of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) PANUKU DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND LIMITED Applicant AUCKLAND COUNCIL

Transcription

1 3274 BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN of a direct referral application under section 87G of the RMA for resource consents for the necessary infrastructure and related activities associated with holding the America s Cup in Auckland PANUKU DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND LIMITED (ENV-2018-AKL ) Applicant AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Regulatory Authority STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF NICOLA JANE BROADBENT ON BEHALF OF THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL (PLANNING) Dated 4 September 2018 BROOKFIELDS LAWYERS M C Allan Telephone No Fax No P O Box 240 DX CP24134 AUCKLAND

2 INTRODUCTION 1.1. My full name is Nicola Jane Broadbent My evidence is given on behalf of the Auckland Council (the Council) in its regulatory capacity in relation to the direct referral application filed by Panuku Development Auckland Limited (Applicant) seeking resource consents for the America s Cup (the Application) My statement of rebuttal evidence should be read alongside my evidence in chief (EIC) for the Council on planning matters dated 21 August This statement of rebuttal evidence responds to matters raised in the following section 274 party EIC: a) The evidence of Coralie van Camp regarding the Hobson Wharf extension and public access on Hobson Wharf; b) The evidence of Frances Stead regarding the Hobson Wharf extension, consent duration and timeframe for the removal of Base B; c) The evidence of Richard Gladwell for Sailing World NZ Ltd in relation to legacy issues, open space on Wynyard Point, the design requirements for the bases and security matters; d) The evidence of Heather Kirkham for the Crown regarding alternative options, legacy issues and Mana Whenua engagement; e) The following evidence for Viaduct Harbour Holdings Limited (VHHL): (i) The corporate evidence of Angela Bull concerning the design requirements for the bases and proposed construction management plan for Base B; (ii) The transport evidence from John Parlane in relation to suggested amendments to the conditions of consent; 1 E51, page 1752 onwards.

3 (iii) The urban design evidence from Ian Munro in relation to syndicate Base B on the Hobson Wharf extension; (iv) The planning evidence of Vaughan Smith in relation to: the definition of Infrastructure ; the design of base buildings; suggested amendments to the conditions of consent attached to his statement. f) The following evidence for the Auckland Theatre Company Limited (ATC): (i) The corporate evidence from Lester McGrath concerning loss of parking, including loading and mobility spaces; (ii) The transport evidence from John Parlane concerning loss of parking spaces. g) The evidence on behalf of The Point Body Corporate, the Princes Wharf apartments and VHHL related to noise effects. h) The evidence of Russell Green on behalf of Emirates Team New Zealand (ETNZ) and America s Cup Event Limited in relation to the requirements for the operation of the syndicate bases and raises concerns with the proposed Design Requirements. i) The evidence of Patrick Clifford and Mirko Groeschner on behalf of the Challenger of Record (COR) which comment on the proposed Design Requirements. j) The evidence of Keith Ingram for the Tug William C Daldy Preservation Society Inc concerning provision for the relocation of the tug during construction and event phases. k) The following evidence for Sanford Limited: (i) The corporate evidence of Colin Williams concerning the effects on the fishing industry;

4 (ii) The planning evidence from Phillip Brown in relation to effects on the fishing industry, and including suggested amendments to the conditions. l) The following evidence for Sealink Travel Group New Zealand Limited (Sealink): (i) The maritime navigation evidence from Robert Hawkins in relation to recommended matters to be covered by the Navigation Safety Management Plan; (ii) The corporate evidence of Mark Gibson in relation to maintaining the continued operation of the Sealink ferry service; and m) The evidence of Ngaati Whanaunga Incorporated Society, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust, Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Trust, Ngāti Tamaoho Trust, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Te Ata Claims Support Whanau, Te Ākitai Waiohua Waka Taua Incorporated, Te Patukirikiri Iwi Trust in opposition to the proposal (Mana Whenua in opposition) I also provide a brief update in response to the amended proposed conditions circulated by the Applicant on 24 August 2018 (24 August Conditions) and memorandum dated the same date, in response to the Court s Minute of 20 August QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 2.1. Details of my qualifications and relevant experience are set out in my EIC. 3. CODE OF CONDUCT 3.1. I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses (Code) outlined in the Environment Court's Consolidated Practice Note 2014 and have complied with it in preparing this evidence. I also agree to follow the Code when presenting evidence to the Court. I confirm that the issues addressed in this brief of evidence are within my area of expertise, except where I state that I rely upon the evidence of other

