OPENING SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ONEHUNGA ENHANCEMENT SOCIETY (TOES) AND OTHERS. 4 July Counsel

Transcription

1 BOARD OF INQUIRY EAST WEST LINK PROPOSAL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER OF of a Board of Inquiry appointed under s149j of the Resource Management Act 1991, to consider notices of requirement and applications for resource consent made by the New Zealand Transport Agency in relation to the East West Link roading proposal in Auckland OPENING SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ONEHUNGA ENHANCEMENT SOCIETY (TOES) AND OTHERS 4 July 2017 Counsel Dr Grant Hewison PO Box 47397, Ponsonby, Auckland, 1011 grant@granthewison.co.nz mob: Counsel John Burns, Consultant K3 Legal Limited M +64 (0) th Floor, West Plaza, 1-3 Albert Street, Auckland 1010, New Zealand P +64 (0) F +64 (0) SUMMARY 1

2 1. These submissions are made on behalf: a) The Onehunga Enhancement Society Incorporated (TOES) b) The Re-Think East West Link Society Incorporated; and c) The Manukau Harbour Restoration Society Incorporated (MHRS) 2. Although the Parties support, in principle, the idea of an east west transport connection in Auckland, they do not support the East West Link (EWL) option that has been selected by NZTA, especially the design at the Onehunga/Neilson Street Interchange end. 3. The idea for an east west transport connection in Auckland began in Clearly the emphasis at that time promoted to the community was to improve freight movements to and from the Onehunga-Penrose industrial hub, but also between Onehunga-Penrose, East Tamaki, the Port and the Airport. This was supported in the Auckland Plan. 4. However, the emphasis has clearly changed over the intervening five years from a priority on freight movement, to a Project which appears to have a much wider, but ill-defined objective. Infact, from the very first day of the hearing, members of the Board have asked: What is the project - because a number of the things that are proposed aren't necessarily required to achieve the objectives? 1 5. In their Opening Submissions, NZTA have been clear that the EWL is not a motorway. The Māngere Inlet section was likened to Ponsonby Road and not a big ugly motorway. 2 1 For example, see Transcript of Proceedings, Day 1, 27 June 2017, page 69, line 30; and Transcript of Proceedings, Day 2, 28 June 2017, page 95, line See Transcript of Proceedings, Day 1, 27 June 2017, page 15, line 45. 2

3 6. Indeed, this Mangere inlet section connects to a number of local roads. This will slow traffic and it has been designed with an upper speed limit of only 70km/hr. 7. Perhaps a closer analogy than Ponsonby Road, is that this section of the EWL will become the Tamaki Drive of the Māngere Inlet, especially with its extensive reclamations, attractive cycling and walking routes, and uninterrupted views of the harbour. 8. If this had been the initial objective and it connected as an arterial road to Onehunga, the Parties might have welcomed it, but a proposal to build the equivalent of Tamaki Drive for the Māngere Inlet is completely different proposition from building a road to improve freight movements to and from the Onehunga-Penrose industrial hub. 9. The concern of the Parties is that by building a Tamaki Drive along a stunning new coastal edge of the Māngere Inlet, NZTA will actually seriously undermine the current industrial uses of the area inland from the road and instead encourage the development of new mixed use schemes including retail activities and residential activities. 10. Indeed, these retail and residential pressures on industrial land are already truly underway. The Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel said they expected most heavy industry will migrate over time to the periphery of the city And a transformation of Onehunga, exacerbated by the demand for residential housing, has accelerated in recent years, spurred on by both the Unitary Plan and Auckland Council/Panuku earmarking Onehunga for residential growth. This transformation is steadily gobbling up heavy and light industrial sites in the area. 12. So looking out over the life of this asset, is there really a need for the East West Link as configured? More importantly, will its stunning coastal location actually simply undermine it s business case as a connection mainly to improve freight movements? 3 Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel, Report to Auckland Council - Overview of recommendations on the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (22 July 2016), page 63, para

4 Manukau Harbour mixed use costal development concept (W!0, TOES,OBA) Manukau Harbour mixed use costal development concept layout (W10,TOES,OBA) 13. Another big problem with the EWL is that while it may be a Tamaki Drive along the Māngere Inlet, it becomes a big ugly motorway interchange at its most critical juncture in Onehunga itself. It dips into a large trench between the wharf and The Landing, cuts around the coastal edge and then arcs over SH20 to connect back into Neilson Street and SH20 itself. 4

5 Trench image (TOES) TOES Helicopter image (TOES) 14. Put simply, the EWL will further sever the urban area of Onehunga from its coastal foreshore, adversely impacting on heritage, volcanic and other valuable features along the way. 5

6 TOES over lay on NZTA map 15. The only mitigation of any substance is a land bridge over the trenched section. Frankly, most of the experts don t think that goes anywhere far enough. Zoom in and crop of NZTA image by TOES 6

7 TOES over lay on NZTA map green bridge highlight 16. While members of the Parties tried to come up with alternatives to avoid these kinds of severance effects, these didn t measure up through NZTA s assessment. TOES/OBA and W10 alternative layout. 7

