Ruakura Variation to Hamilton City Proposed District Plan

Section 42A Hearing Report 3rd August 2016

Report on Submissions and Further Submissions Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration Appendix 14 Noise and Vibration

Table of Contents Page Number

1. Introduction 1 2. Background 1 3. Submissions 2 4. Analysis 2 a. Key Issues 5. Conclusions 3

Appendix A – Analysis and Recommendations

Appendix B – Tracked Changes – Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration Appendix 14 Noise and Vibration

Appendix C – Malcolm Hunt Associates, Noise & Environmental Associates

Appendix D – List of Submitters and Further Submitters

1 Introduction 1.1 My name is Paula Jane Rolfe. I hold the qualifications of the New Zealand Certificate in Town Planning, Diploma of Business Studies Waikato University and am a member of the New Zealand Planning Institute and Resource management Law Association. I have had over 25 years’ experience in planning and management roles in Local Government which has related to regulatory and policy development roles under the Resource management Act 1991 (RMA) as well as under the Local Government Act 2002. 1.2 At present I hold the position of Project Manager for the District Plan Review for Hamilton City Council and have held this position since February 2010. As part of this role I worked collaboratively with landowners, other Units within Council, the Waikato Regional Council, Future Proof and NZTA to develop the Proposed District Plan (PDP) provisions for Ruakura. 1.3 My role in preparing this report is that of an expert policy planner. Although this is a Council Hearing, I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014. I have complied with that Code when preparing my evidence and I agree to comply with it when I give any oral evidence. 1.4 The scope of my evidence relates to comments on submissions and further submissions received in relation to Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration for the Hamilton City Proposed District Plan Variation 1 (notified 11 November 2015) 1.5 The data, information, facts and assumptions I have considered in forming my opinions are set out in my evidence. Where I have set out opinions in my evidence, I have given reasons for those opinions. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed. 1.6 No formal pre-hearing meetings concerning submissions covered by this evidence have been undertaken pursuant to Clause 8AA of the First Schedule of the RMA. 1.7 In preparing this report I rely on the expert advice sought from Malcolm Hunt Associates Noise and Environmental Consultant along with the Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Proposed Ruakura Development Plan Change. 1.8 Giving effect to the Board of Inquiry Decision is a guiding principle of the Variation. As part of consideration of all submissions made on the PDP and the Variation, where alignment with the BOI Decision is recommended this has taken into account the evaluation of the submission points and the relief sought in the context of the Variation.

2 Background 2.1 Chapter 25 is a City-wide chapter providing City-wide objectives, policies and standards that are applicable to activities in the zone chapters. This includes Noise and Vibration. The following are the objectives of the provisions. 2.1.1 Activities have minimal noise and vibration effects on other activities and sites, consistent with the amenity values of the receiving environment. 2.1.2 Reduce reverse-sensitivity effects arising from new noise-sensitive activities locating:

i. Within the Central City, Business, Industrial, Te Rapa North Industrial, Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zones. ii. Near to transport networks iii. Within a defined helinoise boundary. iv. Within the noise emission boundary of the Te Rapa Dairy Factory.

2.1.3 Reduce reverse-sensitivity vibration effects arising from new development locating near to the rail transport network.

3 Submissions 3.1 Eight submissions with 12 points of submission were received in relation to Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration as part of the notified variation. Six further submissions with 21 further submission points have been received in relation to principal submissions. 3.2 In addition to the above there are 29 deferred submissions with 29 points of submission which were received as part of the Proposed District Plan (PDP). Nine further submissions with 9 further submission points have been received in relation to these principal submissions. One submission has since been withdrawn. 3.3 Appendix D lists submitters and further submitters referred to in this report.

4 Analysis 4.1 Appendix A contains an analysis and recommendations on submissions related to Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration. 4.2 The analysis that follows has grouped submissions as follows: • General • 25.8.3.7 Noise Performance Standards for all Zones except Major Facilities, Knowledge, and Open Space Zones, Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zones • 25.8.3.11 – Noise Sensitive Activities – Ruakura Logistics Zone, Rukaura Industrial Park Zone and Precinct C Knowledge Zone • 25.8.3.8.12 Operational Vibration from Rail Lines • 25.8.3.8.13 Noise Performance Standards for Activities in the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone • 25.8.3.8.14 Non-conformity with Standards in the Ruakura Logistics Zone • Appendix 14 Noise and Vibration

4.3 Key issues 4.4 Many of the submissions are deferred and were lodged as part of the PDP (71%). Landscaped wide buffers, high bunds and amenity planting were requested to assist with visual and noise mitigation. This matter was extensively considered by the Board of Inquiry (BOI) for the development of the Inland Port as well as the impacts from the Ruakura Logistics Zone (RLZ) and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone (RIPZ) on the residential areas and they were satisfied that the noise levels promote best practicable options to minimise adverse noise effects on unrelated neighbouring activities such as residential sites and residential zones.

4.5 The RIPZ adjacent to Fairview Downs that has been added into the plan through the variation, Malcolm Hunt, Councils Acoustic Consultant advises that a daytime noise level of 55dB is within the NZ Standard recommendations and the additional 5dB from other city wide noise rules is less than minor.

5 Conclusion 5.1 On the basis of my analysis, I recommend that the changes within the Tracked Changes Version (Appendix B) are accepted. 5.2 The changes will improve the clarity and administration of the Plan; contribute towards achieving the objectives of the Plan in an effective and efficient manner; and give effect to the purpose and principles of the RMA and the Regional Policy Statement.

PJ Rolfe Project Manager District Plan Review 8 July 2016

Appendix A

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

Analysis: 25.8 Noise and Vibration - General Jennifer West has requested that the noise limits are the same for the whole City and others have requested that the Ruakura Industrial Park Zone are the same as other industrial areas in the City. The BOI determined that the noise levels were suitable for the RLZ and RIPZ as is proposed within the variation. The variation extends the RLZ from the railway to a line running from the northern boundary of the knowledge zone across to the northern boundary of the Percival/Ryburn Road LLRZ, and extends the RIPZ from this line north to the residential zoning in the north, south of the Greenhill Road Interchange.

Between the industrial zonings (RLZ and RIPZ) and the existing residential zoning at Fairview Downs and the Knowledge Zone exists a 50m wide open space corridor which have daytime noise levels at 55dB, being the same daytime level as for the RLZ and RIPZ, and a night time level of 40dB with a one hour shoulder difference between 6am and 7am of 45dB.

Councils Noise Consultant Mr Malcolm Hunt advises (See Appendix C) that a daytime noise level of 55dB is within the NZ Standard recommendations and the additional 5dB is less than minor. The night-time noise level for industry will be the controlling factor and the greater level during the day is to account for the likes of daytime activities and on-site movement.

As stated within the section 32 analysis “Provisions specifically developed during Board process and are affirmed in the Expert Conferencing Joint Witness Statement – Noise and Vibration of 1 April 2014. They address the potentially unique acoustic environment associated with the 24/7 operational activity of the inland port and its associated services. They will promote best practicable options to minimise adverse noise effects on neighbouring activities unrelated (ie residential) to the port’s operations.” For these reasons and the reasons outlined above it is recommended that the noise levels as proposed be retained.

It is sought that the Noise Management Plan (NMP) should refer to the overall effect of the whole Ruakura Structure Plan incrementally. Rule 10.5.2 being a specific standard for the Ruakura Logistics Zone requires noise to be managed in accordance with an approved Noise and Vibration Management Plan. The Noise and Vibration Management Plan information requirements as identified in 1.2.2.20 Vol 2 is only required for the Freight handling activities and Logistics and Freight Handling Infrastructure within the Inland Port. This was determined by the BOI. As part of the assessment criteria for Land Development Plans noise is an issue to be dealt with, in particular construction noise. It is proposed that noise be managed on an activity basis, except for the Inland Port, and as such the levels identified within the plan will apply. Within the Additional Information Requirements of the Plan under 1.2.2.1 b) which applies to all applications it requires reports and management plans demonstrating how adverse environmental effects are to be avoided, remedied or mitigated with respect to numerous activities including noise.

Procedures for receiving and addressing noise complaints are required to be included within the NMP for the Inland Port (see rule 1.2.2.20(xiv) and all monitoring and complaints are required to be reported to the Inland Port Community Liaison Committee (10.5.1e) v)) ; otherwise complaints would be received by Council like any other activity in the City.

A number of submissions were received to the PDP which sought to provide a 100m buffer with a 4m high planted bund around Percival and Ryburn Roads so as to protect these properties from noise from development promoted within the structure plan area. As part of the BOI provisions were included to require:

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

• A 100m setback from the southern side of Ryburn Road with container heights and buildings limited to 12m • A landscape buffer area of 12m high (20m wide in most parts) • A landscape buffer area of 3m high to meet the requirements of the Electricity Regulations • A landscape buffer area of 1m high to meet the requirements of the Electricity Regulations • A 5m wide landscape buffer area prior to the operation of the first Inland Port stage • An interim 5m wide landscape planting - Percival Road • A noise barrier These matters have been carried through to the Variation and are identified in Rule 10.5.4 Landscape Screening and Figure 2-17 Inland Port Building Setbacks and Landscape Controls and Rule 25.8.3.13 Noise Performance Standards for Activities in the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zones. In addition a 20m wide Landscape Buffer Area is proposed within the variation (now recommended to be 10m) around the periphery of the existing residential area at both legs of Percival Road as shown on the structure plan. Rule 11.5.3 outlines this buffer and provides a total setback of 30m (now recommended to be 20m) from Percival Road. See below.

The Silverdale residents requested that a comprehensive plan for the control of nuisance at sources, including noise, be provided. They also requested a 200m buffer zone separating the industrial park from the existing residence in Silverdale that includes a bund to provide a visual screen and help divert noise. As outlined above, the noise provisions were specifically developed during the Board process and are affirmed in the Expert Conferencing Joint Witness Statement – Noise and Vibration of 1 April 2014. They address the potentially unique acoustic environment associated with the 24/7 operational activity of the inland port and its associated services. They will promote best practicable options to minimise adverse noise effects on neighbouring activities unrelated (ie residential) to the port’s operations.

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

In addition the open space provisions that are provided along the northern side of Sheridan and Nevada Road houses, forming a 40m buffer and 50m in part at the end of Nevada Road. The BOI identified that there were numerous benefits from the provisions of the open space areas including connectivity, integration between areas, creation of buffer areas between activities, and amenity functions. They were satisfied that a robust and comprehensive set of objectives, policies, assessment criteria and rules will enable open space areas to fulfil a range of functions and realise these benefits. ² The open space provisions have been transferred through to the variation as identified on the structure plan and within Chapter 15 Open Space Zones, and Appendix 1 District Plan Administration.

K&D Willmott opposes the RIPZ zone and seeks purchase the property or amend the plan to allow semi-commercial use on 63 Ryburn Road. This issue is addressed in a comprehensive assessment under Key issue: The merits of the long term zoning of Logistics for the Ryburn-Percival Road large lot residential enclave within Mr Kivell’s evidence as part of Chapter 3.7 and “The enclave provides a logical and contiguous area for future expansion of the inland port. Further, Council is not the developer but has a statutory responsibility to ensure potential adverse environmental effects are appropriately managed that are associated with land use, development and subdivision (section 31RMA 1991). This responsibility does not extend to property purchase as many submitters sought by way of relief.”

² Para 845 page233 Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Proposed Ruakura Development Plan Change Volume 1 of 3 Sub. Name Sub. Point Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning FS.Name FS. Point West, Jennifer 50.10 25.8 Noise and Oppose 1) Ensure the noise limits are the same 1) The noise levels under Rule 25.8.3.13 promote best Vibration for the whole City. As the areas practicable options to minimise adverse noise effects develop, review noise requirements. on unrelated neighbouring activities such as residential 2) Any Noise Management Plan should sites and residential zones. refer to the overall effect of the 2) The BOI determined that a Noise and Vibration whole Ruakura Structure Plan Accept in part Management Plan is required for activities within the incrementally. Ruakura Logistics Zone, and a report and management 3) Ensure a complaints procedure is plan is required to demonstrate how adverse embedded in any Noise Management environmental effects are to be avoided, remedied or Plan. mitigated as it relates to noise and other matters. 3) Complaint procedures are required to be included in any Noise and Vibration Management Plan for the Ruakura Logistics Zone. Tainui Group FS16.285 Oppose Accept in part FS16.285 is accepted in part as submission 50.10 is Holdings Limited accepted in part Wei Lee D763.005 25.8 Noise and Oppose Amend the Plan to a) retain the area as Accept in part Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

Vibration rural residential without reference to any been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the logistics in the future b) Provide a 100m Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in buffer around Percival and Ryburn Roads the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura with a 4m high planted bund c) Ensure Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and freight movements use an alternative Ryburn Roads so as to assist in mitigation. road to Percival Road d) Ensure development rights are the same as provided for in the large lot residential zone for the southern end of the Structure Plan Ming-San (Arvin) & D764.005 25.8 Noise and Oppose Amend the Plan to a) retain status quo for Accept in part Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have Meng-Chu (Anna) Vibration the area b) Provide a 100m buffer been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the Tang between the area and the Logistics Zone Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in c) Council purchase the properties the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and Ryburn Roads so as to assist in mitigation. Ken & Hong Shang D827.005 25.8 Noise and Oppose Amend the Plan to a) retain the current Accept in part Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have & Wang Vibration rural residential zoning and subdivision been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the rights b) Provide a 100m buffer around Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in Percival and Ryburn Roads the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and Ryburn Roads so as to assist in mitigation.

