Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
135 Albert Street | Private Bag 92300, Auckland 1142 | aucklandcouncil.govt.nz | Ph 09 301 0101
22/08/2018
Attention: Shaun Hamilton
Dear Shaun,
Request for further information under section 92 of the Resource Management
Act 1991
Application number(s): BUN60322627
LUC60322701 (Earthworks)
LUS6032624 (Streamworks)
DIS60322702 (Stormwater diversion & discharge)
DIS60323625 (Land contaminant discharge)
Applicant: New Zealand Transport Agency - Highways
Proposed activity(s): Widening of an approximate 800m section of state highway
1 (SH1) between Hudson Road and the northern connection
of the Puhoi to Warkworth (P2Wk) motorway to SH1.
Site address: Lot 1 DP 135480 State Highway 1 Warkworth 0981
I have undertaken a preliminary planning check of the above application. Further to our
telephone conversation on 22 August 2018, and under section 92 of the Resource
Management Act 1991 (RMA), I request the following further information to enable an
appropriate understanding of the proposal and assessment of its effects in relation to both
the Notice of Requirement and the Resource Consents:
1) Heritage
a) Please provide a copy of the report referenced in the heritage assessment; Judge 2009,
Cameron and Phear 2017, Clough et al 2013, and Dawson, Phear and Burnett 2017 to
enable confirmation of the Heriatage effects.
2) Streamworks
The streamworks questions are broad at this stage as the application did not include the ecologist
assessment/comment for the specialist to review.
a) The application does not contain a sufficient assessment of effects for the proposed
streamworks. Please provide an additional assessment of effects, including but not limited
to, a qualitative assessment of the streams in question which are subject to the proposed
culverts, a quantitative assessment of the proposed streamworks in relation to the culverts,
and any proposed measures intended to address the loss of ecological habitat associated
with the proposed culvert installation. Fish passage on its own does not address or
mitigate all effects.
135 Albert Street | Private Bag 92300, Auckland 1142 | aucklandcouncil.govt.nz | Ph 09 301 0101
b) The application notes that the intermittent stream crossing SH1 in the northern portion of
the proposed work, flowing through to Culvert E180 does not have a defined watercourse,
is heavily modified with pastoral farming and provides very low ecological value, and as
such, no fish passage is therefore proposed or warranted at the culvert proposed in this
location. As noted above, please provide an ecological assessment of effects to justify this
statement.
Note: The current state of streams and waterways in Auckland is not used in assessments.
Assessment should be based on the potential instead. All streams are degraded in
Auckland but the plan directs that we improve them.
c) Objective E3.2 of the AUP:OP seeks that Auckland's lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands
are restored, maintained or enhanced. The statutory assessment states that the proposed
works include stormwater treatment and extended detention in line with TP10 standards,
and that the quality of stormwater discharged will be enhanced compared to
existing. Please note that this comment has not addressed the streamworks elements of
the proposal, only the stormwater aspects. Please provide an assessment of the proposed
streamworks against each of the relevant objectives and policies of the AUP:OP.
d) Please note that additional triggers of consent will apply as the proposed erosion
protection at the inlet and outlet of the culverts are longer than 5m and so does not meet
the relevant standards of E3.6.1.14 (1)(b).
e) In order to confirm that the proposed erosion and sediment control measures are
appropriate, please provide a site specific erosion and sediment control plan for the
proposed earthworks.
3) Stormwater
a) Maximum probable development
i) Please advise whether the cross‐road infrastructure (i.e. replacement culverts) has
been designed and developed in a way that provides capacity for maximum probable
development in the upstream areas.
ii) Please advise if engagement has been undertaken with Healthy Waters to confirm (i)
above.
(1) Based on current applications and developments occurring in this area, it seems
that the overall catchment management for this area is unfolding in a piecemeal
way, potentially leading to missed opportunities for a more comprehensive and
integrated stormwater approach – particularly in respect of the live‐zoned areas
upstream of this project. The AEE consultation section does not indicate any
engagement to date with Auckland Council Healthy Waters in respect of this
project, and Healthy Waters are well placed to provide support and overarching
direction in terms of catchment planning for the area.
