IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of Proposed Plan Change 19 (Frankton Flats Special Zone B) to the Queenstown Lakes District Plan. STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF GREGORY JOHN OSBORNE INTRODUCTION 1. My full name is Gregory John Osborne. I am a Director of Osborne Hay (South) Limited, a Planning and Resource Management Consultancy practice based in Auckland. 2. I have the qualification of Bachelor of Town Planning obtained from Auckland University in 1979 and I have been a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute since 1984. 3. I have worked as a planner in local government and private practice since 1979 and during that period I have had extensive experience in district and regional plan preparation and the preparation and processing of resource consent applications and notices of requirement for designations. 4. In recent years I have also developed significant experience in resource management and planning processes related to the District Plan controls on aircraft noise and related land use controls on activities sensitive to aircraft noise in the vicinity of airports. 5. In particular, I facilitated the mediated settlement of a range of appeals on behalf of Manukau City Council in relation to the provisions of the Manukau District Plan relating to Auckland International Airport. That work involved drafting district plan rules which ultimately formed the basis of the Environment Court consent order. 1 6. Subsequently, I have provided planning advice to Auckland International Airport Limited over a number of years and I gave evidence to the Environment Court in the case Independent News Auckland Limited and Auckland International Airport Limited v Manukau City Council1 in which the key issue was reverse sensitivity to aircraft noise. I continue to provide regular training sessions on behalf of Auckland International Airport Limited for Manukau City Council staff on the issue of aircraft noise and reverse sensitivity effects that arise in relation to activities which are sensitive to that noise. 7. I also provided planning advice to Papakura District Council and its Hearing Commissioners in relation to Plan Change 6 following its notification in 2001 and prepared but never presented evidence on behalf of the Council in relation to subsequent appeals to the Environment Court. I was, however, involved on behalf of the Council in the negotiations which led to the draft Consent Order between a number of parties including the Council, Ardmore Airport Limited and the Ardmore Residents Action Group. I recently provided evidence to both Papakura District Council and Auckland Regional Council hearings panels considering a series of changes to the District Plan and the Regional Policy Statement on the issue of reverse sensitivity to aircraft noise relating to new urban development in the Takanini area. 8. I provided planning advice to Rotorua District Council in relation to Plan Change 32 (Rotorua Airport Noise and Land Use Controls) between late 2003 and late 2007 and was directly involved in the preparation of the Plan Change dealing with issues of controlling aircraft noise and controlling land use activities which might give rise to reverse sensitivity effects at Rotorua Airport. I also provided evidence to the Environment Court on that matter although ultimately that case too was resolved by consent order. 9. I have also provided planning advice and a Section 42A report to the Timaru District Council in relation to submissions on a Plan Change (Plan Change 6) dealing with very similar issues at Timaru Airport (Richard Pearse Airport). 1 Decision no: A103/03 2 10. I am currently providing planning advice to Queenstown Lakes District Council in respect of the draft plan change that Queenstown Airport Corporation Limited is preparing and in relation to a proposed Plan Change at Wanaka Airport that I am preparing for the Council. 11. I am familiar with Queenstown Airport and its surrounds as well as the location of the land to which Plan Change 19 applies. 12. I have read and agree to comply with the Environment Court’s Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses outlined in the Environment Court's Consolidated Practice Note 2006. While this practise note relates to the preparation of evidence for the Environment Court, I can confirm that I have complied with it in preparing this evidence. I confirm that my evidence is within my area of expertise except where I state I am relying on what I have been told by another person. I also confirm that I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from my expressed opinions. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 13. I appear at the request of the Commissioners to respond to the legal submissions which were made and the evidence which was given at the hearing of submissions on Plan Change 19 (PC 19) in relation to the issue of aircraft noise resulting from the use and development of Queenstown Airport and the potential reverse sensitivity effects that might arise from the development of the land which is subject to PC19. 14. Specifically, the submissions and evidence which I will respond to is: a) Legal submissions made by James Gardner-Hopkins and evidence given by Eric Morgan on behalf of Air New Zealand Limited; b) Legal submissions made by Amanda Dewar and evidence given by Alison Noble on behalf of Queenstown Airport Corporation Limited (QAC); c) Evidence given by Michael Foster on behalf of Shotover Park Limited and Remarkables Park Limited; 3 d) Evidence given by Warwick Goldsmith on behalf of Five Mile Holdings Limited (In Receivership); and e) Legal submissions made by Vanessa Walker on behalf of Jacks Point Limited and Plethora Investments Limited. 15. My evidence is structured as follows: a) A review of the key relevant points made in legal submissions and evidence given and my response to each of those points; b) My conclusions in terms of recommended amendments to PC 19. LEGAL SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (ANZL). 16. James Gardner-Hopkins made legal submissions on behalf of ANZL. The key points he made in those submissions were: a) PC 19 should contain controls on Activities Sensitive to Aircraft Noise (ASAN) outside the Outer Control Boundary (OCB); b) That reverse sensitivity effects outside the OCB should be addressed by amending the Objectives, Policies, Environmental Results Anticipated and Rules of PC19; c) In particular, the rules of PC19 should be amended to require that the Outline Development Plan required throughout the PC19 area should include a further matter for discretion relating to reverse sensitivity to aircraft noise even outside the OCB; d) The rules should also be amended to require that all ASAN outside the OCB must be subject to a “no-complaints covenant” or otherwise be a non-complying activity; e) ANZL opposition to the inclusion of references to controls on the effects of noise from the Airport in Objective 14 and new policy 14.2; and f) A new definition for “Activity Sensitive to Aircraft Noise” should be included in PC19. 17. I will deal with each of these matters in turn. Firstly, I do not support the imposition of controls on Activities Sensitive to Aircraft Noise (ASAN) outside the Outer Control Boundary 4 (OCB). It is not an approach that has been used at any other airport in New Zealand to my knowledge and it is not an approach which is supported by the New Zealand Standard for Airport Noise Management and Land Use Planning NZS 6805:1992 (the Standard). 18. Mr Gardner– Hopkins acknowledges in his submissions that “ANZL would not usually seek to extend controls on ASANs outside airport noise contours. However, it will do so where there is good reason to believe that the noise contours might change or where the circumstances make it appropriate to seek such controls.” Mr Gardner-Hopkins does not expand on why he considers the noise contours “might change” although it is assumed this is a reference to the fact that the new aircraft noise contours proposed by QAC in its public consultation documents have not yet been notified as part of a plan change process and might be altered as part of that process. This is an issue I will address later when I come to evaluate Mr Foster’s evidence, but suffice it to say that if the future aircraft contours really are in such doubt, then it would be far better, in my opinion, to delay the implementation of PC19 until those contours are settled than to establish a fundamentally unsound precedent in terms of land use control around Queenstown Airport by introducing rules relating to controlling ASAN outside the OCB. 19. I am also unconvinced by the other reasons advanced by Mr Gardner-Hopkins for taking such an unusual approach to controlling land use in the case of Queenstown Airport. He states that the PC19 land is “...within proximity to the Airport and will be affected by Airport noise” and that “...the OCB contour is no “magic” cut off point. Even people who live outside of the OCB can (and do) complain about the Airport noise”. These observations would apply to all airports around New Zealand where the Standard has been the basis of land use controls in District Plans to control reverse sensitivity effects. They are not unique to Queenstown Airport at all. Of course, people do notice aircraft noise outside the OCB (Ldn 55dBA) contour and doubtless they also complain about it on occasion. However, Mr Gardner-Hopkins either ignores or is unaware of the acoustic research into community responses to aircraft noise that lies behind the Standard’s recommendations in relation to 5 positioning the OCB.