Before an Independent Hearing Panel
The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
Under
the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) and the
Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions)
Amendment Act 2013 (the Act)
In the matter of
a submission by the New Zealand Transport Agency
(submitter number 1725) on the Proposed Auckland Unitary
Plan
And in the matter of
Topic 010: RPS Heritage and Special Character
Statement of rebuttal evidence of Lesley Ann Hopkins for the New
Zealand Transport Agency regarding Topic 010 Regional Policy
Statement Heritage and Special Character
Dated 26 November 2014
NZ Transport Agency
Cameron Law
Ph +64 9 928 8821
[email protected]
4958498.1
Introduction
1
My full name is Lesley Ann Hopkins. I have the qualifications and
experience described in paragraphs 21 to 24 of my primary statement
of planning evidence in respect of Topic 010 Regional Policy
Statement (‘RPS’).
2
I repeat the confirmation given in my primary evidence that I have read
the ‘Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses’ as contained in the
Environment Court Practice Note 2011 and that my evidence has been
prepared in compliance with that Code.
3
This rebuttal statement responds to primary evidence on Chapter
B4.3.4 Biodiversity by Jennifer Fuller (Auckland Council) and records
the matters of agreement and partial agreement from an informal
expert conferencing session held since evidence was exchanged.
Chapter B4.3.4 Biodiversity
4
My evidence in relation to Chapter B4.3.4 Biodiversity is set out in
Paragraphs 118 to 172 of my primary statement of evidence. That
evidence was based on the track change version of the provisions
supplied for expert conferencing and the Record of Agreement of
expert conferencing session for Biodiversity and Biodiversity Offsets
held on Friday 31 October 2014. Jennifer Fuller’s evidence proposes a
number of substantial amendments to the provisions to respond to
matters discussed at the expert conference.
5
The participants of the expert conferencing met again on Thursday 20
November, after the exchange of evidence, to identify areas for further
agreement in light of the evidence prepared by the parties. The track
change provisions attached to Ms Fuller’s primary statement of
evidence formed the basis of the discussions. I attended the informal
expert conferencing along with Dr Graham Ussher, the Agency’s
consultant ecologist.
4958498.1
1
6
The informal expert conferencing was very useful in identifying the
areas of agreement and partial agreement in relation to biodiversity
offsets in the Unitary Plan. A record of the informal expert conferencing
session is attached to this statement.
7
On the anticipation that Council will put amendments reflecting the
further conferencing outcomes before the Panel in rebuttal evidence, I
now set out my position in relation to the matters agreed/partially
agreed at the informal expert conferencing and two other matters that
were briefly discussed but not resolved or recorded.
Changes to Policy 7 (was Policy 6) – Partially Agreed
8
As a result of the further conferencing, I understand Ms Fuller will
propose a change to clause (d) to require that significant residual
adverse effects (rather than effects that are more than minor) are to be
offset. I support this amendment and in doing so, note that this
approach is consistent with the Guidance on Good Practice
Biodiversity Offsetting in New Zealand (2014) which requires that
significant residual effects are offset after appropriate avoidance,
minimisation and on-site rehabilitation activities have taken place. In
this context, significant residual effects are effects that are quantifiable
and ecologically meaningful or of non-minor ecological importance.
9
I note however, given the reference in Policy 7 to ‘no net loss’, that
there needs to be a definition of that term, which I discuss below.
The application of offsets to the marine environment - Agreed
10
I understand Ms Fuller will propose that offsets should apply both in the
marine and terrestrial environment. I support the use of biodiversity
offsets as a tool available across all areas of significant biodiversity.
Definition of offsetting – Partially agreed
11
I also understand Ms Fuller will propose a new definition for
biodiversity offsets in the Plan. I discuss the inclusion of a definition for
biodiversity offsets in Paragraph 142 of my primary statement of
evidence and set out a suggested definition adapted from the
4958498.1
2
Proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity (2010).
I have considered the definition proposed by Ms Fuller, which is very
similar to the definition set out in my evidence, and I support her
proposed definition with the exception of the final sentence which
reads “the goal of biodiversity offsets is to achieve no net loss and
preferably a net gain of biodiversity on the ground”. I do not consider
that this statement is required in the definition as the goal for
biodiversity offsetting within the Auckland Region is set out in Policy 7
and the methodology and principles for offsetting are set out in an
Appendix to the Plan.
Appendix on offsetting – Agreed
12
I understand that Ms Fuller will propose that Policy 10 (Biodiversity
offsets) of the track change version of the provisions supplied for
expert conferencing is removed from the chapter and contained in an
Appendix to the Plan. As noted in Paragraphs 114 to 146 of my
primary statement of evidence, I generally support providing greater
guidance in the Plan on the application of biodiversity offsets and
supported Policy 10 in that regard. I support shifting the methodology
for offsets to an appendix as this allows greater detail to be provided to
the reader than is appropriate within the RPS policies.
13
A number of changes to the appendix were discussed and agreed
during the informal expert conferencing.
14
The requirement in clause 5 of the proposed appendix that offsets be
‘applied so that the ecological values being achieved through the offset
are the same or similar to those being lost’, does not enable like for
unlike trades that involve ‘trading up’. As Dr Ussher explains in
paragraphs 25 to 28 of his evidence, such trading up may be
ecologically preferable, even where ‘like’ options exist.
15
I note that clause 3 recognises that the primary driver of proximity
should be tempered by the need to achieve the best ecological
outcome, and suggest that the same wording is applied to clause 5 so
that it reads “As far as possible, and in consideration of the best
ecological outcome, the offset is applied so that the ecological values
4958498.1
3
being achieved through the offset are the same or similar to those
being lost.”
Definition of no-net-loss - Outstanding matter
16
Paragraph 143 of my primary statement of evidence seeks the
inclusion of a definition of no-net-loss. This matter was discussed
briefly during the informal expert conferencing but was not resolved or
recorded. I still consider that a definition is required in the Plan.
17
Based on discussion between the ecological experts, and incorporating
the matters discussed at the informal expert conferencing (including
removing reference to trading up), I consider that the definition should
read:
“No-net-loss means no overall reduction in the value attributed to
biodiversity, whether measured by type, amount and condition
(quality)”.
Policy 8 - Outstanding matter
18
The application of biodiversity offsets to other areas of biodiversity (not
identified in the SEA overlay) was discussed during the informal expert
conferencing. These areas are currently addressed in Policy 8 (was
Policy 7). I understand that Ms Fuller is giving further consideration to
how and when offsets are applied to other areas of biodiversity.
19
I consider that biodiversity offsets should be available as a tool for
responding to significant residual adverse effects in other areas of
biodiversity, but that the use of offsets should only be specifically
required for the significant biodiversity in the SEA overlays.
Lesley Hopkins
26 November 2014.
4958498.1
4