135 Albert Street | Private Bag 92300, Auckland 1142 | aucklandcouncil.govt.nz | Ph 09 301 0101
b) The proposal overlaps with an existing stormwater consent for the Hudson Road
intersection upgrades (consent number 37171). Please confirm whether this existing
stormwater consent will be surrendered.
c) The existing and proposed extended detention swales are relatively unconventional. It
would be helpful when assessing the proposed design performance if the proposed design
were supported by operational and maintenance experience and evidence to demonstrate
its operational performance in this environment. Please provide any such available
evidence, for example maintenance activity records and photos.
d) Please provide preliminary design calculations and details to support the various elements
of the proposed stormwater management system, including the wetland, extended
detention swales, culverts and outfalls. Further calculations and design details should
address the following:
i) Calculations prepared in accordance with the relative/relevant Council guidelines
(TP10, TP108 etc).
ii) Catchment plans for the stormwater systems to support the designs.
iii) Outfall designs and calculations for culverts, wetlands, spillways and swales.
iv) Clarification of the proposed culvert designs, inlets/outlets and sizing relative to ED or
MPD flows.
4) Engineering
a) Please provide specific information for each of the existing vehicle crossing(s) onto SH1
that will be retained to demonstrate that they will have suitable and appropriate access
arrangements post earthworks, including gradients and sightlines, or alternatively offer this
as a condition to be included as part of the Outline Plan of Works.
5) Traffic
a) Please provide additional analysis regarding what effect (if any) the actual reduced
weaving distance (in the design) will have on the overall analysis; and
b) Please provide a safety audit of the current proposal in relation to the weave between
vehicles traveling northbound from P2Wk via the roundabout wanting to then travel to the
MLR verses SH1 southbound traffic travelling into Warkworth.
6) Noise and Vibration
a) Operational Noise
i) Table 4 of the MDA Report sets out what appear to be (despite the table heading) the
noise levels at the receivers in 2017, based on 2013 noise level measurements
adjusted for traffic flows. We understand that the Hudson Road / SH1 intersection was
upgraded and a passing lane constructed on the northbound side at around the same
time. We note that the road surface for the majority of the alignment is a chip seal
135 Albert Street | Private Bag 92300, Auckland 1142 | aucklandcouncil.govt.nz | Ph 09 301 0101
surface that is heavily flushed for long sections. This will increase the noise levels
beyond that expected for the increase in traffic alone. It would be helpful to understand:
(1) whether the 2013 noise measurements were undertaken before or after the
intersection and passing lane improvements;
(2) what the road surface was like for the measurements in 2013;
(3) whether the simple adjustment for increased traffic flows accurately represents
the current noise environment; and
(4) what data the MDA report bases its adjustments on (for 2013 to 2017 noise
levels).
b) Table 6 of the MDA Report does not include a column showing the change in noise level
arising from the changes to SH1 only. Can a column be added that shows the change from
2031 do-nothing SH1 only, to 2031 Do-minimum SH1 only?
c) While not a request for information, we offer the following observations; that the noise level
from SH1 only may drop as a result of the project, rather than increase as the MDA Report
appears to conclude (even if only marginally). This is because the current road surface is
chipseal and large sections of it are flushed, and although the posted speed limit is
50km/hr to 100km/hr part way along, the overall speed environment is generally well above
50km/hr. The proposal is to re-surface the road using a low noise pavement, and to control
the speed environment to 80kmhr. The current noise levels in Table 4 may be over-
represented, and when taking into account the current road surface and speed
environment, a noise measurement may show that the actual levels are higher. If the
predicted noise levels are adjusted to 80kmhr, (instead of the 100kmhr assumed in the
MDA Report) it may be that the project results in lower noise levels than the current
situation.
d) Construction Noise and Vibration
i) Section 3.2 of the MDA Report sets out a range of different criteria for noise and
vibration but does not state which should apply. Can the MDA Report be revised to set
out the recommended Project Noise and Vibration Standards that are proposed to
apply to the project.
