before a board of inquiry basin bridge proposal - … · 24089825_7.docx before a board of inquiry...

24089825_7.docx

BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRYBASIN BRIDGE PROPOSAL

UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991

IN THE MATTER OF applications for resource consents and notice of requirement in relation to the Basin Bridge Proposal

BY NZ Transport Agency

EVIDENCE OF MICHELLE CONLAND ON BEHALF OF GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL

Planning

DATE: 17 December 2013

Barristers & Solicitors

M G Conway / M D LeslieTelephone: +64-4-499 4599Facsimile: +64-4-472 6986E-mail: [email protected] SX11174PO Box 2402Wellington

24089825_7.docx

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction 2

Scope of evidence 3

Executive summary 4

WRC's submission and outstanding issues 5

Consistency with the Regional Policy Statement, Regional Plans and Part 2 of the RMA

6

Adequacy of mitigation measures and conditions 11

Recommendations 12

Conclusion 17

Annexure: Suggested wording of consent conditions 18

24089825_7.docx

INTRODUCTION

1. My full name is Michelle Andrea Conland. I am a resource management

consultant, contracted to Environmental Regulation, Greater Wellington Regional

Council (WRC).

2. I have a Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science degree in Physical

Geography, from Victoria University of Wellington. I have worked in the field of

resource management for approximately 15 years.

3. From 1998 to 2000, I was employed by the Wellington City Council, assisting

hearing panels writing notified resource consent decisions and then as a Policy

Advisor. From 2000 to 2008, I was employed by the Otago Regional Council, as a

Resource Adviser and then Senior Resource Adviser. From 2008 to 2010, I

managed the Consents Team at Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. Since April

2010, I have been a self-employed resource management consultant, undertaking

various projects for regional councils, including processing resource consent

applications.

4. In 2012 and 2013, I carried out pre-lodgement and lodgement checks under

section 88 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and produced a section

149G(3) Key Issues Report for the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) on

behalf of WRC, in relation to New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA) MacKays

to Peka Peka and Peka Peka to Otaki Roads of National Significance (RoNS)

Expressway projects.

5. My involvement to date in the Basin Bridge Proposal (Proposal) has comprised a

meeting with the EPA, NZTA and Wellington City Council (WCC) on 12 December

2012, at which NZTA provided an overview of the Proposal. In addition, while

preparing this evidence, I have reviewed the planning matters for the Proposal

which are relevant to WRC’s submission. I participated in expert witness

conferencing on planning matters on 3 December 2013.

6. In preparing this evidence I have reviewed the following:

(a) WRC’s s149G(3) Key Issues Report;

(b) Relevant application documents;

24089825_7.docx

(c) Relevant statements of evidence prepared by witnesses for the

applicant, including the evidence of Mr Alistair Aburn (Planning), and Mr

Lindsay Daysh (Planning Matters and Conditions), both dated 25

October 2013;

(d) The section 42A report “Planning Report, First Edition”, prepared by

Mitchell Partnerships Limited, dated 25 October 2013;

(e) Joint Statements of Expert Witnesses for Erosion and Sediment Control

dated 10 December 2013 and Groundwater dated 12 December 2013;

and

(f) All statements of evidence prepared by witnesses on behalf of WRC.

7. I am authorised by WRC to present this evidence on its behalf.

8. I have read and am familiar with the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in the

Environment Court Practice Note 2011. I agree to comply with that Code. Other

than where I state that I am relying on the advice of another person, this evidence

is within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known

to me that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express.

SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

9. WRC made a submission supporting the applications but raising a number of

issues relating to:

(a) Groundwater;

(b) Erosion and sediment control; and

(c) Transport.

10. The groundwater and erosion/sediment control matters have largely been

resolved through NZTA’s evidential response to WRC’s submission and through

expert conferencing. The transport issues are addressed in more detail in the

evidence of:

(a) Mr Nick Sargent (transport modelling);

(b) Mr Alex Campbell (public transport operations); and

24089825_7.docx

(c) Mr Luke Troy (regional transport).

11. Drawing on the evidence of WRC's advisers, my evidence addresses the following

matters:

(a) WRC's submission points and outstanding issues;

(b) Consistency with the regional policy statement, regional plans and Part 2

of the RMA;

(c) Adequacy of mitigation measures and conditions; and

(d) Recommendations.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

12. WRC generally supports the Proposal due to the overall benefits to the region’s

transport network. However, there remain some outstanding concerns identified

in this evidence and that of other witnesses on behalf of WRC. Suggested

amendments to the draft conditions prepared by the applicant have been

identified.

13. WRC’s Public Transport Group seeks a substantial degree of engagement with

the Proposal project team to enable input into the detailed design of the Proposal

and the development of the CTMP and SSTMPs, to achieve better outcomes for

public transport. It is also recommended that the detailed design of the Proposal

provide for consistency with the preferred option of the PT Spine Study. I

recommend a new condition that requires that a Network Integration Plan be

prepared in collaboration with WCC and WRC (in respect of the public transport

elements). This plan would demonstrate how the Project integrates with the

existing local road network and with future improvements identified in the Public

Transport Spine Study.

