TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
East West Link Proposal
HEARING at HUNTERVILLE ROOM, ASCOT STAND, ELLERSLIE EVENT CENTRE, 80 ASCOT AVENUE, REMUERA, AUCKLAND on 7 August 2017
BOARD OF INQUIRY: Dr John Priestley (Chair) CNZM QC Mr Alan Bickers (Deputy Chair) MNZM JP Mr Michael Parsonson (Board Member) Ms Sheena Tepania (Board Member)
Hearing Proceedings
Day 24 Monday 7 August 2017
Time Name Representing Topic Documents Submitted / Transcript Ref. Presented Page no's 9.09 am Dr Priestley Board of Inquiry Housekeeping 3190 9.10 am Ms Eaves Auckland Council Examination-in-chief by Mr Hearing Summary 3190 Lanning Exhibit I – Te Kawerau Iwi NZ Map Exhibit J – Cultural sites and walking route Map 9.21 am Board Board of Inquiry Questions 3194 9.31 am Mr Enright Ngāti Whātua Cross-examination 3197 Orākei and Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority 9.48 am Dr Hewison The Onehunga Cross-examination 3203 Enhancement Society 9.55 am Board Board of Inquiry Questions 3205 9.58 am Mr Mulligan NZ Transport Cross-examination 3206 Agency 10.11 am Board Board of Inquiry Questions 3210 10.14 am Mr Mulligan NZ Transport Cross-examination cont'd 3212 Agency
10.33 am Board Board of Inquiry Questions 3219 10.34 am Dr Priestley Board of Inquiry Housekeeping 3220 10.36 am Morning tea 3222 10.51 am Mr Mulligan NZ Transport Cross-examination cont'd 3222 Agency 11.03 am Board Board of Inquiry Questions 3227 11.15 am Dr Priestley Board of Inquiry Housekeeping 3231 11.17 am Mr Gordon KiwiRail Examination-in-chief by Ms Hearing summary 3232 Arthur-Young 11.23 am Board Board of Inquiry Questions 3235 11.35 am Ms Evitt NZ Transport Cross-examination 3239 Agency 11.41 am Ms Beals KiwiRail Examination-in-chief by Ms Hearing summary 3243 Arthur-Young 11.49 am Ms Evitt NZ Transport Cross-examination 3246 Agency 11.51 am Board Board of Inquiry Questions 3247 11.54 am Mr Norman Auckland Council Examination-in-chief by Mr 3248 Lanning 11.55 am Board Board of Inquiry Questions 3249 12.10 pm Dr Hewison The Onehunga Cross-examination 3255 Enhancement Society 12.28 pm Lunch 3262
1.31 pm Mr Pitches Campaign for Cross-examination 3262 Better Transport 1.42 pm Board Board of Inquiry Questions 3268 1.47 pm Mr Mulligan NZ Transport Cross-examination 3270 Agency 2.13 pm Board Board of Inquiry Questions 3280 2.14 pm Mr Mulligan NZ Transport Cross-examination cont'd 3280 Agency 2.17 pm Dr Priestley Board of Inquiry Discussion with Mr Pitches 3281 2.18 pm Mr Mulligan NZ Transport Cross-examination cont'd 3282 Agency 2.23 pm Mr Lanning Auckland Council Re-examination 3284 2.28 pm Ms Soene Auckland Council Examination-in-chief by Mr 3286 Lanning 2.28 pm Dr Hewison The Onehunga Cross-examination 3286 Enhancement Society 2.41 pm Board Board of Inquiry Questions 3290 2.57 pm Mr Mulligan NZ Transport Cross-examination 3296 Agency 3.02 pm Mr Marler Auckland Council Examination-in-chief by Mr Exhibit K – East West 3299 Lanning Connection, Working Group Minutes 31.05.17 Exhibit L – Towards an Onehunga Foreshore Concept
Plan, workshop two 24.05.17 3.02 pm Dr Hewison The Onehunga Cross-examination 3299 Enhancement Society 3.12 pm Board Board of Inquiry Questions 3301 3.14 pm Dr Hewison The Onehunga Cross-examination cont'd 3301 Enhancement Society 3.12 pm Board Board of Inquiry Questions 3302 3.14 pm Dr Hewison The Onehunga Cross-examination cont'd 3303 Enhancement Society 3.17 pm Board Board of Inquiry Questions 3304 3.18 pm Dr Hewison The Onehunga Cross-examination cont'd 3305 Enhancement Society 3.36 pm Board Board of Inquiry Questions 3308 3.30 pm Dr Priestley Board of Inquiry Housekeeping 3310 3.31 pm Afternoon tea 3311 3.46 pm Board Board of Inquiry Questions 3311 3.49 pm Mr Burns The Onehunga Cross-examination 3312 Enhancement Society 3.59 pm Ms Kinzett Onehunga Cross-examination 3316 Business
Association 4.09 pm Board Board of Inquiry Questions 3321 4.11 pm Ms Kinzett Onehunga Cross-examination cont'd 3322 Business Association 4.15 pm Mr Jackson The Onehunga Cross-examination 3324 Enhancement Society 4.17 pm Mr Mulligan NZ Transport Cross-examination 3325 Agency 4.43 pm Board Board of Inquiry Questions 3337 4.44 pm Mr Lanning Auckland Council Re-examination 3337 4.50 pm Board Board of Inquiry Questions 3339 4.52 pm Mr Lanning Auckland Council Re-examination cont'd 3340 4.54 pm Dr Priestley Board of Inquiry Housekeeping 3341 4.59 pm Adjourn 3346 Page 3190
[9.09 am]
DR PRIESTLEY: Counsel, as you know we are going to be deposing at some stage two KiwiRail witnesses who have commitments which need to be 5 accommodated elsewhere but we're ready to start at 9.00 am with Ms Eaves, Mr Lanning, is she ready to go?
MR LANNING: She is.
10 DR PRIESTLEY: Swear her in, please.
MR LANNING: Sir, while Ms Eaves is coming up, can I also indicate that Ms Bartley, who's the chair of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Board is still unwell.
15 DR PRIESTLEY: She is still sick?
MR LANNING: So the deputy chair, Mr Diver, is available today and he can effectively adopt her evidence and answer any questions from the Board's point of view, if that is acceptable? 20 DR PRIESTLEY: Are you calling him today?
MR LANNING: Yes, if that's acceptable to the Board, rather than delaying.
25 [9.10 am]
DR PRIESTLEY: But also we've had a phone call from a Mr Pitches who is chair or spokesperson for the Campaign for Better Transport and he is anxious to cross-examine your economics witness, Mr Norman. I don't know 30 whether you know that. So that may change the timing estimate slightly.
MR LANNING: Yes.
35 DR PRIESTLEY: Please swear in the witness, thank you.
Ms Eaves (affirmed)
MR LANNING: Good morning, Ms Eaves, could you please confirm that your full name 40 is Myfanwy May Eaves?
MS EAVES: It is.
MR LANNING: And have you produced a statement of primary evidence for this 45 hearing?
MS EAVES: I did.
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3191
MR LANNING: Do you have the qualifications and experience set out in section 1 of that evidence?
MS EAVES: I do. 5 MR LANNING: Can you confirm the evidence is true and correct?
MS EAVES: It is.
10 MR LANNING: Have you produced a summary statement of evidence?
MS EAVES: I have.
MR LANNING: Could you please read through that, thank you? 15 DR PRIESTLEY: Have you got it there, Ms Eaves?
MS EAVES: I've got my edited version and a slightly messy one and I can read from that. 20 DR PRIESTLEY: Has she got what you want her to read, Mr Lanning?
MR LANNING: I hope so, sir.
25 DR PRIESTLEY: Well, maybe you should check.
MR LANNING: That would be preferred.
MS EAVES: It's Monday. 30 "Corrections to evidence, 1, 8.2(f) on page 10, omission of "an". The sentence should read "by and large an archaeologist".
(b) Line 1, page 13, omission of a word, "It is strongly suggested that 35 the methods of interpretation that may be provided as mitigation cover the entire East West Link route".
(c) Section 5.2 of my evidence-in-chief, I refer to the first fencible core in New Zealand, the first and only mildly fencible core was located on 40 their own land at what is now Mangere Bridge village. Governor Grey signed an agreement with Ngāti Mahuta to create this core in 1849.
The communities on either side of the Manukau inlet crossing, which are bridged, are inextricably linked. 45 (d) The Aotea Sea Scouts Hall, number 2598, and Waikaraka grounds and cemetery, number 1755, are schedule for multiple historic heritage values and are subject to additional rules for archaeological sites and
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3192
features.
(e) I have visited the publicly accessible sites on numerous occasions with and without NZ Transport Agency and my colleagues. I have not 5 visited the Anns Creek area as the area is either private property or hazardous rail corridor.
2. Overview of key conclusions of evidence. Dr Felgate has adequately identified and assessed the potential effects on 10 archaeological sites to identify that risk to historic heritage along the application route. Accordingly, I make no changes to my evidence-in- chief.
3. Summary of issues resolved and unresolved. The draft conditions 15 for historic heritage remain unresolved. The issues relate to the relationship between the two statutory regimes covering archaeology. One is the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, HNZPTA, the other is the Resource Management Act 1991, RMA. The RMA definition of historic heritage is broad and contains archaeology as one 20 of the contributing resources to our understanding of our history. These two pieces of legislation work in tandem. I consider it is not appropriate to exclude one in preference for the other.
Within the project designation conditions I consider it appropriate that 25 reference is only made to the relevant Auckland Unitary Plan provisions which protect historic heritage as defined by the RMA. The key provisions in the unitary plan for addressing unseen historic heritage are the accidental discovery rules contained in E11(6) regional and E12(6) district. These provisions contain mechanisms to inform 30 relevant authorities and parties in the event of an accidental find, including Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga.
[9.15 am]
35 As currently worded the conditions exclude the application of the conditions where an authority has been granted under the HNZPTA. While consistency between the RMA and HNZPTA requirements is desirable it is not, as I noted above, appropriate for one to exclude the other. However, I support the inclusion of reference to the HNZPTA 40 as an advice note to alert contractors to the provisions of this Act as they relate to archaeological sites and authorities in general.
4. Matters raised by the Board. The Board of Inquiry has expressed interest in some aspects of the historic heritage of Onehunga. To assist, 45 images are attached. While it is hard now to visualise the mayhem of an international shipping court the records show numerous boarding and public houses, chandlers and ship outfitters, lime kilns, fishing and trading vessels, timber mills, manufacturers and steel forges. Waka
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3193
and larger vessels berthed at Onehunga Beach, these were superseded by a series of wharves eventually under the control of Her Majesty the Queen.
5 Custom's records show vessels trading from Sweden, North America, China, Australia but particularly between Sydney and Onehunga. A recent excavation at this general location revealed a forge of James McIntyre who later took over the Prices of A&G Price at Onehunga Wharf." 10 The next few pages contain images which I trust are of assistance to the Board in general, maps and some photographs which I don't intend to take you through page by page unless you would like me to. The first image is the 1845 map drawn by Hill and Blackburn and with 15 annotations from the 1870s. I have itemised individual points. Figure 2 is the cadastral plan for the other end of the proposed link around Anns Creek just indicating the number of industries that set up there and when St Anns Bridge was still there. First it was a stone one, then it was a timber one, then there was some floodgates installed. 20 The subsequent four images are first of Onehunga Beach viewing towards Mangere Mountain, figure 4 is a view from Mt Richmond, Otahuhu across to Mangere Mountain and Waitakere with the Auckland Council abattoir in the foreground. Figure 5 is a view from 25 what was the Auckland Savings Bank towards to the Anns Creek and Westfield area. The nearer ground is the Onehunga Railway Station surrounded by a timber mill and a blast furnace, the first one in New Zealand. In the distance you can see Westfield.
30 Figure 6 is a view from probably the water, it could be the Old Mangere Bridge but it is probably the water, back toward to Maungakiekie, One Tree Hill, and in the foreground is that same blast furnace with various jetties, boats and other vessels. Thank you.
35 DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Ms Eaves, could you just look at your summary again on the second page in, I think, paragraph 3(c). Could you just flesh out there exactly what you have in mind? I understand your point that you feel that the Heritage New Zealand, etc, Act should be given equal weight to the Resource Management Act but I'm not quite sure what it 40 is you have in mind with amending the conditions.
MS EAVES: The conditions that you have at the moment, conditions HH1 to HH4 to be explicit, the first condition introduces a conflict between the two sets of legislation and I do not see a conflict between them existing, I 45 want them to both exist and work in tandem.
[9.20 am]
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3194
So with the assistance of Mr Lanning we have been redrafting those. We have a set ready and we will be circulating them when everybody has agreed to them.
5 DR PRIESTLEY: So this a project which Auckland Council has in train at the moment? Negotiating amendments with NZ Transport Agency, is that what is happening?
MS EAVES: Correct. And NZ Transport Agency is also discussing because it has 10 an MOU with Heritage New Zealand, so they are also being passed between them. So we are trying to be equitable in our approach because, as you know, the historic heritage definition is larger and broader and at this stage in this entire process, there have been no Heritage New Zealand archaeological authorities issued. Therefore, as 15 a compliance authority, we cannot rely on a third party to issue their consents before they've even been applied for. So at this stage, we are under the RMA and so we are conditioning under the RMA, while making allowances for that third party.
20 DR PRIESTLEY: Looking at HH1 in its current form, who is responsible for issuing an archaeological authority?
MS EAVES: Heritage New Zealand, and in this case the mid-northern office, which is here in Auckland. 25 DR PRIESTLEY: Do you know whether the NZ Transport Agency hold such authority in respect of the current proposed project?
MS EAVES: My understanding from my conversations with Dr Felgate on Friday 30 night is that no authorities have been applied for as yet.
DR PRIESTLEY: I see.
MR BICKERS: The authorities would have to be reasonably specific -- 35 MS EAVES: Correct.
MR BICKERS: -- so how do you see the whole process working? I mean, clearly there's an understanding that it's possible, perhaps even likely, that 40 there will be heritage sites unearthed in the course of the construction and would that mean that the accidental discovery protocol would firstly be triggered? Is that how it will work?
MS EAVES: The idea is that both sets of legislation will work in tandem, which is 45 why I have conditioned a historic heritage management plan. Within that plan certain elements will be included, which the chief one is the employment of the appropriate person to oversee the development and the workings of the historic heritage management plan. While not
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3195
presupposing who would be employed in that role, the NZ Transport Agency has so far employed Dr Felgate. I would encourage the use of him to write the historical heritage management plan, as we have worked before, and I work with him on other projects, so I understand 5 his understanding of this parallel universe of two sets of legislation is such that he can acquit both sets of requirements.
So as per your example, sir, when an authority is issued it can only apply to a particular location. At this time, there are no recorded 10 archaeological sites along the route, but there are suspected sites of unrecorded archaeological sites. One, just for example, is part of the northern abutment of the Mangere Bridge, it's 1875. So an authority could be issued for that, but there is all sorts of other material around it and whatever boundary Heritage New Zealand decide to place on that 15 authority, should an authority be raised against that one, the sphere of that influence of that archaeological site may or may not be limited to other material.
[9.25 am] 20 They will require, I would imagine, an accidental protocol to be put in place. That protocol cannot override the accidental discovery rules in the unitary plan, because the accidental discovery rules cover other matters. So that is a bit tricky, but with a person employed that 25 understands the side by side nature of the two sets of legislation, it is workable, particularly through a heritage management plan.
MR BICKERS: I mean, I appreciate the point you're making. There's nothing that can be written into conditions of consent that's going to override another 30 piece of legislation, so that's understood, absolutely. So the key tool is the heritage management plan and the accidental discovery protocol sits at a lower level than that.
MS EAVES: It sits within that, so any accidental discovery rules or protocols would 35 sit within that document and they would all sit together. Because there are other parties that would plug into that heritage management plan, which without presupposing which way Mana Whenua would like to go, they would have their own sets of protocols and it may or may not be -- it is appropriate certainly to refer to them within the heritage 40 management plan.
MR BICKERS: Okay, thank you very much.
MS EAVES: Thank you. 45 DR PRIESTLEY: There are one or two aspects of your evidence-in-chief I would like you to elaborate on, please. Paragraph 8.2(e), which starts at the bottom of page 9 and goes on to page 10, I'm not quite sure what the point you're
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3196
making there is. Perhaps are we talking here about springs which were once in use but have now been forgotten about?
MS EAVES: Correct. They've been culverted or buried underneath road reserve. 5 DR PRIESTLEY: I think you've answered this to Mr Bickers, but I want to make quite sure the Board understands it. The proposed highway is not going to impact on any known archaeological sites, is that correct?
10 MS EAVES: Technically it boils down to the legal definition of an archaeological site, so there are known and recorded, there are known and unrecorded.
DR PRIESTLEY: Yes. The second part of my question, but I didn't want to ask a double- barrelled question, was your main concerns are that the earthworks 15 excavations, general work on the route, will inevitably unearth sites which at the moment we don't know about, is that it?
MS EAVES: Both. I swing both ways.
20 DR PRIESTLEY: All right. You've made a couple of comments about Highway 20. How long have you worked with Auckland Council, a number of years?
MS EAVES: Three, four years.
25 DR PRIESTLEY: Three or four years?
MS EAVES: Yes, since 2013.
DR PRIESTLEY: Right. Well, do we know whether anything -- can you give us an 30 overview, if you know it, of what accidental archaeological discoveries or unknown archaeological discoveries were unearthed as a result of the construction of Highway 20, which is in close proximity to where some of the works proposed will be carried out?
35 MS EAVES: To my knowledge, there was no archaeologist or historic heritage person present during the construction of the excavation works of that section, so we have no record of what was encountered there. What I do know from cadastral maps and well-documented records from the Onehunga Historical and Fencible Society is that section 11 of figure 40 1, section 11 was what was called the native reserve. It was allocated to the Māori and a hostel was built there. Over time - and I won't go through the politics of it all - it became the site of sawmills, jetties.
[9.30 am] 45 It's now mostly the site of Mitre 10, but the surrounding land around it has a motorway through it and that has all been bulldozed. When the current works for Taumanu Reserve were underway, I did a surface
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3197
collection of the type of material that was disturbed and it was all 19th century ceramics, those bits and pieces. So short of doing surface collections, and that's all provenance material, so it's of little academic worth, but it provides evidence that there was pre-1900 activity going 5 on in that location and of course now there's a motorway going through it.
DR PRIESTLEY: I will have some more questions, but we will get counsel underway first. I think you're first on the list, Mr Enright. 10 MR ENRIGHT: Sir, that's right. Thank you. Ms Eaves, your evidence adopts a sort of wider lens by looking at both archaeological and historic heritage impacts of the proposal, is that right?
15 MS EAVES: Correct.
MR ENRIGHT: You've included analysis of section 6(f), RMA, historic heritage?
MS EAVES: I would not call it analysis, as I'm not a lawyer, but we have a 20 departmental approach to such matters.
MR ENRIGHT: Sure, but you're familiar with the definition of historic heritage in the RMA --
25 MS EAVES: Correct. Yes, I am.
MR ENRIGHT: -- and that's part of what you've looked at, presumably?
MS EAVES: Correct. 30 MR ENRIGHT: So at your 8.1 of your evidence, you've listed the relevant historic heritage impacts and if we focus on Māori historic heritage, which of the ones that you've listed in 8.1 are both adverse and adverse to a more than minor extent, if we go through your list? 35 MS EAVES: My list? Which list, sorry? I'm not quite sure.
MR ENRIGHT: So 8.1, and my questions relate to Māori historic heritage. Sorry, but what you haven't done is sort of identify the extent of adverse effect, 40 whether it's minor or significant, for example.
MS EAVES: In my role as a technical expert, I'm trying to sit in the middle and I can only -- because as we've already established, there's no known sites, known and recorded. The known and the probable location of sites that 45 will be totally destroyed, which would be a major adverse effect, will be in that southern part of Te Hopua, because it's being excavated away. There will be additional encountering of - potential encountering - of Mana Whenua material on the remains of the northern part of that.
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3198
This is the western side.
Further round on Te Hopua, where the Galway Street roundabout is proposed, it will cross through a part of Te Hopua at that location. That 5 part of the tuff has not been previously breached other than for surface roadworks. Following along the route, there is only a residue portion of the original foreshore at Waikaraka, just a toe there, where Alfred Street and Captain Springs Road both come down. Alfred Street to a lesser extent because that cuts through the old rifle range but Captain 10 Springs Road any works along there will encounter the springs that were there. What were called Captain Haultain's Springs. They are under the road reserve. And there was quite a bit of activity of Māori and pākehā there. I am unfamiliar with what the Māori activity was but pākehā there was certainly a lot. 15 Following along, so you're encountering residue peninsulas or points of original foreshore. Some of it is just under that contaminated fill, and my concern with those is that the fill, on top of the fill for unknown depth and settlement, is sitting on top of an original ground surface that 20 hasn't been altered at all.
[9.35 am]
Passing along to Anns Creek, in the vicinity of Mighty River Power, 25 there is another peninsula there, which is in the SEA, which hopefully will only have a pillar adjacent to it. Then along to what is the railway over bridge - that area there - there was a European quarry and a set of floodgates and a stone bridge there, so that would be European material that may be uncovered or destroyed as a result of this. So those are the 30 major negative effects because they will be destroyed, and then there is a cascade effect from there.
MR ENRIGHT: So, in terms of going back to Te Hopua, what is your view on probability of there being Māori historic heritage there? 35 MS EAVES: Reasonably likely.
MR ENRIGHT: Yes, and in terms of the effect the proposal will have on that?
40 MS EAVES: It would be a negative effect because it would be total destruction.
MR ENRIGHT: Is it fair to say that Onehunga and the Manukau have suffered significant past destruction of both known and unknown historic heritage arising from reclamation and State Highway 20? 45 MS EAVES: It is fair to say that.
MR ENRIGHT: What does that mean in terms of the importance of what is remaining
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3199
in terms of its significance?
MS EAVES: So, any remaining historic heritage, in the broader sense of that definition, is rarer and therefore the information that it can provide us 5 becomes even more valuable.
MR ENRIGHT: In terms of your paragraph 8.3 of your evidence, you refer to the cultural heritage implementation team position that all historic heritage is of value and must be avoided, so just to explain why you adopt that 10 position.
MS EAVES: The CHI Cultural Heritage Implementation team, the primary position we take is that is our starting point. From that point whatever consent application we receive follows down from that, so whether or not it is 15 scheduled. Obviously if it's scheduled we have rules that we can use, but if it's not scheduled it becomes more complex and we have to look around for additional evidence to indicate what we're trying to express.
MR ENRIGHT: So from your perspective, from a professional perspective of where 20 possible to avoid the effects to Te Hopua entirely, that would be the --
MS EAVES: Absolutely. The Auckland plan directs us that protection and conservation of sites is primary.
25 MR ENRIGHT: In your evidence at 8.2(c) you refer to a concept of a cultural landscape. Is that something you apply both to the pre-contact Māori history, if you like, and post contact?
MS EAVES: Absolutely. 30 MR ENRIGHT: To what extent have you looked into the pre-contact use by Māori in terms of what archaeological evidence there is of that or other evidence?
35 MS EAVES: As part of my professional training, I am aware of the known and recorded archaeological sites around the Manukau Harbour and the material that has come out of them. It is also something you do with other harbours around New Zealand because, as a professional archaeologist, I discuss the trading routes around New Zealand, the 40 materials that are exchanged and, for example, the movement of pounamu from the South Island to the North Island and what the North Island has to exchange for that pounamu, be it obsidian, dried food, such as shark or shellfish, any other organic material which may not survive but is recorded in oral histories. That has clear indications to 45 us, particularly in Waitangi Tribunal records, about how the landscape is used and was part of a complex system of social obligation, trading
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3200
and networking in modern terms.
[9.40 am]
5 MR ENRIGHT: I would just like you to have a look at these two photographs. They are essential a map of cultural sites that Ngāti Whātua Orākei and Te Kawerau a Maki have prepared for the Board to view when they do a site visit. I've got copies here. They have previously been handed up, sir, attached to a memorandum. 10 DR PRIESTLEY: Have they got an exhibit number?
MR ENRIGHT: I would like one, sir. They haven't yet, so perhaps.
15 DR PRIESTLEY: Oh, yes, I remember this.
MR ENRIGHT: They'll be familiar to the Board. The only difference between the two, sir, is that the second one is on not such a good scale but it has got added in Te Puna Tapu Opohapu(?), otherwise I think all the sites are 20 the same. I appreciate that your expertise is not directly in Mana Whenua values but are you able to comment in terms of the large number of Wahi Tapu identified and whether that is consistent with evidence of settlement, both pre-contact settlement and post-contact settlement by Māori of the area? 25 MS EAVES: Given your stated parameters, I agree and I would also add that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
MR ENRIGHT: One of the two refers to a spring associated with the first Māori king, 30 and it's in the vicinity of Te Hopua, Te Puna Tapu Opohapu. In terms of your research is that something you have come across?
MS EAVES: It's in the darker one?
35 MR ENRIGHT: It's on the second of the two.
MS EAVES: Yes. No European sources have made mention of that particular spring. However, I am aware of a spring in what was called Water Street and is now Waitangi Road or Waitangi Street where Mitre 10 is. 40 I have also seen fresh water coming out from underneath the northern abutment of the Mangere Bridge when the tide is out, but I would not conclude that either of those springs were this particular one.
MR ENRIGHT: In terms of your own research, though, are you aware that the first 45 Māori king did occupy land in the vicinity of the Manukau in the
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3201
1830s?
MS EAVES: Yes, I am aware.
5 MR ENRIGHT: Would it be of any surprise to you that there might be a spring associated with the first Māori king in that area?
MS EAVES: Not at all.
10 MR ENRIGHT: So Ngarimu Blair has produced a report prepared by Graeme Murdoch, an historic heritage survey. Have you had an opportunity to review that?
MS EAVES: I have. I commissioned it in 2013. 15 MR ENRIGHT: Right. In terms of your background knowledge and the fact that you commissioned it, are you able to confirm that it is accurate in terms of its historic research?
20 MS EAVES: We commissioned Graeme Murdoch to write that because he is a holder of a certain amount of knowledge and he can present it in a way that is usable for statutory purposes, which is what that document was commissioned for at that time.
25 MR ENRIGHT: Yes. Just briefly, what is Mr Murdoch's expertise in historic heritage?
MS EAVES: He was a former manager - I don't know what the name of the unit was - in the ARC. This is before my time so I can't be more accurate than that, I'm sorry. But I know both from talking with him and from 30 conversations with my colleagues that he is the holder of some korero and he is a person of respect to both European and Mana Whenua, European in the terms of council employees.
MR ENRIGHT: Dr Malcolm Paterson has produced in rebuttal a report outlining Ngāti 35 Whātua Ōrākei's associations with the areas of Onehunga and the Manukau Harbour. Have you had an opportunity to review that report?
MS EAVES: Yes, I have.
40 MR ENRIGHT: You may not feel confident to comment on the Whakapapa and creation stories, but the extent of the report involves citation of historical sources. Do you accept those sources are accurate?
MS EAVES: I do. 45 [9.45 am]
MR ENRIGHT: Okay. Moving to the Waitangi Tribunal report, the Manukau report,
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3202
and on Friday I asked you to refresh, have a look at it, so you are familiar with it, I would like to take you to page 10, please. The first paragraph there refers to kaitiaki whānau o Manukau, the guardian families of Manukau, and it reads: 5 "The claim that those having customary rights in respect of the Manukau are the local sub-tribes of Waikato Tainui, together with the related people of Waiohua, Kawerau and Ngāti Whātua, was not disputed." 10 Are you able to comment in terms of whether this particular relationship of those specific iwi groups is reflected in the historical record?
15 MS EAVES: The written historical record? The complexity of these relationships, the fact that there at least three Mana Whenua groups there, it is not quite as obvious in the European record. The loudest voice is heard the most. While I definitely am not a person to comment on the veracity of any of these, as a Council employee I would take all accounts of this, 20 of all three Mana Whenua, and more, who talk about this, any particular place or the harbour in general, because within every single account is something of interest or use or indication to me in my role that there could be a place, or a group of sites, or a track, or an access point, or a spring; it's all held within this information. While the loudest voice 25 may the one that's heard the most, all of the stories, all of the kōrero, is appropriate in my work.
MR ENRIGHT: Do you accept the Waitangi Tribunal Report sets out, though, its historic sources that it relied upon in relation to both? 30 MS EAVES: Absolutely.
MR ENRIGHT: Thank you. No further questions.
35 DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Mr Enright. Mr Hewison. Actually, just before you start, Mr Hewison, Mr Enright, do you want to produce these two photographs marked with sites?
MR ENRIGHT: Yes, as exhibits, sir. 40 DR PRIESTLEY: Right. The one which has addendum is the one which is darker in
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3203
colour, isn't it?
MR ENRIGHT: Yes, that's right.
5 DR PRIESTLEY: Can we have two exhibit numbers, please?
FEMALE SPEAKER: I and J.
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you. 10 DR HEWISON: Good morning, Ms Eaves. Mr Hewison for TOES.
MS EAVES: Good morning.
15 DR HEWISON: I want to ask you a few questions, probably starting first with, in terms of the Otahuhu end of the project, and from a European perspective, do you hold any concerns in terms of whether there will be an impact on archaeology or built heritage in that particular area?
20 MS EAVES: You're talking about Princes Street and the bridge over the stream, just to confirm?
DR HEWISON: Yes, just that general area, where the project is going to be located in that area. 25 MS EAVES: With regard to the area over the creek, that has potential for archaeological material, both Māori and Pākehā, and Princes Street, the overbridge over the motorway there, there is a house there, on the corner, Frank Wilson, from memory. 30 [9.50 am]
DR HEWISON: Frank Ray. 35 MS EAVES: Frank Ray. That definitely has potential for archaeology underneath it and, depending on the statutory framework, Heritage New Zealand may require the building to be recorded in full. There are other buildings on the west side, which my colleague, Ms Caddigan, made 40 me aware of, which are 1900 or earlier, so they will also meet the requirements for an archaeological authority.
DR HEWISON: Very good. Do the conditions that you are working on with NZ Transport Agency cover the recording and protection of whatever 45 values do come out of that particular area?
MS EAVES: I have made a note in my evidence-in-chief about that, but also the
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3204
Heritage Management Plan will cover those matters.
DR HEWISON: I asked your colleague, Ms Caddigan, whether it might be appropriate to involve the Onehunga Historical Society, perhaps as a party to be 5 consulted, and I wonder whether you would agree that that is a useful thing to include in the conditions.
MS EAVES: It is a question upmost in my mind because I consult with most of them on a monthly basis, if not more regularly. I started working with the 10 Onehunga Fencible and Heritage Society in 2013 and have retained contact with them. We work not quite in tandem but they are able to unearth information which I can't possibly find. Their specialty is not in recording or writing things for a statutory framework but, by heck, do they know how to find stuff. 15 DR HEWISON: So again the question: would it be appropriate to perhaps involve them in the management plan as a party to be consulted on that?
MS EAVES: The management plan is a bit statutory for them, to be fair, but they 20 would be involved in the research component anyway. Whether mention was made of it in a formal framework or not, I would be talking to them.
DR HEWISON: I see. Thank you. Would the same apply to the Otahuhu Historical 25 Society?
MS EAVES: Absolutely.
DR HEWISON: Thank you. In terms of the Sea Scouts hall, I am not sure if you have 30 read the evidence of Mimouk Hannan, who is going to be speaking to us later today about parks and open space. In terms of one of the concerns raised in her evidence, she does raise a concern that if the Sea Scouts themselves move somewhere else, and the hall remains on that site, that it does risk becoming derelict, does risk perhaps being 35 vandalised, and she holds concerns that if it not actively used, the heritage value of it may decline. I wonder if you would hold any similar concerns for that Sea Scouts building.
MS EAVES: I would be concerned that if the building was abandoned by its current 40 users, that vandalism could occur. My concern would be that a sensitive, adaptive re-use was part of a conservation plan for that building. Conservation plans can often indicate future use for such structures, and for a building like that, in that location, which we would prefer, something like Maranui, in Wellington, along the Wellington 45 foreshore, would be considered an appropriate adaptive re-use of that structure.
DR HEWISON: Do you consider the current conditions you are negotiating will go that
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3205
far, or be able to provide that protection, should the Sea Scouts vacate the building?