8 17. The Parties are not only concerned that the strategic business case for the EWL doesn t seem to stack up, they are also concerned that the economic benefits aren t there either. 18. Moreover, the EWL will be built periously close to a critical Transpower transmission tower (Tower 31). Any disruption to the electricity supply this Tower carries, perhaps during construction or following an accident, would black out north Auckland and Northland. 19. For all these reasons, the Parties ask that the Board refuse the applications and ask NZTA to Re-Think the East West Link. 8

9 THE PARTIES 20. The Parties are: The Onehunga Enhancement Society Incorporated (TOES) The Re-Think East West Link Society Incorporated The Manukau Harbour Restoration Society Incorporated (MHRS) The Onehunga Enhancement Society Inc 21. The Onehunga Enhancement Society (TOES) was established in 2007 to represent the Onehunga community and ensure transport, utilities and council plans delivered true value to the local community, businesses and residents. 22. Since its formation, TOES has advocated for its community on major issues, such as: Port of Onehunga Re-development; the Watercare Central Interceptor; the New Old Mangere Bridge; Onehunga Transformation undergrounding of Transpower Transmission Lines; and most recently the East West Link. 23. TOES has championed a number of outcomes for the community in the Onehunga area. These include playing a leading role in the award winning Onehunga Foreshore Restoration. The Manukau Harbour Restoration Society 24. The main objective of the Manukau Harbour Restoration Society (MHRS), is to drive education and implement programs to address serious environmental issues 9

10 affecting New Zealand s 2 nd largest harbour, the Manukau, which has been subject to serious mismanagement and consequential environmental impacts over the past 100 years. 25. MHRS was formed in 2011 by Auckland residents living around the harbour committed to improving the condition of the harbour and its environs. The broad aims of the society are to represent all communities and organizations that border on or are influenced by the Manukau Harbour; to restore the Harbour back to its original water quality and environmental state; and in so doing, enhance the harbour as a recreational, transportation and well managed asset, loved by residents of the city of Auckland. 26. The objectives of MHRS are: to lobby for the restoration of the Manukau Harbour wherever possible back to its original water quality, and environmental state. To represent all communities and organisations that border on or are influenced by the Manukau Harbour. To recognise the sensitivities and aspirations of the Manu Whenua To prevent pollution and abuse of the Harbour as a natural resource To reinstate water borne passenger transport on the Harbour To establish navigational aids on the Harbour To re-establish a Manukau Harbour Authority with responsibility for maintaining the Harbour and its facilities To enable the Harbour to become a recreational asset for the City of Auckland 27. Since 2011, MHRS has advocated for the Manukau Harbour on a number of issues, such as: Port of Onehunga Re-development; the Watercare Central Interceptor; 10

11 the Watercare South-West Wastewater Servicing Project; the Unitary Plan the New Old Mangere Bridge; the Onehunga Foreshore Restoration Project Recreation and Tourism Potential of the Manukau Harbour Onehunga Transformation undergrounding of Transpower Transmission Lines; and most recently the East West Link. The Re-Think the East West Link Society Inc 28. The Re-Think the East West Link Society Inc was established in 2017 to support and encourage individuals in the community to make submissions to the EWL Project. 29. This resulted in a large number of around 500 submitters, most of whom oppose the proposal in full, or in part. 30. Forty-nine submitters have stated they wish to be heard at the hearing. 11

12 BACKGROUND Support in principle for east west connections 31. Although the Parties and many of their members support, in principle, the idea of an east west transport connection in Auckland, they do not support the East-West Link (EWL) that has ultimately been selected by NZTA, especially the design at the Onehunga/Neilson Street Interchange end. East West Connections 32. As noted by Mr Mulligan in his Opening for NZTA, 4 the Transport Agency together with Auckland Transport began a process of looking at the need for transport investment in the east-west area in These investigations were called the East West Connections. 4 Transcript of Proceedings, Day 1, 27 June 2017, page 33, line

13 33. The need for an East West Connections was promoted at that time by NZTA because: Auckland s transport network is critical for New Zealand s economic performance; At the heart of Auckland s freight movements is the area between Onehunga, East Tamaki and the Airport. This industrial hub employs of 130,000 people and generates more than $10b a year in GDP; Enhancing access to and from the Onehunga-Penrose industrial hub has been identified as a national priority; Reliable transport is also needed for a growing population. 34. This is nicely set out in an NZTA YouTube promotional video Moving People and Growing Business in AKLD at the link below: Clearly the emphasis at that time and the national priority promoted to the community was to improve freight movements to and from the Onehunga-Penrose industrial hub, but also between Onehunga, East Tamaki and the Airport. Auckland Plan - east west strategic transport corridor 36. Again, as noted by Mr Mulligan, 5 the Auckland Plan (June 2012) identified an east west strategic transport corridor as one of Auckland s priority transport projects. This is probably most succinctly set out in Box 13.3 of the Auckland Plan: 5 Transcript of Proceedings, Day 1, 27 June 2017, page 26, line

14 37. Again, the emphasis in the Auckland Plan was: to improve access to major employment areas, such as East Tamaki; and to provide efficient freight movements between SH20 and SH1, and between industrial areas, the port and airport. The total cost of both the east-west strategic transport corridor and AMETI 6 was to be only $2.6 billion. 6 The Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI) Eastern Busway is a group of projects in south-east Auckland which will improve transport choices and connections in the area. Major transport improvements have already been made with the opening of the new Panmure Station and Te Horeta Road. The next stage will be NZ's first urban busway with buses travelling on their own congestion-free lanes between Panmure and Pakuranga town centres. See In 2014, AMETI was reported to have a cost of 1.3B. See 14

