Supplementary Evidence Provided in Support of Counties Power Limited's

Supplementary evidence provided in support of Counties Power Limited's presentation to the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel in respect of Topic 016/017 RUB North/West and RUB South IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER of Proposed Plan Change 12 to the Auckland Council District Plan: Papakura Section, Proposed Private Plan Change 38 to the Auckland Council District Plan: Franklin Section, Proposed Plan Change 19 to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement, ( ) and Proposed Plan Change 3 to the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land, and Water

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE BY MAURICE HOSKINS

FOR COUNTIES POWER LIMITED

Introduction

1. My full name is Maurice Max Hoskins and I am the Planning Engineer with Counties Power Limited. I hold the degrees of Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Engineering (Hons) from the University of Canterbury and Certificate of Electrical Engineering Supply. I have practised as an Electrical Engineer for 38 years working in New Zealand, 2 years in the United Kingdom and 2 years in Saudi Arabia.

2. I was appointed as the Planning Engineer in 1994 and as such I am responsible for the medium and long term planning of the power system in Counties Power. Particular emphasis in this role is placed on the planning of subtransmission, substations and distribution feeders. 3. The purpose of my evidence is to outline the wider significance of the 11 OkV lines that run through the Drury South Structure Plan (DSSP) area, to confirm the difference between supplying a new industrial area and a new residential area, to provide a brief overview of how Counties Power intends to supply power to the DSSP area, and to confirm the importance of retaining flexibility with respect to these distribution lines.

Significance of the 110kV lines in the Network 4. The two Counties Power 11 OkV lines crossing through the DSSP area are those supplying our Opaheke 11 OkV/22kV substation located at the junction of Opaheke, Ponga and Sutton Roads. This substation presently supplies Southern Papakura City and the area bounded by Blackbridge Road in the West, the Hunua Range catchment area in the East and Stevensons Quarry in the South. Hence this substation supplies the ( Hingaia Peninsular, the DSSP area and will supply the newly proposed housing areas Papakura-Drury defined in the Auckland City RUB discussions on going at present. (An estimated extra 26,759 dwellings).

5. This substation will also be part of the supply to the North Franklin Area (Karaka North, Karaka West, Whangapouri and Paerata North areas as defined in the RUB documentation) another 26,608 dwellings.

6. Hence the supply to the Opaheke Substation is a critical part of the ( infrastructure of supply not only to the proposed DSSP Area but also to the greater area around it.

7. Because of the importance of these lines I consider it would not be good engineering practise to place these lines underground and expose our customers in the area to the higher risks posed by underground cables. Repair times of underground cables are measured in days and weeks compared to overhead lines in hours. This has been demonstrated by the Christchurch earthquake and the loss of Supply into Auckland in 1998. The loss of supply to large areas for extensive periods in the above places, were a direct consequence of underground cables being employed. 8. Also it must be borne in mind the extra cost of underground 11 OkV cable installations an estimated twenty times the cost of overhead construction.

Supply to and reticulation of non- residential areas 9. Residential areas are characterised by a high degree of certainty of future demands as opposed to, commercial and industrial areas, and are easy to plan in advance for supply. The demands of Commercial areas are relatively easy to predict once the buildings have been designed, however this is much later in the planning process than for residential areas.

( 10. The demands of Industrial areas in contrast however, are unknown and can change dramatically with time. A building could initially be used as a warehouse with essentially lighting only and later by a thermoplastic ( industry with very intensive demands. The latter could require 22kV supply to the site with its own 22kV/415V transformers whereas the former only a 415V supply.

11 . For a lot in industrial zone 4 the demand could be such that a separate feeder to supply the lot is required and in the extreme case an 11 OkV/22kV substation could be required on site.

12. Hence the requirements and future requirements of industrial are always uncertain and there is need to retain maximum flexibility of the supply to the ( area concerned.

Planned Supply to the DSSP Area 13. It is planned to supply the DSSP Area from two feeders from the Opaheke Substation, one along Flanagan and Tegal Roads in the NW (Drury Feeder) and the other along Fitzgerald Road and Ramarama Roads (Drury Hills Feeder) in NE. A back up and third feeder will be from the south presently along Ramarama Road supplied initially from our Ramarama Substation on Hillview Road and ultimately from our new substation to be built east of the Transpower Bombay Substation. 14. Should the demand exceed the provisional demand of 20-26 MVA then most likely Counties Power would construct another 110kV/22kV substation in the DSSP Area. Depending on location of the substation this could require additional 11 OkV lines and at least another feeder within the area. Also to gain maximum economic and supply benefits from the new substation, new feeders would be constructed to supply areas outside the DSSP area.

Comments on underground cables networks

15. Underground cable cables at 22kV cost about three times the cost of equivalent line overhead. The tap off from an overhead line to a line down a road costs approximately $3500 whereas from an underground cable to an underground cable is approximately $42,000. However from an overhead line to an underground cable the same as for an overhead line about $3500. To break into an underground cable to supply another spur or transformer can cost of the order of $50,000 or even greater. Not to mention that extra joints have to be inserted in the cable. Joints are potential failure points and we try to keep them to a minimum.

16. To lay an underground cable the road needs to be formed and the berms at the final level and ideally all other works completed.

17. In short overhead lines are much better able to cope with uncertain demands, as occur in industrial areas.

Reticulation of the Drury South Area 18. A possible staged development of the area is detailed in the Beca report supporting the original Stevenson application. However, in fact, the development will more than likely be driven by the uptake of the lots. Hence in some directions for the planned supply the roads will not necessarily be formed. The Beca report indicated that the entrance to the subdivision will initially be from Quarry Road in the NE and staged inwards from there. This implies that the roads from the NW and the South will not be formed until later on in the development. However to give the required capacity and backup supply to the area, lines are also required from the NW and the South.

19. Hence Counties Power request that in these cases supply is by overhead lines until the roads are formed and then the 22kV and 400V reticulation placed underground. This of course would be at the developers cost.

20. To retain flexibility particularly for the industrial zone 4 area I recommend that the 22kV distribution along Ramarama Road remains overhead at least until the subdivision is fully developed. This would allow any spur lines easily to be run to lots where required. While it is proposed that Ramarama ( Road be closed, to maintain a backup supply, the reticulation into the subdivision along Ramarama Road from the south would need to be retained until other routes are completed from the south to the northern part ( of Ramarama Road .

21. The 11 OkV subtransmission lines through the area would remain overhead to best serve our customers. Also because of the Auckland City expansion there could be need to convert the single circuit line along the motorway to a double circuit line. Pole heights would generally be close to existing heights.

22. In summary, Counties Power is happy to use underground lines where circumstances justify this, for example in new residential subdivisions. Equally for the benefit of our customers we use overhead lines where these are appropriate, including for our subtransmission 11 OkV lines and for flexible reticulation in industrial subdivisions. We submit that the plan change should permit overhead lines

23. Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Maurice Hoskins Planning Engineer Counties Power Ltd 4 July 2013 ...

- { '

( I Evidence of Craig Magee, Drury South Structure Plan (Proposed Plan Modifications)

IN THE MATIER of the Resource Management Act 1991

IN THE MATIER of Proposed Plan Change 12 to the Auckland

Council District Plan: Papakura Section,

Proposed Private Plan Change 38 to the

Auckland Council District Plan : Franklin

Section, Proposed Plan Change 19 to the

Auckland Regional Policy Statement, and

Proposed Plan Change 3 to the Auckland

Council Regional Plan : Air, Land, and Water

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE BY CRAIG VAUGHAN MAGEE

ON BEHALF OF COUNTIES POWER LIMITED

INTRODUCTION

1. My name is Craig Magee and I hold the role of Planning Manager at Resource

Management Solutions Limited, a consultancy established in Auckland in 1996. I

have a Bachelor of Planning from the University of Auckland and I have been a full

member of the New Zealand Planning Institute since 2000. I have eighteen years'

experience in resource management in both New Zealand and the United Kingdom,

working within both public and private organisations. In my current role I provide

resource management advice and assistan ce to a wide range of clients, including \ / Auckland Council.

2. I have been engaged by Counties Power Limited ("Counties Power" } to consider how

the matters outlined in their submission (and further subm issions} have been dealt

with in the Planner's Report within the Hearing Agenda (and subsequent

documentation}, and to prepare and present hearing evidence accordingly. I was not

involved in preparing the Counties Power submissions or within subsequent discussions with Stevensons.

Resource Management Solut ions Lim i ted

- I - C• RMS Evidence of Craig Magee, Dru ry South Struct ure Plan (Proposed Pla n Modifications)

CODE OF CONDUCT

3. I confirm that I have read the Environment Court Practice Note (2011), and in

particular Section 5 (Expert Witnesses) and complied with it in writing this evidence. I confirm that this evidence is written within my expertise, except where otherwise

stated, and that I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that

might alter or detract from the opinions expressed.

MY EVIDENCE

4. My evidence is based on my own professional opinion but also references the views of Counties Power. I confirm that I have read and considered the relevant

documents within the Hearing Agenda .

COUNTIES POWER

5. Counties Power operates the electricity distribution network in south Auckland and

north Waikato, as well as other businesses including a fibre optic

telecommunications network. It is their job to ensure the network is ma intained and

any faults quickly repaired. They are also responsible for extending the network to

any new development areas (although the landowner is responsible for the costs of installing a connection from the Counties Power network to the bu ilding site).

6. As outlined within the submission, Counties Power has a nu mber of important assets

within the Plan Change Area, including:

• Two 110kV sub-transmission electricity lines,

• Many lower voltage lines, and ( • A fibre optic cable.

7. Counties Power also has a direct interest in some of the properties w ithin the Plan

Change area by way of easements for these assets and in some of the existing roads.

THE SITE AND LOCALITY

8. The subject area ha s been described in various documents. The entire subject is

within the Counties Power servicing area.

R esource M anagement Sol ut i ons L imi t e d

- 2 - Evidence of Craig Magee, Drury South Structure Plan (Proposed Plan Modifications)

SUBMISSION AND FURTHER SUBMISSION

9. The submission lodged by Counties Power is not within the Hearing Agenda

documentation; however I assume the Commissioners have a copy of all the submissions. Two 'further submissions' are included within the Hearing Agenda, at

Pages 347 and 349.

10. In summary the original submission sought to ensure that matters relating to

electricity supply in and through the subject area were properly considered and that

specific changes to any relevant statutory provisions reflected this consideration.

Counties Power indicated their support of the proposed Drury South initiative, and

submitted that the Plan Changes should be approved subject to a number of ( amendments.

11. In summary the requested amendments:

• Sought the recognition and provision for the physical resources by identifying the

two llOkV lines within the Structure Plan,

• Sought the protection (and the management of reverse sensitivity effects} in

relation to the 110kV lines,

• Sought the insertion of subdivision criteria to ensure either the continued

presence of the llOkV lines, or appropriate consideration of their relocation (in

discussion with Counties Power},

• Sought the avoidance of applying other rules which may generate impacts on

existing assets (e.g. landscape and visual amenity controls, Motorway Edge

Precinct/Commercial Service Precinct rules},

• Sought that the changes to the Plan provisions recognised that the preliminary

undergrounding of llOkV lines for an industrial area is liable to be inefficient and

not technically desirable, and that retaining these overhead would enable more

effective management of the initial growth and development stage of the Plan

Change area,

• Sought an amendment to ensure that the new zoning being introduced does not inadvertently alter the rule framework for network utilities in Part 15.1.2 of the Franklin section of the Plan,

12. Within their two further submissions Counties Power:

Resource Management So lu t1ons L imited

- 3- -.•RMS Evidence of Craig Magee, Drury South Str ucture Plan (Proposed Pla n Modifications)

• Opposed Transpower's proposed Rules 6.11.7.10 and 29C.6.10 because they

would control buildings and structures including network utilities such as

electricity poles. This would have required Counties Power to obtain unnecessary

resource consents for their buildings and structures.

• Supported Transpower's proposed Rule 6.11.7.10 (in so far as it excludes

earthworks undertaken by a network utility operator).

AGREED REVISIONS

13. Following this Counties Power and Stevensons entered into discussions on these

matters in early 2013. The parties agreed a set of revisions to the District Plan

amendments and I understand that these were viewed as acceptable by the

reporting planner Craig Cairncross.

14. However due to what I understand was simply an oversight, the set of revisions not

make it into Attachment 4 of the Hearing Agenda ("SGLs proposed amendments to

the District Plan {Papakura and Franklin section) - relevant chapters annotated" ).

Subsequently they have not been considered within Attachment 5 ("Plan Changes 12

and 38 as amended by Planner's hearing report recommendations").

15. Nevertheless, I understand that on the first day of this hearing Greg Osborne

presented the Commissioners with a marked-up revised set of District Plan

amendments. I have been provided with a copy of this set and can confirm that they

match up with the changes agreed with Counties Power. In summary:

Papakura section:

5B.4.2.10.3 Policy: as agreed the revised amendment will seek to ensure that

adverse effects are to be managed by ensuring the safe operation of~ existing high

voltage electrical transmission and distribution lines and fibre optic cables (as

opposed to only those belonging to Transpower and Telecom).

5B.4.2.10.4 Explanation: as agreed the revised amendment will acknowledge

Counties Power's two 110kV sub-transmission lines and their fibre optic cable. The

provision will also alert people to the New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for

Electrical Safe Distances, and provide guidance.

Resource M a n agement Solutions Limited

- 4 - C• RMS Evidence of Craig Magee, Drury South Structure Plan (Proposed Plan Modifications)

6.11.7.1 Activity Table: as agreed the revised amendment will exclude buildings for

Network Utilities from requiring Controlled activity consent for the external design

and appearance of buildings within the Commercial Service Precincts and Motorway

Edge Precincts. As a result of discussions with Transpower the revised amendments

also exclude Network Utilities from requiring non-complying activity consent for

buildings/structures within 12m of the centreline of the National Grid Transmission

Line (or support structure).

6.15(6) General Criteria for Industrial Zones: as agreed the revised amendment will

add a note to make people aware that any trees planted in the vicinity of electricity

( lines must comply with the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003.

6.15.2.10 Restricted Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria for Subdivision: as

agreed the revised amendment inserts a criterion specifically relating to the

Counties Power 110 kV sub-transmission Lines. The criterion ensures that

subdivisions make provision for the existing position of the lines, or consider

whether they can be relocated (with the agreement of Counties Power).

Franklin section:

26.4A.1n) - Conditions on Restricted Discretionary Activities: the agreed revised

amendment allows the Council to impose conditions on subdivision consents in

relation to the Counties Power 110 kV Sub-transmission Lines.

26.4A.2o)- Restricted Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria for Subdivision: the

agreed revised amendment inserts a criterion specifically relating to the Counties

Power 110 kV Sub-transmission Lines. The criterion ensures that subdivisions make

provision for the existing position of the lines, or consider whether they can be

relocated (with the agreement of Counties Power).

Part 29C- Rule 29C- Light Industrial Zone : the agreed revised amendment inserts

wording to make it clear that Network Utilities within the Drury South Structure Plan

area are subject to the provisions in Part 15.1 of the Plan ("NETWORK AND OTHER

UTILITIES AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES" ) and not the provisions within Part 29C.

Resource Management Solutions limited

- 5 - Evidence of Craig Magee, Drury South Structure Plan {P roposed Plan Modificat ions)

29C.2 Controlled Activities - Light Industrial Zone : the agreed revised amendment

provides confirmation that although any building within the Motorway Edge Precinct

or the Commercial Services Precincts are Controlled activities, this rule does not

include NETWORK AND OTHER UTILITIES which shall be Permitted Activities subject

to compliance with Rule 15.1.2.

54.18.2.10.3 Reverse Sensitivity Effects on Drury Quarry, the Industrial 4 Zone and

Surrounding Rural Zones and Significant Electricity, Gas and Telecommunications

Infrastructure - Policy: the agreed revised amendment will seek to ensure that adverse effects are to be managed by ensuring the safe operation of ill.! existing high voltage electrical transmission and distribution lines and fibre optic cables (as

opposed to only those belonging to Transpower and Telecom).

54.18.2.10.4 - (as above, but Explanation): the agreed revised amendment will

acknowledge Counties Power's two 110kV sub-transmission lines and their fibre

optic cable. The provision will also alert people to the New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances, and provide guidance.

16. In terms of the issues raised in the submission and further submissions, these

revised amendments are acceptable to Counties Power.

COUNTIES POWER LIMITED'S OVERHEAD 110kV LINES

17. The remaining issue raised in the submission relates to Counties Power's ability to

retain overhead 110kV sub-transmission lines through the subject area.

18. I note that within the planner's report (on Page 66 of the Hearing Agenda) the issue

has been considered as follows:

"Counties Power have stated in its submission that overhead reticulation of electricity

would be appropriate in some instances, particularly during the initial stages of

development within the DSSP. "

"It is considered that overhead reticulation of new electricity lines within a

developing urban area would be inappropriate. The visual impacts of overhead

Resource M anagement Solutions Limited

- 6- Evidence of Craig Magee, Drury South Structure Plan (Proposed Plan Modifications)

services can be avoided by installing underground ducting, ond such installation can

be achieved at a relatively low cost during the civil works phase of land development.

If the DSSP is to proceed, it is considered that the District Plan rules should ensure

that all local electricity distribution within the DSSP is provided by underground

means.

The Aurecon report indicates that undergrounding of the 110kV transmission lines is

possible but is expensive. However in much of Auckland such lines are required to be

located underground (as least as a permitted activity) and such an approach is

proposed in the draft Unitary Plan. It is considered therefore that such lines should

not be provided for as permitted activities."

19. The planner (on Page 68 of the Hearing Agenda) therefore makes the

recommendation that the submission requesting relaxation of the rules requiring the

undergrounding of electricity lines "be rejected".

20. However I have assessed the rules within the Franklin and Papakura Plans that

would apply and I do not agree that 'relaxation' is required. Specifically I note that

Rule 15.1.2.20 of the Franklin Plan has been updated by the Consent Order resulting

from a Counties Power appeal (ENV-2010-AKL-000150). The result of that Consent

Order is that overhead llOkV lines are in fact permitted activities in the 'Industrial'

and 'Light Industrial' zones under the Franklin Plan (the exception being 'Light

Industrial' within the Kingseat Structure Plan Area, and so long as they meet the

requirements within the bullet points of "15.1.2.1 Permitted activities").

21. Within the Papakura Plan, Section 11.8.1 sets out Permitted Activities in terms of

'Network Utilities, Transport and Roading'. Clause 11.8.1.5 provides for the following

as a Permitted Activity:

"New lines or additions to lines for conveying electricity at a voltage up to and

including 110kV with a design capacity up to and including 100 MVA per circuit,

including all support structures for those lines."

22. On this basis Counties Power seek to maintain the Permitted status for llOkV sub

transmission line which currently exists in both Plans as it would apply to the new

Resource M anagement Solutions Limited

- 7 - ~• RMS Evidence of Craig Magee, Drury South Structure Plan (Proposed Plan Modifi cations)

the Industrial and Light Industrial zoned land.

23. Counties Power wish to emphasise the need for flexibility and reiterate the sound

reasoning behind this request, and we will soon hear brief evidence about this from

Mr Maurice Hoskins, Planning Engineer of Counties Power.

24. In summary Counties Power confirm their ability to service the development likely to

be provided for under the Proposed Plan Modification. To do this, Counties Power

considers it to be important that the necessary infrastructure improvements are able

to be practically achieved, and this includes the need for overhead electricity

infrastructure in certain situations. Counties Power are not opposed to the undergrounding of the 110kV lines for aesthetic reasons, but rather seek that this be

accommodated at the appropriate times.

25. Within his evidence presented on the first day of this hearing, Mr Osborne noted (at

paragraph 8.1} that the DSSP area is likely to be developed over a 15 year period

from approximately 2015 to 2030. Development of the area will be driven by

commercial demand and the need to establish the infrastructure links. He refers (at

paragraph 8.3} to supporting expert evidence from Mr Borlease which explained the

practical reasons why the staging plan should remain indicative at this point in the

process, the key reason being the need to retain flexibility until detailed design is

complete.

26. Counties Power strongly support the request for flexibility and this is reflected in the

agreed revisions to the District Plan revisions. Specifically, an assessment criterion

has been agreed (within both Plans} which requires that subdivisions make provision

for the existing position of the llOkV Counties Power lines, or consider whether they can be relocated (with the agreement of Counties Power}. This is because there is no

certainly in terms of how the subdivisions within the area will develop, and whether

it will be most practical to retain the existing positioning of the llOkV lines, or

whether it would be practical to re-align them.

27. Mr Alan Bull (Associate Electrical Engineer on behalf of Stevenson Group Ltd}

presented evidence on the second day of the hearing. Mr Bull notes (at paragraph 4.1} that the expected load, should the area be populated with a mixture of light

R esource M a n a g eme n t Solu t ions L i m ite d

- 8 - -.•RMS Evidence of Craig Magee, Drury South Structure Plan (Proposed Plan Modificat ions)

industry and commercial consumers, will be in the order to 20 to 26MVA. However

(at paragraph 4.3} he notes that for heavy industries that use significant power

consumption, additional supply may be required. This will require consultation with

the utility supplier such as Counties Power, and the likelihood of additional

infrastructure investment. Mr Hoskins will elaborate on this shortly.

28. Mr Hoskins will also confirm how the nature of the proposed activities present a

different situation from the development of a residential area (or even an area with

a balance of zonings}, where the electricity supplier would have a far greater ability

to predict the ultimate power load, and the only uncertain issue is therefore timing.

As outlined in the Counties Power submission, with industrial sites the loading can ( vary wildly and any attempt to predict can lead to significant under-sizing or over sizing of plant and perhaps the wrong location (for off-take points). Overhead lines

are significantly more flexible, and therefore judicious use of them is appropriate

( during the developmental phase of industrial areas.

29. Again, Mr Hoskins will shortly go into this in greater detail; however Mr Bull's

statement would seem to emphasise the logic of providing greater flexibility for Counties Power. As outlined, the most practical trigger for determining the location

of the lines is when the location and timing of the development roads is finalised. In

terms of District Plan provisions, the most practical trigger for this is at subdivision.

( At this point it may be that a developer proposes a new utility corridor. Certainty of whether corridors will be retained or moved will be provided once the relevant

subdivisions are known and Counties Power is then aware what the appropriate

loading requirements will be.

30. Counties Power also wish to emphasise again that the 110kV lines are the 'backbone

lines' which need to be continuous. Therefore, understandably, they would prefer

consistent planning rules along their length.

31. Additionally I would note that the Proposed Plan Modifications seek to zone an area

of land as 'Industrial' and 'Light Industrial'. In my opinion measures to provide a good level of amenity throughout the relevant area are appropriate. However I do

not believe the retention of two above-ground 110kV sub-transmission lines will be incongruous with the physical development in these zones, particularly the

Resou rc e Ma nagement Solutions L imited

- 9- Evidence of Craig Magee, Drury South Structure Plan (Proposed Plan Modifications)

development phase. As outlined within the submission, the decision to use llOkV

lines for sub-transmission through this area (rather than 33kV) has already

minimised the amount of overhead infrastructure required to service the district.

Visual impacts can be addressed by limiting overhead to the higher voltage lines

(llOkV and above) and directing that, unless exceptional circumstances occur, all

lower voltage lines be undergrounded. lower voltage lines are the local lines serving

one or a few sites, and therefore their need can be predicted.

32. As I understand it, llOkV lines they have significant planning advantages over the

more usual (in NZ) 33kV lines- although of similar size they have more than 3 times

the capacity, meaning fewer lines overall. Overhead lines have significant

advantages over underground lines - aside from being perhaps 5% of the capital

cost, they are able to be repaired more quickly, they have greater resilience (e.g.

after catastrophes), and enjoy enhanced flexibility - particularly important in a

developing area.

33 . In my view these reasons, outlined in more detail within the submission and within

the evidence to be delivered by Mr Hoskins, are reasonable. In light of this I believe the Structure Plan should proceed without any alterations to any District Plan

provisions which would result in a requirement that llOkV lines be undergrounded.

34. Before I invite Mr Hoskins to present evidence I would be happy to answer any

questions. However I would note that any technical questions would be better

directed to Mr Hoskins at the conclusion of his evidence. Mr Bob lack, Commercial

Assistant at Counties Power, is also in attendance to assist with questions. (

Thank you.

Craig Magee

Planning Manager

Resource Management Solutions limited

4 July 2013

Resource M anagement So l ut i ons Limited

- 10 -

A U C K L A N D C O U N C I L

DECISION OF THE HEARINGS COMMISSIONERS FOR:

PROPOSED CHANGE 19 TO THE AUCKLAND REGIONAL POLICY STATEMENT – EXTENSION TO THE METROPOLITAN URBAN LIMITS; and

PROPOSED CHANGE 3 TO THE AUCKLAND REGIONAL PLAN: AIR, LAND AND WATER (OPERATIVE IN PART) – INDUSTRIAL AND URBAN AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREAS; and

PROPOSED PRIVATE PLAN CHANGES 12 PAPAKURA SECTION OF THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL DISTRICT PLAN; and

PROPOSED PRIVATE PLAN CHANGE 38 FRANKLIN SECTION OF THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL DISTRICT PLAN.

