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

Transcription

1 2165 BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND ENV-2018-AKL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 ("RMA") A N D IN THE MATTER BETWEEN of a direct referral of applications for resource consent for the necessary infrastructure and related activities associated with the holding of the America's Cup in Auckland PANUKU DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND LIMITED Applicant A N D AUCKLAND COUNCIL Regulatory Authority EVIDENCE OF PHILIP MICHAEL BROWN ON BEHALF OF SANFORD LIMITED ELLIS GOULD LAWYERS AUCKLAND REF: Daniel Sadlier Level 17 Vero Centre 48 Shortland Street, Auckland Tel: / Fax: PO Box 1509 DX CP22003 AUCKLAND

2 INTRODUCTION 1. My full name is Philip Michael Brown. I am a Director of Campbell Brown Planning Limited, a firm of planning consultants. I hold the qualification of Bachelor of Town Planning from the University of Auckland. I am a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute. I reside in Auckland. 2. I have 30 years of experience in planning and resource management. My experience has included work in both the private and public sectors, and has encompassed a full range of resource management matters including preparation and assessment of resource consent applications and district plan development and implementation. 3. I have appeared as a witness before the Environment Court on numerous occasions, relating to both resource consent and district plan change matters. I have been appointed to the Auckland Council s pool of independent hearings commissioners and undertake functions in that capacity on a regular basis. 4. I have previously held the position of Group Manager: Planning & Community Services with the former Waitakere City Council. In that role I managed a section of the Council that had responsibility for initiating and processing district plan changes, processing complex or significant resource consent applications, processing notices of requirement for designations, developing structure plans, and providing guidance and technical support to the Council s Hearings Committee. 5. Of particular relevance to these proceedings is my extensive experience in the preparation and assessment of applications for resource consent for marine related facilities, including marinas, wharves, jetties, marine farming and other similar activities in and around coastal locations. My experience includes working for the former Auckland Harbour Board and Maritime Planning Authority, as well as for a marina development company. I was a member of the independent commissioner panel that granted consent to the Park Hyatt hotel, currently under construction at 99 Halsey Street. 6. I appear to present evidence on behalf of Sanford Limited ( Sanford ) and Auckland Fishing Port Limited ( AFPL ) in respect of the resource

3 consent applications lodged by Panuku Development Auckland ( Panuku ) for the necessary infrastructure and related activities associated with the holding of the America's Cup regatta ( AC36 ) in Auckland. Sanford and AFPL lodged a joint submission in respect of Panuku s application for resource consents. 7. In the course of preparing my evidence I have read and carefully considered the relevant background documents, the expert evidence of Panuku s witnesses, and the comprehensive section 87F report prepared by the Council s reporting planner. I have also read the evidence of Colin Williams, Sanford s General Manager Fishing, which covers operational matters relevant to Sanford s and AFPL s activities. I am familiar with the area in and around the Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Quarter. I attended the expert witness conferencing in relation to planning matters and was a signatory to the Joint Witness Statement. 8. I have complied with the Environment Court s Expert Witness Code of Conduct (set out in Clause 7 of the Court s 2014 Practice Note) in the preparation of this evidence and I agree to comply with it while giving oral evidence at the hearing. Except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person, this written evidence is within my area of expertise. To the best of my knowledge I have not omitted to consider any material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed in this evidence. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 9. My evidence will address Panuku s application in the context of the relevant statutory matters, including the objectives, policies and rules of the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part ( AUP ) and the other relevant matters set out in section 104 of the RMA. While my focus is on those aspects of the application that are relevant to the activities of Sanford and AFPL, I have considered the broader effects of the proposal in order to ensure that I have undertaken a rounded assessment. 10. My evidence will cover the following matters: (a) (b) Summary of evidence; Planning context;

