Before Independent Commissioners

In Auckland

Under

the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act)

In the matter of

A notice of requirement to alter designations and applications

to change resource consents for the St Lukes Interchange
Project - construction of an additional left turn lane from
Great North Road onto St Lukes Road

Between

Auckland Transport
Applicant

Auckland Council

And

Territorial Authority

Closing Submissions for Auckland Transport

Dated 20 November 2014

KENSINGTON SWAN
89 The Terrace
PO Box 10246
Wellington 6143

Ph +64 4 472 7877

Fax +64 4 472 2291
DX SP26517

Solicitor: N McIndoe/A F Cameron

nicky.mcindoe@kensingtonswan.com/anna.cameron@kensingtonswan.com
4957335.12

Summary of Submissions

1.1

Auckland Transport (AT) has notified a requirement (NOR) to alter two existing
designations to enable the expansion of the roading designation footprints at the
St Lukes Interchange, changes to designation conditions, and changes to the
conditions of associated resource consents approved for Stage 1 of the St Lukes
Interchange Project (Project).

1.2

The Works that are the subject of this application comprise Stage 2 of the Project.
The Works comprise an additional left turn lane for west-bound traffic on Great
North Road turning on to St Lukes Road, as well as tree removal and other
activities required for this.

1.3

The need for changes at the St Lukes Interchange was identified by the New
Zealand Transport Agency (Agency) and AT in anticipation of the opening of the
SH16/SH20 Waterview Connection Project (WCP). The St Lukes Interchange
will be a crucial link to the Waterview Tunnels once they become operational in
2017.

1.4

These submissions address the following issues which arose during the hearing
on 5 and 6 November 2014:
a

the application of section 171(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991

(RMA or Act);

the planning assessment;

the assessment of alternatives;

the reasonable necessity of the Works and designations;

the removal of the 6 pohutukawa trees;

whether it is necessary to increase the footprint of the resource consents;

provision of the Corridor Management Plans; and

transport planning documents.

Application of section 171(1) of the Act

2.1

The Waitemat Local Board (Board) submitted that section 171(1) of the Act
requires the Commissioners to have particular regard to the matters in
subsections (a)-(d) when undertaking its assessment of effects on the

4957335.12

environment of allowing the requirement, subject to Part 2. No authority was

cited for this assertion.
2.2

AT acknowledges the obligation to assess effects with respect to NoRs under

section 171(1) is expressed in subtly different language from the equivalent
2

obligation for resource consents (under section 104(1)). However, AT submits

there is no case law to support the proposition that the difference in wording
requires a substantively different approach, as suggested by the Board.
2.3

AT submits that the established law in relation to the interpretation of

section 171(1) is outlined succinctly in the findings of the Board of Inquiry into the
3

Upper North Island Grid Upgrade Project (NIGUP):

a)

the language consider the effects having particular regard

to expresses a duty to do both together, without necessarily
giving one primacy over the other, or making one subordinate to,
the other

b)

the language having particular regard expresses a duty for the

territorial authority to turn its mind separately to each of the
matters listed, to consider and carefully weigh each one. The
words do not carry a meaning that the matters listed in (a) to (d)
are necessarily more or less important than the effects on the
environment of allowing the requirement

c)

the subject matters of the items listed in paragraphs (a) to (d) do

not necessarily bear on effects on the environment of allowing the
requirement

d)

as Transpower submitted, a decision-maker has to make its own

judgment, based on the evidence and in the circumstances of the
case, about the effects on the environment, about the items listed
in (a) to (d), and about the relative importance of each in all the
circumstances

2.4

The Boards argument as to the interpretation of section 171(1) was considered

by the Board of Inquiry which determined the New Zealand Transport Agencys
4

Basin Bridge Project. The Board of Inquiry rejected this argument (although that
aspect of the decision is subject to appeal).

Waitemat Local Board legal submissions, 5 November 2014, paragraph 2.4.

