BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL
IN THE MATTER
of the Resource Management
Act 1991
and
the
Local
Government
(Auckland
Transitional Provisions) Act 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER
of 016 RUB North/West
STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF AUSTIN DANIEL FOX
ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL
(PLANNING – OKURA)
22 DECEMBER 2015
1.
SUMMARY
1.1
My name is Austin Daniel Fox. My rebuttal evidence addresses a number of issues
raised in submitters' evidence for Topic 016 RUB North/West (Topic 016) about the
location of the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
(PAUP) in the vicinity of Okura and Long Bay.
1.2
Having regard to that submitter evidence and the rebuttal evidence prepared by
Auckland Council's (Council) other expert witnesses on ecology and stormwater
matters, I consider that the RUB as identified in my evidence-in-chief is still the most
appropriate to way achieve the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)
and the objectives of the PAUP regional policy statement.
1.3
The reasons for this are set out in the main body of my rebuttal evidence and include:
(a)
The sensitive nature of the receiving environment including the Long BayOkura Marine Reserve and the adverse effects that could occur from
urbanisation in the localities suggested by submitters;
(b)
The policy framework contained with the New Zealand Coastal Policy
Statement 2010 (NZCPS) and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater
Management 2014 (NPSFM) which suggests that adverse effects of the nature
likely to occur from urbanisation should be avoided; and
(c)
The lack of strongly defensible boundaries in the amended RUB locations
proposed in submissions.
2.
INTRODUCTION
2.1
My name is Austin Daniel Fox. I am a planner engaged by the Council to respond to
submissions and evidence received on the notified PAUP and to provide planning
evidence and rebuttal in relation to the submissions and evidence made on the northern
RUB part of Topic 016. Specifically my rebuttal evidence responds to issues raised in
submitters' evidence on the Northern RUB in the vicinity of Okura and Long Bay. I have
the qualifications and experience set out in Attachment A to my evidence-in-chief dated
3 November 2015.
1
2.2
I confirm that this rebuttal statement of evidence has been prepared in accordance with
the Code of Conduct for expert witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice
Note 2014.
3.
SCOPE
3.1
In preparing this rebuttal statement I have read the evidence prepared on behalf of the
following submitters' witnesses on the Okura Long Bay RUB:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Okura Holdings Limited
(i)
Karl Cook (Planning)
(ii)
Peter Phillips (Social Impact)
(iii)
Gordon Cessford and Craig Jones (Parks)
(iv)
Mairi Joyce (Traffic)
(v)
Mark Williams (Infrastructure)
(vi)
Andrew Lohrer and Michael Townsend (Marine Ecology)
(vii)
Fraser Colegrave (Economics)
(viii)
Sharon De Luca (Marine Ecology)
(ix)
Graeme Ridley (Sedimentation)
(x)
Malcolm Green (Estuary Modelling)
(xi)
David Slaven (Terrestrial Ecology)
(xii)
Edward Sides (Freshwater Ecology)
(xiii)
Rachel Lambert (Landscape)
(xiv)
Neil Donnelly (Corporate)
(xv)
Nick Barratt-Boyes (Design)
(xvi)
Neil Donnelly (Okura Structure Plan)
Bin Chen et al (Okura Rural Land Owners Group)
(i)
Sue Adams (Lay Evidence)
(ii)
Burnette Macnicol (Planning Evidence)
(iii)
Dean Miller and Dr Tim Fisher (Sediment & Ecology Evidence)
(iv)
John Warman (Lay Evidence)
(v)
Michael Lee (Engineering Evidence)
(vi)
Robert Pryor (Landscape Evidence)
Tyler-Davies Group Limited
(i)
John Lovett (Planning Evidence and Exhibits)
(ii)
Bryce Hall and Anatole Sergejew (Traffic Evidence)
2
3.2
I have also read the Memorandum of Counsel of Alan Webb on behalf of Long-Bay
Okura Great Park Society and the Okura Environment Group indicating that they are
not calling evidence-in-chief but reserve the right to file rebuttal evidence.
3.3
This rebuttal statement of evidence addresses various issues in this submitters'
evidence.
