City Rail Link Notices of Requirement
Report for Hearing Commissioners
11 June 2013
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement
Report for Hearing Commissioners
Prepared by: Auckland Council, MWH NZ Ltd Date: 11 June 2013 Status: Final
Experience and Qualifications
Ross Cooper: - BPlan, GradPlus Member of the New Zealand Planning Institute, 8 years experience, Principal Planner, Auckland Council Paula Hunter: - BA, Diploma of Town Planning, Fellow of the New Zealand Planning Institute, 30 years experience, National Planning Specialist, MWH
Chris Scrafton: - MA Town Planning, PgCert Town Planning, BA, Member of New Zealand Planning Institute, 14 years experience, Senior Planner, MWH Garrett Hall: - MSc(Hons), Chartered Environmental Practitioner (CEnvP), Associate Member of Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (AIEMA), 13 years experience, Senior Environmental Scientist, MWH
Page ii
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Contents
1 Introduction ...... 8 1.1 Notices of requirement ...... 9 1.1.1 Adequacy of information ...... 9 1.2 Purpose of Report ...... 11 1.3 Documents Relied On ...... 11
2 Outline of Proposal ...... 14 2.1 Description ...... 14 2.1.1 Concept design ...... 14 2.1.2 Construction methodologies ...... 14 2.2 CRL Components...... 15 2.2.1 Tunnel alignment and works ...... 15 2.2.2 Stations ...... 17 2.2.3 Construction sites ...... 18 2.2.4 Other associated works ...... 20 2.3 Assumptions ...... 20 2.4 Construction timeline ...... 21 2.5 Notices of requirement ...... 21 2.5.1 Purpose of designations ...... 22 2.5.2 Types of designation ...... 22 2.5.3 Summary description of the six NoRs ...... 22 2.5.4 Property details ...... 25 2.5.5 Lapse period...... 27 2.5.6 Withdrawal of parts of designations post construction ...... 27 2.5.7 Use of existing designations ...... 28 2.6 Auckland Transport ...... 28 2.6.1 Statement of Intent ...... 29 2.6.2 Requiring authority status ...... 29 2.6.3 AT’s CRL project objectives ...... 29
3 Preliminary Matters ...... 31 3.1 Time of Lodgement of Submissions ...... 31 3.2 Late Submissions ...... 31 3.3 Other Designations ...... 32
4 Overview of Submissions ...... 33 4.1 General Overview and Scope of Submissions ...... 33
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
4.2 Principal issues – project wide ...... 33 4.3 Principal issues – local ...... 33 4.4 Out of scope matters raised by submitters ...... 34
5 Statutory framework ...... 36
6 Assessment of Alternatives ...... 38 6.1 Statutory requirements ...... 38 6.2 Alternatives considered ...... 38 6.3 Issues raised by submitters ...... 39 6.4 Adequacy of the assessment ...... 40
7 Necessity of Project for Achieving Objectives ...... 43 7.1 Statutory requirements ...... 43 7.2 CRL project objectives...... 43 7.3 Auckland Transport assessment ...... 44 7.4 Issues raised by submitters ...... 45 7.5 Assessment ...... 45 7.5.1 Work reasonably necessary ...... 45 7.5.2 Designation reasonably necessary ...... 47
8 Auckland Transport’s Approach to Managing Adverse Effects ...... 49 8.1 Introduction ...... 49 8.2 Submitter Issues ...... 49 8.3 Assessment and Proposed Mitigation ...... 50
9 Assessment of Effects ...... 54 9.1 Approach to assessment ...... 54 9.2 Construction Noise and Vibration ...... 54 9.2.1 Introduction ...... 54 9.2.2 Relevant plan provisions ...... 55 9.2.3 Overview of submissions ...... 57 9.2.4 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 58 9.2.5 Assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 66 9.3 Operational Noise and Vibration ...... 75 9.3.1 Introduction ...... 75 9.3.2 Relevant plan provisions ...... 76
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.3.3 Overview of submissions ...... 77 9.3.4 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 78 9.3.5 Assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 81 9.4 Structural integrity ...... 86 9.4.1 Introduction ...... 86 9.4.2 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 86 9.4.3 Submitter issues...... 88 9.4.4 Assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 88 9.5 Transport Networks and Traffic Management ...... 90 9.5.1 Introduction ...... 90 9.5.2 Relevant plan provisions ...... 91 9.5.3 Overview of submitter issues ...... 93 9.5.4 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 93 9.5.5 Operational – RTE 1 (positive effects) ...... 93 9.5.6 Operational – RTE 2 (positive effects) ...... 94 9.5.7 Operational – RTE 3 (positive effects) ...... 94 9.5.8 Operation – RTE 4 (adverse effects) ...... 95 9.5.9 Operational and Construction - RTE 6 (adverse effects) ...... 96 9.5.10 Construction – RTE 7 (adverse effects)...... 97 9.5.11 Construction – RTE 8 (adverse effects)...... 99 9.5.12 Construction – RTE 10 (adverse effects)...... 104 9.5.13 Construction – RTE 11 ...... 104 9.5.14 Construction – RTE 12 ...... 106 9.5.15 Construction – RTE13 (adverse effects) ...... 107 9.5.16 Construction – RTE 14 (adverse effects)...... 108 9.5.17 Construction – RTE 15 (adverse effects) and RTE 16 ...... 109 9.5.18 Conclusions ...... 112 9.6 Access to Properties ...... 113 9.6.1 Introduction ...... 113 9.6.2 Operation and construction effects – RTE 9 ...... 113 9.7 Walking and Cycling ...... 114 9.7.1 Introduction ...... 114 9.7.2 Relevant plan provisions ...... 114 9.7.3 Overview of submitter issues ...... 116 9.7.4 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 116 9.7.5 Operational – RTE 5 (positive and adverse effects) ...... 117 9.8 Network Utilities ...... 119 9.8.1 Introduction ...... 119 9.8.2 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 119 9.8.3 Submitter issues...... 122 9.8.4 Relevant plan provisions ...... 123 9.8.5 Assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 124
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.9 Light Spill and Glare ...... 126 9.9.1 Introduction ...... 126 9.9.2 Auckland Transport Assessment and Proposed Mitigation ...... 127 9.9.3 Submitter Issues ...... 127 9.9.4 Relevant Plan Provisions ...... 127 9.9.5 Assessment and Proposed Mitigation ...... 128 9.10 Tāngata whenua ...... 129 9.10.1 Introduction ...... 129 9.10.2 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 129 9.10.3 Submitter issues ...... 132 9.10.4 Relevant plan provisions ...... 132 9.10.5 Discussion ...... 132 9.11 Built heritage ...... 134 9.11.1 Introduction ...... 134 9.11.2 Relevant plan provisions ...... 136 9.11.3 Overview of submitter issues ...... 138 9.11.4 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 138 9.11.5 Submission issues not otherwise addressed ...... 152 9.12 Archaeology ...... 153 9.12.1 Introduction ...... 153 9.12.2 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 153 9.12.3 Submitter issues ...... 156 9.12.4 Relevant plan provisions ...... 156 9.12.5 Discussion ...... 156 9.13 Trees ...... 158 9.13.1 Introduction ...... 158 9.13.2 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 159 9.13.3 Submitter issues ...... 160 9.13.4 Relevant plan provisions ...... 160 9.13.5 Assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 161 9.14 Contamination...... 163 9.14.1 Introduction ...... 163 9.14.2 Auckland Transport Assessment and Proposed Mitigation...... 164 9.14.3 Submitter Issues ...... 166 9.14.4 Relevant Plan Provisions ...... 166 9.14.5 Assessment and Proposed Mitigation ...... 167 9.15 Air Quality ...... 167 9.15.1 Introduction ...... 167 9.15.2 Auckland Transport Assessment and Proposed Mitigation...... 168 9.15.3 Submitter Issues ...... 169 9.15.4 Relevant Plan Provisions ...... 170 9.15.5 Assessment and Proposed Mitigation ...... 171
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.16 Urban design ...... 172 9.16.1 Introduction ...... 172 9.16.2 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 172 9.16.3 Submitter issues ...... 173 9.16.4 Relevant plan provisions ...... 174 9.16.5 Discussion ...... 175 9.17 Visual and amenity values ...... 181 9.18 Blight ...... 182 9.18.1 Introduction ...... 182 9.18.2 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 182 9.18.3 Submitter issues ...... 183 9.18.4 Relevant plan provisions ...... 184 9.18.5 Assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 184 9.19 Social Effects ...... 185 9.19.1 Introduction ...... 185 9.19.2 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 185 9.19.3 Submitter issues ...... 188 9.19.4 Relevant plan provisions ...... 191 9.19.5 Assessment and proposed mitigation ...... 192 9.20 Other Positive Effects ...... 195 9.20.1 Urban regeneration ...... 195 9.21 Cumulative Effects ...... 197
10 Summary of Effects Assessment ...... 198
11 National, Regional and District Planning Instruments ...... 201 11.1 National Policy Statements ...... 201 11.2 Regional Planning Instruments ...... 201 11.2.1 Auckland Regional Policy Statement ...... 201 11.3 District Planning Instruments ...... 201 11.3.1 Auckland Council District Plan: Central Area Section ...... 202 11.3.2 Auckland Council District Plan: Isthmus Section ...... 203
12 Other Matters...... 205 12.1 Local Government Act Planning Instruments ...... 205 12.1.1 Auckland Long Term Plan 2012 - 2022 ...... 205 12.2 Transport Planning Instruments ...... 206 12.2.1 Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010 – 2040 ...... 206 12.2.2 Auckland Regional Land Transport Programme 2012 – 2015 ...... 206 12.2.3 Draft Auckland Regional Public Transport Plan 2012 ...... 207 12.2.4 Auckland Transport Plan 2009 ...... 207
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
12.2.5 Auckland Passenger Transport Network Plan 2006 – 2016 ...... 207 12.2.6 Auckland Rail Development Plan 2006 – 2016 ...... 208 12.3 Auckland Council Strategic Planning Instruments ...... 208 12.3.1 City Centre Master Plan 2012 ...... 208 12.3.2 Waterfront Plan 2012 ...... 209 12.3.3 Economic Development Strategy ...... 209 12.4 Draft Unitary Plan ...... 209 12.5 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 ...... 211
13 Conditions ...... 213 13.1 Auckland Transport Draft Conditions ...... 213 13.2 Proposed Amendments to Draft Conditions ...... 213 13.3 Lapsing of Designation ...... 213 13.4 Drawing back the Designation ...... 215
14 RMA Part 2 Considerations ...... 217 14.1 Principles – Sections 6, 7 and 8 ...... 217 14.2 Purpose - Section 5 ...... 220
15 Conclusions ...... 222
16 Recommendation ...... 229
1 Introduction
This Report has been prepared on the basis of the information contained in the documents set out in Section 1.3 below and in the submissions lodged in respect of the Notices of Requirement (NoRs). It is understood that Auckland Transport (AT) is having on-going discussions with many of the submitters and consequently matters identified as issues for submitters in this Report may be addressed in AT‟s evidence as a consequence of these discussions. Where matters require clarification or further information and assumptions made in
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
forming conclusions, these have been identified and direction given to AT and relevant submitters to further address these matters in their respective evidence. 1.1 Notices of requirement
AT gave notice on 23 August 2013 to Auckland Council of its requirement to designate land in the Auckland District Plan (Operative Auckland City Central Area Section and Operative Auckland City Isthmus Section) for the construction, operation and maintenance of the City Rail Link (CRL or the Project). A total of six NoRs were publically notified on 25 January 2013 and submissions closed on 19th March 2013. A total of 259 submissions have been lodged in respect of the NoRs, seven of which were received late and as at the time of writing this report, one submission had been withdrawn. Therefore, a total of 258 submissions are addressed in this Report. AT has proposed a lapse period of 20 years for each of the six designations. No resource consent applications for works not covered by the designations have been lodged with Auckland Council. AT has advised that these applications will be lodged at a later date and that it is working with the relevant departments of the Auckland Council in preparing these future applications.
1.1.1 Adequacy of information
The following serves as a timeline of information received and requested by Auckland Council:
Summary of information requested and received
23 August 2012
Seven NoRs lodged by AT
30 August 2012
Acknowledgement of receipt by AC, Cultural Values Assessment requested, and confirmation that AT were requesting the NoRs be publicly notified (in accordance with s95A(2)(b) of the Act),.
4 October 2012
AC request that AT: . Revisit the AEE to ensure that the effects of the project are fully reflected, in particular, the assessment of the project against the relevant district plan criteria at Tables 8.2 and 8.3, and detailed more fully in Appendix 7 to the AEE, were complete.
. Resolve the conflicting statements within the AEE and EMF report regarding
Page 9 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Summary of information requested and received
the identification of effects and the establishment of an effects envelope. . Additions to plans provided in order to enable a better understanding of exactly how properties are affected by the proposal. . Confirmation that the extent, purpose and conditions of the existing Britomart and North Auckland Line designations will provide for the CRL construction, maintenance and operation. . Revise the Social Impact Assessment to include information that is commonly accepted as necessary when undertaking such assessments, including:
o A profile of the existing social environment, including baseline data on existing communities, businesses, social infrastructure and interaction. o Demographic profiles, including years at usual residence.
o An assessment of how communities and businesses will change as a result of the CRL; and o Suggested mitigation and monitoring measure in addition to any on-going and regular communications. . Correct a few identified errors regarding the status of demolition activities under the Central Area Section of the District Plan.
10 October 2012 Response from AT, which either covered the points raised in AC‟s 4 October letter, or noted that a response would be provided in due course.
23 October 2012 AC provide further information request relating to noise and vibration matters.
20 December 2012 Comprehensive response from AT to any outstanding matters from earlier requests for information. Also included notice that as the result of work to “optimise the CRL design”, AT were formally withdrawing NoR 7 and some of the land from the footprint of NoR 6.
25 January 2013 Subsequently, Council officers considered that the information provided was sufficient to warrant the public notification that had previously been requested by
Page 10 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Summary of information requested and received
Auckland Transport. Public notification of the six notices of requirement.
Post-notification Social Impact Assessment, Addendum to the Integrated Transport Assessment, and Draft Conditions provided by AT.
1.2 Purpose of Report
This Report has been prepared in accordance with section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The key purposes of this report are to:
Identify the issues and concerns raised by parties who have lodged submissions on the NoRs;
Assess the effects (adverse and positive) on the environment including on those who have lodged submission on the NoRs;
Determine the effectiveness and appropriateness of the measures proposed by AT to avoid, remedy or mitigate the effects;
Assess the NoRs against the requirements of the RMA and against the provisions of the relevant planning instruments;
Make recommendations for the consideration of the Commissioners on whether they should recommend that the requirement for the designations be confirmed, modified, or withdrawn; and
Recommend conditions to be imposed on the designations to ensure the adverse effects of the Project are appropriately managed. 1.3 Documents Relied On
In preparing this Report the following documents provided by AT have been relied on: Table 1.1: - Reports prepared by Auckland Transport City Rail Link NoR Documentation1
1 Section 1.2.1 of the AT Assessment of Environmental Effects provides a full description of the CRL NoR documentation.
Page 11 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
City Rail Link NoR Documentation1 Volume 1 - Notices of Requirement, 15 NoR Overview August 2012 NoRs 1 to 6 Volume 2 – Assessment of Environmental Summary Effects, 15 August 2012 AEE Appendices 1 to 7 Volume 3 Part 1 – Technical Report Appendices 1 to10 Volume 3 Part 2 – Technical Report Appendices 11 to 13
To support this Report, a number of Technical Specialist Reports have been prepared by Auckland Council and on behalf of Auckland Council. These are listed below and are attached as appendices to this Report. Table 1.2: - Auckland Council Reports Technical Specialist Reports Attachment Reference Description of Attachment Attachment F Noise and Vibration Technical Report, Styles Group Attachment G Structural Integrity Report, Tonkin and Taylor Attachment H Transport and Traffic Report, MWH NZ Ltd Attachment I Tāngata Whenua Report, Auckland Council Attachment J Built Heritage and Archaeology Report, Auckland Council Attachment K Trees and Vegetation Report, Auckland Council Attachment L Contamination Report, MWH NZ Ltd Attachment M Air Quality Report, MWH NZ Ltd Attachment N Urban Design Report, Auckland Council
A list of the relevant RMA planning instruments that have been relied on in assessing the NORs is contained in Section 5 of this Report. Other non RMA planning instruments that have been relied on are discussed in Section 17. The following additional information has been provided by AT to Auckland Council and submitters following the lodgement of the NoR documentation. Table 1.3: - Additional Information Additional Information City Rail Link: Proposed Draft Notice of Received 30th April 2013 Requirement Conditions City Rail Link: Social Impact Assessment Received 17th May 2013
Page 12 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Additional Information City Rail Link: Supplementary Report Received 22nd May 2013 Traffic Modelling of Alternative Construction Scenarios
In preparing this Report we have also referenced findings from three recent decisions by Boards of Inquiry in respect of the NoRs for the Waterview Connection Project, the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway Project and the Transmission Gully Project.
Page 13 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
2 Outline of Proposal
2.1 Description
The CRL is predominantly a 3.4 km underground passenger railway (including two tracks and three underground stations) running between Britomart station and the North Auckland Line (NAL) in the vicinity of the existing Mt Eden station. The CRL also requires an additional 850m of track modifications within the NAL.2 For ease of reference AT has temporarily named the three stations which form part of the CRL - Aotea Station, Karangahape Station, and Newton Station. The stations will be formally named in the future. For the purposes of this Report these names have been adopted.
Section 4 of the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects contains a description of the Project.
2.1.1 Concept design
AT has prepared a concept design for the CRL in order to demonstrate construction and operational feasibility of the CRL, including the proposed alignment and stations, and to enable an understanding of the effects of construction and operation for the purpose of this NoR process. The CRL concept design also establishes engineering and architectural design parameters which will be refined (within the envelope established from the concept design) at the preliminary and detailed design stages of the Project. The CRL Concept Design Report that supports the NoRs provides a summary of the concept design work undertaken primarily in 2012 to demonstrate construction and operational feasibility of the CRL.
2.1.2 Construction methodologies
A variety of construction methodologies suitable for different locations along the CRL alignment have been identified based on the initial site analysis and investigations, topography and identified engineering risks and constraints. The most likely methodology to construct the two underground tunnels will be by an earth pressure balance tunnel boring machine (TBM) launched at the NAL end of the CRL. The construction of the tunnels at either end of the CRL (i.e. connection to Britomart and connection to the NAL) and the construction of Aotea station will likely be by cut and cover methods. The construction of Karangahape and Newton stations will likely be by cut and cover shafts from the surface from which the station platform areas will be mined out (this is referred to in this concept design as mined side platform construction)3.
2 CRL Concept Design Report, page 1
3 CRL Concept Design Report, pages 2-3
Page 14 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Section 4 of the CRL Concept Design Report provides a detailed description of the indicative construction methodology that has been developed for determining the likely construction methods. 2.2 CRL Components
2.2.1 Tunnel alignment and works
The following descriptions of the tunnel alignment comprise extracts from Section 3.2 of the CRL Concept Design Report.
2.2.1.1 Britomart Connection to Customs St
The Britomart Connection to Customs Street includes approximately 300m of tunnel alignment with a depth to track of approximately 10m and a depth to the top of the tunnel of approximately 5.5m.
The CRL will likely commence from the end of existing platforms 1 and 5 at Britomart, resulting in a through running station by extending the existing tracks to run westwards. The tunnels beneath Queen Elizabeth II Square pass adjacent to the Zurich Building site and will require an approximately 10m deep excavation through 5m of fill and marine sediment. The use of cut and cover methods is proposed due to the number of existing buildings and services within this area. The complexity in constructing the tunnels at shallow depth with the constraints of surrounding structures precludes other construction methodologies.
This section of tunnel also passes through the basement level of the Downtown Shopping Centre. It is proposed that construction works will start at the Downtown Shopping Centre and head east towards the CPO building including the removal of the Queen Street concourse finishing with the interface with the existing Britomart Station. A worksite perimeter will be established within the Queen Elizabeth II Square, and the Queen Street Concourse will be demolished. The construction of this section would require the temporary closure of Queen Elizabeth II Square and a staged closure of Queen Street.
In order to link the proposed CRL works to the existing Britomart Station, remedial works will be required within the Station itself.
2.2.1.2 Albert Street
Albert Street cut and cover includes approximately 450m of tunnel alignment with a depth to track of approximately 16m and a depth to the top of the tunnel of between 2m and 10m.
The presence of a significant stormwater infrastructure (1500-1665mm stormwater drain)
Page 15 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
at a depth similar to that required by CRL within Albert Street constrains the feasibility of using a TBM north of Aotea Station. The construction risks associated with intercepting this service and the relatively shallow cover to the top of the running tunnels, has resulted in the adoption of a cut and cover construction method for this section of works. While the use of a TBM has not been precluded, there is uncertainty regarding the reliability of using a TBM north of Aotea Station. Consequently it is prudent to provide for cut and cover.
A number of buildings and car parks have single access points from Albert Street. During construction, management of access will be necessary and may require implementing temporary access measures in some situations. A service lane will provide for public transport, pedestrian access and service access to businesses in Albert Street. The portion of Albert Street between Wyndham Street and Victoria Street which runs at a lower level would operate as a one way system.
2.2.1.3 Aotea Station to NAL portals The Aotea Station to NAL portals includes approximately 2100m of tunnel alignment with a maximum depth to track of approximately 40m and a maximum depth to the top of the tunnel of approximately 35m. The alignment in this section has a minimum depth to track of approximately 13m and a minimum depth to the top of the tunnel of approximately 6.5m.
This section of two tunnels would likely be constructed using an earth pressure balance TBM.
2.2.1.4 NAL portals and connections
The NAL portals (east and west facing links) include approximately 1200m of tunnel and retaining walls. The portal headwalls on both the east and west facing connections form the transition from cut and cover to the at-grade portion of the alignment.
The NAL connections include approximately 850m of track alignment which will be lower than the existing track level by approximately 4m. The CRL tunnels will connect to the NAL in an east and a west direction in the vicinity of the existing Mount Eden Station. Two separate tunnels for both the east and west connections (four tunnels in total underground) are proposed. The existing NAL will need to be realigned to allow the CRL tracks to rise up from underground between the NAL tracks to be positioned at the centre of the rail corridor. The CRL east connection to the NAL will diverge (in mined tunnels) from the west connection to the NAL just south of Newton Station and to the east of Normanby Road. The west connection of the CRL will involve the tracks continuing to rise up from underground in a retained trench until just east of Porters Ave. The two CRL tracks will merge with the two existing NAL tracks west of Porters Ave.
Page 16 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
2.2.2 Stations
Section 3.4 of the CRL Concept Design Report provides a detailed concept design for the stations.
2.2.2.1 Aotea Station Aotea Station is located on Albert Street from just north of Victoria Street to Wellesley Street. There are three indicative entries included in the concept design for Aotea Station; two are located on either side of Wellesley Street, east of Albert Street and the third is located on Victoria Street west of Albert Street. Private land on the northwest corner of Albert and Victoria Streets, and on the northeast corner of Albert and Wellesley Streets is permanently required to house services and utilities required to operate the station4.
Aotea Station is assumed to be constructed using ‗top down‘ construction methods forming the walls of the station box before construction of a roof slab. The roof slab provides a running surface for the street above while excavation of the station occurs within the formed box beneath5.
2.2.2.2 Karangahape Station The Karangahape Station is located between Beresford Square and the southern end of Mercury Lane with the platform tunnel crossing beneath Karangahape Road. The main access to Karangahape Station is from Beresford Square. A secondary access is proposed at the southern end of Mercury Lane.
The indicative construction method for Karangahape Station involves the construction of two separate tunnels (called mined side platform tunnels) with a number of interlinking passageways at the same level to connect the platforms. The mined station typology used for the concept design has two side platform caverns joined by central circulation elements to provide distribution of passengers along the length of the platform.
Mined stations often require vertical shafts to be used for construction purposes and to house vertical circulation and other station functions. These shafts are usually constructed using cut and cover techniques.
For Karangahape Road Station, the main shaft is located in Beresford Square with the secondary shaft being located on private property to be acquired and within the designation footprint on the western side at the south end of Mercury Lane6.
4 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects – Section 4.2.7, page 71.
5 CRL Concept Design Report, page 44
6 CRL Concept Design Report, page 27
Page 17 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
2.2.2.3 Newton Station
Like Karangahape, Newton Station is constructed of two separate tunnels (mined side platform tunnels) with interlinking passageways at the same level connecting the platforms and the concourse. The eastern tunnel is located approximately 40m beneath Symonds Street from Khyber Pass Road to below approximately 12 New North Road. The western tunnel is located to the west beneath private property located between Symonds and Dundonald Streets between Newton Gully and Basque Street at a similar depth. Two shafts to the platform level are proposed. The main shaft and entry to the station is located on private land located on the western side of the intersection of New North Road and Mt Eden Road with Symonds Street. This land will be required permanently for the construction and operation of Newton Station. The second shaft provides for an alternative emergency egress from the station. This is located on private land which will also be required permanently for the construction and operation of Newton Station7.
2.2.3 Construction sites
The work sites referred to below are identified in Figure 4-1 of CRL Concept Design Report on page 33
2.2.3.1 Main construction site (Work Site A) The main construction site for the CRL works is located between Ruru Street and Ngahura Street bounded by New North Road in the north and the NAL in the south and is subject to NoR 6. The site will house the main site offices (likely to be a number of offices), and associated vehicle parking. It will also be used to store machinery and materials, such as the TBM when it first arrives in a number of containers. It may also be used to store large pre-cast or fabricated elements which may not be able to be stored at the individual site storage areas due to size restraints. The site is envisaged to be operating 24 hours a day and would be configured to provide the necessary haul roads to suit a high capacity tunnelling operation, with tunnelling envisaged up to 20 hours per day with up to 2 TBMs operating. A 20 hour per day TBM operation accounts for two 10 hour work shifts and allows for maintenance to be carried out in the remaining 4 hours if required8. It is anticipated that TBM-excavated material will not be suitable for engineered fill. Therefore, it is assumed that this material will be removed and disposed off-site to a consented disposal location.9
7 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects – Section 4.2.7, page 72
8 CRL Concept Design Report, pages 38-39
9 CRL Concept Design Report, page 34
Page 18 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
2.2.3.2 Newton Station (Work Site C)
As described in Section 2.2.2.3 above, Newton Station is configured with mined side platforms accessed from two shafts. The shafts will serve to remove excavation spoil and supply the required materials for the station construction. Limited site laydown space is available at Newton Station albeit some property is required to facilitate shaft construction. Therefore the car park on the corner of Newton and Mt Eden Road is identified to facilitate construction as a lay down area. This construction area will likely contain a site office, vehicle and machinery parking, and be used for materials storage10.
2.2.3.3 Karangahape Station (Work Site D)
Karangahape Station like Newton Station is configured with mined side platforms accessed from two shafts. It is proposed to utilise the Hopetoun Alpha car parking area at the western end of Beresford Square as a localised construction site for this station. A secondary construction site is required at Mercury Lane for the construction of the Mercury Lane station access. The construction sites will likely contain site offices, vehicle and machinery parking, materials storage, and an area to remove spoil from the shaft excavations to be loaded onto waiting trucks. As it is possible more than one truck may be waiting on site to remove spoil, a designated parking/ waiting area within the site will also be required11.
2.2.3.4 Aotea Station to Lower Albert Street (Worksite F) A localised construction area for the construction of Aotea Station will be located on the Auckland Council owned land behind the Bledisloe building (currently a car park).12 The Albert Street cut and cover tunnel construction zone is likely to be divided into a number of worksites to reduce the impact on traffic movements especially at key intersections. The construction zone would consist of a 13.5m wide excavation within Albert Street with sheet pile walls either side of an approximately 11m wide permanent structure housing the railway13.
2.2.3.5 Downtown Shopping Centre (Worksite G) The Downtown Shopping Centre site will be used as a temporary construction site once the existing buildings have been removed. This area will contain site offices; secure
10 CRL Concept Design Report, page 43
11 CRL Concept Design Report, page 44
12 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects – Section 4.2.7, page 71
13 CRL Concept Design Report, page 45
Page 19 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
materials storage, and parking for construction vehicles and machinery14.
2.2.4 Other associated works
Other works associated with the CRL include:
The pedestrian level crossing at Ngahura Street is proposed to be substituted by a grade separated crossings to improve pedestrian safety. The new grade separated pedestrian crossing at Ngahura Street would provide a link onto the west end of Mount Eden Station and Fenton Street south of NAL.
The existing Mt Eden Road Bridge will require modification/ replacement in order to accommodate the NAL and CRL tracks below it, including excavating and replacing the northern approach embankment.
The existing Normanby Road vehicle level crossing will need to be replaced with a new road bridge which grade separates it from the NAL and CRL tracks. The grade separation of this road has benefits from both safety and capacity perspectives15. 2.3 Assumptions
The following assumptions have been made in developing the concept design and indicative construction programme: The two major utility diversions in Albert and Nikau Streets are assumed to have been undertaken as advanced work; All land required is acquired and available for the commencement of CRL works; Buildings required for the CRL will be available from commencement of the construction programme; A TBM will be used sequentially for both up and down tunnels. If the contractor decides to use two TBM's at the same time, an assessment has been undertaken to address the prudent traffic effects from truck movements removing spoil and the construction site footprint. The indicative programme is based on one TBM. The TBM will take approximately 18 months from order to be delivered on site and a further 2 months before it becomes fully operational; The TBM drive will average 70m per week; The excavation of the TBM launching shaft, platform tunnels and TBM retrieving shaft will be completed ahead of TBM operations. Temporary invert structures will be installed to allow the TBM to be dragged through the mined tunnels;
14 CRL Concept Design Report, page 46
15 CRL Concept Design Report, pages 19 and 20
Page 20 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
TBM tunnel lining segments will be manufactured off-site and segments will be stored in work site B for transportation into the tunnel using dedicated transporters The TBM will be retrieved from shafts at the south end of Aotea station. Using a temporary structure to enable the TBM components to be removed will minimise impacts upon the surrounding road network. The south bound (east tunnel) will be bored out first by the TBM to suit the construction process at Newton and Karangahape Stations i.e. to enable the TBM to pass through (as opposed to excavate through) the southbound platform tunnel which has already been mined out by other methods; A six day production week, (11 shifts) with one day planned for maintenance; 24 hour operation (20 hours TBM tunnelling split over 2 x 10 hour shifts with 4 hour planned maintenance per day; Truck and trailer capacity is 15-18m3 or 30 tonnes of spoil material or supplies to be delivered to/from site; ‗Noisy‘ activities such as the handling of spoil from the tunnels and the mined station platforms will be mitigated through a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan. This could include the use of low noise machinery and noise enclosures where necessary; Newton and Karangahape Stations will be constructed using a shaft from the surface to then mine out the side mined platform areas. Batching of shotcrete is assumed to occur off-site and be trucked in; Aotea Station and the tunnels along the length of Albert Street and through to Britomart will be via cut and cover construction; Rail works (i.e. track laying, signalling, OLE) will be done after the completion of the tunnel works16. 2.4 Construction timeline
For the purposes of the NoRs and supporting assessments, a conservative five to six year construction programme has been assumed and is described in more detail in Section 4.4 of CRL Concept Design Report. 2.5 Notices of requirement
AT has given notice to Auckland Council of its requirement to designate land for the construction, operation and maintenance of the CRL. A total of six NoRs were lodged with Auckland Council and publically notified. Volume 1 of the CRL NoR documentation provides an overview and index plan of the
16 CRL Concept Design Report, pages 13-14
Page 21 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
designations and detailed information on each of the six designations including land requirement plans and a schedule of directly affected properties.
2.5.1 Purpose of designations
The purpose of the designations as set out in each of the NoRs is as follows: NoR 1: - “Rail Purposes for the City Rail Link (Britomart to Aotea)”;
NoR 2: - “Rail Purposes for City Rail Link (Sub-strata)”; NoR 3: - “Rail Purposes for City Rail Link (Strata)”; NoR 4: - “Rail Purposes for City Rail Link (Station)”;
NoR 5: - “Rail Purposes for City Rail Link (Station)”; NoR 6: - “Rail Purposes for the City Rail Link (Connection to the North Auckland Line and main construction area)”.
2.5.2 Types of designation
The NoRs are of the following three types:
Surface (designation) – means designation of the ground surface (including air space above and land below to the centre of the earth);
Strata (designation) – means designation of land layer starting 5 metres below the ground surface and the sub-strata designation. This starts at a nominated distance below the surface and extends down to meet the sub-strata designation (the tunnel envelope);
Sub-strata (designation) – means designation of land starting below the strata designation to the centre of the earth (provides for the rail tunnels)17.
2.5.3 Summary description of the six NoRs
Table 2.1 below sets out the types of designations associated with each of the six NoRs, their locations and the key constructions activities to be undertaken on the land subject to the designations. Table 2.1: - Summary Description of the NoRs NoR Type Location Key construction and operation activities # 1 Surface Extends from Britomart to Construction Albert Street / Mayoral Construction area and works including the Drive (in the vicinity of the construction of two rail tunnels (either by way of Aotea Centre car parking cut and cover / top down or by driven tunnelling
17 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects – Executive Summary, page 3
Page 22 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
NoR Type Location Key construction and operation activities # entrance on Mayoral methods); Drive). Connection of the CRL to Britomart under lower Queen Street Works to protect the former Central Post Office Building; Removal (and reconstruction) of the existing Lower Queen Street underpass into Britomart; Construction through two listed Maori Heritage Sites; Construction of Aotea Station including entrances; Removal of the public toilets beneath Albert Street; Removal or relocation of trees ; Relocation of utility services; Reinstatement and enhancement of Queen Street (between Quay and Customs Street), Queen Elizabeth II Square, and the Albert Street. Operation and use Use of the two tunnels and station during operation; Use of the two tunnels to house future services (i.e. telecommunications and other utilities); Operation and maintenance of the tunnels and stations for rail purposes and ancillary activities as required, including but not limited to electrification, signalling and ventilation. 2 Sub- Land below the ground Construction strata surface from Mayoral Construction of two tunnels; Drive to New North Road. Construction of cross passages to provide for NB – does not include maintenance access and emergency exits sub-strata areas within during operation. station designations. Operation and use Use of the two tunnels for operating a railway and ancillary activities including electrification, ventilation, and emergency access and egress; Use of the two tunnels to house future services (e.g. telecommunications and other utilities); Maintenance of the tunnels. 3 Strata Protection designation in There are no construction or operation works respect of land 5m below associated with this NoR. the ground surface from The designation is required to give protection to Mayoral Drive to New
Page 23 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
NoR Type Location Key construction and operation activities # North Road, Newton. The the CRL from development that proposes to designation will be located penetrate into the subject area which could above the two tunnels (to compromise or prevent the construction of CRL, be designated under NoR or impact the structural integrity of the tunnels 2). following construction. It is designed to be a NB – does not include buffer between the CRL substrata designation sub-strata areas within and above ground activities. station designations 4 Surface Land within and in the Construction Substrata vicinity of Pitt Street, Construction of the Karangahape Station Beresford Street, (including entrances in Beresford Square and Karangahape Road, and Mercury Lane), including a localised Mercury construction area; Reinstatement and enhancement of the public surface areas included within the designation, particularly the Beresford Square area. Operation and use Use of the station during operation including ancillary activities associated with a rail station; Maintenance of the station 5 Surface Land within and in the Construction Substrata vicinity of Symonds Construction of the Newton Station (including Street, Dundonald Street, the main entrance on the eastern side of the and New North Road intersection of Symonds Street, New North Road and Mt Eden Road and the secondary emergency entrance located on private land on the eastern side of Dundonald Street), including a localised construction area Reinstatement, and enhancement of the surface areas included within the designation, particularly the public land located on the northeast corner of Symonds Street and Mt Eden Road and the surrounds of the main station entrance. Operation and use Use of the station during operation including ancillary activities associated with a rail station; Maintenance of the station 6 Surface Between New North Construction Road, Mt Eden Road and Main construction area for the CRL works Boston Road in the north, including the provision of construction site and the NAL in the south. offices and associated activities, spoil It also includes land stockpiling, substation, storage of materials for located on the southern constructing the tunnels and stations including side and adjacent to the the segmental tunnel linings; NAL between Normanby
Page 24 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
NoR Type Location Key construction and operation activities # Road and Mt Eden Road Construction of the rail tunnels; and to the immediate east Works associated with the grade separation of and west of Porters Normanby Road and Porters Avenue over the Avenue. NAL and CRL rail tracks including re-forming local road access to adjacent properties; Works associated with the replacement of the Mt Eden Road bridge to accommodate the CRL and NAL tracks below; Construction of a pedestrian overbridge across the CRL and NAL tracks in the vicinity of Ngahura Street; Reinstatement and enhancement of the public areas within the designation area following primary construction and works to provide for redevelopment opportunities; Works including track, signalling, electrification and other works to connect the CRL to the NAL Relocation of utility services. Operation and use Operation and maintenance of rail tunnels including a crossover box which provides for the grade junction and grade separated tracks connecting the CRL into the NAL; Housing of utility services within the operational tunnels;
The Index Map for the Land Requirement Plan in Volume 1 of the NoR documents shows the location of each NoR along the length of the CRL. Figure 5 in the Overview of the NoR provides a visual explanation of the NoRs across the length of the CRL18.
2.5.4 Property details
Each of the NoRs contains detailed land requirement plans and associated property information schedules. Some 200 private properties will be directly affected by the designations. Table 2.2 below provides a general description of the public and private land subject to the NoRs. Table 2.2: - Land subject to the NoRs NoR Public land Private land # 1 Part of Queen Street (Lower Queen Land occupied by the Downtown
18 Volume 1 NoR Overview, page 14.
Page 25 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
NoR Public land Private land # Street adjacent Britomart); Shopping Centre; Part of Galway Street and Tyler Street Land located on the northwest corner of (adjacent Britomart); Albert Street and Victoria Street; Queen Elizabeth II Square; Land located on the northeast corner of The road reserve of lower Albert Street Albert Street and Wellesley Street. and Albert Street and parts of its intersecting streets (including Customs Street West, Mills Lane, Wolfe, Swanson, Wyndham, Kingston, Durham, Victoria, and Wellesley Streets) and Mayoral Drive (to the vicinity of the Aotea Centre car parking entrance on Mayoral Drive); Part of the road reserve of Customs Street West, Victoria Street and Wellesley Street between Queen Street and Federal Street; Auckland Council owned land on the southeast corner of Mayoral Drive and Wellesley Street. 2 Sub-strata land below: Sub-strata land below: Council owned land (road reserve) in Land adjoining Vincent Street, Pitt Street, Mayoral Drive, Vincent Street, Pitt Street, Greys Ave, Poynton Terrace, Beresford Greys Avenue, Poynton Terrace, Square, Karangahape Road, Mercury Beresford Square, Karangahape Road, Lane, Cross Street, Canada Street; Mercury Lane, Cross Street, Canada Land adjoining Upper Queen Street, St Street, Ian McKinnon Drive, St Benedicts Benedicts Street, Symonds Street, Street, Stable Lane, Symonds Street, Newton Road, Mt Eden Road, New North Newton Road, Mt Eden Road, New North Road, Dundonald Street, Basque Road, Road and Flower Street; Flower Street, Korari Street and Nikau Crown land, State highway network at Street. Central Motorway Junction. 3 Strata land above the two tunnels and below: Strata land above the two tunnels and below: Council owned land (road reserve) in Land adjoining Vincent Street, Pitt Street, Federal Street, Vincent Street, Pitt Street, Greys Ave, Poynton Terrace, Beresford Greys Avenue, Poynton Terrace, Canada Square, Karangahape Road, Mercury Street, Ian McKinnon Drive, St Benedicts Lane, Cross Street, Canada Street; Street, Symond Street, Stable Lane, Land adjoining Upper Queen Street, St Newton Road, and Flower Street. Benedicts Street, Symonds Street, Stable Crown land, State highway network at Lane,Newton Road, New North Road, Central Motorway Junction. Flower Street, Korari Street and Nikau Street. 4 Council owned land (road reserve) in Pitt Land within private property located on Street, Beresford Square, Karangahape Beresford Square (known as the Road, and Mercury Lane. Hopetoun Alpha site); Land within private property located on the south end and eastern side of
Page 26 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
NoR Public land Private land # Mercury Lane; Sub-strata land Under private property fronting Pitt Street, Beresford Square, Karangahape Road, and Mercury Lane. 5 Council owned land (road reserve) in Land within private property fronting the Symonds Street, Basque Road, Mt Eden western side of Symonds Street and New Road and New North Road required for North Road; construction, operation and maintenance Sub-strata land of the CRL station and ancillary activities; Under private property fronting Symonds Public land located on the eastern side of Street, Mt Eden Road, Basque Road and Symonds Street (on the northeast corner Dundonald Street of Symonds Street and Mt Eden Road); Sub-strata land Below Symonds Street and New North Road. 6 Council owned land (road reserve) in Private land fronting Flower Street, Nikau Flower Street, Nikau Street, Shaddock Street, Shaddock Street, Ruru Street, Street, Ruru Street, Ngahura Street, Ngahura Street, Porters Avenue, Fenton Porters Avenue, Fenton Street, Haultain Street, Haultain Street, Mt Eden Road, Street, Mt Eden Road, Normanby Road, Normanby Road, and Enfield Street. Wynyard Road, Boston Road and Nugent Street; North Auckland Line.
2.5.5 Lapse period
Pursuant to section 184(1)(c) of the RMA, AT is proposing a lapse period of 20 years to give effect to the proposed designations. The reasons for extending the lapse date are set out in Section 2.2.7 of the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects.
According to AT, the extended lapse period is required to provide sufficient time for AT to give effect to the works including undertaking land purchase negotiations, detailed design and construction of the rail link itself, and allows for an appropriate period to address required resource consenting, tendering and construction processes. Consideration of AT‟s proposal to extend the lapse period is contained in Section 13.4 of this Report.
2.5.6 Withdrawal of parts of designations post construction
AT has identified in NoRs 1, 4, 5 and 6, that following the completion of the construction of the CRL those parts of the designations that were required for construction purposes may be withdrawn leaving only the parts of designations that apply to land for the use, operation and maintenance of the CRL.
Page 27 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
2.5.7 Use of existing designations
AT is relying on the existing designations for the Britomart Transport Centre and for the NAL to authorise the construction works and activities required to connect the CRL to existing tracks and platforms. Consequently no NoRs have been lodged in respect of these works and activities and it is AT‟s intention that these works and activities will only be subject to the outline plan process. The designation19 for the Britomart Transport Centre provides for: ―The operation and maintenance of a transport centre and the provisions for a rapid rail system‖ The designation is a Category A1 which applies to: Land designated for a public work or proposed work which Auckland City Council has financial responsibility20. The designation for the North Auckland Railway21 is for: ―Rail Purposes: North Auckland Railway‖
The designation is a Category A4 which applies to: Land designated for a public work or proposed work which a Network Utility Operator authorised as a requiring authority under section 167 of the RMA has financial responsibility. New Zealand Railways Corporation (NZR) is the designating authority. In order for this designation to be relied on for the CRL, NZR will need to have financial responsibility for the proposed works. 2.6 Auckland Transport
AT is a council-controlled organisation (CCO) of Auckland Council. It was established on 1 November 2010 under section 38 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. AT‟s legislative purpose is:
19 Auckland Council District Plan Operative Auckland City - Central Area Section 2005, Designation Reference No 314
20 Auckland Transport inherited the responsibilities of the former Auckland City Council in respect of the Britomart Transport Centre, as a result of the local government amalgamation implemented in November 2010
21 Auckland Council District Plan Operative Auckland City - Isthmus Section 1999, Map Reference H13-09
Page 28 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
to contribute to an effective and efficient land transport system to support Auckland‘s social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being22.
2.6.1 Statement of Intent
AT‟s Statement of Intent 2012-2015 (SOI) sets out its strategic approach and priorities for the next three-years and how they contribute to the longer-term outcomes Auckland Council seeks to achieve. The SOI identifies AT‟s overarching outcome as: an effective and efficient transport system that enables Aucklanders to make smarter transport choices23.
The SOI sets out AT‟s Programme of Action which comprises a package of activities and initiatives to be undertaken over the three-year term of the SOI. Included in the Programme of Action is the CRL and AT‟s intention to seek a designation to construct and operate the CRL, including acquiring any necessary land over time24.
2.6.2 Requiring authority status
Under section 47 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, AT is deemed to be approved as a requiring authority, as a network utility operator under section 167 of the RMA for the following purposes: (a) constructing or operating or proposing to construct or operate roads in relation to the Auckland transport system; and
(b) the carrying out of an activity or a proposed activity (other than an activity described in paragraph (a)) in relation to the Auckland transport system for which it or the Auckland Council has financial responsibility.
The Auckland transport system includes public transport services such as rail.25
2.6.3 AT’s CRL project objectives
AT‟s objective in giving notice of its requirement for the CRL designations is: to enable the construction, operation and maintenance of the CRL including a connection between Britomart and the NAL26. AT‟s project objectives for the CRL are as follows:
22 Section 39 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009
23 Statement of Intent 2012-2015, page 5
24 Statement of Intent 2012-2015, page 5
25 Section 37, Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009)
26 NoRs 1-6, Section 7
Page 29 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Objective 1 Improve transport access into and around the city centre for a rapidly growing Auckland (a) Future proof for expected growth Objective 2 Improve the efficiency and resilience of the transport network of urban Auckland (a) Improve journey time, frequency and reliability of all transport modes (b) Maximise the benefits of existing and proposed investment in transport (c) Release the rail capacity constraint at Britomart Objective 3 Significantly contribute to lifting and shaping Auckland's economic growth (a) Support economic development opportunities (b) Provide the greatest amount of benefit for cost (c) Enable a more productive and efficient city Objective 4 Provide a sustainable transport solution that minimises environmental impacts (a) Limit visual, air quality and noise effects (b) Contribute to the country's carbon emission targets Objective 5 Contribute positively to a liveable, vibrant and safe city (a) Enhance the attractiveness of the city as a place to live, work and visit (b) Protect our cultural and historic heritage for future generations
(c) Help safeguard the city and community against rising transport costs An assessment of whether the works and the designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of AT for which the designation is sought is also set out in Section 7 of this Report.
Page 30 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
3 Preliminary Matters
3.1 Time of Lodgement of Submissions
The City Rail Link notices of requirement were lodged with Auckland Council by AT on 23 August 2012. On 20 December 2012, AT provided a response to a number of requests for further information from Auckland Council, and subsequently, six notices of requirement for the City Rail Link project were publicly notified by Auckland Council on 25 January 2013.
A notification period of 35 working days had previously been approved by the Hearings Committee (21 September 2012), meaning that the closing date for submissions was midnight of 19 March 2013.
By the close of the submission period, 252 submissions had been received. A further seven submissions were subsequently received over the following week. For the sake of clarity, it is noted that the Auckland Council submission numbers ascribed to the submissions do not directly relate to the order the submissions were received. One submission has subsequently been formally withdrawn. Boston Properties Limited (Auckland Council submission 23) was formally withdrawn on 24 May 2013. Letter of withdrawal is included as Attachment … to this report. 3.2 Late Submissions
The late submissions received are set out in the table below, and are appended in full as Attachment A to this report.