The Hearings Commissioners were: Mr David Kirkpatrick (Chair), Mr Ian Gunn, Mr Mark Farnsworth and Mr Greg Hill.

The Hearing was held on 24 – 28 June, 1 – 5 and 10 July 2013, with site visits on 28 June and 18 July 2013. The hearing formally closed on 24 July 2013.

1. Summary of the Decision

The Commissioners have decided that:

(a) Proposed Change 19 to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS), be APPROVED, and

(b) Proposed Change 3 to the Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (ARP:ALW) be APPROVED, and

(c) Proposed Private Plan Change 12 to the Auckland District Plan (Papakura Section) (ADP:PS) be APPROVED, subject to the amendments made as set out in the attached versions, and

(d) Proposed Plan Change 38 to the Auckland District Plan (Franklin Section) (ADP:FS) be APPROVED, subject to the amendments made as set out in the attached versions.

The text of the Plan Changes in terms of our decision is attached. These are in “tracked change” versions. The tracking of the changes, including the highlighting appears in this text only as an aid to finding the changes and identifying the source of the changes, and is not intended to form part of the plan changes once they are made operative.

The amended plan change documents attached are as follows:

Private Plan Change 12 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section) 1. Part 4 The Environment and Resources of the District 2. Part 5 Resource Management Strategy 3. Part 6 Industrial Zones 4. Part 9 — Subdivision 5. Part 14 Signs 6. Appendix 5B.4A and Appendix 5B.4B Private Plan Change 38 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) 7. Part 26 — Subdivision Urban 8. Part 29C Light Industrial Zone 9. Part 51 Parking Loading and Access 10. Part 54.1718 Structure Plan Areas 11. Appendix 54.18B and Appendix 29C Maps 12. Private Plan Change 12: Papakura Section notified plan change maps (including Figure 5B4) 13. Private Plan Change 38: Franklin Section notified plan change maps (including Appendix 54.18A) 14. Maps for Proposed Plan Change 19 (ARPS) and Proposed Plan Change 3 (ARP:ALW) A further amendment to the text is that Rule 6.15.18 in PC12 to the Papakura Section and Rule 29C.6.9 in PC38 to the Franklin section are ultra vires and must be deleted, for the reasons set out in the section of flood risk.

2. Delegation

The Commissioners were delegated full responsibility by the Auckland Council’s Hearings Committee to make decisions on submissions on the Changes and Variation (“the proposed plan changes”) as described above pursuant to section 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”).

3. Summary of the Plan Changes

3.1 Regional Policy Statement and Regional Plan

Relevant Regional or District Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) documents of the Auckland Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water Operative Council in Part (ARP:ALW)

Status of Documents ARPS Operative as of 31 August 1999 ARP:ALW Operative in Part as of 21 October 2010.

Number and name of Proposed Proposed Change 19 to the ARPS – extension to the Change metropolitan urban limits for the industrial zoning of the land at Drury South (within the identified structure plan

area Drury South Structure Plan Area (DSSP).

Proposed Change 3 to the ARP:ALW – application of the Industrial and Urban Air Quality Management Areas, for the proposed industrial zoned land in the Papakura and Franklin sections of the Auckland Council District Plan.

Type of Change Council initiated with respect to the ARPS Operative as of 31 August 1999

ARP:ALW Operative in Part as of 21 October 2010.

Date of notification of Proposed 4 September 2010 Change Date summary of submissions 27 November 2012 notified Legal effect at original No legal effect notification (s 86B) Submissions received (total 376 original submissions and 18 further submissions numbers) Main issues or topics that • Expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Limits (loss of emerged from the submissions containment and “urban sprawl”. • Rural Character Change in Land Use, Degradation / Loss of Rural Land to Urban, Visual Amenity • Flood Risk & Stormwater management • Transport and roading effects • Infrastructure Servicing and Funding • Economic Effects Business Land Supply, Property Values / Rates • Land Modification Geotechnical and earthworks • Soils & Ecology Ecology and Groundwater • Water & Wastewater Water Quality • Noise, Lighting, Air quality effects • Social, Health and Wellbeing • Heritage – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage • Cultural • Open Space • Hazardous Facilities Storage of chemicals

3.2 District Plan

Relevant Regional or District Auckland District Plan (Papakura and Franklin Sections) Plan/s of the Auckland Council (ADP)

Number and name of Plan Proposed Private Plan Changes 12 and 38 respectively Change Variation

Type of Change Private Plan Change

Date of notification of proposed 4 September 2010 Plan Change

Date summary of submissions 27 November 2012 notified

Legal effect at original No legal effect notification (s 86B)

Submissions received (total 376 original submissions and 18 further submissions numbers) Main issues or topics that • Rural Character Change in Land Use, Degradation / emerged from the submissions Loss of Rural Land to Urban, Visual Amenity • Flood Risk & Stormwater management • Transport and roading effects • Infrastructure Servicing and Funding • Economic Effects Business Land Supply, Property Values / Rates • Land Modification Geotechnical and earthworks • Soils & Ecology Ecology and Groundwater • Water & Wastewater Water Quality • Noise, Lighting, Air quality effects • Social, Health and Wellbeing • Heritage – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage • Cultural • Open Space • Hazardous Facilities Storage of chemicals

4. The Hearing

Hearing The hearing was held on the 24th June to the 5th July 2013 and on the 10th July 2013.

Hearing Closed The hearing was closed on the 24th July 2013.

5. Overview of the Plan Changes

5.1 Introduction

This decision relates to a proposal initiated by Stevenson Group Limited (“Stevenson”) to rezone existing rural land for industrial purposes. It includes a substantial amount of technical investigation undertaken by the multidisciplinary firm of Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner (“Beca”), assisted by other specialist firms both in a principal role and as peer reviewers.

The proposal involves four plan changes which are closely related and have been heard, considered and decided together. The land straddles the boundary between the previous Papakura and Franklin districts and so both of those sections of the Auckland District Plan require changes. Because the land is outside the Metropolitan Urban Limit set by the ARPS, such a proposal also requires an extension to that MUL to bring the land within the urban area. Also as a consequence of the proposal that change to the MUL around the area, there must also be a proposal to amend the ARP:ALW to remove the existing rural Air Quality Management Area (“AQMA”) over this land and put an urban and industrial AQMA in its place. There are therefore a total of four plan changes to be considered.

The overall objectives for the proposal include providing additional land for business activity in the southern sector of the Auckland region, providing a buffer zoning for the

existing Stevenson quarry and managing local flooding in the area affected by the Hingaia and Maketu streams

The existing environment is home to a diverse community of farmers, small businesses and rural residential dwellers. It has positive amenity values from its location, aspect and quality of the environment. It is also presently subject to the adverse effects of flooding as well as traffic from the activities of the quarry.

5.2 Location and Existing Environment

The land which is the subject of these proposed changes is located generally between Drury village to the north and Ramarama to the south, with the Stevenson’s quarry to the east and the southern motorway to the west.

Landform

The structure plan area is in the lower part of the Hingaia catchment, which reaches up into the hills to the southeast of the area and down through Drury and under the southern motorway where it falls into the Pahurehure inlet of the Manukau Harbour. The area includes the confluence of the Hingaia and Maketu streams. The Hingaia in particular is in a deeply incised channel. The Hingaia catchment is one of the largest catchments in the southern sector of the Auckland region, with an area of approximately 5750 hectares. As well as the main streams, there are a number of unnamed tributaries which drain the flood plain that occupies most of the structure plan area. As discussed below, the stream and its floodplain are subject to regular flooding.

The land rises to the Drury Hills to the west, with a number of ridges extending into the floodplain. Notable ridges include a northern one (referred to by many before us as an escarpment) on which Fitzgerald Road is located and a southern one alongside which runs Willow Road. These two ridges set some topographical boundaries for the area. The land also rises on its western side to the southern motorway

Zoning

The area is separated from the existing Metropolitan Urban Limit at Drury by approximately 750 metres.

The northern part of the area (approximately threequarters of the total) is within what was, prior to 2010, part of Papakura District. That area has a mix of Quarry, Rural Papakura and Rural Papakura (Drury Subdivision Area) zones in the Papakura section of the Auckland District Plan. Beyond the area to the north, the Rural Papakura (Drury Subdivision Area) zone continues, with Rural Residential zoning of the land to the northeast on the Drury Hills.

The southern part of the site with what was part of Franklin District is zoned Rural in the Franklin section of the District Plan, which extends further south and along the western side of the southern motorway.

Land use

The land use pattern of the plan change area is mostly pastoral farming with some horticultural activity. There is also some intensive farming with the Tegal chicken hatchery at the northern end of Tegal Road and a large area used as a chicken farm and abbatoir on Maketu Road. On the eastern side there is an area presently zoned for quarry purposes where Stevenson locates its offices, weighbridge and product

stockpiles, and also its pond system for water treatment. Rural residential or “lifestyle” blocks are mainly towards the western side of the plan change area.

Most (approximately 71%) of the plan change area is owned by Stevenson.

Beyond the plan change area there is a range of rural and ruralresidential activity to north and south, including small holdings, boarding kennels and catteries, and some rural service activity. There are residential properties to the north, notably on Brookfield Road and MacWhinney Drive, and to the south, on Ramarama and McEldownie Road within or adjacent to the plan change area and on Ararimu Road and also Dale and Maxted Roads to the south of Ararimu Road.

Ramarama School, a public primary school, is on the southern side of Ararimu Road between the intersections with McEldownie and Dale Roads

Infrastructure

The plan change area is presently fully served by existing roads. Quarry Road traverses the plain from the quarry, across Hingaia stream at Ballards Bridge, over the motorway and connecting with Great South Road. Fitzgerald Road comes from Waihoehoe Road in the north (towards Drury) and becomes Ramarama Road at the corssroads with Quarry Road and continues south to Ararimu Road. Willow Road runs east from Ramarama Road, connecting to Davies Road and running south to Ararimu Road. Maketu Road runs west from Ramarama Road and then north to connect to Quarry Road. McEldownie Road runs north from Ararimu Road and is shown on maps as connecting to Maketu Road, but we were turned back by signs suggesting that its northern portion is private land. Harrison Road runs south from its intersection with Quarry Road just west of Ballards Bridge and down to its terminus quite close to the motorway. Tegal Road runs north from Quarry Road just before it crosses the motorway and ends at the Tegal hatchery.

There is an area alongside the southern motorway used as a switchyard by Transpower on the Huntly – Otahuhu A transmission line, with a line running to the west to connect the Glenbrook steel mill. The switchyard is subject to a designation by Transpower.

The nearest municipal water supply infrastructure is the Papakura potable water network some 4km north of the DSSP area. The Watercare Services bulk water supply main from the Waikato River runs past the DSSP area around 1km to the west.

The nearest wastewater infrastructure is the local wastewater network servicing Papakura around 4km to the north. About 5km to the north of the DSSP area is the Southern Interceptor of the Watercare Services wastewater network.

All stormwater runoff from the current land area is by farm drains and culverts to the Maketu and Hingaia Streams and associated tributary drainage systems.

5.3 The Proposed Changes

MUL Extension On the 24 July 2012, the Council's Regional Development and Operations Committee resolved that the private plan change request from Stevenson to rezone land within the Drury South Structure Plan Area for industrial purposes be accepted for notification

pursuant to Clause 25(2)(b) of Part 2 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (Act).

Stevenson did not have the ability to request a private plan change to extend the MUL in the RPS.1 Clause 21(3) of Part 2 of the First Schedule of the Act only provides that "any Minister of the Crown or any territorial authority in the region may request a change to a policy statement".

Proposed Change 19 to the ARPS proposes to shift the MUL to incorporate the Drury South Structure Plan Area (DSSP) and change the Auckland Regional Policy Statement Map Series 1 – Sheet 25 with consequential changes to the position of the MUL on other RPS maps.2 Air Quality Management Area.

The proposed area of change (the DSSP or structure plan area) is currently within a Rural Air Quality Management Area. (AQMA). Under 3.12.1 of the ARP:ALW any extension to the MUL requires a corresponding change to the appropriate AQMA. The proposal is to have an Industrial AQMA over that part of the DSSP area zoned for ‘heavier’ industrial activities and the rest of the area covered by the Urban AQMA. The details of this are set out later in this decision. This change reflects the proposed extension to the MUL and the change in zoning to industrial activities within the DSSP.

Proposed Change 3 requires that Map Series 1 – Map 45 under the RP be amended to reflect any proposed change to the AQMAs for the DSSP.

Land Use Zone Changes Sought Changes to Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura section)

(a) Amendments to the district planning maps to show the proposed zoning and the extent of the structure plan area and the existing and future flood hazard areas within the structure plan area;

(b) Amendments to Section 1 of the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura section) to insert references to provide for Land Extensive Industrial Activities in the district and references to Drury South and the structure plan area in providing for such activities;

(c) The insertion of a new structure plan and structure plan text (including Issues, Objectives, Policies and Methods) in Part 5B of Section 1 of the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura section);

(d) The insertion of two new appendices containing design assessment criteria for subdivision (Appendix 5B.4.A) and design assessment criteria for buildings within the Commercial Service Precinct and the Motorway Edge Precinct shown on the structure plan (Appendix 5B.4.B);

(e) Amendments to the introductory sections of Part 6 (Industrial Zones) of Section 3 of the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura section) to insert references to the structure plan area;

(f) The insertion of a new activity status list for the structure plan area into Rule 6.11.7.1 relating to the Industrial 3 zone and Rule 6.12.7.1 relating to the Industrial 4 zone including making retail activity undertaken in premises with a gross floor area of more than 500m2 a prohibited activity;

1 See section 60 (2) and the First Schedule of the Act 2 Map 2 – Sheet 3 (Significant Natural Heritage Areas and Landscape Quality), Map 3 – Sheet 2 (Significant Landscape Sensitivity) and Map 6 – Sheet 3 (Land Use Capability)

(g) The insertion of new rules 6.11.7.9 and 6.11.7.10 relating to all subdivision and development activities (development activities being defined to mean the carrying out of any work on the land including any earthworks or site preparation activities and the construction or alteration of any building prior to the issuing of a subdivision consent) within the structure plan area including provision for subdivision as a restricted discretionary activity with the Council retaining discretion over the matters outlined in item (k) below and the introduction of subdivision and development standards relating to minimum site area, minimum frontage, minimum shape factor, roads, stormwater management areas, reserves and water and wastewater services;

(h) The amendment of the noise (Rule 6.15.1), glare (Rule 6.15.2), maximum height (Rule 6.15.5), landscaping and visual amenity (Rule 6.15.6) performance standards to take into account the rural surroundings of the structure plan area;

(i) The insertion of new rules 6.15(15) – 6.15(17) into part 6.15 (General Requirements for Industrial Zones) relating to:

• Multimodal Transport Requirements within the structure plan area;

• Special Parking Requirements within the structure plan area;

• Roof Glare, Solar Gain and Stormwater Contaminant Controls within the structure plan area.

(j) The amendment of Rule 6.15.1 (controlled activity assessment criteria) to include reference to the additional assessment criteria referred to in (d) above;

(k) The amendment of Rule 6.15.2 (restricted discretionary activity assessment criteria for subdivision) to include additional detailed assessment criteria for the structure plan relating to:

• Papakura District Council Development Code (2009);

• Geotechnical;

• Servicing and Development Sequencing;

• Design and layout;

• Earthworks and Flood Hazards;

• Remediation of Soil Contamination;

• Proximity to National Grid Transmission Lines;

• Transportation Network Development Requirements.

(l) The insertion of a variety of minor crossreferences in Part 9 (Subdivision) and Part 14 (Signs) of Section Three (Urban Papakura) of the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura section).

Changes to Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin section)

(a) Amendments to the planning maps to show the proposed zoning and the extent of the Motorway Edge and Commercial Services Precinct overlays, the location of indicative proposed roads and the extent of the structure plan area;

(b) Amendments to the subdivision provisions of Part 26 Subdivision: Urban to include additional subdivision assessment criteria for the structure plan area relating to compliance with the structure plan, earthworks, silt and sediment control and transportation network development requirements as well as the insertion of new minimum site size requirements (Note: new subdivision design assessment criteria for the structure plan area Appendix 54.18B are required to be taken into account by existing Rule 26.4A.2.(c) (i) in the Franklin section of the District Plan

(c) Amendments to the subdivision provisions of Part 26 Subdivision: Urban to include subdivision and development standards relating to roads, stormwater management areas, reserves and water and wastewater services;

(d) Amendments to the rules of the Light Industrial Zone (Rule 29C.1) as they apply to the structure plan area to ensure that certain commercial service activities (offices, cafe’s, dairies etc) are limited to defined commercial services precincts rather being able to disperse throughout the Light Industrial zone;

(e) Making the construction of any building within the Motorway Edge Precinct or the Commercial Services Precinct in the structure plan area a controlled activity in rule 29.C.2 and the introduction in rule 29.C.7 (Assessment of Controlled Activities) of a criterion requiring that the assessment of controlled activities within those precincts be also made against the design assessment criteria in new Appendix 29C;

(f) Making any retailing activity over 500m2 within the structure plan area a prohibited activity in new Rule 29C.4A;

(g) Introducing new development standards within the structure plan area in rules 29C.5.3 (Planting) relating to planting of front yards and side and rear boundaries and an overall site landscaping requirement of 30% within the Motorway Edge Precinct of the structure plan area with an incentive to use a specified Planted Permeable Carpark Design Layout;

(h) Introducing specific requirements as to fences and walls (Rule 29C.5.4), Multi modal Transport Requirements (Rule 29C.5.5), visual amenity including signs (rule 29C.5.11 and Roof Glare, Solar Gain and Stormwater Contaminant Controls (Rule 29C.5.12) throughout the structure plan area;

(i) Amending noise controls in rule 29C.6.1 to provide stricter controls over night time noise in the structure plan area than other light industrial zones in the Franklin section of the District Plan and insert a new rule imposing floor level restrictions for buildings within the DSSP area;

(j) Amending Rule 29C.7 assessment of controlled activities to include reference to the design assessment criteria for the structure plan area to be inserted in the district plan as Appendix 54.18Aand 29C as well as additional criteria relating to the strategic freight network and reverse sensitivity effects from activities sensitive to heavy commercial vehicles;

(k) Inserting requirements for parking for some additional activities not previously regulated

(l) The insertion of a new structure plan (54.18) and structure plan text (including Issues, Objectives, Policies and Methods) in Part 54 of the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section);

(m) Amendments to the district planning maps to show the proposed zoning and the extent of the structure plan area;

(n) Inserting Appendix 54.18A Drury South Structure Plan Map and Drury South Transport Network Development Requirements Map, Appendix 54.18B Subdivision Design Assessment Criteria for Light Industrial Zone within the Drury South Structure Plan Area and Appendix 29C Motorway Edge Precinct and Commercial Services Precinct Design Assessment Criteria.

6. Statutory Requirements

6.1 Statutory Requirements

As the Plan Changes were notified after 1 October 2009, they have been considered under the provisions of RMA as amended by the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009.

The key provisions for consideration of a change to the ARPS are sections 32 and 60, as well as Part 2 and the second Part of the First Schedule to the Act.3 The key provisions for consideration of a regional plan change are sections 32, 65(6) and 65(7) of the RMA, as well as Part 2 and the second Part of the First Schedule to the Act. The key provisions for consideration of a district plan change are sections 32, 75 and 76 of the Act, Part 2 and the second Part of the First Schedule to the Act.

These are all addressed below.

The proposed plan changes have been considered in light of the relevant statutory matters. These were summarised by the Environment Court in Long BayOkura Great Park Society Incorporated and Others v North Shore City Council (Decision A078/2008) where the court set out the measures for evaluating objectives, policies, rules and other methods in the various planning documents. These were detailed in the officer reports provided to us – and we have not repeated them here.

In addition to the matters from the Long Bay decision:

(i) The Plan must “give effect to” any national policy statement and any New Zealand coastal policy statement (s75 (3) (a) and (b)).

(ii) The Plan must “give effect to” the regional policy statement (s75 (3) (c)).

(iii) The Plan must be “not inconsistent with” any regional plan (s75 (4)).

The matters above and the relevant provisions of the First Schedule have been incorporated into our decisions. All submissions lodged on the plan changes, the Council’s reports evaluating the plan change proposals and their potential effects, and the evidence presented at the hearing have all been taken into account and, as with the statutory provisions, while they may not necessarily be expressly referred to, they have nevertheless been taken into account when making our decisions.

6.2 Section 32

Section 32 seeks to ensure that the costs and benefits of proposed plan provisions are considered and that the proposed controls are justified. Each objective that is proposed has to be examined with regard to the extent to which it is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA. Any rules or other methods should be aimed at achieving the objectives and policies. This assessment must take

3 The second Part of the First Schedule deals with requests for changes to policy statements and plans of local authorities and requests to prepare regional plans

account of the benefits and costs of the proposed policies, rules or other methods and the risk of acting, or not acting, if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of those policies, rules or other methods4.

To meet the section 32 requirements, an assessment report must be prepared on the content of the proposed plan change5 before the change is notified. The hearing itself forms part of the section 32 process.

A section 32 assessment was provided by the Council with respect to the regional matters, and by the applicant with respect to the private plan change as well as the regional matters. The section 32 assessments were accompanied by specialist reports which examined the plan changes in terms of the principal issues and the effects on the environment from those proposed changes. .

With respect to the Regional and District changes we note:

• The MUL shift and the Industrial and Urban AQMA do not introduce any new objectives or policies. The MUL extension enables urban development to occur in the structure plan area (zoned industrial). Similarly the appropriate (in this case the Industrial and Urban) AQMA necessarily follows if land is zoned urban. In this case, for the reasons set out later, we find that the appropriate air quality management areas are the Industrial and Urban) AQMA.

• PCs 19 and 38 introduce Industrial 3 and 4 zones, with overlay precincts for Commercial Services and Motorway Edge and subject to an overall Drury South Structure Plan (“DSSP”), to replace the existing Rural, Rural Papakura, Rural Papakura (Drury Subdivision Area) and Quarry zones.

• A key issue for us in section 32 terms is whether the proposed changes to the regional documents and the land use zone change provide an appropriate management regime. This is addressed in more detail below. We record here however that we accept that the changes proposed are appropriate and, subject to the changes we have made, satisfy the requirements of section 32 and meet the purpose of the RMA.

We set out our findings in relation to section 32 below.

7. Hearing

We conducted a hearing at Papakura over 11 days, commencing on 24 June 2013 and until 5 July 2013, with a further day for replies on 10 July 2013. We heard from the applicant, Stevenson Group Ltd, with its counsel and expert witnesses and then from a wide range of submitters, including residents in and near the plan change area. A group called the Drury Ramarama Protection Society representing a number of submitters also appeared before us with counsel and expert witnesses. Among the submitters were a number of organisations which provide infrastructure and associated services in and around the plan change area, including Watercare Services, Auckland Transport, NZ Transport Agency, Transpower and Counties Power.

A full list of those who appeared before us is attached as an appendix to this decision.

We also conducted two site visits on 28 June and 18 July 2013, travelling by road all around the plan change area and also to locations outside the plan change area on MacWhinney Drive, Peach Hill Road, Ararimu Road and Great South Road. We also

4 Section 32(4) 5 Section 32(1)(d)

toured the Highbrook industrial area, as an example of a relatively recent conversion of rural land to an industrial park, on 1 July 2013.

8. Overall Findings and our Decision

We have considered the proposed plan changes in terms of the requirements of section 32 RMA, including in terms of s32(3):

(a) the extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this Act; and

(b) whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules, or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives.

and in terms of s32(4):

(a) the benefits and costs of policies, rules, or other methods; and

(b) the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules, or other methods.

We have borne in mind the other relevant matters as identified in Long BayOkura Great Park Society Inc v North Shore City Council A78/08 as cited to us by counsel, which direct us also to consider the requirements and matters for assessment in:

(a) Schedule 1 to the RMA; (b) sections 63, 66 and 67 (regional plan and RPS provisions); and (c) sections 74, 75 and 76 (district plan provisions).

We accept the section 32 assessments that have been presented to us by the applicant and which are the subject of the submissions and evidence before us, including the Council officers’ report pursuant to s42A RMA. Subject to the changes we have made to the plan change provisions, and for the reasons set out below, we find that the plan changes satisfy the section 32 requirements.

We have approved the MUL extension (as sought by PC 19) and applied the Industrial and Urban Air Quality Management Area (PC 3). The full reasoning for this is set out below. However, we note that while most of the submitters opposed the extension of the MUL and AQMA, there was no disagreement about this (other than some detail matters) amongst the expert planning witnesses. This included the Council planners and the expert planners called by the applicant (Stevenson) and the Drury Ramarama Protection Society.

We find that for the reasons set out below that the changes to existing the land use zonings to Industrial 3 and 4 (with Motorway Edge and Commercial Services overlay precincts) and areas of public Open Space/Stormwater Management, with a Spine Road and indicative proposed roads as set out in the Structure Plan accompanying the application for plan changes is approved in terms of the text attached to this decision.

9. Moving the Metropolitan Urban Limits Discussion, Reasons and Findings

9.1 Overview

The Metropolitan Urban Limits (MUL) is the key method used in the ARPS to delineate and contain Auckland’s urban area; in terms of its form, urban efficiency and to protect

the important natural resources present in the rural parts of the region. The Act and the ARPS, via the now operative Change 6 to the ARPS, requires ‘integrated’ land use planning, and as part of any proposal to shift the MUL requires, amongst other things, an appropriate ‘land use’ package. The land use ‘package’ is set out in detail later in this decision report.