MS EAVES: Just to make clear, which unfortunately didn't happen on Friday 5 afternoon, the conditions 1 to 4 are my domain, and conditions 5 to - I can't remember where they go to, I'm sorry …
DR HEWISON: Seven or 8, I think.
10 MS EAVES: Yes. Those would be Ms Caddigan. We exchange conditions between us, we talk about them between us, so there is no conflict created by what we both want, because the building has archaeological values. Therefore, any work done to that building, be it relocation or renovation on site, which I understand would involve the insertion of 15 wastewater pipe, which is highly desirable, those would trigger the need for a resource consent for those archaeological values. As unit, the heritage unit works together in such matters, and that would be reflected in all the conditions.
20 DR HEWISON: Coming back to the core of the concern in terms of the question, if the building is vacated, are the conditions sufficient to encourage future use of that building in an active way rather than it remaining vacant?
MS EAVES: I believe so. 25 DR HEWISON: You believe so. Okay.
[9.55 am]
30 MR BICKERS: Could you just clarify? The building you referred to, in Wellington, which building is that?
MS EAVES: Maranui is a scheduled building on the foreshore, where the runway is on the southern shore. I can't remember the name of that bay. Kilbirnie 35 is …
MR BICKERS: There are some Wellingtonians in the room.
MS EAVES: It is known as the Maranui Surf Club. Just to pre-empt Mr Hewison 40 here perhaps, while it was empty and being refitted, it did suffer a fire, which actually enabled a really good fit out to be done. Perhaps next you are in Wellington …
MR BICKERS: I am familiar with some of them. When you say there was a fire, that 45 destroyed the heritage features that needed to be preserved, did it, and allowed it to be modernised?
MS EAVES: No, no. The use of the conservation plan allows - and the person that
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3206
has been discussing these matters, Jane Matthews, we believe we could work with her to create a suitable use for this building through a new conservation plan, an updated conservation plan for that building because I understand the inside of the building is timber lined and 5 James Park designed it beautifully at the same time as he did the Onehunga Carnegie Library. Sorry, I'm going off on a --
MR BICKERS: Yes, I commented on the façade building which was originally a very attractive façade. Unfortunately, it's been modernised. 10 MS EAVES: Well, that's the life of any structure. Ms Caddigan and I discussed that afterwards because we were trying, and we have tried before and I discussed with the original author of the conservation plan for that building, exactly when did that change -- when did it get bungalowed 15 and it is almost certainly when electricity was inserted into the building. So if you look at now you will see the cables entering in the gable end and that's where the fire was and that's the part of the building that has been rebuilt. I suspect it was fashion and funds that limited the reinstatement of that part of the structure. 20 MR BICKERS: Thank you.
DR PRIESTLEY: Ms Kinzett, I notice you are here this morning. Did you want to cross- examine this witness? 25 MS KINZETT: Not this one.
DR PRIESTLEY: Not this one, right. Mr Mulligan.
30 MR MULLIGAN: Good morning, Ms Eaves, how are you?
MS EAVES: Good morning.
MR MULLIGAN: I just wanted to start today just by discussing or asking you questions 35 in respect of some of the digs that you refer to in your experience. You refer to digs in Australia, UK and then New Zealand. In terms of the Australian dig, what was the intended subject matter of that?
MS EAVES: Most of my work in Australia was in Port Arthur at the Port Arthur 40 Conservation Project. This is some time ago now and at that time it was the bicentenary of Australia and vast funds had been made available to reinstate the notion of it's okay to be a convict or to have a convict bloodline in your bloodline.
45 MR MULLIGAN: Which you would need to if you were Australian?
MS EAVES: Absolutely, couldn't possibly comment. So the Bicentenary Fund had allocated several million at the time for the repairs, reconstruction,
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3207
excavation recording of Port Arthur and multiple structures there.
[10.00 am]
5 MR MULLIGAN: Was the purpose of that exercise to undertake archaeological digs to recover items of the convict settlements?
MS EAVES: Not specifically. The purpose of any archaeological excavation was to enable the reconstruction from foundations up of most of the buildings 10 because they were all ruinous brick, timber and they all required re- examination. So some were more destroyed than others.
MR MULLIGAN: And that process of excavation afforded the opportunity to undertake historic study of the settlements? 15 MS EAVES: Some of it did, yes. Some of it was destructive, some of it was stopped at a certain level because the building above it wasn't strong enough to cope with a large hole next to it.
20 MR MULLIGAN: Now, at paragraph 1.2 of your evidence-in-chief you referred to the fact that the historic heritage team have been involved with the project team for the East West Link for quite a long time?
MS EAVES: Correct. 25 MR MULLIGAN: And you have been invited to come and talk to the East West team about the history of Onehunga as part of that interaction?
MS EAVES: Not specifically talk to them one on one, I was part of the options 30 analysis which was several groups in a room discussing the various permeations of what was possible. So at that time I was able to talk to individuals and smaller groups at each table about it.
MR MULLIGAN: And in general terms you would support the idea of historic heritage 35 being involved early in a project development to ensure that the best outcomes can be achieved?
MS EAVES: Absolutely. It was a very useful process.
40 MR MULLIGAN: Now, I just wanted to talk about some of the things that you raised today in terms of the general history of the area. As I understand from my reading Onehunga Beach was a key point of landing for Māori trading and to connect with a settlement on the Onehunga Foreshore, is that correct? Am I reading it correctly? 45 MS EAVES: Correct, it was one of the landing places as well as Te Hopua and -- I would then turn to Mana Whenua sources for their -- what they describe
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3208
as their landing places because that is not my expertise.
MR MULLIGAN: No. I was going to say I have seen reference to the use of Te Hopua before it was filled in as a shallow draft, perhaps tidal place for landing 5 as well inside the shelter of the --
MS EAVES: Correct.
MR MULLIGAN: Now, you've said in answer to question by my friend that there is likely 10 to be discoveries through the trenching process?
MS EAVES: I have.
MR MULLIGAN: And you talked about any finds there being destroyed, however you 15 would accept that there will be accidental protocols applied, accidental discovery protocols applied to this excavation, either through HENS and/or Council's accidental protocols?
MS EAVES: Correct. 20 MR MULLIGAN: So when you talk about destruction you would expect if there were items found that they would be suitably identified and recovered in an appropriate fashion if all things were going correctly.
25 MS EAVES: Correct.
MR MULLIGAN: Now, I just wanted to again understand the evidence in relation to the history of Onehunga and particularly the Waikaraka area. As I understand the history of European settlement of Onehunga, there was 30 a purchase of a considerable area by an individual and then that purchase was later reviewed by a native land court or …?
[10.05 am]
35 MS EAVES: Correct.
MR MULLIGAN: And that purchase of the Onehunga area was effectively overturned, is that correct?
40 MS EAVES: It was reduced substantially.
MR MULLIGAN: I think he ended up with 3 acres out of 300-odd that he'd purchased?
MS EAVES: Eight, yes. 45 MR MULLIGAN: But that land that had been purchased wasn't returned to Māori at that
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3209
point, it was kept by the Crown?
MS EAVES: Correct.
5 MR MULLIGAN: And that's the genesis of the fencible settlement?
MS EAVES: Correct.
MR MULLIGAN: I'm just trying to understand what happened at Waikaraka. I understand 10 that there was a rifle range there?
MS EAVES: It's an interesting legal story of which I'm not completely through it yet. Is it possible to pull up the --
15 MR MULLIGAN: I think they are trying.
MS EAVES: Originally it was a large bay with a couple of promontories so the cemeteries contained within the fencible settlement were Anglican and Roman Catholic and there was concern that those cemeteries had 20 become full quite quickly. So additional land was sought and Waikaraka was identified as the most suitable location because there had been some borough council legislation that - I don't know if it was a provincial council legislation, I just can't recall off the top of my head - said there would be no new cemeteries within the borough boundaries. 25 MR MULLIGAN: Just in terms of the physical locations, you are referring to, I think, two cemeteries and Waikaraka coming later. Where was the original one?
MS EAVES: The original cemetery -- can you pull up my -- no, you can't. If we 30 perhaps go back to my summary.
MR MULLIGAN: Are you talking about this?
MS EAVES: I am, I am going for that rather attractive map. Figure 1, no, it's not on 35 it, I beg your pardon. Where the speedway is and the portion of dense graves immediately in front of it, that's the original recreation ground and cemetery. Can we go back to what you had up, sorry. Thank you.
MR MULLIGAN: So just to the south of the speedway? 40 MS EAVES: Yes, I'm just trying to get the -- yes, to the south and the more open area underneath was also gazetted as cemetery as well. So the first part used is that area with the dense amount of graves and to the east of it,
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3210
which is approximately where the fencible and military area is.
MR MULLIGAN: The fencible what area, sorry?
5 MS EAVES: Fencible graves, fencible burials.
MR MULLIGAN: Right, so are we referring to this area?
MS EAVES: No, down a bit. Yes, that area. Then to the west of this, on the other 10 side of what is now Alfred Street, was the rifle range. So what was originally gazetted was a rifle range, recreation ground and cemetery.
MR MULLIGAN: As I understand the history of this, that the provisions for the fencible community - and indeed the purpose of the fencible community - was 15 to address the heightened tension at that particular point between Māori and the settler government and the possibility of some conflict between the two over land sales. Is that roughly --
MS EAVES: That's a fair summary. Whether or not it's true is ... 20 MR MULLIGAN: Well, as I understand, that was the --
MS EAVES: That was the political reason behind the setting up of a group of retired soldiers or pensioners, Chelsea Pensioners being offered the 25 opportunity to expand their horizons in the new world.
MR MULLIGAN: A bit of a Dad's Army force maybe?
MS EAVES: Well, not quite Dad's Army, but if they're not at a Chelsea Flower 30 Show, then they would be here defending the realm.
[10.10 am]
MR MULLIGAN: You have referred in your evidence-in-chief to the relationship of the 35 alignment in respect of Waikaraka Cemetery. You would be aware through being involved through the optioneering that the project team identified quite early in the project development that it was appropriate to avoid the cemetery and not encroach on it?
40 MS EAVES: Absolutely.
MR MULLIGAN: You would presumably support that?
MS EAVES: I was quite verbal at the time about whether or not it could go through 45 the cemetery, yes.
DR PRIESTLEY: Can you just put the Waikaraka Cemetery a little bit more precisely in the context of Onehunga history? You made some reference to both
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3211
Anglican and Roman Catholic burial grounds getting filled up. Where were they sited?
MS EAVES: Both when the fencible town was mapped up, which is figure 1, the 5 allocation was made for a Roman Catholic church and burial ground and similarly for an Anglican one. The Anglicans shifted themselves up closer to what became Queen Street and so they actually had quite a small burial ground. There were also those others who were not the acceptable religions. 10 DR PRIESTLEY: But where were these burial grounds? Are you talking about inside the current Waikaraka Cemetery?
MS EAVES: No, they were outside Waikaraka. They were adjacent to their 15 respective churches.
DR PRIESTLEY: So the Anglican church, which I think is called St Peter's, on the intersection of Church Street and Onehunga Mall, that has a very large cemetery in it. 20 MS EAVES: It soon was filling up.
DR PRIESTLEY: Right. The Roman Catholic church is about two or three blocks also on Church Street to the east, is it not? 25 MS EAVES: Correct.
DR PRIESTLEY: There is a cemetery there?
30 MS EAVES: Correct.
DR PRIESTLEY: It's still there?
MS EAVES: Correct. 35 DR PRIESTLEY: So was it as a result of both those established church cemeteries getting full that Waikaraka was designated as a burial ground?
MS EAVES: Partly because they were getting full and partly because there were all 40 these non-conformist religions that needed to place --
DR PRIESTLEY: So Baptists and Methodists and people like that?
MS EAVES: They considered the Presbyterians and Methodists to be of that ilk at 45 the time, and I'm just reiterating what is said in the record. So those other faiths did not want to be placed within the Anglican or Catholic grounds, so the town clerk sought an alternative ground that was acceptable to all parties. This land had been set aside in 1845 and
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3212
drawn up as a burial ground, but it wasn't actually gazetted until the 1880s, I think. That overlapped with the borough council difficulties in whether or not it was acceptable. Anyway, it happened and people were being moved in and out of that burial ground from quite early on. 5 DR PRIESTLEY: All right. That's helpful, thank you. Yes, Mr Mulligan.
MR MULLIGAN: Thank you. Just before we leave this area, where was the rifle range in terms of Alfred Street? Because I know that there's a lot of landfill in 10 that area, isn't there?
MS EAVES: It's better to look at the 1940s aerial, you can get a better -- but it's approximately - I'm just taking the mouse to this - around here, in this. It's a toe of land around here. 15 MR MULLIGAN: So can we say for the record just west, but over at Alfred Street from the speedway, is that --
MS EAVES: Correct, approximately. The 1940 aerial visible on the Council website 20 would give a better idea or if you had a plan of the property boundaries that's reflected in the actual ownership boundaries of land.
[10.15 am]
25 MR MULLIGAN: Now, I just want to turn to paragraph 8.2(f) of your evidence. Sorry, I'm completely off, 3.1(f). I apologise for that.
MS EAVES: I'm just exercising my thumbs. 3.1, yes.
30 MR MULLIGAN: Now, at that particular paragraph, you express some concerns about the potential for excavation along the foreshore and over or in areas that have been described as landfill areas.
MS EAVES: Correct. 35 MR MULLIGAN: Your criticism is that the focus at the moment is very much on dealing with municipal solid waste and the health issues that come from that and the discharge issues rather than historic heritage. Is that a correct summation? 40 MS EAVES: It's a fair one. My concern has been assuaged slightly by conversations with the contamination people. It is for me to understand how they operate with a closed landfill such as these and for them to understand why I have concerns about old landfills. I can often explain what is the 45 source of the leachate that's coming out, and they have the data behind that, and I can explain why the ground to me is important, because it's landfill that has not been altered in any other way, except deposition on
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3213
top of original ground surface.
MR MULLIGAN: But you would accept that some of the material in that location is pretty recent in terms of its deposition? The land -- 5 MS EAVES: Some of it is and some of it goes back to the 19th century.
MR MULLIGAN: I think in your evidence you record that it involves the discharges from industries such as animal processing, animal by-products, timber 10 milling, lime burning, that sort of thing.
MS EAVES: That sort of nasty stuff.
MR MULLIGAN: You would accept therefore, given the potential for I suppose some 15 issues with human health, that it is appropriate to treat that as a contaminated area and take the necessary care to ensure that environmental damage isn't caused as a result of excavation of it, wouldn't you?
20 MS EAVES: I do accept that, but I also note that there is a clear difference between early landfill, pre-1900 landfills, just for a date, because they tend to be more organic in composition, whereas post-World War 2, you're looking at chemical dumping, such as Hackson's(?) Timber Works, which was along this Captain Springs Road area. The method of 25 remediation for each type of contaminant is different and that organic contaminants have mostly leached out and done their damage, whereas the more modern chemical contaminants continue to create havoc.
MR MULLIGAN: So some of that older stuff would have broken down because it was of 30 an organic nature?
MS EAVES: Absolutely, yes. Unless it's in anaerobic conditions, then it will still be there.
35 MR MULLIGAN: You would confirm that there are no scheduled sites under the unitary plan in those landfill areas?
MS EAVES: The Waikaraka Park extent of place extends out into the proposed works area, but in general, yes, you are correct. 40 MR MULLIGAN: Yes. The Waikaraka Park is a promontory that wasn't subject to landfill, was it? It was on the --
MS EAVES: Yes, it was. 45 MR MULLIGAN: Where was it?
MS EAVES: Waikaraka was subject to pre-1900 landfill, so people have been
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3214
dumping stuff there.
MR MULLIGAN: Where was the location of that?
5 MS EAVES: Along the coastline, literally along the coastline, so you can see that in ... figure 6 you get a vague idea of the nature of activity along the shoreline, but that's not as far as Waikaraka. That's more what became Pikes Point.
10 MR MULLIGAN: Which point, sorry?
MS EAVES: Pikes Point.
MR MULLIGAN: Pikes Point, yes. East or west? 15 MS EAVES: Yes, I'm just trying to work that out. Oh, west.
[10.20 am]
20 MR MULLIGAN: But in your view, there would have been the deposition of the by- products from industrial processes in front of the Waikaraka promontory, is that your view?
MS EAVES: There will be animal by-products around there, yes. 25 MR MULLIGAN: Now, in your evidence, you referred to some works that - this is your 3.1(g) - took place around the Neilson Street railway bridge.
MS EAVES: I did. 30 MR MULLIGAN: Those works involved flattening of the railway bridge, so the trucks didn't have to go over the hump.
MS EAVES: Correct. 35 MR MULLIGAN: Then you've indicated in your evidence that you were concerned about the removal of slag from the Onehunga Iron Works, circa 1870 to 1890 as a result of that works?
40 MS EAVES: Correct.
MR MULLIGAN: In terms of slag, that's a by-product of the iron making, is that right?
MS EAVES: It is, it's the foamy stuff on the top, for want of a better word, and also 45 at the back, all the -- it contains metallurgical impurities so it is usually surrounding the core of the pig iron. So it is not what you want in your
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3215
iron and steel making.
MR MULLIGAN: You want to get rid of that out of the steel?
5 MS EAVES: You want to get rid of it and you just dump it in the nearest convenient open bay.
MR MULLIGAN: Well, you did at that time anyway?
10 MS EAVES: You did at that time, absolutely. I don't know, Pacific Steel has done quite well.
MR MULLIGAN: Then you've referred in that paragraph to the removal of historic heritage fill used to reclaim the area between the tuff ring and the 15 railway embankment as a result of this works. What is historic heritage fill material?
MS EAVES: You would call it reclamation. Historic heritage fill is the stonewalls that were placed on either side of the railway line to make -- the railway 20 line that runs from Onehunga to the wharf, or that used to run, and it still does almost, was actually curved and it captured -- it went into the foreshore, into the CMA area and there was an area between the rail line and the tuff ring that was still exposed as harbour and it filled twice a day with water. That area got filled with who knows what, to be 25 reclaimed by the houses between where the Galway Street roundabout is going to go and south of that towards where the Manukau Harbour Road is now, whatever it is called.
MR MULLIGAN: So when we refer to historic heritage fill we are really talking about 30 material that was used to fill the remaining element of the harbour at that point?
MS EAVES: At that time, agreed.
35 MR MULLIGAN: So the earth that filled it?
MS EAVES: Earth and whatever else went into it. It could be material dating from 1873 up until last week.
40 MR MULLIGAN: In terms of the earth it could be older?
MS EAVES: Well, earth is always older than -- a couple of million years, isn't it, I believe?
45 MR MULLIGAN: You would be aware that that particular proposal was not part of this
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3216
project?
MS EAVES: Absolutely, yes, I know.
5 MR MULLIGAN: That was an AT project, an Auckland Transport project.
MS EAVES: Oh, you're talking about the Neilson Street overbridge now?
MR MULLIGAN: Yes. 10 MS EAVES: Yes, it was an AT project but it was part of the ancillary works which have come before us as council officers to facilitate the development of this project.
15 MR MULLIGAN: But the consent was in Auckland Transport's name?
MS EAVES: Correct.
MR MULLIGAN: My friend, Mr Hewison, asked you about the Otahuhu end of the 20 project or the southern end of the project. You will be aware that there are a lot of sites of significance for Mana Whenua around the Tip Top corner site?
MS EAVES: Yes, I am. 25 MR MULLIGAN: But you haven't referred to those in your evidence but they are a significant site, aren't they?
[10.25 am] 30 MS EAVES: Absolutely.
MR MULLIGAN: You may be aware that one of the reasons for avoiding what was described as option E, which - if you can scroll down if at all possible 35 - just went straight along the shore and through south of Tip Top corner, an alignment that just continued straight to the east and arrived here was excluded because of the potential impact on Mana Whenua sites within this area.
40 MS EAVES: Yes.
MR MULLIGAN: And you have confirmed that you're aware of sites within that area?
MS EAVES: Yes, it is covered in Dr Felgate's report. 45 MR MULLIGAN: So again you are supportive of the approach - which you haven't
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3217
mentioned in your evidence - adopted down that end of the project?
MS EAVES: I am.
5 MR MULLIGAN: In terms of Otahuhu Creek, the project has determined, as a result of feedback from Mana Whenua, to remove the box culverts from there and open up the portage. You can confirm that that is a significant portage in the pre-European history, the Otahuhu Creek portage?
10 MS EAVES: From what I understand, yes.
MR MULLIGAN: So you would be therefore, from a historic heritage perspective, supportive of that work?
15 MS EAVES: Yes, I am. With appropriate mitigation, of course.
MR MULLIGAN: Well, it actually doesn't have to be done as part of the project so it is actually --
20 MS EAVES: A great outcome.
MR MULLIGAN: Yes. Now, I finally just want to touch on this issue of the co-existing jurisdictions, if we can describe it as that. You have proposed or are going to propose some conditions of consent which, as I understand, 25 will seek to emphasise the role of the unitary plan in terms of the accidental discovery protocols. Is that a good general description?
MS EAVES: The unitary plan contains an accidental discovery rule which applies to more than just archaeology or historic heritage. 30 MR MULLIGAN: You have justified that approach and you refer to it at your paragraph 8.7 and 8.8 of your evidence-in-chief based on the Auckland Plan.
MS EAVES: Yes. 35 MR MULLIGAN: Now, you would accept, of course, that the Auckland Plan is a non- statutory document that really provided a broad description at the beginning of the -- in approximately 2013?
40 MS EAVES: Yes. Aspirational.
MR MULLIGAN: Yes. It provided a general direction rather than provides a specific
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3218
regulatory justification for controls, doesn't it?
MS EAVES: I agree.
5 MR MULLIGAN: In fact it provides for the East West Link, doesn't it?
MS EAVES: It could be read to do so.
MR MULLIGAN: It has got a little line on the map saying "East West Link". 10 MS EAVES: Again, it's an aspirational document. So aspirational documents, as I understand and I certainly reiterate I'm not a lawyer, like the Auckland Plan have links back to RMA part 2, section 6 matters. So these are our fundamental aspirational goals. 15 MR MULLIGAN: In terms of the manifestation of those goals, you would accept that as far as historic heritage goes, while there's reference in the Auckland Plan, the rubber hits the road in terms of the unitary plan in terms of the actual controls? 20 MS EAVES: Correct, and subsequent plan changes.
MR MULLIGAN: Yes. In terms of the unitary plan's provisions, you would accept that there are two methodologies for addressing historic heritage. One, 25 scheduling of sites of significance and protection through rules of those?
MS EAVES: I do.
30 MR MULLIGAN: And then with accidental protocols the identification of certain features or historic heritage features which should be the subject of unitary plan accidental protocol provisions?
[10.30 am] 35 MS EAVES: They should be, I agree.
MR MULLIGAN: I think the debate or discussion that we're having in terms of the cohabitation of historic Heritage NZ accidental protocols and 40 Auckland Council accidental protocols, it is really around how those interrelate and whether there is duplication or whether they both should be accommodated, is that right?
MS EAVES: I like your terminology, yes, I agree. 45 MR MULLIGAN: Now, in terms of the accidental protocols from the AUP E11(6)(i), have
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3219
you got those provisions in front of you?
MS EAVES: They sit heavily in my mind.
5 MR MULLIGAN: Okay, so you're familiar with them.
MS EAVES: One's regional, one's district but they're essentially --
MR MULLIGAN: They're the same depending on where you are, yes. Now, for the 10 accidental protocols under the plan sit with the earthworks provisions, don't they?
MS EAVES: Yes.
15 MR MULLIGAN: So the idea is that earthworks are a permitted activity but they are not permitted if you bump into one of these issues, unless you follow the protocol, is that the --
MS EAVES: You follow the rules, yes. 20 MR MULLIGAN: Yes. And when we talk about bumping into some historic heritage, those are listed in subsection 2, human remains or kōiwi, an archaeological site, Māori culture, artefact, taonga, tūruru and a protected object? 25 MS EAVES: Correct.
MR MULLIGAN: Contaminated land is someone else, isn't it?
30 MS EAVES: But it is still covered by the accidental discovery rule, which is why we cannot abandon the rule.
MR MULLIGAN: Yes. In terms of an archaeological site, that is defined as a site pre- 1900, isn't it, or 1904? 35 MS EAVES: No, pre-1900 and evidence of human activity in New Zealand is this definition.
MR MULLIGAN: Right, and that's a cumulative definition, you have to have -- 40 MS EAVES: Yes, it's "and", it is not either/or.
DR PRIESTLEY: Just run that past me again, pre-1900 and …?
45 MS EAVES: And evidence of human activity, so if it's a place that might have had human activity but there's no evidence of it then, strictly speaking, Heritage New Zealand could argue it's not an archaeological site if
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3220
there is no evidence of human activity.
DR PRIESTLEY: Because your gentle reminder to counsel as to how old the soil is, all soil will be pre-1900 or most of it would. 5 MS EAVES: I couldn't possibly comment about the legal framework.
DR PRIESTLEY: No. Mr Mulligan, how are you going time-wise? I am just looking at the -- 10 MR MULLIGAN: It might be a good time to stop there.
DR PRIESTLEY: Are you sure. All right. Well, just before we adjourn is Ms Arthur- Young here? 15 MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: Yes, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: Where do we stand with your two witnesses? My original expectation is that they would be on first but I was told by the staff, who seem to 20 dictate these things, that they weren't quite so urgent as was Ms Eaves. You have got two witnesses?
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: Yes, sir, I have.
25 DR PRIESTLEY: And when do they have to disappear?
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: Mr Gordon in particular he has to leave after lunch, so if he could be heard before lunch we would be most grateful. Ms Beals has a little more flexibility but if Mr Gordon -- 30 DR PRIESTLEY: Mr Gordon, he has got to go to the South Island, is that right?
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: That's correct, sir, yes.
35 DR PRIESTLEY: Right. Well, I'm just looking at the cross-examination list here. Does anyone want to cross-examine KiwiRail's witnesses other than you, Mr
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3221
Mulligan, or whoever you designate to do it?
MR MULLIGAN: I don't know. I'm --
5 DR PRIESTLEY: You don't know who will?
MR MULLIGAN: Well, I know what I'm doing. I don't know what anyone else is doing.
FEMALE SPEAKER: I think, sir, counsel for the Agency has sought to cross-examine. 10 DR PRIESTLEY: No one else has put their hand up, other than Mr Mulligan?
[10.35 am]
15 FEMALE SPEAKER: That's correct.
DR PRIESTLEY: You don't want to cross-examine KiwiRail, do you, Mr Enright?
MR ENRIGHT: No, sir. 20 DR PRIESTLEY: What about you?
MALE SPEAKER: No, sir. No.
25 DR PRIESTLEY: Your indication was that you would be cross-examining Ms Eaves for 15 minutes, Mr Mulligan, but that is obviously awry somewhat. How much longer have you got to run?
MR MULLIGAN: Probably another five minutes, sir. 30 DR PRIESTLEY: There will be a few more questions, much re-examination?
MR LANNING: At this stage nothing, sir.
35 DR PRIESTLEY: I think with a bit of luck we'll have Mr Gordon on by about 11.15 am, or just before, and it doesn't sound as if he's going to be subject to much withering cross-examination at all. He'll have to leave the building by
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3222
what time?
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: That would work perfectly, sir; about 12.00 pm.
5 DR PRIESTLEY: All right. Well, I think we'll make it.
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: Thank you, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you. We'll adjourn for 15 minutes. 10 ADJOURNED [10.36 am]
RESUMED [10.51 am]
15 DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you. Please continue, Mr Mulligan.
MR MULLIGAN: Thank you, sir. Ms Eaves, can I get you to confirm that it wouldn't be unusual for an applicant to apply for their Heritage NZ authorities after they get a resource consent or go through the resource consent process? 20 MS EAVES: That is common practice.
MR MULLIGAN: And are you aware that HNZ will not normally accept an application for an authority until the applicant has property rights? 25 MS EAVES: That is correct.
MR MULLIGAN: Which would generally follow a consent process. Now, you have referred to new conditions of consent that are currently being 30 propagated and drafted, have those been circulated to Heritage New Zealand yet?
MS EAVES: Not in their Friday night form. Not the most recent version. I'm looking across two. 35 MR MULLIGAN: Mr Gouge?
MS EAVES: Yes, he's not here is he?
40 MR MULLIGAN: I can't see him. But an earlier iteration of this idea of jurisdictional cohabitation has been circulated to them?
MS EAVES: It has.
45 MR MULLIGAN: And what is their view about that? Because you have indicated agreement needs to be reached. What is their view currently?
MS EAVES: Their current view, as I understand it, is for clear demarcation of
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3223
archaeological matters.
MR MULLIGAN: Would it be fair to say that they're not as excited about this idea of jurisdictional cohabitation? 5 MS EAVES: Well, you would have to check with them about that but my understanding of it is that they do not like this cohabitation.
DR PRIESTLEY: Just help me, Mr Mulligan, who are these "they" about whom she is 10 giving hearsay evidence, absent Mr Gough? Which organisation are we talking about?
MR MULLIGAN: Heritage New Zealand, sir, Historic Places Trust.
15 DR PRIESTLEY: That is all I wanted to know. Thank you.
MR MULLIGAN: The debate --
DR PRIESTLEY: I do like your cohabitation analogy, though. 20 MR MULLIGAN: I have found something that describes it so I want to stick with it otherwise I will run into trouble, sir. As I understand it, there is a bit of a debate going on about this jurisdictional issue and it is not necessarily involving the applicant but there is some toeing and froing. 25 DR PRIESTLEY: Well, we may just impose it on them anyway depending on how it goes.
MR MULLIGAN: Maybe but we'll go through the provisions of the plan before we do that, sir. First of all, in terms of the application for archaeological 30 authority from Heritage New Zealand, the methodology is it not that, if your archaeological assessment has identified what we might describe as hotspots or spots where there is a reasonable likelihood of finding something, that you would make an application to HNZ for an approval in relation to those locations? 35 [10.55 am]
MS EAVES: It is not as simple as that. If such a situation were to arise, we - Council - would refer the applicant to Heritage New Zealand for Heritage New 40 Zealand to make the call.
MR MULLIGAN: And when you say "make the call" you mean that --
MS EAVES: Whether or not an authority was required. 45 MR MULLIGAN: Right. And is that dependent on the potentiality of finding something
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3224
as a result of the assessment?
MS EAVES: No, it's based on the 2014 version of their legislation which has changed a few matters, including their name, so that authorities now 5 must be raised on a specific location. Yes, I could not possibly comment further.
MR MULLIGAN: Perhaps you can comment on this: Mr Felgate in his assessment has identified certain locations, including Te Hopua and some other 10 locations, where he has suggested that an approval be sought from HNZ.
MS EAVES: And I agree with those.
15 MR MULLIGAN: Yes. Now, if those were obtained is it your evidence that notwithstanding those approvals that the Transport Agency should still seek approvals or follow the Council's protocols as well?
MS EAVES: This is where cohabitation comes in to play. By requesting that a 20 historic heritage management plan be created and approved prior to works commencing, the detail of how such matters would work would then fall to that document and be reliant upon the professionalism of the individual - in this case for argument's sake let's say Dr Felgate - to work through the requirements of both sets of legislation without being 25 ultra vires or penalising any other stage of the other Act.
MR MULLIGAN: If that Heritage New Zealand approval were obtained, notwithstanding that you would have an expectation that the heritage management plan would still provide the mechanism to comply with Council's unitary 30 plan historic heritage accidental discovery provisions, is that correct?
MS EAVES: Only for those matters or for those objects that are clearly pre-1900, but objects that are of unknown date or post-1900 the Heritage New Zealand Act doesn't cover those. 35 MR PARSONSON: Mr Mulligan, could I just ask a question? Ms Eaves, the condition HH1, which you brought to our attention earlier, which says that:
"Where there is a heritage authority for pre-1900 sites obtained, the 40 designation conditions set out below shall not apply to the activities authorised by the authority."
Does that exclude such activities from being subject to the heritage
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3225
management plan?
MS EAVES: Correct.
5 MR PARSONSON: And is that one of your concerns?
MS EAVES: That is one of my concerns. I am seeking the removal of HH1 in totality because there are more legal issues than need to be drawn out with this client - apologies to you - for that because the definition of 10 archaeology in New Zealand is constrained by a date saying pre-1900 and human activity. We need to understand that in exercising an authority and the requirements of an authority. Material will be dug through and removed to reach that 1900 point which isn't always highly evident in the field. 15 MR MULLIGAN: I am just trying to understand the position. Is it your evidence that the justification for Council's intervention in the accidental protocol process is as a result of the provisions of the unitary plan?
