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 Topic 045 Airports AND IN THE MATTER of the submissions and further submissions set out in the Parties and Issues Report STATEMENT OF PRIMARY EVIDENCE OF MARK ALLEN VINALL ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL PLANNING 2 April 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.! SUMMARY... 3! 2.! INTRODUCTION... 8! 3.! CODE OF CONDUCT... 9! 4.! SCOPE... 9! 5.! CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PAUP... 12! 6.! STATUTORY FRAMEWORK... 12! 7.! SECTION 32 ASSESSMENT... 20! 8.! BACKGROUND... 21! 9.! OVERLAYS - AIRCRAFT APPROACH PATHS... 22! 10.! OVERLAYS - AIRCRAFT NOISE OVERLAY... 23! 11.! AIRPORT ZONE... 29! 12.! PRECINCTS ARDMORE PRECINCTS 1 AND 2... 33! 13.! PRECINCTS AUCKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT... 38! 14.! DESIGNATIONS... 42! 15.! WHENUAPAI AIRBASE DESIGNATION... 43! 16.! ARDMORE AIRPORT DESIGNATION... 44! 17.! AUCKLAND AIRPORT DESIGNATION... 45! 18.! DEFINITIONS... 46! 19.! CONCLUSIONS... 47! Attachment A: Qualifications and relevant past experience Attachments B1: Proposed amendments to Aircraft Approach Paths Overlay Attachment B2: Proposed amendments to Aircraft Noise Overlay Attachment B3: Proposed amendments to Airport zone Attachment B4: Proposed amendments to Ardmore 1 and Ardmore 2 Precincts Attachment B5: Proposed amendments to Auckland International Airport Precinct Attachment B6: Proposed amendments to Ardmore Airport Designation Attachment B7: Proposed amendments to Auckland Airport Designations Attachment B8: Proposed amendments to Definitions Acronyms: ASAN Activities sensitive to aircraft noise ANNA Aircraft noise notification area MANA Moderate aircraft noise area HANA High aircraft noise area AIAL Auckland International Airport Limited BARNZ Board of Airline Representatives of New Zealand AAL Ardmore Airport Limited NSAC North Shore Aero Club HNZ Housing New Zealand 2
1. SUMMARY 1.1 The scope of this statement of evidence is to provide a planning analysis of the original and further submissions received on the Airport provisions of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). I have reviewed the submissions in the context of the relevant statutory requirements, including the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) and the proposed Regional Policy Statement (RPS) of the PAUP as amended through Auckland Council evidence. Other documents like the Auckland Plan also provide direction for the Airport provisions, and I have considered that as well. 1.2 The planning framework in the PAUP governing airports consists of: a) the objectives, policies and rules of the underling Airport zone which provide for a range of activities, and apply to all airports; b) the objectives, policies and rules of specific precincts for Ardmore Airport and Auckland International Airport that override the zone provisions, and which provide for a range of activities that apply in those precincts; c) the objectives, policies and rules of the Aircraft Flight Path Overlay to manage obstructions into airport approach paths; d) the objectives, policies and rules of the Aircraft Noise Overlay to manage the subdivision of land and location of activities sensitive to aircraft noise in areas of high cumulative noise around the region s airports and airfields, so that the continued operation of the airports and airfields is not compromised and reverse sensitivity issues are addressed; and e) the airport designations for Whenuapai Airbase, Ardmore Airport and Auckland International Airport, which provide for the operation of the aeronautical functions of the airport and other directly related activities, and include conditions and restrictions on noise from aircraft operations. 3
1.3 In terms of section 32 the objectives, policies and rules relating to Airports did not represent a significant policy shift from the current Operative provisions in the various legacy plans. In response to submissions, and the evidence of other Council witnesses, I consider that some amendments should be made to the airport provisions in the PAUP. These amendments are included in Attachments B1-B8 to my evidence and are summarised below: Aircraft Approach Path Overlay a) Agreement was reached with all parties at mediation on amendments to address the matters raised in submissions on these provisions. These are detailed in the mediation record. The agreed amendments are set out in track-change in Attachment B1, and include: i. Clarifying the application of this overlay, the designations, the change in title, and amendments to the rule to better manage obstructions. ii. iii. iv. Amending the title from "Airport Approach Path" to "Airport Approach Surfaces", and specifically referring to "airspace restriction designations" as illustrated on the planning maps to more accurately define this overlay and its application. Amending the objectives and policies to reflect the above changes and to clarify that buildings and other obstructions are controlled to prevent buildings, trees and other obstructions adversely affecting the safety and efficiency of airports. Amending the rules to reflect the above changes, and amending the height development control to remove the reference to 8 metres in height and clarify that the permitted height is determined by the height limits within the airfield height restrictions illustrated in the diagrams in the PAUP. 4
Airport Noise Overlay a) New ASAN within the MANA at Auckland Airport are permitted activities (subject to acoustic treatment) unless density exceeds 1 dwelling per 400m 2 or the maximum density controls and/or minimum site size for the MANA within the Flatbush Precinct is exceeded. These density controls generally reflect those existing for permitted activities in the same areas under the Operative Auckland Council District Plan Manukau Section 2002; b) New tertiary education facilities, and additions and alterations to existing ASAN other than existing dwellings are non-complying activities in the HANA where there is no reliance on, or expectation of, external acoustic amenity in the external environment; c) The inclusion of show homes as a controlled activity in the residential zones to ensure some control over the potential for them to be ultimately used for residential purposes; d) The inclusion of wording in the activity table to clarify that the subdivision of sites for network utility purposes should not be restricted within the aircraft noise overlay areas; e) Amendments to the notification provisions to reflect changes to the activity table and the inclusion of a guidance note on limited notification for plan users; and f) The inclusion of sound attenuation and ventilation development controls for North Shore Airport, Kaipara Flats Airfield and Whenuapai Airbase to better implement the policies in the overlay. Airport Zone a) Change the terminology from "North Shore Airfield" to "North Shore Airport". b) Include aviation training facilities as a permitted activity in the Airport zone. 5