15 From east west connections to East West Link 38. The process of getting from this vision in 2012 of east west connections to this hearing of an East West Link in 2017 has been exhausting for the community and along the way they have lost their faith in what NZTA was first promoting and what has been delivered as the preferred option. 39. Perhaps this change in emphasis is again nicely set out in the NZTA YouTube promotional video East West Link at the link below that was shown to you by Mr Mulligan during his Opening: In the Parties submission, the emphasis has clearly changed from the original vision of an east west connections, with a priority on freight movement, to the East West Link, a Project which appears to be trying to be all things to all people, but succeeding in pleasing very few. 41. During the NZTA Opening, Board Member Parsonson rightly asked Mr Mulligan several times: 7 What is the project - because a number of the things that are proposed aren't necessarily required to achieve the objectives? 42. The initial emphasis was to prioritise more efficient freight movements. This no longer seems to be a priority for the EWL. 7 For example, see Transcript of Proceedings, Day 1, 27 June 2017, page 69, line 30; and Transcript of Proceedings, Day 2, 28 June 2017, page 95, line

16 43. The Auckland Plan seemed to envision a link with higher speeds (perhaps an expressway or motorway) to provide efficient freight movements between SH20 and SH1. As Mr Mulligan makes it clear in his Opening, the EWL is not a motorway in that section along the Māngere Inlet: 8 The centre of the East West Link along the Mangere Inlet has been designed to have a different character from the balance of the East West Link, namely the character of an urban arterial road. Urban arterial has particular design parameters and will convey that the Mangere Inlet is a quality urban harbour frontage, and it will connect with the Onehunga street grid to the inlet and be readily crossed at appropriate places. This is not a motorway. It does have four lanes and it does need to balance what we are trying to achieve or what the Transport Agency is trying to achieve in terms of freight efficiency but it's not a motorway. 44. Mr Mulligan likens this section of the EWL to Ponsonby Road and not a big ugly motorway As noted in the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE), 10 the Project has been designed to provide connectivity to the local network at regular intervals along the alignment. It is designed to function as an arterial route (not a motorway), which allows for local connectivity on and off the main alignment. From Galway Street to Anns Creek, there are intersections along the EWL at Galway Street, Alfred Street, Captain Springs Road, Port Link and Hugo Johnston Drive. 46. In terms of speed limits, the AEE says that the main alignment along the Māngere Inlet foreshore will be an arterial road catering for vehicles turning in and out of signalised intersections (with a design speed of 70km/h). It will be designed to have an urban arterial appearance. 8 For example, see Transcript of Proceedings, Day 1, 27 June 2017, page 15, line See Transcript of Proceedings, Day 1, 27 June 2017, page 15, line Assessment of Environmental Effects, para

17 Black dots indicate traffic lights 47. Perhaps a closer analogy than Ponsonby Road is that this section of the EWL will become the Tamaki Drive of the Māngere Inlet, especially with its extensive reclamations, attractive cycling and walking routes, and uninterrupted views of the harbour. [Google Screenshot, Tamaki Drive, west of Ngapipi Intersection] 17

18 [Screenshot from NZTA video, East West Link] 48. If this had been the initial objective, the Parties might have welcomed it, but a proposal to build the equivalent of Tamaki Drive for the Māngere Inlet is completely different proposition from building a road to improve freight movements to and from the Onehunga-Penrose industrial hub. Maintaining industrial land use 49. Again, in his Opening Submissions, Mr Mulligan for NZTA made much of the EWL supporting the industrial land use patterns of the area, including maintaining an industrial focus in the industrial areas. 11 He said: 12 These economic benefits will in turn support the land use patterns of the area, including by maintaining an industrial focus in the industrial areas, as well as supporting the growth of Onehunga and Sylvia Park. I'll say another somewhat surprising statement: this particular project is about not building roads. The idea is that we try to make what we've got - make this industrial area - more efficient. Let's get the most out of it. It's there. Let's yield the maximum from it. If we can do that, 11 Opening Legal Submissions on behalf of the New Zealand Transport Agency, 27 June 2017, paragraph See Transcript of Proceedings, Day 1, 27 June 2017, page 13, line

19 then it stops businesses being pushed to the outskirt of Auckland, having to get pushed further and further away and have their places taken by retail activities, residential activities. If you can do that, you can avoid Auckland spreading. 50. However, the Parties are concerned that by building a Tamaki Drive for the Māngere Inlet, the EWL will do the exact opposite. It will seriously undermine the industrial use of this land and instead encourage retail activities and residential activities, especially with the views of the Māngere Inlet, and the very attractive harbourside cycling, walking and recreational spaces. Infact, the Parties submit that one of the key reasons that this area has remained industrial is because there has been no coastal road. 51. Mr Mulligan was absolutely correct in his Opening Submissions that land in Auckland is just too valuable to hold on to as industrial land if the big box retailer or residential developer wants to buy it. They can make more money out of it and therefore they will buy it He was also correct in saying that the Auckland Unitary Plan sought to protect this area in terms of the heavy and light industrial zoning. The intention was for the industrial zoning to remain and ensure that there wasn't that intrusion See Transcript of Proceedings, Day 1, 27 June 2017, page 26, line See Transcript of Proceedings, Day 1, 27 June 2017, pages 26, line 45 and page 27, line 1. 19

