IN THE MATTER
of the Resource Management Act 1991
AND
IN THE MATTER
of a Board of Inquiry appointed under s149J of the
Resource Management Act 1991 to consider a
private plan change request made by Tainui Group
Holdings Limited and Chedworth Properties Limited
in relation to the Ruakura Development proposal
("Plan Change").
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF CHRISTOPHER MARK HORNE FOR
TRANSPOWER NEW ZEALAND LIMITED: PLANNING MATTERS
26 MARCH 2014
J D K Gardner-Hopkins/
E J Hudspith
Phone 64 4 499 9555
Fax 64 4 499 9556
PO Box 10-214
DX SX11189
Wellington
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 1
1.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW ................................................................. 3
Qualifications and Experience ........................................................................ 3
Involvement with the Plan Change................................................................. 4
Code of Conduct............................................................................................. 4
Scope of Evidence.......................................................................................... 4
2.
OVERVIEW OF STATUTORY CONTEXT ..................................................... 6
Statutory Considerations - Plan Changes ...................................................... 6
The National Policy Statement for Electricity Transmission .......................... 7
Regional Policy Statement and Proposed Regional Policy Statement ........ 13
Relevance of the NZECP34: Why it does not provide sufficient
protection ...................................................................................................... 15
3.
TRANSPOWER'S APPROACH TO CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT.............. 17
The issues .................................................................................................... 17
4.
EVALUATION OF The relief sought by Transpower .................................... 20
Objective 25H.4.16 and Policies .................................................................. 23
Costs and benefits ........................................................................................ 33
Part 2 Considerations ................................................................................... 33
5.
CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................ 34
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A.
In general terms my planning evidence addresses:
(a)
The relevant statutory considerations for plan changes;
(b)
The National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission
("NPSET");
(c)
The operative and Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement;
(d)
The New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe
Distances NZECP 34:2001 ("the NZECP34");
B.
(e)
Transpower's approach to corridor management; and
(f)
An evaluation of the Relief Sought by Transpower.
In terms of the relevant statutory provisions, I set out my understanding of
the legal tests for plan changes based on the "Long Bay Criteria".
C.
I then go on to summarise the NPSET and discuss how the Plan Change
must give effect to it, with a specific focus on Policies 10 and 11. In general
terms Policy 10 requires that decision makers, to the extent reasonably
possible, manage activities to avoid reverse sensitivity on the electricity
transmission network managed by Transpower. It also requires activities to
be managed to ensure that the operation, maintenance, upgrading and
development of the electricity transmission network is not compromised. In
general terms Policy 11 requires local authorities to identify appropriate
buffer corridors within which sensitive activities will generally not be
provided for in district plans.
D.
I then outline the relevant provisions of the Waikato Regional Policy
Statement and Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement, and identify
where these support the corridor management approach being sought by
Transpower, including the management of activities that are not "sensitive
activities" in terms of the NPSET.
2696759
E.
I outline how the NZECP34 is a mandatory code for electrical safety, and
discuss how it has a narrower focus than the RMA and how the NZECP34
alone will not achieve the broader objectives of the NPSET.
F.
I then outline Transpower's corridor management approach including the
specific amendments sought in its submission on the Plan Change, and the
preference Mr Noble has expressed in his evidence to avoid the risks
arising from having container storage and mobile plant operating beneath
the HAM-WHU-A transmission line. I understand why Transpower is taking
that position, and it is an outcome that the Board will have to evaluate. That
task has not been assisted by the fact that the Applicants did not in their
primary evidence respond to the concerns raised by Transpower in its
submission. I then evaluate the proposed relief sought by Transpower in
light of the relevant statutory criteria.
G.
I generally support the amendments Transpower has sought to the Plan
Change as providing a better overall outcome in terms of achieving the
purpose of the RMA and giving effect to the NPSET, as compared with the
provisions included in the Plan Change as notified. I also outline some
further amendments I consider would be appropriate.
In general terms
these include amendment to a policy, changes to the detailed earthworks
controls sought, and addition of further exemptions from non-complying
activity status for buildings and structures in a National Grid Yard. A final
set of proposed Plan Change amendments are included in Attachment A to
my evidence.
2696759
3
1.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
Qualifications and Experience
1.1
My full name is Christopher Mark Horne.
1.2
I am a resource management consultant and director of the resource and
environmental management consulting company, Incite.
I hold the
qualifications of Bachelor of Arts (Geography) and Master of Regional and
Resource Planning, both gained at the University of Otago.
I am a
member of the New Zealand Planning Institute.
1.3
I have over 20 years of professional experience in the field of resource
management, and have represented a variety of public and private clients
on a range of matters that raise planning issues. A significant part of my
experience relates to network utility infrastructure, including both project
consenting,
planning
advice,
and
hearing
support
on
resource
management documents, including changes that may affect the operation
or deployment of infrastructure. In this regard, I have acted for Telecom,
Chorus, Vodafone, Police Radio Network, Vector, Transpower, Watercare
Services and the New Zealand Transport Agency ("NZTA").
1.4
I am on the panel of approved statutory planning advisors for the NZTA in
Auckland, and in that capacity have been involved in numerous plan
changes and structure plans involving urban growth and intensification
around Auckland, with a particular emphasis of that work being on
protecting
the
operation
of
regionally
significant
land
transport
infrastructure. I also recently acted for Transpower in a major greenfield
plan change proposal at Drury South in Auckland, where similar buffer
corridor provisions to those being sought by Transpower in these
proceedings were being sought, and were ultimately agreed to by the
applicant and adopted in the plan change decisions.
1.5
My abbreviated curriculum vitae, setting out my experience most relevant
to these proceedings, is attached as Attachment D to this evidence.
1.6
My evidence is given in support of Transpower's submission on the private
plan change request made by Tainui Group Holdings Limited and
2696759
4
Chedworth Properties Limited ("Applicants") in relation to the Ruakura
development proposal ("Plan Change").
Involvement with the Plan Change
1.7
I was approached by Transpower in November 2013, with a request as to
whether or not I could provide expert assistance in relation to the Plan
Change. I considered Transpower's position together with some of the
background materials relating to the project, had discussions with
Transpower representatives, and formed an initial opinion that I could
provide support to Transpower.
1.8
I assisted Transpower with the preparation of its submission on the Plan
Change, and began the task of preparing my evidence in February this
year.
1.9
I am familiar with the corridor management approach Transpower is
generally pursuing around New Zealand. I am also familiar with the
relevant sections of the Plan Change, Transpower's involvement in the
Plan Change and the area that the Plan Change will affect.
1.10
I have driven around the Plan Change area with representatives of
Transpower on two occasions to view the location of existing Transpower
infrastructure in relation to the Plan Change area. I undertook the first of
these site visits before I began preparing this evidence.
Code of Conduct
1.11
I confirm I have read the 'Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses'
contained in the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note 2011. I
agree to comply with this Code of Conduct. In particular, unless I state
otherwise, this evidence is within my sphere of expertise and I have not
omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract
from the opinions I express.
Scope of Evidence
1.12
My evidence will cover the following topics:
(a)
The relevant regulatory / policy framework. Here I summarise
the key statutory considerations or 'tests' that need to be applied,
as I understand them, including:
2696759
5
(i)
Overview of statutory considerations for plan changes.
(ii)
The
National
Policy
Statement
on
Electricity
Transmission ("NPSET"), including the requirement to
"give effect to" the NPSET.
(iii)
Relevant provisions of the Regional Policy Statement
and Proposed Regional Policy Statement.
(iv)
The relevance of the New Zealand Electrical Code of
Practice for Electrical Safe Distances NZECP 34: 2001
("NZECP34"). Here I explain my view, informed by the
other evidence for Transpower, that the NZECP34 does
not
provide
adequate
protection
or
ensure
the
sustainable management of the National Grid as a
nationally significant resource, and why I consider
further controls are both appropriate and necessary
through the Plan Change.
(b)
Transpower's approach to corridor management, and its
concerns with the Plan Change, including:
(c)
(i)
Direct effects on the National Grid;
(ii)
Safety risks and other hazards;
(iii)
Interference with access and maintenance; and
(iv)
Reverse sensitivity issues.
Evaluation of the relief sought by Transpower. I consider the
particular relief sought by Transpower in light of the relevant
statutory criteria and concerns outlined above.
1.13
In preparing my evidence I have considered the draft evidence of Mr
Copeland, and Mr Noble.
2696759
6
2.
