BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY EAST WEST LINK PROJECT IN THE MATTER OF the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) AND IN THE MATTER OF a Board of Inquiry appointed under section 149J of the Resource Management Act 1991 to decide notices of requirement and resource consent applications by the New Zealand Transport Agency for the East West Link Project OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE ONEHUNGA MALL CUL-DE-SAC RESIDENTS SUBMISSIONS 3 July 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Structure of the Submissions 3. Lay Person Representation and Request for Appropriate Resourcing 4. Onehunga Mall Cul-de-sac Neighbourhood Submission (OMCN) - Construction Noise and Vibration 5. Construction Air Quality (OMCN) 6. Construction access and Car parking (OMCN) 7. Construction First Gas Pipeline (OMCN) 8. Operational Noise and Vibration (OMCN) 9. Operational Air Quality (OMCN) 10. Operational Car Parking (OMCN) 11. Operational Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) at SH20 pedestrian underpass (OMCN) 12. Operational Loss of Views (OMCN) 13. Personal Submission – Engagement resulting in Misrepresentation and/or Negligence 1. Introduction 1.1 Onehunga Mall Cul-de-sac between Property addresses 31-39 Onehunga Mall has approximately 38 residential homes, ranging from two to six bedrooms. The estimated population of these homes is circa 120 plus residents. There are also other residential homes on the Onehunga Mall Cul-de-sac. 1.2 Additionally next to the homes is the SH20 pedestrian and cycle underpass which is well used by the public to access the old Mangere Bridge, Tamanu Reserve and the Waikaraka Cycleway. 1.3 NZTA is our neighbour and aspires to be a ‘good neighbour’ - The East-West Link Project area and the NZTA road network more generally (SH20) directly borders on our neighbourhood. NZTA iterative changes to the road network have significant and cumulative impact on the residential activities occurring at the homes. 1.4 Cumulative effects - In particular, the cumulative impacts of the East-West Link Project combined with the Waterview Connection Project which opened 1 July 2017 as a pre-cursor to the East-West Link Project are encouraging more heavy traffic on to SH20 behind the homes. 1.5 Participation - The outcomes of the decisions the Board of Inquiry and NZTA make will impact most aspects of our residential lives. While NZTA is a legal person, its residential neighbours are living humans, who will have to permanently and without respite see, hear, smell, feel and breathe the consequences of the Board of Inquiry decisions. Therefore we need to be able to equitably participate in the Board of Inquiry process. 1.6 Engagement - Prior to November 2016, no engagement had taken place with the residents by NZTA on the existence of the East-West Link Project, Waterview Connection Project and/or potential impacts. Subsequent and limited engagement only occurred after my request. 1.7 Site Visit - We again extend the invitation as per our submission for the Board of Inquiry and NZTA to have a site visit at our homes to get an appreciation for our situation as NZTA’s neighbour. 1.8 Below are some photos for neighbourhood context. Figure 1: Onehunga Mall residential neighbourhood photo. Figure 2: A different view of Onehunga Mall residential neighbourhood 2. Structure of the Submissions 2.1 The First submission I wrote was the Onehunga Mall Cul-de-sac Neighbourhood (OMCN) submission. I engaged 36 of my neighbours who each individually made a submission in support of the Master Onehunga Mall Cul-de-sac submission that I wrote (in some cases one submission for a family group.) These 36 submissions make up circa 5% of the total of all the East-West Link Project submissions. For each of my neighbours 36 submissions I am their official spokesperson at this Board of Inquiry. 2.2 The Second submission was my Personal submission which detailed my engagement with NZTA prior to the purchase of my home on Onehunga Mall Cul-de- sac in September last year. This engagement appears to have resulted in misrepresentation and/or negligence. As a result of the engagement, which was further reinforced by NZTA’s absence of engagement with the residents of Onehunga Mall Cul-de-sac (including the seller of the home and therefore lack of any relevant disclosures), I purchased my first home in Auckland. A home I would not have purchased if NZTA had disclosed the proposed adverse construction impacts of the East-West Link Project and the existence and forecast adverse operational impacts of the Waterview Connection Project on my proposed new home. 3. Layperson Representation and Request for Appropriate Resourcing 3.1 I was the author of two submissions. I am a layperson. My neighbours and I are acutely aware we are representing ourselves without the support and expertise of legal and subject matter expert counsel. We would prefer that this is not the situation we face. 3.2 Suffice to say we feel severely under-resourced and that this is a ‘David vs Goliath’ situation which is at odds with NZTA’s vision of being a ‘good neighbour’ and at its heart a Government agency ‘for the people, by the people.’ 