5 expert witnesses. I also confirm that I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from my opinions. 4. RESPONSE TO CORALIE VAN CAMP S EVIDENCE 4.1. Ms van Camp has raised concerns relating to the need for the extension to Hobson Wharf as it is proposed and also public access 2. The Applicant has considered a range of alternative options, including the need to construct seven syndicate bases and this has been detailed within their EIC 3, and which has also been addressed in section 8.9 of my EIC. In my opinion, the Applicant has given appropriate consideration to potential alternative locations, and has adequately justified the reasoning for the scheme under consideration, including the extension to Hobson Wharf to accommodate Base B The Application includes the provision for areas of public open space, and pedestrian and cycle connections throughout the subject site. Although there will be periods of restriction to public access to the east of Bases C-G and Base A during operational periods, these will be temporary restrictions and overall it is considered the proposed development will enhance public connections within the locality. The proposed public open spaces will benefit from recreational use of the area by providing further green areas within this part of the city centre. These matters have been addressed in paragraphs 7.73, 7.108(d), 7.125(a) and 8.22 of my EIC. 5. RESPONSE TO FRANCES STEAD S EVIDENCE 5.1. Ms Stead has raised concerns with the proposed scheme, in particular the need for an extension to Hobson Wharf 4. As noted in paragraph 4.1 above and in section 8.9 of my EIC, the Applicant has given appropriate consideration to alternative schemes with justification provided for the proposal currently being considered by the Court Ms Stead has noted that the consent should only be limited to the America s Cup 36 challenge and that any structure associated with the event is removed within 90 2 E52, page 1897 onwards. 3 For instance, the EIC of F Knox, E2, section 4, page 0020 onwards. 4 E53, page 1901 onwards.

6 days of the regatta being completed. Consent is being sought for a ten year period to hold any subsequent regattas during that period. However in the event of ETNZ unsuccessfully defending the cup, the syndicate base buildings will be removed within six months, and this has been offered up as a condition of consent by the Applicant. A six month period for removal is required in order to provide adequate time for the syndicates to find alternative bases and to complete the relocation process. This matter has been addressed in paragraph of my EIC. 6. RESPONSE TO SAIL WORLD NZ LTD s EVIDENCE Richard Gladwell Mr Gladwell suggests that an area of land bordered in the south by Jellicoe Street and the East of Hamer Street be rezoned as Open Space, a twelve month period for consultation on the Legacy Use Options Plan (LUOP) should be provided, suggests deletion of elements of the Design Requirements (specifically, section 2), and comments on security during the event The area of land bordered in the south by Jellicoe Street, and to the east of Hamer Street, cannot be rezoned Open Space as part of the resource consent process. Any re-zoning of land would need to be addressed through a plan change A LUOP is proposed to identify options for future use that retain the ability for events of a similar scale to be held in Auckland, without requiring new infrastructure (including but not limited to wharfs) to be constructed in the Waitemata Harbour (conditions 198B to 198D). In the event of any plan change or resource consent application lodged by the Consent Holder or other person affecting certain land, a LUOP shall be submitted to Council within various timeframes depending on the specific scenario. Consultation in relation to the LUOP is to occur between the Consent Holder, the Crown, mana whenua and the Community Liaison Group. The intention of the LUOP is not to engage with the wider public, but recognises and identifies the need for a suitable venue for events of this scale and nature to be hosted in Auckland in the future. Therefore I do not believe there is a need to amend conditions 198B and 198C to require the LUOP to be submitted 12 months prior to any request for a plan change. 5 E54, page 1906 onwards.