ii) The MDA Report states that construction will exceed 20 weeks, and noise and vibration
levels will at times exceed the limits in section 3.2. We do not consider that this
comprises an assessment of the construction noise effects. We are of the view that the
assessment should set out the approximate duration of works that will generate noise
levels up to or above the limits in section 3.2 of the MDA Report for each receiver, and
what the maximum noise and vibration levels are likely to be (and the approximate
duration) for each receiver, so that the typical effects and maximum level of effect can
be understood. The possibility of night works should also be assessed, along with the
135 Albert Street | Private Bag 92300, Auckland 1142 | aucklandcouncil.govt.nz | Ph 09 301 0101
mitigation methods that may be employed if night works are likely to disturb sleep,
including triggers for consultation and further mitigation.
iii) Please identify whether there are any construction yards or lay down areas proposed
that would be close to an existing receiver (commercial or residential), (such as
immediately north of the intersection of SH1 and the MLR)? If so, an assessment of the
likely construction noise and vibration effects should be provided.
7) Unlicensed access closure
a) Section 8.3 of the AEE (pg40) identifies that there is ongoing consultation with the Rodney
Local Board and with Auckland Council’s Parks, Sports and Recreation department in
relation to the removal and permanent closure of the unlicensed access from the
Warkworth Showgrounds to SH1. Please provide an update on these discussions.
b) We note that an access proposed to be removed / closed is also the primary access to PT
LOT 1 DP 61693. Please clarify the legal status of the access as it relates to PT LOT 1 DP
61693 and details of what alternative access will be provided for this property when that
access is formally removed / closed.
8) Liquidamber trees
a) We note that there is a double line of young Liquidambar trees lining the access of PT LOT
1 DP 61693 in the general vicinity of the proposed MLR intersection. The trees are not
protected by AUP but nonetheless form a part of the existing environment. Council’s
arborist has advised that these trees are of a size and condition that could be lifted and re-
used rather than cut down. Can you advise whether the Transport Agency would support a
condition requiring consideration of re-use of these trees at detailed design.
You must provide this information within 15 working days (before 12 September 2018). If you are
unable to provide the information within 15 working days, then please contact the reporting
planner named below so that an alternative timeframe can be mutually agreed.
Under section 88C of the RMA, the processing of your application is suspended until the
above matters have been addressed, or the 15 working day time limit has expired.
Yours sincerely,
Gemma Hayes,Senior Planner and Alison Pye, Principal Planner
Jacobs New Zealand Limited
IZ077800.
14 September 2018
Gemma Hayes, Alison Pye and Blair Masefield Auckland Council Private Bag 1142 Subject: NZTA SH1 Widening – response to s92 request - Council refs: BUN60322627, LUC60322701 (Earthworks), LUS6032624 (Streamworks), DIS60322702 (Stormwater diversion & discharge), DIS60323625 (Land contaminant discharge).
Dear Gemma, Alison and Blair
Thank you for your letter dated 22 August 2018 requesting further information, pursuant to s92
of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), on the proposed alteration to designation and
resource consent applications for the widening of an approximate 800m section of State
Highway 1 (SH1) between Hudson Road and the northern connection of the Puhoi to
Warkworth (P2Wk) motorway to SH1 (the proposed work). Each of the points referred to in the
letter are addressed below.
1) Heritage
a) Please provide a copy of the report referenced in the heritage assessment; Judge
2009, Cameron and Phear 2017, Clough et al 2013, and Dawson, Phear and Burnett
2017 to enable confirmation of the Heritage effects.
The requested reports are included in Attachment 1.
2) Streamworks
The streamworks questions are broad at this stage as the application did not include the
ecologist assessment/comment for the specialist to review.
a) The application does not contain a sufficient assessment of effects for the proposed
streamworks. Please provide an additional assessment of effects, including but not
limited to, a qualitative assessment of the streams in question which are subject to the
proposed culverts, a quantitative assessment of the proposed streamworks in relation to
the culverts, and any proposed measures intended to address the loss of ecological
habitat associated with the proposed culvert installation. Fish passage on its own does
not address or mitigate all effects.
