TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF INQUIRY
Basin Bridge Proposal
HEARING at BASIN RESERVE, MT COOK, WELLINGTON on 20 May 2014
BOARD OF INQUIRY:
Retired Environment and District Court Judge Gordon Whiting (Chairperson) James Baines (Board Member) David Collins (Board Member) David McMahon (Board Member) Page 7081
APPEARANCES
Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7082 [9.39 am] CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody, another lovely Wellington morning. 5 MR BAINES: With no wind. CHAIRPERSON: No wind on the day of wind, this is our windy day today. Yes, now we have got the wind experts who are going to be, yes if you 10 could just come forward gentlemen and sit at the witness table. [9.40 am] MS WEDDE: Sir, would you like the witnesses to be introduced or are you 15 happy for them to do that themselves as we did for the other hot tubs? CHAIRPERSON: Well it is up to counsel if you would like to introduce each one. There is one called by NZTA and one called by? 20 MS WEDDE: Yes, we have Mr Jamieson called by NZTA and Dr Donn called by the Architectural Centre. CHAIRPERSON: Well perhaps if you introduce your witness and Mr Milne can introduce his witness, there is only two of them and we will get 25 them sworn in first and I will explain to them how the process works and you introduce your witnesses and we will start. MS WEDDE: Thank you, sir. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you gentlemen. Well this is what we call 35 contemporaneous witnessing. Are both of you or either of you done that before? MR JAMIESON: No. 40 MR DONN: No. CHAIRPERSON: No, very well, well it is very simple. You have both been sworn in and what happens is we have discussions rather than cross- examination of each topic as it has been identified by the parties and 45 you will be asked questions, one of you will be identified and asked a question by the person who is asking the question whether it be one of Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7083 the lawyers or Mr Jones at the back and you give an answer to it and then if the other person would like to comment or add something or disagree with what was said, then you just speak up so you just treat it as a conversation, okay. It is mean to save time and it is also much 5 more interactive as between the experts. MS WEDDE: Good morning, Mr Jamieson, is your full name Neil John 10 Jamieson? MR JAMIESON: It is. MS WEDDE: You have prepared a statement of evidence-in-chief and rebuttal 15 evidence for this inquiry? MR JAMIESON: Yes, that is correct. MS WEDDE: At paragraph 1.3 of your evidence-in-chief you set out your 20 qualifications and experience? MR JAMIESON: That is correct. MS WEDDE: Do you have any corrections to make to your evidence? 25 MR JAMIESON: No. MS WEDDE: Thank you, and you have also prepared a summary statement. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if you get each witness to read their summary please? MS WEDDE: Thank you, the Board has indicated they would like you to read your summary of evidence please? 35 MR JAMIESON: The concise summary of evidence? CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MS WEDDE: Your concise summary of evidence. Thank you. 40 MR JAMIESON: This statement provides a concise summary of my evidence in relation to this project including my evidence-in-chief dated 25th of October 2013 and my rebuttal evidence dated 21st of January 2014. 45 The Background to the Wind Assessment. The wind assessment of the Basin Bridge project that I carried out as part of the assessment of Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7084 environmental effects relied on consideration of the results of wind tunnel studies carried in similar circumstances for similar scale structures in Wellington City and over 25 experience in assessing wind conditions for buildings and structures in urban areas. No wind tunnel 5 testing was performed for the Basin Bridge project for this assessment. As noted in the joint witness statement dated 29th of November 2013 at paragraph 16 I agreed with Dr Donn that a wind tunnel study would quantify the existing wind speed levels and would also identify the 10 effects of the project with more exactness in terms of safety and amenity than a wind assessment. Dr Donn recommends that a wind tunnel study should be undertaken. Opus research does not make recommendations about whether wind 15 tunnel tests are required or not because we are a provider of wind tunnel testing services. [9.45 am] 20 In Wellington we refer any questions in this regard to Wellington City Council and their wind consultant who is currently Dr Donn however, I note that none of the designed elements of the project are greater than 18.6 metres in height which is the height threshold that triggers the requirement under the Wellington City District Plan for a wind report 25 which is either a wind assessment or a wind tunnel study. For this project a wind assessment was carried out despite not triggering the requirement for such a wind report. Wind Assessment – The Existing Wind Speeds. In the worst 30 conditions that would be experienced in a typical year gust wind speeds in the area around the Basin Reserve range from low 10 metres per second or less in very sheltered areas to very high around 25 metres per second in the most exposed locations. 35 These higher wind speeds are generally considered by wind engineers to be potentially dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. Typically wind speeds are highest in the larger open spaces around the wind rid corners of the taller or more exposed buildings and in the gaps between buildings. They are mostly lowest in the areas in the lee (ph 1.27) of 40 buildings or where other structures provide some protection. Assessment of Wind Effects. Pedestrians and Cyclists on the Bridge. Wind conditions at either end of the bridge will be similar to the wind conditions currently experienced in these areas that is the conditions 45 will be as determined by the existing topography, buildings and landscaping. Wind conditions in the central section of the bridge where Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7085 it is above the level of most surrounding buildings are likely at infrequent times to range up to extremely high levels. The orientation of the bridge to the prevailing winds means that there 5 will potentially be a significant cross wind element of exposure for users of the bridge however, as agreed in the joint witness statement at paragraph 11 they will not be strong enough to blow pedestrians or cyclists off the bridge. 10 They may at times be unpleasant or difficult for pedestrians or cyclists to travel in and at the upper levels of wind speeds there is the potential for people to be blown off their feet or bikes, but these latter occurrences will be quite infrequent. Bridge users will not suddenly be trapped in the middle of the bridge with no means of escape. 15 The highest wind speeds will typically occur during the worst storms or gales during the year, usually with considerable warnings of worsening weather. People can choose to brave these conditions or not or take alternatives routes or means of transport as they do in other parts of 20 Wellington, many of which are much windier than the Basin Bridge is likely to be. It is possible to provide additional wind shelter for pedestrians and cyclists on the bridge and I would agreement with the submission that 25 the fence on the shared pedestrian cycle path will not provide significant shelter from the wind. Additional wind shelter could be provided using higher side barriers, either solid or with a maximum porosity of around 30 percent as discussed during expert witness conferencing. 30 The inclusion of additional wind shelter on the bridge was considered but was rejected on urban design and visual grounds. In my opinion, wind shelter on the bridge is desirable but not essential for the bulk of the time wind conditions will generally be acceptable. Signage will 35 also be used to alert bridge users to potentially windy conditions on the infrequent occasions when this occurs and to provide pedestrians and cyclists with information on alternative routes which are available. Vehicles on the Bridge. Vehicles are generally most significantly 40 affected by strong cross winds and these effects are greater for high sided vehicles and motorcycles. Typically the most common effect is to cause tracking variations, although overturning can occur in very extreme events. 45 More at risk vehicles can experience these effects when the gust wind speeds are around 25 metres per second or higher. While vehicles on Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7086 the Basin Bridge will experience gust feeds of this level at infrequent times during a typical year I consider the level of risk to be minor given the relatively short distance of exposure, the 50 kilometre per hour speed limit and the relatively low frequency of occurrence of such wind 5 conditions. It should be noted that wind conditions on the bridge will generally be the same or better than many other exposed roads in Wellington, for example the roads along the Wellington waterfront including Oriental 10 Parade and Cobham Drive. [9.50 am] The Ewen Bridge in Lower Hutt is somewhat similar to the proposed Basin Bridge in terms of the height and orientation and exposure to the 15 prevailing winds. Pedestrians under the Bridge. The bridge is elevated and has a relatively slim vertical profile and consequently does not result in large surface areas being exposed to direct wind flows. Accordingly, it will 20 not have a discernible impact on pedestrian wind conditions under the bridge. This was agreed at the expert witnessing conference as in paragraph 20. The bridge will not cause the area underneath it to become a windswept 25 wasteland. Depending on the final choice of planting that is included in the landscaping wind conditions under the bridge are likely to be improved. Landscaping of the sort that is proposed for areas under the bridge is generally considered to be beneficial in breaking up wind flows and providing shelter from the wind when it is tall enough and 30 dense enough. For the best results mostly evergreen, reasonably dense and a mix of taller or shorter planting is recommended. Planting can also be used to exclude pedestrians from windy areas, for example around the corners 35 of buildings. The proposal to include a low rise building in the open area at the intersection of Kent Terrace and Ellice Street has the potential to significantly improve wind conditions in this area by breaking up wind 40 flows of the neighbouring building providing direct wind shelter and creating a better transition around the corner for pedestrians. There is no particular reason for the area under the bridge to collect windblown garbage as claimed any more so than it currently might. 45 Typically lighter windblown rubbish will collect in collections where there is a recirculating Eddy mostly in partially enclosed areas such as Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7087 dead end streets or alleys. I am not aware of any such significant spaces existing in the immediate area. There are also no such spaces evident in the project plans. 5 This area of Wellington is generally no more susceptible or more exposed to the wind than many other parts of the city. Indeed it is more sheltered than many being further away from the open areas of the waterfront that are exposed in northerly winds, as well as being somewhere protected from southerly wind flows by the surrounding 10 topography around the Basin Reserve. In southerly winds most of the elements of the project are downwind of the Basin Reserve and will have no impact on wind conditions in the ground itself or its immediate surroundings. In northerly winds the 15 relatively slender profile of the bridge means that it will have no discernible effect on wind conditions in the Basin Reserve. The proposed new Northern Gateway Building will have some effects in southerly winds. While the overall impact of the building will be to 20 provide shelter for areas downwind the openings at ground level for the entrance gates will affect wind speeds on the adjacent pavement areas making these noticeably windier except on match days when the gates are closed and screened. 25 The effects could be mitigated by reducing the porosity of the gates to around 30 to 35 percent or lower. Reducing the porosity of the gates would need to be balanced against the desire for a visual connection into the Basin Reserve. The proposed new Northern Gateway Building will provide a degree of additional shelter for the Basin Reserve in 30 northerly winds because of its height and extent along the perimeter. The extent and magnitude of this shelter will depend on the final building design, in other words its height and length and also the porosity of the entrance gates openings. While the ground level 35 entrance gate openings will allow some wind flows to penetrate into the ground most of the time, these will be largely eliminated when the gates are closed and screening on match days. Overall on match days wind conditions on parts of the ground will be 40 improved. How extensive these improvements will be will depend on the final height and extent of the building and the porosity of the entrance gate openings. The expert witness conferencing agreed that there were uncertainties 45 regarding the exact extent and magnitude of the effects of the Northern Gateway Building on some player and spectator areas and the area Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7088 around the gates under the building. It was agreed however that there were no safety issues. If further certainty is desired, a wind tunnel study could be done to quantify the likely effects. In my opinion such a study could be completed as part of the detailed design process for the 5 Northern Gateway Building. [9.55 am] Climate Change. Questions on the potential effects of climate change 10 on wind conditions and particularly the effects of strong winds have been raised in evidence. It is generally agreed that with varying degrees of probability climate change will affect wind conditions with strong winds likely to become more frequent over the longer term. 15 It has been suggested that such a factor should be taken into account and design or mitigation proposals for the project should be reconsidered accordingly. I believe that there is no significant need to incorporate mitigation measures specifically targeted at climate change at this time. 20 Wind mitigation measures in this situation can be incorporated at a later stage if required. Furthermore the magnitude of any changes in wind conditions cannot be predicted with any significant degree of certainty at this time and any changes that do occur are also expected to 25 occur over a relatively long period. During such an extended period it is also highly likely that there will be significant changes in the buildings in the Basin Reserve area that would generally be expected to improve wind shelter. 30 Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Milne? MR DONN: Yes. 40 MR MILNE: Your full name is Michael Robert Donn? MR DONN: Yes. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7089 MR MILNE: You have prepared two statements of evidence, that is your initial statement dated 10 December 2013 and your summary dated 25 March 2014, is that correct? 5 MR DONN: 25 March, yes, indeed. MR MILNE: Can I just confirm that the opinions expressed in those statements are your own? 10 MR DONN: They are indeed, yes. MR MILNE: Any factual matters you deal with are true and correct to the best of your knowledge? 15 MR DONN: Yes. MR MILNE: Now are there any corrections that you want to make to either of those documents? 20 MR DONN: To either of these statements, no. MR MILNE: Thank you, so if you could read your summary just starting from paragraph 1.2, thank you. 25 MR DONN: 1.2 or 2? MR MILNE: 1.2/ MR DONN: Okay, my evidence is given on behalf of The Architectural 30 Centre incorporated and the Newtown Residents Association for the notice of requirement and the five associated applications for resource consent lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority on the 17th of June 2013 in relation to the construction, operation and maintenance of the Basin Bridge project, named project after this. 35 My qualifications and experience area as outlined in my evidence-in- chief so this summary is there a risk of wind speeds on the proposed bridge exceeding the Wellington City Operative District Plan wind speed danger criterion for anything from half a week to five weeks per 40 year more than is currently experienced walking at ground level. The likely wind force will be 80 percent higher than the danger level defined by the city. This is due to the elevation of the road eight to nine metres in the air meaning that the roadway will be exposed to 45 much higher wind speeds than are experienced at ground level. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7090 This may cause pedestrians to be blown off their feet and cyclists and pedestrians to collide, but as stated in the joint witness statement there is no risk of people being blown off the bridge itself. The height of the walkway above normal ground level is the source of the risk. For 5 example when the Met Service reports a wind gust of 120 kilometres an hour at the airport a pedestrian on the ground immediately below the anemometer at the airport will likely experience wind gusts nearer 90 kilometres an hour. 10 Anemometer’s are routinely placed at a height of 10 metres above the ground in town in the open, but influenced by the turbulence of urban buildings at pedestrian height this would be experienced as a gust closer to 24 kilometres an hour. 15 Elevated at 10 metres in town on a structure like the bridge the experience would be 45 kilometres an hour. It is obvious that is possible to find locations elsewhere in Wellington where these kinds of winds are experienced on occasion. 20 However, since the 1980s Wellington City has recognised that this is not a reasonable design criterion to apply when assessing the impact of a new building on the environment, where a risk is identified that pedestrians maybe regularly subjected to winds as strong as these, it is a standard practice for Wellington City to require that the development 25 and possible mitigation measures be wind tunnel tested to establish a reliable prediction of the risk. The goal of the district plan is thus to improve or at least not make worse the wind around the new development. 30 [10.00 am] CHAIRPERSON: We seem to have – Sorry, we seem to have a different - - - MR BAINES: There are a few additions. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR DONN: I am reading the summary of evidence - - - 40 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR DONN: - - - or the summary of - - - MR BAINES: No. We - - - 45 CHAIRPERSON: The statement of evidence. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7091 MR BAINES: We may have a draft. CHAIRPERSON: Summary of evidence, we may have a draft. 5 MR COLLINS: Yes. Well, I have got one dated 26th of March. MR DONN: Two of three, I would – Page three of three? 10 MR BAINES: There is just a few extra sentences, nothing major. Well, in fact, there is quite a lot of detail in there. CHAIRPERSON: Well, quite important sentences. 15 MR DONN: My goodness, sorry, I asked for it to be printed off last night and went, “Okay, that is fine.” The dates on the front are the same as well. Okay. CHAIRPERSON: Well that is all right, can we keep - - - 20 MR DONN: No, no, no, it is clearly an earlier draft that was printed off last night for me to bring today, so I will - - - MR MILNE: Sorry, can I just enquire what dates the Board - - - 25 CHAIRPERSON: The 26th, they are both the same date. MR MILNE: I see. Yes. 30 CHAIRPERSON: But that is okay, can we just swap - - - MR DONN: My goodness. CHAIRPERSON: - - - can we just swap and get the right draft, and we will 35 get you to read from - - - MR DONN: Okay, the correct one, yes. CHAIRPERSON: - - - two point – Yes. 40 MR MILNE: 2.2, I think? MR DONN: 2.2? 45 CHAIRPERSON: 2.2 yes, 2.1 will be the same. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7092 MR DONN: Yes, sorry, I apologise. CHAIRPERSON: It is just as well we got you to read it out. 5 MR DONN: Yes. MR BAINES: Yes, it could be quite important. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 10 MS……….: If you’re happy with that? MR DONN: I prepared notes. 15 MR …………: (INDISTINCT 2.02) CHAIRPERSON: No, that is all right. These things happen in the best of organised societies. And this is not the most best. 20 MR ……….: Right. Are we - - - DISCUSSION MS……….: Mr Donn, (Away from mic INDISTINCT 2.29) 25 MR DONN: Okay. MR BAINES: Well, as you said, there could be some detail - then what does it say, - - - 30 CHAIRPERSON: That could be important. MR BAINES: - - - but that is not here. 35 MS……….: Okay, I’ll see if we can find the other (Away from mic INDISTINCT 2.49) CHAIRPERSON: So we would rather, we would prefer - we will just get - - - 40 MR DONN: The version that I was reading was – I am just checking, there are two paragraphs that are longer. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and there is some information in those two paragraphs that - - - 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7093 MR DONN: Well, it was simplified in consultation with the person who printed this off for me last night. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I see. 5 MR DONN: They were saying, ‘Well, this could be a little too complicated.’ So this version is what has been submitted. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 10 MR…………: (Away from mic INDISTINCT 3.20) MR MILNE: And that has been submitted. 15 MR DONN: Yes, we need to work on the version that has been submitted, I understand. MR MILNE: The version in front of us. Yes. 20 MR DONN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, quite right. MR MILNE: Well, if you could just read from 2.2. 25 MR DONN: From paragraph 2.2, sorry. I think there were too many numbers in the earlier version, so I apologise. CHAIRPERSON: No worries. 30 MR DONN: The height of the walkway above normal ground level is the source of the risk. MR MILNE: Yes. 35 MR DONN: Yes, paragraph 2.2. For example, when the Met service reports a wind gust of, say, 120 kilometres an hour at the airport, a pedestrian on the ground immediately below the anemometer will experience wind gusts nearer 90 kilometres an hour. In town, at pedestrian height, this is 40 closer to 24 kilometres an hour, and on the bridge, 45 kilometres an hour. Where a risk is identified, the pedestrians may be regularly subject to winds as strong as these. It is standard practise for Wellington City to require that the development and possible – I have got a misspelling here. Possible action to the wind tunnel tested to 45 establish a reliable prediction of the risk. Simple two to three metre tall screens added to the bridge to reduce this impact would be effective Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7094 mitigation measures, but they will impact the visual appearance of the bridge. If effective noise barriers were to be constructed on the bridge, they 5 could be designed to be effective wind barriers, but the space under the bridge would be worse, aerodynamically. Assessing more precisely the level of risk and the effectiveness of amelioration measures such as screens requires a wind tunnel test. The current proposal for a sign warning for cyclists and pedestrians about wind conditions is 10 inadequate. [10.05 am] Wind speeds underneath the bridge are not likely to be influenced by 15 the current design of the bridge structure. The Northern Gateway building seems likely to lead to an increased area of shelter within the Basin Reserve, but will move the area on the pitch where the wind is made more turbulent flowing over and around this structure and the R A Vance stand return to the ground. It seems possible that this area will 20 be nearer the cricket pitch area in the middle of the ground. In addition, there is the risk of increased occurrence of winds in excess of the Wellington City Council danger criterion in the gateway opening under the pavilion. Accurate evaluation of the risk and the likely amelioration measures requires a wind tunnel test. 25 This report relies on the wind assessment evidence provided in the NZTA application. This evidence does not include wind tunnel tests which would enable the accurate calculation of how often winds greater than 20 metres per second are likely to be experienced per year. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Donn. Now, could we – The first topic is wind assessment carried out for the project and whether a wind tunnel test is necessary. And Mr Jones, you are going to start the questioning, is that right? 35 MR JONES: Yes, your Honour. So Mr Jamieson, I would like to start with two statements you made in your rebuttal evidence. At 3.4 on page 40 three you said ‘Should a wind tunnel study be required, that could be included in the detailed design stage.’ And at 6.3 you said, ‘Wind tunnel testing of the project would provide numerical data on the existing wind speeds and the effect of the project on these speeds, however a wind tunnel study is not strictly required under the wind 45 rules in the Wellington district plan.’ Was any consideration given to Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7095 doing wind tunnel testing in time for its results to be incorporated in your evidence, and therefore for consideration by the Board? MR JAMIESON: No, we were asked to do a wind assessment for this project 5 and that was all. MR JONES: So there was no consideration of whether it might be preferable to do wind tunnel testing? 10 MR JAMIESON: Not in my personal knowledge, however that may have been matters that were discussed elsewhere by other parties. MR JONES: So you carried out – The applicant requested of you only a wind assessment, and that is what you carried out, is that correct? 15 MR JAMIESON: That is correct. MR JONES: You say that it is not strictly required to do wind tunnel testing. Do you consider that it would be, or rather, would have been, 20 advantageous to do such testing? MR JAMIESON: A wind tunnel test, as I have said in various briefs of evidence, rebuttal evidence, would provide you with more certainty. I do not think a wind tunnel test is critical in this situation, and as I have 25 said, it is also not required under the district plan rules. MR JONES: I appreciate that. Do you consider that there were practical or technical reasons why wind tunnel testing could not have been performed in this case? 30 MR JAMIESON: I am not aware of any from our – from the Opus point of view, no. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, sorry, yes. Dr Donn? 35 MR DONN: Yes? CHAIRPERSON: Feel free to comment. 40 MR DONN: No, I do not have any disagreement here. CHAIRPERSON: That is fine, that is good. MR DONN: The issue is, and perhaps in explanation, I am an advisor to the 45 city council on wind, so in issues where we are under 18.6 metres high for a new development and it is near a public space like a park, the city Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7096 council would routinely consult me to ask whether a wind tunnel test is required even though, technically, the trigger point for the equivalent of four-storeys’ height has not been exceeded. And this is clearly near a park. But it is kind of speculation, it is not more than answering – I do 5 not believe it would add anything more to answering these questions. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. MR JONES: Well, in fact, my next question was for you, Mr Donn. Sorry. 10 And just referring to your evidence in chief, 8.3 page 13, you have said ‘While technically any building less than 18.6 metres in height can apply for resource consent without submitting a wind report, in situations of high public use and interest such as parks and plazas, the city has a strong interest in requiring that an accurate wind report is 15 submitted. Typically, this is a wind tunnel test, not a desktop assessment.’ So would it be reasonable to say that the proposed flyover is an area of high public use and interest? [10.10 am] 20 MR DONN: Yes. MR JONES: And therefore, would it be reasonable to say that typically, a wind report on such a project would include a wind tunnel test? 25 MR JAMIESON: Can I just interject here? CHAIRPERSON: Well let him answer the question first. 30 MR JAMIESON: Sorry. MR DONN: Typically. It is a really interesting – Yes. In the situation where I was asked, as the wind advisor to the city council for the last 30 years, whether a wind tunnel test should be done in a situation like this, not 35 because of the height of the bridge creating a problem but because of lifting people up to a particular height, I would have advised the council one should be done, yes. MR JONES: But you were not asked in this case. 40 MR DONN: I was not asked in this case, no. MR JAMIESON: There have also been – I was – This matter came up in discussions. There have been very few, if any, instances where the 45 council has asked for a wind tunnel study for a development adjacent to a park where the development did not trigger the height rule - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7097 MR……….: Yes. MR JAMIESON: - - - The only instance where a wind tunnel test has been 5 done specifically for a park, and not a development near to a park, is the Waitangi Park down on the Wellington waterfront. MR JONES: And can I ask why it was done in that case? 10 MR JAMIESON: Because it was viewed as a very important public area, and because of the experience of the people involved in that project and previous development projects where wind reports had been done. They recognised that in this case, that a wind tunnel test had value in terms of the amenity of that area. 15 MR JONES: But that was not recognised in this case? MR JAMIESON: I have not been party to any discussions regarding wind issues between - - - 20 CHAIRPERSON: What is the relevance of the Waitangi Park as a park and this bridge as a building? MR JAMIESON: I was just presenting that as an example of a situation where 25 there was no trigger according to the high limit but they did a wind report comprising of a wind tunnel study - was asked for and was done - - - CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 30 MR JAMIESON: By the applicant and not by the city council. MR JONES: Would you agree, Mr Jamieson, that a lack of wind tunnel testing data renders your evidence about the likely wind speed and the level of 35 risk to certain categories users, of both the proposed flyover and the proposed pedestrian cycleway, speculative? In other words, that without wind tunnel testing, you lack sufficient evidence on which to base your conclusions. 40 MR JAMIESON: No, I disagree. I have in excess of 25 years’ experience of carrying out wind tunnel studies and wind assessments in Wellington, including in similar situations to this. MR……….: I guess, do you? 45 MR DONN: Can I? Sorry. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7098 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Donn? MR DONN: I think I would answer that in a slightly different manner. If I was 5 asked the same question, I would answer that the error bars are much bigger. I figure somewhere in the middle is about where we would predict there is a risk, but to be sure that we are not at the high end of those error bars, we would need to do something more than interpret the complexity of the wind environment out here, in relation to where 10 people would be standing eight to nine metres above the ground. So, it is not a case of ‘we cannot make an estimate’, but we can suggest that it is that big or it is somewhere within there. The wind tunnel test is required to provide something that is beyond an estimate and is more accurate. 15 MR JONES: So just to get that clear, what you are saying is that it is possible to make an estimate without a wind tunnel test, but the margin of error of that estimate is much greater - - - 20 MR DONN: Very much greater, yes. MR JONES: - - - without the wind tunnel test. Is that correct? MR DONN: Yes. 25 MR JONES: And would you agree, Mr Jamieson? MR JAMIESON: I would agree, yes. 30 MR JONES: Can you – it might be a difficult questions to answer on the fly – Is it possible to quantify the difference between the margin of error without the wind tunnel test and the margin of error with the wind tunnel test? 35 MR JAMIESON: No, and I say that because I cannot test my estimate against something. I just know that at times I have been wrong. I think the most obvious example would be the Defence Department building, in certain Murphy Street, opposite the old St Paul’s. 40 [10.15 pm] There is a building that breaks all the rules in terms of good aerodynamic design, but it improved – It healed the city by filling in the city. So if you look at it in isolation as a building, it does not follow 45 the rules that you would find in the district plan guidance, but where wind tunnel test that Opus did demonstrated I was completely wrong. I Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7099 was saying to the city council, ‘You want to be careful about this building. That has got a high risk.’ I know I can be wrong, I know I can be right, in those situations. I do not know when I can be, and I cannot estimate how wrong I am in any particular situation, because every 5 situation has a different set of surrounding buildings. MR JONES: And what wind tunnel testing does is allow you to reduce the likelihood that you would be wrong in your assessment. - - - 10 MR JAMIESON: Yes. MR JONES: - - - Is that correct? MR JAMIESON: Yes. 15 MR JONES: And in fact, Ms Weber said under cross-examination, and I am referring here to hearing transcript day 44, page 55, lines 18 to 21. She said, ‘I do know that architects in particular ignore wind experts at their peril, having had at least two years’ seeing architects come in with 20 designs and then go for wind tunnel tests that show that they actually need quite a lot more mitigation for wind on it.’ Would you agree that this statement by Ms Weber supports the view that wind tunnel testing should have been carried out at an early stage in the process, prior to the application being made, or at least prior to evidence being 25 submitted? MR DONN: To me? MR JONES: Yes. 30 MR DONN: Sorry. MR JONES: Sorry. 35 MR DONN: I hate the word ‘should’ in that sentence. ‘Should have been required’? It would be useful for it to be here because I doubt we would be sitting here at all. We would have the evidence. We would not be arguing at all about how important it is. It would be much more useful. To something as ‘should’ requires me to speculate about all sorts of 40 things that I cannot on and am not expert to do so. MR JAMIESON: We would not be arguing so much about the uncertainty, we would be arguing about the actual numbers. 45 MR DONN: Yes. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7100 MR JONES: Thank you for that. MR DONN: And any need for mitigation. 5 MR JONES: Just a couple more questions on wind tunnel testing from me. Mr Donn, in your evidence in chief, 5.3, page 10, you referred that design improvements that had been made to notorious wind spots of the past and the lessons that can be taken from these. And you say, ‘To design any structure in Wellington without careful examination of its 10 aerodynamics seems to ignore those lessons wilfully.’ Would you agree that the proposed Basin Bridge is being designed without careful examination of its aerodynamics, in particular by the failure to perform wind tunnel testing? 15 MR DONN: I cannot stand by that sentence and not agree with you, yes. MR JONES: Thank you. MR DONN: Sorry, yes I would. Sorry. 20 MR JONES: So, you are agreeing with me? MR DONN: Sorry, I am agreeing you. 25 MR JONES: Yes. Thank you. MR DONN: Sorry, I am just being indirect from a moment - - - CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before we - - - 30 MR DONN: - - - It is very unclear. CHAIRPERSON: - - - just before we continue - - - 35 MR DONN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: - - - I know nothing about what a wind tunnel test is. I have been an environment court judge now for 17 years but never had a wind tunnel test or any discussion about it. Could one of you explain to 40 us just what it is? MR DONN: You take a giant fan and you blow air past a building, or a set of models of buildings. The advantage of doing that you – instead of looking at what we would do normally, which is what is our experience 45 of a particular shape of building, you can put that building in a collection of models of all of the surroundings. So you do not just get Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7101 the effect of Wellington’s wind, you get the effect of Wellington’s wind and the local wind environment. So the building across the road that is very big drags wind down and drops it onto your site, is something you have to cope with as well as what you might do to the 5 sites around you. So, in essence, you put tiny little anemometers, model scale, around a model of a section of the city which is typically a block either side of the building that is being tested and two blocks, at least, to the 10 windward of that site, in order to get some idea, as I was talking about with the Defence Department building, the effect not just of the building, but of the building in its context. CHAIRPERSON: So this is a physical test, not a - - - 15 MR DONN: It is a physical test. CHAIRPERSON: It is not a computerised, numerological test? 20 MR DONN: No, no. The bane of our lives is that people keep saying ‘Well if they can design the Airbus, aerodynamically with a computer, why can they not do this?’ And increase the competition in Wellington, because there is only one wind tunnel provider essentially in New Zealand. And the answer is the city is more complicated than the airbus because there 25 is a lot of individual complex blocks that do not just have nice simple airflow around them like an air foil louver for a wing but in fact they are complicated to and creators of turbulence and there is lots of them in that city area that you are modelling in the wind tunnel. 30 [10.20 am] So, right at the moment it is still the best way to measure wind or the effects of buildings on the wind? 35 MR BAINES: How detailed does that model have to be, that physical model? MR JAMIESON: In terms of modelling, we typically model anything in scale of there or about a metre in terms of detail in a building because that is typically the order that has a significant or can have a potential impact 40 on measured wind conditions. So that could include the building façade detailing, canopies, balconies, decks, anything like that. MR COLLINS: How big a model would you need for this bridge? It is quite a large structure horizontally. How far would you need to model? 45 MR JAMIESON: We typically model - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7102 MR COLLINS: What would you do here though, I mean? MR JAMIESON: Sorry? 5 MR COLLINS: What would you do here though? Because it is an usual situation, you do not very often get a building this long. MR JAMIESON: We do not get a building this long but we have done tests, 10 for example, on the entire length of the Wellington Westpac Stadium. So right from north of the stadium through to the railway station which is a considerably longer length than we are talking about here. MR BAINES: How big is your tunnel? 