Newmarket Viaduct Protection Designation

Notice of Requirement by Requiring Authority for Alteration of Designation D09-32

12 March 2015

Document name

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

This report has been prepared for the benefit of the NZ Transport Agency (the Transport Agency). No liability is accepted by this company or any employee or sub-consultant of this company with respect to its use by any other person.

This disclaimer shall apply notwithstanding that the report may be made available to other persons for an application for permission or approval or to fulfil a legal requirement.

Quality Assurance Statement

Prepared by: Cameron Wallace (Opus)

Reviewed by: Jarrod Snowsill (Opus)

Project Manager: Sarah Ho (NZTA)

Approved for issue by: Paul Glucina (NZTA)

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. NZTA Framework 5

3. Reason for the sAlteration 7

4. Description of the Existing Environment 12

5. Assessment of Alternatives 18

6. Consultation 25

7. Assessment of Environmental Effects 29

8. Notification 37

9. Statutory Assessment 39

10. Conclusion 47

11. Appendices

Appendix 1 - Designation Plans

Appendix 2 – Certificates of Title

Appendix 3 – Designation Notation

Appendix 4 – Transport Assessment

Appendix 5 – Traffic Safety Assessment

Appendix 6 – Vibration and Excavation Assessment

Appendix 7 – Structural Assessment

Appendix 8 – Wind Assessment

Appendix 9 – Consultation Material

Appendix 10 – Consultation Feedback

Appendix 11 – Affected Parties

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Notice of Requirement for an Alteration to Designation under section 181 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)

To: Auckland Council Private Bag 92300 Auckland 1141

From: NZ Transport Agency Private Bag 106602 Auckland 1143

1. The New Zealand Transport Agency gives notice of a requirement for an Alteration to a Designation:

The Transport Agency gives notice to alter Designation D09-32 within the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section) 1999 (“the District Plan”). Designation D09-32 is currently noted within the District Plan as:

“12.2 Metre Height Restriction, Newmarket Viaduct Area. Affecting land within 76.2 metres of centre line of Newmarket Viaduct”

There are no conditions attached to the Designation.

The Designation is to be altered within the District Plan to read:

“Newmarket Viaduct Protection, Building Limitation and Excavation Restriction”

The purpose of the Designation is to be recorded as:

“ The designation is for the purpose of ensuring the safe and efficient operation of the Newmarket Viaduct (as part of State Highway 1). This enables the Transport Agency to manage land use effects which may impact on the operation, maintenance and structural integrity of the Newmarket Viaduct. The designation does not enable the NZ Transport Agency to undertake any physical works relating to the Newmarket Viaduct which is already covered under Designation A07-01B Motorway: Newmarket Viaduct Improvement Project.”

As the proposed alteration does not involve any physical works, no conditions will be imposed on the Transport Agency. However, the proposed designation notation now clarifies the circumstances in which the Transport Agency’s approval for development is required under s176 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and provides advice notes to set out how actual or potential effects on the Newmarket Viaduct will be assessed. A full copy of the proposed alteration is contained within Appendix 3 of the accompanying report.

2. The site to which the alteration applies is as follows:

The altered designation extends 37m north of, and 29.5m south of the Newmarket Viaduct. The Newmarket Viaduct traverses the central-southern portion of the Newmarket

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

metropolitan centre and is essentially a curved bridge spanning from an abutment north of Gillies Avenue, to an abutment adjacent to the St Mark’s Road on-ramp. At its highest point, the Viaduct sits approximately 24 metres above the ground level of Newmarket.

Below and adjacent to the Newmarket Viaduct, the area subject to this alteration predominantly features a mixture of retail, large format retail, at-grade parking, automotive servicing, car-yards, medium to low-intensity residential, and recreational uses, typically ranging between 1 and 3 storeys in height.

A full description of the site and surrounding environment is contained within Section 4.0 of the accompanying report.

3. The names and addresses of the owner and occupier of the land to which the alteration relates are as follows:

Land Owner Area (m2) Lot 6 Deed 230 407 Broadway Ltd 357 SEC 6 SO460477 Akarana Trustee Company 380.6 SEC 6 SO460477 Akarana Trustee Company 227.9 SEC 3 SO460477 Akarana Trustee Company 3.7 SEC 4 SO460477 Akarana Trustee Company 357.8 Lot 3 DP3639 Akarana Trustee Company 421.2 Allotment 189 SBRS of Auckland A M & N J M Dalbeth 552.7 SECT 6 Allotment 190 SBRS of Auckland A M & N J M Dalbeth 4 SECT 6 Allotment 179 SBRS of Auckland Ian John McCallum 490.3 SECT 6 Lot 1 DP141667 Dilworth Trust Board 382.9 Lot 2 DP141667 Dilworth Trust Board 958.7 Allotment 52 SBRS of Auckland Dilworth Trust Board 82.4 SECT 11 Allotment 36 SBRS of Auckland Dilworth Trust Board 686.4 SECT 11 Allotment 37 SBRS of Auckland Mayakauwa, Welaratna, Webster et al. 136 SECT 11 Allotment 38 SBRS of Auckland Mayakauwa, Welaratna, Webster et al. 180.4 SECT 11 Lot 1 DP33108 Roncon Pacific Hotel 59.8 Pt Lot 2 DP33109 Roncon Pacific Hotel 770.9 Lot 1 DP209324 St Lukes Group No.2 Ltd (Scentre Group) 1113.3 Allotment 200 SBRS of Auckland St Lukes Group No.2 Ltd (Scentre Group) 121.4 SECT 6 Lot 1 DP66830 St Lukes Group No.2 Ltd (Scentre Group) 1542.9 Pt Lot 11 DP3639 St Lukes Group No.2 Ltd (Scentre Group) 167.8 Lot 7 DP3639 St Lukes Group No.2 Ltd (Scentre Group) 101.8 Lot 8 DP3639 St Lukes Group No.2 Ltd (Scentre Group) 235.2 Lot 9 DP3639 St Lukes Group No.2 Ltd (Scentre Group) 380 Lot 10 DP3639 St Lukes Group No.2 Ltd (Scentre Group) 543.1 St Lukes Group No.2 Ltd (Scentre Group) Lot 1 DP85019 281.3 & Tram Lease Ltd Lot 1 DP27123 Tram Lease Ltd & The Bagel Property Ltd 827.6 Lot 2 DP27122 Tram Lease Ltd & The Bagel Property Ltd 157.6 Section 1 SO460478 G4 Mahuru Ltd 2105.9 Allotment 33 SBRS of Auckland J N & C J Greig & J W Priestley 212.2 SECT 11 Allotment 35 SBRS of Auckland T J Dunne & Fastco Trustees Ltd 52.2 SECT 11

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Allotment 41 SBRS of Auckland The Remuera Rackets Club Inc 245.7 SECT 11 North Island Main Trunk Line KiwiRail 2335.3 Pt Lot 14 DP3639 NZ Transport Agency 8.8 Pt Lot 15 DP3639 NZ Transport Agency 624.5 Pt Lot 16 DP3639 NZ Transport Agency 549.8 Lot 17 DP3639 NZ Transport Agency 636.3 Lot 1 DP26738 NZ Transport Agency 827.6 Lot 2 DP26738 NZ Transport Agency 157.6 Pt Lot 2 DP33108 NZ Transport Agency 768.6 Lot 20 DP3639 NZ Transport Agency 218.1 Lot 21 DP3639 NZ Transport Agency 54.1 Pt Lot 22 DP3639 NZ Transport Agency 40.1 Lot 1 DP383055 NZ Transport Agency 479.3 Pt Lot 2 Deed 230 NZ Transport Agency 269.2 Pt Allotment 22 SBRS of Auckland NZ Transport Agency 216.6 SECT 6 Pt Lot 4 Deed 230 NZ Transport Agency 406.8 Lot 5 Deed 230 NZ Transport Agency 436.9 Lot 7 Deed 230 NZ Transport Agency 331 Lot 8 Deed 230 NZ Transport Agency 103.5 Pt Lot 1 Deed 976 NZ Transport Agency 230.8 Pt Lot 2 Deed 976 NZ Transport Agency 619.6 Pt Lot 3 Deed 976 NZ Transport Agency 270.8 Pt Lot 12 Deed 976 NZ Transport Agency 62.3 Pt Lot 13 Deed 976 NZ Transport Agency 543.7 Pt Lot 14 Deed 976 NZ Transport Agency 407.4 Pt Lot 15 Deed 976 NZ Transport Agency 2.8 Pt Lot 2 DP33109 NZ Transport Agency 341.9 Allotment 174 SBRS of Auckland NZ Transport Agency 62.9 SECT 11 Allotment 46 SBRS of Auckland NZ Transport Agency 936.9 SECT 11 Lot 17 Deed 976 NZ Transport Agency 602.6 Section 7 SO460478 NZ Transport Agency 847.8 Section 10 SO460478 NZ Transport Agency 48.8

The proposed area to be designated has been reduced from approximately 120,000m2 to 46,000m2. The majority of this land is under the control of the Transport Agency, Auckland Transport (via the local road network) and KiwiRail.

Copies of the relevant Certificates of Title and plans for the existing and proposed designation are attached within Appendix 1 of the accompanying report.

4. Alternative sites, routes and methods have been considered to the following extent:

As this Project relates to an alteration of a designation under s168(2)(b) of the RMA to protect an existing, fixed public work (the Newmarket Viaduct), the consideration of alternative sites or routes was not considered necessary. As such, the assessment of alternatives was limited to a consideration of the alternative statutory methods available to meet the project objectives. These are contained within Section 5.0 of the accompanying report.

The assessment of alternatives concluded that an alteration to Designation D09-32 would provide the greatest amount of certainty to the Transport Agency that it could continue to manage and operate the Newmarket Viaduct in a way which will not compromise the efficiency of the State highway network or the safety of users of that network in line with the project objectives. It was also considered that an alteration would provide increased certainty to adjacent landowners as to the reasons for restrictions around the Newmarket Viaduct.

iii

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Finally, the alteration would also promote the intensification of Newmarket in a manner that appropriately avoids adverse effects on the safe and efficient operation of the Newmarket Viaduct.

5. The alteration is reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the Transport Agency because:

The three objectives of this project are:

 Maintain a safe driving environment for users of the Newmarket Viaduct;  Safeguard network resilience and efficiency of the State Highway network; and  Protect the structural integrity of the Newmarket Viaduct.

These objectives are born out of the Transport Agency’s statutory responsibilities set out within the Land Transport Management Act 2003 and Resource Management Act 1991, along with a number of strategies and guidelines which set out the aspirations of the Transport Agency in relation to the management of the State Highway network.

Following a review of Designation D09-32, it was established that there are a number of risks to the Newmarket Viaduct from intensification of the Newmarket area. As set out within Section 3.0 and 5.0 of the accompanying report, the alteration to designation D09-32 will enable the Transport Agency is fulfil its statutory requirements and meet the objectives identified above.

6. No additional resource consents are required in relation to the proposal as it does not authorise any physical development.

7. The following consultation has been undertaken with parties that are likely to be affected:

Consultation on the proposed alteration commenced in July 2014. The purpose of this consultation was to inform directly affected parties of the review of Designation D09-32 and to obtain feedback to assist in the development of alternative controls as part of the recommended alteration to designation. 13 iwi groups and 23 separate landowners affected by the alteration were initially contacted. Individual meetings were also carried out between the Transport Agency and those who expressed an interest in the alteration throughout the second-half of 2014. Based on the initial feedback, amendments were made to the alteration and the Transport Agency sought further feedback to this in December 2014.

Full details of the consultation undertaken as part of this project are contained within Section 6.0, Appendix 9 and Appendix 10 of the accompanying report.

8. Attached within Section 7.0 of the accompanying report, in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the RMA, is a description of the activity and an assessment of the environmental effects of the activity on the environment.