20 MS EAVES: We're not into --
MR MULLIGAN: Intervening maybe?
[11.00 am] 25 MS EAVES: Intervening, I beg your pardon; intervening in the protocol process. We have an accidental discovery rule which covers several matters, and Heritage New Zealand requested that we remove the accidental discovery rule for this and other projects, and we are unable to comply 30 with that because the unitary plan has been through a different statutory process and it sits as is. Therefore, the accidental discovery rules must sit next to any other statutory documentation and, in the interests of working with our clients and all applicants, we encourage cohabitation of the documents. 35 MR MULLIGAN: Okay. Well, if we just have a look at paragraph 1 there, if you can just see that. Doesn't paragraph 1 explicitly exclude the application of these protocols where there is another statutory authority? And I presume that that is a Heritage NZ authority. 40 MS EAVES: So by that same point it would exclude anything to do with contaminated soil or storm water or any as standard situation.
MR MULLIGAN: Does a statutory authority from HNZ address or provide any approval
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3226
for addressing or digging into contaminate land?
MS EAVES: No.
5 MR MULLIGAN: So, my reading of paragraph 1 is that, if I have an HNZ approval in relation to accidental discovery, I don't have to comply with the unitary plan rules. That is my read. What is yours?
MS EAVES: Different to yours. 10 MR MULLIGAN: And what is yours based upon? What is your position?
MS EAVES:
15 "The discovery of sensitive material, which is not expressly provided for by any resource consent or other statutory authority, the standards and procedures must apply."
MR MULLIGAN: Okay. Thank you. And finally, I just wanted you to confirm that, in 20 your view, Dr Felgate has adequately identified and assessed the potential effects on archaeological sites. Is that your evidence?
MS EAVES: He has.
25 MR MULLIGAN: Thank you. No further questions.
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Mr Mulligan.
MS EAVES: Can I just add, you brought up Dr Felgate and we were trying to define 30 where the rifle range was.
MR MULLIGAN: Yes.
MS EAVES: In his technical report, which is number 3, figure 5.4, section 2, now he 35 has got an overlay there of sector 2 and the blue line indicates the original coastal edge. The rifle range portion is actually to the west of the existing cemeteries or the original cemetery is in the existing … so it is a peninsula that goes westwards. Just for clarity's sake, that's all.
40 MR MULLIGAN: Thank you, Ms Eaves.
DR PRIESTLEY: So it was off the cemetery site?
MS EAVES: It is to the west of the cemetery site and it is further south than the
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3227
speedway.
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you. Questions from the Board. Mr Parsonson?
5 MR PARSONSON: No, thank you.
DR PRIESTLEY: Ms Tepania.
MS TEPANIA: Ms Eaves, I just wanted you to clarify for me. Currently under the 10 Mana Whenua conditions, the accidental discovery protocol essentially cross references to the HH2, HH2 being subject to HH1, so essentially the accidental discovery protocols to be prepared in consultation with Mana Whenua. Is that correct? Currently the accidental discovery protocol is to be prepared in consultation? 15 MS EAVES: Absolutely.
MS TEPANIA: That, or course, is subject to - at present, is currently worded, "HH1", which essentially overrides that, where an archaeological authority 20 exists. Will an archaeological authority provide for consultation with Mana Whenua in order to obtain it?
MS EAVES: It is a condition of an authority that Mana Whenua approvals for excavation of that site is obtained, or at least that consultation has 25 occurred.?
MS TEPANIA: Okay. That's fine. Thank you for your clarification.
DR PRIESTLEY: Ms Eaves, I want to ask you a few questions on accidental discoveries. 30 I'll approach it this way. We know that there is going to be quite a lot excavation for a trench, amongst other things, in the area of what is currently Onehunga Wharf. Is that your understanding?
[11.05 am] 35
MS EAVES: I understand that, yes.
DR PRIESTLEY: Also further excavation on the perimeter of Te Hopua, which we know 40 was probably also used, both pre-European and post-European, for navigational and port purposes.
MS EAVES: Agreed. 45 DR PRIESTLEY: It was a lagoon. We also know that the Te Hopua crater, now known as Gloucester Park, was filled up some time in the first half of the
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3228
twentieth century, used as a local borough tip. Correct?
MS EAVES: Correct.
5 DR PRIESTLEY: Looking at one or two of those photographs, as you move further around between the wharf and Waikaraka Park, there is obviously quite extensive industrial use of the foreshore.
MS EAVES: Correct. 10 DR PRIESTLEY: There is a pub close to the wharf. I would have thought that things which are likely to be found are coins, lost artefacts, bottles, maybe one or two things like wallets, or their contents, things which people will have dropped during their use of this area, and possibly also, given 15 what we know of Māori technology, greenstone or obsidian or other adzes, matters of that sort. Would you agree that these are items we are likely to find?
MS EAVES: As well as features that reflect the use of the land, so houses, structures, 20 jetties …
DR PRIESTLEY: Fence posts? Foundation posts? That sort of thing?
MS EAVES: That sort of thing, yes, I agree. 25 DR PRIESTLEY: My vague recollection of Roman and Greek archaeology is if a wooden structure burns down, you usually find some charred posts around the place. Would that be the same with nineteenth century fires?
30 MS EAVES: It depends on the chemical composition of the soil, and the duration of the fire, and how wet the soil is still.
DR PRIESTLEY: What happens to all this stuff, when it is discovered? I mean, it illustrates activities which were there, but if you find, say, a whole lot 35 of Victorian sixpences, farthings - if you're lucky, a sovereign - or a whole lot of late-nineteenth century bottles, where are these things deposited?
MS EAVES: This is where the provisions in the Heritage New Zealand Act link with 40 the Protected Objects Act 1975, in that this is a category of -- this is excavated material, so it can become a legal issue, but fundamentally the objects found are the property of the landowner, unless they are declared to be taonga tūturu, and then they go through a separate process and become either part of that iwi collection or … It's a 45 negotiated outcome between the Ministry of Culture and Heritage and Mana Whenua.
DR PRIESTLEY: Have I left anything off my totally ad hoc subjective list of items that
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3229
are likely to be discovered to which you have added? Have I left anything significant off? I know we just don't know.
MS EAVES: And not knowing is part of the situation we are in, so we are trying to 5 second guess ourselves. We know that there was an earlier hotel under The Landing that exists now. That was burnt down, as were other structures in that vicinity. We know that anything goes into reclamations, as we have discovered previously with the Britomart excavations; there were various ship hulks there. In an area of land that 10 is rapidly filled in with rubbish, there is the potential for material to remain in situ that is in anaerobic conditions, no oxygen, so they will survive; organic materials that will survive. So there is potential for a wooden vessel of some form, or parts of a wooden vessel, or other wooden objects that may be in that vicinity, and if they have survived, 15 then they will be expensive to treat, and the ownership of them will become subject to the Ministry of Culture and Heritage and the Heritage New Zealand Act, which will direct which organisation, which museum, these objects will pass to, if they are not to be returned to the landowner. 20 [11.10 am]
DR PRIESTLEY: There was an interesting exchange of questions and answers between you and Mr Mulligan on Fencibles, in which you inferred, perhaps, that 25 the Fencibles were there for other reasons and Mr Mulligan referred to them as a dad's army, though perhaps not; what Mr Mulligan says in not evidence and you did not necessarily agree with that. You have been familiar, I suppose, with the Howick Colonial Village?
30 MS EAVES: I am, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: And the Fencible cottages there?
MS EAVES: I am, sir. 35 DR PRIESTLEY: Onehunga was also a Fencible settlement, was it not?
MS EAVES: Onehunga was the first one.
40 DR PRIESTLEY: There are still the remnants, or outlines of Fencible cottages in some parts of Onehunga, little streets parallel to the Mall, and so on.
MS EAVES: Correct.
45 DR PRIESTLEY: My understanding of Fencibles was that they were a deliberate policy to give Auckland a militia for its defence and that every Fencible was a trained imperial soldier, whose contract with the British army had come to an end, most of them from line regiments, which would now
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3230
be called infantry regiments, and of course a significant number of Irish, Ireland then being part of the British Empire, and they had to drill a certain number of times a year and they had weapons. In other words, they were discharged but nonetheless trained soldiers. Is there much 5 wrong in that narration?
MS EAVES: Absolutely not, sir. They were making use of their skills whilst achieving, at the end of this, the new period of service, some land and opportunities for the families. 10 DR PRIESTLEY: Their underlying policy, given the incentive of land, which they had, was to provide Auckland with a militia which could be called on at short notice, should it be required. Correct?
15 MS EAVES: That was the initial intention, until they were deemed to be no longer necessary and disbanded, by 1851.
DR PRIESTLEY: Yes. Are you suggesting they should have then been kicked out of their cottages? 20 MS EAVES: I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, sir, I am just hypothesising that the Crown land that had been …
DR PRIESTLEY: I understand. The purpose has passed. 25 MS EAVES: It wasn't the Crown's land to give, perhaps, might be an interpretation.
DR PRIESTLEY: I understand where you are coming from now, that's right. I take it you wouldn't quite buy into Mr Mulligan's description of this being a dad's 30 army.
MS EAVES: Potentially some of them were. I never actually met any of them.
DR PRIESTLEY: But they all got old. 35 MS EAVES: They did, but I think perhaps it is more useful to look at what they represented and the political motivation for them, and subsequent versions of the Rifle Brigade, the militia, the Rifle Volunteers, of which a certain Mr Brookfield was a forerunner and did quite nicely. 40 DR PRIESTLEY: He being a mayor of Onehunga?
MS EAVES: And owning quite a large piece of land and establishing a legal practice, which still exists today, but far be it from me to comment on legal
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3231
practices established on … Anyway, sorry. I digress.
DR PRIESTLEY: I see where you are sitting. Thank you.
5 MS EAVES: Carefully, sir.
MR BICKERS: They had to be under the age of 49 and more than five feet five.
DR PRIESTLEY: My colleague says they had to be under the age of 49 and in excess of 10 five feet five inches.
MS EAVES: Agreed. With or without wives and family, too.
DR PRIESTLEY: Yes. All right, Mr Lanning, re-examination. Mr Lanning, I don't think 15 it is fair, although she has coped heroically, for this witness to have to grapple with the legal issues. So what we are going to direct you to do is to file a very short memorandum where you set out what the legal issues, or interfaces, are, which is another word for cohabitation, between these two statutes, which Mr Mulligan quite properly has 20 seized on, because we want to get it right.
But I must say, in terms of overall policy, it seems to me that Ms Eaves' position has a lot to commend it. [11.15 am] 25 MR LANNING: Yes.
DR PRIESTLEY: We don't want people ignoring artefacts just because they think it doesn't apply to them, unitary plan or otherwise. Okay, can you help 30 us with that?
MR LANNING: Yes, certainly, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: Two and a half pages max. 35 MR LANNING: It might be even shorter, sir. I don't have any questions in re- examination, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: No, no re-examination. Ms Eaves, thank you very much. That's been 40 incredibly helpful evidence, if I may say so, and I do regret that you had to be sitting in the public gallery for two days waiting to be heard, but it was worth the wait from our point of view. Many thanks indeed.
MS EAVES: It was an honour. Thank you, sir. 45 (witness excused)
MR LANNING: Sir, before KiwiRail starts, I can also let you know that Mr Gouge has
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3232
been in touch with Heritage New Zealand, so that discussion is going on and trying to resolve this issue to assist you as well.
DR PRIESTLEY: Yes. The RMA and the unitary plan and also the Heritage whatever 5 Act, we want to make quite sure that no interesting artefacts slip through a legal gap. You'd agree with that approach, wouldn't you, Mr Mulligan?
MR MULLIGAN: Absolutely, sir. 10 DR PRIESTLEY: Yes, good. All right.
MR MULLIGAN: (off-mic conversation)
15 DR PRIESTLEY: Now, are you all mic'd up there, Ms Arthur-Young?
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: Apparently.
DR PRIESTLEY: Right. We'll call your first witness. They have both filed affidavits, I 20 notice.
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: Yes, thank you, sir. Mr Gordon. We have short summaries as well, sir --
25 DR PRIESTLEY: Oh, that's very helpful.
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: -- from both witnesses, so I'll just have Mr Gordon --
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Mr Gordon. Now, what's your escape hatch time? When 30 do you have to absolutely leave?
MR GORDON: I have to be on a flight at about 1.30 in order to get to Kaikoura.
DR PRIESTLEY: Right, so you would probably like to leave here by 12.00? 35 MR GORDON: Yes.
DR PRIESTLEY: Right, thank you. We'll see what we can do.
40 Mr Gordon (sworn)
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Mr Gordon. Yes, Ms Arthur-Young.
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: Thank you, sir, and thank you again to the Board and my friends for 45 allowing KiwiRail to interpose its witnesses this morning. We're
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3233
grateful.
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you.
5 MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: Mr Gordon, your name is David Stuart Gordon?
MR GORDON: It is.
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: You are the Group General Manager, Asset Management and 10 Investment, at KiwiRail Limited?
MR GORDON: Yes.
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: You prepared a statement of evidence dated 10 May 2017, did you? 15 MR GORDON: Yes, I did.
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: Thank you. Do you have any corrections or alterations you wish to make to that statement, sir? 20 MR GORDON: No, I don't.
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: You have prepared a short summary of your evidence. Are you happy to read that now? 25 MR GORDON: Yes, I am.
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: Thank you.
30 MR GORDON: KiwiRail Holdings Limited, which I refer to as KiwiRail, is responsible for the rail network, which is nationally and regionally significant infrastructure. In certain parts of New Zealand, the rail network has been in place for well over 100 years and is crucially important to the economic and social development of the areas it serves. KiwiRail's 35 principal business is freight, but it is also increasingly involved in the delivery of public transport in Auckland. Both these users result in large numbers of train movements through the region. As such, KiwiRail has developed a close working relationship with Auckland Transport, the Transport Agency and Auckland Council in the delivery 40 of its services.
KiwiRail supports the East West Link and the preferred alignment, subject to adequate conditions to ensure adverse effects on the rail corridor are avoided, remedied or mitigated. Over the past ten years, 45 KiwiRail has undertaken a number of measures to deal with additional demand. That has been accelerated as a result of the patterns of growth
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3234
within the Auckland region.
Rail, unlike roads, has very limited flexibility in relation to alignment, grade and curvature and KiwiRail is constrained in its ability to expand 5 or identify alternative sites for its infrastructure. As such, KiwiRail's existing designations are pivotal to its operations and its ability to safely operate, maintain and upgrade its network within its current footprint is paramount.
10 It is imperative to KiwiRail that the development proposed near - or as in the case of East West motorway, over - its infrastructure is sensitive to these factors and avoids or mitigates any adverse effects on the safe and efficient operation of the rail network. Development proposals near the rail network need to work within the constraints that the 15 network presents, as it's extremely costly, difficult and disruptive to require KiwiRail to alter its operations to accommodate new activities.
[11.20 am]
20 The East West Link crosses above KiwiRail's Southdown site and runs over the North Auckland line alignment. The existing connection to the Southdown inland port, the junction with the Westfield depot and the existing alignment to the North Auckland line and North Island main trunk are essential parts of the KiwiRail network in Auckland, 25 both in respect of moving freight within and outside Auckland and the passenger services that operate on them. The proposed alignment of the East West Link over these existing KiwiRail assets represents the least disruptive outcome if the East West Link is to be constructed.
30 In relation to the East West Link, KiwiRail has four key considerations. Safety: KiwiRail actively manages access to the rail corridor through the permit to enter process as a means of managing safety. In KiwiRail's view, the proposed alignment reflects an option that preserves the safety of the network and those who work within it. 35 KiwiRail will necessarily need to remain involved during the detailed design phase to ensure that adequate provision is made for the safety of all rail participants. KiwiRail's permit to enter process, in addition to its role as primary designation holder, are sufficient to address safety concerns. 40 Operation of the rail network: the East West Link will require the removal and replacement of a substation, which is one of only two in Auckland that provides electricity to the passenger rail network in Auckland. The relocation of this substation must provide for the same 45 or improved consistency and continuity of electricity supply. A condition has been put forward in this regard that KiwiRail supports,
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3235
which Ms Beals will discuss further.
Maintenance: rail is a 24-hour a day, 7 day a week operation. As such, maintenance opportunities, without causing significant disruption to 5 freight and passenger services, are limited. Protecting the ability to operate, maintain and upgrade the rail network as and when required without undue restriction is key to providing a safe and efficient rail business. KiwiRail will work closely with the Transport Agency to ensure this. 10 Significant financial implications arise from closing a line even for a short period of time, which needs to be balanced against the benefit gained from the work proposed. The proposed alignment adequately addresses this consideration as well. 15 Upgrading: upgrades as a result of technology changes and growth in freight demand are likely to occur in the foreseeable future and therefore ensuring the East West Link protects the ability for this change in growth to be realised is paramount. The proposed alignment, 20 developed - from KiwiRail's perspective - through a comprehensive consultation process, avoids future pinch-points and best achieves the future development of the network within existing designation boundaries. KiwiRail will continue to engage with the Transport Agency during the detailed design phase if the project is approved. 25 No changes are required to my evidence following facilitation or conferencing and I confirm the conclusions set out in my evidence remain true and correct, to the best of my knowledge. Matters arising since the exchange of evidence will be addressed by Ms Beals. 30 DR PRIESTLEY: Any supplementary questions, Ms Arthur-Young?
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: No, sir. Mr Gordon, could you be available then to answer any questions from my friend or the Board? Thank you. 35 DR PRIESTLEY: We may go for the Board first. Mr Gordon, looking at paragraph 7, where you're talking about safety concerns and the permit to enter process, is it anticipated that entry will be required on KiwiRail land for construction? 40 MR GORDON: Absolutely. The site, both crossing the rail line into Southdown and crossing the North Auckland line, will require the Transport Agency to work within our corridor.
45 DR PRIESTLEY: Do you believe that the safety of construction workers and also railway staff can be protected, despite this intrusion on railway land for another
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3236
purpose?
MR GORDON: Yes, I can. The point of a permit to enter is to examine exactly those things, what is the impact on the operation of the network, what is the 5 impact on people.
[11.25 am]
I'll take that one step further, because this is not the only area where 10 we're transacting with the Agency on road developments adjoining our corridor. At the moment I think we have nine projects in various stages of development, where we're working with the Agency. This process of permit to enter is in use on those and it's a well-established process.
15 DR PRIESTLEY: Right. The next sub-paragraph, 7(b), we may have been told this, but if we have I have overlooked it. Is there a contemplated site for the replacement substation?
MR GORDON: The discussions to date have centred around a repositioning within the 20 Mercury or other area, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: I have got no engineering expertise at all, but how does this work? Presumably you have to build a second substation and then make it go live before you can decommission or remove the replaced one. Is that 25 how it goes?
MR GORDON: That is correct, sir. There may be a 24-hour period where there is only one substation operating, but fundamentally, yes, the new one has to be in place before the old one gets switched off. 30 DR PRIESTLEY: Are you satisfied that this process of constructing and commissioning a new substation will not imperil KiwiRail's network so far as Auckland is concerned?
35 MR GORDON: Yes, sir, I am. The network can actually operate on one substation for a short period of time. You need two substations --
DR PRIESTLEY: How short is short?
40 MR GORDON: A short period is around about an eight-hour period in terms of swap over. The reason we are staying engaged in the design process and in fact will be engaged right the way through the project, through its construction etc, through to the end, is to ensure that these matters are explored and worked through to the nth degree of detail before giving 45 the go for any particular works.
DR PRIESTLEY: Your counsel or KiwiRail's counsel in opening gave us some figures as to the numbers of freight movements in and out of KiwRail's Auckland
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3237
depot. I can't remember but I think it was a minimum of 14,000 tonnes or something a day, quite high. Looking at the next two or three years, is that volume likely to increase, decrease or remain static?
5 MR GORDON: The volume is likely to increase. From Southdown, although it is best known for having the metro port which is a connection to Ports of Tauranga, also has some of our domestic traffic and other export traffic as well. Ports of Tauranga and ourselves are in discussions about increasing the number of trains through that areas. Southdown is 10 absolutely critical to that freight volume.
DR PRIESTLEY: Thinking about the area generally, which, as you know, is highly congested and built over in terms of industrial structure, do you have any wriggle room for any spur lines at all in the area or do you not need 15 them?
MR GORDON: We've had a long look at the East West motorway in terms of alternate development through that area. What we have looked at, currently there are two main lines heading into Westfield junction, then two 20 going left to Newmarket and two going right around the waterfront. Ultimately we see four lines heading into that junction and ultimately we see that junction being grade separated so the North Auckland line lifts over the North Island main trunk and then drops down underneath the East West motorway and carries on its alignment. The design work 25 we have done with the Agency has ensured that the road when it crosses the rail line at that point is sufficiently high, the elevation is sufficiently high that we can get the trains under. So we have worked with the Agency to really future proof that junction.
30 DR PRIESTLEY: Finally, I can't resist this, Mr Gordon, but I am asking you a question that has got nothing to do with this project because you are probably the person who can answer it for me. There is, from time to time, discussion about more seaborne freight bound for Auckland coming in through Whangarei and Marsden Point, is it correct that the tunnels on 35 KiwiRail's northern line cannot taken current containers. They would need to be rebored or expanded somewhat?
[11.30 am]
40 MR GORDON: There is two elements there. If we put in specialist wagons which are called well wagons, which effectively have a dip in the middle, then we can put what was a 9 foot 6 container, which we call a high cube, through there. However, if it was on a standard flat top wagon, which is basically our fleet, then the tunnels are indeed too small. 45 DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you. Mr Parsonson? Mr Bickers?
MR BICKERS: Just a couple of questions. I was interested in that limitation that you
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3238
placed on operating on one substation of 8 hours. What causes that limitation?
MR GORDON: All networks -- well, it is customary for an electricity network for a 5 metro link to be established on the principle of N -1, which basically says that you can drop one substation and still continue on for operations. Then it comes down to what level of service that is and in Auckland's case it is at a degraded level of service. So it will be fine for running weekend operations and mid-afternoon operations but 10 during the peak hour the trains would either be substantially slowed or you would have to drop some trains from that. So it would impact the peak hour.
MR BICKERS: Is this because of a potential voltage drop? 15 MR GORDON: Fundamentally you've got one substation at Southdown going as far as Swanson, Britomart and Papakura.
MR BICKERS: The other question is in paragraph 6 of your summary you said the 20 proposed alignment represents the least disruptive outcome and I wanted to pursue that with you a bit more to understand how the other options are less favourable. You may have partly answered that when you started to talk about the grade separation of the two lines. So there is obviously some issues there. But there were four, maybe five, 25 options through that area for the East West Link. These were alignment options. Would you just like to talk about those for a moment and why they are suboptimal?
MR GORDON: There's a number of reasons but I'd step back and say not just from a 30 rail perspective but our role in improving transportation in Auckland as part of being an integrated transport system, the East West alignment as it currently stands is very good for us from a road transport point of view as well. The Southdown depot is New Zealand's third biggest export port, which is not a well-travelled fact. The fact is that the 35 alignment provides excellent access into the yards from the spur into there, the other alignments did not do that, in fact what we could see from a traffic point of view is that as Southdown grew and more and more traffic going down Neilson Street we were concerned about the ability for that to operate. 40 If I particularly look at the option D, which started to cut much more into the Ports of Auckland area, we were concerned that ultimately as we grow and we go to stack containers higher and higher, we may want to move on to that Ports of Auckland land or indeed Ports of Auckland 45 may wish to move more of its container operations off the wharf and into an area. Anything that chewed away the current ports land was
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3239
not supported by us either.
So we could see significant benefits coming to us on the alignment. We were absolutely happy for it to go through Westfield junction 5 because we knew having worked with the Agency we would find a solution that allowed us to grade separate in the long term.
MR BICKERS: The Ports of Auckland land is going to be affected by the relocation of the heliport, you were aware of that? 10 MR GORDON: Yes, I am.
MR BICKERS: Concerns about that?
15 MR GORDON: No, I'm not concerned. If we examine the alignment of the motorway through that area we have the ability to an additional set of sidings off from our current road, curve it around beside the East West motorway and create loading areas there too, as well.
20 MR BICKERS: All right, thank you.
[11.35 am]
DR PRIESTLEY: You don't need to cross-examine, Mr Hewison, do you? 25 DR HEWISON: No, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: Mana Whenua have no interest in this, Mr Enright? You, Ms Evitt?
30 MS EVITT: Yes. Good morning, Mr Gordon. We have just been talking about the fact that KiwiRail has a number of key assets near the proposed alignment, is that correct?
MR GORDON: That's correct. 35 MS EVITT: As I understand it, there are three essential components to the KiwiRail business in this area, there's the existing connection to the Southdown inland port or terminal site, and the junction with the Westfield depot?
40 MR GORDON: That's correct.
MS EVITT: And the existing alignments of the North Auckland line and also the North Island main trunk line?
45 MR GORDON: That's correct.
MS EVITT: KiwiRail holds a number of designations within the area in relation to
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3240
those assets or alignments, doesn't it?
MR GORDON: It does.
5 MS EVITT: I think we have touched on this but Auckland's unprecedented growth at the moment is driving demand for both passenger and also freight rail infrastructure, is that correct?
MR GORDON: That is correct. 10 MS EVITT: I understand that KiwiRail intends to carry out a range of future upgrades to the rail network and that largely with the scope of the existing designations it holds in the area, is that right?
15 MR GORDON: That is correct, yes.
MS EVITT: The Transport Agency has consulted extensively with KiwiRail prior to lodging this application?
20 MR GORDON: It has.
MS EVITT: You would agree that the East West Link project has been designed to accommodate KiwiRail's operations?
25 MR GORDON: It has been, yes.
MS EVITT: And you would also agree that the project has been designed so that it doesn't preclude any of KiwiRail's future aspirations for development in the area? 30 MR GORDON: I do, I agree with that.
MS EVITT: In fact the project alignment and design has been shifted and altered over time to avoid effects on the assets, hasn't it? 35 MR GORDON: That is correct, there's been a number of iterations, small iterations, around that core alignment, particularly in crossing the Spur Road into Southdown. Sorry, we call it road, it's a spur rail link into Southdown and also the height of the crossing of the North Auckland line to allow 40 for the ultimate grade separation through that area should metro growth require that in the future.
MS EVITT: Thank you. You would accept that the Southdown terminal provides the most important link between road and rail freight in Auckland, is 45 that right?
MR GORDON: The most important, I don't know whether you would argue Ports of Auckland downtown have that. We would argue the contrary. But it's
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3241
certainly of the two sites -- as I said, it is the third busiest port in New Zealand.
MS EVITT: So it's an important link between road and rail in Auckland? 5 MR GORDON: Extraordinarily important, yes.
MS EVITT: Can you perhaps explain why that is?
10 DR PRIESTLEY: Why is it important?
MS EVITT: Why is it of such strategic importance, that rail/road interface?
MR GORDON: Well, I would like to say because it is but we can't operate our business 15 without road connections. Fundamentally we are what's known as a line haul provider, people bring goods to us or we go and pick them up and we take them to a point and they pick them up again. We are not an end to end transport operator. So therefore what we need to have at what's called the rail heads is the ability to store and stack containers 20 and other things and the ability for road transport operators to get in and out of those areas in an efficient manner.
We see the advantage we provide is the long haul, getting the trucks off the road through the centre of the Island and into and out of the 25 cities - Southdown being an example but it is common right throughout the country - with ourselves being an aggregation point for containers either for Ports of Tauranga, for Wellington or ultimately for shuttles to Ports of Auckland.
30 MS EVITT: So you would agree that the East West Link will improve that freight and business access into and out of the area, is that correct?
MR GORDON: That is correct and that is one of the key reasons we supported it because we saw that in terms of an integrated outcome. What we were 35 looking for was part of the East West motorway.
MS EVITT: Right. So it will support the overall efficiency of that interface, is that correct?
40 MR GORDON: It will indeed.
MS EVITT: And in reducing congestion it will also support the distribution of freight from that area around Auckland and beyond. Is that right?
45 MR GORDON: The distribution of freight: Southdown is more of an export point than an import point but, yes, it will be more effective in bringing the freight
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3242
into the area but it is not so much that actually goes out from the area.
MS EVITT: And the East West Link will also support KiwiRail's development plans for the Southdown area and, in particular, the triple tracing from 5 Wiri to Westfield, is that correct?
[11.40 am]
MR GORDON: It would be wrong to say it supports the triple tracking, but it supports 10 the development in Southdown. The triple tracking itself is a consequence of a number of activities. The East West Motorway with the fact that it could bring more goods into the area does add another layer of support to the triple tracking, but it is a secondary consideration for that one. 15 MS EVITT: I understand that KiwiRail also has a master plan for the Southdown freight terminal, is that correct?
MR GORDON: It does, yes. 20 MS EVITT: And as part of that plan there is an opportunity for KiwiRail to build an internal road connection to link into the proposed ports link road. Is that right?
25 MR GORDON: That's correct.
MS EVITT: And I think you also agree that the proposed East West Link alignment is the option that best preserves the safety of KiwiRail's network. Is that right? 30 MR GORDON: That's correct. As I noted before, we will be working with the Agency on the way through. I have no doubt there will be occasions when we both discover things that require work to be done. That's why we're engaged with this project through to the end and we use the permit 35 during the process to deal with the unexpected, which will occur in a project of this nature.
MS EVITT: And subject to the proposed conditions, KiwiRail supports the project,
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3243
doesn't it?
MR GORDON: Absolutely.
5 MS EVITT: Thank you. I have no further questions.
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you. No more Board questions. Any re-examination?
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: No, sir. 10 DR PRIESTLEY: Well, we got there with 20 minutes to spare, Mr Gordon. Thank you very much indeed.
MR GORDON: Thank you to the court for allowing me to jump the queue. 15 (witness excused)
DR PRIESTLEY: It probably makes sense to put Ms Beals on now, doesn't it?
20 MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: Yes, sir.
Ms Beals (sworn)
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: Ms Beals, your name is Rebecca Clare Beals? 25 MS BEALS: That's correct.
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: And you are the RMA team leader at KiwiRail. Is that right?
30 MS BEALS: I am.
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: You prepared a statement of evidence, dated 10 May 2017, didn't you?
35 MS BEALS: I did.
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: Thank you. Do you have any corrections or alterations to that statement you wish to make today?
40 MS BEALS: No corrections or alterations.
MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: Thank you. You've prepared a brief summary. Are you able to take the Board through that summary now and then answer any questions
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3244
my friends and the Board have?
MS BEALS: I can.
5 MS ARTHUR-YOUNG: Thank you.
MS BEALS: I am the RMA Team Leader at KiwiRail Holdings Limited, and while I am not an independent expert, owing to my employment at KiwiRail, I am qualified to give expert opinion on planning matters raised in 10 KiwiRail's submission.
KiwiRail supports the East West Link proposal as notified. For its submission, KiwiRail sought a condition to address the environment effects of the operation and maintenance of the rail network, which is 15 both nationally and regionally significant infrastructure.
I support NU10 in the form put forward during Ms Hopkins' presentation to the Board.
20 KiwiRail's submission identified a number of key considerations, discussed in more detail by Mr Gordon, that were raised by the East West Link. KiwiRail's key considerations are safety and the efficient operation of its rail network, along with its ability to upgrade the network in future and maintain that network without necessary 25 interference from other land uses.
In particular, KiwiRail identified that the proposal must ensure that the continuity and consistency of supply of electricity to its rail network is maintained, both during the construction phase and after completion of 30 the project.
As far as other considerations raised by KiwiRail in its submission are concerned, such as storm water discharge and recognition of KiwiRail's primary designation, the evidence of various witnesses for the Agency 35 confirms that those considerations have already been adequately reflected in the proposal as notified.
[11.45 pm]
40 KiwiRail will continue to rely on its status as a primary designation holder and its permit to enter processes, as well as its good working relationship with the Transport Agency, to ensure it remains involved during the detailed design phase of this project.
45 No corrections are required to my evidence and it remains true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. However, since evidence was exchanged I have been involved in the various facilitated meetings held in respect of the Southdown site. I also attended the
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3245
expert witness conferencing on statutory planning matters on behalf of KiwiRail.
