Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’S Draft Report and Decision
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision. Party Draft Report Explanation Amendment sought Accepted/ Brief summary of Board’s reference reasons Refused NZTA / PCC Para [4], bullet The Draft Report describes the NZTA as the “national roading authority.” The That the BoI deletes reference to the NZTA as the “national roading authority” in paragraph [4] Refused Unnecessary point one NZTA considers that such a description could cause confusion as to the extent of the Draft Report and replace it with a reference to the NZTA being the “road controlling of the NZTA‟s statutory responsibilities. The NZTA is the body charged with authority responsible for the State highway network”. operating the State highway network under the Land Transport Management Act 2003. As the BoI is aware, other agencies, such as territorial authorities, manage other parts of the roading network. Coastal Accepted Amended Draft Report The Coastal Highway Group do not appear to be included in the list of parties who Highway Group Amendment to the Report to note the contribution made by the submitter as a party to the Hearing. Section 10 made submissions. Mr Jessup NZTA / PCC Para [10] The Draft Report incorrectly refers to the EPA as the “Environmental That paragraph [10] of the Draft Report be amended as follows: Accepted Correction Protection Agency.” The EPA‟s correct full title is the “Environmental Protection Authority.” “…were lodged with the Environmental Protection Agency Authority” NZTA / PCC Para [18], [57] The BoI records that section 149P of the RMA requires the BoI to consider any That the BoI amends its Draft Report to record the information provided to it by the EPA under Refused All information disclosed and information provided to it by the EPA under section 149G. Other than the section 149G of the RMA, and the extent to which it has considered that information under considered matters themselves and the section 149G reports, it is not clear whether any section 149P(1)(b) of the RMA. other information was provided to the BoI under section 149G of the RMA. Hence, it is not clear (on the face of the Draft Report) whether the BoI considered all the information provided to it by the EPA, in accordance with section 149P(1)(b) of the RMA. Director Para 19 The first sentence records that 25 minutes, directions and memoranda were issued – Accept Correction General of however the EPA website lists 27 minutes, directions and memoranda. Conservation Director Para 24 The first sentence refers to a pre-hearing conference held on Thursday 1 December Amend first sentence to read: “The second pre-hearing conference was held on Thursday 1 December Accept Correction General of 2012. The date should be Thursday 1 December 2011. 2012 2011” Conservation Director Para 28-33 The section of the report that discusses evidence makes no reference to the provision Add paragraph after paragraph 33 to detail further supplementary / rebuttal evidence received from Accept Correction General of (or the Board‟s acceptance of) the supplementary statement of evidence from Ms Applicants‟ experts. Conservation Rickard, dated 13 February 2012; Ms Rickard‟s second supplementary statement of evidence, dated 20 February 2012; Dr Keesing‟s second statement of rebuttal evidence, dated 15 February 2012; Mr Fuller‟s second statement of rebuttal evidence, dated 16 February 2012; Ms Malcolm‟s second statement of rebuttal evidence, dated 16 February 2012; or Mr Martell‟s second statement of rebuttal evidence, dated 16 February 2012. Page | 1 Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision. Director Para 36 Paragraph 36 states that 26 conferencing statements were received, but there are 30 Amend first sentence to read: “there were 26 30 conferencing statements received.” Accept Correct General of conferencing statements listed on the EPA website (including the officer conferencing Conservation statement – Territorial Authorities 15 Dec 2011) Director Para 39 Referring to Section 4: Battle Hill, the second paragraph states that at about 11750m it Amend second paragraph in Section 4: Battle Hill to read: “At about 11750m it will cross an unnamed Refused Taken from description in General of [the Main Alignment] will cross an unnamed stream with a bridge. The crossing at this stream Horokiri Stream with a bridge.” application. Approximation is Conservation point is over the Horokiri Stream adequate. May have been clarified in other documents. Change unnecessary Director Para 40 This states that the TGP involves approximately 112 stream crossing by either bridges Amend first sentence to read: “TGP involves approximately 112 125 stream crossings by either bridges Refused Taken from description in