Auckland Airport's Long Term Planning

Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF GREGORY JOHN OSBORNE FOR AUCKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT IN RELATION TO TOPIC 045 AIRPORT

(PLANNING)

26 MARCH 2014

A A Arthur-Young / S J Glenn Phone +64 9 367 8000 Fax +64 9 367 8163 PO Box 8 DX CX10085 Auckland

i Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 1. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ...... 4 2. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE ...... 5 3. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED UNITARY PLAN CHANGES ...... 6 Auckland Airport's Long Term Planning ...... 6 Implementation through the Unitary Plan ...... 7 Proposed Unitary Plan Framework ...... 9 Regional Policy Statement ...... 10 4. AIRPORT ZONE AND AIRPORT APPROACH PATH OVERLAY ...... 11 5. AUCKLAND AIRPORT PRECINCT ...... 12 Outstanding matters ...... 13 6. AUCKLAND AIRPORT'S DESIGNATIONS ...... 17 Designation 1100 ...... 18 7. AIRCRAFT NOISE OVERLAY ...... 20 Reverse Sensitivity Effects ...... 20 NZS 6805:1992 ...... 21 The Aircraft Noise Overlay in the Unitary Plan ...... 23 MANA ...... 23 HANA ...... 24 Changes to Aircraft Noise Areas in AIAL Submission ...... 27 HANA ...... 27 MANA ...... 27 Section 32 Assessment Of Aircraft Noise Overlay Provisions ...... 29 8. CONCLUSIONS ...... 31 ANNEXURE 1 ...... 33 ANNEXURE 2 ...... 34 ANNEXURE 3 ...... 35 ANNEXURE 4 ...... 36 ANNEXURE 5 ...... 37 ANNEXURE 6 ...... 38 ANNEXURE 7 ...... 39 ANNEXURE 8 ...... 40 ANNEXURE 9 ...... 41 ANNEXURE 10 ...... 42 ANNEXURE 11 ...... 43

2801108 1 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. The relevant planning framework in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan ("Unitary Plan") governing Auckland International Airport Limited ("AIAL") is comprised of the underlying Airport zone, Auckland Airport Precinct, the Aircraft Noise Overlay, and AIAL's designations. The relevant provisions have mostly been agreed with Auckland Council and most other submitters prior to and during mediation, and I support the provisions as attached to my evidence.

B. The consistent key themes of the Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statement ("RPS") objectives and policies in the context of Auckland Airport are:

(a) The need to recognise and enable the economic and social wellbeing benefits of Auckland Airport and its related business functions that connect New Zealand (as an exporting nation and a tourist destination) with the world and Auckland (as the Gateway to New Zealand) with the rest of New Zealand;

(b) The need to make provision for the future growth of the Airport as well as its existing capacity by protecting existing and planned future infrastructure from reverse sensitivity effects; and

(c) The need to manage land use surrounding the airport and the aircraft operations of the airport to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of aircraft noise on the amenity of people and communities.

In my view, the versions of the objectives, policies and rules of the Auckland Airport Precinct and the Aircraft Noise Overlay which are appended to my evidence give effect to these proposed RPS objectives and policies.

2801108 2 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

C. AIAL has recently undertaken its latest master-planning exercise, which sets the direction for growth and development of the Airport over the next 30 years. That was a comprehensive process involving a number of internationally recognised consultants. The primary outcome from that exercise is the need to increase the operational length of the proposed northern runway to meet the predicted needs of passengers and freight.

D. In order to reflect predicted future levels of aircraft noise from aircraft operations using the northern runway, AIAL sought to expand the aircraft noise areas for land use planning purposes through its submission on Unitary Plan.

E. In the usual case, the changes sought to the aircraft noise areas would be undertaken at the same time as any necessary alterations to the conditions attaching to the designations are made. However, in 2013, when the Council required AIAL to provide notice of any modifications to its designations, AIAL had not yet completed the requisite modelling to make those changes to its designation.

F. After the Unitary Plan was notified and before primary submissions closed, the necessary aircraft noise modelling and other work had been completed, which enabled AIAL to lodge its submission seeking changes to the aircraft noise areas. In my view, it would have been irresponsible for AIAL to remain silent on the implications of its comprehensive master-planning exercise through the Unitary Plan when major decisions on future urban growth are being made.

G. Analysis of the residential areas affected by the changes has confirmed that they are relatively small and only a small number of residential properties have development potential beyond the density controls proposed within the Aircraft Noise Overlay provisions.

H. In relation to the objectives, policies and rules relating to the Auckland Airport Precinct, I consider that there are some amendments required to enable the continued growth and development of Auckland Airport by recognising the need for some "bespoke" objectives, policies and rules relating to natural resources and specific parking requirements.

2801108 3 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

The detailed reasons for these amendments are explained in the evidence of Mr Seyb, Mr McKenzie and Mr Collier.

I. I support the amendment to Objective 6 of the Auckland Airport Precinct Objectives and policies to introduce reference to spiritual as well as cultural values and the amendment to Policy 15 highlighting the need for development within the Mangere Gateway sub-precinct to recognise and provide for the relationship of mana whenua with their ancestral lands, water, sites, and waahi tapu and other Taonga.

J. I also consider that provision should be made in the Auckland Airport Precinct rules for development control infringements rather than relying on the generic provisions in Rule G2.3. In addition, there are some further minor amendments required to the Auckland Airport Precinct rules to correct minor anomalies I have identified in the mediation record, as detailed in my evidence.

K. I support the agreed amendments to the Designations as recorded in the mediation record including those to address the concerns expressed in the Te Ākitai Waiohua Waka Taua Trust's submissions and in pre-mediation meetings with regard to Designation 1100. I also support the refinements sought by Te Ākitai post-mediation regarding their request for two mana whenua representatives on the Aircraft Noise Community Consultative Group. These amendments and refinements are included in the version of Designation 1100 attached as Annexure 7.

L In my opinion, amendments are required to the Unitary Plan provisions in order to ensure Auckland Airport is able to continue supporting the social and economic well being of the community by way of necessary growth and development of the Airport. The amended planning framework as proposed by AIAL, and set out in my statement of evidence, reflects sound planning practice and will appropriately provide for the long-term future capacity of the Airport.

2801108 4 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

1. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

1.1 My full name is Gregory John Osborne. I am a Director of Osborne Hay (South) Limited, a Planning and Resource Management Consultancy practice based in Auckland.

1.2 I have the qualification of Bachelor of Town Planning obtained from Auckland University in 1979 and I have been a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute since 1984. I was elected as a Councillor for the Auckland/Northland Region and served on the National Council of the Institute between 2008 and 2010.

1.3 I have worked as a planner in local government and private practice since 1979 and during that period I have had extensive experience in district and regional plan preparation and the preparation and processing of resource consent applications and notices of requirement for designations.

