TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF INQUIRY
Proposed Ruakura Development Plan Change
HEARING at KINGSGATE HOTEL, HAMILTON on 6 June 2014
BOARD OF INQUIRY:
Judge Melanie Harland (Chairperson) Mr Jim Hodges (Board Member) Ms Jenny Hudson (Board Member) Mr Gerry Te Kapa Coates (Board Member) Page 1702
APPEARANCES
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1703 [9.21 am] CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Nga mihi nui kia koutou, good morning to everyone. We are just about to start this morning with hearing from 5 some of our submitters and I understand that there is to be a slight change in order and we are starting with Miss van Beek first, thank you. MISS VAN BEEK: Good morning. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, just when you are ready. MISS VAN BEEK: Hello, my name is Anita van Beek and I am just doing my own personal kind of feelings about this submission. So I am not 15 possibly the best prepared for talking here as I have tried to read and understand some of the stuff and it has all been a bit gobbledygook, unless someone was there to explain some of it. So I haven’t have had a lot of time to read all of it, there’s busy jobs and things like that in my own life. 20 So basically this is kind of more my feelings. So, for example, some of the simple things like a “transportation corridor” I interpreted as “roads” but wondered if there was any difference between the two, sometimes it seemed like French to me. 25 I am ex-resident as well as a homeowner at Fairview Downs. My intention had been to live there but things change and life moves on. There was a possibility that I would move back but it would be very unlikely if this project was to proceed, that being stage 1 approved and 30 presumably by default stage 2 then being an industrial park at my back doorstep. I seek quietness when I am at home and have managed to avoid any place with constant noise in my 14 years in Hamilton. I have the 35 occasional drum roll from my current neighbours but those are luckily short and far between in occurrence. Oh, and there’s a dog that barks some nights but once the en suite door is closed I do not hear it. And I am not sure but sometimes I hear the rumble of Cobham Drive to the north or the train to the west, and in the east Shakespeare in the Park 40 driving across the river at 4 am in the morning and once or twice there’s some dope smoke drifting up the gully. So to me it is pretty normal residential noise levels and activities. If this development were to proceed I think the constant noise in some 45 way, shape or form will descend forever upon the residents of Fairview Downs. I am speaking from a layman’s point of view on how I feel the Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1704 suburb would be negatively affected by this development and is it in the right place altogether? Economics and relevance of the inland port to Hamilton. I question the 5 relevance of an inland port or maybe we should say another distribution centre for Hamilton, I believe there are two to three around already. Also why would goods arriving to New Zealand via Auckland or Tauranga get transported to Hamilton and then be reassigned to be transported elsewhere, would you not make those distribution decisions 10 closer to the points of arrival, ie in Auckland and Tauranga? I believe that Auckland and Tauranga have set aside land for those possibilities which leads you to question the long term viability of the proposed Ruakura inland port when it could be undercut by rivals 15 establishing distribution hubs in Tauranga or Auckland when they see fit to do so. 400-odd hectares of land is a lot to develop. I have heard the suggestion that a reason to have the port at Ruakura on that side of the river, as opposed to this side where other similar 20 distribution centres work, is to ease congestion over the bridges and bring work to that side of the river. I am not sure that would be a result from this development, easing congestion, as all the workers may be on this side of the river. 25 [9.25 am] It would be a shame to have something in an incorrect place to satisfy other goals that may not be achieved. It is almost like, “We have a piece of land let’s think of something to do with it”. I was the person 30 who submitted the by chance viewing in Ontario Canada of the Walmart Distribution Centre, which was a mass of concrete buildings and idling trucks waiting to enter and take goods on the road. Granted they have about 200 trucks per hour supposedly leaving that hub. It was fascinatingly stark and ugly to look at. 35 I am not sure if it was clear but the centre was close to the motorway but away from the township with room to expand and not go near the township. It is just on, if not more, than two kilometres away from the township, not a 40 to 50 metre strip as proposed by this plan. The area 40 was also surrounding by trees. I am led to believe that trees are not going to do much about pollution and noise, I thought they might. However, they may give some sort of compensation on views that will be lost if this proceeds. The back end of industrial buildings does not seem appealing even if the graffiti makes interesting reading. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1705 Development of Fairview Downs. My house has been built on piles as the soil on my spot was peat and not solid enough to build on. Of course the soil changes around the place. I am guessing industrial buildings though in themselves may not weigh much, their contents 5 could. How much preparation will be required for the 400 hectares of land that is to be developed? How much topsoil is going to be trucked out and then appropriate fill trucked in before building of any sorts of buildings can begin here? Are there not more suitable locations that requires less works? Trucks equal pollution. 10 Where I currently live I do not have a – oh, this is a bit of aside – I do or did have a fear for my lovely gully that I am having planted in trees that could also suffer from this development. Even though I am having trees planted my neighbour informs me he wishes to fill in the gully so 15 he can build flats on it. He says he will allow access so I can do the same on my bit. He just does not get that I have purchased where I am for peace and quiet. However, my brother-in-law informs me that only clay could be suitable for a gully fill. 20 Who would choose to live here? At one of our one on one meetings with the TGH representative we were talking of the effects of the development on local residents. I did bring up house values, which we are not allowed to talk about, which he tactfully said would not be affected as there is no effect on residents from this development. 25 We then asked him if he would like to move into our houses, they are nice three bedroom houses in a quiet suburb with a rural outlook. He was not keen because in reality mine, like many others, will be a nice three bedroom house sitting on the edge of an industrial park or in 30 inland port that can run 24/7 at higher decibel ratings than elsewhere in Hamilton, with noise and pollution emissions a high possibility. Those of you who can afford not to live there will live elsewhere in Hamilton. Conversations. This brings us to the mitigations that are being offered. 35 The conversation about negative effects rebounded with minimum standards of Hamilton City Council will be met to any of our queries around sound, dust and light spill. Around sound the developers are asking for higher limits and giving minimum mitigation. 40 I have no degrees in noise but after talking to my brother, a local councillor in Whakatane, I believe that conversations are held at 53 decibels. So, if the rules say that at my fence line the noise must be under 55 decibels during the day, that would mean someone could be at my fence line, less than five metres from my patio, having a 45 conversation from 7 am to 8 pm at night and I would not be able to complain about that. It sounds kind of horrible. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1706 A friend of mine was working in an industrial park, maybe they should have done decibel testing there to see if the other business was in excess of their noise. However, the other business would run one of 5 their machines for a whole day. Ironically they would lock up the business and leave because the noise levels were too high for them to stay in the building. On those days, between the constant noise and vibrations from next door, she and her fellow administrator would leave their place of work with headaches from the noise next door. 10 I understand Tainui Group Holdings say that noise levels are exceeded already around Hamilton. So that would be like saying everyone is driving at 60 kilometres around Hamilton so let’s raise the speed limit to 60 k’s. We all know if that happened then people would start 15 travelling at 70 kilometres an hour. Instead in some areas they have reduced the speed limit to 40 kilometres an hour, let’s try for 40 k’s an hour. During and after construction is over what guarantees that these 20 requested increased noise levels are not flaunted at the highest levels for the longest times by users in the industrial park? If this is proved to be the case, or even 30 to 50 percent of the time, what remedial work would be done to relieve the suffering of residents? Note not all residents are going to be out of the suburb during the day, some may be 25 night workers or others working from home with no escape. If this goes ahead let’s at least keep the noise levels in keeping with the rest of Hamilton or even better at less than the rest of the Hamilton, let’s keep it quiet. 30 [9.30 am] Personally I have a stressful job and seek solitude and quiet where I get that at home where I can relax and recharge. A good sound barrier, like the one seen in Europe beside the fast trains plus some trees may go 35 some way to replacing the lost rural outlook and may mitigate some of the noise pollution that occurs. However, keeping a tight rein on the allowable noise and vibration levels would be easier than letting them go and trying to contain them, once the ill-effects are established it could be harder. However, TGH in conversation are only aiming to do 40 the minimum to get what they want disregarding what they will be taking away from others. Flooding. With increased areas of land covered in concrete and roads this reduces the amount of area for normal rain soakage. Let’s hope 45 that all calculations have been done to accommodate increasingly Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1707 unpredictable weather patterns that are occurring and any flash flooding that may happen. Contamination. I believe this has been covered by others but do 5 wonder about the risk to the Waikato region if training stuff off boats directly to the heart of good farming land, who knows what bugs can be transported here and redistributed in the rush to get them off the boats. Lighting. The ring road seems to have been very bright. I like a dark 10 room at night, probably the light spill from the Spine Road will affect this. Again their response was minimum standards will be met. Hopefully that includes some ingenuity to light that needs to be lit and keeping the rest of the place dark. Yes, people around here like to look at the stars and have some dark nights. 15 Normal development. I know that everything does not go to plan in life, however I expected normal residential development to occur around the house. I thought, “Yeah, there will be more houses one day, a supermarket, an open mall, maybe a school”. I am not sure how 20 many kids you need for those. I have seen the expressway and thought, “Yay, far enough away not to be heard, especially if they put up sound barrier corridors like they do in Europe, but close enough for convenience”. I did not understand at the time the ring road was going in and now you can see a suburb that is ring fenced by roading and is 25 going to stagnate with undeveloped services to its current residents and it is not really going to expand to a residential population. The community is going to be stifled and never fully developed in the land available, if it is to be used mostly industrial. 30 I think the two land uses are incompatible and should not be sitting side by side. There must be some more suitable sites that do not inflict so much on the immediate population. The neighbours that will remain and those that are going to be surrounded and crowded out by this development will become second class citizens in the same city as 35 those who enjoy cleaner air and quieter places to live. Once this beast is unleashed and starts to roll there will be no stopping it, even if it proves to be a social and economic hindrance. Before this goes ahead a true report on effects to the neighbourhood, 40 noise, dust, visual pollution during and after construction, is this the best location for this type of development. It does not seem an appropriate place as it is far from the initial landing points for goods and the largest population that it will probably service. Will it be economic given similar developments in the area and what is the social 45 and environmental impact on established and existing land users? Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1708 If this were to go ahead consideration should be given to plans still allowing public submission to maintain alliance with the rest of Hamilton’s residents rights, ie they cannot make whatever decisions they like behind closed doors. I say this as I talked through the plans 5 briefly about where the Spine Road et cetera was to be and informed this was not final. So what they may do could be better or worse for the residents of Ruakura and Fairview Downs and Silverdale than is presently before us. It feels like we are flying blind and being committed to something not fully defined or known. 10 Trees. Visual setback far enough to allow good views but also to mean security of properties if there is to be some sort of cycleway that is close to a Spine Road and the trees do not provide hiding places for rear entry to existing properties. 15 Sound barriers. The best available to be used to reduce the audio pollution from the roadings and the industrial park for the whole length of the development with consideration to those on the side and inside, because I think sound probably bounces. Distance. Visual as far as 20 away as possible. House sound insulation, that would be helpful, however, that does not help for barbecues outside. Restricted hours of work. Lowering the allowable decibel levels and that industrial buildings are purpose built for minimal sound and 25 vibration escaping. [9.35 am] CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. What I am now going to do is ask the 30 members of the Board whether they have some questions for you. MR HODGES: Good morning, Miss van Beek. MISS VAN BEEK: Hi. 35 MR HODGES: That was very clear indeed, thank you, I was able to understand the points you raised, I don’t have any questions there but I would like to understand where you live, please, or where your house is? 40 MISS VAN BEEK: I live in Melville – oh, Glenview, so just on a gully area on the gully train, (ph 0.27) so Bruce Ave/Richan Street. MR HODGES: Okay, and you own a house in Fairview Downs as well? 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1709 MISS VAN BEEK: Yes, so I have a rental property there. So like in my earlier submission the reason my tenants like going there is because it has got a rural outlook and there’s no neighbours as such. I have had a change of tenants and the ones before that, they said if the park was 5 going to go ahead that they would move because of the noise. And the ones that are there they want to eventually buy their own lifestyle block so there’s a huge appeal to having that quietness and the rural outlook that’s there already. 10 MR HODGES: So you look directly out onto the rural area, do you? MISS VAN BEEK: Yes, I look over the Ferguson block. MR HODGES: Okay, thank you very much indeed. Thank you, your Honour. 15 MR COATES: Yes, good morning, Miss van Beek. Do you believe the local authority can adequately monitor and police planning provisions? MISS VAN BEEK: Do you mean by the Hamilton City Council? 20 MR COATES: Yes. MISS VAN BEEK: Well, one would hope you could have faith in them to do that but, yes, there’s that whole balance between what one body of 25 people want and what the other body of people want and who, I guess, eventually wins that discussion. I don’t know how - - - MR COATES: But once it is in a plan change or in a plan can you have some reassurance that they will monitor the provisions in the plan change? 30 MISS VAN BEEK: Well, hopefully but I understand like the EPA, you guys can put your plans could be different from the Hamilton City Council ones so you could put one set of rules over this plan which may not be the same as what is happening in Hamilton City Council. And at the 35 moment they have applied for higher noise levels, things like that, so if that was allowable. I guess they would enforce them but I guess part of me wonders about if you have – like you have got this nice quietness at the moment and 40 then it might raise up to be underneath the levels that are there but you have got this constant noise that will be humming away or whirring away or whatever, and it’s a change from what is already there. I guess we are quite lucky. Getting noise control officers out can be interesting. I have only had to call on them once and then they didn’t 45 turn up because the guy doing the chain sawing at 8.30 at night gave up Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1710 – so by spotlight, so I don’t know what he was intending. I guess you have to have faith that they will enforce the rules as they are. MR COATES: Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Do you have a question? MS HUDSON: No, I don’t, thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON: No, I don’t have any questions either, thank you very much for your representation to us today. MISS VAN BEEK: Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Dr Bell? Good morning, Dr Bell, you are appearing today for the Silverdale Residents’ Group, is that correct and yourself and Dr Farrell in your personal capacity? DR BELL: That’s correct. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Just when you are ready, thank you. DR BELL: May it please the Board, my name is Dr Robert Bell. I have lived in the Silverdale block north of the Silverdale Road for 33 years and at 25 our current Nevada Road property bordering on the R1 land for 17 years. I have worked nearby on the university campus for all those years so I am very familiar with the surrounding area, the gully systems and the increasing traffic issues. 30 I previously provided opening submissions on 7 May on behalf of the Silverdale Residents’ Group which outlined our Group’s composition and involvement to date in the R1 development process and an outline of the concerns we have had about the Ruakura development private plan change proposed by Tainui Group Holdings and Chedworth 35 Properties Limited. [9.40 am] I refer the Board to our opening submissions, paragraphs 10 to 19, 40 covering the Group’s concern about the siting of the 24/7 inland port in particular, which we view as an incompatible activity in juxtaposition with the knowledge and educational activities. These representations complement the key concerns expressed in the 45 general submissions of the Silverdale Residents’ Group and individual submissions, lay witness evidence or representations provided by four Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1711 residents within our Group. I refer to Mrs Jennifer West’s evidence, Dr Rob Davies-Colley focusing on stormwater and buffers, Dr Philippa Gerard and representations on biosecurity risks and Emeritus Professor Roberta Farrell’s evidence on several issues. 5 I wish to acknowledge that the revised Plan Change schedule 25H Ruakura version 7, dated 26 May, has made significant changes in areas of particular concern to our Group, such as water sensitive design in relation to stormwater, the more extensive requirements for Land 10 Development Plans and the recognition of greenways for improved habitat and enabling ecological corridors. However, there remain some issues or areas of concern to the Silverdale Residents’ Group. I will now outline and, where 15 appropriate, provide the relief sought by our Group in relation to each issue if the Board is of a mind to approve the requested private plan change. Main issues and concerns. Noise, the proposed plan change and 20 cumulative impacts. We remain concerned about the noise limits at the edge of all existing and proposed residential areas that adjoin the private plan change area, particularly then night time noise limit and the consequential loss of amenity value. This continues to remain an unresolved issue in the planning conference. 25 The Silverdale Residents’ Group strongly seek an external night time noise limit of 40 decibels using the LAeq15 minute averaging period at adjoining residential sensitive activities in 24H.13.1 both in existing and proposed residential areas under the revised plan change. 30 We support the change to 0700 hours rather than 0600 hours to define the end of the night time period. A night time noise limit of 40 decibels will ensure compatibility and 35 even handedness across the rest of Hamilton City with the current provisions for sensitive activities in the operation and proposed District Plan. It is also compatible with the night time noise limit of 40 decibels in the revised plan change version 7 for the activities within the knowledge area and open space area, 25H.13.3 to adhere to at the 40 boundary of the other sites or any other site. Therefore the higher proposed 45 decibel night time noise limit on existing and new residential areas, under the justification that it is the upper limit endorsed in the New Zealand Standard NZ6802 2008, 45 appears to enable a range of 24/7 activities within the proposed new industrial and inland port development. Tainui Group Holdings is Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1712 clearly seeking a more liberal allowance in favour of the industrial park and inland port activities and thereby reducing the responsibility on Tainui Group Holdings to fully mitigate the effects of night time noise on the night time amenity of adjoining residential areas, especially 5 those on long established residential areas that for many decades have enjoyed a rural soundscape albeit with the occasional train transits. [9.45 am] 10 The higher 45 decibel limit is therefore inconsistent with achieving the same noise limitations from all activities at residential boundaries in Hamilton and allowing all residents equal opportunity for a restful night’s sleep. 15 Also other councils beside Hamilton City have similar night time limits, for example nearby Rotorua District Council have night time limits of 40 decibels, averaged over 10 minutes which apply from 2200 hours to 0700 hours. 20 Noise modelling results by the Tainui Group expert, Mr Robinson, in his evidence-in-chief, which covered potential noise generated by activities in the private plan change area and included the proposed State Highway 1 Waikato Expressway, was not clear on what the cumulative effects would be from all potential sources. Counsel for the 25 applicants has filed a memorandum dated 27 May 2014, requested by the Board, that outlines additional noise predictions by Mr Robinson covering inland port operations and train entries alongside the predicted night time noise levels for the Waikato Expressway. 30 These additional predictions by Mr Robinson for Silverdale, based on monitoring at 51 Sheridan Street and the university near the tennis courts, show that the attainment of a 40 decibel night time limit from just the inland port activities is marginal without considering other noise generating activities. 35 These other sound sources not considered would come from within the Ruakura industrial park area together with traffic noise from the collector road that would run parallel with the Silverdale block - and that’s in figure 25H.2 – and the cumulative effect of noise generated by 40 the Waikato Expressway including vehicles, especially trucks, using the proposed interchange at Ruakura. Further the assumption by Mr Robinson of a 10 decibel reduction at night, based on a 90 percent reduction in peak daytime traffic, doesn’t 45 appear to consider that much of that night time traffic will be heavy vehicles including those using the interchange. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1713 For residents at the northern end of the Silverdale area there is also the added noise that will be generated by the service centre - which is on figure 11, volume 3 of the plan change drawings – that will be 5 generated by the service centre activities as part of the private plan change in land development area C, which also needs to be factored into the cumulative noise likely to be experienced at adjoining residential areas. 10 In our view the best approach for Tainui Group Holdings to consistently achieve the lower night time noise limit of 40 decibels is to utilise the greenway buffers adjoining residential or sensitive activity areas in Silverdale and the eastern university boundary but extend them beyond the nominal 40 metres proposed by Tainui Group Holdings. 15 Otherwise residents will be solely reliant on infrequent monitoring with no defined mechanism for sharing results with affected parties or a complaints procedure to check the limits have not been breached. Where deemed necessary to meet the cumulative sensitive activities noise limits day or night bunds may also need to be incorporated within 20 the greenway buffer. Buffering greenways, ecological enhancement plus mitigating amenity effects. 25 As noted the Silverdale Residents’ Group have concerns around the cumulative effects of noise from all potential activities including State Highway 1 Waikato Expressway but also lighting spill and the detrimental effect on aesthetics from the visual profile of the proposed inland port, particularly the height of container stacks or high structures 30 near the boundaries of sensitive activities. [9.50 am] Of equal concern is the desire to see a more connected greenway or 35 ecological corridor that links the current blind end of the Mangaonua Gully system off the north-west corner of Silverdale and I have marked that on the map, the image in appendix 1 with the thick white line, which I call the blind end of the Mangaonua Gully. 40 It links the current blind end of the gully system through to other open space parts of the city’s east side, include the glades of native bush on the university campus, thereby restoring some of the mauri of the land and natural resources of the area. This desire has been expressed by Professor Roberta Farrell of our group in her summary statement of 45 29 May. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1714 In respect of open space greenways we are pleased with the progress that has been made through the facilitated caucusing between the ecology experts as documented in the third joint witness statement dated 22 May. 5 In particular the requirements to be considered for landscape concept and ecological enhancement plans and the recognition of the Mangaonua Gully to Silverdale Road greenway, which is 25H.11.2 subsection K. 10 We also consider that the greenway comprising a mix of at least 80 percent cover in indigenous and wetland vegetation in the north/south corridor on the north-west or Sheridan Road side of the Silverdale suburb is needed to enhance the ecological connectedness 15 between the Mangaonua Gully system and native plantings on the university campus and beyond. The joint witness statement for ecology experts on 22 May did not define an adequate width for the greenway buffer adjoining the 20 Silverdale boundary to achieve the ecological enhancement objectives. Our group has maintained through our submissions and opening statement that the ecological and noise visual buffer west of Silverdale that borders the Ruakura industrial park area should be 200 metres 25 wide to include native tree planting and connect it with the Mangaonua Gully system. It has always been our stance that this buffer could also incorporate more natural stormwater management facilities and even a cycleway as a multipurpose utilisation of the buffer. 30 Tainui Group Holdings to date have only offered a buffer zone of 40 metres. We view this as inadequate to achieve sufficient buffering and a viable greenway corridor with a chance of establishing a microclimate and suitable habitat within the native plantings and wetland systems. 35 With the width of a fully functioning ecological corridor we have relied on the work of the University of Waikato’s Environmental Research Institute directed by Professor Bruce Clarkson. 40 In his initial submission to the Board, number 105773, on behalf of the Institute Professor Clarkson stated in response to the provision of only a 40 metre buffer that because these small strips will be strongly influenced by edge effects, including harsh wind and frost, and will never represent natural forested ecosystems because they are too small, 45 we suggest that the width of these reserves is increased to at least Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1715 100 metres with a north/south section and at least 200 metres for the more sensitive southern Mangaonua section. Professor Clarkson provided several reasons, including more effective 5 buffering from development and reduced edge effects of us to 50 metres implied by his minimum of 100 metres within the vegetated corridors. We are prepared to accept a greenway buffer width of no less than 100 metres to the north-west of the Silverdale Block as being ecologically viable as suggested by Professor Clarkson, considering the 10 edge effects of vegetated greenways. The private plan change doesn’t cover any land development in the southern Mangaonua section other than the blinding of the gully at the western end shown by the thick white line on the aerial image in 15 appendix 1. [9.55 am] Ideally this same 100 metre greenway width should extend along the 20 boundary of the industrial park area adjoining Silverdale Road to link up with the green space on the eastern edge of the university, which would then create a contiguous ecological corridor or halo, as well as providing screening for residents and educational facilities in Silverdale Road. 25 In paragraph 3.50 of the legal submission of Mr Gardner-Hopkins on day 14 on behalf of Transpower, he states while the transmission lines will not preclude planting they may limit the height of vegetative screening and restrict the type of trees planted beneath the lines. 30 Given how much of the proposed greenway closer to and adjoining Silverdale Road is aligned along transmission line corridors, there are a number of locations in which a 40 metre buffer aligned along the lines will almost certainly not provide the visual and noise screening because 35 of planting restrictions required by Transpower. Professor Clarkson in his original submission also outlined opportunity to build on social capital through engagement of local community, the schools, of which there are four in the area, conservation groups and 40 the university in recreating and restoring the biodiversity within the greenway within easy walking distance. Residents at the northern end of the Silverdale Block have already demonstrated their commitment to restoring their section of the 45 southern Mangaonua Gully as shown by a few photographs in appendix 1, and I should point out that the two photos at the bottom were from Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1716 eight years ago when the restoration of the stream system and the banks had just started, and the one on the bottom right, those kahikatia are now three metres high, so that’s photos from eight years ago. 5 Other nearby residents, including myself, have also helped out with native planting working bees in the gully. Our group is also amenable to the inclusion of linear stormwater treatment ponds and wetlands to create ecological functioning and 10 biodiversity within the greenway, provided that wetlands and pond systems for stormwater management are not jammed in against the western property boundaries as they currently are in the integrated catchment management plan maps, and that run off onto adjoining residential properties from extreme rain storms, for example the one 15 percent annual exceedance probability, events of varying intensities, including climate change effects, do not result in flooding as long term residents do not recall surface flooding derived from the R1 field in the 50 years since the suburb was developed. 20 The greenway buffer would further develop connected habitat corridors for tui that have returned to our suburb and form a key link in the wider regional and city wide halo initiative that has been successful in reintroducing tui to Hamilton City. 25 Stormwater: Our main concern on stormwater relates to the partly restored Mangaonua Gully system, which should be protected from high stormwater flows causing flooding and erosion and conveying debris and pollutants by comprehensive and best practice stormwater controls which are more effective when applied at source through water 30 sensitive practices to dub tail with comprehensive stormwater management system comprising detention ponds and wetlands. Policies associated with stormwater management in the latest version 7 of schedule 25H now recognise water sensitive practices as part of a 35 best practice low impact design. Some of our residents also provided submissions on the draft integrated catchment management plan for the R1 land regarding size and depth of ponds needed for integration across all the femoral streams and 40 gullies for both the present and post construction drainage networks, and the risk of flooding from low frequency rain storm events. