Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Proposed Men’s Correctional Facility at Wiri Final report and decision produced under section 149R of the Resource Management Act Volume 1 of 2 Published by the Board of Inquiry into The Proposed Men’s Correctional Facility at Wiri Publication number: EPA 0056 ISBN 978-0-478-34865-1 (print) ISBN 978-0-478-34866-8 (electronic ISBN 978-0-478-34867-5 (CD) BOARD OF INQUIRY PROPOSED MEN‟S CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AT WIRI In the Matter of The Resource Management Act And In the Matter of a referral to a Board of Inquiry under s149J of the Act of an application by the Minister of Corrections to alter Designation 288 THE BOARD OF INQUIRY Judge M Harland (Chair) Deputy Chief Judge C Fox D Hill L Auton W Burrill Prepared in September 2011 Appearances: MR S QUINN and MS K ANDERSON Counsel for Department of Corrections MR R ENRIGHT and MS H O‟CONNELL Counsel for Wiri Oil Services Limited and Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority Inc MR G LANNING and MR W BANGMA Counsel for Auckland Transport MR P O‟DRISCOLL Counsel for Te Akitai Waiohua MS M DICKEY and MR M ALLAN Counsel for Auckland Council and the Manurewa Local Board MS S SIMONS, Ms J VAN DEN BURGEN AND SISTER M MARTIN Counsel for Vision Manukau MS J CAMPBELL Counsel for Investment Property Holdings Limited Partnership MS P FORDYCE Counsel appointed by the Board as Friend of Submitters MR J MAASSEN Counsel appointed to assist the Board of Inquiry MR R GUNSTON AND MR R BROOKING as representatives of Prison Fellowship New Zealand MR G SMITH as representative of Auckland Volcanic Cones Society Inc SISTER A HURLEY as representative of Sisters of Mercy Wiri MR A JOHNSON as representative of the Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit of The Salvation Army Mr T Minhinnick as representative of Ngati Te Ata MS A WILLIAMS as representative of Wiri Business Improvement District MS S JOHNSTON as representative of Manurewa Principals Association MS A SEARLE AND MS AROHA GRAY as representatives of Child Advocacy Group MR F BUCK as representative of Weymouth Residents and Ratepayers Association MS C BROWN MR G AND MRS R CLARK MR D FRASER MS P GRAY MR T GREENING MS T LUXTON MR I DUNWOODIE MR R FOWLER MS D JELICICH MS A SCHAAF MS L WALL MR N ROGERS Hearing: Held at TelstraClear Pacific events centre, 770 Great South Road, Manukau Monday 2 May 2011 Thursday – Friday, 5 -6 May 2011 Monday 9 May 2011 to Friday 13 May 2011 Monday 16 May 2011 to Friday 20 May 2011 Tuesday 24 May 2011 to Thursday 26 May 2011 Wednesday 22 June 2011 Site Visits: 20 January 2011 - Pre-hearing site visit to Spring Hill Corrections Facility, the wider Clendon community and the proposed site of the Men‟s Prison at Wiri Proposal 3 May 2011 –Wiri Oil Services Limited (WOSL) terminal, Auckland Region Women‟s Correction Facility and views of the proposed sites from McLaughins Road 12 May 2011 – Various residential and other locations in the wider Manukau area, potentially affected by the proposal. 23 May 2011 – Mt Eden Corrections Facility, Korowai Maanaki youth Justice Facility, view of the proposed site from upper floors/roof of Auckland Council‟s Manukau Service Centre building at Wiri Station Road. FINAL REPORT AND DECISION OF THE BOARD OF INQUIRY The application to alter Designation 288 is confirmed subject to the terms and conditions contained in Volume 2 of this Report and Decision. Volume 1 1 INTRODUCTION 14 2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK 17 2.1 Section 181 of the RMA 18 2.2 Part 6AA RMA 18 2.3 Applicable burden and standard of proof 20 2.4 Conditions 20 3 THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES IN CONTENTION 21 4 THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 22 4.1 The site and its environs 23 4.2 The existing designation 26 4.3 The women‘s prison 27 4.4 Korowai Manaaki youth justice facility 29 4.5 The demographic profile of the immediately and wider impacted communities 30 4.5.1 Population 31 4.5.2 Age 31 4.5.3 Ethnicity 32 4.5.4 Community cohesion 32 4.5.5 Deprivation indices 34 5 THE PROPOSAL 35 5.1 Overview of Prison Services 36 5.2 The NoR and the objectives of the Minister of Corrections 38 5.3 Public-Private-Partnership Model (PPP) 42 5.4 Site layout and design 46 6 PLANNING DOCUMENTS 48 6.1 Overview of the planners‘ evidence 49 6.2 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 51 6.3 Auckland Regional Policy Statement (―ARPS‖) 51 6.4 Auckland Regional Policy Statement – Proposed Plan Change 6 52 6.5 Operative Manukau District Plan (―the District Plan‖) 52 7 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES. 53 7.1 The issues and the evidence 53 7.2 Legal framework 54 7.2.1 When are alternatives required to be considered? 