Auckland Council District Plan Operative Manukau Section 2002

Home , Manukau

RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMISSIONERS FOLLOWING THE HEARING OF NOTICES OF REQUIREMENT TO ALTER TWO DESIGNATIONS UNDER SECTION 181 OF THE RMA BY NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY (NZTA) FOR THE SOUTHERN CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND DECISION FOLLOWING THE HEARING OF ASSOCIATED APPLICATIONS FOR RESOURCE CONSENT

SUBJECT: Notices of Requirement for alterations to designations to State Highway 1 for southern corridor improvements and associated applications for resource consent under section 88 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to construct and operate a 9.5km section of the Southern Motorway between Manukau and Papakura held on Wednesday 20, Monday 25 and Tuesday 26 May 2015 commencing at 9.30am

Hearing Panel: The Notices and resource consent applications were heard by Hearings Commissioners consisting of: Ms Jenny Hudson (Chairperson) Ms Sheena Tepania Mr Stephen Udy

Council Advisers: Andrew Gysberts Team Manager Major Infrastructure Projects Trevor Watson Team Leader Planning - South Fritha Witton Senior Planner (Resource Consents) Craig Cairncross Principal Planner (Notices of Requirement) Nick Stott Arborist Don McKenzie Transport Engineer Rajinesh Kumar Development Engineer Rebecca Skidmore Urban Designer Landscape Architect Rhys Hegley Noise Consultant Matthew McNeil Coastal Processes Justine Quinn Golder Associates Simon Chapman Golder Associates Wouter Woortman Stormwater Specialist Kala Sivaguru Marine Ecology Stephanie Benucci Earthworks Specialist Shane Moore Contaminated land Specialist Myfanwy Eaves Archaeology Tania Bonsall Democracy Advisor - Hearings For the applicant: New Zealand Transport Agency represented by: 1

1) Patrick Mulligan, Buddle Findlay – Legal Counsel 2) Leigh Walker, Buddle Findlay – Legal Counsel 3) James Sephton, NZTA Project Manager 4) Shannon Bray, Boffa Miskell – Landscape & Visual 5) Siiri Wilkening, Marshall Day – Noise & Vibration 6) Robert Bell, NIWA – Coastal Processes 7) David Hughes – Stormwater 8) Katherine Muchna – Herpetofauna 9) Andrew Hale, Aurecon – Engineering 10) Ian Clark, Flow – Traffic and Transport 11) Dr Sharon De Luca – Marine Ecology 12) Owen Burn, Green Group – Planning

Additional experts whose brief of evidence were tabled on the 20th May but could be available on the 25th or 26th for questioning at the Commissioners request. 13) Graeme Ridley – Sediment & Erosion control 14) Edward Sides – Freshwater Ecology 15) Rodney Clough – Archaeology 16) Sarah Flynn – Terrestrial Ecology 17) David Dangerfield – Land contamination 18) Louise Strogen – Social impacts

Submitters in Lucie Rutherfurd and Hero Potini - Ngati Tamaoho Trust attendance: Daniel Minhinnick and David Lowe - Stevenson Group Limited Matthew Caldwell Pulonga Fainga Tupou Brendon Liggett - Housing New Zealand Corporation Grant Madill and Marius Rademayer - Madill & Smeed Limited Submitter who Jenna Fincham - Transpower New Zealand Ltd tabled evidence:

APPLICATION DESCRIPTION

Application and Property Details

Application Number: R/LUC/2014/4812, R/LUC/2014/4813, R/REG/2014/4814, R/REG/2014/4815, R/REG/2014/4816 AND R/REG/2014/4817. MPA077 AND PPA052 Site Address: 9 .5 km section of State Highway 1 ('SH1') commencing from just south of the SH20/1 Interchange (at Chainage 1700) through to just north of the Papakura Interchange (Chainage 10140), including within 146 individual titles (adjacent to the existing motorway designation) Applicant's Name: New Zealand Transport Agency Lodgement Date: 14 November 2014 Hearing Commencement: 9.30am Hearing Panel’s Site Visit: 18 May 2015 Hearing Closed: 2 June 2015

GLOSSARY

The following terms and abbreviations are used in this report:

ABG Auckland Botanical Gardens AEE Assessment of Environmental Effects ACRP:C Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal ACRP:ALW Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water ACRP:SC Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control BPO Best Practicable Option CIA Cultural Impact Assessment CNVMP Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan ECP Environmental Compensation Plan Flow Flow Transportation Specialists Limited MWKG Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Group NIMT North Island Main Trunk Railway NZAA New Zealand Archaeological Association NES National Environmental Standard NoR Notice of Requirement NZTA New Zealand Transport Agency OPW Outline Plan of Works PAUP Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan RMA Resource Management Act SCI Southern Corridor Improvement project SH1 State Highway 1 TTMP Temporary Traffic Management Plan UDLF Urban Design Landscape Framework

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1. This report contains:

1.1 the recommendations of independent Hearing Commissioners on two Notices of Requirement ('NoR') issued by the New Zealand Transport Agency (‘NZTA’) to the Auckland Council seeking alterations to Designation 186 (Southern Motorway (State Highway 1)) in the Operative Auckland District Plan – Manukau Section and Designation 14 (Motorway Purposes - Auckland – Hamilton (State Highway 1)) in the Operative Auckland District Plan – Papakura Section for the Southern Corridor Improvements project ('SCI' or 'the project').

1.2 the decision of the Commissioners on associated resource consent applications that are sought concurrently with the NoR. The applications for the various regional consents that are required for the construction and operation of the project are described in full in section 2.3 of this report.

2. The project involves the construction and operation (including the maintenance, improvement, enhancement, expansion, realignment and alteration) of a 9.5 km section of SH1 between Manukau and Papakura.

3. Much of the project can be undertaken within the boundaries of the existing designations. However, temporary and permanent alterations to the designations are required at certain locations along the corridor to enable temporary occupation for the construction of retaining and noise walls within the existing designation boundaries, as well as permanent features such as a stormwater wetland and interchange ramp

improvements at Takanini interchange, the Hill Road on and off ramps, and Orams Road overbridge.1

4. The total area of the temporarily altered designation is 75,889m2 (or 7.59ha). The area of the permanently altered designation is 19,375m2 (or 1.94ha).

5. The individual Notices and resource consents contain a considerable amount of material that is relevant to all parts of the project. For efficiency, and to ensure completeness, we have also incorporated into our report some of the descriptive material from the planners' report prepared under section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (‘the 'planners' report').

6. We record that NZTA advised at the beginning of the hearing that it now sought a 15 year lapse date for the altered designations (previously 10 years). It also sought a waiver of the requirement to submit an Outline Plan of Works for the project, following preparation of an Urban Design and Landscape Framework which was to form part of the documentation for the project. We discuss these two matters in section 9.4 of this report.

7. The Hearing Commissioners have been delegated full responsibility under sections 34 and 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to consider submissions and determine the Council’s recommendations to the requiring authority. Accordingly, the recommendations in this report are made directly to NZTA.

8. In relation to the Requirement, we are required to consider whether NZTA has satisfied the statutory tests under section 171 of the RMA, which are set out in full in section 7.2 of the planners' report and are therefore not repeated here. Having had regard to these matters, under section 171(2) we may recommend to the requiring authority that it confirm or modify the requirement, impose conditions, or withdraw the requirements.

9. The related resource consent matters must be considered under sections 104, 104B,104D, 105, 107 and 108 of the RMA and we must make a decision on these matters.

10. For the reasons given later in this report, we have recommended that:

10.1 NZTA confirm the Requirements, with the modifications made by its agents and consultants prior to and during the hearing, and subject to modified conditions as set out at the end of this report including a lapse period of 10 years;

10.2 the resource consents be approved, subject to modified conditions set out at the end of this report.

11. NZTA must make a decision within 30 working days of receiving these recommendations as to whether or not they are accepted, including the conditions that are annexed to it. NZTA may only modify the requirements if the modification has been recommended in this report, or if the modification is not inconsistent with the Notices of Requirement as notified. If its decision on the recommendations is not appealed, the altered designation will then be included in the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau and Papakura Sections).

12. The NZTA, as applicant, must also determine whether to accept our decision on its application for resource consents2, or exercise its right of appeal pursuant to section 120 of the RMA within 15 working days of receiving this decision. Any person who

1 As described in the section 42A report, pages 50-51. 2 listed in section 2.3 below 4

made a submission on the resource consent application may also exercise a right of appeal.

13. We have described the project only briefly because the Notices of Requirement were thoroughly prepared, and a comprehensive assessment report was then prepared by experienced officers on behalf of the Council who made recommendations on the Council’s behalf. In those circumstances, it seems to us to be unnecessary and wasteful to repeat the background material. The issues in dispute were mostly localised and have been described later when we address effects on the environment. For a full understanding of the project, the background documents lodged on behalf of NZTA and the planners' report are relevant. Copies of those documents as well as all of the evidence and submissions presented at the hearing are held by the Council.

PART B: THE PROJECT

Description of the project

14. The SCI project will involve the construction and operation (including the maintenance, improvement, enhancement, expansion, realignment and alteration) of a 9.5 km section of the SH1 between Manukau and Papakura.

15. The project is subject to a design and construct contract and may take up to three years to complete. NZTA envisages that these works will mostly be staged although some elements of the project will be constructed concurrently. NZTA has not yet confirmed the staging sequence but has advised that the south bound widening and improvements to the Takanini Interchange will be prioritised. 3

16. The project also covers ancillary works including improvements to motorway approaches and ramp connections, as well as safety and operational services, vegetation removal, stormwater treatment, temporary construction, maintenance and access areas, mitigation and restoration, ancillary structures and activities associated with the SCI works.

17. Alterations are required to designations within the Manukau and Papakura sections of the Operative District Plans and consequentially the PAUP to enable the works.

18. To enable construction of retaining and noise walls within the existing designation boundaries, temporary alterations to the designation are required, which total 75,889 m2 in area. Permanent alterations are also required, totalling19,375m2.

19. Resource consent applications are required under the provisions of the PAUP, ACRP:C, ALWP, ACRP:SC and under the NES (Soil).

20. The resource consent applications and NoRs were lodged concurrently and have been considered as an integrated project.

21. NZTA has identified the following issues within the project corridor in terms of the current motorway’s operation and the movement of other transport modes:

(a) an imbalance of lane capacity and bottlenecks at several locations along the corridor, including Takanini Interchange, is creating significant delays and eroding journey reliability;

(b) congestion and delays are adversely affecting travel times for commercial vehicles and restricting growth in the industrial areas around Takanini;

3 As described in the planners' report, page 15 of the hearing agenda 5

(d) improvements to SH16 and SH20, with the completion of the Waterview Connection project in 2017, along with the entire Western Ring Route in 2021, will increase the amount of traffic trying to access SH1.

22. NZTA considers that the SCI project will provide a number of benefits including:

(a) improved journey time reliability;

(b) corridor resilience;

(d) reduced traffic impact on the local network;

(e) improved local network movements at the Interchanges;

(f) improved safety with interchange upgrades, Safety in Design and shared-use pedestrian/cycle way provision;

(g) reduced overall traffic demand through the project’s positive effects on bus and active modes;

(h) improved pedestrian and cycleway provision with increased patronage; and

(i) potential for economic development as a result of travel time savings, improved trip time reliability and improved inter-regional accessibility.

Proposed Works

23. The following is a summary of the SCI project in both the (former) Manukau and Papakura sections of the project area, taken from the Council's planners' report.4

Southbound widening, Increase to four lanes generally between the SH1/SH20 including Interchange and the Hill Road Interchange; and

Increase to three lanes between the Hill Road Interchange and Papakura Interchange.

Northbound widening, Increase to three lanes from the Papakura Interchange to the including Takanini Interchange.

Interchange Takanini Interchange improvements, being: improvements,  new ramp configuration; including  widening of corridor to three lanes through interchange;  widening of Great South Road;  provision of a freight lane on northbound onramp; and  realignment of Spartan Road.

Hill Road Interchange improvements, being:  an additional westbound lane on the overbridge; and  minor reconfiguration of the on and off-ramps. Cycling and walking Along Great South Road through Takanini Interchange; improvements, A walking and cycling lane adjacent to the motorway corridor from

4 Planners' report, pages 16-17 of the hearing agenda 6

including the Papakura Interchange to Takanini Interchange; and

Linkages to existing elements of the regional cycle network, including:  at Takanini, Great South Road and Brylee Drive;  at Walter Strevens Drive;  at Gardone Crescent; and  at Hingaia, Pescara Point. Safety improvements, Improvements to safety barriers; including Bridge improvements (Orams Road, Hill Road Bridge, Papakura Stream Bridge);

Vertical clearance improvements at bridges; and

Improvement to Hill Road Interchange. Environmental Stormwater treatment ponds/wetlands at Takanini Interchange enhancements, and within the Auckland Botanic Gardens (ABG); including Planting;

Stormwater and debris runoff improvements;

Acoustic attenuation measures for adjacent residential properties; and

Urban design and landscaping.

24. We note that in response to consultation with Mana Whenua, four of whom prepared Maori Value Assessments5, a significant change was made to the project to abandon a proposed reclamation of the Pahurehure Inlet for a shared-use pedestrian cycleway. Instead, the inlet will be bridged.6 The overall outcome of the project, being provision of a continuous shared path from the Papakura interchange to the Takanini interchange, remains the same.

25. A more detailed description of the project is provided in section 2 of the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE).7

26. Application Numbers:

R/LUC/2014/4812 Land Use Consent under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) for earthworks on or within 50m of a site or place of value Resource Consent to Mana Whenua, vegetation removal within a Historic Heritage Applications: overlay, and management of stormwater flows and stormwater quality.

Land Use Consent to disturb soil under the National Environmental

5 Ngai Tai ki Tamaki, Ngati Tamaoho, Ngati Te Ata Waiohua and Te Akitai Waiohua. 6 After closure of the hearing, we were advised that a resource consent was granted on 5 June 2015 for bridging of the Pahurehure Inlet to accommodate the shared pedestrian/cycleway. This consent is still subject to rights of objection under section 357 of the RMA. 7 Volume 2 of the application material and additional information provided in subsequent section 92 reports 7

Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health Regulations 2011 (NES (soil))

R/LUC/2014/4813 Land Use Consent under section 89(2) of the RMA for the construction, operation and maintenance of a motorway on reclaimed land.

R/REG/2014/4814 Regional Land Use Consent under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control (ACRP:SC) for earthworks over an area greater than 0.25ha and trenching exceeding 100m within the Sediment Control Protection Area.

Regional Land Use Consent under the PAUP for earthworks greater than 2,500m2 or 2,500m3 for network utilities or road networks

R/REG/2014/4815 Discharge Permit under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (ALWP) for the diversion and discharge of stormwater within an urban area by a stormwater network utility operator.

Discharge Permit under the PAUP for the diversion and discharge of stormwater to land, water or the Coastal Marine Area (CMA).

R/REG/2014/4816 Coastal Permit under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal 2004 (ACRP:C) for the construction activities in the CMA, including the erection and placement of temporary structures, alterations to existing lawful structures not provided for, disturbance from construction activities, reclamation, and the discharge of contaminants during construction.

Coastal Permit under the PAUP for the construction activities in the CMA, including reclamation, disturbance from construction activities which includes the removal of mangroves and the extension or alteration to existing lawful structures.

R/REG/2014/4817 Coastal Permit under the ACRP:C for the occupation and ongoing use, operation and maintenance of State Highway 1 (SH1) for transport purposes in the CMA, including associated stormwater outfalls, and the ongoing discharge of contaminants and stormwater associated with this use.

Coastal Permit under the PAUP for the occupation and ongoing use, operation and maintenance of SH1 for transport purposes in the CMA. Plan modification number MPA077 NoR 1 Notice of Requirement to alter Designation 186 (Southern Motorway (State Highway 1)) - Operative Auckland District Plan – Manukau Section for improvement, enhancement, expansion, realignment and alteration works Notices of

Requirement (NoR): Plan modification number PPA052 NoR 2 Notice of requirement to alter Designation 14 (Motorway Purposes - Auckland – Hamilton (State Highway 1)) - Operative Auckland District Plan – Papakura Section for improvement, enhancement, expansion, realignment and alteration works. 8

27. The reasons for consent are described in section 4.3 of the planners' report, which provide references to the applicable plan, the relevant rules and the activity status of each aspect of the proposal. Consents are required under a number of Operative Plans as well as the PAUP. The following is a generic summary of these reasons.

(a) Earthworks extending over an area greater than 0.25ha and trenching exceeding 100m within the Sediment Control Protection Area;

(b) The diversion and discharge of stormwater by a network utility operator including a stormwater wetland system and sediment forebay at the Takanini Interchange and a stormwater wetland system and sediment forebay at the ABG;

(c) The construction and removal of temporary staging and containment works within the CMA to establish new and enlarged bridges and causeways at the Pahurehure Inlet; and the construction of outlets to the CMA from stormwater treatment devices;

(d) Modifications to existing bridges and culverts at the Pahurehure Inlet and construction of extensions to the existing State Highway 1 bridges at the northern inlet;

(e) Disturbance of the foreshore or seabed from construction activities, including the removal of mangroves and the combined extent of the reclamation, permanent occupation and temporary occupation (a combined area of 9,860m2);

(f) Reclamation associated with widened embankments on the western side of the Pahurehure Inlet Causeway is proposed. The total reclamation area is approximately 260m2 or 0.026ha;

(g) Discharges during the construction period and ongoing discharges from the ongoing use, operation and maintenance of State Highway 1 for transport purposes and the associated stormwater outfalls;

(h) Occupation of the CMA, including widened bridge decks, the bridge piles/piers within the Pahurehure Inlet, and the outlets to the CMA from the stormwater treatment devices;

(i) The ongoing use, operation and maintenance of State Highway 1 for transport purposes;

(j) Earthworks greater than 2,500m2 or 2,500m3 within the historic heritage overlay (ID 1270, Upper Puhinui Flour Mill);

(k) Stormwater diversions, discharges and treatment from public roads operated by a road controlling authority within a Stormwater Management Area (SMAF 1 or 2) where the impervious areas do not meet the permitted or controlled activity controls. Note – both the Puhinui and Papakura Streams are within SMAF 1 areas;

(l) Earthworks on or within 50 metres of a site or place of value to Mana Whenua. The identified site or place of value is referenced in the PAUP as ID2779 and is in the vicinity of Pescara Point, Hingaia;

(m) The removal of trees greater than 3m in height or greater than 300mm girth where archaeological controls apply. All vegetation is proposed to be removed 9

from the proposed wetland treatment area which is within the historic heritage extent of place, ID 1270, Upper Puhinui Flour Mill (Auckland Botanic Gardens);

(n) Consent is also required under Clause 11 of the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health Regulations 2011, to disturb soil on a piece of land where it is more likely than not that an activity or industry described in the HAIL is being or has been undertaken on it;

(o) Another consent is necessary under section 89(2) of the RMA for the construction, operation and maintenance of a motorway on reclaimed land.

Affected Land

28. The following description of affected land is taken from the planners' report.8

"As described at Section 1.4 of the AEE, the majority of the SCI project can be undertaken within the boundaries of the existing NZTA designations. However, alterations to designations are required at certain locations along the SH1 corridor.

The total area of the temporarily altered designation is 75,889m2 (or 7.59ha). The area of the permanently altered designation is 19,375m2 (or 1.94ha).

The nature of the proposed work beyond the bounds of the two subject designations is described within NZTA’s two Form 18 documents as follows:

Designation 186 – Manukau Section:

 at Orams Road overbridge - enhancement, integration and improvement of connectivity to the local road network;

 at the area of unformed road adjoining the Motorway and Eugenia Rise - temporary works area that will be disestablished and rehabilitated on the completion of the project;

 at the boundary of the SH1 designation with the north western corner of the ABG - area for stormwater treatment;

 at the boundary of the SH1 designation with the ABG - areas of access for temporary construction activities (e.g. retaining walls, battering);

 at the boundary with properties on Lawrence Crescent - areas of access for temporary construction activities (e.g. retaining walls, battering);

 at Hill Road Overbridge - enhancement, integration and improvement of connectivity to the local road network;

 at 95 Alfriston Road - a temporary works area which will be disestablished and rehabilitated on the completion of the project;

 at the boundary with properties on Shifnal Drive, Solveig Place, and Greenmeadows Avenue - areas of access for temporary construction activities (e.g. retaining walls, battering); and

 at the area of public open space adjacent to Papakura Stream, west of the State Highway 1 designation - temporary access for bridge and ramps construction associated with Takanini interchange improvements and improvement of safety, functionality and integration with the local road network, with the majority of the area (being that which is not taken by the new ramp layout) being disestablished and rehabilitated on completion of the project.

8 Planners' report, pages 17-19 of the hearing agenda 10

Designation 14 – Papakura Section:

 at the area of reserve bound by the SH1 designation, Papakura Stream and the Main Trunk Railway temporary access for bridge and ramps construction associated with Takanini interchange improvements and improvement of safety, functionality and integration with the local road network, with the majority of the area (being that which is not taken by the new ramp layout) being disestablished and rehabilitated on completion of the project;

 at 2-12, 24 & 30 Great South Road - a temporary works area, that will be disestablished and rehabilitated at the completion of the project;

 at part of 24 & 30 Great South Road - involves ramp, intersection and network connectivity improvements;

 at the Takanini Interchange - involves improvements to the integration and connectivity of the interchange to the local road network and overall enhancements and improvements to the safety and functionality of the interchange, including multi-modal connectivity (cycling & walking);

 at Brylee Drive - areas of access for temporary construction activities;

 at Challon Close - areas of access for temporary construction activities;

 at Balgowan Terrace - areas of access for temporary construction activities;

 at Walter Strevens Drive and Gardone Terrace - areas of access for temporary construction activities;

 at Kindergarten Drive and Cunningham Place - areas of access for temporary construction activities;

 at the esplanade reserve adjoining the northern side of the Pahurehure Inlet - connections to the local walking and cycling network;

 at the esplanade reserve/public open space area at Rushgreen Avenue, east of the SH1 designation - connections to the local walking and cycling network (including a cross- highway bridge); and

 at the esplanade reserve/public open space at Pescara Point, west of the SH1 designation connections to the local walking and cycling network (including a cross- highway bridge).

Land required for permanent designation alteration

As described at section 2.6 of the AEE, the alterations are identified by NZTA as affecting 149 (later clarified as being 146) property titles in total, with permanent land requirement being limited to only the following parcels:

 land within the Auckland Botanic Gardens (Lot 3 DP 59551), to accommodate a stormwater management device;

 land at the reserve on David Avenue (Section 10 and 11 Blk XI Otahuhu SD) for earthworks and retaining walls associated with the Orams Road Overbridge upgrade;

 occupation of reserve land (Pt Section 11 Blk XIV Otahuhu SD and Pt Section 26 Blk XIV Otahuhu SD) to the south of Ferguson Street to accommodate earthworks and retaining walls associated with the Takanini Interchange Upgrade;

 land at the Stevenson Concrete plant compound (Blk XIV Otahuhu SD and Pt Lot 2 DP 41239) located off Great South Road, to accommodate the new northbound on-ramp at Takanini Interchange; and

 land for access purposes off Great South Road (Lot 1 DP 41239).

Land requirements for construction purposes/access

Occupation of land at the locations listed below to accommodate motorway to local road/shared-use pedestrian/cycle way connections is proposed:

 land at Conifer Grove Reserve off Walter Strevens Drive (Lot 630 DP 98616);

 land at Conifer Grove Esplanade Reserve(Lot 833 DP 98828); and

 land at Hingaia Esplanade Reserve for the purposes of a shared-use pedestrian/cycleway bridge (Lot 9 DP 123959, Lot 412 – Lot 415 DP 123959, Lot 800 DP 382903, Lot 704 DP 382903, Lot 700 DP 382903).

Construction associated with the SCI project in certain locations along the corridor relies on the use of land currently outside the designation, as summarised below. Once construction is complete the designation will be removed from this land and returned to its current location in respect of the following properties:

 Temporary occupation of land to accommodate a construction yard and access to it at:

- Lot 1 DP 54771, Lot 1 DP 358557 and Lot 1 DP 128342 off Great South Road.

 Construction purposes/access:

- Sec 23 Blk XIV Otahuhu SD SO 54154; and

- Lot 3 DP 59551 (A portion of land on the western edge of the ABG).

 along the eastbound carriageway in respect of a small portion of the rear section of 52 properties (located off Idesia Place, Shifnal Drive, Solveig Place, Challen Close, Balgowan Terrace, Corolu Place, Kindergarten Drive and Cummingham Place); and

 along the westbound carriageway to a small portion of the rear section of 73 properties (located off Rata Vine Drive, Orams Road, Lawrence Crescent, Greenmeadows Avenue, Brylee Drive, Walter Strevens Drive and Gardone Terrace)."

PART C: THE PROJECT AREA AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT

29. A full description of the length of the corridor is set out in detail in the application documents and planners' report. We are familiar with the motorway corridor and environs, and also visited specific areas of interest or concern. We have focused our attention on particular areas, and refer to them accordingly, in relation to the environmental effects of the project, and the extent to which these effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

30. By way of a general overview, the SCI project area passes through a wide range of established urban environments which include the residential areas of Manurewa, Hill Park, Randwick Park, Conifer Grove, Pahurehure and Papakura. In the most built up residential parts of the project area, dwellings are typically around 15 to 20 metres from the closest extent of the works. To the south, residential development is proceeding in Hingaia and Karaka.