c) Change the wording of the zone description, objective 3 and policies 2 and 3 to better address reverse sensitivity effects and existing commercial aviation activities undertaken at North Shore Airport. d) Include the manufacture and assembly of aircraft or airport components, on a commercial basis as a restricted discretionary activity at North Shore Airport to recognise and provide for existing commercial activities. e) Delete the requirement for consent applications in respect of commercial aviation activities to be publicly notified, and rely on the notification tests in the RMA. f) Reduce the yard setback requirements from 10m to 5m adjacent to industrial zoned land to reflect the yard requirements in the industrial zone. g) Include a new precinct for Kaipara Flats Airfield to provide for housing and hangars as a restricted discretionary activity as it reflects the current status of the activity in the operative Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011; h) Include emergency services as a permitted activity in the zone as they are an integral part of an airport operation. Ardmore Precinct a) Provide for aviation activities and aircraft operations as a permitted activity in the Ardmore 1 Precinct to reflect existing businesses at the airport;. b) Provide for information facilities as a permitted activity; c) Exclude trade suppliers and aviation activities from the gross floor area cap of 7,500m 2 and include trade suppliers as a restricted discretionary activity to provide for applications to be assessed on a case by case basis against matters of discretion and assessment criteria; and d) Amend the activity status of discretionary activities to restricted discretionary for driver training and vehicle product launches, vehicle testing, rural commercial services and rural industries to provide for applications to be assessed on a case by case basis against matters of discretion and assessment criteria. 6
Auckland Airport Precinct a) Amend the objectives, policies and rules to address cultural issues expressed by Te Akitai Waiohua Waka Taua Trust (Te Akitai). b) Amend the precinct description, objectives and policies to reflect the economic importance of the Auckland International Airport, address the development of the second runway, and better reflect the operational needs of this airport and the distinction between the Core and Gateway sub-precincts. c) Amend the activity table to better reflect the existing operational needs of the Auckland International Airport, delete the framework plan provisions and replace these with specific activity listings for development or subdivision relative to the spatial elements contained in Precinct Plan 1. d) Amend the activity status in the Coastal sub-precinct to provide for bird management activities and structures, navigational aids and light structures and other CMA activities (such as drainage and reclamation works). e) Amend the land use and development controls to reflect the changes to the objectives, policies and activity rules, and better reflect the existing operational needs of the airport and the provisions in the Operative Auckland Council District Plan Manukau Section 2002. f) Make amendments to Precinct Plan 1 to align the sub-precinct and policy area boundaries and remove the indicative future location of George Bolt Memorial Drive. Ardmore Airport Designation a) Amend the definition of "ASAN" to be consistent with Part 4 of the PAUP, and specifically exclude dwellings ancillary to aviation activities and education ancillary to aviation activities; b) Amend the definition of "aviation activities" to include education activities ancillary to the operational function of the airport and flight training schools as flight training is a fundamental part of the existing operation of Ardmore Airport. 7
Auckland Airport Designations a) Include the addition of a statement to clarify that the designation restrictions do not apply to objects located beneath the obstacle limitation surfaces identified in the designations. b) Include changes to address the concerns expressed by Te Akitai including noise mitigation. 1.4 All of the changes agreed at mediation and further changes proposed in the attached marked up versions in Attachments B1-B8 do not, in my view, represent a significant policy shift from the notified version of the PAUP. I have proposed changes in accordance with section 32 and 32AA of the RMA and the amended provisions are, in my view, considered to be appropriate for achieving the purpose of the RMA. The revised objectives, policies and rules respond to the submissions to give effect to the proposed RPS objectives and policies that are relevant to Airports in a more appropriate manner than those in the notified version of the PAUP. 1.5 A number of matters not agreed at mediation have not been resolved. I record these in the body of my evidence and address the reasons that I do not support their inclusion in the PAUP. 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 My name is Mark Allen Vinall. I am a Director of Tattico Limited, an independent planning consultancy based in Auckland, a position I have held since 2010. Prior to that I held various roles with the former Auckland City Council including as Regulatory Consents Group Manager, the Waterfront Projects Manager and the Manager Central Area. I have over 20 years experience as a planner. Details of my relevant experience and qualifications are set out in Attachment A. 2.2 Although I was not involved in the preparation of the sections of the PAUP which form part of Topic 045 Airports, I have been engaged by the Auckland Council (Council) to provide evidence on the submissions received in relation to this topic. 8