The applicant, via its expert witnesses, but in particular Mr Osborne the applicant’s planning expert, set out in some considerable detail the relevant provisions of the ARPS. He also set out the policy and planning issues required to assess and determine if it was appropriate to move the MUL, and why in his opinion it was appropriate that it be moved in this case. He also addressed the relevance and content of the Auckland Plan and the draft Unitary Plan.

Mr O’Connor, legal counsel for the Council as the ‘proponent’ of the proposed changes to the ARPS and the PRP:ALW addressed us on why, in his submission, it was appropriate to extend the MUL as requested (and apply the AQMAs with some amendments). He did not call any witnesses, but relied on the contents of the applicant’s section 32 Report and the Officers section 42A report.

Moreover, Mr Wren (Planning Consultant) and Mr Cairncross (Principal Planner, Planning South, Papakura and Franklin provided a detailed hearings report. In it they set out all of the relevant provisions of the ARPS relating to proposals to shift the MUL and why in their opinion the proposal was appropriate and consistent with the wider strategic direction set out in the ARPS. Their conclusion was6:

Overall, and subject to the provisos concerning infrastructure provision, stormwater management and the range of activities provided for within the DSSP as set out in the discussion above, it is considered that the plan changes are generally consistent with the wider strategic direction set out in the ARPS.

We note here that the matters of concern to the officers were addressed in the hearing by the applicant and are addressed later in this decision.

As there was a high level of agreement among the experts, including from the Drury Ramarama Protection Society (DRPS), on the ‘strategic context’ of the proposal, such as the need for further industrial land (and in particular for Land Extensive Industrial Activities (LEIA)) and the ‘higher order’ strategic policies in the ARPS (to determine if it was appropriate to move the MUL), we have determined that there is no need to extensively repeat those submissions or evidence. We accept the expert evidence and based on that evidence and legal submissions we set out our findings below.

The key issue for us in respect of shifting the MUL with regard to the statutory tests is whether the proposed change implements the policies and therefore the objectives of the ARPS.

The Section 32 assessments and the evidence from the applicant, the DRPS (Mr Hook) and the reporting officers identified a number of ARPS strategic policies that were relevant and relate to future urban areas and land extensive industrial activities. Policy 2.6.2.2 of the ARPS, which is a significant policy in the context of this proposal, makes it clear that before the MUL can be moved to incorporate a new urban area, an extensive list of strategic and environmental matters must be addressed. We address this and other objectives and policies below.

6 Page 24 of the Officers section 42A Report.

9.2 Auckland Regional Policy Statement Chapter 2 (Regional Overview and Strategic Direction) of the ARPS has most relevance to these plan change requests. While we acknowledge there are a number of other chapters that have some relevance in terms of later resource consent processes which will be required to implement the plan changes, we have focussed in this part of the decision on the Chapter 2 provisions. It is the provisions of this chapter that integrates the issues, objectives and policies of the many other chapters in the context of the Strategic Direction for the Auckland Region. In particular, we have focussed on the Strategic Objectives and Policies which create the framework on which the remaining objectives and policies of Chapter 2 are constructed. Prior to addressing the Chapter 2 provisions, we think it important to set out the ARPS’s approach to “Land Extensive Industrial Activities” (LEIA). This is because the proposal is essentially designed to facilitate this form of land use activity.

LEIA as a category of activity is specifically defined in the ARPS as:

Industrial activities in this category are manufacturing, construction, wholesale trade and transport and storage, and ancillary commercial activities associated with these. These activities typically require:

• large land parcels; • relatively low land costs per square metre; • preferably vacant land; • good transport access, especially road/motorway; • a guaranteed and consistent energy supply; • distance from sensitive land uses; • medium to high broadband capacity.

With respect to this definition, we accept, as set out in evidence of Mr Osborne, that the DSSP area meets the criteria for LEIAs. Specifically: • it consists of a large parcel of land which is predominantly owned by one party; • its periurban location means land costs are relatively low per square metre; • its prior semirural use means much of the land is vacant; • it has convenient access to two motorway interchanges, the North Island Main Trunk rail line is nearby and there are plans to upgrade commuter rail services to Drury; • it is traversed by a part of the National Grid electricity transmission network and a Transpower substation / switching yard is located within the DSSP area. Additionally the Vector gas pipeline traverses the northern part of the area and the Counties Power subtransmission network also traverses the area; • it is separated from existing intensively settled residential areas and public open space buffers are proposed to mitigate effects on rural residential development in the surrounding area; and • it is well serviced by existing fibre optic cables providing medium to high broadband capacity.

We were advised that there is a significant shortage of land for LEIAs in the region. Mr Osborne set out that the regional shortage of LEIA land for future requirements to 2031 was identified as a "pressing regional issue"7 in the Regional Business Land Strategy (October 2006). The Strategy identified that there could be shortages of vacant business land as early as 2011 and the Strategy's Regional Outcome 5 was to "Enable land extensive business sectors to grow in appropriate areas that are serviced by road and adequately separated from sensitive activities".

The Strategy indicated that the Outcome could be achieved by the (former) Auckland Regional Growth Forum identifying future sites for the growth of Group 1 business sectors. A subsequent report, the “Auckland Region Greenfield Business Land Report" from the Regional Growth Forum sponsored Business Land and Economy Group (BLEG) June 2007 identified key locational criteria for assessing new "Greenfield" areas. While adopted by the Regional Growth Forum, no identification of future sites for the growth of Group 1 business sectors occurred.

This issue is also acknowledged in the ARPS. Issue 2.4.10 states:

There is a diminishing supply of vacant, or underutilised, business land to provide for future economic development. The provision and location of business land is of strategic importance in its effects on the form and growth of the region. Economic growth can support a higher standard of living. To provide for the economic wellbeing of people and communities, the Region seeks to encourage sustainable economic development, whilst protecting agreed social and natural values. A compact urban environment needs to efficiently utilise remaining business land whilst providing sufficient opportunities and flexibility for business growth.

Having read the officers’ section 42A report and heard the evidence, we accept that there is a significant shortage of this type of land in Auckland, and as pointed out by Mr Stilwell and others, this is a major issue for Auckland in enabling people to provide for their social and economic wellbeing into the future. Stevenson’s presented considerable evidence on this matter – which was not contested by any expert evidence. The most substantive evidence was from Mr Stilwell Project Director, Mr Akehurst, an economist and Mr Moricz, a director of CBRE, a property services company. We address this below.

Mr Akehurst set out in his evidence8, the projected growth in Auckland over the next twentyfive to thirty years, stating that the Auckland regional population is expected to reach 2.5 million.9 This, in addition to the requirement to provide more housing, would be the requirement to ensure that there be new employment opportunities commensurate with the increased population.

The Auckland Council expects that a total of 1,400 ha of additional business land will be required in the Auckland region to cater for this growth, of which almost half is required for industrial type activities.10 As pointed by Mr Akehurst11, it is these industrial sector activities that have provided the majority of the employment opportunities for the South Auckland labour market. He stated:

So, while economic transformation away from industrial towards tertiary and service sector activities continues, the evolution of the South Auckland labour

7 Page 3 Auckland Region Business Land Strategy – ARC – October 2006. 8 Para 2.1 (pg 4) of his evidence 9 High Growth Scenario, the basis for Auckland’s planning, The Auckland Plan (2012), Box B.2, page 26. 10 The Auckland Plan (2012), paragraph 387, page 157. 11 Para 2.3 (pg 5) of his evidence.

markets is likely to take a number of generations. Therefore continuing to facilitate employment for this sector of the population by ensuring Land Extensive Industrial Activities (LEIA) continue to locate within the region is extremely important.

We also note that the Auckland Council's Auckland Plan, addressed in more detail later, identifies the need for approximately 1,000 hectares of additional industrial land in ‘greenfield locations’ for the region as a whole over the next 30 years. In addition to identification and provision of additional greenfield land,

Mr Moricz considered that the DSSP land would be highly suitable and desirable for LEIAs. In his evidence12 he stated that that CBRE has surveyed industrial zoned vacant land since 2008 (based on the industrial zoned land for Group 1 activities identified by the ARC study in 2006) contained within the Auckland Urban Area. He further stated that CBRE’s most recent industrial vacant land survey was in December 2012 and in the Southern Sector, covered the following industrial precincts: • Mangere/Favona; • Airport Corridor; • East Tamaki/Highbrook; • Wiri/Manukau; • Takanini; • Papakura; • Drury; • Pokeno; and • Pukekohe.

He also set out that the results of the latest survey reinforce the current and growing future importance of the Southern Sector to cater for the growth of Group 1 industries13. Moreover he considered that the DSSP area “satisfies the most important locational criteria indicated by large industrial occupiers in CBRE’s survey – being: • comparatively low cost to occupy; • proximity to motorway; • flat land; • quality of electricity supply (given that it abuts the Southern Infrastructure corridor); • lack of zoning restrictions (an industrial zoning, once in place, will enable industrial development to occur); • availability of large size allotments; • availability of fast broadband (given that it abuts the Southern Infrastructure corridor); • buffering from residential activities; and • proximity to labour”.14

12 Para 3.2 (pg 12) if his evidence 13 Para 5.4 (pg 21 of his evidence 14 Para 5.7 (pg 21 of his evidence)

Mr Akehurst, relying on the assessment carried out by Mr Osborne regarding all the potential LEIA opportunities in the Southern Sector (see table below), and the evidence of Mr Moricz, considers that the region will need all these sites, and the DSSP (and more) to be operational, if the region is to be able to satisfy it LEIA land requirements15.

Mr Akehurst’s evidence illustrated that demand for Group 1 land in South Auckland is expected to exceed supply by 2021, and under the high growth forecasts in the Auckland Plan, demand exceeds supply by approximately 2016. Moreover given the amount of LEIA land needed, the DSSP area will only provide approximately 20 to 25% of the estimated land needed to 2031.

With respect to the ARPS’s strategic direction it envisages that additional business land “will” need to be provided outside of the existing MUL. In this respect it states:

However it is recognised, that, while there remains a shortage of business zoned land, particularly for land extensive industrial activities, expansion into Greenfield land will need to be provided for, including locations outside of the existing MUL where there is a proven sub regional shortage of such land. In some locations, expansion onto Greenfield sites may also be the most appropriate means of providing for more localised employment opportunities in those areas where there is an employment/residential imbalance.16

We agree with Mr Stilwell17 that zoned and serviced industrial land is essential to achieving Auckland’s social and economic objectives. We also agree that the need for industrial land/capacity is directly correlated to population and export growth, and Mr Akehurst’s evidence has set out Auckland’s projected population growth and employment figures (as set out earlier). Having regard to all of the above, we accept there is a considerable shortage of land for LEIA activities, and that the existing zoned land will not provide for this shortfall. Moreover the ARPS ‘expects’ that additional land will need to be provided for, “including locations outside of the existing MUL where there is a proven sub regional shortage of such land”.

The DSSP area would enable more land for this activity, but it will only provide in the order of 20 to 25% of the additional land needed in the region to 2031. We consider

15 Para 2.69 and 2.70 (pg 20) of his evidence. 16 Explanation to Issue 2.4.10 – pg 19 of the ARPS. 17 Paras 1 and 2 of his evidence

this is a significant issue facing the region, and Auckland will not be able to provide for its social and economic wellbeing if there is insufficient land zoned to provide employment opportunities, especially within south Auckland.

9.3 Specific provision for Land Extensive Industrial Activities (LEIA)

The issue of making specific provision for LEIA is addressed in the objectives and policies which include Strategic Policies 2.6.5.16 and 2.6.5.22. The two policies have similar wording although 2.6.5.22 is more targeted at future industrial areas rather than existing industrial areas. It states as follows:

To ensure sufficient land is identified and provided, including through zoning, to meet existing and anticipated demand for Industrial Activities, including Land Extensive Industrial Activities, having regard to the following:

(i) reverse sensitivity effects;

(ii) being appropriately located with good transport access to the arterial road network, port, airport and railways, and avoiding direct access to sensitive local streets;

(iii) not detracting from the safety and function of the arterial road network; and

(iv) avoiding adverse effects on the safe, efficient and sustainable operation of regionally significant Infrastructure.

We accept that the Plan Changes give effect to this policy as follows:

• by ensuring through the inclusion of rules relating to the location of more sensitive commercial services activities that reverse sensitivity effects are not established in terms of activities within the Quarry Zone or surrounding rural activities;

• through the DSSP area being located with convenient and reasonably direct access to two existing motorway interchanges (and thereby obtaining good levels of access to the port and airport) as well as being located near the North Island Main Trunk rail line. The reorganisation of the local road network proposed in the DSSP appropriately directs heavy vehicle traffic onto upgraded routes and reduces reliance on local roads fronting rural residential development;

• the Plan Changes will not detract from the safety and function of the arterial road network, provided the road network upgrades required by the rules of the Plan Changes are implemented;

• that the Plan Changes will avoid adverse effects on regionally significant infrastructure including the regional arterial road network, the regional water and wastewater networks and the regional energy distribution and telecommunications networks.

The bullet points above are elaborated on in the effects section of this decision.

Strategic Policy 2.6.5.17 is also relevant to the development of areas for LEIA and states:

Residential activities and other sensitive activities shall only be provided in industrial areas where they do not reduce capacity for Land Extensive Industrial Activities, and where there is no likelihood of reverse sensitivity issues arising.

No provision is made for residential activities in the plan changes. The provision of ancillary commercial activities (as recognised in the ARPS definition of LEIA quoted above) is limited to the Commercial Services Precinct identified in the DSSP.

In the absence of the ARPS containing a definition of "sensitive activities" (and nor does the ARP:ALW or the Papakura or Franklin sections of the District Plan) we note that in the absence of any other guidance, the draft Unitary Plan contains the following definition of sensitive activities: any dwelling, papakainga, visitor accommodation, boarding house, retirement village, supported residential care, educational facilities, hospitals and healthcare services and care centres

Of those listed activities, the amended version of PPC12 (by the applicant at the hearing) only provides for educational facilities in the Commercial Services Precinct (if they are used for industrial training) and health professional rooms and childcare centres. These must be located in the Commercial Services Precinct more than 500 metres from the nearest part of the Industrial 4 zone.

9.4 Strategic Policy 2.6.5.20

Strategic Policy 2.6.5.20 is generally relevant to all future urban areas and states that:

Future Urban Areas should not be developed for urban uses until it can be demonstrated that all necessary infrastructure can be provided. Where appropriate, development can be staged.

PPC 12 and 38 contain rules (e.g. rules 6.11.7.10 and 6.15.2.5 in PPC 12 and rules 26.4A.2 and 26.6.16 in PPC 38) that require assessment of whether roads, stormwater management areas, water and wastewater and other utility services are in place before development or subdivision occurs.

This issue was a major focus at the hearing, and is addressed in more detail in the following sections of this decision. However we are satisfied to the extent that we need to be in terms of a plan change, and in terms of the section 32 ‘tests’ that the relevant infrastructure can be made available, and that development cannot occur until it is available.

9.5 Strategic Policy 2.6.2.2

In terms of the ARPS’s ‘wider questions’ of the appropriateness to make extensions to the (MUL), the key policy is Strategic Policy 2.6.2.2. It contains an extensive list of strategic and environmental matters that must be addressed. The policy is:

Extensions may be made to the metropolitan urban limits shown on Map Series 1 and to the limits of rural and coastal settlements from time to time, but only where:

(i) The strategic direction of containment and intensification is not compromised. In particular, the extension does not compromise intensification within the areas identified for intensification in:

(a) Schedule 1 that are within the same geographical Sector (North/West, Central or South) where the extension is located; and

(b) the district plan(s) that relate to that geographical Sector;

(ii) The extension avoids areas of:

(a) significant ecological or heritage values;

(b) outstanding natural features and landscapes;

(d) high natural character;

including areas or parts of areas identified in Appendix B that contain these values, and the area identified in Appendix I;

(iii) It can be demonstrated that infrastructure and services, including utility services, roading and public transportation facilities and services, and community and health services, such as schools, libraries, public open spaces can be provided appropriate to the scale of the extension;

(iv) The extension:

(a) is contiguous with existing urban development; and

(b) can be efficiently connected to existing physical infrastructure or serviced by new infrastructure; and

(c) in the case of rural and coastal settlements, the extension will support and complement existing rural and coastal settlements;

(v) Areas where there is a risk of damage to land or property or of loss of life occurring as the result of the impact of natural hazards, such as flooding or land instability, are avoided;

(vi) The new boundary provides a clear differentiation between urban and rural areas in order to reduce pressure for future urban expansion, including through the use of:

(a) water catchment boundaries; and/or

(b) visual catchment boundaries; and/or

(d) land protected from development (through legally binding protection mechanisms or vesting as public reserve);

(vii) It achieves a defensible long term limit to the urban area;

(viii) Conflicts or incompatibilities between adjoining land uses are avoided or mitigated;

(ix) Areas of elite land are avoided;

(x) It is demonstrated that there is insufficient undeveloped and/or appropriately zoned land, available within the metropolitan urban limits, or the limits of rural or coastal settlements, within the particular geographical Sector (North/West, Central or South) in which the extension is located;

(xi) An integrated transport assessment is provided in accordance with the matters outlined in Appendix J; and

(xii) In the case of proposed extensions to the metropolitan urban limits, the following matters are to be taken into account:

(a) the need to redress any existing residential / employment imbalance;

(b) the need to provide for a range of housing types;

(c) for land extensive industrial activities, the typical requirements set out in the definition of land extensive industrial activities in Appendix D.

Mr Osborne in his evidence in chief addressed each of those matters in some considerable detail, noting also that the officers’ report and Mr Hook for the DRPS also addressed these matters. In doing so he (Mr Osborne) considered that extending the MUL to incorporate the DSSP area would satisfy this policy. Having heard all of the evidence, including from the submitters, we agree with Mr Osborne. Without repeating Mr Osborne’s extensive evidence, the reasons, in summary, why we agree are:

• The extension to the MUL to provide land for LEIAs (as has been set out above) would not compromise the ‘regional strategic direction’ of containment and intensification (and in particular intensification within the areas identified in Schedule 1 of the ARPS within the southern geographical sector), and would accord with the Auckland Plan (addressed in more detail below).

• The DSSP area does not, as a whole, contain significant ecological or heritage values, outstanding natural features and landscapes or regionally significant landscapes or as an area with high natural character (including areas identified in Appendix B of the ARPS).

• That the provision of infrastructure can be provided. This matter, especially water supply, wastewater, stormwater and roading, was extensively canvassed in the hearing (in evidence) and is addressed in more detail later in this decision report.

• The MUL change proposed to contain the DSSP area is not a literal extension of the existing MUL (apart from the quarry industrial zone – which is an ‘urban zoning’). However the purpose of the application of the MUL method in this case is to contain urban activities. It is effectively as an "island" MUL, and the ARPS already has these (including those which encompass large urban areas in Auckland such as the MUL around Orewa and the Whangaparaoa Peninsula as well as smaller areas such as the MUL on Waiheke Island). We also accept that the existing MUL technique was designed to give effect to the 1999 Auckland Regional Growth Strategy (ARGS). Under section 80(3) of the Local Government Act (Auckland Transitional provisions) Act 2010, the ARGS ceased to have effect once the Council adopted the Auckland Plan. As set out in Mr Osborne’s evidence and in the section on the Auckland Plan below, the DSSP area lies within a Greenfield Area for Investigation shown on the Development

Strategy Map D1 in the Auckland Plan. That area of investigation is contiguous with the existing MUL. In this context, while the DSSP area is not contiguous with the existing MUL, it is clear that there will need to be significant expansion of the MUL (the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) in the draft Unitary Plan) beyond the current MUL in the Southern Sector if the Council's target of accommodating 55,000 households and 35,000 jobs in the greenfield areas of the southern RUB cluster is to be achieved. As set out, the DSSP area will be able to be served by existing or new infrastructure.

• Methods are proposed to ensure the avoidance of risk from flooding. This was a major focus at the hearing and is addressed in detail later in this decision report.

• Bringing the DSSP area within the MUL will provide a clear differentiation between urban and rural areas. This was largely set out in the evidence of Ms de Lambert and as described in the report supporting the plan change applications. Again this is addressed later in this decision report in relation to rural character.

• The boundaries (including proposed buffer areas) are appropriate and a defensible long term limit to the urban area as it provides clear boundaries based on a combination of visual catchments, significant transport routes and through the PPC 12 and 38 rules requiring publicly vested reserves to protect land from development. The DSSP area also needs to be viewed in the context of the Auckland Plan (by including the area in a Greenfields area of Investigation)

• The provisions of PPC 12 and 38 will avoid or mitigate conflicts or incompatibilities between adjoining land uses. This was a major concern to most of the submitters, and is addressed in more detail later in the decision report. While we accept the area will change significantly, conflicts or incompatibilities between adjoining land uses will be sufficiently avoided or mitigated, in summary, by:

• The industrial zones being separated from the surrounding rural zones by a planted public open space buffer with a minimum 30 metre width.

• Compatibility with adjoining rural areas through zone standards which will require industries located within the DSSP area to operate within parameters that protect the amenity values of those rural areas.

• The relocation of the Quarry haul routes to State Highway 1 on a new Strategic Freight Network with upgraded and more efficient connections to the State Highway, which will reduce or eliminate the use of haul routes through the surrounding rural area.

• The removal of some road links to the surrounding rural road network so as to avoid heavy haulage routes passing sensitive activities such as the Ramarama Primary School on Ararimu Road.

• The extension of the Urban and Industrial AQMAs to coincide with the Industrial 3 / Light Industrial and Industrial 4 Zones within the DSSP area will ensure that the appropriate air quality standards will be applied to the proposed industrial zones, while also avoiding or minimising reverse sensitivity effects on the Quarry.

• The proposed industrial zoning will protect the regionally important mineral extraction potential of the existing Drury Quarry.

• Elite areas of land are avoided.

• There is a shortage of industrial land in the south that this proposal will assist in reducing. This matter has been set out in some detail above.

• An Integrated Transport Assessment has been provided.

• The proposal provides for land extensive activities. Again this matter has been addressed above.

As set out above, a number of the matters in the bullet points are expanded on later in this decision in the “Effects” section.

9.6 The Auckland Plan

An important consideration in terms of the extension of the MUL is that it is consistent with the Auckland Plan. The Auckland Plan was prepared in accordance with section 79 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 and sets out a comprehensive and effective long term spatial strategy for Auckland's growth and development. The Council must have regard to the Auckland Plan under section 61 (2) of the RMA.

Under the Auckland Plan, the Drury South Structure Plan Area lies within a Greenfield Area of Investigation for future urban purposes, on Development Strategy Map D1.18 The area has been identified as one where future development may potentially take place.

9.7 Other Strategic Documents

The Council and the applicant have also had regard to a number of other management plans and strategies prepared under other Acts and these matters are covered in both the Section 32 and 42A Reports and in evidence. These include:

• Auckland Regional Growth Strategy and Southern Sector Agreement • The Auckland Regional Business Land Strategy • Auckland Regional Open Space Strategy • Papakura Economic Development Strategy • Franklin Economic Growth and Innovation Framework • Franklin District Growth Strategy • Draft Towards 2060 Manukau Spatial Plan • Auckland Plan Discussion Document – Auckland Unleashed.

While we have placed no weight on the draft Unitary Plan, we note that its RUB Options Addendum has identified the DSSP area as one of the Rural Urban Boundary options. This means that the Council’s ‘thinking’ is that some form of urbanisation of the area is now anticipated at a strategic level.

9.8 Conclusion on ARPS

For all the reasons set out above, we accept that the Plan Changes give effect to the key strategic policies of the ARPS.

18 See Page 54 of the Auckland Plan

10. CONSULTATION

10.1 Consultation

A number of the submitters raised issues over the consultation procedures adopted by SGL. Concerns relating to the consultation processes were raised generally, and by iwi in relation to cultural matters. It was contended that the consultation carried out by SGL with the potentially affected community lacked depth given the complexity of the proposal. It was also indicated that the consultation was misleading19. For example Ms Foster in making her representation20 told about an information meeting:

All the answers to questions were carefully worded and did not provide any high level information. I do not feel it was public consultation; it was a Public Relations exercise giving the developer an opportunity to present their proposal, collect a list of names and addresses of people who could potentially be opposed to the concept and gather information to counter.

10.2 General Consultation

The section 42A Report contained commentary21 on the consultation undertaken by SGL. It was noted that consultation had two pre lodgement stages a feedback stage and the refinement stage. The first stage was used to gather feedback, whilst the second stage used the feedback to influence and refine the concept design of the DSSP, and also to inform further investigation and development of infrastructure provisions. Notification of the plan changes forms a third phase of consultation.

Mr Borlase and Ms Walsh, in their evidenceinchief, provided us with a detailed analysis of the consultation undertaken by SGL both with both stakeholders and the community. Mr Borlase referenced the individual stakeholders and the type of consultation undertaken. Included in the stakeholder list were both Ramarama School and Papakura High School. Ms Walsh, in her evidence, addressed community consultation in some detail, pointing out to us the ‘revisions’ that were made to the concept design as direct result of consultation feedback22.

