Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Level 9 79 Boulcott Street PO Box 25-306 Featherston Street Wellington Ph +64 4 499 9824 Fax +64 4 499 9822
Solicitors acting: A F D Cameron / A M B Green / F R Wedde Contact: F R Wedde DDI: +64 4 498 0847 Email: [email protected]
Before a Board of Inquiry
Basin Bridge Proposal
Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act)
In the matter of a Board of Inquiry appointed under section 149J of the Act to
consider the New Zealand Transport Agency's notice of
requirement and five resource consent applications for the
Basin Bridge Proposal.
Statement of Evidence of Duncan Brutton Kenderdine for the New Zealand Transport Agency (Construction Management)
Dated 25 October 2013
2
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF DUNCAN BRUTTON KENDERDINE
FOR THE NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY
Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4 Qualifications and Experience ..................................................................................... 4
2. Memorial Park Alliance ............................................................................................ 4
3. My Role in the Project ............................................................................................. 6
4. Scope of Evidence................................................................................................... 6
5. Code of Conduct ..................................................................................................... 7
6. Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 7
7. Ongoing Design and Construction Activity ............................................................... 8
8. Design Process ..................................................................................................... 10
9. MPA Experience .................................................................................................... 10 Working hours (MPA experience) .............................................................................. 11 CEMP (MPA experience) .......................................................................................... 11 Noise and Vibration (MPA experience) ...................................................................... 11 Contaminated land (MPA experience) ....................................................................... 14 Storm water (MPA experience) ................................................................................. 14 Traffic Management (MPA experience) ..................................................................... 15 Stakeholders (MPA experience) ................................................................................ 16
10. Management Plans ............................................................................................ 17
11. Response to Submissions .................................................................................. 18 Working Hours .......................................................................................................... 19 Water Quality ............................................................................................................ 20 Visual ....................................................................................................................... 20 Access to Grandstand Apartments ............................................................................ 20 Access to Public Transport ........................................................................................ 21 Grandstand Apartments Earthquake Strengthening ................................................... 21 Grandstand Apartments Parking ............................................................................... 22 Works in the Vicinity of St Joseph’s ........................................................................... 22 Lighting ..................................................................................................................... 23 Building Condition ..................................................................................................... 24 Contaminated Land................................................................................................... 24 Traffic Improvements ................................................................................................ 25 Traffic Delays ............................................................................................................ 25 Traffic Management .................................................................................................. 25 Services.................................................................................................................... 26 St Mark’s .................................................................................................................. 26 Consultation.............................................................................................................. 27 CRG ......................................................................................................................... 27 CEMP ....................................................................................................................... 27 Air Quality ................................................................................................................. 28 Air Quality – Pirie Street ............................................................................................ 29 Access – KFC – Pirie Street ...................................................................................... 29 Safety ....................................................................................................................... 29 Parking ..................................................................................................................... 30 Ellice Street – Heavy Vehicles................................................................................... 30 Noise and Vibration................................................................................................... 30 Regional Wines and Spirits ....................................................................................... 32
3
12. Conditions / Mitigation ........................................................................................ 32 DC 6 ......................................................................................................................... 32 DC 13 ....................................................................................................................... 32 DC 19 ....................................................................................................................... 33 DC 21 ....................................................................................................................... 33 DC 25 ....................................................................................................................... 33 DC 38 ....................................................................................................................... 33 DC X......................................................................................................................... 33
13. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 33
4
1. Introduction
1.1. My full name is Duncan Brutton Kenderdine.
1.2. My evidence is given on behalf of the New Zealand Transport Agency (Transport
Agency) in support of the Notice of Requirement (NoR) and the five associated
applications for resource consent lodged with the Environmental Protection
Authority on 17 June 2013 in relation to the construction, operation and
maintenance of the Basin Bridge Project (Project).
Qualifications and Experience
1.3. I hold a Bachelor of Architecture with Honours from Victoria University. I have
worked in design and construction for 20 years, from large to small scale and in a
variety of receiving environments, including the construction of accommodation in
World Heritage sites (Lake Manapouri), and roading projects in urban areas such
as the Transport Agency’s Caversham Highway Improvement project in Dunedin.
1.4. I have experience as the manager of construction alliances, including as the
Alliance Manager for the $176 million Otago Region Corrections Facility outside
Milton.
1.5. I am also the Alliance Manager for the Memorial Park Alliance (MPA), currently
responsible for the design and construction of the National War Memorial Park,
and Buckle Street Underpass (NWM Park Project),1 which straddles the work
area associated with this Project, and Inner City Bypass improvements.
2. Memorial Park Alliance
2.1. MPA is an alliance of the Transport Agency, Downers, HEB Construction, Tonkin
and Taylor and URS. The Alliance has been formed to construct the NWM Park
Project and improvements to the Inner City Bypass. MPA is the preferred
constructor of the Basin Bridge Project should it obtain RMA approvals.
2.2. The Alliance model is different from the normal design and construct model as
the success of the project is not judged solely on cost and programme. The
Alliance model has a requirement to identify key resource areas (KRAs) and
meet key performance indicators (KPIs). The KRAs for the NWM Park Project
cover early delivery, healthy environment, responsible traffic management, proud
legacy, strong relationships and sound financial management. Similar KRAs and
KPIs will be established with regard to this Basin Bridge Project.
1 Authorised under the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Act 2012.
5
2.3. Within the MPA we have a wide range of engineering and environmental
management skills. The role of the MPA in the NWM Park Project to date has
been to provide advice on how the Project could be constructed, review the
design concepts, review the topic specific construction environmental
management plans (covering noise and vibration, air quality and contaminated
soil) and to prepare a draft of the Construction Environmental Management Plan
(CEMP).
2.4. Since the Basin Bridge application was lodged the MPA has been developing the
design concepts for the bridge further to confirm construction methodology and
programme in anticipation of RMA authorisations being obtained. This process
requires the design submitted as part of the application to be developed into
preliminary construction drawings and enables the construction process to be
better defined. Included in this is the ongoing consultation and relocation design
with the various utility and asset owners. I discuss this process further below,
2.5. The current activities being undertaken by the MPA give a unique insight into the
construction of the Basin Bridge Project as the current construction activities are
similar, there are some common stakeholders and the construction effects are
similar. The MPA has prepared and implemented the following management
plans as part of the current construction activity on the NWM Park Project:
a. Environmental Management Plan (EMP);
b. Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP);
c. Contaminated Land Management Plan (CLMP);
d. Noise and Vibration Environmental Management Plan (N&VEMP);
e. Air Quality Environmental Management Plan (AQEMP);
f. Traffic Management Plan (TMP);
g. Network utilities Management Plan (NUMP);
h. Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan (E&SCMP); and
i. Stakeholder and Communications Management Plan (S&CMP).
2.6. The practical experience gained to date in the NWM Park Project assists in my
assessment of submissions made in respect of construction effects anticipated
6
for this Project, and where appropriate I have outlined the relevant MPA
experience.
