BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY EAST WEST LINK PROJECT

UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER of notices of requirement for designations and resource consent applications by the Transport Agency for the East West Link Project.

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF ALISTAIR GRAEME KIRK ON BEHALF OF PORTS OF LIMITED

22 MAY 2017

B S Carruthers / S H Pilkinton P +64 9 367 8000 F +64 9 367 8163 PO Box 8 DX CX10085 Auckland

3297052 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 3

2. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE ...... 4

3. POAL'S INTEREST IN THE PROJECT ...... 5

4. CURRENT POSITION & OUTSTANDING CONCERNS ...... 6

5. CONCLUSION ...... 12

3297052 v4 3

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 My full name is Alistair Graeme Kirk. I am the General Manager of Infrastructure and Property for Limited (" POAL "). I am authorised to give this evidence on POAL's behalf.

Experience and qualifications

1.2 I have a Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) (Hons) from the University of Canterbury, a New Zealand Certificate in Engineering (Civil), New Zealand Qualifications Authority, and am a Member of the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (" MIPENZ ").

1.3 In my role, I am responsible for the provision, and management, of all assets and property of POAL along with port planning. This includes the maintenance, upgrading and expansion of POAL's assets at the Port of Auckland, Wiri Freight Hub (South Auckland), the Waikato Freight Hub, Gabador Place (on the Tamaki River), and, relevant to this hearing, the Port of Onehunga and Pikes Point (an area of industrial land in Penrose).

1.4 I am directly responsible for over $600 million of assets, including:

(a) Over 90 hectares of yards and pavements.

(b) Wharf structures, dolphins and seawalls.

(c) Buildings, including warehouses, offices and cargo sheds.

(d) The provisions of services to and within the port, including 11kV electrical reticulation system, water, stormwater and wastewater.

(e) Access channels, turning basins and berths.

(f) Freight Hubs in Auckland and the Waikato.

1.5 I am also responsible for developing port and freight hub masterplans for the Port of Auckland, and regularly reviewing and testing these plans, along with setting priorities and implementing the required changes / infrastructure. Part of this process involves regularly

3297052 4

reviewing how POAL's other assets and infrastructure, such as its inland (freight hub) and minor ports, can best contribute to POAL's overall freight task.

1.6 My team looks after projects such as rail siding development, building construction, wharf construction, dredging, deepening berths and underpinning structures, the Fergusson Container Terminal expansion, layout changes, along with day-to-day maintenance and inspections of all assets.

1.7 My previous roles have included five years at Opus International Consultants in Christchurch managing port projects, roading projects in Canterbury, structural design of heavy civil structures for ports, mines and power stations. I then worked for two engineering consultants in the United Kingdom for a total of six years where I managed the structural design teams for high profile building projects in the centre of London.

2. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

2.1 My evidence will address POAL's interest in the East West Link (" Project "), its current position and its outstanding concerns.

2.2 In addition to my statement, Mr McKenzie (traffic) and Mr Arbuthnot (planning) have provided expert evidence on behalf of POAL. I have read both of these statements, share the concerns they express and agree with the amendments to the Project's design and the conditions on the notice of requirement and resource consents that they recommend.

2.3 I note that Mr Arbuthnot concludes that he does not consider that the statutory tests under section 171(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (" RMA ") have been satisfied, as well as raising concerns that the Project cannot pass the "objectives and policies gateway" under section 104D(1)(b) of the RMA. While acknowledging Mr Arbuthnot's expert opinion, which I do not disagree with, POAL continues to support the Project as a whole provided that the amendments to its design and conditions discussed within its evidence are made.

3297052 5

3. POAL'S INTEREST IN THE PROJECT

3.1 POAL owns two significant pieces of land that are directly affected by the Project:

(a) 39 and 59 Miami Parade, Pikes Point – POAL has extensive land holdings at Pikes Point, which are leased by third parties for light industrial activities including the storage of import vehicles and operation of a heliport. 16.6 hectares of POAL's land at Pikes Point is reclaimed land, which was used for a sanitary refuse landfill operation that ceased in 1981. A further 1.3 hectares is a hardfill reclamation with the balance towards the eastern end of the landholding being pockets of natural land.