3. CODE OF CONDUCT 3.1 I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note and that I agree to comply with it. I confirm that I have considered all the material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express, and that this evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person. 4. SCOPE 4.1 I have been asked to provide evidence in respect of the following notified provisions of the PAUP, which relate to Airports: a) D8.1 Airport zone; b) E1.1 Airport Approach Path; c) E1.2 Aircraft Noise; d) F6.1 Ardmore 1; e) F6.2 Ardmore 2; f) F6.3 Auckland Airport; g) I15 Special Purpose Airport zone; h) J1.1 Airport Approach Path; i) J1.2 Aircraft Noise; j) K6.1 Ardmore 1; k) K6.2 Ardmore 2; l) K6.3 Auckland Airport; m) Appendix 21 Airport approach path; n) Designation 200 Ardmore Airport Limited; o) Designations 1100, 1101 and 1102 Auckland Airport; a] p) Designation 4310 New Zealand Defence Force; and q) Definitions. 4.2 My evidence addresses, from a planning perspective, the primary and further submission points that have been received on these provisions. 4.3 In preparing my evidence, I have had regard to and have considered the statutory framework, strategic direction, legacy planning documents, and 9
section 32 report, and address these specifically in my evidence where necessary. Given the large number of submissions and further submissions received, my evidence does not address each individual submission. Rather, I have grouped like submissions into themes, relative to the section of the PAUP to which they relate. 4.4 Expert conferencing was held on 27 and 28 January in relation to the Aircraft noise management provisions. Acoustic experts attended that conference as set out in the joint witness statement prepared by the Panel's facilitator and referred to in the evidence of Nigel Lloyd for the Council. I note that not all submitters were represented at that conference. I have reflected, in the body of my evidence, where agreement was reached between the acoustic experts on particular matters. 4.5 Mediations were held over a series of sessions on 16, 17, 24 and 25 February,and 4-5 March 2015. I attended all of those sessions. Agreement was reached on a significant number of provisions with submitters, however not all matters were resolved and not all submitters were in attendance at mediation. I have structured my evidence according to the sections of the PAUP included in Topic 045, and within each section my evidence, reflect where agreement was reached between parties who attended mediation, and address outstanding matters following mediation. 4.6 I have relied on the evidence of Mr Lloyd, an acoustic engineer providing evidence on behalf of the Council, to inform my evidence. 4.7 I have addressed submission points that relate to the Definitions in Part 4 of the PAUP. Whilst not coded to this hearing topic, they are relevant to matters raised in submissions and have been considered accordingly. Details of these submission points and definitions are set out in Table 1 below: Table 1: Submission points relating to definitions Term Submitters Submissions Points Activities sensitive to aircraft AIAL, BARNZ, AAL, 5294-306, 5128-112, 5659-10
noise (ASAN) Auckland Regional Public 49, 6100-45 Health Service Air noise boundary area AIAL, BARNZ, NSAC 5294-308, 5128-116 & 117, 4931-103, 4931-51 ANNA - Aircraft noise AIAL, BARNZ, NSAC 5294-307, 5128-114, 4931- notification area 62 MANA Moderate aircraft AIAL, BARNZ 5294-321, 5128-125 noise area HANA High aircraft noise area AIAL, BARNZ 5294-312, 5128-120 Airspace restriction BARNZ 5128-113 designation Navigational aids AIAL, BARNZ 5294-322, 5128-126 Annual aircraft noise area AIAL, BARNZ 5294-309, 5128-119 Airport noise boundary AIAL, BARNZ, NSAC 5294-308, 5128-116 & 117, 4931-103, 4931-51 4.8 The balance of my evidence is structured under the following headings: a) Consequential Amendments to Other Parts of the PAUP; b) Statutory Framework; c) Background to Airport Provisions; d) Overlays Aircraft Approach Paths; e) Overlays Aircraft Noise; f) Airport Zone; g) Airport Precincts: i. Ardmore Airport Precinct; and ii. Auckland International Airport; h) Designations: i. Whenuapai Airbase; ii. Auckland International Airport; and iii. Ardmore Airport. i) Definitions; and j) Conclusions. 4.9 My evidence also includes the following attachments: a) Attachment A: Qualifications and relevant past experience 11
b) Attachment B1: Proposed amendments to Aircraft Approach Paths Overlay c) Attachment B2: Proposed amendments to Aircraft Noise Overlay d) Attachment B3: Proposed amendments to Airport zone e) Attachment B4: Proposed amendments to Ardmore 1 and Ardmore 2 Precincts f) Attachment B5: Proposed amendments to Auckland International Airport Precinct g) Attachment B6: Proposed amendments to Ardmore Airport Designation h) Attachment B7: Proposed amendments to Auckland Airport Designations i) Attachment B8: Proposed amendments to Definitions 5. CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PAUP 5.1 There are no consequential amendments to other parts of the PAUP as a result of my evidence. 6. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 6.1 Under the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA), the PAUP must be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the LGATPA and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) except where the provisions of the RMA are excluded from applying or where there are corresponding provisions in the LGATPA. General Requirements District Plan 6.2 A district plan should be designed in accordance with 1, and assist the Council as a territorial authority to carry out its functions 2 so as to achieve the purpose of the RMA. 3 1 2 3 s 74(1) RMA As described in s 31 RMA ss 72 and 74(1)(b) RMA 12
