geotechnical investigation slap (marlborough) ltd …

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

SLAP (MARLBOROUGH) LTD 36A BUDGE STREET, BLENHEIM

Our Ref: 26389 Date: October 2017

Our Ref: 26389 2

Our Ref: 26389 5 October 2017

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATON

SLAP (MARLBOROUGH) LTD

34A BUDGE STREET, BLENHEIM

C O N T E N T S

1. Introduction 3 2. Site Description 3 3. Background to Seismic Analysis 4 3.1 Liquefaction 4 3.2 Foundation Design Categories 5 4. Site Investigation 6 4.1 Non-Seismic 6 4.2 Seismic 6 5. Assessment 7 5.1 Non-Seismic 7 5.2 Seismic 7 6. Conclusions 10 7. Disclaimer 10 8. References 11 Appendix 12

Our Ref: 26389 3

1. INTRODUCTION

We have been engaged to investigate and confirm building sites on this property at an acceptable risk from cyclic loading induced ground deformation. The client proposes to develop the site for use as a seasonal worker accommodation with multiple structures on the property.

Our investigation to confirm the proposed area for development is suitable, included; a general visual inspection, geomorphological walkover, inspection of aerial photographs, a review of previous investigations carried out in this area, site survey work, deep CPT/DPSH-B testing to assess deep soil conditions, inspection of well data nearby.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION

The property (Pt Lot 1 DP 756) is located approximately 60 m east of State Highway 1 on Budge Street. The property is predominately flat with an existing dwelling and sheds on the site. The property falls steeply towards the Opaoa River which defines the southern boundary. The site is designated Urban Residential 2 under the Wairau Awatere Resource Management Plan (WARMP). The zoning under the Proposed Marlborough Environment Plan (MEP) will be also be Urban Residential 2. There is a floodway zone bordering the Opaoa River.

Photo looking south west across site Geological maps of this area, prepared by the NZ Geological Survey and GNS Science, show that the Wairau plains is underlain by Holocene age marine/estuarine silts and sands of the Dillions Point formation and alluvial gravels and sands of the Rapaura Formation. This is underlain by older, clay-bound alluvial gravels of the Speargrass Formation.

Our Ref: 26389 4

The site is located approximately 3.7 km to the south of the Wairau fault line, and 10.5 km to the northwest of the Vernon Faultline. Both fault lines are dextral faults with moderate slip rates and recurrence intervals of less than 2,000 years or 2,000 - 3,500 years for the Wairau and Vernon faults respectively (GNS Science, 2017).

3. BACKGROUND TO SEISMIC ANALYSIS 3.1 Liquefaction 3.1.1 General

Cyclic liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, cohesionless soils are subject to temporary but complete loss of shear strength due to pore water pressure build up from seismic loading. With no shear strength, the soil is susceptible to vertical and lateral deformations in the form of flow slides, lateral spreading, ground settlements, ground oscillation and sand boils. The extent of deformation is governed by landform, spatial continuity of the liquefied material, soil density and the intensity and duration of cyclic loading. The type of settlement estimated in this liquefaction analysis is referred to as the free-field settlement. Free-field settlement is a component of settlement that does not take account of foundation influences (e.g. loads and stiffness), or the effects of ground loss due to the ejection of soils.

Liquefaction induced lateral spreading may occur in areas where gently sloping ground or level ground adjacent to a ‘free face’ is underlain by soils which have liquified. The surficial materials stretch and displace downslope towards the free face. The free face is most often a river bank or drainage channel.

Surface Characteristics and Parameters It is generally assumed that the slope (S) should be between 0.1 and 3.5% for lateral spread to occur without a ‘free face’ being present. In the case of level ground with a free face of height (H), lateral spreading will occur up to a distance length (L) from the free face when L/H is between 1 and 40. If L/H is greater than 40, the assumption is that lateral spreading will be unlikely. Lateral spread is characterised by two parameters, global lateral movement and lateral stretch. Global lateral movement is the overall shifting of a point or block of soil towards a free surface. Lateral stretch is defined as the difference in global lateral movement between two points or blocks of soil. Lateral stretch is most often displayed as surface cracking and has particular significance if it occurs beneath a building.

Our Ref: 26389 5

Components of lateral spread

3.1.2 Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN) Index Parameter LSN is an index parameter which characterises the vulnerability of land damage from vertical settlement due to liquefaction for a given level of shaking and given ground water level. It reflects the more damaging effects of shallow liquefaction on land and shallow foundations. It provides a more appropriate classification to reflect the liquefaction induced damage. Below is a table which can be used to interpret the results of the tests in terms of LSN.

