Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
BEFORE THE BOARD OF INQUIRY
RUAKURA DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHANGE
IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management
Act 1991 ("the Act")
AND
IN THE MATTER of a Board of Inquiry appointed
under section 149J of the Act to
consider a Plan Change
requested by Tainui Group
Holdings Limited and Chedworth
Properties Limited
AND
A submission by William Roy
Cowie & the Ruakura Residents
Group
SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE BY NICHOLAS JON
ROBERTS ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM ROY COWIE & THE RUAKURA
RESIDENTS GROUP
DATED: 5 JUNE 2014
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 My full name is Nicholas Jon Roberts and I am a qualified resource
management planner and director of Barker & Associates Limited, an
independent planning consultancy based in Auckland.
1.2 I hold the qualifications and experience set out at paragraphs 1.2 - 1.8 of
my statement of evidence in chief (EIC), dated 28 March 2014.
1.3 I have been engaged by William Roy Cowie and the Ruakura residents
group (RRG) to provide independent planning evidence on this matter.
2
1.4 I have read and am familiar with the Code of Conduct for Expert
Witnesses in the Environment Court Practice Note 2011. I agree to
comply with that Code.
1.5 I attended the planning expert conferencing held on 31 March – 2 April
and 22 April – 24 April 2014 and signed the joint conferencing
statements.
2. EVIDENCE SCOPE AND STRUCTURE
2.1 This statement of evidence focusses the outstanding issues which remain
to be resolved as identified in my EIC. In addressing these matters I;
i) Provide an Overview of my EIC
ii) Describe the “Buffer Solution” offered by RRG
iii) Outline other key changes requested by RRG
iv) Provide an analysis of the proposed Plan Change, including:
a. Observations regarding the Plan Change process
b. May 26 version
v) Conclusions
3. EIC OVERVIEW
3.1 In my EIC I reached the overall conclusion that the Plan Change in its
(then) notified form:
Carried with it a high risk that it would not achieve or facilitate the
integrated management of effects associated with development;
resources.
Enabled potential significant adverse effects on the amenity
values of the Ruakura Residents land and failed to appropriately
address, avoid and mitigate known or identified adverse effects;
3
Would implement planning provisions that are inconsistent with
the WDP, PDP and PRPS;
and in summary, would not be consistent with the overall thrust of Part 2
of the Act.
3.2 My overall conclusions were based on:
Integrated resource management
3.3 The statutory planning framework seeks to achieve an integrated and
efficient approach to development, which is co-ordinated with transport
and infrastructure improvements. The relevant provisions are identified in
paragraphs 6.2 – 6.8 of the EIC.
3.4 My assessment concluded that the Plan Change (as notified) did not
achieve integrated resource management for the following key reasons:
a) The Plan Change relates to only approximately 390ha of the wider
800ha Structure Plan area. Further, the Plan Change is inconsistent
with the provisions of the proposed District Plan, including wording of
objectives and policies; significant changes to staging conditions; the
status of activities; and changes to mitigation measures. This raises
concern about appropriate integration of development within the Plan
Change area and the wider city;
b) The Plan Change relies on partial closure of Ruakura Road between
the Spine Road and the Waikato Expressway (WEX), without any
clear requirement to provide alternative access to properties within the
Ruakura Residents’ land. Certainty about the alternative access
should be provided to enable an integrated assessment of land use
and transportation development enabled by the Plan Change. I this
respect, removing the prohibited activity status for new roads outside
of the plan change area would potentially allow for an ad hoc
approach to determining alignment of new roads, which could
compromise future integrated and co-ordinated development and fail
to achieve the relevant objectives of this plan change;
3.5 As discussed in my EIC, the inconsistencies between the Plan Change
and the PDP, including noise standards, exemplify the challenge with
4
hearing this significant plan change separately from the PDP process.
In my opinion, it risks the Board (through no fault of its own as it is
bound into this process) making a decision now that may compromise
the planning approach for the Ruakura and/or the wider city that will
eventually be settled under the PDP. In my view this is a relevant ‘risk’
in terms of ‘acting or not acting’ as set out in s32(2)(c) which I consider
warrants a cautious approach to this Plan Change.
3.6 Overall, my conclusion in paragraph 6.18 of the EIC stated that “the
‘piecemeal’ approach does not allow for an integrated assessment of the
costs and benefits of the provisions, and will not necessarily ensure
sustainable management consistent with the purpose of the RMA”.
Urban form, design and amenity
3.7 The relevant provisions relating to urban form, design and amenity in the
statutory planning framework are identified in paragraphs 7.7 – 7.12 of
the EIC. The statutory planning framework seeks to promote high-quality
urban environments, including through providing for positive outcomes
from development1; and by maintaining and enhancing amenity values
and achieving high amenity values2. As a method to achieve high quality
urban environments, the planning framework seeks to minimise land use
conflicts, including through mechanisms such as separating residential
activities from business and industrial activities3, setbacks, building
design and landscaping4.
3.8 Amenity values “means those natural or physical qualities and
characteristics of an area that contribute to people's appreciation of its
pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational
attributes”5. An integrated approach to assessing amenity effects (which
includes noise, visual, landscape, safety, and social cohesion amongst
other characteristics) is required to gain an understanding about how a
project will fundamentally affect a sense of place and peoples
appreciation of that place. Even if adverse effects on each aspect of
amenity are assessed as being minor, a cumulative approach may result
1 PDP Objective 2.2.3
2 WDP Objective 1A.4.a of the WDP
3 WDP Policy 6.2.6
4 PDP Objective 3.3.5, Policy 3.3.5a
5 RMA section 2
5
in significant adverse amenity effects. This is because amenity effects
result from effects in combination with each other. As discussed in the
latest s42A report, people’s perceptions and expectations regarding rural
amenity are also relevant. In this respect, it is relevant to note that the
majority of residents have occupied their homes within the RRG land well
before 2009/2010 when they became aware of the possibility that their
land may be amalgamated into Hamilton City and therefore moved to the
area expecting to enjoy a rural-residential lifestyle.
