New Zealand Transport Agency & New Zealand Railways Corporation

New Zealand Transport Agency & New Zealand Railways Corporation / KiwiRail Holdings Limited

Peka Peka to North Otaki Expressway Project

Designation and Resource Consents

Section 42A Report

First Edition1

September 2013

1 First Edition Report has been prepared prior to the receipt of the NZTA / KiwiRail rebuttal evidence and the completion of witness conferencing. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL ...... 1 1.2 PROJECT OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE AND THE MINISTER’S DIRECTION...... 2 1.3 THE APPLICATIONS ...... 2 1.4 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ...... 3 2. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 5

2.1 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT ...... 6 2.2 LIGHTING EFFECTS ...... 10 2.3 NOISE AND VIBRATION ...... 11 2.4 AIR QUALITY EFFECTS ...... 15 2.5 EFFECTS ON ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE ...... 17 2.6 EFFECTS ON TANGATA WHENUA VALUES ...... 19 2.7 EFFECTS ON NETWORK UTILITIES ...... 21 2.8 EFFECTS ON URBAN FORM AND FUNCTION ...... 22 2.9 LANDSCAPE, VISUAL AND NATURAL CHARACTER VALUES ...... 24 2.10 ECONOMIC EFFECTS ...... 26 2.11 SOCIAL EFFECTS ...... 28 2.12 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY ...... 30 2.13 EFFECTS ON FRESHWATER ECOLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...... 34 2.14 STORMWATER AND HYDROLOGY EFFECTS ...... 37 2.15 GROUNDWATER EFFECTS ...... 42 2.16 GROUND SETTLEMENT (GEOTECHNICAL) EFFECTS ...... 44 2.17 EFFECTS OF LAND AND GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION ...... 45 3. ASSESSMENT OF CONDITIONS ...... 46

3.1 CONDITIONS REVIEW ...... 46 4. STATUTORY EVALUATION ...... 49

4.1 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991...... 49 4.2 CONSENTS SOUGHT AND ACTIVITY STATUS ...... 50 4.3 RELEVANT STATUTORY DOCUMENTS ...... 51 4.4 RELEVANT OTHER MATTERS ...... 73 4.5 ALTERNATIVES ...... 74 4.6 OBJECTIVES OF THE REQUIRING AUTHORITY ...... 75 4.7 SECTIONS 105 & 107 ...... 76 4.8 PART 2 ...... 77

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Summary of Project Experience

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL

1.1.1 The New Zealand Transport Agency (“NZTA”), in conjunction with the New Zealand Railways Corporation / KiwiRail Holdings Limited (“KiwiRail”), has lodged Notices of Requirement (“NoR”) and resource consent applications to enable the construction, operation and maintenance of an expressway between Peka Peka and North Otaki (the “Project” or the “Expressway”) on the Kapiti Coast under the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”).

1.1.2 The Project is described in detail in the Assessment of Environment Effects (“AEE”) prepared by the NZTA / KiwiRail and dated 18 March 2013. The main components of the Project are summarised as follows:

 A 13 km Expressway with four lanes (two in each direction) and a continuous median separation, totalling approximately 26 m in width and designed to the NZTA’s expressway standards;

 A new section of arterial road near Mary Crest that is approximately 10.6 m wide;

 The realignment of a section of the North Island Main Trunk Railway (“NIMT”) through Otaki in order to accommodate the Expressway; and

 Ten bridge structures for the purpose of crossing the Otaki River, Waitohu Stream, NIMT, and the maintenance of local road connections over the Expressway.

1.1.3 The Project forms part of the Wellington Northern Corridor (Levin to Wellington Airport), which is one of seven roads identified by the NZTA as Roads of National Significance (“RoNS”). The NZTA / KiwiRail lodged the NoR and resource consent applications with the Environmental Protection Authority (“EPA”) on 18 March 2013.

1.2 PROJECT OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE AND THE MINISTER’S DIRECTION

1.2.1 On 3 April 2013 the Minister for the Environment confirmed that the NoR and resource consent applications lodged by the NZTA / KiwiRail form part of a proposal of national significance. As such, the Minister directed that the NoR and resource consent applications be referred to a Board of Inquiry (“Board”) for determination.

1.3 THE APPLICATIONS

1.3.1 To provide for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Project the NZTA has filed a NoR and sought 49 resource consents. The NoR is located within the jurisdiction of the Kapiti Coast District Council (“KCDC”). The resource consent applications relate to works controlled by the various statutory planning documents administered by the Greater Wellington Regional Council (“GWRC”). The resource consent applications are for a variety of land use consents, discharge and water permits.

1.3.2 In addition, KiwiRail has filed a NoR for the realignment of a section of the NIMT through Otaki. This NoR is also located within the jurisdiction of the KCDC. No resource consents are being sought by KiwiRail as part of this Project.

1.3.3 In our opinion, the information provided by the NZTA / KiwiRail in the AEE is sufficiently detailed to understand the background to, and the need for, the Expressway. Further detail is also provided in the evidence that has been submitted on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail2.

1.3.4 The evidence of Mr James on behalf of the NZTA explains the need for, and objectives of, the Project3. Mr James also sets out the historical planning that has occurred with respect to the Project. In this regard, planning for the Project has spanned a period of at least 50 years. It is evident that since the 1950’s there has been a plan for a proposed road of some description (or expansion) along the general alignment of the Expressway.

2 Evidence of R James (12 July 2013) and S Blackmore (12 July 2013). 3 Evidence of R James (12 July 2013) – Paragraphs 56 to 58.

1.3.5 The evidence of Ms Butler on behalf of KiwiRail4 advises that part of the operational NIMT (1.2km) needs to be realigned to accommodate the Project through the town of Otaki.

1.3.6 The Wellington Northern Corridor (Wellington to Levin) was announced by the Government as being a RoNS in 2009. Mr James states in his evidence that community consultation on this Project commenced in 2009 in conjunction with the consultation efforts related to the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway5.

1.3.7 The NZTA stated its preference for a central route that follows the existing alignment of State Highway 1 in December 2009 (subject to further design refinements).

1.3.8 We understand that the need for the Project stems from the significant issues currently faced by State Highway 1 through the Kapiti Coast District. The evidence of Mr James notes6 that the Project will ameliorate issues related to safety, congestion / travel times, route security, amenity and social effects, and a growing population. Mr James also identifies7 the NZTA’s key objectives for the Project - which include enhancing economic growth, enhancing efficiency and journey time reliability, and ensuring the environmental impacts of the Project are suitably avoided, remedied or mitigated through route design and the conditions attached to any designation or resource consents issued. We return to these objectives later in this report.

1.4 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

1.4.1 This report has been prepared in accordance with section 42A of the RMA. Section 42A(1) provides for a council officer or consultant to prepare a report on relevant information provided by the applicant or any person who made a submission on any matter described in section 39(1), and allows the decision- maker to consider the report at the hearing. In addition, section 41(4) of the RMA allows the decision-maker to request and receive, from any person who makes a report under section 42A, "any information or advice that is relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application".

4 Evidence of P Butler (12 July 2013). 5 Evidence of R James (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 55. 6 Evidence of R James (12 July 2013) – Paragraphs 56 and 57. 7 Evidence of R James (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 58.

1.4.2 This report has been prepared on the basis of information available prior to the hearing. We have been directed that this report must address the following8:

 Consider the application documents, submissions, section 149G reports, and the evidence by the NZTA / KiwiRail and submitters;

 Include an assessment against the relevant statutory planning documents and an assessment of the actual and potential environmental effects of the Project;

 Comment on the proposed draft conditions provided by the NZTA / KiwiRail; and

 Not provide any recommendations on the outcome of the NoR and resource consent applications sought by the NZTA / KiwiRail.

1.4.3 A site visit of the proposed alignment of the Expressway was undertaken on 29 August 2013.

1.4.4 It should be noted that this report will be updated once the rebuttal evidence on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail has been received9 and witness conferencing has been concluded (which is on-going at the time of drafting this report). This being the case any opinions expressed in this report should be viewed as preliminary. A brief update report (Second Edition) will be made available prior to the hearing and / or as directed by the Board.

1.4.5 It should also be noted that this report comprises only one of a number of matters that the Board will need consider in reaching its decision on the Project. Other relevant matters include the AEE and technical reports, the submissions received on the Project, relevant provisions of the RMA and the statutory planning documents, and any evidence provided by the NZTA / KiwiRail and submitter’s at the hearing. Nothing in this report should be interpreted as comprising advice that is in some way binding on the Board. It should be clearly noted that the Board is charged with considering the NoR’s and resource consent applications in accordance with the provisions of section 149P(2) and (4) of the RMA. The Board will come to its own decision having considered all of the relevant matters.

7 Letter from EPA to John Kyle, Mitchell Partnerships Ltd (8 July 2013). 9 Due 6 September 2013.

Report Authors 1.4.6 This report has been prepared by Mr John Kyle and Mr Richard Turner of Mitchell Partnerships Limited.

1.4.7 John Kyle holds an honours degree in Regional Planning from Massey University obtained in 1987. He has been engaged in the field of town and country planning and resource management for more than 25 years. His experience includes a mix of local authority and consultancy resource management work. Since 1994, this experience has retained a particular emphasis on providing consultancy advice with respect to regional and district plans, designations, resource consents and environmental management and environmental impact assessments. This includes extensive experience with large-scale projects involving inputs from a multidisciplinary team, in all parts of New Zealand.

1.4.8 Richard Turner holds an honours degree in Planning from the University of Auckland obtained in 2000. Richard is a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute and has been engaged in the field of resource management planning for corporates and consultancies for the past 13 years. He has extensive experience in the preparation of regional and district planning documents under the framework of the RMA, and the preparation of environmental impact assessments for large-scale infrastructure projects.

1.4.9 A summary of project experience of both John Kyle and Richard Turner is attached to this report as Appendix A.

1.4.10 In preparing this report the authors have read, and agree to comply with, the Environment Court’s Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Practice Note 2011. The issues addressed in this report are within the authors’ respective areas of expertise and they have not omitted to consider material facts that are known that might alter or detract from the opinion expressed in this report.

2. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

2.0.1 In this section of our report we summarise and discuss the key environmental effects associated with the Project. The discussion follows from our review of the AEE, the Key Issues Reports prepared by the KCDC and GWRC, the

submissions received, and the evidence provided by the NZTA / KiwiRail and submitters.

2.1 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT

2.1.1 The key traffic and transportation effects of the Project are:

 Potential traffic effects on local communities during the construction of the Project;

 The potential effects of the Expressway on travel demand and travel times;

 The potential effects of the Expressway on local road traffic connectivity and property access;

 The potential effects of the Expressway on other transport modes; and

 Potential road safety effects.

Construction Traffic Effects 2.1.2 The construction of the Expressway is expected to be undertaken over a three and a half to four year period (although it may also occur in stages). As such, its construction has the potential to cause adverse effects on users of the existing road network10.

2.1.3 The evidence of Mr Dunlop on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail describes the traffic control measures proposed for the construction of the Project and the mitigation required11. These matters are intended to be set out in a Construction Traffic Management Plan (“CTMP”). The evidence of Mr Dunlop notes that the potential effects of the proposed traffic control activities include inconvenience to road users, pedestrians and cyclists, reduced safety, lack of room for breakdowns, increased congestion, and disruption to bus routes12.

2.1.4 Mr Dunlop considers that potential adverse effects on road users arising from the construction of the Project will mostly be limited to the discrete construction sites where the Expressway connects to, or crosses, the existing road network13. The majority of these construction sites are expected to have similar traffic effects

10 Evidence of D Dunlop (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 155. 11 Evidence of D Dunlop (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 156. 12 Evidence of D Dunlop (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 158. 13 Evidence of D Dunlop (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 162.

because the nature of the construction activities is similar at each site. Mr Dunlop states14 that mitigation measures to address these effects will include letter drops in advance of the works, warning and advisory signage during the closure of cycling routes and footpaths, additional pedestrian crossings and refuges, providing convenient pedestrian detour routes, and providing temporary access to properties within the construction corridor. These measures are documented in the draft CTMP prepared by the NZTA / KiwiRail.

2.1.5 We have also considered the evidence of Mr Wignall15 on behalf of the KCDC with respect to construction traffic and the assessment of potential adverse effects. His evidence refers to a number of uncertainties in the assessment of traffic effects by Mr Dunlop, including the perceived difficulty in determining construction traffic related impacts prior to the appointment of a contractor16. He also raises concerns regarding the certification role of the KCDC in relation to the CTMP. We return to this matter later in this report.

2.1.6 The conferencing statement by the traffic and transportation experts17 acknowledges that it was agreed by Mr Wignall and Mr Dunlop that the traffic generation estimates during construction will need to be confirmed via the development of the CTMP and the Site Specific Traffic Management Plans.

Operational Traffic Effects 2.1.7 The main operational traffic effects identified in the AEE, submissions, and evidence relate to accessibility and connectivity of the road network, property access, increased traffic flows and congestion, impacts on the local road network, and the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.

2.1.8 The evidence of Mr Dunlop on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail describes the transport assessment methodology he has utilised and considers how the Expressway will meet the NZTA’s key objectives for the Project18. In particular, he concludes that the Expressway will reduce congestion, ensure greater travel time reliability, significantly improve safety, improve the resilience of the transport

14 Evidence of D Dunlop (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 165. 15 Evidence of D Wignall (8 August 2013). 16 Evidence of D Wignall (8 August 2013) – Paragraph 12. 17 Joint Statement of Traffic and Transportation Experts (20 August 2013). 18 Evidence of D Dunlop (12 July 2013) – Paragraphs 200 to 202.

network, and allow the existing State Highway 1 to service the needs of local residents, businesses, and visitors.

2.1.9 Mr Dunlop also considers that the Project will have a generally positive effect on public transport users as access to the existing park and ride facilities at the Otaki Railway Station and / or the Waikanae Railway Station will be improved for local residents.

2.1.10 The Expressway will also have minimal effects on school bus routes according to the evidence of Mr Dunlop19. In this regard, most of the existing local road connections to the existing State Highway 1 will be maintained. The connection at Old Hautere Road will, however, be closed and redirected to Otaki Gorge Road. Mr Dunlop notes that this will result in a slightly longer travel length for the school bus. That said, access to, and from, the existing State Highway 1 will be improved and become much safer as a result of the lower traffic volumes.

2.1.11 With respect to road safety effects, Mr Dunlop comments20 that the existing State Highway 1 has a poor safety record and a high risk rating. The Expressway will improve the ‘KiwiRAP’ risk rating to a four21. In this regard, it is considered that the Project will significantly reduce crash risk as it will divert a significant volume of traffic from the existing State Highway 1 route onto the Expressway – which will have improved shoulder provisions, a central median barrier, and grade- separated intersections. In addition, the Expressway will separate 'local' and 'through' traffic in the urban area of Otaki and reduce congestion (and associated driver frustration).

2.1.12 In terms of potential effects on property access, Mr Dunlop notes22 that all locations where property access will be severed or otherwise directly affected have been identified by the NZTA. The evidence of Mr Coulman23 notes that these access issues have been addressed or will be addressed so that appropriate access is provided to properties. Mr Dunlop also notes that provision of access may in some circumstances be provided in the form of new access roads. Whilst some properties will experience increased travel distances due to

19 Evidence of D Dunlop (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 136. 20 Evidence of D Dunlop (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 130. 21 Five being the lowest risk road. 22 Evidence of D Dunlop (12 July 2013) – Paragraphs 141 to 148. 23 Evidence of T Coulman (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 92.

access changes, these are off-set by improved travel times and safety for movements for those properties, especially those wishing to turn right onto the existing State Highway 1.

2.1.13 In response to those submissions seeking cycleways, walkways and bridleways as part of the Project (including the submission of the KCDC24), Mr Dunlop comments that there is low demand for such facilities and that the Project will make it safer and more attractive for users of the existing State Highway 1 corridor - thus not affecting north-south trips by cyclists or pedestrians. We note that the evidence of Mr Schofield on behalf of the KCDC25 comments that discussions between the NZTA and the KCDC are on-going with respect to the provision for cycleway access.

2.1.14 The evidence of Mr Kelly26 on behalf of Richard and Sarah Caughley also discusses potential effects on property access. Mr Kelly notes that a roundabout is proposed on / near the Caughley’s property at 122 State Highway 1, Otaki in order to provide access for the GWRC to the riverbank for maintenance and flood protection works. Mr Kelly expresses concern27 that no consideration has been given by the NZTA or the GWRC to genuine alternative access options to the riverbank or the appropriate landscaping treatment adjacent to the proposed access road. We note, however, that the Joint Statement of Traffic and Transportation Experts (20 August 2013) refers to agreement being reached over the development of a final solution for river maintenance / access along the south bank of the Otaki River. No detail is provided in the conferencing statement on what the implications of this agreement are for the Caughley’s property. This may need to be canvased via the rebuttal evidence or during the hearing itself.

2.1.15 The evidence of Mr Wignall on behalf of the KCDC supports a number of components of the Project, including the replacement of Rahui Road and School Road, as well as the provision for current and future rail services28. However, his evidence also identifies concerns with respect to safety aspects associated with the southbound approach to Otaki, the need to ensure the integration of walking / cycling facilities, and safety problems with respect to the current Mary Crest road

24 Submission 102892. 25 Evidence of R Schofield (9 August 2013) – Paragraph 39. 26 Evidence of T Kelly (9 August 2013). 27 Evidence of T Kelly (9 August 2013) – Paragraph 20. 28 Evidence of D Wignall (8 August 2013) – Paragraph 10.

/ rail crossing. Many of these issues appear to have been resolved via the witness conferencing. It has been agreed in the conferencing statement that these issues will be addressed during the detailed design phase29.

2.1.16 If the Board is ultimately minded to confirm the NOR’s and grant the resource consent applications that have been sought, the conditions will need to clearly set out those requirements that are necessarily addressed within the traffic- related management plans. We return to the matter of conditions later in this report.

2.2 LIGHTING EFFECTS

2.2.1 Some submitters have raised concerns about the potential effects of additional lighting from the Expressway and its impact on amenity values30.