31. Business and industrial activity is concentrated around the Takanini Interchange and there are several key regional and community activities along the corridor which include the Vodafone Events Centre south of the SH1/20 interchange, the 42 hectare Auckland Botanic Gardens ('ABG') between CH2000 – 3200 on the northern side of Hill Road, and the Manurewa East School located to the immediate southwest of Alfriston Road. As well, there is the Manukau Golf Course on the southwestern side of

SH1 and Great South Road at the Takanini interchange; this land has been granted resource consent for subdivision and residential development. There are several reserves adjacent to the corridor, for example Conifer Grove Esplanade Reserve, Fergusson Reserve, David Avenue Park and Brylee Drive Reserve.

32. Various telecommunications, electricity and water network utility services run within the project corridor.

33. The SCI area features three major stormwater catchments which have different receiving environments. These are:

 Manukau to Hill Road, discharge location: Puhinui Stream;  Hill Road to Takanini Interchange, discharge location: Papakura Stream; and  Takanini Interchange to Papakura Interchange, discharge location: CMA.

34. The Pahurehure Inlet is an estuary of the Manukau Harbour with high silt levels and an extensive series of mudflats through which tidal creeks flow. Aside from some wattle- dominated, weedy scrub on the north-eastern margin of the inlet, the local coastal environment vegetation comprises closely mown grass and mangroves with a few local areas of saltmarsh and salt meadow. In recent years, mangroves have been removed from the southernmost inlet.

35. Vegetation in the SCI area comprises a mix of exotic and native species typical of residential areas and transport environments. The ABG contain a diverse range of species. However, the majority of vegetation within the SCI area comprises grass and amenity plantings within the berm. There is a small number of naturally established native vegetation remnants (natural podocarp-broadleaved forest fragments) present in the project area, namely at Everglade Drive Reserve, within the southern section of the ABG and at Hill Crest Grove.

36. The SCI project area features two main streams, being the Puhinui Stream and the Papakura Stream at CH2050 and CH5200 respectively. The Puhinui stream is approximately 12km in length and discharges into the Puhinui Inlet in the south-east Manukau Harbour, about 8 km downstream of SH1. It features a substantial, largely rural catchment upstream of the project area, and a predominantly urban or developing catchment downstream through Manukau.

37. Upstream of SH1, the Papakura Stream has been straightened and rock-lined for approximately 1.7 km beyond which lies the rural catchment. Downstream of SH1 the stream largely retains its natural form, running along the northern side of Manukau Golf Course and then discharging to the Pahurehure Inlet in the south-east Manukau Harbour approximately 1.9 km downstream of SH1.

38. There are two known archaeological sites within 100m of the project area – the Upper Puhinui Mill CHI 4516 (R11/1633) located within the ABG in Manurewa and a midden site CHI 16012 (R12/676) located on the southern side of Pahurehure Inlet on Pescara Point. The latter is also listed (ID 2779) in the Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua overlay under the PAUP.

39. The overall extent of the SCI project area is identified in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: overall extent of the SCI project area

PART D: NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS

Submissions

40. A total of 14 submissions were received. One submission, from Mr Craig Peters, was received after the close of the submission period. There was no objection from the applicant to the late submission being accepted, and we resolved to accept it for the reasons set out below.

41. Eight submissions opposed the applications/NoRs, two were neutral, two supported in part and opposed in part, and two supported the applications/NoRs.

42. A number of submissions were incorrectly lodged against particular resource consent applications when the issues they raise pertain to NoR matters and vice versa. All submissions should have been lodged referencing the NoRs for alterations to the designations. In any case, all submissions were reviewed and reported on jointly by the Council officers and that approach was discussed with NZTA who confirmed that they were comfortable with this approach. We were satisfied upon receiving independent legal advice that we had sufficient discretion under section 37 and 37A of the RMA to accept all of the submissions.

43. The issues raised in submissions have been summarised in the planners' report as follows:

(a) Transport effects (including the need for and effects from proposed walkway/cycleway links)

(b) Noise and vibration effects on residents and businesses from construction and operation periods

(d) Impacts on Transpower assets

(e) Impacts on site operations / lost production

(f) Temporary construction access

(g) Construction management

(h) Stormwater treatment

(i) Causeway removal and replacement with a bridge

(j) Cultural effects

(k) Air quality effects

44. We have had regard to these matters in our overall consideration of the proposal. The submissions have also been addressed by the Council’s specialists who incorporated comments into their assessments prior to the hearing. The applicant's experts have responded in evidence presented at the hearing and after hearing submissions and

evidence from the submitters who attended the hearing, have addressed particular matters in reply.

Late submission

45. Under s37 and s37A of the RMA we accept the late submission from Craig Peters. The reasons for this decision are:

(a) the submission was only one day late, received at 12:38pm on 15 April 2015;

(b) the matters raised in the submission are similar to other submissions that were received during the submission period;

(d) including the late submission will not cause any unreasonable delay.

PART E: SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING

46. The applicant’s witnesses were introduced by NZTA’s counsel, Mr Mulligan, and a summary of the evidence presented on behalf of NZTA was set out in his opening legal submissions. In the interests of brevity we have not reiterated that here, but have referred to salient points in our consideration of the environmental effects and relevant statutory matters. We have considered all of the evidence in reaching our findings.

47. The applicant’s witnesses spoke to their evidence and answered questions. As requested by the Chair prior to the hearing, the Council’s expert witnesses were also asked to be available for questioning at the same time as the relevant applicant expert. This allowed the Council’s experts the opportunity to respond immediately to any matters raised by the applicant’s experts and gave us an opportunity to ask questions of the applicant’s witnesses in that respect.

48. With the applicant making much of the evidence available on the first day of hearing, the panel, submitters and Council officers were able to pre-read the evidence. The Chair indicated on the second day of hearing which witnesses would not be required for questioning by the panel, thereby having their evidence tabled and taken as read.

49. We refer in our discussion of the environmental effects to the evidence presented by the submitters and their expert witnesses.

50. By the end of the hearing, the Council indicated that it largely agreed with the various amendments to the proposal that were addressed in the applicant’s evidence and expected to reach agreement on an amended set of proposed conditions with NZTA. An agreed, revised set of conditions was submitted for our consideration on 29 May 2015.

PART F: STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS

Notices of Requirement

51. Section 181 of the RMA deals with alterations to existing designations.

52. Section 171 sets out the matters to which a territorial authority must have regard when considering a requirement and any submissions received, and in making its recommendations to the requiring authority. Section 171 is subject to Part 2, which states the purpose and principles of the Act.

53. Section 177 also applies in circumstances where a designation is to be included in the District Plan and is already the subject of an earlier designation. This is the situation at the ABG and in relation to the NIMT.9 Mr Mulligan, counsel for the NZTA, advised us at the hearing that ongoing consultation is being undertaken with the Auckland Council Parks staff regarding the ABG and no works will be undertaken without obtaining the written consent from the Council as requiring authority. Similar undertakings have been made by NZTA in regard to areas where its altered designation overlaps KiwiRail's Designation 8.10

Resource Consent Applications

54. The relevant statutory considerations for these non-complying resource consent applications are Part 2 of the RMA (“Purpose and Principles” – sections 5 to 8), and sections 104, 104B, 104D, 105, 107, and 108 of the RMA. The relevant clauses of the Act are set out more fully in section 7.0 of the planners' report and we have had regard to all these provisions as appropriate, in reaching our findings.

PART G: ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

55. The Assessment of Environmental Effects (‘AEE’) provided by the requiring authority and planners' report11 comprehensively identified and addressed a number of potential effects the project may have on the environment. These included positive effects such as a reduction in congestion, improvements to vehicle trip times, reductions in traffic volumes on local roads, improved east-west connections across the Orams Road, Hill Road and Takanini overbridges/interchange respectively, improved pedestrian and vehicle traffic safety, improvements to the cycleway network (providing a choice of transport modes), operational efficiencies and stormwater management and ecology. We agree that the project will have the positive effects described in the application documents and planners' report.

56. Issues addressed in the reports were (in no particular order) land requirements and property effects, cultural matters, land suitability, traffic effects, landscape, arboriculture and visual effects, effects of vegetation removal, operational and construction noise, air quality effects, vibration, earthworks, streamworks, ecology, water quality, overland flow paths, stormwater and contaminants, site contamination, lighting, archaeology and heritage matters, and effects on public utilities.

57. It is not necessary for us to repeat the detailed discussion of all these effects. We are generally satisfied that the requiring authority had identified all of the relevant environmental effects in the AEE and has been working towards resolving issues raised by submitters and in the planners' report since lodging the NoRs. Following an

9 Designation reference 190 in the Auckland Operative District Plan (Manukau Section) and reference 602 in the PAUP, and KiwiRail designation 8 10 Opening submissions of counsel for the requiring authority, paragraphs 6.10 and 6.11 11 The planners' report discusses positive effects in section 8.1.2, pages 33-34 of the hearing agenda 17

adjournment at the end of the hearing, which provided an opportunity for the Council and applicant to continue working towards achieving agreement on conditions, the issues that remained in contention had been narrowed considerably. Accordingly, we focus on the main issues that were raised in the submissions and planners' report, noting that we have had regard to all of the detailed and comprehensive material provided in support of the Notices and resource consent applications.

58. Effects that must be disregarded

58.1 Any effect on a person who has given written approval to the application:

(a) We record that the following organisations have provided their written approval;

 KiwiRail (with regard to works within the Railway Designation for the upgrade of Bridge 341 NIMT at Takanini); and

 Vodafone, Watercare Services Ltd and Chorus (with regard to plant and services affected by the corridor works).

(b) Mr Jack Hobbs, Manager of Auckland Botanic Gardens, also tabled a memo dated 19 May 2015 in which he advised that "a memorandum of understanding has now been signed by both Auckland Council and NZTA that removes the areas of concern expressed in the memo of 7 May". He therefore requested that the earlier memo be disregarded. On this basis, we have disregarded any effects of the project on the ABG.

58.2 Trade competition

(a) No issues regarding trade competition have arisen.

58.3 Effects that may be disregarded – Permitted Baseline assessment

(a) We accept the matters identified in the planners' report12 as forming part of the permitted baseline (being activities that can be undertaken as of right under the current District Plans, Regional Plans or National Environmental Standard provisions). These were not in contention.

59. Transport Effects

59.1 The application material contained a comprehensive transport assessment undertaken by Flow Transportation Specialists Limited (Flow).13 The Assessment set out the traffic and transportation effects of constructing and operating the section of the SCI covered by the Notices of Requirement. Effects considered included:

(a) Area-wide traffic effects;

(b) Operation of the motorway (traffic flows, traffic times, operation of Takanini interchange, operation of Hill Road interchange);

12 Section 8.1.1 of the planners' report, at page 33 of the hearing agenda 13 SCI Volume 3 Technical Appendix 1 and subsequent responses under section 92 of the RMA 18

(d) Public transport effects;

(e) Effects on freight;

(f) Crash assessment;

(g) Construction effects.

59.2 The requiring authority's assessment of the transport effects of the project concluded that these will be mostly positive. The benefits have also been acknowledged by the Council and in some of the supporting submissions. We agree that the SCI project will improve the operation of the motorway by providing greater capacity and enhancement of the overall lane layout across the project area, as well as significant improvements in integration with the local road network through proposed improvements at the Takanini interchange, Orams Road Bridge and Hill Road Interchange. A reduction in traffic flows on the local road network will be beneficial especially for pedestrians and cyclists, although traffic flows are predicted to increase on certain arterial routes.

59.3 Mr Don McKenzie had peer reviewed the applicant's technical assessment of transport effects in the AEE and further information. His comments were set out in a Memorandum to Craig Cairncross dated 5 May 2015 in which he discussed the general traffic and road effects, effects on individuals, effects on the environment, construction effects, submissions and conditions. He concluded that the project, when viewed in an holistic manner, will provide positive benefits to the traffic and transportation environment of Auckland and its connections beyond the region. He recommended some further modifications to the conditions offered by NZTA to address transport and efficiency matters particularly during the project's construction period.14

59.4 Mr Clark's evidence on behalf of the NZTA described the area-wide traffic effects of the project, the operational effects on pedestrians and cyclists, and safety effects. He also responded to matters raised in submissions and the planners' report.

Takanini Interchange

59.5 Takanini Interchange is one of the most significant components of the project. It involves improvements to the integration and connectivity of the interchange to the local road network and overall enhancements and improvements to the safety and functionality of the interchange, including multi-modal connectivity (cycling and walking).

59.6 In evidence, Mr Clark outlined the main existing problems with the interchange as being:

(a) delays on Great South Road as a result of traffic accessing the motorway via the loop ramp, which has a very tight turning radius and other design limitations;

(b) the effects of Spartan Road joining Great South Road mid interchange;

14 Memo from Don McKenzie to Craig Cairncross dated 5 May 2015, page 265 of the hearing agenda 19

(d) the safety of the southbound off ramp joining Great South Road;

(e) the safety risks associated with the merge of the short northbound on-ramp on to the motorway;

(f) the lack of pedestrian and cycle facilities throughout the interchange.15

59.7 He considered that "in the absence of any improvements to the Takanini interchange, the widening of the motorway would adversely affect the operation of the interchange, as the increase in the number of motorway lanes would increase the rate at which vehicles can reach the interchange".16

59.8 These improvements are:-

(a) New ramp configuration;

(b) Widening of corridor to three lanes through the interchange;

(d) Provision of a freight lane on the North bound onramp; and

(e) Realignment of Spartan Road.

Submission from the Stevenson Group

59.9 The Stevenson Group Ltd ('Stevenson') submitted on the application regarding a number of broad issues including transport. In particular, they were concerned that the proposal:

(a) Will not promote sustainable management of resources, contrary to Part 2 of the RMA;

(b) Will not meet future needs;

(d) Does not adequately avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects;

(e) Is not necessary to meet NZTA objectives; and

(f) Does not adequately consider alternatives.

59.10 Mr McKenzie’s advice on behalf of Auckland Council was that the detailed rearrangement of both the Stevenson site and associated access to the public road network are matters that can and should be addressed in detail between the NZTA and the submitter. Mr McKenzie considered that there are reasonably suitable access points that could be made available to the Stevenson site via the Great South Road frontage. In regard to construction impacts, Mr McKenzie considered that these are most appropriately managed and mitigated through the

15 Evidence of Ian Clark, paragraph 11.21 16 Evidence of Ian Clark, paragraph 11.22 20

detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan ('CTMP') which should be developed by the NZTA in consultation with Auckland Council and the landowner.

59.11 Mr Clark's opinion was that the existing access to the Stevenson site is exceptionally close to the intersection of Great South Road with the north bound motorway ramps. He considered that this creates problems in terms of queuing across the access, and also in terms of vehicles (particularly trucks) being able to turn left from the northbound off ramp and then turning right into the site, and those turning left out of the site and turning right onto the northbound on ramp.

59.12 He considered that the project (assuming satisfactory resolution of property negotiations to incorporate an adjacent site into the Stevenson land)17 would result in an improvement to Stevenson, through the relocation of the site access, the provision of greater capacity on the motorway and Great South Road, and a change in truck manoeuvres from an awkward and dangerous weave to a simple left turn on to the northbound onramp.

59.13 At the hearing, we heard evidence from David Lowe, Stevenson's Chief Executive Officer, that the company's operations are heavily reliant on access to and from the Takanini site, with approximately 65 movements in and out of the site occurring each day. The construction and operation of the project greatly threatens this access. It is critical to Stevenson that it has certainty of access both throughout the construction period and longer term. Vehicles entering and exiting the Takanini site are currently able to head in any direction (i.e. there are no restrictions on turning options into or out of the Takanini site). It is important that this flexibility is maintained throughout the construction and operation of the project. 18

59.14 Overall, taking into consideration the wider benefits of the proposed improvements to the northern onramp and the likely benefits to Stevenson of an alternative access arrangement (whilst acknowledging that land acquisition negotiations are ongoing), we find that any adverse environmental effects will be less than minor and that there will be positive effects once the proposal is operational. We find that the proposed mitigation able to be implemented through the CTMP19 will adequately address temporary construction effects arising from this aspect of the project.

59.15 Specific matters to be addressed in the CTMP, as sought by the submitter and as agreed by NZTA, include traffic management measures to address and maintain, traffic capacity as far as reasonably practicable, including bus services, at peak traffic periods during week days (6:00 to 9:00 and 16:00 to 18:00 ) at the Takanini Interchange and left and right access from the Stevenson's site (24 & 30 Great South Road) as well as measures to maintain existing vehicle access, as far as possible, or where the existing property access is to be removed or becomes

17 We note that the issue of property acquisition for the proposed north bound on ramp subject to NOR is not a matter for us to consider per se; however it is apparent that there is at least one option under consideration which will enable alternative access to be provided to the submitter's land 18 Evidence of David Lowe, paragraphs 23-25 19 Required by condition 12(b) 21

unsafe as a result of the construction works, measures to provide alternative access arrangements in consultation with Council.20

Effects of Construction Activity at Great South Road

59.16 An inter-related matter which was brought to our attention is the need, or otherwise, for management of construction traffic associated with the project at the requiring authority's proposed main construction site on Great South Road. This is the former Placemakers which is adjacent to Stevenson and opposite the main entrance into the Manukau Golf Course.

59.17 Mr Hale, NZTA's engineering consultant, and Mr Clark both confirmed that construction of the interchange would occur before the development of the golf course, stating that they believed the Fletcher development will begin in 2017. It is a condition of resource consent for the golf course development that traffic signals be installed; however there would be no need for traffic signals on Great South Road to manage traffic movements associated with the NZTA project if the Takanini interchange upgrade is undertaken first. However, Messrs Hale and Clark agreed that if there is a change in timing that they are currently not aware of, construction traffic effects of the SCI project could need to be managed differently. This has been reflected in amended conditions that have been agreed by Auckland Council and NZTA, requiring that the use of the entrance to the former Manukau Golf Course be monitored when development commences on that land, and an appropriate traffic management plan submitted for certification by the Council.21 We find that this is an appropriate method of managing the potential construction activity effects in this location.

Spartan Road

59.18 The project proposes to provide an additional through lane in each direction on Great South Road, past Spartan Road, Spartan Road being 'within' the Takanini interchange area. The existing southbound offramp at Takanini, which passes above Spartan Road, is also proposed to be lengthened.

59.19 The industrial area on the northeastern side of the interchange relies on Manuroa Road and Spartan Road for access to Great South Road and the motorway. The right turn out of Spartan Road is currently banned and no change is proposed to this existing arrangement as part of the project, although the intersection of Great South Road and Spartan Road is to be signalised.22 Accordingly, the activities within Spartan Road have limited access and egress within a congested road environment.

59.20 Mr Clark responded in evidence to submissions on Spartan Road, which included:

(a) the concerns raised by Madill and Smeed regarding the lack of provision for right turn movements out from Spartan Road onto Great South Road; and

20 Conditions 26(d) and (e) 21 Condition 26(g) 22 Evidence of Ian Clark, paragraph 11.4 22

(b) submissions by Mr Ian Brown, Mr Clive Crossman, and Mathew Caldwell requesting the closure of the access from Spartan Road onto Great South Road, with traffic to be channelled via Manuroa Road.

59.21 Mr Clark advised that consideration was given, during the project development stage, to the option of reintroducing the right turn out of Spartan Road but that this cannot be achieved without significantly affecting the capacity of the Takanini interchange as a whole.

59.22 He also acknowledged that there are some key freight generators within Spartan Road but considered that these local generators "are not as strategically important as SH1 which is classified as a high volume, nationally significant route".23

59.23 He told us that closure of the Spartan Road connection to the Great South Road was also considered, as this would overcome the existing unusual circumstance of the Spartan Road / Great South Road intersection being "within" the motorway interchange. Closure would also be consistent with Auckland Transport's desire to remove all level crossings from the Auckland rail network in the long term, either through grade separation or closure. However, full closure of Spartan Road would increase traffic demands along other adjacent crossings of the railway, particularly Manuroa Road. This would increase the queuing back from the level crossings until investment is progressed into grade separation for those crossings, or the provision of a new crossing for the railway.

59.24 Consequently, the project as proposed, retains existing movements at the Great South Road/Spartan Road intersection.

Submission from Madill & Smeed

59.25 Madill & Smeed Limited submitted on the application regarding the works proposed at the Takanini interchange. The submitter operates a heavy transport business ('Hall's Group') from a 2ha site fronting Great South Road and Spartan Road (the property address being 1 and 15 Spartan Road). The company has a fleet of 112 trucks which distribute a large proportion of the refrigerated fresh and frozen food purchased daily at most supermarkets throughout Auckland.24 Madill & Smeed are particularly concerned that the proposal provides:

(a) A lack of detail for right-turn vehicle movements from Spartan Road onto Great South Road, including a lack of adequate provision for the movement of freight from Spartan Road;

(b) A lack of detail regarding the treatment of the Great South Road frontage of their land and the retaining wall / landscape treatment at the front of their property;

59.26 The company opposed the proposal on the basis that it does not provide an acceptable solution to traffic safety and efficiency at the Spartan Road / Great South Road intersection. They contended that there is currently a lack of connectivity between Spartan Road industrial properties and the Takanini Interchange, and that the transport network is not well integrated with the adjacent

23 Evidence of Ian Clark, paragraph 11.7 24 Evidence of Grant Madill, paragraph 12 23

industrial land uses. They feel it will become increasingly challenging with development.25

59.27 In evidence, Mr Madill told us that most of Hall's truck routes involve the use of the motorway and when their depot was first established some 40 years ago the Spartan Road intersection allowed for left and right turns. However, changes to the intersection have closed off right turn movements onto the Great South Road and as a result, trucks no longer have the option of accessing the north-bound onramp onto the motorway.

59.28 Presently all north bound trucks and all daytime south-bound trucks en route to the motorway are forced to use the internal road network, which involves two level railway crossings, travelling through residential areas and past a pre-school to the Manuroa/Great South Road intersection.

59.29 Mr Madill told us that travel between the site and the Takanini interchange, via Manuroa Road adds 1.5 km to every trip, and at 300 truck movements per day the detour equates to an additional 450 km every day (in excess of 160,000 km each year). There were significant delays in travel time.26

59.30 He wanted NZTA to review its proposal, after taking into account the access requirements of Hall's and other transport users in the north eastern part of Takanini now and in the future.

59.31 He considered that a sustainable solution would need to include signals at the Great South Road/ Spartan Road intersection with provision for left and right turn movements out of, and into Spartan Road.

59.32 Mr Marius Rademeyer gave planning evidence in support of Madill and Smeed's submission. He disagreed with the assessment provided by NZTA that connectivity with the Takanini Industrial area is a local network issue and provided two other options for consideration. These were:

(a) Provision for right turn movements out of Spartan Road; and

(b) A fly over link into Spartan Road.

59.33 He sought that the hearing panel require connections between the Takanini interchange and the adjacent industrial area to be further investigated and that NZTA continued discussions with Auckland Transport, to provide solutions.27

59.34 Mr Rademeyer provided copies of email correspondence between April and June 2014 between the submitter and NZTA which suggested that Auckland Transport was planning to initiate the closure of the level crossing at the same time as the NZTA project, and that when this occurred it would be possible to fully signalise the Spartan Road intersection. However, Auckland Transport had subsequently

25 Submission by Grant Andrew Madill 26 Evidence of Grant Madill, paragraphs 18 - 19. 27 Evidence of Marius Rademeyer, paragraph 19 24

advised that it "could not commit to the closure of the level crossing and this has had to be separated from the NZTA project".28

59.35 Madill & Smeed's evidence in regard to traffic effects appeared to be centred on current issues related to the Spartan Road / Great South Road interchange and connections to SH1. It is not an ideal situation that the current roading environment requires additional travel for Hall's trucks via Manuroa Road and two level crossings, which adds to business cost; however, the scale of that activity is also contributing to the present level of congestion.

59.36 We conclude that the issues/concerns raised by Madill & Smeed (Hall’s Group) relating to traffic at the Spartan Road/Great South Road intersection, along with connectivity to the motorway, are matters which will need to be addressed by Auckland Transport and should not delay the SCI project until local roading issues are resolved. We are of the opinion that the requirements of the Construction Traffic Management Plan (condition 26) will effectively address traffic issues associated with the project around the Takanini interchange.

Construction period

59.37 During construction activity there will be adverse effects to general motorists/cyclists and pedestrians relating to the reduction in capacity of the motorway / interchanges / bridges.

59.38 In Mr McKenzie’s opinion the main transportation effects during construction, apart from the general traffic effects on motorists discussed above, relate to vehicle access for properties immediately surrounding the works. In particular, properties immediately surrounding the Takanini Interchange, Orams Road Overbridge (including Peguero Place), and Hill Road will all likely experience disruption to various degrees throughout the project.

59.39 Mr McKenzie agreed with NZTA’s consultant, Flow, that it is inappropriate at this stage of the process to select any particular or specific arrangement or techniques for traffic management during the construction period. However, in his opinion there should be additional analysis / assessment undertaken once the final construction methodology is finalised to ensure effects at the Takanini interchange in particular are appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated.

59.40 Amended conditions were proposed by Mr McKenzie which have been agreed by the Council and NZTA and on this basis Mr McKenzie considered that the adverse effects would be no more than minor.

59.41 We are satisfied that the concerns of the submitters have been addressed and that the revised conditions will ensure that traffic effects will be less than minor.

Effects of Proposed Pedestrian and Cycling Improvements

59.42 Submissions from Mr Clive Crossman, Mr Matthew Caldwell and Mr Ian Brown have raised similar concerns regarding a range of walking / cycling matters, including that:

(a) The proposed walk / cycleway will result in illegal / dangerous crossing of the motorway;

28 Email from Leone Hansen at NZTA to Alan Pearson at Halls Group dated 13 April 2014, Attachment A to the evidence of Marius Rademeyer 25

(b) There is no demand for the proposed walk / cycleway;

(d) If the bridge at Rushgreen Avenue over the motorway is only for pedestrians / cyclists, then this is not warranted.