An Ecological Memorandum (Ecological memo) has been prepared and is included in
Attachment 2. This Ecological memo has concluded that the culvert works do not meet the
criteria for undertaking a Stream Ecological Valuation (SEV) and therefore a quantitative
assessment is not warranted. The Ecological memo includes a qualitative assessment
outlining the stream in which the culvert extension, culvert E530, is proposed is a highly
impacted, low quality stream habitat, with limited cover, no shading and poor macroinvertebrate
2
and fish habit. Overall, the Ecological memo concludes that the proposed culvert replacement
and extension at E530 will modify a section of upstream environment (approx. 30m of culvert)
while maintaining the hydrological functioning of the watercourse and improving the ecological
connection, through the provision of fish passage. It is concluded that the proposed work will
not result in a significant residual adverse effect on ecological functioning or biodiversity. The
information contained in the Ecological memo supports our assessment within the Assessment
of Effects on the Environment (AEE) report with respect to the extent of the effect of the
proposed work and the mitigation we have proposed.
Details of proposed landscaping, including any landscaping proposed along stream margins
within the proposed designation, and around the proposed wetland, will be developed as part of
the Outline Plan of Works to be submitted to Council in accordance with Section 176A RMA.
b) The application notes that the intermittent stream crossing SH1 in the northern portion
of the proposed work, flowing through to Culvert E180 does not have a defined
watercourse, is heavily modified with pastoral farming and provides very low ecological
value, and as such, no fish passage is therefore proposed or warranted at the culvert
proposed in this location. As noted above, please provide an ecological assessment of
effects to justify this statement.
Note: The current state of streams and waterways in Auckland is not used in
assessments. Assessment should be based on the potential instead. All streams are
degraded in Auckland but the plan directs that we improve them.
The Ecological memo in Attachment 2 has addressed these matters and confirms that the
proposed approach to not provide fish passage at culvert E180 is appropriate as there is no
upstream fish habitat and there are existing barriers. The existing environment has been used
as the basis for stream assessments.
With respect to the Note in Item (b) above, the existing environment is the legally appropriate
basis for assessment. We agree that the potential of the watercourse may be used when
determining restoration and enhancement actions, if required, as per policy E3.3.4 (4) of the
AUP OP.
c) Objective E3.2 of the AUP:OP seeks that Auckland's lakes, rivers, streams and
wetlands are restored, maintained or enhanced. The statutory assessment states that
the proposed works include stormwater treatment and extended detention in line with
TP10 standards, and that the quality of stormwater discharged will be enhanced
compared to existing. Please note that this comment has not addressed the streamworks
elements of the proposal, only the stormwater aspects. Please provide an assessment of
the proposed streamworks against each of the relevant objectives and policies of the
AUP:OP.
We note that Section 9.3.2 of the AEE outlines an assessment of the proposed work against
the relevant provisions of Chapter E3 of the AUP OP. The specific objective referred to above,
Objective 3.2(2), and Policy E3.3(3) seek that Auckland’s lakes, rivers, stream and wetlands
are restored, maintained or enhanced. The improvements to stormwater discharges to the
stream environment will contribute to the enhancement of the watercourse and the provision of
fish passage on Culvert E530 will further enhance the ability of the stream to provide for
ecological systems as outlined in the Ecological memo (Attachment 2). The inclusion of a
stormwater wetland adjacent to SH1 will contribute to improved ecological habitat biodiversity in
the immediate area. The Ecological memo in Attachment 2 details the ecological effects of the
proposed work and concludes that the potential adverse effects of the proposed work can be
adequately mitigated. In our opinion, the proposed work is consistent with the relevant
3
objectives and policies of the AUP OP, in particular Objective E3.2(4) and Policy E3.3(7) which
allow for the alteration or extension of structures. As outlined in Section 9.3.2 of the AEE, it has
been determined that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed extension of the
culverts as this work is required to accommodate the widening of SH1.
Details of proposed landscaping, including any landscaping proposed along stream margins
within the proposed designation, and around the proposed wetland, will be developed as part of
the Outline Plan of Works to be submitted to Council in accordance with Section 176A RMA.
d) Please note that additional triggers of consent will apply as the proposed
erosion protection at the inlet and outlet of the culverts are longer than 5m and
so does not meet the relevant standards of E3.6.1.14 (1)(b).