1.4 In recent years I have also developed significant experience in resource management and planning processes related to the District Plan controls on aircraft noise and related land use controls on activities sensitive to aircraft noise in the vicinity of airports.

1.5 In particular, in 2000 - 2001 I participated in the mediated settlement of a range of appeals, on behalf of Manukau City Council, in relation to the provisions of the Manukau District Plan relating to AIAL. That work involved assisting with drafting district plan rules which ultimately formed the basis of the Environment Court consent order resolving appeals relating to the Airport.

1.6 Subsequently, I have provided planning advice to AIAL over a number of years. I gave evidence to the Environment Court on the company's behalf in the case Independent News Auckland Limited and Auckland International Airport Limited v Manukau City Council,1 in which the key issue was reverse sensitivity to aircraft noise. I also gave evidence for the Airport in relation to Change 13 to the Auckland Regional Policy

1 10 ELRNZ 16.

2801108 5 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

Statement (MUL change) and Manukau Plan Change 14 (to rezone the land to the north of the second runway from rural to business). I continue to provide planning assistance and advice to the company on a wide range of planning issues including reverse sensitivity to aircraft noise. My further experience in relation to other airports in New Zealand is set out in Annexure 1.

1.7 In respect of the Unitary Plan, I was engaged by AIAL in early 2012, in advance of the Council seeking (in May 2012) modifications to roll over designations and publication of the draft Unitary Plan. I was involved with the review of feedback on the rolled over designation provisions included in the draft Unitary Plan and the preparation of AIAL's public feedback in respect of the draft Unitary Plan provisions relating to the Auckland Airport Precinct. I was also involved in the subsequent preparation of AIAL's submissions on the Unitary Plan in February 2014, and further submissions in July 2014. I attended all of the mediations on Topic 045 - Airport.

1.8 I confirm that I have read the Expert Witness Code of Conduct set out in the Environment Court's Practice Note 2014. I have complied with the Code of Conduct in preparing this evidence and I agree to comply with it while giving oral evidence before the Hearings Panel. Except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person, this written evidence is within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed in this evidence.

2. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

2.1 My evidence provides an overview of Auckland Airport's proposed changes to the Unitary Plan to implement its latest planning for the long-term future capacity of the Airport, but primarily focuses on the outstanding issues following mediation.

2801108 6 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

3. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED UNITARY PLAN CHANGES

Auckland Airport's Long Term Planning

3.1 In this section of my evidence I rely on the evidence of Mr Colgrave from Insight Economics as to the economic benefits which will accrue from the implementation of AIAL's long term airport development plans. The full explanation of AIAL's masterplanning processes and outcomes relating to the future growth of the airport are contained in the evidence of Mr Matthews. I also rely on the expert acoustic evidence of Mr Day who explains how the aircraft noise areas contained in AIAL's submission were generated in accordance with the New Zealand Standard for Airport Noise Management and Land Use Planning ("NZS 6805:1992").

3.2 In essence, the key outcomes from the masterplanning process that are relevant in terms of the Unitary Plan are:

(a) There is the need to accommodate a northern runway of 3040 metres operational length instead of the current 2150 metre operational length currently authorised by Designation 1100.

(b) In order to accommodate a sufficient number of gates in the future airport terminal and to optimise future airfield ground operations in terms of the large wide bodied aircraft (Code F), such as the Airbus A380 expected to use the Airport, the centreline of the proposed northern runway will need to move 72 metres to the north.

(c) In order to avoid the need for significant reclamation of the Manukau Harbour, the increased runway length will need to be accommodated to the east of the 2150 metre northern runway currently referred to in Condition 3 of Designation 1100.

(d) The above changes result in the need for amended aircraft noise areas in the Aircraft Noise Overlay to reflect predicted

2801108 7 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

aircraft noise from future aircraft operations using the northern runway.

Implementation through the Unitary Plan

3.3 In 2012, the Council requested AIAL provide it with final notices of any modifications to designations by July 2013 for inclusion within the Unitary Plan. At that time AIAL was working through the implications of its forecasts of long term growth in aircraft movements and the likely future aircraft mix. It had not completed that highly technical exercise and had not undertaken aircraft noise modelling of the various runway operating scenarios it was considering to optimise future airport development and capacity necessary to inform a modified designation. As a result, it had not had time to consider the effects of those various scenarios on activities sensitive to aircraft noise in the community. This situation was explained in discussions with various Council staff at the time.

3.4 However, in the period after the Unitary Plan was notified in late September 2013 and before primary submissions closed in late February 2014, the operating scenario that balanced future airport operating efficiency and capacity with mitigation of adverse aircraft noise effects on the community (including a desire to avoid night time flights over residential areas of Papatoetoe) and other environmental factors, had been selected, and aircraft noise modelling of that scenario had occurred. That enabled AIAL to lodge a submission on the notified Unitary Plan to ensure the latest information on future aircraft noise exposures could be taken into account when potentially far-reaching land use planning decisions about future urban growth and residential intensification in South Auckland were being taken in the context of the Unitary Plan.

3.5 I confirm that I have reviewed the options / scenarios considered by AIAL and agree that the scenario used to inform the AIAL submission will best promote the statutory purpose of the RMA. It will manage the use of the Airport and surrounding land uses in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while sustaining the

2801108 8 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

potential of the natural and physical resources of the Airport and surrounding area to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations of New Zealanders and overseas visitors. It will do this while safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems and avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of the Airport on the amenity of surrounding areas and any reverse sensitivity effects of development within the surrounding area on the Airport.

3.6 In the usual case, the changes to aircraft noise areas shown on the planning maps, and implemented by plan rules, would be undertaken at the same time as any necessary alterations to the conditions attaching to the designations which enable aircraft to make that level of noise within those areas. However, the timetable for the Unitary Plan preparation and decision making process, which is not ideal in terms of enabling AIAL to discharge its responsibilities to both the local community and the international and national aviation and tourism industries, did not allow that to happen.

3.7 In my opinion, it would have been irresponsible for AIAL to remain silent on the implications of its growth plans through the Unitary Plan process when major land use planning decisions on future urban growth and future residential intensification in South Auckland are being made. This could have resulted in planning decisions being made that exposed larger numbers of future residents, students or school children to higher levels of aircraft noise in the future than would be the case if land use restrictions reflecting AIAL's latest carefully prepared aviation growth plans were in place. For example, it is known that owners of rural land, now predicted to be exposed to high levels of aircraft noise in the future, are seeking residential zoning as part of the Unitary Plan process. It is also known that other submitters such as Housing New Zealand ("Housing NZ") are seeking rules to allow residential intensification of their existing landholdings within areas that are already identified as being exposed to high and moderate levels of aircraft noise, in addition to proposed new moderate aircraft noise areas. Clearly, it would be very undesirable for those decisions to be made in an information vacuum in terms of

2801108 9 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

future aircraft noise predictions. In my view, that would be the antithesis of sound planning.