2.2.2 The potential for the lighting of construction areas is discussed in Section 8 of the AEE and in the evidence of Mr Holmes on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail31. In particular, lighting may be required at night when construction works are necessary during off-peak traffic hours (e.g. during the construction of bridge spans). Mr Holmes notes that portable generator-driven lighting towers will be utilised and that these will be positioned to avoid the negative effects of light spill into adjacent properties and onto local roads.

2.2.3 The proposed designation conditions attached to the evidence of Ms Beals32 do not appear to align with the evidence of Mr Holmes. In particular, the proposed conditions only refer to the management of light spill into residential properties and contain no reference to the management of light spill onto local roads.

2.2.4 With respect to operational lighting effects, the evidence of Mr Coulman for the NZTA / KiwiRail acknowledges33 that concerns were raised during the consultation phase over the potential impact of light spill in rural areas and that the KCDC and Otaki Community Board have a desire for an innovative design solution. Mr Coulman states34 that the only sections of the Expressway that will

29 Although it is noted that Mr Wignall remains concerned about the certification role of the KCDC. 30 Summary of Submissions (June 2013). 31 Evidence of D Holmes (12 July 2013). 32 Evidence of R Beals (12 July 2013). 33 Annexure B of evidence of T Coulman (12 July 2013). 34 Evidence of T Coulman (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 10(g).

be lit are the interchanges and ramps, along with the reinstatement of any existing local street lighting.

2.2.5 Conditions relating to lighting have been discussed in the planners’ witness conferencing session. Ms Beals intends to produce a revised set of conditions as part of her rebuttal evidence, which amongst other things will address this issue.

2.3 NOISE AND VIBRATION

2.3.1 The potential noise and vibration effects of the Project can be summarised as follows:

 Noise and vibration effects during the construction of the Project;

 Operational road noise and vibration effects from the Expressway; and

 Operational rail noise and vibration effects from the NIMT.

Construction Noise Effects 2.3.2 Dr Chiles in his evidence for the NZTA / KiwiRail35 sets out his assessment of construction noise for the Project. In particular, Dr Chiles notes that construction noise effects are to be managed through the implementation of a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (“CNVMP”) and specific construction management techniques (e.g. the selection of low-noise or attenuated equipment and the location of site compounds away from sensitive receivers). Dr Chiles concludes that the majority of the construction works will be separated from neighbours. While the works will be audible at many places, it is considered36 that construction noise will generally remain within reasonable limits as determined by New Zealand Standard NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise (“NZS6803”).

2.3.3 Dr Chiles does, however, recommend that enhanced controls be implemented at a small number of specific locations37 in order to manage construction noise effects. The enhanced controls recommended by Dr Chiles include the scheduling and timing of construction activities to avoid sensitive times and

35 Evidence of Dr S Chiles (12 July 2013). 36 Evidence of Dr S Chiles (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 38. 37 For example, north of Otaki and the Rahui Milk Treatment Station.

enhanced communications with affected property owners. It is noted that the designation conditions proposed by Ms Beals provide some flexibility with respect to adherence to the requirements of NZS6803, which appears to differ from the evidence of Dr Chiles. In this regard, the proposed conditions refer to compliance with NZS6803 being achieved “where practicable”. Again, this matter was discussed during the Planners’ conferencing.

2.3.4 In response to submissions, Dr Chiles notes that construction activities will not occur continuously near dwellings for the entire construction period.

2.3.5 The evidence of Mr Hunt on behalf of the KCDC38 raises concerns regarding the potential for adverse noise effects arising during the construction of the Project – especially at night. He notes that Technical Report 1539 attached to the AEE refers to the potential for non-compliance with the night time construction noise limits set out within NZS6803 at some residential sites. To ensure construction effects are managed in accordance with Section 16 of the RMA, Mr Hunt considers40 that measures to address high levels of noise during the construction of the Expressway construction need to be to be clearly set out within the CNVMP. This approach appears to have been accepted by Dr Chiles based upon the outcomes documented in the witness conferencing statement41.

Construction Vibration Effects 2.3.6 Dr Chiles also discusses the potential construction vibration effects of the Project in his evidence. Overall, Dr Chiles concludes that vibration from construction activities may be felt at some locations, but will generally be within the guideline criteria presented in Technical Report 15 attached to the AEE.

2.3.7 Dr Chiles does, however, note that construction works along Rahui Road will occur close to the Rahui Milk Treatment Station and the Rahui Factory Social Hall. These buildings are assessed to have heritage value. There is potential for cosmetic damage (i.e. cracking of plaster) and annoyance from vibration at these sites. Dr Chiles has recommended that a specific schedule be included in the CNVMP to manage effects on this property, including the requirement for building condition surveys and the repair of any cosmetic damage caused by construction

38 Evidence of M Hunt (9 August 2013). 39 Paragraph 2.2 of Technical Report 15. 40 Evidence of M Hunt (9 August 2013) – Paragraphs 31 to 42. 41 Expert Conferencing Statement – Construction and Operation Noise and Vibration (26 August 2013).

vibration effects. These requirements are broadly detailed in the proposed designation conditions attached to the evidence of Ms Beals for the NZTA / KiwiRail.

2.3.8 The evidence of Mr Hunt on behalf of the KCDC also raises concerns regarding the potential for adverse vibration effects during the construction of the Expressway. It does, however, appear that Dr Chiles and Mr Hunt have agreed measures to be included in the CNVMP in order to address potential construction vibration effects and the concerns raised by Mr Hunt42.

Operational Noise and Vibration Effects - Roads 2.3.9 Dr Chiles notes that the majority of Protected Premises and Facilities (“PPF”) along the proposed route of the Expressway are currently exposed to moderate levels of road-traffic noise from the existing State Highway 1. He notes that the Expressway will increase noise levels at some locations and decrease noise levels at others. Dr Chiles considers the changes to not be substantial at most locations and to not generally alter the aural character of the environment.

2.3.10 Dr Chiles also notes that for some PPF’s close to the Expressway there will be significant increases in road traffic noise which would be above recommended levels without mitigation. To mitigate potential road traffic noise effects, Dr Chiles is recommending that a low noise road surface be used for one kilometre of the Expressway through Otaki and that one PPF be acoustically treated (14 Old Hautere Road).

2.3.11 The evidence of Mr Hunt43 on behalf of the KCDC makes a number of comments on the potential operational noise effects of the Expressway. He considers the Expressway to not be a comfortable fit with NZS6806 owing to the noise effects of the existing State Highway 1 remaining significant in many situations. He notes that very few mitigation measures have been recommended for the existing dwellings that are expected to experience noise levels exceeding the lower ‘new

road’ criteria level of 57 dB LAeq. That said, Mr Hunt has agreed in the witness conferencing statement that NZS6806 provides “an appropriate framework for assessment of road-traffic noise.”

42 Expert Conferencing Statement – Construction and Operation Noise and Vibration (26 August 2013). 43 Evidence of M Hunt (9 August 2013) – Paragraphs 100 to 101.

2.3.12 Mr Hunt also identifies concerns regarding the longevity of the noise-reducing capabilities of porous road surfaces. However, it is noted that Mr Hunt and Dr Chiles have agreed, via their conferencing statement, that the “requirements for a low-noise road surface in Otaki and for (sic) maintain its noise reducing properties are adequately addressed in draft designation conditions 62 and 72 attached to the evidence of Ms Beals.”

2.3.13 We note that the conditions as they relate to operational noise (attached to the evidence of Ms Beals) provide for the categorisation of a PPF to be altered, if it is consistent with achieving the best practicable option to do so. In such circumstances, the conditions do not require the NZTA to consult with the affected property owner. Rather, the best practicable option is established between the NZTA’s expert and that of the KCDC.

2.3.14 We think that the affected property owner should be consulted in such circumstances. This was raised at the planners’ conferencing session. Ms Beals agreed to consider this in revising the proposed draft conditions as part of her rebuttal.

2.3.15 Finally, Mr Hunt notes that no operational vibration limits are included within the proposed designation conditions. He recommends that traffic induced vibration be investigated and reported by the NZTA upon the receipt of any reasonable complaint during the operation of the Expressway. This matter has not been agreed with Dr Chiles during the witness conferencing.

Operational Noise and Vibration Effects - Rail 2.3.16 With respect to noise and vibration effects from the realignment of the NIMT, Dr Chiles notes that the existing alignment of the NIMT through Otaki is already in close proximity to a number of PPFs. Dr Chiles considers that the existing rail noise and vibration levels at these locations would most likely exceed the recommended limits for a new railway.

2.3.17 Dr Chiles also notes that the most affected PPF’s immediately adjacent to the railway level crossing on Rahui Road will be removed as a result of the Project. The realignment of the NIMT moves it further from PPF’s on County Road and

the change in distance between the NIMT and other PPF’s further away is not considered to be significant.

2.3.18 The only potential adverse effect is expected at two PPF’s that the NIMT moves materially closer to – namely the Otaki Motel and the property at 230 Main Highway, Otaki. Dr Chiles recommends that these properties be subject to acoustic treatment in order to achieve appropriate internal rail noise levels. It is understood that this would require mechanical ventilation, and potentially, the upgrading of glazing. With this mitigation Dr Chiles considers that noise and vibration effects will be acceptable at all PPF’s. We note that the submission by the owners of the Otaki Motel (DA & CE Christie)44 does not make any comment on the potential noise effects from the realignment of the NIMT.

2.3.19 The evidence by Mr Hunt considers that the use of buffer areas and vertical structures at the Otaki Motel and 230 Main Highway, Otaki would provide some outdoor areas for these properties to be protected from adverse noise conditions. The witness conferencing statement records that Mr Hunt and Dr Chiles have agreed that noise fences should be included “as a potential option for consideration” at the Otaki Motel and 230 Main Highway, Otaki.

2.4 AIR QUALITY EFFECTS

2.4.1 The actual or potential effects of the Project on air quality are as follows:

 Nuisance from dust arising from earthworks and vehicle exhaust pollutants associated with the construction of the Project; and

 Adverse air quality effects from vehicle exhaust pollutants once the Expressway is commissioned.

2.4.2 While some submitters have expressed general concerns over the potential for ‘air pollution’, there does not appear45 to be any submissions relating to the potential degradation of air quality during construction. Notwithstanding this, the potential construction and operational air quality effects of the Project are examined in the evidence of Mr Curtis on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail46.

44 Submission 102876. 45 Based on a review of the Summary of Submission (June 2013). 46 Evidence of A Curtis (12 July 2013).

2.4.3 Mr Curtis considers that the Expressway will result in an overall improvement in air quality in the surrounding environment. He notes the following points47:

 The dispersion modelling for Otaki shows that reductions in the concentration of vehicle air pollutants can be expected along State Highway 1 and around its intersection with Mill Road. An increase in concentrations is expected in areas within 200 m of the Expressway. However, any increase is expected to be minor and only experienced by a small number of receptors due to the location of the Expressway (which takes vehicle traffic to the east and away from Otaki). Mr Curtis concludes that these increases will not result in exceedances of the relevant air quality assessment criteria48;

 The dispersion modelling for the South Otaki interchange shows that the

Project is unlikely to cause significant increases in NO2 concentrations or result in exceedances of the relevant air quality criteria;

 The dispersion modelling for Te Horo predicts improvements in air quality (especially on the western side). A small increase in concentrations is expected in areas adjacent to the eastern side of the Expressway. However, this increase is considered to be insignificant when compared to the overall improvements associated with the Project and will not result in any exceedances of relevant air quality assessment criteria; and

 The dispersion modelling for the area between Te Horo and Peka Peka

indicates that NO2 concentrations in locations close to the Expressway will be well below the relevant air quality assessment criteria.

2.4.4 With respect to potential air quality effects during the construction of the Project, Mr Curtis notes that there may be nuisance dust, as well as exhaust emissions from construction traffic. Mr Curtis states that there is a greater potential for nuisance effects within 100 m of construction activities49, while receptors between 100 and 300 m are generally only affected during strong winds (i.e. greater than 10 m3/s).

47 Evidence of A Curtis (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 107. 48 National Environmental Standard for Air Quality 2004. 49 Evidence of A Curtis (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 52.

2.4.5 Mr Curtis is proposing that a Construction Air Quality Management Plan (“CAQMP”) be developed and implemented in order to mitigate potential air quality effects. The CAQMP would include a range of mitigation measures50, including location specific speed limits, the use of water carts, and a comprehensive complaints procedure. However, the proposed designation conditions attached to the evidence of Ms Beals do not specifically require the implementation of these measures. Rather, the proposed designation conditions state that the CAQMP should specify the methods to be used to limit dust and odour. In our opinion, the proposed designation conditions should clearly identify the measures to be employed (and in what circumstances). Again, this matter was discussed during conferencing and Ms Beals agreed to review it as part of her preparation of revised conditions for inclusion with rebuttal evidence.

2.4.6 Mr Curtis also notes that given that the base year traffic volumes on State Highway 1 are approximately 16,000 average daily movements, the additional construction vehicles operating in the area will not give rise to ambient concentrations of pollutants that exceed any of the relevant air quality criteria for

PM10.

2.5 EFFECTS ON ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE

2.5.1 The potential effects of the Project on archaeology and built heritage are as follows:

 The potential modification, damage and / or destruction of recorded or unknown archaeological sites during the construction works; and

 Noise, visual and vibration effects on the amenity values on built heritage values.

2.5.2 Several submitters have also raised general concerns relating to the effects of the Project on heritage, historic and archaeological features / sites51. The potential noise, vibration and visual effects of the Project are considered in other sections of this report.

50 Evidence of A Curtis (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 77. 51 Including Nga Hapu o Otaki (Caleb Royal) and Rahui Enterprises Ltd.

2.5.3 With respect to the potential effects of the Project on archaeological features / sites, the evidence of Ms Barr on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail concludes52 that three recorded archaeological sites will be directly affected, being:

 The Otaki Railway Station (S25/122) - while the station building is to be moved to remain parallel to the NIMT, the foundations of a pre-1900 building are located underneath it53;

 230 Main Road (S25/124) - the pre-1900 dwelling will not be directly affected, but the designation for the Expressway will occupy part of the grounds of the property; and

 Clifden Cottage (S25/125) – which is to be relocated as part of the Project (discussed below).

2.5.4 In addition, Ms Barr notes that the Project will be located in two areas of archaeological potential at the northern and southern extents of the route54. It is possible that evidence of archaeological deposits or features will be revealed during the construction of the Project. Total avoidance of the archaeological resource in the Project area is not considered to be possible. Ms Barr is, therefore, recommending a suite of mitigation measures as part of the proposed designation and resource consent conditions. These include the finalisation of an accidental discovery protocol, the training of contractors in relation to the identification of possible archaeological sites and the appropriate protocols to follow, the investigation and recording of any archaeological resources discovered during construction, pre-construction archaeological monitoring where works are proposed in areas of archaeological potential, and public information measures (such as open days and the preparation of fixed interpretive signs and other materials).

2.5.5 Ms Barr concludes that the adverse effects of the Project on the archaeological resource are ‘low to moderate’55. While archaeological sites will be affected as a result of the Project, it appears that these effects can be appropriately mitigated.

52 Evidence of C Barr (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 4. 53 This is an ‘archaeological site’ for the purposes of the Historic Places Act 1993. 54 Evidence of C Barr (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 31. 55 Evidence of C Barr (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 17.

2.5.6 The potential effects of the Project on historic heritage values are discussed in the evidence of Mr Bowman on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail56. He has identified four heritage structures on the New Zealand Historic Places Trust ("NZHPT") Register and / or the KCDC Heritage Register that will be affected by the Project. In addition, Mr Bowman has identified a further two heritage sites that are not protected by statutory mechanisms but which will be affected by the Project57.

2.5.7 Mr Bowman notes in his evidence that he has recommended a suite of measures to address potential adverse effects on the identified sites of historic heritage. These measures include realigning the Otaki Railway Station to maintain its current visual and physical connection with the NIMT, relocating the beehive kilns in the former Mirek Smíšek pottery at 990 State Highway 1, Te Horo, and relocating Clifden Cottage to 91 Gear Road, Te Horo. With these mitigation measures in place, Mr Bowman concludes that the effects of the Project on historic heritage values will be “less than minor and acceptable”58.

2.5.8 The NZHPT has not tabled any evidence in support of their submission on the Project. The submission does, however, acknowledge59 that the Expressway avoids or minimises potential adverse effects on built historic heritage where possible. It also comments that the NZHPT has been involved in discussions with the NZTA regarding possible mitigation options and that an agreement has been reached between the two parties with respect to the mitigation of the effects of the Project on built historic heritage values.

2.6 EFFECTS ON TANGATA WHENUA VALUES

2.6.1 The AEE60 notes that four locations along the Expressway route have been identified in consultation with Ngati Raukawa and Nga Hapu o Otaki as having key cultural values. These areas are as follows:

 Pa sites and a burial ground (urupa) west of the far west railway corridor are located on Taylors Road (i.e. avoided by the Project);

56 Evidence of I Bowman (12 July 2013). 57 The beehive kilns at the former Mirek Smíšek pottery at 990 State Highway 1, Te Horo and Clifden Cottage at 3 Otaki Gorge Road. 58 Evidence of I Bowman (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 18. 59 Submission of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (17 June 2013) – Paragraph 10. 60 Section 25.3 of AEE (18 March 2013).

 The sand dunes at the southern and northern ends of the Project area may contain archaeological sites;

 Rahui Road in Otaki is the location of a significant site which iwi have identified as a wahi tapu, as well as a spring (puna) and a wetland (avoided by the Project); and

 The Waitohu Stream is valued by iwi as a resource for catching eels and swimming.

2.6.2 In addition, the Cultural Impact Assessment (“CIA”) by Nga Hapu o Otaki identifies the potential for adverse cultural effects on the Pare o Matangi Reserve (which is part of a former block of Maori owned land) and a number of areas of land along the length of the Project that are currently in Maori ownership.