7 Section 2 of the Design Requirements details generic building and yard design requirements to the design of buildings for Bases B-G, and yards for Bases A-G. The Design Requirements are being imposed to ensure that there is a degree of flexibility to the syndicates in terms of the design of their base and building, whilst also ensuring that the amenity values and maritime character of the area is maintained. These are considered necessary by the urban design experts and landscape architects to achieve good outcomes with a high degree of public access and open space with built form that reflects the maritime character of the locality. All the landscape and design experts have confirmed their support for the revised Design Requirements 6. I do not support the deletion of this section of the Design Requirements Condition 182(d) requires an Event Management Plan to be prepared prior to an event which shall include provisions to address risk, safety and security measures as deemed appropriate. It is also expected that the America s Cup event will likely be considered a major event under the Major Events Act 2007 and afforded a national security arrangement RESPONSE TO THE CROWN S EVIDENCE Heather Kirkham Ms Kirkham comments on the process that was undertaken for determining the proposed design and layout under consideration which is addressed briefly in paragraph 4.1 above, and also comments on the LUOP, and mana whenua engagement I have no issue with the proposed conditions (198B-D) in relation to the LUOP and consider them beneficial as the proposed LUOP will initiate discussion around the hosting of future events of a similar scale to the America s Cup in Auckland with the intention of retaining space for events of this nature. This has been discussed in paragraphs of my EIC. 6 Joint Witness Statement dated 31 August 2018, E31A. 7 In this regard, I refer to the letter from Andrew Kibblewhite, Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet dated 25 July 2018, attached to the memorandum of counsel for the Crown regarding security concerns dated 14 August E55, page 1920 onwards.

8 The proposed conditions of consent 5 to 5F aim to ensure that engagement with mana whenua occurs post granting of any consent, as discussed in section 8.7 of my EIC. 8. RESPONSE TO VHHL S EVIDENCE Angela Bull Ms Bull raised concerns with the flexibility proposed within the Design Requirements and the potential for adverse visual effects related to the development on the Hobson Wharf extension (with a focus on signage on the fence along the southern face of the extension), construction effects related to syndicate Base B, and also availability of loading space on Lower Hobson Street The concerns expressed by Ms Bull on behalf of VHHL regarding flexibility to the Design Requirements and the potential visual implications as it applies to the southern face of the Hobson Wharf extension have been addressed through the latest set of the agreed Design Requirements, as attached to the Joint Witness Statement of the urban design and landscape experts dated 31 August 2018 (E31A). In particular, it has been agreed that signage on yard enclosure fences will be limited to 30% maximum solid area of any fence, and there shall be no signage on any yard fence that might be erected along a wharf edge The Applicant is now proposing conditions requiring a Hobson Wharf Base B Construction Management Plan (conditions 135C-E) to minimise potential adverse effects on surrounding residents and businesses during the construction period The concern in relation to loss of any loading zones on Lower Hobson Street has been resolved, as discussed in paragraphs below. Vaughan Smith Mr Smith also notes concerns in relation to the flexibility in the Design Requirements, specifically in the context of Base B. As noted above, these have since been addressed through a revised set of the Design Requirements. 9 E64, page 2002 onwards. 10 E67, page 2065 onwards.