3.8 Further it is clear that the proposed RPS and particularly policies B3.2 (7) and B3.3 (6) (set out in full in Annexure 2 to my evidence) anticipate that (as well as protecting existing significant infrastructure) significant "planned infrastructure" and "future...air flight paths" must be protected from reverse sensitivity effects "...so they can meet future passenger and/or freight and trade demand". In my view, the AIAL submission seeking that provision is made for future airport growth by ensuring that land use planning avoids reverse sensitivity effects on the "planned infrastructure" of the northern runway, and the "future air flight paths" associated with that runway, is giving effect to the RPS. On this latter point I would reiterate that my analysis of the airport's master planning process is that it represents a long term and rational commitment to growing the airport in line with the social and economic needs of Auckland. As such, it can be safely relied on by the Hearings Panel as qualifying as properly and soundly "planned infrastructure" anticipated by the proposed RPS.

Proposed Unitary Plan Framework

3.9 In discussing the Unitary Plan framework relating to AIAL it is important to distinguish between:

(a) the Airport Designations (Designations 1100, 1101 and 1102) which provide for the operation of the aeronautical functions of the airport and other directly related activities and which contain conditions and restrictions on (amongst other matters) noise from aircraft operations (conditions 5-8 and 13);

(b) the objectives, policies and rules in the Aircraft Noise Overlay which contain land use restrictions within the aircraft noise areas designed to ensure that Activities Sensitive to Aircraft Noise ("ASAN") are avoided in the High Aircraft Noise Area ("HANA") around the Airport and are avoided in the Moderate Aircraft Noise Area ("MANA") unless the effects of such

2801108 10 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

activities can be adequately remedied or mitigated through restrictions on the numbers of people exposed to aircraft noise in the external environment and through providing acoustic treatment of buildings containing those ASAN (Rules J1.2); and

(c) the objectives, policies and rules within the Auckland Airport Precinct which provide for the full range of activities (generally excluding those that are provided for within Designation 1100) that occur within that Precinct.

Regional Policy Statement

3.10 The Unitary Plan as notified contains a number of proposed RPS objectives and policies which are relevant to the consideration of the Aircraft Noise Overlay and Auckland Airport Precinct objectives, policies and rules. While the Panel has yet to issue a detailed decision on the precise wording of these notified objectives and policies, I have reviewed the mediation record and evidence for the relevant objectives and policies and do not consider there are any significant changes being proposed by any party to the general thrust of those objectives and policies as notified. The relevant RPS objectives and policies are set out in Annexure 2 to my evidence.

3.11 This is a comprehensive suite of proposed RPS objectives and policies which, pursuant to sections 67(3) and 75(3) of the RMA, must be given effect to in the regional and district plan objectives, policies and rules. In its interim guidance in relation to Section B3.2, the Independent Hearings Panel does not appear to be contemplating any significant changes to the objectives and policies quoted above apart from noting its view that there is generally no need to distinguish between "significant infrastructure" and other types of infrastructure, and that the RPS should recognise that infrastructure may be located in sensitive areas where there is a functional need for it to do so or there is some technical or operational need in the circumstances for such a location.

2801108 11 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

3.12 The consistently repeated key themes of these objectives and policies in the context of Auckland Airport are:

(b) The need to make provision for the future growth of the Airport as well as its existing capacity by protecting existing and planned future infrastructure from reverse sensitivity effects; and

3.13 In my view, the versions of the objectives, policies and rules of the Auckland Airport Precinct and the Aircraft Noise Overlay which have been largely agreed with Auckland Council and other submitters (apart from Housing NZ) and which are appended to my evidence, give effect to these proposed RPS objectives and policies.

4. AIRPORT ZONE AND AIRPORT APPROACH PATH OVERLAY

4.1 I support the provisions of the underlying Airport Zone and Airport Approach Path Overlay which have been largely agreed by parties participating in the mediation and consider that the agreed provisions are the most appropriate in terms of sections 32 / 32AA. However, as stated in the introduction to the Airport Zone objectives, policies and rules, the zone provisions do not apply to the Auckland Airport Precinct. Similarly, the Approach Path Overlay is replaced by the provisions of Designation 1102 in the case of Auckland Airport.

2801108 12 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

5. AUCKLAND AIRPORT PRECINCT

5.1 There are three sub-precincts within the Auckland Airport Precinct:

(a) the Airport Core sub-precinct;

(b) the Airport Gateway sub-precinct; and

5.2 The location and relative size of the three sub-precincts are shown on the Plan in Annexure 3 to my evidence. The Core sub-precinct encompasses all of the AIAL land surrounding the existing runway and proposed northern runway that is or will be used for airport operations and associated purposes. It contains a wide range of activities commensurate with a modern airport environment.

5.3 The Gateway sub-precinct includes all of the AIAL land to the north of the proposed northern runway and forms an interface with industrial zoned land to the north as well as containing ecologically and culturally sensitive areas which abut the Oruarangi Creek that have been protected by public open space zoning.

5.4 The predominant land use activities in this sub-precinct at present include warehousing and distribution, transport, storage, manufacturing and wholesale trade. Retail and standalone office activities are strictly limited by the sub-precinct rules.

5.5 The Coastal sub-precinct comprises the Airport's operational area within the Coastal Marine Area and makes provision for activities and structures associated with the operation of the Airport including bird management areas, navigation aids and emergency rescue activities, while prohibiting certain other activities that are likely to adversely affect the safe operation of aircraft in the sub-precinct.

5.6 In terms of Section 32 of the RMA, I confirm that I support the range of activities agreed at mediation in each sub-precinct (subject to the resolution of the outstanding matters identified below) as well as the extent of the sub-precincts themselves. I consider that the objectives of the Auckland Airport Precinct are the most appropriate way to

2801108 13 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

achieve the purpose of the RMA and the policies and rules of the Precinct are the most appropriate way to achieve those objectives because they:

(a) enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety by providing for growth of the aeronautical, business and associated functions of the Airport, while recognising the values of mana whenua in Airport development;

(b) sustain the potential of the natural and physical resources of the Airport to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations of New Zealanders in terms of international and domestic travel and business opportunities as well as the needs of overseas visitors to New Zealand; and

(c) sustain the potential of the Airport to act as a hub for warehousing, freight forwarding and other distribution related businesses in Auckland.

Outstanding matters

5.7 With regard to Auckland Airport objectives, policies and rules, almost all matters were resolved either prior to or at mediation with other submitters. The principal matter which has not yet been agreed is whether certain Auckland-wide objectives, policies and rules for natural resources and parking should apply to the Auckland Airport Precinct or whether those matters should be subject to "bespoke" provisions which take into account the unique circumstances of the Precinct.

5.8 With regard to these matters, I rely on and agree with the evidence of Mr Seyb, Mr McKenzie and Mr Collier. The provisions they have proposed in their evidence have been incorporated in the marked-up version of the Auckland Airport Precinct rules included in Annexure 4 to this evidence.