14. In addition, amendments are required to some conditions to clarify the

requirements of the management plans, the groundwater monitoring requirements

and the provision of data. Changes to the conditions relating to the review of the

consents, dispute resolution, and the notification of incidents or complaints are

also recommended.

24089825_7.docx

15. Subject to addressing WRC’s outstanding concerns in the manner set out in my

evidence, in my opinion, the Proposal is generally consistent with all of the

relevant provisions of the applicable planning and policy documents, and Part 2 of

the RMA.

WRC'S SUBMISSION AND OUTSTANDING ISSUES

16. WRC supports the Proposal overall, subject to refinements to the proposed

designation and resource consent conditions to address the matters raised in the

submission. In its submission, WRC requested the following:

(a) further involvement in the public transport operational planning and

implementation phases of the Proposal to ensure future compatibility and

to maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of public transport

movements through this area;

(b) involvement in all stakeholder and associated meetings relating to the

operational traffic management planning during the construction phase of

the project;

(c) consultation with WRC on the development of the Construction Traffic

Management Plan (CTMP) and Site-specific Transport Management

Plans (SSTMPs);

(d) further consultation and involvement in the planning of post construction

operational issues, including bus stop location, merging of bus traffic and

bus priority measures;

(e) appropriate monitoring of groundwater flows and levels to help manage

potential effects and contingency measures for excessive flows;

(f) treating discharged groundwater in accordance with the draft NZTA

Erosion and Sediment Control Standard for State Highway Infrastructure

as well as the WRC Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines;

(g) certification by WRC of management plans and any changes to these

plans; and

(h) well structured, easily interpreted, certain, defensible and enforceable

conditions.

24089825_7.docx

17. While some of these matters have been addressed through the statements of

evidence prepared by witnesses for the applicant, including the evidence of Mr

Daysh, and the Joint Statements of Expert Witnesses for Erosion and Sediment

Control, and Groundwater, some of these matters remain of concern. Further

details of the outstanding concerns are provided below.

CONSISTENCY WITH THE REGIONAL POLICY STATEMENT, REGIONAL PLANS AND

PART 2 OF THE RMA

18. The statutory framework for the Proposal is set out in Part E, Chapter 7 (Statutory

Considerations) and Part I, Chapter 36 (Approach to the Assessment) of the

Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE). To avoid unnecessary duplication I

will adopt their description except where indicated in my evidence.

19. An assessment of the Proposal against the provisions of national and regional

planning and policy documents is provided in Part E, Chapter 7 (Statutory

Considerations) and Part I, Chapter 37 (Planning Assessment of the Project) of

the AEE. I consider the following statutory documents and provisions are relevant

to this Proposal with regard to GWRC’s submission:

(a) National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 (NPS FM),

but only with regard to groundwater;

(b) The Regional Policy Statement 2013 (RPS);

(c) The Regional Freshwater Plan for the Wellington Region 1999 (RFWP);

(d) The Regional Plan for Discharges to Land for the Wellington Region

1999 (RPDL);

(e) The Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water

Takes) Regulations 2010 (MRWT); and

(f) Other relevant matters, listed at paragraph 31 below.

20. I consider that the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 is not relevant to

this Proposal, as there are no direct discharges to, or effects on, the coastal

marine area.

21. Policies 1-34 of the RPS are listed in Chapter 37 and Technical Report 18 as

being relevant to the Proposal. However, these policies direct provisions to be

24089825_7.docx

included in the District Plan, Regional Plans and the Regional Land Transport

Strategy, and so are not directly relevant to the consideration of the designation

and resource consent applications. Policy 42 of the RPS (‘Minimising

Contamination in Stormwater from Development – Consideration’) has not been

identified in Chapter 37 or Technical Report 18.

22. Mr Aburn in his evidence has not included the RFWP or the RPDL as having a

role to play in establishing the strategic planning framework for the Proposal, and

no assessment of the Proposal against the objectives and policies of these plans

is provided in his evidence.1 In my opinion, while these plans may not relate

directly to the overall transportation outcomes sought by the applicant, they do,

nonetheless, have a role in managing the adverse effects of the Proposal on the

environment. I note the relevant provisions of these plans below.

23. With the exception of the matters noted above in paragraph 16, and setting aside

the lack of reference to the RFWP and RPDL in Mr Aburn’s evidence, it is my

opinion that the relevant provisions of the regional and national planning

documents have been identified by the applicant in Chapters 7 and 37 of the AEE

and Technical Report 18.

24. However, until the concerns raised in WRC’s submission and evidence regarding

involvement in the operational traffic management planning, and appropriate

conditions for the water permit, land use consent and discharge permit have been

addressed satisfactorily, I consider that it is not appropriate to conclude at this

time that the proposal is entirely consistent with the provisions of all of these

documents.

25. With regard to the concerns relating to WRC’s involvement in operational traffic

management planning, consistency is required with the following policies of the

RPS in particular:

Policy 57 Integrating land use and transportation;

Policy 54: Achieving the region’s urban design principles; and

Policy 58: Co-ordinating land use with development and operation of

infrastructure.