9. Attached is any information required to be included in the application by Rule 4A.3 of the District Plan, the RMA or any regulations made under that Act, including:

a) Designation Plans (refer to Appendix 1); b) Details on the public work (refer Sections 1.0 – 3.0 of the accompanying report); c) A statement of objectives (refer Section 1.4 of the accompanying report);

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

1. Introduction

1.1 Outline of the project

This document constitutes an Assessment of Environmental Effects (“AEE”) prepared in support of the Notice of Requirement by the New Zealand Transport Agency (“the Transport Agency”) to alter Designation D09-32 (“the Protection Designation”) within the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section) 1999 (“the District Plan”) which applies to land surrounding the Newmarket Viaduct (“the Viaduct”). The purpose of the alteration is to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the Viaduct as part of State Highway 1 (“SH1”) in accordance with section 168(2)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“the RMA”).

This report provides the documentation necessary to support the alteration to the designation and includes: a description of the existing environment and the project works proposal; an assessment of the proposed restrictions against the relevant resource management provisions and planning policies; an explanation of project necessity; and an assessment of alternatives. The proposal is considered within the overarching framework of Part 2 of the RMA and an assessment of the effects on the environment is provided, supported by specialist technical reports contained within the Appendices.

The alteration does not authorise any physical works. Hence no additional resource consents are required to be sought in conjunction with the alteration.

1.2 Project Background

The original Viaduct was constructed between 1962 and 1966 and comprised of two parallel post tensioned concrete box girder bridges supported on a mix of circular and rectangular box piers. The Viaduct was 740m long, 27m wide and approximately 20m high.

The structure was an innovative design at the time and is still considered a complex design in today’s terms. Although considered a successful design it did not conform to New Zealand’s modern earthquake standards being built only to withstand 1 in 500 year return period earthquake (it could have received significant damage in an earthquake as common as 1 in 200 years). This made the structure the weakest strategic transport infrastructure link in the Auckland area, with a potential collapse cutting off motorway transport to the south.

The limited earthquake stability coupled with increasing traffic demands (over 160,000 vehicles a day - the most traffic on any section of road in New Zealand), led to the planning of a new Viaduct structure (the Newmarket Viaduct Improvement Project) able to withstand an earthquake with a 2,500 year return period. Other influencing factors were the substandard edge protection barriers and the Viaduct being a prohibited route for overweight vehicles forcing overweight vehicles through the city streets. The majority of the improvement works were completed by late-2012 and its maintenance and operation is provided for through Designation A07-01B.

Designation D09-32 applies to land within the vicinity of Designation A07-01B and prevents construction of structures over 12.2m in height, within 76.2m of the centreline of the original viaduct, without the Transport Agency’s approval. As part of consultation to assist in the planning and design of the replacement Viaduct in 2005, surrounding landowners raised concerns around the effects of D09-32 on the development potential of their sites. As a result

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

of this consultation, the Transport Agency agreed to carry out a review of Designation D09- 32 which was reflected in advice note (e) under Designation A07-01B which states:

“A separate Transit designation, being D09-32, affects land adjoining the Viaduct. That designation imposes a 12.2 metre height restriction on land within 76.2 metres of the centreline of the existing Newmarket Viaduct. The Requiring Authority advises that it will review the ongoing need for and/or extent of designation D09-32 as part of detailed design for the Newmarket Viaduct Project and, once a decision is made, an alteration to designation D09-32 may be sought pursuant to the relevant RMA provisions. In the interim, the height designation D09-32 will remain in its existing position and will not automatically move to align with the new Viaduct alignment.”

The Transport Agency commissioned Opus International Consultants Ltd (“Opus”) to carry out a review of the ongoing need for Designation D09-32 after the new viaduct was constructed. This review of Designation D09-32 was completed in July 2014 and recommended that the Transport Agency should retain the designation but that the current scope and extent of the Designation could be reduced.

1.2.1 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Designation Roll Over

Prior to completion of that review the Agency had, in 2012, been required to confirm whether its designations within the operative plan were required to be included in the proposed plan, with or without modification. The Transport Agency confirmed that D09-32 should be included within the PAUP without modification on 21 June 2012. As the review had not been completed the Transport Agency did not seek to modify D09-32 at that time. D09-32 remains unchanged in the PAUP as Designation 6727.

1.2.2 Unitary Plan Hearing Process

Various landowners affected by Designation D09-32 have submitted on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (“PAUP”), seeking deletion of its PAUP equivalent Designation 6727. The Agency has a further submission seeking retention of that designation. If the alteration to D09-32 is approved, Designation 6727 in the PAUP will be replaced with the altered designation and the landowner and Transport Agency submissions will relate to the altered designation. The Agency notes that the Unitary Plan Panel currently proposes to consider designations in late 2015.

1.3 Operative Designations Relating to Newmarket Viaduct

Currently, development, operation, maintenance and protection of the Viaduct is provided through two separate designations identified as A07-01B and D09-32 within the District Plan.

1.3.1 Protection Designation

The District Plan describes the purpose of Designation D09-32 (referenced in the PAUP as 6727) as:

“12.2 Metre Height Restriction, Newmarket Viaduct Area. Affecting land within 76.2 metres of centre line of Newmarket Viaduct”.

The designation approximately covers the area from the Gillies Avenue interchange to the St Marks Road on-ramp incorporating all of the Newmarket Viaduct area. The requiring authority

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

for the designation is the Transport Agency. The designation was first included in the City of Auckland District Scheme in 1970. The designation placed a building height restriction of 40 feet on properties within 250 feet1 of the Viaduct. It does not authorise the construction of any Transport Agency works.

There are no conditions associated with Designation D09-32. This designation sits on-top of Designation A07-01B.

This designation was based on the centreline of the original Viaduct. However, the Newmarket Viaduct Replacement Project resulted in the centreline of the Viaduct moving approximately 13m to the north. The designation within the District Plan remains centred on the original centreline of the Viaduct. As a result, the extent of the designation is no longer equidistant on both sides of the Viaduct.

1.3.2 Motorway Designation

The District Plan describes Designation A07-01B (referenced in the PAUP as 6720) as:

“Motorway: Newmarket Viaduct Improvement Project.”

This designation enabled the Transport Agency to carry out the Newmarket Viaduct Improvement Project which involved the construction, operation and maintenance of a replacement Viaduct and ancillary works.

In order to carry out appropriate maintenance on the Viaduct, the designation provides for a maintenance envelope around the deck and associated structures. The buffer allows the Transport Agency to carry out bridge inspections and stormwater containment, collection and conveyance. The envelope consists of three distinct areas:

 Airspace exclusion area 6m out from each side of the Viaduct and 3m below the soffit;  Ground level exclusion area 3m wide around each of the supporting columns of the Viaduct including the area between each column; and  A 3.5m wide and 5m high accessway to each column position.

No change to Designation A07-01B is proposed as part of this alteration.

1.4 Project objectives

Three objectives have guided the development of this project. These objectives are born out of the Transport Agency’s statutory responsibilities and aspirations set out within the various pieces of legislation, strategies and guidelines. These matters are discussed in greater detail within Section 2 of this report.

1 These measurements were converted to the metric system sometime in the early 1970s to give the current exclusions of 12.2m and 76.2m.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

2. NZTA Framework

The following section provides an overview of the key documents which have guided the development of the project.

2.1 Land Transport Management Act 2003

The RMA makes provision for requiring authorities to designate land in the District Plan to carry out their functions and provide for future needs (section 168). The Transport Agency is the statutory body charged with operating the State highway network under the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (“LTMA”). The Transport Agency is also a requiring authority under section 167 of the RMA.

The LTMA provides the statutory framework for New Zealand’s land transport system, including funding and managing land transport activities and development. It is the statute under which the Transport Agency operates (in conjunction with the Government Roading Powers Act 1989).

The Transport Agency’s statutory objective, set out under section 94 of the LTMA, is to “... undertake its functions in a way that contributes to an effective, efficient, and safe land transport system in the public interest”.

The functions of the Transport Agency are defined in section 95(1) of the LTMA. Of relevance to this alteration, the functions of the Transport Agency include: (a) to contribute to an effective, efficient, and safe land transport system in the public interest … (c) to manage the State highway system, including planning, funding, design, supervision, construction, and maintenance and operations, in accordance with this Act and the Government Roading Powers Act 1989 …

In meeting its objective and undertaking these functions, the Transport Agency is also required under section 96(1) of LTMA “to exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility”.

2.2 Government Policy Statement

The draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2015 (“GPS”) sets out the Government’s land transport strategy in a framework that will guide investment until 2025, and provides guidance to decision-makers about where Government will focus resources, consistent with the purpose of the LTMA. It does this by allocating funding to different types of activities, and identifying results which focus on particular elements of the LTMA’s purpose which is “to contribute to an effective, efficient, and safe land transport system in the public interest.”

2.3 Road Safety Strategy 2010-2020

The strategic function of State Highways is primarily about keeping through traffic moving safely and efficiently with appropriately efficient access, especially in urban areas and areas

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32 of economic activity. Developments that occur alongside state highways can impact on that function.

The Road Safety Strategy (2010-2020) identifies the issues that are of most concern to the Transport Agency and are the priorities for road safety in New Zealand. It also outlines the high level actions the Transport Agency will take to address these issues, using the Safe System approach. One of the actions identified in the Road Safety Strategy is to better integrate road safety into land-use planning decisions to help support safe roads and roadsides.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

3. Reason for the Alteration

3.1 The Operative Designation

As described in s1.3.1 of this report, the Protection Designation imposes a 12.2 Metre Height Restriction on the Newmarket Viaduct Area, affecting land within 76.2 metres of the centre line of Newmarket Viaduct.

The Designation was first included in the City of Auckland District Scheme in 1970. The designation placed a building height restriction of 40 feet (12.2m) on properties within 250 feet (76.2m) of the Viaduct. A 2011 report prepared by Opus noted that the construction or presence of buildings higher than 12.2 metres in height (within 76.2 metres of the original Viaduct) was deemed to represent a risk to the Viaduct (both in construction and operational effects).

The existing restrictions imposed by the Designation around the Viaduct have contributed to a lower scale form of development and intensity of land-uses in the area which has been earmarked for significant growth over the past two-decades.

3.2 Need for the Alteration

Following completion of the Newmarket Viaduct Replacement Project in March 2013, the Transport Agency initiated a technical review of Designation D09-32 to determine the continued appropriateness of the existing controls which were first established in 1970 following construction of the old Viaduct. This review carried out a high-level assessment of the ongoing operation of the Viaduct from the following risks:  Changes in wind patterns and the effects on vehicles travelling across the Viaduct from new development above 12.2m in height;  Structural collapse of new buildings adjacent to the Viaduct;  Vibration and excavation effects from the construction of new buildings;  Fire damage to the structure of the Viaduct from adjacent buildings; and  Effects on traffic safety (e.g. glare/ distraction) from new development around the Viaduct.

Based on an assessment of these matters, it was considered that there is a need to ensure ongoing protection of the Viaduct from a range of potential effects, which have the potential to adversely affect the Viaduct structure or its safe and efficient operation. However, the existing extent and limit to building height within the Designation boundaries was no longer deemed necessary or appropriate provided other suitable mechanisms could be established to ensure the ongoing safe and efficient operation of the Viaduct.

3.2.1 Proposed Alteration

The altered designation notation is contained within Appendix 3 of this report. The designation is to be recorded within the District Plan as:

“Newmarket Viaduct Protection, Building Limitation and Excavation Restriction”

The purpose of the designation is to be recorded as:

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

The alteration does not impose any conditions on the Transport Agency as it does not authorise any physical development. Instead, the designation notation clarifies the circumstances in which the Transport Agency’s approval for development is required. The designation notation also identifies the effects on the Viaduct which need to be addressed for any development to obtain s176 approval from the Transport Agency. These effects relate to:

 Traffic Safety  Wind  Excavation & Vibration  Structural collapse

Advice Notes in the designation notation provide guidance as to how these effects will be assessed by the Transport Agency. A detailed explanation of the risks and issues associated with these matters is provided within Appendices 4 to 8 of this report and detailed in section 7.0 Assessment of Environmental Effects.

The alteration has removed the 12.2m height limit entirely as it has been determined that development can safely exceed this height provided certain matters (identified above) are addressed as part of the design process.

