SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS
Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway Proposal June 2013
www.epa.govt.nz 2
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
June 2013 i
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Executive summary
On 18 March 2013, the NZ Transport Agency and KiwiRail lodged two notices of requirements and 49 resource consent applications with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for the Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal. The EPA publically notified the Proposal on 18 May 2013 and called for submissions. The submission period closed at 5pm on 17 June 2013. The EPA received 55 complete submissions before the close of the submission period. The EPA also received two late submissions and one incomplete submission where further information was not received until after the close of submissions. The Board of Inquiry accepted all three of these submissions.
A wide range of concerns were raised in submissions and many submitters chose to propose specific conditions.
Of the 58 submissions received:
21 submitters (36.2%) oppose the Proposal in full or in part, 25 submitters (43.1%) support the Proposal in full or in part, 8 submitters (13.8%) are neutral, 4 submitters (6.9%) have mixed positions, The majority of submitters are from the Ōtaki and Te Horo areas (36% and 33% respectively), At this stage, 35 submitters (60%) want to be heard at the hearing.
June 2013 ii
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
June 2013 iii
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Table of contents
1. Structure of the report ...... 1
2. Limitations of this report ...... 1
3. Introduction ...... 2 3.1. Background...... 2 3.2. Public notification ...... 3
4. Submissions received ...... 4
5. Position on Proposal and decision sought ...... 5 5.1. Position of submitters on the Proposal ...... 5 5.2. Decision sought on the Proposal by submitters ...... 5
6. Trends observed in submissions ...... 7 6.1. Submitters wishing to be heard ...... 7 6.2. Submissions by sector ...... 7 6.3. Trade Competition ...... 8 6.4. Submissions by location ...... 8
7. Reasons for submissions ...... 9 7.1. Benefits of the Proposal ...... 9 7.2. Lack of benefits and better alternatives ...... 10 7.3. Economic and financial impacts ...... 12 Economics of the Proposal ...... 12 Financial impacts ...... 12 7.4. Effects on water ...... 13 Flooding ...... 13 Stormwater ...... 14 Groundwater ...... 14 Water takes...... 14 7.5. Erosion and sediment control ...... 15 7.6. Contaminated land ...... 16 7.7. Effects on ecology and general environmental concerns ...... 16 Terrestrial ecology ...... 16 Aquatic ecology ...... 17 Pare-o-matangi Reserve ...... 17 7.8. Noise and vibration impacts ...... 18 7.9. Landscape, visual and amenity impacts ...... 19 7.10. Impacts on culture, heritage and archaeology ...... 20
June 2013 iv
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
7.11. Social, health and wellbeing impacts ...... 21 7.12. Access concerns ...... 21 Emergency access ...... 22 7.13. Cycling, Walking and Bridleways...... 23 7.14. Impacts on Ōtaki Rail ...... 23
8. Conditions requested ...... 25
Appendix one ...... 35 Alphabetical index of submitters ...... 35
Appendix two ...... 37 Numerical index of submitters ...... 37
List of tables
Table 1: Position on the Proposal ...... 5 Table 2: Decision sought on the Proposal ...... 6 Table 3: Submitters who wish to be heard by position ...... 7 Table 4: Submissions by sector and position ...... 7 Table 5: Submissions by location and position ...... 8 Table 6: Common issues and concerns raised in submissions ...... 9 Table 7: Submissions referring to benefits of the Proposal ...... 10 Table 8: Submissions in support without specific reasons ...... 10 Table 9: Submissions in opposition because of a lack of benefits ...... 11 Table 10: Submissions referring to economic and financial concerns ...... 13 Table 11: Submissions referring to effects on water ...... 15 Table 12: Submissions referring to erosion and sediment control ...... 16 Table 13: Submissions referring to contaminated land ...... 16 Table 14: Submissions referring to ecology and environmental concerns...... 17 Table 15: Submissions referring to noise and vibration concerns ...... 18 Table 16: Submissions referring to landscape and visual impacts ...... 19 Table 17: Submissions referring to culture, heritage and archaeology ...... 20 Table 18: Submissions referring to social, health and wellbeing impacts ...... 21 Table 19: Submissions referring to access issues ...... 22 Table 20: Submissions referring to cycling, walkways and bridleways ...... 23 Table 21: Submissions referring to Ōtaki Rail ...... 24 Table 22: Summary of conditions sought by submitters ...... 25
June 2013 1
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
1. Structure of the report
The purpose of this report is to assist the Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal Board of Inquiry (the Board) and parties to the board of inquiry process. The information provided in this report is as follows:
Section 2 outlines the limitations of this report; Section 3 provides background on the Proposal and the submission process; Section 4 gives general submission information, including the number of submissions received and information on submissions received outside of the submission period and incomplete submissions; Section 5 summarises the positions of submitters and the decisions sought by submitters; Section 6 identifies trends within submissions including the number of submitters that wish to be heard at the hearing, where submitters are located, whether submitters are individuals, groups, or organisations and whether submitters are trade competitors; Section 7 contains a summary of the types of matters raised across a number of submissions and identifies each submission that raised that matter; and Section 8 summarises the specific conditions sought by submitters.
Appendices one and two provide indexes of submitters both alphabetically and numerically.
2. Limitations of this report
Identification of trends and concerns within this report are based on information provided by submitters in their written submissions and taking into account any changes requested by parties following close of submissions up to 21 June 2013.
For the purpose of Sections 5 and 6 of this report, if a submitter has indicated a position both ‘in full’ and ‘in part’, ‘in full’ has been recorded as their overriding position. The categorisation of submitters into “sectors” in Section 6.2 of this report is based on the “submitter name” provided on the submission form and does not reflect if an individual submission refers to businesses or other types of groups in their submission.
It is not unusual for submissions received on Proposals of this nature to cover a broad range of issues and offer differing levels of detail. Although each submission is unique, a summary of the submissions necessarily involves a degree of generalisation. Summaries of matters raised and conditions proposed are therefore not a replication of original submissions.
The trends and common matters raised summarised in Section 7 are based solely on the content of submissions. The analysis contains only matters raised across a number of submissions and may not refer to all matters raised.
Original submissions should be referred to at all times for the full content of submissions. Full copies of all submissions are available as PDF files on the EPA website.
June 2013 2
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
3. Introduction
3.1. Background
On 18 March 2013, the EPA received two notices of requirement and 49 resource consent applications from the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) and KiwiRail Holdings Limited (KiwiRail) for the Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal (the Proposal).
The Proposal is for the construction, operation and maintenance of an approximately 13 km section of State Highway 1 (SH1), formed to an expressway standard from Te Kowhai Road, Peka Peka to Taylors Road, Ōtaki. To accommodate the expressway, approximately 1.2 km of the North Island Main Truck Railway (NIMT) through Ōtaki will be aligned. The Proposal also includes interchanges and local road connections.
The EPA recommended to the Minister for the Environment that the Proposal was nationally significant and should be directed to a board of inquiry. The Minister accepted this recommendation and, on 14 May 2013, announced that the Proposal would be heard and decided by a board of inquiry.