2801108 14 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

5.9 AIAL also seeks that any activity listed within the Precinct activity table as a permitted activity that does not comply with a development control within Rule K6.3.5 should be listed as a restricted discretionary activity. Provision for this is shown in the Activity Table in Rule K6.3.1 in Annexure 4. The development controls in question relate to height, height in relation to boundary, yards, landscape design and storage areas. Given that the interim guidance from the Panel suggests it is not yet satisfied that the proposed rule G2.3 (which was intended to deal with this matter in an Auckland-wide context) is the most appropriate rule for the purpose, I consider that the rule proposed by AIAL is the most appropriate rule in the circumstances of the Airport. This is because the Auckland Airport precinct-specific development control infringements rule is more attuned to the specific circumstances of the Airport and is therefore inherently more effects- based, than a generic development control infringement rule applying to all zones and precincts irrespective of scale or context.

5.10 The mediated version of the Precinct rules already contains matters of discretion (Rule K6.3.8.1.3 in Annexure 4) and associated assessment criteria (Rule K6.3.8.1.4 in Annexure 4) which address these development control infringements in the Auckland Airport context. For example, one assessment criterion for any activity which does not meet the landscape standard is "...when assessing landscape design, the proposal should achieve a high standard of visual amenity values in those parts of the Auckland Airport precinct where visitors and passengers are likely to be present, such as the entry and exit points to the airport...".

5.11 One anomaly which was overlooked at mediation is the matter of discretion in rule K6.3.8.1.3 identifying "measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of noise" as relevant to the exercise of Council's discretion. Noise controls are listed as land use controls rather than development controls in the precinct. Noise has no apparent relationship with any of the development controls mentioned above and should be deleted, in my opinion. It is not appropriate to have a discretion that does not relate to any of the matters over which that discretion is exercised, especially when elsewhere in the Plan

2801108 15 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

issues of noise and acoustic amenity are comprehensively addressed. I have shown that as crossed out in Annexure 4.

5.12 I also note that the agreed amendments to the Precinct rules provided for Billboards as a controlled activity in the Gateway sub-precinct. However, the inclusion of development controls, matters of control and assessment criteria for billboards in the Gateway sub-precinct was overlooked at mediation. I have included suggested text in Rule K6.3.7.1.4 and K6.3.7.2.4of Annexure 4 to remedy this oversight.

5.13 I support the amendments in Annexure 4 (see Rule K6.3.5.3) to address the concerns expressed in the Te Ākitai Waiohua Waka Taua Trust's submissions and in pre and post-mediation meetings.

5.14 I have also included in Annexure 4 the proposed amendments to the mediation text for the Auckland Airport Precinct objectives, policies and rules. In terms of Section 32AA, Mr Collier and Mr Seyb in their evidence have covered the reasons why they consider the "bespoke" natural resources objective, policy and rules they have recommended more appropriately and efficiently resolve the tension between a highly specialised infrastructure-based Auckland Airport precinct with specific and unusual constraints and requirements and the wish of the Council to have Auckland – wide objectives, policies and rules in respect of those matters. I agree with those reasons.

5.15 Similarly, Mr McKenzie has explained in his evidence why he recommends that Auckland wide parking rules should not apply in the Auckland Airport Precinct and has suggested a more efficient and effective means of achieving the policy of providing parking for activities related to the operation and development of the airport and surrounding business land. In particular, he highlights that the responsibilities that AIAL has as a road controlling authority under the Land Transport Act 1988 put it in a unique position of being able to manage the effects of parking on its private road network, especially in the Airport Core sub-precinct which does not interface directly with parking on surrounding publicly owned roads. I agree with his conclusions in this regard. The relevant provision is in rule K.6.3.5.6 in Annexure 4.

2801108 16 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

5.16 In respect of the changes to the Unitary Plan that I recommend above, my analysis is that the Panel should prefer them as being the most appropriate in terms of section 32 of the RMA because:

(a) An Auckland Airport precinct-specific development control infringements rule (Rule K6.3.5) is more attuned to the specific circumstances of the Airport than a generic development control infringement rule applying to all zones and precincts irrespective of scale or context and more efficiently achieves the policy requiring "...a high standard of amenity in the layout of buildings, car parking, access and landscape elements in publicly accessible areas".

(b) Similarly, the deletion of the part of rule K6.3.8.1.3 identifying "measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of noise" as a matter for Council's discretion and the introduction of specific matters of control and assessment criteria for billboards in the Gateway sub-precinct will allow the efficient and effective achievement of that policy.

(c) The amendment to Objective 6 to introduce reference to spiritual as well as cultural values and the amendment to Policy 15 highlighting the need for development within the Mangere Gateway sub-precinct to "...recognise and provide for take into account the relationship of mana whenua with their ancestral lands, water, sites, and waahi tapu and other Taonga" is in my view a more appropriate means of achieving the statutory purpose of the RMA by providing a clearer reflection of the wording of section 6(e) of the RMA.

(d) Similarly, the amendment proposed in Annexure 4 to Rule K.6.3.5.3 which increased the proposed coastal protection yard from 10 to 20 metres is an appropriate method to assist in the achievement of the amended objective and policy.

2801108 17 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

6. AUCKLAND AIRPORT'S DESIGNATIONS

6.1 There are three designations which relate to the operations of Auckland Airport. These are:

(a) Designation 1100 – this designation covers the principal Auckland Airport area and contains conditions and restrictions relating to aircraft operations from the Airport. Annexure 5 contains a diagram showing the extent of Designation 1100.

(b) Designation 1101 – this designation covers a much smaller area in the north-western quadrant of Auckland Airport and is more restricted in its scope (being largely restricted to aircraft operations and maintenance activities) and contains various conditions requiring heritage and landscape protections including a landscape buffer between airport activities and activities on adjacent land. Annexure 5 contains a diagram showing the extent of Designation 1101 and the landscape buffer.

(c) Designation 1102 – this designation includes the obstacle limitation surface, runway end protection area and non- aeronautical light restrictions which ensure aviation safety is maintained in respect of ground based objects and structures. The designation has several components:

(i) Figure 1 in Annexure 6 shows the extent of the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces which are defined surfaces in the airspace above and adjacent to the Airport. These Obstacle Limitation Surfaces are necessary to enable aircraft to maintain a satisfactory level of safety while manoeuvring at low altitude in the vicinity of the Airport. The designation restrictions do not apply to objects located beneath the obstacle limitation surfaces identified on Figure 1. Outside the Airport Precinct, the Obstacle Limitation Surface is generally set at a height which

2801108 18 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

would be well above maximum permitted height in the underlying zones.

