BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT
IN THE MATTER of a notice of motion under section 87G of the Resource Management Act 1991 (Act) requesting the granting of resource consents to Waiheke Marinas Limited to establish and operate a marina at Matiatia Bay, Waiheke Island, in the Hauraki Gulf
ENV-2013-AKL-000174
(DRAFT) STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF DAVID FREDERICK SERJEANT (PLANNING) ON BEHALF OF DIRECTION MATIATIA INCORPORATED AND
OTHERS
30 July 2014
Counsel Acting:
K R M Littlejohn Quay Chambers 09 374 1669 [email protected] PO Box 106215 AUCKLAND 1143
1
INTRODUCTION
1. My name is David Frederick Serjeant.
2. I hold the qualifications of Bachelor of Town Planning from Auckland
University (1979) and Master in Business Studies (Economics) from
Massey University (1985). I am a full member of the New Zealand
Planning Institute and a member of the Resource Management Law
Association. I have 34 years' professional experience in planning and
resource management. I currently operate my own independent
planning and resource management consultancy.
3. My experience has included being both a regulator and consultant
adviser to parties on resource consents and policy matters. My
experience has included:
Advising clients on many urban, infrastructure, and natural
resource development matters including retail developments,
hazardous materials management, solid waste management,
energy, water and wastewater treatment, mining, dairying,
forestry, aquaculture and marina developments in relation to
both resource consents and policy submission matters.
Acting as reporting officer for both territorial authorities and
regional councils on resource consent applications and plan
preparation matters.
4. Matters in recent years in which I have been involved of relevance to
the current case, the majority of which have required Environment
Court appearances, include:
An application by Sea Tow and McCallum Bros for sand mining
at Pakiri, for McCallum Bros.
A Wanaka rural subdivision case in an Outstanding Natural
Landscape, for the applicant family.
A major windfarm application at Mahinerangi, Otago, for
Trustpower.
2
A plan change for the establishment of a maritime village on the
Wairoa River, Clevedon, for Manukau City.
The preparation of the inaugural Motiti Island (Bay of Plenty)
District Plan, for Te Runanga o Ngati Awa.
Zoning of Man O War station, Waiheke in the Hauraki Gulf
Islands District Plan review, for Man O War station.
A variation to the Rodney District Plan introducing landscape
controls to a West Coast Policy Area, for the Environmental
Defence Society.
5. The current case is one which has coastal development, landscape
and cultural issues as key issues for resolution. In that regard I note
that a number of the above cases have had to consider the matter of
development in areas with high natural landscape values in the coastal
environment also involving issues of concern to Maori.
6. In terms of marina development I have been involved with proposals
for marinas in Taupo, Opua, Gulf Harbour (extension), Pine Harbour
(additional dredging), Bayswater, Whangamata, St Kilda (Melbourne,
Australia), and with the Wairoa Canal development proposal as noted
above. This experience has served to reinforce on me the complex
nature of obtaining approvals for marina and related boating facilities.
This can be due to the direct adverse effects of a marina on the
estuarine, harbour or coastal area, but often is more particularly due to
the prior and competing claims on the use of land where the
necessary land-side facilities needed to support the marina are to be
located.
7. I am an occasional visitor to Waiheke, like many Aucklanders. For the
purposes of this case I have examined the site and environs of the
proposed marina more closely.
SCOPE OF EVIDENCE
8. I am presenting planning evidence in relation to the proposed Matiatia
Marina for Direction Matiatia Incorporated. I was engaged in March
2014.
3 9. My evidence is based on a review and consideration of:
The report prepared by Andrew Stewart Ltd titled Matiatia Marina,
Assessment of Environmental Effects, Final Rev 2 Amended,
dated 28 May 2013 (AEE);
The section 87F report prepared for Auckland Council by Ms
Bremner (s 87F Report);
Evidence prepared by Messrs Dunn, Pryor, Leman, Apeldoorn,
Shumane, Blom, Brown and Ms Bremner, in particular;
Draft evidence of other witnesses being called by Direction
Matiatia Incorporated;
All documents relevant to a statutory planning assessment.
10. My evidence addresses the following key matters:
A summary higher level assessment with reference to the New
Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS), the Hauraki Gulf
Marine Park Act (HGMPA), the Auckland Regional Policy
Statement (ARPS);
Activity status;
Alternative sites for a marina on Waiheke;
A summary assessment of environmental effects;
Relevant regional plan objectives and policies; in particular
Chapter 10 on the use of Matiatia Bay, Chapter 13 on
reclamation, Chapters 23 and 24 on marinas and moorings; and
Chapter 3 on Natural Character;
Relevant district plan objectives and policies, in particular the
provisions relating to the Matiatia Land Unit;
Matters of significance to tangata whenua;
Recognition and weighting of the Proposed Auckland Unitary
Plan; and
4
A consideration of Part 2 of the RMA and conclusion.
CODE OF CONDUCT
11. I have read the Environment Courts Code of Conduct for Expert
Witnesses and I agree to comply with it. My qualifications as an
expert are set out above. I confirm that the matters on which I will give
evidence to the Court are within my area of expertise.
STATEMENT OF AGREED FACTS
12. My evidence has been prepared on the basis of the following sections
of reports and evidence which have already been presented to the
Court:
The application and proposal, as described in Sections 2.5-2.30 of
the AEE and paragraphs 15 to 23 of the s 87F Report. As noted
by Ms Bremner there were some revisions to these documents
and related plans after lodging and as a result of the section 92
process.
A description of the site and environment of Matiatia Bay as
contained in Section 2.1 of the AEE and paragraphs 27 to 41 of
the s 87F Report.
The statutory planning framework for the application as set out in
Sections 2.3, 2.4 and 4.2 to 4.9 of the AEE, and paragraphs 47 to
114 of the s 87F Report. The latter references include the
sections of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Unitary Plan),
which were notified after lodgement and which have legal effect.
13. In accordance with section 2.18 of the 2011 Practice Note and also
following the 2014 draft Practice Note of the Court, the content of
these documents is likely to comprise a large part of the Statement of
Agreed Facts for the Court. However, at the time of preparing this
evidence that process had yet to be finalised.
14. With the acceptance of this important information as provided in other
evidence, I have concentrated my evidence on what I consider to be
key matters for this application as listed in the Scope of Evidence
section above.
5 NEW ZEALAND COASTAL POLICY STATEMENT
15. The NZCPS can be regarded as the seminal policy document for this
application, in the sense that the regional and district documents must
give effect to it, and in the consideration of these resource consents it
must be had regard to.
16. Policy 6(1) Activities in the Coastal Environment requires a consent
authority to:
(b) consider the rate at which built development and the associated public infrastructure should be enabled to provide for the reasonably foreseeable needs of population growth without compromising the other values ofthe coastal environment;
(e) consider where and how built development on land should be controlled so that it does not compromise activities of national or regional importance that have a functional need to locate and operate in the coastal marine area; ...
(i) set back development from the coastal marine area and other water bodies, where practicable and reasonable, to protect the natural character, open space, public access and amenity values ofthe coastal environment.
17. I consider that all three of these policies are relevant and provide over-
arching guidance to the importance of provisions for the Matiatia Land
Unit in the District Plan, which I address below.
18. Policy 6(2) recognises the potential contributions to the social,
economic and cultural wellbeing of people and communities from use
and development of the coastal marine area,. There are no specific
policies about providing for marinas, however I consider that they are
an important means by which people access the marine environment
for their enjoyment.
19. Policy 6(2) also requires the following matters to be considered:
(b) recognise the need to maintain and enhance the public open space and re