Table 3.1: - Late Submissions Auckland Council Submitter / Organisation Date Submission Submission Number Received
235 Colen A Harris 25 March 2013
236 Lloyd Morris / James 26 March 2013 Kirkpatrick Limited
238 D F Betts 21 March 2013
239 Murray Dobson / Westpac 20 March 2013 New Zealand Limited
Page 31 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Auckland Council Submitter / Organisation Date Submission Submission Number Received
240 Margaret L Main 20 March 2013
241 Thomas M Collins 20 March 2013
258 James Brown / Tournament 25 March 2013 Group
On 21 September 2012, Auckland Council‟s Hearings Committee appointed a panel of five independent hearing commissioners to hear and make recommendations on the CRL notices of requirement. The Chair of the appointed panel, Mr Alan Watson, made a decision on 24 May 2013 to accept the above listed late submissions for consideration through the hearing process. A copy of that decision is included as Attachment … to this report. 3.3 Other Designations
There are a number of existing designations within the Central Area Plan and Isthmus Plan that are directly affected or immediately adjacent to the proposed CRL designation. AT has identified those existing designations within their Assessment of Environmental Effects27, and those details have been duplicated here. As a brief summary, the existing designations either directly affected or immediately adjacent to the proposed CRL designation include the following land uses:
Transport (including the State Highway network, Britomart Transport Centre, rail, Auckland‟s roads, and car parks);
Network Utilities (including electricity and water supply); and
Civic Buildings (including Court, Police Station, Civic Centre, Mt Eden Prison).
27 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects – Section 6.3.1.4, page 95-97.
Page 32 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
4 Overview of Submissions
4.1 General Overview and Scope of Submissions
As touched on in Section 3 above, a total 258 submissions have been received in response to the public notification of the six notices of requirement for the CRL, including seven submissions received after the notification period. A summary of submissions is included as Attachment D to this report, and the submissions are available in full at Attachment E.
The matters raised in the submissions vary greatly, as is to be expected for a project such complexity and physical size. Generally, those matters raised can be categorised as relating either to the construction or operational / post-construction phases of the project, and may also be project wide issues, or only relevant on a more local level. These matters are discussed in more detail below. 4.2 Principal issues – project wide
The following principal matters raised by submitters are relevant across the geographic span of the CRL project:
Impact on Built Heritage
Impacts on the traffic network, both during construction and once the CRL is operational
Pedestrian and vehicular access to property
Noise effects, both during construction and once the CRL is operational
Vibration / settlement effects associated with cut-and-cover and tunnel boring excavation methodologies
Effects on property rights
Social impact of displacement
The proposed 20-year lapse date 4.3 Principal issues – local
The following principal matters raised by submitters are more of a site-specific nature, generally linked with the presence of construction activities at or near ground level:
Blight (associated with the proposed 20-year lapse date)
Pedestrian and vehicular access to property (particularly around the Albert Street cut-and-cover section of works)
Specific effects associated with the operation of studios at the TV3 Building on
Page 33 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Flower Street
Positive streetscape effects to arise around the three proposed stations 4.4 Out of scope matters raised by submitters
While the majority of submissions to the CRL have included matters relevant to an assessment under the provisions of the RMA, it is considered that some of the matters raised are beyond the scope of what may reasonably be considered through this process. The discussion below details why we have concluded that certain economic discussions are more appropriately forums other than the NoR process. The key statutory provision for the assessment of requirements is s171 of the RMA which sets out the matters Council must have regard to when assessing the NoRs. This assessment is subject to Part 2 of the RMA. There is no express statutory requirement to consider the economic risk, viability or potential funding of a project. It is considered that some economic considerations will be relevant to the Council's assessment under section 171(1), which requires consideration of the effects of the NoRs on the environment, and can include economic factors such as job creation or tourist income. Similarly, the promotion of economic efficiency through the provision of rail or other infrastructure is a positive effect that may be considered. The economic impact of the project on individual businesses along the alignment is considered to be within the scope of that assessment.
However, these factors need to be distinguished from decisions on the cost and economic viability or profitability of the CRL. In terms of the RMA, case law has confirmed that:
Decisions on project funding and viability are business decisions, which the decision maker should not be drawn into making or second guessing.
The cost, economic risk and profitability of a project are business / policy decisions for the promoter or developer of a project, and should not be challenged.
The High Court decision in Friends and Community of Ngawha Inc. v Minister of Corrections28 is the leading authority on point. Discussion on the decisions made in the business case for the CRL is also considered to be out of the scope of this NoR review. Section 171(b) does not require an economic appraisal of each of the alternative routes considered. The decision make must simply satisfy itself that the requiring authority has undertaken a businesslike identification and comparison of alternative sites, rules and methods.29 For completeness, it is noted that funding for land transport projects has a separate statutory framework under the Land
28 [2002] NZRMA 401.
29 Bungalow Holdings v North Shore City Council (Environment Court, Auckland) A52/01.
Page 34 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Transport Management Act 2003. Project prioritisation and funding are matters that fall for consideration under that framework. For the reasons set out above, we consider that matters relating to project funding / economic viability and the Council‟s business case for the CRL project are matters that fall outside the scope of s171 and are not relevant to the Council's determination.
Page 35 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
5 Statutory framework
A NoR for a designation may only be issued by a requiring authority. Section 166 RMA defines a requiring authority as: a) A Minister of the Crown; or
b) A local authority; or c) A network utility operator approved as a requiring authority under section 167. As set out in Section 2.6.2 of this Report, under section 47 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, AT is deemed to be approved as a requiring authority, as a network utility operator under section 167 of the RMA. When considering a requirement for a designation a territorial authority must have regard to the matters set out in s.171 of the RMA. Section 171(1) provides as follows: 1) when considering a requirement and any submissions received, a territorial authority must, subject to Part 2, consider the effects on the environment of allowing the requirement, having particular regard to: a) any relevant provisions of: i) a national policy statement
ii) a New Zealand coastal policy statement iii) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement iv) a plan or proposed plan; and
b) whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes,or methods of undertaking the work if – i) the requiring authority does not have an interest in the land sufficient for undertaking the works; or ii) it is likely that the work will have a significant adverse effect on the environment; and
c) whether the work and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the requiring authority for which the designation is sought; and d) any other matter the territorial authority considers reasonably necessary in order to make a recommendation on the requirement. As set out in Section 6 of this Report, AT does not have an interest in the land sufficient for undertaking the works and it is likely that the CRL will have a significant adverse effect on the environment, therefore s.171(1)(b) will apply. The relevant planning instruments that apply in considering the NoRs are:
Page 36 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health
National Environmental Standards for Air Quality
Auckland Regional Policy Statement
Auckland Council District Plan: Central Area Section
Auckland Council District Plan: Isthmus Section
An assessment of these planning instruments is contained in Section 11 of this Report. Under Section 171(2) the territorial authority may recommend to the requiring authority that it:
a) confirm the requirement: b) modify the requirement: c) impose conditions:
d) withdraw the requirement. e) withdraw the requirement.
Page 37 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
6 Assessment of Alternatives
6.1 Statutory requirements
Pursuant to s.171(1)(b) of the RMA, a territorial authority when considering a requirement and any submissions received must, subject to Part 2 of the Act, have particular regard to whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes and methods of undertaking the work if: (i) the requiring authority does not have an interest in the land sufficient for undertaking the work; or (ii) it is likely that the work will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Each of the above factors is relevant in this case. AT owns some of the land involved, including road reserve, a number of car parking areas and other properties. However, there are considerable areas of land subject to the NoRs that it does not yet own. There are also a number of aspects of the construction of the works, which will or have the potential to cause significant adverse effects on the environment. Therefore, an assessment of whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes and methods of undertaking the work is required. 6.2 Alternatives considered
Section 3 of the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects outlines the alternative sites, routes and methods considered for undertaking the CRL. Section 3 provides a summary of the following reports which have been included in the NoR documentation:
Auckland CBD Rail Link Study – Option Evaluation Report, February 2010, APB&B; and
City Rail Link: 2012 Option Evaluation Summary Report, Auckland Transport; The CRL has been the subject on a number of feasibility studies and options assessments. Between 2004 and 2010 the following investigations were undertaken by the former Auckland City Council, the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA), ONTRACK and Kiwi Rail.
Britomart West Rail Extension Feasibility (2004);
Auckland CBD Rail Loop Peer Review (2005);
Review of earlier studies in respect of the options for the CRL alignment, particularly at the Britomart end (2008);
Option evaluation of alignments and stations 2009/2010 - involving a series of interactive workshops, multi criteria analysis, weighting and sensitivity testing. This work has been recorded in the Option Evaluation Report, February 2010.
Page 38 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Following AT taking responsibility for the CRL, a review of the 2009/2010 option evaluation work was carried out. This included undertaking a number of option assessments and preparing technical reports to determine and support a refined route, station locations, additional infrastructure requirements, and indicative construction methodology. The result of these refinements is the designation footprint to provide for the preferred alignment and station locations which are the subject of the CRL NoRs. 6.3 Issues raised by submitters
Ten submitters raised issues regarding the adequacy of the alternatives investigated and the appropriateness of the decisions made by AT in respect of the CRL. These issues are summarised as follows:
Not adequately considering alternative routes insofar as they relate to the Vincent Street area30.
There are better and/or more appropriate alternatives to deliver the project objectives, complete investigation of multi-modal transport options 31.
No substantial review of the route alignment since the general route was identified, comprehensive studies undertaken since 2004 have been limited by criteria framed by expectations of underground rail from Britomart to Mt Eden stopping at Aotea Centre and Karangahape Road, more innovative solutions have not been given due consideration, other route alignments should be investigated32.
Adequate consideration has not been given to alternative sites, routes of methods for undertaking the work33.
Inadequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes of methods for undertaking the work given the significant adverse effects on the environment and in particular the Mediaworks studios34.
Not adequately considering alternative construction sites insofar as they relate to using the Downtown Shopping Centre for the whole 5-6 year duration of the CRL construction35.
Less expensive option of an over ground tram/train not appropriately
30 Pal Properties (Submission 28)
31 ML Hoeft Partners (Submission 61), TJ Brown (Submission 126)
32 NZCID (Submission 69)
33 (Submissions 73, 81, 137, 218)
34 Mediaworks (Submission 79)
35 Precinct Properties (Submission 81)
Page 39 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
considered36.
Suggested specific alternative sites, routes and methods for consideration (numerous submissions). 6.4 Adequacy of the assessment
In forming a view as to whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes and methods for undertaking the CRL and on the matters of concern raised by submitters, we have been guided by recent case law such as the High Court Meridian Energy Ltd v Central Otago District Council decision and the Board of Inquiry (BOI) decision on the NZTA Waterview Connection proposal. The High Court decision states that in respect of s.171(1)(b) of the RMA:
―Over time the Courts have taken a relatively narrow approach to this provision. If the Environment Court is called upon to review the decision of the territorial authority, it is required to consider whether alternatives have been properly considered rather than whether all possible alternatives have been excluded or the best alternative has been chosen‖.37 In terms of the Waterview Connection decision the Board found as follows in respect of s.171(1)(b): Guided (indeed bound) by the recent decision of the High Court Meridian Energy Ltd v Central Otago District Council, we are to address the question of whether alternatives have been adequately considered, rather than whether all possible alternatives have been excluded, or the best alternative has been chosen. Our findings above will confirm that the question identified in that decision, can be answered in NZTA‘s favour.38 Not unnaturally, many submitters wanted to persuade us that there were better options for certain routes, sites, and methods, but as we have noted, such enquiries are beyond our powers. As further explained by the Environment Court, the decision maker must simply satisfy itself that the requiring authority has undertaken a business-like identification and comparison of alternative sites, routes or methods.39
36 JL Hipkins (Submission 259)
37 Meridian Energy Ltd v Central Otago District Council And Ors HC DUN CIV 2009412 000980 [16 August 2010], paragraph 81
38 BOI Final Report and Decision into the NZTA Waterview Connection Proposal at paragraphs [996] and [997]
39 Bungalow Holdings v North Shore City Council (Environment Court, Auckland) A52/01, 14 June 2001 at [126]
Page 40 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
AT has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of alignment options (alternative routes), station options (alternative sites) and construction methodology options (alternative methods) and has followed robust decision making processes (including interactive workshops, multi criteria analysis, weighting and sensitivity testing) in determining the preferred options that are now subject to the NoRs. As set out in the High Court and BOI Waterview decisions, AT is not required by s.171(1)(b) to exclude all possible alternatives or to choose the best alternative as part of its assessment. Therefore, the issues raised by submitters regarding the need to consider other and better alternatives are not valid reasons for claiming that AT has failed to adequately consider alternative sites, routes, or methods for undertaking the proposed works.
In our view the only outstanding matter relating to the adequacy of the alternatives assessment, is that raised in the submission by Precinct Properties (Submission 81) regarding consideration of alternative constructions sites and the use of the Downtown Shopping Centre for the duration of the CRL construction. The process for the selection of the construction sites does not appear to be recorded in the alternatives assessment documentation. If the Downtown Shopping Centre construction site is to be utilised for the length of time anticipated by the submitter, it would be useful for AT to address how the site was selected and any alternatives considered.
Many of the issues raised in submissions regarding the adequacy of the alternatives assessment relate to the effects of the CRL and these effects have been addressed in Section 9 of this Report.
In terms of wider alternative issues raised by submitters that relate to fundamental aspects of the project such as alternative modes of transport, underground versus above ground, the link to the NAL, and more innovative solutions, it is important to recognise that as set out in the 2010 Options Evaluation Report the aim of the project was to: identify a preferred route for an underground passenger railway running beneath the central business district (CBD) and linking the Britomart Transport Centre to the western line (North Auckland Line - NAL) in the vicinity of Mount Eden40. Put simply, the project is to extend a rail connection under the CBD from Britomart to the NAL, completing the intended function of Britomart as a “through station” rather than an “end station”. In terms of s.171(1)(b), the alternatives to be considered relate to sites, routes, or methods of undertaking the work (project). It is not therefore necessary in terms of s.171(1)(b) to consider alternatives to the work/project itself as raised in some of the submissions. While the Act requires territorial authorities to have particular regard to “whether the work and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the requiring
40 Auckland CBD Rail Link Study – Option Evaluation Report, February 2010, APB&B, page 6.
Page 41 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
authority” (this matter is addressed in Section 7 of this Report), requiring authorities are not required to justify the need for the work/project. In conclusion, provided AT can provide appropriate information on how long the Downtown Shopping Centre site will be used for construction purposes and the process it followed to select it for that use, we are satisfied in terms of s.171(1)(b) of the RMA, that AT has given adequate consideration to alternative sites, routes, or methods of undertaking the work.
Page 42 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
7 Necessity of Project for Achieving Objectives
7.1 Statutory requirements
Pursuant to s.171(1)(c) of the RMA, territorial authorities must have particular regard to “whether the work and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the requiring authority for which the designation is sought”. The Committee must therefore determine whether both the work and the designations are reasonably necessary for achieving AT's project objectives.
The legislation does not provide measurable performance standards, and furthermore there is no specified threshold for this assessment.41 The Environment Court has described the 'reasonably necessary' test as follows:
Rather the reasonably necessary test is an objective, but qualified one where necessary falls between expedient or desirable on the one hand and essential on the other, and the epithet "reasonably" qualifies it to allow some tolerance.42
It is also well settled that the RMA neither requires nor allows the merits of the objectives themselves to be judged by the decision maker. Rather it is required to have particular regard to whether the proposed designation is reasonably necessary for achieving them.43 7.2 CRL project objectives
AT‟s objective in giving notice of its requirement for the CRL designations is to enable the construction, operation and maintenance of the CRL including a connection between Britomart and the NAL.44 AT‟s project objectives for the CRL are set out in full in Section 1.6 of the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects and in Section 2.6.3 of this Report. In summary the objectives are to:
Improve transport access into and around the city centre;
Improve the efficiency and resilience of the urban transport network;
Significantly contribute to Auckland's economic growth;
Provide a sustainable transport solution that minimises environmental impacts;
Contribute to a liveable, vibrant and safe city.
41 BOI Final Report and Decision into the NZTA Waterview Connection Proposal, paragraph [1064] 42 Gavin Wallace Ltd v Auckland Council [2012] NZEnvC 120 paragraph [183] 43 See note 38 above 44 NoRs 1-6, Section 7
Page 43 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
7.3 Auckland Transport assessment
AT considers that the work and the designations are reasonably necessary to achieve the objectives of the CRL. The reasons for this conclusion are contained in Section 7 of the NoRs and Section 8.5.6 of the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects and are summarised as follows: The work is reasonably necessary because it will: secure the Project route, from Britomart to the NAL, for construction, operation and maintenance of a railway; support the future growth and development of the City Centre and Region; optimise public transport patronage potential and accessibility to/from and within the city centre; optimise the efficiency and potential of the Rapid Transport network including integration with passenger transport, active modes and freight requirements; and continue to develop Auckland rail as an integral part of the national rail network; provide for the transport needs of the community and in providing for public transport exhibits a sense of social responsibility; connect Britomart to the NAL; assist to encourage use of passenger rail services to achieve passenger transport modal share targets in accordance with the regional transport policy framework; provide for Britomart to be connected as a through station rather than a terminus station to the wider Auckland rail network thereby releasing constraints and improving the functionality of the network; provide for a direct connection of the rail network to the NAL without the need to go via Newmarket, improving transport access into and around the city centre, network resilience, journey times and reliability for people travelling on the rail network in particular to and from the west; provide a direct rail connection into the centre of the main business district (around Aotea Station), enhancing the attractiveness of the city as a place to work and live while assisting to facilitate employment growth in this area; enable additional land use and economic development benefits for the Central City area. The designations are reasonably necessary for achieving AT's project objectives because they will: enable AT to have the flexibility to construct, operate and maintain the network and undertake the Project in accordance with the designation, notwithstanding anything contrary within the relevant district plans; identify in the district plan the location, nature and extent of the Project and AT's clearly intended use of that land; enable the Project or work to be undertaken in a comprehensive and integrated
Page 44 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
manner; enable sufficient time to give effect to construction of the CRL including undertaking property and access negotiations, further site investigations, detailed design, and construction; ensure that security of the Project is maintained in respect of separation from other network utilities and the potential actions of third parties on and within (in particular) the roading network and wider corridor. 7.4 Issues raised by submitters
Only a limited number of submitters raised issues relating to whether the work and designations are reasonably necessary to achieve AT‟s objectives for the CRL. There are two general submissions relating to the failure of the CRL to achieve the stated objectives, which accordingly results in the work not being reasonably necessary to achieve the project objectives or AT‟s wider objectives.45 The only other submission is more specific and relates to operational efficiency and not maximising the benefits of existing and proposed investment in transport and therefore failing to meet the project‟s objectives.46 7.5 Assessment
7.5.1 Work reasonably necessary
The starting point for assessing whether the work (the CRL) is reasonably necessary for achieving AT‟s objectives are the reasons identified to support AT‟s affirmative view as set out in Section 7.3 above. In Table 7.1 below matches the reasons identified by AT with the relevant AT objectives. Table 7.1: - Assessment of reasons against objectives Auckland Transport Objectives Auckland Transport Reason in Support Wider Objectives To enable the construction, operation and secure the Project route, from maintenance of the CRL including a connection Britomart to the NAL, for between Britomart and the NAL construction, operation and To contribute to an effective and efficient land maintenance of a railway transport system to support Auckland‘s social, provide for the transport needs of economic, environmental, and cultural well-being the community and in providing An effective and efficient transport system that for public transport exhibits a enables Aucklanders to make smarter transport sense of social responsibility choices continue to develop Auckland rail as an integral part of the national rail network Project Objectives
45 (Submissions 3, 61) 46 TJ Brown (submission 126)
Page 45 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Auckland Transport Objectives Auckland Transport Reason in Support Objective 1 support the future growth and Improve transport access into and around the development of the City Centre city centre for a rapidly growing Auckland and Region (a) Future proof for expected growth optimise public transport patronage potential and accessibility to/from and within the city centre Objective 2 optimise the efficiency and Improve the efficiency and resilience of the potential of the Rapid Transport transport network of urban Auckland network including integration with passenger transport, active (a) Improve journey time, frequency and modes and freight requirements reliability of all transport modes (b) Maximise the benefits of existing and connect Britomart to the NAL proposed investment in transport provide for Britomart to be (c) Release the rail capacity constraint at connected as a through station Britomart rather than a terminus station to the wider Auckland rail network thereby releasing constraints and improving the functionality of the network; provide for a direct connection of the rail network to the NAL without the need to go via Newmarket, improving transport access into and around the city centre, network resilience, journey times and reliability for people travelling on the rail network in particular to and from the west; Objective 3 provide a direct rail connection Significantly contribute to lifting and shaping into the centre of the main Auckland's economic growth business district (around Aotea Station), enhancing the (a) Support economic development opportunities attractiveness of the city as a (b) Provide the greatest amount of benefit for place to work and live while cost assisting to facilitate employment (c) Enable a more productive and efficient city growth in this area; enable additional land use and economic development benefits for the Central City area Objective 4 assist to encourage use of Provide a sustainable transport solution that passenger rail services to achieve minimises environmental impacts passenger transport modal share targets in accordance with the (a) Limit visual, air quality and noise effects regional transport policy (b) Contribute to the country's carbon emission framework
Page 46 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Auckland Transport Objectives Auckland Transport Reason in Support targets Objective 5 provide a direct rail connection Contribute positively to a liveable, vibrant and into the centre of the main safe city business district (around Aotea Station), enhancing the (a) Enhance the attractiveness of the city as a attractiveness of the city as a place to live, work and visit place to work and live while (b) Protect our cultural and historic heritage for assisting to facilitate employment future generations growth in this area; (c) Help safeguard the city and community enable additional land use and against rising transport costs economic development benefits for the Central City area
As evidenced from the above table the proposed works appear reasonably necessary for achieving AT‟s project objectives.
It would however be useful if AT could address these matters at the hearing in a more comprehensive manner to demonstrate that the work (CRL) is reasonably necessary for achieving all of the stated objectives of the requiring authority (AT) for which the designation is sought.
7.5.2 Designation reasonably necessary
As to whether the proposed designations are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives, it is our view that they are, particularly in respect of AT‟s objective to enable the construction, operation and maintenance of the CRL including a connection between Britomart and the NAL. This is because:
Given the linear nature and scale of the project, it is subject to two sections of the Auckland District Plan, traverses a number of precincts, quarters and zones and is subject to a plethora of other plan provisions. Therefore, the designation process is a more appropriate and efficient process to adopt than applying for land use consents.
It enables AT to have the flexibility and ability to construct, operate and maintain the network and undertake the Project in accordance with the designation notwithstanding anything contrary within the relevant District Plans.
The designations will clearly identify the nature and extent of the proposed works in the District Plan and will alert potential property owners and occupiers and other potential users of the land of the future works.
The designation process will enable AT to secure the land required for the proposed works and will prevent any person doing anything that would prevent or hinder the CRL unless the person has the prior written consent of the AT.
The designation process enables the land to be secured for the proposed work
Page 47 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
without the need to undertake detailed design as would generally be required for any resource consent process. Once detailed design is completed an outline plan of works will be lodged with Auckland Council.
In terms of providing for the CRL by way of changes to the District Plan, changing zonings and other plan provisions will not result in a particularly efficient or effective process, given the complexity of the works, and the mitigation approaches promoted by AT, including the proposed Environmental Management Framework (EMF). It therefore enables the work to be undertaken in a comprehensive and integrated manner.
It enables AT to secure the property interests it requires to complete the Project. In conclusion, it is considered the designations that authorise the work are reasonably necessary for achieving the AT‟s objectives, however it would be useful if AT could provide more information to clearly demonstrate that the work (CRL) is reasonably necessary for achieving all its objectives.
Page 48 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
8 Auckland Transport’s Approach to Managing Adverse Effects
8.1 Introduction
AT has developed an Environmental Management Framework (EMF) to support the NoR (the EMF was provided as document number 3.1.1 Appendix 1 to the NoR). The purpose of the EMF is to enable any adverse effects of the CRL Project to be avoided, remedied and / or mitigated through a consistent and integrated approach to addressing environmental management. The EMF proposed a hierarchy of documents (to be developed at a later stage) as shown in Figure 2 of the EMF. In summary, these documents include:
Environmental Management Plan (EMP);
Communications Plan;
Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP);
Delivery Work Plans (DWPs).
AT has promoted a proactive and flexible approach to the management of potential adverse environmental effects through the EMF by retaining flexibility in terms of the need to adapt and respond to changing circumstances. The EMP will include the mitigation and conditions of the NoR and future resource consents (yet to be applied for). These statutory requirements, along with the design and environmental standards / specifications, will inform the design / construction requirements to be incorporated at those stages. The EMP is proposed to establish the environmental parameters within which the Contractor will have flexibility. 8.2 Submitter Issues
A total of eight submissions were received regarding the approach to managing adverse effects through the EMF. Several submissions concerned the apparent lack of detail in the NoR on how adverse environmental effects will be avoided, remedied or mitigated other than the generalised approach to the EMF. Significant concerns were relayed by several submitters that „identified management plans under the EMF‟ would not be developed or provided to Auckland Council until the Outline Plan process meaning that the substantive assessment of the CRL‟s adverse environmental effects (and any particular measures to address them) would not be done until after the public (including affected property owners) have lost the opportunity for
Page 49 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
statutory input. This was referred to by one submitter47 to being:
“- in what effectively amounts to a deferral of the adverse effects assessment beyond the Requirement evaluation and determination‖. 8.3 Assessment and Proposed Mitigation
This approach of managing adverse effects through the use of management plans is not uncommon, particularly for large projects, where the nature and extent of those effects is uncertain and the outcome of methods proposed to avoid, remedy or mitigate them is uncertain. These management regimes are commonly established through designation and consent conditions incorporating management plans which seek to manage the effects of a given activity in a flexible and proactive manner.
It is our view that the main focus of the conditions should be to ensure that the regime required by the conditions is sufficiently rigorous in terms of scope and „checks and balances‟ to ensure that the management plans achieve their respective outcomes.
The following section provides an assessment of the AT suggested conditions with regards to addressing submitter concerns and Auckland Council responsibilities.
8.3.1.1 Structure of CEMP Conditions
Conditions 13 to 28 require the preparation of the CEMP, lists the details that shall be included and sets out what is to be addressed in the CEMP for construction areas to mitigate adverse environmental effects.
Whilst the Conditions specify in detail what is to be included in various sections of the CEMP (e.g. to manage adverse environmental effects on the transport network), we suggest that the Conditions would be clearer to interpret if the various topic-based areas that comprise the CEMP were identified and listed as separate management plans. Recommendation We therefore recommend the addition of Condition 14a that lists the various management plans to be included as part of the CEMP. Recommended Condition 14a states: ―The management of key environmental effects associated with the construction phase of the City Rail Link shall be detailed in the specific environmental management plans that are included as part of the CEMP. This suite of management plans includes: (a) Road network, transportation and access management plan (Conditions 16 to 20); (b) Construction noise and vibration management plan (Condition 21)
47 C.L.C Auckland Trust Board (Submission 3)
Page 50 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
(c) Historic heritage management plan (Conditions 22 and 23);
(d) Trees and vegetation management plan (Condition 24); (e) Contamination management plan (Condition 25); (f) Air quality management plan (Condition 26);
(g) Network utility management plan (Condition 27); (h) Public art management plan (Condition 28); and (i) Social impact management plan [Condition 36a].‖
8.3.1.2 Detail of CEMP The EMF submitted in support of the NoR included an outline of the structure and content of the CEMP that will be submitted to support the Outline Plan of Works. There are a number of concerns raised by submitters regarding the level of detail in the EMF and the subsequent management of adverse effects. Whilst we understand the difficulties in providing precise details given the flexibility needed in the construction phase of the CRL project, we consider the provision of a Draft Indicative CEMP would aid in the understanding of the level of detail that the CEMP would provide in terms of scope, methodologies and mitigation measures.
Recommendation The provision of a Draft Indicative CEMP would assist with the understanding of the scope, methodologies and detail of mitigation measures to be included in the CEMP as part of the Outline Plan process.
8.3.1.3 Outline Plan of Works and CEMP Approval Process Condition 4 states that the Requiring Authority shall submit the Outline Plan, including the CEMP and other plans to the Auckland Council in accordance with Section 176A of the RMA. Auckland Council could then, within 20 working days of receiving the Outline Plan, request changes to be made. Under this process changes could also be requested to be made to the CEMP. If AT does not agree to the changes requested by Auckland Council, Auckland Council could lodge an appeal with the Environment Court.
Whilst this suggested mechanism does provide an opportunity for Auckland Council to request changes to the CEMP, and appeal to the Environment Court should the suggested changes not be made, we recommend that the conditions are strengthened to provide a more rigorous development and consultation process for the CEMP. This is the main mechanism for mitigating adverse environmental effects during the construction phase of the project.
Recommendation
Page 51 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
We consider a peer review by a suitability qualified independent specialist(s) should be required for specific management plans that comprise the CEMP. This would ensure these sections of the CEMP have been through a rigorous review process prior to being submitted to Auckland Council. Recommended Condition 4a states: ―Prior to submitting the CEMP to Auckland Council for the construction of the City Rail Link in accordance with section 176A of the RMA, the Requiring Authority shall engage a suitably qualified independent specialist(s) to undertake a peer review of the following specific management plans (referred to in Condition 14a) that shall be included as part of the CEMP: (a) Road network and transportation management plan;
(b) Construction noise and vibration management plan; (c) Historic heritage management plan; (d) Air quality management plan; and
(e) Contamination management plan. The CEMP submitted to Auckland Council shall demonstrate how the recommendations from the independent suitably qualified specialist(s) have been incorporated, and, where they have not, the reasons why.‖
8.3.1.4 Public Involvement in CEMP Development Provided the recommended conditions for the independent peer review be adopted, we consider that the Outline Plan process will provide a rigorous process of review of the CEMP prior to the commencement of construction. Section 19.8.5 of this Report discusses that the current proposed Conditions by AT do not require community consultation in the preparation of the various aspects of the CEMP. This Section of the Report includes a requirement for AT to consult with the Community Liaison Groups over the development of relevant aspects of the CEMP and other management plans (proposed Condition 8A). It is our opinion that this recommended condition will provide sufficient community input into the development of the CEMP and ensure there is a process in place for on-going communication with the affected communities.
8.3.1.5 CEMP Review Process We consider that the suggested conditions provided by AT do not provide enough clarity on the CEMP review process nor how any review information is provided to Auckland Council for approval. Recommendation
We therefore recommend that the following conditions (15b and 15c) are included: Condition 15b
Page 52 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
The CEMP shall be reviewed at least annually or as a result of a material change to the City Rail Link project. The review shall take into consideration: (a) Compliance with designation conditions; (b) Any changes to construction methods;
(c) Key changes to roles and responsibilities within the City Rail Link project; (d) Changes in industry best practice standards; (e) Changes in legal or other requirements;
(f) Results of monitoring and reporting procedures associated with the management of adverse effects during construction; and (g) Public complaints.
A summary of the review process shall be kept by the Requiring Authority, provided annually to the Auckland Council, and made available to the Auckland Council upon request.
Condition 15c ―Following the CEMP review process described in Condition 15b, the CEMP may require updating. Any material change proposed to the CEMP (including management plans) shall be submitted for approval to the Major Infrastructure Team Manager, Auckland Council, at least 10 working days prior to the proposed changes taking effect.
8.3.1.6 CEMP Cumulative Effects
The EMF states that the CEMP will “address cumulative effects and integrate construction staging, works and programming to minimise effects”. It is not clear from this statement what methodologies will be implemented to address cumulative effects.
Recommendation The provision of further information to illustrate a methodology for assessing cumulative effects through the CEMP would be helpful to assess the adequacy of this. This could be included in the Draft Indicative CEMP referred to above.
Page 53 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9 Assessment of Effects
9.1 Approach to assessment
This section provides an assessment of both the positive and adverse effects of the NoRs on the environment. The approach adopted in undertaking this assessment is to:
a) provide a general description of the effect; b) summarise the assessment made by AT and proposed mitigation; c) summarise the issues raised by submitters and any relief sought;
d) identify any relevant provisions of the District Plans that could provide guidance in assessing the effects; e) assess the effects taking into account the information identified above and other relevant matters; and i. where possible form a conclusion on the significance of the effects and the appropriateness of the mitigation proposed including conditions;
ii. where necessary suggest amendments to the proposed conditions to more effectively manage effects; iii. identify areas where AT or submitters need to provide more information by way of evidence on effects and mitigation in order for us to be able to form an opinion on the significance of effects and the effectiveness of the mitigation proposed. 9.2 Construction Noise and Vibration
9.2.1 Introduction
In its assessment of noise and vibration effects, AT has identified that the potential noise effects of the Project can be categorised as either temporary activities such as construction, or permanent activities such as the operation of the CRL. The greatest effects from noise will occur during the construction phase of the project, in those areas where surface works are occurring, and particularly from night construction activities. These effects though temporary are potentially disruptive and adverse, but they will cease after construction and once the CRL is operational. However, they will be staged and typical of any construction of a large scale that may occur within the city centre. Methods to manage these effects are proposed and include the development and implementation of the CEMP under the EMF and EMP [Environmental Management Plan] and the development and implementation of a Communications Plan for liaising and consulting with those parties who will be potentially affected by the noise effects during the various stages of construction. The potential operational noise effects will be limited to noise emitted from trains operating in the NAL and CRL junction and from
Page 54 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
ventilation stacks in QE2S, Aotea Station, Karangahape Station, and Newton Station.48
Marshall Day Acoustics Consultants have prepared a Noise and Vibration assessment49 (the MDA report) in support of the NoRs. Paragraphs 7.1.4 to 7.1.7 detail the nature of the construction works for each section of the project, and the likely noise effects on adjacent properties. Section 7.2 details the likely vibration effects to arise from construction activities. It is not proposed to repeat that information here.
9.2.2 Relevant plan provisions
9.2.2.1 Auckland City District Plan – Central Area Section
Noise Objective 7.2.1: To provide a degree of noise protection throughout the Central Area. Objective 7.2.2: To provide for greater noise protection in the Residential Precincts and the Learning Quarter: Area 1 and other more ―noise sensitive‖ areas. Objective 7.2.3: To recognise the strategic importance of the Port through the control of noise effects on accommodation / non permanent accommodation activities in the Quay Park Precinct. The Central Area Plan seeks to achieve the above listed objectives through the imposition of various noise level standards across the Central Area. The Plan anticipates that the Central Area is not as quiet as suburban areas, and specifically states that the same level of protection will not be provided for by the Plan. Construction noise limits within the Central Area are significantly higher than for those for other activities, in acknowledgement of the fact that demolition and construction are necessary for the growth and development of the CBD, and that they are inherently noisy activities. The specified noise limits should be reasonable and enable development to be undertaken whilst complying with Section 16 of the RMA (duty to avoid unreasonable noise). Construction activity is separated into two categories, being those less than 15 days in duration, and those greater than 15 day in duration. It is possible to exceed the stated noise limits of the Plan (which vary depending on the day of the week and the time of the day), but not for more than 30 minutes at a time (without resource consent).
The following noise limits (set out at clause 7.6.4 of the Central Area Plan) apply to construction activities within the Central Area: Construction noise less than 15 days in duration
48 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects, Section 7.6, Page 154
49 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects, Volume 3: Part 1, Appendix 2 (Noise and Vibration Assessment prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics Limited)
Page 55 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
L10 Lmax
Monday to Friday 6:30am to 80dBA 90dBA 10:30pm
Saturday 7:00am to 11:00pm 85dBA 90dBA
Sunday 9:00am to 7:00pm 80dBA 90dBA
At all other times (night-time) 60dBA 75dBA
At all other times (night-time in 55dBA 75dBA Residential and Tertiary Education Precincts only)
Construction noise greater than 15 days in duration
L10 Lmax
Monday to Friday 6:30am to 75dBA 90dBA 10:30pm
Saturday 7:00am to 11:00pm 80dBA 90dBA
Sunday 9:00am to 7:00pm 65dBA 85dBA
At all other times (night-time) 60dBA 75dBA
At all other times (night-time in 55dBA 75dBA Residential and Tertiary Education Precincts only)
Vibration
The Central Area Plan sets out vibration controls at clause 7.6.5. Requirements around human response to vibration are included at clause 7.6.5.1, and those provisions relating to the structural integrity of buildings are set out at clause 7.6.5.2.
9.2.2.2 Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section Noise
Page 56 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
The construction noise limits are set out at clause 4A.1.D of the Isthmus Plan, stating that noise resulting from construction works shall not exceed a reasonable level as determined by reference to NZS 6803:1984.
9.2.3 Overview of submissions
Construction noise
A total of 46 submissions raised matters in regard to construction noise effects of the project. The following serves as a summary of the matters raised, and mitigation sought (where specified). The number preceding the submitter‟s name indicates the submitter‟s submission number allocated by the Council:
Potential for general annoyance, and significant adverse effects over the long construction timeframes (65 Monsignor Paul Farmer, St Benedicts Parish, 81 Precinct Properties Ltd, 88 Sky City, 93 Land C Holdings Limited, 103 I Love Ugly Limited, 114 Auckland Boxing Association, 117 Body Corporate 401541, 120 BWT Investments Limited, 140, 141 and 246 Blackstone Group, 142-144 and 245 70 Pitt Street Limited, 186 Leah Firth, 197 Duncan Guy Properties, 216 Stephen O‟Sullivan, 236 James Kirkpatrick Limited, 237 R W Elder, 249 Goran Stojanovic, 256 East Family Trust, 257 Victor D Brandt)
MDA report is very general, and not specific to individual buildings (54 148 Quay Street Body Corp and 116 Tenham Investments Ltd)
There appears to be no opportunity to establish noise barriers (54 Body Corp 164980 148 Quay Street, 116 Tenham Investments Ltd)
Noise to be kept at a minimum at night-time due to hotel operation / residential activity / potential for sleep disturbance. AT‟s „project criteria‟ apply 7-days per week, with no allowance for different levels over weekends or public holidays. Submitters seek conditions specifying acceptable noise limits, hours and duration, and an undertaking to mitigate adverse noise effects by providing adequate noise attenuation to specific buildings, or through the temporary relocation of guests and residents, air conditioning and a contribution towards electricity bills (12 Quay West Body Corp, 70 TSR, 71 Stamford Plaza, 74 Thai Fusion T/A Grasshopper Bar and Restaurant, 75 Mai Thai Restaurant, 95 Penelope Sheerin (Quay West Suites), 230 Sandra Jenkins,
Effects on the use of cathedrals, church and presbyteries during the construction process. Submitters seek minimum noise, particularly on Sunday mornings when the main mass of the week is held, and for special events (97 The Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland, 87 St Patrick‟s Cathedral, 219 Auckland Central Methodist Parish)
Absence of noise scatter map for the Mercury Lane construction site – site overlooked by George Court Apartment Building – hours of construction (68 Karangahape Rd Business Association)
That further consideration be given to the potential impact of noise during and post
Page 57 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
construction on the heritage properties and occupants at 10-18 and 20 Customs Street East (76 Cooper and Company Ltd)
79 MediaWorks NZ Ltd – Studios at Flower Street allow for television and some radio broadcasting with minimal external noise disturbance. The construction of the Studios is heavily focused on achieving a quiet environment (i.e.: the operational requirement for the Studios is 25dB) and this has been achieved through the use of heavy lead doors and false walls to ensure sound reverberations are minimised. However, there are no measures in place to control or eliminate vibration and the attendant regenerated noise entering through the floor due to the construction of the tunnel or due to the trains passing through the tunnel and portal.
Concerned above the absence of any avoidance or mitigation of noise effects. AT have provided insufficient detail and no proposed designation conditions for NoR 1 other than a comment in the AEE that a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) would be implemented. A CNVMP and any proposed mitigation measures would be processed through the outline plan process without an opportunity for input from affected persons. Conditions must include, but not be limited to, provisions specifying acceptable noise and limits, hours of operation, and the duration of works at different noise limits. (81 Precinct Properties Ltd, 88 Sky City)
Particularly sensitive receiver – Childcare facility, children sleeping between 11:30am and 3:00pm Monday-Friday (221 Bear Park Mt Eden).
Ongoing consultation with affected property owners throughout construction phase to discuss plans in place to manage noise effects (240 Margaret L Main). Construction vibration Submissions relating to vibration matter generally fall into one of two categories, being disturbance to the occupants of buildings, structural damage to buildings, and in a few instances, disruption to particularly sensitive activities within buildings. The assessment that follows looks at these general themes.
9.2.4 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation
Table 7.6 of the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects provides details of the identified actual and potential effects of noise associated with the CRL NoR and provides a number of recommendations for managing adverse effects. The identified Noise Effects (NEs) are identified below, along with proposed methods for mitigating any adverse effects:
9.2.4.1 Construction Noise
9.2.4.2 NE1 (adverse effects) – NoR 1 Construction along Albert Street and at Aotea Station:
Noise in excess of Project noise criteria, particularly for building occupants, from the
Page 58 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
loudest anticipated construction activities (such as secant piling) associated with the indicative cut and cover / top down methodology creating effects which range from annoyance to sleep disturbance.
It is noted that the buildings that line Albert Street provide intermediate shielding to noise sensitive receivers located beyond.
Noise effects associated with excavation and other works for cut and cover / top down construction are anticipated by the noise expert to drop significantly once the site is covered and excavation recommences below ground with noise effects then mainly being generated by any ventilation of the underground works and construction truck movements to and from the works.
Noise exceeding Project noise criteria may be reasonable, if the exceedances are temporary and brief.
9.2.4.2.1 Proposed mitigation
The application of appropriate noise management methods through the implementation of the CEMP will manage adverse noise effects to an acceptable level through:
o Applying restricted noise Project criteria to areas where construction occurs in close proximity to sensitive receivers and / or during sensitive periods;
o Restrict the following construction activities outside sensitive receivers (i.e. hotels and residential units) to day time and evening hours – D-walling, secant piling, excavation works (with the exception of cut and cover / top down excavation once under a cover), surface works, and demolition of buildings;
Temporary relocation for sensitive receivers may be considered (with their agreement) for the duration of the exceedances of the noise above the Project noise criteria. 9.2.4.3 NE 2 (adverse effects) – NoR‘s 4, 5 Construction of Karangahape and Newton Stations:
Noise in excess of Project noise criteria from the loudest anticipated construction activities (such as D-wall construction) for those buildings immediately adjacent to the construction of the entrance shafts associated with the Karangahape Station and Newton Station, creating adverse effects which range from annoyance to sleep disturbance.
Similar to the above, it is noted that while hoardings (including temporary noise walls) around the construction site area are unlikely to reduce noise levels on building occupants, except those at a ground level, provide intermediate shielding to noise sensitive receivers located beyond.
Noise effects associated with excavation and other works for cut and cover / top down construction are anticipated by the noise expert to drop significantly once the
Page 59 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
site is covered and excavation recommences below ground with noise effects then mainly being generated by any ventilation of the underground works and truck movements to and from the works.
Work at Karangahape and Newton Stations will occur only over the period of time that construction in the area is needed.
Noise exceeding Project noise criteria may not be unreasonable if the exceedances are temporary and brief.
9.2.4.3.1 Proposed mitigation
The application of appropriate noise management methods through the implementation of the CEMP will manage adverse noise effects to an acceptable level through:
o Applying restricted noise Project criteria to areas where construction occurs in close proximity to sensitive receivers and / or during sensitive periods;
o Restrict the following construction activities outside sensitive receivers (e.g. hotels and residential units) to day time and evening hours – D-walling, secant piling, excavation works (with the exception of cut and cover / top down excavation once under a cover), surface works, and demolition of buildings;
Temporary relocation for sensitive receivers may be considered (with their agreement) for the duration of the exceedances of the noise above the Project noise criteria.
9.2.4.4 NE 3 (adverse effects) – NoR 6 Main construction site area and connection of the CRL to the NAL:
Noise in excess of the Project noise criteria as a result of cumulative construction activities (such as operation and maintenance of the TBM; cut and cover construction of the tunnels in this area; conventional tunnelling of the underground „cross over box50‟; and tunnels conveying, plus equipment associated with, spoil removal; tunnelling ventilation; construction dewatering; tunnel wall panel forming; and the storage of materials) at the main construction site area, creating adverse effects which range from annoyance to sleep disturbance.
A number of these activities are anticipated to occur towards the middle of the main construction site given the indicative location of the two tunnels, and as such noise effects will be reduced satisfactorily [???] to receivers beyond the designation boundary.
The noise contours generated to assess the actual and potential noise effects in this area against the developed Project noise criteria show that noise effects are
50 „Cross over box‟ is the underground at grade tunnel box which allows trains to cross over tracks to enter / exit the tunnels from the east or west.
Page 60 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
predicted to comply with the Project noise criteria for those immediately adjacent buildings to this main construction site area.
Noise exceeding Project noise criteria may not be unreasonable if the exceedances are temporary and brief.
Noise generated from tunnelling, truck movements / vehicle movements, and general use of this area as the main construction site, is predicted to comply with the Project noise criteria during all periods (i.e. 24 hours per day / 7 days per week).
9.2.4.4.1 Proposed mitigation
The application of appropriate noise management methods through the implementation of the CEMP will manage adverse noise effects to an acceptable level by ensuring the following occurs:
o The selection of low-noise construction machinery where practicable;
o Training of site personnel regarding noise;
o Training on construction operator procedures to minimise unnecessary noise and vibration;
Construction noise monitoring and reporting (including receiving and handling complaints about construction noise).
9.2.4.5 NE 4 (adverse effects) – NoR 6 Construction works occurring adjacent to the NAL designation:
Noise in excess of Project noise criteria for daytime for those buildings located immediately adjacent to the works occurring adjacent to the NAL designation, creating adverse effects which range from annoyance to sleep disturbance.
Buildings located adjacent to the works will act as an intermediate shielding to noise sensitive receivers beyond, limiting the number of affected receivers.
Work in this area will be limited to the construction of this stage of the works.
Noise exceeding Project noise criteria may be reasonable, if the exceedances are temporary and brief.
9.2.4.5.1 Proposed mitigation
The application of appropriate noise management methods through the implementation of the CEMP will manage adverse noise effects to an acceptable level through:
o Applying restricted noise Project criteria when construction occurs in close proximity to sensitive receivers and / or during sensitive periods;
Restrict the following construction activities outside sensitive receivers (e.g. hotels
Page 61 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
and residential units) to day time and evening hours – D-walling, secant piling, excavation works (with the exception of cut and cover / top down excavation once under a cover), surface works, and demolition of buildings.
9.2.4.6 NE 5 (adverse effects) – NoR 1, 4, 5, 6 Building Demolition work, particularly in the area to contain the main construction site and the connection of the CRL to the NAL:
Noise generated from the demolition of buildings to construct and operate the CRL, creating adverse effects which range from annoyance to sleep disturbance.
The demolition of buildings is a restricted controlled activity under the Auckland Council District Plan: Central Area and a permitted activity under the Auckland Council District Plan: Isthmus section (where under both sections of the District Plan the building is not scheduled as a heritage building; or located in a residential 1 or 2 zone under the Isthmus section). Effects from the demolition of buildings associated with the project are recognised to be an integral effect of the project, particularly given that a large area of buildings is to be demolished in the main construction area site at Newton.
Noise exceeding Project noise criteria may be reasonable, if the exceedances are temporary and brief.
9.2.4.6.1 Proposed mitigation
No mitigation identified by AT in Table 7.6.
9.2.4.7 NE 6 (adverse effects) – NoR 1, 4, 5 Noise from Ventilation Stacks:
Noise emitted from ventilation stacks located in Queen Elizabeth II Square, Aotea Station, Karangahape Station, and Newton Station, creating adverse effects which range from annoyance to sleep disturbance.
The night time Project noise criteria have been used to assess these effects, and based on the predictions of fan noise, it is practicable to achieve compliance with the Project noise criteria provided [??] that suitable plant, along with industry standard proprietary attenuation and noise mitigation techniques are installed which allow the ventilation stacks to comply with the Project noise criteria.
9.2.4.7.1 Proposed mitigation
In later stages of design and construction incorporate, install suitable plant, along with industry standard proprietary attenuation and noise mitigation techniques, which allow the ventilation stacks to comply with the Project noise criteria. \
Page 62 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.2.4.8 Construction Vibration
9.2.4.9 VE1 (adverse effects) – NoR‘s 1, 2, 4, 5, 6
Superficial building damage (i.e. cracking to plaster / paintwork and lengthening of existing cracks) to a number of buildings located along the CRL route.