3. My Role in the Project
3.1. As the MPA manager I am familiar with the area the Project relates to and have
carried out numerous site visits as well as a number of meetings with neighbours
and adjacent landowners either as part of the NWM Park Project, or as part of the
stakeholder communication and liaison on construction issues in relation to this
Project.
3.2. I am responsible for leading the preparation of the CEMP for this Project, and the
associated specific management plans. Draft management plans are attached to
the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) Report lodged in Volume 4 of the
application documentation (Management Plans).
3.3. The lodged draft CEMP has been drafted under my supervision. The associated
management plans have been reviewed by myself and also by the relevant
technical experts with the MPA.
4. Scope of Evidence
4.1. This Statement of Evidence provides the following (the relevant subheading is
noted in brackets in each case):
a. a summary of my evidence (Executive Summary);
b. a description of how the design process will work in the construction of the
bridge (Design Process)
c. the experience gained to date by the MPA (MPA Experience)
d. an overview of the key points of the Management Plans (Management
Plans);
e. comments on submissions lodged in relation to the Project (Response to
Submissions);
f. comments on the draft conditions and proposed mitigation (Conditions /
Mitigation); and
g. Conclusions.
7
5. Code of Conduct
5.1. I have read and am familiar with the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in the
current Environment Court Practice Note (2011), have complied with it, and will
follow the Code when presenting evidence to the Board. I also confirm that the
matters addressed in this Statement of Evidence and in the Management Plans
are within my area of expertise, except where relying on the opinion or evidence
of other witnesses. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that
might alter or detract from the opinions expressed.
6. Executive Summary
6.1. The ongoing design process for the Basin Bridge Project has refined the
indicative construction staging and provided further clarification over construction
methods and timing.
6.2. The experience gained to date by the MPA demonstrates that the application of
construction management plans has helped avoid adverse environmental effects.
The MPA experience also highlights the benefits for having effective dialogue
with stakeholders.
6.3. The draft Management Plans for the Project have been prepared mindful of the
following principles:
a. understanding the environment in which an activity is going to take place,
understanding the activity to occur, and any reasonable alternatives to this;
b. understanding constraints and opportunities represented by this activity
occurring in this environment;
c. communicating the impacts and issues clearly;
d. undertaking the activity; and
e. adapting or changing construction methodologies or programme or
otherwise mitigating effects in response to issues that arise from either the
wider public, specific stakeholders or our own monitoring.
6.4. A common theme of the MPA’s management plans and the draft Management
Plans for this Project, is having effective communications with the Project’s
stakeholders. The proposed establishment of the Community Reference Group
(CRG), as a formal and informal communication channel will assist with the
planning and delivery of the construction process. The draft Management Plans
8
also require the establishment of a direct relationship with the individual
stakeholders.
6.5. The draft Management Plans have been informed, and will continue to be
informed, by information and experiences gained from MPA’s work on the
adjacent NWM Park Project.
7. Ongoing Design and Construction Activity
7.1. Work is ongoing to develop the necessary construction documentation based on
the submitted design in order to further define the proposed construction
methodology. The result of this design and planning work helps clarify how the
Project will be constructed and how potential adverse construction effects may be
avoided or managed. An example of the sort of issue we are working through is
ensuring service relocation works around the necessary depth of the rain gardens
adjacent to the Bridge.
7.2. We are continuing to review the construction phasing to provide greater clarity on
the timing of works. A workshop is being arranged with Greater Wellington
Regional Council and Wellington City Council to review in more detail the
construction staging and in particular traffic management phases.
7.3. An estimate has been prepared on the percentage of time that work will be
required outside normal working hours. This estimate is based upon the activities
identified in the revised programme. Normal working hours are defined as
between 6am and 8pm Mondays to Fridays and Saturday mornings.
7.4. I also draw attention to Figure 1 of the CEMP Appendix A ‘Draft Construction
Methodology and Programme’, May 2013. This indicates the overall construction
programme and highlights that construction activities occur at different times in
different parts of the Project. For instance, on this programme, piling in the site
immediately adjacent to the Grandstand Apartments begins 1 year after other
construction starts and lasts for about 3 months. Similarly, the road and
landscape work on Dufferin Street from Paterson Street to Adelaide Road is
scheduled to take 6 months towards the end of the Project.
9
Table 1 – Estimated percentage of work outside normal working hours
Activity Estimated
percentage of
work outside
normal working
hours
Comment
Planning and
approval
0
Service
relocations
30 This covers excavations in the road way
and foot paths that cannot be undertaken
during the day due to impacts on traffic
flows - key period is first 4 month period
Traffic
relocations
70 Road marking , paving and sign erection
when this activity is occurring eg for a
period at the start and then intermittently
during the period
Bridge sub
structure
5 Most piling and preparation/construction of
the pile caps rarely occurs before 7am or
after 6pm or on Sundays. However limited
activity entailing concrete pours and
moving cranes/plant between worksites
may entail some night work.
Bridge super
structure
5 Concrete pours may commence early in the
morning, from 4am onwards. Delivery of
materials and construction of false work
above road ways will occur when traffic
clear in late evening or early mornings.
Bridge
finishing
0
Local urban
design
0
10
Activity Estimated
percentage of
work outside
normal working
hours
Comment
improvement
works
8. Design Process
8.1. As discussed above the design for the Basin Bridge Project has been developed
into draft construction documentation. In undertaking the draft construction
documentation the requirements identified in Technical Report 3: Urban &
Landscape Design Framework (TR3: ULDF) have been followed. That process to
date has confirmed that the principles and outcomes specified in TR3, and as
shown generally in the photomontages (drawing set 7B of the Drawing and Plan
Set) are able to be achieved.
8.2. If the Project receives the necessary RMA approvals, then the design will need to
be developed into construction drawings. I would propose that this next phase will
commence with a series of workshops involving key stakeholders (as listed in
proposed condition DC.31). The workshops will identify the design objectives and
the relevant conditions, ULDF requirements and relevant design standards.
These workshops will start the preparation of the 30% design process. The
outcome of the 30% design process will be the preparation of the draft Urban
Landscape Design Plan (ULDP as specified by proposed condition DC.31). The
ULDP will be provided as draft to selected stakeholders for comment. The 30%
design will be subjected to a review that considers the practicality of construction
(which includes cost) and potential construction effects. Following this review the
construction drawings and specification will be prepared.
9. MPA Experience
9.1. Work on the NWM Park Project commenced in October 2012 with demolition
activities in advance of constructing the temporary realignment of SH1. Since
then a range of construction activities have been undertaken including drilling,
service relocation, piling, bulk excavation and concrete works.
11
Working hours (MPA experience)
9.2. The majority of works have been undertaken in normal working hours but some
activities have had to be undertaken at night and in the weekend. For example
‘walking’ a piling rig along SH1 from Taranaki Street to Sussex Street is
constrained by the need to keep SH1 flowing during the hours of 6am to 10pm.
