consent under Regulation 45(4) of the NES-F. However, Council’s specialist also notes that the current application documents do not clarify this level of detail, nor the corresponding level of effects. Furthermore, there is currently insufficient information to determine whether consent is required under Regulation 45(3) of the NES-F, and if triggered, what scale of effects are potentially / likely to occur.

Similarly Healthy Waters has raised concerns with how lineal rail corridors act to constrain and divert the natural flows of stormwater and in many instances act as significant barriers to upstream flood flows. Healthy Waters notes that the applicant indicates that there will be no increase in flood or storm water effects outside of the rail corridor. However Healthy Waters state they are unable to confirm this as they consider no information has been provided that would support this comment.

Stream and wetland classification Councils’ specialist acknowledged that this application excludes stream work activities and that such detail will be included in a second application package of future works. But noted that the absence of agreement between Kiwirail and Council around the classifications and extent of streams and wetlands within 100m of the P2P alignment is a risk to the project due to the potential for unintentional adverse effects on streams and wetlands (including natural wetlands) from the temporary earthwork activities,

Ecology - Vegetation clearance within riparian areas of streams and wetlands (including comments from Parks) Councils Ecologist has raised concern with the Ecological assessment including: - Incomplete list of fauna records as this may give the reader the impression that the nearest record is 3km away, when this is quite untrue, and the animals are much closer and in habitat typical of that being removed through this consent application [i.e., skinks] - The survey for lizards did “not constitute a comprehensive survey using a range of methods. - The ecology report does not provide an accurate map of all habitats along the route, as such there is no way of knowing what they have assessed and whether or not other trees may be potential roost sites (noting bats roost in trees with stem diameter of more than >15cm).

Auckland Council Parks notes that it is not clear what the extent of the replanting programme (required for mitigation purposes) is on open space and whether Parks/Community Facilities would then become responsible for its maintenance.

Creation of new impervious areas / Stormwater (including comments from Healthy Waters) Councils Development Engineer (DE) considers that the new impervious area (Construction of two temporary access tracks outside of the rail corridor located within SMAF 1) is considered minor scale. No stormwater controls are considered necessary given the temporary nature of discharge.

Healthy Waters notes that the application states there will not be an increase in impervious surfaces within the rail corridor, however the application includes several new station platforms which Healthy Waters would consider to be additional impervious surfaces that have not been considered.

Healthy Waters notes that to date the applicant has not engaged with seeking for their Stormwater discharges to be authorised under Councils Regionwide network discharge consent (NDC).

Cultural and Built Heritage Council’s Cultural Heritage specialist has advised there are four (4) unscheduled historic heritage sites that the proposed works have the potential to affect that are not covered by granted Authority 2021/307. Therefore, additional management processes need to be considered as the applicant has demonstrated that there is reasonable cause to suspect the presence of these historic heritage sites. Councils Built Heritage specialist has raised concern with: Relocation of the Pukekohe Railway Station; the lack of consideration of built heritage; and management of heritage effects during construction.

Development engineering (including comments from Watercare and Auckland Transport) The Councils Development Engineer states that overall, from a development engineering perspective the proposal will have minor effects to the receiving environment in regard to the infringements as per the AUP rules.

Watercare is, in principle, supportive of the application but seeks to ensure that their existing and planned assets are protected in accordance with the Resource Management Act and the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020.

Auckland Transport (AT) generally agree with the findings of the application material and on that basis have no significant concerns with the Project. The Project is considered to help to achieve the purpose of the Act, by providing infrastructure in order to improve economic, employment, and environmental outcomes, and increase productivity. AT consider that there should be no transport reason why consent should not be granted.

National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil

Papakura to Pukekōhe rail electrification Page 4 of 7 to Protect Human Health (NES-CS) Councils’ specialist agrees with the reasons for consents under the NES:CS as outlined in the application documents and consider that the DSI and CSMP lodged with the application have been prepared by a SQEP in general accordance with the Contaminated Land Management Guidelines and adequately details the likely soil contamination profile of the works area.

Councils’ specialist notes that the DSI lodged with the application confirms the presence of the identified HAIL sites adjacent to the rail corridor have not caused significant soil contamination within the rail corridor. The soils are generally suitable for reuse within the rail corridor or would likely require disposal to managed fill if offsite disposal is required.

Noise and Vibration Council specialist generally supports the assessment, methodology and conclusions in the report titled Papakura to Pukekohe (P2P) Electrification Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment (Rp 002 20200795) dated 12 February 2021 prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics.