2.6.3 The evidence of Mr Toataua on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail61 outlines the measures proposed to mitigate the potential adverse cultural effects of the Project. The key mitigation measures proposed include reconfiguring the Pare o Matangi Reserve (with some neighbouring land being added) and landscaping it to mitigate the effects of construction works and creating a usable area of open space. In addition, pre-construction monitoring is proposed by the NZTA / KiwiRail in locations where any works are within the identified areas of archaeological potential. Likewise, Nga Hapu o Otaki will be consulted over the development of an accidental discovery protocol to be implemented during construction works.

2.6.4 In response to the submissions by representatives of Nga Hapu o Otaki, Mr Toataua comments62 that changes have been made to the proposed designation and resource consent conditions in order to provide for a further meaningful role for Nga Hapu o Otaki in the implementation of the Project - including the delivery of ecological mitigation measures. Mr Toataua also supports Nga Hapu o Otaki being involved in the naming of new areas (i.e. wetlands) and cultural ceremonies / blessings of the site. This is currently identified in the proposed designation conditions63 as a matter to be addressed by the Community Liaison Group (“CLG”).

61 Evidence of N Toataua (12 July 2013) – Paragraphs 33 to 45. 62 Evidence of N Toataua (12 July 2013) – Paragraphs 51 to 55. 63 Condition 8(g) of proposed designation conditions.

2.7 EFFECTS ON NETWORK UTILITIES

2.7.1 The Project has the potential to generate adverse effects on electricity and gas distribution, water supply, wastewater, stormwater and irrigation utilities within the surrounding environment. The evidence of Mr Coulman64 identifies the various existing network utilities within the Project area65 and notes that the design philosophy for the Project will be to avoid disruption to existing network utilities. Likewise, the AEE66 identifies how the NZTA / KiwiRail propose to address potential adverse effects on existing network utilities.

2.7.2 The evidence of Mr Coulman also states67 that a Network Utilities Management Plan (“NUMP”) will be prepared by the NZTA / KiwiRail to ensure that network utility operators have a clear understanding as to how the NZTA / KiwiRail will account for network utilities during the construction of the Project. The NUMP will include the measures to address the safety, integrity, protection or, where necessary, relocation of existing network utilities.

2.7.3 The submission by the Arcus Road Water Scheme (102872) raises several matters relating to potential effects on that company's water infrastructure and operations (irrigation supply). Matters relating to non-derogation of existing water rights were discussed during the planning conferencing. Ms Beals is currently reviewing the conditions relating to the management of the effects of the Project on groundwater (and so existing takes), with a view to providing a revised version of the conditions in her rebuttal evidence.

2.7.4 The submission by the KCDC (102892) seeks that the Project not impinge on the efficient and effective delivery of its utilities and services. To that end, the evidence of Mr Schofield on behalf of the KCDC68 recommends that the NUMP establish an appropriate process for managing potential adverse effects on network utilities.

64 Evidence of T Coulman (12 July 2013). 65 Evidence of T Coulman (12 July 2013) – Paragraphs 103 to 107. 66 Section 7.3 of AEE (18 March 2013). 67 Evidence of T Coulman (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 110. 68 Evidence of R Schofield (9 August 2013) – Paragraph 128.

2.8 EFFECTS ON URBAN FORM AND FUNCTION

2.8.1 The potential effects on urban form and function are:

 The Project may affect existing and future urban form, including town centres and residential communities;

 The Project may affect local road connections and other forms of connectivity despite the measures adopted during the design process to avoid or mitigate such effects; and

 The Project may affect amenity values, including people's direct experiences and perception of recreational amenity.

2.8.2 The AEE and evidence of Mr Curtain on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail69 identifies that the Project spans a predominantly rural landscape, punctuated by the small community at Te Horo and the township at Otaki. It is noted that the dominant north-south movement networks of the existing State Highway 1 and NIMT define the urban design issues for the Project.

2.8.3 Mr Curtain considers70 that the Project has been carefully designed to respond to the potential effects identified above, in accordance with the best practice urban design principles reflected in the Urban and Landscape Design Framework (“ULDF”). As such, Mr Curtain concludes that the overall urban design effects of the Project will be positive. He also considers that the existing urban form and land use patterns will not be significantly disrupted as the Expressway broadly follows the existing rail corridor on what is predominantly rural land. Furthermore, he states that the separation of the Expressway from the Otaki town centre and other settlements will improve the existing urban environment.

2.8.4 Mr Curtain also considers that any potentially adverse effects of the Project on the urban design values have been largely avoided, remedied or mitigated through an integrated design approach. Any residual adverse urban design effects (such as the lack of connectivity at Te Horo) are considered to be acceptable71 and will be further mitigated by the continued application of good

69 Evidence of B Curtain (12 July 2013). 70 Evidence of B Curtain (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 17. 71 Evidence of B Curtain (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 139.

urban design principles (as outlined in the ULDF) during the detailed design of the Project.

2.8.5 The evidence of Ms Williams on behalf of the KCDC72 considers that restricting planting and noise reduction structures to the areas within the designation limits the effectiveness of the ULDF principles and the mitigation of potential adverse effects on urban design values73. She also considers it important to ensure that effective and appropriate signage is provided north and south of Otaki. She notes in her evidence74 that the KCDC considers it crucial (although her own opinion is not clear) that such signage is designed specifically as a gateway feature that appropriately reflects the character and identity of Otaki. This matter appears to have been resolved between Ms Williams and Mr Curtain based on the witness conferencing statement75.

2.8.6 Finally, Ms Williams considers that further design detail is required to provide more certainty and assurance that the proposed design measures (particularly for bridges) deliver an appropriate level of mitigation. In this regard, she considers that the NZTA should consult with the KCDC over the final design of the various structures.

2.8.7 The proposed designation conditions attached to the evidence of Ms Beals76 include a commitment to consult with the KCDC over the urban design matters raised by the Expressway as part of the development of the Landscape and Urban Design Plan. However, we note that the witness conferencing statement records that there is continued disagreement between the experts over the process for finalising the design of various structures – with Ms Williams contending that the KCDC should certify the detailed design plans77 in order to provide additional confidence in the design process.

2.8.8 It is not clear to us whether the proposed designation conditions satisfy Ms Williams in this respect or not. It would be useful to have clarification regarding this point.

72 Evidence of J Williams (9 August 2013). 73 Notwithstanding that the designation conditions can only apply to land covered by the designation. 74 Evidence of J Williams (9 August 2013) – Paragraph 74. 75 Expert Conferencing Joint Witness Statement – Landscape and Urban Design (20 August 2013). 76 Condition 75 of proposed designation conditions. 77 Expert Conferencing Joint Witness Statement – Landscape and Urban Design (20 August 2013).

2.9 LANDSCAPE, VISUAL AND NATURAL CHARACTER VALUES

2.9.1 The main potential landscape, visual and natural character effects of the Project are as follows:

 There will be landscape and visual effects from the earthworks and structures associated with the Expressway. The scale and extent of these effects will vary along the designation corridor;

 Temporary effects arising from construction works, including the visibility of earthworks and vegetation removal and site-specific effects from the erection of bridges and temporary buildings / structures;

 Effects on the visual amenity and landscape values of the environment, particularly the Otaki River.

2.9.2 The evidence of Mr McKenzie on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail78 states that during the construction of the Project there will be moderate to high landscape and visual effects, particularly associated with vegetation clearance, earthworks, and general construction activities. The most intensive and longest duration construction activity will involve the construction of the bridges over the Otaki River. These construction effects will be visible within the immediate area, including from the existing State Highway 1 bridge.

2.9.3 Mr McKenzie concludes that there will be moderate to high visual construction effects at the various sites of the Expressway's bridge structures and along the length of the Project as construction takes place. Progressive mitigation of exposed cut and fill batters and installation of the long-term landscape mitigation plantings will, in his opinion, reduce the effect of the Project's construction phase.

2.9.4 With respect to the landscape and visual effects of the Project once operational, Mr McKenzie notes79 that the Expressway traverses a relatively simple landscape that has been modified extensively by agricultural and urban development and the existing transport infrastructure. He also comments that the Expressway has been aligned to make use of the existing transport corridor and to avoid key

78 Evidence of Mr McKenzie (12 July 2013) – Table 2. 79 Evidence of Mr McKenzie (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 12.

landscape and ecological areas (e.g. the pockets of indigenous swamp forest at Mary Crest).

2.9.5 Mr McKenzie considers that various measures have been incorporated into the design of the Project to avoid or mitigate adverse landscape or visual effects. This has included the development of the ULDF, which provides corridor-wide design principles and objectives which ‘set the scene' for effective design and mitigation measures. In this regard, the proposed designation conditions80 specify that the Landscape Plan for the Expressway is required to implement the principles and outcomes sought by the ULDF.

2.9.6 Nonetheless, Mr McKenzie considers that the Project will introduce changes into the landscape along its route, of a varying nature and scale. Overall, and considering its entire linear extent, Mr McKenzie concludes that the Project will have moderate adverse landscape and visual effects. Mr McKenzie does, however, consider that there are two sections of the Project where the overall magnitude of landscape and visual effects will be high - being the Otaki North to Rahui Road and Otaki River to Addington Road.

2.9.7 With respect to natural character values, Mr McKenzie notes81 that the Otaki River already supports two large bridges. As such, while he considers there will be cumulative adverse effects in this area, the natural and landscape character of this section of the Otaki River are considered to be limited due to past modifications.

2.9.8 The evidence of Ms Williams on behalf of the KCDC82 considers that the Project will create a transport landscape that has a much larger scale than the existing road and rail corridor. She considers that the topography and the narrowness of the designation will limit opportunities to screen the Expressway in views from the east and west. Ms Williams also considers the narrow border of planting shown in the landscape plans to not be adequate in terms of mitigating the effects of the Expressway on the landscape character and amenity of the adjoining land. She recommends83 that more ‘meaningful’ planting that extends outside the

80 Condition 76 of proposed designation conditions. 81 Evidence of Mr McKenzie (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 50. 82 Evidence of J Williams (9 August 2013) – Paragraph 20. 83 Evidence of J Williams (9 August 2013) – Paragraph 27.

designation be undertaken by the NZTA / KiwiRail in order to reinstate vegetation patterns and restore landscape values84.

2.9.9 This matter was discussed at conferencing amongst the planners. All attendees saw difficulties with conditions that require a Requiring Authority to carry out a mitigative action outside of a designation as sought.

2.10 ECONOMIC EFFECTS

2.10.1 The key economic effects of the Project can be summarised as:

 Positive traffic-related effects for local residents and businesses once the Expressway is commissioned;

 Temporary effects (both positive and adverse) during the construction of the Expressway.

 The impact of the Expressway bypassing existing commercial areas in Otaki and Te Horo (i.e. business redistribution effects); and

 Potential effects on property values.

2.10.2 Submitters have also raised concerns from an overall perspective that the low benefit-cost ratio attributed to the project renders it unviable. In particular, the evidence of Dr Pickford85 includes considerable discussion on the benefit-cost of the Project and concludes that it would not be consistent with the economic and efficiency requirements of the RMA86.

2.10.3 In our view, issues relating to the benefit-cost ratio are primarily matters for the NZTA in determining whether construction of the Expressway represents a ‘good’ investment for it in carrying out its functions. We also note that although this Project has a benefit-cost ratio of 0.8, it is an integral part of the Wellington Northern Corridor RoNS - which has a benefit-cost ratio ranging between 1.6 and 1.887.

84 Notwithstanding that the designation conditions can only apply to land covered by the designation. 85 Evidence of M Pickford (9 August 2013). We note also that Mr Pickford has not stated in his evidence which submitter he is appearing on behalf of. 86 Evidence of M Pickford (9 August 2013) – Paragraph 213. 87 Evidence of M Copeland (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 85.

2.10.4 The evidence of Mr Copeland considers the potential economic effects arising from the construction and operation of the Expressway in his evidence on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail. In particular, Mr Copeland concludes that the Project will contribute economic benefits to local and regional businesses (and residents) as a consequence of savings in travel time costs, improvements in trip travel time reliability, and increased business development and population growth.

2.10.5 Mr Copeland also acknowledges88 that the Project will generate adverse business redistribution effects for a small number of businesses on, or near, State Highway 1 at Te Horo and between Te Horo and South Otaki. Mr Copeland considers that these businesses do not constitute a significant commercial centre in terms of the hierarchy of centres within the Kapiti Coast District, but that appropriate signage at exit points along the Expressway should provide some protection against negative business redistribution effects for the businesses that are heavily reliant on the passing motorised trade. We question the effectiveness of such signage given the inability of those motorists passing Te Horo in particular to readily access Te Horo itself.

2.10.6 Mr Pickford considers89 the local economic effects of the Project to be difficult to predict (and could be either favourable or unfavourable). He notes that out-of- district spending by Kapiti Coast residents is already high and could increase with the Expressway - negatively impact on some businesses. He also considers that redistribution effects are best ignored when assessing the economic efficiency of a proposal. We note that the witness conferencing statement90 records that Mr Pickford and Mr Copeland have not been able to reach an agreement on this point to date.

2.10.7 Some submitters (e.g. Alliance for a Sustainable Kapiti91) have also raised concerns regarding potential adverse effects on property values. In response, Mr Copeland comments that a number of properties within the vicinity of the Project will possibly be adversely affected as a consequence of visual, noise, severance and other so-called 'intangible' effects. Whilst it may sometimes be possible to estimate property value changes as a consequence of the Project,

88 Evidence of M Copeland (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 15. 89 Evidence of M Pickford (9 August 2013) – Paragraph 213. 90 Expert Conferencing Joint Witness Statement – Economics (26 August 2013). 91 Submitter 102898.

such potential property value changes are a reflection of, and not in addition to, the effects of the Project.

2.10.8 In contrast, Mr Pickford suggests three caveats92 to the general approach of not considering changes in property values as an addition to intangible effects. These caveats relate to ensuring that the intangible effects have been included in the social cost benefit analysis, home owners living close to the Expressway suffering a significant loss of value in their properties to the point where they have negative equity, and the lack of options available to vulnerable homeowners (e.g. the elderly).

2.10.9 In our experience, the RMA does not require decision-makers to have a direct concern with the effects of a proposal on the value of property. This matter has been contemplated by the Courts on numerous occasions93. In this regard, the Courts has been cautious as very often any drop in property value will be the result of the effects of a given project (e.g. effects on amenity values or traffic movements outside a property), rather than an effect in itself. As such, to account for the value effect as well as the effect which has led to it, is tantamount to a ‘double counting’ of effects.

2.11 SOCIAL EFFECTS

2.11.1 The Project has the potential to generate both positive and adverse social effects for the community. As is discussed in the evidence of Ms Turvey on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail94, the positive social effects of the Project include:

 Improvements in regional safety and connectivity through improved trip times and reduced congestion on State Highway 1, enabling people to move more easily in a north / south direction;

 Delivering key infrastructure to support growth, which will have consequential positive economic effects for people and communities;

 The construction of the overbridges over the Expressway will ensure connectivity between the communities on the eastern and western sides of

92 Evidence of M Pickford (9 August 2013) – Paragraph 209. 93 For example, Foot v Wellington City Council, W73/98, 2 September 1998. 94 Evidence of W Turvey (12 July 2013).

the Project. The bridges also include specific provision for pedestrians and cyclists; and

 The reduction in through-traffic, coupled with the reduction in potential vehicular / pedestrian conflicts, will have positive effects on social, retail and pedestrian amenity in the Otaki Railway Retail (“ORR”) area.

2.11.2 In contrast, Ms Turvey considers the key adverse social effects of the Project to be:

 Potential adverse economic effects on some businesses in Te Horo and the ORR area due to the reduction in through traffic. The degree of effect is largely determined by the nature of each business and the catchment that it serves (i.e. destination-type businesses and businesses with a local customer base are not expected to experience adverse effects, whereas businesses which are more reliant on passing trade will);

 The acquisition of land for the Project. The degree of this effect is dependent on the area of land required and the location of the Project on the land;

 The Project bisects the Pare o Matangi Reserve, which (without mitigation) would substantially reduce the land area available for open space and recreation purposes; and

 There will be temporary adverse effects on the community during the construction of the Project. The effects will vary from disruption to commuters, through to the loss of amenity from noise, vibration and air discharges.

2.11.3 Ms Turvey notes95 that a wide range of mitigation measures are proposed to address adverse effects. Many of these mitigation measures are derived from other specialists' advice. A suite of social effect specific mitigation measures are also proposed in the designation conditions.

2.11.4 The evidence of Ms Rivers on behalf of the KCDC96 largely endorses the Social Impact Assessment and the evidence of Ms Turvey. That said, Ms Rivers does consider that the KCDC should be included as a member of the CLG, that the

95 Evidence of W Turvey (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 14. 96 Evidence of M Rivers (9 August 2013).

CLG should monitor and address the ‘social cohesion’ effects and the effects of the Project on business and neighbourhoods. Ms Rivers also holds the opinion that the CLG should continue to meet for a period of 12 months following the commissioning of the Expressway. These matters were discussed during conferencing of the planners. Ms Beals is to consider the conditions in the light of this discussion, with any revisions to be included in her rebuttal evidence.

2.12 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY

2.12.1 The potential adverse effects of the Project on terrestrial ecology values are:

 Habitat loss;

 Potential effects on the hydrology of the Mary Crest bush and wetland and the remaining part of the Otaki Railway Wetland;

 Habitat fragmentation;

 Edge effects resulting from removing trees along the edge of stands of bush;

 Effects on specific flora and fauna species;

 Effects of the NIMT realignment; and

 Operational effects.

2.12.2 A large number of submitters have also raised concerns around the potential impact of the Project on terrestrial ecology values, including effects resulting from the removal of native vegetation at Hautere Bush, Stevens Bush and Cottles Bush.

2.12.3 Mr Turner in his evidence on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail97 notes that most of the Project affects a highly modified landscape supporting little or no indigenous vegetation and no significant habitat of indigenous fauna for terrestrial or wetland species. Potential effects on significant vegetation and habitat are, therefore, considered to be limited.

