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