BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL Topic 080 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act (LGATPA) 2010 AND IN THE MATTER of Topic 080 Rezoning and Precincts (General) AND IN THE MATTER of further submissions and further submissions set out in the Parties and Issues Report (PIR) STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF LARISSA BLAIR CLARKE ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL TOPIC 080 (PLANNING – COASTAL REZONING AND COASTAL PRECINCTS – ONEHUNGA 3 NEW (PORT OF ONEHUNGA), MT WELLINGTON 1 NEW (PORTS OF AUCKLAND, GABADOR PLACE) 26 JANUARY 2016 Evidence in Rebuttal- Larissa Clarke -26 January 2016 Index 1. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 2 2. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 3 3. CODE OF CONDUCT .................................................................................................. 3 4. SCOPE ......................................................................................................................... 3 5. CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PAUP .................... 4 6. BESPOKE PROVISIONS FOR GABADOR PLACE PRECINCT ................................... 5 7. BESPOKE PROVISIONS FOR THE PORT OF ONEHUNGA ..................................... 10 8. SEAWALLS ................................................................................................................ 13 9. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 13 Larissa Clarke/ 080- Minor Ports-Coastal precincts/ Onehunga 3 NEW (Port of Onehunga), Mt Wellington 1 NEW (Ports of Auckland, Gabador Place) 1 Evidence in Rebuttal- Larissa Clarke -26 January 2016 1. SUMMARY 1.1 My name is Larissa Blair Clarke. I am a Planner in the Unitary Plan Team within the ‘Plans and Places’ Division of the Chief Planning Office at Auckland Council. I am providing planning evidence for Auckland Council (Council) in relation to Topic 080 General Rezoning and Precincts. 1.2 My Evidence in Rebuttal (EIR) is complementary to the evidence of Ms Kathryn Coombes who has provided the ‘main’ planning evidence in relation to ‘Coastal rezoning and precincts’ and addresses a number of other matters raised by submitters in her EIR for Topic 080. 1.3 My evidence in rebuttal addresses points raised by witnesses for the Port of Auckland Limited (POAL), specifically the evidence of Mr Mark Arbuthnot and Ms Jennifer Hart. The key areas I address in this statement of rebuttal evidence are: (a) Bespoke provisions for the Gabador Place Precinct: (i) I support an amendment to the proposed control designed to manage overland flow paths (within the Gabador Place precinct) to address the matters raised by Ms Hart; (ii) With respect to Coastal hazards I comment on the methodology used to determine the extent of coastal defences in relation to Gabador Place and generally acknowledge Mr Arbuthnot’s support of the proposed control. (b) Bespoke provisions for the Port of Onehunga: (i) In response to Ms Hart’s evidence, the flood prone area, identified within the Port of Onehunga site, is proposed to be removed from the Council GIS viewer; (ii) An amendment is proposed to the Auckland-wide Natural hazards provisions, including the addition of a new activity to Activity Table 1 ‘flood hazards’ and introduce a permitted activity control to correspond to this. This requires a consequential change to the Auckland –wide Natural hazards provisions in section H.4.11 of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP); Larissa Clarke/ 080- Minor Ports-Coastal precincts/ Onehunga 3 NEW (Port of Onehunga), Mt Wellington 1 NEW (Ports of Auckland, Gabador Place) 2 Evidence in Rebuttal- Larissa Clarke -26 January 2016 (iii) I confirm that in my opinion provision for marine and port operations are included in the Auckland-wide natural hazards provisions in a manner which I consider achieves the relief sought by Mr Arbuthnot. As such I consider no further amendment is required. 1.4 I also propose a consequential amendment to the Central Port precinct to achieve consistency with the control which applies to flood hazards in the Gabador Place precinct and in the Minor Port zone. 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 My name is Larissa Blair Clarke. I am a Planner in the Unitary Plan Team within the ‘Plans and Places’ Division of the Chief Planning Office at Auckland Council. 2.2 I provided Evidence in Chief (EIC) for Topic 080 (General) Rezoning and Precincts specifically in relation to the Gabador Place precinct and the Port of Onehunga precinct sought by the POAL. 2.3 Details of my qualifications and past experience are set out in Attachment A to my EIC for both Topic 039 and 022. 2.4 No mediation has been held for this Topic. However, I have met, had email correspondence, and/or discussed issues with, several of the submitters, including Ms Karen Baverstock and Mr Philip Airey in relation to Stolthaven’s relief sought and Mr Mark Arbuthnot in relation to POAL’s submission points. 