Kung-Yao Lin D831.006 25.8 Noise and Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) retain the rural Accept in part Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have Vibration residential and development rights been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the including subdivision that exist for the Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in area. b) Provide a 100m buffer around the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Percival and Ryburn Roads with an earth bund. c) Retain more land around the Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and university for supporting uses. d) Ryburn Roads so as to assist in mitigation. concentrate development on land located

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

near existing facilities and industry instead of creating new areas. e) Allow subdivision of the Percival and Ryburn Road area to 1000m2 lots to keep maintain the low density residential lifestyle and quality. Derrick Ross & D835.005 25.8 Noise and Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the Rural Accept in part Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have Robyn Mary Vibration Residential zoning without reference to been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the Marsters industrial in the future. b) Provide a 100m Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in buffer around Ryburn and Percival Roads the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura with a 4m high planted bund. c) ensure freight movements use an alternative Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and road to Percival Road. d) ensure the Ryburn Roads so as to assist in mitigation. development rights are the same as provided for in the Large Lot Residential Zone for the southern end of the Structure Plan. Allan Liang-chitz & D861.005 25.8 Noise and Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the rural Accept in part Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have Shirley Tzu-ling Wan Vibration residential zoning with right to subdivide been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the to 2500m2. b) Provide a 100m buffer Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in around Percival and Ryburn Roads with a the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura 4m high planted bund. c) ensure freight movements use an alternative road to Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and Percival Road. d) Delete reference to any Ryburn Roads so as to assist in mitigation. logistics uses in the future. Raylene & Saul D864.004 25.8 Noise and Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the rural Accept in part Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have Cowie & Spriggs Vibration residential zoning with right to subdivide been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the to 2500m2. b) Provide a 100m planted Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in buffer and bund around Percival and the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Ryburn Roads. c) Require that Tainui Group Holdings or Council purchase the Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and property.

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

Ryburn Roads so as to assist in mitigation.

Bryce & Natasha D910.005 25.8 Noise and Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain as rural Accept in part Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have Carmichael Vibration residential and development rights b) been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the provide a 100m buffer between large lot Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in residential and logistics/industrial park the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura zones c) remove reference to any logistics in the future d) ensure lighting and Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and vibration does not adversely affect quality Ryburn Roads so as to assist in mitigation. of life e) ensure freight movements use an alternative road to Percival Road f) purchase property. William Roy Cowie D928.005 25.8 Noise and Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Provide a 100m Accept in part Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have Vibration buffer with 4m high planted earth bund. been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the b) Remove the deferred logistics zoning Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in and retain a large lot residential zoning the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura with subdivision to 2500m2. Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and Ryburn Roads so as to assist in mitigation.

Deanna - Rose D979.005 25.8 Noise and Oppose Amend the Plan to ensure no logistics or Accept in part Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have Alexander Vibration industrial activities are permitted within been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the 100m of the large lot zone boundary; or Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in purchase property. the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and Ryburn Roads so as to assist in mitigation.

Bee Chiew Phee D1004.004 25.8 Noise and Oppose Purchase the residents property or amend Accept in part Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have Vibration the Plan to: a) retain rural residential been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the zoning and allow subdivision to 2500m2. Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in b) Provide a 100m buffer and planted

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

earth bund. c) Ensure no heavy vehicles the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura access to industrial properties from Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and Percival/Ryburn Roads. Ryburn Roads so as to assist in mitigation.

Alan Frederick & D1005.005 25.8 Noise and Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the rural Accept in part Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have Barbara Winifred Vibration residential zoning and development rights been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the Julian without reference to any logistics in the Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in future. b) Prevent logistics or industrial the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura activities within 100m of the Large Lot Residential Zone. c) Require a 100m Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and buffer and planted earth bund. d) Require Ryburn Roads so as to assist in mitigation. screening and buffering for Ryburn Road; or purchase the property. Peter & Barbara D1006.005 25.8 Noise and Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the rural Withdrawn Ryan Vibration residential zoning and development rights without reference to any logistics in the future. b) Prevent logistics or industrial activities within 100m of the Large Lot Residential Zone. c) Require a 100m buffer and planted earth bund. d) Control the use of surrounding land so that nuisance effects are limited to levels that approximate a semi-rural lifestyle area. Bo & Meggie Han & D1007.005 25.8 Noise and Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the rural Accept in part Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have Wang Vibration residential zoning and development rights been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the without reference to any logistics in the Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in future. b) Require a 100m landscaped the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura earth bund buffer around the Large Lot Residential Zone. c) Require controls to Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and mitigate light, noise and vibration effects Ryburn Roads so as to assist in mitigation. on Ryburn Road.

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

Shing-long Lee D1224.005 25.8 Noise and Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the rural Accept in part Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have Vibration residential zoning and development rights been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the without reference to any logistics in the Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in future. b) Provide a 100m buffer around the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Percival and Ryburn Roads with a 4m high planted earth bund. c) Ensure freight Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and movements use an alternative road to Ryburn Roads so as to assist in mitigation. Percival Road. d) Provide development rights same as provided for in the large lot residential zone for the southern end of the structure plan. Kerry & Donna D1257.007 25.8 Noise and Oppose Opposes the Ruakura Industrial zone. Reject The reasons are discussed in Key Issue: The merits of Willmott Vibration Either purchase the property or amend the long term zoning of Logistics for the Ryburn-Percival the plan to allow semi-commercial use on Road large lot residential enclave. 63 Ryburn Road Council is not the developer but is the Plan administrator and therefore has a statutory responsibility to ensure potential adverse environmental effects are appropriately managed under the RMA 1991. This responsibility does not extend to property purchase. David Evan & D1278.005 25.8 Noise and Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) retain the existing Accept in part Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have Karlene Chibnall Vibration Rural Residential zoning and associated been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the development rights. b) Provide a 100m Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in buffer around Percival and Ryburn Roads the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura with a planted earth bund. c) ensure continuing vehicle access for commuting; Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and and ensure fair treatment over privately Ryburn Roads so as to assist in mitigation. owned land. Roland & Wendy D1279.005 25.8 Noise and Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the Large Accept in part Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have Spirig Vibration Lot Residential zoning with the addition of been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the a 100m planted buffer. b) restrict the Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

operating hours of the port to daylight the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura hours and provide for a way to lodge Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and noise complaints. Ryburn Roads so as to assist in mitigation. Provisions have been made in the Noise and Vibration Management Plan for the Inland Port for complaints to be made. David Murray and D1280.005 25.8 Noise and Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the existing Accept in part Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have Karen Lee Young Vibration Rural Residential Zoning with associated been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the development rights. b) Provide a 100m Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in buffer around Percival and Ryburn Roads the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura with a 4m high planted earth bund. c) Remove the deferred logistics zoning Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and from the proposed plan. Ryburn Roads so as to assist in mitigation.

Robert James Davies D265.003 25.8 Citywide – Oppose Provide the following controls and Reject The noise levels under Rule 25.8.3.13 promote best - Silverdale Noise and mitigation measures for the inland port practicable options to minimise adverse noise effects Residents Group Vibration and wider Ruakura Industrial Park Zone  on unrelated neighbouring activities such as residential A comprehensive plan for the control of sites and residential zones. nuisance at sources, including; noise, dust, air pollution, trash and stormwater. A 40m and 50m open space area is provided north of  Provision of a 200m buffer zone Sheridan and Nevada Roads and the BOI identified separating the industrial park from the existing residence in Silverdale that numerous benefits from the provisions of the open includes a bund to provide a visual screen space areas including connectivity, integration between and help divert noise. Include amenity areas, creation of buffer areas between activities, and planting of indigenous planting creating amenity functions. They were satisfied that a robust an ecological corridor with the Mangaoua and comprehensive set of objectives, policies, Gully System  assessment criteria and rules will enable open space through requested ecological corridor  Require comprehensive water sensitive areas to fulfil a range of functions and realise the design to be used throughout the benefits. industrial park  stormwater management system that

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

includes wetlands and detention ponds  Link and integrate stormwater facilities with the ecological corridor and Mangaonua Gully ystem Denise Clark – D303.004 25.8 Citywide – Oppose Provide the following controls and Reject The noise levels under rule 25.8.3.13 promote best Silverdale Residents Noise and mitigation measures for the inland port practicable options to minimise adverse noise effects Group Vibration and wider Ruakura Industrial Park Zone  on unrelated neighbouring activities such as residential A comprehensive plan for the control of sites and residential zones. nuisance at sources, including; noise, A 40m and 50m open space area is provided north of dust, air pollution, trash and stormwater. Sheridan and Nevada Roads and the BOI identified  Provision of a 200m buffer zone numerous benefits from the provisions of the open separating the industrial park from the space areas including connectivity, integration between existing residence in Silverdale that areas, creation of buffer areas between activities, and includes a bund to provide a visual screen amenity functions. They were satisfied that a robust and help divert noise. Include amenity and comprehensive set of objectives, policies, planting of indigenous planting creating assessment criteria and rules will enable open space an ecological corridor with the Mangaoua areas to fulfil a range of functions and realise the Gully System  benefits. through requested ecological corridor  Require comprehensive water sensitive design to be used throughout the industrial park  stormwater management system that includes wetlands and d etention ponds  Link and integrate stormwater facilities with the ecological corridor and Mangaonua Gul y System Analysis: 25.8.3.7 Noise Performance Standards for Activities in all Zones Except Major Facilities, Knowledge, and Open Space Zones, Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zones Submitters request that the noise levels be the same as other industrial areas, that Aldona Place be provided with noise levels relative to the existing residential amenity and that the existing noise levels in 25.8.3.7a) be retained to protect residential sites. Refer to analysis under 25.8 on page 1 and 2 above.

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

The Waikato University has requested to reassess the provisions as they apply to the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone. The rule needs to align with not only the BOI decision but needs to reflect the provisions for the remainder of the Ruakura Structure Plan area. For example all of the Knowledge Zone needs to be measured against the RLZ and RIPZ and all residential zones For correctness Rule 25.8.3.13a) should read i. “At or within the notional boundary of any residential unit on any other site within the Ruakura Logistics Zone or within the Ryburn and Percival Large Lot Residential Zone (as identified in Appendix 14-1); and ii. Residential Zones or and Knowledge Zone University Precinct D except as provided for in i) above.” The reasons for this are to ensure that implementation is achievable and that all residential zones have a noise control from the RLZ and RIPZ.

It is noted that Tainui Group Holdings have a deferred submission (D913.084) which was not withdrawn as it was subject to an appeal to the Environment Court. This matter has now being resolved whereby the matter is not being pursued and we are awaiting sign-off by the Environment Court. Sub. Name Sub. Point Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning FS.Name FS. Point Silsbee, Scott and 16.10 25.8.3.7 Noise Support in Amend 25.8.3.7 by removing ‘Ruakura Reject The noise levels under Rule 25.8.3.13 promote best Lori Performance part Industrial’ so that Ruakura Industrial practicable options to minimise adverse noise effects Standards for noise limits are the same as other on unrelated neighbouring activities such as residential Activities in all industrial areas in Hamilton. sites and residential zones. Zones Except Major Facilities, Knowledge, and Open Space Zones, Ruakura… Tainui Group FS16.286 Oppose Accept FS16.286 is accepted as submission 16.10 is rejected Holdings Limited Chedworth FS17.136 Oppose Accept FS17.136 is accepted as submission 16.10 is rejected Properties Limited Fairview Downs 43.52 25.8.3.7 Noise Oppose Amend 25.8.3.7 to delete exclusion for Reject The noise levels under Rule 25.8.3.13 promote best Residents and Performance Ruakura Industrial Park Zone in title. practicable options to minimise adverse noise effects Owners Association Standards for on unrelated neighbouring activities such as residential Activities in all sites and residential zones.

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

Zones Except Major Facilities, Knowledge, and Open Space Zones, Ruakura… Tainui Group FS16.287 Oppose Accept FS16.287 is accepted as submission 43.52 is rejected Holdings Limited Chedworth FS17.137 Oppose Accept FS17.137 is accepted as submission 43.52 is rejected Properties Limited Jennifer West FS19.26 Support Reject FS19.26 is rejected as submission 43.52 is rejected Pearce Andrew D215.002 25.8.3.7 Noise Oppose Section 25.8.3.7 (Noise Performance Accept in part The noise levels under Rule 25.8.3.13 promote best Watson Performance Standards for Activities in all Zones practicable options to minimise adverse noise effects (Wizardsleeve Standards for Except Major Facilities, Knowledge and on unrelated neighbouring activities such as residential Holdings Limited) Activities in all Open Space Zones) provides for sites and residential zones. Zones Except maximum noise levels. Aldona Place Major Facilities, has existing residential amenity and Knowledge and requests the best practicable solution is Open Space Zones put in place. Hugh and Katie D911.011 25.8.3.7 Noise Support Retain noise standards in 25.8.3.7, Accept in part The noise levels promote best practicable options to Goodman and Mayes Performance particularly the night time levels minimise adverse noise effects on unrelated Standards for neighbouring activities such as residential sites and Activities in all residential zones. Zones Except Major Facilities, Knowledge and Open Space Zones Tainui Group D913.084 25.8.3.7 Noise Oppose Amend Rule 25.8.3.7 by increasing the Reject The noise levels promote best practicable options to Holdings Ltd Performance maximum noise levels permitted. minimise adverse noise effects on unrelated Standards for neighbouring activities such as residential sites and Activities in all residential zones. Zones Except

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

Major Facilities, Knowledge and Open Space Zones University of Waikato DFS47.004 Oppose Accept DFS47.004 is accepted as submission D913.084 is rejected William Roy and DFS143.009 Oppose Accept DFS143.009 is accepted as submission D913.084 is Raewyn Mary Cowie rejected Natasha Anne and DFS156.005 Oppose Accept DFS156.005 is accepted as submission D913.084 is Bryce Ian Carmichael rejected William Cornelis DFS160.001 Oppose Accept DFS160.001 is accepted as submission D913.084 is Engelander rejected James Hely and DFS161.001 Oppose Accept DFS161.001 is accepted as submission D913.084 is Heather rejected Montgomerie - Ruakura Residents DFS167.026 Oppose Accept DFS167.026 is accepted as submission D913.084 is Group and William rejected Roy Cowie Russell Vincent DFS240.017 Oppose Accept DFS240.017 is accepted as submission D913.084 is Cooper rejected Jennifer West DFS271.01 Oppose Accept DFS271.01 is accepted as submission D913.084 is rejected The University of D1059.039 25.8.3.7 Noise Oppose Requests reassess the provisions under Accept in part The noise levels under Rule 25.8.3.13 promote best Waikato Performance 25.8.3.7 Noise Performance Standards practicable options to minimise adverse noise effects Standards for as they apply to the Ruakura logistics on unrelated neighbouring activities, however the Activities in all and Ruakura industrial Park Zone. amendments to 25.8.3.13 improve the internal Zones Except consistency of the plan and its administration and Major Facilities, implementation Knowledge and Open Space Zones