6.3 In achieving the RMA's purpose, consideration must be given to the way in which positive or negative effects on the environment are managed, including the built environment, people and communities, and amenity values, as well as the social, economic, aesthetic and cultural conditions which affect those matters. 6.4 Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the RMA identify, respectively, matters of national importance that shall be recognised and provided for, other matters to which particular regard shall be had, and the requirement to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 6.5 When preparing the district plan provisions in the PAUP, the Council must give effect to a national policy statement or NZCPS. 4 The Council must also give effect to the RPS provisions in the PAUP. 5 6.6 In relation to regional plans: the district plan must not be inconsistent with an operative regional plan for any matter specified in s 30(1), or a water conservation order; 6 and shall have regard to any proposed regional plan on any matter of regional significance. 7 6.7 When preparing its district plan the Council must also: have regard to any management plans and strategies under any other Acts, and to any relevant entry on the New Zealand Heritage List and to various fisheries regulations (to the extent that they have a bearing on resource management issues in the region) 8 ; be consistent with plans and proposed plans of adjacent territorial authorities; 9 4 5 6 7 8 9 s 75(3)(a)-(c) RMA s 75(3)(c) RMA and ss 122(1) and 145(1)(f)(i) of LGATPA. See Judicial Conference on Interim Recommendations 27 January 2015 Conference Minute. s 75(4) RMA s 74(2)(a) RMA s 74(2)(b) RMA s 74(2)(b) RMA 13
take into account any relevant planning document recognised by an iwi authority; 10 and not have regard to trade competition. 11 6.8 The district plan must be prepared in accordance with any regulation. 12 6.9 A district plan must 13 also state its objectives, policies and the rules (if any) and may 14 state other matters. 6.10 The Council also has obligations to prepare an evaluation report in accordance with section 32 of the RMA, and have particular regard to that report. 15 Objectives 6.11 The objectives in a regional and district plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA. 16 Provisions 17 6.12 The policies are to implement the objectives, and the rules (if any) are to implement the policies. 18 6.13 Each provision is to be examined, as to whether it is the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives of the regional and district plan provisions in the PAUP, by: identifying other reasonably practicable options for achieving the objectives; 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 s 74(2A) RMA s 74(3) RMA s 74(1)(f) RMA s 75(1) RMA s 75(2) RMA ss 74(1)(d) and (e) RMA s 32(1)(a) RMA Defined in s 32(6) RMA, for a proposed plan or change as the policies, rules or other methods that implement, or give effect to, the objectives of the proposed plan or change s 67(1) RMA s 32(1)(b)(i) RMA 14
assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of the provisions in achieving the objectives, including: 20 o o o identifying and assessing the benefits and costs of the environmental, economic, social and cultural effects that are anticipated from the implementation of the provisions, including opportunities for economic growth and employment that are anticipated to be provided or reduced; 21 quantifying these benefits and costs where practicable; 22 and assessing the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the provisions. 23 Part 2 RMA 6.14 The relevant provisions of Part 2 in relation to Topic 045 Airports are: Section 5, regarding enabling people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being, and for their health and safety while avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment; Section 6(a), the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment from inappropriate subdivision, use and development; Section 6(e), the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions; Section 7(b), the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources; Section 7(c), the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values; and Section 7(f), the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment. 20 21 22 23 s 32(1)(b)(ii) RMA s 32(2)(a) RMA s 32(2)(b) RMA s 32(2)(c) RMA 15
NZCPS 6.15 I consider that the NZCPS provisions of relevance to Topic 045 include: a) Objective 1, Policy 1 - to safeguard the integrity, form, functioning and resilience of the coastal environment and sustain its ecosystems, including marine and intertidal areas, estuaries, dunes and land. b) Objective 2 - to preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and protect natural features and landscape values. c) Objective 3, Policy 2 - to take account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, recognise the role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki and provide for tangata whenua involvement in management of the coastal environment. d) Objective 6 - to enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and their health and safety, through subdivision, use, and development. e) Policy 4 - providing for the integrated management of natural and physical resources in the coastal environment. f) Policy 6 (a) - recognise that the provision of infrastructure, the supply and transport of energy including the generation and transmission of electricity, and the extraction of minerals are activities important to the social, economic and cultural well-being of people and communities. g) Policy 6 (b) - consider the rate at which built development and the associated public infrastructure should be enabled to provide for the reasonably foreseeable needs of population growth without compromising the other values of the coastal environment. h) Policy 6 (c) - consider where and how built development on land should be controlled so that it does not compromise activities of national or regional importance that have a functional need to locate and operate in the coastal marine area. i) Policy 7 (a) - consider where, how and when to provide for future residential, rural residential, settlement, urban development and other activities in the coastal environment at a regional and district level. 16