The consultation phase of the project was commenced by SGL in late 2009 and a variety of methods (including ‘open days’) have been used to consult with different parties. We were informed that there was a dedicated website – www.drurysouth.net.nz.

10.3 Consultation with Tāngata Whenua

Mr Borlase addressed iwi consultation, in his evidenceinchief, pointing out to us that SGL have consulted with iwi since September 2009. Principally that consultation has been with the Te Roopu Kaitiaki O Papakura (Kaitiaki Unit) as directed by Papakura District Council. The section 42A Report noted23 that SGL initiated iwi consultation through existing council structures, noting that SGL gave the former Papakura District Council Kaitiaki Unit quarterly updates on the project. The former Franklin District Council identified that SGL should consult with the Huakina Development Trust. SGL sent letters to all identified iwi offering to meet them individually. SGL met with the Huakina Development Trust, Ngai Tai Umupuia Te Waka Totara Trust and Ngati Tamaoho.

19 Submission 355 20 Andrea Foster Representation at page 2 21 Section 42A Report at [7.20] 22 Theresa Walsh EiC at [4] 23 Section 42A Report at [7.20.2]

The section 42A Report records that that the CHA prepared by Te Roopu Kaitiaki O Papakura recommends24 that:

Further consultation be undertaken by SGL with those iwi that wish to directly engage.

Iwi consultation is important to us as decisionmakers to enable us to understand the cultural effects of an activity, particularly as regards the matters falling within sections 6(e), 7(a) and 8 of the RMA. We are also mindful that the relevant provisions set out in the statutory documents provide direction around consultation and engagement with tāngata whenua, to ensure that consultation is early, customary values and views of tāngata whenua are heard and understood, and that the function of kaitiakitanga is taken into account.

10.4 Requirement to Consult

We were reminded by Mr Osborne25 that there is no legal requirement on an applicant to consult prior to lodgement of any private plan change request. Under Clause 3 Schedule 1 of the RMA, there is a requirement for local authorities to consult with certain specified parties during the preparation of a Council initiated Plan Change. However, there is no corresponding provision in Part II Schedule 1 of the RMA which relates to private Plan Change requests. In addition the scheme of Part II Schedule 1 of the RMA reinforces that there is no consultation requirement on the applicant for a private Plan. Mr Osborne also noted that while it is not mandatory to consult with anybody prior to lodging a plan change request, it is still a good means of identifying/clarifying issues and potentially resolving them early in the process.

10.5 Findings on Consultation

Ms Walsh opined26 that;

Stevenson has carried out comprehensive, genuine and robust consultation and engagement, with a demonstrated willingness to provide information and meet with any interested stakeholders or members of the public In response to submissions.

The section 42A Report concluded27 that:

It appears that a reasonably extensive programme of consultation has been undertaken. Consultation could not be described as being insufficient, particularly given that is not a mandatory requirement for SGL to consult on a plan change before it has been lodged with council.

Mr Osborne expressed the viewpoint28:

In my view, the extensive nature of the consultation undertaken more than meets the consultation requirements of the Resource Management Act.

We find that the proposal has a long history of appropriate consultation, with SGL being engaged with a range of stakeholders, the community and iwi on the proposal prior to lodgement. We also recognise that the plan changes have also been subject

24 Ibid at [7.21.1] 25 Osborne EiC at [4.2] 26 Walsh EiC at [7.1] 27 Section 42A Report at [7.20.2] 28 Osborne EiC at [4.3]

to a formal submission process under RMA which has allowed the issue of consultation to be raised and considered by the Council.

Overall we consider that there has been adequate consultation for these plan changes. It is also our understanding that SGL’s are committed to ongoing consultation with individual iwi, stakeholders and the community.

It is our conclusion that the submissions concerning the adequacy of consultation be rejected.

11. SOCIAL EFFECTS

11.1 Evidence of social effects

It had been very evident from our initial reading of: the application material, submissions and the s42A Report that the potential social impacts stemming from the proposal would be one of the principal issues in contention, indeed social impacts were matters that were traversed and highlighted in numerous representations that were made to us, and referenced in a considerable number of the written submissions.

The application material contained: a comprehensive Social Impact Assessment (SIA) prepared by Beca Infrastructure Limited (BIL)29; a peer reviewed by Social & Environmental Limited30; and an updated SIA prepared by BIL in response to a further information request from Auckland Council. Mr Osborne31 in his evidence provided a useful summary overview of the social impact material noting that social impacts have been considered at two scales: a district regional scale (recognising that the DSBP is a project of regional significance), and a local scale (recognising that many impacts affect a more localised area).

Mr Osborne noted that: - At the regional level social impacts are expected to range from minor negative impacts (environmental sustainability) to moderate positive impacts (economic benefits for the southern sector, addressing the shortfall of Group 1 business land within the Auckland region and addressing reverse sensitivity impacts on the Stevenson quarry). Regionally the project is anticipated to have an overall positive social outcome. - Within the local SIA study area, the project is considered to have both positive and negative social impacts. Positive impacts will be mainly at the regional and community level.

Mr Osborne was of the view that a key element of the mitigation measures would be the preparation of a Social Impact Monitoring Plan (SIMP), to be developed and implemented by Auckland Council to monitor and where appropriate, take action to minimise adverse social impacts throughout the planning, construction and operation phases of the development.

11.2 Section 42A Report on Social Issues

The Council officers’ section 42A Report provided us with a summary32 the matters raised in the submissions noting that they generally fell into the following areas of concern: • Inadequate / misleading consultation;

29 Beca Infrastructure Limited “Drury South Business Project Social Impact Assessment” 17 December 2010 30 Social & Environmental Limited ‘The Drury South Business project Draft Social Impact Assessment Report – Peer Review Final Comments” 25 February 2010 31 DRURY SOUTH STRUCTURE PLAN AREA Request for a Change to the Papakura and Franklin District Plan at [12.3] 32 Section 42A Report at [7.17.1]

• Negative effects on lifestyle and current lifestyle; • Negative effects on the health and wellbeing of individuals; • Decreased safety and increase in crime and antisocial behaviour; • Negative effects on the community; • The DSSP ignores the opposition presented from the community

The Report also noted that a number of submissions identified that there will be positive social effects.

The section 42A Report provided an overview of the applicant’s SIA, recording that the SIA differentiates the social impacts into four broad categories: • Population Impacts; • Individual and Family Impacts; • Institutional Arrangements; • Community Infrastructure and Resources.

The section 42A Report noted that BIL’s SIA concluded33 that:

impacts on local community infrastructure and resources are considered to be minor to moderate positive impacts. Overall, the project facilitates important economic benefits and improvements to local community infrastructure, including open space, pedestrian / cycle connectivity and roading infrastructure within the project area.

A review of social impacts was also provided in the s42A Report, with a supporting report from Dr Gillian Stewart, a social policy researcher. She provided an evaluation of issues raised in submissions alongside a review of all of the applicant’s filed documentation relating to social effects34. Dr Stewart records that a significant quantity of the submissions raised issues that should be considered for their impact and effect on social wellbeing35. She provided an assessment under the following headings: • Community consultation and participation • Personal property rights, security of tenure and autonomy • Livelihoods employment and quality of working life • Rural amenity, quality of life and lifestyles • Housing needs • Social and community infrastructure and services • Opportunities for leisure and recreation • Schools and education facilities • Traffic impacts • Threats to residential safety and security • Environment degradation and threats to health and wellbeing • Social and community resources, cohesion and capital

Dr Stewart’s report contained a number of critical observations on SIA including that: - The impact on other local schools (apart from Ramarama School, which was specifically identified as a stakeholder) and day care centres as stakeholders had not been considered - The effects on people’s resettlement (both within and outside the DSS) were not considered properly by the SIA (including the stress from resettlement of people and households and the fact that residents will not resettle as communities, but will be dispersed and have to form new social and community relationships; and the effects on peoples wellbeing that dispersal causes).

33 Section 42A Report at page 149 34 Section 42A Report Attachment 32 – Dr Gillian Stewart ‘Social Impacts” 19 February 2013 35 Ibid at [5.0]

- The SIA does not adequately acknowledge the enormity and uncertainty of change proposed by the DSSP, especially that faced by those people most affected. - She disputes the theory that the staged development of the project will, to some degree, provide communities with ‘transition periods’.

In her conclusion Dr Stewart expressed the opinion that:

The adverse effects upon the local population resulting from the DSBP and plan change are potentially significant in scope and scale. They should not be considered to be out weighted by the economic and employment benefits to the wider Auckland community. A number of impacts on the local community will be unavoidable, including the displacement and resettlement of families, households and business; the loss of rural amenity; the risk to loss of livelihood, lifestyle and quality of life; and the pressure on housing and other social and community infrastructure and services.

11.3 Submissions

During the presentations made to us the observations made by Dr Stewart were reinforced and highlighted by a number of the presenters. It is not possible in the scope of this decision to reference all persons who spoke at the hearing, but by way of illustration we have provided the following:

- Mr Steve Kelly gave us what he termed a ‘a resident’s view’ he wanted to enjoy a rural setting and now he will be lift living on the edge of an industrial setting; nosier area with huge increase in traffic – 13,800 vehicle movements for the employees alone.

- Mr Kelly comments were echoed by Ms Joanne Travers who observed that she wanted a semirural lifestyle for our three children and grandchildren to come, now not only is it my home that is threatened, it is my parents in laws and my mother and brothers growing horticultural business in Drury also.

- Ms Leanne George, of Ramarama Road – told us she would paint us the real picture of the social impact in the process stressing that to have it all taken away from you is extremely upsetting and disempowering. Her life Style was at risk with noise and vibration affecting her quality of life and ability to sleep.

- Ms Michele Foster suggested to us that this project create demand for this developers product on the doorstep to their quarry, to the detriment of the community of Ramarama. Effectively a wealth transfer from the community to a private company.

- Mr Noel Foster offered us the view that:

in conservation terminology this is our habitat, changing it to appoint where people no longer want to reside there totally ignores the bond some people form with their property, their land, their homes. We are not dealing with mere possessions this is turning people’s lives upside down.

- Mr Peter Mathias, of the Drury Ramarama Protection Society pointed out to us that: of the 376 Submission over 90% were opposed; this is a large complex

proposal; stress has been created; a decrease in property values, and there will be an impact on Ramarama School.

- Mr Hook a planner called by the Drury Ramarama Protection Society noted in addressing unresolved matters told us that it was his opinion36 that:

The extent to which the Plan Changes will affect the ability of the existing community of approximately 1000 persons within and adjacent to the DSSP area to provided for social, economic and cultural wellbeing”

The proposed Plan Changes do not provide sufficient details or certainty that adverse effects will be avoided, remedied or mitigated and/or how address effects will be internalised to the subject land37.

Negative comments on social impacts were also a common thread in many of the written submissions – for example:

- Mr Alistar & Mrs Jan Wakefield38 offered us the written viewpoint:

People who live in the area have built their own piece of paradise, and what is being proposed would ruin the lifestyle of many families.

- Mr Mark Sands39 submitted:

I have lived in Drury for the last 20 years I did this because I wished to live in a rural area if I wanted to live in an industrial area I would be living in Penrose etc. Why should Stevensons ruin my way of life, just so they can make profits.

- BB, DM & SD Owen specifically addressed social impact40

The DSSP has and will continue to devalue properties. The DSSP will reduce the desirability of local properties, particularly those adjacent to the local area.

Any industrial area changes the demographics of a district. The DSSP will have a detrimental effect on socioeconomics of the area and ultimately the decile rating of Ramarama school.

The descriptive evaluations in the social impact assessment dismiss impacts as minor to moderate, The dominating discourse of regional economic benefit marginliizes the lived experience of local residents, their wellbeing, sense of place, identity and community.

- Mrs Mary Allen41 provided us with the observation that the project would disturb the peace – this is an area designated ‘county’.

Not all the representations opposed the proposal. Mr Lane Tongatule in his written submission for the Greater East Tamaki Business Association supported the proposal referring us to the positive economic and social benefits that have been derived from

36 James Hook Statement of Evidence at [20] 37 Ibid at [20] 38 Submission 62 39 Submission 189 40 BB, DM & SM Owen written submission at [12] 41 Submission 346

the Highbrook Business Park in East Tamaki. Mr Derrick Adams of HEB Construction Limited in his representation to us echoed the comments of Mr Tongatule. Mr Peter Goldsmith, the chair of Papakura High School told us of the opportunities, and the resultant social benefits, that the pupils of his college would derive from the project.

11.4 Applicant’s Response

Ms Amelia Linzey, for the applicant, in her evidenceinchief comprehensively addressed all of the issues raised both in the S42A Report and in the submissions. In addressing Dr Stewart's Report she was of the viewpoint42 that Dr Stewart appears to have taken only a narrow assessment of the Project proposal, and does not appear to have read in detail the technical reports lodged with the Plan Change applications (particularly with respect to the potential mitigation measures proposed in respect of effects). She was also of the opinion43 that Dr Stewart recommended range of mitigation measures were not appropriate for a Plan Change process, some of which are best left to the later resource consenting phases of the Project and others that are not appropriate at all.

In commenting on the opportunities for leisure and recreation and access to quality open space Ms Linzey considered44 that the public open space proposed by the Project (approximately 95 hectare in area) will provide an opportunity for wider community benefit (not solely for the community of employees within the Project site). She further note that improved pedestrian and cycle connections, for example those on Fitzgerald will provide opportunities to improve pedestrian / cycle connectivity between this open space and the Drury township.

Ms Linzey addressed what she considered were the four key issues raised in the submissions:

- The first45 being people's concerns that the Project will lead to an increase in crime and antisocial behaviour in the area. The potential for the Project to result in demographic change was acknowledged. The change in activity in itself is not a reason to believe that there will be an increase in criminal activity or antisocial behaviour. It was her opinion that this issue is appropriately managed through the urban design considerations.

- The second46 common issue raised in submissions is that by providing for business and industrial development, there is potential for demand for lower cost and/or higher density housing to develop in the area, which would in turn, alter the socioeconomic makeup of the area. She acknowledged that a shift could occur and that it could potentially result in a change (e.g. a decrease) in the decile rating of Ramarama School. She offered the opinion that this is a neutral effect on that social service.

- The third47 common issue raised in submissions is the concern that the Project could result in either a loss in value or in capital gain. From a social perspective, she considered this issue in terms of the potential impact it has; affecting people's lifestyle and the value they place in their home. She acknowledged that it is anticipated that the Project will have an effect on some residents such that they will choose to move (or will seek to move) from the local area as a result of the Project as a result of the changing nature of the environment (and the

42 Linzey Evidence in Chief at [7.2] 43 Ibid at [7.3] 44 Ibid at [7.12] 45 Ibid at [6.2] 46 ibid at [6.3] 47 Linzey EIC at [6.6]

resulting impact this has on the values they place on their lifestyle and way of life).

- The fourth48 common issue raised in submissions is the concern that the rural community, cultural identity and village environment will be lost if the Project goes ahead. She acknowledged that the Project will facilitate social change both within the DSSP area and wider. However she considered the existing environment to be one already experiencing social change.

11.5 Commissioners’ Findings

We acknowledge the thoughtful way representations were put together and made. We could not help but be moved by the heartfelt way many of the oral presentations were made. We were left with a very clear understanding of: the ‘value’ of the current environment to local residents; the personal/family stress that the proposal has generated; and real importance, at the individual and family levels, not only of potential social impacts that will stem from the proposal but also of the real social impacts that the proposal has had to date.

It became very evident to us that there is a clear differentiation between the social impact effects between the regional versus and local levels. We find that the applicant has demonstrated that:

- The DSSP will have moderately positive social benefits for Auckland City and the southern sector area in terms of economic benefits and providing for growth, with minor negative impacts in respect of the community's perception of environmental sustainability49.

- At the local level there will be both positive and negative social impacts (within negative impacts particularly for individuals and families surrounding the Business Plan area). The adverse social impacts on local residents cannot be fully avoided or mitigated. The effects are more than minor50.

- The DSSP has been designed in such a way as to avoid and mitigate many effects and that the issues raised by submitters have been considered and, where appropriate, responded to and that these effects will diminish over time51.

We concur with the observation of Ms Linzey52 that DSSP area is already undergoing social change that is altering the socioeconomic characteristics of the area. Our site visits reinforced this point, it is a periurban fringe area in transition. In our minds it is a realistic expectation that an increasing industrial feel of the DSSP area may make the surrounding ruralresidential area less attractive to existing residents. We accept that this represents a potential change in the character or nature of the community. We disagree with Linzey that it is not an adverse effect. To us it is a matter of scale as it has been demonstrated to us that there have been, and will be, tangible adverse social impacts at the individual and family levels (in particular stress). The net result is that there is a real social cost attached to the proposal. This is an acknowledged impact of the Project.

48 Ibid at [6.8] 49 Ibid at [8.1] 50 Ibid at [8.2] 51 Ibid at [8.2] 52 Ibid at [6.3]

Having agreed that there are adverse effects upon the local population we are not of a mind to agree with the conclusion of Dr Stewart53 that they are potentially significant in scope and scale that they should not be considered to be outweighted by the economic and employment benefits to the wider Auckland community. We hold the reverse to be evident and elsewhere in this decision we have considered the regional strategic importance of the proposal. We do, however, agree with the conclusion expressed by Dr Stewart54 that since a range social impacts cannot be avoided SGL needs to actively pursue ways to create benefits for the local communities during both the construction phase and the operational phase of the development of the DSSP. To this end, it is our recommendation that the matter of the proposed community forum should be revisited by the applicant and the council. We do not think that the formation of this forum should wait till the resource consent phase of the Project. We are also of the view that the applicant should consider advancing some of the planned mitigation measures such as the early stopping of Ramarama Road, although we acknowledge that we cannot impose that as a provision under any of these plan changes or otherwise require it to be done, as it is ultimately a matter for Auckland Transport under a separate decisionmaking process..

In addressing submissions we have adopted the Reporting Officers’ recommendation55 that the submissions concerning the social impact of the plan changes be accepted in part.

12. Economic Effects

12.1 Applicant’s Evidence

We received a considerable amount of evidence on the wider economic impacts and benefits from the proposed plan changes and the need for this land for Group I (LEIA) activities. This included evidence from Mr Stilwell (Project Director), Mr Akehurst (economic), Dr Hayward (economic per review), Mr Auton (economic /land supply), Mr Moricz (land supply/real estate) and Mr Matheson (landuse classification) for the applicant. We also received evidence from a number of submitters who supported the proposal from an economic and employment perceptive, and those who opposed it on the grounds that it would adversely affect their current businesses.

Much of this evidence from the applicant was on the shortage of land supply within the Auckland Region for LEIA’s and the critical need to identify and zone more land for this and other activities. Much of this has been set out section 9 above in relation to the proposed change to the MUL.

Mr Stilwell set out in his evidence how critical the issue of Group 1 capacity was to the Auckland region. He and Mr Akehurst set out that in 2008 dollar terms the DSSP area will: • Provide the capacity for an additional 6,900 jobs at Drury;

• Facilitate a further 7,700 regional jobs (14,600 jobs in total);

• Directly contribute $780 million p.a. to regional GDP;

• Facilitate a total of $1.7 billion p.a. to regional GDP through indirect and induced effects;

53 Section 42A Report Attachment 32 – Dr Gillian Stewart ‘Social Impacts” 19 February 2013 at [6.0] 54 Ibid at [7.0] 55 Section 42A Report at [7.17.3]

• Result in construction impacts of $620 to $820 million in regional GDP and the equivalent of 8,700 to 11,500 jobs during its development; and

• Reduce the forecast 952 Ha shortfall of business land in South Auckland by 20 to 25%56.

Moreover Mr Akehurst’s evidence set out that Auckland’s projected population growth and employment figures, with the key points being:

• The projected population growth is considerable;

• Group 1 businesses in Auckland currently account for 34% of all jobs;

• Approximately 42% of the southern sector workforce is employed in Group 1 businesses (i.e. 26% higher than for the rest of the region); and

• Group 1 employment is forecast to grow by approximately 59,300 jobs to 203157.

Also two reports by Market Economics relating to economic effects were submitted as part of the plan change request. These made it clear that because of the projected substantial shortage of land zoned and available for LEIA’s in the southern sector of the Auckland Region (that will emerge in the 2011 2031 period) was a significant issue and would adversely affect the net economic and employment contributions to the region. We note that the overall conclusions of the reports were supported by the peer review undertaken by Dr Hayward and the evidence of Mr Moricz as well as Mr Stilwell and Mr Auton (who has worked for many years in the southern sector as both a planner and CEO).

With respect to employment opportunities we particularly the note the submission from the Papakura High School, and their “Pathways to Employment” scheme. Mr Goldsmith and Mr Heron (the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and the Principal respectively) set out the ‘game changer’ for many of their pupils – which was the need for a major local employment within easy travelling distance and providing the types of jobs envisaged with the DSSP. They stated that without this type of significant employment opportunity in South Auckland, the South Auckland community, and in particular its youth, would not be able to provide for its social, cultural and economic wellbeing.

The applicant also provided a statement of evidence from Mr Matheson of Perrin Ag Consultants Ltd, an advisory and consultancy business providing a range of services to the pastoral agricultural sector. His evidence addressed amongst other things, the land use classification of land within the DSSP and an economic analysis of suitable rural land uses.

He considered that a large proportion of the land in the DSSP area was of good to moderate pastoral utility, but did not consist of ‘elite land’ as defined in the ARPS. He also considered that much of the land was utilised below its economic potential due to the presence of: existing lifestyle properties and/or the existing ownership structure of the area, remnant native forest and riparian plantings58. Overall while his opinion was that the land could be utilised for agricultural and horticultural activities, the conversion of the area to the proposed industrial use would not constitute a ‘risk’ to the overall level of agricultural productivity of the region.

56 Para 66 of Mr Stilwell’s evidence 57 Para 9 of Mr Akehurst’s evidence 58 Para 5.1 of Mr Matheson’s evidence

12.2 Drury Quarry

In terms of the economic effects of the DSSP proposal, it is also necessary in our view to consider the impact on the Drury Quarry. The quarry is a regionally significant asset. In 2007 a new 66 hectare quarry zone was introduced by way of a plan change to the former Papakura District Plan. This was to provide for the future expansion of the quarry once the current pit resource was exhausted (circa 20 years). As a result of this plan change we were advised by Mr Stilwell that the Drury Quarry is likely to have an operating life in excess of 100 years

The quarry currently produces between 2.0 and 3.0 million tonnes of aggregate per annum, amounting to approximately 25% of total production in Auckland59. The importance of the quarry as a regional asset is, in our view, likely to increase over time as a function of its highquality aggregate, proximity to urban Auckland and the growth that Auckland faces. Accordingly we accept that this resource needs to be protected for its resource/ economic capacity.

Enabling the DSSP is one way of achieving the needed ‘protection’ for the quarry. The DSSP will ensure that reverse sensitivity effects do not arise from the encroachment of inappropriate activities – and in particular rural residential development that has been occurring since the early 2000’s such as the Peach Hill Road and Macwhinney Drive subdivisions. It will also ensure that quarry haul routes are identified and largely through the industrial area and onto the state highway network, rather than through a rural residential lifestyle area.

We note that a number of submitters were concerned about the development of the DSSP and the impact it would have on their social, cultural and economic wellbeing. These matters are addressed in more detail in other sections of this decision. However we do note that the expert planner for the Drury Ramarama Protection Society set out in his evidence at paragraph 16 a) as one of the “Agreed Matters Supporting the Plan Changes” the following:

• The rezoning of land as sought under the Plan changes is likely to have net positive economic effects for the Auckland Region (notwithstanding that certain individual landowners may experience negative economic effects).

12.3 Commissioners’ Findings

Overall our findings are that the economic effects of the Plan Changes would be positive. Zoned and serviced industrial land is essential to achieving Auckland’s social and economic objectives. We accept that there will be some people adversely affected from an economic perspective. However, overall the need for additional land for business and employment is significant and the loss of this land will have no more than a minor impact on agricultural and horticultural production. There is also a need to protect the Drury quarry from inappropriate land uses establishing around it.

13. MĀORI CULTURAL ISSUES

13.1 Cultural Values

The documentation, which was attached to SGL’s application, informed us that two assessments had been commissioned by SGL namely:

59 Para 24 of Mr Stilwell’s evidence

- A “Cultural Heritage Assessment Drury South Business Project” undertaken by Te Roopu Kaitiaki O Papakura.60

- An “Archaeological Assessment Drury South Business Project” undertaken by Russell Foster and Associates.61

Te Roopu Kaitiaki O Papakura the Papakura Kaitiaki Collective62 is a working group of tāngata whenua representatives with cultural interests and traditional ties to the district of Papakura. A primary objective of the collective is to ensure that the cultural interests and resources of tāngata whenua are protected and managed appropriately for future generations of tāngata whenua to benefit from and ultise. Members of the Kaitiaki Unit include: Ngati Tamaoho; Ngati Te Ata; Te Akitai Waiohua Waka Taua Trust; Ngati Paoa and Ngai Tai.