9 Mr Smith has noted that the definition of infrastructure does not encompass the syndicate base buildings and is seeking construction related management plans in relation to the construction of Base B on the Hobson Wharf extension. As noted above in paragraph 8.3 the Applicant has agreed to conditions of consent that require these to be established Mr Smith refers to the recommended changes to conditions by Mr Parlane and agrees with these changes. These changes (which are agreed) are discussed briefly below in paragraph Ian Munro Mr Munro comments on the proposed flexibility in the Design Requirements as recommended by Mr McIndoe in his EIC, notably as they relate to Base B, and provides working examples of the potential visual effects arising from flexibility for signage and fencing The concerns in relation to flexibility and potential visual outcomes have since been resolved with a further revised edition of the Design Requirements which is supported by Mr Munro, the Applicant s experts, Mr McIndoe and Mr Goodwin, ETNZ s and Challenger of Record s expert, Mr Clifford, and Council s experts, Ms Skidmore and Mr Kensington. Again, a Joint Witnesses Statement dated 31 August 2018 (E31A) has been signed by those witnesses confirming their agreement. John Parlane Mr Parlane has suggested amendments to the proposed conditions in relation to traffic and transportation matters to ensure maintenance of access and loading zones for those businesses and residences in the locality. Recommended changes to conditions 104(b), 105(f), 181(g), 183(ka) and 183F(b) are noted. These proposed amendments have been agreed by the Applicant and I have no issue with their content. Ms Coomer-Smit, the Council s traffic expert, has also raised no issue with these proposed amendments. 11 E66, page 2033 onwards. 12 E65, page 2020 onwards.

10 Mr Parlane, similar to Ms Bull, has commented on the removal of on-street loading bays from Lower Hobson Street. It is acknowledged in Mr Parlane s evidence that any change to loading bays on Lower Hobson Street is a result of a proposed cycleway (stage 3 of the Nelson Street cycleway) and not from this application however there is concern that the loss of these loading bays will affect the operation of adjoining businesses prior to, and throughout the events I understand that the proposed amendments to the conditions (e.g. 104(b) and 183F(b)), which are agreed by VHHL, the Applicant and the Council, address these concerns. The rebuttal evidence from Ms Coomer-Smit also briefly addresses this issue, noting that the loading bays on Lower Hobson Street will be rearranged, as opposed to being removed, as a consequence of construction of stage 3 of the cycleway. 9. RESPONSE TO AUCKLAND THEATRE COMPANY S EVIDENCE 9.1. The evidence from Mr Parlane 13 and Mr McGrath 14 on behalf of ATC refers to a reduction in near-by public carparking available to the patrons of the theatre and the loss of mobility/drop off spaces, and it is recommended in the evidence from Mr Parlane that replacement parking should be provided to mitigate the loss of the Hamer Street parking area and the Jellicoe Street public carpark Ms Coomer-Smit responds to the evidence of Mr Parlane and Mr McGrath on these matters in section 5 of her rebuttal evidence. She comments on the availability of parking within her rebuttal evidence and notes that within a reasonable walk there are approximately 3,180 parking spaces available for public use (not taking into account the 50 spaces which I understand are to be made available to Theatre patrons at Site 18, or the 80 spaces in the Nelson Street Car Park). She considers the loss of any parking to be minor. I do not consider a 10 or 11 minute walk a deterrent and a factor that will discourage people from attending the theatre. I consider, based on Ms Coomer-Smit s rebuttal evidence, that there will be adequate parking available to visitors to the ATC and that any adverse parking effects will be minor. 13 E63, page 1991 onwards. 14 E62, page 1985 onwards.