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1717 [10.00 am] Two issues we relayed in submissions on the integrated catchment management plan related to the greater than normal depths of the 5 proposed stormwater ponds, presumably to accommodate high rain storm volumes without a commensurate increase in pond area and concern over the location of the ponds in close proximity to residential boundaries. These concerns can both be mitigated by the placement of larger or more ponds and wetlands in a wider greenway buffer of 10 100 metres to the west of the Silverdale Block. We acknowledge that the continuing evolution of the intermediary land development plans during the planners caucusing provides a better opportunity to integrate stormwater management, along with other 15 aspects such as traffic management screening and construction effects prior to the blocks of land being signed off by council before development can proceed. However, we are dismayed that the current land development plans will 20 not be notified, and that’s the 25H.11.1, even to potentially affected parties or land owners, tenants, associated with sensitive activities adjoining the land block that is up for development. We don’t think this is an appropriate approach and certainly counterproductive in terms of ongoing functional neighbourhood relationships. 25 Therefore, we ask the Board to consider options for directly affected parties to have some worthwhile participation in the council processing of land development plans on relevant matters that the council has restricted discretion, or alternatively require parties to be consulted on a 30 limited notification process. Matters of particular interest will be how their neighbourhoods interact with the proposed stormwater and traffic management, layout of screening or greenways, construction mitigation measures, boundary 35 building controls and any minor changes to the extent of the land development plan areas which is provided for in 25H.11.1.D. While the intent would not be to relitigate the Board of Inquiry process or proposed district plan process, it will be important for future 40 goodwill between the relevant parties that the directly affected neighbours are consulted with opportunity for limited discretionary input. Otherwise this makes this private plan change process currently before the Board as the only opportunity to have any input to the larger scale effects of the adjoining land block development well into the 45 future, including downstream issues of catchment run off and traffic growth. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1718 Other changes to the land development plan rules of section 25H.11 is the recognition and the phasing of any development of a particular area, and those areas are shown on figure 25H.3. 5 As a recognition of the phasing of any development of a particular area that the early advance of plantings for vegetated screening strips, buffers or greenways be allowed time for the plants to mature sufficiently to effectively provide their intended utility, this was also 10 requested by Dr John and Mrs Dianne Leathwick in their representations on 28 May. Traffic: We have concerns with regard to ongoing traffic increases likely on roads around the periphery of the inland port, the Ruakura 15 industrial park and the expressway service centre, particularly locally on Silverdale Road and Ruakura Road. Traffic along these routes is already heavy during commuter periods, compounded significantly during university semesters at peak times of 8.30-9.15 am and 5.00- 5.45 pm in the evening. 20 Mrs Jennifer West has already covered a number of our traffic concerns in her summary statement of 28 May particularly focused on the foreseeable increase in heavy traffic generated by the proposed inland port and associated industrial warehouses and facilities, which is likely 25 to cause further disruption and delays, especially in the already congested Silverdale Road. Silverdale Road between Nevada Road and its intersection with Ruakura Road is by far the busiest section of the road around the 30 proposed plan change area. [10.05 am] In my daily commute to work via walking or usually cycling, I have 35 observed increasing traffic volumes at peak times along Silverdale Road in the past few years. This increase has been attended by increasingly erratic behaviour by motorists to gain entry or turn off the carriageway in the chaotic stretch between Nevada Road and gate 3A near the tennis courts. 40 With pinch points at the Silverdale Shops and associated pedestrian crossing and also the environs of gate 10 and the adjacent school and kohanga reo, I have had numerous close calls negotiating my way through to gate 10, adding any further traffic and particularly heavy 45 trucks will surely compound the issue I witness daily during the working week. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1719 Tainui Group Holdings propose to add to this chaotic mix a further intersecting collector road from the Ruakura industrial park to the same stretch of Silverdale Road to the west of gate 10, university car park, 5 opposite the Orchard Park student residential facility. Rerouting of traffic to a State Highway 1 Waikato expressway interchange will not significantly change this traffic since most destinations are all along Silverdale Road to schools, of which there are 10 four residences, shops, businesses or the university. In our view the additional traffic for the private plan change generated by trucks and the majority of the eventual 11,000 employed who will take car journeys, including flow through traffic from the State 15 Highway 1 interchange will compound this traffic congestion along these local routes. While the land development plans provide a mechanism to reassess traffic management, the Silverdale area of the plan change area is likely 20 to be developed as a big block in its entirety, therefore still requiring further in depth consideration for the safety of drivers, pedestrians and children. In our view the collector road that is proposed to intersect with the 25 Silverdale Road from the eastern sector of the industrial park be limited to entry only with alternative exits, either through the arterial Ruakura Road to the west or through to the Waikato expressway interchange to the east. 30 Entrance ways from the proposed housing development in block N of figure 25H.3 onto Silverdale Road will further compound the congested stretch of Silverdale Road, but these matters can be dealt with via the land development plan that includes this area. 35 Planning matters: The revised schedule 25A to Ruakura version 7 has a number of changes that satisfy some of the initial concerns about phasing of the developments, for example objective 25H.4.2. The number of permitted activities originally proposed, construction impacts and the integration of traffic and stormwater management 40 across the R1 land and the wider city, which are in objectives 25H.4.3 and 4.4. We seek a change to some of the policies in the Three Waters Objective 25H.4.3 in relation to stormwater. We have sought after and 45 agree with policy 25.4.3, subsection 6, which seeks to maintain stormwater discharge from the private plan change catchment to at or Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1720 below predevelopment levels, and particularly policy 25H.4.3 subsection 7, where stormwater is to be managed by identifying and incorporating appropriate water sensitive techniques as defined in the definition of 25H.23. 5 However, the flip side effect of changes in stormwater runoff is the sediment quality of the discharges to water ways. With the assumption that suspended sediment and associated water clarity is one of the key issues for impacts on receiving water quality. If the objective is to 10 substantially manage the impact of development, a policy is also required to give effect to maintaining or decreasing the suspended or total sediment concentrations or more appropriately sediment run off loads relative to the present state. 15 [10.10 am] That will accrue benefits for wetlands and stream ecology and ultimately the Waikato River. 20 The proposed 75 percent removal of total suspended solids is easily achieved by best practice techniques and a policy should be driving this removal rate to a higher 80-85 percent removal. The Three Waters Objective 25H.4.3 is not supported by any flood 25 hazard mitigation policy, other than maintaining stormwater discharge from the catchment at or below current rates. Silverdale residents, while supportive of the stormwater treatment ponds and wetlands in the greenway, still remain concerned about the 30 provision of this green infrastructure causing local flooding issues on adjoining residential properties during infrequent, high intensity rain storms, where previously there has been no recognised flooding hazard on any LIM reports. 35 We support Dr John and Dianne Leathwick’s representations in respect of rule 25H.6.6.2, currently the rule proposes a 20 metre maximum building height anywhere in the Ruakura industrial park area, but we also request the Board to impose a similar 12 metre maximum height limit within 100 metres of a residential area. 40 Biosecurity: Dr Philippa Gerard and Emeritus Professor Roberta Farrell, in representations or summary statements, have expressed the group’s serious concerns regarding biosecurity and the consequence for us as neighbours if an outbreak or infestations were to occur. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1721 We also concur with the representations by Dr Gwyneth Verkerk and Dr Raymond Cursons on 28 May on biosecurity matters. In summary, the relief sought by the Silverdale Residents Group with 5 some positive spin offs for ecological enhancement include the Silverdale Residents Group strongly seek an external night time noise limit of 40 decibels at adjoining residential sensitive activities in 25H.13.1, both in existing and proposed residential areas under the revised plan change. 10 We are prepared to accept a greenway buffer width of no less than 100 metres along the north west side of the Silverdale block as being ecologically viable considering the edge effects of tracks of indigenous vegetation and would double as mitigation for noise, especially from 15 night time 24/7 operations, and aesthetic impacts of high buildings and container stacks. Ideally this same 100 metre greenway should extend along the boundary of the industrial park area adjoining Silverdale Road to link 20 up with the green space on the eastern edge of the university. We ask the Board to consider options for directly affected parties to have some worthwhile participation in the council processing of land development plans on relevant matters that council has restricted 25 discretion or alternatively requiring parties to be consulted on a limited notification basis. It is our view that the collector road that is proposed to intersect with Silverdale Road from the eastern sector of the industrial park be limited 30 to entry only with alternative exits either through the arterial Ruakura Road to the west or through the Waikato expressway interchange to the east. Policy under 25H.4.3 for stormwater management that encourages 35 reduction in sediment loads and suspended sediment that complement the water sensitive practices at source to minimise flows. Policy under 25H.4.3 to mitigate any new flooding hazards from the provision of stormwater treatment infrastructure or recontoured 40 drainage patterns. Rule 25H.6.2 a lower building height limit of 12 metres within 100 metres of a residential zone, and finally processes put in place to reduce the biosecurity risk as summarised in Dr Gerard’s summary 45 statement for 25 May. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1722 [10.15 am] CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Dr Bell. As before I will ask whether there are any questions of you about your representation. 5 MR HODGES: Thank you, your Honour. Good morning, Dr Bell, and thank you for your representations. DR BELL: Good morning. 10 MR HODGES: In section 3 or paragraph 3 you talk about the incompatible activity in juxtaposition with knowledge and education activities, I notice you don’t mention residential activities in that area, yet later you talk quite a bit about them. Are you saying that residential activities are 15 acceptable provided certain mitigation measures are met? DR BELL: Certainly I would – yes, it’s an omission that I didn’t have residential areas, and right through the whole process because we work and recreate in the knowledge zone and the university campus, that has 20 always been our wider focus rather than just considering our own residential area. I would say that is also incompatible, unless mitigation can achieve, for example, noise limits of 40 decibels or some of those other standards at the residential boundary. 25 MR HODGES: Thank you. Talking about noise, you have obviously seen the memorandum from counsel regarding the noise levels, we are not sure at this stage if they’re new noise levels or they’re a summary of existing information, we are seeking clarification on that. But that particular table indicates that noise levels at the university are 45 30 typically at night, of a 15 minute average period, and I am wondering what your views are on the need to or the justification for imposing a 40 dB limit if the level is already at 45? DR BELL: I have only been looking at the Silverdale levels, which are 30 or 35 45 with the train pass, and I have mentioned train passes – I mean we are used to those. To me it’s not the trains that are the issue, it’s the compound effects of the inland port container operations, the service centre and then added on top of that, the Waikato expressway noise. 40 MR HODGES: Okay, thank you. In section 16 you are talking about it’s almost enhancement of the environment rather than mitigation, so you’re looking for two things, is it, one is you’re looking for mitigation of direct effects from the development to ensure the different and existing areas are protected, but you’re also looking over and above 45 that for some enhancement of the existing environment that is not a Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1723 result of the development, but something you think should be included, is that correct? DR BELL: Yes. To me it’s a win-win for the ecology, for restoring some 5 mauri to the area, we’ve already shown our commitment to the other part of the gully system, and I think there’s a way for the applicant to achieve some of those standards, including the night time noise limit with the provision of a greenway as well, as well as accommodating stormwater treatment systems. 10 MR HODGES: And this would be on land outside of land owned by the applicant, you are talking about? DR BELL: This would be on land owned by the applicant. 15 MR HODGES: Owned by the applicant, okay, thank you. You’ve talked about the width of the buffer zone, and you’ve talked about a desirable width of 200 metres, but you’re not prepared to accept anything less than 100 metres, is there any scientific evidence that demonstrates that 20 those are appropriate, because we haven’t actually seen any evidence to that effect. DR BELL: As I mention, we have had conversations with Professor Bruce Clarkson and he’s outlined it in his submission to the Board, so that is 25 some of the result of some of their research looking at edge effects on native forest, and it appears that 50 metres is about the edge effect where, before you get into a forest microclimate and you get fully functioning forest ecosystem, so 50 metres seems to be about the edge effect kind of effect. So we’ve just doubled that to make it 100 in terms 30 of edge effects from either side. MR HODGES: I certainly have no reason to question Dr Clarkson’s evidence on that, but we’re not actually dealing with a forest situation here, which is the difficulty that I have. 35 DR BELL: Yes. MR HODGES: So really - - - 40 DR BELL: So that’s our sort of bottom line, I guess, is starting from that position of 100. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1724 [10.20 am] MR HODGES: Okay. Thank you. Just talking about your sections 34 through to 36 where you’re talking about community involvement in the 5 process of stormwater management. As you’re aware the Integrated Catchment Management Plan is beyond the Board’s jurisdiction, it is something that is approved by the Waikato Regional Council. DR BELL: Yes. 10 MR HODGES: So there is not a great deal we can do in terms of this process providing involvement. You have had the opportunity, you have indicated to participate in that process to date, and do you feel that will adequately protect your interests or do you see that something else is 15 still necessary? DR BELL: Certainly the Integrated Catchment Management Plan is still short on a lot of details, certainly at a local level. It is a catchment wide plan after all, and so through the land development plans we see an 20 opportunity at the local level to ensure that issues of flooding and also environmental bottom lines are achieved in terms of flow volumes and water quality. MR HODGES: Those are really matters that the regional council would 25 normally seek to ensure met the objectives of integrated catchment management plan, and in many respects their technical assessments. DR BELL: Right. 30 MR HODGES: Are those appropriate things for the community to be involved in or are you thinking more of integration with your own plans to ensure the right sort of outcomes? DR BELL: More integration with our plans, and as I have mentioned in my 35 representation, if we ensure the policies and objectives are set right then we would be comfortable with the environmental side of meeting those standards, for instance flow, water and sediment quality. MR HODGES: And are you satisfied with the objectives of the plan generally 40 at the moment, the ICMP? DR BELL: Generally, apart from the ones I’ve suggested. MR HODGES: Right. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1725 DR BELL: Which I think there’s an omission in terms of sediment quality, it only deals with sediment flow volumes at present. MR HODGES: Okay, thank you. In section 42 you talk about the collector 5 road onto Silverdale Road and you’ve suggested that be one way entry only. What do you see as the advantages of that compared to two-way traffic on that road? DR BELL: It’s just that it’s much easier for an entranceway rather than – I 10 have difficulty trying to get out of Nevada Road at the best of times in peak traffic, so providing for exit through there, particularly right hand terms would just create mayhem in my opinion. MR HODGES: Okay, what about left hand turns? 15 DR BELL: Yes, they could work. MR HODGES: Okay, thank you. Section 48 you talk about the height of buildings that within 100 metres of residential properties, do you think 20 that would be necessary if the screening was able to provide a visual barrier? DR BELL: If the plantings were mature enough and have sufficient lead time, and also you will have noticed I said within 100 metres of a residential 25 area, so if the green way was 100 metres then - - - MR HODGES: Solve the problem? DR BELL: Solve the problem. 30 MR HODGES: Okay, thank you Dr Bell. Thank you, your Honour. MR COATES: Good morning, Dr Bell. Kia ora. My colleague has covered most of the things, but when you talk about restoring some of the mauri 35 of the land and natural resources of the area, what do you understand by mauri? DR BELL: To me that is, in my own western way, it’s the life force that is present when you hear birds and you’re in amongst the trees. Whereas 40 at present it’s just a pasture land which seems devoid of any life force other than growing grass for cows, so that to me, and when you’re down there planting you kind of sense that. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1726 [10.25 am] MR COATES: And you talked about restoring the natural resources of the area, but what are the natural resources of the area, how far back do 5 you go? DR BELL: In my mind I was probably referring to extending the Maunganui Gully system, which has obviously been cut off at the knees at some point, we don’t know when and trying to connect it through to some of 10 the forest remnants in the Waikato University campus to try and create some kind of corridor hallo. MR COATES: The proposed greenway would suffice? 15 DR BELL: Yes. MR COATES: Okay. Thank you. MS HUDSON: Good morning, Dr Bell. 20 DR BELL: Morning. MS HUDSON: Just so I can understand what the implications might be for the matters before the Board relating to the plan change, I’d just like to 25 refer to your paragraph 32 where you talked about two issues that were relayed on the draft ICMP concerning the depth of stormwater ponds and their location. Can you just provide a little bit more of an explanation about what your concerns were in those regards? 30 DR BELL: The two concerns were the location obviously of the treatment pond systems, which given on the scale in that were hard up against our back fence, or our property boundary. So that was one issue in terms of these wetland pond system will overflow with extreme rainstorm events, so that’s a given. So that was one of the concerns is creating a 35 flood hazard issue where there currently isn’t one, and so I’ve suggested moving them further out into the greenway. The second issue was, from our analysis of it, the depth of the ponds seem too high, particular for wetland systems, but it seemed like they 40 were designed like that to absorb that lower frequency, higher flows systems. So whether they would function properly under normal flow conditions at a deeper depth was something that we were somewhat concerned about as well. 45 More about the functioning of it rather than any sort of dread or concern. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1727 MS HUDSON: Yes. DR BELL: So that if the greenway was wider, then those ponds can be made 5 wider and shallower and still achieve the same result. MS HUDSON: Thank you, you have made it clear. It was more, as you say, the function rather than amenity or perceived risk or anything like that. 10 DR BELL: So once a perceived risk is how to do it better. MS HUDSON: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Just picking up for a moment on the Silverdale 15 Road opposite gate 10 proposed entrance/exit way. I do not know whether you were here when Mr Boyle was talking about that. He seemed to indicate that the idea would be for that to be for staff traffic only because it’s preferable to separate employee traffic, if you like, from port/industrial type of traffic and that that was a long term vision. 20 If that were to be the case would that reduce any of your concerns or not particularly? In other words, is it a volume issue, is it a type of vehicle issue for you, is it both, if you could just comment on that please? 25 DR BELL: For me and probably most of our group it’s a volume issue. That section of road is already at complete capacity at peak times. I also can’t see how one could limit certain type of vehicles, staff only vehicles on that road versus other delivery vans or vehicles. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Well assuming you could, just take that as a given for a moment. DR BELL: Yes. 35 CHAIRPERSON: It’s still a volume issue for you? DR BELL: It’s mainly a volume issue. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and in particular a right hand turn issue or regardless 40 it’s an issue? DR BELL: Yes, maybe the whole traffic management of that area needs a total redesign because it’s – I used the word “chaotic” and I mean chaotic, at times. So to add another road is, that is the only concern we 45 have, is adding another road to that whole volume issue and then Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1728 throwing extra heavy trucks in that mix as well will create issues for pedestrians and children. [10.30 am] 5 CHAIRPERSON: I have asked some of the traffic witnesses about the pedestrian crossings, the two that are present on Silverdale Road – one near the Silverdale primary school and one near the shops. What is your view about the safety of those at the moment? 10 DR BELL: I am glad you ask. While I, yes, I have had a bike accident, but that has got nothing to do with the traffic, so I started walking to work for a year and I have even more close shaves on that pedestrian crossing opposite the shops than while cycling. And I see probably two 15 or three close shaves every day going through that area. So I am still amazed that no-one has been – well, I don’t know whether anyone’s been injured, but to me that is a very dangerous situation. CHAIRPERSON: And your observations about whether the pedestrian 20 crossings are used or whether there are people just walking across the road at other parts of Silverdale Road not using the pedestrian crossings, particularly Hillcrest High School students – do you have any comments about that? 25 DR BELL: It probably does happen, and even this morning opposite the Māori school there is no pedestrian crossing, so you know, people were walking across the road from the other side. So it is a volatile mixture. CHAIRPERSON: All right. Well I just wanted now to turn to your appendix 30 one please just to orientate myself. The top photograph depicts the large green space there. That’s the TTH land, is that correct? Just to the north of the photograph. DR BELL: So on the top left hand diagonal is all the Ruakura land, and then 35 there’s the bottom right hand triangle is the Silverdale Reserve, so the Mangaonua Gully is where the black arrows are - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 40 DR BELL: - - - wandering down to Morrinsville Road. CHAIRPERSON: And in terms of the road to the left, moving up towards the left hand triangle at the bottom part of the picture, that is Silverdale Road, is it? 45 DR BELL: Yes. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1729 CHAIRPERSON: And the road leading towards the Mangaonua Gully, that is Nevada Road, is it? 5 DR BELL: That is correct. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And the pictures at the bottom that were taken eight years ago, whereabouts are they taken? 10 DR BELL: So these were taken by one of our residents, Mr Bob Mills, who has been restoring his gully for the last decade, and these were taken eight years ago. CHAIRPERSON: All right. And what part of the gully is that on? 15 DR BELL: So he is on the far right black arrow - - - CHAIRPERSON: I see. 20 DR BELL: - - - on the map. CHAIRPERSON: I see. Thank you. So those black arrows are - -- DR BELL: It is just generally that is the area that our residents have been 25 involved in planting. CHAIRPERSON: All right. Thank you for that. And just also by way of clarification, when you are talking about noise in your paragraph 7, night time noise limit and the consequential loss of amenity value, are 30 you limiting the loss of amenity value in the context of that statement to night time noise? DR BELL: Yes. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Right. DR BELL: And not being a health issue. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. All right, well thank you very much for your 40 representation on behalf of the group, Dr Bell. DR BELL: Thank you, ma’am. CHAIRPERSON: The next representation, I believe, is from Ms Clarke. Just 45 when you’re ready Mrs Clarke, thank you. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1730 [10.35 am] MRS CLARKE: This representation to the Board of Inquiry is made by Suzanne Leigh Clarke on behalf of Ashley Clarke. ANG and SL 5 Clarke are EPA Ruakura submitter NSP1000341I6944. Our residence is a 13.5 hectare property, location is at 187A Morrinsville Road, or State Highway 26 – sorry, I’ve left 26 out there. 10 The northern perimeter of our boundary as explained to the Board of Inquiry as being to the south of the applicant TGH application of the inland port area. At the western edge out property boundary is bank- side from the Mangaonua Gully tributary and stream which backs onto the Silverdale suburb. The Boundary to our south is State Highway 26. 15 The eastern boundary aligns with the Waikato Expressway to be, the future Waikato Expressway. Our land is proposed, along with the other land in the State Highway 26 area of the R1 Urban Expansion Policy Area, to become a large lot 20 residential zone on the Hamilton City Proposed District Plan. The applicants is the joint developer being Tainui Group Holdings Limited and Chedworth Properties Limited, have requested a plan change request application to the EPA Board of Inquiry which was 25 publically advertised and closed on the 18th of December 2013. We observe the joint developer has requested the Ruakura Plan as a project of national significance. This follows years and years of various lengthy, high level, strategic policy and draft changing planning 30 changes. Reference is to submissions of the council made on behalf of ANG and SL Clarke to the Proposed Regional Policy Statement commissioners in 2012. This is in item 10 ANS Clarke, 15 February 2012, which shows 35 that ANG and SL Clarke supported many points in the RPS. I should say the proposed RPS. However, the legal submission presented long- term and ongoing personal effect issues in our locational WEX position, and outcomes for changing the growth cell of Ruakura by the PRPS. 40 The forecasted future also held repercussions expected of adverse effect by outcomes by uncertainty of planning timelines over all the other owner residents of the Ruakura growth cell area. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1731 It is important to bear in mind that the residents who are affected in the whole R1 area as a direct result of the future Waikato Expressway- State Highway 1 interior of a still yet to be built road, which is one of national significance. 5 The works’ designations requested by NZTA to be renewed this year in 2014 in the current existing 2013 North to the alterations of designations and resource consents to be extended for 30 years – sincerely we hope this timetable is not extended. 10 In our EPA Board of Inquiry submission Ash and I wrote a legitimate expectations like an expressway, Hamilton section State Highway 26 interchange, and the issues of and from the WEX and local roading has been held over the top of us for a very long period with very damaging 15 effect. Indicated to the Board is the fact that the current State Highway 26 designation for an interchange has exited personally to us for quite some time. Comments were relevant in keeping with the EPA application as in 20 regard to part of the suggested local roads and transport planning by the joint developers in the Ruakura Plan Change in the Hamilton City PDP – Proposed District Plan. We feel sure that the applicant, TGHL and CPL, in their WEX and inland port and new housing environment would wish to get on with their business proposals as soon as, when or 25 if made operative. Comment is made to the Board that we have submitted to the current WEX alterations to designations in the resource consents. I was unable to attend that hearing. 30 Chapter 25H in the Ruakura Planning by the applicant in the expert witnesses conferencing does not reflect any State Highway 26 zoning change. Instead intention appears to maintain rural status by expert witnesses. 35 Many of the residents of State Highway 26 area, are looking towards change in progress planning, which did not restrain or constrain development of their properties by any continued application of rigid or restricted policy criteria. 40 [10.40 am] We also mention lost in cost in our submission to the EPA. Ash and I have also been emotionally and financially exhausted and totally 45 overwhelmed by all these planning changes as some of the other R1 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1732 residents possibly are. We have tried to keep up with submission process and hearings as we knew about them. We are miserable and wearied of all this cruel and lengthy process 5 which has continued by cost and at times by various legal and planner fees. A rural market appraisal of our 13.5 hectares in February 2012 was over double our QV. In April 2012 we were overjoyed to receive a sale and purchase 10 agreement offer for 300,000 amount on top of this market appraisal. Admittedly this offer was made at the time of the first change of employment zoning which is on appendix 1 which is actually the land allocation map which is in colour. 15 This is a copy of the land use allocation map of the R1 area as was displayed in the business pages on the 19th of November 2011 without any prior consultation with us. Our agreement failed to go ahead when our land was picked to change 20 into rural zoning again. No sale inquiry was forthcoming to us for approximately 6 months. Economically we have been comprised almost at the greatest extent possible. We went from being freehold back to a mortgage state, resulting from the (INDISTINCT 1.37) process. 