Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section

BUN60320273 Received

18/05/2018

Resource Consent Application and Assessment of Effects on the Environment

Date May 2018

Job Number 1004393

Document Control

Title: Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section Date Version Description Prepared by: Reviewed by: Authorised by: 20/04/18 1 Initial draft for client review A Scouller & J Carvill S McCarter 03/05/18 2 Final draft for client review A Scouller & J Carvill R Reinen‐Hamill S McCarter 08/05/18 3 Final for lodgement A Scouller & J Carvill R Reinen‐Hamill S McCarter

Distribution: Auckland Transport 1 copy Auckland Council 1 copy Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (FILE) 1 copy

Table of contents

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Context 1 1.2 Downtown infrastructure development programme 1 1.3 Quay Street seawall upgrade 2 1.4 Consenting approach 2 1.5 Proposed upgrade to the Princes Wharf section 3 1.6 Applicant and property details 4 1.7 Overview of resource consent requirements 4 1.8 Consent duration and lapse 5 2 Environmental Setting 6 2.1 Introduction 6 2.2 Existing seawall 7 2.3 Existing uses 8 2.3.1 Existing resource consents 9 2.4 Existing noise environment 10 2.5 Transport and traffic 11 2.5.2 Cruise ships 11 2.5.3 Cycling and pedestrian infrastructure 12 2.5.4 Traffic 12 2.6 Archaeology 13 2.7 Cultural heritage 14 2.8 Built heritage 15 2.9 Existing trees 18 2.10 Ground contamination 19 2.11 Existing services 19 2.12 Coastal environment 19 2.13 Geology and sediments 19 2.14 Seismic setting 20 2.15 Groundwater 20 3 Description of proposed works 21 3.1 Introduction to proposed works 21 3.2 Proposed in‐ground palisade wall 21 3.3 Timing and duration of works 21 3.4 Site setup and enabling works 22 3.4.1 Pedestrian, cyclist and traffic management 22 3.4.2 Trees 24 3.4.3 Built heritage features 25 3.4.4 Site preparation and construction access 26 3.4.5 Relocation of services and utilities 26 3.5 Palisade wall construction 27 3.5.1 Plant and equipment 27 3.5.2 Piling 27 3.5.3 Capping beam 28 3.6 Earthworks and erosion and sediment control 28 3.6.1 Proposed earthworks 28 3.6.2 Controls 28 3.7 Stormwater and groundwater management 29 3.7.1 Stormwater 29

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

3.7.2 Groundwater 29 3.8 Reinstatement 29 3.8.1 Trees 30 3.8.2 Built heritage features 30 3.9 Consideration of alternative options 30 3.9.1 RMA context 30 3.9.2 Seawall options 30 3.9.3 Princes Wharf preferred option 31 3.9.4 Conclusion 32 4 Resource consent requirements 33 4.1 Introduction 33 4.2 Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in part 34 4.3 NES for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil 37 4.4 Permitted activities 38 4.5 Other requirements 40 4.5.1 General archaeological authority 40 4.5.2 Signage Bylaw 2015 40 5 Assessment of effects on the environment 41 5.1 Introduction 41 5.2 Positive effects 41 5.3 Transportation effects 42 5.3.1 Approach to transportation effects assessment and mitigation 42 5.3.2 Effects on pedestrians 43 5.3.3 Effects on cyclists 43 5.3.4 Effects on public transport 43 5.3.5 Effects on property access 44 5.3.6 Vehicle traffic effects 44 5.3.7 Cumulative traffic effects 44 5.3.8 Summary of transport effects 45 5.4 Construction noise and vibration effects 46 5.4.1 Noise 46 5.4.2 Vibration 48 5.5 Historic heritage effects 49 5.5.1 Physical effects on built heritage 49 5.5.2 Effects on the setting of built heritage 49 5.5.3 Long‐term effects of built heritage 49 5.5.4 Cumulative effects 50 5.6 Archaeological effects 50 5.7 Cultural effects 50 5.8 Effects on trees 51 5.9 Landscape and visual amenity effects 52 5.9.1 Temporary landscape and visual amenity effects 52 5.9.2 Permanent landscape and visual amenity effects 52 5.9.3 Cumulative landscape and visual amenity effects 53 5.10 Geotechnical and groundwater diversion effects 53 5.10.1 Construction effects 53 5.10.2 Operational effects 54 5.11 Land disturbance and water quality effects 54 5.11.1 Land disturbance effects 54 5.11.2 Water quality effects 55 5.12 Contaminated land effects 55

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

5.12.1 Effects of contaminated soil disturbance on human health 55 5.12.2 Effects of contaminated soil disturbance on the environment 56 5.13 Scale of effects 56 5.13.1 Importance of the area 57 5.13.2 Sensitivity of the area and surrounding users 57 5.13.3 Cumulative effects 57 5.13.4 Combined effects 58 5.14 Summary of effects 58 6 Statutory assessment 60 6.1 Introduction 60 6.2 Resource Management Act 1991 60 6.2.1 Introduction 60 6.2.2 Part 2 – Purpose and principles (sections 5 to 8) 60 6.2.3 Public notification (section 95A) 61 6.2.4 Consideration of applications (section 104) 61 6.2.5 Conditions and consent duration and lapse (sections 108, 123 and 125) 62 6.3 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 63 6.4 Statutory assessment summary 63 7 Relevant planning documents 64 7.1 Introduction 64 7.1.1 National Environmental Standards 64 7.2 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 64 7.2.1 The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 68 7.3 Auckland Unitary Plan – operative in part 68 7.3.1 Chapter B regional policy statement 68 7.3.2 AUP Regional Plan and District Plan provisions 69 7.4 Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal 75 7.5 Other matters (Section 104(1)(c)) 75 7.5.1 The Auckland Plan 75 7.5.2 City Centre Master Plan 75 7.5.3 The Waterfront Plan 75 7.5.4 Waterfront Auckland Sustainable Development Framework 2013 76 7.5.5 Waterfront Refresh 2017 76 7.5.6 Conservation Management Plan for the Auckland Harbour Edge Area 76 8 Consultation and feedback 78 8.1 Introduction 78 8.2 Ports of Auckland Limited 78 8.3 Auckland Transport 78 8.3.1 Auckland Transport Operation Centre 79 8.3.2 City Rail Link Limited and Connectus 79 8.3.3 AT Metro 79 8.4 Ferry operators 80 8.4.1 Fullers 80 8.4.2 Sealink and Belaire 80 8.5 Local Boards 81 8.5.1 Waitematā Local Board 81 8.5.2 Orākei Local Board 81 8.5.3 All Local Boards 81 8.6 Harbourmaster 81 8.7 Māori engagement 81 8.8 Heritage 84

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

8.9 Auckland City Centre Advisory Board 84 8.10 Property owners and occupiers 85 8.10.1 Tournament 85 8.10.2 Cooper and Co 85 8.10.3 Precinct Properties Limited 85 8.10.4 Maritime Museum 85 8.10.5 Princes Wharf property owners 85 8.10.6 139 Quay Street 86 8.10.7 Good Group Hospitality 86 8.10.8 M Social 86 8.10.9 Spirit of New Zealand 86 8.11 Auckland Council 86 8.12 Service providers 87 8.12.1 Vector 87 8.12.2 Chorus 87 8.12.3 Watercare Services Limited 87 8.12.4 Vodafone 87 8.13 Heart of the City 87 8.14 Consultation events 87 8.14.1 Stakeholder breakfast 87 8.14.2 Public drop in events 87 8.15 Post lodgement consultation 88 8.15.1 Downtown and Waterfront Development Response Action Plan 88 8.15.2 Communication and Consultation Plan 88 9 Proposed conditions of consent 89 10 Conclusion 90 11 Applicability 91

Appendix A: Consent application forms Appendix B: Planning maps Appendix C : Drawings Appendix D: Construction Methodology for Resource Consent Appendix E : Project Context and Options Assessment Appendix F: Assessment of planning standards Appendix G : Matters of discretion and assessment criteria Appendix H : Assessment of objectives and policies Appendix I : Consultation documentation Appendix J : Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment Appendix K : Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan Appendix L : Integrated Transport Assessment Appendix M : Geotechnical and Groundwater Effects Report Appendix N : Archaeological Assessment Appendix O : Built Heritage Impact Assessment

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Appendix P : Built Heritage Construction Management Plan Appendix Q : Arboricultural Report Appendix R : Ground Contamination Assessment Appendix S : Site Management Plan Appendix T : Adaptive Environmental Monitoring and Management Response Plan Appendix U : Landscape and Visual Amenity Assessment Appendix V : Proposed draft conditions of consent Appendix W : Certificates of Title

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Glossary of abbreviations

Term Definition AC Auckland Council AC36 36th America’s Cup ACCAB Auckland City Centre Advisory Board AEE Assessment of Effects on the Environment AEMMRP Adaptive Environmental Monitoring and Management Response Plan AEP Annual Exceedance Probability AHB Auckland Harbour Board APEC Asia‐Pacific Economic Cooperation AT Auckland Transport ATOC Auckland Transport Operations Centre AUP Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in Part BHCMP Built Heritage Construction Management Plan CBD Central Business District CCMP City Centre Master Plan CCP Communication and Consultation Plan CD Chart Datum CEHA Coastal Erosion Hazard Area CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan Coastal Plan Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal CMA Coastal Marine Area CMP Conservation Management Plan CNVMP Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan CRL City Rail Link CRLL City Rail Link Limited CTMP Construction Traffic Management Plan DSI Detailed Site Investigation ECBF East Coast Bays Formation ECI Early Contractor Involvement HAIL Hazardous Activities Industries List HGMPA Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act HH‐EOP Historic Heritage Overlay Extent of Place HIA Built Heritage Impact Assessment HNZ Heritage New Zealand HNZPTA Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 HOTC Heart of the City IL4 Importance Level 4 ITA Integrated Transport Assessment LOS Level of Service

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

MCA Multi Criteria Assessment MCI Macroinvertebrate Community Index MfE Ministry for the Environment MHWS Mean High Water Springs NES Soil National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 NPS‐FM National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management NZCPS New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement POAL Ports of Auckland PSI Preliminary Site Investigation RAP Remedial Action Plan RMA Resource Management Act 1991 SCPA Sediment Control Protection Area SDF Sustainable Development Framework SMP Site Management Plan T+T Tonkin + Taylor WP Waterfront Plan

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Executive summary

The Quay Street seawall forms the harbour edge of a historical reclamation, which supports Quay Street and the essential services contained within the road corridor. The existing seawall is over 100 years old, is overall in average to poor condition, is in need of repair, and has substantial ongoing maintenance requirements. It was not designed for a seismic event, and the earthquake risk to the seawall has been assessed as high to extreme. This exposes Quay Street and the services, features and buildings it supports to significant risk. Accordingly, it is proposed to undertake an upgrade to the existing seawall. This assessment of effects on the environment has been prepared to accompany the application by Auckland Transport to Auckland Council for the resource consents necessary to authorise the proposed construction of the Princes Wharf section of the upgrade of the Quay Street seawall. This application is being lodged concurrently with applications to upgrade the Ferry Basin and Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf sections of the seawall. Auckland Transport requests public notification of the application. The Seawall Project (being the overall Quay Street seawall upgrade project) is part of the wider Downtown Infrastructure Development Programme, which is comprised of a number of projects that will refresh the downtown waterfront precinct and unlock its potential for world‐class public transport, waterfront access and a high quality public realm. The Seawall Project is a key precursor for these projects, which are prioritised for delivery prior to the Asia‐Pacific Economic Cooperation 2021 Leaders’ Week and 36th America’s Cup regatta being held in Auckland in 2021. A comprehensive process has been undertaken to identify the best option for the proposed seawall design, alignment and construction methodology for each section of the seawall. This includes various site constraints such as the location of existing services, heritage features, street trees, as well as trying to minimise transport disruption and construction noise and vibration as much as practicably possible. An in‐ground palisade wall within the Quay Street road reserve is proposed for the Princes Wharf section of the Quay Street seawall upgrade, situated landward of the existing seawall. The palisade wall, approximately 105 m in length will be comprised of 0.9 m reinforced concrete piles at regular spacing forming an in‐ground wall, with the spacing appropriate to allow the soil to ‘arch’ between the piles and provide lateral support. The top of the palisade wall piles will be approximately 2 m beneath the ground surface and a capping beam will be constructed connecting the top of the piles. The construction duration of the Princes Wharf section is expected to take 7‐8 months. Mitigation measures are recommended throughout the specialist reports and in the assessment of effects to ensure adverse effects are appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated. In some instances, these involve the preparation of management plans at a stage when further details of the construction method have been determined. Auckland Transport has proposed a suite of draft conditions to address the potential effects. The requirements for resource consent are determined by the rules in both the Auckland Unitary Plan operative in part and the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal, and the regulations in the NES for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil. The proposal requires various consents under the Auckland‐wide and Historic Heritage Overlay provisions of the AUP. Overall, the proposal is a restricted discretionay activity. The report and supporting technical assessments include a comprehensive analysis of the relevant environmental effects. The proposal to upgrade the seawall to Importance Level 4 (IL4) with a robust design life of 100 years will provide significant resilience for the city’s transport and utility

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

infrastructure in terms of seismic events. The Seawall Project is a key enabler for a suite of projects that will bring significant social and economic benefits to both Auckland and all of New Zealand. Further, once all heritage features have been reinstated and trees have been successfully re‐ established there will be no long term adverse effects, resulting in the only long term effects being positive. The combined potential temporary adverse effects of the construction works may be more than minor when considered as a whole. Notwithstanding this, given the substantial positive effects, and the suite of proposed conditions, it is considered that any adverse effects can be appropriately managed. The works are consistent with Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and with the relevant objectives and policies of the applicable statutory documents. Auckland Transport has consulted with Mana Whenua and a range of stakeholders and interest groupsEngagement and consultation will continue during the detailed design, consenting and construction phases of the project.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Schedule 4 Requirements

Schedule 4 of the RMA sets out the information required in an application for a resource consent. All relevant matters required to be included have been addressed in the assessments and descriptions in this Assessment of Effects on the Environment (AEE). The following table provides a summary of the information required in Schedule 4 and a quick reference to its location in this report.

Schedule 4 Item Location within report A description of the activity Section 3 A description of the site at which the activity is to occur Section 2 The full name and address of each owner or occupier of the site Section 1.6 A description of any other activities that are part of the proposal to Section 3 which the application relates A description of any other resource consents required for the Section 4 proposal to which the application relates An assessment of the activity against the matters set out in Part 2 Section 6.2.2 An assessment of the activity against any relevant provisions of a Section 6.2.4 and Section 7 document referred to in section 104(1)(b). This must include:  Any relevant objectives, policies, or rules in a document  Any relevant requirements, conditions, or permissions in any rules in a document  Any other relevant requirements in a document (for example, in a national environmental standard or other regulations) An assessment of the activity’s effects on the environment that Section 5 includes the following information:  If it is likely that the activity will result in any significant adverse effect on the environment, a description of any possible alternative locations or methods for undertaking the activity.  An assessment of the actual or potential effect on the environment of the activity.  If the activity includes the use of hazardous installations, an assessment of any risks to the environment that are likely to arise from such use.  If the activity includes the discharge of any contaminant, a description of—  The nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects; and  Any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge into any other receiving environment.  A description of the mitigation measures (including safeguards and contingency plans where relevant) to be undertaken to help prevent or reduce the actual or potential effect.  Identification of the persons affected by the activity, any Section 5 and 8 consultation undertaken, and any response to the views of any person consulted.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Schedule 4 Item Location within report  If the scale and significance of the activity's effects are such that monitoring is required, a description of how and by whom the effects will be monitored if the activity is approved. An assessment of the activity’s effects on the environment that Section 5 addresses the following matters:  Any effect on those in the neighbourhood and, where relevant, the wider community, including any social, economic, or cultural effects.  Any physical effect on the locality, including any landscape and visual effects.  Any effect on ecosystems, including effects on plants or animals and any physical disturbance of habitats in the vicinity.  Any effect on natural and physical resources having aesthetic, recreational, scientific, historical, spiritual, or cultural value, or other special value, for present or future generations.  Any discharge of contaminants into the environment, including any unreasonable emission of noise, and options for the treatment and disposal of contaminants.  Any risk to the neighbourhood, the wider community, or the environment through natural hazards or hazardous installations. If any permitted activity is part of the proposal to which the Section 4.4 application relates, a description of the permitted activity that demonstrates that it complies with the requirements, conditions, and permissions for the permitted activity (so that a resource consent is not required for that activity under section 87A(1)).

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

1 Introduction

1.1 Context This assessment of effects on the environment (AEE) has been prepared to accompany the application by Auckland Transport (AT) to Auckland Council (AC) for the resource consents necessary to authorise the proposed construction of the Princes Wharf section of the upgrade of the Quay Street seawall. The proposal is referred to throughout this AEE as the Princes Wharf section. The Princes Wharf section is one of four sections of the Quay Street seawall proposed to be upgraded. The overall Quay Street seawall upgrade project is referred to throughout this AEE as the Seawall Project. The proposed Seawall Project has been divided into four sections for the purpose of resource consent applications and construction, as follows (from west to east):  Princes Wharf section;  Ferry Basin section;  Ferry Building section; and  Queens to Marsden section. The Seawall Project is part of the wider Downtown Infrastructure Development Programme, which is comprised of a number of projects for which resource consents are being sought separately. The Downtown Infrastructure Development Programme is referred to throughout this AEE as the Downtown Programme.

1.2 Downtown infrastructure development programme The City Centre Master Plan (CCMP) and the Waterfront Plan (WP) are spatial plans developed in 2012 as a part of a suite of place‐based plans that followed on from the Auckland Plan. These plans set out goals for Auckland’s city centre and waterfront area. A cross‐Council collaboration between AC, AT and Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) is underway to refresh the implementation planning to deliver the goals and outcomes identified in these plans. The downtown waterfront precinct is a key focus of this refreshed implementation planning, it is an area of high visibility and public interest, with competing demands and pressure on space. It is an area that is one of the keys to unlocking growing expectations for public transport, waterfront access and high quality public realm. There is also a significant amount of investment, private and public, currently underway and planned over the next 10 years, which puts further pressure on delivering on the Council’s strategy for this precinct. A programme of projects has been developed to address these needs, and ultimately to contribute to the achievement of the goals and outcomes set out in the CCMP and the WP. On this basis, the proposed Downtown Programme includes the upgrade of the Quay Street seawall, relocation of Ferry Piers 3 and 4, a new public open space in the Ferry Basin (Downtown Public Space), a mooring dolphin at the end of Queens Wharf, streetscape works in Quay Street West, and the Britomart East Bus Interchange in Quay Street. Alongside these activities, in June 2017 Team New Zealand won the 35th America’s Cup and discussions commenced regarding holding the 36th America’s Cup regatta (including the Challenger Selection Series and the America’s Cup Match) (AC36) in Auckland. In addition to this, in August 2017, Auckland was confirmed as the venue for the Asia‐Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) 2021 Leaders’ Week in November 2021. These two events were identified as key drivers for undertaking important transport and urban realm projects within the downtown precinct and it was determined that the proposed Downtown Programme should be prioritised for delivery prior to 2021.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

1.3 Quay Street seawall upgrade The Seawall Project extends from the western side of Lower Hobson Street to the western side of Marsden Wharf in Central Auckland. The seawall forms the harbour edge of a historical reclamation, which supports Quay Street and the services contained within the road corridor. It has been established that the existing seawall does not meet current design standards for seismic performance, and that there are sections that are in need of general repair due to scour damage to the surface of the seawall. There is also the opportunity to create resilience to future climate and changing use patterns, particularly the impacts of ship wash as ferry and cruise ship operations intensify their activity. Accordingly, it is proposed to undertake an upgrade to the existing seawall. A comprehensive process has been undertaken to identify the best option for upgrading each section of the seawall, which is discussed in detail in Section 3.9 of this report. A number of considerations, including site constraints (i.e. location of existing services, heritage features and street trees) have shaped the proposed seawall design, alignment and construction methodology for each section of the seawall. The Seawall Project is a key component of the Downtown Programme. Not only does the seawall provide resilience for the assets and infrastructure in Quay Street, it is also an enabler for a number of the other projects, as it is prudent to complete the upgrade of this infrastructure prior to undertaking public realm and public transport improvements. In particular, it is highly preferable that the Princes Wharf, Ferry Basin and Queens to Marsden sections of the Seawall Project are completed prior to construction of the Downtown Public Space, the Quay Street West streetscape works and the Britomart East Bus Interchange to avoid damage to new facilities that would occur should the seawall upgrade occur after these projects. The Princes Wharf, Ferry Basin and Queens to Marsden sections of the Seawall Project can proceed whether the proposed relocation of ferry berths and the proposed mooring dolphin are constructed or not. In addition to the above upgrade works, emergency maintenance works have recently been undertaken (completed April 2018) to repair a large scour hole beneath the Ferry Building section of the Quay Street seawall, and to repair scour damage to the surface of the wall in this section. These emergency works involve fixing of steel plates to the existing seawall, filling behind the plates, and placement of sandbags at the toe of the wall. These works are intended to have a lifespan of five to ten years, and they address only the scour issue, not the seismic performance issue. Part 12 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) provides for emergency works and power to take preventive or remedial action. A separate resource consent application made under Part 12 addresses these emergency works and they are not discussed further in this report.

AT also previously lodged a resource consent application (Council reference BUN60317825) for investigation trenches to determine the location and scope of underground services in Quay Street that may need to be realigned for the Seawall Project. The application is currently being processed by Council.

1.4 Consenting approach As discussed in Section 1.1, the Seawall Project has been divided into four sections for the purpose of resource consent applications and construction. The location of these sections is shown on the Overall Site Plan in Appendix C. A separate resource consent application is being made for each of the sections, and each section could be constructed as a standalone project once consented. The sections may therefore be constructed sequentially, or there may be some overlap in the construction programme, and this report considers the effects of these scenarios.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Resource consent applications for the Princes Wharf, Ferry Basin, and Queens to Marsden sections are being lodged concurrently. Design options are still being considered for the Ferry Building section and the resource consent application for this section will be lodged at a later date. The Princes Wharf, Ferry Basin and Queens to Marsden sections are likely to be constructed prior to AC36 to be held in January to March 2021. The Ferry Building section is likely to be constructed after the APEC event in November 2021.

1.5 Proposed upgrade to the Princes Wharf section An in‐ground palisade wall is proposed in the Quay Street legal road, behind the existing sea wall. This section runs across Princes Wharf in front of the ANZ building at 131‐139 Quay St. A palisade wall is comprised of piles at regular spacing forming an in‐ground wall, with the spacing appropriate to allow the soil to ‘arch’ between the piles and provide lateral support. The proposed palisade wall will be approximately 105 m in length. The wall will consist of approximately 0.9 m diameter reinforced concrete piles spaced at approximately 2.5 m centre‐to‐ centre spacing. This results in a total of approximately 45 piles for this section of the seawall upgrade. The top of the palisade wall piles will be approximately 2 m beneath the ground surface and a capping beam will be constructed connecting the top of the piles. The piles will be embedded approximately 3 m into the underlying East Coast Bays Formation (ECBF) rock so that the total depth of the piles will be about 15 to 22 m beneath the ground surface. The proposed palisade wall will be located on the northern side of the carriageway, within the extent of the footpath. Refer to Section 3 of this report and the Construction Methodology for Resource Consent (Construction Methodology Report), prepared by Alta (Appendix D) for a full description of the proposed works. The duration of works to complete the Princes Wharf section of the seawall upgrade is expected to take 7‐8 months and includes the following:  Establishment and preparation works on Quay Street including:  pedestrian and traffic management  establishment of construction access and laydown area  relocation and/or protection of existing utility services  removal of existing pavers and installation of metaled surface for plant operation  temporary relocation of trees, light poles and other utilities  installation of erosion and sediment controls;  Pile installation;  Construction of concrete capping beam; and  Reinstatement of Quay Street, including reinstating any trees that have been temporarily relocated. The proposed seawall will be located above Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) and therefore outside of the coastal marine area (CMA). This application seeks resource consent under the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part (AUP), for the reasons outlined in Section 4.2 and National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil (NES Soil) for the reasons outlined in Section 4.3. This report has been prepared in fulfilment of section 88 of the RMA.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

1.6 Applicant and property details

Table 1.1: Applicant and property details

Applicant Auckland Transport Site owner/Site address/Certificate of Title  Legal road (Quay Street)  Lot 2 Deposited Plan 179758: Her Majesty the Queen (NA110D/517)  Lot 17 Deposited Plan 131565: Ports of Auckland Limited (NA77A/385) Refer to certificates of title included in Appendix W. Address for Council file 85‐89 Quay St Council / Plans Auckland Council Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part Auckland Council Regional Plan‐Coastal Address for service during consent processing, Auckland Transport implementation and invoicing Private Bag 92250 Auckland 1142 Attention: Manini Hallikeri Phone: 09 448 7341 Email: [email protected]

A copy of the application form is provided in Appendix A and planning maps are included in Appendix B.

1.7 Overview of resource consent requirements The resource consents sought to enable the proposal are assessed in Section 4 and listed in the tables below. The following may not be an exhaustive list and if further consent matters are identified post lodgement of the application, these should also be considered as forming part of the application. Overall, resource consent is required from Auckland Council as a restricted discretionary activity.