59.43 A submission from Mr Cloete raised concerns about the safety of pedestrians and cyclists due to the proximity of the walk / cycleway to the motorway.

59.44 Mr McKenzie has reviewed these submissions, stating that NZTA is understood to be undertaking detailed design of the walkway / cycleway and that this will provide appropriate fencing both between the motorway and adjacent properties as well as being consistent with the treatment of similar facilities elsewhere in the motorway network (e.g. North-western Cycleway). In Mr McKenzie’s opinion, providing the design of these is considered in a manner consistent with standard detailed design, this should prevent any illegal access to the motorway by pedestrians, as well as safeguard neighbouring properties.

59.45 The walkway / cycleway components of the project promote walking and cycling as alternative modes by increasing the level of safe and effective routes and connections for cyclists and pedestrians within the region. In Mr McKenzie’s opinion the off-road (within-the-designation) locations proposed for the walkway / cycleway are the most appropriate location for these routes – with key connections to the wider transport network.

59.46 The bridge at Rushgreen Avenue is solely for pedestrians and cyclists, and will build on the connectedness of these modes by allowing for east-west movement of pedestrians and cyclists away from the interchange.

59.47 Mr Caldwell attended the hearing and spoke to his submission. He was mainly concerned with the security of his property, which borders the proposed cycleway, and he had spoken to NZTA regarding suitable fence heights. He thought 2m would be too low, and 2.4m would be more of a deterrent but was unsure as to what had been finally proposed for his property.

59.48 It is our understanding that the design is flexible to an extent. The full engineering design will be undertaken once a contractor is appointed and all the final details worked out. We are satisfied that NZTA will continue to discuss security and privacy concerns with residents and these can be resolved by implementing the recommended conditions (in particular conditions DC8 and the Urban Design Landscape Framework required by resource consent condition 1).

59.49 Having considered all the evidence, we are satisfied that overall, the project provides significant benefits for pedestrians and cyclists.

Other transport concerns

59.50 Messrs Crossman, Caldwell and Brown also cite a range of other broad concerns regarding the suitability of the roading provisions:

(a) It is unclear if traffic demands from other developments have been taken account of, including Karaka, Kingseat, Pokeno, Pukekohe and Tuakau;

(b) Six sets of traffic signals will be present on Great South Road between Mahia Road to Walter Strevens Drive / Taka Street, including the proposed interchange and new signals at the Manukau Golf Course; consideration should be given to a roundabout at the Manuroa Road intersection instead;

(d) It is unclear if any improvements are proposed to the bridge at the Pahurehure tidal inlet.

59.51 Mr McKenzie’s review of the Transport Assessment by Flow showed that the modelling undertaken considers the known additional developments in the area, as well taking into account future increases in traffic demand as a result of proposed changes in zonings in the area on account of the introduction of the PAUP. In Mr McKenzie’s opinion, the extent of development the model incorporated was appropriate.

59.52 Mr McKenzie considered that the inclusion of a transit lane on the northbound onramp at Takanini in the layout proposed represents an appropriate use of the land.29 This enables public transport to be promoted as an alternative mode in an area which is expected to experience a significant amount of growth and as such is in line with the objectives of the project

59.53 Some improvements are proposed for the Pahurehure Bridge, these will enable three-laning in both directions. However, they will no longer allow for a shared cycle and pedestrian path across the inlet.

59.54 Mr McKenzie noted that Auckland Transport is the road controlling authority for the local (non-state highway) road network. This includes Manuroa Road, Spartan Road, Walter Strevens Drive and Great South Road. As such, the submitters’ concerns for these intersections are outside the scope of the subject alteration to designations being sought by NZTA.

59.55 Additionally, submitters considered that NZTA’s proposed construction access over residential properties is unnecessary; and that such access could be achieved via an alternative route between 67 Brylee Drive and the Manukau Golf Course, and through the reserve on Walter Strevens Drive. However, we find that NZTA’s requirements for the alterations for temporary construction purposes are necessary in order to construct noise walls and other components of the project which will provide the necessary mitigation of effects on residential properties in particular. There is no permanent alteration to the designation proposed for the locality of concern to the submitters; this would be temporary for construction only, after which it would revert to the existing designation.

60. Noise and Vibration Effects

60.1 The requiring authority provided a full assessment in its AEE of the noise effects that are predicted to occur following completion of the works, as well as the noise and vibration which may occur during construction. This was undertaken by Marshall Day Associates ('MDA'). Mr Rhys Hegley peer reviewed the MDA report on behalf of the Council and confirmed his general agreement with MDA's

29 It was clarified in Mr Clark's evidence (paragraph 12.5) that the ramp signal bypass lane is to be used for freight only, although its function could be reviewed at any time in the future. 27

assessments of noise and vibration. He considered that that the effects of the activities proposed within the alterations to the designation can be largely remedied or mitigated such that the effects will be less than minor or, in the case of operational noise, would generally have a positive effect. The exception is construction noise where he considered that there will be more than minor adverse effects to a number of houses.

Construction noise and vibration

60.2 Ms Siiri Wilkening, the lead acoustic consultant on the SCI project with MDA, presented separate briefs of evidence at the hearing relating to construction aspects of noise and vibration, and operational noise/vibration.

60.3 In her evidence, Ms Wilkening described the existing noise environment as one that is significantly affected by high traffic noise levels from SH1, with ambient noise levels ranging from 60 to 69dB LAeq(24h) at the eight representative survey locations.30

60.4 She outlined the assessment that had been undertaken of construction noise and vibration effects of the project, based on reasonable assumptions regarding locations, equipment and activities. Construction noise criteria were recommended, based on the New Zealand Standard NZS 6803:1999 "Acoustics - Construction Noise", taking into account existing noise levels.31

60.5 Ms Wilkening described the methodology used to calculate indicative noise levels for different construction activities, noting that construction noise contours were created that showed areas where compliance with the daytime and night time construction noise criteria can be achieved without mitigation. This was done because of the close proximity of dwellings to the proposed works.

60.6 She confirmed that night time works would be required at times, to avoid disruption to traffic. Such works, and some daytime works, were likely to exceed the project noise criteria and mitigation would be required in these circumstances.

60.7 She advised that some of the dwellings in close proximity to the works would receive significant acoustic screening from construction noise from existing and proposed barriers along SH1, or from the terrain. Other dwellings will receive little screening and most dwellings will be affected to varying degrees during construction. However, the effects on each dwelling would be for a limited period of time and, in her experience, most residents tolerate these effects when the contractor engages in effective and timely communication and consultation.32

60.8 Having regard to the construction noise standard, she recommended that a night time noise criterion of 60dBA LAeq(24h) be applied to the works but in order to

30 Evidence of Siiri Wilkening, paragraph 5.1, with reference to Volume 3 of the AEE, Appendix 8, section 2.1 31 Evidence of Siiri Wilkening, paragraph 4.1 and 4.2. 32 Evidence of Siiri Wilkening, paragraphs 9.2 - 9.4 28

provide two quieter periods that would provide rest times for residents, a lower 33 noise criterion of 45 dB LAeq(24h) would apply on Friday and Saturday nights.

60.9 Ms Wilkening supported the recommended conditions requiring the preparation of a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan ('CNVMP'). She said that "this plan will include detailed and project specific mitigation and management measures, including provisions for the offer of temporary relocation for most affected residents, where appropriate, and procedures for a communication and complaints response". 34

60.10 Ms Wilkening acknowledged that people may also be disturbed by vibration, at levels that will start to be felt at magnitudes well below the levels that would cause building damage. However, she considered that with good communication (as proposed in the Construction Environmental Management Plan) and appropriate choice of construction methodology, equipment and monitoring, the relevant construction vibration criteria can be complied with at all dwellings.

60.11 Ms Pulonga a Tonga Tupou made a submission requesting that the family be relocated for the duration, by which it is assumed, refers to the construction duration. Mr Hegley advised that the submitter’s home is located at 12 Lawrence Crescent and borders one of the proposed alterations to the designation. Due to its close proximity, there is the potential for the construction noise effects to be more than minor. He understood that the NZTA would relocate the family during noisy construction work.

60.12 Mr and Mrs Tupou attended the hearing and Mr Tupou presented oral evidence. He reiterated the family's concerns about construction noise. They had received a letter from NZTA stating that the family will be moved to another place while work is starting, which "would be good".

60.13 Ms Wilkening had given specific consideration to their submission and was of the opinion that for the southbound works, the daytime construction noise levels will be marginally higher than the noise levels currently experienced from traffic on SH1. These works can be managed through typical noise management techniques such as the installation of plywood barriers between the construction site and the traffic lanes. For northbound works, a traffic noise barrier of some 5 metres in height is proposed and her recommendation was to install this as soon as practicable in the construction process so that it also provides construction noise mitigation. Overall, Ms Wilkening did not consider that it would be necessary to relocate the family and in principle it was preferable to deal with the noise at source, with conditions focused on a good outcome for all.35

60.14 However, Mr Burn, the planning consultant for NZTA, confirmed that the NZTA had written a letter confirming its commitment to the Tupou family so that they would have something tangible to refer to. The Council and NZTA have also agreed on a revised condition (resource consent condition 23) which will require the preparation of a Specific Sector Noise Management Plan where full compliance with the construction noise and vibration standards set out in conditions 17 and 18 cannot be met. This plan specifically mentions that relocation of residents shall be considered "where appropriate".

33 Evidence of Siiri Wilkening, paragraph 7.3 34 Evidence of Siiri Wilkening, paragraph 4.6 35 Evidence of Siiri Wilkening, paragraph 11.7 29

60.15 Ms Wilkening also considered the specific construction and vibration concerns raised by Ms Helene Boltman, Stevenson, Transpower and Housing New Zealand.

60.16 Ms Boltman's submission related to night time construction effects, based on previous experience with sleep disturbance arising from night time construction activity on SH1. Ms Wilkening referred to noise barriers that are proposed in the vicinity of Ms Boltman's property and considered it desirable that they be installed early, but in this instance that may not be practicable, as a high retaining wall must be constructed before the barrier can be placed on top. In these circumstances she considered that Ms Boltman's concerns could be addressed by the contractor at the time, through the CNVMP.

60.17 Housing New Zealand's submission sought to ensure that construction noise is managed through construction hours and noise limits, and requested that adjacent landowners have input into the finalisation of the CNVMP. HNZ also wanted pre- construction vibration surveys to be undertaken. Mr Hegley advised that while he strongly supported community liaison, he did not consider the wider community should have a direct input into the preparation of this document.

60.18 Ms Wilkening considered that the management of construction hours and noise limits is already inherently included in the proposed noise criteria and durations set out in the recommended conditions. She noted that HNZ supports the use of site or sector-specific management plans, and she agreed that consultation and input from affected parties is important when formulating these plans. She was of the opinion that this and other conditions requiring that residents are appropriately informed of the works, duration and location, and based on her experience anticipated that such communication would be carried out by the contractor in a timely manner.36

60.19 After hearing HNZ's concerns in evidence presented by Mr Brendon Liggett, the Corporation's Development Planning Manager, Mr Mulligan submitted in reply that HNZ has "confused the criteria for noise with those applicable to vibration. Firstly the conditions regarding works on Category A and B houses are not required as they do not have work undertaken. The works on Category C houses are always assessed as per the standard that defines them".37 The conditions regarding vibrations are addressed by the conditions recommended by Ms Wilkening.

60.20 HNZ had a further concern regarding access to its property and Mr Mulligan submitted that this is a landowner issue, with an advice note included to confirm that this is NZTA's obligation.

Effects of Operational Traffic Noise and Vibration

60.21 Ms Wilkening presented a second brief of evidence relating to the adverse effects of operational traffic noise and vibration, these being the effects arising from the use of the motorway once the works have been completed.

60.22 She had assessed the traffic noise and vibration effects from the project using a three-pronged approach, being assessment of:

(a) existing noise levels in accordance with NZS 6806 "Acoustics - Road traffic noise - New and altered roads";

36 Evidence of Siiri Wilkening, paragraph 10.19 37 Closing submissions by counsel for the requiring authority, paragraph 4.9 30

(b) noise effects based on the predicted change in noise;

60.23 She stated that, based on information provided by the Auckland Motorway Alliance which is responsible for maintenance of the state highway network and associated complaints, no complaints about traffic vibration were received between 2009 and 2014 and from that information, surmised that existing ambient traffic vibrations are not at levels causing concern.39

60.24 She advised that the existing noise environment is already significantly affected by high traffic noise levels from SH1, with ambient noise levels (including all noise sources, not only those from the motorway) ranging from 60 to 69 dB LAeq(24h) at eight representative survey locations along the corridor.

60.25 The methodology adopted in establishing the extent of change in the existing noise environment resulted in predicted noise levels being categorised into three groupings, taking into account proposed noise mitigation options such as acoustic barriers. Mitigation options also had to be considered alongside other parameters including urban design and engineering requirements.

60.26 The three categories are:

(a) Category A - up to 64 dB LAeq(24h)

(b) Category B - between 64 and 67 dB LAeq(24h)

60.27 While Ms Wilkening's evidence and the technical report on noise and vibration in the AEE traversed the effects in detail, the salient matters relating to the SCI project are that some 1468 dwellings are within 100m of the proposed road edge, a sufficient number for Ms Wilkening to describe the area as "densely populated".40

60.28 While some areas already have noise mitigation in the form of noise barriers, noise bunding or building improvements, the requiring authority recognises that existing noise levels for some receivers are very high. If there were to be no change to the motorway (the 'do nothing' scenario) noise levels are predicted to increase by 1 or 2 decibels as a result of an incremental increase in traffic. This would in turn increase the number of dwellings falling into Category C (as referred to above) from 287 currently to 378 in 2026.41

60.29 Taking into account the nature of existing terrain, the likely increase in noise levels and any existing noise mitigation, Ms Wilkening has recommended noise mitigation for the most severely affected dwellings as part of the SCI project. The preferred mitigation option involves the use of barriers of varying height, between 1.8 metres and 5 metres (although very high 5 metre barriers are only proposed in one area opposite the ABG, because of the elevation of the affected residential area). The heights required for mitigation may need to be adjusted for urban

38 Second brief of evidence of Siiri Wilkening, paragraph 4.1 39 Second brief of evidence of Siiri Wilkening, paragraph 5.2 40 Evidence of Siiri Wilkening , paragraph 9.1 41 Evidence of Siiri Wilkening , paragraph 9.2 31

design reasons (for example, to avoid abrupt changes in height as explained by Mr Bray in his urban design evidence) and will need to be refined following input from several parties including affected residents and contractors. However, the overall result of the proposed mitigation will be noise level reductions 3 - 7 decibels for most dwellings and up to 10 decibels for individual dwellings (10 decibels being perceived as a halving of the noise level).42

60.30 Consequently, the noise environment for many residents close to the motorway is expected to improve as a result of the project. Ms Wilkening has summed up these improvements as being:

(a) Category C dwellings would reduce from 378 to 205;

(b) There would be 282 dwellings within Category B;

60.31 Importantly, where dwellings are assessed as falling into Category C even with the installation of barriers, the requiring authority is proposing to offer further mitigation. In some instances, this is because the affected dwellings are too elevated for barriers to be effective. Ms Wilkening has advised that these dwellings "will need to be assessed to determine if and what building modification should be installed". 43

60.32 The conditions agreed between the NZTA and Auckland Council set out a process by which this is to be implemented.44

Operational Vibration Effects

60.33 With regard to vibration, Ms Wilkening has advised that "traffic vibration is usually only generated when heavy vehicles drive over bumps or dips in the road" and "the risk of this occurring on a new road, such as this project, is very low".45

60.34 She did not anticipate that traffic vibration would result in adverse effects, an opinion shared by Mr Hegley. A smooth road surface is to be maintained by NZTA, which has appropriate measures in place to ensure that the quality of the road will be maintained to a high level.

60.35 We accept the experts' advice.

Concerns raised by individual submitters

60.36 Ms Wilkening and Mr Hegley also considered the traffic and vibration concerns raised by Mr Brown, Mr Crossman, Mr Caldwell, Mr Peters, Ms Boltman, Madill & Smeed, Stevenson Group and Housing New Zealand.

60.37 Mr Brown lives at Gaylord Place, one property removed from the Takanini northbound off-ramp. Ms Wilkening advised us that the ramp is to be moved further away from dwellings in Gaylord Place and Brylee Drive, so this in itself

42 Evidence of Siiri Wilkening , paragraphs 9.5 and 9.10 43 Evidence of Siiri Wilkening , paragraph 13.5 44 NOR condition DC6 45 Evidence of Siiri Wilkening , paragraph 9.13 32

would result in a noise reduction as would the use of a low noise-generating road surface. There would also be a 2 metre high barrier between the cycleway and the Takanini offramp, which is intended to be for safety reasons rather than noise mitigation. Her opinion was that overall, noise levels would remain unchanged at Mr Brown's property (at 61 decibels) whether or not the project proceeded.

60.38 Mr Crossman and Mr Caldwell have made similar submissions to Mr Brown; they reside at 65 and 63 Brylee Drive respectively, opposite Mr Brown and closer to the motorway. Ms Wilkening has predicted that the noise level at both properties will reduce by 1 dB. However, this will remain high at 65 decibels and is within Category B. Mr Caldwell's property will also have a 2 metre high security fence between his property boundary and the proposed cycleway. In Mr Burn's evidence, he indicated that discussions were continuing by NZTA with both Mr Crossman and Mr Caldwell regarding a security/noise barrier wall, which he considered would address their concerns.46

60.39 Ms Boltman lives at 43 Balgowan Terrace and her submission stated that the proposed 3.6 metre high noise barrier adjacent to her property would not be high enough to provide noise mitigation at the upper level of her dwelling. Ms Wilkening advised that there had been a collaborative process of determining appropriate barrier heights, taking into account other matters which we have referred to above. The general intent was to avoid barriers in excess of 3.6 metres high, abutting residential properties that are level with, or below the motorway. This was discussed in Mr Bray's evidence which we refer to later.

60.40 Subsequently, Ms Wilkening met with Ms Boltman and modelled a barrier that would fully shield the upper floor of her dwelling as well as the lower level. This would have an overall height of 5.8 metres when seen from the Boltman property as shown on drawing numbers 241032-0000-DRG-RU-0109-T1 Noise/security wall height plans and the cross section on drawing number 241032-0000-DRG- RR-0234-A. It would achieve a 5 decibel noise reduction at the upper level and Ms Wilkening believes this would address Ms Boltman's concerns.47

60.41 Mr Peters also lives in Balgowan Terrace and is a neighbour of Ms Boltman. He too requested a higher noise barrier. Without reviewing the specific design for the property, Mr Hegley considered that the designation conditions would require that a reasonable level of noise is met to this site. Following a visit to Mr Peters' property to discuss his concerns Ms Wilkening advised that the redesign of the barrier would result in a 3.4 metre high retaining wall with a noise wall on top, resulting in an overall height of 5.1 metres when viewed from the Peters property, and would achieve a further noise level reduction of 4 decibels at the ground floor of his residence.48 However, the traffic noise from the motorway will still be audible owing to the proximity of the dwelling.

60.42 In a further oral explanation of the work she had done, Ms Wilkening explained that there were a number of residents who had sought higher noise barriers than those considered necessary to meet the design criteria and she had accommodated residents' wishes in some instances. Further consultation would occur, and some design adjustments made, prior to construction of the works.

46 Evidence of Owen Burn, paragraph 15.18 47 Evidence of Siiri Wilkening paragraph 11.16 48 Evidence of Siiri Wilkening paragraph 11.20 33

60.43 While we are aware that NZTA has sought to achieve a good visual design outcome as well as noise mitigation, we accept that in some circumstances noise mitigation will require high noise barriers to provide an acceptable living environment for residential occupants. We note that the requiring authority has gone to considerable lengths to take into consideration the individual circumstances and preferences of affected residents and that the agreed mitigation is an important outcome of consultation that will have less than minor adverse effects on motorway users.

60.44 Mr Hegley has considered the Madill & Smeed Limited submission's assertion that the traffic assessment only includes traffic on SH1, omitting traffic on the on and off ramps. It was his understanding that the noise assessment included all traffic within the designation. He pointed out that the noise assessment does not consider noise to business properties which is standard practice and is appropriate. Ms Wilkening confirmed that this was the case and that she had assessed noise effects on all residential properties adjoining the Takanini interchange.49 She was also of the opinion that the current, predicted noise level of 60 decibels at the closest building facade of the submitter's property would remain unchanged following implementation of the project.

60.45 Mr Hegley and Ms Wilkening also touched on the assertion in the Stevenson submission that the operation of the widened SH1 would have significant adverse noise effects on the concrete batching plant adjacent to the Takanini interchange. This site is in a high noise environment, which will not change as a result of the project and the plant is also a noise producer. We agree with their conclusions that there will be no adverse noise effects on the Stevenson property.

60.46 Ms Wilkening recommended a number of changes to the recommended conditions which reflect the review undertaken by Mr Hegley and the further consideration given to residents' feedback. Revised conditions have been agreed by NZTA and the Council and we conclude that they will achieve an improvement when compared with the existing motorway environment.

61. Land Requirement and Property Effects

61.1 The planners' report provides a summary and assessment of the necessary requirements for land acquisition and temporary construction access, taken from the requiring authority's application documentation.50 The majority of the corridor is already designated and no additional residential land is required for the project, although temporary access to several properties is necessary to enable the construction of noise barriers and other works. The requiring authority is understood to be consulting with those landowners.

61.2 Where permanent land requirements have been identified, the requiring authority has indicated that it is endeavouring to reach negotiated settlements with the affected property owners. This includes Stevenson, whose concrete batching plant is affected by the proposed northern onramp at the Takanini interchange. In his closing submission, Mr Mulligan stated that "the property negotiations with [Stevenson's] neighbours have recently reached a point where the NZTA is confident that it can provide appropriately for Stevensons via adjacent sites".51

49 Evidence of Siiri Wilkening paragraph 11.29 50 Planners' report, page 56 of the hearing agenda 51 Closing submission of counsel for the requiring authority, paragraph 4.3 34

61.3 The ABG and Council reserves are also affected, and the planners' report considers that "the Council landowner approval process will address the impact of the proposal on parks, reserves and the ABG".52

61.4 We are satisfied that the requiring authority has endeavoured to keep both the permanent and temporary property effects to a minimum and that there are appropriate processes in place to ensure satisfactory resolution for affected property owners.

62. Visual/Urban Design/ Landscape and Vegetation Effects

62.1 Ms Rebecca Skidmore, an urban designer and landscape architect, reviewed the urban design, landscape and visual aspects of the project on behalf of the Council. She considered that the applicant’s assessment has generally adequately identified the effects resulting from the proposal and concluded that with mitigation planting, potential adverse landscape effects resultant from the project will be less than minor (including adverse visual effects from the public realm).53

62.2 Ms Skidmore was, however, concerned that there was no formal requirement for the Urban Design Landscape Framework ('UDLF') to be prepared, as referred to in the application documents. This matter was responded to at the hearing where Mr Shannon Bray, the project landscape architect, produced the completed UDLF and discussed it in his evidence. Mr Bray described the UDLF as "an extensive document that has been provided to the tenderers of the project in order to guide the detailed design and landscape development and provide certainty to all parties (including NZTA and Auckland Council of the anticipated outcomes)".54

62.3 Mr Bray considered that the landscape planting to be undertaken, along with the architectural treatments of the engineering structures such as retaining walls, noise barriers and bridge abutments, will be consistent with the mitigation recommended in the Landscape and Visual Assessment report included in the AEE as Appendix 6 and guided by the UDLF document.55 This document would now form part of the documentation included in the designation conditions and is a key component of the Outline Plan Waiver discussed in Mr Burn's evidence (to which we refer later).

62.4 Ms Skidmore noted that the temporary alterations to the designation boundaries will facilitate the construction of noise walls in a number of locations along the route and where the walls extend above 2 metres in height they may result in adverse visual effects that are more than minor as viewed from the adjacent properties.56

62.5 Mr Bray considered that the landform changes required to provide space for the additional motorway lanes is consistent with what would normally occur adjacent to a motorway, and most of the works are within the existing designation. The

52 Planners' report, page 58 of the hearing agenda 53 Report dated 4 May 2015 from Rebecca Skidmore of R. A. Skidmore Urban Design Ltd, paragraph 8.3 (hearing agenda page 238) 54 Evidence of Shannon Bray, paragraph 9.1 55 Evidence of Shannon Bray, paragraph 5.5 56 These properties are referenced on page 147 of NZTA’s AEE – “see Noise Barrier Plans, Appendix G of the Assessment of Traffic Noise and Vibration (Volume 3 – Appendix 8)”. 35

greatest change will result from the removal of existing vegetation along the route57 and he confirmed in response to a question at the hearing that no vegetation that has been previously planted as mitigation was likely to be removed. If that was to occur, it would be replaced.

62.6 Mr Bray outlined the content of the UDLF, which provides a detailed assessment of each of the character areas along the corridor and guides the development within six Rangai (sectors). He considered that for viewers who will experience the proposed changes to the motorway boundary, the visual effects will vary according to the nature of the available views and conceded that in some locations "the construction of a tall noise barrier will have a dominating effect - particularly where the barrier may created extended shadows on the neighbouring property".58 This opinion was shared by Ms Skidmore.

62.7 The important point, which we accept, is that the noise barriers are designed to mitigate acoustic effects, and will be effective at screening the motorway and traffic. Mr Bray referred us to the UDLF showing different design themes and treatments that are either already in place along the corridor or are proposed, which will mitigate the visual effects of noise barriers. He considered that colour can be used to help soften their appearance, and individual landowners will be able to undertake their own planting to help integrate them.