General of or culverts. However, excluding the replacement of existing perched culverts in the or culverts.” application. Approximation is Conservation Duck Creek catchment, Schedule A: Permanent Culverts (Volume 2: Draft Conditions) adequate. May have been lists 110 culverts; and Schedule B: Bridges, identifies 13 bridges that involve crossings clarified in other documents. over streams or other watercourses. Change unnecessary These crossings are shown on the Drainage Layout Plans included in Volume 4 – Plan Set. The Drainage Layout Plans show a further two culverts that are not listed in Schedule A Director Para 41 Paragraph 41 states that the NZTA and PCC resource consents are for non-complying Amend third sentence to read: “The NZTA and PCC resource consents are for non-complying activities, Accept Correction General of activities. Whilst the NZTA applications are for non-complying activities, the PCC the PCC resource consents are for discretionary activities, and the Transpower consents are for Conservation applications are for discretionary activities. restricted discretionary activities.” NZTA / PCC Para [41] The Draft Report states that the NZTA and PCC resource consents are for That paragraph [41] of the Draft Report be amended so as to record that the resource Accept Correction non-complying activities. This is correct for the resource consents required for consents which are required for the PCC Project are resource consents for discretionary the NZTA Project, however, the resource consents required for the PCC activities. Project are classified as discretionary activities.1 NZTA / PCC Para [59] The Draft Report refers to the notice approving the NZTA as a requiring That paragraph [59] be amended as follows: Accept Amend authority as the “Resource Management Notice 1994”. The correct full name of this approval notice is the “Resource Management (Approval of Transit New “...Resource Management (Approval of Transit New Zealand as Requiring Authority) Notice Zealand as Requiring Authority) Notice 1994.” 1994,” NZTA / PCC Para [94] and In the Draft Report, the Applicants‟ marine ecological witness, Dr Sharon De That all references in the Draft Report to “de Luca” be replaced with “De Luca”. Accept Amend subsequent Luca, is incorrectly referred to as “Dr de Luca”. references NZTA / PCC Para [98] - At paragraphs [98] to [102] the BoI undertakes an inquiry into whether or not That the BoI reconsider paragraphs [98]- [102], in light of the legal position established by the Refused Discussion relates to statutory the objectives identified by the NZTA (and PCC) for their respective projects mandate not applicants‟ 1 Rickard (First Statement), 16 November 2011, para 29.2. Page | 2 Transmission Gully Proposal: Comments on the Board’s draft report and decision. [102] fall within the statutory mandate of those bodies and therefore whether they case law discussed. objectives. are “appropriate” objectives for the Applicants to have identified. The Applicants respectfully note, as a technical matter, that this inquiry appears to be outside the scope of the BoI‟s legal mandate. Case law has held that it is not the role of someone undertaking a consideration as to whether or not a designation for a project or work is reasonably necessary to achieve a requiring authority‟s objective(s) to inquire into the appropriateness of that requiring authority‟s objective(s).2 Section 149P(4) of the RMA does not give the BoI any wider powers in undertaking this consideration than a territorial authority or the Environment Court would have if the national consenting process was not being used. NZTA / PCC Footnote 17 The first reference to the Transcript of Proceedings for the TGP hearing is That Footnote 17 be amended as follows: Refused Unnecessary [112] and given as “Notes of Evidence (NoE)”, with subsequent references being “NoE”. 17 following The Applicants consider it would be clearer if the first reference was “ Notes of Evidence (NoE) Transcript of Proceedings (Transcript)…” “Transcript of Proceedings (Transcript)”, with subsequent references being And that all subsequent references to “NoE” in the footnotes be replaced with the word “Transcript”. This would ensure that the references given match the title given “Transcript.” on the Transcript of Proceedings document and avoid any confusion as to what document is being referred to. NZTA / PCC Para [125] There is an implication in paragraph [125] of the Draft Report that the reason That the BoI reconsider the wording of paragraph [125], in light of the position on the Refused Summary of submission only that the NZTA did not argue that the existing Transmission Gully designation is permitted baseline expressed in the Applicants‟ legal submissions. part of the “existing baseline” is because regional