The vibration construction contour maps attached as Appendix H to the Marshall Day technical report show which buildings may be potentially affected by this superficial building damage during the construction period. The German standard discussed in the text above has been applied with three contours depicted on the maps to reflect the three criteria in the standard – Green (2.5 mm/s PPV): built heritage and sensitive receiver; Orange (5 mm/s PPV): residential buildings; Red (10 mm/s PPV): commercial buildings.
Any building (under the criteria in which it falls) contained within its contour is at risk of building damage, but as the criteria is a conservative level of potential damage, the anticipated adverse effects on these buildings are likely to be nil to limited to superficial damage.
9.2.4.9.1 Proposed mitigation
The application of appropriate vibration management methods through implementation of the CEMP.
Implementation of the Communications Management Plan including the complaints management protocols. 9.2.4.10 VE 2 (adverse effects) – NoR 1, 2, 4, 5, 6
Perceptible vibration during construction of the CRL which creates disturbance (annoyance, sleep disturbance, complaints) to occupiers of buildings in the vicinity.
These adverse effects are considered to be significant for some receivers located particularly close to the source of the vibration (see below for particularly sensitive receivers) and this is influenced by the type of construction technique being employed.
Disturbance effects from vibration will diminish with distance the further away from the source the receiver gets. This also applies to the higher the floor of a building in relation to noise received, so those occupants located on lower levels of buildings will experience greater vibration effects than those on floors higher up.
9.2.4.10.1 Proposed mitigation
The application of appropriate vibration management methods through implementation of the CEMP.
Implementation of the Communications Management Plan including the complaints management protocols.
Page 63 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.2.4.11 VE 3 (adverse effects) – NoR 1, 2
Vibration levels are predicted to exceed the commercial Project criterion for the Aotea Centre (refer construction contours: 20m below ground in Appendix H).
9.2.4.11.1 Proposed mitigation Construction management as per the CEMP will be crucial (i.e. regular vibration monitoring, building condition surveys etc.). Practicable mitigation measures to address the effects on the building, such as strengthening of the building structure, may also be explored.
9.2.4.12 VE 4 (adverse effects) – NoR 5
The secondary access shaft for the Newton Station is proposed in the vicinity of the building fronting Newton Road, which houses Roundhead studios, a chandelier shop, and an associated residence. Works during the construction of this shaft may result in disturbance to occupiers of the building (annoyance, sleep disturbance, inability to use studio equipment due to its sensitive nature, potential rattling or breakage of chandeliers), and may result in potential structural damage to the building.
The building has recognised character (type C listing under the Built heritage technical assessment supporting this Assessment of Environmental Effects), and is also considered to fall within the heritage / sensitive use criteria band under the vibration standard being applied to this assessment due to its use as a music recording studio.
The predicted vibration effects from the construction of the access shaft using mining techniques (i.e. road headers, rock breakers or similar) in the vicinity of this building is 10 mm/s PPV. The PPV value for heritage / sensitive structures is 2.5 mm/s, and therefore the prediction of vibration is four times greater than the criteria for heritage buildings, and potentially will be a significant adverse effect. It is noted that the predicted 10 mm/s PPV is the criteria for commercial buildings, where if vibration is predicted at or above this level there may be potential structural damage to buildings.
9.2.4.12.1 Proposed mitigation
At the time detailed design is undertaken, and again at the time when the final construction techniques are being confirmed, undertake a further baseline vibration assessment which confirms the actual extent of vibration effects and determine the nature of the mitigation.
Temporary relocation of the occupants located within these sensitive receivers may be required. This will be determined closer to the time of construction, pending detailed design and revised noise assessments taking account of the noise levels closer to the time of the adverse effects being created through construction.
Page 64 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.2.4.13 VE 5 (adverse effects) – NoR 6
Sub-strata tunnelling construction is to occur below TV 3 studios in Newton. The approximate distance between the construction works and TV 3 above is 15m. This construction work will create vibration effects on TV 3. The predicted vibration is 4 mm/s PPV.
In terms of the standard being used to assess structural damage, TV 3 as a television studio is classed as a sensitive building (and therefore the criteria to meet is 2.5 mm/s PPV).
It is unlikely that any structural damage would result on the building itself. The building is a modern building and could, without the studio equipment inside, be classed as a commercial building under the standard with a criteria of 10 mm/s PPV.
9.2.4.13.1 Proposed mitigation
At the time detailed design is undertaken, and again at the time when the final construction techniques are being confirmed, undertake a further vibration assessment which confirms the actual extent of vibration effects and whether any mitigation is required.
9.2.4.13.2 Discussion of Auckland Transport’s draft noise conditions
AT has proposed a number of draft conditions that seek to manage the adverse noise and vibration effects generated by the construction of the CRL. These conditions are intended to implement much of the mitigation identified in the preceding sections. The relevant conditions are:
Condition Intention of the condition
Condition (11) Listed Notable Noise and Vibration Receivers are recognised as being at a more elevated Communication – Notable level to other “sensitive receivers” (e.g. hotels Noise and Vibration and residential activities) which are covered Receivers under the Communication and Consultation Plan and as such a specific Communication and Consultation condition is suggested.
Condition (21) Sets out what is to be included in the CEMP for the management of adverse noise and vibration Construction Noise and effects. Includes the identification of sensitive Vibration Management noise receivers (including those notable Plan receivers identified in condition 11), mitigation options to be applied where appropriate, monitoring, complaints management, and reporting to Auckland Council‟s Monitoring
Page 65 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Condition Intention of the condition Officer.
Condition (38) Construction noise criteria to be applied to the CRL designation. Project Noise Criteria
Condition (39) Construction Vibration criteria to be applied to this designation to assess building damage from Building Damage from construction vibration. Construction Vibration
Condition (40) Construction Vibration criteria to be applied to this designation to assess building damage from Construction Vibration construction vibration.
Condition (41) Sets out requirements of Building Condition Survey process. Building Condition Surveys in relation to construction vibration effects
It is noted that there are aspects of the mitigation offered in AT‟s Assessment of Environmental Effects that have not been included in AT‟s proposed conditions. These are discussed in more detail below, and where appropriate, have been included into the recommended set of conditions set out in Attachment O to this report.
9.2.5 Assessment and proposed mitigation 9.2.5.1 Construction noise Discussion of project noise criteria In terms of noise effects arising from construction activities associated with the CRL, it is considered that the effects and mitigation identified by AT above carry similar themes throughout the various construction sites along the alignment. As such, the discussion below focuses on these groups of effects and addresses the identified effect, adequacy of the proposed mitigation, and submitter issues for construction noise together. As detailed in the CRL Concept Design Report, the indicative construction programme for the Project is 5-6 years. This schedule is largely dictated by the tunnelling timeline. The MDA report explains that „exposed above ground works are expected to result in significantly more noise impact compared with tunnelling and enclosed works (e.g. Excavation of the two tunnels, construction inside stations and enclosed cut-and-cover
Page 66 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
sections.‘51 Styles Group Ltd have undertaken a review of the construction and operational noise effects (the Styles Group report) associated with the CRL NoRs. We adopt that assessment in full, and rely upon it for comments on the noise and vibration matters discussed below. The Styles Group report can be found in full as Attachment F to this report. For the purpose of this assessment, the consideration of the noise effects falls to section 16 of the RMA, „duty to avoid unreasonable noise‟. Section 16 introduces the requirement for all occupiers of land to ensure that the Best Practicable Option (BPO) is adopted such that levels of noise generated by the CRL are no greater than „reasonable‟. The Styles Group report acknowledges this: This review will focus on whether the noise and vibration effects associated with the works and activities that will be authorised by the confirmation of the Designations will be practicably able to be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated to the extent that the noise and vibration levels will remain reasonable with reference to appropriate criteria and limits. The CRL NoRs provide a set of project construction noise criteria (AT‟s proposed Condition 38), against which the performance of construction activities are to be measured. The Styles Group report accepts that the stated values are generally acceptable for daytime hours, Monday to Saturday, but disagrees with the criteria stated for night-time, Sundays and Public Holidays. I have read and generally agree with the reasoning for the selection of the final criteria. However I disagree with the changes proposed to the standard noise limits prescribed by NZS6803 to allow for higher noise levels during the day on Sunday and Public Holidays. The MDA report suggests that the higher noise limits on Sundays and Public Holidays should apply project-wide primarily on the basis that it will allow works to be undertaken faster to reduce the overall construction duration and to reduce disruption where it is necessary to close major roads or intersections whilst works are carried out. I question however, the appropriateness of allowing higher levels on these days, and also the extension of the day time period to 11pm on all days [the standard prescribes a 10:00pm commencement of night-time levels]. Given the long duration of works for many areas of the project, and having regard to the number of potentially affected residential or noise-sensitive receivers, it is considered that allowing noisier works to occur overnight, and on Sundays and Public Holidays in order to lessen the overall duration of construction works may not be desirable in this case. The Styles Group report recommends alternative noise criteria for inclusion in Condition 38, and these amendments have been incorporated in our has been followed through
51 As above, section 7.1.1. page 21
Page 67 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
into our recommended set of conditions at Attachment O to this report:
Monday to Sundays and At all other Receiver Type Saturday Public Holidays times 0700 - 2200 0700 – 2200 2200 - 0700
Commercial and Industrial L 75dB L 75dB L 80dB Buildings Aeq Aeq Aeq
Noise Sensitive Activity where windows need not be open for LAeq 75dB LAeq 60dB LAeq 60dB ventilation
Noise Sensitive Activity where windows are required to be LAeq 75dB LAeq 60dB LAeq 50dB open for ventilation
Noise limits applying between 0700 and 2200 may be relaxed by 5 dB for 1 period of up to 2 consecutive weeks in any 2 months Noise limits applying between 2200 and 0700 may be relaxed by 5 dB for 1 period of up to 2 consecutive nights in any 10 days
Noise limits applying between 2200 and 0700 are a proxy for an internal limit of LAeq 35dB.
The Styles Group report identifies that the MDA report does not make reference to the effects of construction noise on childcare facilities in close proximity to the route. To quote: Childcare centres are particularly sensitive to noise from external noise sources and relatively low levels must be maintained to provide for an adequate learning and resting environment. The Auckland Regional Public Health Service (ARPHS) recommend noise levels of LAeq 55dB for play areas and LAeq 35dB for sleeping / rest areas. The most sensitive times for childcare centres are typically through the middle of the day when construction activities will be well underway. I consider that the CNVMP should set out a method for the control of noise to childcare centres, involving mitigation such as screening, building treatments and consultation to achieve these levels or a suitable alternative outcome. Additional changes are recommended to At‟s proposed Condition 38 to incorporate project criteria to protect childcare facilities, when occupied. Section J11.2 of the Draft CNVMP52 states that for any activities that have the potential to breach the project noise criteria, a noise assessment shall be undertaken. Where noise levels are predicted to exceed the noise criteria by less than 5dBA, all practicable
52 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects, Volume 3: Part 1, Appendix 2 (Marshall Day Noise and Vibration Report), Appendix J, Page13
Page 68 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
measures will be implemented as per the CNVMP with the aim of achieving compliance with the criteria. Monitoring of these activities will be undertaken to determine compliance. Where modelled noise levels are predicted to be 5dBA or more above the noise criteria, a Site Specific Construction Noise Management Plan („SSCNMP‟) shall be prepared prior to works commencing. It is noted that the requirement for a SSCNMP is not in AT‟s proposed conditions and therefore we have recommended the inclusion of a condition to this effects (Condition 21A). Discussion of construction noise effects In considering the noise effects to arise from construction activities related to the CRL, the Styles Group report highlights that the complexity of the built environment along the route, and the large variety of potentially noise-sensitive activities, means that a detailed analysis for each receiver is not practicable to undertake. The assessment of individual receivers is best dealt with by reference to submissions and at the hearing stage. For these reasons, the Styles Group report focuses on the likely overall effects of the Project, as well as an evaluation of the effects on the most exposed receivers of noise adjacent to large or noisy work sites. In terms of the general construction noise effects anticipated from the main construction sites, the Styles Group report agrees with the methodology used to depict noise levels in the MDA report, stating: As discussed in the MDA Report, the modelling outputs represent only a short period of time with a lot of plant operating at one time. The reality of large civil infrastructure construction sites is that there are often long periods where comparatively low levels of noise are generated. The modelling outputs should not therefore be considered indicative of the noise generated for those sites for the entire works program. The modelling outputs in conjunction with Tables 7.1.8.1 and 7.1.8.2, allow the noise levels inside the nearest receiving buildings to be derived. The results will be approximate only but are sufficiently accurate as to allow an assessment of effects. The MDA report states that piling and surface works (D-wall construction, excavation and demolition) are predicted to significantly exceed the night-time project noise criteria, and notes the following mitigation options:53
Undertaking works during the day or evening hours where practicable;
With the agreement of sensitive receivers, temporarily relocate them for the duration the project criteria are exceeded. Subject to the above mitigation, the MDA report concludes that noise effects from these activities during the daytime period may be controlled with the implementation of an
53 Marshall Day report, section 7.1.8, page 27
Page 69 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
appropriate CNVMP, as part of the wider CEMP. For completeness, MDA conclude that tunnelling activities and truck movement associated with the main construction site area and connections to the NAL are predicted to comply with the Project Criteria for the majority of receiver locations. The Styles Group report goes on to make the following comments with reference to the identified noise-sensitive receivers identified in the MDA report: I note that there will be significant effects on some of the receivers, and this is acknowledged by the MDA Report and the MDA Response. Auckland Transport‘s preferred method for dealing with such effects is through consultation with those affected via an EMP and CNVMP. It is my view that this is the appropriate method once works have begun, but that the nature and magnitude of the effects along with the methods available to mitigate them must be assessed as part of the decision making process under the Act. Whilst the foremost duty for Auckland Transport is to adopt the BPO to ensure that noise levels are reasonable, there will almost certainly be circumstances where noise levels cannot practicably be kept at a reasonable level. This is where relocation of occupants and property acquisitions may be necessary, and the mitigation really becomes the avoidance of effects on certain receivers. Such measures to avoid the effects cannot simply be carried out by Auckland Transport, as it will require potentially significant levels of consultation and negotiation. Although unlikely, it is possible that avoidance is not possible. The effect on the TV3 studios for both the construction and operational phases (noise and vibration effects) is an example where avoidance by relocation or acquisition may indeed be necessary, and I observe the potentially significant costs to Auckland Transport of doing so. ... The MDA report predicts that a number of receivers will be subjected to noise levels above the relevant noise limits for a variety of activities and for varying durations throughout the project. It acknowledges that there will be significant adverse effects at times and that these could be difficult to mitigate without relocation of the affected receivers. If these effects are to be acknowledged, then the Designation Conditions and the supporting EMP and CNVMP must clearly and robustly define the procedures for dealing with such effects. Overall, I agree with the approach taken in the MDA report and subject to my comments on the conditions I agree with the overall assessment of effects and the proposed management methods in general. In response to the above comments, and as detailed in the foregoing discussion on the construction noise criteria, we have recommended amendments to the night-time, weekend and public holiday noise limits, and also recommend the preparation of Site Specific Construction Noise Management Plan in instances where non-compliance with the project criteria is likely. Further to these conditions, we note the importance of AT relocating those sensitive noise receivers that may be potentially significantly adversely
Page 70 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
affected at times, and the importance of strong communication links with those parties. In light of the above, it is considered that the adverse effects of construction noise will be appropriately mitigated for most receivers, although it is acknowledged that in some cases, relocation may be the only practicable method for avoidance of significant adverse noise effects. It would be useful if AT were to provide further clarification of the degree of effects likely to be received by those receivers where effects cannot be mitigated, and whether any further mitigation or avoidance mechanisms are available. For completeness, it is considered that all submission matters related to construction noise have been addressed by the preceding assessment. 9.2.5.2 Construction vibration The Styles Group reportacknowledge that the prediction and measurement of the response of a multi-storey building to ground-borne vibration is highly complex. Given the large number of potentially affected buildings along the route, and noting that the necessary details for a full analysis would be available for very few, if any, it is not possible to undertake a detailed analysis for each building. The report states: Accordingly, the assessment of vibration and determination of appropriate limits and monitoring methods must necessarily be generic in nature and somewhat conservative to ensure that the most sensitive buildings are adequately protected. It stands to reason then that there will be numerous buildings along the route that will be capable of withstanding much higher levels of vibration. If this is to be taken advantage of, it must be done on a case by case basis. Human response It is noted that vibration limits for construction projects generally focus on the prevention of structural damage to buildings, and there is no protection sought from annoyance to the occupiers of buildings. The duration of the proposed works necessitate that consideration be given to the occupiers of buildings, and the MDA report suggests that the provisions of BS5228-2:2009 may be applied with a guideline value of 1.0mms-1 for workplaces. In response, the Styles Group report identifies that the MDA report, and subsequently the draft conditions provided by AT, do not discuss the applicability of a vibration limit for construction activities at night where sleep disturbance is an issue. The report goes on to state: I note that a level of 0.3mms-1 has been adopted as a guideline value for night time vibration (as it affects sleep) on other major projects. It is typically used as a trigger for further investigation or additional monitoring, rather than as an absolute limit. For many people, continuous or intermittent exposure through the night to vibration levels exceeding 0.3mms-1 would likely preclude sleep. Accordingly, I recommend that a limit of 0.3mms-1 be imposed for vibration generated by construction activities between the hours of 2200 – 0700 on all days. The limit should be considered a trigger for further investigation and monitoring, and if the level is to be exceeded for more than 1 night or by more than 50% the works shall be required to be [sic??] managed by a Site Specific Construction Vibration Management Plan (see J11.2
Page 71 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
of the draft CNVMP). It is possible that the limit could be imposed only on the basis that it is assessed where there are complaints or concern. We agree that this approach is necessary, given the number of residential buildings in the immediate vicinity of the many surface construction sites and the tunnel alignment. Accordingly, a new condition (Condition 39A) is recommended to establish the appropriate night-time vibration limit of 0.3mms-1. Structural damage In terms of potential structural damage to buildings associated with construction vibration, the Styles Group report notes that the suggested criteria for structural damage set out in the MDA report, being DIN4150 are appropriate for the management of ground vibration: ...the DIN4150 provisions have been adopted on a very large number of significant projects around New Zealand and its‘ use is generally successful. It is important that the guideline limits (as presented in Table 6.2.2.1 of the MDA Report) are treated as guidelines only, as they are very conservative. The MDA report states that a safety factor of 100% has been added to the regression curves to ensure conservative estimates until on-site testing can be undertaken to refine the prediction model. The report states: The conditions should allow the levels to be exceeded provided that Auckland Transport have demonstrated adequately that the subject structure is capable of withstanding higher levels of vibration without sustaining damage, or where they have reached agreement with the owner for other limits to apply. It is likely that this will involve pre and post-construction surveys of the subject building and a careful evaluation by a suitably qualified structural engineer. Both of these scenarios must be to the Councils satisfaction. AT‟s proposed Condition 40 establishes that, where the predicted or measured vibration levels exceed the construction vibration criteria at any building, monitoring of vibration levels and the building condition shall be undertaken by suitably qualified experts to determine whether vibration-induced damage has occurred. Discussion of construction vibration effects Section 7.2 of the MDA report introduces the construction vibration assessment and also the concept of the risk contours that have been developed. The contour maps are very helpful in describing the likely extent of effects.54 The Styles Group report states: Fulfilling the recommendation to undertake vibration monitoring once works start to establish site-specific attenuation relationships will be vital to determine whether the contours require any adjustment. Given the conservative nature of the current prediction
54 Appendix A (existing built environment impacts by construction vibration) and B (construction vibration receiver types) of the Aurecon Structural Report (AEE Volume 3: Part 1, Appendix 10) are the clearest displays of the identified properties.
Page 72 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
methods I anticipate that the contours will require adjustment only inwards towards the source. It is considered that for the majority of properties in close proximity to the CRL, building damage resulting from construction vibration is able to be appropriately avoided or mitigated through adherence to the project criteria, the implementation of CNVMP, the management of exceedences (where appropriate) through the preparation and implementation of site specific construction vibration management plans, and ongoing monitoring and building condition surveys. For completeness, the table below identifies our recommended amendments to AT‟s proposed conditions to apply to construction noise and vibration activities (underline identifies proposed amendments):
Condition Intention of the condition
Condition (11) Listed Notable Noise and Vibration Receivers are recognised as being at a more elevated Communication – Notable level to other “sensitive receivers” (e.g. hotels Noise and Vibration and residential activities) which are covered Receivers under the Communication and Consultation Plan and as such a specific Communication and Consultation condition is suggested.
Condition (21) Sets out what is to be included in the CEMP for the management of adverse noise and vibration Construction Noise and effects. Includes the identification of sensitive Vibration Management noise receivers (including those notable Plan receivers identified in condition 11), identifies those properties that will be subject to Building Condition Surveys, mitigation options to be applied where appropriate, monitoring, complaints management, and reporting to Auckland Council‟s Monitoring Officer.
Condition (21a) Identifies a trigger for additional modelling of potentially noisy works, and subsequently, Site Specific Construction triggers the need for a site-specific noise Noise Management Plan management plan where anticipated noise levels are predicted to exceed the noise criteria by 5dBA or more.
Identifies the trigger for the preparation and Condition (21b) implementation of a site-specific vibration Site Specific Construction management plan where vibration criteria are Vibration Management likely to be exceeded by more than 50%.
Page 73 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Condition Intention of the condition Plan
Condition (38) Construction noise criteria to be applied to the CRL designation. (amended criteria, including Project Noise Criteria the addition of specific criteria for early childhood education centres)
Condition (39) Construction Vibration criteria to be applied to this designation to assess building damage from Building Damage from construction vibration. Construction Vibration
Condition (39a) Protection of building occupants from night-time disruption from construction vibration Construction Vibration (disturbance of occupants)
Condition (40) Construction Vibration criteria to be applied to this designation to assess building damage from Construction Vibration construction vibration, and to inform (building damage) exceedences of criteria in condition (39) where appropriate and subject to a SSCVMP under condition (21b)
Condition (41) Sets out requirements of Building Condition Survey process. Building Condition Surveys in relation to construction vibration effects
However, although the effects from construction vibration and associated building damage can generally be avoided, remedied or mitigated, there are a number of sensitive receivers for which there will be significant adverse effects arising from construction vibration. Three properties identified in the MDA report are the same three identified as being subject to significant construction noise effects also, being Aotea Centre. Roundhead Studio, and TV3 Studios. These significant adverse effects derive in part from the highly sensitive function of these buildings, but also due to the proximity of these buildings to the alignment. The Styles Group report comments as follows: With particular regard to section J13, the draft CNVMP (Appendix J to the MDA Report) does not prescribe any readily-adoptable resolution to the likely conflict between the continuation of the works and the effect on receivers. I acknowledge however that the provision of such resolution is likely impossible at this stage.
Page 74 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
The NoRs are in-effect seeking to authorise works that are very unlikely to be able to comply with a reasonable level of noise or vibration at some receivers. I consider that the need to demonstrate that the adverse effects have been adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated has not been completely satisfied by Auckland Transport for the current receiving environment. The specific methods used and / or the weighing of effects needs to be considered at the hearing. We concur. There are likely to be significant adverse construction vibration on some sensitive receivers. It would be useful if AT can provide clarification as to how they propose to avoid or mitigate the adverse effects on those receivers. Construction noise and vibration conclusions The Styles Group report makes the following conclusions: The MDA Report has quite rightly identified that there will be potentially significant adverse noise and vibration effects on a number of receivers during the construction period, and proposes that the CNVMP sets out the appropriate method of avoiding, mitigating or remedying those effects. The draft CNVMP that has been presented however is notably light in such detail to the extent that I do not consider its provisions will be sufficient. In my view, I consider that Auckland Transport must demonstrate how those effects can be adequately dealt with before the Designations can be approved and/or the adverse noise effects are weighed against other effects. Compliance with the noise and vibration limits suggested in the MDA Report (and with the variations and additions to those suggested herein) will result in the levels being reasonable, but there is acknowledgement by Auckland Transport that they cannot be met consistently across the project. I consider that as the proposal has been presented, it is likely that noise and vibration levels arising from the construction works will be unreasonable in terms of s16 of the Act at a number of receivers along the route.
It is considered that the preceding assessment has addressed all construction vibration matters raised through submissions. 9.3 Operational Noise and Vibration
9.3.1 Introduction
In their assessment of noise and vibration effects, AT has identified that the potential noise effects of the project can be categorised as either temporary activities such as construction, or permanent activities such as the operation of the CRL. The MDA report addresses the operational noise and vibration matters relevant to the CRL. There are three general sources associated with the operational of the CRL which will generate noise that may be experienced by receivers. These are:
The surface rail section of the CRL, immediately prior to its connection with the existing NAL;
Noise from stations; in particular the ventilation and mechanical services; and
Page 75 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
The regenerated noise inside buildings above the CRL that is generated by the radiation of structurally-borne vibration arising from train movements along the rail lines. These matters are explored in more detail below.
9.3.2 Relevant plan provisions
9.3.2.1 Auckland City District Plan – Central Area Section Objective 7.2.1: To provide a degree of noise protection throughout the Central Area.
Objective 7.2.2: To provide for greater noise protection in the Residential Precincts and the Learning Quarter: Area 1 and other more ―noise sensitive‖ areas. Objective 7.2.3: To recognise the strategic importance of the Port through the control of noise effects on accommodation / non permanent accommodation activities in the Quay Park Precinct. The Central Area Plan seeks to achieve the above listed objectives through the imposition of various noise level standards across the Central Area. The Plan anticipates that the Central Area is not as quiet as suburban areas, and specifically states that the same level of protection will not be provided for by the Plan. Noise measurements taken in apartments and flats within the Central Area have indicated that tenants find levels higher than 35dBA acceptable provided the noise is expected (eg, traffic), predictable and there are no special audible characteristics (eg, bass beat). It is important to note however that the Plan explicitly states that residential use will not be given the same level of protection from noise that would be expected in a suburban residential area.55
As a means of controlling the internal noise received by a property, the following noise limits (set out at clause 7.6.3 of the Central Area Plan) are applied generally across the Central Area, to be measured 1 metre from the façade of an occupied building adjacent to the property from which noise is being emitted. It is there noise limits that will apply to the operational noise from the CRL ventilation shafts.
7:00am – 11:00pm L10 65dBA
11:00pm – 7:00am L10 60dBA
L10 70dBA @ 63Hz
L10 65dBA @ 125Hz
Lmax 75dBA
55 Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Central Area Section), Section 7.3.2
Page 76 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.3.2.2 Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section
The majority of the land within the Isthmus Plan subject to the CRL NoRs is within the Mixed Use zone. The noise limits arising from an activity within the mixed use zone are set out at clause 8.8.10(6) as follows:
7:00am – 11:00pm L10 60dBA
11:00pm – 7:00am L10 60dBA
L10 55dBA
Lmax 75dBA
9.3.3 Overview of submissions
Operational Noise A total of 11 submissions have raised matters relating to noise arising from the operation of the CRL once constructed. The following serves as a summary of matters raised, and mitigation sought (where specified).
Concerns about operational noise from trains running through the tunnels, and subsequent permanent noise disruption (65 Monsignor Paul Farmer, St Benedicts Parish, 76 Cooper and Company Limited, 93 L and C Holdings Limited, 97 The Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland, 219 Auckland Central Methodist Parish 121 George Court Building Body Corporate, 139, 140 and 246 Blackstone Group Limited, 245 70 Pitt Street Limited).
Excessive noise arising from the ventilation stacks at stations (110 Podium Properties Ltd).
Studios at Flower Street allow for television and some radio broadcasting with minimal external noise disturbance. The construction of the Studios is heavily focused on achieving a quiet environment (i.e.: the operational requirement for the Studios is 25dB) and this has been achieved through the use of heavy lead doors and false walls to ensure sound reverberations are minimised. However, there are no measures in place to control or eliminate vibration and the attendant regenerated noise entering through the floor due to the construction of the tunnel or due to the trains passing through the tunnel and portal. (Submission 79 MediaWorks NZ Ltd) Operational Vibration
Concerns about operational vibration from trains running through the tunnels affecting the structural integrity of buildings. (65 Monsignor Paul Farmer, St Benedict‟s Parish, 76 Cooper and Company Ltd,
Concerns about the operational vibration from trains running through the tunnels affecting activities within buildings / disruption of occupants. (65 Monsignor Paul Farmer, St Benedict‟s Parish, 76 Cooper and Company Ltd, 79 MediaWorks NZ, 97 Roman Catholic Bishop of Auckland of the Diocese of Auckland).
Page 77 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Adverse economic impacts arising from ongoing operational noise and vibration arising from the CRL. Specifically, deterring customers from visiting the hotel or from investing in the property. (139 and 140 Blackstone Group).
9.3.4 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation
Tables 7.6 and 7.7 of the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects provide details of the identified actual and potential noise and vibration effects associated with the operation of the CRL, and provide a number of recommendations for managing adverse effects. The identified Noise Effects (NEs) and Vibration Effects (VEs) are identified below, along with proposed methods for mitigating any adverse effects.
9.3.4.1 Operational
9.3.4.2 NE 7 (adverse effects) – NoR 6 Operational train noise on land adjacent to the existing NAL designation:
Increased noise levels experienced by sensitive receivers along the NAL rail corridor (between Normanby Road in the east and to the immediate west of Porters Avenue in the west) from the addition of new tracks, resulting in effects from annoyance to sleep disturbance.
Increased noise levels experienced by sensitive receivers along the NAL rail corridor (between Normanby Road in the east and to the immediate west of Porters Avenue in the west) from trains slowing on the curving track („turnouts‟) where the CRL tracks head into or out of the tunnels, resulting in effects from annoyance to sleep disturbance.
The existing environment includes the noise generated from the passenger and freight trains which run along the NAL. The noise effects from these are permitted under the NAL designation. The amenity experienced currently in this existing environment is not expected to change with the inclusion on land adjacent the NAL designation an additional two tracks.
Indicative calculations of the above noise effects predict an increase of less than 1 decibel, an indiscernible local increase.
9.3.4.2.1 Proposed mitigation
No mitigation identified by AT in table 7.6
9.3.4.3 NE 8 (adverse effects) – NoR 6 Removal of audible train warning signals from two level rail crossings:
Removal of audible warning signalling system at Normanby Road and Porters Avenue level rail crossings (due to either grade separation of the road over the rail or closure of the level crossing) reducing noise to adjacent properties and pedestrians and cyclists.
Page 78 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.3.4.3.1 Proposed mitigation
No mitigation identified by AT in table 7.6.
9.3.4.4 Operational
9.3.4.5 VE 6 (adverse effects) – NoR 1, 2, 4, 5, 6
Building damage caused by vibration as a result of the operation of the CRL is unlikely if there is compliance with the FTA criteria.
Predictions undertaken as part of the Marshall Day assessment suggest that there is unlikely to be any building damage effects as a result of the operation of the CRL.
9.3.4.5.1 Proposed mitigation
In later stages of design and construction, incorporate suitable plant, along with industry standards proprietary attenuation and noise mitigation techniques are installed which allow the ventilation stacks to comply with the Project noise criteria.
9.3.4.6 VE 7 (adverse effects) – NoR 1, 2, 5, 6
Reradiated noise received as a result of the operation of the CRL resulting in perceptible vibration which creates disturbance (annoyance, sleep disturbance, complaints) to occupies of buildings in the vicinity.
Contour maps for the operation of the CRL are contained in Appendix l to the Marshall Day technical report which supports this AEE. These show predictions at ground level as receivers are generally located at ground level or above.
9.3.4.6.1 Proposed mitigation
In relation to managing the effects on the Aotea Centre:
o Use of a floating track slab within the eastern tunnel where the eastern rail is 30m or less distance to the building;
o Use of resilient rail fasteners or continuously welded rail for both rails within the eastern tunnel for the length that the tunnel passes the building including an additional 50m either side of each end of the building where it is adjacent to the tunnel;
o Continued use of the floating track slab and resilient rail fasteners for the operational life of the CRL unless another future technique becomes available which achieves the same mitigation of the operational vibration effects.
In relation to managing the effects on Roundhead Studios:
o Use of resilient rail fasteners or continuously welded rail for both rails within the western tunnel for the length of that the tunnel passes the building including an additional 50m either side of each end of the building where it is adjacent to the
Page 79 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
tunnel.
o Continued use of the resilient rail fasteners for the operational life of the CRL unless another future technique becomes available which achieves the same mitigation of the operational vibration effects.
In relation to managing the effect on TV 3 Studios:
o Use of a floating track slab within the western line where the eastern rail is 15m or less distance to the building;
o Use of resilient rail fasteners or continuously welded rail for both rails within the western tunnel for the length that the tunnel passes the building including an additional 30m either side of each end of the building where it is adjacent to the tunnel;
o Continued use of the floating track slab and resilient rail fasteners for the operational life of the CRL unless another future technique becomes available which achieves the same mitigation of the operational vibration effects.
o For other parts of the CRL, continued employment of maintenance programs currently in place on the Auckland Rail Network including: lubrication of turnouts and junctions; rolling stock maintenance which manages the occurrence of wheel and track corrugations.
Continued implementation via the District Plan of reverse sensitivity rules which apply mechanisms such as minimum set back distances.
9.3.4.6.2 Discussion of Auckland Transport’s draft noise conditions
AT has proposed a number of conditions that seek to manage the adverse noise and vibration effects to arise from the operation of the CRL through the implementation of much of the mitigation identified in the preceding sections. The relevant conditions are:
Condition Intention of the condition Mitigation of adverse operational rail vibration Condition (43) and reradiated noise. Operational Vibration
Condition (44) Mitigation of adverse effects from operational mechanical ventilation plant once rail link Operational Noise operating.
It is noted that based upon comments from Auckland Council‟s noise and vibration review, we are recommending minor amendments to Condition 44. These are discussed in more detail below, and are included in the set of recommended conditions included at Attachment O to this report.
Page 80 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.3.5 Assessment and proposed mitigation
As noted in the section on construction noise and vibration effects, the Styles Group have reviewed the noise and vibration components of the CRL project on behalf of Council. We adopt that assessment in full, and include comment from it below. Also as discussed above, section 16 of the RMA introduces the ‗duty to avoid unreasonable noise‘, and requires that occupiers of land adopt the Best Practicable Option to ensure that the levels of noise and vibration generated by the operation of the CRL are no greater than reasonable.
Operational noise performance criteria There are three general sources associated with the operation of the CRL that will generate noise that may be experienced by receivers. These are:
The surface rail section of the CRL, immediately prior to its connection with the existing NAL; The MDA report provides a very brief assessment of the change in noise level in the NAL area arising from CRL operations, stating: A change in noise level of 1-2 decibels is generally considered to be indiscernible, while 3-4 decibels is just noticeable. On this basis, the noise effect from a change in noise level of less than 3 decibels is considered to be negligible.56
For completeness, it is noted that once trains move across from the CRL onto the existing NAL, the noise conditions associated with that KiwiRail designation will apply. The Styles Group report agrees with the MDA report conclusions on this matter, but also notes: …KiwiRail and Auckland Transport both have an obligation under s16 of the Act to ensure that noise levels arising from the movement of trains on the NAL and CRL line do not exceed a reasonable level and that the BPO is adopted to ensure this. This is a matter best dealt with outside this process, but it is important that submitters (in particular) are aware of this duty.
Whilst acknowledging the need for AT to adopt the BPO when considering surface noise effects arising from the operation of the surface rail section on the CRL, there does appear to be a jurisdictional issue with regard to the NAL. While receivers adjacent to the NAL may experience a greater quantity of train trips post-CRL, and in some cases trains in slightly closer proximity to those receivers, for the purpose of this assessment we accept that any effects arising from activity on the NAL are outside the scope of what we may consider here. Section 8.1.3 of the MDA report states that maintenance of the turnouts, rails and rolling
56 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects, Volume 3: Part 1, Appendix 2 (Noise and Vibration Assessment, prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics), Section 6.3.1, Page 19
Page 81 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
stock generally will be critical in ensuring that noise emissions remain reasonable. The Styles Group report concurs, adding ―such maintenance will be most critical for surface rail, but also for enclosed sections of the tracks that are near tunnel openings or near to the most sensitive receivers (Aotea, Roundhead & TV3).
Overall, it is considered that with appropriate maintenance of tracks and trains, any adverse effects arising from surface rail sections of the CRL will be acceptable.
Noise from stations; in particular the ventilation and mechanical services; and
In terms of mechanical noise associated with the operation of the CRL stations, the MDA report has adopted the „permitted activity‟ noise controls as set out in the Central Area and Isthmus Plans.
The Styles Group report responds as follows: The noise limits from the District Plan are somewhat liberal compared to criteria normally adopted for the protection of health and amenity of people, especially with reference to World Health Organisation criteria and the guidance found in the NZS6802 series of standards. …it is arguable that they [the district plan controls] were not designed to control the emissions from ventilation plant that will be working all day and effectively in perpetuity. For those parts of the CRL alignment within the Isthmus (eg, Newton Station), it is proposed that mechanical plant be permitted to operate up to an Laeq 55dB between the hours of 10:00pm and 7:00am. The Styles Group report notes that the ambient noise measurement results for four locations within the Isthmus set out in Appendices E7, E10, E11 and E12 of the MDA report were regularly as low as La90 40dB, or very close to it in the quiet hours of the night. It goes on to state: It is my opinion that if the noise from mechanical plant were permitted to generate up to Laeq 55dB in this environment, the noise emissions would dominate the environment and would likely be unreasonable, especially when considering the emissions on a cumulative basis with other local sources such as traffic, other mechanical plant and surface rail…It is my view that with respect to the ambient noise measurements, the proposed noise limits for non-rail sources is too high for receivers outside the Central Area. The Styles Group report goes on to outline a methodology for establishing an appropriate limit of Laeq 48dB, and recommends a review condition be incorporated to account for possible changes in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed stations over the course of the (possible) 20-year lapse period. It also suggests that the low frequency noise limits for all receiving areas should be discarded in favour of the 5dB penalty as set out in New Zealand Standard NZS6802:2008. We support these changes, and subsequently propose minor drafting amendments AT‟s proposed Condition 44. Overall, if the noise limits (with our recommended amendments incorporated) can be complied with, it is considered that the noise levels from mechanical plant will be
Page 82 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
reasonable.
The regenerated noise inside buildings above the CRL that is generated by the radiation of structurally-borne vibration arising from train movements along the line.
Section 6.3.2 of the MDA report sets out the suggested controls for reradiated noise and operational vibration it derives from. The Styles Group report accepts that the FTA criteria are appropriate for adoption on the CRL project, both in terms of the noise and vibration limits it recommends and also the prediction and assessment methods. For the avoidance of doubt, the reradiated noise criteria set out in the right-most column of Table 6.3.2 of the MDA Report are LAmax values. The LAmax metric represents the short term (< 1 second) noise level for each train pass-by and is not an average over any extended period of time. I note that the MDA Report states that the FTA reradiated noise criterion for dwellings is the same as the KiwiRail guidelines for the control of reverse sensitivity (as set out in Appendix C to the MDA Report). This is not the case however; the two criteria do in fact permit a considerably different level of noise. As discussed above, the FTA criterion is a LAmax value, (LAmax 35dB) whereas the Kiwirail guidelines are a 1 hour long average (LAeq(1hr) 35dB). The two criteria happen to share the same numerical value. The margin between the two will be larger where there are fewer trains over a period of one hour, and will be smaller where train movements increase, [as the average level increases and approaches (but will never meet) the maximum level]. Notwithstanding, I note that compliance with the FTA vibration limits should in most cases result in compliance with the FTA reradiated noise criteria, so the point becomes relatively moot from a design and compliance point of view. With respect to the assessment of noise effects, the FTA reradiated noise criteria are relatively low and if compliance with them is achieved the noise levels will be entirely reasonable. Section 6.3.2 of the MDA report also sets out the operational performance criteria from the FTA method. The Styles Report notes that: The values in Table 6.3.2 are derived from the imperial units based on VdB with a reference value of 1µin/sec as used in the FTA method. I confirm that the metric equivalents are appropriate to use but that the derivation of reradiated noise criteria as set out in the FTA method must be done using the original imperially-based VdB values. If compliance with the criteria set out in Table 6.3.2 is achieved, I consider that the vibration levels will be entirely reasonable and that the effects will be quite acceptable. The MDA Report provides a good background discussion of the criteria and the FTA method that I concur with. Section 8.2.4 of the MDA report discusses the effects on three receivers where the FTA limits may be exceeded, being Aotea Centre, Roundhead Studios and the TV3 Buildings. This section also acknowledges that there are other buildings in the Eden Terrace area that may experience vibration levels beyond the FTA criteria but that they are currently subject to “some degree” of train vibration from the NAL and that the operation of the CRL will not increase this. The Styles Group report concedes that the assessment of that point is “very light”, but agrees nonetheless.
Page 83 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
In terms of the three critical receivers, section 8.3.2 of the MDA Report sets out the mitigation that will be applied to the rail way lines and rolling stock that will “reduce” the effects. This mitigation consists of:
o Resilient rail fasteners;
o Continuously welded tracks; and
o Floating track slabs
The following assessment is taken from the Styles Group report in full to avoid the loss of any emphasis in translation or summary: The MDA Report does not appear to go so far as to state that the mitigation will afford compliance with the FTA criteria, nor does it provide any prediction of vibration levels that may be experienced following the application of mitigation. I acknowledge that the prediction of such levels is very complicated and fraught with uncertainties.
I consider it critical that the effects are well understood before the design is finalised and construction starts, and this requires some understanding of the level of vibration and reradiated noise that the receivers will experience. It is also critical that the effects are well understood at this time to inform the decision making process and conditions. Section 8.2.4 of the MDA Report states that ―Once mitigation is in place, sensitive receivers along the route may still perceive vibration or reradiated noise, but the levels are likely to be suitable for their building use and consistent with the existing ambient vibration environment‖ (emphasis added). I consider at this stage that the risk of vibration levels being higher than the FTA limits and indeed higher than what could be tolerated by very sensitive activities (such as studios or auditoria) is considerable, especially in the absence of the mitigation noted in section 8.3.2 of the MDA Report. Even with the mitigation proposed in that section there is insufficient certainty that the effect on the receivers will be tolerable. The cost of installing resilient rail fasteners, floating track slabs and (to a lesser extent) continuously welded tracks is significant. The cost of remediating an alignment where vibration is an issue, (once already operational) would likely be prohibitive when considering the direct financial costs and the downtime of an operational rail line during the upgrade. If the effects are to be adequately mitigated, Auckland Transport must take a conservative approach and install the mitigation necessary to achieve the FTA limits with a good degree of certainty. This is a balance of the following matters: i) The direct additional cost of the specific mitigation required to enable compliance; ii) When considering the uncertainties associated with vibration predictions of this nature, the risk of the measures being over-engineered and costing more than was necessary; iii) Conversely and taking account of the same uncertainties, the risk of not achieving the FTA criteria and/or a level that allows the sensitive activities to
Page 84 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
operate; and therefore iv) The cost of relocating those sensitive activities where (within the realms of practicability) physical mitigation alone cannot bring about vibration and/or reradiated noise levels that are sufficiently low to be reasonable in the receiving environment. It is my view therefore, that the degree of effects on the most sensitive receivers is uncertain; the MDA Report does not provide a sufficient degree of certainty that a reasonable level of vibration and/or reradiated noise will be achieved using the mitigation suggested. The continual maintenance of rolling stock and rail infrastructure will also be critical in maintaining an acceptable noise and vibration environment for the receivers, especially around curves in the alignment. I therefore firmly agree with the recommendation made at the end of section 8.3.2 of the MDA Report. On this last point, it is noted that the MDA report recommends that a ‗rolling stock maintenance protocol‘57 among other aspects of the rail network be implemented to manage the occurrence of wheel and track corrugations. It is considered that the appropriate maintenance of the CRL once operational (including rolling stock, rail tracks, mechanical ventilation at stations, audible warning devices, etc) will significantly aid maintaining compliance with AT‟s proposed Conditions 43 and 44 relating to the operational vibration and noise effects of the CRL. Overall, it is considered that the selection of limits for vibration and reradiated noise as they are set out in the MDA report are acceptable, and if compliance with these is achieved, the levels will be reasonable. The Styles Group report concludes: It is my view that for the vast majority of the route the criteria will be achieved. However there are several very sensitive receivers along the route for which compliance is not demonstrated with sufficient certainty in the MDA Report. TV3, Roundhead Studios and the Aotea Centre are all very sensitive receivers that are close to the alignment. Without any specific mitigation, the vibration levels at these receivers will likely be unreasonable. Some mitigation is proposed, comprising continuously welded track, floating slab track and resilient rail fasteners, but the MDA Report does not provide a set of predicted vibration levels following the installation of such measures, nor does it go so far as to state that compliance with the FTA criteria will be achieved. I consider that in order to assess the degree of effects arising from the proposal, it is necessary to understand what the vibration levels will be at these receivers, and / or whether Auckland Transport is committed to achieving a reasonable level, and if so what that level is going to be if not the FTA criteria. We adopt this conclusion, indeed as we have the Styles Group report, in its entirety. It would be useful if AT can provide further clarification of the above matter in terms of the identified sensitive receivers (Aotea Centre, Roundhead Studios, and TV3).
57 Marshall Day report, Section 8.3.2, page 39
Page 85 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
For completeness, we note that with the exception of the matters raised by MediaWorks in regard to the operation of their studios in Flower Street, we are satisfied that all matters raised in submissions relating to the operational noise and vibration effects of the CRL have been covered off in the preceding assessment. 9.4 Structural integrity
9.4.1 Introduction It has been identified that existing buildings, within the construction vibration threshold contours relating to the appropriate category as identified in the MDA report may be at risk of sustaining damage from vibration during construction and operation of the CRL. It is noted in that report however the damage criteria from DIN 4150-3:1999 are conservative and the anticipated effects should be limited to superficial damage such as cracking plaster, and the lengthening of existing cracks in brickwork. As concluded in section 9.2 above, it is considered that building damage resulting from construction vibration is able to be appropriately avoided or mitigated through adherence to the project criteria, the implementation of SSCVMPs where exceedences are anticipated, and ongoing monitoring and building condition surveys. In addition to the effects of construction vibration, existing buildings are also potentially at risk from ground settlement and movement during construction works. The CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects is supported by a Structural Engineer Technical Report58 (the Structural report), prepared by Aurecon, which addresses building structures along the CRL corridor that may be adversely affected by vibration and settlement effects, and undertakes a “high level” or preliminary assessment of the potential risk of structural damage to these buildings. Settlement caused by consolidation of soils due to groundwater drawdown or diversion is not explicitly covered in this report. It is noted that this matter will be the subject of future resource consents, and will be comprehensively assessed at that time.
9.4.2 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation
Vibration
The Structure report (section 7) provides a very brief review of the effects of vibration on the structural integrity of buildings along the CRL alignment. As noted in previous sections, Appendix A to the Structural report provides clear maps that identify the location of properties that will be subject to ongoing monitoring, including Building Condition Surveys before, during and after CRL construction works. Appendix A categorises the potentially affected buildings as either:
Built heritage
58 CRL AEE, Volume 3: Part 1, Appendix 10 (Structural Engineer Technical Report, prepared by Aurecon)
Page 86 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Residential buildings
Commercial buildings Section 7.4 of the Structural report defers to the MDA report and the Built Heritage report for the mitigation matters proposed by AT to address structural vibration effects. These matters have been addressed in sections 9.2 (Construction Noise and Vibration) and 9.11 (Built Heritage), and so will not be repeated here. Settlement The Structural report outlines the effects and risks on existing buildings along the CRL route at section 8.4.59 While the full detail of that section is not repeated here, the following buildings are noted as being subject to varying degrees of settlement effects arising either from cut-and-cover, tunnel bored, or mined excavation methods. The likely forms of damage are outlined in Table 7.2.1 of the Structural report. Lower Albert Street and Aotea Section
Bluestone wall (Albert Street), Slight to Moderate category effects (use of stiffer diaphragm wall or secant pile retention walls may assist to reduce the potential effects of settlement to the Slight category.