Similar constraints will apply to the Basin Bridge works. Our normal work cycle
starts around 6am with quieter establishment activities occurring before more
intensive work getting underway by 7am. This will go through to 5pm when
activities start closing down for the night. Concrete pours may well start earlier
than this to reduce the impact of concrete trucks on the traffic and allow placing
and finishing activities to occur before 8pm if possible. These pours are
infrequent however.
CEMP (MPA experience)
9.3. An overarching Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been
prepared to cover the NWM Park Project construction. The CEMP was
independently certified prior to it being implemented. The CEMP and Certification
documentation is available on the MPA website
(http://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/buckle-st-underpass/publications.html).
9.4. The CEMP has provided a framework for guiding the environmental management
of the site. Although the construction of the NWM Park Project has been
authorised under special legislation, normal RMA type conditions to manage
construction effects do apply, although due to time constraints a streamlined and
reduced certification role has been applied (by the legislation). These conditions
provide a regulatory enforcement role for both Wellington City Council and
Greater Wellington Regional Council. Both Councils have been involved in the
management plan process and they have been welcomed on to site to monitor
the construction activities. To date both Councils have been very positive about
how construction effects on site have been managed. I cover the detailed topic
specific management plans below.
Noise and Vibration (MPA experience)
9.5. A Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CN&VMP) has been
prepared for the construction of the NWM Park Project. As with the CEMP this
document has been independently certified and is available on the MPA website.
9.6. The key elements of the CN&VMP are:
12
a. clear identification of the different construction phases and equipment to be
utilised;
b. testing to confirm that the different construction phases comply with the
noise and vibration targets in the CN&VMP;
c. ongoing monitoring of construction activities to confirm compliance noise
and vibration targets;
d. a process for handling non-compliance; and
e. notification of any works outside regular working hours.
9.7. To date the majority of construction activities undertaken have met noise and
vibration criteria set out in the CN&VMP. However, unfortunately the installation
of some of the sheet piles did not meet the noise criteria. Work was stopped and
the process used, which I describe below, is I think a good example of how the
construction management process is used to resolve issues.
9.8. Prior to the commencement of construction of the sheet pile wall in front of the
Police Barracks in Buckle Street, a number of sheet piles were installed to test
the installation technique and the noise and vibration produced. The test piles
were fully compliant with the noise and vibration targets and the vibratory
hammer easily drove the piles to the design depth. The initial sheet piles for the
sheet pile wall were placed successfully and there was no issue in meeting the
noise and vibration targets. However a change in ground conditions (which was
unforeseen) resulted in the vibratory hammer not being able to drive the piles to
the design depth. The installation method had to be changed to a drop hammer.
The change of installation method was monitored and it was observed that the
noise criteria were being exceeded. In response to this a number of mitigation
measures were instigated which included building a noise shroud, placing a
muffle on the hammer and trying a different hammer. These modifications were
monitored. The monitoring showed these measures did result in a noise reduction
but not sufficient to consistently conform with noise criteria.
9.9. At this stage discussions were held with Mount Cook School, which at this point
was the most affected party. After discussion with the school it was identified that
it would be acceptable to the school to exceed the noise criteria in the afternoon
as long as there was no disturbance during the school hours in the morning. This
approach was acceptable initially, but as the pile wall progressed other parties
became affected. At this point piling was stopped and alternatives explored. The
outcome was that piling work stopped for a week, while work was undertaken to
13
identify an alternative and complying installation method. A suitable method was
identified and pile installation was completed in manner that was compliant with
the CN&VMP. There were both time and money costs to amend the construction
method, but the outcome was in keeping with the Alliances KRA as identified
earlier. It should be noted that the hammering of sheet piles should not be
required for the bridge construction, while vibrating sheets into the ground around
the pile cap excavation remains likely. Mr Peter Cenek addresses vibration
impacts in more detail.
9.10. Another example of how the CN&VMP operates is the removal of concrete from
adjacent to the Te Papa site on Buckle Street. The removal of concrete
foundations from the former buildings on the corner of Tory and Buckle Streets
was identified as having the potential to cause significant noise and vibration. In
response to this concern, Te Papa were consulted and it was decided to
undertake a trial to determine the effects. An area of concrete immediately
adjacent to Te Papa was selected and the monitoring of the trial showed the
noise and vibration criteria in the CN&VMP had been exceeded. However the
effects within the Te Papa building were minimal and it was agreed with Te Papa
that the works could proceed. Te Papa indicated that they preferred this
approach, and that the concrete removal be completed as quickly as possible as
opposed to adopting a slower approach with reduced effects.
9.11. A summary of the noise and vibration monitoring undertaken to date for the site is
on the MPA’s website. The CN&VMP in my opinion has worked well as a tool for
minimising any adverse noise and vibration effects.
9.12. In addition, the noise and vibration monitoring indicates high compliance levels,
and timely responses to any exceedances.
Air Quality (MPA experience)
9.13. A Construction Air Quality Management Plan (CAQMP) has been prepared for
the NWM Park Project. As with the CEMP this document has been independently
certified and is available on the MPA website. Since the initial construction of the
NWM Park Project the air quality monitoring has been modified in response to
stakeholder comments. Additional static dust monitors have been added in
response to concerns raised by the residents of Tasman Gardens Apartments.
9.14. The main concern in regard to air quality has been dust. There is an automatic air
quality monitoring site on the site adjacent to the Mount Cook School. The
monitoring is proactive in that it alerts construction staff via text message. A level
14
1 alert signals that dust levels have reach a level where a dust nuisance problem
is likely if mitigation measures are not undertaken. A level 2 alert signals that
there is a dust nuisance problem and measures should be undertaken
immediately to stop the generation of dust.
9.15. The mitigation measures that have been utilised to date include;
a. reducing vehicle speeds on site;
b. sealing road surfaces or placement of coarse aggregate;
c. the use of a water cart;
d. covering loads; and
e. road sweeping and removal of sweepings.
9.16. The air quality monitoring results to date are available on the MPA website. Two
parameters are measured Total Suspended Particles (TSP) and Dust Deposition.
The dust deposition monitoring shows dust deposition levels are below Ministry
for the Environment Good Practice Guidelines. The TSP monitoring has been
exceeded in both October 2012 and January 2013. The cause of the October
exceedence was the disturbance of fine material in the Mount Cook School car
park. To resolve this, the car park was sealed. The January exceedence could
not be attributed to any one cause. Therefore, a number of mitigation measures
were undertaken to reduce the potential for the generation of suspended
particulates. These measures included sweeping paved areas and the removal of
sweepings, placement of aggregate on traffic surfaces and the use of a water
truck to dampen down areas. Since January there have been no further
exceedences of air quality criteria.