2.12.4 Mr Turner considers98 that a few areas of significant vegetation cannot be completely avoided by road realignment or modifications to the Project footprint;

97 Evidence of J Turner (12 July 2013). 98 Evidence of J Turner (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 14.

being the edges of three patches of indigenous bush (loss of 0.45 ha) and the greater part of the Otaki Railway Wetland (loss of 0.5 ha out of a total area of approximately 0.8 ha). Mr Turner considers this to be a moderate effect on vegetation that is deemed significant. As such, Mr Turner has recommended offset mitigation should be applied to account for this loss of habitat.

2.12.5 To offset the loss of indigenous bush, Mr Turner proposes the protection of an existing area of bush threatened by on-going degradation in quality (minimum 1.0 ha) or the planting of a new area of bush on an area of land within the designation and adjacent to existing bush and wetland at Mary Crest (minimum 1.35 ha). Mr Turner’s preferred option (which is presently being explored) is to create a QEII covenant over an area of bush known as Cottle's Bush, which has an approximate area of 1.4ha.

2.12.6 With respect to the Otaki Railway Wetland, Mr Turner proposes that the area remaining following construction (approximately 0.3 ha) be restored. In addition, Mr Turner proposes that two new areas of wetland be created within the designation (a total area of approximately 1.1 ha). The proposed methodology and approach to the offset mitigation is also set out in the evidence of Mr Turner99.

2.12.7 Mr Turner also considers100 that effects on plants / animals at the population level will be negligible, with the possible exception of peripatus. In this regard, it is considered that the Project could cause potential low levels effects on the peripatus that inhabit the indigenous bush on the Te Hapua Road Forest. Mr Turner proposes that peripatus be managed in accordance with an Ecological Management Plan101, which will dictate the inspection and monitoring of the Te Hapua Road Forest before and during vegetation removal. If the Project is likely to directly affect logs inhabited by peripatus within Te Hapua Road Forest, or if logs inhabited by peripatus are likely to be exposed to desiccation due to the removal of tree cover, Mr Turner recommends that these be moved further into the bush (with the landowner's permission).

2.12.8 The submissions by the KCDC and GWRC102 both raise concerns with respect to the level of survey work undertaken by the NZTA / KiwiRail with respect to plants,

99 Evidence of J Turner (12 July 2013) – Paragraphs 67 to 90. 100 Evidence of J Turner (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 59. 101 Evidence of J Turner (12 July 2013) – Paragraphs 92 to 93. 102 Including the evidence of Dr Crisp (9 August 2013).

lizards, and wetland and forest birds. Mr Turner has not to date provided a comprehensive response to these concerns, simply commenting103 that he thinks the level of survey effort was appropriate for assessing the effects of the Project. We note that this matter was not resolved during the witness conferencing104 and it is likely that Mr Turner will address this matter in more detail in rebuttal.

2.12.9 The evidence of Ms Myers on behalf of the KCDC105 supports the proposed covenanting and fencing of Cottle’s Bush as mitigation for potential adverse effects. However, she considers that this needs to be combined with planting of a buffer around the forest and restoration planting to replace the loss of indigenous vegetation and mature trees. She also supports106 the restoration of wetland and forest communities at Mary Crest. That said, Ms Myers considers that the level of mitigation and ratio of compensation for the effects of the Expressway needs to be increased significantly. In this regard, Ms Myers is of opinion that mitigation for the effects of the Expressway needs to ensure replanting and restoration, buffering of remaining fragments, restoration of ecological connections between fragments, and restoration of wetland and forest types equivalent to the type being lost.

2.12.10 The evidence of Ms Marks on behalf of the GWRC107 also discusses the measures proposed to mitigate adverse effects on terrestrial ecology values. Her evidence focuses on the loss of approximately 40 mature native trees, and she expresses concern that the mitigation proposed for the loss of mature lowland forest habitat does not meet the requirement for ‘no net loss’. Ms Marks also holds the view that the mitigation for the Otaki Railway Wetland include consideration of the adverse effects on the entire 0.8 ha of the wetland.

2.12.11 With respect to the individual mature native trees, Ms Marks considers108 that individual trees can provide biodiversity value and that the loss of a threatened ecosystem type constitutes a “more than minor” adverse effect109. As such, she

103 Evidence of J Turner (12 July 2013) – Paragraphs 121 to 124. 104 Expert Conferencing Joint Witness Statement – Ecology (21 August 2013). 105 Evidence of S Myers (9 August 2013). 106 Evidence of S Myers (9 August 2013) – Paragraph 14. 107 Evidence of J Marks (9 August 2013). 108 Evidence of J Marks (9 August 2013) – Paragraphs 18 to 20. 109 The test of ‘minor effects’ is not particularly relevant to this Project given that the resource consent applications are not for non-complying activities.

considers that the loss of these trees should be considered when developing offset mitigation.

2.12.12 Overall, Ms Myers and Ms Marks consider that the adverse effects on indigenous biodiversity have been underestimated, leading to an inadequate mitigation proposal by the NZTA / KiwiRail. In this regard, Ms Myers and Ms Marks are concerned that the mitigation proposed by the NZTA / KiwiRail will not achieve an outcome of ‘no net loss’. It also appears that this matter was not resolved during the witness conferencing.

2.12.13 Our experience is that the RMA does not require that the mitigation of adverse effects achieve an outcome of ‘no net loss’. In this respect, the RMA is not a ‘no effects’ statute that requires all adverse effects to be fully avoided, remedied or mitigated in all circumstances. Rather, in considering a NoR or resource consent application, a decision-maker is required to weigh all of the relevant matters (both positive and adverse) and form a conclusion as to whether the proposal will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. An approach that suggests that all ecological effects must be offset, or proposed mitigation must achieve an outcome of no net loss, is not consistent with what we understand the RMA to require. The recent of Board of Inquiry Decision on Transmission Gully stated:

“Secondly, while we recognise the desirability of achieving a situation of no net loss of biodiversity from a project, we do not believe that it is a requirement of RMA that no net loss be achieved in any given case. The principle of sustainable management requires a broad consideration of a range of sometimes competing factors. A consent authority is entitled to conclude that consent ought to be granted to a proposal notwithstanding that all adverse effects of the proposal have not been avoided, remedied or mitigated. In other words there may be a net loss of some values or aspects of the environment.”

2.12.14 Therefore, the key consideration for the Board is whether the ecological mitigation proposed by the NZTA / KiwiRail (in whatever form), when viewed alongside all of the other relevant considerations, would enable the achievement of the sustainable management.

2.12.15 It is also our view the Proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity 2011 (and its definition of ‘no net loss’)110 is also not a relevant plan under Sections 171(1)(a) or 104(1)(b) of the RMA. The proposed policy statement may be ‘a relevant other matter’ in accordance with Sections 171(1)(d) and 104(1)(c) of the RMA, but the weight attributed to the policy statement needs to take into account that it remains in a ‘proposed’ form and that the submissions made with respect to it have yet to be dealt with.

2.12.16 We also note that some of the offsetting options involve land outside of the proposed designation and that a number of possible protection measures (e.g. covenanting) have been suggested to preserve these areas. It is not clear to us what contingency measures might be available to the NZTA if, for whatever reason, access to this land is not available. It would be useful to have some clarification about this via rebuttal evidence.

2.13 EFFECTS ON FRESHWATER ECOLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

2.13.1 The potential effects of the Project on freshwater ecology and water quality are as follows:

 Temporary effects of construction activities on water quality and habitat;

 Impaired fish and invertebrate migration due to the installation of culverts;

 Potential effects of road runoff on water quality and channel erosion;

 The potential loss and alteration of habitat in waterways; and

 The loss and alteration of habitat in the Otaki Railway Wetland.

2.13.2 A number of submitters have raised concerns around the potential impacts of the Project on freshwater ecology and water quality, including potential adverse effects on specific waterways along the route of the Expressway.

2.13.3 The Project crosses 12 large catchments and several smaller catchments. The largest waterbody is the Otaki River, while the other notably waterbodies include the Waitohu, Mangaone and Mangapouri Streams. All waterbodies along the route of the Expressway are modified in terms of riparian zones, channels, flow

110 Evidence of S Myers (9 August 2013) – Paragraph 57.

regimes, and water quality. Channel modifications include realignment along roads and paddock boundaries, widening, stopbanks and weirs, gravel extraction, and weed infestation. The flow regimes of some waterbodies are also affected by irrigation and stockwater abstractions, whilst the water quality in many waterbodies in the Project area is negatively affected by stormwater runoff, stock access, and runoff from agricultural land.

2.13.4 Potential effects on freshwater ecology and water quality are discussed in detail in the evidence of Dr Larned on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail111. He notes that the construction of the Expressway poses risks of sediment and contaminant input into waterbodies. However, the effects of construction activities on aquatic ecology in the Project area are considered112 to be low. In addition, erosion prevention and sediment control measures (e.g. sediment detention systems) and monitoring protocols are proposed as part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan ("CEMP") and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan ("ESCP").

2.13.5 Dr Larned considers the erosive effects of runoff from the Expressway are likely to be minimal because the surface area of the road that will intercept rainfall and generate runoff is relatively small in relation to the catchment in the Project area. In addition, stormwater detention systems and attenuation swales will modulate drainage to waterways and the banks of channels that receive road runoff from drains will be protected with rip-rap113.

2.13.6 The effects of the Expressway on fish migration are also considered to be low by Dr Larned. In this regard, Dr Larned notes that fish passage will be provided at all locations where a known fish-bearing or a potential fish-bearing waterbody is crossed by the Expressway. Design features for fish passage structures will include embedded culvert inverts, the provision of low flow channels, baffles and resting areas, and angular rock substrate to increase roughness. Permanent diversion channels will be designed to avoid any velocity or structural barriers to fish passage. The Otaki River and Waitohu Stream will be crossed with bridges that will not create migration barriers.

111 Evidence of S Larned (12 July 2013). 112 Evidence of S Larned (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 17. 113 Evidence of S Larned (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 20.

2.13.7 Dr Larned is also of the opinion114 that the construction of the Expressway will lead to some loss and alteration of waterbody habitat due to culvert and rip-rap installation and waterway diversion. Dr Larned considers that the negative effects of habitat loss and alteration will be appropriately mitigated by a large-scale riparian restoration programme.

2.13.8 Dr Boothroyd’s evidence on behalf of the GWRC and KCDC115 suggests that the level of mitigation and ratio of compensation for the loss of aquatic habitat from culverts and diversions is inadequate and does not take into account the potential value of the waterbodies. He also considers the proposed turbidity monitoring for the earthworks during construction of the Expressway to be inconsistent with that planned for the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway.

2.13.9 In response to the concerns identified in the AEE and in the evidence of Dr Larned and Mr Turner, Dr Boothroyd makes a number of recommendations in his evidence116. These include (amongst others):

 That temporary stream diversions be concentrated in periods outside of the peak fish migration period (i.e. August to January) and be subject to the same provisions as the permanent diversions;

 That revised mitigation ratios are applied to the mitigation proposed;

 Riparian planting be required at least 20 m either side of the selected locations for the mitigation of the loss of aquatic habitat; and

 That the turbidity trigger in the conditions be modified to 20% increase in turbidity from upstream to downstream in the waterways selected for monitoring.

2.13.10 There appears to be some residual disagreement amongst the ecological witnesses as to the extent and severity of the ecological effects of the Project, as well as the degree of mitigation that is required. The witness conferencing statement available at the time of drafting this report117 confirms this. Having said that, there are a number of matters that have been agreed and we understand that Ms Beals is to work up a revised set of conditions for inclusion

114 Evidence of S Larned (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 23. 115 Evidence of I Boothroyd (9 August 2013). 116 Evidence of I Boothroyd (9 August 2013) – Paragraph 15. 117 Expert Conferencing Joint Witness Statement – Ecology (21 August 2013).

with rebuttal evidence which endeavours to address these matters. We expect that we will need to make further comment regarding ecological matters as part of our updated report.

2.14 STORMWATER AND HYDROLOGY EFFECTS

2.14.1 The potential stormwater and hydrological effects of the Project are as follows:

 Construction related effects - including mitigation measures relating to erosion and sediment control;

 Road surface effects relating to the discharge of contaminants, the effects of increased runoff, and effects on waterway crossings; and

 Potential flooding over the Project area.

2.14.2 The construction of the Project will involve earthworks of approximately 800,000m3. Without adequate erosion and sediment control practices, these works could result in the uncontrolled discharge of sediment, potentially leading to the discolouration of waterbodies, adverse effects on aquatic life, and impaired hydraulic function of drainage devices due to sediment blockage.

2.14.3 The evidence of Mr Bird on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail118 considers that potential construction related sedimentation effects will be appropriately avoided or mitigated by the application of best-practice sediment controls in accordance with GWRC and NZTA requirements. In this regard, the following design and construction features are proposed to be applied, in accordance with the relevant Site-Specific Environmental Management Plans ("SSEMP"):

 Minimising bare surfaces by progressive stabilisation;

 Erosion control practices to minimise the mobilisation of sediment;

 Sediment control practices (e.g. decanting earth bunds, silt ponds, silt fences) to capture silt before it leaves the site;

 Regular monitoring and maintenance of the effectiveness of silt control measures, including specific pre- and post-storm procedures; and

 Preparation of SSEMPs to address specific actions to be taken in sensitive or high-risk areas.

118 Evidence of W Bird (12 July 2013).

2.14.4 In addition, Mr Bird notes119 that new culverts will be constructed in dry conditions where possible. This will be achieved by utilising a new alignment alongside the existing channel or by temporarily damming and / or bypass pumping of stream water.

2.14.5 For the bridge structures across the Otaki River and the Waitohu and Mangaone Streams it is proposed that abutment works be constructed clear of the wet channel. However, piers in the riverbed will be necessary for the bridges across the Otaki River and Waitohu Stream. For these works the sites will be accessed via a temporary staging area or a temporary causeway of clean rock (and works will be subject to a SSEMP)120.

2.14.6 Working in and around the Otaki Railway Wetland will require 'clean' water from the Te Manuao Catchment to be piped around the construction works. Because the majority of the wetland will be impacted by the construction works, Mr Bird notes121 that it may not be practicable to preserve the remnant portion of the wetland during construction. Sediment in this area will be managed by the creation of a sediment pond in one corner during the earthworks. Additional details of the proposed sediment control measures will be included in the relevant SSEMP.

2.14.7 With respect to the effects of the Expressway itself, Mr Bird considers the potential long-term hydrological and hydraulic effects to include increased volumes and peak rate of runoff from the Expressway, the loss of existing flood plain storage, structures in waterbodies potentially constraining the passage of flood flows, and the discharge of contaminated stormwater from the Expressway.

2.14.8 Mr Bird states122 that the Project has been designed, as far as practicable, to avoid the potential effects outlined above. In addition, effort has gone into minimising any potential residual adverse effects. The design features to achieve this include:

119 Evidence of W Bird (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 42. 120 Evidence of W Bird (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 45. 121 Evidence of W Bird (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 46. 122 Evidence of W Bird (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 17.

 The adoption of design standards that satisfy the requirements of the GWRC and the KCDC;

 The use of vegetated swales for conveyance, treatment and attenuation of stormwater runoff;

 The use of wetlands for treatment and attenuation where swales are not suited due to topography or space constraints; and

 The design of culverts with inverts set below natural watercourse bed levels to facilitate fish passage, sized to minimise head loss in major floods, and the inlets and outlets protected to avoid localised erosion.

2.14.9 Furthermore, Mr Bird notes123 that two railway culverts that currently act as throttles to prevent downstream flooding will be retained or replicated.

2.14.10 The evidence of Dr Webby on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail124 provides an overview of an assessment of flood hazard effects for the major waterbodies crossed by the Project. He notes that these waterbodies flood at various times. As such, the Expressway will be exposed to the same flood hazards as the existing State Highway 1. This will require it to be elevated above existing ground levels to achieve the required level of service.

2.14.11 Dr Webby notes125 that as an elevated transport structure, the Project has the potential to interfere with the natural drainage function of these waterbodies. Therefore, Dr Webby has undertaken extensive hydrological assessment and computational hydraulic modelling to inform the Project's design - which has sought to achieve 'hydraulic neutrality' (i.e. no worsening of the existing flood situation).

2.14.12 Despite complexities arising from the nature of the Project area and the existing flood hazards, Dr Webby concludes126 that hydraulic neutrality has been achieved in practical terms through the Project design process. In particular, it is noted that the Project slightly reduces some existing flooding risks in populated areas, and slightly exacerbates risks in others. Those areas where

123 Evidence of W Bird (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 18. 124 Evidence of Dr M Webby (12 July 2013). 125 Evidence of Dr M Webby (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 15. 126 Evidence of Dr M Webby (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 17.

effects will be marginally greater are mostly uninhabited areas of farmland (where effects will be infrequent and temporary). Dr Webby also considers that increased effects on populated areas will ‘generally be no worse’ than in the existing situation.

2.14.13 For an area along the Mangapouri Stream, Dr Webby notes that flooding risks will be slightly less than the status quo in more frequent floods (including in a 1% annual exceedance probability ("AEP") flood), and slightly greater in extremely rare floods (such as 0.5% and 0.2% AEP floods adjusted for the effects of possible future climate change to 2090).

2.14.14 The evidence of Ms Westlake on behalf of the GWRC127 expresses her concerns that the Expressway will have a significant effect on the rivers, land, and the flood hazard environment that the GWRC has legal responsibility for. In particular, she considers128 that further work should be undertaken to evaluate the potential effects of climate change on bridge, culvert and embankment design over the 100 year design life of the structures (i.e. up to 2120), as well as a sensitivity analysis of higher climate change scenarios.

2.14.15 In addition, Ms Westlake recommends that provision be made in the proposed designation and resource consent conditions for the independent technical review of hydraulic modelling and the design of structures. In this regard, Ms Westlake has recommended a number of amendments to the proposed designation and resource consent conditions. Furthermore, her evidence seeks129 that greater consideration be given to the need to mitigate the effects of the Project on the flood / river management operations of the GWRC – including the provision of public access. Related to this point, we note that the witness conferencing statement130 records that it is appropriate that the NZTA and GWRC come to an agreement as to how access to the Otaki River can be provided for in the design of the Expressway. However, no detail is available on the terms of any agreement.