Waitemat Local Board legal submissions, 5 November 2014, paragraphs 2.2-2.4.
3 Board of Inquiry into the Upper North Island Grid Upgrade Project, 2009 at [169].
4 Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Basin Bridge Proposal, August 2014 at [193]-[195].
1
2

4957335.12

2.5

Section 171(1) therefore does not give any of the matters listed in subsections
(a)-(d) any primacy or additional importance in assessing the effects of the Works
on the environment. Rather, section 171(1) provides the context for the
Commissioners assessment of effects. You, as the decision-makers, are
required to make your own judgment on each matter on the evidence, and in all
the circumstances.

2.6

AT does not accept the submission for the Board that the weight given to
environmental effects should be elevated on the basis of provisions in the
6

relevant statutory documents. It is unsurprising that the Works are consistent

with some policies and objectives and not with others. This does not mean the
adverse effects of the Works should be considered to be more significant. If this
logic was applied more generally, AT could identify those objectives and policies
in support of the Works and contend the benefits should also be considered to be
more significant than they otherwise would be. In the end, this type of analysis
does not assist.
3

Planning assessment

3.1

AT does not accept the Boards submission that its planning assessment is
7

inadequate to support the application. The evidence of Ms McLean, the

9

application documents, as well as the Section 42A Report

10

clearly identify the

relevant statutory and non-statutory documents and assess objectives and

policies that both support and do not support the Works.
3.2

AT does not accept that it has taken a pick and choose approach to the planning
documents by only addressing policies and objectives that support its application.
The Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) addresses the relevant
objectives and policies.

11

The Section 42A Report clearly sets out the various

objectives and policies of statutory and non-statutory documents relevant to the

application, as well as the reasons for concluding consistency with those
12

documents. Ms McLeans evidence

13

refers to the AEE and accepts the

analysis in the Section 42A Report. The Commissioners are not assisted by
having the same material repeated in multiple documents.

Board of Inquiry into the Upper North Island Grid Upgrade Project, 2009 at [170].
Waitemat Local Board legal submissions, 5 November 2014, paragraph 5.3.
7 Waitemat Local Board legal submissions, 5 November 2014, paragraph 5.3.
8 McLean, 13 October 2014, paragraphs 6.1-6.22.
9 AEE, 15 May 2014, pages 41-43.
10 Section 42A Report, pages 35-43.
11 AEE, 15 May 2014, pages 41-43.
12 Section 42A Report, pages 35-43.
13 McLean, 13 October 2014, paragraphs 6.1-6.22.
5
6

4957335.12

3.3

Further, the Boards own witness, Mr Hood could be criticised for the same
approach. His evidence gives only cursory acknowledgment to those objectives
and policies that clearly support the Works, while highlighting those that, in his
opinion, are contrary.

3.4

14

The Board also criticised the melting pot approach taken by Mr Dales and Ms
McLean when undertaking their respective planning analyses. In particular the
Board has criticised the in the round assessment of relevant planning
documents.

15

AT submits that this type of assessment is usual practice for

planners undertaking RMA assessments. Indeed, Mr Hood for the Board comes
to his own in the round conclusion when assessing the provisions of the
Auckland Council District Plan: Isthmus Section. He states in my view the
proposal is overall contrary to the objectives and policies of the ACDP:IS.
(emphasis added).
3.5

During the hearing, Mr Dales stated that proposals such as this always require a
balance of linked but different planning objectives. AT submits, supported by the
Section 42A Report,

16

that the Works are consistent with the thrust of the relevant

statutory and non-statutory documents.

4

Alternative sites, routes and methods

4.1

The Board has submitted that section 171(1)(b) requires decision-makers, when
considering the NoR, to consider the effects on the environment of allowing the
requirement having particular regard to the assessment of alternatives.

17

As

already noted there is no authority for this approach.

4.2

The Board cited Queenstown Airport Corporation Limited v Queenstown Lakes

District Council as authority for its submission that the adequacy of a requiring
authoritys assessment of alternatives is a matter of proportionality. That is, the
more significant the impact on the environment, the more thorough the analysis of
alternatives needs to be, to be considered adequate.

