Before a Board of Inquiry Ruakura Development Plan Change
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Before a Board of Inquiry Ruakura Development Plan Change IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of a Board of Inquiry appointed under section 149J of the Resource Management Act 1991 to consider a Plan Change requested by Tainui Group Holdings Limited and Chedworth Properties Limited Statement of Evidence in Chief of Amelia Linzey on behalf of Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Chedworth Properties Ltd 26 February 2014 Executive Summary 1. This statement of evidence is made in support of the Plan Change to the Operative Hamilton District Plan (“District Plan”), requested by Tainui Group Holdings Limited and Chedworth Properties Limited. 2. The key conclusions of the SIA assessment, as set out in this statement are: (a) That the Plan Change is consistent with and delivers to the sub- regional growth strategy (Future Proof) that identifies this area as making a significant contribution to the socio-economic wellbeing, by providing for increased employment as well as opportunities for residential and centre growth. (b) The Plan Change will provide positive social effects (for residents health and wellbeing as well as way of life) for the wider Hamilton community including increased residential choices, local employment opportunities and improved access and availability to local commercial and retail activity (particularly for the Hamilton east area). (c) The Plan Change will also positively contribute to the health and wellbeing of Waikato-Tainui beneficiaries, establishing an asset base that will provide income to enable consistent, long-term dividends to current and future generations of the tribe and continue to support the charitable purposes for the benefit of Waikato-Tainui members (e.g. for education, welfare, health, social and cultural facilities and activities). These positive impacts also have potential for positive impacts on community cohesion (engendering greater pride in tribal identity). (d) There will also be adverse social effects on social amenity and the residents’ wellbeing. Particularly, these will be experienced by local residents and those neighbouring the Plan Change Area, arising largely from the changes in the physical environment that these residents will experience. These adverse effects (disruption to way of life and changes to social amenity) will also occur during construction. I conclude that construction activity can be 1 expected to be addressed by the management put in place through subsequent consenting for such works. (e) There are a number of measures proposed in the Plan Change that seek to mitigate effects on the physical environment (including open space provision, screening and management of land use activities). I consider that this will, in part, mitigate the identified adverse social effects. There are residual adverse social effects that will be experienced by these local residents (which are a relatively small number of people), that will not be fully mitigated or remedied. I also note that there has been (to varying degrees) an expectation of these social changes as a result of the inclusion of the R1 Area into Hamilton City. (f) In addition to the above impacts on wellbeing, there are other potential adverse effects for residents in the Ryburn / Percival Road area (relating to impacts of accessibility, impacting on way of life and potentially community cohesion). This impact will be experienced as a result of the staging proposed. The access route proposed will result in increased travel times and effective ‘severance’ for pedestrians between the Ryburn / Percival Road area and Hillcrest. This adverse social impact will only be realised for a limited period of time (one stage in the overall development). (g) While there are potential impacts identified on social infrastructure (state-schooling), I consider that there are already processes in place for the monitoring and response to these impacts, such that they do not result in either a positive or negative social effect, but rather a change that is expected and being planned for. (h) On balance, while I acknowledge there are both negative and positive social effects, I consider the social effects of the Plan Change to be positive. 2 Introduction 3. My name is Amelia Joan Linzey. I am a Planner and hold the position of Technical Director at Beca Limited. 