Contaminated land (MPA experience)
9.17. A Contaminated Land Management Plan (CLMP) has been prepared for the
NWM Park Project. In accordance with the plan, 700m3 of contaminated soil has
been identified on site and removed in accordance with the Ministry for the
Environments National Environmental Standards for Assessing and Managing
Contaminants in Soil to protect Human Health.
Storm water (MPA experience)
9.18. The NWM Park Project has an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (E&SCP).
There is the potential for the discharge of poor quality storm water from site. The
15
storm water has the potential to be laden with sediment and/or have a high pH.
The sediment load is the result of runoff from exposed soil. The high pH is the
result of runoff from grouting ground anchors and overflow of concrete placement
from pile installation. The pH from these discharges can be as high as 14. An
acceptable range for pH is 5.5 to 8.5.
9.19. To treat these discharges a bespoke storm water management system has been
developed. Water from the excavation area is pumped via a series of well points
in the base of the excavation to one of two water treatment tanks. The well points
have been constructed to minimise sediment load by the creation of a filter zone
of aggregate and cloth around the pump. Once discharged into the water
treatment tank, the water moves between a series of chambers which promotes
the settlement of sediment and water is finally decanted off prior to discharge into
the WCC stormwater system.
9.20. When the grouting and pile installation is being undertaken the treatment tanks
are closed off so there is no discharge. This ensures that no contaminants enter
the WCC stormwater system before they have been treated appropriately. The
water in the tank is regularly checked to determine its pH. If the pH is above 8.5
treatment is required. The treatment process entails discharging CO2 gas through
the water in the tank. The CO2 reacts with the water to produce an acid that
balances out the pH. This dosing is done in batches. The pH is checked regularly
and when it is below 8.5 the tank is emptied. Prior to a predicted rainfall the tanks
are emptied. It is intended that these treatment tanks will be used for the
treatment of water from the construction of the bridge piles.
Traffic Management (MPA experience)
9.21. A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been prepared to ensure
construction traffic is managed to ensure the safe and efficient performance of
the road network to minimise adverse effects on the existing community arising
from construction traffic and to provide the community with information about
specific management methods to be employed during construction. The plan was
prepared after consultation with the main stakeholders and has been
independently certified. The CTMP and certification report can be found on the
MPA website.
9.22. The key features of the CTMP plan are
a. establishing traffic management objectives;
b. maintaining ongoing consultation with stake holders;
16
c. identifying the process for preparing Temporary Traffic Management Plans
(TTMPs); and
d. monitoring procedures to ensure the CTMP is being applied correctly and
the impact on transport environment.
9.23. The effectiveness of the CTMP is monitored by:
a. surveys of pedestrian and cyclists – currently a satisfaction level of 4 out of
5;
b. traffic time surveys – we have found delays of between 10 and 30 seconds
based on the previous year;
c. regular discussion with the bus operators, and local stakeholders,
particularly Mount Cook School, Wellington High School and Massey
University; and
d. regular weekly contact with WCC.
9.24. This monitoring indicates that the current construction activities are being
managed in such a way as to have minimal impacts on the transport network.
Stakeholders (MPA experience)
9.25. A Stakeholder and Communications Management Plan (SCMP) has been
prepared to guide the MPA’s interactions with the stakeholders and affected
parties. The key features of the plan are:
a. a project liaison person who is available 24 hours a day;
b. a 2 weekly newsletter to all stakeholders that covers the work programme
and matters of interest;
c. notification of works that will directly impact on a neighbouring property e.g.
work on services, or work that is outside the normal construction hours e.g.
Sundays or at night; and
d. regular meetings with stakeholders, the frequency of which varies to meet
the individual stakeholder's requirements.
9.26. The stakeholders for the NWM Park Project are varied and their concerns differ
and are not necessarily aligned. A suitable outcome for one stakeholder is not
necessarily suitable for another. The feedback from the stakeholder’s interactions
17
is fed directly to the design and construction teams and these teams take this into
consideration in design and construction activities.
9.27. The effectiveness of the communications and the overall management of the
NWM Park Project is audited by an independent survey company. The results of
these surveys are used to help monitor the overall performance of the MPA. A
survey was undertaken by Emanuel Kalafatelis and Joe Hedditch, of Research
New Zealand in August.
9.28. Their key findings were as follows;
Overall, the stakeholders directly interviewed can be described as
being positive towards the Alliance (eight out of the 11 stakeholders
interviewed). This is to be regarded as a very positive result, given the
potential risks that the project presents to these stakeholders. This
positive result has been contributed to by the following general
stakeholder relationship strategies:
- Communications tailored to the specific needs of particular
stakeholders.
- Communications are increasingly timed so that there are ‘no
surprises’ for stakeholders.
- The appointment of ‘stakeholder managers’ to interface with
particular stakeholders.
- In general, the accessibility of the Alliance’s stakeholder
relationship team’.
10. Management Plans
10.1. The preparation and implementation of environmental management plans has
significantly aided in avoiding adverse environmental effects in the construction of
the NWM Park Project to date.
10.2. As previously noted I have had oversight in the preparation of the draft
Management Plans for this Basin Bridge Project. I have used experts from the
MPA who have written the management plans for the NWM Park Project to
review the draft Management Plans for this Project. These technical experts are
as follows:
a. Dr Penny Kneebone – contaminated land;
b. Dr Stephen Chiles and James Block - noise and vibration;
18
c. Dr Andrew Curtis – air quality;
d. Ed Breese – construction environmental management and erosion and
sediment control;
e. Steve Croft – construction activities; and
f. Richard Galloway and Ryan Dunn – traffic management.
10.3. Should approval be given to this Project, the draft Management Plans (Volume 4
of the application documentation) will be reviewed and amended by the MPA staff
identified in paragraph 10.2 above. The review will respond to the conditions of
designation and consents (set by the Board of Inquiry) and experience gained to
date from the NWM Park Project.
11. Response to Submissions
11.1. In this section, I address the key issues raised in the submissions regarding
construction effects. The submissions have identified concerns in the following
areas; noise and vibration, air quality, traffic, access, working hours, safety,
visual, lighting, contaminated land, building condition, CEMP and visual.
11.2. There are a number of submissions from Grandstand Apartments residents,
owners of the apartments and the Body Corporate. These submissions have
common themes and comments. To simplify my response to submissions I have
grouped theses submissions and have called them the Grandstand Apartment
Submissions. This title covers the following submissions;
EPA Submission number Name
103403 Rachael Matheson
103447 Dr Janice Jolly
103450 Grandstand Apartments Body Corporate
103468 Fiona and John Styles
103473 Maryann Nessbitt
103480 Kenneth Bailey
103505 Graham Wigley o.b o Nicola Relph
19
EPA Submission number Name
103519 Christina Ordinario
103524 Michael and Christine Cummins
103554 Martin Durant
103583 L Day and T. Sampson
103590 Chris Stevenson
103591 Rachael Matheson and Julian Heath
Working Hours
11.3. The following submissions raise concerns about night and weekend work:
Grandstand Apartment Submissions, St Mark’s School Board (submission
103516), Mrs Irene Halakas (submission 103457), Tasman Gardens (submission
103592), Roman Catholic Archbishop (103592), Mr Craig Palmer (submission
103571) and Zena Court (submission 103445).