OVERVIEW OF STATUTORY CONTEXT
Statutory Considerations - Plan Changes
2.1
While the Board will be familiar with the legal tests applicable to plan
change proceedings, it is appropriate that I highlight my understanding of
the key tests. I am familiar with the Long Bay criteria,1 which expand on
the tests laid down in Eldamos.2
2.2
From my interpretation of the Long Bay criteria, I understand that:
(a)
The Plan Change should, most broadly, assist the Council in
carrying out its functions so as to achieve the purpose of the
Act.3
(b)
The Board, in resolving the Plan Change, must "give effect to"
the NPSET,4 and the Regional Policy Statement.5
(c)
The Board is required to have regard to the Proposed Regional
Policy Statement.6
(d)
Each proposed objective in the Plan Change is to be evaluated
by the extent to which it is the "most appropriate" way to achieve
the purpose of the Act.7 My understanding of what is meant by
"most appropriate" is that the decision maker has to choose the
"optimum planning solution" available to it, based on the
submissions and evidence that it has received.8
(e)
The policies are to implement the objectives and the rules are to
implement the policies.9
(f)
Each proposed policy or method (including each rule) is to be
examined having regard to its efficiency and effectiveness, as to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Long Bay-Okura Great Park Society Inc v North Shore City Council EnvC
Auckland A078/ 2008, 16 July 2008 at [34].
Eldamos Investments Ltd v Gisborne District Council EnvC Wellington W047/2005,
22 May 2005 at [128].
RMA, ss 31, 72, and 74(1).
RMA, ss 75(3)(a).
RMA, s 75(3)(c).
RMA, s 74(2)(a)(i).
s 32(3) (a).
Auckland Memorial Park Limited v Auckland Council [2014] EnvC 9, at [25].
s 75(1).
2696759
7
whether it is the "most appropriate" method for achieving the
objectives10 of the plan, taking into account:
(i)
the benefits and costs of the proposed policies and
methods (including rules)11; and
(ii)
the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or
insufficient information about the subject matter of the
policies, rules, or other methods.12
(g)
In making a rule the Board must have regard to the actual or
potential effect of activities on the environment.13
2.3
I note than s32 of the RMA has recently been amended but that change
did not come into force until after the Plan Change was notified. On this
basis I understand that the proposal must continue to be assessed under
the previous version of s32. I understand that the reason s32 has been
amended is to provide for more rigour in s32 analysis and decision making
in the future by ensuring a high quality of information is provided to inform
planning decisions, providing more direction on what is required in s32
evaluations (particularly in regard to quantifying benefits and costs if
practical), and ensuring there is adequate consideration given to
opportunities for economic growth and employment.
The National Policy Statement for Electricity Transmission
2.4
National Policy Statements are an RMA planning instrument designed to
help local government balance competing national benefits with local
costs. District plans are required to give effect to national policy
statements (s75(3)(a) RMA), and councils are required to give effect to the
NPSET (s55(2B)).
2.5
In my opinion, provisions in district plans to protect the National Grid
electricity transmission network should be substantially consistent
throughout New Zealand, and the NPSET helps ensure there is a
nationally consistent approach on this issue of national importance.
10
11
12
13
s 32(3)(b), prior to recent amendments since the Plan Change was notified.
s 32(4)(a).
s 32(4)(b).
s 76(3).
2696759
8
2.6
The NPSET came into effect on 10 April 2008. The RMA requires local
authorities to give effect to its provisions in plans. The NPSET includes a
single objective and 14 supporting policies. The objective is as follows:
To
recognise
the
national
significance
of
the
electricity
transmission network by facilitating the operation, maintenance
and upgrade of the existing transmission network and the
establishment of new transmission resources to meet the needs
of present and future generations, while
(a)
Managing the adverse environmental effects of the
network; and
(b)
Managing the adverse effects of other activities on the
network.
2.7
This objective recognises the national significance of the electricity
transmission network both in terms of deployment of new transmission
infrastructure, and the operation, maintenance and upgrading of existing
infrastructure.
It also recognises that the network itself can result in
adverse effects that need to be managed, but also that other activities can
have adverse effects on the existing network that need to be managed.
The provisions Transpower is seeking as part of this Plan Change are
most relevant to managing the adverse effects of activities by other parties
on the existing transmission network. These effects are summarised later
in my evidence, and are addressed in more detail in the evidence of Mr
Noble.
2.8
The NPSET contains 14 policies.
Policy 1 recognises the national
benefits of transmission and the need for decision makers to recognise
and provide for the national, regional and local benefits of sustainable,
secure and efficient electricity transmission.
Policies 2 – 9 guide the
management of the environmental effects of transmission, setting out a
general set of responsibilities for both decision makers and Transpower.
2.9
For present purposes the most relevant policies are 10 and 11, which I will
consider in more detail shortly. These policies cover the management of
the adverse effects of third parties on the transmission network.
2.10
Policy 12 addresses the need for territorial authorities to identify the
electricity transmission network on their relevant planning maps, while
Policies 13 and 14 address long term strategic planning for transmission
2696759
9
assets (e.g. recognition of the designation process in district plans and
objectives, policies and methods in regional planning instruments, to
facilitate long term planning for electricity transmission assets).
2.11
Policies 10 and 11 are particularly important when it comes to existing
lines infrastructure:
Policy 10
In achieving the purpose of the Act, decision makers must to
the extent reasonably possible manage activities to avoid
reverse sensitivity effects on the electricity transmission
network and to ensure that operation, maintenance, upgrading,
and development of the electricity transmission network is not
compromised.
[my emphasis]
Policy 11
Local authorities must consult with the operator of the national
grid, to identify an appropriate buffer corridor within which it can
be expected that sensitive activities will generally not be
provided for in plans and/or given resource consent. To assist
local authorities to identify these corridors, they may request
the operator of the national grid to provide local authorities with
its medium to long term plans for the alteration or upgrading of
each affected section of the national grid (so as to facilitate the
long-term strategic planning of the grid).
2.12
Policy 11 requires local authorities to consult with Transpower and identify
an "appropriate buffer corridor" within which it can be expected that
"sensitive activities" will generally not be provided for in plans and/or given
resource consent. I acknowledge that the applicant has included buffer
corridors in the Plan Change, and as stated in paragraph 278 of Mr Peter
Hall's planning evidence for the Applicants, the intention of the Plan
Change provisions is to give effect to the NPSET by including an
electricity corridor rule to manage the adverse effects of the network and
manage the adverse effects of other activities on the network. However, I
note that he does not make any specific comment on Transpower's
proposed amendments other than to note that discussions with
Transpower are underway to refine the buffer corridor provisions, and that
his conclusions in respect of the NPSET are subject to the resolution of
2696759
10
these matters. As I return to later, the failure of the Applicants in their
evidence to explain why they did not design their proposal to avoid
significant conflicts with the National Grid lines means there is limited
information presently available as to how practical it might be to avoid or
eliminate the risks that are of most concern to Transpower.
2.13
"Sensitive activities" are defined in the NPSET to include schools,
residential buildings and hospitals.
However, the definition does not
preclude other activities (for example childcare centres) also being
considered as a sensitive activity. Transpower has sought a more specific
definition to in the Plan Change to provide clearer direction on what is a
sensitive activity, and to provide better alignment with its position on the
Proposed Hamilton District Plan.
2.14
While zones such as the Medium Density and General Residential Zone
allow for sensitive activities and thus clearly justify buffer corridor
provisions, other 'less sensitive' zones such as the Ruakura Logistics
Zone also provide for sensitive activities such as childcare centres as a
restricted discretionary activity. Accordingly, sensitive activities could also
potentially be located near to National Grid lines even in the nonresidential type zones in the Plan Change if sufficient buffer corridor
provisions are not included in the Plan Change. Therefore, suitable buffer
corridors with related policy provisions and rules are required in nonresidential zones as well, to ensure that Policy 11 is given effect to.
2.15
Policy 11 also requires that sensitive activities within buffer corridors
should not be generally provided for in plans and/or given resource
consent. Accordingly, in my opinion Policy 11 clearly supports a noncomplying activity status for these activities within the National Grid Yard.
This particular position is consistent with the Plan Change provisions for
transmission corridors as included in the Plan Change as notified (subject
to some terminology changes requested in Transpower's submission).
2.16
In my view, the buffer corridor referred to in Policy 11 should not be
confined to the management of sensitive activities alone, and also assists
in giving effect to the requirements of Policy 10 and to manage the risks
imposed by other activities on the network. Policy 10 is not limited to
sensitive activities, and requires decision makers under the RMA, to the
extent reasonably possible, to manage activities to avoid reverse
sensitivity effects on the National Grid transmission network, and to
2696759
11
ensure that operation, maintenance, upgrading and development of the
electricity transmission network is not compromised. This is why the word
"and" is emphasised above. Managing reverse sensitivity is only one
aspect of what is required through this policy. Effects of "non-sensitive"
activities on the lines could include electrical hazards and security of
supply risks, limitations on access for maintenance, and limitations on
practical options available for maintenance, repair and upgrading of
existing lines.
2.17
"Reverse sensitivity" (as a separate concept to direct effects) refers to the
"effects" on an existing activity where a new sensitive activity locates
(inappropriately) near the existing activity leading to the setting and
imposition of restrictions on the existing, lawfully established activity.
While this is mainly relevant to a "sensitive activity" in the sense that this
term is used in the NPSET, I also note that even commercial operations
may introduce an element of reverse sensitivity (e.g. occupants of
commercial premises objecting against line upgrades etc.).14
2.18
Transpower's submission seeks to ensure that Policy 10 is given effect to
in the Plan Change. It also seeks some additional controls for buildings
and earthworks, and for activities that are not sensitive activities, which
are different from the provisions included in the Plan Change as notified.