The application consists of:
One notice of requirement for a new designation for the construction, operation and maintenance of SH1 from Te Kowhai Road, Peka Peka, to Taylors Road, Ōtaki. One notice of requirement for a new designation for the construction, operation and maintenance of a section of NIMT through Ōtaki. Applications for 24 land use consents under Greater Wellington Regional Council jurisdiction relating to bulk earthworks, vegetation clearance, the construction of bores, the disturbance of river beds and the bed of a wetland, the placement of structures and rip rap in river beds, the reclamation of river beds and a wetland, the removal of structures (culverts in river beds), and the removal of vegetation in river beds and a wetland. Applications for 19 water permits under Greater Wellington Regional Council jurisdiction relating to temporary damming and diversion of water during construction works (surface water and groundwater), permanent damming and diversion of water (surface water and groundwater), and the take and use of water for construction activities. Applications for six discharge permits under Greater Wellington Regional Council jurisdiction for the discharge of sediment and chemical flocculants (during construction) in treated stormwater to water and to land where it may enter water, and the discharge of treated cement water to water and to land where it may enter water.
A more detailed description of the Proposal is set out within the notices of requirement and resource consent application documents.
June 2013 3
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
3.2. Public notification
The Proposal was publically notified on Saturday 18 May 2013 in the NZ Herald, the Dominion Post, The Christchurch Press and the Otago Daily Times. A copy of the public notice was placed in the Kāpiti Observer on Monday 20 May 2013 and was also posted on the EPA website.
The EPA identified 424 owners and occupiers of properties who would receive “direct notification” of the Proposal. These people received a notification pack that included a copy of the public notice, a submission form, an information sheet, and a flyer advertising the Friend of Submitter service.
A submission form was created by the EPA. This was sent to all owners and occupiers who received direct notification, made available at a number of locations around the Kāpiti District and posted on the EPA website. Submitters could also complete their submissions using the online submission form available on the EPA website.
The 20 day submission period closed at 5pm on Monday 17 June 2013.
June 2013 4
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
4. Submissions received
The EPA received 55 complete submissions before the close of the submission period at 5pm Friday 17 June 2013. This included a number of submissions that were incomplete when first received but the EPA was able to contact the submitter for the additional information before the close of the submission period.
As at 5pm 21 June 2013, the EPA had also received:
One incomplete submission that was received before the close of submissions and the full required information was not provided until after the close of submissions; and Two late submissions.
On 21 June 2013, the Board granted a waiver to accept all three of these submissions. In accepting late submissions the Board took into account the views of the NZTA and KiwiRail who were both of the view that there would be no prejudice incurred by accepting the submissions.
All submissions were also provided to the NZTA (as representative for both applicants) and have been posted on the EPA website.
June 2013 5
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
5. Position on Proposal and decision sought
5.1. Position of submitters on the Proposal
The submission form asked submitters to indicate whether they support, oppose or are neutral on the Proposal. In summary:
21 submitters (36.2%) oppose the Proposal either in full or in part 25 submitters (43.1%) support the Proposal either in full or in part 12 submitters (20.7%) are neutral, or have mixed views
Submitters indicated their position by using the check boxes in the submission form, or in the body of their submission if they did not use the submission form. Submissions that indicate a position both “in full” and “in part” have been recorded as “in full”. Further information is provided in the table below.
Table 1: Position on the Proposal
Submitter position Number of submissions Percentage of submissions
Oppose in full 20 34.5%
Oppose in part 1 1.7%
Total oppose in full or in part 21 36.2%
Support in full 20 34.5%
Support in part 5 8.6%
Total Support in full or in part 25 43.1%
Neutral in full 8 13.8%
Oppose in part and support in part 4 6.9%
Total neutral or mixed 12 20.7%
Total 58 100%
5.2. Decision sought on the Proposal by submitters
Submitters were asked to indicate the decision they would like the Board to make on the Proposal. Submitters indicated the decision they seek by using the check boxes in the submission form, or in the body of their submission if they did not use the submission form. The responses are outlined in the table below.
June 2013 6
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Table 2: Decision sought on the Proposal
Decision sought Number of submissions Percentage of submissions
Decline 14 24.1%
Grant 10 17.3%
Grant with conditions 30 51.7%
No view or did not state 3 5.2%
Other 1 1.7%
Total 58 100%
Submitters that checked “other” were asked to provide the decision they wanted:
Rahui Enterprises (Submission 102889) seeks relief related to Overbridge No. 4, noise and amenity effects and access. See original submission for full details.
June 2013 7
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
6. Trends observed in submissions
6.1. Submitters wishing to be heard
35 submitters (60%) indicated in their submission that they wish to be heard at the hearing. 13 submitters also indicated their intent to call witnesses on their behalf.
The table below identifies the proportion of submitters who wish to be heard depending on their position on the application.
Table 3: Submitters who wish to be heard by position
Number of Wish to be heard Position submissions Yes No
Oppose in full 20 (34%) 75% 25%
Oppose in part 1 (2%) 100% 0%
Support in full 20 (34%) 50% 50%
Support in part 5 (9%) 60% 40%
Neutral in full 8 (14%) 50% 50%
Support in part and oppose 4 (7%) 50% 50% in part
6.2. Submissions by sector
Most submissions are from individuals (52%). The following table breaks down the submitters from each sector into those who support the Proposal, those who oppose the Proposal and those who are either neutral or have mixed views.
Table 4: Submissions by sector and position Position Number of Sector submissions Support Oppose Neutral or mixed
Individuals 30 (52%) 47% 40% 13%
Businesses, business 14 (24%) 43% 36% 21% groups and trusts
Community groups 6 (10%) 17% 50% 33%
Iwi and other cultural groups 3 (5%) 33% 33% 33%
Councils and other 5 (9%) 60% 0% 40% government agencies
June 2013 8
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
6.3. Trade Competition
No submitters indicated that they are trade competitors of either the NZTA or KiwiRail.
6.4. Submissions by location
The majority of submitters (69%) are from the Ōtaki and Te Horo area. The following table breaks down the submitters from each area or region into those who support the Proposal, those who oppose the Proposal and those who are either neutral or have mixed views.
Table 5: Submissions by location and position
Position Number of Location Neutral or submissions Support Oppose mixed
Ōtaki and Ōtaki Beach 21 (36%) 29% 52% 19%
Te Horo and Te Horo Beach 19 (33%) 47% 26% 26%
Waikanae 5 (9%) 80% 20% 0%
Wider Kāpiti District 3 (5%) 33% 33% 33%
Wider Wellington Region 3 (5%) 33% 33% 33%
Manawatu Region 2 (3%) 50% 50% 0%
Other (the rest of NZ and 5 (9%) 60% 20% 20% national organisations)
June 2013 9
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
7. Reasons for submissions
A number of topics were raised across several submissions. Each of the topics below is discussed in more detail in the following sections.