Table 1.2: Summary of resource consents required under the AUP

Consent type AUP Rule Description Activity Status Historic Heritage Overlay – Extent of Place (HH‐EOP) Land Use Consent D17.4.1 (A9) Modification within the HH‐EOP Restricted discretionary Land Use Consent D17.4.1 (A11) Temporary construction‐related Restricted discretionary building’s within the HH Overlay Land Use Consent D17.4.1 (A15) Signs in Category A or B HH‐EOP Restricted discretionary Taking, using damming and diversion of water and drilling Water Permit E7.4.1 (A20) Dewatering of capping beam Restricted discretionary trenches and pile drilling Water Permit E7.4.1 (A28) Groundwater diversion from Restricted discretionary capping beam trenches Noise and Vibration

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Consent type AUP Rule Description Activity Status Land Use Consent E25.4.1 (A2) Construction vibration Restricted discretionary Infrastructure Land Use Consent E26.4.3.1 Trimming of tree branches Restricted discretionary (A84) Land Use Consent E26.4.3.1 Works within the protected root Restricted discretionary (A88) zone Land Use Consent E26.4.3.1 Relocation of trees Restricted discretionary (A92) Land Use Consent E26.6.3.1 Earthworks in the HH‐EOP (dp) Restricted discretionary (A115) Contaminated land Land Use Consent E30.4.1 (A6) Discharge of contaminants due to Controlled activity disturbance of potentially contaminated soils Natural Hazards and Flooding Land Use Consent E36.4.1 (A55) Relocation of existing services Restricted discretionary

Table 1.3: Resource consent required under NES Soil

Consent type NES Description Activity Status Regulation Land Use Consent Regulation10 Disturbance of contaminated land Restricted discretionary

1.8 Consent duration and lapse AT request that under section 123(b) the duration of the land use consents being sought is unlimited and under section 123(d) the duration of the regional consents (water permits) being sought is 15 years. It is intended that construction of the Seawall Project will be completed prior to 2021. However, in the event of an unforeseen delay, AT would defer construction until after AC36 and APEC are complete to avoid disrupting these key events. For this reason, a lapse period of 10 years is sought for all resource consents.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

2 Environmental Setting

2.1 Introduction Quay Street is at the northern end of the Auckland Central Business District (CBD). Multiple multi‐ storey commercial buildings are located to the south of Quay Street and the Auckland Waterfront is located to the north. Quay Street is located on land reclaimed from the Waitematā Harbour between 1879 and 1925. The Quay Street seawall forms the harbour edge of the reclamation and supports the heavily trafficked Quay Street, multiple service utilities, buildings and protected heritage structures. The subject site and surrounding area is shown in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 below. The Quay Street seawall extends from the western side of Lower Hobson Street to the western side of Marsden Wharf. The Princes Wharf section of the existing seawall (Lower Hobson Street to Lower Albert Street) (Figure 2.3) is approximately 150 m long, commencing along the Quay Street boundary before leaving the boundary alignment and running under Princes Wharf and the building at 131‐139 Quay Street (ANZ Building), before returning towards the Quay Street boundary. This section of the seawall is the responsibility of Ports of Auckland Limited (POAL).

Figure 2.1: Overview of the subject site and surrounding area

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Figure 2.2: Aerial view of Princes Wharf looking south from oblique aerial view

2.2 Existing seawall The seawall through this section is assumed to be constructed between 1923 and 1925. The seawall has been constructed of placed rock and mass concrete, with a face height of up to 4 m. Inspection of the wall has identified a number of vertical and diagonal cracks and some deterioration of the seawall face exposing aggregate within the concrete. A 30 m length section of the seawall is leaning outwards by approximately 50 mm. Large air voids within the mass concrete were identified in boreholes carried out in 1996. The concrete that holds the basalt boulder together shows signs of deterioration. It has been established that the existing seawall does not meet current design standards for seismic performance and is likely to fail during a moderate earthquake event. Although the majority of the seawall is located to the north of Quay Street (as shown in Figure 2.3 below), failure of the seawall would likely regress back to the road reserve and services.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Figure 2.3: Location of the Princes Wharf section (red line) showing the existing seawall alignment (indicated by the blue line)

2.3 Existing uses The Downtown Ferry Terminal is located between Queens Wharf and Princes Wharf, which is the central hub of the Auckland Ferry network, which connects Auckland’s city with other ferry services in Auckland as well as islands in the Waitematā Harbour and Hauraki Gulf. The ferry services operate from four piers located between Princes Wharf and Queens Wharf, known as the ‘ferry basin’ (refer Figure 2.1 above). POAL administers Auckland’s commercial freight and cruise ship harbour, with these operations located on the Waitematā Harbour. POAL activities operate from a number of wharves directly north of the Quay Street seawall, including; Princes Wharf, Queens Wharf, Captain Cook Wharf and Marsden Wharf. The subject site (Princes Wharf section) is characterised by the Quay Street road corridor (including the busy Lower Hobson Street intersection), and the highly urbanised environment of the downtown city centre core and finger wharves. The existing seawall for the Princes Wharf section is located largely beneath Princes Wharf, and the ANZ Building. The ANZ Building is a multi‐storey mixed‐use building occupied by residential and commercial (including retail) spaces. The site is overlooked by the immediate buildings along this stretch of Quay Street which include:

 M Social hotel and associated restaurant (196‐200 Quay Street);  ANZ Building (131‐139 Quay Street);  149 and 204 Quay Street, accommodating bars and restaurants; and  The Price Waterhouse Cooper tower (‘PWC tower’) (188 Quay Street).

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

2.3.1 Existing resource consents The general locality is subject to prior resource consents establishing a range of activities and development within the CMA and on land. A review of the AC property files has identified a range of consents. A summary of relevant consents is provided below:

Table 2.1: District Consents

Council reference Proposal Location R/LUC/2011/918 Modification of Harbour Board Fence Queens Wharf/Quay St R/LUC/2010/4054 Alterations and restorative works on the Auckland Queens Wharf Harbour Board Fence R/LUC/2011/281 Removal of trees on Quay St Quay St (outside Queens Wharf)

Table 2.2: Regional consents

Council reference Proposal Location S384A permit Ports of Auckland occupation of CMA Coastal marine area, Waitematā POAL has been granted coastal permit occupation Harbour rights under s384A of the RMA. This permit (the ‘s384A permit’) has been granted until 30 September 2026 for port‐related commercial undertakings that POAL acquired under the Port Companies Act 1988. Permit 21384 Placement of piles and floating pontoon for Adjacent from Land Steps – 15 passenger ferries metres east of Princes Wharf Permit 22109 Construction of buildings at Western Ferry Tee, Western Ferry Tee and Eastern Eastern Ferry Tee, and disturbance of seabed for Ferry Tee wharf extension at Eastern Ferry Tee Permit 22484 and Construction on extension on ferry building Western Ferry Terminal, 22486 promenade deck Downtown Ferry Basin and seaward side of Downtown Ferry Building Permit 25467 Construction of wharf extension, ticketing Western and Eastern Ferry administration, passenger building Terminals Permit 34728 and Works and activities relating to Downtown Ferry Downtown Ferry Terminal 34727 Terminal Permit 39082 Establishment of telecommunication facility Queens Wharf R/LUC/2012/2144 Redevelopment of Shed 10 for cruise ship terminal Queens Wharf (40305) and event space

R/REG/2015/4693 To establish container village for 5 years Queens Wharf (45385) Permit 27541 Various activities that relate to the ferry passenger Downtown Ferry Terminal terminal Permit 27540 Construction for the Ferry Terminal Downtown Ferry Terminal Permit 28113 Occupation of the Ferry Terminal for permits Downtown Ferry Terminal 27540 & 27541

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Council reference Proposal Location Permit 22486 Authorise outdoor dining Western Ferry Terminal

Permit 40739 and Establishment of tourist market at The Cloud Queens Wharf R/LUC/2011/3423 Permit 40090 Enabling public and private events to be Queens Wharf undertaken on Queens Wharf and existing buildings

2.4 Existing noise environment The existing environment contains a wide variety of activities, including: offices, shops, bars, restaurants, apartments, road traffic, public space and marine operations associated with Ports of Auckland, cruise ships and the ferry terminal. A representative daytime noise and vibration survey was undertaken on 19 February 2018 at various locations across the wider Quay Street area. The measurement locations are shown in Figure 2.4. A full description of the existing noise environment, including the results of the survey is provided in the Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment (Noise and Vibration Assessment), prepared by Marshall Day in Appendix J. In summary, relatively high ambient noise levels measured on Quay Street building frontages are dominated by road traffic activities. On the wharves, the road traffic noise and construction noise controls the background noise level, but close‐proximity marine activities (such as ferries idling nearby) dominates the ambient noise level. Construction noise from the Commercial Bay and the City Rail Link (CRL) sites were a common feature in the area. The vibration levels on Quay Street were low and generally imperceptible during the measurements. No vibration measurements were undertaken on the wharves as it was considered that there were no sources nearby which would generate vibration levels (i.e. road traffic).

Figure 2.4: Noise and vibration monitoring locations

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

2.5 Transport and traffic Quay Street is a multi‐function transport corridor and classed under the AUP as an Arterial road. Quay Street provides east‐west connections across the city for general transport, serves two public transport terminals (one at either end of the project area), provides access to Britomart Transport Centre, the ferry terminals and infrastructure on its northern side, supports access to the cruise ship landing areas on the north, and supports access to local businesses. The corridor also provides, on its northern side, a bi‐directional protected cycleway connecting to other protected cycle ways (as shown in Figure 2.5) and shared paths to the west (Wynyard Quarter and beyond), south (Eden Terrace and beyond) and continuing along Quay Street towards the eastern suburbs. An Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) prepared by Flow Transportation Specialists Ltd in Appendix L provides a detailed assessment of the existing transport environment in the Quay Street area. It is important to note in terms of the existing traffic environment in the Quay Street area that as road controlling authority AT has a wide range of powers to control traffic movements (e.g. turning directions, directions of travel) under Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974.

2.5.1 Public transport Many of Auckland’s passenger ferry services commence and terminate at the Downtown Ferry Terminal. This includes commuter and charter ferry services provided by a range of operators. Pedestrian access to the Downtown Ferry Terminal generally follows the available crossing points at Quay Street, being the intersections with Queen and Lower Albert Streets. Britomart Transport Centre (including Britomart Station) is located to the south‐east of both the Downtown Ferry Terminal and the Ferry Basin area generally. Train services to Auckland’s CBD currently terminate at Britomart Station and a major construction project is underway for the CRL which will extend rail services beyond the current Britomart Station terminus. There are two main bus terminus points within the downtown area – Lower Albert St and Britomart East Terminal, both of which rely on Quay Street for access. The bus stops on Lower Albert St include some of the busiest in the Auckland region, and a total of 54 buses currently travel northbound in peak periods (8‐9am and 4‐5pm). The East Terminal area accommodates approximately 66 buses per hour travelling southbound during peak periods. Both terminuses are strained and beyond their practical capacity. Combining boarding/ alighting data from AT, it is determined that approximately 73,000 passengers per day utilise ferry, bus and rail services combined (approximately 11,000 passengers per peak hour). A new network for bus services in Auckland CBD and central suburbs is proposed to roll out in mid‐ 2018. However, bus routes and terminals in the city centre will be subject to changes and interim arrangements, which were not possible to include in the context of the central suburbs consultation. This is due to the impact of CRL construction, possible construction of light rail line, and other improvement projects in the city centre to implement CCMP 2012.

2.5.2 Cruise ships The Auckland Downtown area is one of the main docking points in New Zealand for cruise ships. Cruise ships dock at Princes Wharf East and Queens Wharf East and West. Typically, when one cruise ship is in port it docks at Queens Wharf East, when there are two cruise ships in port they dock at Queens Wharf East and Princes Wharf East. Occasionally three ships are in port at one time, and in this case the third ship docks at Queens Wharf West. Schedules from POAL indicate that 112 cruise ships are expected to dock between February 2018 and February 2019, with approximately 2,000

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

12 passengers aboard each ship. It is estimated that 70 % will dock at Queens Wharf with the remaining 30% (about 34 ships) docking at Princes Wharf during the 12‐month season.

2.5.3 Cycling and pedestrian infrastructure A 2.6 to 2.8 m wide bi‐directional separated cycleway is provided on the northern side of Quay Street (as shown in Figure 2.5 below). Since its opening in July 2016, a large number of commuters from the east and west as well as cyclists for recreation purposes have utilised the cycle way. In excess of 200,000 cycle trips have occurred since its opening, with an annual daily average of 818 cyclists on the route. There is a high volume of pedestrians on Quay Street on a daily basis, and the area is well utilised by tourists, office workers and city centre residents. Pedestrian volumes increase significantly during the summer months, with various planned events on the wharves or in the Viaduct area. Quay Street is the main connection to public transport for these events.

Figure 2.5: Quay Street bi‐directional cycleway at the Princes Wharf section

2.5.4 Traffic The immediate road network is controlled to a large extent by traffic signals through the corridor, most noticeably the intersection with Queen Street where a full Barnes dance1 provides pedestrian connectivity to the Downtown Ferry Terminal on the north. As such, queuing is observed to occur on Quay Street as a result of high tidal volume vehicle demands of westbound in the morning peak period, and eastbound in the evening peak period.

1 A term given to a phase at traffic signals where no traffic movements are on green, and pedestrians are able to cross in all directions

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Traffic counts at Quay Street between Lower Hobson and Lower Albert Streets have a five‐day average of between approximately 22,000 and 24,000 per day (see Table 7 in the ITA, Appendix L).

2.6 Archaeology An Archaeological Assessment prepared by Clough and Associates has been undertaken for the Seawall Project area (refer Appendix N), which provides a detailed history of the site, including Maori and European settlement and previous archaeological work undertaken. The Seawall Project area lies within the original Auckland harbour, in an area of historic reclamation undertaken in stages between 1875 and the mid‐1920s. The majority of the Quay Street seawall is located in 19th century reclamation (refer Figure 2.6). To the west of Queen Street the reclamation dates to 1875‐77, while the rest of land to the east as far as Britomart Place was reclaimed between 1879 and 1886 as part of the Railway Station reclamation. The remaining area from Albert Street to the western side of Hobson Street was reclaimed in 1902‐8 (Hobson Street area) and 1923‐25 (Princes Wharf approach). The area north of Quay Street beneath the Ferry Building and eastern Wharf Pavilion was reclaimed in the first decade of the 20th century (c.1906‐7), with the original seawall remaining in situ to the south of these buildings, on the same alignment as the seawall east of the Ferry Building. An image of the original shoreline of what is now central Auckland is provided below in Figure 2.6. There were five archaeological sites recorded within the wider context of the seawall works (refer Figure 2.7). These are outlined in detail within the Archaeology Assessment. Of the five sites recorded in the Archaeological Assessment only one (R11/2901, CHI 533), the site of the former Hobson Wharf, is located within the Princes Wharf section.

Figure 2.6: The early shoreline in comparison with today’s waterfront, with the project area outlined in red (source: Barnett, 1981:10)

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Figure 2.7: Recorded archaeological sites in the NZAA ArchSite database.

2.7 Cultural heritage A detailed description of Māori settlement is provided in the Archaeological assessment, and summarised below. The isthmus between the Waitematā and Manukau harbours was known to Māori as Tamaki‐makau‐rau, often translated as ‘the land of a hundred lovers’ or ‘the land desired by many’. The area contained sheltered harbours, rich volcanic soils ideal for cultivation, extensive fishing and shellfish grounds, and easy canoe access between coastal settlements and the Gulf islands. All these aspects combined to make it a highly desirable location for settlement. Access between the two harbours and the east and west coasts was relatively easy using major rivers and portage routes, where canoes were carried across the shortest stretches of land separating the two. Over many centuries, Māori established numerous settlements on and around the shoreline and major rivers of the isthmus. Many were substantial long‐term settlements, while others were occupied seasonally or temporarily while resource gathering or gardening. From around 1500AD, pā defended with ditches and palisades began to be constructed at strategically located sites, notably the volcanic cones and on headlands, hinting at increased competition for resources and an expanding population. Many different iwi and hapu have featured in the history of Tamaki‐makau‐rau, with tribal territories or rohe changing in response to migration, warfare and intermarriage (Daamen et al. 1966; Stone 2001), with much of the isthmus coming under the control of Ngāti Whātua in the 18th century. The AUP does not identify any sites or places of significance to Mana Whenua in the vicinity of the proposed works.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

There are no Māori heritage areas recorded on Auckland Council’s Cultural Heritage Inventory within the project area. The closest Māori heritage area is identified on the corner of Lower Albert Street and Customs Street West.

2.8 Built heritage A Built Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by Plan. Heritage for the site is contained in Appendix O and contains a detailed history of the development of the site and its heritage features. There are numerous built heritage places along the waterfront, which reflect the development of Auckland City from the 19th century onwards. From the turn of the 20th century, the development of the wharves and harbour took the form that it largely has today, based on designs developed by the Auckland Harbour Board engineer W. H. Hamer. For the Princes Wharf Section, the proposed works for the seawall upgrade will be in the vicinity (being 50 m) of eight built heritage places. The Auckland Harbour Board (AHB) Fence and the Auckland Harbour Board WWI War Memorial (WWI Memorial) are scheduled built heritage places. Five built heritage places are potentially affected by the proposed works, either directly or indirectly and are summarised in Table 2.3 below. There area are 11 heritage lampposts (part of the distinctive wrought iron fences and gates) which occupy portions of the Quay Street waterfront (shown in Figure 2.8). It is anticipated that these features will remain in‐situ and be protected during the project. A WWI memorial is located at the western end of the proposed palisade wall, which is intended to remain in situ for the duration of construction.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Figure 2.8: Red lamp posts along Quay Street

The existing seawall itself is within the area of project works, and is not scheduled, but is considered to be part of the historic harbour area included in the Heritage New Zealand (HNZ) listing. Also adjacent to the western edge of the works is the former Harbour Launchman’s building (now part of the Maritime Museum), which is a feature of the historic harbour area and is also separately included on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Table 2.3: Built heritage places potentially affected by the proposed seawall upgrade works

AUP ID & Name Primary Feature HNZ List reference CHI reference Easting NZTM Northing NTZM Category World War I 2727 (Cat A; Memorial Values A, B, none defined Cat 2; 9652; Historic Area; 7158 20107 1757287.7 5921165.4 Beacon D, F)

Auckland Entire fence including 1915 (Cat A; Harbour panels, pylons, Historic Area; 7158 304 1757448.04 5921114.86 A,F,G,H) Board Fence handrails, and gates

Existing basalt n/a n/a Historic Area; 7158 n/a 1757610.87 5921059.41 Seawall

Launchmans Building | Cat 2, 608; Launch n/a n/a n/a Historic Area, 308 1757261.36 Offices | Shed 7158 110

Harbour n/a n/a n/a 7158 1757645.72 Historic Area

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

2.9 Existing trees There are five pōhutukawa trees (labelled 18‐22 on the drawings in Appendix C) of varying maturity and size located on the northern extent of the footpath, within the Princes Wharf section. These trees are part of the wider ‘avenue’ of street trees, which feature along Quay Street and Tamaki Drive, contributing to the overall character and identity of the wider east‐west route and its amenity. These are particularly noticeable along the eastern sections of the route, where specimens are typically of a greater maturity and size. These trees provide a high degree of amenity (scenic value) to the overall road corridor. Their regularity (in terms of spacing and layout (i.e. in an avenue) contributes to the route’s overall identity, and their flowers provide seasonal interest during summer months, which are strongly connected to an Auckland and New Zealand identity, being associated particularly with these coastal edge locations which is their naturally occurring habitat. These trees range in height from 3 m (Tree 22) to 10 m (Tree 18 shown in Figure 2.9) and are considered to be in fair – good health, structure and form, as identified in the Arboricultural Report (Arborist Report) prepared by Arborlab (Appendix Q). Trees 18‐21 are growing within an inbuilt raised planter box, whilst Tree 22 is growing within an external/detached planting box. The proposed upgrade to the seawall is generally located within the root zone of these trees, except for Tree 18 which where the seawall alignment has been designed to avoid.

Figure 2.9: Tree 18, looking eastward along Quay St

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

2.10 Ground contamination A Ground Contamination Assessment prepared by Tonkin + Taylor has been undertaken for the Seawall Project area and is in Appendix P. The site history information indicates that Quay Street is formed on land reclaimed from the harbour between 1870s and 1925. Since that time, the project area and adjoining CMA have been used for port and transport related activities. A wide range of commercial (although principally warehousing and offices/retail) activities have been undertaken on the sites that adjoin the project area. Collection and analysis of soil samples from across the project area shows that contamination by metals, PAHs and asbestos (marine sediments only) is present, albeit at low concentrations which comply with the relevant acceptance criteria for the protection of human health and the environment. However, investigation data from the surrounding area identified occasional (rare) exceedances of the acceptance criteria for the protection of human health and environmental receptors. Although the exceedances were typically associated with the presence of industrial wastes, demolition materials, or other specific sources of contamination, which do not appear to be prevalent in the vicinity of the seawall.

2.11 Existing services Quay Street is a major services corridor that contains a large number of underground utilities that service the Auckland CBD area. The proposed location of the seawall is in the location of a number of services, including, but not limited to: • Vector communications;  Chorus communications;  High voltage power cable;  Vodafone Fibre Optics;  Stormwater pipes, manhole and catchpits;  Sewer Line; and  Water supply pipe. Refer to drawing 1004393‐PRW‐400 in Appendix C for the existing services plan.

AT has lodged a resource consent application (Council reference BUN60317825) for investigation trenches to determine the location and scope of services in Quay Street that may need to be realigned for the Seawall Project. The application is currently being processed by Council.

2.12 Coastal environment Auckland Harbour is a tidal estuary situated at the south‐western end of Hauraki Gulf and running in an east/west direction. The area has not been characterised as a Significant Ecological Area within the AUP.

2.13 Geology and sediments The present day downtown Auckland waterfront has been formed by shoreline reclamation and development over the past 150 years. The Quay Street reclamation fill is underlain by Holocene age marine/alluvial sediments and Pleistocene age sediments of the Tauranga Group. The Holocene age marine/alluvial sediments

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

20 consist predominantly of firm to stiff sandy silt with varying amounts of organic matter, and the Pleistocene age sediments consist predominantly of hard to stiff silts with occasional organic matter. Beneath the sediments, Waitematā Group rock ECBF are present and consist predominantly of an alternating sequence of siltstone and lithic sandstone. A relatively thin layer (generally less than 2 m thick) of extremely weathered material mantles the rock. The Waitematā Group underlies much of the Auckland urban area and the total thickness is inferred to be 1000 m to 2000 m. A shallow shelf adjacent to the main channel comprises silty sands with some shell content. Numerous geotechnical investigations have been undertaken on land, landward of the existing seawall. Investigations undertaken by T+T in 2017 show relatively shallow depths of fine sediment adjacent to the seawall with firmer ECBF material below, although visual evidence is that this material is more weathered near the surface. Limited sediment sampling within the commercial harbour area was carried out in 1973 and confirms predominantly very fine sands to muds in the vicinity of the Quay Street proposed works.

2.14 Seismic setting Auckland is an area of relatively low seismicity within the New Zealand context. The nearest known fault to Auckland is the Wairoa North fault, approximately 25 km south west of downtown Auckland. This fault is capable of a Magnitude 6.7 event with a return period of approximately 13,000 years. In addition, there are another two faults that have the potential to cause damage to Auckland. The fault in the Hauraki Gulf is 40 km from downtown Auckland capable of a Magnitude 7.2 event with a return period of 20,000 years and the central portion of the Kerepehi fault is about 92 km from downtown Auckland with an estimated Magnitude of 6.8 and return period of 5,400 years. These faults are considered to be a reasonable distance from Auckland and on reasonably large return periods.

2.15 Groundwater A more detailed description of groundwater environment is included in the Geotechnical and Groundwater Effects Report prepared by Tonkin + Taylor included in Appendix M of this report. In general, the groundwater level is similar to tidal fluctuations. This indicates that the existing seawall, drainage material and reclamation fill are highly permeable.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

3 Description of proposed works

3.1 Introduction to proposed works An in‐ground palisade wall is proposed within the Quay Street road reserve for the Princes Wharf section of the Quay Street seawall upgrade, situated landward of the existing seawall. Drawings of the proposed seawall upgrade are provided in Appendix C. The seawall upgrade will be designed to Importance Level 4 (IL4) in accordance with the New Zealand Loadings Standard (refer to AS/NZS 1170.0) and will have a design life of 100 years. A comprehensive process has been undertaken for the Seawall Project to identify the best option for upgrading each section of the seawall (refer Section 3.9). A number of considerations have shaped the proposed seawall design, alignment and construction methodology for each section of the seawall. This includes a number of site constraints such as the location of existing services, heritage features, street trees, as well as trying to minimise disruption to all transport modes and construction noise and vibration as much as practicably possible. The Construction Methodology Report included in Appendix D provides an outline of the proposed works and that outline is summarised in this section of the report. It is important to note that the proposed seawall design is indicative, with a detailed design still to be finalised. Also, a final construction methodology will be determined once a contractor has been appointed to undertake the construction works. A number of draft management plans are included as part of this application. It is recommended that these management plans and a final construction methodology are provided to Auckland Council for certification prior to works commencing, as offered in the draft set of conditions (Appendix V).