For reasons I will outline later in my evidence, I consider that the changes
proposed by Transpower give effect to Policy 10 of the NPSET. I note
that in general terms the provisions proposed by Transpower in relation to
non-sensitive activities are designed to avoid direct risk to the network
(e.g. destabilising towers or creating electrical hazards), minimise safety
risks to people and property in close proximity to transmission lines,
ensure access to transmission lines and towers for maintenance, repair
and upgrading is retained, and practical options for undertaking repair,
maintenance and upgrading are not unnecessarily impeded.
2.19
A critical function that buffer corridor provisions provide is with respect to
safety, as electricity transmitted at high voltage can cause serious harm or
injuries to people who come close to lines. While the probability of a
failure event is low, the risk of serious harm is high. Details of the risks to
14
I note also that the NPSET addresses reverse sensitivity effects in Policy 10, and
separately addresses sensitive activities in Policy 11.
2696759
12
people and property are outlined in the evidence of Mr Noble.15
In
particular, he records his concerns about the heightened risks of having
container storage and mobile plant operating within the National Grid Yard
of the HAM-WHU-A line, and his strong preference for those risks to be
avoided or eliminated by reconfiguration of the inland port proposal (or the
Applicants committing to undergrounding or relocating the relevant part of
the line).
Conclusions on the NPSET
2.20
As I will set out later in my evidence, Transpower's submission seeks
some changes to the policy framework, definitions, buffer corridor rules
and earthworks/subdivision provisions. Some of these changes are quite
minor and are largely required to reflect changes in terminology, provide
better consistency with provisions being sought in the Proposed Hamilton
District Plan, or to address cross referencing to the relevant sections of
the Hamilton District Plan. Other provisions represent more significant
changes such as introducing non-complying activity status for buildings
associated with non-sensitive activities within the National Grid Yard
(which I refer to as 'underbuild').
2.21
In respect of the logistics and freight handling activities in the Ruakura
Logistics Zone, and particularly the container stacking and movement
associated with a proposed rail siding, Transpower's preference is that
these activities not be located beneath the HAM-WHU-A line (i.e. outside
of the National Grid Yard) for the reasons set out in Mr Noble's evidence.
I note that relocation of this activity away from this general location may be
unrealistic as it aligns with the location within the Proposed Hamilton
District Plan Structure Plan that has not been opposed by Transpower in
submissions on that document.
This may be a legal question to be
addressed by Counsel for Transpower.
Accordingly, if the Board is
minded to approve such activities beneath the lines despite the concerns
raised by Transpower, Transpower seeks that resource consent be
required as a controlled activity for these activities within a National Grid
Yard.
It would not want to re-litigate the appropriateness of those
activities through discretionary consent application.
15
Evidence of Roy Noble, paras 9.1 - 9.29.
2696759
13
2.22
Transpower also seeks new provisions for subdivision within the National
Grid Corridor.
These are simply intended to assist with the layout of
development close to the lines, so that it can be sensibly configured,
including the layout of roads across the National Grid.
2.23
In my opinion the overall package of measures included in the Plan
Change as notified to protect National Grid transmission lines does not
adequately give effect to relevant provisions of the NPSET in its current
form.
In particular, the Plan Change does not adequately provide for
management of all development and activities that pose a risk to, or
potentially compromise, the operation, maintenance, upgrading, and
development of the electricity transmission network. I outline the particular
concerns below, in light of which I consider the provisions of the Plan
Change do not give effect to the NPSET as required under s 75(3) of the
RMA.
Regional Policy Statement and Proposed Regional Policy Statement
2.24
The inappropriate subdivision, use and development of land has been
identified in the Waikato Regional Policy Statement ("WRPS") as a
significant resource management issue for infrastructure as it can result in
conflicts and incompatibilities between activities. This may significantly
compromise the operation of regionally significant infrastructure.16
2.25
To address this issue, the objective seeks to ensure that the continued
operation of regionally significant infrastructure is maintained or
enhanced. Policy 1 of this objective is:
Avoidance of significant adverse effects (including cumulative
effects) on the safe and efficient operation of regionally
significant infrastructure. Where significant adverse effects on
regionally infrastructure cannot be avoided they shall be
remedied or mitigated.
2.26
Therefore, it is appropriate to include buffer corridor mechanisms within
the Plan Change to give effect to the WRPS. Further, the mechanisms
proposed by Transpower, particularly in regard to non-sensitive activities,
will mitigate the adverse effects of urban development adjacent to and
beneath existing Transpower transmission lines.
16
WRPS 3.13 Structures (Infrastructure): Issue.
2696759
14
2.27
The Board must also "have regard to" the Proposed Waikato Regional
Policy Statement 2010 ("PWRPS").17
While this document is not yet
operative, decisions have been released, and although there are still some
outstanding appeals, in my view significant weight should now be given to
it. It includes a more comprehensive package of objectives and policies in
regard to urban development and infrastructure compared to the WRPS.
2.28
Policy
6.3
of
the
PWRPS
addresses
coordinating
growth
and
infrastructure. In particular, this policy seeks that management of the built
environment (among other things) ensures that:
(a)
The nature, timing and sequencing of new development is
coordinated with the development, finding, implementation and
operation of transport and other infrastructure, in order to:
(i)
Optimise the efficient and affordable provision of both
the development and the infrastructure;
(ii)
Maintain or enhance the operational effectiveness,
viability
and
safety
of
existing
and
planned
infrastructure;
(iii)
Protect investment in existing infrastructure; and
(iv)
Ensure new development does not occur until provision
for appropriate infrastructure is in place.
[my emphasis]
2.29
Further, the policy seeks to ensure the efficient and effective functioning of
infrastructure is maintained, and the ability to maintain and upgrade that
infrastructure is retained.
Therefore, in addition to managing reverse
sensitivity issues, this policy clearly supports Transpower's approach to
keeping the National Grid yard largely clear of buildings to ensure
maintenance access is retained, and the risk of direct effects is reduced.
2.30
Policy 6.6 addresses significant infrastructure and energy resources. Of
note, the policy states:
17
RMA, s 74(2)(a)(i).
2696759
15
(a)
Management of the built environment ensures that the effectiveness
and
efficiency
of
existing
and
planned
regionally
significant
infrastructure is protected.
2.31
Included in the specific implementation methods for this policy is the
specific promotion of the development of a transmission corridor
management approach.
2.32
Accordingly, both the WRPS and PWRPS promote the use of measures to
protect significant infrastructure, with the PWRPS more explicitly
promoting the use of a transmission corridor approach to protect
transmission lines. While the Plan Change already has a buffer corridor
approach to manage reverse sensitivity from sensitive activities, the
package of provisions proposed by Transpower provides better alignment
with regional policy imperatives in terms of providing better protection to
the safe and efficient operation of the transmission network in relation to
higher risk activities such as use of mobile plant National Grid Yard, and
managing underbuild in terms of both increased risk to the transmission
network and providing more constraints on the operation and maintenance
of the transmission network. Accordingly, in my opinion the package of
measures proposed in the Plan Change does not adequately give effect to
the WRPS or have sufficient regard to the PWRPS in relation to measures
to protect the safe and efficient operation of National Grid transmission
lines. In my view the Transpower approach is generally a better planning
solution (I comment further on the particular changes sought by
Transpower below).
2.33
Relevant extracts from the WRPS and PWRPS are included in
Attachment B.
Relevance of the NZECP34:
Why it does not provide sufficient
protection
2.34
The NZECP34 is a mandatory code of practice that sets minimum safe
distances from transmission lines to protect persons, property, vehicles
and mobile plant from harm or damage from electrical hazards.
The
NZECP34 establishes clearance distances to buildings, structures and
mobile plant, the ground, and other lines, as well as how close buildings,
structures and excavations can occur in relation to poles and towers.
2696759
16
2.35
The NZECP34 sits outside of the RMA regime and must be complied with
in addition to any RMA controls. Therefore, at face value it may appear to
be unnecessary to include additional controls on buildings and structures
(that are not sensitive activities).
2.36
However, it is important to note that the NZECP34 is focussed only on
minimum standards for safety. This narrower focus means the NZECP34
cannot and is not intended to achieve the broader policy objectives sought
by the NPSET, nor can it meet the wider sustainable management
purpose of the RMA. Therefore, in the context of these proceedings, it
does not include a regime to manage development (including avoiding
sensitive development) underneath or in close proximity to transmission
lines that could compromise the operation and maintenance of the
network, or provide any guidance for decision making on subdivision that
may enable the establishment of such development.
It also does not
address providing access to transmission lines and support structures for
maintenance purposes.
2.37
A number of practical examples illustrating where allowing either buildings
or mobile yard type activities to be undertaken under transmission lines,
and the issues encountered, are set out in the evidence of Mr Noble. I
understand that once a building is constructed under transmission lines in
accordance with the NZECP34, there a number of risks to the network
(and the safety of others) in terms of the erection of ancillary structures
such as aerials on building roofs, roof maintenance works including
temporary scaffolds etc, which make location of buildings underneath
transmission lines undesirable. As outlined in the evidence of Mr Noble, I
understand that these types of infringement do not tend to be actively
enforced by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment who
have been tasked with enforcing the NZECP34.