Table 6: Common issues and concerns raised in submissions
Number of submitters Topic Percentage referring to topic
Benefits of the Proposal 6 10%
General support of the Proposal 6 10%
Lack of benefits and better alternatives 12 21%
Economics of the Proposal and financial impacts 18 31%
Effects on water 21 36%
Erosion and sediment control 5 9%
Contaminated land 2 3%
Effects on ecology and general environmental concerns 23 40%
Noise and vibration impacts 16 28%
Landscape, visual and amenity impacts 16 28%
Impacts on culture, heritage and archaeology 10 17%
Social, health and wellbeing impacts 10 17%
Access concerns 20 36%
Cycling, walkways and bridleways 6 10%
Impacts on Ōtaki Rail 3 5%
7.1. Benefits of the Proposal
Six submitters (10%) include specific benefits of the Proposal in their reasons for supporting the Proposal.
They consider that the existing SH1 is an important access route to the capital city for workers and trade, but it cannot handle current traffic volumes. Commuters and other road uses would benefit from a reduction in travel time and delays with a resulting reduction in fuel costs and carbon emissions. They also stated that the expressway would improve safety by separating traffic flows, separating different grades of traffic, and avoiding small towns and communities.
June 2013 10
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Table 7: Submissions referring to benefits of the Proposal
Submitter number Submitter name
Submissions in support of the Proposal
102868 Adams, Rosemary 102884 NZ Automobile Association 102845 Perry, Heather 102885 Stresscrete 102842 Strong, Catherine 102839 Wheeler, Judith
Six submitters (10%) indicate support of the Proposal without providing specific reasons. This includes both the NZTA and KiwiRail who submitted in support of each other’s parts of the application.
Table 8: Submissions in support without specific reasons
Submitter number Submitter name
Submissions in support of the Proposal
102844 Field, Shane 102875 KiwiRail 102850 NZ Transport Agency 102823 Robertson, Craig 102838 Wheeler, Brian 102846 Wood, David
7.2. Lack of benefits and better alternatives
12 submitters (21%) indicate opposition to the Proposal because they consider either the Proposal has no net benefits or that there are better alternatives.
These submitters consider that:
The Proposal does not represent a high quality and efficient land transport solution; The significant negative impacts are not mitigated by the access benefits; The benefits of the Proposal have been overstated by the NZTA, the assessment of benefits has not taken into account all costs (e.g. health costs), and the expected travel times reductions do not appear valid; There are no net safety benefits: Safety of the existing SH1 will get worse as it will be used by drivers trying to avoid police on the expressway; the expressway would only prevent head on collisions which are only a small proportion of total crashes; there has been no consideration of the safety implications of
June 2013 11
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
induced traffic effects on other parts of the road corridor; and cyclists and walkers will not get safety benefits because the local road will still have traffic travelling at 100 km/hr; and, There will be little or no improvements in route security as the expressway and local road (existing SH1) travel parallel to each other.
Submitters also comment that there has been inadequate consideration of alternative routes or methods including:
An expressway is not necessary and NZTA’s objectives can be met in a less costly and less environmentally and economically destructive manner; The Proposal does not take into account multi-modal transport planning. A network approach would focus on improving train and bus services; Ōtaki is the only choke point and this could be resolved by an Ōtaki bypass only, by enforcing a clearway during holiday weekends or by removing parking from the Ōtaki Railway area The scale and intensity of the western roundabout at the South Ōtaki interchange is unnecessarily costly and obtrusive and could be constructed with less built infrastructure, less private land, less cost and less impact on adjoining land; and, It would be better to use the western route that was previously proposed, or use a more eastern route closer to the hills.
Some submitters consider that NZTA’s consultation process was confusing and flawed. These submitters consider that:
Consultation has been light and ‘one-sided’, i.e. NZTA has told parties what will be happening rather than responding in a cooperative manner; Consultation has not been transparent, residents were in support of the principle of an expressway but not necessarily the current proposed route, and there was confusion regarding whether there were viable alternative routes; and NZTA created confusion by commencing land purchase processes at an early stage and confidentiality clauses in the land purchase agreements has caused discomfort in the community.
Generation Zero argues that the traffic projections are flawed and must take into account the effects of climate change and a significantly raised carbon price.
Table 9: Submissions in opposition because of a lack of benefits
Submitter number Submitter name
Submissions in opposition of the Proposal
102853 Abigail, Jill and Anderton, Joy 102898 Alliance for a Sustainable Kāpiti 102895 Caughley, Richard & Sarah 102899 Generation Zero 102896 Lorax Partnership
June 2013 12
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Submitter number Submitter name
Monarch Wines, Far Fetched Ltd, Cassels Taylor Family Trust, Wellington Works Ltd, 102890 nominees and others 102874 Morris, Wendy 102877 Ōtaki Motel (CE Christie) 102901 Parkinson, Chris 102861 Pickford, Michael 102857 Rational Transport Society 102855 Sutton, Sharyn
7.3. Economic and financial impacts
Economics was a trend through submissions both in support and in opposition of the Proposal. A total of 18 submitters (31%) mentioned economic or financial impacts.
Economics of the Proposal Submitters in opposition of the Proposal have concerns about the cost of the proposal, particularly that:
The Proposal is too expensive for what is required and the Cost Benefit Ratio is too low to justify the Proposal; There has been no comparison of net present value for the alternatives; There are better alternatives that would have a lower cost; The Proposal will generate net economic adverse effects; and, Any local economic benefits claimed are likely to be transfers and will be offset by a corresponding reduction in other districts.
Financial impacts A number of submitters both in support and opposition of the Proposal had concerns about financial impacts on local residents and businesses, including that:
There will be significant impacts on local businesses (both in Te Horo and Ōtaki) caused by lack of access and the loss of drive-by business and there will also be an impact on farm income; NZTA should provide compensation for effects on the Ōtaki town centre, particularly for construction effects; Loss of property value is severe and has not been taken into account by NZTA; Industrial sites may be financially impacted if access is restricted during construction or operation; and, The applicants will need to meet the costs of replacing or compensate for infrastructure (pipelines, ponds, etc) that will need to be moved as a result of the Proposal.
Several submitters also oppose the proposed acquisition of their properties.
June 2013 13
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Table 10: Submissions referring to economic and financial concerns
Submitter number Submitter name
Submissions in opposition of the Proposal
102898 Alliance for a Sustainable Kāpiti Inc. 102887 Donovan, Kelly and Lill, Jarrod 102865 Hart, Gyllian & Barry 102896 Lorax Partnership 102883 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Caleb Royal) 102877 Ōtaki Motel (CE Christie) 102901 Parkinson, Chris 102861 Pickford, Michael 102857 Rational Transport Society 102855 Sutton, Sharyn
Submissions in support, support in part, or neutral to the Proposal
102872 Arcus Road Water Scheme Ltd 102847 Camm, John and Stone, Christine 102870 Harrisons Country Gardenworld and Arthur Bills Resettlement Trust 102892 Kāpiti Coast District Council 102894 Ōtaki Community Board 102876 Ōtaki Motel (DE & CE Christie) 102885 Stresscrete 102881 Winstone Aggregates
7.4. Effects on water
Effects on water (including flooding, stormwater, groundwater and water takes) are raised in a total of 21 submissions (36%). Submitters in support and opposition of the Proposal have very similar concerns.