15 MR JAMIESON: We are currently in the process of building our new wind tunnel because we have relocated our facilities from Gracefield to Petone. So the wind tunnel size is 3 metres by 1.5 metres. 20 MR BAINES: So, your model fits inside 2 metres by 1.5 metres? MR JAMIESON: Yes. MR DONN: Did you choose the scale to fit? And you choose the way you 25 model. We modelled when we had a wind tunnel at the School of Architecture, Courtney Place but we modelled it in sections, so, overlapping sections to get that coverage. So, it is very much bigger than anything out her. 30 Actually, I strongly suspect that in 2 metres at, one is to 250, you would get closer to the RA Vance Stand to the alcohol salespeople across the road there. Yes, it is Regional Wines and Spirits, which would be extensive enough to look at the channelling possibly of Cambridge Terrace and the effect of the new building and the bridge. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that. MR JONES: So, I would just like to, before I conclude my questions on wind tunnel testing, I would just like to say that I would like to be able to ask 40 the question, why was the decision made not to do wind tunnel testing? You have said that that is not a matter that you can comment on. It is unfortunate that we are not able to ask a witness who is able to answer that question but I realise that neither of you two can do to. But, I just wish to register to me that is a very important question for which it 45 would be helpful to get an answer and that concludes my questioning on wind tunnel testing. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7103 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Jones. Mr Milne? MR DONN: Yes. 15 MR JAMIESON: Yes. MR MILNE: And both of those relate to three, at least, receiving environments. That is pedestrians and cyclists on the pedestrian and cyclist bridge, pedestrians and cyclists under the bridge and thirdly in 20 the plaza area which is generally under the bridge and around the opening of the northern gateway of the building. Is that a summary of the relevant receiving environments that we are talking here? [10.25 am] 25 MR DONN: For the bridge, yes, for the pavilion here the effects would extent somewhere out into the middle of the Basin Reserve. MR MILNE: Yes, sorry, I should have added the Basin Reserve. And in terms 30 of the variables that are relevant to a wind assessment in terms of those issues, that is amenity and danger, would you both agree that critical variables are wind velocity, wind gust speed, wind direction and the frequency and duration of all of those? 35 MR DONN: Yes. MR JAMIESON: Yes. MR MILNE: And would you agree that wind tunnel testing allows all of those 40 variables to be considered in each of those receiving environments against each of the two issues of interest. That is amenity effects and danger effects. MR DONN: Yes. 45 MR JAMIESON: Yes. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7104 MR MILNE: And in the absence of wind tunnel testing, the best you can go on is taking a wind rose for the area which is an indication of wind speeds and directions. Is that the tool or the base data you are looking 5 at? That is the way it is illustrated isn’t it? MR DONN: It is graphed that way but yes, it is the statistics on which a wind rose would be constructed that we would use as the basis. 10 MR MILNE: A question for you Mr Jamieson, which is, I have not seen a wind rose or a breakdown of the statistics for wind velocities in this area throughout the year on average. Have you looked at that, provided that somewhere in your evidence or in your Technical Report 1? 15 MR JAMIESON: No, I have not. It is been more in descriptive terms. MR MILNE: Right but did you do that? Did you look at the statistics for the number of days per year that the wind comes from a particular direction and is over a particular strength in this area? Is that information 20 available? MR JAMIESON: Not strictly speaking. The way that we do a wind assessment is based on knowing what the wind environment over Wellington city is and then assessing what happens in the specific location with the 25 specific building or development project that you are considering. MR MILNE: Yes, and it is important, isn’t it, to understand the wind direction because with this lengthy structure which is largely aligned in one direction, the effects in terms of crosswinds will depend upon the 30 frequency and duration of winds from a crosswind direction. MR JAMIESON: That is correct. MR MILNE: And we are in a, what has been described as a “valley”. Do you 35 agree that we have increased wind velocities as a result of being in the valley? That is the valley that stretches through from Newtown past the Basin and down to the sea. MR JAMIESON: The channelling effects of the value that we are in are fairly 40 minor; much more minor than for example the channelling that you get round the airport between the hills on either side. MR MILNE: But you have mentioned in your evidence the crosswind component and in terms of pedestrian and cyclists that would be 45 particularly important, wouldn’t it? Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7105 MR JAMIESON: We note it as a factor, yes but it is more the absolute value that whether it crosses that threshold criteria. MR MILNE: And in terms of the threshold criteria from the district plan as I 5 understand it, that is for safety 20 meters per second as a gust speed and that is described as completely unacceptable for walking. Is that the figure we are talking about? MR JAMIESON: That is. 10 MR MILNE: And is that the same figure for cyclists or would there be a lower gust speed that would be unsafe for cyclists? MR JAMIESON: As far as I am aware, that is the criteria in terms of safety 15 that is applied in Wellington regardless. MR DONN: Stability of cyclists is something that I do not think anyone has studied. My recollection, and it is vague, is the only two deaths that have been attributed to wind other than anything else are the classic 20 little old lady on a bicycle. [10.30 am] I hate to use that kind of categorisation but I believe there was one in 25 Utah and there was one, a long time ago, and then one in somewhere in the south of England within the literature. So it would seem that stability is mostly determined by how much of sail area you are wearing. So a large skirt on a bike is not necessarily the best thing to be doing and how fragile you might be when you are knocked over and 30 how fast you are going. Because I believe that if you were Lance Armstrong under all of the drug assistance and cycling fast you would go through pretty much any wind with a reasonable level of stability. A regular cyclist, someone who was light and young and possibly 35 unstable anyway, would be much less stable than a pedestrian. There are so many other factors that would affect the answer to that question. I am not sure it is easy to answer but it does seem to me, that the literature suggests that if you are my sex and heavier, walking across this bridge is going to be less of a problem than if you are lighter and 40 female or small as in young child. MR MILNE: And so what I was getting at is cycling across the bridge, the board has heard evidence from a traffic expert in terms of the width of the bridge. And his suggestion was that it should be wider and the risk 45 he was concerned with related to pedestrian cyclist conflict and the potential for someone to tumble over the barrier into the active traffic Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7106 Now, putting that in a wind context, in terms of that 20 metres per second gust speed, is that an appropriate criteria or risk in terms of cyclists or pedestrians and let us deal with them separately, in terms of that risk. That is, getting blown over the barrier or onto the barrier and 5 then tumbling into the road. MR DONN: I do not know that it is within my expertise that directly. I will need Neil to answer it as well but to attempt an answer, it depends on the height of the barrier obviously but the greater conflict for me is the 10 instability of the pedestrians and the cyclists passing each other on the same piece of track rather than the danger to the cyclist of being tossed into the traffic. I think it would be a far more regular occurrence, well below 20 metres a second, that instability of people walking or cycling, sharing the same roadway, the same walkway would be the danger. 15 And it is not a danger in terms of death, it is a danger in terms of injury. MR MILNE: Moving away from the safety criteria. The comfort criteria are considerably lower aren’t they, 3.5 metres per second which corresponds to the threshold danger level. So, we have got 3.5 metres 20 per second as being the threshold danger level and 20 metres per second as being completely unacceptable from the District Plan. You are both familiar with those figures, aren’t you? MR DONN: They are completely different criteria. The safety criteria is in 25 terms of gust speed, the other criteria are more in terms of amenity. MR MILNE: Yes. MR DONN: That is comfort. 30 MR MILNE: And then 2.5 metres per second, generally the limit for comfort when sitting for periods in an open space, we can probably put that one aside since I think people are probably not going to be sitting on the bridge but maybe in the plaza area. The 3.5 metres per second then, is 35 that the appropriate criteria which is described as the threshold of danger level? Is that the appropriate criteria in terms of or a guide to what may be unpleasant to pedestrians and cyclists on the bridge? MR DONN: I am not quite sure you what - - - 40 MR JAMIESON: Are you sure you are quoting - - - MR MILNE: I am quite, maybe - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7107 MR JAMIESON: We both tried to make over the last 10 years, the criteria for the District Plan easier to understand and I am pretty sure 3.5 metres a second. 5 MR MILNE: Maybe if I put the relevant District Plan document to you, spare copies for the board. MR JAMIESON: Is low, the threshold of danger is like 20 metres per second and your gust speed - - - 10 MR BAINES: Can I ask a question here, Mr Milne? MR MILNE: Yes, certainly. 15 MR BAINES: Almost of you, actually, you are saying 20 metres per second is the threshold for safety matters and is your last question in a sense are you saying and in terms of amenity on the bridge does any wind speed above 3.5 start to be reflected in loss of or reduction of amenity? 20 [10.35 am] MR MILNE: What I am asking the witness is, is their guidance as to what is the wind gust speed because I think we are talking wind gusts here at which it will become sufficiently unpleasant on the bridge that people 25 will not want to use the bridge. MR BAINES: It is more about the pleasantness rather than the risk of harm? MR MILNE: I am referring here to page 13/47. I maybe misunderstanding 30 the provisions and I am assuming you are both rather more familiar with them then I am. CHAIRPERSON: We are looking at what sorry? 35 MR MILNE: This is from the district plan excerpts and at page 13/47 which is the last page of the document there is at 13.635.3 in italics for information purposes the effects of wind speeds which correspond to those used in the safety criteria are, am I understanding these right? 40 MR DONN: Yes, but, we recognise it makes sense to us but not in the way that italic explanation is. If you read just above that the criteria are all about the mean wind speed over an hour of 3.5 or 2.5 metres per second in the actual criteria on pages 13/46 and 13/47. That is a very different number than the gust that might occur over a three second 45 period which would be very much stronger than that so 3.5 average Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7108 wind speed over an hour is much more about amenity that is why these are in there. That is the point at which, the gust would be easily twice that on a 5 regular basis and could easily be 20 metres per second once in that hour but the mean wind speed over that hour would be the 3.5. The question that you were asking was, how did I get that so wrong because I could not understand, but I do now. 10 MR MILNE: To make I am understanding and the Board is understanding if the Board wanted and this is related to the wind tunnels because I assume that if you were asked to go and do a wind tunnel test for the purpose of assessing the number of days per year on average where the bridge would be unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists and the number of 15 days on a year on average where the bridge would be unpleasant to the extent that pedestrians and cyclists were deterred from using it that is something that you could do? MR DONN: Yes. 20 MR MILNE: But the question would be what would be the criteria, what would be the wind speed or the average that you would be looking at for the amenity effect? 25 MR DONN: The amenity effect would be exceeding that 3.5 criteria and the way the wind regulations are meant to work is because they have to relate to all possibly places around the city. You take what is the norm which is the wind speed currently at ground level and so if you take people and lift them in this particular case nine metres above the 30 ground, how many extra hours a year do you add to what is already a windy place so you can take being on the waterfront or being in the middle of Lambton Quay to extremes of very exposed or very sheltered and what you are looking at is the change in the number of hours per year that 3.5 metres per second criterion would be exceeded. We put in 35 there that 170 hours which is approximately a week is the limit that would be tolerated in any normal circumstance around a building. MR MILNE: Yes, so on that point at 2.2 of your evidence, Mr Donn, you have raised this issue and I think you deal with it in more detail in your 40 original evidence so I am looking at 2.2 of your summary. That is there a known relationship between height and above ground and wind velocity as a result of ground friction if I could use a laypersons term. MR DONN: Yes, ground friction is fine. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7109 [10.40 am] MR MILNE: So there is a concept of wind gradient and you have illustrated that by saying at ground level 24 kilometres per hour on the bridge 5 would be 45 kilometres per hour or maybe? MR DONN: Yes, assuming that I know nothing about the buildings around, I had no way that is why you do the wind tunnel test. I could be lower or higher depending on the effect of the surrounding buildings and other 10 structures which is why my colleague was saying maybe. MR MILNE: You are illustrating the general relationship? MR DONN: Yes, absolutely. 15 MR MILNE: Getting back to where wind tunnel testing is required or sorry firstly Mr Jamieson, you do not give a figure do you for the number of days per year on average where the bridge would exceed the amenity criteria? 20 MR JAMIESON: That is correct. MR MILNE: Do you do that in terms of the danger criteria? 25 MR JAMIESON: No, not in a wind assessment. MR MILNE: In terms of the district plan and wind tunnel testing if I could just take you to pages, the second and third pages which is 3/9 and 3/10. Now at the bottom of the page 3.2.2.15, a wind tunnel test report 30 must be supplied to show compliance with the wind standards. The wind tunnel test must examine the effects of the proposed building upon all areas open to the public including roads, parks, malls, plaza’s, public car parks, then we get forecourt area. 35 Now we are dealing with an area here that involves a park, a proposed plaza area and roads and a pedestrian and cycle bridge open to the public, are we not? MR JAMIESON: Yes. 40 MR MILNE: Then there are exceptions to that over the page at 3.2.2.1.5A a wind assessment report so without a wind tunnel assessment. It may be provided instead of a wind tunnel test at the discretion of council officers and then it provides examples of situations where a wind 45 assessment report maybe provided instead of a tunnel test report, so in other words we know a tunnel test report is required. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7110 The first one is where the proposed building or addition is consistent with other building heights in the neighbourhood. There is only a small change in scale compared to the existing buildings and incorporates 5 wind mitigation measures such as verandas, setbacks and breezeways. Would you both agree that this building whilst it may be consistent with the height of other buildings in the neighbourhood is not of small scale in terms of change compared to existing buildings and it does not incorporate wind mitigation measures as such. 10 MR JAMIESON: While I would agree that it is not in small scale but I would disagree that it does not completely exclude any wind mitigation measures. 15 MR MILNE: The second one where the proposed work is for a minor rooftop addition which is a set back from the sides to the building and where the proposal involves a structure that will not impeded wind flows, aerials and masts, neither of those last two are relevant are they? 20 MR JAMIESON: That is correct. MR MILNE: Would you agree that the important difference between this, what is proposed here and one of the important differences and the sort of buildings, so apartment buildings and the like that might normally be 25 assessed is that here we are effectively dealing with the public being on the roof of the apartment building if I can use the analogy that is, we are dealing with a public spaces on top of the structure in a windy environment, are we not? 30 MR JAMIESON: Not strictly speaking. An apartment building, the roof thereof is not public space under the terms of - - - MR MILNE: That is what I am saying, that is the difference here so looking at these criteria, they are not directly applicable because we are dealing 35 with a different situation here which is we are not only dealing with ground level effects, we are dealing with the effects of elevating pedestrians and cyclists up into a higher wind environment, are we not? [10.45 am] 40 MR JAMIESON: Yes, that was the point that I was trying to make. The risk here is not the structure impeding the wind but where you place the pedestrians and lifting them to an area where there is a risk, not quantified, the wind speed is more than almost twice what it would be 45 at ground level is what is of a concern and as I said before if I was asked by the city council whether a wind tunnel test should be required, Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7111 should we be looking at it from the standard RMA requirements under the district plan, then I would be recommending they require one. MR MILNE: In terms of the Wellington wind environment am I right in my 5 brief 25 odd years’ experience in Wellington that the strongest winds come from primarily the north and secondly the south east and thirdly the north west, have I got that order correct? MR JAMIESON: The northerly winds tend to be more frequent in terms of 10 overall occurrence. In terms of strong winds northerlies and I am being very general there which is north to north westerly winds and south, south westerly winds occur with approximately the same frequency. MR MILNE: South to south would include south east would it not, south 15 easterly, south westerly’s often involve, can involve gale force winds. MR JAMIESON: Yes, and as can north north westerly’s. MR MILNE: In terms of the alignment of the bridge that is largely aligned 20 across those vectors, is it not? MR JAMIESON: As I have said in my evidence. MR MILNE: Yes, so there has been no assessment of the number of days a 25 year where the bridge is likely to be unattractive for pedestrians and cyclists? MR JAMIESON: Yes, we have said that. 30 MR MILNE: Yes, and I think we have agreed that such an assessment can be provided by way of a wind tunnel assessment. MR JAMIESON: Yes, no, no, sorry. 35 MR...... : I think we should clarify the difference between a wind assessment and a wind tunnel test. MR MILNE: A wind tunnel test is what I meant sorry. Mr Donn, I know I have asked you if you could provide to the Board an assessment and of 40 the number of days of - - - MR DONN: And I - - - MR MILNE: And you declined to do so and could you explain why you 45 declined? Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7112 MR DONN: The aero bars become such that you are looking at something that would vary from year to year and I could be anything from 100 days to 200 days a year when it would be unpleasant to be that far up on a structure and I could be completely wrong, it just does not seem 5 worth putting something in evidence when I have so little, other than a guestimate to base it on. The guestimate is what is the effect of all of the buildings in the area when I know for example the statistics we base our conclusions on for 10 Wellington City state that 150 metres above the city the wind speeds are about the same as they are 10 metres above the airport? I also note that data is based on measurements that were made in Thorndon and what little measurements have been made around Te 15 Papa suggest that it is about 30 percent faster from the north around Te Papa than it is in Thorndon. To then estimate what we have here I am lost. I would not dare put that in writing. I could talk about it but I would not dare put it in writing. 20 MR MILNE: We do know that there are a considerable number of days per year in Wellington where there are strong winds which will then be further increased by the height of the structure? 25 MR DONN: You will be exposed to them at a higher, yes. MR JAMIESON: Sorry, if I could just, not increased by the height of the structure they are there in windy situations as they are now, all you are doing is - - - 30 MR MILNE: I was being imprecise. Would it have been a relatively simple exercise to have clipped on an anemometer to the side of one of these buildings or on a post somewhere around the same height and connected it to a data logger and got a year’s data in terms of wind 35 speeds at that particular height. MR JAMIESON: I am not quite sure what your point would be in doing that? [10.50 am] 40 MR MILNE: Well would that not in the absence of a wind tunnel assessment at least have allowed the Board to understand the number of days per year where winds in the location of the proposed flyover would be over a particular velocity? 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7113 MR JAMIESON: No, that would only allow you to understand the number of days that wind speeds were exceeded a particular level at that specific anemometer location. 5 MR DONN: I can expand on that. The first thing is you would not put it on this building because this building, anything that would be sitting on this building would be disturbed by, the wind flows would be what this building was doing rather than what would be up where the bridge would be so you would have to have a mast 10 metres high up there. 10 As an academic I would love to have a lot more data like that around the city so I could do this things in terms of relationship between Thorndon and Te Papa, but you could then if you related that measurement to what was happening at the airport at the same time and 15 only then predict what might happen on an annual basis. All that would tell you is about that year at that height. You would then need to do the work to actually relate that year to typical years so yes you could but it would require that extra work. 20 MR MILNE: That would be the sort of assessment that you would do if you were putting in a wind turbine for example to work out the amount of time that the wind was going to be over a particular - - - 25 MR DONN: That is one of the bane’s of my life that we take more interest in the performance of the wind turbine than the pedestrian comfort in the city. MR BAINES: Mr Milne, can I just follow up on this. What you are saying is 30 it would have been a simple matter to put a 10 metre mast at an appropriate place or is Mr Jamieson going to take issue with that? MR JAMIESON: While that may have some value I think the value would be limited and the value would not be minor, sorry the cost would not be 35 minor. MR BAINES: Of putting a 10 metre mast somewhere in the Canal Reserve away from the building. It seems to me there are two points, one is actually gathering the data from an appropriate spot and the other is 40 correlating that data as you say with the airport data so you then can interpret from a year’s data in one spot, maybe a sort of longer term time series consequences? MR JAMIESON: Again you are talking about a single location where on the 45 bridge we are talking about a span of - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7114 MR BAINES: But are you saying that a single location and a point on the bridge that would be most exposed to cross winds is of no (INDISTINCT 2.53) 5 MR JAMIESON: Oh, yes. MR BAINES: It seems to me you have said in fact there are no estimates of the number of days when the wind there might reach a threshold of any kind whether it is the 3.5 average or whether it is the 20 metre per 10 second gust or what have you. We do not have any information on that and yet those are being talked about as points of relevance in terms of understanding the utility, particularly the pedestrian and cycle bridge. I do not know whether you are prepared to take out, but do you see in fact the wind conditions as being a significant factor in just how much 15 that pedestrian and cycle bridge will be used? MR JAMIESON: Yes, well I do definitely, yes. MR DONN: I do not, believe that the amount of time that the bridge will be, 20 or the conditions on the bridge will not be useable for pedestrians or will pass the threshold of safety will be very small. MR BAINES: What do you mean by very small, what percentage of the time? 25 MR JAMIESON: I mean trying to put it in layman’s terms the data that we measure in the wind tunnel study and the data that relates to the criterion in the district plan. Essentially we are looking at the worst storm in any typical year so the gusts would be, the conditions that we would measure in a wind tunnel study are those conditions that you 30 expect, in that sort of typical, or the worst in that typical year. You get wind conditions after that, that are obviously much less so if you are talking maybe half a dozen storms passing through a year that would reach those sort of levels and so you are talking about, you are talking about a very small proportion of the year. 35 MR DONN: I can add to that, if you are talking about the data that we have been talking about in terms of the risk of danger, it is a small number of storms a year. People in those circumstances, I do not believe we would get as far as a sign that said, ‘Do not use the bridge,’ - - - 40 [10.55 am] MR MILNE: No. 45 MR DONN: - - - they would choose somewhere else to walk. The issue for me, and it is an issue that comes up when we are talking about design Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7115 around an apartment that is 20 storeys tall or 10 storeys tall is, are we making a route that people would choose to use on a regular basis, or are we making a route that is sufficiently notorious that people would regularly use some other route? 5 And to me, the risk is that it would be a route that people were going, ‘Yes, but – we will go somewhere else’ on a regular basis. And that is the – The ‘Yes, but’ is where I am talking is that 100 or 200 days a year. I cannot predict how often, but I do not believe it is a few storms 10 a year. A few storms a year is definitely danger. The question of amenity, is this something that is, personally, is it worth building a bridge that far above the ground that would not be used very often? Is the question that I keep looking at and saying, why would you spend that much money to lift people up into an area where they will be much 15 less comfortable than working at the grade. That is the - - - MR MILNE: So Mr Donn, on that point, it is illustrated by your 2.2 in your summary is it not, that people would – If the wind screens on the bridge are at 45 kilometres an hour, people would have a choice. They could 20 go down and be down at 24 - - - MR DONN: 24. MR MILNE: - - - kilometres per hour - - - 25 MR DONN: Yes. MR MILNE: - - - down at ground level. 30 MR DONN: Yes, and that is the worst-case situation. The much more likely is – So that is the danger level. There would be other times when it is still half or thereabouts, the wind on alternate routes, - - - MR MILNE: Yes. 35 MR DONN: - - - alternate routes that are also down amongst the trees. So they would actually be even lower than what you would experience up with a handrail beside you. 40 MR MILNE: I think I have probably covered some of my next sections of questions here anyhow, but just on the amenity effect, Dr Donn, what experience do you have in that area of the effect of wind on comfort levels and amenity values? 45 MR DONN: I am going to talk about both of those, actually, - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7116 MR MILNE: Well, start. MR DONN: - - - in a roundabout way. So one of the research projects that we were fortunate to receive government funding for and subcontracted to 5 Opus to do, was to study the effect of wind, sun, and temperature on people’s amenity. I currently have a master’s student looking at doing that – trying to develop a tool based on that research for Christchurch, to predict what it would be like to be outside in the middle of winter or outside in the middle of summer. And a clear issue is that from the 10 research which was sidling people in places like Midland Park and asking them, ‘Why are you sitting there?’ And measuring the temperature and the sun and so-forth at the same time, is that we need warmth from the sun as well as protection from the wind in Wellington, to be comfortable outdoors. The temperature is much less of an issue. 15 But if you were talking about amenity, the space under the bridge will be much less comfortable because of the shade. If you were talking about it as an outdoor space that people would sit in, probably not. If you were talking about it as an outdoor space people would walk 20 through, they walk through it, they would be sheltered by the trees, they would be comfortable so long as they kept walking. But I am not sure, is that answering the question? Essentially my – it is an interest and a current interest of mine, so you would probably need to stop me at some point and say I have answered the question. 25 MR MILNE: That is probably sufficient. MR DONN: Yes. 30 MR MILNE: Mr Jamieson, do you want to add anything on that? MR JAMIESON: I think the issue of amenity on the bridge is far less important than the issue of safety. People are not going to be stopping and sitting or standing for long lengths of period, I should imagine, on 35 the bridge. MR MILNE: Just on the safety issue, and you have probably addressed this in both of your evidence, but moving from pedestrian and cyclist to high- sided vehicles, and I think the figure that has been used in terms of a 40 screen for cricketing purposes has been four-and-a-half metre high vehicle. Have you considered how often there would be wind gusts sufficient that there would need to be an advisory for vehicles to avoid the bridge because of the risk of losing control? Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7117 [11.00 am] MR DONN: We, well, I have not at all, I can answer that. I do not consider myself having any real knowledge of how vehicles behave in the wind. 5 MR JAMIESON: We have done some little work on that, and that really is not a big issue. We looked at information in the literature to see what potential thresholds of wind speed were a problem. And we also looked at the crash histories around Wellington to see whether there were any 10 significant proportion of accidents where wind was the major or primary issue. And I cannot remember – it is in my evidence, but essentially over a considerable period of time, there were, I think, five, six, or seven accidents where wind was even – Or sorry. Where the wind conditions were cited as being very strong, but in those situations 15 there were also other contributing factors in that it was most usually wet as well. So the issue of effects on high-sided vehicles is a very minor one. MR MILNE: We do occasionally have wind warnings given in terms of the 20 Desert Road is one area I can think of, and presumably elsewhere. MR JAMIESON: The Rimutaka’s are another one. MR MILNE: And we see signs, sometimes, in front of bridges, warning of 25 wind gusts to be expected going over those bridges. This bridge is different, or, this proposed bridge is different from, for example, the Hutt motorway, because it would run across a valley and across direction of the winds, would it not? 30 MR JAMIESON: Yes, we have mentioned about the effect of crosswinds on vehicles and to some lesser extent, to people. However, the bridge and the conditions on the bridge are going to be, in many respects, no different to the wind conditions that are currently experienced on Cobham Drive, for example, where the wind conditions are 35 significantly crosswind. MR MILNE: So are you able to confidently say, Mr Jamieson, in the absence of wind tunnel tests, that there will be no situations where the road will have to be closed or advisories issued to high-sided vehicles such as 40 campervans because of the risk of them losing control. MR JAMIESON: I am not aware of any situations particularly, where roads have been closed only because of high winds. It really is a choice in terms of what threshold that the agency or the controlling authority 45 decides to make to advise people about high winds. They could decide that they wanted to take a lower threshold, just for - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7118 MR MILNE: So there is not a threshold number as to at what point, when one is going across a bridge? So take it out of this situation, we have got a bridge or road viaduct crossing a windy valley somewhere, is there no 5 criteria for saying, ‘At this wind gust speed, we should be closing the road to campervans.’? MR JAMIESON: Not that I am specifically aware of, no. 10 MR MILNE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Milne. Ms Wedde. 20 MR JAMIESON: I would essentially, in a wind assessment, we firstly would typically perform a site visit just to – for my own familiarity, we would do it as a matter of course to just establish the context of what is being proposed, both in terms of the typography, the surrounding buildings, the orientation of the streets. We would then look at the plans for what 25 is proposed and put that in that context of where it is going to be. And we then make an assessment of what we expect the effects to be based on our experience in similar situations. So for example, if we were assessing a simple building as such, we would consider buildings of that size and scale in similar situations. 30 In this situation I included an assessment of the work that I have previously done in similar situations, for example, as I said the stadium, Westpac Trust Stadium is a case in point where you have an elevated pedestrian walkway between the stadium and the railway station. 35 [11.05 am] And then we make a general assessment in terms of what we would expect those effects to be on the gust speed. We don’t make an 40 assessment typically on the amenity or the length of time of that exposure because there is, we have both indicated an assessment does have a higher degree of uncertainty in terms of those numbers. MS WEDDE: Thank you. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7119 MR BAINES: Can I ask, thinking about the elevated bridge over whatever the quay is near the Westpac Stadium - - - MR JAMIESON: The City to Sea Bridge. 5 MR BAINES: No, near the Stadium. MR JAMIESON: No, sorry, the other one, the one that goes to the Stats building? 10 MR BAINES: Near the Stadium? MR JAMIESON: Yes. 15 MR BAINES: I mean, further north from the railway station, you know, is that some sort of kind of analogous situation you are referring to? MR JAMIESON: Yes. 20 MR BAINES: How high is that bridge above the ground level? MR JAMIESON: I couldn’t tell you offhand. MR BAINES: And it is quite a broad bridge, isn’t it? 25 MR JAMIESON: Mm. MR BAINES: From memory, it is probably 10 metres wide, isn’t it? I don’t mean the length of the bridge, I mean the width of the bridge. 30 MR JAMIESON: No, I don’t think it is quite that wide, but it is a reasonable size, sir. MR DONN: It must be at least two vehicles wide, so it is more than that, yes. 35 MR BAINES: Yes. Thank you. MS WEDDE: And Mr Jamison, in relation to a wind tunnel test you made the comment earlier that you don’t see that that is critical for this project? 40 MR JAMIESON: No, I don’t think it is critical. MS WEDDE: So that is still your opinion? 45 MR JAMIESON: Yes. I mean, normally we would not comment on the need of not for wind tunnel tests simply because we are a provider of wind Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7120 tunnel tests and as such we have a vested interest in that. But this proposal does not exceed the council’s own threshold criteria for a wind tunnel study and they had the choice, I would assume, to require a wind tunnel study in this case and did not. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Well, the council are not the authority in this case. MR JAMIESON: Well, sorry, council, with the advice of - - - 10 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we are relying on experts to advise us – we are the authority. MR JAMIESON: the council, as I understand it, had the choice to ask for that expert advice. 15 MS WEDDE: What his Honour is explaining is in effect the Board is in that position for this project. MR JAMIESON: Okay. 20 MS WEDDE: Because they are assessing the effects of this project. MR JAMIESON: Well it certainly never came to me to consider advice to the council, sir. 25 CHAIRPERSON: So that is fine. We are not interested in what the council would have done, because the council aren’t involved. MR JAMIESON: Yes. 30 CHAIRPERSON: And we haven’t got quite the same powers as the council and we are relying on you, as experts, to give your personal expert opinion as to what you think, not what you think the council did or didn’t do. Do you understand? 35 MR JAMIESON: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses requires you to consider your views as you objectively think, having regard to 40 your own expertise, to advise us. MR BAINES: Did I understand you to say, Mr Jamieson, that what you are asked to do wind assessments of any project, set aside this one for the time being, any project in Wellington, you would consult the council 45 about whether or not it is appropriate to do certain levels of Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7121 assessment? I mean, because you know what, you can read the plan, you know what the actual trigger is - - - MR JAMIESON: Yes. 5 MR BAINES: - - - but it seems to me you have also said, yes, but there may be other circumstances under which the council might say “well under these circumstances we think you should do X, Y or Z”. 10 MR JAMIESON: We would normally ask anybody that approached us for a wind report to contact the council and to specifically ask them what was required, whether that be a wind assessment or a wind tunnel test. MR BAINES: You would ask them to do that – you wouldn’t do that 15 yourself? MR JAMIESON: No, we don’t do that ourselves. MR BAINES: Right. 20 MR JAMIESON: Typically. MR BAINES: And do you know if that happened? 