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

Susan Hopkins D1264.011 25.8.3.7 Noise Support Retain Rule 25.8.3.7 regarding Accept in part The noise levels under Rule 25.8.3.13 promote best Performance protection of residential activities from practicable options to minimise adverse noise effects Standards for noise. on unrelated neighbouring activities such as residential Activities in all sites and residential zones. Zones Except Major Facilities, Knowledge and Open Space Zones Ross & Leonie D1265.009 25.8.3.7 Noise Support Retain noise standards in 25.8.3.7. Accept in part The noise levels under Rule 25.8.3.13 promote best Hopkins Performance practicable options to minimise adverse noise effects Standards for on unrelated neighbouring activities such as residential Activities in all sites and residential zones. Zones Except Major Facilities, Knowledge and Open Space Zones Russell Vincent DFS240.006 Support Accept in part DFS240.006 is accepted in part as submission Cooper D1265.009 is accepted in part. Brett Hopkins D1266.010 25.8.3.7 Noise Support Retain noise standards in 25.8.3.7. Accept in part The noise levels under Rule 25.8.3.13 promote best (Ruakura Motors Performance practicable options to minimise adverse noise effects Tractorparts Ltd) Standards for on unrelated neighbouring activities such as residential Activities in all sites and residential zones. Zones Except Major Facilities, Knowledge and Open Space Zones Ruakura Residents D1275.022 25.8.3.7 Noise Oppose Retain noise standards at Rule Accept in part 1) The noise levels under Rule 25.8.3.13 promote Group and William Performance 25.8.3.7a); That Council address road best practicable options to minimise adverse noise Roy Cowie Standards for noise associated with industrial and effects on unrelated neighbouring activities such Activities in all logistics activity occurring in close as residential sites and residential zones. Zones Except proximity to the subject land; or if this 2) Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier Major Facilities, relief is not accepted, rezone a 100m have been provided for through the Board of

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

Knowledge and land buffer surrounding the subject Inquiry for the Inland Port and additional Open Space Zones land to Open Space. requirements are imposed in the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and Ryburn Roads so as to assist in mitigation.

Analysis: 25.8.3.11 Noise-sensitive Activities – Ruakura Logistics Zone, Ruakura Industrial Park Zone and Precinct C of Knowledge Zone Submitters seek to retain the noise sensitive activities with one submitter seeking to add an exception to clause d) to ensure the feeder roads from the Waikato Expressway are excluded from the rule. An exclusion is already provided for in under 25.8.3.11a) whereby it states “This requirement shall not apply to the feeder roads serving the Greenhill and Ruakura interchanges.” It is considered appropriate that the similar wording be added to d) for consistency and in alignment with an agreement of an appeal for these provisions to be added through the noise sensitive activities for the rest of the City. d) would read “Near existing and proposed transport corridors that carry high traffic volumes” also applies to noise-sensitive activities where the building line of the building containing the activity is within 100m of the boundary with the Waikato Expressway designation, except for parts of the feeder roads serving the Greenhill and Ruakura Interchanges beyond 100m from these interchanges”

NZTA seek to retain rule 25.8.3.11 being included within the variation, however the reference to the RLZ and RIPZ in rule 25.3.8.10 needs to be deleted as 25.8.3.10 provides for the same matters and it needs to be made clear in the heading of rule 25.8.3.10 that it excludes the RLZ, RIPZ and the Knowledge Zone. In addition the reference to within the preamble of the rule for the RLZ and RIPZ needs to reference the Knowledge Zone and not just Precinct C of the Knowledge Zone. Sub. Name Sub. Point Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning FS.Name FS. Point KiwiRail Holdings 17.08 25.8.3.11 Noise- Support Retain Rule 25.8.3.11 - noise sensitive Accept in part The provisions that this submission seeks to retain Limited sensitive Activities activities. have been amended in response to another submission – Ruakura Logistics by adding an exception to clause d) to exclude the Zone, Ruakura feeder roads of Greenhill and Ruakura. Industrial Park Zone and Precinct C of Knowledge Zone Hamilton City 32.31 25.8.3.11 Noise- Support Amend 25.8.3.11d) to clarify the Accept This submission point seeks an amendment that

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

Council sensitive Activities standard does not apply to feeder roads improves the internal consistency of the plan and its – Ruakura Logistics serving the expressway interchanges. administration and implementation. Zone, Ruakura Industrial Park Zone and Precinct C of Knowledge Zone Chedworth FS17.139 Support Accept FS17.139 is accepted as submission 32.31 is accepted Properties Limited Jennifer West FS19.1 Support Accept FS19.1 is accepted as submission 32.31 is accepted

New Zealand 34.09 25.8.3.11 Noise- Support Retain '25.8.3.11 Noise-sensitive Accept in part 1) The provisions that this submission seeks to retain Transport Agency sensitive Activities Activities – Ruakura Logistics Zone, have been amended in response to another submission – Ruakura Logistics Ruakura Industrial Park Zone and by adding an exception to clause d) to exclude the Zone, Ruakura Precinct C of Knowledge Zone' as feeder roads of Greenhill and Ruakura. Industrial Park notified insofar as it reflects the Zone and Precinct decisions made by the Board of Inquiry. 2) Amendment is required to rule 25.3.8.10 to exclude C of Knowledge reference to the RLZ, RIPZ and the Knowledge Zone as Zone these are provided for in rule 25.8.3.11

Tainui Group FS16.288 Support Accept in part FS16.288 is accepted in part as submission 34.09 is Holdings Limited accepted in part

Chedworth FS17.138 Support Accept in part FS17.138 is accepted in part as submission 34.09 is Properties Limited accepted in part

Analysis: 25.8.3.12 Operational Vibration from Rail Lines – Activities in All Zones Kiwi Rail seeks to retain this rule and this is accepted. Sub. Name Sub. Point Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

FS.Name FS. Point KiwiRail Holdings 17.09 25.8.3.12 Support Retain Rule 25.8.3.12 - Operational Accept No amendments or deletions are proposed by other Limited Operational Vibration from Rail Lines. submissions to the provisions that this submission Vibration from point seeks to retain. Rail Lines – Activities in All Zones

Analysis: 25.8.3.13 Noise Performance Standards for Activities in the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zones Submitters request that the noise levels be the same as other industrial areas within the City, and a request is made to delete reference to the Ruakura Industrial Park Zone. Refer to analysis under 25.8 on page 1 above. Sub. Name Sub. Point Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning FS.Name FS. Point Silsbee, Scott and 16.11 25.8.3.13 Noise Support in Amend 25.8.3.13 by removing ‘Ruakura Reject The noise levels under Rule 25.8.3.13 promote best Lori Performance part Industrial’ so that Ruakura Industrial practicable options to minimise adverse noise effects on Standards for noise limits are the same as other unrelated neighbouring activities such as residential Activities in the industrial areas in Hamilton. sites and residential zones. Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zones Tainui Group FS16.289 Oppose Accept FS16.289 is accepted as submission 16.11 is rejected Holdings Limited Chedworth FS17.140 Oppose Accept FS17.140 is accepted as submission 16.11 is rejected Properties Limited Fairview Downs 43.53 25.8.3.13 Noise Oppose Amend 25.8.3.13 to delete reference to Reject The noise levels under Rule 25.8.3.13 promote best Residents and Performance Ruakura Industrial Park Zone. practicable options to minimise adverse noise effects on Owners Association Standards for unrelated neighbouring activities such as residential

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

Activities in the sites and residential zones. Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zones Tainui Group FS16.290 Oppose Accept FS16.290 is accepted as submission 43.53 is rejected Holdings Limited Chedworth FS17.141 Oppose Accept FS17.141is accepted as submission 43.53 is rejected Properties Limited Jennifer West FS19.26 Support Reject FS19.26 is rejected as submission 43.53 is rejected Analysis: 25.8.3.14 Non-Conformity with Standards in the Ruakura Logistics Zone Fairview Downs Residents are requesting the deletion of 25.8.3.14a) as it does not act to keep activities within the set 40dB night-time levels and predicates an increase without attempting to prevent an increase being required at a later date. They also seek that within b) the rule should relate to 40dB rather than 45dB.

As part of the BOI final report and decision the Board identified that “---. We can see no justification for a blanket increase in permitted night-time noise limits from port operations to 45dB, when the evidence establishes that 40 dB is achievable with very few exceptions. Nevertheless, we recognise that it may not be possible to meet the night-time noise limits set out in 25H.13.1 at the notional boundaries of all residential properties when Stage 3, and possibly Stage 2, of the inland port are operational. We have included a mechanism to provide for the night-time noise limit to be increased, up to 45dB in defined areas only, if it can be shown through the relevant land development plan and noise management plan processes that it is not practicable to meet the 40 dB night-time noise limit.” ¹

Tainui Group Holdings request that within both a) and b) the noise level should be changed from “--when measured at the boundary--” to “---when measured at the notional boundary of any residential unit –“ as this would be consistent with the measurement of the noise rule.

The noise Rule 25.8.3.13 requires the measurement of activities within the boundary of any other site in the: • Notional boundary of any residential unit on any other site within the Ruakura Logistics Zone or within the Ryburn and Percival Large Lot Residential Zone; and • Residential Zone or Knowledge Zone University Precinct D The appropriate means of measurement needs to be the same means of measurement as is provided for in Rule 25.8.3.13 therefore an amendment needs to be made to make reference to this. See tracked changes.

¹ Para 430 page120 Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Proposed Ruakura Development Plan Change Volume 1 of 3 Sub. Name Sub. Point Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

FS.Name FS. Point Fairview Downs 43.54 25.8.3.14 Non- Oppose Delete 25.8.3.14a) which relates to any Reject The Board of Inquiry recognised evidence established Residents and Conformity with activity in the Inland Port between that a 40 dB is achievable with very few exceptions and Owners Association Standards in the specific noise standards as a restricted included a mechanism to provide for the night-time Ruakura Logistics discretionary activity. noise limit to be increased up to 45dB in the defined Zone Amend 25.8.3.14b) to 'Any activity in the area of the Inland Port only Inland Port (Sub Area A) which exceeds 40dBLAeq (15 min) between 2300 and 0700 hours when measured at the boundary is a non-complying activity'. Tainui Group FS16.291 Oppose Accept FS16.291 is accepted as submission 43.54 is rejected Holdings Limited Jennifer West FS19.26 Support Reject FS19.26 is rejected as submission 43.54 is rejected Tainui Group 48.61 25.8.3.14 Non- Support in Amend Rule 25.8.3.14 Non-Conformity Accept in part It is appropriate to make reference to the means of Holdings Limited Conformity with part with Standards in the Ruakura Logistics measurement under Rule 25.8.3.13 to provide internal Standards in the Zone to include reference to notional consistency of the Plan and so as to improve its Ruakura Logistics boundary of any residential unit to administration and implementation. Zone provisions a) and b). The Waikato Tree FS2.1 Oppose N/A FS2.1 is not relevant to submission 48.61 Trust Fairview Downs FS3.18 Oppose Accept in part FS3.18 is accepted in part as submission 48.61 is Residents and accepted in part Owners Association Ruakura Residents FS15.20 Oppose Accept in part FS15.20 is accepted in part as submission 48.61 is Group accepted in part Jennifer West FS19.31 Oppose Accept in part FS19.31 is accepted in part as submission 48.61 is accepted in part

Analysis: Appendix 14 Noise and Vibration

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

Nigel Byron submitted that there is no specific mention of noise for the Ruakura Industrial Park Zone east of Fairview Downs. Appendix 14 Noise and Vibration which this submission is tagged to only identifies the residential units in the Large Lot Residential Zone or the Ruakura Logistics Zone for which the measurement of the notional boundary is used. The remaining noise levels which protect Fairview Downs as well as all other adjoining properties/zones are spelled out in Chapter 25.8 and in particular Rule 25.8.3.13 identifies the noise performance standards. Ruakura Residents Group & Cowie seek the deletion of Appendix 14-2 and if not accepted provide for a 100m land buffer surrounding the subject site. Appendix 14-2 now shown as 14-1 is required to establish those residential sites at the notional boundary which is a means of measure accepted by the BOI. As identified within the analysis on page 2 above Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and Ryburn Roads so as to assist in mitigation. Sub. Name Sub. Point Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning FS.Name FS. Point Byron, Nigel 01.02 Appendix Support in Clarify the city wide characteristics of Accept in part Chapter 25.8 and in particular 25.8.3.13 identifies the Christopher 14 Noise and part the Ruakura Industrial Park Zone, noise performance standards for the Ruakura Logistics Vibration including noise, vibration, air quality, and Ruakura Industrial Park Zones. hours of operation and light pollution. The noise levels under Rule 25.8.3.13 promote best practicable options to minimise adverse noise effects on unrelated neighbouring activities such as residential sites and residential zones. Tainui Group FS16.376 Oppose Accept in part FS16.376 is accepted in part as submission 01.02 is Holdings Limited accepted in part Chedworth FS17.192 Oppose Accept in part FS17.192 is accepted in part as submission 01.02 is Properties Limited accepted in part Ruakura Residents D1275.023 14-2 Residential Oppose Delete the subject land properties from Reject 1) Appendix 14-2, now 14-1, is required for the Group and William Units in the the schedule at Appendix 14-2;or if this administration and implementation of the noise Roy Cowie Ruakura Logistics relief is not accepted, rezone a 100m performance standards which have been accepted Zone land buffer surrounding the subject land through the Board of Inquiry. to Open Space. 2) Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and Ryburn

Appendix A S42A Report Chapter 25.8 Noise and Vibration

Roads so as to assist in mitigation.