3.9 The Ruakura Residents’ land is characterised by residential country
lifestyle activities that are afforded a spacious and green outlook away
from effects of urban activities. The land is still subject to the provisions of
the Waikato District Plan (Operative Plan), under which it is zoned
Country Living. The Country Living zone provides for low density living
within rural areas with the policies and rules aimed at preserving rural
character and high amenity values6. Further, the PDP has identified Large
Lot Residential zoning7 for the Ruakura Residents’ land which sets the
objective to achieve good on-site amenity8. Based on the existing
environment, and current and proposed zonings, the amenity values in
the Ruakura Residents’ land are associated with low density residential
living in a rural setting.
3.10 In terms of visual amenity, this development will fundamentally change
the visual characteristics of the area from rural to a working port. Visual
amenity gained from open, spacious rural living environments within the
Ruakura Residents’ area is likely to be adversely affected.
3.11 My EIC raised concerns about assumptions made in the Landscape and
Visual Assessment9 notified with the Plan Change, and a lack of certainty
around the quality of any buffer proposed, the type and form of buildings,
and the location, design and scale of any acoustic fencing. Lighting and
glare effects also were considered to potentially detract from the amenity
values of the RRG. Overall, the assessment in my EIC concluded that
additional mitigation measures should be adopted to achieve a low-
6 Refer Objectives 1A.4.1, 13.6.1 and 13.6.5 of the Waikato District Plan
7 As set out in my EIC RRG has opposed aspects of this zoning, including the reduction in zoning
potential and reference to the Ruakura Structure Plan 8 PDP Objective 4.2.3
9 Landscape and Visual Assessment, prepared by Boffa Miskell and dated 21 June 2013.
6
moderate visual amenity effect rating, as is the case for other residential
areas in the structure plan area. In this respect, I attached to my EIC a
marked up set of amendments to the plan changes which showed one
approach to addressing these concerns. This included a requirement for
a 100m bund from the southern side of Ruakura Road and a requirement
for a comprehensive landscape mitigation to be provided and
implemented prior to the operation of the IMT.
3.12 When trains are not operating, the acoustic amenity is generally quiet
which befits its existing rural setting10. Although traffic and train
movements are likely to increase in this area, the land within the Ruakura
Residents area should be assessed within the context of a currently
predictable noise environment with settled quiet periods particularly
during the night time.
3.13 Both the magnitude and the characteristics of noise generation can affect
amenity values for the Ruakura residents. In my EIC, I set out my view
that rail noise involves a gradual increase and decrease of a rumbling
noise which people generally become accustomed to. Many people live
near railways and become accustomed to the predictable noise patterns
they generate. In contrast, a port may involve an unpredictable mix of
discrete sounds with different qualities (items empty containers being
dropped or stacked; vehicles may have reversing beepers activated) and
that may produce greater interruption even though the average noise
level remains compliant. That is a factor that in my view warrants caution
when considering amenity effects.
3.14 I was not fully convinced that proposed noise limits were appropriate to
provide for the maintenance of amenity values for the Ruakura
Residents. In my view, retention of the PDP noise limits for maintaining
amenity would be preferable and appear to be appropriate. I consider this
to be particularly important during the night.
3.15 I also considered that this is an issue related to the integrated
management of effects (s31). In my view, the potential costs of
increasing the night noise standard to the south of the RRG land
10
Refer page 110 of the AEE
7
outweighs the benefits at this point in time as the noise limits to be
applied to the western and northern boundaries and to the enclave itself
are yet to be resolved through the PDP process. If the 45 dBLAeq(15min)
night standard is approved through this process it establishes a situation
where the noise able to be received by the residents along Ryburn Road
is greater than they themselves are permitted to emit, which in my view
does not achieve integrated management of effects.
3.16 Overall, the assessment in my EIC concluded that the proximity of the
inland port to the established residential activity clearly has the potential
to generate significant adverse effects on amenity. The cumulative impact
of visual effects (not just from buildings but from container stacking,
equipment, lighting, and an acoustic fence), acoustic, vibration and social
effects will result in a fundamental change for Ruakura Residents from
the current rural-residential amenity they currently appreciate to a
detracted living environment directly across the road from a 24 hour
operational port. This is inconsistent with the strategic planning
framework which seeks to provide high quality urban environments and to
maintain and enhance amenity values.
3.17 As identified above, the statutory planning framework seeks to minimise
land use conflicts, including through mechanisms such as separating
residential activities from business and industrial activities, building
design and landscaping. These are appropriate measures to ensure that
the amenity values of the Ruakura Resident’s area can be maintained
and enhanced (rather than detracted from), and to provide a quality urban
environment in accordance with the strategic documents.
3.18 The use of setbacks to minimise land use conflicts between industrial and
residential land uses has been adopted elsewhere in the Plan Change
area. It is a policy in the proposed Plan Change (as notified) to separate
the logistics and freight-handling services and support activities and
infrastructure from sensitive activities (Policy 25.4.9e). Provision of a
suitable buffer is therefore consistent with the Plan Change approach.
Transport and social cohesion
3.19 The planning framework generally seeks to integrate land use and
transportation planning (refer paragraph 8.2 of the EIC). The Plan
8
Change as notified includes closure of Ruakura Road between the Spine
Road and the Waikato Expressway (WEX), however, does not provide a
definite ‘replacement’ route. There is no assessment provided on the
potential effects on the transportation network or future development from
the new road, or of any effects in terms of social cohesion or connectivity
for the Ruakura Residents through closure of this section of Ruakura
Road.
3.20 Based on the information provided (including the applicant’s evidence on
social impacts from the proposal), it is likely that approval of the Plan
Change as notified would result in significant traffic and social severance
effects for the Ruakura residents that cannot be adequately mitigated.
Further, the removal of the prohibited activity status for new roads will
allow the potential ad hoc approach to the design and alignment of new
roads throughout the area. As this approach does not represent an
integrated approach to transportation and land use planning, I consider it
is inconsistent with the statutory context.
Section 32 and Part 2
3.21 Section 9 of my EIC assesses the Plan Change (as notified) against the
relevant considerations in section 32 and Part 2 of the RMA.