3.4
In my evidence-in-chief on the Okura Long Bay RUB, I grouped related submissions
into sub-groups. This rebuttal statement will adopt a similar approach in relation to the
evidence-in-chief from the submitters.
3.5
3.6
The sub-groups relate to the evidence of the submitters and are as follows:
(a)
Okura Holdings Limited
(b)
Bin Chen et al (Okura Rural Land Owners Group)
(c)
Tyler-Davies Group Limited
I note that in my rebuttal statement of evidence, I respond to expert evidence filed on
behalf of Tyler-Davies Group Limited in relation to submission points 5559-1 and 55592 which seek to include within the RUB land north of the Lonely Track Road ridgeline
between State Highway 1 and East Coast Road.
3.7
These two submission points were not individually addressed in my Topic 016 evidence
dated 3 November 2015. This appears to be the result of an oversight when they were
moved within the Council’s Topic 016 work-streams from its Albany sub-area to its
Okura/Long Bay sub-area. These submissions and evidence from Tyler-Davies Group
Limited are best addressed in my evidence as they relate to land that drains into the
Okura catchment.
3.8
In preparing my rebuttal evidence, I have read and rely on the rebuttal evidence of the
following witnesses for the Council:
(a)
Chloe Trenouth (strategic planning)
(b)
Dr Douglas Fairgray (economics)
(c)
Dawne McKaye (Future Urban Land Supply Strategy)
(d)
Carol Bergquist, Megan Carbines and Shona Myers (joint rebuttal statementecology)
(e)
Claudia Hellberg and Nicholas Vigar (joint rebuttal statement – stormwater)
3
4.
GENERAL
4.1
Before dealing with the specific issues raised in submitter evidence I have some
general comments on the evidence presented by submitters on the Okura Long Bay
RUB.
4.2
In Chloe Trenouth’s rebuttal evidence she addresses the issue of how submitter
requests to include additional land in the RUB should be responded to in a strategic
way. I agree with the opinions expressed by Chloe Trenouth in her rebuttal evidence.
4.3
The key issue in respect of the evidence seeking the addition of land to within the RUB,
is whether the land is needed in the wider strategic sense to meet growth to 2040. This
is addressed by both Chloe Trenouth and Dr Douglas Fairgray.
In my view the
determination of the RUB is not an exercise in including all the land that might be
suitable for urban development within the RUB. In my opinion the most suitable land
needs to be included within the RUB to meet the growth objectives to 2040, and in the
case of the land at Okura Long Bay there is more suitable, and less environmentally
sensitive areas, that are more suitable for urbanisation to meet Auckland’s growth
needs.
5.
SUB GROUP 1 – OKURA HOLDINGS LIMITED
Evidence
5.1
The evidence from Okura Holdings Limited is opposed to the location of the RUB along
the Vaughans Road/Okura River Road ridge line and seeks an alternative location for
the RUB as shown in Figure 1, which was Sub Group Option 1 in my evidence-in-chief.
5.2
Below I address a number of issues raised by the witnesses of Okura Holdings Limited
under the following headings:
(a)
Potential adverse effects of urban development
(b)
Interpretation of the NZCPS
(c)
Interpretation of NPSFM
(d)
Location of the RUB
(e)
Economic issues
4
Figure 1
5
Potential Adverse Effects of Urban Development
5.3
The planning evidence of Karl Cook for Okura Holdings Limited says at paragraph 14
“Development of the land for quality, compact urban development will have actual and
potential adverse effects on the environment that, in several instances, will be greater
than those resulting from the alternative scenario of 30 countryside living lots”. This is a
statement with which I agree.
5.4
Mr Cook's evidence goes on at paragraph 14 to state “However measures will be put in
place via the Unitary Plan rules and specific provisions for the Okura Precinct that will
avoid such adverse effects and there will be many benefits from urbanisation”.
In
reliance upon the expert evidence of Carol Bergquist, Megan Carbines, Shona Myers
(Ecology Marine Receiving Environment), Martin Neale (Freshwater Ecology), and Dr.
Claudia Hellberg and Nicholas Vigar (Stormwater), I disagree with this and consider that
there would be unacceptable adverse effects from urbanisation on the environment.