3.2.2 Proposed Alteration to boundaries

Figure 1 - Proposed Alteration (red) in comparison to the Operative Designation (yellow)

The proposed alteration also amends the boundaries of the operative designation, by reducing its extent as shown by the red line in Figure 1 (and Appendix 1). The reduced boundaries are based on the effects (structural collapse, wind, traffic safety, excavation and vibration) that may have an impact on the viaduct and can be reasonably managed within the revised boundary.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

The outer limit of the boundary has been determined from the risks and consequences associated with the collapse/ partial collapse of structures adjacent to the Viaduct. A worst case scenario identified within the Structural Assessment (Appendix 7) is the adverse effects of a full-height topple of a building towards the Viaduct. Based on the worst case scenario, the underlying development controls were used as a basis to determine the likely “full-height” of a potential building. Within the development controls of the underlying zoning of the PAUP, the maximum permitted heights ranged between 32 and 24.5m (PAUP provisions have been used over the operative District Plan for continuity and to reflect the proposed level of growth). Accordingly, the designation boundaries utilised the maximum permitted height, plus an allowance for a 5m debris spread to determine its horizontal extent. The result is that the designation boundary is closer to the Viaduct on its southern side where the PAUP height limits are lower, and the northern boundary deviates where it crosses Mahuru Street reflecting the change in zone height limits on either side of that street).

In addition to the potential adverse effects arising from the structural collapse of buildings the proposed designation boundaries will also capture developments which could trigger concerns in relation to wind and traffic safety. The Wind Assessment contained within Appendix 8 noted that new buildings have the potential to significantly affect wind conditions to a horizontal extent up to two times the height of a building. However, due to the likely scale of development envisioned for Newmarket any potential or actual adverse effect is likely to be located closer to a new building or structure. As such, the proposed boundaries will capture future development that pose a greater risk to the safe and efficient operation of the Viaduct.

With respect to the issue of traffic safety, the traffic safety assessment contained in Appendix 5 identified a wide range of factors from land development that can adversely impact on the safe and efficient operation of the Viaduct such as: reflected sunlight; driver distraction; glare; shadowing etc. The severity of potential or actual adverse effects arising from neighbouring buildings or structures would vary depending on the vantage point of motorists travelling along the Viaduct and would also vary at different times of the day. Based on the changing nature of traffic safety it was difficult to determine the extent of land bordering the Viaduct which, when redeveloped, could adversely affect traffic safety. Taking into account a range of factors, the proposed horizontal extent of designation boundaries of between 37m and 29.5m from the edge of the carriageways was considered appropriate as this would capture all potential development immediately adjacent to the Viaduct which could be located within a driver’s immediate field of vision as they travel across the Viaduct.

In addition to the reduced extent of the designation boundaries, the Vibration and Excavation Assessment contained within Appendix 6 identified a risk to the structural integrity of the Viaduct from certain types of earthworks and construction activity within 12m and 16m of the Viaduct’s piles and foundations. These earthwork restriction areas are identified on Figure 2 overleaf and within the designation plans contained within Appendix 1 of this report. The existence of the areas subject to risks arising from vibration and excavation within close proximity to the piers has also resulted in small protrusions to the proposed designation boundaries which can been seen along its eastern and western boundaries.

A noticeable deviation in the designation boundaries can be seen at the northwest corner of the altered Protection Designation. The alteration has excluded Lot 1 DP28262 (better known as ‘Highwic’) from the designation entirely. Highwic is registered as a Category I Historic

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Place by Heritage New Zealand (formerly the New Zealand Historic Places Trust). In its description of the site, HNZ notes:

“The main dwelling at Highwic is considered to be one of New Zealand's finest Carpenter Gothic houses, and is significant as a rare example of an architectural style more commonly found on the east coast of America. The dwelling and its outbuildings have considerable importance for the way in which they demonstrate the development of a colonial country house and its grounds in the nineteenth century and later.”

Under the Historic Places Act 1993, no person may destroy, damage of modify Highwic without the written authority of HNZ.

Highwic is scheduled as a Category A building under the District Plan. This means that any alteration, removal or destruction of Highwic is a prohibited activity for which no resource consent can be sought. The site is zoned Residential 2a which imposes a height limit on new development of 10m. The site is also scheduled under the PAUP. Under the PAUP, total or substantial demolition of Highwic is prohibited meaning no resource consent can be sought. Any new development within the site would require resource consent as a discretionary activity. Any new activity would need to have regard to the heritage value of Highwic and the underlying provisions of the single house zone which includes a height limit of 8m.

Overall, because of the existing and proposed restrictions and limitations on development at Highwic imposed through the District Plan and Historic Places Act mechanisms, no risk from redevelopment of the site that could affect the Viaduct’s safe and efficient operation was identified.

Finally, there are five minor deviations which exclude very small sections of land (<20m2), which would otherwise have led to the incorporation of five additional properties into the designation. These deviations are located at:

 58 Gillies Ave;  309 Broadway;  416 Broadway;  500 Broadway; and  9 St Mark’s Road.

In each of those cases the area affected is so small that its exclusion from the Protection Designation is not considered to result in any adverse effects on the Viaduct. None of the excluded sections is within the 12m earthworks or 16m piling restriction areas as shown in Figure 2 below.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Figure 2 – 12m and 16m Earthworks Restriction Areas

Overall, the reduced boundaries proposed by this alteration limit the extent of the Protection Designation to those sites immediately adjacent and within close proximity to the Viaduct, which would have the greatest potential to generate adverse effects on safe driving conditions for motorists travelling over the Viaduct.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

4. Description of the Existing Environment

4.1 The Newmarket Viaduct

The Viaduct traverses the central-southern portion of the Newmarket metropolitan centre and is essentially a curved bridge spanning from an abutment north of Gillies Avenue, to an abutment adjacent to the St Mark’s Road on-ramp (refer to Figure 1). At its highest point, the Viaduct sits approximately 24 metres above the ground level of Newmarket (Chainage 600 – 640 as provided in the attached cross-sections within Appendix 1). At its lowest point within the proposed Protection Designation boundaries the Viaduct is located approximately 10m above ground level (Chainage 1080).

The Viaduct forms a relatively unique part of Auckland’s State Highway network. The majority of Auckland’s State Highway network passes through the urban area at-grade or below the level of surrounding development. The Viaduct is the only part of the network which passes directly over an existing urban area which has been earmarked for significant residential and commercial intensification. Other elevated sections of the network are typically limited to traversing areas where limited or no future development would be likely to occur due to topographical or land-use constraints (e.g. the Auckland Harbour Bridge or Victoria Park Viaduct). In addition, much of the network features an ‘environmental buffer’, often in the form of noise walls, vegetated batter slopes or topographical features (e.g. coastline) which help to protect the State Highway network against adverse effects which can arise from development of adjacent land (e.g. visual distraction). The Viaduct’s ‘buffer’ is limited to a 6m maintenance corridor either side of the carriageway.

The Newmarket Viaduct Replacement Project (2008-2012) used an innovative 4-stage construction/deconstruction process to maintain capacity along the State Highway whilst the construction process was undertaken. This resulted in a shift in the Viaduct’s location 10m north of its original alignment. The new Viaduct has a lifespan of over 100 years, double that of the old viaduct.

The new Viaduct replacement was completed at a cost of approximately $215 million and provides a new southbound lane up to the Greenlane interchange. The Viaduct has been seismically strengthened to withstand a 1:2,500 year earthquake, and designed to support the anticipated growth of heavy vehicles travelling along the State Highway as well as to reduce the noise level generated by vehicles using the Viaduct. In addition, the new Viaduct is located 10m north of the old Viaduct. This supports the potential for providing additional northbound lanes within Designation A07-01B should they be required.

4.2 State Highway Network

SH1 is the primary route for north-south traffic movements through the Auckland Isthmus. Within Auckland, SH1 is comprised of the Northern Motorway, the Central Motorway Junction (“CMJ”) and the Southern Motorway.

The Southern Motorway provides key linkages between a number of primary destinations including the Auckland CBD, Manukau, Papakura and Drury. Linkages from Gillies Ave and St Marks Road on-ramp provide connections from the wider strategic network to the local suburbs of Newmarket, Parnell and Mount Eden.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Traffic flows indicate that the stretch of SH1 between Khyber Pass Road and Gillies Avenue is the busiest portion of state highway on the New Zealand network carrying over 200,000 vehicles per day. The Gillies Ave off/on-ramps provide a significant loading point for vehicles travelling from the north/west into Newmarket or the surrounding suburbs, whilst northbound vehicles accessing Newmarket are required to exit at either the Market Road or Khyber Pass off-ramps. As a result, the total volume of traffic on the Viaduct is slightly lower, but it still carries approximately 159,000 vehicles per day (84,000 vpd southbound, 75,000 vpd northbound) with just over 4% of this being heavy vehicles. This makes the Viaduct one of the busiest sections of road in New Zealand.

In addition to its role carrying general vehicle traffic, the Viaduct forms a critical freight link between the Port of Auckland and wider regional and national markets. Currently, 70% of daily commercial heavy vehicle traffic volumes travelling to and from the Port of Auckland pass over the Viaduct. New Zealand’s freight demand is forecasted to grow by 58% by 2042 from 236 million tonnes in 2012 to over 273 million tonnes). The majority of this growth is forecasted to occur in Auckland via road which will place additional demands on the State Highway network. In terms of key freight routes along the State Highway corridor, the Viaduct experiences the second highest volume of average daily heavy commercial vehicle movements in Auckland whilst it is the busiest in terms of overall average daily traffic it experiences, The volumes of traffic passing over the Viaduct daily are of significance as the effective and efficient movement of freight is critical to the development and growth of Auckland’s economy. Ensuring quality connections that enable convenient and reliable links between regionally significant markets and nodes to the ports and airport remains an important element of the Auckland Plan and Auckland’s Economic Development Strategy.

A full description of the role of the Viaduct and state highway within the local transport network is contained within the Transport Assessment contained within Appendix 4 of this report.

4.3 Existing Urban Environment

Physical development around the southern extent of Broadway has been limited to at-grade car parking and buildings between 1 and 3 storeys in the immediate vicinity of the Viaduct.

In terms of land-uses, the area currently within Designation D09-32 features a mixture of retail, large format retail, at-grade parking, automotive servicing, car-yards, medium to low- intensity residential, and recreational uses. Commercial uses are concentrated within the vicinity of Broadway as part of the Newmarket metropolitan centre (see Figure 3 below). Lower value land-uses such as car-yards and automotive servicing are typically located south of the Viaduct while residential and recreational land-uses are largely concentrated at the extreme west and east of the designation as part of the established suburbs of Remuera and Epsom.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Figure 3 - Site Locality

4.4 Future Urban Environment

North of the Viaduct, at 309 Broadway, Scentre Ltd (formerly Westfield) obtained resource consents on 2 September 2010 (Council ref: R/LUC/2009/5107), for the construction of a retail commercial development to be made up of 29,128m2 of ‘retail’ floor area and 5,820m2 of cinema floor area, and included an option for 1,200m2 of additional floor area for a health/spa facility. A multi-level carpark structure was to be attached to the development along the Clovernook frontage, providing parking for 1,309 vehicles. As part of the design, the development incorporated a roof level screen within 20m of the Viaduct over an external parking space to protect users from projectile debris originating from the Viaduct. The extent of the proposed works at 309 Broadway is indicated in figures 4 and 5 overleaf. The Transport Agency has previously provided their approval for the project under s176 of the RMA.

On February 28 2012, Scentre obtained a non-notified s127 variation to resource consent R/LUC.2009/5107. The variations to the consent were largely superficial in nature and didn’t alter the overall bulk or scale of the building, or activities proposed.

As part of its consultation on this alteration, the Transport Agency has confirmed to Scentre that, on the basis of Scentre’s currently advised plans, the Agency’s s176 approval remains extant, and will not be affected by this alteration.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Figure 4 - Proposed Development at 309 Broadway (Level 1 Plan)

Figure 5 - Proposed Development at 309 Broadway (Roof Plan) 4.5

4.6 Zoning & Controls

Zoning tools and development controls for the area surrounding the Viaduct are set within both the Operative District Plan and PAUP.

