transcript of proceedings east west link proposal...2017/08/23 · 11.22 am dr hewison the onehunga...

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

East West Link Proposal

HEARING at

HUNTERVILLE ROOM, ASCOT STAND,

ELLERSLIE EVENT CENTRE,

80 ASCOT AVENUE,

REMUERA,

AUCKLAND

on 23 August 2017

BOARD OF INQUIRY:

Dr John Priestley (Chair) CNZM QC

Mr Alan Bickers (Deputy Chair) MNZM JP

Mr Michael Parsonson (Board Member)

Ms Sheena Tepania (Board Member)

Hearing Proceedings

Day 35 Wednesday 23 August 2017

Time Name Representing Topic Documents Submitted /

Presented

Transcript Ref.

Page no's

9.01 am Mr Noble Transpower Examination-in-chief by Mr

Gardner-Hopkins

Hearing Summary 4809

9.03 am Mr Lanning Auckland Council Cross-examination 4810

9.17 am Board Board of Inquiry Questions 4815

9.27 am Mr Lanning Auckland Council Cross-examination cont'd 4817

9.29 am Mr Pilkinton Turners and

Growers

Cross-examination Exhibit Y – Letter EWL Project:

update on Transpower position

14.6.17

4819


9.57 am Dr Priestley Board of Inquiry Discussion with Mr Gardner-

Hopkins

4832

10.00 am Dr Hewison The Onehunga

Enhancement

Society

Cross-examination 4833



Enhancement

Society

Cross-examination cont'd 4837



Enhancement

Society


10.32 am Morning tea 4845


Enhancement

Society




Enhancement

Society




Enhancement

Society


11.27 am Ms Evitt NZ Transport

Agency



12.09 pm Mr Gardner-Hopkins Transpower Re-examination 4880

12.17 pm Board Board of Inquiry Questions 4883

12.22 pm Mr Horne Transpower Examination-in-chief by Mr

Gardner-Hopkins

Hearing Summary 4885

12.38 pm Lunch 4890

1.45 pm Board Board of Inquiry Discussion with Mr Gardner-

Hopkins

4890

1.47 pm Dr Hewison The Onehunga

Enhancement

Society


1.53 pm Ms Evitt NZ Transport

Agency



1.58 pm Ms Evitt NZ Transport

Agency


2.00 pm Mr Curtin Campaign for

Better Transport

Evidence-in-chief 4896


2.03 pm Mr Mulligan NZ Transport

Agency



2.50 pm Mr Pitches Campaign for

Better Transport

Re-examination 4913

2.51 pm Mr Pitches Campaign for

Better Transport

Submissions Representation 4914

3.01 pm Dr Priestley Board of Inquiry Housekeeping 4917

3.07 pm Adjourn 4920

Ellerslie Event Centre, Auckland 23.08.17

[9.01 am]

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you. Mr Gardner-Hopkins, I think it is a series of your witnesses 5

today.

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Yes.

DR PRIESTLEY: Mr Noble's summary was made available to us in advance, so we have 10

all read it, so once he's sworn, if you've got any supplementary

questions you can do it then, and then I think you are first in line, Mr

Lanning, for cross-examination.

MR LANNING: Correct. 15

DR PRIESTLEY: Yes. Swear in Mr Noble.

Mr Noble (sworn)

20

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Whilst Mr Noble is being sworn in, sir, I just wanted to check

whether the Board had received my updating memorandum of counsel.

It was part of the materials filed when Transpower was originally

scheduled to call its witnesses. It is brief and it really is --

25

DR PRIESTLEY: Dated 8 August?

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Correct.

DR PRIESTLEY: We have received it. 30

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: It really is just by way of updating. I didn't intend necessarily to

take the Board through it but I'm happy to speak to it briefly if it would

assist.

35

DR PRIESTLEY: Well, probably not, because you will need to close at some stage. It

didn't strike me there was anything there radical or dramatic, with

respect.

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: No. I just wanted to make sure the Board was up to date with 40

the factual changes.

DR PRIESTLEY: We have it. Thank you very much.

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Thank you. 45

Mr Noble, can you please confirm that your full name is Roy John


Clement Noble?

MR NOBLE: It is.

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: And that you have produced a statement of evidence for these 5

proceedings, dated 10 May 2017.

MR NOBLE: I have.

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: And that you also produced a summary update statement, dated 10

8 August.

MR NOBLE: It is correct, yes.

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: And can you please confirm that to the best of your knowledge 15

and belief, those statements are true and correct?

MR NOBLE: Absolutely, yes.

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Your Honour, I have no supplementary question so, Mr Noble, 20

please answer any questions the Board or my friends may have of you.

MR NOBLE: Certainly.

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Mr Gardner-Hopkins. Yes, Mr Lanning. 25

MR LANNING: Thank you, sir.

Good morning, Mr Noble. I want to start with paragraph 13 of your

summary. 30

MR NOBLE: Yes.

MR LANNING: There you say undergrounding is a major exercise, even putting costs

aside, but undergrounding is not impossible, is it? 35

MR NOBLE: It is, correct, yes.

MR LANNING: At paragraph 91 of your evidence-in-chief you give two examples of

where that's occurred. This is on page 15 of your evidence-in-chief, 40

paragraph 91. You have mentioned Highbrook and the Massey North

town centre development. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions

about those.

My understanding from your evidence is that the reasons for the 45

undergrounding in both of those cases was to - these are my words, so

you can correct me if I'm wrong - facilitate safe and effective


development of those areas of land. Is that a fair summary?

[9.05 am]

MR NOBLE: With the word effective, I would say it was also to maximise potential, 5

yes.

MR LANNING: Yes; so an efficient development of that land.

In both cases, was the undergrounded funded by third parties? 10

MR NOBLE: Yes.

MR LANNING: Was that funding in total of that undergrounding work?

15

MR NOBLE: As I remember it, yes.

MR LANNING: In either case, or both cases, was the actual physical undergrounding

work undertaken as part of the physical development of the land?

20

MR NOBLE: It was undertaken prior to; prior to the development. Interesting fact:

At Highbrook, we undergrounded part of it and put the other piece over

on poles, so the 220 went above ground and the 110, underground.

MR LANNING: Right. So it wasn't a case of land development activities occurring first 25

and then the undergrounding coming along later.

MR NOBLE: No. It actually was part of the development plans. The realignment

was required to put the trenches in places where the buildings weren't

being put. 30

MR LANNING: Right. Thank you.

No doubt you are aware of the Onehunga community's desire to remove

the power lines across Onehunga Bay, etc. You are aware of those 35

concerns, aren't you?

MR NOBLE: Yes.

MR LANNING: Is it your understanding that those concerns have been around for a 40

number of years; they are not new?

MR NOBLE: Correct.

MR LANNING: Mr Gardner-Hopkins showed you a brochure this morning, a 2013 45

brochure, which I understand from him is being updated by

Transpower, so I don't think I'll put that document to you because it

will probably confuse things, but there were a couple of statements in


that brochure which I wanted to see whether you agree with.

One is that the brochure says that Transpower accepts - it's a

Transpower brochure - the brochure says these lines and the

infrastructure can be visually unattractive. Would you agree with that? 5

MR NOBLE: That would be in the eye of the beholder, yes.

MR LANNING: Well, is it fair to say that it is more common for people to say they are

visually unattractive than attractive? Is that fair? 10

MR NOBLE: In the general principles, yes.

MR LANNING: Yes. The brochure also acknowledges that the presence of

transmission lines can constrain what landowners can do under those 15

lines. You would accept that.

MR NOBLE: That would be correct.

MR LANNING: Yes. That's helpful. That's quickened that up, significantly, so that's 20

good.

I want to take you to paragraph 14 of your summary statement.

MR NOBLE: Yes. 25

MR LANNING: There you mention Transpower's work on a long-term strategy for

Auckland; I just want to ask you some questions about that.

MR NOBLE: Certainly. 30

MR LANNING: You've said, and the quote you've got there is from your evidence-in-

chief, and when you wrote your evidence-in-chief, you said there that

the strategy could take 18 to 24 months. Has that strategy work actually

started? 35

MR NOBLE: The strategy work has actually begun. We have created seven or eight

options through the overall Auckland area and are at present testing

those. You probably saw in the press the other day that Alison Andrew

did present to the Auckland Council planning team and did present 40

where we were at with that strategy.

MR LANNING: So the 18 to 24 months, is that when it's going hopefully be completed?

Is that the timeframe?

45

MR NOBLE: As I understand it at the moment, the intent is to try and complete that

by June or July 2018, which will get down to a short list of options,

which we will then have to further test. Those options include pulling


out some assets, building assets, deviating out of other places.

[9.10 am]

MR LANNING: Okay. You have indicated there that there's been a presentation to the 5

Auckland Council; the planning committee, is it?

MR NOBLE: Correct, yes.

MR LANNING: What sort of community consultation has there been up until this point? 10

MR NOBLE: That is a next stage, to actually, once we complete our selected options

and road-test them technically, then we'll go public on those; yes.

MR LANNING: Right. So from that I understand the intention is that you will be 15

seeking input from the community on those options. Is that correct?

MR NOBLE: I would imagine, yes.

MR LANNING: In terms of any final decisions made by Transpower, you will be taking 20

into account that community input.

MR NOBLE: Absolutely right, yes.

MR LANNING: Yes. You have mentioned there that one of the results of this work 25

might be decisions to remove or add or deviate assets. Is that what you

said?

MR NOBLE: That would be correct, yes.

30

MR LANNING: Yes. And from that, when you say move or deviate assets, is that

potentially undergrounding?

MR NOBLE: Some of it could be in and out of existing subs; where it's got 110 kV

supply at the moment, we could deviate those in underground, turn it 35

to 220, which would allow us to pull out the 110s. So there's a wider-

ranging 40-year kind of plan on what we really require. We've been

very piecemeal for quite a period of time. With the advent of batteries

and solar and growth, we have the ability at the moment to stand back

and actually take a wider approach to Auckland. 40

MR LANNING: Right. So a bit of crystal ball gazing.

So that takes me now to the specifics of the East West Link and I think

you understand what the Council's wish is in this, and that is in terms 45


of the undergrounding the Mangere to Roskill A, 110 kV line.

MR NOBLE: I wasn't aware that there was a formal Council requirement, no.

MR LANNING: Well, no, it's not a Council requirement; it is the focus of the Council's 5

case in terms of the East West Link.

MR NOBLE: Is it? Oh.

MR LANNING: Yes. 10

MR NOBLE: No, I am not aware of that then, no.

MR LANNING: So that's the line of particular concern for the Council, the Mangere-

Roskill A line. 15

You said at paragraph 101 of your evidence-in-chief, if we can have a

quick look at that, that there's no obvious single technical reason that

would prevent undergrounding of that line. That's still your view?

20

MR NOBLE: Yes, it is.

MR LANNING: Just to clarify, is that the case with the East West Link in place?

MR NOBLE: That would be correct. There are ways around things. We don't have 25

to go down Highway 20 you can go around Orpheus Drive, you can go

across bridges. There are various ways. The cost impacts will change

through those but there aren't any fatal flaws, no.

MR LANNING: So you've mentioned there the potential to use Orpheus Drive. I think 30

in your evidence you mentioned a 14-metre-wide corridor around a 110

kV line, is that the sort of technical requirement?

MR NOBLE: That is the width between the trenches, yes.

35

MR LANNING: So your preliminary, and I accept it is preliminary, look at the East

West Link with that 14 metre wide requirement, you see there's

potential to use Orpheus Drive to underground that?

[9.15 am] 40

MR NOBLE: We feel there is a potential of various route options. We wouldn't tie

ourselves to Orpheus Drive, that would be a piece of work that would

have to be investigated in the future.

45

MR LANNING: That's understood, thank you. So in light of that, and I hammer the

point because it's important for Council, Mr Wickman for the NZ

Transport Agency in his evidence-in-chief at paragraph 10.23 said that


the project will not foreclose on the opportunities to underground in the

future. Your view is consistent with that statement, isn't it?

MR NOBLE: I don't think the East West project precludes that. I would say I have

got concerns as to where the beginning and end point of that could be, 5

given that on the south side it's actually beside the harbour. Whether

we'd have to have a termination point where we reclaim part of the

harbour or have to go further back. At the northern end Auckland

Council would have to put a termination point in a park or else we keep

on travelling forwards. I would also say, though, two or three of our 10

options involve pulling that asset out as part of the Auckland strategy.

So it's probably a bit early to sign up to the undergrounding, I would

feel reasonably embarrassed.

MR LANNING: Just to be clear, the Council's position is that we want to make sure that 15

the East West Link will not preclude the removal or undergrounding of

the section of line between effectively Aotea Sea Scouts and through

to the wharf. So that's the bit that we're concerned about so --

MR NOBLE: Yes, well I am of the understanding that Orpheus Drive will be under 20

the control of Auckland anyway after the project is over.

DR PRIESTLEY: Can I just ask a question here, Mr Lanning?

MR LANNING: Yes, certainly, sir. 25

DR PRIESTLEY: Mr Noble, Mr Lanning's told you, he being the counsel for Auckland

Council, that the undergrounding of the Mangere-Roskill line is a focus

of Auckland Council and also I notice in your evidence-in-chief you

refer to Transpower's appearance before a parliamentary select 30

committee two years or so ago. You have quite helpfully in your

evidence referred to developing a strategy for undergrounding. We've

had a number of questions asked by Mr Hewison, who is the lawyer

appearing for The Onehunga Enhancement Society about various

pylons and in fact undergrounding at least the Mangere-Roskill line. 35

Sorry, this is quite a long question but I'm giving you the background

to it. I suspect we're going to be urged as a Board to try and impose a

condition that these pylons do be substituted by undergrounding but for

various legal reasons that's probably a very big ask. But can you give

us any comfort at all as to how many years away - and I suspect years 40

is quite operative - it might be before, with the Mangere-Roskill line,

undergrounding does get underway or, as you said a moment ago,

possibly an alternative to having that line at all. What was can the

residents of Onehunga and Hillsborough and Mangere Bridge look

forward to? How long are we looking at? Five years, ten years, two 45

decades? Have you got a best guess? How far along the track is this


strategy?

MR NOBLE: So the strategy as I see it is in its infancy, we've been working on it.

We're down to seven or eight options, of which I think five of them, in

the order of, have the opportunity to pull that out. However, there are 5

wider connotations to that about other works that would have to be

undertaken to actually allow that to happen. So that strategy, as I said,

is at least until we get down to one or options. Commitment to if those

options said we would pull it out, I think it's the mid-2020s. If we

weren't to pull that out or if the option said we retain it, at the moment 10

the conductor has got about 40 years in it yet, therefore there wouldn't

be an overriding driver for Transpower to be able to recover that

without being funded for it.

[9.20 am] 15

DR PRIESTLEY: So is this an accurate summary of what you just said, it's in its infancy,

best case scenario would be three years but it may well be Transpower

will go for an option to retain the line, in which case we're looking at

say 35 years? 20

MR NOBLE: That would be on the bottom end of it, yes. It could actually be further

out than that, yes.

DR PRIESTLEY: Long after you've retired and a significant number of people in this 25

room are dead.

MR NOBLE: I would hope I'm well and truly retired by then, sir, yes.

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Mr Lanning. 30

MR BICKERS: Can I just get in at this point. Mr Noble, the strategy when it's

developed, can you just describe the approval process for that. Is it a

board approval process or is the electricity authority required to sign

off? 35

MR NOBLE: As I understand it, it would be a board approval process to get to some

selected options. We will then have to undertake further work with the

electricity authority, the Commerce Commission and probably the

government to work on ways of funding the final outcome. At the 40

moment those tools are not in the toolbox.

MR BICKERS: The process or the criteria for capital investment by Transpower, can

you just describe in general terms the sort of criteria? I presume

securities of supply is a primary criterion but what other criteria might 45

come into consideration?

MR NOBLE: So the criteria are actually set by the Commerce Commission, they are


all economically driven. The economics is around security of supply,

future growth, asset condition, replacement on time. They are all

driven by transferring electrons from A to B. Those criteria do not

bring into account anything with things like property aspects that are

brought up, pricing that's brought up, that isn't part of the criteria at all. 5

MR BICKERS: Landscape and aesthetics don't feature?

MR NOBLE: They will feature if we needed a consent to undertake the works and

they were a flaw, yes. But at the moment if the asset is there they don't 10

feature, no.

MR BICKERS: So, to use your words, to get rid of, for example the 100 kV line, the

main driver would be a more economical solution for one of the

alternatives rather than the fact that it's a blight on the landscape? 15

MR NOBLE: That would be correct, yes. It would have to be able to be economically

justified unless government policy and Commerce Commission rules

changed, yes.

20

MR BICKERS: Right, so the primary driver at the end of the day, as you said, is security

followed by economics in terms of the best options?

MR NOBLE: Within the rules that we have at present, yes.

25

MR BICKERS: Yes, I appreciate you are heavily driven by those. So if this 100 kV

line for consideration was to be undergrounded it would probably need

third party funding?

MR NOBLE: That would be the case at present, yes. 30

MR BICKERS: Okay, thank you.

MR LANNING: That nicely leads into my last few questions.

35

MR BICKERS: Sorry about that.

MR LANNING: No, that's actually really helpful. So, the last few questions I wanted to

ask you, Mr Noble, are assuming that the undergrounding of the

Mangere-Roskill A line, the section I talked about anyway, would be 40

cost neutral for Transpower, so it would be funded by a third party. So

that's the assumption of these next few questions.

[9.25 am]

45

So you've said that there's no reason to say that the undergrounding, or

assuming it's not going to be removed, which would be marvellous, but

there's no reason to say that the undergrounding of that section between


Aotea Sea Scouts and the wharf is not possible at this stage?

MR NOBLE: That would be correct. I would just say be aware. It depends how far

back on each end that will have to go --

5

MR LANNING: Oh, no, look, I perfectly understand that.

MR NOBLE: -- which is outside the realms of the East West kind of area, that's all.

MR LANNING: Would you agree that it would be a poor outcome if the East West Link 10

was built in such a way that that undergrounding was not possible?

MR NOBLE: It would be a poor outcome, but I can't say I am convinced we are at

that point.

15

MR LANNING: Going back to the questions we started with, the very few questions I

asked about the Highbrook and Massey North cases, from your point

of view, if that undergrounding was to occur, would it be preferable

that that occurred at the same time the East West Link physical works

happened? 20

MR NOBLE: The answer would be, yes, it would be preferable. I think the timelines,

though, don't align very well.

DR PRIESTLEY: What does that mean? 25

MR NOBLE: The time that the East West project is scheduled for build, I am unsure

whether it aligns with Transpower's strategy of moving that asset or

keeping the asset.

30

DR PRIESTLEY: Decoding that, the strategy which you have told us that Transpower is

in its infancy is not likely to have got to adolescence or maturity by the

time the East West Link is started?

MR NOBLE: I am in fact saying that I don't think that in terms of any condition at 35

the moment of that requirement in the timeframe we are in now kind of

aligns. If we are talking East West 2020 and we agree that someone

will pay to underground it and we agree that it will be kept there for

perpetuity and won't be pulled out, or whether we agree that we

underground it and then we pull it out if it isn't required that would be -40

-

DR PRIESTLEY: Yes. But, in essence, the process of Transpower, which you very

helpfully described to us, is going to take somewhat longer than it is


for the East West Link construction, if it is approved, to get under way?

MR NOBLE: The East West planning design, yes.

DR PRIESTLEY: Yes. 5

MR LANNING: With that in mind, would you support a condition on the East West

Link designation requiring, through the detailed design of the East

West Link works - what have I got here - that it was designed in such

a way that it didn't preclude or prevent the potential undergrounding of 10

that line?

MR NOBLE: I think that would be fine, depending whether it ultimately was used or

wasn't used would be the question. But, no, that is probably fair. I

would say that the East West is only part of the route that we would 15

have to find. It is actually bigger than that.

MR LANNING: Yes. I accept that but you would support a condition requiring that the

potential for these works on your infrastructure to be taken into account

at least through that detailed design process? 20

MR NOBLE: Yes.

MR LANNING: I have no further questions, sir.

25

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Mr Lanning. Turners and Growers, Mr Pilkinton?

MR PILKINTON: Thank you, sir. Good morning. Mr Noble --

DR PRIESTLEY: Are you hooked up? 30

MR PILKINGTON: No. Hooked up?

MR NOBLE: Now you are, yes.

35

MR PILKINTON: All good?

MR NOBLE: No.

MR PILKINTON: Can you hear me? 40

MR NOBLE: Now I can, yes.

MR PILKINTON: Excellent. Paragraph 25 of your evidence-in-chief you say that


ensuring safety is Transpower's key operational concern, correct?

MR NOBLE: Yes.

MR PILKINTON: Again, at paragraph 7 of your hearing statement you say that safety 5

matters must be paramount?

MR NOBLE: Yes.

MR PILKINTON: In 46.1 of your evidence-in-chief you refer to the Henderson-Otahuhu 10

220kV line and say that without that line existing peak load in North

Auckland and Northland could not be maintained?

MR NOBLE: That is correct.

15

MR PILKINTON: That is the line that needs to be relocated in terms of the T&G site to

allow the project to proceed?

[9.30 am]

20

MR NOBLE: Yes, and also for NZ Transport Agency's purpose, yes.

MR PILKINTON: Yes. So you would accept that ensuring public safety and security of

supply are Transpower's bottom lines, aren't they?

25

MR NOBLE: They are, yes.

MR PILKINTON: And if there is ultimately a safety or security of supply issue, which

means a clear corridor below the relocated line on the T&G site is

required, that is going to take precedence over allowing T&G's 30

activities to remain beneath the relocated lines, aren't they?

MR NOBLE: I was of the understanding that Transpower had confirmed that it wasn't

a requirement for a clear corridor across the T&G site.

35

MR PILKINTON: Yes, but that is subject to your two bottom lines, being public safety

and security of supply being maintained, isn't it?

MR NOBLE: That would be fair, yes.

40

MR PILKINTON: At paragraph 80 of your evidence-in-chief, you say that at present

Transpower is unable to undertake detailed design of the Henderson-

Otahuhu line relocation?

MR NOBLE: Yes, we are in the conceptual design stage - probably further than that 45

actually - but we can't do detailed design because things do keep on


moving.

MR PILKINTON: Yes. So what you need is the detail and the certainty, the final position

of NZ Transport Agency's works before you can do or complete your

detailed design? 5

MR NOBLE: Yes, we require it to do our full blown detailed design. We don't

require it to do the conceptual design to prove whether we can

undertake the works safely or get a final outcome. So the works we

have undertaken for the T&G site at the moment does indicate that 10

there is a viable option for us to (a) keep security and (b) do it safely.

MR PILKINTON: Yes. But you won't know that for certain until we have the outcome of

the Board's decision on the East West Link, and you won't know that

until the conditions have been finalised by the Board? 15

MR NOBLE: That would be correct. However, I would temper that with the fact that

we have adequate information at the moment to be 90% confident that

there is a solution, probably even higher than that. We were even

surprised about an option that got put forward to T&G on Monday, 20

which changed the way we had to think about things. We have run

through that and checked whether that creates a flaw, and the answer

is: we can probably work around it but it is a bit harder that's all.

MR PILKINTON: We will get back to that option shortly. In terms of dispensations, you 25

say at paragraph 73 of your evidence-in-chief that Transpower very

infrequently grants dispensations to the code of practice in relation to

buildings. Correct?

MR NOBLE: That would be correct, yes. 30

MR PILKINTON: Again, at paragraph 80, dispensations cannot be granted until the Board

confirms a project and detailed design is undertaken by Transpower,

correct?

35

MR NOBLE: The final dispensation cannot be given but we can indicate that, once

again, there are no flaws.

MR PILKINTON: And you say in your hearing statement, paragraphs 8 to 10, further

indemnifications and you say that an indemnification will be required, 40

and the period of indemnification is for the period of work being

undertaken, correct?

MR NOBLE: Correct.

45

MR PILKINTON: I just want to clarify with you, if I can, that a dispensation is going to

be required, isn't it, for the T&G buildings to remain within the


minimum safe distances under the code of practice?

MR NOBLE: The only dispensation that would be required is if there is a building

within 12 metres of a structure, which I can't remember that level of

detail for structure 14. I am aware that structure 15 is further away than 5

that, so …

MR PILKINTON: But if dispensation was to be required that would be NZ Transport

Agency who would need to obtain that dispensation?

10

MR NOBLE: No, I would have thought it was T&G that required that dispensation.

MR PILKINTON: For NZ Transport Agency to provide the indemnity then?