3.22 In relation to section 32, my assessment concluded that insufficient
consideration had been given to other reasonably practicable options. In
particular, the scale and significance of the environmental, economic,
social and cultural effects that are anticipated from the implementation of
the proposal requires that further consideration should be provided to
including an open space buffer and more significant landscaping
requirements adjacent to the Ryburn Road boundary, and in adopting the
noise limits of the PDP.
3.23 With regard to the relative benefits and costs of the environment,
economic, social and cultural effects, I acknowledged that an open space
buffer would reduce the area of land available for economic use.
However, I note that large open space corridors have been provided
elsewhere in the Plan Change area where potential adverse effects on
established residents are either not a concern, or are significantly less
9
than what is likely to be experienced by the residents of the Ryburn
Road/Percival Road area. In those situations, the applicant has assessed
that the potential benefits outweigh the cost of reducing the potentially
developable land. I consider that the relative benefits and costs at the
Ryburn Road interface are even more weighed in favour of providing an
open space buffer than elsewhere in the Ruakura Structure Plan area,
due to the nature of inland port activities (including 24 hour operations)
and the presence of an established rural-residential area. There is an
opportunity and flexibility in this greenfields area to enable the applicant
to achieve economic wellbeing while also protecting the wellbeing and
amenity of the Ruakura Residents Group.
3.24 In assessing the Plan Change (as notified) in the context of Part 2,
consideration was given to enabling the social, economic and cultural
well-being of both the applicant and the RRG; the need to avoid, remedy
or mitigate any adverse effects on the environment; and the maintenance
and enhancement of amenity values. My assessment concluded that
alternative wording of objectives and policies would more appropriately
achieve the purpose of the Act.
Summary of EIC
3.25 Overall, the key issues identified with the Plan Change (as notified) in my
EIC include:
a) Integrated management: The Plan Change (as notified) was
inconsistent with the wording and approach taken in the PDP,
including for the wider structure plan area, resulting in concerns
about integration with the wider city;
b) Transportation and social cohesion: The proposed closure of
Ruakura Road between the Spine Road and the WEX, and the
enabling of potential ad hoc roading development through removal of
the prohibited activity standard, may generate significant social
cohesion and/or transportation issues. However, insufficient
information has been provided to enable an assessment.
c) Urban design, form and amenity: The proposal will not:
10
(i) Maintain and enhance amenity values for the Ruakura
Residents, particularly when considered on an integrated and
cumulative basis;
(ii) Avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse amenity effects on the
Ruakura Residents (including visual and acoustic amenity
effects); and
(iii) Minimise conflicts between different land uses, particularly
between an existing rural-residential land use and a proposed
intensive industrial/port activity.
d) Section 32: Insufficient assessment of alternatives was undertaken
by the applicant, particularly with regard to an open space buffer, an
alternative configuration of the IMT and adoption of the noise limits in
the PDP. It has been left to the submitters to address such
alternatives.
e) Further, greater clarity in provisions would likely enhance their
effectiveness and efficiency in achieving the objectives of the Plan
Change.
3.26 In summary, the Plan Change as notified was assessed in my EIC as not
being consistent with the overall thrust of Part 2 of the Act.
4. BUFFER SOLUTION OFFERED BY RRG
4.1 Since the exchange of my EIC, which suggested a 100m wide buffer, I
have been working with RRG to try to proactively address the planning
issues identified with the Plan Change (as summarized in paragraph 3.22
above). In particular, the goal has been to find a solution to both protect
the amenity of the existing community11 and enable the efficient and
effective operation of the logistics and inland port activity12. As part of
this, we requested a meeting with TGH representatives to explore the
potential for greater use of the northwestern corner of the IMT (which is
shown as landscaping) in return for a buffer area within the northeastern
sector facing the resident’s land. In response to this meeting and further
11
Objective 25H.4.6 – 26 May Version 12
Objective 25H.5.2.1 - – 26 May Version
11
discussions with the residents, the RRG tabled in Summary Opening
Submissions Ruakura Resident’s Exhibit 3A showing a buffer solution for
this area involving:
A 100m wide buffer area equivalent to the 100m building set back
area shown on Figure 28;
The spur road to the north of the rail sidings being inverted so it
was adjacent to the sidings;
The container stacking arrangement reconfigured so it was all
outside the 100 m setback from the southern side of Ryburn Road
but with greater stacking capacity within the northwestern corner
of the site;
The general location of the acoustic screen, shown located along
the southern side of the buffer area.
4.2 The purpose of this buffer being to:
Provide separation and transition between logistics and freight
handling operations and the living environment of the residents;
Provide a sense of ‘depth’ when looking south towards the IMT
from Ryburn Road, enabling green space to be seen between the
railway and the IMT operation, like the green backdrop the
residents currently enjoy;
Avoid a screening effect of a densely landscaped area or a screen
wall immediately south of the railway which would conflict with the
open landscape values of the area;
Provide greater certainty as to the general location of the acoustic
screen/bund to optimise attenuation and allow for planting north of
the screen;
To enable the efficient operation of the IMT by providing additional
container stacking areas to the northwestern sector of the IMT.
12
4.3 This plan was put to Mr Boyle in cross examination and he raised several
reasons why the plan would not work. This cross examination is at pages
269 and 270 of the transcript. My understanding is that Mr Boyle was
particularly concerned by the proposal to place the spur road adjacent to
the sidings and that he wanted space for the container handling traffic to
move along the sidings without conflicting with or sharing space with the
trucks. He also said that if the planting extended into the middle of the
northern container stacking area then the area would be impossible to
operate.
4.4 However, Mr Boyle also explained that the Port has very sophisticated
software that sits under the operation of these facilities and this operating
system is able to exclude certain areas of the terminal from having
containers stacked on it and thus to avoid container stacking occurring
underneath the HAM WHU Transpower line (page 290 lines 10 -15).
Therefore this seems to confirm that the applicant does have the ability to
manage stacking and that more stacking to the west of the site could be
managed. I also understand that the need for and use of the spur road
significantly reduces once the gantry system is installed, being
approximately the same time as the north-eastern sector of the IMT is
developed.