Appendix B

Proposed District Plan – Appeals and Ruakura Variation – July 2016 Hamilton City Council

25.8 Noise and Vibration

25.8.1 Purpose a) Noise and vibration can have an adverse effect on amenity values, adversely affecting people's health, interfering with communication and disturbing sleep and concentration. Under the Act, noise includes vibration, so the objectives and policies on noise cover vibration as well, unless the context requires otherwise. b) District Plan standards for noise are important in determining when resource consents will be required for land uses and the assessment of applications. The District Plan provisions are subject to Section 16 of the Act, which requires everyone carrying out activities to adopt the best practicable option to ensure that noise does not exceed a reasonable level. c) The duty to adopt the best practicable option is not always avoided by compliance with a District Plan rule on noise. Noise may be deemed to be unreasonable even though the District Plan does not require resource consent. Enforcement action for unreasonable noise will usually be based on the noise enforcement provisions of the Act, but may be based on exceeding the District Plan standards.

25.8.2 Objectives and Policies: Noise and Vibration

Objective Policies 25.8.2.1 25.8.2.1a Activities have minimal adverse The amenity values of the surrounding noise and vibration effects on neighbourhood and adjoining activities, especially other activities and sites, noise-sensitive activities, shall be protected from consistent with the amenity adverse noise effects. Comment [HCC1]: values of the receiving Tainui Group Holdings (Ruakura), ENV-147 25.8.2.1b Agreement reached waiting consent order environment. Construction, maintenance and demolition activities shall be required to minimise potential adverse effects on the surrounding neighbourhood and adjoining activities. 25.8.2.1c Noise effects arising from new and altered roads should be managed using best practicable options to ensure noise levels received by existing premises and facilities that are sensitive to noise are reasonable. 25.8.2.1d Commercial, industrial and community activities shall ensure that noise received at the boundary of Residential and Special Character Zones is consistent with the existing residential ambient noise environment. Comment [HCC2]: Tainui Group Holdings (Ruakura), ENV-147 Agreement reached waiting consent order

Volume 1 25.8 Noise and Vibration Page 25-66

Proposed District Plan – Appeals and Ruakura Variation – July 2016 Hamilton City Council

25.8.2.1e Noise from non-residential activities in residential areas shall not unduly adversely affect residential amenity values. 25.8.2.1f Temporary events shall minimise noise impacts on residential activities when taking into account the level and duration of the noise.

Explanation The policies ensure that noise levels will be appropriately managed to protect the amenity values of receiving environments. Management of the interface between areas is important to ensure that noise is within a reasonable expectation for the zoning and noise levels meet accepted minimum standards for the receiving environment. Within industrial and commercial areas, higher noise levels are accepted, but will be controlled to prevent unreasonable noise from transferring between sites. The policies will capture changes to the noise environment arising from new and altered roads. The Plan aims to limit people’s exposure to traffic noise from new transport corridors by reducing noise at the source, and requiring insulation for new development beside busy transport corridors (see Objective 25.8.2.2). Many construction activities are inherently noisy but methods are available which can control the emission and impact of this noise. Noise experienced during construction is of a temporary nature and provided that noise at inconvenient times can be mitigated or avoided, reasonable levels of construction noise can be accommodated.

Objective Policies 25.8.2.2 25.8.2.2a Reduce reverse-sensitivity Noise-sensitive activities locating within the effects arising from new noise- Central City, Business, Industrial, Ruakura sensitive activities locating: Logistics, Te Rapa North and Ruakura Industrial Park Zones or within an existing defined helinoise i. Within the Central City, boundary or within the Te Rapa Dairy Factory Business, Industrial, Te Rapa Noise Emission boundary should include design North Industrial, Ruakura and materials to reduce interior noise to Logistics and Ruakura acceptable levels. Industrial Park Zones. 25.8.2.2b ii. Near to transport networks. Noise-sensitive activities locating near transport iii. Within a defined helinoise corridors that carry high traffic volumes, or boundary. railways, should include design and materials to iv. Within the noise emission reduce interior noise to acceptable levels. boundary of the Te Rapa 25.8.2.2c Dairy Factory. Noise-sensitive activities located within the Rototuna North East Character Zone adjacent to the Waikato Expressway (Designation E90) within the habitable building setback should provide

Volume 1 25.8 Noise and Vibration Page 25-67

Proposed District Plan – Appeals and Ruakura Variation – July 2016 Hamilton City Council

sufficient acoustic treatment to protect its residential noise environment.

Explanation The objectives and policies recognise that some areas of the City contain a diverse range of activities, and that there is increased potential for conflict over noise, particularly when noise-sensitive activities locate near existing noisy activities. The objective and policies recognise that noise-sensitive activities establishing in these areas will require appropriate design and materials, such as acoustic insulation, to achieve an acceptable internal noise environment. The objectives and policies also recognise that the noise levels within the Te Rapa Dairy Factory Noise Emission Boundary were agreed through an appeal settlement on the Waikato District Plan and the area around the Dairy Factory was subsequently transferred into Hamilton City. Noise sensitive activities locating within the Dairy Factory Noise Emission boundary need to be aware of the existing noise levels within the Noise Emission Boundary. In the Rototuna North East Character Zone, the use of a specific building setback provision pre and post the construction of the Waikato Expressway (Designation E90) negates the need for additional acoustic mitigation of dwellings beyond the setback and provides protection for the outdoor amenity of residential properties within the setback. However, habitable buildings located within the setback do have an increased potential to be affected. Accordingly noise-sensitive activities establishing in this area will require appropriate design and materials, such as acoustic insulation, to achieve an acceptable internal noise environment.

Objective Policies 25.8.2.3 25.8.2.3a Reduce reverse-sensitivity New buildings locating near to the rail network vibration effects arising from should include design and materials to reduce new development locating near vibration to acceptable levels. to the rail transport network.

Explanation The objectives and policies recognise that in some areas of the City near to the rail network there is potential for vibration effects. The objective aims to ensure that new buildings locating near to the rail are designed to recognise the environment in which they are located.

25.8.3 Rules – Specific Standards 25.8.3.1 Measurement and Assessment of Noise a) Noise levels shall be measured in accordance with NZS 6801:2008 “Acoustics – Measurement of Environmental Sound” and assessed in accordance with NZS 6802:2008 ‘Acoustics – Environmental Noise’. These apply unless otherwise stated.

Volume 1 25.8 Noise and Vibration Page 25-68

Proposed District Plan – Appeals and Ruakura Variation – July 2016 Hamilton City Council

25.8.3.2 Construction Noise a) All construction noise shall comply with the relevant noise levels stated in NZS6803: 1999, section 7.2 ‘Recommended numerical limits for construction noise’ and shall be measured and assessed in accordance with NZS 6803:1999 ‘Acoustics – Construction Noise’. 25.8.3.3 Construction Vibration a) Construction vibration received by any building on any other site shall comply with the provisions of and be measured and assessed in accordance with German Standard DIN 4150-3:1999 Structural vibration – Effects of vibration on structures. 25.8.3.4 Design and Construction of New and Altered Roads a) Application of this standard. i. This standard shall apply only to new and altered roads predicted to carry at least 2000 annual average daily traffic (AADT) at the design year. b) This standard shall not apply: i. In circumstances where NZS 6806: 2010 does not apply, as listed in paragraph 1.3.1 of NZS 6806: 2010. ii. To local transport corridors identified within Volume 2, Appendix 15-5b to 15-5f. iii. To altered roads where the vertical or horizontal alignment changes relate solely to providing pedestrian footpaths, cycleways, dedicated passenger transport or high- occupancy vehicle lanes, vehicle stopping or parking whereby that part of the carriageway dedicated to usual vehicle movement does not move closer to any protected premises and facilities. c) Road-traffic noise shall be measured and assessed in accordance with NZS 6806:2010 ‘Acoustics – Road traffic noise – New and altered roads’. d) Subject to 25.8.3.4(a) and (b) above, new or altered roads are designed and constructed to mitigate road-traffic noise in compliance with NZS 6806: 2010 ‘Acoustics – Road traffic noise – New and altered roads’. Note 1. This rule mainly affects road controlling authorities such as Council and the New Zealand Transport Authority, but sometimes may affect a private developer building or altering a road in a subdivision designed to carry the requisite traffic volumes. The practical effect of the standard is that traffic noise received at ‘protected premises and facilities’ will be reduced by design features such as quieter road surfaces. 25.8.3.5 Helicopter Landing Area Noise a) Helicopter noise from helicopter landing areas shall be measured and assessed in accordance with NZS 6807:1994 ‘Noise management and land-use planning for helicopter landing areas’. Note 1. An activity that does not comply with NZS6807:1994 in Rule 25.8.3.5 will require consent, and the operator may be required to establish a helinoise boundary around the helicopter landing area, as described in NZS 6807:1994 via a change to the District Plan in accordance with the first schedule of the Act. Any new ‘noise-sensitive activities’ inside a defined helinoise boundary may be subject to the noise insulation requirements of NZS 6807:1994. 2. In addition to District Plan requirements, helicopter operation is subject to civil aviation controls.

Volume 1 25.8 Noise and Vibration Page 25-69

Proposed District Plan – Appeals and Ruakura Variation – July 2016 Hamilton City Council

25.8.3.6 Events and Temporary Activities a) The relevant zone noise standards shall apply to all events and temporary activities, except as provided in Rule 25.3.5.2(c) and 25.3.5.3(e). 25.8.3.7 Noise Performance Standards for Activities in all Zones Except Major Facilities, Knowledge and Open Space Zones, Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zones a) Activities in all Zones except Major Facilities, Knowledge, and Open Space, Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zones, shall not exceed the following noise levels at any point within the boundary of any other site in the: i. Residential Zone. ii. Special Character Zone. Or, any point within the: iii. Notional boundary of any residential unit on any other site within the Ruakura Logistics Zone at the time of notification of this Plan (as identified in Volume 2, 14- 1 – Residential Units in the Ruakura Logistics Zone).

Time of day Noise level measured in Noise level

LAeq [15 min] measured in LAFmax iiiv. 0600 – 0700 hours 45 dB 75 dB Comment [HCC3]: Tainui Group Holdings (Ruakura), ENV-147 iv. 0700 – 2000 hours 50 dB - Agreed not to pursue – waiting consent order vi. 2000 – 2300 hours 45 dB - Comment [HCC4]: As above vii. 2300 – 0600 hours 40 dB 75 dB Comment [HCC5]: As above Comment [HCC6]: b) Activities in all zones except the Major Facilities, Knowledge and Open Space Zones As above shall not exceed the following noise levels at any point within the notional boundary of any other site in the Future Urban Zone.

Time of day Noise level measured in Noise level LAeq [15 min] measured in LAFmax i. 0700 – 2200 hours 55 dB - ii. 2200 – 0700 hours 40 dB 75 dB

c) Any activity within the Industrial, and Te Rapa North Industrial, Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park zones shall not exceed a noise level of 65dBA (LAeq [15 min]) Comment [HCC7]: As above at any point within the boundary of any other site within that zone. This standard does not apply to sites held in common ownership with the site containing the activity generating the noise. This standard applies to Stages 1A and 1B of the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone, but does not apply to the remainder of the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone until such time as the Deferred Industrial Zone overlay is removed. d) Application of this standard. i. This standard does not apply to activities provided for by Rule 25.3.5.2(c) and 25.3.5.3(e) ii. This standard does not apply to helicopter noise at helicopter landing areas, road traffic noise, or construction noise.

Volume 1 25.8 Noise and Vibration Page 25-70

Proposed District Plan – Appeals and Ruakura Variation – July 2016 Hamilton City Council

iii. This standard does not apply to residential activities, including the use of garden equipment (such as lawnmowers, chainsaws or wood chippers) ancillary to residential activities. Short duration use at reasonable times will usually be acceptable. iv. This standard does not apply to noise from temporary emergency use of generators for continued power supply provided that the best practicable option to control the noise is adopted. v. This standard does not apply to night time noise (2200 – 0700) from activities within the Dairy Factory overlay. vi. This standard applies to all other activities, including home-based businesses, pool pumps, air conditioning units and domestic wind turbines. Note

1. The Te Rapa North Deferred Industrial Area, excluding Stages 1A and 1B, is assessed against the Future Urban noise standards until such time as the Deferred Industrial Zone overlay is removed.

25.8.3.8 Te Rapa Dairy Factory Noise Emission Boundary a) Any activity within the Dairy Factory Overlay shall be designed and conducted so that night time noise (2200 – 0700) from site activities, other than construction noise, measured at the Te Rapa Dairy Factory Noise Emission Boundary shown on Planning Maps 1B, 2B, 6B and 7B shall not exceed 45dB LAeq (15-mins). Comment [HCC8]: Fonterra, ENV-151 Waiting consent order 25.8.3.9 Noise Performance Standards for Activities in the Major Facilities Zone, Knowledge Zone and Open Space Zones a) Activities within the Major Facilities Zone, Knowledge Zone and Open Space Zones shall not exceed the following noise levels at any point within the notional boundary of any other site within the: i. Future Urban Zone. Or, any point within the boundary of any other site in the: ii. Residential Zone. iii. Special Character Zone.

Time of day Noise level measured in LAeq Noise level measured [15 min] in LAFmax iv. 0700 – 2300 hours 55dB - v. 2300 – 0600 hours 40dB 75 dB vi. 0600 – 0700 hours 45dB 75 dB Comment [HCC9]: D1059.039 vii. Rule 25.8.3.9(a)vi. shall not apply to Precinct C in the Knowledge Zone and the Ruakura Open Space Zone (excluding Lot 3 DPS 66853), in which case the application of night noise limit of Rule 25.8.3.9a)v shall be extended to apply between the hours of 2300 hours to 0700 hours. b) Rule 25.8.3.9(a) shall not apply to crowd noise from events.