4 (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Relevant statutory requirements; Potential effects arising from the proposal; Objectives and policies of the AUP; Statutory assessment; Appropriate conditions; and Conclusion SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 11. The Auckland east coast fishing fleet has been long-established at berthage on Halsey Street Extension Wharf and the Western Viaduct Wharf. The berthage has several characteristics that make it suitable for fishing operations, including the ability to provide safe navigation for vessels, unrestricted landward access for unloading and provisioning at all times, and close proximity to the processing plant (in the case of Sanford). 12. It is proposed that Sanford and AFPL be relocated from this berthage, at least during the regatta event windows. The alternative berthage location and arrangements have not been confirmed to date. 13. I consider that the effects arising from the proposed displacement of the fishing fleet from its established berthage have the potential to be significant. Without certainty as to alternative arrangements for berthing fishing vessels, it cannot be shown that these effects can be appropriately mitigated. 14. AUP objectives and policies encourage both commercial fishing activities and significant public events in the Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct Harbour Precinct. Each of these activities is noted as having regionally significant economic benefits, and the objectives and policies seek to manage conflicts between such uses. 15. I consider that the objectives and policies are working to achieve an outcome where commercial fishing operations and major events coexist. A proposal that would result in significant operational compromises to the fishing industry in its current location, whether or not those

5 restrictions are imposed to facilitate a major event, is in my view contrary to the objectives and policies. 16. The issues I have identified can be adequately remedied through conditions that enable and provide for a situation where the fishing industry remains at its current berthage during the regatta events. I have attached appropriate conditions to my evidence, which I understand are agreed with Panuku. PLANNING CONTEXT 17. Mr Williams has explained in his evidence that the fishing industry makes a significant contribution to the regional economy. It provides employment to a large workforce and food for the people of Auckland, the rest of the country, and for the export market. Its continued operation on an efficient basis therefore has positive economic effects. 18. For efficiency, I agree with the description of the event location and zoning contained in the s87f report. I accept the summary of consents required, outlined in the evidence of Mr Lala and Mr Cook for Panuku Also relevant to my consideration of Panuku s applications is my understanding of the important operational factors that are associated with the use of the fishing fleet berthage. These are summarised in the evidence of Mr Williams. RELEVANT STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS 20. Section 104 of the RMA sets out a number of matters that a consent authority must have regard to when considering an application for resource consent. 21. I consider that the following matters from section 104 are relevant to the consideration of this application: (a) Any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity (s104(1)(a)); 1 Paragraphs , EIC of Mr Lala and Mr Cook for Panuku

6 (b) (c) Any relevant provisions of a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (s104(1)(b)(iv); Any relevant provisions of a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement (s104(1)(b)(v); (d) Any relevant provisions of a plan or proposed plan (s104(1)(b)(vi)); and (e) Any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application (s104(1)(c). POTENTIAL EFFECTS ARISING FROM THE PROPOSAL 22. The AC36 event, and the associated works and arrangements that are required to facilitate it, has the potential to generate a number of adverse environmental effects. These have been summarised in the joint planning evidence of Mr Lala and Mr Cook for Panuku, and include effects relating to construction, ecology, visual and landscape matters, urban design, public access, navigation and safety, cultural issues, coastal processes, event related effects, and disruption to existing activities. 23. I note that the joint evidence-in-chief of Mr Lala and Mr Cook focuses on the unresolved matters between the parties 2, presumably (and understandably) for reasons of efficiency. I have taken a similar approach. 24. For the most part, I agree that the potential adverse effects have been adequately and appropriately addressed in the application and through the proposed conditions to the point where they can be considered acceptable. I acknowledge that the AC36 event (and any subsequent defences) would have significant positive effects in the shape of direct economic benefits to Auckland and through the enjoyment gained by spectators and those involved in the racing or related activities. 25. I also accept that continued access by sea and safe navigation would be maintained for periods when the fishing fleet is using its existing 2 Paragraph 4.2, joint planning EIC of Lala/Cook