The application submitted includes consent for the proposed replacement culverts being in
excess of 30m and therefore unable to meet the requirements of standard E3.6.1.12(2). We
agree that a consent is also needed to undertake erosion protection structures at the inlet and
outlet, where the provisions of standard E3.6.1.14(1)(b) are not met. The proposed erosion
and protection structures may breach this 5m threshold. In our view, no further assessment is
required as the AEE and the ecological assessment in Attachment 2 adequately addresses
these inlet and outlet culvert related works. We note that the consideration of the proposed
work with respect to proposed erosion protection does not change the category of consent
sought.
e) In order to confirm that the proposed erosion and sediment control measures are
appropriate, please provide a site specific erosion and sediment control plan for the
proposed earthworks.
The P2Wk contractor, NX2, has developed a project wide ESCP which has previously been
submitted to the Council for the P2Wk project. This is provided in Attachment 3 for reference
as to the standard of ESC measures that will be in place. A concept ESC plan is currently been
prepared to demonstrate the likely ESC measures to be implemented for the SH1 widening
works. This will be submitted to Council shortly. As this is a widening project, the proposed
measures will likely be primarily silt fences.
In our view submission of the ESC plan is not required in order for the Council to proceed with
limited notification.
3) Stormwater
a) Maximum probable development
i) Please advise whether the cross‐road infrastructure (i.e. replacement culverts)
has been designed and developed in a way that provides capacity for maximum
probable development in the upstream areas.
Cross road infrastructure is provided by two culverts, culvert E530 and culvert E180.
Culvert E180 has been designed to cater for the 100 year ARI rainfall event.
As outlined in section 7.12 of the AEE, Culvert E530 has been deliberately undersized to
operate as a throttle point, where rainfall (such as the 100 year ARI) will be held on the
upstream side of the culvert limiting any flood levels on the downstream properties. This is a
requirement of the resource consents for the P2Wk project where consent condition RC68(b)
states that the Project will not result in an increase in flood level on Lot 2 DP 405448 (which is
the property located directly downstream of culvert E530).
4
As detailed in Section 4.3 of Appendix C of the AEE, culvert E530 is a direct replacement and
extension of the existing 1,200mm diameter culvert, which is in poor condition. Providing a
culvert larger than 1,200mm diameter with a greater hydraulic capacity (i.e to cater for
unattenuated MPD flows) would result in a non-compliance with respect to the P2Wk condition
RC68(b). As outlined in the AEE due to the requirement to include fish passage in this culvert
the culvert is proposed to be replaced with a wider 1,350 mm culvert.
The NX2 design report states that due to the increased hydraulic roughness provided by the
fish baffles, similar hydraulic performance to the existing (1,200mm) culvert will be provided.
As the hydraulic capacity of a larger diameter (1,350mm) culvert with fish passage has been
determined as the same as the existing 1,200mm diameter culvert (which has no fish passage),
there is no resulting downstream flooding increase.
ii) Please advise if engagement has been undertaken with Healthy Waters to
confirm (i) above.
(1) Based on current applications and developments occurring in this area, it
seems that the overall catchment management for this area is unfolding in a
piecemeal way, potentially leading to missed opportunities for a more
comprehensive and integrated stormwater approach – particularly in respect
of the live‐zoned areas upstream of this project. The AEE consultation
section does not indicate any engagement to date with Auckland Council
Healthy Waters in respect of this project, and Healthy Waters are well
placed to provide support and overarching direction in terms of catchment
planning for the area.
A pre application meeting was held with Auckland Council on 14 March 2018. A representative
from Healthy Waters was in attendance at this meeting. A further meeting to update Healthy
Waters was undertaken on 11 September. It was acknowledged that mitigation of the
stormwater effects needs to be provided by the proposed work and treatment and extended
detention in accordance with TP10 requirements was supported. As outlined at the pre-
application meeting and in the AEE submitted in support of the application, the proposed work
is to be undertaken as part of the P2Wk Project. The separation of the proposed stormwater
infrastructure from other nearby proposed stormwater treatment/attenuation devices (such as
those of Auckland Transport’s Matakana link road, or devices to service future urban land when
developed) is appropriate as the maintenance of the proposed stormwater devices will be
undertaken by NX2 on behalf of the Transport Agency as Consent Holder (for 25 years), and
will ultimately revert to the Transport Agency.