Volume 1 25.8 Noise and Vibration Page 25-71

Proposed District Plan – Appeals and Ruakura Variation – July 2016 Hamilton City Council

c) For Seddon Park, Waikato Stadium, Claudelands Events Centre and Te Rapa Racecourse the noise standards outlined in Rule 25.8.3.9(a) shall apply except for six days per calendar year when the following standards shall apply. i. The noise (including practice or testing) does not exceed the following noise levels at any point within the boundary of any site in the:

• Residential Zone

• Special Character Zone

Time of day Noise levels measured in Noise levels

LAeq [15 min] measured in LAFmax ii. 1000 – 2300 hours 75 dB 85 dB 70 dB at 63Hz 65 dB at 125Hz iii. On New Year’s Eve these noise levels shall apply up to 0030 hours the following day (January 1).

iv. Rule 25.8.3.9(c)i shall not apply to crowd noise from events. v. The noise event does not exceed four hours’ duration, except on two of the six occasions when the duration of the noise event must not exceed seven hours, exclusive of practice and sound checks. vi. Practice or testing involving the use of electronic sound amplification must not exceed two hours. vii. The public is notified at least 14 days before the noise event, including information about:

• The nature of the noise event and the fact that the noise limits for general activities may be exceeded.

• Proposed dates and start and finish time of the event itself, and the expected times of any testing or practice.

• Contact details before and during the noise event.

• Possible alternative dates in the event of postponement. Note 1. A suitable method for achieving compliance with this standard is the publishing of a public notice containing the required information in a newspaper with a circulation that covers the entire area affected by the proposal. viii. Provide a noise management plan to Council at least one month before the event to demonstrate compliance with the relevant noise standards. d) Application of this standard: i. This standard does not apply to activities provided for by Rule 25.3.5.2(c) and 25.3.5.3(e) ii. This standard does not apply in relation to noise received from the Te Rapa Racecourse at the following existing sites on Minogue Drive.

• Pt Lot 1 DP 311765

Volume 1 25.8 Noise and Vibration Page 25-72

Proposed District Plan – Appeals and Ruakura Variation – July 2016 Hamilton City Council

• Lot 5 DP 443687

• Section 3 SO 318174 iii. This standard does not apply to noise from helicopter noise at helicopter landing areas, road traffic noise, or construction noise.

25.8.3.10 Noise-sensitive Activities – Activities in all Zones except Ruakura Logistics Zone, Ruakura Comment [HCC10]: 34.09 Industrial Park Zone and the Knowledge Zone a) The standards in Rule 25.8.3.10(e), (f) and (g) shall apply to the construction of new and altered buildings to be used for noise-sensitive activities within: i. The Central City Zone, Business 1 to 7 Zones, Industrial Zone, Ruakura Logistics Zone, Ruakura Industrial Park Zone, Te Rapa North Industrial Zone, the Te Rapa Comment [HCC11]: 34.09 Dairy Factory Noise Emission Boundary, Rototuna Town Centre Zone. ii. All sites, near existing and proposed transport corridors that carry high traffic volumes, as defined in 25.8.3.10(b), and (c) below. iii. All sites, near a railway line, as defined in 25.8.3.10(d) below. b) “Near existing and proposed transport corridors that carry high traffic volumes” applies to noise sensitive activities where the building line of the building containing the activity is within 40m of the nearest edge of the carriageway (not being a state highway) of: i. All existing transport corridors, and ii. Designated transport corridors (where the designation defines the location of the carriageway), That are predicted to carry an annual average daily traffic level (AADT) at the design year of at least: i. 5,000 AADT where the posted speed limit is ≤50km/hr. ii. 2,000 AADT where the posted speed limit is >50km/hr. c) “Near existing and proposed transport corridors that carry high traffic volumes” also applies to noise sensitive activities where the building line of the building containing the activity is within: i. 100m of the Waikato Expressway (Designations E90 and E90a), except that this standard does not apply to: 1. the land zoned Rototuna North East Character Zone – see Rule 25.8.3.10(h) below; or 2. feeder roads serving the expressway interchanges where the noise sensitive activity is more than 100m from the Waikato Expressway proper or any of its interchanges; or ii. 80m of any other state highway where the speed limit is equal to or greater than 70km/hour, or where the speed limit is less than 70 km/hour and the AADT is at least 10,000 vehicle per day; or iii. 40m of any state highway where the speed limit is less than 70km/hour and the AADT is less than 10,000 vehicles per day;

Volume 1 25.8 Noise and Vibration Page 25-73

Updated 30 March 2016 Proposed District Plan – Appeals and Ruakura Variation – July 2016 Hamilton City Council

iv. Where the distances specified in (i), (ii) and (iii) above shall be measured from the edge of the carriageway, or the designation boundary if the carriageway location has not been confirmed in writing by the Requiring Authority; and v. Where the speed limit specified in (ii) and (iii) above shall be the posted speed limit in the case of an existing state highway, or the speed limit confirmed in writing by the Requiring Authority for a proposed state highway; and vi. Where the AADT specified in (ii) and (iii) above shall be the current AADT for an existing state highway, or the predicted AADTin the design year confirmed in writing by the Requiring Authority for a proposed state highway. d) “Near a railway line” applies to noise sensitive activities where the building line of the building containing the activity is within 40m of the boundary of a designation for Railway Purposes (Designations F1 and F1a). e) Where this standard applies (as defined by Rule 25.8.3.10(a) to (d) above): i. Any habitable room in a building shall be protected from noise arising from outside the building by ensuring the building is designed and constructed to meet an

indoor design sound level of 35dB LAeq (24hr) in bedrooms and 40dB LAeq(24hr) in all other habitable rooms , or ii. Where only 25.8.3.10(a)ii and iii apply, an acoustic design certificate shall state that

the indoor design sound level of 35dB LAeq (24hr) in bedrooms and 40dB

LA eq (24hr) in all other habitable rooms is able to be met. f) Compliance with Rule 25.8.3.10(e)i shall be achieved by: i. Ensuring habitable rooms are constructed in a manner that accords with an acoustic design certificate stating the proposed design will achieve compliance with the performance standard in Rule 25.8.3.10(e)i; or ii. An existing solid building or landform blocking the line of site from all parts of all windows and doors of any new habitable room(s) to any part of the carriageway, or the designation if the carriageway location has not been confirmed in writing by the Requiring Authority, within the relevant distance specified in: 1. Rule 25.8.3.10 (b) for transport corridors that are not state highway, or 2. Rule 25.8.3.10 (c) for transport corridors that are state highway, and any habitable room is set back at least 40m from any part ofthe carriageway, or the designation if the carriageway location has not been confirmed in writing by the Requiring Authority. g) Where Rule 25.8.3.10(f) applies, where rooms with windows that cannot be opened are proposed, a positive supplementary source of fresh air ducted from outside shall be required at the time of fit-out. The supplementary source of air is to achieve a minimum ventilation as specified in Section G4 – Ventilation of the New Zealand Building Code 2011. h) Within the Rototuna North East Character Zone, any habitable rooms in new residential activities or the construction of new habitable rooms or extensions to habitable rooms in existing residential activities where constructed on a site within the applicable set back for the zone shall meet the following criteria:

Volume 1 25.8 Noise and Vibration Page 25-74

Proposed District Plan – Appeals and Ruakura Variation – July 2016 Hamilton City Council

i. Where the location of the Waikato Expressway carriageway adjacent to the site is not confirmed, any residential activity located within the habitable building setback of 65m shall be designed and constructed to ensure that the noise level from the

Waikato Expressway designation boundary is no greater than 35dB LAeq(24hr) in any

bedroom and 40dB LAeq(24hr) in any other habitable room (the internal noise limits). The outdoor noise level shall be the level incidental on the residential activity based on the noise level prediction parameters in Rule 23.6.12 c). ii. Where the location of the carriageway within the designation corridor of the Waikato Expressway adjacent to the site has been confirmed in writing by the Requiring Authority, or confirmed through an Outline Plan of Works approval under s176A of the RMA, or construction is underway or completed, any

residential activity within the 55dB LAeq(24hr) contour line from the Waikato Expressway, established via subdivision in accordance with 23.6.12 c), shall be designed and constructed to ensure that the noise level from the Expressway is no

greater than 35dB LAeq(24hr) in any bedroom and 40dB LAeq(24hr) in any other habitable room (the internal noise limits). The outdoor noise level shall be the level incidental on the residential activity based on the noise level prediction parameters in Rule 23.6.12 c). iii. A design report shall be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer approved by the Hamilton City Council, and provided to the Planning Guidance Manager, Hamilton City Council, that demonstrates the internal noise limits will be achieved. iv. For those rooms where windows and doors need to be closed to achieve the internal noise limit, an alternative ventilation system that complies with the requirements of Section G4 of the Building Code shall be installed. This system

shall be designed to achieve a level of no less than 10dB LAeq below the traffic design level for that room. Note

1. If habitable rooms are located outside of the 65m setback or 55dB LAeq(24hr) noise contour, no acoustic treatment is required even if one or more boundaries of the lot is intersected by either the setback or noise contour. 25.8.3.11 Noise-sensitive Activities – Ruakura Logistics Zone, Ruakura Industrial Park Zone and Precinct C of Knowledge Zone Comment [HCC12]: D1059.039 a) Buildings to be used for noise-sensitive activities shall not be constructed with any part of the building within 40m of the designation for the Waikato Expressway. This requirement shall not apply to the feeder roads serving the Greenhill and Ruakura interchanges. b) The following standards in this rule shall apply to the construction of new and altered buildings to be used for noise-sensitive activities within: i. The Ruakura Logistics Zone, the Ruakura Industrial Park Zone and Precinct C of the Comment [HCC13]: D1059.039 Knowledge Zone. ii. All sites, near existing and proposed transport corridors that carry high traffic volumes, as defined in Rule 25.8.3.11 (c) and (d) below. iii. All sites, near a railway line, as defined in Rule 25.8.3.11(e) below.

Volume 1 25.8 Noise and Vibration Page 25-75

Proposed District Plan – Appeals and Ruakura Variation – July 2016 Hamilton City Council

c) “Near existing and proposed transport corridors that carry high traffic volumes” applies to noise sensitive activities where the building line of the building containing the activity is within 40m of the nearest edge of the carriageway of: i. All existing transport corridors, and ii. Designated transport corridors (where the designation defines the location of the carriageway), that are predicted to carry an annual average daily traffic level (AADT) at the design year of at least: • 5,000 AADT where the posted speed limit is ≤50km/hr. • 2,000 AADT where the posted speed limit is >50km/hr. d) “Near existing and proposed transport corridors that carry high traffic volumes” also applies to noise-sensitive activities where the building line of the building containing the activity is within 100m of the boundary with the Waikato Expressway designation., except for parts of the feeder roads serving the Greenhill and Ruakura Interchanges beyond 100m from these interchanges” Comment [HCC14]: 32.31 e) “Near a railway line” applies to noise sensitive activities where the building line of the building containing the activity is within 40m of the boundary of a designation for Railway Purposes. f) Where this standard applies, either: • Any room in a building shall be protected from noise arising from outside the building by ensuring the external sound insulation level achieves the minimum

performance standard of D2m,nT,w + Ctr > 30 dB, or • Where only Rule 25.8.3.11(b)ii and iii apply, an acoustic design certificate signed by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer shall state the outdoor noise levels will not

exceed 55 dB LAeq(1h) for rail noise or 57 dB LAeq(24h) for road-traffic noise at the building facade. g) Where Rule 25.8.3.11(f) applies, a supplementary source of air shall be provided to achieve a minimum ventilation as specified in Section G4 Ventilation of the New Zealand Building Code 2011 and provide cooling. The ventilation system shall generate less than

35dB LAeq measured at 1 metre from the internal grill/diffuser.

25.8.3.121 Operational Vibration from Rail Lines – Activities in All Zones a) Any new building developed for a vibration sensitive activity within 20m of a boundary of a designation for railway purposes shall comply with Class C vibration limits in NS 8176E:2005 – Vibration and Shock: Measurement of Vibration in Buildings from Land Based Transport and Guidance to Evaluation of its Effects on Human Beings. b) Where Rule 25.8.3.12(a) applies a design report prepared by an acoustics engineer, demonstrating compliance with the vibration criteria, shall be submitted to the Council prior to construction of the building. Note

1. Some properties more than 20m from a rail line may experience vibration from passing trains. Factors such as soil ground conditions, distance from rail lines and building design will affect the amount of vibration received. For more information, professional advice can be sought from engineers before undertaking building work near the rail corridor.

Volume 1 25.8 Noise and Vibration Page 25-76

Proposed District Plan – Appeals and Ruakura Variation – July 2016 Hamilton City Council

25.8.3.13 Noise Performance Standards for Activities in the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zones a) Activities shall not exceed the following noise limits within the boundary of any other site in the: i. At or within the Notional notional boundary of any residential unit on any other site within the Ruakura Logistics Zone or within the Ryburn Road and Percival Road Large Lot Residential Zone (as identified in Appendix 14-1). ii. At or within the boundary of Residential Zones or and Knowledge Zone, University Precinct (D)except as provided for in i above. Comment [HCC15]: D1059.039

Time of day Noise levels measured in Noise levels

LAeq [15 min] measured in LAFmax 0700 – 2000 hours 55 dB - 2000 – 2300 hours 50 dB - 2300 – 0700 hours 40 dB 75 dB

b) Any activity within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zones shall not

exceed a noise limit of 70dB (LAeq [15 min]) within the boundary of any other site within that Zone. This standard does not apply to sites held in common ownership with the site containing the activity generating the noise. c) Application of this standard. i. This standard does not apply to temporary activities. ii. This standard does not apply to noise from helicopters at helicopter landing areas, road noise, or construction. iii. This standard does not apply to residential activities, the use of garden equipment (such as lawnmowers, chainsaws or wood chippers) ancillary to residential activities. Short duration use at reasonable times will be acceptable. iv. This standard applies to all other activities, including home-based businesses, pool pumps, air conditioning units and site based wind turbines. v. Assessment of the standard shall be in accordance with NZS6801:2008 and NZS6802:2008 including a reference time interval (t) of 15 minutes. d) A noise barrier shall be provided to ensure that the noise limits in Rule 25.8.3.13(a) are met and in accordance with the following: i. The barrier shall be constructed at, or to the north of, the northern-most limit of the Inland Port operations area (Sub Area A (Inland Port)) and in any other locations necessary to ensure the noise limits in Rule 25.8.3.13(a) will be met. ii. The barrier may be constructed in stages to suit staged development of the Inland Port (Sub Area A (Inland Port)). iii. The barrier shall be designed and constructed in accordance with best practice and certified by a suitably qualified expert.