18

In that decision the High

Court found that the measure of adequacy will depend on the amount of private
land affected by the Project (that is, it considered the other limb of
section 171(1)(b)). It did not hold that the measure of adequacy also depended
on the significance of adverse effects as Counsel for the Board suggests. The Act
requires an assessment of alternatives if the effects of the Works are likely to be
significant. This is a threshold test; not a sliding scale.
Hood, 29 October 2014, Section 8.
Waitemat Local Board legal submissions, 5 November 2014, paragraph 3.13.
16 Section 42A Report, pages 35-42.
17 Waitemat Local Board legal submissions, 5 November 2014, paragraph 3.18.
18 Waitemat Local Board legal submissions, 5 November 2014, paragraph 3.20.
14
15

4957335.12

4.3

Nonetheless, AT submits that the evidence and application documents show that
its process of assessment of alternatives was thorough, robust and proportionate
to the level of effects.

4.4

Counsel for the Board identified 3 reasons why the Board considers the
assessment of alternatives by AT to be inadequate. These are each addressed
below.

4.5

AT does not accept the Boards submission that its assessment of alternatives
was artificial and that the outcome was predetermined.

19

In making this assertion

the Board references the Options Assessment Report which states that the
preferred optionwas agreed upon by Auckland Transport and NZTA on
6 December 2012. With respect, this quote needs to be understood in its
context.
4.6

The evidence of AT and the application documents clearly outline the lengthy
process of evaluating alternatives. As stated in opening submissions, concept
options for the upgrade at the Interchange (in its entirety) were initially developed
by Beca in 2012. During this process, the preferred option was developed and
agreed on by AT and the Agency in December of 2012 as noted by the Board,
and acknowledged by AT. However, following consultation with Council Parks
staff, who expressed concern over the removal of the six pohutukawa trees in
order to construct the additional left-turn lane, AT agreed to revisit options and to
consider further alternative designs with a view to minimising the effects on the
pohutukawa trees.

20

As a result, Stage 1 of the Project was progressed

separately; a further options report was produced, and further traffic modelling
21

undertaken by Beca in respect of the left turn lane at St Lukes.

4.7

By freezing this aspect of the Project in order to address concerns raised by

Council staff and attempt to reduce effects on the trees, AT demonstrated a
willingness to reconsider its decisions and options for this key Interchange. This
demonstrates open-mindedness by AT in undertaking its assessment of
alternatives as opposed to close-mindedness suggested by the Board.
not a back-filling or self-serving

23

22

This was

exercise, but a genuine evaluation of all

viable options at the Interchange, resulting in a more detailed project investigation

and an increased level of consultation.

Waitemat Local Board legal submissions, 5 November 2014, paragraph 3.21-3.22

Auckland Transport opening submissions, 5 November 2014, paragraph 6.7.
21 AEE, 15 May 2014, Appendix B.
22 Waitemat Local Board legal submissions, 5 November 2014, paragraph 3.23.
23 Waitemat Local Board legal submissions, 5 November 2014, paragraph 3.23
19
20

4957335.12

4.8

The Board further suggests that ATs assessment of alternatives was

predetermined because options that included the retention of the trees were not
evaluated during the initial options assessment phase of the Project.

24

Section 171(1)(b) does not set a timeframe by which alternatives must have been
considered. The process of assessing alternatives is necessarily a moving feast.
If AT had stopped considering alternatives after the initial options assessment
phase undertaken in 2012 it would not have been able to respond to issues
raised by key stakeholders. This would have unnecessarily constrained ATs
decision-making process. It is submitted that AT should be commended, rather
than criticised for continuing to consider options and address issues as they
arose.
4.9

The Board also submitted that the evidence of Mr Francis demonstrates a

closed-minded approach and quotes his evidence in chief which states only the
preferred option delivers ATs required outcomes.

25

Again, this statement needs

to be understood in its context. In making this statement, Mr Francis is not simply

referring to the objectives of the Project, rather to the wider strategic outcomes
sought by AT, being improved passenger transport facilities, improved
cycle/pedestrian facilities, and improved traffic flows.

26

Mr Francis acknowledges

that Option 6 also meets the Project objectives in his rebuttal evidence.