25 Two evaluation firms who refused us in February 2013 for a market valuation of our property prior to yet another – sorry, that’s meant to be ‘2’ – to yet another attempt to sell by a tender sale process. In April 2014 this year a reputable land agency actually refused to list us. This 30 refusal was due, as they explained to us, all this uncertainty and inconsistencies of our area in this Ruakura development planning. My husband’s health was medically compromised in September 2013. Then in December 2013 he suffered visual loss and disturbance in his 35 left eye. Shortly thereafter he was also diagnosed with a different condition in his right eye. He has lost ability to perform the necessary animal husbandry and farming of our activities. So we are left having to rent out our land out now for grazing. 40 In the present contemporary climate, as we understand, these plannings have caused a great deal of distress and anguish, probably to many people. Personally AEG and SL Clarke admit experiencing the greatest difficulties ever faced before in our lives over nearly two decades by some of these planning letters currently before the Board. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1733 My efforts to making representation to the Board was to try and be as brief as possible, and I apologise if I do not make my timing but I would acknowledge the Board for their time and the opportunity to read my representation. 5 Ashley and I extend grateful thanks at this point for the generous and friendly support - and I’m sorry I would like to say this - - - CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mrs Clarke, do not apologise. 10 MRS CLARKE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: You just like everybody else here has the right to make and say what you want to say and you take the time that you need, all right. 15 MRS CLARKE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: And if you need a break that’s fine too. 20 MRS CLARKE: Thank you. Ashley and I extend grateful thanks at this point for the generous and friendly support offered by the Resident Groups and people of the Silverdale Residents Group, the Ruakura Residents Group, Hillcrest Residents, Fairview Downs Group, also members of our own State Highway 26 Group and the people – Newstead who have 25 shown their support and understanding to us over many years – thank you. The applicant should feel some satisfaction that personal and community endeavours put forth input that has helped them to establish 30 and identify gaps in the planning. Many of the affected residents, individually and a community have gone to a lot of expense and paid for reports, legal and planning assistance, to provide the Board with this community informed data. 35 In an open community appreciation, we pay particular homage to all of the group’s members and individual residents who undertook to prepare for what we believe has been a valuable assistance to the Board. 40 Recognition if possible, anomalies or gaps will provide hopefully the best most possible favoured outcomes and conditions for all of the communities. It is the more preferable we believe to have contributed to the EPA Board of Inquiry submitted and been heard than not to have done so. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1734 [10.45 am] It is regrettable that none of us and any community groups were prepared in knowledge and financially setting up a group in order to 5 access legal aid assistance from the EPA. We do not believe it fair that individuals or groups or owners – and I’m sorry I have not got the back of this, sorry. CHAIRPERSON: That doesn’t matter. Don’t worry at all, we can get the back 10 of that circulated or – it’s got lost for the moment has it? MRS CLARKE: Sorry, I’ve had a lot of trouble this morning with the attachment because I sent the wrong one and it was very long one and didn’t want that one through, they only wanted the 5 pages. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Well, would it help, was there much more that was attached to that because if there is one thing we could do is you could finish telling us about what’s here and then we could have a break and move onto another representation and comeback to you. 20 MRS CLARKE: All right, thank you. The remainder it covers our points that we – some of our topics that we brought up. Obviously we couldn’t cover all of them, but our importance was the integrated catchment management plan because the drainage outlets come into our property 25 and through our property perhaps into/onto, through/over, that’s the plan at the present time. I did have information from that advised – the implication is in the Resource Management Act that – thank you, yes it will do, thank you 30 very much – can I go back to - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MRS CLARKE: I’ll just finish here – yes, I will, sorry. 35 Yes, those people that have been unpaid by assistance, when achieving (INDISTINCT 2.14) and those other benefits to the wider public community, I would like to see some sort of reward for that and acknowledgement. 40 The applicant’s reports, evidence-in-chief and the rebuttal evidence is undertaken by the applicants because of stronger efficiency in their data which has established new grounds for extra knowledge or modelling needed by the applicant and the authorities. The matters raised were 45 extremely numerous by ourselves. We note and acknowledge the applicants that much work has been performed and paid for by them Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1735 and their consultants in order to clarify the many issues further for the submitters and the Board. We observe on going planning matters and the integrated catchment 5 management planning being formulated in regard to the Ruakura development. This release discharge 3-Waters, outflows from TGH, CPL, WEX onto, through and over parts of our Mangaonua Gully land. We have noted the 3-Water experts witness conferencing version to the 10 Board on 8th of April 2014 and we acknowledge the Board members continued interest in these matters. We observe the RMA implies that a “straight discharge flow is unacceptable into the natural flow of the stream. The outlets must be 15 set crossways of the stream banks”. And traffic, we acknowledge the Board’s members request for the applicant to provide further information and the consultant reports regarding several matters in this aspect. 20 Appendix 2 of the TG memorandum, 22nd of May 2014 from Anna Wilkins to Jim Milne and Joshua Leckie, provides further information to the Board regarding the Silverdale large lot residential area. 25 We say that this is – if you would look on the land allocation map, our property can be seen on this first map with a road coming through it and an employment zoning over our property with a road coming out onto Romsdal Road which did appear to go – it was called a “local connector road” and it’s actually referred to in the fast forward 30 Hamilton City Council Proposed District Plan, it is sitting in the side – I don’t know that this would work now because we’ve got the wetlands and that things will have changed obviously since that, we don’t know because we don’t get very much information. 35 But it also came – that little road that came in there was actually supposed to be a public road. It comes in also through two or three other neighbours as well as ourselves. So when we talk about, we were curious because the plans seem to be 40 very variable and we’ve faced with different changes quite constantly. [10.50 am] We commend Ms West and Ms Denny who raise more than best 45 practice and safety measures related to Silverdale Road and already congested roading, Ms West provided excellent visual demonstrations Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1736 and advocated for safety conditions for the Silverdale Road users, establishing car and bus movements, accesses, pedestrian safety outcomes. Truck and trailer numbers will be heavier and frequent by construction activities, this was borne out by the fact – why I put this 5 here is because some of the modelling show those truck and trailer units, those vehicles numbers were not counted originally, the first time round, which was a gap that obviously will need to be, and is being worked on. 10 I recollect Mr Whittaker (ph) saying there were 30 landowners in the Ruakura residents area who are affected by this plan change request as within the R1 area. Although they’re not actually in the plan application, is my belief at the present moment, as they still are within R1 area as we are. There are approximately another 30 properties 15 included, and perhaps there are even more within the Ruakura structure plan area. The 2013 Census statistics may be misleading, given the boundary changes of housing growth that has already occurred within the area of the R1 UEPA. 20 We now have a new road at the top of State Highway 26, which is East Ridge Road, that subdivision incurred new housing on it, and because of the boundary change area assessed the measures and grids don’t quite probably fit with the rest of the plan, that was a our thought. 25 Conclusion. We do not intend to speak on every subtopic we submitted to, although we believe they have all been relevant if the whole of the R1 area is to be severely impinged, impacted and adversely affected by inland port facilities by this plan then our comment to the Board is about it all, is that it appears it’s grossly unfair and unreasonable to 30 keep people living here who would otherwise wish to move on with their lives again as quickly as possible, and without a huge property devaluation caused to them. We apply to the Board through our submission points for compensatory 35 outcomes for these Ruakura planning matters when these exist to provide a life choice for R1 area residents to move on. I raise this submission point to the Board again in relation to the shock and trauma felt and gravely expressed by Ms Carmichael by her on behalf of her family last week. The plans by the applicant for an inland port has 40 affected her whole family and we feel for them, as those emotions are very real experiences. Her heart-felt expressions can be thoroughly understood by all the other residents throughout this R1 area and in those Hamilton suburbs 45 adjoining the inland port. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1737 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mrs Clarke, as you have heard I am going to ask other Board members to see whether they have questions of you first. Mr Hodges? 5 MR HODGES: Thank you, your Honour. Thank you very much Mrs Clarke, that was a very clear presentation and thank your for sharing it. My only question really is could you just please make sure I have a correct understanding of where your property is on that map behind you. Would it be possible just to give an indication? 10 MRS CLARKE: We adjoin all the gully that goes down – we come in – it’s really hard to see – it’s actually more easily able to be seen on the other map that Dr Bell had before. This area here, it’s quite a narrow block, it’s a very unusual shaped block, it was originally the original block 15 from which all the other blocks have been subdivided from - - - MR HODGES: Okay. MRS CLARKE: - - - including Silverdale suburb, and including the Ruakura 20 land TGH administered land, and that comes over to point here where there has been a culvert blockage area placed into the proposed district plan that we reiterate what Dr Bell said, that we have never suffered flooding, not that I’m aware of. It may well be different for those residents that live right down by the gully at different points it may 25 flood on different points. It’s very narrow, it doesn’t have an esplanade, the land is from the bank, there seems to be a thought by several lots of people that it was already a reserve. [10.55 am] 30 It’s actually been placed as a natural significant area on the plan. Possibly we didn’t do what we should have done at the time regarding this, we took advice about it and we were told that this was normal practice in the gully systems. And we did realise that there needed to 35 be protection for the biodiversity to provide areas for the city, there are an amenity and also the connections – the plan that the council did have originally was for footpaths and I know that NZTA discussed with us that there were some issues around the planning. Because it’s all been around expressway there have been a lot of conflicting meetings, cases. 40 I’m sure you’re familiar with them. MR HODGES: Thank you for that, and do actually just have one follow-up question regarding the integrated catchment management plan. Were you invited to comment on the plan? 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1738 MRS CLARKE: We were. We attended an open day where we did actually unfortunately witness somebody that arrived – she was not supposedly to be there, but she’s actually on the integrated catchment management plan list, and so she did have right to be there. So we attended that day 5 which was HCC led apparently, Harrison and Grierson people attended and Mr McLauchlan was there as well representing TTH and CPL. MR HODGES: And were you able to identify your concerns through that process? 10 MRS CLARKE: Not completely because the plan is only an evolving plan, there’s lots of issues that are going to come on. Obviously there is going to be a lot of monitoring. Our concern is that our land has been rendered unusable for the present time and is a bit of an experiment – 15 it’s an over time thing, and that to us is extremely frustrating when we’ve had place on the market for so long, because of present circumstances where we are at the present time. MR HODGES: So you are really saying that your land is unusable because of 20 the planning uncertainty, is that correct? MRS CLARKE: We believe that it is, we believe that the setbacks – we’ve said this before in the proposed district plan and also to the NZTA, the setbacks are very strongly impinging on our property. NZTA really 25 would like a 50 metre access, they’ve gone from a 35 upwards over the years that we’ve been there since the designation that’s existing. Originally we were asked if any development was to be done on our property the advice from NZTA was that would shift our driveway along State Highway 26 to remove it from the proximity of the 30 expressway, which we did, and we had land taken after road works had occurred, and we had to give that land as a condition to NZTA retrospectively. So we’ve had a lot of issues - the Waikato expressway over the time 35 has been a long time coming, and because of the Ruakura development it’s become very convoluted. MR HODGES: Okay. Thank you very much indeed. 40 CHAIRPERSON: So Mrs Clarke, I just want to understand, you have had engagement with NZTA because some of your land was taken for the purpose of the expressway, is that right? MRS CLARKE: The area at the front of State Highway 26, yes. In April, and 45 I believe we were the last people to be seen by NZTA, I did ask that questions, and they said a very strange thing to us which we can’t still Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1739 understand, that we will have earthworks and construction done upon our place because of the wetlands and ponding, which is obviously the outlets are going to be conjoined. In the ICMP originally it was said, and it was told to us, that it was to be combined with the Waikato 5 expressway, but at that stage it wasn’t available on that particular open day that we had. [11.00 am] 10 The feedback that I gave to the council on behalf of my husband and I, it explained that we knew that we would be affected in some way, our land would be affected in some way so therefore we were affected, but we do not know and when NZTA came to see us we are still none the wiser except that there is ponding and probably not until the actual 15 physical work is being done will be knowing. CHAIRPERSON: I am just wanting to understand whether NZTA has actually taken part of your land for part of the expressway or they are concerned about the impact of the expressway on your land from a flooding 20 perspective, is that it? MRS CLARKE: We are concerned about it on two different fronts. One is the requirement of land particularly at this particular stage for us. We are in the middle of a sale agreement at the moment and those people 25 have paid their deposit and we just do not want any more problems. CHAIRPERSON: Is your property a neighbouring property of the Newstead Vet’s. 30 MRS CLARKE: It is the required property which adjoins us. CHAIRPERSON: I see, and then vets are further over? MRS CLARKE: The vet, yes, she is closer to the city end where the Newstead 35 Vet clinic is, that is her land there. CHAIRPERSON: That has helped me understand where you are, all right, well thank you very much Mrs Clarke for coming along and explaining your issues to us and it is important we understand everybody’s views 40 on this proposed plan change so thank you very much. MRS CLARKE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: All right, we are now moving on I think to the presentation 45 or representation on behalf of Cycle Action Waikato and we understand there are three people who wish to present. Who is the person who is Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1740 going to start, is that you Ms Robinson is it? Ms MacDonald, thank you and you are wanting to present from there? Yes, that is fine. People can sit or stand as they feel comfortable. 5 MS MacDONALD: I do not mind, we are sorted now so I will move it over when Rob takes it. Good morning, our presentation is from representatives of three community groups, Living Streets Hamilton which is a pedestrian advocacy group which I will represent, I am Judy MacDonald, CCS Disability Action who are access and mobility 10 advocates who will be represented by Gerri Pomeroy and Cycle Action Waikato, cycling advocates who will be represented by Rob Davidson. To begin just to give you the background to Living Streets, Living Streets Aotearoa is a pedestrian advocacy group foundered in 15 Wellington in 2002 by Celia Wade-Brown with the aim of promoting walking as a first means of transport in urban environments to reduce traffic congestion, improve fitness and for greater community connectedness and for recreation. 20 Living Streets Hamilton is the local branch of this parent organisation foundered at the end of 2006. The uptake of walking by all sectors of the population, particularly the young, the elderly and the mobility impaired including the visually impaired require safe walking routes and infrastructure to ensure that pedestrians feel confident for the entire 25 length of a journey. Routes are only as safe as their most vulnerable spot and for this reason much of our effort is focused on getting safe route crossings, particularly on arterial routes. Today we will be focusing on safe road 30 crossings for all people who will live and work within the Ruakura development area and I will hand over to Gerri? MS POMEROY: The CCS Disability Action is one of the largest disability services provided in New Zealand. We have been advocating for 35 people with disabilities since 1935. Our organisation demonstrates strong leadership by people with disabilities and a human rights focus. [11.05 am] 40 The 2006 disability survey states that an estimated 660,300 New Zealander’s reported to having a disability representing 70 percent of the total population, approximately three percent of whom use a visible mobility aid. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1741 Hamilton’s resident population at the last census was estimated to be 141,615. Using the percentage of 17 percent of people having a disability from the 2006 census potentially there are 24,074 people in Hamilton living with disability and 1,248 using a visibly identifiable 5 mobility aid. We all experience different levels of mobility sometimes they vary due to temporary causes such as injury, pregnancy or illness and sometimes they are permanent due to impairment. 10 Accessibility issues affect everyone at some time in their life. 45 percent of people aged 65 sit self identified with some degree of disability in the 2006 census. People with disability typically have less independent access to private motor vehicles than non disabled people. 15 An estimated 6,100 adults with disability have modifications made to a private motor vehicle so they can drive it. An estimated 3,900 adults with disability have a modified private motor vehicle so they can travel in it as a passenger. 20 This 10,000 people with a modified motor vehicle is a small percentage of the estimated 660,300 individuals living with disability in New Zealand. As a community this makes people with disability particularly reliant on safe accessible pedestrian routes and public 25 transport. As an organisation we are putting considerable effort in resources into ensuring that people with disability can safely live in their community and participate in everyday activities. Today, we hope to ensure that all 30 people with disability who will leave or work within the Ruakura development will have a high level of safety and accessibility. MR DAVIDSON: Good morning. Cycle Action Waikato is a local cycle advocacy group for everyday commuter cycling in Hamilton and 35 throughout the wider Waikato region. Cycle Action Waikato was formed in 1995, our parent umbrella body is the Cycling Advocates Network. The goal of Cycle Action Waikato and the Cycling Advocates Network 40 is to get more people cycling safer more often. Not everyone can afford to buy a car or run a car. Not everyone can hold a drivers licence, some examples where those who cannot the young and those who have poor eyesight. 45 Not everyone needs to drive a car for every trip being made. As the global population increases we need less vehicle trips using up the Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1742 planet’s scarce fuel resources and polluting the environment only when safer facilities are provided for cyclists can bicycles offer cheap transport and independence for a great many people. 5 The New York Advocate, Paul Steely White calls creating liveable cities for walking and cycling a race to the top where cities and townships wanting to attract people, jobs and business compete to provide the best walking and cycling environments. 10 By using good traffic planning principles, Hamilton’s structured plan areas of Peacocks, Rotokauri, Rotonua and also Ruakura can all achieve creating the liveable cities and towns approach. We wish to see those people living and working in the Ruakura development including both children and adult cyclists that are newer and lesser 15 experienced at cycling on the road with motor vehicles having the ability to safely start regularly commuting to places of study and work. This will require getting them off the road and onto shared use pedestrian cycle paths such as those along Wairere Drive and the paths 20 proposed in the Ruakura development alongside Ruakura Road. Today we will be focusing on connecting the off road walking and cycling paths of Wairere Drive and the Ruakura Road with the destinations of the knowledge zone and service centre. 25 [11.10 am] MS MacDONALD: As a combined collection of groups we are asking for the inclusion of the following four provisions into the district plan before EPA consent is granted for the Rurakura development plan change to 30 proceed. Firstly that provision be drawn into the district plan and construction completed by Tainui and Ruakura development of a safe pedestrian and cycle crossing across Fifth Avenue at Wairere Drive, that is at the 35 intersection with the proposed industrial park. That written commitment be made in the district plan stating the conditions for the timing of construction of the Fifth Avenue pedestrian and cycle crossing at Wairere Drive, that provision be drawn into the 40 district plan and construction completed of a safe western and safe southern pedestrian and cycle access to the knowledge zone and service centre off Ruakura Road. That written commitment be made in the district plan stating the 45 conditions for the timing of construction of the safe western and safe southern pedestrian and cycle access to the knowledge zone and service centre. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1743 We are asking the EPA to ensure that adverse effects on safety centre and accessibility for walkers, cyclists and the mobility impaired that are generated directly by the Ruakura development both during its 5 construction and later during its everyday use are mitigated. The four provisions above that we are asking for we ask to be provided in the district plan to achieve this mitigation. It is the ongoing aim of Living Streets Hamilton to achieve safe 10 walking routes throughout the city. Hamilton is ideally suited to both walking and cycling. It is relatively compact, mostly flat and could become a poster child for active transport in New Zealand. However, this will only happen if we can achieve safe crossings on major roads. 15 At present Hamilton had a large community severance problem caused by major roads which have either no safe crossing points or very large distances between safe crossing points. Examples include Te Rapa road, Ohaupo Road at Glenview, the northern end of Victoria Street and Boundary Road. 20 In the proposed Ruakura development plans pedestrian and cyclist community severance is generated at both Ruakura Road and Fifth Avenue extension. The university and the Ag Research centre campus which also includes the business innovation park are very significant 25 employment and educational areas in Hamilton used by a sector of the population with a higher than normal interest in cycling and walking because of both financial constraints for university students and ecological awareness, staff and students at all those institutions. 30 There should be a simple and direct walking, cycling and public transport connection from the central business district to the Ruakura development along Ruakura Road and also along Boundary Road and Fifth Avenue. At present both these routes are dangerous for pedestrians because of the high traffic density, particularly at peak 35 travel times. Boundary Road and Fifth Avenue roundabouts are hazardous to cross. Ruakura Road has inadequately connected cycle and walking paths which are only partial on the northern side and too narrow for shared 40 use on the southern side. It is well known from feedback provided by people with disabilities using powered mobility aids that they prefer to use shared pedestrian and cycling paths provided along Wairere Drive to travel around the city as opposed to using city streets as they find negotiating and crossing roads and streets difficult and dangerous. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1744 Once the industrial park opens at the end of Fifth Avenue extension and the intersection with Wairere Drive the Ruakura development becomes a huge barrier to safe crossing by walkers, cyclists and the mobility impaired at the roundabout because of the lack of underpasses or light 5 controlled crossings. In addition the traffic flow on Fifth Avenue and Boundary Road is likely to increase as result of vehicles travelling to and from the industrial park. The proposed inland port will also generate increased 10 traffic along Ruakura Road, much of which is likely to be heavy trucks and trailers. Safe routes can be achieved relatively cheaply for a small proportion of the total roading cost of the Ruakura development and could result in immense gains for residents, workers and students of the Ruakura development proving a coherent flow of walking and cycling 15 access from the central business district to and from the Ruakura development via both the Whitiora Bridge and the Claudelands Bridge. As a minimum and as outlined in more detail in the Cycle Action Waikato statement we need either an underpass or a traffic light 20 controlled pedestrian crossing on the Wairere Drive, Fifth Avenue intersection at the new industrial park entrance and on Ruakura Road to access the proposed knowledge zone area and the suburban centre within the Ruakura development. 25 [11.15 am] These two crossings need to be drawn into the District Plan via both the Ruakura development plan change’s Cycle and Pedestrian Network Plan and via written conditions in the District Plan. 30 Hamilton has had an unfortunate number of pedestrian deaths within the urban area in recent years and the relatively recent death of a school child on Ruakura Road at the entrance to the AgResearch campus is an indication of the problem in this area. Even with the speed limit 35 reduction the likelihood of death in the event of collision between a pedestrian or a cyclist and a vehicle at 60 kilometres per hour is still 90 percent and the reference to that is the Ministry of Transport road safety document. 40 An up-to-date National Road Fatality Report, including pedestrian fatalities, can be found at the website listed in this document. It should be noted that pedestrian fatalities considerably outnumber cycling deaths. The social costs of road accidents, including the value of a statistical life valued conservatively at $2 million back in 1991, are also 45 available at the Government website which is listed in this report. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1745 These reports indicate the large and ongoing costs of dealing with road deaths and injuries compared to the relatively minor costs of prevention by providing safe travel routes. We believe that Tainui Group Holdings have an obligation to provide safe crossings for residents, 5 students and workers within the area of the Ruakura development. Provision of safe crossings would be a real asset to the Ruakura development, making it into a place that is highly valued and greatly sought after for businesses, jobs and housing. 10 CHAIRPERSON: All right, we may take a pause there for 15 minutes for the morning break and then resume again afterwards, thank you. ADJOURNED [11.16 am] 15 RESUMED [11.37 am] CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, thank you, just when you are ready. MS POMEROY: Comparing New Zealand accident and injury trends for 20 motor vehicles versus that for walking and cycling, you can see from the graph that injuries from people inside vehicles are dropping but pedestrian and cyclist deaths are remaining fairly well static. Nationally annual road deaths dropped from 384 in 2009 to 254 in 2013. However, while the deaths for drivers and passengers in vehicles 25 have dropped significantly since 2000, it should be noted that the same decline in deaths cannot be said for cyclists and pedestrians over the same time period. Under the national guidance of the Safer Journeys Strategy and the regional guidance of the Waikato Regional Road Safety Strategy, road safety partners in the region are working 30 collaboratively to reduce deaths and serious injuries on the region’s roads. The Regional Transport Committee has adopted a vision of working together towards zero deaths and serious injuries on the Waikato’s 35 roads and has set targets to halve the regional road toll by 2040. The regional target states that by 2040 there will be a 50 percent reduction in road related fatalities compared with the baseline annual five year average, average 2004 to 2008, of 79 deaths. The goal for 2040 is less than 39 deaths per annum in the region. The national Safer Journeys 40 Strategy also recognises that we all make mistakes and are vulnerable when those mistakes happen. We shouldn’t have to pay with our lives or our limbs. The strategy adopts a safe system approach in which road safety 45 becomes the responsibility of everyone, not just the people in vehicles who use the roads. Designing and building safer roads and roadsides, Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1746 setting safer vehicle speed limits, safer vehicles and safer behaviours all play an important part. [11.40 am] 5 Provision of safer pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure at planning and construction stages of the Ruakura development will help to prevent unnecessary pedestrian and cyclist deaths as well embody a safer system approach. 10 Enrich+’s 21 staff support 81 people with a learning and intellectual impairment on the Ruakura campus. A signalised pedestrian crossing at the Ruakura Road entrance to AgResearch campus in particular will ensure safer pedestrian and cyclist access for everyone. 15 We note that Crash Analysis Reports published for Hamilton City intersections in June 2013 for the time period 2008 to 2012 identify crossing and turning as well as failure to give way or stop were the leading cause of 643 crashes. This report also states that intersection 20 crashes reflect a high level of both collective and personal risk. Cyclists obviously face a high level of personal risk and characteristics of their crashes also feature cross lane (ph 1.24) turning, failure to give way or stop and poor observation of them. Local roads within Hamilton had 172 cyclist crashes, 61 percent of which occurred at 25 intersections, 3 percent involved trucks. State highways within Hamilton had 20 crashes, 10 percent of which included trucks. Pedestrian accidents have increased from 2009. Obviously again there is a high level of personal risk. The main characteristics of these crashes are again intersections, poor observation and pedestrian factors 30 which aren’t described further but one could well imagine they could be associated with older age and some degree of impairment or cognitive immaturity. Local roads had 172 crashes involving pedestrians, five deaths, 45 35 serious injuries and 138 minor injuries. Trucks were involved in 1 percent of these crashes. State highways had 19 crashes involving pedestrians, no deaths, six serious injuries and 13 minor injuries. Trucks were involved in 11 percent of these crashes. We have also had two recent pedestrian deaths on State Highway 3. 