62.8 Mr Bray pointed out that, while he acknowledged the potential adverse effects of shading on individual properties, the effects apply to the limited number of properties that have higher noise barriers on their boundaries. It was his expectation, based in his review of Ms Wilkening's assessment, that most of the barriers would not exceed 2.5 metres in which case there would be little difference from a typical boundary fence. However, where the wall needs to be higher the effects of shading would need to be balanced with the positive effects that will result from installation of the barrier.59

62.9 In response to Ms Skidmore's concerns regarding landscape treatment to the side of acoustic walls facing private properties, NZTA has also offered a condition60 which formalises NZTA's standard practice of negotiating with individual landowners appropriate remediation planting, depending on individual requirements.61 This condition requires that where noise walls exceed a height of 2 metres adjacent to residential properties, planting is to be undertaken on the residential property side of the wall if agreed by the adjacent property owner. We conclude that the condition provides a satisfactory process for addressing detailed mitigation for individual landowners, including Housing New Zealand.62

62.10 Madill & Smeed's submission was concerned about "a large underutilised area of land at the frontage of Hall's Depot", alongside the Takanini offramp and Great South Road. Mr Madill considered that much of this area would be cut off from passive surveillance by the new retaining wall for the offramp and he had concerns about the potential for this area to attract anti-social behaviour, thereby

57 Evidence of Shannon Bray, paragraph 6.5 58 Evidence of Shannon Bray, paragraph 6.9 59 Evidence of Shannon Bray, paragraph 7.5 60 Numbered DC7 61 Evidence of Owen Burn, paragraph 17.12 62 Discussed in the evidence of Brendon Liggett for Housing New Zealand at paragraph 2.2 36

creating a security issue for Hall's.63 Mr Bray responded to this matter in his evidence, stating that the UDLF would contain enough information about the anticipated urban design and landscape treatment throughout the corridor. He also offered to discuss these proposals in detail with the submitter.64 On this basis, we are satisfied that this matter can be resolved between the submitter and the requiring authority.

62.11 The Stevenson Group submission also expressed concerns about the adverse effects of any vegetation being planted adjacent to its site at 30 Great South Road that could affect the operation of the concrete batching plant. In his evidence, Mr Lowe explained that it was very important to avoid any leaves or foliage getting on to the site (and into concrete product), which could threaten the entire operation of the plant.65 As negotiations are taking place with Stevenson regarding land acquisition, we anticipate that this particular matter will be addressed along with the other matters of concern.

62.12 We find that that, while there will be changes to the landscape arising from the project, these will be mitigated by implementation of the UDLF and in some instances, by specific landscape treatment for residential properties following consultation by the requiring authority. In the context of a developed urban area through which the southern corridor is already an established feature, landscape and visual effects will be minor.

63. Lighting Effects

63.1 While the potential for adverse lighting effects was of concern to Housing New Zealand, we note that existing motorway lighting along the outer edges of the corridor will mostly be replaced by new lighting structures in the median strip. Light sources will be further away from residential properties than at present, and must comply with the requirements of AS/NZS 1158. We agree with the conclusion in the planners' report that "spill light and glare effects from the project is [sic] anticipated to be significantly less than the existing installation such that adverse lighting effects are considered to be less than minor".66

63.2 With regard to construction activity lighting, Housing New Zealand is supportive of NZTA’s proposed approach whereby the CEMP advises that the contractor shall limit unnecessary light spill beyond the construction site boundary with a designation condition requiring the CEMP to be provided to Council for certification.

64. Effects on the natural environment

64.1 The AEE provides a comprehensive and complete description of the effects of the project clearly identifying and distinguishing between the effects arising out of the construction of the project and the operational effects. Mr Burns, in his evidence, used the same categorisation summarising the potential adverse effects67.

64.2 Those effects relating to discharges to land and water include:

63 Evidence of Grant Madill, paragraph 31 64 Evidence of Shannon Bray, paragraph 7.6 65 Evidence of David Lowe for Stevenson Group, paragraph 26 66 Planners' report, page 47 of the hearing agenda 67 Evidence of Owen Burn, 25 May 2015 37

(a) Construction: Includes the discharge of dust, and contamination of land and water;

(b) Operation: Increased impervious areas resulting in potential for downstream flooding effects, potential for motorway runoff and dust generation.

64.3 The effects of works adjoining streams include temporary adverse effects on the downstream receiving environments through sediment discharge from construction.68

Stormwater and Contaminants

64.4 The planners' report confirms that only adverse effects arising from the proposal over and above the permitted baseline are to be assessed, specifically identifying the stormwater currently being discharged from the existing impervious area as forming part of the relevant and comparable permitted baseline of effects established by the provisions of the relevant sections of the operative plans. 69

64.5 NZTA’s assessment of stormwater effects identified an increase in the impervious area resulting from the SCI project which increases the volume of runoff from the catchment and potentially the peak flow during flood events unless mitigation is provided.70

64.6 The evidence of Mr David Hughes71 on behalf of NZTA provided information regarding his assessment of the potential impacts of the project on stormwater, and the stormwater management regime that he has recommended for the project.72

64.7 Mr Hughes advised that “the project consists of 5 major stormwater catchments which have different receiving environments and different methods for stormwater management due to various site constraints / opportunities.”73 The natural water bodies within or immediately adjacent to the project area include:

(a) Puhinui Stream;

(b) Papakura Stream;

64.8 The existing motorway surface run-off is currently collected through a combination of kerb and channel and partially grassed roadside channels, discharging to the

68 Evidence of Owen Burn, 25 May 2015, part 10 69 Planners, report, p. 27 70 David Hughes, “Stormwater Management Report”, 23 January 2015, Vol 3 – Appendix 9, p. 62 71 Evidence of David Hughes, 20 May 2015 72 NZTA’s Opening legal subs, paragraph 8.5(b 73 David Hughes, “Stormwater Management Report”, 23 January 2015, Vol 3 – Appendix 9, p. 3 74 David Hughes, “Stormwater Management Report”, 23 January 2015, Vol 3 – Appendix 9, p. 7 38

nearest watercourse or culvert with the stormwater from existing pavement areas currently receiving no formal treatment.75

64.9 Mr Hughes’ evidence went on to confirm that the effects of stormwater discharge from the project during the operational phase will be mitigated by treatment devices that meet the requirements of the ACRP:ALW using the BPO approach, and designed using the Council’s TP10 as a basis.

64.10 The proposed stormwater management strategy has been developed to meet or exceed the stipulated treatment target of 75% TSS removal efficiency required by Auckland Council and uses a combination of planted wetlands, filter strips, swales and Auckland Council approved proprietary stormwater treatment devices. The resultant outcome is the treatment of 17.1 ha of impervious area (both existing and proposed) across the project extent, in particular a 100% equivalent of all new road pavement areas across the project is achieved.76

64.11 We heard evidence that “despite the increase in vehicle capacity it will bring, the project will improve the current situation by treating not only new stormwater but also stormwater created by 30% of the existing pavement, leading to a material improvement in the impacts of SH1 on fresh and coastal water quality in the area".77

64.12 Based on his assessment of the project, Mr Hughes concluded that “the proposed stormwater management regime will not lead to adverse effects on the environment, and in fact, the quality and quantum of water managed and treated will be better than that already present in the stormwater system in the project Area.”78

Council and Stormwater

64.13 The stormwater effects were assessed by Wouter Woortman, Senior Specialist Advisor, Stormwater Team in the Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit. Mr Woortman concluded that the application adequately identified and addressed the potential adverse effects resulting from the proposal and that there are no additional effects that may be generated. In addition, Mr Woortman considered that any adverse stormwater effects of the proposal will be less than minor.79

64.14 Following his assessment, Mr Woortman made some additional comments on the best practicable option of vegetated swales and the water management for temporary construction and storage yards. He also provided technical comments on the specific stormwater matters raised in the submissions.80

64.15 Mr Woortman reported that the predominant devices for the treatment of stormwater from the motorway are vegetated or planted swales longitudinal to the

75 Evidence of David Hughes, 20 May 2015, paragraph 4.4 76 Evidence of David Hughes, 20 May 2015, paragraph 4.6 and David Hughes, “Stormwater Management Report”, 23 January 2015, Vol 3 – Appendix 9, p. 62 77 Closing submissions of counsel for NZTA, paragraph 1.3(a) 78 NZTA’s opening legal submissions, paragraph 8.5(b). 79 Planners report, p. 31 80 Planners report, p. 32 39

motorway. The reasons given for this are their ease of maintenance, lower maintenance costs, visual amenity and preference by Mana Whenua groups.81

64.16 Mr Woortman confirmed that a best practice approach based on TP10 had been developed with NZTA to ensure that the vegetated swales are sized appropriately to achieve 75% total suspended solids (TSS) removal.

64.17 The planners' report identified the provision of treatment devices as a positive effect as there is currently no treatment provided for stormwater runoff from the existing SCI corridor carriageway. With proposed stormwater devices being able to meet or exceed the treatment target of at least 75% removal of total suspended solids (TSS) from 170% of the new carriageway, in effect, this means that an area equating to all of the new additional pavement and 30% of the existing road surface will be treated to at least 75% TSS. This is also expected to bring corresponding benefits to the receiving environment including the CMA.82

64.18 The planners' report notes that, “as the primary concern with vegetated swales is the irregular flow through the swale around plants and obstacles, Mr Woortman has stated that planting species and densities are important aspects to achieve the required treatment efficiency. As such, a condition has been recommended requiring planting plans to be submitted and approved by Council as well as a condition to set up a monitoring programme to monitor the ongoing adequacy of the vegetated swales. It is noted that Ngati Tamaoho Trust and Ngati Te Ata Waiohua have also recommended stormwater monitoring in their submission.”83

64.19 Mr Hughes, the applicant's stormwater expert, was of the opinion that the specification of specific treatment devices as recommended by Mr Woortman would restrict the ability of the applicant to apply a BPO approach during detailed design (which is still to be finalised) when selecting appropriate stormwater treatment measures in accordance with TP10 and suggested that further refinement of conditions would be appropriate.84 NZTA and the Council have subsequently agreed on a comprehensive suite of conditions relating to stormwater management works, detailed design guidelines, planting, construction and certification of works, preparation of a stormwater operation and maintenance plan, diversion of stormwater, monitoring and review.85

Effects on streams

64.20 Mr Sides presented evidence regarding the effect of the project on freshwater environments. In his opening legal submissions, counsel for NZTA outlined Mr Sides' evidence and noted his conclusion that “the project will involve widening the SH1 bridges over the Puhinui and Papakura Stream, and the discharge of treated stormwater into these receiving environments as well as the Brylee Reserve Channel. However, Mr Sides concludes that these streams receive existing urban and motorway stormwater, and ecological impacts from additional discharges are likely to be minimal. Ultimately, the project will result in positive outcomes through the provision of stormwater treatment devices which will reduce contaminant loads

81 Planners report, p. 32 82 Planners report, p. 28 83 Planners report, p. 32 84 Evidence of David Hughes, paragraph 5.1 85 Resource consent conditions 35 - 64, dated 29 May 2015 40

entering the receiving environments from all new road surfaces and a substantial part of the existing road surfaces.86”

Brylee Reserve

64.21 Messrs Brown, Crossman and Caldwell raised a common concern regarding stormwater drains in Brylee Drive not being able to cope with additional flows from the motorway:

64.22 Mr Sides and Mr Hughes concluded respectively that the straightened land/drainage channel is of low ecological value, but that notwithstanding this, the project will see current stormwater quality be improved despite the increase in impervious area.87

64.23 Mr Hughes noted that the stormwater channel at Brylee Reserve “currently receives untreated stormwater discharge from the Auckland Council local stormwater network and the motorway stormwater system. The motorway stormwater system upgrade proposed as part of the project will achieve full treatment of all the new pavement area in accordance with the ACALWP along with approximately 20% of the existing road pavement area. He concluded that the potential for adverse effects from stormwater discharge from the project on the water quality flow through the Brylee Reserve will be less than minor.”88

64.24 We were informed that Council expert, Ms Justine Quinn concurred with Mr Sides’ classification.89

64.25 Mr Woortman has considered this matter and has responded as follows:90

“Stormwater from the wetland at Takanini Interchange is proposed to be connected to the existing stormwater network in Great South Road, draining in a north western direction towards Papakura Stream. To ensure that flows from the wetland can be connected to the reticulated stormwater network along Great South Road, the wetland has been sized to reduce 10 and 100 year ARI peak flows to below pre-development levels. It is not proposed to connect stormwater drains from the wetland to the reticulated network in Brylee Drive.

The proposed location of the wetland is at a lower elevation than 63 Brylee Drive and flows from the wetland are directed in a north western direction, away from Brylee Drive. The water table at 63 Brylee Drive is therefore not expected to be adversely affected by the construction of a wetland at Takanini Interchange and the proposed connections to the stormwater network.””

64.26 In his brief of evidence Mr Hughes confirmed that “stormwater discharge from the proposed Takanini Interchange wetland will not be to the reticulated network in

86 NZTA opening legal submissions, paragraph 8.5, with reference in particular to paragraph 6.1 of Mr Sides evidence. 87 NZTA opening legal submissions, paragraph 11.2 88 Evidence of David Hughes, 20 May 2015, paragraph 4.7 89 Planners' reply paragraph 5 90 Planners' report, p.32 41

Brylee Drive (emphasis added). The water will instead discharge to the Papakura Stream via the existing local Auckland Council network.”91 He concluded that “with the discharge regime from the Interchange Wetland being to the northwest of ... 63 Brylee Drive, I do not anticipate effects on the water table”.92

Other submissions

64.27 In their submissions, both Ngati Tamaoho Trust and Ngati Te Ata Waiohua have recommended that stormwater monitoring be undertaken. In response to this, and given that there is little monitoring data available for the treatment efficiency of vegetated swales and run-off from motorways, a condition has been recommended that requires a monitoring programme to be developed and approved by Council.93 This matter is dealt with further in relation to the consideration of cultural effects.

64.28 Transpower New Zealand Ltd has raised a concern regarding the possibility for the changes in drainage patterns and runoff characteristics having adverse effects on the foundations of any National Grid transmissions line support structure. Mr Woortman and Mr Hughes agreed that there will be no effects from stormwater run-off on transmission line structure foundations. NZTA has also agreed to a condition requiring preparation of an Electricity Infrastructure Management Plan which specifically references these effects.94

Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology Effects

64.29 The AEE included comprehensive assessments of effects resulting from the project on both terrestrial and aquatic ecology. These assessments were subsequently peer reviewed by Council specialists. We have had regard to the Council specialist reviews and the evidence of Ms Muchna, Ms Flynn and Mr Sides on behalf of the applicants. We have considered the loss of habitat and other ecological values arising from vegetation clearance and earthworks. In other respects we accept the conditions generally agreed between NZTA and Auckland Council in relation to revegetation areas and the capture and relocation of native skinks and geckos.

64.30 Having considered all the evidence before us, we concur that overall, with the mitigation that will take place in accordance with conditions forming part of the designation and resource consents, adverse effects on terrestrial and freshwater environments will be minor once proposed mitigation measures are in place. These include:

91 Evidence of David Hughes, 20 May 2015, paragraph 4.8 92 Evidence of David Hughes, 20 May 2015, paragraph 4.8 93 Planners, report, p.33 94 Resource consent condition 13(c)(IV) 42

(a) The preparation of a lizard management plan which includes measures prepared and executed by a herpetologist with DOC authority to relocate native lizards in project area (where reasonably practicable).95

(b) Stormwater, erosion and sediment treatment as outlined in the Construction Water Management Report.

64.31 We understand that matters relating specifically to the ABG, which include the design of the stormwater wetland and weed control/planting measures to mitigate the effects of vegetation clearance within the ABG site, will be addressed by agreement between the parties (noting that the ABG's approval must be obtained under section 177 of the RMA before the works can proceed).

64.32 At the hearing, the low ecological values of the stormwater channel at Brylee Reserve were confirmed by Mr Sides, who concluded that a positive outcome would be achieved on receiving environments by the installation of stormwater devices that reduce contaminant loads from new road surfaces and some existing road surfaces.96

64.33 We concur with the experts' advice in this regard.

Conclusion

64.34 The proposed treatment and discharge of stormwater will result in an improvement in water quality and quantity, and a comprehensive set of agreed conditions will ensure that any adverse effects of stormwater diversion and discharge will be appropriately mitigated to ensure that such effects are less than minor.

65. Effects on Coastal Processes

65.1 The effects of the project on coastal processes were assessed by Matthew McNeil, Senior Consents and Compliance Advisor, Coastal Team within the Natural Resources and Specialist Input for the purposes of the notification assessment, Mr McNeil concluded that, in his expert opinion, the application would have less than minor adverse effects on coastal processes. The conditions recommended by Mr McNeil were accepted by the applicant and have been included.

65.2 We also heard evidence from Dr Robert Bell on behalf of the applicant in which he addressed the existing coastal environment, the effects of the project on coastal physical processes of the Pahurehure Inlet, impacts of climate change and sea- level rise, and mitigation and monitoring. His conclusion was that the redesigned proposal, which reduced the proposed reclamation area from 7800m2 to 260m2, and associated reductions in the permanent and temporary occupation of the CMA areas, would have no more than minor effects on present-day coastal processes in the Pahurehure Inlet. Effects would also be mostly localised. However, he considered that some visual monitoring of sedimentation in the Inlet should be undertaken "to ensure any turbid plume releases during water levels above MHWS (including storms) or the initial bund construction do not cause significant sedimentation during the construction phase".97

95 condition 25 96 Evidence of Edward Sides, paragraph 6.1 97 Evidence of Dr Robert Bell, paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 43

65.3 Dr Bell also considered that a complete re-design of the Inlet crossing (causeways and bridges) would be necessary in about 2040 to provide a carriageway that is resilient to projected climate change effects but climate change future-proofing of the project is not possible at this stage other than leaving future adaptation options open.98

65.4 While no submissions stated specific concerns regarding coastal processes, Ngati Tamaoho Trust and Ngati Te Ata Waiohua have raised concerns in their submissions regarding the existence of the existing causeway and the need to remove it and replace it with a bridge. We appreciated that Ms Rutherfurd and Mr Potini (Ngati Tamaoho) attended the hearing to tell us of their concerns. They also confirmed that they did not object to the revised proposal, which involves bridging the Inlet instead of constructing additional sections of causeway. This work is subject to separate resource consents that have recently been granted by the Council.

65.5 Having considered NZTA's decision to modify the proposed cycleway in response to the deeply held concerns of Mana Whenua, and having regard to the opinions of the applicant's and Council's experts, we conclude that the effects of the project on coastal processes will be less than minor. We note that NZTA has made a commitment to engage with Mana Whenua on an ongoing basis (as referenced in Advice Note 2) and will be working towards an alternative option for a crossing of the Inlet that is acceptable to Mana Whenua, in the longer term.

66. Marine Ecology Effects

66.1 The effects of the project on marine ecology were broadly agreed by the applicant's and Council experts99 as including:

(a) permanent and temporary habitat loss;

(b) loss of saline vegetation (mangrove and saltmarsh);

(d) discharge of sediment during construction; and

(e) discharge of operational phase stormwater.100

66.2 In her evidence, Dr De Luca explained that she had assessed permanent habitat loss to be an adverse effect of medium ecological significance, requiring mitigation, and she had recommended in her AEE Marine Ecological Values report that the loss of 0.265 ha of marine habitat be addressed by:

(a) achieving an average 80% removal of total suspended sediment and associated contaminants from road runoff from 3.65 ha of new and existing surface south of the Pahurehure Inlets (compared with the 75% removal required under TP10); and

98 Evidence of Dr Robert Bell, paragraph 8.3 99 Dr Sharon De Luca, Senior Ecologist with Boffa Miskell and Dr Kala Sivaguru, AC Consents and Compliance Advisor, Coastal Team 100 The evidence of Dr De Luca expanded slightly on these in paragraph 5.2 44

(b) revegetation of 3000m2 of benthic habitat where mangroves and/or saltmarsh is to be removed for the project.

66.3 Dr Sivaguru recommended a series of conditions to avoid, remedy or mitigate effects from the project, which Dr De Luca reviewed and made suggested wording changes for clarification. In response to questions at the hearing, she advised that revegetation with saltmarsh rushland was somewhat experimental given that mangroves have become the dominant species but there would be environmental benefits associated with restoring saltmarsh habitat for banded rail and other native bird species. She agreed that a maintenance period of up to three years until plants are well established and self-sustaining, would be appropriate.101

67. Public Health Effects

67.1 The planners' report contains a discussion of adverse effects on public health, including the comments made by Shane Moore, Consultant Principal Environmental Scientist from Tonkin & Taylor Ltd on behalf of the Council.102

67.2 A brief statement of evidence was also tabled by David Dangerfield, a principal environmental engineer with AECOM New Zealand Limited, on behalf of NZTA. The experts agree with the proposed mitigation measures as outlined in the reports and supporting technical documents relating to contaminated land. Mr Dangerfield noted that a draft Soil Management Plan dated 24 February 2015 was written by others and that it needed to be updated to reflect the comments in the Council's review.103

67.3 Mr Moore sought that a Soil Management Plan (SMP), based on the draft submitted in support of the applications be updated to reflect the findings of the approved Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) and provided to Council for approval.

67.4 An agreed set of conditions has been presented and on the basis of those, the parties have advised that the potential adverse effects of the earthworks with respect to water quality and human health will be appropriately managed.104 We support that finding.

68. Arboriculture Effects

68.1 The planners' report comments on the background to the applicant's inclusion of the removal of several notable trees and works within the dripline of notable trees, outside the existing and proposed designations, as a reason for consent. Subsequently the land use consent for tree removal was withdrawn because a tree survey of the root systems within the proposed and existing designations had not been undertaken, and therefore it cannot be determined yet whether land use consent is required for tree removal.

68.2 The planners' advice is that setting this aspect of the project aside is a pragmatic way forward until the extent of tree removal required can be established more accurately. NZTA is aware that additional land use consents will need to be applied for if the surveys indicate that removal is required outside the existing and proposed designations, or if trees within the project area are unlikely to survive.

101 Condition 91 102 Planners' report, page 40 of the hearing agenda 103 Evidence of David Dangerfield, paragraph 3.2 104 Conditions 30 - 33 45

68.3 Works within the dripline of a scheduled Oak Tree at 30 Great South Road is proposed within the designation alteration area at 30 Great South Road. The effects of this work were assessed by Nick Stott, Heritage Arborist within the Natural Environment Strategy Unit who advised that the proposed works will have a less than minor effect upon the tree, provided the work is completed in accordance with the NZTA Arboricultural Assessment provided with the application material. We understand NZTA has made this undertaking.

68.4 We find that the arboriculture effects will be less than minor with the implementation of the tree survey conditions.

69. Heritage Effects

69.1 Two known archaeological sites (both scheduled as Significant Historic Heritage Places in the PAUP) were identified within 100m of the project boundaries, being the Upper Puhinui (Flour) Mill (CHI 4516, R11/1633) approximately 100m away within the ABG toward the northern end of the project and a midden site (CHI 16012,R12/676, also scheduled in the Papakura Operative District Plan) located approximately 20m away from the alteration on the southern side of Pahurehure Inlet at Pescara Point. The midden is also listed (ID 2779) in the Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua overlay under the PAUP.

69.2 Council’s Senior Specialist Archaeology, Myfanwy Eaves, reviewed the heritage aspects of the project. Ms Eaves noted that the project works will encroach into the Extent of Place (a PAUP term) for the former flour mill. The potential for unknown remaining archaeological material to be discovered from this area and others in the works area was considered as a potential risk to this project. Overall, Ms Eaves concurred that the project will have less than minor effects on the two scheduled heritage sites. She advised that while the potential for the project to expose historic heritage is low, there are risk areas (as identified at Section 5.4 of her report).

69.3 Ms Eaves proposed a number of conditions and recommended incorporating an Archaeological Management Plan with Accidental Discovery Protocols into the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). It is noted that section 2.6 of the CEMP addresses this whilst NZTA have offered a heritage condition RC8 whereby the NZTA shall give effect to Z/22: the NZTA Accidental Discovery Procedures should artefacts or remains be discovered during the construction period. However, new conditions have been drafted which are considered to more comprehensively cover the matters raised by Ms Eaves.

69.4 Despite the low potential, Dr Clough supported monitoring (on a precautionary basis) of the works near the destroyed midden R12/676 and within the AMA yard where a small amount of re-deposited midden was exposed at the base of a cliff with the remainder of the CMA being covered by spot checks during the construction phase.105”106 Dr Clough also indicated that accidental discovery protocols (ADP) are adequate to cover the majority of works within the CMA. An ADP will be included as part of the CEMP.

69.5 A condition (Condition 10(f)) associated with the monitoring of works within 50 metres, which addresses this matter, was offered by NZTA and agreed to by the

105 Refer to section 5 of Dr Clough’s evidence. 106 NZTA opening legal submissions, paragraph 11.3(a) and NZTA closing legal submissions, paragraph 9 46

Council’s Reporting Officers. Ngati Tamaoho confirmed that they were interested in undertaking this monitoring themselves and Mana Whenua involvement in this and other monitoring measures (eg stormwater) continues to be discussed by NZTA with the MWKG.

69.6 We note that, although the tangible archaeology has been destroyed, there are "cultural values" still associated with the midden R12/676 site and (as stipulated by Ngati Tamaoho in evidence) with the entire Hingaia peninsula area. Given the objectives in the PAUP that Mana Whenua cultural heritage be identified, protected and enhanced and the identification of the midden as a Site of Value, we find it appropriate for Mana Whenua to have input into the AHHMP, or at least insofar as that site is concerned. For this reason we have included an amendment to condition 10 of the resource consent conditions which requires that the AHHMP "shall be prepared by the Project Archaeologist with input by the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Group".

69.7 We note that no submissions were received on heritage effects. Ms Eaves has not raised any additional matters following the notification of the applications.