11.4. As identified above in Table 1 the majority of the construction will be undertaken
during normal working hours between 6am and 8pm. Work outside these normal
hours will be the exception. Proposed noise limits for work outside normal
working hours are lower as set out in the draft CN&VMP and proposed condition
DC 20.
11.5. It has been the experience on the NWM Park Project that some work has been
required outside of normal working hours. In advance of any works outside the
normal working hours we have notified all stakeholders. This notification is
provided by way of the regular project newsletters (two weekly) and specific
notice 1 or 2 days before the works are undertaken. The information is either
emailed or hand delivered.
11.6. For works outside the normal working hours special care is taken to minimise any
necessary noise. The MPA staff have been very mindful about this and it is
discussed at the tool box meeting before the works commence. As part of this
commitment to avoiding the generation of unnecessary noise we have started to
replace the reversing beepers on traffic management vehicles with low nuisance
white sound alerts. These alarms are significantly quieter than the normal
20
reversing beepers. For the Project’s construction we would look to extend the
number of vehicles with the new reversing alarms.
Water Quality
11.7. The Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) (submission 103546) identified
a concern about the contamination of surface and groundwater from construction
activities. The experience gained from our water treatment approach at the NWM
Park Project shows that the management and treatment of storm water and
groundwater discharges can be achieved to high standard. The water treatment
tanks used for the NWM Park Project will be used to treat water from pier
construction at the bridge.
11.8. GWRC seek that proposed condition DC 38 be amended to reference the
Transport Agency Erosion and sediment Control guidelines. I see no problem
with this proposed amendment.
Visual
11.9. The Grandstand Apartment Submissions, Basin Reserve Trust (submission
103585) and Mr Craig Relph (submission103582) raise concerns about the visual
impact of the construction activities. There is little that can be done to hide the
fact that construction activities are being undertaken. It is possible however to
minimise the intrusive elements of these activities by ensuring the site is
maintained to a high standard. The features of high standard are to ensure there
is no rubbish on site, equipment no longer required is promptly removed from the
site, stock piles of materials are kept orderly and site sheds and equipment are in
good condition. It has been one of our objectives on the NWM Park Project site to
maintain a very orderly site. To this end there is a daily collection of rubbish from
the site and its environs. A similar approach will be adopted for the Project.
Access to Grandstand Apartments
11.10. The Grandstand Apartment Submissions identified the possible disturbance to
access to the Grandstand Apartments as a potential adverse effect. It is probable
that some services in the footpath in front of Grandstand Apartments will require
relocation or improvements. This may result in a temporary impact on access to
Grandstand Apartments. The impact will be for very short periods of time. Any
work on services will be undertaken at the commencement of the Project. With
the exception of the work on services there will be no disturbance to access to
the building or to the businesses on the ground floor.
21
11.11. Should work on services in front of the Grandstand Apartments or any other
building be required the following procedure will be followed. The need for any
works will be identified early as part of the ongoing consultation with the building
owners and tenants. Formal notification 2 weeks in advance of the works will be
provided to all owners and tenants. This allows for any special access
requirements to be addressed e.g. a tenant is moving in or out a particular day.
Typically the access would be cut to allow for excavation of a trench, removal and
or replacement of the service, backfilling and reinstatement. The usual approach
is to undertake these activities in a staged manner so only half the entrance way
is impacted on at any one time. All of these works will be undertaken in a manner
that will allow for the works to cease immediately and access reinstated promptly
if required.
11.12. The construction team members doing the service relocation works will be
informed of the importance of maintaining access to buildings as part of their
regular tool box meetings. The workers will be vigilant to identify people wishing
to enter or leave the building and will stop work when access is required. If there
is an open trench they will place a metal plate over the trench to provided safe
passage. Typically any activity should not interfere with access for more than 10
to 15 minutes and with the ability to promptly re-establish access as described
above. When there is no work being undertaken but the work is not competed
safe access will be maintained by the use of metal plates and barriers.
Access to Public Transport
11.13. The Grandstand Apartment Submissions identified the possible disturbance to
access to public transport in the vicinity of the Grandstand Apartments. There is a
bus stop to the north of entrance to the apartment building on Kent Terrace. On
Cambridge Terrace there is also a bus stop roughly opposite the apartment
building. Any works to adjust the location of these bus stops will not be significant
and would not impact upon their current level of utilisation. The detail of this work
will be subject to discussions with GWRC and the bus operators, which I have
discussed above and again further below.
Grandstand Apartments Earthquake Strengthening
11.14. The Grandstand Apartment Submissions identified the potential disturbance to
access that would prevent earthquake strengthening work. Grandstand
Apartments have identified that earthquake strengthening work may be required
during the construction period for the bridge, Grandstand Apartments have
22
indicated the strengthening activities will require the placement of scaffolding up
against the apartment building.
11.15. At the start of the Project there is a potential requirement to alter or relocate the
services in the foot path which runs along the western boundary of the apartment
building. This would prevent the placement of scaffolding, however the work will
be completed over a short period.
11.16. Pier 3 is in the area adjacent to the southern side of the apartment. The land
along this southern side of the building is in the construction zone. There will be
no public access to this area throughout the construction period. However there
will be the opportunity to provide an access zone for the southern side of the
building for scaffold construction against the south wall of the apartment building
for a limited period. MPA is willing to provide access to erect the scaffolding.
Towards the end of the construction period the ability to provide this access will
cease while the Building under the Bridge and the Green Wall will be constructed.
11.17. With good communications and planning between Grandstand Apartments and
MPA there should be no reason why the earthquake strengthening cannot be
completed at the same time as bridge construction.
Grandstand Apartments Parking
11.18. The Grandstand Apartment Submissions identifies a concern about the use of the
car parks at the rear of the building of Hania Street. There will be no impact on
the entry to or exiting from the car parking area. Depending upon the stage of
construction Hania Street may be a no exit street. To minimise the potential traffic
impacts of this the Pirie Street/ Kent Terrace intersection will be improved at the
start of the construction phase. These effects are discussed in Mr David
Dunlop’s evidence.
Works in the Vicinity of St Joseph’s
11.19. The Roman Catholic Archbishop (submission 103592) seeks a condition that
would prevent any parking on church property or the parking of heavy
construction equipment for more than 8 hours within 25 metres of the church
property. Such a condition would adversely affect the ability to construct the
bridge in a timely and economic manner. The Alliance would however endeavour
to minimise any visual intrusion on the outlook from the church. For example a
crane would not be parked directly in front of the church over the weekend if there
was an opportunity to park it further away.