My involvement in those facilitated meetings focused on the 5 interaction between the project and the KiwiRail supply substation, which is required to be moved as part of the project. As recorded in the minutes of 8 June 2017 conferencing session, condition NU6, which is not condition NU10, was to be updated to address the uncertainty regarding the alternative location and commissioning 10 process for the supply substation. The edits in Ms Hopkins' rebuttal statement, now condition NU10, repeated in her presentation to the Board, achieve that outcome in my opinion.
KiwiRail was not a party to the expert witness conference on RMA 15 planning issues relating to the Southdown site held on 1 July 2018. I did, however, have the opportunity to review the joint witness statement in advance of the facilitated meeting on 13 July, and I provided comment on it during that facilitated meeting. As recorded in that report at paragraph 4(a), KiwiRail remains confident that risks 20 to the continuity and consistency of supply to the rail network can be worked through between itself, the Transport Agency and Transpower.
As also recorded in that statement, those risks include potential time gaps in the provision of supply and the potential for lower continuity 25 and consistency of supply during peak times, if the new substation is located a greater distance from the rail network or if the new substation does not operate as anticipated.
I have also had the opportunity to review the joint witness statement 30 produced following further conferencing between Ms Hopkins and Mr Grala on 2 and 4 August 2017. Again, while I was not a party to that conferencing, in relation to those matters that KiwiRail has an interest in, I support the definition of the Southdown site as agreed between the witnesses and the definition of the Southdown rail supply substation. 35 The continued inclusion of condition NU10 in its form as provided in Ms Hopkins' 19 July presentation, and shown as SD13 in Mr Grala's proposed conditions, and the inclusion of the Southdown specific conditions in a separate section of the conditions for the notice of requirement. 40 In summary, KiwiRail supports the proposal as notified subject to the inclusion of NU10 within the Southdown specific conditions to ensure that adverse effects from the rail network can be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated. I express no opinion or preference for the other 45 conditions proposed by Ms Hopkins and Mr Grala, so long as the conditions put forward do not impede the consistency and continuity
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3246
of electricity supply to the rail network.
NU10 will ensure that KiwiRail remains a party to any discussions regarding the relocation of the rail supply substation which, in my 5 opinion, is sufficient for its purpose.
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Ms Beals. Any supplementary questions? Does any counsel wish to cross-examine this witness other than Ms Evitt? Ms Evitt. 10 MS EVITT: Good morning, Ms Beals. You have noted that the Transport Agency has consulted extensively with KiwiRail. Is that correct?
MS BEALS: I have been involved with consultation on this project since 2014, but 15 I am aware there was other consultation with other parties in KiwiRail prior to that.
MS EVITT: And you agree that the proposed alignment is one that best maintains the efficiency and safety of KiwiRail's operations? 20 MS BEALS: In relation to where the alignment crosses the rail corridor, but it is the one that has the least impact on our safety and efficiency operations, yes.
25 MS EVITT: And you support the proposed conditions relevant to KiwiRail's assets, noting the shift that you have recommended today?
MS BEALS: That's correct.
30 MS EVITT: And as the primary designation holder, the Transport Agency will also have to seek section 177 approvals from KiwiRail through the detailed design phase. Is that correct?
MS BEALS: Yes, that's correct. 35 MS EVITT: And KiwiRail also has a permit to enter process which the Agency will need to work through as well. Is that right?
MS BEALS: That's correct. 40 [11.50 am]
MS EVITT: So you are satisfied that the proposed conditions and these other mechanisms will ensure that an appropriate level of engagement is
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3247
continued through the detailed design phase, if the project is approved?
MS BEALS: That's correct.
5 MS EVITT: I just wanted to touch on the Southdown risk conference on the 13th. The nature of the risk from KiwiRail's perspective is the security of supply issue, isn't it?
MS BEALS: That's correct. 10 MS EVITT: And I understand that KiwiRail remains confident that that risk can be worked through, in consultation with Transpower and through the process proposed in the conditions. Is that right?
15 MS BEALS: That's correct.
MS EVITT: And at the expert conference with Ms Hopkins last Friday, I understand that Mr Grala for Mercury has suggested a condition which requires the rail supply substation to remain on Mercury's site. Does KiwiRail 20 require the substation to be located specifically on Mercury's site?
MS BEALS: So the substation is a Transpower asset that KiwiRail have a legal supply easement in relation to. The final location of that asset is between the asset owner and the landowner, wherever that may be. Our 25 interest is in the outcome from that substation rather than its specific location, so we don't agree that it has to be on the Mercury site, simply it's between Transpower and wherever they can locate it to provide us the outcome we require.
30 MS EVITT: Okay, thank you. I have no further questions.
DR PRIESTLEY: Questions from the Board? No.
MS TEPANIA: It's not a question. I actually just want to thank you for your evidence. 35 You've actually put a lot of work into going to these meetings and/or keeping up with the play as to the outcomes and ensuring that you've had input into that, so thank you for the efforts that you've put in with your work.
40 MS BEALS: Thank you.
DR PRIESTLEY: Re-examination? Thank you, Ms Beals.
(witness excused) 45 DR PRIESTLEY: All right. The next witness was in theory not scheduled until after lunch, but we've got there about 40 minutes early. It's Mr Norman, is
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3248
it?
(off-mic conversation)
5 DR PRIESTLEY: We had a call from Campaign for Better Transport. Is anyone representing that organisation here at the moment?
MALE SPEAKER: I'm not representing them, sir, but --
10 DR PRIESTLEY: Mr Pitches, I think.
(off-mic conversation)
MALE SPEAKER: Sorry, Mr East. 15 (off-mic conversation)
DR PRIESTLEY: That's okay. Lots of people seem to want to cross-examine Mr Norman, so there will be no problems with 1.30 at all, I don't think. So 20 do you want call -- yes?
FEMALE SPEAKER: I've telephoned (off-mic conversation) and he's on his way, sir, so he should be here shortly.
25 DR PRIESTLEY: He'll be doubly cross with you, because if he gets here and finds we've had lunch, he won't be on, will he?
(off-mic conversation)
30 DR PRIESTLEY: Well, you'll look out. Do you want to call Mr Norman?
(off-mic conversation)
DR PRIESTLEY: He was just one affidavit, wasn't he? 35 Mr Norman (sworn)
MR LANNING: Morning, Mr Norman. Can you please confirm that your full name is David Stanley Norman? 40 MR NORMAN: Yes, it is.
MR LANNING: Can you confirm, please, that you've produced a statement of evidence for this hearing? 45 MR NORMAN: I have.
MR LANNING: And that you have the qualifications and experience set out in section
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3249
1 of that evidence?
MR NORMAN: I do.
5 MR LANNING: You confirm that your evidence is true and correct?
MR NORMAN: That's correct.
MR LANNING: Can you please answer any questions? 10 MR NORMAN: Thank you.
DR PRIESTLEY: Just pause for a moment, please.
15 [11.55 am]
DR PRIESTLEY: Mr Norman, I'm intrigued with your conclusion in 7.1, where you say that:
20 "Assuming a configuration that maintains transport time savings of a scale similar to those currently estimated, I expect the economic benefits of the proposal to be significant."
Without in any way attacking your expertise, that conclusion, with 25 respect, doesn't seem to me to say very much. You tell me what it does say.
MR NORMAN: Okay. I'm an economist, sir. What it does say --
30 DR PRIESTLEY: I know, which most people regard as an inexact science.
MR NORMAN: Yes.
DR PRIESTLEY: But still, what are you predicting? 35 MR NORMAN: Yes, so what I'm saying is that there is an original alignment proposed. The bulk of the time savings that the NZ Transport Agency looked at in their detailed business case and elsewhere that accrue are the result of transport time savings. So although that DBC, as I understand, is 40 not part of the evidence or their application, I have examined it. What that means is that any change in alignment or layout of the road effectively that reduces those transport time savings will begin to eat away at those gross economic benefits, with the transport benefits, the travel time savings being the primary reason that the Agency has put 45 forward for building the road. Does that make sense?
DR PRIESTLEY: Yes. When you say you expect the economic benefits to be significant,
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3250
when does significant shade into huge or insignificant?
MR NORMAN: That is an excellent question, sir, and that is one of my concerns that I expressed in the evidence. What we have through Mr Duncan Tindall, 5 our transport specialist, he has reviewed the transport modelling that went into the NZ Transport Agency's proposed alignment and corridor and he has concluded that the transport modelling that was done appears to be reasonable and that there are likely to be significant time savings. 10 What I did request through the submissions and evidence process was access to what the assumptions were to go from those transport time savings to a dollar value in terms of economic benefit and those have not been provided to date. Looking back at the detailed business case, 15 which was not included in the application, again that only provided me with a headline indication. If the numbers --
DR PRIESTLEY: But you never saw the detailed business case, did you?
20 MR NORMAN: I have seen it because it's on the internet, so I Googled it.
DR PRIESTLEY: Oh, I see. So when you say in 5.3:
"The NZ Transport Agency has not provided Auckland Council with 25 the workings from the detailed business case --"
MR NORMAN: Correct. That has not been provided.
DR PRIESTLEY: That's what? 30 MR NORMAN: Correct, it has not, so I have not been --
DR PRIESTLEY: But you found it on the net anyway?
35 MR NORMAN: Not the workings, sir, just the final report, yes.
DR PRIESTLEY: How do you know that -- well, I guess it's fair to say it wasn't your function or Auckland Council's function to peer review the Transport Agency's business case, was it? 40 MR NORMAN: No, it was not.
DR PRIESTLEY: But Auckland Council would have some interest, would it not, as to whether there were going to be significant - your words - economic
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3251
benefits to the wider Auckland region?
MR NORMAN: Yes, we do.
5 DR PRIESTLEY: What's your conclusion?
MR NORMAN: So my conclusion, based on Mr Tindall's examination of the transport modelling, is that there will be significant time savings, large time savings, several thousand vehicles a day and several minutes' time 10 saved per vehicles, as per Mr Williamson's evidence. That conforms with what my colleague, Mr Tindall, determined through his review of the transport modelling and so it is fair to conclude - I think it would be a reasonable conclusion for an expert witness like myself who looks at this - that the number will be large. 15 [12.00 pm]
What that number will be is something that I cannot say definitively, based on the fact that I have not seen the assumptions that went from 20 transport modelling to a final economics number. So how large that number is is up for debate. Those are gross economic benefits that I'm referring to there, not the net benefits once you've considered costs.
DR PRIESTLEY: You say in 1.1 you've been the chief economist of the Council. 25 MR NORMAN: Yes, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: How long have you held that post, please?
30 MR NORMAN: I've been in that role a little over eight months.
DR PRIESTLEY: You also say that you've been an economist for more than ten years --
MR NORMAN: That's correct. 35 DR PRIESTLEY: -- with expertise in regional and industry analysis.
MR NORMAN: Correct.
40 DR PRIESTLEY: Who were you working for prior to coming to Auckland Council?
MR NORMAN: So previously I worked at Westpac, where I was the regional and industry economist, but most of my economics life I have spent as a consultant with PricewaterhouseCoopers, Business and Economic 45 Research Limited in Wellington and the Building Research Association. I have on more than one occasion in fact worked alongside the NZ Transport Agency on some of their reviews of wider
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3252
economic benefits of transport projects such as Transmission Gully.
DR PRIESTLEY: Where did you do your postgraduate diploma in management?
5 MR NORMAN: At Massey University.
DR PRIESTLEY: Where did you do your Bachelor of Arts and Economics?
MR NORMAN: Through the University of South Africa. 10 DR PRIESTLEY: Ditto for BSc?
MR NORMAN: That was through the University of Stellenbosch.
15 DR PRIESTLEY: Right. Now, other Board members may have some questions. I think Mr Parsonson has one.
MR PARSONSON: Is it a fair - and please tell me if it's not fair - assumption or conclusion that your analysis of this project has been an application of economic 20 logic rather than a detailed economic analysis?
MR NORMAN: It's been limited to that, given the lack of access to more data.
MR PARSONSON: So the reason is that it was limited by the available data? 25 MR NORMAN: Correct. I could add though that I have reviewed the data that Mr Williamson used in terms of the value of the area to the freight and logistics task and to the manufacturing sector. That data is available. I was able to source that myself and confirm that his numbers appear to 30 be reasonable on that count. That's formed the basis of Mr Williamson's argument in his evidence rather than reviewing the benefit cost analysis.
MR PARSONSON: So I've read your evidence, but just to clarify, your analysis hasn't taken 35 specific account of economic costs of the project, is that correct?
MR NORMAN: I have not had access to that information, despite requesting it, sir.
MR PARSONSON: So a number of the matters that existed at the beginning of the hearing 40 have slowly abated, shall we say, and the helicopter site is one of them, I guess, in terms of the potential economic impact of the project on that site at the start of the hearing, compared to what the parties seem to have agreed with, but you wouldn't have taken account of any impacts on a site such as the helicopter site in your analysis. 45 MR NORMAN: I was unable, as I say, to evaluate the scale of those, or even to evaluate the scale of the benefit side, but one would expect there would be businesses that would be disrupted and in a cost benefit analysis, of
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3253
which I have done many, you would expect to consider the costs, both of construction and also other things like disruption costs and so on, loss of amenity, if any, against the benefits in terms of improved connections and transport time savings. 5 MR PARSONSON: So is it appropriate, then, for the Board simply to accept your evidence as a statement that, based on predicted transport benefits, there will be a significant economic benefit of the project?
10 MR NORMAN: What I have said is there will be significant economic benefits in terms of the transport time savings. It is important to make the distinction between that and a net outcome. So for example, if you were doing a benefit cost ratio in your cost benefit analysis, you would sum up all the benefits, you would sum up all the costs, you would divide one by 15 the other, or you would minus the costs from the benefits. That is not what I am saying here. I am talking specifically about the ability of the project to deliver economic benefits in terms of those transport time savings, which is a primary objective of the project.
20 [12.05 pm]
MR PARSONSON: So the Board can accept your findings to that degree and then use that in balancing its overall decision, based on the whole raft of potential benefits and effects of the project. 25 MR NORMAN: And other costs.
MR PARSONSON: Yes. Thank you.
30 DR PRIESTLEY: One final question before I hand you over for cross-examination. As you probably know, there are a number of aspects to this proposal. It is not just a road. It is also a very large area of reclamation, storm water treatment, provision of cycleways, footpaths, etc. When you are doing what seems to be quite an important feature of the cost benefit analysis, 35 are those features weighed in at all?
MR NORMAN: They should be, if you were doing a thorough cost benefit analysis. Obviously some of them are harder to measure than others, to quantify the value of fresh air or cleaner air, those sorts of things, the pleasure 40 people might get from riding their bicycles rather than sitting in their cars, but you can measure, certainly, the costs, if there are further costs associated with, say, improved storm water maintenance, that would be on the costs side, and you would set to measure the benefits to the extent that you could. So I note that the NZ Transport Agency proposal 45 had three objectives. The key one was around those travel timesavings. That is relatively easily measured, if you are comfortable with the assumptions of the Transport modelling, and I am relying on my colleague for that. The others, in terms of safety and accessibility for
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3254
cycling and walking, for instance, would be something else you would set to place a benefit value upon.
DR PRIESTLEY: Have you done similar exercises for other high capital expenditure 5 projects?
MR NORMAN: I have. Sometimes I have been the doer; sometimes I have been the reviewer. For example, as I mentioned earlier, looking at Transmission Gully down in Wellington, we looked at the basic benefits, which are 10 typically those around timesavings; that is typically one of the main reasons you would build a road, but then we also looked at some of the other benefits in terms of development opportunity, agglomeration, and so on, that are possible. On the cost side, again you want to add up every cost that you can count. 15 DR PRIESTLEY: I appreciate that you haven't had access to all the economic data, which you might otherwise have liked. Correct?
MR NORMAN: Correct. 20 DR PRIESTLEY: And your focus, quite clearly, has to be the focus of Auckland Council and benefit to the region.
MR NORMAN: That's right. 25 DR PRIESTLEY: But as best as you can assess it, because the costs of this are considerable do you regard it as money well spent?
MR NORMAN: We certainly need a solution in terms of linking the two highways. My 30 role has been to look at the application in hand. Although I have looked at the detailed business case and have seen other options that were proposed, this is the one that has been applied for, and in my expert opinion, it will, based on the transport modelling, deliver the timesavings that we are looking for, and that will lead to economic 35 benefits. So I think that is a good outcome for the region in terms of those benefits. We do want to look at the disbenefits, or the costs, associated with it in addition to the construction costs themselves, as I mentioned, disruption costs or whatever else.
40 DR PRIESTLEY: And you add to that the more intangible social benefits of walking, cycling, views, etc.
MR NORMAN: Exactly. Correct. Yes. So there are a number of things you would look at in a CBA, not just direct timesavings and construction costs. 45 There are all those disruption costs, but there are other benefits as well. If it is a road done well, or a project done well, does it increase the amenity, does it increase property values in the neighbourhood, or
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3255
whatever.
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you very much. Right, your witness, Mr Hewison. I see you are down for 30 minutes, so you just choose a suitable break point 5 round about 12.30.
DR HEWISON: Actually, sir, to be fair, the 30 minutes was based on TOES asking the questions, if you like, on behalf of Cameron Pitches' Campaign for Better Transport, but if he arrives, then we can limit our questions to 10 far less than that.
[12.10 pm]
DR PRIESTLEY: You must have some. 15 DR HEWISON: I have got some.
DR PRIESTLEY: Why don't you start?
20 DR HEWISON: Okay.
Good morning, Mr Norman. Mr Hewison for TOES. I wanted to start with your evidence. As I understand it from your evidence and the answers to the questions that you have given this morning, essentially 25 you are saying that if the travel timesavings come through, then there will be significant economic benefit. Is that correct?
MR NORMAN: There will be a significant gross economic benefit in terms of that, yes.
30 DR HEWISON: A gross economic benefit. In terms of the joint witness conferencing and then the statement that came from that, there doesn't appear to be any confirmation amongst the witnesses that that approach is one that they agreed on.
35 MR NORMAN: I would probably disagree with that statement. At 1.8 in that document:
"Reduced travel times and improved travel reliability would support a range of economic benefits, including increased business productivity and reduced costs." 40 DR HEWISON: Yes, but that doesn't say there will be a significant benefit.
MR NORMAN: It doesn't use the word "significant", no.
45 DR HEWISON: No. And when you read that, together with the other statements being made in that particular set of agreements, it also identifies a range of other factors that need to be, if you like, balanced off with that. Would
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3256
that be correct?
MR NORMAN: If you were doing a cost benefit, you would typically look at costs and benefits. 5 DR HEWISON: Yes. So the agreement that I perceive from those statements is that an approach where you take into account the benefits, but then also take into account the costs, is an approach that would lead to the right result, if you like. 10 MR NORMAN: As an economist, I would use a cost benefit analysis as a starting point for most things, certainly large-scale projects. But as I said earlier, there are some things that you may not be able to put a dollar value on and so it is a starting point rather than the full solution in and of itself. 15 I think our expert conferencing statement pretty much alludes to that, where we say at in 1.10:
"An economic analysis or assessment of the project should consider both costs and benefits." 20 DR HEWISON: Yes. I think that is an important part of that statement as well. How does that reconcile with your view that you do not need to take into account the costs?
25 MR NORMAN: I have not said that.
DR HEWISON: Okay. So you are accepting that both the benefits and the costs of this project should, as 1.10 says, be considered in terms of an overall economic assessment. 30 MR NORMAN: My role was to evaluate the proposal at hand and to determine, from an Auckland Council perspective, considering the implication for Auckland ratepayers, to try and evaluate whether or not I thought there would be significant economic benefits for Aucklanders. So as far as 35 that goes, I am confident that there will be significant transport economic benefits but I have not been able to review the complete cost benefit analysis, so I couldn't say, with certainty, which other costs or benefits may or may not have been included.
40 DR HEWISON: Are you saying that from an economic point of view, you really can't give a proper view as to what the economic value of this project is?
MR NORMAN: I cannot conclude what the net economic benefit is, so once you have added up all the costs, including construction, and added up all the 45 benefits. I have not been able to review whatever analysis the NZ Transport Agency may have done as part of their detailed business
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3257
case.
DR HEWISON: Okay. On that basis then, how can you be satisfied that there is sufficient economic analysis that has been done to justify the project? 5 MR NORMAN: What I have concluded in my evidence, as I said earlier, is that there will be large transport timesavings and those will translate into a gross economic benefit for transport timesavings.
10 [12:15 pm]
That is what I have concluded. I have also concluded the importance of the area to the freight and logistic tasks and to manufacturing, in fact increasingly business services, and therefore the need for a 15 solution that will improve transport travel times. I have not concluded that the net economic benefits are greater than zero in my analysis.
DR HEWISON: If, in your role, as Chief Economist at Auckland Council you are 20 approach a roading project or infrastructural project of this nature, would you both take into account the benefits and the costs and arrive at a value as to whether it was positive or negative?
MR NORMAN: I would certainly advise that if it was a road funded by Auckland 25 Council or Auckland Transport.
DR HEWISON: That would be the normal typical approach to undertaking an economic analysis of a road?
30 MR NORMAN: As I say, that would be your starting point. I would advise that you start with that. If you ended up with several options and one may have had a slightly higher BCR, benefit cost ratio, that is not the beginning and end all but that's where you would start.
35 DR HEWISON: Okay. In terms of the alternatives that NZ Transport Agency looked at for this project, did any of those in terms of travel time savings have a higher travel time saving than the option that has finally been proposed?
40 MR NORMAN: I don't know, I haven't been able to access how they got to the benefits and costs in that detailed business case and the detailed business case has not formed part of their actual application or evidence, so I'm not privy to the detail underlying those.
45 DR HEWISON: So you haven't taken the opportunity of even just looking at the high level alternatives analysis --
MR NORMAN: I have seen their headline total for benefits and costs from that business
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3258
case but I have not had access to any of the underlying data or the transport modelling on those other options.
DR HEWISON: If one of those options did have a higher travel time savings than the 5 option that's been chosen, would your conclusion that that would have, if you like, more significant benefits to Auckland than the option chosen follow through?
MR NORMAN: That really depends on, as I say, the BCR as your starting point - or 10 certainly that's my view, that is where I would start - but if you had a couple of options that were close -- there are several different ways you can measure this. So you can have your benefit cost ratio, which is like a fraction, you've got a number on the top and you've got a number on the bottom. That's one way to measure the best result. Another way 15 you could do it would be to subtract your costs from your benefits and get a net number. That's another way to do it. It's a bit mathematical but those are two ways you could interpret the results of a cost benefit analysis. Even having done that you'd then have to look at other factors that you may not have been able to measure in dollar terms. Perhaps 20 things like will we actually be able to consent this option or will there be too much opposition to this or whatever? How long will it take to do? Will the transport benefits we're aiming for be enduring?
So I would use the BCR as a starting point or a net present value 25 analysis based on your cross-benefit analysis, but you'd certainly want to look at other things that you may not have been able to put a dollar value on.
DR HEWISON: Would it also be fair to say, moving back to the joint conferencing 30 process, that there were, if you like, a divided view between the economists with the applicant's economist taking one view and yourself and the other economists essentially taking a different view?
MR NORMAN: Well, as set out in our document there were a number of things we 35 agreed upon and there were a few areas of disagreement.
DR HEWISON: In terms of those areas of disagreement, would it be fair to say that yourself and the other economists who are opposing the application differed from the economist for NZ Transport Agency? 40 MR NORMAN: Yes.
DR HEWISON: In terms of those areas of disagreement, would you say they are significant areas of disagreement or only minor areas of disagreement? 45 MR NORMAN: Certainly my opinion on that conference and the resultant statement was that there were significant areas of disagreement across the different people in the room, most notably about how strongly
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3259
quantification of benefits had been communicated in the application and subsequent evidence.
[12.20 pm] 5 DR PRIESTLEY: Mr Hewison, have you seen the conference statement?
DR HEWISON: Yes, sir, it is reasonably clear from the conference statement that --
10 DR PRIESTLEY: Yes, I was going to say a sensible way perhaps in respect of doing it would be to take him through those areas and ask whether they are significant or not because it does seem to me, for instance, if you look at 1.13(a) that that is significant and he has already given evidence about it. But over to you. 15 DR HEWISON: Yes, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: I just don't want to have to do too much of it myself.
20 DR HEWISON: I suppose I wanted to just take a general approach to start with but my intention was just to take him through to those area.
DR PRIESTLEY: Sorry to have interrupted you.
25 DR HEWISON: No, no, you are very welcome to take over and do it yourself.
DR PRIESTLEY: Not just yet, Mr Hewison.
DR HEWISON: So turning to those areas of disagreement specifically, if we start with 30 1.13(a), essentially there appeared to be a disagreement, or what came through in terms of that witness statement, around this issue of needing to cover both the economic costs as well as the economic benefits, in terms of that disagreement, did you come to a view that that was a significant issue or only a minor issue in terms of an area of 35 disagreement?
MR NORMAN: I think the area of disagreement was around whether or not the application had actually covered that off. So, as you see, Mr Williamson's contention was that the detailed business case had done 40 that cost benefit analysis, our contention was that that detailed business case had not formed part of the actual application and so to all intents and purposes it didn't exist, it was out on the side as it wasn't part of the application. So we were, in effect, reiterating what we had said in 1.10 above, which is that when you are evaluating and infrastructure project 45 or a large scale project you typically look at the dollars on both the cost and the benefit side.
DR HEWISON: So it's fair to say that area of disagreement was a significant area of
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3260
disagreement between the economists?
MR NORMAN: Yes.
5 DR HEWISON: Would it be also fair in terms of that particular aspect that part of that disagreement was that Mr Williamson was saying, "Well, I have a detailed business case but I don't think it's necessary to share that with you and it doesn't need to be part of the way in which you factor in your economic analysis". Was that part of that disagreement? 10 MR NORMAN: I wouldn't phrase it quite that way. The point Mr Williamson was making, I think, I don't really want to speak for him, appeared to be that analysis was done, it was one of the factors, so it was a starting point for the option that the NZ Transport Agency chose to put forward in its 15 application and therefore was covered prior to the application process, if you like. The point that we were making was that it hadn't formed part of the actual application and for all intents and purposes didn't exist in that sense.
20 DR HEWISON: In effect was Mr Williams sort of saying, "Well, trust us, we've done that work and you really don't need to see it, but what comes out of that is, if you like, the option that's come forward"?
MR NORMAN: No, I don't think that's what he was saying. What he was saying was 25 we started with a cost benefit analysis, we had a multi criterial assessment so we examined the likelihood that the transport time savings, the primary purpose for the project was likely to be enduring and that they had relied on a bunch of different reasons in putting forward the option they did, not just the BCR. 30 DR HEWISON: Okay. Moving on to 1.14, again there are some different views as to what the evidence did or did not establish between the various economists. Again, in terms of those aspects, were they significant concerns, if you like, or differences of view or only minor differences 35 of view?
MR NORMAN: I think it again depends on the various -- even in terms of those of us who have said, "This is the view that we hold to", you know, I certainly agree with all those points. I signed up to them and they are true. I am 40 not certainly how, for example, option F was arrived.
[12.25 pm]
But in terms of my understanding of the process that we are underway 45 with now, my responsibility is to examine the option that was put forward in the application and to the best of my ability evaluate whether or not that option is likely to deliver an economic benefit in terms of
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3261
transport time savings or others where information is made available.
MR PARSONSON: Mr Hewison, if I could just ask a question. Mr Norman, in your opinion how significant in an analysis of this type of project is the enduring 5 benefit to the overall weighting of costs and benefits?
MR NORMAN: I think it is quite important. We put out a paper a couple of weeks ago looking at the solutions to transport and traffic congestion in Auckland. One of the challenges that we find when we look at international studies 10 is that if you simply add a lane to a road it tends to fill up quickly. This is quite different. This is a strategic additional link but if we just took an existing highway and added another lane it incentivises people to use their cars rather than to use another form of transport. So considering enduring benefits is really quite important. 15 MR PARSONSON: How does this project differ from adding another lane. It is a new alignment but it is essentially adding four more lanes. How does that apply to your explanation?
20 MR NORMAN: I would class this as a strategic project that adds an additional link that doesn't currently exist. A highway link, if you like, or a motorway link between the two whereas at the moment you are effectively using roads that should be used for other purpose, local, rather than cross city connection. 25 DR HEWISON: Mr Norman, just one last question. That relates 1.14(c), just in terms of that concern, I suppose an up to date assessment hasn't been done for the latest iteration of the project. What did the economists mean by that? 30 MR NORMAN: Yes, so we mean since the detailed business case was concluded in 2015 there have been a few changes made to the project and notwithstanding the fact that technically the DBC is not part of the application, even having that we are not aware of how the additional 35 costs and benefits that may have been introduced through changes since the option F may have impacted the overall net economic benefit of the project.
DR HEWISON: Okay, so there's a gap, if you like, in terms of what was there in 2015 40 and what the final application looked like, and your concern is that --
MR NORMAN: There may be other costs or benefits there that haven't captured in any quantitative analysis.
45 DR HEWISON: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you very much. Mr Pitches, you've indicated you want about
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3262
15 minutes, is that right?
MR PITCHES: Yes, sir.
5 DR PRIESTLEY: I am quite happy if it suits you - and I am sorry you were misinformed as to how the programme was going this morning - to go after lunch?
MR PITCHES: Yes.
10 DR PRIESTLEY: So we will adjourn now and resume at 1.30 pm. Thank you.
ADJOURNED [12.28 pm]
RESUMED [1.30 pm] 15 DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you. You're on your former oath, Mr Norman.
MR NORMAN: Yes.
20 DR PRIESTLEY: Mr Pitches.
MR PITCHES: Thank you, sir. I'd like to thank the Board for accommodating my request today and thank the EPA staff for facilitating my appearance here today. My name is Cameron Pitches. I am the convenor of the 25 Campaign for Better Transport. It's an incorporated society that was conceived in 2002. We're an independent voluntary incorporated society and we advocate for better transport in the Auckland area.
Mr Norman, my first question is in your primary evidence, you said 30 you wanted to understand how the benefits estimated in the original detailed business case for the project were arrived at, including the assumptions applied to the transport benefits and how these benefits may have changed as the project alignment did, didn't you?
35 MR NORMAN: Correct.
MR PITCHES: But because the NZ Transport Agency had not provided Auckland Council with the workings from the detailed business case, you've been unable to complete a comprehensive quantitative review of the 40 economic benefits of the proposal, as per the details business case?
MR NORMAN: That's correct.
MR PITCHES: The tools for doing such an economic evaluation exist though, don't
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3263
they, and in your evidence you say you've completed several --
MR NORMAN: I have.
5 MR PITCHES: -- cost benefit analyses, including a number within the context of the detailed business cases, compliant with New Zealand Treasury guidelines?
MR NORMAN: That's right. 10 MR PITCHES: Do you know if either the indicative business case or the detailed business case for this project has been through New Zealand Treasury's better businesses cases process?
15 MR NORMAN: They were done according to better business case guidelines sort of process, yes. Whether or not Treasury provided any feedback on that, I don't know.
MR PITCHES: Is there a separate document in relation to that or -- 20 MR NORMAN: I am not aware of one, so all I have seen is the indicative and detailed business cases on the NZ Transport Agency website. I haven't seen any further documents.
25 MR PITCHES: Okay. But there are other economic evaluation frameworks that are available, so you must be familiar with the New Zealand Transport Agency's own economic evaluation manual?
MR NORMAN: Yes, I am. 30 MR PITCHES: Can you tell us a bit about that?
MR NORMAN: It's a very big document - I can start there - and it's sort of the basics that they use to I suppose try to ensure that when they evaluate various 35 projects they do it like for like, so it's a standard methodology, if you like.
MR PITCHES: Okay. So my understanding is that it looks at a number of factors, including the expected volumes of traffic, expected travel time savings 40 and congestion benefits etc.
MR NORMAN: Yes. Yes, that's right.
MR PITCHES: It's a tool that's been used to evaluate dozens of transport projects over 45 the years, so it must be considered a robust way of comparing alternatives in an economic sense, especially for different options in
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3264
the same study area.
MR NORMAN: I would say so, yes.
5 MR PITCHES: The NZ Transport Agency's economic evaluation manual was followed for the six options in the indicative business case?
MR NORMAN: That is my understanding. Again, I haven't seen the workings of those calculations. 10 MR PITCHES: But the NZ Transport Agency did not choose the option with the greatest amount of benefit, which is option B, and they didn't choose the option with the highest benefit cost ratio, which was option A. In your discussions with the NZ Transport Agency they have explained to 15 you why they chose option F, which in an economic sense is not the best option?