(b) The Port of Onehunga (55 and 57 Onehunga Harbour Road) – the Port of Onehunga is located to the south of the Onehunga Town Centre, adjacent to the Mangere inlet of the . Part of the land is occupied by facilities formerly used by Holcim for its cement and manufacturing operations (these operations have recently transitioned to the Port of Auckland), while Sanford Limited conducts fishing operations from the site. Onehunga Wharf also acts as the base for the local west coast fishing fleet.

3.2 POAL's other assets will also be indirectly affected by the Project, including:

(a) The Port of Auckland, which is New Zealand's largest and busiest port. The Port of Auckland is a significant infrastructure asset of critical regional and national importance, which handles approximately 30% of New Zealand's container trade by volume.

(b) POAL's regionally and nationally significant network of fast turnaround cargo handling facilities connected by road and rail,

3297052 6

including two inland ports (Wiri and Waikato) and distribution and warehousing facilities.

3.3 POAL relies on the efficiency of the broader transport network to enable it to meet the demands of its commercial customers.

3.4 Given the above and as stated in its submission, POAL is generally supportive of the Project and the New Zealand Transport Agency's (" Transport Agency ") objectives to the extent that the Project will better provide for the efficient movement of freight and transport generally across the wider Auckland area. In particular, POAL considers that the Project will have a positive impact overall on the ability of commercial cargo operators to do business in Auckland and in New Zealand generally.

4. CURRENT POSITION & OUTSTANDING CONCERNS

4.1 I can confirm that POAL and the Transport Agency are currently in negotiations regarding the acquisition of the entirety of POAL's sites at both Pikes Point and the Port of Onehunga, as discussed in the evidence of Mr Harrington on behalf of the Transport Agency.1

4.2 POAL is fully committed to the negotiation process, and considers that the optimal outcome from its perspective is the full acquisition of both these sites. However, given that there is no guarantee the acquisition process will be successful (and it is certainly unlikely that it will be finalised in advance of the hearing), it is necessary to set out POAL's concerns in the event that the proposed acquisitions do not eventuate.

4.3 In particular, if POAL is left holding these assets during construction and after the Project is operational, it has concerns about the adverse effects of the Project on these assets that need to be considered by the Board in determining the Transport Agency's applications. I therefore discuss POAL's outstanding concerns below. These concerns are also addressed in the expert evidence of Mr Arbuthnot and Mr McKenzie on behalf of POAL.

1 Evidence of Donald Harrington on behalf of the New Zealand Transport Agency, dated 12 April 2017, at [4.4].

3297052 7

Pikes Point

Port Link Road

4.4 The Project includes the proposed development of a new cul-de-sac on POAL's land called the Port Link Road. The Port Link Road is proposed to be a local connector road with a design speed of 50 / 60 km/h. 2 I understand it is intended to improve access to the nearby inland ports and connect the EWL to Miami Parade.

4.5 However, as Mr McKenzie explains: 3

I am not able to see, based on the information available from the NOR drawings and the evidence provided by the Transport Agency's experts, how the Port Link Road actually "links" the EWL to the other inland ports, other than by way of the future potential driveway connection discussed above.

4.6 The Port Link Road has been designed with a gap in its turning head to service the inland ports to the north. However, the design does not currently provide a physical link to the existing roading network that services those ports, other than the potential for a future driveway connection as identified by Mr McKenzie.

4.7 In my view, the proposed Port Link Road will therefore not contribute to the efficient distribution of freight within Auckland. The failure to provide connections to the inland ports in a form that would be suitable for heavy vehicle traffic, means that the very facilities that are intended to benefit from the Port Link Road the most (being the inland ports to the north of POAL's Pikes Point site) are unlikely to even utilise the proposed link.

4.8 Additionally, the Port Link Road significantly impacts the capacity of the POAL Pikes Point site, as a substantial strip of prime land used for the storage of vehicles will be lost.

4.9 Given the above, POAL seeks that the notice of requirement and associated applications for regional resource consents are not confirmed for the proposed Port Link Road.

2 Evidence of Noel Nancekivell on behalf of the New Zealand Transport Agency, dated 12 April 2017, at [9.4(f)]. 3 Evidence of Don McKenzie on behalf of Ports of Auckland Limited, dated 22 May 2017, at [4.15].