3.3 If we were provided legal and subject matter expert resource we would be able to participate in the Board of Inquiry process in a more equitable way and likely make better use of the Board’s time. 3.4 NZTA legal counsel Mr Mulligan’s transcript from 29 June 2017 is quick to pick up on our lack of professional resourcing and dismiss our concerns as “a little garbled and unclear.” Mr Mulligan’s comments are indicative of NZTA’s attitude to its direct neighbour and the layperson submitter which continues to be disheartening and demoralising. 3.5 In any case, it was hoped sufficient engagement would have taken place subsequent to the submissions being lodged so that the large amount of personal stress and energy of having to present private life concerns in this very public hearing environment could have been avoided. Unfortunately this has not been the case and we request improvement in empathy, timeliness and frequency of NZTA’s engagement with it’s neighbours. With a desired outcome that we no longer need to present at the Board of Inquiry. 3.6 Can the Board of Inquiry organise legal and subject matter expert counsel going forward? How might the Board of Inquiry attempt to ensure our equitable participation in the process? 4. Construction Noise & Vibration (OMCN) 4.1 It is very challenging to have an informed appreciation of the impact of construction noise and vibration on residential activities at 31-39 Onehunga Mall without a draft Construction Noise and Vibration Plan (CNVMP) . Expert witness Jon Styles has suggested a draft CNVMP is a reasonable request at this point in the process and we support this request. 4.2 For example if the CNVMP identifies there will be extended periods where the construction noise and/or vibration standards will be exceeded, the residents would like the ‘best practicable’ options as relate to our homes included as conditions. 4.3 Specifically for the ‘best practicable options’ below to be exercised at a resident’s discretion and included as conditions at CNV6.A and CNV7.A A. Option to vacate the home and NZTA rent their house for the duration of the construction period B. Option to be temporarily accommodated at a location suitable to the resident C. Option to stay in the house during construction despite the noise, vibration and air quality issues. D. Resident to have the option to sell their property to NZTA under the Public Works Act. 4.4 Regarding Siiri Wilkening Expert Evidence (12 April 2017) paragraph 1.4 and overarching theme “Communication with affected parties is the most important and effective management measure.” This approach is not equitable or reasonable for dwellings already experiencing Category B and C noise levels, any higher noise received than what we currently receive would impede the core uses of the home – i.e. sleeping, studying and relaxing. 4.5 We request the deletion of proposed condition CNV6.A (a) regarding allowing an exception to the noise conditions. That exception appears would materially impact the amenity of our homes for residential living. Instead ‘best practicable options’ per para 4.3 above should be implemented. “exceedance of the criteria in Condition CNV.4 is no greater than 5 decibels and does not exceed: i) 0700-2200: 1 period of up to 2 consecutive weeks in any 2 months; or ii) 2200-0700: 1 period of up to 2 consecutive nights in any 10 days ” 4.6 We request addition to condition CNV.4 for a ‘ fixed acoustic logger machine to be installed at 31-35A Onehunga Mall and reading reports to be emailed daily to residents during construction’ (or words to similar effect.) 4.7 Similarly we request addition to condition CNV.5 for a ‘fixed vibration logger machine to be installed at 31-35A Onehunga Mall and reading reports to be emailed daily to residents during construction’ (or words to similar effect.) 5 Construction Air Quality (OMCN) 5.1 There is no air quality testing station near our homes. We request as part of the Construction Air Quality Management Plan (CAQMP) at condition AQ.2 for a ‘fixed air quality logger machine to be installed at 31-35A Onehunga Mall and reading reports to be emailed daily to residents during construction’ 5.2 Inevitability there will be dust and construction particles that are deposited on our homes. These will require water blasting services to remove. Therefore we request addition to condition AQ.2 “methods for periodically water blasting PPF’s of dust and construction particles during construction.” 6.