20 53. Indeed, the Onehunga Business Association was at the forefront of efforts during the Unitary Plan process by various industrial business associations to try and have industrial land (especially heavy industrial land) better protected under the Unitary Plan. 54. However, although the Unitary Plan does include protections for the industrial land in Onehunga, they are not insurmountable. In it s Report to Auckland Council - Overview of recommendations on the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (22 July 2016), the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel had this to say about the future of heavy industry in Auckland: 15 The Panel expects most heavy industry will expand or migrate over time to the periphery of the city where large areas of flat land, buffered by light industry and with good transport connections, are in greater supply. This expected trend reinforces the need for Council to ensure that there is adequate supply of land zoned Business - Heavy Industry Zone in these areas. Some heavy industry activities however need to be located near demand (e.g. asphalt supply and concrete batching plants) or other related activities, or have high sunk costs in plant and equipment, and therefore are not able to readily shift. 55. Indeed, this change is already well underway in Onehunga, exacerbated by the demand for residential housing. 56. The Evidence of Mr Marler on behalf of Auckland Council/Panuku Corporate refers to this transformation of Onehunga. 16 Onehunga was been chosen as one of four Transform locations in the Auckland Region due to a number of key attributes: including a high level of community support for change in the area; a strategic town centre location, with good infrastructure and access to public transport; strategic council and Crown landholdings that can act as catalysts for private sector investment and redevelopment; 15 Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel, Report to Auckland Council - Overview of recommendations on the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (22 July 2016), page 63, para Evidence of Mr Marler on behalf of Auckland Council/Panuku Corporate, paras 5.6 to

21 a good level of market attractiveness for residential development, with market demand for different housing types (terrace, apartments); a major recreational asset Taumanu Reserve (Onehunga Foreshore project); and a location on the Manukau Harbour and future potential around Onehunga Wharf that will increase connectivity to the water. [Appendix to Evidence of Mr Marler on behalf of Auckland Council/Panuku Corporate, page 31] 57. The Panuku High Level Project Plan for Onehunga identifies a number of development opportunities to enable these strategic moves. 21

22 58. Of some note is the ownership by Panuku Development Auckland of major landholdings in the Foreshore East area that is currently zoned heavy industrial, but earmarked for development. [Appendix to Evidence of Mr Marler on behalf of Auckland Council/Panuku Corporate, page 75] 22

23 59. This transformation of Onehunga has also been underpinned by the recommendation of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel who were careful to recommend a spatial pattern of capacity that promoted the centres and corridors strategy and a more compact urban form. 17 The screenshot of the map below from their Report illustrates the distribution of the Panel s recommended feasible enabled residential capacity additional to that enabled in the proposed Unitary Plan, that is it illustrates the change in enabled capacity recommended by the Panel through the Unitary Plan. This capacity is located in centres and on or near road corridors and railway stations (such as Onehunga) Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel, Report to Auckland Council - Overview of recommendations on the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (22 July 2016), page 52, para Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel, Report to Auckland Council - Overview of recommendations on the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (22 July 2016), page 52, para 6.2.4, Figure 3. 23

24 60. Beyond the Unitary Plan, changes in the zoning of industrial land to residential uses have been steadily occurring in Auckland under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act The need to address the housing crisis has even seen an Act of Parliament promoted for residential housing (e.g. the Point England Development Enabling Bill 2016 (albeit in that case, reserve land rather than industrial)). 61. Onehunga has six Special Housing Areas (SHAs) in the Transform area, totalling about 7 hectares and with about 800 new dwellings planned Appendix to Evidence of Mr Marler on behalf of Auckland Council/Panuku Corporate, page

25 62. Of note is a large apartment development named Fabric, on land mostly zoned light/heavy industrial, between Church, Victoria, Princes and Spring streets, which was launched in September 2016 by Lamont & Co. A total of 239 one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments spread over five buildings is proposed Appendix to Evidence of Mr Marler on behalf of Auckland Council/Panuku Corporate, page

26 Fabric of Onehunga 11 Spring Street 63. The Parties submit that building the EWL along the coastal foreshore of the Māngere Inlet will not maintain an industrial focus in the area. Rather it will hasten the redevelopment of this land to mixed-use/residential. 64. As a consequence, the EWL does not meet a fundamental objective for its development. 26

27 A more enlightened future for Onehunga 65. The Parties (especially TOES and MHRS) have been steadfastly advocating for a more enlightened future for Onehunga and the Manukau Harbour from the backyard rubbish dump that has been the past. 66. Their persistent advocacy for a brighter future for Onehunga has been picked by Panuku Development Auckland and the Council family overall. 67. Mr Jackson on behalf of the Parties will speak of the new foreshore area at Onehunga Taumanu Reserve which was restored and opened in November 2015 and is a shining light in terms of the potential for this enlightened future. The new beaches, picnic areas, boat ramps, cycle and walking paths have, he will say, been met with widespread public support. Onehunga Festival 2017 TOES image 27