3297052 8

4.10 Further, I note that Auckland Transport holds an existing designation (Designation 1701) over POAL's land at Pikes Point that provides for a local road in what appears to be same area of the proposed Port Link Road. Auckland Transport publicly stated through the Unitary Plan process that this existing designation should be "rolled over" on the basis it could be used for a local connector road to connect the EWL to both the inland ports and Miami Parade.

4.11 POAL opposed the roll-over of that designation during the Unitary Plan hearings, emphasising that the proper process was to seek a requirement for a local connector road through the EWL process (which at that time was still just a proposal with no formal applications under the RMA having been made). However, even though the process argued for by POAL has now been followed by the Transport Agency, Auckland Transport has not sought to uplift its existing designation. This leaves POAL in the situation where it (or any subsequent landowner) will need to deal with two separate requiring authorities when it comes to the use and development of the land subject to the existing designation, in the event the EWL notice of requirement is confirmed.

4.12 Further, on the basis of Mr Arbuthnot's evidence, it appears that the Transport Agency has not adequately considered possible alternatives to the Port Link Road. In particular, POAL operates a vehicle booking system to smooth freight traffic flows into and out of its main container terminal at the Port of Auckland. This is an effective way of reducing traffic congestion, managing peaks and improving efficiency. It should be considered whether the inland ports to the north of Pikes Point should introduce similar measures, as an alternative to the proposed Port Link Road which significantly affects POAL's land.

Stormwater / geotechnical

4.13 As part of the closing works of the sanitary landfill operation in the early 1980’s a clay cap was constructed over this landfill to seal in the material and enable the site to be re-purposed for industrial activities. POAL has undertaken further recent work to enhance the clay cap to prevent stormwater infiltrating the underlying landfill material.

3297052 9

4.14 The Transport Agency has purported to consider the design requirements for those locations where the Project crosses historic landfills, so as to minimise the potential for contaminants to leach into the harbour. 4 In relation to the Pikes Point closed landfill, the Transport Agency's focus is on managing the effects of construction on the Council's existing leachate system. More generally, a Contaminated Land Management Plan is also proposed to minimise effects during construction, within which it is recommended that an engineered cap is constructed for any areas of historic landfill that are excavated during construction and are not otherwise covered by pavement.

4.15 However, it appears that no specific consideration has been given to managing the effects on the site's existing clay cap, which as far as I can see is not specifically identified anywhere in the application materials or the Transport Agency's primary evidence. It is therefore unclear how the Transport Agency intends to construct and operate the Project in a manner that provides appropriate protection for the clay cap. This protection is required across the site to ensure that the integrity of the clay cap is not compromised.

4.16 Given the former use of the land as a sanitary refuse landfill and to further protect the clay cap, POAL has also constructed a site-wide bespoke system for the treatment and discharge of stormwater from the site, including the re-contouring of the site to enable stormwater to flow north-to-south into grass treatment swales before discharging into the Manukau Harbour. The re-contouring was undertaken on top of the clay cap to ensure the refuse material below was not disturbed. As a result, the land at the northernmost point of the site is some four metres above the land on the southern boundary to provide suitable fall for the stormwater disposal system.

4.17 POAL considers the construction and operation of the Project and the proposed Port Link Road will require the substantial re-configuration of the site's stormwater system and possible re-contouring of the site. However, again, it is unclear from the application materials and the Transport Agency's evidence how the Transport Agency intends to

4 Evidence of Ann Williams on behalf of the New Zealand Transport Agency, dated 12 April 2017, at [10.8].

3297052 10

manage such works in a way that will avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on POAL and the wider receiving environment.

4.18 Overall, POAL considers that far greater certainty must be provided (by way of design changes and / or the imposition of conditions) to ensure that adverse stormwater effects and effects on the clay cap will be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Change in viaduct design

4.19 POAL understands that, since the Project was notified for submission, the Transport Agency has proposed changes to the design of the viaduct that crosses the eastern corner of POAL's land. 5

4.20 POAL is not opposed to the change proposed to the viaduct's design, provided that more certainty is provided regarding the restrictions that will apply to the land underlying and adjacent to the proposed new viaduct and the associated off-ramps.