5.5
My view is informed by a number of factors. These include the high ecological
significance given to the Okura estuary by Dr. Lohrer and Dr. Townsend in their
evidence for Okura Holdings Limited and by Carol Bergquist, Megan Carbines and
Shona Myers in their evidence on behalf of the Council, and the opinion expressed by
Claudia Hellberg and Nicolas Vigar at paragraph 1.3(b) of their rebuttal evidence for the
Council that the urban contaminant model by NIWA does not demonstrate the
avoidance of effects on the Okura Esturay.
5.6
I also do not agree with Mr. Cook’s evidence at paragraphs 19ai, ii, and iii, that the
integrity, form, functioning and resilience of the coastal environment will be
safeguarded, that its ecosystems will be sustained, and that adverse effects on
threatened, at risk, naturally rare and nationally significant indigenous species and
ecosystems will be avoided and significant adverse effects on other habitats,
ecosystems and species will be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
5.7
In reaching this opinion I have relied on the evidence-in-chief of Carol Bergquist, Megan
Carbines and Shona Myers (Ecology Marine Receiving Environment), Martin Neale
(Freshwater Ecology), and Dr. Claudia Hellberg and Nicholas Vigar (Stormwater), and
their relevant rebuttal evidence. As outlined in the rebuttal evidence of Carol Bergquist,
Megan Carbines and Shona Myers there will be an effect on the Marine Reserve and
adverse effects from urbanisation on indigenous biodiversity will not be avoided.
6
5.8
In paragraph 19g of Mr Cook's evidence he suggests that the effects on the coastal
environment of including the Okura Holdings Ltd's land within the RUB are certain,
known and well understood and that significant adverse effects will be avoided. As
stated in my evidence-in-chief, and in reliance on the evidence of the Council's other
expert witnesses, I disagree with the suggestion that the potential effects of
development are certain and well understood. As discussed in the rebuttal evidence of
Claudia Hellberg and Nicholas Vigar, urban containment modelling has not conclusively
demonstrated the avoidance of adverse effects. The reasons for this are outlined in
their rebuttal evidence and include uncertainties associated with the use of an
uncalibrated model and insufficient consideration of other and future sources of urban
contaminants.
5.9
In light of Claudia Hellberg and Nicholas Vigar's evidence I also disagree with Mr.
Cooks' statement in his evidence at paragraph 31, that the Okura Estuary and Hauraki
Gulf would be protected from the effects of urbanisation as a result of sediment control
and stormwater treatment, taking account of other effects, for example from heavy
metal contamination.
Interpretation of NZCPS
5.10
At paragraph 19f of Mr. Cook’s evidence he suggests that in relation to NZCPS
Objective 6 and Policy 6, the Council's witnesses have not taken into account the
enabling element in the NZCPS, where subdivision use and development is not
precluded in appropriate places and where consolidation of existing coastal settlements
is encouraged and consideration given to how adverse visual impacts can be avoided in
areas such as headlands and prominent ridges that are sensitive to effects. I consider
that the way specific elements of these two objectives and policies have been
interpreted by Mr Cook in his evidence does not reflect the combined policy intent of the
provisions of the NZCPS including policy 11.
5.11
In this regard, I note that Mr. Cook states at paragraph 19h of his evidence that in his
opinion the adverse effects on the Okura Estuary, should the land in question be
urbanised, would be appropriately managed. In my view this is important as Policy 11
of the NZCPS provides that to protect indigenous biological diversity in the coastal
environment, adverse effects of activities on areas set aside for full or partial protection
of indigenous biological diversity under other legislation, are to be avoided.
As the
Okura Estuary is part of the Long Bay Okura Marine Reserve its biological diversity is
protected under other legislation and adverse effects of activities on the Marine Reserve
7
should be avoided, and not just mitigated or managed as suggest by Mr Cook.
Objective 6 and Policy 6 referred to by Mr Cook in his evidence do not include the same
strong policy directives for avoidance of adverse effects.