Development in the wider and upstream catchment area will need to include its own stormwater
treatment and detention. The proposed stormwater infrastructure for the SH1 widening work
will accommodate runoff from the road and does not need to also provide for potential
development upstream, the timing, nature and extent of which is currently unknown.
Healthy Waters expressed a view that it would be beneficial for the culvert at E530 to be future
proofed, to allow for flows from the maximum probable development of properties upstream.
Healthy Waters suggested that this would reduce the potential need to increase the capacity of
the culvert at a later stage. Further consideration will be given to increasing the culvert size
when there is greater clarity as to the maximum probable development of the upstream
catchment.
In our view this further consideration in response to the Healthy Waters suggestion does not
preclude the application as submitted being limited notified and determined.
5
b) The proposal overlaps with an existing stormwater consent for the Hudson Road
intersection upgrades (consent number 37171). Please confirm whether this existing
stormwater consent will be surrendered.
Once the new stormwater consent is granted, the Transport Agency will consider surrender of
the existing consent in part or in full if it is no longer required.
c) The existing and proposed extended detention swales are relatively unconventional. It
would be helpful when assessing the proposed design performance if the proposed
design were supported by operational and maintenance experience and evidence to
demonstrate its operational performance in this environment. Please provide any such
available evidence, for example maintenance activity records and photos.
The maintenance of the swales along Hudson Road is within the jurisdiction of Auckland
Transport. The Hudson Road swales were constructed in 2014, and as relatively new assets, it
is understood that no maintenance has been required to date.
The calculations provided as part of the response to question 3(d) below provide the detail of
how the proposed swales will work and the appropriateness of this treatment and extended
detention method. Proposed resource consent condition 16 requires that the stormwater
infrastructure is designed to the stated criteria, and proposed condition 20 requires that the
stormwater treatment devices are maintained to ensure that those criteria are achieved.
d) Please provide preliminary design calculations and details to support the various
elements of the proposed stormwater management system, including the wetland,
extended detention swales, culverts and outfalls. Further calculations and design details
should address the following:
i) Calculations prepared in accordance with the relative/relevant Council guidelines
(TP10, TP108 etc).
ii) Catchment plans for the stormwater systems to support the designs.
iii) Outfall designs and calculations for culverts, wetlands, spillways and swales.
iv) Clarification of the proposed culvert designs, inlets/outlets and sizing relative to
ED or MPD flows.
NX2 have provided the calculations for the wetlands, Hudson Road swale, culverts and outfalls.
These are in Attachment 4.
4) Engineering
a) Please provide specific information for each of the existing vehicle crossing(s) onto SH1 that will be retained to demonstrate that they will have suitable and appropriate access arrangements post earthworks, including gradients and sightlines, or alternatively offer this as a condition to be included as part of the Outline Plan of Works.
As part of the detailed design process the Transport Agency will have individual discussions
with directly affected landowners and will ensure that access arrangements are safe and
functional. The Transport Agency’s safety standards (as road controlling authority) include
criteria such as adequacy of sight lines, proximity and use of nearby existing access points, and
the effect of the access on highway traffic.
The detailed requested in 4(a) above, will be included with the Outline Plan of Works, in
accordance with the requirements of section 176A of the RMA, which (amongst other things)
requires detail of likely finished contours and vehicular access.
6
5) Traffic
a) Please provide additional analysis regarding what effect (if any) the actual reduced weaving distance (in the design) will have on the overall analysis; and
This information is included in the traffic memorandum in Attachment 5 and shows no reduction
in level of service if distances are reduced as a result of a reduced distance for undertaking a
merge. We also note that there is not a full weave required, as traffic coming from the Dome
Valley and heading to Warkworth would not have to change lanes and is therefore more a
‘merge’ movement. Attachment 5 details this further.
b) Please provide a safety audit of the current proposal in relation to the weave between vehicles traveling northbound from P2Wk via the roundabout wanting to then travel to the MLR verses SH1 southbound traffic travelling into Warkworth.