27

However, the evidence shows that while Option 6 also meets the Project
objectives, Option 1 better meets the objectives. Further, Option 6 does not
28

deliver the wider strategic outcomes of AT.

4.10

Counsel for the Board submitted that the reason for discarding Option 6 is
extremely unusual

4.11

29

30

(being to provide redundancy in the transport network ).

Mr Francis explained that this was not the only reason for discarding Option 6.

31

Nonetheless, AT does not accept that seeking to maintain flexibility and resilience
of the network is necessarily unusual, particularly given the traffic context of the
32

Interchange. Mr Mason explains that the complexity of the Interchange makes it

difficult to assess the traffic operation during normal peak periods as it is
dependent on the motorway merge capacity, ramp signal operation, and lane
discipline and weaving. The existing three lane configuration provides greater
flexibility to manage the network in the event of flow breakdown. Mr Hills also
Waitemat Local Board legal submissions, 5 November 2014, paragraph 3.22.
Waitemat Local Board legal submissions, 5 November 2014, paragraph 3.24.
26 Francis, 13 October 2014, paragraph 3.4.
27 Francis, 3 November 2014, paragraph 3.3.
28 Francis, 3 November 2014, paragraphs 3.4; 4.3-4.5.
29 Waitemat Local Board legal submissions, 5 November 2014, paragraph 3.24
30 Mitchell, 30 October 2014, paragraph 4.1.
31 Francis, 3 November 2014, paragraph 3.4.
32 Mason, 3 November 2014, paragraph 3.2.
24
25

4957335.12

stated orally during the hearing that resilience/flexibility of the network is a

relevant consideration.
4.12

The Board suggests that, because the provision of redundancy in the network is
not a stated objective, it is not a good reason for preferring Option 1.

33

AT does

not accept consideration of alternatives must be related back to the Project

objectives as suggested by the Board. The plain language of section 171(1)(b)
does not require this. It simply requires the Commissioners to have particular
regard to whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites,
routes or methods of undertaking the work (emphasis added). However, even
if the Commissioners prefer the analysis of the Board, it is of no consequence in
this hearing. The evidence of Mr Francis,
Section 92 Response

36

34

35

the application documents, and the

clearly outline the benefits and dis-benefits of each

option. Option 6 was considered to be unsuitable for a number of reasons, in

addition to its reduced flexibility.
4.13

It is submitted that the true basis of the complaint by the Board is that it does not
like the option chosen by AT. Instead, the Board prefers Option 6 or the
alternative Option 6 presented by Mr Mitchell, which it perceives as having fewer
environmental effects and the same transportation benefits.

37

AT does not accept

this is the case.

4.14

The evidence of Mr Francis,

section 92 response

40

38

the application documents

39

and the relevant

all explain that both Option 6 and the alternative Option 6

do not deliver the same transport benefits as Option 1, particularly for active
41

modes and passenger transport. The evidence demonstrates that Option 1

provides a greater outcome for passenger transport with an extended bus lane,
improved pedestrian/cyclist facilities and improved traffic flows.
4.15

42

The reduced lane widths suggested by Mr Mitchell in his alternate Option 6

would be unacceptable at this location given it is utilised by buses and heavy
vehicles. Further, the reduced width of the southern footpath is not feasible for a
shared-use path as intended at the site.

43

In addition, as identified by

Waitemat Local Board legal submissions, 5 November 2014, paragraph 3.26.

Francis 13 October 2014, paragraphs 4.1-4.29.
35 AEE, 15 May 2014 pages 11-12 and Appendix B Options Assessment Report (and appendices).
36 Section 92 Response, 15 September 2014.
37 Waitemat Local Board legal submissions, 5 November 2014, paragraph 3.27.
38 Francis, 3 November 2014, paragraphs 4.1-5.4.
39 AEE, 15 May 2014, pages 11-12 and Appendix B Options Assessment Report (and appendices).
40 Section 92 Response, 15 September 2014.
41 Francis, 13 October 2014, paragraph 4.28; Francis, 3 November 2014, paragraphs 5.1-5.4.
42 Francis, 13 October 2014, paragraph 3.4.
43 Francis, 3 November 2014, paragraphs 5.1-5.4.
33
34

4957335.12

Mr Francis,

44

the reduced kerbside lanes would create a safety issue for on-road

cyclists turning right onto Great North Road.