7 berthage, provided that proposed conditions are imposed on any consent granted. Proposed condition 46A(d) requires that one of the objectives of the Navigation Management and Safety Plan is to maintain safe navigation to berths to enable the continued operation of Sanford and the wider commercial fishing fleet prior to the intended relocation. 26. However, I have reached different conclusions to Mr Lala and Mr Cook with regard to effects arising from disruption of existing activities. In particular, I consider that the effects arising from the proposed displacement of the fishing fleet from its established berthage could be significant if not appropriately mitigated through conditions. 27. Mr Williams has summarised in his evidence some of the operational requirements of the fishing industry in terms of the unloading and provisioning of vessels, navigation issues to and from berthage, and the transportation of catch to the processing plant in Madden Street or elsewhere. It is evident to me that suitable berthage generally needs to have clear and safe water access, unimpeded 24/7 vehicular access for trucks, plant and associated industry and contractors vehicles and, in Sanford s case in particular, proximity to the processing plant and head office. 28. The current berthage exhibits all of these characteristics. Without confirmation of the location and extent of alternative berthage, including access and associated supporting facilities, it is not possible to know with certainty whether the relocation arrangements would be satisfactory. The application does not address the potential for the rearranged fishing fleet berthage to be inadequate, perhaps due to factors such as remoteness, access restrictions, navigation constraints, health and safety concerns or other matters. 29. In the circumstances, it is difficult for me to accurately assess the nature of adverse effects that might arise from relocation to the potential alternative berthage. However, I can confidently say that there is at least the potential for significant adverse effects to arise. 30. Effects would most likely include economic impacts on Sanford and AFPL, primarily as a result of inefficiencies arising from berthage that is less accessible and more distant from the Madden Street processing plant, particularly in Sanford s case. Current indications from Panuku

8 are that the intended alternative berthage would be at Marsden Wharf, some 3km by road from the Sanford premises. 31. I see this as having more than simply a business cost implication for the fishing industry. If the relocation resulted in a significantly compromised commercial operating environment for major players in an important primary industry, that could translate into some level of adverse effects on the regional economy. 32. Although unlikely, I consider that a significant business interruption for Auckland s east coast fishing fleet cannot be ruled out. Without confirmation of acceptable and appropriate alternative berthing facilities there remains a possibility, albeit remote, that fishing activities will need to fully or partially cease during the event windows, and/or that the fishing industry is forced to relocate permanently from Auckland. 33. I understand that Panuku has stated that this situation would not occur, because the fishing industry hold berth licences that will need to be respected, and hence Sanford and AFPL must be satisfied with the relocation arrangements before agreeing to move. In this context, it is suggested that the proposed fishing industry relocation is essentially a commercial matter that falls outside of the RMA process. 34. While the ability of Sanford and AFPL to rely on their contractual rights is acknowledged, I consider that the issue is not as simple as that. Sanford and AFPL will be under substantial pressure to relocate even if alternative berthage arrangements were unsatisfactory. If either company were perceived to be obstructing the AC36 event, or taking advantage of its negotiating position, that could lead to an untenable level of adverse publicity that could be damaging in a commercial sense. 35. However, I believe that these outstanding issues can be mitigated to a reasonable level through conditions, as I discuss later in my evidence.

9 OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE AUP 36. The key objectives and policies of the AUP, in relation to the issues that I have discussed in my evidence, are reproduced below for convenience. 3 I214.2 Objectives (Wynyard Precinct) (1) Wynyard precinct is redeveloped while managing potential conflicts between different uses to achieve: (a) a high-quality visitor destination which showcases the City s diverse communities and the importance of the harbour; (b) maintenance and enhancement of the regionally significant economic function of the marine, fishing and other industries and maritime passenger operations to the Hauraki Gulf islands; (d) (f) public open space on the waterfront, and an area for events and entertainment activity for the social and economic benefit of the wider Auckland Region; the maintenance and where practicable enhancement of navigation and berthage within the Wynyard Precinct coastal marine area for a wide range of recreational and commercial vessels, including maritime passenger transport and fishing industry operations, excluding in areas subject to potential risk and public safety effects. (9) Conflicts between different uses are managed to ensure the efficient operation of marine industry and fishing industry, other industry and regionally significant transport infrastructure while enabling the marine events centre and public spaces to be used for a range of public events. 3 For completeness, in forming my opinion as to the appropriate planning approach to assessment of this application I considered the full suite of objectives and policies in the AUP. These are of varying relevance to the application at hand, but those set out in this evidence are of direct relevance to effects of concern to Sanford and AFPL.

