Draft Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Proposed Men’s Correctional Facility At Wiri Draft report and decision produced under section 149Q of the Resource Management Act Volume 1 of 2 Published by the Board of Inquiry into The Proposed Men’s Correctional Facility at Wiri Publication number: EPA 0010 ISBN 978-0-478-34856-9 (print) ISBN 978-0-478-34857-6 (electronic ISBN 978-0-478-34858-3 (CD) BOARD OF INQUIRY PROPOSED MEN’S CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AT WIRI In the Matter of The Resource Management Act And In the Matter of a referral to a Board of Inquiry under s149J of the Act of an application by the Minister of Corrections to alter Designation 288 THE BOARD OF INQUIRY Judge M Harland (Chair) Deputy Chief Judge C Fox D Hill L Auton W Burrill Prepared in July 2011 Appearances: MR S QUINN and MS K ANDERSON Counsel for Department of Corrections MR R ENRIGHT and MS H O’CONNELL Counsel for Wiri Oil Services Limited and Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority Inc MR G LANNING and MR W BANGMA Counsel for Auckland Transport MR P O’DRISCOLL Counsel for Te Akitai Waiohua MS M DICKEY and MR M ALLAN Counsel for Auckland Council and the Manurewa Local Board MS S SIMONS, Ms J VAN DEN BURGEN AND SISTER M MARTIN Counsel for Vision Manukau MS J CAMPBELL Counsel for Investment Property Holdings Limited Partnership MS P FORDYCE Counsel appointed by the Board as Friend of Submitters MR J MAASSEN Counsel appointed to assist the Board of Inquiry MR R GUNSTON AND MR R BROOKING as representatives of Prison Fellowship New Zealand MR G SMITH as representative of Auckland Volcanic Cones Society Inc SISTER A HURLEY as representative of Sisters of Mercy Wiri MR A JOHNSON as representative of the Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit of The Salvation Army MR K FLAVELL as representative of Ngati Te Ata MS A WILLIAMS as representative of Wiri Business Improvement District MS S JOHNSTON as representative of Manurewa Principals Association MS A SEARLE AND MS AROHA GRAY as representatives of Child Advocacy Group MR F BUCK as representative of Weymouth Residents and Ratepayers Association MS C BROWN MR G AND MRS R CLARK MR D FRASER MS P GRAY MR T GREENING MS T LUXTON MR I DUNWOODIE MR R FOWLER MS D JELICICH MS A SCHAAF MS L WALL MR N ROGERS Hearing: Held at TelstraClear Pacific events centre, 770 Great South Road, Manukau Monday 2 May 2011 Thursday – Friday, 5 -6 May 2011 Monday 9 May 2011 to Friday 13 May 2011 Monday 16 May 2011 to Friday 20 May 2011 Tuesday 24 May 2011 to Thursday 26 May 2011 Wednesday 22 June 2011 Site Visits: 20 January 2011 - Pre-hearing site visit to Spring Hill Corrections Facility, the wider Clendon community and the proposed site of the Men’s Prison at Wiri Proposal 3 May 2011 –Wiri Oil Services Limited (WOSL) terminal, Auckland Region Women’s Correction Facility and views of the proposed sites from McLaughins Road 12 May 2011 – Various residential and other locations in the wider Manukau area, potentially affected by the proposal. 23 May 2011 – Mt Eden Corrections Facility, Korowai Maanaki youth Justice Facility, view of the proposed site from upper floors/roof of Auckland Council’s Manukau Service Centre building at Wiri Station Road. DRAFT REPORT AND DECISION OF THE BOARD OF INQUIRY The application to alter Designation 288 is confirmed subject to the terms and conditions contained in Volume 2 of this draft Report and Decision. Volume 1 1 INTRODUCTION 13 2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK 17 2.1 Section 181 of the RMA 17 2.2 Part 6AA RMA 17 2.3 Applicable burden and standard of proof 19 2.4 Conditions 20 3 THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES IN CONTENTION 20 4 THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 22 4.2 The existing designation 25 4.3 The women’s prison 26 4.4 Korowai Manaaki youth justice facility 28 4.5 The demographic profile of the immediately and wider impacted communities 30 4.5.1 Population 30 4.5.2 Age 31 4.5.3 Ethnicity 31 4.5.4 Community cohesion 32 4.5.5 Deprivation indices 33 5 THE PROPOSAL 35 5.1 Overview of Prison Services 35 5.2 The NoR and the objectives of the Minister of Corrections 37 5.3 Public-Private-Partnership Model (PPP) 41 5.4 Site layout and design 45 6 PLANNING DOCUMENTS 47 6.1 Overview of the planners’ evidence 48 6.2 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 50 6.3 Auckland Regional Policy Statement (“ARPS”) 51 6.4 Auckland Regional Policy Statement – Proposed Plan Change 6 51 6.5 Operative Manukau District Plan (“the District Plan”) 51 7 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES. 52 7.1 The issues and the evidence 52 7.2 Legal framework 53 7.2.1 When are alternatives required to be considered? 