6.16 The relevant objectives and policies of the NZCPS have informed my position on the Airport provisions. RPS 6.17 In terms of the proposed RPS, I consider that the following provisions need to be considered and given effect to by the Airport provisions: a) B 2.3 Developing capacity and supply of land for urban development - Policy 7 specifically seeks to enable growth in new urban zones while protecting existing significant infrastructure from reverse sensitivity effects. b) B 3.2 Significant infrastructure and energy - Objective 2 specifically requires consideration of the benefits of significant infrastructure which service the wider community, Auckland or New Zealand are recognised, including: i. the essential services provided by infrastructure networks, which provide for the functioning of communities, businesses and industry ii. enabling economic growth iii. providing for public health, safety and the wellbeing of people and communities iv. contributing to a well-functioning and liveable Auckland v. protecting the quality of the natural environment vi. enabling interaction and communication. c) B 3.2 Significant infrastructure and energy - Objective 3 specifically requires consideration of the development, operation, maintenance, and upgrading of significant infrastructure is provided for and enabled, while managing any adverse effects it may have on: i. areas with significant landscape, cultural and historic heritage, and natural ecological and biodiversity values ii. the health, safety and amenity of communities. 17
d) B 3.2 Significant infrastructure and energy - Objective 6 requires consideration of Auckland's significant infrastructure being protected from reverse sensitivity effects and incompatible subdivision, use and development. e) B 3.2 Significant infrastructure and energy - Policy 1 to provide for the efficient development, use, operation, maintenance and upgrading of secure and reliable infrastructure. f) B 3.2 Significant infrastructure and energy - Policy 7 to avoid reverse sensitivity effects by requiring subdivision, use and development to not occur in a location or form that constrains the use, operation, maintenance and upgrading of existing and planned significant infrastructure. g) B 3.2 Significant infrastructure and energy - Policy 8 which states that where new or major upgrades to significant infrastructure are proposed within those overlays identified to protect landscapes, natural and historic heritage, ecological, biodiversity values, and scheduled sites and places of significance to Mana Whenua, the following matters must be considered when balancing the development against the protection of these places: i. the economic and social benefits derived from significant infrastructure ii. whether the significant infrastructure has a functional need to be located in the proposed location iii. the need for utility connections across or through such areas to enable an effective and sustainable network iv. whether there are any reasonably practicable alternative locations, routes or designs, which would reduce any adverse effects v. the extent of existing adverse effects vi. the type, scale and extent of adverse effects on the values of the area, taking into account: vii. scheduled sites and places of significance to Mana Whenua viii. significant public open space areas, including harbours 18
ix. hilltops and high points that are publicly accessible scenic lookouts, particularly where the infrastructure involves tall structures, such as towers and poles x. high use recreation areas xi. natural ecosystems and habitats xii. the extent to which the adverse effects can be avoided, remedied or mitigated. h) B 3.3 Transport - Objective 1 relating to an effective, efficient and safe transport system that supports the integrated movement of people, goods and services throughout Auckland and to other regions and nations. i) B 3.3 Transport - Objective 3 relating to a well-developed, operated and maintained transport system that manages potential adverse effects on the natural environment and the health, safety and amenity of people and communities. j) B 3.3 Transport - Policy 1 to enable the effective, efficient and safe development, operation and maintenance of an integrated intraregional and interregional transport system including subsection (c) Auckland Airport and Auckland and Onehunga ports, including their local, national and international trade, freight and visitor connections. k) B 3.3 Transport - Policy 3 which specifically require activities sensitive to noise to be located or designed to avoid, remedy or mitigate potential adverse effects arising from the use and operation of strategic transport infrastructure. l) B 3.3 Transport - Policy 6 is to protect existing and future rail and shipping corridors and air flight paths so they can meet future passenger and/or freight and trade demand. m) B 3.3 Transport - Policy 9 specifically seeks to improve the integration of land use with transport by (in subsection (c)) managing activities along freight routes, other heavily trafficked 19
roads, rail lines, or adjacent to ports and airports so that they do not compromise the effective, efficient and safe operation of these routes or give rise to reverse sensitivity effects. Other documents - Auckland Plan 6.18 The purpose of the Auckland Plan is to: Contribute to Auckland s social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing through a comprehensive and effective long-term (20 to 30 year) strategy for Auckland s growth and development. 6.19 The Auckland Plan was developed over 2010-11 and was finalised and adopted by Council on 29 March 2012. It is a strategy prepared under another Act to which regard should be had pursuant to section 74(2)(b)(i) of the RMA. 6.20 The overall vision stated in the Auckland Plan is for Auckland to become the world s most liveable city. A key outcome is a well-connected and accessible Auckland and a key development strategy is to create better connections and accessibility within Auckland, across New Zealand and to the world (Strategic Direction 13). 6.21 Directive 13.7 seeks to provide for the long term needs of Auckland Airport in an appropriate and environmentally sustainable manner, to support New Zealand s international freight, trading competitiveness and visitor industry. Directive 13.8 seeks to support and advocate for effective inter-regional connections that support future growth and demand, and increased freight efficiencies. 6.22 The Unitary Plan is identified as one of the main implementation tools to integrate and prioritise spatial development across Auckland. In my opinion, the airport provisions in the PAUP reflect this policy direction. 7. SECTION 32 ASSESSMENT 7.1 As outlined in the Section 32 Report for the PAUP (Evaluation Report), the Council has focussed its section 32 assessment on the objectives and 20