3.2 Proposed in‐ground palisade wall An in‐ground palisade wall is proposed landward of the existing seawall in the footpath on the northern side of Quay Street. The proposed seawall alignment will be south of the AHB Fence lighting pylons, and within the row of existing street trees. The palisade wall will be comprised of piles at regular spacing forming an in‐ground wall, with the spacing appropriate to allow the soil to ‘arch’ between the piles and provide lateral support. The proposed wall will be approximately 105 m in length. The wall will consist of approximately 0.9 m diameter reinforced concrete piles spaced at approximately 2.5 m centre‐to‐centre spacing. This results in a total of 45 piles for this section of the seawall upgrade. The top of the palisade wall piles will be approximately 2 m beneath the ground surface and a capping beam will be constructed connecting the top of the piles. Sections A1 and A2 in Drawing No. 1004393‐115 show the location of the proposed palisade wall relative to the existing seawall as well as the anticipated depth of the piles. The piles will be embedded approximately 3 m into the underlying ECBF rock so that the total depth of the piles will be about 15 to 22 m beneath the ground surface, as shown on the Princes Wharf Long Section on Drawing 1004393‐110. No works within the CMA are proposed in the Princes Wharf section of the Seawall Project.

3.3 Timing and duration of works Construction of the proposed in‐ground palisade wall in the Princes Wharf section is anticipated to take 7 to 8 months to complete. The construction sequence and methodology for the proposed in‐ ground palisade wall is summarised below:

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

 Site setup and enabling works (refer Section 3.4);  Concrete cutting activities to remove pavement;  Excavate shallow trench along wall alignment;  Realign services as required;  Pile with grab or bucket to ECBF rock and advance casing;  Drill to pile embedment level, other methods of piling as required;  Install piles;  Excavate capping trench;  Construct capping beam; and  Reinstate Quay Street (including the reinstatement of trees, heritage features etc.). Indicative timeframes for each phase of work are:  Piling Works: 2‐3 months (1 piles/day for 1 rig crew);  Excavation of capping beam trench: 2‐3 weeks; and  Construction of capping beam: 5‐7 weeks. Construction may be undertaken up to 16 hour days (7 am to 10 pm, Monday to Friday and 7 am ‐11 pm, Saturday), excluding Sundays and public holidays. Construction hours will generally be limited to those hours described as “Monday to Saturday Daytime Periods” as prescribed in Rule E25.6.28 of the AUP. Exceptions to this are discussed in the Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment (Noise and Vibration Assessment) prepared by Marshall Day (Appendix J). Any work undertaken outside of these hours would be for specific discrete activities that cannot readily be undertaken during the daytime hours outlined above. Construction of the overall Seawall Project is expected to be undertaken during the period of November 2018 to May 2020 (18 months). At this stage, construction of the Princes Wharf section is expected to be undertaken during the period of November 2018 to July 2019 (8 months). The Princes Wharf section may be constructed in isolation or at the same time as one or both of the other wall sections.

3.4 Site setup and enabling works Establishment and preparation works are required before the construction of the proposed palisade wall commences. These works are outlined in this section, and include:  Pedestrian, cyclist and traffic management (Section 3.4.1);  Installation of erosion and sediment controls (Section 3.6);  Relocation and protection of existing utility services and street trees;  Establishment of construction access and contractor’s yard;  Removal of existing pavers and installation of metalled surface for plant operation (if required); and  Construction / installation of temporary structures.

3.4.1 Pedestrian, cyclist and traffic management Pedestrian, cyclist and traffic management proposed for the project is set out in the ITA (Appendix L), and is summarised below.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

The transport management strategy relies upon maintaining the capacity along Quay Street during peak periods, for all modes. The focus is to firstly maintain bus reliability, and pedestrian access and safety. A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) is recommended as a condition of consent (refer Section 4.2 of Appendix L). It is proposed that the CTMP will include a Communication Plan, setting out how transport information will be provided to communities and road users. The temporary works will run approximately 105 m in length. An 11 m wide construction zone is proposed to be in place for the duration of construction, running the length of the works area. The construction zone will require the temporary closure of the bi‐directional cycleway, and two traffic lanes on the northern side of Quay Street. Maintaining adequate access and thoroughfare for pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles is a key consideration of the project and the proposed pedestrian and traffic management is set out below. The reduction in the number of traffic lanes will commence on the southern side of Lower Hobson Street, extending to west of the intersection with Lower Albert Street. The alignment will revert to the existing at this point, to ensure the safe operation of the Lower Albert/ Quay Street intersection can be maintained for all road users. A dedicated cycleway (south of the construction zone) will continue to be provided during the works, with an approximately 3.4 m wide bi‐directional cycleway located directly south of the construction zone (comprising 2.8 m of cycling lanes, plus two 0.3 m setbacks on either side). This exceeds the 2.5 m minimum path width set by Austroads for paths with a predominant purpose of commuting, and is the same width or wider than the existing cycling lanes. One eastbound traffic lane and potentially two westbound traffic lanes will be provided. The provision of two westbound traffic lanes will provide resilience for bus movements through the section. There is the potential that one of the lanes could be solely dedicated to westbound buses on approach to the Lower Hobson Street, and this will be confirmed within the CTMP that is proposed to be submitted to Council as a condition of consent. It is considered at this stage the additional lane will be for buses only. The existing bus stop outside of the PWC building (stop 1346) will be indented into the kerb space, to allow proceeding buses to pass while up to two buses use the bus stop. The existing bus shelter will be temporarily removed for the duration of works, and the existing PWC canopy will provide shelter for passengers. The indicative layout of the indented bus bay is shown on Figure 15 in the ITA in Appendix L. The kerb and bus shelter will be reinstated at the completion of construction. This aspect of the proposal does not require resource consent. The northern pedestrian footpath, running in front of properties 131 – 139 Quay Street, will be maintained on the northern side of the construction site. The footpath will be reduced in width compared to its current provision (11 m) to 5.5 m to 6 m. At two points along this section, this will be reduced to approximately 3.1 m due to the design of the ANZ Building. Retention of the footpath on the northern side of the works enables continued access to properties, located in and around 131‐139 Quay Street. It is proposed to temporarily raise the existing footpath to be the same level as the existing retail pedestrian access (131‐139 Quay Street). The raised pavement will be designed to be fully compliant for mobility impaired users by way of ramps at both the eastern and western ends. Access to Princes Wharf will be maintained during the construction stage. It is not proposed to close access for vehicles and/or pedestrians at any stage of the temporary works. General vehicle access into Princes Wharf will be maintained by way of at least one entry, in addition to one exit lane at the intersection with Lower Hobson Street. In order to maintain access to the wharf, indicative staging suggests that the works on the western end will be undertaken in two phases.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Phase 1 will commence on the eastern side of the existing centre line of the Princes Wharf access. This will enable two lanes to be provided on the western side for entry and exit of pedestrians and vehicles. During phase two, the temporary works will move to the western side of the Princes Wharf access, with two traffic lanes provided on the eastern side of the current access. This staging will be confirmed by the contractor. Throughout the temporary works period, the existing right turn into Princes Wharf from Quay Street east will be temporarily prohibited. The restriction is required as it enables sufficient space to provide adequate capacity for all modes at the intersection of Quay Street and Lower Hobson Street. Removing the westbound shared through and right movement (movement to Viaduct and Princes Wharf) eliminates a traffic phase. This signal phase time can then be shared to other movements, increasing the capacity for all other modes through the intersection under the temporary control. Access to Princes Wharf will be maintained via Lower Hobson Street with a dedicated shared through and left lane provided for the duration of the works. Exiting the wharf, all movements will be maintained for vehicles, that is left, right and through movements. Refer to the ITA (Appendix L) for further details regarding traffic management during construction works. It is important to note in terms of the existing traffic environment in the Quay Street area that as road controlling authority AT has a wide range of powers to control traffic movements (e.g. turning directions, directions of travel) under Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974. For example, in terms of the proposed closure of traffic lanes, and limiting the ability to turn right onto Quay Street from Commerce Street, Gore Street and Britomart Place, these traffic movements could be changed by AT without the need to obtain resource consents.

3.4.2 Trees There are five pōhutukawa trees (labelled 18‐22 on the drawings in Appendix C) located in the northern extent of the footpath, within the Princes Wharf section of works. Three options are proposed in order of preference to manage the trees within the Quay Street seawall works area: (1) retain and protect, (2) temporary relocation, or (3) remove and replace. Refer to the Arborist Report (Appendix Q) for further detail regarding the three proposed procedures, including the management and protection measures for trees to be retained in situ and temporary relocated. The alignment of the proposed works and the construction methodology has been assessed in detail to identify whether there are any opportunities to avoid direct conflict with any of the trees. This has resulted in the alignment of the seawall being amended to provide for the retention on site of Tree 18. The Arborist Report outlines the measures that will be used to appropriately protect trees retained in situ during construction works. Tree 22 is growing within a movable planter pit that can be moved from site and is not protected due to its dimensions (being less than 4 m). Trees 19 to 21 are proposed to be temporarily relocated and reinstated as these trees are likely to be compromised through the construction of the seawall (i.e. will be in direct conflict with machinery required to install the piles). A number of factors will be used to determine whether relocation is a viable option, and these are detailed in the Arborist Report. This includes; the health of the tree, the time of year for optimal relocation (preferably June to August), determining if the tree can be successfully uplifted (‘effective relocation’), the viability of the rootball; and the practicality of storage.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

If relocation is not a viable option, then the option (being the least desirable) is to remove and replace. Any permanent tree removals will only occur where it can be demonstrated that the stability and/or the long‐term health of the tree is likely to be compromised by the works, and it has been agreed that it is not feasible to temporarily relocate the tree. In the unlikely event that this will occur, the tree will be removed to ground level with the stumps and roots removed during the general construction works. A tree management process is also outlined in the Arborist Report, which will allow AT to continue to assess options for management of the trees through the detailed design and construction process, applying the management procedures in order of preference, to enable trees to remain on site during construction if at all possible. The proposed reinstatement of trees is set out in Section 3.8.1. AT offers a condition of consent that requires the proposed tree relocation and tree protection methodologies adhere to the management processes, protocols and methodologies that are outlined in Appendix Q.

3.4.3 Built heritage features The proposed palisade wall alignment is located south of the HH‐EOP for the AHB Fence on the northern side of the footpath. The proximity of the proposed wall alignment to the AHB Fence as well as the WWI Memorial Beacon means that these heritage places need to be protected in situ during construction. The staging methodology prepared by Alta shows construction locations for plant adjacent to the two westernmost fence pylons situated in the Princes Wharf Road Reserve (See Appendix O). There is no proposal to temporarily remove any heritage features during the construction of the seawall. Two other sites which are not scheduled but identified in the built heritage field assessment are the Maritime Museum, including the Launchmans’ offices, and Princes Wharf. The former Ports of Auckland Building is not scheduled or listed, but is identified in the Harbour Edge conservation plan by Salmond Reed Architects as having heritage significance (Salmond Reed, 2013). The Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics (Appendix K) sets out the performance standards for the Seawall Project and best practicable options for noise and vibration management, which will be implemented throughout the construction period (Marshall Day Acoustics, March 2018). On the basis of the monitoring process set out in the CNVMP, the Princes Wharf section will need to include monitoring of vibration effects on the AHB Fence. Monitoring of works adjacent to the WWI memorial will also be required. Visual condition surveys for the AHB Fence and WWI would be required prior, during and (should an exceedance event occur) post construction. Before any construction works commence, the following heritage enabling works are proposed to be undertaken:  Undertake a pre‐works survey for the heritage features within proposed area of works;  Isolation and redirection of utilities serving built heritage structures if required in this instance e.g. harbour fence lighting pylons; and  Temporarily protect built heritage features within proposed work areas, such as with temporary physical barriers, in accordance with the Built Heritage Construction Management Plan (BHCMP) prepared by Plan Heritage. Refer to Section 3.8.2 and Appendix P for proposed remediation works to heritage features once the seawall has been constructed.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

3.4.4 Site preparation and construction access A number of activities will occur to prepare and establish the site before any construction works commence. The site will be enclosed by a solid timber hoarding (which will also act as an acoustic barrier), approximately 2.4 m high. Existing concrete pavers will be lifted and stored offsite to be re‐ laid on completion of works, and a metalled surface of 0.4‐0.5 m thick laid to provide a level area for plant to operate on. An 11 m wide working space and lay down area will be established in the vicinity of the seawall. This will allow construction traffic to enter the site at the western end and proceed through the site, exiting at the eastern end. An internal access lane is to be provided for trucks to manoeuvre to the appropriate location within the site. Where construction traffic enters and exits the site, they will be crossing the cycle lane, with traffic control being required each time a vehicle crosses the cycle way. The number of construction vehicles accessing the site is based on each of the main stages of the works (piling, capping beam excavation and capping beam concrete). It has been estimated that a daily truck movement of between 10 and 12 trucks per day is likely. During peak periods, it is estimated that this would equate to between one to a maximum of two truck movements per hour. Construction trucks will travel via Lower Hobson Street and enter the site from Quay Street west. This will provide good access from the State Highway network and will restrict the number of construction vehicles passing through the city. It is not anticipated that an office will be provided in the construction area on Quay Street. It is more likely that a site office will be sought in close proximity to the construction area. A maximum of 15 staff working at the site at any one time is expected. A contractor’s yard (comprising a lunchroom, portable toilet, storage container etc.) will be established within the fenced construction area, and will likely be relocated within the area as works progress. Before construction works commence, procedures will be established for erosion and sediment control, stormwater and groundwater management. Refer to Section 3.7.1 and Section 3.7.2 respectively for further information.

3.4.5 Relocation of services and utilities Construction of the proposed in‐ground palisade wall will require diversion of nearby underground services. In this area the services identified on available service plans include power, telecom, stormwater, and sanitary sewer. During services relocation, working areas up to 50 m in length may need to be established, requiring temporary diversion of both traffic and pedestrians. Plant such as 10‐12 tonne excavators would be required as well as hydro excavation where working around live services. This proposed services relocation work is based on high level discussions with the relevant service providers and from previous experience of working around similar services in this area. Where possible, it is proposed to locate and protect the existing services prior to and during the seawall works. This will allow for minimal disruption to the service providers network. Where a length of service is clashing with the proposed seawall or will likely be affected by the proposed work, (notably Chorus communications ducts and water supply mains), it is proposed to relay the affected services along the edge of the seawall construction trench or relocate the service to provide an acceptable clearance from the seawall prior to the works. Utility providers will be consulted to agree the design and construction of any utility diversions. High level discussions have already been undertaken with affected service providers. Refer to Appendix I for the consultation log.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

A number of utilities may also require temporary relocation. This includes lighting columns, way‐ finding signs, seating, rubbish bins, up lights and emergency telephones.

3.5 Palisade wall construction The proposed construction methodology is outlined below. This is based on the Construction Methodology Report (Appendix D) which contains detail relevant to the piling methodology, working space requirements, staging and programme. Due to site constraints, there are a number of factors that have been considered to allow the works to be undertaken as efficiently as possible, as well as mitigating adverse effects associated with the construction process. These include traffic management, the relocation of services, and the temporary relocation of trees (where required), as noted above. A final methodology will be determined once a contractor has been appointed to undertake the construction works.

3.5.1 Plant and equipment The following plant and equipment is expected to be used during construction:  1 x 60 – 80 Tonne Piling Rigs;  Various Piling Tools such as core barrel;  1 x 100 Tonne Crawler Crane;  1 x 15 Tonne Excavator;  1 x Polymer Plant (equivalent to 40ft container);  1 x Muck bin (equivalent to 20ft container);  Storage / settling tanks for water management;  1 x 20 ft storage container;  1 x 20 ft office;  1 x 20 ft lunchroom;  1 x portable toilet; and  1 x Concrete Pump.

3.5.2 Piling The piling consists of installing approximately 0.9 m diameter concrete reinforced piles at approximately 2.5 m centres. There are several potential methods available for installing the piles, which is dependent upon the equipment available to the contractor. A detailed piling methodology is outlined in the Construction Methodology Report (Appendix D). In general, the piles will be constructed by installing a steel casing and removing spoil immediately below to advance the casing. The method of drilling the ground to advance the casing will be dependent on the soil conditions and contractors equipment. Auger drilling is appropriate through soil, while core barrel and down‐hole hammer drill are common methods to drill through basalt boulder fill that is likely to be present close to the seawall. A steel reinforcing cage will be lifted into the piles hole and concrete will then be placed in the pile hole using tremie pour techniques and the casing removed as the concrete is placed.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

3.5.3 Capping beam Installation of the capping beam will commence once all piles have been installed, or once a section of piles has been installed and adequate working space is available. The capping beam will be approximately 1.3 m wide by 0.8 m deep, thus requiring the excavation of a trench at least 2.5 m wide by 2.0 m deep (if shoring is used). This will allow for enough working space for blinding, backfill above the capping beam and temporary works. The excavation could either be battered if enough space was available, which would result in the excavation being up to 5 m wide, or temporary shoring such as trench shields could be utilised to provide a narrower trench. Further details of the capping beam installation is included in the Construction Methodology Report (Appendix D).

3.6 Earthworks and erosion and sediment control

3.6.1 Proposed earthworks The proposed earthworks volume to construct the in‐ground palisade wall for the Princes Wharf section of the seawall will be approximately 2,100 m3 and cover a surface area of 1,200 m2. This includes earthworks for battered trenches if proposed by the appointed contractor.

3.6.2 Controls Potential environmental effects from the proposed construction include silt generation as a result of excavation, piling, temporary stockpiling activities and general truck movements entering and exiting the works area. An Adaptive Environmental Monitoring and Management Response Plan (AEMMRP) has been prepared (Appendix T). Proposed sediment control measures will mitigate the risk of sediment‐ laden water entering the adjacent pavement beyond the construction site, the existing stormwater network in the road corridor and potential discharge directly from the construction area into the harbour marine environment. It is proposed that one of the traffic lanes within the construction site will be used as a one‐way access route for tip trucks carting material to and from the site. A stabilised entrance way will be established at entrance and exit points of the construction site. Alternatively, the stabilised entrance/exit could be omitted if the route is separated from the rest of the site by perimeter bunding and the construction methodology refined to ensure no tracking of sediment within the access route or onto the main roads. Truck movements are anticipated to be between 10‐12 per day during piling works and capping excavation and back fill. Perimeter controls are proposed to delineate the site and contain sediment laden (‘dirty’) stormwater runoff within the works area and divert clean stormwater runoff from entering the works area. The temporary bund could be constructed of asphalt (subject to location), and should be checked, and remediated, if required, before any rain event. Appropriate management of stockpiles is also outlined in Appendix S. All controls are to be constructed and maintained in accordance with Auckland Council Guideline Document 2016/005 Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region (GD05, 2016).

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

3.7 Stormwater and groundwater management The proposed management of stormwater and groundwater is provided in the AEMMRP (Appendix T).

3.7.1 Stormwater The perimeter bund mentioned in Section 3.6 will be used to both isolate the site from clean runoff and to ensure runoff from within the site is retained within the site boundaries. Stormwater catch pits adjacent to the site will be protected using silt socks to create a ‘ring fence’ or other inlet protection measures. The site will be maintained in a clean and tidy state so that any stormwater generated within the works area can be directed to existing stormwater catchpits located in the Quay Street road kerb and channel. Stormwater outfalls into the harbour immediately downstream of the site will be monitored daily for visible plumes and unexpected sediment discharge. Should fine sediment be encountered and silt plumes form, construction technique and associated erosion sediment control measures may need to be revised. The staging of works and construction of separate piles means there would be opportunity for this.

3.7.2 Groundwater Groundwater monitoring undertaken previously indicates that dewatering will be required during excavation and piling. (Groundwater level is similar to tidal fluctuations as discussed in Section 2.15). A number of discharge options are available to cater for the various levels of potential water contamination as well as to facilitate programme constraints. These are discussed in Appendix M and include discharging directly to the harbour; secondary treatment before discharging to stormwater and secondary treatment and discharge to wastewater. This will be dependent on groundwater testing results prior to discharge. Discharging to the harbour is a proposed option if groundwater testing results determine that the discharge will meet permitted activity requirements under the AUP (refer Rule F2.19.7 (A62)). Secondary treatment before discharging to stormwater includes treatment devices such as sediment tanks to allow sediment to settle. If required (i.e. contamination is present) stormwater will be batch dosed with the optimum dose of flocculants in the settlement tank until a clarity of 100 mm is achieved. If contamination testing produces a positive result (i.e. contamination is present), there may be the opportunity to discharge of it to the wastewater network. The contractor will need to apply for a trade waste permit for any discharge to the wastewater network. Refer to the Ground Contamination Assessment (Appendix R) (T+T, 2018) to see detailed ground contamination monitoring and testing standards and contingency measures for discharge of contaminated water. Additionally, piles will be separated to allow groundwater to flow, mitigating the geotechnical risk of instability associated with potentially damming groundwater landward of the seawall.

3.8 Reinstatement Upon completion of the construction works, previous ground levels will be restored and paving taken away during the enabling works will be reinstated. Where possible, the bedding sand and pavers that was removed during enabling works will be reused, in response to the request from iwi. Street furniture will be reinstated as well as any other utilities, which are required to be, located (e.g. rubbish bins and light poles etc.).

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

3.8.1 Trees As described in Section 3.4.2, it is likely that Trees 19‐22 will be directly affected by the line of works and will need to be temporarily uplifted, stored outside the work areas and reinstated in their existing locations once the seawall has been installed. As indicated, this project is the first part of a long‐term strategy to upgrade the Downtown area (the Downtown Programme). Resource consent would be sought separately for any change in location for the reinstatement of trees, as part of a separate project. For clarity, no changes are proposed to the existing locations of trees as part of this resource consent application. New tree pits are to be designed landward of the proposed post and panel wall. Consultation with Auckland Council’s Community Facilities in the design of the tree pits is proposed. The tree pits will allow for drainage, automated irrigation, appropriate soil volume to allow for a large mature tree and a load bearing pavement, which may require structural soil cells or similar. In most cases, the tree pit will be designed with a soil volume that reflects the potential size of the tree at maturity, though this measure should be negotiable dependant on site requirements. At any stage through the transplant process, if the tree declines and replanting will not be successful or the tree dies, an equivalent transplantable specimen tree will be supplied and planted. Refer to the Arborist Report in Appendix Q for further detail.

3.8.2 Built heritage features The following heritage remediation works are proposed following the construction of the seawall (refer Appendix P):  Remove temporary structures protecting built heritage places within the Project area, in accordance with the BHCMP;  Carry out post‐works visual condition survey of built heritage places within the Project area; and • Make good any damage to built heritage places or carry out routine cleaning/ maintenance to built heritage places within the Project area (if required). A BHCMP recommended as a condition of consent, as well as other conditions relating to the protection of historic heritage features. Refer to Appendix P for further detail.

3.9 Consideration of alternative options

3.9.1 RMA context Under the RMA an assessment of alternative methods and locations is required for activities likely to have any significant adverse effects (Clause 6(1)(a) of Schedule 4). Section 5 of this document concludes that the actual and potential effects associated with the Princes Wharf section are more than minor but they are not significant. Notwithstanding this, a Project Context and Options Assessment has been prepared by T+T (Appendix E)(Options Report) outlining the consideration of options process that AT has undertaken, and is summarised in this section.

3.9.2 Seawall options Consideration of seawall upgrade options has been undertaken over a number of years in different stages. The first stage involved considering whether the status quo (“do nothing”) option was acceptable. That is, whether the risk of failure of the seawall and the consequences of that failure would be acceptable given current and anticipated future conditions. AT and AC have concluded that

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

31 the risk associated with the status quo option is not acceptable and a decision was made to address the seismic vulnerability of the Quay Street Seawall to protect the road and services within it. The second stage was to consider the different options for the seawall upgrade once it was determined that the status quo option was not acceptable. Upgrade options were thoroughly considered through multi‐criteria assessment (MCA) processes and a subsequent post‐MCA option development phase. A total of 22 options were initially considered that fit into three main categories:  Strengthening behind the existing seawall;  Strengthening or replacing the existing seawall; and  Building a new wall or berm in front of the existing seawall. The options were refined further and in order to achieve the seawall upgrade within the required timeframes, as well as provide a robust and cost effective solution, which minimised environmental effects, the design options for the three sections of the seawall considered in the Options Report were:  Princes Wharf – Palisade wall landward of the existing seawall;  Ferry Basin – Post and panel wall seaward of the existing seawall; and  Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf – Palisade wall landward of the existing seawall. The preferred options were selected because they are likely to have less effects on the environment in some areas compared to alternative options, and the selected options provide several benefits over other options considered. The third stage involved refinement of the preferred options for the current upgrade project. AT progressed with preliminary design, construction planning and assessments of effects for the proposed walls concurrently and iterative adjustments were made to determine the design for which resource consent is being sought. This collaborative process resulted in adjustments to the design, including location of the proposed walls, and construction methodologies that minimise the potential for effects, while still achieving the project’s desired technical outcomes.