Table 1: Liquefaction severity number and typical effects

Liquefaction Risk Zone

LSN Range Typical Effects

Low 0 - 20 Little or no expression of liquefaction, minor sand boils, minor damage to typical residential structures

Medium to High 20 - 40 Moderate to severe expression of liquefaction, undulation and cracking of ground surface, minor to severe structural settlement and damage

Severe > 40 Widespread severe damage, extensive liquefaction expression, severe settlement of structures and damage to services

3.2 Foundation Design Categories 3.2.1 Standard Solutions

Technical Category 1 (TC 1): Future land damage from liquefaction is unlikely, and ground settlements are expected to be within normally accepted tolerances. Standard foundations (NZS 3604) are acceptable subject to shallow geotechnical investigations. Technical Category 2 (TC 2): Minor to moderate land damage from liquefaction is possible in future significant earthquakes. Lightweight construction, for example corrugated iron or enhanced foundations such as more robust floor slabs that better tie the structure together will be required. Technical Category 3 (TC 3): Moderate to significant land damage from liquefaction is possible in future significant earthquakes. Foundation solutions should be based on site-specific geotechnical investigation and specific engineering foundation design. This might involve deep piles or gravel rafts.

Our Ref: 26389 6

Table 2: Parameters for foundation technical categories

3.2.2 Specialist Solutions

Where parameters exceed values for a TC3 technical category, non-standard specialist design will be required. This could involve ground improvements beyond the building footprint and include a lattice of subsurface piles, densification, solidification or reinforcement methods.

4. SITE INVESTIGATION 4.1 Non-Seismic

Ten scala penetrometer tests and two hand auger holes were carried out on 6 July and 12 September 2017 at the locations shown on the attached site plan / drawing number 26389 sheet C1. The results are appended. The investigations indicated that the soil over the proposed building site consists of about 200 mm of topsoil over, firm, moist, silty CLAYS to about 2.7 m below ground level (end of auger). The scala penetrometers test results show less than 0.5 to 1 blow/50 mm down to about 1,000 mm below ground level, and then 1 - 2 blows/50 mm about 2.7 m at which point they increase to 3 - 4 blows/50 mm.

4.2 Seismic

Subsurface investigations undertaken as part of this investigation were carried out by LandTest. On 28 June 2017, a combined CPT/DPSH-B rig was used to put down three tests (CPT 1 to CPT 9). The location of these tests is shown on attached drawings 26389/ C1. Tests were carried out across the site running from the south west corner to the north-east corner. These locations were chosen so that soil conditions closer to the Opaoa River could be assessed as well as spanning across the site so that lateral stretch could be investigated. CPT 1 consisted of clays and silty clays to a depth of 4.7 m over sandy silts, and silty sands to 7.8 m before striking a gravel layer.

CPT 2 consisted of clays and silty clays to a depth of 5.2 m over sandy silts, and silty sands to 8.1 m before striking a gravel layer.

CPT 3 consisted of clays and silty clays to a depth of 5.5 m over sandy silts, and silty sands to 8.1 m before striking a gravel layer.

Foundation Technical Category

Nominal Settlement Lateral Stretch SLS ULS SLS ULS

TC 1 0 - 15 mm 0 - 25 mm 0 mm 0 mm TC 2 0 - 50 mm 0 - 100 mm < 50 mm < 100 mm TC 3 > 50 mm > 100 mm > 50 mm < 500 mm

Our Ref: 26389 7

CPT 4 consisted of clays and silty clays to a depth of 5.8 m over sandy silts, and silty sands to 8.2 m before striking a gravel layer. CPT 5 consisted of clays and silty clays to a depth of 7.0 m over sandy silts, and silty sands to 9.2 m before striking a gravel layer. CPT 6 consisted of clays and silty clays to a depth of 5.7 m over sandy silts, and silty sands to 10.0 m CPT 7 consisted of clays and silty clays to a depth of 5.6m over sandy silts, and silty sands to 10.0 m. CPT 8 consisted of clays and silty clays to a depth of 5.3 m over sandy silts, and silty sands to 8.0 m before striking a gravel layer. CPT 9 consisted of clays and silty clays to a depth of 5.5 m over sandy silts, and silty sands to 9.6 m before striking a gravel layer.