69.8 We concur with Ms Eaves’ assessment and Dr Clough's tabled evidence, and conclude that heritage effects pertaining to the project will be less than minor.

70. Cultural Effects

70.1 Both the section 95 recommendation report together with the section 42A planners' report, clearly set out the process undertaken by the applicant to engage with Mana Whenua prior to notification of the proposal.

70.2 Under the PAUP, the requirement for a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) from relevant Mana Whenua groups was triggered by the proposal. The policy states that a CIA is required in order for Council to assess the adverse effects on Mana Whenua values.

70.3 In terms of consultation with Mana Whenua and following advice from Council, NZTA sought to engage 10 of the Mana Whenua groups107. Of those groups, Ngati Maru, Ngati Tamatera, Waikato-Tainui and Te Kawerau a Maki subsequently advised that they do not have an interest in the project or deferred to other iwi groups. No further response was received from Ngati Whanaunga.

70.4 Ngai Tai ki Tamaki, Ngati Tamaoho, Ngati Te Ata-Waiohua and Te Akitai Waiohua met NZTA at an initial hui on 4 July 2014 and a site visit on 23 July, attended by all but Ngati Paoa who met NZTA on 16 July 2014. Further hui were held almost monthly towards the end of 2014 and as a result of this consultation, CIAs were prepared by the four iwi. The common themes running through these CIAs are that iwi have a long and enduring relationship with the land and water bodies affected by the SCI project, and development and occupation of the area, including the existing motorway, has led to the degradation of environmental qualities, particularly in the water bodies. Matters of specific concern included longstanding concerns in relation to Pahurehure Inlet including the constraint in tidal flushing resulting from the causeway, the effects of coastal work and reclamation, stormwater management and input into urban design for the project.

107 Ngai Tai ki Tamaki, Ngati Tamaoho, Ngati Te Ata-Waiohua, Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngati Maru, Ngati Paoa, Ngati Tamatera, Ngati Whanaunga, Waikato-Tainui and Te Kawerau a Maki 47

70.5 As part of the response to address the concerns raised by Mana Whenua, NZTA has instituted regular meetings with interested iwi with the objective of developing a broader strategic approach to the management of environmental effects. Mana Whenua wish to work towards a SH1 highway configuration which does not block or impede the tidal flows in the Inlet, as the current causeway does. NZTA has responded to this concern by108:

(a) Modifying the initial proposal, which had provided for the cycleway/pedestrian path by way of additional reclamation. As a result of consultation with Mana Whenua this approach was abandoned and replaced with standalone bridges over the Inlet instead.

(b) Not increasing the area of reclamation to future-proof the carriageway against expected sea level rises. Instead NZTA will accelerate its resilience study for this section of SH1 and include in that study an evaluation of whether a causeway is the appropriate bridging method. NZTA have confirmed that Mana Whenua will be involved in this evaluation process.

70.6 Following limited notification of the project two submissions were received from Mana Whenua groups, Ngati Tamaoho and Ngati Te Ata Waiohua. Both Mana Whenua groups have stated in their submissions that they support the application in part and oppose the application in part. The principal reason for opposition to the application is the existence of the causeway. While both groups sought that the causeway be removed and replaced with a bridge structure to improve the quality of the Pahurehure inlet, it is noted that the removal of the causeway is not within the scope of the project and forms part of the existing environment and the permitted baseline.

70.7 Iwi submissions also sought a number of other measures including: their involvement in setting the terms of reference for a business case for the removal of the causeway as part of the Southern Resilience project and active involvement in that study; the establishment and resourcing of a Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Group (MWKG) for the SCI project; cultural monitoring of aspects of the project; provision for cultural induction by Mana Whenua for all contractors; use of organic (chitin based) flocculent only within entire project; and input into the planting.

70.8 We were told by counsel for NZTA, that “while these measures were originally sought to be confirmed as conditions at the last hui on the issue it was agreed that this was not required. Rather iwi input was agreed to be via a properly resourced MWKG and a framework of regular contact and contribution. It has been agreed these arrangements will form part of the project contracts.”109 In closing, counsel summarised the position further:

“The changes to how the project crosses the Pahurehure Inlet brought about by consultation with Mana Whenua have... been the catalyst for a working relationship with Mana Whenua which will allow consideration of new options for the SH1’s crossing of the Inlet in the future".110

70.9 Ngati Tamaoho indicated that they wished to be heard in support of their submission and representatives appeared before us at the hearing reiterating the relationship of Ngati Tamaoho with the area and confirming their concerns. Due to

108 NZTA Opening legal submissions, paragraphs 4.12, 4.13 and 10.3(iii - iv) 109 NZTA Opening legal submissions, paragraph 10.3(iv) 110 NZTA Closing legal submissions, paragraph 1.2 (second) 48

the constructive nature of their engagement and submissions which help us to understand the environmental effects from a cultural perspective and issues of concern to Mana Whenua, clearly outlining ways in which the effects on cultural values can be further mitigated or remedied, NZTA have been able to make considerable progress in addressing the issues raised by the Mana Whenua groups. Indeed, Ngati Tamaoho representatives confirmed that “the interaction they had with NZTA had left them hopeful of a strong and fruitful relationship in the future.”111

70.10 While the Iwi also confirmed in response to our questions that they were satisfied that much of the matters raised could be addressed through on-going engagement through the SCI MWKG, they nevertheless commented in passing that adding conditions as well “couldn’t hurt”.

70.11 On this basis, the applicant has proposed conditions to address several of the concerns raised and was willing to accept other conditions proposed by either Council or ourselves throughout the hearing.

70.12 NZTA has provided evidence that it has made a commitment to address monitoring through the established Auckland Southern State Highway Iwi Integration Group, of which the MWKG is a part, and which has a common interest in this and other projects. This is supported by Council.112

70.13 In response to Mana Whenua concerns, not to limit the treatment options to chemically based ones only, ‘Condition 46 - Chemical Treatment Management Plan’ has been amended. The deletion of the term, “chemical” throughout this condition will allow the consent holder, in the future, to utilise different treatment options if it can be proven to Council and subsequently certified that the option proposed is effective to ensure adequate sediment removal.

70.14 Condition 8 makes appropriate provision inviting the following Mana Whenua groups to attend the Pre-Construction meeting: Ngai Tai ki Tamaki, Ngati Tamaoho, Ngati Te Ata Waiohua, Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngati Maru and Ngati Paoa ("the Manu Whenua Groups"). In addition, the condition provides under 8(e) that “Appropriate provision to the extent sought by the Mana Whenua Groups, or their nominated representative(s), shall be made for a cultural induction of the contractor's staff.

70.15 We understand that Mana Whenua groups have had and will continue to have input into the UDLF and choice of native vegetation, as explained orally by Mr Burn.

70.16 We therefore agree that the submissions on behalf of Ngati Tamaoho and Ngati Te Ata provide specific evidence of the effects of the proposal on their relationship with the area and the extent to which those effects might be avoided, remedied or mitigated. Subject to appropriate conditions to cover matters raised by Ngati Tamaoho and Ngati Te Ata-Waiohua, we have found that the proposal will have only minor effects on cultural values. We trust the ongoing relationship between the parties and good faith shown together with associated conditions, go some way towards increasing the kaitiaki capacity of Ngati Tamaoho and Ngati Te Ata to

111 NZTA, Closing legal submissions paragraph 10.2 112 Planners response, paragraph 10 49

ensure that the good health and wellbeing of their and our environment is restored and maintained.113

PART H: CONSULTATION AND SUBMISSIONS

71. Consultation

71.1 Mr Burn referred us to Chapter 8 of the AEE which describes the consultation that took place with the community and key stakeholders since early 2014, which included sending out letters providing information about the project, circulation of a newsletter to nearly 32,000 properties in July 2014 and invitations to open days that were held during July/August 2014.114 Further contact was made with directly affected owners, inviting them to informal sausage sizzle events and follow up meetings. Engagement with Mana Whenua is discussed above.

71.2 Mr Burn's evidence also identified individual parties with whom there has been ongoing engagement, including Auckland Botanic Gardens, Housing New Zealand, Stevenson Group Limited, Department of Conservation and the Pahurehure Inlet Protection Society.

72. Submissions

72.1 It is therefore unsurprising that there have been relatively few submissions opposing the project and we note that there were two submissions in support. We have considered all of the concerns raised in opposition to the project, or particular parts of it, whether or not specific reference has been made in this report to each submission point. We have considered most of the key matters in our assessment of the evidence relating to the environmental effects of the proposal (both positive and adverse). We have concluded that the requiring authority has responded appropriately to all submission points that are relevant to the project and the processes incorporated into the conditions for ongoing engagement with affected persons and Mana Whenua will enable any other issues to be dealt with as they arise.

PART I: EVALUATION OF NOTICES OF REQUIREMENT

73. Section 171(1)(a) – Any relevant provisions of a national policy statement, a New Zealand coastal policy statement, a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement, a regional plan, a district plan or proposed district plan.

73.1 Pursuant to section 171(1)(a), when considering the requirements we must, subject to Part 2, consider the effects on the environment of allowing the requirements, having particular regard to any relevant provisions of a national policy statement, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, the regional policy statement, the proposed regional policy statement and the relevant regional and

113 Submission on behalf of Ngati Te Ata-Waiohua by Karl Whare Tipeti Flavell dated 14 April 2015. 114 Evidence of Owen Burn, paragraph 14.1 50

district plans and proposed plans. We must also have regard to any national environmental standards.

73.2 Collectively the requiring authority's Notices of Requirement, the Council officers' hearing report and the evidence at the hearing provided an extensive commentary on the relevant national and regional policy statements, regional and district plans and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan as well as the NES for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health. The analysis in Chapter 7 of the AEE alone is some 56 pages.115 We do not intend to repeat the bulk of this material in this decision; we have had regard to all the material before us and where different opinions were reached by experts we have referred to these as appropriate. We record that the following documents were considered of particular relevance in reaching our decision:

(a) New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement;

(b) National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management;

(d) NES for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health116;

(e) Auckland Regional Policy Statement;

(f) Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal;

(g) Auckland Regional Plan: Sediment Control;

(h) Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water;

(i) Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section);

(j) Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section);

(k) Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

73.3 The following provides a brief summary of the key matters to which we have had regard in relation to the above, having also considered the environmental effects which we have discussed in Part G.

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010

73.4 T he planners' report provides a summary of the significant matters relating to the project that must be considered117. The NZCPS addresses:

115 Volume 2 of the application material 116 We note that this was only applicable to the Stevenson site (AEE Chapter 7.2 page 74). The applicant undertook a preliminary site investigation which identified areas that would require further sampling and if further consents are required, these will form part of a Contaminated Soil Management Plan under the umbrella of the Construction Environmental Management Plan. 117 Planners' report, section 8.2.3, page 61 of the hearing agenda 51

(a) Preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment;

(b) Recognition and protection of those characteristics of the coastal environment that have special value to Mana Whenua;

(d) The maintenance and enhancement of the public open space qualities and recreation opportunities of the coastal environment;

(e) The Crown’s interest in the land in the CMA.

73.5 An assessment against Objectives 1 – 7 and Policies 1 – 6, 10 – 11, 13 – 15, 17 – 19, 21 – 25, and 27 has been provided by the applicant in the AEE report and we have considered that assessment. We note that the planners' report identifies Policies 6 (Activities in the Coastal Environment) and 10 (Reclamation and de- reclamation) as the key policies relevant to this project. Policy 6 acknowledges that infrastructure is important to the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of people and communities; clause (2)(c) of Policy 6 acknowledges activities which have a functional need to be located within the CMA.

73.6 Policy 10 identifies that reclamation in the CMA is to be avoided unless:

“a) land outside the coastal marine area is not available for the proposed activity; b) the activity which requires reclamation can only occur in or adjacent to the coastal marine area; c) there are no practicable alternative methods of providing the activity; and d) the reclamation will provide significant regional or national benefit.”

73.7 The SCI project requires 260m2 of reclamation within the Pahurehure Inlet. The part of the CMA in which reclamation is proposed does not contain any places of outstanding natural character or features that are outstanding or of regional significance.

73.8 The designation extends over the existing causeway, which was reclaimed at the time of the original highway construction. Originally the proposed reclamation was approximately 1.2ha in area. However, the extent of reclamation has been reduced to 260m2. It is accepted that there are no practical alternatives outside the CMA and that there are transport and freight benefits provided by the reclamation.

73.9 The reclamation will have a rip-rap face and will be of clean fill construction. The experts all agree that the face of the reclamation will be compatible with the existing environment and the developed nature of this part of the coast and will potentially create habitat for some species. The proposal to extend the reclamation is accepted as being necessary and is not contrary to the NZCPS.

73.10 Policy 22 (sedimentation) of the NZCPS is also relevant as it requires the subdivision, use or development will not result in a significant increase in sedimentation in the coastal marine area, or other coastal water. The much reduced reclamation area will avoid further sedimentation attributed to the existing causeway across the inlet.118 Erosion and sediment control plans which detail a range of management practices to avoid significant sediment runoff into the CMA

118 Evidence of Dr Robert Bell, paragraph 4.7 52

will also be implemented and there was no disagreement amongst the experts that these management practices are appropriate.

Auckland Regional Policy Statement

73.11 In considering the relevant objectives and policies of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement, we find that the effects on the environment of the proposed works are generally in accordance with the higher order Chapter 2 Strategic Objectives and Policies dealing with Land Use and Transport and Infrastructure, as well as Chapter 3 Matters of Significance to Iwi, Chapter 4 Transport, Chapter 6 Heritage, Chapter 7 Coastal Environment and Chapter 8 Water Quality. We adopt the analysis and comments on these objectives and policies in section 8.2.4 of the planners' report.

Auckland Regional Plan: Sediment Control

73.12 The ACRP:SC addresses the issues of elevated sediment generation and discharge from areas subject to land disturbance.

73.13 A detailed assessment of the proposal is provided in the AEE against the Objectives 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 and Policies 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and 7.2.2 of the ACRP:SC.

73.14 The relevant restricted discretionary activity assessment criteria have also been considered by the applicant when undertaking the actual and potential effects assessment, and in the Council officers' review.

73.15 It is common ground that, subject to recommended conditions to ensure that the erosion and sediment control measures identified are implemented to avoid, remedy or mitigate effects in accordance with the application documents, the proposed works will not be contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the ACRP: SC.

73.16 The Council’s expert, Ms Benucci has advised that the construction methodologies, erosion and sediment control plans and monitoring programmes as proposed by the applicant collectively represent the BPO to minimise soil erosion and the volume of sediment that could potentially discharge from the site during the proposed earthworks operations.

73.17 Accordingly we find that the proposed works are not contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the ACRP: SC.

Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water

73.18 We have also considered the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (ACRP: ALW). The ACRP: ALW contains objectives, policies and rules to promote the sustainable management of Auckland’s air, land and water. NZTA is a Stormwater Network Utility Operator and Highway Network Operator and that infrastructure operated by a network utility operator is specifically considered and defined as “Network Utility Infrastructure’ in the ACRP: ALW. These provisions are outlined and discussed in the planners' report under the headings of Natural Values, Use and Development, Matters of Significance to Tangata Whenua and Discharges with reference to the applicant's evaluation in the AEE.119

119 Planners' report, section 6.3.4 53

Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal (ACRP: C)

73.19 The ACRP:C provides a framework to promote the integrated and sustainable management of Auckland’s coastal environment.

73.20 The project crosses the Pahurehure Inlet – which is identified as General Management Area on Map Series 1 – Sheet 14 in the ACRP:C. An area of Significant Conservation Value - the Pahurehure Inlet (Takanini) Pumicite Deposits is located adjacent to the SCI corridor where it passes over the Longford Park peninsula. Works proposed within the CMA are located north and south of the peninsula, adjacent to and on the existing causeway.

73.21 The relevant provisions have been identified in the planners' report under the headings of:

(a) Natural Character

(b) Landscape

(d) Coastal Matters of Significance to Iwi

(e) Public Access

(f) Cultural Heritage

(g) Subdivision, Use and Development

(h) Activities

(i) General (including Occupation)

(j) Activities

(k) Structures

(l) Reclamation and Drainage

(m) Disturbance of Foreshore and Seabed

(n) Discharge of Contaminants

(o) Noise

73.22 The main issue was the extent of reclamation originally proposed and in response to iwi concerns, additions to the existing causeways to provide for the shared path and cycleway along the motorway were deleted from the current NoR and resource consent applications. As noted earlier, a separate consent has been obtained for bridge structures across the inlet, requiring a much reduced 260m2 reclamation area. This is to be mitigated by native planting and restoration of saltmarsh. Overall, the project is not contrary to the objectives and policies in Chapter 3.

73.23 The planners' report contains a comprehensive analysis of the ACRP:C, which covers the following:

(a) Chapter 6, which provides the plan’s objectives and policies relating to the relationship between Mana Whenua and the coastal environment as set out under Part 2 of the RMA.

(b) Chapter 7, which has the plan’s objectives and policies pertaining to the maintenance and enhancement of public access to the coastal environment, with particular reference to Objectives 7.3.1 – 7.3.2 and Policies 7.4.1 – 7.4.3.

(d) Chapter 9 addresses the appropriateness of development within the coastal environment while providing for the social, economic and cultural well-being and for the health and safety of communities. Assessment is provided against Objectives 9.3.1 and 9.3.2 and Policy 9.4.1.

(e) The objectives and policies that apply to all activities that require resource consent are set out in Chapter 10.

(f) Chapter 11 addresses how Council implements section 12 of the RMA. Assessment is provided against Objectives 11.3.1 and 11.3.2 and Policy 11.4.1 The objectives and policies for structures in the CMA (excluding structures for Ports, marinas, aquaculture etc) are described within Chapter 12. Assessment of the project is provided against Objective 12.3.1 and Policies 12.4.1 – 12.4.3, 12.4.12 and 12.4.15.

(g) Chapter 13 addresses the ‘appropriateness’ of reclamation and drainage of coastal land and addresses the reasons for and effects of reclamation. Assessment is provided against Objectives 13.3.1 and 13.3.2 and Policies 13.4.1 – 13.4.9.

73.24 The planners' report also discusses the reasons why setting aside an esplanade reserve or strip on the proposed reclaimed areas of the CMA is not considered appropriate in this instance, which include the high speed traffic environment along the causeway, which is unsafe for public access, and the control of public access under the Government Roading Powers Act 1989. The reclamation area is small in area and not contiguous with other esplanades, and to provide a usable esplanade additional reclamation would be required.

73.25 Issues arising from activities that have the potential to damage or destroy the foreshore and/or seabed (other than extraction or dredging) are addressed within Chapter 16 of the ARP:C.

73.26 The issues, objective and policies relating to the discharge of contaminants under section 15 of the RMA are set out within Chapter 20. Assessment is provided against Objectives 20.3.1 and 20.3.2 and Policies 20.4.1 – 20.4.3, 20.4.10 and 20.4.11.

73.27 The objectives and policies to ensure noise does not exceed reasonable levels are set out within Chapter 35. Assessment is provided against Objective 35.3.1 and Policies 35.4.1 – 35.4.3.

73.28 We adopt the analysis and conclusions of the planners' report in respect of the ACRP:C and the NZCPS.

Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau & Papakura Sections) – Objectives and Policies

73.29 The NOR application documentation provides an assessment of the District Plan objectives and policies in section 7 of the AEE and the planners' report addresses the relevant provisions from the Manukau and Papakura district plan sections in section 8.2.3 at pages 74 - 75 of the hearing agenda. We have no reason to disagree with the conclusions in those assessments.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

73.30 We have also considered the relevant provisions of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, which was publicly notified on 30 September 2013. The Proposed Unitary Plan includes the proposed Regional Policy Statement, as well as regional and district plan provisions. Chapter B sets out the Proposed Auckland Regional Policy Statement while Chapter C deals with the Regional and District Objectives. We note that the proposed zonings of the area subject to the NoR's are similar to those in the District Plan.

73.31 Having reviewed these provisions we agree with the comments in the planners' report120 that the NoRs and resource consents are generally consistent with the objectives and policies of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

74. Section 171(1)(b) – Adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes, or methods of undertaking the work or that it is likely that the work will have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

74.1 Where a requiring authority does not have an interest in the land, section 171(1)(b) requires a determination by the Territorial Authority as to whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes or methods to achieve the project objectives. Section 171(b)(ii) also requires an assessment of alternatives if there are “significant” adverse effects arising from the designation. Section 181(2) also requires an assessment of alternatives when considering alterations to designations.

74.2 The NZTA has set out its detailed consideration of these matters in section 9 of the AEE.121 This analysis addresses the design constraints of existing network infrastructure, stormwater catchments and traffic flow operational constraints around the Takanini interchange. Various options for stormwater wetlands and treatment devices were considered. Takanini interchange options included a 'do minimum' option, a retention of the northbound loop option, a full diamond interchange and addition of a second northbound onramp option. Third option (full diamond interchange) was confirmed as the preferred option as it addresses the identified interchange problems and aligns with the project objectives.122

74.3 Causeway options were also considered, which initially proposed an option for causeway widening to accommodate the third general traffic lane (northbound and southbound) stormwater filter strip and shared use path. However, the requiring authority modified its proposal by removing the causeway widening for the shared use path from the project, which has resulted in a substantially reduced area of reclamation.

120 Planners' report, hearing agenda pages 75 - 79 121 NZTA Notices of Requirement, Assessment of Effects Chapter 9, page 121 122 NZTA Notices of Requirement, Assessment of Effects Chapter 9, page 127 56

74.4 Mr Hale's evidence also discussed these options.123

74.5 Having reviewed the detailed material submitted in support of the Notices and associated resource consents and considered the effects on the environment as discussed above, we find that the requiring authority has given adequate consideration to alternative sites, routes or methods as required by section 171(1)(b).

75. Section 171(1)(c) - Whether the work and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the requiring authority for which the designation is sought.

75.1 In having regard to whether the ‘work or project which is subject to the designation’ is necessary, Mr Mulligan submitted124 on behalf of NZTA that we must consider the requiring authority's objectives, which we have outlined above and were discussed in the evidence of Mr Sephton, the applicant's Principal Transport Planner and Project Manager. The Council and NZTA agree that the NORs and the works are necessary to achieve the objectives of the project.125

75.2 We have had regard to those documents and agree with the conclusions in those documents.

75.3 We find that the designations are reasonably necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in accordance with section 171(1)(c) of the Act.

76. Section 171(1)(d) Other matters considered reasonably necessary in order to make a recommendation on the requirement.

Outline Plan of Works ('OPW')

76.1 We have considered the requiring authority’s request that the requirement for an outline plan be waived for the proposed works on the grounds that there is sufficient information contained with the Notice and the AEE.

76.2 Section 176(2) provides for this circumstance where:

(a) "the proposed public work, project or work has been otherwise approved under this Act; or

(b) the details of the proposed public work, project or work as referred to in subsection (3) are incorporated into the designation; or

76.3 Section 176(3) sets out the information requirements for an outline plan, which include the height shape and bulk of the work, the site location, likely finished contours, vehicular access and circulation, landscaping and proposed mitigation measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects.

123 Evidence of Andrew Hale, paragraphs 6.1 - 6.6 124 Opening submissions of counsel for the requiring authority, paragraph 9.9. 125 Planners' report, section 12 at page 90 of the hearing agenda 57

76.4 Mr Burn was of the opinion that a number of the matters listed in section 176(3) are included in the specimen plans and drawings attached to the AEE, which clearly show the key elements of the project, these being:

(a) the height, shape and bulk of the project (new and altered on and off ramps, bridges, finished carriageway widths, pedestrian cycleway;

(b) the physical location of all elements of the project;

(d) details of vehicular access.126

76.5 Mr Burn referred to the UDLF prepared for the project and discussed in Mr Bray's evidence. He pointed out that the evolution of the UDLF "has been informed through consultation with a number of key stakeholders including iwi, the Botanic Gardens and Council staff" and considered that the intent of the UDLF is to provide detailed design requirements to be followed by the contractor with respect to landscaping as well as the design and treatment of key structures such as bridges and acoustic barriers.127

76.6 Mr Burn also referred to the plans and cross sections that have been prepared of the proposed noise walls following further consultation with adjacent landowners, which provide further details in conjunction with the UDLF.

76.7 Mr Mulligan addressed the legal considerations in his closing reply. In his submission, the fact that NZTA did not seek an OPW for the project in its original application does not raise any notification issues. He confirmed that the UDLF and the Noise and Security Wall Height Plans form part of the conditions of the designation and so provide the level of detail required by the OPW process. These documents have been considered and favourably reviewed by Ms Skidmore on behalf of the Council.128

76.8 Having had regard to the scope of the NoR and information provided, we agree that an outline plan is not required for the proposed works as described in the Notice and including the additional plans and information (in particular the UDLF and noise wall details) referred to in the conditions agreed by the NZTA and Council.

77. Lapse period for designations

77.1 The default period for the lapse of a designation is 5 years after its inclusion in a plan unless it has been given effect to or an application is made to extend the period, or a longer period is confirmed as part of the designation process129.

77.2 The planners' report referred to the requiring authority's request for a lapse period of 10 years for the project and considered that appropriate. During the course of the hearing, the requiring authority indicated that it wished the lapse date to be 15 years, which was not opposed by the Council.

126 Evidence of Owen Burn, paragraph 17.5 127 Evidence of Owen Burn, paragraph 17.6 128 Closing submissions of counsel for the requiring authority, paragraph 11.3 129 Section 184(1) of the RMA 58

77.3 Case law130 has established the principles to be considered where a longer lapse period is sought, which recognise that in exercising discretion, there must be a balance between the need to secure the property for future infrastructure development, and the prejudicial effects of such a designation on property owners. These principles require consideration of:

(a) The timeframe in which the project is likely to be constructed;

(b) The need to safeguard the alignment from inappropriate use and development;

(d) The ability to implement the designation in due course.