MR NOBLE: Given that the works are not being undertaken for the purpose of a 15

construction, I would struggle to see how T&G would have to

indemnity, no.

[9.35 am]

20

So the works to be undertaken are the road works. If there aren't any

additions to the building, or any works being undertaken around the

building at that time, then I'm unsure what we would be asking for

indemnification for.

25

MR PILKINTON: So there is no need to indemnify Transpower on an ongoing basis for

the buildings to remain under the relocated --

MR NOBLE: That would be correct. It is the same as any other building that is in

Auckland. We have got towers that are in buildings, around buildings, 30

close to buildings. We aren't going back in retrospectively asking for

those things, no.

MR PILKINTON: Except in this case you are relocating your line. It is not retrospective,

though, is it? 35

MR NOBLE: Correct.

MR PILKINTON: So is there going to be an indemnification required or not?

40

MR NOBLE: It could be argued that we would be asking ourselves to indemnify

ourselves against the hazards that we would be potentially introducing.

MR PILKINTON: So you don't know if there will be an indemnification?

45

MR NOBLE: I couldn't confirm with structure 14 in particular, no.

MR PILKINTON: And you don't know whether that would be NZ Transport Agency or


T&G who were providing that indemnification?

MR NOBLE: No.

MR PILKINTON: And you don't know whether this is an ongoing indemnification forever 5

and a day to indemnify Transpower against all the losses that could

flow if its major line goes down?

MR NOBLE: No, that isn't the intent of it. No. So it is for when the works are being

undertaken. It is usually for people that are working around, building 10

the road, who operate cranes, drive bloody diggers and bash into pylons

and do all sorts of silly things.

MR PILKINTON: Right. But there will be obviously forklifts, trucks, all sorts of things

going on around your pylons on an ongoing basis? 15

MR NOBLE: Yes, but there is that wherever, yes.

MR PILKINTON: Now, at paragraph 111 of your evidence-in-chief you say that

Transpower intends to obtain an easement from T&G to allow the 20

permanent relocation of its line. Correct?


MR PILKINTON: Now, Mr Horn says in his evidence-in-chief, paragraph 71, that any 25

easement obtained by Transpower would likely be more restrictive than

the unitary plan's national grid overlay rules.

MR NOBLE: I think we might have changed our position on that since his evidence.

It's probably worth asking him that. The intent is that we've gone 30

through the AUP and the restriction zones are all we can really argue.

This span comes up as a span that's deemed compromised, so under-

build in it is acceptable. We'd be foolish to argue that we can't under-

build it when in actual fact we've got a plan requirement that says it

can. 35

MR PILKINTON: So are you disagreeing with Mr Horne's evidence now, or should I ask

him that?

MR NOBLE: I'm saying you should ask him. I think whether his evidence has moved 40

on would be another question.

MR PILKINTON: Okay. Thank you. But do you accept that if the underlying land can

still be put to reasonable use by T&G, it might be acceptable for

Transpower to obtain an easement? 45

MR NOBLE: Yes. Well, Transpower has to gain an easement. As I said in evidence,

I'm not a property expert, but given that our rights under the Electricity


Act only give us the ability to own, maintain and operate on the current

alignment, any shift off that requires us to procure an easement.

MR PILKINTON: Yes, and if we can't put that land to reasonable use, you're not going to

need to apply the freehold, are you? 5

MR NOBLE: Usually we pay compensation rather than freehold.

MR PILKINTON: Well, you pay compensation for the acquisition of the freehold, the

underlying land itself. If the land can't be put to reasonable use by 10

T&G, you're going to need to acquire that land from T&G, aren't you?

MR NOBLE: That would be a property question that I couldn't answer.

DR PRIESTLEY: Did you say an easement, acquire an easement from T&G? 15

MR PILKINTON: Well, there's an easement, sir. If you can put the underlying land to

reasonable use, we would say that would be acceptable. But if T&G

can't, if Transpower says, "Actually, no, because of our safety issues,

you can't maintain the banana building there", T&G can't do anything 20

with that land, then my question to Transpower is: Transpower would

need to obtain the underlying freehold, as in take the entirety of that

land from T&G.

[9.40 am] 25

DR PRIESTLEY: I don't see why. An easement effectively renders nugatory the rights

of the owner of the fee simple, but creating an easement wouldn't

necessarily require acquisition of the freehold. Don't let that hold you

up but I don't see the logic in your question. 30

MR PILKINTON: Well, sir, if T&G can't put its land, which it still owns subject to an

easement, to reasonable use, then Transpower either acquires an

easement and pays compensation as if it's acquiring the freehold, or it

acquires the freehold. 35

DR PRIESTLEY: But if I agree or either agree I'm required to devote a 3-metre or 4-metre

strip along my boundary for a neighbour's right of way, my freehold

rights in respect of that strip are gone, but it doesn't necessarily mean

I've parted position with the freehold. However, you see the point I'm 40

sure.

MR PILKINTON: Yes, sir. I guess here it's not quite just a 4-metre strip. It's along the

entirety of the northern boundary of T&G's site.

45

DR PRIESTLEY: Yes. I understand your optimism, wanting to get Transpower to

acquire the whole site, but it may be unachievable.


MR PILKINTON: Not quite the whole site, sir. Either way, Mr Noble, there will be a

restriction on T&G's use of its land, won't there?

MR NOBLE: So the terms and conditions of easement will hold restrictions on it,

yes. 5

MR PILKINTON: So that will impact market value, correct, of the land?

MR NOBLE: Possibly.

10

MR PILKINTON: In that case, compensation will be payable by Transpower to T&G?

MR NOBLE: As I understand it at the moment, NZ Transport Agency will procure

the easement on behalf of Transpower, so NZ Transport Agency would

have to compensate for that. 15

MR PILKINTON: And at this stage there's no guarantee that any property right, easement

or otherwise, will need to be acquired from T&G, is there?

MR NOBLE: I couldn't confirm or deny that. 20

MR PILKINTON: Just confirm for me: Transpower has been engaging with the Transport

Agency on the project since 2013?

MR NOBLE: That's correct. 25

MR PILKINTON: And its primary focus has been on avoiding, remedying, mitigating the

adverse effects on the project on its assets, correct?

MR NOBLE: Are we talking assets -- 30

MR PILKINTON: Transpower's assets, national grid assets.


35

MR PILKINTON: And you set out that engagement, paragraphs 55 - 60 of your evidence-

in-chief?

MR NOBLE: Correct. Somewhere in that order, yes.

40

MR PILKINTON: Now, the preferred corridor for the project was confirmed by NZ

Transport Agency's Board in July 2015. Would you accept that the

need to address the impacts of the national grid in that location on the

T&G site would have been obvious from at least then?

45

MR NOBLE: No, I wouldn't because I think it does take some form of design work

and depth of design to understand the impacts of that proposal, and at

that time there wasn't that level of detail. However, we have been


working with that and getting refined options over time.

MR PILKINTON: Yes, but we've heard evidence from the Transport Agency that from

that point on, when the preferred corridor was selected, they were very

constrained in terms of what they can and can't do in that location, so 5

it was certain at that point, wasn't it, that the Transpower lines would

need to be relocated at some --

MR NOBLE: Absolutely. Yes, yes. So it's always been well-understood that through

that area our assets would have to be tweaked, moved. 10

MR PILKINTON: Yes. That could have become obvious to everybody earlier through the

alternatives assessment, couldn't it, but at the very least, once the

preferred corridor was confirmed, you knew or NZ Transport Agency

knew that these lines would need to be relocated in some way, shape 15

or form in this location?

MR NOBLE: I wasn't part of those discussions but I would be surprised if we didn't

understand that there were impacts on our assets, yes.

20

MR PILKINTON: Yes. Within paragraphs 55 - 60 of your evidence-in-chief, there's no

mention there of any engagement with NZ Transport Agency or third

parties regarding the flow-on effects of relocations on third parties, is

there?

25

MR NOBLE: We were of the understanding that NZ Transport Agency was

undertaking those talks.

[9.45 am]

30

MR PILKINTON: Okay. Are you aware of Mr Andrew Kearney's evidence on behalf of

Turners & Growers?

MR NOBLE: No, sorry.

35

MR PILKINTON: Well, his evidence is that T&G was first made aware of the need for

Transpower's line to be relocated on 30 August 2016, so more than a

year after the preferred corridor was selected. You accept that?

MR NOBLE: I couldn't comment on that. I'm unaware of it. No. That's a question 40

for NZ Transport Agency to answer.

MR PILKINTON: But certainly T&G wasn't made aware of the need to relocate this line

earlier by Transpower, were they?

45

MR NOBLE: We weren't consulting directly with T&G. We were consulting with

NZ Transport Agency.


MR PILKINTON: Yes. Are you aware of what we'd call the Babbage plan, which is the --

MR NOBLE: Yes, I am. Yes.

MR PILKINTON: Yes. That was put forward by the Transport Agency in their rebuttal 5

evidence?

MR NOBLE: Correct.

MR PILKINTON: And it's not a Transpower plan? 10

MR NOBLE: No, it isn't.

MR PILKINTON: And Mr Baird has confirmed there was no input from Transpower

when he developed that plan, was there? 15

MR NOBLE: That would be correct. We got to see the plan but we didn't get input

to it. Correct.

MR PILKINTON: Ms Duffy, I'm just going to hand up to you a letter. 20

DR PRIESTLEY: Just pause for a moment, Mr Pilkinton. I want to confer with one of

my colleagues.

(off-mic conversation) 25

Yes, thank you, Mr Pilkinton. When you're ready. Are you going to

produce this?

MR PILKINTON: Yes. 30

DR PRIESTLEY: This will be exhibit Y for Yankee, won't it? Y. Thank you. Another

two exhibits and we'll have to go back to AA and start again.

MR PILKINTON: Mr Noble, will you confirm that that is a letter from Transpower's 35

counsel, Mr Gardner-Hopkins, to NZ Transport Agency's counsel, Ms

Cornwell, and T&G's counsel, Ms Carruthers?

MR NOBLE: Yes, it is. Yes.

40

MR PILKINTON: And you've seen this letter before?

MR NOBLE: Yes. I was part of the review process of it, yes.

MR PILKINTON: Yes. So you reviewed the content before it was sent to T&G and NZ 45

Transport Agency?

MR NOBLE: Yes, I did.


DR PRIESTLEY: Just pause for a moment while we digest it. Yes, thank you.

MR PILKINTON: Thank you, sir.

5

Can you just confirm, Mr Noble, that paragraph 1, the purpose of this

letter, the Transport Agency has asked Transpower to consider its

position in respect Transpower infrastructure to be relocated on the

T&G site? Correct?

10

MR NOBLE: Correct.

[9.50 am]

MR PILKINTON: At paragraph 4, Transpower understands from NZ Transport Agency 15

that the concern is the fruit fumigation ripening plant, the banana

building.

MR NOBLE: Correct.

20

MR PILKINTON: You accept that this letter responded from a query from NZ Transport

Agency to Transpower.

MR NOBLE: That would be correct, yes.

25

MR PILKINTON: And the response was provided without approaching T&G to clarify

anything.

MR NOBLE: I think, as I understood it, the response here was to clarify Transpower's

position with respect to the easement requirements as in a clear corridor 30

versus a compromised corridor.

MR PILKINTON: But the letter itself, that response, related only to the banana building,

didn't it?

35

MR NOBLE: And also the proposed Babbage plan.

MR PILKINTON: Not in this letter.

MR NOBLE: I might be thinking of another one, then. 40

MR PILKINTON: If you look at paragraph 4, this letter is talking only about the banana

building, isn't it?

MR NOBLE: Yes, it is. 45

MR PILKINTON: So paragraph 2 refers to the bin- and crate-washing facility and the

Fruit World office space, but other than that, those two facilities are not


addressed elsewhere in the letter, are they?

MR NOBLE: That's correct.

MR PILKINTON: And there is no reference at all to T&G's group head office. 5

MR NOBLE: As I understand it, no.

MR PILKINTON: And that is because, presumably, NZ Transport Agency's query only

related the banana building. 10

MR NOBLE: That was the biggest impacted structure, yes.

MR PILKINTON: And NZ Transport Agency didn't ask about the rest of T&G's activities.

15

MR NOBLE: Not that I am aware of, no.

MR PILKINTON: Look at paragraph 8(c). Even for the banana building, it said there that

Transpower may allow that building to remain but again that is subject

to the bottom-line safety and security of supply requirements that we've 20

talked about, isn't it?

MR NOBLE: That would be correct, on the requirements that the building met

ECP34 height clearances, yes.

25

MR PILKINTON: Yes. But this letter did not confirm that the banana building can remain

beneath the relocated Transpower infrastructure, did it?

MR NOBLE: No. As I understand it, this was to clarify a position of scorched earth

versus a building possibly being kept there and other buildings being 30

put there.

MR PILKINTON: Yes. But it didn't confirm that that building could stay, did it?

MR NOBLE: It was supposed to within the context of NZSP34. 35

MR PILKINTON: But it did not confirm that that building could stay, did it? Nowhere in

this letter does it say that building can stay there.

MR NOBLE: It doesn't definitively say that, yes. 40

MR PILKINTON: Yes. And it doesn't say that the bin- and crate-washing facility, the

group head office, anything else; it doesn't refer to any of those other

activities; it doesn't say that those activities can remain under either the


temporarily relocated line or the permanently relocated line, does it?

MR NOBLE: Correct.

MR PILKINTON: You referred earlier to the revised NZ Transport Agency plan for the 5

T&G site. That is exhibit 23, I think.

MR NOBLE: It is 21, I think.

MR PILKINTON: Twenty-one? Potentially. We thought it was 23. But that is NZ 10

Transport Agency's latest design for the project on the T&G site and it

was provided to T&G only this Sunday evening.

MR NOBLE: As I understood it, it was a conceptual design option. Transpower had

not been consulted on that option. 15

MR PILKINTON: Yes. You have just answered my first question, then, and if you weren't

consulted, when did you first become aware of this new design?

MR NOBLE: About 5.30 on Monday. 20

MR PILKINTON: Okay. And if you can just clarify for me, the amended design still

requires a temporary relocation of the line on the T&G site.

MR NOBLE: Transpower is currently investigating ways to potentially not require 25

the by-pass and try and be very innovative about the way we can take

outages, where we place structures. At this stage, with the level of

design and the continuing design changes, we cannot confirm that that

won't be required. There is a reasonable chance, though, that it won't

be required, but I cannot confirm that. 30

MR PILKINTON: But there will still need to be a permanent relocation of your assets.

MR NOBLE: There will still need to be a permanent relocation; correct, yes,

absolutely. 35

MR PILKINTON: So you would accept, then, that like the design that the Transport

Agency notified, as in its project drawings and what it is apparently

still asking the Board to approve, the concept design, the new concept

design, is still subject to your bottom-line safety and security 40


requirements.

[9.55 am]

MR NOBLE: That would be correct, yes. 5

MR PILKINTON: The dispensation requirements?

MR NOBLE: Yes.

10

MR PILKINTON: And indemnification by NZ Transport Agency or T&G, depending on

whether one --

MR NOBLE: If the relocation required it, yes.

15

MR PILKINTON: Acquisition or a property right in favour of Transpower?

MR NOBLE: Absolutely.

MR PILKINTON: And payment of compensation to T&G for the acquisition of that 20

property right.

MR NOBLE: Yes.

MR PILKINTON: Thank you. No further questions. 25

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Mr Pilkinton. Ms Devine.

MS DEVINE: Sir, no questions.

30

DR PRIESTLEY: No questions?

MR BICKERS: Just a couple of things on this letter, which has been tabled this

morning. It's a little bit confusing. Paragraph 2 talks about the

demolition of the banana building. Then in paragraph 7(c), it says: 35

"There appears to be little or no opportunity to realign the proposal to

avoid the impacts on the banana building."

which I assume means the demolition. But then later on, in paragraph 40

8(c), it says:

"… accepting the Transpower arrangement may allow the banana

building to be retained or, if it is to be demolished, a new building of a

similar nature." 45

I am a bit confused, after all of that. Can the banana building stay, or


not?

MR NOBLE: It can, if it meets the requirements of NZSP34 safety clearances; yes, it

can remain.

5

MR BICKERS: And those are vertical clearances that are probably the issue.

MR NOBLE: Vertical clearances to the conductors, yes.

MR BICKERS: Yes. So not tower issues; just the … 10

MR NOBLE: No, structures 14 and 15 are far enough away from those current

buildings that -- no.

MR BICKERS: So depending on the height of the tower, it could probably be achieved. 15

MR NOBLE: From what I reviewed yesterday, yes it will be achieved easily.

MR BICKERS: Right. Thank you. So in conclusion, it can stay.

20

MR NOBLE: That's our premise at the moment, yes.

MR BICKERS: Right. Okay. Thank you for sorting out my confusion.

DR PRIESTLEY: Two matters before I call on next counsel. Ms Devine, you were on 25

the cross-examination list, that's fine, but you will be cross-examining

the next witness, Mr Horne?

MS DEVINE: Not at this stage, sir.

30

DR PRIESTLEY: I don't think we've got anything else involving you for the rest of the

day, but anyway, that's fine. I'm not kicking you out.

Mr Gardner-Hopkins, there is a certain fuzziness about Transpower's

evidence, and I'm not using that pejoratively, because they are having 35

to deal with all sorts of future issues, which may or may not arise,

where the impacts aren't clear, etc. But my concern, and I have

discussed this, too, with the deputy chair, Mr Bickers, is that when we

come to writing up our report, it's inherently unsatisfactory for us to

pick our way through the alignment pylon by pylon and in fact we 40

might miss some out. So I think it would be helpful for us if I were to

direct that Transpower at some stage files a memorandum which just

sets out the pylons which it considers are going to be affected by the

East West Link alignment, and certainly you can put what the line is in

brackets after each pylon, and what sort of conditions or reservations 45

you feel are necessary to preserve the integrity of the lines of which

those pylons are a part. That's something you can do and you,

presumably, know, whereas we will try to know but it's going to be


quite an onerous task for us to go through plans and maps and goodness

what else, in the evidence. So if you can focus our minds on a pylon

by pylon basis, that would be helpful.

MR PILKINTON: Yes. I am happy to do that. Some of that information is in evidence. 5

DR PRIESTLEY: Of course, but we've got to find it, don't we?

MR PILKINTON: Some of it is possibly in need up some updating, given how matters

have evolved through the proceedings, particularly in respect of one or 10

two sites, like the T&G site.

DR PRIESTLEY: Exactly. So that's the sense behind my direction. It is in evidence, but

we could miss it, and what the evidence relates to may have been

overtaken by other developments. So at the end of the day, if you could 15

- I will direct accordingly - file a memorandum of that sort, it would be

very helpful.

[10.00 am]

20

MR PILKINTON: Yes.

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you. I assume - I'm not having a crack at you, Mr Gardner-

Hopkins - but the situation sometimes arises, and I think the Supreme

Court had something to say about this some years ago, where two very 25

senior and distinguished counsel went on appeal to the Supreme Court

with an argument over what their exchange of correspondence meant,

but I assume that no one is going to want to cross-examination you on

this letter.

30

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: I would hope not, sir.

DR PRIESTLEY: No. But you see the problem I allude to.

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: I am aware of that. 35

DR PRIESTLEY: It is a contingent risk. Thank you. Yes, Mr Hewison; cross-

examination

DR HEWISON: Yes. Thank you, sir. Good morning, Mr Noble. 40

MR NOBLE: Good morning.

DR HEWISON: Mr Hewison, for the Onehunga Enhancement Society. Perhaps if I just

start with a question about the history between the Onehunga 45


community and Transpower in terms of, I suppose, concerns overall.

How far back does the history go in terms of your position?

MR NOBLE: My position? I'm aware of history going back seven or eight years, but 5

I haven't been an active part of that communication, no.

DR HEWISON: Have those concerns been active in terms of discussions between

Transpower and the community?

10

MR NOBLE: Sorry, active, was that?

DR HEWISON: Yes, have there been active ongoing discussions with them?

MR NOBLE: I'd say stop/start but active would be a fair word, yes. 15

DR HEWISON: Yes. In terms of a community, would this be a community that I

suppose has stronger views about these issues compared to other

communities across New Zealand?

20

MR NOBLE: The community groups, yes, I would agree with that. Yes.

DR HEWISON: Okay. So perhaps just in terms of how I want to frame these questions,

I wanted to start by just asking you some questions at a relatively high

level about the project overall and how that affects the Transpower 25

assets and then we'll look at some of the assets in particular.

So perhaps starting with the overall project. At paragraph 3 of your

primary evidence you say that there are resource consents and property

rights that will need to be obtained for some tower works, is that 30

correct?

MR NOBLE: That is correct, yes.

DR HEWISON: And then you say that this presents some risk to the East West Link if 35

for some reason these can't be secured, is that correct?


DR HEWISON: So since that primary evidence was given, have the details been 40

advanced to a level where Transpower knows that consents it might

need and what easements it might need or are we still in a state of, as

the Chair said, quite a bit of fuzziness about that?

MR NOBLE: We remain in a state of fuzziness, however are closer to understanding 45

it. Some places we're sure and other places still remain fuzzy because


the design keeps on changing.

DR HEWISON: Okay. So I think you also said in that paragraph that if a consent cannot

be obtained because we are still in a state of fuzziness and there may

be a future consent that we need, if that can't be obtained then the East 5

West Link doesn't proceed, is that correct?

MR NOBLE: Yes, that would certainly be fair. So if I gave you an example, perhaps?

DR HEWISON: Yes. 10

MR NOBLE: At the edge of the T&G site, for example, pole 15, we are looking to

have to raise that by in the order of 12 to 14 metres, have to offset the

structure by about 17 metres. That sits outside the NES so we don't

have rights to just go and do it, we have to apply for a resource consent. 15

Auckland Council can then challenge whether that's the best option or

the best outcome. It could be a notifiable piece of works but Chris

Horne is probably best to talk about that. But there is a risk that

Transpower has undertaken that consenting process separate to the East

West process. So there is a risk that something could turn a bit pear-20

shaped.

DR HEWISON: Okay. Going from that example, and you don't need to identify whether

there are other examples, but would there be other examples you're

aware of along the route that might fall into the same category? 25

MR NOBLE: Yes.

[10.05 am]

30

DR HEWISON: If the alignment changes slightly in terms of detailed design, is there

the potential for sort of equivalent issues, perhaps not to the degree, to

T&G's arise for properties that currently I suppose aren't within the

scope?

35

MR NOBLE: Not so far as I'm aware. That corner between structure 14 and structure

16 is a real pinch point to the whole project. From there on it's

reasonably -- the actual alignment is what it is and we don't really have

to hop off it so we're pretty good there.

40

DR HEWISON: So if you're having to move or relocate poles, you're confident that if

you're relocating them that they don't fall outside the current


designation or into properties that you're not currently aware of?

MR NOBLE: At the moment, correct.

DR HEWISON: At the moment. So there's still fuzziness about that as well? 5

MR NOBLE: There is, given that, for example, at pole 18 we have identified there is

an underground gas pipe there. We might have to offset our structure

to keep away from that pipe or have the pipe relocated. At the moment

we can't define which answer it will be. 10

DR HEWISON: Going back probably just to a high level, Transpower when it made its

submission opposed the application and then I understand since then it

has come to a position where it's more neutral regarding the application.

In summary, what are the key reasons why Transpower opposed it at 15

the beginning?

MR NOBLE: Transpower opposed it because we felt that there wasn't enough detail

given for Transpower to assess the effects to our infrastructure in the

early on phases, which then led us to and given us the ability to get 20

close to NZ Transport Agency and get some better definition around it,

which has allowed us to get a bit more comfortable with the project.

DR HEWISON: Okay, so have you shifted to a position where despite the fuzziness

you're comfortable that you're neutral as opposed to opposing? 25

MR NOBLE: We're in a position that we feel there aren't any fatal flaws that would

push us except for perhaps the property right issue, the resource consent

issue, can we effect that at the moment? The answer's no but from a

NZ Transport Agency design perspective do we think we can get it to 30

work? Yes. Does it scare me? No.

DR HEWISON: Okay. Coming back, I suppose to one of the key duties for Transpower

and indeed for the country is to ensure that the National Grid is not

compromised by an activity, is that correct? 35

MR NOBLE: It has been compromised as it is now, unfortunately.

DR HEWISON: Okay. In terms of this project, and with the fuzziness that remains, are

you confident that despite there being perhaps consents that you might 40

not be able to obtain, that this project doesn't compromise the National

Grid?