23
11.20. The Archbishop also raises concerns about the impact of construction activities
on weddings, funerals and other events. As noted in Table 1, work on Sundays
will be an exception not the rule. The MPA is currently undertaking work in a
similar environment, and notably the NWM Park Project site is immediately
adjacent to the Carillon. The Carillon is the focus of the National War Memorial
and numerous ceremonial events are conducted there every year. These events
often include local and overseas dignitaries. The laying of wreaths on the Grave
of the Unknown Soldier is a common activity on such visits. The Ministry of
Culture and Heritage advises the Alliance of upcoming events and the site
activities are amended as required. The response will vary from no work taking
place during the event to just being aware the event is taking place. It would be
my ambition that a strong relationship will be forged with St Joseph’s and we
would both be good neighbours. The basis of forming this type of relationship will
be regular communication with the church.
Lighting
11.21. The Grandstand Apartment Submissions, Mr Craig Relph (submission 1035820)
and Mrs Irene Halakas (submission 103457) have raised concerns about the
impact of construction lighting disturbing sleep. During the construction phase
there is a continuous need for security lighting and an occasional need for
working lights. The security lighting will be similar to the current street lighting.
The purpose of this lighting is to ensure that the public can have safe passage
around the site. This lighting will be at street level.
11.22. As noted in Table 1 there is the need for some night works. For these works to be
undertaken safely additional lighting is required. The installation of all
construction lighting on site will take into consideration any adjacent residential
properties. Lights will be installed so the light spill is directed away from
residential properties towards the work area.
11.23. Proposed Condition DC 39 recognises the need to consider the impacts of
construction lighting and to minimise light spill, glare and upward waste at
windows of habitable rooms in residential buildings.
11.24. The draft CEMP identifies the need to ensure that temporary lighting is not a
nuisance. The CEMP recognises a key element in achieving this is ensuring there
is feedback from those who may be impacted upon so appropriate action can be
taken.
24
Building Condition
11.25. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (submission 103577) seeks that
the William Wakefield Memorial be added to the structures in proposed condition
DC 21 that are subject to a building condition survey and monitoring. Whilst we
do not expect any damage on this structure based on our NWM Park Project
experience we believe it would be prudent to include this structure. The Transport
Agency has met with the NZHPT and agreed that this will be included in condition
DC21.
11.26. St Mark’s (submission 103516) raise concerns about damage to their buildings
particularly those adjacent to Paterson Street. Whilst I do not believe there will be
damage I consider it prudent to monitor the condition of these buildings and
suggest proposed condition DC 21 be amended accordingly.
11.27. Zena Court Body Corporate (submission 103445) and Tasman Gardens
Apartments (submission 103441) seek that a dilapidation report be prepared for
their buildings. Given the distance away from the construction activities and
based upon the experience from the NWM Park Project I do not consider that
such a survey for Tasman Gardens Apartments is necessary. I understand that
the Transport Agency has agreed that a dilapidation report be prepared for Zena
Court Building given their proximity to proposed road works.
11.28. The Tasman Gardens Apartments have been monitored as part of the NWM Park
Project building condition survey and no damage has been observed. The reason
for monitoring Tasman Gardens was not vibration effects but settlement from
changes in ground water due to the excavation of the underpass.
11.29. Mr Geoff Palmer (submission 103529) and Mr Craig Palmer (submission 103571)
both seek a condition survey be undertaken of any buildings with 500m of the
Project. Based upon experience in the NWM Park Project, such a survey is not
required.
Contaminated Land
11.30. The Grandstand Apartment Submissions identify a concern about the disturbance
of potentially contaminated land at the corner of Buckle Street and Kent/
Cambridge Terrace. The potential for contaminated soil and the management of it
is covered in the draft Contaminated Land Management Plan and is described in
the evidence of Mr Bruce Clarke. The plan sets out a sampling regime to confirm
the presence of contaminated material and the procedure to follow if
25
contamination is found. The draft plan is similar to one we have used successfully
for the NWM Park Project.
Traffic Improvements
11.31. Foodstuffs (submission 103596) and McDonald’s (submission 103584) seek in
their submissions that improvements proposed as part of the Project to the
transport network are implemented prior to construction of the bridge
commencing. As identified in Appendix A of the proposed CEMP, the Project
staging will involve improvements to the Pirie Street / Kent Terrace intersection,
the Vivian Street / Cambridge Terrace intersection and the Taranaki Street /
Arthur Street intersection prior to the construction of the bridge commencing.
Improvements to the Rugby Street / Adelaide Road intersection will be
undertaken once the bridge is built and operational and before there is any
reduction of capacity on Rugby Street. A CTMP will be in place for these works.
Traffic Delays
11.32. The Grandstand Apartment Submissions, Mr Vincent Schumacher (submission
103534), Mr Charles Davenport (submission 103522), Ms Maryann Nesbitt and
Ms Liz Springford (submission 103560) have identified a concern that the
construction activities will result in traffic delays. Mr David Dunlop considers
transport and traffic flows during construction. I note further that an objective of
the MPA’s construction strategy is to minimise delays on the current transport
network. To this end the improvements to the network (at Vivian Street
intersection with Kent and Cambridge Terrace and at the Buckle Street
intersection with Taranaki Street) will be made in advance of work commencing
as discussed earlier. The focus of Stage 0 is to realign the current road whilst
maintaining its capacity.
11.33. As part of the CTMP the performance of the network will be monitored during the
construction period to ensure that the network is operating at maximum capacity.
Traffic Management
11.34. GWRC (submission 103546) seek that proposed condition DC 25 be amended to
include GWRC’s Public Transport group to parties to be consulted in the
preparation SSTMPs. This would be sensible given their role in public transport
planning and funding.
26
Services
11.35. Powerco (submission 103456) seek that a Network Utilities Management Plan
(NUMP). A NUMP has been prepared for the NWM Park Project and I see no
problem in one being prepared for the Basin Bridge. This is covered in Mr
Lindsay Daysh’s evidence.
11.36. Zena Apartments (submission 103445) seek 24 hours’ notice of any disruption to
services. Such notification would be provided as a matter of course. As noted
above this already occurs with works associated with the NWM Park Project.
11.37. Zena Apartments (submission 103445) and Mr Craig Relph (submission 103582)
are concerned about the impact of the construction activities on access to 9
Dufferin Street and Zena Apartments and in particular to their garages. The
submissions identify problems with access currently due to the congestion
caused at school drop off times. For the first 7 stages of construction there will be
no change to the status quo. In Stage 8 there will be changes to Dufferin Street
but these changes will be undertaken once the bridge is operational and there will
be a significant reduction in traffic volumes. During this period there may be
temporary disruption to access to Zena Apartments. This is covered in the
evidence of Mr David Dunlop. I note that this disruption would be caused by the
installation of new kerbing, paving and landscaping. Temporary access will be
maintained during these works .