54 7.2.2 Adequacy of consideration of alternatives 56 7.3 The evidence 58 7.3.1 Corrections‘ case 58 7.3.1.1 The first business case 58 7 7.3.1.2 The second business case 59 7.3.2 Submitters‘ cases 61 7.3.2.1 Mr Greening 61 7.3.2.2 The Council/Local Board 61 7.3.2.3 Vision Manukau 62 7.3.2.4 The Prison Fellowship 63 7.4 Findings 63 8 IS THE ALTERATION REASONABLY NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE MINISTER‘S OBJECTIVES? 65 8.1 The issues and the evidence 65 8.2 The Minister‘s objectives 66 8.3 National capacity shortfall 66 8.4 Reduction in reoffending rates 70 8.5 Optimising prisoner capacity and maintaining public safety 75 8.6 PPP objectives 76 8.7 Conclusion 78 9 ECONOMIC EFFECTS 78 9.1 The issues and the evidence 78 9.2 Assessed benefits of the proposed men‘s prison 79 9.3 Methodology – EIA – v - CBA 81 9.4 Local – v – regional economic benefits 82 9.5 Findings 83 10 METHODOLOGY 84 11 CONSULTATION 85 11.1 The issues and the evidence 85 11.2 Legal provisions 86 11.3 The consultation process 88 11.3.1 Consultation methodology 89 11.3.2 What was done to consult 90 11.3.3 Review of reports 92 11.4 Was the consultation undertaken adequate? 93 11.4.1 General complaint 93 11.4.2 Specific omissions 94 11.4.2.1 Māori Community 94 11.4.2.2 Pacific Island community 95 11.4.2.3 Youth and children 96 11.4.2.4 Other impacted communities 96 11.5 Findings 96 12 SOCIAL EFFECTS 97 12.1 The issues and the evidence 97 12.2 The social impact assessment evidence 98 12.2.1 Background 98 8 12.2.2 Criticism of the SIA methodology 100 12.2.3 Response by Corrections 100 12.2.4 Findings on adequacy of SIA 102 12.3 Defining the impacted communities 103 12.4 Defining what comprises a social effect 105 12.5 Social effects which can be anticipated from a prison 106 12.5.1 Research 106 12.5.2 Social effects identified during AEE consultation 108 12.5.3 The Focus Groups 109 12.5.3.1 Youth 110 12.5.3.2 Māori 111 12.5.3.3 Pacific peoples 111 12.5.3.4 Local businesses 112 12.5.3.5 Social service providers 112 12.5.4 Submitters 113 12.6 Evaluation of the evidence of social effects by experts 113 12.6.1 Economic and employment benefits 114 12.6.2 Other benefits 115 12.6.3 Assessment of effects concerning community services 117 12.6.4 Relocation of staff and prisoners‘ families/associates 122 12.6.5 Personal safety, security and crime 125 12.6.6 Assessment of effects regarding community image, stigma and well- being 128 12.6.7 Findings of effects on behaviours and attitudes of youth 129 12.6.8 Effects on women prisoners and staff 130 12.6.9 Cumulative effects 131 12.7 Findings 133 13 FIRE AND EXPLOSION RISK EFFECTS (WOSL) 138 13.1 Overview 138 13.2 Legal and planning framework 139 13.2.1 Jurisdiction to impose additional conditions on the women‘s prison 139 13.2.2 Section 3 RMA - effects 139 13.2.3 HIPAP 4 141 13.2.4 Relevant plan provisions 144 13.3 The issues and the evidence 144 13.3.1 The Liquigas LPG terminal 145 13.3.2 Individual and societal risk/ALARP 145 13.3.3 Separation distance 147 13.3.4 Women‘s prison capacity 148 13.3.5 Mitigation measures 149 13.4 Evaluation and findings 151 13.4.1 Exposure risk and Corrections‘ responsibility 151 13.4.2 Timing of effective further risk reduction 152 9 14 EFFECTS ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC HERITAGE VALUES 156 14.1 Legal and planning framework 156 14.2 The evidence 157 14.2.1 Archaeological landscape 157 14.2.2 The site for proposed men‘s prison 158 14.3 Findings 159 15 MĀORI CULTURE AND TRADITIONS 161 15.1 The issues and the evidence 161 15.2 Cultural landscape 162 15.3 Legal and planning framework 164 15.3.1 Tangata whenua issues 164 15.3.2 Planning instruments 166 15.4 The evidence 168 15.4.1 Correction‘s evidence 168 15.4.1.1 Methodology 168 15.4.1.2 Consultation 169 15.4.2 Recorded iwi/hapu positions on the proposal prior to notification170 15.4.2.1 Ngati Te Ata 170 15.4.2.2 Te Akitai Waiohua 171 15.4.2.3 Issues common to both iwi/hapu 171 15.5 Mitigation proposed 172 15.5.1 Corrections‘ proposals 172 15.5.2 Tangata whenua positions and proposed mitigation 173 15.5.2.1 Ngati Te Ata 174 15.5.2.2 Te Akitai Waiohua 177 15.6 Evaluation of cultural effects 180 15.6.1 Ngati Te Ata and Te Akitai Waiohua 180 15.6.2 Te Kawerau a Maki 180 15.7 Other Māori issues and effects 184 15.8 Findings 185 16 LANDSCAPE, BUILDING PLATFORM AND DESIGN, AND VISUAL EFFECTS 185 16.1 The issues and the evidence 185 16.2 The landscape value of Maunga Matukutureia 185 16.2.1 Dr Hayward‘s evidence 188 16.2.2 Mr Goodwin‘s evidence 192 16.2.3 Ms Gilbert‘s evidence 193 16.2.4 Significance to Māori 193 16.2.5 Evaluation 194 16.3 Building platform and design 195 16.3.1 The issues and evidence 195 16.3.2 The IDMS 196 16.3.3 Development controls 198 16.3.4 Evaluation of building platform and design 200 10 16.5 Evaluation of landscape and visual effects 202 16.5.1 Visual simulations 202 16.5.2 Mitigation planting 203 16.5.2.1 The women‘s prison conditions 204 16.5.2.2 The proposed conditions 204 16.6 Overall finding 205 17 OTHER EFFECTS 205 17.1 Ecological