MR NOBLE: We are confident that the solutions that are available to us won't

compromise the grid, yes. 45

DR PRIESTLEY: Just pause for a moment, Mr Hewison. I don't want a long explanation

here but we've been looking at the National Grid in another capacity in


relation to Mercury Energy and heard evidence from Mercury's CEO,

Mr Whineray, I think last week. But how is it that you can say that the

National Grid has unfortunately been compromised? Can you give us

an example where it is compromised? I don't understand, I thought it

was there, up and running, vital to the national security. 5

MR NOBLE: Yes, it is, certainly. I was describing compromised in terms of

Transpower's ability to own, maintain and operate. We would prefer a

clear corridor below our assets. As part of the AUP outcome we have

now gained a status of having a clear corridor from certain activities. 10

So compromised was from a view of those activities. A big chunk of

our infrastructure in Auckland are already compromised, we can't

change that so therefore why argue it.

[10.10 am] 15

DR PRIESTLEY: So your easement rights, or property rights, and the inability to exclude

some risky activities, it's not aligned with the entire grid, is that what

you're saying?

20

MR NOBLE: So Transpower doesn't own easements on a huge vast chunk of our

assets. We have a right to occupy under the Electricity Act. Basically

the only right we have to push back on dodgy things happening are the

codes of practice, electricity regulations, Auckland plan, etc, that's it.

25

DR PRIESTLEY: I understand. So your legal rights to string up and operate the National

Grid aren't as strong as you would like them to be?

MR NOBLE: Personally, no.

30

DR PRIESTLEY: So is that what you meant by it being compromised?

MR NOBLE: Yes. So compromised in the ability to maintain it in an effective and

efficient way.

35

DR PRIESTLEY: And say, "Hands off" to everybody else?

MR NOBLE: Not "hands off" but, you know, please allow us to do our job.

DR PRIESTLEY: Keep away. All right, yes, Mr Hewison. 40

DR HEWISON: Mr Pilkinton raised, I suppose, an important issue and that is around

safety. At paragraph 25 of your primary evidence you reinforce, I

suppose, that safety is a key operational concern. In your summary I


think you've taken that further and said it's a paramount concern.

MR NOBLE: Yes, it is, it's a key driver for Transpower, yes.

DR HEWISON: Has that paramount concern been affected by the new health and safety 5

legislation in terms of the implications of that for Transpower?

MR NOBLE: I'd say the health and safety regulations have put more focus on the

business being aware of its risks, yes.

10

DR HEWISON: Okay. Just going to paragraph 46 where you describe the assets that

are going to be affected by the East West Link. Would it be fair to say

that there are a considerable number of Transpower assets that will be

affected by the East West Link?

15

MR NOBLE: Will be or could be? So at the time of providing evidence there was a

lot that were, now there are fewer but some still are, yes.

DR HEWISON: Would it be fair to say that the Henderson-Otahuhu 220 kV line is

probably a paramount concern in terms of those assets that might be 20

affected?

MR NOBLE: It's our paramount concern in terms of keeping security to Auckland

and past Auckland, north of Auckland, yes.

25

DR HEWISON: In terms of, I suppose, that pinch point and the requirement to relocate

towers, to have towers shifted temporarily, all of that, would you say

that that is going to be a very complex exercise both in terms of design

and then actually doing the work for Transpower?

30

MR NOBLE: Parts of it are complex and parts of it are very complex. Other bits are

business as usual but there are some very complex pieces of work that

need to be done using existing practices but, when you join them all

together, they turn into something reasonably complex and hard. But,

once again, is it achievable? The answer is yes. Are we being 35

reasonable? I think the answer is yes.

DR HEWISON: Has Transpower been involved in a project that would be equivalent to

this in terms of its complexity in the past?

40

MR NOBLE: A deviation complexity tightness of work zone would be the most

complex, I would agree, yes.

DR HEWISON: Okay.

45

MR NOBLE: So the answer to that is no.

DR HEWISON: The answer is no but it is the most complex project that Transpower


has --

MR NOBLE: It would be the most complex transferring conductors. How we do it

with circuits energised, de-energised, outage availability, constrained

work zone, yes, it would be. 5

DR HEWISON: In terms of the scale beyond, say, another project, are we talking about

this being significantly more complex or is this close to other projects

in terms of complexity?

10

MR NOBLE: It would be the 80/20 rule; 80% of it is within the realms of other

projects, 20% of it sits outside what we would normally do.

DR HEWISON: Would it be fair to say this is unique in terms of a project you have had

to consider? 15

MR NOBLE: In the area of the Tip Top corner, yes, that is very unique, absolutely.

Never have we worked with Highway 1, roads, rail, buildings, etc. Yes,

potentially that area is the most complex area.

20

DR HEWISON: Okay.

[10.15 am]

DR PRIESTLEY: I am concerned with the answer, 80/20 can hardly be called unique can 25

it?

MR NOBLE: Yes, once again as I tried to explain and perhaps I explained it wrong.

The 80% is the doing current work practice, so if I took, for example,

a Belaire(?), we can always do our individual moves. That's easy. But 30

when you join them all, so the 80% is the, yes, I am able to do the

moves. The 20% is how you link it all and join it up in your planning

and your design. That is the complex area. There is nothing smart

about it. It is just you join them all together and it gets really tough.

35

DR PRIESTLEY: Just building on Mr Hewison's last question, it is the area around State

Highway 1 and the highly industrialised nature of the land in that area

which is highly complex. Is that fair?

MR NOBLE: Around State Highway 1 there are not that many buildings around 40

there, no. It is complex more in terms of the road, the rail, the Mt

Wellington road, the proposed busways, etc.

DR HEWISON: Thank you. Translating that, I suppose, from complexity into risk, how

would you put the risk of something going wrong in terms of that 45

stretch that you are going to have to design and then construct and shift


pylons?

MR NOBLE: Whatever we do there is a risk. Whether we hop out of bed and fall

over it is a risk. It is how you manage the risks, how you plan, how

you detail, how you write procedures, how you get people trained. 5

Transpower is looking at having to add more training to our people to

actually be able to undertake this work. We are going to have to create

trial facilities to actually run through it before we actually do it. As I

said earlier, does it scare me? The answer is no. Does it concern me?

Well, I just think we need to work really hard at planning it out. 10

DR HEWISON: Would it keep you up at night?

MR NOBLE: No.

15

DR HEWISON: So, in terms of that complexity of risk, we have had situations in the

past in Auckland where even minor shackles go into equipment and

cause outages or, as you say, people use machinery and it bangs into

towers and they turn off. With this line, the Henderson-Otahuhu line,

what happens if you have done all the management of risk and your 20

crew is incredibly well trained but just something goes wrong? What

happens if that line goes out?

MR NOBLE: When you talk about it going wrong, are we talking about it going

wrong at the time of build and transfer? Are we talking permanence? 25

DR HEWISON: I think it is during the construction period rather than --

MR NOBLE: Okay, so --

30

DR HEWISON: Hopefully your permanent design is such that it is going to be --

MR NOBLE: In terms of something going wrong during the build process, we are

planning at the moment the way we can minimise outages such that we

can transfer conductors with one circuit energised and the underground 35

cable in the service which then, even if we drop one of them, it would

allow the other one to pick it up. We would have to limit that work to

certain periods of the year of perhaps weekends where the load is

actually down. There are ways around that planning process to

mitigate. You won't eliminate but you will certainly mitigate the risk. 40

DR HEWISON: Okay. You are not going to eliminate the risk, and I suppose you can't

eliminate risk entirely from human activities anyway.

MR NOBLE: I do think we have talked about that it is complex so, yes, you are at a 45

point where you are trying to mitigate and minimise the risks.

DR HEWISON: In terms of that mitigation, is Transpower satisfied that the conditions


relating to construction have got to a stage where all of the detail that

might need to flow from that is sufficient to ensure the grid isn't

compromised in that process?

[10.20 am] 5

MR NOBLE: I think, as I have stated in evidence, I am confident with the conditions

that are there, especially with Transpower having a big input through

the network utility management plan. That will help us protect what

happens on the day of the build. 10

DR HEWISON: Okay. Just to go back to my question about what happens if there is an

outage, so a shackle or something does go into the line or it doesn't

work. What happens to the power supply through to North Auckland

and Northland if it was, say, knocked out for an hour? 15

MR NOBLE: As I said, we are working on the philosophy of keeping one circuit plus

the cable running, so to actually have a backup. There will be a

potential that we would run with a double circuit outage over a very

short period of time to do a transfer act, whereby we are testing our 20

cable through to Albany in October to make sure it is able to actually

handle that. So that is part of that process of planning: being aware,

testing, seeing where you get to before you actually implement it.

DR HEWISON: Is that still in a level of fuzziness as well or are you comfortable that 25

those measures can be put in place to ensure, if there is an outage, that

you have got this backup?

MR NOBLE: We are comfortable. If we weren't comfortable our system operator

wouldn't actually allow it to happen. 30

DR HEWISON: Sir, I have probably got another 15 on the next topic or 10 minutes

around dispensation. Shall I start on that?

DR PRIESTLEY: Start on it please. 35

DR HEWISON: Okay. In terms of dispensations, we have had the question from my

friend, Mr Pilkinton, around the T&G site in particular. Would it be

fair to say that your answer would be the same, generally relating to

dispensations that might be required for any other part of the line or 40


pylon relating to the line?

MR NOBLE: Are we talking for NZ Transport Agency works?

DR HEWISON: Yes. 5

MR NOBLE: Yes, NZ Transport Agency will require dispensations.

DR HEWISON: I wanted to also clarify in terms of dispensations that it appears that

they are required for earthworks, particularly if there are earthworks 10

around a tower. Are they also required in terms of the actual road

structure? If an elevated ramp was required that infringed the

requirements around the code of practice, is there a requirement for NZ

Transport Agency to seek and have a dispensation permanently for that

structure in relation to that pylon? 15

MR NOBLE: The answer to that is, yes. It is a bit of a bizarre outcome with the

requirements of ECP34, though. In actual fact, if NZ Transport Agency

built up the earth they don't require a dispensation because it is above

ground and it doesn't compromise a structure, versus a bridge is 20

actually deemed a structure which does require a dispensation. Any

underground earthworks to a certain level do require. Any building

above earth doesn't require. You could build it right beside the tower.

DR HEWISON: You are aware of the questions and material that has been advanced by 25

TOES around tower 31 on the Henderson-Otahuhu line?

MR NOBLE: Yes, I am.

DR HEWISON: This tower is certainly sitting currently in a space where there will be 30

an overhead ramp within 6 metres of that tower. So will NZ Transport

Agency require a dispensation for building that ramp so close to that

tower?

MR NOBLE: Yes. 35

DR HEWISON: And that will be a permanent dispensation it requires?

MR NOBLE: It will be a permanent dispensation but indemnifying through the build

process. 40

DR HEWISON: Sorry, indemnifying through the build process?

MR NOBLE: Yes.

45

DR HEWISON: Okay. So the indemnification will only relate to the construction works


relating to that ramp and not the ongoing use of that ramp?

MR NOBLE: Correct.

[10.25 am] 5

DR HEWISON: Why is that? Isn't there the potential for that ramp - and vehicles

perhaps even - to come off that ramp, to cause damage to that tower?

MR NOBLE: As part of ECP35 Transpower is required to be reasonable rather than 10

unreasonable. The requirements, ECP34, if you read the introduction,

does talk about that it is about ensuring that we do not introduce

electrical hazards. As I said earlier, the perverse requirements of

ECP34, if it was a build-up of earth and it was an earth bund, they

wouldn't require. So why would we treat an earth bund versus a bridge 15

that is right beside each other any differently? So as part of the

reasonableness test, is that road going to create more of an electrical

hazard? The answer is no.

DR HEWISON: Okay. Perhaps if we could just bring up a picture of that tower. We 20

just need to zoom in to the tower if that's possible. Just keep going.

Yes. Just a bit more. That's nice. So the community and particularly

Jackson Industries, which is the building to the right of that photo, are

concerned about the way in which both ramps come very, very close to

that tower and the potential for vehicles to have accidents and 25

potentially knock out that tower. In terms of Transpower's concerns,

do you have any current concerns relating to those issues?

MR NOBLE: No. We are working with NZ Transport Agency to ensure there are

adequate barriers there to protect that structure from vehicular impact. 30

DR HEWISON: Okay. Have you go to the detail about where those barriers would be

required?

MR NOBLE: Not as far as I'm aware, no, but that will be part of the management 35

plan that has to be developed.

DR HEWISON: Are there equivalent crash barriers that are used in similar situations

with other towers in New Zealand?

40

MR NOBLE: We've got towers in similar situations. We've got towers with Armco

barriers beside them. We've got towers on the Desert Road, if you drive

through that, which have got zero barriers beside them, with legs much

closer than that. It isn't a perfect place to be. However, the

reasonableness test, once again, is you try to minimise the actual 45

hazard. Now, towers can be impacted, they can be driven into. We

had a farmer drive into a tower six weeks ago, cleaned out two of the

legs. The tower didn't fall over, believe it or not. He actually wrote off


his tractor.

DR HEWISON: I suppose, to be fair, tractors are rather smaller than some of the B-train

trucks.

5

MR NOBLE: Absolutely fair, yes. But once again, part of the roading design process,

I would hope, is to create a barrier that is able to withstand that.

DR HEWISON: Okay. So are there equivalent barriers that are placed on structures,

particularly ramp structures, that Transpower has required in the past? 10

MR NOBLE: Yes. I can think of Curletts Road Overpass in Christchurch. Yes. That

would be very, very similar to that.

DR HEWISON: Okay. And in terms of scale, how large are these crash barriers? 15

MR NOBLE: They are concrete barriers. They are a standard design.

DR HEWISON: So are they significant structures in relation to the road or the over-

ramp structure, or are they relatively small? 20

MR NOBLE: No. They should just integrate with that design.

DR HEWISON: Okay. And you're satisfied that if that type of structure is used, then a

B-train coming around the corner would be saved by that barrier from 25

potentially going over the edge into tower 31?

[10.30 am]

MR NOBLE: I'm saying that if we're being reasonable and assessing the similar risks 30

we have on our network, that that would be fair.

DR HEWISON: Okay. I just wanted to also ask a question about the access-way that

you can see on that diagram as well.

35

MR NOBLE: Yes.

DR HEWISON: It's a rather large access-way. Are you familiar with the current access

to tower number 31?

40

MR NOBLE: Yes, I am.

DR HEWISON: Would it be fair to say that that access-way is quite significant and large

by comparison?

45


DR HEWISON: So would it also be fair to say that it's not necessary for that to be so


large?

MR NOBLE: No. I don't agree with that because it has to be able to be safe for people

to enter, exit and turn.

5

DR HEWISON: But the current entry and exit into the Local Lockup doesn't have

anywhere near that level of ability to enter and exit and turn, does it?

MR NOBLE: At present, no. However, accessibility is one of our requirements. We

have been working with NZ Transport Agency to give us access, for 10

example, for a crane for the build process. Part of this has to be, when

we reconducted this, we have to get access to that structure, given it's

a strain structure, with a crane.

DR HEWISON: So during construction it might be necessary to have plenty of access, 15

but once the East West Link is completed would it be fair to say you

don't require such a significant access-way?

MR NOBLE: I'd say once Transpower's works are completed that might be a fair

assessment, yes. If I once again point you to, for example, the pole at 20

the Highbrook roundabout, there is access into that, but it's a small

access.

DR HEWISON: Thank you, sir. That might be a good point to break.

25

DR PRIESTLEY: A break point? How long have you got to run, Mr Hewison?

DR HEWISON: Probably only another ten minutes.

DR PRIESTLEY: All right. We'll resume after the morning tea adjournment. Thank you. 30

ADJOURNED [10.32 am]

RESUMED [10.48 am]

35 DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you. Yes, Mr Hewison.

DR HEWISON: Thank you, sir. Mr Noble, I just wanted to come back again to this

question of indemnification; I just wanted to make it quite clear. I think

I understood your answer, but the dispensation, for example, for tower 40

31 would include an indemnification that NZ Transport Agency would

give to Transpower for the construction period, but at the point the East

West Link was completed in that vicinity, essentially the liability

would then fall back to Transpower. Would that be correct?

45


DR HEWISON: Okay. So if a b-train did come off the road through the crash barrier


and knocked out that tower and the line, that would be the

responsibility of Transpower.

MR NOBLE: Correct.

5

DR HEWISON: Thank you. In terms of just another tower that's of some concern to the

community is tower number 33 on the Mangere-Roskill line and we've

probably got a photo of that one as well, that would be useful to put up.

This is the tower just north of the Sea Scouts.

10

Sorry; we are having a little bit of technical … Yes, that's great. If you

just zoom in as close as we can get without it getting too fuzzy, it would

be good.

[10.50 am] 15

From a community perspective we have been asking questions of

various witnesses through the hearing, particularly around the very

sharp bend that the shared path takes around the tower, and the

constraints, I suppose, between the coastal edge, which goes down 20

quite quickly, the shared path and tower 33, to just put that into context.

In your primary evidence, you referred to some outstanding concerns

that you have currently with regard to tower 33; this is in the table that's

right at the back. I suppose one of those issues is around changing the

arms of tower 33 to ensure ground to conductor clearances are 25

maintained. Is that correct?


DR HEWISON: Can you just explain, perhaps even by reference to the photo, what that 30

involves?

MR NOBLE: Okay. When I talk about gaining clearance, we are talking about

clearance to the road on the left hand of the picture. To actually get

clearance of that, given the road's built up, we have to change the 35

suspension insulator, which are those little glass things hanging down

under each arm, and we build a vertical post on top of the arm and

transfer the conductor to the top of it. So that buys us about 2.5 metres,

which then gains us NZSP34 clearance over the road.

40

DR HEWISON: Okay. So it is that clearance across the East West Link specifically.


DR HEWISON: Okay. In terms of visual impact, will those changes make any 45

significant visual differences?

MR NOBLE: There will be a visual difference that the insulators won't be hanging,


they'll be poking up. I'm not actually a landscape architect; I'm actually

an engineer, so to me it's an engineering challenge; it's not a … But

these things are common, if you drive down between Otahuhu and

Wiri; a similar design is employed to the south of Auckland, on the

Bombay Otahuhu, which runs right parallel to Auckland's State 5

Highway 1.

DR HEWISON: Okay. I will ask this question of you. In terms of taking advice on

what the visual impact would be, has Transpower taken advice from a

landscape or design person to understand what that impact might be? 10

MR NOBLE: Not so far as I am aware. However, I do understand that that sort of

change is a permitted activity under the NES.

DR HEWISON: Okay. 15

MR PARSONSON: Mr Hewison, I just have a question on this pole. Is now a good time?

Would Transpower have any problem if that was changed to a

monopole? And if so, would that reduce the footprint of the structure 20

on the ground?

MR NOBLE: The answer is yes it could be changed to a pole and yes it would reduce

the footprint, yes.

25

MR PARSONSON: Okay. Thank you.

DR HEWISON: Sorry; I probably didn't quite get the answer to that, but …

MR NOBLE: Sorry. The answer was we wouldn't have any problem with changing 30

to a pole if someone pays us to change it, and it would reduce the

footprint, yes.

DR HEWISON: If you changed it into a pole?

35

MR NOBLE: Yes.

DR HEWISON: Okay.

MR NOBLE: We would probably have to … No, that's all right. Yes. 40

DR HEWISON: Okay. So that would reduce the footprint and provide for more space


for a shared path. Is that what you are saying?

MR NOBLE: Yes. Correct.

DR HEWISON: That currently hasn't been considered as an option. 5

MR NOBLE: No.

DR HEWISON: Okay. But you would be, from an engineering point of view,

comfortable with that change being made. 10

MR NOBLE: From an engineering point of view, there isn't any reason it wouldn't be

able to be changed, no.

DR HEWISON: Okay. In terms of, I suppose, putting a pole in that area, we've also got 15

the issue of the Te Hopua tuff ring in that particular location. How

deep do those poles need to go? Are there complexities around that in

terms of perhaps damaging the tuff ring further?

MR NOBLE: Now you're back to my civil engineering roots. All depending on what 20

the soils are, the strength of the soils, if I was just to take a wild-stab

guess, I'd say that the foundation for a pole of that height would go

down probably 4 metres, maybe 5 metres.

[10.55 am] 25

DR HEWISON: Okay. Thank you.

MR NOBLE: But it would be a very small-diameter pole and it would be a very

small-diameter hole, so probably 1.2 metres diameter would be the area 30

we're up against.

DR HEWISON: Yes. I suppose we are probably in a little bit of a difficulty in that while

from an engineering point of view that might be an appropriate

solution, and we probably need to work through the details, at a stage 35

where this is the proposal and we haven't had any visual evidence or

other evidence around that, I think your answer from an engineering

point of view puts us in a good position in terms of understanding at


least the high-level impacts of that.

If we were to keep --

DR PRIESTLEY: Just give me the pylon number, please. 5

DR HEWISON: This is the Manger-Roskill Tower 33.

DR PRIESTLEY: Tower 33? Thank you.

10

DR HEWISON: Yes.

If we were to retain the current tower, there is also a concern that you

raised around a requirement for foundation strengthening.

15


DR HEWISON: What would that involve?

MR NOBLE: Foundation strengthening typically requires that those towers there are 20

a buried grillage foundation, which is like a steel foundation buried

under the ground. We would look to, as part of the works, strengthen

that foundation, replacing the top two metres with a concrete-encased

foundation, such that once the planting happened, that would be then

permanent and we wouldn't be ripping it all back up again and the tower 25

would be able to handle the change in the loads as you change the

attachment point upwards.

DR HEWISON: Okay. And is that foundation strengthening, again, permitted under the

NES? 30

MR NOBLE: As I understand it, yes; it's a regular activity to Transpower, yes.

DR HEWISON: Okay. And again from a landscape/visual point of view, there hasn't

been any consideration of what that strengthening might look like or its 35

impacts, that perspective?

MR NOBLE: The strengthening is typically, what you see at the end of it, is about

half a metre of concrete above the ground, a rectangular piece along

each edge, and if it's planted out, as it is there, you won't ever see that. 40

DR HEWISON: Okay.

MR PARSONSON: Mr Hewison, I'd just make the observation that the NZ Transport

Agency, is the applicant, and the NZ Transport Agency is the party 45

necessitating any changes or requiring or asking for any changes to this

infrastructure, so the assessment of effects of that is really NZ

Transport Agency's responsibility. I'm not saying you shouldn't


necessarily ask these questions, but it's not necessarily Transpower's

position to undertake any assessment.

DR HEWISON: Yes. I suppose we are at a slight difficulty in that this relates to a piece

of Transpower infrastructure. 5

MR PARSONSON: Yes, but the proposer is NZ Transport Agency and if there is going to

be a change that they would like to see, then they are going to have to

assess the effects of it and Transpower are just going to have to provide

the engineering parameters around that. 10

DR HEWISON: Although aren't we in a position where Transpower is saying, "We need

to have these things done; we need to strengthen the foundation, we

need to raise the tower to comply with our requirements" and if that is

essentially not done, and you're not in compliance, then doesn't that fall 15

back to almost a requirement that NZ Transport Agency apply for, and

obtain, the authority for Transpower to do that?

MR PARSONSON: That's not how I see it. I see it as an effect, a potential effect, of the

project that we are all here considering, which is the applicant being 20

NZ Transport Agency, the requiring authority - you may interpret that

differently - but Transpower is saying, "If you want to put the road here,

there's going to need to be some changes; go away and assess the

effects of those changes; these are the parameters you have to meet".

25

DR HEWISON: But we are in the situation where we haven't had any assessment of

those effects, have we?

MR PARSONSON: That may be your view, but it's not necessarily Transpower's fault that

that's not been done, if that's the case. 30

DR HEWISON: No. And I suppose what I'm trying to do is not place fault on

Transpower for not doing that. I suppose I am saying there are

concerns that Transpower has raised, and we want to get to the bottom

of those, particularly in relation to this tower because of its importance 35

for that shared path next to it.

[11.00 am]

DR PRIESTLEY: The simple way to do it, Mr Hewison, and Mr Parsonson is right, 40

though, is just to say, now, if it's as a result of the East West Link, X

has to happen in respect of the pylon or whatever it is, what are the

implications of that? What would need to be done? That's helpful

because you can then look at some effects or modifications which may


be needed, okay?

DR HEWISON: Yes, I think we are on the same page.

DR PRIESTLEY: At the moment your questions are based on a slight inversion of who's 5

responsible for the effects.

DR HEWISON: Okay.

MR BICKERS: So, Mr Hewison, seeing as we have broken your line, can I get a couple 10

of questions in?

DR HEWISON: Yes, certainly.

MR BICKERS: Just observing these towers, and I am particularly probably talking 15

about the 110 kV towers, from what I've observed they have a

considerable amount of structural redundancy in them, would that be

fair?

