BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY EAST WEST LINK PROJECT UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of notices of requirement for designations and resource consent applications by the New Zealand Transport Agency for the East West Link Project. STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF ALISTAIR GRAEME KIRK ON BEHALF OF PORTS OF AUCKLAND LIMITED 22 MAY 2017 B S Carruthers / S H Pilkinton P +64 9 367 8000 F +64 9 367 8163 PO Box 8 DX CX10085 Auckland 3297052 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 3 2. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE ............................................................................. 4 3. POAL'S INTEREST IN THE PROJECT ..................................................... 5 4. CURRENT POSITION & OUTSTANDING CONCERNS .......................... 6 5. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 12 3297052 v4 3 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 My full name is Alistair Graeme Kirk. I am the General Manager of Infrastructure and Property for Ports of Auckland Limited (" POAL "). I am authorised to give this evidence on POAL's behalf. Experience and qualifications 1.2 I have a Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) (Hons) from the University of Canterbury, a New Zealand Certificate in Engineering (Civil), New Zealand Qualifications Authority, and am a Member of the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (" MIPENZ "). 1.3 In my role, I am responsible for the provision, and management, of all assets and property of POAL along with port planning. This includes the maintenance, upgrading and expansion of POAL's assets at the Port of Auckland, Wiri Freight Hub (South Auckland), the Waikato Freight Hub, Gabador Place (on the Tamaki River), and, relevant to this hearing, the Port of Onehunga and Pikes Point (an area of industrial land in Penrose). 1.4 I am directly responsible for over $600 million of assets, including: (a) Over 90 hectares of yards and pavements. (b) Wharf structures, dolphins and seawalls. (c) Buildings, including warehouses, offices and cargo sheds. (d) The provisions of services to and within the port, including 11kV electrical reticulation system, water, stormwater and wastewater. (e) Access channels, turning basins and berths. (f) Freight Hubs in Auckland and the Waikato. 1.5 I am also responsible for developing port and freight hub masterplans for the Port of Auckland, and regularly reviewing and testing these plans, along with setting priorities and implementing the required changes / infrastructure. Part of this process involves regularly 3297052 4 reviewing how POAL's other assets and infrastructure, such as its inland (freight hub) and minor ports, can best contribute to POAL's overall freight task. 1.6 My team looks after projects such as rail siding development, building construction, wharf construction, dredging, deepening berths and underpinning structures, the Fergusson Container Terminal expansion, layout changes, along with day-to-day maintenance and inspections of all assets. 1.7 My previous roles have included five years at Opus International Consultants in Christchurch managing port projects, roading projects in Canterbury, structural design of heavy civil structures for ports, mines and power stations. I then worked for two engineering consultants in the United Kingdom for a total of six years where I managed the structural design teams for high profile building projects in the centre of London. 2. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 2.1 My evidence will address POAL's interest in the East West Link (" Project "), its current position and its outstanding concerns. 2.2 In addition to my statement, Mr McKenzie (traffic) and Mr Arbuthnot (planning) have provided expert evidence on behalf of POAL. I have read both of these statements, share the concerns they express and agree with the amendments to the Project's design and the conditions on the notice of requirement and resource consents that they recommend. 2.3 I note that Mr Arbuthnot concludes that he does not consider that the statutory tests under section 171(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (" RMA ") have been satisfied, as well as raising concerns that the Project cannot pass the "objectives and policies gateway" under section 104D(1)(b) of the RMA. While acknowledging Mr Arbuthnot's expert opinion, which I do not disagree with, POAL continues to support the Project as a whole provided that the amendments to its design and conditions discussed within its evidence are made. 3297052 5 3. POAL'S INTEREST IN THE PROJECT 3.1 POAL owns two significant pieces of land that are directly affected by the Project: (a) 39 and 59 Miami Parade, Pikes Point – POAL has extensive land holdings at Pikes Point, which are leased by third parties for light industrial activities including the storage of import vehicles and operation of a heliport. 