Extension of the CRL tracks under the former Central Post Office Building will require removal of several piles and introduction of temporary supports. Slight category effects predicted.
Buildings immediately adjacent to the Aotea Station excavation may experience Slight to Very Slight category effects. Mayoral Drive and Vincent Street
Effects on buildings in this zone generally Negligible to Very Slight category due to the tunnel boring beneath the road.
Eastern tunnel passes within 4-5 metres of Aotea Centre building at the north-west corner. Effects not expected to exceed Slight category.
Eastern tunnel to traverse directly beneath the zone of influence of the piled foundations to the Eclipse Apartment Building at 156 Vincent Street. Slight to Moderate category effects anticipated. Karangahape Road Station and Newton Station
The tunnels run at a considerable depth below ground here – effects on most buildings to be in the Negligible to Very Slight category.
Construction of the cut-and-cover shafts for Karangahape and Newton Stations will
59 CRL AEE, Volume 3: Part 1, Appendix 10 (Structural Engineer Technical Report, prepared by Aurecon), section 8.4, page 14
Page 87 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
have Slight to Moderate category effects on the older unreinforced masonry buildings in the areas, including the Mercury Theatre, Beresford Street, Pitt Street and Symonds Street. Newton Station to NAL
Generally Negligible to Slight category effects on buildings south of Newton Station.
One exception is the TV3 building on Flower Street, which sits directly over the mined length of the western tunnel. Detailed evaluation may be required for the more sensitive buildings where the tunnel depth is significantly reduced.
9.4.3 Submitter issues
A total of (6) submitters have expressed concerns about settlement effects on individual buildings. They are set out as follows:
Karanagahape Road Business Association (Submission 68): Karangahape Road buildings
New Zealand Historic Places Trust (Submission 72): The heritage buildings identified in the Built Heritage assessment.
St Patrick‟s Cathedral(Submission 87) : St Patrick‟s Cathedral and St Patrick‟s Presbytery
Stephen O‟Sullivan(Submission 216) : general comment on buildings
Edward Bennett(Submission 225): effects of settlement on 1870‟s brick residence at 81 Mt Eden Road
James Kirkpatrick Ltd(Submission 236) : notes that the settlement contour modelling submitted with the NoRs indicates a greater than 15mm differential settlement across the Albert Plaza (87-89 Albert Street) floor plate. Requests clarification of the types of effects that will have on Albert Plaza.
One submitter has raised a concern about the volcanic rock nature of Auckland with regard to structural effects on the tunnels.
9.4.4 Assessment and proposed mitigation
The effects of construction related vibration on buildings has been addressed in section 9.2 of this report, and so will not be repeated here. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd has provided a report on the geotechnical considerations (the T&T report) relating to the CRL, and have provided comment in terms of the effects of settlement arising from excavation works associated with the cut-and-cover and tunnel bored aspects of the CRL. A complete copy of the T&T report is included as Attachment G to this Report.
The T&T report notes that the Structural report is well thought out and at a level of detail
Page 88 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
appropriate for this stage of the Project. It is noted however that some of the key assumptions and parameters assumed for the computations of settlement have not been stated in the report, and subsequently Tonkin &Taylor Ltd have undertaken spot check calculations for critical locations, based upon the available information, and experience with similar projects. In terms of settlements associated with the cut-and-cover works, the T&T report concludes: …the spot checks plots well within the report envelopes (i.e. more favourable than report profile). We conclude that the settlement contours for the cut-and-cover segments are reasonably conservative, though obviously actual settlements will depend on design (stiffness of support) and construction quality. With regard to the settlements over the bored tunnels, the T&T report notes: The Settlement Principles Report (Appendix E) explains that the settlement trough above a TBM depends on the total ―volume loss‖, which is made up of three components: Face loss, Shield loss and Post-Shield loss. However, the assumed values have not been stated... Normally one would allow for greater volume loss at this stage of a project, as investigation of ground conditions, design and construction methods have not progressed far. However, taking account of the following factors, we consider that these values are realistic:
An earth pressure balance (EPB) TBM is able to control face loss and, to some extent, the tail loss.
The stand-up properties of the typical East Coast Bays Formation (ECBF) sediments are favourable so that collapse of ground onto the tunnel is not likely.
Experience from the Vector Tunnel construction suggests negligible volume loss (effectively zero), though for smaller and deeper tunnel. The exceptions could be where unexpected conditions arise, for example if uncemented sands within the ECBF are encountered. Experience with the Singapore MRT construction (Sinclair et al, 1988) showed that localised ‗spikes‘ in settlement can occur at unexpected defects in rock and at changes in work conditions (e.g. at cross passages and joins with stations). We conclude that the settlement contours for the bored tunnel alignment are reasonable but not conservative and appear to rely on the TBM being operated in pressure balance mode at all times. There should be a realisation that unexpected conditions could lead to localised increased settlements over short distances and that excavation in open mode (within pressure balance) may lead to increased settlements. AT has acknowledged that certain levels of adverse effects to buildings along the CRL alignment are likely to arise through the settlement of ground resulting from cut-and-
Page 89 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
cover excavation works and tunnel boring. As discussed above, these properties are identified within Appendices A and B to the Structural report. The properties include those built heritage properties identified through the Salmond Reed built heritage report, discussed in more detail in Section 9.11 below). These effects have been stated as being in the Negligible to Slight categories generally, although some buildings may experience Moderate category effects. In all case, these physical effects are expected to be cosmetic in nature rather than structural, and should be able to be appropriately avoided or mitigated. While some mitigation measures are provided in the Structural report, it is only with further detailed design and engineering investigations that the most appropriate methods will be determined.
AT also acknowledge significant further engineering investigations are required through the establishment of detailed design, and have offered ongoing monitoring of vibration through the construction phase, as well as building condition surveys of all buildings identified in Appendices A and B of the Structural report. In this regard, AT‟s proposed condition 40 identifies that any building for which the project vibration criteria are likely to be exceeded shall be subject to monitoring to determine whether building damage has resulted. Overall, it is considered that the proposed methods will identify all potentially adversely affected receivers of settlement effects, and will appropriately manage those effects.
For completeness, it is noted that the preceding discussion addressed the submission matters relating to ground settlement. 9.5 Transport Networks and Traffic Management
9.5.1 Introduction
There are a number of potential adverse and positive effects associated with the transport networks and traffic management associated with both the construction and operation of the CRL. Potential positive effects are predominately associated with the operation of the CRL and include:
Enabling the entire Auckland city centre to be within a 10 minute walk of a railway station.
Improving transport choices in and around the Auckland city centre. Potential adverse effects are associated with the construction of the CRL and include temporary road closures and the generation of high volumes of truck movements associated with earthworks. The following assessment is primarily informed by the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects, the CRL Integrated Transport Assessment (and City Rail Link Supplementary Report Traffic Modelling of Alternative Construction Scenarios), and the Technical Specialist Report on Traffic Matters.
Page 90 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.5.2 Relevant plan provisions
9.5.2.1 Auckland City District Plan – Central Section
Objective 9.2.1: To ensure that people can move easily around the Central Area. Policies:
By providing for safe, attractive, efficient and identifiable linkages, networks and environments for vehicles, including bicycles and pedestrians.
By reducing conflict between pedestrians and vehicles, and particularly in those parts identified in the Plan as pedestrian-orientated areas.
By integrating pedestrian walkways with the passenger transport network.
By ensuring that the vehicular and pedestrian systems are legible and well signposted.
Objective 9.2.2: To maintain accessibility to and from the Central Area. Policies:
By giving greater priority to passenger transport and service traffic where appropriate.
By acknowledging the limited capacity of the road system.
By adopting techniques to discourage traffic in areas where it would have significant adverse environmental effects.
By controlling activities where this is necessary to ensure efficient road operation.
By providing for, protecting and enhancing the roading system to ensure its long term sustainability for efficient vehicular movement.
By providing for future road works to improve the roading system.
By encouraging the establishment of cycle facilities and cycle ways.
By providing for the efficient and safe movement of pedestrians. Objective 9.2.2: To provide for the development of improved passenger transport to, from and within the Central Area.
Policies:
By improving passenger transport facilities.
By providing for an integrated passenger transport facility that incorporates alternative transport modes.
By giving priority to passenger transport and service traffic, where appropriate
Page 91 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
By promoting passenger transport as an alternative means of commuter travel.
By encouraging passenger transport use through managing the provision of ancillary and non-ancillary commuter parking as a means of contributing to the attractiveness of the Central Area as a place to work, conduct business, live and visit.
9.5.2.2 Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section Objective 12.3.1: To manage the use and development of the City‘s transportation resources in a way that promotes the protection and enhancement of the City‘s environment. Policies:
By supporting and promoting a transportation system designed and managed to encourage the efficient use of energy.
By recognising and providing for the interdependence between transportation and the efficiency of other activities.
By supporting the creation of an efficient public transport network which provides an integrated system, with appropriate levels of convenience and service.
By minimising the adverse local environmental effects of proposed new roads and other additions to the City‘s transportation network.
By adopting planning techniques to discourage traffic in areas where it would have significant adverse environmental effects. Objective 12.3.2: To improve access, ease and safety of movement within the City, while ensuring that adequate provision is made for the various transport needs of the region.
Policies:
By improving the capacity and safety of existing facilities through the use of appropriate traffic management techniques.
By controlling access and the intensity of use along particular roads, so as to ensure both vehicle and pedestrian safety.
By giving priority to service traffic where appropriate.
By improving passenger transport infrastructures where appropriate.
By recognising the need for effective public transport and for catering for people without cars.
By enhancing public and personal safety through reducing opportunities for crime to occur through appropriate design and management of transportation facilities.
A review of the relevant objectives and policies of the Auckland City and Isthmus District
Page 92 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Plans identifies that there is a generally supporting framework for the CRL. The policy frameworks support the principle of public transport and the benefits that it provides such as reducing congestion and making the central city more accessible. In addition to this, the policy framework also clearly recognises the need to manage the potential adverse effects associated with the provision of new transport infrastructure.
9.5.3 Overview of submitter issues
With regards to the transport network and traffic, it is considered that the most significant issues raised through submission relate to:
Impacts on access to properties (especially Albert Street);
A significant number of submitters raised concerns regarding the potential for adverse effects on the transport network as a result of construction works (e.g. inconvenience, increased congestion).; and
A significant number of submitters identified the positive effects provided by the operation of the CRL such as the potential reduction in congestion.
9.5.4 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation
An Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) has been prepared by Flow Transportation Specialists to support the City Rail Link NoR. The ITA assessed the actual and potential road transport effects, both positive and adverse, and identifies those that are permanent (likely to continue during operation) and temporary (generally will occur during the construction period). A further report (City Rail Link Supplementary Report Traffic Modelling of Alternative Construction Scenarios) was also provided by AT on 22 May 2013.
Table 7.5 of the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects provides details of the identified actual and potential effects associated with the CRL NoR by identifying 16 separate “Road Transport Effects” (RTEs). The CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects then goes on to provide a number of recommended methods for managing these effects. With regards to the RTE‟s we generally agree with the range of effects identified and thus for the purpose of this section of the Report, we follow the same structure and assess the road transport effects by considering each RTE individually along with the submissions that relate to that particular effect.
9.5.5 Operational – RTE 1 (positive effects)
Increased use of public transport:
Increase in rail patronage (assisted by increases in reliability and frequency) will result in decreased congestion in the local and wider road network for those who continue to use roads.
Will assist in more people making a choice to use rail or public buses.
Page 93 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.5.5.1 Submitter issues
A number of submitters have submitted in support of this potential positive effect noting the likely positive effects the CRL could have in terms of increasing public transport patronage by providing a more efficient network.
9.5.5.2 Discussion RTE 1 identifies potential positive effects associated with the operation of RTE 1 which is supported by a number of submitters and. It is also noted that the benefits that the CRL could provide (in the context of this RTE) are generally supported by the relevant operative policy framework.
9.5.6 Operational – RTE 2 (positive effects)
Reduction in the growth of congestion on the roads in the city centre area:
Increased modal choice along with an increase in rail service reliability and frequency is anticipated to move people from private vehicles to using train, thus assisting to decrease congestion on city centre roads.
9.5.6.1 Submitter issues A number of submitters have submitted in support of this potential positive effect noting the likely positive effects the CRL could have in terms of increasing modal choice and decreasing congestion on city centre roads.
9.5.6.2 Discussion
RTE 2 identifies potential positive effects associated with the operation of RTE 2 which is supported by a number of submitters. It is also noted that the benefits that the CRL could provide (in the context of this RTE) are generally supported by the relevant operative policy framework.
9.5.7 Operational – RTE 3 (positive effects)
Grade separation of existing level crossings over rail at Normanby Road and Porters Avenue resulting in the following positive effects:
Create road network benefits for cars, pedestrians, cyclists.
Improved safety and mobility for rail, and vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists across the rail corridor.
9.5.7.1 Submitter issues No submitters identified the above potential positive effects.
Page 94 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.5.7.2 Discussion
RTE 3 recognises that there are positive effects associated with the grade separation of Porters Avenue and Normanby Road. It is also noted that the benefits that the CRL could provide (in the context of this RTE) are generally supported by the relevant operative policy framework.
9.5.8 Operation – RTE 4 (adverse effects)
Grade separation of existing level crossings over rail at Normanby Road and Porters Avenue resulting in:
Changes to intersection layouts;
Changes to property access;
Confusion and unfamiliarity regarding altered road network;
Driver confusion.
9.5.8.1 Proposed mitigation As per the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects, the following methods to manage adverse effects are proposed:
Clear signage of the changes at Normanby Road, Boston Road, Nugent Street, Fenton Street.
Advertising campaign by AT following completion of the works detailing the changes and the new grade separated roads.
The realigned road will be designed to meet AT standards.
9.5.8.2 Submitter issues No submitters raised concern with the operation effects of the grade separation of existing level crossings over rail at Normanby Road and Porters Avenue. However a number of submitters raise concerns regarding impacts on the local road network and access to properties caused during construction. The impact of the construction of the grade separations is discussed under RTE 14.
9.5.8.3 Discussion
The grade separation of existing level crossings over rail at Normanby Road and Porters Avenue are identified in the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects as having a number of potential (operational) adverse effects mainly associated with creating confusion for motorists by changing the road network. In terms of mitigation, the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects proposes (primarily) education of road users through both an advertising campaign and the provision of clear signage. This is
Page 95 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
considered to be an appropriate approach to managing these potential adverse effects. However, these measures are not reflected in AT‟s proposed conditions. It is therefore suggested that Condition 8(i) be amended to require the Communication and Consultation Plan to include methods for communicating and consulting with road users in advance of any permanent changes to road networks and layouts. It is considered that recommended condition 8 (as amended) provides for the proposed mitigation by requiring AT to: inform the community of construction progress and future activities and constraints that could affect them. In addition to the above, it is assumed that such advertising campaigns and provision of signage would be provided for through ATs general procedures as the road controlling authority. It would be of assistance if this could be confirmed by AT.
9.5.9 Operational and Construction - RTE 6 (adverse effects)
Closure of Beresford Street to through traffic thus preventing through traffic between Beresford Street and Pitt Street.
9.5.9.1 Proposed mitigation As per the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects, the following methods to manage adverse effects are proposed:
The principles developed under the UDF will provide the basis for reinstating, including the pedestrian connections and amenity.
9.5.9.2 Submitter issues One submitter raised concerns regarding the potential adverse effects on the operation of the road network associated with the above potential adverse effect seeking alternative construction methods to avoid the potential adverse effects.
9.5.9.3 Discussion The closure of Beresford Street is considered to be desirable in the context of creating a pedestrian safe environment around the Karangahape Station entrance. The CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects notes that the closure of Beresford Street will prevent through traffic (through Beresford Street). The ITA60 notes that effects of construction (at Beresford Street) on pedestrians and cyclists are expected to be minor and the effects on private vehicles negligible as access into Beresford Street from Pitt Street is currently closed, allowing traffic only to exit onto Pitt Street.
It is unclear from the ITA whether the long term operational effects of closing Beresford Street have been considered. Further comment from AT on this matter would be useful to determine whether the operational effects of closing Beresford Street have been
60 Page 93
Page 96 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
considered, and what (if any) approaches are proposed to manage any potential adverse effects. It is likely, for instance, that closing through-traffic from Beresford Street on to Pitt Street will improve traffic (multi-modal) safety on Pitt Street, in particular for pedestrians and cyclists. However, operational implications at the intersection of Beresford St and Hopetoun Street need also to be considered during and post-construction. The CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects identifies that the principles developed under the UDF will provide the basis for reinstating, including the pedestrian connections and amenity. Proposed Condition 33 requires the inclusion within the Urban Design and Landscape Plan of restoration plans detailing how Beresford Square and Street will be restored upon completion of construction. Proposed Condition 33 is considered likely to be adequate to ensure the restoration of Beresford Square and Street. With regard to the point raised by a submitter regarding the consideration of alternative construction methods Section 6.5 of this Report discusses the adequacy of the alternatives assessment.
9.5.10 Construction – RTE 7 (adverse effects)
General effects caused by temporary road closures, reduction in road lanes/capacity.
Reduction in vehicle mobility;
Increase congestion;
Confusion for road users;
Inconvenience for pedestrians;
Reduction in on street parking.
9.5.10.1 Proposed mitigation As per the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects, the following methods to manage adverse effects are proposed:
The ability to stage construction where it occurs on public roads.
Construction works are temporary;
AT may encourage public transport;
The inclusion of appropriate measures in the CEMP, Road Network and Transportation DWP, and the Communication and Consultation Plan.
9.5.10.2 Submitter issues
A number of submitters raise issues specifically regarding RTE 7. However, a far greater number of submitters raise concerns regarding localised construction effects.
Page 97 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
These are discussed further below on an area by area basis.
Concerns raised by submitters regarding RTE 7 include:
A lack of understanding of the scale and impact of potential adverse effects associated with construction of the CRL; and
Concern regarding the potential impact on road networks.
9.5.10.3 Discussion RTE 7 refers to the general effects to the transport network associated with designations 1, 4, 5 and 6. In terms of proposed mitigation, the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects identifies measures as identified above in 9.5.10.1. It is considered that, in terms of mitigation, proposed Condition 16 is relevant as it requires the CEMP to:
Identify routes for construction related trucks;
Identify proposed temporary road closures (including partial closures), alternative routes etc. and to provide detail regarding how they have been selected;
Provide comment on how disruption to the use of private property will be mitigated;
Provide details regarding how disruption to the use of the road network will be mitigated; and
Cross reference to the Communications and Consultation Plan regarding adverse effects on the transport network. As identified in the ITA, there are likely to be a significant number of construction related vehicle movements associated with the construction of the CRL. For example, in the worst case scenario, the ITA identifies that up to 667 truck movements per day will be generated at the Eden Terrace Tunnel Portal and NAL connection (for the exportation of fill).61 At this point in time, little detail is provided regarding how the adverse effects associated with these truck movements will be managed. For example, until the CEMP is prepared, it is unknown what routes construction related trucks will use and thus who (or what properties) will be affected by them.
In terms of the existing relevant district plan policy direction, the following policies are considered relevant: Auckland City District Plan (Central Area):
By adopting techniques to discourage traffic in areas where it would have significant adverse environmental effects.
61 Page 97 – City Rail Link Integrated Transport Assessment
Page 98 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
By controlling activities where this is necessary to ensure efficient road operation.
By providing for the efficient and safe movement of pedestrians.
Auckland City District Plan (Isthmus section):
By adopting planning techniques to discourage traffic in areas where it would have significant adverse environmental effects.
By minimising the adverse local environmental effects of proposed new roads and other additions to the City‘s transportation network.
Recommendation: Given the scale of potential construction related vehicle movements and the associated risk of potential adverse effects and noting that a number of submitters are concerned regarding the lack of certainty of associated effects, it is recommended that AT provide further detail regarding how the adverse effects associated with construction traffic will be managed. This will assist Auckland Council in determining whether proposed mitigation is acceptable or not. Notwithstanding the provision of such information, it is considered that a precautionary approach to this matter would be to set limits on construction related traffic movements where deemed necessary through conditions regarding:
Limiting the number of vehicle movements per day;
Limiting the hours of vehicle movements to manage potential congestion on the transport network;
Controlling the routes available to construction related traffic movements. Proposed Condition 16 also identifies consultation with the community and stakeholders regarding construction works as a form of mitigation. It is considered that the recommended changes to Condition 8 and the inclusion of a new condition, Condition 6B will ensure appropriate consultation is undertaken prior to and during construction.
9.5.11 Construction – RTE 8 (adverse effects) Britomart to Aotea Station – localised effects from temporary road closures, reduction in road lanes/capacity.
Reduction in vehicle mobility;
Increase congestion;
Confusion for road users;
Reduction in on street parking.
Page 99 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.5.11.1 Proposed mitigation
As per the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects, the following methods to manage adverse effects are proposed:
The CEMP and Road Network and Transportation DWP for this area will include measures to (amongst others):62 o Maintain the accessibility to this area as a priority for: public transport (buses), emergency services, access to properties, pedestrians, courier and delivery vehicles; o Relocating of any public bus routes and bus stops;
o Identify the method for maintaining access for buses along Customs and Quay Street; o Maintain vehicle access through the Albert Street / Customs Street intersection at all times during the construction of the two tunnels; o Not reduce the capacity of the east / west vehicle links (Customs, Victoria, Wellesley Streets) at the same time as a result of the construction works occurring along Albert Street; o Setting up traffic diversions where practical and available; o Alter the phasing of signalised intersections to assist with maintaining traffic movements; o Maintain a pedestrian walkway through the Queen Elisabeth 2 Square / Lower Queen Street area at all times during the construction period;
o Provide for alternate cycle routes away from the Albert Street construction works.
Works will be undertaken in a staged approach so that at least one lane of traffic is maintained at all times (note: it is unclear which roads are being referred to).
Include measures in the Communications and Consultation Plan for the construction period which addresses the points above.
9.5.11.2 Submitter issues
A significant number of submitters raise concerns regarding adverse effects associated with this RTE. These include:
Adverse effects on the local transport network from construction activities; and
Adverse effects regarding access to properties (mainly commercial, community
62 Page 145 – CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects
Page 100 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
facilities, hotels and residential).
9.5.11.3 Discussion The CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects identifies that that the cut and cover construction works on Queen Street, Queen Elisabeth 2 Square (QE2 square) and Albert Street will impact on the transport network and notes a number of other actual and potential effects. In summary, the potential adverse effects relate to disruption to the transport network and disruption to access to properties. In terms of methods to manage adverse effects, the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects identifies a number of key methods that should be included in the CEMP for this area including (but not limited to) those methods identified in 9.5.11.1 above. The CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects identifies maintaining access to properties is a priority to ensure the management of adverse effects but is silent on what degree of access should be maintained to ensure the appropriate management of adverse effects. A number of submitters raise concerns regarding access to properties, particularly along Albert Street. The types of properties referred to in the submissions vary and include commercial buildings, offices, residences and hotels which all have different access requirements. Proposed Condition 17 requires the retention of pedestrian and cycle access to private property at all times. However, vehicle access to properties is only proposed to be retained as practicably as possible, recognising that temporary closures (where landowners and occupiers have been communicated with in reasonable advance) will be required. In addition, along Albert Street, limited access (e.g. left in left out only) is proposed.
In terms of the existing relevant district plan policy direction, the following policies are considered relevant: Auckland City District Plan (Central Area):
By adopting techniques to discourage traffic in areas where it would have significant adverse environmental effects.
By controlling activities where this is necessary to ensure efficient road operation.
By providing for the efficient and safe movement of pedestrians.
Auckland City District Plan (Isthmus section):
By adopting planning techniques to discourage traffic in areas where it would have significant adverse environmental effects.
By minimising the adverse local environmental effects of proposed new roads and other additions to the City‘s transportation network. Recommendation: Taking into account the above, there are a number of matters that we consider require further clarification/explanation from AT prior to considering whether proposed mitigation is appropriate. These are:
Page 101 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
How “temporary loss of vehicle access” is defined and and how the sensitive nature of particular landuses is taken into account. E.g. a loss of vehicle access to commercial property can be particularly detrimental. Whether AT is proposing to provide alternative access options including providing temporary parking provision for adversely affected parties during construction.
The CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects recommends that the Albert Street/Custom Street intersection should retain vehicle access through it at all times during the construction of the CRL to ensure the management of adverse effects on the transport network. This is taken to mean that the Albert Street/Custom Street intersection should remain unaffected (in terms of traffic flows etc.) at all times.
The ITA notes that: restrictions at the intersections serving the major east-west routes crossing Albert Street (Customs Street, Victoria Street and Wellesley Street) are to be phased to reduce the potential adverse effects to east-west traffic movements. For example, works on these three intersections are to be undertaken one at a time and the works will encroach on one quadrant of the intersection affected at a time.63 The above recommendation of the ITA states that no more than one of the three intersections should be affected (i.e. operate at a reduced capacity) at any time and it is assumed that this is considered to constitute maintaining accessibility in this area. Unlike the recommendation in the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects the ITA does not require the Customs Street / Albert Street intersection to remain open at all times. There appears to be some confusion regarding how the Customs Street / Albert Street intersection will be affected and should be managed during construction. In terms of the existing relevant district plan policy direction, the following policies are considered relevant: Auckland City District Plan (Central Area):
By adopting techniques to discourage traffic in areas where it would have significant adverse environmental effects.
By controlling activities where this is necessary to ensure efficient road operation.
By providing for the efficient and safe movement of pedestrians.
Auckland City District Plan (Isthmus section):
By adopting planning techniques to discourage traffic in areas where it would have significant adverse environmental effects.
63 Page 7 – Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement) : Integrated Transport Assessment
Page 102 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
By minimising the adverse local environmental effects of proposed new roads and other additions to the City‘s transportation network. In this context, we also note that proposed Condition 17(a) requires: 1) Customs Street intersection with Albert Street to not be fully closed while either the intersections of Victoria or Wellesley Streets with Albert Street are fully closed; and 2) Victoria and Wellesley Street intersections with Albert Street to not be fully closed at the same time.
The above condition will ensure that at least two out of the three intersections with Albert Street will not be fully closed at the same time during construction. However, the condition is silent as to whether the Customs Street / Albert Street intersection will remain open at all times as recommended in the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects. We also note that the City Rail Link Supplementary Report: Traffic Modelling of Alternative Construction Scenarios (ITA addendum) suggests that: Full closure of intersections along Albert Street may be acceptable from a traffic/transport perspective, but no more than one of the three main intersections (Wellesley Street, Victoria Street and Customs Street) should be closed at any one time. This appears to support AT‟s proposed Condition 17(a), however the ITA addendum suggests that it may be acceptable from a traffic//transport perspective for full closure of intersections. Recommendation:
It would be helpful for AT to provide further clarification regarding the following: 1) Whether it is it necessary to ensure that the Customs Street / Albert Street intersection remains fully operational at all times to ensure the appropriate management of effects associated with the construction of the CRL. 2) The proposed staging of works and associated road network management associated with the operation of the three intersections and what management of the intersections is required to achieve the recommendations of the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects. 3) Whether a condition is necessary that requires the Customs Street and Albert Street intersection to remain fully operational at all times during construction of the CRL. Proposed Condition 16 also identifies consultation with the community and stakeholders regarding construction works as a form of mitigation. It is considered that the recommended changes to Condition 8 and the inclusion of a new condition, Condition 6B will ensure appropriate consultation is undertaken prior to and during construction.
Page 103 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.5.12 Construction – RTE 10 (adverse effects)
Britomart and Aotea Station – construction vehicle movements to and from the localised construction areas.
9.5.12.1 Proposed mitigation As per the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects, the following methods to manage adverse effects are proposed:
Implementation of the CEMP and the Road Network and Transportation DWP for management of the construction sites associated with the construction of Britomart and Aotea Station.
9.5.12.1.1 Submitter issues
Whilst no submitter referred specifically to this RTE, a number of submitters raised concern regarding potential adverse effects associated with the movement of construction related vehicles.
9.5.12.1.2 Discussion
The CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects identifies that up to 256 truck movements per day (for an unspecified time) could be generated to export fill from the construction site (meaning 512 truck movements per day in total) associated with the Britomart and Aotea Stations. This is refined further within the ITA which notes that this could mean approximately (up to) 26 trucks per hour64 to export fill (or 52 truck movements per hour).
It is unclear how the effects associated with these truck movements will be managed. For example, it is unclear where fill will be taken from the construction site, and what transport routes will affected by heavy vehicle movements associated with this construction site. See Section 9.5.10.3 above for further comment.
9.5.13 Construction – RTE 11
Karangahape Station – localised effects from temporary road closures / reduction in road lanes/capacity (adverse effects).
9.5.13.1 Proposed mitigation As per the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects, the following methods to manage
64 Page 89 – Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Integrated Transport Assessment
Page 104 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
adverse effects are proposed (amongst others):65
Implementation of the CEMP and the Road Network and Transportation DWP for road closure management. The CEMP and Road Network and Transportation DWP for this area need to give consideration to measures to o Maintain at least two operating traffic lanes on Pitt St during the construction of the main shaft between the surface and the platform levels. o Maintain or provide alternative accessibility to this area as a priority for: public transport (buses), emergency services, access to properties, pedestrians, courier and delivery vehicles. o Temporarily relocate any public bus routes and bus stops; o Set up traffic diversions where practical and available.
o How all work in the area can be undertaken using a staged approach so that at least one lane of traffic is maintained at all times.
Include measures in the Communications and Consultation Plan for the construction period which addresses the points above.
9.5.13.2 Submitter issues
A number of submission points relate to this RTE. Matters of concern primarily relate to the impact on access to properties.
9.5.13.3 Discussion
The CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects identifies a number of methods required to manage adverse effects associated with works around the Karangahape Station66 including: The CEMP for this area will give consideration to measures to: How all work in the area can be undertaken using a staged approach so that at least one lane of traffic is maintained at all times.
The CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects identifies that there is the potential for adverse effects caused by the temporary closure of roads associated with works around Karangahape Station. In summary, the potential adverse effects relate to disruption to the transport network and disruption to access to properties. In terms of methods to manage adverse effects, the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects identifies a number of key methods that should be included in the CEMP for this
65 Page 151 – CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects
66 Page 151 – City Rail Link Notice of Requirement: Assessment of Environmental Effects
Page 105 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
area including (but not limited to) those methods identified in 9.5.13.1 above. Condition 18 proposed by AT applies to this RTE and Condition 18(a) requires the retention of at least one lane of traffic on Pitt Street (unless otherwise agreed with the Auckland Council Consent Monitoring officer). This is considered appropriate to achieve the recommendation of the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects. It is also important to understand and as far as practicable manage vehicle movements related to the CRL construction with those vehicle movements (in particular heavy- vehicles) associated with other construction sites which may be active at the same time as CRL sites. This can be addressed at a future date through the relevant management plans closer to the time of construction. The impact on local roads must also be better understood and managed appropriately, both in terms of actual traffic intensity as well as impact on the road loading; i.e. it is unclear which routes the trucks will follow, and therefore it is not possible to determine which roads need to be upgraded to cope with heavy vehicles loading and what remedial works would also be required post- construction. See Section 9.5.11.3 above for comments regarding access to properties.
9.5.14 Construction – RTE 12
Karangahape Station – construction vehicle movements to and from the localised construction site resulting in numerous adverse effects.
9.5.14.1 Proposed mitigation Implementation of the CEMP and the Road Network and Transportation DWP for management of the construction sites associated with the construction of Karangahape Station.
9.5.14.2 Submitter issues No submitter raised concerns regarding this particular RTE, however a number of submitters raised concerns regarding potential adverse effects associated with construction activities around Karangahape Station.
9.5.14.2.1 Discussion
The CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects identifies that up to 94 truck movements per day (for an unspecified time) could be required for the export of fill from the construction site (meaning up to 188 truck movements per day in total) associated with the Karangahape Station. This is refined further within the ITA which notes that this could mean approximately (up to) 9 trucks per hour67 to export fill (or 18 truck movements in total).
67 Page 93 – Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Integrated Transport Assessment
Page 106 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
It is unclear how the effects associated with these truck movements will be managed. For example, it is unclear where fill will be taken from the construction site, and what transport routes will affected by heavy vehicle movements associated with this construction site.
See Section 9.5.10.3 above for further comment regarding the movement of construction vehicles.
9.5.15 Construction – RTE13 (adverse effects)
Newton Station - localised effects from temporary road closures/reduction in road lanes/capacity.
9.5.15.1 Proposed mitigation
Implementation of the CEMP and the Road Network and Transportation DWP for management of the construction sites associated with the construction of Newton Station.
Effects on freight routes in this area are considered to be acceptable with the implementation of the measures set out in the CEMP and DWP‟s for the management of effects on the road network during the construction period.
Include measures in the Communications and Consultation Plan for the construction period which includes communication to emergency services and the local community on construction activity and likely truck / construction vehicle movements.
9.5.15.2 Submitter issues
No submitter raised concerns regarding this particular RTE, however a number of submitters raised concerns regarding potential adverse effects associated with construction activities around Newton Station.
9.5.15.3 Discussion The ITA identifies that up to 100 truck movements per day (for an unspecified time) could be required to export fill (or 200 truck movements in total), could be required for the construction site associated with the Newton Station. This is refined further within the ITA which notes that this could mean approximately (up to) 10 trucks per hour to export fill68 (or 20 truck movements in total).
It is unclear how the effects associated with these truck movements will be managed. For example, it is unclear where fill will be taken from the construction site, and what transport routes will affected by heavy vehicle movements associated with this construction site.
68 Page 94 – Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Integrated Transport Assessment
Page 107 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
See Section 9.5.10.3 above for further comment regarding the movement of construction vehicles.
9.5.16 Construction – RTE 14 (adverse effects)
Main construction site area – localised effects from temporary road closures / reduction in road lanes/capacity.
9.5.16.1 Proposed mitigation As per the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects, the following methods to manage adverse effects are proposed (amongst others)69:
Implementation of the CEMP for road closure management
Set up traffic diversions where practical and available.
Works will be undertaken in a staged approach so that at least one lane of traffic (it is unspecified which roads) is maintained at all times.
Access to properties located in Ngahura Street will be maintained during the construction period.
Include measures in the Communications and Consultation Plan for the construction period which addresses the points above.
9.5.16.2 Submitter issues A number of submission points (approximately 14) relate to this RTE. Issues identified include effects associated with construction (including access to properties and effects on the transport network).
9.5.16.2.1 Discussion
The ITA identifies that up to 667 truck movements per day, six days a week (for an unspecified time) could be required for the export of fill (or 1,334 movements both in and out) from this construction site. This is refined further within the ITA which notes that this could mean approximately (up to) 67 trucks per hour for the exportation of fill70 (or 134 truck movements in total). It is unclear how the effects associated with these truck movements will be managed. . For example, it is unclear where fill will be taken from the construction site, and what transport routes will affected by heavy vehicle movements associated with this construction site.
69 Page 155 – CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects
70 Page 97 – Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Integrated Transport Assessment
Page 108 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
See Section 9.5.10.3 above for further comment regarding the movement of construction vehicles.
9.5.17 Construction – RTE 15 (adverse effects) and RTE 16
Replacement of Mt Eden Road bridge and the grade separation of Normanby Road – localised effects from temporary road closures / reduction in road lanes/capacity (adverse effects).
The grade separation of Porters Avenue - localised effects from temporary road closures / reduction in road lanes/capacity (adverse effects).
9.5.17.1 Proposed mitigation
As per the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects, the following methods to manage adverse effects are proposed (amongst others)71:
Implementation of the CEMP and the Road Network and Transportation DWP for road closure management. The CEMP and Road Network and Transportation DWP for this area will give consideration to and identify measures to: o Retain at least two traffic lanes (one in either direction) on Mt Eden Road during the construction of the main shaft between the surface and the platform levels and construction of the grade separation structure. o Maintain the accessibility along Mt Eden and Normanby Roads a priority for: public transport (buses), emergency services, access to properties, pedestrians, and cyclists. o Undertake the grade separation of Porters Ave at a time when vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists can be managed and accommodated on Dominion Road, Mt Eden Road and Normanby Avenue to an extent which minimises where possible and practical delays to travel journeys from congestion on these roads resulting from CRL construction works. o The management of the construction works to provide for full accessibility to those parts of Porters Avenue not affected but in the vicinity of the construction works and closed road.
Include measures in the Communications and Consultation Plan for the construction period which addresses the points above.
Include specific measures in the Communications and Consultation Plan for the construction period which addresses the communication and liaison to be undertaken in relation to property access associated with the grade separation of Normanby Road over the rail corridor.
71 Page 157 – CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects
Page 109 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.5.17.2 Submitter issues
One submitter (the Department of Corrections) raised concerns regarding RTE15. Key issues related to retention of access to Mt Eden prison. One submitter raised concern regarding RTE 16. Again, key issues related to the retention of access to property.
9.5.17.3 Discussion The CDR indicated that the track, grade separation and bridge replacement works will involve closure of Porters Avenue, Normanby Road and Mt Eden Road. These road closures are proposed to be staged so that only one crossing point is being worked on at any one time. It is noted that the traffic model used in the ITA cuts off immediately south of the NAL. Both Normanby Road and Mt Eden Road are relatively busy roads and any route diversions will put pressure on these routes particularly during the AM and PM peak periods, however it is unclear whether this area of the road network has been considered as part of the traffic model and thus whether potential effects on the road network are adequately understood. It would be useful if AT could provide further comment regarding the adequacy of the traffic model in this regard.
AT‟s proposed Condition 20 requires the CEMP to include information regarding how construction works can be undertaken in a manner that will mitigate congestion of the local road network including:
Which routes are to be used by construction trucks;
Retention of at least two traffic lanes on Mt Eden Road during the replacement of the Mt Eden Road bridge;
Undertaking the grade separation of Porters Avenue at a time when vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists can be managed and accommodated on other roads to an extent which mitigates where possible delays to journeys;
Undertaking the grade separation of Normanby Road at a time when vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists can be managed and accommodated either on a temporary level railway crossing located within the designation footprint or on other roads to an extent which mitigates where possible delays to journeys;
Providing details of the timing and sequencing of temporary road lane reductions and or closures. See Section 9.5.16.2.1 above in respect of the discussion regarding construction trucks within this area.
To provide for the grade separation of Porters Avenue and Normanby Road and to replace Mt Eden bridge will likely result in adverse effects on the ability to cross the NAL within the local proximity. As per the ITA, the proposed works are expected to include the following temporary traffic management measures which are all likely to have associated adverse effects on the transport network and access to property:
Page 110 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
The closure of Ngahura Street during construction. The diversion of traffic from the Porters Avenue level crossing to a temporary level crossing while grade separation is constructed. Closure of the Onslow Road pedestrian bridge to allow access to the site. The restriction of road widths on Haultain Street and Fenton Street. The narrowing of lanes on Dominion Road during construction of the rail line works below. Restrictions on Sandringham Road to allow the modification of the rail overbridge. Restriction of traffic on the Mount Eden Road rail overbridge to construct the eastern connection to the NAL. Diversion of traffic to a temporary level crossing while the Normanby Road level crossing is grade separated, similarly to allow the eastern connection to the NAL72. RTE 15 and 16 involve significant works in three distinct areas of the road network. In this regard, the staging of proposed works is considered to be of significant importance in terms of managing associated adverse effects. AT‟s proposed Condition 20 requires the CEMP to provide details of how the grade separation of Porters Ave can be undertaken at a time when vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists can be managed and accommodated on Dominion Road, Mt Eden Road and Normanby Road. However it is considered that further details regarding the proposed staging of works and methods to manage adverse effects are needed in order to determine whether additional restrictions regarding the staging of the proposed works are required. In the absence of such information it is recommended that a precautionary approach be adopted and that a condition be imposed to requiring as a minimum methods to be included in the CEMP to ensure these works are undertaken sequentially Refer amendments to Condition 20(b). It is recommended that AT consider provide further comment on this matter through evidence.
AT‟s proposed Condition 20 requires the retention of pedestrian and cyclist access to properties affected by proposed works but allows for the temporary loss of vehicle access. It is noted that the submission from the Department of Corrections73 states that 24 hour seven days a week access for vehicles to Mt Eden Prison is required. Mt Eden Prison is accessed from Lauder Road via Normanby Road. As per proposed Condition 20, it is likely that the prison will temporarily loose vehicle access as a result of the proposed works. Recommendation It is recommended that:
72 Page 95 - Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Integrated Transport Assessment
73 Submission 98
Page 111 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Further discussions are undertaken between the Department of Corrections and AT to determine an appropriate outcome. Key points of discussion include: o Further comment from the Department of Corrections regarding their vehicle access requirements. o Further comment from AT regarding what is considered to be temporary loss of vehicle access and what this potential means for the prison.
That a condition be imposed requiring the grade separation of Normanby Road, Porters Avenue and the replacement of the Mt Eden Road bridge be undertaken one at a time. Depending on the necessity of retaining vehicle access at all times to Mt Eden Prison, it may appropriate to include a condition to this effect.
9.5.18 Conclusions
Overall it is considered that the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects appropriately identifies potential adverse effects associated with both construction and operation of the CRL, however, with regard to the management of the transport network and traffic associated effects, there are some areas that are considered to require further consideration, particularly in terms of acceptable management approaches to appropriately mitigate adverse effects. These include:
Further detail regarding the management of construction vehicles including proposed routes. It is considered difficult to determine the associated effects of the movement of construction vehicles without having an understanding of what routes (particularly through urbanised areas) they are likely to take (and where restrictions are required).
Further detail regarding the temporary loss of vehicle access to properties. Things to consider include: o What is deemed to be a temporary loss of access and whether this needs to be considered in the context of a range of different land uses (including residential, commercial, hotels, offices). o Whether in some cases alternative options are required (e.g. temporary parking provision) to mitigate the loss of temporary access.
Further detail regarding the potential effect of the temporary loss of vehicle access for Mt Eden Prison and whether this is an acceptable outcome.
Further detail regarding the management of effects associated with the construction of grade crossings at Normanby Road and Porters Avenue and the replacement of the Mt Eden Road bridge.
Further detail regarding works and associated management approaches associated with works affecting the Wellesley Street, Victoria Street and Customs
Page 112 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Street intersections with Albert Street.
Further detail regarding the potential effects on the operation of the road network associated with the permanent closure of Beresford Street.
Albert St/Customs St intersection It is noted that the Technical Specialist Report on Traffic Matters provides recommendations for a number of additional conditions (page 14). These have been considered in the context of the above and it is concluded that these need to be further considered once AT has provided information on and clarification of the matters listed above. 9.6 Access to Properties
9.6.1 Introduction
The construction and operation of the CRL will affect people‟s access to properties both permanently and temporarily. This has been discussed at some length above in Section 9.5 of this Report. However the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects identifies issues associated with access to properties between Britomart to Aoeta Station as a specific RTE and it is appropriate that an assessment of this RTE is undertaken.
9.6.2 Operation and construction effects – RTE 9
9.6.2.1 Proposed mitigation
As per the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects, the following methods to manage adverse effects are proposed:
The CEMP and Road Network and Transportation DWP for this area will include measures to (amongst others):74 o Maintain the accessibility to this area as a priority for: public transport (buses), emergency services, access to properties, pedestrians, courier and delivery vehicles.
Include measures in the Communications and Consultation Plan for the construction period which addresses the points above.
9.6.2.2 Submitter issues A number of submitters raise concerns regarding adverse effects on access to properties associated with this RTE.
74 Page 145 – CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects
Page 113 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.6.2.3 Discussion
The CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects identifies maintaining access to properties is a priority to ensure the management of adverse effects. However, the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects is silent on to what degree of access should be maintained to ensure the appropriate management of adverse effects. A number of submitters raise concerns regarding access to properties, particularly along Albert Street. The types of activities within properties referred to in the submissions varies, and includes commercial buildings, offices, residences and hotels which all have different access requirements.
It is considered that providing vehicle access to properties as practically as possible at all times requires further definition to allow for an understanding of effects on vehicular access and land use activities. For example, further detail on what methods are available and will be adopted by AT to provide vehicular access. If existing access is affected will efforts be taken to provide alternatives. Further advice from AT regarding these matters would be helpful.
The conditions proposed by AT are silent on likely action should access to properties not be available. The conditions only relate to communication and consultation in advance with the property owners and do not provide any certainty over retention of access. For example, a condition could be imposed requiring provision of a secured alternative in the event that properties accesses are not available. Further advice from AT regarding these matters would be helpful.
See Section 9.5.11.3 above for further comment. Again, it is noted that the Technical Specialist Report on Traffic Matters provides recommendations for a number of additional conditions (page 14). These have been considered in the context of the above and it is concluded that these need to be further considered once AT has provided information on and clarification of the matters listed above. 9.7 Walking and Cycling
9.7.1 Introduction
The CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects identifies both positive and adverse effects associated with walking and cycling in addition to those aspects discussed at length in section 9.5 above (i.e. effects associated with construction of CRL. In particular, effects relate to the need to accommodate additional pedestrian movements within the street network around stations.
9.7.2 Relevant plan provisions
9.7.2.1 Auckland City District Plan – Central Section Objective 9.2.1: To ensure that people can move easily around the Central Area.
Page 114 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Policies:
By providing for safe, attractive, efficient and identifiable linkages, networks and environments for vehicles, including bicycles and pedestrians.
By reducing conflict between pedestrians and vehicles, and particularly in those parts identified in the Plan as pedestrian-orientated areas.
By integrating pedestrian walkways with the passenger transport network.
By ensuring that the vehicular and pedestrian systems are legible and well signposted. Objective 9.2.2: To maintain accessibility to and from the Central Area. Policies:
By giving greater priority to passenger transport and service traffic where appropriate.
By adopting techniques to discourage traffic in areas where it would have significant adverse environmental effects.
By controlling activities where this is necessary to ensure efficient road operation.
By encouraging the establishment of cycle facilities and cycle ways.
By providing for the efficient and safe movement of pedestrians. Objective 9.2.2: To provide for the development of improved passenger transport to, from and within the Central Area. Policies:
By improving passenger transport facilities.
By providing for an integrated passenger transport facility that incorporates alternative transport modes.
By giving priority to passenger transport and service traffic, where appropriate
By promoting passenger transport as an alternative means of commuter travel.
By encouraging passenger transport use through managing the provision of ancillary and non-ancillary commuter parking as a means of contributing to the attractiveness of the Central Area as a place to work, conduct business, live and visit.
9.7.2.2 Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section Objective 12.3.1: To manage the use and development of the City‘s transportation resources in a way that promotes the protection and enhancement of the City‘s
Page 115 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
environment.
Policies:
By supporting the creation of an efficient public transport network which provides an integrated system, with appropriate levels of convenience and service.
By minimising the adverse local environmental effects of proposed new roads and other additions to the City‘s transportation network.
By adopting planning techniques to discourage traffic in areas where it would have significant adverse environmental effects. Objective 12.3.2: To improve access, ease and safety of movement within the City, while ensuring that adequate provision is made for the various transport needs of the region.
Policies:
By improving the capacity and safety of existing facilities through the use of appropriate traffic management techniques.
By improving passenger transport infrastructures where appropriate.
By recognising the need for effective public transport and for catering for people without cars.
By enhancing public and personal safety through reducing opportunities for crime to occur through appropriate design and management of transportation facilities. Overall, it is considered that the operative policy framework supports the provision of public transport.
9.7.3 Overview of submitter issues
Whilst a number of submitters raised issue with the potential effects on walking and cycling associated with the construction of the CRL, no submitters raised concerns regarding the operational effects of the CRL on walking and cycling.