3.9.3 Princes Wharf preferred option Following selection of the preferred option, AT progressed with preliminary design, construction planning and assessments of effects for the proposed walls. These activities were undertaken in parallel, with iterative adjustments made to determine the design for which resource consent is being sought. Design refinements for the Princes Wharf section included:  Changing the proposed palisade wall alignment to avoid one of the trees (labelled Tree 18 on the resource consent drawings) that the arborist considered unlikely to survive temporary relocation, in accordance with the first preference for tree management described in the Arborist Report (Appendix Q), which is to retain and protect trees on site;  Lowering of the capping beam to accommodate tree roots when trees are re‐instated;  Changing the wall alignment to minimise impacts on nearby services;  Reduction in the extent of the proposed construction area to accommodate pedestrian and cycle access adjacent to 131‐139 Quay Street and maintain general traffic and bus lanes on Quay Street; and  Selection of a base‐case piling methodology that minimises noise and vibration and subsequent setting of project vibration limits on this basis.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

It is considered that further adjustment of the wall alignment to sit outside of the tree root zones;  If located to the north of the root zone, may result in prohibitive construction issues associated with relocation of services and the proximity to the ANZ Building located at 131‐ 139 Quay; and  If located to the south of the root zone, may compromise the effectiveness of the seismic upgrade, and result in prohibitive traffic management issues.

3.9.4 Conclusion Given the condition of the existing seawall, stability considerations, seismic vulnerability and results of risk assessment for the existing seawall, as well as the road and services it supports, AT and AC have concluded that the risk associated with the status quo option (“do nothing”) is not acceptable. A decision was made to address the seismic vulnerability of the Quay Street Seawall to protect the road and services within it. The preferred options were selected because they are likely to have less effects on the environment in some areas compared to alternative options, and the selected options provide several benefits over other options considered. These options have been further refined in consultation with technical specialists and key stakeholders to determine the design for which resource consent is sought. For the Princes Wharf section, a palisade wall was selected as the preferred option, and a number of design refinements have been made during the concurrent design and expert assessment process.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

4 Resource consent requirements

4.1 Introduction The requirements for resource consent are determined by the rules in both the AUP, the Coastal Plan and the regulations in the NES Soil. The AUP became operative in part on 15 November 2016. Those provisions with no outstanding appeals are now operative, with the exception of the Regional Coastal Plan component of the AUP which requires the sign‐off of the Minister of Conservation before it becomes operative. For this reason, the Coastal Plan is relevant to this application. Notwithstanding this, as the AUP regional coastal plan provisions are well advanced through the process to becoming operative they should be accorded significant weight in this assessment. The AUP and Coastal Plan rules which apply are determined by the zoning of the site, any identified limitations in the plan and the nature of the activities proposed. The zoning and planning limitations applying to the project area are presented in Table 4.1. The site is identified on the AUP maps and the Coastal Plan planning maps provided in Appendix B. This section sets out the resource consent requirements pursuant to the AUP, the Coastal Plan and the NES Soil, as well as providing detail of the relevant permitted activity rules that apply to the proposed works. A detailed assessment of the relevant standards/conditions in the AUP, Coastal Plan and NES Soil is provided in Appendix F. Resource consent is being sought to enable the proposal (as described in this report) and the application intends to include all necessary consents for those activities to occur. The following may not be an exhaustive list and if further consent matters are identified post lodgement of the application, these should also be considered as forming part of the application. This section also provides comments on other requirements outside of the RMA, specifically, the need for an archaeological authority under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (HNZPTA).

Table 4.1: Zoning and planning notations

Zoning / planning notations Comment Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in part Legal road; unzoned The proposed works are located entirely within the legal road reserve. Historic Heritage Overlay Extent of Place (HH‐ The Auckland Harbour Board Fence (AHB Fence) is EOP) – ID 1915 Auckland Harbour Board Fence identified as a Category A heritage place, with the entire fence, including panels, pylons, handrails and gates identified as the primary features. Works are proposed that affect the AHB Fence and therefore the Historic Heritage Overlay Extent of Place (HH‐EOP) for the AHB Fence (also referred to as the “red fence”) is applicable to this section of works. Historic Heritage Overlay Extent of Place (HH‐ The World War I Memorial Beacon is identified as a EOP) – ID 2727 World War I Memorial Beacon Category A heritage place, with the memorial structure identified as the primary feature. Infrastructure: City Centre Port Noise overlay This overlay requires buildings accommodating activities sensitive to noise to be insulated to achieve an internal noise level appropriate to the activity. No

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Zoning / planning notations Comment Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in part new buildings accommodating activities sensitive to noise are proposed and accordingly, this overlay is not applicable to the proposal. Macroinvertebrate Community Index – Urban The Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) is a guideline for freshwater ecosystem health. No discharges are proposed to freshwater, therefore this is not applicable to the proposal. Council GeoMaps Layers (non‐statutory) & Other Identified Features Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA) Applies to land, which is at an elevation less than 7 m above mean high water springs (MHWS) if the activity is within 40 m of MHWS and in the Inner Harbours or Inner Hauraki Gulf. The site landward of the existing seawall is in the CEHA. Sediment Control Protection Area Applies to the area 100 m landward of the coastal marine area under the AUP.

4.2 Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in part Resource consent requirements under the AUP are provided in Table 4.2 below. An assessment against the relevant standards is provided in Appendix F. Overall, the activity status under the AUP is a restricted discretionary activity.

Table 4.2: Resource consents required under the AUP

Rule reference/description Proposed activity/assessment Activity status D17 Historic Heritage Overlay D17.4.1 Activity Table (A9) Modifications within the HH‐EOP Restricted discretionary “Modifications to, or restoration There will be minor works within the HH‐ activity of, buildings, structures, fabric or EOP during construction. This will include features of a scheduled historic removal of the existing pavement within heritage place, except where this area. There are no applicable provided for as a permitted, standards. controlled or restricted discretionary activity in another rule in this overlay”, is a restricted discretionary activity. D17.4.1 Activity Table (A11) and Temporary construction‐related building’s Restricted discretionary C1.9(2) within the HH Overlay activity “Temporary buildings and Temporary buildings and structures may structures, including structures include construction fences, acoustic walls, accessory to temporary traffic management barriers, erosion and activities”, within the HH – EOP sediment control devices, porta cabins, and for Category A and B places, are other construction‐related structures. permitted, subject to compliance As the buildings and structures will be in with the standards in D17.6. place longer than 21 consecutive days in any 60 day period (standard D17.6.6(c)), consent is required as a restricted discretionary activity in accordance with C1.9(2).

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Rule reference/description Proposed activity/assessment Activity status D17.4.1 Activity Table (A15) Signs in Category A or B HH‐EOP Restricted discretionary “Signs not otherwise provided for It is likely there will be temporary signage activity as a permitted activity” is a to direct traffic within HH‐EOP. There may restricted dictionary activity. also be other signage (i.e. noticeboards) to inform the public of the project. Identification and safety signs are permitted under A13, however it is possible that not all permitted activity standards under D17.6.7 will be met. This relates to signs exceeding 0.5m2 and signs being attached to heritage features. Accordingly, a precautionary approach is being taken and will be applied for as a restricted discretionary activity. E7 Taking, using damming and diversion of water and drilling E7.4.1 Activity Table (A20) Dewatering of capping beam trenches and Restricted discretionary “Dewatering of groundwater level pile drilling activity control associated with a Groundwater will be encountered during groundwater diversion authorised pile drilling and may also be encountered as a restricted discretionary (at high tide) during the excavation of the activity under the Unitary Plan, capping beam trenches. It is proposed to not meeting permitted activity pump, treat and appropriately discharge standards or is not otherwise any water encountered during listed” is a restricted discretionary construction. activity. The water take will not meet the permitted activity standards as the water take will be Rules in Activity Table E7.4.1 longer than 30 days (E7.6.1.6(2)). specifies the activity status in relation to the taking, using, damming and diversion of surface water and groundwater in accordance with section 14(1) and section 14(3) of the RMA. E7.4.1 Activity Table (A28) Groundwater diversion from capping Restricted discretionary “The diversion of groundwater beam trenches activity caused by any excavation Groundwater diversion associated with the (including trench) or tunnel that capping beam trenches will not comply does not meet permitted activity with Standard E7.6.1.10 (5)(a) or (6)(b). This standards or not otherwise listed” relates to the edge of the excavation that is a restricted discretionary extends below natural groundwater level activity. being within 2 m of a building (being the AHB Fence) (based on an excavation depth Rules in Activity Table E7.4.1 of 2 m) and within 10 m from a scheduled specifies the activity status in Historic Heritage Overlay. relation to the taking, using, Note: The diversion of groundwater damming and diversion of surface associated with piling is exempt from water and groundwater in Standards E7.6.1.10 (2) to (6) (as piles up to accordance with section 14(1) 1.5 m in external diameter are exempt). and section 14(3) of the RMA. E25 Noise and Vibration E25.4.1 Activity Table (A2) Construction vibration Restricted discretionary activity

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Rule reference/description Proposed activity/assessment Activity status “Activities that do not comply Rule A1 permits activities that comply with with a permitted activity all the relevant permitted activity standard” is a restricted standards, being E25.6.1 and E25.6.30. The discretionary activity. Noise and Vibration assessment (Appendix J) finds that there is potential that Standards E25.6.30(1)(a) (cosmetic building damage) and E25.6.30(1)(b) (vibration amenity threshold) will not be met, and resource consent is therefore required as a restricted discretionary activity under Rule A2. E26 Infrastructure E26.4.3.1 Activity Table (A84) Trimming of tree branches Restricted discretionary “Tree trimming or alteration that Through the relocation process trees may activity does not comply with Standards require pruning to be undertaken. There is E26.4.5.1” is a restricted a possibility that pruning may not meet the discretionary activity permitted activity standard at all times (E26.4.5.1). Accordingly, consent is applied for as a restricted discretionary activity. E26.4.3.1 Activity Table (A88) Works within the protected root zone Restricted discretionary “Works within the protected root If any of the trees can be retained during activity zone not otherwise provided for” construction, it is likely works will be within is a restricted discretionary the dripline of the tree, in particular Tree activity. 18 and 21. It is likely that Standard E26.4.5.2 will not be met and therefore does not meet permitted activity standard E26.4.3.1 (A87). Accordingly, consent is conservatively applied for as a restricted discretionary activity. E26.4.3.1 Activity Table (A92) Relocation of trees Restricted discretionary “Alteration or removal of trees 4 There are three trees within the road (at activity m or more in height and/or 400 least 4 m in height) will likely need to be mm or more than girth”* is a altered and/or temporarily relocated for restricted discretionary activity. the duration of the works. It is proposed to reinstate any trees that have been *(PC4 – see modifications) relocated once works are completed. Consent is sought to relocate Trees 19‐21.

(Tree 22 is less than 4 m and can be removed as a permitted activity). E26.6.3.1 Activity Table (A115) Earthworks in the HH‐EOP (dp) Restricted discretionary “Earthworks for network utilities A small portion of the earthworks fall activity and electricity generation that do within the HHEOP for the AHB Fence. The not comply with the standards in proposal will not comply with Standards E26.6.5.2” is a restricted E26.6.5.2 (14) (15) and (17). These controls discretionary activity in the HH‐ relate to depth, volume and area of EOP. earthworks, as well as proximity to any building or structure within a scheduled historic heritage place.

E30 Contaminated land

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Rule reference/description Proposed activity/assessment Activity status E30.4.1 Activity table (A6) Discharge of contaminants due to Controlled activity “Discharges of contaminants into disturbance of potentially contaminated air, or into water, or onto or into soils land not meeting permitted The proposed work involves the activity Standard E30.6.1.1; disturbance of potentially contaminated E30.6.1.2; E30.6.1.3; E30.6.1.4; or soils. The discharge of contaminants from E30.6.1.5” is a controlled activity. land not used for rural production activities is permitted under Rule A4 provided the The rules in activity table E30.4.1 standards in E30.6.1 are met. The ground specifies the activity status for the contamination assessment (Appendix P) discharge of contaminants from indicated that all soil acceptance criteria is contaminated land into air, or met under Table E30.6.1.4.1, however into water, or onto or into land previous testing in the area has indicated pursuant to section 15 of the that there are localised hotspots of RMA. contamination. Therefore, as a precaution this activity is assessed as a controlled activity standards. All of the controlled activity standards under E30.6.2 will be met. E36 Natural Hazards and Flooding E36.4.1 Activity table (A55) Relocation of existing services Restricted discretionary “Operation, maintenance, It is expected that the relocation of services activity renewal, repair and minor necessary to allow for the construction of infrastructure upgrading, of the seawall will comply with the majority of infrastructure in the coastal standards. However it is possible that re‐ erosion hazard area, coastal alignment of services may be greater than 2 storm inundation area, and m from the existing location and therefore overland flow paths that does not will not comply with Standard E36.6.1.13 comply with Standard E36.6.1.13” (1)(a)(i). is a restricted discretionary activity.

4.3 NES for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil The Ground Contamination Report (Appendix P) identifies that past land uses/activities are included on the Ministry for the Environment’s (MfE’s) Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL). These activities potentially pose a risk to human health and the environment (refer Section 2.10). NES Soil regulations apply to proposals to change the use or disturb soils at the site. Table 4.3 below outlines the resource consent requirements for the proposed works under the NES Soil.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Table 4.3: Resource consents required under the NES Soil

Regulation Proposed activity/ assessment Activity status 10 Restricted discretionary A Ground Contamination Assessment Restricted activities containing a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) discretionary activity (1) This regulation applied to an has been completed and is included in activity in any of regulation Appendix R. While previous studies have 5(2) to (6) on a piece of land suggested the area is not contaminated described in regulation 5(7) there is data to suggest that there are hotspots of contamination. Soil disturbance or (8) that is not a permitted will exceed permitted volume and duration. or a controlled activity. Conditions in subclause (3) will be able to (2) The activity is a restricted be met through implementation of the Site discretionary activity while Management Plan prepared by T+T (SMP), a the following requirements draft of which is attached to Appendix S of are met: this report. (a) a detailed site investigation of the piece of land must exist; (b) the report on the detailed site investigation must state that the soil contamination exceeds the applicable standard in regulation 7; (c) the consent authority must have this report; (d) conditions arising from the application of subclause (3) if there are any, must be complied with.

4.4 Permitted activities The activities in Table 4.4 have been identified as permitted activities under the AUP and the Coastal Plan. An assessment against the relevant standards is provided in Appendix F.

Table 4.4: Permitted activities relevant to the proposed activity under the AUP and Coastal Plan

Rule Proposed activity Comment on compliance AUP Rules E11 Land disturbance – Regional E11.4.2 Activity Table (A13) The temporary discharge of treated The general standards under “The temporary diversion and sediment laden water E11.4.2 will be complied with damming of surface water The rules in Activity Table E11.4.2 and the discharge of treated specifies the activity status for sediment laden water from damming, diversion and the any land disturbance that discharge of treated sediment complies with all relevant laden water from any land use

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Rule Proposed activity Comment on compliance permitted activity standards” pursuant to section 14 and 15 of (E11.4.2). the RMA. E24 Lighting E24.4.1 Activity Table (A1) Lighting during construction Construction lighting will comply Activities that comply with all with permitted activity standard the relevant permitted E24.6.1 activity standards is a permitted activity. E25 Noise and vibration E25.4.1 (A1) Construction noise Construction noise from work Activities that comply with all within the road will comply with the relevant permitted permitted activity standards E25.6 activity standards are a permitted activity. E26 Infrastructure E26.5.3.2 Activity Table (105) Earthworks (rp) 1,200 m2 General standards under E26.5.5.2 Earthworks up to 2,500 m2 are met within the Sediment Control Protection Area other than for maintenance, repair, renewal, minor infrastructure upgrading is a permitted activity (subject to compliance with E26.5.5.2 General Standards). E26.5.3.1 Activity Table (A95 Earthworks (dp) 1,200 m2 and General standards under E26.5.5.2 and A96) 2,100 m3 are met Earthworks up to 2,500 m2 and 2,500 m3, other than for maintenance, repair, renewal, minor infrastructure upgrading is permitted (subject to compliance with E26.5.5.2 General Standards). E31 Hazardous substance E31.4.1 Activity table (A5) The use and storage of hazardous The hazardous substances stored Use, storage and disposal of substances in the legal road and used for the project will be less hazardous substance reserve than the permitted thresholds, and subclasses 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 6.1D, the standards will be met 6.1E, 9.1D and 9.2D is permitted in all zones, subject to compliance with E31.6 standards. E36 Natural hazards and flooding E36.4.1 Activity table (A53) Reinstatement of pedestrian and This activity is permitted Construction, operation, road surfaces within the legal road, maintenance, renewal and in the: repair of road network  coastal erosion hazard area; activities within the legal road  coastal storm inundation 1 per or road formation width in cent annual exceedance

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Rule Proposed activity Comment on compliance the coastal erosion hazard probability (AEP) plus 1 m sea area, coastal storm level rise area; and overland inundation area, and overland flow paths flow paths is permitted. There are no applicable standards. E36.4.1 Activity Table (A54) Infrastructure within the road The seawall in the legal road is Infrastructure within roads is permitted and meets relevant a permitted activity, subject permitted activity standards to compliance with permitted activity standards E36.6.1.13. F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone Rule F2.19.7 Activity Table Discharges into the coastal marine Standards will be complied with, (62) area during construction through mitigation measures as Discharges into the coastal discussed in Section 5.11.2 marine area, which are not covered by another rule in the Unitary Plan and not covered by the Resource Management (Marine Pollution) Regulations is a permitted activity, subject to compliance with standard F2.21.1 and F2.21.8.6. Coastal Plan rules Rule 20.5.4: discharges into Discharge of contaminants Conditions under 20.5.4 will be the CMA (includes suspended solids, complied with. The discharge of treated stormwater) sediment laden water is a permitted activity subject to compliance with the conditions under 20.5.4.

4.5 Other requirements

4.5.1 General archaeological authority The HNZPTA provides overarching protection for archaeological sites, and in particular, no person may modify or destroy, or cause to be modified or destroyed, the whole or any part of an archaeological site, without the express authority of HNZ. An archaeological site is defined as any place in New Zealand, including any structure, that was associated with human activity that occurred before 1900 where there is evidence relating to the history of New Zealand that can be investigated by archaeological methods. An archaeological authority application will be lodged with HNZ to cover all proposed earthworks associated with the Seawall Project. This covers all recorded archaeological sites, as well as allows for any unrecorded sites during construction.

4.5.2 Signage Bylaw 2015 Signs that will be required during construction will comply with the Signage Bylaw 2015. No dispensation is required.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

5 Assessment of effects on the environment

5.1 Introduction The following assessment identifies and assesses the types of effects that may arise from the proposed works. This assessment also outlines the measures that the applicant proposes to avoid, remedy or mitigate any potential adverse effects on the environment. This assessment takes into account the relevant standards, matters of discretion and assessment criteria associated with the rules described in Section 4.2 and 4.3 above; refer also to Appendix F (assessment of planning standards) and Appendix G (matters of discretion and assessment criteria) that have been used as a guide in the following assessment. Actual and potential effects on the environment have been identified as including:  Positive effects;  Transportation effects;  Construction noise and vibration effects;  Historic heritage effects;  Archaeological effects;  Cultural effects;  Effects on trees;  Landscape and visual effects;  Geotechnical and groundwater diversion;  Land disturbance and water quality effects; and  Contaminated land effects; This chapter draws on information provided in the technical reports contained within Appendices E to Q.

5.2 Positive effects Quay Street provides an important connection for Auckland. The Quay Street seawall supports the heavily trafficked Quay Street, multiple service utilities, and many multi‐storey commercial buildings. Quay Street is particularly important for the city’s transport connectivity, including trains, buses, ferries, walking, cycle ways, and vehicles. The services it contains include high voltage power supply, Chorus and Vector communications, water mains supply, and sewer line. Quay Street and the services within it are considered essential facilities with post‐disaster function. The seawall provides essential support to Quay Street, and any failure of the seawall would compromise the transport function of Quay Street. Disruption of services could severely impact businesses and public infrastructure on Quay Street as well as potentially the wider downtown Auckland area. The existing seawall is almost 100 years old, is overall in average to poor condition, in need of repair, and has substantial ongoing maintenance requirements (refer to the Options Report in Appendix E). It was not designed for a seismic event, and the earthquake risk to the seawall has been assessed as high to extreme. This exposes Quay Street and the services, features and buildings it supports to significant risk. The proposal to upgrade the seawall to Importance Level 4 (IL4) with a robust design life of 100 years will provide significant resilience for the city’s transport and utility infrastructure. This resilience is in terms of seismic events.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

In terms of seismic resilience, the proposed wall will mitigate potential risks of ground surface subsidence and instability in a seismic event, limiting lateral deformations. Improvement of the seismic stability of Quay Street also provides a consequential improvement to the resilience, particularly seismic resilience, of surrounding buildings and infrastructure on Quay Street. By limiting displacement due to lateral spreading in order to protect Quay Street and the services within it, the buildings and infrastructure on Quay Street, including those on the southern side, will also have limited displacements in a seismic event. The Seawall Project is a key enabler for a suite of projects that will bring significant social and economic benefits to both Auckland and New Zealand. The Seawall Project is a critical element of the Downtown Programme, which is in turn a key enabler for the AC36 and APEC events, which will be held in 2021. All other projects within the Downtown Programme are dependent on the seawall upgrade, and as such, it lies on the critical path. Progressing the Seawall Project quickly and efficiently is important for successful delivery of the Programme by late 2020. Other potential positive effects resulting from the project include:  For any tree temporarily relocated, new tree pits will be created that will for drainage, automated irrigation, appropriate soil volume to allow for a large mature tree and a load bearing pavement, which may require structural soil cells or similar. In most cases the tree pit will be designed with a soil volume that reflects the potential size of the tree at maturity. This will enhance the potential for trees to grow to a greater maturity;  Removal of some contaminated soil from the city and further information about the material in the reclamation area, which may potentially assist future projects in the area; and  As described above, by limiting displacement due to lateral spreading by the seawall upgrade, this will have indirect positive effects on historic heritage features, by potentially reducing physical damage in a seismic event. There also may be an improved opportunity to access and inspect heritage buildings and other structures in the vicinity, to undertake emergency stabilisation, and repair of damage prior to any subsequent event. The importance of rapid accessibility for such assessment and stabilisation to prevent further damage was keenly demonstrated during the 2011 Christchurch earthquake (and subsequent seismic events).

5.3 Transportation effects

5.3.1 Approach to transportation effects assessment and mitigation An Integrated Traffic Assessment has been undertaken by Flow Transportation Specialists, and is contained in Appendix L. A number of construction projects are currently underway or planned throughout the CBD. These have been accounted for in the transportation assessment. The main project in close proximity to Quay Street is CRL. The CRL construction is undertaken in various distinct stages and relies upon other routes through the CBD to minimise disruption. Other construction projects taken into account include the Nelson Street Cycleway, AC36, Commercial Bay, and works on the Quay Street stormwater line. For the purposes of the existing environment for general traffic, the conditions relating to the CRL project resource consents allow no more than a 10‐minute delay when compared to the original travel base times. The ITA is based on the same original travel base times, and the design of the temporary layout and proposed mitigation measures have been prepared to ensure the CRL triggers will not be breached. These effects are measurable and are currently monitored through AT on a monthly basis. Delays of up to 10 minutes for general traffic are therefore part of the existing environment, against which this application is to be assessed.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

It is noted that Rule E26.2.3.2 in the AUP permits a wide range of road network activities on land with the legal status of road under section 315 of the Local Government Act 1974. This includes the construction, operation, use, maintenance and repair of road network activities (A67), the transportation of people, goods and services (A68) and public amenities (A70). Accordingly, works to enable the temporary revised layout of Quay Street during construction (and the effects of this) are permitted activities within the existing road and are therefore part of the permitted baseline. Modelling using the forecast SATURN model has been used to assess potential transportation effects during the construction, up to the year 2021. The modelling presents a conservative assessment of the probable effects.

5.3.2 Effects on pedestrians Pedestrian facilities on both the northern and southern sides of Quay Street will be provided, with the pedestrian footpath in front of properties 131‐139 Quay Street being maintained and reduced from 11 metres to 6 metres. This will be reduced further in some isolated locations (down to 3.1 m at its narrowest due to existing street furniture). Pedestrian access is maintained on the southern side of Quay Street, and remains unchanged. Access to Princes Wharf will be maintained during the construction stages, with pedestrian access also being maintained, vehicle access being provided via Lower Hobson Street from the south approach and retained for all facilities and restaurants on the northern side of Quay Street. An adequate level of crossing will be provided at Lower Hobson Street/ Quay Street intersection, with a pedestrian crossing across Princes Wharf access, pedestrian and cycle shared crossing to centre median at the intersection, and another shared crossing across Lower Hobson Street. Overall, the pedestrian accessibility and safety should not be compromised with the works. The adverse effects of the proposal on pedestrians are assessed as minor.

5.3.3 Effects on cyclists The existing bi‐directional cycleway will be maintained throughout the temporary works, and shifted further south of its current location. A 2.8 m width cycleway with 0.3 m setbacks on either side will be provided. Maintaining the cycleway, with its current widths and separation from traffic, ensures the safety, ease of access and cycle patronage of this well used facility. A pedestrian footpath will be provided on the northern side of the construction zone, which removes the conflicts with cyclists traveling along Quay Street. The separation of facilities is considered adequate and will potentially attain an increased Level of Service (LOS) for cyclists. The adverse effects of the proposal on cyclists are assessed as less than minor.