St Mark’s
11.38. St Mark’s (submission 103516) has raised a number of concerns about the
impact of construction activities. The concerns about noise and vibration, air
quality and building condition I have addressed elsewhere. They raise a concern
about dropping off and picking children up in front of the school and the impact on
those parents who park in Ellice Street and St Joseph’s and walk their children to
school to sign them in.
11.39. There will be little change to the current situation on dropping off children on
Dufferin Street until stage 8 is commenced. At this time there will be a significant
reduction in traffic volumes as the bridge will be operational. There will be a
temporary loss of parking at St Joseph’s while works on the eastern abutment
and approach road are completed.
11.40. The MPA will endeavour to minimise the construction impacts on the school.
Establishing a close working relationship with the school will help identify issues
and enable careful consideration of managing effects to occur. For the NWM Park
27
Project we have established a close relationship with Mount Cook School. This
relationship not only focuses on reducing impacts but maximising the learning
opportunities. As part of this relationship the pupils have visited the site, young
engineers have run lessons, competitions have been held and information
provided to help in lesson planning.
Consultation
11.41. Tasman Garden Apartments (submission 103441), Mrs Irene Halakas
(submission 103457) and Zena Court (submission 103445) seek to be included in
the consultation process and that consultation be recorded. The draft CEMP
requires the preparation of a Communications Schedule that identifies the party
to be consulted, the focus of the communication and the type of communication
to be engaged in. This allows for consultation for individual stakeholders to be
tailored to their specific requirements. This is very similar to how stakeholder
management is undertaken for the NWM Park Project. This requirement is
reinforced by proposed condition DC 19 (d).
CRG
11.42. Tasman Garden Apartments (submission 103441) seek that proposed condition 6
be changed to add them to the list of parties in the Community Reference Group
(CRG). I see no reason why they shouldn’t be added.
CEMP
11.43. The Grandstand Apartment Submissions identifies a concern that no specific
CEMP or CNVMP is proposed for the Grandstand Apartments. I do not consider it
necessary to prepare a specific report for Grandstand Apartments. The measures
that will be identified in these plans are applicable to the entire site. The specific
concerns of Grandstand Apartments will be dealt with through their participation
in the CRG and with direct consultation with the MPA as set out in the
Stakeholders Management Plan.
11.44. For the NWM Park Project we have not prepared any specific plans for any
building but we have tailored the consultation and notification approach to best
suit each stakeholder. We intend to use the approach in dealing with
stakeholders for the bridge construction.
11.45. The NZHPT (submission 103577) states that an Archaeological Authority under
the Historic Places Act 1983 has been granted to cover the construction activities.
The submission seeks that the CEMP reference the existence of the Authority
28
and its relevant conditions. NZHPT also identifies that a Heritage Management
Plan is required under proposed condition DC34 and that the provisions of this
plan should be referenced in the CEMP. I considered this to be a sensible
suggestion.
11.46. Foodstuffs (submission 103596) and McDonald’s (103584) seek a greater level of
communication than the draft CEMP which they believe suggests they would only
be contacted by letter drops and phone calls as required. This would not be the
case. The communications with these organisations would be discussed with
them and formalised as part of the stakeholder management plan. This is how we
have managed the various requirement of stakeholders involved with the NWM
Park Project.
11.47. Mrs Irene Halakas (submission 103457) wanted to ensure that the CEMP
covered monitoring and quick responses to noise and dust issues. Any noise or
dust emissions that exceed the limits set out in the CN&VMP and the CAQMP
require immediate action. The draft CEMP identifies the requirement to undertake
daily reporting of any non-complying activity.
11.48. Powerco (submission 103456) seek that all stakeholders be advised as to the
availability of the CEMP and other management plans within 5 days of them
being loaded on to the Project web site. I see no problem with this amendment.
Air Quality
11.49. The Grandstand Apartment Submissions, Mr Craig Relph (submission 103582),
Zena Court (submission 103445), Mrs Irene Halakas (submission (103457), St
Mark’s School Board (submission 103516), Tasman Gardens Apartments
(103441), Ms Noeline Gannaway (submission 103416), Mr Craig Palmer
(submission 103571) and Mr Geoff Palmer (submission 103529) all identify that
there is potential for adverse effects on air quality resulting from the construction
activities. In particular they identify the impacts from dust and vehicle emissions.
11.50. The management of air quality on site will be undertaken through the
implementation of the CAQMP. This is discussed in the evidence of Mr Gavin
Fisher. Our experience from the NWM Park Project shows that construction
activities can be managed to avoid the creation of dust nuisances. The key to
avoiding the creation of a dust nuisance is to ensure that favourable conditions
for dust generation are prevented. This will be achieved by regular inspections of
the site and monitoring climatic conditions. Where possible dust sources will be
eliminated by such actions as covering working surfaces and regular sweeping.
29
Where it is not possible to remove sources of dust, the generation potential can
be reduced by covering and dampening down with a water cart.
11.51. A similar alert system to that used for the NWM Park Project and which I
described earlier will be installed. In addition a series of dust deposition samplers
will be installed. These samplers will be installed in advance of construction
commencing to provide baseline information.
11.52. The management of vehicle emissions is covered by the provisions of the CEMP
and the CAQMP. These management plans require the construction equipment
on site to be in good condition with exhaust systems in a good state of repair.
Air Quality – Pirie Street
11.53. Restaurant Brands (submission 103438) identifies concerns about dust
discharges from the construction works associated with the Pirie Street/ Kent
Terrace intersection. They seek a condition that specifically covers a construction
management plan for these works. In my opinion a special construction
management plan is not required for these works. The works are minor and not
dissimilar to works recently completed in the vicinity. However, Mr Lindsay
Daysh has considered the matter and has included this submitter in the list of
parties involved with the CRG (condition DC6) and broadly I see no harm with
that approach.
Access – KFC – Pirie Street
11.54. Restaurant Brands (submission 103438) are concerned that the intersection
improvements at Pirie Street / Kent Terrace intersection will adversely impact
upon the exit lane from their drive through. They seek a special condition to
protect their access. The proposed intersection works will not impact on their exit
point and therefore we see no need to alter the draft conditions, given the
requirement to consult generally with parties.
Safety
11.55. The Grandstand Apartment Submissions, Ms Liz Springford (submission
103560), Ms Johanna Woods (submission 103477) and Ms Brittany Peck
(submission (103475) raised concerns about the safety of people passing through
the construction area. The measures to ensure the safety of pedestrians and
cyclists will be detailed in the CTMP and are covered in the evidence of Mr Frank
Stocks who describes the CPTED audit that is required to be undertaken of the
SSTMPs. In addition the area will be included in the security measures that cover
30
the entire construction site. These measures include regular patrols by security
staff. In my opinion safety in the immediate vicinity of the construction site will be
equal to if not better than the current situation.