As part of the AEE, Mr Osborne provided detailed analysis of the recommendations made in the Cultural Heritage Assessment (CHA), and outlined of how SGL intended to address each of the recommendations. Mr Osborne63 made it clear that:

It is intended that the Cultural Heritage Assessment will form the basis for future iwi involvement in the DSSP area. In particular, the creation and vesting of public open space areas within the DSSP area will provide the opportunity for iwi involvement in future reserve management plan processes and potentially the comanagement of open space areas in the exercise of their cultural practices and kaitiaki responsibilities.

The CHA provided64 us with a brief overview of the cultural history of the area. Any summary of ours would not do justice to that overview; however we have highlighted a number of points which emphasis the close relationship that tāngata whenua have with the proposal area and the surrounds:

It was a welltravelled route and considered a gateway into areas of settlement, resource use and occupation.

Maketu was traversed by the Ararimu track, one of the three main Māori route ways to the Waikato, which ran from the Manukau lowlands across the Drury escarpment to Paparimu and then south to Mangatawhiri.

PapakuraDrury has always been regarded by iwi as having a strategic position to Tamaki Makaurau [Auckland].

We note that there was no disagreement that iwi have a strong traditional relationship to the DSSP area and its surrounds, it is accepted that these areas are of high cultural, traditional, historic and environmental value to iwi.

The section 42A Report, in considering iwi submissions65, records66 a useful summary of the key cultural issues which we have copied:

1. Adverse effects from the earthworks

60 South Drury Plan Change Documents Appendix 8 61 South Drury Plan Change Documents Appendix 9 62 Te Roopu Kaitiaki O Papakura Cultural Assessment Drury South Business Project 20 April 2010 at [3] 63 Section 42A Report at [12.4.1] 64 Te Roopu Kaitiaki O Papakura Cultural Heritage Assessment Drury South Business Project” at [4] 65 124 Te Ara Rangatu o te iwi o Ngati Te Ata Waiohua; 172 Te Akitai Waiohua Waka Taua Trust; 215 Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki Tribal Trust; 226 Waikato/Tainui; 228 Huakina Development Trust; 236 Ngati Paoa Trust. 66 Section 42A Report at [7.21.1]

2. Adverse impacts on flood plain / adverse effects of stormwater (and wastewater if disposed of onsite) to the Maketu and Hingaia streams and ultimately the Manukau Harbour. 3. Industrial air discharges unmitigatable 4. MUL shift inappropriate 5. Irreversible impact on the cultural landscape, 6. Not in line with the requirements of Sections 6(e) and (f), 7(a). Not in line with the 4th Schedule of the Act with regard to consideration of effects on natural and physical resources having cultural, spiritual or other special value for the present and future generations. 7. The application has not adequately addressed the issues and concerns raised by iwi in the Cultural Heritage Assessment Drury South Business Project report 8. Must be satisfied (based on clarity and certainty that may be provided by the applicant) that the cultural and environmental concerns of its marae and hapu are resolved and the highest environmental standards will be achieved and that cultural mitigation, enhancement and comanagement measures will be established. 9. Regional Plan change not in accordance with Sections 66 and 74 of the Act with respect to the taking into account of a relevant planning document recognised by an iwi authority.

In addressing these issues the section 42A Report informed us that the submitters have raised a number of significant and valid concerns, and a commentary was provided on each of the cultural issues identified. We have summarised below the key points made in the commentary: 1. Adverse impact of earthworks there are robust, well tested rules frameworks in place within the Regional Plan: Sediment Control (RP:SC) and RP:ALW as well as provisions within the relevant sections of the district plan which would enable the effects of the earthworks proposed to be appropriately addressed. 2. There are several technically feasible options for wastewater disposal – one of which is disposal on site. 3. Industrial air discharges providing recommendations outlined are implemented, it is considered that no air quality grounds exist for declining the private plan change application. 4. The proposal to move the MUL is considered to be generally consistent with the wider strategic direction set out within the ARPS (as discussed earlier). 5. The site sits within a landscape which has cultural significance to mana whenua. The extensive earth and stream works, as well as stormwater wetlands proposed by the plan changes would result in a significant further modification of the area. 6. In terms of sections 6(e) and f) of the Act consideration has been given to the effects on natural and physical resources having cultural, spiritual or other special value for the present and future generations. Consultation has been undertaken. In terms of concerns regarding a consideration of matters under 4th Schedule of the Act, the applicant’s assessment of environmental effects is considered to be comprehensive. 7. With regard to the Cultural Heritage Assessment Drury South Business Project report, Te Roopu Kaitiaki O Papakura recognises the need for business growth

expansion but that natural and cultural environments should be protected. The CHA makes a number of recommendations. 8. The cultural mitigation, enhancement and comanagement proposed by SGL is generally limited to that within public open space rather than within the industrial or business zonings. 9. In terms of Sections 66 and 74 of the Act with respect to the taking into account a relevant planning document recognised by an iwi authority, the s42A Report considered that the plan changes have had reasonable regard and are not inconsistent with relevant Iwi Management Plans.

13.2 Commentary

Mr Osborne in his evidence addressed each of: the summary points67, and the commentary, made in the Section 42A Report, telling us that, provided the recommended mitigation measures, with regard to: earth works; water quality; air quality and ecological effects, are implemented, then it is expected that adverse effects of the plan change request from a cultural and spiritual perspective will not be significant. Mr Osborne stressed that each of the CHA recommendations68 have been addressed, and that SGL will put in place measures to implement them. SGL is committed to a programme to actively engage with tāngata whenua.

Mr Osborne offered us the viewpoint that:

the development of the DSSP area in accordance with the provisions of PPC 12 and 38 is considered to present an opportunity to reestablish historic cultural pathways alongside the Hingaia Stream which could form an important part of a link between hilltop pa (such as Maketu Pa) and the Manukau Harbour coastline. Similarly, the large areas of public open space alongside the Hingaia Stream and at the confluence of the Maketu and Hingaia Streams represent an opportunity for iwi to reassert their kaitiaki role through future comanagement of public reserve areas.

Mr Osborne was of the firm belief that opportunities being provided by SGL would result in the potential cultural and spiritual effects of the Plan Changes being positive.

Mr William Brown69, a member of the Ngati Te Ata Waiohua – Papakura Kaitaki, was the only member of tāngata whenua who presented at the hearing. Mr Brown told us that the Stevenson family were not recognising the true owners of the land. He told us of the history of the place; of the land confiscations; he was passionate about his kaitiaki role, expressing strong concern over the amount of earth to be moved. Mr Brown tabled a “Policy for protection and damage penalty funding for Kaitiaki resourcing”, speaking of the need for kaitiaki resourcing.

An email was tabled from WaikatoTainui expressing the viewpoint that they maintained their opposition to the proposed plan changes as there are outstanding issues pertaining to ecological effects and water infrastructure.

13.3 Statutory Considerations

In making our determination we are required to address the specific provisions that relate to Māori under Part 2 of RMA, namely the matters identified in sections 6(e),

67 Osborne EiC at [2.8] 68 AEE at [12.4.1] 69 Mr Brown was supported by whānau members

7(a) and 8. Sections 6, 7 and 8 provide strong directions70 as to how to achieve that sustainable management.

Section 6 identifies those matters that decision makers shall recognise and provide for as a matter of national importance, in relation to Māori namely: - Section 6(e): the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga; - Section 6(f): the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development; and - Section 6(g): the protection of protected customary rights.

The rich, well documented history and ongoing cultural association of the tāngata whenua to the proposal area and surrounds was clearly evident: in the application material71; the submissions; section 42A Report and the evidenceinchief. The need to meaningfully engage with and involve tāngata whenua is recognised by SGL. SGL opted to consult early with tāngata whenua, a Cultural Heritage Assessment and Archaeological Assessment were commissioned. Changes to the proposal were made as result of the assessment and other mitigation measures proposed. We are of the viewpoint that the applicant has provided for and recognised the relative s6 matters.

Under Section 7(a) of the RMA we are required to have particular regard to kaitiakitanga. Kaitiakitanga being “the exercise of guardianship by the tāngata whenua of an area in accordance with tikanga Māori in relation to natural and physical resources; and includes the ethic of stewardship.” The Cultural Heritage Assessment in combination with the matters identified in the written submissions and the measures proposed by SGL have provided us with a clear perspective on how the ongoing kaitiakitanga interests of tāngata whenua will be met.

Section 8 of the RMA refers to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Judgements of the Environment Court have elaborated on the core principles and what they entail. These principles include: - Acting in good faith; - Making informed decisions through consultation; - Redress of and not creating grievances; - Reciprocity; - Mutual benefit.

We were presented with: a CHA; written submissions; an oral representation from tāngata whenua (Mr Brown) and an assessment from SGL, all of which were consistent in their adherence to the principles of the Treaty.

It had been pointed out to us in the submission of Ngati Te Ata – Waiohua (number 124) that: this application has not provided for: Section 8 of the Resource Management Act principles of the Treaty of Waitangi shall be taken into account but no evidence was provided.

13.4 Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS)

Chapter 3 of the ARPS provides a consideration of the issues significant to tāngata whenua This chapter states the broad issues which are of resource management significance to tāngata whenua, and objectives and policies which stem from those issues:

70 As stated by the Privy Council in McGuire v Hastings District Council[2002] 2 NZLR 577{PC} at [21] 71 Osborne Hay Drury South Structure Plan Area request for a change to the Papakura and Franklin District Plans April 2011 at {12.4]

- 3.2.1 Relationships with ancestral taonga are being adversely affected by inappropriate processes and activities. - 3.2.2 There is a need for direct and effective involvement of tāngata whenua in the sustainable management of their ancestral taonga. - 3.2.3 The Treaty of Waitangi needs to be recognised in the sustainable management of ancestral taonga.

The approach taken by the applicant is keeping with the objectives and policies of the ARPS.

13.5 Iwi Management Plans

Section 74(2A) of the RMA states that:

A territorial authority, when preparing or changing a district plan, must take into account any relevant planning document recognised by an iwi authority and lodged with the territorial authority, to the extent that its content has a bearing on the resource management issues of the district.

Waikato Iwi Management Plan: Manuka

The Waikato Iwi Management Plan: Manuka was prepared by the Huakina Development Trust on behalf of Te Puaha Ki Manuka O Waikato in 2007. The management plan is focussed on tāngata whenua’s relationship with the environment and has the vision of “effective and holistic management of the Manuka Harbour and its catchments”. The s42A Report notes72 that SGL have generally taken the policies of the Plan into account in developing the private plan change. In particular, there has been consultation with tāngata whenua and a cultural heritage assessment was commissioned from tāngata whenua representatives. That assessment has led to a number of concepts being incorporated within the DSSP proposal.

Ngati Paoa Resource Management Plan (NPRMP) May 1996

NPRMP focuses on the four most important resource management issues facing Ngati Paoa – consultation, waahi tapu sites, redressing Treaty of Waitangi breaches and economic development. It is considered that the plan changes are not inconsistent with NRPRMP, specifically the provisions concerning consultation and waahi tapu sites. SGL consulted Ngati Paoa and ongoing consultation is proposed and no waahi tapu sites have been found to date within the DSSP area.

Ngai Tai Kaitiaki – Resource Management Principles and Operational Policies (RMPOP)

The policies the most relevant to the Drury plan changes being Water Quality, Wastewater, Stormwater, Waterway Planting, Sedimentation, Erosion Control, Wetlands, Flood Prevention measures, Bulk Water & Industrial Supply, Fisheries, Chemicals and Hazardous wastes, Air Pollution, Waahi Tapu and Burial sites, Archaeological Sites and Natural Historic Treasures and Protection of Significant Sites. The section 42A Report was of the opinion73 that SGL’s plan changes are considered to be generally consistent with Ngai Tai’s policies.

Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki Management and Development Plan Stage One

72 Section 42A Report at page 177 73 Section 42A Report at page 177

The section 42A Report notes that the SGL plan changes do not appear to be inconsistent with the Management and Development Plan’s most relevant Goals specifically those pertaining to Flora and Fauna.

Ngaa Tikanga Ngaati Te Ata Tribal Policy Statement 1991

The document lists as policies that state that within its tribal territories only Ngaati Te Ata has the right to determine what constitutes sustainable management of its natural and physical resources. The document also states that that any preparation or change to any policy statement or plan which impacts on Ngaati Te Ata or which affects Ngaati Te Ata territories shall give effect to the subject tribal policy statement. The section 42A Report record that SGL has consulted with representatives of Ngati Te Ata as part of preparation for the plan changes and presumption is made that Ngati Te Ata discussed its policies with SGL as part of this process.

13.6 Findings

It is our finding that the applicant has met its obligations to tāngata whenua as required by the RMA and the relevant statutory planning documents. We also find that the proposal is generally in keeping with the tenets of the relevant iwi planning documents.

In making our finding we note that: the applicant engaged early consultation; they remain committed to ongoing consultation; and they have indicated that they will implement measures to meaningfully involve tāngata whenua. The applicant has acted on the recommendations of the cultural heritage assessment report, in doing so recognising tāngata whenua’s kaitiaki role and providing a means for iwi participation and ongoing involvement with the proposal, and in the development of the various management plans.

We acknowledge that the s42A Report noted that there were a number of ‘significant and valid’ concerns but in the absence of evidence, or an ability to seek clarification from the appropriate representatives of the submitters we are not in a position to make any presumptions that could lead to a finding. Nor are we able to make a finding on Mr Brown’s request for kaitiaki funding via his tabled policy, as such a policy matter is rightly the domain of Auckland Council.

We concur with Mr Osborne’s statement in his evidenceinchief74 quoted in 11.2 above.

We concur with, and adopt, the section 42A Report recommendation that the submissions concerning the cultural impacts of the plan changes be accepted to the extent that the changes to the plan changes which assist in the management of effects which are of concern to Iwi namely; earth works; water quality; air quality and ecology, have been put in place and that the applicant has agreed to ongoing relationships with iwi as the development progresses.

There are no amendments to the plan changes resulting from this part of our decision.

14. HERITAGE

14.1 Heritage Information

As noted above in our consideration on Māori Cultural Issues above the applicant had commissioned two assessments namely:

74 Osborne EiC at [2.8]

- A “Cultural Heritage Assessment Drury South Business Project” undertaken by Te Roopu Kaitiaki O Papakura

- An “Archaeological Assessment Drury South Business Project” undertaken by Russell Foster and Associates (RFA);

to provide information relating to the cultural and heritage values of the area. Prior to field survey work undertaken by RFA for the DSSP, there had been no previous archaeological survey undertaken within the DSSP area.

The AEE informed us75 that the archaeological study concluded that there will be little impact on heritage resources from the development of the DSSP area. While the presence of so far unidentified archaeological evidence elsewhere can never be discounted, the areas alongside the major watercourses of the Hingaia and the Maketu are seen as the most likely to have unrecorded archaeological evidence present. The areas in the vicinity of these two watercourses are not likely to be heavily modified during development.

The AEE noted76 that the archaeological assessment had three recommendations and provided commentary how the recommendations would be auctioned. In summary:

1. Tāngata whenua should report on any other traditional or cultural associations that are affected by the proposal in their own terms a cultural heritage assessment has been undertaken by tāngata whenua. 2. Overall there appear to be few restrictions for future development on purely cultural heritage grounds, as the probability of encountering unrecorded archaeological evidence in the area appears very low. The land will be developed with due recognition of the intrinsic cultural heritage values of the wider Drury area. 3. If any archaeological evidence is discovered during development, it would be necessary to notify iwi and the NZHPT immediately and to obtain any necessary consents before work proceeds in that area. Note that the modification of any archaeological site, whether recorded or not, is an offence under the HPA unless a consent is obtained: This recommendation will be reflected in the conditions of any subsequent earthworks consent.

The Council officers’ section 42A Report77 provided us with a further overview of heritage matters, from an Auckland Council perspective, and it was noted:

Many of the heritage related submissions are concerned with intangible aspects of historic heritage relating to the cultural landscape. There are few specific historic heritage places mentioned in submissions other than those associated with natural features and the heritage places associated with Maketū Pā.

A number of the written submissions contained generic statements on heritage effects, offering little evidence, for example Ms Michele Foster’s written submission78 notes:

Adverse cultural spiritual and historic heritage effects

Ms Foster did expand on her generic statement, in her well put together representation, inviting us79 to learn from history:

75 AEE at [12.4.2] 76 ibid 77 Section 42A Report at [18] 78 Submission 335 79 Ms M Foster Representation at page 12

Ramarama and South Drury is an area of heritage, historical and cultural significance and beautiful natural landscape...... To preserve important views and settings in Southern Druary/Ramarama, which has a cluster of significant settings..

The applicant’s AEE assessments were reviewed by Council’s heritage specialist Dr Elizabeth Pishief. Dr Pishief comments drew our attention to the areas rich cultural history. She pointed out that there are a number of archaeological sites, both Māori and European, in the local area recorded in the NZ Archaeological Association’s site record files and Auckland Council’s Cultural Heritage Inventory, however as a result of the RFA study no additional archaeological sites were recorded within the DSSP area.

In contrast to the RFA report, Dr Pishief was of the viewpoint that there is a moderate to high probability that undiscovered archaeological features, kōiwi, or artefacts will be unearthed in the areas around the Hingaia and Maketū Streams and throughout the former swamps and she recommended that: • A cultural monitor is employed to be present during all earthworks particularly in the areas around the Hingaia and Maketū Streams and in the vicinity of the Te Maketū Historic Reserve(s); • An Accidental Discovery Protocol is developed with mana whenua to ensure that the appropriate laws and protocols are followed if kōiwi or other cultural taonga are uncovered.

Dr Pishief’s review confirmed that the cultural connections and history of the area are of considerable importance to mana whenua and the local rural community; there is no disagreement on this point. We are of the view that Dr Pishief’s recommendation that the history and cultural connections are recognised by providing an historic interpretation in appropriate places and by marking places associated with important people and events in the area by pou tohu or other cultural markers, should be acted on by SGL. A partnership approach with mana whenua, and other members of the community is required.

14.2 Commissioners’ Findings

We accept the conclusion of Mr Osborne80 that the effects of the Plan Changes on historic heritage resources are expected to be minor. In making this finding we record that any consent process must have high regard to the observation of Dr Pishief that there is a moderate to high probability that undiscovered archaeological features, kōiwi, or artefacts will be unearthed in the areas around the Hingaia and Maketū Streams and throughout the former swamps and appropriate consent conditions should be put in place. However, we cannot make any changes to the plan documents in respect of heritage items outside the structure plan area (such as in the vicinity of the Te Maketū Historic Reserve) as those matters are outside the scope of the plan changes.

We find that the submissions concerned with the loss of heritage values be accepted in part and that the amendments as shown in the Plan Change text attached to this decision are made.

80 Osborne EiC at [2.8]

15. Earthworks and Sediment Control

15.1 Earthworks Concept

The concept for major land modification in the DSSP area involves recontouring by cut and fill some 296ha of the 361ha development site so as to raise building platforms above the 100 year average recurrence interval (ARI) flood plain. This will involve earthworks rising in a gradual slope from the central stream towards the quarry zone on the eastern boundary so as to enable stormwater drainage from roads and industrial lots to be collected and treated in wetlands prior to discharge to streams.

To maximise the yield of industrial land for development, some watercourses will be diverted or infilled, with new ponding areas on the existing flood plain created to provide flood storage.

Fill material to raise the land to the required platform levels will be sourced from cuts on site along with imported fill from offsite, including the quarry. Average fill depths will be around 3m, with cuts in the elevated areas of the site being up to 15m deep. The control of fill depths will ensure that settlement is managed effectively.

The earthworks will be developed over a period of 10 to 15 years in four stages to suit the development of the site as follows: (a) Provision of infrastructure (water, wastewater, gas, power, communications); improved access to quarry; excavation of the wetland areas for use as construction sedimentation ponds and flood storage; infilling for the initial development sites. (b) Construction of further development sites including the motorway edge precinct; extension of the link road through to Ramarama interchange; wetland and stream works. (c) Northern stream diversion and link to Fitzgerald Road; construction of further development sites. (d) Completion of industrial sites close to the quarry

Within each stage land modification activity is to be confined to a 5 to 10 hectare limit for active earthworks. Active areas will be enclosed by a perimeter bund to completely isolate the earthworks from surrounding landuse and from all external water up to the 20 year storm.

15.2 Assessment of Earthworks against the Provisions in Relevant Plans

Earthworks and sediment controls will require assessment against the relevant sections of the Papakura and Franklin sections of the Auckland Council District Plan, the Air Land and Water Plan, and the Sediment Control Plan. Council Reviewer of the applicant’s earthworks and sediment control measures, Mr Byrne, notes that given the extent of earthworks as proposed for the DSSP area it is likely they would be assessed as a “restricted discretionary activity”.

The applicant has proposed new Objectives and Policies in relation to earthworks to ensure that adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated, particular in relation to sediment discharges to surface water.

In addition a new rule is proposed in the Papakura section of the District Plan which will enable Council to exercise discretion at the subdivision consent stage over the extent and nature of earthworks by requiring detailed earthworks and stormwater management implementation plans. Such consent applications will require a full environmental effects assessment in accordance with relevant statutory documents.

Conditions imposed on resource consents for earthworks and sediment control may include: (a) ongoing site monitoring to ensure that the proposed erosion and sediment control measures have been installed correctly and are functioning effectively throughout the duration of the works; (b) weather forecast monitoring to ensure that critical works, such as those associated with stream diversions, only occur during a suitable weather window; (c) having dedicated erosion and sediment control staff, with checklists and specific construction methods forming part of the construction process and being monitored to ensure success and effectiveness is achieved; (d) devices monitoring; and (e) flocculation use and monitoring.

15.3 Council Assessment

The Officer's section 42A Report notes that the Auckland Regional Plan: Sediment Control contains “robust, well tested assessment procedures and rules frameworks” to address erosion and sediment control, and confirms that the earthworks associated with the DSSP will be subject to these provisions.

Council reviewer Mr Byrne concludes that: overall, it is considered that the ACRP:SC and the ACDP's (Papakura and Franklin Sections) contain appropriate provisions to ensure that the environmental effects of any proposed earthworks can be adequately assessed as part of the resource consent process.

15.4 Submitters’ Concerns

The Planners report identifies several areas of concern expressed by submitters including: (a) the sheer volume of earthworks will lead to detrimental changes to the landscape and lead to potential sediment impacts on watercourses and the harbour; (b) there are uncertainties related to the effects of earthworks in altering the flood plain; and (c) measures to monitor impacts from dust, sediment impact on watercourses, settlement of fill, and leachate from fill materials have not been detailed.

15.5 The Applicant’s Proposals

In evidence for the applicant, Mr Priestley explained that the stormwater and flooding elements of the DSSP project are interdependent with the earthworks. This involved a dual concept for earthworks and flood management which retains the Hingaia and Maketu streams in place but reshapes their flood plains to create development sites above flood level. The cuts and fills within the flood plain area are designed to retain flood storage and prevent flood levels both upstream and downstream of the DSSP being increased. The earthworks would also preserve the final flood plain area as public open space.

Mr Ridley’s evidence explained the sediment control measures associated with earthworks activities and confirmed that from an erosion and sediment control perspective the existing District Plans and the provisions in the Plan Change adequately provide for the management of potential adverse effects. He indicated he was satisfied that such effects could be addressed by the imposition of appropriate conditions under the district and regional resource consents which will be required for earthworks and stream diversions.

15.6 Commissioners’ Findings

The evidence presented on behalf of the applicant relating to earthworks and associated erosion and sediment controls has been sufficiently detailed to provide an assurance that the methodologies proposed will meet the proposed planning provisions relating to these activities.

In due course such methodologies will be subject to refinement during applications for earthworks consents associated with subdivision of industrial and commercial sites as well as consents associated with stream works. The consents process will enable submitter concerns regarding potential adverse effects as raised at the Hearing to be addressed in detail by the imposition of conditions.

Our finding is that the Plan Change provisions related to earthworks and sediment control as proposed by the applicant are accepted and the submissions in opposition are rejected.

16. Groundwater

16.1 Reports into Groundwater Effects

The Officers’ Section 42A report noted that a considerable number of reports and other documentation had been generated or referenced relating to groundwater effects of the DSSP area. These included hydrogeological assessments for the DSSP area, the earthworks and stormwater management reports, details of the aquifers in the area and the Regional Council 1991 management plan relating to the DruryBombay groundwater investigation.

Council’s peer reviewer on groundwater issues, Mr Russell, in reviewing the various reports and information concluded that the primary effect on groundwater arising from the plan changes would be a possible reduction in recharge to the Drury Sand Aquifer which extended under much of the site. He recommended that further assessment of this potential should be undertaken by the applicant.

16.2 Applicant’s Responses to Council Review

The applicant’s groundwater specialist, Mr Utting, noted in evidence that the Drury Sand Aquifer is not solely recharged from incident precipitation as it does not sit in hydraulic isolation from the large Hingaia catchment groundwater system. He asserted that therefore a detailed assessment of the potential effects on the Drury Sand Aquifer is not required since the Plan Change will not in itself result in any effects on the underlying groundwater system.

16.3 Submissions

Matters raised in submissions included questions about the effects on wells in the DSSP area, groundwater movement and chemistry, potential impacts on groundwater from construction activity and runoff from industrial sites and the effects on groundwater levels due to changes in the surface water regime from stream infilling and diversions.