1 Alistair Aburn evidence, paragraph 4.2.

24089825_7.docx

26. Policy 57 states that when considering an application for a notice of requirement,

particular regard shall be given to certain matters, in making progress towards

achieving the key outcomes of the Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy.

Those matters which relate to the outcomes that WRC is seeking include (a) in

relation to the impacts on the efficiency, reliability or safety of the network, (c) in

relation to good access to the strategic public transport network and (e) which

notes that particular regard be given to whether new or upgrades to existing

transport network infrastructure have been appropriately recognised and provided

for.

27. Policy 54 relates to achieving the region’s urban design principles which are set

out in Appendix 2 of the RPS. There are seven principles and those of relevance

to the matters that WRC is seeking include:

Context – which states that quality urban design provides for public

transport, roading, cycling and walking networks that are integrated with

each other and the land uses they serve

Choice – which states that quality urban design allows people to choose

different modes of transport

Connections – which states that quality urban design places a high priority

on walking, cycling and public transport; and anticipates travel demands

and provides a sustainable choice of integrated transport modes

Collaboration – which states that quality urban design uses a collaborative

approach to design that acknowledges the contributions of many different

disciplines and perspectives.

28. Policy 58 states that when considering an application for a notice of requirement,

particular regard shall be given to whether the proposed development is located or

sequenced to coordinate with the development and operation of new

infrastructure. As noted below Mr Luke Troy recommends that the detailed design

of the Proposal provide for consistency with the preferred option of the PT Spine

Study.

24089825_7.docx

29. With regard to the concerns relating to the conditions of the resource consents,

consistency is required with the objectives and policies of the RFWP and the

RPDL, and in particular:

Policies 4.2.35 and 4.2.36 of the RFWP in relation to consent conditions;

Policy 5.2.7 of the RFWP in relation to adverse effects on groundwater

quality as a result of discharges to groundwater;

Policy 5.2.14 of the RFWP in relation to the treatment of stormwater

discharges;

Policy 5.2.16 of the RFWP in relation to minimising the adverse effects of

accidental spills on water quality; and

Policy 4.2.21(2) of the RPDL in relation to the potential for any

contaminants to enter groundwater, surface water or coastal water,

including the risks of any accidental discharges, and any effects on water

quality and aquatic ecosystems.

30. In my opinion, these policies support the changes sought to the conditions, as

recommended below.

Other relevant regulations and matters

31. The Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes)

Regulations 2010 (MRWT) are unlikely to be relevant to the Proposal, as these

regulations only apply to water takes where the abstraction is at a rate of more

than 5 litres per second. However, an upper limit on the volume of water to be

abstracted has not been provided in the application so it is difficult to be certain

about whether the MWRT are relevant. Non-consumptive takes are not subject to

the regulations (irrespective of the rate of that take), which are described in the

regulations as takes where the same amount of water is returned to the same

water body at or near the location from which it was taken; and there is no

significant delay between the taking and returning of the water. Any water taken

and discharged via the WCC’s stormwater system would be classified as a

consumptive take.

24089825_7.docx

32. Witnesses on behalf of WRC also refer to ‘other matters’ of relevance to the

Proposal, including:

(a) Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010-2040;

(b) Wellington Regional Land Transport Programme 2012-2015;

(c) Wellington Regional Land Transport Plan 2011-2021;

(d) Public Transport Spine Study (June 2013) (PT Spine Study); and

(e) Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Plan 2008.

33. The other witnesses on behalf of WRC make statements about the relevance and

consistency of the proposal with these documents and I rely upon their

assessments.

Additional matters for discharge permits

34. Section 105 of the RMA lists additional matters that a consent authority must have

regard to when considering applications for discharge or coastal permits to do

something that would contravene section 15 of the RMA. Resource consents

have been sought for the discharge of contaminants to groundwater and land in

relation to the construction of bridge piles and ground improvement works. Section

107(1) of the RMA places restrictions on the grant of resource consents for the

discharge of contaminants into water if they cause certain adverse effects in

receiving waters after reasonable mixing.

35. I consider that provided appropriate conditions of consent are in place to manage

the potential adverse effects of these discharges during construction, including the

recommended changes to the conditions of the discharge permit and in relation to

the erosion and sediment control measures, the Proposal will meet the

requirements of Section 105 and 107 of the RMA.

Part 2 RMA Assessment

36. Mr Aburn in his evidence concludes that the Project is consistent with the

applicable statutory and planning instruments.2 Mr Daysh concludes in his

2 Alistair Aburn evidence, paragraphs 9.2 and 9.12.

24089825_7.docx

evidence that the Project meets the statutory tests of the RMA and is consistent

with the purpose and principles of Part 2 of the RMA.3

37. In my opinion, provided that the conditions are amended as proposed below, the

Proposal is generally consistent with Part 2 of the RMA. However, a lack of

involvement in the construction and operational traffic planning matters and of

consistency with the PT Spine Study, could result in the Proposal being

inconsistent with Section 7(b) of the RMA (‘the efficient use and development of

natural and physical resources’), and to a lesser extent may also have impacts on

whether the Proposal is consistent with Section 7(f) (‘the maintenance and

enhancement of the quality of the environment’). Robust consultation and input

from WRC Public Transport Group into the planning and design of the Proposal

will help to ensure the efficient use and development of all affected physical

resources, and the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the

environment.