11 The conditions of consent referred to in Ms Coomer-Smit s rebuttal evidence require maintenance of all modes of access to all properties within the Wynyard Precinct during all phases of the consent 15. This will ensure that access to the theatre for drop-offs and mobility parking will be maintained The evidence from Mr Parlane also refers to the Wynyard Precinct objective and policies related to transport 16. I do not take any particular issue with the comments Mr Parlane has made, however it is also important to consider any relevant Auckland wide and zone policies. The underlying zone for the ATC is the Business City Centre zone (see chapter H8 in the AUP 17 ). There is no requirement for activities or development to provide parking within the City Centre zone 18, given the access to the public transport network and the aim to ensure that the city centre is accessible with the ability to increase public modes of transport. The objectives and policies within the Transport chapter of the AUP, chapter E27 19, also refer to limiting on-site parking within the Business - City Centre zone and recognise accessibility of this locality by public transport, walking and cycling RESPONSE TO EVIDENCE OF THE POINT BODY CORPORATE, PRINCES WHARF APARTMENTS, AND VHHL CONCERNING LOW FREQUENCY NOISE The Point, VHHL (Ms Bull 21 ), and Princes Wharf apartments (David Ramsay 22 ) raised a concern in relation to the low frequency noise limits for High Noise Events during the Event Period (up to 6), relying on the evidence of Richard Finley 23. I understand that this issue has now been resolved, with the parties agreeing on a revised set of Event noise limits, which would replace the low frequency limit with a lower overall dba noise limit, together with some other modifications to condition 183Q, including providing for only 3 such High Noise Events during the 6 month Event period. 15 Paragraph 5.8, rebuttal evidence from Ms B Coomer-Smit. 16 E63, page 1999, paragraph , EIC from J Parlane. 17 CB192, H8 Business City Centre Zone provisions. 18 CB184, page 4577, E27.1 Background. 19 CB184, E27 Transport provisions. 20 Objective H8.2 (11), Policies E27.3(4) 21 E E E70.

12 Mr Styles confirms in his rebuttal evidence that he is content with the proposed amendments to condition 183Q. 11. RESPONSE TO EVIDENCE FROM ETNZ, AMERICA S CUP EVENT LIMITED, AND CHALLENGER OF RECORD These organisations have raised concerns with the content of the Design Requirements as agreed through the mediation process, and subsequently amended by Mr McIndoe in his evidence to provide greater flexibility to the syndicates As noted, the landscape and design experts, including Patrick Clifford for ETNZ and Challenger of Record, have recently caucused and reached agreement on a set of revised Design Requirements. I note from the resulting JWS dated 31 August that Mr Green (ETNZ) and Mr Bourke (Challenger of Record) also participated in the caucusing discussions I understand that the Challenger of Record is yet to confirm that the Design Requirements are agreed. Based on the experts agreed position, I consider that the proposed Design Requirements provide sufficient certainty for certification purposes, while also providing flexibility for variation in design to recognise the temporary nature of the consent and associated structures. 12. RESPONSE TO EVIDENCE BY TUG WILLIAM C DALDY PRESERVATION SOCIETY, SANFORD / FISHING INDUSTRY, AND SEALINK Keith Ingram (Society) As noted in paragraph of my EIC it is my understanding that discussions are still ongoing between the Applicant and The Tug William C Daldy Preservation Society Inc. for relocation of the tug to a new location within the Auckland waterfront which will provide for full public access and retain the vessel in relative proximity to its current location and the Maritime Museum. 24 See the evidence of Russell Green (E58), Mirko Groeschner (E56) and Patrick Clifford (E57). 25 JWS, E31A. 26 E71, page 2202 onwards.

13 Sanford / Fishing Industry and Sealink The concerns expressed in the evidence from Mr Williams 27 and Mr Brown 28 on behalf of Sanford and the fishing industry and from Mr Hawkins 29 and Mr Gibson 30 on behalf of Sealink in relation to safe access and maintenance to berth have since been addressed. Conditions of consent have been agreed between the Applicant and Sealink and the fishing industry (including Sanford) that ensure safe navigation access is maintained to berths during the construction period to enable continued operation prior to any relocation of these industries (see conditions 45C to 49 in the 24 August Conditions). In addition, an amendment to condition 193 has been proposed to ensure existing fishing industry berthage on the western side of Halsey Wharf and the southern side of the Western Viaduct Wharf remains accessible to, and useable by, the fishing industry for loading, unloading, servicing and maintenance of fishing vessels during any periods when Sanford and/or Auckland Fishing Port Limited are operating from these locations. These conditions have been reviewed by the Deputy Harbourmaster, Mr Moss, who has not raised any issues with the content of the conditions. 13. RESPONSE TO EVIDENCE OF MANA WHENUA IN OPPOSITION In my s87f Report, I recommended continued engagement with Mana Whenua, including in relation to the then Design Guidelines and suggested improvements to the Mana Whenua engagement condition (at that time condition 22) 31. While I provide some discussion of the AUP objectives and policies relating to Mana Whenua matters in my s87f Report and EIC to assist the Court, I consider it appropriate to largely leave cultural effects to Iwi to address. I have accordingly limited my rebuttal comments below to providing a brief response to Luke Faithfull s EIC on behalf of Mana Whenua concerning certain aspects of the proposed conditions of consent 32, and specifically his proposals that: a) A specific Kaitiaki Forum be established for the America s Cup in conditions 5-5F; 27 E E E E Section 9.15, s87f Report, CB E86, Attachment 2, page 2544 onwards.