40 People’s perception of risk has a very strong influence on mode choice, route taken and even whether or not a person, especially one living with disability, will participate in their community. In addition to the approximately 24,000 people with disabilities in Hamilton, currently 45 the number of people aged over 75 nationally living in our Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1747 communities is increasing by 5,000 per year with accompanying vulnerability and a decreased independent access to a car. I would just like to make a comment here. Statistics New Zealand 5 don’t release local data to territorial authorities on disabled people. There is only a National Disability Survey, so for local planning purposes disabled people have no data they can present to territorial authorities as part of their planning processes. And what this means as well is that the 17 percent of people living with disability in 10 communities are totally absent from transport modelling. At June 2013 prices the value of a statistical life is 3.85 million per fatality. Although most cyclist crashes occur across a wide age band, ranging from 10 to 60 years of age, the highest number of pedestrian 15 crashes occur in the teen to 34 year range, arguably a very productive age when the wider community will most benefit from these people’s participation in society. We are asking Tainui Group Holdings to provide pedestrian activated 20 traffic lights or a grade separated underpass at key pedestrian vehicle connections, so that pedestrians and cyclists can safely cross the high vehicle volume roads of Ruakura Road and Fifth Avenue prior to the increasing and high volume of heavy vehicles that this development will generate. 25 [11.45 am] MR DAVIDSON: Walking and cycling safety are directly related to the number and the quality of the walking and cycling facilities that are 30 planned and provided. This is demonstrated by overseas experience. In New York cycling advocate Paul Steely White states that injuries among all street users fell by 58 percent after protected bike lanes were built on Ninth Ave. 35 Furthermore it is demonstrated by New Zealand experience, Hastings cycle advocate, Paul McArdle, states, “The extremely positive results of the New Zealand walking and cycling model community’s funding”. Now, that Hastings has 120 kilometres of new walking and cycling pathways constructed, including four key arterial routes that link the 40 communities of Flaxmere, Hastings, Havelock North and Clive there has been a 90 percent increase in cycling on the key Hastings arterials and that the Hastings cycle crash rate has reduced by 229 percent. The number and quality of walking and cycling facilities planned by 45 the Ruakura development plan change and put into the Hamilton City Council District Plan will determine the success or failure of this Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1748 project. Currently the Ruakura development is not acceptable. It does not yet mitigate the adverse effects on the safety and accessibility of walking/cycling in the mobility impaired which are generated directly by the Ruakura development, both during its construction and later 5 during its everyday use. Tainui invited our three community groups Living Streets, CCS Disability Action and Cycle Action Waikato to a pre-hearing meeting with Tony McLauchlan of Tainui and their consultants 10 Mark Apeldoorn and Anna Wilkins of the Traffic Design Group. The pre-hearing meeting was held at Tainui on 14 March 2014. We are very pleased that the pre-hearing meeting has resolved many of the minor issues. However, despite the meeting discussion held, and 15 subsequent emails, there are still four major provisions remaining unresolved. We are highly concerned that in this Ruakura development project’s proposed form that there is a dangerous lack of walking and cycling facilities at three crucial access points. 20 Provision No 1 that we wish the EPA to consider today, a safe pedestrian and cycle crossing, either an underpass or a push button traffic light crossing is needed at Fifth Ave and Wairere Drive intersection where the existing Wairere Drive off-road pedestrian and cycle path crosses the proposed Fifth Ave extension to the Ruakura 25 development. Following the pre-hearing meeting Tainui and their consultants, the Traffic Design Group, have acknowledged by email the need to mitigate the additional danger caused by the Ruakura development to 30 the pedestrians and cyclists who will be using the Fifth Ave extension and Wairere Drive. Given this we see no reason why Tainui should object to having the pedestrian and cycle crossing drawn into the District Plan. 35 Unfortunately, despite the Ruakura development being a District Plan change, Tainui are unwilling to commit to providing the Fifth Ave pedestrian and cycle crossing in the District Plan by drawing it into the updated Cycle and Pedestrian Network Plan. This is in direct contrast to the District Plan commitment shown by a pedestrian overpass drawn 40 at the proposed train station. Please note also that the double headed arrow, which is shown at Fifth Ave, merely indicate what is needed and are not a commitment of what is planned to be constructed. So these two are relating to the 45 pedestrian and cycle network plan. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1749 Foot provision No 1, we request that the safe pedestrian and cycle crossing of 1(a) an under pass or 1(b) a push button traffic light crossing be provided by the Ruakura development and is put into the Hamilton City Council District Plan by drawing and labelling it onto 5 the Cycle and Pedestrian Network Plan of the Ruakura development plan change contained in the rebuttal by the Traffic Design Group’s Mark Apeldoorn, which has been provided. [11.50 am] 10 We will accept either of these two options 1(a) underpass or 1(b) traffic light crossing. Labelling both of these on the District Plan enables Tainui and the Ruakura development to choose which suits best at the time of construction. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Can I just ask, are you wanting to show us something, because it says there, “Shown on the projection screen”? MR DAVIDSON: Yes, we did actually ask if we could have a copy of the 20 Pedestrian and Cycle Network Plan. Unfortunately the laser pointer doesn’t actually point anything, so you won’t see anything. CHAIRPERSON: We might be able to do that by way of a mouse to point it out because if you want to show us, it is more helpful for us to see it if 25 we can. Could we just try and get that document up and perhaps provide the mouse and see if that resolves the problem. That is Fifth Avenue, all right. So we will just articulate the map that we are looking at here, in volume 3, and that is the Cycle and 30 Pedestrian Network Plan figure so thank you. MR DAVIDSON: We are just trying to find where the cursor is with the mouse at the moment, it is off the screen. 35 CHAIRPERSON: So the aqua coloured line on the map is Wairere Drive, correct, and the yellow is Fifth Avenue with the orange and dotted line. So where do you want to take us to? MR DAVIDSON: Okay, first of all if you travel down that to the left and 40 keep going down there you see a double headed arrow which crosses Wairere Drive. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1750 MR DAVIDSON: Okay, so that double headed arrow, note that that merely indicates that there is a need for a crossing but it is not actually a commitment of what is planned or to be constructed. 5 CHAIRPERSON: All right, thank you. MR DAVIDSON: And the second one was in terms of the pedestrian overpass which is shown at the proposed train station. So where there is a railway crossing – just to the right there is the route, actually there is a 10 red box where you have got your finger on. That’s actually demonstrating, according to the map, it says, “Overpass and train station”. Now, that’s a definite commitment of a crossing which is shown on the map and drawn on the map. So we are highlighting the difference between what is a need with the double headed arrows and 15 what is a definite crossing. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. MR DAVIDSON: And we are asking that we want to see a definite crossing 20 drawn on the map at Wairere Drive and Fifth Ave, so far we are not actually getting that. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 25 MR DAVIDSON: And, as I mentioned, we are offering the two choices. When it comes to labelling it, label it both “underpass” or “push button traffic light” and that means at the time of construction it can be either of those without having to be too rigidly defined. 30 [11.55 am] Provision number 2 that we wish the EPA to consider today. We seek a written commitment in the district plan of the conditions for the construction timing for the Fifth Ave pedestrian and cycle crossing 35 Waiere Drive. The heavy construction machinery which is needed for road building and for residential and employment worksite development, when that crosses the existing Waiere Drive pedestrian and cycle path, will be 40 dangerous to the path users. For provision number 2 we request a written commitment in the Hamilton City Council District Plan that the construction of the safe pedestrian cycle crossing of either 1A an underpass or 1B a push button 45 traffic light, be completed and in use by condition 2.1 before the construction starts on the Fifth Ave extension to the Ruakura Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1751 development and by condition 2.2 before any Ruakura development site construction or Ruakura development roadwork begins. And we seek the EPA’s assistance to ensure that these changes are put in place in the district plan through the Ruakura Development Plan Change. 5 Provision number 3 that we wish the EPA to consider today, access to the knowledge zone and the suburban centre from Ruakura Road. Cycle Action Waikato, CCS Disability Action and Living Streets have discussed with Tainui and their consultants the traffic design group, 10 providing a safe crossing for walking and cycling, immobility impaired, to cross Ruakura Road to the Tainui proposed Ruakura development knowledge zone and suburban centre. The original Ruakura development cycle and pedestrian network has a 15 double headed arrow across Ruakura Road, indicating cycling/pedestrian access point which demonstrates that the Ruakura Development Plan Change realises a safe pedestrian/cycle crossing is needed there. 20 Safe walking and cycling access is needed from all four directions to the knowledge zone. The knowledge zone eastern access from Hillcrest has a safe pedestrian and cycle off-road paths, both through the university campus and along the boundary road – Ruakura Roads. 25 The knowledge zone northern access from Fairview Downs and Flagstaff and via Waiere Drive, has a quite safe route for pedestrians and cyclists via a traffic calmed Mirren’s (ph 2.48) campus. However, the knowledge zone and suburban zone western access from 30 Claudelands via Peachgrove Road/Te Aroha Street, will not be safe on the north side path along Ruakura Road because the Tainui proposed path does not link between Waiere Drive and the knowledge zone - can we please see this on the map on overhead please. 35 MR DAVIDSON: Yes, can we please see this on - - - CHAIRPERSON: - - - we’re just waiting for it to come up. So we need to probably zoom in onto where Waiere Drive joins 40 Ruakura Road pass the Transpower Station I would imagine, yes. MR DAVIDSON: Yes, that’s good. Okay, so we’re looking at the connection right exactly where you are, 45 and there is a missing connection on the northern side between Waiere Drive and between the Business Innovation Park, so there’s a segment Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1752 there which you cannot walk or cycle unless you’re actually on the roadside and with the motor vehicles and cars and trucks and all the rest of it – missing section of off road path. 5 This is also the case for the southern access, from Hamilton east and Melville via Waiere Drive, which does also not have a safe access. This means that the majority of pedestrians and cyclists using the southern and western access will use the south side of the Ruakura Road path and must then cross a busy Ruakura Road to access the knowledge 10 zone. The recent pedestrian school controlled crossing at the entrance to the AgResearch campus demonstrated this huge road crossing danger. [12.00 pm] 15 Ruakura Road is not a tiny quiet country lane, it is a busy minor arterial road which will become even busier when its upgraded to major arterial with the plan connection to the Waikato expressway. 20 MS MacDONALD: Okay, if we could have the PowerPoint presentation at this point. If it is possible to dim the lights slighting, that would be very helpful too. Just to point out, these photos were actually taken by a staff member on 25 the AgResearch campus within the last month. She stood at the front entrance on Ruakura Road for approximately half an hour between 8.00 and I think 8.30 in the morning on a routine work day. This first photograph here actually does show cyclists and pedestrians in there with the cars. This is, of course, looking at the northern side of Ruakura 30 Road where at the moment there is no footpath at all, there is in fact a very deep farm drain beside the road. These pictures, the person who took them regretted that they couldn’t get closer but in fact feared for their own safety. But was this shows is 35 a pedestrian trying to cross the road to access the main entry to Ruakura, and also another pedestrian trying to approach along that northern side. There is not even a cycle lane at the point where that person is walking. They cannot go any further inwards because they will land in the drain. So they are actually there in very close 40 proximity to oncoming vehicles. This one indicates. Two people who are obviously trying to run to the university campus, they were heading in that direction. They are running along the side of an extremely busy road, and you can see them 45 then attempting to cross the road with two lanes of traffic. This is again about 8 o’clock in the morning. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1753 This particular case was also concerning, these two children regularly wait at the side of the road, right by the Ruakura entrance in order to be picked up by a bus to take them to St Peter’s School in Cambridge. 5 The bus apparently will not enter the Ruakura Campus to collect them because it delays the bus, so the children have to wait at the side of the road, right beside the drain, the bus stops in the roadway in order to pick them up. 10 This is the kind of thing which goes on on a regular basis with vehicles trying to access, doing right turns across Ruakura Road to actually get into the Ruakura campus. Again with this one, you can see people trying to actually gain access 15 to the campus there’s always oncoming traffic. In this particular instance, I’m told by the person who took the photos - the traffic actually came to a stop. There was a complete tangle and everybody paused in order to let this sort itself out. If that hadn’t been 20 the case there would presumably have been a very interesting accident at this point. This is normal, traffic attempting to join the main stream along Ruakura Road coming out of the Ruakura campus. Heavy traffic at this 25 hour of the morning, and that is routine, you can see there is one vehicle turning in, having obviously crossed in the teeth of oncoming traffic and another vehicle coming out. There are consider concerns with pedestrians and cyclists on these 30 roads, it happens on a regular basis. And there is such a lot of traffic actually happening at the time that cyclists are actually sandwiched between cars, which does not seem a safe approach. This one we have a pedestrian and a cyclist in the distance there 35 sharing the cycle lanes with some very heavy traffic going in both directions. Again the sort of people who use the road, this is a child probably heading for St John’s or similar college emerging through Ruakura, which is a very safe cycling environment, but they have to emerge onto Ruakura Road. They are then faced with at least a non- 40 existent cycle lane for some distance and a very narrow one thereafter. [12.05 pm] The people who use Ruakura Road are very varied. We have children 45 going to school, Hillcrest High School, St John’s, St Peter’s, Tai Wānangā, which is actually on the Ruakura campus, Hamilton Boy’s Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1754 High School. The lad who was killed a couple of years ago was actually trying to get to Hamilton Boys’ High. Peachgrove Intermediate, and of there is of course the Melody Child Care centre which caters for employees’ children on the Ruakura campus. 5 It’s also regularly used by people going to the university, people going to work, people including children who use the Ruakura club facilities, so there’s a swimming pools, squash courts and tennis courts there. People who recreationally walk dogs and just enjoy the Ruakura 10 campus, and people who go to watch the Chief’s train. So there is a huge range of people who actually use the area. And that is that. MR DAVIDSON: So that’s a snapshot of what’s actually there at the moment, in terms of Ruakura Road. 15 We think that building the proposed knowledge zone in the suburban centre right on the boundary of the business arterial Ruakura Road creates a reverse sensitivity issue because its generating additional pedestrian and cycle travel well above the current numbers who must 20 cross the dangerous Ruakura Road without any safe pedestrian or cycle access from the south or from the west. At the Tainui prehearing meeting we were given an estimate of 1800 workers for the knowledge zone, this stage additional numbers of 25 walking and cycling for the mobility impaired generated by the Ruakura development knowledge zone must be mitigated by the Ruakura development plan change. Unfortunately the developer’s contributions to the Hamilton City Council cannot be specifically targeted to provide a safe Ruakura Road pedestrian cycle traffic light 30 crossing necessary, therefore the development contribution to council is a red herring and must be ignored. It is unacceptable that the Ruakura development is providing safe walking and cycling access from only two of four directions, north and 35 east to the knowledge zone and the service centre. We think that the Tainui has an obligation to provide safe access for the residents and workers of the Ruakura development from all four directions. For provision number three, we’re providing two options to Tainui and 40 the Ruakura development. Option 3A, we request that Ruakura Road has a safe push button traffic light crossing to the knowledge zone to be provided by Tainui and the Ruakura development, and is put into the Hamilton City Council District Plan by drawing and labelling it onto the updated cycle and pedestrian network plan of the Ruakura 45 Development Plan Change contained in the rebuttal by traffic design groups Mark Apeldoorn, which was seen earlier. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1755 Option 3B, the alternative. We are requesting that a shared use pedestrian cycle path along the north side of Ruakura Road grass berm of the roading corridor between Wairere Drive and the Business 5 Innovation Park pedestrian cycle path to connect the knowledge zone and the suburban centre to the Wairere Drive pedestrian cycle path be provided by Tainui and the Ruakura development and it’s put into the Hamilton City Council District Plan by drawing it and labelling it onto the updated cycle and pedestrian network plan. 10 Please note that Hamilton City has already constructed a shared-use pedestrian and cycle path along the north side of the grass berm of Ruakura Road, between Peachgrove Road and Wairere Drive. We’re asking Tainui to connect this Hamilton City Council path with the 15 Tainui Path at the Business Innovation Park. We will accept either of these two options 3A or 3B. Tainui and the Ruakura development must provide one of these options to mitigate the sensitivity generated by the construction of the knowledge zone and the 20 service centre on the busy arterial Ruakura Road. We seek the EPA’s assistance to ensure that these changes are put into place in the district plan through the Ruakura Development Plan Change. For provision number four, if option 3A is selected we request a written 25 commitment in the Hamilton City Council District Plan that the construction of the safe pedestrian cycle push button traffic light crossing be completed in functional 1) before any part of the knowledge zone or suburban centre are opened and in use and; 2) before reconstruction begins on the Knighton Road upgrade from the 30 roundabout to traffic lights as part of the Ruakura development. [12.10 pm] The Ruakura Road noise zone crossing is required early on as the 35 intersection reconstruction of Knighton Road will make its pedestrian and cycle crossing very dangerous to all users. For provision number 4, if Option 3B is selected, we request a written commitment in the Hamilton City Council District Plan that the 40 construction of the shared used pedestrian/cycle path along the Ruakura Road grass berm between Waiere Drive and the Business Innovation Park pedestrian/cycle path be completed (1) before any part of the knowledge zone or suburban centre are opened and in use and (2) before reconstruction begins on the Knighton Road upgrade from 45 roundabout to traffic lights as part of the Ruakura development. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1756 The knowledge zone and suburban centre access path is required earlier on as the intersection reconstruction of Knighton Road intersection will make its pedestrian and cycle crossing very dangerous to use. 5 We seek the EPA’s assistance to ensure that the adverse effects on safety and accessibility for walkers, cyclists and the mobility impaired and generated by the Ruakura development, both during its construction and later during its everyday use are mitigated before provisions we’re asking for must be provided for in the district plan to 10 achieve this mitigation. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: All right, well just before we ask questions, Mr Milne, I 15 wanted to ask you whether you have any issue with the fact this is a representation and there are some matters contained in this that - - - MR MILNE: I have a global objection in that regard, which I recorded some days ago. 20 Your Honour, indicated that you were able to sort such matters out, and for that reason I have not popped up each time a representor stood, but again we’ve just had this situation of people who have not participated in the process, have not cross-examined the relevant experts, then come 25 along and trot out what are matters of fact, not of submission, and put them before you and quite simply is a matter of law you can have no regard to those whatsoever. CHAIRPERSON: What I’m concerned about is that there might have been 30 people misled by the EPA’s advice given to them about what might need to be included in a representation and what might need to be included in the submission and I appreciate that the procedures had the difference between evidence and representation but its sometimes difficult for people to understand that difference. 35 MR MILNE: And reinforced by minute and direction I think number 7 which again set out those – that distinction. CHAIRPERSON: Well, why I’m asking this in relation to this particular 40 submission, is because it’s to deal with safety, health and safety and one way if there is specific objection to this material which you would be entitled to make, would be to simply require the evidence aspects of it to be sworn in for you to ask questions of it. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1757 I take your point about the – putting to the traffic witnesses certain options there are some matters arising out of this which could probably said to be said submission, but I am concerned that there are issues of health and safety which might take – we might want to take a bit of a 5 different attitude about. MR MILNE: Well that really gets right back into recalling traffic experts that I’ve got no desire to do. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Well I think that – I will – we’ll have to just hold that thought and I’ll probably need to take an adjournment and ask my fellow Board members whether they see this is an issue that perhaps requires us to take a different approach. 15 MR MILNE: Well I - - - CHAIRPERSON: But I’ll need to obtain their views on that first before we go any further. 20 MR MILNE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: Right. So what is my discussion with Mr Milne really is about is this: There are matters contained in this and indeed other representations, yours are not along in this regard, which are truly 25 matters of evidence as opposed to matters purely of representation and where there are matters of evidence if we’re to rely on them and in fairness to all parties the process as was set out in the hearing procedures was that, the material will be presented as evidence where there were conflicts that would be put to the relevant experts, traffic in 30 this case, and therefore be able for everybody to question properly as a matter of fairness. [12.15 pm] 35 I have just said, as you heard that sometimes it’s difficult for people, lay people to understand the subtleties between that, but it was included in the hearing procedures and Mr Milne is quite within his rights to take that particular approach which he’s indicated he might. 40 What we’re going to do now is I’m going to adjourn briefly and discuss matters with the members of the panel to see what we might, if anything, do about matters contained in this submission that might be over and above representations. 45 So we’ll take an adjournment at this point, thank you. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1758 REGISTRAR: Please stand for members of the Board. ADJOURNED [12.16 pm] 5 RESUMED [12.40 pm] CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Milne, we have had a look at the version 7 of the plan change, and our understanding, which we just need you to 10 confirm that we are correct in our understanding, is that the ITA process would in any event involve consideration of all forms of transport. MR MILNE: Yes. 15 CHAIRPERSON: And if that’s your understanding as well, we don’t need to take this issue any further. MR MILNE: Thank you, your Honour. That is my understanding. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, all right. MR MILNE: And from my discussion with my learned friend, Mr Muldowney for the Council, it’s the Council’s understanding also. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that is good, and I am sorry we had not quite got to that degree of detail from our reading of version 7 until we had a chance to look at it specifically in the context of the submission. 30 Thank you very much. What that is all about is that the issue that we raised is not a concern to us anymore, that is the distinction between representation and evidence because of the provisions within the latest version, version 7, which everyone understands will enable an assessment of all modes of transport before development begins, that 35 would include cycling and pedestrian as well. So we do not need to worry any further about that issue that I had raised, and now what I am going to do is ask members of the Board to ask you questions they might have arising from your representation. 40 MS HUDSON: I’m not quite sure which of the three of you I should ask the questions of, so perhaps Mr Davidson and Ms Pomeroy. From what you have told us this morning, it seems to me that a lot of your concerns might relate to the current roading design and roading 45 standards that have been employed, and I wonder if that is really one of Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1759 the issues for you, particularly in relation to Wairere Drive extension, is that a fair comment? MS POMEROY: In some ways it is, but the concerns is – I’m speaking from 5 the perspective of the disability committee, is that roads are actually the major impediment to disabled people making a successful pedestrian journey, and vehicles on the roads often completely prevent people making that journey at all because of perceived risk. 10 Although there’s traffic volume data out, I believe at this point in time there isn’t an objective assessment of disabled and vulnerable pedestrian’s ability to cross those roads. So because we don’t have statistical demographic data of where disabled people live, and a lot of independent traffic assessments is catchment data, which is the 15 population around the area, we’re not actually present in those assessments, so you don’t know where the disabled people live in the community surrounding a development, and in my advocacy for disabled people inclusion in society that is a major impediment to our safe participation. 20 [12.45 pm] So it’s not the roads per se, but it’s how the decisions are made around provision of pedestrian facilities, and universally accessible. Because 25 we don’t have the information about disabled people we don’t where they live and where they want to go. It’s very difficult to incorporate them in a transport model, particularly on the pedestrian networks, because their abilities are less than a walking unimpaired person. 30 Does that answer your question? MS HUDSON: I think in part, Ms Pomeroy. Yes, from the disabled point of view, like I understand that you are talking about perception and a feeling of safety, not necessarily whether there is a crossing in a 35 particular place, would that be correct? MS POMEROY: That would be right. For myself I would perceive Ruakura Road as too dangerous to cross in my wheelchair at the moment, and if there’s more traffic I most definitely would not be crossing it. 40 MS MacDONALD: I would also like to point out that it’s regarded as too dangerous by most able-bodied people as well because, as could perhaps be noted, the young lad who was killed on Ruakura Road a couple of years ago was fully able-bodied. There was just such a 45 density of traffic and the speeds were so high that if you misjudge you’re dead. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1760 MS HUDSON: Yes, as you have made very clear in your very comprehensive submission, there are lots of different issues relating to safety, and I am not trying to show any preference or distinction between them, but to 5 understand it a little bit more about each of your concerns, and the other aspect in relation to your specific comments about the future of Wairere Drive/Fifth Avenue extension, is whether the council’s design standards are of concern or are they adequate at the moment for the road design as in – is there a pedestrian and cycle path required as part 10 of a new road nominally? MS POMEROY: From the disabled persons perspective, there is no data about how many of us use the cycle path, so we have people living in Hamilton East who go to the bays and they use the cycle and walking 15 facilities alongside Wairere Drive, but they’re going to strike the same problem on every use road if they don’t have safe crossings across those roads, so that vehicles are interrupted, if they need to be stopped. MS HUDSON: Yes. 20 MS POMEROY: Because we have blind mothers with pre-schoolers using those facilities. They need to certain that their children are safe. MS HUDSON: Okay, so what you’re saying is really two completely 25 different matters that have to be considered and they both have to worked, one is the actual design of the cycleway and the footpath and so on and the other is how you actually cross. MS POMEROY: Yes, I’ve raised this issue in a submission to the 30 infrastructure and technical specs manual, Hamilton City Council’s one, around how do they measure, how do they ascertain which type of facility is needed and at what point, because it’s only drawings, there doesn’t seem to be a process within that manual for taking counts of people and measuring the need of a disabled person, a pedestrian or a 35 cyclist to get across the road, that doesn’t seem to be present in the manual, so I have a concern about that, yes. MS HUDSON: It is helpful to understand that, and it was one of the other questions I was going to ask, is whether you have had any input into 40 the council processes. So you have answered that one, and what about submissions on the annual plan that deal with particular areas of concern, do you get involved in those. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1761 MS MacDONALD: We have submitted every year on safety issues to both Hamilton City Council and regularly to Waikato Regional Council as well as independent community bodies, all of us are regularly making those submissions. 