The key objective of road safety audits is to deliver completed projects that contribute towards a
safe road system that is increasingly free of death and serious injury by identifying and ranking
potential safety concerns for all road users and others affected by a road project. Four road
safety audits have been undertaken in relation to this area in accordance with the NZ Transport
Agency Road Safety Audit Procedures for Projects guidelines which is available online at
https://nzta.govt.nz/resources/road-safety-audit-procedures/. These road safety audits have
not identified concerns with the perceived ‘weave’ from the P2Wk roundabout to MLR. As
outlined above we also note that this is not a full weave manoeuvre as traffic coming from the
Dome Valley and heading in to Warkworth does not have to change lanes.
6) Noise and Vibration
a) Operational Noise
i) Table 4 of the MDA Report sets out what appear to be (despite the table
heading) the noise levels at the receivers in 2017, based on 2013 noise level
measurements adjusted for traffic flows. We understand that the Hudson Road /
SH1 intersection was upgraded and a passing lane constructed on the northbound
side at around the same time. We note that the road surface for the majority of the
alignment is a chip seal surface that is heavily flushed for long sections. This will
increase the noise levels beyond that expected for the increase in traffic alone. It
would be helpful to understand:
(1) whether the 2013 noise measurements were undertaken before or after
the intersection and passing lane improvements;
(2) what the road surface was like for the measurements in 2013;
(3) whether the simple adjustment for increased traffic flows accurately
represents the current noise environment; and
(4) what data the MDA report bases its adjustments on (for 2013 to 2017
noise levels).
The Noise memo in Attachment 6 clarifies the above points.
b) Table 6 of the MDA Report does not include a column showing the change in noise
level arising from the changes to SH1 only. Can a column be added that shows the
change from 2031 do-nothing SH1 only, to 2031 Do-minimum SH1 only?
The P2Wk project is under construction and is part of the existing environment. There is no
scenario where only the SH1 widening is undertaken and not P2Wk, so the suggested
additional column does not add any value to the noise assessment. The Noise memo
7
(Attachment 6) has looked into this hypothetical scenario and concluded that the noise changes
are minimal and the widening of SH1 will have no effect on the overall noise environment.
c) While not a request for information, we offer the following observations; that the noise
level from SH1 only may drop as a result of the project, rather than increase as the MDA
Report appears to conclude (even if only marginally). This is because the current road
surface is chipseal and large sections of it are flushed, and although the posted speed
limit is 50km/hr to 100km/hr part way along, the overall speed environment is generally
well above 50km/hr. The proposal is to re-surface the road using a low noise pavement,
and to control the speed environment to 80kmhr. The current noise levels in Table 4 may
be over-represented, and when taking into account the current road surface and speed
environment, a noise measurement may show that the actual levels are higher. If the
predicted noise levels are adjusted to 80kmhr, (instead of the 100kmhr assumed in the
MDA Report) it may be that the project results in lower noise levels than the current
situation.
Noted.
d) Construction Noise and Vibration
i) Section 3.2 of the MDA Report sets out a range of different criteria for noise and
vibration but does not state which should apply. Can the MDA Report be revised to
set out the recommended Project Noise and Vibration Standards that are
proposed to apply to the project.
The Noise memo in Attachment 6 outlines the noise criteria from NZS6803:1999 and the
construction vibration criteria from the NZTA State highway construction and maintenance
noise and vibration guide.
ii) The MDA Report states that construction will exceed 20 weeks, and noise and
vibration levels will at times exceed the limits in section 3.2. We do not consider
that this comprises an assessment of the construction noise effects. We are of the
view that the assessment should set out the approximate duration of works that
will generate noise levels up to or above the limits in section 3.2 of the MDA
Report for each receiver, and what the maximum noise and vibration levels are
likely to be (and the approximate duration) for each receiver, so that the typical
effects and maximum level of effect can be understood. The possibility of night
works should also be assessed, along with the mitigation methods that may be
employed if night works are likely to disturb sleep, including triggers for
consultation and further mitigation.
The assessment undertaken to date is considered sufficient for this current planning phase of
the proposed work. The proposed Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan
(CNVMP) is the recommended and appropriate mechanism for managing any potential adverse
noise and vibration effects (refer to Attachment 6). The Transport Agency has proposed a
condition requiring a CNVMP to be submitted to the Manager (Auckland Council) for
certification.
iii) Please identify whether there are any construction yards or lay down areas
proposed that would be close to an existing receiver (commercial or residential),
(such as immediately north of the intersection of SH1 and the MLR)? If so, an
assessment of the likely construction noise and vibration effects should be
provided.