28 Taumanu Beach 2016 Martin Honey image 68. The Parties and the OBA, together with other community organisations in Onehunga, have also been promoting the Onehunga Wharf and surrounds as another Wynyard Quarter opportunity. The Onehunga Wharf has also been identfied as an area ripe for transformation by Panuku Development Auckland The Unitary Plan (F5 Coastal Minor Port Zone) has acknowledged this potential future: 21 Evidence of Mr Marler on behalf of Auckland Council/Panuku Corporate, paras 7 and 8. 28

29 70. The move by Holcims, a major heavy industrial activity at the wharf, to move away from the Port of Onehunga in 2015 to the Waitemata has been an example of the future direction for the wharf. 71. This issue of the future of the Onehunga Wharf and a Precinct Plan was a subject of some debate during the Unitary Plan. Ports of Auckland Ltd sought a port precinct but decided it s concerns could be met by amendment to the Coastal - Minor Port Zone provisions. MHRS and others requested a new precinct with a mixed-use focus. The Auckland Council supported the intent of the mixed-use precinct and acknowledged that this was likely to be the long-term use of the area, but believed the long-term future of the area needed to be developed in consultation with all affected stakeholders. The Panel supported the Council s position The Onehunga Business Association, supported by the Parties have, since then, taken steps to envision what the long-term use of the Onehunga Wharf and wider Onehunga area could be. Recently they engaged Mr Hoheisel, to undertake Blue Sky Thinking and develop a Conceptual Masterplan for Onehunga. This work forms the basis of Mr Hoheisel s evidence before the Board for the Onehunga Business Association. 22 Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel, Report to Auckland Council Hearing topics 016, 017 Changes to the Rural Urban Boundary; 080, 081 Rezoning and precincts Annexure 2 Precincts Central July 2016, page

30 73. As noted by Mr Marler on behalf of Auckland Council/Panuku Corporate (para 8.8): Following the Board of Inquiry s decision Panuku will pursue a publically notified plan change to enable mixed use development on the wharf. It is likely to seek the plan change prior to obtaining ownership. 74. As noted by Mr Meads in his Evidence on behalf of the Parties (paras 41 to 54), the future environment as enabled by the relevant district plan provisions is relevant to take into account. In the case of a designation with a long lapse date, the future environment is even more important. 75. The Parties submit that the environment as it is likely to evolve without the project under current planning policies, is critical to any assessment of effects of a largescale infrastructure project that will fundamentally alter the environment of an area. NEILSON STREET INTERCHANGE A BIG UGLY MOTORWAY INTERCHANGE 76. Mr Mulligan likens sector 2 of the EWL (the Māngere Inlet Foreshore sector) to Ponsonby Road and not a big ugly motorway Unfortunately, however, that is precisely the right description for sector 1 (the Neilson Street Interchange). 23 See Transcript of Proceedings, Day 1, 27 June 2017, page 15, line

31 78. It is a big ugly motorway interchange. 31

32 [Screenshots from NZTA video East West Link In his Evidence, Mr Jackson will say that in the face of the community s efforts to turn around the abuse and neglect of Onehunga and the Manukau Harbour, the Parties have been dismayed by NZTA s proposal to have the EWL rampage through the Onehunga coastal environment. 80. His evidence is that NZTA s proposal will thrust a new, elevated, four-lane motorway into the Onehunga coastal environment, which at the same time is being regenerated and is earmarked for exciting future regeneration. 81. The Parties say we cannot have it both ways. 82. The EWL, as proposed, will be a highly retrograde step for the regeneration of Onehunga. It will put paid to the efforts underway and kill the future vision for Onehunga and the wharf. The East West Link will sever the Onehunga township from the coastal environment and the Onehunga wharf forever. Broad and deep seated community concern 83. It is not only the Parties that hold these concerns. There is broad and deep seated community concern. 32

33 84. This is probably best demonstrated by the East West Link having the honour of being the EPA's and NZTA's most opposed roading project yet. Never before has such a high percentage of submitters opposed a NZTA proposal. Of the 685 submissions made to the EWL, 582 submitters opposed the proposal in part or full. That is 85% of every persons who made a submission. 85. By comparison, 82.7% of the 215 submissions received for the Basin Reserve proposal in Wellington opposed that proposal. 86. And by way of further comparison, the Waterview Tunnel attracted only 156 submissions (with 52% opposed), Makays Peka Peka had 56% opposed and the current Northern Corridor proposal has only 30.3% opposed. Adverse effects on Onehunga 87. In his Evidence for the Parties, Mr Meads summarises the adverse effects of the Onehunga end of the EWL/Neilson Street Interchange that have not been addressed by the proposed mitigation as being: the further severing of the urban area of Onehunga from its foreshore and coastal environment, both in a physical and perceptual sense; the loss of land within Gloucester Park and opportunities for better pedestrian connections into and across this park to the coastal edge; the loss of the open, physical and visual connection between Gloucester Park South and the coastal edge; the loss of significant coastal pohutukawa; the adverse effects on the Te Hopua tuff ring; the adverse effects on the Sea Scouts heritage building; 33

34 through an elevated motorway structure, significant visual and landscape impacts on the coastal environment from the wharf around to Taumanu Reserve; through the elevated motorway structure, a visual and aural impact on the amenity of the coastal edge and thereby diminishing the experience of people using the coastal pathway; a physical and visual separation between The Landing and the Onehunga Port, and stranding the Sea Scouts historic building; and exacerbating the very poor environment under SH20 (both Onehunga Harbour Road and the underpass at the end of Onehunga Mall). 34