Parcels north of the Viaduct are located within the Business 3 zone under the operative District Plan and within the Metropolitan Centre zone under the PAUP. The Business 3 zone

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32 features a height limit of 33m, while under the PAUP the relevant zoning has a permitted height limit of 72.5m. However, this has been lowered to a height limit of 32.5m via an additional building height overlay presumably due to the presence of view-shafts directed towards Maungawhau/ Mt Eden from various sites around the Orakei Basin (referenced as E11, E12, E13 & H1).

Parcels located under the Viaduct itself and to the south-east of the Viaduct are included within the Mixed-use zone under both relevant plans (see Figures 5 and 6 below). Under the Operative District Plan, the Mixed-use zone has a permitted height limit of 15m. However, under the PAUP this has been increased to a height of 24.5m within the vicinity of the Viaduct.

South of the Viaduct on parcels located along Gillies and Alpers Avenues’, the land is included within various medium-intensity residential zones under the Operative District Plan and within the Terraced and Apartment Building (“THAB”) zone under the PAUP. Heights within these zones are restricted to between 8 and 14.5m.

Figure 6 - District Plan Zoning

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Figure 7 - Unitary Plan Zoning

Under both plans, the sites immediately surrounding the Viaduct are also subject to several Volcanic Viewshaft controls relating to views towards Maungawhau/Mt Eden, Rangitoto and Remuera/Mt Hobson. These effectively place additional controls on the permissible height of development in the area. In many instances, the view shaft contours limit development south of the Viaduct to the height of the Viaduct carriageway or lower, which is the same height proposed for Transport Agency s176(1)(b) approval in this alteration. Any development which exceeds these heights would currently require resource consent as a non-complying activity under Rule 5C.7.6.5 of the District Plan and Rule J6.3.1 of the PAUP. This means the altered designation will generally not place any additional height restriction on permitted development within those view shafts south of the Viaduct. North of the Viaduct, the Viewshaft contours enable development to occur between the heights of approximately 38m (around Clovernook Road) and 20m (around Mahuru Street).

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

5. Assessment of Alternatives

5.1 Introduction

This section of the AEE provides a summary of the alternatives considered in the development of the project.

The Transport Agency has considered several different methods available under the RMA to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the Viaduct. The assessment process applied was highly iterative, and involved on-going refinement on the basis of information derived from desk top studies, detailed technical investigations and stakeholder consultation. The process was also informed by the requirements of Part 2 of the RMA, and the objectives of the Transport Agency.

The following alternative methods were considered as part of this project:

a) The status quo;

b) Relying on underlying provisions contained within the District Plan/ PAUP;

c) Incorporating new structural measures onto the Viaduct;

d) Proposing new site specific controls for inclusion within the PAUP;

e) Rezoning of land in the vicinity of the Viaduct; and

f) Altering the existing Designation.

5.2 Statutory requirement to consider alternatives

Under the RMA, a consideration of alternative sites, routes and methods is required in relation to some aspects of the Project. As this Project relates to an alteration of a designation under s168(2)(b) of the RMA to protect an existing, fixed public work (the Viaduct), the consideration of alternative sites or routes was not considered necessary. As such, this assessment was limited to a consideration of the alternative statutory methods available to meet the project objectives.

The Fourth Schedule of the RMA requires an AEE to include possible alternative locations or methods for undertaking the activity to be described where it is likely that an activity will result in any significant adverse effect on the environment (Schedule 4 clause 1(b)). In relation to NoR’s, section 171(1)(b) requires particular regard to be given to whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes and methods of undertaking the work.

Case law2 has established that the central issue under s 171(1)(b), dealing with the assessment of alternatives, is whether a requiring authority which does not own an interest in the subject land has given adequate consideration to alternative sites, routes or methods.

2 Re Queenstown Airport Corp Ltd [2012] NZEnvC 206

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

When addressing s 171(1)(b) of the RMA the Environment Court3 has adopted the principles stated in the final report and decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Upper North Island Grid Upgrade Project as follows:4

a) the focus is on the process, not the outcome: whether the requiring authority has made sufficient investigations of alternatives to satisfy itself of the alternative proposed, rather than acting arbitrarily, or giving only cursory consideration to alternatives. Adequate consideration does not mean exhaustive or meticulous consideration.

b) the question is not whether the best route, site or method has been chosen, nor whether there are more appropriate routes, sites or methods.

c) that there may be routes, sites or methods which may be considered by some (including submitters) to be more suitable is irrelevant.

d) the Act does not entrust to the decision-maker the policy function of deciding the most suitable site; the executive responsibility for selecting the site remains with the requiring authority.

e) the Act does not require every alternative, however speculative, to have been fully considered; the requiring authority is not required to eliminate speculative alternatives or suppositious options.

These principles are also considered relevant to this assessment of alternatives, albeit the assessment is of alternative methods (of protecting the Viaduct) rather than alternative sites (given the Viaduct is already constructed).

5.3 Assessment of alternative methods

5.3.1 Status Quo (maintain existing designation)

The status quo method would be to retain the existing 12.2m height restrictions over the 152m corridor surrounding the length of the Viaduct.

Based on an assessment of the key risks to the ongoing operation of the Viaduct, it was considered that only development within a close proximity to the Viaduct posed identifiable risks to users of the Viaduct and the structure itself. Whilst retaining the designation would provide certainty for the Transport Agency in protecting the Viaduct, it would not provide certainty or clarity to neighbouring landowners about the risks of development within close proximity to the Viaduct. In addition, retaining the existing extent of the designation was not considered the most optimal solution for the Transport Agency to meet its objectives for the project.

3 Ibid. pp[48]-[50]

4 Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Upper North Island Grid Upgrade Project Ministry for the Environment, Board of Inquiry, 4 September 2009 at [177].

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

As such, maintenance of the status quo was not considered to be a fair or justifiable alternative.

5.3.2 Remove designation and rely on underlying planning controls

Removal of the Designation in its entirety and reliance on underlying development controls was assessed. This alternative was the preference for submitters on the designation under the PAUP process.

Reliance on the planning controls alternative would potentially enable an increase in the intensity and scale of development near the Viaduct, in line with the underlying zone rules. This option would provide more development rights to land owners, and it may reduce compliance costs (although the effects of concern to the Transport Agency would still need to be addressed by any applicant in accordance with the requirements of s5, s17, s88 and Schedule 4 of the RMA and resource management best practice).

Reliance on planning controls would, however, leave protection of the Viaduct dependant on PAUP controls. The technical assessments provided in the appendices of this AEE identified a range of issues and risks that have the potential to generate adverse effects on the Viaduct such as wind, glare, driver distraction, and construction vibration. Analysis of the PAUP (as notified) indicated that the objectives, policies and methods contained in it applicable to the surrounding zones do not provide any meaningful consideration or guidance on reverse sensitivity effects on established infrastructure. There would therefore be a risk, in relying on planning controls, that any increased intensity and scale of development increases the potential for reverse sensitivity effects to occur on the Viaduct. These potential effects could compromise the safe and efficient operation, maintenance, upgrading and development of the State highway network. An analysis of the relevant planning controls is summarised below:

Effect Operative Plan PAUP Traffic Safety – building None New buildings are assessed as materials, glare, lighting, a restricted-discretionary shadowing activity under Rule I3.1. Reverse sensitivity or effects on significant infrastructure (e.g. driver distraction) are not identified as a matter for discretion. However, a matter of discretion relates to ‘building design and external appearance’. This is supported by assessment criteria I3.6.2.5a (xx) “buildings should not use reflective materials that would adversely affect safety, pedestrian amenity or the amenity of surrounding properties.” Wind None Only relevant for buildings over 25m (it is noted that the

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

information requirements for buildings over 20m require consideration of wind but this is aimed towards the ground level pedestrian environment). Wording of this provision means it would not be relevant in relation to effects on the Viaduct as it relates only to the pedestrian environment at ground level. Structural collapse None None Excavation and vibration Earthworks over 500m2 General Earthworks 1001m2 – on slopes <5% - 2500m2 and from 1001m3- Controlled Activity. 2500m3 – Restricted Discretionary Activity.

Land-use controls to address construction vibration are set out within Rule H6.2.1.5. However, these are largely focussed on vibration effects on habitable buildings.

Overall, an assessment of relevant provisions within both the Operative District Plan and PAUP indicates that there would not be sufficient guidance or controls for either applicants or Council to Identify, assess and manage actual or potential adverse effects from development on the Viaduct.

Moreover, this alternative does not enable the Transport Agency to meet its objective to maintain the safe and efficient operation of the Viaduct.

Furthermore, the Viaduct is a structure with a 100 year lifespan. As such, the Transport Agency requires long-term certainty of the planning framework in support of its statutory objectives to maintain a safe and efficient state highway network. Plans are required to undergo reviews every 10 years and are also subject to private plan changes at any time. Any existing provisions under the Operative District Plan or PAUP which could be considered of benefit to the Transport Agency’s objectives would remain at risk of subsequent plan changes or through private plan changes by local property owners.

For the reasons identified above, the risks and disadvantages of this alternative to the Transport Agency (and to motorists passing over the Viaduct) were considered to outweigh any benefits to surrounding landowners.

5.3.3 Incorporating new structural measures onto the Viaduct

The incorporation of new structural measures (e.g. visual screens attached to the safety barriers) was identified as an option to protect the Viaduct from future land development in the surrounding area.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

However, this option was discounted at an early stage in the review process as the carriageway alignment and structure itself provided physical limitations on any additional measures which could be incorporated onto the Viaduct to address issues such as wind shear, driver distraction, etc.

The size of any visual effects screens would vary according to the scale and nature of the adjacent activity which at this stage is largely unknown. In addition, it is unlikely that any screen could sufficiently protect the Viaduct against the range of risks with which it is faced. Any screen would have to be sufficiently strong to resist wind loading, and mounted 3m back from the bridge inside curves to preserve safe stopping sight distances. Further, Transport Agency guidelines on barrier design generally focus on vehicle containment or pedestrian anti-throw screens, not screening of external influences on roads and users. Addressing external influences on roads and users are typically addressed through the treatment of buffer areas adjacent to the carriageway. Typical examples seen throughout the Auckland State highway network include vegetated batter slopes and noise walls.

Additionally, due to the uncertainty of the form and use of future development that could emerge within the vicinity of the Viaduct over its life time, the construction of screens are not considered to be the most appropriate or effective solution to maintain the safe and efficient operation of the Viaduct.

5.3.4 Propose new controls under the Operative Plan and/ or PAUP

A plan change process to the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section) was considered as a method to implement site specific controls which would place restrictions and controls on development within the vicinity of the Viaduct. In addition, seeking new controls to be incorporated into the PAUP was also considered. However, any new provisions incorporated into the District Plan via a plan change would provide too much uncertainty to the Transport Agency, and remains at risk of subsequent plan changes or through private plan changes by local property owners. As the Viaduct has been designed to a 100 year life-span, a plan change to incorporate new provisions that are challengeable at any point is considered inappropriate as it would not provide the Transport Agency long-term certainty of being able to maintain the safe and efficient operation of the Viaduct.

Moreover, many of the matters of concern are of a technical nature and more appropriately assessed by the Transport Agency and its contractors, rather than by Council planners. Also, the safe and efficient operation of the State highway network is the Transport Agency’s statutory responsibility and it is not appropriate to delegate that to Council.

Accordingly, this method would not support the objectives of the Transport Agency for the Project and was discounted.

5.3.5 Rezoning of land near the Viaduct to Strategic Transport Corridor Zone

The purpose of the Strategic Transport Corridor Zone (Section D7 of the PAUP) is to facilitate the integrated use of those corridors as part of the transport network and to protect transport networks from inappropriate subdivision and development of land where this could lead to reverse sensitivity effects.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

The adoption of this method was not considered to be an appropriate or efficient response to the issues facing the Viaduct as the costs, on the exercise of private property rights by neighbouring landowners, were considered to outweigh any benefits to the Transport Agency. That is because this method, while supporting the safe and efficient operation of the Viaduct, would directly impact on the intensification aspirations of Newmarket expressed in the Auckland Plan and PAUP in support of a compact urban form.

