Whilst it seems government has settled on its prefered option for the Waterview Connection, there is still a lot that will take place before we start to see diggers out and around Mt Albert and Waterview. Well, at least I would hope that a lot would need to take place before beginning such a huge and expensive project – so that the community has proper environmental mitigation and so that we actually know that spending $1.4 billion on this project is worth it. I’m not convinved that either will happen.
Let’s start with the economic justification of the project. The cost-benefit analysis for the previous option – the full tunnel – was briefly outlined in the Ministry of Transport’s review of that option. The figures were fairly dodgy in my opinion, largely because 73% of the benefits are mythical time-savings benefits. Now one would imagine that many of the costs and benefits are the same for this option as the previous option, in particular the benefits. However, surely there will be greater social and enviornmental costs associated with the partial tunnel and surface option than would have been the case for the full tunnel option. It would certainly be interesting to see the reworked figures. The construction costs are most certainly lower, which I guess is a good thing, but it seems like we’re just being told to believe that this outweighs any social, environmental or economic (like the loss in house values for people surrounding the project but not directly affected by it) costs that will increase. I would certainly like some pressure put on Steven Joyce to show us the updating cost-benefit analysis, and also to show how the $2.62 billion of time savings benefits are calculated.
The second issue I have is related to the consenting process for the Waterview Connection. To briefly go into a bit of “planner speak”, consenting the Waterview Connection will take place by way of a designation. A designation is a kind of “spot zoning” which identifies specific controls, rules and restrictions that are placed on an area of land. Designations cannot be made by anyone, only certified “requiring authorities” such as government ministers, infrastructure providers and councils. Designations are used for schools, roads, power-lines, railway lines and motorways. A designation also allows the Public Works Act 1940 to come into play, which relates to the compulsory acquisition of property (with appropriate compensation of course). In reality, designations generally work fairly similar to resource consents these days when it comes to their processing – although less consideration of the council’s District Plan is given and more consideration is given to the analysis of the project’s environmental effects.
The application for a designation is a “Notice of Requirement”, similar to a resource consent application in some ways but also different in some important ways. The Notice of Requirement, as well as proposing restrictions on the activity and assessing its environmental effects, must also explicitly state why the designation is necessary and must assess possible alternatives to this particular designation. These can be alternative routes, methods or processes that might otherwise achieve the stated purpose of the designation. With regards to the processing and decision-making on a designation the main difference between one and a resource consent is that a council, at the moment, can only recommend alterations to the designation. The requiring authority can reject or accept these recommendations – although of course either party can appeal to the environment court. Large projects that are controversial (like Waterview) generally end up in the environment court – so it can be a pretty long and drawn out process. However, that does not mean it is a pointless process. Many projects have been significantly improved by the consenting process – with the following coming to mind in recent years:
1) The SH20 Mt Roskill Extension had its impacts on Mt Roskill mountain significantly reduced.
2) The Onehunga interchange portion of the Manukau Harbour Crossing Project was removed due to its effects on volcanic cones and the views of the Manukau Harbour.
There are many other similar examples where public submissions really have ended up making a difference to the outcome of a designation process. Some of these changes have been made at the hearings stage (like the Onehunga case) while others have been made in the course of an environment court appeal. However, in general the input of the public has resulted in a superior outcome.
So therefore I am worried about what effects the current proposed changes to the Resource Management Act will have on the ability of the public to make a difference when it comes to the Waterview Connection. These concerns began when Steven Joyce made the following statement:
Depending on the final scope of the project it could be possible to begin construction in 2011 and complete the project within about four years. As a Road of National Significance this is expected to be progressed under the call-in process of the new provisions of the Resource Management Act which will significantly speed up delivery of the project.
So what are those “new provisions” and how will they limit things? Well this is what Nick Smith had to say when doing the first reading of the RMA Amendment Bill:
The first tranche of reforms deals with projects of national significance. There are real problems in how long it takes to get major infrastructure projects through under the consenting process, particularly as they have to go through a local consenting process and, inevitably, end up at the Environment Court. We need only look at examples—such as the Albany to Pūhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2) in Auckland, which took nearly a decade, and the Wellington City bypass, which took 17 years—to see the need for reform.The tricky balance we need to recognise is that these projects have both a local and a national dimension to them. It is a gross simplification to say they are all either national or local. That is why this bill takes an innovative approach in creating a single board of inquiry, but with the capacity of local authorities to nominate board members on to those boards, and also an amendment to ensure that local knowledge is an important factor. The bill provides for a single-step process that recognises both the local and national dimensions of projects.
The boards will be chaired by a current or retired Environment Court judge to ensure independence. There are tight timelines of 9 months for reaching a decision, and restrained appeal rights, to ensure that we can build important infrastructure for our country.
To paraphrase, no local council hearing, a strict 9 month time limit on the consent process and limited rights of appeal. Ouch! Whatever happened to the government feeling bad for the poor people of Waterview and Mt Albert over this decision? Not only does the government plan to build a (completely unnecessary, by the way) motorway right through a well established part of Auckland’s urban area, they also don’t want to let anyone properly oppose it.
I think the first thing local residents being “consulted” by NZTA over this issue should do is demand that this project is not included as one that would go straight to a board of inquiry. The residents should demand that this issue is not hurried through to the extent that their voices are silenced and they should demand that their rights of appeal are not restrained. This is a critical first step – local hearings do achieve change but a board of inquiry is, in my opinion, just a rubber stamp. Even if the proposal cannot be fully stopped, a local hearing would ensure that the best possible mitigation occurs for affected residents – something that I do not believe will be possible if the project comes within the grasp of the RMA Amendments.
Processing...