I understand similar
issues are encountered with earthworks not being undertaken in
compliance with NZECP34. Accordingly, given the safety issue involved, I
support a suitable RMA regime to better manage these risks.
2696759
17
3.
TRANSPOWER'S APPROACH TO CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
The issues
3.1
Policies 10 and 11 of the NPSET do not set out actual specific controls to
be included in district plans. Accordingly, Transpower has developed a
corridor management approach that it promotes to local authorities for
inclusion in district plans to provide for a degree of consistency nationally.
The preferred corridor provisions continue to be refined as the NPSET
beds in and relevant issues are worked through in district plan reviews
and plan change processes. Accordingly, the exact provisions sought for
this Plan Change have been further refined from those initially sought on
the Proposed Hamilton District Plan.
3.2
Where urban land use changes occur adjacent to and under transmission
lines, industrial type activities and open space zones are generally
preferred by Transpower to more sensitive land uses such as residential
zones. However, I understand that even some industrial type land uses
can present a risk to the operation of existing transmission lines. The
Ruakura Logistics Zone in particular will provide for stacking of containers
and mobile plant to move these containers around. As set out in the
evidence of Mr Noble18 this activity in particular presents a risk to the
transmission lines and safety of people operating mobile equipment as
evidenced by previous experience with operation of the inland port in
Onehunga, Auckland.
3.3
From my own observations of the Plan Change area, the lines on some
spans come quite close to the ground. Accordingly, there appears to me
to be an obvious risk for use of mobile plant and stacking of containers in
these areas without suitable management of these activities. As general
relief in its submission, Transpower has sought that consideration be
given to alternative locations for sites and activities (such as those
proposed for the Ruakura Logistics Zone) which may compromise the
operation, maintenance and upgrading of transmission lines.
In his
evidence Mr Noble is of the view that the proposed container storage and
freight handling activities in particular that would be enabled by the Plan
Change should not occur at all under the transmission lines (with
18
Evidence of Roy Noble, paras 17.3 - 17.4.
2696759
18
particular concern expressed at concept plans19 in the Applicants'
evidence showing container stacking and management areas under and
adjacent to the HAM-WHU-A line), and that this activity would be better
relocated to another part of the site.
3.4
I agree with Mr Noble that, ideally, there would be no high risk activities
such as container storage and movement by mobile plant directly under
the transmission lines. However, I accept that this aligns with where the
inland port activity is shown in the Proposed Hamilton District Plan
Structure Plan, and its location is not opposed by Transpower as part of
that process.
Therefore, a complete relocation is perhaps unrealistic.
Again, this may be a legal question to be addressed by Counsel for
Transpower.
At present, the Applicants have provided no substantive
evidence responding to the Transpower submission, so it is unclear how
much flexibility they do have to rearrange their preferred layout.
The
Board will need to consider the extent to which this aspect of the preferred
relief sought by Transpower would be disenabling of the port activities,
and weigh that against ensuring the health and safety of people around
the lines. I am not in a position to be able to comment on how practical it
would be to configure the site to avoid the need to stack and move
containers associated with an inland port within a National Grid Yard. The
potential impact could be substantial on the Applicants' development
concept of the area. However, I also understand that from a practical
perspective, substantive container stacking as shown in the Applicants'
concept plans under the HAM-WHU-A line may not be feasible in any
case due to the practical limitations of the NZECP34, which in practice
may necessitate undergrounding or moving the line to accommodate this
activity if it were required to be undertaken in this location.
3.5
Transpower has also sought new provisions in its submission that would
require consent as a controlled activity for certain logistics and freight
handling activities located within a National Grid Yard.
I understand
Transpower's position is that this is a 'fall back' position should the Board
be of a mind to allow these activities within National Grid Yards. During
my initial involvement in this process I was of the understanding that this
position was an acceptable outcome to Transpower.
However, more
recently Transpower has formed the view, as expressed in Mr Noble's
evidence, that the risks are such that it should not be located under the
19
See evidence in chief of John Goodwin, appendix 3, page 3.
2696759
19
lines.
In my view, should freight handling activities not be able to be
located to completely avoid National Grid Yards, then it would be
reasonable to limit these particular controlled activity controls to the
Ruakura Logistics Zone only, given the higher risk profile of activities in
the Ruakura Logistics Zone compared to other business/industrial areas
(e.g. moving containers around with mobile equipment) and their ongoing
nature.
3.6
Based on Mr Noble's evidence, my understanding of the principal
reasons for the corridor approach being sought by Transpower is as
follows:
(a)
Safety risks (primarily risk of electric shock);
(b)
Impacts on security of supply due to the increased risk of third
parties contacting the lines causing outages;
(c)
Threatened
security
of
supply
(power
outages)
due
to
Transpower's access to the lines being blocked or restricted
and/or Transpower not being able to maintain, upgrade or
develop lines as required;
(d)
Activities that are sensitive to transmission lines locating near to
them (such as dwellings and schools);
(e)
Risks from activities locating close to lines and then asking for
their operation to be constrained in some way (reverse
sensitivity); and
(f)
Risks to the infrastructure corridors and Transpower's options for
maintaining, upgrading and development of the lines.
3.7
Mr Noble's evidence outlines Transpower's general corridor management
approach.
This approach differs between existing urban areas, and
proposed new urban areas.20 For proposed urban areas that are currently
rural, Transpower is seeking a more restrictive planning regime compared
with existing urban areas where there are less options available to make
reasonable use of land affected by transmission corridors. For example, I
understand that Transpower has been pursuing non-complying activity
status for buildings that are non-sensitive activities in greenfields areas
20
Evidence of Roy Noble, para 18.35.
2696759
20
being changed to an urban land use, but has pursued a less restrictive
activity status in existing urban areas (subject to complying with the
NZECP34) as the lines are already compromised in urban areas that are
built up, and land owners have fewer options available to avoid
development under lines. I consider this distinction to be appropriate.
4.
EVALUATION OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY TRANSPOWER
4.1
In this section I consider the relief sought by Transpower, including its
appropriateness with regard to the statutory requirements and relevant
planning documents.
I consider in particular the relief Transpower is
seeking in terms of non-complying activities within the National Grid
Yards, the controlled activity consents for logistics and freight handling
facilities, subdivision within National Grid Corridors, and earthworks.
4.2
The Plan Change seeks to bring rural land into an urban use, with a mix of
land uses ranging from intensive residential land use through to industrial
land use.
In that context Transpower in its submission on the Plan
Change has taken the view that it is appropriate to take a proactive
approach to ensure (in broad terms) that:
(a)
The terminology is amended to provide definitions for National
Grid Yard and National Grid Corridor, to provide consistency with
its national position on these matters. Current terms used in the
Plan Change are Electricity Transmission Yard and Electricity
Transmission Corridor.
(b)
Within the National Grid Yard (which is generally 12m either side
of the centreline, but reduced to 10m from the centreline of a
110kV National Grid line on single poles): New buildings21 and
sensitive activities do not generally locate within the corridor, by
requiring them to obtain non-complying activity consents. Some
small buildings22 are provided for as exceptions.
The Plan
Change as lodged provided for new buildings and additions for
sensitive land uses within this corridor as a non-complying
activity, but this did not apply to buildings in general (i.e.
buildings for non-sensitive activities) other than where they would
21
22
There are limited or no existing buildings under or near Transpower's existing
lines.
2
Above 2.5m high or 10m in area.
2696759
21
be within 12m of an existing National Grid support structure. In
my view it would also be reasonable to allow for other small scale
structures such as fences, lighting poles or traffic management
structures as exceptions to the non-complying rule, subject to
them meeting the electrical safety distances in the NZECP34.
(c)
As noted in Mr Noble's evidence, Transpower's first preference is
to avoid logistics and freight handling related activities involving
mobile plant and container stacking within a National Grid Yard.
However, should the Board allow for these activities, despite the
concerns raised by Transpower, then these activities will require
consent as a controlled activity under the changes proposed by
Transpower.
That will enable Transpower to participate and
have input into how those activities may be managed to minimise
safety issues (but not reopen the debate about whether the
activities are appropriate at all in that location). This provision
was not included in the Plan Change as notified. As previously
outlined, I would support this provision being limited to the
Ruakura Logistics Zone only.
(d)
Within the wider National Grid Corridor (14m from the centreline
for single pole 110kV lines,23 16m from the centreline for 110kV
pi-pole lines,24 2m for 110kV lines on towers and 37m for 220kV
lines), activities can generally be permitted25 but subdivision26 will
require restricted discretionary consent, so as to better ensure a
pattern of development that avoids adverse effects on the
transmission lines such as reliance on building platforms within a
National Grid Yard. A set of assessment criteria for subdivision
to guide decision making on such applications is proposed. This
was not included in the Plan Change as notified, but is generally
aligned with the subdivision rules approach within National Grid
Corridors, and the associated assessment criteria, being sought
by Transpower in its submission on the Proposed Hamilton
District Plan.