4.16

Mr Mitchell notes in his supplementary evidence that there are a number of

examples of local roads operating at reduced lane widths across Auckland, albeit
they provide reduced safety and amenity for cyclists in particular.

45

The St Lukes

Interchange is one of the busiest local roads in the city. As a result, reduced lane
widths are not acceptable to AT. It is submitted that it would be irresponsible of
AT as the local roading authority to sacrifice safety in favour of visual amenity.
4.17

AT is surprised by the preference of the Board for Option 6/alternate Option 6

given that it will not provide a multi-modal solution at the Interchange. The Board
has consistently relayed the importance of ensuring that enhanced active modes
(pedestrian and cycling) and public transport are properly provided for at the
Interchange.

46

Indeed a shared-path on one side of the Interchange has been

included as part of the Works as preferred by the Board. A number of submitters

have also identified the importance of enhanced provisions for active modes and
public transport at the Interchange.
4.18

47

AT is confident that it has selected the option that best future-proofs the transport
network for the opening of the Waterview Tunnels. Mr Hills supports this view.
He expressed the view during the hearing that while Option 6 is a viable option, it
is inferior to Option 1 from a transportation perspective. However, AT submits that
even if the Commissioners consider Option 6 or alternate Option 6 to be better
that does not mean the Commissioners can recommend against confirmation of
the NoR. As Counsel for the Board agreed,

48

the focus of section 171(1)(b) is

narrow it is on the process, rather than the outcome. The policy function of
selecting the preferred option remains with AT.
4.19

It is submitted that the evidence of Mr Francis,

49

the application documents

the subsequent information provided in response to the section 92 request

50

and

51

demonstrate that AT has undertaken a more than adequate consideration of

alternatives. This conclusion is supported by Mr Hillss traffic engineering review
for the Council,

52

as well as the evidence of Mr Mitchell for the Board.

53

Francis, 3 November 2014, paragraph 5.1(c).

Mitchell, 4 November 2014, paragraph 4.3.
46 Shale, 6 November 2014, paragraphs 9 and 23.
47 For example oral submissions of Jolisa Gracewood and Patricia Reid.
48 Waitemat Local Board legal submissions, 5 November 2014, paragraph 3.19.
49 Francis, 13 October 2014, paragraphs 4.1-4.29.
50 AEE, 15 May 2014 pages 11-12 and Appendix B Options Assessment Report (and appendices).
51 Section 92 Response, 15 September 2014.
52 Appendix H, Section 42A Report, Leo Hills Report, 17 September 2014, page 5. Mr Hills confirmed his view during the hearing.
53 Mitchell. 30 October 2014, paragraphs 5.1 and 8.1.
44
45

4957335.12

Reasonably necessary for achieving the Project objectives

5.1

Section 171(1)(c) requires the Commissioners to have particular regard to

whether the work and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the
objectives of the Project for which the designation is sought. As already stated,
AT does not accept the Boards submission that section 171(1)(c) necessarily
relates to the examination of alternatives under section 171(1)(b).

54

While it may

seem counter intuitive to recommend an option that results in significant

environmental effects when there is another option that also meets the Project
objectives as Mr Hood suggests,

55

with respect, this is not the legal test (in any

event, AT does not accept that the net benefits of Option 1 are fewer than Option
6).
5.2

56

All of the experts (including Messrs Mitchell and Hood ) agree that the Works
meet the Project objectives. It is respectfully submitted that the Works are
therefore necessary to achieve the Project objectives as contemplated by
section 171(1)(c).

5.3

AT is surprised by the submission for the Board that the Project may in fact prove
57

not to be necessary at all. This was not the evidence of the Boards traffic
engineer nor has any expert questioned the robustness of the modelling
undertaken by Beca. Mr Hills noted at the hearing that the modelling was
developed as part of the Western Ring Route Project and its methodology has
been thoroughly tested via that consenting process. Mr Mitchell agreed with the
results of the Beca Report in relation to traffic modelling.