Interpretation of NPSFM
5.12
In paragraph 21 of Mr. Cook's evidence he states that in his analysis of the NPSFM, the
objectives and policies relating to maintaining or improving overall water in the Auckland
region do not require protecting the full length of all streams. He goes on to state that if
this was the case, Auckland would not be able to meet its growth needs through
development beyond the 2010 MUL. In paragraph 24 of his evidence, Mr Cook also
refers to a review of PAUP maps that he has undertaken and suggest that there are
several large tracts of land within Future Urban zoned areas containing significant
extents of indicative streams.
5.13
In response to the issues raised by Mr Cook, I note the evidence from Katja KingBorrero on behalf of the Council for Topic 047 Lakes, rivers and streams dated 5 June
2015 in relation to wetland management development examples. Katja King-Borrero's
evidence provides recent development examples in the Auckland region where streams
were maintained and incorporated in the layout of developments under the Housing
Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 which utilise the notified provisions of the
PAUP. The development proposals to which she refers to in her evidence were all able
to maintain intermittent and permanent streams. She also notes that a non-complying
activity status in the PAUP for any piping (reclamation) of both permanent and
intermittent streams sets a clear expectation that master planning should strive to work
with a site's natural hydrological features and avoid that piping if at all possible.
5.14
This indicates to me that there is more appropriate land for urbanisation than that at
Okura which could provide for Auckland’s growth efficiently with the retention of
streams. As previously discussed, I share the view of Chloe Trenouth in her rebuttal
evidence that there are other less environmentally sensitive areas, that are more
suitable for urbanisation to meet Auckland’s growth needs.
5.15
In paragraph 22 of his evidence, Mr Cook also suggests that except in relation to
protecting significant values of wetlands and outstanding freshwater bodies (Objectives
A2 and B4), neither of which exist within Okura, the NPSFM provisions are concerned
with quality of water rather than protection of water bodies per se. I disagree with this
interpretation of the NPSFM as I consider that it does not take full account of the overall
8
objectives of the NPSFM. I would draw the Panel's attention to Objective A1 which
includes safeguarding the life-supporting capacity, ecosystem processes and
indigenous species including their associated ecosystems in sustainably managing the
use and development of land, and of discharges of contaminants.
5.16
Objective A1 is supported by the compulsory national values in Appendix 1 of the
NPSFM that councils must use in fresh water management.
The first of these is
ecosystem health; where reference is made to supporting ‘a healthy ecosystem
appropriate to that freshwater body type’, and goes on to specify a number of matters
and indicators which go well beyond simply water quality matters.
Location of the RUB
5.17
I disagree with the statement at paragraph 34a of Mr. Cooks evidence that the location
of a relocated RUB as proposed by Okura Land Holdings would be a clear defensible
boundary. As discussed in my evidence-in-chief, I consider the strong defensible
boundary in this locality is the current PAUP RUB along the Vaughans Road and Okura
River Road ridgeline being a significant landscape feature, also being the boundary
between two catchments. The new RPS policy proposed by Chloe Trenouth in her
evidence-in-chief looks for strong features for the location of the RUB and I consider the
Vaughans Road location to better meet this RPS criteria than that suggested in the
evidence of Mr. Cook.
5.18
I also do not support Mr. Cook's evidence at paragraph 11 where he expresses the
overall view that the land sought to be urbanised by Okura Holdings Ltd will give effect
to the matters discussed in the Council's proposed RUB criteria. With regard to his
evidence that it will achieve the efficient provision of development capacity and land
supply for residential growth, I note the rebuttal evidence of Claudia Hellberg and
Nicholas Vigar states that significant earthworks would be required to achieve a
medium intensity development and their evidence-in-chief where they explain that
permanent and intermittent streams would not be able to be maintained to achieve this
level of development. I further note that this additional urban land is not required to
meet Auckland’s growth targets, as discussed in the evidence-in-chief and rebuttal
evidence of both Chloe Trenouth and Dr. Douglas Fairgray.
5.19
At paragraph 46 of Mr. Cook’s evidence he refers to my evidence-in-chief at paragraph
8.6, where I refer to the evidence of Chloe Trenouth regarding the approach of
generally avoiding urbanisation going into good quality catchments. He states that this
9
is not one of the criteria identified by Chloe Trenouth in her criteria about whether land
is included in the RUB.