Flooding In relation to flooding and stream flow, submitters commented that:
Current peak flows and flood risk may be aggravated by the expressway and new river crossings. Submitters specifically mentioned flood potential of the Ōtaki River, Mangapouri Stream, Mangaone Stream, Mangaone Overflow and the Lucinsky Overflow. A number of submitters also mentioned the potential for floodwater to flow along/across Te Horo Beach Road (from the Mangaone Stream); The Proposal should achieve hydraulic neutrality as per the Kāpiti Coast District Council policy (premised on the key outcomes that peak flows and flood levels are not increased and that changes in flow paths do not affect ecologically significant areas);
June 2013 14
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
River based gravel extraction in the Ōtaki River is important for flood risk management and any disruption to extraction must be avoided; There needs to be a secondary containment bund near the Railway Station to divert any waters that overspill Chrystals Bend; Effects on drainage patters from new culverts need to be considered; and, There has been insufficient allowance made for overland flow towards the expressway and slowing down water flow will increase the upsteam flood risk.
Stormwater In relation to stormwater treatment and disposal, submitters had concerns regarding:
The potential impacts on surface and groundwater from infiltration of runoff and stormwater; The treatment of oil and litter contaminated water; The need for further information regarding the culverts to be removed and installed; The removal of sediment from stormwater prior release to the environment; and, The impact of swale capacity being exceeded.
Groundwater In relation to groundwater, submitters had concerns regarding:
A lack of information and inconsistencies in information regarding the hydrogeological environment; The potential for groundwater changes to impact on hydraulically connected surface water; The limited assessment of the scale and significance of impacts on groundwater levels and flows; The lack of detail surrounding proposed groundwater monitoring, how effects on groundwater will be identified, and mitigation options; The risk of ground subsidence associated with groundwater lowering; The risk of constructing a road across peat systems; The potential for groundwater changes to impact on wetland areas; and, The potential for changes in groundwater flow to affected baseflow discharges in streams.
Water takes In relation to impacts on water takes and water supply schemes, submitters had concerns regarding:
Impacts related to changing groundwater levels; Impacts on bores and water rights; Impacts on pipelines, pumps, and irrigation systems and the resulting impact on agricultural, horticultural and domestic water supply; and, The maintenance of lake intakes for ecosystem services and for fire fighting and irrigation supply.
June 2013 15
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Table 11: Submissions referring to effects on water
Submitter number Submitter name
Submissions in opposition of the Proposal
102887 Donovan, Kelly and Lill, Jarrod 102862 Graham, Lorraine 102865 Hart, Gyllian & Barry 102869 Jarvis, Wayne 102896 Lorax Partnership 102883 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Caleb Royal) 102889 Rahui Enterprises Ltd 102857 Rational Transport Society 102855 Sutton, Sharyn
Submissions in support, support in part, or neutral to the Proposal
102872 Arcus Road Water Scheme Ltd 102847 Camm, John and Stone, Christine 102880 Greater Wellington Regional Council 102878 Howard, Paul 102892 Kāpiti Coast District Council 102849 Lucinsky, Barry 102886 McLean, Josephine 102888 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Pātaka Moore) 102897 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Rupene Waaka) 102894 Ōtaki Community Board 102866 W & M Stevens Family Trust 102881 Winstone Aggregates
7.5. Erosion and sediment control
Both councils commented on erosion and sediment control, including concerns that:
There will be construction effects including bed disturbance and sedimentation; The assumed efficiency rate of devices may be slightly ambitious; Stream turbidity triggers may be set too high and there has been no consideration of the types of sediment that pose a risk to streams or to suspended versus settle sediment risks; and There is limited information provided on how works in water courses will be appropriately managed to minimise sediment discharges.
Three submissions on behalf of Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki requested that the hapū are involved in the development of erosion and sediment control management plans.
June 2013 16
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Table 12: Submissions referring to erosion and sediment control
Submitter number Submitter name
Submissions in opposition of the Proposal
102833 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Caleb Royal)
Submissions in support, support in part, or neutral to the Proposal
102880 Greater Wellington Regional Council 102892 Kāpiti Coast District Council 102888 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Pātaka Moore) 102897 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Rupene Waaka)
7.6. Contaminated land
Both councils commented on contaminated land, including comments that there is a need to: Provide information on the risk of contamination migrating off-site and effects on groundwater quality; Include a contingency plan for encountering unexpected contaminated sites; and Include a general section on reporting in the contaminated land plan.
Table 13: Submissions referring to contaminated land
Submitter number Submitter name
Submissions in support, support in part, or neutral to the Proposal
102880 Greater Wellington Regional Council 102892 Kāpiti Coast District Council
7.7. Effects on ecology and general environmental concerns
Effects on flora and fauna, agriculture and horticulture and effects on the environment generally were mentioned in 23 submissions (40%). A number of submissions in support and opposition of the Proposal reference environmental or pollution effects in a general manner, but do not go into further detail. Other submissions outline more specific concerns relating to terrestrial and aquatic ecology. Several submitters also mention air pollution as a concern.
Terrestrial ecology Submitters commented on: The loss of trees and native bush including at Hautere Bush, Stevens Bush and Cottles Bush; The impact on agriculture and horticulture; The impact on the Mary Crest area; The need for Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki to be involved in ecological mitigation including riparian planting; The potential for weeds and noxious plants to take over riparian planting and the requirement for on- going pest and weed control in riparian planting;
June 2013 17
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Impacts and lack of information assessing the effects on terrestrial ecology, in particular native bush remnants, land snails, lizards, native falcon, wetland birds, forest birds and river nesting birds; The adequacy of mitigation offsets and how these offsets will be protected; and, Low compensation values proposed for the loss of indigenous vegetation.
Aquatic ecology Submitters have concerns about: Loss of wetlands and stream habitat and the mitigation of this loss. Low compensation values proposed for the loss of wetlands and a lack of information on the extent and type of mitigation for the loss of freshwater and wetland values; The impact of drawdown on wetlands; The maintenance, restoration and protection of the Ōtaki Railway Wetland; Insufficient information to assess the adequacy of measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate the effects of stream diversion; Impacts and lack of information assessing the effects on mudfish and native eels; and, The impact on the three lakes on Te Horo Beach Road if the current water intake is not maintained.
Pare-o-matangi Reserve Several submitters expressed specific concerns about the impact of the Proposal on Pare-o-matangi Reserve. These include requests that effects on the Reserve, including land loss, are appropriately mitigated and the Reserve is re-established to the current standard.