58

Further, the positive

benefits that will arise from the Works have not been disputed by any of the
relevant experts. While AT acknowledges that the benefits may not be
immediately realised, the nature of infrastructure is to prepare for the future. The
evidence is that the Works are necessary to future proof the local roading
network in anticipation of the completion of the WCP.
6

The removal of the six pohutukawa trees

6.1

The majority of the Arborists that appeared at the hearing (Messrs Ghns,
Miller and Cook) agree that transplanting of the pohutukawa trees is not
feasible.

59

Waitemat Local Board legal submissions, 5 November 2014, paragraph 3.30.

Hood, 6 November 2014, paragraph 1.6.
56 Francis, 3 November 2014, paragraph 3.3; Mitchell, 30 October 2014, paragraph 8.3; Hood, 6 November 2014, paragraph 1.13.
57 Waitemat Local Board legal submissions, 5 November 2014, paragraph 3.31
58 Mitchell, 30 October 2014, paragraph 5.11.
59 With the exception of Mr Freeman for the Tree Council.
54
55

4957335.12

6.2

AT acknowledges the significant contribution these trees make to the local

landscape and the amenity of the area. However, AT does not accept the trees
have particular historic value as suggested by Mr Shale, and a number of other
submitters. AT accepts that the majority of the trees are likely to be 80 years old,
but does not accept that this attracts specific heritage value in itself. AT also
acknowledges the New Zealand Herald newspaper article produced at the
hearing, dated 2 August 1934, which discusses the planting of pohutukawas in
the area on Arbor Day in 1934. However, this does not establish that these
particular trees were planted on that day. Again, irrespective of this, this fact
alone would not attribute particular heritage value to the trees.

6.3

Further, as noted in the evidence of Ms McLean, none of the six pohutukawa

trees are afforded protection as scheduled items in either the Auckland Council
District Plan: Isthmus Section (ACDP:IS) or the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
(PAUP), nor have any submissions on the PAUP requested their inclusion on
the schedule of notable trees.

60

AT acknowledges that the trees are protected by

the general tree protection rules contained in Rule 5C.7.3.3C of the ACDP:IS.
6.4

At the hearing it was submitted that the significance of the trees should not be
discounted simply because they are not scheduled. The Board said it was
assured by Council that scheduling is not necessary given the general protection
attached to the trees under the ACDP:IS and the fact that they are on Council
land. However, there are a number of examples of Council owned spaces that
include scheduled trees (refer to Appendix A of these submissions for
examples). This indicates, at the very least, an inconsistent approach by Council.

6.5

Mr Hood, relying on the opinion of Mr Cook, advised the Commissioners that the
trees in question would meet the criteria for scheduled protection if this was
sought. However, no expert evidence and analysis has been presented to
support this assertion.

6.6

AT also submits that the context of these particular trees is important. As the
Commissioners are aware, these trees are situated within the vicinity of a
carpark, primarily used to service MOTAT as well as other recreational areas
located in the vicinity. AT acknowledges the importance of the green spaces in
the Western Springs precinct. However, 820 Great North Road is not a park, nor
is it used for recreational purposes as suggested by Mr Shale.

61

AT is not aware

of any plans to change the current use of the site (indeed Auckland Council has
been concerned to ensure the number of carparks at the site is retained).
60
61

McLean, 13 October 2014, paragraphs 9.3-9.4.

Shale, 6 November 2014, page 3.

4957335.12

10

6.7

AT acknowledges that the removal of the trees will result in a significant change
to the site. AT agrees that it is not helpful to describe the effect of removal of the
trees as temporary. However, AT does not accept that this effect cannot be
mitigated in the medium to long term as suggested by Ms Skidmore and a
number of submitters. AT submits that the effects of removal can be effectively
mitigated through the implementation of the revised planting plan appended to
Mr Hogans evidence, such that while the landscape and visual effects of the
Works will initially be high, these will reduce to moderate within a few years and
continue to progressively decrease further with time as the replanted pohutukawa
trees advance in maturity.