4.5 In order to address Mr Boyle’s concern about the need for separation of
the spur road and the sidings I have had an amended RRG Exhibit 3A
prepared which I now produce as RRG Exhibit 3D. This puts the spur
road back into its general location north of the container stack but still has
the road re-aligned in such a way that it allows the 100 amenity buffer to
be provided for the RRG’s land. The key features of this plan are:
i) The spur road is to the north of the container stacks so container
handling traffic operates between the stack and the rail or the stack
and the truck. Container stackers can still move between the two
areas of stacks if necessary or operate predominantly in the western
part of the site until those stacks are full. This aligns with the timing of
the installation of the gantry system, being approximately the same
time as the north-eastern sector of the IMT. There may need to be
some slight adjustment of the spur road alignment to allow for the
13
reach stackers to move alongside the rail sidings between the two
stack areas.
ii) Efficiency of loading and unloading the train is maintained because
there is a double row of container stacks to the west and then
additional overflow container stacking to the east. The computer
operating system will still be able to direct containers to stacks in
close vicinity to the railcars. There is no requirement to move the
railway spur;
iii) Planting in the amenity buffer area can to be designed in such a way
as to best accommodate an optimally located acoustic bund or wall
and provide both screening and a sense of a wide landscaped open
space between the Inland port and the RRG’s land. The potential
also exists for the re-location of the HAM WHU line to within the
amenity buffer area to avoid container handling movements beneath
this line.
4.6 In addition, I also understand that TGH has now agreed to the following
addition constraints on the operation of the IMT as requested by
Transpower:
Non-complying activity status for port operations, container
stacking and buildings within the national grid yard (12m either
side of the centerline of the transmission line)
Restricted Discretionary status for port operations, container
stacking and buildings within he National Grid Corridor (32m
either side of the centerline);
Restricted Discretionary status to cross under the transmission
lines
4.7 These constraints apply to an approximately 900m long section of IMT
(including parts of the rail spur, gantry system and container stacking
areas) and potentially create inefficiencies if consent is not be granted
and/or the transmission lines are not relocated. There is a risk therefore
that these agreed methods will militate against the operational efficiency
and effectiveness goals as set out in objective 25H.5.2.1. It is my view
14
that the solution provided in Exhibit 3D provides the future opportunity to
better achieve the relevant objectives by enabling the relocation of the
northernmost line away from the rail sidings and operational area of the
IMT, thereby increasing the efficiency of the IMT, and by at the same time
better assisting to protect the amenity of the adjacent residential enclave.
5. OTHER KEY CHANGES REQUESTED BY RRG
5.1 In addition to the ‘buffer solution’, several other changes are proposed to
address the issues with the Plan Change as notified. These include:
a) The application of the operative Hamilton District Plan (Waikato
Section) and the PDP night time noise standard of 40dBA. As I
discuss below, it is my opinion that the buffer solution is
complementary to this outcome as separation will assist in achieving
compliance with the 40dBA night noise limit;
b) Further certainty as to what the contents of the Noise Management
Plan will be or how this will be independently administered with
meaningful input from affected residents.
c) Further certainty regarding the alignment of future road access to the
resident’s land as the result of the closure of Ruakura Road which will
be a direct consequence of the implementation of the plan change.
6. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED PRIVATE PLAN CHANGE
Observations regarding the Plan Change process
6.1 It is my opinion that the approach to this private plan change application
has led to unnecessary expense for all parties involved (including the
applicant) and has left several fundamental issues to be resolved as part
of this 11th hour hearing process.
6.2 In my experience, the preparation of a plan change of this nature would
involve firstly identifying the opportunities and constraints of the subject
land area, including in this case:
15
a) The opportunity to make efficient use of rail and existing and future
significant roading infrastructure;
b) Sensitive nearby land uses, including the adjacent Country Living
zoning and established housing located approximately 40m north of
the site;
c) The geotechnical conditions, including whether those conditions
influenced the design of the site;
d) Site servicing requirements, including the requirement to develop an
integrated approach to stormwater disposal;
e) Transportation issues, including how efficient transport links to
existing communities will be retained, or if severed, re-established
and maintained;
f) Any infrastructure restriction which in this case include the presence
of two Transpower lines running through the site;
g) A requirement to achieve an integrated approach to the
management of environmental effects in the Ruakura area.
6.3 These are fundamental opportunities and constraints which I would have
expected to be resolved as much as possible at an early stage in the
preparation of the plan change project. This would have / should have
resulted in an integrated approach to the design of the proposal from the
“outside in” rather than what appears to be an “inside out” approach
adopted by the proponent including:
a) The design of the proposal at the outset to maintain the amenity of
the existing Country Living residential area, in consultation with
those potentially adversely affected. As I have discussed above, this
requires a holistic consideration of effects, including visual, noise,
vibration, lighting and social effects, to protect the amenity of this
residential environment. Instead, the plan change was lodged with a
5 metre wide landscaping strip on Ryburn Road or the northern
boundary of the IMT site, and with the possibility of an acoustic
screen (of an uncertain size and location). This approach has
significantly added to the stress placed on the existing residents
16
through this process and the expense in now having to
retrospectively address this issue as part of this hearing process in
conjunction with other fundamental issues referred to below. The
obvious way to address the interface with the rural residential land
would have been via a buffer area, being the method used
elsewhere in the plan change area. Provision of an appropriate
buffer, along with resolution of the issues posed by the powerlines,
would have resulted in a smaller “developable” area within which Mr
Boyle could then have been asked to design his port. Instead, in my
view, it appears that the “optimal” design of the IMT has been placed
on the full site with attempts to mitigate resulting adverse effects
“plastered” around the periphery of the site (particularly on the
northern boundary with the rural residential land) rather than
designing the site within the context to avoid effects and maintain the
amenity of nearby residents.
b) On-going and transparent discussions with key infrastructure
providers, including Transpower, to understand whether there are
any fundamental limitations on the operation or development of an
inland port facility on this site. The fact that the need to relocate the
lines or place non-complying activity restrictions under the lines has
arisen at this very late stage in the process to me indicates a failure
to properly address such fundamental issues at the outset. In my
view this places parties involved in this process (including the
Residents) in the difficult position of having to address a “solution”
which may in fact be sub-optimal compared other solutions which
may have been possible without the “scope” constraints of this plan
change process.
c) The design and resolution of stormwater on a catchment wide basis.