9.7.4 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation
The ITA assesses the actual and potential road transport effects, both positive and adverse, and identifies those that are permanent (likely to continue during operation) and temporary (generally will occur during the construction period). A further report (City Rail Link Supplementary Report Traffic Modelling of Alternative Construction Scenarios) was also provided by AT on 22 May 2013. Table 7.5 of the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects provides details of the identified actual and potential effects associated with the CRL NoRs and provides a number of recommendations for managing adverse effects. With regards to walking and cycling, the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects identifies the following actual or potential Road Transport and Connectivity Effects (RTEs).
Page 116 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.7.5 Operational – RTE 5 (positive and adverse effects)
Accommodation of additional pedestrian movements into street network by stations (adverse effects)
9.7.5.1 Proposed mitigation As per the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects, the following methods to manage adverse effects are proposed (amongst others)75:
Implementation of the principles set out in the UDF will enable future stages of design to incorporate appropriate design mechanisms and treatment of the public spaces to reduce any adverse effects.
At Aotea the ability to accommodate a number of station entrances in separate locations which will disperse pedestrians.
Footpath improvements along Albert Street, particularly the eastern side by Aotea Station.
Provision of service access for Crowne Plaza on Albert Street.
Ability to provide if required a Barnes dance (diagonal) crossing for pedestrians at the intersection of Albert Street and Victoria Street.
Ability to construct a mid block crossing on Pitt Street near the station entry.
Ability to increased pedestrian crossing time at the Karangahape Road/Pitt Street intersection.
Ability to widen footpath on Pitt Street between Karangahape Road and Beresford Street.
Ability to provide for an additional pedestrian crossing at the Symonds Street/Mount Eden Road/New North Road intersection.
Ability to remove free left turn for traffic from Symonds Street to Khyber Pass Road and construction of signalised pedestrian crossing.
9.7.5.2 Discussion The ITA supporting the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects provides significant comment regarding likely future pedestrian numbers associated with each of the stations76 and details regarding likely future station entrances. In summary:
The CRL will reduce pedestrian numbers around Britomart Station.
75 Page 140 – CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects
76 Page – 67 – Technical Report to support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement): Integrated Transport Assessment
Page 117 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
The CRL will attract around 10,550 people alighting and 2,350 people boarding in the morning peak period in 2041 at Aotea Station.
Station entrances at Aotea Station are proposed at both the northern and southern sides of Victoria and Wellesley Streets.
The CRL will attract around 4,200 people alighting and 1,650 persons boarding in the morning peak period in 2041 at Karangahape Road Station.
Station entrances at Karangahape Road Station will be located in Beresford Square and possibly a secondary entrance from Mercury Lane.
The CRL will attract around 1,900 people alighting and 1,600 boarding in the morning peak period in 2041 at Newton Station.
Station entrances at Newton Station will be located on the western side Symonds Street at the intersection of Symonds Street/New North Road/Mount Eden Road. Given the likely increase in pedestrian activity at each of the proposed new stations, it is considered pertinent that measures are integrated into the development of the CRL to ensure the safe and efficient movement of large numbers of people. The CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects identifies the implementation of the principles of the UDF as a method of managing potential adverse effects. Further, it is considered that the operative policy framework is supportive of the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians. AT‟s proposed Condition 29 requires an Urban Design and Landscape Plan (UDLP) to be developed and submitted as part of the Notice of Requirement documents. This Plan is required to demonstrate how the areas within the designation footprint will be restored. The UDLP will be informed by the principles of the UDF which includes:
Safe environments – Structures resulting from the CRL should promote safe environments. The station entrances should release patrons into safe public spaces that are well lit at night, overlooked by other users (e.g. residents or workers) and have sufficiently wide and unobstructed footpaths.
Street crossings – Safe pedestrian crossings should be facilitated in the immediate vicinity of station entrances. The provision of level street crossings is preferable over any grade separated solutions. The above principles and Proposed Condition 29 are considered to be acceptable (taking into account other relevant recommendations within this Report) in terms of managing the potential adverse effects on the safe and efficient movement of people around stations.
Page 118 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.8 Network Utilities
9.8.1 Introduction
Due to the linear nature of the CRL, its scale and the fact that much of the proposed work will take place in the road reserve where a high proportion of utilities are located, the CRL has the potential to adversely affect existing network utilities. These include:
Water supply and wastewater pipelines;
Stormwater drains;
Gas pipelines;
Electric lines and cables;
Telecommunications lines and cables and fibre optic cables. Where network utilities are of a small size and extent, generally they can be relocated or re-established as part of construction works. In determining the alignment of the CRL and the station locations, AT has sought wherever possible to avoid significant network utilities that are critical to the servicing and functioning of the Auckland Region. However, the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects77 and the Concept Design Report78, identify that there are a number of larger network utilities, particularly at each end of the CRL where the tunnel depth is shallower and where the cut and cover method is proposed, that will be affected by the CRL and will require careful management. These are discussed further in Section 9.8.2 below.
9.8.2 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation
The large network utilities identified by AT that will be affected or have the potential to be affected by the CRL and the methods proposed by AT to manage these effects are set out in Table 9.8.1 below. The information contained in the Table is based on that provided in the Concept Design Report79. Table 9.8.1: Large network utilities affected by the CRL Network Utility Description Proposed Method Watercare, Orakei Main The sewer crosses below The sewer will require Sewer the rail alignment at Victoria localised strengthening Street West. The sewer is work to minimise effects an ovoid shape and brick from the tunnel.
77 Section 6.3.13, pages 94 and 95
78 Page 11
79 Page 11
Page 119 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Network Utility Description Proposed Method lined Vector Tunnel The Vector Tunnel crosses The proposed CRL tunnels the proposed CRL tunnels will not have any impact on at Mayoral Drive, at a the Vector Tunnel significantly deeper level than the proposed CRL tunnel alignments. Auckland Council, This 1500mm to1665mm Between Britomart and stormwater drain, Albert stormwater drain Aotea Station, it is proposed Street discharges to the harbour to use cut and cover as the off Lower Albert Street and indicative construction runs at deep level from the methodology. This provides harbour up the centre of flexibility to deal with the Albert Street as far as stormwater utility as it will Wellesley Street West. It require diversion (likely from has been identified from Wellesley Street north) prior Council Records as being at to tunnelling along Albert a similar depth to that Street. proposed for the two rail tunnels. Watercare, bulk water This 375mm bulk water Supplying this central city supply main, Pitt Street supply main in Pitt is within network through another the designation footprint of water main is not feasible. the proposed Karangahape Consequently this water Station and will likely main will require diverting require a permanent and re-commissioning. diversion. From information Discussion with Watercare known at this time this utility will be on-going to confirm could form part of the an acceptable solution at central city wide water detailed design stage. supply ring main, and as such is a critical utility. Watercare, bulk water A 1300mm bulk water The water main will require supply main, Nikau/Ruru supply main (Hunua 2) in localised support to enable Streets Nikau and Ruru Streets the cut and cover works to forms part of the bulk water be carried out. supply service and is a critical asset for Watercare in servicing the Auckland Region. The CRL corridor passes well beneath the main within Nikau Street. However, near Ruru street the clearance is closer. Auckland Council, This 1950mm stormwater The solution to this is an stormwater drain, drain in Nikau and Ruru appropriate diversion of this Nikau/Ruru Streets Streets – a recently pipe prior to or at the time of installed (2010) 1950mm CRL construction. diameter pipe stormwater line has been identified
Page 120 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Network Utility Description Proposed Method within Nikau Street connecting to an existing 1950mm drain within Ruru Street. This large diameter pipe runs from Boston Road near Mt Eden Prison through to the Motions Road catchment in the west of the city. The proposed east and west connections to the NAL currently conflict with this stormwater pipe in a number of locations at Nikau and Ruru Streets.
Apart from the methods identified above for managing effects on the identified large utilities, the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects has not identified any other measures for managing effects on utilities. It is therefore assumed that AT will be substantially relying on its proposed conditions relating to utilities (Conditions 8 and 27) to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on existing utilities.
Condition 8 as proposed by AT, requires the preparation of a Communication and Consultation Plan which shall be implemented and complied with for the duration of the construction of the CRL. The condition requires that the Plan includes: e) Methods that will be used to work with all Utility infrastructure providers who have existing network utilities that are directly affected by, or located in close proximity to construction works to confirm and agree works to be undertaken to relocate, as required, utilities within the designation footprint; AT proposes that Condition 8 will apply to NoRs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6.
Condition 27 proposes that to manage the adverse effects of the CRL on existing utilities the CEMP includes:
methods to liaise with network utility operators who have existing network utilities that are directly affected by, or located in close proximity to construction works;
measures to accurately identify the location of existing network utilities;
measures for the protection, support, relocation and/or reinstatement of existing network utilities;
methods to ensure that all construction personnel are aware of the presence and location of existing network utilities and the restrictions in place in relation to those existing network utilities, including plans identifying the locations of the existing network utilities and appropriate physical indicators on the ground showing specific surveyed locations;
earthworks management, vibration management
Page 121 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Emergency management procedures in the event of any emergency involving existing network utilities; and
The process and timing for providing as-built drawings showing the relationship of the relocated network utility to the CRL to network utility owners. AT proposes that Condition 27 will apply to NoRs 1, 4, 5 and 6.
9.8.3 Submitter issues
Table 9.8.3 provides a summary of the key issues raised by submitters and any proposed mitigation identified in the submissions Table 9.8.3: - Summary of Submitter Issues Submitter Issue Mitigation Sought Vector onerous and impractical to Submission 90 require Vector to obtain AT's written approval to undertake work or install new assets within the designation corridor, particularly for emergency works and repairs. supports AT‟s intention to This requirement should be coordinate with network utility extended to NoRs 2 and 3. operators to locate, avoid, protect or relocate services along with methods to manage accidental damage to utilities. seeks to be involved in the Require confirmation from Vector outline plan process. that the construction methodology will not adversely affect Vector's assets. This condition should apply to all designations. supports AT‟s intent to draw This should be a included in the back the designations to that of designation conditions rather than operational requirements post left to AT's discretion construction. ensure that any adverse effects Pre and post condition surveys of on or damage to its assets Vector's assets should be arising after the construction of undertaken at AT's cost and AT the CRL are identified and to remediate the damage appropriately remediated Chorus AT‟s preference for keeping Conditions requiring AT to fund Submission 91 relocated utilities within and implement relocation work designation footprint and risks and pre-build alternative routes associated with use of gantries for utilities where it is to support cables, particularly in impracticable to operate and Albert Street and Custom Street maintain them in the current West while ground excavated location or within the designation beneath them. foot-print.
Page 122 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Submitter Issue Mitigation Sought Watercare proposed works are likely to Imposition of conditions that take Submission 113 restrict/prevent Watercare's account of: ability to access the existing the potential for works to wastewater and water network. damage Watercare's proposed works are likely to infrastructure, and to avoid or necessitate the requirement to mitigate any potential adverse relocate parts of the existing effects on that infrastructure Watercare networks. There are (including protection significant costs, physical measures); constraints and service Watercare's requirement for 24 considerations associated with hour access to its assets for the re-routing. purpose of operations and proposed rail corridor conflicts maintenance, rehabilitation and with several planned upgrade renewal of existing assets; projects. the need to investigate and recover costs associated with the relocation of services in a timely manner; an efficient Requiring Authority approval process.
The Watercare submission also references a protocol being developed by various network utility operators and AT on the use of designations within Auckland's local road network. It does note however, that the protocol has not been finalised. A significant number of other submitters have raised concerns regarding the loss of essential services such as water supply, electricity etc. due to the effects of construction activities associated with the CRL.
9.8.4 Relevant plan provisions
9.8.4.1 Auckland City District Plan – Central Area Section
The utilities operated by Vector, Chorus and Watercare, and the CRL all fall within the definition of “network utility service” in the Central Area Plan. The network utility service provisions include an objective to: To allow for the provision of new network utility services whilst mitigating adverse environmental effects80. This objective is supported by policies that seek to:
to ensure proposed network utility services which may create significant adverse effects on the environment are subjected to an assessment procedure and that any adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated where practical; and
80 Auckland City District Plan – Central Area Section, Objective 12.3.4
Page 123 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
enable Council to impose conditions on the installation of those services to meet the requirements of Part II of the Act.
9.8.4.2 Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section
The objectives and policies of the Isthmus Plan which relate to network utility services are the same as those contained in the Central Area Plan.
9.8.5 Assessment and proposed mitigation
With regard to both the Central Area Plan and the Isthmus Plan, Council has a responsibility to ensure that any adverse effects of the CRL on existing network utilities are appropriately mitigated. Key to achieving this will be through the imposition of conditions.
In terms of the RMA s.176 and s.178 matters raised by the submitters, it is considered that clear intention of these sections is to ensure that no person is able to do anything in relation to the land subject to the designation that would prevent or hinder the work to which the designation relates without the prior written consent of the requiring authority. It is noted that under s.178 this requirement has had effect since AT gave notice of its requirement for the CRL designation to Auckland Council.
In our view it would not be appropriate to compromise the safeguards provided by s.176 and s.178, by recommending conditions exempting network utility operators from obtaining AT‟s approval prior to undertaking works within the designation footprint. This issue would be more appropriately addressed through agreements between AT and network utility operators who have existing network utilities that are directly affected by the CRL. Alternatively, any pre-agreed exemptions to AT's s.176 consent requirement (e.g., for emergency works) could be included in an agreed set of conditions as between the relevant network utility operators and offered up by AT at the hearing. As noted above, the Watercare submission makes reference to a protocol being developed by various network utility operators and AT on the use of designations within roads. The submission also includes draft conditions based on the protocol. It would be useful if AT and the network utility operator submitters could provide information on this protocol and any agreed conditions, particularly if the protocol is finalised in advance of the CRL NoR Hearing. Apart from AT‟s approach to the design of the CRL to avoid where possible the effects of the Project on significant network utilities, the only mechanism to manage adverse effects on existing network utilities is the CEMP as provided for under AT‟s proposed Conditions 8 and 27.
Given AT‟s reliance on the CEMP to mitigate the construction effects of the CRL on network utilities, it is critical to ensure that the CEMP will achieve the outcomes sought in terms of appropriately managing adverse effects and not compromising the safe, efficient and effective operation of network utilities. In this regard, we have a number of concerns about Condition 27 including its limited focus and scope. These are set out as follows along with recommendations to address these concerns:
Page 124 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
No requirement to prepare a specific Network Utilities Management Plan (NUMP) with a clearly identified purpose against which the implementation of the NUMP can be measured and monitored. AT is intending that the methods and measures proposed to manage adverse effects on network utilities sit generally within the CEMP. Recommendation
Amend the conditions to require the preparation of a NUMP with a clearly stated purpose that will be included with the CEMP. The NUMP should be prepared in consultation with network utility operators who have existing network utilities that are directly affected by, or located in close proximity to construction works. This would enable them to provide input into the development of the NUMP.
Lack of involvement and consultation with affected network utility operators in the development of the network utility aspects of the CEMP. The CEMP is required to include the methods that will be used to liaise with all utility infrastructure providers who have existing network utilities that are directly affected by, or located in close proximity to construction works, but there is no requirement to consult and work with the operators in developing the CEMP.
Recommendation Amend the condition to require AT to consult with network utility operators who have existing network utilities that are directly affected by, or located in close proximity to construction works in preparing the NUMP. This would enable the network utility operators to provide input into the development of the NUMP. The NUMP should also include a summary of the consultation including any unresolved issues.
The proposed condition is silent on measures to:
. provide for the safe operation of plant and equipment, and the safety of workers, in proximity to live existing network utilities; . ensure the continued operation of network utilities and the supply of services; . management of risks associated with the relocation of network utilities; . enable network utility operators to access existing network utilities for maintenance at all reasonable times, and to access existing network utilities for emergency works. Recommendation
Amend the condition to require the NUMP to include measures to address the above listed matters. Vector considers that it should be involved in the outline plan process to ensure that the
Page 125 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
construction methodology proposed will not adversely affect its assets or its ability to operate and maintain its network. Section 176A of the RMA does not provide for the involvement of third parties in the outline plan process. However, our recommendation to amend Condition 27 to include:
a requirement to consult with network utility operators during the development of the NUMP;
a requirement to include in the NUMP a summary of the consultation (including any methods or measures in dispute) undertaken between the Requiring Authority and any network utility operators during the preparation of the NUMP;
requirements to include measures in the NUMP to ensure the continued operation of and access to network utilities; should go some way to address Vector‟s concerns and its request to be involved in the outline plan process.
Vector is also seeking that conditions relating to managing adverse effects on network utilities should apply to the Sub-strata NoR 2 and Strata NoR 3. AT is proposing that the conditions apply to NoRs 1, 4, 5 and 6. If it can be demonstrated that utilities are located within the land covered by NoRs 2 and 3, then it is recommended that Condition 27 should apply to these NoRs as well. All network utility submissions refer to the need to recover costs from AT for the relocation of utilities and Vector is seeking funding for pre and post construction surveys of assets. If the Committee was of a mind to address this issue, the following condition was imposed on the Transmission Gully designations in respect of matters to be addressed in the NUMP: How the Requiring Authority will meet the costs of any Project-related works that are required in order to protect, relocate and/or reinstate existing network utilities. Such methods shall be consistent with the provisions of the Gas Act 1992, the Electricity Act 1992 and the Telecommunications Act 2001.81 It is our view, that the amendments proposed to the draft conditions provided by AT and attached as Appendix O to this Report should ensure that the adverse effects of the construction of the CRL on network utilities are appropriately mitigated. 9.9 Light Spill and Glare
9.9.1 Introduction
Given the intended 24-hour a day construction activities associated with the CRL, there will be a likely requirement to provide artificial lighting for construction activities and for security reasons during times of darkness. Construction activities may be required to be lit by sizeable temporary lighting structures.
81 Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Transmission Gully Proposal, Condition NZTA 59
Page 126 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
The close proximity of residential activities to some of the proposed construction sites presents the possibility that adverse effects of artificial light spill and glare may occur should artificial lighting not be appropriately managed.
9.9.2 Auckland Transport Assessment and Proposed Mitigation
AT provided no assessment of potential adverse effects associated with light spill and glare in the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects. It should be noted that no formal request for further information has been provided to AT from Auckland Council in relation to the assessment of potential adverse effects associated with light spill and glare, although informal discussions have taken place between AT and Auckland Council as part of preparing this Report.
9.9.3 Submitter Issues
One submission82 makes a reference to „light disturbance at night‘ from the Mercury Lane construction site being of „particular concern to apartment owners there‘ along with noise disturbance. There are a number of other submissions that raise issues regarding effects of the CRL on amenity values.
9.9.4 Relevant Plan Provisions
9.9.4.1 Auckland City District Plan – Central Area Section The Central Area Plan has one objective in relation to artificial lighting. Objective 7.15.1 states: ―To provide for outdoor artificial lighting to enable work, recreation and entertainment activities to occur during the hours of darkness and add vibrancy to the Central Area whilst ensuring that artificial lighting does not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and on the amenity values of the surrounding area. Policies a) By controlling the intensity, location and direction of artificial lighting so as to avoid or mitigate any significant light spill and glare onto adjacent sites and loss of night sky viewing. b) By controlling the use of artificial lighting for the operation of outdoor activities into night-time hours while also recognising its necessity for the safety and security of certain activities. c) By controlling artificial lighting at boundaries of roads and land used for residential purposes by Bylaws made under the Local Government Act 1974. d) By providing for the controlled floodlighting of the exterior of buildings‖.
82 Karangahape Road Business Association (Submission 68)
Page 127 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.9.4.2 Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section
The Isthmus Plan has one objective in relation to artificial lighting. Objective 4.6.1 states: ―Objective To ensure that artificial lighting does not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and on the amenity values of the surrounding area Policies
By controlling the intensity, location and direction of artificial lighting so as to avoid light spill and glare onto other sites; and
By controlling where appropriate the use of artificial lighting where it will extend the operation of outdoor activities into night-time hours‖.
9.9.5 Assessment and Proposed Mitigation
The potential effects associated with lighting include spill lighting, glare and sky glow. Given the urbanised and highly lit nature of the land uses within and surrounding the proposed designation footprint, there is minimal potential for any adverse sky glow effects. However, there is the potential for potential adverse effects through spill lighting and glare, particularly on residential properties. Australian Standard (AS) 4282:1997 “Control of Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting”, although not adopted in New Zealand, provides some guidance on what light spill and glare effects are acceptable and assists in evaluating light spill and glare when viewed from a specific location, such as residential property. It should be noted that AS 4282 was originally intended for evaluating lighting of tennis courts (and similar high lighting areas) located within residential areas. The Central Area Plan and Isthmus Plan also provide specific guidance on artificial lighting.
It is recommended that lighting be designed to comply with the relevant District Plan rules, along with the requirements contained in AS 4282. As a result, light spill and glare should not create nuisance effects for surrounding residents.
Recommendation It is recommended that lighting requirements be contained in the CEMP to appropriately manage any temporary adverse lighting effects during construction. Conditions 13 and 14 have therefore been amended to also refer to construction lighting effects. Condition 42a has also been added to address potential adverse lighting effects during construction. Light Spill and Glare during Construction The Requiring Authority shall control the intensity, location and direction of artificial
Page 128 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
construction lighting so as to avoid or mitigate any significant light spill and glare onto sites adjacent to the designation boundary. 9.10 Tāngata whenua
9.10.1 Introduction
Whilst Section 36A of the RMA does not require that any consultation take place in the preparation of a notice of requirement, the Act does require adequate consideration be given to the Maori values. In obtaining accurate and relevant information about the potential impact of the CRL on Maori values, AT elected to engage in early consultation with the iwi / hapu of Auckland. There was acknowledgement of that fact that mana whenua are best placed to convey their customs and relationship with their ancestral rohe and tāonga and have the expertise to do so. The outcome of that consultation was that a number of the iwi / hapu have prepared Maori Values Assessments, which have informed AT‟s assessment and proposed mitigation. In terms of identified Maori heritage sites, the Central Area Plan identifies two scheduled sites along the project alignment, being:
o Ngahu Wera (district plan reference 271), being where Albert Street borders Customs Street West.
o Ngā Wharau a Tako (district plan reference 266), being 87-89 Albert Street, and areas to the west. It is acknowledged that there may be unscheduled sites of cultural and spiritual significance to Maori also. Details of such sites are detailed within the Cultural Values Assessment prepared in support of the Assessment of Environmental Effects and discussed in more detail below.
9.10.2 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation
A Cultural Values Assessment83 (CVA) has been prepared by Tama Hovell of Atkins Holm Majurey Limited in support of the NoRs. The CVA has been prepared to bring together the issues, information and recommendations contained in the number of Maori Values Assessments (MVA) that have been received by AT, which have arisen out of consultation with mana whenua on the Project. The CVA also represents an independent review of information relevant to consideration of Maori values and interests in the Project area, and provides recommendations on measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on Maori values, or measures to recognise and provide for the relationship of iwi / hapū with their ancestral lands and tāonga.
83 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects – Appendix 6, Cultural Values Assessment
Page 129 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
The existing environment for the Project is set out in the Section 6 of the Assessment of Environmental Effects84. Generally, the physical environment of the Project alignment is built-up urban environment through the city centre, underneath the Central Motorway Junction, and through to Newton.
Mr Hovell notes, ―Notwithstanding the built environment, iwi / hapū maintain their mana whenua and Kaitiakitanga relationships with the area, and that the cultural and spiritual connection to their ancestral Whenua and tāonga, while it may be undermined by previous development, is still present and profound.‖85 Mr Hovell has set out an assessment of cultural effects at Section VII of his report, including consideration of the cultural landscape for the project area. Important to note from that assessment is that the CRL ―follows soon after Treaty settlement processes which have affirmed the multiple layers of customary interests in the Tāmaki rohe. This clears a path for recognising the respective mana whenua interests in this rohe and supports the role of this forum. Auckland Transport has also recognised this in its approach of allowing iwi / hapu to confirm their interests in the Project area rather than seeking to pre-determine which iwi / hapu may have interests.‖
Section 7.10 of the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects provides details of the identified actual and potential effects on Maori values associated with the CRL NoR, and provides a number of recommendations for managing adverse effects. Those potential effects and mitigation measures are summarised below. Adverse effects
Maori Heritage site is located at the Customs Street and Albert Street intersection.
The scheduled Maori Heritage sites at 87-89 Albert Street and one bordering Albert and Customs Street West
The construction and operation of the two tunnels between Britomart and Aotea Station go through /adjacent to this site.
The CVA notes that the occurrence of the CRL directly through this site is of particular concern to mana whenua with the potential to affect the mauri and tapu of the site. The CVA notes that the mana whenua as an extreme cultural and spiritual measure may need to take steps to whakanoa (traditional rites to remove tapu) the site for the purposes of constructing, operating and maintaining the CRL. .
The movement of the rock art known as „Te Ahi Ka Roa‟ currently located within QE2S.
84 CRL Assessment of Effects on th e Environment – Section 6, pages 84-111
85 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects – Appendix 6, Cultural Values Assessment, page 20
Page 130 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
The CVA notes that the earthworks associated with the construction of Newton Station on the high point of Te Uru Karaka raises concerns for mana whenua.
Cumulative effects resulting from layers of development occurring over time which has resulted in the historic destruction of many sites of value to Maori and the undermining of the mauri of those sites.
Incorporation of Maori Values into the future design of the stations and station precincts providing the ability for Iwi to incorporate appropriate design measures which reflect their values and culture, past and present. Proposed mitigation
Methods to manage any effects on Maori Values should be determined through consultation with Iwi. Consultation and liaison, along with measures to facilitate collaborative working with Iwi should be included in the EMP and Communications Plan.
The CEMP will include appropriate discovery protocols in relation to cultural values. The discovery protocols will be developed in collaboration with Iwi at the time the CEMP is undertaken and this should include discussions around practical measures and confirmation of Iwi role in the discovery process.
Methods for removing, storing, and reinstating of the artwork “Te Ahi Ka Roa” will be set out in the EMP developed under the EMF. This will include requirements for liaising and input with Ngati Whatua Orakei with regard to the removing, storing, and reinstatement.
Implementation of the Urban Design Principles set out in the UDF, including the specific principles developed to reflect and incorporate Maori Values into station and station precinct design. The CVA notes that mana whenua have generally endorsed these principles, and their role in the project and that the adoption of them by AT is an important measure in acknowledging mana whenua history and association with the project area. The CVA also notes that mana whenua acknowledge the role of these principles in enabling Maori design and public art features with the CRL to recognise their association with the rohe, and that they represent good design practice.
On-going collaborative working with Iwi to obtain inputs into the future stages of design. The Consultation Plan will include requirements around this. Draft condition (8) requires that the Communication and Consultation Plan will set out the methods for communicating and consulting with mana whenua for the duration of construction, and includes a list of aspects of the project that mana whenua are to be consulted on.
Draft conditions (31) – Urban Design and Landscape Plan and (36) – Station Plan, incorporate the principles brought through from the Urban Design Framework, which include the mana whenua principles prepared with iwi during the initial consultation undertaken on the CRL project.
Page 131 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.10.3 Submitter issues
No submissions identified matters relating to Tāngata Whenua or Maori cultural values.
9.10.4 Relevant plan provisions
9.10.4.1 Auckland City District Plan – Central Area Section Objective 10.13.1: To protect sites of heritage value to Maori. Policy:
o By identifying and protecting, in consultation and partnership with the iwi who have mana whenua, significant Maori heritage sites.
9.10.4.2 Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section Objective 5C.7.5: To protect sites of heritage value to Maori.. Policies:
o By identifying and protecting, in consultation with the iwi who have mana whenua, significant heritage sites of significance to Maori.
9.10.5 Discussion
Council‟s Maori Strategy and Relations Unit has reviewed the CVA. A full copy of this review is included as Attachment I to this report; however, the following serves as a summary: The CVA methodology appears to be robust and those iwi identified as potentially having an interest in application area appear to align with Auckland Council‘s understanding of iwi and their respective geographic areas of interest (s43). It is noted that initial contact was made by letter to confirm which iwi may have an interest in the CRL project. The level of iwi participation resulting from the initial contact phase is often improved by a follow up phone call in support of any written correspondence. Irrespective of this, the level of Mana Whenua response to the letter appears to be positive. The guiding principles for the CVA report are considered to represent best practice (s18). The author has independently reviewed and utilised a range of resources and provided numerous examples of case law to give a statutory context. The inclusion of the Kaitiaki Forum recommendation within the NOR conditions is considered the most appropriate means of securing this measure and could be supported by Memorandums of Understanding with respective Iwi Authorities. The proposed Kaitiaki Forum would provide iwi opportunity to input into the project areas, which are relevant, and of interest to them. It is noted that the Kaitiaki Forum would be at officer level and this may be appropriate in terms of tackling on the ground issues associated with accidental discovery protocols and urban design. In addition to
Page 132 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
these measures, it is recommended that the CRL project team investigate the provision of a Mana Whenua / Auckland Council / Auckland Transport forum at the governance / decision making level. This forum could facilitate:
o resolution of ‗red flag‘ issues and risks o participation / influence on key decisions o provide updates at key project milestones
Such a forum may not require the same frequency of meetings as the officer level Kaitiaki Forum; however, it would provide iwi with a direct line of communication to other key decision makers and allow for the escalation and resolution of any unresolved issues. This forum could operate in tandem with the kaitiaki forum or result from the elevation of the proposed kaitiaki forum to the governance level. As a general comment, it is considered that the comprehensive involvement of iwi from an early point in the development of the CRL NoRs has resulted in agreed outcomes for the management any adverse Maori cultural effects to arise from the project. Iwi have been able to indicate whether parts of the CRL route are of cultural significance to them, and have been able to create the parameters of their involvement in the process. As discussed above, the outcome of that consultation has been the development of urban design and mana whenua principles to guide the design of stations and public spaces following construction, and the establishment of a Kaitiaki Forum for ongoing communication and consultation on the project. Both of these outcomes have been carried through into the proposed draft conditions submitted by AT.
Condition (8) sets out that the Communication and Consultation Plan will set out the methods for communicating and consulting with mana whenua for the duration of construction, and includes a list of aspects of the project that mana whenua are to be consulted on. We propose to add one bullet point to that list as a means of providing a stronger linkage through to the requirements of condition (31) – Urban Design and Landscape Plan and condition (36) – Station Plan, being:
o Implementation of the mana whenua principles for the project. It is otherwise considered that the proposed draft conditions prepared by AT adequately set out the requirements for the ongoing involvement of iwi, in line with the recommendations of the CVA. In terms of the ―Mana Whenua / Auckland Council / Auckland Transport forum at the governance / decision making level‖ recommended by the Council‟s Maori Strategy and Relations Unit, we have not specifically included mention of this in our recommended conditions. We support the concept generally however, and feel that the recommended conditions are flexible enough to enable AT to coordinate such a group if they should so choose. Alternatively, this is something that may be convened outside the confines of this RMA process.
Page 133 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.11 Built heritage
9.11.1 Introduction
A number of buildings of heritage significance along the CRL route will potentially be affected directly through construction or operation of the CRL, or indirectly in terms of new stations being located within an existing heritage context.
A report to help define the potential effects of the CRL on Built Heritage has been prepared by Salmond Reed Architects (“the Built Heritage report”) and lodged in support of the Assessment of Environmental Effects. The Built Heritage report has categorised the buildings and structures that fall within the project area into three classes, being:
o Type A: those buildings, structures and areas that are identified in statutory lists such as the Central Area and Isthmus Plans, the New Zealand Historic Places Register, and the former Auckland Regional Council Cultural Heritage Inventory.
o Type B: those buildings, structures and areas that are not included in formal lists, but that are seen as having heritage significance or making an important contribution to the built environment and its character. These buildings and structures are seen as “character defining”, and reflect those identified “character buildings” through the Central Area and Isthmus Plans.
o Type C: those buildings and structures that are seen as “character supporting” and form part of a group of significance as well as having some individual significance, but are currently not protected by statutory mechanisms. The Built Heritage report has identified fifty-five (55) 86 heritage buildings as being slightly or moderately affected by vibration or settlement, 49 of which will be potentially subject to either slight or slight to moderate effects. Settlement and vibration due to tunnelling may lead to cracking of building fabric. Cracks will then need to be filled, usually by re- pointed brickwork, or repairing damaged plaster. In rare cases, there may be the need to reconstruct sections of damaged brickwork. Given that the effects on these 49 buildings are minor in relation to scale and scope of the project, a discussion of the effects in relation to each of these 49 buildings has not been undertaken. For completeness, it is noted that these 49 buildings will be subject to „building condition surveys‟ prior to and throughout the construction phase of the project (see proposed condition 41). The remaining six heritage buildings are more significantly affected by the works. These buildings will be described below in a table and then referred to consistently throughout this memo using the nomenclature given in the “known as” column.
86 CRL: Built Heritage Technical Expert Report by Salmond Reed Architects, Appendix A (It is noted there is a discrepancy between the number of potentially affected heritage buildings identified in the Salmond Reed Report, being 55, and the number quoted throughout the AEE, being 53. We have preferred the larger number for the purposes of this report).
Page 134 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Salmond address Description Known as NoR District plan Reed ref allows for protections
91 12 Queen Former CPO Central Post Not yes Street - Britomart Office covered by Transport CRL NoR - Centre covered under existing designation
8 76-86 Albert Historic Albert Street demolition yes St Toilets, etc Toilets under roadside
142 51-53 Victoria Martha‟s Martha‟s demolition yes Street West Corner Corner
153 42 Wellesley Griffiths Griffiths demolition no Street Holdings Building Building
236 2 Beresford Former public Beresford demolition no Square toilets Toilets
130 223-227 Terraced Symonds partial yes Symonds shop and Street shop / demolition Street residence residence
Of the six, two will be demolished to make way for the CRL, being the Albert St Toilets (Category B heritage status under the Central Area Plan), and the Beresford Toilets (not protected under the Plan). Two other buildings may be subject to adaptive reuse, depending on the finalised station design. These two buildings are the Martha‟s Corner on the corner of Victoria and Albert Streets, and the Griffiths building on the corner of Wellesley Street and Mayoral Drive. Martha‟s Corner has a level of statutory protection, being subject to the character overlay through the Central Area Plan, while the Griffiths Building does not. However, the NoRs do allow these buildings to be demolished as the „worst-case scenario‟, if the project team determine that demolition is necessary.
A part of the original fabric of the building at 223-227 Symonds Street (being a shop / residence) is to be demolished, specifically, the rear annex. Alterations to this building
Page 135 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
are subject to the upper Symonds Street character overlay under the Isthmus Plan.
The final building identified in the above table is the Former Central Post Office building (CPO building) (being the main entrance to the Britomart Transport Centre), located at 12 Queen Street. The CPO building (scheduled as a Category A Building under the Central Area Plan, and listed as a Category II building by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust), whilst outside the footprint of the CRL NoRs, is immediately adjacent to the NoRs and the cut and cover construction of the two tunnels underneath Queen Street. It is noted that the linking works beneath the CPO building to the CRL are not included as part of the current NoRs, and will be dealt with via the Outline Plan process through the existing Britomart designation.
9.11.2 Relevant plan provisions
The district plan provisions relating to recognised heritage and character items are relevant in the assessment of the CRL. The relevant heritage and character objectives and policies of the Central Area and Isthmus Plans are set out below, as is the explanation relating to character buildings in the Central Area (in lieu of specific objectives and policies).
9.11.2.1 Auckland City District Plan – Central Area Section
Heritage Objective 10.3.1: To recognise and protect resources of natural, cultural and scientific heritage value.
Policies:
o By identifying, assessing, and protecting important heritage objects, buildings, and places including landscape, trees, gardens, open spaces, landforms, historic places, archaeological sites and waahi tapu by scheduling such features in the Plan.
o By encouraging an awareness that the City‘s existing heritage is a finite and sensitive resource.
o By increasing public access to heritage features where this is reasonable compatible with the physical protection of the feature.
o By defining, identifying and promoting the economic advantages of conservation of heritage places in public or private ownership.
o By developing and introducing incentives for the conservation of heritage places.
o By encouraging the ongoing utilisation and adaptive reuse of heritage buildings commensurate with sound conservation practice. Character Clause 5.2.7: Character Overlay (explanation)
Page 136 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
The Plan recognises the built form and character of certain precincts in the Central Area and seeks to maintain or enhance this character through the implementation of design controls on new buildings and modifications to buildings. The Plan also recognises, protects and enhances the heritage values of the City through scheduling of buildings, objects and places of special value and through the identification of conservation areas. It is recognised that outside of these precincts and conservations areas, notable older buildings or groups of older buildings exist which are not scheduled but which make a positive contribution to the built and streetscape character of the Central Area. The Character Overlay is applied to existing un-scheduled buildings generally outside of the precincts and conservation areas, which either as individuals or as groups, make a particular contribution to the City‘s built character. The Character Overlay control recognises the contribution that such buildings make to the amenity of the Central Area and the need to maintain or enhance this contribution through the preservation of these buildings or by otherwise promoting well-designed replacement buildings. Older buildings are the main focus of the Character Overlay because of the contribution they make to streetscape, either as a group or as individuals, and because they are a scarce finite resource that evoke the City‘s past and provide a link with cultural heritage. Character buildings have also been identified that otherwise make a particular contribution to streetscape, adjoin or are nearby scheduled buildings, or relate to public open space of historic value in such a way that its scale and form defines or helps to define the space.
9.11.2.2 Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section Character Overlay
Objective 5C.7.10.1: To protect, maintain and enhance the identified character of traditional town centres throughout the Auckland Isthmus. Policies:
o By identifying, assessing and documenting appropriate town centres as character overlay areas.
o By promoting the survival of the historic form and pattern of subdivision, buildings and streetscape within the character overlay areas.
o By maintaining and enhancing the form, design characteristics and the appearance of the buildings within the character overlay areas.
o By ensuring that the core aspects of character and architectural style are maintained. 5C.7.10.2(A) – Strategy: …While most centres subject to the character overlay do have a variety of buildings, they also have a unity arising from buildings with similar scale, materials and rhythm. Often there is a cohesiveness and quality of character that taken collectively is far greater than the architectural merit of any of the individual façades. In other cases, variety is a dominant characteristic. The external appearance of these buildings is an aesthetic element that can contribute greatly to environmental quality,
Page 137 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
amenity values and character of urban streetscapes…
9.11.3 Overview of submitter issues A total of (14) submissions received on the CRL NoRs identify concerns associated with the built heritage. These submissions either make reference to effects on specific buildings, speak of the need for heritage protection generally, or note the need for new development associated with the CRL (station buildings for example) to be sympathetic to the existing heritage context.
9.11.4 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation
Table 7.8 of the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects provides details of the identified actual and potential effects on Built Heritage associated with the CRL NoR and provides a number of recommendations for managing adverse effects. The identified Built Heritage Effects (BHEs) are identified below, along with proposed methods for mitigating any adverse effects:
9.11.4.1 BHE 1 (positive effects) – NoRs 1, 4, 5, 6
o Regeneration activities following the completion of construction of the CRL, which provide an opportunity to enhance areas with sensitive developments that recognise the existing heritage character. Areas include sites in the vicinity of Aotea Station, the area above Karangahape Station between Karangahape Road and the CMJ, the area where the CRL connects to the NAL including the main site construction area.
9.11.4.1.1 Proposed methods
o Good design outcomes will be determined by implementation of the principles set out in the UDF. The draft proposed conditions provided by AT include requirements to prepare an Urban Design and Landscape Plan, and a Station Plan at conditions (29) to (36).
9.11.4.1.2 Submitter issues
Submitters have not specifically linked the project as having positive effects on built heritage, although a number of submissions suggest that improved access by rail will stimulate development in the city centre and around rail hubs. It is noted however that two submitters encourage the adaptive re-use of heritage buildings as a means of enhancing existing fabric and contributing to the regeneration of areas around the proposed stations. Whilst not necessarily a positive effect, three (3) submitters have raised issues relating to the potential loss of existing character around the proposed stations, with particular concerns about the impacts on the Karangahape Road and Newton areas. Specifically:
o Alan Matson (submission 67): Refers to above ground station design, and the
Page 138 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
need to consider the existing built heritage context.
o Gemma Hayes (submission 152): Is concerned about the loss of the character of Karangahape Road, and a potential loss of the heritage buildings along this street. The submitter would like to see additional buildings scheduled and protected through the Unitary Plan as part of the CRL designation conditions.
o Andrew Rumsby (submission 159): Karangahape Road and Newton have unique characters. Replacement / new buildings constructed as part of the CRL process need to be in keeping with this existing character.
As these submissions raise matters relating to the look and feel of the station areas post-construction, it is considered appropriate that they be considered here. However, additional heritage scheduling of buildings is outside the scope of the NoR process, and will therefore not be further addressed.
9.11.4.1.3 Discussion
For the most part, private investment around the three new rail stations falls outside the scope of the CRL project. It is accepted however that the establishment of the stations may act as a catalyst for increased private development in these areas, and that this will likely be positive for the city centre generally, and specifically Aotea, Karangahape Road and Newton. Salmond Reed make the following comment in the Built Heritage report: The CRL has the potential to enhance the historic environment of the parts of Auckland it traverses and potentially reverse the decline of many of the historic buildings present along the route. Built Heritage should certainly not be seen as a constraint to the project; the introduction of the CRL can be considered an opportunity to breathe new life into Auckland‘s heritage context and to create a more vibrant, liveable and multifaceted urban environment as part of the ongoing change that has shaped modern Auckland.87 An aspect of the regenerative potential of the CRL that AT does control, both through this project and as part of their standard business, is investment in streets and associated public spaces. It is proposed to provide improved streetscapes around the new stations and construction sites through this project.
As discussed in more detail in section 9.16 (Urban Design) of this report, the UDF has established a set of principles to guide the detailed design work through future phases of the implementation of the CRL. These urban design principles have been brought through into AT‟s draft proposed conditions (29)-(36), which require the preparation of an Urban Design and Landscape Plan (dealing with streetscapes and public spaces), and the Station Plan for the three new stations (dealing with new buildings which form part of the CRL). It is considered that the urban design principles support development that is
87 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects, Volume 3: Part 1, Appendix 2: Built Heritage Report, Section 9.12, Page 52
Page 139 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
sensitive to the existing built heritage contexts of the various centres affected by the CRL alignment. This is discussed in greater depth under section 9.16 (Urban Design). For completeness, it is noted that the urban design principles will only apply to AT controlled land / development projects, being streets and the proposed stations. Any private investment in the vicinity of the project will be subject to the relevant planning provisions of the operative district plans / the proposed unitary plan. It is considered that, subject to the amendments proposed to draft conditions (29)-(36), and to the extent that it is within AT‟s control, that the proposed conditions will provide for appropriately designed streetscapes and station buildings through the CRL project, including the various existing built heritage contexts. It is also accepted that the construction of the stations and the operation of the CRL will likely lead to increased private investment in areas around rail lines, and in particular those areas in close proximity to the three proposed stations.
9.11.4.2 BHE 2 (adverse effects) – NoR 1
o The removal of the Albert Street scheduled toilets located at the western end of Durham Street west resulting in a loss of heritage associated with early central Auckland.
o The historic Bluestone wall, also in this location and also scheduled, can be protected during construction in Albert Street and therefore any effects on it are considered to be minimal and able to be managed.
o The toilets and the Bluestone wall are located above the anticipated depth of the two tunnels, however the cut and cover construction methodology proposed requires excavation through the toilets, which extend under Albert Street, to the tunnel depth below. The land above the tunnels will be reinstated following construction, however it is not considered practical or feasible at this stage to re- instate the toilets. The Bluestone wall due to its location to the eastern side of Albert Street can be retained and protected during construction as excavations for the two tunnels will occur between it and the western side of Albert Street.
9.11.4.2.1 Proposed mitigation
o The development and implementation of the CEMP which:
o Assesses the ability to reuse some of the toilet elements within Aotea Station;
o Confirms an appropriate process for the demolition of these toilets which incorporates the ability to safely remove items for reuse.
o An authority under the HPA to modify or destroy a scheduled item will be required. This will be applied for at the time of construction and the necessary assessment undertaken to satisfy the requirements of the authority application Draft condition (22)(c) sets out a requirement to identify elements of built heritage
Page 140 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
buildings / structures that may be able to be incorporated into other elements of the CRL.
9.11.4.2.2 Submitter issues
No submitter specifically raises the loss of the Albert Street Toilets. The submission by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (the NZHTP) (submission 72) notes that any proposal for the significant modification or complete demolition of a building, a more explicit assessment of the need for such works and alternatives which may not require the significant modification or complete demolition should be undertaken. 9.11.4.2.3 Discussion
AT have been clear in stating that the historic Albert Street toilets in the Bluestone wall will need to be demolished in order to facilitate the cut and cover construction methodology for the Albert Street section of the project. Auckland Council‟s Built Heritage team have made the following comment on the proposed loss of the Albert Street Toilets: In this case it may be that the effect of the proposal on the heritage values of the scheduled item including values for which it was scheduled may not be significant. During a site visit it was evident that there is little remaining original fabric that relates to the time when the building opened…There are some painted decorative screens between cubicles that are original. It may be that these could be reused elsewhere in the CRL. These underwent a major refurbishment in the 1990‘s. Little original fabric is reported to survive…It is arguable that they have not survived 100 years of usefulness intact. In response to concerns raised by the NZHPT and the Council‟s Built Heritage team, proposed draft condition (22) has been amended to include requirement to set out the reasons for determining the need for complete demolition of a heritage building or structure as part of a Historic Heritage Management Plan (HHMP). Once identified through the detailed design of the project, those buildings that are to be demolished should be recorded in their current context prior to removal, with the results of any such assessment provided to the Council for its files. 9.11.4.3 BHE 3 (adverse effects) – NoR 4
o The removal of the toilet building (currently used by the Supper Club) in Beresford Square resulting in a loss of heritage associated with early central Auckland.
o The removal of the toilet building is required in order to construct the main entry shaft for Karangahape Station, linking the surface with the underground station area.
o It is noted that the Supper Club building which is also located within Beresford Square and attached to these toilets is a more recently constructed building.
Page 141 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.11.4.3.1 Proposed mitigation
The development and implementation of the CEMP which:
o Assesses the ability to deconstruct and reuse some of the building elements within Karangahape Station or the station precinct area surrounding the station entrance; Confirms an appropriate process for the demolition of these toilets which incorporates the ability to safely remove items for reuse (if applicable). Draft condition (22)(c) sets out a requirement to identify elements of built heritage buildings / structures that may be able to be incorporated into other elements of the CRL.
9.11.4.3.2 Submitter issues
The Karangahape Road Business Association (submission 68) has noted the absence of Beresford Toilets from Appendix A of the Built Heritage report, and has requested clarification of the status of that building.
9.11.4.3.3 Discussion
AT have been clear in stating that the historic Beresford Square underground toilets will need to be demolished in order to facilitate construction of the Karangahape Station, which will utilise the same space as the toilets currently do. Auckland Council‟s Built Heritage team have made the following comment on the proposed loss of the Beresford Square Toilets: There is always some degree of loss associated with the demolition of buildings that possess heritage value, even when this value is weakly held. However, this loss may well be offset by other benefits, not necessarily related to the significance or insignificance of the heritage object in question. In this case, the building is not identified as having significant heritage value through inclusion in the District Plan, and because the portion available for viewing does not possess a high level of social and historical significance, the effect of this possible demolition is regarded, in the absence of a full assessment, as likely to be less than minor. Further to that assessment, and in response to the clarification sought by the Karangahape Road Business Association, it is noted that the Beresford Toilets are proposed to be fully demolished in order to facilitate the construction of the Karangahape Station. Through our recommended changes to AT‟s proposed conditions, the heritage building will need to be recorded prior to its demolition, and investigation of opportunities to integrated elements of the Toilets into the Karangahape Station design will be undertaken. In light of the above comments by the Council‟s Built Heritage team, it is considered that the loss of the Beresford Square underground men‟s toilet is acceptable.