8
The construction methodology details have not yet been developed for the proposed work. As
the work is in proximity to the wider P2Wk project, which already has large established yards
and lay down areas, it is unlikely that a substantial construction yard would be required within
the area of the proposed designation alteration. Given the nature of the works, it is also
unlikely that any notably high noise generating activities (such as a concrete batching plant)
would be established within this area. The noise memo (Attachment 6) details that noise from
yards and lay down areas are unlikely to cause any exceedances of the noise limits. The
proposed CNVMP will include management measures for works in all areas of the proposed
designation alteration, including any temporary site yard or laydown area.
7) Unlicensed access closure a) Section 8.3 of the AEE (pg40) identifies that there is ongoing consultation with the Rodney Local Board and with Auckland Council’s Parks, Sports and Recreation department in relation to the removal and permanent closure of the unlicensed access from the Warkworth Showgrounds to SH1. Please provide an update on these discussions.
The Transport Agency is working with Auckland Transport to consider options for an alternative
location for the secondary access to the Warkworth Showground from the proposed Matakana
link road. The Transport Agency will fund a feasibility study to identify an alternative location for
the secondary access to the Warkworth Showground from the proposed MLR.. That work will
include further discussions with Rodney Local Board and Auckland Council’s Parks, Sports and
Recreation.
b) We note that an access proposed to be removed / closed is also the primary access to PT LOT 1 DP 61693. Please clarify the legal status of the access as it relates to PT LOT 1 DP 61693 and details of what alternative access will be provided for this property when that access is formally removed / closed.
The whole of PT Lot 1 DP 61693 is within the proposed designation for AT’s Matakana link
road project. Long term access to the road network for this property will be via the Matakana
link road. Discussions are ongoing with the owner of this property in terms of access, and with
Auckland Transport in relation to the development of the Matakana link road. .Access will be
retained from this property to the roading network and the details/solutions provided through
the relevant Outline Plan of Works. The temporary and permanent access details will depend
on the relative timing and construction programme for both Auckland Transport’s Matakana link
road, and the SH1 widening. This property is zoned for industrial purposes, and based on
discussions with the landowner, we understand that it is likely that it will be well progressed for
development for this purpose by the time this proposed SH1 widening is undertaken.
8) Liquidamber trees a) We note that there is a double line of young Liquidambar trees lining the access of PT LOT 1 DP 61693 in the general vicinity of the proposed MLR intersection. The trees are not protected by AUP but nonetheless form a part of the existing environment. Council’s arborist has advised that these trees are of a size and condition that could be lifted and re-used rather than cut down. Can you advise whether the Transport Agency would support a condition requiring consideration of re-use of these trees at detailed design.
We note the Council’s suggestion, but do not consider a condition is necessary. Landscaping
and any re-use of trees will be developed as part of the landscaping plans which will form part
of the Outline Plan of Works. We note that most of the Liquidambar trees are outside the
proposed designation area and will therefore be unaffected by the proposed work.
9
Conclusion
The information contained within this letter and in Attachments 1 – 6 responds to the Council’s
request for further information. Sufficient information has now been provided and we request
that the Council now proceeds with limited notification to the parties identified in the application.
Since lodging the Notice of Requirement, we have identified a minor typographic error in
condition 9 of the proposed designation conditions (Attachment D of the Notice of
Requirement), which relate to construction vibration criteria. A reference to 000h, should be to
2000h. An updated version of the proposed designation conditions with the change tracked is
included in Attachment 7. This version of the proposed designation conditions replaces the
version included in Attachment D of the Notice of Requirement.
If you have any queries with regards to the above responses, please do not hesitate to contact
us.
Yours sincerely
Karyn Sinclair
Principal Planner
Attachment 1: Copy of Heritage Reports requested
Attachment 2: Ecological memo
Attachment 3: Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Attachment 4: Calculations for the wetlands, Hudson Road swale, culverts and outfalls
Attachment 5: Traffic memo
Attachment 6: Noise memo
Attachment 7: Updated Proposed Designation Conditions
