Representation in support of the Submission made by Residents and Owners Association on the Ruakura Plan Change Request (RPCR)

Fairview Downs is generally described as a nice quiet neighbourhood with rural surroundings. We enjoy hearing farming activities, livestock and trains as this confirms the quietness of the area with these sounds being able to be heard over long distances.

Progress is inevitable and we expected at some stage development was likely and that this would impact on our current amenity. However most envisaged residential development not industrial development and the type of development is essentially our issue. The interface and interaction between industrial and residential land uses is usually contentious as the two activities are generally seen as being incompatible.

The Ruakura Development Plan asks us to accept that an Inland Port at Ruakura would function the same as a Sea Port, without ships. As such it will be deemed infrastructure under the RMA. We do not believe that infrastructure is typical urban development.

Many of the effects from the Ruakura Structure Plan have not been fully investigated or reported as these effects are deemed the result of urbanisation. The Ruakura Port requires the development of the remaining R1 area to support its operations. This is not urbanisation but industrialisation and the full effects from the Ruakura Structure Plan should be considered before development starts. We do not feel that a project of national significance should be approved based on half the project.

Although considered temporary in the scheme of things, construction effects are constantly omitted from modelling and dismissed as being manageable and meeting standards. It is still not clear how many sites will be under construction at any one time. As construction effects are limited to a site- by-site basis the effects from multiple sites has not been considered.

Construction effects are not limited to noise; the suburb of Fairview Downs also experienced dust, emissions, trucks, congestion, detours and road closures during the recent construction of the Ring Road through our neighbourhood.

It is possible that our suburb will have construction sites within one kilometre of its boundaries, to the north, south, east and west at the same time. We again request that the full impacts of several concurrent developments be considered and their effects on not only noise but also air quality and traffic be assessed. We would like to see periods of non-construction imposed, preferably for a minimum of 12 months, with more cooperation between different developments to manage the combined effects to surrounding areas.

1

With regards to noise levels at the boundary of the Ruakura Project being set at National Standards instead of the lower Hamilton City Council levels, we do not see why areas surrounding Ruakura should not have the same levels of noise amenity (both day and night) as other areas of Hamilton. If current levels are being exceeded in other areas, it is Councils responsibility to maintain them.

While much emphasis has been place on distance and mitigation regarding noise there is little consideration regarding distance and mitigation of other emissions such as fine particulate matter.

The freight and logistics industry is heavily reliant of vehicles and equipment that use diesel engines. The emission from an area reliant on these engines will be different to residential areas. The increased air degradation from an inland port poses the potential for surrounding areas to experiencing a lower level of air quality than other Hamiltonians.

Section 5-2 Proposed Regional Policy Statement - Managing discharges to air, excludes home heating and transport. It is not until there is an air quality problem that these sources of pollution are considered under Section 5-1 Proposed Regional Policy Statement - Improve degraded air quality.

We believe that the effects of the Ruakura Development on the current ambient air quality of the R1 area should be given greater consideration, as these effects are difficult to correct once they become an issue.

Another concern from the industrialisation of the R1 area is raised with the mention of a Hazardous Substance Response Centre being required.

We assume that this would not be required if there was little chance that hazardous facilities and/or substances were unlikely to be stored, used or transported within this area. We believe that the perceived or actual risk from the presence of hazardous substances in proximity to residential properties is also an amenity factor, in that it affects the community’s perception of safety.

The RMA states Hazardous substance includes but it not limited to, any substance defined in Section 2 of the Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act 1996 as a hazardous substance.

2 Section 2 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 say Hazardous substance means, unless expressly provided otherwise by regulations, any substance- (a) with 1 or more of the following intrinsic properties: (i) explosiveness: (ii) flammability: (iii) a capacity to oxidise: (iv) corrosiveness: (v) toxicity (including chronic toxicity) (vi) ecotoxicity, with or without bioaccumulation; or (b) which on contact with air or water (other than air or water where the temperature or pressure has been artificially increased or decreased) generates a substance with any 1 or more of the properties specified in paragraph (a)

As regulated and safety conscious as the use, storage and transportation of hazardous substances is, there is always the potential that an unforseen accident could cause a hazardous incident.

The National Hazardscape Report Published by Officials Committee for Domestic and External Security Coordiation Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet September 2007

Hazardous substance incidents A hazardous substance incident is an unplanned or uncontrolled release of hazardous substances such as fuels, flammable substances, explosives, toxic chemicals, pesticides, radioactive material, or micro-organisms including contaminated waste products. The Fire Service attended more than 1750 hazardous substances incidents in 2003/04.

Hazardous substance incidents can be caused by a natural hazard affecting a production and storage site, transport vehicle or end user site, a transportation accident, lack of care during use, criminal activity, or inadequate storage or disposal. Hazardous substance releases can cause large explosions or toxic gas plumes and can, therefore, affect large areas. The consequences of hazardous substance incidents can include death, illness (potentially long-term), evacuations, environmental contamination and economic losses for businesses involved from damage and site clean-up. The effects of a hazardous substance release can be worsened if two hazardous substances stored near each other trigger a chemical reaction.