Volume 1 25.8 Noise and Vibration Page 25-77

Proposed District Plan – Appeals and Ruakura Variation – July 2016 Hamilton City Council

iv. The barrier shall be designed to avoid or minimise the reflection of noise from passing trains onto residential properties on Ryburn Road. v. The noise barrier shall form part of the Noise Management Plan for each stage of development of the Inland Port (Sub Area A (Inland Port)).

25.8.3.14 Non-Conformity with Standards in the Ruakura Logistics Zone a) Any activity in the Inland Port (Sub Area A (Inland Port)) which is between 40

dBLAeq(15 min) and 45 dBLAeq(15 min) when measured at the boundary between 2300 and 0700 hours when measured under 25.8.3.13a is a restricted discretionary Comment [HCC16]: 48.61 activity. This shall be considered without notification or the need to obtain approval from affected persons, except as provided for by sections 95A(2)(b) and (c), 95B(2) and (3) and 95C(1) to (4) of the Act.

b) Any activity in the Inland Port (Sub Area A (Inland Port)) which exceeds 45 dBLAeq(15

min) between 2300 and 0700 hours when measured at the boundary under 25.8.3.13a) is Comment [HCC17]: 48.61 a non-complying activity.

25.8.4 Other Resource Consent Information Refer to Chapter 1: Plan Overview for guidance on the following. How to Use this District Plan Explanation of Activity Status Activity Status Defaults Notification / Non-notification Rules Rules Having Early or Delayed Effect Refer to Volume 2, Appendix 1: District Plan Administration for the following. • Definitions and Terms Used in the District Plan • Information Requirements • Controlled Activities – Matters of Control • Restricted Discretionary, Discretionary and Non-Complying Activities Assessment Criteria • Design Guides • Other Methods of Implementation

Volume 1 25.8 Noise and Vibration Page 25-78

Appendix 14: Noise and Vibration 14-1 Residential Units in the Large Lot Residential Zone or Ruakura Logistics Zone

The figure and schedule below describe those properties with residential units, within the Large Lot Residential Zone or Ruakura Logistics Zone at the time of notification of this Plan, to which Volume 1, Rule 25.8.3.137(a) applies.

Figure 14-2a: Residential Units in the Large Lot Residential Zone or Ruakura Logistics Zone

Schedule 14-2b: Residential Units in the Large Lot Residential Zone or Ruakura Logistics Zone Plan Appellation Property Address Property Legal Description ref ID

1 Lot 3 DPS 82249 124B Percival Road RUAKURA LOT 3 DPS 82249

2 Lot 1 DPS 82249 116 Percival Road RUAKURA LOT 1 DPS 82249

3 Lot 2 DPS 82249 124A Percival Road RUAKURA LOT 2 DPS 82249

Volume 2 14 Noise and Vibration Page 14-1 Proposed District Plan – Appeals and Ruakura Variation - July 2016 Hamilton City Council

Plan Appellation Property Address Property Legal Description ref ID

4 Lot 8 DP 9210 23 Ryburn Road RUAKURA LOT 8 DP 9210 BLK XIV KOMAKARAU SD

5 Lot 41 DP 9210 130 Percival Road RUAKURA LOT 41 DP 9210 BLK XIV KOMAKARAU SD

6 Lot 43 DP 9210 106 Percival Road RUAKURA LOT 43 DP 9210 BLK XIV KOMAKARAU SD

7 Lot 2 DPS 90222 9 Brighton Grove RUAKURA LOT 2 DPS 90222 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD

8 Lot 3 DPS 90222 11 Brighton Grove RUAKURA LOT 3 DPS 90222 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD

9 Lot 4 DPS 90222 12 Brighton Grove RUAKURA LOT 4 DPS 90222 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD

10 Lot 5 DPS 90222 10 Brighton Grove RUAKURA LOT 5 DPS 90222 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD

11 Lot 7 DPS 90222 4 Brighton Grove RUAKURA LOT 7 DPS 90222 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD

12 Lot 17 DPS 90222 44 Percival Road RUAKURA LOT 17 DPS 90222 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD

13 Lot 1 DP 343881 134A Percival Road RUAKURA LOT 1 DP 343881 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD

14 Lot 2 DP 343881 134B Percival Road RUAKURA LOT 2 DP 343881 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD INT IN ESMTS

15 Lot 3 DP 343881 134C Percival Road RUAKURA LOT 3 DP 343881 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD SUBJ TO ESMTS

16 Lot 2 DP 392925 53C Ryburn Road RUAKURA LOT 2 DP 392925 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD INT IN ESMTS

17 Lot 3 DP 392925 53B Ryburn Road RUAKURA LOT 3 DP 392925 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD SUBJ TO & INT IN ESMTS

18 Lot 4 DP 392925 53A Ryburn Road RUAKURA LOT 4 DP 392925 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD SUBJ TO & INT IN ESMTS

19 Lot 1 DP 405610 60 Percival Road RUAKURA LOT 1 DP 405610 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD

20 Lot 2 DP 405610 8 Brighton Grove RUAKURA LOT 2 DP 405610 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD

Volume 2 14 Noise and Vibration Page 14-2 Proposed District Plan – Appeals and Ruakura Variation - July 2016 Hamilton City Council

Plan Appellation Property Address Property Legal Description ref ID

21 Lot 1 DP 415095 51D Ryburn Road RUAKURA LOT 1 DP 415095 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD INT IN ESMTS

22 Lot 2 DP 415095 51C Ryburn Road RUAKURA LOT 2 DP 415095 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD SUBJ TO & INT IN ESMTS

23 Lot 3 DP 415095 51B Ryburn Road RUAKURA LOT 3 DP 415095 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD SUBJ TO & INT IN ESMTS

24 Lot 4 DP 415095 51A Ryburn Road RUAKURA LOT 4 DP 415095 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD SUBJ TO ESMTS

25 Lot 5 DP 415095 41B Ryburn Road RUAKURA LOT 5 DP 415095 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD SUBJ TO & INT IN ESMTS

26 Lot 6 DP 415095 41C Ryburn Road RUAKURA LOT 6 DP 415095 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD SUBJ TO & INT IN ESMTS

27 Lot 7 DP 415095 41A Ryburn Road RUAKURA LOT 7 DP 415095 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD SUBJ TO ESMTS

28 Lot 8 DP 415095 37 Ryburn Road RUAKURA LOT 8 DP 415095 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD

29 Lot 1 DPS 66320 34 Percival Road RUAKURA LOT 1 DPS 66320 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD

30 Lot 9 DP 415095 45 Ryburn Road LOT 9 DP 415095

31 Pt Lot 1 DP 9210 313 Ruakura Road RUAKURA HOUSE A DPS 52781 ON PT LOT 1 DP 9210 UNDIVIDED 1/5 INT IN 5 & 246 SQ M

32 Lot 1 DPS 61777 313 Ruakura Road RUAKURA LOT 1 DPS 61777 PT LOT 1 DP 9210 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD

33 Lot 1 DPS 90222 3 Brighton Grove RUAKURA LOT 1 DPS 90222 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD

34 Lot 1 DP 392925 53D Ryburn Road RUAKURA LOT 1 DP 392925 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD SUBJ TO & INT IN ESMTS

35 Lot 2 DP 336186 318 Ruakura Road RUAKURA LOT 2 DP 336186

Volume 2 14 Noise and Vibration Page 14-3 Proposed District Plan – Appeals and Ruakura Variation - July 2016 Hamilton City Council

Plan Appellation Property Address Property Legal Description ref ID

36 Pt Lot 1 DP 9210 303 Ruakura Road RUAKURA HOUSE A DPS 52781 ON PT House B DPS 52781 295 Ruakura Road RUAKURA LOT 1 DP 9210 UNDIVIDED Pt Lot 1 DP 9210 295A Ruakura Road RUAKURA 1/5 INT IN 5 & 246 SQ M

37 Lot 1 DP 336186 316 Ruakura Road RUAKURA LOT 1 DP 336186 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD

38 Lot 5 DP 387395 63 Ryburn Road RUAKURA LOT 5 DP 387395 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU SD

39 Lot 73 DP 9210 64 Ryburn Road RUAKURA LOT 73 DP 9210 BLK XIV KOMAKORAU S D

Volume 2 14 Noise and Vibration Page 14-4

Appendix C

Hamilton Proposed District Plan - Ruakura Variation

Review Of Noise & Vibration Matters Raised In Submissions

Prepared by:

Prepared For:

April 2016

Document Ref: 16788/5

Ruakura District Plan Variation Review of Submissions- Noise & Vibration Matters

Table of Contents

1 PURPOSE ...... 3

2 NOISE AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT ...... 3

3 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ...... 4

4 THE RUAKURA VARIATION ...... 4

5 NOISE ISSUES – DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 5 5.1 Noise Performance Standards (Rule 25.8.3.9)...... 5 5.2 Noise Performance Standards For Activities In The Ruakura Logistics And Ruakura Industrial Park Zones (Rule 25.8.3.13) ...... 6 5.3 Non-Complaint Covenants ...... 8 5.4 Acoustic Insulation Of Dwellings ...... 9 5.5 Buffer Around Percival And Ryburn Roads ...... 11 5.6 Non-Conformity With Noise Standards (Rule 25.8.3.14)...... 12

6 TECHNICAL AMENDMENT ...... 13

7 SUMMARY ...... 14

APPENDIX A – QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ...... 15

Ruakura District Plan Variation Review of Submissions- Noise & Vibration Matters

1 Purpose

The purpose of this report is to set out advice to Hamilton City Council in response to specific noise and vibration matters raised within submissions received by Council following notification of the Proposed District Plan whereby submission on Ruakura were deferred and notification of the Ruakura Variation to its Proposed District Plan (PDP). The variation was notified on 11 November 2015. By the time submissions on the Ruakura Variation closed on 18 December 2015 Council had received 50 submissions in addition to those already received under the PDP.

Having been involved as far back as 2010 with advice to Council on Proposed District Plan noise and vibration matters, Malcolm Hunt Associates have also been involved advising Council during the 2014 Ruakura Board of Inquiry hearings and during subsequent discussions around resolution of appeals to the Proposed District Plan (on noise matters). APPENDIX A to this report sets out the general background and experience of Malcolm Hunt which outlines his expertise in this area.

2 Noise as an Environmental Effect

Council has a specific duty to mange noise and its effects within the district under .s31 of the Resource Management Act [RMA]. Environmental noise ranks highly on the list of potential environmental pollutants that may affect the quality of the environment and is a matter that individual and communities are becoming increasingly aware of.

Research into the effects of environmental noise have been based on the annoyance it causes to humans, or the extent to which it disturbs various activities undertaken by people, including sleep disturbance.

At a biological level, noise is considered a nonspecific stressor that may cause adverse health effects in the long term. Epidemiological studies suggest elevated levels of environmental noise may adversely affect health of people1. In many cases noise occurring in the environment is simply intrusive, interfering with listening to television or radio or affecting the enjoyment of quiet outdoor areas around in the home or in parks or reserves.

The effects of environmental noise are usually expressed in terms of:

o Annoyance; o Speech interference - high levels of noise can make normal speech difficult to hear o Performance - some noises can make concentration difficult and interfere with tasks such as learning, checking fine details [such as any job with a large mathematical component or

1 WHO Burden Of Disease From Environmental Noise - Quantification Of Healthy Life Years Lost In Europe. World Health Organisation, Geneva, 2011.

where the meaning of words is critical] or work where small, precise, movements or intense concentration is required; o Mental health [including noise-induced stress-related effects]; o Sleep disturbance - in addition to fatigue and mental health effects, disrupted sleep patterns can leave people irritable, change their behaviour, and reduce their ability to work or perform tasks.

In setting the balance for sustainable management of noise in the environment there is a need to consider the response of the average person to noise. To impose a restrictive standard in order that the vulnerable groups (such as the elderly or very young children) are protected to a high standard will impose costs and restrictions on people’s legitimate economic, cultural and social well-being who are otherwise adequately protected at levels suited to the majority of the population. It is for this reason noise limits are usually set to protect the “average” reasonable person.

3 Reference Documents

This review of specific noise matters is not zero-based. The review has considered a number of existing background documents and supporting reviews including but not limited to the following publications;

Ruakura Private Plan Change  Ruakura Private Plan Change - Board of Inquiry - AEE, specifically MDA noise assessment report  Ruakura Private Plan Change - Board of Inquiry – HCC’s Section 149G Report  Ruakura Private Plan Change - Board of Inquiry – Final Decision & Recommendations

Ruakura Variation

 Ruakura Variation – as notified November 2015  Ruakura Variation – s32 Report November 2015

Hamilton Proposed District Plan

 Appeals version PDP.

In addition, the following acoustic Standards have been considered in the preparation of this review;

1. NZS 6801:2008 Acoustics – Measurement of Environmental Sound 2. NS 6802:2008 Acoustics –Environmental Noise

4 The Ruakura Variation

The stated purpose of the variation to the Proposed District Plan (PDP) is the integration of the BOI’s decision on ‘Ruakura’ and the framework for the urbanisation of this land ensuring a consistent approach to managing development in the area. This is for the regionally strategic purpose of providing for a multi-modal transport hub - an inland port at Ruakura along with support facilities and services and including key research facilities.