23
24
25
26
Transpower's submission on the Plan Change refers to 16m in respect of pi-poles,
but following a close site visit, it has established that there are only single poles on
site. As such, a lesser distance of 14m is appropriate.
There are no pi-poles within the Plan Change Area.
Subject to the requirements of NZECP34, which may be unlikely to be triggered at
these distances, in any event.
The likely precursor to any intensive development.
2696759
22
(e)
Within the National Grid Corridor any buildings not complying
with the safe clearance distances in the NZECP34 are noncomplying activities. The Plan Change as lodged only applied
this to the narrower National Grid Yard.
(f)
For earthworks within 20m of the lines, or earthworks not
complying with the permitted standards in the NZECP34,
restricted discretionary activity consents will be required. The
existing Rural Zone provisions in the Waikato Section of the
Hamilton District Plan include an existing rule for earthworks
within 20m of transmission lines. In this regard, the submission
simply seeks a cross reference back to this existing provision to
ensure the link to that rule is not lost.
(g)
Improved clarity is provided for network utilities within the
National Grid Yard and Corridor, the amendments proposed
confirm that the provisions of the network utilities rules in the
Hamilton Section of the Hamilton District Plan apply (as opposed
to the rules for buildings and structures in Table 25H.13).
(h)
A general non-complying activity default rule is added for any
building or structure within the National Grid Yard not otherwise
provided for in Table 25H.13 for improved clarity.
(i)
Transpower is clearly identified as an affected party where
resource consents are required within the National Grid Yard or
Corridor (in terms of the National Grid Yard and Corridor rules).
4.3
The above outcomes (sought in the various rules/tables included with
Transpower's submission on the Plan Change), are to be supported by
amendments to existing Objective 25H.4.16 and supporting policies. In
my opinion, particularly given the limited controls sought within the wider
National Grid Corridor (primarily focused on subdivision), Transpower is
taking a reasonable and highly supportable approach.
4.4
I now discuss in more detail matters where there is variance in the
Transpower position from the Plan Change as notified.
2696759
23
Objective 25H.4.16 and Policies
4.5
The Plan Change includes a specific set of objectives and policies for the
Plan Change area. Of most direct relevance to Transpower is Objective
25H.4.16 and two supporting policies 25H.4.16a and 25H.4.16b, that
address network utilities generally and transmission corridors specifically.
The objective is relatively broad and relates to the importance of network
utilities to support the development and functioning of Hamilton, while the
two policies are specific to subdivision, use and development, and
sensitive land uses, in relation to the electricity transmission network.
Minor amendments to these proposed provisions have been sought by
Transpower.
In my opinion these provisions are consistent with the
corridor provisions being sought by Transpower.
4.6
In my view the amendments sought improve upon the relevant objective
and supporting policies in that they:
(a)
ensure there is a clear direction for the Plan Change rules and
methods to include mechanisms to provide for network utilities
(including transmission assets);
(b)
use revised terminology to provide consistency with other relief
sought by Transpower; and
(c)
provide better consistency with wording on policy provisions
either notified in or being sought in submissions by Transpower
on the Proposed Hamilton District Plan.
4.7
Transpower has also sought two other policies for network utilities (which
were included in the notified version of the Proposed Hamilton District
Plan with the same or very similar wording), in order to further assist with
giving effect to Policies 10 and 11 of the NPSET. These are:
(a)
A new policy 25H.4.16c which seeks recognition of the positive
effects and importance of network utilities to the Waikato Region
and Hamilton, and the national benefits of National Grid
infrastructure; and
(b)
A new Policy 25H.4.16d, that states: "reverse sensitivity effects
on network utilities shall be avoided".
While this wording is
identical to the wording of the equivalent policy in the Proposed
2696759
24
Hamilton District Plan,27 I consider complete avoidance of an
adverse effect is a difficult test to meet. Because Policy 10 of the
NPSET requires decision makers to manage activities to "avoid"
adverse reverse sensitivity effects on the electricity transmission
network to the extent reasonably possible, I support similar
amendments to this policy to provide better alignment with Policy
10 of the NPSET.
4.8
In my opinion, with the exception noted in regard to requested policy
25H.4.16d, the amendments sought by Transpower are consistent with
Policies 10 and 11 of the NPSET, and would be helpful in assisting the
Council in assessing future resource consent applications affecting the
transmission corridors.
Terminology and Definitions
4.9
Transpower is seeking changes in the terminology and definitions used in
the Plan Change, to provide consistency both with its national position and
its position on the Proposed Hamilton District Plan. The definitions sought
generally align with those included in the Plan Change for the "Electricity
Transmission Yard" and "Electricity Transmission Corridor", although an
explanatory diagram is now proposed, and a reduced corridor width is
proposed for 110kV lines on single poles.
Transpower also has a
preference for the wording National Grid Yard and National Grid Corridor,
given the terms focus on the National Grid lines rather than local
distribution lines.
4.10
I note that the definition sought for the National Grid Corridor only
provides a corridor width for pi poles28 (i.e. "double poles"), whereas there
are only single poles located within the plan change area. This was an
oversight, and the definitions should also include a corridor width for
single poles. The correct corridor width for a single pole is 14m from the
centre line of the National Grid Transmission Line (being 2m less than the
distance indicated in the submission). Similarly the National Grid Yard
width for 110kV lines on single poles should be reduced to 10m from the
centre line of the transmission line (although retained at 12m from the
support structure).
27
28
Policy 25.7.2.1f.
16m from centreline for pi-poles.
2696759
25
4.11
I also note that in some instances outside of the Plan Change area,
Transpower has replaced steel lattice towers with large tubular steel
towers.
These could technically be considered single poles, but
functionally are delivering the equivalent function of a lattice steel tower. I
have suggested a minor amendment to the definition of National Grid
Corridor (see Attachment A) to ensure these large tubular steel towers
(when used to replace existing towers) are treated in the same manner as
a lattice tower, and not in the same manner as the much smaller scale
single poles.
4.12
Transpower proposes a change in terminology from Sensitive Land Use to
Sensitive Activity to align with the terminology used in the NPSET.
Further, as the definition of Sensitive Activity in the NPSET is not
exclusive, a specific definition is proposed to provide clear guidance on
what specific activities are caught by the relevant rules and policy
provisions. In my view it is appropriate to use equivalent terminology to
the NPSET but provide a more detailed definition so it is clear when the
relevant district plan provisions are triggered.
Non-Complying Activities within National Grid Yards
4.13
In many respects, Transpower's requested rules within National Grid
Yards and Corridors are aligned with the Plan Change provisions as
notified. However, one significant difference is Transpower's proposed
rule that would result in buildings (that are not part of a Sensitive Activity)
located within a National Grid Yard being a non-complying activity.
I
understand that the applicant prefers the ability to undertake "underbuild"
where this is not for a Sensitive Activity, if following an assessment under
the NZECP34 it can be shown to meet the required safety separation
distances.
4.14
I have outlined above why I do not consider it appropriate to solely rely on
the provisions of NZECP34 to manage underbuild. Non-complying activity
status supported by suitable policies provides the best means, in my view,
of protecting the National Grid Yard, by clearly signalling that such
activities are generally not provided for. Therefore, it will both discourage
applications for incompatible activities in the first place (and thus reduce
the need to commit significant resources to defend Transpower's position
on National Grid Yards), while also ensuring there is a low probability of
incompatible development being granted consent.
2696759
26
4.15
The Ministry for the Environment's National Policy Statement on Electricity
Transmission, Implementation Guidance for Local Authorities (2010)
("Implementation Guidance") notes that Policy 10 requires the Council to
manage third party activities that are sensitive to the effects of the
electricity transmission, as well as third party activities that would
compromise the operation, upgrading and development of the electricity
transmission network.29 This is consistent with my reading of Policy 10,
as I explain above. Accordingly, in my opinion it is appropriate for the
district plan to control the activities of third parties, other than a Sensitive
Activity where these may result direct effects on transmission lines that
may inhibit the operation, maintenance and upgrading of the network.
The Implementation Guidance30 also notes that it may not be reasonable
4.16
or practicable to avoid all adverse effects, both because of the operational
and technical constraints of Transpower, and also because of the potential
impositions on property owners that controls would have on the use of
their land. On this basis, Transpower has adopted a different approach
for considering buildings and structures in existing urban areas, and those
where the land is currently rural and proposed for urban development.
4.17
In my opinion, this approach strikes an appropriate balance by protecting
the National Grid transmission lines and avoiding adverse reverse
sensitivity effects to the extent that is reasonably possible. In the case of
the Ruakura Plan Change area, the applicant has selected the area for
which rezoning is requested with full knowledge of the existence of
transmission lines that currently cross rural land. Currently that land has a
much lower risk profile in terms of reverse sensitivity effects and effects on
the operation, maintenance, upgrading and development of these lines
compared with urban land.