My evidence was referring to the discussion at paragraph 9.6
of Chloe Trenouth’s evidence-in-chief regarding excluding areas not suitable for
development. This includes the consideration of urban development which encroaches
into catchments that are not currently urbanised or do not contain much urban
development, and the potential this has to create significant adverse effects on the
receiving environment.
The issue of protecting environmental values is further
addressed in Chloe Trenouth's rebuttal evidence at paragraphs 4.9 to 4.15.
Economic Issues
5.20
Some evidence from Fraser Colegrave in relation to the economic impacts of
development of the Okura Holdings Limited land has been provided on behalf of Okura
Holdings Limited.
One of the conclusions reached by Mr Colegrave is that the
proposed development will be an important contribution to the dwelling supply in the
region and more particularly in the north of Auckland.
5.21
The matters raised by Mr Colegrave are addressed in the rebuttal evidence of Dr
Douglas Fairgray. I have not addressed these issues in detail in my rebuttal evidence
and rely on Dr Fairgray's conclusions that Mr. Colegrave’s evidence makes contentions
that are not supported by the available evidence in relation to a purported gap between
future housing supply and demand, that Mr Colegrave has substantially overstated the
economic impact of the Okura Land Holdings development, and also that much of the
impact Mr. Colegrave estimates would be a transfer within the economy, rather than a
net addition.
Response
5.22
Having regard to the matters discussed above and in my-evidence-in-chief I consider
that the extension to the RUB sought by Okura Holdings Limited would not lead to the
efficient and effective use of land due to the extensive land modifications that would be
required to develop the area for medium density housing and the associated risks of not
fully understanding the scale of effects such development would have on the adjoining
Long Bay Okura Marine Reserve.
5.23
Also should urbanisation be permitted in a part of the Okura catchment this in my view
would lead to further pressure for wider parts of the catchment to be urbanised that
would lead to increased damage to the Marine Reserve in the longer term.
10
6.
SUB GROUP 2 - BIN CHEN ET AL (OKURA RURAL LAND OWNERS GROUP)
Evidence
6.1
The evidence from Burnette Macnicol on behalf of Okura Rural Land Owners Group
(submitter Bin Chen et al) is opposed to the location of the RUB along the Vaughans
Road/Okura River Road ridge line and this evidence seeks an alternative location.
Figure 2 shows the extent of the land sought to be urbanised in this evidence, which is
different from the extent of urbanisation sought in the original submission, which is
shown in Figure 3.
Figure 2
11
Figure 3
12
Analysis
6.2
Paragraphs 23-25 of the evidence of Burnette Macnicol relates to the potential
urbanisation of Dairy Flat south of Baldwin Road. She raises issues about the timing
within which such urbanisation could occur, perceived servicing constraints, issues of
flooding, the loss of agricultural land, whether it accords with the Auckland Plan, and a
lack of public engagement in the process.
6.3
The reasons why the Council considers this southern part of the Dairy Flat area is
appropriate for inclusion in the RUB and urbanisation is contained within the evidence
of Ewen David Paul on Topic 016 particularly at paragraphs 8.29 – 8.36. The reasons
discussed by Mr Paul include its ability to provide development which fits the quality,
compact model approach, is of sufficient scale to provide employment, quality public
open space, community and recreation facilities and well-designed centres, and its
relative ease of development given its topography is generally flat to undulating. It
should also be noted that the land within the Dairy Flat RUB as supported in the
evidence of Ewen David Paul does not drain into the Okura Catchment.
6.4
In relation to the location and context of the land that the Okura Rural Land Owners
Group seeks to include within the RUB, I disagree that the ridge on which Vaughans
Road and Okura River Road is located is a minor ridge, as stated at paragraph 4.4 of
the evidence of Robert Pryor and referenced at paragraph 32 of the evidence of
Burnette Macnicol. I consider this ridgeline to in fact be a major landscape feature
which strongly delineates between urban character to its south and a rural character to
the north. Also as this landscape feature is a ridgeline, I do not agree that development
to the south of this ridgeline impacts on the character and landscape quality of the
catchment to the north of the ridgeline, as stated in paragraph 46 of the evidence of
Burnette Macnicol.