MR NORMAN: Sorry, what's the question exactly?
20 MR PITCHES: Did they explain why they chose option F?
MR NORMAN: Yes. Mr Williamson, in his evidence and in our conference, pointed out that - and as I mentioned earlier today - cost benefit analysis is an excellent starting point. It's certainly where I would start, but there are 25 sometimes other factors that you cannot put a dollar value easily on or that may be a risk to the project going ahead, which may mean that you look at a multi-criteria assessment or something else.
[1.35 pm] 30 So Mr Williamson's contention, and also reading through the DBC myself, it was obvious that they had applied really three - or it appears to be three - set of criteria, firstly the cost benefit analysis; secondly a multi-criteria assessment, which looks at a bunch of things you can't 35 easily put a number on; and then thirdly, they had an overlay of what they called the enduring transport benefits. So with the primary objective being improving transport times, that's the main objective they're trying to achieve. Some of those benefits can be eroded over time as congestion builds up and the like, so their argument is that they 40 were selecting an option that allowed those benefits to endure for as long as possible. Again, I have not seen the numbers behind that. That's just saying what their argument was.
MR PITCHES: Okay. So you haven't assessed the quality of the multi-criteria 45 assessment?
MR NORMAN: Or the detail behind the benefit cost ratios. Our transport specialist has looked at the transport modelling and has concluded that those results
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3265
look reasonable in terms of the option that's been applied. In terms of that, it's likely, given the time savings that that generates and number of vehicles involved, that there will be significant economic benefits from a time-saving perspective. 5 MR PITCHES: All right, thank you. Can you think of any other road project in New Zealand's recent history where the option selected wasn't the one with the highest benefit cost ratio or even the one with the highest net benefit? 10 MR NORMAN: I don't have that information to hand. I honestly couldn't tell without going back and reading through business cases for other projects.
MR PITCHES: All right, thank you. In the joint witness statement on economics, you 15 agreed with three other economists that these proceedings should include an assessment of effects on economic wellbeing covering economic costs and benefits. Is that still your opinion?
MR NORMAN: Yes, that would be your starting point for any such project. 20 MR PITCHES: In your own evidence though you make no mention of the cost of the project. Is this because funding for this project is coming from the NZ Transport Agency, whereas your primary concern is with getting value from rates investment? 25 MR NORMAN: I would say there's two reasons. There's certainly an element of our focus being what's going to generate the biggest benefit for Aucklanders in terms of the overall net economic benefit, but the second component is simply lack of access to the underlying data. So 30 I haven't been able to review the costs or indeed the calculation of the economic benefits from transport time savings and the like.
MR PITCHES: All right, thank you. If it was Auckland Council paying for this project, which may be up $1.85 billion, and they were paying for it via rates, 35 then would you be concerned about the cost impact on ratepayers and whether they were receiving the best value for their rates?
MR NORMAN: So this similar question came up earlier today, which is that my advice certainly would be if it was being paid by Auckland Transport or by 40 Council somehow that your starting point would be a cost benefit analysis, yes. You may then need to consider other factors that you cannot easily put a dollar value on.
MR PITCHES: Would you be able to tell us if you would recommend option F in that 45 scenario, where Auckland Council was footing the bill?
MR NORMAN: I don't have enough of the other information to be able to make that
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3266
call, I'm afraid.
MR PITCHES: All right. How does the NZ Transport Agency get its funding?
5 MR NORMAN: So overwhelmingly it comes through hypothecated funding, through what we pay for in excise taxes on fuel, road user charges and the like, so that goes into a national pot of money that's used for roading.
MR PITCHES: How much is that fuel excise tax, do you know? 10 MR NORMAN: I don't know, off the top of my head. I would say approaching $1 per litre of fuel, 80 cents or so, I believe.
MR PITCHES: A bit less, actually. So according to the AA, it's 59.624 cents plus GST, 15 but I think we could call it --
MR NORMAN: So about 80 cents with GST.
MR PITCHES: -- 60 cents a litre to the National Land Transport Fund. So given that 20 a tank of petrol is about 50 litres, then every time a motorist fills their petrol tank, they're paying about $30 plus GST in fuel excise tax. Does that sound about right?
MR NORMAN: That sounds about right, yes. 25 DR PRIESTLEY: It depends on the size of the tank, presumably.
MR PITCHES: Some tanks are 55 litres, of course. So that's about a third of the tank of the cost of petrol. Would you say that this is an economic cost to 30 the community or indeed the entire country?
MR NORMAN: It's not an economic cost, it's a redistribution of money that's used for other purposes.
35 MR PITCHES: As an economist with knowledge of household incomes in Auckland, would you say for a number of families the cost of petrol is an economic burden?
MR NORMAN: It's a financial burden. It is a price that they pay to receive what buying 40 petrol does, which is to allow them to move around the city.
[1.40 pm]
So as with anything else that you purchase, you make that decision 45 based on the benefit you think you will get from it, so your consumer surplus. So if I buy a hamburger, it's because I think it will make me
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3267
feel better than if I didn't buy one, so I spend the money on it.
MR PITCHES: That's a very economist answer, thank you. In an economic sense, would you agree that the best outcome for taxpayers is that any tax 5 revenues are spent on projects that give the best value, so the best bang for the buck, in other words?
MR NORMAN: Certainly taxpayer money should be spent in a way that maximises the value for taxpayers. That is often measured in dollar values, but there 10 may be bits that we can't put a dollar value on, but yes, certainly maximum net value.
MR PITCHES: So has maximum net value been achieved with this project?
15 MR NORMAN: I couldn't say without looking at the data. I just don't have that to hand. I don't understand the full costings and I don't understand what benefits were included or excluded.
MR PITCHES: All right. Would you also agree that there's an opportunity cost 20 associated with choosing a high-cost option without the matching benefits? For instance, some of that fuel excise tax revenue could go towards a busway on the North-western or Mill Road or any other transport project.
25 MR NORMAN: Certainly any dollar that we spend is a dollar that we don't have available for other projects.
MR PITCHES: All right. So the impacts on the community are twofold. One is there is the excise tax on petrol that's going to be used to pay for this project 30 and also there's a potential for a lost opportunity to build other transport projects potentially of higher benefit to the community.
MR NORMAN: That is a risk, as with any project where you choose to spend the money, whether it's a library or a road. 35 MR PITCHES: All right. I've got two more questions. In the joint witness statement, you agree with three other economists that the evidence does not establish how option F was arrived at as the preferred option, and in particular how the option reconciled with the NZ Transport Agency's 40 own system for prioritising projects. Do you still agree with this view?
MR NORMAN: Yes, that's right, so the detailed business case did not actually form part of the evidence, and so as I have mentioned earlier today, it's almost as though you have to ignore the existence of that. It wasn't clear in the 45 actual application evidence how option F was arrived at.
MR PITCHES: Okay. And you still agree that the evidence does not establish an up to date assessment of economic costs and benefits for the latest iteration
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3268
of the project.
MR NORMAN: Correct.
5 MR PITCHES: Thank you. I have no further questions.
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Mr Pitches. I am just going to ask you another question before NZ Transport Agency's counsel cross-examines you, Mr Norman. 10 MR NORMAN: Yes, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: It is really quite difficult for you to give evidence or answer any questions in this area because you haven't had the benefit of or you're 15 not privy to all the information which if you were doing a cost benefit analysis yourself you would want. Is that right?
MR NORMAN: I would do it myself, yes, if I was --
20 DR PRIESTLEY: Yes. Mr Pitches asked you, and properly so, about options B and A. During the joint conferencing you had, did you get a feel from Mr Williamson or anybody else, that option F had been chosen because it was the only one which properly met the overall strategy of best serving these industrial sites south of Neilson Street? 25 MR NORMAN: I can only answer that question in part perhaps.
DR PRIESTLEY: Yes.
30 MR NORMAN: What I would say is again in terms of us asking questions about how this option was arrived at, given that it didn't win the benefit cost race, if you like.
DR PRIESTLEY: Sure. 35 MR NORMAN: The answer seemed to have been around those enduring transport benefits, so the fact that it delivers an economic benefit that is likely to decay at a far slower rate than some of the other options but, again, no numbers were provided for that. That was simply the approach taken. 40 DR PRIESTLEY: I would be interested to hear your understanding of what an enduring benefit is. I mean 150 years ago people built wooden houses with tongue and groove timber work, which is still standing today totally
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3269
leak proof.
MR NORMAN: That's right.
5 DR PRIESTLEY: Whereas nowadays just about every structure put up seems to leak.
MR NORMAN: That's right.
DR PRIESTLEY: So one can see enduring benefits in the old forms of craftsmanship. 10 MR NORMAN: Yes.
DR PRIESTLEY: What sort of enduring benefits are there which a road is going to give, which is more enduring than position A than position B? I don't quite 15 understand.
[1.45 pm]
MR NORMAN: So my understanding of what they mean by that is simply as an 20 example I gave earlier today where some roads, if you just add on an extra lane, it just encourages use.
DR PRIESTLEY: Yes.
25 MR NORMAN: They are arguing that the opposite is the case here. That you won't walk off. Invariably it will happen but at a much slower rate than might be the case with some of those other options, so how long do they mean by enduring? I could not say. Again, I haven't got that information. What I would have assumed, as part of the cost benefit process, and 30 again based on my experience of doing them, is that you would have some assumption in there about the pace at which, say, congestion might redevelop in an area, so over time, and perhaps their modelling suggests that it will reappear at a slower rate than some of the other options, but that is only speculation. 35 DR PRIESTLEY: It is a slightly odd definition, isn't it? An enduring benefit is something which won't become quite so popular so fast.
MR NORMAN: That's one way to see it I suppose. Typically on a cost benefit analysis 40 you would choose an evaluation period. That usually varies between 20 and 40 or even 50 years, depending on the type of project that it is. So, for example, buildings are meant to be designed at least for a 50 year lifespan and so there may be reason to look at that as your term of
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3270
analysis. In terms of how long "enduring" means, I don't know.
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you. Mr Mulligan.
5 MR MULLIGAN: Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Mr Norman. How are you?
MR NORMAN: Fine.
DR PRIESTLEY: You don't need to answer that question. 10 MR MULLIGAN: Maybe we'll ask later. Just to go back to the beginning, you would agree that this particular location generally being the Onehunga/Penrose industrial area is a good location to put some roading infrastructure in to make the roading system more efficient? 15 MR NORMAN: I would. It has a problem and we need to resolve it.
MR MULLIGAN: And that problem is that the current roading system is congested. Is that correct? 20 MR NORMAN: Yes.
MR MULLIGAN: Sorry, you have to answer "yes" or "no" because they're typing, so …
25 MR NORMAN: All right.
MR MULLIGAN: And as a result of that congestion the area is not operating as efficiently as perhaps it could if it had better road connections. Is that correct?
30 MR NORMAN: It certainly needs an improved traffic flow at the moment. It is, if you like, a local road rather than a through road. It is creating more congestion than we would like.
MR MULLIGAN: And the reason why we choose this area as opposed to some other 35 industrial areas and besides that congestion is because it's either the largest or one of the largest industrial areas in the Auckland region?
MR NORMAN: Well, I'm not sure if that's why it has been chosen as a priority project but the assertion that it is one of the most important logistics in freight 40 areas in Auckland, and in even the country, is certainly true.
MR MULLIGAN: And if the roading solution can assist in terms of improving those transport benefits, it would improve the efficiency of the businesses operating in that area, wouldn't it? 45 MR NORMAN: It would.
MR MULLIGAN: And it would also improve the efficiency of businesses in the Auckland
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3271
city more generally because the services radiate out to the city, don't they?
MR NORMAN: Yes, to some extent there can be winners and losers but, based on the 5 transport modelling, again, that my colleague has undertaken, I have not seen that but the results imply that there will be a net reduction in congestion. That will flow through a wider area and, therefore, will benefit other businesses too, and people driving to and from work.
10 MR MULLIGAN: In terms of that benefit, it radiates beyond the Auckland city boundaries as well and radiates out to the region more generally?
MR NORMAN: It certainly radiates beyond this local area. You don't have to go too far from there to be in South Auckland, if you like, or the old Manukau 15 City.
[1.50 pm]
MR MULLIGAN: We have heard evidence today from both KiwiRail who indicates that 20 improved roading connections in this part of the world will assist with its subregional, regional and interregional freight exercise, so it improves their efficiency as well, doesn't it?
MR NORMAN: I couldn't comment on that. I did hear that evidence this morning 25 though.
MR MULLIGAN: Part of the evidence given by Mr Williams is that, in addition to the improvements that have arrived from travel time, there will be improvements through agglomeration. Do you confirm that that is 30 another economic benefit of improvements generally in this?
MR NORMAN: Agglomeration is a good thing, yes.
MR MULLIGAN: You referred to a report about congestion. Were you referring to the 35 NZIER report?
MR NORMAN: No, I was not but I am fairly familiar with that.
MR MULLIGAN: Familiar with that? 40 MR NORMAN: Yes.
MR MULLIGAN: Because that particular report talked about generally the cost of congestion on the roads. 45 MR NORMAN: That's right, yes.
MR MULLIGAN: With a particular emphasis on the costs to businesses as a result of
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3272
congestion.
MR NORMAN: That's right.
5 MR MULLIGAN: And my reading of that was that one of the costs related to the fact that businesses relied on these transport links to ensure that their supply chain was efficient, and if the transport system was inefficient effectively their supply chain became in efficient. Is that correct?
10 MR NORMAN: Correct. It creates unreliability which is not something you want.
MR MULLIGAN: And would you agree that in terms of the way modern businesses work that there is a trend towards - I think we heard evidence about it - just in time deliveries? 15 MR NORMAN: That's right, yes.
MR MULLIGAN: Is your understanding of that that, rather than an old warehousing model where there are a lot of sunk costs in terms of holding stock, 20 instead businesses rely on the efficiency of transport links to reduce that sunk cost to themselves. Is that correct?
MR NORMAN: That's correct.
25 MR MULLIGAN: So, to the extent that they are relying on those transport links for their supply chain, there is an efficiency with more efficient transport links for their supply chains?
MR NORMAN: That's correct. 30 MR MULLIGAN: I think you said, probably on more than one occasion, that the BCR is one tool of evaluation for a project. Is that correct?
MR NORMAN: That's correct. 35 MR MULLIGAN: That is something that one undertakes reasonably early in the scheme of things?
MR NORMAN: I certainly would. 40 MR MULLIGAN: A BCR is a benefit cost ratio but a BCR undertaken or what we refer to as a BCR could mean a number of different things, couldn't it? It depends what benefits you put in. It depends what costs you put in. Is that correct? 45 MR NORMAN: Yes. So your job is to try and be as accurate as you can, and when you don't know how to put the value on a particular cost or benefit you list
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3273
it and make that clear to your reader.
MR MULLIGAN: Because a BCR is just an economic model, isn't it? It is not a reflection of reality. It is always just a prediction or a simplification of reality. 5 MR NORMAN: It's a simplification but it is very well established, best practice methodology that is used around the world.
MR MULLIGAN: You just agreed with me, though, that the different BCRs, there are a 10 number of different ways you can do it. It depends how much work you put into establishing the benefits and how much work you put into establishing the costs.
MR NORMAN: So I haven't suggested there are different ways you can do it but there 15 is different levels of laziness.
MR MULLIGAN: Right, yes. I'm sure an economist generally would say to me that in fact we probably don't need this particular process. If you had enough time you could work out a number for a benefit costs ratio of every 20 element that's being dealt with here, ecological effects, storm water benefits, perhaps even Mana Whenua benefits.
[1.55 pm]
25 You could make some assumptions and plug in those numbers and come up with this super benefit cost ratio, couldn't you?
MR NORMAN: Your goal is always to reflect reality as much as possible, if you are being objective. 30 MR MULLIGAN: I suppose one of the difficulties, and I think you have alluded to it here, is that when you apply part of the analysis to a benefit costs ratio, you only go so far and then you sort of hand over the baton to this more qualitative assessment rather than quantitative, it is a bit difficult to 35 reconcile those two different disciplines, isn't it?
MR NORMAN: Yes, so I think that's fair. Again, my laziness comment earlier was only slightly in jest, there's always a responsibility on the economist or whoever is doing the work to try and quantify as many of the costs and 40 benefits as possible, as accurately as they can, but there are some often benefits and sometimes costs that are just really difficult to put an objective number on.
And what we usually do in an instance like that, particularly if the costs 45 outweigh the benefits is to say, "Here's the gap between the benefits and the cost, here's the benefits that we couldn't measure, would a reasonable person conclude that these benefits will probably be greater
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3274
than the cost"? But that is still a judgement at that point.
MR MULLIGAN: So that is the point where you leave the economic reservation and you make a judgement call, a wise decision? 5 MR NORMAN: Well, you don't leave economics, we never do, but you leave your quantitative assessment and say, "That's as far as it can go, now it becomes a judgement" but still making a real effort to remain true to the principles. 10 MR MULLIGAN: I think that you indicated that you had had a look at the indicative business case and the detailed business case material, you would accept that those documents have been prepared as an investment decision by NZ Transport Agency, ie a process to go through to decide what this 15 investment should look like, what it should invest in, is that correct?
MR NORMAN: So that process, certainly according to John Williamson's evidence on behalf of NZ Transport Agency was the start of that process. So was the first step in that process in terms of doing the cost benefit analysis 20 and then running a multi criteria assessment.
MR MULLIGAN: Mr Pitches has just talked to you about the comparison of the different BCRs undertaken at that time and you would accept that the use of that particular tool at that time was a options comparison's tool, is that 25 familiar?
MR NORMAN: Yes, so according to Treasury Better Business Case Guidelines and international practice when there are a bunch of different ways you could do something, you'd typically compare the relative costs and 30 relative benefits for those different options.
MR MULLIGAN: But when you are at that high level you wouldn't necessarily need to drill down to a completely fulsome BCR at that point, you could use a relatively high level benefit cost ratio to make a comparison between 35 them?
MR NORMAN: Possibly for an indicative business case but by the time of the detailed business case you would typically be aiming for quite a substantial level of accuracy or a strong level of accuracy. 40 MR MULLIGAN: You said a substantial level of accuracy, you didn't say a complete level of accuracy?
MR NORMAN: Given that you haven't, for example, in this project done your detailed 45 design necessarily, it is possible that things change, they can always change but you'd be looking to present a defensible set of number.
MR MULLIGAN: Because ultimately you don't know what those final costs are until you
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3275
know what the final design is, do you? So you can't do that complete evaluation?
MR NORMAN: To within a certain percentage, I would imagine but you would have 5 quantity surveyors working on the project and saying broadly this alignment or this corridor would probably yield a cost like this and benefits like this.
MR MULLIGAN: But when you are doing a corridor analysis there's still quite a lot of 10 differences and those differences could be millions of dollars differences just within --
[2.00 pm]
15 MR NORMAN: They could be, yes. As we have heard, as you progress on the project and things may transpire that require you to make a change.
MR MULLIGAN: So, again, the proposition I would put to you is that this economic analysis is not down to the last dollar and it's not an absolute prediction, 20 what it is is a means of comparing A with B with C with D?
MR NORMAN: Yes, that's fair.
MR MULLIGAN: What you want to do is have enough ingredients in that BCR to make 25 sure that you've got a fair comparison, don't you?
MR NORMAN: That's correct and that you've covered all material costs and benefits.
MR MULLIGAN: Now, in this particular instance the options that Mr Pitches gave you 30 compared the benefits that were evaluated through the transport benefits, which you have referred to, as opposed to the costs of the project, ie the costs to NZ Transport Agency?
MR NORMAN: So my understanding is that those were certainly in there. Again, NZ 35 Transport Agency has not provided information on what if any other costs and benefits were included in those numbers as well.
MR MULLIGAN: But from your analysis or discussions with Mr Williamson, and really I think the point of your evidence today, you would accept that it 40 doesn't include an evaluation of the economic impact down to a fine granular level of each business that might be affected, does it?
MR NORMAN: I would imagine it does not.
45 MR MULLIGAN: And the reason for that is this is an analysis which is undertaken at a
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3276
high level for choosing corridors, doesn't it?
MR NORMAN: That's correct.
5 MR MULLIGAN: And at that particular level you wouldn't know the impact that you were going to have on the business at that point because you hadn't got down to that level of design, would you?
MR NORMAN: Potentially you would not. 10 MR MULLIGAN: And if you choose an option at that particular level, at that higher level as a result of the answer you've just given me, that must mean that you haven't yet evaluated all of the costs of all the other options that you haven't chosen. If you choose one and you take that down to further 15 analysis, you're not doing the analysis on what the costs are on the other ones, are you?
MR NORMAN: So your indicative business case best practice as per Treasury guidelines is to consider all those projects, including indicative costs. 20 As in the case of this particular project the NZ Transport Agency did estimate costs for all those projects, they will have been considered or are likely to have considered costs, as we have seen since the detailed business case, in more detail for the preferred option, the option that they chose. But there will have been some analysis and estimation of 25 all option's costs, which we do see in the business cases where our costs are presented in six options.
MR MULLIGAN: But as I have just said they are at a relatively high level they are not at that granular, are they? 30 MR NORMAN: Correct, they would be relatively high level.
MR MULLIGAN: You'd accept that the Resource Management Act doesn't require a cost benefit analysis to be undertaken to approve a consent? 35 MR NORMAN: That's my understanding.
MR MULLIGAN: But going beyond that, the point that you seem to be making is that a more fulsome benefit cost analysis should be undertaken of a proposal 40 to provide a sense of its economic worth, is that your point?
MR NORMAN: So the key conclusion that I have reached is that I do believe the proposal that we're looking at will deliver transport time savings, which is the main or the primary objective of the project and there will gross 45 economic benefits associated with that, but what I have agreed with other economists on in the expert conferencing was that we don't have information on what other benefits or costs may have been evaluated
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3277
and to what extent.
But certainly, as per my evidence says, the key conclusion of my evidence is assuming a proposal configuration that maintains transport 5 time savings of a scale similar to those currently estimated I expect the economic benefits of the proposal to be significant. Those are the gross economic benefits of travel time savings.
[2.05 pm] 10 MR MULLIGAN: I suppose the question I have in response to that is, how realistic is it to do a cost analysis to the level of detail that some submitters seem to want to? For example, is it realistic to go to every business along the alignment, have them open their books and do an economic evaluation 15 of the pros and cons of this particular proposal?
MR NORMAN: It may not be, but it may be possible to make some allowance for business disruption costs, for example, on the cost side or disbenefit side. 20 MR MULLIGAN: But that's not a complete evaluation of costs. That's undertaking a more helicopter view of costs. I thought you wanted a complete --
MR NORMAN: So what you want is a complete -- so what you start with is a complete 25 list of all the benefits and costs that you can think of collectively that might impact a project from a theoretical perspective and then you aim to quantify as many of those as accurately as you can. It would be very concerning if, as a matter of course, we had a margin error in the benefit cost ratio of 100%, that would imply to me that we haven't put enough 30 work in to it, and that is the comment I made earlier about how detailed you get. You are never going to be exactly accurate. That is the nature of it. But if you have a margin of plus or minus 10%, that would be good going. If you have a margin of plus or minus 100%, or something like that, that would not be very good going. 35 MR MULLIGAN: You would accept, though, that if one were to go out to - in this particular case, there was economic evidence from Auckland Helicopters, there has been evidence from Mercury, on economics, you would accept to undertake a complete cost benefit of all businesses, 40 you would need to along the alignment to every business.
MR NORMAN: And that would be prohibitively time consuming and expensive. I would acknowledge that.
45 MR MULLIGAN: Even beyond that, the way I read the Mercury evidence, it raises the prospect of economic costs to Mercury, but Mercury can't even
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3278
quantify their own costs. They don't quantify their costs, do they?
MR NORMAN: I haven't read their complete evidence, but that is quite possible.
5 MR MULLIGAN: So even beyond this issued of trying to quantify ecological effects of social effects, which we acknowledge are difficult, sometimes it is even difficult to quantify the business effects on a site, isn't it?
MR NORMAN: Yes, it is. 10 MR MULLIGAN: So again, the analysis that is undertaken in terms of costs has to, at a certain point, be at a higher level, at a more theoretical level, to be practical, doesn't it?
15 MR NORMAN: Yes, that's fair.
MR MULLIGAN: Indeed, if one were undertaking a comparison of, as Mr Pitches is alluding to in his questions, a comparison of the different alignments, to undertake a full cost benefit analysis, you would have to go out to 20 those other alignments, wouldn't you, and talk to the businesses there, and determine the costs.
MR NORMAN: If you were aiming to capture the individual costs to each business, certainly that would be the case. 25 MR MULLIGAN: Would you accept that that level of analysis over, say, six options, might be prohibitive?
MR NORMAN: Prohibitively large, yes, that's reasonable. 30 MR MULLIGAN: And undertaking that sort of analysis, may mean the project could never in fact advance because you would be spending all your time --
MR NORMAN: That's quite possible. At the very least, what we can do is acknowledge 35 those particular costs, or benefits similarly, that we can't measure and leave that up to the decision-makers, so they are at least aware of them. That would be my approach
MR MULLIGAN: In terms of your evidence, you made reference to an involvement in 40 Transmission Gully. What was your input into that?
MR NORMAN: My role there was looking at what, if any, wider economic benefits, often called WEBs, could be included as part of that project. It centred around ideas like agglomeration, that you have touched on earlier; 45 those kinds of impacts, in addition to the, at the time, standard measures included in the EEM that was referred to earlier, the Economic
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3279
Evaluation Manual, that NZ Transport Agency uses.
[2.10 pm]
5 MR MULLIGAN: Who did you undertake that analysis for?
MR NORMAN: That was for NZ Transport Agency. It would have been about six years ago.
10 MR MULLIGAN: As I understand it, the BCR for that project, for Transmission Gully, it was 0.82.
MR NORMAN: I don't remember exactly, but I believe it was below 1, prior to any of those WEBs being considered. 15 MR MULLIGAN: In that particular situation you had a scenario where the BCR, which was the product produced by the EEM, was a similar number.
MR NORMAN: Below zero. Yes. Below 1, sorry. 20 MR MULLIGAN: Below 1? Then your role was to find those benefits, or to evaluate those benefits, that sat beyond the BCR model.
MR NORMAN: Well, no. So, it was to look at what had been done internationally. 25 Internationally a lot more work had been done with regard to looking at some of those wider benefits. Those were still benefits that you would then add to the BCR. You would still quantify them in dollar terms, dollars and cents, and they would likely be added to the BCR if they were benefits or subtracted if they were costs. So it was, if you 30 like, augmenting the EEM with the latest international studies.
MR MULLIGAN: I think we are having - not just you and I but generally here - a bit of a difference of terminology. In that particular context, the BCR produced by the EEM is one thing; then there is the question of what 35 other information you can obtain, be it on the benefits or the costs side, to augment that analysis. Is that right?
MR NORMAN: Yes, although, as I said earlier, some of those may be very qualitative. They may be, "Oh, we also think this is going to make people happier" 40 or something like that, versus, "Oh, actually, this will lead to higher productivity; we can measure that in dollars and cents. That should be included in the cost benefit analysis, in the BCR. It is just that EEM at that point had not accounted for those. So in fact, BCR rose as a result. Or if those WEBs were included, you would have actually had a BCR 45 that would have been a different number.
MR MULLIGAN: Even when adding those wider economic benefits, there may be aspects
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3280
of those that can't be boiled down to a number.
MR NORMAN: That's quite true, yes.
5 MR MULLIGAN: They might be just qualitative criteria that a smart person, an educated person, an appropriately qualified person, can evaluate against the number.
MR NORMAN: Yes, or would acknowledge, actually, something like "amenity". How 10 do you measure amenity or put a dollar value on it? But it clearly exists and we all have a sense of what it is.
MR PARSONSON: Mr Mulligan, I just have a question.
15 In that context of Transmission Gully, I think you agreed with Mr Mulligan when he put it to you that the benefit cost ratio, or analysis, is not directly relevant to a RMA decision. Is that correct?
MR NORMAN: That is my understanding, yes. 20 MR PARSONSON: What was the reason for the work that you were engaged to do for Transmission Gully to potentially look for other elements that may increase the BCR ratio?
25 MR NORMAN: I would say that it was in response to work that had been done internationally. NZ Transport Agency had just completed a research project that they had overseas consultants working on, and they were keen to understand what international best practice was showing and whether or not there were benefits we were missing out on, if we were 30 not including them. So there were two or three different benefits that they wanted to investigate, and I was asked to look at a couple of those.
MR MULLIGAN: You may not know this because you may not be involved, but as I understand it, for CRL the BCR analysis has actually been undertaken 35 after the RMA process.
MR NORMAN: I am completely unfamiliar with that, I am afraid, as to when that occurred.
40 [2.15 pm]
MR MULLIGAN: That's fine. In terms of Transmission Gully, then you referred to the Treasury in answer to the question, the Treasury guidelines.
45 MR NORMAN: A Treasury set of business case guidelines, yes.
MR MULLIGAN: That Treasury guidelines to business cases came after Transmission
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3281
Gully?
MR NORMAN: That's right, yes.
5 MR MULLIGAN: Are you aware that the Transport Agency's indicative business case, detailed business case approach, is an appropriate modification of the Treasury business case approach?
MR NORMAN: Yes, that's right. 10 MR MULLIGAN: The indicative business case, detailed business case, is the next iteration of the Transport Agency's investment decision-making process. Is that your understanding?
15 MR NORMAN: That's right.
MR MULLIGAN: You had indicated that you hadn't been asked to evaluate the optioneering for this particular project but then subsequently went and had a look at the indicative business case and detailed business case. 20 MR NORMAN: It wasn't a matter of what I was asked. I suppose as part of our submissions process, I was keen to find what work had been done on the economics and so I went looking for it as part of that process, and found the IVC and DVC on the website. 25 MR MULLIGAN: If I can get you to have a look at folder volume 3, report 1, of the AEE.
MR PITCHES: (off mic conversation) I have to go back to work.
30 DR PRIESTLEY: You can be excused. But just before you go, Mr Pitches, I notice that your organisation is calling evidence from Mr Curtin, I think it is. Is that right?
MR PITCHES: Yes. 35 DR PRIESTLEY: Have you liaised with the staff as to when you want him to come to give evidence?
MR PITCHES: Yes. 40 DR PRIESTLEY: Will you be making some general submissions then?
MR PITCHES: At the same time. Mr Curtin is going first; then I will.
45 DR PRIESTLEY: That will be very helpful. Just make sure that we get a date which is
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3282
mutually convenient to everybody; or to you and us, anyway.
MR PITCHES: Thank you.
5 DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you very much. Yes, sorry, Mr Mulligan.
MR MULLIGAN: If you can have a look at appendix E, which is headed "Transport Performance Assessment Detail".
10 MR NORMAN: Just give me a moment. Yes, I have found that.
MR MULLIGAN: If you can have a look at the first page after the --
DR PRIESTLEY: Sorry, which report number is this, Mr -- 15 MR MULLIGAN: This is a part of the AEE and it's volume 3, report 1.
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you.
20 MR MULLIGAN: And appendix E. In terms of that table, that provides some details about the Agency's perspective in terms of the comparison between the projects or the specific alignments in terms of enduring benefits. Did you have a look at that before you did your evidence?
25 MR NORMAN: I have seen it, yes.
MR MULLIGAN: So to that extent, there is material within the application which provides some evaluation of the different performances of the proposal in terms of some of these transport criteria? 30 MR NORMAN: So in terms of this one, it's got expected changes to deliver by 2026. So perhaps in answer to the earlier question, that may be a definition of enduring, but I would have thought that was a relatively short-term rather than a long-term enduring benefit. 35 [2.20 pm]
MR MULLIGAN: But you would confirm that in terms of that particular analysis, this particular proposal, option F - along with option E - performs the best? 40 MR NORMAN: Sorry, I'm just looking at the options to re-familiarise myself. I couldn't actually say. So I see that it has been assigned a score of four, but I don't know how that score was calculated, so running my eyes up and down the number of minutes, for example, saved on the various 45 options, the reductions, they vary. There are some other options that may have a higher number of minutes, so I would need to have a look
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3283
at how mathematically that adds up.
MR MULLIGAN: But you would confirm that there is some information that relates to these different options within the AEE material? 5 MR NORMAN: There is this page that says that in the NZ Transport Agency's view, option F has a score of four, as does option E. How they arrived at those scores, I am not certain.