14 b) An additional section 128 review condition (condition 12d in his Attachment 2) be inserted into the conditions; and c) A condition be added requiring the Applicant to provide a cultural centre (Mr Faithfull does not propose condition wording, but discusses the condition in his EIC 33 ). Mana Whenua Forum As presently drafted, proposed conditions 5 to 5F in relation to on-going mana whenua consultation envisage using an existing Auckland Council Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum (ACMWKF) to continue consultation associated with this application. As Fiona Knox notes in her EIC 34, this Forum is a collective of 19 iwi (tribal) authorities in Auckland, which is administered by the Auckland Council. I understand that membership of the Forum is open to each of the 19 Mana Whenua entities in Auckland Andrew Brown (Mana Whenua in support) considers that this is the best method for ongoing consultation as it enables integration with other waterfront-based developments currently occurring and is seen as more efficient in terms of human resources The proposed amendments to 5-5F would require a new Forum to be established for ongoing engagement between the Consent Holder and members of Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau who choose to participate. My understanding is that Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau comprises the 13 iwi and hapu groups identified in section 9 of the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act I consider it is essential that engagement continues between the Applicant and Mana Whenua with an interest in the Application. Noting that the ACMWKF would allow participation by a broader group of iwi entities, I am slightly concerned that the proposal by Mana Whenua in Opposition may have the effect of limiting opportunities for participation. 33 E86, page E2, page 0033, paragraph E75, page 2306, paragraph 6.4.

15 Review Condition Mr Faithfull s evidence proposes a section 128 review condition that enables the Council to review conditions of the consent within 12 months of the granting of a customary marine title or protected customary rights, or the vesting of ownership over any part of the foreshore or seabed which encompasses the area of the application, to address any specific Resource Management Act 1991 matters that arise from the granting of the title or right It is not clear to me what potential RMA / effects or matters Mr Faithfull might be referring to, which cannot be assessed at this time. If however any additional adverse effects are identified following the grant of consent, then I consider that the existing review conditions set out at condition 12 in the 24 August Conditions are sufficiently broad to address the need for any changes to conditions to address any effect that might be identified at a later date. For instance, proposed condition 12(c) provides: Within six (6) months from the date the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring Central is notified of completion of the final stage of construction work (in accordance with Condition 44), and thereafter in the month of November annually for 10 years, and thereafter at 5 yearly intervals, to deal with any adverse effect(s) on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent This is very broad and enables a review to deal with any adverse effect(s) on the environment. I do not consider it is necessary to impose additional review conditions beyond those set out in the 24 August Conditions. Cultural Centre Mr Faithfull proposes that a condition be imposed requiring the Applicant to provide a cultural centre, as a cultural legacy While this is largely a matter for the Applicant to address, I offer the following comments to assist the Court: a) I am not entirely surprised by Craig Jones statement in his EIC that a proposed cultural centre would require in-depth feasibility and business case