77.4 We do not consider that in this instance, a lapse date of 15 years is appropriate. We heard evidence from the requiring authority's witnesses that commencement of the project is imminent, and indeed urgent, if the benefits of the Western Ring Route are to be realised.131 Mr Hale indicated that the project will be completed in 2018 and Mr Burn told us that a tender process is already in progress. Consequently, while we accept that a pragmatic approach must be taken towards undertaking the work in stages, the evidence from the NZTA's own witnesses does not support a long lapse period. Much of the additional land required for the project is for temporary construction purposes, or is land owned by the Council (the ABG and various reserves). The need to safeguard the alignment from inappropriate use and development is therefore confined to a small number of privately owned properties (particularly the Stevenson site on Great South Road), where negotiations for land acquisition are well advanced.

77.5 We are not persuaded that extending the timeframe provides sufficient certainty for the many affected residential property owners, especially those who may have an expectation that the very high noise levels they currently experience will be improved once the project is complete. Accordingly, we have recommended that the lapse date remains at 10 years.

PART J: STATUTORY MATTERS RELATING TO RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATIONS

78. We are required to consider (subject to Part 2 of the RMA) the matters set out in sections 104, 104B, 104D, 105 and 107 in determining whether or not consent should be granted to the resource consent applications.

78.1 Section 104D (Particular Restrictions for Non-Complying Activities) applies to the proposed reclamation and it was agreed by the Council and NZTA that the correct approach was to consider all of the required consents as bundled, so that the most rigorous statutory test applied overall.

78.2 We have accordingly considered whether the proposed reclamation passes either of the gateway tests, these being whether adverse effects of the activity on the environment will be minor (under section 104D(1)(a)) or whether proposal would

130 Beda Family Trust v Transit NZ (EnvC A139/04) and Hernon v Vector Gas [2010] NZEnvC 203 131 Evidence of Andrew Hale, paragraph 8.4 59

be contrary to the objectives and policies of a plan or a proposed plan (104D(1)(b)).

78.3 We have determined that the effects of the reclamation can be adequately mitigated by the imposition of conditions of consent requiring replacement plantings and similar mitigation actions. We find that with mitigation, the effects will be minor.

78.4 Having passed one of the gateway tests, it is not strictly necessary to consider whether the proposal is contrary to the objectives and policies under section 104D(1)(b), but find that in any event, the proposed activity is not contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant operative plans and the PAUP.

78.5 In terms of the broader consideration of the resource consent applications under section 104(1)(a), we have had regard to the comprehensive analysis of the effects resulting from or on reclamation, earthworks, soil contamination, stormwater discharges, land requirements, cultural concerns, traffic, landscape, arboriculture and visual amenity, vegetation removal, operational and construction noise, air quality effects, vibration, ecology, water quality, overland flow paths, lighting, archaeology and heritage, coastal processes and effects on public utilities. That analysis was undertaken in the AEE and the planners' report, as well as in evidence presented at the hearing.

78.6 During the hearing, it was agreed between the parties (and we concur), that a clear distinction should be made between the conditions relating to proposed works and the designations that would remain in place during and after the completion of the project. This distinction applies to the construction of the motorway works as opposed to the operation of the State Highway corridor once construction has been completed. As most of the environmental effects associated with the proposed designations are intrinsically linked to the works, we have considered the evidence and made findings in respect of those effects in Part G above. That discussion includes consideration of conditions to be applied to the resource consent applications to ensure that the identified effects are appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated. In so doing, we have also had regard to the relevant objectives, policies, rules and methods set out in the various planning instruments whether or not they have been explicitly referenced.

78.7 We have considered the provisions of sections 105 and 107 of the RMA and adopt sections 6.7 and 6.8 of the planners' report.

78.8 Our overall finding in regard to the resource consent applications is that they meet the statutory tests including the Part 2 matters discussed below and, subject to conditions, can be granted.

79. PART 2 OF THE ACT

79.1 Part 2 of the Act sets out its purpose and principles and our assessments under sections 104, 104D, 105 and 107 above are subject to Part 2. In making a Part 2 assessment a broad, overall, judgement is required of whether the proposals will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

79.2 Section 5 identifies the purpose of the RMA as the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. This means managing the use of natural and physical resources in a way that enables people and communities to provide for their social, cultural and economic well-being while sustaining those resources for

future generations, protecting the life supporting capacity of ecosystems, and avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment.

79.3 Section 6 sets out a number of matters of national importance which need to be recognised and provided for. These include the relationship of Maori with aspects of their environment and other taonga, protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna, and the protection of historic heritage.

79.4 Section 7 identifies a number of “other matters” to be given particular regard by the council in considering an application for resource consent. These include kaitiakitanga, the efficient use of natural and physical resources, and the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values.

79.5 Section 8 requires the council to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

79.6 We find that the proposed designation alterations and resource consents are consistent with Section 5 of the RMA in that the project will:

(a) Provide for the social and economic well-being of people and communities locally and within the wider region by enabling SH1 to be upgraded along with its connections to the local roading network, thereby relieving traffic congestion in the SCI corridor area;

(b) Improve the road carrying capacity and safety levels for both motorists and cyclists, whilst enhancing travel opportunities for a range of other users;

(c) Result in improved stormwater management and reduced contaminant loads thereby providing for cultural wellbeing and sustaining the Manukau Harbour and its life supporting capacity; and

(d) Avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects of activities on the environment through appropriate mitigation measures and the implementation of conditions to be attached to the proposed alterations and resource consents.

79.7 For the reasons discussed in this report, we have determined that the proposal recognises and provides for the matters in section 6 of the RMA. Proposed mitigation and monitoring measures have been recommended to preserve the existing natural character of the coastal environment and its margins, noting that this environment is already significantly altered as a result of existing roading and other urban development.

79.8 There are no significant areas of indigenous vegetation or significant habitats of indigenous fauna affected by the proposal. An outstanding natural feature (the Takanini Pumicite exposed in the eroded face of a cliff at Pahurehure Inlet) is present at the western end of Longford Park Peninsula. However, no works are proposed as part of this project that would impact on this feature.

79.9 The proposal will maintain and enhance existing pedestrian access opportunities to the CMA on both the northern and southern edges of the Pahurehure Inlet. The existing local cycle network within the Conifer Grove Esplanade Reserve is to be linked to the proposed walking and cycling path adjacent to SH1 north to Takanini. A pedestrian/cycling bridge to be provided across the motorway south of the Pahurehure Inlet will provide improved links to Hingaia’s existing walking and cycling network. 61

79.10 Accidental discovery protocols and proposed consent conditions enable the relationship of Maori with any unidentified archaeological sites within the corridor. Particular consideration is also evident through NZTA’s reduction in the area of reclamation proposed within the Pahurehure Inlet, following engagement with Mana Whenua.

79.11 Particular regard has been given to the other matters set out in section 7 of the RMA. Importantly, the amenity values of the Manukau Harbour and its ecosystems will be enhanced by the improved treatment of stormwater run-off from the surface of 30% of the existing road surfaces and 100% of the proposed surfaces.

79.12 The proposal represents the efficient use of an existing physical resource (the existing motorway, bridges and interchanges). The finite characteristics of the Pahurehure Inlet of the Manukau Harbour are recognised by limiting the extent of reclamation to that necessary for the safe and efficient functioning of the State Highway. Proposed landscape planting has been designed to maintain and enhance the amenity values of the riparian areas directly affected by the proposal. Riparian planting will assist with the re-establishment of the estuarine ecology in the vicinity of the proposed bridge structures and associated reclamation, through the creation of a saltmarsh habitat.

79.13 The requirements of section 8 of the RMA have been appropriately addressed through extensive and ongoing engagement with Mana Whenua with an interest in the proposal.

PART K: RECOMMENDATION AND CONDITIONS FOR THE NOTICES OF REQUIREMENT

80. Pursuant to section 171(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991, it is recommended to the requiring authority that the requirement for alterations to the designations be confirmed, subject to the amended and additional conditions.

81. That pursuant to section 171(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the reasons for the recommendation are as follows:

81.1 The proposed designation alterations are consistent with Part 2 of the Resource Management Act in that it enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety by:

(a) Providing for the social and economic well-being of people and communities locally and within the wider region by enabling SH1 to be upgraded along with its connections to the local roading network, thereby relieving traffic congestion in the SCI corridor area;

(b) Improving the road carrying capacity and safety levels for both motorists and cyclists in the wider area, whilst enhancing travel opportunities for a range of other users;

(c) Providing for improved storm water management and reduced contaminant loads, thereby providing for cultural wellbeing and sustaining the Manukau Harbour and its life supporting capacity; together with ecological benefits;

(d) Providing opportunities for improved cycling and walking facilities;

(e) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment through appropriate design and the implementation of proposed conditions to be attached to the proposed alterations.

81.2 The proposed designation alterations:

(a) are required in order for NZTA to achieve its statutory objectives under the LTMA;

(b) are necessary for the NZTA to achieve the specific project objectives;

(c) will allow land required for the project to be identified in the relevant plans (which already include land shown as being designated for state highway purposes), to give a clear indication of the intended use of the land;

(d) enable the project to be undertaken in a comprehensive and integrated manner; and

(e) protect the proposed route from future development which may preclude the construction of the project.

82. In terms of section 171(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 adequate consideration has been given by NZTA to alternative sites, routes or methods for undertaking the work.

83. In terms of 171(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the proposed designation is reasonably necessary to allow NZTA to achieve the following objectives:

83.1 To increase capacity, reliable journey times and address safety issues on State Highway 1;

83.2 To support national and regional economic growth and productivity by improving transport efficiency;

83.3 To deliver a transport network that supports growth anticipated by the Auckland Plan and in the South of Auckland; and

83.4 To realise the full benefits of the Western Ring Route and the Waikato Expressway for the efficient inter and intra-regional movement of people and freight.

84. The proposed designation alterations are consistent with, and give effect to the relevant provisions and policy statements and plans prepared under the RMA.

85. Restrictions, by way of conditions attached to the proposed designation alterations have been included to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse environmental effects associated with the works as far as practicable.

86. That the following amendments be made to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau and Papakura sections respectively).

Manukau

86.1 Amend maps 42 and 43 to show the altered designation

86.2 Amend Chapter 5 General Procedures and Rules Schedule 5A to reference the following list of designation conditions at Schedule 5A

86.3 Insert the following list of designation conditions in Schedule 5A

Papakura

86.4 Amend maps D1, D2, E1, F3 to show the altered designation

86.5 Amend Section 4, Part 1 Designations Section 1.3 to insert the following list of conditions

87. That pursuant to section 171(2)(c) of the RMA it is recommended to NZTA that amendments are made to the conditions attached to the proposed designation as set out below.

PART L: DECISION ON RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATIONS

88. That pursuant to sections 9, 12, 15, 104, 104B, 104D, 105, 107 and 108 of the RMA, consent is granted to the following applications by NZTA for works associated with construction, operation and maintenance of and associated structures, subject to the conditions that follow:

R/LUC/2014/4812

(a) Land Use Consent under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) for earthworks on or within 50m of a site or place of value to Mana Whenua, vegetation removal within a Historic Heritage overlay, and management of stormwater flows and stormwater quality.

(b) Land Use Consent to disturb soil under the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health Regulations 2011 (NES (soil))

R/LUC/2014/4813

(c) Land Use Consent under section 89(2) of the RMA for the construction, operation and maintenance of a motorway on reclaimed land.

R/REG/2014/4814

(d) Regional Land Use Consent under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control (ACRP:SC) for earthworks over an area greater than 0.25ha and trenching exceeding 100m within the Sediment Control Protection Area.

(e) Regional Land Use Consent under the PAUP for earthworks greater than 2,500m2 or 2,500m3 for network utilities or road networks.

R/REG/2014/4815

(f) Discharge Permit under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (ALWP) for the diversion and discharge of stormwater within an urban area by a stormwater network utility operator.

(g) Discharge Permit under the PAUP for the diversion and discharge of stormwater to land, water or the Coastal Marine Area (CMA).

R/REG/2014/4816

(h) Coastal Permit under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal 2004 (ACRP:C) for the construction activities in the CMA, including the erection and placement of temporary structures, alterations to existing lawful structures not provided for, disturbance from construction activities, reclamation, and the discharge of contaminants during construction.

(i) Coastal Permit under the PAUP for the construction activities in the CMA, including reclamation, disturbance from construction activities which includes the removal of mangroves and the extension or alteration to existing lawful structures.

R/REG/2014/4817

(j) Coastal Permit under the ACRP:C for the occupation and ongoing use, operation and maintenance of State Highway 1 (SH1) for transport purposes in the CMA, including associated stormwater outfalls, and the ongoing discharge of contaminants and stormwater associated with this use.

(k) Coastal Permit under the PAUP for the occupation and ongoing use, operation and maintenance of SH1 for transport purposes in the CMA.

89. The reasons for this decision are as follows:

89.1 Pursuant to section 104(1)(a) of the Act, the actual and potential effects have been considered in making this decision. There are positive effects associated with the project which have been considered as a part of the Notice of Requirement. Further to this, any adverse stormwater, earthworks, soil contamination, and effects of structures within a stream bed will be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated and will be less than minor. Overall, the proposed works will result in positive effects.

(a) Pursuant to section 104(1)(b) of the Act, the proposal is consistent with the relevant National Environmental Standards, National Policy Statements, ACRPS, ACRP:C, ACRP:ALW, ACRP:SC and ACDP (Manukau and Papakura Sections).

(b) Pursuant to section 104(1)(c) of the Act, other relevant matters have been considered in the determination of the application.

(c) The application achieves the sustainable management purpose of the Act set out in Part 2 for the reasons set out in Part J of this decision.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR THE NOTICES OF REQUIREMENT FOR ALTERATIONS TO THE NZTA DESIGNATIONS

General Conditions

DC1 Except as modified by the conditions below and subject to final design, the works shall be undertaken in general accordance with the information provided by the Requiring Authority in the Notices of Requirement dated November 2014 and

referenced by the Council as MPA077 and PPA052 and supporting documents being NOR documents, Application Forms, and Assessment of Environmental Effects prepared by Green Group Ltd, dated November 2014, including:

 Volume 1 – Notices of Requirement - NoRs 1 and 2 dated 6 Nov 2014

Report title and reference Author Rev Dated Volume 2 Assessment of Owen Burn 4 Nov 2014 Environmental Effects Volume 3 Technical Reports comprising: Leon Saxon – 1 Nov 2014 Arboricultural Assessment Greenscene NZ Ltd Consultation Record Lucie Mairs 1 Oct 2014 Social Impact Assessment J Talbot and Louise 3 Nov 2014 Strogen Heritage Assessment Rod Clough 3 October 2014 Assessment of Traffic Noise and Siiri Wilkening 4 28 Oct 2014 Vibration (Marshall Day Acoustics) Assessment of Construction Noise Peter Ibbotson 3 28 Oct 2014 and Vibration (Marshall Day Acoustics) Assessment of Transport effects Flow Transportation F 11 Nov 2014 Specialists Ltd Assessment of Effects on Eddie Sides 4 October 2014 Freshwater Ecology Assessment of Effects on Terrestrial Katherine Muchna 3 October 2014 Ecology and Dr Sarah Flynn Assessment of Landscape and Shannon Bray Boffa 4 2 Dec Visual Effects Miskell 2014 Engineering Report Rupert Taylor, 3 Jan 2015 Aurecon NZ Ltd Draft Construction Environmental Steve Lloyd 1 Nov 2014 Management Plan

Relevant plan title and reference Author Rev Dated Volume 4 Southern Corridor Aurecon Various 07 Nov 2014 Improvements Drawings set comprising: - Notices of requirement drawings 66

- Designation Plans - General Arrangement - Typical Sections - Retaining Walls - Civil structures - Existing Utilities - Proposed utilities - Drainage - Erosion and Sediment Control

Other additional information Author Rev Dated

Further information letter, including Owen Burn 23 all attachments December 2014 Email on 10 February 2015, subject: Steve Lloyd 10 “Notes on email from Fritha Witton” February regarding withdrawal of LUC for trees 2015

SH1: Southern Corridor Shannon Bray 10 March Improvements Urban Design and 2015 Landscape Framework - Revision 2 Cover Letter Owen Burn 27 January 2015

Assessment of Environmental Effects Owen Burn 1 January Addendum 2015 Plans: Noise/Security Wall Height Aurecon T3 26/5/15 Plans; Sheets 1-14 Drawings 241032 - 0231 to 0237 Aurecon B 22/05/2015 Drawing 241032 - 0238 Aurecon A 22/05/2015 Drawing 241032 – 0206 – Typical Aurecon C 17/10/2014 Cross Section Sheet 4 Drawing 241032 – 0101- General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 1 Drawing 241032 – 0102 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 2

Drawing 241032 – 0103 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 3 Drawing 241032 – 0104 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 4 Drawing 241032 – 0105 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 5 Drawing 241032 – 0106- General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 6 Drawing 241032 – 0107 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 7 Drawing 241032 – 0108 - General Aurecon G 17/11/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 8 Drawing 241032 – 0109 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 9 Drawing 241032 – 0110 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 10 Drawing 241032 – 0111 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 11 Drawing 241032 – 0112 - General Aurecon G 07/11/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 12 Drawing 241032 – 0113 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 13 Drawing 241032 – 0114 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 14

DC2. The designation shall lapse if not given effect to within 10 years from the date on which it is included in the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section), the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section) and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP).

DC3. As soon as practicable following completion of the Southern Corridor Improvements Project (the Project), the Requiring Authority shall give notice in accordance with Section 182 of the RMA to the Manager Regional and Local Planning, Auckland Council, for the removal of those parts of the designation that are not required for the long term operation, maintenance and mitigation of effects of the Project.

Noise and Vibration Management – Operation

DC4. The detailed design of any structural mitigation measures (detailed mitigation measures) shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified acoustics specialist prior to construction of the Project, in consultation with an urban designer and landscape architect, and shall include the location, length and height of noise barriers in general accordance with the Assessment Traffic Noise and Vibration.

DC5. Following detailed design, where a need is identified to revise any structural mitigation measure as identified in Drawing Nos. 241032-0000-DRG-RU-0101- T1 to 241032-0000-DRG-RU-00114-T1 Noise/Security Wall Height Plans, Sheet 1 to 14 (for example, because it is not practicable to implement a particular mitigation in the same location).

i) If the changed design of the structural mitigation measure would still achieve the same Noise Criteria Category at all relevant protected premises and facilities (PPFs), and a suitably qualified acoustic specialist certifies to the Council that the changed structural mitigation measure would be consistent with adopting the Best Practicable Option (BPO) in accordance with NZS6806:2010, the detailed mitigation measures may be amended to include the changed structural mitigation measure, or

ii) If the changed design of the structural mitigation measure would change the Noise Criteria Category at any PPF to a less stringent Noise Criteria Category, but a suitably qualified acoustic specialist confirms that the changed structural mitigation measure would be consistent with adopting the BPO in accordance with NZS6806:2010, the detailed mitigation measure may be amended to include the changed structural mitigation measure. The Requiring Authority shall consult with affected property owners prior to amending the detailed mitigation measures to include the changed structural mitigation measure.

DC6. Where modification of buildings may be required to achieve compliance with NZS6806:2010 (Category C Building), then the following process shall be followed:

(a) Prior to commencement of construction of the Project in the vicinity of a Category C Building, the Requiring Authority shall write to the owner of each Category C Building seeking access to such building for the purpose of measuring internal noise levels and assessing the existing building envelope in relation to noise reduction performance.

(b) If the owner(s) of the Category C Building approve the Requiring Authority’s access to the property within 12 months of the date of the Requiring Authority’s letter (sent pursuant to Condition DC6 (a)), then no more than six months prior to commencement of construction of the Project, the Requiring Authority shall instruct a suitably qualified acoustic specialist to visit the building to measure internal noise levels and assess the existing building envelope in relation to noise reduction performance.

(c) Where a Category C Building is identified, the Requiring Authority shall be deemed to have complied with Condition DC6(b) above where:

i. The Requiring Authority (through its acoustics specialist) has visited the building and has carried out the assessment specified in DC6(b); or ii. The owner of the Category C Building consented to the Requiring Authority’s request for access, but the Requiring Authority could not gain entry for some reason (such as entry being denied by a tenant); or iii. The owner of the Category C Building did not approve the Requiring Authority’s access to the property within the time period set out in Conditions DC6(b) (including where the owner(s) did not

respond to the Requiring Authority’s letter (sent pursuant to Condition DC6(a) within that period); or iv. The owner of the Category C Building cannot, after reasonable enquiry, be found prior to completion of construction of the Project.

(d) If any of (ii) to (iv) above apply to a particular Category C Building, the Requiring Authority shall not be required to implement any building- modification mitigation at that Category C Building.

(e) Subject to Condition DC6(c), within six months of the assessment required under Condition DC6(b), the Requiring Authority shall give notice to the owner of each PPF Category C Building identified under Condition DC6(a):

i. Advising of the options available for building-modification mitigation to the building; and ii. Advising that the owner has three months within which to decide and advise the Requiring Authority whether to accept building- modification mitigation for the building, and if the Requiring Authority has advised the owner that more than one option for building-modification mitigation is available, to advise the Requiring Authority which of those options the owner prefers.

(f) Once an agreement on building-modification mitigation is made between the Requiring Authority and the owner of an affected Category C Building, the mitigation shall be implemented in a reasonable and practical timeframe agreed between the Requiring Authority and the owner, and at the Requiring Authority's expense.

(g) Subject to Condition DC6(a), where building-modification mitigation is required, the Requiring Authority shall be deemed to have complied with DC6(b) above where:

i. The Requiring Authority has completed building-modification mitigation to the Category C Building; or ii. The owner(s) of the Category C Building did not accept the Requiring Authority’s offer to implement building-modification mitigation prior to the expiry of the timeframe stated in Condition DC6(b) above (including where the owner(s) did not respond to the Requiring Authority within that period);

DC7. Where noise attenuation walls or barriers exceed a height of 2m adjacent to residential properties, planting, as and if agreed, shall be undertaken on the residential property side of the noise attenuation wall or barrier following consultation with the adjacent property owner. Planting shall be implemented within the planting season following construction of the adjacent noise attenuation wall or barrier. DC8. Noise/security barriers shall be built within the designation in the locations and to the heights shown on the noise/security wall height plans and cross section drawings, Sheets 1 to 14, to an accuracy of ±1 metre. Where, following detailed design the noise/security barrier height deviates from the height defined in these plans and drawings the same noise criteria category is to be achieved for the relevant PPFs. The noise criteria categories to be achieved (at a minimum) for each PPF are shown on the figures of AEE Volume 3 Appendix 9 "Traffic Noise 70

and Vibration Assessment", Appendix H, figures 1 to 6: NZS 680:2010 Noise Criteria Categories - Preferred Mitigation Situation (Year 2026).

RESOURCE CONSENT CONDITIONS

General Conditions These conditions apply to all resource consents.

1. The scope and extent of works envisaged by this project shall be carried out in general accordance with the plans and all information submitted with the applications, detailed below, and all referenced by the Council as consent numbers R/LUC/2014/4812, R/LUC/2014/4813, R/REG/2014/4814, R/REG/2014/4815, R/REG/2014/4816 and R/REG/2014/4817.

