BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY

EAST WEST LINK PROJECT

IN THE MATTER OF the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)

AND

IN THE MATTER OF a Board of Inquiry appointed under section 149J of the Resource Management Act 1991 to decide notices of requirement and resource consent applications by the New Zealand Transport Agency for the East West Link Project

OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE MALL CUL-DE-SAC RESIDENTS SUBMISSIONS

3 July 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 2. Structure of the Submissions 3. Lay Person Representation and Request for Appropriate Resourcing 4. Onehunga Mall Cul-de-sac Neighbourhood Submission (OMCN) - Construction Noise and Vibration 5. Construction Air Quality (OMCN) 6. Construction access and Car parking (OMCN) 7. Construction First Gas Pipeline (OMCN) 8. Operational Noise and Vibration (OMCN) 9. Operational Air Quality (OMCN) 10. Operational Car Parking (OMCN) 11. Operational Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) at SH20 pedestrian underpass (OMCN) 12. Operational Loss of Views (OMCN) 13. Personal Submission – Engagement resulting in Misrepresentation and/or Negligence

1. Introduction

1.1 Onehunga Mall Cul-de-sac between Property addresses 31-39 Onehunga Mall has approximately 38 residential homes, ranging from two to six bedrooms. The estimated population of these homes is circa 120 plus residents. There are also other residential homes on the Onehunga Mall Cul-de-sac.

1.2 Additionally next to the homes is the SH20 pedestrian and cycle underpass which is well used by the public to access the old , Tamanu Reserve and the Waikaraka Cycleway.

1.3 NZTA is our neighbour and aspires to be a ‘good neighbour’ - The East-West Link Project area and the NZTA road network more generally (SH20) directly borders on our neighbourhood. NZTA iterative changes to the road network have significant and cumulative impact on the residential activities occurring at the homes.

1.4 Cumulative effects - In particular, the cumulative impacts of the East-West Link Project combined with the Project which opened 1 July 2017 as a pre-cursor to the East-West Link Project are encouraging more heavy traffic on to SH20 behind the homes.

1.5 Participation - The outcomes of the decisions the Board of Inquiry and NZTA make will impact most aspects of our residential lives. While NZTA is a legal person, its residential neighbours are living humans, who will have to permanently and without respite see, hear, smell, feel and breathe the consequences of the Board of Inquiry decisions. Therefore we need to be able to equitably participate in the Board of Inquiry process.

1.6 Engagement - Prior to November 2016, no engagement had taken place with the residents by NZTA on the existence of the East-West Link Project, Waterview Connection Project and/or potential impacts. Subsequent and limited engagement only occurred after my request.

1.7 Site Visit - We again extend the invitation as per our submission for the Board of Inquiry and NZTA to have a site visit at our homes to get an appreciation for our situation as NZTA’s neighbour.

1.8 Below are some photos for neighbourhood context.

Figure 1: Onehunga Mall residential neighbourhood photo.

Figure 2: A different view of Onehunga Mall residential neighbourhood

2. Structure of the Submissions

2.1 The First submission I wrote was the Onehunga Mall Cul-de-sac Neighbourhood (OMCN) submission. I engaged 36 of my neighbours who each individually made a submission in support of the Master Onehunga Mall Cul-de-sac submission that I wrote (in some cases one submission for a family group.) These 36 submissions make up circa 5% of the total of all the East-West Link Project submissions. For each of my neighbours 36 submissions I am their official spokesperson at this Board of Inquiry.

2.2 The Second submission was my Personal submission which detailed my engagement with NZTA prior to the purchase of my home on Onehunga Mall Cul-de- sac in September last year. This engagement appears to have resulted in misrepresentation and/or negligence. As a result of the engagement, which was further reinforced by NZTA’s absence of engagement with the residents of Onehunga Mall Cul-de-sac (including the seller of the home and therefore lack of any relevant disclosures), I purchased my first home in Auckland. A home I would not have purchased if NZTA had disclosed the proposed adverse construction impacts of the East-West Link Project and the existence and forecast adverse operational impacts of the Waterview Connection Project on my proposed new home.

3. Layperson Representation and Request for Appropriate Resourcing

3.1 I was the author of two submissions. I am a layperson. My neighbours and I are acutely aware we are representing ourselves without the support and expertise of legal and subject matter expert counsel. We would prefer that this is not the situation we face.

3.2 Suffice to say we feel severely under-resourced and that this is a ‘David vs Goliath’ situation which is at odds with NZTA’s vision of being a ‘good neighbour’ and at its heart a Government agency ‘for the people, by the people.’

3.3 If we were provided legal and subject matter expert resource we would be able to participate in the Board of Inquiry process in a more equitable way and likely make better use of the Board’s time.