127 Evidence of S Westlake (9 August 2013). 128 Evidence of S Westlake (9 August 2013) – Paragraph 9.1. 129 Evidence of S Westlake (9 August 2013) – Paragraph 73. 130 Expert Conferencing Joint Witness Statement – Hydrology, Groundwater and Stormwater (27 August 2013).

2.14.16 The evidence of Mr McLean on behalf of the GWRC131 considers the key issues to be the adaptive management triggers for turbidity and the lack of use of chemical treatment. With respect to the triggers for turbidity, Mr McLean notes132 that the trigger proposed (50%) is higher than other projects133. In light of this, Mr McLean recommends that water quality objectives be included within the Ecological Management Plan, with a process to set the triggers at a later date based on baseline information and additional industry experience. We note that the witness conferencing statement records that the experts have agreed that an alternative approach to monitoring sediment impacts is required and that an alternative set of conditions will be developed by Ms Beals. Again, we expect that these amendments will be made available as part of rebuttal evidence.

2.14.17 In terms of the use of flocculants, and in response to the evidence of Mr Bird, Mr McLean considers134 that unless soil bench testing indicates that flocculants will not be effective, flocculation should be implemented and form part of the requires of the resource consent conditions for the Project. The witness conference statement records that it has been agreed that a precautionary approach is appropriate and that chemical treatment is to be applied to all sediment ponds – unless demonstrated by testing as being unnecessary.

2.14.18 Mr Van Bentum on behalf of the KCDC135 also discusses the potential effects of the Project on stormwater, hydrology and sediment control matters. He considers that further analysis is required to confirm the potential flooding effects of the Project and that improved flood mitigation should be implemented as part of the Project136. In addition, Mr Van Bentum considers137 that the final design of the Expressway should take adequate account of the KCDC’s hydraulic neutrality requirements. We note that the requirement for hydraulic neutrality derived from the Proposed Kapiti Coast District Plan 2012138 - which hearings on submissions have yet to be held. We discuss the weight that should be given to the Proposed Kapiti Coast District Plan 2012 later in this report.

131 Evidence of G McLean (9 August 2013). 132 Evidence of G McLean (9 August 2013) – Paragraph 31. 133 Including Transmission Gully and the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway. 134 Evidence of G McLean (9 August 2013) – Paragraph 39. 135 Evidence of R Van Bentum (9 August 2013). 136 Evidence of R Van Bentum (9 August 2013). – Paragraph 17. 137 Evidence of R Van Bentum (9 August 2013). – Paragraph 17. 138 For example, Policy 11.17 of the Proposed Kapiti Coast District Plan 2012.

2.15 GROUNDWATER EFFECTS

2.15.1 The potential effects of the Project on groundwater resources are as follows:

 Project earthworks may lead to a temporary or permanent lowering of groundwater levels;

 The effect of taking groundwater for construction water supplies; and

 Potential effects on wetlands and other ecological features due to changes in groundwater regimes.

2.15.2 The evidence of Mr Brabhaharan on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail139 identifies that the route of the Expressway traverses four groundwater zones140 and that an assessment of the potential changes in permanent groundwater levels has been undertaken. Mr Brabhaharan considers that a 1 to 1.7 m rise in groundwater levels in the wet winter - spring seasons locally (over a 300 m length of the Expressway) will have a negligible influence on groundwater flow and direction. It is also considered that the Expressway will have no effect on the groundwater resource in the summer – autumn months.

2.15.3 Mr Brabhaharan is also of the opinion that any consented or permitted abstractions of groundwater are unlikely to be affected by the Project to any noticeable degree given their distance from the Expressway and the minor changes in groundwater levels.

2.15.4 With respect to temporary changes in groundwater resources, Mr Brabhaharan notes141 that the excavation and removal of peat and silt deposits in the inter- dunal swamp areas south of Mary Crest, and near County Road, would involve groundwater levels being lowered by up to approximately 3 m on a temporary basis. However, Mr Brabhaharan considers that any effects will be negligible given the rural land use in the areas comprising paddocks for grazing of stock. The closest consented groundwater abstraction wells are located outside the 'local zone of influence' of this temporary groundwater drawdown, and in the opinion of Mr Brabhaharan142, the effects on these wells will be negligible.

139 Evidence of P Brabhaharan (12 July 2013). 140 Evidence of P Brabhaharan (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 62. 141 Evidence of P Brabhaharan (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 81. 142 Evidence of P Brabhaharan (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 83.

2.15.5 In relation to potential effects of groundwater changes on wetlands and other ecological features, Mr Brabhaharan considers that the temporary drawdown of groundwater to excavate and remove material in the Otaki Railway Wetland will not have a long term effect on the wetlands to be created. To ensure that these wetlands are not drained by the potentially permeable soils used to construct the embankment fill, a zone of low permeability soils will be placed between the embankment and the wetlands143. Another new wetland will also be created adjacent to the Mary Crest bush. Because the ground falls away to the west where the waterbody is currently located, the NZTA propose to install a low embankment with a weir in order to retain water in the wetland.

2.15.6 The evidence of Mr Hughes on behalf of the KCDC and GWRC144 considers that there has been limited assessment of the potential groundwater effects associated with the construction and operation of the Expressway - other than a general conclusion that they will be ‘negligible’. Mr Hughes considers that the “potential exists” for both short and longer-term effects of more than a minor scale145. In this regard, Mr Hughes considers that the construction of the Expressway has the potential to result in ponding to the east of the Expressway, accompanied by a corresponding reduction in groundwater levels on the down gradient (west) side146.

2.15.7 Mr Hughes considers that an increase in permeability and cuttings may result in a more widespread decline in groundwater levels. As such, Mr Hughes recommends that all proposed groundwater monitoring and reporting requirements be detailed in a Groundwater Management Plan (“GMP”). He also considers that the GMP should outline a process for identifying the scale and significance of effects and identify potential options to mitigate effects if required147. We note that the witness conferencing statement148 records that the respective experts have agreed that a GMP should be prepared and attached as an appendix to the CEMP. We agree with this conclusion and note that this was

143 Evidence of P Brabhaharan (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 86. 144 Evidence of B Hughes (9 August 2013). 145 We again note that the test of ‘minor effects’ is not particularly relevant to this Project given that the consent applications are not for non-complying activities. 146 Evidence of B Hughes (9 August 2013) – Paragraph 38. 147 Evidence of B Hughes (9 August 2013) – Paragraph 57. 148 Expert Conferencing Joint Witness Statement – Hydrology, Groundwater and Stormwater (27 August 2013).

discussed at the planners’ conferencing. Ms Beals is currently reviewing how this requirement will be integrated into the draft conditions

2.16 GROUND SETTLEMENT (GEOTECHNICAL) EFFECTS

2.16.1 The evidence of Mr Brabhaharan on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail explains why ground improvement measures will be necessary where embankment or bridge abutments are underlain by soft compressible deposits. Mr Brabhaharan considers that in most cases the ground will be improved by excavating and removing the poor ground material (e.g. peat) and replacing it with well compacted coarse gravel fill. This will enable potential issues such as settlement or liquefaction to be mitigated efficiently149.

2.16.2 Mr Brabhaharan comments that where the thickness of the poor ground is deeper than approximately 3 m, the removal and replacement of the poor ground becomes difficult - particularly where the groundwater levels are high. In these situations it is proposed that the poor ground be partially excavated and removed to a depth of approximately 3 m, leaving behind a limited depth of poor ground. However, the ground material may still cause on-going settlement issues. As such, Mr Brabhaharan notes150 that preloading the ground with additional earth fill will be undertaken so that settlement occurs during construction. After a period of time during construction, the additional earth fill will be removed and the embankment and road construction completed. This will minimise post- construction settlement. The exact depth of practical removal and preloading will be ascertained during detailed design and construction.

2.16.3 With respect to the bridges required for the Project, Mr Brabhaharan notes151 that these will be established on deep piled foundations in the underlying dense alluvial gravel and sand materials. Alternatively, they will be supported on reinforced soil wall abutments. Large diameter bored piles are likely to be suitable for the bridges. These are preferred by the NZTA because their construction generates less noise. However, where bridges are established in sand material, driven piles may need to be used. Reinforced soil walls may be

149 Evidence of P Brabhaharan (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 54. 150 Evidence of P Brabhaharan (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 55. 151 Evidence of P Brahhaharan (12 July 2013) – Paragraphs 56 to 58.

used to support the abutments of bridges, such as those at Mary Crest and Te Horo.

2.17 EFFECTS OF LAND AND GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION

2.17.1 The evidence of Mr Haldane on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail152 considers that, based on the current and inferred historic land use and activities, there is potential for contaminated land to be encountered along the route of the Expressway. In particular, Mr Haldane considers that there is potential for contamination at 10 sites.

2.17.2 In response to the potential risk of contaminated land being disturbed, Mr Haldane has prepared a draft Bulk Earthworks Contaminated Land Management Plan (“BECLMP”) which will provide general and site-specific procedures for the assessment and management of potentially contaminated sites. In particular, the draft BECLMP provides a framework and general procedures for the following:

 The identification of potential soil contamination and contaminated subsurface structures, and the initial procedures to be implemented after discovery;

 The intrusive (Phase 2) Contaminated Land Assessments (“CLA”) to be undertaken at specific sites and other sites encountered during the construction of the Project;

 The requirements for consenting the removal of fuel systems, soil sampling, ground disturbance and / or soil remediation activities under the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (“NESCS”);

 The segregation of contaminated soils and materials assessed as not suitable to remain on site from those assessed as suitable to remain at site;

 The removal of fuel systems, sumps and septic systems, and transport and disposal in accordance with relevant Codes of Practice;

 The offsite transport of contaminated materials, including licensing, covering and containment, placarding, spill response planning and manifesting or tracking; and

152 Evidence of G Haldane (12 July 2013).

 The disposal of contaminated soils and liquids in accordance with the requirements of receiving sites / facilities consented to receive such wastes.

2.17.3 Mr Haldane concludes153 his evidence by stating that the finalisation and implementation of the BECLMP will result in construction-related discharges to the environment associated with contaminated land being avoided or reduced to an acceptable level. In the long term, he considers that the Project will result in a reduction in the potential for adverse effects to the environment due to isolation (capping) and removal of contaminated soil and structures.

3. ASSESSMENT OF CONDITIONS

3.1 CONDITIONS REVIEW

3.1.1 If the Board is ultimately minded to grant the various applications sought, a broad range of mitigation measures will need to be implemented by the NZTA / KiwiRail. Performance of these mitigation obligations will need to be secured by way of conditions attaching to the designations and resource consents as appropriate. We have conducted a review of the proposed (updated) conditions submitted with the evidence of Ms Beals on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail. We have also reviewed the suggested amendments to the proposed conditions in the evidence prepared on behalf of submitter’s, particularly the evidence of Mr Schofield on behalf of the KCDC and Mr Percy154 on behalf of the GWRC.

3.1.2 Witness conferencing with respect to the proposed designation and resource consent conditions occurred between the various planners on 29 August 2013. The conferencing resulted in the planning witnesses agreeing a number of amendments to the proposed designation and resource consent conditions155. In addition, we note that the witness conferencing by the other technical experts has resulted in various agreements to amend the proposed designation and resource consent conditions. In light of this, we understand a revised suite of proposed designation and resource consent conditions is currently being drafted by Ms Beals and will be attached to her rebuttal evidence.

153 Evidence of G Haldane (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 38. 154 Evidence of R Percy (9 August 2013). 155 Attached to the evidence of R Beals (12 July 2013).

3.1.3 In summary, the planning witnesses have agreed amendments to the proposed designation and resource consent conditions that clarify (amongst other things) the process for amending the various management plans, the timeframes for circulating the management plans to various parties (including the KCDC and GWRC), stakeholder consultation requirements prior to the commencement of works, the involvement of the KCDC in the design of key works (e.g. the Gateway Zone), and the requirements for hydraulic modelling of stormwater and flooding risks.

3.1.4 At the time of completing this report, the conditions remained a ‘work in progress’. Any residual concerns we have with the proposed designation and resource consent conditions will be addressed in our Second Edition Report - once the revised conditions have been circulated with the rebuttal evidence of Ms Beals.

3.1.5 Notwithstanding the above, we make some general comments regarding the conditions. These are set out below.

Management Plans – General Comments 3.1.6 We note that this is a large scale application and accept that the detailed design of the Project has not yet been undertaken. This is not an uncommon situation with projects of this nature. There are a number of areas where there may be residual uncertainty as to the ultimate form of the Project, the effects that may arise, and how mitigation should be appropriately tailored to properly manage these effects. For large scale projects of this nature, conditions which are adaptable to design evolution and the uncertainty associated with project implementation are generally appropriate. The use of conditions which comprise environmental process standards generally comprise a useful and, if properly drafted, an effective approach to mitigation in these circumstances. Such conditions usually require the preparation and use of environmental management plans. These plans are often coupled with comprehensive monitoring requirements and methods to require the subsequent and on-going adaptation of management responses as more certainty is achieved through the progression of design and construction.

3.1.7 We note that the NZTA / KiwiRail has proposed that a number of management plans be prepared to deal with various potential effects arising from the construction and operation of the Expressway (and that submitters are seeking additional management plans in some circumstances156). In some cases, draft plans accompany the AEE. These provide useful guidance as to how such plans might ultimately be formulated.

3.1.8 We agree that the use of management plans to guide the final design, construction and operation of the Expressway is an appropriate approach. Having said that, it is important that when drafting conditions that require the preparation of management plans that appropriate care is taken to ensure there is sufficient certainty in prescribing the desired outcome within the condition itself. This is particularly important where a draft version of a management plan has not been submitted as part of the application (which is the case here). In our experience, conditions that require the preparation of management plans should clearly set out the purpose of those plans and associated objectives. There needs to be some precision in defining matters that must be included and mitigation outcomes that must be achieved via the implementation of the management plan.

Certification of Management Plans 3.1.9 The Board will have noted that concerns have been raised about the proposed approach adopted in the proposed designation and resource consent conditions attached to the evidence of Ms Beals insofar as the certification of management plans is concerned. In particular, the evidence of Mr Schofield157 identifies a concern that the outline plan process was not likely to provide for an effective opportunity for the KCDC to certify the various management plans which are proposed to manage the effects of the Project of primary concern to that Council. We shared this concern, primarily for the reasons set out in Mr Schofield’s evidence.

3.1.10 The Board will note from the planners’ witness conferencing statement that the issue of certification of management plans was addressed and an approach to

156 For example, a Groundwater Management Plan. 157 Evidence of R Schofield (9 August 2013) – Paragraphs 53 to 55.

the conditions in this regard has been agreed. It is intended that provision will be made in the conditions to allow for the KCDC and GWRC to certify the relevant management plans in accordance with the approach set out in the evidence of Mr Schofield.

3.1.11 This effectively brings the process of review and ultimately endorsement of the Management Plans into line with the approach adopted for the Transmission Gully project and the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway project. We support this change in approach.

4. STATUTORY EVALUATION

4.0.1 In this section of the report we provide an assessment of the NoR and resource consent applications against the relevant statutory planning matters that apply under the RMA.

4.1 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

PROPOSALS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE 4.1.1 Section 140 of the RMA outlines the purpose of Part 6AA concerning proposals of national significance and assists with explaining the process that can be applied to such proposals.

4.1.2 Section 149P of the RMA sets out the matters that must be considered by the Board in determining a proposal of national significance. The Board must have regard to the Minister for the Environment’s reason for making a direction in relation to the matter and consider any information provided to it by the EPA.

Designation 4.1.3 In considering a NOR, the Board must have regard to the matters set out in section 171(1) of the RMA and comply with section 171(1A) as if it were the territorial authority.

Resource Consents 4.1.4 With respect to resource consent applications, the Board must apply sections 104 to 112 and 138A of the RMA as if it were a consent authority.

4.1.5 In addition to considering the resource consent applications under section 104 of the RMA, there are further considerations for particular classes of activities:

 Section 104B for discretionary and non-complying activities;

 Section 104C for restricted discretionary activities;

 Section 104D for non-complying activities; and

 Sections 105 and 107 for discharge permits.

4.1.6 The relevant statutory considerations, as determined by sections 171 and 104 of the RMA, are discussed below. All of the relevant statutory considerations are also subject to Part 2 of the RMA, which we return to later in this report.

4.2 CONSENTS SOUGHT AND ACTIVITY STATUS

4.2.1 The AEE sets out the scope and nature of the various resource consent applications sought for the Expressway158. Almost all of the applications are for discretionary activities under the rules of the relevant statutory planning documents, with two applications being for restricted discretionary activities. There does not appear to be any dispute between the various parties as to the status of the various resource consents required. We also agree with the NZTA / KiwiRail assessment in this regard. It is, therefore, our opinion that the overall activity status of the resource consent applications for the Project is discretionary.

4.2.2 The AEE159 states that additional resource consents may be sought in the future for activities related to contaminated soils and ancillary construction works (e.g. temporary crossings). The GWRC Key Issues Report notes160 that the consent conditions proposed by the NZTA include reference to temporary crossings. As such, the GWRC has requested161 that the NZTA provide clarification as to whether temporary crossings form part of the current resource consent applications or will be applied for in the future.

158 Table 3.2 of the AEE. 159 Assessment of Environmental Effects (18 March 2013) - Section 3.6. 160 Section 4.4 of GWRC Key Issues Report (17 May 2013). 161 Section 4.4 of GWRC Key Issues Report (17 May 2013).

4.2.3 In our view it is not unusual for additional resource consents for minor activities to be identified and secured once detailed design plans for a proposal have been finalised. This was acknowledged and accepted by all planners who participated in conferencing on 28 August 2013.

4.3 RELEVANT STATUTORY DOCUMENTS

4.3.1 Sections 104 and 171 of the RMA both require a decision-maker to, subject to Part 2, have regard to any relevant provision under any national, regional or district planning instrument.