Page 142 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.11.4.4 BHE 4 (adverse effects) – NoR 1, 4, 5
The construction of the tunnels via cut and cover between Britomart and Aotea station, the construction of Aotea Station via top down / cut and cover, and the construction of the two shafts by mining / cut and cover techniques at both Karangahape and Newton Stations has the potential to induce surface, sub- surface and lateral ground movement resulting in effects on the foundations of identified built heritage buildings and structures.
Potential damage is likely to range between small internal cracks through to effects on the structure stability.
In terms of built heritage, the elements that are often at risk are decorative plasterwork, joinery and glazed items.
Settlement contours have been produced and these are contained within the structural engineering technical assessment (Appendix 10: Volume 3 CRL NoR suite of documents). From these contours, identification of the built heritage at risk can be seen.
The structural assessment concludes that the level of damage associated with settlement will be in the „negligible‟ to „slight‟ categories and is aesthetic in extent. Given the nature of the above potential effects, we consider that discussion of the effects of construction vibration on built heritage is also of relevance here, noting that the mitigation proposed below by AT also addresses those effects. Construction and operational vibration effects have been discussed in section 9.3 above, but are touched on here for completeness.
9.11.4.4.1 Proposed mitigation
o The development and implementation of the CEMP which:
o Confirms the process to be undertaken to re-confirm the built heritage buildings and structures which fall within the settlement contours and will require monitoring during the construction period, including building survey‟s pre and post construction;
o Confirms the process to be undertaken to restore any damage to the above identified built heritage buildings and structures;
o Resource consent will be sought for groundwater take / drawdown in future stages of the project. Draft condition (22)(a) provides a trigger for Building Condition Surveys to be undertaken on Built Heritage buildings and structures throughout the course of construction of the CRL (see also condition (41)).
9.11.4.4.2 Submitter issues
The submission matters raised in relation to built heritage are almost entirely site-
Page 143 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
specific, in that the potential effects upon individual buildings have been raised. A number of submissions (7) have expressed concerns about the effects that construction activities relating to the CRL may have on the structural integrity of individual heritage buildings along and adjacent to the alignment, and have subsequently sought that those buildings be included in Appendix A to the Built Heritage report, being a list of those heritage buildings and structures that AT are proposing would be subject to Building Condition Surveys. Each request for the inclusion of a specific building within Appendix A to the Built Heritage report has been set out in the table below, including a note on whether that building is affected by the construction vibration contour (historic) and / or the settlement contours as detailed in Appendix B to the Built Heritage report.
Submission number and Building Name / Address / Affected by Settlement or submitter Built Heritage Report ‘Historic’ Vibration reference number Contours in Appendix B to the Built Heritage report?
Karangahape Road Hopetoun Alpha (15-27 Both the 10mm and 5mm Business Association Beresford Square) Settlement contours and the Historic Vibration Submission 68 BHR 12 contour
Karangahape Road 59 Pitt Street (Wembly Both the 10mm and 5mm Business Association Building) BHR 231 Settlement contours and the Historic Vibration Submission 68 contour
Karangahape Road 50-60 Pitt Street (1944 Fire Business Association Station) BHR 77 Both the 10mm and 5mm Settlement contours Submission 68
George Courts Body George Courts Department Both the 10mm and 5mm Corporate Store (238 Karangahape Settlement contours and Road) Submission 121 the Historic Vibration BHR 16 contour
Edward Bennett 81 Mt Eden Road / BHR Outside all contours in Submission 225 238 Appendix B
Page 144 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Submission number and Building Name / Address / Affected by Settlement or submitter Built Heritage Report ‘Historic’ Vibration reference number Contours in Appendix B to the Built Heritage report?
Cooper and Company Ltd 10-18 Customs Street East Outside all contours in (Barrington Building) Appendix B Submission 76 BHR 19 and 21
Cooper and Company Ltd 20 Customs Street East Outside all contours in (Levy Building) BHR 20 Appendix B Submission 76
Roman Catholic Bishop St Patrick‟s Cathedral (1 St Outside all contours in of Auckland of the Patrick‟s Square) Appendix B Diocese of Auckland BHR 104 Submission 97
St Patrick‟s Cathedral
Submission 87
Roman Catholic Bishop 30 Hobson Street (Liston Outside all contours in of Auckland of the House) Appendix B Diocese of Auckland No BHR reference Submission 97
Roman Catholic Bishop 43 Wyndham Street Outside all contours in of Auckland of the (Presbytery for St Patrick‟s Appendix B Diocese of Auckland Cathedral) BHR 170
Submission 97
Roman Catholic Bishop Buildings along St Benedict Outside Historic Vibration of Auckland of the Street contour, but various Diocese of Auckland buildings inside the 5mm and 10mm settlement Submission 97 contours
I Love Ugly 11 Mt Eden Road (shop) Outside all contours in
Page 145 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Submission number and Building Name / Address / Affected by Settlement or submitter Built Heritage Report ‘Historic’ Vibration reference number Contours in Appendix B to the Built Heritage report?
Submission 103 BHR 238 Appendix B
It is suggested that AT respond to the above table in their evidence, providing the rationale for the exclusion of the above listed buildings from Appendix A to the Built Heritage report (and subsequently exclusion from structural monitoring through the Building Condition Survey process). Further to the above listed buildings, the submission by L and C Holdings Ltd88 notes that the building at 246-254 Karangahape Road (Hallentstein Brothers Building) is also excluded from Appendix A. It is our understanding that the Hallenstein Brothers Building is included on Appendix A (Built Heritage report reference 069), and will be subject to Building Condition Surveys throughout the construction works (including pre- and post- construction surveys). In their submission, the Auckland Central Methodist Parish89 note their support for the detailed protection provisions made within the Assessment of Environmental Effects and supporting information, and request consultation through the development of management plans and Outline Plans to enable the sharing of the extensive data they have in relation to their buildings on Pitt Street.
9.11.4.4.3 Discussion
As discussed in greater detail in sections 9.3 and 9.4 above, AT have produced construction vibration contours and settlement contours along the proposed alignment. Specific to this discussion is the „construction vibration (historic)‟ contour, which has taken into account the reduced capacity of older buildings to withstand the effects of vibration.
Styles Group Ltd have undertaken a review of the vibration components of NoRs, and have noted that the vibration contours are conservative, having built in a 100% safety factor. To quote: I agree with the methodology used to develop the risk contours and I consider also that they are helpful in describing the likely extent of effects...I consider that the 100% safety factor is appropriate for the risk contours and that they should be considered as indicative only...Fulfilling the recommendation to undertake vibration monitoring once work start to establish site-specific attenuation relationships will be vital to determine
88 Submission 93, L and C Holdings Ltd
89 Submission 219, Auckland Central Methodist Parish
Page 146 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
whether the contours require any adjustment. Given the conservative nature of the current prediction methods I anticipate that the contours will require adjustment only inwards towards the source. The Council‟s geotechnical review, undertaken by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, has confirmed that ―…the settlement contours for the cut-and-cover segments are reasonably conservative‖ and therefore can be relied upon. It is considered that the ongoing monitoring of vibration throughout the construction phase of the works, combined with Building Condition Surveys that are to be undertaken on all built heritage listed in Appendix A to the Built Heritage report, and AT‟s acknowledgement of the need to repair damage to any buildings caused by the works, that the adverse effects on built heritage can be adequately managed. For completeness, it is noted that resource consents for groundwater take will be required prior to the commencement of any excavation works.
It is recommended that draft condition (22) be amended to specify that the Building Condition Surveys to be undertaken under draft condition (41) need to include pre- and post-construction monitoring of those buildings and structures. This is in accordance with the mitigation offered by AT and set out at clause 9.11.4.4.1 above. For the sake of clarity, we consider that the condition would benefit from the inclusion of a direct reference to Appendix A to the Built Heritage report, being the list of built heritage buildings and structures that AT have identified for Building Condition Surveys. It is noted that draft condition (22)(e) needs to be amended to state that damage to built heritage buildings and structures will be repaired by AT. The draft condition appears to be fall short of offering that, however, as noted under „Proposed mitigation‟ above, AT have identified the need for a process to be established. This may help to provide certainty to submitters.
In light of our conclusions in sections 9.3 and 9.4 above, and subject to all appropriate buildings being list in Appendix A to the Built Heritage report, we consider that the effects of construction vibration and settlement on built heritage along the CRL route can be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated by the conditions put forward by AT, and the amendments we have recommended to that suite of draft conditions.
9.11.4.5 BHE 5 (adverse effects) – NoR 1
The modification of buildings (known as the „Griffiths building‟ on the southeast corner of Albert and Wellesley Streets, and the group of buildings on the northwest corner of Albert and Victoria Streets known as „Martha‟s Corner‟), not formally scheduled but recognised to have historic merit, within the designation footprint associated with Aotea Station, resulting in a loss of history in this part of the city centre area.
9.11.4.5.1 Proposed mitigation
AT is committed to exploring in future stages of design and construction the
Page 147 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
ability, where practicable, to retain all or elements of these buildings for adaptive reuse. Demolition of these buildings is provided for, however, if retention is not practicable.
The development and implementation of the CEMP which:
o Confirm the process to be undertaken to record the built heritage of these buildings;
o Confirm the options considered for the retention of these buildings, and if not the to be retained, the reasons why;
o If to be retained, confirmation of whether whole, partial or adaptive reuse and the provision of plans to show this;
o If not to be retained what the proposed salvage strategies are, including the elements to be salvaged. The above mitigation proposed by AT is set out in draft condition (22).
9.11.4.5.2 Submitter issues
The New Zealand Historic Places Trust (the NZHPT) has raised the need for further clarification of the extent to which a number of heritage buildings would be affected by the construction and operation of the project, and for the consideration alternatives where the project would require the significant modification or complete demolition of built heritage. Whilst broader than the effects discussed in BHE 5 above, the concepts are general and so for completeness I note the buildings „approximately‟ identified by the NZHPT in their submission:
Bluestone walls and toilets under Albert Street in the vicinity of Durham Street apparently required for the tunnel along Albert Street (NoR 1);
Buildings near the NW corner of Victoria and Albert Streets [Martha‟s Corner] and the SE corner of Albert and Wellesley Streets [Griffiths Buildings], apparently required for works associated with or the operation of Aotea Station (NoR 1);
Buildings in Beresford Street and Mercury Lane apparently required for works associated with or the operation of Karangahape Station (NoR 4);
Buildings in Newton Road, Dundonald Street, Symonds Street and New North Road, apparently required for works associated with or the operation of Newton Station (NoR 5);
A building in Flower Street (NoR 6).90 The NZHPT have requested the inclusion of a condition requiring that preference be given to adaptive re-use or alternatives that are less destructive of built heritage, and that they be consulted with in the preparation of additional assessments and
90 Submission 72, New Zealand Historic Places Trust
Page 148 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
conservation plans. The submission by IPENZ also supports the adaptive re-use of heritage buildings rather than demolition.91
9.11.4.5.3 Discussion As discussed above, the Griffith‟s Building and Martha‟s Corner have both been identified for demolition as a bottom line through the NoRs, although the adaptive re-use of these buildings is to be further explored. Clause 9.8 of the Salmond Reed report states: Any proposal to significantly alter or demolish identified historic places will need to be based on a full analysis and exploration of all possible alternative options available, starting with retention, adaptive re-use, integration or partial retention with any proposed works. Demolition will be seen as the worst-case scenario and retention or adaptive re- use should be the first priority. Auckland Council‟s Heritage Unit have undertaken an assessment of the CRL NoRs. In terms of having demolition as the bottom-line for both the Martha‟s Corner and Griffiths buildings, they have provided the following comments: Martha‘s Corner building The building is identified as significant, and, on the basis of information provided to date, the built heritage implementation team do not support demolition of this building. It is likely that the team would not support demolition even if further information becomes available, as additional information would in all probability serve to identify more fully the heritage values of the place. A condition requiring the adaptive re-use of this building is therefore proposed. An appropriate level of adaptive re-use would include retention of the street façade, in three dimensions, where it turns the corner. Floor levels in any new building should align with the original floor levels of the building. Where possible, fabric behind the façade should be retained as well. Griffiths building The Griffiths building is an interwar period unreinforced masonry building constructed of plastered brick. It has detail that relates to the then current Art Deco style. It is a relatively plain example of Art Deco though. The building has undergone considerable internal modification, and its original shopfronts do not survive. There are signs of structural issues. Cracking is present in brickwork and there is spalling concrete in places… According to Auckland Transport‘s proposal the building may undergo adaptive re-use as part of station works, or it may be demolished. A full heritage assessment is needed here, but it is likely that a convincing heritage argument can be made for either outcome. If demolition is to be the outcome, then it is imperative that the design of a new station
91 Submission 107, IPENZ Transportation Group
Page 149 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
be of similar quality to that of the Civic Theatre and the Smith and Caughey‘s building. In addition the design must be a sensitive and informed response to this historic setting.. It is considered that draft condition (22) goes some way to ensuring that further consideration of the adaptive re-use of the Martha‟s Corner and Griffiths Buildings will occur through the detailed design of the CRL. As noted above, the NZHPT has identified a number of buildings / areas where AT proposed to undertake surface works, and have requested clarification of the extent of the proposed works on those buildings. We consider this request for clarity to be based around whether AT intends to demolish, modify or adaptively re-use heritage buildings, as opposed to whether those buildings will suffer structurally as a result of construction or operation of the CRL, or whether the buildings will suffer physical damage due to their proximity to construction works / sites. These latter matters are covered under BHE 4 and 6 respectively. The following comments are made:
o AT have advised that the scheduled Bluestone wall along Albert Street can be retained through the cut-and-cover construction of the tunnels. They have also been clear in stating that the scheduled toilets under Albert Street need to be demolished in order to facilitate the cut-and-cover construction methodology, citing their location underneath the road as the primary reason.
o AT have been clear in identifying that the Beresford Square underground toilets and Supper Club buildings need to be demolished for the construction of the main entry into the Karangahape Station, and likewise, the buildings from 9-31 Mercury Lane for the establishment of the secondary access to the Karangahape Station, and a localised construction site.
o With regard to the block of land bounded by Symonds Street, Newton Road, Dundonald Street, Basque Road and New North Road: At the northern end of the station private land is to be acquired for the construction, operation and maintenance of the second shaft entry into Newton Station below. Under the indicative concept design92 a second entrance is proposed to provide for fire life and safety requirements (emergency egress and ingress). This may also house services and utilities, including ventilation. It is not anticipated at this stage that this second entry will be used for passengers. Consequently, following construction, surface land not required for the continued operation and maintenance of this entrance may be drawn back to sub-strata designation requirements, potentially allowing for redevelopment opportunities.93 From discussions with the AT project team, it is out understanding that only the rear annexe of a building fronting Symonds Street, and not the building itself, will be demolished in order to construct this aspect of the station.
92 Concept Design Report Appendix 13: Volume 3 CRL NoR suite of documents
93 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects – Section 7.14 Loss of Property, Page 206
Page 150 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
o In terms of the building on Flower Street: The main construction site for the Project works will be located between Nikau Street in the north, Mt Eden Road and Flower Street in the east, and Porters Avenue in the west. The impact of the proposed designation in this area is significant during construction as the surface land is anticipated to be unavailable for other land use activities for 5 to 6 years.94 In their assessment of the NoRs, Auckland Council‟s Heritage Unit has noted the need for the preparation and implementation of a Historic Heritage Management Plan that should be prepared in consultation with Council. The Heritage Unit has also emphasised the need for any heritage items that are to be demolished or significantly adapted to be recorded in their current context prior to removal. The above recommendations are supported, and subsequently, amendments have been made to draft condition (22) to reflect these additional requirements, and to clarify the mitigation proposed by AT above. Overall, it is considered that with priority given to the adaptive re-use of the Martha‟s Corner and Griffiths buildings, the preparation and implementation of a Historic Heritage Management Plan (in consultation with Auckland Council‟s Heritage Unit), and the mitigation noted by AT above, adverse built heritage effects of the CRL arising from the modification of heritage buildings can be avoided or mitigated. As such, the submission matters raised by NZHPT and IPENZ are considered to be addressed satisfactorily.
9.11.4.6 BHE 6 (adverse effects) – NoRs 1, 4, 5, 6
o Potential physical damage to built heritage buildings and structures located in close proximity to surface construction works.
9.11.4.6.1 Proposed mitigation
o The CEMP for the construction of the CRL will include measures for protection of the construction site areas where surface works are occurring. These measures will include the identification and confirmation of any built heritage buildings or structures which require particular protection measures. Draft conditions (22)(d) and (e) set out that AT will provide specific protection to all scheduled buildings, „character defining‟ and „character supporting‟ buildings identified through the Assessment of Environmental Effects, and that any damage sustained to any of those buildings as the result of the construction works will be repaired.
9.11.4.6.2 Submitter issues
A number of submitters have identified the potential for damage to heritage buildings arising from construction effects.
94 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects – Section 7.14, Loss of Property, Page 207
Page 151 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.11.4.6.3 Discussion
As with the mitigation proposed by AT under BH4 above, the Building Condition Surveys will be used as a means of monitoring any damage to the buildings, and the CEMP will set out the process to be undertaken to restore any damage to the 55 buildings identified in the Salmon Reed report.
9.11.5 Submission issues not otherwise addressed
Submission 67 by Alan Matson request that certain buildings be excluded from any designation. Those buildings are described in the submission as being properties 14, 15, 16 and 395 (as referenced in NoR 1) and building (as referenced in NoR 5). These buildings are detailed below in terms of physical address, name, and reference in the Built Heritage report:
Building 14, 16 and 395 (NoR 1): 67-69 Victoria Street West (known as the Mexican Café building) (Built Heritage report reference 163)
Building 15 (NoR 1): 51-63 Victoria Street West (Martha‟s Corner) (Building Heritage reference 142)
Building 178, 180, 181 and 183 (NoR 5): 223, 225, 227 and 229-231 Symonds Street (collectively referenced in the Built Heritage report reference 130)
The foregoing assessment has discussed the effects of the CRL NoRs on these buildings either specifically or generally.
In terms of Martha‟s corner, Auckland Council is not supportive of complete demolition of this building. Under the assumption that AT confirm that the site is still needed at that time, we have recommended that the adaptive re-use of the Martha‟s Corner building be explored as a priority. AT have not described the effects of the proposal on the Mexican Café building, or the degree of any modifications that are being proposed. It would be good if AT can clarify the specific requirements for this site. In terms of the Symonds Street building referenced as building 130 in the Built Heritage report, it is our understanding that AT propose to remove the rear annexes of the building to enable to construction of the station shaft for the Newton Station. The rest of the building is to be retained. It is considered that with priority given to the adaptive re-use of built heritage buildings, the preparation and implementation of a Historic Heritage Management Plan (in consultation with Auckland Council‟s Heritage Unit), and the mitigation noted by AT in their Assessment Environmental Effects, adverse built heritage effects of the CRL arising the modification of the above buildings can be avoided or mitigated.
Page 152 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.12 Archaeology
9.12.1 Introduction
Clough & Associates Ltd have prepared an Archaeological Assessment (Archaeology report) in support of the Assessment of Environmental Effects for the CRL. The report identifies that actual effects on archaeology cannot be determined until detailed design of the CRL has been undertaken, including details of the proposed stations and the required earthworks. The Archaeology report notes that as the CRL will be constructed for the most part through tunnelling deep below the ground surface, it will largely sit below the level of any archaeology and therefore will have no effects. Only the historic reclamation area (site R11/1379, AS 7) in and around Queen Elizabeth Square and beneath the CPO, and elsewhere where works approach the surface, is there any potential for archaeological remains to be found. The report also notes that there is reasonable potential to impact on subsurface archaeological remains in the cut and cover section up Albert Street, within the footprint of Aotea Station, and at 257 Symonds Street, being the currently vacant site that is to form part of the Newton Station.
The chance of encountering archaeological remains at any of the other surface sites along the route (including the remainder of Newton Station, Karangahape Station and the tunnel sections between Newton Station and the NAL) is considered to be low to little if any by Clough & Associates Ltd. The Archaeology report acknowledges that whilst further investigations in terms of historical research on individual properties will help to clarify the likelihood of uncovering artefacts, the nature, extent and significance of archaeology will largely be unknown until it is exposed as a result of earthworks associated with the Project. The Archaeology report concludes: Archaeology should not be considered a major constraint on the CRL, as effects on subsurface archaeology can only be confirmed once works are under way, and can be appropriately mitigated under the Historic Places Act 1993.95
9.12.2 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation
Table 7.9 of the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects provides details of the identified actual and potential archaeological effects associated with the CRL NoR and provides a number of recommendations for managing adverse effects. The discussion below summarises that information. Potential effects
95 CRL AEE, Volume 3: Part 1, Appendix 3 – Archaeological Assessment, Page 45
Page 153 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Britomart to Aotea (NoR 1):
o There is reasonable potential to impact on sub-surface archaeological remains in the cut and cover section between Britomart and (including) Aotea Station.
o The Commercial Bay reclamation area, which the CRL crosses through as it leaves Britomart and travels through to the northern end of Albert Street, is a listed archaeological site. It is likely that there are still remains in this area of archaeological deposits and features, including in relation to the early Queen Street Wharf which will be exposed as part of construction works in this area.
o The construction of the Britomart Rail Station and other buildings in the Britomart to the northern end of Albert Street area have extensively disturbed archaeological remains in the past and these have been removed, catalogued and retained as required.
o The cut and cover construction along Albert Street also has potential to expose archaeological remains, particularly old drains and other 19th century infrastructure including road surfaces.
o If the „Griffiths Building‟ and those buildings known as „Martha‟s Corner Buildings‟ are proposed to be altered in a way that disturbs the ground surface consequently there is the potential for archaeological remains to be discovered. The „Griffiths Building‟ was constructed in 1929, and archaeological remains could be present beneath the building if the construction of any basements has not removed these. The same situation applies for the „Martha‟s Corner Buildings‟.
o There is no potential for archaeological remains to be found under the City Central Hotel, which is proposed to be demolished in order to construct and operate Aotea Station. This is because the hotel has sub ground levels and is also benched into the hillside.
o There are two recorded archaeological sites within close proximity to the Aotea Station footprint at 110 to 114 Albert Street. This site is located outside the designation footprint and will be unaffected by surface construction works relating to the CRL which would potentially unearth archaeological remains. Karangahape Station and Newton Station (NoRs 4 and 5 respectively):
o The potential for archaeological remains within the surface works areas associated with constructing the entry shafts for Karangahape and Newton Stations is low. However, it is acknowledged that at both areas earthworks could expose unknown and unexpected archaeological remains
o At Newton Station there is reasonable potential for archaeological remains on the vacant property at 257 Symonds Street (within the designation footprint and to be used as part of the main entrance to the station below). This site previously contained an early villa dating back to the 1840‟s. This original villa was replaced by another between 1900 and 1910 which remained on the site until the 1990‟s. CRL connection with the North Auckland Line (NoR 6):
Page 154 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
o The Archaeology report identifies that the potential for archaeological remains being found within the surface works area associated with the NAL connection area and the main construction site area is low due to these areas being highly modified locations. However, it is acknowledged that earthworks could expose unknown and unexpected archaeological remains. Mitigation proposed
o Where required, an authority under the HPA for undertaking works near on within archaeological sites will be required. This will be applied for at the time of construction and the necessary assessment undertaken to satisfy the requirements of the HPA.
o Incorporation of procedures within the Historic Heritage Management Plan that will form part of the CEMP, including:
o Monitoring of preliminary earthworks;
o Accidental discovery of archaeological remains;
o The recording of discovered archaeological remains;
o where the supervision of works by an on-site archaeologist may be required;
o In conjunction with the Communications Plan specific requirements for the on-going liaison with Iwi regarding archaeological remains
o Specific protocols for monitoring works on the “Griffiths Building‟ site and the „Martha‟s corner Buildings‟ if these buildings are demolished or altered which disturbs below the ground surface.
AT‟s proposed Condition 23 sets out that adverse archaeological effects are to be managed as part of the CEMP, with the following information to be provided:
o How procedures for archaeological investigations and monitoring of preliminary earthworks are to be implemented in areas where there is potential for archaeological remains to be discovered.
o Procedures for the discovery of, including accidental discovery, archaeological remains.
o Procedures for recording any archaeological remains or evidence before it is modified or destroyed.
o Cross references to the specific sections of the Communication and Consultation Plan which detail how the Auckland Council Heritage Department, the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, mana whenua, and the general public are to be communicated and liaised with on the management of the adverse effects relating to archaeology.
Page 155 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.12.3 Submitter issues
No submission matters were raised in regard to archaeology.
9.12.4 Relevant plan provisions
9.12.4.1 Auckland City District Plan – Central Area Section Objective 10.12.4: To protect significant archaeological sites which contribute to the City‘s heritage and knowledge of the past.
Policies:
By identifying and scheduling archaeological sites and features significant for their historic, cultural, scientific and visual amenity value and deserving of preservation.
9.12.4.2 Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section
Heritage Objective 5C.7.4: To protect valuable archaeological features which contribute to the City‘s heritage.
Policies:
By identifying and scheduling archaeological features significant for their historic, cultural, scientific, educational and visual amenity value.
By identifying other recognised archaeological features as a matter of public information.
9.12.5 Discussion
Auckland Council‟s Heritage Unit has reviewed the CRL documents including the CRL Heritage report in terms of archaeological matters. A full copy of this review is included as Attachment J - Built Heritage and Archaeology Report.
The following quote forms section 8.2 of that review, and we adopt that assessment here: Proposals like the City Rail Link present an opportunity to identify important elements of our history and to raise the profile of historic heritage to Aucklanders; contributing to their sense of place, their identity and the character of Auckland. Clough and Associates (July 2012) suggest that appropriate mitigation of effects be via the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993 (HPA) which control the destruction of archaeological sites. Any assessment of environmental effects must address s 6(f) of the RMA and proposed mitigation for adverse effects on heritage should recognise and provide for historic
Page 156 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
heritage as a matter of national importance. The Clough and Associates (July 2012) report considers that mitigation of effects is appropriate despite the fact that effects are not fully identified and therefore the potential effects remain unknown. The scale of effects and possibility of avoidance are not discussed. Given the assumption that effects on archaeology will not be able to be avoided as they will only really present themselves during the construction phase of the project, mitigation of the effects is the only option presented. Simply mitigating effects on archaeology under the HPA is not necessarily considered appropriate mitigation for effects on historic heritage under the RMA. The Clough and Associates (July 2012) report does not present a range of potential mitigation options.
It is recommended that consideration be given to accommodating additional or alternative methods of historic heritage mitigation into the proposal. Such methods might include keeping design flexible enough to identify opportunities to incorporate or preserve in-situ or interpret archaeological features of findings where possible or practicable where is might add value to Aucklanders‘ understanding and appreciation of the history and development of Auckland.
The archaeology review notes that while proposed conditions provided by AT address the statutory provisions of the HPA, it is recommended that consideration be given some additional matters relevant to an assessment under section 6(f) of the RMA.
In light of the assessment and recommendations from the Council‟s Heritage Unit, the following discussion outlines the changes we have recommended be made to AT‟s proposed Condition 23.
The draft conditions seek to address adverse effects on archaeology through the CEMP. It is considered that the process would benefit from the preparation and implementation of a Historic Heritage Management Plan (HHMP), which will include matters relating to built heritage, archaeology, and scheduled trees. It is noted that the AT‟s Archaeological Assessment recommends the development of an Archaeological Management Plan that would sit within the CEMP.
The HHMP should be prepared in consultation with Auckland Council‟s Heritage Unit, and significantly, needs to include all works, prior to, during and after construction of the CRL.
Additional requirements in respect of the HHMP include:
Clearly defining the roles, responsibilities, procedures and reporting requirements for when archaeological remains are encountered.
The methodology to be followed in undertaking archaeological investigations prior to the detailed design of the project in order to identify opportunities for avoidance, remediation of mitigation of adverse effects.
Consideration to be given to the incorporation of in-situ material or artefacts into the design of stations and / or publicly accessible areas associated with the CRL project, and for post-excavation assessment and publication of any discovered material.
Page 157 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Recommended amendments to AT‟s proposed Condition 23 to give these requirements are set out as part of our recommended suite of conditions at Attachment O to this report. Overall, we consider that in addition to the mitigation offered by AT, the inclusion of early investigations to inform detailed project design may enable further mitigation, or the avoidance, of the adverse archaeological effects of the Project. 9.13 Trees
9.13.1 Introduction Boffa Miskell Limited has prepared a “City Rail Link Tree Assessment” (Tree report) for AT, and it is included as Appendix 8: Volume 3 of the suite of documents submitted in support of the NoRs. The Tree report sets out the existing tree environment along the CRL alignment:
A total of 206 trees or groups of trees were identified during site walkovers. Of this 206, approximately 160 are Council owned trees (primarily within road reserves). The road reserves throughout the CRL are generally formed either of block paving or bitumen footpaths. A total of 42 trees and tree groups are within the CRL surface designations, and a further 18 are within close proximity to the surface works. Trees immediately adjacent to surface designation areas may require protection during construction. The remaining 146 tree and tree groups are either above the subterranean parts of the designation where no surface works are to be undertaken, or are a sufficient distance from the designation footprint to remain unaffected…The trees within the CRL designation footprint are mostly large street trees that have successfully established and are adapting to the difficult street tree growing environment.‖96
It is proposed that the 42 identified trees and tree groups be removed through the construction process. Most of the affected trees are exotic street trees and with two exceptions, none are scheduled or generally protected under the relevant district plans. The two exceptions are two Tulip Trees (district plan reference 218: Category B) growing in the Mayoral Drive road reserve (from Wellesley Street West to Vincent Street). Both of these trees are in close proximity to the Aotea Station surface works and may be affected.
Further to the information set out in the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects and the Tree report, additional clarification of the proposed effects on trees was provided verbally by the project team on a walkover of the site on 7 May 2013. That discussion identified that:
A variation to the construction work site will incorporate more of the northern end of Mayoral Drive than explicitly stated in the NoR documentation notified, meaning that up to an additional fourteen (14) scheduled Tulip trees and three (3) generally protected Queensland Box trees may also require removal.
All existing trees (four trees) within the Beresford Square / Karangahape Station region of the Project may require removal (only one Plane tree removal has been identified for this area in the NoR documentation). For the purpose of the assessment that follows, we have considered the worst-case scenario, which includes the possible removal of the additional trees identified above.
96 CRL Volume 3: Appendix 8 - Tree Assessment, Section 4, page 6
Page 158 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.13.2 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation
Table 7.13 of the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects provides details of the identified actual and potential effects on Trees associated with the CRL NoR and provides a number of recommendations for managing adverse effects. The discussion below summarises that information. Adverse effects
The removal of 42 (potentially 59) trees, including 2 (or 16) scheduled Tulip trees located within the Mayoral Drive road reserve, 19 evergreen magnolia trees and 1 oriental plane tree (known as the Harvey Tree) along the Albert Street corridor as a result of the cut and cover construction works.
The removal of 18 trees or groups of trees from area around Karangahape and Newton as a result of surface construction works. The Tree report states that these trees are not considered by the technical expert to be outstanding specimens.
There are a number of kauri trees located in „QEII Square‟ that will require removal in order to construct the two tunnels through this area under a cut and cover construction methodology. It is noted that these trees are currently housed in „pots‟ imbedded into the ground and therefore these can be relocated / stored during the construction period.
The potential severance of tree roots or damage to tree branches as a result of:
o Physical works occurring within the dripline of trees not removed for construction of the CRL;
o Physical works occurring within the branch line of trees not removed for construction of the CRL;
o Storage areas for machinery, equipment, materials and spoil being located too close to trees;
o Heat damage from exhaust fumes or similar discharges onto tree trunks or canopy‟s;
o Toxic run off / spills;
o Damage arising from physical impacts of vehicles into trees. Proposed mitigation
It is noted that Magnolia and Pohutukawa trees can tolerate transplanting and relocation and therefore this should be considered as part of the tree delivery work plan to be developed at construction time (see methods to manage adverse effects). In terms of mitigating the loss of established trees along the alignment, AT proposes:
Page 159 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
The implementation of the CEMP, which:
o provides the outcomes of a tree assessment (undertaken prior to physical construction works occurring in this area) which:
. confirms the number of trees affected by the construction works;
. the health (including structural integrity) and age of the trees;
. which trees can be transplanted or relocated to temporary storage during construction.
o Details the liaison and input into the UDF for the replanting of suitable trees in this location as part of the reinstatement of this area AT‟s proposed Condition 24 relates to the management of tree removal, the protection of remaining trees adjacent to surface works, and links through to proposed Condition 30, being the Urban Design and Landscape Plan, which deals with replacement planting and streetscapes. In terms of avoiding or remedying adverse effects on existing trees to be retained throughout the construction phase of the CRL, AT proposes:
Implementation of the CEMP which:
o Identifies which trees (which are not removed) within the designation surface areas require protection measures during physical construction works or operation of the sites during construction.
o Confirms the protection measures to be implemented (these may include – protective fencing, undertaking certain works with hand tools, training of construction staff regarding the use of vehicles and other machinery around trees under protection)
9.13.3 Submitter issues
No submitters raised issues specifically about the loss of street trees, however, a number (4) do specifically identify replacement planting as part of a high quality streetscape post-construction. No submitter raised matters relating to the protection of trees during the construction phase of the project.
9.13.4 Relevant plan provisions
Trees on private property are generally not protected Central Area. General street tree protection applies throughout the Central Area, with resource consent required in order to undertaken works within the dripline of street trees. Notable street trees within the Central Area are scheduled under Part 10 of the Central Area Plan. Street trees are also afforded general protection status within the Isthmus Plan, as are
Page 160 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
those within Residential 1-4 zones, and on sites over 4,000m2. No sites within the CRL footprint fall into these categories. Notable trees are scheduled with section 5C of the Plan.
9.13.4.1 Auckland City District Plan – Central Area Section
Objective 10.11.3: To protect trees and groups of trees which significantly contribute to the City‘s character, heritage and amenity. Policies:
o By identifying, recognising and protecting notable trees and groups of trees in public and private ownership.
o By continuing the practice of planting trees in roads and on public open spaces and protecting these from unnecessary interference or destruction.
o By protecting and promoting trees as habitat and a food source to retain and attract valued wildlife.
9.13.4.2 Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section
Trees Objective 5C.7.3.1: To protect trees and groups of trees which significantly contribute to the district‘s amenity.
Policies:
o By identifying and protecting notable trees in public and private ownership.
o By protecting matures trees and groups of trees as an important character element in maintaining and enhancing the environment of the district.
o By identifying and protecting trees where they are necessary for the purposes of the avoidance of natural hazards.
o By continuing the practice of planting trees in roads and on public reserves and protecting these from unnecessary interference or destruction.
o By protecting and promoting trees as a food source to attract valued wildlife back into our environment.
9.13.5 Assessment and proposed mitigation
As mentioned in the introduction to this section above, there is a discrepancy between the number and location of trees to be removed as identified in the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects (including the Tree report), and discussions had with AT‟s specialists on the walkover of the CRL route on 7 May 2013. It is suggested that AT provide a clear indication (by way of a map and a list, both referencing the Tree report reference numbers) of the exact trees that are subject to
Page 161 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
potential removal through the construction of the CRL. For the purpose of our assessment, we have taken the „worst-case scenario‟, and have considered that loss of an additional 14 scheduled Tulip trees on Mayoral Drive, and an additional three (3) Plane trees on Beresford Square.
The CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects and Tree report generally focus on the implication of construction works on trees at or near the surface construction sites. In light of this, Grant Sirl, Council‟s consultant arborist in his review of the effects of the CRL on trees (Attachment K to this Report), has noted that the avenue of scheduled Plan trees up Vincent Street need to be protected throughout the construction phase of the project.
The CRL route goes underneath Vincent Street, with this portion of the works to be completed using the tunnel boring machine. Mr Sirl states: Vincent Street, containing an avenue of scheduled Plane trees should, in my opinion, be considered an entire exclusion zone where no surface activities occur and the NoR 3 – Strata (Protection), to a minimum depth of no less than 5.0 metres below the ground surface, is strictly applied.
It is noted that as Vincent Street is outside the three-dimensional envelope for the Project, the provisions of the Central Area Plan dictate what activities may be undertaken within the road reserve and / or the dripline of any generally protected or scheduled trees. Overall, the Mr Sirl concludes: Emphasis needs to be placed on determining the necessity to remove trees, groups of trees and other vegetation to facilitate the construction of the proposed CRL. … The necessity to remove scheduled trees from upon Mayoral Drive needs to be confirmed. The preference would be to preserve the specific scheduled Tulip trees [with] the proposed construction work site established adjacent the road corridor and specific trees respectively.
Minimising the number of tree removals will ultimately contribute to the management of the adverse effects as a consequence of potential wholesale tree removals. Mitigating the removal of established trees that have existed within a relatively hostile growing environment for many years but have subsequently adapted to the conditions is challenging. Hence, the preference to preserve existing trees where at all possible that are of generally good condition and overall form is encouraged.
It is acknowledged the building footprint necessary and overall scope of works required to construct the CRL will require the removal of specific trees. Mitigating the removal of those individual trees, group of trees and vegetation is proposed. It is proposed to plant a 45-litre (PB95) grade replacement tree on a one-for-
Page 162 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
one basis. The replacement tree planting mitigation proposed is deemed acceptable. The species selection and positioning of new trees will need to be determined in direct consultation with the Auckland Council Parks Department. …
It is concluded imperative that an open and transparent communication avenue be established between the Auckland Council Parks and Heritage Units respectively to ensure all matters pertaining to the generally protected and scheduled trees, predominantly located within the Council road berm, are discussed and issues addressed as deemed necessary. I concur with Mr Sirl‟s conclusions.
In terms submissions, the only tree-related matter raised is in reference to replacement planting as part of a high-quality post-construction streetscape. The above conclusions have found the proposed one-for-one replacement planting acceptable, subject to future consultation with Auckland Council‟s Parks Department to determine final species and positioning of trees / vegetation. Post-construction streetscapes are discussed in more detail in section 9.16 of this Report. Amendment to AT‘s draft conditions In light of the above conclusions, some minor amendments to AT‟s proposed conditions are recommended to address certain matters.
In terms of the assessment that will identify the trees that need to be removed prior to construction commencing, priority consideration should be given to retaining trees in- situ, with specific reference to the sixteen (16) potentially affected scheduled Tulip trees located within the Mayoral Drive road reserve. AT‟s proposed Condition 24 has been amended to reflect this requirement, as well as a requirement for specific consultation with the Auckland Council Parks Department when considering replacement tree species, tree pit construction, and the positioning o replacement planting. In addition, it is recommended that a requirement to consult with Auckland Council‟s Parks Department be specifically stated in proposed Condition 8 in respect of the Communication and Consultation Plan. This provides a formal link between the consultation requirements proposed by AT through proposed Condition 24. 9.14 Contamination
9.14.1 Introduction
9.14.1.1 Construction There are several potential adverse effects associated with contaminated land that might be encountered during the construction phase of the CRL. These include erosion, sediment run-off from stockpiled soil, odour emissions from uncovered contaminated material and, particularly, dust emissions. The latter issue is an important matter where air quality is concerned but if dust is discharged from contaminated soil the potential
Page 163 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
adverse effects are compounded.
Peripheral issues include the removal and safe (and environmentally compliant) disposal of contaminated material, the management of soil stockpiles while contamination evaluation and soil disposal fate are each awaiting decisions, and the procedures for dealing with unexpected contamination, such as uncovered drums. It is noted that consents under the National Environmental Standard (NES) for assessing and managing contaminants in soil to protect human health and Auckland Regional Plans in accordance with Section 15 of the RMA may be required in relation to contamination, and that these consents will be applied for in the future should they be necessary.
9.14.1.2 Operational There are no predicted potential adverse effects from contaminated land associated with the operational phase of the CRL.
9.14.2 Auckland Transport Assessment and Proposed Mitigation
9.14.2.1 Construction The Contaminated Land Assessment (CLA)97 carried out by AT begins with a generic summary of the CRL project and identifies matters of particular relevance to a contamination assessment. The existing environment is described and focusses on topics such as geology, hydrogeology, topography and drainage that have particular relevance to the contaminated land assessment.
The legislative framework is outlined, in particular the applicable standards and statutory requirements that apply to the assessment of contaminants in soil. The critical matters discussed are the NES, the Auckland Regional Land, Air and Water Plan, and the Auckland District Plan. Each of these instruments has relevance to the contamination assessment undertaken. The CLA correctly focuses on those areas of the proposed CRL route where disturbance of the ground will take place. This includes those parts where a cut and cover methodology is proposed and also the sites selected for the stations where a box-type top down construction method will be used. Those parts of the route that will be developed by tunnel boring machines (TBMs) are not considered, apart from the launch and retrieval shafts for the TBMs. The geological and hydrogeological conditions expected along the route are described, although this can only realistically be a broad discussion (albeit one that is informed appropriately by data from previous site-specific studies, which are listed). Topography and drainage issues are briefly noted; these have only limited relevance to
97 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects – Volume 3 Part 1. Contaminated Land Assessment.
Page 164 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
the CLA exercise, although stormwater channels could be impacted by construction- sourced sediments. The investigations of past and present land uses along the CRL route are briefly summarised and this sets the scene for a more specific and detailed discussion later in the CLA report where the results of site investigation sampling and analysis are compared to known and inferred land uses to establish the significance of contamination expected to be encountered during construction activities.
The limitations of the aerial photographs are quite correctly noted. They are an adjunct to data review and not an end in themselves; in fact they do not provide much value to this CLA, and this is acknowledged in the report.
Table 7 of section 7 of the CLA summarises the findings of the various investigations that have contributed to the CLA report. The inclusion of a column in the table which outlines the available options in each case for “avoiding, remedying or mitigating” environmental effects is useful and informs the NoR process and the development of conditions. The conclusions of the CLA report are brief and to the point; the three critical potential adverse environmental effects identified are:
Exposure of workers and members of the public to contamination due to dermal, ingestion and inhalation pathways;
Mobilisation of contaminants through the creation of preferential pathways; and
Contaminated sediment runoff into stormwater. These are the key matters that require close and detailed attention in conditions and during CRL construction to ensure that adverse environmental effects are appropriately mitigated.
9.14.2.2 Operational
The effects associated with the operation of the CRL do not include significant adverse effects resulting from the possible contamination of land. Once commissioned the electric train system of the CRL will operate without any usage of hydrocarbon fuels (except for the very infrequent proposed use of diesel-powered vehicles associated with maintenance purposes). Also, for the most part the CRL system will operate well below ground level and any minor discharges of oils and greases (for example) from the trains and carriage stock bearings will comprise minor drips onto the tracks. There are no ecological or human health adverse effects associated with such discharges.
Page 165 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.14.3 Submitter Issues
9.14.3.1 Construction
A total of three submissions received on the NoR for the CRL identify concerns with the disturbance of contaminated land. In particular, two submissions note that adverse effects might arise from such disturbance, with odour release being specifically cited as one possible adverse effect. The area on the corner of Pitt Street and Vincent Street, which was at one time occupied by a service station, is identified in one submission98 as a possible location of concern with regard to historic hydrocarbon contamination. Similarly99 the disturbance of “gas works waste” in the Nikau Street area adjacent to the proposed Newton Station location is considered to have the potential to “cause odour or hazardous discharges … adversely affecting human health”.
9.14.3.2 Operational No submissions were received in related to contaminated land in the operational phase of the CRL.
9.14.4 Relevant Plan Provisions
9.14.4.1 Auckland City District Plan – Central Area Section The Central Area Plan has one objective and three associated policies in relation to contaminated land. Objective 11.4.3 states: Objective ―To minimise the adverse effects of site contamination:
Policies a) By applying measures which seek to minimise and control the adverse effects arising from contaminated land.
b) By requiring, where appropriate, the remediation of contaminated land as a prerequisite to its redevelopment. c) By ensuring, where appropriate, that any residual land contamination levels are appropriate for any proposed redevelopment.‖
9.14.4.2 Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section
98 Pal Properties (Submission 28)
99 Podium Property Limited (Submission 110)
Page 166 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
The Isthmus Plan has one objective and two associated policies in relation to contaminated land. Objective 5E.4.3 states: Objective ―To minimise the adverse effects of site contamination and to prevent further site contamination: Policies:
By applying measures which seek to minimise and control the adverse effects of discharges into or onto land.
By requiring, where appropriate, the remediation of land as a prerequisite to its redevelopment.‖
9.14.5 Assessment and Proposed Mitigation
The mitigation measures proposed by AT and encapsulated within the draft proposed conditions are thorough and deal, inter alia, with the potential adverse environmental effects identified in submissions. The Environmental Management Framework prepared by AT to support and inform the CRL project includes, inter alia, an indicative Contamination Remediation Plan outline. This addresses all of the key parameters that will be needed in the management of contamination during CRL construction activities.
The draft conditions proposed by AT give effect to the coverage of the outline Contamination Remediation Plan and provide a comprehensive raft of measures by which the adverse effects relating to contaminated land can be managed.
It is noteworthy that the draft conditions also include some consideration of the requirements of a post-construction validation report that will document the management of contaminated soil and provide evidence of appropriately managed disposal.
The suggested conditions are endorsed as sufficient in coverage and appropriate in detail to ensure the effective management of contaminated soil during CRL construction activities such that adverse environmental effects will be satisfactorily mitigated. 9.15 Air Quality
9.15.1 Introduction
9.15.1.1 Construction Dust emissions during construction are the most significant predicted air quality issue associated with the CRL project. Odour could be a potential issue if contaminated material is uncovered during excavations associated with the CRL construction. This is an unlikely event, however if this did occur this effect would be temporary and mitigation measures are available.
Page 167 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Exhaust emissions from equipment and vehicles powered by hydrocarbon fuels (typically diesel engines) have the potential, if equipment is improperly operated or maintained, to adversely affect local air quality.
9.15.1.2 Operation
There are no significant issues likely to result in diminished air quality during the operational phase of the CRL.
9.15.2 Auckland Transport Assessment and Proposed Mitigation
9.15.2.1 Construction
The Air Quality Assessment100 (AQA) begins with a brief summary of the CRL project and then provides a review of the existing air quality environment along the route. This includes expected meteorological conditions, current air quality in the environs of the route corridor and an area-by-area description of the route divided into several spatial sections with particular consideration of sensitive receptors. The meteorological data summary within the AQA provides sufficient information and is in appropriate detail to enable the adequate assessment of the ways in which prevailing climatic conditions may exacerbate any adverse effects of, particularly, dust emissions from CRL construction activities.
The summary of ambient air quality in terms of available data and the associated area- by-area description of potential effects on identified sensitive receptors enable a defensible assessment of the environmental effects of expected emissions to air to be made. The technical assessment methodology is robust and is appropriately described. The operational and construction assumptions are explicitly stated and are all reasonable in the context of the route, the construction methodologies to be employed in particular areas, and the assessment against receptors in those areas. The discussion of air quality assessment criteria is complete and correctly focusses on the key issues of dust emissions and their assessment. The assessment of environmental effects identifies the potential adverse effects of the construction methodologies and the expected effects on air quality. Dust is afforded particular emphasis, which is appropriate as it is the most critical potential adverse air quality-related environmental effect. Considerable detail is provided about the ways in which dust releases might occur during CRL construction activities and this is informative in underpinning the mitigation measures which are then advanced. Other potential contributors to adverse effects on air quality are given attention, to the extent commensurate with their significantly more limited potential adverse effects. This
100 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects – Volume 3 Part 1. Technical Support to Support Assessment of Effects (Notice of Requirement): Air Quality Assessment.
