B2B Project Team Responses to Nga Potiki Draft Addendum

Transcription

1

2 B2B Project Team s to Nga Potiki Draft Addendum Nga Potiki were introduced into the project in December 2012 and formally meet through the Hapū Advisory Group (Nga Potiki, Ngai Tukairangi and Ngati Tapu) in April The project team met with the Hapū Advisory Group on 7 occasions (between April 2013 and June 2014) to understand the cultural issues associated with proposed options. At all project meetings the project team provided an update on project process, detail, options and feedback. The feedback from the Hapū Advisory Group assisted in wider engagement with hapū members through two community hui, and feedback on the proposed options. The project team and the Hapū Advisory Group agreed the best approach to assess and identify potential impacts on cultural values was to prepare a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA). The proposed methodology for the preparation of the report was that each hapū would coordinate their individual hapū inputs and a report writer would facilitate the preparation of a single report. Each hapū was to collect and gather their cultural information including a review of historical or relevant literature and interviews with key informants. The collective single report approach was to align the CIA methodology and recommendations. The CIA report was commissioned in June 2013 and the final report was submitted to the NZ Transport Agency in September Ngai Tukairangi and Ngati Tapu preference was Option 1, but Nga Potiki were unable to provide specific views on the 3 options. Recommendations of the report included hapū earthworks monitoring protocols and physical monitoring, stormwater management participation, and the removal of the pedestrian underpass located at Bayfair. Nga Potiki highlighted safety issues for kaumātua and school children. During discussions with the Hapū Advisory Group the project team did indicate the potential for the rail designation on the golf course would be required to relocate the rail operations. A Ngai Tukairangi representative did highlight to the project team a hapū claim to the remaining golf course reserve. The NZ Transport Agency was unaware of claim discussions in relation to the reserve. The project team were aware of Treaty Settlement negations but were not privy to specific property information. At no time through any Hapū Advisory Group or Nga Potiki meetings was specific Treaty Settlement properties discussed apart from the golf course reserve which was minuted. In October 2013 a new option was presented to the Hapū Advisory Group which ultimately became NZ Transport Agency s preferred option. The general view of the meeting was that Option 4 (3a) was an improvement on Option 3. Pedestrian issues were raised and opportunities for surplus NZ Transport Agency property in the future. In December 2013, the NZ Transport Agency were made aware of Treaty Settlement land that was to be transferred to Nga Potiki under their Deed of Settlement. Scheduling a meeting with Nga Potiki hapū representatives to discuss the potential issues proved difficult and the first meeting didn t occur until April Since that time the project team have meet with Nga Potiki representatives on four occasions (between April and October 2014) to better understand and respond to issues. Much of the early discussion focused on the impact on the Treaty Settlement properties and from a Nga Potiki perspective the only way to assess the potential impact was for Nga Potiki to prepare a CIA addendum to the first document provided. Nga Potiki were firm that their recommendations of the first CIA report indicated Nga Potiki reserved its position on a preferred option. Nga Potiki required a full CIA to understand the potential impacts of all options on Nga Potiki interest, including the marae, papakainga, Mangatawa Papamoa Block Inc., and Treaty Settlement lands. The NZ Transport Agency advised that the CIA recommendation they received stated that: Beca // 24 November 2014 // Page 1

3 Nga Potiki are not able to provide their views on the 3 options. Prior to the tangata whenua meeting held at the ASB area Option 3 was preferred. However, because the Tauranga eastern Link construction of the Mangatawa Interchange is also in train there will be an increase in traffic movements on Truman Lane. It is still the view of Nga Potiki that whatever option is preferred there are real concerns about the safety of our kaumātua and school children with any of the options. The NZ Transport Agency commissioned Nga Potiki, Ngai Tukairangi and Ngati Tapu to prepare addendums to their original CIA report, particularly on Option 4 (3a) which was not included in the original CIA report. The Nga Potiki draft report was presented to the NZ Transport Agency in September 2014( we await confirmation of the final report), and the Ngai Tukairangi and Ngati Tapu report has not been received at the time of going to print. The focus of the Nga Potiki CIA report was a preference for at grade options at the Baypark interchange and the possibility of lowering the rail corridor. All grade separation options did present impacts on their traditional lands and properties. If a grade separation option was favoured then the Bayfair interchange would need to be moved as far north as possible. All other recommendations are more easily provided for such as protocols, earthworks monitoring, participation in design and landscaping, eco-sourcing of plants, cultural motifs, and valuations. We provide below the design options that were recommended by Nga Potiki and the project team responses. Nga Potiki Recommendations Fuller consideration of an atgrade interchange for Baypark. In terms of the current options, it is understood that an at-grade interchange may require further changes in the future. However, the year life should not be dismissed. This provides for a further generation of Ngā Potiki at an absolutely critical time in the history of Ngā Potiki. We have only just achieved our historical full and final Treaty settlement which redresses 170 years of grievances. One generation could make a major difference to the revitalisation of the cultural, socio-economic and environmental interests that the Treaty settlement seeks to achieve. The proposed Interchange would reduce the value and potential of Ngā Potiki s Treaty settlement redress and therefore must be The at-grade options do not achieve the necessary level of service for the performance of this strategically important State Highway. In addition, the cost of the at-grade options is significant (between $36 to $77M) which could not be justified for an option that does not provide a long term enduring solution. At grade solutions will have a limited life of years. Beca // 24 November 2014 // Page 2