Council’s assessment of the submissions found that in general they lacked substance when considered relative to the reviews it had undertaken. However, there were concerns re potential changes to the groundwater water regime in neighbouring properties close to boundaries where fills were to be placed which needed to be addressed.

16.4 Applicant’s Response to Submissions

Mr Utting, in evidence, indicated that: (a) Groundwater quality effects would be reduced following the plan changes and would not be impacted by construction earthworks; (b) The reduction in recharge quantities would be no more than minor; and (c) That over time the zoning change proposed in the plan changes may lead to an increase in groundwater available for abstraction.

16.5 Commissioners’ Findings

We are satisfied that the effects on groundwater from the development proposed for the DSSP area are not significant, and will be adequately managed by the provisions in the Plan Changes and conditions related to resource consents and accordingly reject the submissions in opposition on this issue.

17. Contaminated Land

17.1 Investigation

Some properties in the DSSP area have been used for horticultural activities which may have resulted in chemical contamination. The applicant has undertaken a contaminated land assessment desk study, and concludes that resource consents will be required under ARP:ALW rules where land disturbance takes place on any affected properties. The applicant recommends that site inspection be carried out in due course within those properties identified as potentially contaminated in order to assess the extent of work required for intrusive environmental investigations.

17.2 Council Review

Council officer Mr Kalbarczk undertook a review of land contamination matters and has concluded that there are no contaminated land issues which would prevent the plan changes to proceed. There are robust assessment procedures within the ACRP:ALW and the NES regulations related to hazardous activities and industries which will enable relevant environmental and health issues to be addressed at the consent stage for land subdivision.

17.3 Applicant’s Response to Submissions

Ms Smith in evidence relating to contaminated land noted that the main concern of submitters related to storage of hazardous substance within the new industrial zones and that there were no concerns re existing land contamination.

17.4 Commissioners’ Findings

We are satisfied that the plan change provisions can proceed as there are adequate controls on managing land contamination in the DSSP area under existing rules in the ACRP:ALW and relevant NES regulations.

18. Geotechnical and Geological Hazards

18.1 Geological and Geotechnical Setting

The reports in support of the DSSP Application included a description of the geological setting of the DSSP area and a geotechnical appraisal related to the Drury Fault. The recommendations and conclusions of the geotechnical appraisal included:

(a) Under seismic conditions minor liquefaction could be significant if groundwater levels rose into the development fill areas, but such a rise can be controlled by drainage.

(b) The DSSP area avoids the Drury Fault as it is set back more than 20 metres.

(c) Control of fill settlements and dealing with poor soils will be handled via a range of earthworks control measures which cover compaction and unsatisfactory soil replacement.

The applicant’s advisors thus conclude that, subject to their recommendations and conclusions, there are no geotechnical constraints restraining the Plan Change area from being zoned for industrial and other uses as per the DSSP.

In an addendum report just prior to the Hearing the applicant provided further information on the Drury Fault and the liquefaction issue. This review was initiated by the recommendations in the Canterbury Royal Commission report on these topics. The applicants’ advisors found that their recommendations in the original geotechnical appraisal remained valid.

18.2 Council Review of Applicant’s Reports

A peer review of the applicant’s reports and recommendations prepared by Beca was carried out for Council by Soil and Rock Consultant Ltd (S&R). They concurred with the Beca overall geotechnical assessment that there were no geotechnical constraints which preclude future development of the land in the DSSP area.

However, S&R recommended that at the detailed design phase for earthworks more specific investigation should be undertaken into potential seismic activity and soil reaction such as liquefaction, lateral spread and weakening of soil strength. S&R proposed several changes to the district plan assessment criteria for earthworks and subdivision to cover such matters.

Council agreed that assessment criterion 6.15.2.6(2) Geotechnical (Papakura) and 24.4A.2 (Franklin) be amended accordingly.

18.3 Submissions

Concerns raised in submissions relating to geological and geotechnical matters included the proximity of the DSSP area to the Drury fault line, and the possibility of liquefaction effects on the development due to the location of the DSSP on a flood plain.

18.4 Applicant’s Response

In evidence Ms Tilsley of Beca referred to the Ministry for the Environment guidelines on land development close to active faults and noted that they required a 20 metre setback. She confirmed the DSSP area was more than 90 metres from Drury Fault scarp.

In respect of liquefaction Ms Tilsley indicated that potential effects had been identified as a 50mm total settlement and 25mm differential settlement for which common engineering practices can take account during the building consent stage.

Ms Tilsley went on to confirm that the Council Planners proposed amendments to the Plan Change criteria relating to seismic activity and liquefaction were accepted and supported by the applicant.

18.5 Commissioners’ Findings

We are satisfied that there are no geotechnical constraints to development in the DSSP area and that the amendments to the Plan Changes as agreed between the applicant and Council are appropriate. We accordingly reject the submissions in opposition relating to this issue.

19. Wastewater and Water Supply

19.1 Water Supply Servicing

It is proposed that water be supplied to the DSSP area through a connection to the Watercare Services bulk water main from the Waikato treatment plant. This passes in relatively close proximity to the DSSP on its way through to service reservoirs in Auckland.

19.2 Wastewater Servicing

Three alternatives to providing wastewater services for the DSSP area have been considered. These include two offsite options (connection to Watercare Services Mangere Treatment Plant or to the Pukekohe/Tuakau wastewater treatment plant). The third alternative is the establishment of an onsite wastewater treatment plant plus treated effluent discharge to the local environment.

The final selection of wastewater servicing solution has yet to be determined.

19.3 Submissions

Watercare Services Ltd (WSL) was the principal submitter on wastewater servicing. WSL indicated that there are significant constraints in connecting to and utilising either the Mangere or Pukekohe/Tuakau treatment plants. A new local wastewater treatment and discharge system is considered the most cost effective and practical option in the short to medium term.

Other submitters expressed concerns that provision of both water supply and wastewater services through connection to existing infrastructure would impose costs on the community (ratepayers) that should rightly be borne by the developer.

19.4 Council Assessment

The Council officers’ section 42A report indicated that greater certainty should be provided at the Hearing regarding a preferred option for wastewater services. It was also important that District Plan provisions should ensure that development did not precede the availability of infrastructure services.

19.5 Provisions for an Onsite Wastewater Servicing System

In evidence for the applicant Mr Macdonald indicated that a local standalone treatment plant and discharge to receiving environment (land or water) would require a series of resource consents including: (a) discharge consent (requiring identification and availability of a local discharge method);

(b) land use designation and/or land use consent for treatment plant and discharge facility; (c) earthworks consents for construction; and (d) consent conditions related to discharge quality plus odour and noise controls.

The cultural and environmental issues associated with provision of a local treatment and discharge facility would be considered at the resource consent stage.

All costs related to provision of wastewater servicing would be a charge on the applicant as developer of the DSSP area, and not on ratepayers.

19.6 Watercare Services Submissions

In legal submissions and technical evidence to the Hearing WSL outlined its discussions with the applicant related to the provision of both water and wastewater services. WSL indicated it was now satisfied that feasible options are available to service the DSSP area.

For wastewater servicing WSL confirmed its view that a local wastewater treatment facility would be the most cost effective and technically feasible option in the short to medium term. Details of the treatment and discharge system would be assessed at the time resource consents are sought.

WSL and the applicant have thus agreed on Plan Change amendments to ensure that the available wastewater servicing options are considered.

19.7 Council Response to Matters Raised in Evidence

Following the hearing of evidence, Council planning officers indicated they were satisfied that adequate provision can be made for water supply and wastewater servicing.

16.8 Commissioners’ Findings

We note the agreement between the applicant and Watercare Services Ltd relating to Plan Change provisions which will ensure appropriate options for water and wastewater services are available. These provisions are acceptable to us and the submissions in opposition are accordingly rejected.

20. Electricity and Gas Supply

20.1 Existing Services

The following major electricity and gas transmission lines pass through the DSSP area: (a) Transpower NZ Ltd (Transpower) high voltage electricity lines; (b) Counties Power Ltd (Counties Power) local distribution lines; and (c) Vector NZ Ltd (Vector) highpressure gas line.

20.2 Submissions

Transpower seeks to ensure its assets within the DSSP area are protected from development and reverse sensitivity issues, and that access is secured for upgrading and maintenance works. Transpower notes that the proposed layout of the development provides for open space under its transmission lines.

However, Transpower had concerns regarding a range of uses related to the level of controls over development, including increasing corridor width under lines, building of structures within the inner and outer corridors, ensuring written approval is sought from Transpower re clearances to subdivisions, and rules for earthworks around transmission lines.

Counties Power also sought amendments to ensure its existing assets are suitably protected, and also requested that amendments be introduced to provide some flexibility with regard to undergrounding requirements for local lines.

20.3 Council Review

The Council officers’ section 42A report outlined recommendations for amendments as provided by Council’s infrastructure peer reviewer, including: (a) adjustments to the transmission corridor; (b) controls on building activities within the inner and outer corridors; (c) subdivision (d) trees; (e) earthworks; and (f) operation of mobile plant around transmission lines.

Issues related to Counties Power were also addressed by proposed amendments. However, Council rejected a relaxation of rules around undergrounding of power lines.

20.4 Applicant’s Response to Submissions

In evidence for the applicant, Mr Bull explained that discussions had been held with Transpower regarding their submissions, and amendments to the plan change provisions had been agreed which were satisfactory to both parties.

Mr Bull also confirmed that discussions with Counties Power had resolved issues raised in their submissions, and that amendments to the Plan Change provisions had been agreed between the parties.

20.5 Council Response to Matters Raised in Evidence

Following the hearing of evidence, Council planning officers indicated they were satisfied with the Plan Change amendments agreed between the applicant and both Transpower and Counties Power.

However, while confirming they were satisfied that existing subtransmission and similar power lines are able to be retained/installed above ground, they recommended that reticulation lines be undergrounded. This would require the introduction of a new rule.

20.6 Commissioners’ Findings

We note that agreement has been reached with the applicant and both Transpower and Counties Power regarding amendments which address their respective submissions, and we are satisfied with the changes that have accordingly been made to the Plan Change provisions.

The request of Council Planners to insert a rule relating to the undergrounding of reticulation is, however, not accepted. We are persuaded by the evidence of Mr Hoskins for Counties Power that although reticulation undergrounding is suitable for residential areas where the ultimate power load is highly predictable, the same predictability is not applicable for industrial sites where power loading can vary widely.

We thus accept that flexibility is required in respect of undergrounding electricity reticulation to industrial sites. This flexibility will still enable a case to be made for undergrounding at subdivision consent stage where load requirements are predictable.

21. Stormwater Management

21.1 Stormwater Management Concept

The Council officers’ section 42A report notes that stormwater infrastructure proposed by the applicant’s consultants for the DSSP development will include provision for: (a) a piped network servicing individual sites and the road network; (b) overland flow paths, typically in the road corridors; (c) stormwater control devices including constructed wetlands; and (d) stormwater quality devices as part of the motorway edge precinct sites

The “best practicable option” stormwater management concept proposed by the applicant includes: (a) educational initiatives; (b) policies and methods within the District Plan relating to the DSBP to create reserves for stormwater management and introduce source control in development sites through roof material limits and landscaping requirements. (c) use of network discharge consents to ensure enforcement of design standards at each stage of the project; (d) water quality treatment devices (such as wetlands, wet ponds, vegetated swales) to be in public ownership and to treat all runoff from development sites and roads prior to disposal to streams. (e) provide best practice levels of service for primary and secondary drainage networks conveying runoff to water quality treatment devices and stream outfalls. (f) erosion control by providing extended detention in stormwater treatment devices and through outfall design; (g) riparian planting and management; and (h) flood hazard management through earthworks design.

The applicant’s advisers have stated that the stormwater management concept addresses the RMA criteria for achieving the “best practicable option” by: (a) the nature and sensitivity of the receiving environment being addressed by a stormwater systems which will not exacerbate downstream flooding, and by the use of quality control measures which are current best practice in targeting the contaminants most likely to occur in runoff from an industrial urban area; (b) reducing the financial implications for Auckland Council through funding from three main sources (development contributions, rates, and the applicant as a substantial landowner); and (c) the fact that the current state of technical knowledge provides confidence in the stormwater modelling which shows the capacity of wetland treatment and attenuation systems will provide cost effective control of all major general contaminants of concern.

21.2 Council Assessment

Council has relied in its assessment of the Beca proposals on an evaluation prepared by its peer reviewer, Dr David Kettle. Council notes that Dr Kettle’s evaluation has raised the following matters: (a) The stormwater approach and devices proposed by Beca do not follow “best practice” in mitigating the effects on stream health from increased imperviousness in the catchment.

(b) The “best practice” approach is best described as that in Council’s ”Low Impact Design (LID) Manual” – the Beca approach only follows a few of the LID objectives as outlined in the manual. (c) Beca’s use of the Auckland Council 2003 TP 10 “Design Guidelines Manual: Stormwater Treatment Devices” does not meet best practice as it is only meant to be a minimum region wide standard and is not necessarily appropriate for a new greenfield development in a sensitive receiving environment. Dr Kettle indicated that TP 58 is currently under review to incorporate current best practice.

Dr Kettle’s review report recommends: (a) the mandatory use of best practice stormwater management devices including bioretention swales, rain gardens, porous paving, rainwater tanks (with water use); (b) the inclusion of bioretention devices to replace the TP 10 34.5mm rule is a more effective natural solution by providing for better stream protection. (c) mandated planning provisions be introduced to require onsite retention and detention devices to mitigate 100% imperviousness for the full range of flood flows; and (d) the use of a controlled activity rule for all sites with impervious areas over 200m2 which would require all sites to obtain resource consent in order to ensure operation and maintenance conditions are adhered to via conditions on each consent.

21.3 Submitters’ Concerns

Council has summarised the matters raised in submissions relating to stormwater management as: (a) increased runoff from impervious areas could cause flooding to worsen, particularly peak flows; (b) that the proposed stormwater provisions in the plan changes are not as comprehensive as the sensitivities of the site should encourage; (c) riparian margins should be protected and reestablished along all streams; and (d) there are cultural heritage issues.

The principal technical evidence submitted on stormwater management was from Mr Earl Shaver, a consultant appearing for the Drury Ramarama Protection Society. Mr Shaver did not agree with all the matters raised by Dr Kettle, and indicated, for example, that the development could attract a wide range of industrial activities for which the use of porous paving and rain gardens could be inappropriate in dealing with sediment or chemical discharges.

However, he agreed with Dr Kettle regarding the application of LID. He noted that the Hingaia ICMP (Integrated Catchment Management Plan) encourages the use of LID where appropriate for new development, and pointed out that, in his opinion, no consideration of LID has been made in respect of the DSSP development.

In regard to the stormwater wetland practices proposed by the applicant, Mr Shaver strongly recommended that these be adopted to provide peak control of larger stormwater flows, for polishing of stormwater quality, and for storage of any spilled chemicals prior to cleanup.

21.4 The Applicant’s Proposals

Evidence was presented on behalf of the applicant by Mr Stephen Priestley of Beca. He reaffirmed the stormwater management approach for the DSSP area as wetlands being the main stormwater quality treatment method, coupled with inert roof materials,

source control of sites requiring a trade process resource consent, extended detention for downstream erosion control, and riparian corridors with planting to new and existing streams. He also pointed out that the use of LID (via the Auckland Council TP 124 manual of 2000) is an alternative approach primarily applying to residential land.

Mr Priestley indicated that the stormwater management approach proposed for the DSSP area is more robust than that mandated by Dr Kettle as his approach would: (a) be a large scale experiment for use in an industrial area; (b) place reliance for operation and maintenance on individual owners; (c) reduce the available land yield for industrial development; and (d) be significantly more expensive than centralised wetlands (both initial capital and whole of life costs).

Mr Priestley went on to state that rain gardens would occupy 6% of catchment areas compared to 23% via wetlands and their use would be significantly more expensive than for an equivalent centralised wetland system. In addition, the proposed changes to objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria mandating the use of bioretention devices was not agreed with. He submitted that the Council’s changes to stormwater management provisions should be rejected.

21.5 Peer Peview of Beca Proposals

An independent peer review of the Beca proposals was commissioned by the applicant from Mr Roger Seyb of Pattle Delamore Partners (PDP). This review concluded that the proposed stormwater management approach is in general accordance with good practice, and is suited to the type of industrial development proposed.

Mr Seyb made the following points which relate to matters raised by submitters: (a) the framework for stormwater management in the DSSP area is integrated with the objectives of the Hingaia ICMP – this is appropriate. (b) the design of industrial and trade onsite stormwater treatment measures comply with the objectives of the Hingaia ICMP, the DSBP stormwater management report and the rules in the ALW Plan. (c) he does not support the use of onsite stormwater management devices (such as raingardens, swales and porous pavement) as exclusive means of stormwater management for the DSSP area, and agrees with the Beca response to this issue. (d) that the use of stormwater treatment devices needs to be specific to site conditions and type of industrial land use being served; (e) sediment loads can result in performance reduction or failure if, for example, raingardens were used; and (f) maintenance can be problematic where industrial uses are in multiple ownership.

21.6 Applicant’s Response to Evidence from Submitters

Mr Priestley was called by the applicant to provide rebuttal evidence in relation to the submissions, and made the following points: (a) Mr Shaver expressed the view that both terminal wetland treatment and onsite treatment for every site should be provided, and recommends that a blend of on site and offsite stormwater management practices should be adopted. In fact, this dual approach is what is proposed for this project. (b) The types of controls for any individual site need to be considered on a case by case basis. This will be undertaken as part of the resource consent process. (c) The approach to stormwater management specified in the current guidelines and planning documents such as TP10 and the ALWP are relevant and appropriate and form the basis for the robust stormwater management approach for this project.

(d) The LID approach is not mandatory and is not targeted at industrial projects. However, it was investigated for this project, and some concepts (stream rehabilitation and improving riparian margins) have been utilised. (e) Investigation of extended detention requirements for stormwater at this plan change stage is completely premature as this needs to be undertaken at the development design stage in order to investigate likely downstream velocities arising from the project. This design stage will enable optimisation of the extent of the extended detention to be provided.

21.7 Council Response to Matters Raised in Evidence

In responding to matters raised in evidence the Council officers indicated that the best practicable option (BPO) for stormwater management is best determined at the time of the network discharge consent (or other discharge consent) and not through the plan changes. Furthermore, they recommend the plan changes incorporate amended assessment criteria which allow for both offsite and onsite stormwater management devices.

They also advised that Dr Kettle, as Council’s peer reviewer, was concerned that his views relating to the application of LID for the DSSP development appeared to be misinterpreted by the applicant’s specialists. He had not advocated the use of onsite management of stormwater instead of the offsite use of wetlands, but rather an integrated LID approach in addition to wetlands, particularly with respect to volume reduction to protect stream health.

21.8 Commissioners’ Findings

We are satisfied that the proposals set out in the reports and evidence placed before us by the applicant will achieve the best practicable option for stormwater management in the DSSP area.

It is clear that the most appropriate time to consider the integration of onsite LID systems with the centralised approach for stormwater treatment and retention via wetlands is at the subdivision consent stage,

Our findings are that, subject to the amended stormwater assessment criteria81 & 82 proposed in the Council officers’ response to submissions, the plan change provisions related to stormwater management as proposed by the applicant are accepted.

22. Flood Risk

22.1 Matters Raised in Submissions

The Council officers’ section 42A report identifies the following range of matters as raised in submissions; (a) adequacy of information related to flooding; (b) effects of development on a flood plain; (c) economic effects of flooding; and (d) consistency with existing policies on flood hazards.

81 Papakura District Plan, Section 3, Part 6 – Industrial Zones, 6.15.2.6, “11. Stormwater Management” [Tab 3, page 107 of Plan Change Bundle] 82 Franklin District Plan, Section 26.4A, “2(p) Stormwater Management within the Drury South Structure Plan Area” [Tab 7, page 18 of Plan Change Bundle]

22.2 Provision of Information

Council noted that the initial stormwater modelling study for the DSSP area was undertaken as part of the Hingaia ICMP in 2010, and used as the basis for the Beca Stormwater Management report. The conclusions of the Beca report were that: (a) For the 100 year ARI flood event there would be a reduction in flood levels and flood extent downstream of the DSBP, and no practical increase in water levels upstream of the DSBP boundary. (b) For the 50 year ARI flood event development sites within the DSBP are outside the predicted flood levels, but the 100 year ARI event does result in flood water encroachment onto parts of some sites – however, building platforms can be provided above the 100 year ARI flood levels. (c) More frequent flood events (greater than the 50 year ARI event) could flood to relatively shallow depths onto carparking and landscaping areas adjacent to watercourses.

Council’s peer reviewer, Dr Kettle, confirmed the model is suitable for use as a comparative tool to assess 100 year effects of the DSSP area on the flood plain, but should not be used to determine flood flows and flood levels. He advised that the 100 year modelling results will not indicate flooding frequency at smaller events. For example a property that did not flood in a 10 year event predevelopment could flood postdevelopment, hence the need for modelling of events smaller than the 100 year event.

Dr Kettle went on to confirm that subject to amendment of the hydrologic model still in progress, the flooding maps submitted by the applicant indicate that potential adverse effects can be adequately managed. He furthermore accepts that car parking areas and landscaping could be accommodated within the 100 year flood plain, but an assessment of risk related to depth and velocity of flood waters is required.

Council’s inhouse specialists consider that modelling of flood flows and flood levels as part of the stormwater discharge consent is acceptable provided there is adequate provision in the Plan Change to ensure land use is in accordance with the conditions of consent, and that development does not increase flooding upstream or downstream of the DSSP area. Subject to refined modelling and design the Council Hydraulic Modelling Team supports in principle the flood mitigation options of Beca.

22.3 Applicant’s Flood Management Provisions

Mr Priestley confirmed that the DSSP development proposals will result in no practical increase in 100 year flood levels upstream, and there is some potential to reduce flood levels downstream. Development sites are outside the 50 year flood extent. For 100 year flood events these will extend onto some development sites, but building platforms are to be above those levels.

The proposed management of flood hazards is primarily achieved via earthworks design. There will also be a new Ballards Road Bridge which will be designed to constrict flood waters, thus raising flood levels upstream over the proposed wetlands as far as the confluence of Hingaia and Maketu Streams and thereby providing flood storage. This storage attenuates peak flows in the Hingaia Stream. The 50 year flood plain is to be contained within the stormwater management reserve, with carparking and reserve landscaping flooded at shallow depths in greater than 50 year events.

The applicant’s peer reviewer, Mr Seyb of PDP, also noted that no assessment of more frequent events smaller than the 100 year flood event had been undertaken and recommended that 10 year and 2 year flood events be assessed in order to check effects on Maximum Probable Development.

Mr Priestley agreed that more frequent events (such as 10 year and 2 year ARI flood events) need to be quantified, and this will be carried out at the consent stage – they are not critical for the plan change requirement.

22.4 Submitters’ Concerns

A range of concerns were raised by submitters who presented evidence on the extent and frequency of flooding including photographs of past flood events. A common theme was that this DSSP area was a significant flood plain and thus the project was noncompliant with regional rules relating to avoiding development in flood plain areas.

The principal technical evidence submitted on flood risk management was from Mr Shaver, the consultant appearing for the Drury Ramarama Protection Society. Mr Shaver made the following points in evidence: (a) Providing detention above the Ballard Road bridge for the 100 year event may limit discharge downstream at that time, but smaller storms may pass through more frequently. (b) Properties which flood at a 20 year event may thus flood more frequently. (c) Flood plain maintenance will be essential in order to maintain storage capacity by removing silt/sediment depositions. (d) Using Ballard bridge as a throttle to increase flood levels upstream is technically viable, but does not represent a good approach to flood plain management. (e) The development approach of filling in a flood plain for a large industrial area in a rural setting is some 20 years behind the times in terms of resource related issues and loss of streams.

22.5 Applicant’s Response to Evidence from Submitters

Mr Priestley was called by the applicant to provide rebuttal evidence in relation to the submissions, and made the following points: (a) The placing of fill within the flood plain will result in a loss of flood storage, but this loss is to be avoided by deepening the remaining storage areas. The 60% reduction in flood plain area is compensated for by deepening the average storage depth some1.6 times the existing depth and controlling flood levels both upstream and downstream by a throttle control on a new Ballard’s Bridge. (b) Modelling of the 100 year flood event shows no increase in upstream flooding. (c) The concern by submitters that more frequent and lower flooding events should be modelled to determine their effects is not necessary at this Plan Change stage as they will not contribute to worse flooding than the 100 year event. Detailed modelling of smaller flood events will need to be undertaken at the resource consent stage once more detailed design of earthworks and the bridge throttle are completed. (d) The flood modelling used in the DSSP project has been checked against known flood observations, providing confidence in its predictive capability. The LiDAR terrain level data used in the modelling has been checked and judged fit for purpose. (e) Tidal variations have no effect on flood levels. (f) There will be no buildup of sediment in the stormwater wetlands. Annual inspections along with inspections following major flooding events will be incorporated into wetland management procedures. (g) When considering the position of wetlands within the flood plain, Beca has been more concerned with flood flow velocities resuspending wetland captured sediment than with accumulation of sediment within the wetlands. Hence the forebay areas which capture stormwater sediment are to be raised above peak flood levels.