5.3.4 Effects on public transport The connection to public transport services will not be affected during construction, with accesses to both bus and ferry services maintained. A 3.2 metre westbound bus lane is provided to safeguard bus travel times and reliability. The provision of the bus lane will separate buses from general traffic, reducing the influence of any delays that maybe incurred. Bus stops associated with each of the bus routes are unchanged and remain in their current location, the bus stop at the PWC office (stop number 1346) will remain however indented into the existing kerb. Pedestrian access to the bus stops will enable similar levels of accessibility thus ensuring bus patronage is maintained.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

The adverse effects of the proposal on public transport are assessed as less than minor.

5.3.5 Effects on property access For the properties located on the northern side of Quay Street through the Princes Wharf section, no changes to property access will result as a consequence of the temporary works. Access to Princes Wharf will be maintained for general vehicles with one lane in one lane out maintained during the temporary works. Pedestrian access will remain as currently provided for. Property access to the southern side of Quay Street will remain as currently provided for pedestrians. Vehicle access to properties will be maintained however vehicle access points associated with properties 196‐200, and 188 Quay Street along with the PWC laneway will be restricted to left in left out during the temporary works. This is put forward to ensure delays are minimised for buses and general traffic, in addition reducing pedestrian conflicts. The adverse effects of the proposal on property access are assessed as minor.

5.3.6 Vehicle traffic effects The modelled effects on network operation are considered to be more than minor, with travel times predicted to increase by approximately two minutes or less over the length of the Customs and Quay Street corridors as well as the other key corridors in the city centre. In the evening peak hour, Quay Street travel times are predicted to increase by some two minutes in the eastbound direction largely as a result of the single lane from Lower Hobson Street into Quay Street. The predicted changes in travel time along the remaining corridors through the network are also considered minor increases, with less than half a minute changes noted. With regard to changes to traffic flow, modelling indicates that relatively modest changes in traffic patterns are predicted in both directions on Quay Street and Custom Street. The traffic capacity of Quay Street is shown to remain comparable to the base situation, and minimal traffic flow changes are predicted elsewhere on the network within the CBD. The effects of additional truck movements along Quay Street are considered minor and manageable, as only approximately one to two construction truck movements per peak hour are estimated. Overall, it is considered that the effects related to vehicle traffic times and queuing is a minor adverse effect.

5.3.7 Cumulative traffic effects Cumulative traffic effects have been assessed, assuming that the Princes Wharf, Ferry Basin and Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf sections are constructed concurrently. It further assumes the section of Quay Street in front of the Ferry Building is also restricted by the works. This is considered a worst‐case scenario. In regard to network operation, if all seawall sections are constructed concurrently the predicted travel times along Quay Street and Customs Street are as follows:  In the morning peak hour:  Eastbound: general vehicle travel times are predicted to be reasonably unaffected;  Westbound: general vehicle travel times are predicted to increase by about one minute 50 seconds on Quay Street and increase by about one minute on Customs Street;  In the evening peak hour:

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

 Similar to the existing situation, congestion at the intersection of Fanshawe and Nelson Streets is predicted to spill back onto both Lower Hobson and Fanshawe Streets, with large traffic flows travelling towards the SH1 Fanshawe Street on‐ramp;  In the westbound direction, travel times are predicted to increase by one to one minute 20 seconds on Quay Street and Customs Street respectively. The westbound constraint on Quay Street is the merge from two general traffic lanes to one traffic lane to the east of Britomart Place;  Bus travel times are predicted to be relatively unaffected as a result of the dedicated westbound bus lane between Tangihua Street and Commerce Street;  Quay Street travel times are predicted to increase by about three minutes in the eastbound direction, with the constraint being only a single lane from Lower Hobson Street to Quay Street; and  In both peak periods, other key corridors in the city centre are likely to be relatively unaffected as the extent of delays along Quay Street is relatively minor. In regard to traffic flow patterns, if all seawall sections are constructed concurrently the predicted traffic flow changes are as follows:  Relatively modest changes are predicted in both directions on Quay Street due to the capacity of the corridor remaining relatively similar to the existing corridor. Traffic flow changes are in the order of 100 to 250 vehicles per hour per direction, which equates to between 10 % and 25 % reduction per hour;  Minimal changes to traffic flow on Customs Street are predicted. Rather, modest traffic flow rerouting is likely throughout the city centre and state highway system; and  Minimal traffic flow changes are predicted on Customs Street, with the modest traffic flow rerouting likely through the city centre and state highway system. The cumulative adverse effects of the proposal on general vehicle travel times and queuing are assessed as minor.

5.3.8 Summary of transport effects The proposed transport management measures will maintain bus reliability, pedestrian connectivity, and property access, and will maintain the well‐used cycleway facility. The main transportation effects and proposed management/mitigation are summarised as follows:  The pedestrian facilities on both northern and southern sides of Quay St will be provided. Pedestrian accessibility is maintained with appropriate levels of service provided ensuring safety and access to public transport and properties are maintained through the works;  Maintaining the cycleway through the works site, ensure the cycleway patronage is maintained, ensuring a separate cycleway is provided maintain cyclists safety, while providing a viable alternative to the car with the extension of the Quay Street east and Nelson Street cycleway;  Provision of a westbound dedicated bus lane maintains bus travel times, and bus reliability. Bus stop locations are maintained in their existing positions to reduce confusion and to maintain patronage throughout the works period. No reductions in bus layover facilities are envisaged with the works;  Access to properties in close proximity to the works will be maintained throughout the works for both pedestrians and vehicles;  Vehicle capacity through the works site is maintained close to existing capacities, this reduces the probability of traffic transferring to alternative routes which are already experiencing

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

delays. It is predicted some vehicle queueing will occur in specific areas, however, in general, the vehicle delays predicted and predicted journey times along the Quay Street, and wider CBD cross routes, will be maintained to an acceptable level;  The proposed temporary works will not shift during the period in place, thus consistency in the layout will result in efficiency gains, and minimise confusion to users of Quay Street. Construction traffic associated with the works is considered minimal with a maximum of two trucks predicted to be generated in the peak hours and these are to utilise main routes to access Quay Street;  If the Princes Wharf, Ferry Basin and Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf sections are constructed concurrently, the increased congestion and travel times on Quay and Customs Streets is considered to be minor, with the greatest predicted delay being about three minutes on Quay Street in the eastbound direction. As traffic delays will be within the 10‐ minute threshold described in Section 5.3.1, the effects on general traffic will be no more than currently authorised in the Quay Street environment over the prescribed routes. Bus travel times on Quay Street and congestion on other key corridors in the city centre are likely to be relatively unaffected; and  As traffic delays will be within the 10‐minute threshold described in Section 5.3.1, the effects on general traffic will be no more than currently authorised in the Quay Street environment over the prescribed routes.

5.4 Construction noise and vibration effects The Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics and included in Appendix J provides comprehensive detail and assessment of the likely construction noise and vibration matters and effects as a result of the proposal. The findings are summarised in the sections below.

5.4.1 Noise

5.4.1.1 Project Standards for construction noise The works are within the legal road. The wider downtown area is primarily zoned Business City Centre, however, Hobson, Princes, Queens and Captain Cook Wharves are in the CMA. The applicable construction noise rules from the AUP and Coastal Plan are summarised in the Noise and Vibration Assessment. The Noise and Vibration Assessment proposes Project Standards for construction noise (Table 5.1), which set acceptable noise levels applying at 1 m from the façade of any building that is occupied during the construction work.

Table 5.1: Project Standards – Construction Noise

Day Time Maximum noise limit

LAeq (30min) LAFmax Monday‐Friday 0630‐2230 75 90 Saturday 0700‐2300 80 90 Sunday and public 0900‐1900 65 85 holidays Other times (night‐time) 60 75

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

The Project Standards define 16‐hour daytime periods, Monday to Saturday, inside which noisy works would be scheduled. Sundays, public holidays and night‐time periods on all days have lower noise limits. Quiet activities are permissible during these periods, but heavy civil works would not be undertaken. The exception is works in the road reserve (i.e. all works for the Princes Wharf section), in that these levels do not apply to work that is no more than 3 nights in duration that is required to be done at night‐time.

5.4.1.2 Predicted noise levels The Noise and Vibration Assessment outlines the key construction activities and their predicted airborne noise levels. Detailed noise contour modelling was undertaken for bored piling, as this is likely to be the loudest activity that would operate for extended periods. The modelling indicated that there is likely to be intermittent exceedances of the recommended daytime Project Standards during bored piling work. Such exceedances are common for inner city civil works projects due to the proximity and scale of buildings in the immediate environment, and resulting annoyance is expected to be alleviated with regular communication. The potential noise effects during bored piling activities are summarised as follows:  ANZ Building (131‐139 Quay Street): occupancies on the south side of the building include restaurants and retail shops on the ground floor, and commercial offices on the upper floors. The Princes Wharf section of the palisade wall is approximately 9 m from the southern façade of the ANZ building. Based on the façade construction, presence of sealed windows, and with doors closed, it is predicted that internal noise levels would be up to 45‐55 dB LAeq for short periods while the closest piles are installed, but reduce for subsequent piles further away; and  NZ Maritime Museum building (149 Quay Street): the adjacent occupancies include Burger Boy restaurant on the ground floor, and the Spirit of Adventure Trust offices and the Maritime Room bar/restaurant on the first floor. The western end of the palisade wall is approximately 4 m from the eastern end of the closest building on this site. Based on the façade construction and with windows and doors closed, it is predicted that internal noise levels would be up to 50‐60 dB LAeq for short periods while the closest bored pile is installed, but reduce significantly for subsequent piles further away. Other local short‐term activities, such as concrete cutting and rock breaking, would generally be up to 4‐5 decibels louder if undertaken at the same location. Prior consultation with representatives from the ANZ Building and NZ Maritime Museum building will enable an understanding of noise and vibration sensitive spaces and periods of use. Furthermore, regular communication during the works to inform occupants of scheduled works will be critical to manage the noise effects (e.g. advanced warning and timing of activities to enable alternative scheduling of meetings in offices overlooking the works). Further afield, or for other quieter activities, the residual effects are summarised as follows:  Short exceedances at commercial sites such as offices and restaurants (e.g. 204 Quay Street, PWC) would typically result in annoyance for building occupants during the day, but are unlikely to result in any long‐term significant disturbance;  For hotels (e.g. M Social), the effects of short term exceedances can vary depending on the time of day. For example, hotels can be particularly sensitive during the early morning prior to guests checking out (particularly 6.30 am‐7.30 am); and  Effects on residential apartments (e.g. Princes Wharf) can vary but are often unoccupied during the day.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

5.4.1.3 Cumulative noise effects There is the potential for cumulative noise effects from concurrent downtown construction including construction of other sections of the Quay Street seawall. Given the work site space constraints, close proximity of receivers and sequencing, any noise events that exceed the noise limits would almost always be dominated by one noise source. While the ambient noise level may increase due to concurrent construction projects, the cumulative noise level during any exceedance would generally increase by less than 1‐2 decibels. This is an indiscernible change in level. What may be apparent is that high construction noise levels are more frequent or regular.

5.4.1.4 Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan A Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan has been prepared in draft by Marshall Day Acoustics (Appendix K) outlining measures to ensure best practice methodology is used during the construction works to ensure that the construction works as far as practical and feasible meet the noise limits included in Table 5.1. Once the final detail of the works programme and methodology has been settled upon, this document will be updated. The final CNVMP will provide specific measures to mitigate adverse effects of exceedances of the noise levels in Table 5.1 on sensitive receptors. The requirement for the preparation of a final CNVMP document is offered as a condition of consent in order to ensure that the document is prepared and submitted to Council for approval, and subsequently adhered with, to ensure that the mitigation of construction noise is implemented. In addition, a condition is offered requiring compliance with the noise limits identified in Table 5.1 unless specifically provided for in the CNVMP.

5.4.1.5 Summary of noise effects Construction noise is predicted to generally comply with the relevant limits. Some activities are predicted to exceed these limits for brief periods at occupied buildings, primarily pile driving, rock breaking and concrete cutting activities. With the mitigation measures in the CNVMP, it is considered that the noise associated with construction can be appropriately mitigated to ensure that there is minor adverse effects on sensitive receivers.

5.4.2 Vibration As outlined in the Noise and Vibration Assessment, the AUP provides permitted standards for levels of vibration. The predicted levels of vibration from the potential piling methods involving sheet piling and rock breaking have the potential to generate high vibration levels at receivers within short distances. No appreciable vibration is predicted to be received from other construction activities. The Noise and Vibration Assessment identifies the following heritage features as being within the required cosmetic building damage setbacks for Heritage & Sensitive Structures:  AHB Fence (red lamp posts): will be protected and retained in their current location for the duration of the works. The vibration sensitive components of the AHB Fence are primarily the original cast iron features and glazing;  WWI Memorial Beacon: will be protected and retained in its current location for the duration of the works. The most vibration sensitive feature is the grout joints. The proposed BHCMP will ensure any vibration damage to the AHB Fence and WWI Memorial Beacon is identified and remedied where appropriate. There are no residential or commercial buildings within the relevant cosmetic building damage setbacks.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

With regard to amenity effects from vibration, while vibration would be perceptible by receivers in the wider project area, the effects are expected to be minimal provided that the activity is brief and the timing of the activity is communicated in advance. Affected parties should be advised that the vibration would be well below thresholds where building damage might occur. The Noise and Vibration Assessment outlines mitigation measures that could be included in the CNVMP, including vibration monitoring and communication of the timing of the activity in advance. In addition, AT proposes to undertake continuous building monitoring of 139 Quay Street, despite being outside of both the cosmetic building damage and amenity setbacks. With the final CNVMP including appropriate mitigation measures, it is considered that adverse vibration effects will be minor.

5.5 Historic heritage effects The proposed works have the potential to affect several historic heritage places. These effects may be physical, setting‐related, direct or indirect, and temporary or permanent in nature. There may also be cumulative effects arising where there are several concurrent or planned future projects to consider. Built Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by Plan.Heritage is provided in Appendix O and is summarised below.

5.5.1 Physical effects on built heritage During construction works there is a potential risk for accidental damage to occur to existing built fabric of heritage value. Scheduled or listed built heritage places which are in close proximity to the works and which may be affected are the existing Quay Street seawall; the AHB Fence pylons, the WWI memorial and the Maritime Museum/Launchman’s office Building. This risk can be avoided or mitigated through the adoption of a Built Heritage Construction Management Plan (BHCMP), a draft version prepared by Plan.Heritage and included in Appendix P which identifies and protects built heritage features through screening, hoarding, use of kickboards or scuff boards, etc. Larger structures can be screened with temporary Heras Fencing or similar where space permits. There is also a low potential for vibration effects from piling and construction of the seawall to impact on the above structures. Refer to Section 5.4.2 regarding vibration effects. The WWI memorial and certain elements of the Harbour Fence pylons may potentially be the most vulnerable to such affects. This can be monitored as part of a CNVMP, with any potential damage recorded and remediated following completion of construction works.

5.5.2 Effects on the setting of built heritage There will be a temporary change to the setting of the built heritage places within the Princes Wharf section project area as a result of the enabling and construction works, which will have no long‐term adverse effects.

5.5.3 Long‐term effects of built heritage Once works are completed, the Quay Street seawall will continue to serve the same function as it does now, although with improved resilience to a seismic event. The proposal will not result in any adverse long‐term change of use, or generate long‐term adverse effects, on the built heritage places within the vicinity.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

5.5.4 Cumulative effects Due to the staging of the works, there is potential for cumulative adverse effects to occur in regard to the temporary relocation of the AHB fence and Eastern and Western Ferry Shelters, which are proposed as part of the Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf and Ferry Basin Section works. These can be effectively managed through the adoption of a BHCMP, recommended as a condition of consent. However, the Princes Wharf proposal will not contribute to these cumulative effects, as all elements of the AHB Fence will remain in situ for the Princes Wharf Section. There may be cumulative effects to heritage features within the overall Seawall Project area if cosmetic damage occurs as a result of construction vibration, or other form of accidental damage. Again, this can be appropriately managed through adoption of controlled working practices and remediation protocols. The setting of built heritage will be adversely affected through the erection of site compounds. However, as they are temporary in nature the cumulative effects are assessed as minor.

5.6 Archaeological effects An archaeological assessment has been prepared by Clough and Associates, dated March 2018 (Appendix N). A summary of the effects is included below. The construction of the proposed palisade wall on the landward side of the existing Quay Street seawall in the Princes Wharf section, and any associated trenching for the relocation of utilities, will have some adverse effects on an area of early 20th century reclamation, and may impact on remains of the old Hobson Street Wharf (R11/2901) if any are present subsurface within the project area. However, the extent of previous modification for roading and service installation within Quay Street, and the limited footprint of the proposed works compared with the extent of the early 20th century reclamation areas, indicates that the adverse effects would not be significant. Previous trenching by Vector along the southern side of Quay Street has indicated a highly modified stratigraphy to depths of c.1.5 m, and did not expose any heritage features or artefacts, with the exception of former 20th century rail lines to the wharves. The shallow trenching for the palisade walls and any trenching required for utilities relocation are unlikely to expose any significant reclamation deposits or features. The piling would impact on more intact reclamation deposits, and possibly also on features or items at the interface between the reclamation deposits and the original sea floor, or remnants of the 19th century Hobson Street wharf, but there would be little possibility of establishing this, or recovering much information from the pile holes as casings will be used and little information could be recovered from examining the material extracted. The existing seawall will not be affected but will be left in situ. The early 20th century rail lines known to be present in some parts of Quay Street are just beneath the road surface. The rail lines were located more centrally within Quay Street in areas not affected by the proposed palisade wall, but it is possible that trenching for the wall may expose rail lines where they turned into the wharf, and utilities relocation trenching may also expose them in other areas within Quay Street. If short sections of rail line have to be removed, this would represent only a small proportion of the original rail system. Overall, the adverse effects of the proposed works on historic heritage values will be minor, and can be appropriately mitigated through archaeological recording to recover information relating to the reclamation history of downtown Auckland.

5.7 Cultural effects The proposed works are not within any areas formally identified as culturally significant. Engagement with Māori is an important principle of the Project, recognising that Tikanga Māori

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

51 encompasses a complex system of customs and values to conserve, manage and protect natural and physical resources. The applicant has discussed the project at two hui (14 February 2018 and 14 March 2018), with representation from a number of iwi authorities in Tāmaki Makaurau. A number of iwi indicated they have kaitiakitanga responsibilities within the project area, and expressed an interest to be involved in the project. A summary of this consultation and the issues raised is contained in Section 8 of this report. The issues raised included issues that apply to an area much broader than the Project area such as water quality, pollution, land ownership and Treaty settlement issues, as well as Project specific issues such as opportunities for ecological enhancement and environmentally friendly construction methods. Engagement with mana whenua will continue throughout the project lifecycle through the AT Mana Whenua Engagement Framework. Through this ongoing engagement, if any potential adverse cultural effects are identified from the proposal, these will be appropriately managed to ensure this level of effect is minor.

5.8 Effects on trees AT has proposed a hierarchy of three management procedures to manage the trees associated with the construction of the seawall, in order of preference; retain and protect, temporarily relocate, or remove and replace. Due to the construction requirements, many of the trees will require temporary relocation. As they are proposed to be uplifted, maintained for the duration of the works, planted back into a new specifically designed planter pit and provided aftercare maintenance thereafter, it is expected that the vitality and vigour of the trees will not be adversely affected long‐term. However, the Arboricultural Report prepared by Arborlab recommends a number of factors to contribute to viable and successful relocation, including optimal timing of relocations, pre‐relocation measures and optimal rootball size, which may not be achievable due to programme constraints. These factors may result in a determination to temporarily relocate a tree with suboptimal conditions, or a determination that a tree cannot be temporarily relocated and that it will need to be removed and replaced. If for an unforeseen reason the trees decline or die during the translocation or storage, or if relocation is not deemed practicable, they will be replaced with an equivalent sized transplantable tree. This may have a minor adverse effect through the benefits that mature trees provide, however, using the most equivalent sized replacement tree available, the long‐term potential adverse effects are likely to be negligible. Trees being retained on site will be protected through a tree protection methodology and physical barriers such as a temporary fence / wooden structure around the tree (refer Appendix Q). The works will be retained outside the sensitive root zone and the tree maintained for the duration of the works. There are no foreseen, unmitigated actions that are likely to adversely affect the health and safety of the trees. The proposed work is likely to affect five trees growing in the road reserve within the vicinity of the Princes Wharf palisade wall installation. It is likely that Trees 19, 20 and 21 will need to be temporarily relocated due to the work requirements. Tree 22 is growing within an existing relocatable planter box and can be easily stored outside the works site until such time as it can to be brought back. Tree 18 is to be retained and protected for the duration of the works. Overall, considering the management proposal, tree protection methodology and relocation methodology, the long‐term overall effects are likely to be less than minor.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

5.9 Landscape and visual amenity effects An assessment of the potential landscape and visual amenity effects anticipated from the proposed tree works associated with the upgrade of the Quay Street seawall has been undertaken by Boffa Miskell and is included in Appendix U. The assessment contained in the Landscape and Visual Amenity Assessment relates to the visual effects in relation to existing street trees specifically and considers both temporary, permanent and cumulative effects.

5.9.1 Temporary landscape and visual amenity effects Temporary effects are those effects which are not only associated with the construction works of the project, but also those interim effects which are generated until all trees are reinstated. It is noted that the trees may not be reinstated immediately after construction of the seawall due to efforts to achieve optimal timing of replanting and / or to ensure that trees are not replanted until other construction work in the area has been completed, for example, streetscape enhancement works associated with the Downtown Programme. Four trees are proposed to be temporarily relocated and reinstated and therefore no trees would be permanently removed from the site. With consideration to the effects on the character of the immediate vicinity, it is recognised that the trees, which are proposed to be temporarily relocated, are of a smaller size than tree 18 (which will be retained). They do however contribute to the amenity and character of the road reserve and are a valuable landscape feature of the streetscape. Nevertheless, it is recognised that this is a period of construction during which people will not be able to view or access and enjoy this section of harbour edge streetscape in the way they do at present, which will mean for most people the absence of those trees to be temporarily relocated during this period will not be missed. In terms of the wider character context, and as noted above, the site is largely contained visually from any distant public locations to the south, and with distant public locations to the north being restricted to Tree 18. Furthermore, any visibility from the east being typically confined to the adjoining section of Quay Street, or the vicinity of the Lower Hobson Street intersection. The level of change able to occur, within the immediate vicinity and wider landscape character is therefore very limited and is considered to result in very low adverse effects. After construction, if the trees have yet to have been reinstated, it is considered that the temporary landscape effects would be less than minor until such time as they are reinstated.

5.9.2 Permanent landscape and visual amenity effects As discussed above, the effects on the trees are principally considered to be temporary in nature. Once the project is complete, the trees will exist much as they were previously (in regard to location and appearance), as they would have either been retained and protected during the construction period, or reinstated to the same, or similar position. Given the proposal results in the permanent retention or reinstatement of all the existing pōhutukawa trees, the proposal avoids any permanent landscape or visual effects, being essentially benign with no or very little change to the character of the existing streetscape and waterfront context. It is recognised however that with any construction works taking place within the vicinity of a tree, and additionally any tree reinstatement (after temporary relocation), there are risks. These risks include tree damage, poor health or death. If tree replacement is required, the Landscape and Visual Amenity Assessment recommends that new trees must be of the same species and be either a mature transplant or nursery‐grown specimen with a canopy height of minimum 2.5 m at the time of planting to be of a height and scale that makes an immediate contribution to the streetscape. AT has proposed that, in the event that any tree replacements are required, that the replacement would be with an equivalent transplantable specimen.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

The permanent effects associated with the reinstatement of the existing trees is concluded as less than minor. In addition, the permanent effects associated with the new seawall is negligible, as the wall is under the road and therefore there will be no long‐term visual effects.

5.9.3 Cumulative landscape and visual amenity effects Construction across the entire project would physically affect up to 16 pōhutukawa trees along the northern side of Quay Street. The effects on the trees would vary and involve a combination of ‘retain and protect’, or ‘temporary relocation’ and ‘remove and replace’ measures. There is no permanent loss of any of these 16 trees proposed as part of the seawall upgrade project. Pōhutukawa trees are not a rare occurrence in coastal locations within Auckland, however it is the urban setting in combination with their representative and scenic value which contributes to their cumulative landscape value in this setting. The temporary cumulative effect upon the landscape character of the area is considered to be less than minor during construction and minor until all trees are reinstated. It is considered that many viewing audiences within the site are stationary. Pedestrians, cyclists, and road users on the other hand would have the opportunity to view the entire extent of the project along Quay Street. In regard to the visual effects resultant from the effect on trees specifically it is considered that viewing audiences would experience less than minor visual effects during construction as their focus would be upon the construction activities rather than the temporary absence of the trees. After consideration, until all trees are reinstated, it is considered that the temporary adverse effects would be minor. Overall, the proposal avoids any permanent landscape or visual effects, being essentially benign with no or very little change to the character of the existing streetscape and waterfront context.

5.10 Geotechnical and groundwater diversion effects A Geotechnical and Groundwater Effects Report has been undertaken by T+T, and is contained in Appendix M. The construction and operational effects are summarised as follows.