4.3.2 As set out in the AEE and evidence162, the following documents are relevant to this Project:

o National Environmental Standards  National Environmental Standard for Air Quality 2004163.  National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health 2012.  National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water 2007.

o National Policy Statements  National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011.  New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010.

o Regional Policy Statements  Wellington Regional Policy Statement 2013.

o Regional Plans  Wellington Regional Freshwater Plan 1999.  Wellington Regional Air Quality Management Plan 2000.  Wellington Regional Coastal Plan 2000.  Wellington Regional Plan for Discharges to Land 1999.  Wellington Regional Soil Plan 2000.

o District Plans

162 Evidence of P Coop (12 July 2013). 163 Amended in 2011.

 Kapiti Coast District Plan 1999.  Proposed Kapiti Coast District Plan 2012.

4.3.3 These are briefly discussed in turn below.

National Environmental Standards National Environmental Standards for Air Quality 2004 (NESAQ) 4.3.4 The regulations in the NESAQ are intended to protect public health and the environment. A number of amendments have been made to the NESAQ since it was gazetted in 2004, with the most recent amendments being introduced in 2011. The NESAQ sets out ambient air quality standards for the following five contaminants:

 Carbon monoxide;  Nitrogen dioxide;  Ozone;

 PM10; and  Sulphur dioxide.

4.3.5 The threshold concentrations set out for these contaminants are relevant to the assessment of air quality for the Project. Technical Report 13 (Assessment of Air Quality Effects) to the AEE and the evidence of Mr Curtis provides an assessment of the Project against the relevant thresholds in the NESAQ.

4.3.6 The Project is located within the gazetted Kapiti Coast airshed. As noted in Technical Report 13 and the evidence of Mr Curtis, emissions from vehicles using the Expressway are expected to meet the relevant NESAQ standards.

National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NESCS) 4.3.7 The NESCS came into effect on 1 January 2012. It sets out regulations to ensure land affected, or potentially affected, by contaminants in soil is identified and assessed prior to soil disturbance and land development activities taking place in order to ensure the protection of human health. The NESCS classifies permitted activities and those activities that require resource consent from the relevant territorial authority.

4.3.8 Technical Report 16 (Contaminated Land Assessment) to the AEE notes that there are sites within, or adjacent to, the Project area that could potentially be contaminated. Five sites are identified as having the highest potential for contaminated soil. There is no information currently available on whether any sites exceed the human health guidelines in the NESCS (which triggers the requirement for resource consent under Regulation 10).

4.3.9 However, and as noted previously in this report, the NZTA / KiwiRail is proposing to implement a BECLMP which contains procedures for the identification and mitigation of effects associated with the disturbance of potentially contaminated materials in the ground. In addition, the AEE states that the NZTA / KiwiRail will seek resource consent from the KCDC if the regulations in the NESCS are triggered prior to the use of the land subject to the designation changing.

National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water (NESDW) 4.3.10 The NESDW, which came into effect on 20 June 2008, is intended to reduce the risk of drinking water sources becoming contaminated. Under the NESDW, regional councils are required to consider the effects of activities on drinking water sources in their decision-making.

4.3.11 As identified in the assessment of groundwater effects (Technical Report 4) and the evidence of Mr Brabhaharan, there may be some minor, temporary effects on consented groundwater takes (such as the take operated by the Arcus Road Water Scheme). However, these groundwater takes will be monitored during construction and consent conditions are proposed to ensure that any such effects will be remedied through the provision of alternative water sources. We expect that Ms Beals will make further amendments to these conditions in response to discussions that occurred during conferencing on 28 August 2013.

4.3.12 It is also considered that the NZTA / KiwiRail should address matters concerning the water quality criteria in the NESDW if existing or consented groundwater takes will be potentially affected by the construction of the Project.

National Policy Statements National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 (NPSFM)

4.3.13 The NPSFM came into effect on 1 July 2011 and includes objectives and policies relating to the management of freshwater quality and quantity. The NPSFM is a relevant consideration for those aspects of the Project that affect freshwater resources (e.g. the reclamation of wetlands, the discharge of stormwater, and construction related discharges).

4.3.14 The NPSFM has been considered in Chapter 33 of the AEE and by the GWRC in its Key Issues Report164.

4.3.15 Objectives A1 and B1 seek to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of freshwater ecosystems in respect of water quality and water quantity. The maintenance of the overall water quality of the region is guided by Objective A2, which includes the protection of the significant values of wetlands. Similarly, with respect to water quantity, Objective B4 seeks to protect the significant values of wetlands. These objectives are implemented by their respective policies, including the Transitional Policies A4 and B7. Objective C1 seeks to improve the integrated management of freshwater and the use and development of land in whole catchments.

4.3.16 It is evident that there will be adverse effects on streams and freshwater ecosystems (including wetlands) arising from habitat disturbance, earthworks, the construction of structures, discharges, diversions, reclamations and stream realignments associated with the Project. However, we note that mitigation measures, such as stream enhancement works, wetland restoration and the implementation of erosion and sediment control mechanisms, are proposed in order to reduce the severity of these effects. These proposed mitigation measures and the various opinions of the ecological experts are discussed in the previous section of this report.

4.3.17 Part D of the NPSFM relates to tangata whenua roles and interests. We note that waterways in the Project area are of significance to Ngati Raukawa and Nga Hapu o Otaki. With respect to the management of freshwater for the Project, it is evident that NZTA has consulted, and has indicated that it will work with Ngati Raukawa and Nga Hapu o Otaki.

164 Section 3.1 of the GWRC Key Issues Report (17 May 2013).

4.3.18 Given the divergence in opinions held by the various ecological witnesses, it is difficult to be conclusive about whether the Project is consistent with the provisions of the NPSFM. It is our view that the various effects of the Project on freshwater have been identified. However, it appears that concerns remain about the efficacy of the assessments undertaken by the NZTA and quantum of offsetting mitigation proposed. We expect that these issues will be canvassed further in rebuttal evidence. We will provide further comment on this matter in our Second Edition Report.

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) 4.3.19 The NZCPS took effect on 3 December 2010 and its purpose is to provide an overarching national policy framework to achieve the purpose of the RMA in relation to the coastal environment. The issues, objectives and policies identified in the NZCPS are relevant to both the coastal marine area and the wider coastal environment.

4.3.20 The Key Issues Report by the KCDC165 notes that a small section of the Project near Peka Peka is located in the coastal environment boundaries defined in the Proposed Kapiti Coast District Plan 2012. The AEE, along with the evidence of Mr McKenzie and Mr Coop166, does not form any conclusions on whether the Project is located in the coastal environment. Likewise, the Key Issues Report by the GWRC does not comment on the boundaries of the coastal environment relevant to the Project. In the absence of any specific evidence on the extent of the coastal environment there is likely to be some inclination to accept the coastal boundary information set out in the Proposed Kapiti Coast District Plan 2012 – meaning the NZCPS is relevant to a small section of the Project.

4.3.21 Objectives 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the NZCPS are all identified by the NZTA / KiwiRail, GWRC and KCDC as being relevant to the Project. They set out the overarching direction to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of the coastal environment, preserve natural character, take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and provide for the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of people and communities.

165 Section 4.4.1 of the KCDC Key Issues Report (17 May 2013). 166 Evidence of P Coop (12 July 2013).

4.3.22 Policy 4 seeks to achieve the integrated management of natural and physical resources in the coastal environment. As noted, construction activities and stormwater run-off from the Expressway could potentially affect the Otaki River. The measures proposed to manage stormwater and sedimentation are discussed in a previous section of this report. We consider the effects on the marine ecological values have been adequately considered and addressed, despite the Project not discharging directly to the coastal environment. Given that the applicable experts have now been able to achieve alignment on the appropriate water quality turbidity triggers to be utilised in monitoring of construction related discharges to waterway, we are of the opinion that the NZTA / KiwiRail has had proper regard to Policies 21, 22 and 23 of the NZCPS and that the Project is likely to be consistent with these provisions.

4.3.23 We note that Objective 6 of the NZCPS recognises the importance of providing for the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of people and communities, and to provide for appropriate development without compromising the values of the coastal environment. We think that the Project is not inconsistent with these provisions.

4.3.24 GWRC has also noted in its Key Issues Report that Policy 11 of the NZCPS is a relevant consideration given the potential for discharges, culverts and diversions to adversely affect indigenous taxa and the migration of freshwater fish to, and from, the sea. Dr Larned notes in his evidence that the Project will have negligible effects on indigenous marine biodiversity.

4.3.25 Overall, we consider the relevance of the NZCPS to the Project is reasonably limited. That said, we consider it likely that the Project will be consistent with the provisions of the NZCPS insofar as they are relevant.

Greater Wellington Regional Policy Statement 2013 (RPS) 4.3.26 The NZTA / KiwiRail have conducted an assessment of the Project against the RPS. The Key Issues Report by the GWRC also provides a brief summary of the relevant matters in the RPS, without drawing any particular conclusion as to whether or not the Project is consistent with the relevant matters.

Air Quality

4.3.27 Objectives 1 and 2 seek to ensure that the discharge of dust to air does not adversely affect amenity values, people’s wellbeing, and that human health is protected from unacceptable levels of particulate matter. In our view, provided that there are suitable measures specified in the designation and resource consent conditions to mitigate the effects of dust throughout the construction period, then the outcomes sought by Objectives 1 and 2 should be achieved.

Coastal Environment 4.3.28 As set out above, a small section of the Expressway is identified as being within the coastal environment. In addition, some activities associated with the Project have the potential to cause effects on the coastal environment (primarily discharges to streams which ultimately discharge to the coastal environment). Relevant objectives and policies in the RPS167 relating to the coastal environment seek to protect habitats and features of the coastal environment that have significant indigenous biodiversity values, ensure that the quality of coastal water is maintained or enhanced to a level that is suitable for the health and vitality of coastal and marine ecosystems, and seek that the integrity, functioning and resilience of physical and ecological processes in the coastal environment are protected from the adverse effects of subdivision, use and development.

4.3.29 The effects of the Project on the coastal environment (particularly discharges) have been considered within the AEE and in the evidence of Dr Larned and Dr Boothroyd. As noted in relation to the NZCPS, we consider the effects on the marine ecological values have been adequately considered and addressed. We also note that the relevant experts have now agreed appropriate water quality monitoring triggers for responding to sedimentation in waterbodies.

Energy, Infrastructure and Waste 4.3.30 Objective 10 states that the social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits of regionally significant infrastructure are recognised and protected. Regionally significant infrastructure includes the ‘Strategic Transport Network’ as defined in the Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy 2007 – 2016168, and includes the state highway network. Policy 6 seeks to specifically recognise the benefits from such infrastructure.

167 Objectives 3 – 6. 168 Now replaced by the Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010 – 2040.

4.3.31 In our view, the Expressway is consistent with the objectives and policies that seek to recognise and protect regionally significant infrastructure.

Freshwater 4.3.32 Relevant objectives and policies seek to ensure that water in the Greater Wellington Region meets the range and uses and values for which water is required, safeguards the life-supporting capacity of water, and effects on water quality and ecology arising from land use and development activities are minimised169.

4.3.33 Policy 42 relates to protecting the aquatic ecological function of waterbodies and notes that particular regard shall be given to maintaining or enhancing the functioning of ecosystems, minimising the effect of groundwater recharge areas that are connected to surface water bodies, maintaining or enhancing the amenity and recreational values of rivers and lakes (including those listed in Table 15 of Appendix 1), and protecting the significant indigenous ecosystems and habitats of rivers and lakes (including those listed in Table 16 of Appendix 1).

4.3.34 We note that the Otaki River is identified in Table 15 of Appendix 1 of the RPS due to its value for fishing, swimming, kayaking, canoeing and camping. Likewise, the Otaki River, Mangaone Stream and Waitohu Stream are identified in Table 16 for values related to high macroinvertebrate community health, habitat for threatened and migratory indigenous fish species, and inanga spawning habitat.

4.3.35 At a general level, we note that the RPS favours a cautious approach to the management of freshwater values. Methods to mitigate the effects of the project on freshwater have been identified in the AEE and the evidence or Dr Larned including wetland restoration and enhancement, riparian planting, the provision of fish passage and, controls relating to sediment and stormwater discharges. That said, we note that there remains disagreement amongst the ecological witnesses as to the adequacy of these measures.

4.3.36 In our view, it is premature to form an opinion on the consistency of the Project with the relevant objectives and policies of the RPS insofar as they relate to

169 Objectives 12 – 14 and Policies 13, 14, 39 – 41.

freshwater until there is greater certainty on the appropriateness of, and need for, the mitigation measures proposed. We propose to return to this matter within our Second Edition report – post the review of rebuttal evidence.

Indigenous Ecosystems 4.3.37 Objective 16 seeks that indigenous ecosystems and habitats with significant biodiversity values are maintained and restored to a healthy functioning state. Policies 22 and 23 seek to identify and protect indigenous ecosystems and habitats with significant biodiversity values.

4.3.38 The AEE and evidence of Mr Turner on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail notes that the route selection process for the Expressway has attempted to avoid significant areas where possible (e.g. the indigenous vegetation and wetlands at Mary Crest). In this respect the Project achieves a degree of consistency with the relevant policies.

4.3.39 It is, however, acknowledged that the Project will have significant effects on the Otaki Railway Wetland and other ecological features. As such, a proposed restoration and enhancement programme has been proposed by the NZTA / KiwiRail. Again, we note that the respective ecological experts disagree over the adequacy and extent of these mitigation measures. Again, we propose that further comment about this issue will be made within our Second Edition report.

Landscape 4.3.40 The objectives and policies of the RPS seek to identify and protect outstanding natural landscapes and features from inappropriate subdivision, land use and development170. The AEE and evidence of Mr McKenzie notes that the Project area does not directly impact upon any outstanding natural landscapes or features171 . Likewise, the evidence of Ms Williams on behalf of the KCDC does not draw any conclusions with respect to the identification of outstanding natural landscapes or features.

4.3.41 As such, Objective 17 of the RPS and its associated policies are not considered to be overly relevant to the Project.

170 Objective 17 of the RPS. 171 Noting that a section of the Otaki River not affected by the Project is identified as an outstanding natural landscape.

Natural Hazards 4.3.42 The relevant objectives172 relating to natural hazards seek to reduce the risks and consequences from natural hazards, ensure that risks are not exacerbated by hazard mitigation measures, and ensure that communities are more resilient to natural hazards (including from the impacts of climate change).

4.3.43 The AEE sets out that the Expressway will be designed and constructed to ensure natural hazards are not exacerbated and resilience is maintained in response to natural hazard events. In this regard, the Expressway will be designed to remain open following a large local magnitude 7.5 earthquake event. Likewise, the route of the Expressway has been designed to avoid crossing the Northern Ohariu Fault on structures which may be severely damaged and would take a long time to reinstate. The Expressway will instead cross the fault on earthworks which will enable more rapid reinstatement of access.

4.3.44 In terms of flood hazards, the evidence of Dr Webby considers that these can be managed and mitigated through the design elements of the Project. However, this is disputed by a number of submitters – including within the expert evidence of Mr Van Bentum on behalf of the KCDC. We expect that this matter will be further addressed in rebuttal evidence. We will likely comment further once this evidence has been reviewed.

Regional Form and Function 4.3.45 Objective 22 seeks to achieve a compact, well designed and sustainable regional form that has an integrated, safe and responsive transport network.

4.3.46 The AEE sets out the overall urban design vision for the Project and its wider surrounding context. The AEE states that this vision incorporates the aspirations of the KCDC, GWRC and the local community.

4.3.47 The impact of the Expressway on town centres has also been assessed. This has been addressed earlier in this report. Diverting the highway from existing urban areas will result in a reduction in heavy traffic and will improve the overall amenity levels in these centres. However, the AEE does acknowledge that the

172 Objectives 18, 19 and 20 of the RPS.

Expressway does have the potential to increase severance (particularly around North Otaki). In order to mitigate this effect it is proposed to maintain existing cross connections and provide underpasses in selection locations to facilitate pedestrian and cycling movements.

4.3.48 It is our view that the Expressway will improve the overall functioning and the safety of the transportation network in this locality. However, there is disagreement between the respective experts as to the process for the incorporation of community aspirations into the final design of the Expressway and its structures. Likewise, there remains some disagreement between experts over the extent and location of proposed landscape and visual mitigation. Again, we proposed to revisit this issue in our Second Edition report.

Cultural and Heritage Values 4.3.49 As one would expect, the RPS contains a broad range of objectives and policies that recognise cultural and heritage values.

4.3.50 Policy 66 seeks to enhance the involvement of iwi in decision-making processes, while Objective 24 and Policy 48 emphasise the statutory requirement to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Objective 25 seeks to ensure the concept of kaitakitanga is integrated into the management of natural and physical resources. Policy 49 seeks to avoid adverse effects on matters of significance to tangata whenua.

4.3.51 With respect to heritage values, Objective 15 seeks to identify and protect historic heritage from inappropriate development. Policy 46 sets out that matters that should be assessed when considering a resource consent application or NOR that may affect a site or area with historic heritage value. It also sets out a number of matters that are relevant in determining whether an activity is inappropriate (including irreversibly of effects, degree to which the values will be lost, damaged or destroyed, and the degree to which previous changes have respected and retained the heritage value).

4.3.52 Consultation with relevant iwi has been undertaken by the NZTA / KiwiRail and the AEE is accompanied by a CIA. The CIA identifies the Pare o Matangi Reserve as being of "special significance to Ngati Raukawa”. Because of the importance of the reserve to the community, the area is proposed to be reconfigured and

landscaped to mitigate the effects of construction works and recreate a usable area of open space. The evidence of Mr Toataua recommends that the NZTA / KiwiRail seek to engage further with Nga Hapu o Otaki before finalising the plans for reconfiguring and landscaping the reserve.

4.3.53 With respect to historic heritage values, a comprehensive suite of measures to address potential adverse effects on historic heritage are contained in the proposed designation conditions. These measures include realigning the Otaki Railway Station to maintain its current visual and physical connection with the NIMT railway line and relocating Clifden Cottage to a site at 91 Gear Road, Te Horo.

4.3.54 In our view the extent of consultation, assessment and mitigation proposed in relation to known areas of cultural or heritage significance appears to have been robust to the extent necessary to be consistent with the relevant objectives and policies in the RPS.