In my experience, ICMP applications are typically lodged and notified
prior to or contemporaneously with applications to rezone greenfield
land areas. This ensures that any fundamental issues or issues that
impact the objectives, policies and or methods of the plan change
are addressed at the time of the plan change hearing. Leaving
matters to be resolved through the ICMP process to a later date (as
is the case in this process) runs the risk that the plan change may
17
need to be revisited at a later date to address matters arising out of
that process in order to achieve the integrated management of
effects. It also requires the duplication of effort and expense for
parties who are potentially affected by both the plan change and
ICMP processes.
d) The design and resolution of any fundamental roading issues on an
integrated basis. In this case, while arterial roading issues have
been addressed through staging requirements, the applicant has
failed to address the consequential transportation and social
disconnection effects associated with the closure of Ruakura Road.
This is a significant issue for approximately 30 families in the area
which I would have expected the applicant to address very early in
the plan change preparation phase in consultation with those
adversely affected.
e) Drafting the plan change to integrate with the provisions of the PDP
and adjacent operative plan zoning as much as possible to achieve
integrated management of effects. The majority of the time spend in
planning conferencing has involved retrospectively rewriting the plan
change to better integrate with these documents. Significant
expense and time delay (including my time at the expense of the
Residents) could have been avoided had the applicant discussed
and amended the plan change in consultation with Hamilton City
Council prior to lodgment.
Plan Change - 26 May Version
6.4 In terms of those objectives, policies and methods of most relevance to
the Residents I make the following comments:
Transportation and Social Cohesion
6.5 The most relevant objective and policy relating to this topic is as follows:
Objective 25H.4.4 An integrated and efficient pattern of land use and transportation so as to
sustainably manage the impact of development on existing and planned transport infrastructure.
18
Policy 25H.4.4b Movement routes shall be integrated with surrounding neighbourhoods and existing and planned transport networks.
Policy 25H.4.4f Opportunities for improved accessibility, connectivity and
efficiency within the transportation network shall be provided. (my underlining)
6.6 I support this objective and supporting policies as an integrated and
efficient pattern of land use transport achieves the purpose of the Act by
linking the location and design of transportation infrastructure with
existing and proposed development. This also gives effect to the regional
policy direction as set out at paragraphs 6.2 - 6.4 of my EIC.
6.7 However the supporting methods to achieve this objective / policy
direction are absent with respect to the future access to the Resident’s
land. There is no method within the plan change to achieve a transport
connection which provides for improved accessibility, connectivity and
efficiency in terms of access to and from the Resident’s land when
Ruakura Road is closed. There is also no method to ensure future
movement routes will be integrated with surrounding neighbourhoods and
transport networks.
6.8 The result of this is future uncertainty for the residents. In my opinion this
creates a form of a planning ‘blight’ on the residents’ properties as they
are unable to plan for the future with respect to access to community
facilities such as schooling and access to sport and other community
services and infrastructure. This lack of certainty will also undoubtedly
affect their ability to realise market value for their land in the event they
wish to relocate from the area.
6.9 Potential social cohesion, severance and way of life effects from the
changes to the transportation network have been addressed in the
evidence presented by the applicant. Ms Linzey concludes that the way of
life and community cohesion for residents in the Ryburn Road / Percival
Road area does have the potential to be adversely affected, and that the
scale of this potential adverse impact is significant for these residents13.
13
Refer paragraph 81 of Amelia Linzey’s evidence
19
6.10 The applicant and the Council14 rely on the Local Government Act road
closure procedures to achieve this objective, effectively meaning that
transportation access for the RRG will be addressed at a later (unknown)
date. Although methods outside of the district plan are equally relevant, I
do not consider this to be the most appropriate method to achieve the
objectives within the framework of s32 as:
a) There are two processes that can be used to close Ruakura Road,
being the Local Government Act (LGA) or the Public Works Act
(PWA). In my experience, the latter process can involve road
closures on a non-notified basis without any input from affected
parties;
b) Neither the LGA or PWA road closure provisions impose any direct
requirement on the decision maker to achieve the above listed
objectives and policies. Although the LGA states that the
Environment Court is to “consider” the district plan, this in my view
is a much lower threshold that that required by s32. This process
does not provide any certainty that the above listed objectives will
be achieved.
c) When addressing the efficiency and effectiveness of the methods
available to achieve the objectives it is also relevant, in my view, to
consider the efficiency and effectiveness of the process itself. The
LGA road closure process may potentially require a hearing before
the Environment Court. Rather than putting parties through yet
another hearing on this matter, I consider that it is more efficient
and more effective (in terms of achieving the objectives) to address
this issue as part of this process. In this respect, I note that the
residents have been involved in several PDP hearings on matters
which potentially impact on this hearing; are involved in this hearing;
are likely to be involve in the subsequent ICMP process; and will
also need to be involved in the subsequent PDP hearings; and
potentially Environment Court appeals hearing on the Ruakura
section of the PDP later this year. To require the residents to
potentially expend time and money on yet another process and the
14
Representation of behalf of HCC – 3 June
20
possibility of an Environment Court hearing under the LGA in my
view is both inefficient and onerous.
6.11 Within this context, without methods to achieve this objective as part of
this plan change, it is my view that the plan change fails based on the
requirements of section 32 and does not provide for the social and
economic wellbeing of this existing and future residential community.
6.12 In this respect I note that the applicant has failed to undertake any
meaningful analysis of the potential costs to the residents of closing
Ryburn Road. In my view the time and monetary costs would have been
able to be quantified by calculating the average numbers of trips per year
from the residents land and multiplying this by the additional time and fuel
consumption. The property value costs associated with uncertainty and
reduced accessibility to community resources could also be quantified by
seeking valuation advice with respect to different roading options. In this
respect, I note that there is no requirement for the Spine Road to be
constructed prior to the full development of the Ruakura Logistics Area.