53 7.2.2 Adequacy of consideration of alternatives 55 7.3 The evidence 57 7.3.1 Corrections’ case 57 7.3.1.1 The first business case 58 7.3.1.2 The second business case 59 7 7.3.2 Submitters’ cases 61 7.3.2.1 Mr Greening 61 7.3.2.2 The Council/Local Board 61 7.3.2.3 Vision Manukau 62 7.3.2.4 The Prison Fellowship 62 7.4 Findings 63 8 IS THE ALTERATION REASONABLY NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE MINISTER’S OBJECTIVES? 64 8.1 The issues and the evidence 64 8.2 The Minister’s objectives 65 8.3 National capacity shortfall 65 8.4 Reduction in reoffending rates 70 8.5 Optimising prisoner capacity and maintaining public safety 75 8.6 PPP objectives 75 8.7 Conclusion 78 9 ECONOMIC EFFECTS 78 9.1 The issues and the evidence 78 9.2 Assessed benefits of the proposed men’s prison 79 9.3 Methodology – EIA – v - CBA 80 9.4 Local – v – regional economic benefits 82 9.5 Findings 83 10 METHODOLOGY 83 11 CONSULTATION 85 11.1 The issues and the evidence 85 11.2 Legal provisions 86 11.3 The consultation process 88 11.3.1 Consultation methodology 89 11.3.2 What was done to consult 89 11.3.3 Review of reports 92 11.4 Was the consultation undertaken adequate? 93 11.4.1 General complaint 93 11.4.2 Specific omissions 94 11.4.2.1 Māori Community 94 11.4.2.2 Pacific Island community 95 11.4.2.3 Youth and children 95 11.4.2.4 Other impacted communities 96 11.5 Findings 96 12 SOCIAL EFFECTS 97 12.1 The issues and the evidence 97 12.2 The social impact assessment evidence 97 12.2.1 Background 97 12.2.2 Criticism of the SIA methodology 100 8 12.2.3 Response by Corrections 100 12.2.4 Findings on adequacy of SIA 102 12.3 Defining the impacted communities 103 12.4 Defining what comprises a social effect 105 12.5 Social effects which can be anticipated from a prison 105 12.5.1 Research 105 12.5.2 Social effects identified during AEE consultation 108 12.5.3 The Focus Groups 109 12.5.3.1 Youth 110 12.5.3.2 Māori 110 12.5.3.3 Pacific peoples 111 12.5.3.4 Local businesses 111 12.5.3.5 Social service providers 112 12.5.4 Submitters 112 12.6 Evaluation of the evidence of social effects by experts 113 12.6.1 Economic and employment benefits 113 12.6.2 Other benefits 115 12.6.3 Assessment of effects concerning community services 117 12.6.4 Relocation of staff and prisoners’ families/associates 121 12.6.5 Personal safety, security and crime 124 12.6.6 Assessment of effects regarding community image, stigma and well-being 127 12.6.7 Findings of effects on behaviours and attitudes of youth 128 12.6.8 Effects on women prisoners and staff 129 12.6.9 Cumulative effects 130 12.7 Findings 132 13 FIRE AND EXPLOSION RISK EFFECTS (WOSL) 137 13.1 Overview 137 13.2 Legal and planning framework 138 13.2.1 Jurisdiction to impose additional conditions on the women’s prison 138 13.2.2 Section 3 RMA - effects 139 13.2.3 HIPAP 4 140 13.2.4 Relevant plan provisions 143 13.3 The issues and the evidence 144 13.3.1 The Liquigas LPG terminal 144 13.3.2 Individual and societal risk/ALARP 145 13.3.3 Separation distance 147 13.3.4 Women’s prison capacity 147 13.3.4 Mitigation measures 149 13.4 Evaluation and findings 151 13.4.1 Exposure risk and Corrections’ responsibility 151 13.4.2 Timing of effective further risk reduction 152 14 EFFECTS ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC HERITAGE VALUES 155 9 14.1 Legal and planning framework 155 14.2 The evidence 156 14.2.1 Archaeological landscape 156 14.2.2 The site for proposed men’s prison 157 14.3 Findings 158 15 MĀORI CULTURE AND TRADITIONS 159 15.1 The issues and the evidence 160 15.2 Cultural landscape 161 15.3 Legal and planning framework 163 15.3.1 Tangata whenua issues 163 15.3.2 Planning instruments 165 15.4 The evidence 167 15.4.1 Correction’s evidence 167 15.4.1.1 Methodology 167 15.4.1.2 Consultation 168 15.4.2 Recorded iwi/hapu positions on the proposal prior to notification169 15.4.2.1 Ngati Te Ata 169 15.4.2.2 Te Akitai Waiohua 170 15.4.2.3 Issues common to both iwi/hapu 170 15.5 Mitigation proposed 171 15.5.1 Corrections’ proposals 171 15.5.2 Tangata whenua positions and proposed mitigation 172 15.5.2.1 Ngati Te Ata 173 15.5.2.2 Te Akitai Waiohua 175 15.6 Evaluation of cultural effects 178 15.6.1 Ngati Te Ata and Te Akitai Waiohua 178 15.6.2 Te Kawerau a Maki 179 15.7 Other Māori issues and effects 183 15.8 Findings 183 16 LANDSCAPE, BUILDING PLATFORM AND DESIGN, AND VISUAL EFFECTS 184 16.1 The issues and the evidence 184 16.2 The landscape value of Maunga Matukutureia 184 16.2.1 Dr Hayward’s evidence 187 16.2.2 Mr Goodwin’s evidence 191 16.2.3 Ms Gilbert’s evidence 192 16.2.4 Significance to Māori 192 16.2.5 Evaluation 192 16.3 Building platform and design 193 16.3.1 The issues and evidence 194 16.3.2 The IDMS 195 16.3.3 Development controls 197 16.3.4 Evaluation of building platform and design 198 16.5 Evaluation of landscape and visual effects 201 16.5.1 Visual simulations 201 10 16.5.2 Mitigation planting 202 16.5.2.1 The women’s prison conditions 202 16.5.2.2 The proposed conditions 203 16.6 Overall finding 203 17 OTHER EFFECTS 204 17.1 Ecological and stormwater effects 204 17.1.1