In addition, consistent with the limitations described in section 5.3.2 and 5.3.4 above, the reliance on any provisions incorporated into the PAUP would remain at risk of subsequent plan changes or through private plan changes by local property owners. As the Viaduct has been designed to a 100 year life-span, a plan change to incorporate new provisions that are challengeable at any point was considered inappropriate as it would not provide the Transport Agency long-term certainty of being able to maintain the safe and efficient operation of the Viaduct.

Due to the uncertainty this method would entail for the Transport Agency in ensuring the safe and efficient operation of the Viaduct, in combination with the potential impacts on property rights for neighbouring landowners, this method was not considered effective in meeting the objectives of the Project.

5.3.6 Alteration to designation

This method was the preferred alternative of the options identified and is described in Section 3.2.1 of this report.

The method was considered the most appropriate as it would provide the Transport Agency oversight of potential developments which may have the ability to affect the safe, resilient and efficient operation of the Viaduct. In addition, the alteration would allow the implementation of controls and information requirements that would not unduly constrain development flexibility to landowners to undertake a range and scale of activities, subject to consideration of the operational requirements of the Viaduct.

Further, this method was also considered to provide more certainty to landowners seeking to redevelop their sites as to the issues which need to be addressed in the design of any future developments. Increased certainty would also reduce the risk for surrounding landowners being required to remedy any adverse effects generated on the Viaduct that were not identified through the design process. Furthermore, the removal from the designation of over approximately 75,000m2 of land around the Viaduct would also benefit those landowners (through reduced development timeframes and increased certainty over development) where the rules would currently require a landowner to obtain s176 approval from the Transport Agency prior to any redevelopment of their sites.

The designation is also considered a reasonable statutory mechanism because it recognises that not all development or land use should be precluded in the vicinity of the Viaduct. This approach is important in the Auckland urban context where urban land limitations, growth pressures and existing patterns of development will mean that it will not be feasible or fair to preclude development of an area identified as a metropolitan centre under the PAUP.

Overall, this method would provide the greatest amount of certainty to the Transport Agency that it can continue to manage and operate the Viaduct in a way which will not compromise the efficiency of the State highway network or the safety of users of that network. Further, it

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32 would provide certainty to landowners as to the reasons for restrictions around the Viaduct and would promote the intensification of Newmarket in a manner that appropriately avoids adverse effects on the safe and efficient operation of the Viaduct.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

6. Consultation

6.1 Introduction

Details regarding the consultation undertaken as part of this alteration are provided throughout Section 6 of this report below.

6.2 Objectives and purpose of consultation

The purpose of the consultation was to inform directly affected parties in relation to the review of Designation D09-32 and to consult and obtain feedback to assist in the development of alternative controls as part of the recommended alteration to designation.

6.3 Iwi Consultation

A letter was issued on 23 July 2014 to 13 different iwi organisations who have interest as mana whenua in the wider Newmarket area. The Transport Agency also followed up with each iwi group via email in late-August. The iwi contacted were:

 Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua  Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Trust  Ngati Whatua Orakei trust  Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki Tribal Authority  Te Kawerau a Maki Tribal Authority  Ngati Tamaoho Trust  Te Akitai Waiohua Iwi Authority  Te Ara Rangatu o Te Iwi o Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua  Ngati Paoa Iwi Trust  Ngati Maru Runanga Incorporated  Ngati Whanaunga Incorporated  Ngati Tamatera  Te Patukirikiri Incorporated

Responses were received from Ngati Maru, Ngati Tamatera, Ngai Tai ki Tamaki, and Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua. These iwi indicated that they were not affected by the proposed alteration to designation.

6.4 Parties consulted

The following parties were consulted in relation to the alteration to designation:

 407 Broadway Ltd  Akarana Trustee Company  AM & NJM Dalbeth  Auckland Council  Dilworth Trust Board  G4 Mahuru Ltd  K W Mayakaduwa and M Welaratna  Krypton Ltd

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

 Calcium Ltd  Laurent Enterprises Ltd  Roncon Pacific Hotel  St Mark’s Women’s Health  Scentre Group (formerly Westfield)  Tram Lease Ltd  The Bagel Property Ltd  Ian John McCallum  Remuera Racketts Club Inc.  T J Dunne and Fastco Trustees Ltd  Fastco Trustees Ltd  C J Greig and J N Greig and W R H Morrison  Newmarket Business Association  Auckland Transport  KiwiRail

These parties were all identified as landowners who were directly affected by the alteration to designation. No occupiers of any of the sites subject to the revised Protection Designation were contacted as part of the consultation as these parties were not deemed to be affected by the alteration to designation which is limited to managing effects associated with the physical development of these sites.

Of the parties identified above, the Dilworth Trust Board, Scentre Group, Tram Lease Ltd and St Mark’s Women’s Health had previously lodged submissions opposing the roll-over of the designation into the PAUP.

6.5 Consultation undertaken

6.5.1 Consultation Material

Initial consultation commenced in July 2014. The consultation material that was distributed to the parties identified above (and included within Appendix 9) informed affected parties of the results of the Draft Review of Designation D09-32 and the Transport Agency’s intention to amend the Protection Designation through an alteration under the District Plan. The material provided an amended designation boundary plan along with a broad outline of the potential controls and limitations which would apply over affected properties.

Five parties provided a response to the initial consultation material indicating they wished to discuss the matter further with the Transport Agency. These parties were:

 Dilworth Trust Board;  Scentre Group Ltd;  The Bagel Property Ltd;  Tram Lease Ltd; and  St Mark’s Women’s Health

Additionally, Auckland Transport provided feedback stating they supported the alteration to the Protection Designation as it would support greater intensification of an area identified as

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

a metropolitan centre within the PAUP. This feedback is provided within Appendix 10 of this report.

6.5.2 Individual Meetings

Throughout the second half of 2014, several separate meetings were held with representatives of the Dilworth Trust Board, Scentre Group Ltd, St Mark’s Women’s Health and Tram Lease Ltd. Additionally, e-mail correspondence with the aforementioned parties (and The Bagel Property Ltd) was undertaken. All were generally supportive of the Transport Agency intention to amend the extent of the Protection Designation but some wanted it removed entirely and/or maintained some concerns of the potential implications for the redevelopment of their property in terms of upfront costs relating to the preparation of specialist reports for those sites which remained within the Protection Designation. A key theme from all individual meetings was the need to provide certainty as to the parameters which would trigger any information requirements as part of the s176 approvals process if the Protection Designation was to remain.

Initial feedback received from affected parties has been included within Appendix 10 of this report. In general, key pieces of feedback/ issues obtained from consultation with affected parties could be summarised as:

 Some landowners supported a reduction in the extent of Designation D09-32, although would prefer to see it removed entirely;  Some landowners considered there were already sufficient statutory mechanisms within the District Plan that address the concerns of the Transport Agency. As such, the designation was not appropriate;  Some landowners did not consider the designation to be reasonably necessary to meet the objectives of the Transport Agency;  If a designation was to be retained, all parties generally agreed that the introduction of clear guidelines as to what would be taken into account by Transport Agency in assessing applications would be helpful; and  Any provisions should provide flexibility around when any specialist information should be provided to reduce up-front capital costs as part of the resource consent process.

6.6 Outcomes of Consultation

Consultation heavily influenced the final form of the altered Protection Designation. The Protection Designation has been drafted to specifically identify the effects on the Viaduct which need to be addressed for any development to obtain s176 approval to reduce the uncertainty over the purpose of the existing designation. In addition, the Protection Designation also sets clear parameters for when the need to obtain s176 approval would be triggered and what information, guidelines or standards the Transport Agency would use in its assessment of any development proposal via the use of advice notes.

Following on from these individual meetings and feedback obtained from affected parties, the proposed wording and advice notes to be attached to the Protection Designation were circulated to those parties who had previously provided feedback for comment on 12 December 2014. A copy of this information is attached within Appendix 9 of this report.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Prior to the submission of this alteration, additional feedback was received from the Dilworth Trust Board who indicated they do not support the retention of any designation over their sites. In addition, Tram Lease provided feedback indicating they could support the alteration subject to their sites at 89 Nuffield Street and 13 Mahuru Street being excluded from the Protection Designation area. For the reasons set out within Appendices 4 to 8, and Section 7.0 Assessment of Environmental Effects, the Transport Agency does not consider it appropriate to exclude these sites. This feedback is also provided within Appendix 10.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

7. Assessment of Environmental Effects

7.1 Introduction

The purpose of the Protection Designation is to enable the Transport Agency to protect the Viaduct from any proposed developments which may adversely affect its safe and efficient operation. The proposed alteration continues that protection but reduces the Protection Designation’s extent and level of restriction on surrounding development. It does not result in any physical works on the ground. Accordingly, its effects are largely positive.

The following sections provide a summary of the actual or potential effects that are likely to arise from altering Designation D09-32. It is noted that the assessment required for an alteration is an assessment of the effects of the alteration, not of the effects of the designation itself. That means, for example, that the effect to be considered in relation to height restrictions, is the loosening of height restrictions from the present 12.2m to the height of the Viaduct carriageway, whereas the continuing existence of controls on developments above the carriageway height is not an effect of the alteration, and is not required to be assessed or addressed.

In summary then, the effects of the alteration are:  A reduction in the extent and height of the development restrictions imposed by the Protection Designation, with a consequential increase in development potential on affected sites.  Improved clarity and certainty as to the matters the Agency requires developers to address.  Protection of the Viaduct piers from undermining and additional excavation and piling restrictions within 16m of Viaduct piers

With the exception of the imposition of new restrictions on excavation and piling within 12m and 16m respectively, all the effects of this alteration are positive and reduce existing effects on affected properties.

Importantly, the alteration also ensures that the Protection Designation continues to safeguard the safe and efficient use and operation of the viaduct from a number of risks. While not strictly effects of the alteration (as the protection of the viaduct is inherent in the existing designation), this assessment does, by way of information, explain how the designation addresses these risks. However, it is important to reiterate that, with the exception of the excavation and piling restrictions, the remaining restrictions on building development are not effects of this alteration and not require to be assessed or addressed.

7.2 Positive Effects

7.2.1 Positive Effects - Reduced development restrictions and greater clarity

The meaning of effect as defined by s3(a) of the RMA includes positive effects. In this instance, the proposed alteration will result in a wide range of positive effects.

Most notably, the proposed alteration reduces the number of properties affected by the designation, and allows for greater development height than is allowed by the operative designation. The proposed alteration also provides greater clarity and certainty to

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

landowners within the designation, of the matters of concern to the Transport Agency and through advice notes, how these matters will be assessed.

This reduction and clarification is considered to be a significant improvement on the current designation which simply places a limit on the height (and therefore intensity) of development without providing an explanation of its intent. The existing Protection Designation has contributed to the redevelopment of sites within the vicinity of the Viaduct into low intensity and low value land-uses around a key nodal point within urban Auckland. The proposed alteration enables a greater level of intensification on land earmarked for significant growth in the PAUP, and enables developers to understand potential transport safety risks to incorporate into a design, if wishing to maximise their development potential.

From an urban design perspective, there is a benefit in relaxing the current height limit of 12.2 metres to encourage a greater intensity of development consistent with the PAUP to support Newmarket’s role as a major metropolitan/ town centre within the Auckland region. Increased building heights would also reduce the Viaduct’s visual dominance over the area and provide a suitable scale of development given the width of Broadway. The positive effects in relation to the development potential of sites currently subject to the designation are set out further below in Section 7.3.

By clarifying the reason for the alteration and the effects the Transport Agency seek to manage, the consenting compliance burden on affected landowners and the Transport Agency will also be reduced. The proposed alteration provides greater transparency and certainty to all parties to enable a higher level of development to occur around the Newmarket Viaduct, while protecting the safe and efficient operation of the viaduct.

7.2.2 Positive Effects – management of risks to the viaduct

The review of the Protection Designation identified several key risks to the Viaduct that could arise though development of adjacent land. These risks are set out in detail in the technical reports attached as Appendices 5 to 8, and are summarised below.

Transport network effects - the impacts to both the State Highway network and local road network from full or partial closures of the Viaduct are set out within Section 3 of the accompanying Transport Assessment contained within Appendix 4. This assessment recognises that while shocks already occur within the State Highway and local road networks and can never be eliminated entirely, any activity or impacts from development surrounding the Viaduct that could lead to the increased frequency or severity of adverse network shocks that impact operations should be avoided.