Furthermore, there is no certainty that the Spine Road will be constructed
in the medium or long term if the traffic thresholds set out in rule
25H.12.2(a).ii are not trigged or if resource consent is sought and granted
to infringe that standard. The social and transportation disconnection
effects of this proposal could therefore potentially be permanent if the
options put forward by the proponent to date are implemented.
6.13 In my view suggested options available to address this issue as part of
this process (and achieve the relevant objectives) are:
i) Provide for an adjournment of the hearing to provide time for
transparent discussions between the applicant, RRG, Kiwi Rail and
other landowners to try to come to an agreement on an alternative
access route;
ii) Insert a requirement and criteria into the Land Development Plan
process for the first stage of the inland port, requiring and efficient
alternative route to be specified which meets the objectives. This
process should enable involvement from the Residents as part of a
limited notified or notified consent process. This approach would
21
require a consequential change to the prohibited activity rule stating
that the rule does not apply to roading approved as part of LDP.
Urban Design, Form and Amenity
6.14 The most relevant objectives and policies relating to this topic are:
Ruakura Schedule Area Overall Objective 25H.4.5 and
supporting Policy 25H.4.5a;
Ruakura Schedule Area Overall Objective 25H.4.6 and
supporting Policy 25H.4.6a;
Ruakura Logistics Area Objective 25H.5.2.3 and supporting
Policy 25H.5.2.3a;
6.15 In addressing these objectives and policies, I have also been particularly
cognisant of the objectives and policies relating to the efficient and
effective operation of the inland port, including specifically Ruakura
Logistics Area Objective 25H.5.2.1 and supporting Policy 25H.5.2.1a.
Objective and Policy Analysis
Objective 25H.4.5 Ensure compatible buildings and activities between zone and area boundaries and regionally significant infrastructure.
Policy 25H.4.5a Adverse effects of activities near area and zone boundaries shall be avoided, remedied or mitigated through operational measures, open space buffers, setbacks, building design, and landscaping.
6.16 I consider that the objective to ensure compatible buildings and activities
achieves the purpose of the Act by assisting to maintain and enhance the
amenity values of sensitive areas. The policy in my view appropriately
achieves the objective requiring adverse effects to be avoided, remedied
or mitigated. This is reinforced by objective 25H.4.6 to “protect amenity
values of surrounding communities” and by the outcome sought through
policy 25H.5.2.3a.ii of “separating logistics and freight-handling services
and supportive activities from sensitive activities” (which I discuss below).
22
Objective 25H.4.6 Development and land use activities in the Schedule 25H Ruakura Area are designed, developed and implemented in a manner which protects the amenity values of surrounding communities and facilities, while providing for urbanisation.
Policy 25H.4.6a
Development and land use shall:
(a) ensure an appropriate level of urban residential amenity in relation to existing and future residential activities; and
(b) ensure an appropriate level of amenity in relation to existing and future facilities including the University of Waikato and AgResearch.
This shall be achieved by:
i. Mitigating the adverse effects of noise, vibration, lighting, glare, odour, dust, and air emissions; and
ii. Ensuring attractively designed buildings and landscaped frontages to key public frontages; and
iii. Screening and landscaping adjoining sensitive activities. (my underlining)
6.17 Objective 25H.4.6 in my view achieves the purpose of the Act when
considered with other Part II matters. While ‘protect’ cannot be
considered to be ‘enhancement’ as enshrined by s7(c), it recognises that
in this situation the urbanization of the area as directed by the RPS and
the simultaneous enhancement of the existing rural residential amenity is
unlikely to be possible. The duty to “protect” however is an important
goal and one which in my view requires separation and depth of
landscaping between the two incompatible zones for the reasons I have
set out in my EIC and in the following sections of this statement. This also
supports the retention of the nighttime noise standard as I discuss above.
This approach is particularly important when considering that the
residents’ land is zoned Country Living – being a zone which is designed
to achieve high amenity values and which is not proposed to be rezoned
as part of this private plan change process.
6.18 Supporting policy 25H.4.6a (a) specifies the development and land use
shall “ensure an appropriate level of urban residential amenity”. It is my
view that this wording can be amended to better achieve the objective.
The word “appropriate” adds little to the meaning of the policy and could
be improved by replacing the policy with the following wording to better
achieve objective 25H.4.6. as follows:
23
(a) Protect the amenity values of existing residentially zoned areas and
ensure future residential activities ensure a good standard of residential amenity by avoiding or mitigating the adverse effects of noise, vibration, lighting, glare, odour, dust, and air emissions, including those effects in combination with each other.
6.19 It is also my view that the following statement that “this shall be achieved
by” requires the words “avoid or” to be inserted at clause i. and the words
“Separating incompatible activities incorporating” to be inserted at the
commencement of clause iii. to read as follows:
This shall be achieved by: i. Avoiding or mitigating the adverse effects of noise, vibration, lighting, glare, odour, dust, and air emissions; and ii. Ensuring attractively designed buildings and landscaped frontages to key public frontages; and iii. Separating incompatible activities and incorporating screening and landscaping.
6.20 I consider that ‘avoiding’ adverse effects equally assists to achieve the
objective to ‘protect amenity values’. With respect to clause ii, for the
reasons I have set out at paragraph 6.30 below and in my EIC, it is my
view that separation is a more effective form of mitigation as part of
landscaping and/or screening. This provides depth between incompatible
activities, effectively being a transition area between the existing
residential environment and what is proposed to be a 24hr/7 day
industrial operation. I consider that amenity of the rural residential area is
a function of both the on-site amenity and the spaciousness and
character of the area around it. Thus walling off the rural residential zone
(eg: with screen planting) and the development of a heavy industrial
activity immediately beyond that screen will inevitably affect the amenity
of the rural residential area. The provision of a spacious buffer gives a
sense of a transition between these incompatible activities whereas
screen planting simply removes visibility of the IP while retaining a
sudden change in activities (and hence a complete absence of any sense
of transition). That sudden change is far less subtle and is more likely to
give a sense of imposition or oppression than is a transition.
6.21 For these reasons, I consider the proposed changes to policy 25H.4.6a
better assist to achieve the supporting objective.
24
6.22 Objective 25H.5.2.3
Adverse effects of logistics and freight-handling activities and infrastructure are avoided or mitigated.