25 MR JAMIESON: I do not know. [11.10 am] MS WEDDE: Now in terms of the conditions that are being proposed for this 30 designation, I am not sure if you had a chance to look at those, Mr Donn, probably not? MR DONN: You might need to explain what you mean by “the condition that are being proposed”. I don’t think I have, sir. 35 MS WEDDE: There is a set of proposed conditions for the Board to consider if they are minded to grant the designation. MR DONN: Right. 40 MS WEDDE: And I wonder if we could turn to condition DC.21A Network Integration Plan? CHAIRPERSON: Has this been amended recently? 45 MS WEDDE: Yes. I am referring to - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7122 CHAIRPERSON: Because I think I have left mine – the new copy out in the - - - 5 DISUCSSION CHAIRPERSON: Well, what say we take the morning tea adjournment now. MS WEDDE: Okay. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Before you get onto that and we will get our copies. MS WEDDE: Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON: And we will make sure you have one each as well. ADJOURNED [11.12 am] RESUMED [11.35 am] 20 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Wedde. MS WEDDE: Thank you, sir. So I was just about to ask us to look at the conditions, but just before we do that, Mr Jamieson, you have 25 expressed the view that a wind tunnel test is not critical for this project. Can you tell us why that is your opinion please? MR JAMIESON: There are two aspects of this. One is in terms of the trigger requirements in the district plan, but also in terms of my assessment of 30 effects, that I do not think the effects as such are sufficiently major to warrant a wind tunnel study. MS WEDDE: And in terms of the pedestrian cycleway and wind levels that you anticipate there based on your wind assessment, are there any 35 comparable facilities throughout Wellington that you can refer us to? MR JAMIESON: Not that are actually specifically designated in that respect. But in terms of the wind conditions, the Wellington waterfront areas will be a similar level of exposure and wind speed. 40 MR DONN: Can I comment at this point? It seems to me that this is the heart -IF where we disagree about anything it is where we disagree. My role in advising the city council is to actually identify how to make the city better. That is the purpose of the district plan. That is what I operate 45 under. And any condition that says – and I guess I sit across the table from aggressive and not aggressive lawyers representing developers Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7123 who are saying, ‘Look, it is no different than other parts of Wellington.’ Mike would be inclined to say. And the answer is, why should we set the tolerance level for a new 5 development equal to the worst that we can find in other places in Wellington? And the answer to that is, clearly, we should not, otherwise we have no reason to have a wind tunnel test. We just accept that we go back to the 1920s when people used to help people around corners, when traffic officers were stationed to help people across the 10 road and around corners. It is just what happens. This is to avoid adding more windy places to our environment in Wellington. MS WEDDE: So staying with that point, Dr Donn, in terms of the shared cycleway between the National War Memorial Park and the tunnel, do 15 you agree that that is just one section of that route? MR DONN: So you are talking about up here rather than out on the bridge, is that right? 20 MS WEDDE: Sorry, the proposed shared pedestrian cycleway will go between the National War Memorial Park and the Mt Victoria tunnel. MR DONN: Okay, yes. 25 MS WEDDE: So we could expect people using the bridge are people either coming from Mt Victoria suburb or from the eastern suburbs, moving along the bridge and into the National War Memorial Park. MR DONN: Yes. 30 MS WEDDE: Would you agree that the cycleway is just a small portion of that total journey? MR DONN: Yes. 35 MS WEDDE: And along the rest of the journey, pedestrians and cyclists will have to deal with wind conditions along the way. MS DONN: Yes, at ground level they would be expected – once the bridge 40 returns to ground level, they would be expected to be experiencing lower wind speeds that you would expect on the ground. As you get elevated into higher wind speeds, you would be exposed to a different wind condition. 45 MS WEDDE: And Mr Jamieson, just come back to my question to you. In terms of other pedestrian-cyclist paths around the city, you referred to Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7124 the waterfront as an example of paths which may experience similar wind conditions, did I understand that correctly? MR JAMIESON: That is correct. 5 MS WEDDE: And is there any particular wind mitigation along those paths as far as you are aware? MR JAMIESON: Not that I am aware of that has been specifically placed in 10 terms of wind mitigation. It is often more accidental than planned. MR DONN: There are two places. The two bridges on the waterfront have specifically designed wind breaks so that you can choose to walk in and enjoy the exposure of the wind on the waterfront, or to avoid the 15 exposure. [11.40 pm] The ones at the end where the Waitangi Park drains out to the sea and 20 the lagoon, again, has a different design of wind break but it is designed for the same purpose. Down the centreline in both cases. MS WEDDE: And I think we – no, sorry, just one moment. And Dr Donn, you have told us that you are the council’s preferred advisor on wind 25 issues, and where they seek wind advice they turn to you for advice, is that correct? MR DONN: I am just demurring at the notion of ‘preferred’, but yes. I think a 30-year experience of being employed by them as a consultant would 30 probably – I would have to agree with you, yes. MS WEDDE: All right, now, are you aware that the council support the pedestrian-cycle bridge and the Northern Gateway building, the two features that seem to be attracting the most attention in terms of wind 35 effects? MR DONN: It did occur to me, yes. MS WEDDE: Yes, and they have not come to you for any advice on the 40 point, I take it? MR DONN: No, I had to ask myself, was there a conflict of interest? And at that stage, and certainly they have not talked to me since, there is not. 45 MS WEDDE: Okay, so turning then to the conditions. To the extent that there may be a concern, if we could look please at DC 21A, which is the Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7125 network integration plan starting on page 19, so this is the version of the conditions that was arrived at following conferencing of the planning experts last week. And the track changes show their last suggested changes. Now, at paragraph A9, that states that the NIP shall 5 include – Sorry, the Network Information Plan shall include details of proposed physical works and shall address such matters as - - - CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what are we reading from? 10 MS WEDDE: Sorry, sir. DC 21A, paragraph A9. So I am on page 20. And so that states that “the network integration plan shall include details of proposed physical works and shall address such matters as”, and then at 9, “overall safety and service levels of the road, pedestrian and cycle network within the project area”. This is a question for either of you, do 15 you agree that to the extent that wind effects are a concern on the pedestrian-cycle path, that could addressed through that condition? MR DONN: It looks like a condition you could drive a bus through, so yes, I suspect it could. Over-all safety and service, I would want the 20 definition of ‘service.’ If we are talking about amenity, the likelihood of people using the bridge, then I suspect, yes. But the issue I guess is at what stage would this be done, prior to the confirmation of the design or in development of the design? 25 MS WEDDE: So Dr Donn, the lead-in paragraph to that condition generally states that the requiring authority shall prepare, in collaboration with the city council and regional council, a Network Integration Plan. So the point I am putting to you is that if the council is concerned about wind effects on the cycle path, they could seek advice or the three 30 parties could seek advice at that point, and that could be considered under 21A A9, which requires the NIP to consider the over-all safety and service levels of the road, pedestrian and cycle networks within the project area. Do you accept that? 35 MR DONN: Again, I have to say it is a – If I was reading this, because I had to read it twice to see if it was actually relevant to anything that I would consider relevant to wind. The notion that this is about a network, public transport and roadway system, as the introductory paragraph suggests, and then asks for over-all safety and service levels – I would 40 want something that was more specifically saying ‘What was the amenity to the pedestrians and cyclists in this area?’ To make it clear that this is not about vans driving off the road and other things. But yes, I would have to agree, yes. You could interpret it that way. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7126 [11.45 am] MS WEDDE: Mr Jamieson, do you have any comment on that? 5 MR JAMIESON: No, I would agree the condition is sufficiently broad that it could cover that issue. MS WEDDE: And just so we are clear in terms of the scope of concern that we are dealing with. I think it is correct that in the Joint Witness 10 Statement you both agreed that there was no risk of vehicles falling off the bridge. MR JAMIESON: Absolutely not, no. 15 MS WEDDE: And there is no risk of pedestrian cyclists falling off the bridge? MR JAMIESON: Not being blown off, no. 20 MR DONN: It is the notion of someone being lifted. MS WEDDE: And we discussed earlier the two concerns that we may have in terms of use of the pedestrian and cyclist path as being a level at which there is a danger to pedestrians and cyclists. That is that they may be 25 pushed off their feet and in terms of that risk, Dr Donn, I heard you say that would be very infrequent and I think you said, sorry, you said, you agreed that that is a very small risk and that in fact you would be surprised to find any pedestrians or cyclists up there on a day like that anyway, is that correct? 30 MR JAMIESON: That is true, yes. MS WEDDE: So what we are really looking at is actually are the wind effects on the pedestrian and cycle path sufficiently negative that they will 35 discourage pedestrians and cyclists from using that facility altogether. That is really the issue we are looking at, isn’t it? MR DONN: Yes, it would appear that if you are talking about people having a risk of being blown over on rare occasions, you create a route that 40 actually is undesirable a lot more of the time. You also create the risk not just to people being blown over but people being unstable and walking into or cycling into each other on the bridge. That is the bit where the wind tunnel test would help us to be much more precise. 45 MR JAMIESON: I should perhaps if I could also point out. Even if you do a wind tunnel test, you still are in the position of having to assess Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7127 whether the effects are worthy or needing of mitigation and there are always questions that arise or often arise in one tunnel testing where if you stick to the technical requirement of the District Plan it is virtually impossible to achieve. For example, if you, during the course of a wind 5 tunnel study measure a wind speed that is in excess of the threshold criteria, in other words, greater than 20 metres per second. Then applying the letter of the law you are more or less required to reduce that to 20 metres per second. Now if you measure that wind speed in the course of the testing where you are comparing the existing situation 10 with the new development, if the existing speed is already in excess of 20 metres per second but you may be not in a position to be able to be able physically do anything about it because it is too far away. So in this case we may very well and as we have said, you are going to 15 measure wind speeds and a wind tunnel study which are in excess of the 20 metre per second. Then do you apply that criteria strictly to the letter of the law so is that something that again, would need to be addressed should that arise. Where in the situation where the wind speeds at that level, again you could look at it technically, the wind 20 speeds at that level of the bridge in mid-air or as it were now, are in excess of 25 metres per second. So should you be required to reduce those existing wind speeds? I mean it is a little bit of a grey area. MR DONN: This is where I will disagree. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR DONN: To me, the wind regulations have to recognise that some parts of the city are windier than others and they do recognise that if, I will take 30 an example. The Hope Gibbons Building at the end of Courtney Place, traffic offers were stationed there since the 1920s to help people safety cross the road. Configuration of buildings in the area has changed, we do not do that any longer but if you were designing given that that building was already dangerous and you designed a building across the 35 road, you do not have to solve the problem that is already created by the existing building. That is, I think, the issue that you are talking about. [11.50 am] 40 Now to take this situation out here, yes, the wind at 8, 9, 10 metres above the ground is likely to be already 20 metres a second, 25 metres a second on the annual gust speed. That is not the baseline; the baseline is what you would experience at about half of that at ground level. To 45 lift people up is the issue that we are talking about into that higher wind speed. So I think you would be required if the wind tunnel test Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7128 demonstrated that lifting people up caused people to be exposed to much higher wind speeds than they currently are at ground level then the city would be requiring mitigation. 5 MR JAMIESON: Yes, the point that I was trying to make was that it is a situation where you would have to potentially decide on what requirements or criteria you were going to use which are not currently clearly covered. 10 MS WEDDE: Just so we are clear, I think we are referring to, I am sorry, Mr Jamieson. MR JAMIESON: It is all right, done. 15 MS WEDDE: Sorry, I did not actually hear the last part of what you said, could you repeat that, sorry. MR JAMIESON: All I am saying is that essentially it is a situation where you may have to decide on the criteria you are going to apply or how you 20 are going to assess the results of any wind tunnel study rather than strictly applying the letter of any existing rules or regulations. MS WEDDE: Did you want to interject? 25 MR BAINES: Can I ask a question? MR JAMIESON: Yes, sir. MR BAINES: It is relevant to what you are just talking about now but in Mr 30 Donn’s Summary Statement at paragraph 2.2 he makes that observation about wind speed at ground level 24 kilometres an hour, at 10 metres up, 45 kilometres an hour, roughly. Do you agree with that as a rule of thumb that if you go 10 metres up or thereabouts, wind speeds tend to be, do you agree with that or not? 35 MR JAMIESON: Double or higher, yes. MR BAINES: You agree with that? 40 MR JAMIESON: Generally speaking, yes. MR BAINES: So the situation here is I think if I understand what Mr Donn’s saying is at the moment people can walk on that route from Ellis Street to Buckle Street at ground level and they will experience the winds that 45 they do at ground level. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7129 MR JAMIESON: They do, yes. MR BAINES: And if they were trying to do the same thing at a height of 10 metres on the same day if we could imagine that. It would be very 5 likely that they would be experiencing considerably higher wind speed. MR JAMIESON: Yes. MR BAINES: All right. Thank you. 10 MS WEDDE: Just so we are clear in terms of the requirement of the plan. That only applies where the District Plan requirement for a wind assessment test is triggered, is that not the case? A question to either of you. 15 MR DONN: The performance requirements are intended to apply to all situations in the Central Business District of Wellington. The height trigger was a decision by the council in the 1990s not to require wind tunnel testing of buildings where a $20,000 wind tunnel test might be a 20 burden if they were small. It was considered that the risk was low compared to buildings over four storeys. So the trigger point is about giving developers as much guidance as possible as to the likely things they would need to do. They 25 still need to look at the wind in Wellington city at whatever level and at times, rarely, when people are being exposed to greater risk to normal by a particular building or building development, they would be required to or asked to go further than a simple wind assessment but it is rare, that is true. 30 MR JAMIESON: Yes, the tricky thing in terms of assessing things here is that we would normally assess a particular or do tests on a particular location and compare the existing wind speed with what happened when you put the new building in for a particular location. We have a 35 situation here where pedestrians do not have current or currently have access to that path which is 10 metres in the air. [11.55 am] 40 So, what do you compare it to? Do you compare it to an absolute criteria? That threshold of safety or do you compare it to any alternative route and you could choose any alternative route as being the most sheltered route. This is what I am getting out. This is something that if you get into the situation of doing a wind tunnel study 45 or assessing the things you have got to assess it or decide on your terms of assessment. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7130 MR BAINES: So, surely you lay out your assumptions then, don’t you? I mean, we choose the baseline route to be, whatever it is or we choose it to be such and such. Is not that the way to address that sort of thing? 5 MR DONN: Yes, your point is for a northerly to choose the southern end of the Basin Reserve behind the trees and the fence is kind of perverse. You would choose something that, yes, you are right but I do not think it is an insurmountable question. It is a matter of choosing what would 10 be a reasonable alternate route to compare and I suspect, well, at which point both of us would step back and say, “well, somebody else is going to decide what is a reasonable route”. MR BAINES: Right. 15 MR DONN: And then we would make the assessment beyond it because it is again outside of our expertise to talk about trends, lines, parts and other things. 20 DISCUSSION MS WEDDE: Now, there was some discussion earlier about the current wind conditions in the area and whether there was a wind rose somewhere in the application documentation for the current wind conditions. I would 25 just like to bring up TR6 which is the Air Quality Report, starting at page 70 and perhaps just starting with Mr Jamieson, if I could just ask you to look at those diagrams. CHAIRPERSON: So, what are we looking at now? 30 MS WEDDE: TR6, the Air Quality Report, starting at page 70. Do you have that in front of you? MR JAMIESON: Yes. 35 MS WEDDE: Does the board have that report in front of them? MR BAINES: Yes, wind roses for Wellington Airport. 40 MS WEDDE: So, page 70 has the wind roses for Wellington Airport, page 72, a wind rose for Ellis Street and page 76, wind rose for the Basin Reserve. Mr Jamieson, is there anything you would like to elaborate on in terms of the, well, did you have regard to these wind roses when you carried out your wind assessment? 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7131 MR JAMIESON: I do remember seeing them in terms of having seen the bulk of the, or some of the related evidence but I did not specifically use those, we had our own source of wind data. So, we have essentially collected the data from the airport but we have processed it in terms of 5 our knowledge and information when it is over the central city. So, in other words if you were to draw a wind rose for the central city it would be slightly different to that of the airport and that based on the information we have, the southerlies are more or less roughly the same 10 directions but the northerly winds have been shifted more towards the northwest. MS WEDDE: Right, so you relied on wind roses that are your own internal resources? 15 MR JAMIESON: Yes. MS WEDDE: And how many years of data have gone into those wind roses that you relied on? 20 MR JAMIESON: At least 30 to 40 years. MS WEDDE: Thank you. No further questions, thank you. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, before we move onto the next topic. I have been looking at the wind provisions of the District Plan. I must say I have never, as I said, come across wind before as a problem other than in a more general sense dealing with wind farms and things like that, but not in a urban sort of basis. 30 [12.00 pm] I cannot quite understand how this applies, mainly because I have not probably given it a lot thought. And having looked at it, I wonder, Mr 35 Donn, if you could help us because you seem to know these, it seems to be part of your bread and butter. MR DONN: Well, I guess we both helped re-write these provisions, so yes. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I mean, it says the following wind standards apply to the central area. - - - MR DONN: Can you - - - 45 CHAIRPERSON: - - - This is on page 13/46. - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7132 MR DONN: Oh, yes. Okay. Thank you, yes. CHAIRPERSON: - - - And then they set out the wind standards; new building structures or additions, the pervading point six metres in height will be 5 designed to comply with the following standards. And if it is a safety one, the maximum gust speed should not exceed 20 metres per second. MR DONN: Yes. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Now, you cannot interfere with nature. I mean the wind is going to be the strength that the current climate creates is it not? MR DONN: Yes. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Does that mean that the building itself should not exacerbate the wind up to that speed or what? I am not sure how to, I mean you can design a building. MR DONN: So you – Okay, you very much - - - 20 CHAIRPERSON: How do you apply it, I do not? MR DONN: Okay, if I am building a building in Lambton Quay, - - - 25 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR DONN: - - - the wind gusts would never reach 20 metres per second. They would be a fraction of that on an annual basis. 30 If I build a building that is sufficiently tall that it gets above the other buildings - - - CHAIRPERSON: I see - - - 35 MR DONN: - - - in Lambton Quay to drag the wind down and it makes the wind greater than 20 metres per second, then I must keep it below 20 metres per second. I must change the height of the building or the design not - - - 40 CHAIRPERSON: I see - - - MR DONN: - - - to do that. If the wind speed is already, say I moved to the waterfront and the wind 45 speed is 22 metres per second currently, I do not have to solve, as you say, nature. - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7133 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR DONN: - - - That is, I have to demonstrate that I have designed a route 5 past that, that is less than that so people have the choice, but I do not have to solve nature or, as I was talking about with the Hope Gibbons building, in the past a situation created by the building down the street. CHAIRPERSON: So the 20 metres per second is a figure that has been 10 reached or a standard that has been reached having regard to the mean wind speeds over a long period time? MR DONN: No, it is a standard that has been developed from negotiation around what has been developed from negotiation around what is being 15 published internationally on the stability of people with - - - CHAIRPERSON: Okay. MR DONN: - - - the most recent data. Of which put people in a wind tunnel 20 behind a very large vehicle, wind tunnel behind a sheet of plywood on a forklift, just drove it out of the way, and tested what point would people become unstable. They stopped testing women at 15 metres per second and they went up 25 to 20 metres per second for the men. And the one small seven year old was well before the 15 metres per second. - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 30 MR DONN: - - - But it is that kind of testing that has been trying to establish an international standard. Now it would be fair to say that from our point of view, most of the people in this room would probably not be blown off their feet at 20 35 metres per second. But they would take a step or possibly two to stay upright. At which point they have stepped in front of a bus if they are standing on the street corner – that is our, if you like, definition of safety in these sort of situations. 40 So if you are walking across the bridge, you take a step sideways to stay upright and you step in front of a cycle that is coming in the opposite direction is, again, the relevant definition of safety. CHAIRPERSON: And you say 20 metres per second would never be 45 experienced in the central area naturally? Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7134 MR DONN: It is clearly experienced in parts of Wellington currently. On the edge of the city it is experienced, as Neil has talked about in his evidence, around the outside edge of the stadium. So if you take a stadium and you force the wind around it, it will be near it, probably on 5 the other side of the fence not on the pedestrian side of the fence because of the way the stadium is cut under. You can play at – find places around Wellington where you would experience those winds, yes. 10 [12.05 pm] CHAIRPERSON: And so you apply this to new structure - - - 15 MR DONN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: - - - by ensuring that the structure itself does not exacerbate the existing situation - - - 20 MR DONN: Exactly. CHAIRPERSON: - - - to bring it above 20 - - - MR DONN: Yes. 25 CHAIRPERSON: - - - metres per second. - - - MR DONN: Yes. 30 CHAIRPERSON: - - - I understand. MR DONN: The idea was to make sure there is a point where if you are sitting across the table from someone who is saying I have got this bright idea of spending - - - 35 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR DONN: - - - 100 million in Wellington and so forth, there is an absolute standard of safety that we can apply and say well it might not be 40 allowed to be 100 metres tall, - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR DONN: - - - it may only be allowed to be 40 metres tall - - - 45 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7135 MR DONN: - - - unless you did something else. CHAIRPERSON: And a wind test applies the wind speeds, the maximum 5 wind speeds that are experienced over a period of time or? How do you determine that? MR DONN: Well essentially we are using, obviously the wind tunnel study is done at a model scale and we use the full scale wind information to 10 relate what we measure in the wind tunnel back to full scale. CHAIRPERSON: I see. MR DONN: So for example, if we know that the mean speed at a certain 15 height above Wellington City is 20 metres per second mean speed and then we measure 20 metres per second mean speed down on the wind tunnel model, we can then - - - CHAIRPERSON: Correlate. 20 MR DONN: - - - correlate between. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I see. Yes, thank you for that, sorry about my ignorance. 25 MR DONN: No, no. No problem, at all. MR BAINES: Sir, can I interrupt here? 30 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes. MR BAINES: Wind gusts and mean speed, - - - MR DONN: Yes. 35 MR BAINES: - - - I am just trying to be clear about this because you used – in one sentence, Mr Donn, you used the phrase “gust” and then you also said “on an annual basis”. - - - 40 MR DONN: Yes. MR BAINES: - - - So I am just - - - MR DONN: Oh. 45 MR BAINES: - - - So I want to make sure I am - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7136 MR DONN: So the gusts on an annual basis is how often per year, and essentially, we are saying more than once a year that you would experience during an hour of that year, gusts greater than 20 metres per 5 second is the 20 metre - - - MR BAINES: Right. MR DONN: - - - per second safety criteria. 10 MR BAINES: Is the wind speed the gust, is that the instantaneous? MR DONN: It is the instantaneous definition, - - - 15 MR BAINES: So if you were in a box - - - MR DONN: - - - it comes down to three second gusts or something of that sort. 20 MR BAINES: If you were in a wind tunnel and they took the cardboard away, it is what you would experience - - - MR DONN: Yes. 25 MR BAINES: - - - right there and then? MR DONN: Yes, yes. MR BAINES: Okay. Thank you. 30 MR DONN: Whereas typically the rest of that same wind criteria that we are talking about, the cumulative effect, is trying to talk about the more general windiness of the site. 35 MR BAINES: Right. MR DONN: What we – The wind tunnel testing system is supposed to do two things; one is guard against safety issues - - - 40 MR BAINES: Yes. MR DONN: - - - but also stop the steady deterioration of the wind. What we recognised 30 years ago was that if you just set an absolute 45 maximum, the first four buildings in the street might always be under the maximum, but the last building is so close that you would take the Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7137 wind gust over that maximum so there is an absolute safety criterion and then there is the cumulative effect where we say, look, no more than this amount of change is tolerable at the amenity level as well. - - - 5 MR BAINES: Right. MR DONN: - - - Because a steady deterioration is not what that section of the District Plan is about. 10 MR BAINES: And one of the questions on the numbers, we were pointed to a number of wind roses in TR6. MR DONN: Yes. 15 MR BAINES: Metres per second, are these averages or are these instantaneous? MR DONN: I was trying to figure that out. They look like they are averages. 20 MR BAINES: They do not, do they? Because the top of the scale is only 11.1. - - - MR DONN: Yes, yes. And that would argue - - - 25 MR BAINES: - - - So they would be averages over? MR DONN: They are averages and I do not know that they are all measured at the same height. Some of them seem to be saying four metres. I have not looked in detail at the data but it seems like there were some 30 masts put up for one or two years in some locations at four metre. Which could at least have been above the trees and other things that are likely - - - MR BAINES: Right. 35 MR DONN: - - - to cause a problem at pedestrian height. MR BAINES: But presumably, if we are thinking about the relevance of wind speed data to the sorts of things we are talking about, the potential 40 safety risk - - - MR DONN: Yes. MR BAINES: - - - or the potential effect on amenity pleasantness - - - 45 MR DONN: Yes, yes. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7138 MR BAINES: - - - it is relevant to think about the instantaneous speed, particularly for the safety - - - 5 MR DONN: For the safety, yes. MR BAINES: - - - but also I suppose there will be a correlation between the frequency of having high speeds and what the average speed would be. 10 But it is the instantaneous speeds certainly in terms of safety? MR DONN: Yes. MR BAINES: And in terms of the pleasantness at a particular point in time, 15 we were talking before about that 3.5 metre per - - - MR DONN: Yes. MR BAINES: - - - second as 20 MR DONN: (INDISTINCT 4.46) MR BAINES: - - - what a bench mark it is. - - - 25 MR DONN: Yes. MR BAINES: - - - That also in a sense is an instantaneous? MR DONN: Well it is measured over an hour. - - - 30 MR BAINES: Measured over an hour - - - MR DONN: - - - So it is the mean - - - 35 MR BAINES: So that is the mean - - - MR DONN: - - - wind speed for an hour. MR BAINES: I beg your pardon, that did have mean on it, that is right, okay. 40 Thank you very much. [12.10 pm] MR DONN: Just looking at these again. Turbulence in the middle of the city 45 is much higher than at the airport. So at the airport, you might expect perhaps, a 50 percent increase. So if you have an average of 5, 7.5 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7139 might be a typical gust that is happening during the 5. In town, there is much more likely to be a double. So some of these – If I was being asked, ‘What do these wind speeds 5 mean?’ I would have to look at what they are related to in terms of heights they were measured at. Ignoring the height, a rough rule of thumb if they were in the city is that wherever a mean of 5, assume gusts of 10, if you are looking at trying to interpret these wind speeds and these wind roses (ph 51.9) in terms of what effect they would have 10 in terms of turbulence. MR……….: (INDISTINCT 0.56) CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you for that. 15 MR MCMAHON: Just while we are on this topic Mr Donn, I am, like the judge, just trying to get my head around these standards in the district plan. It may be that we have not got all of the provisions in front of us, but rule 13635 appears to be written as a permitted standard, such that 20 it is only if the building is above 18.6 metres that the rules relating to safety and cumulative effect are triggered. Is that your understanding? MR DONN: That is my – yes. In terms of the operation (INDISTINCT 1.46), but I think if you read – there are other sections which relate to public 25 open space and the comfort criteria, the amenity criteria. But in terms of normal discussion about buildings, the trigger point is we do not really want to make buildings under four storeys, which is the 18.6 metre height, too expensive by requiring a wind tunnel test. If it was me, but it is not, taking a building the size of Kirkcaldie’s out of 30 Lambton Quay would cause a wind problem. But it is not required that you wind tunnel assess, because we expose all the buildings around to much more wind. CHAIRPERSON: Unless the council requests one. 35 MR DONN: Unless the council specifically requested, yes. MR MCMAHON: But their ability to request that is limited. 40 MR DONN: Is limited in this sense, yes. MR MCMAHON: Thank you, I think I understand that. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Now, we will move on to the second topic if I 45 can find my little piece of paper. Sorry, what is the second, sorry? Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7140 MS WEDDE: The next topic is wind effects on the shared pedestrian-cycle path which I think we have actually strayed into. CHAIRPERSON: We have actually covered, yes. Does anyone wish to ask 5 any more questions on that? MR JONES: Yes, sir. Most of my questions have now been covered, but I do 10 have a few more. Firstly, Mr Donn, I would just like to – for further clarification about the 20 metres per second threshold. Firstly, just a technical point, that is equivalent to 72 kilometres an hour, is that correct? 15 MR DONN: Yes. MR JONES: Yes, now did I take it from your earlier comments in reply to board questioning, it appeared to me, but please correct me if I am wrong, that that standard was based on the experience of an adult male, 20 is that correct? MR DONN: Yes. MR JONES: Yes, why has that particular criteria of an average, I guess, adult 25 male been chosen, given that many users are not adult males? MR DONN: Because there is too little evidence of other people being tested, first. Second, because the criteria that you can find in the published literature would vary from 20 to 30 metres per second, so the most that 30 we can find in the literature is mostly about young men being tested in (INDISTINCT 4.32) MR JONES: So you might say, perhaps that 20 metres per second is at the lower end of standards, and therefore you might be comfortable in 35 saying that most young adult males would not be adversely affected at that wind speed, but that – I am not sure of the figures for a population of Wellington – but that that leaves over 50 percent of the population for whom there is not adequate data to say or for whom it is a reasonable supposition that they might be affected at the 20 metre per 40 second wind speed. Of course I am generalising, which I cannot (INDISTINCT 5.08) Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7141 [12.15 pm] MR DONN: Yes, it is, no – I think that would be fair to say. Essentially, I think I correct you, it is not the level at which adult, reasonably fit 5 males would be okay. It is the point at which they would they would be taking a step to stay upright at the very minimum, or might be holding on to something just to steady themselves while the gust occurs. MR JONES: At a gust speed of 20 metres per second or above? 10 MR DONN: Yes. MR JONES: Okay, thank you for that. And as you say, there is – just to refer back to that, the testing that you referred to with the plywood and 15 forklift and so-forth. Again, an average woman – the testing was not done for 15 metres per second. MR DONN: Beyond 15 metres per second, the paper essentially says, for safety of the individuals we decided not to test the women beyond 15 20 metres per second. MR JONES: But that has not been taken into account, at least as yet, with regard to standards in Wellington. 25 MR DONN: Because it is one of several papers on the subject and the others do not identify gender, so it is very difficult to start to say, ‘Oh, on the basis of one scientific paper published,’ I think two or three years ago at most, ‘we should revise our criteria’. 30 MR JAMIESON: And you do have to also be very careful in that wind test (ph 1.33) where you are essentially taking somebody going from relatively calm or no wind conditions straight into that sort of level of gust speed, and that sort of situation is somewhat unrealistic in terms of what you would generally expect in a city street. 35 MR JONES: So are you suggesting that if somebody was already in windy, but less windy conditions than the type of gust speed you are concerned about, but then the wind gust increased to that 20 metres per second or above, that would lessen the risk that they would have to take a step 40 sideways or perhaps hold on to something? MR JAMIESON: There is a certain element of preparedness also, in terms of people’s response to wind speed which has played some part in the decision in terms of these criteria. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7142 MR JONES: Although presumably the people in the wind tunnel testing were aware that they were taking part in a wind tunnel test. MR JAMIESON: Yes, that is intellectually different from being physically 5 ready for that. MR JONES: I do appreciate that, thank you for that. Now I just want to ask briefly, we have discussed the safety of pedestrians, we have discussed the safety of cyclists, and of drivers and passengers in high-sided 10 vehicles. You did mention in your evidence, Mr Jamieson, evidence-in- chief 3.11, that motorcyclists would also be at risk. So I just wanted to ask briefly about – wanted to ask each of you what the risk would be for motorcyclists and at what wind level you would expect that risk to be significant? 