10 MR MULLIGAN: You would accept that the concept of - in the broadest sense, not in terms of perhaps the term of art that we've been describing with the VEM BCR - but generally a BCR is a dynamic process as a project develops?
15 MR NORMAN: Potentially.
MR MULLIGAN: You've indicated and accepted, I think, that there have been changes to this particular proposal after the first BCR.
20 MR NORMAN: Yes, yes. If that's what you mean, that's quite correct, yes.
MR MULLIGAN: Presumably they're going to have additional construction costs, but they'll also --
25 MR NORMAN: They might have benefits too.
MR MULLIGAN: -- have benefits as well?
MR NORMAN: Yes. 30 MR MULLIGAN: Indeed, as the Board goes through the process, it may impose conditions or restrictions or make changes to the proposal which may also affect --
35 MR NORMAN: Cost or benefits, yes.
MR MULLIGAN: So it's a dynamic process, isn't it?
MR NORMAN: It is. 40 MR MULLIGAN: But again, going back to your original evidence, given the travel time benefits, you see a real benefit in undertaking a transport link through from State Highway 20 to State Highway 1?
45 MR NORMAN: Yes, I do.
MR MULLIGAN: You see real benefits as a result of this particular proposal, option F, in
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3284
terms of gross benefits?
MR NORMAN: There will be gross transport benefits, yes.
5 MR MULLIGAN: Thank you. No further questions.
DR PRIESTLEY: Any more Board questions? Mr Lanning.
MR LANNING: Mr Norman, it was a while ago now, but you were asked by Mr 10 Hewison some questions about the benefit cost ratio and in particular what you might do if this was an Auckland Transport or Auckland Council project. Do you recall those questions?
MR NORMAN: Yes, I do. 15 MR LANNING: Now, you said in answer - what I've got here, anyway - to one of those questions was in terms of the need to do a benefit cost ratio. In that context you said it is required, but it's not the be all and end all.
20 MR NORMAN: That's right.
MR LANNING: Can you just explain what you mean by that?
MR NORMAN: Yes. As I've said a couple of times since, so your job is to try and 25 quantify as many of the benefits and costs as you can and to have them as accurate as you can. But invariably there are factors that you may not be able to quantify, various things, amenity perhaps, as I described earlier, consentability, can we actually get this particular option consented? 30 [2.25 pm]
Those are other factors that you would have to consider and you would look at your couple of best-placed options perhaps and then apply this 35 wider lens.
MR LANNING: To what extent is that economic advice for a benefit cost ratio part of a broader set of advice that decision-makers get before they decide to proceed with a project? 40 MR NORMAN: It depends who you talk to, but it can vary significantly. Obviously as an economist, I place a lot of weight on it, but certainly wouldn't place all my weight on it, but there are always other considerations as well, like the examples I've mentioned. 45 MR LANNING: Is it your experience that ultimately that decision-maker, especially in a Council context, after taking on board the economic and the other advice, that they have to effectively make a policy decision about what
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3285
to proceed with?
MR NORMAN: That's right, yes.
5 MR LANNING: I have no further questions, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: The last one was very leading.
MR LANNING: I thought I'd sneak it in, sir. 10 DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you very much, Mr Norman, you are free to go.
MR NORMAN: Thank you.
15 (witness excused)
MR LANNING: It might have taken another half an hour for me to get there. Now, sir, the next witness is Mr Marler and hopefully you won't get too angry with me, but Ms Sosene has to get to a funeral this afternoon and needs 20 to leave at 3.00 pm. I'm hoping that there isn't too much cross- examination of her, so I was wondering whether we'd be able to sneak her on now.
DR PRIESTLEY: Where is she on this? 25 MR LANNING: So we have Mr Marler, it will be Mr Diver now for the Maungakiekie- Tāmaki and then Ms Sosene.
DR PRIESTLEY: Oh, I see, right up the top there. Well, I think we could sneak her on 30 now, particularly if she has that sort of --
MR LANNING: That would be appreciated, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: She's a member of the Mangere Otahuhu local board, correct? 35 MR LANNING: Correct. Thank you, that's appreciated, sir. Mr Marler might not appreciate it, but Ms Sosene will. You're on. So again, sir, for the local board chairs, we haven't put together a summary. Their evidence is brief. 40 DR PRIESTLEY: You haven't?
MR LANNING: No.
45 DR PRIESTLEY: Right. Are you cross-examining, Mr Hewison, or is it going to be Mr
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3286
Burns?
DR HEWISON: I am, sir.
5 DR PRIESTLEY: Right, thank you. No one else other than Mr Mulligan?
Ms Sosene (sworn)
MR LANNING: Good afternoon, Ms Sosene. Could you please confirm that your full 10 name is Lemaunga Lydia Sosene?
MS SOSENE: Yes.
MR LANNING: Can you confirm, please, that you have produced a statement of 15 evidence for this hearing?
MS SOSENE: Yes.
MR LANNING: And that evidence, to the best of your knowledge, is true and correct? 20 MS SOSENE: Yes.
MR LANNING: Could you please answer any questions?
25 MS SOSENE: Sure.
DR PRIESTLEY: Yes, Mr Hewison.
DR HEWISON: Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Ms Sosene. Dr Hewison for TOES. 30 I just wanted you to turn to paragraph 2.2 of your statement of evidence, where you say that:
"The board requests that best practice is adhered to to avoid reclamation of the coastline and minimise any interruption to the area's 35 ecological system, fishing and natural life resources."
Would it concern you that what is proposed will be a very significant and very large reclamation, possibly one of the largest in the Auckland region since the RMA? 40 MS SOSENE: Thanks for the question. Yes, according to the information that we have received as a board, we are really concerned that the reclamation -- and I'm not sure that we've received all the information to date, but what we have seen as a board, we are really concerned at 45 the ecological effect, but also Mana Whenua has informed us that they
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3287
have pushed back in terms of reclamation.
[2.30 pm]
5 We are keen, as a board, to understand that at a more detailed level and we haven't had that detail.
DR HEWISON: You haven't been through the hearing from the first week, but Mana Whenua, particularly Ngāti Whātua and Kawerau ā Maki, have been 10 represented here in opposition and have raised quite a number of concerns with regard to dredging, reclamation effects on birdlife and so on. Would it concern you that they've raised those issues at this point in the process at this hearing?
15 MS SOSENE: Yes, it would. It is important as a local board that we have accurate information because our board is the neighbouring board to Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and, in terms of what you raise, in a different session for the Manukau Harbour we have seen that the birdlife on the Manukau Harbour on our side, on the southern side, it is important to 20 understand the ecological effects and so on the information that the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board has received, reclamation has got quite a detrimental effect, so it would be helpful that we understand that more. But in the proposal, from the papers that we have seen, that is why we have put that into avoiding reclamation and we maintain that 25 position.
DR HEWISON: Just turning to the importance of the Onehunga harbour area at Taumanu through to the wharf and the Old Mangere Bridge, how would you describe the significance of that particular area for the 30 community in your local board area to the south?
MS SOSENE: So, in terms of the Mangere Otahuhu community, particularly our Mangere Bridge community who have voiced a number of concerns at this particular project, the connection of the new Old Mangere Bridge 35 that NZ Transport Agency -- we have had some consultation. That was probably a couple of years ago. It is a very important link, particularly for that part of the community. We have many students that attend Onehunga High School. We have many, many people in the community - including myself - that utilise Onehunga in terms of the 40 connectivity, in terms of the shopping precinct and all the different business connections.
So it is actually a critical link to our community and, whilst the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board, as a layperson, we understand the East 45 West Link and we support it in principle, we are concerned that there are parts of it we probably don't fully understand or have not had the
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3288
information that we have been seeking in parts of it.
DR HEWISON: How would you describe the current linkages in terms of their quality, their amenity, the ease of access, for example, for your students through 5 to Onehunga High School? How would you describe the current state of those?
MS SOSENE: It could be better. We have been waiting for NZ Transport Agency to make up their mind: are they going to deliver the new Old Mangere 10 Bridge structure? I think, irrespective of this particular project, the East West Link, it is a connection that connects the Mangere-Otahuhu community, particularly the Mangere community, to the Onehunga, so it is a really important link. We have been waiting and we are still waiting, and currently it could be a lot better structure in terms of biting 15 in terms of the community. We've got our boating community, the students, the cycling community, the recreational community, the Waka Ama clubs, so it is really key. Even though it does not have vehicle access, the pedestrians, the cycling and just the recreation benefits are huge. We are quite impacted on this side. 20 DR HEWISON: Would you agree, in terms of where the East West Link is proposed to go through that Onehunga corridor, if you like, that it further severs your community from the Onehunga community and the facilities that you have been describing? 25 MS SOSENE: It is a key concern as to the engineering aspects. It is quite hard to look at the mapping, understand the engineering, understand all the calculations because I don't have an engineering background and we don't have planning backgrounds. 30 [2.35 pm]
So we really have to have a look at the charts that have been given to us and really understand it. So we are concerned about the impact. 35 How will this side of the community connect with the Onehunga community?
And you're talking about a relationship that goes back perhaps a couple of centuries, so the Mangere resident ratepayers, and there is an 40 enormous amount of people in the community that have given different viewpoints that I understand. It is about understanding the engineering impact and, although it is about the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki community, does it actually also serve our community from what we have seen? We can only go on the information that has been provided to the local 45 board.
DR HEWISON: In terms of that information that has been provided - and I think you rightly describe a lot of it as being engineering drawings and complex
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3289
depictions and drawings that are perhaps difficult for the community to understand - would you accept that the community has found it difficult to understand what this project will actually look like once it is built?
5 MS SOSENE: I would probably have to say, yes, you are dealing with a lot of lay people, people in the community who may not fully understand the relationship between Council, NZ Transport Agency, Auckland Transport and KiwiRail. Some do because they are transport people. They like that. They understand it. However, I would probably, as a 10 layperson, strongly encourage that when this project -- and I am looking at that red line, in terms of the length, the width, the height, the detrimental impacts, not just on the transport link but in the harbour, recreation and a number of those things, so I hope I have answered your question correctly. 15 DR HEWISON: Yes. That's fine. Just on that point about, I suppose, being able to visually understand what the project's impacts would be, are you aware that the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board specifically asked for much clearer closer up visuals of what the project would look like? 20 MS SOSENE: Yes.
DR HEWISON: Did your board also ask for that similar information?
25 MS SOSENE: From the outset we have requested that we are kept informed or that we have a better communicative relationship with NZ Transport Agency, and I have been part of a project steering group. As a layperson, I still have to assist my board in understanding the impact but also the detail and then translating that to the community, so NZ 30 Transport Agency has done consultation where they have set up in Mangere Bridge. And I can't recall exactly but they have assisted in terms of drawings. And sometimes when you take the detail you still need time to actually process that and understand what that means in your part of the community, so the East West Link lots of people have 35 heard about it, some people have raised questions but perhaps don't fully understand it.
DR HEWISON: Even at this point you would say that people in your community don't really fully understand what the East West Link will look like and what 40 its impacts will be?
MS SOSENE: I could probably answer your question by: it is going to be a transport link that reduces time and reduces congestion but, in terms of the impact on our community and how that affects our community, 45 sometimes our people have asked the board questions and we can only give what has been provided to us. So there is some understanding, particularly for those people that are very keen to understand the links
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3290
and the effects. There have been changes of opinions, yes.
DR HEWISON: Thank you. I just wanted to move to another issue, and that is the Transpower transmission lines. We have heard from the community - 5 and I think rightly from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board as well - that their desire is for a number of transmission lines to be undergrounded, particularly those that traverse across the harbour. Does the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board have a position with regard to undergrounding any of these transmission lines? 10 MS SOSENE: So my understanding is that we support undergrounding because there is a key, and I think it is Roskill/Mangere that is very key to our part of the community and so the board does support undergrounding, yes.
15 [2.40 pm]
DR HEWISON: In terms of visual impact, when you look across from your local board area back towards Onehunga, do you think the undergrounding of that Mangere/Roskill line would have a significant benefit in terms of visual 20 impact?
MS SOSENE: Visual, yes, but again we would need to understand: what does that mean? Obviously when you are undergrounding, which I know our board supports, what is the impact on other things like ecological and 25 particularly around the inlet? So, I would have to say yes but then do we get provided with the detail on the impact? What does that mean?
DR HEWISON: Okay. Thank you for time. Thank you, sir.
30 MR BICKERS: Thank you for your submission and your evidence. It is really helpful to get these local perspectives. You have explained the difficulty of understanding the concept and they are complex drawings. In paragraph 3(a) of your statement you talk about some of the social impacts, and I just wonder whether you have received additional 35 information from NZ Transport Agency because we have received evidence, clearly. Have you received information to explain those issues predicted: increase in the number of vehicles, fumes and air emissions and noise pollution? Has NZ Transport Agency assisted you with understanding those issues? 40 MS SOSENE: I don't believe we have received information currently, probably in the last maybe six months or longer. We are concerned, and specifically why we have put on in terms of social impact, currently the board is having issues in terms of safety and security lighting, and we have quite 45 a keen interest in terms of the increase of vehicles and the emissions from that. So I can't recall anything recently, there may have been but
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3291
I don't recall it.
MR BICKERS: So have you got a liaison arrangement with NZ Transport Agency for you to access information and get that explained to you in layperson's 5 terms?
MS SOENE: We have had Scott from NZ Transport Agency, who, if memory serves me correct, led the consultation on Mangere Bridge. We have had some liaison in terms of another project called the Kirkbride Tunnel, 10 which is at the other end, but for this particular -- there probably is a liaison but we haven't had active discussions recently.
MR BICKERS: I notice you have referred to consultation a couple of times, in order to have effective consultation there has to be information exchanged. 15 You would have to understand what you are being consulted on and what the impacts are. Do you feel you've been reasonably well informed? As you say, the plans are complex, it is not a matter of just simply giving you a set of plans, it's a matter of saying, "Well, this is the impact". There is, for example, a drive through animation of it. 20 Have you seen that?
MS SOENE: I think I've seen it through Auckland Council Reference Group. Yes, which I have had to rely on in terms of understanding it at a greater level. 25 MR BICKERS: Yes, okay, so going back to my question about have you had -- you are raising questions on social impact. As I say, we have heard evidence so the material is there but I am just wondering whether you feel it's been adequately communicated to your board. 30 MS SOENE: I'd probably have to answer that the liaison contact has been adequate. However, in my view it could be lot better if we had more up to date information.
35 [2.45 pm]
Because from what I can recall, when the consultation happened, that would have been at least 18 months ago - yes, probably about 18 months ago, the project has moved in terms of its -- it's an enormous 40 project and although it impacts and it sits in our Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, the local board area, we needed to understand the connections and also a number of things, the impact on the Mangere Inlet, the Manukau Harbour, the relationship not just on the Mangere Bridge side but also on the Otahuhu side as well. 45 MR BICKERS: So you're saying the last consultation you had was 18 months ago?
MS SOENE: I am probably certain that we've had some information after that period
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3292
of consultation when NZ Transport Agency would have done a summing up of the feedback that they've received from us but I can't recall anything in the last probably more than -- so we've been elected on to this new term in October and it would have to have been before 5 that period.
MR BICKERS: Okay, did you have a big change in the composition of your board in October?
10 MS SOENE: One.
MR BICKERS: One, okay. With the exception of that person, the others may have been exposed to some issues?
15 MS SOENE: Yes. We have one particular board member who has every actively been following, who shares the transport portfolio with myself.
MR BICKERS: Right, okay. Thank you very much, and thanks again for your submission. 20 MS SOENE: Thank you.
MR PARSONSON: In your evidence you just mentioned the Princes Street improvements and a request for additional safety features to be considered for 25 pedestrians and cyclists between Frank Rowe Place and Albert Street and also you've mentioned the local shops at the corner of Albert Street and Princes Street. Have you had any progress with NZ Transport Agency on addressing some of those points you've raised or possibly not? 30 MS SOENE: Not to my knowledge. We've been very concerned because this is the only junction where there is no signalisation and pedestrians crossing from one side to the other, there is no signalisation so they just cross and it has been like that for many, many years. So our concern has 35 been through this submission is NZ Transport Agency, we are pleading that the really tidy up that particular one for pedestrians, cyclists and mums with prams. So I think it is pretty horrendous that members of the public have to cross the road and cars are coming off the motorway into Otahuhu and there's no signalisation. It has been like that for 40 many, many years. I don't know how it ended up like that but it's very dangerous, very thankful that there's been no fatalities and there's a lot of children and young people from the local primary schools and intermediate that have to cross over that. So very hopeful that the new
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3293
plan tidies all that up.
MR PARSONSON: So have you had a chance to look at the plans that were lodged?
5 MS SOENE: Yes.
MR PARSONSON: Did they all address those concerns? Are you aware of --
MS SOENE: From memory, yes, it does in terms of tidying up that whole area. 10 MR PARSONSON: Right, thank you.
DR PRIESTLEY: Ms Soene, how many elected members are there of the Mangere Otahuhu Board? 15 MS SOENE: Seven, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: All right. Refresh my memory, the elections were last October, October 2016, right? 20 MS SOENE: Yes, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: Who is the councillor for that ward?
25 MS SOENE: We have two. We have Councillor Alf Filipaina and Councillor Efeso Collins, who is new.
DR PRIESTLEY: Have either of those councillors been a resource for your board on this issue? In other words, are they aware of the concerns and reservations 30 which you have told us about?
MS SOENE: No, I have had to inform them because I have relied on other councillors on the project reference group to assist with my questions.
35 DR PRIESTLEY: So they are aware because you have told them, is that right?
MS SOENE: Yes.
DR PRIESTLEY: Okay, that is what I was getting at. Your statement, which we've read, 40 is very helpful but I notice you signed it off, I think, some time in mid- May, 10 May, and there were two or three issues like mangrove removal and two or three other issues where you said you were still
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3294
awaiting further information. Has any of that information arrived?
[2.50 pm]
5 MS SOENE: No.
DR PRIESTLEY: One of the benefits, as I understand it, for the Mangere/Mangere Bridge area is there is going to be a special bus lane or bus which gets people across to Onehunga. Is that something you welcome? 10 MS SOENE: Yes, it will assist in terms of getting people to Onehunga. Many of our community go across to Onehunga daily and so some have had to rely on their private motor car. I am pretty certain that if public transport is frequent and reliable then many people will choose that option. I know 15 a lot of our school students do but we've still got many of the parents ferrying them across in private motor cars.
DR PRIESTLEY: You mentioned that some of the kids in the area are going to Onehunga High, is there a school bus run by Auckland Transport or anybody who 20 takes kids across to the other side of the harbour to the school?
MS SOENE: So my understanding is we have six buses that go to service the high school. We also have a couple of buses that go to Royal Oak Intermediate. There's also a couple of buses that service Waikowhai 25 Mt Albert Grammar but they all stop in Onehunga. So a lot of the buses that pick up the school children -- it just gives you the amount of young people that are attending those schools, Onehunga High, Waikowhai, Royal Oak Intermediate --
30 DR PRIESTLEY: So they all stop at the depot, do they?
MS SOENE: Some do. Even St Joseph Primary has a regular school bus.
DR PRIESTLEY: Right, okay. I was interested when you were talking about the Old 35 Mangere Bridge, I got the impression - and I may have been fantasising here - there are not significant number of kids who walk to school across that bridge every day, are there?
MS SOENE: There still is, sir. Many ride their bikes and also walk but they are more 40 the high school, because of the traffic volumes -- I mean, I myself was a parent that used to go across for St Joseph's Primary in Onehunga daily. So not the little ones, more so the intermediate and high school students.
45 DR PRIESTLEY: All right. You have been asked questions about general consultation. My understanding is that some time around the time when this whole project was notified and it is so long ago I am getting hazy, but I think it was probably just after the Christmas holidays or maybe after, but
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3295
NZ Transport Agency had a number of information sessions at libraries and all of that, did somebody from your board - you perhaps or other members of the board - go to that?
5 MS SOENE: I attended one and I know my colleague attended a couple as well to try and understand the updated information.
DR PRIESTLEY: Sure, sure. Was that helpful or was it just confusing?
10 MS SOENE: It is helpful because as a local board member we have been given some insight, we also have had our council staff very helpful in terms of understanding and they've always been open to assist us in understanding things like diagrams, engineering specs and that, but for lay people I think Mangere Bridge citizens did get across as well to 15 some of those.
DR PRIESTLEY: I think you have probably answered my last question, as I understand the board structure, council staff are there to provide you with assistance and this has been the case here. Is that right? 20 MS SOSENE: Yes, and have been very helpful.
DR PRIESTLEY: Good. Thank you very much.
25 MS TEPANIA: Talofa Lava, Ms Sosene. I just wanted to point out to you, are you familiar with the conditions whereby NZ Transport Agency is proposing to set up a community liaison group and their proposal is that the local boards would be invited to be members of that. Those liaison groups, have you participated in those in the past? Have you 30 found them useful?
[2.55 pm]
MS SOSENE: I'll answer for my colleague, who has been along to the liaison groups. 35 It is important that when an opportunity is made, we, as local board members, have to attend as best as possible, so that we can help translate some of the information. I am just trying to think of when the liaison groups … I know the NZ Transport Agency would contact, in terms of this has been set up, local board members are welcome to 40 attend, and it is an important conduit of information, but I can't - I am just trying to recall … My board member, Carol Elliott, she has been the one leading the charge in terms of this particular project, but also the old New Mangere Bridge; a very passionate person.
45 MS TEPANIA: Okay. In terms of schooling, too, you mentioned St Joseph's Primary School. In terms of the secondary school that those children go on to, I take it a lot of the children from Mangere would come across to
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3296
Marcellin College as well.
MS SOSENE: Yes.
5 MS TEPANIA: Do you know whether Marcellin College continues to have its school buses running from South Auckland?
MS SOSENE: It must do because we have a number of students, St Joseph's, who also attend St Peter's. So if they can get into St Peter's, or Marcellin, or De 10 La Salle.
MS TEPANIA: So the Onehunga ones that attend St Joseph's would, of course, need to go across to De La Salle. In terms of those depots, Onehunga and Mangere town centres are pretty much the main depots where the buses 15 go through and connect, aren't they?
MS SOSENE: Yes.
MS TEPANIA: Okay. Thank you for your answers. (Samoan spoken) 20 MS SOSENE: Thank you.
DR PRIESTLEY: Ms Duffy, having complained half an hour ago it was getting hot and stuffy, now I have icicles forming on my shoulder blades. Is there some 25 intermediate temperature which is possible?
MS DUFFY: I think I turned it down 1 degree. I'll just double check.
DR PRIESTLEY: Suffering from hypothermia as I am … who is next? Is it you, isn't it, 30 Mr Mulligan?
MR MULLIGAN: Good afternoon, Ms Sosene. I want to ask you a couple of questions.
You refer in your evidence, at paragraph 2.3, to the board's general 35 support of the idea of storm water treatment.
MS SOSENE: Yes.
MR MULLIGAN: Can I confirm that is still the case? 40 MS SOSENE: Yes.
MR MULLIGAN: If I can just understand your evidence in relation to the new Old Mangere Bridge, are you familiar with the consented plans, the
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3297
proposal, for that project?
MS SOSENE: On a general note, yes.
5 MR MULLIGAN: Are you supportive of the upgrade of the design?
MS SOSENE: I am just trying to recall. I would have to say yes.
MR MULLIGAN: I took from you evidence that it is really a question of you saying, "Get 10 on with it, NZ Transport Agency". Is that so?
MS SOSENE: That is our request. I am not sure if they were trying to do a range of projects, because we haven't really heard anything in terms of timeline. They were very clear, when there was a consultation, about the draft 15 timeline, but obviously it has moved.
MR MULLIGAN: Were you aware that NZ Transport Agency pursued, and obtained, consents for that project but that was appealed by TOES?
20 MS SOSENE: Yes.
MR MULLIGAN: And that that appeal caused some delay in advancing the project. Were you aware of that?
25 MS SOSENE: Well, that would have to be the case.
MR MULLIGAN: You referred in terms of your input to a project steering group. Was that something you were involved personally in or was that Ms Elliott that you referred to? 30 MS SOSENE: There are two groups. I was involved in the project reference group and Carol Elliott and our new deputy chair have been involved in the other group, being with Panuku.
35 MR MULLIGAN: Is that Panuku group the project steering group?
MS SOSENE: No, the group that I have been involved in is the steering group.
MR MULLIGAN: Is Carol Elliott a board member as well? 40 MS SOSENE: Yes.
MR MULLIGAN: In terms of the group that you were involved in, how often did that
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3298
meet?
MS SOSENE: On a very regular basis.
5 MR MULLIGAN: What was the function of that particular group?
MS SOSENE: To provide members, as I recall, elected members, with a number of the experts within Council who understand more the technicalities of the actual project. It also provided me with the avenue of 10 understanding some of the detail, even though I am not an engineer or a planner; it did help, viewing the pictures, the designs.
MR MULLIGAN: I think we all get a bit lost trying to review some of these projects, but that particular group allowed elected members, be it board members 15 and councillors, access to the Council experts to ask questions about what aspects the proposal meets. Is that correct?
MS SOSENE: Yes.
20 MR MULLIGAN: In terms of the other group that you referred to, which Ms Elliott and deputy chair were involved in, what was the function of that group?
MS SOSENE: I haven't actually been to any of those sessions, due to other meetings, but how I understand it, it was looking more at development, because 25 it was being led by Panuku. That is my understanding.
[3.00 pm]
30 MR MULLIGAN: So that focussed on the wharf and access to and from the wharf?
MS SOSENE: Yes.
MR MULLIGAN: But also, within that context, there was some discussion of the East 35 West Link and the impact on that proposal.
MS SOSENE: I would make that assumption.
MR MULLIGAN: I have no further questions. 40 DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Mr Mulligan. Any more Board questions? Re- examination?
MR LANNING: No, nothing from me, sir. 45 DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Ms Sosene. It has been very helpful. Thank you for
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3299
coming.
(witness excused)
5 MR LANNING: The next witness, sir, is the patient Mr Marler.
Mr Marler (sworn)
MR LANNING: Good afternoon, Mr Marler. Could you please confirm that your full 10 name is Roderick Maitland Marler?
MR MARLER: It is.
MR LANNING: Can you confirm that you have produced a statement of evidence for 15 this hearing?
MR MARLER: Yes.
MR LANNING: Can you confirm that you have the qualifications and experience set 20 out in section 1 of that evidence?
MR MARLER: I do.
MR LANNING: Can you please confirm that the evidence is true and correct? 25 MR MARLER: It is.
MR LANNING: Thank you. Could you please answer any questions?
30 DR PRIESTLEY: Mr Hewison, is it you?
DR HEWISON: Sorry, sir. I think Ports of Auckland were, but they declined to ask questions. Sorry, sir. I thought you might have been wishing to consider something. 35 DR PRIESTLEY: No. Multi-tasking. Of you go.
DR HEWISON: Good afternoon, Mr Marler. Mr Hewison, for TOES. I have some questions that I want to ask you at a broad level around the 40 transformation of Onehunga and then some more specific issues in relation to the project.
Perhaps a good place to start might be at paragraph 2.4 of your evidence. Here you say that to ultimately be a successful investment,
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3300
the East West Link needs to better address coastal severance effects.
[3.05 pm]
5 In 2.4(b): "The quality of walking, cycling and local connections within the Transform Onehunga area is critical to retaining the important historical connection between Onehunga, the wharf, and the Manukau Harbour."
10 At this point in the hearing, there has been some time between, I suppose, writing this evidence and getting to this point. Do you stand by those comments? Or, perhaps, do you go beyond them at this point in terms of the evidence that you have heard?
15 MR MARLER: I stand by those comments. I think the most important component of that clause, you missed out, is the final sentence, suggesting that further enhancement is required.
DR HEWISON: Thank you. Thank you for pointing that out. 20 In terms of your background in urban design and planning, would you have a comment to make in relation to the proposition that TOES put at the outset of the hearing, that we may actually undermine the industrial nature of the edge, in particular, of the East West Link area 25 if we are going to build a road that is essentially relatively slow in terms of traffic, is a particularly attractive coastal edge, and has a range of amenity and recreation aspects that are associated with it.
DR PRIESTLEY: Do you understand that question? 30 MR MARLER: I don't think a question has been asked yet.
DR HEWISON: That's okay. I'll reword it.
35 DR PRIESTLEY: What you want to know, isn't it, Mr Hewison, is whether the existence of this road may subvert the light industrial area which it's intended to serve?
DR HEWISON: Yes, sir. Thank you. So did you hear the Chair's question? 40 MR MARLER: I heard the Chair's question, thank you. I wasn't present at the presentation of the TOES evidence, but the question speaks for itself. I believe that the work that is being proposed to be undertaken adjacent to the industrial area, the mitigation would improve the quality of that 45 coastal edge from its present condition.
DR HEWISON: Yes, I probably have confused things. In terms of your role at Panuku, in terms of the focus that that entity has and your experience I suppose
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3301
on the waterfront on the Waitemata, the Wynyard Quarter area and, if you like, the transformation that's occurred in that area through a range of the activities that are taking place, would you hold any concerns that the road as it is being proposed might subvert the industrial nature of 5 that current area that goes down to the coastal edge for the East West Link?
MR MARLER: We're talking about a very different condition from the examples that you refer to. Certainly in the Waitemāta and the work that we've been 10 doing in the Wynyard Quarter, the industrial condition is quite different, different in scale, and the condition that we are encouraging is the retention of that industrial gritty nature as part of that specific location. I think the example that you're referring to in Onehunga is quite different and the relationship of that industrial activity and its 15 relationship to the coast is quite different already.
MR PARSONSON: Mr Hewison, I may be wrong, but were you enquiring as to whether the East West Link would encourage a land use change that was an adverse impact on the retention of industrial land use? 20 DR HEWISON: That's a very good question.
MR PARSONSON: Mr Marler, is it possible that the East West Link could actually result in land use changes that would actually be adverse in terms of the 25 efficient retention of industrial land use?
MR MARLER: As an agency, we're responsible, on behalf of the Council, to look at urban regeneration opportunities and Onehunga has been identified as such. Then with growth and development in that location over time, 30 then we would expect to see some land use changes. The East West may facilitate that, and I'm talking specifically about the areas to the east of the existing township, where there is currently some heavy industrial activities, which may over time - and we're looking at the 20, 30-year timeframe - it may be appropriate for a land use change in that 35 timeframe to some other use.
DR HEWISON: You don't think that the East West Link might speed up that timeframe?
[3.10 pm] 40 MR MARLER: It may. It would really depend very much on the interface of roads such as Galway and Alfred with East West Link to facilitate that. I think on its own the East West wouldn't speed that up.
45 DR HEWISON: Okay.
MR PARSONSON: I take it from your answer you don't consider such a change would be
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3302
adverse in terms of efficient land use?
MR MARLER: Correct.
5 DR HEWISON: In terms of Onehunga presently and perhaps going back just a few years, would you agree that particularly around the town centre area, a bit out from that a little more, that there have been retail and residential pressures that have changed the land use zoning in that area?
10 MR MARLER: That's inevitable.
DR HEWISON: Sorry, and has that process already begun?
MR MARLER: It has. 15 DR HEWISON: Okay. Did the unitary plan process, if you like, exacerbate that or progress that further?
MR MARLER: I would suggest that it is encouraging it. 20 DR HEWISON: So in and around that Onehunga township area, which particularly as you look from that area down towards the wharf on the coast, which currently there's a mix of sort of light industrial and so on, do you see that progressively transforming to residential and retail over a 25 relatively short period of time?
MR MARLER: I don't think over a short period of time. What we would be endeavouring to facilitate is, going back to that Wynyard Quarter example, the retention of some of those activities in a balanced way, so 30 we could retain some of that heritage, some of that culture, some of that fabric and overlay it with a change of use in time and to mixed-use type developments.
DR HEWISON: Mixed-use type developments, which would include some of that 35 grittiness, as you say, but also an emphasis on housing and residential?
MR MARLER: I wouldn't say an emphasis, but residential is part of mixed use.
MR PARSONSON: Mr Marler, the land uses under the unitary plan moving westward from 40 Alfred Street is heavy industry and then light industry. Is that your understanding? And then --
MR MARLER: Moving westward or eastward?
45 MR PARSONSON: Westward from Alfred Street.
MR MARLER: Yes, there's immediately a Council-owned site which is heavy industry,
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3303
correct.