4.21 As discussed by Mr McKenzie, notwithstanding the proposed design change, there is still insufficient information in the application materials and the Transport Agency's evidence regarding the constraints that would apply to land underlying and adjacent to the proposed viaduct and on/off-ramps. It is also unclear to what extent this proposed infrastructure will adversely affect internal traffic movements within the Pikes Point site.

4.22 Amendments to the conditions of the notice of requirement to address this uncertainty are discussed in the evidence of Mr Arbuthnot, including a proposed condition requiring consultation with POAL (or any subsequent landowner) regarding the final design of the Ann's Creek viaduct and associated on/off-ramps.

Port of Onehunga

4.23 Port activities at the Port of Onehunga have progressively declined over recent years as these activities have shifted to the Port of Auckland, supported by POAL's freight hubs at South Auckland (Wiri) and more

5 Evidence of Andrea Rickard on behalf of the New Zealand Transport Agency, dated 12 April 2017, at [22.1(h)]; Evidence of Noel Nancekivell on behalf of the New Zealand Transport Agency, dated 12 April 2017, at Annexure E and Annexure F.

3297052 11

recently in the Waikato. Despite this, the Port of Onehunga landholding remains of strategic importance in the local and regional context.

4.24 POAL's outstanding concerns with the effects of the Project on its land at the Port of Onehunga are limited to protecting the ability for future generations to access and use this landholding. I understand this concern is shared by Mr Marler on behalf of Panuku Development Auckland.6

4.25 At present, the local roading network provides full left and right turn access into, and out of, the Port of Onehunga, for all classes of vehicles via Onehunga Harbour Road. In relation to access to the Port following the completion of the Project's construction, Mr Murray states: 7

Various submitters raise concerns about access to the Onehunga Wharf (Port). I can confirm that safe and efficient access to the Wharf will be provided to vehicles from all directions. Once the EWL is complete, including to Orpheus Drive, to Onehunga Mall (via the land bridge over the EWL and Onehunga Harbour Road) and to the EWL (via Onehunga Harbour Road, the Galway Link road and the Galway St extension).

The current access to the Wharf is directly off Onehunga Harbour Road, however, that route is highly congested across much of the day due to the existing use of that road for motorway access. The project involves a longer route (via the Galway Street extension) for some access movements, however, there will be significantly reduced congestion, and more reliable and consistent access times for the other movements. For example, the 2026 models indicate that the range of access times from the Wharf across the three peak periods and across a range of key destinations (such as Onehunga Mall, the Airport, SH20 North, SH1 north and Highbrook), reduces from 33 to 20 minutes and the average time from 13.5 to 11.5 minutes.

4.26 Notwithstanding that, as set out in Mr McKenzie's evidence, there is insufficient information in the application materials and evidence to confirm whether current levels of vehicular access to the Port of Onehunga will be maintained through the construction and operational phases of the Project.8 In particular, it is not clear whether frequent large truck movements into and out of POAL's land from Onehunga Harbour Road can be provided for without the provision of an

6 Evidence of Rod Marler on behalf of Panuku Development Auckland, dated 10 May 2017, at [9.7] - [9.9]. 7 Evidence of Andrew Murray on behalf of the New Zealand Transport Agency, dated 12 April 2017, at [19.20]. 8 Evidence of Don McKenzie on behalf of Ports of Auckland Limited, dated 22 May 2017, at [5.6].

3297052 12

appropriate separated turning bay, which as Mr McKenzie explains does not appear to be provided for as part of the current design.

4.27 As set out above, POAL considers it imperative that full access for all classes of vehicles to the Port of Onehunga is maintained, consistent with the strategic importance of the Port of Onehunga landholding. Mr Arbuthnot has proposed a condition that would satisfy POAL's concerns in this regard.

5. CONCLUSION

5.1 POAL is currently in negotiations with the Transport Agency regarding the acquisition of its sites at Pikes Point and the Port of Onehunga and is fully committed to the negotiation process. However, in the interim and in the event that the acquisition does not eventuate, POAL considers that a number of amendments to the design of the Project and the conditions of the notice of requirement and associated resource consents are required to remedy its outstanding concerns with the Project.

Alistair Graeme Kirk 22 May 2017

3297052