(h) Beca, PDP (as peer reviewers) and Council officers are all satisfied that the modelling of extreme rainfall events based on the ICMP are fit for purpose for the Plan Change process. (i) Mr Shaver’s concerns re the effects of infilling of the flood plain on upstream and downstream flooding are addressed by the findings of the modelling which show no such increases upstream or downstream. During the discharge consent process subsequent to the plan change, it will be demonstrated that creating an industrial development without increasing flood levels will be achieved by detailed reshaping of the deepened flood plain and throttling flows at Ballard’s Bridge for the 5 year, 10 year and 50 year flood flows. (j) The Plan Change provisions proposed for the DSSP project provide certainty re the control of flooding, with the safeguard that at the development design stage resource consents for flood management will need to be obtained. (k) Mr Priestley rejected entirely Mr Shaver’s views related to the DSSP development project being 20 years behind the times.

22.6 Commissioners’ Findings

In his closing submissions Mr Derek Nolan, Counsel for the applicant, submitted that the evidence of the applicant’s consultants along with recommendations of the Council’s stormwater team has established clearly that there are “credible solutions” to the issue of flooding. This view is supported by Council’s own advisers. We accept this.

Some submitters have raised matters of detail related to further modelling and flood management which we confirm are outside the scope of the Plan Change, and are best dealt with during the resource consent stage related to design measures for flood controls.

With one exception, our finding is that the plan change provisions related to flood risk management as proposed by the applicant are accepted and the submissions in opposition are accordingly rejected.

The exception is in relation to the proposed rules purporting to set floor level restrictions higher than those required under the Building Code (Rule 6.15(18) in PC12 to the Papakura Section and Rule 29C.6.9 in PC38 to the Franklin section). These rules would require the floor levels of certain buldings to be at least 500mm above the 100 year Average Recurrence Interval (“ARI”) flood level, when the relevant control in the Building Code requires such buildings to be built so that surface water resulting from an event having a 2% probability of occurring annually (i.e. the 50 year ARI). Section 18(1) of the Building Act 2004 provides that building work cannot be required to achieve performance criteria that are additional to those in the Building Code, subject to any express provision to the contrary in any other Act. While section 76(2A) of the RMA authorises rules for the protection of other property to a greater extent than required under the Building Act, the rules in question here are for the protection of the building, not other property. We raised this issue with counsel for the applicant and for the Council, and they agreed with this analysis. It follows that Rule 6.15(18) in PC12 to the Papakura Section and Rule 29C.6.9 in PC38 to the Franklin section are ultra vires and must be deleted.

23. Air Quality Management Areas – Proposed Change 3

23.1 Introduction.

The Auckland Council, when it applied to change to the ARPS by extending the MUL, has also sought to change the existing Rural Air Quality Management Area which

applies to the plan change area as set out in the Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (ARP:ALW).

Proposed Change 3 to ARP:ALW involves an amendment to map series 1, map 45 Bombay Franklin to show a proposed new Industrial Air Quality Management Area and an Urban Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for the DSSP. No changes have been sought to any of the ARP:ALW’s provisions regarding objectives, policies or rules – the only change being to apply the AQMA’s.

The proposal is to apply the Urban AQMA over most of the DSSP area (the Industrial 3/Light Industrial area), with an Industrial AQMA over the Industrial 4 area (heavier Industry). This change, and its effects, was set out in the Council’s section 32 and the Officers’ section 42A report, and addressed in the evidence of Stevenson’s and by submitters.

The ARP:ALW states that either an Urban or Industrial Air Quality Management Area be applied to newly urbanised land. Given we have found it is appropriate to extend the MUL and rezone the land for urban activities, as set out above, we accept that the Rural AQMA is no longer appropriate. This management area would not enable the activities provided by the new zonings in the DSSP, nor protect the health and amenity of those within and surrounding the DSSP (as the Rural AQMA enables activities such as outdoor burning and the spraying/application of agrichemicals (pest control and/fertilizer).

23.2 Urban Air Quality Management Area

The ARP:ALW provides the mechanism for extending the Urban AQMA and Industrial AQMAs to the DSSP area. Specifically section 3.12.1 of the ARP:ALW states that:

Areas that are subsequently included within the MUL through future changes to the ARPS will be brought within the Urban Air Quality Management Area through a Variation or Change to Map Series 1 and 1A of the Plan either jointly with the Change by which the MUL is extended or if this is not possible then at the earliest practicable time thereafter.

The Urban AQMA includes the majority of the urbanised areas of the Auckland Region and incorporates residential, commercial, light industrial and other sensitive land uses. This AQMA seeks to ensure a high level of amenity and to protect human health particularly for sensitive sectors of the population from the adverse effects of air discharges. It actually requires a higher standard of air quality than does the Rural AQMA.

A wide range of activities that discharge contaminants to air are permitted within the Urban AQMA. This approach recognises that people and business activities need to be able to discharge contaminants into air from various activities. Those activities which are permitted are subject to conditions that control aspects of the discharge including odour, dust, fumes, smoke, mists, haze, vapours, hazardous air pollutants and the spraying of paints and other substances.

Where proposed activities are known to have potentially significant adverse effects, either resource consent is required or in some cases the activities are prohibited such as outdoor burning primarily due to a reduction in amenity from smoke and odour.

A number of the submitters, and in particular Mr Vissler and Ms Hislop at 377 Fitzgerald Road who run a greenhouse operation, were concerned about the effects from air discharges from the Urban AQMA (and the Industrial AQMA – set out in more detail below). As mentioned, the Urban AQMA requires a higher standard of air quality

than the Rural AQMA. Outdoor burning, permitted in the Rural AQMA, is not allowed in either in the Urban or Industrial AQMA. Similarly the discharge of agrichemical is controlled and less likely (due to the land use) in the Urban or Industrial AQMA.

It is our finding that the extent of the Urban AQMA is both necessary and appropriate in terms of the directives of the ARP:ALW and to enable the activities envisaged in the Industrial 3 zoned area of the DSSP.

23.3 Industrial Air Quality Management Area.

The “Industrial” AQMA generally caters for heavier industrial activities and ‘overlays’ specific industrial zones within district plans (in this case the proposed Industrial 4 zone). Within Industrial AQMAs, it is ‘expected’ that amenity values will be reduced in order to promote industrial activity and intensification. An example of an existing Industrial AQMA in Papakura is the Spartan Road industrial area to the west of Takanini.

In terms of the DSSP and the AQMAs, the plan change proposes ‘buffering’ the Industrial 4 zone from the more ‘sensitive’ rural and other activities with the Industrial 3/Light Industrial zone and the Drury Quarry. That is the Industrial 4 zone is surrounded on three sides by the Industrial 3 zone (Urban AQMA) with the remaining ‘front’ being to the existing quarry. The Industrial 4 zoning, and the Industrial AQMA, also assists in ‘protecting’ the Drury Quarry from reverse sensitivity effects.

Overall, we agree with this approach as it provides appropriate separation distances from more ‘sensitive’ activities (discussed below), and protects the quarry, which is an important natural and physical resource which is required to be sustainably managed.

In addition to the concern of the submitters, the Council was also concerned about the extent of the Industrial AQMA. Ms Jones, the Council's air quality expert, recommended that the Industrial AQMA should be reduced to provide a 500 metre buffer to the nearest rural zoned properties. This would involve reducing the Industrial AQMA to cover only the portion of the Industrial 4 zone which is more than 500 metres from the nearest rural zone and imposing an Urban AQMA within those parts of the Industrial 4 zone which is closer than 500 metre from the Rural zone.

Ms Jones’ reasons for this were set out in her Air Quality Report (and formed part of the Officers section 42A report). In summary she considered that 500m separation distance between the residential and industrial uses reflected best practice and was the approach adopted in the draft Unitary Plan.

Ms Needham, Stevenson’s expert air quality specialist, did not agree. As set out in the map in Annexure B of her evidence, the DSSP achieves a 500 metre separation distance between the Industrial 4 zone and the Rural zone everywhere except for a small portion of the rural zone to the north and north east 83 . To the north, the available separation distance to the boundary of the nearest house is 430 metres84 and to the north east, the properties within 500 metres of the Industrial 4 zone are already adjacent to the Quarry zone, from which they have no separation.

While the 430 metre separation distance on the northern boundary is less than 500 metres, we find that there is no ‘policy or rule’ support for the 500 metre provision. We do note however that the ALWP currently has two rules which contain buffer distance requirements based on the activity proposed.85 These buffer distances are 300 metres

83 Ms Needham's evidence, paragraph 8.10. 84 The closest distance from Industrial 4 zone to the house at 2 Drury Hills Road. 85 Rules 4.5.77 and 4.5.55.

(refuse transfer stations) and 200 metres (quarrying), considerably less than 500 metres.86

Ms Needham considered that the separation distances provided in the Plan Changes are sufficient, and that:

The Council applies a different overarching management approach to each of the AQMAs, however where an activity is known to have potentially significant adverse effects, a resource consent is required regardless of whether it is located in a Rural, Urban or Industrial AQMA.87

As a result, the air discharges from any industry of concern will be dealt with individually when it applies for a resource consent.

Overall, having regard to the evidence, we accept the evidence of Ms Needham and have not altered the boundary of the Industrial AQMA.

22.4 Submitters’ Concerns

A significant number of submitters were concerned about the effects discharges to air from industrial activities, and the application of the Urban and Industrial AQMA. Mr Osborne and Ms Needham addressed the AQMAs and their impact in their evidence. Both considered that there was a misconception amongst some submitters that applying the policies of an Urban and Industrial AQMA instead of the Rural AQMA to the DSSP area would necessarily lead to a lowering of air quality standards.88

Moreover, Ms Needham also pointed out that there is a common misperception that rural air quality is relatively pristine. She set out, in air quality terms, that agricultural and horticultural activities are sources of odour, dust, agrichemical sprays and outdoor burning of vegetation and that these are normally permitted activities. As an example she pointed out that under the ARP: ALWP, outdoor burning, land cultivation and the application of fertiliser and lime are all activities which have a more permissive status in Rural AQMA than an Urban and Industrial AQMA.89

We further note that a number of submitters raised concerns about the potential for dust or other contaminants to pollute roof harvested rainwater. Ms Needham addressed this issue in her evidence and concluded:

• the rules in the ALWP relating to air discharges ensure that modern industrial facilities are appropriately designed so as to not cause dust or other particles to be deposited onto roofs under normal operating conditions;90 and

• larger dust particles (which are generally responsible for nuisance effects) settle out in the immediate vicinity of the source and any potential dust effects will be avoided by the buffer separation distances proposed.91

While we understand the concerns of the submitters, we accept Ms Needham’s expert evidence. No changes are required to the AQMA’s or the provisions to address this issue.

With respect to Mr Visser and Ms Hislop’s operation at 377 Fitzgerald Road, we acknowledge that they were very concerned, amongst other things, that emissions

86 Para 8.10 of Ms Needham's evidence. 87 Para 8.9 of Ms Needham's evidence. 88 Para 6.17 of Mr Osborne's planning evidence. 89 Para 2.4 of Ms Needham's evidence. 90 Para 7.10 of Ms Needham's evidence. 91 Para 7.11 of Ms Needham's evidence.

from the industrial zoned land would adversely affect their greenhouse /horticultural activity.

Mr Woodyatt, Mr Visser and Ms Hislop expert horticultural consultant considered that air discharges produced within the industrial zones would include sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, benzene and metals such as mercury, chromium, arsenic and lead. He also stated that there will be adverse effects on the business (323 Contracting) from an increase in vehicle emissions as a result of the Link Road.

We note that that 323 Contracting's site is well outside the 500 metre buffer for the Industrial AQMA. The land closest to 377 Fitzgerald Ave will be zoned Industrial 3 with part of it having a Commercial Services Precinct overlay. That Industrial 3 land will have the Urban AQMA applying to it. Moreover as noted by Ms Needham in her evidence, there is little difference between what is permitted in a Rural AQMA compared to an Industrial AQMA which will apply to the Industrial 4 zone, based on the rules relating to the AQMA classifications.92 Moreover, Ms Needham concluded that the change of the land next to 377 Fitzgerald Road from a Rural to Urban AQMA should, in fact, provide for a higher level of amenity.93

With respect to dust nuisance, Ms Needham noted that the expected 2016 volumes along some of the busier roads in the DSSP area are in the order of 5,000 15,000 vehicle movements per day (which are not high vehicle flow rates). She noted that by comparison, SH1 south of Takinini is predicted to have more than 100,000 vehicles per day.94 Mr Osborne pointed out in his reply evidence that the Link Road is between 70 metre and 100 metre east of the eastern boundary at 377 Fitzgerald Road and is separated from that boundary by a planted buffer.

23.5 Commissioners’ Findings

Having had regard to all of the evidence from the applicant, the Council and submitters, we find that the application of the urban and Industrial AQMA to the DSSP, along with the provisions of the ARP: ALW and those in the Plan Change, is appropriate and accordingly reject the submissions in opposition to that change..

24. Transport and Roading

24.1 The Road Network

The structure plan area sits immediately to the east of the Southern Motorway between the Drury (to the north) and Ramarama (to the south) interchanges. There is a wellestablished network of local roads in the area, with primary routes serving the structure plan area being Fitzgerald Road and Ramarama Road which runs north south through the middle of the area, and Quarry Road which runs generally eastwest from the Stevenson quarry, across the motorway and connects with Great South Road and thence to State Highway 22 which connects Drury and Pukekohe. These roads are used by heavy quarry traffic to access the motorway. A number of minor roads also serve the area and surrounding areas.

While Quarry Road might be expected to be the primary route for quarry traffic intending to get on the motorway heading north, the right turns required at Great South Road and then SH22 deter drivers of heavy vehicles, leading to the use of Fitzgerald Road, then Waihoehoe Road and through Drury to approach the motorway interchange. For quarry traffic heading south, the preferred route is generally on

92 Para 5.11 of Ms Needham's evidence. . 93 Para 9.4 of Ms Needham's evidence. 94 Ms Needham's evidence, paragraph 7.15.

Ramarama Road, then onto Ararimu Road and then to the Ramarama interchange. Both of these routes have significant effects on neighbouring residential properties and pedestrian and cycle use of the network.

The principal element of the structure plan in relation to roading is the proposal to create a new “spine” road running northsouth towards the western side of the area, connecting to the Quarry Road bridge across the motorway in the north and connecting to Ararimu Road adjacent to the Ramarama interchange in the south. Both Fitzgerald Road and Ramarama Road would then be stopped from connecting to the structure plan area, although a new link road is proposed from the Spine Road to Fitzgerald Road. Within the area, a grid pattern of roading would serve the industrial land. The objective would be to ensure that heavy quarry and industrial traffic would be directed away from residential frontages. The intersection of the spine road with Great South Road would be signalised to facilitate right turns by heavy traffic and some upgrade of the Great South Rd / SH22 intersection may also be required.

24.2 Matters Raised in Submissions

A range of matters were raised in submissions relating to transportation, relating to: • Effects on the overall roading and transport network (including both positive and adverse effects effects on the southern motorway, the primary roading network and local and minor roads); • Effects of increased local traffic on residents, particularly the effects of traffic from the development being diverted onto Fitzgerald Road by the new link road; • Lack of provision for public transport; and • The range of upgrades and road closures required, how these can be achieved through the plan change process and at whose cost.

24.3 Effects on Wider Transport Network

The wider transportation effects of the proposal have been assessed in an Integrated Transportation Assessment (ITA) by the applicant, with a peer review commissioned by the Applicant and then peer assessment by external consultants for the Council.

The key conclusions of the various experts focus on the tidal nature of traffic on the southern motorway (heading north during the morning peak and south during the evening peak, and the projections based on growth expected in the southern sector of the region. In transport terms, the plan changes would enable an employment and logistics centre in the south which could help (with other growth initiatives in the south) to attenuate the effects of growth, especially on tidal traffic. The rearrangement of the local roading should improve amenity and reduce delays for local traffic.

The overall conclusion of the applicant’s ITA is that over time and given projected population growth in the southern area, the overall effects on the transport system would be better with the DSSP development than without. This conclusion is broadly supported by the other experts, while cautioning (as traffic engineers always do) that actual driver behaviour can differ from models and that local authority policy (including landuse policy) must pursue the longer term goals of land transport management in a consistent way.

24.4 Network Upgrades

Many submissions, including the relevant road controlling authorities Auckland Transport and New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), concerned the proposed upgrading of various parts of the transport network to cater for the proposed development.

The plan changes propose the following projects: • The new spine road to provide transport connections between the structure plan area and the Drury and Ramarama motorway interchanges. • A new link road from the new spine road to Fitzgerald Road to provide a connection between the structure plan area and Drury and to provide for potential future connection to the Mill Road Corridor. • Upgrading of Fitzgerald Road to improve safety, including provision for a footpath on one side of the road. • Upgrades to the intersections of State Highway 22/Great South Road and Great South Road/Quarry Road to improve capacity to better accommodate forecast traffic increases. • An upgrade of the Ramarama Interchange to improve its capacity.

A number of these measures may require designations in order to proceed; all will require approval by the road controlling authorities. The stopping of a number of existing portions of road, including the connection of Fitzgerald Road and Ramarama Road across the structure plan area, will require road stopping procedures under the Local Government Act 1974.

It emerged at the hearing that there are a range of growthrelated issues that may influence the particular response of the relevant road controlling authority to both the design and sequencing of each proposed upgrade. Stevenson advised it had reached agreement with AT and NZTA to a process whereby flexibility was allowed for to deal with uncertainty about growth. This approach includes the use of triggers in the plan changes for determining when upgrades would have to have occurred to ensure that the network would cope with growth.

Within the plan changes there are two mechanisms that are used to ensure that the necessary roading infrastructure is provided. First, any activity that does not comply with Rule 6.11.7.10.4 (in the Papakura section) is a noncomplying activity. This rule requires roads shown on the structure plan area to be constructed and vested in Council upon subdivision or development of the relevant area. Secondly, Rule 6.11.7.9.3 provides that any subdivision that complies with rules or development that precedes a subdivision under this rule shall be a restricted discretionary activity. The assessment criteria for these (in rule 6.15.2.8) include criteria that allow the Council to consider the extent to which various specified transport network requirements are met.

Rule 6.11.7.10.4 applies only within the DSSP area and cannot require (and is not intended to require) works outside the DSSP area. This rule requires developers to construct their sections of infrastructure.

The principal issue between the applicant and the reporting officers lay in whether the use of assessment criteria would be preferable to rules specifying which works would be done at what time. While we understand the importance of ensuring that the transport network upgrades are undertaken at a time which meets the demands of traffic generation from development in the area (and mitigates the adverse effects of such development so far as it is reasonable or possible to do so), we are not persuaded that this is better achieved by rules than by assessment criteria within a discretionary consenting regime. We would expect that the Council, on receipt of any application for subdivision or development in this area, would expect a full assessment of traffic issues and the record of consultation between the applicant and the road controlling authorities. Any application which lacked those elements ought to be returned as incomplete or, if the information was provided but did not demonstrate a satisfactory resolution of transportation issues, to be declined consent. The advantage of dealing with complex network issues by reference to assessment criteria is that such a method is able to adapt to all the changes in the environment, including likely (but presently unknown) changes in the road transport environment without the risk of

being constrained by rules which do not allow for such flexibility in respect of either the works or their sequencing.

24.5 Cost Burden

In relation to the cost of works, the applicant acknowledged that it bore the primary responsibility for the cost of any transport works, including upgrade costs, that were within the structure plan area or directly attributable to its development proposals. Future owners or developers within the structure plan area would likewise be responsible for those costs. We accept that for at least some upgrades, the cause and the benefit of certain work may be attributable to other road users and therefore in at least some cases the works or upgrades may qualify for other road funding. Works within existing roads will be under the control of AT, while works associated with or affecting the Southern Motorway or SH22 will be under the control of NZTA. Those are all matters for which there are well known legal requirements and we do not need to traverse them here.

24.6 Commissioners’ Findings

We find that the transport provisions of the proposed plan changes are appropriate and accordingly reject the submissions in opposition to them.

25. Rural Character

25.1 Matters Raised in Submissions

The conversion of an existing rural area to an industrial one obviously has extensive effects on the appearance of the area and people’s perceptions of its character and amenity. To at least some extent, that is an unavoidable consequence of such a conversion, and so the judgment about the appropriateness of such effects is closely bound up with the judgment about whether the conversion itself is appropriate.

The existing landscape is a rural one, but influenced heavily by the motorway to the west and the quarry to the east. Its rural character is also influenced by residential activity, both within the rural land (that is, on sites used for rural production) and the range of residential within that and around the edges of the structure plan area, on roads such as MacWhinney Drive which has elevated residential properties which look down on and across the area and on Brookfield Road which runs along its northern side.

Many submitters expressed great concern about the impact of the proposal on the choices they have made to live in this area, such choices being based very largely on the character and amenity of the area. They also expressed concern about the appearance of the area at a “gateway” location beside the southern motorway.

25.2 Applicant’s Assessment

The applicant retained Ms Rachael de Lambert of Boffa Miskell Ltd to prepare and present an Assessment of Landscape and Visual Effects that included an Urban Design Assessment.

Ms de Lambert noted the pressure of growth on rural areas around Auckland. She considered that the Drury South area is well placed to limit the nature and scale of the effects of a development such as this, being visually wellcontained and largely separated from general public view. In the area with more potential to be seen, between the Southern Motorway and the Hingaia Stream, she noted that the applicant proposed specific overlay controls to address these effects. She also stressed the

value of retaining and enhancing the Hingaia and Maketu Stream corridors for their own sake and to provide enhanced amenity in the area.

She noted the character of the existing topography and the extent of earthworks proposed and advised that the latter would reinforce the former rather than detract from it.

In relation to urban design, Ms de Lambert assessed the proposed structure plan as providing a legible framework with the capacity to achieve high levels of internal amenity. A distinction was drawn between older stule industrial areas such as Onehunga and East Tamaki, and more recently developed areas such as Highbrook.

In Ms de Lambert’s opinion, the effects on neighbouring residents, including those on MacWhinney Drive with elevated outlooks over the structure plan area, included adverse effects from changes to the landscape, but she noted that the existing quarry and the character of large scale rural activities (such as glasshouses and the like) meant that these effects were not incongruous with industrial buildings.

This assessment was critiqued by Ms Rebecca Skidmore on behalf of the Council. Ms Skidmore largely agreed with Ms de Lambert, noting that the landscape values of the site are not high, the proposed plan changes would provide some improvements especially for the stream corridors and overall the site is well suited to accommodate the proposed industrial use at both a strategic and a local level. She did, however, recommend a number of additional design criteria, and these recommendations were agreed to by the applicant and are now included in the district plan changes.

25.3 Commissioners’ Findings

While acknowledging and accepting in part the submissions which raised concerns about the effects on rural character, we also accept the expert evidence that the area is suited to the changes proposed and can accommodate them in terms of the proposed structure plan, including the revised assessment criteria which have been added in the course of the hearing. We accordingly reject the submissions in opposition to the plan changes on this ground.

26. Open Space

26.1 Applicant’s proposal

The DSSP proposes approximately 96ha (26.5%) of the total 361ha site as public open space and/or stormwater management areas, principally along the Hingaia and Maketu stream corridors and including vegetated buffer areas, riparian management areas, open space areas and stormwater management areas. Landscape buffer areas were also proposed along the northern and southern edges of the site

The open space areas proposed by the applicant were grouped as follows:

1. Central Stormwater Management Area 2. Southern landscape buffer 3. Northern landscape buffer 4. Hingaia and Maketu Streams, Northern and Roslyn Diversions 5. Confluence of Hingaia and Maketu Streams

A report from SGL’s landscape architects Boffa Miskell (BM) entitled Assessment of Landscape And Visual Effects was submitted in support of the plan changes. This report identified the general design principles applied in establishing the location and form of the open space types listed above. These principles relate to the functional

requirements of the open space network throughout the plan change area and are follows: • Sustainable Resource Management open space is planned for within the wider context of the sustainable resource management. • Biodiversity the preservation, protection, enhancement and long term management of existing areas of indigenous freshwater and terrestrial habitat. The proposed open spaces seek to develop an interconnected network of “green space” that conserves natural ecosystem values and functions and provides associated benefits. • Landscape Character and Sense of Place recognition of existing landscape character and landscape features and the key spatial landscape elements that define that character. • Community & Cultural Heritage Recognising the open space needs of the proposed and existing communities. Recognising the important role that open space plays in providing health benefits. Recognition of particular landscape values of significance to Maori. • Recreation Recognising the recreational benefits of an integrated open space network. • Linkages and Connections Recognising potential linkages between open space elements and the development of open space connections that enhance the open space network. • Access and Amenity Access to a diversity of public and managed open spaces and the provision of a high level of amenity. • Multi–functionality Recognition of the multifunctional benefits of open space elements as well as integrated open space networks.

26.2 Submissions and Council’s response

It appeared clear to us that there was no opposition to the safeguarding of the stream corridors for a variety of reasons, including flood management (as discussed above) and ecological benefits and intrinsic amenity. However, a number of submitters, and the Council’s open space advisor, expressed concern about the basis on which the areas of open space would vest, including what the cost wold be to the Council.

