and 1040, and the latter directs that a "gateway test"

on the OOP and ARP:C be undertaken. The experts note that the community's plans are

relevant matters to consider under s1 04(1 )(c).

13


c. Relevant plans including non-statutory documents

At the meeting, queries were raised as to whether consideration had been given to all

relevant plans. The experts are satisfied that consideration has been given to all plans

relevant under the RMA, and these plans have been listed in above.

d. NZCPS provisions, especially pOlicies 4, 6, 9

The experts have considered all relevant provisions of the NZCPS, of which Policies 4

and 6 are dealt with above. The experts note that Policy 9 relates to Ports serving

national and international shipping, and accordingly does not apply to Matiatia, which is

addressed in terms of Policy 6.

e. Future growth and how this is managed

At the meeting there were concerns that the proposed marina could affect future growth

of the Matiatia ferry terminal area. The experts hold different opinions on this, which

have been set out above in relation to a number of planning provisions.

f. Siting of marina next to a transport hub

At the meeting, In addition to direct traffic effects, which are addressed below, there was

a more strategic concern expressed about the future planning implications of having the

proposed marina adjacent to the ferry terminal and future development and links to the

passenger transport network for the island. The planning experts hold different views on

this matter, as outlined above.

g. Traffic effects

At the meeting there were concerns raised about the existing traffic congestion around

the Matiatia ferry terminal, and the impact that the proposed marina would have on this.

Some participants described it as chaotic. The planning experts currently have different

views on traffic effects, as outlined above, but note that traffic management is addressed

in the joint witness statement on traffic and transport, and that the traffic experts are

working on a proposed condition to address this.

h. Permitted baseline

This was discussed at the meeting and is addressed in Section 12 a. above.

i. Water access to marina (kayaks etc)

At the meeting, a question was raised about whether kayak access all the way around

the marina would be available in the future. While it was indicated at the meeting that it

should be possible, the planning experts cannot confirm this, but expect the applicant's

engineer and/or navigation expert will be able to clarify this at the hearing.

j. WML submission on the PAUP

14


At the meeting a concern was raised with the applicant's submission on the PAUP

seeking to remove the Historic Heritage Overlay. MD noted at the meeting and as

outlined above, that the overlay relates to only one of several recorded archaeological

sites around the Northern Bay, and the basis of it, especially in relation to other recorded

sites, and application to CMA areas, was not clear. This is a matter that will be

addressed through the PAUP submission/hearing process.

k. Weight to be afforded to the PAUP

This was discussed at the meeting and is addressed in Section 11 b. above.

I. Different feeling that would exist with the presence of a Marina, including intangible

considerations

At the meeting a concern was raised that "a different feel" will exist with the marina in

place, and whether this has been taken into consideration. The experts noted that the

perceptions and experiences of a place are woven into the expert landscape evidence,

and form part of the consideration of amenity values under s7 of the RMA. The planning

experts note that there are differences between landscape experts on the extent of these

effects.

m. What happens beyond the 35 year resource consent term for the marina

Prior to the end of the 35 year term, the consent holder would be entitled to seek new

consents.

n. The need to view Waiheke In a cultural landscape

At the meeting a view was expressed that Waiheke needs to be considered in a cultural

landscape. The planning experts understand this to mean seeing Matiatia Bay in its

historic context, which is important. However, based on the evidence, they disagree as

to the potential effects of the proposed marina on the cultural landscape.

o. Tourism considerations.

At the meeting, effects on the tourism experience were identified as being of concern.

The planning experts consider this is related to several of the matters addressed above,

and provided these matters are appropriately addressed, do not consider there will be

adverse effects on tourism.

20. Draft conditions

The planning experts note some differences between the Council's set of proposed conditions

and the applicant's set of proposed conditions. This includes the draft amended conditions on

a bond, and public access around the proposed parking deck as outlined in NB's evidence. The

planning experts also note that the joint witness statements on Traffic and Transport, Noise and

Ecology and Anti-fouling are reviewing conditions with a view to submitting a revised set for

15


consideration by the Court. The planning experts will endeavour to agree a full set of conditions

for consideration by the Court prior to the hearing.

21. Matters raised in other joint witness statements

The planning experts have read all of the joint witness statements of other experts and have

incorporated their findings where relevant in the statements above.

KEY FACTS AND ASSUMPTIONS

22. There was no disagreement between experts on key facts and assumptions.

IDENTIFICATION OF DIFFERENCES IN METHODOLOGY

23. There was broad agreement between the experts on the methodologies used.

IDENTIFICATION OF PUBLISHED INFORMATION & PRIMARY DATA RELIED ON

24. There was no disagreement between experts on published information and primary data relied

upon.

DATE: 3 SEPTEMBER 2014

N Bremner

M Dunn

D Serjeant

16

direct referral in the matter joint expert witness ... · planning joint witness statement i 2...

Documents