16 analysis 36. I would expect such an analysis to occur for a development of this kind; and b) The planning evidence from Mr Brown 37 recognises that the Application does not include a cultural centre and any such facility within the subject site requires resource consent. I consider this to be an important point. The centre itself is not part of this Application, and I struggle to see how a condition of consent could require the Applicant to provide something which itself will require resource consent (following detailed assessment in accordance with the AUP and RMA). 14. UPDATED CONDITIONS I confirm that I support the wording of the 24 August Conditions, subject to the following being incorporated: a) The agreed amendments to condition 183Q (Event noise); b) The amendment to condition 183 discussed at paragraph 6.3 c) of Ms Coomer-Smit s rebuttal evidence (which is agreed by the Applicant); and c) The amended risk conditions discussed at paragraph below. Otherwise, there are several aspects of the 24 August Conditions, which would benefit from brief discussion. Definition of Infrastructure Construction Effects The Applicant has clarified that the change in definition of infrastructure was intentional in the case of the construction of Bases C-G, taking into account the relatively small scale of these buildings, not requiring extensive works, and their physical separation from sensitive receivers However, the Applicant has agreed to a number of amendments in the 24 August Conditions to address the matters set out in paragraph 8.13 of my EIC. Notably: 36 E8, page 0270, paragraph E75, page 2305, Paragraphs

17 a) The definition of infrastructure makes it clear that infrastructure includes the construction of base building platforms and foundations (condition 2); b) A CTMP is to be required for construction of the base buildings on Bases C-G (the amended wording of condition 103 confirms this). Ms Coomer- Smit confirmed in her rebuttal that she supports the amended conditions. Given that base construction works for C-G may occur simultaneously with infrastructure works, I consider that it is appropriate for a CTMP to be prepared; c) Amended condition 111 makes it clear that construction work for base buildings on Bases C-G will still need to comply with the lighting standards in E of the AUP. Mr Wright has not prepared rebuttal evidence, but has confirmed to me that amended condition 111 is acceptable; d) A CNVMP is optional for construction of base buildings C-G (see the advice note after condition 110). If the developer opts not to prepare one, construction works will need to comply with the noise and vibration standards set out in the conditions. Mr Styles has confirmed in his rebuttal that this is acceptable; e) A construction management plan is still required for construction of the Base B building on the proposed Hobson Wharf extension, and this is reflected in conditions 135C to 135E of the 24 August Conditions, which require a Hobson Wharf Base B Construction Management Plan. I understand that the conditions are supported by VHHL, The Point and Princes Wharf apartments Taking these matters into account, I am satisfied that the concerns noted in paragraph 8.13 of my EIC have been adequately addressed in relation to construction activities. At paragraph of my EIC I had queried the implications of the definition of Infrastructure in the context of conditions 5 to 5F where that expression is used. I note in this regard that the Design Requirements in section 1.5 seek to achieve Te Aranga Maori Design Principles, as determined through the Mana Whenua Engagement Plan process, in the design of public open spaces to ensure there are cultural markers throughout the development area. I

18 also note the following comment by the landscape and design experts in the JWS dated 31 August 2018 in relation to section 1.5, clarifying the intention that the principles be applied to the design of public open space, since as identified by Mr Clifford, the syndicates are national challengers and their bases will reflect their countries of origin 38. I accept the joint position of the experts on this matter. Definition of light sensitive areas Mr Wright, the Council s lighting expert, had suggested that a definition of light sensitive areas be inserted into the definitions condition, condition 2. This has been the subject of further discussions and I confirm that I am content for this definition to be omitted from the conditions, given that a map of light sensitive areas is attached to the draft Construction Lighting Management Plan 39. I note that a map of surrounding light sensitive areas will also be required for the Event Lighting Management Plan (condition 183M). Mr Wright has also had the opportunity to review a draft of Mr Mckensey s rebuttal evidence, and has confirmed to me that he has no issue with Mr Mckensey s discussion of this topic. Condition 6A d) and e) Having reflected on the proposed amendments to condition 6A d) and e) attached to my EIC I consider the original wording proposed by the Applicant (as set out in the 24 August Conditions) to be acceptable With reference to condition 6A(d) Ms Skidmore considers it important to ensure public access along the coastal edge of Wynyard Wharf post consent. However given that the land use consent related to Wynyard Wharf is only for ten years I do not agree with imposing conditions beyond the life of the consent. I do recognise the concern held by Ms Skidmore and although only a proposal at present the Waterfront Refresh Plan (CB215) indicates that public access will be maintained in this location in the future. Furthermore, any future development beyond the ten years of this consent will need to comply with the relevant planning provisions and I note that Table I of the AUP (Public access ways wharves) requires a public accessway 8m in width on the eastern edge of Wynyard Wharf which is to 38 JWS, E31A, page 1543D. 39 EIC of J Mckensey, E12, page 0793.