MR NOBLE: No, I wouldn't agree with that, no. 20

MR BICKERS: You wouldn't agree with that?

MR NOBLE: No.

25

MR BICKERS: You told about the farmer who took out two of the legs and the tower

remained standing, so my question really was do they stand on three

legs?

MR NOBLE: Some of them do and other ones won't. It depends on the era of the 30

design, the family, the span on either side, where it's got an angle.

Some are highly utilised, some of them have redundancy, so we don't

design towers for each individual site where each individual site gets

its own bespoke design tower. There's a family of towers --

35

MR BICKERS: Yes, I understand. So if there's a change of direction at the tower then

you've got to design in for torsion in the structure, more torsion than

would normally occur, is that right?

MR NOBLE: Yes, that is correct. It's actually the transverse, yes. 40

MR BICKERS: Okay, all right, so the crash barrier design that we talked about, what

sort of criteria do you use for that? There's a lot of different types of

crash barriers that are available, do you use NZ Transport Agency's

guidelines or …? 45

MR NOBLE: We would be asking NZ Transport Agency to advise us what the

capacity of those barriers are and having input to what design they

52


would be to. We do not design crash barriers ourselves, no.

MR BICKERS: Okay. But in terms of the specification that you might give NZ

Transport Agency to look at the crash barrier design, you would look

to be satisfied as to the type of vehicle and the speed of the vehicle, all 5

of those issues?

MR NOBLE: That would be a request to NZ Transport Agency as part of the

management plan that we get to be part of, is to ask them for those

criteria that they propose and we could potentially challenge that we 10

want a higher spec, yes.

MR BICKERS: Okay, so in essence you rely on their approach to it but you do review

it to ensure --

15

MR NOBLE: Yes, they are the roading experts.

MR BICKERS: Yes, okay, thank you.

DR HEWISON: I just want to move on to another concern that you raised and a 20

requirement or a suggestion that there also be a non-conducive fence

around the tower because of the vicinity of the shared path. Could you

just explain why you think a non-conductive fence would be required?

MR NOBLE: There is a possibility of a fence being required there. Under ECP34 25

and NZSP46 and the Electricity Regulations 2010, we are required to

ensure that the site is electrically safe. Part of the requirement is earth

potential rise, so step and touch should a person be touching the tower

or leaning against the tower at the time of a fault then depending on the

earth resistivity the chances that the current will transfer through the 30

person rather than through the tower. Given the shared pathway and

given that people lean bikes against things and tend to take the

opportunity to picnic beside them, to reduce the exposure rate of the

people being up for a potential touch potential - rather than a step

potential because the asphalt path will fix the step potential - would be 35

to put a timber fence potentially around that structure so that when

people put their bikes against it they aren't up against the conductor part

of the structure.

[11.05 am] 40

DR HEWISON: Okay, so it's essentially a safety reason to prevent people from

touching --

MR NOBLE: Yes, and it's only a possibility. We would actually still need to -- you 45

could do an earthing study on the fault currents and the earth resistivity

and get right into detail and you might find that it isn't actually a step

potential issue. We have covered ourselves to say we might require a


fence should that future study be there. It would be a timber fence. It

would only be as high as a person.

DR HEWISON: Okay, so a timber fence, the height of 1.8 metres or something?

5

MR NOBLE: If even that, yes.

DR HEWISON: How much space does the fence require between the tower and I

suppose the shared path? 10

MR NOBLE: It would be right up against the tower given it is a touch potential. We

are just trying to keep people from being able to touch the tower.

DR HEWISON: Okay. Just moving away from this tower, we also have concerns 15

around people doing similar things with the towers in the Onehunga

Lagoon, don't we?

MR NOBLE: We have got a long and chequered history about EPA, yes.

20

DR HEWISON: People are, I think, tying their boats up to it with chains, up to towers?

MR NOBLE: Not good things to do under ECP34 you're not supposed to but, once

again, who actually keeps an eye on that?

25

DR HEWISON: No, just reinforcing that this actually a really important safety issue

again in this location.

MR NOBLE: I would agree. There's an opportunity here, given the infancy of design

and the criteria around it, that we can in fact get on top of the issue for 30

this structure basically.

DR HEWISON: Okay. Does that concern also relate to fishing in this type of vicinity

with surf casting and all that sort of thing?

35

MR NOBLE: Not really, no. I wouldn't think so because the risk is there today. A

guy casting and it goes over the top of the conductor, it isn't a

conductive piece of string I would have thought that he's kind of thrown

out there.

40

DR HEWISON: Just in terms of detailed design, this might not be an appropriate place

to have a nice promenade area where you could go fishing from, for


example?

MR NOBLE: No idea.

DR HEWISON: Okay. 5

MR NOBLE: It actually probably wouldn't be a good idea if you're trying to mitigate

and minimise risk.

DR HEWISON: Not to do that. Yes, okay. 10

I just wanted to turn to the issue of undergrounding. My friend Mr

Lanning this morning took you through a range of questions that, to

some extent I think, covered off some of the areas we wanted to but a

couple of key questions is in terms of the strategic work that's 15

underway, I suppose a concern from the community is that we have a

bit of a misalignment of timeframes. Is there any possibility of putting

some real effort into getting to a position where you are much clearer

in a much shorter space of time within the time frames of this Board of

Inquiry so you could give an indication as to whether, for example, the 20

Mangere-Roskill line might be decommissioned?

MR NOBLE: No.

DR HEWISON: No? Why is that? 25

MR NOBLE: Look, we have to give due diligence to getting the right outcome here.

We have got multiple options, multiple scenarios that benefit one place,

they offset other places. There's technical reasons you can do things,

it's a long-term solution this. We can't speed up one bit that might then 30

influence the outcomes to the detriment of the other outcomes. So I

would say the timeframe of this Board of Inquiry versus having a final

position on the Mangere-Roskill, the answer is no.

DR HEWISON: I suppose this is extremely disappointing that you've had quite a 35

considerable period of time to start this work, you've suggested it was

18 to 24 months, it is probably getting close to the 18-month period,

from a community point of view we just can't understand why that can't

progressed much more quickly.

40

MR NOBLE: No, that period of time -- the clock started ticking, if I remember, May

or June this year. It wasn't a year and a half ago, it wasn't two years

ago.

DR HEWISON: But you went to the parliament two years ago to discuss 45


undergrounding and those sorts of issues.

[11.10 am]

You were well aware that the East West Link was a serious proposal 5

by that stage and we don't want to be in a position where we

underground a line unnecessarily just to find out that, in fact, we didn't

need to. So can you explain why it's just taken so long to progress this

quite important issue for the community?

10

MR NOBLE: As I've highlighted earlier, Transpower is trying to take a wider context

to Auckland in an overall scheme of Auckland from the Bombay Hills

through to the Far North and actually get a solution for the overall

outcome that will be for 40-odd years rather than a short term one off

issue. 15

DR HEWISON: In your evidence or in your summary, you mentioned that there were

seven to eight options but five of them did involve decommissioning

the Mangere-Roskill line, was that correct?

20

MR NOBLE: That isn't in my summary, that's what I said earlier. I did say, as I

remember from what I've seen of a presentation that I saw was there

were quite a few options that it was removed, however the precursor to

doing that would be a huge amount of work in other areas to actually

enable that to happen. 25

DR HEWISON: So five of the seven to eight options --

MR NOBLE: It was of that scope, yes.

30

DR HEWISON: So it seems to me we're almost there in terms of an option to

decommission that line being one of the key options coming forward?

MR NOBLE: I couldn't answer that. There are three options that it isn't so what

happens when those options are ruled out or in. 35

DR HEWISON: Okay. The community again are quite focused, as is Auckland Council,

on the Mangere-Roskill line. There has been a suggestion that TOES

has put forward to underground from the Taumanu Bridge pylon, right

through the Manukau Cruising Club to this pylon here, number 33, to 40

the one in Gloucester Park, the one a bit further on the wharf and then

across the bay to Kiwi Esplanade Reserve and then to Mahunga Drive.

I think you are aware of that suggestion that has come through the


conditions?

MR NOBLE: Yes, I am. It was commented as 29 to 35.

DR HEWISON: Yes. 5

MR NOBLE: If I can just confirm that it is actually 28. There isn't any 29 because

29 was removed in about 1970 to get clearance over the highway.

DR PRIESTLEY: Its ghost is still there (overspeaking) 10

DR HEWISON: Thank God one of them was decommissioned. Would it be useful for

the Board to know where these lines are and perhaps put up that original

diagram from your evidence just to show where that line traverses?

15

MR NOBLE: Certainly.

DR HEWISON: Yes, you just need to push it over a bit more. So perhaps you can just

take us from the north and run us through the towers that --

20

MR NOBLE: It is probably easier to go from the south and then you can follow the

line. They get blended further as you go north.

DR HEWISON: Yes. I am in your hands.

25

MR NOBLE: If you scroll upwards or drag it, no, the other way please. Okay. Just

wait there. So tower 28 is beside the G of the Mangere-Roskill there.

It is in the estuary as it sits at present. It is a raised tower as I said

earlier. It began in its infancy years ago. Tower 30 is actually the next

tower, which kind of explains why there isn't a 29. 30

DR HEWISON: Just explain that. So that one is in Kiwi Esplanade Reserve?

MR NOBLE: Look, I couldn't say that I'm aware what the property ownership is.

35

DR HEWISON: Okay.

MR NOBLE: Thirty-one is up on the wharf. Thirty-two is just over the road. Thirty-

three is the one we just talked about earlier, which is the one where

there is the shared path. Thirty-four is a spot and then the next one goes 40

back over Highway 20, is it, and sits on a park which is an Auckland

Council park. The piece proposed by TOES is between that tower 28

and 35. As I highlighted earlier, though, if you go back to 28 and drag

it back up that way again please. As I said earlier, where that G is, that

tower sits in the estuary to actually transition from an overhead to an 45


underground.

[11.15 am]

It is unlikely you would find a position there without reclaiming a part 5

of the harbour, whether that is possible. You are just about talking of

going back to 26 or 25 to find a dry spot to be able to do that, which

will then lead you to your route you select.

At the other end you are crossing over the highway once and back under 10

once again to then crossover it aerially again. The ongoing challenge

is: how big is a piece of string? How far do you want to go? If you

then terminated on the west side of the highway you are in the part that

has just been built and reclaimed, right beside the beach.

15

DR HEWISON: Yes. It is certainly --

DR PRIESTLEY: Would there be practical issues with a cable which presumably would

have to be under water, wouldn't it?

20

MR NOBLE: No. The cable could go underground and then be attached to the

Coronation Street Bridge. At present we have got the 220 kV cables

that go across the Auckland Harbour Bridge, for example.

DR PRIESTLEY: Strung under the bridge superstructure? 25

MR NOBLE: Correct.

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Mr Hewison.

30

DR HEWISON: So, from a practical point of view, it might be better to start at that

tower that is in the reserve as opposed to the one that is in the water.

MR NOBLE: Okay.

35

DR HEWISON: I suppose it is just a sense of, well, here is an option. Let's see whether

it is practicable and, as you say, there are perhaps routes to take the

cable under the bridge and if the East West Link was then built in and

around that and through Orpheus Drive, so from a practical engineering

point of view, are there any insurmountable problems with that route? 40

MR NOBLE: We cannot see any. We did provide for Panuku a high level desktop

review a while ago, which also stated that as well and did talk about

where terminations would be. They were looking from 28 to about 39,

which is a bit further again. 45

MR PARSONSON: Mr Noble, I acknowledge your comments around not identifying yet

whether undergrounding is even a good idea but that review you have


undertaken, in terms of constraints, took account of the East West Link,

is that correct?

MR NOBLE: Yes, it did but it was a high level desktop analysis to provide a degree

of information to Panuku and with all sorts of caveats behind it 5

obviously, especially in terms of cost.

MR PARSONSON: Okay. I am loath to get into the detail of this, given that you have said

one day you might not even need that route, but if it was strung along

the bridge would it continue across Onehunga Mall Road, so it would 10

land where the bridge landed, would it?

MR NOBLE: That's correct. Yes.

MR PARSONSON: It wouldn't be inhibited by the trench proposed for the East West Link? 15

MR NOBLE: Not as far as I am aware, no, not from what we have seen.

MR PARSONSON: Okay. Thanks.

20

MR NOBLE: From what we have seen you would obviously go up Orpheus Drive

and then put an underground, underpass tunnel under the road again.

But what I am saying is that it would seem bizarre if you have the

ability to cross the road or the bridge to then cross it again just to cross

it aerially again. You have to take the bigger picture into this. You 25

don't just isolate it. Take the bigger picture and go, "Why would I go

over to go under again?" Do it once and that is enough.

DR PRIESTLEY: It is not total undergrounding, is it?

30

MR NOBLE: No, because --

DR PRIESTLEY: There is no undergrounding when it is going underneath a bridge or

flyover structures.

35

MR NOBLE: That is correct. It is actually attached to the bridge, yes.

DR PRIESTLEY: If this TOES proposal was to be implemented, would that close off any

future strategic options so far as Transpower is concerned?

40

MR NOBLE: No, that wouldn't close off any future options. The only thing I would

say is it would have the potential to be a wasted effort.

DR PRIESTLEY: In what sense? If in ten years' time you close down the whole line?

45

MR NOBLE: Yes.

DR PRIESTLEY: How prohibitive would the costs be of, let's just say, alteration of this


part of the line?

MR NOBLE: The costs that we provided to Panuku for the section were high level

desktop costs that were in the order of $19 million minus 20% plus

50%, so you are talking $18 million to $30 million-odd. It was a high 5

level number.

DR PRIESTLEY: Which would include the costs of removing and deconstructing the

current pylons?

10

MR NOBLE: Correct.

DR PRIESTLEY: Desktops of course are like blue sky in some respect.

MR NOBLE: Oh, yes. 15

DR PRIESTLEY: Is that a reasonably respectable estimate?

MR NOBLE: Look, I would say it could be on the thicker end of that slightly but I

couldn't see it going 40, no. 20

[11.20 am]

DR PRIESTLEY: Did Panuku approach Transpower or did Transpower approach Panuku

for these discussions? 25

MR NOBLE: Panuku approached Transpower as part of its consultation process, just

to get a feel for what options were available.

DR PRIESTLEY: Would there be increases security risks to that portion of the line if it 30

was dealt with in this way?

MR NOBLE: Underground cables cannot be repaired as quickly, so they do take

weeks to fix whereas an overhead line takes hours or days to fix, so in

the event of a failure but then it comes back to probability of failure. 35

In the event of a failure, an underground cable does take longer to fix

and then you do bring a security issue to it.

DR PRIESTLEY: Is underground more or less prone to some external risk in your view?

40

MR NOBLE: If it is in the roadway sometimes it is more prone. I would say in this

case it is reasonably equal. You have to offset those impact costs for

towers versus underground digging up.

DR PRIESTLEY: Sure. Okay. 45

MR PARSONSON: What is the depth that you have to put the cable in the ground, the


trenching, just a rough number?

MR NOBLE: I think it is in the order of 2 metres.

MR PARSONSON: Okay. Not that deep. 5

DR PRIESTLEY: Presumably Transpower would need a big prod from somebody or

other to do this

MR NOBLE: That would be fair to say, which reflects the statement from our CEO 10

at the Auckland planning hearing, yes.

DR PRIESTLEY: Right. Sorry, Mr Hewison, but that has been quite helpful.

DR HEWISON: Thank you, sir. Those questions were very helpful, thanks. In terms 15

of future proofing, we have got a misalignment of timing and we

certainly don't want you to decommission a line or underground it when

you are actually going to decommission it ten years from now. Can

things be done, though, in terms of that alignment, perhaps building

tunnels that might be redundant in the future but certainly I imagine the 20

cost of, say, protecting that route and where it might need to go if it

was undergrounded or if it needed to be alongside the bridge, could that

be done for much less of the cost than the actual undergrounding cost

that you mentioned?

25

MR NOBLE: Putting ducting under roads does provide certainty, yes. For example,

Transpower when we did our 220 kV from the Auckland CBD through

to Wairau Road a few years before when they were building the

busway, we did put ducts in pre-emptively. Interestingly, they are now

about to be overtaken by trains but never mind. 30

DR HEWISON: I suppose the point I am asking is: if we had the ducting almost as part

of this process and constructed within the East West Link or Orpheus

Drive or wherever it needed to go, and that future proofed that line,

then if it was a case that the line could be undergrounded or partially 35

realigned then at least we have got that work secure rather than having

to rip up the roads and do other things into the future?


40

DR HEWISON: What would the costs of doing that be, ball park? Is that a 10% of the

cost or a 20% of the cost?

MR NOBLE: Look, I would be taking an absolute stab in the dark to that.

45

DR HEWISON: Go on.

MR NOBLE: I would be, I would guess, 10% - 20%, if even. Look, I don't know.


Certainly the value is in the cable, the testing, the pulling, whatever

else. It's the difference between direct embedment versus ducting,

which is slightly different again.

DR HEWISON: Okay, that's helpful. It just gives us an idea of what a stab in the dark 5

costs my --

MR NOBLE: Yes, just don't hang me on that, please.

DR HEWISON: No, that's okay. It's quite reasonable. Just perhaps going along that 10

particular line of thought, has there been any consideration of whether

the same provision might be made for tunnelling along the East West

Link for the Henderson-Otahuhu line?

[11.25 am] 15

So if that was to be decommissioned strategically at some future point

in terms of your study, would it be appropriate to consider, essentially,

a tunnel --

20

MR NOBLE: Sorry, are we talking the …?

DR HEWISON: Yes, the Henderson-Otahuhu line.

MR NOBLE: The 220 kV line? 25

DR HEWISON: Yes.

MR NOBLE: I'm aware there's been thought to it. The value of undergrounding that

is in the order of $250 million, $260 million. It isn't as easy as just one 30

cable per circuit. The capacity of that line is such that you, in fact, are

doubling up your cabling because you cannot buy, in today's market, a

big enough cable to handle that. I'm unaware at the moment whether

there has been any conversations about ducting that or doing something

similar. It would take up most of the East West Link by the time you 35

had the whole width of both circuits.

DR PRIESTLEY: You are probably getting overly ambitious now, Mr Hewison.

DR HEWISON: Yes, I thought I'd try just on the basis of the stab in the dark comment. 40

That's fine. Just one final question. Are you aware of the TOES OBA

design for particularly the Onehunga end of the East West Link?

MR NOBLE: No.

45

DR HEWISON: Okay, you're not. Very briefly, the OBA TOES design didn't involve


the sweep of the East West Link --

DR PRIESTLEY: Is this likely to fall in his area of expertise or evidence?

DR HEWISON: I hope that it will. 5

DR PRIESTLEY: We don't want him looking at pretty pictures of islands.

DR HEWISON: No. Simply, if the East West Link didn't have the trench and then the

overbridge and then the tight curve portion of it, which is in the 10

Onehunga end, so the TOES proposal avoided that, that would mean

that there wouldn't be an impact on tower 33, tower 31 or potentially

some of the other towers in that area. Would it be preferable from a

Transpower point of view to avoid the East West Link having the

potential, both in construction and completion, of impacting on 15

Transpower's assets?

MR NOBLE: I couldn't comment on that without understanding the detail and at the

moment I do not. So, sorry, can't help you.

20

DR HEWISON: Thank you. Okay, sir, I won't take it any further.

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Mr Hewison. Yes, Ms Evitt.

MS EVITT: Good morning, Mr Noble. 25

MR NOBLE: Good morning.

MS EVITT: You've indicated today that there's been a long process of engagement

about the potential impacts of this project on the Transpower assets, is 30

that correct?


MS EVITT: And you would accept that the Agency has been working 35

constructively with Transpower in relation to those potential works?

MR NOBLE: Yes, it has.

MS EVITT: The Agency has also undertaken a number of design changes to 40

respond to some of the concerns that you've been feeding back, is that

correct?


45

MS EVITT: I understand that you have expressed a level of confidence that the

effects on the National Grid assets in this area will actually be


minimised through the course of the final design process?

MR NOBLE: I've actually said that there aren't any fatal flaws.

MS EVITT: You have today, but you've also indicated in your summary of evidence 5

that you had that level of confidence that process could be worked

through.

MR NOBLE: I'm confident that there isn't anything that would stop the works

happening. There is refinement of the design still to happen to give 10

absolute certainty but we're almost there.

MS EVITT: Obviously, the Transport Agency is continuing to work with

Transpower and will work with you through that design process?

15

MR NOBLE: I would hope so, yes. No, yes, it is.

MS EVITT: You've indicated, and I think you'd agreed, that the conditions that have

been proposed by the Agency following discussion with Transpower

provide the process for that engagement going forward, don't they? 20

MR NOBLE: Yes.

MS EVITT: And you're comfortable with that, those conditions?

25

MR NOBLE: I'm comfortable with the conditions, yes. At the moment.

[11.30 am]

MS EVITT: There's been some discussion today about the dispensations that are 30

required under the electrical code and you've indicated that a number

of dispensations will be required in respect of the works for this project,

principally in relation to earthworks, I understand?

MR NOBLE: Earthworks and noise walls and the bridge at 31, and the overbridge 35

potentially at Tip Top corner.

MS EVITT: You've indicated that there are a number of potential solutions to meet

those code requirements?

40

MR NOBLE: Yes.

MS EVITT: I think you've described it as a cascade of solutions in your evidence,

is that correct?

45

MR NOBLE: That would be right, yes.

MS EVITT: I think you've also indicated that the usual processes that these


dispensations are granted following the grant of any resource consents,

aren't they?

MR NOBLE: Granting of resource consents and granting of adequate design to be

able to confirm our acceptance of that dispensationary requirement. 5

MS EVITT: So you're looking at a process that typically takes place through that

detailed design stage, is that correct?

MR NOBLE: Yes. Where we are in the project at the moment we've been asked by 10

NZ Transport Agency more or less and it's what we do with other

customers, is to in fact advise whether the process could get stopped

due to something that hadn't been thought about yet. We're

comfortable where we're going, where we are with the consultation,

with the design changes and our understanding of the design that we 15

will get to a solution that we'll be able to grant a dispensation. That's

not to say we have yet, though.

MS EVITT: Understood. I'm just turning now to an issue that has been raised by

Mercury in relation to the Southdown site, and in terms of the clearance 20

for their site access, currently the 220 kV line runs across that site?

MR NOBLE: Yes.

MS EVITT: There's no intention for that line to be removed as part of this project, 25

is there?

MR NOBLE: Not at all, no.

MS EVITT: So the issue is actually, as I understand it, that the lines will need to be 30

raised, is that correct?

MR NOBLE: That is correct, so the proposal is we are going to install an extra pole,

which is on the drawing there, 19B, which then gives a clearance across

the road, as I understand, of 11.7 metres, which meets the Mercury 35

requirement.

MS EVITT: So, just to confirm then, in terms of those clearance distances, Mercury

will be no worse off as a result of this project in terms of those

distances? 40

MR NOBLE: They'll be slightly better off.

MS EVITT: Slightly better off, thank you. I just want to turn now to the Turners

and Growers site. My friend Mr Pilkinton put to you a letter from your 45

counsel, although albeit with your review or input as I understand it.

My take from his questions that there appeared to be some criticism of

Transpower for not giving sufficient acknowledgement to other


buildings on the site. Was that your impression?

MR NOBLE: I don't think I took an impression off that, no.

DR PRIESTLEY: It's a slightly inept question, with respect, Ms Evitt. The subjective 5

impression of a witness is not really relevant, the question is asked and

the answer is given which you need to focus on otherwise we could

have some existential mire that's not going to help anybody.

MS EVITT: Thank you, sir. I won't pursue that question. 10

Would you accept that that letter was written in response to the

evidence of Turners and Growers in relation to the significance of their

banana building?

15

MR NOBLE: That is correct. That was the intent of it, yes.

MS EVITT: Mr Keaney from Turners and Growers in his evidence-in-chief, he

expressed the view that the location of the banana and the crate wash

building are a significant competitive advantage for the company. 20

Were you aware of that?

MR NOBLE: Vaguely.

MS EVITT: He also expressed the view that the overall effect of relocating those 25

two buildings would severely compromise Turners and Growers'

ability to effectively operate on the site. Did you understand that that

was their concern?

MR NOBLE: I did understand that as we workshopped with NZ Transport Agency 30

for potential solutions in the area.

MS EVITT: So, as I understand it, the Agency and Transpower have actually been

working very closely together to try and achieve a solution that will

maintain that building for Turners and Growers, is that correct? 35

MR NOBLE: The intent of the document was to confirm that, yes.