4.3.55 There is some possibility that previously undiscovered wahi tapu or archaeological sites of significance might be uncovered during construction of the Project. As such, it is appropriate that any consents granted include appropriate accidental discovery protocols to be adhered to throughout the construction phase. We note that conditions are proposed which address this matter.

Soils 4.3.56 Objective 30 seeks to maintain the desirable characteristics of soils that enable them to have an ecosystem function. Supporting policies seek to minimise effects from earthworks and vegetation disturbance on aquatic ecosystem health from silt and sedimentation173. Other policies seek to maintain the productive capacity of soils for agricultural purposes174.

4.3.57 The AEE and evidence of Mr Bird on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail discusses the techniques that would be employed to ensure that adverse effects from construction and earthworks are contained and appropriately managed with respect to land stability and sediment runoff. Witness conferencing has

173 Policies 15 and 41 of RPS. 174 Policy 59 of RPS.

addressed the need for suitable sediment control measures and water quality monitoring triggers.

4.3.58 It is our view that the proposed conditions need to be suitably robust to ensure that any actual adverse effects arising from proposed earthworks are appropriately managed by way of an adaptive management response. Such a management response, coupled with specific conditions relating to the design of erosion and sediment control structures and treatment of sediment and stormwater runoff, will be necessary to achieve consistency with the relevant objectives and policies of the RPS. Ms Beals is currently reviewing the relevant conditions in the light of expert conferencing.

4.3.59 We note that higher class soils do not appear to be affected to a significant extent by the Project. This is illustrated in Annexure A to the evidence of Mr Coop on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail.

Wellington Regional Freshwater Plan (RFP) 4.3.60 Objectives 4.1.1 to 4.1.3 of the RFP seek to ensure that the relationship of tangata whenua with freshwater is recognised and provided for, that the mauri of water is protected, and that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are taken into account. The ensuing policies seek to manage sites of special value175 and encourage applicants to consult with tangata whenua176. It is evident from the evidence177 that consultation with iwi has occurred and will continue. It would also appear that the relationship of tangata whenua with the freshwater resource has been (or will be via the imposition of appropriate conditions) properly recognised.

4.3.61 Objectives 4.1.4 to 4.1.6 of the RFP relate to the natural values of waterbodies. These objectives generally seek to deliver outcomes that are consistent with Part 2 of the RMA and broadly relate to the identification of key environmental values (i.e. natural character, life-supporting capacity and significant indigenous vegetation and habitats). The general framework for the objectives seeks to identify the key environmental values or issues and require that these be

175 Policy 4.2.1 of RFP. 176 Policy 4.2.2 of RFP. 177 Evidence of Mr Toataua (12 July 2013).

protected from inappropriate development and activities. Policy 4.2.9 seeks to have regard to various values (ecosystems, water quality, flow, topography) within water bodies when considering the protection of their natural character from the adverse effects of subdivision, use and development.

4.3.62 We note that Policy 4.2.13 requires that nationally threatened indigenous aquatic plants and freshwater fauna identified in Appendix 3 be protected by managing water quality, and avoiding adverse effects on habitats that are important to the life cycle and survival (including spawning areas) of fish and birds. The Otaki River is listed in Appendix 3. The policy seeks that these waterbodies are protected largely through appropriate management techniques (i.e. managing water quality to specified standards which are set out in Policies 5.2.1 to 5.2.7).

4.3.63 Policies 4.2.14 and 5.2.3 are also relevant as these relate to waterbodies with trout habitat as identified in Appendix 4 of the RFP. The Otaki River is listed in Appendix 4. In our view, and based on the evidence of Dr Larned, provided there are appropriate control methodologies employed to minimise bed disturbance to the extent practicable, temporary works associated with the construction of the bridges are unlikely to have any significant adverse effects on trout habitat in the Otaki River.

4.3.64 Objectives 4.1.7 and 4.1.8 relate to the amenity and recreational values of waterbodies and provide for access to them being maintained or enhanced where appropriate. Objectives 4.1.11 to 4.1.17 are associated with the use and development of freshwater resources. Policy 4.2.23 requires that regard be given to the social, economic and cultural benefits arising from any proposal for the use and development of a waterbody. The Project is not one that comprises a direct use of freshwater. However, there are broader benefits inherent in enabling the crossing of a number of waterways as is proposed.

4.3.65 Chapter Five of the RFP includes objectives and policies regarding water quality and discharges to freshwater. Objectives 5.1.1 - 5.1.3 seek to have freshwater quality meet the range of uses and values for which it is required (including tangata whenua values), while safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of water and aquatic ecosystems, and being available to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations. Policy 5.2.4 seeks to manage water quality for contact recreation purposes in listed water bodies (Otaki River). Policies 5.2.6 to

5.2.9 relate to managing the water quality of all surface water bodies in the Wellington Region for aquatic ecosystem purposes and to manage the quality of groundwater. Policies 5.2.14 seeks to encourage the treatment of stormwater discharges to reduce the adverse effects of such discharges on the receiving water body.

4.3.66 Given the approaches to be adopted to manage erosion and sediment discharges, the Project is generally consistent with the relevant matters. We note also that treatment is also proposed for operational stormwater discharges from the road. Such measures will ensure that the proposal is consistent with Policy 5.2.14.

4.3.67 Chapter 6 sets out the water quantity objectives and policies. These relate to the taking, use, damming, or diversion of freshwater and managing water abstraction and water takes, along with protecting other lawful water users. It has been identified that the construction of the Expressway may affect groundwater levels. It is proposed that this will be monitored during construction and an adaptive response implemented should any adverse effects be detected. Further work is being undertaken by Ms Beals with respect to conditions, including approaches to manage the impact of any groundwater drawdown on existing abstractors. In our view, the Project will not be inconsistent with the relevant provisions concerning the management of groundwater – particularly given that a GMP is now proposed that will detail monitoring requirements and the need for remedial measures.

4.3.68 Chapter Seven includes objectives and policies relating to use and development within the beds of rivers and lakes. Objective 7.1.1 provides for the use of beds of rivers and lakes, while ensuring that adverse effects are appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated. Objective 7.1.4 seeks to ensure that the use of rivers and lake beds are, as far as practicable, consistent with the values of tangata whenua. Policy 7.2.1 seeks to allow structures for transportation uses within river and lake beds, provided that any adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated, and that the adverse effects listed in Policy 7.2.2 are avoided. Policy 7.2.2 sets out the circumstances when certain activities within river and lakes beds might not be allowed, including if there are significant adverse effects on the values held by tangata whenua, natural or amenity values, or water quality. Policy 7.2.15 seeks

to ensure that any reclamation or drainage of any water body is only carried out when it is consistent with Policy 4.2.10.

4.3.69 There will be temporary adverse effects arising from the disturbance to beds of streams and rivers during the construction of the Expressway. These effects are proposed to be mitigated through site specific construction related controls (i.e. sediment and stormwater controls, fish relocation etc.) and also through the restoration and enhancement of streams, including via offsetting measures. Our comments earlier in this report that relate to these matters are also relevant here.

Regional Air Quality Management Plan for the Wellington Region 4.3.70 Relevant objectives and policies seek to maintain and enhance existing air quality of the region178, and to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on amenity values179. Policy 4.2.5 seeks to avoid or minimise adverse effects by managing the discharge at its source. We note that measures are proposed to manage any adverse effect at the source (i.e. dampening of exposed areas). A management plan is proposed to manage dust effects. In our view, the mitigation measures promoted by Mr Curtis are generally consistent with measures adopted on similar projects with which we have experience.

4.3.71 Turning to the effects of vehicle emissions on air quality, relevant policies seek to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of discharges to air from mobile transport sources, and to promote improved air quality by encouraging public transportation efficiencies, alternative transportation methods and an aim to reduce vehicle congestion in urban areas180. Mr Curtis considers that the Expressway will result in an overall improvement in air quality in the surrounding environment and will not result in the exceedance of the relevant air quality assessment criteria.

Regional Soil Plan for the Wellington Region (Soil Plan) 4.3.72 The provisions in the Soil Plan are particularly relevant to bulk earthwork activities. The most relevant policies relate to the involvement of tangata whenua, the management of erosion and sedimentation, water quality, monitoring, cultural effects and effects on ecology. In particular, Objective 4.1.8 seeks that the

178 Objective 4.1.1. 179 Policy 4.2.7. 180 Policies 4.2.22 and 4.2.23.

adverse effects of accelerated erosion be avoided, remedied or mitigated. Objective 4.1.11 seeks that land management practices are adopted for the effective control of sediment runoff to waterbodies. Similarly, Policy 4.2.16 seeks to ensure that recognised erosion control and land rehabilitation techniques are adopted to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects resulting from soil disturbance activities.

4.3.73 Erosion and sediment control matters have been discussed in the expert evidence and throughout this report. As previously noted, agreement has been reached via the witness conferencing with respect to the water quality monitoring triggers for sedimentation, and appropriate sediment control measures (e.g. the use of flocculants in the sediment ponds). As such, it is considered that the Project will achieve consistency with the relevant objectives and policies of the Soil Plan.

Regional Plan for Discharges to Land (Discharge Plan) 4.3.74 The Discharge Plan is particularly relevant for the resource consents necessary for earthworks and vegetation removal, the discharge of stormwater to land, and the use of contaminated land.

4.3.75 Provided sediment and stormwater treatment devices are utilised, monitored and maintained and there are specific conditions included to require this, and the site specific measures are used at identified contaminated sites, it is our view that the proposal is generally consistent with the objectives and policies of the Discharge Plan.

Regional Coastal Plan for the Wellington Region (RCP) 4.3.76 None of the proposed activities are located within the CMA. However, the AEE notes that some of the activities have the potential to cause effects on the coastal environment - particularly the discharge of contaminants to streams that ultimately discharge to the coastal environment.

4.3.77 The overall conclusion in the AEE is that the Project does not raise issues of concern in relation to the objectives and policies of the RCP, including the objectives and policies relating to the discharge of contaminants to coastal water and tangata whenua values associated with the CMA. We agree with this conclusion.

Kapiti Coast District Plan 4.3.78 The designations being sought by the NZTA / KiwiRail are located within the jurisdiction of the KCDC. The Kapiti Coast District Plan (“District Plan”) became operative on 30 July 1999 and has been subject to a number of plan changes since that time. In addition, the KCDC is about to commence hearings on submissions to the Proposed Kapiti Coast District Plan (“Proposed Plan”), which will eventually replace the District Plan. The Proposed Plan is briefly discussed further later in this report.

4.3.79 The AEE provides an assessment of the Project against the District Plan181 and concludes that the Project is broadly consistent with the relevant objectives and policies. Likewise, the evidence of Mr Coop on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail182 considers the Project to be generally consistent with the District Plan. The Key Issues Report183 by the KCDC also provides an overview of the relevant objectives and policies of the District Plan and identifies key issues in relation to each section.

Residential Zone 4.3.80 The relevant objectives and policies relating to the Residential Zone are particularly concerned with residential amenity. They refer to residential areas being quiet, safe, pleasant and healthy environments, and the provision of walkways, cycleways and public transport. Policy 2 (to Objective 2) seeks to prohibit activities which have significant adverse effects on the character and amenity values of residential environments, and which cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated in an appropriate / practicable manner.

4.3.81 Policy 3 (to Objective 2) encourages non-residential activities that have public benefit, provides that adverse effects on amenity values are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

4.3.82 Whether the Project is consistent with these provisions is somewhat dependent on the final design of the Expressway and the conclusions reached with respect to conditions which mitigate the potential visual and noise effects of the Project

181 Section 33 of AEE. 182 Evidence of P Coop (12 July 2013) – Paragraph 170(h). 183 Section 4.4.5 of KCDC Key Issues Report (17 May 2013).

(which is still a matter of contention between the respective experts). As indicated earlier, the draft conditions remain a “work in progress”. We intend to comment further once the rebuttal evidence has been reviewed.

Rural Zone 4.3.83 The relevant objectives and policies of the Rural Zone are particular concerned with the management of effects on the natural and physical environments, including the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation / habitats of indigenous fauna, and the maintenance, enhancement and protection of outstanding natural landscapes.

4.3.84 As is noted in Section 33 of the AEE, some rural zoned land will be 'lost' to the Expressway. However, it is noted that the area of land has been minimised by the Expressway seeking to follow the existing alignment of State Highway 1 for the most part. Whether the Project properly protects significant indigenous vegetation / habitats of indigenous fauna remains a matter of contention between the ecological experts – particularly with respect to the extent and scope of mitigation proposed by the NZTA / KiwiRail. We will revisit this issue once rebuttal evidence has been reviewed.

4.3.85 As discussed earlier in this report, the Project will not affect any outstanding natural landscapes.

Tangata Whenua 4.3.86 The relevant objectives and policies of the tangata whenua section of the District Plan are concerned with taking into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, having particular regard to kaitiakitanga, and ensuring the relationship of the tangata whenua with the natural environment is provided for. We have addressed this matter in terms of the other relevant Policy Statements and Plans earlier in this report.

Heritage 4.3.87 Objective 1.0 seeks “to identify and protect heritage features of significance to the Kapiti Coast District”, while Objective 2.0 seeks “to recognise the relationship a heritage resource may have with the land surrounding the resource”.

4.3.94 As noted with respect to the RPS, a comprehensive suite of measures to address potential adverse effects on historic heritage are set out in the proposed designation and resource consent conditions attached to the evidence of Ms Beals.

4.3.88 The NZTA / KiwiRail has also agreed to investigate, record and provide interpretative material for sites or features of cultural or archaeological significance found within the vicinity of the designation. Likewise, an accidental discovery protocol will be implemented during the construction of the Expressway in order to mitigate the potential disturbance of previously unrecorded archaeological and heritage sites.

Landscape 4.3.89 The relevant objective of the landscape section of the District Plan is concerned with the identification / protection of outstanding landscapes. As previously discussed in this report, the Project is not considered to be located in an area containing an outstanding natural landscape or feature.

Ecology 4.3.90 Objective 1 of the ecology section of the District Plan seeks to “protect and enhance the natural environment and ecological integrity of the district, including protection of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats for indigenous flora and fauna”. Policy 4 seeks to ensure that significant native vegetation is not removed and any disturbance is avoided, remedied or mitigated. Policy 5 seeks to ensure that the effects of land use and development do not alter the water table of significant wetlands and lakes to a significant extent. Policy 6 seeks to ensure that land use activities avoid or minimise disturbance to native fauna and their habitats, while Policy 7 seeks to ensure that land use activities do not adversely affect water quality.

4.3.91 As set out earlier in this report, the NZTA / KiwiRail have sought to avoid, as far as practicable, significant ecological areas (e.g. wetlands) in confirming the location and general design of the Expressway. That said, the AEE and evidence of Mr Turner and Dr Larned acknowledge that the Project will have adverse ecological effects. As previously detailed in this report, ecological experts remain in contest as to the extent of mitigation required to offset the ecological effects of

the Project. Further comment on this issue will be made within our Second Edition report.

Open Space and Reserves 4.3.92 The relevant objective seeks to identify, maintain and enhance the open space and recreation resources of the District, to ensure that the present and future needs of the Kapiti Coast District for recreational opportunities and open areas are met without adverse effects on the physical values of the natural environment.

4.3.93 As noted previously in this report, the Project will disturb the Pare o Matangi Reserve – which is also identified in the CIA as being of "special significance to Ngati Raukawa”. Because of the importance of the reserve to the community, the area is proposed to be reconfigured and landscaped to mitigate the effects of construction works and recreate a usable area of open space.

Noise 4.3.94 The relevant objectives in the noise section of the District Plan are particularly concerned with the effects of noise on public health and amenity. Objective 2 seeks to “ensure that the adverse effects of road traffic noise on the amenity values of the residential environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated”. Policies 2 and 4 relate to new roads and seek that they are designed to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of traffic noise in residential areas, and that adverse effects of road traffic noise on inhabitants of existing residential accommodation are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

4.3.95 The potential noise effects on residential amenity have been a key consideration in the AEE and in the evidence of Dr Chiles and Mr Hunt. It is acknowledged that the Expressway will increase noise levels at some locations and decrease noise levels at others. While there are still points of disagreement between Dr Chiles and Mr Hunt, there does appear to be agreement over the measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate potential adverse noise effects at key / sensitive locations. As such, we are of the opinion that the Project is likely to be consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the District Plan in this regard.

Natural Hazards 4.3.96 The relevant objectives and policies in the natural hazards section are concerned with managing activities and development within natural hazard prone areas. In

particular, Policy 6 seeks to “promote a viable alternative access to the north of the district in the event of an earthquake”.

4.3.97 In our assessment, one of the benefits of the Project is an increase in the resilience of the state highway network to the threat posed by natural hazards. Therefore, it is considered to be consistent with these provisions.

Transport 4.3.98 Objective 1 seeks “to achieve a transport infrastructure that provides for efficient and safe movement of people and goods throughout the district and which avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse effects of existing and new traffic routes”. The supporting policies require environmental impact reports for any crossing of the Otaki River, the consideration of pedestrian and cycleways, as well as the use of public transportation. Policy 12 seeks to protect the existing and proposed state highway network.

4.3.99 As stated, a benefit of this Project is that it will facilitate the more efficient movement of people and goods throughout the District (and wider), reduce travel times, and improve safety. The proposed designation is, therefore, consistent with Objective 1 and Policy 12 of this section of the District Plan.

Network Utilities 4.3.100 The relevant objectives and policies in the District Plan concerning network utilities seek to provide for them, while addressing their potential adverse effects on the environment.

4.3.101 The NZTA / KiwiRail has consulted with various utility operators who are potentially affected by this Project. A NUMP will also be prepared by the NZTA / KiwiRail that will ensure that network utility operators have a clear understanding as to how the NZTA will take network utilities into account during the construction of the Project. The NUMP will include the measures to address the safety, integrity, protection or, where necessary, relocation of existing network utilities.

Proposed Kapiti Coast District Plan 2012 4.3.102 The Proposed Plan was notified on 29 November 2012 and the period for submissions closed on 1 March 2013. As noted earlier, the KCDC will shortly

commence hearings on submissions to the Proposed Plan. The weight to be attached to this Plan should be reflective of the fact that submissions have yet to be heard and as such, its provisions are not yet settled.