However, large-scale hazardous substance incidents that would require mass evacuations and co- ordinated CDEM involvement are uncommon. The most likely cause of an incident would be the release of a hazardous substance during transit, either at a port or from a road transport accident in an urban area, or a large fire ignited by, or near, chemicals.

3 The large-scale nature of the Ruakura Structure Plan with 405ha of industrialisation increases our concerns regarding accidents within the area, with the potential for a chain reaction of events to occur. RMA section 3 meaning of effect (d) (ii) any potential effect of low probability, which has a high potential impact.

The potential for effects from hazardous facilities and substances, in combination with proximity, both to each other and sensitive land uses, has not been considered. We request that this be considered under

Schedule 4 of the RMA Assessment of effects on the environment 1, Matters that should be included in an assessment of effects of the environment e) where the activity includes the use of hazardous substances and installations, an assessment of any risk to the environment which are likely to arise from such use.

2, Matters that should be considered when preparing an assessment of effects on the environment f) any risk to the neighbourhood, the wider community, or the environment through natural hazards or the use of hazardous substances or hazardous installations.

We note that a 1 in 25 year and 1 in 500 year earthquake events have been modelled in relation to geotechnical reports and wonder how this information might be affected by the inclusion of hazardous substances in the area and whether a more likely 1 in 100 year event should also be considered.

We have economic concerns regarding Ruakura’s ability to attract sufficient freight and logistics activities to be viable and the consequences if this were to happen on future development within the R1 area.

The report “Research into freight hub/inland port development in the Region” prepared for the Waikato Regional Council by Aurecon is not a critique of the Ruakura Development. Used as an example along with other developments it mentions both positive attributes of Ruakura being, its location and accessibility and the negative of this location being, industry concerns regarding the location in relation to Auckland.

This report provides descriptions and explanations as to what these facilities do, how they operate, why and where they may be needed and what makes them efficient and cost effective. It puts this information into a local context and examines the relationship with freight flows in the Upper North Island.

4

It concludes that the key challenges that will impact on the efficient movement of freight in the Upper North Island are: - a lack of detailed data on freight origins and destinations across the region - no integrated strategic framework for the planning and management of freight movements across the Upper North Island - uncertainty regarding other Upper North Island sea ports - and a large amount of industrial land available for development across the Upper North Island

This report states that as the number of facilities increase, the efficiency benefits become more marginal, until viability and profitability become an issue. This indicates that the planning, location and co-operation of these facilities is an essential requirement for viability

In line with this, it recommends that investigation of other industrial areas throughout the Upper North Island be considered to ascertain if other developers may also have similar, potentially competing plans.

We would like to express concern at the lack of investigation of other developments and how they could impact the Ruakura Port. This lack of consideration was evident when the industrial area to the north of , known as Northgate announced itself as a consented freight hub recently to which Mr Poiho replied that he had been unaware of the development and did not see it as competition. Without an overreaching consideration of the location of future inland ports and freight hubs we consider there is potential for too many facilities to emerge.

It would appear that in order for the freight and logistics industry to gain efficiencies from the development of an inland port and freight hub in the Upper North Island that coordination and not competition is required.

The authors believe that ideally three large inland ports would service the Upper North Island with the third Inland Port servicing the two existing inland ports of Wiri and Metroport.

There does not appear to be the substantial support from Ports of Auckland or Port of Tauranga that this project requires to be successful in the Upper North Island freight context and we do not see any current hindrance to the Ports of Auckland or the Port of Tauranga establishing future facilities better suited to support their current operations instead of utilising the Ruakura Site.

5

Our submission also expresses concerns regarding security and flooding. With regards to bio- security we support the position of those submitters with more knowledge in this area but note that there appears to be a serious conflict between bio-security needs and 3 Waters mitigation. We still have concerns regarding flooding and the impacts of allowing development to start prior to the ICMP being finalised, but rely on the representation of those with more knowledge of this subject.

In Conclusion

This project expects existing areas to trade their current high levels of amenity for levels lower than other Hamilton residents can expect and tells them if they don’t like it to consider moving. This is not always a practical option for home owners, especially as this project has the potential to lower property prices in the area making the choice to move more difficult financially.

In short the Ruakura Structure Plan is not a good neighbour or in keeping with existing surrounding sensitive land uses and as infrastructure will have it’s own best interests protected. Mitigation measures offered do not mitigate the loss of amenity or even attempt to minimise it. Instead we are asked to accept National Standards and told all standards (which appear to be set at maximum allowable effects) will be met.

Dr Black mentions that resistance to a noise source can increase the likelihood of sensitivity. As many residents are already opposed to this development the potential for sensitivity has already increased. It would appear that the only two options to avoid or mitigate this issue are to not introduce the annoyance or expect people to move away from it.

We ask that the Ruakura Plan Change Request be declined and that already established urban areas have their best interests put before those of a future development. It is unfair to expect us to put up with it or move.

6