ADEQUACY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS

38. WRC will be responsible for monitoring ongoing effects of the Proposal and

ensuring compliance with the conditions of the four resource consents sought

under WRC’s regional plans for the Proposal, if granted. This includes

certification of management plans and undertaking physical compliance

inspections during and after construction. As such, WRC has an interest in

ensuring that consent conditions are clear, certain and enforceable, with

appropriate performance standards.

39. In my opinion it is important that conditions have sufficient detail so that all parties

have certainty of expected outcomes. Well written, easily interpreted conditions

are less likely to cause disagreement once the consents have been granted.

Several conditions, including some proposed in the joint expert witness

statements, need rewording to improve clarity, or require further details, such as

timeframes for providing information.

40. Mr Daysh for the applicant has prepared updated draft conditions incorporating

changes recommended by its various experts.4 While a number of the matters

raised by WRC have been included, there are still some amendments and

additions that I consider are required to ensure that the conditions are clear,

3 Lindsay Daysh evidence, paragraph15.46.4 Lindsay Daysh evidence, page 88.

24089825_7.docx

certain and enforceable, and will address the adverse effects of the Proposal,

including matters raised in WRC’s submission and evidence. In addition, some of

the changes to the conditions proposed in the Joint Statements of Expert

Witnesses for Erosion and Sediment Control, and Groundwater could be further

reworded to improve clarity. I discuss my recommended condition amendments

below.

RECOMMENDATIONS

41. In the Annexure to my evidence, I set out a number of changes that I recommend

be made to the conditions of the resource consent sought under WRC’s regional

plans, as well as the designation conditions. Further details regarding some of

these amendments are provided in the evidence of other WRC expert witnesses.

I briefly outline the reasons for each of the amendments below, with reference to

the relevant condition numbers.

42. Additional condition amendments may be required to those suggested below once

further information becomes available through the conferencing and hearing

process.

General conditions

43. G.1 – To avoid confusion, a clause should be included which states that the most

recent information has priority where there is conflict between the documents.

44. G.7 – Currently there is only one opportunity provided for WRC to review the

consent conditions in the event of adverse effects arising from the exercise of the

consents, or to review the adequacy of the construction operating and

maintenance processes and the monitoring requirements for the consents to deal

with any adverse effects arising from the exercise of the consents. It is possible

that any adverse effects may not have become apparent by this time, so in my

opinion, additional opportunities to review the consent conditions should be

provided following the one year anniversary of the consents, if granted.

45. G.8 – I do not consider it appropriate to have a dispute resolution condition,

especially in relation to the implementation or monitoring of consent conditions.

Any inaction of monitoring required by consent conditions would be an

24089825_7.docx

enforcement matter for WRC. Such a condition would be contrary to WRC’s

enforcement powers.

46. G.9 – The details of a complaint or incident in relation to any granted resource

consents need to be communicated to WRC in a timely manner. Providing a

timeframe of up to five working days, as has been proposed in the draft condition

G.9, to advise of the non-compliance and remedial actions undertaken could

result in additional and potentially significant adverse effects on the environment.

Such a provision is inconsistent with the standard practice for notifying WRC in

the event of an incident, and in my opinion is not appropriate or necessary. In my

opinion, a timeframe of up to 24 hours following the complaint or becoming aware

of the incident is appropriate. Therefore I recommend that the condition be

amended to require notification of the Manager of any complaints in relation to the

works as soon as practicable and within 24 hours of receiving the complaint or

being made aware of the incident. A five working day period for communicating

any remedial actions undertaken remains appropriate.

47. G.10 – While this condition now refers to certification of the management plans

and any amendments to the plans, the wording of the condition could be improved

for clarity. The wording “… any required amendments required by these

conditions.” should be replaced with “any amendments certified in accordance

with condition G.13 or G.15.”

48. G.16 – I agree with the assessment of Mitchell Partnerships Ltd5 regarding the

proposed management plan conditions. The matters that must be included in the

management plans, and the mitigation outcomes that must be achieved via the

implementation of the management plans, need to be clearly stated. Currently, the

draft conditions lack sufficient precision in the way that they guide the preparation

of the various management plans. Condition G.16 should detail the purpose,

objectives, and mitigation outcomes of the CEMP. In addition, part (b) of the

condition should refer to treatment of construction affected groundwater, and

chemical flocculation pre-use testing and management, if chemical flocculation is

to be used.

5Paragraphs 4.0.4 – 4.0.8 of the Section 42A report “Planning Report, First Edition”, prepared by Mitchell Partnerships Limited, dated 25 October 2013.