Planning A Council planning officer reviewed the draft assessment of environmental effects (AEE) for this proposal, the draft AEE had the same reasons for consent as the final AEE that was lodged. In Councils feedback to Kiwirial regarding the draft AEE Council’s planning officer advised that in general Jacobs had provided, in accordance with schedule 4 of the RMA, an AEE in such detail as corresponds with the scale and significance of the effects that the activity may have on the environment. Council planning officer also stated that having considered the draft AEE and proposal descriptions; and based on experience with similar applications relating to works within the rail corridor and electrification projects. They considered that the applicant had reasonably identified the relevant permitted activities and reasons for consent that are likely to apply to the proposal and the relevant effects to consider an application of this nature. It was also agreed that the applicant had identified the relevant existing environment to assess the application within. However, for any specialist matters, Councils planning officer defers to Council specialist who have had the opportunity to review the final AEE and all supporting technical documentation that was lodged with the EPA.

Summary Both Council specialist and Healthy Waters have raised concerns with potential damming, diversion and discharge of water and the lack of information to draw a conclusion on such matters. Council specialist has noted that there is a risk to the P2P project due to the potential for unintentional adverse effects on streams and wetlands (including natural wetlands) from the temporary earthwork activities if there is no agreement between Kiwirail and Auckland Council around the classifications and extent of streams and wetlands. Council Ecologist has raised concerns with the application’s ecological assessment. Auckland Council Parks notes that it is not clear what the extent of the replanting programme (required for mitigation purposes) is on open space and whether Parks/Community Facilities would then become responsible for its maintenance. Healthy Waters notes that new station platforms are additional impervious surfaces that have not been taken into consideration. Healthy Waters notes that to date the applicant has not engaged with Auckland Council seeking for their Stormwater discharges to be authorised under Councils Regionwide network discharge consent (NDC). Council’s Cultural Heritage specialist has recommended consideration of additional management processes as there is reasonable cause to suspect the presence of 4 unscheduled historic heritage sites. Councils Built Heritage specialist has raised concern with: Relocation of the Pukekohe Railway Station; the lack of consideration of built heritage; and management of heritage effects during construction. Watercare has advised that, in principle, they are supportive of the application but seeks to ensure that their existing and planned assets are protected. Auckland Transport (AT) generally agree with the findings of the application material and on that basis have no significant concerns with the Project. Specialist raised no concerns raised with NES-CS or Noise and Vibration matters. From a Planning perspective, the applicant has provided: an AEE in such detail as corresponds with the scale and significance of the effects that the activity may have on the environment; an AEE which reasonably identifies the relevant permitted activities and reasons for consent that are likely to apply to the proposal. The applicant has also apropriately identified the relevant existing environment to assess the application within. However, for any specialist matters, Councils planning officer defers to Council specialist who have had the opportunity to review the final AEE and all supporting technical documentation that was lodged with the EPA.

Franklin Local Board The (FLB) welcomes the project and provides feedback on various parts of the project for consideration. The FLB’s comments are included with this response.

Papakura Local Board The Papakura Local Board (PLB) supports the proposal in principle while providing comments for consideration. The PLB’s comments are included with this response.

Councillor Bill Cashmore ( Councillor and Deputy Mayor) Councillor Cashmore comments are included with this response.

Papakura to Pukekōhe rail electrification Page 5 of 7

Further information and technical memos In addition to the summarised information above, the following technical memos are provided as part of this response: a) Auckland Council Parks (prepared by Lea van Heerden, Senior Parks Planner) b) Auckland Transport (prepared by Tessa Craig, Major Developments Interface Lead) c) Healthy Waters (prepared by Mark Iszard, Growth and Development Manager and Danny Curtis, Principal Catchment Planning) d) Watercare Services Limited (prepared by Tim Barry, Infrastructure Interface Manager) e) Acoustic (prepared by Andrew Gordon) f) Archaeology (prepared by Chris Mallows, Team Leader: Cultural Heritage Implementation) g) Built heritage (prepared by Rebecca Fox, Team Leader Built Heritage Implementation) h) Compliance monitoring (prepared by Isabella Wang, Senior compliance monitoring officer) i) Contaminated land (prepared by Fiona Rudsits) j) Development Engineering (prepared by Privinn Mwene, Development Engineer) k) Earthworks and NESFM (prepared by Samantha Langdon) l) Ecology (prepared by Rue Statham, Senior Ecologist) m) Franklin Local Board comments n) Papakura Local Board comments o) Councillor Bill Cashmore comments, Franklin Ward Councillor and Deputy Mayor

It is noted that the above memos were prepared specifically in response to the fast-track application,

Consent conditions Should the Panel be minded to grant consent, the council refers to the recommendations made by Council specialist in relation to conditions as contained within each specialist memo. It is also recommended that the Panel refers to the council’s ‘Consent Conditions Manual’ for standard conditions which may be appropriate for this development. The Consent Conditions Manual can be accessed at the following URL: http://www.aucklanddesignmanual.co.nz/regulations/consent-conditions-manual.

The council would like to have the opportunity to further comment on the draft conditions prior to any decision being issued

Papakura to Pukekōhe rail electrification Page 6 of 7