15 MR JAMIESON: From the literature, I do not think there has been any significant difference in terms of wind speed levels between high-sided vehicles and motorcyclists. A lot of it relates to combinations of the weight of the vehicle and the exposed area. 20 MR JONES: And when you say that high-sided vehicles and motorcyclists are at risk, the extreme risk is overturning, the lesser risk is tracking variation, just to put that in non-technical language, tracking variation means going off the course that they are intending to go on, is that 25 correct? MR JAMIESON: It means that a gust would cause you to make some steering correction to stay on-course or on-lane. 30 MR JONES: Therefore, it would potentially mean that we might go off- course. MR JAMIESON: There is that potential in extreme situations. 35 MR JONES: Yes, okay, thank you for that. I am just going to pick and choose a little bit (INDISTINCT 4.10) my own questions. Now Mr Donn, I just wanted to follow up a little bit on the percentage of the time that such wind gusts might be expected. By such wind gusts, I mean above 20 metres per second. You have said in your evidence-in-chief, that is 40 4.3 on page 8, the WCC danger criteria – well, we know that already about 20 is 72 kilometres an hour. But you have said the pedestrian should not be exposed to gusts of more than 20 metres per second more than once a year as a result of a new development. Would you agree that should the proposed pedestrian- cycleway go ahead, pedestrians 45 regularly using the pedestrian-cycleway would be exposed or are likely to be exposed to such gusts more frequently than once a year? Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7143 MR DONN: Yes. MR JONES: And you have also said – You have also assessed in your 4.3 5 page 8, “the danger criteria could be exceeded during some 250 to 980 hours per year, in the latter case, a little more than 10 percent of the time”. Could you explain the basis of that assessment? [12.20 pm] 10 MR DONN: Yes, we go back to the statistics that are the basis of wind roses. So I took a wind rose which is for Wellington city which is measured at the airport at 10 metres in height, which then converted it to data that actually identifies the wind that's been measured in Wellington city as 15 being correlated with wind 150 metres above the city; so 10 metres at the airport, 150 metres above the city. Then I used, I hesitate to use the word but I will, simple logarithmic law to relate the height to velocity to convert from 150 metres to 10 20 metres above the ground. And then said okay there's a frequency of this wind speed at the airport, what does that mean about the frequency of wind speeds in town and what might the acceleration be? That logarithmic law is, if you like, the flaw in my argument because it 25 does not take account of any of the buildings around. Acceleration or shelter (ph 1.24) they might create. It just is in a city you have a different relationship of height to speed than you do at the airport so you have to do these simple mathematical relationships. 30 MR JONES: I accept what you have said about limitations of your assumptions there, but as you have said, the danger criteria could be exceeded a little more than 10 percent of the time. MR DONN: Yes. 35 MR JONES: Do you consider this level of risk acceptable in safety terms? MR DONN: Clearly not. It is, however, a point where I am starting to say, okay, you are asking me for my opinion, and my opinion in this 40 situation is that it is not that the risk is not acceptable because as we have heard, it already happens around other parts of Wellington city. But it does seem to me unreasonable that you should lift people from a position where they don’t experience those winds to a level where they 45 would experience them much more often. So I don’t like saying, in my opinion I’m the expert in terms of how people are comfortable in Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7144 Wellington my job is to interpret what the (INDISTINCT 02.35) are and hand that over to planners, hand that over to the City Council if necessary and say, okay, it might be 10 percent of the time it’s uncomfortable, you make that final call of what is reasonable. 5 MR JONES: Well thank you for that. And I think, could I safely state that if the project does not go ahead and if changes were made only at grade, then bearing in mind that one might have to study the specific changes that were made, but in principle there should be no additional safety 10 risk from wind if changes are made only at grade? MR DONN: Yes. Except that I will add one other thing and this is where I feel slightly conflicted, I would love to see lots more money spent on developing the cricket ground that I love. But we haven’t talked at all 15 about the building and if you were building the building, there would be a very different situation than the discussion of the bridge. But if we talk about just the bridge, yes. 20 MR JONES: Mr Jamieson, if you wish to comment on that point? MR JAMIESON: Two things. On the one hand we have had some discussion about the level of uncertainty and audit assessment being greater than for a wind tunnel study but, on the other hand, we have had some fairly 25 hard numbers, albeit a range of (ph 04.09) numbers put on the potential time that the safety criteria is exceeded. So I do have some slight issue with that. I did have some questions about the figures that Mr Donn came up with 30 in that he was, in one paragraph saying that gusts above a certain speed lower than 20 metres per second, the time exceeded would be 10 percent of the time. But then on the following paragraph he then says that wind speeds in 35 excess of 20 metres per second will be exceeded 10 percent of the time. Based on what I know of the distribution of wind speeds and the frequency of occurrence, I would say that, that’s difficult to resolve. [12.25 pm] 40 The second issue is regardless of whether or not you have the bridge here or whether you look at what happens at grade, there are going to be locations at grade where the wind speeds currently exceed that safety threshold. So how are you going to deal with those? 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7145 MR JONES: And just on your second point, but you are not disagreeing with Mr Donn that effectively lifting pedestrians and cyclists 10 metres into the air will increase the proportion of time that they will be exposed to wind speeds above the safety threshold? Sorry, I should say are you 5 disagreeing with Mr Donn? MR JAMIESON: Compared to an alternative route, yes they will be exposed to more higher wind conditions. 10 MR JONES: Now if I can move on briefly to proposed mitigations and in particular we have already heard about the signage that is suggested. I want to talk about the issue of additional wind shelter. Now in your evidence you have said that. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Who are you talking to? MR JONES: Sorry, Mr Jamieson, my apologies. In your evidence-in-chief which is 2.4 on page 4, Mr Jamieson, you have said it is always 20 possible to provide additional shelter from winds through various means, for example, more landscaping, vertical screens and consideration of building location and design. In Wellington such additional wind mitigation is often desirable and in 25 this case, could usually be applied to the pedestrian-cycle bridge. However, I do not believe that additional wind shelter is critical for the project to proceed. The provision of additional wind shelter for specific areas under the 30 bridge has been allowed for in the proposed conditions of the project, but this will balanced against other issues such as urban design, visual impact and traffic. What I would like to ask is, in terms of potential, additional wind 35 mitigation on the pedestrian-cycleway itself or indeed on the bridge when we consider the needs of high-sided vehicles and motorcyclists, has that been considered and rejected? And if so, why was it rejected? MR JAMIESON: As pointed out, I stated that additional mitigation was 40 desirable but is not critical for the proposal to go ahead. I am not aware of, and I have not been a party to, the decisions in terms of weighing up the relative importance of different factors such as wind, visibility, traffic, safety or any other matters. 45 So it has been raised and I have not been party to the decision. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7146 MR JONES: So would you agree that such a decision is a trade-off between a range of factors including, for example, a trade-off between increased safety of users and an increased visual impact and an increased urban design impact? 5 MR JAMIESON: Yes, and that occurs in any given building development situation typically. MR JONES: So would it therefore be fair to say that the applicant has chosen 10 to offer a lower than optimal level of safety protection to pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and the drivers and passengers of high-sided vehicles using the proposed flyover in order to lessen the impact of the proposed screening on other factors? 15 MR JAMIESON: It is a matter of weighing up the relative risks. If the risk is considered to be low then you presumably balance against other factors that are considered to be more important. MR JONES: And you still consider the risk to be low? 20 MR JAMIESON: I do. MR JONES: Mr Donn, would you like to comment on this? 25 MR DONN: Well yes, I think it is unreasonable to ask either of us what the motivation of the designer is in these circumstances. It would be fair to say that the result of the decision to have a lower barrier is that there is less shelter for pedestrians and a structure that has less urban impact, yes. 30 Whether that was a conscious decision which you asked us to comment on by the design team, I have no idea and would not care to comment. MR JONES: That is a reasonable point, let me rephrase the question slightly. 35 Would you agree that the result of the decision to have a lower barrier for a range of reasons, including visual impact, is that a lower level of safety is thereby provided to the vulnerable categories of users of the project that we previously identified. 40 [12.30 pm] MR DONN: Yes, I would. Both from a safety and an amenity point of view, yes. 45 MR JONES: Thank you, I have no further questions in this category. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7147 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Just one follow-up question for Mr Jamieson. You have mentioned the effect of landscaping on wind protection underneath the bridge. Were you involved at all with the landscape people and assisting with the landscaping? 5 MR JAMIESON: In general terms, yes. I have just given them much the same advice as I presented in my evidence, but nothing specific about particular locations or particular designs of landscaping. 10 MR DONN: May I add something there? Wellington City has a history, and I have been part of because I have been around advising the council for a large number of years, of approving planting for shelter that does not grow. I can point to a number of developments around Wellington City the most obvious is the area next to the Herd Street Post Office 15 building, the Waitangi Park development at the front. If you notice the plants grow like this even though there are vertical, solid barriers to help them to grow. That is probably the most successful of those kinds of plantings. 20 There are a number of others where the plants have either not grown or have been taken out. Or in one spectacular case not far from parliament, there are planters with nothing in them that were supposed to be a substitute for the veranda that we were negotiating for. We need to be careful to think what would be the result of a decision about the 25 type of planting that is providing shelter. MR JAMIESON: That being said, typically speaking any type of planting in terms of shrubs or trees is considered to be beneficial and is better than no planting at all. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, now we move on to the last topic which is inside the effect of amenity inside the ground as a consequence of the Northern Gateway building. Is that the next topic? Yes. So no further on these matters? No. Have you, Ms Wedde? 35 MS WEDDE: No. CHAIRPERSON: No, right. I think you are first off the block. 40 MR JONES: Thank you, sir. And I just have very few questions in this area. Mr Donn, you state in your evidence-in-chief at 8.2 page 13, that the pavilion, by which I believe you are referring to the Northern Gateway 45 building, no matter what its length, breaks one of the simplest rules of good aerodynamic design – try to avoid passageways and slots through Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7148 buildings. And you say that this suggests a need for considerably more design analysis than has apparently been undertaken thus far. I realise you may not know this, but to your knowledge, has any additional design analysis subsequently been undertaken? 5 MR DONN: No, not to my knowledge, no, not at all. MR JONES: And were you aware of any such analysis, Mr Jamieson? 10 MR JAMIESON: There was considerable discussion on the issue of the slot through the building, by which I am talking about the entrance gates. And again, it is a similar situation to the pedestrian-cycle bridge in that there are a number of issues that needed to be considered in this respect, one of which was wind. And I did suggest, either in terms of 15 the materials of the gates or the operation of the gates, that there were options to improve things in that area. MR JONES: Are these options which, to your knowledge, have been taken up? 20 MR JAMIESON: Some aspects of them have, I understand, but some have not. MR JONES: So Mr Jamieson, you state in 3.17 in your evidence that if the 25 proposed Northern Gateway building is built, wind speeds and the associated pavement areas will be noticeably windier except on match days. [12.35 pm] 30 How much windier is ‘noticeably windier’? Do you have any figures on that? MR JAMIESON: You are talking - again, this is an assessment where to put 35 hard numbers on it you would need to do, obviously, a wind tunnel study. You are talking perhaps of the order of 5 metres per second difference in terms of gust speeds. I mean, simply because at the moment there is a fence there and you are, in some respects, removing that fence by having openings at ground level through the building. 40 MR JONES: And the difference of – oh, sorry, Mr Donn? MR DONN: So the thinking that I put into this is that it is one of the classic problems, therefore it is being tested in wind tunnels. The building that 45 creates a barrier where the wind from about one-third down from the top of the building comes down the face of a building, you then create a Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7149 hole. So if you just have, as you have out here, a fence with a hole, then the wind that would have struck the fence either side goes through the hole, so you have an acceleration that is current. We do not know how much it is, but if we do have wind tunnel tests which suggest if you 5 have a tower of 30 metres in height and you cut a slot through the bottom of it, you are going to double the wind speed that you would have had if you had nothing there. And a building of the height that we have and the length that we have 10 has not been tested, but it is somewhere between, I would estimate, 50 percent faster than currently, and twice as fast. And it is an estimate based only on tests of buildings that are not quite the right size, but that is as close as you can get without actually testing the real building. And when I was reading, and it was a while ago, the plans for this building, 15 we do not know whether it is 45, 65 or whatever it is long, and that will affect how much wind is channelled through the hole. So then, if you talk about closing a gate where the wind is faster than it would have been if there was nothing there, good luck with that. The 20 issue is, how do you cut a hole through a barrier that stops the wind from going through there? I do not think it is redesigning the hole, because we need public access. Redesigning the building above to stop it channelling the wind down in the first place, you need to know more about the design to do that. 25 MR JONES: Thank you for that, now I just want to check, Mr Jamieson, you have talked about a wind increase of 5 metres per second, and Mr Donn, you have talked about a potential increase of between 50 and 100 percent, is that correct? Depending of course on what the starting 30 figure is, we seem to have quite a large disparity there. MR JAMIESON: Yes, in some respects I would see that Mr Donn is slightly, perhaps, overemphasising it. We are in a situation where we have both typography and upstream buildings which are going to play some 35 considerable part in defining the effect of the Northern Gateway building on wind conditions. I think we need to be very careful of taking – and Mr Donn has admitted that it is difficult to – because this situation is obviously unique, of shoehorning other results into this situation. 40 MR JONES: So that would reinforce the point that in this case, we cannot rely – we do not have data from buildings that are sufficiently similar that we can rely on that, and therefore the wind tunnel testing would be needed to get a more accurate picture to reduce the error bars of what 45 the increase in wind speed would be. Is that correct? Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7150 MR DONN: Yes. MR JAMIESON: Yes, wind tunnel testing would put essentially, hard numbers on things. 5 MR JONES: Just three more questions. Firstly, would pedestrians’ walking – I guess there is three situations. There is pedestrians’ walking outside the gates, there is pedestrians’ walking around the ground inside the gates, and there is people passing through the gates. Would I be right in 10 saying that those walking outside the gates – sorry, along the pathway outside, and those walking in the promenade inside would experience wind coming through the gaps in those buildings, obviously depending on the wind direction, as intermittent gusts? 15 MR DONN: Yes. [12.40 pm] MR JAMIESON: Yes, but it is – we are both hesitating I suspect, because 20 there is as much wind going around and over the top, so yes. Yes, you would notice the jet of wind through the gate as you walked past the end of the gate, depending on which side you were walking on. If you were walking on the north side and the wind was blowing from the north, I doubt that you would experience anything to do with the gate, 25 it would be the wind blowing back off the building itself. MR JONES: Certainly, and presumably if one was walking into or out of the ground, one would experience, usually either a headwind or a tailwind depending on which direction it was going. 30 MR JAMIESON: Yes. MR JONES: And of course, we also have cyclists who ride through the ground regularly, so there would also be the issue of what effect that 35 additional wind had on them. MR JAMIESON: Yes. MR JONES: Final question, has any consideration been given to the effects 40 that these increased occurrences of high winds will have on the amenity value of the Basin Reserve and on the experience of spectators and others using the ground? I am referring here specifically to higher winds in relation to the proposed Northern Gateway building. 45 MR DONN: Well, in my evidence, I did – if you are talking to me? Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7151 MR JONES: Yes, to you. MR DONN: I did raise the issue that if you take this building and you extend it, then the wind that blows over the top and the wind that blows round 5 the edge, will, I believe not drop in a short distance away from this building, but a greater distance out into the centre. So it is likely that there will be increased shelter somewhere around the southern side of this building and the Northern Gateway building in a northerly, but that the turbulent wind rolling off the top and spinning around the edges 10 will happen somewhere out near the cricket pitch. I have no idea beyond the fact that it would be much further away because of the greater size of the wind barrier, but that would be likely to occur. Conversely, there would be more in a southerly wind on the front face 15 of this building that would be experienced. MR JONES: There was some discussion of that matter during the cricket evidence but I - - - 20 MR JAMIESON: I would like to comment on that too. The net effect of the Northern Gateway building is essentially going to be beneficial in terms of wind effects inside the Basin Reserve. In southerlies, there is going to be fairly small changes that people are going to experience. In northerlies, as Mr Donn has shared, there is going to be a sheltered area 25 downstream of the building, but he has said that the wind flow over the building could come down around about the cricket pitch, with consequent turbulence. There is an issue here of being – sorry, I think we need to be very careful in understanding that when you put the shelter of a building in place, you can reduce the mean wind speed but 30 keep the same gust speed, depending on each particular, unique situation. Having the building not there, you get a higher mean wind speed, but you could also have the same gust speed. We would technically see those as the same. If you were talking solely in terms of gust speed, you would see them as being essentially the same. If you 35 were talking about amenity then you would start to get into much different issues. And again, because the amenity levels are defined in terms of mean wind speeds, you have to be very careful about just solely looking at, ‘Okay, the wind comes down to the middle.’ It is not quite as simple as that, or, assuming that that is necessarily bad. 40 MR JONES: Okay, thank you for that, I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jones. Mr Milne? Ms Wedde? 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7152 MS WEDDE: Dr Donn, just going back to your evidence- in-chief, in paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 that were discussed under the other topics, I just 5 want to confirm, I think I heard you say that those assessments were taken out not having regard to the effect of the Northern Gateway building, is that correct? MR DONN: Yes. 10 [12.45 pm] MS WEDDE: And so we could expect the Northern Gateway building would screen the effects of any southerly winds in terms of that assessment 15 could we not? MR DONN: Yes. MS WEDDE: Now, in terms of any effects on the cricket ground, I 20 understand that in an earlier draft of these conditions there was a specific requirement in terms of the porosity of gates on the ground floor, and it has disappeared. And I have conferred with Mr Daysh and he tells me that that was not intentional. So I am going to read out that condition and ask what Mr Donn and Mr Jamieson think about that 25 requirement. CHAIRPERSON: Have you got a copy of it? It is not easy for them to read it then. 30 MS WEDDE: Yes, it may be in an earlier draft. Could I try reading it out? It is just a small sentence we will see how we go. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay, if it is only small that is fine. 35 MS WEDDE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON: See how we go. MS WEDDE: So in a previous draft of the conditions under the detailed 40 design considerations for the project in the schedule, under zone 2 it stated that, ‘design the gateways so that they can be closed with visually impermeable gates with a porosity level of 30 to 35 percent’. Mr Jamieson, what is your comment about that condition in terms of mitigation of wind effects in or outside the Basin Reserve? 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7153 MR JAMIESON: Certainly – sorry, if I could just step back. It is not so much the issue of whether the gates were porous or solid, because they could be solid, they could be porous up to 30 to 35 percent and they would achieve, essentially, in many respects, the same things. It is more a case 5 of how those gates are operated and whether they are open and closed on days other than match days. MS WEDDE: So if we can just focus on when they are closed, what effect would you expect that to have? 10 MR JAMIESON: I would expect that the wind conditions in general terms would be mostly similar to what they are now, if not better, particularly say, in southerly winds, because of – you are essentially keeping the existing fence as it were, and having additional shelter from the 15 building above it. MS WEDDE: Dr Donn, do you have any comment on that. MR DONN: Yes, well I would not disagree with Neil in that situation, the 20 issue. MR……….: You would or you would not? MR DONN: I would not. The issue for me is how on earth you open and close 25 gates even if 30 percent of them is open, 60 percent of them is solid, and making a gate that is to be operated in a strong wind, and we are expecting that through the gap you would accelerate the wind, requires careful planning. So to me, the issue is how do you design an opening like that to avoid the problem of the gate being a solution, not what the 30 gate would do? Because the gate, yes, if it is closed, you stop the wind going through the hole. Well, yes, that identifies channelling the wind through the hole as the major problem, and there are ways of designing buildings to avoid that. 35 MR BAINES: Can I ask, at the moment as I understand it, the indicative design shows at the ground floor level under the proposed Northern Gateway building, a series of gates in a sense, probably about five or so. Is it five entranceways separated by poles or columns? Now, if you were to say, close three of those, what effect does that have for the 40 remaining two? MR DONN: Well, the simple math would be you nearly double the wind that goes through the extra hole. If you have a gap this wide and you halve it, then you make a greater amount of friction, so there will be a small 45 reduction in the amount of wind that would go through the hole, but the Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7154 likely effect of making the hole half the size is an increase in the wind that goes through the hole. MR BAINES: So if we are taking about a situation where, I think, Mr 5 Jamieson you referred before to – You said either the material of the gates or the operation of the gates, and I take it by the operation of the gates you mean whether they are open or closed. So it seems to me the critical issue here is what the effect of that is on accessibility for the number of people who frequently use this ground to get from there to 10 there. We are not talking about cricket match days, we are talking about all the other days. [12.50 pm] 15 MR JAMIESON: And that’s what I was referring to strictly in terms of the operation was the operation over any sort of longer term and whether it was match day or non-match day. MR BAINES: Right. Now Mr Donn pointed out in his summary at 2.5, there 20 is this criterion of excess of the Wellington City Council danger criterion at the gateway opening, which creates the impression that there could be some circumstances under which the City Council might feel obliged to close the gates to remove a danger, a temporary danger, if the wind’s very high. Is that what you? 25 MR JAMIESON: That is what I was alluding to. That was, again, my job is to be conservative and say there is a risk that this might happen, we need to test to confirm how bad that risk really is. 30 MR BAINES: Right. MR JAMIESON: Yes. MR BAINES: Do we know whether the gates at the moment are ever closed 35 because of wind? MR JAMIESON: To my knowledge, no. You’ve got a wind catcher that’s much better above, yes, that’s the issue, yes. 40 MR BAINES: I understand, thank you, Ms Wedde. MS WEDDE: And finally, you may not be aware but the Transport Agency has entered into an agreement with the Council and Basin Reserve Trust in regard to the construction of the Northern Gateway Building. 45 And that’s in two of Mr Blackmore’s Evidence in Chief. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7155 That agreement provides that the final design of the Northern Gateway Building will need to be agreed between the Transport Agency and the Council and the Trust before construction commences. 5 So do you agree that in that final design process, wind effects can be considered and taken into account in the detail design phase? MR JAMIESON: Yes, absolutely, yes. 10 MS WEDDE: Thank you, sir. No further questions. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Wedde. Mr Baines, have you any questions? MR BAINES: If I can just have a few moments to see, I think probably most 15 have been referred to in one way or another. MR COLLINS: Just going back to the, can I have a comparison between Cobham Drive and the bridge both in terms of vehicles and cyclists. Because the bridge goes east to west, if they are going to get through 20 Cobham Drive, they will probably only get across the bridge. Now I think you indicated that the Cobham Drive area is windier, and in this case the bridge is elevated. Do those, I’m asking both of you, do those sort of compensate so that we could assume that the wind on the 25 bridge will be similar on a particular day to Cobham Drive? MR JAMIESON: I would say yes, they are generally similarly because you have the compensation of the additional height of the bridge as opposed to the exposure of Cobham Drive. 30 MR COLLINS: Dr Donn will be able to give us his - - - MR DONN: That seems a reasonable assumption, yes. 35 MR COLLINS: Okay, and just quickly while Mr Baines is sorting out the questions that he’s going to be a fine wind man. The wind testing issue, is that, I’m trying to get my head around whether that is sort of a major problem, having not done the wind 40 testing, obviously it’s implanted, share more data, you both comment in more detail, if you had that, that had been done. In some situations that wind testing would be a pre-requisite to whether a structure is even suitable at all. In this case am I right there is more, 45 the wind testing would have been useful for informing the design, or is it sort of fundamental? Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7156 MR DONN: No, the question is whether it is sensible to add another place in Wellington that is as windy as Cobham Drive and make that a normal route for people to walk past. That is the philosophy of the District 5 Plan and looking at whether a building is suitable. Is that development a sensible thing to be doing and in this situation I can suggest that the round numbers which suggests there is a high risk, that the wind tunnel test would confirm how correct I was in that estimation. 10 And that would be, is that a sensible thing to be doing in terms of where you place people? MR JAMIESON: I generally agree. The slight complicating factor here is that there are alternative routes that people can take. So you are not 15 restricting people to a single alternative to get from A to B and that they can choose. Whereas in many situations where you are doing a test on a building, you have only one street to consider and they have no option but to go down that street if they are going from here to there. 20 [12.55 pm] MR COLLINS: Thanks, and the third question. In the Joint Witness Statement you referred to agreeing that you though the structure would not affect the wind at ground level as far up above. And I think in Mr Jamieson’s 25 concise summary you have used the words, “It has a relatively slim vertical profile and consequently does not result in a large surface area being exposed to direct wind flows”. How deep do you believe the bridge is? 30 MR JAMIESON: Three to four metres at most. MR COLLINS: Okay. It is actually less than that so that’s fine. You haven’t misunderstood it. Dr Donn do you agree that it is only three or four 35 metres total depth? MR DONN: My estimate was something closer to, I was thinking it’s a one metre and then another metre, metre and a half, so two to three metres. And so yes, as designed, and that’s back to the question we had earlier, 40 is if you wanted to actually shelter people while they walked across the bridge, then you add another two metres to that. So it becomes a bulkier object in space so that would trade-off. But currently, no it is highly unlikely to make any difference to the 45 wind speeds underneath the building, or underneath the structure. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7157 MR COLLINS: I think as I understand it, it’s the box girder which is designed for appearance, it is seen by some designers as being a better thing than a thinner bridge with, you know, pre-stressed beams, a whole series of beams. It is actually a hollow structure. It is typically 1.98, call it two 5 metres deep from the road surface to the soffit underneath. But at the widest point where the bridge goes round a corner, turns round, it is a bit wider than that and a bit deeper than that in total because of the camber. 10 And then on top of that you have got a point eight solid concrete traffic barrier which, presumably, doesn’t stop the wind in the same way. MR DONN: And there is something like a one metre minimum handrail to 15 stop people. MR COLLINS: I think the handrail is 1.4, it’s quite substantial. Okay, so as long as you didn’t misunderstand. The references in the design people’s evidence about being a slim-line is more to do with 20 appearance because of the position of the footbridge has a very thin edge, and that's what you might see from some positions. So you think it has an appearance of less deep than it really is. But as long as you understand it is reasonably deep. 25 MR DONN: Yes. MR COLLINS: Okay, thank you. 30 MR BAINES: I have only got a few questions, for Mr Jamieson to begin with. Your summary at 1.14, I just want to clarify something. This is, pedestrians under the bridge. The bridge will not cause the area underneath it to become, in inverted commas, a windswept wasteland. Depending on the final choice of planting that is included in the 35 landscaping, wind conditions under the bridge are likely to be improved. And my question is, when you say “likely to be improved” is that against what might occur without planting or is that compared with no 40 bridge at all in the present circumstances? MR JAMIESON: Compared to no planting at all. MR BAINES: Compared to no planting? So what you are saying is if you put 45 a bridge in place and you do no planting there will be one effect, but if you do some planting that will be improved? Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7158 MR JAMIESON: Well, no I’m saying that, we both said essentially that if you put the bridge in there, there’s going to be no identifiable effects on pedestrians under the bridge, but then if you put planting in as well, 5 you are going to improve things over either the existing situation or the situation with the bridge alone. MR BAINES: Okay, so there will be an absolute improvement? MR JAMIESON: Yes. 10 MR BAINES: Right, thank you for that. And in terms of that landscaping, at 1.17 you are talking about, you know, the collection of rubbish and so on and so forth and that is also related to this planting. It seems to me that it is perhaps a bit of trade-off here between the desire for planting 15 both for, if you like, visual amenity or even for wind mitigation and for mitigating against the risk of things collecting underneath there, on the one hand and the urban design desire to actually keep views open. [1.00 pm] 20 Because we are being told that one of the important things about the new Northern Gateway building in relation to the bridge is that it will open up views underneath, and clearly you cannot have a lot of planting if you want to keep those views open, so I suppose there is, as 25 you were saying, you did tell them about the potential effects of wind, but you were not very much involved in the ultimate decisions about just how much parting there should be there. MR JAMIESON: And it is also a case of, as I understand it, from the plans, 30 the bulk of the planting is, how can I put it, west of the Cambridge Terrace/ Kent Terrace line up towards the new - - - MR BAINES: Oh, I am not talking about the National War Memorial Park extension, I am talking about the plaza area under the bridge. 35 MR JAMIESON: Right. MR BAINES: So the plaza area outside Newport is currently the entranceway. 40 MR JAMIESON: I think it would – If I may, one of the dilemmas I have in teaching is the more you build a screen that you cannot see through, the more unsafe you make a park. That is clear. So if you were trying to provide screening from wind, you have got to look at ways of actually doing that, and the most elegant I have ever seen is a series of glass 45 shards growing out of the ground in Paris for that very purpose. Solves both problems. Multiple glass shard sculpture, wind shelter and safe Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7159 views. But you are right, to identify the issue is the bigger you create a shelter against the wind, the more unsafe you make the - - - MR BAINES: Right. 5 MR JAMIESON: - - - screened areas behind it. And also probably the more likely you are to have these little swirling catchment areas - - - MR BAINES: Right. 10 MR JAMIESON: - - - for papers and other things that are being swept clean out of Cambridge Terrace. MR BAINES: So it is quite a difficult thing to sort of, - - - 15 MR JAMIESON: Yes, absolutely. MR BAINES: - - - to offset there. 20 MR JAMIESON: Yes. MR BAINES: Finally for you Mr Jamieson, on the climate change, a couple of things here. Paragraph 125. You talk about changes that do occur, - - - 25 MR JAMIESON: Yes. MR BAINES: - - - and I suppose we are talking about the incidence of high winds and storms and so-on, are expected to occur over a relatively 30 long period. And are you essentially saying that we are not going to experience anything too different from now for quite a long time? We are actually going to wait quite a long time before there will be significant changes or not? 35 MR JAMIESON: That is correct, and I mean, it is an issue of perception and statistics in that people may perceive now, because we have had a few storms recently, that suddenly a result of climate change, we do not get storms on a regular basis. And it takes a relatively long time to establish whether there is in fact any change in that incidence of storms 40 or the levels of wind speeds that you are going to get. MR BAINES: I would have assumed that people interested in this sort of area, climatology, are constantly monitoring every bit of data they can possibly get so that they know exactly where we are up until this point 45 in time and we are not waiting for 50 years before we look backwards. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7160 MR JAMIESON: Yes, I got - - - MR BAINES: Yes, I am with you. 5 MR JAMIESON: - - - somewhat excited recently when I discovered a website where you can download a spreadsheet which will adjust the weather data that we use for different scenarios. And I wanted to know what Wellington would be like in 2080 or something, - - - 10 MR BAINES: Yes. MR JAMIESON: - - - so they had 2020, 2050, and 2080 or something as scenarios. And it was disappointingly not very spectacular in terms of the increase in average wind speeds, which is what we were talking 15 about. So the first thing is, it is very difficult to design now for that 60, 80-year - - - MR BAINES: Right. 