MR PARSONSON: Yes. So the Council's decision on the unitary plan, which was made as recently at late last year, has retained that recommendation of zoning 5 of those areas through the unitary plan process. That's correct, isn't it?
MR MARLER: Correct.
MR PARSONSON: So in terms of your responses to the questions on the potential evolution 10 of land use in that area immediately east of the Onehunga township and west of Alfred Street, to what extent are you speaking on behalf of the Council or on behalf of Panuku and is there a distinction?
MR MARLER: There is a distinction. We're charged with the responsibility of urban 15 regeneration on behalf of the Council. The unitary plan is a document which strikes a land use at a point in time. We are charged with the responsibility of looking further ahead and we would be suggesting that over time that that land use would change, particularly if we can deliver what we envisage for the Onehunga Wharf immediately to the south- 20 west of that location.
MR PARSONSON: I would couch my question separate to the Onehunga Wharf, which I can understand has other potentials, but in terms of Panuku's function then, the unitary plan was developed with certain timeframes in mind - 25 horizons in mind, I suppose - in terms of provision of land use for different activities. Is Panuku's function somewhat different in terms of identifying potentials for development rather than establishing what the Council's policy should be on those potentials?
30 MR MARLER: Correct.
DR PRIESTLEY: Yes, Mr Hewison.
DR HEWISON: In terms of the residential development which is to take place in 35 Onehunga to transform Onehunga, what sort of level of increase are you projecting perhaps over the next five to ten years?
MR MARLER: We haven't projected any numbers, but we have looked at areas where intensified mixed use, including residential, could take place through 40 really five key zones, the town centre itself, intensification to the north and the Housing New Zealand housing stock on Oranga, to the west, to the east and on the wharf.
[3.15 pm] 45 DR HEWISON: Would you agree with intensified housing developments the need for open space, the need for walking and cycling options, connections, and particularly if there is foreshore area, connections down to the
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3304
foreshore? I think in your opening you said they're a critical component of that. Would you agree?
MR MARLER: Agreed. 5 DR HEWISON: In terms of using the word "critical" can you expand on that in terms of what you mean? Does it mean that if that isn't provided it's a showstopper or is it something less that can mitigate some of the perhaps effects of it? 10 MR MARLER: Well, town centre regeneration, which is our core business, is about creating happy, healthy communities and part of that is providing high- quality amenity to serve that community.
15 DR HEWISON: Turning to the Onehunga Wharf, you have mentioned that as one of the five areas. Is that also a critical part of the regeneration plans that you have underway?
MR MARLER: It is. 20 DR HEWISON: So taking up that comment that you made about the connections being critical, in terms of the severance effects of the East West Link, do you think they undermine those connections?
25 MR MARLER: Yes, I do.
DR HEWISON: In what ways in particular?
MR MARLER: Well, it limits access for people, for vehicles, and perhaps jumping 30 ahead a little bit here, we're envisaging that there could be 60,000 to 80,000 square metres of development on that wharf space. With that is an associated number of residents, number of business owners, people going to work that will be requiring to either walk there, drive there, cycle there and we hope there is still the potential for some public 35 transport down on to the wharf.
DR PRIESTLEY: Mr Marler, on the wharf, in paragraph 8.3 of your evidence, you refer to the NZ Transport Agency purchasing the wharf and using some of it for roading purposes and then you say: 40 "Once construction is completed, the land will be sold to Auckland Council in stages with all the Onehunga Wharf land expected to be acquired by 2022 [which is only five years away]. The detailed terms and conditions of the agreement have yet to be finalised." 45 Have they been finalised yet?
MR MARLER: No, they have not. There is a memorandum of understanding which is
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3305
currently in draft form between the NZ Transport Agency and ourselves.
DR PRIESTLEY: To the extent an MOU can, does that commit the NZ Transport Agency 5 to selling the wharf, once it no longer requires it, to Auckland Council?
MR MARLER: That's my understanding.
DR PRIESTLEY: Right. 10 DR HEWISON: In terms of that MOU, are there other aspects of it about any improvements that might be made by NZ Transport Agency to the wharf or are they returning it, essentially, in the state that it is in now?
15 MR MARLER: I haven't read the documents. As I said, it is in draft form at the moment but my understanding is we would be receiving the wharf in the condition that NZ Transport Agency would leave it in at the completion of that project.
20 DR HEWISON: Okay. That might be worse than it is now?
MR MARLER: It could be.
DR HEWISON: In terms of that connection between the township and the wharf, and 25 particularly through the Landing, you have probably heard they started with 25 metres of land bridge. They have gone to perhaps around 70 to 90 metres, and there have been some witnesses who have talked about 170 metres or perhaps even two land bridges that might accommodate or work across that entire distance in terms of 30 connection. Do you have a particular view of where perhaps you stand on the length of the land bridge?
MR MARLER: We would like to work with NZ Transport Agency to maximise the length of that land bridge. We know there are some technical 35 difficulties around that and we would support the evidence that was put forward by Mr McIndoe. I think his recommendation was somewhere between 90 and 170. We would be supporting a significant piece of infrastructure.
40 DR HEWISON: Okay. Is that land bridge and that sort of link critical in terms of your view of mitigating that severance?
MR MARLER: To mitigating the severance it is.
45 [3.20 pm]
DR HEWISON: In terms of the Onehunga Wharf current zoning, Minor Port Zone, are
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3306
you familiar with that zoning?
MR MARLER: Yes.
5 DR HEWISON: Are you familiar with the discussions and, I suppose, advocacy that took place through the unitary plan process to arrive at that zoning?
MR MARLER: I am familiar with it. I wasn't party to it but I am familiar with it.
10 DR HEWISON: In terms of the introduction to that zoning, there is a brief statement at the end that indicates that there had been proposals made by a number of parties to, if you like, take the wharf from where it is now to something much more along the lines that you are talking about into the future, and it indicates that that is the direction that the wharf is 15 going in. Would you accept that that is what that statement in the Minor Port Zone indicates?
MR MARLER: It makes allowance for that.
20 DR HEWISON: Is it your expectation, as Panuku and the Council, that that's the direction the port should be heading in and will be heading at some point in the future?
MR MARLER: That is our position at the moment, but obviously that is subject to 25 significant engagement with our stakeholders, the community and the Council shareholder.
DR HEWISON: Okay. So you would accept that it's not fanciful. That is the future environment that the port is heading towards? 30 MR MARLER: It is not fanciful.
DR HEWISON: I just wanted to also turn to your comments in paragraph 9.10 concerning the options of mass rapid transport links, particularly in that 35 wharf area. In that paragraph you raise concerns that the line did not go to the wharf but to, if you like, the side of the wharf which meant the wharf option wasn't viable. Is that correct?
MR MARLER: Correct. 40 DR HEWISON: Why do you hold those concerns?
MR MARLER: We would like to ensure that the East West outcome did not foreclose the opportunity for light rail to the wharf and, potentially, across a new
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3307
Mangere Bridge to Mangere Town Centre.
DR HEWISON: Okay. Does the current application foreclose that?
5 MR MARLER: It does, as it currently is drafted.
DR HEWISON: Taking it a little bit further down into paragraph 10.6 and some of the evidence that you give there around undergrounding lines. In particular, what is the position of Panuku with regard to options to 10 underground lines in and around the Onehunga area?
MR MARLER: As outlined in the Mangere Local Board's evidence, the Mangere Roskill line is a significant impediment, not only visually but because of the path that it tracks along the waterfront through the wharf to the 15 tuff ring. It effectively sterilises a significant component of developable land, and we would like to work with NZ Transport Agency to look at the undergrounding of that cable.
DR HEWISON: Okay. Have you had discussions with NZ Transport Agency already 20 along those lines?
MR MARLER: And Transpower.
DR HEWISON: And Transpower? 25 MR MARLER: Yes.
DR HEWISON: Have those discussions, I suppose, come to any resolution?
30 MR MARLER: No.
DR HEWISON: Have you had discussions with Transpower about what it might cost to underground that line?
35 MR MARLER: They are not at liberty to give us any costings.
DR HEWISON: Okay. And just to be clear, if there was an undergrounding, where would the transition points be in your view? Where would they be best placed in your view? 40 MR MARLER: As far east as possible, so probably Galway Street and then running through to the northwest past the tuff ring, but ideally all of it.
DR HEWISON: So you wouldn't take, for example, the Mangere Roskill line
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3308
underground across the harbour to Mahunga Drive?
MR MARLER: That is outside our mandated area.
5 DR HEWISON: Okay. So you haven't considered whether there might be an option in these discussions to underground from the Mahunga Drive tower through Kiwi Esplanade across the harbour?
MR MARLER: We haven't, no. 10 [3.25 pm]
MR PARSONSON: Mr Marler, I think I have got your evidence here. I am sure I have. I am just double checking. In paragraph 6.10 you do have an image 15 which shows that route that Mr Hewison is discussing. Is there a reason why that image is there but you are not prepared to support that option?
MR MARLER: That is just a record of the current line alignment. It is not describing where the undergrounding might occur. 20 DR HEWISON: Just to follow up and clarify that question. In terms of the answer that you gave me, what I think you were saying is that you are not mandated to look at the question of whether it might be appropriate to underground from, say, the wharf through to Mahunga Drive but not 25 that you are not supportive of that. You don't have a view on whether you would support that or not?
MR MARLER: We would support it.
30 DR HEWISON: You would support that?
MR MARLER: Yes, we would support it.
DR HEWISON: Okay. In terms of the discussions with Transpower in particular, is it 35 feasible to underground that line through that area?
MR MARLER: Yes.
DR HEWISON: Thank you. I think Mr Burns has some more specific -- 40 MR BICKERS: Can I just have a quick moment, please?
DR HEWISON: Yes, sir.
45 MR BICKERS: Mr Marler, are you familiar with the alternative alignments that have been presented to the Board in relation to the Galway Street link and
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3309
the Galway Street connection to the East West Link?
MR MARLER: I am familiar with the proposal to shift the Galway Street alignment, yes. 5 MR BICKERS: Yes. That is the one I am talking about.
MR MARLER: Yes.
10 MR BICKERS: There have been at least two different alignments, very similar.
MR MARLER: Yes.
MR BICKERS: Now, the people who present, Mr Nancekivell and others, the traffic 15 engineers, were asked by me directly whether that would conflict with MRT alignment. I was assured that it would not. It would keep the options open. But you have said the options might be closed off. Is that right? Have I heard you correctly?
20 MR MARLER: Our understanding is, yes, the LRT alignment would be closed off with the current alignment, and that is really driven by the depth of the trench and the question of the Galway Street alignment does impact the depth of the trench and that (overspeaking) action.
25 MR BICKERS: I wonder if we could possibly have a plan of that that you could just demonstrate what your concern is.
MR MARLER: Right. Sure. Would you like me to explain?
30 MR BICKERS: There might be a better plan. Have we got a bigger plan?
MR MARLER: We can zoom in on that.
MR BICKERS: Yes. 35 MR MARLER: Okay. So the limiting factor really is the height of the existing State Highway 20 over bridge, and the ability to get a light rail infrastructure underneath that and then across the top of the new East West alignment. So you can imagine in three dimensions, you are working with three 40 separate elements. So, working down from the top, because that is a fixed point, the height that is required for any light rail infrastructure and its carrying structure. Then the height of the trench required for the East West Link would require that trench to be started further east because it would be pushed deeper and you have got to have a 45 minimum fall, which would then impact on the alignment of Galway Street requiring it to be pushed further east also, if you were going to
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3310
have an at-grade intersection.
MR BICKERS: Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
5 DR PRIESTLEY: Mr Hewison, just explain to me why you have got two counsel cross- examining the one witness. It is not normal practice.
MR BURNS: I can explain, sir. Mr Hewison and I, you will recall, are acting for a total of five clients. 10 DR PRIESTLEY: It is a client division.
MR BURNS: At least five.
15 DR PRIESTLEY: Explain no further. That satisfies it.
MR BURNS: Thank you, sir.
[3.30 pm] 20 DR PRIESTLEY: We will take a break. You want to go next, Ms Kinzett, do you?
MS KINZETT: (off mic conversation)
25 MR MULLIGAN: Sir, just before you --
DR PRIESTLEY: I noticed you. Ms Tepania and I decided you were not going to cross- examine this witness but you are now going to decide you do want to.
30 MR MULLIGAN: No. It is simply whether we think we are going to get to Ms Coombes today, sir, because otherwise --
DR PRIESTLEY: You get what first?
35 MR MULLIGAN: I am just wondering in terms of our batting order for the afternoon whether we think we might still get to Ms Coombes. If not then --
MALE SPEAKER: If it helps I will only be about ten minutes.
40 DR PRIESTLEY: Ms Coombes is listed for tomorrow.
MALE SPEAKER: No, last today.
MR MULLIGAN: Yes, she might be on the cusp so we -- 45 DR PRIESTLEY: I don't know whether she is on a cusp or not. If you want to cross- examine her and think she may be sneaked in this afternoon, you had
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3311
better hang around. All right.
MR MULLIGAN: Yes, sir.
5 DR PRIESTLEY: We will take the break.
ADJOURNED [3.31 pm]
RESUMED [3.47 pm] 10
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you. Mr Marler, your evidence before the adjournment, or probably about seven or eight minutes before the adjournment to be precise, has confused the Board and I would like you to give an 15 explanation. We have had evidence from three traffic engineers, NZ Transport Agency, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport to the effect - and the words they have used - that the construction of the East West Link would not preclude a light rail link to the airport, and indeed Mr Mulligan, counsel for NZ Transport Agency, said exactly the same 20 when he opened to us some weeks ago. Yet we thought we heard you say that the construction of this trench was indeed going to prevent a light rail connection to the airport. We might have misunderstood what you were saying but could you please tell us what you mean?
25 MR MARLER: Both are correct. Your former statement around the trench not precluding a light rail to the airport, that is correct. What I am talking about, and our preferred position, is a light rail alignment across the Old Mangere Bridge, which is different from Auckland Transport's preferred solution. 30 DR PRIESTLEY: I see, because it would have to be the new Old Mangere Bridge, wouldn't it?
MR MARLER: Correct. 35 DR PRIESTLEY: You wouldn't want to run a light rail along the current Old Mangere Bridge, would you?
MR MARLER: No, the new New Mangere Bridge, which is yet to be built. 40 DR PRIESTLEY: Does that clear it up?
MR BICKERS: Is that what is currently proposed? It's a consented arrangement so is
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3312
this an aspiration you have or …?
MR MARLER: It's an aspiration.
5 MR BICKERS: Right.
MR MARLER: Along the similar lines that the Chair of the Mangere Local Board described. The importance of that connection between Mangere Bridge township and Onehunga township, and reinforcing that with public 10 transport.
DR PRIESTLEY: Mr Burns.
MR BURNS: Thank you, sir. Afternoon, Mr Marler. I had two matters I was going 15 to ask you about but the Chair has quite adequately covered one of them in his question relating to the port agreement so I will just deal with the other one.
Are you familiar with a body called the East West Connections 20 Stakeholder Working Group?
[3.50 pm]
MR MARLER: Yes. 25 MR BURNS: And would you look at this, please? Madam Registrar. Is what you are about to be shown the minutes of that meeting dated 31 May? Are those the minutes of the 31 May meeting?
30 MR MARLER: They are the minutes of the meeting held on 31 May, yes, convened by David Rankin from our organisation.
MR BURNS: Indeed, chaired I think by the CEO of Panuku, correct?
35 MR MARLER: No, David Rankin is the Chief Operating Officer.
MR BURNS: Chief Operating Officer of Panuku, thank you.
MR MARLER: Correct. 40 MR BURNS: I wonder if you could produce those minutes as an exhibit, please?
DR PRIESTLEY: Wouldn't it be better to ask what you want to draw to our attention, then
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3313
you can produce them.
MR BURNS: Okay. Can I refer you to page 2?
5 DR PRIESTLEY: Do you have copy of this document, Mr Mulligan?
MR MULLIGAN: No, I don't have one, sir.
MR BURNS: There were about six copies of it, I don't know where they have all 10 gone.
MS DUFFY: I can take some quick copies.
MR BURNS: I did six, I am going to be one short, sir. You can share mine. 15 So on page 2, paragraph 3, about four bullet points down, Foreshore and Walk Connectivity:
"There was general consensus that the current NZ Transport Agency 20 proposal for the foreshore is below par and needs more work."
That was the consensus of that group, wasn't it?
MR MARLER: It would appear so, I wasn't at that meeting but that's the way the minute 25 reads.
MR BURNS: That's the way the minute reads. Over on the next page, paragraph 4, we see that the group received a presentation from Boffa Miskell, is that correct? 30 MR MARLER: Correct.
MR BURNS: If you look at this document -- the registrar has gone, can we have another registrar type person, please, to hand something up. Thank 35 you.
DR PRIESTLEY: Possibly in future, Mr Burns, it is helpful if these are despatched out beforehand.
40 MR BURNS: Thank you.
DR PRIESTLEY: By that I mean give them to the staff before you want to produce them, that is the normal practice.
45 MR BURNS: Yes. Is that the presentation from Boffa Miskell which was attached
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3314
to the minutes and is referred to?
MR MARLER: Yes.
5 MR BURNS: And that contains four options for the Taumanu through port link, doesn't it, which one finds on page 3 of the minutes, paragraph 4, third bullet point? Those four options?
MR MARLER: Correct. 10 MR BURNS: Taumanu to the port.
MR MARLER: To the wharf.
15 MR BURNS: Thank you.
DR PRIESTLEY: What is the BOI? Is that us?
MR BURNS: That's you, yes. 20 DR PRIESTLEY: We have not seen any of this stuff yet.
MR BURNS: I know. That indeed is my point, sir, which I am coming to. I will get there relatively soon. So it records in paragraph 4 that views on these 25 were recorded but no agreement or consensus on them was reached, is that correct? That is the fourth bullet point under 4.
MR MARLER: That's the way it is minuted. As I said, I wasn't at the meeting.
30 MR BURNS: No, that's what the minutes say.
DR PRIESTLEY: "Boffa Miskell will identify the big items and feed it into the Board of Inquiry."
35 [3.55 pm]
MR BURNS: I beg your pardon, sir?
DR PRIESTLEY: I am looking at the last page. "Boffa Miskell will identify key features 40 of big ticket items and will feed it into the Board of Inquiry." How are they going to do that?
MR BURNS: I don't know, sir, it's not my report. I was about to ask him that.
45 DR PRIESTLEY: Well, go on, you've uncovered something interesting here, Mr Burns.
MR BURNS: I will work my way gradually through it. The next it of the minutes I'd like to refer to is on the eighth bullet point under 4, and the council
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3315
urban design team looking at the four options had agreed that the NZ Transport Agency proposal was not of sufficient quality, including half width and pause points, isn't it? Is that what that bullet point says?
5 MR MARLER: Correct.
MR BURNS: Then as the Chair has pointed out under 5:
"The Board of Inquiry is going to consider the options, weigh them in 10 planning terms, and then it is going to make decisions but the extent is unknown."
Is that what the minutes says it's going to do?
15 MR MARLER: That's what it says.
MR BURNS: Then it says --
DR PRIESTLEY: That is what happens when you don't attend the meeting, Mr Marler, 20 they run amok.
MR MARLER: Indeed they do.
MR BURNS: Perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, Mr Marler, you might have liked 25 to have attended. In any event, as the Chair as already, I think, pointed out, Council hasn't included in its evidence the options put forward by Boffa, has it?
MR MARLER: I don't know whether Council has included that in their evidence. I 30 can't answer that question.
MR BURNS: You haven't included it in your evidence.
MR MARLER: It's not in my evidence but we are only one part of Council. 35 MR BURNS: Thank you. I agree, you can only answer for yourself. Now, the minutes also record that Council/NZ Transport Agency could be asked to come up with solutions on particular issues or options, doesn't it?
40 MR MARLER: Correct.
MR BURNS: So how is the information provided by Boffa supposed to help inform the Board's decision if the Board doesn't have the information provided by Boffa? 45 MR MARLER: It's a good question.
MR BURNS: It can't, can it? Unless somebody has provided the Board with that
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3316
information it's not going to feed into the Board's decision-making, is it?
MR MARLER: Correct. 5 MR BURNS: Thank you. Now, I don't know if you were here when Messrs Brown and McIndoe gave evidence, were you?
MR MARLER: No, but I've read their evidence. 10 MR BURNS: And they support the concept of an improved design for this connection, don't they?
MR MARLER: They do. 15 MR BURNS: They said, certainly in cross-examination, that more work needs to be done to come up with a specific proposal. I don't know if you are aware of that.
20 MR MARLER: We have been in discussion with them.
MR BURNS: You understand that is their position, more work was needed?
MR MARLER: Yes. 25 MR BURNS: Are Panuku or Council or both willing to assist the Board by commissioning Messrs Brown and McIndoe to do that work?
MR MARLER: I would have to confer with my council colleagues. 30 MR BURNS: If the Board considered it necessary that the extra work which Messrs McIndoe and Brown thought necessary be done and directed Council or Panuku to do it, then you would accept that Council and Panuku would have a responsibility to commission that work, wouldn't they? 35 MR MARLER: Correct.
MR BURNS: Yes, thank you, Mr Marler.
40 DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Mr Burns, Ms Kinzett.
MS KINZETT: Thank you, sir. Right, Mr Marler, starting at your paragraph 5.12, you speak about the wharf being a critical part of the regeneration strategy
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3317
for Onehunga.
MR MARLER: That's not 5.1.
5 MS KINZETT: 5.12.
MR MARLER: 5.12?
MS KINZETT: Yes. 10 MR MARLER: Yes.
MS KINZETT: In your dealings with this and with your experience with Wynyard Quarter, do you think the East West Link and its impact on the wharf 15 is going to be a positive or a negative impact on that regeneration?
[4.00 pm]
MR MARLER: I think in one aspect it is going to unlock the opportunity and that's why 20 we support the East West Link in principle. However, it is subject to the mitigation that we have outlined in my evidence.
MS KINZETT: So you talk about it's going to unlock it. How is it actually going to unlock the port area, the wharf area? 25 MR MARLER: It's certainly going to improve vehicular access to that area generally. However, that will, as I said, have to be mitigated by improved pedestrian cycling access. This is where we came back to the length of the land bridge that we talked about previously. 30 MS KINZETT: Okay. If we talk about the land bridge and the connection, the land bridge, on your understanding, is that going to be at street level or higher from the Onehunga Harbour Road?
35 MR MARLER: The preliminary work that we've done would indicate that it's going to be higher than the wharf and lower than the Harbour Road.
MS KINZETT: So what does that actually mean? So there's going to be quite a steep incline with the connection? 40 MR MARLER: Challenging.
MS KINZETT: Challenging?
45 MR MARLER: Correct.
MS KINZETT: What would you suggest would be a good way to remedy that
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3318
challenge?
MR MARLER: By reducing or lowering the level of the trench.
5 MS KINZETT: So it's important that the East West Link really needs to go down further?
MR MARLER: Lower, correct.
10 MS KINZETT: By reducing it, taking it down further, would that not then open up the potential of the rail coming through and connecting with the wharf area as well?
MR MARLER: Possibly, yes. 15 MS KINZETT: So potentially you're actually opening up more possibilities --
MR MARLER: Connectivity.
20 MS KINZETT: -- and better movement?
MR MARLER: Correct.
MS KINZETT: Okay. Going with that rail connection, you have already said that it 25 would be your aspiration, talking to Mr Bickers' questions, that you would like to see the rail connection come down from Onehunga, attach to the port and then go across, potentially on the new Old Mangere Bridge.
30 MR MARLER: Correct.
MS KINZETT: What value would that actually bring, your thoughts?
MR MARLER: Significant connectivity. 35 MS KINZETT: So with the port itself potentially being regenerated and having more business/residential, that would get more movement instead of people in their vehicles?
40 MR MARLER: Correct.
MS KINZETT: One of the things you did speak about was the Galway interchange and with the connection, on 9.9 of your evidence, you spoke about between 6,000 and 8,000 vehicle movements, two-way movements, daily and 45 your concern about those movements. Would the rail connection
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3319
actually support maybe the impact of what those movements may do?
MR MARLER: It could reduce the number of movements.
5 MS KINZETT: Okay. I'm jumping all over. Please excuse me just sort of finding my space. Part of that, in 9.2 of your evidence, you talk about your objective to improve the walking and cycling connections -- sorry, the objective of the East West Link. You note that you feel there's insufficient mitigation and it's not of a high enough standard of the 10 design for the connections between the wharf and the town centre. How would you like to see it improved?
MR MARLER: As I've outlined in 9.3, improving the quality of the underpass or some other structure to enable a stronger pedestrian cycling linkage between 15 the town centre and the wharf would be certainly preferred.
MS KINZETT: Would you support maybe that there is some conditions put into place that would ensure that the current level of mitigation is actually at a higher level? Do you think that's potentially possible? 20 MR MARLER: We would like more time to work with the NZ Transport Agency and the stakeholders to reach a better outcome.
MS KINZETT: So how would you feel that we could actually do that? Maybe by 25 putting some conditions in or --
[4.05 pm]
MR MARLER: That's one way of doing it, yes. 30 MS KINZETT: Okay. Ownership of the port: we spoke about the ownership of the port, that currently there's an MOU that you haven't looked at and there was a bit of concern. I sort of note we don't know what state you're going to get the port in afterwards. 35 MR MARLER: Correct.
MS KINZETT: Is that a concern?
40 MR MARLER: It is a concern.
MS KINZETT: How would you feel that we potentially put something in place so you don't end up with half a port or --
45 MR MARLER: A condition or specific conditions in the memorandum of understanding or agreement.
MS KINZETT: Okay, that would be great. What about also how much space they take
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3320
in the port? Because I know at the moment they're talking about 80,000 squares, 8,000 squares.
MR MARLER: 6,500 square metres. 5 MS KINZETT: 6,000 squares. It sounded more dramatic at 80,000, but would it be good to have a condition as part of it saying that they can only take "up to" to make sure there is enough space for the port left to be viable economically? 10 DR PRIESTLEY: You're talking about the port or the wharf?
MS KINZETT: Port, wharf. Sorry, wharf. My apologies, the wharf.
15 DR PRIESTLEY: No, I wasn't quite sure, because the port area includes land well outside the wharf area.
MR MARLER: Yes.
20 MS KINZETT: Yes. I'm sort of talking about the whole area.
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you.
MR MARLER: Yes, I do. 25 MS KINZETT: So some form in those conditions, even though the MOU has been signed at the moment?
MR MARLER: It hasn't been. 30 MS KINZETT: It hasn't been signed, sorry.
MR MARLER: It's still in draft.
35 MS KINZETT: Okay. Now, going on to planning, your experience with the Wynyard Quarter, when you were first brought with the Wynyard Quarter, did you just look at it piecemeal or look at the whole thing?
MR MARLER: No, we did what we call a reference design, which was a design that 40 met all of our balanced requirements or objectives, what we call holistic objectives, across economic, financial, social, community, cultural to set the bar. That's what we use to go to market and that was done for
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3321
the whole of the Wynyard central component.
MS KINZETT: So every part of it was looked as a whole?
5 MR MARLER: Correct, integrated.
MS KINZETT: Okay. At the moment, what's happening with the East West Link, it seems to be quite piecemeal. We've got the East West Link, we've got the rail connection, the Mangere Bridge, transformation of Onehunga. 10 They're all being done separately. Would it not be prudent to have an overall plan that actually looks at everything and how it all connects?
MR MARLER: Yes, it would.
15 MS KINZETT: Again, sorry, I want to go back to that cap over the East West Link as well. We were just talking about how steep it is. Currently, in its current form, is it not true it would be about 5 metres on the wharf side?
MR MARLER: Yes, that's our understanding. 20 MS KINZETT: So actually for the trucks to go up and for vehicles, apart from the actual visual and the environment that it will create, it's quite a steep incline?
MR MARLER: You'd need to ramp vehicles up off the wharf. 25 MS KINZETT: That's going to take also a lot of space.
MR MARLER: Space, correct.
30 MS KINZETT: So that's why it's so important that the East West connection itself goes further down.
DR PRIESTLEY: Have you considered the engineering requirements of that, not in terms of construction, but if you're dealing with heavy trucks, the lower down 35 they go, the more they have to climb to get out, don't they?
MR MARLER: Correct. So this is an issue - and I'm sure Mr Wickman would support me on this - this is all about geometry at the end of the day, where you've got some fixed elements, such as the wharf and State Highway 40 20, you've got some variables and it's a matter of how these variables to reach the optimal compromise. That's what we're talking about.
DR PRIESTLEY: But your answers to questions posed by Ms Kinzett are that you would favour, from your Panuku perspective, lowering the trench down to a
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3322
greater depth, is that right?
MR MARLER: Correct.
5 MS KINZETT: So that would mean actually starting the trench before Galway potentially, maybe?
MR MARLER: Or moving Galway, yes.
10 MS KINZETT: Yes, moving Galway, that's a good one. I'm sorry, I keep on --
MR BICKERS: Sorry, just before you go on, this is quite a complex geometric problem.
MR MARLER: It is. 15 [4.10 pm]
MR BICKERS: So we've got evidence and submissions suggesting that the Board seek to widen the land bridge; we've got issues with the groundwater in 20 relation to the trench; we've got the grades on the East West Link and we've got design concepts for creative treatment of the land bridge. Have you got any suggestion about how the Board might go about resolving the number of conflicts that we have in relation to the design of this bridge? Because we can't sit here with a drawing board and try 25 and sort it out.
MR MARLER: I think that's a very, very pertinent point of view and a correct one, and it is one that all parties have struggled with from the get-go in terms of accurate information and visuals, to really understand the difficulties 30 of the geometries that we're dealing with here.
MR BICKERS: So how would we go about it?
MR MARLER: Generally, the applicant would provide the information so that all 35 people can understand exactly what is going on.
MR BICKERS: Okay.
MS KINZETT: Thank you. Going back to that rail link, AT and NZ Transport Agency 40 have looked at another bridge going across and that seems to be a comfortable thing for them, having another bridge going across.
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3323
Would you support that?
MR MARLER: No, we don't support that; put a line in the sand there.
5 MS KINZETT: Another bridge going across?
MR MARLER: A third bridge.
MS KINZETT: Okay, but it seems to AT to be okay for rail. 10 MR MARLER: AT?
MS KINZETT: AT, sorry.
15 MR MARLER: Correct.
MS KINZETT: The other thing I wanted to talk about was the mitigation, the levels of mitigation. We have talked about the connection up to the town centre. Do you feel that the mitigation currently - we have spoken about the 20 actual placemaking, the urban design - but do you think that there needs to be more mitigation?
MR MARLER: In terms of?
25 MS KINZETT: Well, not only that connection, but the way it is all presented. You've got the urban design, but I am thinking is there something else, is it Gloucester Park being reformed. Is there something else that can be done to actually get the whole area looking the way it should be, if you are going to have a giant, great big motorway going through the middle 30 of it?
MR MARLER: As I said earlier, if we can improve the quality of the pedestrian and cycling route, which is currently catered for with a poor quality underpass, if we could improve that connection between Onehunga 35 Mall and the wharf, we can improve vehicular access on to the wharf, and we have talked about a land-bridge structure, a larger land-bridge structure, preferably segregating pedestrians and cyclists from vehicles - and I know there has been talk about two bridge structures rather than one long one, as a possibility - that is more in line with where our 40 thinking is. But what I said earlier is that we would appreciate the time to be able to sit down with all parties and just work through this in a sensible way to reach an outcome that I think would be a satisfactory outcome for Onehunga.
45 MS KINZETT: Okay. Just conclusions. We have spoken about how we really need some conditions regarding the planning, the impact, and potentially look at the placemaking of the area; we need to look at all these
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3324
conditions to add value.
MR MARLER: Agreed.
5 MS KINZETT: Okay. Thank you. I think that's all my questions, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you very much. Just before I call on Mr Mulligan, Mr Burns I deflected you from producing the exhibits when you wanted to. My proposal was that the Panuku minutes of interesting topics be produced 10 by you as exhibit L.
MR BURNS: Thank you, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: Then this Boffa Miskell presentation of plans and photographs should 15 be exhibit M. Wait a minute, we got up to J, last time. It should be K, exhibit K, for the minutes and exhibit L for this. I am just trying to get my exhibits sorted out. Are we right on that? Are you happy? Do you produce these things, Mr Burns? It is for you to produce.
20 MR BURNS: I do.
[4.15 pm]
DR PRIESTLEY: Mr Jackson. 25 MR JACKSON: Thank you, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: What are you up on your feet to do?