Policy 25H.5.2.3a The adverse effects of logistics and freight handling activities and associated structures and infrastructure shall be avoided or mitigated by; i. Ensuring an appropriate location and type of development in
accordance with Figure 25(H) Ruakura. ii. Separating logistics and freight-handling services and supportive
activities and infrastructure from sensitive activities.
iii. Ensuring that development visible from key transport corridors and
open spaces meets appropriate bulk and location and design
standards.
iv. Imposing amenity controls to ensure that the adverse effects of
logistics and inland port activities are avoided or mitigated when
assessed from adjoining facilities or existing residential dwellings
and countryside living zoned areas.
(my underlining)
6.23 For the reasons, I have set out above and in my EIC I support the
wording of these objectives and policies. This policy direction supports
the application of amenity controls to the Countryside Living zone,
including those properties owned by Waikato Krishna Limited.
Analysis of Methods to Achieve Objectives
Acoustic amenity
6.24 With regard to the night time noise limit, it is my view for the reasons set
out in my EIC and after considering the evidence presented to date that
the 40dBLaeq limit between 11pm and 7am better achieves the
objectives the ‘protect’ amenity values while providing for urbanisation15
and to preserve high amenity values16 when taking into account that:
a) The ambient noise environment at night without the trains passing
through the area is between 25 - 32 bDL9017
or 34 – 35 dBLAeq(15min)18
15
Objective 25H.4.6 16
Refer Objectives 1A.4.1, 13.6.1 and 13.6.5 of the Waikato District Plan 17
Page 989 and 990 cross exam of Robinson by Muldowney, Lines 15 and 25 18
Memorandum of Counsel for the Applicants 27 May 2014, Table 1
25
b) The 40dBLaeq limit can be complied with for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of
the IMT operation19.
c) The port operation will be staged, allowing for improvements to noise
management measures well before the port reaches optimal capacity.
These management measures can be improved with the appropriate
selection of equipment.20
d) Phase 3 and 4 of the IMT (that part opposite Ryburn Road) will not be
developed until 2035 – 2041, being the period upon which the port will
switch to a gantry system21, enabling the potential removal of the link
road and the stacking of containers to the north of this road.
e) The noise characteristics of trains are in my view is predictable and a
type of noise residents can get used to as opposed the varied and
consistent noise environment of a port;
f) The is the opportunity to further reduce the predicted noise
environment resulting from WEX if acoustic attenuation is
implemented (which I understand is a condition of that consent);
g) The noise model does not take into account further reductions in noise
which could be achieved by the implementation of the residents buffer
solution as described in section 4 above22. Furthermore there are
opportunities to optimally configure and/or increase the height of the
acoustic attenuation wall or bund and improve management measures
to provide for increase mitigation23.
h) The operative Hamilton District Plan (Waikato Section) and the PDP
set a night time noise standard of 40 dBLAeq(15min) which provides a
consistent approach to the protection of residential amenity at night
throughout the City and assists to achieve integrated management of
effects. Many residential areas within Hamilton City are located along
major road or rail corridors, and there appears to be no reason to treat
the RRG land differently as part of this process, prior to the
19
Mr Robinson Summary Statement 19 May 2014, Appendix A 20
20
Page 1152 answers provide to questions from the Board by Mr Hunt 21
Tony McLauchlan EIC, Staging Plan 22
Mr Styles in answering questions of Commissioner Hodges confirmed that doubling the distance
from the noise source results in roughly a three decibel reduction in noise from the source. 23
Page 1124 cross exam of Mr Hunt by Mr Milne, Line 15
26
consideration of residential noise throughout the City as part of the
PDP process.
6.25 The 45 dBLAeq(15min) has been described as providing an “adequate level
of amenity”24. I do not consider that this achieves the objective 25H.6.6
to protect the amenity values of the Residents land while allowing for
urbanisation. A 45 dBLAeq(15min) represents a noticeable increase in night
time noise which is in contrast to the relatively quiet background noise
that currently exists which is punctuated by intermittent train
movements25
. Increasing night time noise increase does not protect
amenity values. It also cuts across the objective applying to the Country
Living zone which is to preserve high amenity values.
6.26 In light of the above, I consider that the 40dBLAeq(15min) night time standard
is the most appropriate method to achieve the relevant objectives. In my
opinion, this method will assist to protect the amenity values of the
residents land while still enabling the efficient and effective operation of
the inland port. In forming this view, I have been cognisant of Council’s
function to achieve integrated management which in my view should
involve considering noise limits at all boundaries of and within the RRG
land rather than the current limited focus.
6.27 Relevant to this assessment, I also note that the 26 May version of the
Plan Change also incorporates a restricted discretionary activity
requirement for Logistics activities. I generally agree with this
requirement, although in my view such an application the application will
simply default to compliance with the noise standards as the means to
demonstrating compliance with criterion 25H.5.5.2(a)(5). For this reason,
it is my view that this requirement should be supported by appropriate
standards.
6.28 With respect to the Noise Management Plan, I support the amendments
attached to the supplementary evidence of Mr Hunt26 as these changes
outline greater specificity as to what the document is to address. I also
support an independent peer review process for the NMP by an expert
acceptable to the Council as discussed by Mr Hunt.
24
Page 1096 cross exam of Mr Styles Robinson by Ms Goodyear, Line 5 25
Page 1101 cross exam of Mr Styles Robinson by Ms Goodyear, Line 5 26
Supplementary Statement Attachment
27
6.29 With respect to the most recent s42A report, I support the changes
outlined at paragraphs 2.5.13 - 2.5.15 of that report to require a link
between the standards and the activities provided for.
6.30 As set out in my EIC, I also consider that as part of the NMP a
consultative committee involving the residents should be established to
enable complaints to be addressed effectively and transparently. This
will reduce the burden on the Council and ensure operational changes
can be made efficiently to address concerns without the need for
enforcement. I agree with Mr Hunt that this on-going open
communication process assists to mitigate effects27.