Table 14: Submissions referring to ecology and environmental concerns
Submitter number Submitter name
Submissions in opposition of the Proposal
102853 Abigail, Jill & Anderton, Joy 102898 Alliance for a Sustainable Kāpiti Inc. 102887 Donovan, Kelly and Lill, Jarrod 102865 Hart, Gyllian & Barry 102869 Jarvis, Wayne 102896 Lorax Partnership 102874 Morris, Wendy 102883 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Caleb Royal) 102877 Ōtaki Motel (CE) 102861 Pickford, Michael 102857 Rational Transport Society 102855 Sutton, Sharyn 102879 Taylor, Caitlin
June 2013 18
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Submitter number Submitter name
Submissions in support, support in part, or neutral to the Proposal
102872 Arcus Road Water Scheme Ltd 102847 Camm, John & Stone, Christine 102880 Greater Wellington Regional Council 102892 Kāpiti Coast District Council 102859 Keep Ōtaki Beautiful 102849 Lucinsky, Barry 102886 McLean, Josephine 102888 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Pātaka Moore) 102897 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Rupene Waaka) 102894 Ōtaki Community Board
7.8. Noise and vibration impacts
16 submitters (28%) noted concerns about increases in noise and vibration from both road and rail. Parties submitted that noise will increase because the road will be closer to their properties, there will be more traffic, and as a result of tree removal. A number of submitters request that the expressway be paved with a “low noise” or “smooth” surface and that bunding and planting is used to further reduce impacts. Submitters also stated that noise and vibration need to be monitored and mitigation provided where necessary.
Table 15: Submissions referring to noise and vibration concerns
Submitter number Submitter name
Submissions in opposition of the Proposal
102898 Alliance for a Sustainable Kāpiti 102887 Donovan, Kelly and Lill, Jarrod 102869 Jarvis, Wayne 102896 Lorax Partnership 102874 Morris, Wendy 102901 Parkinson, Chris 102889 Rahui Enterprises Ltd 102854 Sutton, Sharyn 102879 Taylor, Caitlin
Submissions in support, support in part, or neutral to the Proposal
102892 Kāpiti Coast District Council 102867 Lonsdale, Simon 102886 McLean, Josephine 102894 Ōtaki Community Board
June 2013 19
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Submitter number Submitter name
102864 Sharpe, Don & Juliet 102854 Sygrove, Chris & Robyn 102866 W & M Stevens Family Trust
7.9. Landscape, visual and amenity impacts
16 submitters (28%), both in support and opposition of the Proposal, have concerns relating to landscape, visual and amenity impacts.
Submitters have concerns that there may be significant adverse effects on landscape, natural character and visual amenity, even with the proposed mitigation. Concerns are most commonly based around the visual obtrusiveness of earthworks, additional lighting and elevated roadways, bridges and interchanges and the visual impacts of tree removal – including potential loss of privacy.
The Kāpiti Coast District Council in particular is concerned that the road corridor (expressway plus existing SH1, plus new local roads) will be very wide relative to the width of the designation and there will not be enough remaining width to provide for appropriate mitigation. They also state concerns that impacts relating to landscape and visual effects, urban form and amenity values are not adequately assessed in the application and that there is not enough detail of proposed mitigation.
Three submissions on behalf of Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki request that the hapū are involved in landscape plans relating to the Ōtaki gateway areas. The Ōtaki Community Board requests that they are also involved in development of the gateway areas as well as planning of local bridges, especially the Rahui Road bridge.
Table 16: Submissions referring to landscape and visual impacts
Submitter number Submitter name
Submissions in opposition of the Proposal
102898 Alliance for a Sustainable Kāpiti 102887 Donovan, Kelly and Lill, Jarrod 102869 Jarvis, Wayne 102896 Lorax Partnership 102883 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Caleb Royal) 102901 Parkinson, Chris 102889 Rahui Enterprises Ltd 102857 Rational Transport Society 102854 Sutton, Sharyn
Submissions in support, support in part, or neutral to the Proposal
102892 Kāpiti Coast District Council 102867 Lonsdale, Simon
June 2013 20
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Submitter number Submitter name
102886 McLean, Josephine 102888 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Pātaka Moore) 102897 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Rupene Waaka) 102894 Ōtaki Community Board 102866 W & M Stevens Family Trust
7.10. Impacts on culture, heritage and archaeology
Ten submissions (17%) reference impacts on culture, heritage and archaeology.
The NZ Historic Places Trust states that the NZTA have involved them in discussion about mitigation where avoiding or minimising impacts on built historic heritage has not been possible. They go on to support, in general, the conditions proposed by the NZTA in relation to culture, heritage and archaeology.
Some submitters have concerns that the Proposal with destroy or damage heritage and archaeological sites and that the prepared heritage reports do not consider the significant investment required to manage heritage areas.
Some of the specific sites referenced by submitters as being of historic significance, and that the NZTA should maintain and enhance the heritage values of, are:
The NZ Farmers Dairy Union former creamery building and Manager’s House; The Ōtaki Milk Factory/ community hall/church area; and, The Ōtaki railway building.
Three submissions on behalf of Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki request that the hapū are involved in:
Naming of any new areas; Conversations around any house removal; Finalisation of the Accidental Discovery Protocol; and, Carrying out an appropriate blessing and ceremony prior to any soil turning.
Table 17: Submissions referring to culture, heritage and archaeology
Submitter number Submitter name
Submissions in opposition of the Proposal
102883 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Caleb Royal) 102877 Ōtaki Motel (CE Christie) 102889 Rahui Enterprises Ltd 102854 Sutton, Sharyn
Submissions in support, support in part, or neutral to the Proposal
102892 Kāpiti Coast District Council
June 2013 21
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Submitter number Submitter name
102886 McLean, Josephine 102888 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Pātaka Moore) 102897 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Rupene Waaka) 102893 NZ Historic Places Trust 102894 Ōtaki Community Board
7.11. Social, health and wellbeing impacts
Social, health and wellbeing impacts were mentioned in ten submissions (17%). Most of these submissions have concerns about social severance and health impacts. One has concerns relating to police and safety issues arising from potential urban decay resulting from an Ōtaki bypass, and another is concerned about the health impacts of car dependence.
Table 18: Submissions referring to social, health and wellbeing impacts
Submitter number Submitter name
Submissions in opposition of the Proposal
102898 Alliance for a Sustainable Kāpiti 102896 Lorax Partnership 102874 Morris, Wendy 102877 Ōtaki Motel (CE Christie) 102901 Parkinson, Chris 102861 Pickford, Michael 102857 Rational Transport Society 102854 Sutton, Sharyn
Submissions in support, support in part, or neutral to the Proposal
102870 Harrisons Country Gardenworld and Arthur Bills Resettlement Trust 102892 Kāpiti Coast District Council
7.12. Access concerns
21 submitters (36%) mention access issues in their submissions either in support or opposition of the Proposal.
Most of these concerns are related to access to the Te Horo area. There are no access points between the half interchange at Peka Peka and the two half interchanges either end of Ōtaki and a number of submitters suggest more interchanges are required. Submitters also have concerns about community severance and the difficulty residents may experience crossing the expressway corridor. This includes concerns that the
June 2013 22
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal expressway would make access between locations in the area more difficult and that Te Horo residents will have to use local roads and thus not benefit from the expressway.