Page 168 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
is appropriate. Such miscellaneous potential effects include odour emissions if contaminated soil was to be uncovered during construction and the particulate emissions from diesel engine-powered maintenance trains which may operate on the CRL route to a very limited extent. These two types of adverse effects are both extremely unlikely and, in any event, will be of relatively short duration. Consequently, these effects are not further considered in this assessment. The extensive mitigation measures outlined, particularly for dust control, are all relevant and clearly stated and will provide the essence of a dust management plan, which will form part of the CEMP. The expected effects of vehicle exhaust emissions, both from construction machinery and diverted and/or delayed traffic, is addressed in the AQA and is considered not to be significant. Proposals for the monitoring of air emissions are provided. These include visual monitoring as a qualitative approach and the use of specific monitoring instruments. Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) monitoring is, correctly, given particular attention as this parameter is a potential matter of most concern to certain sensitive receptor groups, particularly young children. The air monitoring proposed is endorsed as being necessary and sufficient. The summarised tabulation of potential air quality effects (Table 4), with associated suggested management, mitigation and monitoring measures, is a helpful inclusion in the AQA.
9.15.2.2 Operational
No particular mitigation measures are warranted and none are suggested with respect to effects on air quality from the operation of the CRL.
9.15.3 Submitter Issues
9.15.3.1 Construction
A number of submissions note (or imply) the potential adverse effect during the construction period of the exhaust emissions from construction traffic and powered equipment.
The major concern for submitters with respect to adverse effects on air quality is from dust emissions during construction activities for the CRL. The potential adverse effects are considered to be on peoples‟ health and/or properties adjacent to the route corridor. While most submitters raising concerns about dust require the matter to be addressed by robust, detailed and effective dust management measures encapsulated in the proposed CEMP, there are also a number of requests for a cleaning programme to be instigated for buildings along the route corridor that have the potential to be adversely affected by dust emissions.
Page 169 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
One particular submission101 from the Bear Park Child Care facility notes the sensitivity of their premises (and, more particularly, the children) to the adverse effects of dust emissions from CRL construction activities, and requests that “best practice dust control methods” are implemented. Further, it is suggested that additional measures such as a high (but transparent) fence could be erected on the relevant property boundary so that the children can be protected from dust impacts but can, at the same time, enjoy the fascination of safely observing CRL construction activities.
The Department of Corrections102 note that, in connection with possible effects of construction of the CRL on the Mt Eden Corrections Facility, significant dust emissions “may impact on security equipment”. Presumably (although not explicitly stated) this could be by obscuring the lenses of surveillance cameras. Other miscellaneous submissions on air quality issues note the potential for odour discharges if contaminated soil is disturbed, and that “dangerous gases” might be emitted from the several ventilation stacks which will be in use along the route during the operational phase of the CRL.
9.15.3.2 Operational
For some submitters the CRL is seen as having a positive effect with respect to air quality, specifically by “removing a significant number of hydrocarbon-powered vehicles from the roads”, thus reducing the emissions of pollutants from motor vehicle exhausts.
One submission103 directly opposed to this view however notes that, while the move to electric-powered trains is positive, the effect of the CRL will be to attract “hundreds of diesel-powered buses” to the termini and stations associated with the CRL, thus immediately negating (via these buses‟ exhaust emissions) the positive effect on air quality of the electric trains.
9.15.4 Relevant Plan Provisions
9.15.4.1 National Environmental Standard (NES) for Air Quality
The National Environmental Standard (NES) for Air Quality are regulations under the RMA which is made up to 14 separate but interlinked standards. The NES was first introduced in 2004 with the latest amendments made in 2008.
9.15.4.2 Auckland City District Plan – Central Area Section The Central Area Section contains no specific objectives or policies on air quality.
101 Bear Park Mount Eden (Submission 221)
102 Department of Corrections (Submission 98)
103 Heart of the City (Submission 112)
Page 170 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.15.4.3 Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section
The Isthmus Section contains no specific objectives or policies on air quality.
9.15.5 Assessment and Proposed Mitigation
9.15.5.1 Construction The issues identified in submissions that relate to CRL construction activities have been summarised in section 9.15.3.1 above. They include dust effects, particularly in terms of dust as a nuisance and as an adverse factor with respect to amenity values. The matter of soiling of windows and building facades by dust is not strictly an environmental effect although it must be acknowledged that it is a potential effect on property and amenity values. The dust mitigation and associated monitoring measures, as proposed in the draft conditions prepared by AT will deal satisfactorily, in most instances, with submitters‟ concerns about dust. For the more unique possible effects, such as the effect of dust on security cameras at Mt Eden prison, will be suitably addressed if the mitigation measures successfully reduce dust loads in the ambient air to negligible levels. If the proposed conditions, to be given effect in the air quality management plan section of the CEMP, are properly implemented dust-related air quality issues will be successfully ameliorated to the extent that the ambient air along the CRL route is not compromised; thus the concerns of all submitters about dust can be accommodated if appropriate monitoring and mitigation measures are in place.
The following comments are based on considering dust as the principal environmental issue associated with air quality aspects of the CRL, especially during the construction phase of the project.
AT has placed significant reliance on the CEMP to appropriately mitigate adverse construction related effects of the CRL. Condition 26 sets out details of air quality issues to be covered off in the relevant section of the CEMP. These provisions are all endorsed as being the requirements of a comprehensive set of measures to effectively manage and monitor air quality. There is nothing notable missing from these provisions apart from a requirement that the air quality management plan of the CEMP should be independently reviewed peer reviewed to ensure it is in accordance with current best practice. This peer review requirement has now been included in proposed condition 4a.
9.15.5.2 Operational Many submissions identify the positive effect of the CRL on Auckland‟s air quality once the system is commissioned, by way of reducing the number of vehicles needing to access the City centre. One submission noted that “dangerous gases” might be emitted from the ventilation
Page 171 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
stacks along the CRL route during the operational phase of the CRL. This will not in fact be the case. The ventilation system emissions associated with the operation of the CRL will be typical of those arising from any confined area where people gather. No hydrocarbon-powered engine exhaust gases will be present. It is concluded that the operation of the CRL will have no significant adverse effects on air quality. It should be noted that if there were to be any emissions associated with the operation of the CRL these will be subject to the provisions of the Proposed Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water. 9.16 Urban design
9.16.1 Introduction
Within the context of the CRL project (both construction and operation), there are considered to be three main urban design related themes: 1) Movement and connections; 2) Public realm and landscape;
3) Existing and new buildings and structures. The following section of the Report is primarily informed by the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects, the Urban Design Framework to Support Assessment of Environmental Effects (City Rail Link Notice of Requirement (UDF), the City Rail Link Concept Design Report, and the City Rail Link Notices of Requirement – Urban Design Report.
9.16.2 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation
There is no specific assessment of urban design related matters within the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects however urban design matters are raised throughout the document (e.g. built heritage, transport, architectural principles).
AT has developed an Urban Design Framework (UDF) to support the CRL project (both construction and operation). The role of the UDF is to provide urban design direction to deliver high quality urban design outcomes. The UDF provides a number of urban design principles drawn from:
The review of previous work associated with the CRL during 2009 and 2012.
A review of existing urban design principles and frameworks, at both national and local level.
A review of AT‟s emerging urban design principles.
Site visits.
Liaison with AT‟s appointed specialists in urban design (Maori), ecology and built heritage.
Page 172 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
The urban design principles are categorised as:
Mana Whenua cultural design principles;
Movement and connections principles;
Public realm and landscape principles; and
Existing and new building structure principles. Mana Whenua cultural design principles are discussed elsewhere in this Report. In addition to the above, AT has also developed a series of architectural principles.104
As per the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects: The rail station entrance areas will be the main operation part of the Project that will be visible from the ground level (between Britomart and the connection at the NAL). Once construction is complete, the main portion of each station will be located underground. The overarching station design objective is to achieve a successful and memorable transport experience. The station footprints are based on current concept designs; more detailed station designs will be produced at a later stage. With this in mind the station design principles developed for the concept design are:
Function – stations will provide safe, functional and clear transport solutions.
Performance – stations will provide a credible, sustainable design outcome that responds to climate, site and social economics.
Personality – the stations will provide an expression that contributes to their context and local cultural identity and will respond to an appropriate network wide identity. The implementation of the UDF and Architectural principles is provided for through AT‟s proposed Conditions 29 – 36.
9.16.3 Submitter issues
There are several submissions in respect of urban design related matters both relating to the construction and operation of the CRL. The submissions are both in support and opposition. The following provides an outline of issues raised through the submissions:
Construction
Submitters raised concerns regarding the potential visual, landscape and amenity effects of the construction of the CRL.
A number of submitters raised concerns regarding the adverse effects (visual and
104 Page 17 – CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects
Page 173 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
amenity) of hoardings erected along footpaths (to cordon off construction sites), particularly along Albert Street.
A number of submitters raised concerns regarding the design process associated with above ground aspects of the CRL including station design, streetscape and reinstatement works. A number of these submitters expressed a desire to be involved in the design processes.
Operational
A number of submitters request that cyclists‟ requirements are considered in relation to areas set aside for bike parking, plentiful secure bike storage and bike hire facilities.
Submitters noted that it is important that station entrances are visible at ground level from areas that are frequented by pedestrians. Pedestrian amenity is important around each station with priority given to pedestrian movement. Provision of cycle facilities ensures that the station is accessible to a wide range of potential users.
The principle of creating pedestrian-friendly station surroundings (traffic calming, shared space schemes, pedestrian priority at street crossings) was supported.
Clarification was requested from submitters regarding the diameter and size of vent stacks on the mechanical plant building immediately next door to Albert Plaza.
There was support for the Urban Design Framework to reinstate an adaptive building frontage along road reserve particularly along the top end of Symonds Street. It was requested that clearly identifiable, accessible (at street level) toilets form part of the Beresford Street development.
9.16.4 Relevant plan provisions
9.16.4.1 Auckland City District Plan – Central Area Section The Policy Framework includes objectives and policies that seek to:
Maintain pedestrian linkages in the city centre;
Protect heritage buildings;
To ensure buildings are of an appropriate scale;
To encourage quality urban design that respects the form, scale and architecture of existing character buildings.
9.16.4.2 Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section
The Policy Framework includes objectives and policies that seek to:
Page 174 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Protect heritage buildings;
To ensure buildings are of an appropriate scale;
To encourage quality urban design that respects the form, scale and architecture of existing character buildings.
The relevant policy framework identifies a number of key urban design matters to consider such as the retention of heritage and character, encouraging quality urban design and providing for pedestrians.
9.16.5 Discussion Taking into account the above (including issues raised through submission) and the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects, it is considered that the potential urban design effects associated with the CRL are as follows.
9.16.5.1 Construction
9.16.5.1.1 Movement and connections
The following key potential effects are identified):
The effect of the proposed development works on the movement of people (pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users, commercial vehicles, private vehicles) using the streets which are directly affected by the proposed development. This includes construction, storage and depot areas associated with cut and cover and tunnelling works.
The potential loss of accessibility to the affected areas (streets, public open spaces and building entries) during construction.
The potential loss of connectivity between directly affected streets and the surrounding central area. People should to be able to move around the central area with relative ease on the understanding that a significant infrastructure project is being constructed.
These matters are discussed at length within the transport network and traffic section (in particular Sections 9.5 and 9.7) of this Report. In addition, it is noted that AT‟s proposed Condition 16 requires the CEMP to identify:
How pedestrian access to private property will be maintained at all times;
How the disruption to the use of the road network will be mitigated for pedestrians including the prioritisation of pedestrians at intersections, relocating bus stops and taxi stands to minimise disruption.
It is recognised that the construction of the CRL will potentially result in temporary disruption for pedestrians as a result of construction. However, it is considered that proposed Condition 16 (applies to NoRs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6) and recommended Condition 6B
Page 175 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
(pre-construction communication and consultation plan) ensure the adequate management of adverse effects on pedestrians during construction.
9.16.5.1.2 Public realm and landscape
The following key potential effects are identified:
Adverse effects of construction activities on visual amenity.
The potential risk of construction sites being left in inappropriate condition upon completion of works. The CRL requires significant construction activity within areas frequented and inhabited by large numbers of people and as such, visual effects from construction activities are inevitable. AT‟s proposed Condition 15(e) requires the CEMP to include details of any temporary visual barriers and where practicable to provide for opportunities for art or other decorative measures and viewing screens to be incorporated into visual barriers. In terms of mitigation, it is considered that AT‟s proposed Condition 15 is appropriate to ensure these effects are managed adequately.
One of the principles to inform the UDLP (as per AT‟s proposed Condition 29) is that the design and construction of reinstated streetscapes should be coherent with the wider area and/or recent public realm upgrades in the area. In addition, AT‟s proposed conditions 32, 33, 34, 35 require reinstatement plans to be provided with the UDLP to demonstrate how each of the main construction areas will be reinstated. The UDF recommends a number of initiatives relating to the reinstatement of the station construction areas at Britomart, Aotea Square and Karangahape Road. It is considered that these initiatives provide good design guidance for the reinstatement of the specific station areas by reflecting local characteristics and demonstrating how the principles should be implemented. These initiatives are supported, particularly so as it is considered that they provide a greater level of certainty regarding how the reinstatement of the relevant areas can be undertaken which responds to concerns raised by a number of submitters. In this regard, we recommend the inclusion of relevant initiatives in the conditions. Recommendation:
That the following amendments be made to AT‟s proposed Condition 32: The restoration plan for this designation shall demonstrate how street upgrades and public realm improvements have been considered when Albert Street and Mayoral Drive are reinstated. This should include as a minimum: a) How the design and construction utilises material palettes, planting schedules and street furniture that is coherent with recent streetscape upgrades (such as Britomart, the lower City Centre area, Darby and Elliot Streets) as relevant.
Page 176 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
That the following amendments be made to AT‟s proposed Condition 33: The restoration plan for this designation shall demonstrate how street upgrades and public realm improvements have been considered when Beresford Street, Pitt Street and Mercury Lane are reinstated. This should include as a minimum:
a) Methods of street upgrades and public realm improvements such as rationalising on-street parking, introduction of street trees, narrowing of carriageways and widening of footpaths.
b) How the design and construction utilises material palettes, planting schedules and street furniture that is coherent with recent streetscape upgrades (e.g. Karangahape Road).
The UDLP is a fundamental method of ensuring that the built form of the CRL is undertaken in an appropriate manner. As such (and taking into account submitter comments regarding the design process) it is considered that the development of the UDLP would benefit from independent review. In this regard, we refer to the Terms of Reference for the Auckland Urban Design Panel which states that triggers for a Council officer determining whether an application should be reviewed by the panel include:
Any locally significant development that council officers believe would benefit from independent urban design review;
Major scale Council and CCO projects (with a total value of over $5 million), including streetscape upgrades and community facilities, to ensure the Council demonstrates best practice in its own development projects. Whilst we acknowledge that the development of the UDLP does not constitute an application, as discussed above, we believe that the development of the UDLP would benefit from review by the Auckland Urban Design Panel to determine whether the UDLP takes into account the UDF principles. It is considered that this could also address a number of concerns raised through submissions (regarding wanting to be engaged in the design process). It is therefore recommended that a condition requiring AT to request a review of the UDLP from the Auckland Urban Design Panel be included. It is noted that a number of submitters expressed a desire to be engaged in the design process associated with the UDLP. It is considered that proposed amendments to conditions (particularly Condition 6B and Condition 8A which requires AT to consult with the Community liaison group on the development of the UDLP) adequately responds to issues raised. Recommendation: That the following condition be added to AT‟s proposed Conditions as 29A:
The requiring authority shall request the Auckland Urban Design Panel to review all Urban Design and Landscape Plans (reports and design plans as required) prior to their completion and submission of an outline plan.
Page 177 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.16.5.1.3 Existing and new buildings and structures
The following key potential effects are identified:
Unsympathetically designed buildings are constructed that fail to respond to their given context.
Inflexibly designed, inefficient new buildings that cannot accommodate a range of different land uses.
Buildings are designed without taking into account the need for weather protection.
Buildings are designed that fail to engage with the streetscape.
Buildings are built to poor standards.
AT‟s proposed Condition 36 requires the development of station plans that include design details showing both the above ground and below ground elements of stations and how the above ground and below ground elements have taken into account the architectural principles and relevant UDF principles. It is noted that a number of submitters expressed a desire to be engaged in the design process associated with the UDLP. It is considered that proposed amendments to conditions (particularly Condition 6B and Condition 8A which requires AT to consult with the Community liaison group on the development of the UDLP) adequately responds to issues raised. As with the development of the UDLP, it is also considered that Station Plans should be subject to independent review. It is therefore recommended that AT request the Auckland Urban Design Panel to review Station Plans. In addition to the above, it is noted that the UDF recommends a number of initiatives relating to existing and new buildings associated with the Aotea, Karangahape and Newton Stations The UDF recommends a number of initiatives relating to existing and new buildings. It is considered that these initiatives provide good design guidance for the treatment of existing (particularly heritage buildings) and the development of new buildings. These initiatives are supported for the above reasons as well as that they provide a greater level of certainty regarding existing and new buildings which responds to concerns raised by a number of submitters. In this regard, we recommend the inclusion of relevant initiatives in the conditions. See discussion under Section 9.16.5.1.2 regarding the integration of the UDF initiatives into conditions. Recommendations: That the following amendments be made to AT‟s proposed Condition 36:
Page 178 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
(built heritage):
The development of new buildings and structures should minimise impact on and disturbance of identified and potential heritage character buildings that play a significant role in establishing the streetscape and urban character of the local area. (bulk scale and massing):
Aotea Station building frontages should correspond with the road reserve boundary unless a specific station plaza area is intended.
Karangahape Road station building(s) should be sensitively designed so as to contribute positively and to complement the good public realm and urban form qualities that currently exist in this area of Karangahape Road, Pitt Street and the upper end of Beresford Street.
The redevelopment of land acquired for the Newton Station provides the opportunity to reinstate a continuous adaptive building frontage along the road reserve. An active frontage should be presented to the street. That the following Condition be added to AT‟s proposed Conditions as 36A:
The requiring authority shall request the Auckland Urban Design Panel to review all Station Plans (reports and design plans as required) prior to their completion and submission of an outline plan.
9.16.5.2 Operation
9.16.5.2.1 Movement and connections
The following key potential effects are identified:
Potential adverse effects on pedestrian amenity at street intersections which people will use to enter and leave the station entrances. Adequate space is required, while they wait to cross the street and sufficient time in which to do so.
Footpaths being too small to accommodate increased pedestrian traffic.
Poor circulation of people from street level to the below ground station and vice versa.
A lack of space for people to congregate (in relative comfort) on the station‟s platform while they either wait for or exit trains. This means appropriate platform width, height and length.
Providing for the needs of cyclists.
The UDF principles (implemented through AT‟s proposed Condition 29) are intended to guide operational movement and connections. The UDF also recommends a number of initiatives relating movements and networks (generally more specific to each of the
Page 179 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
stations). These initiatives are supported as they are considered to provide good, localised design responses. In addition, it is considered that the UDF initiatives provide a greater sense of design certainty which responds to a number of concerns raised through submission. See section 9.16.5.1.2 for further comment regarding the integration of UDF initiatives as Conditions. A number of submissions have been received regarding designating an area at the corner of Elliot Street and Victoria to enable a level entrance to the Aotea Station from Queen Street along Darby Street. With regard to these submissions, it is noted that, AT has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of alternatives in terms of the route selection and station locations (refer Section 6 of this Report). It is also noted that as per recommended Condition 6B Station Plans will be developed in consultation with the Community Liaison Group and the UDLP will be peer reviewed by the Auckland Urban Design Panel (recommended Condition 29A). It is considered that these processes should ensure the robust design process of the stations and will allow the submitters to engage in design at the appropriate times. Recommendation:
That the following amendments be made to AT‟s proposed Condition 29: (existing networks):
Structures associated with grade separation crossings need to be carefully and sensitively designed to ensure adequate pedestrian amenity and safety is maintained and that structures do not adversely compromise the ability of adjacent buildings to interact with the street. (entrance location):
The presence of a station entrance at the corner of Wellesley Street and Albert Street in close proximity to the high trip generating functions around Aotea Square will create a stronger desire line between these two points that could be recognised by an improved pedestrian connection. Currently this route is open to the public, but consists of a controlled routes across a public car park and alongside the vehicle access ramp to the underground Aotea Square car park.
(street crossings)
The CRL should facilitate improving the conditions for pedestrians crossing at the New North Road/Symonds Street / Mt Eden Road intersection to a satisfactory level to allow users to reach their desired bus stop conveniently.
9.16.5.2.2 Public realm and landscape
The following key potential effects are identified:
That all City Rail Link structures (station entries, public spaces, access ways, utility structures (vents, access services), bike storage and street furniture) are poorly integrated into the Central Area‟s existing or „changing‟ (e.g. proposed
Page 180 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
streetscape, public space upgrade) environment.
That surface reinstatement is not designed to respond to that which presently exists.
That no consideration is given to the installation of public art and iwi cultural initiatives.
That landscaping and further planning is inappropriate to the area‟s ecology and local Mana Whenua is established.
The UDF principles (implemented through AT‟s proposed Condition 29) are intended to guide the long term design of the public realm and landscapes. As discussed above, the UDF principles cover a broad range of design matters and in the context of the public realm and landscape, it is considered that the proposed management approach is appropriate.
9.16.5.2.3 Existing and new buildings and structures
The following key potential effects are identified:
That the CRL has adverse effects on the city‟s built heritage.
Buildings are not designed to respond to their immediate surroundings and thus conflict with an area‟s character, form and scale. The UDF and architectural principles (implemented through proposed conditions 29 and 36) provide guidance in terms of principles to guide how existing buildings should be addressed and how new buildings should be designed. It is considered that the proposed management approach is appropriate.
9.16.5.3 Conclusions There are a number of potential adverse effects associated with urban design that could eventuate as part of both the construction and operation of the CRL. It is considered that the conditions proposed by AT and our recommended amendments will ensure the appropriate management of these adverse effects. 9.17 Visual and amenity values
It is considered that visual and amenity values (and issues raised through submission) associated with both the construction and operation of the CRL generally relate to:
Visual and amenity effects associated with construction of the CRL;
The design of CRL buildings and structures; and
The reinstatement of streetscapes.
It is considered that these matters have been adequately considered in Section 9.16
Page 181 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
above. No further comment is provided. 9.18 Blight
9.18.1 Introduction
Urban blight, also known as urban decay is the process whereby a previously functioning part of a city, falls into disrepair and decline. This can be caused by matters such as a change in function of an area or uncertainty over an area‟s future use. The lack of a firm timeframe for the commencement of construction of the CRL, the uncertainty over funding for the project, the effect of sections 176 and 178 of the RMA, which restricts the use of land subject to a NoR and the lapse date for the designation of 20 years sought by AT are all factors that create uncertainty over the interim use of properties within the designation foot print.
9.18.2 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation
The CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects105 identifies that in respect of main construction site for the CRL which is subject to NoR 6 at the NAL end of the Project there is potential for this land to be subject to the effects of blight. Such effects could occur pre construction (due to the designation), and post construction (from the demolition of the existing buildings, the cut and cover construction of the underground tunnels, the covering of the tunnels and the availability of vacant land above).
The AEE also identifies that the presence of the designation, especially with the 20 year lapse date proposed by AT may cause reticence in investment and development or create uncertainty in terms of lease and tenancy arrangements. Also the potential lack of reinvestment may create an unattractive environment (‗blighting‘). The key mechanism proposed by AT to mitigate the effects of blight is through the implementation of a Property Management Strategy. It is proposed that the Strategy include:
Agreements with owners who are wishing to stay until construction time;
Purchase and lease back arrangements with current owner / occupiers who are wishing to stay until construction time;
Leasing durations (including managing these to align with construction timing);
Property maintenance and upkeep on properties acquired;
Methods to maintain properties in their current state until required for construction;
Methods to maintain amenity such as ‗greening‘ of properties if buildings are
105 Page 203
Page 182 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
demolished some time prior to construction;
Between now and construction the development of a strategy around transit orientated development and / or comprehensive Masterplans for the redevelopment of the land, including engagement with parties such as Auckland Council, other crown agencies, and private developers;
To assist with the rate of redevelopment (i.e. uptake), promotion post construction and operation of the stations of development land opportunities – the stations are anticipated to attract development back into areas and offer opportunities for transit orientated development and other landuse and social benefits106.
9.18.3 Submitter issues
The majority of the submissions that raise issues regarding blight identify the proposed 20 year lapse date as the key factor that is causing them concern about blighting effects. A summary of the key issues raised by submitters in relating to blight is set out in Table 9.18 below. Table 9.18: - Summary of blight issues raised by submitters Issue Relief sought Actual effects of blight already Lapsing period of any designation occurring, the requirements have limited to five years107. already stymied proposed Designations be declines108 development. A ten-year lapse period would be The Notices represent a planning appropriate in the circumstances given blight on the community for a project that AT estimates the construction period that is unviable, as demonstrated by for CRL to be only 5-6 years and that AT the need for a 20 year lapse date. intends to lodge applications for resource 109 The proposed lapse period of 20 years consents in 2014 . creates an extended period of uncertainty for landowners and tenants and will result in the current and future use of land being blighted by the future prospect of NOR 1-6 being given effect to. The proposed lapse period would create undue uncertainty about the commencement of the project, which
106 AEE page 203
107 Submission 3, CLC Auckland Trust Board; Submission 77, Five Flowers Limited; Submission 78, Radiation Ltd
108 Submission 61, ML Hoeft Partners; Submission 110, Podium Property Ltd
109 Submission 81 Precinct Properties Ltd
Page 183 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Issue Relief sought would pose excessive and unreasonable risks including the risks of losing tenants and associated income, indefinitely postponing desirable or planned investment and destroying the capital value of its buildings through, for instance, blighting the properties affected by NoR 1. The extended lapse period the applicant is seeking for the designation (20 years) will cause reticence in investment and development, particularly since sections 176 and 178 of the Resource Management Act 1991 prohibit landowners from doing anything that would prevent or hinder the CRL project. That reticence may create an unattractive environment.
9.18.4 Relevant plan provisions
Neither the Central Area Section nor the Isthmus Section of the District Plan provides any guidance as to the consideration of the effects of blight.
9.18.5 Assessment and proposed mitigation
The mitigation proposed by AT to address the effects of blight is the preparation and implementation of a Property Management Strategy, the contents of which are discussed in section 9.18.2 above and include property maintenance and upkeep on properties acquired, methods to maintain properties in their current state until required for construction and methods to maintain amenity.
As discussed in Section 9.19.5 below, AT also intends to prepare a Property Acquisition Plan which aims to enable property owners within the designation footprint to understand AT‟s approach to and where possible timing of property acquisition. At the time of preparing this Report we have limited details regarding the proposed Plan and Strategy and the preparation and implementation of these documents have not been required by way of designation conditions. We are also unclear as to whether AT intends the Property Management Strategy to apply to all land subject to the NoRs as we note the discussion on blight in the AEE was only in the context of the main construction site at the NAL end of the CRL (NoR 6). The issues raised by submitters in relation to blight apply to the all the NoRs. In our view the concept of relying on the Property Management Strategy combined with the Property Acquisition Plan appears to be an appropriate mechanism for managing blight effects. However, we would need AT to address and confirm the following matters
Page 184 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
before we can be fully satisfied as to the effectiveness of this proposed mitigation.
Confirmation of the purpose and content of the proposed Strategy and Plan;
Provision of draft conditions requiring the preparation and implementation of the proposed Strategy and Plan and that specify the purpose and content/matters to be addressed by the Strategy and Plan.
Clarification as to the NoRs that will be subject to these conditions. In terms of the relief sought by submitter relating to the lapse date for the designations this matter is addressed in Section 13.4 of this Report. 9.19 Social Effects
9.19.1 Introduction
Social effects have been accepted as a valid RMA concern in a number of cases in the Environment Court and this has extended to considerations concerning designations110. The surface NoRs in particular, have the potential to result in significant adverse effects on individuals and local communities throughout the planning and construction phases of the CRL. The scale and significance of these effects will be influenced by when construction will commence. If timeframes for the commencement of construction remain uncertain for an extended period this has the potential to increase the uncertainty and as a consequence anxiety for affected property owners and occupiers.
There is a strong relationship and overlap with the matters discussed in this section and those addressed in Section 9.18 above on Blight and Section 13 on the lapsing of the designations.
While the CRL has the potential to adversely affect individuals and local communities, once operation it is anticipated that it will have significant social benefits, particularly for the wider regional community.
9.19.2 Auckland Transport assessment and proposed mitigation
Section 7.14 - Property loss and Section 7.15 – Social impact Assessment of the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects and the City Rail Link Notice of Requirement: Social Impact Assessment Report address the social effects of the CRL and identify proposed mitigation measures. The Social Impact Assessment Report identifies the adverse social effects that will occur during construction to include:
Disruption to people‘s way of life and community cohesion as a result of the loss of community facilities and social services. This is a potential adverse effect dependent on the ability for such facilities and services to successfully relocate
110 BOI Proposed Men‟s Correctional Facility at Wiri Decision, paragraph 292
Page 185 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
prior to construction commencing. If relocation is successful, there remains potential for the relocation to result in some ‗displacement‘ effects for the communities that use these facilities;
The potential for disruption to people‘s way of life and community cohesion as a result of construction works occurring on sites or within the road reserve and affecting access and creating social severance issues for community facilities, businesses and residents in some instances;
Potential impacts on people‘s health and well-being particularly during construction as a result of physical environment effects, such as vibration during the construction period, (eg creating uncertainty/annoyance and/or disturbance for residents and people working in affected areas);
Impacts on individuals for those tenants and landowners on land identified for acquisition, as a result of feelings of uncertainty from these groups as to how this acquisition process works, as well as fears about relocation and displacement111. The measures proposed by AT to mitigate adverse social effects are to:
provide regular and on-going communication and liaison with those affected to provide certainty (where able), particularly in the areas where the community is feeling uncertain (for example, in relation to the timing of project construction and on the property acquisition process);
communicate proposed mitigation methods to affected businesses and residents. Recommended physical changes need to be communicated to the surrounding communities to ensure that people know what changes are occurring and why they are being done;
provide scope for community involvement and some flexibility around when changes will occur to enable people have the opportunity to provide feedback and be engaged in the process.
AT is also recommending that specifically identified effects are addressed through Social Impact Management Plans (SIMP) at the time of construction of the CRL. It is proposed that the SIMPs will respond to the following specific issues:
Disruption to access during construction for a number of businesses and residences (particularly those businesses and services on Mercury Lane and Beresford that rely on passing traffic (pedestrian or vehicle) for operation;
Disruption to access during construction for community facilities/services (e.g. Hopetoun Alpha); and
The loss/relocation of community facilities as a result of the property acquisition
111 City Rail Link Notice of Requirement: Social Impact Assessment Report, Summary of effects, pages 31 and 32
Page 186 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
process (particularly this relates to the Chinese Community Centre, Life Centre Church and potentially the Hopetoun Alpha business)112. It is anticipated that the SIMPs will include:
Findings and recommendations of the social impact assessment, including consideration of the results of engagement with stakeholders.
Engagement with identified parties to:
. assess the access requirements and operational requirements of the businesses;
. provide (where able) certainty and on-going information relating to the timing for project works, relocation and acquisition.
Confirmation of suitable access during construction, including aspects such as the quality of access for pedestrians, requirements for additional signage, establishment of set hours of access for deliveries etc.
The process for re-establishment and promotion of normal business operation following construction, to assist in getting ‗normal‘ business back up and running – for example, assistance with marketing, a street event for retail/café businesses to celebrate road opening or other similar options.
If appropriate, an annual report/review on the identification, monitoring, evaluation and management of the effects outlined in the SIMP, together with a summary of matters raised by the community, and how these have been responded to113.
In terms of any SIMPs required in association with the closure/relocation of community facilities, these should cover:
Social impact assessment of the loss of the catchments of these social facilities including identification of alternative facilities within the wider City.
Engagement with identified users, stakeholders and management parties to assess the feasibility of relocation options and requirements/assistance for relocation.
The process for re-establishment and promotion of facility operation in new sites,
112 City Rail Link Notice of Requirement: Social Impact Assessment Report, Summary of effects, page 35
113 City Rail Link Notice of Requirement: Social Impact Assessment Report, Summary of effects, page 36
Page 187 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
to assist in getting ‗normal‘ operations back up and running114.
The Social Impact Assessment Report identifies that once operational a number of positive social effects are anticipated including:
Provision for more train movements on the Auckland rail network through unlocking the capacity constraint of Britomart which will improve accessibility and mobility in and through the CBD for commuters, which will have a positive impact on people‘s way of life;
Increase commuter access to the city centre which provides the opportunity to stimulate economic development and as a result enhance community well-being;
Provide a catalyst for inner city re-development by creating new major transport hubs around the underground rail stations, stimulating land use intensification and regeneration of central city areas. Potential social effects include improved quality of environment, economic opportunities and opportunities for increased community development in the CBD. This is consistent with the wider urban transformation process and aspirations for the CBD identified in the Auckland Plan115.
9.19.3 Submitter issues A significant number of submissions were received relating to social effects. A number of these submissions include issues that overlap with the effects of blight which are addressed in Section 9.18 above and the requested 20 year lapse date addressed in Section 13. A summary of the key issues raised by submitters in respect of social matters is set out in Table 9.19 below. Table 9.19: - Summary of social issues raised by submitters Issue Relief sought Loss of property and development rights, compensation Destruction and disruption of Relocation and re-establishment on an buildings, assets and activities. alternative site with the same attributes. Development plans stymied. Compensation at full market value and Effects on tenants and loss of tenants. reimbursement of expenses. Loss of family home in grammar Designations be withdrawn. zone116. Relocation to suitable and appropriate Compulsory purchase of properties. alternative premises as soon as practicable following the designation or
114 City Rail Link Notice of Requirement: Social Impact Assessment Report, Summary of effects, page 36
115 City Rail Link Notice of Requirement: Social Impact Assessment Report, Summary of effects, pages 31 and 32
116 Submission 8, Bin Liu and Shengqiao Liao
Page 188 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Issue Relief sought Effects on future development and other approval of the CRL. development potential. Compensation should be available for Prevent reasonable use of land. the tenants/properties affected, for Premises will be very difficult to lease example some form of rates relief. if they become vacant during the Confirmation of the depth of the sub- construction period117. strata designation (NoR 2) so that Disrupt the development aspirations of effects on properties and future development potential can better owners wishing to extend down into 119 the designated strata layer when the ascertained . re-develop their land118. Uncertainty Potential loss of tenants because of the Tenants and sub-tenants being uncertainty created by the CRL120. relocated to suitable and appropriate It is unclear when AT will acquire the alternative premises as soon as property. practicable following the designation or other approval of the CRL. No decisions have been made regarding timing or funding for the project. Unclear on what basis AT will seek to acquire the property (i.e. whether it will seek to purchase the property or rather to occupy it temporarily)121. Health and well-being Adversely affect the social wellbeing, NoRs be withdrawn124. particularly because of the harm caused to their working and living environment. The adverse social effects are likely to extend for a considerable period122. Construction is also likely to cause stress, anxiety, loss of emotional attachments, and feelings of uncertainty123.
117 Submission 89, Samson Corporation Limited & Sterling Nominees Limited
118 Submission 89, Samson Corporation Limited & Sterling Nominees Limited
119 Submission 89, Samson Corporation Limited & Sterling Nominees Limited
120 Submission 77, Five Flowers Limited
121 Submission 110, Podium Property Ltd
122 Submission 110, Podium Property Ltd; Submission 8, PAL Properties Ltd
123 Submission 110, Podium Property Ltd; Submission 8, PAL Properties Ltd
Page 189 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Issue Relief sought Loss and restrictions on community facilities Loss of the LIFE Church and Relocation and re-establishment on an facilities125. alternative site with the same 128 Difficulties for parishioners to access attributes . the Cathedral of St Patrick and St Consultation with land owners and Joseph126. occupiers during the preparation of Restrictions on access to Pitt Street management plans including a requirement to record feedback and Methodist Church and Wesley Bi- 129 Centenary Hall for worshiping AT‟s responses . congregations and community Implementation of a communication groups127. plan to keep affected parties informed on progress of the project and allow concerns to be raised and responded to by AT130. Displacement The community impact of displacing a That the design and construction large number of residents and methodology be altered so that the area businesses from the Eden Terrace, through Eden Terrace is underground Mount Eden area and broader and a greater use of land already held property and social impacts131; or controlled by Auckland Council for construction/enabling work132. Redevelopment potential Supports building of the station in Continuing to communicate with key Eden Terrace because of the stakeholders leading up to and during opportunity for business and construction is vital134. residential intensification surrounding the station133.
124 Submission 110, Podium Property Ltd; Submission 8, PAL Properties Ltd
125 Submission 3, CLC Auckland Trust Board 126 Submission 97, Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland 127 Submission 219 Auckland Methodist Central Parish 128 Submission 3, CLC Auckland Trust Board 129 Submission 97, Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland 130 Submission 97, Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland; Submission 219 Auckland Methodist Central Parish 131 Submission 61, ML Hoeft Partners 132 Submission 61, ML Hoeft Partners 133 Submission 80, Eden Terrace Business Association
134 Submission 80, Eden Terrace Business Association
Page 190 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
It should be noted that while the majority of the submissions summarised above related to adverse social effects, a significant number of submission raised numerous positive social effects and wider community benefits. These submissions highlighted such matters as:
More people will be able to travel around Auckland on a modern, reliable, frequent system, without the need for a car.
Land values around rail stations will increase and communities will naturally build up around them.
The CBD will come to life as more people can easily and quickly get into the centre, and the resultant increase in population density will enable more businesses to be established.
Make Auckland a better place to live and improve quality of life.
Reduction in travel time will benefit those from New Lynn and further west.
Help urban regeneration in large parts of the central city and around the train station.
9.19.4 Relevant plan provisions
9.19.4.1 Auckland City District Plan – Central Area Section The Central Area Plan provides limited guidance in terms of addressing the social effects associated with the CRL and those identified by submitters. Objective 3.5.3 and associated policies relating to access to community services and facilities and managing adverse effects on people are of relevance and are reproduced below.
3.5.3 Objective - An Alive and Exciting People Place To promote the Central Area as an exciting, appealing and distinctive centre with a wide variety of attractions reflecting its mix of people.
Policies a) By providing convenient access to community activities and facilities. b) By managing the adverse effects of activities on each other, on people and on the environment.
9.19.4.2 Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section The Isthmus Plan contains the following two principal objectives for achieving the sustainable management of the resources of the Isthmus that are relevant in considering the social effects of the CRL.
Page 191 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
2.3.3 Community
To achieve a healthy and safe living environment for the citizens of the district;
To encourage the wide use and provision of education, health, recreation and community resources and facilities;
To encourage the development of community identity and distinctiveness.
2.3.4 Commerce
To provide for robust, innovative and productive business activities so as to maintain and enhance the vibrancy of the district;
To maintain and enhance the qualities of the district which contribute to its attractiveness for commerce and industry.
9.19.5 Assessment and proposed mitigation
9.19.5.1 Loss of property and development rights, compensation Large scale, linear infrastructure projects like the CRL inevitably require the use and acquisition of private property to enable development to occur. AT has sought to minimise the use of private property through utilising public land and road reserve wherever practicable.
In terms of issues relating to land acquisition and compensation due to loss of land and development opportunities, these are matters subject to separate legislation and it is appropriate that AT addresses these matters on a case by case basis directly with the parties concerned. The BOI decision on the Transpower Upper North Island Grid Upgrade Project includes the following useful guidance relating to compensation issues raised by submitters: The RMA does not confer power to assess compensation on a territorial authority considering a requirement for a designation, nor power to prescribe methods for assessing compensation that differ from the general law on that topic contained in Part 5 of the Public Works Act. Even if the Board were to purport to insert conditions about assessment of compensation that differed from the law contained in Part 5 of the Public Works Act, such purported conditions would not bind the Land Valuation Tribunal, which is a specialist tribunal established by law for that task, and the conditions would be ineffective135.
In terms of these property and compensation issues, it is our conclusion that these are matters to be directly addressed by AT with the affected property owners and that
135 Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Upper North Island Grid Upgrade Project, Paragraphs 1896 and 1897
Page 192 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
compensation is a matter outside the scope of matters to be addressed when considering requirements for designations.
9.19.5.2 Uncertainty, health and well-being The lack of a firm timeframe for the commencement of construction, the uncertainty over funding for the project and the lapse date for the designation of 20 years sought by AT are all significant factors that create uncertainty and effects on the health and well-being of those affected by the CRL. The mitigation relied on by AT as set out in Section 9.19.2 above is to provide regular and on-going communication and liaison with those affected to provide certainty (where able), communicate proposed mitigation methods to affected businesses and residents and provide scope for community involvement in the process.
The conditions proposed by AT to achieve these outcomes are:
Appointment of a Communications and Consultation Manager (Condition 7).
Preparation of a Communications and Consultation Plan to be complied with and implemented for the duration of the construction of the CRL (Condition 8).
The Plan shall include methods for communicating and consulting with other owners and occupiers in the immediate vicinity of construction areas to provide notice of the commencement of construction activities and works, the expected duration of the activities and works, and who to contact for any queries, concerns and complaints Condition 8(g)).
Preparation of a CEMP to be complied with and implemented for the duration of the construction of the CRL (Condition 13). Given the significant reliance AT is placing on communication and consultation along with the implementation of the CEMP to address the social effects of uncertainty, it is our view that the proposed conditions need to be considerably strengthened to appropriately address the effects. The key concerns with the conditions as proposed by AT are:
The Communications and Consultation Plan relates to the construction phase of the Project, there is no formal process for communicating with affected communities during the period up to construction (worst case scenario potentially 20 years);
No formal forum for consultation and communication;
No process for recording feedback from consultation and AT‟s response to issues raised;
No requirement for community consultation in the development of the various aspects of the CEMP;
No requirement for AT to prepare a strategy/plan for property acquisition and on- going management.
Page 193 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Recommendations
Given our concerns regarding the adequacy of the conditions proposed by AT we recommend that the conditions be amendment as follows:
Include a requirement for the appointment of Communications and Consultation Manager responsible for all communications and consultation up until the commencement of construction (proposed Condition 6A);
Include a requirement to prepare a Pre-construction Communication and Consultation Plan which shall be implemented and complied with from the confirmation of the designations until the commencement of the construction (proposed Condition 6B);
Identify the purpose of the Pre-construction Communication and Consultation Plan and its contents (proposed Condition 6B);
Consequential amendments to Conditions 7 and 8;
Include a requirement for AT to facilitate the establishment of at least four Community Liaison Groups for the purpose of providing a means for receiving regular updates on Project progress, monitoring the effects of the Project, reporting concerns and issues and receiving responses from AT (proposed Condition 8A);
Include a requirement for AT to consult with the Community Liaison Groups over the development of relevant aspects of the CEMP and other management plans (proposed Condition 8A); It is understood that AT intends to prepare a Property Acquisition Plan and a Property Management Strategy. The purpose of the Property Acquisition Plan to enable property owners within the designation footprint to understand AT‟s approach to and where possible timing of property acquisition. The Plan should reference any applicable AT/Auckland Council policies relating to acquisition of property including any circumstances where property will be acquired for hardship reasons. The Property Management Strategy is intended to set out AT‟s approach to how it will manage properties it has acquired for the CRL, including management of existing tenants and the maintenance of properties. The likely contents of the Strategy are discussed in Section 9.18 above. The preparation and implementation of the Plan and strategy are key methods for addressing issues of uncertainty and health and well-being. It is therefore crucial that appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure that the Property Acquisition Plan and the Property Management Strategy are prepared and implemented. The best means of achieving this is through the imposition of conditions. In the first instance it is suggested that AT drafts the necessary conditions requiring the preparation and implementation of a Property Acquisition Plan and a Property Management Strategy.
Page 194 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.19.5.3 Displacement and loss of community facilities
As set out in Section 9.19.2 above and in the Social Impact Assessment Report, AT is proposing at the time of construction of the CRL to prepare SIMPs to address specifically identified social effects. These include disruption to access to businesses, residences and community facilities during construction and loss and relocation of community facilities. Recommendation
That the proposals put forward in the Social Impact Assessment Report regarding the preparation of SIMPs to address specific social effects be codified through conditions. Proposed Condition 36A seeks to achieve this.
9.19.5.4 Conclusion The social effects associated with the CRL are a combination of wider community benefits and adverse effects on individuals and local communities and these effects need to be assessed in this context. The policy direction provided by both sections of the District Plan relate to promoting the Central Area as an exciting, appealing and distinctive centre, which is one of the reasons for the CRL and providing convenient access to community facilities and managing adverse effects which the proposed conditions are designed to achieve. Overall, it is our view that if the draft conditions are amended as per the above recommendations and as set out in Attachment O to this Report and provided AT prepares and implements a Property Acquisition Plan and Property Management Strategy then the adverse social effects of the construction of the CRL can be appropriately mitigated. 9.20 Other Positive Effects
9.20.1 Urban regeneration
Further to the positive effects identified throughout the report, and particularly those in relation to the significant positive impact the CRL will have on Auckland‟s transport network, it is noted that there may be other, broader positive effects associated with the project.
A significant positive effect to arise from the construction phase of the project is that it will create hundreds of jobs across Auckland over a period of 5-6 years of construction over a variety of industries. The operation of the CRL will also create permanent jobs within the region. The more prominent potential positive effects post-construction are associated with the creation of „hubs‟ around the proposed Aotea, Karangahape and Newton rail stations. It is likely that these areas will become focal points for increased development and investment. The Urban Design Framework prepared by AT will inform development of the land under AT‟s control relating to the project, including the stations themselves, and
Page 195 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
the streetscapes in the vicinity of the stations. This investment may act as a catalyst for enhanced private investment in these areas; something that will also likely occur on the back of the improved transport network to these areas resulting from the CRL also. Enhanced development potential in these areas is supported by the Auckland Plan and draft Unitary Plan. In its draft state at the time of writing this report, the Unitary Plan carries no formal status (this matters is discussed in more detail in section 12.4 below), but is just mentioned as an indication of Auckland Council‟s strategic direction. There are other Council lead projects underway that seek to capitalise on the opportunities afforded by the CRL, including Precinct Plans for the Karangahape Road and Newton areas.
The intention of these initiatives is ultimately the creation of vibrant, interesting and well- connected centres. The development of such centres will likely lead to strong economic performance for businesses and investment properties in the vicinity.
It is also considered that the urban regeneration of those areas around the proposed stations will lead to positive effects on built heritage through the sensitive design of new buildings.
A total of (18) submitters have identified the potential of the CRL to have broader positive effects than those associated purely with the physical improvements to the transport network and streetscape post-construction. Points raised include:
Will bring closure to the period where Auckland has ‗lagged behind comparable cities such as Brisbane and Melbourne in the provision of an efficient, integrated transport network with real options‘136
The CRL will greatly assist the regeneration of the CBD, but its regional benefits are also pronounced.137
The CRL will play a critical role in providing for increased activity within the CBD and Newmarket.138
This is a transformational project for the Auckland Region, as identified in the Auckland Plan. It will unlock the entire rail network, allowing expansion, as well as reducing carbon emissions, improving health and promoting jobs and development.139 Overall, it is considered that, with impetus added through other planning mechanisms, there are significant positive effects associated with the development of the CRL.
136 Submission (111), Auckland Chamber of Commerce
137 Submission (191), Jeroen de Vries
138 Submission (66), University of Auckland
139 Submission (174), Sudhvir Singh
Page 196 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
9.21 Cumulative Effects
Section 8.3.16 of this report discusses cumulative effects in the context of the CEMP. As part of that section, it is recommend that further information is provided by AT to illustrate a methodology for assessing cumulative effects through the CEMP. This could be included in the Draft Indicative CEMP. There are a range of potential effects that could adversely affect particular receptors cumulatively. As an example, potential noise, vibration, dust and disruption to vehicle access could adversely cumulatively affect one specific receptor (i.e. a single building). Currently, AT has not provided a methodology as to how cumulative effects will be assessed or monitored and this requires further clarification from AT.