4.3.103 The Proposed Plan has a number of objectives covering matters similar to those set out in the District Plan. In this regard, the Proposed Plan includes objectives regarding:

 Working in partnership with tangata whenua;

 The improvement of indigenous biodiversity via the protection of significant indigenous vegetation and habitat;

 The maintenance of a consolidated urban form;

 The protection of the natural character of the coastal environment;

 Avoiding exposure to increased levels of risk from natural hazards;

 The protection of historic heritage from inappropriate development;

 Ensuring that the transport system integrates with urban form and minimises adverse effects of land uses; and

 Promotion of sustainable and on-going economic development.

4.3.104 Having reviewed the Proposed Plan, it is our overall conclusion that the comments made with respect to the District Plan also generally apply with respect to the Proposed Plan.

4.4 RELEVANT OTHER MATTERS

4.4.1 Pursuant to Section 104(1)(c) of the RMA, regard must also be had to any other matter that is considered relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the resource consent applications. Section 171(1)(d) of the RMA also requires regard to be had to any other matter considered reasonably necessary in order to make a recommendation on the NoR.

4.4.2 We agree that the documents set out in Section 33.8 of the AEE are relevant ‘other matters’ to be considered in relation to this Project. We note, however, that the AEE does not reference the Wellington Conservation Management Strategy 1996 as being a relevant ‘other matter’. This document was seen as relevant by

the NZTA to the case for the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway Project. It might be helpful for this to be briefly addressed in rebuttal by the NZTA planning witnesses in order to assist the Board.

4.4.3 In most instances the other material is supportive of the Expressway184.

4.5 ALTERNATIVES

4.5.1 Pursuant to Section 171(1)(b) of the RMA, particular regard must be given to whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, route and methods of undertaking the public work, if the Requiring Authority does not have an interest in the land sufficient for undertaking the work, or it is likely that the work will have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

4.5.2 The NZTA / KiwiRail has addressed the issue of alternatives in the AEE, as well as in evidence of Ms Allan185 (for NZTA) and Ms Butler (for KiwiRail)186.

4.5.3 In undertaking an assessment of alternatives under Section 171 of the RMA, it is our understanding that it is not incumbent upon a Requiring Authority to demonstrate that it has considered all possible alternatives or that it has selected the ‘best’ of all available alternatives. Rather, it is our understanding that it is for the Requiring Authority to establish an appropriate range of alternatives and properly consider them. In our experience, Requiring Authorities review those alternatives that are potentially viable for the achievement of its stated objectives in undertaking the designation in the first place. This is because there is little to be gained from assessing an array of alternatives that are effectively nugatory on the basis that they would not meet the stated designation objectives.

4.5.4 Given this, it is our view that the NZTA / KiwiRail has adequately assessed alternatives in preparing the NoR. This assessment, insofar as the Expressway is concerned, is set out in Section 9 of the AEE and is summarised in the evidence of Ms Allan. The assessment of alternatives sets out that the NZTA has considered alternative routes, alternative alignments and interchanges, alternative designs which includes construction methods and alternative

184 For example, the Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy (RLTS) 2010-2040. 185 Evidence of S Allan (12 July 2013). 186 Evidence of P Butler (12 July 2013).

measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects and alternative methods of discharging contaminants. The assessment in our view demonstrates that the NZTA / KiwiRail went through a fulsome and systematic selection basis before finally coming to a conclusion about the preferred alignment.

4.6 OBJECTIVES OF THE REQUIRING AUTHORITY

4.6.1 The stated objectives for the NZTA in relation to this Project are set out in Section 2.6 of the AEE and in the evidence of Mr James. In accordance with Section 171(1)(c) of the RMA, particular regard must be had to “whether the work and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the Requiring Authority for which the designation is sought”.

4.6.2 The objectives of the NZTA for this Project are to:

 Enhance inter-regional and national economic growth and productivity;

 Enhance efficiency and journey time reliability from, to and through, the Kapiti District, Wellington's CBD, key industrial and employment centres, the port, airport and hospital;

 Enhance safety of travel on State Highway 1; and

 Appropriately balance the competing functional performance requirements of interregional and local traffic movements, and to facilitate others to provide modal choice opportunities, to enable local facilities and amenities in the Kapiti District to be efficiently accessed.

4.6.3 Having reviewed the AEE and the relevant evidence187 with respect to these objectives we have formed the opinion that the Project:

 Will enhance access between key centres on the north coast of the Wellington Region and improve access to facilities such as the port, hospital and airports;

 Will improve safety, access and reliability;

 Will improve route security and resilience of the Wellington Region’s state highway network and the Kapiti Coast District’s networks in the event of a significant earthquake, road accident or other disruption;

187 Evidence of D Dunlop (12 July 2013) and T Coulman (12 July 2013).

 Will increase local accessibility within the Kapiti Coast District’s travel network; and

 Has taken into account existing and future patterns of urban development and can be integrated into the urban form of the Kapiti Coast District.

4.7 SECTIONS 105 & 107

4.7.1 Section 105(1) of the RMA sets out the matters that a consent authority must have regard to when considering a resource consent application for a discharge permit. In particular, regard needs to be given to the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects, the applicant’s reasons for the proposed discharge, as well as any possible alternative methods of discharge, including into any other receiving environment. Section 107 of the RMA also sets out the restrictions on granting discharge permits, as well as the circumstances when a discharge permit which gives rise to adverse effects may be granted.

4.7.2 The construction of the Expressway will involve significant earthworks with the resultant effect being increased sediment and stormwater runoff from exposed areas. The runoff from construction may potentially increase the amount of sediment and contaminants in various waterbodies. Various submitters have also raised concerns about the effects of such discharges and the appropriate water quality monitoring triggers that should be applied to their management.

4.7.3 We consider that through appropriate project design features (i.e. the avoidance of certain areas, staging construction, protecting steep slopes, installing erosion and sediment control devices) coupled with appropriate standards and monitoring, the actual and potential adverse effects from sediment discharge on sensitive receiving environments can be appropriately managed.

4.7.4 We also note that the discharges arising from construction are temporary and are associated with the construction of a project that has significant regional and national benefit. Therefore, such discharges are not limited by the restrictions set out within Section 107 of the RMA.

4.8 PART 2

4.8.1 The promotion of sustainable management often requires a decision-maker to weigh competing resource values and the benefits and adverse effects associated with a proposal.

4.8.2 There is evidence to support the proposition that the Project will enable people and communities to provide for their social, cultural and economic wellbeing. In particular, the Project is consistent with national and regional policy directions relating to transportation matters. The Expressway also constitutes an element of the Wellington Northern Corridor RoNS that has been identified by the Government. In this regard, the development of the Expressway is identified as being necessary to improve accessibility and connectivity between economic centres across the Wellington Region. The Expressway will also provide benefits in the form of a more resilient transportation network, improved safety, and a reduction in congestion on the existing State Highway 1.

4.8.3 Based on the evidence and mitigation proposed to date, it is not possible to say conclusively that the Project will properly safeguard the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems. More particularly, while it appears likely that there are methods available to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of the Project on the environment, there is uncertainty and some residual expert disagreement over whether sufficiently adequate methods have been proffered within the proposed designation and resource consent conditions.

4.8.4 Section 6 of the RMA lists the matters of national importance which must be recognised and provided for. It is accepted by the NZTA that the Expressway will result in a change in natural character of existing waterbodies affected by the Project (including the Otaki River). In some cases, however, the AEE has identified that a number of the affected waterbodies are already highly modified and the natural character has already been affected. Mitigation for the loss of natural character values is proposed by the NZTA / KiwiRail. There is, however, disagreement amongst the ecological experts as to the extent of mitigation required.

4.8.5 There will be areas of significant indigenous vegetation and habitat adversely affected as a result of this Project. We note that, where practicable, areas of

significant natural value have been avoided via route alignment selection. In other areas, where avoidance is not practicable, mitigation is proposed (including via the re-creation of wetlands and other forms of offsetting). As previously noted, there remains some disagreement amongst the ecological experts as to the scale and extent of offset mitigation proposed by the NZTA / KiwiRail. There is also concern that the assessments of indigenous fauna values have not been adequate. In our assessment, this is one of a number of key matters before the Board.

4.8.6 It is our opinion that the Project will not adversely affect the maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along waterbodies along the route of the Expressway.

4.8.7 It is evident that a thorough consultation process has been undertaken with tangata whenua. It is apparent that cultural values have been taken into account in developing the Expressway and will continue to be accounted for throughout the construction process. In this regard, a range of mitigation measures are proposed in the evidence of Mr Toataua on behalf of the NZTA / KiwiRail. The approach the NZTA / KiwiRail has adopted in regard to historic heritage management also appears to be appropriate in the circumstances.

4.8.8 Section 7 lists other matters to which particular regard must also be had. As noted above, it is evident that efforts have been made to properly recognise the kaitiakitanga of tangata whenua and the ethic of stewardship.

4.8.9. The efficient use and development of existing resources has been considered through the linkages to local roads, which will improve access and functioning of the wider transportation network. We note that the Project will have some adverse effects on businesses that rely on the traffic along the existing State Highway 1. We think that this is a potential adverse effect which cannot be readily mitigated (although we note that directive signage is proposed). The AEE and evidence identifies that in the long term the increased accessibility between centres and efficiency arising from the Expressway will provide economic benefits to the wider community that outweigh these adverse localised effects.

4.8.10 The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values is a key matter in terms of section 7(c). It is evident that mechanisms exist to mitigate the effects of the

Expressway on amenity values, as well as its construction effects. However, there is expert disagreement as to whether the mitigation mechanisms currently proposed by the NZTA / KiwiRail (including the proposed designation and resource consent conditions) are adequate, particularly in regard to landscape effects and in terms of urban design considerations.

4.8.11 Section 7 also requires a consideration of the Project against the direct effects of climate change (as opposed to effects on climate change). In this regard, we note that the project modelling by the NZTA / KiwiRail has factored in climate change when determining future stream flows and appropriate culvert sizing etc.

4.8.12 In terms of section 8 of the RMA, it appears that the NZTA / KiwiRail has actively consulted with iwi on various issues and has respected the obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.

4.8.13 As occurs in a project of this nature, there are a number of competing considerations to be weighed, but ultimately it is necessary to determine whether sustainable management is better promoted with or without the Expressway. The NZTA / KiwiRail accept that a Project of this scale will have adverse effects on the environment. Appropriate conditions are, therefore, necessary to ensure that these effects are appropriately avoided or mitigated. Adaptive management is proposed in the designation and resource consent conditions. We agree that this can be appropriate, provided there are robust conditions to guide the use of this process.

4.8.14 As indicated earlier, proposed draft conditions are currently being refined. Further comment about conditions will be proffered in our Second Edition report.

J C KYLE R J TURNER BRP (Hons) BPLAN (Hons)

2 September 2013

APPENDIX A

Summary of Project Experience of John Kyle

 Environmental Protection Authority – advisor to the Minister appointed Board of Inquiry regarding a Notice of Requirement and resource consent applications by the New Zealand Transport Agency with respect to the Expressway between MacKays Crossing and Peka Peka on the Kapiti Coast.

 Environmental Protection Authority – advisor to the Minister appointed Board of Inquiry regarding resource consent applications and designations by the New Zealand Transport Agency with respect to the proposed Transmission Gully Project – Wellington Region.

 Environmental Protection Authority – advisor to the Minister appointed Board of Inquiry regarding resource consents by the New Zealand Transport Agency and a Plan Change proposal by the New Zealand Transport Agency to change the Wellington Regional Water Plan associated with proposed Transmission Gully Road of National Significance – Wellington Region.

 Wellington International Airport Limited – Scoping of designations and resource consents for improving degree of CAA compliance and runway extension – Wellington City.

 Alliance Group – advisor regarding various regional and district plans – nationwide.

 Alliance Group Limited – Air Discharge Consents – Pukeuri Meat Processing Works, Pukeuri - Otago Region.

 TrustPower Limited – Proposed alteration to the Rakaia Water Conservation Order – Lake Coleridge Hydro Electric Power Scheme – Canterbury Region.

 Meridian Energy Limited – Proposed Mokihinui Hydro Electric Power Scheme, damming, water and land use related consents, Buller District and West Coast Region.

 TrustPower Limited – Wairau Hydro Electric Power Scheme, water and land use related consents, Marlborough District.

 Sanford Limited, various marine farm proposals Marlborough Sounds, Marlborough District.

 Genesis Power Limited – due diligence Slopedown Wind Farm, Southland District and Southland Region.

 Port Marlborough Limited – Plan Change proposal to alter the marina zone within the Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan to provide for consolidation of marina development in Waikawa Bay, Marlborough District.

 Irmo Properties Limited – Resource consent application for retail complex, Green Island – Dunedin City.

 Port Marlborough Limited – Resource consent application for occupation of coastal space – Shakespeare Bay port facilities – Marlborough District.

 Meridian Energy Limited – Proposed Wind Farm, Lammermoor Range, Central Otago District and Otago Region.

 Riverstone Holdings Limited – Proposed Monorail Link – Lake Wakatipu to Fiordland, Department of Conservation Concession Application – Southland Conservancy.

 Otago Regional Council – Consents required for controlling the Shotover River to mitigate flood risk – Queenstown Lakes District and Otago Region.

 Queenstown Airport Corporation – Runway End Safety Area, designation and construction related consents, Queenstown Lakes District and Otago Region.

 Queenstown Airport Corporation – aircraft noise controls – Plan Change and Designation, Queenstown Lakes District.

 Queenstown Airport Corporation – aircraft flight fan controls – Designation, Queenstown Lakes District.

 Queenstown Airport Corporation – Notice of Requirement for land adjacent to Queenstown Airport Corporation in order provide for the future expansion of airport operations, Queenstown Lakes District.

 Ryman Healthcare Ltd – proposed retirement village – land use and stormwater consents – various locations New Zealand wide.

 Infinity Investment Group – Pegasus Town, North Canterbury – Waimakariri District, Canterbury Region.

iii

 TrustPower Limited – Proposed Kaiwera Downs Wind Farm, Gore District and Southland Region.

 Willowridge Developments – 3 Parks Plan Change to create new commercial, large format retail, service, tourist and residential land use zones, Wanaka, Queenstown Lakes District.

 Gibbston Valley Station – Land use and regional consents, Viticulture and Golf Resort, Gibbston – Queenstown Lakes District and Otago Region.

 Southdown Holdings Limited – resource consents necessary for large scale irrigation in the Upper Waitaki catchment, Upper Waitaki Basin, Canterbury Region.

 Marlborough District Council – Business Park Plan Change, Blenheim - Marlborough District.

 Ravensdown Fertiliser Limited – Coastal and Air Discharge Consent Renewal, Dunedin – Otago Region.

 Genesis Power Limited – Tongariro Power Development, Water Related Consents, Central North Island – Environment Waikato and Horizons MW.

 Genesis Power Limited – Waikato District Plan review and provision for the Huntly Power Station, Waikato District.

 Infinity Investment Group – Hillend Station Farm Park development, Wanaka – Queenstown Lakes District.

 Infinity Investment Group – Peninsula Bay Plan Change, Wanaka – Queenstown Lakes District.

 Kuku Mara Partnerships – Large Scale Marine Farms, Marlborough Sounds – Marlborough District.

 Marine Farming Industry – Plan Appeals, Tasman Aquaculture Inquiry, Tasman and Golden Bays – Tasman District.

 Meadow 3 – Threepwood Development Lake Hayes, Queenstown – Queenstown Lakes District.

 Armada Holdings – Luggate Village, Queenstown Lakes District.

 Minaret Resources Limited – Sugarloaf Project, Lowburn - Central Otago District.  Otago Land Group Limited – Mitre 10 Mega, Andersons Bay - Dunedin City.

 Otago Land Group Limited – Smiths City Redevelopment, Andersons Bay – Dunedin City.

 Matukituki Trust – Residential Development, Roy’s Peninsula, Wanaka – Queenstown lakes District.

 Nicholls Property Group – Commercial Development, George Street - Dunedin City.  Department of Corrections – New Corrections Facility, Milton - Clutha District and Otago Region.

 Department of Child Youth and Family – Youth Justice Facility, Rolleston – Selwyn District and Canterbury region.

 Telecom New Zealand Limited – Mobile Phone and Landline Infrastructure Developments, South Island, all Districts.

 Southern Health – Plan Change Invercargill Hospital Development - Invercargill City.

 Various clients – advice with respect to the promulgation of Resource Management Plans and Changes to those Plans – various Districts and Regions – predominantly South Island.

Summary of Project Experience of Richard Turner

 Genesis Power Limited – preparation of resource consent applications and Assessment of Environmental Effects for the Tekapo Canal Remediation Project, Canterbury.

 TrustPower – draft plan change to develop of comprehensive catchment plan for the Rakaia River Catchment in the Proposed Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan, Canterbury.

 TrustPower Limited – preparation of application and Assessment of Environmental Effects for a proposal to alter the National Water Conservation (Rakaia River) Order 1988 to enable the Lake Coleridge Project, Canterbury.

 Genesis Power Limited - due diligence on the transfer of Tekapo A and B Power Stations from Meridian Energy Limited, Canterbury.

 Western Firth Marine Farming Consortium – preparation of Assessment of Environmental Effects and advice regarding zoning for marine farm in the Hauraki Gulf, Auckland.

 Powerco Limited – preparation of notice of requirement and Assessment of Environmental Effects for electrical substation, Tauranga.

 Omanu Surf Life Saving Club – preparation of resource consent applications and Assessment of Environmental Effects for the re-development of the Omanu Surf Club, Mount Maunganui.

 Tauranga City Council – preparation of resource consent applications and Assessment of Environmental Effects for the re-development of Papamoa Domain, Papamoa.

 TrustPower Limited – preparation of resource consent application and Assessment of Environmental Effects for the Tararua 3 Wind Farm, Palmerston North.

 Balance Agri-Nutrients Limited - submissions on the Proposed Bay of Plenty Water and Land Plan.