3.4 NZTA legal counsel Mr Mulligan’s transcript from 29 June 2017 is quick to pick up on our lack of professional resourcing and dismiss our concerns as “a little garbled and unclear.” Mr Mulligan’s comments are indicative of NZTA’s attitude to its direct neighbour and the layperson submitter which continues to be disheartening and demoralising.

3.5 In any case, it was hoped sufficient engagement would have taken place subsequent to the submissions being lodged so that the large amount of personal stress and energy of having to present private life concerns in this very public hearing environment could have been avoided. Unfortunately this has not been the case and we request improvement in empathy, timeliness and frequency of NZTA’s engagement with it’s neighbours. With a desired outcome that we no longer need to present at the Board of Inquiry.

3.6 Can the Board of Inquiry organise legal and subject matter expert counsel going forward? How might the Board of Inquiry attempt to ensure our equitable participation in the process?

4. Construction Noise & Vibration (OMCN)

4.1 It is very challenging to have an informed appreciation of the impact of construction noise and vibration on residential activities at 31-39 Onehunga Mall without a draft Construction Noise and Vibration Plan (CNVMP) . Expert witness Jon Styles has suggested a draft CNVMP is a reasonable request at this point in the process and we support this request.

4.2 For example if the CNVMP identifies there will be extended periods where the construction noise and/or vibration standards will be exceeded, the residents would like the ‘best practicable’ options as relate to our homes included as conditions.

4.3 Specifically for the ‘best practicable options’ below to be exercised at a resident’s discretion and included as conditions at CNV6.A and CNV7.A

A. Option to vacate the home and NZTA rent their house for the duration of the construction period

B. Option to be temporarily accommodated at a location suitable to the resident

C. Option to stay in the house during construction despite the noise, vibration and air quality issues.

D. Resident to have the option to sell their property to NZTA under the Public Works Act.

4.4 Regarding Siiri Wilkening Expert Evidence (12 April 2017) paragraph 1.4 and overarching theme “Communication with affected parties is the most important and effective management measure.” This approach is not equitable or reasonable for dwellings already experiencing Category B and C noise levels, any higher noise received than what we currently receive would impede the core uses of the home – i.e. sleeping, studying and relaxing.

4.5 We request the deletion of proposed condition CNV6.A (a) regarding allowing an exception to the noise conditions. That exception appears would materially impact the amenity of our homes for residential living. Instead ‘best practicable options’ per para 4.3 above should be implemented.

“exceedance of the criteria in Condition CNV.4 is no greater than 5 decibels and does not exceed:

i) 0700-2200: 1 period of up to 2 consecutive weeks in any 2 months; or

ii) 2200-0700: 1 period of up to 2 consecutive nights in any 10 days ”

4.6 We request addition to condition CNV.4 for a ‘ fixed acoustic logger machine to be installed at 31-35A Onehunga Mall and reading reports to be emailed daily to residents during construction’ (or words to similar effect.)

4.7 Similarly we request addition to condition CNV.5 for a ‘fixed vibration logger machine to be installed at 31-35A Onehunga Mall and reading reports to be emailed daily to residents during construction’ (or words to similar effect.)

5 Construction Air Quality (OMCN)

5.1 There is no air quality testing station near our homes. We request as part of the Construction Air Quality Management Plan (CAQMP) at condition AQ.2 for a ‘fixed air quality logger machine to be installed at 31-35A Onehunga Mall and reading reports to be emailed daily to residents during construction’

5.2 Inevitability there will be dust and construction particles that are deposited on our homes. These will require water blasting services to remove. Therefore we request addition to condition AQ.2 “methods for periodically water blasting PPF’s of dust and construction particles during construction.”

6. Construction access and Car parking (OMCN)

6.1 The on street car parking on Onehunga Mall Cul-de-sac is already near maximum capacity as used by residents, businesses and active mode/ leisure users of the area. There is not space for construction personnel car parking.

6.2 It appears the addition to condition CT.4 as per NZTA agreement at facilitated conferencing on 12 June 2017 has been missed; the requirement that sufficient parking be identified in the construction yards and that the construction personnel will be required to use these. Can this amendment please be made?

7. Construction First Gas Pipeline (OMCN)

7.1 At 12 June facilitated conferencing NZTA advised they did not have plans to change the First Gas Pipeline as a result of the East West Link as it affects our properties. However there was a chance this could change at the detailed design stage.

7.2 Relocated Position request – we request as a condition (NU 12) if the First Gas Pipeline is dug up outside our properties that it’s relocated position is moved away from the homes (within 10-15m of circa 35 bedrooms – the area around the blue box in Figure 3 below) and instead relocated on to EWL designated land close by, alongside SH20 and the western entrance to Gloucester Park North (refer Figure 3, red line “Resident Request’ for the relocated Pipeline placement request.)