4.18
Further, the Applicants have various options they could consider to avoid
underbuild occurring within the transmission corridor, which may include:
(a)
Designing the development at the master planning and/or
subdivision phase so that car parking, reserves or roads are
placed within the National Grid Yard, rather than buildings.
29
30
Implementation Guidance, at 3.4.
National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission: Implementation Guidance
for Local Authorities, Ministry for the Environment, 2010.
2696759
27
(b)
Fund
the
relocation
or
undergrounding
of
the
existing
transmission lines. Such solutions have been implemented at
Westgate/Massey North Town Centre
(underground)
and
Highbrook Business Park (part relocation on tubular steel towers
and part undergrounding) in Auckland, and undergrounding
beneath Barrington Road in a subdivision to the immediate north
of the Plan Change area which I understand is called Somerset
Heights (see Attachment C).
I also understand that the
applicant is in discussions with Transpower to underground or
relocate the existing transmission lines that traverse the
proposed residential zoned land in the northern part of the Plan
Change area (area adjoining and to the immediate south of
Greenhill Road).
4.19
For these reasons, in my opinion, it is appropriate for buildings, including
those not associated with a Sensitive Activity, to be classed as noncomplying activities in the Plan Change where they are located within the
National Grid Yard (as sought in Transpower's submission). However, I
would also support providing for some small scale buildings and structures
as exceptions to the non-complying activity rule where they comply with
the electrical safety distances of the NZECP34 as previously outlined.
This could also include, for example, fencing, lighting and traffic
management barriers (including as required to manage activities under
the lines).
Controlled Activity Consents for Logistics and Freight Handling
Facilities
4.20
As outlined in the evidence of Mr Noble, there have been instances at the
inland port at Onehunga in Auckland (known as Metroport) where mobile
plant associated with moving containers have come into contact with
Transpower lines. While the NZECP34 does include required clearance
distances for mobile plant from lines, this relies on the site operators
following good management practices. Past experience at Onehunga
demonstrates that incidents can occur. Therefore, it would appear that
this particular activity is a less than ideal land use within a National Grid
Yard.
4.21
The proposed Ruakura Logistics Zone in particular will enable similar
activities to those undertaken at Metroport. From my own observations of
2696759
28
the Plan Change area, some of the line spans come very close to the
ground, which at face value will limit both the practicality of placing large
buildings and stacks of containers within the National Grid Yard in any
case, but also result in some risks from the operation of mobile plant
crossing under lines if not appropriately managed. The consequences of
damage to lines crossing the Ruakura Logistics Zone are addressed in Mr
Noble's evidence31.
4.22
While Transpower prefers avoidance of this particular activity within a
National Grid Yard, if the Board does not consider this to be appropriate
(despite Mr Noble's concerns about safety and the risk of damage to
infrastructure), the rule proposed in the submission would result in
logistics and freight handling activities that involve the operation of cranes,
straddle carriers, forklifts and other such equipment requiring resource
consent as a controlled activity within a National Grid Yard. Requiring a
controlled activity consent would not stop these general activities being
able to establish within National Grid Yards (if the Board has already
found that the benefits outweigh the risks), but will put in place a regime to
assist in better managing these areas in site layout and operation.
Ancillary buildings other than storage containers (such as the site offices
or warehousing) would not be covered by this controlled activity rule, so
would fall to be assessed in accordance with the rules for buildings in the
National Grid Yard.
The matters for control sought in Transpower's
submission include:
(a)
Access or crossing points, including where crossing should be
avoided;
(b)
Signage;
(c)
Any management processes or procedures to ensure safe and
efficient operations; and
(d)
Location and duration of storage of containers, including
provision for their movement, should access by Transpower to
the National Grid Yard be required.
4.23
In my opinion, while I accept Transpower's first preference would be to
avoid these activities locating within National Grid Yards, if this is not
31
Evidence of Roy Noble, paras 18.6 - 18.35.
2696759
29
found to be a practical outcome while still delivering the strategic inland
port activity and/or aligning with the structure plan within the Proposed
Hamilton District Plan, then the above measures are in my view an
appropriate mechanism for implementing the relevant objective and policy
framework in the Plan Change for protecting the National Grid
Transmission Lines, while not unnecessarily inhibiting the reasonable use
of the land. I note that the specific matters on which conditions may be
imposed would benefit from more direction around the ability to impose
conditions to implement physical measures such as vehicle barriers and
'overhead gates' to directly control the location of vehicle crossing points
and the practical height of mobile plant and containers where crossing
under lines.
Subdivision within National Grid Corridors
4.24
Transpower is seeking new restricted discretionary activity subdivision
rules where subdivision is undertaken within the National Grid Corridor.
This generally provides for subdivision as a restricted discretionary
activity, but also as a non-complying activity where a practical building
platform cannot be provided outside of the National Grid Yard. The noncomplying activity rule is designed to avoid creating new lots where a
subsequent building would be a non-complying activity under the
proposed rules for buildings in National Grid Yard.
4.25
Section 25H.14 of the Plan Change sets out the rules from the operative
Hamilton City Plan which will also apply to Ruakura. This includes a cross
reference to existing rules applying to subdivision and development. The
subdivision rules cross referenced do not include any specific subdivision
provisions in relation to subdivision within National Grid Corridors. In my
opinion, this is inconsistent with Policy 25H.4.16a of the Plan Change.
4.26
In regard to the restricted discretionary activity status that is sought for
subdivisions, new matters of discretion are proposed, based on what
Transpower has sought elsewhere.
In general terms, these criteria
require consideration of the following:
(a)
The extent to which the subdivision design including the location
of roads, reserves, landscaping and building platforms allows for
activities to be set back from National Grid transmission lines.
2696759
30
(b)
The extent to which subdivision design and layout and
consequential development will minimise the potential for reverse
sensitivity effects.
(c)
Provision for contained reasonable access by Transpower to its
lines.
(d)
The extent to which the design and development will minimise
risk of injury and property damage from lines.
(e)
Compliance with the NZECP34 (noting that excavation and/or
raised
ground
levels
can
also
be
an
issue
requiring
consideration).
(f)
4.27
Outcomes of consultation with Transpower.
The intent of these provisions is to ensure that any subdivision proposals
within the National Grid Corridor are appropriately assessed, including
whether there is a suitable building platform provided outside of the
National Grid Yard, whether earthworks will affect support structure
stability or ground clearance distances under the NZECP34, whether
Transpower will retain reasonable access to its infrastructure, and the
likely location of any trees etc. In my view, ensuring such matters are
assessed at the subdivision stage is a sensible and appropriate method
for ensuring compatibility between land development and existing National
Grid electricity transmission infrastructure, and gives effect to Policy 10 of
the NPSET.
Earthworks
4.28
Section 25H.14 of the Plan Change sets out rules from the operative
Hamilton City Plan which also apply to Ruakura. This includes a cross
reference to Rule 6.7 Earthworks and Site Development. Those rules do
not include specific controls for earthworks near National Grid
Transmission Lines. However, Rule 25.23.1(ba) of the Hamilton District
Plan: Waikato Section (Rural Zone) does include a rule requiring consent
as a restricted discretionary activity for earthworks within 20m of the
centreline of electricity transmission lines with a voltage of 110kV or more
where the activity generates adverse effects of dust on the transmission
line, or raises the ground level.
2696759
31
4.29
To address the potential for earthworks to undermine the stability of
transmission line support structures or reduce safe ground clearance
levels, Transpower's submission sought both a reinstatement of the
linkage to Rule 25.23.1(ba), and that any earthworks not complying with
the permitted standards of the NZECP34 also become a restricted
discretionary activity, with matters of discretion limited to the effects of the
earthworks on the operation, maintenance, upgrading and development of
the National Grid transmission network.
A summary of the relevant
standards in the NZECP34 where the written consent of the pole/tower
owner is required for earthworks are as follows:
(a)
For poles and any stay wires (section 2.2.1 of the NZECP34)
(i)
is at a greater depth than 300mm within 2.2m of the
pole or stay wire; or
(ii)
is at a greater depth than 750mm between 2.2m and
5m of the pole or stay wire; or
(iii)
creates an unstable batter.
Note: the above standards for work around poles do not apply to
vertical holes, not exceeding 500mm in diameter, beyond 1.5m
from a pole or stay wire (section 2.2.2 of the NZECP34).
(b)
For Towers (section 2.2.3 of the NZECP34):
(i)
is at a greater depth than 300mm within 6m of the outer
edge of the visible foundation of the tower; or
(ii)
is at a greater depth that 3m between 6m and 12m of
the outer edge of the visible foundation of the tower; or
(iii)
creates an unstable batter.
Note: the above standards for work around poles and towers do
not apply to normal agricultural cultivation, or the repair, sealing
or resealing of the existing surface of any road, footpath, or
driveway (section 2.2.4 of the NZECP34).
(c)
No material shall be deposited under or near an overhead
electric line so as to reduce the conductor distance to ground to
2696759
32
less than the distances required by Table 4 of the Code (section
4.3.1 and Table 4 of the NZECP34).
As outlined in the evidence of Mr Noble,32 in the absence of RMA
4.30
controls, compliance with the earthworks provisions of the NZECP34 have
often not been enforced by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and
Employment.