5 MS POMEROY: Yes. And I make submissions to all the district councils in the Waikato Region about this issue. MS HUDSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Davidson, you had something else you 10 wanted to add? MR DAVIDSON: Yes, a couple of points, first of all if you look at Wairere Drive and Fifth Avenue, the problem is not the design of the path, and in as much as that Fifth Avenue extension is incomplete, so while Fifth 15 Avenue extension is a cul-de-sac there is no need for any underpass. Underpass there’s no need for a pedestrian crossing. The path does go across Fifth Avenue and there are plenty of people using it, but while the Fifth Ave extension is closed then there is no problem. 20 [12.50 pm] Once you open up the Ruakura development and you start developing it and you start bringing in big vehicles, excavators and those for excavating road and for developing the site itself, in terms of heavy 25 machinery and also once you start using that road as a fully developed site, then it becomes a major problem because there is no crossing there. So in terms of Waiere Drive, Hamilton City Council has developed it, 30 but in terms of Fifth Ave extension have not actually provided any walking or cycling facility on there because there was no need because that area hasn’t yet been developed and until its developed they will not provide any and, you know, they will be requiring the Ruakura development to provide it. Hamilton City Council will not be providing 35 it. MS HUDSON: Yes thank you. MR DAVIDSON: Also in terms of Ruakura Road, the three groups that are 40 present here today have actually met with Hamilton City Council, both their walking and cycling person and their transportation manager and talked to them about Ruakura Road, about the possibility of getting funding for a crossing at Ruakura and about the possibility of funding anything along the north side of Ruakura Road from Waiere Drive 45 down to the Business Innovation Park and Hamilton City Council is not Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1762 providing funding for either of those because they do not have any funding. MS MacDONALD: Yes. Their argument at the moment, the only thing that is 5 being offered on Ruakura Road are two median islands, which means you can run to those – if you can run that’s fine, if you can’t, you’re absolutely no better off than you currently are with no crossing facilities at all and that is all that is being recommended for that area. 10 MS HUDSON: Yes. Now if I can turn to the plan change for a moment, are you aware that the applicants submitted a revised plan change document to us on the 26 of May? MS MacDONALD: No. 15 MS HUDSON: All right, well I won’t go into that in any great detail, but what that does include is specific reference at different stages of development, the need for a land development plan and as part of a land development plan, pedestrian and cycle facilities are to be 20 assessed which is with reference to an assessment of the full traffic environment at the time, and I just wondered if that type of approach gave you any comfort in relation to the specific concerns that you’ve all raised. 25 MR DAVIDSON: I would say very little. From what we’ve seen from Tainui that they’re really not interested in providing walking or cycling facilities apart from those which have already come through the plan, so the plan is there. What’s already proposed is proposed and will happen. Anything else additional they’re not really interested. 30 So in terms of, you know, do we expect anything additional coming out of it (not a lot), we’re not seeing a commitment. MS MacDONALD: My concerns is that, although there are some lovely 35 suggestions within the plan for pathways within the available land area – I have no absolutely no objection to those, they are very attractive and would be very desirable. The real issues are the small connectivity matters which are not being addressed and if those are not addressed, it doesn’t matter how nice the internal pathways are. 40 The real issues involved for public safety are road crossings and connection from the Waiere Drive overpass along the northern side to the knowledge zone and if that cannot be addressed, any other work is cosmetic. It is not addressing the real safety issues that prevail in those 45 areas. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1763 MS POMEROY: Yes, and I guess from a personal perspective, currently there are no measurements in the transport industry rightly available for measuring our participation. CCS disability action has got – is starting to try and develop a methodology, counting the subset of pedestrians 5 who use a visible mobility aid. We’ve done a bit of work and we would like to see quantitated data about our community included in any independent transport assessment that’s done of this proposal, because that is our problem, the problem for our community. We aren’t included very frequently in these type of assessments. And because 10 statistical and demographic data isn’t available about us, it makes us totally invisible and many of us do not have independent access to a car. [12.55 pm] 15 MS HUDSON: Yes, I understand your – thank you. I don’t have any more questions. MR HODGES: Thank you, your Honour, again I’m not quite sure who to 20 address the question to so I’ll put them as panel questions you can make a decision yourselves. We’ve heard quite a lot about your concerns. We’ve heard a little bit ab out what is desirable or good. I’d like to try and get your balanced view 25 of whether the proposals in the overall plan change are good, bad or indifferent, excluding the particular concerns you’ve raised. MS MacDONALD: Do you mean in terms of the actual overall development of the industrial park and - - - 30 MR HODGES: No I’m talking about the pedestrian and cycling provisions made as part of the propose plan change. MS MacDONALD: The proposal such as they are in the plan, as I’ve just 35 commented, are good as far as they go. The real issue is they don’t go far enough. That we can be generating a nice safe little ghetto within Ruakura and along to the knowledge zone, but that will not be helping access to the area at all unless we can get that connectivity across Ruakura Road and also across Waiere Drive at the Fifth Avenue 40 intersection at the roundabout. If we can’t get that, then it doesn’t matter how nice it is within the area. It’s an issue of people are going to get injured trying to get there. MR HODGES: I do understand that but I’m trying to get an understanding of 45 whether the three groups are comfortable with what’s proposed inside the development first, that’s the first thing. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1764 MS POMEROY: The walk for the disability community provided there are adequate universally accessible public transport connections and pedestrian routes within the development. We’re comfortable with 5 what we’ve seen. However, if you truly want integrated land use in transport planning that is inadequate, because you cannot have integrated land use and transport planning without universally accessible connections to the 10 surrounding community and that is our point. MR HODGES: I understand that, but we’ve heard what you consider to be the bad things, I was just trying to ascertain whether there are good things as well. 15 MS POMEROY: Within, yes, within – I think we were all agreed that within the actual development, the design was pretty good. MS MacDONALD: It’s very attractive, it’s shared use pathways, I mean it’s 20 what one would want. But it is unhelpful because without the external connections you are going to be generating considerable hazards by virtue of having a knowledge zone and more people working within the Ruakura area. 25 You are automatically generating more traffic, whether it be not everybody who starts to work there is going to be coming on foot or by bicycle. There are going to be increased numbers of vehicles and as soon as that happens you’re increasing the hazard, you’re making it a dangerous situation more dangerous. Those photographs that we 30 displayed there will be more of the same. Therefore, our concerns are that no matter how nice it is within the individual development plan, if that development plan is generating problems outside they need to be addressed. 35 MR HODGES: I do understand that and I’m just trying to understand this in, what to me are bite size chunks, take it a step at a time. So we’ve established that inside you’re comfortable? 40 MS POMEROY: Yes. MS MacDONALD: Outside we’re not. MR HODGES: Okay, well outside you’re not at the moment, and if the 45 development did not go ahead then you’d still be left with the same situation which is not Tainui’s problem - - - Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1765 MS MacDONALD: Yes. MR HODGES: - - - and so, the issues is really - - - 5 MR DAVIDSON: No. MR HODGES: Sorry? 10 MR DAVIDSON: No. Fifth Ave and Waiere Drive, if the Ruakura development does not happen then you won’t have any need for an underpass at Fifth Ave. Fifth Ave at the moment is nice and quiet and you can walk across there, a blind person could walk across there without even batting an eye. 15 MR HODGES: Okay. MR DAVIDSON: And, yes, if you put Ruakura development in there it will need an underpass or a traffic light crossing. 20 MR HODGES: Yes. MR DAVIDSON: So it will change the environment, yes. 25 MR HODGES: I understand where you’re coming from so I’ll leave it there thank you. MS POMEROY: Yes. 30 MS MacDONALD: And similarly it would worsen the situation on Ruakura Road which is what I’ve been trying to say that we already have a nasty situation on Ruakura Road which needs attention anyway. It will need much more attention and much more urgently if that development goes ahead and more people are working within that area, the problem will 35 become considerably worse. So, yes, we have a bad situation already on Ruakura Road and as Rob just mentioned, at the moment, until that industrial park goes in, there isn’t a problem at the end of Fifth Avenue, there will be one the minute 40 work starts there. [1.00 pm] MR HODGES: Okay, thank you. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1766 CHAIRPERSON: Right, thank you I don’t have any questions, thank you very much for coming along today and presenting the material you have. 5 That takes us to luncheon adjournment and I know we’re running slightly behind time, I’m sorry about that. We will start with you Mr Ryan after the break and then Ms Webster and then move into the Hamilton City Council presentation, thank you. 10 REGISTRAR: Please stand for members of the Board. ADJOURNED [1.00 pm] RESUMED [2.04 pm] 15 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Ryan, just when you are ready. [2.05 pm] 20 MR RYAN: My name is Peter Ryan. I am making the representations here today on behalf of my wife and I and as part of the Ruakura Residents’ Group. We live in Brighton Grove, which I am sure the Board members appreciate is part of the enclave which borders the proposed inland port to be developed by the Tainui Group Holdings Limited. 25 The first page of the representation is really just a reiteration of the introduction to the EPA proposal form so I will commence reading on page 2 at the top. 30 We consider that the proposed Ruakura development plan change should be declined for the following reasons. Operative District Plan. Under the operative Hamilton City District Plan urban activities, including industrial development subdivision and roads, are currently prohibited activities within the Ruakura area. This status was 35 presumably applied for valid and appropriate town planning purposes including restricting the expansion of urban activities, including industrial development, into rural areas. The plan change would contravene the operative Hamilton City District Plan and is therefore wrong in principle. 40 The District Plan was formulated by the elected governing body of the city for the general good of the city and to protect the interests of the people who live there. This includes the prohibition against the urban activities listed above. Therefore, in our view, for a private plan change 45 to occur the applicants must demonstrate compelling reasons why their Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1767 private interests should take precedence over the interests of the wider public. We consider that an application for a private plan change is an attack 5 on the integrity of the District Plan. It is therefore incumbent on the applicants to show overwhelmingly that the plan is flawed to such an extent that the interests of the wider public demand that it be changed. If the applicants are able to surmount that first obstacle they must then 10 demonstrate how they intend to mitigate any adverse impacts that are likely to flow from the proposed development which prompted their request for a private plan change. As well as being concerned about the effects the proposed plan change 15 would have on our property, as set out below, we are also concerned about the effect the plan change may have on the general area surrounding Ruakura. Waikato University is arguably the jewel in the crown of the Waikato. 20 If the plan change is allowed and the inland port proceeds we consider that this will have an adverse impact on the university. Students are not likely to be attracted to study at this university if it has an industrial development as a neighbour. As graduates of that university, my wife and I can testify to the attraction of wide open spaces at the university 25 and the rural nature of surrounding areas. Lifestyle and property value. As well as being wrong in principle the plan change is also wrong in practice. Ruakura has long been a peaceful rural area bordering the city. Its status under the previous 30 Waikato District Plan was relied on by our family and other residents in the area when we decided to build our family homes in this locality. When we purchased our property around 2002 it was a great comfort to us knowing that the District Plan prevented industrial development from being foisted upon us as neighbours. 35 We moved into our current residence in Brighton Grove in March 2004. At the time our youngest son attended Berkley Intermediate School and subsequent Hillcrest High School. He was able to bike to and from school in a very reasonable time travelling down Ruakura 40 Road and then Silverdale Road. My wife works at the university and often walks to and from her work. I am aware that a number of other students in the area also bike to school or university. They will be unable to continue to do so if the inland port proceeds as Ruakura Road will cease to exist. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1768 [2.10 pm] For the last 10 years we have enjoyed the rural amenities of Ruakura. We wake up to the sound of birds singing and cows mooing. We are 5 surrounded by grass paddocks and trees. The sounds of the city very rarely intrude upon our tranquillity. We knew when we purchased our property that we would hear some noise from trains on the Eastern Main Trunk Line and we accepted that, we have no complaint about such noise. 10 There is currently a diversity of bird life around our property - pukekos, plovers, ducks and magpies as well as the usual array of small birds. We also have moreporks and harrier hawks visiting this area. We are concerned that this bird life will be adversely affected by an industrial 15 development in this area. The birds are likely to be driven away by the noise and pollution associated with such a development. The plan change will result in the destruction of that rural atmosphere and our lifestyle. If there is an industrial development in the vicinity or across the road from our property we are likely to wake up in the morning to 20 the sound of forklifts, cranes or heavy trucks. The plan change will also diminish the value of our property. Clearly the value of a rural lifestyle property on the edge of Hamilton City will reduce if the District Plan is changed to allow industrial development to 25 occur next door or over the road. We are not major landowners or investors, our greatest asset is our lifestyle property and this will be seriously devalued if the plan change is granted. This devaluation effect will likely be due to two things, first, the plan 30 by Tainui Group Holdings Limited to develop an inland port and, second, by the Hamilton City Council retaining an overlay our land signalling the intention to rezone the land as logistics. As we understand it Council have indicated that the rezoning may not take place for many years but the overlay will be public knowledge and this 35 will have the effect of making our property less desirable thereby reducing its value. Nuisance. We are also greatly concerned at the impact on our lifestyle from noise and vibration nuisance from trucks travelling through the 40 neighbouring logistics and industrial zones. If a significant commercial operation is allowed to be sited next door to a residential area then it is incumbent upon the Board to ensure that there are mitigation provisions to protect the residents from nuisance of this kind to a very high level. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1769 Such protection must exceed that provided to residents who knowingly choose to live next to an industrial development as their choice indicates a certain tolerance for such nuisance. Where the nuisance is forced upon residents, who deliberately chose their property to avoid 5 such nuisance, then the onus to mitigate the nuisance is significantly greater. Such mitigation should include a green space buffer zone between the residential properties and the industrial development. The Ruakura 10 Residents were initially pushing for a buffer zone of at least 200 metres with a bund and trees or other planting to provide visual screening and control of noise and dust. However, in the spirit of co-operation and compromise with the applicants, we have revised our preferred buffer zone to 100 metres with a bund and trees or other planting. 15 Consultation process. One of the most disappointing failings with regard to this application for a private plan change has been the lack of consultation, particularly on the part of Tainui Group Holdings Limited. TGH never informed us or other Ruakura Residents, let alone 20 consulted us, over their proposal to develop an inland port on land across the road, that is Percival Road, from our property prior to the public announcement of their plans. I first became aware of the plan when my brother, who lives in 25 Tauranga, rang me to say that he had just read an article in the Bay of Plenty Times which outlined the proposed inland port at Ruakura. I believe this was in 2010 or 2011. Since the public announcement and in an attempt to engage with TGH 30 at the outset, the Ruakura Residents’ Group extended an invitation to TGH to meet with the residents. To my recollection three representatives from TGH attended that meeting. [2.15 pm] 35 The purpose of that meeting was, in part, to discuss mitigation measures that TGH would implement if the proposal was approved. In that regard the meeting was spectacularly unsuccessful. TGH representatives showed little appreciation of or concern for the likely 40 impact their proposed development would have on our lives. Comments were made by the representatives to the effect that we already lived near a railway line so how could we be concerned about nuisance caused by the inland port? 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1770 What was successful about that meeting was the exposing of the underlying attitude of TGH when the comment was made that, “This is our land and we will do what we want with it”. Such a disregard for neighbouring landowners is hard to fathom from the property 5 development company of the Tainui tribe. Because of their history with regard to grievances over land I would have expected that Tainui would be keenly aware of the impact on people’s lives when the enjoyment of their land is adversely affected. Surely Tikanga Māori, if not common courtesy, dictates that TGH should have consulted with its 10 neighbours before embarking on a proposed development of this nature and extent. If TGH had seen fit to engage with Ruakura Residents regarding their proposal for the inland port in a consultative way in the early stages, we 15 consider there would have been opportunities to agree on mitigation features that would be acceptable to all parties. Instead the lack of consultation and engagement has resulted in both parties becoming entrenched in their opposing positions. Consequently both parties have incurred significant costs in getting to this point. 20 When it became known that TGH intended to develop an inland port at Ruakura, some of the residents considered selling their properties because they did not want to live near to such a development. It seemed a sensible solution that TGH purchase such properties to 25 alleviate the residents’ plight and to provide a buffer between the inland port and the rural land to the east. The opportunity to explore this possibility was missed because TGH chose not to discuss their plans with the residents. 30 Ongoing engagement and consultation. While the Ruakura Residents were also disappointed with the initial failure to consult by planning staff of the Hamilton City Council, several councillors have since recognised this failure and have engaged with the residents in a very positive and supportive way. Senior planning staff have now also 35 engaged with the residents and have demonstrated a real willingness to work with the residents to achieve an acceptable solution. The same cannot be said for TGH. At the meeting referred to, where TGH representatives met with Ruakura Residents, we made an attempt 40 to negotiate acceptable mitigation features such as a significant green buffer zone surrounding the development, noise reduction and setback from the boundary. Our suggestions were not acceptable to TGH nor was there any attempt 45 on their part to offer a compromise. We find it difficult to understand why TGH would not be willing to at least attempt to negotiate an Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1771 acceptable compromise with the residents. Although I was not involved in the expert witnesses’ conferencing I have been informed that attempts were made to get all of the experts to sit around a table and thrash out what could be acceptable to all parties. This seems to us 5 to be an eminently sensible course of action. However, I am informed that this attempt thwarted by TGH who refused to take part in such a discussion. Conclusion. We remain opposed to the application for a private plan 10 change and to the proposed development of an inland port at Ruakura for the reasons stated above. If this Board considers that the application should be granted then we consider that extensive mitigation features should apply to this development, given the nature and extent of the development and its proximity to a significant 15 residential area. We consider that such mitigation should include but not be limited to a setback of at least 100 metres from the boundary of TGH land for any development producing any kind of nuisance. Such setback to include planting of trees and bushes to absorb noise. 20 Acoustic barriers to control noise from the site. Appropriate planting of trees with a bund to provide a visual shield for Ruakura residents. Access to be provided to residents properties alongside the current railway line down towards Silverdale Road, to enable residents to walk or cycle to Hillcrest schools and the university. 25 [2.20 pm] And I should also include, which I have omitted, the requirement that the proposed overlay over our land that it be rezoned at some stage in 30 the future as logistics should also be removed because that is providing a real detrimentally effect to the value of our land and our ability to deal with our land now, because everybody knows that this proposal is there and is likely to come into effect at some stage in the future. 35 Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: All right, thank you Mr Ryan, I’ll just see if there are any questions for you. 40 MR HODGES: Thank you, your Honour. Good afternoon, is it Mr Ryan or Dr Ryan? MR RYAN: No, just Mister. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1772 MR HODGES: Mister, thanks, Mr Ryan. I just like to clarify one point please in section 24 of your evidence – of your submission – you’ve noted requirements regarding to an acoustic barrier and trees and things like that, what is the purpose of the 100 metres over and above the 5 mitigation of noise and visual effects provided by the other two provisions? MR RYAN: We see that the 100 metres green buffer zone is to do all of the other speakers have or representatives have put forward, that is to 10 provide a proper shield visually as well as acoustically from the operation of the inland port, to provide a real feature around the port which is congruous with the developments that have already gone on and that Dr Bell spoke about this morning in the Silverdale area, so that it becomes a greenbelt with all of the attendant benefits of having a 15 green belt. And that the acoustic barrier is probably going to be necessary over and above just having a 100 metre buffer zone because we don’t consider that the greenbelt in itself will be sufficient to deal with the acoustic 20 nuisance. MR HODGES: Okay, thank you very much, thank you your Honour. MR COATES: Yes, good afternoon, Mr Ryan, in your paragraph you talk 25 about it being incumbent on the applicant to show overwhelmingly that their plan is flawed. Isn’t it really the job of the submitters to show that it’s flawed? The applicants don’t necessarily think it’s flawed. 30 MR RYAN: Well the applicants must think its flawed if they’re making an application for a change, so by the plan there I mean the current district plan. 35 MR COATES: It just show the existing plan - - - MR RYAN: Is flawed and that therefore their plan should be approved. MR COATES: All right. Thank you. 40 CHAIRPERSON: I don’t have any questions either, thank you very much to present your representation. MR COATES: Thank you for that. 45 CHAIRPERSON: Miss Webster. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1773 MISS WEBSTER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Would you like to have Mr Pene come up and sit next to 5 you? MISS WEBSTER: Thank you he’s indicated – thank you, Judge, he’s indicated no, thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so Miss Webster, the first part of this is, this is your evidence, is that correct? MISS WEBSTER: Yes. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Summary of your evidence, all right well we’ll ask for you to be either sworn or affirmed, thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Can you please tell the Board your full name? MISS WEBSTER: My name is Diana Christine Webster, I am known as Chris Webster. 25 CHAIRPERSON: And you are presenting your evidence today on behalf of Geo Demo Group, is that correct? MISS WEBSTER: That’s correct, Judge, yes. 30 CHAIRPERSON: And have already prepared a statement of your evidence- in-chief? MISS WEBSTER: I have indeed. 35 CHAIRPERSON: And do you confirm the contents of that as being true and correct? MISS WEBSTER: I do. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Have you prepared today a summary of your evidence? MISS WEBSTER: I have. 45 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Would you like to now read that out, please? Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1774 MISS WEBSTER: Thank you. Nga mihinui kia koutou, kia koutou katoa. Introduction. My name is Chris Webster, on behalf of the Geo Demo Group, and I’d like to just qualify there also, I have, if you wish the 5 voices of about 22 different people, who have participated in the background in terms of wanting me to raise questions and comment on their behalf. They’re not named, but Mr Pene, whom I recognise and confirm, has been actively involved in this process. 10 Paragraph 1.2. So this evidence includes the initial submission and the further submission, the statement of evidence and the opening statement made on those respective dates and the footnotes. 1.3. The sworn affidavit of Mr Jim Pene annexed to my statement of 15 evidence is also confirmed. Number 2, issue. The issue is whether Tainui Group Holdings was obliged to consult. 2.2, all references to documents in this submission are in the public domain and links to each source appear as footnotes. I 20 have listed at 3, the contents of this submission, and I’ll take those as read, Judge, unless you would like me to read them out. CHAIRPERSON: No, thank you. 25 MISS WEBSTER: Thank you very much. In terms of the background, 4.1. The Waikato-Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995. But for the confiscations last century we would not be here today, and Ngāti Koura and Wairere and all other hapu and their families would still own their lands. 30 At 4.2 as a reference to a section in the recital of the 1995 Act, which has been produced into evidence by myself and the Honourable Koro Wētere, so I’ll take that as read. 35 Paragraph 5. The Deed of Settlement 1995 Land Transfer. But for the 1995 Settlement Act the Crown would not have transferred about 16,000 hectares under the Deed of Settlement Land Transfer. Te Kauhanganui. But for the 1995 Settlement Act, Te Kauhanganui 40 Incorporated would not exist. It was incorporated in 1999 under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908, it is to be run according to the requirements of its rules under the relevant statute and the relevant common law. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1775 6.2. It’s submission, that’s the submission of Te Kauhanganui to the Board of Inquiry stated “it’s interest in the proposal is greater than the interest of the general public, that is the constitutionally mandated in legal iwi authority for its rohe, which includes the plan change land”. 5 Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Incorporated is the constitutionally mandated and legal iwi authority for 68 marae and 33 hapu. As of June 2013 there were 64,572 registered tribal members to affiliate to Waikato –Tainui. 10 6.3 It’s business arm, the Waikato-Raupatu Lands Trust produces an annual report. 7. Tainui Group Holdings Limited. But for the 1995 Settlement Act, Tainui Group Holdings Limited would not exist. In 1998 it was 15 registered as a limited liability company, it produces an annual report, and two executive committee members from Te Kauhanganui Inc. sit on its Board of Directors. [2.30 pm] 20 Between 1998 and 2000 it receives financial support, and the number of properties from the 170 million dollar settlement. It holds those properties in fee simple. It can dispose of this and those lands, and has done so on the grounds of being uneconomic or formed part of a 25 development. One such property that was transferred in fee simple to TGH was Ruakura, comprising over 800 hectares. It is the focus of this Board of Inquiry. 30 Relevant events timeline. It is a fact that TGH and Chedworth Park Properties Limited, joint applicants of the Ruakura Development Private Plan Change, PPC. There are sufficient details before the Board and in the public domain without further repetition in this 35 submission. The following list identifies various events that are relevant to Te Kauhanganui, Tainui Group Holdings and the Ruakura Development, and I have listed there a table. Would you like me to read those, Judge, 40 or take them as read? CHAIRPERSON: Take them as read, thank you very much. MISS WEBSTER: Thank you very much. Page 4. Number 9, cultural impact 45 assessments. In 2011 Tainui Group Holdings procured two Cultural Impact Assessments (CIA). The arrangements behind the selection of Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1776 and the production by the two individuals remain unknown to us, and the majority of the 3,000 members who whakapapa to Ngati Wairere. 9.2, Marie Pene’s CIA dated 2011. This document contains the 5 following. The author claims to be the environmental agency for Ngati Wairere, that the information is the property of Waikato-Tainui and Te Kotoko whenua. The author was contracted by TGH, the arrangements involving the office of the Maori King and Te Arataura and Te Kauhanganui are revealed. The document was used to support the 10 Ruakura Structure Plan. There are confusing references to different parties. There is Waikato- Tainui, Ngati Wairere, Ngati Haua, tangata whenua, mana whenua, mana whakaari. An attachment dated 10 October 2011 is signed from 15 two people of Hukanui marae that quote: “endorses TKW to represent their needs of local government interest in resource management works and activity.” It is important to state the author married into Ngati Wairere, which confirms my statement to Ms Linzey, that she does not whakapapa into Wairere. It is unclear whether this document was 20 signed off or by whom. Page 5, and I’m missing the rest of my submission. Excuse me. 9.4, Wiremu Puke, his CIA dated 2011. This 25 page document 25 entitled “An Assessment of the Potential Impact that Any Expansion and Development of the Ruakura Estate May have on Cultural Values and Mana Whenua”. It states at page 3 that “TGH and CPL have determined that it is now appropriate and timely to develop their respective land at Ruakura. Their proposed plans envisage a 30 comprehensive staged developed development of the land.” In order to undertake the proposed works the parties require resource consent from Hamilton City Council and Waikato Regional Council. Under sections 5, 6E, 7 and 8 of the RMA 1991, developers 35 undertaking such works are required to consult with local tangata whenua, hence the parties have requested NAMTOK Consultancy Limited to provide an assessment of A, B and C, which is set out in Mr Puke’s document. 