District plan - central area section

1. Consideration of the ongoing use of Beaumont / Hamer streets as the main trucking corridor to the Terminal and the inter relationship between these Trucks and the public within the Shared recreational area

2. Irrespective of any changes to Jellicoe street two points of vehicular entry / exit is maintained to Wynyard Wharf for shipping, trucking and emergency services.

3. Any developments that take place in future to the Northern end of Wynyard peninsular will take into consideration our requirement to maintain an operative vehicular access loop between Hamer Street and Brigham street to the end of our lease in 2025. Without this access loop our business would be compromised

4. The applicant engages in discussion with BST on the items 1-3 above

5. Any development is subject to a risk assessment

a) The proposed plan modifications promote comprehensive changes to a primarily industrial area containing significant amounts of hazardous substances through the introduction of people intensive activities. They propose and promote greatly increased public access to the Wynyard Quarter while the bulk liquid industry remains operational without adequate consideration of risk to the public arising from new and sensitive activities being located next to, or near, hazardous facilities. The different land uses are incompatible. Proposals for such fundamental changes in land use should have been preceded by reference to an appropriate risk assessment taking into account the proposed changes to land use.

b)  The proposed plan modifications are inconsistent with and contrary to the Council's own Wynyard Quarter Concept Vision, as they do not provide for "Continued efficient operation of the bulk liquids industry until alternative locations are found."

c) The section 32 report fails to consider the costs and adverse effects of the proposed plan modifications on the regionally significantly bulk liquid facilities, effects of the bulk liquid facilities on the nature of the new development now proposed to occur close to those facilities and the incompatibility of these activities.

d)  The Council did not consult with WBLIG prior to notifying the proposed plan modifications and at the time of lodging this submission, has still not consulted with WBLIG. It does not have, nor has it sought the information required to fully understand the nature of the WBLIG facilities and the products stored there and the conflict between the hazardous facility activities and the activities now proposed through the proposed plan modifications.

e) Due to the significant challenges to Proposed Plan Modifications 4, 33 and 119, minimal weight can be placed on the provisions of Proposed Plan Modifications 4, 33 and 119 in justifying (without limitation):

i) the reasons why the development forming part of proposed plan modifications 37 and 40 should proceed;

ii) the approach to risk assessment and reverse sensitivity.

f)  The proposed plan modifications are inconsistent with regional planning instruments.

g) The proposed plan modifications do not promote the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991 ("the Act") and do not represent sound resource management practice.

h) The proposed plan modifications fail to provide for continued efficient and safe transport access to the bulk liquid facilities. Halsey and Jellicoe Streets are a primary transport route to and from the bulk liquid facilities. Plan modification 37 effectively removes Jellicoe Street as a transport route to the bulk storage facilities. It is not clear that Beaumont Street is currently or can remain the primary transport route to the facilities for hazardous and non hazardous bulk liquids. The plan modifications in total will adversely affect the roading network around Wynyard Wharf and in so doing, will adversely impact on all the transport routes available to users of the wharf area and the bulk liquid facilities.

i) The proposed plan modifications do not include any consideration of or information about emergency response and access to the hazard sources in the area.

a)  Shell seeks to ensure that their existing facilities on Wynyard Wharf can continue to operate unfettered as a facility delivering bulk hazardous substances while hazardous substance storage facilities and wharf remain open.

b) Shell opposes Proposed Plan Modifications 37 and 40 insofar as both Plan Modification fail to consider and address the potential adverse effects of the narrowing of Jellicoe Street on the movement of heavy vehicles (for the transportation of hazardous substances) and emergency services, in and around Wynyard Quarter.

c) Shell need to ensure that they can continue to operate efficiently until such time they vacate the site. The narrowing of Jellicoe Street and the creation of a pedestrian friendly environment may restrict the ability for heavy vehicles and emergency services to access Shell's sites. It is critical that such vehicles can access the site at all times for the transportation of hazardous substances from the site and to ensure the efficient operation of the facility. Increasing pedestrian and associated in and around Jellicoe Street raises potential issues in relation to the risk of transporting hazardous substances.

d) The potential for such effects has not been addressed in the Notice of Requirement prepared by the Group Manager Democracy Services, Auckland City Council or by the comments prepared by Flow Transportation Specialists on the proposal for Jellicoe Street.

e) Accordingly, Shell seeks that Proposed Plan Modifications 37 and 40 are put on hold until any potential affects of the narrowing of Jellicoe Street on the movement of heavy vehicles associated with Shell's sites have been appropriately considered and addressed.

In the alternative, and without prejudice to or derogating from the general submission made above VHHL makes the specific submissions on the Proposed Plan Modifications [in the following subparts 6/2 -6/5].