(ii) In addition, Designation 1102 requires that no chimney shall discharge effluent through the Approach Slopes shown on Figure 2 in Annexure 6 at a velocity in excess of 4.3 metres per second as thermal release higher than this might endanger aviation safety.

(iii) The Runway End Protection Areas (REPAs) shown on Figure 3 in Annexure 6, are areas off the ends of both the existing and proposed second runways which are required to be free of obstructions or activities which could interfere with aeronautical navigational aids or aviation safety.

(iv) The CAA requires that any non-aeronautical ground light which, might cause confusion or prevent the clear interpretation of aeronautical ground lights, should be modified so as to eliminate such a possibility. The area affected by this restriction is shown in Figure 4 in Annexure 6.

6.2 Following minor amendments made at mediation, I understand that there are no outstanding issues in terms of submissions affecting either Designation 1101 or 1102. I summarise the outstanding issues relating to Designation 1100 below.

Designation 1100

6.3 At mediation a number of (mostly minor) amendments to the text of Designation 1100 were agreed. AIAL also agreed not to pursue its submission seeking the deletion of condition 10(m) of the designation requiring AIAL to make an offer to subsidise acoustic treatment of new public schools and preschools establishing in the Moderate Aircraft Noise Area.

2801108 19 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

6.4 I support the amendments to the Designation as recorded in the mediation record to address the concerns expressed in the Te Ākitai Waiohua Waka Taua Trust's submissions and in pre-mediation meetings. I also support the refinements sought by Te Ākitai post- mediation regarding their request for two mana whenua representatives on the Aircraft Noise Community Consultative Group ("ANCCG"). These amendments and refinements are included in the version of Designation 1100 attached as Annexure 7 (see conditions 14, 15 and 16 and Attachment A of the Designation).

6.5 Auckland The Plane Truth Incorporated ("Plane Truth") seeks that there be reference in Designation 1100 condition 5 (Noise from Aircraft Operations) to Civil Aviation Rule Part 93.65. This was not agreed by AIAL, the Board of Airline Representatives of NZ or Auckland Council.

6.6 In my opinion, it would be inappropriate to insert a reference to Civil Aviation Authority ("CAA") Rule Part 93.65 in Designation 1100. This rule states that, in respect of Auckland International Airport:

Each pilot in command of a turbo-jet or turbo-fan powered aeroplane shall, between the hours of 2300 and 0600 local time, use runway 23 for takeoff and runway 05 for landing unless:

(1) the tailwind component is more than 5knots; or

(2) compliance with the aeroplane performance operating limitations requires the use of the other runway direction;

(3) otherwise instructed by Air Traffic Control.

6.7 It is clear that the rule, promulgated by the CAA, places an obligation on the "pilot in command" under certain circumstances to approach or depart the Airport from or to the west (over the Manukau Harbour) between the hours of 11pm and 6am. In my view, it would be inappropriate and potentially ultra vires for a requiring authority to refer in its designation to a rule for which the CAA is responsible and which could be subject to change at any time by the CAA. Auckland Airport would have no ability to enforce a CAA rule and, in any event, should not do so as it would be interfering in decisions involving aviation

2801108 20 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

safety best made by the pilot and the air traffic control authorities in the circumstances applying at the time.

6.8 Plane Truth, Epsom Preservation Society and K Kevany have also requested a range of detailed changes to the Terms of Reference for the ANCCG which is required to be established and maintained by condition 9 of the Designation. Some of these changes were agreed with AIAL and BARNZ but a number were not. Mr Matthews has addressed this matter in his evidence.

6.9 A copy of AIAL's proposed amendments to the mediation version of Designation 1100 is attached as Annexure 7.

7. AIRCRAFT NOISE OVERLAY

Reverse Sensitivity Effects

7.1 Reverse sensitivity effects in the planning context are well recognised. In the case where I was an expert witness for Auckland Airport, Independent News Auckland Limited and Auckland International Airport Limited v Manukau City Council,2 the Environment Court stated at Paragraph 57 that "...reverse sensitivity as a concept, although not specifically referred to in the Act, has been recognised as an effect which requires consideration".

7.2 The application of the concept of reverse sensitivity is clearly demonstrated by past events at other airports. At Sydney's Kingsford Smith International Airport, for example, the constraints imposed by residential and other sensitive activities in surrounding suburbs have led to the imposition of curfews and numerous complex and inefficient aircraft operating procedures as well as ultimately a recent political decision to proceed with a second major airport at Badgery's Creek on the outskirts of western Sydney. Similarly, at Wellington Airport a night time curfew (in addition to a short runway) significantly limits the Airport's capacity and utility to the regional and national economy.

2 10 ELRNZ 16.

2801108 21 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

7.3 Auckland Airport, despite being in a location that was originally planned to avoid land use conflicts, has not been immune to these reverse sensitivity effects. Recently, a number of complaints were received when airlines adopted new operating procedures to reduce aircraft fuel burn and carbon emissions (the "Smart Approaches" trial). Despite expert acoustic advice that aircraft noise was significantly less than that recognised as problematic in NZS 6805:1992, sufficient numbers of people became annoyed enough to seek that various restrictions be placed on Auckland Airport through the Unitary Plan process.

NZS 6805:1992

7.4 In 1992, the Standards Association of New Zealand published NZS 6805:1992 with a view to providing a consistent approach to noise planning around New Zealand airports. NZS 6805:1992 was finalised after several years of preparation and consultation, including with the Ministry of Transport, the Department of Health, Airline representatives, Local Authorities, residents' action groups, acoustic consultants and others.

7.5 The evidence of Mr Day outlines the recommendations and interpretation of NZS 6805:1992 which uses the "Noise Boundary" concept as a mechanism for local authorities to:

(a) establish compatible land use planning around an airport through restrictions on ASAN; and

(b) set noise limits for the management of aircraft noise at airports.

7.6 The Noise Boundary concept involves fixing an "Outer Control

Boundary" (OCB) at the Ldn 55 dB level and a smaller, much closer

"Air Noise Boundary" (ANB) at the Ldn 65 dB level around New Zealand airports. Table 1 in clause 1.8.2 of NZS 6805:1992 recommends that inside the ANB (i.e. in areas exposed to aircraft

noise more than 65 dB Ldn), new noise sensitive uses (including residential activities and educational facilities) are "prohibited". It also

2801108 22 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

recommends that steps are to be taken to provide appropriate acoustic treatment in the case of existing noise sensitive uses within the ANB.

7.7 It is important to recognise that NZS 6805:1992 does not recommend acoustic treatment as a default position for new noise sensitive activities inside the ANB. If that was the case then all that the Standard would require was a given internal sound level (e.g. 40 dB

Ldn) for all new activities. In recognition that nothing can be done about aircraft noise in the external environment and the amenity issues that arise as a result, it recommends a land use planning approach.