20 MR JAMIESON: - - - timeframe when as far as I can tell, it might be a 20 percent increase in average wind speed which might be a 40 percent increase in force on people. But it is not huge and it is much less important than we currently face. 25 The other thing is that we all know that if we take two years to build a building, we never have the opportunity as a citizen to compare the before and after. Because during the construction of the building, things change and the weather last year and this year is much more varied than the likely effect - - - 30 MR BAINES: Right. MR JAMIESON: - - - of that building. So we end up designing for now because it is so difficult to cover all of the possible ways in which we 35 might look at the future. MR BAINES: Given our discussion that we had earlier on this morning about the various risk. One is the safety risk, the other one is the amenity values. 40 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7161 [1.05 pm] MR JAMIESON: Yes. 5 MR BAINES: Do we, in terms of climate change, do we need to focus more on the frequency of extremes or the central tendencies, or is it a matter of actually looking at both? Do you know what I mean? MR JAMIESON: Yes. 10 MR BAINES: In terms of what we - - - MR DONN: At this point - - - 15 MR BAINES: - - - are looking at here, and the issues we have been looking here. MR DONN: At this point, you step beyond my expertise into me being a climatologist which I would say I am not. My understanding is that 20 from the literature is that extreme events are more likely in the future in New Zealand. But I would have to say I would be relying on my general - - - MR BAINES: Right. 25 MR DONN: - - - reading rather than my expertise. MR JAMIESON: I would agree with Mr Donn. The other thing that I think we need to consider in terms of climate change, as I have pointed out, is 30 that it is recognised that climate change is going to occur over a long period, and we are talking 20, 30, 40, 50 years or more. And in that time this area of the city is going to have changed significantly - - - MR BAINES: Right. 35 MR JAMIESON: - - - from what it is now. MR BAINES: And anticipated my last question for you which is on that last paper, where you say there will be significant changes in the buildings 40 of the Basin Reserve area, that I readily accept. Then you go on to say that would generally be expected to improve shelter, so I am interested to know why you think whatever these changes might be would improve. What kind of assumptions are you making there in terms of - - - 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7162 MR JAMIESON: In typical cities when developers are looking developing new buildings, they will never replace a building with a similar sized building or a smaller building. - - - 5 MR BAINES: Right. MR JAMIESON: - - - They will always build bigger and broader and et cetera. And when you are talking about wind effects, it is typically the first building into an area that is bigger than the surrounding buildings that 10 has the most dramatic effect, simply because there is less shelter for that building. - - - MR BAINES: Right. 15 MR JAMIESON: - - - As you gradually add more and more buildings, - - - MR BAINES: Yes. MR JAMIESON: - - - the mutual shelter that those buildings offer each other, 20 and in turn the surrounding pedestrian areas, becomes greater. - - - MR BAINES: Right. MR JAMIESON: - - - So for example, the wind conditions in Midland Park if 25 I can make an example, it used to be well-known as windswept hole, if I can use that terminology. Whereas nowadays you will find that on any reasonable day, there is considerable number of people that use that park for lunch and coffee and all sorts of other activities. 30 MR BAINES: Yes. MR DONN: If I may add, my recollection, someone in the room may be able to correct me, but I believe the height limit between here and Courtney Place is 30 metres. 35 MR COLLINS: It is 27. MR DONN: So from here - - - 40 CHAIRPERSON: 18 metres on the west side? MR DONN: Yes, so the potential between now and 2080 in terms of climate change is not only have we had changes in the weather conditions, but also that all of that mass of buildings, and that there is possibly – So, 45 the only thing I would be worried about is Kent and Cambridge Terrace - too wide? And would that channel more wind to the street? So - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7163 MR BAINES: I guess that is what I was – I am interested in your comment on that. We have heard many references to the growth spine and what is happening in Te Aro in terms of more residential development and so- 5 on. Would I be right in thinking that that is – If we are thinking about the relevance of wind issues, the ones that we have been discussing for this bridge structure in the location that the bridge structure is proposed, and looking ahead and saying, well if Kents and Cambridge Terrace should evolve in the way that perhaps you have alluded to, Mr 10 Jamieson, in other words, when buildings get replaced they will be probably bigger and so-on. If you envisaged Kent and Cambridge getting progressively, over a length of time, more built on either side of a boulevard, because there is a canal reserve that goes down there that presumably protects the sanctity of that space. Am I correct in thinking 15 that what you are saying is that for the individual buildings as they go up, the previous buildings may provide shelter for them? If you end up with more of a channel down the Kents/Cambridge Terrace, what implications might that have or would you offer any observations about the implications for wind issues and the Basin Bridge in the location 20 that it is proposed? [1.10 pm] MR JAMIESON: Kent and Cambridge Terrace are somewhat aligned with the 25 prevailing winds, but not strictly so. They are at an angle to the north- westerly winds which are some of the higher wind speeds of that prevailing sector. In some respects, it could potentially increase – sorry, essentially build up a wall of buildings through there, it could potentially add some element of channelling, but by the same token it 30 could also remove some of the wind flow that you would normally get coming over the motorised buildings at the moment. So in some respects, it will be a swings and roundabouts’ situation, and could potentially result in very little change. It is again, something that you would have to identify as that development happened. 35 MR DONN: May I – you encapsulated the problem for the last 30 years of design for wind in Wellington. I was corrected many years ago when I pointed out that there could be these other influences around and it is like, we must only look at the current proposal, not what might happen 40 in 10, 20, or 30 years. So the implication being if this building makes the wind worse but eventually it will be all right – we might have eventually in 30 years’ time, so we have got to deal with this situation now. So that is the first thing. The second thing is, I would look at Taranki Street which I would consider is narrower, it follows the same 45 path and is too wide for a sensibly designed windy city. If you kind of, look at traditional European cities in this kind of windy climate, they Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7164 never quite get as windy as this, but narrow streets in forward of 6 storey buildings work well. The more you open up, the more you risk channelling. To actually be able to say it will be or it will not be, I am with Mr Jamieson. 5 MR BAINES: One final question on that though. The relationship that you talked about before, in other words, ground level compared with 10 metres up, you would not expect that relationship to change? 10 MR DONN: No. MR BAINES: You know, you would not expect the relativities to change. Whatever change you get at ground level because of changes, the fact that you go from ground level to 10 metres up, you would not expect 15 that to change? MR JAMIESON: Yes, I would. MR BAINES: You would? 20 MR JAMIESON: I mean simply – I mean, we talked about the frictional effects of the buildings, essentially, or the structures before. If you change the size and density of those frictional elements, you change what we call the boundary layer profile. So that variation of wind speed 25 and turbulence with height. MR BAINES: Yes. MR JAMIESON: So the larger and more dense you make those frictional 30 elements, the more you slow the wind speed down at lower levels. So your difference might get greater but your absolute values might go down. MR BAINES: I see, thank you. That is very clear. Sorry, the answer is clear. 35 Thank you very much, that is very helpful. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you for that. Just one follow-up question on climate change, in paragraph 1.25 Mr Jamieson, of your evidence, second paragraph, of the first two sentences, ‘I believe there is no 40 significant need to incorporate mitigation measures specifically targeted at climate change at this time. Wind mitigation measures in this situation can be incorporated at a later stage’, which reflects what you have been talking about. If the bridge is granted, it is going to be there for a long, long time. 45 MR JAMIESON: Correct. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7165 CHAIRPERSON: Probably a hundred years or more. What wind mitigation measures are you envisaging would be needed, if at all? 5 MR JAMIESON: Something similar to what we have already discussed as an option, which would be vertical screens either solid or porous along the sides. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, good, thank you. 10 MR DONN: I might add that I suspect they would never be built. If you talk about something where you have a change over 80 years, you do not notice what it used to be like and try to solve what it used to be like. You just say - - - 15 CHAIRPERSON: Good point. MR DONN: It is actually windy. No one remembers and that is the problem we have with a lot of these things. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Because windiness is relative concept. MR DONN: Yes, absolutely. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Well gentlemen, thank you very much for your assistance, we do appreciate it. [1.15 pm] 30 And we have kept you here a little bit longer than we expected and probably you expected. But it has been an interesting morning, and thank you for your assistance. ADJOURNED [1.15 pm] 40 RESUMED [2.20 pm] CHAIRPERSON: Yes, good afternoon, everybody. Just before we start, Mr Dravitzki, we have discussed it as a Board and a couple of the Board members would like to ask some questions of him. So he will need to 45 have to return unfortunately. We could do it by way of written but I think it is more appropriate if he comes back. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7166 MS WEDDE: Yes, sir, that is fine. CHAIRPERSON: Because the questions may need follow up. 5 MS WEDDE: Not a problem. I have advised Mr Dravitzki that may occur. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so if you can arrange that with Glen sometime to schedule a time. 10 MS WEDDE: I think he has an engagement tomorrow morning. So if it could be tomorrow afternoon, that would be great. CHAIRPERSON: That is all right. Well, you just work it out with Glen, thank 15 you. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Brabhaharan, is that right? MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Good. Mr Brabhaharan, welcome along. You have been waiting most of the morning and we apologise for that, it took a bit longer than we expected but now you are with us so we will get you sworn in and proceed. 25 MS WEDDE: Mr Brabhaharan filed a supplementary statement yesterday, does the Board have that? CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and what did I do with mine? 30 MS WEDDE: It is a very short statement. CHAIRPERSON: Here. 35 MS WEDDE: Would you like Mr Brabhaharan to read that statement before taking any questions? CHAIRPERSON: No, I have not got one. 40 MS WEDDE: It is actually dated the 18th of May but apologies, that is an error, it was filed yesterday. CHAIRPERSON: So, we will get Mr Brabhaharan to read it. 45 MS WEDDE: Read it. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7167 5 MS WEDDE: Good afternoon. Can you please confirm your full name is Pathmanathan Brabhaharan? MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes, that is correct. 10 MS WEDDE: And you have prepared a statement of evidence-in-chief and one supplementary statement of evidence for this inquiry? MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes, that is true. 15 MS WEDDE: Can you please confirm that your qualifications and experience are set out in paragraphs 1.3 to 1.5 of your evidence-in-chief? MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes. 20 MS WEDDE: Thank you and do you have any corrections to make to the evidence you have filed? MR BRABHAHARAN: No. 25 MS WEDDE: Do you confirm that the contents of those statements are true and correct to the best of your knowledge and ability? MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes, I do. 30 MS WEDDE: Thank you, and the Board has just requested that you read your supplementary statement filed yesterday. MR BRABHAHARAN: Okay. 35 MS WEDDE: So, if you could do that please? MR BRABHAHARAN: Okay, yes. DISCUSSION 40 MS WEDDE: No, there should just be one statement of evidence and one statement of supplementary evidence. Yes, so Mr Brabhaharan did not file a summary of evidence as there is an executive summary in his evidence-in-chief. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7168 MR BRABHAHARAN: Okay, I will read the supplementary evidence filed yesterday. CHAIRPERSON: From 2.1. 5 MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes, from 2.1, so we had some questions from the Architectural Centre and the Newtown Residents Association and the asked and my answers to them are set out below. What ground conditions would be encountered geologically for the tunnel portion of 10 the Option X trench? [2.25 pm] Are these the same as ground conditions encountered along the extent 15 of Buckle Street underpass or Option F trench, what are the differences? Which areas along Buckle Street would be best quality ground condition to trench and which would be the poorest? 2.2, the tunnelling 20 portion of Option X trench extends along Buckle Street just east of Tory Street to the east of Sussex Street and the ground conditions involved lose to medium dense fill underlain by soft to firm silt and clay with inter bedded sand layers. 25 The ground is predominantly stiff, silt clay and dense sand gravel below about 9 metres. Bedrock depth varies from about 15 metres below ground at Tory Street to over 20 metres at Sussex Street. The ground water is at a depth of 3 metres to 4 metres below ground. Some layers of sand may be prone to liquefaction in earthquakes and it is 30 understood that evidence of past liquefaction was observed during excavation for the construction works in this area. 2.3, the ground conditions along the Memorial Park Tunnel under construction is generally much better than along Option X because 35 bedrock is shallower and the thickness of weak deposits are generally thinner. 2.4, the ground conditions along the tunnel section of Option F are much poorer with bedrock being at much greater depths greater than 30 metres with the shallow ground water conditions with ground water near the surface and artesian ground water levels as described in 40 my section 3.8 of my evidence-in-chief. The next question was what geological conditions were assumed for the cost estimate for Option X 2.5, I was not responsible for preparing the cost estimate for Option X but understand that the cost estimate 45 assumed similar ground conditions for the Option X trench as for the Buckle Street underpass. No ground improvement in the form of stone Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7169 columns or other techniques were allowed for in the estimate for the tunnel section of Options X. 2.7, new information has come to light through construction of the Buckle Street Underpass, has indicated that this is very optimistic as the conditions for the Option X tunnel sections 5 would require ground improvements which were not included in the previous estimate. That is the end of my supplementary evidence. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 10 MS WEDDE: Yes, thank you and would you now take any questions? CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Milne? MR BRABHAHARAN: Fill is a manmade fill which has been placed at some time during the past. 25 MR MILNE: And what portion of the, perhaps if I could show you a plan. So there is spare copies here for the board, it is a document I was going to put to Mr Kenderdine. Now this is a plan that has been prepared for the Architectural Centre but it is based on the NZTA section and the reference is given there and I think the original section was provided by 30 Mr Blackmore and is in the bundle. No? Sorry, the Board does not have it. [2.30 pm] 35 So, just looking at the section, what it showed is the blue dotted line is the line of the War Memorial Pass under park as proposed and you can see some little green cars on there and then the green shaded area is the area which would need to be excavated out to link through Option X to the underpass. Which parts of that shaded area is the fill in and how 40 extensive is the total area of fill that you are referring to? MR BRABHAHARAN: So, if we look at that cross section you have tabled. The top line, the black line is the existing ground line and the fill thickness is about four metres, three to four metres, it varies across that 45 area but generally the upper part of that excavation would be infill and below that it would be all the alluvial sediments. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7170 MR MILNE: So 4 metres and then horizontally where does that fill start and end in relation to the, if you could take us from the east side through to the west end there where it joins with the tunnel underpass. How much 5 of that area is fill? MR BRABHAHARAN: Well, generally the fill thickness varies towards the tunnel underpass. 10 MR MILNE: Yes. MR BRABHAHARAN: So it will be less at the western end. MR MILNE: Yes. So, the whole area, the whole length of that additional 15 excavation that is required does not involve excavation to fill, does it? MR BRABHAHARAN: No. MR MILNE: No. And in order to carry out accurate costing one would need 20 to know how much of that are was fill and that could be calculated on the basis of the existing information from the area, could it? MR BRABHAHARAN: I mean in terms of excavation there is not a huge difference between whether it is filled or the natural sediments but the 25 strength of the material will have an influence on what support is required for the trench excavation during construction. MR MILNE: And was the same sort of fill encountered for the underpass excavation? 30 MR BRABHAHARAN: The underpass, yes but lesser fill and lesser aluminium as well because for the underpass opposite the Chameloon bedrock is quite shallow. 35 MR MILNE: Now, that was going to be my next point. When you say bedrock is quite shallow, do I take it from that, that in terms of excavating for the underpass there would have needed to be more bedrock excavated than there would need to be for the extension of the underpass in terms of Option X which is through softer material. 40 MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes, that is correct. MR MILNE: And so, in terms of the cost excavation, that would in fact lower the cost of excavation wouldn’t it? 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7171 MR BRABHAHARAN: Depends on what we mean by the cost of excavation. The cost of construction, if you look at the cost of construction it has got two components, one is the cost of actually excavating the material and although it is bedrock geologically it is quite weathered so it will 5 be easy to excavate through that material and would not be much harder than excavating through the natural material. But the cost of construction will involve support of the sites of the trench and that would be a lot more expensive when it is not in rock but in softer material. 10 MR MILNE: Yes. For the underpass there needed to be side piling and so on to support the sides of the wall of the underpass as it was construction, didn’t there? 15 MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes, there was piles being constructed to support the excavation and prevent uplift I understand. MR MILNE: So, where you refer at 2.7 of your supplementary to, “this would require ground improvements which were not included in the previous 20 estimates”, what are the ground improvements you are talking about there? MR BRABHAHARAN: Ground improvement could be stone columns or deep soil mixing or it could be ground improvement piles. 25 MR MILNE: Yes. MR BRABHAHARAN: So there are a variety of techniques available to do ground improvement. So the purpose of the ground improvement is to 30 improve the strength of the ground and also reduce the potential for liquefaction in earthquakes. [2.35 pm] 35 MR MILNE: And were those techniques used for the underpass project? MR BRABHAHARAN: There was piling done but not ground improvement in terms of strong columns so deep, soil mixing. But there is ground improvement proposed for the bridge abutment. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Sorry? MR MILNE: The ground improvements - - - 45 MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7172 MR MILNE: - - - required for the bridge abutments. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so when you say piling, you do not pile to improve the strength of the ground. You were talking about - - - 5 MR BRABHAHARAN: The piles are to provide support to the structure - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 10 MR BRABHAHARAN: - - - and also prevent uplift - - - CHAIRPERSON: So that is - - - MR BRABHAHARAN: - - - where the ground water level is high or where 15 there is liquefaction. CHAIRPERSON: So – but when you are talking about ground improvements, are you excluding piling? Or is it part of the ground improvements? 20 MR BRABHAHARAN: It could be used as part of the ground improvements, - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 25 MR BRABHAHARAN: - - - that is one of the techniques. CHAIRPERSON: So the ground improvements carried out on the Buckle Street underpass was piling? 30 MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes, it was used as a structural measure to prevent uplift and - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 35 MR BRABHAHARAN: - - - (INDISTINCT 1.28) of the structures. CHAIRPERSON: And what other types of ground improvements? MR BRABHAHARAN: Other types are strong columns where you form a 40 hole in the ground and fill it with granular stone material, aggregate, which strengthens the ground but also allows groundwater pressures to dissipate in an earthquake when it builds up to minimise the potential of the liquefaction. And there are other techniques like deep soil mixing where you auger a hole into the ground and mix the soil with cement 45 and get the strength in the ground. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7173 MR MILNE: Maybe if the Board could be provided with a copy of Mr Duncan Kenderdine’s supplementary evidence which has some drawings attached to it. Do you have one of those? Thank you. Not the last drawing, the third to last drawing. The third to last page, there is a 5 drawing that looks like that. MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes. MR MILNE: Do you have that one, Mr Brabhaharan? 10 MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes. MR MILNE: So that is the, as I understand it, the piling as shown in there so that the darker grey material under the Memorial Park is the bedrock 15 material, is that right? MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes. MR MILNE: And then the vertical lines, grey lines at either end of that, that 20 is showing the piling, is that correct? MR BRABHAHARAN: That is correct, yes. MR MILNE: And projecting that through to Sussex Street, because of the soft 25 nature of the material, there would need to be similar piling if the underpass was extended through under Sussex Street, is that right? MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes, either the piling of other ground improvement measures, as I explained earlier. 30 MR MILNE: And then just going back to your earlier paragraph 2.2, you say that groundwater is at a depth of three to four metres below ground. Now, is that below the – So, if you can answer in reference to the long section I have provided to you. Is the groundwater level below the 35 ground surface all the way along that section or does it vary? MR BRABHAHARAN: It varies. Generally look at the section and look at where the words are NZTA proposed landscapes steps in green. So to the right of that is the higher ground, so the other ground water level is 40 about three or four metres below ground. But to the east of that or to the left of that, on the lower ground, groundwater level is very high and it is close to the ground surface. MR MILNE: Right. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7174 MR BRABHAHARAN: Like where we are now, the groundwater level is not very far from the ground surface. It is within the upper metre or so. MR MILNE: And back at Buckle Street, if we take Tory Street as a starting 5 point, so on the east side of Tory Street, how far below ground level is - - - [2.40 pm] 10 MR BRABHAHARAN: The ground level is about four metres below there. MR MILNE: And then, if we come through to say, where the line is which says 8.7 metres or, or – well, around there, what’s the ground water level there? 15 MR BRABHAHARAN: Probably not that much different, probably quite similar. MR MILNE: Yes. And then, again if you come through to the high point 20 where it drops off, I think you were saying it’s similar again. MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes or a little bit, ground water might be a bit deeper there. 25 MR MILNE: So for most of that additional excavation ground water conditions are not dissimilar from those encountered for the Buckle Street underpass is that correct? MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes. 30 MR MILNE: Okay. Now just moving more general to – moving away from Option X. In terms of the Option F, the Paterson Street abutment, what are the ground conditions in the area of the proposed Paterson Street abutment? 35 MR BRABHAHARAN: For which Option? MR MILNE: For Option A the Basin Bridge option. 40 MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes. So there’s alluvial bit of ground but the abutment the ground is a big higher so it’s better ground than under the Basin here. MR MILNE: Yes. 45 MR BRABHAHARAN: But there is still some alluvial settlement there. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7175 MR MILNE: And in terms of liquefaction issues in that area. MR BRABHAHARAN: Not much liquefaction issues at the Paterson Street 5 abutment. There’s more liquefaction at the other abutment, the left abutment. MR MILNE: Right. So the Sussex Street. 10 MR BRABHAHARAN: The Sussex Street abutment, yes. MR MILNE: Yes. And do you know the total volumes of excavation required for the Paterson Street abutment? 15 MR BRABHAHARAN: No I don’t. MR MILNE: And - - - MR BRABHAHARAN: But at Paterson Street there might be more fill there 20 because the road is climbing towards the Mount Victoria Tunnel. MR MILNE: So, is it fair to say that because of the construction of the Buckle Street underpass, we have or you have a good understanding of the construction challenges of building through those sorts of materials and 25 those conditions? MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes. And Duncan Kenderdine will talking after me, he can give you a bit more information on that, direct experience of construction. 30 MR MILNE: Whereas, in terms of the building work required for the bridge, there are still some uncertainties, aren’t there, in terms of the construction conditions for the two abutments and for the deep piles that will be required to support the bridge structure? 35 MR BRABHAHARAN: No those areas have been adequately excavated so we have a good appreciation of the ground conditions there. MR MILNE: Now there’s a liquefaction layer at the Basin itself, isn’t there, 40 how far down does that go? MR BRABHAHARAN: There are a number of layers which are liquefiable below the Basin, not all of the ground but some layers, and it goes down to generally down about 10/12 metres, but there are some 45 localised layers even below that. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7176 MR MILNE: So some localised layers that go down to about 23 metres, is that right? MR BRABHAHARAN: May be not as much as 23, may be – yes, maybe 5 17/18 metres. MR MILNE: And, am I right in saying, that there is an aqualude at about 15- 20 metres deep? 10 MR BRABHAHARAN: Can you say that again please? MR MILNE: An aqualude. MR BRABHAHARAN: You mean aquiclude? 15 MR MILNE: Yes, I’m – I probably do mean that. MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes. Yes, aquiclude is basically natural materials which have a low permeability and therefore they separate different 20 groundwater horizons. So in this context the shallow upper 10 metres or so have got, as I mention very high groundwater levels near the ground surface, and below that there is a clear silt layer which functions as aquiclude which basically separates the shallow ground from the deep aquifer. 25 CHAIRPERSON: So an aquiclude is an area which has got an impermeable bottom and an impermeable roof or ceiling? [2.45 pm] 30 MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes, yes. CHAIRPERSON: Annexed in between. 35 MR BRABHARARAN: Yes. Is it possible to have the exhibit from, yes that one please. MR WEDDE: Annexure 1 to Mr Brabhaharan’s evidence-in-chief. There are two cross sections. I think he wants to refer to the second of those. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Can we put it on the board, please? MR BRABHAHARAN: So if we look at that figure it shows a light grey colour. 45 MS WEDDE: Let’s just wait for it to come up on the screen, thank you. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7177 DISCUSSION MR BRABHAHARAN: All right, so if we look at this long section along the 5 bridge the upper part is the shallow aquifer and in that ground the groundwater pressures are near the ground surface. And then towards the bottom of that is this light grey layer which is a clear silt layer which functions like this aqua fluid and below that the light blue layer is the middle aquifer. 10 So in the middle aquifer the groundwater pressures are artesian and what I mean by that is that the groundwater pressure if we drill to that depth the groundwater pressure will rise up above ground level about 9 metres or so. So it’s quite high groundwater pressure there. 15 And then below that blue layer there’s another low permeable layer and then the deeper aquifer is in the deeper gravels and the bedrock and that has artesian pressures as well but not as high as the middle aquifer. 20 MR MILNE: Thank you. It’s the combination of the soft material and the artesian conditions and the potential for liquefaction which lead to the deep piling which is shown in Mr Kenderdine’s annexure is that right? MR BRABHAHARAN: That’s correct, yes. 25 MR MILNE: And so some of those piles go down to 30 to 36 metres is that right? MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes, that kind of order, yes. 30 MR MILNE: So would it be fair to say that in terms of the bridge there are still some unknowns and some risks in terms of construction costs? [2.50 pm] 35 MR BRABHAHARAN: There has been quite a lot of investigations done – both during the scheme stage as well as recently and so the ground conditions and the risks are in my opinion quite well understood. 40 MR MILNE: And just finally, the Option F which was a tunnel traversing the Basin area, the area where the piles etcetera are shown, I take it from your comments in your supplementary evidence that that would be rather more difficult ground conditions than for either the underpass or Option X. 45 MR BRABHAHARAN: That’s correct. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7178 MR MILNE: And difficult both in terms of the soft nature of the material, liquefaction potential and the groundwater conditions. 5 MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes. MR MILNE: Thank you. MR BRABHAHARAN: If I can just add to that – if I can have the plan which 10 you have got Frances, please. CHAIRPERSON: Can you just repeat those three matters you mentioned? MR MILNE: I’m not sure that I’ll remember them. The soft ground 15 conditions, the liquefaction potential and the groundwater levels. They’re the three factors which would make tunnelling through this area costly in terms of construction methods. MR BRABHAHARAN: That’s correct yes. Just I’d like to sort of explain the 20 liquefaction issues. In the lower part of the valley where the Basin is there are these liquefaction issues. But the ground is quite flat so when the ground is flat material can liquefy and lose its strength but the material can’t go anywhere naturally because the ground is flat. So it will liquefy and you will get some subsidence of the ground, but you 25 won’t get gross displacement. But where you have a slope in the ground which could be a natural slope in the ground or due to any water courses like – many of you might have seen on television in Christchurch when the earthquake happened there was a lot of lateral spreading where the ground laterally deforms. So that lateral spreading 30 could be a lot more severe and damaging because it could move a number of metres but also the lateral forces are much more difficult to withstand by a structure than some vertical settlement. So just at the eastern end of the Option X tunnel the ground slopes 35 quite sharply down and you would have noticed when we drive out of the car park here the ground goes quite steeply down to the lower level. And because of the slope of the ground there’s potential for lateral spreading due to liquefaction which can cause a lot more damage to any structures built on that ground. 40 So for the bridge abutment the abutments are quite narrow and they will be strengthened with ground improvement, but with Option X with the fairly long section of tunnel at the left two quite large bridge structures straddling that slope, any liquefaction could cause lateral 45 spreading which will enforce quite large loads on the piles and foundations of that structure. So to resist that it will need quite Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7179 extensive ground improvement because instead of intersecting that slope along a narrow road width the tunnel at the bridges are straddling obliquely along that slope. 5 So that whole slope would need to be stabilised to prevent lateral spreading. And in particular during the recent excavations there has been evidence of liquefaction found so there were waves in the ground filled with sand which appears to have happened during a past earthquake so when you have liquefaction the sand and water gets 10 ejected to the ground and that forms some cracks in the ground, and there were cracks filled with sand during excavation, which indicate that - this is just near Sussex Street, so indicate that there has been liquefaction and lateral spreading in the past due to earthquakes. So that’s one thing that which we need to carefully consider when we are 15 looking at building on that area, to make sure that it’s resilient to earthquakes and lateral spreading. [2.55 pm] 20 MR MILNE: Sir, I do have some questions arising out of that, since it’s been introduced at this stage. You refer to the bridge structure, I assume you’re referring to the orange curved area on the left hand side of the diagram, which is the 25 proposed Option X green bridge, is that right? MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes. MR MILNE: So the comments you’re making are in relation to the need, if 30 there was such a structure for it to allow for liquefaction and lateral spreading, is that right? MR BRABHAHARAN: Yeah, we do have ground improvement. 35 MR MILNE: Those comments though aren’t in relation to the underpass itself, so if you forget the bridge structure, if that was taken out of the equation, there is no great difficulty in extending the underpass under Sussex Street in terms of the issues that you’ve just been talking about, is there 40 MR BRABHAHARAN: It will still require ground improvement because the natural ground is sloping, so there will be liquefaction and lateral spreading, which would need to be dealt with. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7180 MR MILNE: And that’s something that’s regularly done and could in fact be observed as one’s going up Kapiti Coast and looking at the new expressway construction in terms of dealing with ground improvement. 5 MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes, it is more and more done these days, but it is quite expensive. MR MILNE: And were you also referring to that in terms of the pedestrian bridge, which is the orange structure on this side, on the eastern side? 10 MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes, on the eastern side there is not so much of a slope, at that place it’s fairly flat and the ground is not as bad as on the western side, so less so at that other end. 15 MR MILNE: All right. And that bridge structure, or part of it, is in the area of the proposed Option F abutment, isn’t it, Paterson Street abutment. MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes. 20 MR MILNE: Thank you. MR BAINES: Can I ask a question of clarification. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. 25 MR BAINES: Mr Brabhaharan, are you saying that it’s the slope of the terrain that necessitates ground strengthening in order to make sure the ground is stable beneath whatever structures are built above it? 30 MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes. MR BAINES: And that happens on both sides of this valley, because there are slopes on both sides, does that apply to any structure that is going to go across them? 35 MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes, any structure. MR BAINES: It’s the slope of the underlying ground that necessitates ground strengthening. 40 MR BRABHAHARAN: Strengthening, that’s correct. MR BAINES: So are you saying that the extent of ground strengthening is going to differ between one option and another, if they both pass over 45 the same sloping ground? Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7181 MR BRABHAHARAN: It will because with Option A the road runs perpendicular to the slope, so the amount of slope covered by the road corridor is quite narrow. 