MS EVITT: Now, you have explained or the position is that Transpower would

typically require a clear easement when it relocates one of its sites, is 40

that right?

MR NOBLE: Yes, that is right. However, given that was pre the AUP where we have

reached agreement with Council as to compromise spans and

uncompromised spans and so Transpower's going to have to change its 45

approach to easement requirements where we have got what is deemed


a compromise span in the plan.

MS EVITT: So is it fair to say that in recognition of the banana building here, in

that existing development, that you've made an exception or made a

special case for this particular site, varied from your normal practice? 5

[11.35 am]

MR NOBLE: Varied from our normal practice, however in the evolution over time

since providing the evidence and the agreement with the AUP it has 10

required us to do that.

MS EVITT: But you'd agree, however, that based on the feedback from Turners and

Growers and their advice as to these effects in evidence that we've been

listening to them and talking to you about how to resolve that, is that 15

fair?

MR NOBLE: Yes, you've been talking to us about what the impacts are and how we

can mitigate those and whether we needed a clear easement or whether

we had changed our approach. 20

MS EVITT: You've just confirmed that the building can stay subject to the clearance

requirements being met, is that correct?

MR NOBLE: That is right. 25

MS EVITT: You said that those requirements appear to be achievable, is that right?

MR NOBLE: They appear where we are with the design at the moment, yes.

30

MS EVITT: I understand that you're also familiar with the Babbage plan that Mr

Baird for the Agency has prepared in terms of the reconfiguration of

the site, is that correct?

MR NOBLE: Yes. 35

MS EVITT: And I understand your view is that there is no fatal flaw in this plan,

from Transpower's perspective. Is that correct?

MR NOBLE: There isn't a fatal flaw. However, we did comment that the 40

development of some of the other buildings would be potentially

impacted by constructability timeframes, or construction timeframes,

in terms of working on the same site, transferring conductors over a

workplace. Once again, coming back to the paramount safety thing, if

we are transferring conductors, we don't want people under there while 45


people are building a building, for example.

MS EVITT: So that's a sequencing issue, isn't it, in terms of the works?

MR NOBLE: Yes, it is, yes. 5

MS EVITT: And the evidence of Mr Baird is that that is very likely, that we can

reconfigure that site in light of that sequencing, so that would be …

MR NOBLE: I'm unaware of his evidence. 10

MS EVITT: If it could be, then that would be ideal, or preferred, from your

perspective.

MR NOBLE: If we could sequence the problem, there isn't anything to actually stop 15

it, no.

MS EVITT: Perhaps could we just turn now to some questions that have been put

to you by Mr Hewison on this concept of what is fuzzy? I think in an

answer to my questions before, you would accept that we are currently 20

in a concept design phase of the project, moving through to a more

detailed design process with Transpower. Is that correct?


25

MS EVITT: So when we are talking about fuzzy, we are referring to the stage of the

process that we are in. Is that right?


30

MS EVITT: And you have just accepted previously that that's consistent with

standard practice with projects of this size, working through on a

concept design and then, post approvals, look to a more detailed design

period.

35

MR NOBLE: That is correct. However, as I also have said in evidence, we are giving

that view based on that the final design has got some form of similarity,

close to where we are with the concept design.

MS EVITT: Transpower won't sign off the dispensations under the code unless they 40

have that confidence.

MR NOBLE: That's exactly right.

MS EVITT: I wanted to touch on the issue of what "compromised" means in terms 45

of your assets. There were a couple of questions from his Honour and


I just wanted to follow up on that.

When you say a site is compromised, your understanding, or your

meaning, there, is that it's compromised by existing underbuild, or

urban development, so there are structures underneath it. Is that 5

correct?

MR NOBLE: That is correct; by compromised, it changes the way we have the ability

to maintain our asset, therefore, it isn't efficient, therefore it is

compromised; it is already underbuilt versus uncompromised, which is 10

greenfield - there isn't anything there.

MS EVITT: So it really is a label or a term that you would use for areas of land

under your lines which are built out, or have been partially built out, so

maintenance, for example, becomes more problematic for you. 15

MR NOBLE: Yes, that is correct, and every individual span is defined in the

Auckland Plan in terms of compromised/uncompromised parts of

them.

20

MS EVITT: That is not a terminology that is related to this project; so it is not the

East West Link that has led to that compromise.

MR NOBLE: No, not at all.

25

MS EVITT: And you would agree that through the design process and the

conditions which encapture that, the intention is to ensure that your

assets aren't compromised. Is that correct?

[11.40 am] 30

MR NOBLE: That's correct, yes.

MS EVITT: I want to turn quickly to tower 33. There were some questions about

the works required for that. I don't think we need to bring up the image. 35

Dr Hewison was questioning why no visual assessment had been done

but as I understand it, we are not changing the tower; it is just the lines

that are moving up. Is that correct?

40

MR NOBLE: The glass insulators that hang under it - it is 110 kV so there are seven

of them that all hang under it - they are about 1.2 metres long, they get

taken off; the conductor gets flipped and gets put on a post, that is a

porcelain post, that sits above the cross-arm rather than hangs under it.

45

MS EVITT: Is that an activity that requires consent under the national environment


standard for your activities?

MR NOBLE: Not as far as I am aware, but that would be a question for Chris Horne.

As far as I am aware, it is a common practice that Transpower

undertakes and it meets NES. 5

MS EVITT: So you wouldn't typically do a visual assessment of that work.

MR NOBLE: Not usually, no.

10

MS EVITT: I want to turn now to undergrounding. You have indicated, I think in

answer to questions already, that it can be quite a complex engineering

process, can't it?

MR NOBLE: A complex and drawn-out process, yes. 15

MS EVITT: And the physical challenges, you have indicated, are actually quite

often significant and also misunderstood by most people. Is that right?

MR NOBLE: Yes, as in the physical size, depth and way to build it, the 20

constructability, is way underestimated.

MS EVITT: There may also be environmental constraints, which have placed

restrictions on the work. For example, there might be natural heritage

features, natural heritage buildings or sites of cultural value that would 25

all have an impact on the consentability of that proposal.

MR NOBLE: That would be correct.

MS EVITT: In this particular area, we are also dealing with a coastal environment, 30

aren't we, so adds another sensitivity to the mix, doesn't it?

MR NOBLE: Yes, it does add a further sensitivity. However, depending on the

options, one of the options could be undersea, rather than underground.

Who knows? There are various options, all depending on what the 35

outcomes are.

MS EVITT: Just to clarify: in terms of you don't necessarily have to go underground

or across a bridge - I think we have been talking about in part - but you

could actually do an underground cable along the inlet. 40

MR NOBLE: Yes. However, putting it under the sea does bring other problems with

it. You are not allowed to anchor. You have to put in all sorts of

protection zones. It isn't easy to maintain. In terms of a fault, you end

up spending three times the duration as an underground cable because 45


you can't get to it. But it's an option.

MS EVITT: It does provide another alternative.

MR NOBLE: Once again, we go between the North Island and the South Island; it is 5

undersea.

MS EVITT: You have explained that the undergrounding requirements also involve

cable transition stations at each end of the undergrounding portion.

10

MR NOBLE: Correct.

MS EVITT: Would you agree that these are large structures? What size are these

structures?

15

MR NOBLE: Oh, yes. If I can guide you to my evidence, photo 8, which is on page

17, that is a similar termination station that we built on the

Albany/Henderson; it is the same size tower, the same voltage. Those

are the kinds of structures you're up against to transition between

overhead to underground. They are outside a mall, up around 20

Henderson. So that's one design type. There are various design types.

That is the design type if you are trying to minimise the footprint. It's

about as small as the footprint comes.

MS EVITT: Does that have a base at the bottom, so there's like a base structure as 25

well; it's not just a tower? Is that correct?

MR NOBLE: Correct.

MS EVITT: So you would have to acquire the land for that. Do you know how large 30

that requirement is, for that slab?

MR NOBLE: I can't remember, but it's actually bigger than the slab because it

includes your cable transition as it heads underground.

35

MS EVITT: Thinking that through, those are the types of structures, and also that

footprint, that you would actually have to place in Taumanu Reserve to

achieve what the community is asking. Is that right?

MR NOBLE: That is one sort, depending on, once again, you have to weigh it up for 40

the particular place and situation. If you are trying to minimise the

footprint in the reserve, that would be it. If you've got unlimited space,

you might change it to some alternative that takes a larger area but is

not as high. There are various options.

45

[11.45 am]

MS EVITT: As I understand it, undergrounding also requires what is described as a


joint bay every 800 metres to provide access for faults and repairs.

MR NOBLE: Correct.

MS EVITT: So that would place restrictions on the aboveground use in that area. 5

MR NOBLE: Yes, it does. Yes.

MS EVITT: I think you have explained already that you've done a high-level review 10

of some undergrounding options in this area but there has been no

detailed engineering assessment.

MR NOBLE: No.

15

MS EVITT: I think you have indicated already that it is a very costly process,

haven't you? Did you say that?

MR NOBLE: Yes, I indicated to the Board the approximate cost of that option.

20

MS EVITT: Does that cost include the cost of also securing the property rights for

the termination stations?

MR NOBLE: No. I think that was one of the things we excluded.

25

MS EVITT: Would there also be consenting processes and costs, I expect, with that?

MR NOBLE: I would think that would be in that realm of kind of the high-value

figures I provided.

30

MS EVITT: So when you said you thought it would be at the thicker end of that

estimate, that seems to be where that is likely to be.

MR NOBLE: There's that, and there's the final route. As in any desktop analysis, it's

a line drawn upon a map. Until you actually go out there and assess 35

the constraints and the impacts and the design implications, it's pretty

hard; there will be various options you will want to investigate. Do

you put it under State Highway 20 or do you put it across Coronation

Bridge, for example? I don't know.

40

MS EVITT: You have indicated already that Transpower is currently undertaking

this Auckland-wide review of the transmission assets for the region.

MR NOBLE: Yes.

45

MS EVITT: And that you are looking at opportunities to rationalise that grid


footprint.

MR NOBLE: Yes, that's right.

MS EVITT: I think you have made it fairly clear that in that rationalisation perhaps 5

you include a recommendation to remove this very line in discussion.

MR NOBLE: Possibilities of; so only under a quantum of options.

MS EVITT: So, if a decision was made to remove, or underground, that line in the 10

future, putting that requirement on this project would be a waste of

money, wouldn't it?

MR NOBLE: Yes.

15

MS EVITT: My friend Mr Lanning has suggested to you a condition that the design

of the East West Link doesn't preclude any undergrounding of that

Mangere to Roskill line, but my understanding from your evidence

today is that it doesn't preclude that from happening. Is that correct?

20

MR NOBLE: Sorry, could you just reword that again?

MS EVITT: Does the East West Link preclude the undergrounding of that line?

MR NOBLE: Not as far as I am aware, no. 25

MS EVITT: So a condition with respect to that obligation currently isn't required, is

it?

MR NOBLE: When I say it doesn't preclude that is based on a desktop analysis. If 30

you wanted to have a catchall certainty outcome then, was I 100% sure

that it didn't preclude? The answer is no. Would you then perhaps

have something? I don't know. That's up to the parties and the Board

to agree.

35

MS EVITT: I think you have indicated already that the timing between the review

process that Transpower is currently undertaking in this project is there

is a bit of a disjunct, in terms of the likelihood of those works coming

together. Is that correct?

40

MR NOBLE: In terms of the decision process, yes.

MS EVITT: It could be a number of, I think, years, did you say, before Transpower

is in a position to confirm whether that line is in fact redundant or

whether it could be undergrounded? 45

MR NOBLE: It would be a couple of years. However, there would be a number of

years if that was determined to be the answer. There would be a


number of years that would require changes to our other infrastructure

to be allow that to happen.

MS EVITT: So, if there was any condition that attempted to tie those two processes

together that is inherently problematic because of that timing 5

mismatch, isn't it?

MR NOBLE: It is problematic in terms of opportunity cost.

MS EVITT: Would you agree that it might create unrealistic community 10

expectations around this issue?

MR NOBLE: I couldn't comment on the community.

[11.50 am] 15

MS EVITT: You would agree it is a particularly sensitive issue for this community,

though, isn't it?

MR NOBLE: I agree that the overall Mangere-Roskill undergrounding is a sensitive 20

issue, yes.

MS EVITT: You answered some questions in relation to a response that you

provided to Panuku, and it has obviously sort some information from

Transpower about undergrounding that line on its own account. Is that 25

correct?

MR NOBLE: As part of the consultation process they asked for a high level response

as to what the scope and potential cost would be, yes.

30

MS EVITT: So you would be aware of Panuku's long-term development plans for

the Onehunga Wharf?

MR NOBLE: Personally, no. Organisationally-wide I understand that Transpower is

talking to them about their options. 35

MS EVITT: They have plans for a mixed use development on the wharf comprising

residential, retail and commercial activities. Would you agree that

those types of activities - residential in particular - are not currently

provided for in the unitary plan, are they, under those lines? 40

MR NOBLE: I couldn't tell you that. I don't know.

MS EVITT: All right. It is maybe a question for Mr Horne.

45

MR NOBLE: Yes.

MS EVITT: Based on your more general knowledge, Transpower doesn't typically


encourage residential development under existing lines, does it?

MR NOBLE: No. It actually excludes it under the Auckland Plan, yes.

MS EVITT: Am I correct that in order to do this mixed use development, Panuku 5

or the Council would actually have to pay for that undergrounding to

take place before it could do that development?

MR NOBLE: It could develop up to the boundary of, so it is only directly under

would be the area of contextual challenge. The wharf is a whole lot 10

wider than just where the line goes over.

MS EVITT: But to the extent that the line goes over the wharf that area, that zone

will become undevelopable in terms of residential?

15

MR NOBLE: There is only a corridor directly under the line which Transpower has

got an interest in and can actually protect. The wharf is much larger

than that. We can't challenge or withhold anything outside of that

corridor.

20

MS EVITT: Having the corridor on that wharf site would actually restrict its ability

to develop that part of the site?

MR NOBLE: Yes. It would restrict the ability to develop the whole site. It wouldn't

restrict the ability to develop the site, though. 25

MS EVITT: You have already indicated that Panuku has asked for a costing of that

proposal?

MR NOBLE: Which is only a high level estimate, yes. 30

MS EVITT: And your understanding would be that if Panuku wanted to do the

development on the wharf that they would be the third party that would

need to fund that work?

35

MR NOBLE: I think if they wanted it undergrounded then at the moment with our

current funding requirements, yes, they would be a developer and

would be required to fund it.

MS EVITT: Thank you. I have no further questions. 40

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Ms Evitt. Mr Noble, would you look at your hearing

summary update which you prepared. Attached to it is an aerial


photograph or plan. Have you got that there?

MR NOBLE: Yes.

DR PRIESTLEY: The purpose of this I think is to show the Southdown substation? 5

MR NOBLE: Yes. There are actually definitively two substations. There is the wider

Transpower 220 kV substation which is the piece in orange, which is

boxed off in orange. There is then what we have called -- am I on the

right page here? 10

DR PRIESTLEY: Yes, except we have only got black and white.

MR NOBLE: Sorry, sir.

15

MR BICKERS: There is a coloured one on another bit of paper.

DR PRIESTLEY: Yes.

[11.55 am] 20

MR NOBLE: Okay. The piece in orange is Transpower's 220 kV substation. The

piece in blue is what is a KiwiRail GXP or grid exit point, so it is where

we provide power to KiwiRail for its traction system. That includes a

transformer and associated switch gear. In actual fact, on the site there 25

are two different determinations of a substation.

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you for explaining that. We can actually see the KiwiRail

network with the cross towers which carry the electric wires over

towards the right-hand side of that diagram, can't we? 30

MR NOBLE: Correct.

DR PRIESTLEY: Now, can you just help me, dealing with the top substation, if you like,

which has a green dot here saying Southdown and also edged out in 35

orange. Can you tell me who owns that site? Is it you or Mercury?

MR NOBLE: The actual site is owned by Mercury. Transpower has got an

occupation right on that site.

40

DR PRIESTLEY: An occupation right, and with the blue one, the KiwiRail substation?

MR NOBLE: The same.

DR PRIESTLEY: The same. All right. I would like you to look, please, at your primary 45

evidence at paragraph 83. You are talking there about the flyover of

the East West Link. You say there could be a debris hazard and then

you say, "In my view, it is far from ideal to have a road built over a


substation". But in fact looking at both the Transpower substation, the

road which we can see doesn't go over the top does it?

MR NOBLE: No. It actually does go over the top of the blue KiwiRail substation.

There is a bit of confusion as to the contextualisation of what is the 5

Transpower substation versus what is the Transpower owned and

operated, but for KiwiRail's purpose substation. Transpower doesn't

have a problem with the road and its current alignment for the

Transpower orange substation, which is our 220 kV.

10

DR PRIESTLEY: So it is the KiwiRail substation which concerns you?

MR NOBLE: Correct. And we have been working very hard with NZ Transport

Agency to reach an agreement whereby we will relocate that

substation, the blue one, to an alternative site somewhere near where it 15

is at the moment and we are currently developing options.

DR PRIESTLEY: I understand. But as far as the larger substation is concerned - hatched

in orange up there - you have got no concerns so far as the road is

concerned, with that? 20


DR PRIESTLEY: The yellow lines which I can see at the top, are they in fact the actual

transmission lines of the Henderson-Otahuhu line? 25

MR NOBLE: Yes. They are the outer edges of it. There are actually three sets of

wires going in but, yes, that is the general outcome of it.

DR PRIESTLEY: All right. National Grid, of course, extending from one of the country 30

to the other, has a number of generation entities which are pumping

electricity into it. It is very crude, I know, but that is essentially what

is happening, isn't it?

MR NOBLE: Yes, it is. 35

DR PRIESTLEY: We have had evidence about a week ago that the closest generation

stations to Auckland at the moment, the Auckland conurbation, are

Huntly and then Karapiro. Can you confirm that?

40

MR NOBLE: Those are the two big ones. There are cogen plants at Glenbrook, for

example, but that is primarily for the purpose of Glenbrook and when


they've got surplus electricity they will put it back in the grid.

DR PRIESTLEY: Most of it is going into the steelworks?

MR NOBLE: Yes. But those are the two big historic generators that are out there. 5

DR PRIESTLEY: Now, as you know, and this is a very contentious issue, Mercury

Energy - and you can see it there in the plan - had a gas-fired generation

plant which was quite recently decommissioned, in the sense that the

generators remain on site and have been mothballed but subject to 10

routine maintenance, but the turbines were taken out. Are you aware

of that?

MR NOBLE: Yes, I am aware of that. Yes.

15

[12.00 pm]

DR PRIESTLEY: This Mercury site is, in terms of the national grid or part of the national

grid, quite close, isn't it, particularly given your evidence that the

Otahuhu-Henderson line supplies 70% of Auckland's electricity needs. 20

MR NOBLE: Yes, yes, it is. It's right beside it basically.

DR PRIESTLEY: Now, it's been stressed to us, and I want your comment on this as an

overview, that this Mercury site is a strategic site and that should either 25

foreseen or unforeseen in the future there be some crisis or diminution

of supply of electricity to Auckland it's in the national interest that this

site should be able to be recommissioned to continue generation. Have

you any comment you'd like to make on that?

30

MR NOBLE: The only comment that I would make is that whether there's a generator

there or isn't there a generator there is reliant on the price of electricity

that the company that owns it will get at the time and the offer it can

put in. There are transmission solutions, there are non-transmission

solutions, there is a distributor generation, there's all sorts of things that 35

impact the market but it is a commercial piece of equipment that it's

got to wash its own face in the price zone.

DR PRIESTLEY: Yes, but that's true and at a time of high spot prices, which I understand

is the case at the moment or until quite recently, Mercury hasn't seen 40

any need to recommission the plant but we're talking about some failure

of the National Grid or some unforeseen shortage, that wouldn't

necessarily be driven by price, would it?

MR NOBLE: That would be correct. In terms of an emergency situation, yes. I think 45


Mr Bill Heaps presented some very good context to that.

DR PRIESTLEY: You've read his evidence?

MR NOBLE: And I've read his transcript, yes. 5

DR PRIESTLEY: Right, and you don't disagree with it?

MR NOBLE: I don't disagree how he described the market and the overall system,

no. 10

DR PRIESTLEY: Just from a technical point of view, because as you've probably worked

out I am not an electrical engineer or know very much about it, is it fair

comment that this Mercury site, because of its close juxtaposition to

the KiwiRail site and to the Henderson-Otahuhu line, is very well 15

placed for generation purposes? If it isn't, tell me why?

MR NOBLE: It is very well placed, given it's right beside the 220 kV line, however

I do come back to, again, depending on what other generation is

available and what the transmission alternatives are and what the 20

overlying redundancy in the grid is or how constrained the grid is.

There's a whole raft of scenarios that we have to make that site an

economic proposal. Now, that's a call for Mercury to determine.

DR PRIESTLEY: All right. One of its possible functions in addition would be for voltage 25

support, do you agree?

MR NOBLE: Voltage support, yes. However, if I can just clarify that, Transpower's

been out for a preliminary view as to what voltage support could be

provided. As part of that we have determined that at the moment we 30

don't need it, it's reliant on Huntly pulling out in 2022. If they remained

in in 2022 then the support wouldn't be as required as it currently is or

is forecast to be. We have also identified a number of transmission

alternatives which free up transmission capacity and that support

through incremental changes in the grid. So it would be a commercial 35

contract that once again would have to be the least cost option.

DR PRIESTLEY: So if Huntly is decommissioned in 2022, where's voltage support going

to come from so far as the National Grid is concerned, and in particular

the Otahuhu-Henderson line? 40

MR NOBLE: Okay, so Transpower have got options in terms of a transmission


solution which will get weighed up against the other --

DR PRIESTLEY: Just give a clue as to what the solutions are now.

[12.05 pm] 5

MR NOBLE: The solutions are very technical. They are putting in a static

computation to actually up the power and the voltage through the

Brownhill-Tokomaru line, putting in further cables from Brown to

Otahuhu, it frees up that. Putting in series caps in various parts of the 10

Waikato, also frees up that. So there's various solutions. It's one tool

in the toolbox and there's numerous tools that you can incrementally

change that proposal.

DR PRIESTLEY: I get the impression that looking at it solely through Transpower's 15

spectacles you see the utility or importance of the Mercury Southdown

power generation site now mothballed or not currently producing, you

see it's use to you as being largely a matter for Mercury to decide

depending on the price of electricity, is that right?

20

MR NOBLE: That would be right, yes.

DR PRIESTLEY: So if it was blown up tomorrow you wouldn't be crying lots of tears?

MR NOBLE: Well, it isn't operating at the moment, is it? 25

DR PRIESTLEY: Right, thank you.

MR BICKERS: Thank you, that's very helpful.

30

MS TEPANIA: Mr Noble, in response to questions from the Board and Mr Hewison

you commented on the potential for a monopole option in relation to

tower 33. Are the costs of that option prohibitive?

MR NOBLE: No, reasonably cheap, all depending on what you call cheap. If I had 35

to pay for it personally, reasonably dear, I would probably have to

remortgage the house but never mind. You are talking less than

$250,000.

MS TEPANIA: Does a monopole generally offer more stability than the four legs? 40

MR NOBLE: No, the pole would be designed as a bespoke pole for the capacity

required at the site.

MS TEPANIA: Does it become more problematic when you're thinking between the 45


220 kV and the 110?

MR NOBLE: No, it's only 110 kV pole.

MS TEPANIA: Okay, in terms of whether you could apply that same sort of strategy to 5

tower 31, thinking of tower 31, that's on the 220 kV line, is there

potential for a monopole option there?

MR NOBLE: It doesn't add any value. That tower 31 is a strain tower which requires

a huge amount of capacity. I think if you put a pole in there (a) there 10

isn't any room for it and (b) you're not getting anything out of it. It's

actually pointless.

MS TEPANIA: What do you mean there isn't any room for it?

15

MR NOBLE: With the way that the bridges are and the off pass, the pole would have

to go back in the same position as the tower. Now, given that's a strain

pole there's no way we could do that without putting Auckland at risk

because we'd have to have double circuit outages, transfer conductors,

do some real nasty bits of work to even think about putting a pole in. 20

In everything you look at, what's the advantage of that? A strain tower

has got the same structural capacity, the same redundancy, same

spacings, the same maintainability. So, yes.

MS TEPANIA: All right, thank you for those answers. 25

MR BICKERS: Just so that I can understand the strain pole, you're talking about

something like a fence strainer on a fence line?