10 I214.3 Policies (Wynyard Precinct) (10) Promote and encourage the important role the marine and fishing industries play in defining the character and amenity of the precinct. (11) Enabling a diverse range of activities, high quality visitor experiences, entertainment, events and development to occur, while recognising and maintaining the economic importance of the marine and fishing industry, the bulk liquid industry and Hauraki Gulf Islands maritime passenger operations to the Auckland Region. (12) Recognise the significant local and regional socio-economic benefits associated with providing high-quality waterfront public open space and events activity while also providing for the operational and access requirements of the marine and fishing industries, other industrial activities and maritime passenger operations. (13) Ensure that sufficient and suitably located land, wharf, waterspace and appropriate, convenient and adequate navigation and berthing facilities are provided to accommodate the current and future operation and growth of the marine and fishing industries and maritime passenger operations, including Subprecinct C, North Wharf, the southern face of the Western Viaduct Wharf and the western face of the Halsey Street Extension Wharf together with the adjacent waterspace for use primarily by the fishing industry. (29) Provide for the continued efficient operation of existing and future marine, fishing and other industries, including maritime passenger operations. I211.3 Policies (Viaduct Harbour Precinct) (1) Enable the efficient operation and development of the precinct by providing for activities which have a functional need to locate in or adjacent to the coastal marine area.

11 From my review of these provisions, it is evident that both commercial fishing activities and significant public events are encouraged in this location. Both are noted as having regionally significant economic benefits. The objectives and policies also recognise the tension that may exist between such activities and the need to manage and balance any conflict. 38. With specific regard to the fishing industry, I consider that the objectives and policies recognise the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) That the fishing industry provides a regionally significant economic function that should be maintained and enhanced in its current location; Navigation and berthage for the fishing industry should be maintained in this location and, where practicable, enhanced; Conflicts between different uses are managed to ensure the continued efficient operation of the fishing industry; The fishing industry plays an important role in defining the character and amenity of this location, and that role should be promoted and encouraged; Events and other similar activities are enabled while recognising and maintaining the economic importance of the fishing industry, and providing for its operational and access requirements; and Sufficient, suitable and convenient berthage and other facilities are provided to accommodate current and continued future efficient operations of the fishing industry in this location. 39. In this context, it is my opinion that if a proposal undermines the efficient and convenient operation of the fishing industry in the Wynyard Precinct it will likely be contrary to the objectives and policies. Unless some certainty can be provided in respect of the fishing industry s ability to operate effectively, I consider there is potential for its efficient and convenient operation to be undermined. 40. I also note that the objectives and policies emphasise the need to manage conflict between potentially competing activities in the Wynyard Precinct. In my opinion, that requires an outcome where major events

12 and the fishing industry coexist side by side, rather than one being favoured to the entire detriment or exclusion of the other. As such, significant operational compromises to the fishing industry in its current location will be contrary to the objectives and policies irrespective of whether those effects are required in order to facilitate a major event (which is also an outcome sought by the AUP), and/or are temporary in nature. 41. Policy I214.3(13) identifies the location of the fishing industry in Wynyard Precinct, and specifically notes the existing berthage on the western side of the Halsey Street Extension Wharf and the southern face of the Western Viaduct Wharf together with the adjacent waterspace. The policy seeks to ensure that these berthing facilities are provided for use primarily by the fishing industry. 42. There is a suggestion in the evidence of Mr Lala and Mr Cook 4 that Policy 13 is satisfied because the limited duration of the proposed sixmonth event period relocation will ensure that the identified berthage will continue to be used primarily by the fishing industry. Aside from the fact that the consent would provide for months of relocation in all (across a potential three separate events), I do not agree with the temporal element that Mr Lala and Mr Cook have applied in their interpretation. 43. In my opinion, the words for use primarily by the fishing industry do not foresee a situation where the industry is removed entirely from the berthage for a considerable period of time. Rather, I take the wording to anticipate situations where other activities may also utilise part of the berthage at certain times as needs demand, or when it is not required for fishing fleet berthage. This would facilitate, for example, a situation where the AC36 event makes use of some of the berthage while the fishing fleet remains in place, or more day-to-day situations where the waterspace manager wishes to accommodate another vessel within the fishing industry berthage area, perhaps while the fleet is at sea. 44. Mr Lala and Mr Cook seem to have based their assessment of the objectives and policies on an assumption that the relocation issue will be 4 Paragraph 10.17, joint EIC of Mr Lala and Mr Cook for Panuku