Submitters also have concerns related to access (and safe access) to properties and businesses, as well as access across properties. Submissions by Winstone Aggregates and Stresscrete refer to specific access concerns related to their sites bordering the Ōtaki River. The companies both submit that they need continuous access to their sites and under the bridge at all times. This includes use of their current rail crossing point. The NZ Automobile Association suggests that the South Ōtaki interchange should be a full interchange so that traffic from the industrial area can exit to or enter from the north without travelling though Ōtaki township.
One submitter also submitted that the Te Horo flyover must be easy to access from both directions of the local road (existing SH1) and from Beach Road.
Emergency access A number of submitters have concerns that the expressway would restrict emergency access to the Te Horo area for police, ambulance and fire services. The Te Horo Rural Fire Force submits that they support the emergency access plan proposed by the NZTA.
Table 19: Submissions referring to access issues
Submitter number Submitter name
Submissions in opposition of the Proposal
102898 Alliance for a Sustainable Kāpiti 102865 Hart, Gyllian & Barry 102896 Lorax Partnership Monarch Wines, Far Fetched Ltd, Cassels Taylor Family Trust, Wellington Works Ltd, 102890 nominees and others 102877 Ōtaki Motel (CE Christie) 102889 Rahui Enterprises Ltd 102891 Ruth Pretty Catering Ltd 102855 Sutton, Sharyn 102879 Taylor, Caitlin
Submissions in support, support in part, or neutral to the Proposal
102847 Camm, John & Stone, Christine 102903 Driving Forces 102851 Harper, John 102870 Harrisons Country Gardenworld and Arthur Bills Resettlement Trust 102871 Ineson, Sue 102886 McLean, Josephine 102884 NZ Automobile Association
June 2013 23
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Submitter number Submitter name
102876 Ōtaki Motel (DE & CE Christie) 102885 Stresscrete 102842 Strong, Catherine 102841 Te Horo Rural Fire Force 102881 Winstone Aggregates
7.13. Cycling, Walking and Bridleways
Six submitters (10%) mentioned cycling, walking and riding. This includes statements that: There needs to be provision for a shared pathway to the same standard as the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway Proposal, including a clip-on facility on the existing SH1 bridge; The shoulders of both the expressway and the local road should be surfaced in a bike-friendly material and shoulders marked using audio-tactile markings; Overbridges must be safe for walking and cycling and should have footpaths where appropriate; and, There should be more pedestrian and cycle accessways across the expressway.
The NZ Automobile Association recommends that cyclist and pedestrians, as well as other slow moving traffic, are prohibited from using the expressway. They state that it is not necessary for them to use the expressway as they have a viable alternative (existing SH1). Kāpiti Cycling Inc. disagrees with that cyclists should be prohibited from using the expressway.
Table 20: Submissions referring to cycling, walkways and bridleways
Submitter number Submitter name
Submissions in opposition of the Proposal
102883 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Caleb Royal)
Submissions in support, support in part, or neutral to the Proposal
102892 Kāpiti Coast District Council 102873 Kāpiti Cycling Inc. 102844 NZ Automobile Association 102894 Ōtaki Community Board 102842 Strong, Catherine
7.14. Impacts on Ōtaki Rail
Three submitters (5%) made comments that the Proposal must provide for, or not preclude, future growth of the Ōtaki railway including: Providing parking for future commuters;
June 2013 24
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Provision for future extension of the electrified commuter services from Wellington; Consider expanding the railyard for future commuter train stabling Provision for future double tracking; Provision for increases in freight capacity and cargo distribution; Provision for future rail curve easing at Mary Crest; and Provision for a second platform at Ōtaki and a platform at Te Horo.
Table 21: Submissions referring to Ōtaki Rail
Submitter number Submitter name
Submissions in support, support in part, or neutral to the Proposal
102856 Gibson, Peter 102892 Kāpiti Coast District Council 102894 Ōtaki Community Board
June 2013 25
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
8. Conditions requested
The table below summarises conditions sought and/or supported by submitters. The conditions sought are taken from submissions; however, some are inferred from submissions where the submitter did not directly state they were seeking something as a condition. Some of the items below represent changes to the Proposal rather than conditions. This is a summary so, at all times, reference to the full submissions is required for complete detail.
Table 22: Summary of conditions sought by submitters
Submitter Submitter name Summary of conditions supported or requested number
Provision for all work and costs associated with planning and execution of work necessary to ensure the integrity of the Arcus Road Water Scheme, including addressing and meeting the costs of: Design work for re-laying affected portions of pipelines; Execution of re-laying work; Arcus Road Water 102872 A solution for providing an interim water supply during disruption to the scheme’s operation; Scheme Ltd Any legal framework adjustments required (e.g. easements and rights of way); and Ensuring area-specific identification and mitigation of construction related environmental effects, especially as they relate to the Mangaone Stream and negative impacts on the Arcus Road Water Scheme, horticultural activities and crops.
Donovan, Kelly & Lill, 102887 Ensure that native planting on the submitters’ property is not removed and replanted. Jarrod
Provision for the following items related to the railway: Keep the Ōtaki Railway station and provide additional parking for commuters. Gibson, Peter 102856 Keep the entire rail yard and consider expansion of the yard for future commuter train stabling. Keep the rail link to the quarry.
June 2013 26
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Submitter Submitter name Summary of conditions supported or requested number
Allow minor, temporary water contamination rather than requiring costly mitigation measures to prevent escalation of construction costs.
Greater Wellington Various amendments to the proposed conditions are required to ensure they are enforceable, set 102880 Regional Council performance standards, can be easily interpreted and are well structured.
Improve access to the expressway for Te Horo residents by providing: Harper, John 102851 a slip lane heading south from the local road to the expressway (south of School Road); and a slip lane heading north from the expressway to the local road in the Mary Crest area.
Harrisons Either: Gardenworld & Arthur 102870 Construct a full interchange at Peka Peka (preferred); or Bills Resettlement Construct a southbound road / egress to allow traffic to exit the expressway at Peka Peka. Trust
Provision to undertake work to prevent water overflowing the left bank of the Mangaone Steam opposite the weir on the Lucinsky Overflow and crossing Te Horo Beach Road. Howard, Paul 102878 Provision to undertake maintenance downstream of the Mangaone Overflow SH1 culvert to rectify any problems caused by the Proposal.
Ineson, Sue 102871 Provide an additional access point onto the expressway at either Te Horo or Peka Peka.
See original submission for outcomes sought by the Council. In summary, the council seeks that: Kāpiti Coast District 102892 Conditions are strengthened to achieve the outcomes sought in their submission; Council The Council is provided a more effective role in the design of the project;
June 2013 27
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Submitter Submitter name Summary of conditions supported or requested number
The economic impacts arising during construction and operation are more fully addressed; and The capacity of the designations is demonstrated to achieve the outcomes sought by the council.