Within the 50 submissions received following public notification to the Ruakura Variation along with those submissions that were originally deferred under the Proposed District Plan a range of strategic resource management issues were raised, including the overall adequacy of the planning provisions (objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria) to manage the cumulative adverse environmental

effects including reverse sensitivity effects on amenity values from the urbanisation of greenfield and brownfield sites. From our review we consider noise effects and their management is a key issue in providing a reasonable standard of amenity at sensitive receiver sites.

When evaluating the merits of these and related submission points it is essential to ensure the approach(es) recommended are consistent across the whole of the City and not just for the Ruakura growth cell, there is consistency with the Board of Inquiry decision and if not, there is a stated rationale for any suggested departure, and to gauge the likely contribution and effectiveness of landscaping/buffer planting and open space areas prescribed to contribute to the management of noise amenity and amenity values overall.

5 Noise Issues – Discussion & Recommendations

Analysis of the submissions received has resulted in a number of specific noise matters being identified by Council for which specialist advice has been sought. The following discussion and recommendations are provided on the noise and vibration matters raised within submissions as follows:

5.1 Noise Performance Standards (Rule 25.8.3.9)

The Board of Inquiry (BoI) determined that the noise levels were suitable for the Ruakura Logistics Zone (RLZ) and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone (RIPZ) as is proposed within the variation. The variation extends the RLZ from the railway line to a line running from the northern boundary of the Knowledge Zone across to the northern boundary of the Percival/Ryburn Road Large Lot Residential Zone (LLRZ), and extends the RIPZ from this line north to the residential zoning in the north, south of the Greenhill Road Interchange.

Between the industrial zonings (RLZ and RIPZ) and the existing residential zoning at Fairview Downs and the Knowledge Zone a 50m wide open space corridor exists. Activities in the Open Space Zone are proposed to have daytime noise limit of LAeq(15 min) 55dB, being the same daytime level as for the RLZ and RIPZ, and a night time limit of LAeq(15 min) 40dB with a one hour shoulder period between 6am and 7am during which a limit of LAeq(15 min) 45dB.

As set out in Section 8.3.2 of Council’s s.32 report, the issue is to determine whether the ‘morning shoulder’ period should reflect the BOI decision or the PDP position, e.g. 2300-0600 as identified in PDP or 2300-0700 as identified in BOI decision.

Council has submitted (HCC 9) that the following should be inserted in rule 25.8.3.9: “vii. Rule 25.8.3.9(a)vi. shall not apply to Precinct C in the Knowledge Zone and the Ruakura Open Space Zone (excluding Lot 3 DPS66853)”

The s.32 report recommends adopting this amended noise performance standard as it is consistent with the approach determined by the BOI for the entire R1 Area which has as its basis the results of expert conferencing and is therefore considered to provide an efficient and effective approach to noise management in this special case.

We accept the rationale for accepting Rule 25.8.3.9(a)vii however, adoption of this preferred approach will mean no limit applies between 6 am and 7 am for noise from activities taking place in the Knowledge Zone and the Ruakura Open Space Zone (excluding Lot 3 DPS66853), and cannot therefore be supported from a technical perspective. We also accept that the BoI only dealt with part of the Knowledge Zone however this variation needs to consider (and control) noise effects affecting all parts of the Knowledge Zone.

Our recommendation to resolve these issues is to amend wording so that Rule 25.8.3.9(a)(vii) refers to controlling noise at all parts of the Knowledge Zone, and that where Rule 25.8.3.9(a)vii applies, the night time noise limit (LAeq(15 min) 40dB) of Rule 25.8.3.9(a)v is extended to 7am to cover the one hour period that would otherwise be “missing” under Rule 25.8.3.9(a)vii.

Recommendation:

Rule 25.8.3.9(a)vii be amended as follows:

vii. Rule 25.8.3.9(a)vi shall not apply to Precinct C in the Knowledge Zone and the Ruakura Open Space Zone (excluding Lot 3 DPS66853), in which case the application of night noise limit of Rule 25.8.3.9(a)v shall be extended apply between the hours of 2300hrs to 0700 hrs.

5.2 Noise Performance Standards for Activities in the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zones (Rule 25.8.3.13)

A number of submissions commented on the divergence in proposed standards for noise management with the provisions in the Proposed District Plan (PDP) Appeals version and requested a standard approach to make the management of noise consistent across the City and in particular for residential zoned areas.

The general view expressed within these submissions was that residential areas in Silverdale, the University Halls of Residence, and in Fairview Downs will have adverse amenity impacts associated with the more liberal/less stringent permitted noise standards of 50 dBA during early evening (or shoulder periods) and the 55dBA standard daytime.

The following table (ref. Page 92 of sec 32 Evaluation Report) summarises the various noise limit options under consideration (PDP and BoI) and compares these to the noise limits of the Operative Plan:

A key issue identified in Council’s s.32 report is therefore what is the appropriate noise performance standard to adopt in the variation?

The s.32 report recommends adopting the BOI decision to confirm noise performance standards for activities in the Ruakura Logistics Zone and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone for the entire R1 area. Compared to the notified PDP noise limits, adopting the BoI approach means;

a) 55dBA (rather than 50dB) apply during day time (0700-2000); and b) 50dB (rather than 45dB) noise limit applying during the ‘shoulder’ period (2000-2300).

We comment on this approach as follows;

Section 8.6.2 of NZS 6802:2008 provides the following guideline values that should generally not be exceeded for the reasonable protection of health and amenity associated with the use of land for residential purposes: • Day-time 55 dB LAeq(15 min); (0700–1900 hours). • Evening 50 dB LAeq(15 min); (1900–2200 hours). • Night-time 45 dB LAeq(15 min), with a maximum night- night-time limit of 75 dB LAFmax (2200–0700 hours).

A daytime noise level of 55dB represents a 5 dB increase over the daytime PDP noise limit however this is within the above NZ Standard recommendations. The increase in noise limit from 45dB and 50dB between 2000 and 2300 hours is also a 5 dB increase. This 5 dB increase in received noise (over the PDP proposed limits) is considered to result in: a) Only a small potential change in the daytime noise which will result in a less than minor effect within the residential receiving environment. b) Only affects a limited number of residential receiver sites. This is because noise limits must be complied with at the closest residential sites. Sound levels generally reduce from a point source at 6 dB reduction per doubling of distance. This ensures levels below LAeq(15 min) 55 dB is received at the vast majority of residential receiver sites. c) Although noise from vehicles on roads is not covered by this rule, in reality noise from road traffic affects sound levels at a great many residential receiver sites at levels exceeding LAeq(15 min) 55 dB without demonstrable adverse effects.

Regarding the hours to which the noise limits apply, clause 8.6.2 of NZS6802:2008 (Note 1 to Table 3) states “The definition of times of day are a matter for the relevant local authority and should recognise that a period of not less than 8 hours needs to be provided for sleep to ensure at least the minimum acceptable degree of health protection”.

Expert Witness joint conferencing Statement (April 2014) confirms all parties agreed to noise performance standards for a whole day having three component noise limits for the following time periods: • Day (0700–1900 hours). • Evening (1900–2200 hours). • Night-time (2200–0700 hours).

On the basis that noise effects would be acceptable, the BoI Expert Witness Joint Conferencing Statement recommended to the BoI that noise limits of LAeq(15 min) 55 dB apply from 0700 hrs to 2000 hrs and that a lower limit of LAeq(15 min) 50 dB apply during an evening shoulder period between from 2000 hrs to 2000 hrs.

Recommendation:

Based on the fact that noise effects would remain acceptable and that the recommendations

remain within the maximum recommended guidelines set out within NZS6802:2008, I

recommend adopting the BoI approach which, compared to the PDP, means residential

receiver sites may receive ;

a) 55dBA (rather than 50dB) during day time (0700-2000); and

b) 50dB (rather than 45dB) noise limit applying during the ‘shoulder’ period (2000-2300).

5.3 Non-Complaint Covenants

Submitter 48 (Tainui Group Holdings Limited) has requested that “non-complaint covenants” be used as a tool in the District Plan to provide reverse sensitivity protection to activities within the RLZ and RIPZ. In particular the submitter requested an amendment to Rule 4.1.4 to state “Large Lot Residential Zone use of buildings for residential activities is permitted subject to a restrictive non- complaint covenant or use of buildings without a restrictive non-complaint covenant is discretionary.”

Non-complaint covenants are registered against the titles of surrounding land owners to ensure current and future land owners are aware of the potential for high levels of noise or other effects and are not able to claim common law nuisance or bring enforcement and consent proceedings, which could potentially close down the noise producing activity. While such covenants are often used to ensure that new residential developments do not restrict the operation or expansion of the noise making activity, they are not in themselves an RMA tool and could be said to be neither, mitigating avoiding or remedying potential advisers noise effects.

Non-complaints covenants have been successfully used by various industries when faced with increased residential activity in their immediate vicinities. For example, the Auckland District Plan provides that buildings for accommodation purposes in the Britomart Precinct are a permitted activity where the site is subject to a non-complaint covenant in favour of the Ports of Auckland. These receiver sites fall inside an area to which acoustic insulation requirements apply because the port noise levels could exceed the recommended limits of NZS6802:2008 for residential sites.

In respect of airports, the High Court of NZ has determined that ‘non-complaint’ covenants are not an unreasonable method to avoid, remedy or mitigate potential adverse aircraft noise effects2. The High Court considered the discussion of the vires of such covenants in Christchurch International Airport, and found that:

“…this case provides clear authority for the proposition that persons can waive their rights and enter into "no complaints” covenants provided that the rights are not "rights which should be regarded as incapable of surrender for reasons of public policy".

The High Court held that it was satisfied that such covenants do not contravene the principles or provisions of the RMA. The rights to public participation under the RMA are able to be waived by an individual giving free and informed consent. The High Court considered whether the rights in question were rights that could not be surrendered on the ground of public policy, ultimately finding that they cannot:

“The Covenant does not allow the plaintiff to contravene the RMA or remove the possibility of RMA duties being enforced. It only precludes the defendant – and its successors in title – from so complaining. If the plaintiff contravenes the RMA, any other person can still apply for an enforcement order and/or the local authority’s enforcement officer can issue an abatement notice.”

These court decisions confirm that non-complaints covenants can be effective tools for addressing reverse-sensitivity effects on the environment and are not uncommon. However, the decisions also indicate that such covenants are not a one-stop-shop for addressing adverse effects.

Importantly, the above cases are all concerned with applying ‘non-complaint’ covenants where the level of outdoor noise exceeds the guidance provided within NZS6802:2008 for maximum noise levels

2 Christchurch International Airport Ltd v Christchurch City Council [1997] NZRMA 145 (HC);

for residential sites. This is not the case with the dwellings within the Large Lot Residential Zone which will receive noise from to activities within the RLZ and RIPZ. it is more important that noise is controlled at or near source so that the noise levels received at dwellings within the Large Lot Residential Zone are complied with, resulting in an acceptable outdoor noise climate. Controlling noise to these reasonable levels, plus the operation of the Noise Management Plan is considered to adequately address potential reverse sensitivity measures adequately without the need to take the extra step to impose ‘non-compliant’ covenants.

Recommendation:

Based on the fact that noise effects are proposed to be controlled to reasonable levels and that

a Noise Management Plan is proposed to assist in noise management, we do not recommend

that Rule 4.1.4 be amended to require the use of buildings for residential activities in the Large

Lot Residential Zone be permitted subject to a restrictive non-complaint covenant.

5.4 Acoustic Insulation Of Dwellings

Submitter 48 (Tainui Group Holdings Limited) requests an amendment to Chapter 4 (Residential Zones) to add a new Rule 4.4.3 Percival/ Ryburn Roads Ruakura Structure Plan Area to require internal acoustic insulation of new dwellings. In addition, this submitter requested amendments to Rule 4.1.4 (Large Lot Residential Zone) to include a requirement for internal acoustic insulation and to delete the establishment of a buffer as a pre-condition to future development.

We consider the use of acoustic insulation of buildings housing noise sensitive activities to be a useful method of addressing indoor noise effects where the levels of outdoor noise exceed generally accepted guidelines for daytime and/or night time noise (such as the guidance set out within NZS6802:2008).

In this case we are not aware of any rules or performance standards which would result in buildings housing noise sensitive activities in the Percival/ Ryburn Roads Ruakura Structure Plan Area receiving noise from any specific sites or permitted activities which that would exceed the general guidance on acceptable noise levels set out within NZS6802:2008.

The acoustic reduction provided by the typical New Zealand dwelling is a relevant consideration. This reduction, when assessed alongside the permissible (maximum) outdoor sound levels provides a good basis to decide whether imposing a minimum acoustic insulation via the District Plan would be necessary.

An airport noise study[3] quantifying levels of insulation provided by typical houses affected by airport noise included measurements of 10 types of house construction to reflect typical designs used in New Zealand. The results indicated that noise level differences (D) with windows open for ventilation the average Dopen is 18 dB. By way of comparison, it is useful to consider the US EPA 1974 Levels document [4] relating to the performance of dwellings with windows open or closed. This US report is widely adopted internationally for planning purposes. The typical reduction in sound level from outside to inside a house can be summarised as shown in the following table;

3 Housing NZ v Manukau City Council, A143/01, 7 NZED 116 4 Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1974, 550/9-74-004.

Windows Windows

Open Closed

Warm Climate 12 dB 24 dB

Cold Climate 17 dB 27 dB

Table 1: Sound level reduction due to houses in warm and cold climates, with windows open and closed [5]

Based on the above studies, it is evident a typical value for the reduction of outdoor sound via open windows is -15 dB. Taking the allowable noise levels as LAeq!15 min) 55 dB daytime and 40 dB LAeq(15 min) night time, we find that sound within a typical dwelling would be likely to be in the region of LAeq(15 min) 40 dB daytime and 25 dB night time. These indoor sound levels are considered reasonable having regard to the recommendations of NZ Standard NZS2107:2000 Acoustics – Recommended Design Sound Levels and Reverberation Times for Building Interiors which recommends “satisfactory” and “maximum” indoor sound levels for dwellings summarised in Table 2 as follows;

Satisfactory Maximum

Sleeping rooms 30 dB 40 dB

Living Areas 35 dB 45 dB

Table 2: Recommended indoor sound levels for dwellings and apartments near major roads [6].