6.8

62

Concerns as to whether the mitigation planting would in fact be successful given

the difficult ground conditions at the site were also raised at the hearing.
Ms Skidmore in particular voiced concern as to whether the re-planted
pohutukawa trees would thrive.

6.9

AT submits that there is no arboricultural reason why the proposed mitigation

planting will not flourish on this site.

63

The presence and size of the existing

pohutukawa trees demonstrates the viability of planting such trees at this location
and shows that the geological make-up of the site can sustain tree growth.
Pohutukawa trees are very resilient. Mr Cook opined that because of this, a
basalt environment is in fact a perfect place for pohutukawas to grow. He further
stated that the chance of survival of re-planted trees could be increased by
creating a planting trench which would allow root balls to move into rock
fractures.
6.10

AT submits that the required certainty in relation to mitigation planting can be

achieved through conditions. AT suggests that current condition 226 be amended
to refer to a planting methodology to be agreed with Council prior to any
replanting at the site as follows:
The requiring authority shall implement the project planting in accordance
with drawing ref 215023-SK-C-919-101 Rev B, dated 13 October 2014
(also referenced in condition 1) during the first planting season following
the completion of the construction works. The planting methodology to be
used shall be submitted and approved by the Major Infrastructure Team
Manager prior to the implementation of the planting at 820 Great North
Road. The project planting shall be maintained in a healthy state for a
period of 10 years thereafter.

62
63

Hogan, 13 October 2014, paragraph 7.16.

Ghns, 13 October 2014, paragraph 3.12.

4957335.12

11

The footprint of the resource consents

7.1

During the hearing, the Commissioners sought clarification as to whether the

footprint of the existing resource consents covered the area where activities for
the Works are proposed. AT submits that the resource consent footprint is
sufficient. The resource consents apply to 820 Great North Road. The application
documents for Stage 1 encompassed both the area and activities required for
Stage 2. While the activities (earthworks volumes etc) were reduced during Stage
1, the footprint remained, and the Stage 1 consents are described as applying to
820 Great North Road (not a portion of it).

Corridor Management Plans

8.1

The Commissioners also requested the contents of the draft Corridor

Management Plans (CMP) for St Lukes Road and Great North Road.

8.2

As indicated at the hearing, AT seeks a confidentiality order under

section 42(2)(b) of the Act on the basis that the CMPs are in draft form and may
contain sensitive commercial information. Counsel for the Board indicated at the
hearing that the Board would not oppose such an order.

8.3

AT will provide the CMPs once the order is confirmed.

Transport planning documents

9.1

During the hearing, the Commissioners requested information as to the

ownership and status of the:

9.2

Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010-2040 (RLTS);

Auckland Transport Integrated Transport Programme 2012-2041 (ITP); and

Auckland Regional Land Transport Programme 2012-2015 (RLTP).

The RLTS is a legacy document that was originally created by the Auckland
Regional Council, with input from the Agency and the Auckland City Council. The
RLTS was adopted by the Auckland Regional Council in 2010 and remains
operational following the establishment of AT. This strategy identifies the actions,
policies, priorities and funding needed to achieve a land transport system that
enhances the Auckland region as a great place to live, work and play.

9.3

The current ITP was developed by AT and the Agency in collaboration with AC.
The ITP sets out the investment programme to meet the transport priorities

4957335.12

12

outlined in the Auckland Plan, across modes covering the responsibilities of all
transport agencies. The ITP informs the detailed programming of activities in the
RLTP.
9.4

The RLTP is an AT document that specifies funding requirements in different

activity classes over 3 financial years with a 10 year forecast. It is used to
prioritise applications for government funding through the Agency. The current
RLTP was approved by AT in June 2012.

10

Conclusion

10.1

The Works are required to further enhance the functionality of the St Lukes
Interchange in anticipation of the opening of the WCP. AT submits that the Works
are consistent with the sustainable management purpose of the RMA.

10.2

AT ask that the Commissioners recommend confirmation of the NoR and grant
the changes to conditions of the associated resource consents.

Nicky McIndoe/Anna Cameron

Counsel for Auckland Transport

4957335.12

13