MR NOBLE: That would be absolutely right, yes. You are talking when you come 30

to a termination point you turn a hard corner, you take up your tension

of your fence wires. The interesting thing here is the tension of these

fence wires, each fence wire is in the order of 2.5 tonne so you times

that by 12 that's on the tower, you know, that's getting up there for a

pretty big strain pole. 35

MR BICKERS: Yes, thank you.

DR PRIESTLEY: Re-examination.

40

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Mr Noble, I have three or four topics, just one or two questions

on each. I'd like to take you back to the issue of undergrounding and I

had understood earlier in the day you gave some answers to my friend

Mr Lanning that the EWL project wouldn't preclude undergrounding


the relevant sections.

[12.10 am]

Then later in response to a question from my friend for the NZ 5

Transport Agency you said that you weren't 100% confident. I suppose

I just wonder if you can help clarify what level of confidence you do

have that EWL won't preclude undergrounding of that relevant section?

MR NOBLE: I'm 100% confident if we can get the line or underground cable up 10

Orpheus Drive or a similar route without any heritage issues, without

any environment issues, then there isn't anything that precludes it. It is

quite good how East West does kind of isolate off Orpheus Drive

whereby it doesn't really become part of the overall highway scheme.

15

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Thank you. You were also asked by Mr Lanning whether you

would support a condition requiring through detailed design that the

design would not preclude potential undergrounding. I wonder if, in

light of some of the comments you've made, you can explain what that

might mean in practice. To what extent is that a practicable condition? 20

MR NOBLE: I do think as a highlighted area it comes back to your determination of

where you want the terminations points to be. Is there a practical line

route or is there a practical route through the East West affected piece

of property? And the answer is yes. Is there anything that precludes 25

it? The answer is probably no. Probably, I do come back to probably.

The type of thing that could preclude it is being unable to get road

closure rights, for example. Can we ultimately get agreement with the

Council for closing a road, putting cables under a road, have we got

rights to? I couldn't answer that, so that is why my unease. 30

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Thank you. To move to the Turners & Growers site, you were

asked by my friend, Mr Pilkinton, a number of questions around the

easement or property rights that might need to be acquired, and I just

wonder if you can help clarify, in your mind and on your current state 35

of understanding, what sort of easement right would be required by

Transpower?

MR NOBLE: Typically the easement rights are a section of land that is defined and

probably the biggest part of an easement is the allowance to get access 40

to our structures. It also does preclude some operations directly under

the conductors which are safety based. We would put in there the

requirement to ECP34, the requirement to adequately earth anything

that it builds. It is just more of a common sense document that provides

us rights to get in and do what we want to do but, also, give certainty 45

of the other party what we are asking them to provide us.

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Just to be absolutely clear, to what extent would any such


easement impact on the ability for the landowner to construct buildings

in these circumstances?

MR NOBLE: In these circumstances, the building would be limited by the

requirement to meet ECP34 and to construct it safely. The problem 5

with ECP34 is it is a document that describes final state buildings. It

does not adequately cover the constructability aspect of cranage, people

on roofs throwing around sheets of iron, so there would be a

requirement for some common sense thought of the construction

process. 10

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Thank you. You had some questions about how and to what

extent Transpower had considered the various Turners & Growers'

issues. To what extent are you aware of Turners & Growers making

any attempts to seek Transpower's views - direct or otherwise - to 15

engage with Transpower about how its site might be configured?

[12.15 pm]

MR NOBLE: I am not aware at all. I haven't been part of any conversation that could 20

have, but I am unaware of any direct conversations with Turners &

Growers.

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Thank you. Just in terms of exhibit Y, the letter, to what extent

is it your understanding that that letter reflected Transpower's 25

understanding of the key issues at the time?

MR NOBLE: I think Transpower, through its discussions with NZ Transport Agency

were aware that there were some underlying issues that T&G

perceived, and the uncertainty of what Transpower would request. The 30

intent of the letter was to try and put some of those issues to bed

whereby we said we didn't want a scorched earth easement.

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Just my last topic, Mr Hewison explored with you the need for

some of the relocation that Transpower might need to make of its assets 35

to require resource consents and some of the risks around that. I would

just like you to comment. If resource consents were not able to be

obtained - and thinking about the risk to Transpower - what comment

would you make on the extent to which the national grid might be

compromised should that happen? 40

MR NOBLE: It is a really good question that Transpower would have to consider

hard. I think that Transpower would then fall back on its rights and

obligations under the NPS to where we have a protection right for our

assets. We couldn't move our assets until we had reached (a) a property 45

right agreement and (b) a resource consent agreement. Other than that,


we would have to just leave it where it was until we had those things.

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Thank you. No further questions.

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Mr Gardner-Hopkins. Mr Gardner-Hopkins, Ms Tepania 5

has one extra question she wants to ask the witness and you will have

the right to re-examine if there is anything arising. Yes, Ms Tepania.

MS TEPANIA: My apologies, Mr Gardner-Hopkins. Mr Noble, you answered in

response to a question from me that tower 31 is a strain tower. I had 10

understood from the evidence from TOES and OBA that not to be the

case. But just to clarify, a strain tower is depicted in photo 5 of your

evidence-in-chief. Is that correct? Is that what you are referring to as

a strain tower?

15


MS TEPANIA: And that is how tower 31 is constructed. That is your evidence?

MR NOBLE: As I saw it on the image earlier, yes. The image that was put up by Dr 20

Curzon(?) for asking me questions about the over bridge that is tower

31. When you look at it that is a strain tower, I think, as far as I saw.

Perhaps we could bring that image up, yes.

MS TEPANIA: Is it possible to bring that image up. 25

MR NOBLE: Perhaps I was out by one. That one there. So that tower there by the

look of it to me is a strain tower.

MS TEPANIA: Okay. I will have to take your word for it. I am not an engineer myself. 30

Yes, I think we will leave it at that.

DR PRIESTLEY: Do you want it to be confirmed?

MS TEPANIA: Can we get confirmation that it is a strain tower because, as I 35

understand it, your answers are that if it is a strain tower then a

monopole wouldn't offer any benefit or offer any --

MR NOBLE: Whether it is a strain tower or a suspension tower or an angle tower,

the pole would provide zero benefit except for a visual potential 40

benefit.

MS TEPANIA: In terms of vehicle impact, though, is there any difference in

performance between a monopole and the tower that is there?

45

MR NOBLE: I would personally rather have a tower, from a flexibility, rigidity kind


of issue, yes.

MS TEPANIA: It is not a matter that could be considered as part of a management plan

at a design option stage?

5

MR NOBLE: I don't see the purpose of it, no.

[12.20 pm]

MS TEPANIA: Okay. That's fine. Thank you. 10

MR BICKERS: Just one from me that follows on that. Did I hear you say that you don't

use monopoles on 220 kV lines?

MR NOBLE: Yes, we do. 15

MR BICKERS: You do?

MR NOBLE: Yes. If you look at Highbrook, for example, when you drive round the

Highbrook Road, all those poles are 220 kV. 20

MR BICKERS: Thank you. I didn't pick you up correctly on that.

MR NOBLE: Sorry.

25

DR PRIESTLEY: Anything arising out of those additional questions, Mr Gardner-

Hopkins?

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: No, sir.

30

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you very much. Mr Noble, thank you very much indeed. You

are free to leave the witness table.

MR NOBLE: Thank you.

35

(witness excused)

DR PRIESTLEY: Now, Mr Gardner-Hopkins, we have got Mr Horne next up and there

has been a slight amount of slippage because he was going to go on

after the morning break but continue over lunch. We have got two 40

options. We could either adjourn for lunch now and put him on

afterwards or we could make a start on Mr Horne now to the extent of

him reading his evidence summary. How long is the evidence

summary?

45

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Yes, it is relatively short but it does cover some of the changes


in conditions that have occurred to date.

DR PRIESTLEY: Why don't we start him then? It is not going to be helpful for him to

read out the conditions verbatim, but he might want to explain them.

5

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Yes. He does offer his opinion on the key conditions and any

issues that he perceives.

DR PRIESTLEY: I will just check with my colleagues in case they are ravenous with

hunger. Are we happy to go on for a while? Yes. Put him in the 10

witness box, please, Mr Gardner-Hopkins.

Mr Horne (affirmed)

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Thank you. Mr Horne, can you please confirm that your full 15

name is Christopher Mark Horne?

MR HORNE: Yes, that's correct.

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: And you have produced a statement of evidence dated 10 May 20

2017?

MR HORNE: Yes.

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: And also a hearing statement dated 8 August? 25

MR HORNE: Yes.

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: I understand that there might be two corrections that you wish to

make. The first is to your evidence-in-chief at paragraph 71. 30


MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: If I can just invite you to explain the change or update to

paragraph 71 of your evidence-in-chief please? 35

MR HORNE: Sure. So counsel for Turners & Growers raised this morning that at

paragraph 71 I had commented that any easement Transpower might

acquire would likely be more stringent than the AUP controls. That

was the information I had from Transpower of their past practice at the 40

time I wrote my evidence. As Mr Noble has confirmed that position in

regard to compromise spans in the AUP has changed and, therefore,

that is no longer an accurate statement.

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Thank you. And in respect of your summary update statement, 45

I am going to invite you to read that shortly so when you do get to that

point if you could just make the clarification or correction. But subject

to that which you are about to make, can you otherwise confirm that


what you have expressed in these documents is true and correct to the

best of your knowledge and belief?

MR HORNE: Yes.

5

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Thank you. Can you now, please, make a start reading your

summary statement? Perhaps you could start at paragraph 2, rather

than 1.

MR HORNE: Thank you. 10

"I attached a plan in appendix B to my evidence-in-chief showing the

extent of the Southdown substation for the purposes of defining this in

conditions. This plan was dated 9 May 2017, and was an earlier version

of a very similar plan, dated 10 May 2017, attached to appendix E of 15

Mr Noble's evidence. That is the plan that the Board was shown on the

screen earlier.

The 10 May 2017 plan is the correct plan now referred to in the joint

witness statement prepared by Mr Nic Grala, representing Mercury, 20

and Ms Lesley Hopkins, representing NZ Transport Agency, for the

Southdown site, which is dated 4 August 2017, and is attached to Mr

Noble's hearing statement summary. That plan is the correct plan for

defining the extent of the various components of the Southdown

substation, including the Southdown rail supply substation, 220 kV 25

Transpower outdoor switch yard, and control building and relay room.

I attended the expert planners' conference held on 30 May 2017. That

status of the national grid corridor appeal was noted but otherwise there

was little discussion on specific Transpower or national grid issues. 30

I also participated in the first facilitated meeting for the Southdown site

held on 30 May 2017. I believe I might have date wrong; my apologies

for that.

35

Agreed actions from that meeting included an agreement that

Transpower would be one of the parties invited to be included as part

of the risk assessment process for the Southdown site and that there

would be a concept design report, or CDR, process undertaken by

Transpower for the relocation of the Southdown rail supply substation. 40

I understand that the CDR process has commenced with a report due in

mid-September 2017.

I did not participate in the second facilitated meeting about Southdown

issues held on 13 July 2017. That was not a planning conference, 45

although I understand that some planners did attend. Transpower was


represented my Mr Noble, by telephone.

This summary statement addresses the planning framework and giving

effect to the MPSET, including policies 10 and 11, and conditions.

5

I understand that there has been some discussion on how the unitary

plan gives effect to the MPSET and in particular policies 10 and 11. I

address these policies at paragraphs 32 to 33 of my evidence. Counsel

for Transpower has also updated the Board in respect of progress of the

Transpower appeals relating to the national grid corridor overlay. 10

In my opinion, the amendments now directed by the High Court

provide an appropriate framework by which policies 10 and 11 are

given effect, particularly in relation to areas where there are existing

transmission lines that have not been compromised by existing urban 15

development and underbuild.

The amended provisions give effect to policies 10 and 11 through the

national grid corridor overlay. The first part of policy 10 and policy

11, is given effect to as sensitive activities are avoided generally within 20

the national grid yard, while effect is given to the second part of policy

10 by avoiding development, and buildings in particular, in areas of the

national grid yard that are not yet compromised. This reflects the

reality that in some areas the national grid is already compromised and

imposing additional restrictions on non-sensitive development will not 25

secure any material benefit in those locations.

This is where I need to make a correction. I have stated in my summary

statement that I hadn't viewed the final maps that came from the High

Court directions. They are now integrated into the unitary plan and I 30

have now seen those maps.

The Turners & Growers site, where Transpower asset relocations are

proposed, is mapped as an area that is already compromised and now

has a less restrictive framework in the AUP than other areas that are 35

yet to have buildings constructed on them.

As relevant to the East West Link, this framework emphasises the need

to ensure that the East West Link project, or adjoining land uses that

may need to be reconfigured, does not compromise the national grid. I 40

am satisfied that the protection given in conditions, and the fact that the

relevant property rights will need to be obtained before parts of the

national grid are relocated, that the MPSET will be given effect to. It

would be a different matter if the national grid were to be compromised


in an unacceptable way by the project.

[12.30 pm]

I have reviewed the updates to conditions contained in the 19 July 2017 5

update of the conditions provided to the Board by the NZ Transport

Agency and further recommended amendments to come out of the joint

witness statement on conditions by Nic Grala for Mercury and Lesley

Hopkins for the NZ Transport Agency for the Southdown site, dated 4

August 2017 and I comment as follows: 10

The 19 July condition set: I can confirm that the proposed network

utilities conditions - and I have listed the relevant ones - address all

matters raised in my evidence-in-chief in regard to conditions as they

relate to Transpower's assets. 15

In regard to proposed condition NU.11, that addresses reducing the

extent of the designation, where appropriate, after construction is

completed. I note that the plan attached as appendix B to Ms Hopkins'

summary statement, shows an amended designation line that does not 20

include the control building and relay room for the Transpower

substation on the Southdown site and I support that change.

I did also initially have some concerns around the definition of the

Southdown site, as it did not include the Southdown rail supply 25

substation, which is separately defined. However, the definition has

been amended to include this in the joint witness statement, and agreed

by both Ms Hopkins and Mr Grala, which I support.

In terms of the joint witness statement on conditions for the Southdown 30

site, Mr Grala and Ms Hopkins agree there should be a separate

condition set, denoted as SD conditions, for the Southdown site in

regard to infrastructure and network utility issues. I agree with that

approach, given the complexity of issues and interests on that site.

35

Much of the material in the joint witness statement relates to risk

assessment matters, to which Transpower does not have any specific

interest as Transpower already has assets on the Southdown site.

In regard to conditions that may affect national grid assets, the two 40

witnesses appear to be generally aligned on the principles of conditions

that would relate to these assets, although the structure and wording of

the specific conditions differs. It would appear that the outcomes from

each approach would generally be the same in regard to how national

grid assets are affected. However, I make the following specific 45

comments:

I do not agree with condition SD.3, proposed by Mr Grala, in regard to


a condition that ensures that the design and construction of the project

does not require relocation of identified assets away from the

Southdown site; that is essentially the third-party operators. In my

opinion, this is a decision for the asset owner to make and the asset

owner would potentially make these decisions independently of the 5

East West Link project. Further, if a suitable site cannot be found for

the Southdown rail supply substation within the Mercury landholding,

a site adjacent to the Southdown site may still be able to meet the same

outcomes. The proposed conditions would constrain this opportunity.

In this regard, I agree with Ms Hopkins' approach, as set out in 10

paragraph 5.8 of the joint witness statement, which is essentially not to

adopt that particular condition.

In regard to Mr Grala's condition SD.6, I agree with the general

approach taken in clauses (l) and (m) respectively, to fix the northern 15

edge of the bridge structure but not limit the potential to move it further

south, and to ensure a 5.1-metre vertical clearance underneath the

structure where it passes over the Southdown site respectively.

Ms Hopkins suggest equivalent controls in her condition SD.2, clauses 20

(a)(i) and (ii), so either of these conditions addresses these issues in

regard to Transpower assets.

Fixing the northern extent of the bridge structure gives more certainty

that the road will not come too close to the substation control room, 25

whilst Transpower engineers have confirmed that a 5.1-metre vertical

clearance will ensure options to establish a relocated Southdown rail

supply substation south of the East West Link alignment will not be

precluded as there is sufficient clearance to transport a transformer

beneath the bridge structure. 30

I am unclear of the purpose of clause (h) of Mr Grala's condition SD.6

in regard to not allowing for Transpower to grant any dispensations to

NZECP34. Whilst I am not aware of any works on the Southdown site

that would require these dispensations, I understand from Mr Noble's 35

evidence that Transpower would only grant these if required in

appropriate circumstances, and as such I do not consider it appropriate

to seek to address this in the designation conditions. If necessary, this

clause could be amended to include a general obligation to comply with

NZECP, noting that within the standard there is a procedure for 40

considering dispensations.

[12.35 pm]

Mr Grala proposes a new condition, SD.9, in regard to a specific 45

vibration condition for the Southdown site. I understand that it is still

intended that the general construction CNV conditions would still

apply to the Southdown site. I have previously confirmed with


Transpower engineers that they are satisfied that application of the

German DIN standard, as currently included in proposed condition

CNV.5, would suitably protect their assets. Therefore, from a

Transpower perspective, condition SD.9 does not appear to be

necessary, although I have no view on whether it may be appropriate 5

for other Mercury assets. If the Board is of a mind to adopt condition

SD.9, it would be in addition to, and not instead of, condition CNV.5.

Mr Grala's SD.10, and Ms Hopkins' SD.3, both suggest alternative

wording for a Southdown site-specific construction management plan. 10

Whilst both approaches are likely to achieve a similar outcome in

regard to national grid assets, Mr Grala's approach to restate much of

the material from existing proposed network utilities condition NU.3,

which is the network utilities management plan condition, may be more

user friendly than the approach used by Ms Hopkins to refer back to 15

other NU conditions.

I support Mr Grala's approach to relocate proposed condition NU.10 in

regard to relocation of the Southdown rail supply substation and to the

SD condition set as SD.13. I understand from the joint witness 20

statement that Ms Hopkins also supports relocating this condition,

although it doesn't appear in her condition set in attachment 5 to that

statement.

Mr Grala, condition SD.14, and Ms Hopkins, SD.3(i) both suggest dust 25

management conditions for the Southdown site. Between the two

options, I prefer the condition proposed by Mr Grala as it addresses

dust that may cause material damage to assets, and are self-contained,

while Ms Hopkins' condition cross-refers back to AQ conditions in the

regional consent conditions, which appear to focus more on air quality 30

and amenity. The approach taken by Mr Grala is more aligned with the

wording and intent of existing network utilities condition NU.3(b)(ii).

Further, as regional consent conditions presumably the AQ conditions,

if adopted, as currently provided, will still apply to construction activity

in any case, regardless of any designation conditions adopted that 35

address dust."

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Mr Horne. We will take the luncheon adjournment now

and resume at 1.45 pm.

40

ADJOURNED [12.38 pm]

RESUMED [1.45 pm]

DR PRIESTLEY: Yes, thank you. 45

MR BICKERS: Mr Gardner-Hopkins, his Honour's request to you about the towers, etc,

really what we want -- there's two very good tables in Mr Horne's


evidence and also Mr Noble's evidence, so we really need a bit of an

update on those tables. In some respects there are merits in both of

them, the photos in Mr Horne's table are quite useful but we'd really

just like you to recategorise and them up to date. Mr Horne's is quite

good because it deals with each line separately. It's not a big deal but 5

it's just can we have an update on those tables.

DR PRIESTLEY: Just having it in one sheet or two sheets of paper, rather than having to

dive in and out of a couple of statements.

10

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: I am very happy to prepare a consolidated table that takes the

relevant information from both and makes any update as necessary.

MR BICKERS: Thank you.

15

DR PRIESTLEY: That would be helpful. You don't need a written direction on this, do

you?

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: No, I'm happy to provide that.

20

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you very much. Right, now do you have any supplementary

questions of Mr Horne?

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: No, your Honour. I think Mr Noble may well have given my

friends some comfort this morning because I think questions -- 25

DR PRIESTLEY: Which one? Oh, they have all disappeared.

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: -- have almost all but evaporated.

30

DR PRIESTLEY: That is well played, I guess. Now, Mr Pilkinton has left and you haven't

changed your mind, Ms Devine, you don't want to cross-examine this

witness?

MS DEVINE: No, thanks. 35

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you very much. So that leaves you, Mr Hewison.

DR HEWISON: It does. I've just got a couple of very short questions. Good afternoon,

Mr Horne, Mr Hewison for the Onehunga Enhancement Society. 40

MR HORNE: Afternoon.

DR HEWISON: Good afternoon. You would have heard the discussion and the

questions that were asked of Mr Noble this morning. I just wanted to 45

ask you a couple of questions that come off those. The first one

concerns undergrounding. So in terms of the questions and discussion

about the fact that undergrounding may be practical and that an


important part of that might be to ensure that the East West Link doesn't

preclude undergrounding, are you satisfied that the conditions that are

currently drafted would assure you that the project does not preclude

undergrounding at some point in the future?

5

MR HORNE: There is a condition not precluding style condition, I was just wanting

to go through my notes and get the condition number. It'll just take me

a second.

DR HEWISON: Thank you. 10

MR HORNE: So in the 19 July versions of the NZ Transport Agency conditions

there's a condition DC12A which has that not preclude flavour in terms

AMETI, possibly train routes and possible ramps. So there's no current

specific condition around Transpower assets. The issue is slightly 15

different for the potential Transpower undergrounding in that there's no

actual project, there's no actual alignment. I don't have any

philosophical issue with a not preclude type condition for Transpower.

It might have to be framed a little differently in that there's no definite

project alignment to design to. So I don't think you could just say "not 20

preclude" because no one might know what that means when it comes

to design. But in principle I'm sure something appropriate could be

worded up to address that.

[1.50 pm] 25

DR PRIESTLEY: Sorry, I may have misunderstood what you were saying but no

philosophical objection but what's wrong with the words "not

preclude", they're not that hard to understand, are they? We've all been

scattering it around here for the last nine weeks. 30

MR HORNE: I guess, sir, my concern would be that when an outline plan went in at

what say the Transport Agency might consider not preclude means

might be different to what the processing officers think.

35

DR PRIESTLEY: I understand.

MR HORNE: So I just think it might need to be quite specific on what that means so

everybody knows what they're dealing with.

40

DR PRIESTLEY: Okay.

DR HEWISON: In terms of progressing that, would that be something that Transpower

might draft?

45

MR HORNE: I would have thought that would be for the Agency to draft and perhaps


the Transpower to comment on.

MR PARSONSON: Could it be something along the lines of, "During detailed design and

construction the NZ Transport Agency shall consult with Transpower

on, and ensure that, the East West Link does not preclude the 5

undergrounding of that section of the Mangere line". Something like

that?

MR HORNE: Probably something generally of that nature, sir. Whether a flavour

needs to be built into it that Transpower would need, at that time, to be 10

able to formally confirm it had a project and what the alignment was,

that might be helpful if that could find its way in as well.

MR PARSONSON: Thank you.

15

DR HEWISON: I just wanted to ask you a question about the issue of fuzziness that

exists. So the questions I put to Mr Noble that there are resource

consents that may need to be obtained into the future, in particular you

referred us to the tower on the T&G site as one where it needs to be

raised some considerable height and that that may trigger a notified 20

resource consent. Would you accept that at the moment there are a

number of resource consents which will need to be likely applied for

that we're not really clear about at the moment?

MR HORNE: Yes, that's correct. There's not final certainty on the final design of the 25

Transpower assets and therefore the consents -- there is a general high

level understanding of what consents are needed but the fine detail isn't

there yet and it is a project risk that those consents are still needed.

DR HEWISON: If we did get to the point where a consent was required but through 30

whatever process it was not granted, what would be the position in

terms of that section of the East West Link? Could it proceed?

MR HORNE: Not in that design form, no.

35

DR HEWISON: Thank you, no more questions.

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you very much. Ms Evitt.

MS EVITT: Good afternoon, Mr Horne. 40

MR HORNE: Good afternoon.

DR PRIESTLEY: Just pause. I was told you'd withdrawn from cross-examination, you


don't need it, is that right?

MALE SPEAKER: That's correct.

DR PRIESTLEY: Thanks. Sorry, Ms Evitt, I misinterpreted your learned friend's body 5

language. Off you go.

MS EVITT: Mr Horne, just looking at the conditions proposed in relation to the

Transpower assets. I understand that you've had numerous discussions

with Ms Hopkins during the course of the engagement in relation to the 10

wording of those?

MR HORNE: Yes, that's right.

MS EVITT: And as part of that process you've provided input on behalf of 15

Transpower as to how those conditions should read?


MS EVITT: You're comfortable or you've confirmed that the proposed changes that 20

you had sought have been included?