Impose the following conditions: Provide a shared pathway on the west side of the local arterial (walking and cycling) and a bridleway from Te Kowhai Road to Ōtaki Township; Provide suitable physical separation between the proposed shared pathway and bridleway in consultation with equestrian groups; Add a clip-on extension to the present Ōtaki River Bridge to provide walking/cycling facility; Kāpiti Cycling Inc. 102873 Ensure the surface shoulders of the new expressway and all sections of the local arterial are fine aggregate/asphaltic concrete; Provide Audio Tactile Profile markings (rumble strips) delineating the road shoulder over the entire Expressway length; Provide a local road linking Forest Lakes Road with Taylors Road within this project; and, Reduced the speed limit on the existing SH1 to 80 km/h.
Submitter supports, in principle, Proposals that will require the purchase of land between Rahui Road and Keep Ōtaki Beautiful 102859 Te Pareomatangi park/Reserve (as mitigation for land within the Reserve that will be destroyed by the expressway) resulting in an area approximate to that currently occupied by the Reserve.
Lonsdale, Simon 102867 Require the use of smooth seal, sound bunding and good planting.
Maintain existing water intake for the three lakes in the vicinity of the submitter’s property (current intake Lucinsky, Barry 102849 is in the construction area).
June 2013 28
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Submitter Submitter name Summary of conditions supported or requested number
Ensure that: Access to the submitter’s property is not adversely affected (including ensuring safe access); Land use consents do not adversely affect creeks; There is no unnecessary removal of vegetation that would affect the submitter’s property; McLean, Josephine 102886 Flood potential and water dispersal are taken into account; Any possible effects on the submitter’s property are mitigated; The creamery site is preserved as a site of value; and NZTA confirm that the submitter’s house can be moved, that compensation will be provided and finalise a new position on the submitter’s property
Monarch Wines, Far Fetched Ltd, Cassels Taylor Family Trust, 102891 Provide an on ramp going south and an off ramp going north at Te Horo. Wellington Works Ltd, nominees and others
* These three submissions requested the same conditions so have been summarised together. Ensure that Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki are involved in: Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki Development of management plans, including those for ecological mitigation and sediment and 102883, (Pātaka Moore, erosion control; 102888 & Rupene Waaka & Implementation of management plans including managing planning and enhancement projects, 102897 Caleb Royal) post-construction monitoring, riparian planting; On-going monitoring; Finalising the landscape plan in relation to signage and associate works at the two gateway area,
June 2013 29
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Submitter Submitter name Summary of conditions supported or requested number
including incorporating artwork or carvings; Naming of new areas developed as part of the Proposal, e.g. the new wetland at Mary Crest; and Conversations around the relocation of any houses.
Require that: There is a process that can be implemented if a specific mitigation measure is not working; On-going monitoring post-construction is identified in the management plan; Trees of significance that are cut down are stored for iwi to use in the future; and Any soil turning or investigation work as part of the Proposal is preceded by an appropriate blessing and ceremony from Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki.
The submitter supports the following proposed conditions: The Proposal in relation to Pare-o-matangi Reserve including the requirement to involve Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki in landscape planning; The requirement to establish a Community Liaison Group including the requirement that that group is to be kept informed for at least 12 months post-construction; and That Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki are involved in the finalisation of the Accidental Discovery Protocol.
Ensure that the expressway not only meets current NZTA standards but also meets international standards for highways carrying over 16,000 vehicles per day and that design of all aspects is carried out so that the expressway can accommodate much higher traffic loads in future years. NZ Automobile 102844 Association Prohibit cyclists, pedestrians, horses, motorcycles/scooter with less that 50cc capacity and all other vehicles travelling less than 70km/hr from using the expressway.
Designate the expressway as a motorway to achieve the above point.
June 2013 30
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Submitter Submitter name Summary of conditions supported or requested number
Provide a full interchange at south Ōtaki to allow access to the industrial area.
The submitter has been working with the NZTA to develop draft conditions relating to heritage and the NZ Historic Places 102893 submitter is in general support of those conditions. Please see original submission for a table of relevant Trust conditions and mitigation proposed by the NZTA and the submitter’s response to these.
The submitter would like noise experts to come and take readings to ensure there is no increase in noise Parkinson, Chris 102901 (especially during westerly winds) and would like the NZTA to provide double glazing.
Ensure that: The design standards and management of effects are consistent with the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway; The Proposal achieves hydraulic neutrality; Any stream loss or alteration is accounted for and properly mitigated; Mitigation is provided for economic impacts on the Ōtaki railway town centre; Provision is made for future capacity of the railway at Ōtaki; Ōtaki Community There is provision for an off-road walkway, cycleway and bridleway (to the same standard at the 102894 Board MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway; The Kāpiti Coast District Council is involved in the certification of management plans; The Ōtaki Community Board has input into the design and look of the two local overbridges (and ensure they have capacity for pedestrians and cyclists); The Ōtaki Community Board has input into the development of gateway signage; There is appropriate mitigation for the loss of part of the Pare-o-matangi Reserve (and ensure Keep Ōtaki Beautiful is involved in this process); Higher compensation ratios are required for the loss of wetland and indigenous vegetation;
June 2013 31
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Submitter Submitter name Summary of conditions supported or requested number
The heritage values of the railway building are maintained and enhanced; and Rail noise and vibration is appropriately mitigated.
The Ōtaki Community Board also strongly supports all outcomes sought in the submission of the Kāpiti Coast District Council.
Ōtaki Motel (DA & CE 102876 Consider taking the remaining three lots of Ōtaki Motel land and interest in the right of way. Christie)
Either remove Bridge No. 4 (linking Mill Road and Rahui Road) or work with the submitter on an agreed mitigation package to address visual and amenity effects including provision for pedestrian movement and consideration of drainage patters from new culverts.
Rahui Enterprises Ltd 102889 Work with the submitter on noise mitigation measures for the submitter’s property and provide specific details and methods (that are acceptable to the submitter) to address construction effects on the submitter's land.
Require current access to the submitter's property to be maintained.
Ruth Pretty Catering 102891 Provide at least two on ramps and two off ramps between Peka Peka and Ōtaki. Ltd
Ensure adequate all weather access for normal and oversized loads is maintained to the submitter’s site. This could be achieved by ensuring the proposed access route angles and inclines allow for over Stresscrete 102885 dimensional loads to pass under Bridge No. 5 in normal flows and retaining the ability to access and cross the railway further north during floods using the existing permit and permission structure.
June 2013 32
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Submitter Submitter name Summary of conditions supported or requested number
The submitter also suggests that Management Plans should include effects on adjoining activities and that they should be prepared in consultation with adjoining businesses that are dependent on site access.
Require mitigation of impacts on existing property owners, their lifestyles, and their rights.
Require the use of a “low traffic noise” road surface in the Mary Crest to Te Horo area (or other Sharpe, Don & Juliet 102864 assurance that the submitter will experience less road noise than they have been subjected to since the road was re-sealed four years ago).
Submitter favours Option B for the Te Horo flyover but would like it ensured that: Sygrove, Chris & There is easy access to the flyover from Beach Road and both directions of the existing SH1; 102842 Robyn The flyover is safe for cyclists as well as motorists; and There are safeguards against suicide jumpers.