5.10.1 Construction effects The geotechnical risks associated with constructing an in‐ground palisade wall are primarily associated with excavation of deep pile holes and pumping of groundwater from those holes, potentially inducing ground subsidence and instability. These risks are considered to be minor to negligible and can be managed through appropriate construction techniques. Pile holes are expected to be drilled in a hit and miss approach (i.e. a series of adjacent pile holes are not excavated at once) and then precast piles are expected to be installed. This will occur reasonably soon after excavation. Therefore, the time pile holes remain open is expected to be limited and ground surface subsidence and instability is therefore unlikely to be affected. Furthermore, piles will be approximately 0.9 m diameter with 2.5 m centre‐to‐centre spacing, and so have a limited spatial extent of excavation. This means the risk of ground surface subsidence and instability can be effectively managed by not excavating immediately adjacent piles at the same time. The proposed casing to be used during the construction of the palisade wall piles will provide temporary support to the pile holes and mitigate any risks of ground surface subsidence and instability. Pile casing also mitigates groundwater drawdown risks during construction. This is because it limits water flow from the surrounding ground into the pile hole during pumping, which has the potential to induce ground subsidence. Due to the proximity of piling works to the sea, pile casing would be sealed into underlying ECBF soil or rock to enable removal of water within the pile.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

This may not be practical, and as such the concrete may be poured within the pile below groundwater. Any pumping of groundwater from within the pile hole has the potential to locally depressurise groundwater within the surrounding soil. However, this is anticipated to occur over a short time period meaning drawdown of surrounding groundwater and resulting ground surface subsidence and instability is not expected. There are also geotechnical risks associated with excavation of the trench to construct the capping beam for the palisade wall. These risks will be mitigated during construction by battering back the excavation or providing temporary shoring and/or sheet piling, as indicated in section 3 above. The Geotechnical and Groundwater Effects Report concludes buildings won’t be affected by settlement. Notwithstanding this, AT propose to monitor the Ferry Building and 139 Quay Street during the works. They propose that a Building Monitoring Plan be provided as a condition of consent. In summary, geotechnical construction effects are primarily associated with construction impacts of ground surface subsidence and instability. Excavation of deep pile holes and pumping of groundwater from those holes also presents geotechnical risks. However, these risks can be managed, and appropriately mitigated with the standard construction practices that are proposed. Accordingly, the geotechnical construction effects are considered to be less than minor.

5.10.2 Operational effects Operationally, the proposed in‐ground palisade wall in the Princes Wharf section will improve the stability and resilience of Quay Street, particularly mitigating risks of ground surface subsidence and instability in a seismic event. This is discussed further in Section 5.2 in relation to positive effects. In relation to groundwater, there is no operational geotechnical risk of the proposed in‐ground palisade wall restricting the flow of groundwater. Piles for the proposed palisade wall will be separated to allow groundwater to flow through the wall alignment so that this risk is mitigated. Operationally, the proposed in‐ground palisade wall in the Princes Wharf section improves stability and resilience of Quay Street, particularly risks of ground surface subsidence and instability in a seismic event. There is also consequential improvement for buildings and infrastructure on Quay Street, including those on the Southern side. Piles are separated to allow groundwater to flow, mitigating the geotechnical risk of instability associated with potentially damming groundwater landward of the seawall. Overall, the operational geotechnical effects of the proposal are considered to be less than minor.

5.11 Land disturbance and water quality effects An assessment of the potential land disturbance and water quality effects of the proposal has been undertaken in an Adaptive Environmental Monitoring and Management Response Plan by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, and is contained in Appendix T. The land disturbance and water quality effects are summarised as follows.

5.11.1 Land disturbance effects Potential land disturbance effects from the proposal include silt generation as a result of excavation, piling, temporary stockpiling activities and general truck movements entering and exiting the works area. Sediment control measures for have been outlined in Section 2.10 of this report, and will include measures such as a stabilised entrance and exit point, perimeter bunding and stockpile management.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

The implementation of these measures will mitigate the risk of sediment‐laden water entering the existing stormwater network in the road corridor and potential discharge directly from the construction area into the harbour marine environment.

5.11.2 Water quality effects The proposed management of stormwater, groundwater and seawater is provided in the AEMMRP (Appendix T). Perimeter bunding will be used to both isolate the site from clean runoff and to ensure runoff from within the site is retained within the site boundaries. As a mitigation measure, stormwater catch pits adjacent to the site will be protected using silt socks to create a ‘ring fence’ or other inlet protection measures. Additionally, the land‐based site will be maintained in a clean and tidy state so that any stormwater generated within the works area can be directed to existing stormwater catchpits located on Quay Street. Stormwater and water in the harbour will be continuously observed throughout construction to monitor the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures. Water is also anticipated to be encountered during dewatering works, and there is potential for this water to be contaminated. As detailed in the AEMMRP, a number of discharge and treatment options are available to cater for various levels of potential water contamination. These include discharging directly to the harbour, secondary treatment before discharging to the stormwater network or discharging to the wastewater network. With the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, the adverse effects on water quality are considered to be less than minor.

5.12 Contaminated land effects An overview of ground contamination is included in Section 2.10 and a Ground Contamination Assessment prepared by T+T is included in Appendix P. As stated while there was no contamination found within the soil samples taken in the project area, previous testing for other works in the area found hotspots of elevated contaminants within the reclamation fill derived from industrial waste. A Site Management Plan has been developed by T+T (Appendix S) as a precautionary measure to provide appropriate procedures to be followed during works, particularly as contaminated material is encountered. The SMP sets out health and safety procedures for those undertaking the ground works relating to excavation, disposal, sediment, dust, odour, imported fill and decontamination. The exposure to these hazards are considered unlikely due to the short term nature of the proposed works and the likely low concentrations of contaminants. However, as there is known to be contamination in the area the potential effects will be managed and minimised as far as practicable.

5.12.1 Effects of contaminated soil disturbance on human health The potential risks associated with contaminated material to human health include the potential of contaminants entering the body through inhalation, ingestion or skin absorption during the works. The measures outlined in the SMP in relation to human health and safety include:  Training undertaken by contractors to outline risk and site safety;  Protective equipment including full length clothing, impermeable gloves, dust masks and splash/water proof coveralls will be used on site by those undertaking excavation activities;  Personal decontamination before eating, drinking and smoking;  Eating, drinking and smoking to be undertaken in designated areas only;  Hand to mouth and hand to face contact to be avoided;  Additional emergency procedures will be established prior to works commencing; and

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

 Decontamination will occur during completion of works including cleaning or disposing equipment. The potential effects on human health from the disturbance of contaminated soils are considered to be less than minor with the mitigation in place and the unlikelihood of unearthing contaminated material.

5.12.2 Effects of contaminated soil disturbance on the environment The potential risks associates with the contaminated material on the environment include uncontrolled discharges of contaminated surface or ground water and the inappropriate handling or disposal of contaminated soils or water.

The measures outlined in the SMP in relation to management of the contaminants in the environment include:

 All excavated material will be treated as contaminated and a Contaminated Land Specialist will be consulted to confirm it is suitable to be reused on site;  Where possible, spoil should be located directly onto trucks (or sealed transfer bins);  Where temporary stockpiling is required this should be kept to a minimum, away from any water systems and covered when site is not active. Contaminated materials should be segregated and managed separately from clean materials.  Trucks should be loaded where management of potential spills and dust can be managed, wheels swept/washed before leaving site, and be covered during transport;  Details of truckloads shall be recorded;  Unusually coloured or odorous soil/ fill identified should be notified to Auckland Transport’s project manager and if necessary a Contaminated Land Specialist will be contacted;  Disposal shall meet criteria within the SMP table 8.1;  No debris or spoil generated shall be discharged to storm water or CMA;  Erosion and sediment will be managed following Council’s guidelines and other applicable legislation;  Maintain damp conditions, minimize stockpiling and apply with council guidelines and other relevant legislation to control dust; and  All equipment will be decontaminated before it leaves site. Soil that is imported and used on site will be sourced from a suitable source as outlined in the SMP. This is not expected to have any negative effect on the surrounding environment or human health. The SMP may be updated throughout the works and must be notified and approved by AT to cater for the changes in understanding of ground contamination and/or best operational practice and/or regulations. The contractor is responsible got reviewing new work elements and assessing possible new hazards and how to eliminate, isolate or minimize these. The potential effects on the environment and human health from the disturbance of contaminated soils are considered to be less than minor with the mitigation in place and the unlikelihood of unearthing contaminated material.

5.13 Scale of effects The scale of the potential effects of the proposed works has been assessed taking into account the expert reports prepared in relation to the applications, together with matters relating to the

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

57 importance of the area, the sensitivity of the area and surrounding users, cumulative effects and combined effects. Each of these matters is discussed below.

5.13.1 Importance of the area Effects on rare or limited resources are usually considered more significant than impacts on common or abundant resources. In this case, the proposed works are located within the Auckland downtown waterfront area which is a limited resource, it is the heart of the downtown waterfront area, located at the end of Queen Street, which is a central axis for the CBD, and it is a focal point for public transport. As discussed in The Auckland Plan, and further developed in the City Centre Master Plan and the Waterfront Plan, this is an area of importance for the vibrancy of Auckland life as it acts as a central hub for the wider Auckland Region and helps to underpin the city centre’s attraction for residents and visitors. Further, the broad step directly adjacent to the ANZ Building at 131‐139 Quay Street is commonly used for seating. Places that are available for public seating are rare in the CBD, further adding to the importance of this location. Effects on the amenity values of this area are therefore a key consideration and effects on it are considered more significant. People’s appreciation of the area includes the avenue of trees, the heritage features, as well as being in close proximity to the water’s edge. The steps adjacent to the ANZ Building are well used by visitors and residents as a pleasant place to undertake activities such as resting, eating, and reading. The pleasantness of this place is contributed to by the trees and heritage features located within it.

5.13.2 Sensitivity of the area and surrounding users Impacts to sensitive areas and users are usually more significant than impacts to those that are relatively resilient to impacts. It is considered that there are sensitivities associated with the proposed location and particulars of the works that differentiate it. In particular, this relates to:  Noise and vibration – due to ongoing long term construction activities in the area, associated with the construction of CRL and Commercial Bay.  Temporary loss of trees – due to previous loss of trees in Quay Street, there is the potential for greater sensitivity to loss of trees in this area, temporary or otherwise.  Temporary hoardings potentially obscuring views of heritage features and potential for damage to heritage features – due to the high profile nature of the historic heritage in the broader area (including the Ferry Building and the AHB Fence), and due to previous permanent loss of heritage features in this area, there is the potential for greater sensitivity to effects on heritage features in this area. These sensitivities have been taken into account when assessing the combined effects of the proposed works.

5.13.3 Cumulative effects Cumulative effects are the accumulation of impacts over time and space resulting from the combination of effects from a number of activities. Cumulative effects can be greater in significance than any individual effect. Cumulative effects have been assessed in relation to each individual effect, in particular transportation, noise and vibration, trees, landscape and visual amenity and heritage.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

For each of these individual effects, it is concluded that the cumulative effects will be minor or less than minor.

5.13.4 Combined effects The combination of effects can result in effects of greater significance than any individual effect from an activity. In this case, each individual effect has been assessed as “minor” or “less than minor”, and each individual cumulative effect has been assessed as “minor” or “less than minor”. However, when added together, and taking into account the additional significance added to the effects due to the importance of the area, and the sensitivities, it is considered that the potential temporary adverse effects on people’s use and enjoyment of the area may be more than minor. In particular, this assessment is based on the combined effect of the impacts on people and organisations use and enjoyment of the area due to noise, vibration, restrictions to pedestrian, vehicle and property access, temporary loss of seating and walking areas at the waterfront, temporary loss of trees and temporary hoardings that will be in place to protect heritage features. This assessment takes into account the sensitivities discussed and the potential cumulative duration of construction (approximately 18 months). It is not considered that these adverse effects will be significant as there are other stretches of waterfront within the CBD, including the Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Quarter that people can access to use and enjoy the waterfront location, and no permanent loss of features that contribute to the amenity values of the area is proposed.

5.14 Summary of effects The construction of the proposed palisade wall for the Princes Wharf section of the Quay Street seawall will provide a number of positive effects (discussed in Section 5.2) including seismic resilience for the city’s transport and utility infrastructure in this location. Construction of the Princes Wharf section has the potential to give rise to a range of adverse environmental effects within the vicinity of the proposed works and these have been covered in the preceding assessment. AT proposes conditions as part of this resource consent application in order to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of the construction activities as appropriate. These conditions require a suite of management plans to be developed or updated, including an overarching Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), which will set out final details of methodology and staging, the contact and communication arrangements, site management procedures, health and safety matters, and environmental management requirements (including all of the management plans required by the conditions of consent). Transportation effects are considered to be minor, subject to implementation of proposed traffic management measures. In particular, pedestrian, cycle and public transport access will be provided for and the effects on general traffic will be no more than currently authorised in the Quay Street environment. It is considered that, while some exceedances of noise and vibration limits are predicted to occur, overall effects arising from construction noise and vibration on sensitive receivers and on heritage features can be appropriately managed so that they are minor, through implementation of the CNVMP and the BHCMP. In particular, communication with sensitive receivers and pre and post condition surveys of heritage features will be important. Effects on heritage features are considered to be minor, subject to the implementation of the BHCMP. Potential effects on trees and landscape and visual amenity are considered to be minor during construction and less than minor following construction. In particular, effects on trees can be

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

59 appropriately managed through the implementation of tree management procedures, including in relation to protection in situ, relocation and reinstatement or replacement. It is considered that any potential geotechnical and groundwater effects will be less than minor. Potential effects associated with erosion, soil mobilisation, sedimentation to receiving water bodies and stormwater discharges will be temporary in duration and will be appropriately avoided or mitigated via measures outlined in the AEMMRP. Although there was no contaminated soil found during investigations, a SMP has been prepared to manage potential adverse human health and environmental effects during earthworks and to also provide mitigation for unexpected discovery of contamination during earthworks. Notwithstanding the above conclusions that each actual or potential adverse effect is minor or less than minor, it is considered that the combined potential temporary adverse effects of construction may be more than minor. In particular, this assessment is based on the combined effect of the impacts on people and organisations use and enjoyment of the area due to noise, vibration, restrictions to pedestrian, vehicle and property access, loss of seating and walking areas at the waterfront, and loss of trees. This assessment takes into account the importance of the area, the sensitivity of surrounding uses and the potential cumulative duration of construction (approximately 18 months). It is not considered that the combined potential temporary construction adverse effects will be significant. Following the completion of construction, it is considered that the potential adverse effects over the life of the works will be less than minor. Taking into account the positive effects, and in particular the benefits of the improved seismic resilience for Quay Street and the proposed conditions of consent attached as Appendix V, it is concluded that the actual and potential effects of the proposed Princes Wharf section works are able to be appropriately managed and mitigated.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

6 Statutory assessment

6.1 Introduction This section of the report assesses the proposed Princes Wharf section works against the key provisions of the RMA in Section 6.2 and comments on other relevant legislation in Section 6.3. An assessment of the proposed Princes Wharf section against the relevant statutory and non‐statutory policy statements and plans is contained in Section 7.

6.2 Resource Management Act 1991

6.2.1 Introduction This AEE has been prepared in relation to an application for resource consent for an in‐ground palisade wall in the Princes Wharf section of the Quay Street Seawall Project. The RMA includes a number of provisions that are specifically relevant to this resource consent application, and the following provides discussion of those RMA provisions, and assessment as required. The law is presently unclear whether there is a need to refer to Part 2 of the RMA when considering a resource consent application. The High Court in Davidson v Marlborough District Council held that only where there is invalidity, incomplete coverage or uncertainty of meaning within higher order planning documents resort to Part 2 should occur. However, because that decision is subject to appeal this report provides an assessment of the proposal against Part 2, which follows.

6.2.2 Part 2 – Purpose and principles (sections 5 to 8) Part 2 of the RMA sets out the purpose and principles of the Act. The purpose of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Section 6 (Part 2) of the RMA sets out the matters of national importance. The following clauses are of particular relevance to this proposal: (e) the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga; (f) the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development; and (h) the management of significant risks from natural hazards. Section 7 (Part 2) of the RMA sets out other matters to be considered. The following clauses are of particular relevance to this proposal: (a) Kaitiakitanga; (b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources; (c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values; and (f) Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment. Section 8 (Part 2) requires persons exercising functions and powers under the RMA to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The proposed upgrade to the seawall is considered to be consistent with the relevant matters of national importance set out in section 6 of the RMA. Section 6(h), the management of significant risks from natural hazards, is particularly relevant to this proposal. The intent of the works is to make the existing Quay Street seawall more resilient and effective in a seismic event, as the existing

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

61 seawall does not meet current design standards for seismic performance. As discussed in the Options Report, currently, portions of the wall may not survive a moderate sized earthquake. Even if the walls did not completely collapse, if consequential liquefaction of the soils behind the walls occurred then this could result in damage to land and private property beyond Quay Street towards Customs Street and potentially facilities such as the Britomart Transport Centre. The works will reduce the risk of seawall failure and providing better support to the Quay Street reclamation, which supports a key connection into the CBD along with numerous network utilities and nearby buildings and businesses, along with the Downtown Ferry Terminal. In relation to section 6(f), the downtown area has important heritage value. Scheduled or listed built heritage places which are in close proximity to the works and which may be affected are the existing Quay Street seawall; the AHB Fence pylons, the WW1 memorial and the Maritime Museum/Launchmans office Building. Heritage items will be protected during construction either by physical protection of the items during the works period or by temporarily relocating if necessary. Ultimately, the works will protect those heritage items by providing a more resilient seawall and reclamation, which supports these items. In addition, the relationship of Māori to this area is acknowledged (section 6(e)), along with Mana Whenua kaitiaki responsibilities in the area. As a result, Mana Whenua have been engaged through Auckland Transport’s Mana Whenua Engagement Framework, which has been set up in a manner consistent with the principles Treaty of Waitangi (section 8). There have been two hui to date and engagement is ongoing. The proposal is considered to be an efficient use and development of natural and physical resources as it will enhance the resilience and longevity of an existing asset, which is critical to the downtown area (section 7(b)). Mitigation measures will be implemented during construction works to ensure the effects, particularly on amenity values, water quality and ecology are short‐term and appropriately managed and mitigated (sections 7(c) and 7f)). Overall, it is considered that the proposed upgrade to the seawall is in accordance with Part 2 of the RMA.

6.2.3 Public notification (section 95A) Section 95A of the RMA is relevant when a consent authority is considering whether a consent application should be considered with or without public notification. For this application, the applicant requests public notification of the application. In accordance with section 95A(2)(a) and 95A(3)(a), public notification is therefore mandatory. The applicant also requests that the owners / occupiers of adjoining properties and all stakeholders and interested parties, who have requested to be kept updated as part of the consultation process, are served notice of this application.

6.2.4 Consideration of applications (section 104) Section 104 of the RMA sets out the matters to which a consent authority must have regard to, subject to Part 2 of the RMA (section 104(1), refer Section 6.2.2 above), when considering an application for resource consent. These are:  Any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity (section 104(1)(a), refer Section 5 above);  Any measure proposed or agreed to by the applicant for the purpose of ensuring positive effects on the environment to offset or compensate for any adverse effects on the environment that will or may result from allowing the activity (section 104(1)(ab)), not relevant to this application);  Any relevant provisions of:

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

 a national environmental standard;  other regulations;  a national policy statement;  a New Zealand coastal policy statement;  a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement;  a plan or proposed plan; (section 104(1)(b), refer to Section 7 below); and  Any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application (section 104(1)(c), refer to Section 7 below). In accordance with the requirements of section 104(1)(b), relevant statutory documents need to be assessed in relation to the activities for which resource consents are being sought. On this basis, the relevant statutory documents, which are assessed in Section 7, are:  National Environmental Standards for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NES Soil);  New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS);  Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA);  Regional Policy Statement (AUP);  Regional Coastal Plan, Regional Plan and District Plan provisions of the AUP; and  Operative Coastal Plan. In accordance with the requirements of section 104(1)(c), the consent authority must also have regard to any other matter it considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application. Other matters which the consent authority may consider relevant are:  Auckland Plan;  City Centre Master Plan;  Waterfront Plan;  Waterfront Auckland Sustainable Development Framework 2013;  Waterfront Refresh 2017; and  Conservation Management Plan for the Auckland Harbour Edge Area Auckland Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 and Controls (Ture ā‐Rohe Urungu Āhuru 2014). The documents listed above are assessed in Section 7.

6.2.5 Conditions and consent duration and lapse (sections 108, 123 and 125) In accordance with section 108, suggested consent conditions are provided in Appendix V and summarised in Section 9 of this report. Section 123 defines the period for which resource consents may be granted. Under section 123(b) the period for which any land use consent (including reclamation) is granted is unlimited, unless otherwise specified in the consent. Section 123 sets an upper limit of 35 years for other coastal permits, discharge and water permits. Section 123(d) limits other coastal permits, discharge and water permits to five years unless an alternative duration is specified in the consent. Subject to section 125(1), a resource consent lapses on the date specified on the consent. If no date is specified, under section 125(1)(a) the discharge permits, water permits and land use consents sought will lapse five years after the commencement of the consent.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

The construction of the Princes Wharf section is estimated to take 7 to 8 months, and it is currently planned to have works completed by no later than December 2020, prior to the AC36 and APEC events in 2021. However, in the event that commencement of works is delayed, work may not commence until after these events have been completed. This would mean that works would start in 2022 at the earliest (and possibly later). Therefore, AT requests that under section 123(b) the duration of the land use consents being sought is unlimited. Under section 123(d), a duration of 15 years is sought for the regional consents. Further, it is requested that the lapse period for all resource consents sought is 10 years.

6.3 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 The purpose of the HNZPTA is to promote the identification, protection, preservation, and conservation of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand. An Archaeological Authority application pursuant to section 44 will be lodged with HNZ to cover all proposed earthworks associated with the Seawall Project. This covers all recorded archaeological sites, as well as allows for any unrecorded sites during construction. Archaeological Assessment attached in Appendix N.

6.4 Statutory assessment summary The actual and potential effects on the environment of the Princes Wharf seawall section will be temporary in nature and can be managed via the measures outlined in Section 5 of this AEE. As an integral part of the wider Seawall Project and a key enabler of other works proposed as part of the Downtown Programme, the Princes Wharf section will enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well‐being and for their health and safety, consistent with the purpose of the RMA. Overall the proposed works are considered to achieve the purpose of the RMA. In addition, the works are considered to be consistent with the policy direction (as set out in Section 7). An Archaeological Authority from Heritage NZ will be sought for the Seawall Project under the HNZPTA.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

7 Relevant planning documents

7.1 Introduction Sections 7.2‐7.4 below assess the relevant provisions of planning documents required by section 104(1)(b) of the RMA, which in this case are:  National Environmental Standards for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NES Soil);  New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS);  Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA);  Regional Policy Statement (AUP);  Regional Coastal Plan, Regional Plan and District Plan provisions of the AUP; and  Operative Coastal Plan. Section 7.5 below assesses the following documents, which are considered relevant under section 104(1)(c) (‘any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application’):  Auckland Plan;  City Centre Master Plan;  Waterfront Plan;  Waterfront Auckland Sustainable Development Framework 2013;  Waterfront Refresh 2017;  Conservation Management Plan for the Auckland Harbour Edge Area; and  Auckland Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 and Controls (Ture ā‐Rohe Urungu Āhuru 2014).

7.1.1 National Environmental Standards The NES Soil is the only National Environmental Standard relevant to this application. One of its key features is to provide national planning controls that direct the requirement for consent or otherwise for activities on contaminated or potentially contaminated land. All territorial authorities are required to give effect to and enforce the requirements of the NES (Soil) in accordance with their functions under the RMA relating to contaminated land. The resource consent requirements under the provisions of the NES (Soil) are discussed in relation to this application under Section 4 above. Resource consent is required under Regulation 10(3) as a restricted discretionary activity. An assessment against the matters is included in Section 5 of the AEE.