 Application Forms, and Assessment of Environmental Effects prepared by Green Group Ltd, dated November 2014, including:

Report title and reference Author Rev Dated Assessment of Effects on Marine Dr Sharon De 5 January Ecological Values Luca 2015 Assessment of Effects on Eddie Sides 4 October Freshwater Ecology 2014 Assessment of Effects on Terrestrial Katherine 3 October Ecology Muchna and Dr 2014 Sarah Flynn Coastal Processes Assessment R.Bell and 5 January G.Reeve (NIWA) 2015

Stormwater Management Report David Hughes 3 January 2015 Construction Water Management Graeme Ridley 3 October 2014

Assessment of Effects – AECOM Limited E 7 Contaminated Land November 2014

Engineering Report Rupert Taylor, 3 January Aurecon NZ Ltd 2015 Draft Construction Environmental Steve Lloyd 1 November Management Plan 2014 Heritage Assessment Rod Clough 3 October

2014 Assessment of Traffic Noise and Siiri Wilkening 4 28 Oct Vibration (Marshall Day 2014 Acoustics) Assessment of Construction Noise Peter Ibbotson 3 28 Oct and Vibration (Marshall Day 2014 Acoustics) Assessment of Transport effects Flow F 11 Nov Transportation 2014

Specialists Ltd Assessment of Landscape and Shannon Bray 4 2 Dec Boffa Miskell Visual Effects 2014

Relevant plan title and reference Author Rev Dated Conceptual Construction Water Aurecon B 17 October Management Plan Sheet 2 of 14, 2014 drawing number 1202 Conceptual Construction Water Aurecon B 17 October Management Plan Sheet 3 of 14, 2014 drawing number 1203 Conceptual Construction Water Aurecon B 17 October Management Plan Sheet 4 of 14, 2014 drawing number 1204 Conceptual Construction Water Aurecon B 17 October Management Plan Sheet 5 of 14, 2014 drawing number 1205 Conceptual Construction Water Aurecon B 17 October Management Plan Sheet 6 of 14, 2014 drawing number 1206 Conceptual Construction Water Aurecon B 17 October Management Plan Sheet 7 of 14, 2014 drawing number 1207 Conceptual Construction Water Aurecon B 17 October Management Plan Sheet 8 of 14, 2014 drawing number 1208 Conceptual Construction Water Aurecon B 17 October Management Plan Sheet 9 of 14, 2014 drawing number 1209 Conceptual Construction Water Aurecon B 17 October Management Plan Sheet 10 of 14, 2014 drawing number 1210 72

Conceptual Construction Water Aurecon B 17 October Management Plan Sheet 11 of 14, 2014 drawing number 1211 Conceptual Construction Water Aurecon B 17 October Management Plan Sheet 12 of 14, 2014 drawing number 1212 Conceptual Construction Water Aurecon B 17 October Management Plan Sheet 13 of 14, 2014 drawing number 1213 Conceptual Construction Water Aurecon B 17 October Management Plan Sheet 14 of 14, 2014 drawing number 1214 Typical Cross Sections Sheet 9, Aurecon D 21 January drawing number 0211 2015 Typical Cross Sections Sheet 10, Aurecon D 21 January drawing number 0212 2015 Reclamation Plan Sheet 1 of 2, Aurecon B 21 January drawing number 0201 2015 Reclamation Plan Sheet 2 of 2, Aurecon B 21 January drawing number 0202 2015 Permanent Occupation Sheet 1 of 2, Aurecon C 21 January drawing number 0301 2015 Permanent Occupation Sheet 2 of 2, Aurecon C 21 January drawing number 0302 2015 Temporary Occupation Sheet 1 of 2, Aurecon C 21 January drawing number 0401 2015 Temporary Occupation Sheet 2 of 2, Aurecon C 21 January drawing number 0402 2015 Typical Embankment Details, Aurecon A 21 January drawing number 0601 2015 Construction Staging, drawing Aurecon A 21 January number 0602 2015 Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 2 of Aurecon C 7 14, drawing number 0102 November 2014 Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 3 of Aurecon C 7 14, drawing number 0103 November 2014 Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 4 of Aurecon C 7 14, drawing number 0104 November 2014

Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 5 of Aurecon C 7 14, drawing number 0105 November 2014 Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 6 of Aurecon C 7 14, drawing number 0106 November 2014 Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 7 of Aurecon C 7 14, drawing number 0107 November 2014 Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 8 of Aurecon C 7 14, drawing number 0108 November 2014 Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 9 of Aurecon C 7 14, drawing number 0109 November 2014 Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 10 Aurecon C 7 of 14, drawing number 0110 November 2014 Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 11 Aurecon D 21 January of 14, drawing number 0111 2015 Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 12 Aurecon D 21 January of 14, drawing number 0112 2015 Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 13 Aurecon C 7 of 14, drawing number 0113 November 2014 Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 14 Aurecon C 7 of 14, drawing number 0114 November 2014 Stormwater Drainage Plan Botanical Aurecon C 7 Gardens Wetland Pond, drawing November number 0221 2014 Stormwater Drainage Plan Takanini Aurecon B 7 Interchange Wetland Pond, drawing November number 0222 2014 Stormwater Drainage Details Sheet Aurecon C 7 1, drawing number 0601 November 2014 Stormwater Drainage Details Sheet Aurecon C 7 2, drawing number 0602 November 2014 Stormwater Drainage Details Sheet Aurecon C 7 November 74

3, drawing number 0603 2014 Stormwater Drainage Details Sheet Aurecon D 21 January 4, drawing number 0604 2015 Stormwater Drainage Details Sheet Aurecon C 7 5, drawing number 0605 November 2014 Stormwater Drainage Details Sheet Aurecon A 21 January 6, drawing number 0606 2015 Plans: Noise/Security Wall Height Aurecon T3 26/5/15 Plans; Sheets 1-14 Drawings 241032 - 0231 to 0237 Aurecon B 22/05/2015 Drawing 241032 - 0238 Aurecon A 22/05/2015 Drawing 241032 – 0206 – Typical Aurecon C 17/10/2014 Cross Section Sheet 4 Drawing 241032 – 0101- General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 1 Drawing 241032 – 0102 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 2 Drawing 241032 – 0103 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 3 Drawing 241032 – 0104 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 4 Drawing 241032 – 0105 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 5 Drawing 241032 – 0106- General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 6 Drawing 241032 – 0107 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 7 Drawing 241032 – 0108 - General Aurecon G 17/11/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 8 Drawing 241032 – 0109 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 9 Drawing 241032 – 0110 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 10 Drawing 241032 – 0111 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 11 Drawing 241032 – 0112 - General Aurecon G 07/11/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 12 Drawing 241032 – 0113 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014

Arrangement – Sheet 13 Drawing 241032 – 0114 - General Aurecon F 17/10/2014 Arrangement – Sheet 14

Other additional information Author Rev Dated Letter provided via email on 2 Steve Lloyd 2 December 2014, subject: December Contaminated land approach 2014 Further information letter, including Owen Burn 23 all attachments December 2014 Email on 10 February 2015, subject: Steve Lloyd 10 “Notes on email from Fritha Witton” February regarding withdrawal of LUC for trees 2015 Revised Application Material, including: Cover Letter Owen Burn 27 January 2015 Draft Soil Management Plan 1 24 February 2015 Assessment of Environmental Effects Owen Burn 1 January Addendum 2015 Addendum to Construction Water Graeme Ridley 26 January Management Report (memo format) 2015 SH1: Southern Corridor Shannon Bray 2 10 March Improvements Urban Design and 2015 Landscape Framework

Charges to be Paid

2. This consent (or any part thereof) shall not commence until such time as the following charges, which are owing at the time the Council's decision is notified, have been paid in full:

a. All fixed charges relating to the receiving, processing and granting of this resource consent under section 36(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA); and

b. All additional charges imposed under section 36(3) of the RMA to enable the Council to recover its actual and reasonable costs in respect of this application, which are beyond challenge.

3. The consent holder shall pay any subsequent further charges imposed under section 36 of the RMA relating to the receiving, processing and granting of this resource consent within 20 days of receipt of notification of a requirement to pay the same, provided that, in the case of any additional charges under section 36(3) of the RMA that are subject to challenge, the consent holder shall pay such amount as is determined by that process to be due and owing, within 20 days of receipt of the relevant decision.

Lapse Date

4. Under section 125 of the RMA, these consents shall lapse ten years after the date they are granted unless:

a. The consent is given effect to; or

b. The Council extends the period after which the consent lapses.

Compliance Monitoring Charge

5. The consent holder shall pay the Council an initial consent compliance monitoring charge of $810 (inclusive of GST), plus any further monitoring charge or charges to recover the actual and reasonable costs that have been incurred to ensure compliance with the conditions attached to this consent.

Advice Note:

The initial monitoring charge is to cover the cost of inspecting the site, carrying out tests, reviewing conditions, updating files, etc, all being work to ensure compliance with the resource consent. In order to recover actual and reasonable costs, inspections, in excess of those covered by the base fee paid, shall be charged at the relevant hourly rate applicable at the time. The consent holder will be advised of the further monitoring charge or charges as they fall due. Such further charges are to be paid within one month of the date of invoice. Only after all conditions of the resource consent have been met, will Council issue a letter confirming compliance on request of the consent holder.

Site Access

6. Subject to compliance with the Consent Holder's health and safety requirements and provision of reasonable notice, the servants or agents of the Auckland Council shall be permitted to have access to relevant parts of the surface construction sites controlled by the Consent Holder at all reasonable times for the purpose of carrying out inspections, surveys, investigations, tests, measurements and/or to take samples.

Copies of Resource Consent

7. All personnel working on the project shall be made aware of, and have access to, at least one copy of these resource consents, associated reference documents and associated approved/certified management plans. 77

Pre-Construction Meetings and Notification 8. Prior to commencement of construction works, the Consent Holder shall arrange a pre-construction meeting with Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring in conjunction with the relevant technical specialists as required) as well as the site contractor and shall invite the following Mana Whenua groups to attend as follows: Ngai Tai ki Tamaki, Ngati Tamaoho, Ngati Te Ata Waiohua, Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngati Maru and Ngati Paoa ("the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Group").

a. The meeting shall be located on the subject site unless otherwise agreed; b. The meeting shall be scheduled no less than five working days before the anticipated commencement of works; c. The meeting shall include representation from the contractor who will undertake the works; d. The following information shall be made available by the Consent Holder at the pre- construction meeting:

i) Conditions of consent; ii) Timeframes for key stages of the works authorised under this consent; iii) Contact details of the site contractor and other key contractors; and iv) All relevant management plans as per the requirements of the resource consents.

e. Appropriate provision to the extent sought by the Mana Whenua Kaitiaiki Group, or their nominated representative(s), shall be made for a cultural induction of the contractor's staff.

Advice Note:

To arrange the pre-start meeting required by Condition 8 please contact Gareth Read, Team Leader Southern Monitoring ([email protected], or 09 301 01 01). The conditions of consent should be discussed at this meeting. All additional information required by the Council should be provided two days prior to the meeting.

Dispute Resolution

9. In the event of any dispute, disagreement or inaction arising as to any Auckland Council certification required by the consent conditions, or as to implementation of or monitoring required by the conditions, the matter shall be referred in the first instance to the NZTA Regional State Highway Manager and to the Resource Consents Manager, Auckland Council to determine a process of resolution.

Archaeology

10. An Archaeological and Historic Heritage Management Plan (AHHMP) shall be prepared by the Project Archaeologist with input by the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Group and shall be supplied with the CEMP required by Condition 11. The AHHMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following matters:

a. A contractors’ briefing to be provided to all contractors by the project archaeologist prior to the project commencing. The briefing shall provide information to the contractors regarding what constitutes archaeological / historic heritage materials; the legal requirements on unanticipated archaeological discoveries; the appropriate procedures to follow if archaeological / historic heritage materials are uncovered when the project archaeologist is not on site, to safeguard the materials; and the contact information of the relevant agencies (including the project archaeologist, the Auckland Council Heritage Unit and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga) and Mana Whenua. Documentation demonstrating that the contractor briefing has occurred shall be forwarded to the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring).

b. Should any unrecorded historic heritage sites [i.e. sites that meet the Resource Management Act definition of historic heritage] be exposed as a result of an activity associated with the consented proposals, then these sites shall be recorded within the Auckland Council Cultural Heritage Inventory by the project archaeologist.

c. Site record forms in the Auckland Council Cultural Heritage Inventory [www.chi.net/Home.aspx] shall be updated by the Project Archaeologist within 20 working days after the completion of on-site earthworks and electronic copies of all historic heritage reports relating to historic heritage investigations of whatever form (i.e. evaluation, excavation, monitoring etc.) in regard to the consented proposals shall be submitted by the project archaeologist to the Auckland Council Cultural Heritage Inventory within 12 months after the completion of on-site earthworks.

d. Monitoring of all earthworks, vegetation removal, retaining wall, water control (storm or fresh), and rehabilitation activities that occur within the Extent of Place of the Upper Puhinui Flour Mill,

e. Locations within the CMA that are to be the subject of spot checks during the construction phase.

f. Monitoring of works within 50 metres of the destroyed midden R12/776 and within the AMA yard where a small amount of redeposited shall midden was exposed at the base of the cliff.

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

11. At least 20 working days prior to the commencement of construction activity within the designation boundaries, the Consent Holder shall submit a CEMP to the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring), to certify compliance and consistency with the conditions of the consent. The CEMP shall include specific details relating to the demolition, construction and management of all works associated with the Project, including:

a. Details of the site liaison officer or Project manager, including their contact details (phone, email, postal address)

b. The location of large noticeboards that clearly identify the name and contact details of the Site Liaison Officer or Project manager

c. An outline construction programme of the works, including likely time periods for road closures and anticipated traffic diversions

d. The hours of work, which shall reflect the need to ensure that residents enjoy reasonable freedom from noisy or intrusive construction activity in their neighbourhood at night, on Sundays and during public holidays

e. Measures to ensure the safety of the general public

f. Measures to be adopted to protect services such as pipes and water mains within the road reserve

g. Measures to be adopted to ensure the safe and efficient operation of network utilities

h. Measures to be adopted to maintain the site (including the construction yards) in a tidy condition in terms of disposal/storage of rubbish, storage and unloading of construction materials and similar construction activities

i. Location of workers' offices and conveniences (e.g. portaloos) which shall be located at least 20m from any residential boundary

j. Locations of vehicle and construction machinery access

k. Procedures for ensuring that residents in the immediate vicinity of the construction areas are given prior notice of the commencement of construction activities and are informed about the expected duration of the works

l. Environmental complaints management

m. Compliance and monitoring

n. A statement as to the results of the preliminary investigation to determine the extent, if any, of (structural) root penetration within the designation of notable trees located within the properties at 50, 52, 102 & 108 Lawrence Crescent, Manurewa, including

measures and methodologies to manage works within the vicinity of such trees, as appropriate.

o. A copy of Z/22: the NZTA Accidental Discovery Procedures shall be included. This sets out the procedures that shall be followed should any artefacts or remains be discovered during the period of works.

p. Measures to minimise light spill beyond construction areas.

Advice Note

Where access to any privately owned property is required, NZTA shall undertake consultation with the property owner to determine an appropriate site access protocol in respect of obtaining access to the site.

In respect of any privately owned property, NZTA and/or their agents shall provide 3 weeks (15 working days) notice of the intention to commence construction.

12. The management of adverse environmental effects associated with the construction phase of the Project shall be detailed within the following management plans that shall be included in the CEMP:

a. Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP)

b. Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP)

c. Archaeological and Historic Heritage Management Plan (AHHMP)

d. Construction Air Quality (Dust) Management Plan (CAQMP)

e. Electricity Infrastructure Management Plan (EIMP)

f. Lizard Management Plan (LMP)

13. An Electricity Infrastructure Management Plan (EIMP) shall be prepared in consultation with Transpower New Zealand. This shall be submitted to the Council as part of the CEMP and shall include, but is not limited to, the following:

a. Specific reference to the protection of the BOB-OTA A 110kV and HLY-OTA A 220kV transmission line assets;

b. Sufficient detail to confirm that all works will comply with the New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances (NZECP 34:2001) or any subsequent revision of that code; and

c. Methods and measures to:

I. Ensure that the existing National Grid assets can be accessed for maintenance at all reasonable times, or emergency works at all times, during construction activities; 81

II. Appropriately manage the effects of dust and any other material potentially resulting from construction activities and able to cause material damage, beyond normal wear and tear, to the overhead transmission lines;

III. Ensure that no activity is undertaken during construction that would result in ground vibrations and/or ground instability likely to cause material damage to the transmission lines, including support structures; and

IV. Ensure that changes to the drainage patterns and runoff characteristics do not result in adverse effects (from stormwater) on the foundations for any high voltage transmission line support structures.

V. Any proposed planting of trees/vegetation must be planted so that at maximum growth they comply with the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003.

14. For the purposes of staging works, the Consent Holder may provide staged or site specific CEMPs for those works to the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring). The Consent Holder shall consult with the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring) about the need and timing for any other site-specific or staged CEMPs and shall provide any required site-specific or staged CEMPs to the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring) to certify compliance and consistency with the consents at least 20 working days prior to commencement of the specific stage or site works.

If the Consent Holder has not received a response from the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring) within 20 working days of submitting the CEMP or a site specific CEMP, the Consent Holder will be deemed to have an approval and can commence construction activity.

15. The certified CEMP shall be implemented and maintained for the relevant stage of works throughout the entire construction period.

Management Plan Amendments

16. The Consent Holder may request amendments to any of the Management Plans required by these conditions by submitting material amendments in writing to the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring) for certification at least 10 working days prior to any changes taking effect. Any changes to management plans shall remain consistent with the overall intent of the relevant management plan and shall be consistent with the requirements of the relevant conditions attached to these consents.

Construction Noise and Vibration

Noise Criteria

17. Construction noise shall be measured and assessed in accordance with NZS 6803:1999 “Acoustics – Construction Noise” and shall as far as practicable comply with the following criteria:

Project Construction Noise Criteria for Dwellings

Time of week Time Period dB LAeq dB LAmax Sundays to Thursdays 0630-0730 60 75

0730-1800 70 85 1800-2000 65 90 2000-0630 60 75 Fridays 0630-0730 60 75

0730-1800 70 85 1800-2000 45 75 2000-0630 45 75 Saturdays 0630-0730 45 75 0730-1800 55 85 1800-2000 45 75 2000-0630 45 75

Project Construction Noise Criteria for industrial or commercial premises for all days of the year

Time Period dB LAeq 0730-1800 70 1800-0730 75

Where the noise criteria cannot practicably be met, then the provisions of Conditions 21 and 23 shall be implemented.

Vibration Criteria 18. Construction vibration must be measured in accordance with ISO 4866:2010 Mechanical vibration and shock – Vibration of fixed structures – Guidelines for the measurement of vibrations and evaluation of their effects on structures. The construction vibration criteria for the purposes of the CNVMP are:

Construction Vibration Criteria

Receiver Details Category A Category B PPFs Night Time 2000h- 0.3mm/s 1 mm/s ppv 0630 ppv 1mm/s ppv

Day time 0630h- 1 mm/s ppv 5 mm/s ppv 2000h Other Occupied Day time 0630h- 2 mm/s ppv 5 mm/s ppv Buildings 2000h All other Buildings Vibration-transient 5 mm/s ppv BS 5228-2*1 Table B.2 Vibration-Continuous BS 5228-2*1 50% of Table B.2 values 83

Where the criteria set out above cannot be practicably met, the process of Conditions 21 and 23 shall be followed.

19. If measured or predicted vibration levels exceed the Category A criteria in Condition 18 above, then a suitably qualified expert shall be engaged to assess and manage construction vibration to comply with the Category A criteria as far as practicable.

20. If measured or predicted vibration levels exceed the Category B criteria in Condition 18 above, then the monitoring of vibration levels at those buildings shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified expert to identify, assess and manage any vibration effects on those buildings.

Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan

21. The Consent Holder shall prepare a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) to identify how Conditions 17 and 18 will be met. The CNVMP shall identify the best practicable option for management and mitigation of all construction noise and vibration, including where full compliance with the criteria in Conditions 17 and 18 cannot be achieved.

The CNVMP shall, at a minimum, include the information required by NZS 6803:1999, Annex E2. The term ‘noise’ in that document shall be interpreted as ‘noise and vibration’. The CNVMP shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring) for certification prior to commencement of the works (being both Construction and Enabling Works) and if the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring) has not provided a response within 20 working days of the submission of the CNVMP, it will be deemed to be certified.

The Consent Holder shall implement the certified CNVMP for the duration of the Construction Works.

22. If requested, the Consent Holder shall provide a copy of the certified CNVMP to Housing New Zealand prior to commencement of works.

23. Where full compliance with the noise and vibration criteria set out in Conditions 17 and 18 cannot be achieved, a Sector Specific Noise Management Plan (SSNMP) shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring) for review and certification at least seven working days prior to the proposed works commencing. The SSNMP shall consider the relocation of residents where appropriate. A decision will be provided by the Council within five working days of receipt of the SSNMP. Works shall not commence until certification of the SSNMP is received from the Council.

24. Additional vibration monitoring and follow-up building condition surveys shall be undertaken in response to complaints, to ensure the Project construction activities comply with the Category B criteria specified in Condition 18 and that no building damage has occurred. If any construction-induced damage 84

is shown to have occurred as a result of Project construction activities, this shall be remedied by the Consent Holder.

Lizard Management Plan

25. The CEMP, required by Condition 11, shall include a Lizard Management Plan (LMP) which includes measures prepared and executed by a herpetologist with DOC authority to relocate native lizards in the project area where reasonably practicable. These measures should include:

a. The findings of a lizard survey (undertaken outside winter months) using a range of methods in the potential lizard habitats (as identified in the Assessment of Terrestrial Effects document) within the alteration to the designation and where access can be achieved without entering the existing motorway designation.

b. A lizard capture-relocation programme for the areas identified above, including methodology and timeframe details, for all areas where lizards were recorded. The capture and relocation programme shall be carried out in suitable weather (outside winter months) and comprise a minimum of 20 days trapping. Trapping shall cease at a site when lizards have not been caught for five consecutive days in optimum weather conditions. Trapping shall be carried out prior to, and during vegetation removal as appropriate.

c. A procedure to manage incidental lizard finds.

d. Identification of release site(s) for relocated lizards.

e. Provision for appropriate monitoring, habitat enhancement and predator management at any release sites utilised; and

f. Reporting on the results of the lizard relocation and any follow up management and monitoring.

Advice Note:

'Trapping’ includes use of lizard traps and artificial retreats. Lizard traps and retreats will be checked daily and will follow guidelines provided in DOC Inventory and Monitoring Series: Herpetofauna. Traps will be deployed at a density deemed appropriate by the project herpetologist.

Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP)

26. The CTMP, required as part of the CEMP, shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and shall describe the methods for avoiding, remedying or mitigating the local and network wide effects resulting from construction of the Project, which will be undertaken to address, as far as practicable, the following:

a. Methods to avoid, remedy or mitigate the local and network wide effects of the construction of individual elements of the Project (e.g. intersections/overbridges) and the use of staging to allow sections of the Project to be opened to traffic while other sections are still under construction.

b. Methods to manage the effects of the delivery of construction material, plant and machinery (including oversized trucks).

c. The numbers, frequencies, routes and timing of construction traffic movements.

d. Traffic management measures to address and maintain, traffic capacity as far as reasonably practicable, including bus services, at peak traffic periods during weekdays (6:00 to 9:00 and 16:00 to 18:00) at the Takanini Interchange and left and right access from the Stevenson’s site (24 & 30 Great South Road).

e. Measures to maintain existing vehicle access, as far as possible, or where the existing property access is to be removed or becomes unsafe as a result of the construction works, measures to provide alternative access arrangements in consultation with Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring) and the affected landowner.

f. Measures to maintain pedestrian and cycle access with thoroughfare to be maintained on all roads and footpaths adjacent to the construction works, where practicable (e.g. unless provision of such access is severed by the works or such access will become unsafe as a result of the construction works). Such access shall be safe, clearly identifiable, provide permanent surfacing and seek to minimise significant detours.

g. When development commences at the former Manukau Golf Course and the entrance onto Great South Road is utilised, the use of the intersection shall be monitored by the Consent Holder and an appropriate Traffic Management Plan (TMP) shall be submitted to Council for certification. If the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring) has not provided a response within 10 working days of the submission of the TMP, it will be deemed to be certified.

27. The Consent Holder shall ensure that, when developing the CTMP, the suitably qualified person shall:

a. Use best practice to better understand the effects of construction of the Project or Project stage on the affected road network, which may include the use of traffic modelling tools. Any such assessment should be undertaken in consultation with Auckland

Transport, and have the ability to simulate lane restrictions and road closures; and

b. As far as practicable, undertake measures to avoid road closures and also the restriction of vehicle, cycle and pedestrian movements.

28. The Consent Holder shall ensure that any commercial earthmoving equipment or similar shall be stored or parked within the boundaries of the relevant designation at all times and not on surrounding streets.

29. Construction yards shall be screened from any adjacent residential areas by a solid 2 metre high fence that shall be installed prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Any such fences are to be removed within 20 working days of the completion of construction works.

Specific conditions – land use consent R/LUC/2014/4812 Contaminated Land and Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011

30. Prior to any construction works commencing the Consent Holder shall undertake a Detailed Site Investigation, including, where necessary, an assessment of groundwater quality, and provide a copy of the completed Detailed Site Investigation report, including the testing results, to Council for certification.

31. If the Detailed Site Investigation required by Condition 30 shows that the concentration of contaminants exceed the relevant soil contaminant standards for the proposed use, and/or discharges to the environment, the Consent Holder shall, prior to excavation and construction works commencing, submit a final Site Management Plan to Council for certification. If the Consent Holder has not received a response from the Council within 10 working days following the submission of the site management plan, the Consent Holder will be deemed to have certification and can commence site works.

32. All ground disturbance works shall be carried out in accordance with the certified Site Management Plan required by Condition 31.

33. The investigations and associated reports required by the above conditions shall be undertaken and/or prepared in accordance with the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 and material and standards included therein.

Specific conditions – discharge permit R/REG/2014/4815 (stormwater) Consent Duration

This consent shall expire on 17 June 2050 unless it has lapsed, been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991.

Stormwater Management Works

34. The Consent Holder shall ensure that the stormwater management works are constructed for the following catchment areas and design requirements, and shall be completed prior to construction of further impervious surfaces:

Motorway Sub Total Works to be Design Section catchment Impervious undertaken requirement(s) surface to (based on be treated receiving (new + environment) existing)

SH1/SH20 Puhinui 2.73ha Vegetated  Conveyance interchange Stream Swales  75% TSS removal – Hill Road Wetland  Conveyance (Botanic  75% TSS removal Garden)  Extended detention (34.5mm and release over 24 hours) Outfalls  Erosion protection in accordance with TP10 Orams Auckland 0.28ha Vegetated  Conveyance Road Council Swales  75% TSS removal Bridge Stormwater network Hill Road – Papakura 4.54ha Vegetated  Conveyance Takanini Stream Swales  75% TSS removal  Extended detention (34.5mm and release over 24 hours) for swales discharging directly into Papakura stream

Wetland  75% TSS removal (Takanini  Extended Interchange) detention (34.5mm and release over 24 hours)  Attenuation 10 and 100 year ARI Storm events Outfalls  Erosion protection in accordance with TP10

Takanini - Brylee 1.17ha Vegetated  Conveyance Papakura Reserve Swales  75% TSS removal Stream Outfalls  Erosion protection in accordance with TP10 Takanini - Pahurehure 3.53ha Vegetated  Conveyance Papakura Inlets Swales  80% TSS removal

Outfalls  Erosion protection in accordance with TP10 4.85ha Stormwater360  75% TSS removal Stormfilters Filter strips  75% TSS removal Vegetated  Conveyance Swales  75% TSS removal Outfalls  Erosion protection in accordance with TP10 Manukau - All Any Temporary*  75% TSS removal Papakura catchments temporary TP10 designed construction treatment and storage device - yards approved by greater than Council (Senior 1,000m2 Stormwater / ITA Specialist – Compliance) Temporary  Erosion protection outfalls in accordance with TP10 89

Advice Note:

The requirement for temporary treatment devices is defined as: for the entire duration of the construction works until yards are no longer utilized as such and contaminants associated with the use as construction or storage yard will no longer be discharged.