MR HORNE: Yes.

MS EVITT: And you're also confident that the measures set out in those conditions 25

combined with the design process underway will appropriately protect

Transpower's assets, is that correct?


30

MS EVITT: Just thinking of the policy requirements in terms of the NPS, the

decision-maker is under an obligation there to ensure that any of the

National Grid assets are not compromised, there's also equivalent

provisions in the Auckland Unitary Plan. So on the basis of those

conditions and that process that's envisaged, you're comfortable that 35

this project is consistent with that policy framework, is that correct?

MR HORNE: Yes, that is correct.

[1.55 pm] 40

MS EVITT: Just turning back to this "not preclude" condition as it seems to be

coined. I understand you may have had some reservation, you

expressed your support in principle terms. Is there a concern about the

timing disjunct between those two processes from your perspective? 45

MR HORNE: I think it's well signalled by Mr Noble that those timings may well not

align. So I guess at the time NZ Transport Agency's ready to go with


that section of the project if there is no design or alignment then it's

difficult to have physical measures in place at that time. So I think that

needs to be acknowledged in any condition.

MS EVITT: So on that basis I think you've signalled to Commissioner Parsonson 5

that there should be in that condition or built into that condition at least

a commitment on behalf of Transpower to be undertaking that project

at the time. Is that one of the pieces of the certainty that you'd like

addressed?

10

MR HORNE: I think it would be more helpful to everyone concerned, yes.

MR PARSONSON: Can I just ask a question on that? My understanding on the a not

preclude condition is that where here is uncertainty about whether

something is going to happen or how it's going to happen, there's at 15

least an option left open that it could happen. So just to ask the

question, how is the appropriateness of such condition dependent on

Transpower having a design?

MR HORNE: I suppose the difficulty I'm grappling with, sir, is if NZ Transport 20

Agency puts in an outline plan and no one knows where the termination

structures may be and therefore how you're getting from A to B, in

terms of putting in, for argument's sake, culverts, no one will know

where those should go. For example, the preferred alignment, if that

were to go in Orpheus Drive, it would seem unnecessary to put culverts 25

under State Highway 20, so that is why until there is a known alignment

it is difficult to know what "not preclude" looks like. I guess,

fundamentally, if it is a trench there is probably always an engineering

solution. It might just be a little more inconvenient not aligning the

two. 30

I think when you are talking about ramps or AMETI lanes, you really

would have to design for that at day one or you simply couldn't do it. I

suspect with undergrounding it might not be that critical.

35

MS EVITT: Mr Noble indicated that a decision might in fact be made that that line

is in fact redundant or not required going forward, so I guess that

commitment or that indication in the condition that there is something

to proceed with would mean that ultimately we are not future proofing

this for no reason. Is that your -- 40

MR HORNE: That's correct, yes.

MS EVITT: I have no further questions.

45

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Ms Evitt. Any questions from the Board?

MR PARSONSON: I don't have a question but I just want to express appreciation,


Mr Horne, on you providing a site-specific but somewhat independent

assessment of the conditions relating to Mercury. That was very useful.

DR PRIESTLEY: I have no questions. Re-examination?

5

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: No re-examination.

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you very much, Mr Horne, you are free to go.

MR HORNE: Thank you, sir. 10

(witness excused)

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Sir, and members of the Board, that concludes the evidence for

Transpower and, unless I can provide any further assistance today, I 15

seek leave to be excused.

DR PRIESTLEY: Yes. No, that will be quite appropriate. You will probably be making

some closing submissions at some stage.

20

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Yes.

DR PRIESTLEY: There have been no Court of Appeal developments?

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: No. The latest news that I have is that we may not actually get 25

a fixture until the new year.

DR PRIESTLEY: All right. Well, we will just have to hope we get the law right, won't

we? It is not too hard I think. All right. Thank you very much.

30

MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Thank you.

DR PRIESTLEY: Where does that leave us now in terms of the hearing, Ms Smeaton? In

fact, I can probably sort this out by interrogation. Have we got

Mr Curtin here? 35

MR CURTIN: Yes.

DR PRIESTLEY: Mr Curtin, can you just help me, have you heard anything from

Mr Pitches? 40

FEMALE SPEAKER: He is on his way, sir.

DR PRIESTLEY: All right. Are you dependent on Mr Pitches here as your life support

system or are you happy just to give evidence because one counsel, I 45

think NZ Transport Agency, wants to cross-examine you.

MR CURTIN: Yes, we are not joined at the hip, I don't think. I think you would


probably prefer to hear what I say.

FEMALE SPEAKER: Yes.

[2.00 pm] 5

DR PRIESTLEY: Is this him coming in the door? Mr Pitches, is it? We were just talking

about you, Mr Pitches, but not taking your name in vain. We have just

finished the last witness and we are ready to start with Mr Curtin. He

has told us you are not joined at the hip, but we are quite happy he just 10

goes into the witness box and is cross-examined and then it is your turn.

Are you here to make a statement or to give evidence?

MR PITCHES: To make a statement.

15

DR PRIESTLEY: All right. So you will be doing it from there and not from there?

MR PITCHES: That's true.

DR PRIESTLEY: If you do it from there you are immune from cross-examination. If you 20

give it from there you can be asked questions by Mr Mulligan and

others. You think about the implications of that while we are listening

to Mr Curtin. Mr Curtin, if you could just wander up there please and

we will swear you in. Thank you, Mr Gardner-Hopkins.

25

Mr Curtin (affirmed)

DR PRIESTLEY: All right. Now just give me a moment here. Mr Curtin, would you

confirm that your full name is Donald Francis Curtin?

30

MR CURTIN: It is.

DR PRIESTLEY: That you filed some evidence-in-chief on behalf of Campaign for

Better Transport and that witness statement is dated 21 May 2017?

35

MR CURTIN: That's correct.

DR PRIESTLEY: And to the best of your knowledge that the contents of that statement

are true and correct?

40

MR CURTIN: They are.

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you. Now, does anyone other than Mr Mulligan want to cross-

examine? You don't, Mr Hewison. No one else. All right,


Mr Mulligan.

MR MULLIGAN: Good afternoon, Mr Curtin.

MR CURTIN: Good afternoon. 5

MR MULLIGAN: Yes, afternoon. We have gone through the day a bit quicker than we

thought.

DR PRIESTLEY: Well, you haven't been around much, Mr Mulligan. 10

MR MULLIGAN: I know. I was hoping to be around.

DR PRIESTLEY: There is no necessary cause or (overspeaking) between those two

things. I am not suggesting there is, although you did lay yourself open 15

slightly.

MR MULLIGAN: I did. I did. Mr Curtin, I will only ask you a few questions but, as I

understand your evidence, the prime focus of it is in relation to, first of

all, your evaluation of the indicative business case process and then the 20

detailed business case process?

MR CURTIN: That's correct.

MR MULLIGAN: And through that you really just looked at those NZ Transport Agency 25

documents and the analysis in terms of the NZ Transport Agency's

investment decision process, is that correct?

MR CURTIN: It is.

30

MR MULLIGAN: Would you accept that beyond that process - and perhaps mixed in with

it at the top level - that the RMA is a different process and involves

different considerations in terms of alternatives?

MR CURTIN: I am no expert on the RMA itself, frankly. My expertise is in 35

economics, not the law. As you mentioned, my focus was very much

on how the NZ Transport Agency went around making that initial

decision among the menu of options that faced them initially.

MR MULLIGAN: I think we have had evidence from the Auckland Council economist 40

that, in terms of the BCR process, which forms part of the business case

exercise, that that is one part of - and perhaps an early part of - an

evaluation of investment decisions?

MR CURTIN: Yes. I would say many investment decisions would have some kind of 45

business to cost ratio element that pertain to them. In the case of

commercial investments, it might stop there. There might not be any

wider social or public implications from what, say, a commercial bank


or an engineering company might want to do.

[2.05 pm]

But on projects like this where there are moving parts involving the 5

environment, cultural heritage, public health, a number of other

criteria, they all need to get blended into the mix. So you would expect

the NZ Transport Agency to look at the economics of the financial

aspects of the payback from the project. You would also expect them

to take into account a whole variety of other matters, as indeed they 10

did.

MR MULLIGAN: I am sure you would agree that if you had time you can undertake an

economic analysis in terms of things like ecological values or historic

heritage. But you would agree - and I think I have taken this from your 15

answer - that another valid approach might be to just stick to a more

pure economic analysis for the hard numbers in terms of costs and

benefits that you can ascertain and have more of a qualitative

assessment for some of those other things, like historic heritage,

ecological values? 20

MR CURTIN: Yes. I understand the question. I think, yes, part of it is about

quantification and how far can you push quantification. Certainly it

gets very hard for some elements. Nobody disagrees on that. You can

make a fair amount of progress on many of the moving parts 25

quantifying them as best you can. Nothing is perfect, but we are in the

real world and you are trying to make your best stab of what you think

is going to happen to benefits and costs.

You can probably quantify a fair degree of the hard costs. You can 30

probably quantify a fair degree of the higher benefits, if I can call them

that. After that you can semi-quantify some other elements, and some

other elements again might be very difficult to put any sensible number

on or have a sensible basis to drive a number from. So, my general

approach to this would be: quantify where you can and if you can't then 35

you are involved in some kind of trade off between things you can

measure and the possible impacts of things you can't.

I had quite a degree of admiration, actually, for what the NZ Transport

Agency document attempted to do when it came to those fuzzier and 40

more difficult things to assess. They came up with, as you will recall,

in the initial business case with a range of plus 5 to minus 5 was

something really, really good or really, really bad. That might look

kind of clunky and simplistic, but at least it tries to catch the flavour of

the thing we are trying to put an appropriate weight on the things that 45

innately are quite difficult to measure.

MR MULLIGAN: I think that part of your evidence talks about choosing the right option,


whatever that may be, depending on from what perspective you look at

it, but you would accept that as part of the RMA process it is not the

Board's job, in terms of its decision-making process, to second guess

whether the applicant has chosen the right project?

5

MR CURTIN: I don't know that I do accept that partly because, as I mentioned, I am

not totally familiar with the RMA process. In fact, I am not at all

familiar with the RMA process. This is the first time I have given

evidence in this particular type of inquiry. That said, I would be very

surprised if a board of inquiry, like this one, merely accepted a decision 10

on faith and did not reassure itself, kick the tyres as it were, that of the

options that could have been presented to the tribunal a more sensible

rather than less sensible option was chosen. I mention in my evidence,

in analogous circumstances, I found myself in somewhat like the

position of the Board here trying to trade off the claimed benefits and 15

the claimed costs for various courses of regulatory action. And I would

have found it difficult to do that without some kicking of the tyres of

how people had got to the decision they're presenting.

MR MULLIGAN: In terms of, though, this qualitative assessment, would you accept that 20

an appropriate means - and maybe not the only means - of kicking the

tyres would be to have experts within a given field provide some

assessment at whatever level of design you're at or whatever level of

mitigation you're at at the time you're trying to make a decision, and to

bring those schools together, as was done? 25

[2.10 pm]

MR CURTIN: Yes, absolutely. I remember saying at the economists' meeting when

we were to all put in our witnesses, our evidence, that I thought in some 30

ways the NZ Transport Agency's attempt to take all those perspectives

into account at the one time was a thing of beauty, a work of art. It

didn't survive into the written testimony of our meeting but they did a

very good job at trying to trade off all these moving parts.

35

What left me wondering, though, and as I said in my evidence, was it

wasn't clear to me when they'd gathered all that information how they

made the decision they did. Having gathered all that good stuff about

the degree of environmental damage or the degree of cultural heritage

that might be threatened and then the degree of economical payoff and 40

the construction costs, when you've done all that good stuff and you've

gone into a room to make a decision, how exactly were all those things

traded off? On my reading, just on the formal reading of the

documents, I couldn't quite see how the NZ Transport Agency got to

the option they chose based on the information they had. I'm not saying 45

it's a strange decision. Obviously it's gone a long way down the pipe

since then. I'm just saying I couldn't follow the logic that got them to

that option rather than another option.


MR MULLIGAN: In terms of that, did you read the evidence of Ms Linzey in terms of the

alternatives assessment, in terms of this RMA context as opposed to

the IBC and DBC?

5

MR CURTIN: No, I haven't. I've read, as I mentioned in my original evidence, the

other economists' testimony. I've read the initial business case and the

detailed business case, and I did a little bit of research on my own on

other articles which I've mentioned in the evidence. But no, I haven't

read any of the detailed presentations that have been made to this 10

tribunal.

MR MULLIGAN: I assume, if you haven't read that evidence, then you haven't read also

that aspect of the assessment of environmental effects which also deals

with that RMA alternatives analysis. 15

MR CURTIN: No.

MR MULLIGAN: So to that degree you wouldn't be in a position to comment about - and

particularly given your comments about your involvement in the RMA 20

process - the adequacy or otherwise of that alternatives analysis in

terms of the RMA test?

MR CURTIN: The best I could answer that with is to say that I thought, based on the

published documents that I read at the time, that the NZ Transport 25

Agency had done a jolly good job of bringing different perspectives

into the calculation, including environmental perspectives. As I say, I

could not see my way to how they quite got to the option they could,

based on that very good information they'd collected.

30

MR MULLIGAN: Perhaps finally, you would accept that for a project of this size, or any

project but particularly one of this size, where decisions have to be

made and then there's a lot of work that follows that to test those

assumptions, that the IBC and the DBC are necessarily a snapshot in

time, and that further refinement of both costs and benefits will occur 35

subsequent to that?

MR CURTIN: Absolutely. I agree with you first of all that this is a very large project.

This is probably knocking on $2 billion or north of $2 billion at this

stage, so this is an important investment project on a national scale. No 40

one is going to argue with that. The corollary of that is that it would

need a particularly good tyre-kicking in that case to make sure that it is

the best of all the potential uses we could put $2 billion to.

MR MULLIGAN: When you say "tyre-kicking" though, you're talking about in terms of 45

that investment decision and that decision at a government agency level

as to whether this is a wise investment of government funds, as opposed

to the opportunity cost of investing it elsewhere, aren't you?


MR CURTIN: I'm not too sure what I mean there, to be honest. I was going to reply

to something you mentioned before, which was that the costs and

benefits evolve. That must certainly be true. We know in the Auckland

environment in particular that construction costs have been increasing 5

quite rapidly because of all the development we know about out there.

[2.15 pm]

One of the points I did want to make about the detailed business case 10

is I was trying to understand what the ratio of benefits to costs looked

like on the current level of costs. We know the level of costs has gone

up, and the question would be, well, what sort of quantum of benefits,

all sorts of benefits, are we getting for that spending? There was just a

question in my mind in the detailed business case about how the 15

benefits had also been revised, and I worried in my original evidence

that the benefits had been revised mechanically upwards to keep the

original business-to-cost ratio even though the costs had gone up.

Now, I don't know what, if anything, the NZ Transport Agency said

about that since, but one of the things that did concern me is I did want 20

to understand. I can understand the costs going up. I can understand a

case for benefits going up. But I couldn't understand quite exactly

where the new benefits had come from.

MR MULLIGAN: Yes. That was contained in the evidence of Mr Wickman and in Mr 25

Williamson, and there was some cross-examination from Mr Pitches,

and you haven't read that, to form that question?

MR CURTIN: No.

30

MR MULLIGAN: Okay. You would acknowledge that because this is an issue of process

and it's a large project developing over time, there have been a number

of changes to the project and matters that have been added to the project

since the IBC and DBC are done? Are you aware of that?

35

MR CURTIN: Look, I'm not aware but it sounds plausible, yes.

MR MULLIGAN: There's been, since that was done, the grade separation of Great South

Road, which is a reasonably significant capital increase. Were you

aware of that? 40

MR CURTIN: No.

MR MULLIGAN: The bridging of Otahuhu as opposed to the current culverting situation?

You weren't aware of that? 45

MR CURTIN: No. As I say in my --


MR MULLIGAN: I won't go through those. You're obviously not aware of those changes.

Would you accept that there's a potential for those changes to obviously

increase costs but also to yield benefits, some of which could be

quantified through traffic, but some, on the cultural rubric, may not be

able to be quantified? Would you accept that? 5

MR CURTIN: Yes. Look, that's entirely possible. I'm sure, as you say, projects

evolve over time. It's very obvious that the costs must have evolved

over time. I'm sure the design changes have also affected the benefits.

As I say, my comments were very much around the original shape and 10

scale of the project and how the benefits had been computed, and in

particular how the benefits had been adjusted, whether they'd been

adjusted mechanically to always come out ahead of costs, or had been

independently assessed as genuine, new benefits from design changes

or whatever. 15

MR MULLIGAN: You would accept that the way that the overall structure of the analysis

had been undertaken, that NZ Transport Agency, through its business

case process, hadn't rested its decision-making wholly and solely on

what that BCR number is, though? You would accept that? It's 20

undertaken the CMCA process as well?

MR CURTIN: Absolutely. It's quite clear from the initial case and the detailed case

that they made quite a detailed trade-off across many criteria. There

was the business case, the cost-benefit ratio stuff, which you'd expect 25

in any investment project. As I said, they had ten different perspectives

at this multi-criterion analysis that they conducted to look at it every

which way, and I can only say again that if all of us had been in the

proverbial smoke-filled room looking at that good information that had

been gathered, it wasn't clear to me that that was the option that most 30

aligned with the information on the table.

MR MULLIGAN: Now, final question is - you may not be able to comment, given what

you've said about your history with the RMA process - it will be my

submission to the Board that building costs of a project like this aren't 35

really a matter for RMA consideration. As a matter of law, would you

have a view on that?

MR CURTIN: I don't know as a matter of law. As a matter of economics or financial

common sense I find it difficult to consider the advisability or 40

otherwise of an investment project without some idea of its costs.

MR MULLIGAN: You would accept, though, that this Board's position is slightly

different than the ones that you've cited in terms of the Commerce

Commission, who are very much making an economic decision, 45

whereas this Board is not charged with that particular obligation?

Would you understand the distinction between those two processes?


[2.20 pm]

MR CURTIN: I gave an example in my evidence of where I thought the Commerce

Commission had actually got into that kind of unquantifiable social or

other impact of an investment decision. The example I gave was that 5

proposed media merger, where the commission in that case was

actually trying to weigh up a very largely unquantifiable social impact,

in this case where there continued to be a variety of opinions in the

mass media. Where they got to in the end, as I mentioned in my

evidence and you may recall, is that they said, "Well, we don't know 10

actually how big a loss of plurality it would be for the citizenry if there

was only one voice in the newspapers, but we suspect it's a very big,

bad thing. Even if we don't know exactly how bad a thing it is, we're

pretty sure it's a bigger thing than the small cost savings from

consolidating printing plants and other advantages that have been put 15

up".

So I don't know that tribunals necessarily can't or shouldn't consider

impacts like plurality or public health or historical heritage. It's

obviously difficult to try to get a handle on the magnitude of the 20

impacts that are going on in those areas but it must surely be the case

that those sorts of things get taken into account in the round.

MR MULLIGAN: I have no further questions.

25

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Mr Mulligan.

Mr Curtin, your experience in this area has been considerable and I

think I've got it right, you were a member of the Commerce

Commission for something like six years. 30

MR CURTIN: Twelve, in the end, I'm afraid.

DR PRIESTLEY: Twelve years?

35

MR CURTIN: Yes. They let me off at the end.

DR PRIESTLEY: The Commerce Commission has a number of functions, anti-

competitive behaviour, monitoring thereof, being one, and also a

requirement to scrutinise fairly closely economic benefits. Would you 40

agree?

MR CURTIN: Yes.

DR PRIESTLEY: This is clearly an area in which you are skilled. As I understand your 45

evidence, one of your criticisms - and it is, with respect, a fairly mild

criticism - is that when you look at the documents which NZ Transport

Agency has made public about benefit cost ratios, there is no clear


reason given as to why they preferred option F, looking at all the pluses

and minuses of the various other options. Do you agree that that is an

accurate summary?

MR CURTIN: Yes, that is one of my main points. 5

DR PRIESTLEY: I don't want you to be offended by this line of questioning but I just

want to test the whole BCR concept. I don't know whether you were

in New Zealand, it must have been about 10 or 12 years or more ago,

but there was a large, rather obese man up in Whangarei who needed 10

renal dialysis, and it just wasn't available and he died, and as I

understand it became the Government's view, or the district health

board's view, that that was probably unacceptable. But if one did a

benefit cost ratio analysis on whether there is any point in keeping

people with renal failure, say, who are (a) obese, and (b) over the age 15

of 65, alive, or replacing the knee or hip joints of people who need it

who are over the age of 90, one can see the benefit to the individual but

there is probably very little benefit on a BCR basis, given the

expenditure involved in so many of these medical interventions for the

country at large. Would you agree? 20

MR CURTIN: Yes. I think people can find the application of cost benefit analysis to

situations like the one you mentioned a difficult thing to contemplate,

even repugnant, at times, trying to put a value on human life. So I

understand where you are coming from. One of the problems, 25

however, is that health budgets, transport budgets, education budgets,

have finite limits and with the greatest degree of sympathy for the

wellbeing of people, some system of prioritisation has to be devised so

that funds in any of these areas go to where you reckon it will do the

best good. 30

[2.25 pm]

There are any number of ways you might come to that - you might

bring social considerations into play; you might bring moral or

religious considerations into play - but when it comes to something the 35

size of a health budget, which is $10 or $11 billion a year from memory,

there has to be some kind of form of rationing devised to make sure

that limited resources go to their best possible ends.

DR PRIESTLEY: These difficult issues - any decision-maker has to make decisions on 40

the value of the expenditure of money, and weigh that against the

desired outcome; sometimes it is a political decision; sometime it is a

decision of compassion; sometimes it might be purely subjective, like

what colour carpet do you want to put in your living room. Do you


agree? There's no trick in there.

MR CURTIN: No, no. I hear what you are saying.

DR PRIESTLEY: I'm looking at inexactitudes rather than arguments. 5

MR CURTIN: Yes, yes. At the end of the day, someone has to make a decision, I

agree with you, and I have a lot of sympathy for people making big

investment decisions. These are decisions being made necessarily in

an environment of uncertainty. You are almost certainly not sure what 10

the total benefits are. You are probably going to be surprised by what

the eventual costs turn out to be. You are trying to make your best

guess, at any point in time, with the best information you've got to hand.

If I was really making one point in my assorted evidence, it's really

trying to shine a bit of light on how was that decision made, in the light 15

of the information that was collected to assist the decision.

DR PRIESTLEY: That I understand.

Also, we are looking at a closely related exercise of multi-criteria 20

analysis. Again, a lot depends on the picking of the criteria, doesn't it?

MR CURTIN: Yes. It does. Any of these exercises, the computer phrase "garbage in,

garbage out" just occurred to me, but the results are partly dependent

on how you frame the question and if you don't include one criterion, 25

it won't get measured.

DR PRIESTLEY: So far, I think you and I are on much the same philosophical page. I

would like you to have a look, please, at your primary evidence, on

page 9, where you set out that very helpfully-coloured table. 30

MR CURTIN: Yes.

DR PRIESTLEY: Looking at the first three, where most of theme score greens - the

options score greens - where you've got transport benefits 1, 2 and 3: 35

transport benefit 1 seems to be looking at the greatest connectivity

between the freight hub and State Highways 1 and 20. Agreed?

MR CURTIN: Yes.

40

DR PRIESTLEY: That's what it says?

MR CURTIN: Yes.

DR PRIESTLEY: Whereas transport benefit 2, it seems to me, is qualitatively very 45


different: off-road cycle options.

MR CURTIN: Yes.

DR PRIESTLEY: If you get better freight connectivity, you don't really have to worry too 5

much about people on cycles, do you? It can be a total nuisance.

MR CURTIN: No, they are separate benefits; there are three different, separate,

benefits there.

10

DR PRIESTLEY: Would you agree also, when you look at transport benefit 3, this seems

to me to be related to bus timetables.

MR CURTIN: Yes.

15

DR PRIESTLEY: So would this be fair - and I must say we have had some evidence of

this - if NTA, which is our transport guru, charged statutorily with the

responsibilities of New Zealand's roading networks, if NTA decided

that offering greater connectivity between the freight hub and these two

highways was of primal, central importance, they would, I suggest, be 20

entitled to give that considerable, even decisive, weight, when

comparing it against how easy it is to hop on a bus or to pedal along a

similar or connected route.

[2.30 pm] 25

MR CURTIN: Yes. Look, I've got two answers to suggest on that.