40 At page 4, the sources of information to sustain the document are listed. But the document is not signed off by any member of Hukanui Marae or from any of the kaumatua and kuia referred to as being the sources of information. The document was signed off almost a month later by a member of Ngāti Mahanga with whom Mr Puke has a commercial 45 relationship. So my point there is that, it was not viewed or signed or endorsed by the Hukanui Marae or anyone wider than that marae. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1777 [2.35 pm] Discussion at point 10: It was and remains a concern that individuals 5 selected to produce these documents, Ngāti Wairere was written about in the third person, members from Tauhei Marae, such as myself, Mr Pene and our families were ignored and were not present in the discussions or shared in its preparation. 10 Of further concern is that TGH and the committee (that’s the executive committee) and the lands trust have influenced individuals to act without principle on a matter that will not only impact upon the land and waterways environment but also in the families who live across the road. They will suffer the impacts more than anyone else. 15 How will they and their communities plan for their future during the prolonged development period? This development is the blunt end of a Treaty settlement and no settlement should create a new grievance. So we mihi the residents of Silverdale who have had to deal with this issue 20 and will continue to deal with this issue. Number 11, Ngāti Wairere Kaumatua: in 2011 four kaumatua – that was two from Tauhei Marae and two from the Hukanui Marae formed an informal working group to assist with the preparation of a resource 25 consent for the Tauhei Quarry. I was the planning advisor. The project included activities such as site visits, regular meetings with the owners and the development of a staged timeframe where certain milestones were to be met. The project lasted about 15 months. A draft 30 report was produced, audited and the final report was submitted to the principle and that draft report and its contents were commented on and contributed to by the informal kaumatua group. It formed – so the final report formed part of a resource consent 35 package of documents that was submitted to the Waikato District Council and the Waikato Regional Council for the various consents which were granted. In 2011 we had become aware of the TGH proposal through the news. 40 Given that Ruakura was land that had been confiscated last century we knew it was ancestral land and talked of what was happening. Naturally senior kaumatua talked of the loss of Ngāti Koura and Ngāti Wairere lands and for which they had never been acknowledged for their contributions to the tribal estate. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1778 For instance, Koura lost 5,000 acres of land in the Tauhei area which included the Tauhei quarry land. Our families last century appeared before the Compensation Courts and were able to wrest back 1640 acres, not a mean feat, and part of that land remains today with the 5 families. So of the 5,000 acres of land that was taken, 1640 were returned under the Compensation Courts and land remains with Mr Hopa and Mr Pene. The land which Tauhei Marae sits is land that was wrested back from 10 the Compensation Courts, and so that has a significant ancestral connection to the families and of course to the community. 11.4, page 6: Early in 2012 I learned of the existence of the documents – that’s the two CIAs – what was not able to locate them in July 2012, 15 George Hopa who’s the chair of the kaumatua group wrote to TGH seeking the release of those documents. CE, Mike Pohio responded, highlighting in his letter response, which is annexed to my statement of evidence that it was in the initial 20 consultation stages. From that we had expectations – “we” that’s Ngāti Wairere – would be included and/or invited to participate in the preparation of the project, this did not occur. Mr Pene, 12.1: In October 2012, Jim Pene after receiving the 25 documents called a hui-a-hapū to discuss the growing concerns the kaumatua had of individuals claiming to represent the hapū of Ngāti Wairere. It was at that hui that Mrs Pene was asked to explain her involvement in the preparation of her CIA and why she had used a photograph of the house, Māramatuatahi without the permission of the 30 Tauhei kaumatua and trustees. Her claim of being – for which she had no response apart from the fact that, her late husband was a member. [2.40 pm] 35 Her claim of being a mandated environmental agency was for Ngāti Wairere was also challenged, adding she was misrepresenting the facts and the hui did not support her assertations. 12.2: Mr Pene deposes – at paragraph 12 in his affidavit – “I’m very 40 disappointed that TGH has ignored Ngāti Wairere hapū who’s lands formed a significant part of the 1995 settlement”. And at paragraph 13, “In my view TGH should have obtained our input given that Ruakura forms part of the ancestral lands that were confiscated from Ngāti Wairere last century.” 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1779 12.4: None of the four kaumatua were told of or attended the Hukanui Marae hui in December 13. There has been no further communications from TGH. 5 13: Te Kahui Inc is the iwi authority. In it submission (as I’ve read out previously) it states it is the iwi authority for all 68 marae, 33 hapū and the 64,000 plus registered members. 13.2: This statement is rejected for the following reasons: 68 marae. 10 Each marae sits on land which may have one or more buildings on it, the land is typically a Māori reservation which is a common land holding structure. One can be easily established over both Māori freehold and general land under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. The trustees of each marae or any marae subject to the Māori Reservations 15 Regulations 1994, the jurisdiction of both laws is the Māori Land Court. The members, kaumatua and trustees of any marae hold their own mana and rangatiratanga that cannot be assumed by an iwi authority or 20 any other body. It is highly unlikely the trustees and members of any marae would permit an iwi authority to speak or act or claim to represent them in a legal context. The buildings and land are owned by the people, not Te Kauhanganui 25 but unless marae trustees and kaumatua sign what I call “The Questionable Oath Allegiance to the Kīngitanga Movement”, no tribal funding is released until that kawenata is signed, and that is economic duress which is practised by this iwi authority. 30 13.5 33 hapū: The claim seeks to undermine and conflicts with the 1995 Settlement Act which co-defines the existence of the 33 hapū, and that link was provided to the Board of Inquiry in my statement of evidence. The claim also conflicts with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, no hapū would agree for its mana to be subsumed under another let alone an 35 incorporated society. Page 7, paragraph 13, 64,000 plus tribal members: New Zealand is a democracy, the rule of law is upheld. The claim that Kauhanganui anchors the legally mandated iwi authority is irrelevant. It does not 40 provide any power or veto under these circumstances. No discretion is available to Te Kauhanganui Incorporated to assume it has these powers. It is questionable that the tribal parliament approves such a power. I have not been able to locate any reference in the 2009 and 2010 quarterly meetings where resolution to this effect was agreed. It 45 was talked about but there was no resolution passing or endorsing Te Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1780 Kauhanganui as the iwi authority – mainly because people didn’t understand what it meant. Paragraph 13.7: The claim conflicts with the New Zealand Bill of 5 Rights 1990 and the Human Rights Act. The only requirement to be registered - the only requirement is to be registered, as a member is whakapapa and some people refuse to register, they believe their whakapapa is sufficient. They shouldn’t have to go and put their name on beneficiary role or registration. But whakapapa is the only qualifier 10 which is set out in the 1995 Act, nothing else is required, but unless you register you are not eligible for benefit. [2.45 pm] 15 14. The Resource Management Act 1991, consultation. This hearing of the applicant’s private plan change to the Hamilton City Operative District Plan is subject to the Resource Management Act 1991. It is known the applicants filed an appeal against the decision of the Hamilton City Council when it refused the applicant’s plan change 20 application. The applicant’s appeal to the Environment Court also challenged the obligation to consult. The applicants asserted then they had no obligation to do so. 25 14.4. Mr Stickney, an expert witness to the applicants, discussed consultation in his evidence-in-chief at paragraph 7 and he quotes, “It is my understanding, based on the legal advice received by the applicants, that neither the applicants nor the Hamilton City Council were under 30 any legal duty to undertake consultation in respect of a privately requested plan change and that the Council is not under a duty to consult with anyone other than those persons listed in clause 3, subsection 1 of schedule 1 of the RMA in respect of its proposed District Plan. Nonetheless consultation did take place”. And this 35 discussion continues from paragraph 8 to 54 in his 62 page EIC. He repeats passages of this in his rebuttal evidence. At 15. TGH and CPL additional consultation where Mr McLauchlan in his EIC states, “TGH and CPL have always been keen to ensure that 40 stakeholders and the general public were well aware of the proposal for Ruakura. Stakeholder liaison was therefore always a priority while the media was also briefed regularly on the project to ensure that they had the opportunity to keep the general public updated. TGH and CPL also took every opportunity to present information on the project to 45 interested groups ranging from high school geography classes through to commercial community and industry organisations.” Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1781 Mr McLauchlan’s EIC contained attachments to various meetings and brochures. In fact the size of that file was 10 megs, it was pretty huge. 5 Discussion. Schedule 1, clause 3.1, applies only to local authorities. While the plan change was within the jurisdiction of the Hamilton City Council the onus was on it to consult and not the applicants. 16.2. But the applicants did consult and with other Waikato members. 10 It had entered into the relationship with the office of the Māori King in 2009 and the Executive Committee and the Lands Trust for which Miss McLean is responsible. It actively consulted with Mrs Pene and Mr Puke resulting in the 15 production of the two CIAs. Further, the applicants had worked with the Ngāti Haua Mahi Trust on matters relating to the ICMP, which forms part of the documentation in support of its private plan change request. 20 The applicants have also consulted with an unknown number of unidentified people in a Tangata Whenua Working Party plus they had been actively involved – “they”, that’s TGH itself had been actively involved in the Future Proof discussions. The applicants have claimed that its consultation was robust and extensive. It may have been but to 25 a different class of people. Paragraph 17, Mr Brian Nabbs’ submission 107100. He filed a 15 page submission in part opposition to the private plan request to the EPA, in particular decline in whole that component relating to a transport hub 30 (inland port and logistics area). And at paragraph 15 he talked of consultation, the sincerity of the consultation process saying, “There is now sufficient judicial authority…” – is the word that is scribbled in your margin – “…that consultation must be more than bureaucratic tokenism, consultation must be meaningful and effective”. 35 “In particular…” - this is Mr Nabbs continuing - “… throughout the strategy process TGH and/or Tainui have been appointed to positions of governance and/or management, for example Messrs Tom Roa as the chair of Te Kauhanganui at that time and Michael Pohio. 40 Mr Tom Roa then became the chair of the executive committee. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1782 [2.50 pm] 17.4. Mr Nabbs refers to the principles of Te Tiriti, saying that the Ruakura component of Future Proof is contrary to good law as it 5 disregards the most basic principles of the Treaty and the Local Government Act. Paragraph 18. Now powers of veto under the RMA. It is settled law that no powers of veto exist for either Māori or Pakeha citizens under 10 part 2 of the Act. While there is an obligation for local authorities to consult with iwi authorities in the preparation of a plan change, the consultation itself can only be one of the factors that form part of the evidence to be reviewed by a consent authority. 15 Consent or approval by an iwi authority is not an assumed power to wield, to obstruct or to favour an application. Paragraph 18.3. Judge Sheppard, “Consultation is not the right of veto. Is not to give a right of veto and failure to reach an agreement does not 20 necessarily invalidate it”. At paragraph 19, discussion. Ngāti Wairere kaumatua did not maintain a process such as Mrs Minhinnick did. We did not refuse to consult or meet with TGH as Mrs Minhinnick did with Watercare Services. We 25 relied on Mr Pohio’s comment of the initial stages comment that further consultation would occur. What we did object to in our reply to Mr Pohio in 2012 is we objected to the process by which the 2009 arrangements had been made in secret and has or had continued. 30 Paragraph 20, case law. Coming back to the table that I set out on page 2 or 3 of the statement. The 2000 event Porima v Te Kauhanganui o Waikato Incorporated and that was the name of the institution then, it has had several name changes. This matter was brought before the High Court as the Executive Committee was at an 35 impasse after five of its members resigned in the face of financial difficulties. A resolution was passed transferring all functional issues and control to Dame Te Atairangikaahu including the power to control and appoint a new committee. The remaining six members were dismissed and they applied for an interim order which was granted. 40 The High Court validated the resolution and permitted the members to act as a quorum of six. Hammond J concluded Tainui still had to operate in the modern world of commerce and technology and the QC who appeared for the six deposed members had requested that the 45 Court make orders to bar Dame Te Atairangikaahu from future meetings. So things were rather heated as you can imagine. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1783 This decision firmly asserted the primacy of general law over Māori protocol and it was the tikanga aspect of her position that they were seeking to endorse. 5 The 2008 Roa v Morgan, Heath J, “I see the question for my determination does the restructuring proposal raise issues of governance or management? The answer to that question will determine whether it is necessary for the proposal to be referred back to 10 Te Kauhanganui Incorporated for confirmation before it can be implemented”. And at 21.2. “I hold that the existing restructuring proposal cannot be implemented until it is first approved by Te Kauhanganui Inc. I also 15 hold that the deed of succession executed by Te Arataura purportedly on behalf of Te Kauhanganui is invalid and of no effect because it was beyond the powers of Te Arataura to execute the deed without an express mandate from Te Kauhanganui. 20 The 2010 event, Martin v Morgan, this time it is Keane J at paragraph 13. This began on 6 December 2010 when Tuheitia Paki, the Māori King purported to dismiss Mrs Martin as the Society’s chair and to appoint in her place a member of Te Arataura, Mr Miller, as acting chair. That led Mrs Martin to bring a case against Te Arataura, 25 amongst Mr Morgan and Mr Miller, the Society and Mr Miller himself seeking a declaration that she was the duly appointed chair and orders that she be able to act in that capacity until removed in accord with the rules or until she resigned. She also sought an order restraining Mr Miller from acting as the Chair. 30 [2.55 pm] While she did not succeed in obtaining the order without notice preserving her position, but on the 14th of December when her 35 application on notice was first called the defendants, that’s the committee and the Māori King Tuheitia Paki acknowledged that she was the duly authorised Chair able to exercise the powers of that office and that Mr Miller had no claim to act in her place. And then in June 2011 Justice Dobson awarded her indemnity costs. And he said at 40 that time that Mrs Martin had reasonably brought her claim out of a concern that decisions were being taken without the Waikato iwi were inconsistent with the society’s rules and she had been vindicated. The 2012 event Takerei and Roa. This is Justice Venning. This matter 45 involved whether the plaintiffs or the defendants are the duly elected representatives of Hiona Marae on Te Kauhanganui. Also involved Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1784 was the Chair of the executive komiti and the chief executive of Te Kauhanganui. At issue was whether the executive committee and Mrs McLean’s actions in reviewing the 27th March election were legitimate. 5 Paragraph 58. Outside, this is Justice Venning, outside the express power provided for such a clause 5.1.8 of the elected reps of individual marae can properly be said to be a function of managing the day to day affairs of Te Kauhanganui. The concept of day to day matters is one of 10 daily routine of regular business of Te Kauhanganui. Paragraph 59. The reasons given by Mrs McLean for determining the March election are invalid. Was invalid and are not sustainable and that the election or the purported election of the defendants was a 15 breach of the rules and unlawful. Paragraph 24 discussion. 24.1. The High Court decisions of 2000 and 2010 impact the 2009 arrangements. It is acknowledged – this is a comment from Mrs Penny’s CIA on page 3. It is also acknowledged 20 that communications and progress in the monitoring of the recommendations by TGH and CPL will be coordinated through the office of the Māori King. Te Arataura and Waikato Tairi Incorporated as the tribal mandated authority. 25 These are not sustainable because the office of the Māori King is not an actual person and the 2000 and 2010 Court decisions validated that the head of the kingitanga has no formal power to intervene or to participate in Te Kauhanganui’s business. In the 2008 High Court decision Te Arataura cannot involve – excuse me. Due to the 2008 30 decision, that’s Roa and Morgan, Te Arataura cannot involve itself in matters which are governance and management responsibilities of TGH and CPL. Those management and governance responsibilities belong to TGH and CPL alone. There’s some words missing in that sentence. 35 24.3. The decision of the 2012 High Court clearly shows that Te Arataura cannot be involved as the private plan change (ph 3.50) is the responsibility of Tainui Group Holdings and CPL. Te Arataura’s restricted to managing the day to day affairs of Te Kauhanganui. Mrs McLean is the chief executive of the lands trust in 40 Te Kauhanganui. She too cannot be involved in it because it is not her responsibility. Te Kauhanganui Iwi Authority has been consulted therefore its job is done. It must no longer remain involved. 24.3. In submissions both TGH and Te Kauhanganui asserted that a 45 clear line of separation existed. It applied the decisions of the High Court against the 2009 and subsequent arrangements. The manner in Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1785 which the executive committee has limited the rights of Waikato hapu members is a clear violation of the 2011 rules and the subsequent Court decisions. 5 Page 11, paragraph 25. Ngāti Wairere ancestral rights. Do they count? It is clear that Ngāti Wairere hapu members were deliberately prevented from participating in the development and the preparation of this private plan change and I’ve drawn on Ngāti Kahu and Pacific Investments International and Tauranga District Council which was 10 applied in the variation 21 decision of Te Kauhanganui and the Hamilton City Council. [3.00 pm] 15 Ngāti Wairere have suffered prejudice. They were side-lined. Their ancestral links to Ruakura have not been formally recognised by the applicants. Since last century there has been no occasion for Ngāti Wairere to practice their tikanga, kawa and protocols simply because the land was confiscated and since 2000 has been owned in fee simple 20 by Tainui Group Holdings. It is now an asset to develop or even sell if it wishes. It is not bridled by any restrictions. Since 2009 TGH has failed to keep an open mind and has contradicted its public submission of its chief executive where he talks about kanohi 25 ki te kanohi or speaking face to face, being an integral part to tikanga Māori where Māori accord significant importance to personal one on one engagement, not just as a means of communication but as a means of establishing relationships based on mutual respect and trust. Hand in hand kanohi ki te kanohi goes the importance whaikorero or oratory as 30 a key attribute of leadership. Given that Ngāti Wairere were not consulted prior to the applicants filing its private plan change with the EPA it too has lost the opportunity to be involved with the preparation others have enjoyed. 35 The applicants have ignored the important link between Ngāti Wairere and Ruakura which represents its most vivid association to its ancestral connections. Ngāti Wairere will be affected by the development. They remain bystanders to the destruction of land that could otherwise have been used to build much needed housing for Waikato hapu members 40 and the development of gardens for future nourishment. Some years back there was a proposal considered for housing to be built for tribal members. That’s mentioned in one of the annual reports of TGH. I couldn’t find it on line because the manual reports have now 45 been removed from the website for some reason. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1786 26. So the issue was whether Tainui Group Holdings was obliged to consult. It is my submission that the law is not clear whether applicants for private plan changes must consult. The law is clear for local authorities and consent authorities. But on the facts we believe the 5 answer is yes. TGH was obliged to consult with all Ngāti Wairere members. There’s only 3000 of us. They wrote a letter to 8000 residents. Why couldn’t they have written to us? Simply because Ruakura land is ancestral land. Our position has been weakened as a consequence of being discriminated against. We watch quietly as 10 negotiations continued and agreements have been reached without our input. It’s certainly isolated us. Remedy. That the Board of Inquiry declined the applicants private plan change. It has failed by abrogating its responsibilities to third parties 15 (INDISTINCT 3.45) act in ultra vires their own legal contract. The applicants have failed as trustworthy citizens which does not auger well for its public image and business model. Those are my submissions, Judge, thank you very much. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I’m going to ask if there are any questions, but you mention at the end that those were your submissions. Part of what you have presented would seem to be submissions rather than evidence and I just want to give you the opportunity to comment on that. 25 MISS WEBSTER: Maybe it was the wrong word to use. That is my evidence as opposed to “those are my submissions”. CHAIRPERSON: All right. 30 MISS WEBSTER: Thank you. I had that debate with myself when I was preparing the first page, thank you. MR COATES: Tena koe, Miss Webster. 35 MISS WEBSTER: Kia ora. [3.05 pm] MR COATES: I just wanted to ask a few questions of clarification really. 40 Just in terms of cultural impact assessments. A person can be contracted to do a cultural impact assessment but they do not necessarily to have a cultural connection to the body that that they are contracted to, is that right? 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1787 MS WEBSTER: It depends on the objective of the brief. In my view I would prefer to have an independent undertake a cultural impact assessment. MR COATES: They would not have to necessarily have a connection with 5 Ngati Wairere? MS WEBSTER: That is correct, in fact the initial person that was contracted did not whakapapa into Wairere but because of internal disagreement that contract was cancelled. 10 MR COATES: Your real concern is that the people that were contracted had a connection but it was not necessarily by whakapapa? MS WEBSTER: Mrs Pene is not by whakapapa, Mr Puke whakapapa’s into 15 Wairere. It was the way in which also it was done, people were selected from within one marae and it was one in secret. We did not receive copies of these reports until almost 10 months later. MR COATES: Thank you, that clarifies that. Just getting round to the 20 Settlement Act, when the Settlement was in draft form there was a consultation I think with all the members of Tainui to get 75 percent approval for the proposed settlement is that correct? MS WEBSTER: That arose as a consequence of legal action to taken to stop 25 the 1995 sediment from proceeding. It was one of the conditions of the Court decision. MR COATES: Following that was there a vote on members of Tainui to approve the settlement? 30 MS WEBSTER: There was a vote by the Waikato hapu, if I may just explain. The initial bill was that Tainui wrote after settlement, Hauraki and Raukawa and Maniapoto said sorry, you are not settling us you are just settling the Waikato claims so the bill was changed to Waikato Raupatu 35 Claim Settlement Act. There was a stage of preparation which had gone on for some years, au fait accompli was presented at Turangawaewae. I was present then. It was clear that a large number of the Waikato hapu had not been 40 consulted with directly because it was managed by the Tainui Maori Trust Board and they had no responsibility to talk to the hapu members. They did have responsibility to talk to the Minister of Maori Affairs and in fact the settlement did not reach 75 percent, only about 43 percent of those who voted supported 43 percent of those who attended 45 the meetings supported the deal. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1788 MR COATES: Nonetheless the government did approve the settlement and it was preceded to the point of an act of power? MS WEBSTER: That is correct, it did. 5 MR COATES: You are saying that they did that on the basis of the 45 percent approval? MS WEBSTER: That is correct. 10 MR COATES: Following the settlement for $170,000,000 the decision was made to buy Te Kauanganui to put the assets in under the charge of the Tainui Group Holdings to provide a commercial return? 15 MS WEBSTER: If I may just come back again Commissioner, the deal was made with the Tainui Maori Trust Board, Robert Mahuta, Tainui Maori Trust Board on behalf of the Tainui Maori Trust Board and a grouping of marae called Nga Marae Toopu, they were the three parties. 20 The Tainui Maori Trust Board was still an existing authority for 1995 and for the next two and a half years the internal arrangements were negotiated and the various structures were developed then the Tainui Maori Trust Board had to be stood down and a new entity called Te Kauhanganui Waikato was established but the formal statutory 25 requirement was that this deed to settlement was to set up the Waikato Ropati Trustee Company as a holding company, that the land came from the Crown whilst on paper it was going to the Tainui Maori Trust Board it actually came to this Waikato Ropati Trustee Company Limited. 30 [3.10 pm] By that a structure had been developed with three structures developed, there was the social arm so to speak, and then there was the commercial 35 arm, and there were two companies called Tainui Development Limited and Tainui Corporation Limited, and overarching that was this new house called Tainui Group Holdings, but it was there as a shelf company. So Tainui Development Limited and Tainui Corporation were given the initial cash and properties to try to create wealth from. 40 During the financial difficulties those operations and their assets were then moved to TGH, but that was over a two or three period. MR COATES: The purpose of giving the assets to Tainui Group Holdings though was to generate a return, some profits which could then be 45 channelled back through the iwi and distributed to whatever way they Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1789 saw fit. It was to overcome the difficulty that there was no land that could be targeted back to individual hapu or marae. MISS WEBSTER: There was not sufficient land that could be. The Crown 5 made this overarching statement saying there was insufficient land to be returned to the original owners, but there was certainly insufficient land for it to be returned to Wairere, and again court action was taken to try and interrupt those proceedings where that land would be returned to Wairere and not to the Tainui Board, because the Tainui 10 Maori Trust Board didn’t lose any land, so to speak, last century, it wasn’t in existence. So there was this debate among Wairere and other hapu that whatever land was being transferred back would come back to the hapu, but it didn’t, so it was transferred to the Tainui Maori Trust Board and then to the subsequent organs that were established during 15 the three year preparation before a postal ballot chose the model, which is existence today of 204 representatives in the Tribal Parliament. MR COATES: But it was a matter of equity, as between all the tribal members rather than distributing land that had been in the ownership of, for 20 example Ngati Wairere, a piece of land to them? MISS WEBSTER: I think it’s important to stress that a lot of these negotiations weren’t open. I was only privy to that because my two cousins were the Chairman of the Tainui Maori Trust Board and I was 25 an advisor to the Turangawaewae Board of Trustees, so I had inside knowledge of the preparations that were going on, but most of it was not communicated to the wider populace. MR COATES: Later on you say, when you’re talking about the decision of 30 the High Court in 2012, you say “Te Arataura is restricted to managing the day to day affairs of Te Kauhanganui” but they are in effect the owners of the assets which are being used by Tainui Group Holdings. MISS WEBSTER: No, they’re not, with respect. Tainui Group Holdings 35 makes the cash and then transfers it in the form of a annual dividend, so that’s a financial transaction that comes across from one company to another. MR COATES: But the assets are still owned by the tribe. 40 MISS WEBSTER: No. MR COATES: Not owned by Tainui Group Holdings. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1790 MISS WEBSTER: Tainui Group Holdings has the land fee simple, and I believe you asked a question on that point during cross examination, or Mr Milne did, of Mr Pohio a couple of weeks ago. It’s an asset that belongs to Tainui Group Holdings, it’s listed in there and reported as 5 being an asset. It was valued by TGH. In those valuations in the 2007 annual report quite clearly show it’s an asset and owned by TGH. MR COATES: That is interesting to know, because the valuation does not necessarily mean that it is owned by the person that is claiming the 10 value of the asset. But you are sure it is owned by - - - MISS WEBSTER: I am positive it is. MR COATES: All right. Thank you. Finally, when you come to the issue, 15 you talk about “TGH was obliged to consult with all Ngati Wairere members”. In terms of the plan change what would Ngati Wairere want to do differently? [3.15 pm] 20 MISS WEBSTER: I know that what they would have like to have had was prior to the 2011 and 2012, the major announcements through the annual report wasn’t communicated to the 64,000 members, mostly the story of the development of this proposal has been through the annual 25 reports, and unless you read annual reports and go to the annual meetings and ask questions you would be none the wiser. So at the very least what TGH could have done was to meet with members from both marae and agreed or put in a proposal to come and update them every three months or each six months on the progress, and to invite 30 them in the preparation of the proposal as it developed. That is what was missing here. MR COATES: So what you wanted was more consultation without disagreeing in principle with what is being proposed? 35 MISS WEBSTER: Precisely, to be involved in the preparation, to be aware of it. There was one hui held two weeks before the closing submissions at Hukanui of 40 people out of 64,000. 