|
The hearing
commenced at 9.33am in relation to the objections to the St Marys Bay and
Masefield Beach improvement project.
9.45am Auckland
Councils Healthy Waters team provide a powerpoint presentation outlining the
project and responded to questions from the panel.
Auckland
Council’s Healthy Waters team:
·
Craig Mcilroy, General Manager Healthy Waters
·
Caroline Crosby, Consultant Healthy Waters
·
Gerald Lanning, Simpson Grierson, Legal
Counsel
Listed below
are objectors who spoke in support of their objection.
10.22am Shannon
Darroch, Jeremy Brabant Barrister, provided a Legal submission, document 1, on
behalf of Darrin Johannink and Anjala Natali and responded to questions from
the panel. Their objection is on page 58 of the agenda.
10.40am Susan
Young spoke to her objection, page 43 of the agenda, tabled document 2 in
support of her objection and responded to questions from the panel.
11.04am Ann
Hackett spoke to the objection from Anne and Trevor Hackett, page 51 of the
agenda, tabled document 3 in support of their objection.
11.10am Marc
McKenzie spoke to the objection from Julia Winterbottom, page 54 of the
agenda, and responded to questions from the panel.
11.25am Frank
Henry spoke on behalf of Jeanette Henry and to her objection, page 71 of the
agenda, tabled document 5 in suppport of Jeanette’s objection and responded
to questions from the panel.
11.32am Brian
Putt spoke to his objection, page 76 of the agenda, and responded to
questions from the panel.
11.47am Tony
Skelton spoke on behalf of Russ and Lynda Bowler objection, page 61 of the
agenda, and responded to questions from the panel.
11.56am Council’s
Healthy Waters team responded to concerns raised by the objectors about
budget, water quality, monitoring, geotech, liability and accusations of
bullying.
·
budget of $44 million is the risk budget based
on delivery of the whole project, $30 million is construction delivery budget
·
Discharge into the Waitemata –the
project will reduce wastewater contamination into the Waitemata. Watercare
network discharge consent that authorises the discharges after the project is
completed
·
water quality – Safeswim is about good
micro biological standards and improving local water quality to allow safer
use of the water (not just swimming, but sailing, kayaking, and Waka Ama).
·
The project will make a significant
improvement to safe swim ratings for this beach
·
the consultation and engagement undertaken has
been lengthy and extensive, including full public notification of the
resource consent application
·
objectors were advised that the RMA process
and LGA process would run parallel and were provided information specific to
both processes
·
do not feel the team have bullied objectors,
have been in regular contact providing regular updates, advised they have met with many people had several meetings with these specific
objectors, answered numerous queries and helped them make
submissions under both processes
·
it’s not uncommon for the resource
consent processes to run along side other processes
·
if appelas are made to the Environment Court
and the court dismisses the appeals, the project will proceed and if appeals
are upheld the project will need to be redone. There is limited scope to
modify the resource consent as condition 1 requires the project to be
constructed in accordance with the plans submitted
·
the pipeline is not a wastewater pipe it will
collect and store combined sewer overflows
·
councils can’t indeminfy – this
removes causation from the process - i.e. if the cliff collapses a claim
could be made without proving it was the project that caused the collapse
·
the team is offering, as described by Mr Putt
for Waterview namely - detailed pre and post construction surveys and
monitoring to make sure that any damage can be quantified and then put right
·
cliff instability is quite predictable as to where
the cliff movements will happen. There is a lot of evidence of prior
instablity
·
the cliff is unstable with or without the project
– the project doesn’t impact on the existing cliff stability
problem
·
if cliff falls down, pipe will still be
operational. Team stated if they felt the works would have an effect on
the cliff the project would not go ahead
·
issue is the ground settlement. Need to ensure
that appropriate monitoring is carried out to make sure that construction
doesn't cause settlement or movement. There are proposed conditions for
a monitoring programme under the resource consent. .
|