24089825_7.docx

Water permit for groundwater take

49. WP.2 – This condition should include a timeframe for submitting records to WRC.

Dr Jack McConchie and Dr Mark Gyopari have agreed that the monitoring data

should be submitted within two weeks following the installation of the first pile.6

However, if further monitoring of the volumes of water taken is to occur after this

time, a timeframe for submitting this data is required. I recommend that these

records be submitted on a monthly basis to provide time for the data to be

collected, but still submitted in a timely manner.

50. WP.3 – The method for monitoring should be stated. In addition, monitoring

should be undertaken prior to the works beginning, as well as during the works.

Data should be recorded preferably on a continuous basis. To provide for these

matters, Drs McConchie and Gyopari have agreed that the wording should be

amended to “The consent holder shall monitor groundwater levels in boreholes

known as BHTT615 and BHTT10603 continuously using pressure transducers.

Monitoring shall be undertaken over a period extending from 6 months prior to

construction of the first pile until 6 months after completion of the last pile shall

continue for the duration of the project.”7

Land Use Consent

51. LUC.9 – A timeframe for providing the bore log needs to be included. Again, I

recommend a timeframe of one month to allow time for the bore log to be

completed and submitted in a timely manner.

Discharge permit to land

52. DP.1(a) – Typographical amendment required for the units of suspended

sediment concentration. The condition should be amended from “50 grams per

cubic metre 50mg/L” to “50 grams per cubic metre or 50 milligrams per litre” or

just a single measurement unit could be used.

53. DP.1(b) – Typographical amendments also required with the words “…will not

cause” being replaced with “…the discharge shall not cause”.

6 Groundwater Joint Witness Statement, 12 December 2013, page 5.7 Groundwater Joint Witness Statement, 12 December 2013, page 5.

24089825_7.docx

54. The conditions of this consent should also reference the construction and

maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures to treat the discharge, to

clarify that these measures are proposed to reduce contaminants prior to being

discharged.

Designation conditions

55. DC.22 and DC.25 – These conditions refer to the communication of traffic

management measures with affected road users and stakeholders including the

WRC Public Transport Group. I consider that this wording, and in particular

reference to ‘communication’ in conditions DC.22 and DC.25, is not adequate to

address the concerns raised in the evidence of WRC’s transport advisers

regarding ensuring an adequate level of input into the development of the CTMP

and SSTMPs. Communication implies a one-sided dialogue, with little opportunity

for input from WRC’s Public Transport Group. In order for the WRC Public

Transport Group to have input into the construction effects and post construction

operational issues affecting public transport operation, involvement in meetings

and effective consultation with the WRC Public Transport Group is required.

56. As noted by Alex Campbell at paragraph 54 of his evidence, given the number of

bus services and passengers potentially affected by construction traffic

management and the issues outlined in his evidence, he recommends WRC

involvement in all stakeholder and associated meetings relating to the traffic

management planning during the construction phase of the project. Furthermore,

WRC should be consulted on the development of the CTMP and SSTMPs in

relation to impacts on the operation of public transport, and any other involvement

to ensure an adequate level of input into these plans.

57. At paragraph 87 of his evidence, Luke Troy notes the need to ensure that the

Proposal will be able to fully incorporate whichever PT Spine Study option is

chosen. Consequently, Mr Troy recommends that there be a requirement that the

detailed design of the Proposal provide for consistency with the preferred option

for the PT Spine Study once that is confirmed. He notes that this may be achieved

through a Network Integration Plan such as has been used in other recent roading

projects including NZTA’s Waterview Connection Project and MacKays to Peka

Peka Expressway projects. A similar condition is proposed for the Peka Peka to

Otaki Expressway project. The Network Integration Plan should require specific

consideration of continuous dedicated public transport lanes around the Basin

24089825_7.docx

Reserve, signal priority for public transport vehicles at all relevant intersections to

ensure forecast travel times and improved reliability are achievable, and

consideration of the appropriate location and design of public transport stops.

58. Nick Sargent notes in his evidence at paragraph 97 that additional, more detailed

modelling is required to ensure that the PT Spine Study option that WRC pursues

can be accommodated around the Basin Reserve, providing both acceptable

public transport and highway travel times.

59. In my opinion, the Proposal will be generally consistent with the relevant policies

of the RPS, being Policies 54, 57 and 58, as well as Part 2 of the RMA, provided

that these matters can be incorporated into the conditions of the designation.

60. In summary, WRC’s Public Transport Group seeks a substantial degree of

engagement with the Proposal project team to enable input into the detailed

design of the Proposal and the development of the CTMP and SSTMPs, which will

result in better outcomes for public transport. In order for the WRC Public

Transport Group to have input into the construction effects and post construction

operational issues affecting public transport operation, involvement in meetings

and effective consultation with the WRC Public Transport Group is required. For

the reasons outlined in paragraph 54 of Alex Campbell’s evidence, I recommend

that the wording of the conditions be amended to enable input into the detailed

design of the Proposal and the development of the CTMP and SSTMPs, with

regard to WRC’s role in public transport.