6.5
I disagree with the statement at paragraph 69 of the evidence of Burnette Macnicol that
urbanisation of the Okura Rural Landowner's Group land will not have any discernible
adverse effect on the Okura Long Bay Marine Reserve, and also with her statement at
paragraph 101 that the land can be developed without generating any unacceptable
adverse effect on the environment.
Taking account of the evidence-in-chief, and
rebuttal evidence, of Carol Bergquist, Megan Carbines, Shona Myers (Ecology Marine
Receiving Environment), Martin Neale (Freshwater Ecology), and Dr. Claudia Hellberg
and Nicholas Vigar (Stormwater) that I have discussed in the previous section of my
13
rebuttal evidence, I consider that urbanisation here could have adverse effects on the
environment, including on the Marine Reserve.
6.6
As discussed in the evidence of the other Council experts, the issue of potential effects
of urbanisation within the Okura catchment, and its sensitive receiving environment, is
not solely one of assessing individual sites, but also considering the potential
cumulative effects such urbanisation could have. This is referenced, for example, in the
joint statement of expert rebuttal evidence of Carol Berquist, Megan Carbines, and
Shona Myers who express concerns about the cumulative environmental effects of
urban development in the Okura catchment. In their view the proposed extensions to
the RUB in combination are likely to have cumulative and long-term environmental
effects on the Long Bay-Okura Marine Reserve.
Response
6.7
For the reasons set out above and in my evidence-in-chief I remain of the opinion that
the Okura Rural Land Owners' Group's land should not be included in the RUB.
7.
SUB GROUP OPTION 3 – TYLER-DAVIES GROUP LIMITED
Evidence
7.1
The evidence of John Lovett, and the joint statement of evidence of Bryce Hall and
Anatole Sergejew, on behalf of Tyler-Davies Group Limited supports the extension of
the RUB on land north of the Lonely Track Road ridgeline between State Highway 1
and East Coast Road.
7.2
Figure 5 shows the extent of the land sought to be urbanised in the planning evidence
of John Lovett on behalf of Tyler-Davies Group (which is different from the extent of
urbanisation sought in the original Tyler-Davies Group submission and the joint
statement of evidence of Bryce Hall and Anatole Sergejew, on behalf of Tyler-Davies
Group which is shown in Figure 6).
7.3
I disagree with the inclusion in the RUB of both the area sought to be urbanised in the
original submission and the different area now proposed to be included within the RUB
in John Lovett's planning evidence.
14
Figure 5
15
Figure 6
Analysis
7.4
Paragraphs 1, 27, 28 and 43 of the evidence of John Lovett (in support of the primary
submission by Tyler-Davis Group Limited) in relation to the overall supply of land for
growth has been responded to by Chloe Trenouth in her rebuttal evidence. She states
16
that there is sufficient land supply within the PAUP for Auckland’s growth over the plan
period and that should an ad hoc and not strategic approach be taken to permitting
small individual sites to be within the RUB this could undermine the compact urban form
for Auckland.
7.5
Paragraph 18 of the evidence of John Lovett states that current roading has adequate
capacity to sustain traffic likely to be generated by urbanisation of this land. Similarly,
the joint statement of evidence from Anatole Sergejew and Bryce Hall states that the
location of the site does not compromise the safe and efficient operation of transport
networks. This evidence does not provide a detailed transport assessment.
7.6
I disagree with the evidence of John Lovett at paragraph 41, where he states the
subject area has a defensible boundary in the form of the topography of the subject
area as bowl shaped catchment bounded by East Coast Road.
In my view, the
northern edge of the RUB supported in this evidence does not have a landscape feature
upon which to base its edge, and in fact bisects a ridge and gully system. I consider the
best place for a strong defensible RUB in this locality is in its current location along the
significant ridgelines of Lonely Track Road and East Coast Road, which are also the
boundaries between different catchments.
7.7
I also disagree with the view expressed by John Lovett that there is clear merit in
including the Tyler Davies Group Limited land in the RUB given the potential cumulative
impact of urban development in the Okura Catchment that I have discussed previously.
Response
7.8
In my view the RUB should not be altered in relation to this area and remain along
Lonely Track Road and East Coast Road.
Austin Fox
22 December 2015
17