4 Nga Potiki Recommendations seriously and carefully considered. NZ Transport Agency should fully investigate the option of lowering the train tracks below ground level so that the roading can be at-grade. We are not sure that this option has been investigated in any way. Lowering of the railway has been considered and has been discussed with KiwiRail. They have advised that flat gradients would be necessary so that it didn t adversely affect the train movements. This would extend the lowering of the railway tracks for a long distance, in the order of 1km in each direction. Each side of the road crossing the railway joins with other tracks which would also need to be lowered or relocated. Lowering of the tracks would also include adjoining tracks and passing loops. In addition, the lowering of the railway would place the tracks below ground water level, requiring a significant pumping system to manage the water, if it is practical to do so. The works required to construct a bridge over the tracks is simpler and lower cost. This option is therefore cost prohibitive. For any proposal, moving the Interchange as far west as possible to reduce impacts on the Treaty settlement lands as well as Maori land and the Ngā Potiki marae/papakainga. The detailed design of the interchange will seek to optimise its location in relation to the site constraints and its interaction with the flyover at the Girven/Maunganui intersection. Your desire to locate the interchange as far as possible to the west is noted and will be advised to the designers as another factor to be considered in the detailed design. Moving the Interchange so that it is on the same alignment as the discarded at-grade Option B (signalised roundabouts). The on and off ramps associated with the interchange at Te Maunga merge with the on and off ramps associated with the flyover at Girven/Maunganui Rd. Moving the interchange to the west brings the ramps closer together which increases the safety risk. As noted earlier, Nga Potiki s desire to locate the interchange further west will be advised to the designers who will consider it along with the other constraints and safety requirements of the road layout. For any proposal, provision of dedicated pedestrian and cycling lanes for access along Truman Lane across the interchanges to Te Maunga and Bayfair and Owens Place to be worked through with Ngā Potiki. This should include landscaping and cultural artistic features to be undertaken by Ngā Potiki. The pedestrian and cyclist facilities being provided at the Mangatawa interchange and those proposed as part of the B2B project have been provided to Nga Potiki as indicated on plans. Your feedback is appreciated. NZ Transport Agency appreciates the opportunity to work with Nga Potiki to determine landscaping and artistic features. Further discussions will be held during the design phase. Any surplus lands should be Any land surplus to the Transport Agency s requirements will be Beca // 24 November 2014 // Page 3

5 Nga Potiki Recommendations returned to Ngā Potiki. Returning land to Ngā Potiki also assists to remedy past impacts of roading infrastructure in which Ngā Potiki was forced to provide significant lands for public works. There should be active consideration of opportunities to return surplus land to Ngā Potiki. If land is needed for cycle ways or walking paths, such activities can be provided while transferring the lands to Ngā Potiki. processed through the Crown s statutory and Cabinet directed clearances processes. If any land is declared surplus by the NZ Transport Agency, its disposal has to be considered firstly under Sec 40 PWA to see if it should be offered back to the former Owner,then secondly offered to the Office of Treaty Settlements, or to the appropriate local Iwi if the land is subject to a Right of First Refusal under a Treaty Settlement. Ngā Potiki kaitiakitanga is recognised through meaningful participation in the project, including in the detailed design, landscape design, stormwater treatment designs, planting works etc, as well as undertaking specific cultural artistic features. We welcome Nga Potiki s participation through the detailed design phase as a member of the Hapu Advisory Group. For any option, the project should incorporate wood carving attachments throughout various parts to soften the impacts of the major infrastructure development on the cultural landscape and help mould it into this important cultural landscape. Ngā Potiki recommends requirements for full input into detailed design of the Interchange. As noted above this can be covered in the detailed design phase. Incorporation of a gateway feature including wood carvings, waharoa or other Ngā Potiki cultural representations to be determined in conjunction with Ngā Potiki. As above. Wood carving elements in Ngā Potiki whare-whakairo in As above. Beca // 24 November 2014 // Page 4

6 Nga Potiki Recommendations accordance with Ngā Potiki tikanga. Eco-sourcing of all plants where possible. NZ Transport Agency has procurement policies. Suppliers can be introduced to Tenders. Any eco-sourcing will link to the Landscape Plan including plant type and performance. The conditions should include a requirement for an on-going relationship between Ngā Potiki and NZ Transport Agency with input into all aspects of the detailed design of the Interchange. The anticipated protocol will include the commitment to the ongoing relationship and input into the design phase. The contractual process for the detailed design and construction will require a clear understanding of the works to be incorporated into the construction. Ensure that the proposed Interchange assists with separating traffic associated with the industrial activity from the marae and papakainga. Presumably, this would be achieve by ensuring the most efficient access arrangements from the western end of Truman lane to the highway networks. Project team need to look at performance levels for traffic and will also need to discuss with TCC pedestrian and cycle safety. Valuations of all Ngā Potiki lands before and after any new Interchange are undertaken in order to ascertain the economic impacts of the Interchange and that the NZ Transport Agency take action to restore any lost value in the Maori land blocks and Treaty settlement blocks. Where there is a need to acquire land for the project, that land will be valued in accordance with the framework of the PWA compensation provisions; and the effect of the acquisition on any remaining land will also be assessed within the same PWA compensation framework Beca // 24 November 2014 // Page 5