A consistent gravel layer was found ranging between 7.8 m to 10.0 m below existing ground level. The following surface characteristics were applied to the CPT test locations. Table 3: Surface Characteristics and parameters at test locations

Test Reference

Surface Characteristics Length to toe of Free Face (L)

Height of Free Face (H)

Slope (L/H)

CPT 1 Level ground with free face 17.09 m 5.89 m 2.9 CPT 2 Level ground with free face 37.80 m 6.63 m 5.7 CPT 3 Level ground with free face 42.37 m 6.61 m 6.4 CPT 4 Level ground with free face 25.05 m 7.03 m 3.6 CPT 5 Level ground with free face 25.83 m 6.05 m 4.3 CPT 6 Level ground with free face 56.95 m 5.94 m 9.6 CPT 7 Level ground with free face 49.98 m 6.45 m 7.7 CPT 8 Level ground with free face 110.34 m 6.95 m 15.9 CPT 9 Level ground with free face 57.12m 6.71 m 8.5

5. ASSESSMENT 5.1 Non-Seismic

The tests indicate that “good ground” (i.e., soil which has an ultimate bearing capacity in excess of 300 kPa as defined in NZS 3604) is available at 1.8 m below “cleared ground level”, i.e., below the underside of the topsoil layer, or approximately 2.0 m below the ground surface. Load bearing foundations complying with NZS 3604 should be taken to at least this depth. MBIE gravel raft solutions require an ultimate bearing capacity of 200 kPa, this is available at 800 mm below “cleared ground level”, i.e., below the underside of the topsoil layer, or approximately 1.0 m below the ground surface.

Our Ref: 26389 8

The nomenclature referred to above is described in the diagram below:

5.2 Seismic 5.2.1 Parameters

The design horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) and effective earthquake magnitudes (Mw) have been derived according to the NZTA Bridge Manual (2014) procedure. This is recommended for all regions in New Zealand, except for the Canterbury earthquake region by MBIE/NZGS Module 1. The development is for a seasonal worker accommodation with a 50-year design life as recommended by MBIE/NZGS Module 1. According to NZS 1170.0 Table 3.2, an accommodation facility has an importance level of 2 (IL2). It is therefore defined that a serviceability limit state (SLS) seismic event has a return period of 1 in 25 years, and an ultimate limit state event (ULS) seismic event has a return period of 1 in 500 years (Standards New Zealand, 2002). In an SLS event, a structure built to current New Zealand codes may incur minor damage but should be suitable for continued use without major structural repairs. In a ULS event, a building designed to current New Zealand codes may be severely damaged, requiring major repairs or complete replacement. The building must however remain safe until occupants can be evacuated (Standards New Zealand, 2002). A review of geotechnical data indicates that alluvial sediments at this site could be more than 100 m in depth. Therefore, the site is classified as class D - deep or soft soil (Standards New Zealand, 2002).

The derivation of the design horizontal PGA is shown as follows:

Design PGA, = , .

Where:

= Peak horizontal ground acceleration , = Unweighted peak ground acceleration coefficient corresponding to a 1,000-year return period

= Return period factor = Site response factor = Acceleration due to gravity

Our Ref: 26389 9

Therefore, for this site the: Design horizontal PGA for a 25-year return period event (SLS) = 0.09 g, Mw = 6.2 Design horizontal PGA for a 500-year return period event (ULS) = 0.35 g, Mw = 6.3

5.2.2 Analysis

The assessment of liquefaction and ground deformation was undertaken using CLiq 2.0 v 2.0.6.103. Soils may liquefy only when fully saturated. The assumption is made that this will occur below ground water (GW) level. A water table depth was recorded during CPT testing and varied between 1.5 to 3.2 m below existing ground level. The GW depth of 1.5 m was applied to all CPT tests when analysing for liquefaction. All CPT’s were evaluated to a depth no greater than 15 m as damage from liquefied soils below this depth is expected to be limited. For the CPT’s, the Boulanger & Idriss (2014) method for triggering was adopted, and the liquefaction potential was calculated by comparing cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) for a 100 kPa and Mw = 7.5 with the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) induced during both SLS and ULS seismic events. Fine content was calculated per Idriss & Boulanger (2008) with settlement analysis as per Zhang et al. Vertical settlements do not take into consideration loss of volume due to ejecta. Estimated lateral displacements are calculated by multiplying the lateral displacement index (LDI) with the parameters of the free face as per Zhang et al (2004). This method for calculating lateral displacement is recommended by ‘The development of design guidance for bridges in New Zealand for liquefaction and lateral spreading’ Murashev et al (2014). Lateral displacements calculated are global lateral displacements and have an accuracy of 50 - 200%. The potential lateral stretch at any point is the difference in the calculated displacements at the two nearest CPT locations. This stretch could occur as one or multiple surface cracks at any location between CPT locations. The results from this analysis are shown in Appendix A and are summarised in Table 4 below. Table 4: Test results for both SLS and ULS seismic events