61. For the reasons outlined in paragraph 87 of Luke Troy's evidence, I recommend

that there be a new condition relating to the provision of a Network Integration

Plan that will be prepared in collaboration with WCC and WRC (in respect of the

public transport elements). This plan would demonstrate how the Project

integrates with the existing local road network and with future improvements

identified in the Public Transport Spine Study.

62. DC.38 – I note that Mitchell Partnerships consider this condition redundant due to

the requirements of condition G.16 in relation to the CEMP.8 If this condition is to

be retained, for clarity, this condition should also state that all erosion and

sediment control measures shall be installed and maintained in accordance with

8 Page 86 of the Section 42A report “Planning Report, First Edition”, prepared by Mitchell Partnerships Limited, dated 25 October 2013

24089825_7.docx

the WRC Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines and the NZTA Draft Erosion

and Sediment Control Standard for State Highway Infrastructure.

CONCLUSION

63. WRC generally supports the Proposal due to the overall benefits to the region’s

transport network. However, there remain some outstanding concerns identified

in this evidence and that of other witnesses on behalf of WRC. Suggested

amendments to the draft conditions prepared by the applicant have been

identified.

64. In particular, amendments are required to some conditions to clarify the

requirements of the management plans, the groundwater monitoring requirements

and provision of data. Changes to the conditions relating to the review of the

consents, dispute resolution, and the notification of incidents or complaints are

also recommended.

65. WRC’s Public Transport Group seeks a substantial degree of engagement with

the Proposal project team to enable input into the detailed design of the Proposal

and the development of the CTMP and SSTMPs, which will result in better

outcomes for public transport. It is also recommended that the detailed design of

the Proposal provide for consistency with the preferred option of the PT Spine

Study. A Network Integration Plan could be used to achieve this, with specific

consideration of continuous dedicated public transport lanes around the Basin

Reserve, signal priority for public transport vehicles, and consideration of the

appropriate location and design of public transport stops. Amendments to the

designation conditions are required to provide for this.

66. Subject to addressing WRC’s outstanding concerns in the manner set out in my

evidence, in my opinion, the Proposal is generally consistent with all of the

relevant provisions of the applicable planning and policy documents, and Part 2 of

the RMA.

Michelle Conland

17 December 2013

24089825_7.docx

Annexure: Suggested wording of consent conditions

Black text: Conditions as notified.

Red text: Changes proposed in evidence of Lindsay Daysh 25 October 2013.

Green text: Changes proposed as recommended in this evidence, and as a result of

conferencing and submitter discussions (additions underlined, deletions

struck out. For clarity, green text that is underlined and struck out

represents additions made by Lindsay Daysh that have been deleted as

recommended in this evidence, and as a result of conferencing and

submitter discussions).

General Conditions

G.1 Except as modified by the conditions below, the Project shall be undertaken in

general accordance with the information provided by the Consent Holder in the

resource consent applications [insert reference no.] and supporting documents being:

(a) Plan sets:

i. Drawings 1A.01 – 1A.02

ii. Drawings 5A.01 – 5A.14

iii. Drawings 6A.01 – 6A.05

iv. Drawings 6B.01 – 6B.04

v. Drawings 6C.01

vi. Drawings 6D.01 – 6D.02

vii. Drawings 6F.01 – 6F.03

Where there may be contradiction or inconsistencies between the documents lodged

and further information provided by the applicant, the most recent information

applies.

Where there is conflict between the documents lodged and further information, and

the conditions, the conditions shall prevail.

G.7 The Manager may review any or all conditions of this consent by giving notice of their

intention to do so pursuant to Section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, at

any time within six months of the first, third, sixth and/or ninth anniversary of the date

of commencement of the works authorised by this consent for any of the following

purposes:

24089825_7.docx

(a) To deal with any adverse effects on the environment, which may arise from the

exercise of this consent, and which it is appropriate to deal with at that time;

and

(b) To review the adequacy of the construction operating and maintenance

processes and the monitoring requirements for this consent so as to

incorporate any modifications to the construction operational and maintenance

procedures or monitoring that may be necessary to deal with any adverse

effects on the environment arising from the exercise of this consent.

G.8 Delete

G.9 (a) At all times during construction work, the consent holder shall maintain a

permanent register(s) of any public or stakeholder feedback received and any

incidents or non-compliance noted by the consent holder contractor, in relation

to the construction of the Project. The register(s) shall include:

i. the name and contact details (as far as practicable) of the person

providing feedback or contractor observing the incident/ non-compliance;

ii. identification of the nature and details of the feedback/ incident; and,

iii. location, date and time of the feedback/ incident.

(b) The consent holder shall promptly investigate any adverse feedback, reported

incident or non-compliance. This shall include, but need not be limited to:

i. recording weather conditions at the time of the event (as far as

practicable), and including wind direction and approximate wind speed if

the adverse feedback or incident relates to dust;

ii. recording any other activities in the area, unrelated to the Project that

may have contributed to the adverse feedback/ incident/ noncompliance,

such as non-Project construction, fires, traffic accidents or unusually

dusty conditions generally (if applicable); and,

iii. investigating other circumstances surrounding the incident.