5 MR BAINES: Right. MR BRABHAHARAN: Therefore we need improvement of the ground below the abutment, and further back if the ground settles a bit, on an embankment it’s easy to reconstruct after an earthquake from a 10 resilience perspective. If you get some settlement in an embankment to an actual ground it is easy to, from a resilience perspective it is quite resilient because if you get some settlement you can bring in some earthmoving machinery, you re-grade it. Whereas if you have a structure which gets damaged due to the lateral spreading on a slope it 15 will be a lot more damaging, and that’s been quite widely observed on a number of bridges in Christchurch where there was lateral spreading of the ground. MR BAINES: Okay, so two things there, one is the amount of ground 20 strengthening required, let’s look at the area underneath the area that Mr Milne was referring to, underneath what looks an orange question mark, do you see what I mean? MR BRABHAHARAN: The bridge. Yes. 25 [3.00 pm] MR BAINES: Have a look at that area there, the amount of ground strengthening and therefore the costs associated with ground 30 strengthening is, if you like, proportional to the area of land traversed by whatever, by the road or the bridge. Is that correct? MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes. 35 MR BAINES: And if it goes on the diagonal then there’s rather more land and if it goes perpendicular then that's the minimum. And this shows that Option X is very slightly off perpendicular, but not much off perpendicular is it? 40 MR BRABHAHARAN: The road itself, yes you are correct. MR BAINES: Now, and my other question is did I hear you just say a few moments ago though that in terms of if you had a seismic event and there was liquefaction and the potential for lateral spread, that if you’ve 45 essentially just got a road going across it then you can quite easily Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7182 remedy that, whereas if you have a more solid structure, then the structure may have to be repaired. MR BRABHAHARAN: Particularly if it’s on a slope. 5 MR BAINES: Particularly if it’s on a slope? MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes. If it’s on level ground you can pile through that. 10 MR BAINES: Right, okay. MR BRABHAHARAN: That’s okay. MR BAINES: So, in this particular case, Option A is the option with the 15 substantial concrete structure above the ground, is it not? MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes. MR BAINES: And Option X is the option that essentially has, as that point 20 anyway, an at-grade road approaching, a road and a trench in effect? MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes, so that tunnel structure would be the structure that would need to have ground improvement. MR BAINES: So the tunnel structure would have it, but also the bridge 25 structure would require ground improvements as well? MR BRABAHARAN: The bridge structure. MR BAINES: Yes. 30 MR BRABAHARAN: And where the ground, for the piers, you just have piles going down to bedrock or dense material, so. And where you get settlement, vertical settlement due to liquefaction, that will be fine because you don’t have that lateral spread issue. 35 MR BAINES: Right, okay. MR BRABAHARAN: So the abutment of the bridge would require ground improvement but also with Option X the tunnel structure, as the less, 40 the bridge structure which goes obliquely over the slope, that will also - - - MR BAINES: Yes, so you mean this one that’s coloured red structure. 45 MR BRABAHARAN: Yes, the red structure, yes. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7183 MR BAINES: But I think Mr Milne said if you set that aside then you are looking at the vehicular route comparing those, then without that pedestrian bridge structure, there is not so much ground improvement that needs to be done under Option X? 5 MR BRABAHARAN: For the tunnel there would be. MR BAINES: You would need it for the trenching part? 10 MR BRABAHARAN: Yes, the trenching part, yes. Not for the at- grade part. Whereas at-grade, you’ll get some liquefaction and settlement, you’ll get deformation of the ground, it can be quickly reinstated. MR BAINES: Right, but that can be reinstated? 15 MR BRAHAHARAN: Yes. MR BAINES: Okay, thank you very much. Thank you for that explanation. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination? MS WEDDE: No, I don’t think so, sir. Can I just have one moment please? No, no questions thank you sir. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any further questions from the Board? Not one? Mr Collins? MR COLLINS: Just out of curiosity really. But the diagram Mr Milne put to you seems to suggest that. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Can we call that? MR MILNE: Mr Kenderdine? 35 MR COLLINS: That seems to be suggesting excavating a large amount of material to match up Option X as it was put forward in the submission with the underpass as it’s being built. But I think we understand the underpass has been built really at this end to align with the proposed bridge; it’s higher. Is that right? So what is being built is not ideal for 40 Option X, it’s ideal for Option A. MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes. MR COLLINS: That’s right. Because the other alternative, simply out of 45 curiosity, might be that to reverse Option X so the, rather than the State Highway going into a tunnel, the State Highway carries on at-grade. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7184 And the north-south roads go into a tunnel. Would that be easy, would that involve less excavation, or have you given any thought to that? Because the aim is to achieve grade separation. I don’t suppose it 5 matters particularly which way it goes. But given that the National War Memorial Underpass is being built as it’s being built and sort of committed, maybe Option X should be reversed, or is that totally not feasible? 10 [3.05 pm] MR BRABHAHARAN: So you mean - - - CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what do you mean by reverse? 15 MR BRABHAHARAN: From Sussex Street it goes in a tunnel through to link with Cambridge/Kent Terrace. MR COLLINS: Yes, well – yes, or possibly a cut with a bridge over it. I do 20 not know, you know, how much of a – I mean all you got to do is achieve grade separation – if you are an engineer and asked to design, you know, asked about options for getting grade separation at this corner, given the levels on what you know about the ground conditions, would you be considering an option of reversing the Option X way of 25 doing it to the other way, does that make any sense at all to you? MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes, yes, let me have a – just think about it – so Sussex Street is at a high level so you need to lower Sussex Street, so - - - 30 MR COLLINS: Yes, you go into a trench, I guess, into a trench and then hit a bridge, it is a State Highway passing over on a bridge. MR BRABHAHARAN: And then that trench will go under the State 35 Highway? MR COLLINS: Yes, and then down to Cambridge and Kent Terraces. MR BRABHAHARAN: And down to Cambridge, yes. 40 MR COLLINS: Because the ground is higher – at this corner of course. MR BRABHAHARAN: Yes, yes. Okay, I mean you could do that. in terms of geotechnical issues, you would still have the issue of liquefaction and 45 that was spreading in that corner area where the tunnel is, so you will need quite a lot of ground improvement because, again that tunnel will Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7185 be running oblique to the slope, so the whole slope area will need to be ground improved. So it would be possible but it would be more costly. MR COLLINS: Okay, thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Mr Baines? MR BAINES: Nothing, that is fine, thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON: No, and I have no questions, thank you very much for your assistance. MR BRABHAHARAN: Thank you. 15 DISCUSSION MR COLLINS: Do we label this one? 20 CHAIRPERSON: Who produced this? MR……….: It was me. 25 CHAIRPERSON: I am not quite sure where it came from, produced by NZTA. MS WEDDE: Yes, although it was during the cross-examination with my friend Mr Milne. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it sort of appeared from nowhere, you did not put it in Mr Milne, did you? DISCUSSION 35 CHAIRPERSON: I think your witness did it of his own accord I think. MS WEDDE: Yes. 40 CHAIRPERSON: That is what you call having control over your witness or not having control over your witness. DISCUSSION Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7186 [3.10 pm] CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well welcome along, Mr Kenderdine. 5 MR KENDERDINE: Thank you, your Honour. MR CAMERON: I will be leading this witness sir and has the witness be sworn please, thank you. 10 MR CAMERON: Your full name is Duncan Brutton Kenderdine? 15 MR KENDERDINE: Correct. MR CAMERON: You are the Alliance Manager for the Memorial Park Alliance? 20 MR KENDERDINE: Correct. MR CAMERON: You are also, and in that capacity you are responsible for the design and construction of the National War Memorial Park project 25 and in the course of your evidence you have set out what constitutes the Alliance, in other words what the membership of the Alliance is at part two of your evidence-in-chief? MR KENDERDINE: Correct. 30 MR CAMERON: You are giving evidence in relation to this matter on matters that arise and which may be relevant from that project and also in relation to the Basin Bridge project? 35 MR KENDERDINE: Correct. MR CAMERON: To assist the Board you have prepared evidence-in-chief dated the 25th of October 2013 and also a statement of rebuttal evidence date the 21st of January 2014? 40 MR KENDERDINE: I have. MR CAMERON: Can you confirm that the contents of both statements are true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief? 45 MR KENDERDINE: At the time, yes. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7187 MR CAMERON: Now to assist the Board you have also prepared a summary of evidence that you will be giving today and sir at this point I may turn and inquire has the Board had an opportunity to pre-read that 5 document, I am going to assume not? CHAIRPERSON: No, we only got it half way through lunch. MR CAMERON: Yes, I understand entirely and so I am going to ask Mr 10 Kenderdine to read that summary in its entirety and to assist to explain various matters that arise. Within that document he has prepared a PowerPoint which reflects the hard copy of various attachments to the materials that have been pre-circulated sir. Is that correct Mr Kenderdine 15 MR KENDERDINE: Thank you, sir. MR CAMERON: Could you please now read your summary of evidence and at any particular point that you wish to add to it by way of further 20 comment or add to a particular topic by way of further comment can you please make it clear when you are doing so to the Board and proceed to give that explanation? CHAIRPERSON: Could I also add you have a lot of attachments at the end of 25 your supplementary evidence? MR KENDERDINE: Yes, your Honour. CHAIRPERSON: When you come to it in the main part of your evidence 30 could you then turn to the particular attachment and explain it to us? MR KENDERDINE: Certainly. [3.15 pm] 35 CHAIRPERSON: Otherwise you just read on and there is no correlation between the two. MR KENDERDINE: Yes, there are a large number of drawings in this 40 exercise already. MR CAMERON: Also documents, Mr Kenderdine, and so far as the documents are concerned we will work through those together all right to assist. Sir, it may also assist if the Board has document from volume 45 one of document B4 being the National War Memorial Park Act to hand when this witness is giving his evidence. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7188 CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute, so what is? MR CAMERON: Section 1B4. 5 CHAIRPERSON: National War Memorial Park Act, is that right? MR CAMERON: That is the one, sir. Thank you Mr Kenderdine, I will ask you now to read your summary of evidence please from paragraph 1.2. 10 MR KENDERDINE: Thank you. I understand that my evidence-in-chief and rebuttal evidence will have been pre-read by the Board. The purpose of this summary statement is to emphasise the key points from that evidence and update the Board on relevant information in respect of the 15 National War Memorial Park project which I will refer to from here on as the Park or the park Project construction. In addition there have been a number of questions raised in the hearing to date which I am to assist with and accordingly I have provided 20 commentary on these matters below. Where necessary and useful I refer to key figures attached to my previous evidence set out at annexure one and I would like to make a small correction there, your Honour, it is actually annexure A and B to my rebuttal evidence. 25 However I have also prepared some new figures in a PowerPoint presentation which collates the relevant figures. If I could pause there your Honour, that annexure is on the drawings behind us which are the staging drawings as you go through and the programme so that was as attached to my rebuttal evidence. 30 In the summary statement I cover my role in relation to the Basin Bridge project, the construction programme, working hours, monitoring and if I could amend that to just have monitoring not monitoring results, my apologies, mitigation and construction management, the 35 proposed conditions, the National War Memorial Park and Crèche, alternative project options to the Basin Bridge and National War Memorial Park traffic. Section two my role in the project. I am the Alliance Manager for the 40 Memorial Park Alliance. MPA, Memorial Park Alliance is currently constructing the Buckle Street underpass and creating the National War Memorial Park. If the Basin Bridge proposal is authorised by the Board of Inquiry then subject to contractual agreement with the New Zealand Transport Agency MPA will construct the Basin Bridge and if 45 we could pause there momentarily your Honour, you questioned I believe Mr Dravitzki on the question of contracted, I think he used the Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7189 term here was contracted to do the bridge and there was a question there, was that answered satisfactorily for you? CHAIRPERSON: Well, yes, Ms Wedde drew to our attention the comment I 5 think you made in one of your previous statements that you are the preferred contract, the Alliance is the preferred contractor and that is as far as it has gone. MR KENDERDINE: Correct. 10 [3.20 pm] CHAIRPERSON: I think we cannot take it any further than that. 15 MR KENDERDINE: My role in the project to date has been to provide advice as to the likely construction methodology and programme and to manage the process to develop detailed designs for the project so that a construction cost can be developed although the detailed design process cannot be completed until the conditions of the project are confirmed. 20 I have also advised on the mitigation of construction effects. Staff from the Memorial Park Alliance have prepared the draft construction environmental plan for the projection and MPA specialists and myself have reviewed the other draft environmental management plans that 25 have been prepared. Construction Programme. The staging drawings and programme discussed in this section are indicative only. The dates shown on the drawings will need to be modified once and I might add the word “or” 30 if relevant authorisations are obtained. The purpose of the drawings is to show the stage nature and sequence of the construction activities. The project if approved will be constructed on a stage basis. The first works to be undertaken are collectively known as stage zero. Stage 35 zero covers the enabling works for the project and includes activities such as the following, the upgrade of the Pirie Street/Kent Terrace intersection, the relocation of services in the construction area and possible betterment, installation of temporary roading, vegetation removal, installation of fencing and signage and installation of erosion 40 and sediment control measures. The location of these activities is shown on drawings BRB14017 and 14018 in annexure A. If we pause there your Honour these are the two drawings I am referring to. On the first drawing in front of your 45 BRB14017 you will see shaded areas. The enabling works I am Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7190 referring to predominantly take place on those areas or in the road reserve. CHAIRPERSON: I cannot read from here the difference between the pink, 5 the green and the yellow, is there a differentiation? MR KENDERDINE: The pink is the relocation of services. The yellow is site preparation, more the removal of vegetation and fencing and the green is the road relocation for the temporary road and services associated 10 with that. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. MR KENDERDINE: The next drawing which is 018 merely reflects and I 15 believe you have heard quite a lot on this particular subject, the alterations to Kent/Cambridge and Pirie Street which is required as a precursor to allow the greater access for vehicles out of Pirie Street that might use Hania Street or instead of coming down Ellice Street during the works and the completion of the Taranaki Street intersection. 20 CHAIRPERSON: The Taranaki Street intersection has a left turn there, does it not? MR CAMERON: This is a matter that Mr Kenderdine comes on to discuss 25 further in his statement of evidence. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because that was one of the matters that have been raised about the effect of that on traffic yes. 30 MR CAMERON: That particular topic is specifically addressed later in Mr Kenderdine’s summary and so you can be confident of that, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. 35 MR KENDERDINE: Section 3.4. Drawings BRB14019 to BRB1426 also shown in annexure A show how project construction is to be carried out in line with my previous statement of rebuttal evidence paragraphs 3.1 to 3.4, pages three to four. If I could quickly just go through that with the Board if that would be appropriate? 40 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please because we have not got all these in our memory. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7191 [3.25 pm] MR KENDERDINE: It was a while ago. On the Board there you see what we call stage one, preparation of the ground improvements that Mr 5 Brabhaharan has just spoken about which appear as yellow boxes on this drawing and I can talk to that now or at the end if you would prefer. CHAIRPERSON: It would probably be ideal if you explained it to us now 10 while we have got this in front of us. MR KENDERDINE: Okay, I guess I should preface this with I am lucky to be surrounded by a sea of experts. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well I better keep quiet so you have got the floor. MR KENDERDINE: Mr Brabhaharan I think explained it far better that I. As I understand it as the person charged with constructing it, what that box structure you can see and if I take you to S2 which shows it rather 20 nicely which has got the pointer around it. MR CAMERON: Just so we are clear Mr Kenderdine and just noting this as you are moving forward so we are referring to BRB14019? 25 MR KENDERDINE: Correct, so at S2 you will see indicated there a grid light structure four base long and two deep and the intention of that is the deep soil mixing that Mr Brabhaharan mentioned and the way that that works in my understanding is that it provides a rigid structure to take the load off the pile so when the ground moves as the experts are 30 reasonably confident that it will in a large earthquake due to the liquefaction. Instead of transferring the load directly to the structure which I think you were talking to momentarily there, Mr Baines. Instead of 35 transferring the load to the structure that box grid takes the load instead and dissipates the load so it is not transferred directly to the piles and the piers. Other activities I guess going on are the construction of the piers in the 40 Regional Wines and Spirits property on the corner of Ellice Street and Hania Street, the removal of the house in Ellice Street which is the St Joseph’s car park and the preparation of the car park shortly thereafter. MR CAMERON: Is that all clear, sir? 45 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7192 MR MILNE: Sir, just while we are on the diagram I wonder if Mr Kenderdine could explain S1, the yellow square on the left hand side if he has not already? 5 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR KENDERDINE: Sorry, the S1 will be complete early but it is the same in terms of nature as S2 and S8 drawn on this drawing so a similar box 10 structure. CHAIRPERSON: It is part of the National War Memorial Park? MR KENDERDINE: No, that work is, sorry it is at the early part of this stage. 15 CHAIRPERSON: I see, yes. MR KENDERDINE: It is most definitely part of the National War Memorial Park. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. MR BAINES: So S2 actually creates a structure that if you were taking a bird’s eye view looks like a series of cells? 25 MR KENDERDINE: Correct. MR BAINES: Then they will be something that the bridge is still coming across the top of that. There will be a support from the bridge down to 30 those cells? MR KENDERDINE: Inside those cells you will put the piers for the bridge so the cells take the load of that pier. They are in the downhill side of the cells so if I return to S2 indicated there is the orange. 35 CHAIRPERSON: That is where the piers go. [3.30 pm] 40 MR KENDERDINE: Which is where the piers and the piles and the pile which then your pier springs from. MR BAINES: Right. 45 MR KENDERDINE: Moving onto stage two. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7193 MR CAMERON: Subsequent plan 14020. MR KENDERDINE: 14020 correct. Indicated here we have the different activities from the last plan which is the construction of the false work 5 which is the boxing which the concrete of the bridge is poured into which supports the boxing and the start of the pavilion. I would have to say at this stage clearly that there is still some debate about the pavilion and as I mentioned previously the dates have yet to be confirmed due to those dates being relative to the completion of this 10 process if approval is to be granted. We then have the, you can see the piling going on at S4 and S5 in construction zone three and the piers going into construction zone four. I would like to point out at this stage one of the comments early on in 15 the submissions was about the length of duration and the noise of activities in certain areas across the whole area. What this drawing shows is that different activities are occurring at different parts of the site at different times and they all have different 20 noise and activity characteristics. If there is no questions on that we will proceed to stage three which is drawing BRB14021. You can see there on your left hand side of the page between S1 and S2, at this stage we would be expecting to the see the bridge spans 25 actually going in place and the pedestrian footbridge being constructed over the top of the Hania Street, Ellice Street in the Regional Wines and Spirits car park. In essence we start with the abutments occurring at the far ends of the 30 project while the ground improvements and the piling is occurring and then the bridge springing from each side and heading towards the centre. Following on from that we have stage four BRB14022 and you can see 35 there again two more yellow spans and the bridge spans that are not highlighted are complete at this stage. I think one of the main changes that possibly I could have referred to earlier in the plans but I will address here was a lesson that we have learnt and again Mr Dravitzki talked yesterday about the learning environment of a team. 40 One of the things we have learnt from the Memorial Park Alliance project is that the nature of temporary traffic management, pedestrians and cyclist routes is that the better they are constructed and the longer that they are in place in a given route is better for the users. That may 45 seem completely obvious but when we did our original staging documents which went in with the submissions. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7194 We were moving traffic and pedestrians around quite a lot to achieve the constructive of effectively what we call zone 4B that blue lozenge on the western side in front of St Joseph’s. What we propose with this 5 staging is to put quite a lot of effort into preparing the temporary road surface and pedestrian and cyclist routes in such a way that they are a functionally usable space and well designated from terms of CPTED and use. I guess the temporary road that we have built as part of the National War Memorial Park project is an example of that. 10 [3.35 pm] Moving on then to BRB14023 stage five you are starting to see completed works at-grade. The black area again on the eastern side is 15 finishing off that link road works. We are starting to get the Dufferin Street link road prepared and we are obviously working on finishing off the stages, the bridge pours in the middle. Then to stage six which is BRB14024 we have effectively for all 20 intense and purposes completed the bridge, the pure bridge section. We are now completing the pedestrian footpaths and planting on the eastern side and in the centre of the project. By this time we would be expected to have finished the pavilion project and we are doing the at- grade road changes because we have traffic now going on the east 25 bound lanes up the side of St Joseph’s church. The area in yellow highlights out of here the challenges of finishing off that abutment around the western bound traffic coming out of the tunnel and that is further explored in stage seven which is BRB14025. 30 You can see there a rather narrow strip off road between one lane coming down Patterson Street and one lane going onto the bridge. The westbound time at that stage has just been completed and we have traffic over the bridge at that stage. 35 Finally we have stage eight BRB14026 and that is the completion of the road from Patterson Street round and including the Adelaide Road intersection. Most of that work is at-grade and not dissimilar in effect to what we have been carrying out on the inner city bypass over the last nine months. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Would that be a convenient place to break for afternoon tea? MR CAMERON: I was just going to ask perhaps if there is the final page in 45 that set Mr Kenderdine, which summarises the programme, is this is a Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7195 convenient time to discuss that or shall we come back to that after afternoon tea? MR KENDERDINE: I guess this is a convenient time, it is brief it is just for 5 clarities sake and completeness sake. This is the rough staging in terms of zones and activities. The zones match those in the urban design and landscape framework that have been discussed previously. I guess go to this discussion about certain activities occurring at a certain time, but not the entire site for all 30 odd months all at once. That was merely 10 the conversation on that. CHAIRPERSON: Very good, we will adjourn for 15 minutes. ADJOURNED [3.39 pm] 15 RESUMED [4.03 pm] MR CAMERON: Just before we move off the topic we were discussing before afternoon tea Mr Kenderdine and your proceed to read the next section 20 of your evidence the word draft appears on these plans. MR KENDERDINE: Correct. MR CAMERON: That word “draft” implies obviously that these are not final 25 plans. MR KENDERDINE: Correct. MR CAMERON: Can you tell us the date of these plans and just how 30 indicative they are in terms of the staging process that you have described? MR KENDERDINE: These plans were prepared for my rebuttal in January of this year so they date from then and they are draft because as one goes 35 through the process of talking to the Community Reference Group, finalising details with utility organisations, talking to road controlling authorities, the final sequencing will rely on that. [4.05 pm] 40 MR CAMERON: Good, thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 45 MR KENDERDINE: I believe I was at section. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7196 CHAIRPERSON: 1.2 I think we are starting on. MR KENDERDINE: I have 3.5. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. I knew it was at the top of the page, 3.5 MR CAMERON: Can you start please at 1.1 Mr Kenderdine MR KENDERDINE: An indicative programme for construction is included at 10 the end of annexure A and the construction of the project including enabling works will take approximately 30 months. There have been questions raised about the construction period for the Northern Gateway Building and the impact that this may have on the cricket season. 15 The cricket season runs for approximately four months December to March. This allows for a construction period of eight months. The conditions provide for the complete exterior envelope of the Northern Gateway Building to be finished so that traffic on the bridge is not 20 visible through the building from the Basin Reserve prior to the permanent opening of the new bridge to traffic and I refer to current conditions DC11E. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 25 MR KENDERDINE: We will therefore be aiming to complete construction of the Northern Gateway Building complete exterior envelope in eight months which is achievable. While the internal fit out of the building may not be achievable in the same period completion of the exterior 30 shell will ensure that the Northern Gateway Building is able to fulfil its primary purpose as mitigation against visual distraction for cricket players. In addition, I note that the agreement between Wellington City Council, 35 the Basin Reserve Trust and the Transport Agency prior to the construction of the Northern Gateway Building the parties must agree the construction programme for the Northern Gateway Building and this enables the parties to discuss and agree a construction programme that ensures any interruption to the cricket season is minimised if not 40 avoided. I take you there to Selwyn Blackmore’s rebuttal evidence of 21st January annexure two. CHAIRPERSON: We do not need to go there. 45 MR KENDERDINE: You do not need to go there, okay. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7197 CHAIRPERSON: No. MR KENDERDINE: Workings hours. Construction activities will generally be undertaken between the hours of 6 am and 8 pm Monday through to 5 Friday with Saturday morning work also being common. There are times when it is not practical to undertake works during these core hours for a variety of reasons. Most commonly this is because it would be too disruptive to close lanes on the State Highway or local roads during normal day time operating times. 10 Another example is long steel beams will be required to temporarily span Kent and Cambridge Terraces to provide support to the concrete structure above. It is desirable that these beams be lifted in during weekend evenings as the power to the trolley bus wires will need to be 15 off during this time. When weekend work is required the construction environmental management plan expects that the reasons and process for this would be shared with the Community Reference Group to work through the 20 impacts from their point of view and determine what mitigation or other options are available. Table one of my evidence-in-chief, section 7.4. MR CAMERON: Does the Board wish to refer to that, it is quite 25 comprehensive that table in terms of the work that is to be undertaken and the proportion of time. MR KENDERDINE: Provide a description of the activities that needed to be undertaken outside normal working hours and the percentage of time 30 involved. This table shows that with the exception of traffic relocations, the majority of activities will be undertaken in normal working hours. If I may pause there to just explain that table because it makes perfect sense to me, but I have heard that it is not necessarily obvious to others. 35 [4.10 pm] As you go down you have a range of activities and then you have an estimated percentage of work outside normal hours so that is the estimated percentage for that activity. Planning and approval obviously 40 happens as a rule during daylight hours and also if it is to occur after that there will be little or no effect. MR McMAHON: Those normal hours are they the ones that you specified in your summary? 45 MR CAMERON: Six to eight? Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7198 MR McMAHON: Yes. MR KENDERDINE: Yes. Then if I go to service relocations I suggested an 5 estimated 30 percent of the activity of service relocations will be required to occur after hours and 70 percent therefore will occur during working hours and I guess the key reason for that is the excavation for services and roadways and the closing of lanes as a matter of safety that occurs at that time. 10 I believe at the moment if we go down Kent Terrace we have exactly that operation happening outside of our project that is capacity improving the water main on the Kent/Pirie intersection. The one that is often referred to and if I may say has been highlighted to us by 15 residents as a result of the tunnel upgrade and maintenance works the carry on in Mount Victoria is traffic relocations. The establishment of temporary traffic management measures obviously tends to have to happen outside hours and that is an activity of real focus to try and minimise disruption. 20 Seventy percent of that occurs when the traffic is light and particularly when we get down to the Kent Terrace/Ellice Street/Hania Street corner. Therefore we look at bridge sub structure, the piling, the majority of piling will occur in normal working hours. As an example 25 we talked, Mr Brabhaharan talked of the piles that are going down. They will take quite a long time to fill and so that maybe an activity that starts or ends outside of that time. CHAIRPERSON: Can you give us an indication so five percent in days or 30 nights I should say, a number of nights? MR COLLINS: Five percent of what, what is the total? CHAIRPERSON: Five percent of what, yes. 35 MR KENDERDINE: It is five percent I guess of the effort of the activity. CHAIRPERSON: I realise that but that does not mean anything to us or to someone living in a house next door, five percent of what? 40 MR KENDERDINE: If you can excuse me just for a moment, I will refer to some notes. If we take that example there a number of pile and I am sorry the number just escapes me immediately that go across the project so if we said there are 24 piles going across the project and each 45 of those piles will take about a week to two weeks, let us say two weeks for argument’s sake. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7199 The activity that will be occurring out of hours of that activity would be predominantly the concrete pour so that is one day in that two week period hence the five percent. 5 MR CAMERON: If I may assist I think given the question and the understandable point that has been raised if overnight you could perhaps just, either yourself or get someone here to just run a ruler over the number of days in fact work will be done or a number of nights in 10 which any work will be done out of working hours. CHAIRPERSON: The reason I raise this when Mr Dravitzki was giving evidence he was being cross-examined and he was saying that only a small percentage of the work would be out of hours? 15 [4.15 pm] MR KENDERDINE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON: He was asked how much of that work would be out of 20 hours and he could not really tell us and that did not give a lot of comfort to, I forget who it was who was cross-examining him on that point, Ms Jones. MR KENDERDINE: I guess the challenge in giving a specific answer your 25 Honour is that we do not actually know all of the services in the area which may require investigation after hours but I can talk to for instance, the piling activity as an example or the bridge pouring activity as an example. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well I suppose the service relocations would that be noisy? MR KENDERDINE: It can be. 35 CHAIRPERSON: It can be. Yes, well really what we really do need is some quantification if it is possible of how much. MR KENDERDINE: I will endeavour to do that overnight your Honour. 40 CHAIRPERSON: I know it cannot be exact but at least it gives us an understanding of what the issues are and if the project is granted consent then we need to be sure that the conditions are sufficiently tight. 45 MR KENDERDINE: Certainly. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7200 MR COLLINS: Perhaps some level of confidence rather than saying it will be 10 days say you are pretty confident it will be between eight and 15 just some indication, we are not asking for exact, of course you cannot be exact but just a bit more information about this. 5 MR KENDERDINE: Certainly, I did prepare some numbers of piles for exactly this question but for some reason I mislaid it. CHAIRPERSON: If you could do that for each of those that would be of quite 10 considerable assistance to parties who are concerned and also to us. MR KENDERDINE: Certainly, your Honour. MR MILNE: It is apparent at the rate that we are going and given that the 15 evidence has come in rather late and the Board has had to have it read aloud that we are going to go past 5.30 in terms of my questions, in fact at the rate we are going about even if I am going to start by 5 pm. I have got about half an hour’s worth of questions, would the Board consider staying to 5.30 so that we can get those finished today or am I 20 better just to come back in the morning because I have to go home and do some legal submissions. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know. 25 MR CAMERON: To be fair to Mr Milne, I think he should be given leave to go. We can finish the evidence-in-chief because I do not think this evidence will be finished by five necessarily. There is quite a lot to go and it is quite detailed material and I certainly understand the position my learned friend is in. 30 MR MILNE: I think that all is required is for Mr Kenderdine to explain to us his diagrams, the rest is straight forward and most of it is uncontentious apart from matters I will be cross-examining Mr Kenderdine and exploring in further detail. 35 CHAIRPERSON: I realise that but there is some, like these sort of things we would like more information on, yes. MR CAMERON: I wish to just work through the evidence and I understand 40 there is a narrow suite of concerns, that does not necessarily reflect the way in which I wish to present this evidence. MS JONES: Excuse me your Honour can I also add my situation being similar to Mr Milne because I am due to cross-examine Mr Kenderdine 45 after. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7201 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know. I realise that and we have the same problem that is why we are here. MR MILNE: I am happy to stay to 5.30 but I would just like to understand. 5 CHAIRPERSON: I was wondering if we, right well let’s move on and see if you can just speed up a wee bit. MR CAMERON: Certainly your Honour. 10 MR KENDERDINE: Monitoring. My evidence-in-chief and rebuttal evidence identified that some environmental monitoring for the project must commence now. Since the lodging of evidence groundwater monitoring has been undertaken, air quality gauges installed, baseline NoRs 15 measurements made and geotechnical investigations undertaken. This is ongoing to date and is consistent with the evidence submitted by Mr Dravitzki and Mr Brabhaharan. Groundwater. The groundwater monitoring bores in the Basin Bridge 20 construction area have monitoring since the lodging of the application. The groundwater around the Basin Reserve has not changed significantly since Dr McConchie’s assessment of the groundwater effects given in his evidence-in-chief. 25 [4.20 pm] Air Quality. Two static air quality monitoring stations have been installed in the Basin Bridge project area in December 2013. One adjacent to Grandstand Apartments on Ellice Street and the other on the 30 St Mark’s Church school boundary on Patterson Street. The monitoring results for these two sites and two sites in the National War Memorial Park construction area show the dust deposition rates are below the Ministry for Environment good practice guidelines for assessing and managing the environmental effects of dust emissions. 