Such further, consequential, or alternative relief as may be required to give effect to these submissions or which may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

VHHL ...seeks that the Proposed Plan Modifications be withdrawn

In the alternative, and without prejudice to or derogating from the general and specific submissions made above VHHL seeks:

(a) That designations 385, 386, and 387 be withdrawn;

(b) That all references and notations regarding the Transitional Overlay Precinct be deleted from the Proposed Plan Modifications;

(c) That all relevant Quarter Plans be amended to provide for permitted FAR of 2.5:l on all sites in Quarter Area 3;

Such further, consequential, or alternative relief as may be required to give effect to these submissions or which may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

VHHL ... seeks that the Proposed Plan Modifications be withdrawn;

In the alternative, and without prejudice to or derogating from the general and specific submissions made above VHHL seeks:

(a) That all relevant Quarter Plans be amended to provide for the Linear Park abutting Jellicoe Street in Quarter Area 5;

(b) That Precinct Plan 1 be amended by deleting all references (text and diagrams) pertaining to the diagonal realignment of the Linear Park shifting the park to the west (i.e. the Linear Park should be consistent with the fundamentally rectilinear grid of the CBD street pattern)

Such further, consequential, or alternative relief as may be required to give effect to these submissions or which may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

VHHL... seeks that the Proposed Plan Modifications be withdrawn;

In the alternative, and without prejudice to or derogating from the general and specific submissions made above VHHL seeks:

(a) That alternatives routes be identified for public transport that are not dependent on the proposed Te Wero Bridge or an interim bridge being in place;

Such further, consequential, or alternative relief as may be required to give effect to these submissions or which may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

VHHL ... seeks that the Proposed Plan Modifications be withdrawn;

In the alternative, and without prejudice to or derogating from the general and specific submissions made above

VHHL seeks:

(a) That alternatives routes be identified for public transport that are not dependent on the proposed Te Wero Bridge or an interim bridge being in place;

Such further, consequential, or alternative relief as may be required to give effect to these submissions or which may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

a) The proposed plan modifications promote comprehensive changes to a primarily industrial area containing significant amounts of hazardous substances through the introduction of people intensive activities. They propose and promote greatly increased public access to the Wynyard Quarter while the bulk liquid industry remains operational without adequate consideration of risk to the public arising from new and sensitive activities being located next to, or near, hazardous facilities. The different land uses are incompatible. Proposals for such fundamental changes in land use should have been preceded by reference to an appropriate risk assessment taking into account the proposed changes to land use.

b)  The proposed plan modifications are inconsistent with and contrary to the Council's own Wynyard Quarter Concept Vision, as they do not provide for "Continued efficient operation of the bulk liquids industry until alternative locations are found."

c) The section 32 report fails to consider the costs and adverse effects of the proposed plan modifications on the regionally significantly bulk liquid facilities, effects of the bulk liquid facilities on the nature of the new development now proposed to occur close to those facilities and the incompatibility of these activities.

d)  The Council did not consult with Marstel prior to notifying the proposed plan modifications and at the time of lodging this submission, has still not consulted with Marstel. It does not have, nor has it sought the information required to fully understand the nature of the Marstel facilities and the products stored there and the conflict between the hazardous facility activities and the activities now proposed through the proposed plan modifications.

e) Due to the significant challenges to Proposed Plan Modifications 4, 33 and 119, minimal weight can be placed on the provisions of Proposed Plan Modifications 4, 33 and 119 in justifying (without limitation):

i) the reasons why the development forming part of proposed plan modifications 37 and 40 should proceed;

ii) the approach to risk assessment and reverse sensitivity.

f)  The proposed plan modifications are inconsistent with regional planning instruments.

g) The proposed plan modifications do not promote the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991 ("the Act") and do not represent sound resource management practice.

h) The proposed plan modifications fail to provide for continued efficient and safe transport access to the bulk liquid facilities. Halsey and Jellicoe Street are a primary transport route to and from the bulk liquid facilities. Plan modification 37 effectively removes Jellicoe Street as a transport route to the bulk storage facilities. It is not clear that Beaumont Street is currently or can remain the primary transport route to the facilities for hazardous and non hazardous bulk liquids. The plan modifications in total will adversely affect the roading network around Wynyard Wharf and in so doing, will adversely impact on all the transport routes available to users of the wharf area and the bulk liquid facilities.

i) The proposed plan modifications do not include any consideration of or information about emergency response and access to the hazard sources in the area.

(a) better provide for an open space/streetscape environment for the amenity of the Quarter, consistent with the established urban design principles for the Quarter;

(b)  enable the public realm design to reflect the importance of the waterfront promenade;

(c) facilitate the creation of a road width consistent with its future function, which can be sustained from a traffic and urban design perspective;

(d)  promote sustainable management of resources and will achieve the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 ("Act");

(e) contribute to meeting the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations;

(f)   contribute to enabling social, economic and cultural well being; and

(g) represent the most appropriate means of exercising the Respondent's functions, having regard to the efficiency and effectiveness of other available means and are therefore appropriate in terms of s32 and other provisions of the Act.