Draft provisions of section 54.18.2.1 and 5B.4.2.1 Urban Form and Containment indicated the use of Notices of Requirement for designations under the RMA to provide for and lead to the acquisition of reserves and open space areas. The Council’s advisor, Mr Froger, provided a report which indicated that the need for additional open space in this area could not be supported, essentially because as a general policy the Council does not regard industrial development as creating a clear demand for open space. Other than the immediate margins of the streams which require consideration for esplanade reserve purposes, Mr Froger was clearly concerned that the structure plan, as notified, would commit the Council to acquiring a large amount of land for which it had no need. He recommended that section 54.18.2.1 and 5B.4.2.1 Urban Form and Containment be amended to remove any reference to the use of notices of requirements to secure the proposed open spaces.

Mr Froger also advised that as the open spaces primarily provide for the mitigation of stormwater, amenity and visual effects, their use as ‘open spaces’ is heavily constrained by the functional requirements needed to ensure that mitigation is achieved and so would not provide much in the way of recreational benefits.

The potential complexities of these issues were fundamentally reduced by the applicant’s confirmation that its intention was that the open space areas would vest in the Council at no cost and that it would remove the references to notices of requirement in the methods relating to provision of open space.

26.3 Commissioners’ Findings

We were referred to a range of policy and strategy documents about reserves and open space and the funding methods used by the Council in respect of them. We do not think we need to traverse that material in light of the applicant’s confirmation that the intention is that the areas identified in the structure plan will vest at no cost to the Council.

In our view, the more important point is that the identified areas of the stream corridors (and the larger area around their confluence) should be protected as open space for a number of reasons, as identified in the applicant’s design principles quoted above. As the last principle makes clear, these areas can and will serve a range of purposes, all of them with at least some public benefit. In saying that we have no doubt about the benefit that the vesting of these areas for these purposes will provide to the applicant and its successors in developing and using the structure plan area, but we see no problem in that: rather, it is of the essence of sustainable resource management that both the private landowners and the public derive benefits from this process.

There remains the issue of the ongoing costs of holding such areas, including maintenance especially for stormwater management purposes. We anticipate that those operational costs will be budgeted for and funded by the Council in the usual way, that is, by general rates which will include rates income from the developed industrial land. But those matters are not within the scope of our task as Commissioners in relation to these plan changes.

We accordingly accept in part the submissions raising concerns about the cost of acquiring the areas of open space and, on the basis of the amendments made by the applicant, otherwise reject the submissions.

27. Noise

27.1 Matters Raised in Submissions

Many submitters raised concerns about the adverse noise effects of industrial activity in the structure plan area. The issues ranged across noise pollution from industrial land uses, increased traffic noise, the noise effects of construction and the detrimental effect that increased noise would have on quality of life, rural lifestyle, farm activities, the Ramarama primary school and the local character in general.

Some submitters considered that the proposed noise standards appeared reasonable but raised concerns about compliance with them.

27.2 Applicant’s Proposals

The Drury South Business Project – Acoustical Assessment of Environmental Effects report was prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics (MDA) and submitted in support of SGL’s plan changes. The report establishes noise rules for the DSSP area which are intended to provide for the range of proposed activities and ensure that the adverse effects on the nearby local area are appropriately controlled.

In summary, MDA’s modelling indicates that the overall noise effects from the structure plan area would be consistent with the existing ambient noise levels and would not exceed the night time levels recommended in Plan Change 13 to the Papakura Section of the District Plan.

The layout of the structure plan places the heavier Industrial 4 zone within a band of lighter Industrial 3 zoned land, providing an element of buffering for the nearest

residential dwellings. Rules proposed provide for there being no noise emissions which would exceed 45 dBA Leq at the nearest residential dwellings.

Road noise within the structure plan area would increase slightly (by 13 dBA) on the land between the Quarry and the Southern Motorway but that increase would be barely noticeable against existing traffic noise generation. No new dwellings are proposed within the structure plan area and all commercial buildings would require sufficient sound insulation to control noise from adjacent industrial activities. On that basis no reverse sensitivity effects are anticipated.

27.3 Council’s Assessment

The Council’s expert reviewer, Mr Styles, generally agreed with MDA’s assessment, although he considered that stricter standards may be desirable on Sundays, Public Holidays and (in some zones) Saturday afternoons. He also raised the question whether the proposed rules will adequately protect the amenity of the current private land owners within the structure plan area either indefinitely or via transitional provisions. The applicant disagreed with both of those recommendations, pointing to other industrial areas (including newly transitional areas such as Pokeno) in support of its position that such measures are inconsistent with a residential zoning and would hinder industrial development. Mr Styles also identified a number of other changes of a generally technical nature, with which the applicant agreed.

27.4 Commissioners’ Findings

As with the character and appearance of the landscape, the noise environment of the area will change if it is rezoned from rural to industrial. In terms of the nature of those effects, however, the existing environment (and mainly as a result of the presence of the Southern Motorway) we accept the expert assessment that the degree of change in terms of sound levels will not change much.

Against that background, we do not see any good reason to include rules seeking to restrict noise levels on weekends and public holidays or otherwise to protect a level of residential amenity in the industrial zones in the event that an existing resident remains there after industrial activity has commenced. Such rules would hinder the purpose of the plan changes without (in terms of the existing environment) providing any clear and reasonable benefit even to the residents it might be intended to protect.

The technical changes that were agreed between the experts have been included in the version of the plan changes attached to this decision.

28. Hazardous Facilities

A number of submitters raised concerns regarding risks associated with the storage, use and management of chemicals and hazardous goods and facilities areas that would potentially be used in the industrial activities occurring on land within the DSSP. We accept the advice that hazardous facilities and goods are to be expected within industrial areas, being necessary for many industrial processes and activities. We note that the storage and use of hazardous substances above certain thresholds requires approval by the Environmental Protection Authority under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act.

Hazardous facilities and goods within the proposed structure plan area would also be subject to the controls in Sections 6.11.7.2, 6.11.7.3, 6.15 and Schedule 6F of the Papakura section of the District plan and in Section 29.8 of the Franklin section of the District Plan. These provisions create an existing rules framework within the Papakura

and Franklin sections of the District plan in order to provide for the assessment of risks associated with dangerous goods and facilities and chemicals within industrial zones such as those proposed within the DSSP area. We understand that these rules are generally in line with those utilised in other district plans, including those in other sections of the Auckland District.

We observe that a district plan rule framework can not absolutely remove the risks associated with the use and storage of dangerous goods and chemicals. However, such a rules framework represents a robust assessment approach.

We conclude that it is beyond the scope of our role to review or replace this framework. We heard no evidence that suggested that these rules are inadequate in their operation elsewhere in Papkura or Franklin and so we have no basis on which to conclude that they will not be appropriate here.

We therefore conclude that the submissions concerning the risks associated with dangerous goods and chemicals be rejected.

29. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we accordingly decide in relation to the submissions and further submissions lodged on the plan changes:

- That the submissions in support of the plan changes, the further submissions in support of those submissions and the further submissions in opposition to submissions opposing the plan changes are accepted in part to the extent of this decision; and

- That the submissions in opposition to the plan changes, the further submissions in support of those submissions and the further submissions in opposition to submissions supporting the plan changes are rejected in part to the extent of this decision.

We repeat our decision approving the plan changes in respect of the Drury South Structure Plan as set out in the summary at section 1.

Dated at Auckland this 29th day of August 2013

______David Kirkpatrick Chairperson For and on behalf of all commissioners

DRURY SOUTH STRUCTURE PLAN HEARING – SCHEDULE OF APPEARANCES

No. NAME TOPIC NOTES 1 NOLAN, Derek Legal Submissions (supported Tab 1 Russell McVeagh, by Christina Sheard, Sarah Counsel, SGL Glenn) 2 FRANKLIN, Mark Corporate Tab 2 Chief Executive, SGL 3 STILLWELL, Richard Project Management Tab 4 Awatere Ltd 4 OSBORNE, Greg Planning Tab 3 Osborne Hay 5 AKEHURST, Greg Economics Tab 5 Market Economics 6 HAYWARD, David Economics Peer Review Tab 6 The University of Auckland 7 AUTON, Leigh Economics/Land Supply Tab 7 Auton & Associates 8 De LAMBERT, Rachel Landscape/Visual Tab 11 Boffa Miskell 9 BULL, Alan Utilities Provision Tab 15 Beca 10 ROBINSON, Curt Noise Tab 25 Marshall Day 11 MURRAY, Andrew Traffic Tab 20 Beca 12 MACDONALD, Gary Wastewater/Water Supply Tab 14 Beca 13 NEEDHAM Camilla, Air Quality Tab 19 Beca 14 PRIESTLEY, Stephen Stormwater/Flooding/Earthworks Tab 22 Beca 15 SEYB, Roger Stormwater/Flooding/Peer Tab 23 PDP Review 16 RIDLEY, Graeme Earthworks/Sediment Control Tab 24 Ridley Dunphy 17 SIDES, Edward Ecology/Streams Tab 30 Boffa Miskell 18 LEWIS, Mark, Ecology/Rehabilitation Tab 31 Boffa Miskell 19 DE LUCA, Sharon Ecology/Marine Tab 32 Boffa Miskell 20 SLAVEN, David Ecology/Terrestrial Tab 29 Boffa Miskell 21 LINZEY, Amelia Social Effects Tab 26 beca 22 FOSTER, Russell Archaeology Tab 28 Russell Foster & Associates 23 BORLASE, Steve Consultation Tab 27 Projenz 24 OSBORNE, Greg Planning Tab 33 Osborne Hay 25 O”CONNOR, Rob Legal Submissions for Auckland APPROVE subject to Simpson Grierson Council reduction in extent of Industrial AQMA (as per Ms Jones recommendation)

No. NAME TOPIC NOTES 26 FISHER, Rob Legal Submissions for APPROVE subject to Counsel Watercare Services acceptance of amendments Watercare Services agreed between Stevenson and Watercare. 26 GOTELLI, Illze, Planning Provisions for Water SATISFIED re water supply (a) Environmental Planning Supply and Wastewater and wastewater service Manager Services matters provided plan Watercare Services changes are made 26 JAGGARD, Philip, Technical Aspects re Provision COMFORTABLE feasible (b) Wastewater Planning of Water Supply and options available to meet Manager, Wastewater Services demand for water supply and Watercare Services wastewater services 27 GARDNER, Richard, Reverse Sensitivity Issues SUPPORT for Plan Changes Federated Farmers 28 PHILLIPS, Clive Hobby Farmer (7ha property SUPPORT for Plan Changes Director, J. K. Phillips Ltd within Plan Change Zone) 29 LEYS, Mark Transport Issues OPPOSE Runciman Road 30 HEAPHY, Trevor and Views; Noise; Flood Plain OPPOSE Daniel Macwhinney Drive 31 WHITE, Ana Traffic; Air Quality; Water DECLINE, (but if granted, 11 Waihoehoe Road Supply; Noise; Rates Conditions suggested) 32 VETTORETTI, Paula Flooding; Fault Line; Green Belt; OPPOSE Runciman Road Air Pollution 33 BEST, Eric and Glenys Water Pollution; Animal and OPPOSE Brookfield Road Human Drinking Water; Aquatic and Recreational Activities; Flooding; Global Warming; Health (from air and water pollution) 34 DICKENSON, Steve Noise; Traffic OPPOSE link road (relocate to Fitzgerald Road Flanagan Farm) 35 TRAVERS, Richard and Flooding; Fault Line OPPOSE (verbal Jennifer presentation) Pitt Road 36 REDGWELL, Ellinor Visual; Noise; Drinking Water OPPOSE Davies Road Pollution; Flooding; Traffic Safety; Light Pollution 37 PALMER, Stuart Flood Plain; Fault Line OPPOSE Bremner Road 38 CORLETT, Nick Trees OPPOSE (verbal Old Great South Road presentation) 39 PALMER, Elizabeth Community Impacts; Rates; OPPOSE Drury Community Traffic; Flooding; Visual; Committee Lighting; Rainwater; Noise Bremner Road 40 FABRIS, Stephen and Dale Road/Maxted Road CONCERN for survival of Belinda Covenanted Bush Block trees due to downcatchment Dale Road works 41 BATISTICH, Marija Legal Submissions – Main PROTECTION of Spine Road Bell Gully concern – access to properties as an arterial route Counsel, Auckland bordering Spine Road Transport 42 SEGEDIN, Tim Direct access to individual lots PROHIBIT full access off Traffic Operations team off Spine Road will compromise Spine Road Leader South, Auckland its function as an arterial route Transport 43 Mac ARTHUR, Scott Management of Access onto PREVENT access onto Spine Senior Transport Planner, Spine Road Road where other alternatives

No. NAME TOPIC NOTES Auckland Transport exist 44 SMALL, Jane Legal Submissions, NZ SUPPORT, subject to Counsel, NZTA Transport Authority provision of triggers for NZTA involvement in subdivision and/or development consents 45 HILLS, Leo NZTA approach re Need for and SUPPORT subject to replace Associate, TGD Wording of Traffic related “stages” by “projects” [Table 4] for NZTA Triggers 46 BURN, Owen NZTA approach re Amendments PREFERS criteria rather than Associate, Green Group to subdivision assessment rules based regime (unless Ltd for NZTA criteria rules amended) 47 BRABANT, Jeremy Legal Submissions re Amenity, ACCEPT Plan Changes wrt Counsel, Drury Traffic, Stormwater/Flooding, Strategic Policy matters Ramarama Protection Mitigation Planting, Commercial STRENGTHEN Plan Change Society Services, Noise, Air Quality Rules via Amendments re affects of activities 48 EDWARDS, Wes Transport Related Effects ROAD CLOSURES to be Wes Edwards Consulting implemented earlier For DRPS RESTRICTIONS should be imposed on trucks using Davies Road PARKING DISCOUNT rules recommended to be deleted 49 SHAVER, Earl Stormwater Quantity and Quality SUPPORT overall manner in Stormwater Management (outdated approach being which issues addressed Consultant applied) DO NOT agree necessarily For DRPS with Kettle recommendations RECOMMEND onsite stormwater treatment for each site OPPOSE, but if approved, conditions are recommended 50 HOOK, James Unresolved Matters – effects of CAN ADOPT plan changes Director, Envivo Ltd flood plain modifications; effects subject to amendments For DRPS on local amenity (traffic); buffer areas and landscaping; extent of commercial services precinct; motorway edge precinct; open space areas. 51 MATHIAS, Peter Issues related to complexity; OPPOSE (DECLINE Chairperson, Drury stress; noise; flooding; wetlands; APPLICATION) Ramarama Protection pollution (chemical spills); Society Davies Road traffic management; Willow Road closure; Willow Road rideg retention; Spine Road closeness to Ramarama School; buffer distances to sensitive rural activities; retention of trees; light pollution; mitigation assurances; consent fatigue; earthquake; liquefaction; flooding; lack of data; sea level rise; fill soil quality; reverse sensitivity; 52 THORNTON, Linda Alternative industrial land DECLINE PROPOSAL Ararimu Road available; water issues include stormwater, wastewater flooding; building on fill; air pollution; traffic; trees 53 GEORGE, Leanne Social Impact; Drinking water; OPPOSE Boutique Cattery, air pollution; road movements Ramarama Road and noise; retention of Willow

No. NAME TOPIC NOTES Road hill (bund); drop in property values; reverse sensitivity; 54 WATERS, Brendon High values associated with land OPPOSE Brookfield Road and Hingaia stream; lack of meaningful buffers; scepticism over implementation/enforcing controls aimed at addressing adverse effects. 55 CALLAGHAN, Thomas Engineering can deal with SUPPORT Quarry Road flooding. 56 ADAMS, Derrick HEB part of Drury community for SUPPORT along with CE, HEB Construction Ltd 30 plus years; project will amendments proposed by Drury provide jobs for local people. Stevenson’s experts. 57 GOLDSMITH, Peter Plan Change will allow for jobs SUPPORT Chairman Board of for graduating school pupils. Trustees and Peter HERON, School Principal Papakura High School 58 MacPHERSON, Louise Issue of Undergrounding SUPPORT subject to Counsel for Counties conditions Power 58 MAGEE, Craig Undergrounding 110kV SUPPORT – provided that no (a) Planning Manager, transmission lines alterations are made to District Counties Power plan provisions which would result in a requirement for 110kV lines to be undergrounded 58 HOSKINS, Maurice Overhead 110kV lines SUPPORT subject to retaining (b) Planning Engineer, appropriate in providing flexible maximum flexibility for supply Counties Power reticulation in industrial of industrial area subdivisions 59 HOLMES, Alan More work required to address CONCERNS re scale, inability Peach Hill Road environmental and community to mitigate effects onsite, and concerns; is the DSSP the most other sites (locations) are appropriate location for industrial available for industrial areas. land; location of water supply reservoir; concern re option of wastewater effluent to Waikato River; no development before water and wastewater services provided; Drury fault and liquefaction; traffic implications for undertaking earthworks; tree planting in engineered fill; environmental compensation for stream loss to be achieved within DSSP area (not offsite). 60 HUTCHINGS, John Suitability of area; traffic on CONCERN re governance Fitzgerald Road Fitzgerald road; Tank rainwater (Verbal Presentation) supplies 61 JEFFRIES, Terence Flooding (commercial precinct RURAL ZONING Fitzgerald Road within flood hazard area); Noise PREFERRED (if Plan (spine road to locate close to Changes approved then motorway) design issues need to be addressed) 62 KELLY, Steve Views; noise; night sky; loss of LEAVE DRURY ALONE (we Drury Hills Road property values; intermittent outside quarry area were here stream values; negative impacts first) (noise and pollution) from traffic; costs of infrastructure to be borne by rates.

No. NAME TOPIC NOTES 63 LEDINGTON, Susan Flooding; Impact of stream OPPOSE Ramarama/Ararimu Road diversions on fauna; loss of Junction agricultural land; loss of lifestyle sites; alternative brownfields areas available for industry; pollution of rainwater supplies and groundwaters; remoteness of site for emergency services wrt large industrial accidents. 64 MOOAR, Joanne NPSET Requires Transpower’s SUPPORT in terms of agreed Team Leader Regulatory network within the DSSP Area to provisions between Environment, Transpower be recognised in the District Transpower and Stevenson Plan 65 McADAMS, Stephen Reasons for restricting activities SUPPORT in terms of agreed Senior Transmission Lines under and near transmission provisions between Engineer, Transpower lines in the DSSP Are Transpower and Stevenson 66 HORNE, Chris Confirming agreed provisions AGREED – Provisions of Director, Incite between Transpower and agreement between Stevenson Transpower and Stevenson will give effect to Policy 10 of the NPSET 67 GEORGE, Mike Leave Willow Road hill as a OPPOSE – foolish to the Ramarama Road buffer; close Ramarama Road at make changes to the the start of the project; require waterways in the flood plain. Stevenson to return to truck [Snelder Report 1991 “Hingaia operation hours of 6am to 10pm. Stream Comprehensive Flood Flooding; siting on flood plain. Management Study” tabled.] 68 FOSTER, Michele Fault line; traffic; truck OPPOSE – keep rural zoning. Peach Hill, Ramarama movements; reverse sensitivity; air quality (dust monitoring); buffer distances; visual impact; consultation; rates area; ICMP to be considered within DSSP plan changes; detention dams and ponds south of Ararimu Road, Ramarama; impact on Davies Road; inappropriate location for Group 1 industry; no shortage of industrial/business zoned land elsewhere; inadequate data wrt growth patterns for Auckland; 69 BROWN, William Concerns re sacred sites, land CONCERN that Council and Ngati Te Ata Waiohua leases and water ways (that are Stevenson have not partnered Papakura Kaitiaki plus Te Wahi Tapu) with Māori re the DSSP Ara Rangatu o te iwi o ADVOCATE a policy for Ngati Te Ata Waiohua Protection and Damage Funding for Kaitiaki resourcing 70 HUTCHINGS, Carly Concern re concrete jungle of OPPOSE (verbal Fitzgerald Road industrial area providing a poor presentation) first impression for travellers entering Auckland from the south. Use existing industrial zoned land. 71 TRAVERS, Joanne (via Highly stressful impact of 24 OPPOSE Hayden) hour per day truck movements Ramarama Road Ramarama Road onto Ararimu Road. Unable to sell property since 2010. Issues re flood plain; fault line; plenty of industrial land elsewhere; Rural lifestyle dream shattered. 72 NAYLOR, Geoff Pollution; flooding (extensive CONCERN that if DSSP

No. NAME TOPIC NOTES Ramarama Road photo record); infilling of flood approved developer to be plain for industrial sites. Issues bound by agreements re re boundary with DSSP area and accountability to remedy earthworks. Hold rainfall records problems on surrounding from onproperty rain gauge. properties. 73 FLANAGAN, Annette Flooding; infilling flood plain; OPPOSE – too many issues Fitzgerald Road class of industry and polluting impacting on community, with potential; reverse sensitivity; mitigation measures being water and air quality. unsatisfactory. [Photos of lower normal flow Hingaia Stream as well as flood water level rising.] 74 GRAHAM, Don Risk of city having to pick up CONCERN Maxted Road costs of services; area outside the MUL; applicant to fully fund upgrade of major road interchanges; reduce area of DSSP. 75 De VISSER, Nick and Vehicle and industrial emissions OPPOSE – project will destroy HISLOP, Teresa from link road traffic at our our amenity values. 323 Contracting, eastern boundary; no buffer Fitzgerald Road from northern stream diversion; riparian planting shades our edible salad production area; earthworks dust will impact on salad crops; flooding will impact property; water supply for crops affected. 76 WOODYATT, Nicholas Mitigation measures to protect OPPOSE – 323 contracting Franko Solutions salad crops of 323 Contracting cannot continue business if are inadequate. Clean air, clean DSSP were to be approved. water, good light levels all likely highly altered. 77 LEDINGTON, Michelle Flooding (project not suitable for DECLINE – zoning to remain Helvetia Road, Pukekohe flood plain area); economics rural. (alternative industrial sites available); pollution and contaminates (Ramarama basin a trap for pollutants); tornado risk; fault line; trees need protection; road layout incompatible with horse riding; stormwater and wastewater management. 78 FOSTER, Andrea Impact on Ramarama school; DECLINE – zoning to remain Peach Hill Road consultation inadequate; stress rural. levels on community; green spaces unlikely to attract recreational users; 79 FOSTER, Noel Visual impact and historical DECLINE – zoning to remain Peach Hill Road significance; air quality; change rural. in rural character; flooding; departure from existing planning rules 80 KOGOJ, Desmond Stormwater management and OPPOSE – my property Fitzgerald Road flood risk; domestic water should not be a permanent quality; transport, footpaths and buffer to Stevenson industrial cycleways; traffic noise. area. [Tabled Evidence] 81 MACE, Neville Other industrial land available; DECLINE Pitt Road groundwater protection; [Tabled Evidence] landscape mitigation.

No. NAME TOPIC NOTES 82 MACE, Val Flooding; heavy industry not DECLINE Pitt Road suited to current lifestyle area; [Tabled Evidence] loss of green belt; traffic; 83 MANUKAU, Tim Ecological effects; water DECLINE as notified Environment Manager, infrastructure. [Tabled Evidence] WaikatoTainui Te Kauhanganui Ltd 84 RIGBY, Karen Visual, character and amenity; DECLINE Waihoehoe Road transportation; social impacts( [Tabled Evidence] night light); heritage; trees; stormwater management; flood risk; fault lines; general pollution (air, noise, light and traffic). 85 CAIRNCROSS, Craig Report on Submissions and RECOMMENDATIONS for Principal Planner, Further Submissions presented consideration by Hearing Planning SouthPapakura to the Hearing Panel during the Panel and Franklin, Auckland Hearing Council Appendices: WREN, David 1 – Aurecon Response to Planning Consultant Parking Issues 2 – Response Comments of Dr DB Kettle, Dr J Neale, and Dr Walker (for Auckland Council) 86 NOLAN, Derek/SHEARD, Reply Legal Submissions on Christine behalf of Stevenson Group Ltd Counsel for Stevenson Group 87 AKEHURST, Greg Economics – Reply Evidence [Tab 5 Primary Evidence] Market Economics [Response to Mr Hook’s Evidence] 88 MURRAY, Andrew Traffic – Reply Evidence [Tab 20 Primary Evidence] Beca • Auckland Transport • Mr Hook • Mr Dickenson 89 PRIESTLEY, Stephen Stormwater/Flooding/Earthworks [Tab 22 Primary Evidence] Beca – Reply Evidence • Issues Raised by Submitters • Mr Shaver, Drury and Ramarama Protection Society • Plan Change Provisions Related to Flooding 90 OSBORNE, Greg Planning – Reply Evidence [Tabs 3 and 33 Primary Osborne Hay • Extent of Industrial Zoning Evidence] • Removal of Public Open Space References • Location of Childcare Centres and Health Professional Rooms • Buffer Reserve Planting • 377 Fitzgerald Road • Suggested Wording on Timing of Water/Wastewater Services vs Subdivision Revised/Additional Documents (Tabled 10 July 2013): • Auckland ALWP (p.97) – Global Air Quality Rules • Papakura District Plan – Appendix 5B.4.A: Drury South Structure Plan Area – Subdivision Design Assessment Criteria [Revisions, Tab 6] • Franklin District Plan – Appendix 54.18B: Drury South Structure Plan Area – Subdivision Design Assessment Criteria [Revisions, Tab 11]