Parking
11.56. The Grandstand Apartment Submissions raised concerns about the loss of
parking in the Kent/Cambridge Terrace area. There will be a temporary loss of
some parking in the construction area. This matter is covered in the evidence of
Mr David Dunlop who confirms that this loss is not considered significant in
regard to the total number of parks available.
11.57. Mrs Irene Halakas (submission 103457) in her submission seeks for there to be
no parking of construction vehicles on Ellice Street. It will not be the intention to
have any Alliance construction vehicles parking on Ellice Street. However there
may be parking on the street of private vehicles used by workers on the Project.
The Alliance works with the whole workforce to reduce vehicle movements,
increasing public transport and cycling where possible. If this becomes a problem
then working with the CRG, we will investigate alternatives and implement
reasonable measures such as establishing minivans from parking locations to the
construction site.
Ellice Street – Heavy Vehicles
11.58. Mrs Irene Halakas (submission 103457) in her submission sought for there to be
no heavy vehicles using Ellice Street. This is not a practical option as access will
be required to St Joseph’s and temporary changes to Hania Street will mean
vehicles will need to use Ellice Street.
11.59. The Alliance will however minimise the use of the street and alternatives will be
used where practicable. Mr David Dunlop considers this in his evidence and
explains that effects can be addressed through the CTMP process.
Noise and Vibration
11.60. The Grandstand Apartment Submissions, Regional Wines and Spirits
(submission 103462), St Mark’s School Board (submission 103516), Ms Lucy
Bailey (submission 103558), Mr Patrick Morgan (submission103373), Zena Court
(submission 103445), Mrs Irene Halakas (submission 103475), Tasman Gardens
(103441), Ms Noeline Gannaway (submission 103416), Mr Craig Relph
(submission 103582) and Mr Chris Stevenson (submission103590) all raised
concerns about the generation of noise and vibration from construction activities,
31
the duration of noisy activities, and mitigation measures. The potential for noise
and vibration to be a nuisance is a genuine concern. It will be the responsibility of
the Alliance during construction to ensure that construction activities do not cause
a nuisance.
11.61. As already noted a draft CN&VMP has been prepared which sets out limits for
noise and vibration. The evidence of Mr Peter Cenek and Mr Vincent Dravitzki
outline the measures in the CNVMP as to how these effects are to be managed.
Once the detailed construction planning is completed and in advance of
construction activities commencing on site, a reassessment of the potential noise
and vibration will be undertaken. This assessment will identify the potential for
noise and vibration based on information about the noise and vibration
characteristics of the different plant to be used. This assessment will be checked
by monitoring all new activities as they commence on site. There will be ongoing
monitoring of these activities to ensure they comply.
11.62. Should it be identified in advance or as a result of monitoring that a noise or
vibration limit could be or is being exceeded, an assessment process will be
immediately undertaken. The preferred course of action is to modify the activity to
make it compliant, but this may not be possible as demonstrated in the concrete
breaking at Te Papa described earlier. Mitigation of the impacts of noise and
vibration over the limits is the next course of action. The process for mitigation will
be as follows. The parties who could be or are affected will be contacted
promptly. The nature of the impacts such as duration, timing and intensity will be
described. The impacts on the recipients will be identified. Based upon this the
mitigation options will be identified. Possible mitigations may include changing the
timing of works, temporary relocation, installation of acoustic curtains, noise walls
etc. The mitigation will be tailored to each individual party.
11.63. In advance of construction works commencing all stakeholders within the
immediate vicinity of the works will have been contacted and a communications
strategy agreed. This communication strategy will ensure that all parties will be
well informed prior to works commencing or if there is a change in the nature of
construction activities. It will also identify how the Alliance can be contacted. The
Alliance will have a full time stakeholder liaison person who is available 24 hours,
7 days a week. This system is already in place to cover the NWM Park Project
construction.
32
Regional Wines and Spirits
11.64. Regional Wines and Spirits (submission 103462) have identified a number of
concerns that relate to the operation of their business during the construction
phase. There will be impacts on the Regional Wine and Spirits in regard to
access and parking. It will be the Alliance’s objective to minimise the impact on
their business. To achieve this we will hold regular meetings with Regional Wines
and Spirits. The purpose of these meetings will be to keep them informed of
proposed works, understand how these will impact on the business and put in
place measures to mitigate effects. Such measures could include erection of
signage to help direct people to the site, provision of temporary parking and
ceasing construction activities to allow deliveries. We will also be informing the
public generally about construction activity and about key phases, and through
that process will ensure that we advise the public that businesses around the
Basin remain open for business.
12. Conditions / Mitigation
12.1. In this section, I provide comment on proposed conditions relevant to my
expertise and of suggestions in the submissions for amendments to proposed
conditions. The detail of these proposed changes will be covered in the evidence
of Mr Lindsay Daysh. I believe the proposed conditions will help establish good
communications between the bridge builders and potentially affected parties and
help establish an environmental management system that that will avoid adverse
effects from bridge construction.
DC 6
12.2. In regard to the submission by Tasman Gardens Apartments (submission
103441), I agree with their proposed amendment to DC 6 that they be added to
the Community Reference Group.
DC 13
12.3. In regard to the submission by Powerco (submission 103456), I agree with their
proposed amendment to DC13 that all stakeholders be informed of the availability
of the plan on the Project web site.
33
DC 19
12.4. In regard to the submission by the NZHPT (submission 103577) I agree that
proposed condition DC 19 should be amended to include reference to the
Archaeology Authority and the Heritage Management plan.
DC 21
12.5. The NZHPT (submission 103577) seeks that the William Wakefield Memorial be
added to the structures to have a condition assessment completed. I agree and
also propose that the St Mark’s School buildings adjacent to Paterson Street be
added to proposed condition DC 21.
DC 25
12.6. GWRC (submission 103546) seek that proposed condition DC 25 be amended to
include GWRC’s Public Transport group in the parties to be consulted in the
preparation of SSTMPs. This would be sensible given their role in public transport
planning and funding.
DC 38
12.7. GWRC seek that proposed condition DC 38 be amended to reference the
Regional Council’s Erosion and sediment Control guidelines. I see no problem
with this proposed amendment and such a reference is common practice.
DC X
12.8. In regard to the submission by Powerco (submission 103456), I agree with their
proposed amendment to DC X that a condition requiring the preparation of a
NUMP be added. Powerco's submission seeking a condition requiring the
preparation of a NUMP will be addressed by an amendment to proposed
condition DC 19.
13. Conclusion
13.1. The construction of the bridge has the potential to create adverse environmental
impacts. However based upon my experience from the NWM Park Project
construction I believe the Project can be constructed without these potential
adverse effects materialising. To achieve this it is essential that there is good
communication between all parties, as well as an effective environmental
management system. The proposed conditions help establish a framework for
this. The environmental management of the site needs to be regularly monitored