7.2 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement The NZCPS sets policy direction for management of the coastal environment of New Zealand and is relevant to the proposal. The NZCPS was made operative in December 2010. It contains objectives and policies including those aimed at safeguarding the integrity, form, functioning and resilience of the coastal environment and sustaining its ecosystems, and preserving the natural character of the coastal environment. Relevant policies are included in the table below. Local authorities are required by the RMA to give effect to the NZCPS through plans and policy statements. The RPS section of the AUP has recently been made operative and gives effect to the NZCPS. However, for completeness, a brief assessment against the NZCPS provisions is given here. Overall, the proposed works are considered to be consistent with the NZCPS, given the intent of the

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

65 proposed works to help provide for the social and economic wellbeing of the surrounding community and ensure built development is protected. Measures will be in place to mitigate the potential effects of construction works near the CMA.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Table 7.1: Relevant policies under the NZCPS

Reference Policy Comment Policy 2 The Treaty of Waitangi, tangata whenua and Māori heritage Opportunities for Mana Whenua involvement in this resource consent In taking account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o application process have been provided through AT’s Mana Whenua Waitangi), and kaitiakitanga, in relation to the coastal environment…; engagement framework, as set out in Section 8 of the AEE. (d) provide opportunities in appropriate circumstances for Māori Matters raised in discussion with iwi include responsibility for seawall involvement in decision making, for example when a consent application or maintenance (along with crown ownership and Treaty Settlement issues), notice of requirement is dealing with cultural localities or issues of cultural ecological enhancement of the seawall area, water quality, options for significance, and Māori experts, including pūkenga, may have knowledge recycling materials or environmentally friendly construction methods, not otherwise available… urban design elements, and ongoing independent advice to Mana Whenua (f) provide for opportunities for tangata whenua to exercise kaitiakitanga on this project and the wider Downtown Programme. over waters, forests, lands, and fisheries in the coastal environment through such measures as: (i) bringing cultural understanding to monitoring of natural resources; (ii) providing appropriate methods for the management, maintenance and protection of the taonga of tangata whenua; and (iii) having regard to regulations, rules or bylaws relating to ensuring sustainability of fisheries resources such as taiāpure, mahinga mātaitai or other non‐commercial Māori customary fishing… Policy 6 Activities in the coastal environment The Quay Street seawall is a critical piece of infrastructure of importance to (1) In relation to the coastal environment: the social, economic and cultural well‐being of Auckland’s people and (a) recognise that the provision of infrastructure, the supply and transport communities, along with visitors to the CBD area. of energy including the generation and transmission of electricity, and the The seawall does not meet current design standards for seismic extraction of minerals are activities important to the social, economic and performance and there are sections that are in need of general repair. cultural well‐being of people and communities; and Therefore, without the proposed upgrade, the seawall cannot currently (b) consider the rate at which built development and the associated public provide for the reasonably foreseeable population growth and associated infrastructure should be enabled to provide for the reasonably foreseeable public infrastructure demand in this location. needs of population growth without compromising the other values of the coastal environment;… Policy 22 Sedimentation …(2) Require that subdivision, use, or development will not Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures will be put in place to result in a significant increase in sedimentation in the coastal marine area, mitigate sedimentation of the CMA, as set out in Section 3.6.2of the AEE. or other coastal water…

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Reference Policy Comment Policy 23 Discharge of contaminants Section 5.11.2 of the AEE outlines the management of discharges into the (1) In managing discharges to water in the coastal environment, have coastal environment, noting that the works will take place immediately particular regard to: adjacent to the CMA. It is considered that effects of discharges can be (a) the sensitivity of the receiving environment; managed so that adverse effects will be less than minor, after reasonable mixing. (b) the nature of the contaminants to be discharged, the particular concentration; of contaminants needed to achieve the required water quality in the receiving environment, and the risks if that concentration of contaminants is exceeded; (c) the capacity of the receiving environment to assimilate the contaminants; (d) avoid significant adverse effects on ecosystems and habitats after reasonable mixing; (e) use the smallest mixing zone necessary to achieve the required water quality in the receiving environment; and (f) minimise adverse effects on the life‐supporting capacity of water within a mixing zone…

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

7.2.1 The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act The site is located in the Hauraki Gulf and is governed by the HGMPA. The overall purpose of the HGMPA is to improve the environmental management of the Gulf, its islands and catchments. For the coastal environment of the Hauraki Gulf, sections 7 and 8 must be treated as a New Zealand coastal policy statement (see Appendix H for Sections 7 and 8 in full). Section 7 of the HGMPA recognises the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf, and section 8 provides a set of common management objectives for the Gulf. The Act places emphasis on managing the interrelationships between the Gulf’s coastal marine area, islands and catchments – thereby explicitly linking catchment management with marine management. The proposal is consistent with the direction set out in the Act, particularly section 8(e): the maintenance and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the contribution of the natural, historic, and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments to the social and economic well‐being of the people and communities of the Hauraki Gulf and New Zealand: The seawall upgrade will maintain and enhance the resilience of the downtown area and its ability to support the social and economic well‐being of the people and communities of the Hauraki Gulf and New Zealand.

7.3 Auckland Unitary Plan – operative in part The AUP became operative in part on 15 November 2016. Provisions with no outstanding appeals are now operative with the exception of the Regional Coastal Plan component of the AUP which requires the sign‐off of the Minister of Conservation before it becomes operative. Notwithstanding this, considering the AUP regional coastal plan provisions are well advanced towards being operative then they should be accorded significant weight in this assessment. In addition, some of the AUP provisions are affected by Plan Change 4. This is largely an administrative plan change and is not considered to have any substantive effect on the relevant provisions to this project. The relevant objectives and policies of the AUP are assessed in Sections 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 below.

7.3.1 Chapter B regional policy statement The key policy direction established through the overarching Regional Policy Statement (RPS) includes identification of nine significant resource management issues for the Auckland region. Relevant RPS provisions are included in full in Appendix H. In summary, Section B3.2 Infrastructure includes provisions directing that:  Infrastructure is resilient, efficient and effective;  The benefits of infrastructure, along with the functional and operational needs of infrastructure and the value of investment in existing infrastructure, are recognised; and  Development, operation, maintenance and upgrading of infrastructure is enabled, while avoiding, remedying and mitigating adverse effects. In addition, B5.2 Historic heritage, B6 Mana Whenua, B8 Toitū te taiwhenua‐Coastal environment and B10 Ngā tūpono ki te taiao‐Environmental risk contain provisions relating to important values and parameters associated with the Quay Street area. Having assessed these provisions, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the direction of the RPS as follows:

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

 The Quay Street seawall is an important piece of existing infrastructure, providing support not only for the road and associated traffic (including cycles and pedestrians), but also for adjoining commercial and heritage buildings, port and ferry operations. As such, the seawall has an important function in this location, and there is an operational driver to maintain the seawall in a manner that is fit for purpose both now and into the future;  The purpose of the works is to make the existing Quay Street seawall more resilient and effective in a seismic event, as the existing seawall does not meet current design standards for seismic performance. The proposed solution is considered to be effective in addressing seismic risk, in addition to meeting timeframes for implementation to allow other projects associated with the Downtown Programme to commence;  Overall, works will have significant benefit to the wider community in the long‐term. Upgrade and repair of the seawall will maintain Quay Street as a key connection into the Auckland CBD and support the ferry connections on the adjoining wharves, providing increased resilience in a seismic event. The project will also indirectly support the port and network utility infrastructure, buildings and associated businesses in the Quay Street area, along with the public spaces and historic heritage in this location, which could potentially be affected by the failure of the seawall in a seismic event. Overall, the works seek to minimise the threat of disruption from catastrophic or partial failure of the seawall (including loss of life, infrastructure stocks and economic flows);  Mana Whenua input has been sought and will be ongoing throughout the project; and  Adverse effects of the works have been carefully considered, including effects on scheduled historic heritage sites and extent of place overlays, which are affected during the works. Overall, the works are considered appropriate given the requirement to upgrade the seawall in order that it is fit for purpose and will provide support to the downtown area in a seismic event. Section 2.8 above and the HIA attached as Appendix O set out the methodologies by which these historic heritage places will be protected during the works period. Once the works are complete, the upgrade will indirectly benefit these places by reducing the risk of a catastrophic failure of the seawall during a seismic event.

7.3.2 AUP Regional Plan and District Plan provisions Table 7.3 groups the regional coastal plan, regional plan and district plan provisions of the AUP into key themes and provides comment on the proposal in relation to these key themes. The relevant objectives and policies of the AUP provisions are set out in full in Appendix H. Overall, the project is considered to be consistent with the objectives and policies of the AUP.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Table 7.2: AUP objectives and policies assessment

Provision Summary of provision intent Comment reference Key theme: Building resilient infrastructure Policy D17.3 (24) The social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits of The works are considered to be consistent with the objectives of E26 Objective E26.2.1 infrastructure are recognised. Infrastructure and in particular: (1) The resilience of infrastructure is improved and continuity of service is  The upgrade and repair of the seawall will provide increased Objective E26.2.1 enabled, recognising functional and operational needs and location, resilience in a seismic event. In addition, the project will enable (2) route and design needs along with the complexity and additional works relating to the Downtown Programme, which Objective E26.2.1 interconnectedness of infrastructure services. leverages off significant upcoming events (AC36 and APEC in 2021) (4) The value of investment in infrastructure is recognised. to improve the amenity and connectivity of the area for both Aucklanders and national and international visitors to the CBD. Objective E26.2.1 Adverse effects of upgrading and maintaining infrastructure are (5) avoided, remedied or mitigated, including on the health, well‐being and  The reclamation and seawall are an existing and established part of Objective E26.2.1 safety of people and communities, safe and efficient operation of other the downtown waterfront, with a functional and operational (9) infrastructure, the amenity values of the streetscape and adjoining requirement to continue to be located here. Therefore, ongoing properties, the environment from temporary and ongoing discharges; investment in maintaining the seawall as a fit‐for‐purpose structure Policy E26.2.2 (1) and values for which a site has been scheduled or incorporated in an is required. Policy E26.2.2 (2) overlay.  The works seek to improve resilience of the seawall and reclamation Policy E26.2.2 (4) Consider the following matters when assessing the effects of and to minimise the threat of disruption from catastrophic or partial Policy E26.2.2 (5) infrastructure: failure of the seawall (including loss of life, damage to infrastructure Policy E26.2.2 (6) (a) the degree to which the environment has already been modified; within the road and economic flow on effects). (b) the nature, duration, timing and frequency of the adverse effects; Adverse effects of the upgrade and repair are addressed in Section 5 of (c) the impact on the network and levels of service if the work is not the AEE. The proposal is considered to be appropriate, provided that a undertaken; robust methodology is followed to avoid, remedy or mitigate new adverse effects on heritage values in this area (as set out in the heritage (d) the need for the infrastructure in the context of the wider network; assessment). and In relation to the adverse effects of the proposal: (e) the benefits provided by the infrastructure to the communities within Auckland and beyond. (a) The environment in this location is highly modified by the existing seawall and reclamation and consequential development of the Auckland CBD and Downtown Ferry Terminal area. The seawall will not have any noticeable impact on the level of modification to the area once works are complete, as the structure will not be visible to users of the area.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Provision Summary of provision intent Comment reference (b) Adverse effects are largely associated with construction e.g. noise and vibration, traffic, discharges etc. These will be temporary and will either cease or can be completely remedied once works are complete. (c) There is significant risk to the infrastructure (seawall/reclamation) and the network that it supports (the road along with other network utilities in the road) in the event of a partial or full failure of the seawall during a seismic event. (d) the existing reclamation and seawall form an integral and established component of the downtown CBD area. (e) the benefits of the works to the communities within Auckland and beyond from the minor reclamation and seawall will have flow on effects including a more resilient downtown. Key theme: Protecting significant historic heritage Objective D17.2 Scheduled historic heritage places are protected from inappropriate As set out in the HIA attached in Appendix O, for the Princes Wharf (2) subdivision, use and development, including inappropriate section, scheduled or listed built heritage places which are in close modification, relocation, demolition or destruction. proximity to the works include the Quay Street seawall; the AHB Fence pylons, the WW1 memorial and the Maritime Museum/Launchmans office Building. The works will avoid all scheduled historic heritage places. Key theme: Taking the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi into account Policy E11.3 (2) Manage activities to maintain the cultural and spiritual values of Mana As detailed in relation to the NZCPS, opportunities for Mana Whenua Policy E12.3 (2) Whenua including in terms of land and water quality, preservation of involvement in this resource consent application process have been Policy E11.3 (7) wāhi tapu, and kaimoana gathering. provided through Auckland Transport’s Mana Whenua engagement framework, as set out in Section 8of the AEE. Policy E26.2.2 (7) Matters raised in discussion with iwi include responsibility for seawall

maintenance (along with crown ownership and Treaty Settlement issues), ecological enhancement of the seawall area, water quality, options for recycling materials or environmentally friendly construction methods, urban design elements, and ongoing independent advice to Mana Whenua on this project and the wider Downtown Programme. With particular reference to the AEE, adverse effects on water quality

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Provision Summary of provision intent Comment reference and the coastal environment will be managed with appropriate mitigation as discussed in Section 5.11. Key theme: Managing natural hazard risk Objective E36.2 Manage the risk of adverse effects to other people, property, and the The purpose of the works is to increase the resilience of both the (4) environment where infrastructure has a functional or operational need seawall and existing reclamation to natural hazards (seismic events). Objective E36.2 to locate in a natural hazard area. Therefore the works are lowering the risk to people, property and the (5) Allow for the operation, maintenance, upgrading and construction of environment. Policy E36.3 (35) infrastructure, in areas subject to natural hazards when infrastructure is The seawall has a functional and operational need to locate in this area, functionally or operationally required to locate in hazard areas or it is i.e. the seawall functions to protect the reclamation from coastal not reasonably practicable that it be located elsewhere. hazards (erosion), and the activity involves works on a seawall which is Where infrastructure has a functional or operational need to locate in a necessary for the continued operation of the road, which is a network natural hazard area, the risk of adverse effects to other people, utility. Adverse effects are addressed as set out in Section 5 of this AEE. property, and the environment shall be assessed and significant adverse The proposal is considered to be supported by the natural hazard effects are sought first to be avoided or, if avoidance is not able to be provisions. totally achieved, the residual effects are otherwise mitigated to the extent practicable. Key theme: Trees in roads Objective E17.2 The safe and efficient development, maintenance operation and As set out in the main body of the AEE, due to the construction (1) upgrading of the transport system and utilities is enabled while ensuring requirements the majority of the trees in the construction area for the Objective E17.2 that the overall ecological and amenity values provided by trees in Princes Wharf section of the seawall works will require temporary (3) roads are maintained. relocation. The seawall alignment has been amended through the Policy E17.3 (1) Balance the safe and efficient development, operation, use, design process to avoid one of the trees (Tree 18) that was considered unlikely to survive temporary relocation. In addition, the capping beam Policy E17.3 (3) maintenance and upgrading of infrastructure, utilities, and road network with the protection of trees in roads. has been lowered (from what was originally proposed) to accommodate Policy E17.3 (4) Encourage the use of indigenous trees and vegetation for planting tree roots when reinstated. within roads, where appropriate, to recognise and reflect cultural, If any other tree can be retained during construction this will be the first amenity, landscape and ecological values. preference (as described in the Arborist Report in Appendix Q. However, if relocated it is expected that the vitality and vigour of the trees will not be adversely affected long‐term. If the trees decline or die during the translocation or storage they will be replaced with an equivalent sized transplantable (indigenous) tree. Trees being retained on site will be protected through a tree protection methodology and

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Provision Summary of provision intent Comment reference physical barriers such as a temporary fence / wooden structure around the tree. Overall, the methodology proposed by the project is considered to balance the need for these works to occur with maintaining the ecological and amenity values provided by existing trees in this location. Key theme: Managing construction effects Land disturbance: Sediment generation from land disturbance is minimised. The Seawall Project is proposed in order to enhance the health and Objective E11.2 Land disturbance is undertaken in a manner that protects the safety of safety of the people and communities of Auckland, and will enable (2) people and avoids, remedies and mitigates adverse effects on the Downtown Programme works, which will enhance social, economic and Policy E11.3 (2) environment. cultural well‐being in this location. Therefore, it is considered that the works are completely consistent with the provisions to ‘Enable land E11.3 Policy (4) Manage the amount of land being disturbed at any one time disturbance necessary for a range of activities undertaken to provide for Enable land disturbance necessary for a range of activities undertaken E11.3 Policy (6) people and communities social, economic and cultural well‐being, and to provide for people and communities social, economic and cultural E11.3 Policy (7) their health and safety’. well‐being, and their health and safety. Objective E12.2 Land disturbance will be minimised in accordance with AC Guideline Require that earthworks are designed and undertaken in a manner that (1) Document 2016/005 Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Land ensures the stability and safety of surrounding land, buildings and E12.3 Policy (2) Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region (GD05, 2016). This includes structures. E12.3 Policy (3) best practicable options for sediment and erosion controls and staging Require any land disturbance that will likely result in the discharge of of earthworks to manage the amount of soil exposed at any one time. E12.3 Policy (5) sediment laden water to a surface water body or to coastal water to Geotechnical effects of the proposal primarily associated with E12.3 Policy (6) demonstrate that sediment discharge has been minimised to the extent construction impacts on ground surface subsidence and instability, can practicable, having regard to the quality of the environment be managed with standard construction practices. Risks during Noise and People are protected from unreasonable levels of noise and vibration. construction due to large machinery loads on the existing seawall will vibration Construction activities that that cannot meet noise and vibration be mitigated during construction by installing piles using a hit and miss Objective standards are enabled while controlling duration, frequency and timing approach and distributing loads. E25.2(1) to manage adverse effects. The CNVMP sets out measures to ensure best practice methodology is Objective Avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of noise and vibration used during the construction works to ensure that the construction E25.2(4) from construction, maintenance and demolition activities while having works as far as practical and feasible meet the noise limits. Where Policy E25.3(2) regard to: possible, this will mean that noise and vibration will be minimised at its Policy E25.3(10) The sensitivity of the receiving environment; and source. Duration of works is estimated to be 7‐8 months in total. The proposed duration and hours of operation of the activity; and Proposed hours are set out in in the CNVMP. These have been proposed taking into consideration the types of construction activities proposed, and the types of land uses in the surrounding area. The

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Provision Summary of provision intent Comment reference Contaminated The practicability of complying with permitted noise and vibration modelling indicated that bored piling is predicted to be typically land standards. acceptable for noise sensitive receivers. The noise level may have the Objective E30.2 The discharge of contaminants from contaminated land into air, or into potential to cause annoyance for some occupants for the closest piles, (1) water, or onto or into land are managed to protect the environment but this would be alleviated with regular communication. Policy E30.3 (2) and human health and to enable land to be used for suitable activities Disturbance of contaminated soil will be managed appropriately as now and in the future. outlined in the SMP attached in Appendix S. Once complete, the area will be reinstated to a paved, impervious surface as per the existing Temporary Enable temporary activities associated with construction while situation. activities managing adverse effects on noise, traffic and scheduled sites. As set out in Section 5 of the AEE, transportation effects have been E40.3 Policy (1) considered carefully and the proposed transport management E40.3 Policy (3) measures will maintain bus reliability, pedestrian connectivity, and E40.3 Policy (4) property access, and will maintain the well‐used cycleway facility. E40.3 Policy (5) Overall, the temporary construction activities associated with the seawall upgrade will lead to a more resilient CBD and will enable other parts of the Downtown Programme intended to enhance the vibrancy of the inner city.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

7.4 Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal The provisions of the Coastal Plan are analysed in detail in Appendix H. Generally these are similar to the regional coastal plan provisions of the AUP which have been analysed in more detail in Table 7.2 above. It is noted that the Coastal Plan should be given less weight than the AUP provisions, which are anticipated to be made fully operative shortly. Overall, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Plan.

7.5 Other matters (Section 104(1)(c))

7.5.1 The Auckland Plan The Auckland Plan 2012 aims to make the Auckland region the world’s most liveable city, setting goals for Auckland until 2040. The Quay Street seawall and city centre is an urban development area categorised for “most change”. It is an area of importance for the vibrancy of Auckland life that acts as a central hub for the wider Auckland Region. In addition, the Auckland Plan gives direction to deliver and maintain quality infrastructure into the future. This area has been recognized as an area of coastal inundation within the Auckland Plan. The Quay Street seawall is critical infrastructure that protects key transport links, services, and public spaces. The proposed upgrade will improve the resilience of the seawall to seismic events. In doing so, this protects the Waitematā Harbour that shapes the way Aucklanders live in this location, and helps support the economy (by supporting cruise ships and port activities, as well as the public transport network). The proposed upgrade is considered to be consistent with the vision of Auckland within the Auckland Plan. The seawall upgrade will help enable the continued development of the city and support growth and improved infrastructure in the area.

7.5.2 City Centre Master Plan The CCMP sets out the direction for Auckland’s city centre and waterfront areas, and is one of a number of strategies and plans necessary to deliver The Auckland Plan. Quay Street and the waterfront areas are key for the delivery of the CCMP through redevelopment. The vision is for Quay Street to be a high‐quality multi‐modal space that connects people with the waterfront, protects Auckland’s heritage, and creates additional public open space to make a more vibrant and liveable city (part of the “Harbour Edge Stitch”). The proposed Quay Street seawall upgrade is part of the implementation programme for the CCMP. The works are critical to protect the waterfront area and future‐proof Quay Street and its associated services, enabling additional proposed development to occur, including relocation of Piers 3 and 4, a Downtown Public Space, a mooring dolphin at the end of Queens Wharf, streetscape works in Quay Street, and the Britomart East Bus Interchange in Quay Street as part of the Downtown Programme.

7.5.3 The Waterfront Plan The WP was developed to revitalise the waterfront areas in Auckland City over the next 30 years to achieve five overarching goals. The works on the waterfront have already begun with the revitalising of Wynyard Quarter, and works have now started moving towards other sections of the waterfront, including those areas adjoining Quay Street. The proposal for the Harbour Edge Stitch is set out in the WP, with the Downtown Programme forming a key part of the implementation of this Plan. The proposed seawall upgrade is required before other works can commence, to both strengthen the surrounding area, and so that the other regeneration works are not disturbed by these upgrades.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

7.5.4 Waterfront Auckland Sustainable Development Framework 2013 The purpose of the Waterfront Auckland Sustainable Development Framework 2013 is to drive the sustainable development of the waterfront, to deliver the waterfront as New Zealand’s leading location of sustainable urban transformation and renewal. The Sustainable Development Framework (SDF) sets out Panuku Development’s2 sustainability aspirations and commitments. The Quay Street area is included in the Waterfront Area of Influence set out in this report, noting that Panuku Development owns Queens Wharf. Objectives are set out in Section 3 of the Sustainable Development Framework, and include:  Increase resiliency of the built and natural environment and of the community;  Design and develop the waterfront public land according to sustainable design principles; and  Manage travel demand and prioritise and promote sustainable transport. This project will deliver significantly better resilience in the Quay Street area, thereby increasing the resilience of the built environment in this location and helping to ensure that key transport connections in this area are maintained and protected, in particular sustainable transport modes.

7.5.5 Waterfront Refresh 2017 A cross‐Council team is working on refreshed implementation planning to deliver the 2012 CCMP and the WP. For the downtown and waterfront corridor area, a programme of high quality transport and streetscape projects has been developed, focusing on  Improved public transport to the east and west;  A pedestrian‐focused core of Lower Queen Street and central Quay Street;  Coordination of Auckland Council and private sector led developments; and  Coordination of transport and streetscape projects. As set out in the minutes of the Auckland Council Planning Committee (5 September 2017), these are to be delivered in co‐ordination with the construction and completion of the CRL and major private sector developments. This project is required to enable a high quality waterfront, which will be especially important for upcoming major events.

7.5.6 Conservation Management Plan for the Auckland Harbour Edge Area A Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for the Auckland Harbour Edge Area was prepared for Auckland Council’s City Transformations Unit by Salmond Reed Architects3. The purpose of this CMP is to (1) understand the heritage values of Quay Street and the harbour edge; (2) assess the cultural heritage significance; (3) provide policies and recommendations for in on‐going heritage conservation and management; and to (4) graphically summarise findings in preparation for consultation with wider stakeholders. The CMP identifies a number of places of ‘exceptional’ and ‘high’ heritage interest. This includes Quay Street buildings, structures, elements and spaces related to early settlement, reclamation, formation of the Auckland Harbour Board, the Hamer Plan of 1904 and those which are Auckland Council scheduled and/or NZHPT registered.

2 Previously Waterfront Auckland 3 Auckland Harbour Edge Area: Conservation Management Plan. Prepared by Salmond Reed Architects for Auckland Council – City Transformation Unit. Ref 2013‐004. August 2013.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

The CMP includes the following policies which are relevant to the Seawall Project proposal:  Ensure that items of exceptional significance are retained in situ along with any other elements which contribute to this significance and their setting;  These items may be adaptively reused, but their heritage values must be retained and any change should involve minimal intervention and loss of fabric and reversibility and any change or new work should be discretely identifiable;  Any change(s) contemplated should be undertaken in full consultation with Auckland Council Heritage and NZHPT and should be assessed in terms of this document, the ICOMOS Charter, any Conservation Plan or heritage assessment and the appropriate District Plan criteria;  Any ground excavation must involve the NZHPT due to the high possibility that archaeological sites may be present;  Maintain the very high amenity levels of the harbour edge, the openness, views, sea breezes, water and activity connections of the harbour edge interface;  Ensure that all proposed designs and interventions are developed to compliment, enhance and reflect the historic and evolved character of the Harbour Edge Area;  Items of high significance should be retained in situ along with any other elements which contribute to their setting;  These items may be adaptively reused and subject to a greater level of change [than ‘exceptional places’]; and  Ensure a consistency of planting. As discussed in the HIA (Appendix O) the design process that has been undertaken as part of the project design work addresses the majority of these policies, and works have been designed to avoid permanent relocation of identified built heritage features. The outcome of the proposed works, which is the adaptive strengthening of the seawall, meets the key policy of maintaining the high amenity levels and connectivity of the harbour edge. This includes reinstating any pōhutukawa trees which are necessary to relocate for the duration of the construction works.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

8 Consultation and feedback

8.1 Introduction The applicant has consulted with Mana Whenua and a range of stakeholder and interest groups on the proposed upgrade of the Quay Street seawall. Engagement and consultation will continue during the design, consenting and construction phases of the project. A summary of consultation undertaken to date is provided in the following sections. For the purposes of the resource consent application documentation for the three applications for the Seawall Project (that is, the Princes Wharf section, Ferry Basin section, and Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf section), all consultation has been captured together. Therefore, the summary below includes consultation carried out across the three sections of the Seawall Project and it is noted that some discussions may not relate directly to this application. A consultation log and other consultation documentation is included in Appendix I.