Require that noise levels at the submitters’ property are no greater than at present (as previously indicated to the submitters) and require that noise from the expressway is minimised for example by using Strong, Catherine 102854 earth mounds/bunding, planting trees and vegetation, and/or using a smooth road surface.
Require that noise monitoring equipment is installed to measure current road noise.
Provide access to the expressway for Te Horo residents and a more adequate access for emergency Taylor, Caitlin 102879 services.
Ensure that emergency access to the expressway is provided for Te Horo Rural Fire Force appliances Te Horo Rural Fire 102841 from its base in School Road, Te Horo. Force Submitter supports the emergency access plan prepared by NZTA.
June 2013 33
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Submitter Submitter name Summary of conditions supported or requested number
Require heavy planting of trees and the use of low noise road surface in the vicinity of the submitter's property. W & M Stevens 102866 Family Trust Ensure the submitter's bore is still operational.
Require effective drainage and fencing and replanting of shelter belts.
Provide the submitter with additional land and infrastructure (pipelines, pumps) to compensate for the loss of the current sediment retention ponds. Provide for the construction of new ponds in a management plan and require that any required consents are sought in parallel with the outline plan process.
Require the preparation of a construction and access management plan, including specific methods to maintain appropriate access through the construction site between the River and Ballast Plants for the types of road and mobile plant operating by Winstone Aggregates and Stresscrete and to maintain appropriate access from affected sites to the road and state highway network.
Require that any consents needed to relocate ponds or existing trees will be managed in conjunction with Winstone Aggregates 102881 the submitter (where those trees were planted as a condition of the Submitter’s consents). The requiring authority should be responsible for any necessary variations to existing resource consents to amend requirements for mitigation plantings.
Require NZTA's Property Team to work with the submitter to identify the most appropriate use of an area of private land that will be severed by the Proposal.
Either alter the designation boundary slightly to allow Winstone Aggregate's feed ramp to remain in its current position or require the constructing of a new in-feed ramp.
Require the preparation of a TCTMP in conjunction with the submitter for their Ōtaki Site.
June 2013 34
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Submitter Submitter name Summary of conditions supported or requested number
Require that a management plan be prepared in consultation with the Submitter and Greater Wellington Regional Council to ensure minimal disruption to existing gravel extraction activities.
June 2013 35
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Appendix one
Alphabetical index of submitters
Submission Submitter Name Number 102853 Abigail, Jill and Anderton, Joy 102868 Adams, Rosemary 102898 Alliance for a Sustainable Kāpiti Inc. 102872 Arcus Road Water Scheme Ltd 102847 Camm, John and Stone, Christine 102895 Caughley, Richard & Sarah 102887 Donovan, Kelly and Lill, Jarrod 102902 Driving Forces 102844 Field, Shane 102852 Flanagan, Brett 102899 Generation Zero 102856 Gibson, Peter 102862 Graham, Lorraine 102880 Greater Wellington Regional Council 102851 Harper, John 102870 Harrisons Country Gardenworld Ltd. and Arthur Bills Resettlement Trust 102865 Hart, Gyllian & Barry 102878 Howard, Paul 102871 Ineson, Sue 102869 Jarvis, Wayne 102892 Kāpiti Coast District Council 102873 Kāpiti Cycling Incorporated 102859 Keep Ōtaki Beautiful 102875 KiwiRail Holdings Ltd 102867 Lonsdale, Simon 102896 Lorax Partnership 102849 Lucinsky, Barry 102886 McLean, Josephine Monarch Wines, Far Fetched Ltd, Cassels Taylor Family Trust, Wellington Works 102890 Ltd, nominees and others 102874 Morris, Wendy
June 2013 36
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
102884 New Zealand Automobile Association Inc. 102893 New Zealand Historic Places Trust 102883 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Caleb Royal) 102888 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Pātaka Moore) 102897 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Rupene Waaka) 102850 NZ Transport Agency 102894 Ōtaki Community Board 102877 Ōtaki Motel - CE Christie 102876 Ōtaki Motel - DA and CE Christie 102901 Parkinson, Chris 102845 Perry, Heather 102861 Pickford, Michael 102889 Rahui Enterprises Ltd 102857 Rational Transport Society 102823 Robertson, Craig 102891 Ruth Pretty Catering Ltd 102864 Sharpe, Don & Juliet 102885 Stresscrete 102842 Strong, Catherine 102855 Sutton, Sharyn 102854 Sygrove, Christopher & Robyn 102879 Taylor, Caitlin 102841 Te Horo Rural Fire Force 102866 W & M Stevens Family Trust 102838 Wheeler, Brian 102839 Wheeler, Judith 102881 Winstone Aggregates 102846 Wood, David
June 2013 37
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
Appendix two
Numerical index of submitters
Submission Submitter Name Number 102823 Robertson, Craig 102838 Wheeler, Brian 102839 Wheeler, Judith 102841 Te Horo Rural Fire Force 102842 Strong, Catherine 102844 Field, Shane 102845 Perry, Heather 102846 Wood, David 102847 Camm, John and Stone, Christine 102849 Lucinsky, Barry 102850 NZ Transport Agency 102851 Harper, John 102852 Flanagan, Brett 102853 Abigail, Jill and Anderton, Joy 102854 Sygrove, Christopher & Robyn 102855 Sutton, Sharyn 102856 Gibson, Peter 102857 Rational Transport Society 102859 Keep Ōtaki Beautiful 102861 Pickford, Michael 102862 Graham, Lorraine 102864 Sharpe, Don & Juliet 102865 Hart, Gyllian & Barry 102866 W & M Stevens Family Trust 102867 Lonsdale, Simon 102868 Adams, Rosemary 102869 Jarvis, Wayne 102870 Harrisons Country Gardenworld Ltd. and Arthur Bills Resettlement Trust 102871 Ineson, Sue 102872 Arcus Road Water Scheme Ltd 102873 Kāpiti Cycling Inc.
June 2013 38
Summary of submissions: Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway proposal
102874 Morris, Wendy 102875 KiwiRail Holdings Ltd 102877 Ōtaki Motel - CE Christie 102876 Ōtaki Motel - DA and CE Christie 102878 Howard, Paul 102879 Taylor, Caitlin 102880 Greater Wellington Regional Council 102881 Winstone Aggregates 102883 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Caleb Royal) 102884 New Zealand Automobile Association Inc. 102885 Stresscrete 102886 McLean, Josephine 102887 Donovan, Kelly and Lill, Jarrod 102888 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Pātaka Moore) 102889 Rahui Enterprises Limited Monarch Wines, Far Fetched Ltd, Cassels Taylor Family Trust, Wellington Works 102890 Ltd, nominees and others 102891 Ruth Pretty Catering Ltd 102892 Kāpiti Coast District Council 102893 New Zealand Historic Places Trust 102894 Ōtaki Community Board 102895 Caughley, Richard & Sarah 102896 Lorax Partnership 102897 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Rupene Waaka) 102898 Alliance for a Sustainable Kāpiti Inc. 102899 Generation Zero 102901 Parkinson, Chris 102903 Driving Forces
June 2013