7.8 In summary, NZS 6805:1992 is based on the generally agreed

position that noise levels above 65 dB Ldn (the HANA at AIAL) are

unacceptable for ASAN and noise levels below 55 dB Ldn are

generally acceptable. Noise levels between 55 dB Ldn and 65 dB Ldn (the Aircraft Noise Notification Area ("ANNA") and the MANA at AIAL) are regarded as undesirable and should be avoided wherever possible. While it is possible to acoustically insulate and mechanically ventilate buildings containing ASAN to reduce internal noise levels to acceptable levels, it needs to be recognised that no amount of acoustic insulation of buildings will improve the amenity of the acoustic environment in resident's backyards or in outdoor spaces at educational facilities frequented by students and staff.

7.9 NZS 6805:1992 recognises that land use planning is an effective way to minimise population exposure to noise around airports. Uncontrolled development of ASAN (as defined in the Unitary Plan) such as residential activities and educational facilities around an airport can unnecessarily expose residents and students to high levels of noise and can also, over the longer term, constrain, by public pressure as a response to noise, the operation of Airports.

2801108 23 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

The Aircraft Noise Overlay in the Unitary Plan

7.10 In recognition of NZS 6805:1992 and to give effect to the proposed RPS objectives and policies3 , the Unitary Plan contains Aircraft Noise Overlay objectives, policies and rules. I support these objectives, policies and rules as agreed at mediation.

7.11 In this context it is worth noting that Auckland Airport, while being indisputably the most important airport in New Zealand, is less protected from reverse sensitivity effects than, the other Airports in Auckland, particularly in the MANA as set out below.

MANA

7.12 With particular reference to the rules of the Aircraft Noise Overlay, as agreed with the Council and all submitters (other than Housing NZ),

new ASAN between the 55dB Ldn and 60dB Ldn contours are restricted discretionary activities around Ardmore Airport, North Shore Airport, Kaipara Flats Airfield and Whenuapai Airbase and require acoustic treatment paid for by the developer, whereas around Auckland Airport new ASAN within those same contours (ie the ANNA at Auckland Airport) are permitted activities and are not subject to any specific acoustic treatment requirements paid for by the developer.

7.13 Similarly, new ASAN between the 60dB Ldn and 65dB Ldn contours are restricted discretionary activities around North Shore Airport, Kaipara Flats Airfield and Whenuapai Airbase, and full discretionary activities around Ardmore Airport (Housing NZ seeks that this consent status be restricted discretionary), whereas around Auckland Airport new ASAN within those same contours (i.e. the MANA) are permitted activities (subject to acoustic treatment) unless density exceeds 1 dwelling per 400m2 or the maximum density controls and/or minimum site size for the MANA within the Flatbush Precinct is exceeded. These density controls generally reflect those existing for permitted activities in the same areas under the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section).

3 Policy B2.3(7), Objective B3.2(6), Policies B2.3(7), B3.3(1) and B3.3 (3), quote in full in Annexure 2 of my evidence.

2801108 24 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

7.14 This divergence of approach is a reflection of the acknowledgement by Auckland Airport of the need to balance the protection of New Zealand's international gateway with the need to achieve urban and residential intensification and affordable housing in Auckland, and South Auckland in particular.

7.15 In my opinion, there cannot be any further compromise in respect of this matter if the amenity of future residents and the future growth of the Airport and the contribution it makes to the Auckland and New Zealand economy are not to be put in jeopardy. The Aircraft Noise Overlay areas in the notified Unitary Plan and the modified areas proposed by AIAL in its submission impose land use restrictions which are very limited in extent when compared to the amount of urban and residential zoned land available for such intensification in Auckland in general and South Auckland in particular.

7.16 In this context, it is difficult to understand Housing NZ's opposition to the restricted discretionary status for dwellings exceeding the 1:400 density control in the MANA, when it is recorded in the mediation statement as seeking restricted discretionary status for all ASAN (including dwellings irrespective of the density of the residential development) within the Inner Control Boundary around Ardmore Airport which has exactly the same aircraft noise exposure (i.e.

between the 60 and 65 dB Ldn noise contours) as the MANA at Auckland Airport. I have been unable to identify any environmental effect or other valid planning reason that would lead to Housing NZ holding such divergent views on the same matter.

HANA

7.17 It is essential that in the relatively small areas (see Map 14A in Annexure D to Mr Day's evidence) which are, or are predicted to be, affected by the highest levels of aircraft noise (i.e. greater than 65dB

Ldn) around Auckland Airport the establishment of new ASAN is completely avoided. I therefore support the Council's proposed prohibited activity status for new ASAN in these areas. Exposure to aircraft noise in this area is not appropriate in any scenario, hence the prohibited activity status is, in my opinion, the correct one in light of

2801108 25 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

the health and safety effects likely to be imposed on such residents. While provision for additions and alterations to existing dwellings under certain circumstances may be considered appropriate (e.g. the addition of a living room to an existing dwelling is a restricted discretionary activity in the HANA), the general principle should be to limit the number of people exposed to the high levels of aircraft noise and to transition existing residential areas from residential use towards industrial or commercial uses that are less sensitive to aircraft noise.

7.18 In relation to the last point, the operative Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) contains just such an undertaking to pursue a transition to business zoning by stating at clause 17.6.5 as follows:

Areas of the City currently affected by aircraft noise arising from the use of the existing runway will continue to be affected. The degree to which some areas are affected may increase over time. In particular, there is an area within the Main Residential Zone which is bounded by Puhinui Road in the north, the NIMT in the west and the Grayson/Brett Avenue and Liverpool Avenue Business 5 land in the east and south which is and will continue to be within the High Aircraft Noise Area. Long term it is not desirable that this area remain zoned for residential purposes. It is the Council's intention to initiate a plan change and, subject to the outcome of that change, to set in place a programme to assist the transition of the area from residential to business zoning. It is envisaged that the Council would work with property owners and residents and other stakeholders in the area to ensure that any such transition is as smooth as possible.

7.19 This undertaking has not been implemented by the Council in the Unitary Plan and the subject area remains zoned residential (Single House Zone) in the notified Unitary Plan, although AIAL has lodged a submission seeking that it be rezoned Light Industrial zone. That matter is not included in Topic 045 but the Council has included some transitional activities which are not ASAN for residential zoned land (i.e. commercial services, dairies, food and beverage services, show homes, storage and lock up facilities) within the HANA with a view to initiating a transition to non-residential activities in the area. While I do not consider this to be a complete response to the issue, I support it as a step in the right direction. I note that it was agreed at mediation that "show homes" should be listed as a controlled activity in the residential zones to ensure some control over the potential for them to be ultimately used for residential purposes, but that the inclusion of matters for control and associated assessment criteria were

2801108 26 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

overlooked. I have added text to Rules J1.2.5.1.5 and J 1.2.5.2.5 to rectify that omission.