8.2 Ports of Auckland Limited Meetings with POAL were held on 30 October 2017 and 5 February 2018 to discuss the Downtown Programme and proposed Seawall Project. These meetings were attended by representatives from POAL, Xigo, AT and T+T. General matters were discussed in the first instance that included scour protection and impacts on the wharf, tsunami and the adequacy of the structures to deal with natural hazards, procurement, disposal of soil and constraints on POAL in terms of ability to take waste and provide space for construction zones. Potential effects on the Ports of Auckland from the Seawall Project were discussed. These were identified as the following;  Access must be maintained to Queens Wharf and Princes Wharf during the cruise season;  No impact will occur on POAL’s operational space if the electrified security fence approximately 1 m inside the AHB Fence is maintained;  Concern surrounding the breastwork and parts of the wharf structure and the potential damage due to vibration from works; and,  Concern about damage of goods stored within the POAL area from dust, grit and other construction discharges into the air. A further meeting was held on the 19 April 2018 to discuss the Seawall Project and the potential impacts on POAL. Potential mitigation was discussed with effects on services to Princes Wharf discussed and the requirement for traffic management during cruise ship visits.

8.3 Auckland Transport A number of meetings have been held with internal stakeholders within AT and contractors and related parties associated with AT such as Auckland Transport Operations Centre (ATOC), AT Metro, CRLL and Connectus in regard to the Seawall Project. Details of these meetings are included in the consultation log in Appendix I. However, the following key points are noted. On 9 February 2018 a meeting was held to discuss the potential cumulative effects of the construction of the Lower Albert Street bus terminus and the temporary relocation of bus services. Follow up discussions occurred including on 16 February 2018.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

On the 19 February 2018 two internal briefing sessions were held with a broad range of invitees from within AT. Project members attended to present information of the seawall project and to discuss any potential impacts of these works. On the 21 February 2018 discussion occurred around the concept of temporary works for Quay Street and understanding of the other potential projects within the CBD and timing of these. In addition to this a further meeting occurred to run through a concept for pedestrian and cycle management for each section. There was an agreement on concept and requirement for further discussion around the pedestrians at Hobson Street.

8.3.1 Auckland Transport Operation Centre Meetings with ATOC were held over March and April. On 14 March 2018 a meeting with ATOC included the presentation of the initial concept of the seawall works and measures with discussion of the temporary traffic management plan for the wider city. The outcome from this meeting included a general agreement of the plans and the requirement for ongoing discussion with the CRL project team to understand the cumulative effects of the projects. Further discussion was held on 20 March 2018 in regard to the timing of the Light Rail Transit project, this was concluded to be unknown. On 5 April 2018 a follow up meeting was held to present more finalised temporary works plans.

8.3.2 City Rail Link Limited and Connectus An initial meeting was held on 15 February 2018 to discuss the overlap of the CRL and Seawall Project works. It was concluded that there was to be further work relating to this however the cumulative effects with CRL will be manageable. A meeting was held on 19 March 2018 to attain an understanding of timings for CRL and other works within the CBD. It was decided that there would be on‐going communication regarding timing of temporary traffic management works for the various projects. Three separate meetings were held with Connectus over February and March 2018. The purpose of these meetings was to discuss the overlap of the CRL works with the Seawall Project plans and to follow up the discussion regarding the CRL staged temporary works. From these meetings it was resolved that further work would be required with regard to diverting bus routes to understand the cumulative effects. A site walkover was then held on 6 March 2018 to discuss the individual clashes and potential solutions. On 9 April 2018 a meeting was held to understand the concept designs for Lower Albert Street works with CRLL and the contractor for this project; Connectus. Following this meeting further analysis was undertaken to understand the cumulative effects of the Seawall Project.

8.3.3 AT Metro A meeting was held on 19 February 2018 with AT Metro where project team members presented the concept of traffic management for each section of works, and proposed public transport operation plans. A follow up meeting was held on 23 February 2018 to present the proposed public transport plan. There was agreement on concepts during this meeting.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

8.4 Ferry operators A meeting with ferry operators was held on 19 March 2018 to discuss the Downtown Programme, proposed Seawall Project, potential ferry berth relocation and the proposed Queens Wharf mooring dolphin. Representatives from Belaire, Sealink and Fullers were present at the meeting. Ferry operators were informed that there would be three separate applications lodged and what the proposed works will consist of. It was also noted that the Ferry Building Section would not commence until after the America’s Cup and APEC events in 2021. There were a number of matters raised and actions agreed in this meeting that included the following:  Heritage kiosk relocation and the timeframes for this;  Kiosk refurbishment works;  Stormwater:  Stormwater quality not part of scope of work;  Healthy waters will investigate odour issues;  Piers 3 and 4 are proposed to be removed (and consented through a separate process) however the Seawall Project can proceed if the Piers have not be removed and ferry services are still in operation at these locations;  Discussion of seasonality which needs to be considered for construction timing and staging as passenger numbers spike during the December and January periods and therefore passenger access needs will be greater during those times;  Being able to bring buses onto Queens Wharf needs to be retained; and  Discussion regarding timeframe for construction of each section, indicative timeframes were provided; Princes Wharf 7‐8 months, Ferry Basin 15‐16 months and Queens to Marsden 10‐11 months. Additional matters regarding the proposed Downtown Public Space, proposed Piers 3 and 4 relocation and the proposed Queens Wharf mooring dolphin were also discussed. Further separate consultation was carried out with the ferry operators as outlined below.

8.4.1 Fullers On 8 February 2018 a meeting with Fullers was carried out. The purpose of this meeting was to query a number of characteristics of the Fullers ferry fleet including; propeller diameter, propulsion systems, applied engine power and future expansion plan. From this drawings and dimensions were received to be used for vessel induced scour calculations. On the 26 February 2018 and 12 April 2018 consultation was held with Fullers as so to understand the navigational aspects, concerns and issues of the works.

8.4.2 Sealink and Belaire Discussions were held on 5 April 2018 with Sealink and Belaire operational staff. Navigatus discussed navigational aspects of the Downtown Programme, including the Seawall Project.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

8.5 Local Boards

8.5.1 Waitematā Local Board Regular updates have been given to the Waitematā Local Board on the overall Downtown Programme, including the Seawall Project. Specifically, two update sessions were held on 28 November 2017 and 27 February 2018.

8.5.2 Orākei Local Board On 10 May 2018 Ōrākei was given an update on the overall Downtown Programme, including the Seawall Project.

8.5.3 All Local Boards In March 2018 project team members presented at cluster workshops on the Downtown Programme which included the Seawall Project and the AC36 works. Several memorandums on the AC36 decision making process and the supporting Downtown Programme projects have also been sent out to the Local Boards.

8.6 Harbourmaster Two separate meetings were held with the Harbourmaster office staff on the 21 February 2018 and 20 March 2018. These meetings were to facilitate discussion between Navigatus and the Harbourmaster in relation to navigation aspects of the Downtown Programme including the Seawall Project. These meetings helped with the understanding of navigational aspects concerns and issues, particularly with other sections of the seawall.

8.7 Māori engagement Engagement with Māori is an important principle of the Project, recognising that Tikanga Māori encompasses a complex system of customs and values to conserve, manage and protect natural and physical resources. AT holds monthly hui with iwi through its Mana Whenua Engagement Framework to discuss a range of major projects, and the Seawall Project has been discussed at two hui to date (14 February 2018 and 14 March 2018). AT and its consultants presented information on the project and its context, listened to feedback, and responded to questions. Representatives of the following iwi/ Māori organisations were in attendance at the two hui:  Ngāti Maru;  Ngāti Whanaunga;  Patukirikiri;  Ngāti Tamaoho;  Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki;  Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua; and  Te Akitai Waiohua. Apologies were received from representatives of the following iwi/ Māori organisations:  Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei;  Ngāti Paoa;

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

 Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara; and  Ngāti Whātua. Te Akitai Waiohua (Adrian Lee Pettit), Ngāti Tamaoho (Hero Potini), Ngāti Whanaunga (Martin Te Moni), Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua (Metiria Kaihau) and Ngāti Maru (Geoff Cook) indicated they have kaitiakitanga responsibilities within the scope of the project and a formal desire to be involved. Table 8.1 below summarises the questions asked at the two hui and the responses provided by the project team, with any further comments of the iwi in response to this.

Table 8.1: Questions and responses during Māori engagement

Question/ feedback from iwi Project team response Further response from iwi Requested a map showing who A map showing the responsibility owns /maintains the different for seawall maintenance was portions of the existing sea wall, presented. In summary, AT is not and whether any of the existing focusing on who the owner is but seawalls have titles. Is there any instead who is responsible to crown ownership along the protect Quay Street and the seawall, and are there any areas associated services. It therefore still under the Treaty settlement lies with AT to complete these process? works. Regarding Treaty settlement, AT understands that this is important but the matter will be addressed by others. AT is aware that the Minister of Iwi Settlements is meeting with iwi tribes under the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014. Can ecological enhancement be Hui attendees raised concerns Mana Whenua would like to incorporated to support marine life about the validity of this as an engage Mātauranga Māori on the face of the wall? option given the existing condition ecology specialists to advise on of the water. this project. Mussel ropes are currently being Suggestion to roughen the face used at the Maritime Museum to of the concrete to allow growth investigate ways to encourage on the front of the seawall. desirable species. Need to consider a way to limit invasive species such as the fan worm. Concerns were raised around the While the proposed upgrade of the water quality along the extent of seawall cannot specifically address the seawall. Pollution from sewage these concerns, AT acknowledged and ferries is concerning, as well as that it could play a role in assisting the lack of barriers to prevent with facilitating engagement with street rubbish from entering the Watercare or Healthy Waters on a water. senior level so that something can be done about the water quality in this area. AT committed to inviting a Healthy Waters representative to present to the Hui. The Healthy Waters Programme Manager (Andrew Chin) presented

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Question/ feedback from iwi Project team response Further response from iwi on the water quality in the Ferry Basin area:  Sewer overflows are known to occur in the Ferry Basin area.  There are no legitimate overflow points, so the overflows may be due to an illegal connection upstream.  An investigation will be carried out to determine the source of the sewage; overflows will continue until the source is found.  Significant improvements to overflows are expected in the long‐term due to the central interceptor and western isthmus projects.  Water quality targeted rate is currently out for consultation and has strong support. Investigate options to recycle  Non‐contaminated material can materials or use more be used as fill where possible. environmentally friendly  Given the rubbish in the fill, it is construction methods such as: likely the fill will not be viable  Fibre‐reinforced concrete. to be used as mudcrete.  Recycled concrete  Sand will be reused for the  Mudcrete from the harbour bedding of the pavers and the  Reuse of spoil pavers will be reused where possible.  Unfortunately, recycled aggregates cannot be used in marine environments.  Rock has been chosen to protect the face of the wall against scour instead of concrete. It may be possible to reuse basalt boulders from another project. Investigate opportunities to As most of the walls are not visible Suggestion for artwork on the incorporate urban design elements. there is very limited opportunity to ferry terminal, and incorporate urban design opportunities for wayfinding. elements. AT will engage with iwi for any opportunities for urban design that arise. Soil model presented for the downtown area:  The recent sediments are the most likely to liquefy, whereas reclamation is less likely to liquefy. The recent sediments

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Question/ feedback from iwi Project team response Further response from iwi sit below the bottom of the old wall below the reclamation fill.  Given the recent sediments are at depth, this will cause the whole block to move seawards in the event of an earthquake. The old seawall is not designed or constructed to account for this movement.  The basements of surrounding buildings and the Britomart Tunnel provide some protection, but between these and the wall there is significant risk of lateral spreading, causing Quay Street to fall into the sea, losing access and critical services. Mana Whenua would like to AT to consider how it can support continue to seek independent this. advice for this project

Engagement with mana whenua will continue throughout the project lifecycle through the AT Mana Whenua Engagement Framework.

8.8 Heritage An initial meeting was held on 6 December 2017 with HNZ and the Auckland Council Heritage Unit to present information regarding the Seawall Project and to discuss the potential impacts of the proposal. On 24 January 2018 a meeting was held to discuss the specific points regarding the construction and design of the seawall upgrade. A follow up meeting was then held on 15 February 2018 that was attended by built heritage and archaeological specialists to provide an update on project planning. From this, three‐weekly meetings were established to review project development and receive statutory input regarding historic heritage places. Many of the discussions involved the wider plan for the waterfront and surrounding areas that is covered by the Downtown Programme. Matters raised throughout these meetings have been addressed in the design and alignment of the seawall (for example, amendments to the alignment of the proposed seawall) and in the assessment and proposed draft conditions of resource consent contained in the HIA contained in Appendix O.

8.9 Auckland City Centre Advisory Board Project team members attended a meeting on 28 February 2018 to present information on the Seawall Project and to discuss the potential impacts. Resulting from this meeting the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board (ACCAB) provided the following feedback on the process for managing the potential impacts of the Seawall Project:  That consultation with residents, businesses and other directly affected parties be carried out;  That adequate resources be identified for liaison with and support of business owners;  That the communication plan illustrate integrated outcomes; and

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

 That through the early contractor involvement (ECI) and procurement process the mitigation of impacts be a strong selection criteria. A follow up workshop was held on 20 March 2018 on the Downtown Programme. This involved a presentation and workshop with the members of the ACCAB on the refresh of CCMP with an operational focus on how the works were to be delivered.

8.10 Property owners and occupiers

8.10.1 Tournament On 27 March 2018 meeting with Tournament where project team members attended to present information on the Seawall Project and to discuss potential impacts. Matters raised included potential noise, vibration, and traffic effects and the discussion focused on measures that can be undertaken to minimise impacts in relation to the Ferry Building.

8.10.2 Cooper and Co An initial meeting was held with Cooper and Co on the 12 December 2018 where project team members attended a workshop on the Downtown Programme with a focus on the Quay Street upgrade discussion. A further meeting was held with Cooper and Co on 14 March 2018. People representing the Downtown Programme, Auckland Council, Panuku, AT, T+T, Flow and Cooper and Co were in attendance. This meeting was to discuss the timing, consent process and potential impacts of the Seawall Project, in relation to Cooper and Co’s interests on the northern side of Quay Street.

8.10.3 Precinct Properties Limited On 10 November 2017 a meeting was held with Precinct Properties Limited to provide an update regarding the Downtown Programme. A further meeting was held with Precinct Properties Limited on 16 March 2018 that included attendees from Panuku, AT, T+T, CRLL, Burnello and RCP to address the timing, consent process and potential impacts of the Seawall Project, in relation to Precinct Properties’ interests at Commercial Bay.

8.10.4 Maritime Museum Consultation was held with the Maritime Museum on 23 February 2018 to discuss the Maritime Museum’s efforts to encourage the growth of encrusting species on ropes through trials they are running in conjunction with the University of Auckland regarding different surfaces and the mussels they have found that settle on the ropes. The outcomes of this meeting included the possibility of potential soft engineering option involving mussels growing on ropes that could be deployed along the seaward side of the seawall. This will continue to be investigated concurrently with, but outside of, the resource consent process. Maritime Museum representatives attended a presentation by project team members on the Seawall Project which included discussion of any potential impacts on 30 April 2018.

8.10.5 Princes Wharf property owners A meeting was held with Princes Wharf property owners on 20 March 2018 to provide an update on the Downtown Programme, with a focus on the Seawall Project.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Project team members attended meeting on 19 April 2018 with Princes Wharf Management, Hilton and Bland and White Group (apartment owners) to present information on the Seawall Project and to discuss the potential impacts. From these meetings the applicant gained a better understanding of the existing traffic issues at the site and got feedback on additional mitigation options. It was decided that information sharing from both parties regarding services located on site would be required with Princes Wharf Management and Hilton.

8.10.6 139 Quay Street On 22 March 2018 project team members attended to present information on the Seawall Project and to discuss potential impacts with the owner of 139 Quay Street. Retailers in this building received personal invitations to the drop in event (discussed further below) and follow up invitations were sent to meet with the project team over March and April.

8.10.7 Good Group Hospitality Over March and April discussions were held with the Burger Boy management team and with the operations manager at drop in event. The project team members attended to present information on the Seawall Project and to discuss potential impacts.

8.10.8 M Social Representatives of M Social hotel were invited to the drop in event and were sent a follow up invitation to meet with the project team over March and April.

8.10.9 Spirit of New Zealand Project team members attended a meeting on 23 March 2018 to present information on the Seawall Project and to discuss potential impacts.

8.11 Auckland Council A number of pre‐application meetings have been held with AC’s Resource Consent team, including meetings with AC’s Principal Project Lead, and the assigned processing planner, as well a briefing meeting with AC’s team of experts that will be contributing to assessing and reporting on the application. These meetings have enabled the applicant to gain an understanding of the Resource Consent team’s information requirements. Specific discussions have been held between experts advising AT and the experts for AC, which have further added understanding of information requirements. In particular, a site meeting was held 5 April 2018 to discuss the proposed tree management procedures and approach. It was generally agreed by all parties that, if necessary, temporary relocation of the trees affected by the proposed works was preferred, but that it would be prudent to seek resource consent for permanent removal in the event temporary relocation was not deemed possible once further investigations are undertaken, or in the event of decline of a tree while in storage.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

8.12 Service providers

8.12.1 Vector A preliminary meeting was held on 28 February 2018 with Vector to discuss the Seawall Project and relevant Vector infrastructure likely to be affected. Additional information was subsequently provided to the Vector design team.

8.12.2 Chorus A preliminary meeting was held on 14 February 2018 to discuss the Seawall Project and relevant Chorus infrastructure that was going to be affected. Chorus passed this information on to VisionStream and arranged for a site walkover to discuss specific clashes and solutions. The site walk over was held on 6 March 2018, and clashes and the potential solutions were discussed at a preliminary level. Ongoing discussions will occur with Chorus during detailed design of services relocations.

8.12.3 Watercare Services Limited An email was received from Watercare Services Limited (Watercare) that outlined the general requirements when working around water mains and wastewater infrastructure on 21 February 2018. Preliminary design information for the Seawall Project will be sent to Watercare for further discussion.

8.12.4 Vodafone An email was received from Vodafone on 14 February 2018 regarding the Vodafone services in the area.

8.13 Heart of the City Two meetings have been held with Heart of the City (HOTC). The first, on 1 February 2018 provided HOTC representatives with an overview of the Downtown Programme. On 7 March 2018 there was an update on engagement activities including providing HOTC with details regarding the planned drop in events.

8.14 Consultation events

8.14.1 Stakeholder breakfast Key stakeholders were invited to a breakfast event on 19 December 2017 with the purpose of providing information on AC36 and the Downtown Programme, including the Seawall Project and to discuss any potential impacts of the projects. Refer to Appendix I for a list of organisations represented by attendees.

8.14.2 Public drop in events On the 27 March 2018 two public drop in events were held, one over lunch time and one in the evening. Neighbouring property owners and occupiers were invited. The purpose of these events was to provide information on the Downtown Programme including the Seawall Project and discuss the potential impacts of the projects. These events were attended by approximately 35 people and provided the project team with further detailed understanding of the local environment and the matters of interest and concern for the local residents and businesses.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

8.15 Post lodgement consultation

8.15.1 Downtown and Waterfront Development Response Action Plan Over the next three years to 2021 the busiest area for construction in Auckland’s City Centre is the downtown and adjoining waterfront area a mix of transport, public realm and private development including preparations for the AC36 event. The Development Programme Office in collaboration with Panuku and other key stakeholders has begun work on a plan to analyse, manage and mitigate the wide‐ranging effects of this development programme on local residents, businesses, commuters / transport operations, visitors and service providers. The Downtown and Waterfront Development Response Action Plan (the Response Action Plan) will focus on nine themes which were defined in the City Centre Development Response Strategy prepared by Auckland Council in 2017. The themes include such things as operational alignment, wayfinding and business support. The action plan will follow a process that begins with a baseline analysis of existing activities (e.g., retail expenditure and pedestrian counts), and a granular understanding of the intended construction programme by time, type and location. It then involves participants and key stakeholders in a process to define specific actions under each of the nine themes to achieve optimal alignment across all parts of the programme (including public and private components) and to manage, minimise and mitigate the negative effects of the programme while maintaining the capacity of the area to continue to function and help to maintain the economic health of the City Centre. The Response Action Plan will cover the entire Downtown Programme, which includes the Seawall Project. The preparation and implementation of this plan will help to ensure that consultation and engagement will continue throughout the construction process.

8.15.2 Communication and Consultation Plan The proposed draft conditions of consent included in Appendix V include a requirement for the preparation and implementation of a Communication and Consultation Plan (CCP). In particular, the CCP will include, as a minimum, a communications framework, contact details for the Communication and Consultation Manager, methods for identifying and communicating with stakeholders, and a procedure for dealing with queries and complaints. The preparation and implementation of CCP will help to ensure that consultation and engagement will continue throughout the construction process.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

9 Proposed conditions of consent

Section 108AA sets out the requirements for conditions of resource consents, as follows: (1) A consent authority must not include a condition in a resource consent for an activity unless— (a) the applicant for the resource consent agrees to the condition; or (b) the condition is directly connected to 1 or both of the following: (i) an adverse effect of the activity on the environment: (ii) an applicable district or regional rule, or a national environmental standard; or (c) the condition relates to administrative matters that are essential for the efficient implementation of the relevant resource consent. In this instance, the applicant has proposed a suite of draft conditions (Appendix V). Mitigation measures are recommended throughout the specialist reports and in the assessment of effects above to ensure adverse effects are appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated. In some instances these involve the preparation of management plans at a stage when further details of the construction method have been determined. The draft conditions proposed by the applicant capture all of the mitigation measures and management plans addressed in the specialist reports and assessment of effects. These have been structured under the following headings:  General conditions;  Pre‐construction conditions;  Land use consent conditions; and  NES Soil land use consent conditions.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

10 Conclusion

This AEE report has been prepared on behalf of AT to accompany a resource consent application to AC for the upgrade of the Princes Wharf section of the Quay Street seawall. The proposed works require consent as a restricted discretionary activity under the AUP and NES Soil. This AEE report draws the following conclusions:  The works are consistent with Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991. In particular, the works are consistent with section 6(h), the management of significant risks from natural hazards. The works will make the existing Quay Street seawall more resilient and effective in a seismic event, reducing the risk of seawall failure and providing better support to the Quay Street reclamation. In relation to section 6(f), risks to historic heritage features will be managed, and once complete, the works will ultimately protect historic heritage features by providing a more resilient seawall and reclamation which supports these items;  The works are consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of: the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement; the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act; the Regional Policy Statement, Regional Plan and District Plan provisions of the AUP; and the NES Soil; and  The actual and potential effects of the proposed works include a number of positive effects, and any adverse effects are able to be appropriately managed and mitigated, subject to the implementation of the proposed conditions of consent attached in Appendix Y. AT requests that the resource consent applications be publicly notified. In accordance with section 95A(2)(a) and 95A(3)(a), public notification is therefore mandatory. AT also requests that the owners/ occupiers of adjoining properties and all stakeholders and interested parties, who have requested to be kept updated as part of the consultation process, are served notice of this application. The suite of draft resource consent conditions proposed by AT are included in Appendix V.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

11 Applicability

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client Auckland Transport with respect to the particular brief given to us and it may not be relied upon in other contexts or for any other purpose, or by any person other than our client, without our prior written agreement. We understand and agree that Auckland Transport will submit this report to Auckland Council in support of an application for resource consent for the development described herein and that Auckland Council will rely on this report for the purpose of assessing that application.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Environmental and Engineering Consultants Report prepared by: Report prepared by:

...... …...... …...... Alexandra Scouller Sarah McCarter Planner Senior Planner

Technical review by: Authorised for Tonkin & Taylor Ltd by:

...... …...... …...... Jennifer Carvill Richard Reinen‐Hamill Principal Planner Project Director

18‐May‐18

\\ttgroup.local\files\aklprojects\1004393\issueddocuments\consenting\18 05 18 aees\princes wharf\princes wharf_aee_final‐17.05.docx

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2018 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Princes Wharf Section ‐ Resource consent application and AEE Job No: 1004393 Auckland Transport

Appendix A: Consent application forms

Appendix B: Planning maps

Appendix C : Drawings

Appendix D: Construction Methodology for Resource Consent

Appendix E : Project Context and Options Assessment

Appendix F: Assessment of planning standards

Appendix G : Matters of discretion and assessment criteria

Appendix H : Assessment of objectives and policies

Appendix I : Consultation documentation

Appendix J : Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment

Appendix K : Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan

Appendix L : Integrated Transport Assessment

Appendix M : Geotechnical and Groundwater Effects Report

Appendix N : Archaeological Assessment

Appendix O : Built Heritage Impact Assessment

Appendix P : Built Heritage Construction Management Plan

Appendix Q : Arboricultural Report

Appendix R : Ground Contamination Assessment

Appendix S : Site Management Plan

Appendix T : Adaptive Environmental Monitoring and Management Response Plan

Appendix U : Landscape and Visual Amenity Assessment

Appendix V : Proposed draft conditions of consent

Appendix W : Certificates of Title