13 resolved through ongoing negotiations between the parties before any consents are implemented 5. I understand that work is continuing between those parties, but that it is not clear at this stage that all outstanding issues can be resolved. There remains the potential for the parties to fail to reach an agreement or for there to be no suitable alternative berthage available. 45. In these circumstances, I consider that any consent granted would need to enable and provide for a situation where the fishing industry remained at its current berthage during the regatta events. Conditions can be imposed that would provide for that eventuality were it to occur, and I understand that Panuku has agreed to the imposition of conditions to that effect. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT 46. In the absence of appropriate conditions such as those attached to this evidence, I consider that the proposal has the potential to create more than minor adverse effects on the fishing industry, particularly in terms of the efficiency of its operations and consequential impacts on economic performance. 47. I am conscious that the Court has previously found that an assessment of whether or not adverse effects are more than minor must be undertaken on an holistic basis, looking over the entire application and the range of effects it might produce. I have reached my conclusion as to the degree of effects on that basis. 48. I also consider it particularly relevant that the planning documents recognise the regional importance of the fishing industry, and seek expressly to manage any effects on its existing berthage and efficient operations. Accordingly, I consider that the weight to be afforded to effects on fishing industry operations should reflect the importance placed on maintaining and enhancing fishing industry operations in Wynyard Precinct. 5 For example, at Paragraphs 10.4 and 10.18, joint EIC of Mr Lala and Mr Cook for Panuku

14 Such effects, combined with the potential for prolonged relocation from existing berthage, mean that granting of Panuku s consents would be contrary to the objectives and policies of the AUP. Again, I have undertaken this assessment on an holistic basis. The objectives and policies of the AUP are strongly directive in terms of protection of fishing industry operations, and include a requirement that access to berthage is maintained and where practicable enhanced. 50. This is not a case in my view where there are distinct sets of objectives and policies addressing different issues, and the proposal is contrary to one set but not another. Rather, the objectives and policies when read as a whole provide for coexistence and balance between ongoing fishing industry operations and introduction of new activities such as events on wharves and within waterspace. In my opinion, the proposal in its current form, by not providing certainty that fishing industry operations can continue, is contrary to these objectives and policies. 51. Given that the proposal is a non-complying activity, s104d prevents consent being granted in the circumstances I have outlined (as I consider that adverse effects are more than minor overall and the proposal as a whole is contrary to the objectives and policies of the AUP). However, in my opinion, provided that the agreed conditions are imposed, the effects of the application can be mitigated to a more appropriate level such that the overall effects of the application might be considered minor. 52. For completeness, notwithstanding my conclusions regarding the proposal not passing either of the s104d gateways, I have considered: (a) (b) (c) The actual and potential effects of the proposal on the environment (section 104(1)(a)); The provisions of the relevant planning instruments (section 104(1)(b)); and Whether the proposal would be consistent with the purpose and principles of the RMA as set out under Part In my opinion, even if the application is considered to pass one or both of the s104d gateways, the proposal does not warrant grant of consent unless the agreed conditions of consent are imposed to address effects