3. CODE OF CONDUCT 3.1 I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note and that I agree to comply with it. I confirm that I have considered all the material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express, and that this evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person. 4. SCOPE 4.1 My evidence in rebuttal addresses points raised by witnesses for the POAL, specifically the evidence of Mr Mark Arbuthnot and Ms Jennifer Hart. Larissa Clarke/ 080- Minor Ports-Coastal precincts/ Onehunga 3 NEW (Port of Onehunga), Mt Wellington 1 NEW (Ports of Auckland, Gabador Place) 3 Evidence in Rebuttal- Larissa Clarke -26 January 2016 4.2 I have discussed the relief sought by the POAL, contained in the evidence of Mr Arbuthnot, with Dr Claudia Hellberg, Mr Nick Brown, Mr David Mead, Ms Sarah Sinclair and Dr Natasha Carpenter. 4.3 I respond to the matters raised by Mr Arbuthnot and Ms Hart in relation to: (a) Bespoke provisions for the Gabador Place Precinct: (i) Flood hazards- overland flow path control; (ii) Coastal hazards- comment on the methodology used to determine the extent of coastal defences. (b) Bespoke provisions for the Port of Onehunga: (i) Flood hazards- removal of the flood prone area mapped in the Council non-statutory GIS viewer; (ii) Flood hazards- proposed permitted activity and associated control to be included in the auckland wide natural hazard provisions for the Minor Port zone; (iii) Coastal hazards- I confirm that in my opinion activities are adequately provided for through the Auckland-wide provisions and that no further amendment is required. 5. CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PAUP 5.1 Consequential amendments are required to the Natural hazards section of the PAUP as a result of my Evidence in Rebuttal (EIR). 5.2 As set out below I support the addition of an additional line in Activity table 1 ‘flood hazards’ and the addition of a permitted activity control associated with this control to be included in Council’s proposed version of H.4.11 Natural hazards. In addition, I support the consequential amendment to the flood hazards control (3.1A) within the Central Port precinct K.3.7. 5.3 While not a part of the PAUP I note that the non-statutory flood hazard information in the Council GIS viewer is proposed to be updated to reflect the removal of the flood prone area with the Port of Onehunga area. Larissa Clarke/ 080- Minor Ports-Coastal precincts/ Onehunga 3 NEW (Port of Onehunga), Mt Wellington 1 NEW (Ports of Auckland, Gabador Place) 4 Evidence in Rebuttal- Larissa Clarke -26 January 2016 6. BESPOKE PROVISIONS FOR GABADOR PLACE PRECINCT 6.1 Mr Arbuthnot has provided evidence in relation to the bespoke provisions sought by the Ports of Auckland (Industrial and Trade Activities (ITAs) stormwater, other discharges and natural hazards). Mr Arbuthnot says that bespoke provisions are no longer being pursued in relation to ITAs, stormwater and other discharges. 6.2 The reason for this is discussed at paragraphs 5.121 and 5.13 of Mr Arbuthnot’s evidence and I understand from this statement that comprehensive management of the precinct may be considered less viable as a result of multiple tenancies. In relation to bespoke natural hazards provisions Mr Arbuthnot notes that these provisions were addressed in Topic 022 Natural hazards and Flooding. While I agree that these provisions were addressed initially addressed in Topic 022, in my opinion it was anticipated by POAL and Council that a more detailed consideration of the provisions suitable for Gabador Place site and the Port of Onehunga would be undertaken in relation to Topic 080 General Rezoning and Precincts. 6.3 In my view, this more detailed consideration, separate from that of the Central CBD Port is of relevance in considering the differing physical location, proposed use and activities and the nature of the hazards present. Flood hazards 6.4 Both Council and POAL have, when considering bespoke provisions for flood hazards, proposed that the flood hazard (overland flow path control) promoted in Topic 022 for inclusion in the Central Port precinct also be applied at Gabador Place and the Port of Onehunga. Mr Arbuthnot and Ms Hart prefer the control proposed by POAL, while I prefer Council’s control wording, as now amended in Attachment A to Ms Coombes’ Evidence in Rebuttal for Topic 080. 6.5 Mr Arbuthnot considers that the control proposed by POAL “…provides appropriate flexibility as to how overland flow paths are addressed within the Gabador Place site, while at the same time protecting against any increase in adverse flooding effects on other properties”2 1 Paragraph 5.12, M Arbuthnot EIR on behalf of POAL, dated 18 December 2015. “POAL has also undertaken a review of its existing and proposed operations at Gabador Place, and concluded that it is unlikely that the facility will be developed in a comprehensive manner in the near future.