40 people out 3,000. It wasn’t an advertised meeting, we don’t know who organised it. There were 40 people there who were not of Wairere. We at Tauhei marae, weren’t told of the hui, we weren’t invited, we learned about it a few hours after it occurred. MR COATES: Thank you, Miss Webster. 45 MISS WEBSTER: Thank you. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1791 MS HUDSON: Good afternoon, Miss Webster. I think Commissioner Coates’ questions have largely answered the underlying question that I had, but I would like to be really clear. You have made it very clear that your 5 main issue is the consultation, and lake thereof. What I would like to really understand is whether in paragraph 25.3 that was the outcome that you might have sought had you been consulted, ie the land being used to build much needed housing for Waikato hapu members and the development of gardens for food and nourishment. 10 MISS WEBSTER: As I said, I relied on that, that particular comment is there because of what had been understood from, not only the kaumatua, but others who remember that being the initial reason for the proposed way in which this land could be used, and as I said it was referred to in one 15 of the annual reports of TGH but it just disappeared. And that was one of the questions that was asked just two weeks ago at another hui “what happened to the housing development at Ruakura?” I said “well there isn’t one, it’s going to be something else.” 20 So it’s the opportunity to be told of and to be involved in the discussions, on a without prejudice basis – this is what we’re doing, this is what we’d like to do, how do you feel about this, is it a good idea, any ideas? Yes, no. But we weren’t even given that opportunity to participate or to become involved in, ie the initial discussions. This 25 thing has been on the table since, according to again the annual reports, where consultants were engaged in 2008/2009, TGH’s publicity using the media. So that’s how we’ve learned of the information is through excel 30 courses, and it would have been much appreciated and expected by some of my cousins for TGH to have fronted kanohi to kanohi and said “this is where we’re going people, how do you feel?” We weren’t given that opportunity, it was lost. 35 MS HUDSON: Yes. Thank you very much. MISS WEBSTER: Thank you Commissioner. MR HODGES: Thank you, your Honour. Just one question, Miss Webster, 40 thank you, and you partly clarified this, but again like my colleague, I would like to make absolutely sure. You have raised the issue of housing as part of the overall development, are there any other aspects of the development that you are uncomfortable with? 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1792 MISS WEBSTER: In the initial submissions I made last year, the discussion was the impact upon the residents across the road and the resulting negative media that the residents were viewed as being hostile, and they weren’t. So that’s where our first concern was, was the impact 5 upon them. Secondly, there were some people within the family who were uncomfortable that TGH hadn’t spoken to them, that’s over and above not speaking to us, and I suppose that also created a much higher 10 degree of frustration that if the people across the road weren’t being spoken to what chance did we have to be spoken to. So there were all these conflicting – people wanted this thing to go ahead, people were angry at me for making submissions against it, you know, I’d been publicly criticised, I’ve been criticised in the parliament for making 15 submissions against this. This is democracy and we tried to participate in this albeit it as a late starter, and I think I’ve made a fair attempt to communicate the wishes and the views of people. [3.20 pm] 20 But in terms of thinking broader than that, in terms of the housing for instance, when it was first announced publicly at the annual meeting and at the base, when he talked about housing there was an immediate pleasure because they thought it was the housing project that had been 25 mooted some years ago that the housing would be for the tribal members and then as the plans rolled out they realised it was the commercial housing development, so it would have been good to have had that qualification, separating what was wanted and what was desired 10 years ago to what the actual facts were and, again, that 30 wasn’t clearly communicated directly to us by TGH. MR HODGES: Thank you, just one follow up question, I understand there is provision for papa kāinga in the plan change, does that provide an avenue for you to address your housing concerns? 35 MISS WEBSTER: I don’t know of that Commissioner, I wasn’t aware that was planned. I haven’t seen – I’ve tried to follow the versions that have been presented over the last two or three weeks – a papa kāinga that’s the first I’ve heard of it. 40 MR HODGES: I may be wrong on that, but in some documents I’ve seen possible provision for papa kāinga in some of the planning documents. MISS WEBSTER: I understood that – if I can remember – I believe someone 45 – maybe it was Mrs Pene or Mr Puke’s made a statement or reference to tribal housing, but I don’t recall the word “papa kāinga” being used. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1793 MR HODGES: Okay, I’ll just – thank you. MISS WEBSTER: Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON: I just want to ask, Miss Webster, just to clarify who you’re representing because that’s very important, do you speak for Ngāti Wairere? 10 MISS WEBSTER: I think you asked me that question once before, Judge, and I said “no, at the time I was representing myself, my family, Mr Pene’s family and other people within Wairere”, but representing Wairere itself, no I’ve never indicated that or – no I’m not, like I’m not a spokesperson for the hapū of Ngāti Wairere, of the 3,000 people. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Well, what I want to know then, is are there people within Ngāti Wairere who support what’s been done by TGH here? MISS WEBSTER: These are informal understandings, but they’ve not come 20 forward in a formal sense and said on paper or made a submission to say, “We’re in favour of this”. Some of the people who have attended these meetings were very pleased to be here, they were told of this happening, but they didn’t quite understand the process. 25 The debates which have been held at the marae since were, “Why weren’t we involved? This is all very complicated”, they don’t know which part of it to support. There’s been lots of discussion about the potential jobs and employment. There’s been disappointment that it won’t happen for a number of years. 30 So there’s lots of gaps between comprehension and understanding and then making an objective response to that. So in answer to your question, I haven’t seen anything positive from 35 either side that they like or dislike. It’s more discussions about, “What does this all mean” and it “have you seen the amount of material that you’ve got to read” and so it’s those type of questions rather than the entire project in the stages. 40 CHAIRPERSON: All right, well thank you. Given that this was presented as evidence are there any questions arising, Mr Milne? MR MILNE: No, I just simply make the observation that what’s passed up as a summary of evidence bears no relationship to the witnesses 45 distributed evidence. But my submission is, it’s all irrelevant for the reasons previously canvassed so I don’t wish to ask questions on it. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1794 CHAIRPERSON: Any other questions arising? All right, well thank you very much, Miss Webster, for coming and 5 presenting your material and we have that now to consider it as well, as part of all of the other material we have to consider. MISS WEBSTER: Thank you Judge, thank you Commissioners. 10 CHAIRPERSON: So that means we are up to you, Mr Muldowney, I think it would be appropriate to take the break at this point and then we’ll hear from you, thank you. 15 REGISTRAR: Please stand for members of the Board. ADJOURNED [3.25 pm] 20 RESUMED [3.46 pm] CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. MR MULDOWNEY: Thank you, your Honour. You should have before you 25 a copy of the representation on behalf of Hamilton City Council. May it please the Board, in the opening submissions presented on behalf of Hamilton City Council dated 7 May 2014 the Board was advised that many of council’s concerns identified in its submission 30 dated 18 December 2013 had been satisfactorily addressed through the revised plan change dated 5 May. At that time there remained outstanding a number of drafting issues and a general fine-tuning of the plan change, which council expected would 35 be resolved through a future iteration of the plan change, and three substantive issues over which council did not agree with the applicants. One of those outstanding issues related to a policy wording associated with the Ruakura Retail centre, which has since been resolved. 40 The two remaining outstanding issues relate to a resource consent notification rule, again in relation to the Ruakura Retail Centre, and the night time noise levels for residential areas within the plan change and the related noise limits between adjacent industrial sites. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1795 This representation outlines Council’s position in respect of these two outstanding issues and also sets out council’s position in respect of a number of issues which have featured prominently in the Board’s discussion with various witnesses who have presented evidence in this 5 enquiry to date. First the strategic overview. Council remains strongly supportive of the plan change and the intended land use pattern for the R1 area enabled by the plan change. The plan change represents a sub-part of 10 Council’s wider vision for the R1 area which is reflected in its Ruakura Structure Plan as set out in the PDP. The plan change is consistent with the Ruakura structure plan in terms of the overall land use pattern, and to the extent that the plan change 15 differs from the notified version of the PDP Council remains supportive of the plan change provisions and will, to the extent permissible at law, seek to reflect the plan change provisions in the decisions version of the PDP. 20 Now when preparing of changing its district plan Council must have regard to any proposed Regional Policy Statement and give effect to any Operative Regional Policy Statement. And while the Operative Regional Policy Statement is largely silent on managing urban growth settlement patterns, particularly with respect to industrial land, the 25 Proposed regional Policy Statement establishes a very strong policy framework, particularly chapter 6 which aims to ensure that land use and infrastructure development occur in an integrated, sustainable and planned manner. 30 [3.50 pm] These policies in the RPS or proposed RPS represent the statutory manifestation of 2009 Future Proof Sub-Regional growth Strategy which established a blueprint for the strategic and integrated long-term 35 growth planning for the sub-region, which consisted of the Waikato, Waipara and Hamilton City territorial areas. Of particular relevance for present purposes is table 6.2 of the proposed regional policy statement which sets out the future proof industrial land 40 allocation. This policy establishes a mandate for the release of industrial land at Ruakura of up to 80 hectares before 2021 and subject to the Waikato Expressway being in place, a further 115 hectares between 2021 to 2041 and a further 210 hectares after 2041, totally 405 hectares of industrial land over that period. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1796 It is submitted that the plan change goes further than the statutory requirement of having to have regard for this regional policy framework and indeed gives effect to these policies and in particular table 6.2. 5 Put simply, what is being proposed is the right land use for the plan change area staged to occur at the right time. Your Honour, just on that point, the table 6.2 of the Proposed Regional 10 Policy Statement is effectively settled in terms of any appeals against it. We have touched on this in the opening, but to the extent that there are any outstanding matters, none of them relate to the actual allocation of industrial land use at Ruakura, being the numbers that I had referred to in paragraph 7 of my submission. 15 CHAIRPERSON: And can I just clarify, Mr Cowie and Mr and Mrs Masters have signed off on that? MR MULDOWNEY: I believe so, your Honour. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. They were section 274 parties, aren’t they? MR MULDOWNEY: That is right. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Mm. MR MULDOWNEY: Turning to the medium density residential areas, Council supports the applicant’s vision for the medium density housing in the plan change area. This is consistent with its own vision as set out 30 in the Ruakura Structure Plan within the Proposed District Plan and which in turn reflects the Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy and Regional Policy Framework. Objective 25H9.2 and policy 25H9.2A seek an efficient use of land and 35 infrastructure which achieves a minimum yield of 16 dwellings per hectare. Medium density housing delivers on this aspiration and presents the potential to achieve an even greater density level. One of the challenges presented when developing at a medium or high 40 density are the risks to good urban design and residential amenity. The applicant and the Council were previously at odds over how to best manage this risk. Council’s concerns have been satisfactorily resolved in the plan change through a rule framework which establishes residential land use and buildings on sites 400 square metres of greater 45 as permitted activities, and residential land use and buildings on sites Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1797 399 square metres or less and all semi-detached, duplex and terrace housing as restricted discretionary activities. A comprehensive set of assessment criteria have been established to 5 ensure good urban design outcomes will be delivered. And your Honour, this was the point made by Mr Lister, the landscape expert for the Council, which was that if medium density is simply accorded permitted activity status, the performance standards in the 10 plan around good urban design simply can’t be relied on to ultimately deliver the kind of amenity that the plan change aspires to. There are nuances and there are evaluations that are required in order to deliver on good urban design and simple tick box exercises as permitted activity performance standards simply don’t cut the mustard, so that 15 was the council’s concern and it has been addressed through the rule framework which is now being promoted in the plan change. [3.55 pm] 20 And so it is submitted that with this rule framework in place council is satisfied that its residential density aspirations can be met without any compromise to good urban design and amenity. Turning to the land development plans the introduction of land 25 development plans is the single most significant change to the plan change since its notification and has been instrumental in resolving two of council’s most fundamental concerns being its inability to assess and mitigate impacts on the transportation network and the impacts on its Three Waters network. 30 Now under rule 25H11 a resource consent for a restricted discretionary activity is required for activities associated with the preparation of land for urbanisation including earthworks and vegetation removal, the construction of roads, pedestrian paths and cycle routes, installation of 35 Three Waters infrastructure including lineal wetlands and storage basins and works relating to establishment of open space areas. Resource consent is now required to be obtained for the entire or staged sections of land development areas identified in figure 25H3 and the 40 information requirements for land development plan consents are wide ranging and comprehensive and include a water impact assessment and an integrated transport assessment. Dealing with the integrated catchment management plans. When a 45 land development plan consent is applied for, a full analysis will be undertaken in respect of reticulated water, waste water and storm water Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1798 impacts and requirements. Consent conditions will be imposed in order to avoid, remedy and mitigate adverse effects and otherwise ensure a proper integration of water related infrastructure into the city network. 5 If an approved integrated catchment management plan is in place at the time the application is assessed it will be assessed to determine how the proposal is consistent with or otherwise complies with the recommendations, measures and targets of an approved ICMP. 10 If no ICMP is in place at the time of assessment the remaining factors in the water impact assessment are sufficiently broad to ensure catchment wide issues are addressed for example through an assessment of any potential effects including accumulative effects of the development in relation to its catchment. 15 Your Honour and the criteria for the water impact assessment is at page 135 of the new plan change, the most recent one. I think there was a problem with numbering I might have got a version which was one page out from the Board, but it is either 134, 135, 136 and it sets out 20 the requirements of water impact assessments and they are comprehensive and so the point I wish to make here is that with or without an integrated catchment management plan the Three Waters infrastructure and the issues associated with it will be adequately addressed at the time that land development consents are applied for. 25 Now in terms of integrating proposed storm water infrastructure with the city network the ICMP will be relevant to the question of whether a separate storm water discharge consent is required from Waikato Regional Council. 30 Under the terms of the city’s comprehensive storm water discharge consent additional storm water discharge is beyond those provided for in the network as it existed at the date the consent issued are not automatically authorised. 35 Before those additional charges can be authorised as part of the comprehensive storm water discharge consent an integrated catchment plan for the catchment to which the new development relates must first be approved by Waikato Regional Council in a technical certification 40 capacity. If no ICMP is approved at the time the land development plan consent is given effect to the applicant will not be able to discharge storm water under the city’s comprehensive consent and a separate storm water 45 discharge consent will be required from Waikato Regional Council in its assessment of any such application Waikato Regional Council will Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1799 likely take into consideration any draft ICMP which exists at the time of the assessment. [4.00 pm] 5 So if I can just posit a scenario, if a Land Development Plan is presented to Council as a resource consent activity, restricted discretionary resource consent activity, if an ICMP is in place at the time that that application is lodged there is the opportunity to assess the 10 application against the terms of ICMP. That is what the Water Impact Assessment records at bullet point 1. And in addition the applicant may be able to achieve all its stormwater discharge requirements through the comprehensive discharge consent which is in place and that the city holds. 15 Now, that might not necessarily be the end of it, of course, because there may be some interim stormwater detention measures, for example, that don’t fully integrate with the city network and if that is the case there would need to be a separate consent from the Waikato 20 Regional Council to deal with those stormwater management techniques which haven’t integrated into the city network. But to the extent that any stormwater management infrastructure is fully integrated with the city network, if there is an ICMP in place and provided the discharges meet the other terms of the comprehensive 25 stormwater consent, the developer does not need its own separate consent. Now, I will just pause there just to check to see whether there are any questions or clarification required on that point. 30 MR HODGES: Thank you, your Honour. Thank you, Mr Muldowney, the cloud is slowly lifting from my head on this matter. MR MULDOWNEY: Great. 35 MR HODGES: I have been extensively involved in Integrated Catchment Management Plans and this is by far the most complex I have ever come across. And I think my concern is in two areas, one relating to the ability of affected parties to ensure their interests are properly 40 protected and ensuring that the right issues are addressed in the right detail at the next approval stage. I think the Land Development Plan is certainly a very useful addition to enable the more detailed information to be provided. We have heard 45 several witnesses say that the ICMP is a high level document that will require further detail. I would like to understand how that detail will be Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1800 provided in just a little bit – I would like it a little bit further explanation of that to make sure that that is concerned. Then on the consultation issue, we have a situation where a discharge 5 consent was granted for the city as a whole without any consideration of the Ruakura area so that the parties living nearby were not in a position to be consulted in that. They have been consulted on the high level document but at the moment there does not appear to be any provision for them to be consulted on matters of detail which is where 10 they could be most adversely affected. So that’s where my concern lies and these are just general comments, because I wasn’t quite expecting you to have covered this in the way you have, which is very helpful, but those are certainly two issues that I would like to ask your witnesses to provide me with some further information on. 15 MR MULDOWNEY: All right, and both Mr Kivell and Mr O’Dwyer can address you on that. What I would answer in my submission is that the first point about the ongoing ability to be consulted and to contribute to the development of the ICMP, what we have heard from various 20 witnesses is that there has been a first round of consultation. The document has then been presented to Waikato Region for its consideration. The Regional Council has responded to Hamilton City to say more work needs to be done and has identified a series of issues that need to be addressed. The City is currently working through those 25 issues and will produce a further iteration of the ICMP. Before that next iteration of the ICMP goes back to the Waikato Regional Council for its consideration, and hopefully its technical certification, there will be further consultation with affected third 30 parties. So there will be a further opportunity for affected third parties to participate in the drafting of the ICMP before its final submission to Waikato Regional Council. MR HODGES: Yes, my concern really relates to matters of detail that may 35 not have yet been resolved that could affect parties in 10 years’ time when it comes to be constructed. That is where my concern lies, if you can find a way of addressing then that then obviously the concern goes away. 40 [4.05 pm] MR MULDOWNEY: Well, I think that obviously there is the opportunity that I have just identified in terms of wider consultation but ultimately these technical matters will sit with the Waikato Regional Council to (a) 45 determine whether the ICMP satisfies its requirements and therefore can justify the inclusion of these greenfield stormwater discharges into Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1801 the comprehensive consent that the Council holds. But alternatively, if not, there will be a consenting process required for a separate stormwater discharge consent through the Waikato Regional Council which may or may not be publicly notified. That will be a notification 5 question for another day. So there is potentially the opportunity for further involvement if a separate consent is required also. MR HODGES: Perhaps I could just throw out an idea that notification of potentially affected parties at the time of a Land Development Plan, in 10 terms of stormwater, would certainly address my concerns to give them the chance to identify any concerns but you may have reasons why that is not possible? MR MULDOWNEY: Well, currently the way that the plan change has been 15 prepared there is a non-notification rule except for making exclusions for New Zealand Transport Agency and Waikato Regional Council and Waikato District Council in respect of Land Development Plans, and Council is very comfortable that that is a sufficient level of notification for Land Development Plans. 20 Those stormwater issues that are naturally in play here will, of course, be picked up by Waikato Regional Council in any submissions that it would wish to make to those Land Development Plan consents. Now, whether that satisfies your concern that there should be a wider 25 opportunity for the public beyond Waikato Regional Council is obviously a live issue for you as a commissioner. But the Council’s view is that the scope of the level of notification for Land Development Plans, as drafted in the plan change, is satisfactory from its perspective. 30 MR HODGES: Okay, well, maybe we will leave it there for the moment and I will think about it overnight and plan some questions for your witnesses. MR MULDOWNEY: Right, that I think covers that issue, so moving to the 35 open space areas. The open space areas contained within the plan change are important areas which provide for passive and active recreation. They serve as a focal point for the community, contribute to a connected network of walkways, cycleways and linkages to transportation routes. The open space areas also contribute ecological 40 benefits through the provision of a greenway, including linear wetlands, indigenous vegetation planting and stormwater infrastructure. In this respect the open space areas play a critical role in delivering on the Ruakura vision and the achievement of objective 25H.4.1 which 45 provides the Ruakura schedule area is developed in a manner which Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1802 optimises long term positive environmental, economic, social and cultural effects. The concern has been raised regarding how the open space areas will 5 be developed and maintained in the long term to serve the wider public interest in circumstances where the open space areas my remain partly or wholly within the control of developers. Development of the open space areas will occur in stages dependent upon the sequence of development of land development areas set out in figure 25H.3. 10 For those land development areas which contain an open space area the Land Development Plan will be required to address development as that part of the open space which is contained within the land development area. 15 The information requirement of a Land Development Plan consent will include a Landscape Concept and Ecological Enhancement Plan which will require a comprehensive design and assessment of the intended development of the open space area. Consent conditions will be 20 imposed which require the development and ongoing maintenance of the open space area. And, again, just a page reference, again I think it is 134 of my version which sets out the requirements, the information requirements for the 25 Landscape Concept and Ecological Enhancement Plan. In fact it immediately precedes the Water Impact Assessment section and is very comprehensive. [4.10 pm] 30 Is it possible that Council may require as a condition of the land development plan consent that the open space area vested in Council is a financial contribution under section 108 of the RMA or alternatively such vesting may be a requirement of a separately negotiated private 35 developer agreement between Council and the developer. Now in that respect it is noted that as an enabled area Council currently has no funding in its longterm plan for the development of public infrastructure within the plan change area. Accordingly if the plan 40 change area is to be developed both public and private infrastructure will need to be provided by the developer. If this occurs the developer will have provided infrastructure which serves not only its needs but also the needs of the wider community. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1803 In those circumstances it is likely that the developer will seek to enter into a private developer agreement with Council which recognises and provides for the contributions the developer is making to community infrastructure. Issues concerning ongoing ownership and maintenance 5 of open space areas will be addressed in this context. The starting point however is that resource consent conditions will be imposed under the land development consent for the development and ongoing maintenance of the open space areas. Where maintenance responsibilities and ownership ultimately sit will be a matter for 10 negotiation between Council and the developer. I’ll just pause there just to check and to see if there’s any discussion required on that point also? 15 MS HUDSON: Good afternoon, Mr Muldowney. MR MULDOWNEY: Good afternoon. MS HUDSON: My query is, is there any prospect that given the Council’s 20 inability to fund any of the public space improvements if you like that it may use what discretion it has in the plan change process to decline the opportunity to acquire public open space areas. That would be a real concern of course to the community who as a result of the submissions we’ve heard see that the plan change doesn’t go far 25 enough, let alone the risk of losing what is shown in the plan change. MR MULDOWNEY: The answer is that that remains a possibility. Ultimately however my submission is that with the resource consent in place which requires (a) the delivery of the open space area in the manner 30 which will be prescribed in the ecological and landscape plan which is submitted as part of the land development plan consent and its ongoing maintenance will be requirements of a resource consent which are enforceable under the Resource Management Act. 35 Now that’s the backstop position of course and I understand the point which is that when you’re dealing with public space and issues which concern the wider public the preference would be that that responsibility ultimately sits with Council rather than with a private developer. And that outcome is open and available to Council and the 40 developer, but it will be the subject of a separate negotiation between those two parties once the consents are in place. MS HUDSON: Yes, thank you. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1804 MR HODGES: Mr Muldowney, sorry I’ve got a question on that as well. Relating to the first bullet point under the landscape concept and ecological enhancement plan. There’s reference there that the landscape development plan for each land use application is to be 5 consistent with any overall landscape concept plan. Now we’ve seen an old version of a landscape plan in the original documents we received, but there have been changes. Is it intended that we’ll be presented with an overall landscape plan as part of the final plan change or not? 10 MR MULDOWNEY: It’s a very helpful observation. I expect so, but again that’s a matter that I’ll have to defer to my planners on and also possibly to the applicants planners to make sure that that is delivered at the time you see the final version of the plan change. But it makes 15 sense that it would be available, yes. MR HODGES: Thank you. Thank you, your Honour. [4.15 pm] 20 MR MULDOWNEY: Just returning to page 7 of my submissions. The topic of the Percival Road and Ruakura Road closure. Both Ruakura Road and Percival Road will be the subject of changes during the course of development within the plan change area. This is of particular concern 25 to the residents of Percival Road and Ryburn Road given that it will impact on their access route to and from their homes. Council is very conscious of the impact and the disruption that this will cause to the residents and understands their need for certainty. 