Thus, indoor sound levels within buildings housing noise sensitive activities within the Percival/ Ryburn Roads Ruakura Structure Plan Area receiving noise from any specific sites or permitted activities do not require any additional acoustic insulation to achieve a suitable indoor acoustic standard.

To add acoustic insulation to new dwellings or apartments imposes some costs on the owner or developer. I have been involved with a study of insulation costs carried out in 2007 which was commissioned as part of Wellington City Council District Plan Change 49 which considered whether higher noise insulation standards should be included in the District Plan for new or altered buildings housing noise sensitive activities located within a high noise area adjacent to the port. The higher insulation standards were intended to address higher levels of noise due to proximity to the port and to address low frequency sounds emanating from port operations.

The study involved looking at typical “un-insulated” costs of constructing a hypothetical bedroom apartment and dwelling for an acoustic rating of “30 dB” insulation standard or a “35 dB” insulation standard within habitable rooms. A quantity surveyor developed the cost estimates based on typical methods and materials to achieve the requisite acoustic insulation standards.

The study involved two apartments, a 70m2 single bedroom “mid floor” apartment [no roof insulation, only a front facade to consider] and a small dwelling of 100m2 in gross floor area to which insulation

5 Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1974,

550/9-74-004. 6 NZ Standard NZS2107:2000 Acoustics – Recommended Design Sound Levels and Reverberation Times for Building Interiors

was applied to external walls and the roof. Costs of mechanical fresh air supply were limited in all cases to providing the required ventilation to sleeping rooms only with living rooms/lounge areas although classed as habitable, deemed to be able to be ventilated by openable windows in the normal manner [subject to compliance with NZ Building Code].

The costs estimates provided by the quantity surveyor are summarised in Table 3 as follows;

Base construction cost [no additional acoustic insulation] Increase in cost from 2007 dollars Base case

1 Bedroom Mid floor apartment $84,000 1.8%

2 Bedroom Small Dwelling $144,900 5.6%

Table 3: Cost estimates of achieving two standards of acoustic insulation within two different apartment designs.

These results from a previous study indicate that the additional costs of achieving a reasonable acoustic insulation standard are not insignificant.

Based on the above discussion, I see no need to impose costs on home owners or developers to incorporate acoustic insulation in buildings housing noise sensitive activities within the Percival/ Ryburn Roads Ruakura Structure Plan Area.

Recommendation:

The acoustic insulation of indoor spaces of buildings housing noise sensitive activities Percival/ Ryburn Roads Ruakura Structure Plan Area is not recommended to be incorporated into the PDP as;

(a) Noise limits permitted by the PDP are not considered likely to result in outdoor noise levels sufficiently elevated to require indoor spaces to be acoustically protected; and (b) The costs imposed on homeowners and developers of providing acoustic insulation is not insignificant; and (c) The acoustic insulation of indoor spaces does not address outdoor acoustic amenity, which in our experience is an important consideration for residents of peri-urban lifestyle blocks.

5.5 Buffer around Percival and Ryburn Roads

A number of submitters requested “Provide a 100m buffer around Percival and Ryburn Roads” in part it appears as a landscape protection measure, but also it seems as a noise mitigation measure.

Landscape buffers, setbacks and a noise barrier have been provided for through the Board of Inquiry for the Inland Port and additional requirements are imposed in the Variation within the Ruakura Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone for the properties at Percival and Ryburn Roads so as to

assist in mitigation. The BoI were satisfied that this would result in an acceptable levels of effects. We therefore see no need to add a further requirement for the 100 metre buffer as requested by submitters.

Recommendation:

We consider the BoI decision has adequately considered noise effects and recommended both

noise limits, and further mitigation measures (such as a Noise Management Plan) which

obviates the need in our opinion for further mitigation measures such as a 100 m buffer round

Percival and Ryburn Roads

5.6 Non-Conformity with Noise Standards (Rule 25.8.3.14)

Fairview Downs Residents are requesting the deletion of 25.8.3.14(a) as it does not act to keep activities within the set 40dB night-time levels and predicates an increase without attempting to prevent an increase being required at a later date. They also seek that within (b) the rule should relate to 40dB rather than 45dB.

As part of the BoI final report and decision accepted the evidence which established that 40 dB is achievable with very few exceptions. Nevertheless, they recognised that it may not be possible to meet the night-time noise limits at all residential properties when Stage 3, and possibly Stage 2, of the inland port are operational.

Thus, the BoI included a mechanism to provide for the night-time noise limit to be increased, up to 45dB in defined areas only, if it can be shown through the relevant land development plan and noise management plan processes that it is not practicable to meet the 40 dB night-time noise limit. As the increase from 40 dB to 45 dB is subject to scrutiny by Council under the RMA procedures for a Restricted Discretionary consent, and that Council will be entitled to assess how or whether the over- riding duty under RMA s.16 to adopt the best practicable option to avoid unreasonable noise, we agree with the BoI approach and no changes are considered necessary.

Tainui Group Holdings request that within both 25.8.3.14 (a) and (b) the noise level should be changed from “--when measured at the boundary--” to “---when measured at the notional boundary of any residential unit –“ as this would be consistent with the measurement of the noise rule.

We agree that the change sought by this submitter as it would ensure consistency with the approach taken to assessing noise effects, although noting that in residential zones it is usually recommended (eg. by NZS6802:2008) that the whole site be protected to the required standard (as opposed to just the area surrounding the dwelling).

The noise rule 25.8.3.13 requires the measurement of noise from activities “At or within the notional boundary of any residential unit on any other site within the Ruakura Logistics Zone or within the Ryburn Road and Percival Road Large Lot Residential Zone” and this approach should be adopted within the wording of Rule 25.8.3.14 (a) and (b) in our view.

Recommendations:

1. We recommend retaining the wording of Rule 25.8.3.14(a) as there are suitable checks and balances in place to enable appropriate decision-making where a restricted discretionary consent process is to be followed to increase night time noise from 40 to 45 dB; and

2. We support the wording of Rule 25.8.3.13(b) that ensures any application to increase noise at night time beyond 45 dB will be treated as a non-complying activity; and

3. We support amending both 25.8.3.14 (a) and (b) so that any “non-conformity” with noise limits is assessed at the same location as noise limits within Rule 25.8.3.14(a) apply. This requires the following recommended amendment to Rule 25.8.3.14 (a) and (b):

25.8.3.14 25.8.3.14 Non-Conformity with Standards in the Ruakura Logistics Zone

a) Any activity in the Inland Port (Sub Area A (Inland Port)) which is between 40 dBLAeq(15 min) and 45 dBLAeq(15 min) when measured at the boundary between 2300 and 0700 hours when measured under 25.8.3.13a) is a restricted discretionary activity. This shall be considered without notification or the need to obtain approval from affected persons, except as provided for by sections 95A(2)(b) and (c), 95B(2) and (3) and 95C(1) to (4) of the Act.

b) Any activity in the Inland Port (Sub Area A (Inland Port)) which exceeds 45 dBLAeq(15 min) between 2300 and 0700 hours when measured at the boundary under 25.8.3.13a) is a non-complying activity.

6 Technical Amendment

Following our review of submissions and the wording of the noise rules set out within notified variation, we have identified a potential difficulty within the wording of Rule 25.8.3.13(a) which is currently proposed to be worded as follows;

25.8.3.13 a) Activities shall not exceed the following noise limits within the boundary of any other site in the:

i. At or within the or within the notional boundary of any residential unit on any other site within the Ruakura Logistics Zone or.... ii. Residential Zones or and Knowledge....

The words “within the boundary of any other site in the” are unnecessary, are a potential barrier to this rule achieving the required outcome, and could result in enforcement difficulties.

Recommendation:

To enhance the implementation of Rule 25.8.3.13(a) we recommend amending the wording as follows;

25.8.3.13 a) Activities shall not exceed the following noise limits within the boundary of any other site in the: i. At or within the or within the notional boundary of any residential unit on any other site within the Ruakura Logistics Zone or....

ii. At or within the boundary of Residential Zones or and Knowledge....

7 Summary

This report sets out advice to Hamilton City Council regarding specific noise and vibration matters raised within submissions received by Council following notification of the Ruakura Variation to its Proposed District Plan (PDP).

The advice is based on the guidance set out within the 2015 BOI decision and on the recommendations of stated guidelines and Standards. We also defer to our experience with effective and efficient measures to manage noise in the environment.

The amendments recommended above are considered important to both enhance the implementation of the PDP and ensure the effects of noise and vibration are effectively managed and mitigated where appropriate.

Malcolm Hunt Associates

Prepared by

Malcolm Hunt B.Sc. M.E.(mech), Dip Pub. Health. RSH Dip. Noise Control.

APPENDIX A – QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

1. Malcolm James Hunt holds a Bachelor of Science Degree from Victoria University and a Master of Mechanical Engineering Degree specialising in Acoustics from the University of Canterbury where a thesis was completed on environmental acoustics.

2. Malcolm holds other qualifications with respect to the Environmental Health Officer Qualification Regulations 1975, and I also hold a Royal Society of Health Diploma in Noise Control.

3. Malcolm has been on a number of past New Zealand Standard's committees for acoustics, including the past New Zealand Standards committees reviewing NZS6801 and NZS6802 [covering the measurement and assessment of environmental noise].

4. A major portion of Malcolm’s 27 years' experience has been in the assessment of noise-related effects of a wide range of commercial, industrial, transportation, or energy type projects. In many cases I have advised on noise control measures through both engineering methods and management plans. He has assessed noise effects within sensitive receiver sites such as residential sites, aged-care facilities, schools and hospitals. In many projects I have provided advice in relation to appropriate building materials and methods to control the intrusion of outdoor noise sources.

5. Malcolm has also conducted a number of district-wide community sound level surveys and provided independent District Plan noise reviews for a number of territorial authorities across New Zealand. His involvement in such projects has led to presenting noise-related evidence at Boards of Inquiry, and the Environment Court, District Court and High Court of New Zealand.

6. Malcolm has completed the ‘Making Good Decisions’ courses for Resource Management Act ("RMA"] Practitioners which provides him with current certification as an RMA Practitioner able to undertake a role as a Commissioner assisting Consent Authorities with RMA decision-making processes.

7. Malcolm has wide experience in the technical evaluation of environmental noise, and its assessment within planning proceedings including district plan development.

Appendix D

Submitters and Further Submitters referred to in this s42A report

Submitters

Byron, Nigel Christopher 01.02 Fairview Downs Residents and Owners Association 43.52 43.53 43.54 Hamilton City Council 32.31

KiwiRail Holdings Limited 17.08 17.09 New Zealand Transport Agency 34.09 Silsbee, Scott and Lori 16.10 16.11 Tainui Group Holdings Limited 48.61

West, Jennifer 50.10

Further Submitters

Chedworth Properties Limited FS17.136 FS17.137 FS17.138 FS17.139 FS17.140 FS17.141 FS17.192 Fairview Downs Residents and Owners Association FS3.18

Jennifer West FS19.01 FS19.26 FS19.31 Ruakura Residents Group FS15.20 Tainui Group Holdings Limited FS16.285 FS16.286 FS16.287

1 D-2126400 Submitter list Chapter 25.8

FS16.288 FS16.289 FS16.290 FS16.291 FS16.376 The Waikato Tree Trust FS2.01

Deferred Submitters referred to in this s42A report are prefixed with D. Strikethrough shows that the submission has been withdrawn.

Alan Frederick & Barbara Winifred Julian D1005.005 Allan Liang-chitz & Shirley Tzu-ling Wan D861.005 Bee Chiew Phee D1004.004 Bo & Meggie Han & Wang D1007.005 Brett Hopkins (Ruakura Motors Tractorparts Ltd) D1266.010 Bryce & Natasha Carmichael D910.005 David Evan & Karlene Chibnall D1278.005 David Murray and Karen Lee Young D1280.005 Denise Clark – Silverdale Residents Group D303.004 Derrick Ross & Robyn Mary Marsters D835.005 Hugh and Katie Goodman and Mayes D911.011 Ken & Hong Shang & Wang D827.005 Kerry & Donna Willmott D1257.007 Kung-Yao Lin D831.006 Ming-San (Arvin) & Meng-Chu (Anna) Tang D764.005 Pearce Andrew Watson (Wizardsleeve Holdings Limited) D215.002 Peter & Barbara Ryan D1006.005 Raylene & Saul Cowie & Spriggs D864.004 Robert James Davies - Silverdale Residents Group D265.003 Roland & Wendy Spirig D1279.005 Ross & Leonie Hopkins D1265.009 Ruakura Residents Group and William Roy Cowie D1275.022 D1275.023 Shing-long Lee D1224.005 Susan Hopkins D1264.011 Tainui Group Holdings Ltd D913.084 The University of Waikato D1059.039

2 D-2126400 Submitter list Chapter 25.8

Wei Lee D763.005 William Roy Cowie D928.005

Deferred Further submitters referred to in this s42A report are prefixed with DFS. Strikethrough shows that either the further submission has been withdrawn or the submission to which it relates has been withdrawn.

James Hely and Heather Montgomerie DFS161.001 Jennifer West DFS271.001 Natasha Anne and Bryce Ian Carmichael DFS156.005 Ruakura Residents Group and William Roy Cowie DFS167.026 Russell Vincent Cooper DFS240.006 DFS240.017 University of Waikato DFS47.004 William Cornelis Engelander DFS160.001 William Roy and Raewyn Mary Cowie DFS143.009

3 D-2126400 Submitter list Chapter 25.8