Accordingly, in my view it is appropriate to impose an
earthworks rule based on the NZECP34 permitted activity standards as
set out above. I note that should a rule linked to compliance with the
permitted earthworks provisions of the NZECP34 be implemented, the
cross reference back to the former rule in the Waikato Section of the
Hamilton District Plan would become unnecessary as a sufficient level of
control around earthworks near transmission lines and support structures
would be provided.
4.31
In my view, restricted discretionary activity status is appropriate, as it
allows for necessary earthworks to occur where it is demonstrated that
they will not undermine transmission line support structures, result in
outcomes where it is no longer practical to access support structures, or
reduce ground level clearances under transmission lines to unsafe levels.
I note that earthworks that in any case would comply with the NZECP34
will also not require resource consent under the proposed provisions. For
better certainty for plan users, the detailed earthworks controls as outlined
above could be included directly in the Plan Change as opposed to a
more general requirement to comply with the earthworks control set out in
the NZECP34. That is the approach that has been taken in Transpower's
submission on the Proposed Hamilton District Plan.
Affected Party Status for Transpower
4.32
Transpower's submission requests that it be identified as an affected party
from whom written consent would be required for a restricted discretionary
activity subdivision, or any land use consent required under Table 25H.13,
to proceed without notification.
4.33
The rules relating to National Grid Yards and Corridors are designed to
protect the National Grid transmission line assets owned and operated by
Transpower. Accordingly, in my opinion it is completely appropriate for
Transpower to have an input into any resource consent applications
32
Evidence of Roy Noble, paras 19.15.
2696759
33
where the need for consent is triggered due to the rules designed to
protect these assets.
On this basis, I support rules that require
Transpower to be specifically identified as and affected party for any
applications triggering National Grid Yard and National Grid Corridor
related rules to be considered on a non-notified basis, and to be served as
an affected party for any application where limited notification is required.
Costs and benefits
4.34
In considering the specific provisions sought by Transpower, it is also
important to consider the costs and benefits. As with any regulation, there
will be benefits and costs associated with the different options for the suite
of proposed plan provisions. In this part of my evidence, I refer to broader
benefits and costs in a planning sense, relying on the evidence of Mr
Copeland which concludes that the benefits of the corridor management
approach outweigh local costs.
4.35
Specific economic benefits to Transpower, landowners and electricity
consumers include:
(a)
reduced
costs
for
inspection,
operation,
maintenance,
replacement and upgrading of the National Grid;
(b)
reduced electricity supply outages;
(c)
improved safety to person and property;
(d)
less disruption to the port and other business operations when
Transpower is required to undertake work on the National Grid;
and
(e)
4.36
lower electricity line charges for electricity consumers.
In my opinion, the current Plan Change provisions do not effectively
ensure these benefits are realised as they rely on an incomplete policy
and rules framework, and in regard to underbuild and earthworks
inappropriately rely on an external code of practice (NZECP34).
Part 2 Considerations
4.37
The Purpose of the RMA as set out in s 5 is to promote the sustainable
management of natural and physical resources.
2696759
In my opinion, the
34
proposed suite of amendments sought by Transpower promotes
sustainable management in that it provides for an appropriate level of
protection for an existing infrastructure network that is of national
significance, sustains the potential of nationally significant physical
resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future
generations, and enables the broader community to provide for its social,
economic and cultural well-being, and health and safety, without
unreasonably inhibiting the reasonable use of compatible activities on
adjacent land.
4.38
While it may be argued there is some localised cost to the developer of
the land due to the corridor provisions proposed, based on the evidence of
Mr Copeland it is my view that this would outweighed by the benefits to
the wider community.
4.39
In terms of s 5(2)(c) the use of buffer corridors to assist with the
management of reverse sensitivity will in my view provide the best
opportunity for Transpower to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse
effects on other parties of operating its existing transmission lines.
4.40
I do not consider any matters in ss 6 or 8 of the RMA to be directly
relevant to Transpower's submission. In terms of s 7, Other Matters, s
7(b) requires the Board to have regard to the efficient use and
development of natural and physical resources.
The National Grid
transmission lines are a significant physical resource identified in the
NPSET as being of national significance.
Transpower's proposed
provisions in my view ensure the effects of third party activities are
adequately
managed
so
as
to
not
compromise
the
operation,
maintenance, upgrading and development of the electricity transmission
network.
4.41
Overall, I consider the suite of provisions proposed by Transpower to be
consistent with Part 2 of the RMA.
5.
CONCLUSIONS
5.1
The Plan Change includes a number of provisions, including an objective
and related policies, and buffer corridor provisions within the Plan Change
methods, which provide a measure of protection the National Grid
transmission lines. While these are generally appropriate in regard to the
2696759
35
location of Sensitive Activities, in my view the overall package of
measures in the Plan Change does not in its present form adequately give
effect to the NPSET.
5.2
The applicant has undertaken a relatively comprehensive s 32 evaluation
of the various options considered. However, I have concluded that the
amendments generally as sought by will provide a better overall outcome
in terms of assisting the Hamilton City Council in undertaking its functions
so as to achieve the purpose of the RMA, giving effect to the NPSET and
RPS, including objectives that are the most appropriate way to achieve
the purpose of the RMA, and including policies and methods which are the
most appropriate way of achieving the objectives.
5.3
I generally support the provisions proposed by Transpower in its
submission, with the amendments outlined in my evidence, as included in
Attachment A.
Christopher Horne
26 March 2014
2696759
Attachment A
Plan Change provisions with mark ups
2696759
Additional changes from submission shown in highlight
Tracked Changes to Table 25H.13
25H.13 Works within Transmission National Grid Corridors
National Grid transmission lines are identified on the planning map. These rules relates to the
transmission National Grid yard and wider transmission National Grid corridors associated with
these lines. Activities not otherwise included in this table are assessed in accordance with the
relevant zone provisions.
In respect of logistics and freight handling activities within the National Grid Yard, item (g) in the table
below represents Transpower's alternative or secondary relief. Transpower's primary relief sought is
that the proposed inland port activities be configured so that logistics and freight handling activities
involving the use of mobile plant are located outside the National Grid Yard.
a) New buildings or additions
to the building envelope of
existing buildings for a
sensitive land use activity
b) Maintenance, repair and
internal alterations to existing
buildings that do not result in
the alteration of the building
envelope and/or an increase
in floor space for a sensitive
land use activity.
c) Changes of activity to a
sensitive land use activity.
d) Any buildings within 12m of
the outer visible edge of a
transmission National Grid
support structure.
e) Any building within the
Electricity Transmission Yard
National Grid Corridor, that
does not comply with the safe
clearance distances specified
in NZECP34:2001
f) Mobile Machinery and
equipment
g) Any activity or building that
is not otherwise mentioned in
any section of this table
f)Any new building or
structure less than 2.5m
2
high and 10m in area, and
any fencing, lighting and
traffic management barriers
(including as required to
manage activities under the
lines), subject to
compliance with NZECP
34:2001.
g) Within the Ruakura
Logistics Zone, logistics
Within Greenfield Electricity
Transmission National Grid
Yard
NC
Within Greenfield Electricity
Transmission National Grid
Corridor
P
P
P
NC
P
NC
NC
NC
NC
P
P
P
P
P
P
C
P
and freight-handling
activities that involve the
operation of cranes,
straddle carriers, forklifts,
or other such equipment,
but excluding associated
buildings and structures
other than storage
containers.
h) Any building or structure
within the National Grid
Yard other than provided
for in a) to g) above
i) Network utilities
j) Earthworks
NC
NA
Refer to [insert cross reference to Rule 3.3 Roads and
Network Utilities rules in Hamilton District Plan]
[delete text in red]
Refer to Rule 25.23.1 (ba) of Hamilton District Plan:
Waikato Section (Rural Zone).
In addition to Rule 25.23.1 (ba), all earthworks within a
National Grid Corridor or Yard that do not comply with the
permitted standards of NZECP34:2001 are a Restricted
Discretionary Activity.
All earthworks within a National Grid Yard or National Grid
corridor that do not comply with the following earthworks
standards are a Restricted Discretionary Activity.

For National Grid poles and any stay wires:
o
is at a greater depth than 300mm within 2.2m
of the pole or stay wire; or
o
is at a greater depth than 750mm between
2.2m and 5m of the pole or stay wire; or
o
creates an unstable batter.
Note: the above standards for work around poles do not
apply to vertical holes, not exceeding 500mm in
diameter, beyond 1.5m from a pole or stay wire
(section 2.2.2 of the NZECP).

For National Grid Towers (steel lattice towers or any
replacement tubular steel tower):
o
is at a greater depth than 300mm within 6m of
the outer edge of the visible foundation of the
tower; or
o
is at a greater depth that 3m between 6m and
12m
of
the
outer
edge
of
the
visible
foundation of the tower; or
2
o
creates an unstable batter.
Note: the above standards for work around poles and
towers
do
not
apply
to
normal
agricultural
cultivation, or the repair, sealing or resealing of the
existing surface of any road, footpath, or driveway.