Visual amenity and Separation
6.31 I have described the buffer solution in detail earlier in my statement. In
summary, I consider that amenity buffer shown in RRG Exhibit 3D
achieves an appropriate balance between enabling the efficient and
effective operation of the inland port while protecting the amenity of
nearby residents. In particular I note that the option provided in RRG
Exhibit 3D allows for the separation of external traffic from internal
operations and aligns with the timing of the installation of the gantry
system, where upon the use of the spur road will be reduced. There is
also the opportunity for some slight adjustment of the spur road alignment
and/or the rail sidings to allow for the reach stackers to move alongside
the rail sidings between the two stack areas.
6.32 I consider that the benefits of the method shown in RRG Exhibit 3D in
comparison to the 20m wide forest option put forward by the applicants
are as follows:
a) Increased separation between sensitive land uses – thereby better
giving effect to objective 25H.5.2.3; and enabling a genuine
transition between the activities as opposed to a simple screened
interface;
b) Assisting to maintain the open spacious rural living environment as
viewed by the Residents as opposed to a visual screen effect by
27
Page 1150 answers provided to questions from the Board by Mr Hunt, line 10
28
densely planting the southern area of the buffer north of the acoustic
screen. This in my view better achieves objective 25H.4.6 to protect
the amenity values of surrounding communities while providing for
urbanisation;
c) Further opportunity to reduce noise effects due to increased
separation, including the opportunity to locate the acoustic barrier as
close as possible to the prime noise source (the rail spur) thereby
maximising attenuation. This assists to achieve objective 25H.4.6
and supporting policy 25H.4.6a to avoid28 or mitigate the adverse
effects of noise;
d) Enabling the efficient operation of the IMT by providing additional
stacking area to the northwestern sector. Although this may be less
efficient than the optimal layout it still achieves objective 25H.5.2.1
which does not require optimal efficiency.
e) Enabling the medium - long term efficient and effective operation of
the inland port by providing a corridor for the relocation of the HAM
WHU Transpower line outside the operational area of the Inland Port
and to a location with potentially acceptable visual effects for the
residents. This may assist to achieve objective 25H.5.2.1 in the
medium – long term.
f) Providing the opportunity to reduce the depth of landscaping within
the north western sector of the inland port along the northern
boundary including the potential to avoid landscaping directly under
HAM WHU Transpower line in this area. This also may assist to
achieve objective 25H.5.2.1.
6.33 As out in my EIC, the applicants have not meaningfully looked at
alternative design configurations for the IMT as part of the AEE or section
32 analysis, but have instead assumed that the design is “fixed”. It is my
opinion that a solution requiring separation and landscaping ‘depth’
between the residential and port areas is possible while still enabling the
operation of the IMT and that this method better achieves this objective
25H.4.5 and other relevant objectives when considered together. I also
28
Refer paragraph 6.16 above
29
note that the design and staging of the IMT is not fixed by the plan
change.
6.34 In my opinion this option also provides for a similar level of attenuation to
the boundary between the inland port and the Knowledge Area which is a
less sensitive interface than the Ruakura Residents’ land.
6.35 For these reasons, it is my view that the method shown in RRG Exhibit
3D in comparison to the 20m wide forest option better achieves the
relevant objectives of the plan change.
6.36 As set out at paragraph 6.25 it is my opinion the restricted discretionary
activity application for logistics activities should be supported by
appropriate standards.
6.37 In terms of the implementation of this method, it is my view that the
supporting rule needs to clear specify:
a) The width of the proposed buffer;
b) The date the buffer is required to be implemented. I this respect, that
the rule specify that planting within this area should occur no less than
5 years prior to stage E of the IMT as shown on Figure 25H(3)
commencing operation; and
c) The general location of the acoustic wall or bund. In this respect, a
rule could specify that the bund or wall be located within corridor no
greater than 20m either side of the line shown on RRG Exhibit 3D and
that it be located and designed to optimise noise attenuation and
achieve the noise standards, including a requirement that is shall be
no less than 4.5m in height. The rule should also specify that the
acoustic wall/ screen be established prior to the operation of the IMT.
6.38 In addition to this requirement I also consider that planting and design of
the bund area should be subject to assessment as part of a restricted
discretionary activity consent to ensure that the design and maintenance
of this area achieves the intended outcomes as set out in the objectives
and policies. In my opinion, this could be incorporated into the Land
Development Plan provisions as ‘Additional Matters for Assessment’ for
30
the Logistics area. In this respect, the matters of assessment should
include:
The extent to which the design of the Amenity Buffer Area, in terms of
species composition, gradient and planting width and height, would provide:
i) High quality visual separation between the residential properties
fronting Ryburn Road and the Inland port;
ii) Visual screening to a minimum height of 12m, including the
screening of the acoustic wall/bund designed to achieve the relevant
rule [being the rule which specifies the location and height of the
acoustic screen];
iii) A variety of species to complement the established and proposed
landscaped pattern in the locality;
iv) The maintenance of open views through the rail corridor as viewed
from Ryburn Road; and
v) The effectiveness of the initial establishment and proposed
maintenance of the Planted Buffer Areas.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 Having read all the statements and the latest version of the plan change
produced by the applicant (26 May version) I support the objectives and
policies, subject to the refinements I have set out above.
7.2 However, I remain of the view that the following methods are required to
achieve the relevant objectives and the purpose of the Act, including
those issues I have outlined at paragraph 3.22:
a) Implementation of the buffer shown on RRG Exhibit 3D, including
qualitative assessment by way of restricted discretionary
resource consent;
b) The application of the operative Hamilton District Plan (Waikato
Section) and the PDP night time noise standard of 40dBA. As I
discuss below, it is my opinion that the buffer solution is
31
complementary to this outcome as separation will assist in
achieving compliance with the 40dBA night noise limit;
c) Further certainty as to what the contents of the Noise
Management Plan will be or how this will be independently
administered with meaningful input from affected residents;
d) Further certainty regarding the alignment of future road access to
the resident’s land as the result of the closure of Ruakura Road
which will be a direct consequence of the implementation of the
plan change.; and
e) Amendments to better provide links between the standards and
activities as set out in the last s42A report.
DATED at Auckland this 5th Day of June 2014
Nicholas Jon Roberts
Director