provisions within the PAUP that represent significant changes in approach from those within the current operative Auckland RPS and legacy district plans. Whilst the Evaluation Report applies to the entire PAUP, it targets in particular the 50 topics where the provisions represent a significant policy shift from the current provisions. 7.2 No specific evaluation report was prepared in relation to the objectives and provisions relating to Airports, as they did not represent a significant policy shift from the current Operative provisions. 7.3 I consider that the objectives, policies and rules of the amended provisions set out in Attachments B1 - B8 to my evidence do not represent a significant policy shift form the notified version of the PAUP. I have proposed changes in accordance with section 32 and 32AA of the RMA, and the amended provisions are, in my view, considered to be the most appropriate for achieving the purpose of the RMA. The revised objectives, policies and rules respond to the submissions in giving effect to the proposed RPS objectives and policies relevant to the Airport in a more appropriate manner than those in the notified version of the PAUP. 8. BACKGROUND 8.1 Topic 045 includes the provisions in the PAUP controlling airports across the region. The following airports and airfields are governed by the PAUP provisions: Auckland International Airport; Ardmore Airport; Kaipara Flats Airfield; North Shore Airport; Parakai Airfield; Auckland Gliding Club; and Whenuapai Airbase. 21
9. OVERLAYS - AIRCRAFT APPROACH PATHS Background to provisions 9.1 The purpose of the Aircraft Approach Path overlay is to manage obstructions such as buildings and trees, so that they do not protrude into airport approach paths, and supporting the efficient operation of airports and airfields. 9.2 The Aircraft Approach Path overlay contains detailed height restriction diagrams for Kaipara Flats Airfield, North Shore Airport, Parakai Airfield and Auckland Gliding Club. Auckland International Airport, Whenuapai Airbase and Ardmore Airport approach path diagrams are contained in the designations applying to those airports, and are illustrated on the planning maps for those designations. 9.3 There are 23 submission points from 8 submitters seeking amendments to the overlay provisions. The majority of submission points are from airport operators seeking to clarify the application of the overlay, including to amend the term "path" to "surfaces", clarify where the overlay applies and where specific provisions in designations apply, amend the height requirements in the rule to only reference the height of the overlay, and include references to subdivision, structures and masts in the rule. Another submission seeks the deletion of the overlay and to delete the North Shore approach path and replace it with the provisions in the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011. Matters agreed at mediation 9.4 Agreement was reached with all parties at mediation on amendments to address the matters raised in submissions. These are detailed in the mediation record. The amendments agreed are included in track-change in Attachment B1 and include: Clarifying the application of the overlay and designations, the change in title, and amendments to the rule to better manage obstructions. 22
Amending the title from "Airport Approach Path" to "Airport Approach Surfaces" and specifically referring to "airspace restriction designations" as illustrated on the planning maps to more accurately define the overlay and its application. Amending the objectives and policies to reflect the above changes and to clarify that buildings and other obstructions are controlled to prevent buildings, trees and other obstructions adversely affecting the safety and efficiency of airports. Amending the rules to reflect the above changes and to amend the height development control to remove the reference to 8 metres in height, and clarify that the permitted height is determined by the height limits within the airfield height restrictions illustrated in the diagrams in the PAUP. 9.5 I support the amendments agreed at mediation as they more accurately describe the controls for this overlay, where it applies and remove the ambiguity around the application of the height limits. Outstanding matters 9.6 The NSAC (4931-58, 59) seeks the inclusion of a prohibited activity status for buildings, structures, masts or trees that exceed the height limits in the activity table, rather than within the height development control. 9.7 The modification of a development control in the PAUP is a restricted discretionary activity unless otherwise specified in the PAUP. The inclusion of a clause specifying that the modification of the height development control is a prohibited activity is included in the rule to override the general provision. For this reason I do not support NSAC's request. 10. OVERLAYS - AIRCRAFT NOISE OVERLAY Background to provisions 10.1 The purpose of the Aircraft Noise Overlay is to manage the subdivision of land and location of activities sensitive to aircraft noise (in areas of high 23
cumulative noise around the region s airports and airfields), so that the continued operation of the airports and airfields is not compromised, and reverse sensitivity issues are addressed. 10.2 The following airports/airfields are included in this overlay: Auckland International Airport Ardmore Airport Kaipara flats Airfield North Shore Airfield Whenuapai Airbase. 10.3 There are 117 submission points from 26 submitters seeking amendments that can be broadly grouped into the themes listed further below. Matters agreed at mediation 10.4 The objectives, policies and rules in the Aircraft Noise Overlay contain land use restrictions within the aircraft noise areas to ensure that ASAN around airports are managed generally in accordance with the recommendations of NZS 6805: 1992. The evidence of Mr Lloyd addresses the recommendations of NZS 6805: 1992 and outlines the general agreement between the acoustic engineers involved in expert conferencing. 24 Mr Lloyd also states that the acoustic engineers agreed, in general, that the noise contours in the PAUP and in AIAL's submission should be accepted on the basis that the contours have been properly calculated using the methodology set out in NZS 6805: 1992. 25 10.5 Greg Osborne s evidence for AIAL details at paragraphs 7.12-7.23 the rules of the Aircraft Noise Overlay as agreed between parties at mediation (with the exception of HNZ). I support the amendments to the objectives, policies and rules as agreed at mediation. 24 25 Evidence in Chief (EIC) of N Lloyd, section 5. Ibid, section 6. 24