4. I have the following qualifications and experience relevant to provide expert advice on social impacts: (a) I hold a Master of Science in Geography (First Class Honours) from the University of Auckland and a Bachelor of Science; (b) I am a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute and a member of the International Association of Public Participation and I have undertaken the IAP2 Certificate Programme in Public Participation (2003); (c) I have over 15 years' experience in environmental impact assessment and consultation. My work has included social impact assessment and consultation for infrastructure and land use development proposed Plan Changes and for district plan development. I have undertaken or been involved in social impact assessments on the following proposed Plan Changes: (i) The Drury South Plan Change, which was a private plan change initiated by Stevenson Ltd to extend the Metropolitan Urban Limit and change the zoning of rural land in Auckland (Drury) to a mix of urban land uses (including industrial and business park land). I directed the social impact consultation, the assessment of social effects and identified measures to avoid remedy and mitigate potentially adverse social effects; (ii) The Rena Social Impact Assessment (2012 – on-going). In this role I was involved in the consultation, directing the assessment and identification of measures to manage social impacts associated with resource consenting for the Rena wreck and reporting; (iii) The Waterview Connection Proposed Plan Change for the New Zealand Transport Agency (2010-2011) ("NZTA"), 3 where I led the consultation, directed the assessment of social effects and identified measures to avoid remedy and mitigate potentially adverse social effects; (iv) The MacKays to Pekapeka social impact assessment (2012) for NZTA, where I peer reviewed the social impact assessment methodology and reporting; (v) The Hunua No. 4 Water Pipeline for Watercare (2009), where I directed the social impact assessment methodology and assessment; and (vi) The Wairakei Ring 220kV Line for Transpower (2008) where I provided scope and review of the consultation undertaken and drafted the social impact assessment for the options phase of the Plan Change. 5. I first became involved in the Ruakura Inland Port Proposed Plan Change ("the Plan Change") in May 2013. My role was to review the previous consultation work and social impact assessments provided to me by Boffa Miskell, and provide direction for the further assessment of social impacts. This impact assessment was undertaken by my colleague, Charlotte Crack. I also undertook the review and verification of the resulting Social Impact Assessment ("SIA") report (June 2013), which was submitted by Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Chedworth Properties Ltd in support of the applications for the Plan Change to the Waikato Section of the Operative Hamilton City District Plan.1 6. Following an external review of the SIA and a request for further information by the Board of Inquiry in November 2013, I scoped and undertook further targeted social research as agreed with Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Chedworth Properties Ltd, with the assistance of my colleague, Sally Dymond. 1 The Social Impact Assessment Report, November 2011 (referred to as the SIA report) is included in the technical reports in Volume 4 of the Plan Change application. 4 7. My involvement has included: (i) Scoping and reviewing the collation and analysis of socio- economic data and community profiles prepared for the SIA; (ii) Reviewing the definition of information sources and the analysis of these sources (including consultation), specifically in respect of the requirement for the SIA; (iii) Providing advice, scope, reviews and direction to the SIA work carried out by colleagues Charlotte Crack and Sally Dymond; (iv) Leading the assessment of social effects and identification of measures to avoid remedy or mitigate potentially adverse social effects; and (v) Discussions with Tainui Group Holdings Ltd, Chedworth Properties Ltd, other experts and targeted consultation, to assess and consider matters raised that were raised in submissions (where such input was not available when the original SIA report was undertaken). Code of Conduct 8. I confirm that I have read the ‘Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses’ as contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2011. I agree to comply with this Code of Conduct. In particular, unless I state otherwise, this evidence is within my sphere of expertise and I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions I express. Scope of Evidence 9. The purpose of my evidence is to outline the outcomes of the SIA undertaken for the Plan Change Area, to respond to the request for further information from the Board on relevant social matters, and to comment on the social issues raised by submitters. 5 10. My evidence is structured as follows: (a) SIA purpose, methodology and limitations; (b) Comment on the social matters relevant to the relationship of the current Plan Change with the District Plan Review and Ruakura Structure Plan; (c) Key findings of the social impact assessment (including those documented in the SIA report and on the basis of assessment undertaken following receipt of submissions and the information request from the Board of Inquiry); (i) Impacts on the immediately affected community; (ii) The impacts for the local affected community; (iii) The wider impacts for Hamilton City and beyond; and (iv) The impacts for Waikato-Tainui Beneficiaries. (d) Comment on the Plan Change and how it enables positive social impacts (as identified in the SIA report) and how the negative social impacts identified will be avoided, remedied or mitigated; (e) Response to Board of Inquiry request for information (29 November 2013); (f) Response to submissions; and (g) Concluding comments.