(c) In relation to condition G.9(b), the consent holder shall:

i. record the outcome of the investigation on the register(s);

ii. record any remedial actions or measures undertaken to address or

respond to the matter on the register(s);

iii. respond to the initiator, explaining the outcome of the investigation and

any remedial measures taken, if practicable; and,

iv. where the adverse feedback or incident was in relation to a non-

compliance, the Manager shall be notified as soon as practicable and

within 24 hours of receiving the complaint or being made aware of the

24089825_7.docx

incident, and shall be notified in writing of the matter within 5 working

days of the non-compliance, and be informed of the remedial actions

undertaken.

(d) The register(s) shall be maintained on site and shall be made available to the

Manager upon request.

G.10 All works shall be carried out in accordance with the certified management plans

and any required amendments required by these conditions any amendments

certified in accordance with conditions G.13 or G.15. No works shall be

commenced prior to WRC certification, including for any proposed amendments to

the management plans as provided for in Condition G13.

G.16 The CEMP shall be in general accord with the draft submitted with Volume 4 of

lodged documents] and include but need not be limited to:

(a) General:

i. CEMP purpose, objectives and mitigation outcomes;

ii. Project details including anticipated construction activities,

methodology and a schedule of construction activities, including

activities associated with compliance with designation and

resource consent conditions;

iii. Defining what changes in construction methodology and

programme activities will require formal amendment of the

Management Plan or the relevant sub management plans.

(b) Social and environmental management

i. Environmental issues anticipated during construction, including

issues associated with:

The condition and operation of piling and ground

strengthening machinery;

Groundwater including treatment of construction affected

groundwater, methodologies to control higher than

expected groundwater flows and disposal of this water;

Dewatering including any discharges to ground;

Waste management;

Sewage; and

Erosion and sediment control measures proposed to be

installed on site. All erosion and sediment control

measures shall be installed and maintained in

accordance with WRC Erosion and Sediment Control

24089825_7.docx

Guidelines and the NZTA Draft Erosion and Sediment

Control Standard for State Highway Infrastructure; and

Chemical flocculation pre-use testing and management (if

used).

ii. The management approach, methods and measures to avoid

and mitigate adverse environmental effects arising in relation to

each environmental issue;

iii. Outline of how the CEMP responds to relevant conditions of

resource consents; and,

iv. An environmental risk register.

Water Permit (groundwater take) – Conditions

WP.1 The location, design, implementation and operation of the groundwater takes shall

be in general accordance with the consent application.

WP.2 The quantum of water discharged from all bores will be monitored to an accuracy

of +/- 10%.

The quantum of water discharged from all bores associated with the construction

of a pile will be monitored daily to an accuracy of +/- 10%. Within two weeks

fFollowing installation of the first pile, a summary of the monitoring data will be

provided to the consent authority. The Manager, Environmental Regulation,

Wellington Regional Council may after reviewing this information authorise that

further monitoring associated with the installation of the piles is unnecessary. If

further monitoring of the volumes of water discharged/taken from the bores is

required, the monitoring data shall be provided to the consent authority on a

monthly basis.

WP.3 Should the rate of water discharged from any bore or excavation exceed one litre

a second (1L/s) then action will be taken to reduce flows following discussion with

the consent authority.

The consent holder shall monitor groundwater levels in boreholes known as

BHTT156 and BH603TT10 continuously using pressure transducers. Monitoring

will continue for the duration of the project. shall be undertaken over a period

extending from 6 months prior to construction of the first pile until 6 months after

completion of the last pile.

24089825_7.docx

Monitoring results shall be submitted to the Manager, Environmental Regulation,

Wellington Regional Council on a monthly basis until all groundwater extraction for

piling construction is complete.

Land Use Consent (for pile construction and ground strengthening)

LUC.9 A bore log will be submitted to the consent authority once construction of that bore

has been completed within one month of completion of construction of the bore.

Discharge to permit (land) – Conditions

DP.1 (a) Any construction affected groundwater (displaced whilst constructing

piles) shall be collected and shall only be discharged to the reticulated

stormwater system if it:

• Has a ph value of no greater than 8.5

• Has a suspended sediment concentration no more than 10% higher

than background levels 50 grams per cubic metre or 50 milligrams

per litre50mg/L;

(b) Following reasonable mixing (the bound of reasonable mixing zone shall

be a 50m radius extending in any direction from the stormwater outfall)

the discharge shall will not cause:

• The production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, or scum, or

foams or floatable material;

• Cause an emission of an objectionable odour; and

• Any conspicuous change in colour or visual clarity in the receiving

environment.

• Any significant adverse effects on aquatic life.

DP.2 The Consent Holder shall construct and maintain all erosion and sediment control

measures so that they operate and perform as intended in the certified

Construction Environmental Management Plan and in accordance with the WRC

Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines and the NZTA Draft Erosion and

Sediment Control Standard for State Highway Infrastructure. The Consent Holder

shall carry out inspections, at a minimum frequency of weekly, of all working areas

of the site, in order to ensure they are well maintained and that discharge control

devices remain effective.