Driver distraction effects – the risk that driver safety on the Viaduct is compromised by environmental factors such as reflective materials, glare, lighting, strong shadowing or driver distraction (e.g. from advertising). The consequences of an accident resulting from these effects could be significantly worse on the Viaduct than on other sections of the State highway network, given the high traffic volumes, height above Newmarket and physical constraints of the Viaduct structure. To address these risks, the Protection Designation has incorporated advice note 1(a) in accordance with the recommendations of the Traffic Safety Assessment. This advice note identifies the range of factors that could impact on safe driving conditions in the event that a building projects above the Viaduct carriageway.

Wind effects –New buildings, as well as changes and additions to existing buildings 10-15m above the viaduct, can have a significant impact on wind conditions on the Viaduct, affecting

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32 driver safety. Wind speeds are likely to be higher on the Viaduct because of its elevation above ground level (as noted in Appendix 8). Significant changes in wind speeds can occur over an area that can extend out from a building for a distance of around one to two times the height of the building depending on the surroundings and the wind direction. As such, potential adverse wind effects on the Viaduct would likely arise only from new buildings adjacent to the structure. Any changes to the horizontal wind flows experienced over the Viaduct could result in increased wind speeds which can cause vehicle tracking variations, or in extreme circumstances the overturning of vehicles. To address this issue, the Protection Designation has adopted advice note 1(b) for buildings which project above the Viaduct’s carriageway as recommended within the Wind Assessment. This advice note differs from the existing wind controls found within District Plans as it relates to potential adverse wind conditions effects on vehicles, rather than pedestrians.

Structural Collapse effects – The Viaduct has been designed to withstand a 1:2,500 year earthquake. This is reflective of the Viaduct’s role as a critical piece of infrastructure in the Auckland region, especially during natural disasters when the movement of emergency services or the delivery of important goods (e.g. hospital equipment) are essential. Residential and commercial buildings are typically designed to a much lower structural standard. In the event of a natural disaster, the total or partial collapse of new buildings adjacent to the Viaduct has the potential to disrupt its role as a major lifeline route through structural damage to the Viaduct itself or via debris spread extending over the carriageway resulting in its temporary closure. Although the risk arising from structural collapse of neighbouring buildings has been assessed as relatively low, the potential impact of closures of the Viaduct during or after a natural disaster are considered high. Advice note 2 has been developed to identify this risk and to enable applicants to respond appropriately through the design of any new building.

Excavation and Vibration effects – the Viaduct is supported by two piers at approximately 50m intervals through the Newmarket area. Based on measurements of the surrounding land it was determined that certain construction and earthworks activities have the potential to generate ground vibrations which could damage the Viaduct’s piers and foundations in some circumstances. Any damage to the piers could necessitate the full or partial closure of the Viaduct while remedial action is undertaken. These risks are reflected through the incorporation of advice note 3 and allows an applicant to demonstrate how a development can be constructed without adversely affecting the structural integrity of the Viaduct. The advice note has been adapted from a series of 5 recommended controls within the Vibration Assessment to simplify the requirements and provide greater clarity to applicants.

Impacts on the safety and efficiency on the Viaduct are a concern not only to the Transport Agency but to all New Zealanders. The risks of not managing the effects identified above are potentially a matter of life and death, and the flow on effects of traffic delay (let alone partial or full closure of the Viaduct) directly impact on Auckland’s economy and our social wellbeing.

The Transport Agency has determined that an alteration to Designation D09-32 will allow for the identification of these risks so that their effects can be appropriately avoided or mitigated. In this regard, the technical reports contained within Appendices 4 to 8 have identified that only developments which involve buildings over the height of the Viaduct carriageway, and/ or excavations (and piling) within 12m or 16m of the Viaduct piers are a

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32 concern, in order to avoid the effects outlined above. Accordingly the alteration seeks to reduce the scope of the operative Protection Designation to just address such developments.

The Viaduct is a significant physical resource for Auckland and is a critical component of Auckland’s state highway network. The existing and future operation of the Viaduct will be important in supporting the social and economic well-being and health and safety of Aucklanders. In this respect, the Viaduct should be sustainably managed and protected in accordance with Part 2 of the RMA.

In summary, subsequent to the proposed alteration, the Protection Designation will result in the following positive effects:

 It will support the safety of users of the Viaduct and surrounding land;

 It will support the efficient operation of the Viaduct which is a critical freight route that supports the economic well-being of Auckland;

 It will help protect a nationally critical piece of infrastructure during and following major natural hazards;

 It will provide the Council, community and landowners with certainty as to the safe level of development which can be accommodated in the vicinity of the Viaduct; and

 It will enable a greater level of intensification on land earmarked for significant growth, and reduce the consenting compliance burden on adjoining landowners.

7.3 Excavation and Vibration Effects

The proposed alteration includes additional controls limiting excavation within 12m of the viaduct piers and piling within 16m of the piers. The protection of the viaduct from undermining is a positive effect but the restriction on development resulting from these controls is the only adverse effect of the alteration. Arguably, the existing 12.2m height restrictions and underlying ground conditions (basalt) would have likely precluded significant excavations or the need to utilise piles in construction.

As stated within the Vibration and Excavation Assessment contained within Appendix 6 of this report, the Viaduct’s piers and foundations could be susceptible to damage from any general earthworks activities located within 12m or piling activity within 16m. Depending on the severity of the damage, the full or partial closure of the Viaduct may be required to remediate any damage. To mitigate these effects, the Vibration and Excavation Assessment recommends that any party wishing to undertake activities within the 12m or 16m buffer area prepare a Construction Vibration Management Plan (CVMP) in accordance with the Transport Agency’s guidelines.

The 12m and 16m buffer areas around each pile are predominantly located on the Transport Agency’s own land. Where these buffer areas pass over private land (10 parcels total), a very small portion of the site is captured or the Transport Agency already possesses air and maintenance easements over the land.

Typically CVMP’s are required where earthworks and construction activities are being undertaken in close proximity to highly sensitive receivers (e.g. residential areas), often as

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32 conditions of consent. However, based on the assessment contained within Appendix 6 it is considered that any development in close proximity to the Viaduct’s piers would seek to prepare a CVMP in accordance with good resource management practice in accordance with s5 and s17 of the RMA prior the submission of any resource consent. The preparation of the CVMP prior to lodging a resource consent would likely increase the initial cost of obtaining the necessary statutory approvals for development but would not increase the overall cost of obtaining and implementing any resource consent. The requirement to prepare a CVMP does not preclude earthworks or piling activities within close proximity to the Viaduct’s piers, but identifies this as a risk where actual or potential adverse effects need to be avoided or mitigated.

Due to the risks posed to the Viaduct by vibration from construction activities in close proximity to the piers, and the Transport Agency’s statutory requirements to undertake its functions in a way that contributes to an effective, efficient, and safe land transport system, retaining an oversight of such works in accordance with s168(1)(b) is considered appropriate.

7.4 Land use and Development Effects by Area

The proposed alteration to the designation boundaries means that the extent of the designation (by area) is reduced by approximately 61% from 120,000m2 to 46,000m2. The majority of the land that will still be subject to the Protection Designation is already under the control of the Transport Agency or is used for the local transport network (the public roads and rail line) as shown overleaf in Figure 7. The reduction of the designation extent will support the development of sites within Newmarket to be developed to their full potential in accordance with underlying planning controls as discussed further below.

Figure 7 - Land Ownership Schematic

For the purposes of assessing the potential effects on land use and development opportunities, the area has been divided into four areas (see Figure 8) based on the different morphological characteristics present in the existing environment.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Figure 8 - Assessment Areas

7.4.1 Northwest Area

The northwest area captures the southern extent of the Newmarket town/ metropolitan centre adjacent to Broadway. The District Plan and PAUP both anticipate that this area will accommodate a wide range of activities within buildings up to 32.5/33m in height (7 or 8 storeys). The current designation restricts buildings to below 12.2m in height which is not considered to be an efficient use of valuable urban land. In contrast, the proposed alteration will enable development to occur up to the anticipated heights of the District and PAUP provided measures are adopted with respect to the building’s design where it exceeds the height of the Viaduct carriageway. As such, the Protection Designation is considered to provide a positive effect on this area in that it will encourage greater intensification of the area.

Aspects of a building’s design such as materiality, glazing and form are required to be assessed in accordance with the District Plan. However, the assessment criteria contained within Rule 8.7.7.2 of the District Plan indicates that these matters are generally focused towards aesthetic values of the building in relation to the streetscape and surrounding built form, rather than safety concerns related to the ongoing operation of the Viaduct and State Highway network. Whilst, the Protection Designation will impose some additional design considerations for any development in close proximity to the Viaduct it is considered appropriate that the the Transport Agency retain some oversight of development in order to support its statutory requirements to undertake its functions in a way that contributes to an effective, efficient, and safe land transport system under the LTMA and accordance with s168(1)(b) of the RMA.

7.4.2 Northeast Area

In relation to the proposed designation, the majority of the land subject to the Protection Designation in the northeast area is controlled by KiwiRail and Auckland Transport for transportation purposes. Of the privately owned land contained within the northeast area subject to the designation, all sites are composed of residential zoned land which is utilised for residential or healthcare purposes.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

The District Plan currently provides for buildings to be developed up to 12.5m in height, while the PAUP almost doubles this to 24.5m at some sites. Those sites within this area subject to increased heights under the PAUP now fall outside the proposed Protection Designation boundaries.

Residential properties near the Remuera Racquets Club which are located within the Protection Designation also fall within the Blanket Height Sensitive Areas meaning any new building over 8m in height require resource consent as a non-complying activity. As such, the existing designation and proposed Protection Designation will have little impact on the development of this area in accordance with underlying controls contained within both the District Plan and PAUP.

However, if the underlying planning provisions were to change through a private plan change process or through a review of the PAUP permitting a greater scale of development the Protection Designation will ensure that the Transport Agency retains oversight of the development proposal to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the Viaduct is maintained.

7.4.3 Southwest Area

The majority of land within the southwest area falls within the designation boundaries for A01-07B. The remainder of the protection passes over parts of 4 other titles and captures the entire area of Lot 6 DP230 at the corner of Broadway and Edgerley Avenue. These sites are currently a mixture of commercial and residential properties.

This area sits below the Viaduct where it rises its highest above ground level. With the exception of the need to consider the type of earthworks methodology used within close proximity to the Viaduct’s Piers, sites located to the south-west could generally be developed to their full potential as provided for under the District Plan or PAUP without triggering any concerns to the safe and efficient operation of the Viaduct. The Protection Designation will also provide appropriate guidance for landowners which will reduce uncertainty in the resource consent and s176 approvals process. In addition, Lot 6 DP 230 (1B Edgerley Avenue) is also partially subject to the A01-07B Designation which effectively reduces the height of any potential development over part of the site to enable the reinstatement of a new span should it be required in the future.

7.4.4 Southeast Area

The southeast sub-area is characterised by low intensity uses associated with the automotive industry. The development potential of these sites is currently restricted by the presence of volcanic Viewshaft controls within the District Plan and PAUP. Due to the height of the Viaduct past this location in relation to the Viewshaft contours identified within the District Plan and PAUP, any redevelopment above the height of the Viaduct carriageway would already require resource consent as a non-complying activity. As such, the Protection Designation will not impose any matters which could not already be considered under s104 of the RMA. However, as identified in Section 5.0 of this report both the District Plan and PAUP do not provide sufficient guidance to landowners or Council as to those matters relevant to the safe and efficient operation of the Viaduct which need to be assessed.

Any redevelopment of these sites for residential or commercial uses have the potential to be affected through the need to include measures within design of any new building to avoid

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32 affects that could impact on traffic safety on the Viaduct. However, these matters do not prevent any redevelopment of these sites but instead help provide some site context for which any appropriately designed development should respond to.

7.5 Summary of Effects

All of the land affected by the proposed post-alteration Protection Designation is already subject to the existing Designation which seeks to restrict building height to the existing 12.2m, so the primary effect of the alteration is to reduce restrictions on property development (completely in areas outside the altered designation and partially inside it) and to limit the circumstances when s176 approval needs to be obtained (and clarify the matters that need to be addressed), while still protecting the Viaduct. Both the reduction in restrictions and the improved certainty and clarity for obtaining approval are positive effects.