7.3 Privacy Trees – we request any privacy screening trees and plants between 31-37 Onehunga Mall that are taken down if the First Gas Pipeline is relocated are requested to be immediately replaced with resident approved replacements (refer blue boxed area in Figure 3.)

Figure 3: First Gas Pipeline relocation requested changes – adapted from Drawing ‘Utilities Relocation – AEE-U-103.

8. Operational Noise and Vibration (OMCN)

8.1 Permanent noise barrier - The Noise Assessment (Technical Report 7) currently stipulates a two metre high (only the height of a tall adult male) acoustic noise barrier along SH20 behind our properties. The residents request the Noise Assessment be altered to stipulate a four metre high transparent acrylic (or superior product) as used in the Victoria Park Project around St Marys Bay/Herne Bay to be installed immediately.

8.2 The transparent nature of the noise barrier requested is due to noise deflection, CPTED concerns (refer section 11), shading, dominance and loss of views.

8.3 The request to be installed immediately is due to the cumulative effect of the Waterview Tunnels which opened 2 July 2017 (yesterday) and their forecast increase in heavy traffic vehicles passing behind our homes and therefore increasing traffic noise experienced at our homes.

8.4 The Noise Assessment computer modelling appears to have understated the noise levels and therefore the Category A/B/C classification of our homes. In particular a site specific acoustic survey was performed on 31 Onehunga Mall and reported 69 dB LAeq(24h). This is materially higher (by 2.5dB) than the computer model assessment of 66.5 dB LAeq(24h) (Figure 4 and 5.)

8.5 The range of Category B homes (or PPF’s) is only 3dB (64-67db) , with Category A being anything below that and Category C being anything above that, so a 2.5db difference is material (and above the margin of difference allowed of 2.0dB per NZS 6806 Section 5.3.4.2.) It therefore appears many of the homes at 31-39 Onehunga Mall have been misclassified and we request an amendment to the Noise Assessment.

8.6 It further appears there is a typo in the Statement Of Rebuttal Evidence - Acoustics Traffic (Figure 3) as it states “The predicted noise level at the survey position of 68 dB LAeq(24h) [at 31 Onehunga Mall] is within 2 decibels of the measured level, which is within the acceptable tolerance of the prediction methodology” (Figure 4.) It is not clear where the predicted noise level at the survey position of 68 dB LAeq(24h) came from, as the number reported on the Noise assessment for 31 Onehunga Mall is 66.5 dB LAeq(24h) (refer Figure 5.)

8.7 Likewise in further support of the understatement of the computer modelling, the site specific survey nearby at 2 Onehunga Mall Harbour Road showed the computer modelling understated the actual noise levels by 2dB.

8.8 Average annual daily traffic (AADT) used in estimated noise model . We wonder if the underestimation of the noise model in the Noise Assessment is due to the AADT selected for the Onehunga area being ‘2,000 – 75,000 vehicle daily’ versus all the other noise model estimates selected at ‘more than 75,000 vehicles per day’?

8.9 The Noise Assessment +/- 2dB margin of difference allowed on acoustic testing generally per NZS 6806 Section 5.3.4.2 appears very broad given the Category A/B/C ranges are specific and individual home mitigation is either 100% with Category C or 0% with Category B. We request that any home after the computer model prediction +2.5dB adjustment in line with para 8.5 above, with a noise level of 65dB or above be treated as a Category C home. This would mean 31-39 Onehunga Mall would all be classified as Category C.

8.10 Further given the uncertainty of the traffic noise impact of the Waterview Tunnels opening we request site specific retesting in three months’ time (September 2017) before the end of the Board of Inquiry Hearing. With the purpose to calibrate whether the computer noise model has included an appropriate adjustment for the Waterview Tunnels traffic increase impact on the area, given the actuals versus predicted data which will then be available.

Figure 4: Extract from Statement Of Rebuttal Evidence Of Siiri Wilkening On Behalf Of The New Zealand Transport Agency – Acoustics Traffic

Figure 5: Extract from Technical Report 7 Traffic Noise and Vibration Assessment

(31 Onehunga Mall 66.5dB as per Computer Model estimate)

9. Operational Air Quality (OMCN)

9.1 The neighbourhood is concerned about the cumulative effect on Air Quality from NZTA projects which does not appear to be addressed, only the East-West Link Project in isolation. We request specific Air Quality modelling of the cumulative effects the East- West Link Project and the Waterview Connection Project on the Air Quality from April 2017 to the design year to enable robust discussion on this subject.

9.2 If Air Quality modelling shows the cumulative effect of our neighbour NZTA, road network activities is predicted to degrade the Air Quality we receive, we request NZTA install HEPA air filters at our homes to mitigate the adverse impact.

9.3 One of the cumulative effects of the NZTA road network is the traffic dust particles that are deposited on our homes. These require water blasting services to remove. Therefore we request addition to condition AQ.5 “methods for periodically water blasting PPF’s of traffic particles during operation.”