24089825_7.docx

Designation Conditions

DC.22 A CTMP shall be prepared in consultation with WRC (in respect of the public

transport elements) which is generally in accordance with the proposed CTMP

submitted with the NOR and shall include, but need not be limited to:

(a) A statement of standards that will be adhered to in the planning and

implementation of Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) during the

project;

(b) Objectives and issues for the delivery of TTM;

(c) Construction sequencing and restrictions to be placed on TTM activities;

(d) Details of proposed accesses to construction areas from the road

network;

(e) The potential effects on the detour routes selected and how these will be

managed to seek to ensure safety for all road users;

(f) Measures to maintain, where practicable, existing vehicle access to

adjacent properties and business;

(g) Details of the measures that will be implemented to screen construction

activity from passing traffic;

(h) A process for the development, submission and approval of Site Specific

Transport Management Plans (and when SSTMPs are required); and,

(i) Roles and responsibilities of key Traffic Management personnel (and/or

governance group).

(j) The measures that will be undertaken by the Requiring Authority to

communicate traffic management measures to affected road users and

stakeholders including specific liaison and recording of outcomes with

the WRC Public Transport Group.; and

(k) Details of how WRC’s Public Transport Group’s comments and

recommendation have been incorporated into the plan.

DC.25 The SSTMP shall be prepared in consultation with WRC (in respect of the public

transport elements) and shall describe the measures that will be taken to manage

the traffic effects associated with the construction of specific parts of the Project

prior to construction of the relevant part(s) of the Project commencing. In

particular SSTMPs shall describe:

(a) How it is consistent with the CTMP;

(b) If relevant, how it is consistent with the principles of CPTED;

(c) Temporary traffic management measures required to manage effects on

road users during proposed working hours;

24089825_7.docx

(d) Delay calculations associated with the proposed closure/s and detour

routes;

(e) The capacity of any proposed detour route(s) and their ability to carry the

additional traffic volumes, including diverted bus services, and any

known safety issues associated with the detour route(s), including any

mitigation measures the Requiring Authority proposes to put in place to

address any identified safety issues;

(f) Individual traffic management plans for intersections of the proposed

Project with arterial roads;

(g) Measures to maintain, where practicable, existing vehicle access to

adjacent properties and businesses;

(h) Measures to maintain, where practicable, safe and clearly identified

pedestrian and cyclist access on roads and footpaths adjacent to the

construction works. Where detours are necessary to provide such

access the Requiring Authority shall provide for the shortest and most

convenient detours, which it is reasonably practicable to provide, having

regard to CPTED issues and safety;

(i) Any proposed temporary changes in speed limit;

(j) Provision for safe and efficient access of construction vehicles to and

from construction site(s); and,

(k) The measures that will be undertaken by the Requiring Authority to

communicate traffic management measures to affected road users and

stakeholders including specific liaison and recording of outcomes with

the WRC Public Transport Group.; and

(l) Details of how WRC’s Public Transport Group’s comments and

recommendation have been incorporated into the plan.

Prior to the submission of the SSTMP(s) for certification, the draft SSTMP(s) shall

undergo an independent safety and traffic operational review, and a CPTED

review by a suitably qualified independent person. Feedback received in this

review process shall be provided to the Compliance Officer at the time the SSTMP

is submitted for certification, along with a clear explanation of where any

comments have not been incorporated in the SSTMP and the reasons why.

Exact wording to be determined subject to recommendations by Transport Expert

Witnesses

DC.## The Requiring Authority shall prepare in collaboration with WCC and WRC (in

respect of the public transport elements) a Network Integration Plan (NIP) for the

24089825_7.docx

Project, or relevant Project phases, to demonstrate how the Project integrates with

the existing local road network and with future improvements (identified in the

Public Transport Spine Study).

a) The NIP shall include details of proposed physical works at the interface

between the State highway and the local road network, and shall

address such matters as

continuous dedicated public transport lanes around the Basin

Reserve,

signal priority for public transport vehicles and provisions for buses,

to ensure forecast travel times and improved reliability are

achievable,

Changes to bus stop location and design to accommodate longer

vehicles/additional stop infrastructure.

b) The objectives of the NIP shall include integration of the PT Spine Study

options into the overall scheme and design

c) The Requiring Authority shall submit the NIP for certification to the

Manager at least 20 working days prior to commencement of

construction of the Project

d) Works identified in the NIP which are the responsibility of the NZTA,

including any work associated with the relocation of bus stops, will be

undertaken at the time the Project is constructed.

DC.38. Erosion and sediment control measures shall be implemented throughout the

construction phase of the Project in accordance with the CEMP. All works shall be

installed and maintained in accordance with WRC Erosion and Sediment Control

Guidelines and the NZTA Draft Erosion and Sediment Control Standard for State

Highway Infrastructure.

before a board of inquiry basin bridge proposal - … · 24089825_7.docx before a board of inquiry...

Documents