10.6 The New Zealand Defence Force is seeking changes to the noise contours at Whenuapai Airbase in accordance with the New Zealand Standard on Aircraft Noise (NZS6805:1992). The Eastern extension includes Paremoremo and Greenhithe. The Western extensions include more of the Whenuapai area and possibly Taupaki. Changes are also sought to the noise contour map and the noise conditions contained within the Whenuapai Airbase Designation. During mediation the New Zealand Defence Force advised that they were not pursuing this submission point pending the lodgement of a future notice of requirement and plan change. 10.7 The submissions from various network utility operators (2191-571, 2473-503, 2745-519, 4185-502, 4500-652, 8628-605) seek an amendment of the rules relating to subdivision to exclude subdivision for network utilities. The submissions highlight that the current wording in the activity table captures any subdivision of land. It is not the intention to restrict all subdivision in the noise contour areas, rather the subdivision of land where the use would be an ASAN. I agree that the subdivision of sites for network utility purposes should not be restricted within the aircraft noise overlay areas, and support the inclusion of wording in the activity table to clarify this. These are contained in the changes in Attachment B2. Outstanding matters 10.8 AIAL (5294-360) seek the amendment of the aircraft noise contours for Auckland Airport. Specifically it wants to extend the air noise contours northwards and eastwards to include additional properties in Mangere and Mangere East, and eastwards to Papatoetoe, Otara and Flat Bush, and land at Awhitu Peninsula. The reasons for the amendment to the noise areas forming part of the Aircraft Noise Overlay are detailed in the evidence of Mr Osborne 26 and relate to the masterplanning work for the future growth of the Auckland International Airport. I accept that in order to accommodate growth, meet the operational requirements of larger aircraft, and avoid the need for significant reclamation, changes to the location and length of the northern runway are required to the description in Condition 3 of Designation 1100. 26 EIC of G Osborne, paragraphs 3.3-3.8, page 2. 25
10.9 The Council expressed concern prior to, and during mediation, that the request to amend the noise contours was being considered ahead of the lodgement of a Notice of Requirement to amend the operational parameters of aircraft using the northern runway. Ordinarily, consideration of the restrictions imposed by the Aircraft Noise Overlay shown on the planning maps and implemented by the rules would be undertaken at the same time as the alteration to conditions attached to the designation setting the operational parameters for aircraft using the runway. In addition the conditions of the designation also set compensation for installation of acoustic attenuation for activities sensitive to noise located in the noise contours through the Noise Mitigation Fund. 10.10 The Council s primary concerns relates the following three areas: a) The notification requirements for notices of requirement 27 differ from those relating to the preparation, change and review of a policy statement and plans 28 in that a notice is required to be considered in terms of the notification tests in section 95 to 95G of the RMA and requires adversely affected parties to be notified. b) Restricting the ability of landowners within the expanded noise contour areas from developing their land in accordance with the PAUP zone provisions prior to the completion of the necessary statutory processes to alter the operating parameters of the runway. c) Without an alteration to the conditions of the designation, individual property owners are not eligible for compensation through the Noise Mitigation Fund. For these reasons the Council did not support the requested change at mediation. 10.11 I have read the evidence of Mr Osborne regarding the timing of the Airport s masterplanning work and the notification of the PAUP 29. He has explained that the statutory requirements to provide the Council with final 27 28 29 s169 RMA Schedule 1 RMA EIC of G Osborne, paragraphs 3.3 3.8, pages 7-9. 26
notices of any modifications to designations by July 3103 for inclusion in the notified PAUP preceded AIAL s completion of its future forecasts of long term growth in aircraft movements that were necessary to inform a modification of the designation. Mr Osborne advises that this work was completed prior to the close of primary submissions which enabled AIAL to lodge a submission to the PAUP. 10.12 I accept that the process and timing for the notification of the PAUP and the work required to inform an alteration of the designation made it difficult to align the two processes. I agree with Mr Osborne that it would have been irresponsible of AIAL to remain silent on the implications of its growth plans through the PAUP process, particularly given the importance of the future growth of the airport and associated land use implications of the anticipated projected growth. I also agree with Mr Osborne that it is important for land use planning decisions on future urban growth and future residential intensification in the vicinity of the airport, to be made on the basis of the most up to date information on the future growth of the airport. 10.13 However, I consider that it would have been preferable if AIAL had notified every affected owner and occupier (or asked Council to give notice to all affected owners and occupiers) impacted by the extension of the contours of their intention to lodge a submission requesting an extension to the noise contours, thereby providing an opportunity for those persons affected to lodge a submission or further submission in support or opposition. In my view, this would have overcome the disparities between the statutory processes relating to the notification of notices of requirements versus that for policy statement or plan changes. More importantly in my view, in terms of natural justice and fairness, this approach would have provided individual property owners with the ability to lodge submissions and have their views considered as part of the PAUP process. 10.14 I have reviewed and considered the practical implications from a planning perspective of the changes to the Aircraft Noise Areas outlined in Mr 27