No material shall be deposited under or near an
overhead National Grid transmission line so as to
reduce the conductor distance to ground to less
than the distances required by Table 4 of NZECP
34:2001).
Note: Compliance with the New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances
(NZECP34:2001) is mandatory under the Electricity Act 1992. All activities regulated by NZECP34,
including buildings, structures, earthworks and the operation of mobile plant, must comply with that
regulation. Activities should be checked for compliance even if they are permitted by the District Plan.
Other Amendments to Request Relief Sought in Transpower Submission
Add new Policy 25H.4.16d:
25H.4.16d
Reverse sensitivity effects on network utilities shall be avoided to the extent reasonably possible.
Add a new definition of National Grid Yard as follows:
National Grid Yard (shown in red in attached diagram) means any land located within 12m of the
centreline of National Grid transmission line (reduced to 10m from the centreline of 110kV
transmission lines on single poles), or within 12m of the visible outer edge of any National Grid
support structure.
Note: the National Grid Yard does not apply to underground cables or any transmission lines (or
sections of lines) that are designated by Transpower.
(Include diagram provided below in definitions section).
Add a new definition of National Grid Corridor as follows:
National Grid Corridor means the area measured either side of the centreline of above ground
National Grid transmission lines as follows:
-
14 metres for 110kV transmission lines on single poles
16 metres for 110kV transmission lines on pi poles
32 metres 110kV transmission lines on towers (including tubular steel towers where these
replace steel lattice towers)
37 metres for 220kV transmission lines
Note: the National Grid Corridor does not apply to underground cables or any transmission lines (or
sections of lines) that are designated by Transpower.
3
(Include diagram provided below in definitions section).
To replace the diagram above with the version below (updated in respect of single pole Yard
width)
Figure X: Diagram to explain the definitions of National Grid Yard and National Grid Corridor.
For controlled activities included in Table 25H.13, include as a condition/development standard
a requirement to comply with NZECP34:2001. Further, include as a matter of control:

The effects of the activity on the operation, maintenance, upgrading, and development of the
National Grid transmission network.
For logistics and freight-handling activities within National Grid Yards (that involve the operation of
cranes, straddle carriers, forklifts, or other such equipment), appropriate matters of control could be:




Access or crossing points, including where crossing should be avoided
Signage
Any management processes or procedures to ensure safe and efficient operations
Location and duration of storage of containers, including provision for their movement should
access by Transpower to the National Grid Yard be required
4

Any physical measures that can be implemented such as vehicle barriers and
‘overhead gate’ structures to directly control the location of vehicle crossing points
and the practical height of mobile plant and containers where crossing under lines
5
Attachment B
Extracts from Waikato Regional Policy Statement and Proposed Waikato
Regional Policy Statement
2696759
Attachment C
HAM-MER A Underground, Barrington Drive
2696759
1800000
1800000
HAM-MER A Underground, Barrington Drive
12 /0 3 /2 01 4 7: 00 :3 6 a.m .
Projection: NZTM 2000
Scale: 1:10,000
Plan Size: A4L
0
Kilom eters
0.3 25
Copyright Transpower N ew Zealand L im ited and l icens ors . All rights reserved.
If y ou have receiv ed this doc ument from Transpower y ou must use it only for the
purpos e Transpower prov ided i t to y ou. If you have rec eiv ed this docum ent from
someone other than Trans power, you mus t not us e the doc ument and mus t
des troy it or return it to Transpower
Attachment D
Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae of Christopher Horne
2696759
Chris Horne – Director
Qualifications and Affiliations
 Master of Regional and Resource Planning,
Otago University, 1992
 Bachelor of Arts (Geography), Otago
University, 1990
 Member, of the NZ Planning Institute (NZPI)
 Resource Management Law Association
(RMLA)
Key Skills
 Advice, submissions and expert evidence on
policy and plans under the RMA
 Consent strategy advice and management
of the consenting process for infrastructure
rollouts and public works
 Site selection/feasibility studies
 Resource consent applications, notices of
requirement
 Environmental effects assessments
 Public consultation
 Expert evidence and mediation
Experience
Chris is the Auckland based director of Incite, a
resource management and environmental
consultancy with a team of planning
professionals spread throughout New Zealand.
Chris has 20 years of professional experience in
resource management/planning in the New
Zealand. This has included a broad range of
public and private sector clients. This includes
significant experience in the areas of
infrastructure and public works. He was a
representative of the telecommunications
industry involved in the development of the
National
Environmental
Standard
for
Telecommunications, and has been seconded
on two occasions as the environmental planning
manager for the Telecom group of companies
prior to the demerger between Telecom and
Chorus. He is also a statutory planning advisor
for the NZTA in the Auckland and Northland
regions, and has been involved in numerous
urban growth issues affecting the strategic land
transport network. Chris is a named consultant
on the approved supplier panel for Transpower
project work.
Selected Projects
Projects/experience outlined below is focused
on the areas considered most relevant to the
Ruakura Board of Enquiry proceedings.
Transpower Corridor Protection
Planning advisor to Transpower for submissions
on urban plan change at Ruakura and
Whakatane District Plan review.
Planning
advisor to Transpower and planning evidence
for urban plan change at Drury South, Papakura.
Auckland Unitary Plan
Planning advisor to Chorus, Telecom, Vodafone
and NZ Police Radio Networks for the Proposed
Auckland Unitary Plan.
Participation in
collaborative process by Auckland Utility
Operators Group (AUOG) leading to joint
submission by AUOG members on Proposed
Auckland Unitary Plan.
Incite : PO Box 3082 : Auckland 1140 : New Zealand
Phone +64 9 369 1465 : Mob +64 274 794 980
E-mail : chris@incite.co.nz
Environmental Planning Manager
Secondment to Telecom in 2001 and Telecom
business unit Chorus in 2011 (prior to its
demerger from Telecom) as the Environmental
Planning Manager for the Telecom Group. The
role included managing consultant planners and
lawyers and advice to internal stakeholders on
appropriate responses to policies and plans
prepared
under
the
RMA and
other
environmental legislation, management of
designation roll over processes, and strategic
oversight and advice on infrastructure roll out
programmes.
Telecommunications National Environmental
Standard
Co-author of a scoping document and proposed
national
environmental
standards
for
telecommunications prepared on behalf of
several industry stakeholders, and appointment
as an industry representative to a reference
group
including
the
telecommunications
industry, local government and central
government representatives.
The industry
proposals were largely adopted as regulations
following a public consultation process on the
industry proposals led by the Ministry for the
Environment.
NZTA Statutory Planning Advisor
Contracted to the NZTA as an approved
statutory planning advisor for the Auckland and
Northland regions. This has included planning
advice, assistance with submissions, expert
planning evidence at Council hearings and the
Environment Court, and planning support in
mediation processes for numerous urban growth
related applications and plan change proposals.
Transpower Substation Upgrades
Planning advisor and consents project manager
for outline plans and resolution of stormwater
issues for upgrades of transformers and related
infrastructure at substations in Penrose and
Ruakura (2009).
Vector Global Tree Trimming Approval
Resource consent application and AEE
(2005/2006) for a global tree trimming approval
on Waiheke Island for tree removal/trimming to
allow the Vector electricity network to comply
with the Electricity (Hazards from Trees)
Regulations 2003.
Designation of Telecommunications Sites
Planning advisor, consents manager and expert
planning witness for the designation of 14
strategic telecommunications sites in the
Auckland Isthmus (confirmed in 2011), 9
telecommunications sites in the former North
Shore City (confirmed in October 2013), and
expansion to the designation at the Warkworth
Satellite Earth Station (confirmed in November
2013). These projects are a mix of Chorus and
Telecom sites.
Network Utilities General
 Vodafone 2014 – planning advisor and
consenting lead for a new TransTasman submarine cable.
 Telecom 1995 - present, consenting
strategy advisor, assistance with
submissions and expert planning
evidence on RMA plans, and consent
approvals for a wide range of mobile
networks and terrestrial/marine cable
projects throughout New Zealand.
 Chorus 2011 – present, ongoing
planning
advice,
assistance
with
submissions and expert planning
evidence on RMA plans, and consent
approvals for cable and radio networks
projects, including leading consultant
team for aerial UFB rollout in Auckland
and Wellington.
 NZ Police 2006 – present, management
of all RMA services relating to upgrading
and rollout of the Police and emergency
services radio network in the upper
North
Island.
Assistance
with
submissions and on RMA plans.
 Watercare
Services
2004-2005,
planning feasibility assessment and
consenting (territorial and regional
authority consents) for a new bulk
supply water pipeline between North
Incite : PO Box 3082 : Auckland 1140 : New Zealand
Phone +64 9 369 1465 : Mob +64 274 794 980
E-mail : chris@incite.co.nz
Shore
City
Peninsula.
and
Whangaparaoa
Incite : PO Box 3082 : Auckland 1140 : New Zealand
Phone +64 9 369 1465 : Mob +64 274 794 980
E-mail : chris@incite.co.nz