To the Independent Hearing Panel

Attention Mr P Reed
Dear Sir,
I am extremely concerned regarding the IHP directive to parties requiring that a rerun be made of
the Capacity for Growth model reflecting the inputs of Messrs Fontein and Thompson. I believe the
directive raises significant issues of natural justice and process. This could potentially lead to
applications to the High Court for judicial review.
I am disappointed that that the work of other parties in mediation and expert conferencing can
potentially be undermined through the IHPs directive.
I am concerned that the IHP may have been unduly influenced by two members of the Capacity for
Growth study team (CFGS) who seem to have very development focused agendas. I have been a
member of the CFGS and was concerned, from an early stage, by efforts made during the group
deliberations to inflate the demand side and depress the supply side. For example, inflating the
demand side through adoption of the high growth population scenario (despite the advice of
Professor Bedford who noted the probability of the high growth being reached as less than 5%)
and secondly by using assumptions which decrease the dwelling capacity (for example by not
taking into account amalgamation of titles to take advantage of the PAUPs increased density
available for larger sites).
At my first meeting of the CFGS team I made the following two observations based on my
involvement with models of varying types over many years:
1. Outputs from models are entirely subject to the assumption set loaded into the model.
Many assumptions are subject to significant variables so that the personal belief set of
the modeler influences the inputs and accordingly the output
2. That in my several hundred appearances as an expert witness before the Environment
Court I have never seen a model pass the test of cross examination. This is largely
because, when the assumptions which control the inputs to the model are examined,
even small discrepancies can have a significant effect on the output.
Despite being a member of the CFGS I was not shown the completed assumption set which was
used for the July run of the model. I asked for the opportunity to review the inputs at a further
meeting of the CFGS but was told there was no time owing to the deadline in reporting back to the
IHP. I note that there are 3 groups of assumptions at issue here, those underpinning the first run of
the model, the second assessing the implications of relaxed density and now a further set to be
produced based by Messrs Fontein and Thompson. Accordingly the model resembles a "black
box" and I and others have no way of knowing whether the assumptions used are reasonable or
not.
It became obvious that the model run in July, which was largely based on the assumptions set
determined by Messrs Fontein and Thompson, was going to produce an output of insufficient
capacity. This would then be used to advance, by other submitters, the argument that significant
modifications were required to the residential provisions to provide for a more development friendly
environment and hence provide more capacity.
I had for some time been carefully considering the planning ramifications of insufficient dwelling
capacity. It seemed obvious to me that the core control on capacity was dwelling density.
Relaxation of density could have a significant effect in increasing capacity. In my opinion this
additional capacity need not come at the expense of Neighbourhood Character and Residential
Amenity provided there were clear and unambiguous bulk and location controls. At the residential
workshop I suggested to a number of other resource management consultants that we should form
an expert working group to consider what core bulk and location controls should go with a relaxed
density solution. This led to the Joint Statement lodged with the IHP.

I suggested to the CFGS that a rerun of the model using the relaxed density controls be
undertaken. Unfortunately the tight time frame prior to the July deadline made this impracticable.
However after release of the July model results and after Council adopted the liberal density
proposal, it was agreed that a new run of the model would be done. Once more the assumption set
was not made available, so myself, other members of the CFGS and other submitters are unaware
of what assumptions have been made leading to the output of the second Model run.
The IHP is now requesting Messrs Fontein and Thompson to prepare a third set of assumptions
and Council to run the model for a third time. Once more the model output will depend on the
assumption set. This will result in 3 sets of outputs with each set dependent on a set of different
assumptions and each assumption based on information that may or may not be correct. There are
many variables, each capable of argument and each having a range versus an absolute number.
The IHP has asked two members of the CFGS to prepare a new set of assumptions and required
Council to rerun the model with results to be presented by the first day of hearing on the 14th
October. This is unfair and seriously prejudices all submitters who have taken care to participate
fully in the CFGS process and/or mediation and already lodged evidence on the residential
provisions.
In the interests of natural justice, due process and fairness to all parties, the following matters need
to be considered by the IHP
1. The IHP originally requested the establishment of a team to advise on the projected
demand for dwellings in Auckland and the likely developable capacity based on the
PAUP as notified. It is the CFGS team which was asked to advise the IHP. To allow two
individuals who participated in the process to essentially dictate to Council the
assumptions to be made in the model may lead to justifiable claims of bias influencing
not only all submitters but also the Panels role in addressing them.
2. It is accepted that the assumptions made by Dr Fairgray and Mr Balderston in the
second model run have been challenged by Messrs Fontein and Thompson. As Dr
Fairgray is currently overseas, he has no opportunity to comment on those challenges
or to participate in the process to ensure that a balanced approach to these important
assumptions is achieved.

3. It is anticipated that the proposed assumption set being prepared by Messrs Fontein
and Thompson for the proposed model rerun again will not be fully disclosed to the full
CFGS team. It is essential that this occur and the assumption set agreed on before the
model is run
4. The assumption sets for all three of the model runs should be set out in detail in a
manner so that meaningful comparison can be made between model runs for each
assumption. The variables behind each assumption and the basis for those variables
also need to be available. The input of the full CFGS team, particularly Dr Fairgray and
Kyle Balderston is essential for a fair assessment of the assumptions

5. As the results of the first and second model runs have been used by submitters and
their expert witnesses to prepare their evidence, there needs to be sufficient time for
them to consider the output from the third model run and file revised briefs of evidence
if thought necessary
6. The hearings will need to be deferred by at least one month to allow for the above
matters to be addressed

7. That the experts who prepared the assumption sets need to be made available for
cross examination by any party who wishes to do so. The model has assumed such
importance that an opportunity for robust cross examination of those responsible for its
preparation is essential
I believe that failure to address the above matters could bring into question the integrity of the
hearing process. I wish it noted that Auckland 2040 believes the directive of the IHP raises matters
of law which if unresolved could necessitate an application to the High Court by way of review. To
this end Auckland 2040 is engaging senior counsel. Because our counsel Mr Brabant is overseas
and not returning until the first week of October I was not able to refer this to him. However I have
taken interim legal advice which has indicated that a challenge could be made to the process being
followed by the IHP in reaching its ultimate decision.

Yours Faithfully
Richard J Burton
Chairperson
Auckland 2040
28th September 2015