35 Noise Monitoring. A number of noise monitoring sites have been established in the project area and its environs including locations along Ellice Street. The results are consistent with the evidence of Mr Dravitzki. 40 Geotechnical Investigations. A number of investigation bores have been completed since the application was lodged. The information from these is similar to the investigations carried out by Mr Brabhaharan. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7202 Mitigation and Construction Management. The construction of the project has the potential to create adverse environmental effects. My experience from the construction of the National War Memorial Park to date is that these effects can be successfully avoided or mitigated. This 5 can be achieved by having personalised contact with stakeholders and potentially impacted parties. Adhering to sound environmental management practices rigorous environmental monitoring and having a commitment to continuous 10 improvement. An example of Memorial Park Alliance has approached working with the community to mitigate construction affects comes from Mount Cook school. It is directly adjacent to the underpass and potential effects on the school such as noise, dust, vibration and the safety of children walking and cycling to and from the school were key 15 concerns for the school and for the National War Memorial Park project. However not only did we succeed or have we succeeded in reducing these potential effects on the school to acceptable levels the principal, 20 Sandra McMillan, has noted the positive benefits of the construction in regards to a visit by a team of young students to the tunnel she noted it was an example of one of the many opportunities that our kids have had and continue to have with the pro-activeness and can do attitude of the Memorial Park team. 25 Tasman Gardens are also enabler of the National War Memorial Park project. The Chair of the Tasman Gardens body corporate, Ms Booth, noted in her presentation to the Board the challenges of living next door to a large scale construction site. She also recognised the value and 30 good communication in various forms and the Memorial Park Alliance’s positive efforts to work with her and the wider community to mitigate the effects. A number of submitters have raised concerns about the generation of 35 noise and vibration from construction activities. The potential for noise and vibration to cause a nuisance is a genuine concern and it is MPAs responsibility to ensure construction activities do not cause a nuisance. The evidence of Mr Sennick (ph 3.32)) and Mr Dravitzki outline the 40 measures in the construction noise and vibration management plan as to how these effects are to be managed. As noted in the previous paragraphs MPA is adequately managing these effects. Noise and vibration will be monitored during construction. Should it 45 be identified in advance or as a result of monitoring the noise or vibration limit could be or is being exceeded, then that work if it is Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7203 underway will be stopped immediately and an assessment process will be undertaken. The preferred course of action is to modify the activity to make it compliant, but this may not be possible for all activities. 5 My evidence-in-chief refers to an example of this process. If I pause there that was the sheet piling outside the Mount Cook Police barracks and for haste I would suggest that if you want to you could refer to that there, the footnote is there. 10 Mitigation of the impacts of noise and vibration over the limits is the next course of action. This involves promptly contacting all the parties that may be affected and tailoring the mitigation measures to each party. Possible mitigations may include changing the timing of the works, temporary relocation, installation of acoustic noise, acoustic 15 curtains, noise walls etcetera. [4.25 pm] CHAIRPERSON: The condition can be taken as read. We have read the 20 latest conditions that have come in. MR KENDERDINE: Okay. I then take you through to section 8, the National War Memorial Park and the Home of Compassion Crèche. The National War Memorial Park immediately abuts the project area. The 25 National War Memorial Park has been fast tracked by the government with a deadline for completion by 31st of March 2015 as this is seen as an internationally significant event, the centennial commemoration or remembrance of Gallipoli. 30 To assist in achieving this deadline the National War Memorial Park project has its own empowering legislation, the National War Memorial Park Pukeahu Empowering Act of 2012. My primary focus for the last 21 months as project manager for the construction of the National War Memorial Park and Buckle Street underpass has been the completion of 35 the National War Memorial Park on time. In summary this has involved taking initial and very conceptual documentation, running a fast tracked design and construction process and ensuring that Buckle Street is operating safely as soon as possible 40 to enable sufficient time to construct the National War Memorial Park on top. The Relocation of the Crèche. I understand that some concern has been raised as to whether the relocation of the Home of Compassion Crèche 45 is authorised by the National War Memorial Park Act. The question, and sorry I would insert the word “of” in there, the question of Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7204 relocation is not a construction issue per se. The relocation of the Crèche is an issue of intent by the Crown to include this in the National War Memorial Park Act and hence be considered by future generations as part of the National War Memorial Park. 5 The National War Memorial Park Act provides for the relocation of the Crèche subject to the preparation of a relocation plan. Condition eight of the designation granted to the Transport Agency states a relocation plan for the relocation of the Home of Compassion Crèche shall be 10 provided to the Wellington City Council prior to the relocation of the Home of Compassion Crèche occurring. It is also my understanding that the relocation of the crèche was explicitly raised in submissions on the National War Memorial Park 15 Act and that despite concerns raised Parliament enacted the legislation as drafted. The relocation plan is required to include a heritage management plan and be certified by a qualified planner as being consistent with the conditions of the designation and provide for appropriate means to ensure, as far as practicable, those conditions of 20 the designation are able to be met. The heritage management plan is required to be prepared in consultation with Wellington City Council and Heritage New Zealand and is to include a map showing the area that the heritage management 25 plan covers. Under the instruction of the Transport Agency Memorial Park Alliance engaged Studio Pacific Architecture prepare the relocation plan including the heritage management plan. The relocation plan was subsequently certified by Andrew Stewart 30 Limited on the 24th of February 2014. MR CAMERON: If you could just pause there so taking that document now first and then coming back just to ensure that the Board has an opportunity to look briefly at the legislation. 35 CHAIRPERSON: We have read the legislation, I read it about three times so I am not going to read it now. If you want to refer me to any particular section you can in your submissions. 40 MR CAMERON: As your Honour pleases, I had not anticipated that the Board had necessarily had the time to do that and I just wanted to be sure that the relevant provisions are before the Board. CHAIRPERSON: We work other than during working hours but we do not 45 make a noise. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7205 MR CAMERON: That is helpful, thank you sir. If we can just turn to the certification review process or the certification review document please being under annexure C. 5 MR KENDERDINE: Of my evidence? MR CAMERON: Of your summary statement. Now that review document as you say has been prepared by Andrew Stewart Limited and I think the person responsible for that was Mr Ashby? 10 MR KENDERDINE: Correct. [4.30 pm] 15 MR CAMERON: The other person who was responsible for the certification review and gave advice on heritage matters was Mr Bowman? MR KENDERDINE: Correct. 20 MR CAMERON: That document certifies if we look at the certificate dated the 24th of February 2014. CHAIRPERSON: Which is on page? 25 MR CAMERON: The fourth page in the document that is the specific document provides the certification that you have referred to in your evidence? MR KENDERDINE: Correct. 30 MR CAMERON: That is the certificate and then the document discusses in the pages from pages 1 through to 5 the matters that were considered by the review authors in that certification process? 35 MR KENDERDINE: As I understand it, yes. MR CAMERON: If we for example note on page 3 there is a commentary there which refers to the process required under NZTA08 which is condition 8 of schedule 3 of the Act? 40 MR KENDERDINE: I will take the schedule as written but, yes that is NZTA08. MR CAMERON: Yes. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7206 MR MILNE: Sir, just to truncate this can I indicate that the Architectural Centre is not in any way suggesting that the Crèche is not in accordance with the conditions, that is not the point that it is raising and it does not take issue with the certificate. 5 CHAIRPERSON: No. MR CAMERON: I am just trying to work through the issues. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Well there is no issue with this the only issue is why was it moved when there is no need to move it because there is no bridge. That was the issue, it has not been addressed. MR CAMERON: That is a matter for the Parliament. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Well it may well be if that is your answer that is what we have to accept but we thought there may have been someone who could explain to us why it was put into the, out of this project and put into the government’s project when it is outside the area and when there was no 20 bridge in place to require its removal, that was the issue. If it is not able to be answered well it cannot be answered, but this is not answering, that is what I think Mr Milne is getting at. 25 MR CAMERON: I am wanting to deal with it in a manner which reflects what I understand to be the scope of what I think with respect is an inquiry that can be undertaken which is what does the Act provide. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that is all right, we do not need this witness to tell 30 us that and we do not need this witness to read this to us. MR CAMERON: Has that been complied with and from that one can note that the Act provides for the movement of the Crèche into the Park. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and that is as far as you are able to take it. MR CAMERON: As an asset of the Park. CHAIRPERSON: That is as far as you are able to take it. 40 MR CAMERON: I cannot ask this witness to give evidence of what the parliamentary purpose of the movement of the Crèche was. CHAIRPERSON: No, I am not asking you to do that. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7207 MR CAMERON: I cannot do that and now with the greatest of respect can Mr Milne other than my use of Hansard and other legitimate tools that are available for statutory interpretation. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Well we are wasting a lot of time. I know exactly what this witness can and cannot do. I do not have to be told that. MR CAMERON: No, I accept that, sir and I am just trying to make sure that the issues. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and if this witness was involved with negotiations with the government well he may be able to assist, if he was not he cannot assist. It is as simple as that. 15 MR CAMERON: I am happy for the witness to be asked that directly and we ask that and that might assist. CHAIRPERSON: By all means you may be able to address these matters in submission and overnight we will read it, but I do not want to take up 20 time of the hearing reading it. MR CAMERON: Well, we have had a memorandum which I thought was certainly setting out in somewhat strong language the criticism of my client and this process which is one of evidence as opposed to simply 25 filing a document as intended to ensure the Board is fully informed of the issue. [4.35 pm] 30 CHAIRPERSON: Very well. MR CAMERON: Properly so in my respectful submission. CHAIRPERSON: Well I am grateful for that but let’s move on. 35 MR CAMERON: Sir, I am happy for the direct, for the question that your Honour that is of direct concern to be put - - - CHAIRPERSON: I am not going to ask the question. Mr Milne can ask what 40 question in the manner he wishes to ask it. MR CAMERON: Well I will establish the foundation for that. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well you have established it by putting this in. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7208 MR CAMERON: Yes, so just before we move to that direct question Mr Kenderdine. CHAIRPERSON: There has been no question yet. I have not put the question 5 I am talking to you and saying that as I understand is the issue. MR CAMERON: I am happy to address the issue is what I am saying, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 10 MR CAMERON: I am happy to address the issue and I will do so with your Honour’s leave? CHAIRPERSON: Okay, well you put the question - - - 15 MR CAMERON: Yes, but before I, if you can just allow me to finalise the foundation for that and then I will go directly to the question if I may. We have this document that we are discussing Mr Kenderdine and we also have below that document a document which records the 20 assessment process carried out by Studio Pacific Architecture. MR KENDERDINE: Correct, I would note that this is merely a part of the relocation plan, it is a rather weighty tone. 25 MR CAMERON: Yes. That document discusses the basis for relocation of the Crèche in general terms or includes within it a discussion of that relocation. CHAIRPERSON: What are we looking at? 30 MR CAMERON: The Home of Compassion Crèche document prepared by Studio Pacific Architecture which is immediately below the document I was discussing sir. I am just trying to summarise the position to assist. 35 CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, I am not with you. Sorry, I thought you meant at the end of the document, the whole document. MR CAMERON: No, under tab C, there is a few documents. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR CAMERON: I am referring to second document the Studio Pacific Architecture document and I am simply noting that within that document there is discussion which the Board may wish to refer to 45 overnight or during its deliberations concerning this matter as to the significance of the Crèche and its proposed new location and Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7209 landscaping for example on the bottom of page 10 and related considerations. Now having noted that Mr Kenderdine were you involved in 5 discussions concerning or decision relating to whether or not the Crèche would be moved as an element of the Park project? MR KENDERDINE: As in at what stage because clearly from the enabling of the Act, yes. 10 MR CAMERON: Prior to the Act being passed? MR KENDERDINE: No. 15 MR CAMERON: Thank you. Right, thank you, if you can now continue to read your evidence from paragraph 8.8? MR KENDERDINE: I also understand that there are questions that have been raised about the National War Memorial Park boundary at the time that 20 the National War Memorial Park Act was drafted the final design of the National War Memorial Park had not been completed. The Park Act therefore recognises that the park boundaries as shown in figure 2 of schedule 9 of the Act are indicative and provide 25 mechanisms to adjust the boundary if necessary. In particular section 6 of the National War Memorial Park Act states in the event of an inconsistency between a boundary shown in figure 1, 2, or 3 of schedule 9 and the legal description of the land or plan prepared under this Act. The legal description or the Plan, as the case may be, prevails. 30 [4.40 pm] Condition 4 of the Resource Consents granted to the Minister of Culture and Heritage requires Wellington City Council to satisfy the 35 design is consistent with the park design principles in Part 3. The design documentation was provided to Wellington City Council on the 14th of January 2014 and certified on the 3rd of March 2014. Copies of the design overall plan and the certification by Wellington 40 City Council are attached as Annexure D. So, in Annexure D you have a letter from the Chief Asset Officer of Wellington City Council, Anthony Wilson, certifying that the park plans, as prepared under the Act are consistent with the park design principles. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7210 And the second page in Appendix D is an overall plan which is probably the best description of the park as we know it, in terms of a drawing sense. And that is in front of you on the screens just to help. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, the eastern end of that plan aligns with? MR KENDERDINE: Aligns with the eastern edge of the crèche. CHAIRPERSON: Eastern edge of the crèche. So where is the crèche? Is the 10 crèche shown on there? MR KENDERDINE: The crèche is shown there. And I go to, I guess, the comments of Alison Dangerfield and others about the integration of the crèche into the park. And the area which is actually between the crèche 15 and what was, is known as the infamous dotted blue line on Figure 2 in Schedule 9, which has been created as an orchard of ancient fruit trees reflecting the activity that Sister Susanna Beere (ph 03.00) did to create funding for the crèche. 20 CHAIRPERSON: So the crèche is actually in the National War Memorial Park land? MR KENDERDINE: At this point, yes. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Whereas someone told us last week that it was outside the National War Memorial, and that was the issue. MR CAMERON: I am sorry, sir. Ms Wedde did say to me would I like to correct that memorandum now and I said no I will do that tomorrow 30 morning on the basis of time and wanting to keep moving forward. But yes, there is an error in that memorandum. It’s wrong. The one that we filed, in which we said. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I think that is probably part of the cause of the problem. MR CAMERON: It may well be. Well if it is, I apologise. 40 MR MILNE: If I can assist, the issue is quite simple. It is the difference between this plan and the plan which is Figure 2 from the legislation which is attached earlier on as an annexe. CHAIRPERSON: To Mr Cameron’s memorandum? 45 MR CAMERON: That is Figure 2. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7211 MR MILNE: No, no, that is evidence. MR CAMERON: That is Figure 2 to the Act. 5 MR ………: To the Act? MR CAMERON: That Figure which goes to the National War Memorial Park does not go as far as the plan attached here, which this one includes 10 where the crèche is relocated position. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes. MR CAMERON: The plan in the legislation doesn’t, so the memorandum that 15 was filed was correct in that aspect. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so. MR CAMERON It’s correct as far as. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Well, you will want to ask questions on that, absolutely. Well we have got to straight to the point quickly now and. MR CAMERON: The next section of this evidence is intended to deal with 25 this very point which is the boundaries of the park. CHAIRPERSON: Well let’s move onto it shall we? MR CAMERON: And if we work our way through that, hopefully that will 30 bring the clarity required in the statutory basis for the - - - [4.45 pm] CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well could you let him read please because we want to 35 finish this witness tonight. We won’t necessarily finish Mr Milne’s cross-examination tonight. MR CAMERON: Sir, I have got a number of topics I want to deal with here with this witness and I don’t think we are going to get that far and I 40 appreciate the frustration of all concerned. But I too, have topics that I need to address here and one of them for example, is the shared path and I need to deal with that with Mr Kenderdine. And there are a couple of other matters and so I rather hesitate to. It’s 45 quarter to five now. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7212 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well let’s just use a little bit of lateral thinking. I’m anxious for Mr Milne, because he is going overseas on Saturday. And it is not only for his own benefit, it is for the Board’s benefit that he has adequate time to prepare proper submissions because there are some 5 very important legal issues that are going to arise out of this, which could go further. And I need a robust and proper decision. And putting this on our desk at lunchtime today is not helping us to get things through. If it was given to us yesterday and we could have read 10 it last night, as it should have been, we wouldn’t be here doing this now. And that is why I am frustrated. MR CAMERON: With respect, sir, I filed this yesterday. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Well we didn’t get it until lunchtime today. MR CAMERON: Well I filed it and, I have to confess, it was filed yesterday but it was filed late afternoon, about 4 o’clock. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Well, very well, but it has got to be printed and things. Anyway, so that is the position we have got. I am not blaming anyone. We have got this committee, do some lateral thinking. Mr Milne has one issue? 25 MR MILNE: Two, sir. One is the crèche, one is the extent of earthworks and together they will take me half an hour. CHAIRPERSON: Why can’t we then let him cross-examine on those two issues and then you can come back and we can carry on with the other 30 matters. MR CAMERON: I am happy to do that, sir. That question hadn’t been put to me. CHAIRPERSON: No, well I am just saying, that’s fine. 35 MR CAMERON: I’m happy to do it, sorry, I’m being grumpy now. CHAIRPERSON: I know it’s unconventional. 40 MR CAMERON: I’m being grumpy and they are having the last word and I apologise. CHAIRPERSON: No, that’s right. 45 MR CAMERON: I’m happy to do that. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7213 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So can we finish this little bit now? MR CAMERON: Let’s finish this little bit. 5 CHAIRPERSON: And then we will alleviate Mr Milne’s frustration, your frustration and my frustration and we will all be happy chappies, okay? MR CAMERON: I think that’s where we want to get to, sir, I think that is the point. If we can read parts 8 and 9 of your evidence, I won't interrupt 10 you, Mr Kenderdine. So I’m going to sit down and Mr Milne, invite my learned friend to cross-examine you on those two topics. And I think that’s the point isn't it Mr Milne? CHAIRPERSON: And Ms Jones, we will leave you till tomorrow morning. 15 MS JONES: Thank you, your Honour. CHAIRPERSON: Because we don’t want to pressurise you into having to finish your cross-examination tonight. 20 MS JONES: Sir, I have spoken with the staff about the fact that receiving information at 6.38 p.m. last night and additionally today has not been very helpful in preparation for me either. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that will give you a little bit more time. Okay, let’s go. MR KENDERDINE: Section 8. 30 MR CAMERON: Sorry from paragraph 8.8, I’m sorry. MR KENDERDINE: 8.9, 8.10. The extent of the National War Memorial Park is reflected in a number of plans that have been prepared under the National War Memorial Park Act. In particular, the relocation plan and 35 I’ll take that as read. And the general arrangement plan for the park required under Condition 3 of the Minister of Culture and Heritage’s Resource Consent also showing the park extending to the east of Sussex Street, 40 which is the plan I have on the screen in front of you. I understand that it has been suggested that should the project not be authorised by the Board, then the National War Memorial Park would be automatically extended to Cambridge Terrace. That is not my 45 understanding. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7214 The current design of the park, as set out in plans prepared under the Act, only depict the park extending to just beyond Sussex Street. The land to the east is owned by the Transport Agency and if the project is not approved, then the Transport Agency would need to decide the 5 future for this land. Having regard to its aspirations to improve the roading network around the Basin Reserve. The mechanism in Section 6 was intentionally included to retain a degree of flexibility as the design for the National War Memorial Park 10 and its construction methodology had not been completed at the time the legislation was drafted. Further, the Transport Agency designation extends over a larger area, roughly from Taranaki Street, east to Cambridge Terrace and south to 15 Rugby Street. Refer to Figure 1 of Schedule 9 of National War Memorial Park Act. [4.50 pm] 20 To ensure that there were sufficient construction laydown areas in the abilities to access affected infrastructure. For example, the area between Sussex Street and Cambridge Terrace is used as a construction laydown area and given the constrained nature of the site, this area has proved invaluable space for construction laydown. 25 Also, as part of the underpass works, it was necessary to construct a new storm water drain from the low point of the tunnel – and I might say that that is just opposite the Carillon – under the trench and the crèche and down to the existing storm water drain running down 30 Cambridge Terrace. All of these works have been carried out within the area covered by the Transport Agency’s designation. 35 Section 9; Alternatives to the Basin Bridge. There was discussion about the alternative project options that the Transport Agency considered when deciding to pursue the Basin Bridge, namely Options X and F. 40 As Alliance Manager, my involvement has been limited only to the Basin Bridge project and the National War Memorial Park project and I was not involved in the assessment of these alternative options. I have been asked to consider what would be done different if (a) Option X was preferred, what would have been done differently? And, (b) could 45 Option X now be built? Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7215 The same question could be asked of Option X. CHAIRPERSON: Of Option F? 5 MR KENDERDINE: Option F, sorry. By way of background, there are some important points regarding the Buckle Street underpass. The key driver for constructing the Buckle Street underpass has always been the opening of the National War Memorial Park in time for the 2015 ANZAC Day Commemoration. 10 The National War Memorial Park cannot be opened until the underpass is completed, as without a working underpass the temporary diversion of State Highway 1 through the park cannot be removed. The construction of the underpass is nearly complete. 15 Annexure E, which is the drawing Mr Milne presented earlier during the conversation with Mr Brabhaharan, contains a long section drawing of the underpass showing the structural connection between the Buckle Street underpass and the harder rock below the softer alluvium. 20 The drawing shows the piles have been constructed at the eastern and western underpass portals, a total of 94 piles have been installed at these portals. The piles are required to prevent buoyancy and the settlement of the trench in event of soil liquefaction from an 25 earthquake. I don’t know if you would like to look at Annexure E at this stage? But obviously, that was discussed. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we have looked at earlier this afternoon, thanks. MR KENDERDINE: And I would have say in my observation if the conversation, there is not much more I could add to that at this stage. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Very good. MR KENDERDINE: The Transport Agency - - - CHAIRPERSON: What Mr Brabharahan referred to as the soil improvement 40 works? MR KENDERDINE: Yes, possibly tomorrow with greater time, we might. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we can have a look at those, but I don’t think that is 45 necessary for Mr Milne. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7216 MR KENDERINE: I think it might be actually, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Well we saw them, we saw the piles yes, the piling which was done. 5 MR KENDERDINE: The Transport Agency place a design freeze on the concept design, i.e. the length and profile of the Buckle Street underpass on the 4th of July 2012, for the purposes of fixing the tendering process. 10 I should point out at this stage sorry, and in relation to some of the other conversations about the process, is that the alliance team was one of four teams that started a procurement process back in December 2011. They were originally looking at just the bridge and then in May, 15 obviously, May 2012, interest increased in the production of the underpass to enable the park to occur. Hence these drawings were prepared by Opus that I’m talking to at the moment and were issued to the two teams that at that stage were 20 competing to do the underpass for the Transport Agency. Construction drawings for the temporary road were then issued to Memorial Park Alliance at the end of August 2012. My February 2013, Value engineering reviews had left to MPA making minor alterations to 25 the vertical alignment of the underpass, for the purpose of avoiding a 130-year-old brick sewer gravity pipe on Tory Street. I have added, ‘on Tory Street.’ [4.55 pm] 30 The horizontal alignment of the underpass was also tweaked to best suit the service corridor by this time. The design of the underpass at this time was not so much an issue of which option was going to be selected, but with the time constraints for the National War Memorial 35 Park, more of an need to ascertain a best fit to ensure the safe operation of the underpass to allow the National War Memorial Park to be built. In the case of option X, the majority of the project comprising the underpass and the option X tunnel would really need to be completed 40 before the park could be opened due to the constraints of temporary traffic management movements. The option X estimate report by Opus assumes a current construction duration of four-and-a-half years. Therefore, to meet the 2015 ANZAC Day deadline, construction of the underpass and option X tunnel would have had to begin at or before 45 early 2011. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7217 As the government decision to underground Buckle Street was not made until August 2012, it was already too late to construct option X before the 2015 ANZAC Day deadline. Therefore, regardless of the option selected, the Basin Bridge option X or any other alternative as 5 their preferred option, would probably not have changed the way in which we have designed or are constructing the underpass in order to complete the National War Memorial Park by ANZAC Day 2015. With regards to the constructability of the option F and X tunnels, Mr 10 Brabhaharan has already commented on the geological conditions that would be encountered. Based on his findings and the construction experience of MPA, I agree the cut portion of the Buckle Street underpass is better than for option X. Therefore I expect the per-metre tunnelling costs to be greater and I would add in there, ‘for option X.’ 15 As the option X tunnel is roughly twice the length of the underpass, the geological cost items in the option X estimate are about double that of the underpass. The option X tunnel would also generate nearly twice the volume of excess excavated material than the underpass, with an 20 Opus-estimated total of 88,000 cubic metres cut to waste versus our original estimate of 45,000 cubic metres – sorry, that should be 45,000 cubic metres and I should add ‘on the Buckle Street underpass.’ Carrying on, I understand an option F tunnel would encounter 25 geological materials that are worse than option X or the underpass, and on that basis I would expect the per-metre construction costs to also be higher than the underpass CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now would that be a convenient place to interpolate? 30 Having reached an agreement to do so, will I now ask Mr Milne to cross-examine? And that leave you plenty of time tomorrow, Mr Cameron, to address the other issue. MR CAMERON: If there are matters of clarification that arise out of all of 35 this - - - CHAIRPERSON: Well yes, of course, you can - - - MR CAMERON: I am going to have to deal with that. 40 CHAIRPERSON: You will deal with that tonight, yes. MR CAMERON: And I will do my best to deal with that tonight. 45 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Yes, Mr Milne. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7218 MR MILNE: Thank you, Mr Kenderdine, just dealing with the crèche first. As shown in the diagrams that you first put up on the board and the one 5 I asked the question about with the yellow square, the removal of the crèche is clearly necessary, is it not, for the purpose of the flyover? S1, the yellow square S1 on the diagram you explained to the board earlier on, is in the location of the crèche is it not? 10 MR KENDERDINE: S1 is, for all intents and purposes, the location of the crèche, yes. MR MILNE: And in terms of – You have provided some comment on relocation of the crèche and at paragraph 8.3 of your supplementary, 15 you have said the question of relocation is not a construction issue per se, the relocation of the crèche is an issue of intent by the Crown. [5.00 pm] 20 And you go on and deal in some detail with your understanding of the crèche relocation and how it fits in the legislation. So I take it from that that you have an understanding, albeit from a non-legal perspective, of which bit of the legislation the crèche is authorised under. Could I just ask you to confirm that your understanding is that the crèche relocation 25 or your view, your understanding is that the crèche relocation is authorised under the designation, New Zealand Transport Agency designation? MR KENDERDINE: Through the certification of the relocation plan, which 30 is a condition of the designation, that is my understanding. MR MILNE: Yes, that is right, so the relocation plan derives from a condition of the designation and you have helpfully included the relevant part of the designation here, and that is at page 57 of the act. And it describes 35 there, the purpose of the designation at D01 and D02. Now, can I just confirm, in relation to each of those, that the relocation of the crèche is not required for the undergrounding of Buckle Street/ State Highway 1, which is the first matter? 40 MR KENDERDINE: Insomuch as we currently do not need to move the crèche to build the Buckle Street underpass, strictly speaking, in terms of the structure. MR MILNE: Yes, and in terms of the next matter, it is not required for a 45 temporary at-grade diversion of Buckle Street, because that is already in place is it not before the crèche moved? Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7219 MR KENDERDINE: It is currently in place, but it was not in place at the passing of the act. And I think that is a strong - - - 5 MR MILNE: Right, let us pause there, Mr Kenderdine. MR KENDERDINE: No, no, allow me to finish. CHAIRPERSON: Let him finish his answer please. 10 MR KENDERDINE: I think it is one of the challenges the team has had, and a number of people have had, around, clearly, the structure of the act and what its intent was. And I think, from my point of view, dealing with the act as a construction person, and what it was trying to achieve 15 was it allowed for a number of eventualities. There are – And if I may take this in example, the plan that was frozen in July 2012 by Opus did not have on it the 130-year-old brick sewer which runs up Tory Street. At that stage, the underpass went straight through that brick sewer. 20 One of the options we looked at once we discovered that there was a relatively large, triple-skin gravity – and obviously at 130 old, of some interest to Historic Places Trust – sewer in the way, one of the options was to dig a relatively large trench down the side of what is now the underpass and connect into Sussex Street. That activity may or may not 25 have caused us to put temporary traffic somewhere either closer to the crèche or, in fact, on top of the crèche. And I think one of the challenges we are going to have as we go through this in detail, is the hindsight. And as a friend of mine said, ‘This is not necessarily chancery drafting that we are looking at here.’ 30 MR MILNE: Mr Kenderdine, let us leave the legal interpretation to the lawyers. MR CAMERON: I am going to interrupt because he is not – Sir, I am going 35 to interrupt because this is not legal interpretation, this is practical construction evidence and needs to be given to meet what I consider to be a – Well, I am not going to describe it because it would be unfair. But this witness needs to explain this in a form which is going to actually ensure that the Board has a clear understanding of why what 40 has been done has been done. And my learned friend is wanting, on the one hand, to avoid this witness discussing the law, but on the other hand is wanting to put the law to him and restrict it to that. Now, that is not fair and I want this witness to answer fully, from a practical perspective. That is my point. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7220 [5.05 pm] CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well we are not wanting this witness to tell us what the law is, that is fair enough. 5 MR CAMERON: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON: But this witness is entitled, as the construction manager, is it? The construction or project manager – to say what he considers it to 10 be for his purposes. MR MILNE: Yes, certainly sir. CHAIRPERSON: So you must let him answer that. 15 MR MILNE: Mr Kenderdine, when did the crèche move? MR KENDERDINE: The crèche move has been underway for about eight weeks, nine weeks. And it moved - - - 20 MR MILNE: Actually moved off its location on what date? MR KENDERDINE: Strictly speaking, that was last Tuesday. 25 MR MILNE: The temporary at-grade diversion has been in place, has been functioning and has not required the relocation of the crèche, has it? MR KENDERDINE: The current temporary at-grade division of Buckle Street does not require the relocation of the crèche. 30 MR MILNE: And there is no future temporary at-grade diversion of Buckle Street required to facilitate the undergrounding works that will require the relocation of the crèche, is there? 35 MR KENDERDINE: Just so I am understanding you, I am not sure what you mean by the - - - MR MILNE: The reference is to a temporary at-grade diversion of Buckle Street to facilitate the undergrounding works. I am just checking with 40 you that there is no future temporary at-grade diversion of Buckle Street for that purpose other than what is already there at the moment. MR KENDERDINE: Correct. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7221 MR MILNE: Moving to the last point, the moving of the crèche is not necessary to tie the undergrounded section of Buckle Street into the wider roading network, is it? 5 MR KENDERDINE: Not as of today. MR MILNE: And the last point, in terms of undertaking the design and construction of alterations to the local road network in order to facilitate the undergrounding of part of Buckle Street, it is not 10 necessary for that purpose either, is it? MR KENDERDINE: Not as it is currently designed, no. MR MILNE: Okay, but I understood your answer earlier, or the implication I 15 took out of it was that it was possible that some of these works might require relocation of the works and therefore that possibility was covered in the legislations. Is that your understanding? MR KENDERDINE: My understanding of the way the act is written was to 20 facilitate what may have been unforeseen – and there was, as I mentioned, a number of things that were unforeseen – at the time of writing the act. MR MILNE: Yes, but now the crèche has been moved, notwithstanding that 25 none of those unforeseen things came to pass. That is the position is it not? MR KENDERDINE: Well, some of those unforeseen things have come to pass. 30 MR MILNE: But none of them required moving of the crèche, did they? MR KENDERDINE: They, in the way we have resolved them, no. 35 MR MILNE: So moving to the plans. You have attached figure 2 from the legislation, and if you do as I have and rule a line along the west side of Sussex Street and project it through - - - CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what are we looking at? 40 MR MILNE: The figure 2 from the legislation, schedule 9. CHAIRPERSON: I see. 45 MR MILNE: If you draw – project a line along Sussex Street - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7222 CHAIRPERSON: Hold on, just wait until we get it out here. MR MILNE: Do you have that, your figure, that figure there? 5 MR KENDERDINE: I do. MR MILNE: The line - - - CHAIRPERSON: What page? 10 MR MILNE: It is page 110 of the legislation and it is attached to Mr Kenderdine’s evidence. I am not sure where. MR KENDERDINE: It is in annexure E which is a small selection of excerpts 15 from the act. And it is the second-to-last page in that annexure. CHAIRPERSON: I may want to write some notes. [5.10 pm] 20 MR MILNE: Mr Kenderdine, if you project the west side of Sussex Street through, it ends up almost exactly on the top right-hand extension of the National War Memorial Park. Has someone got the pointer there, you can move it across to the - - - 25 MR KENDERDINE: Through to…? MR MILNE: That there. It aligns almost perfectly with that does it not? 30 MR KENDERDINE: It would be safe to say they are close, yes. MR MILNE: And in contrast, if you do the same thing with the plan which you referred to earlier, which is the MP11 90100 attached later on in your evidence, so this plan. 35 MR COLLINS: Yes, very last page. MR MILNE: No, I think that is a different one. That is that one. It also relates to that plan which is MP11 9046, so those two plans, if you do the 40 same thing with those, with Sussex Street, the line goes through just to the west of the proposed relocated position of the crèche, does it not? MR KENDERDINE: Yes. 45 MR MILNE: So those more recent maps which do not form part of the legislation have the park extending further than the plan in the Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7223 legislation, which shows the National War Memorial Park, Pukeahu plan, that is figure 2, do they not? MR KENDERDINE: They do, but they also show quite a large number of 5 other changes of what we currently consider the park. MR MILNE: Yes, that is right. MR KENDERDINE: And if I may talk to that as an example, the dotted blue 10 line on figure 2 does not include what we colloquially refer to as Buckle Street east, which is the area on the south side of the trench, and if I get the pointer to point it to - - - CHAIRPERSON: So what are we looking at? 15 MR KENDERDINE: So if I take you to figure 2, and if you look at where the words ‘Buckle Street’ are written in figure 2. There we go. So if we look at where the words ‘Buckle Street’ are in figure 2, we have what will be the residual Buckle Street – what we refer to as Buckle Street 20 east – quite clearly on figure 2 that is not considered to be part of the park. During discussions and development of the design with both Wellington City Council, the Ministry of Culture and Heritage, and the 25 Transport Agency, in my humble opinion, common sense has prevailed and the fact that that road would be clearly seen as part of the park is now addressed in the plan that you referred to, MP11 90100. And that is the upgrade of that component of Buckle Street in a language and detailing which is consistent with the rest of the park. 30 So yes, I agree that if we look at MP 90100, that is the drawing that was certified by Wellington City Council, there are a number of changes related to that drawing. 35 [5.15 pm] MR MILNE: So those changes didn’t require the relocation of any historic buildings did they, Mr Kenderdine? 40 MR KENDERDINE: Buckle Street? No it didn’t. MR MILNE: They were what might be called minor boundary changes. MR KENDERDINE: Well I think in terms of pure area it’s actually greater 45 than the area around the crèche. I have done the area analysis to be fair. I think also if we look at the Act, there is a component that talks Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7224 about the eastern terraces as the Aotearoa terraces, if you just bear with me one moment. And that is under Part 2, Conditions, Open Space. It’s page 39 of the Act. 5 And I draw the Board’s attention to Condition 1, which was the beginning if you like of the process of certification for the Memorial Park plan, the War Memorial Park design. MR MILNE: I am lost, Mr Kenderdine. What are you referring to now? 10 MR KENDERDINE: I’m referring to Part 2, Conditions. MR MILNE: So is it in your document? 15 MR KENDERDINE: No, this is in the Act. CHAIRPERSON: You will need to open the Act up. MR KENDERDINE: Sorry, I didn’t have it in the excerpts that I submitted 20 with my Annexures, apologies. MR MILNE: Section 39? MR KENDERDINE: Page 39. 25 MR COLLINS: Of the evidence. CHAIRPERSON: It is also in your evidence is it? 30 MR MILNE: So these are conditions relating to the Resource Consent and relate to design approvals? MR KENDERDINE: Correct. MR MILNE: Yes. And your point is? 35 MR KENDERDINE: My point is that Condition 1D, the terraces of Aotearoa talks as a series of landscaped terraces that step down from the ceremonial grounds from Tory Street to Sussex Street. And I guess whether it’s the east or west of Sussex Street is not mentioned there but 40 I guess the certifiers are happy that what we have done meets with those requirements. MR MILNE: So as a reference to the terracing going down to Sussex Street and we established earlier on that the plan from the legislation does 45 indeed stop at Sussex Street doesn’t it? Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7225 MR KENDERDINE: Or close to the east side of Sussex Street, yes. MR MILNE: So, you have got a comment at 8.3, is an issue of intent by the Crown to include this in the National War Memorial Park and hence be 5 considered by future generations that part of the National War Memorial Park, there’s no footnote there, Mr Kenderdine. Are you referring to anything in particular in the legislation that reflects that intention? 10 MR KENDERDINE: No, no, that’s my inference. I guess I look there to your memo that referred to the departmental report from the Minister of Culture and Heritage, well the Ministry of Culture and Heritage. And, I’ve got that here somewhere, that talked about the submissions, 15 and quite strongly worded submissions, from the Mount Victoria Historical Society amongst others, opposing the inclusion of the crèche in the Act and the Ministry of Culture and Heritage department report clearly states that it was retained within the Act. 20 MR MILNE: And your interpretation earlier was that it was retained in the Act to cover the possibility that the crèche might need to be moved for some of the works relating to the underpass? MR KENDERDINE: That would be an inference that I could draw, but also I 25 don’t know the whole discussion that went on around why the crèche is included in the Act. I do note Alison Dangerfield talks quite strongly about the positive effects of the strengthening and relocation of the crèche – well strengthening of the crèche and the incorporation into the park. 30 [5.20 pm] MR MILNE: And then at paragraph 8.8 you refer to the clause that says “in the event of inconsistency between a boundary shown in Figure 1, 2 or 3, and the legal description of the land or plan prepared under this Act, 35 the legal description of the plan as the case may be prevails”. Now can I just confirm firstly, that the other Figures, that is Figures 1 and 2, do include both the relocated crèche position and the existing crèche position? That is the construction plan and the land requirement 40 plan. MR KENDERDINE: They do cover the area, the total area, yes. MR MILNE: And the list of sites, legal descriptions of sites under Section 3 45 of the Act, and which you have attached to your evidence, which is the Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7226 description of park land that includes the all or part of the crèche site does it? MR KENDERDINE: To be honest, looking at this list, I couldn’t tell you that 5 answer. MR MILNE: Does it include all or part of the land shown in the construction plan and the land requirement plan, or not? 10 MR KENDERDINE: I’m sorry but I’m not that familiar with the legal descriptions and the various lots that are on the site. MR MILNE: Does it include the land included in the proposed National War Memorial Park extension. 15 MR KENDERDINE: Can you explain what you mean by extension? MR MILNE: Well the extension that is proposed as part of this project, the Basin Reserve project, that is the extension of the park from the area 20 shown in the National War Memorial Park legislation, down the hill, past the crèche to Kent, Cambridge Terrace. Which is within the construction plan and the land requirement plan in the legislation. MR KENDERDINE: Again, I couldn’t tell you where these legal descriptions 25 sit on those plans. I’m sorry I’m just not that familiar with that level of detail. MR MILNE: And so, just finally on the crèche. The plan is clear isn’t it? In terms of the boundary, that is the Figure 2, of the National War 30 Memorial Park as in the legislation, there was not ambiguity, or there is no ambiguity as to the land that it relates to is there? MR KENDERDINE: Well there is a very thick dotted blue line, which inferred the extent of the park at the time of the writing of the Act. 35 There are a number of other components as we have just talked about that relates to that. And I guess another one is the treatment of Tory Street which, if you strictly read the Act, would be a standard, normal Wellington City Council road. 40 Again, when you look at the plan MP119O100, quite a lot of effort is going into incorporating that road into the language and nature of the park. MR MILNE: Right, moving on from the crèche, Mr Kenderdine, and in terms 45 of the Option X issues, or perhaps briefly dealing with one other issue which is I asked you by counsel to consider the, or to advise the Board Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7227 as to the volumes of excavation involved or the Option F Paterson Street abutment. Do you have those figures there? MR KENDERDINE: Those were the, yes, yes I do, I’m sorry. I can dig those 5 out. Yes. MR MILNE: And what is that figure? MR KENDERDINE: The Paterson Street abutment, if I just find a drawing 10 that helps. For the Board, that is roughly in the area that we’re talking about is the pink object in what we call Zone 4 down by St Joseph’s Church. [5.25 pm] 15 The volumes of cut and fill currently we're looking at there are around 1,500 cubic metres of cut in the area and 1,500 to 2,000 and then 2,300 to 2,800 cubic metres of fill. 20 MR MILNE: And the abutment on the other side, the western abutment, do you have the equivalent figures for that? MR KENDERDINE: No, sorry, I wasn’t aware that was part of the question. Look, I would hazard a guess to say they will be, and if you’ll excuse 25 me, well they’re just probably in the order of half that. It’s a bit narrower and shorter. MR MILNE: Do you know whether those earthwork volumes were included in the cost estimates for Option A, which were prepared in February 2013 30 for comparison with Option X? MR KENDERDINE: Unfortunately, I can’t confirm. I would assume, because I wasn’t involved in those options, I haven’t looked at those in detail. I would assume that they were included in the sort of bulk 35 estimates included. Because as I understand, Option A has always had an abutment at each end and therefore, I would expect in the round, if that’s not the wrong term, that those figures would be in there. But I did say I didn’t prepare that so I couldn’t comment in detail. 40 MR MILNE: No. So we would need to ask the person who prepared the costings wouldn’t we? So just in terms of the volumes involved. At paragraph 9.5, you say Option X tunnel would also generate nearly twice the volume of excess excavated material than the underpass, 45 where Opus estimated 88 cubic metres cut to waste versus our original 45, presumably that’s supposed to 45 thousand is it? Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7228 MR KENDERDINE: Yes, my apologies for that. MR MILNE: I got quite excited there for a moment. That figure of 88,000 5 cubic metres was the total estimate from Taranaki Street all the way through under Sussex Street and down to Kent, Cambridge wasn’t it? MR KENDERDINE: That’s as I understand it, yes. 10 MR MILNE: And I have asked you, provided by council, this long section and asked you to look at that. Do you have that, Mr Kenderdine? MR KENDERDINE: I do, but where I’ve put it. Here we go. That’s this drawing dated the 16th of the fifth, 2014? 15 MR MILNE: Yes. And have you checked that is based on the drawing that is included in the NZTA material and the references provided there? MR KENDERDINE: I would have to say I’m not really in a position to 20 confirm or not. I don’t have to respond - - - MR MILNE: Is that something that you can do overnight, Mr Kenderdine? That is compare this with the reference drawing to make sure that they align? 25 MR KENDERDINE: Well, all I can say is that if this person has calculated this to be about that amount. MR MILNE: I am not asking you about the calculation at the moment, I am 30 asking for you to confirm that this drawing, the lines in there, other than the line for Option X, are based on the Agency’s own drawing, which is referenced there. Have you checked that? MR KENDERDINE: No I haven’t, sorry. 35 MR MILNE: Is that something that you are able to do overnight? So you can confirm to the Board that it is based on the Agency’s drawing? MR KENDERDINE: I could seek information from someone from Opus who 40 could provide me that, if that’s appropriate for the Board? [5.30 pm] MR CAMERON: Sir, the information I think my friend is looking for, I think 45 is in 6F of the plan set. So I think the information you are seeking is Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7229 already there. You can have a look at it here, if you want. See if that is what you are looking for. MR MILNE: I think it was a long section provided by Mr Blackmore. So 5 assuming that someone on the applicant’s team can provide that to you overnight, you can verify it or you will be able to confirm or not, whether these two drawings align in terms of the information on them, is that correct Mr Kenderdine? 10 MR KENDERDINE: One would assume that - - - MR CAMERON: I am not sure I understand what is going on. MR KENDERDINE: The background drawing can be confirmed. As for the 15 option X drawings on top of it, I am afraid I just do not have any experience with it, particularly, except in the general. MR MILNE: Just confirm that the green shaded area and the black lines down the bottom have been added by the architectural census draftsperson, or 20 one of them, and the rest of the information that is the blue dotted line and the line of the underpass, they are all from the agency’s own material. Is that something that you will be able to confirm? MR KENDERDINE: I will endeavour to. 25 MR MILNE: Thank you. So Mr Kenderdine, the architectural centre has drawn up option X connecting through to the Buckle Street underpass as constructed and has calculated the construction volumes at 19,478 cubic metres, and the assumptions have been set out below. That is, 30 based on accommodating a roadway width of 12.2 metres, three times three-and-a-half metres lane, plus shoulders, and a 3.4 metre retaining wall working space each side. Have you been able to look at that calculation? 35 MR KENDERDINE: Not particularly, because – I mean I could agree that their calculation is correct, but without looking at the – I am sorry, but if the purpose is for me to confirm that the figure that needs to be there is not 45,000 but is actually 19,478, I would need a lot more information. 40 Because if you take our underpass for instance, the ground level actually, that she show on most of our drawings is the bottom of the slab underneath the tunnel. There is, beneath that, another 200 mils of excavation for site concrete. On average 200 mils. And below that 45 again there is anywhere between – I think the deepest we get to is about 3 metres of excavation for soft material, plus there is the drainage Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7230 trench that I mentioned that goes from the bottom of the underpass down to Kent and Cambridge Terrace. That drain is roughly 2 metres by 2 metres stacking underneath the bottom of the trench. And the catch bits that feed those drains are in the order of 30 cubic metres 5 each. MR MILNE: Is there a cross-section available of the underpass to show all of what you just explained so that a comparative calculation can be made to verify whether this figure that has been provided here is an accurate 10 estimate? MR CAMERON: I have trouble with this. CHAIRPERSON: Well let him answer the question first. Do not interrupt 15 unnecessarily please. MR CAMERON: I am not, sir. The calculation has been done by another witness who I can make available. I was hoping we would not need to do that, but I can and no, it does not accord with the 19,500, figure, and 20 that will have to be worked through. And I do not think it needs to be explored with this witness although it could be, if my learned friend really wishes to. CHAIRPERSON: So who has made a calculation? 25 MR CAMERON: Mr McFadgen. CHAIRPERSON: Mr McFadgen? Has he been before us? 30 MR CAMERON: No. There has been this to-ing and fro-ing going on about calculations of this kind, and we tried to find the best way to put this information before you. [5.35 pm] 35 Frankly, I had hoped that we would be able to agree what the figures would. It would appear that we cannot. So it is just a matter of detail. CHAIRPERSON: Well, what is the – I mean, is this to do with the option - - - 40 MR MILNE: Sir, it is to do with a single point which is it is my client’s case that the estimates which were used in 2013 for a comparison of option X with option A were considerably inflated, and in particular, that the excavation volumes involved were almost double those of what was 45 realistically required and has been carefully calculated here, albeit that the assumption here does not include an allowance for fire life, but it is Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7231 on the assumption that this could be constructed as an open trench and partially covered over to avoid fire life requirements. This plan was provided to Mr Kenderdine in the hope that he could assist the Board with this issue, because at that stage my friend had not planned to call 5 the costing expert. So I thought Mr Kenderdine was the appropriate person to be able to look at these calculations. MR KENDERDINE: If it pleases, I can help to some of this conversation with regards with the drawing that is before you and the statements that are 10 in my evidence. MR MILNE: If I could just take you, Mr Kenderdine - - - CHAIRPERSON: Well let him relate this drawing to his evidence if you want 15 to be of assistance. MR KENDERDINE: This is not dissimilar a drawing, if you like, but from the other side. And I think the pertinent point that Mr Brabhaharan and myself, maybe not as explicitly as we could be, is this discussion of – 20 and it comes to this discussion of cost which is option X is in the order of twice the length of the underpass for the Buckle Street underpass. The geological conditions for the Buckle Street underpass are better than for option X, and again, we talked about option F was worse again still. That is directly related to the distance from the ground and the 25 slope of the surface to the dark grey line on this plan. And I draw people’s attention to the fact that - - - CHAIRPERSON: On which plan, this plan on the board? 30 MR KENDERDINE: The plan in front of you, annexure E, the long section. So I draw your attention to the eastern end of the trench, which has 34 piles. Sorry, the western end of the trench, which is near Taranaki Street, has 34 piles. The eastern end of the trench has 59 or 60 piles. They are longer, on average, than the ones at the other end. If we were 35 to continue option X down towards Cambridge Terrace after the completion of the park, which we could contemplate, if we were to do that, I think what Mr Brabhaharan was saying, and my advisors would tell me, is that a series of columns, which was ground improvements that we were going talk about tomorrow, but the series of columns 40 would need to continue under both option X and option F. And in fact, in option F, it becomes a real constraint to the viability of the project on the information we now know. So while – and I think I understand where Mr Milne might be going 45 with the discussion of volumes, because there is always discrepancies between estimates at an early staged based of indicative drawings, and Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7232 what we find when we get into the project. So that for instance, we are talking currently 38,000 cubic metres of cut to waste rather than 45 on the park. So there is often variances between those estimates. But in terms of sheer cost, the ground improvements that Brabhaharan was 5 talking about, in fact, just the piling would probably cost more than the difference in this earthworks discussion. [5.40 pm] 10 MR MILNE: Thank you Mr Kenderdine. If we could come back to the volume of earthworks involved and your previous plan on the previous page, does that show the dimensions of the underpass including the 0.8 metre allowance underneath and the storm water drain? 15 MR KENDERDINE: Is that this drawing? MR MILNE: That is correct, the bottom drawing there. MR KENDERDINE: The cross sections, yes. 20 MR MILNE: If you were told that the same dimensions have been used for the calculation to get to the 9478 cubic metres what is the particular difficulty you have with that earthworks volume calculation? 25 MR KENDERDINE: Because I do not know the ground surface that you are using. MR MILNE: What has that got to do with earthworks volume calculation? 30 MR KENDERDINE: Well the volume will always be a matter of the ground surface versus the end surface so potentially if you used this example here and you added a metre and a half on either side which is the working room we have to the temporary wall and you say, let’s at an average added a metre to the bottom for over excavation and soft spots. 35 You would be roughly in our ball park for excavation or a cross sectional area and then you could calculate this. MR MILNE: That is something that Mr McFadgen will be able to do, he will be able to show what the earthworks volumes would be for connecting 40 the underpass to Option X as a hypothetical exercise without life support systems and so on to allow comparison with the costings that have been provided, is that correct? MR KENDERDINE: Strictly for the underpass you might be correct, but 45 there is quite a large amount of other earthworks envisaged in Option X which is not covered in the cut of the trench. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7233 MR MILNE: Are you talking about the green bridge, Mr Kenderdine? MR KENDERDINE: Green bridge I understand that you come down from 5 Sussex Street to cross and I am really extrapolating here because I have not looked at it in detail. You duck down Sussex Street is lowered rather to get across the box. I mean I am really - - - MR MILNE: Are you sure that is actually Mr Kenderdine or are you just 10 making things up? MR KENDERDINE: No, this is what I am saying, I am not exactly sure on the details. 15 MR MILNE: Maybe we just stop there if you do not know the details? MR KENDERDINE: That is fine by me. CHAIRPERSON: Well really, this is not helping us very much at all because 20 this witness, is this witness able to go away and give us a reasonable, sorry Mr Kenderdine, if I can ask you are you able to go away tonight, look at this and give us an estimate of what a reasonable calculation would be for the excavation of this area shown in green? 25 MR KENDERDINE: I could possibly do that, yes. It would be for the area in green and I guess what I am saying is there is area outside of that that I know nothing of. MR CAMERON: Sir, could I ask him could he confer with Mr Thornton? 30 CHAIRPERSON: Who. MR CAMERON: Mr Thornton at Opus who has done I think some of this work together with Mr McFadgen then that is going to help. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree with that? MR MILNE: Yes, sir, but the only comment I have to make and is the way I put it to the witness is my understanding the Opus calculations allowed 40 a very additional allowance for fire life contingencies. That is the figure we are wanting to put in front of the Board is the volume of excavation that will be required for an open tunnel which is then partially capped without those fire life requirements. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7234 We are not talking about the green bridge so it is not exactly the Option X as was proposed, it is to give the Board an idea of whether there is a feasible option to go under Sussex Street. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Well surely they must be entitled to have regard to the normal contingency that they would take into account when making an assessment? MR MILNE: Yes, sir. 10 [5.45 pm] CHAIRPERSON: Other than the fire life one? 15 MR MILNE: Yes. Other than the fire life one, because that allowance hasn’t been made for the existing underpass and we say that it isn’t necessary for a trench … CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand all that, yes. 20 MR CAMERON: The problem with that, and that is because of the length of. Mr Blackmore has previously explained the problem and … MR MILNE: The tunnels. 25 MR CAMERON: Can you just let me finish, because we cannot at this stage, with respect, be getting in to a position where we’re trying to redesign options and get figures that are … 30 CHAIRPERSON: No. That’s not our job anyway, to look at … MR CAMERON: Precisely, Sir, and that really is the nub or the gravamen of my concern that you’re now getting in to a debate about how you might do this or that and how this could have been considered in terms of 35 costs slightly differently or whether Option X could have been considered in a different way. It raises a whole lot of issues that are relevant to safety, which have in part been canvassed before the Board, but not by an expert witness. It certainly hasn’t been evidence that has been put before the Board by the Architecture Centre as an option and 40 as a consideration with expert evidence to support it. Frankly, I don’t know whether this could even be considered by the agency, let alone built. So, therefore, it becomes extremely abstract … CHAIRPERSON: I’m still dubious about how it’s going to assist us, but, I’m 45 not going to stop you putting a matter before us if you think it’s relevant. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7235 MR CAMERON: I’m prepared to get the figures in an abstract sense for both. CHAIRPERSON: Well let’s do it that way. 5 MR CAMERON: If I can do that. CHAIRPERSON: That’s right. That’s fine. 10 MR CAMERON: But on the basis that the NZTA position is that, frankly, the figure that my learned friend is seeking is not one that we can consider. CHAIRPERSON: What we really need to know is, are you saying, Mr Milne, that they inflated the figures at the time of considering Option X? 15 MR MILNE: Two things, sir. Yes. CHAIRPERSON: Well, that’s the first question. Well, if at the time of Option X was clearly required, at the time they considered it, it was good 20 practice to have fire safety provisions built in to it, then we should have the figure for that. MR MILNE: Yes. My second point is … 25 CHAIRPERSON: And your second point is, you’re saying, well, it could possibly be built without fire safety. So we’ll have a figure for that as well. And then we can make a decision on the evidence if there is sufficient evidence before us, if we need to. 30 MR MILNE: And it relates to the legal proposition, which is the case law is that the agency didn’t need to consider spurious proposals and is simply endeavouring to establish that this is not a spurious proposal. CHAIRPERSON: Very well. So, have we reached an agreement on that? 35 MR CAMERON: I understand the propositions and, yes, I will try and find. At no point have I endeavoured to block giving of information. CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I realise that, I accept that. 40 MR CAMERON: And I will provide those figures, but the context in which they can be considered I find difficult. CHAIRPERSON: Is the matter for submission and a matter on the evidence. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7236 MR CAMERON: And in the end, on the basis on which we are agreeing to proceed, yes. MR MILNE: Although it is a matter that will need to be addressed in the 5 costing expert evidence, which still needs to be caught. MR CAMERON: Although, on this basis, I am now being bound to call Mr McFadgen to put before you costing information in an evidential form that then allows you to understand that. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Well, we’re starting to lose the wood for the trees here. And I don’t want a lot of unnecessary information before us that we don’t need to assess what is really a stand back look at the option exercise and to decide whether or not it was adequately carried out. 15 MR MILNE: Understood. This was a matter I did put to Dr Stewart about six weeks ago and at that stage it was agreed that it would be appropriate to call the relevant costing expert. So that’s where we are at. 20 MR CAMERON: To that extent CHAIRPERSON: Well, I don’t want you to argue any more tonight in front of me. Argue between yourselves till midnight if you want to. 25 [5.50 pm] MR CAMERON: It is helpful, Sir. To that extent my learned friend is right, I did say when he got onto this issue with Dr Stewart, Dr Stewart doesn’t know about that, we could ask a costing expert. Now, I’ve done that, 30 I’ve provided the information, I had hoped that would resolve it. It would seem it has not. On that basis, I am rather of the view that we are wood for trees, but if that is where we are going to, we are at the point where I can produce the evidence without undue 35 CHAIRPERSON: Well, I don’t want pages and pages of evidence again. Thank you very much. All we want to look at is one small issue and that is the costings for the excavations. Are they reasonable, or are they not? And that is all. I don’t want to go beyond that. 40 MR CAMERON: The evidence I can tell you, Sir … CHAIRPERSON: Isn’t that all we have to do? MR MILNE: Yes, sir. And I put a series of questions to the costing expert, 45 those have been answered and what, I think, from what I’ve seen, is a three or four page brief and the simplest thing would be for that three or Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7237 four page brief to be provided once the further information from Mr Kenderdine is provided. CHAIRPERSON: Right, we’ll do it that way. 5 MR CAMERON: That is where we’ll land and that is the position that we’re having to deal with. MR MILNE: Sir, I don’t want to take any more time on this, I just have a 10 couple more questions for Mr Kenderdine. In 9.3, Mr Kenderdine, you say the transport agency placed a design freeze on the concept design by the length and the profile of Buckle Street underpass on 4 July 2012 and then you refer variations and the indication there is that the variations were quite slight. So the profile was, in essence, fixed from 4 15 July 2012, wasn’t it? MR KENDERDINE: Sorry, I’m just catching up to the section you referred me to. 20 MR MILNE: Paragraph 9.3 of your supplement. MR KENDERDINE: The overall concept design, yes, was frozen then. MR MILNE: And the profile hasn’t changed substantially since that date, has 25 it? MR KENDERDINE: It’s about a metre higher at the Tory Street cross section, to clear that sewer. 30 MR MILNE: The storm water drain? MR KENDERDINE: Sewer. MR MILNE: Right. 35 MR KENDERDINE: We really didn’t want to shift it. MR MILNE: And … 40 CHAIRPERSON: Is that an old brick sewer, is it? MR KENDERDINE: Mm. Curved. Egg shaped, triple skin, brick. It’s a lovely piece of work. 45 MR MILNE: By February 2013 those variations had already occurred and at what date did the works commence on the underpass project? Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7238 MR KENDERDINE: We started the relocation of the road back in October 2012. February 2013 we were starting, we’d shifted the temporary road, so about then we started the King Post walls, which are the steel 5 columns with wooden infill, starting at the western end. For the primary reason, as we weren’t yet 100% sure of what we were doing at the eastern end. MR MILNE: And, just finally, at 9.4 you say, as the Government decision to 10 underground Buckle Street wasn’t made until August 2012, it was already too late to construct Option X before the 2015 ANZAC Day deadline. So, by that date, it was already too late … CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what paragraph number was that? 15 MR MILNE: Paragraph 9.4. By that date it was already too late for Option X. Beyond that date, shifting to Option X would have caused significant increase in costs because things would have had to be redesigned and tenders or contracts rewritten. Is that fair comment? 20 MR KENDERDINE: Yes, it is fair comment. I think the difficulty is explaining my world to the Basin Reserve world, which is, and I believe, one of the Board mentioned that the end of the tunnel is higher or something to that, at Sussex Street. Our main drive is to get that road 25 in safely so that we can get it out of the way of the park. We are not building the underpass because it is a precursor to the bridge at the moment, in our world. It may seem like that from the Basin world, but from our world, we are building the underpass to get the traffic out of the way so we can build the park. And, I know that seems awfully 30 simple and straight forward, but the inference is quite different. [5.55 pm] MR MILNE: My point is quite simple Mr Kenderdine, as from the date the 35 profile was set and tenders let for construction any changes after that to the profile to accommodate better marrying with Option X would have caused significant increased cost, would they not? MR KENDERDINE: Potentially or the non-opening of the Park and that is 40 the problem for my world. MR MILNE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Milne, well if there is any re- 45 examination we will have it tomorrow morning and of course unless you want to leave it to the end and we will continue tomorrow morning. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7239 MR CAMERON: I am happy to do that sir and I am also happy to leave it until I get Mr McFadgen here so that my learned friend can get it on with what he wants to do which is prepare his submissions which I 5 respect and then we can get Mr McFadgen here. CHAIRPERSON: Well first of all what I suggest is you send the information you have got to Mr Milne. 10 MR CAMERON: He has it. MR MILNE: I have that information. CHAIRPERSON: You have, yes. 15 MR MILNE: I have got different earthworks volumes from the one I have just put to Mr Kenderdine. MR CAMERON: We have got this argument going on which is obvious as to 20 earthworks volumes and we will deal with that through Mr Kenderdine overnight. He has a brief from Mr McFadgen. I am going to file it in draft just to get it before you. CHAIRPERSON: That is right, do that and if need be we will put 25 Mr McFadgen and Mr Kenderdine in the box together. MR CAMERON: Yes, I think that is a good idea. CHAIRPERSON: We can have a hot tub. 30 MR CAMERON: As long as Mr Milne can ask them both at the same time, but that will avoid Mr Milne having to come back twice and I can then get this evidence finished and I can get Mr McFadgen here probably tomorrow afternoon, sir. I will talk to my friend to see when is most 35 convenient. CHAIRPERSON: You are like a little rubber ball, you are going to get lots and lots of stuff done. 40 MR CAMERON: Well sir, it has been an awkward afternoon but there we are, we have got to the end of it, thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you for that. 45 MR MILNE: Thank you, sir and I am obliged to the Board for staying overtime. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7240 CHAIRPERSON: No, well it is for our benefit as much as yours and I am sure that Mr Cameron as well because he wants to have your submissions. 5 MR CAMERON: No, Mr Cameron is not feeling quite at that point yet but he will reflect upon it over the next hour or two. MR MILNE: Sir, in terms of timing of recalling this witness and Mr Fadgen - - - 10 CHAIRPERSON: Well you sort that out. MR MILNE: Well sir, can I suggest Friday morning because I really need to write some legal submissions between now and Friday. 15 CHAIRPERSON: No, let us know how long you will require on Friday morning and we will start earlier so as we can have that before your submissions. 20 MR MILNE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: You should not hopefully need more than half an hour. MR MILNE: For my submission, sir, yes. 25 CHAIRPERSON: No, for any questions. MR MILNE: Yes, I think that will be adequate. 30 MR CAMERON: It is my re-examination. CHAIRPERSON: On this simple point? MR CAMERON: I am going to re-examine. 35 CHAIRPERSON: No, you re-examine this gentleman tomorrow. MR CAMERON: All right, that is fine, I am happy to do that, and I do not want to, otherwise we really will - - - 40 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I do not want to do that. MR CAMERON: Are you happy with that? 45 CHAIRPERSON: Monday morning will be just on this one single issue. Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14 Page 7241 MR MILNE: Okay. MR CAMERON: Friday morning. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Friday morning, yes. We will adjourn until tomorrow morning. MR CAMERON: As your Honour pleases. 10 MATTER ADJOURNED AT 5.58 PM UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 21 MAY 2014 Basin Reserve, Wellington 20.05.14