35 Photo-simulations 88. Although NZTA has produced photo-simulations of the EWL and Mr Mulligan showed some of these to the Board during his Opening Submissions, the Parties have found these to under-represent what they believe will be the full extent of the motorway infrastructure to be constructed at the Onehunga end of the EWL/Neilson Street Interchange As a consequence, the Parties have produced their own photo-simulations

36 Methodology for photo simulation Method use for the photo simulations to establish that the correct scale has been used throughout the presentation and simulations NZTA numbers, cross sections drawings and existing structure heights have been use to ensure accuracy. TOES illustration to understand scale. Scale supplied by NZTA 36

37 NZTA image Zoom in of image Photo-simulation 1 NZTA image of EWL from the Taumanu reserve that could not be zoomed in on. 37

38 Picture taken from Manukau Boat Cruising Club Balcony, by TOES 38

39 To scale simulation of EWL behind Aotea Sea Scouts building Photo-simulation 2 Before 39

40 After Photo-simulation 2 is a representation of the EWL Neilson Street Interchange overbridge as it bridges SH20 in Onehunga. The underlying photograph has been taken from the balcony in the Euroglass building, 40 Onehunga Mall looking west. Photo-simulation 3 NZTA Image 40

41 Photo from Gloucester Park (before) (After) Photo-simulation 4 41

42 Before and after Photo-simulation 4 is a visual representation of the EWL Neilson Street Interchange Onramp. The underlying photograph has been taken from the Taumanu Reserve bridge. 42

43 Photo-simulation 5 Before and after (Taken June 2017) 43

44 Photo-simulation 6 NZTA images Photo-simulation 6 NZTA visuals of the EWL Neilson Street Interchange area. The photograph has been taken from the Taumanu Reserve Bridge. 44

45 Photo-simulation 7 before and after and zoom 45

46 Photo-simulation 7 is a before photo an after photo simulation representation of the EWL Neilson Street Interchange area. The photograph has been taken from an aerial photograph. Photo-simulation 8 46

47 After Footprint of EWL on Onehunga 47

48 Photo-simulation 9 Now and after This photo simulation and the one below illustrates the OBA option and less of an impact on Onehunga and of the EWL. 48

49 Photo-simulation 9 W10, TOES OBA concept 49

50 W10 Wharf and Onehunga Foreshore Concept. These images are taken from the evidence of Gregor Holieisel of W10. Expert Conferencing 90. There have been several Expert Conferencing sessions, resulting in Joint Witness Statements to the Board, concerning the Neilson Street Interchange area. 25 Expert Conference (Urban Design and Landscape), 31 May With regard to this Expert Conferencing session, the resulting Joint Witness Statement says (in part): The Experts had differing opinions as to the degree and significance of the adverse effects of the proposal in the Neilson Street Interchange Area (Mr Lister considers these effects need to be considered in the context of SH20; Mr McIndoe considers that the only significant opportunity for mitigation is an extended land bridge, but even then the adverse effects would not be fully mitigated; Mr Mead considers an alternative alignment is needed). 25 See Expert Conferencing Joint Witness Statement to the Board of Inquiry (Urban Design and Landscape), 31 May 2017; Expert Conferencing Joint Witness Statement to the Board of Inquiry Multi-Disciplinary Expert Conference (Neilson Street Area), 6 June 2017; 50

51 With regard to the need for a connection between Onehunga Wharf and Taumanu Reserve, the experts agreed that at a minimum, a 4m wide path would offset the adverse amenity effects of the EWL, but the degree of this was not agreed. The experts agree that the rubble should be removed from the edge of the ONF. With regard to the Te Hōpua tuff ring, two views emerged (the ONF is already so compromised that the effects of the EWL will be low, or that we should not accept further compromise). The experts accept that the EWL ramps physically and visually separate Gloucester Park South (including the tuff ring and crater) from the coastal edge. They agreed that there is no way to remedy or mitigate this. With regard to the Transpower transmission lines, the experts had different views on whether undergounding would compensate for reduction in legibility and aesthetic coherence between the Te Hōpua tuff ring and the Manukau Harbour. Mr Brown and Mr McIndoe consider undergrounding would compensate. Mr Hancock, Mr Lister and Mr Mead consider it would not compensate for effects on the Te Hopua tuff ring. In addition, there would be adverse side effects from undergrounding. The experts disagreed on the value of an artwork to highlight the tuff ring, but agreed that large trees would reinforce the tuff ring. With regard to connectivity between the Onehunga Town Centre and Onehunga Wharf/Old Māngere Bridge, the experts agreed that placing the EWL in a trench and incorporating a land bridge would reduce the adverse effects of the EWL, but disagreed on the length of the bridge. The experts agreed that a 5m wide pedestrian and cycle bridge over the EWL was desirable. Multi-Disciplinary Expert Conference (Neilson Street Area), 6 June With regard to this Expert Conferencing session, the resulting Joint Witness Statement says (in part): 51