15 on fishing industry berthage areas. While the proposal will have positive effects, the potential adverse effects on fishing industry operations are inappropriate if not mitigated through conditions. This is particularly so in light of the planning framework for the area, which expressly recognises the regional significance and economic importance of the fishing industry and its berthage areas, and requires a balanced approach to encouragement of both events and continued fishing industry operations. 54. In terms of Part 2 of the RMA, to the extent that reference to Part 2 is warranted in this case, it is my view (for the reasons set out in my evidence) that the agreed conditions are necessary to ensure management of effects on fishing industry operations, and that the proposal: (a) (b) (c) Will sustain the potential for physical resources (fishing fleet and berthage) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations (s5(2)(a)); Will avoid, remedy or mitigate important adverse effects of the proposed activities on the environment (s5(2)(c)); and Is an efficient use and development of natural and physical resources, which have finite characteristics (s7(b) and (g)). APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS 55. I consider that the adverse effects that I have identified can be mitigated, at least to a reasonable extent, by a suite of conditions that have been agreed between Sanford / AFPL and Panuku. Attached at Annexure A to my evidence are three additional conditions and proposed amendments to five other conditions proposed by Panuku. In my opinion, these conditions represent the minimum intervention required to address the matters of concern to Sanford that I have highlighted. 56. The first of these conditions (8A) is an additional condition that seeks to provide some certainty and timeframe around removal of CMA structures to enable Sanford and AFPL s reinstatement at their current berthage following each of the three events that are enabled under Panuku s proposed resource consent.

16 The condition would require all structures to be removed within two months of the event concluding, which I consider to be a reasonable timeframe that recognises the extent of the pack out operation but gives the current berth holders the certainty that is required for business planning purposes. 58. Condition 45E defers construction of structures on the western edge of Halsey Wharf until it can be demonstrated that Sanford s vessels have been successfully relocated, and are operating from, suitable alternative berthage. In my opinion, such a condition is necessary in order to ensure that implementation of Panuku s resource consents does not unduly compromise Sanford s legitimate and long-established business activities. 59. A new condition 46Ab ensures that Sanford and AFPL will be consulted in relation to the proposed Navigation Safety Management Plan, insofar as it deals with effects on their operations. I consider that to be appropriate as, in many respects, only Sanford and AFPL will have sufficient knowledge and experience to identify and propose mechanisms to address effects on fishing vessel navigation and berthage. 60. Minor amendments are proposed to condition 46A, clarifying that safe navigation access is to be ensured prior to relocation of the fishing fleet, and conditions 47 and 49 now ensure that Sanford and AFPL are to be notified of commencement and completion of works that have the potential to affect safe navigation of fishing vessels. 61. Amendments are proposed to condition 181, which sets out the objectives of the Event Management Plan. The proposed amendments clarify that the need to maintain access to and from properties in Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct Harbour Precinct would also include access to fishing fleet berthage areas, to the extent that such areas remain in use by the fishing industry. I consider that the proposed amendment to the condition is necessary to provide for a potential outcome that would see the fishing fleet remain in place during all or any part of any event authorised by the consents sought. 62. I consider that a consequential amendment is also required to proposed condition 193, to provide additional clarity as to the objectives of the

17 Viaduct Events Centre Syndicate Base Marine and Fishing Industry Management Plan ( VEC SB MFIMP ). In particular, the amended condition would ensure that the existing fishing industry berthage at Halsey Wharf and the Western Viaduct Wharf remains accessible to, and useable by, the fishing industry during any periods when Sanford and/or AFPL are operating from these locations. This would make the condition applicable to a scenario where the fishing fleet retained the use of its berthage during one or more of the event windows. 63. I consider that such an amendment is essential given that there is currently no certainty for Sanford and AFPL that suitable alternative berthage will be provided for them. That is not, in my view, a tenable situation for a regionally important industry to endure. A fall-back position needs to be enabled by the conditions if the Auckland east coast fishing industry is to be protected from the possibility of its Auckland-based fleet operations being effectively shut down during the periods when the event occurs. CONCLUSION 64. The issues outlined above in terms of sections 104D and 104, and Part 2 of the RMA, lead me to conclude that the application in its current form should not be granted. 65. However, these issues can be overcome in my view if conditions are imposed to address the potential adverse effects I have outlined. I would support granting of the applications if, as a minimum, the attached conditions (or conditions to the same effect) form part of any consent the Court is minded to grant. I understand that Panuku has agreed to the imposition of these conditions by the Court, and will be requesting the Court do so in its rebuttal evidence. Philip Brown 21 August 2018