The adverse effects arising from the proposed alteration are limited to the need to get approval from the Transport Agency for excavation and piling within 12 and 16m respectively of the Viaduct piers.

In addition, the Protection Designation will provide significant positive effects to Auckland, being the protection of users of the Viaduct and its efficient operation in support of Auckland’s social and economic wellbeing.

Overall, the designation will maintain the Transport Agency’s statutory authority to protect the safe and efficient operation of the Viaduct and to ensure the design of surrounding development appropriately identifies and mitigates against reverse sensitivity effects.

The overall adverse effects of the alteration are considered to be no more than minor, as it is considered that the proposed alteration to the designation will not result in any additional restrictions or costs on the development of land than would otherwise be required to gain resource consent in accordance with best practice resource management.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

8. Notification

Section 181(2) of the RMA states that subject to subsection (3), section 168 to 179, with all necessary modifications, apply to an alteration as if it were a requirement for a new designation.

Section 181(3) provides for an alteration to proceed on a non-notified basis if:

(a) the alteration— (i) involves no more than a minor change to the effects on the environment associated with the use or proposed use of land or any water concerned; or (ii) involves only minor changes or adjustments to the boundaries of the designation or requirement; and (b) written notice of the proposed alteration has been given to every owner or occupier of the land directly affected and those owners or occupiers agree with the alteration; and (c) both the territorial authority and the requiring authority agree with the alteration

In this instance, Section 7 of this report has addressed the effects on the environment of the proposed alteration. On balance, the proposed alteration was considered to provide positive effects on the environment. Further, the alteration only removes sites from the designation and does not seek to include any additional land within the designation. However, written agreement from every owner or occupier within the altered designation has not been obtained. In accordance with s169(1), Council must therefore decide whether to notify the notice in accordance with s95 to 95G of the RMA.

8.1 Public Notification

Section 95A(2) requires that a consent authority must publicly notify an application if it decides that the activity will have or is likely to have adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor, if the applicant requests public notification of the application, or if a rule or national environmental standard requires public notification of the application.

8.1.1 Adverse Effects

In accordance with s95D, all properties included within the altered designation have been excluded from an assessment of whether the proposal will result in or is likely to have adverse effects on the environment which are more than minor. In this instance, Section 7 of this report has concluded that the proposal will result in only positive effects and will not have any adverse effects as it does not authorise any physical works.

8.1.2 Rules requiring public notification

Section 95A(2)(c) of the RMA states that Council must publically notify an application if a rule or national environmental standard requires public notification. In this instance, the District Plan does not contain any rules requiring public notification of the application.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

8.1.3 Special Circumstances

Section 95A(4) of the RMA states that Council may publicly notify an application if it decides that special circumstances exist in relation to the application, regardless of whether the statutory tests that would allow for non-notification have been met.

"Special circumstances" are those that are unusual or exceptional, but they may be less than extraordinary or unique.

In this regard, the purpose of the proposed alteration is specifically provided for under s168(2)(b) of the RMA. Accordingly, it is considered that no special circumstances exist for Council to justify public notification under s95A(4) of the RMA.

8.1.4 Summary of Public Notification

Based on the assessment contained within Section 8.1 above, it is considered that there are no grounds which would warrant public notification of the alteration. Accordingly, an assessment under s95B of the RMA must be undertaken.

8.2 Limited Notification

For the purposes of making a determination under s95B of the RMA, s95E provides guidance on who must be considered an affected party.

In this instance, it is considered that the adverse effects of the alteration on those landowners subject to the Protection Designation will be less than minor. However, the Transport Agency requests in the interests of natural justice that the alteration be limited notified to those parties identified in Appendix 11 whose land will be subject to the altered designation.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

9. Statutory Assessment

9.1 Introduction

Rule 4A.3.A(d) of the District Plan requires an assessment of how the alteration complies with Part 2 of the RMA. In addition, Rule 4A.3.A(e) and (f) of the District Plan require an assessment of how the alteration impacts on the provisions of any relevant national, coastal or regional policy statement and regional or district plan. As the alteration involves no physical works, no national environmental standards are considered relevant.

An assessment of the relevant matters is provided below.

9.2 Part 2 Matters

9.2.1 Section 5 - Purpose

Section 5 of the RMA seeks to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Sustainable management includes the protection of physical resources (e.g. a Viaduct) in a way which enables people to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety. Furthermore, it states that activities must be managed so that adverse effects on the environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

The alteration will support the protection of the Viaduct by ensuring surrounding development is compatible with the operational and safety requirements of drivers. This will enable the state highway network to assist in providing for the social, cultural and economic well-being of Aucklanders. Given these matters, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the purpose of the RMA.

9.2.2 Section 6 – Matters of National Importance

Section 6 of the RMA sets out the matters of national importance that are to be recognised by Council. There are no matters of national importance that are considered relevant to this proposal.

9.2.3 Section 7 – Other Matters

Section 7 of the RMA lists certain matters to which particular regard is to be had in making resource management decisions. The following other matter is considered relevant to the proposal:

(b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the other matter identified above. The proposed alteration will enable efficient use and development of a physical resources (urban land) in a manner which takes into the opportunities and constraints provided by the Viaduct. Overall, the proposal is considered consistent with Section 7 of the RMA.

9.2.4 Section 8 – Treaty of Waitangi

Section 8 requires that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) must be taken into account in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

and physical resources. The Transport Agency has consulted with iwi on the proposed alteration who have indicated that they have no issues with it.

9.3 Regional Policy Statements

9.3.1 Auckland Regional Policy Statement 1999

The Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) became operative on 31 August 1999. The ARPS was developed by the former Auckland Regional Council and is a statement about managing the use, development, and protection of natural resources of the Auckland Region. The aim of the ARPS is to achieve integrated, consistent and coordinated management of the Region’s resources, and to provide greater certainty over the ways that natural and physical resources are managed.

Specifically, the Protection Designation is assessed against the following relevant sections of the ARPS:

9.3.2 Strategic Objectives (Section 2.6.1) The following strategic objectives have been identified as being relevant to this requirement:

Objective 4. To develop and manage the region’s transport system including road, rail, ferry, bus, cycling and pedestrian networks and services in a manner that supports urban development and land use intensification.

Objective 6. To achieve a high level of mobility and accessibility within the Region that provides for an integrated, responsive, sustainable, safe, affordable and efficient movement of goods and people.

Objective 12. To encourage the efficient use of natural and physical resources, including urban land, infrastructure, and energy resources.

Objective 17. To enable the redevelopment, operation and maintenance of existing and provision of new regionally significant infrastructure.

The Protection Designation is considered to be consistent with the above strategic objectives as it provides a tool to manage a section of Auckland’s state highway network to support the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Furthermore, the alteration also supports greater land-use intensification of scarce urban land around the Newmarket area in a manner which allows for the ongoing operation of a significant piece of regional infrastructure.

9.3.3 Strategic Policies – Land-use and Transport Integration (Section 2.6.11) The following strategic policies in relation to land-use and transport integration have been identified as being relevant to this requirement:

Policy 1. Land Use and Transport shall be integrated throughout the region to ensure that: …

(iv) the transport network is not compromised by inappropriate land use and subdivision and is planned and developed to support land uses;…

(viii) the roading system is developed and managed to be an efficient, safe and sustainable network utilising, to its full extent, existing roading infrastructure;…

(xiv) reverse sensitivity effects on the transport network are con side red in land u se development;

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

The Protection Designation provides the Transport Agency with a mechanism to better integrate land-use and transport planning in the Newmarket area by allowing a greater degree of intensification of activities while clearly identifying means to avoid reverse sensitivity effects which could impact on the operation of the Viaduct. In addition, the Protection Designation supports a safe and efficient state highway network.

9.3.4 Strategic Policies – Infrastructure (Section 2.6.14) The following strategic policies in relation to infrastructure have been identified as being relevant to this requirement:

Policy 1. The operation of existing regionally significant infrastructure and the provision of new or upgraded regionally significant infrastructure shall:

(i) be consistent with the Strategic Direction of the Regional Policy Statement;

(ii) support and reinforce the Regional Growth Strategy and the proposed outcomes of that strategy; and

(iii) ensure that any adverse effects of those activities on the environment (including human health) are avoided, remedied or mitigated in a manner consistent with the relevant provisions of this RPS

Policy 2. Provision is to be made to enable the safe and efficient operation, maintenance and development of regionally significant infrastructure which is necessary for the social and economic wellbeing of the region’s people.

Policy 3. Land use change should avoid significant reverse sensitivity effects on regionally significant infrastructure.

Policy 4. The provision and operation of infrastructure, including transport infrastructure should support the development of high quality urban amenity.

The Protection Designation supports the safe and efficient operation of a regionally significant piece of transport infrastructure by ensuring reverse sensitivity effects from future development around the Viaduct are identified early and can be avoided or mitigated through an appropriate design response and/ or construction methodology.

Overall, it is considered that the Protection Designation has given particular regard to the ARPS as the restrictions imposed will protect a critical piece of regionally significant transportation infrastructure, while avoiding and mitigating potential adverse effects of its operation, and where practicable, allowing for the ongoing regeneration of the Newmarket town centre to meet the region’s growth aspirations.

9.3.5 Proposed Regional Policy Statement 2013

The Regional Policy Statement (RPS) was notified on 30 September 2013 as Chapter B to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 2013. The RPS identifies 8 issues of regional significance for resource management in Auckland which are closely connected with the aspirations of the Auckland Plan outcomes.

The Protection Designation is assessed against the following relevant sections of the RPS:

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Significant Infrastructure (B3.2)

The following objectives and policies in relation to significant infrastructure under Section B3.2 have been identified as being relevant to this requirement:

Objective 1. Resilient infrastructure and a high quality service.

Objective 2. The benefits of significant infrastructure which service the wider community, Auckland or New Zealand are recognised, including: a.the essential services provided by infrastructure networks, which provide for the functioning of communities, businesses and industry

b.enabling economic growth

c.providing for public health, safety and the well-being of people and communities

d.contributing to a well functioning and liveable Auckland

e.protecting the quality of the natural environment

f.enabling interaction and communication.

Objective 6. Auckland’s significant infrastructure is protected from reverse sensitivity effects and incompatible subdivision, use and development.

Policy 1. Provide for the efficient development, use, operation, maintenance and upgrading of secure and reliable infrastructure.

Policy 2. Increase the resilience and security of infrastructure through work that:

a.enhances the reliability of networks and services

b.improves Auckland’s ability to respond and recover from unexpected and adverse events

c.manages the risks associated with natural hazards and the effects of climate change.

Policy 4. Recognise and provide for the operational and technical requirements of significant infrastructure.

Policy 7. Avoid reverse sensitivity effects by requiring subdivision, use and development to not occur in a location or form that constrains the use, operation, maintenance and upgrading of existing and planned significant infrastructure.

The Protection Designation enables the Transport Agency to identify and manage adverse effects that may arise through the continued intensification of Newmarket to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the Viaduct can be maintained. It is considered that the alteration provides appropriate mechanisms to ensure any future subdivision, use and development around the Viaduct is compatible with the operational requirements of the state highway network. Accordingly, the Protection Designation supports the objectives and policies as they relate to significant infrastructure.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Transport (B3.3)

The following objectives and policies in relation to transportation under Section B3.3 have been identified as being relevant to this requirement:

Objective 1. An effective, efficient and safe transport system that supports the integrated movement of people, goods and services throughout Auckland and to other regions and nations.

Objective 2. An effective, efficient and safe integrated transport system that is integrated with, and supports, a quality, compact form of urban growth and associated land use.

Objective 3. A well developed, operated and maintained transport system that manages potential adverse effects on the natural environment and the health, safety and amenity of people and communities.

Objective 4. A transport system that facilitates transport choices and enables accessibility and mobility for all sections of the community.