7.20 Similarly, it may be appropriate in certain unusual circumstances (i.e. where there is demonstrably no reliance on or expectation of external acoustic amenity in the external environment) to provide for new tertiary education facilities, and or the limited extension and alteration to other forms of ASAN, as a non-complying activity.

7.21 New ASAN in the relatively limited areas (see Map 14A in Annexure D to Mr Day's evidence) which are, or are predicted to be, subject to Moderate Aircraft Noise (i.e. the MANA, between 60 and 65dBLdn) should, in my view, be avoided unless the effects of those ASAN can be adequately remedied or mitigated through restrictions on the numbers of people exposed to aircraft noise in the external environment and through providing acoustic treatment (including mechanical ventilation) of buildings containing ASAN. I therefore support the Aircraft Noise Overlay objectives and policies relating to Auckland Airport as agreed with all parties except Housing NZ at mediation and consider that within the MANA, all ASAN, other than new dwellings in a residential zone, should be a discretionary activity, and that new dwellings in a residential zone should be a restricted discretionary activity if they exceed an average density of one dwelling per 400m2.

7.22 This rule will allow an assessment of a potentially wide range of non- residential ASAN to be made in the context of their particular circumstances (through the discretionary activity process) without restricting the Council's discretion, while allowing for a more efficient and targeted restricted discretionary assessment in the context of dwellings in the MANA which exceed density controls. In my view, this is the most effective, efficient and appropriate means of implementing the policy of restricting the numbers of people exposed to aircraft noise in the external environment. This approach has been discussed and agreed in pre-mediation meetings with Hugh Green Group Limited which is a major residential land developer in the

2801108 27 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

MANA. Housing NZ did not agree to this approach in pre-mediation discussions or at mediation.

7.23 I attach as Annexure 8 the agreed (except with Housing NZ) mediation version of the Aircraft Noise Overlay objectives, policies and rules.

Changes to Aircraft Noise Areas in AIAL Submission

7.24 In sections 3.2 - 3.8 of my evidence I have set out the reasons why AIAL has sought to amend the noise areas forming part of the Aircraft Noise Overlay in its submission and the reason for the timing of that action.

7.25 Here, I will briefly discuss the practical implications from a planning perspective.

HANA

7.26 The increased extent of the HANA resulting from the AIAL submission is shown on the plans in Annexure 9. The plans also show the underlying zoning of the land in question. It can be seen from this that the extension to the HANA only affects land in the vicinity of the proposed northern runway which is proposed to be zoned Airport, Light Industry, Future Urban and Rural Production in the Unitary Plan as notified. A land use survey of the area has confirmed that there are only two existing dwellings (and no other ASAN) within this area. With regard to the Future Urban area mentioned above, it can be seen from the maps in Annexure 9 that it is a very small corner of the land currently occupied by Ellett's Quarry. The type of urban activity to be developed on the land is yet to be determined but given its very close proximity to land designated by AIAL for aircraft maintenance purposes, it would be highly unlikely that it was developed for ASAN.

MANA

7.27 The increased extent of the MANA resulting from the AIAL submission is shown on the plans in Annexure 10. The plans also show the underlying zoning of the land in question. It can be seen from this that the extension to the MANA mainly affects land in the vicinity of the

2801108 28 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

proposed northern runway which is proposed to be zoned Light Industrial, Rural Production, Public Open Space, Future Urban, Special Purpose, Single House and Mixed Housing Suburban. In relation to the existing runway, updated modelling has also resulted in some minor adjustments to the outer extent of the MANA in the Manukau City and Flatbush vicinity which affect approximately 50 residential zoned properties.

7.28 The areas of residential zoning affected by the proposed amendment to the MANA have been analysed in terms of their development potential. Residential development potential without the requirement for a resource consent is limited to one dwelling per 400m2 under the operative Main Residential zoning. This aligns with the 1:400 density threshold for permitted activities in the MANA as agreed at mediation (except for Housing NZ).

7.29 The area of Mixed Housing Suburban zoning as notified in the Unitary Plan within the proposed extended MANA has been analysed in terms of increased development densities that may be able to be achieved under that zoning to assess the effect of the additional restrictions resulting from the amended noise areas in the Aircraft Noise Overlay. The residential areas affected are relatively small and for a variety of reasons (prior development of land for multiple units, insufficient site area, insufficient frontage, location of recently constructed existing housing and the restrictions imposed by other Unitary Plan rules), only a small number of properties have development potential beyond that possible under the proposed 1:400 density control In the MANA. For example, there are 25 sites between 900 - 1200m2 in the extended MANA area which were previously in the ANNA. 14 of these sites have sufficient frontage to be developed with one further unit at 1:300, but only 4 have a road frontage greater than 22.5m as required to allow redevelopment at 1:300m2 for three units (i.e. two extra units) under the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone. The remaining sites cannot be further developed under the Unitary Plan. In any event, the proposed rule would still allow applications for residential density in excess of one dwelling per 400m2 in the MANA to be assessed on

2801108 29 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

their merits taking into account the matters of discretion and assessment criteria proposed.

7.30 AIAL, in consultation with planning and legal representatives of Auckland Council, has recognised the need to provide a transitional mitigation package for those landowners "caught" by the acoustic treatment requirements of the Aircraft Noise Overlay when building new ASAN or adding to existing ASAN within the extended HANA and MANA, but who are not yet able to access the mitigation package that would be available for "existing buildings" under the Designation. Accordingly, AIAL has proposed a transitional mitigation condition for inclusion in Designation 1100 to apply to the areas where the extended HANA and MANA will require the installation of acoustic treatment measures during the period between the Unitary Plan Aircraft Noise Overlay rules becoming operative and the alterations to Designation 1100 authorising the extended northern runway being incorporated in the Unitary Plan. The proposed transitional mitigation condition and associated maps are included in Annexure 11 to my evidence.

7.31 As a result of this transitional mitigation condition, I consider that landowners will not be detrimentally affected by the amendments to the Aircraft Noise Overlay contained in the AIAL submission occurring now, rather than later by way of a Plan Change introduced at the same time as Designation 1100 is altered.

Section 32 Assessment Of Aircraft Noise Overlay Provisions

7.32 I consider that the objectives, policies and rules of the Aircraft Noise Overlay set out in Annexure 8 to this evidence together with the transitional mitigation condition to be included in Designation 1100 (see Annexure 11) are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA because:

(a) The benefits to the Regional and National economy from the economic growth and employment growth (see section 32(2)(a)) facilitated by the growth and development of Auckland Airport (see Mr Colgrave's evidence) far outweigh

2801108 30 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

the costs imposed by restricting the intensification of residential land use and other activities sensitive to aircraft noise in the relatively confined areas of South Auckland that have been identified as being subject to moderate and high levels of aircraft noise now and in the future.

(b) The costs to individual land owners imposed by restricting the intensification of residential land use have been limited by the imposition of land use controls that are much less restrictive than those recommended and generally applied elsewhere under NZS 6805:1992 for NZ Airports. Indeed they are less restrictive than those applied to land uses around other Auckland Airports also regulated by the Unitary Plan.