19 be made available to the public at all times unless written approval has been obtained from the Council for temporary restrictions The additions to conditions 195 and 197A concerning public access (to confirm that the obligations apply when bases are removed) provide useful clarification Condition 6A(e)(iii) as proposed in the conditions attached to my EIC required public realm elements being installed on the Hobson Wharf extension, along with any public amenity structures, to activate use of the area if there was a period greater than 3 months between events held on the wharf extension. Having considered this condition further I do not think it is a condition which can readily be monitored and enforced by the Council s Compliance team and I prefer the wording as proposed in the suite of conditions from the Applicant dated 24 August In terms of the need for the condition I consider the evidence from Mr Jones addresses the likely future demand for use of the space and an adequate level of activation will occur 41. Mr Kensington also confirms in the second urban design and landscape architecture JWS dated 31 August 2018 that he now supports the most recent wording of this condition 42. Management Plan conditions Throughout the mediation process a lot of work and effort was put into drafting the proposed conditions of consent and ensuring a consistent format. This work has been ongoing between parties and a number of conditions added or existing conditions amended to reach agreement between parties. I consider the proposed format and content of the conditions is appropriate and will ensure that the detail required to address adverse effects will be provided to Council to enable certification of management plans to occur and for ongoing monitoring of the project. The manner in which the conditions are phrased will also enable variations to the management plans if required as the works progress and detailed designs create a need for variances. 40 CB196, page E8, e.g. at page 0267, paragraph 7.1 onwards. 42 E31A, page 1543B, paragraph 4.

20 Reporting of spills Mr Moss and Ms Chuah proposed further amendments to condition 147 concerning the reporting of spills entering the stormwater system or marine environment. Further discussions have taken place with the Applicant on this issue and amended wording has been agreed, which requires all spills of hydrocarbons and all other spills over 10 litres to be reported. I have confirmed with Ms Chuah and Mr Moss that they are satisfied with the amended wording. Risk I note in passing that a number of clarifying amendments to the conditions relating to risk have been agreed between the Applicant, Council, the Crown, ASB and Sanford arising from the Court s minute dated 27 August The proposed amendments are set out in a memorandum of counsel for the Applicant and Council dated 3 September I support those amendments, and have confirmed with Mr Van de Munckhof that he also supports them. Traffic / Parking conditions It is now my understanding, based on the rebuttal evidence from Ms Coomer-Smit, that (subject to one amendment to condition 183) the traffic conditions have all been agreed between the traffic experts. I have already addressed the remaining issue raised by the Auckland Theatre Company concerning the proposed reduction of the current carparks available to visitors of the Theatre above. 15. CONCLUSION It is my opinion that the proposed events and infrastructure associated with the America s Cup over a ten year period can be granted subject to: a) the proposed conditions as circulated on 24 August 2018 by the Applicant (appropriately updated to incorporate the changes discussed above relating to risk, the Event noise condition (condition 183Q), and transport (condition 183); and

21 b) the draft management plans being appropriately updated to address the various comments in the Council s EIC The effects arising from activity will be acceptable and of a minor nature, and can be appropriately managed by the conditions of consent, and overall the proposal will be consistent with (and not contrary to ) the relevant objectives and policies of the applicable planning documents. Nicola Jane Broadbent 4 September See paragraph 9.6 of my EIC, E51, page 1817.