52 The experts support the trenching of the roading corridor in the area to the south of The Landing. The experts support a land bridge in this area, however, there is debate over the appropriate length of that land bridge (paragraph 3.3). The experts agreed it could be lengthened to at least 110m (paragraph 3.6) Mr McIndoe clarified that the Transpower transmission line which he considers should be undergrounded is the MNG-ROS-A 110kv line. With regard to future proofing a light rail line to Onehunga Wharf, the experts agreed that this would require lengthening and deepening of the trench so that the light rail could go underneath SH20 but over the EWL, but this option means the EWL could not practically connect to Galway Street due to vertical alignment constraints. The experts acknowledged that there would be severe engineering and constructability constraints to the realignment of the underpass under SH20. The experts agreed with the list of principles for a 4m wide shared pathway adjacent to the Onehunga Harbour Road as set out in page 6 of the joint statement from the landscape and urban design experts. The experts agreed that a 5m wide pedestrian and cycle bridge over the EWL is desirable. With regard to the Taumanu Reserve to Wharf, the experts noted the connection and severance issues, but expressed various views, ranging from: a need for further mitigation (Mr Mead); support for separation of a pedestrian cycle boardwalk from Orpheus Drive (Mr Lister) and there being no need for further reclamation (para 7.3). 52

53 Further Report regarding Multi-Disciplinary Expert Conference (Neilson Street Area), 19 June This statement was prepared because Stephen Brown was unable to attend the initial expert conferencing session. Stephen Brown says (in part): the main concern is the way in which the EWL would further marginalize connections between the Taumanu reserve and Onehunga Wharf and exacerbate the isolation of the Aotea Sea Scouts Hall. he agrees that a 4m wide path is achievable, but that options for extending beyond the 4m should be explored. he supports the walkway/promenade options being promoted by the Aotea Sea Scouts which involve the separation of a new walkway from Orpheus Drive and the Te Hōpua tuff ring and the creation of a number of new islands that could accommodate a path and public facilities (e.g. public toilets and seating) 53

54 Expert Conferencing Joint Witness Statement to the Board of Inquiry Built Heritage, 26 May 2017 W10 Concept for connecting Taumanu and the Wharf TOES OBA Image 94. With regard to this Expert Conferencing session, the resulting Joint Witness Statement says (in part): 54

55 the experts agree that the EWL has adverse effects on the Aotea Sea Scouts building. There are very limited ways to mitigate the adverse effects through design. However, updating the Conservation Plan and then implementing physical conservation and repair works would assist in mitigation. With regard to the Manukau Tavern (former), the experts agreed the trench leads to a disconnection of this building from the wharf. However, the land bridge and increasing the length of the bridge (incorporating historic design features) will achieve a better heritage outcome. Alternatives 95. During the engagement process on the preferred alignment undertaken by NZTA in 2016, the Parties and the Onehunga Business Association became very concerned about the effects of the proposed EWL alignment on the Onehunga end/neilson Street Interchange area of the Project. 96. As a consequence, alternative designs for the Neilson Street Interchange were put forward by TOES and then the OBA. 55

56 97. These alternative designs were naturally only at a conceptual level. 98. Both options had a focus on the Onehunga end of the Project. Both options, but particularly the OBA option, were seeking to draw back the new roading infrastructure from the coastal edge by placing the north facing EWL on and off ramps that link to SH20 along the existing motorway corridor. 99. The main idea or driving principle behind these alternative design concepts was to try and minimise disruption and limit the creation of new adverse effects on the Onehunga end of the Project by clustering the new roading infrastructure to follow an existing infrastructure corridor. Also of importance was improving travel times Members of TOES and the OBA had foreseen exactly the kinds of severance effects, loss of land, visual and landscape impacts that would be caused by a new and elevated motorway interchange structure at the Onehunga end of the Project, and were simply trying to put forward some concepts to NZTA to avoid them NZTA then undertook further design of this concept (called the OBA Option) and a review of the OBA Option was undertaken by comparing it to Option 2. This assessment included a review against the same MCA criteria applied to the assessment of Options 1-4 of the Neilson Street interchange. The Evidence of Mr Mead for TOES and Mr Hoheisel for the OBA include criticism of the further design process undertaken by NZTA as well as the assessment review. In particular, Mr Meads concludes that: 56

57 102. Ultimately, however, NZTA s preferred design for the EWL includes a new and elevated motorway interchange structure at the Onehunga end of the Project, together with the adverse effects foreseen by the Parties. The question for the Board is whether these effects are sufficiently adverse that the applications should be refused, or whether the effects can in some way be mitigated. 57

58 Mitigation 103. For the Onehunga area, NZTA s main mitigation proposals include: the trenched section of the EWL by the port (and associated land bridge of (at this point) 110m in length); a minimum 4m wide shared path between the Onehunga Wharf and Taumanu (with occasional wider sections for lookouts and/or seating); a minimum 5m wide pedestrian connection to the old Māngere Bridge; and relocation of the Aotea Sea Scouts from the heritage building Although other main mitigation proposals have been considered by NZTA, they have not been taken up, including: reconfiguration of the existing underpass under SH20; undergrounding of certain Transpower transmission lines (especially the MGN- ROS A transmission towers and associated lines). reclamation improvements between the Onehunga Wharf and Taumanu; and dredging of silt from beneath the Onehunga Wharf. 58