Policy 1. Enable the effective, efficient and safe development, operation and maintenance of an integrated intra-regional and inter-regional transport system including:

a.state highways and all other roads, including the rural road network

Policy 2. Support the management of Auckland’s transport system to optimise, in an effective, efficient and safe manner, the people and/or goods carrying capacity of transport routes recognising the full range of trips being undertaken throughout Auckland by all sections of the community.

Policy 3. Require activities sensitive to noise to be located or designed to avoid, remedy or mitigate potential adverse effects arising from the use and operation of strategic transport infrastructure.

Policy 9. Improve the integration of land use with transport by: …

c.managing activities along freight routes, other heavily trafficked roads, rail lines, or adjacent to ports and airports so that they do not compromise the effective, efficient and safe operation of these routes or give rise to reverse sensitivity effects

Policy 12. Avoid, remedy or mitigate the potential adverse effects of transport infrastructure on amenity values and ensure that transport infrastructure is designed, located and managed to:

a.integrate with adjoining land uses taking into account their planned use, intensity, scale, character and amenity

The Protection Designation will support the objectives and policies of B3.3. The Protection Designation will support the safe and efficient operation of the Viaduct while enabling greater intensification of the Newmarket area which has been identified as a metropolitan centre. This is critical in supporting the transport system’s contribution to the social and economic well-being of Aucklanders, whilst supporting a quality, compact urban form. Furthermore,

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32 the Protection Designation appropriately manages activities and the development of physical resources to avoid or mitigate potential reverse sensitivity effects. Quality Built Environment (B2.2)

In addition to the objectives and policies related to significant infrastructure and transport, the Protection Designation has the potential to impact on the surrounding built environment. Accordingly, the objectives and policies under Section B2.2 of the RPS are also considered relevant to this alteration:

Objective 1. A quality built environment where development, including subdivision, across the site, street, block, neighbourhood and city scales:

a. recognises Auckland’s sense of place and enriches its landscape, character, heritage and legibility (identity)

b. provides for a rich mix of choice and opportunity for our communities and can adapt to changing needs (diversity)

c. considers and reinforces use, activity centres, energy systems and movement networks which are well connected and provide convenient and equal access for all (integration)

d. supports and optimises the full potential of a site’s intrinsic qualities, including its shape, landform, outlook and relationship to its surroundings (efficiency).

Policy 2. Design development to respond positively to the site, its context and the planned future character of the place, and to reinforce the role of the public realm as the primary place for public interaction

Policy 3. Require development to contribute to the safety of the street and the neighbourhood.

The existing designation has restricted development around the southern portion of Newmarket despite its role as a key metropolitan centre located along the Auckland’s rail network. The Protection Designation will support intensification of Newmarket whilst providing appropriate guidance on the constraints and opportunities inherent in sites surrounding the Viaduct. This will support the development of Newmarket to its full potential and will reinforce its role as a key activity centre within the wider urban area.

Overall, it is considered that the Protection Designation is consistent with the relevant objectives and policies the RPS. The Protection Designation will protect a piece of significant infrastructure that support the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of Aucklanders, while avoiding and mitigating potential adverse effects on its operation from reverse sensitivity effects.

9.4 Relevant Plans

The District Plan and PAUP are both relevant documents to which this alteration must be assessed. The weight to be given to a proposed plan in any assessment generally depends on what stage the relevant provision has reached in the statutory process. The weighting typically being greater as a proposed plan moves through the notification and hearing stages.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

However, as the PAUP hearings relating to the regional and district level objectives, policies and methods are not scheduled to begin occurring until mid-2015, and considering the degree to which these provisions may change, it is considered that greater weighting should be given to the operative district planning regime against the PAUP.

9.4.1 Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section) 1999

Part 12 of the District Plan sets out the policy framework which guides issues associated with transportation throughout the Auckland Isthmus. The following objectives and policies are considered relevant to this alteration:

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.

Policy 12.3.2 By controlling access and the intensity of use along particular roads, so as to ensure both vehicle and pedestrian safety.

Objective 12.6.1 To recognise the roading system as a significant urban resource.

Policy 12.6.1 By providing for, protecting and enhancing the roading system to ensure its long term sustainability.

The proposed alteration is consistent with the objectives and policies of Part 12 of the District Plan. The Protection Designation supports the safe movement of vehicles across the Viaduct by controlling land-use adjacent to the structure. This will support the protection of the section of the state highway network that passes over Newmarket to maintain its safe and efficient operation.

9.4.2 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

The relevant provisions of the PAUP to this alteration are contained within Chapter D and are assessed below:

Strategic Transport Corridor (D.7)

Although the majority of the designation will not be located within the Strategic Transport Corridor, it is consider the objectives and policies contained within Section D.7 are highly relevant to the consideration of this alteration:

Objective 1. Railway and state highway corridors are used safely, effectively and efficiently for the transportation of people and goods in an integrated manner.

Objective 2. Land identified for railway and state highway corridors can be developed and used for non-transport related activities without undermining the future use of the corridor for transport purposes.

Objective 3. Potential effects of noise mitigation measures on adjacent development are managed.

Objective 4. Any non-transport related activities do not generate adverse reverse sensitivity effects on the operation of the corridor.

Policy 1. Provide for the operational requirements of transport activities and a range of appropriate transport related activities

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Policy 4. Provide for works and measures such as noise mitigation, landscaping and artworks that enhance existing infrastructure and minimise its adverse effects on adjoining development.

The purpose of the Protection Designation is consistent with the objectives and policies of the Strategic Transport Corridor zone. It will protect the Viaduct from adverse sensitivity effects to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the structure is maintained.

Centres and Mixed-Use Zones (D3.1)

D3.1 sets out general objectives and policies applicable to all the centre and mixed use zones. Of relevance to this application are:

Objective 3. Business activity is distributed in locations and is of a scale and form that:

a.provides for the community’s economic needs

b.improves community access to goods, services, community facilities and opportunities for social interaction

c.manages adverse effects on the environment, including effects on strategic infrastructure and residential amenity.

Policy 1. Reinforce the function of the city centre, metropolitan centres and town centres as the primary location for commercial activity.

The proposed alteration supports increased intensity of land-use within the vicinity of the Viaduct (which is identified as an area of commercial and residential intensification) in a way which maintains the integrity and operational requirements of the structure.

Overall, it is considered that the proposed alteration is consistent with the objectives and policies of both the District Plan and PAUP.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

10. Conclusion

This report has provided an Assessment of Environmental Effects to support a Notice of Requirement by the Transport Agency to alter Designation D09-32 within the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section) 1999. The District Plan currently describes the purpose of Designation D09-32 (referenced in the PAUP as 6727) as:

“12.2 Metre Height Restriction, Newmarket Viaduct Area. Affecting land within 76.2 metres of centre line of Newmarket Viaduct”.

The Transport Agency proposes to alter the designation notation and purpose to:

“Newmarket Viaduct Protection, Building Limitation and Excavation Restriction”

The designation is for the purpose of ensuring the safe and efficient operation of the Newmarket Viaduct (as part of State Highway 1). This enables the Transport Agency to manage land use effects which may impact on the operation, maintenance and structural integrity of the Newmarket Viaduct. The designation does not enable the NZ Transport Agency to undertake any physical works relating to the Newmarket Viaduct which is already covered under Designation A07-01B Motorway: Newmarket Viaduct Improvement Project.

The need to alter the designation arose from a technical review of the designation that was completed in July 2014 which concluded that the Transport Agency should retain the designation but that the current scope and extent of the Designation could be reduced. The retention of the designation was necessary to enable adverse effects (i.e. traffic safety, wind, structural collapse, excavation and vibration) arising from development adjacent to the Viaduct to be identified and avoided or mitigated.

An assessment of environmental effects concluded that the proposed alteration will result in significant positive effects for Newmarket and the Transport Agency by reducing its extent and providing greater clarity to applicants for the purpose of the designation enabling more intensive development of a metropolitan centre in a manner which appropriately addresses the risks posed to the Viaduct.

Overall, it is considered and recognised through existing provisions of both the Auckland Regional Policy Statement, Proposed Regional Policy Statement, the District Plan and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan that Auckland’s State Highway network is a vital public service which should not be unduly constrained, and which should be managed in a sustainable manner in order to provide for the social and economic wellbeing of the community and future generations. The proposed alteration to the designation is consistent with Part 2 of the RMA in this regard.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

11. Appendices

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Appendix 1 - Designation Plans

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Appendix 2 – Certificates of Title

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Appendix 3 – Designation Notation

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Newmarket Viaduct Protection, Building Limitation and Excavation Restriction

Purpose

The designation does not enable the NZ Transport Agency to undertake any physical works relating to the Newmarket Viaduct which is already covered under Designation A07-01B Motorway: Newmarket Viaduct Improvement Project.

The extent of the designation is illustrated on the attached Designation Plan.

Conditions 1) Any development that projects above the height of the Newmarket Viaduct carriageway or proposes to conduct general earthworks within 12 metres or piling within 16 metres of a viaduct pier will require approval from the NZ Transport Agency under s176(1)(b) of the RMA.

2) When seeking s176(1)(b) approval from the Transport Agency under the RMA for works within the Designation boundary, the Transport Agency will consider the following matters:

i. Traffic Safety ii. Wind Effects iii. Structural collapse iv. Excavation & Vibration

Advice Notes

The following advice notes have been included to provide guidance to landowners seeking to undertake development of sites within the designation boundaries in accordance with the above conditions.

1. For any proposed building or structure that projects beyond the height of the carriageway, the applicant will be expected to demonstrate the following:

a) that the proposed building or structure (including signage) will avoid any adverse effects caused by reflective materials, glare, lighting and shadowing in relation to traffic safety and the distraction of drivers travelling over the Newmarket Viaduct.

b) that the proposed building does not affect wind conditions significantly enough on the Newmarket Viaduct so as to create a safety issue. As a guide, a wind assessment prepared by a suitably qualified engineer demonstrating that wind conditions on the Newmarket Viaduct will not exceed Wind Environmental Category C as set out in Figure 1 Wind Control or be increased above existing levels, is considered acceptable.

2. The Newmarket Viaduct is considered an essential IL4 lifeline structure; designed in accordance with the requirements of the Bridge Manual (SP/M/oo2). Any proposed building or development requiring s176 approval should be designed having regard to Sections 2 and 5 of the Bridge Manual (SP/M/oo2) and the Building Act 2004 to mitigate any adverse effects that could compromise the performance objectives of the Newmarket Viaduct being met. The performance objectives of the Newmarket Viaduct are:

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

a. After exposure to a seismic event of design severity, the structure shall be usable by emergency traffic, although damage may have occurred, and some temporary repairs may be required to enable use. Permanent repair to cater for at least one subsequent seismic event of design severity should be feasible.

b. After an event with a return period significantly less than the design value, damage should be minor, and there should be no disruption to traffic.

c. After an event with a return period significantly greater than the design value, the structure should not collapse, although damage may be extensive. It should be usable by emergency traffic after temporary repairs and should be capable of permanent repair, although a lower level of loading may be acceptable.

When seeking s176(1)(b) approval, the designer(s) must demonstrate how compliance with this performance requirement will be achieved.

3. For any development which involves general earthworks within 12 metres, or piling within 16 metres of any Viaduct Pier (including foundations) a Construction Vibration Management Plan (CVMP) shall be prepared in accordance with the State Highway Construction and Maintenance Noise and Vibration Guide (NZTA, 2013) or subsequent update, and include the procedures, methods and measures for the control of vibration associated with all relevant construction works and shall be provided to the Transport Agency as part of the s176(1)(b) approvals process.

4. Any development involving outdoor activities within a 10m horizontal distance from the edge of the Newmarket Viaduct level with or below the level of the carriageway, should note there is a potential risk of falling debris from vehicles or unsecured loads on the Newmarket Viaduct.

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Figure 1 - Wind Control

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Appendix 4 – Transport Assessment

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Appendix 5 – Traffic Safety Assessment

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Appendix 6 – Vibration and Excavation Assessment

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Appendix 7 – Structural Assessment

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Appendix 8 – Wind Assessment

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Appendix 9 – Consultation Material

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Appendix 10 – Consultation Feedback

NZ Transport Agency NOR for Alteration to Designation D09-32

Appendix 11 – Affected Parties