16.6 hectares of POAL's land at Pikes Point is reclaimed land, which was used for a sanitary refuse landfill operation that ceased in 1981. A further 1.3 hectares is a hardfill reclamation with the balance towards the eastern end of the landholding being pockets of natural land. (b) The Port of Onehunga (55 and 57 Onehunga Harbour Road) – the Port of Onehunga is located to the south of the Onehunga Town Centre, adjacent to the Mangere inlet of the Manukau Harbour. Part of the land is occupied by facilities formerly used by Holcim for its cement and manufacturing operations (these operations have recently transitioned to the Port of Auckland), while Sanford Limited conducts fishing operations from the site. Onehunga Wharf also acts as the base for the local west coast fishing fleet. 3.2 POAL's other assets will also be indirectly affected by the Project, including: (a) The Port of Auckland, which is New Zealand's largest and busiest port. The Port of Auckland is a significant infrastructure asset of critical regional and national importance, which handles approximately 30% of New Zealand's container trade by volume. (b) POAL's regionally and nationally significant network of fast turnaround cargo handling facilities connected by road and rail, 3297052 6 including two inland ports (Wiri and Waikato) and distribution and warehousing facilities. 3.3 POAL relies on the efficiency of the broader transport network to enable it to meet the demands of its commercial customers. 3.4 Given the above and as stated in its submission, POAL is generally supportive of the Project and the New Zealand Transport Agency's (" Transport Agency ") objectives to the extent that the Project will better provide for the efficient movement of freight and transport generally across the wider Auckland area. In particular, POAL considers that the Project will have a positive impact overall on the ability of commercial cargo operators to do business in Auckland and in New Zealand generally. 4. CURRENT POSITION & OUTSTANDING CONCERNS 4.1 I can confirm that POAL and the Transport Agency are currently in negotiations regarding the acquisition of the entirety of POAL's sites at both Pikes Point and the Port of Onehunga, as discussed in the evidence of Mr Harrington on behalf of the Transport Agency.1 4.2 POAL is fully committed to the negotiation process, and considers that the optimal outcome from its perspective is the full acquisition of both these sites. However, given that there is no guarantee the acquisition process will be successful (and it is certainly unlikely that it will be finalised in advance of the hearing), it is necessary to set out POAL's concerns in the event that the proposed acquisitions do not eventuate. 4.3 In particular, if POAL is left holding these assets during construction and after the Project is operational, it has concerns about the adverse effects of the Project on these assets that need to be considered by the Board in determining the Transport Agency's applications. I therefore discuss POAL's outstanding concerns below. These concerns are also addressed in the expert evidence of Mr Arbuthnot and Mr McKenzie on behalf of POAL. 1 Evidence of Donald Harrington on behalf of the New Zealand Transport Agency, dated 12 April 2017, at [4.4]. 3297052 7 Pikes Point Port Link Road 4.4 The Project includes the proposed development of a new cul-de-sac on POAL's land called the Port Link Road. The Port Link Road is proposed to be a local connector road with a design speed of 50 / 60 km/h. 2 I understand it is intended to improve access to the nearby inland ports and connect the EWL to Miami Parade. 4.5 However, as Mr McKenzie explains: 3 I am not able to see, based on the information available from the NOR drawings and the evidence provided by the Transport Agency's experts, how the Port Link Road actually "links" the EWL to the other inland ports, other than by way of the future potential driveway connection discussed above. 4.6 The Port Link Road has been designed with a gap in its turning head to service the inland ports to the north. However, the design does not currently provide a physical link to the existing roading network that services those ports, other than the potential for a future driveway connection as identified by Mr McKenzie. 4.7 In my view, the proposed Port Link Road will therefore not contribute to the efficient distribution of freight within Auckland. The failure to provide connections to the inland ports in a form that would be suitable for heavy vehicle traffic, means that the very facilities that are intended to benefit from the Port Link Road the most (being the inland ports to the north of POAL's Pikes Point site) are unlikely to even utilise the proposed link. 4.8 Additionally, the Port Link Road significantly impacts the capacity of the POAL Pikes Point site, as a substantial strip of prime land used for the storage of vehicles will be lost.