Detailed Design Guidelines

35. The Consent Holder shall ensure that all stormwater treatment devices, as referred to in Condition 34, shall be designed in accordance with Auckland Council Technical Publication 10 (TP10) and the following sections of the “Stormwater Management Report” submitted as volume 3, appendix 9 (Version 3 Final Causeway Design) of the application report, dated 23 January 2015 and prepared by David Hughes:

a. Section 3.4 Swales and Filter Strips Design

b. Section 3.5 Proprietary Stormwater Treatment Device Design

c. Section 3.6 Wetland Design

d. Section 3.8 Stormwater Outfalls

36. The Consent Holder shall ensure that the detailed designs, including drawings, plans and calculation for the stormwater management devices specified in Condition 34 shall be submitted to Council (Senior Stormwater / ITA Specialist – Compliance) for certification at the time of application for Engineering Plan Approval and at least 30 days prior to initiation of construction of the proposed stormwater works. If the Consent Holder has not received a response from the Council within 20 working days following the submission of the designs, the Consent Holder will be deemed to have certification and can commence construction.

Planting

37. The Consent Holder shall submit Planting Plan(s) for the wetlands, vegetated swales and filter strips to the Council (Senior Stormwater / ITA Specialist – Compliance) for certification at least 30 days prior to initiation of construction of the proposed stormwater works. If the Consent Holder has not received a response from Council within 10 working days of submitting the plans, the Consent Holder will be deemed to have certification and can commence construction.

38. The Planting Plan(s) required by Condition 37 shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

c. Details of plant species, plant numbers, density and distribution; and

d. Details of ongoing pest and weed management. 90

Planting shall be undertaken in accordance with the certified planting plan.

Modifications Approval

39. In the event that any modifications to the stormwater management system are required that will not result in any variation to the design requirements set out in Condition 34 the following information shall be submitted to the Council (Senior Stormwater / ITA Specialist – Compliance) for certification at least 10 working days prior to implementation.

a. Plans and drawings outlining the details of the modifications; and

b. Supporting information that details how the proposal does not affect the capacity or performance of the stormwater management system.

This excludes the provision of Vegetated Swales, as set out in Condition 34.

If the Consent Holder has not received a response from the Council within 10 working days following the submission of an amended design, the Consent Holder will be deemed to have certification and can commence the works.

Advice Note:

All proposed changes must be discussed with the Council (Senior Stormwater / ITA Specialist – Compliance), prior to implementation. Changes to the proposal which will reduce the capacity or performance of the stormwater management system may require an application to Council pursuant to Section 127 of the RMA.

Examples of minor modifications are: changes to the location of treatment devices, the total number or size of treatment devices and the site layout, provided that the capacity or overall performance of the devices is not affected.

Pre-construction Meeting

40. A pre-construction meeting shall be held by the Consent Holder, prior to commencement of the construction of any stormwater devices onsite, that:

a. is arranged 5 working days prior to initiation of the construction of any stormwater devices on the site;

b. is located on the subject area;

c. includes the Council (Senior Stormwater / ITA Specialist – Compliance); and

d. includes representation from the site stormwater engineer and contractors who will undertake the works and any other relevant personnel.

Advice Note: To arrange the pre-construction meeting required by this consent, please contact the Council (Senior Stormwater / ITA Specialist – Compliance) on (09) 3010101.

Information required for Pre-construction Meeting

41. The Consent Holder shall ensure that the following information be made available prior to, or at the pre-construction meeting:

a. timeframes for key stages of the works authorised under this consent;

b. erosion and sediment control measures during construction activities;

c. contact details of the site contractor and site stormwater engineer; and

d. Council approved construction plans (signed/stamped).

Post-construction Meeting

42. A post-construction meeting shall be held by the Consent Holder, within 20 working days of completion of the stormwater management works, that:

a. is located on the subject area;

b. includes the Council (Senior Stormwater / ITA Specialist – Compliance); and

c. includes representation from the site stormwater engineer and contractors who have undertaken the works and any other relevant.

Advice Note: To arrange the post-construction meeting required by this consent, please contact the Council (Senior Stormwater / ITA Specialist – Compliance).

Certification of Stormwater Management Works (As-Built Plans)

43. As-Built certification and plans of the stormwater management works, which are certified (signed) by a Chartered Professional Engineer as a true record of the stormwater management system, shall be provided to the Council (Senior Stormwater / ITA Specialist – Compliance).

Contents of As-Built Plans and Submission

44. The As-Built Plans required by Condition 43 shall be provided to Council (Senior Stormwater / ITA Specialist Compliance) 5 days prior to the post- construction meeting required by this consent.

45. The As-Built plans shall display the entirety of the stormwater management system, and shall include:

a. the surveyed location (to the nearest 0.1m) and level (to the nearest 0.01m) of the discharge structure, with co-ordinates expressed in terms of NZTM and LINZ datum;

b. plans and cross sections of all stormwater management devices, including confirmation of the Water Quality Volume, storage volumes and levels of any outflow control structure; and

c. documentation of any discrepancies between the design plans and the As-Built plans approved by the Modifications Approval Condition (Condition 39).

Contents and Submission of Operation and Maintenance Plan

46. An Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be submitted to Council (Senior Stormwater / ITA Specialist – Compliance) for certification 5 working days prior to the post-construction meeting required by this consent.

47. The Operation and Maintenance Plan required by Condition 46 shall set out how the stormwater management system is to be operated and maintained to ensure that adverse environmental effects are minimised. The plan shall include:

a. details of who will hold responsibility for long-term maintenance of the stormwater management system and the organisational structure which will support this process;

b. a programme for regular maintenance and inspection of the stormwater management system;

c. a programme for the collection and disposal of debris and sediment collected by the stormwater management devices or practices;

d. a programme for post storm inspection and maintenance;

e. a programme for inspection and maintenance of the outfalls;

f. general inspection checklists for all aspects of the stormwater management system, including visual checks; and

g. a programme for inspection and maintenance of vegetation associated with the stormwater management devices.

If the Consent Holder has not received a response from the Council (Senior Stormwater/ITA Specialist) within 10 working days following the submission of the Operation and Maintenance Plan, the Consent Holder will be deemed to have certification.

48. The Consent Holder shall ensure that the stormwater management system is managed in accordance with the certified Operation and Maintenance Plan.

Amendments to the Operation and Maintenance Plan

49. Any amendments or alterations to the Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be submitted to Council (Senior Stormwater / ITA Specialist – Compliance) in writing for certification 20 working days prior to implementation. If the Consent Holder has not received a response from the Council (Senior Stormwater/ITA Specialist-Compliance) within 10 working days following the submission of the proposed amendments or alterations, the Consent Holder will be deemed to have certification.

50. The Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be updated and submitted to the Council (Senior Stormwater / ITA Specialist – Compliance), upon request.

Maintenance Contract

51. The Consent Holder shall ensure that a written maintenance contract for the on-going maintenance of proprietary device(s) is entered into with an appropriate stormwater management system operator, prior to the operation of the proprietary stormwater management device(s). A written maintenance contract shall be in place and maintained for the duration of the consent.

52. A signed copy of the contract required by Condition 51 shall be provided to the Council (Senior Stormwater / ITA Specialist – Compliance) 5 working days prior to the post-construction meeting required by this consent.

53. A copy of the current maintenance contract shall be provided to the Council (Senior Stormwater / ITA Specialist – Compliance) upon request throughout the duration of the consent.

Obstructions of Waterway

54. The Consent Holder shall ensure that the stormwater management system is maintained so that all waterways are clear from obstructions, erosion or hazards to safety.

Capture and Diversion of Stormwater

55. The Consent Holder shall ensure that roading, kerbs and channels constructed across overland flow paths are set at a level that maximises the capture of water by road cesspits. Other than at designated overland flow paths, driveway crossings shall be constructed in order to minimise the overflow of water from the road into private properties.

Overland Flow Paths

56. The Consent Holder shall ensure that for stormwater flows in excess of the capacity of the primary drainage systems, overland flow paths shall be provided and maintained to allow surplus stormwater from critical storms (up

to the 100 year Annual Recurrence Interval event), to discharge with the minimum of nuisance and damage. Overland flow paths shall be kept free of all obstructions.

Obstruction of Secondary Flow Paths

57. The Consent Holder shall ensure that secondary flow paths are kept free from obstructions such as buildings and solid fences.

Discharge Monitoring

58. The Consent Holder shall develop a stormwater monitoring programme to assess the ongoing adequacy of the vegetated swales and submit to Council (Senior Stormwater / ITA Specialist – Compliance) for certification 5 working days prior to the post construction meeting required by this consent. If the Consent Holder has not received a response from the Council (Senior Stormwater/ITA Specialist – Compliance) within 10 working days following the submission of the stormwater monitoring programme, the Consent Holder will be deemed to have certification.

59. The monitoring programme required by Condition 58 shall include, but not be limited to:

a. Sampling locations from a selection of vegetated swales along the motorway;

b. Methods and procedures for discharge sampling;

c. Monitoring parameters for analysis shall include:

i. Total Suspended Solids mg/L

ii. Copper (total) mg/L

iii. Zinc (total) mg/L

iv. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/L

v. Temperature (where discharging to stream)

d. Identified trigger levels for each of the above parameters. These trigger levels shall be developed with reference to the ANZECC Guidelines for water quality where applicable.

e. The methods and procedures for investigating and reporting stormwater discharge monitoring results to Council (Senior Stormwater / ITA Specialist – Compliance).

The discharge monitoring programme shall be implemented upon completion of works set out in Condition 34.

60. Within 5 working days of receipt of sample results showing contaminants exceeding the agreed trigger levels specified in the certified monitoring programme required by Condition 58:

a. an investigation shall be undertaken to determine why exceedances were detected and to identify any additional source controls or treatment required; and

b. the results of the investigation shall be provided to the Council (Senior Stormwater / ITA Specialist – Compliance).

Maintenance Report

61. The Consent Holder shall ensure that the details of all inspections and maintenance for the stormwater management system, for the preceding three years, are retained.

62. A maintenance report shall be provided to the Council (Senior Stormwater / ITA Specialist – Compliance) on request and shall include, but not be limited to, the following information:

a. details of who is responsible for maintenance of the stormwater management system and the organisational structure supporting this process;

b. details of any maintenance undertaken; and

c. details of any inspections completed.

Review

63. The conditions of this consent may be reviewed by the Auckland Council pursuant to Section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, (with the costs of the review process being borne by the Consent Holder), by giving notice pursuant to Section 129 of the Act, in one or more of the following times:

 within one year of construction of the stormwater works; and/or

 at five yearly intervals after that time.

The purpose of the review may be for any of the following purposes, namely:

a. To deal with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent or is contributed to by the exercise of the consent, or is found appropriate to deal with at a later stage, and in particular but without limiting the ambit of this clause to:

i. insert conditions, or modify existing conditions, to require the Consent Holder to identify the character or nature of any discharges authorised by this Consent and to report the results of that monitoring to the Auckland Council; and/or

ii. insert conditions, or modify existing conditions to require the Consent Holder to monitor the effects of any discharges authorised by this Consent on the local receiving environment and to report the results of that monitoring to the Auckland Council;

Insert conditions, or modify existing conditions, requiring the Consent Holder to adopt the Best Practicable Option to remedy, mitigate or minimise any adverse effects on the environment resulting from the discharges authorised by this consent, including remedying or mitigating any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage.

Specific conditions – land use consent R/REG/2014/4814 (earthworks) Consent Duration

64. This consent shall expire on 17 June 2030 unless it has been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991.

Sediment Treatment Management Plan

65. Prior to the commencement of bulk earthworks at the site, a Sediment Treatment Management Plan (STMP) shall be submitted for written certification by Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring). The plan shall include as a minimum:

a. Specific design details of the sediment treatment system based on a rainfall activated methodology for the site’s sediment retention ponds;

b. Monitoring, maintenance (including post storm) and contingency programme (including a record sheet);

c. Details of optimum dosage (including assumptions);

d. Results of initial treatment trial;

e. A spill contingency plan; and

f. Details of the person or bodies that will hold responsibility for long term operation and maintenance of the sediment treatment system and the organisational structure which will support this system.

If the Consent Holder has not received a response from the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring) within 10 working days following the submission of the STMP, the Consent Holder will be deemed to have certification and may commence bulk earthworks.

Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Plan(s) 97

66. At least 10 working days prior to the commencement of work in any stage of construction activity associated with the Project, the Consent Holder shall submit a Construction Erosion Sediment Control Plan (CESCP) for that stage of the Project to the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring) for certification. Work shall not commence in any stage of the Project until the Consent Holder has received written certification of the CESCP for that stage. The certification will confirm the CESCP has been prepared in accordance with the Construction Water Management Plan (CWMR).

If the Consent Holder has not received a response from the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring) within 10 working days following the submission of a CESCP, the Consent Holder will be deemed to have certification and can commence earthworks.

67. The Consent Holder shall ensure that the CESCP(s) required Condition 66 should contain sufficient detail to address the following matters:

a. specific erosion and sediment control works (location, dimensions, capacity;

b. supporting calculations and design drawings). These should be in line with Industry Best Practice as well as TP90;

c. catchment boundaries;

d. timing and duration of construction and operation of control works (in relation to the staging and sequencing of earthworks);

e. details relating to the management of exposed areas (e.g. grassing, mulching); and

f. monitoring and maintenance requirements.

Advice Note:

In the event that minor amendments to the CESCP are required, any such amendments should be limited to the scope of this consent. Any amendments which affect the performance of the CESCP may require an application to be made in accordance with section 127 of the RMA. Any minor amendments should be provided to the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring) prior to implementation to confirm that they are within the scope of this consent.

Certification of Erosion and Sediment Controls

68. Prior to bulk earthworks commencing, a certificate signed by an appropriately qualified and experienced engineer shall be submitted to Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring), to certify that the erosion and sediment controls have been constructed in accordance with the certified Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Plan(s) as required by Condition 66 of this consent.

Certified controls shall include the diversion bunds, silt fences, super silt fences, sediment retention ponds, and decanting earth bunds. The certification for these subsequent measures shall be supplied immediately upon completion of construction of those measures. Information supplied if applicable, shall include:

a. Contributing catchment area;

b. Shape of structure (dimensions of structure);

c. Position of inlets/outlets; and

d. Stabilisation of the structure.

Earthworks Monitoring Plan

69. At least 20 working days prior to the commencement of construction works, the Consent Holder shall submit an Earthworks Monitoring Plan (EMP) to the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring) for certification. The purpose of the EMP is to identify the monitoring processes to be adopted alongside any Construction Erosion Sediment Control Plan to assist with minimising construction related discharges to the Puhinui and Papakura Streams and the Coastal Marine Area. This EMP shall be consistent with the Assessment of Effects on Marine Ecological Values and the Construction Water Assessment Report submitted with the application. If the Consent Holder has not received a response from the Council (Team Leader – Coastal, Natural Resources and Specialist Input) within 10 working days following the submission of a EMP, the Consent Holder will be deemed to have certification and can commence earthworks.

70. The Consent Holder shall ensure that the operational effectiveness and efficiency of all erosion and sediment control measures specifically required as a condition of resource consent or by the certified Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Plan referred to in Condition 66 shall be maintained throughout the duration of earthworks activity, or until the site is permanently stabilised against erosion.

71. The Consent Holder shall ensure that the erosion and sediment control measures are constructed and maintained in accordance with Auckland Regional Council’s Technical Publication 90; Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Soil Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region and any amendments to this document, except where a higher standard is detailed in the documents referred to in conditions of this consent, in which case the higher standard shall apply.

No Deposition and Stabilisation

72. The Consent Holder shall ensure that there shall be no deposition of earth, mud, dirt or other debris on any road or footpath resulting from earthworks activity on the subject site. In the event that such deposition does occur, it shall immediately be removed. In no instance shall roads or footpaths be

washed down with water without appropriate erosion and sediment control measures in place to prevent contamination of the stormwater drainage system, watercourses or receiving waters.

Advice Note:

In order to prevent sediment laden water entering waterways from the road, the following methods may be adopted to prevent or address discharges should they occur:

 provision of a stabilised entry and exit(s) point for vehicles

 provision of wheel wash facilities

 ceasing of vehicle movement until materials are removed

 cleaning of road surfaces using street-sweepers

 silt and sediment traps

 catchpits or environpods

In no circumstances should the washing of deposited materials into drains be advised or otherwise condoned. It is recommended that you discuss any potential measures with the Council’s monitoring officer who may be able to provide further guidance on the most appropriate approach to take. Please contact the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring) for more details. Alternatively, please refer to Auckland Regional Council, Technical Publication No. 90, Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region.

73. The site shall be progressively stabilised against erosion at all stages of the earthwork activity, and shall be sequenced to minimise the discharge of contaminants to groundwater or surface water.

Advice Note:

In accordance with Condition 73 earthworks shall be progressively stabilised against erosion during all stages of the earthwork activity. Interim stabilisation measures may include:

 the use of waterproof covers, geotextiles, or mulching

 top-soiling and grassing of otherwise bare areas of earth

 aggregate or vegetative cover that has obtained a density of more than 80% of a normal pasture sward

It is recommended that you discuss any potential measures with the Council’s monitoring officer who may be able to provide further guidance on the most appropriate approach to take. Please contact the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring) for more details. Alternatively, please refer to Auckland Regional Council, Technical Publication No. 90, 100

Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region.

74. The Consent Holder shall ensure that upon completion or abandonment of earthworks on the subject site all areas of bare earth shall be permanently stabilised against erosion to the satisfaction of the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring).

Advice Note:

Should the earthworks be completed or abandoned, bare areas of earth shall be permanently stabilised against erosion. Measures may include:

 the use of mulching

 top-soiling, grassing and mulching of otherwise bare areas of earth

 aggregate or vegetative cover that has obtained a density of more than 80% of a normal pasture sward

The on-going monitoring of these measures is the responsibility of the consent holder. It is recommended that you discuss any potential measures with the Council’s monitoring officer who will guide you on the most appropriate approach to take. Please contact the Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring) for more details. Alternatively, please refer to Auckland Regional Council, Technical Publication No. 90, Erosion & Sediment Control: Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region.

Seasonal Restrictions

75. No earthworks on the site shall be undertaken between 30 April and 1 October in any year, without the prior written approval of Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring) at least two weeks prior to 30 April of any year. Revegetation / stabilisation is to be completed by 30 April in accordance with measures detailed in Auckland Regional Council, Technical Publication No. 90, Erosion & Sediment Control: Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region and any amendments to this document.

Review Condition

76. Pursuant to section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991 the conditions of this consent may be reviewed by Council (Team Leader Southern Monitoring) at the consent holder’s cost:

a. As necessary following commencement of consent in order:

I. To deal with any adverse effects on the environment which may arise or potentially arise from the exercise of this consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage.

101

II. To alter erosion and sediment control requirements as a result of previous monitoring outcomes, and/or in response to changes to the environment and/or hydro- geological knowledge, and/or changes to industry best practice.

b. At any time, if it is found that the information made available to the Council in the application contained inaccuracies which materially influenced the decision and the effects of the exercise of the consent are such that it is necessary to apply more appropriate conditions.

Specific Conditions – coastal permits R/REG/2014/4816 and R/REG/2014/4817 and land use consent R/LUC/2014/4813 Consent Duration

77. Consent to occupy common marine and coastal area with the rock rip rap armouring and widened bridges, referenced by Council as R/REG/2014/4817, shall expire on 17 June 2050 unless it has lapsed, been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991.

Start Works Notification

78. The Consent Holder shall notify the Council (Team Leader – Coastal, Natural Resources and Specialist Input), in writing, of the date of the proposed commencement of works in the Coastal Marine Area, at least five working days prior to the proposed start date.

Construction Management Plan

79. A minimum of 10 working days prior to the commencement of works in the Coastal Marine Area (CMA), the Consent Holder shall submit a Construction Management Plan (CMP) for the proposed works, for the certification of Council (Team Leader – Coastal, Natural Resources and Specialist Input). The Consent Holder must not start works in the CMA until Council has certified the CMP.

The purpose of the CMP is to ensure that all works are undertaken in a manner which avoids, remedies or mitigates potential adverse effects during construction works. The CMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following matters:

a. Construction timetable;

b. Confirmation of construction methodology, including:

I. finalised details of the temporary wave bund and any further temporary structures in the coastal marine area (e.g. silt fences); and

II. methods to remedy any disturbance resulting from works.

102

c. Contingency plans in case of discharges to the coastal marine area during works;

d. Site management, including details of:

I. site access;

II. confirmation that no equipment or machinery is cleaned, or refuelled or stored in any part of the coastal marine area;

III. methods to ensure compliance with noise standards; and

IV. site clean-up following works completion.

80. The Consent Holder shall undertake all works in the Coastal Marine Area in accordance with the certified Construction Management Plan required by Condition 79.

81. All construction works, including the off-loading of materials onto the subject site, shall be restricted to the hours between 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 5.00pm Saturday. No work shall occur on Sundays or public holidays.

82. For the duration of the works, the Consent Holder shall maintain the site in good order to the satisfaction of Council (Team Leader – Coastal, Natural Resources and Specialist Input).

Reclamation

83. The Consent Holder shall prepare a survey plan of the reclaimed areas showing the reclaimed land being set aside as road reserve.

84. In accordance with section 245 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the plan of survey required by Condition 83 shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader – Coastal, Natural Resources and Specialist Input) for certification as soon as reasonably practicable. The plan of survey shall be prepared in accordance with regulations made under the Survey Act 1986 relating to survey plans within the meaning of those regulations, and shall show and define the areas reclaimed, including their location and the position of all new boundaries.

85. Within one month of receipt of the certified Deposited Plan as per section 246 of the RMA, a copy of the Deposited Plan shall be provided to the Hydrographic Office (Chief Hydrographer, National Topo/Hydro Authority, Land Information New Zealand, Private Box 5501, Wellington).

86. The structural integrity of the reclamation shall be maintained, subject to current or future resource consent requirements or restrictions.

Marine Ecology

87. During the period between August and Early February (inclusive) of any year no mangrove (excluding seedlings) shall be removed from any area unless a

103

bird survey carried out by a person with the relevant qualifications and experience determines that threatened or “at risk” nesting birds will not or are unlikely to be displaced by the removal of mangroves at that time in that location. A copy of the bird survey shall be provided to Council (Team Leader – Coastal, Natural Resources and Specialist Input) for certification prior to saline vegetation clearance, if saline vegetation is proposed to be removed between August & February.

88. All saline vegetation removal activities shall be undertaken at low tide by hand or remotely using mechanical methods but ensuring that the machine is not located within the CMA. Any variation to the proposed mangrove removal methodology shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader – Coastal, Natural Resources and Specialist Input) for certification and shall include a description of the proposed methodology and an Assessment of Environmental Effects, if required.

89. All mangroves vegetation and debris removed under these consents shall be disposed of outside the Coastal Marine Area at the completion of work, or as agreed with the Council (Team Leader – Coastal, Natural Resources and Specialist Input).

90. The consent holder shall restore at least 3,000 m2 total area(s) of benthic habitat where mangroves and/or saltmarsh vegetation has been removed for this project, and where other mangroves remain on the seaward edge (i.e. providing a buffer). Restoration shall include establishing benthic sediment height appropriate to support saltmarsh vegetation and the planting of saltmarsh rushland or herbfield species within the area(s). Planting shall be completed within 12 months of completion of construction of the project and be maintained for at least three subsequent years or until plants are well established and self-sustaining, whichever is the lesser. These obligations must be specified in a Planting and Vegetation Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist.

Post-development

91. The Council (Team Leader – Coastal, Natural Resources and Specialist Input) shall be notified, in writing, of the date of completion of the works in the Coastal Marine Area, within one week of the completion date.

92. Within 20 working days following the completion of the works in the Coastal Marine Area the Consent Holder shall remove all construction materials from the Coastal Marine Area, to the satisfaction of the Council (Team Leader – Coastal, Natural Resources and Specialist Input).

93. Within 20 working days of the completion of the proposed works within the Coastal Marine Area, a complete set of “as built” plans shall be supplied to the Council (Team Leader – Coastal, Natural Resources and Specialist Input).

104

94. A copy of the “as built” plans shall be provided to the Hydrographic Office (Chief Hydrographer, National Topo/Hydro Authority, Land Information New Zealand, Private Box 5501, Wellington) within 20 working days of the completion of the works in the Coastal Marine Area.

Extent of Occupation

95. The right to occupy part of the Coastal Marine Area shall be limited to the area of the rip rap armouring, widened bridges, temporary staging and temporary containment works identified in the documents listed in Condition 1 above.

96. The right to occupy part of the Coastal Marine Area with the rip rap armouring, widened bridges, temporary staging and temporary containment works shall not be an exclusive right.

Maintenance Requirements

97. The structures permitted to occupy part of the common marine and coastal area by this consent shall be maintained in a good and sound condition, and any repairs that are necessary shall be made, subject to obtaining any necessary resource consents.

General Advice Notes 1. If you disagree with any of the above conditions, or disagree with the additional charges relating to the processing of the application, you have a right of objection pursuant to sections 357A or 357B of the Resource Management Act 1991. Any objection must be made in writing to Council within 15 working days of notification of the decision.

2. It is understood that the applicant is undertaking a comprehensive assessment of the resilience of the State Highway 1 corridor, including potential flooding and adverse environmental effects of the Pahurehure Inlet causeway. It is expected that as part of this process, alternatives which provide for more natural tidal flows in and out the inlet will be evaluated.

Jenny Hudson

Chairperson

Date: 17 June 2015

105