30 MR JACKSON: I would like to ask a question of Mr Marler. Is that possible?
DR PRIESTLEY: Yes, all right.
MR JACKSON: Thank you. Has KiwiRail … 35 DR PRIESTLEY: Wait a minute. You have to put in a sort of booking request for a microphone before you are allowed to ask questions in this place.
MR JACKSON: The question being, has KiwiRail … 40 DR PRIESTLEY: Wait, please. Yes.
MR JACKSON: Thank you. The question is, has KiwiRail sold the rail corridor between the Onehunga railway station and the Port of Onehunga and, 45 if so, how critical is that to your programme of putting light rail through the port?
MR MARLER: I couldn't answer whether that's been sold or not. No, it wouldn't be
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3325
critical to light rail.
MR JACKSON: It would be critical.
5 MR MARLER: No.
MR JACKSON: It wouldn't be critical?
MR MARLER: No. 10 MR JACKSON: Thank you.
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Mr Jackson. I am almost scared to ask you, Mr Mulligan. No one else wants to intervene? All right. Mr Mulligan. 15 MR MULLIGAN: Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Mr Marler.
I want to discuss with you a couple of the elements within the development of the wharf construction. 20 Holcim have their facility still on the wharf, don't they?
MR MARLER: They do.
25 MR MULLIGAN: Part of the aspiration for the wharf depends on them really moving on, doesn't it?
MR MARLER: Not necessarily. We would support industrial activities on the wharf, such as fishing and other activities, and Holcim have an existing lease 30 in place, with a couple of renewals.
MR MULLIGAN: Yes. And in fact those renewals stretch their rights out for about 27 years, don't they?
35 MR MARLER: Till 2047, November 2047.
MR MULLIGAN: Then you also mentioned the fishing fleet and I assume Panuku's aspirations for development would include accommodating that fleet.
40 MR MARLER: Yes.
MR MULLIGAN: They have 24-hour access, or require 24-access, and large trucks coming and going on that timeframe.
45 MR MARLER: Correct.
MR MULLIGAN: As you have indicated already, you would need to go through a plan
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3326
change to advance this particular proposal.
MR MARLER: The industrial uses are consented, yes.
5 MR MULLIGAN: Yes, but in terms of mixed-use or residential?
MR MARLER: Yes, we would.
MR MULLIGAN: You have referred to the restrictions created by the transmission 10 facilities, I asked Mr McIndoe but he was not completely aware of them. Are you aware of the restrictions posed for new development under those Transpower --
MR MARLER: Yes. There is a 24-metre strip, where there is no building, and then 15 another strip beyond that, which is going to have a significant impact on the residential development.
MR MULLIGAN: So has quite a cauterising effect on the development, doesn't it?
20 MR MARLER: Yes.
MR MULLIGAN: So, in terms of that development again, that would be another matter that you would have to accommodate to get to your 60,000 or 80,000 square metres. 25 MR MARLER: Yes.
MR MULLIGAN: I think you have already alluded to it, just moving to the broader area around the wharf and the connections between the wharf, Mangere 30 Bridge, and Onehunga; you would accept that this is a pretty constrained area in terms of development and in terms of fitting the proposals in.
[4.20 pm] 35
MR MARLER: It is.
MR MULLIGAN: That is because we have the restrictions around Te Hopua, trying to 40 protect that; we've got State Highway 20, which acts as a major constraint. Is that correct?
MR MARLER: Correct.
45 MR MULLIGAN: We've got, as part of that, the current interchange, which creates
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3327
severances of itself.
MR MARLER: It does.
5 MR MULLIGAN: Additionally - and we have discussed those - we've also got Hunua 4 - I don't quite know where it comes but it appears underneath the bridge abutment, and then goes across the bridge.
MR MARLER: Yes. 10 MR MULLIGAN: Do you know how big that pipe is? I don't, but it is a big pipe.
MR MARLER: I don't, but I think it is in the order of 3 metres; it is significant.
15 MR MULLIGAN: Yes. It is not something that one would move, or interfere with lightly.
MR MARLER: You could.
MR MULLIGAN: But you wouldn't do it lightly. 20 MR MARLER: You wouldn't do it lightly but you could.
MR MULLIGAN: We've also got the First Gas facilities that run along the foreshore and then go north, up through Te Hopua. 25 MR MARLER: Yes.
MR MULLIGAN: In terms of the current proposal - I am not talking about the future development, but currently - we've got the wharf, too, which is a 30 working wharf and is fenced off and creates a restriction in terms of connections from north to south, doesn't it?
MR MARLER: Correct.
35 MR MULLIGAN: So you would probably know better than anyone, it's not an area that is easy to develop within. Is that fair enough?
MR MARLER: Correct.
40 MR MULLIGAN: I think it was the evidence of Mr Brown, and perhaps Mr McIndoe as well, that the current connections between Old Mangere Bridge,
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3328
through this area, to Onehunga, are pretty challenged at the moment.
MR MARLER: Correct.
5 MR MULLIGAN: It is an industrial environment that you have to pass through.
MR MARLER: Not so much industrial, but it is certainly a heavy traffic environment.
MR MULLIGAN: The wharf is industrial, isn't it? 10 MR MARLER: Yes, but you are talking about moving beyond the wharf to the township.
MR MULLIGAN: Yes. As you go up either Onehunga Harbour Road, under the bridge, 15 or if you went under the overpass and up the Mall, to Onehunga Mall, it is heavy traffic up there, isn't it?
MR MARLER: It is.
20 MR MULLIGAN: And the business use on the side of the road is utilitarian, I think was the word that Mr Brown used.
MR MARLER: Yes.
25 MR MULLIGAN: The pathways that one encounters once you go across the Old Mangere Bridge, they are pretty narrow and not that pleasant, I think you mentioned the other day.
MR MARLER: Pedestrian pathways. Correct. 30 MR MULLIGAN: Yes. In terms of the road connections, your ability to get to and from, say, the wharf or round to Taumanu means that you have to cycle in the general on and off-ramp traffic?
35 MR MARLER: Correct.
MR MULLIGAN: I think Mr Brown in his evidence said that, at best, the current connections are tenuous. Would you agree with that general statement?
40 MR MARLER: I wouldn't say they are tenuous but they are certainly challenging.
MR MULLIGAN: In terms of the wharf, there was a bit of a disagreement between Mr McIndoe about the level of access the public might have to it at the moment but I think it was acknowledged by everyone that at least it is
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3329
pretty limited. It is not intended to be a place for public access.
MR MARLER: Correct.
5 MR MULLIGAN: So the whole point of Panuku's focus on the wharf is to transform that situation and make the wharf more of a focus for public attraction to the coast.
MR MARLER: Correct. 10 MR MULLIGAN: At the moment you would accept that, to a large degree, the wharf acts as a barrier between Onehunga and getting to the water on that southern side of Te Hopua?
15 MR MARLER: The wharf does but not all of the port land, because there are parts of the port land which are accessible by the public.
MR MULLIGAN: But you would hope to unlock more of that land?
20 MR MARLER: Yes. Correct.
[4.25 pm]
MR MULLIGAN: I think you have touched on this today but your traffic engineer, Mr 25 Smith, agreed that the East West Link proposal would address some of the traffic constraints that restrict the ability to develop the wharf?
MR MARLER: Correct.
30 MR MULLIGAN: To that extent, the East West Link does - using your words - unlock that potentiality?
MR MARLER: Correct.
35 MR MULLIGAN: Through unlocking it, it contributes to the ability of opening up the wharf to the community for access to the coast, doesn't it?
MR MARLER: Yes, it does by reducing the amount of heavy traffic which acts as a severance at the moment. 40 MR MULLIGAN: But it would also allow the development of the wharf - as I understand the evidence of Mr Smith - by meaning that there is traffic connection which means that the 60,000 to 80,000 square metres can actually be achieved through -- 45 MR MARLER: Is achievable, yes.
MR MULLIGAN: Your aspirations, I assume, for the wharf to create that destination is
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3330
through that development down on the wharf attracting people?
MR MARLER: Correct.
5 MR MULLIGAN: You need something to be attractive to make people go down there. And you would accept that, as between that new destination created, and Onehunga Township, that the ability to remove traffic off Onehunga Harbour Road or, from this point on, Onehunga Mall, creates a more pleasant potential connection between the township and 10 the wharf?
MR MARLER: Correct.
MR MULLIGAN: In terms of the road connections, the road connection would now be 15 just on what would be a local road, on Onehunga Harbour Road. One doesn't have to drive in with the big trucks anymore to get to the wharf?
MR MARLER: Correct.
20 MR MULLIGAN: So we are left with this sort of dichotomy, aren't we, of both the benefits of the East West Link and the ability of actually opening up a destination but having to break that particular egg to make that desirable omelette, aren't we?
25 MR MARLER: Correct.
MR MULLIGAN: It seems to me that there is a reasonable amount of water to go under the bridge, in terms of the formulation of plans of what might occur down on the wharf. Is that fair enough? 30 MR MARLER: That is a fair assumption. We are at the early concept planning stages.
MR MULLIGAN: Yes. So you don't, at this particular point, first of all, have a clear understanding or can't guarantee that 60,000 or 80,000 square metres 35 can be developed?
MR MARLER: Yes, we can. We have done that work.
MR MULLIGAN: But you would need to get rid of the transmission line? 40 MR MARLER: Yes.
MR MULLIGAN: And you would need to go through a plan change?
45 MR MARLER: Yes.
MR MULLIGAN: And so, in anticipation that you can get through those processes, we don't have a clear understanding yet about the screening and the detail
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3331
about what might be developed down there, do we?
MR MARLER: We have a pretty good understanding in terms of the bulk, location of buildings, where the pedestrian movement might occur, where the 5 public realm could occur and where the industrial activities could occur. We've got planning that describes all of those outcomes.
MR MULLIGAN: Okay. So, as part of that planning, have you factored in this idea of a longer bridge, a 90 metre lid? 10 MR MARLER: We have.
MR MULLIGAN: Do I assume that the longer lid or wider lid performs functions to enable the working of this mixed use development? 15 MR MARLER: Yes.
[4.30 pm]
20 MR MULLIGAN: From your perspective, therefore, it is desirable to suggest that it be part of this particular project that that feature be included, because it assists in integrating with that development. Is that correct?
MR MARLER: Well, if it is not done now, the current East West proposal would 25 preclude that.
MR MULLIGAN: How does the commercial benefit of the development of the wharf work? How is that anticipated to work? What is the business model for development of the wharf? Does Panuku do it and sell it? 30 MR MARLER: No, it is not just a purely commercial benefit. It benefits the community. It benefits cultural regions, economic benefits as well as commercial benefits. The model we would be using would be very similar to what we have done down at Wynyard where Panuku, on 35 behalf of Council, would maintain control and ownership and would offer up leasehold opportunities to commercial entities, whether they be residential developers, commercial developers or industrial uses.
MR MULLIGAN: Those commercial entities that take advantage of that platform laying 40 - if I can describe it as that - would obviously yield the benefit of a broader facility through the lid getting in and out of the proposal?
MR MARLER: Make it viable, yes.
45 MR MULLIGAN: Now, I think you have clarified - and there was obviously some confusion with the Board and some confusion with me - in terms of
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3332
light rail. This is the Auckland Transport current proposal, isn't it?
MR MARLER: Correct, yes.
5 MR MULLIGAN: What you are proposing is something that sort of sweeps down under MH and has a stop there?
MR MARLER: On the wharf, yes.
10 MR MULLIGAN: Yes. You would accept - again, excuse the pun - there is a reasonable amount of water to go under the bridge in terms of the light rail to the airport?
MR MARLER: Yes, depending on the outcome of the election, I guess. 15 MR MULLIGAN: I suppose one of the things that will need to be determined is how many stops along the way between its destination in town and the airport, and I am sure even the election result would mean that no one wants it to have too many stops along the way. Do you accept that? 20 MR MARLER: I am not a light rail expert.
MR MULLIGAN: But you would --
25 DR PRIESTLEY: It is a simple question, Mr Marler. If you are hopping on to a light rail connection in the CBD in Auckland or Newmarket, you wouldn't want to be stopping at every little stop all the way along Manukau Road and down Onehunga Mall, or wherever, would you?
30 MR MARLER: This is a philosophical conversation. It is not really part of this Board of Inquiry but it comes back --
DR PRIESTLEY: I totally agree.
35 MR MARLER: -- to the viability of light rail versus heavy rail, and a heavy rail express service from the airport to the city versus utilising a commuter line, which is much more about commuter services than place making.
DR PRIESTLEY: Yes, that is a fair distinction. Yes, Mr Mulligan. 40 MR MULLIGAN: They call it light rail to the airport, though, don't they? That is what they're calling it.
MR MARLER: They do. 45 MR MULLIGAN: So you would accept that there is some tension between that point to point aspiration and all of the interests in between who all might want
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3333
a stop along the way?
MR MARLER: Correct.
5 MR MULLIGAN: And you are one of the --
MR MARLER: Stops along the way.
MR MULLIGAN: And it would help you if there was a stop there in terms of your 10 development potential on the wharf, wouldn't it?
MR MARLER: Correct.
MR MULLIGAN: That is why you are proposing it? 15 MR MARLER: That is the value of light rail because of the land value lift along the corridor, whereas the point to point doesn't create that.
MR MULLIGAN: So that is a -- 20 MR MARLER: So this is an Auckland Inc story not just Onehunga or the wharf.
[4.35 pm]
25 MR MULLIGAN: No. And so that will be an exercise --
MR MARLER: Will play out.
MR MULLIGAN: -- or a tension that Auckland Transport will have to determine won't it? 30 MR MARLER: Correct.
MR PARSONSON: Mr Marler, is it your opinion that it's a bit too early to count out a potential stop on the wharf? 35 MR MARLER: Our position has always been we don't want to preclude that as an opportunity.
MR MULLIGAN: Now, you were asked some questions which I may or may not have 40 understood about land uses here, but as I understand your evidence Panuku has some aspirations or some vision or some land use change in that corner down by Galway Street?
MR MARLER: Correct. 45 MR MULLIGAN: Was I correct in understanding that you thought that was sort of a
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3334
medium term --
MR MARLER: Medium long term, given its location, accessibility to the coastal edge, accessibility - probably most importantly - to the existing rail 5 connection, Onehunga Mall and to potentially the new development on the wharf.
MR MULLIGAN: And when you say medium long term, that's sort of in the 10 to 20 years based on the lifetime of the Auckland Plan of 10 years? 10 MR MARLER: Correct.
MR MULLIGAN: That is currently heavy industrial but would involve a plan change to some other zoning at some point. 15 MR MARLER: Correct.
MR MULLIGAN: A benefit cost ratio would have to be undertaken pursuant to section 22 of the Act to do that? 20 MR MARLER: Correct.
MR MULLIGAN: I didn't understand your evidence and that you anticipated that there would be any medium term or medium to long term pressure for change 25 of the area to the east, the industrial to the east?
MR MARLER: No, we're not really contemplating that because obviously there's a longer term play on that industrial land.
30 MR MULLIGAN: And that's been confirmed through the unitary plan and the extra protection that has been provided on industrial land then?
MR MARLER: Correct.
35 MR MULLIGAN: Now, you were shown what I think is exhibit K and L which is these minutes and the material from Boffa Miskell. I can pretty much predict your answer because you weren't there, but nonetheless I need to ask you. Do you know whether these minutes were circulated for approval? 40 MR MARLER: They would have gone to the attendees.
MR MULLIGAN: How do you know that?
45 MR MARLER: That's the usual course.
MR MULLIGAN: Mr Wickman, one of the attendees, said he didn't receive them. Do you
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3335
have any personal knowledge as to whether they were sent to him?
MR MARLER: I do not. I'd be very surprised.
5 MR MULLIGAN: In terms of some of these proposals for connections or the Boffa Miskell work, it seems to relate to connections between the wharf and Taumanu.
MR MARLER: Just as a point of clarification because I think it does come back to the 10 previous question you asked, this work was jointly commissioned by NZ Transport Agency and Panuku. So NZ Transport Agency were fully aware of the work that was undertaken by Boffa Miskell.
MR MULLIGAN: Yes, and so just in terms of the timing of this, you were aware that 15 through the course of evidence and discussions there was concern about the connection between the wharf and Taumanu?
MR MARLER: Correct.
20 MR MULLIGAN: And there's some issues with that because it is a pretty constrained area in terms of not wanting to intrude into the coastal marine area but still wanting a connection?
MR MARLER: There's also the outstanding natural feature, which needs to be 25 considered.
MR MULLIGAN: It constrains things, doesn't it?
MR MARLER: Yes, correct. 30 MR MULLIGAN: So the first picture here was the original proposal from - this one here - NZ Transport Agency when it was filed was for a narrower pathway along that foreshore area?
35 [4.40 pm]
MR MARLER: Yes.
MR MULLIGAN: There was some concerned expressed by Council but also Panuku 40 about trying to make the connection stronger?
MR MARLER: That's right.
MR MULLIGAN: You would confirm that the connection has been made stronger in this
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3336
process?
MR MARLER: Yes.
5 MR MULLIGAN: And that roughly corresponds, although there is some slight differences, with what looks like option design 1?
MR MARLER: Yes, I don't think we've landed on a preferred option yet.
10 MR MULLIGAN: But what's currently proposed roughly corresponds with that?
MR MARLER: Along those lines, yes.
MR MULLIGAN: With a cantilevered wider path? 15 MR MARLER: Correct.
MR MULLIGAN: I think the proposal here suggests 5 metres wide for a cantilever but --
20 MR MARLER: Five metre width, yes.
MR MULLIGAN: -- what NZ Transport Agency is proposing is 4 metres wide?
MR MARLER: Yes. And just to provide some context for the Board, 5 metres is the 25 width of the pedestrian walkway in Westhaven, the timber walkway which most of you have probably utilised so it gives you an idea. It's a 5 metre walkway and that was anticipated under option 1.
MR MULLIGAN: We discussed the dichotomy of the relationship between the East West 30 Link and the wharf, you'd accept that there is a certain perversity, I suppose, in Panuku criticising a severance to something that isn't there are the moment and is only really going to happen because of the East West Link. It is that chicken and egg situation.
35 MR MARLER: Exactly.
MR MULLIGAN: You'd accept that because of the commercial structures but also at a higher level the raison d'être of Panuku is really to encourage development on the wharf that it's got an interest in seeking provision 40 from the East West Link which better provides for that development, doesn't it?
MR MARLER: I wouldn't use the word "development". What we are seeking is an outcome which includes development, because development is a 45 relevant term and to most people it is seen as commercial development and we are seeking a much wider outcome than that.
MR MULLIGAN: Yes, you are seeking the involvement of commercial interests as a
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3337
means of transformation, aren't you?
MR MARLER: As a partner.
5 MR MULLIGAN: Yes, but nonetheless with that objective there's a certain amount of self- interest in trying to get as much out of the East West Link to make that objective happen as possible, isn't there?
MR MARLER: On behalf of the Council and the ratepayers of Auckland, yes. 10 MR MULLIGAN: No further questions.
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Mr Mulligan. No further Board questions?
15 MS TEPANIA: Mr Marler, there are a couple of matters that I just want clarified, just in case, because I'm not really sure where this is going. Mr Wickman's evidence, I recall, talked about Panuku engaging with some of the stakeholders that hadn't been engaged with from December 2016, which is what that group is, isn't it? Mana Whenua are a separate 20 working group, you understand that?
MR MARLER: Yes.
MS TEPANIA: Panuku engages with Mana Whenua on different levels and Rangatira, 25 leadership, is one level in which they engage, and you are aware that this group doesn't officially, I suppose, include the ten Mana Whenua iwi that make up the Mana Whenua group?
MR MARLER: Correct. 30 MS TEPANIA: Thank you for that confirmation.
DR PRIESTLEY: Re-examination.
35 MR LANNING: Yes, sir. Mr Marler, now you were asked a number of questions about the existing environment around the wharf and the Neilson Street interchange, and I think you accepted that it was a constrained area in terms of development, do you remember those questions?
40 [4.45 pm]
MR MARLER: Yes.
MR LANNING: Then in response to some other questions you accepted that it was not 45 an easy area to develop within. I just want to ask you, given those constraints, given the difficulties, why is Panuku progressing or having
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3338
the aspirations to develop the wharf if it is so difficult?
MR MARLER: We believe very strongly, as I said at the outset, and as I articulate in my evidence, about the importance of the wharf and its historical 5 context as part of Onehunga. We believe very strongly in re- establishing the best possible connection we can between the town centre and the wharf and the water, while respecting those historic uses, industrial uses, but opening it up to the public and to the community to seek benefit and enjoyment from. 10 MR LANNING: So to what extent do those aspirations such as re-establishing those historical connections and opening the area to the public, to what extent could you or would you describe those as commercial aspirations?
15 MR MARLER: They are not commercial aspirations but what they do do is drive a commercial opportunity and what we are seeking is the creation of a place that balances those financial, economic, community, environment, cultural opportunities because we believe that a true authentic place requires a balanced approach to each of those and so by 20 achieving better connectivity with the town centre it creates that sense of place, that sense of relevance, that sense of history which ultimately has an economic value.
MR LANNING: Thank you. Now, you were also asked some questions about the extent 25 to which the East West Link will facilitate those changes at the wharf and I think you accepted that the East West Link unlocks that potentiality. Do you recall those questions and answers?
MR MARLER: Yes. 30 MR LANNING: If I could just refer you to paragraph 9.7 of your evidence-in-chief. I will get you to just read the last sentence of paragraph 9.7.
MR MARLER: "A well designed East West Link could therefore better enable --" 35 sorry, I thought you asked me to --
DR PRIESTLEY: Just pause. We can read it.
MR LANNING: He just wants you to read it to yourself just to remind you of what you 40 said.
MR MARLER: Right.
MR LANNING: So there you accept that the East West Link will better enable a mixed 45 use development but you start that sentence off by saying "A well designed East West Link" and I was wondering if you could comment
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3339
on what you mean by "A well designed East West Link".
MR MARLER: This is coming back to the point I made earlier under Ms Kinzett's questioning around the challenge that we have in balancing the difficult 5 geometries to achieve a suitable outcome.
[4.50 pm]
This is where I believe that, with more time and with a collaborative 10 approach, with the input of all parties, we can achieve an outcome that is going to meet the many objectives.
DR PRIESTLEY: It is going to be a bit hard, isn't it?
15 MR MARLER: It is.
DR PRIESTLEY: NZ Transport Agency wants to get their consents for the various conditions. We can't go redesigning a trench. I suggest there may be all sorts of problems in making the trench lower. The light rail 20 connection, which you would have preferred, doesn't yet seem to be achievable. NZ Transport Agency is going to take over the wharf and return it to you in what state you know not what, and I would have thought that everything is going to have to go on hold for five years if they get their consents, which you want them to get, don't you? 25 MR MARLER: We do.
DR PRIESTLEY: So …
30 MR MARLER: The consent, not for the design as it currently is but we are not against the East West Link in principle. Part of the issue here is that Panuku has only been recently formed and has this recent mandate from Council. We have been brought to the table far too late. It is all very well in hindsight but this process has been flawed from the outset and 35 that is why I keep saying we need more time.
With more time there could have been greater collaboration. There could have been greater input from all parties. A common vision could have been established. We wouldn't be having this conversation right 40 now but, here we are, we are here. We are under pressure from central government. NZ Transport Agency is under pressure. We are under pressure to create a wonderful place, a transformative outcome in Onehunga. Those objectives are at a collision. You are hearing from the community about what their aspirations are. We can deliver those 45 aspirations but, under the time constraints that we have, that is becoming increasingly challenging and that is what this conversation
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3340
is all about.
DR PRIESTLEY: Which is possibly why Boffa Miskell mistakenly thought that we are going to somehow wave a magic wand and sort it all out for everybody. 5 MR MARLER: Possibly.
DR PRIESTLEY: I mean that must be one driver behind what they said.
10 MR MARLER: Yes.
DR PRIESTLEY: I want to work out where you sit. I know, as you say in your evidence, you are the Director of Design and Place at Panuku Development Auckland Ltd. Panuku Development Auckland Ltd is an arm of 15 Auckland Council, isn't it?
MR MARLER: We are a Council controlled organisation, yes.
DR PRIESTLEY: Yes. And Council, by virtue of delegation and solidarity, Panuku, want 20 this East West Link.
MR MARLER: Yes, we are in support of it.
DR PRIESTLEY: I take it you don't want us to decline everything and say, "Go away and 25 try harder, better design, better positioning", all that sort of stuff?
MR MARLER: A potential outcome could be, "Yes, we support it". I am talking about the Board supporting it but requesting the parties to go away and resolve some of these differences, with the insertion of some 30 conditions.
DR PRIESTLEY: The four of us here can't sit around for the rest of our natural lives while people sort things out. You appreciate that. We have a nine-month timeline. 35 MR MARLER: Yes. Well, we are involved in commercial entities just as the NZ Transport Agency.
DR PRIESTLEY: Right. So it is a conundrum, isn't it? 40 MR MARLER: It is.
MR LANNING: Thank you, sir. Speaking of conundrums, rail to the port or light rail to the port, you have expressed a view that your preference would be 45 to enable light rail to the port. If it is the case that the East West Link will not allow that to happen in the future, how does that factor in to your overall assessment of what we should be doing in terms of
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3341
addressing other severance issues created by the East West Link?
MR MARLER: Take public transport out of the picture then, is that what you are suggesting? 5 MR LANNING: If we are precluding light rail --
DR PRIESTLEY: No light rail stop.
10 MR LANNING: On the wharf.
DR PRIESTLEY: Where do you go from there, is that it?
MR LANNING: Yes. How does that fact factor into your overall assessment of the 15 extent to which we should be addressing severance issues around this port area?
MR MARLER: If it can't be done it can't be done. We would still be seeking to achieve the best possible connection through a land bridge for pedestrians, 20 cyclists and vehicles.
MR LANNING: I have no questions, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you very much. I think we listened to your evidence, as 25 everyone does in the room, with mixed emotions, Mr Marler, which is quite clear from the way you have given your evidence. If I may say so, in a situation where you clearly are obliged professionally to ride several horses, you have been both succinct and observed the right boundaries of propriety. Thank you very much indeed. 30 MR MARLER: Thank you.
(witness excused)
35 DR PRIESTLEY: Now, I see no useful purpose in starting Mr Deevers or is it Mr Divers?
MR LANNING: It is Mr Divers. He is shaking his head. He doesn't want to carry on.
DR PRIESTLEY: He doesn't want to go on tonight. No, well, I think it would be 40 unhelpful. Look, I am not going to let anyone go until we have got some accurate cross-examination times here. Assume Mr Divers
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3342
comes up tomorrow and he is your witness, is that right?
MR LANNING: Yes.
5 DR PRIESTLEY: Are you available tomorrow?
MR DIVERS: I am available tomorrow, yes; tomorrow morning.
DR PRIESTLEY: Good. Right. Well, so are we. Would you be happy if we put you first 10 on?
MR DIVERS: I would be appreciative, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: I think that is achievable. What time do you need to get away by? I 15 can't see you getting away much before 10.00 am. You saw the questions asked by --
MR DIVERS: On the way to lunch would be nice, sir.
20 DR PRIESTLEY: On the way to what?
MR DIVERS: Lunch.
[4.55 pm] 25 DR PRIESTLEY: We will get you out of here by then. I have now had my confidence shattered as to whether TOES is going to be represented by Mr Hewison, Mr Burns, Mr Jackson or a triumvirate tomorrow.
30 MR LANNING: They've got the biggest legal team in the room.
DR PRIESTLEY: Who is doing it? One of you only, please.
DR HEWISON: I am looking after Mr Divers and Ms Hannan but then we are going 35 to --
DR PRIESTLEY: I just want to know how long and how many of you are cross- examining Mr Divers tomorrow?
40 DR HEWISON: I am and I think we would be 15 minutes.
DR PRIESTLEY: That is what you said here. All right. Now, Ms Kinzett, can you come back tomorrow?
45 MS KINZETT: Yes, I can, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: This is your throbbing live local board, which you want to talk to, isn't
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3343
it?
MS KINZETT: It is, yes.
5 DR PRIESTLEY: How long do you want to cross-examine them for?
MS KINZETT: Ten minutes at the most, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: All right. It is going to be you, Mr Mulligan, or one of your juniors or 10 are you going to wait and see what he says?
MR MULLIGAN: I think whatever we have got there will be about right.
MALE SPEAKER: Ten minutes. 15 MR MULLIGAN: Ten minutes will be fine.
DR PRIESTLEY: And there will probably be a good ten minutes' worth of questions for the Board. It will be about an hour and if you want to go while I am 20 shaking everybody else, you are free to go but we will see you at 10.00 am tomorrow.
MALE SPEAKER: 10.00 am tomorrow?
25 DR PRIESTLEY: 9.00 am, 10.00 am is when I want to get you out of here.
MR DIVERS: Thank you very much.
DR PRIESTLEY: All right. Thank you very much, and I am sorry you have been 30 inconvenienced. Now, what is the position with Ms Hannan, what is
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3344
her expertise?
MR LANNING: Parks and open space.
5 DR PRIESTLEY: Yes, I can see that. Mr Hewison?
DR HEWISON: Yes, sir, I think ten minutes.
DR PRIESTLEY: You have got ten minutes here. Are you sure that is right? 10 DR HEWISON: Probably 15 might be --
DR PRIESTLEY: Waikaraka I should imagine is going to be a big issue here.
15 DR HEWISON: Yes.
DR PRIESTLEY: Are you sure ten minutes is enough?
DR HEWISON: No, no, I am sure it is not. 20 DR PRIESTLEY: All right. Well, why did you say it was?
DR HEWISON: So shall we say 20?
25 DR PRIESTLEY: All right.
DR HEWISON: Giving us plenty of time for answers and questions from yourself and …
30 DR PRIESTLEY: Well, it depends on how succinct your questions are, Mr Hewison.
DR HEWISON: Yes, sir. I will try and make them as succinct as possible.
DR PRIESTLEY: Now, my recollection, however, is that Mr Enright wants to join the 35 charge tomorrow, is that right, or is he --
DR HEWISON: No, I think I recall --
DR PRIESTLEY: He is only here for Ms Coombes? 40 MALE SPEAKER: Ms Coombes.
DR PRIESTLEY: Right. You are down here as far as the parks witness is concerned, Ms
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3345
Hannan, for 30 minutes, Mr Mulligan. Why?
MR MULLIGAN: Why?
5 DR PRIESTLEY: Yes. Are you going to need 30 minutes?
MR MULLIGAN: I'm speechless.
DR PRIESTLEY: At least. Shall we make it 45? Waikaraka will feature large here, I 10 should imagine, connectivity, artificial strips, reclamation on both sides, peace and quiet, etc.
MR MULLIGAN: I don't want to underestimate so 45, sir.
15 DR PRIESTLEY: Right. And then we go to Ms Coombes.
MR LANNING: Ms Coombes, yes.
DR PRIESTLEY: She is going to be here for half a day, isn't she? She is pretty important. 20 Mr Enright wants her. She's got planning evidence.
MR LANNING: Her summary is about five pages.
DR PRIESTLEY: Yes, all right. Well, we will just proceed in that fashion tomorrow with 25 due despatch.
Mr Mulligan, and please don't take this as critical but some of the questions which have been asked by you and your colleagues, in cross- examination over the last two working days, have probably been in 30 areas which are relatively non-contentious and where there is not much serious contest in any event, and many of Auckland Council's witnesses, of course, are reasonably supportive of the project. One of the purposes of cross-examination, as we all know, is to drag out evidence which is supportive of your case, but you don't need to do that 35 seven or eight times. Okay. You don't have to respond to this. It is just something to plan towards.
MR MULLIGAN: Yes, sir.
40 DR PRIESTLEY: Now, Ms Smeaton, just in case you thought you were getting off lightly, I would have thought that this re-jig of the timetable and the more accurate times we have got will take care of your logistic problems with Ms Carruthers on Wednesday. I would be very surprised if we reach her at all. Does that help you? 45 MS SMEATON: Yes, sir.
DR PRIESTLEY: Right. Anyone else got any housekeeping matters? Right, we are out
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17
Page 3346
of here. 9.00 am tomorrow.
MATTER ADJOURNED AT 4.59 PM UNTIL TUESDAY, 7 AUGUST 2017 5
10
15
20
25
30
Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 07.08.17