18 ANNEXURE A AGREED CONDITIONS Removal of Structures / Reinstatement... 8A. No later than two months after the conclusion of any Event provided for during the term of this consent, the consent holder shall remove all pontoons and associated piles and structures along the western edge of the existing Halsey Wharf and the southern edge of the Western Viaduct Wharf to enable those areas to be used for the berthage of fishing and other vessels. Restrictions on Construction of Superyacht Berthage on Existing Halsey Wharf 45E. The Consent Holder shall defer the construction of the proposed superyacht berths and associated structures along the western edge of Halsey Wharf until Sanford s fishing vessels have been moved to an alternative location. Navigation and Safety Notifications and Documents 46A. The consent holder shall establish a Navigation Safety Management Plan for on-water construction activities (NSMP). The objectives of the NSMP are to: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Provide for efficient operation of the waterspace affected by construction; Provide a safe environment for all water users; Ensure water users are appropriately notified of construction activities and any changes to the operation of the waterspace affected by construction; Ensure safe navigation access to berths is maintained for vessels at all times as far as practicable to enable continued operations by Sealink (Wynyard Terminal), Sanford and the wider commercial fishing fleet (AFPL) prior to their respective relocation having particular regard to Conditions 45C and 45D; Maintain safe navigation for and access to other berth holders and water space users; and Ensure access to and from the Outer and Inner Viaduct Harbour is maintained for vessels at all times as far as practicable. 46Ab. To the extent that the NSMP deals with effects on the operations of Sanford and Auckland Fishing Port Limited, the NSMP shall be prepared in consultation with Sanford and Auckland Fishing Port Limited.

19 The consent holder shall notify the Auckland Harbourmaster, Sealink, Sanford, Auckland Fishing Port Limited, the Viaduct Harbour Marina Manager (via Viaduct Harbour Holdings Limited) and Ports of Auckland Ltd Harbour Control, of the location of the marine works and the proposed date of Commencement of Construction in the CMA at least twenty (20) working days prior to the proposed start date. 49. The consent holder shall notify the Auckland Harbourmaster, Sealink, Sanford, Auckland Fishing Port Limited, the Viaduct Harbour Marina Manager (via Viaduct Harbour Holdings Limited), Ports of Auckland Ltd Harbour Control, and the Land Information NZ (LINZ) Hydrographic Office in writing of the date of completion of works in the CMA within ten (10) working days of the completion of the last activity involving wharves and pontoons. Event Management Plan 181. The objectives of the EMP are to:... (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Enable a successful Event that positively showcases Auckland and New Zealand to the world, including provision of appropriate cultural expression by ACMWKF; Provide for and manage large numbers of spectators; Provide a safe and secure environment at all times; Provide for a range of event scenarios (with associated management measures) based on forecast daily visitor numbers; Provide for on and off water sports activities, activation, merchandising, entertainment and associated activities throughout each Event; Provide for a range of plans and management plans as identified in Condition 183 that address event transport, public transport, pedestrians and people on cycles, traffic, emergencies, lighting and noise; Ensure maintenance of access at all times for all modes of transport to and from properties in Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct Harbour Precinct (including fishing industry berthage areas, to the extent any such areas remain in use by the fishing industry) and any on street loading zones in or adjacent to those Precincts, noting that managed access may be required for safety or operational reasons; VEC Syndicate Base Marine and Fishing Industry Management Plan 193. The objectives of the VEC SB MFIMP are to: (a) (b) Address the matters in the current MFIMP as applicable to the conversion of the VEC to a syndicate base and reflecting the use of the building and yard on Halsey Wharf as a syndicate base for ETNZ; and Ensure existing fishing industry berthage on the western side of Halsey Wharf and the southern side of the Western Viaduct

20 (c) 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; and Provide for the safety of all users with particular regard to pedestrians and people cycling.