Osborne s evidence for AIAL. 30 I agree that the impact on those properties proposed to be located within the increased HANA is contained and restricted to a small number of properties. 10.15 In terms of those properties located within the increased MANA, I agree that the land use analysis undertaken by AIAL demonstrates that the majority of properties do not have development potential beyond the PAUP Single House or Mixed Housing Suburban zoning, and only a small number of properties have development potential beyond that possible under the 1:400m 2 density control for ASAN in the MANA. I note these properties can currently develop to a density of 1:400m 2 under the operative Main Residential zoning which aligns with the 1:400m 2 density threshold for permitted activities in the MANA agreed by all parties at mediation except HNZ. An infringement of the density control in the MANA is a restricted discretionary activity with applications assessed on their merits, taking into account the matters of discretion and assessment criteria specified in the Aircraft Noise Overlay. 10.16 Having considered the evidence prepared for AIAL, and notwithstanding the Council s broader concerns regarding property owners not being able to realise development potential under the PAUP, I conclude that the practical impacts of the changes to the Aircraft Noise Areas on future development potential are confined to a small number of properties, and that development above a density of 1:400m 2 is able to be considered as an application for a restricted discretionary activity. 10.17 I have also reviewed the transitional mitigation package proposed by AIAL and discussed in paragraph 7.30 of Mr Osborne s evidence. 31 I support the inclusion of a transitional mitigation condition in Designation 1100 to apply to the areas where the extended HANA and MANA will require the installation of acoustic treatment measures during the period between the PAUP becoming operative and the alteration of the designation authorising the extended northern runway being incorporated in what will become the operative Unitary Plan. In my opinion, this addresses one of 30 31 EIC of G Osborne, paragraphs 7.27 7.34, pages 27-31. Ibid, page 29. 28
the key concerns raised by Council regarding the eligibility for compensation through the Noise Mitigation Fund. 10.18 HNZ (839-10279) seek amendments to the activity table in the Aircraft Noise overlay to enable new ASAN as discretionary activities, and proposals to undertake alterations to existing ASAN as controlled activities. 10.19 For the reasons set out in my evidence above, I do not support the amendments sought by HNZ. 10.20 The Auckland Kindergartens Association (FS 3302) seek that restricted discretionary applications for additions or alterations to existing ASAN (other than dwellings in a residential zone) in the MANA be limited notified to AIAL and BARNZ. 10.21 Agreement was reached at mediation with AIAL and BARNZ to include a guidance note on limited notification for plan users. For this reason I do not support the relief sought by Auckland Kindergartens Association. 11. AIRPORT ZONE Background to provisions 11.1 The Airport zone provides generic zone provisions for all airports across the region. The zone includes objectives, policies and rules for land that has been zoned for airport purposes. The zone provides for aircraft operations and the maintenance and repair of aircraft, with limited provisions for commercial and industrial activities associated with aviation. Matters Agreed at Mediation 11.2 Dentarra Holdings Limited (4171-1, 2, 5) seek changes to the zone activity rules to provide for housing and hangars at Kaipara Flats Airfield as a restricted discretionary activity with associated assessment criteria, concept plan, housing and hangar guidelines. 29
11.3 This submitter seeks to ensure that the provisions gained via a Private Plan Change to the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Rodney Section 2011 are replicated in the PAUP. The Private Plan Change included a full assessment of the proposal and was approved for inclusion in the Operative Rodney District Plan. I support the inclusion of a new precinct for the Kaipara Flats Airfield to provide for housing and hangars as a restricted discretionary activity. I agree this reflects the current status of the activity in the Operative Rodney District Plan, and there have been no changes to the planning environment that would warrant a reexamination of those plan's provisions. 11.4 The NZ Police (4274-26) seek the inclusion of emergency services as a permitted activity in the zone. The term is defined in the PAUP but not included within the activity table in the Airport zone. However I note that emergency services and rescue facilities are permitted in the Airport precincts. Emergency services are an integral part of an airport operation and I support their inclusion as a permitted activity in the airport zone. 11.5 The NSAC (4931-25-27, 45-47, 52-56) seek amendments to the objectives, policies and rules to strengthen reverse sensitivity effects in the policy framework, and seek that commercial aviation activity is amended from a discretionary to a permitted activity to recognise existing activities at NSAC. This submitter seeks the deletion of the rule requiring public notification of applications for commercial aviation activities (4931-49). It also seeks a change in terminology from "airfield" to "airport" (4931-104). While the latter submission point has been coded to the Topic Editorial and Part 6, it is appropriate to consider this request in this topic as the terms airfield and airport are defined terms. The following amendments were agreed at mediation between the parties to address the submitter's concerns: Change the terminology from North Shore "Airfield" to North Shore "Airport". Include aviation training facilities as a permitted activity in the Airport zone. 30