The first is that when you look at this, you wonder, as you just have;

"Look at all these things, which is decisive? Should I put more weight 30

on one rather than another?" And as I mentioned in the text, this is not

an easy table that certainly shows a clear winner leaping out at you;

nothing leaps out obviously here. What I tried to do was say let's

suppose we weighted them all equally and you tot up the scores - and I

did that, and it didn't suggest option F, it suggested one of the others - 35

and then I sort of went down the line of thought that you have done,

that this is largely a transport project and why don't we give extra

weight to the transport elements. So I didn't necessarily give total

weight to the first transport benefit, but what I did was, I doubled the

weight, or doubled the scores, for the first three transport elements. 40

DR PRIESTLEY: The first three?

MR CURTIN: There are three; the first three lines are all transport benefits.

45

DR PRIESTLEY: So bicycles would be doubled in the same way that trucks were


doubled?

MR CURTIN: Yes. And whatever the third one was, the connectivity: the

connectivity, the bicycles and the buses. And I said, right, look, let's

double the weight of those and add up the scores and see how they all 5

work out this time. And again, something other than option F came

along, so I was left scratching my head, that even with putting a fairly

heavy weight on the transport benefits of these things, you couldn't

seem to get to option F, or not obviously. You could play with this all

day and you could play with the weightings on each of the things and 10

it would spit out different answers each time.

DR PRIESTLEY: You could have tripled transport benefit 1 and ignored the other two.

MR CURTIN: There are little online tools you can do that with. The OECD has a 15

quality of life indicator, and if you think environment is more important

than health, you can just put more weight on that and see how the

quality of life comes out in that case.

DR PRIESTLEY: We have had evidence from NZ Transport Agency's witnesses, which 20

you mightn't have seen, because I understood you to say you hadn't, for

instance, read Ms Linzey's evidence; is that right?

MR CURTIN: No, I haven't read her evidence.

25

DR PRIESTLEY: We have had some evidence from NZ Transport Agency's witnesses

that in terms of what they saw as their primary objective, to connect

these transport hubs and the industrial areas around Neilson Street in a

sensible way, with State Highways 1 and 20, that this was the most

enduring option, or words to that effect. If we were to accept that 30

evidence, don't the very proper reservations you have about bang for

bucks, don't they fall away, to a large extent?

MR CURTIN: Enduring - the NZ Transport Agency referred to it in the documents

somewhere - yes. They said, I'm quoting from page 11 of my original 35

testimony where the NZ Transport Agency concluded that option F had

superior transport performance, which is kind of your point, and is

more enduring. They didn't explain what enduring meant, though I

presume it means will still be showing some sort of benefits in 10 or

20 years' time. 40

DR PRIESTLEY: Yes, likely to fulfil its function for longer.

MR CURTIN: For longer. My comment on that and maybe I should have fleshed it

our more in my original testimony is that if that is the way they are 45

thinking, that we are putting prime weight, extra weight, on there still

being benefits flowing in 2025 or 2035 I can understand at one level

while you might want to think that way, you'd like to have something


that goes on giving and giving and giving and has a payoff over a long

period of time. There is certainly some logic behind it.

[2.35 pm]

5

It's not conventional logic, I have to say in that if you go back to these

business cost ratios and the net present value of projects. What the net

present value of a project does is usually discount benefits that are far

in the future for a variety of reasons. Mostly because we would prefer

it to have benefits in the here and now and apparently because benefits 10

in the distant future are somewhat more unlikely.

DR PRIESTLEY: Your harbour bridge example runs counter to that really, doesn't it?

MR CURTIN: Well, it does. I have some sympathy for leaping into the dark 15

investments by the way. I'm not against big investments per se. That

was one that had unexpectedly large benefits. It kind of proves the

point that you can't always be too precious about benefits and costs,

you're not going to be able to tell exactly what's going to happen. That

said, let us suppose that your prime criterion is, "I want this thing to 20

have benefits still going on in 2030". Now, that's an illogical or a

strange thing to want to happen. It's not exactly though how investment

projects would normally get appraised in that you would normally put

greater weight on benefits today rather than benefits tomorrow. In most

normal investments by the time you get out to somewhere like 2030 or 25

2040 the weight that you would be putting on benefits accruing that far

out in the future would normally be very low.

So I'm not saying someone mightn't want to think like that but it's not

normally how people would go about assessing the payoffs from an 30

investment.

DR PRIESTLEY: That's helpful. My final question is this, you said you weren't a lawyer

or familiar with Resource Management Act criteria but it seems to be

reasonably clear law that we as a Board can't sit down and start 35

scratching our heads and drawing alternative lines over bits of paper

and saying, "Well, this option might have been better than that option"

etc. We really have to judge on the merits what's been served up to us.

MR CURTIN: Yes. 40

DR PRIESTLEY: But would you agree that although the reasons why option F was

chosen aren't totally clear from the materials you've looked at, that NZ

Transport Agency does appear to have assessed various alternatives in

a responsible and reasonably robust fashion? 45

MR CURTIN: As far as laying out alternatives and doing what I think is a very

thorough job of laying out the benefits and costs of each of the


alternatives, I have no trouble with that. As I said, I hope I said, in the

statement that I thought they did quite a lot of work in an area that is

innately difficult to get a handle on. They did quite a good job. So you

now have six well-fleshed out options on the benefits and the costs, not

just financial and economic but every which way to Tuesday. I think 5

that was a solid piece of work. I doubt if anybody would really fault

that.

My question still is, I have to say, unless it's been answered to your

satisfaction by other people, with all that lovely information why did 10

you do F?

DR PRIESTLEY: Yes. Yes, that's very helpful, thank you.

MR BICKERS: Very helpful. His Honour has just about asked every question I had in 15

mind, as well as a few extras. But can I draw on your experience as the

advisor to the Parliamentary Finance and Expenditure Committee over

a period of time, do you recall prior to about 2000 how national roading

projects were prioritised? Do you have recollection of that?

20

MR CURTIN: My time at Finance and Expenditure was very much more monetary

policy and issues like that rather than -- I'm not too sure which select

committee would have handled that sort of thing.

MR BICKERS: Well, if I put it to you that the BCR in fact was the - as you very 25

accurately described - ranking process, but it seemed to produce some

distorted outcomes and it used to be said at that time that one of the

problems was people didn't die in a traffic jam.

[2.40 pm] 30

So the government of the day changed the criteria that regard had to be

had for the effects of congestion and at that time a tool had to be

developed for the effects of congestion to try and change the very

significant impact of the benefit cost ratio on ranking. I noted a couple 35

of pages on you were quoting from a colleague, "State Highway

investment in New Zealand, the decline and fall of economic

efficiency", Dr Michael Pickford. So was he using an example to

demonstrate that the NZ Transport Agency had elected an option which

didn't stack up on a BCR basis but was the preferred option, was that 40

the --

MR CURTIN: Yes, it was. In that case it is one of these little coincidences in life but

Mike Pickford at one stage was the chief economist of the Commerce

Commission, which is where I met him. When he left the Commission 45

he went out and did some work for people who were opposing the

Kapiti Expressway down near Wellington and his point was that

this -- the BCR wasn't even one and his point was -- well, he was


making two points. One is that on its face this thing was underwater

day one. If the only thing you were considering was the economic costs

and the economic benefits, the country would be better off not building

it and that's because it was incurring a loss on its face but also because

there were lots more worthwhile things you could be doing by taking 5

the money out of that and putting it in projects that did have a big

payoff. He just did a simple calculation that if you didn't spend it on

the Kapiti Highway and spent it on something that did have a big

payoff, the country would be ahead twice, once by not incurring the

loss on the Kapiti Highway and again by doing something worthwhile 10

with the money.

MR BICKERS: There's been other projects that have fallen into the same category and

it's arguable whether the BCR would justify. The Transport Agency's

statutory objective is to undertake its function in a way that contributes 15

to an effective, efficient and safe land transport system. So if it just

simply said "efficient land transport system" one could argue that

economic analysis would become almost the sole criteria. How do you

interpret or how would you suggest that the question of effectiveness

and safety were incorporated into the analysis of options? 20

MR CURTIN: I think that's a very fair question. If we go back to that table that the

Chair raised earlier on page 9, I think some of the things that you've

mentioned were in fact incorporated in that analysis. Certainly the

safety I would assume may well be under the public health criterion or 25

possibly under the social criteria and I'm not too sure. As I mentioned,

I have a lot of sympathy for this, trying to capture those wider issues,

the effectiveness issues and safety issues you raised as well as

efficiency. How are you going to do that? I thought a multi-criteria

assessment, it's a bit of a mouthful, attempts to do that. I thought it was 30

a jolly good attempt to doing it. Should something be 2.5 rather than

3.5, well who really knows but at least you've put down an attempt at a

judgement that people can talk about and then weigh up in the round.

As I say, I have every sympathy with where you are going on trying to 35

bring multiple viewpoints, possibly because it's statutorily required to

bring these multiple viewpoints to the table, but if you're trying to do

that, find a tool, here's the tool, my point is entirely about how that tool

was applied. I like to think that many of the criteria that you mentioned

are in there. They could very well have put in a couple more about 40

weight and traffic accidents or something else or congestion at prime

periods or ease of getting to school or something, I don't know. At the

end of the day you're left with the issue about how do you weigh all

those up against each other and against the purely financial things.

45

My question would be, would you folks be totally happy that you

understood how that was done and that it was done in line with the


information given to the people to make the decision.

[2.45 pm]

MR BICKERS: Section 96 of the Land Transport Management Act talks about the 5

Transport Agency exhibiting a sense of social and environmental

responsibility. Would you accept that those also have to be introduced

into an analysis of options?

MR CURTIN: Absolutely, and, as I say, I thought the MCA - multi-criteria assessment 10

- had quite a good go at that in terms like the natural environment and

what-have-you.

MR BICKERS: Would you agree that that might mean that there is expenditure on

matters such as landscaping, more aesthetic design of structures, which 15

wouldn't necessarily produce the return on capital invested but are

adding a quality of life?

MR CURTIN: I have no problem with that at all. There are any number of criteria

you could bring to this particular problem. 20

MR BICKERS: Okay. So within its statutory mandate, would you agree that it is the

function of the Board of the New Zealand Transport Agency to

establish its own evaluation methodology within the framework of its

statutory objectives and constraints? Everybody might not agree with 25

that but it is their prerogative.

MR CURTIN: As a question of statutory interpretation I can't assist. As a general

knowledge question to me, do you think that's a sensible thing for them

to be doing, I think it is. I think they did devise a process for getting to 30

a decision, if I understand your question. It's a process that I think was

quite a nice process. It turned over any number of stones in any number

of fields and looked to see what the various impacts would be.

MR BICKERS: Yes. I've heard you say that they did a pretty fair job of that. 35

MR CURTIN: Yes.

MR BICKERS: While you might not agree with - or maybe not agree, but you had some

question marks over - the selected option, you agree they've made a 40

pretty fair --

MR CURTIN: At the risk of repeating myself, I think this was a nice bit of analysis.

When it came to the decision point, I just looked for that little bit of the

nexus between the information and the tool you've built and the 45

decision that comes out of it. Maybe there's one there that hasn't been

clearly vouchsafed unto us, but for the time being I can't see it as clearly

as I would like and I suspect you folks would like.


MR BICKERS: I think, as his Honour has indicated to you, whether we agree with the

selected option or not becomes of little relevance in that we can't say,

"We want you to go to option B or C or D" or something. Within the

RMA process we don't have that. 5

MR CURTIN: Look, I can understand that point. I would put it to you, at the risk of

repetition - I apologise - that I think you do have an interest. I would

have an interest in how that decision was made. If it came up, option

F, I think I would just want to lift the coverlet and look and see, "Okay, 10

why have we got F? Oh, I see", and put the coverlet down again. I

haven't had the coverlet lifted enough for me.

MR BICKERS: I think you're quite right that we have to be satisfied that there was a

robust process of evaluation of the alternatives. 15

MR CURTIN: Yes, all the way down to the picking of the decision itself. Yes.

MR BICKERS: All right. Look, Mr Curtin, thank you very much. That's very helpful.

20

MR CURTIN: You're very welcome.

DR PRIESTLEY: Michael, are you okay? Now, Mr Pitches, I'm only mildly perplexed

because I'm conscious that Mr Curtin, as he says in his statement, was

contracted to Campaign for Better Transport for the previous 25

assessment. So if you feel the need, I'm quite happy to let you re-

examine, but only on the issue of any matters which have arisen out of

Mr Mulligan's cross-examination or questions from the Board, and the

questions would have to be open questions, not leading or patsy

questions or putting out further information. Now, do you want to do 30

that or not? I'm giving you the opportunity, if you feel that there's

something which he's said which needs clarification.

MR PITCHES: I just have one question.

35

[2.50 pm]

DR PRIESTLEY: Yes. Off you go.

MR PITCHES: Mr Curtin, is there anything you'd heard today that has made you 40

change your mind about the evidence you've presented so far?

MR CURTIN: From the cross-questioning, no, not so far. As I say, I'm not au fait

with things that may have happened in front of the tribunal since I put

my original evidence in. We heard the question about enduring 45

benefits, and I had been thinking about that a bit since I originally put

it in, so I suppose today I've said a bit more about enduring benefits as

a potential criterion that I said in my original testimony. I can


understand why people might want it but it's not the normal way people

would go about looking at the flow of benefits of a project.

DR PRIESTLEY: Mr Pitches, with respect, that's the best question in re-examination I've

heard in 50 years in the law. You should probably send it out to every 5

Crown counsel in the country. It might increase conviction rates.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Curtin.

MR CURTIN: You're welcome.

10

DR PRIESTLEY: It was a beauty, wasn't it, Mr Hewison?

DR HEWISON: I'm impressed. I've written it down so I can use it myself.

DR PRIESTLEY: I'll expect you to use it tomorrow. Now, Mr Pitches, you want to read 15

out this statement. Are you giving this as evidence or a sort of

submission or what?

MR PITCHES: It's effectively a summary of our entire argument. You can classify that

how you like. I'll put it forward as a submission to you. 20

DR PRIESTLEY: All right. I don't think we can really object to that, Mr Mulligan, can

we? Just let him read it out.

MR MULLIGAN: No, sir. I understood Mr Pitches was going to make submissions. 25

DR PRIESTLEY: Yes. Exactly. Off you go.

MR PITCHES: All right. Thank you, sir, and members of the Board. The purpose of

my representation to you today is to outline the reasons why the Board 30

should decline the application before it. The reasons are clear and

simple.

On page 5 of his evidence, NZ Transport Agency Highways Manager

Brett Gliddon set out the principles by which the Transport Agency 35

must operate. Under section 96 of the Land Transport Management

Act, the Agency must exhibit a sense of social and environmental

responsibility. It must use its revenue in a manner that seeks value for

money. Of particular relevance to our argument, it must act in a

transparent manner in its decision-making under the Act. 40

While Mr Gliddon contends that the Transport Agency is required at

all times to act in accordance with its statutory roles and

responsibilities, it takes those obligations very seriously.

45

Our evidence shows that the decision-making has been anything but

transparent in relation to this project. It's perhaps arguable whether or

not the Board of Inquiry is the right place to test whether the Land


Transport Management Act has been followed, but I put it to the Board

that it should not be confirming a project that potentially falls outside

of the law. It is right and proper for the Board to inquire if the Land

Transport Management Act has been followed. If it is not the

responsibility of the Board, then there aren't any other avenues where 5

section 96 of the Land Transport Management Act is enforced, except

perhaps through a judicial review.

Of course, the Resource Management Act also has provisions in

relation to the consideration of alternatives. Section 171(1)(b) requires 10

the Board consider whether adequate consideration has been given to

alternative routes. In the Basin Bridge decision which was upheld by

High Court, it was found that the consideration of alternatives had been

inadequate. On page 367 of that decision the Board found there was a

lack of transparency and replicability of the option evaluation and a 15

failure to adequately assess non-suppositious options, particularly

those with potentially reduced environmental effects.

It is our contention that the same shortcomings can be found in the

proposal before this Board today. Under cross-examination, Mr 20

Williamson insists that the assessment of alternatives for this project

has been logical, transparent and replicable. He stated that was true in

an economic sense as well, on page 4090 of the transcript. But Mr

Williamson also stated that the economic evaluation tool was in, in his

opinion, the most well-developed economic assessment tool within the 25

public sector in New Zealand by a long way. For instance, we know it

already includes factors for improved safety and decongestion benefits,

which is what you were referring to before.

[2.55 pm] 30

It is difficult to understand, therefore, how the recommendation of this

economic evaluation tool, which was not option F but option B, has

been ignored by the NZ Transport Agency. The NZ Transport Agency

talk about the enduring benefits of option F. Enduring benefits are 35

defined in the indicative business case as the change in daily mean

travel time from 2026 to 2036, but this time period is already included

in the 40-year timeframe of the standard economic evaluation

methodology.

40

The NZ Transport Agency claim the multi-criteria analysis also

supports option F, but this is by no means clear when we look at the

study. Mr Curtin in his evidence states that the NZ Transport Agency

should have made clear how it weighed those alternatives against each

other, and we support this view. 45

The decision-making process that led to the selection of option F is

opaque. Although one of the authors of the indicative business case,


Mr Williamson states that he was not responsible for the conclusion

that option F was the best option. Mr Williamson could not answer the

question about who was responsible for the conclusion that option F

was the best option, stating that was a question for the New Zealand

Transport Agency, a question that to date, in our view, has not been 5

answered adequately.

In our evidence we also discuss the economic evaluation of option F

itself in the detailed business case. It isn't clear to us why benefits in

the detailed business case increase by $200 million from the figure in 10

the indicative business case. In determining a BCR of 1.9, some of the

$453 million of agglomeration benefits have been included. As far as

I understand them, agglomeration benefits are very difficult to calculate

and are usually associated with CBD-type office workers or

knowledge-based work clustering together, not the trucking business. 15

In this case, agglomeration benefits are 36% of the transport benefits,

and this seems very high. There's no real analysis of why 36% was

chosen for the detailed business case, while for the indicative business

case, according to appendix P of that, 25% was chosen. Without

agglomeration benefits the BCR falls to 1.4. 20

Mr Curtin's final comment in his evidence was that we do not appear

to have the transparency around the most current calculations of

benefits and costs that he would have expected to have been available

at this advanced stage of a major infrastructural project, and we support 25

that view.

There has been some discussion about whether a quantified economic

analysis is actually required within the context of the RMA. Certainly

there have been projects with very low benefit cost ratios that have been 30

approved by boards of inquiry. For instance, in his cross-examination

of Mr Norman on page 3279 of the transcript, Mr Mulligan points out

that the BCR for Transmission Gully was 0.82. In other words, on the

face of it, constructing Transmission Gully would yield 82 cents to the

economy for every dollar invested. Similarly, Puhoi to Warkworth was 35

confirmed, even though quantified benefits and costs were not

presented to the Board in evidence. Subsequently, Official Information

Act enquiries found a detailed business case did exist at the time

containing a BCR of 0.92 when considering conventional benefits.

40

However it is our contention that, even if not strictly required in a legal

sense, there is value in quantifying benefits and costs for any proposal

before a board of inquiry. The core decision a board needs to make is

to weigh up the economic benefits against the environmental cost. It is

difficult to do this without an up to date economic assessment of 45

benefits.

On the question of costs, I note the question posed from Mr Bickers,


who on page 711 of the transcript asked, "Let's say the benefit cost ratio

was less than 1. Let's say it was 0.8. Why should the application be

declined? At the end of the day, it is a matter between the NZ Transport

Agency board and the government that provides its funding". Our

response to that is: it is not the NZ Transport Agency itself funding the 5

project before us today. It is taxpayers and, as the Land Transport

Management Act states, the NZ Transport Agency must seek value for

this money.

In the current National Land Transport Programme 2015-18, revenue 10

from fuel excise duty is expected to be $5.5 billion. That is

$1.83 billion per year, which is the upper bound of the expected cost of

this project. In other words, if this project was to be funded solely from

fuel excise tax, then every motorist in New Zealand will be taxed at the

pump for a year to pay for it. Every time they fill up at least $30 plus 15

GST will go to the NZ Transport Agency for this project. That is quite

an opportunity cost. More worthwhile projects will not proceed or be

pushed out to the distant future if this project is approved.

[3.00 pm] 20

For the reasons set out above, we believe the decision of the Board has

to be one to decline this application. This is a project opposed by the

majority of individual and business submitters to the Board of Inquiry.

It is not supported by iwi. It is opposed by Mercury Energy, which 25

owns the Southdown Power Station site in the path of the motorway.

I want to point out that declining the application will not lead to an

adverse outcome for the economy or the environment. It will give the

NZ Transport Agency an opportunity to present an option that local 30

individuals and businesses actually support, an option that makes better

use of public transport options and active modes, like walking and

cycling, an option that doesn't make rail to the airport from Onehunga

more difficult, an option that doesn't sever Onehunga from the

foreshore or involve one of the largest reclamations in New Zealand's 35

history, an option that will cost less and so leave money available for

more worthwhile projects.

That concludes my representation and thank you for this opportunity.

40

DR PRIESTLEY: Thank you, Mr Pitches. Would you just be seated? Mr Pitches has

raised a jurisdictional argument. I want to just test with him or at least

look at it. Ms Smeaton, do we have anywhere on our iPads the Land

Transport Management Act? I have not been able to find it.

45

(off mic conversation)

DR PRIESTLEY: Get it on to the iPads, please. You don't have a portmanteau copy of it


in your back pocket, Mr Mulligan, do you?

MR MULLIGAN: Unfortunately, I don't carry one.

DR PRIESTLEY: Have you got this too? I am going to ask you about section 96. 5

MR PITCHES: Sure.

MR MULLIGAN: We are getting it up, sir, on the screen.

10

DR PRIESTLEY: No. I have to look all over it. You can't interpret a statute on a screen.

I am astounded it is not on our -- here we are. Thank you very much.

Mr Pitches, your section 96 argument which is, as I said, a

jurisdictional argument, and you have expressed it in those terms 15

saying that your only remedy if we don't agree with you is by way of

judicial review. I take it that you are saying, first of all, that in terms

of section 6(1)(b) NZ Transport Agency for this project is not using its

revenue in a manner that seeks value for money?

20

MR PITCHES: That's correct and also section 91(d)(1).

DR PRIESTLEY: That was my next one:

"That its decision-making process (i) has not been made in a 25

transparent manner."

Is that right?

MR PITCHES: Yes. 30

DR PRIESTLEY: You could perhaps draw a fairly long bow and suggest that it could be

bundled in as one of the many considerations in 96(1)(c), ensuring its

revenue and expenditure is accounted for in a transparent manner. But

we haven't got to the stage where they are expending revenue on this 35

yet, have we?

MR PITCHES: That's correct.

DR PRIESTLEY: Yes, an interesting point. Did you run this before us on Puhoi? I don't 40

think you did in such a neat way.

MR PITCHES: Probably not as concisely, sir.

[3.05 pm] 45

DR PRIESTLEY: All right. Thank you, Mr Pitches. That is something with which we


will have to grapple and thank you for raising it in those terms.

Now, any questions from the Board of Mr Pitches on his opening

submissions? It is a submission not evidence.

5

MR BICKERS: No, I have no questions. I think it is very clear and helpful, yes.

DR PRIESTLEY: Yes, very clear. Thank you very much, Mr Pitches. Now, do you come

back again in any other shape or form?

10

MR PITCHES: Not at all, sir; not at all.

DR PRIESTLEY: All right. Thank you. Well, that brings us to a conclusion; the second

day in recent times where we have run short. I haven't overlooked

anyone have I, Mr Mulligan? There is no one -- 15

MR MULLIGAN: No, sir. I understand this closes the batting order today.

DR PRIESTLEY: Yes. And tomorrow it seems that we are going to be almost exclusively

focused on Mr Flexman of Mercury and you want to cross-examine 20

him. And just tell me who Mr Goldsworthy is.

MR MULLIGAN: I don't know whether it is a man or a woman, but I think it is a corporate

officer of Downer.

25

DR PRIESTLEY: Downer. It is a man. I have read it.

MR MULLIGAN: Yes.

DR PRIESTLEY: And your cross-examination of him, he is worried about this greenfield 30

site or something, isn't he?

MR MULLIGAN: Yes, sir, the cross-examination won't be extensive. So Mr Flexman

will be the main order of business tomorrow and I would imagine it is

unlikely we will be finishing as early as we are today, in my view. 35

DR PRIESTLEY: I think that is a safe assessment. All right. No other housekeeping


matters?

MR MULLIGAN: No, sir.

DR PRIESTLEY: All right. We will adjourn until 9.00 am tomorrow. 5

MATTER ADJOURNED AT 3.07 PM UNTIL

THURSDAY, 24 AUGUST 2017

10

15

20