30 However, apart from exploring likely timing, the likely triggers and the options that are available in terms of alternative access routes certainty cannot be delivered in the context of this inquiry. And that is because road stopping processes are a separate procedure which is required to be undertaken by Council pursuant to section 342 of the Local 35 Government Act 1974 and in accordance with the process prescribed in schedule 10 of that Act. The various options for road stopping and alternative access roads in the Percival and Ryburn Road area have been explored in the context of 40 this hearing. Those options and all other options will be taken account of when Council commences the road stopping process under section 342 of the Local Government Act. That process requires Council to publicly notify any proposed closure, 45 realignment and alternative access, and call for public submissions including any objections to the proposal. Council will then consider Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1805 the objections and if appropriate may uphold the objections. If the objections are not upheld Council must provide its decision, the objections and all plans to the Environment Court for its determination. This is a public process and all affected residents will have the 5 opportunity to fully participate in the decision-making. Returning to land development in the plan change area it is anticipated that the first phase of the inland port will occur without any road stopping or realignment of Ruakura Road and Percival Road. 10 However, further development beyond the initial phase may then trigger the requirement for a road stopping process. Regardless of whether land development plan consents have been secured for that additional development no development will be able to occur beyond that initial phase without the separate road stopping process identified 15 above having been completed. Accordingly the community can take comfort that nothing will occur which has any impact on their access route without them being fully informed. I have to acknowledge here that it’s possible that many 20 members of the community would say well that’s cold comfort. We are suffering planning fatigue as it is and yet another process is hard to fathom. And I have considerable sympathy for that feeling and that response. But I reiterate my submission there will be a full public process and an opportunity for everyone to participate and express their 25 views. Turning now to the Ruakura retail centre policy framework. After being presented with the 5 May version of the plan change Council had concerns regarding the wording of policy 25H4SF4A which reads, the 30 Ruakura retail centre to serve the Ruakura structure plan area and adjacent catchment and related policy 25H724A which reads, the Ruakura retail centre is to provide a mixed use environment that meets day to day the retail, commercial and community needs of the Ruakura structure plan area and adjoining residential catchment. 35 Council’s concern with the policies was the lack of definition around what constitutes the adjacent catchment and adjoining residential catchment and how implementation of policies may lead to unintended consequences with respect to retail distribution. Council is now 40 satisfied that these concerns are met when considering these policies within their broader policy and rule framework. Policy 25H.4SF4A sits within a policy set, supporting objective 25H.4SF4 which positions the Ruakura Retail Centre within the overall centre’s hierarchy and establishes the primacy of the Hamilton CBD. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1806 [4.20 pm] Policy 25H.7.24A sits within a policy set which supports objective 25H.7.24 which provides – and I’ve set that out, your Honour, I won’t 5 read that. This policy framework in combination with the rule framework which requires that a centre assessment report be undertaken to accompany any resource consent application to expand the centre beyond its 10 current permitted footprint or tenancy sizes, gives Council the necessary comfort that no expansion of the Ruakura Retail Centre can occur even if it is necessary to serve the adjacent residential catchments, unless it can be demonstrated that it will not generate significant adverse effects on the vitality, function and amenity of the 15 CBD and sub-regional centres. So accordingly on that basis Council is satisfied that its concerns relating to policies 25HSF4A and 7.24A are addressed. 20 Turning to the first of the two key issues which are unresolved as between Council and the applicants, the first is the notification rule associated with the Ruakura Retail Centre. The remaining outstanding issue in respect of the Ruakura Retail Centre concerns the question of notification of resource consent applications to extend the permitted 25 footprint of the Ruakura Retail Centre or the size of permitted tenancies within the centre. Rule 25H731 sets out an activity status table for land use activities within the Ruakura Retail Centre. The limits on the total gross floor 30 area and the tenancy types and sizes have been carefully considered by Council and its retail and economic experts. Retail activity is capped at 7,000 square metres of gross floor area with provision for one supermarket or building supply store over 1,000 35 square metres. The remaining retail tenancies are permitted up to 400 square metres of gross floor area. Council’s retail expert Mr Heath considers the Ruakura Retail Centre as permitted, will function as a supermarket based neighbourhood 40 centre, providing for convenience retail activity and Mr Heath is satisfied that the size and mix of store types permitted will have limited ability to either generate significant adverse retail distributional effects on centres or are crucial store types for centres or their ability to rejuvenate. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1807 Rule 25H731 also established a permitted activity cap of 3,000 square metres gross floor area for other activities such as offices, provided office tenancies are no greater than 250 square metres. And again Council’s economic expert, Mr Osborne is satisfied that these 5 provisions enable an appropriate commercial centre and alleviate his retail economic concerns outlined in his evidence-in-chief. Both Mr Heath and Mr Osborne support the permitted activity thresholds because they represent a development threshold which will 10 not produce adverse effects on the vitality, function and amenity of the Hamilton CBD and sub-regional centres that go beyond those effects ordinarily associated with competition on trade competitors. Hand in hand with this permitted activity regime is a consenting regime 15 for activities which go beyond this identified threshold. Activities beyond this threshold are in the main classified as “restricted discretionary activities”. Discretion is, restricted inter alia to a consideration of the impact that the proposal is likely to have on the function, vitality and amenity of the Hamilton CBD and the sub- 20 regional centres of Chartwell and the Base. Rule 25H751A(vi) sets out the assessment criteria for these restricted discretionary activities. In order to demonstrate such adverse effects on the Hamilton CBD and sub-regional centres, a centres assessment 25 report is required as set out in rule 25H7.5.1.1. [4.25 pm] While Council and the applicants have reached agreement on this 30 restricted discretionary activity rule framework and assessment criteria, the parties do not agree on how the plan change should treat the issue of notification of any restricted discretionary resource consent application. 35 The RMA provisions regarding notification of resource consents were the subject of substantial amendment in 2009, pursuant to the Resource Management Simplifying and Streamlining Amendment Act 2009. Section 76 of that Act repealed sections 93 through 95 of the RMA and 40 replaced them with a new 95 through 95F. Whereas the previous sections 93 through 95 of the RMA carried with them a presumption in favour of notification. That “presumption” is removed and replaced with the “discretion” whether to notify an application – and I’ve set out section 95A at paragraph 46 your Honour, I won’t read that. 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1808 The scheme of the Resource Management Act established by section 95A can be summarised for present purposes in the following way: First, Council has a discretion to decide whether to publicly notify an application for a resource consent for an activity. 5 Second, despite this discretion, a consent authority must publicly notify the application if it decides that the activity will have or is likely to have adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor. 10 Next, that despite those above matters, a consent authority must not publicly notify the application if a rule precludes public notification of the application and the applicant has not requested public notification. And then overriding the above, the consent authority may publicly 15 notify an application if it decides that special circumstances exist in relation to the application. It’s submitted that ultimately the question of whether a district plan should include a rule prohibiting notification as recognised in section 20 95A, is determined by reference to section 72, 31 and 32 of the RMA. Section 72 provides that the purpose of the preparation/implementation and administration of district plans is to assist territorial authorities to carry out their functions in order to achieve the purpose of the Act. 25 Section 31 sets out Council’s functions which include the establishment/implementation and review of objectives, policies and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use development or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district. 30 Section 32 establishes the requirement to test rules against the objectives they serve by identifying other reasonably practicable options for achieving the objectives and assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of the provisions in achieving the objectives. 35 Evaluation of a rule prohibiting notification of a resource consent application requires an understanding of the objective and policy context within which it sits. For present purposes that context begins with the wider regional policy set which is set out in the Proposed 40 Regional Policy Statement of implementing a centres hierarchy which sets centres within a cohesive and interrelated framework to ensure an efficient use of resources which serve the purpose of the RMA. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1809 CHAIRPERSON: I’m just going to interrupt you there because I’ve lost track of whether that particular appeal under the proposed RPS is still extant, my memory is that was down for consideration for hearing later in the year. 5 MR MULDOWNEY: That’s right, your Honour. What I can say from where I stand, is that consent documents are currently being executed and have been circulated as recently as this afternoon, and the expectation is, that there will be a comprehensive settlement of the centres hierarchy 10 provisions in the proposed Regional Policy Statement, lodged with the Environment Court for its consideration within days. CHAIRPERSON: Everyone’s moving very quickly to get all of these things sorted. 15 MR MULDOWNEY: Yes, there’s a lot of moving parts but that’s where it’s at - - - CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that. 20 MR MULDOWNEY: - - - as at this afternoon. CHAIRPERSON: Very good. You’re up to 52. 25 MR MULDOWNEY: Yes. Council seeks to give effect to this regional policy framework through its proposed district plan, which clearly articulates a centres hierarchy which mirrors the proposed Regional Policy Statement. 30 It is also sort to give effect to the proposed Regional Policy Statement in this plan change through objectives 25H4.5F4 and related policy 25H5F4A, objective 25H4.10 and related policy 25H4.10A, objective 25H7.2.4 and related policies 25H7.2.4A, B and E. 35 [4.30 pm] Against this strong strategic policy framework are the environmental issues which are in play when a resource consent is sought to take the Ruakura retail centre beyond the permitted limits are core strategic 40 issues which are potentially of interest to a wider stakeholder group but not limited to the Waikato Regional Council, the Transport Agency and future proof. In practical terms an application will include a centre’s assessment report which address the issues identified in rule 25H7.511 and offer an expert opinion on whether the proposed activity is likely to 45 produce adverse effects on the function, vitality and amenity of the Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1810 Hamilton CBD, the Base and Chartwell which go beyond trade competition effects. Such an assessment is more than likely to be subject to a peer review 5 by Council. If Council’s peer review advice concludes that such effects are likely then threshold test in section 95A will have been met in its view and Council would then publicly notify the application. At the very least with conflicting assessments Council would have a discretion as to whether to notify the application. 10 However, if a rule in the plan prohibits notification this discretion is removed from Council’s decision-making and worse yet if there is a clear conclusion that effects are more than minor the application must nevertheless proceed non-notified. 15 Returning to the requirements of section 32 it is submitted that removing this discretion to notify an application for resource consent from Council’s process does not serve the objectives which sit above the rule given that parties which have a legitimate stake in this strategic 20 debate are denied a voice. These strategic objectives are best served by ensuring that when a resource consent application is lodged Council at the very least reserves its discretion to include all stakeholders in the debate. 25 Now turning to the second issue which is still in contention as between the applicant and Council, the night-time noise levels. The night-time noise levels experienced in the residential zones within the plan change area are a critical component of the overall amenity experienced by residents particularly those within the Percival and Ryburn Road 30 residential area, but not limited to those areas your Honour. Under the Resource Management Act amenity levels are described as those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic 35 coherence and cultural and recreational attributes. Relevantly section 7 of the Resource Management Act provides that in achieving the purpose of this Act all persons exercising functions and powers under it in relation to managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources shall have particular regard to the maintenance 40 and enhancement of amenity values. This statutory intention to maintain and enhance amenity values has been reflected in the plan change through a series of objectives including objective 25H4.5 which seeks to ensure compatible buildings 45 and activities between zones and area boundaries. Objective 25H4.6 which provides that development and land use activities are designed, Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1811 developed and implemented in a manner which protects the amenity values of surrounding communities while providing for urbanisation. A critical objective in my submission, your Honour. And objective 25H5.2.3 which provides that adverse effects of logistics and freight 5 handling activities and infrastructure are avoided or mitigated. These objectives are then supported by policies such as 25H523A(iv) which establishes a policy intent to impose amenity controls to ensure that the adverse effects of logistics and inland port activities are 10 avoided or mitigated when assessed from adjoining facilities or existing residential dwellings and countryside living zones. [4.35 pm] 15 It’s my submission that it is clear from this objective and policy framework that the plan change intends to protect the amenity values of communities within the plan change area. One critical component of that amenity is the night time noise environment experienced by those members of the community that live near to the proposed inland port. 20 The existing night time noise environment is quiet, punctuated by a series of high noise events being the train movements. The background ambient noise environment without train movements is between 25 and 27 decibels L90 and while noisy the vent of a passing train is not 25 altogether unpleasant for those who have chosen to live in this environment. Even with the introduction of the Waikato expressway the average 24 hour noise levels are expected to be between 38 and 42 decibels Leq and 30 when converted to an equivalent L90 level those decibel levels may be even lower. Your Honour this was the point that I flagged a couple of days ago that I was just a bit concerned that the table that Mr Robinson produced on this particular point seemed to have gone backwards for me compared to where it sat under cross-examination. 35 In the table that he produced he has got some figures for the Waikato expressway opening which is an LAeq measurement for Brighton and Ryburn Road which range from 41 to 53 decibels LAeq. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Sorry I have just managed to get that up in front of me. I am not sure that my fellow Board members have, perhaps it would be helpful if we could all see it that is table one? MR MULDOWNEY: Yes, and it is the fifth line down the WEX opening with 45 the motorway. I think if I interpret that right what Mr Robinson is saying is that for the properties at 8 Brighton, 23 Ryburn and 53A Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1812 Ryburn the average noise levels will be 41, 45 and 53. There is a footnote to motorway which is footnote 9 which says it is when estimated using predicted sound levels provided by Opus and then the night time sound level has been produced by 10 decibels based on 5 evidence from Dr Chiles. Now Mr Robinson actually produced a more generous production and his was 13 decibels in his evidence and under cross-examination I think the relevant part of the transcript is from about page 997 of the 10 transcript through to 998 where I put to him so if we can just try and capture this discussion in terms of this existing and predicted noise environment, the current night time noise environment excluding the train events is between 25 and 27 dBA LA90 and he accepts that and then the next question at line 11 that is the average background. 15 With the Waikato expressway in place those numbers will jump to between 38 around 42 decibel Laeq 24 and he says yes but there is a swtich there that LAeq 24 which is not the background level so I then explored with him if we converted it back to an ambient level and 20 ultimately on page 998 of the transcript he accepts that those figures of 38 to 42 that he had given would come down by a couple of decibels if converted to an L90 ambient level. It is very challenging this part of the evidence because when we are 25 using different measurements it is difficult to understand what the implications are but I was just a bit concerned that what I thought I had established under cross-examination was not reflected necessarily in the table. 30 [4.40 pm] Now I have to confess I have not had an opportunity to confer with my friend, Mr Milne, on this point and we will do that, apart from a very brief discussion we’ve had and there’s certainly no suggestion that any 35 untoward has occurred. I just wanted to clarify the point. CHAIRPERSON: Well I think that is sensible that you have a discussion about that. I was going to raise this point about where the Council stood with the supplementary material provided at the end of today 40 anyway. So we will just hold that over to enable you to have that discussion. MR MULDOWNEY: Yes. Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1813 CHAIRPERSON: The table was to assist us as a summary, so if it is incorrect or there is some debate about that then as I recall, but I stand to be corrected, Mr Robinson could be recalled on that? 5 MR MULDOWNEY: Yes, and we’d work very hard to see if there is a way around that to avoid it, but my understanding of the request from Commissioner Hodges was really to try and draw together in one convenient table the evidence that had been given, not necessarily to produce new evidence or new material. 10 CHAIRPERSON: That is absolutely what was intended, and if there is a dispute about particular levels then we need to have those identified. MR MULDOWNEY: Yes, okay. So against that background, at paragraph 63 15 of my submissions and really through the rest of my submissions, I’m relying on and basing my submissions on evidence which has been recorded in the transcript rather than the table that’s been produced. So if I can just make that point. 20 At 63, accordingly, it is submitted that the existing night time noise environment and that which is expected once the Waikato expressway is in place, provides a good level of amenity for residents in the area. That amenity will be adversely affected if noise from the inland port operations is permitted to exceed 40 decibels Leq, and these are 25 measured in 15 minute intervals during night time hours. As Dr Black noted at paragraph 26 of his supplementary statement of evidence “the difference between 40 decibels and 45 decibels is an issue for amenity rather than health effects. To add context to this shift in amenity a change of 10 decibels from say 35 to 45 represents an effective 30 doubling of noise.” And that was evidence from Mr Hunt and I think a question from one of the members of the Board. It is submitted that the reduction in amenity which is suffered by 35 residents of Percival Road and Ryburn Road, should the night time noise limit be extended to 45 decibels, will have an adverse impact on amenity to the extent that the rule will fail to achieve those objectives and policies in the plan which seek to protect amenity values within the plan change area. 40 Mr Robinson gave evidence that during the early phases of the development of the inland port it would be possible for the port operations to comply with the 40 decibel standard. Mr Hunt also considered that the 40 decibel standard was achievable in the longer 45 term through adoption of best practicable options for managing noise Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1814 onsite, including effective screening, restricting the location of certain activities and by controlling noise at source. It is submitted that these operational costs, which are incumbent on the 5 developer in any event pursuant to the requirement under section 16 of the Resource Management Act to adopt best practicable options for managing noise do not outweigh the important amenity benefits to be derived from setting a night time noise limit of 40 dBA. 10 Finally on this topic, provided a night time noise limit of 40 dBA is imposed on the residential areas, Council will accept a night time noise level as between adjoining industrial zones of 70 decibels, because regardless of the noises between those industrial sites the limit on residential sites will ensure amenity is protected. However, and this is 15 in reliance on Mr Hunt, if the night time noise levels in residential areas are set at 45 decibels Council seeks a noise limit between industrial sites of 65 decibels to better limit the potential for distant noise from industrial sites to have an adverse effect on night time amenity in residential areas. 20 Council will be calling two planning witnesses, the first is Murray Kivell. Mr Kivell is an external planning consultant who will give evidence focusing on the detail of the plan change provisions, including the night time noise levels, and then the second witness of Council is 25 Mr Luke O’Dwyer, the city planning manager, and Mr O’Dwyer will give strategic planning evidence and specifically address council’s reasons for seeking to maintain the discretion to notify a resource consent application to expand or reconfigure tenancy sizes within the Ruakura retail centre. 30 [4.45 pm] Those are my submissions, your Honour, unless there are any questions I could call Mr Kivell? 35 CHAIRPERSON: I will just check. MS HUDSON: Mr Muldowney, I am not sure whether this is a question for you and/or for the planning witnesses but I wondered whether it is the 40 council’s position that the logistics identification if you like on the R1 structure plan in the proposed district plan will protect resident’s amenity to the extent that you say it seeks in regard to the noise levels for Percival and Ryburn Road? 45 MR MULDOWNEY: Are you talking about that residential area that we describe as the Ryburn Road, Percival Road area? Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1815 MS HUDSON: Yes, with particular reference to that area? MR MULDOWNEY: Yes, so the way that the proposed district plan has been 5 drafted the overall structure plan for the R1 area, the entire R1 area which is included in the proposed district plan shows the long term land use pattern for the entire R1 area and what it shows that for the Percival Road, Ryburn Road area ultimately that will be a logistics land use in the long term. 10 Now in the long term we are talking about a planning horizon out to 2060 odd that we have already explored. That is the long term signal community of the anticipated land use over time. The proposed district plan and the zoning of that land through the life of the proposed district 15 plan is large lot residential so the land use framework that that particular area of the city needs to comply with is a residential land use framework so the signal there really is that for the life of the proposed district plan there will continue to be residential land use in that area and it will continue to have those rules apply to it and the necessary 20 amenity protections that would flow from that. Longer term possibly in the next iteration of a proposed district plan, possibly not even then but longer still there will ultimately be a period where the city and residents and landowners need to confront a change 25 in zoning. MS HUDSON: Yes, thank you. I will leave my other questions for the planning witnesses. 30 CHAIRPERSON: If I could just follow onto from that Mrs Clarke this morning talked about as being a logistics overlay is that the correct terminology? MR MULDOWNEY: No, again I will certainly let the planning witnesses 35 tackle this point, but no the answer is not. There is a large lot residential zoning and the area enjoys the typical land use framework that you would expect for land use of that type. I think the only overlay if you like is what is depicted on the structure plan which shows long term a logistics land use for the area. 40 There are no overlays which affect land use certainly during the course of the proposed district plan or the life of the proposed district plan. CHAIRPERSON: Just so that I can be clear that does not extend into the 45 Silverdale large lot residential area that is proposed for the area? Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1816 MR MULDOWNEY: No, that remains large lot residential and is intended to under the structure plan. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 5 MR HODGES: Mr Muldowney, in section 46 of your submissions you talk about the requirements for section 95A notification of potentially affected parties essentially and 2A says that it must be notified if the consent authority decides that the activity will have or is likely to have 10 adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor so the fact that you are not going to notify affected parties on the storm water issues, does that mean the Board could be assured that you will be satisfied that there are no effects on the environment that are more than minor? 15 MR MULDOWNEY: Well, what the scheme of the Act provides is that even if Council is – does conclude that there are effects that are more than minor, if a rule in the plan precludes notification then notification need not occur in those circumstances. 20 [4.50 pm] And Council’s position on this point is simply this, in terms of those land development plans and the environmental issues which are in play 25 in respect of land development plans, apart from Waikato Regional Council/Waikato District Council and the Transport Agency, there is no resource management purpose which is served by wider notification in that context. 30 I think the point is that, in terms of the strategic questions around whether that kind of land use should occur, this process is the public process by which everyone participates in that debate. If the Board determines that the plan change is to be approved and the 35 land development plan consenting regime approved, my submission is, that once you move into that kind of territory the issues that you’re concerned about in terms of the land development plans are issues that are confined to the regulator, it’s the day to day bread and butter work of a Council, to assess the application and impose appropriate consent 40 conditions. MR HODGES: I hadn’t picked up if the Waikato Regional Council was identified as a party to be notified, that is the case is it? Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1817 MR MULDOWNEY: I believe so. Yes, it’s rule 25H11.3, notification rule, it’s a new colour so I think it might have been the latest iteration of – it may not have been there in the 5 May version. 5 MR HODGES: Okay, thank you your Honour, thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Right, we some more questions, I’ll just, thank you. MS HUDSON: Sorry, Mr Muldowney, a follow up question regarding 10 notification, I was going to ask this of the planning witnesses but as Commissioner Hodges has already raised it, I’d like to follow through. I had a similar query regarding other aspects of notification, the default position in the plan change being non-notification, and in regard to 15 matters which are of particular concern to residents and again the Percival/Ryburn residents are very much in mind, would a rule precluding limited notification mean that the residents could not expect to be consulted in relation to the proposed Noise Management Plan for example? 20 MR MULDOWNEY: Well the answer is, no not necessarily, one doesn’t necessarily follow. So the first point is, yes, the notification rule as currently drafted as I explained to Commissioner Hodges, would confine participation to Hamilton City Council’s regulatory body, 25 Waikato Regional Council, Transport Agency and Waikato District Council and no further parties, for the reasons that I’ve just explained. There is no reason why if notification is confined to those parameters that there can’t still be consent conditions imposed which would enable 30 a degree of consultation with an identified community group through some form of community liaison or some kind of consultation step in formulating a Noise Management Plan for example as a condition of consent. 35 So, again that’s a matter that the planners will assist you on also, but my submission would be that, it doesn’t follow that because notification is confined in the way that it’s being promoted that there couldn’t be opportunities for input as conditions of consent. 40 MS HUDSON: Well, what we’ve been hearing from the resident submitters in particular is that they are worried about not having an opportunity to have any input in the future and on the other hand we’ve had a number of other parties including Transpower and NZTA come along and say that they had particular concerns and they should be consulted and I’m 45 just wondering if the residents are going to see that there is some unfairness perhaps in the approach that the Council is currently Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1818 supporting and whether we as a Board need to look at that fairly closely. MR MULDOWNEY: Well, what I would say in response to that is that the 5 opportunity for participation and to lock in the kind of controls that are of concern to the residents come through this Board of Inquiry process. [4.55 pm] 10 There are, you know, there are opportunities, and it is in the plan change as drafted, significant amenity controls which are embedded which should give the residents the level of comfort that they require, such that they don’t need to have as second byte of it at a land development stage of the consenting process. 15 Now there is clearly a diverging set of views on whether the current set of proposed amenity controls meets the needs of the local community. As I have said, Council’s view is that the controls as promoted in the round do, and it must be said that critical to that overall package of 20 amenity controls which the plan would seek to embed is the 40 decibel night time limit – it is an important part of what gets council over the line, that the overall set of amenity controls are appropriate and adequate. 25 MS HUDSON: Thank you. No more questions. CHAIRPERSON: All right. So thank you, Mr Muldowney. That takes us to five essentially. 30 MR MULDOWNEY: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: And what we will do, I think is resume in the morning. Now I made a note that Mr O’Dwyer was unavailable, but he clearly is available tomorrow now? 35 MR MULDOWNEY: Yes, he is. CHAIRPERSON: He is here? 40 MR MULDOWNEY: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: So would you be intending to start with him giving the strategic overview and then proceed to Mr Kivell, or what are you intending to do – follow the same order? 45 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14 Page 1819 MR MULDOWNEY: I haven’t given that any more thought. I am happy just to simply proceed with the order which is to call Mr Kivell, and then we will follow it up with Mr O’Dwyer, but it seems now that we can get a clean run at it tomorrow morning. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR MULDOWNEY: Both planning witnesses sequentially. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. That is right. All right. Well, we have a full day tomorrow. Are there any other housekeeping matters that need to be dealt with before we adjourn? No? One thing we need to get back to everyone about is whether we require 15 Mr Copeland or not. He was the Transpower planning person – economist, I beg your pardon – and so sadly we haven’t done that, but we will do that right after we adjourn tonight and let everyone know tomorrow morning. 20 All right. Thank you very much. MATTER ADJOURNED AT 4.57 PM UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 4 JUNE 2014 Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 03.06.14