59 105. Further more minor mitigation proposals include: 'landscaping" and "design treatment of retaining walls" for the Sea Scouts building; and those noted in Ms Hancock's evidence at para 10.5: (a) consistency and sequencing of the structure designs around Orpheus Drive to reinforce a continuous, linked shared path experience along the foreshore; (b) the retaining walls to be designed collaboratively with Mana Whenua in recognition of the cultural significance of this place; (c) the landward setting of the Aotea Sea Scouts building to be designed as a backdrop for that heritage item, for example, through planting in association with the retaining walls; and (d) vertical landscape treatment that highlights the circular form of the tuff crater (tree planting is indicated on the landscape concept plans, and lighting around the rim of the tuff ring). measures to tidy up debris from within the intertidal area of the Te Hopua ONF and a requirement to undertake appropriate analyses and report on findings, when undertaking research within the trench cut Overall, in terms of mitigation, The Evidence of Mr Meads on behalf of the Parties is that: 59

60 ECONOMIC COSTS 107. The economic analysis around this Project astounds the Parties On the one hand NZTA appear to be saying that if some modest travel-time savings can be made (that is, a few minutes here and there), then that translates into a significant economic benefit. Auckland Council s evidence supports this But neither NZTA nor Auckland Council appear to even try to assess the economic costs While the Parties will not be calling an economics expert themselves, they submit that for the Board to properly assess whether the EWL Project will have an overall economic benefit to Auckland or New Zealand, it is necessary to quantify it s economic costs This exact point is made clearly in the evidence of Kieran Murray, an expert economist for Mercury NZ Limited The Parties submit that without this economic analysis, the Board will be unable to conclude that the East West Link proposal will actually result in a net economic benefit. That is, the proposal could actually have an adverse effect on the economic wellbeing of New Zealanders. 60

61 TRANSPOWER (TOWER 31) 113. While the matters concerning Transpower Tower 31 have been traversed already in this hearing, the Parties would like to re-state some of the key points, but also expand upon earlier submissions The parties position on this issue remains that succinctly summarized at para 59 of Mr. Jackson s evidence where he says (referring to the NZTA s need for a dispensation): Before we all waste our time in this hearing, shouldn t this be sorted out now between NZTA and Transpower. If a dispensation cannot be granted and Tower 31 cannot be relocated, then isn t the proposed EWL alignment at the Neilson Street interchange a dead duck? Photo-simulation is a visual representation of the EWL Neilson Street Interchange Onramp (after removal of the Storage King buildings). The underlying photograph has been taken from second floor sail shop Gloucester Park Road 61

62 115. As noted by Mr Gardner-Hopkins for Transpower in his Opening Submissions concerning the policies in the Unitary Plan: 116. As noted by the High Court, the Board must be satisfied that Tower 31 will not be compromised by the EWL proposal. 62

63 Local Lock Up Ltd (Before) After 117. Further in his submissions, Mr Gardner-Hopkins said: 63

64 118. In his address to the Board, Mr Gardner-Hopkins confirmed that Transpower only infrequently grants dispensations in relation to structures and when it does so, it carefully considers the risks on a case by case basis, such as the context of the surrounding land use and probable future uses, safety (both public and that of Transpower s maintenance and contracting staff) and also the ability to operate, maintain and upgrade Transpower s National Grid (both at the time the dispensation is given and in the future) Mr Gardner-Hopkins also seemed to suggest in his address to the Board that the dispensation required for Tower 31 would be temporary in nature (perhaps to only cover the period of the construction works), rather than permanent. The Parties understanding from the dispensations provided to them by Transpower Governance Counsel, Ms Davis, is that they are permanent in nature Also from Transpower s Dispensation Record, Transpower does not seem to have granted a dispensation for roading structures in proximity to either towers or transmission lines However, for each dispensation, Transpower requires permanent indemnification against all obligations (including strict liability) from any party as a result of the location of a structure within the minimum safe distances. 64

65 122. The Parties question whether NZTA s statutory role extends to giving such an indemnification. If NZTA has accepted such dispensations in the past (for other Towers), it might appropriately produce a copy as an example for the Board Finally, and in light of the submissions made by Mercury concerning the strategic nature of their energy asset, the Parties note that Tower 31 is absolutely critical to carrying electricity to north Auckland and Northland. The consequences of any interruption to this supply from damage to Tower 31 or the transmission lines it carries during construction or after completion of the EWL would be catastrophic The Parties submit that due to the paucity of information about the effects of the EWL on Tower 31 (both during construction and after completion), only qualified assurances from Transpower that a dispensation will likely be granted, and no guarantee that NZTA can accept the open-ended (and likely permanent) indemnity Transpower will require, means that the Board cannot be satisfied that Tower 31 will not be compromised by the EWL proposal. As noted by the High Court, this is a strong directive. STATUTORY AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 125. The Board has heard voluminous submissions on the statutory tests it must apply in determining whether to recommend the two Notices of Requirement, and grant the 24 resource consents, sought by NZTA The Board also has the benefit of a Memorandum from Counsel and Planner ( the Memorandum ) providing the Board, at its request, with legal and planning advice regarding the application of the s104d gateway test It is not the intention of these submissions to examine the case law in detail, or to provide further analysis of it. Rather, there are 4 legal issues we wish to address in the context of the evidence before the Board and the matters of concern to these submitters: (a) s171 (b) (b) s104d (c Mitigation (d) Economic/financial considerations S171 (b) 65