10. Operational Car Parking (OMCN)

10.1 At the facilitated meeting with NZTA on 12 June, NZTA had the action point to provide confirmation if there are proposed to be any carparks lost on Onehunga Mall from the current mix of angle and parallel parking. NZTA are yet to advise on this point.

10.2 NZTA also had the action point from that meeting to “provide details on the net formed parking loss, if any, around the area of The Landing.” NZTA has yet to advise.

10.3 As per para 6.1 on street car parking on the Onehunga Mall cul-de-sac is already at a premium and there are further residential ambitions of industrial land owners to convert land into high density apartments in the area. Therefore the only acceptable outcome to the residents is no impact or a net increase in the on street car parking on the Onehunga Mall Cul-de-sac as an outcome of this project.

10.4 Request as above to safeguard existing Onehunga Mall Cul-de-sac car parking at proposed condition DC.11.

11. Operational Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) at SH20 pedestrian underpass (OMCN)

11.1 Regarding condition LV.5E the residents request a change so that the primary route for pedestrian and cycle connection between Onehunga Mall and Old Mangere Bridge is alongside Onehunga Harbour Road and the secondary route using the SH20 underpass.

11.2 Northern side of SH20 underpass - The residents do not want any development changes which would encourage congregation directly outside the older style dwellings at the end of Onehunga Mall cul-de-sac. It is a tight and confined space and incredibly disruptive to residential life if members of the public congregate directly outside their homes and at times cause disturbances.

11.3 The tight and confined space is further illustrated below by the rebuttal evidence of Andrew Peter Murray of NZTA whose figure 7.1 shows the pedestrian/cycle routes going through the middle of the homes at 31-35A Onehunga Mall (refer figure 6 below.) Are NZTA now proposing to purchase the properties at 31-35A Onehunga Mall?

Figure 6 – Extract Figure 7-1 from the rebuttal evidence of Andrew Peter Murray of NZTA

11.4 CPTED - As an addition to condition LV.5E we request in relation to the area directly outside the SH20 underpass monitored CCTV installation, nightly patrols, ‘no loitering’ signs and applicable fines mandated. Importantly no seating to be provided next to the SH20 underpass on the Northern side as this would encourage congregation.

11.5 Transparent noise barrier – as per para 8.1 we request a transparent noise barrier above the northern side of the SH20 underpass for perceived ‘passive surveillance.’ We are very concerned that a concrete or similar barrier above could degrade the look and feel of the area, becoming more ‘boxed in’ than currently and encourage anti- social behaviour.

11.6 Co-creation in Northern side of SH20 underpass development - There appears to have been a lot of discussion between experts about the proposed development on the northern side of SH20 underpass. We request as the neighbouring properties, we are engaged in these discussions as we can add valuable insight and any changes will deeply affect the amenity of our homes.

12. Operational Loss of Views (OCMN)

12.1 The current views at 31-39 Onehunga Mall (example at Figure 7) appear set to be destroyed by the construction of East-West Link Project.

12.2 The residents request the loss of views be mitigated by their co-creation in dual purpose aesthetically pleasing and acoustic barriers along Onehunga Harbour Road.

Figure 7 – View from 31 Onehunga Mall living room.

13. Personal Submission – Engagement resulting in Misrepresentation and/or Negligence

13.1 Please refer my personal submission for specific details on this matter.

13.2 NZTA had an action point from the 12 June facilitated meeting to respond on this matter and has yet to do so. I trust reasonable mitigation will be offered. Although this issue may seem minor in comparison to all the matters NZTA is currently dealing with, as a young single income earner, it is absolutely fundamental to my financial security.

13.3 To be clear I would not have purchased my home if NZTA had disclosed the material disruption proposed to residents residing at the dwelling during construction of the East-West Link Project. Given I needed five flatmates to find the home desirable and live with me to help pay the mortgage during the entire construction period which I clearly explained.

13.4 And/or had NZTA disclosed the Waterview Connection Project and the proposed dramatic increase in vehicles (especially heavy vehicles) on SH20 behind the residential homes on the Onehunga Mall cul-de-sac. And with the increase in vehicles the adverse noise, vibration and air quality impacts. Summarised by Transport Minister Simon Bridges in the NZ Herald on 11 June 2017 “Once open, it [Waterview Connection] will transform the way people and freight move around Auckland, and will represent the biggest change in travel patterns since the opening of the Harbour Bridge in 1959.”

13.5 Both of these material issues would have been known by NZTA in September 2016. Instead I was given confidence the East-West Link Project would not adversely impact the residential amenity at my proposed home during construction or operationally, which the East-West Link Project Assessment of Effects shows is false in many ways (Construction and Operational Noise, Vibration and Air Quality.) And I was not advised at all of the existence of the Waterview Connection Project and it’s adverse impacts on the property.