(c) The costs to individual landowners and occupiers affected by the new contours have been further mitigated by the provisions of the transitional mitigation provisions outlined above.

(d) The costs to individual landowners and occupiers have also been mitigated by the introduction of a threshold density provision in the MANA to ensure the restrictions are efficiently targeted to avoiding the exposure of larger numbers of people to aircraft noise in the external residential environment while not unduly limiting development potential.

(e) Importantly, the environmental and social costs imposed on people and communities by exposing large numbers of them to moderate and high levels of aircraft noise in their residential environment are reduced by the introduction of measures to limit residential density in areas exposed to more than 60dB Ldn of aircraft noise.

7.33 I consider that the proposed provisions set out in Annexures 8 and 11 are the most appropriate way to give effect to the relevant objectives and policies of the proposed RPS, as set out earlier in my evidence. I also consider that the risk of not acting on the basis of the information now known about future aircraft noise contours outweighs the risk of

2801108 31 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

acting. The risk of not acting is that a range of land use decisions may be made which result in larger numbers of residents and school children being exposed to moderate and high levels of aircraft noise than would otherwise have been the case, and that subsequent reverse sensitivity effects will result in the growth of Auckland Airport and its consequent economic benefits to the Auckland and NZ economy being severely restricted.

7.34 The risk of acting is that AIAL may not ultimately be successful in obtaining an increase in runway length (and the consequent amendment of the noise restrictions) of the northern runway and some very limited development potential in the MANA and HANA may be lost in the interim as a result of the Unitary Plan controls. Any risk that landowners might be required to install acoustic treatment in the MANA without receiving funding from AIAL is eliminated by the transitional mitigation condition in Annexure 11.

8. CONCLUSIONS

8.1 In conclusion, I consider that:

(a) AIAL's growth plans were developed as carefully and expeditiously as possible but in light of the importance of ensuring accuracy and the need to test many scenarios through aircraft noise modelling, together with a range of other environmental effects assessments, it was not possible to complete this work in time for the Council's 2013 designation deadline;

(b) it would have been irresponsible for AIAL to remain silent on the implications of its growth plans through the Unitary Plan process when major decisions on future urban growth and future residential intensification in South Auckland are being made now;

(c) the version of the Aircraft Noise Overlay objectives, policies and rules attached as Annexure 8 and the AIAL submission seeking that provision be made for future airport growth by

2801108 32 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

expanding the Aircraft Noise areas for the northern runway on the planning maps are the most appropriate objectives, policies and rules to give effect to the Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statement and particularly RPS objective B3.2 (6) and policies B3.2 (7) and B3.3 (6);

(d) AIAL's proposed amendments to the mediation text for the Auckland Airport Precinct objectives, policies and rules attached as Annexure 3 to my evidence are the most appropriate objectives, policies and rules to give effect to the proposed RPS objectives for significant infrastructure B3.2 (2) and (3) and their associated RPS policies B3.2 (1), (7) and (8) and the RPS Transport objectives B3.3(1) and (3) and associated RPS policy B3.3(1) by enabling the future development of Auckland Airport while addressing the environmental effects of that development;

(e) the version of Designation 1100 attached as Annexure 7 and the proposed transitional mitigation condition attached as Annexure 11 have considered the effects on the environment having particular regard to the Unitary Plan RPS and the other provisions of the Unitary Plan;

(f) the objectives, policies and rules of the Aircraft Noise Overlay set out in Annexure 8, to this evidence together with the transitional mitigation condition to be included in Designation 1100 (see Annexure 11), are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA and that the benefits of the proposed provisions far outweigh the costs; and

(g) the risk of not acting on the basis of the information now known about future aircraft noise contours outweighs the risk of acting.

Greg Osborne 26 March 2014

2801108 33 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

ANNEXURE 1

I provided planning advice to Papakura District Council and its Hearing Commissioners in relation to Plan Change 6 relating to aircraft noise issues at Ardmore Airport following its notification in 2001 and prepared evidence on behalf of the Council in relation to subsequent appeals to the Environment Court. I assisted the Council in the negotiations over a number of years which ultimately led to a Consent Order in 2010 between a number of parties including the Council, Ardmore Airport Limited, Auckland Regional Council and various Ardmore residents and landowners groups. I have also provided evidence to both Papakura District Council and Auckland Regional Council hearings panels considering a series of changes to the District Plan and the Regional Policy Statement on the issue of reverse sensitivity to aircraft noise relating to new urban development in the Takanini area near Ardmore Airport. Ardmore Airport is the busiest General Aviation airport in New Zealand.

I provided planning advice to Rotorua District Council in relation to Plan Change 32 (Rotorua Airport Noise and Land Use Controls) between late 2003 and late 2007 and was directly involved in the preparation of the Plan Change dealing with issues of controlling aircraft noise and controlling land use activities which might give rise to reverse sensitivity effects at Rotorua Airport. I also provided evidence to the Environment Court on that matter, although ultimately that case too was resolved by consent order.

I have also provided planning advice and a Section 42A report to the Timaru District Council in relation to submissions on a Plan Change (Plan Change 6) dealing with very similar issues at Timaru Airport (Richard Pearse Airport).

Most recently, I have provided planning advice to Queenstown Lakes District Council in respect of appeals against Council's decisions on Proposed Plan Changes 19 (Frankton Flats Mixed Use Development next to Queenstown Airport) and 35 (Queenstown Airport Aircraft Noise) to the District Plan, both of which are concerned with aircraft noise contours and with issues of controlling aircraft noise and controlling land use activities which might give rise to reverse sensitivity effects around Queenstown Airport.

2801108 34 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

ANNEXURE 2: RELEVANT RPS PROVISIONS

2801108 35 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

ANNEXURE 3: AUCKLAND AIRPORT SUB-PRECINCTS

2801108 36 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

ANNEXURE 4: AUCKLAND AIRPORT PRECINCT PROVISIONS

2801108 37 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

ANNEXURE 5: DESIGNATION 1100 AND 1101 DIAGRAMS

2801108 38 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

ANNEXURE 6: FIGURES FROM DESIGNATION 1102

2801108 39 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

ANNEXURE 7: AUCKLAND AIRPORT DESIGNATION 1100

2801108 40 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

ANNEXURE 8: AIRCRAFT NOISE OVERLAY PROVISIONS

2801108 41 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

ANNEXURE 9: MAP SHOWING INCREASED EXTENT OF HANA

2801108 42 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

ANNEXURE 10: MAP SHOWING INCREASED EXTENT OF MANA

2801108 43 Auckland International Airport Limited Topic 045: Airport Submitter number: 5294 Primary evidence

ANNEXURE 11: TRANSITIONAL MITIGATION CONDITION AND ASSOCIATED MAPS

2801108