Page 197 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
10 Summary of Effects Assessment
The following Table presents a summary of the findings of the effects assessment: Table 10.1: - Summary of Effects Assessment Effect / Matter Conclusion The CEMP and various management plans are the key AT Approach to mechanism AT is relying on to mitigate adverse effects Mitigating Adverse Effects - CEMP
Agreeing generally with AT's findings and conclusions Construction Noise subject to recommended changes to noise and vibration and Vibration limits and hours of operation set out in the conditions Adverse effects will be significant in some locations on certain sensitive receivers locations (including TV3 studios, Roundhead Studios and Aotea Centre) and in some circumstances it may not be practicable for these effects to be mitigated. It is recommended that AT provides information on how these effects can be mitigated or avoided. Operational effects are generally acceptable, however Operational Noise and adverse effects will be significant in some locations Vibration (including TV3 studios, Roundhead Studios and Aotea Centre) on certain sensitive receivers and in some circumstances it may not be practicable for these effects to be mitigated. It is recommended that AT provides information on how these adverse effects can be mitigated or avoided. No significant adverse effects predicted Structural integrity Settlement contours predicted by AT are reasonable - but not overly conservative Building conditions surveys are offered as mitigation (link through to vibration effects discussion above) Resource consents to be lodged at a later date will deal with groundwater dewatering effects Significant adverse effects predicted during the Transport networks construction phase (main areas of concern are and traffic construction vehicle movements, Albert St intersections property access) Significant positive effects predicted in the operational phase. We agree with the positive effects identified by AT including optimising the efficiency of the public transport network (including rapid transport network), patronage, release the rail capacity constraint at Britomart and facilitate intensification of land use particularly in the vicinity of the stations.
Page 198 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Effect / Matter Conclusion Conclusions covered above Access to properties
No significant adverse effects Walking and cycling During construction phase walking and cycling in the vicinity of the construction sites will need to be carefully managed, this may be extended out to routes to be used by construction and heavy vehicles Managed through Urban Design Framework Adverse effects can be appropriately mitigated and Network utilities additional conditions are recommended to achieve this
Adverse effects can be appropriately mitigated and Light spill and glare additional conditions are recommended to achieve this
AT has undertaken significant consultation with tangata Tangata whenua whenua Maori Values Assessment have been undertaken by iwi and have informed the Cultural Values Assessment Adverse effects will be appropriately managed The NoR is proposing the potential demolition of Built heritage Martha's corner as a worst case scenario. We do not support the demolition of this building and changes to conditions are recommended to prioritise adaptive reuse in the first instance. Adverse effects can be appropriately mitigated and additional or amended conditions are recommended to achieve this (historic heritage management plan, the recording of built heritage that is to be demolished through this process and building conditions surveys including requirement to repair damage) Historic Heritage Management Plan is recommended to Archaeology be prepared in consultation with Council's Heritage Unit Adverse effects can be appropriately managed Maori archaeological sites have been addressed under the tangata whenua section which must be reflected in the Historic Heritage Management Plan There is a need for clarification regarding the number of Trees scheduled trees to be removed or affected by the proposed works. We have recommended amendments to conditions to consider the feasibility of temporarily relocating these trees for the duration of construction works. Adverse effects can be appropriately mitigated and Contamination additional conditions are recommended to achieve this (Independent peer review of the CEMP)
Page 199 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Effect / Matter Conclusion Adverse effects can be appropriately mitigated and Air quality additional conditions are recommended to achieve this (Independent peer review of the CEMP) There are a number of potential adverse effects Urban design associated with urban design that could eventuate as part of both the construction and operation of the CRL. It is considered that the recommended conditions will ensure the appropriate management of these effects. In terms of recommendations (for amendments to what has been provided by AT), these can be summarised as: o Include a condition requiring AT to request a review of Station Plans and the UDLP by the Auckland Urban Design Panel prior to their lodgement with Auckland Council; and Integrating the UDF initiatives into relevant designation conditions. Cross-reference above Visual and amenity values
Potential adverse effects Blight Outstanding matters that need to be addressed by AT through providing further detail, for example on 'Property Management Strategy' and "Property Acquisition Plan'. Recommend that AT to provide conditions relating to the Strategy and the Plan. Potential adverse effects Social Outstanding matters that need to be addressed by AT through providing further detail, for example on 'Property Management Strategy' and "Property Acquisition Plan'. Recommend that AT to provide conditions relating to the Strategy and the Plan. In addition to other positive effects discussed above, Other Positive Effects other positive effects include: o Regeneration and intensification of areas surrounding the stations; and o Associated enhancement to heritage areas and buildings. None identified that have not been addressed in this Other adverse effects Report.
Potential for cumulative adverse effects during Cumulative effects construction phase Recommendation that Draft Indicative CEMP includes proposed methodology for the assessment of cumulative effects
Page 200 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
11 National, Regional and District Planning Instruments
When considering the NoRs and any submissions Auckland Council must, subject to Part 2, consider the effects on the environment of allowing the requirement, having particular regard to any relevant provisions of national policy statements, the Auckland Regional Policy Statement and the District Plans. This section provides an assessment of the provisions of these planning instruments. that are relevant to the consideration of the NoRs. 11.1 National Policy Statements
There are no National Policy Statements that are of relevance to the consideration of the NoRs. 11.2 Regional Planning Instruments
11.2.1 Auckland Regional Policy Statement
AT has provided a thorough discussion of the performance of the CRL project against the requirements of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (“ARPS”) in section 8.6.2 if their Assessment of Environmental Effects.140 AT have identified four key objectives of the ARPS as being relevant to the CRL, as follows:
Promoting Sustainable Land Use
Promoting a Sustainable Transport System
Promoting a Sustainable Economic Future
Promoting Environmental Sustainability We consider the assessment provided by AT to be complete and accurate, and adopt section 8.6.2 of the Assessment of Environmental Effects, as it relates to the ARPS, in its entirety. Subsequently, no additional assessment has been undertaken here. Overall, it is considered that the CRL is consistent with the provisions of the ARPS. 11.3 District Planning Instruments
Section 7 of this report discusses the „reasonable necessity‟ of relying on the designation method, as opposed to any other planning tool (plan changes and resource consents for example), for planning for the CRL project.
In that assessment, it was established that designations are often used to „consent‟
140 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects – Section 8.6.2, page 226-231
Page 201 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
works that typically fall outside the „zoning‟ provisions of a district plan, as is frequently the case when contemplating large-scale public works and projects. Having concluded that designations through the relevant district plans are the most appropriate technique for delivering the CRL, the assessment below focuses on the relevant district plan objectives and policies in this case.
11.3.1 Auckland Council District Plan: Central Area Section
AT has provided an assessment of the performance of the CRL project against the relevant requirements of the Auckland Council District Plan: Central Area Section (“Central Area Plan”) in section 8.6.2 of their Assessment of Environmental Effects.141 The objectives and policies of the following sections of the Central Area Plan have been addressed in more detail Appendix 7 of AT‟s Assessment of Environmental Effects:
Part 4: Strategic Management Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4
Part 9: Transportation
Part 10: Heritage
Part 12: Network Utilities
Part 14.1: Public Open Space
Part 14.3: Transport Corridor Precinct
Part 14.5: Aotea Precinct
Part 14.6: Britomart Precinct
Part 14.11: Karangahape Road Precinct We consider the assessment provided by AT to be accurate, and adopt section 8.6.2 and Appendix 7 of the Assessment of Environmental Effects, as they relate to the Central Area Plan, in their entirety. For completeness, we add the following comment on the objectives and policies of Part 11: Contamination of the Central Area Plan. The objectives and policies relating to contamination matters are set out at clause 11.4 of the Central Area Plan. They largely address adverse environmental effects and risks associated with the use and / or storage of hazardous substances, and the operation of hazardous facilities. The CRL NoRs do not propose the establishment of any such facilities. Objective 11.4.3 however relates to the effects of contaminated land on any proposed development.
141 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects – Section 8.6.2, page 232-234
Page 202 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Objective 11.4.3 To minimise the adverse effects of site contamination. Policies (a) By applying measures which seek to minimise and control the adverse effects arising from contaminated land. (b) By requiring, where appropriate, the remediation of contaminated land as a prerequisite to its redevelopment. (c) By ensuring, where appropriate, that any residual land contamination levels are appropriate for any proposed redevelopment. The performance of the CRL in terms of contamination matters is addressed in section 9.14 of this report. The assessment of the objectives and policies of no other sections of the Central Area Plan is necessary in this case.
11.3.2 Auckland Council District Plan: Isthmus Section
AT has provided an assessment of the performance of the CRL project against the relevant requirements of the Auckland Council District Plan: Isthmus Section (“Isthmus District Plan”) in section 8.6.2 of their Assessment of Environmental Effects.142
The objectives and policies of the following sections of the Isthmus Plan have been addressed in more detail Appendix 7 of AT‟s Assessment of Environmental Effects:
Part 2: Resource Management
Part 5C: Heritage
Part 8: Business Activity
Part 10: Special Purpose Activity
Part 12: Transportation We consider the assessment provided by AT to be accurate, and adopt section 8.6.2 and Appendix 7 of the Assessment of Environmental Effects, as they relate to the Isthmus Plan, in their entirety. For completeness, we add the following comment on the objective and policies of Part 5A.5 : Resource Management, of the Isthmus Plan. The overall objective of the Isthmus Plan, as set out at clause 5A.5, is: To conserve, protect and enhance the natural environment and resources of
142 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects – Section 8.6.2, page 234-236
Page 203 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
the district. It includes a broad selection of policies under the headings general, water, air, habitats, land, energy and minerals, and has guided the development of the Isthmus Plan. It is considered that by addressing the more specific objectives and policies contained within the Isthmus Plan, the CRL NoRs have addressed this more general, guiding objective and associated policies. The assessment of the objectives and policies of no other sections of the Isthmus Plan is necessary in this case.
Page 204 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
12 Other Matters
12.1 Local Government Act Planning Instruments
In response to the requirement under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 that the Auckland Council prepare a spatial plan, Auckland Council prepared the Auckland Plan, which was formally adopted by the Governing Body in March 2012. The Auckland Plan provides a long-term strategy for growth and development in Auckland. As a non-RMA planning document, the Auckland Plan can be “had regard to” through a formal RMA process such as the assessment of a notice of requirement, as a document potentially relevant to the assessment of the Council‟s high-level objectives for Auckland. In this case, the Auckland Plan provides strategic support to the concept of the CRL.
The overall vision of the Auckland Plan is to make Auckland “the world‟s most liveable city.” In achieving that vision, the Auckland Plan identifies a number of “transformational shifts” that will be used as indicators of success, the third of which is, ―Move to outstanding public transport within one network.‖143 The CRL project is a key component of the Auckland Plan, which identifies the link between transport infrastructure and the wider land use objectives of the Plan. ―The CRL is the foremost transformational project in the next decade. It creates the most significant place-shaping opportunity, as the entire city centre would be within 10 minutes walk of a railway station…The CRL is the top priority transport project for Auckland, with a targeted date to become operational in 2021.‖144 Overall, it is considered that the CRL is consistent with the strategic direction set by the Auckland Plan.
12.1.1 Auckland Long Term Plan 2012 - 2022
The Auckland Long Term Plan 2012-2022 (“the LTP”), which is required under Local Government Act 2002, sets out the Council‟s 10-year financial plan, and is guided by the strategic direction set by the Auckland Plan.
Similarly to the Auckland Plan, the LTP is a non-RMA planning document that can be “had regard to” through a formal RMA process such as the assessment of a notice of requirement.
Consistent with the Auckland Plan, the LTP has identified a number of “transformational moves”, the third of which is, ―Move to outstanding public transport within one network.‖145 Under this transformational move, the CRL is included along with an
143 The Auckland Plan: Chapter C, “The Journey to 2040”. Refer Section C.3
144 The Auckland Plan: Chapter 13, “Auckland‟s Transport”. Refer Box 13.2: City Rail Link
145 Auckland Long Term Plan 2012-2022, Section 2.2.3 “Transformational Shifts”, Page 23
Page 205 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
additional harbour crossing; the Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI); and improving bus speeds and reliability on Dominion Road as being the priority transport infrastructure improvements planned for Auckland over the next 10 years. In seeking to implement the vision of the Auckland Plan to make Auckland the world‟s most liveable city by 2040, ―the LTP is making some major new investments, predominately the City Rail Link. These investments and their scale, timing and funding are one of the central issues underpinning the council‘s financial strategy.‖146
Overall, it is considered that the CRL is consistent with the strategic direction of the LTP. 12.2 Transport Planning Instruments
12.2.1 Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010 – 2040
The RLTS is a statutory document prepared under the LTMA. It is prepared every six years and covers a period of at least 30 years, enabling Auckland Council to provide guidance on the land transport outcomes sought by the region. The strategy identifies the actions, policies, priorities and funding needed to achieve a land transport system that enhances the Auckland Region. The construction of the Project by 2021 is specifically stated as one of the main components of the strategy. The objectives for the strategy are:
Assist economic development
Assist safety and personal security
Improve access and mobility
Protect and promote public health
Ensure environmental sustainability
Integrate transport and land use supportive of Regional Growth Strategy and Regional Policy Statement policies
Achieve economic efficiency
Policy 4 aims to meet the objectives through improving transportation choices. Specifically policy 4.3.1 seeks to “implement the following RTN and QTN improvements of high regional significance: CBD rail link…” The RLTS further highlights its priorities to include “major investment in rail, bus and ferry infrastructure and service improvements”.
12.2.2 Auckland Regional Land Transport Programme 2012 – 2015
The RLTP is prepared under the LTMA includes proposed transport activities and
146 Auckland Long Term Plan 2012-2022, Section 2.4.5 “Investing in Auckland”, Page 37
Page 206 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
combinations of activities for three financial years, an indication of significant activities for the following three financial years, and a 10-year financial forecast. It is used to prioritise applications for government funding through the NZTA. Four priority focus areas are identified that, when addressed, will contribute to fulfilling the transport expectations set out in the Auckland Plan, the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding and the RLTS:
Support the integration between land use and transport; Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the region‟s transport networks;
Maintain and make best use of the existing transport system; and
Improve transport safety and reduce the adverse impacts from transport on the surrounding environment.
12.2.3 Draft Auckland Regional Public Transport Plan 2012
The purpose of the RPTP is to identify how AT (originally ARTA) will give effect to the public transport components of the 2010 Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy (RLTS), and contribute to achieving an affordable, integrated, safe, responsive and sustainable land transport system in an efficient and effective manner. The Plan is a statutory document which is prepared pursuant to the provisions of the Public Transport Management Act 2008 (PTMA). It specifies the public transport services proposed for the region, and the policies which apply to those services.
12.2.4 Auckland Transport Plan 2009
The Auckland Transport Plan 2009 produced by ARTA (now an AT plan) brings together all of the region‟s transport programmes, offering a single transport view for the region. The vision of the ATP is for the integrated road, rail, bus, ferry, cycle and walking networks that give effective access to transport for people and goods, including an integrated passenger transport system that provides an attractive, viable and regionally agreed alternative to the use of private vehicles.
12.2.5 Auckland Passenger Transport Network Plan 2006 – 2016
The 10-year PTNP, produced by ARTA is designed to recognise the way Auckland is growing, and to change the way Auckland moves. It sets out detailed plans for a RTN, a QTN, and local and targeted transport services to support the development of Auckland as a successful, modern city. Plans for the rail component of the RTN are set out in more detail in the Rail Development Plan. The plan contains the following:
A 10-Year Plan (2006-16) for developing the passenger transport network;
Standards for delivering passenger transport services and infrastructure via principles and service level guidelines; and
An outline of a reformed fare system.
Page 207 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
12.2.6 Auckland Rail Development Plan 2006 – 2016
The Rail Development Plan produced by ARTA (now an AT plan) aims to revitalise rail infrastructure to allow tens of thousands of commuters to reach the City Centre without using regional arterial roads. In 2006 rail accounted for ten per cent of passenger transport journeys. This plan aims to increase this to 20 per cent by 2030. The plan suggests the current limits for rail are capacity constraints due to the number of trains, frequency, the limited locations of the corridors and the quality of service from old infrastructure. The plan outlines two options for intensification of the system.
The first is to increase suburban services with high frequency and service extensions (e.g. the Onehunga Branch Line and an Airport Link).
The second is for an underground rail link. The plan notes the efficiency improvements that could be attained through renovating Britomart to a through station rather than a terminus. The plan indicatively notes that construction could occur on the Project around 2013 with completion circa 2020. It also details statistical data which promotes the development of the Project. 12.3 Auckland Council Strategic Planning Instruments
The Auckland Plan is supported by a number of additional policy documents that specifically identify the CRL project as a regional priority. These documents, which include the Centre Master Plan 2012, the Waterfront Plan 2012, and the Economic Development Plan, are non-statutory in that they are not required under the RMA, Local Government Act, or any other legislation. They do however help provide detail to the guiding strategic direction of Auckland Council, and are discussed briefly below.
12.3.1 City Centre Master Plan 2012
The City Centre Masterplan (CCMP) was adopted by Auckland Council at the end of June 2012. It is a 20-year vision that sets the direction of the future of the city centre. Set within the wider context of the Auckland Plan, the CCMP identifies a number of key outcomes to be met by 2032 together with success indicators. The CCMP is based on a series of assumptions around the future development of the city centre and region over the next 20 years, the third of which is that the “CRL will be operational by 2021.”147 Outcome 6 is that the city centre will be the hub of an integrated regional transport system with a range of public transport options. The primary success indicator being a ―Continuing modal shift in the city centre from private motor vehicles to public transport.‖148 The CRL, being one of the fundamental assumptions of the CCMP, is clearly consistent
147 City Centre Masterplan, “Our Assumptions”, Page 13
148 City Centre Masterplan, “Outcomes and Targets”, Page 39
Page 208 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
with the strategic direction of the document.
12.3.2 Waterfront Plan 2012
The Auckland Waterfront Masterplan (WMP) was adopted by the Auckland Council at the end of June 2012. It is a 30-year plan for the delivery of projects to meet the waterfront visions and goals. A key goal of the Waterfront Masterplan is to create a connected and accessible waterfront and notes that there are a number of major strategic projects, including the CRL project, which in the long-term will play a significant role in achieving this goal.
12.3.3 Economic Development Strategy
The Auckland Economic Development Strategy (EDS) sets out the Auckland Council‟s 10-year strategy to make Auckland an internationally prosperous city. The top priority of the EDS is to ―Grow a business-friendly and well-functioning city.‖ Of the stated „actions‟ required to deliver the priority, Action 1.2 “Auckland has well- functioning economic infrastructure” specifically identifies the CRL as critical to an integrated transport system.
As such, it is considered that the NoRs are consistent with the strategic direction of the EDS. 12.4 Draft Unitary Plan
The Unitary Plan is currently in draft form, and has been available to the public for their feedback with submissions closing on 31 May 2013. The current intention is to make any appropriate changes to the „draft Unitary Plan” before getting final sign off from the Governing Body so that the “proposed Unitary Plan” can be notified pursuant to the RMA in September this year. For clarification, any reference to the “draft Unitary Plan” in this report is a reference to the Unitary Plan prior to its formal notification for submissions under the RMA or Resource Management Reform Bill. Any reference to the “proposed Unitary Plan” in this report is a reference to the Unitary Plan after it is notified for submissions.
The draft Unitary Plan has no formal statutory weight in the sense that the proposed Unitary Plan might have after notification, or as it proceeds further through the RMA Schedule 1 process.149 It is not a plan or a proposed plan as defined in the RMA, and is therefore in a similar category to other non-statutory planning documents or non-RMA planning documents.
149 Note: the Resource Management Reform Bill 2012 is currently awaiting report back from the Local Government and Environment Select Committee, which is due on 11 June 2013. The Bill proposes a modified process for the proposed Unitary Plan, which departs from the usual Schedule 1 process.
Page 209 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
The matters relevant to a territorial authority‟s recommendation on a Notice of Requirement are set out in section 171 of the RMA: 171 Recommendation by territorial authority … (1) When considering a requirement and any submissions received, a territorial authority must, subject to Part 2, consider the effects on the environment of allowing the requirement, having particular regard to— (a) any relevant provisions of—
(i) a national policy statement: (ii) a New Zealand coastal policy statement: (iii) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement: (iv) a plan or proposed plan; and (b) whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes, or methods of undertaking the work if— (i) the requiring authority does not have an interest in the land sufficient for undertaking the work; or (ii) it is likely that the work will have a significant adverse effect on the environment; and (c) whether the work and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the requiring authority for which the designation is sought; and (d) any other matter the territorial authority considers reasonably necessary in order to make a recommendation on the requirement. … The draft Unitary Plan cannot be considered under s171(1)(a)-(c), so its relevance can only be as an “other matter” under s171(1)(d).
The draft Unitary Plan is arguable the most recent and relevant statement of the Council‟s policy direction with respect to resource management issues in Auckland. However, the document has not gone through any submissions or hearings process either under Schedule 1 of the RMA or the RM Reform Bill. Feedback to submissions on the draft, and future, more extensive consultation and feedback, will influence the final form of the proposed Unitary Plan, with detailed provisions likely to change in a number of ways. The draft Unitary Plan is in such a preliminary stage that it can have little relevance to a formal RMA process such as the Council‟s assessment of the CRL NoRs. The Council
Page 210 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
must continue to place much greater weight on the operative provisions of the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Central Area Section) and Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section). Like the Auckland Plan, the draft Unitary Plan can be “had regard to” as a document potentially relevant to the assessment of the Council‟s relatively high-level objectives for Auckland, insofar as that assists with its consideration of the environmental effects of allowing the CRL NoRs. However, any lower objectives and policies of the draft Unitary Plan can be given no real statutory weight as against the provisions of the relevant operative plans. It is noted that at least part of the proposed Unitary Plan will have a higher level of relevance if it is notified prior to the Council‟s recommendation on CRL NoRs being made. The objectives and policies of the proposed Unitary Plan will be relevant at the very least, as will any rules that take legal effect under sections 86A-G. We feel that this matter is appropriately left for the hearing panel to deal with should the timing of any recommendation warrant that an enhanced level of attention be given to the proposed Unitary Plan. 12.5 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000
The Project is located within the catchment of the Hauraki Gulf and is subject to the provisions of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA). The HGMPA outlines broad policy matters relating to the features that contribute to the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf and appropriate objectives for the Gulf‟s management. In assessing applications for activities within the Gulf and its catchment, the consent authority is required to have regard to sections 7 and 8 of HGMPA. Section 7 recognises the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf including the interrelationship between the Hauraki Gulf, its islands and catchments and the ability of that interrelationship to sustain the life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf and its islands. Section 8 of the HGMPA lists the objectives for the management of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands and catchments. AT have provided the following comments against the provisions of sections 7(2) and 8 of the HGMPA:
In terms of protecting and enhancing the cultural and spiritual values of tangata whenua, it is intended that consultation will be on-going throughout the Project to discuss and resolve matters of importance to tangata whenua (a CVA is attached in Appendix 6, Volume 2 CRL NoR suite of documents);
The Project will not adversely affect the social, economic, recreational or cultural well-being of people or communities of the Hauraki Gulf;
The Project will have positive economic effects on people and communities of the Gulf by improving rapid transport access to other parts of central Auckland from the
Page 211 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
waterfront area, and throughout the rail network within the Hauraki Gulf Catchment; and
The Project will not compromise the soil, air, water or ecosystems of the Gulf. With regard to this last point, it is considered that construction activities within the catchment generally have the potential to adversely affect the water, air and ecosystems of the Hauraki Gulf through contaminants getting into stormwater drains, and air pollution. In this case however, it is considered that the suite of management plans put forward by AT, including our recommended changes to conditions, will appropriately manage those effects. As such, we consider that the construction and operation of the CRL is consistent with the provisions of sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA.
Page 212 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
13 Conditions
13.1 Auckland Transport Draft Conditions
Auckland Council received the draft proposed resource consent conditions on 30 April 2013 from AT. These conditions have informed the preparation of this Report. 13.2 Proposed Amendments to Draft Conditions
The proposed conditions provided by AT (described above) have been amended by the following method: Strikethrough text – Deleted wording; and
Underlined text – Proposed new wording. There are a number of areas of the conditions where further information is required from AT before Auckland Council can accept conditions (e.g. transport). These areas are indicated in the proposed amendments to the conditions. The proposed amendments to the draft conditions are included as Attachment O to this Report. 13.3 Lapsing of Designation
Pursuant to s.184(1)(c) of the RMA, AT has proposed a lapsing period of 20 years for each designation. AT has identified the following reasons for seeking such an extended lapse period:
Protect the CRL (tunnels, stations, construction areas), both above and below ground, for this long term strategic transport project, so that there is certainty that the CRL can be constructed and operated;
Provide certainty to affected landowners and the community as to the nature and location of the CRL through inclusion in the appropriate district plans;
Provide sufficient time to give effect to construction of the CRL including undertaking property and access negotiations, further site investigations and design (preliminary, detailed and construction), and construction of the Project: o It is estimated that the construction period alone is approximately 5 to 6 years in length and therefore to provide certainty once the CRL is under construction that the designation has been given effect to, a longer period than the default period of 5 years is necessary;
o It will also provide an appropriate period to obtain the necessary resource consents, building consents, and to undertake tendering / procurement,
Page 213 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
and other processes associated with the Project construction.150
As discussed in Section 9.18 of the Report, a number of submitters have raised issues regarding the proposed 20 year lapsing date. These issues include potential blight effects, uncertainty for land owners and tenants, indefinitely postponing maintenance and investment and reluctance to invest and loss of capital value. Some submitters are seeking that the lapse date be reduced to 10 years, while others are seeking the date be set at five years.
Section 184 of the RMA provides that a designation lapses on the expiry of 5 years after the date on which it is included in the district plan unless the designation specified a different period when incorporated in the plan. The Act provides no guidance as to the principles that are to be applied in determining a period different from the 5 year period identified. There are a number of examples where designations for major infrastructure projects have been confirmed with lapse dates over 5 years and up to 20 years151. However, there have been cases where the Environment Court has reduced lapse periods152. In terms of the information available regarding the Project timeframes, AT has indicated that it anticipates applying for the necessary resource consents for the project in 2014, and that it estimates that construction will take at least 5 to 6 years. As set out in Section 12.1.1 of this Report, the Auckland Plan identifies “the CRL is the top priority transport project for Auckland, with a targeted date to become operational in 2021.‖153 The City Centre Master Plan also anticipates “CRL will be operational by 2021.”154 It therefore seems that the best case scenario for completion of the Project is 2021 at the earliest. However, this best case scenario timeframe we assume relies on availability of funding. It is fully accepted that AT needs to designate land for the project to safeguard the route from inappropriate use and development and that AT needs certainty that it will be able to implement the Project once it is able to commence construction. It is also accepted that AT will need a longer lapse date than the 5 year default provided under the RMA to obtain the necessary resource consents, building consents, and to undertake tendering / procurement, and other processes associated with the Project construction. However, in determining what is an appropriate lapse date, the effects on landowners subject to the designations in terms of blighting and uncertainty are important considerations. These effects and the degree to which they can be mitigated must be balanced against the reasons required for a 20 year lapse date.
150 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects – Section 2.2.7, page 39.
151 Transpower Upper North Island Grid Upgrade Project – 15 year lapse date, NZTA Huntly Bypass – 20 year lapse date, NZTA State Highway 20 Dowse to Petone – 20 year lapse date.
152 Beda Family Trust and Ors v Transit NZ A139/2004, Jubilee Trust v Vector Gas, C203/2010
153 The Auckland Plan: Chapter 13, “Auckland‟s Transport”. Refer Box 13.2: City Rail Link
154 City Centre Masterplan, “Our Assumptions”, Page 13
Page 214 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
As discussed in Section 9.18 and 9.19, AT is proposing as a means to mitigate effects of uncertainty and blight the preparation and implementation of a Property Management Strategy and a Property Acquisition Plan. As we have limited details regarding the proposed Plan and Strategy and the preparation and implementation of these documents have not been required by way of designation conditions, we are not in the position to ascertain how effective these proposed mechanisms will be in mitigating these effects.
In the absence of being able to determine the effectiveness of this proposed mitigation we are not currently in a position to recommend a 20 year lapse date. As set out in section 9.18, we would need AT to address and confirm the following matters before we can fully determine the effectiveness of this proposed mitigation.
Confirmation of the purpose and content of the proposed Strategy and Plan;
Provision of draft conditions requiring the preparation and implementation of the proposed Strategy and Plan and that specify the purpose and content/matters to be addressed by the Strategy and Plan.
Clarification as to the NoRs that will be subject to these conditions.
In terms of NoR 3, (the sub-strata “protection” designation that does not involve any physical works) AT is proposing that this designation is deemed to have been given effect to on the date which is it is included in District (Unitary Plan) under s.175 of the RMA155. Under s175 a confirmed designation can only be included in an operative or proposed plan. Accordingly, the condition as currently drafted should be amended to read:
"This designation is deemed to have been given effect to on the date which it is included in the operative and any proposed district plan the District (Unitary) Plan under Section 175 of the RMA." It is also noted that the disparity in lapse dates of this designation (NoR 3) and the other designations could lead to an unusual planning outcome i.e. if the CRL does not progress and the other designations lapse then the sub-strata designation would remain in the District Plan for no purpose. To address this, it is recommended a further amendment be made to Condition 2 which requires AT to remove the sub-strata designation under s182 in the event that the other CRL designations lapse without an extension being sought or new NoRs for the project being issued. 13.4 Drawing back the Designation
A number of submissions have been received supporting AT‟s proposal that in accordance with section 182 of the RMA, AT will look to rationalise the CRL designation following completion of the construction phase so that it then only relates to those areas
155 NOR 3, Condition 2
Page 215 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
needed for operation and maintenance requirements156.
One submitter considers that this rationalisation of the designations should be a requirement included in the designation conditions rather than left to AT's discretion157 AT has proposed a condition to this effect (Condition 3) in respect of NoRs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6.
156 CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects, page 39
157 Submission 90
Page 216 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
14 RMA Part 2 Considerations
14.1 Principles – Sections 6, 7 and 8
The following table provides an assessment of the CRL against the RMA section 6 Matters of National Importance. Table 14.1: - Section 6 Assessment Matters of National Importance Assessment (a) the preservation of the natural character The coastal environment in the vicinity of the coastal environment (including the of the CRL has been highly modified. coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes The Project will not affect the natural and rivers and their margins, and the character of the coastal environment. protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development: (b) the protection of outstanding natural There are no known outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate features and landscapes that will be subdivision, use, and development: affected by the Project. (c) the protection of areas of significant There are no areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna: habitats of indigenous fauna that will be affected by the Project. (d) the maintenance and enhancement of Public access to the coastal marine public access to and along the coastal area could be compromised due to marine area, lakes, and rivers: construction activities associated with Britomart and in Queen Elizabeth II Square. Access will not be prevented and people will generally only be inconvenienced by not have such direct access to the coastal marine area. (e) the relationship of Maori and their Through the consultation process a culture and traditions with their ancestral number of the iwi / hapū have prepared lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other Maori Values Assessments, which have taonga: culminated in a Cultural Values Assessment. The Cultural Values Assessment includes recommendations on measures to avoid remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on Māori values and measures to recognise and provide for the relationship of iwi and hapū with their ancestral lands and tāonga. The measures identified in the CVA have been developed into designation conditions. (f) the protection of historic heritage from Due to the nature and scale of the inappropriate subdivision, use, and Project it will adversely affect built development: heritage in the Central Area.
Page 217 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Matters of National Importance Assessment The proposed conditions will assist in minimising the effects of the CRL built heritage. However, the loss of heritage items will need to be balanced against the benefits of the Project. (g) the protection of protected customary There is no known protected customary rights right that will be affected by the Project.
The following table provides an assessment of the CRL against the RMA section 7 Other Matters. Table 14.2: - Section 7 Assessment
Other Matters Assessment (a) kaitiakitanga: The proposed conditions provide for the establishment of a kaitiaki or mana whenua forum which will have an on- going role in the design and construction of the CRL. One of the functions of the Forum will be to undertaking kaitiakitanga responsibilities associated with the CRL, including monitoring, assisting with discovery procedures, and providing mātauranga Māori input in the relevant stages of the Project. (aa) the ethic of stewardship See assessment for (a) above. (b) the efficient use and development of The CRL will link Britomart with the natural and physical resources NAL thereby enabling a more efficient use to the existing infrastructure and associated upgrades currently underway including double tracking and electification. The CRL has the potential to encourage the intensification of land use in the vicinity of the proposed stations and feasibly the wider Central Area, which in turn should achieve a more efficient use of the land resource and existing infrastructure. (ba) the efficiency of the end use of energy The CRL has the potential to increase the number of people using public transport and provide a viable option to the use of private vehicles. (c) the maintenance and enhancement of During the construction phase of the amenity values Project the amenity values of those residents, businesses and local communities adjacent to the
Page 218 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Other Matters Assessment construction sites are unlikely to be maintained and in a number of cases will be significantly adversely effected. More information is required from AT regarding the measure to be adopted to mitigation of a number of effects in order to determine the extent to which the effects on amenity values can be effectively mitigated. Once the CRL is operational it has the potential to facilitate the redevelopment of areas surrounding the stations and through the effective implementation of the Station Plans, the Urban Design and Landscape Plan and the Public Art Management Plan enhance amenity values. (d) intrinsic values of ecosystems Of more relevance to the assessment of the resource consents required for the CRL. (f) maintenance and enhancement of the During the construction phase of the quality of the environment Project the quality of the environment of owners and occupiers of properties adjacent to the construction sites is unlikely to be maintained and in a number of cases will be significantly adversely effected. More information is required from AT regarding the measure to be adopted to mitigation of a number of effects in order to determine the extent to which the effects on the environment can be effectively mitigated. Once the CRL is operational it has the potential to facilitate the redevelopment of areas surrounding the stations and through the effective implementation of the Station Plans, the Urban Design and Landscape Plan and the Public Art Management Plan enhance the quality of the environment. (g) any finite characteristics of natural and Land is a finite resource. The CRL has physical resources the potential to encourage the intensification of land use in the vicinity of the proposed stations and feasibly the wider Central Area, which in turn should achieve a more efficient use of the land resource (h) the protection of the habitat of trout and Not relevant to the assessment of the
Page 219 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Other Matters Assessment salmon NoRs for the CRL. (i) the effects of climate change The CRL has the potential to increase the number of people using public transport and provide a viable option to the use of private vehicles. This in turn could result in a reduction of vehicle trips which could have benefits in terms of climate change. However, during construction there will be significant numbers of truck movements (e.g. if two tunnel boring machines are used this could generate up to 667 truck trips to the site and 667 truck trips off the site per day) and other emissions from machinery. Therefore during construction the effects on climate change could be exacerbated. AT has provided no information on how the effects of climate change including sea level rise could impact on the CRL. (j) the benefits to be derived from the use The CRL involves the use of electric and development of renewable energy trains and approximately 70% of electricity comes from renewable energy. This percentage is expected to rise in the future due to increased use of wind energy.
As can be seen from the above tables, the CRL is generally consistent with the matters identified in sections 6 and 7 of the RMA. However, there are outstanding matters relating to the effects of construction on amenity values and the quality of the environment that still need to be addressed by AT. In terms of section 8 - Treaty of Waitangi, Section 8.5.4 of the CRL Assessment of Environmental Effects provides a comprehensive commentary on AT‟s engagement with iwi and hapū to date and how this relates to the principles of the Treaty. We have no issues with this commentary and concur with the comments made. The proposed designation conditions provide for the on-going involvement and engagement with iwi and hapū through the next phases of the Project. This will be achieved particularly through a kaitiaki or mana whenua forum and its involvement in the development of the Urban Design and Landscape Plan, the Public Art Management Plan and working collaboratively with the AT regarding built heritage and archaeological matters. 14.2 Purpose - Section 5
With regard to the purpose of the RMA, the issues once distilled down relate to balancing the city-wide and region-wide benefits of the CRL against the adverse
Page 220 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
construction effects (which in some case could last up to five or six years) on individuals, businesses and local communities and whether there are appropriate mitigation measures that can effectively manage these effects. We accept that once constructed, the CRL will promote the sustainable management of a very significant physical resource being the Central Area of Auckland. It will assist in the more efficient functioning of the Central Area and enable people to more effectively and efficiently access the Central Area, thereby enabling people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being. However, while the CRL is under construction it will have significant adverse effects on owners and occupiers of properties within and adjacent to the designations. Therefore, we need to be assured that these effects have been either avoided through the proposed design of the CRL or can be appropriately remedied or mitigated. At the time of writing this Report, we do not have sufficient information about a number of effects and their proposed mitigation measures to confidently determine that these effects can be appropriately mitigated. In conclusion, while all the positive effects associated with the CRL are entirely consistent with Part 2 of the RMA, there are a number of outstanding issues relating to the adverse construction effects of the Project that need to be addressed before we could conclude that the CRL achieves the purpose and principles of the Act.
Page 221 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
15 Conclusions
Notwithstanding matters where need to be addressed prior to Auckland Council being able to conclude the proposed management of adverse effects is appropriate (Table 15.2), the following conclusions (on a topic by topic basis) of our assessment are summarised in the Table below. Table 15.1: - Conclusions Effect / Matter Conclusion The CEMP and various management plans are the key AT Approach to mechanism AT is relying on to mitigate adverse effects Mitigating Adverse Recommendation to include additional conditions on Effects - CEMP independent peer review of CEMP and management plans, greater clarity on linkages between CEMP and management plans, review conditions and approval processes Agree generally with AT's findings and conclusions Construction Noise subject to recommended changes to noise and vibration and Vibration limits and hours of operation set out in the conditions Recommendation to include additional conditions on site specific management plans and triggers when these plans need to be prepared Recommendation to include specific limits for child care facilities The vibration contours inform when building conditions surveys should be undertaken. Recommendation that building condition surveys on properties outside these contours should not be precluded. Recommendation to change conditions in terms of Operational Noise and refinement of night time operational noise limits Vibration Recommendation to incorporate future review component that will revisit the baseline data to revise or determine appropriate limits recorded in the condition closer to the time that construction commences Settlement contours predicted by AT are reasonable - Structural integrity but not overly conservative Building conditions surveys are offered as mitigation (link through to vibration effects discussion above) Resource consents to be lodged at a later date will deal with groundwater dewatering effects Significant adverse effects predicted during the Transport networks construction phase (main areas of concern are and traffic construction vehicle movements, Albert St intersections property access) Conditions will need to be revised once a number of matters have been addressed by AT (see Table 15.2).
Page 222 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Effect / Matter Conclusion Significant positive effects predicted in the operational phase. We agree with the positive effects identified by AT including optimising the efficiency of the public transport network (including rapid transport network), patronage, release the rail capacity constraint at Britomart and facilitate intensification of land use particularly in the vicinity of the stations. Conclusions covered above Access to properties
During construction phase walking and cycling in the Walking and cycling vicinity of the construction sites will need to be carefully managed, this may be extended out to routes to be used by construction and heavy vehicles Managed through Urban Design Framework Adverse effects can be appropriately mitigated and Network utilities additional conditions are recommended to achieve this
Adverse effects can be appropriately mitigated and Light spill and glare additional conditions are recommended to achieve this
AT has undertaken significant consultation with tangata Tangata whenua whenua Maori Values Assessment have been undertaken by iwi and have informed the Cultural Values Assessment The recommendations from the Cultural Values Assessment have been incorporated by way of conditions The NoR is proposing the potential demolition of Built heritage Martha's corner as a worst case scenario. We do not support the demolition of this building and changes to conditions are recommended to prioritise adaptive reuse in the first instance. Adverse effects can be appropriately mitigated and additional or amended conditions are recommended to achieve this (historic heritage management plan, the recording of built heritage that is to be demolished through this process and building conditions surveys including requirement to repair damage) Historic Heritage Management Plan is recommended to Archaeology be prepared in consultation with Council's Heritage Unit Maori archaeological sites have been addressed under the tangata whenua section which must be reflected in the Historic Heritage Management Plan Adverse effects can be appropriately mitigated and Contamination additional conditions are recommended to achieve this (Independent peer review of the CEMP)
Page 223 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Effect / Matter Conclusion Adverse effects can be appropriately mitigated and Air quality additional conditions are recommended to achieve this (Independent peer review of the CEMP) There are a number of potential adverse effects Urban design associated with urban design that could eventuate as part of both the construction and operation of the CRL. It is considered that the conditions proposed by AT and our recommended amendments will ensure the appropriate management of these adverse effects. Cross-reference above Visual and amenity values
There are potential adverse effects. AT needs to further Blight address these matters (see Table 15.2).
There are potential adverse effects. AT needs to further Social address these matters (see Table 15.2). Recommend inclusion of conditions relating to the preparation of Social Impact Management Plans in respect of specific areas. In addition to other positive effects discussed above, Other Positive Effects other positive effects include: o Regeneration and intensification of areas surrounding the stations; and o Associated enhancement to heritage areas and buildings. None identified that have not been addressed in this Other adverse effects Report.
Recommendation that Draft Indicative CEMP includes Cumulative effects proposed methodology for the assessment of cumulative effects It is considered that the CRL NoRs are consistent with Auckland RPS the provisions of the ARPS
The purpose of a designation is to provide a mechanism Central Area Plan for works that do not typically fall within the „zoning‟ of a District Plan. The NoRs have been assessed against the relevant objectives and policies of the Central Area Plan. The purpose of a designation is to provide a mechanism Isthmus Plan for works that do not typically fall within the „zoning‟ of a District Plan. The NoRs have been assessed against the relevant objectives and policies of the Isthmus Plan. Positive effects associated with the CRL are entirely Part 2 consistent with Part 2 of the RMA It cannot yet be concluded that the CRL achieves the
Page 224 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Effect / Matter Conclusion purpose and principles of the Act (see Table 15.2). AT has given adequate consideration to alternative s.171(1)(b) Alternative sites, routes and methods of undertaking the CRL, however further clarification is required relating to how long the Downtown shopping centre will be used for construction purposes and the process followed to select it as a construction site The designations that authorise the work are s. 171(1)(c) Objectives reasonable necessary for achieving AT's objectives
See Table 15.2. Lapsing of designation
Recommending a significant number of amendments to Conditions conditions and inclusion of additional conditions in order to appropriately mitigate identified potential effects There are some areas where significant adverse effects are identified and appropriate mitigation is yet to be determined
As noted above, there are a number of areas where we consider matters need to be addressed further by AT before any conclusions can be made. These matters are summarised in Table 15.2 below: Table 15.2 Matters to be addressed Item Matter to be addressed Further clarification suggested on Indicative Draft CEMP AT Approach to and cumulative effects assessment methodology Mitigating Adverse Effects - CEMP
Adverse effects will be significant in some locations on Construction Noise certain sensitive receivers locations (including TV3 and Vibration studios, Roundhead Studios and Aotea Centre) and in some circumstances it may not be practicable for these effects to be mitigated. It is recommended that AT provides information on how these effects can be mitigated or avoided. Operational effects are generally acceptable, however Operational Noise and adverse effects will be significant in some locations Vibration (including TV3 studios, Roundhead Studios and Aotea Centre) on certain sensitive receivers and in some circumstances it may not be practicable for these effects to be mitigated. It is recommended that AT provides information on how these adverse effects can be mitigated or avoided. Covered by construction vibration above. Structural integrity
Page 225 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Item Matter to be addressed Significant adverse effects predicted during the Transport networks construction phase (main areas of concern are and traffic construction vehicle movements, Albert St intersections property access) Further clarification suggested in specific areas: o Movement of construction vehicles (particularly associated with the movement of trucks to and from the main construction site and stations) o Temporary loss of vehicle access to properties o Department of Corrections access o Sequencing of at grade crossings o Albert St intersections (with Customs/Wellesley/Victoria) o Permanent closure of Beresford St Conditions will need to be revised once further clarification is provided. Covered above Access to properties
N/A Walking and cycling
N/A Network utilities
N/A Light spill and glare
N/A Tangata whenua
N/A Built heritage
N/A Archaeology
There is a need for clarification regarding the number of Trees scheduled trees to be removed or affected by the proposed works. We have recommended amendments to conditions to consider the feasibility of temporarily relocating these trees for the duration of construction works. N/A Contamination
N/A Air quality
Page 226 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Item Matter to be addressed N/A Urban design
N/A Visual and amenity values
Outstanding matters that need to be addressed by AT Blight through providing further detail, for example on 'Property Management Strategy' and "Property Acquisition Plan'. Recommend that AT to provide conditions relating to the Strategy and the Plan. Outstanding matters that need to be addressed by AT Social through providing further detail, for example on 'Property Management Strategy' and "Property Acquisition Plan'. Recommend that AT to provide conditions relating to the Strategy and the Plan. N/A Other Positive Effects
N/A Other adverse effects
Recommendation that Draft Indicative CEMP includes Cumulative effects proposed methodology for the assessment of cumulative effects N/A Auckland RPS
N/A Central Area Plan
N/A Isthmus Plan
There are a number of outstanding issues relating to Part 2 adverse construction effects that need to be addressed before it could be concluded that the CRL achieves the purpose and principles of the Act AT has given adequate consideration to alternative s.171(1)(b) Alternative sites, routes and methods of undertaking the CRL, however further clarification is required relating to how long the Downtown shopping centre will be used for construction purposes and the process followed to select it as a construction site Recommended that AT provides clarification on whether s. 171(1)(c) Objectives the works are reasonably necessary for achieving all stated objectives AT to provide information on how the Property Lapsing of designation Management Strategy and the Property Acquisition Plan will mitigate effects on blight and on uncertainty for land
Page 227 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Item Matter to be addressed owners and occupiers This information is required before a recommendation can be made on the lapsing period for the designation Recommending a significant number of amendments to Conditions conditions and inclusion of additional conditions in order to appropriately mitigate identified potential effects There are some areas where significant adverse effects are identified and appropriate mitigation is yet to be determined
Page 228 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
16 Recommendation
As set out in Section 15 above, there are a number of outstanding matters, primarily relating to the adverse effects of the construction of the CRL that require further consideration and clarification by AT. Based on these effects, we are therefore not able to recommend that the notices of requirement be confirmed at the present time. Once these matters have been addressed by AT, and we are satisfied that these adverse effects can be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated, we would be in a position to recommend that the requirements to designate land in the Auckland Council District Plan (Operative Auckland City Central Area Section and operative Auckland City Isthmus Section) for the construction, operation and maintenance of the CRL be confirmed.
This recommendation would be subject to the imposition of the conditions contained in Attachment O of this Report and any further amendments to these conditions resulting from the additional information and clarification provided by AT and our assessment of that material.
Page 229 of 230
City Rail Link Notices of Requirement Report for Hearing Commissioners
Schedule of Attachments
Attachment Reference Description of Attachment Attachment A Letter of Withdrawal of Submission (Boston Properties)
Attachment B Late Submissions
Attachment C Late Submissions Decision
Attachment D Summary Of Submissions
Attachment E Full Submissions
Attachment F Noise and Vibration Technical Report, Styles Group
Attachment G Structural Integrity Report, Tonkin and Taylor
Attachment H Transport and Traffic Report, MWH NZ Ltd
Attachment I Tāngata Whenua Report
Attachment J Built Heritage and Archaeology Report
Attachment K Trees and Vegetation Report
Attachment L Contamination Report, MWH NZ Ltd
Attachment M Air Quality Report, MWH NZ Ltd
Attachment N Urban Design Report
Attachment O Recommended Conditions
Quality Assurance Statement
Prepared for Auckland Council Prepared by Ross Cooper, Auckland Council Paula Hunter, MWH NZ Ltd Chris Scrafton, MWH NZ Ltd Garrett Hall, MWH NZ Ltd Reviewed by Paula Hunter, MWH NZ Ltd Joao Machado, Auckland Council
Approved by Joao Machado, Auckland Council
Page 230 of 230