Test Reference Max Depth Vertical

Settlement Lateral

Displacement LSN Foundation Technical Category

Serviceability limit state (SLS) seismic event (PGA = 0.09 g, Mw = 6.2) CPT 1 9.4 m 0 mm 5 mm 0 TC2 CPT 2 8.1 m 0 mm 0 mm 0 TC1 CPT 3 8.1 m 0 mm 0 mm 0 TC1 CPT 4 10.4 m 0 mm 0 mm 0 TC1 CPT 5 11.0 m 0 mm 0 mm 0 TC1 CPT 6 10.0 m 0 mm 0 mm 0 TC1 CPT 7 10.0 m 0 mm 0 mm 0 TC1 CPT 8 8.0 m 0 mm 0 mm 0 TC1 CPT 9 9.6 m 0 mm 0 mm 0 TC1

Our Ref: 26389 10

Ultimate limit state (ULS) seismic event (PGA = 0.35 g, Mw = 6.3) CPT 1 9.4 m 58 mm 1.87 m 9.9 Specialist CPT 2 8.1 m 62 mm 1.02 m 11.2 Specialist CPT 3 8.1 m 39 mm 0.55 m 6.4 Specialist CPT 4 10.4 m 50 mm 1.30 m 10.0 Specialist CPT 5 11.0 m 63 mm 2.07 m 14.6 Specialist CPT 6 10.0 m 68 mm 0.71 m 10.4 Specialist CPT 7 10.0 m 51 mm 0.62 m 8.5 Specialist CPT 8 8.0 m 39 mm 0.26 m 6.1 TC3 CPT 9 9.6 m 79 mm 1.21 m 14.0 Specialist

In a SLS event TC1 type solutions are available.

In a ULS event, the lateral stretch in the land across the dwelling is likely to be over 500 mm. There are no standard foundation solutions for stretches exceeding 500 mm (limit for TC3).

6. CONCLUSIONS There is likely to be little or no surface expression of liquefaction, minor sand boils, but moderate to severe expression of lateral spread of ground surface during the design earthquake, resulting in minor to severe structural damage which will require specialist engineering design to mitigate. We recommend using both of the following solutions: i. A lattice of deep driven timber piles spanning the length of the proposed development

fronting the Opaua River to reduce lateral displacement (specialist design required). ii. Ground improvement and a raft concrete slab under the proposed units as per the

MBIE Guidelines, or a specialist design alternative, the depth of which is dependent on the proposed lateral spread that will occur during the design earthquake after the lattice of deep driven timber pile ground improvements have been designed.

Recommendations and opinions in this report are based on data from our site investigation. The nature and continuity of subsoil conditions away from the test locations are inferred and it must be appreciated that actual conditions could vary considerably from the assumed model.

It is essential Davidson Group Ltd are contacted if there is any variation in subsoil conditions from

those described in this report as it may affect the design parameters used.

7. DISCLAIMER

This report has been prepared solely for the benefit of you as our client and the relevant Local Authority with respect to the particular brief given to us, and data or opinions contained in it may not be used in other contexts or for any other purpose without our prior review and agreement.

This disclaimer shall apply notwithstanding that the report may be made available to any other

person in connection with any application for permission or approval, or pursuant to any requirement of law.

This report is based on conditions presently found on site and is consistent with standards currently being applied.

Our Ref: 26389 11

8. REFERENCES Brown, L. J. (1981). ‘Water Well Data Northern Marlborough’. New Geological Survey. GNS Science. (26 July 2017). ‘New Zealand Active Faults Database’. Retrieved from GNS

Science: https://data.gns.cri.nz/af/. Insitute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences. (2000). ‘Geology of the wellington area, scale

1:250,000’. MBIE December 2012, ‘Part A: Technical Guidance - Version 3’. MBIE April 2015, ‘Part C: TC 3 Technical Guidance - Version 3a’.

Murashev, A., Kirkcaldie, D., Keepa, C., Cubrinovski, M., & Orense, R. (2014). ‘The development of design guidance for bridges in New Zealand for liquefaction and lateral spreading effects (No. 553)’.

New Zealand Geotechnical Society. (2016). ‘Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering Practice -

Module1: Overview of the guidelines’. Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment. Opus International Consultants Limited. (2012). ‘Geotechnical Assessment Report - Horton Street,

Blenheim’. AS/NZS 1170.2: ‘Structural Design Actions Part 0 - General Principals’. NZS 1170.5:2004 ‘Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake actions - New Zealand’.

Zhang, G, Robertson, P K, & Brachman, R W I (2004). Estimating liquefaction-induced lateral displacements using the standard penetration test or cone penetration test. ‘Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering’, 130(8), 861-871.

DAVIDSON GROUP LTD

A Coughlan WLM: AC

Our Ref: 26389 12

APPENDIX A1 Site Investigation - CPT logs - Scala Penetrometer Test Results - Test Pit Logs A2 CLiq SLS Analysis Results - SLS Results - ULS Results A3 Drawing Numbers 26413 sheets - C1 Location and Site Plan - C2 Typical Cross Section

Gen

erat

ed w

ith C

ore-

GS

by G

eroc

Created: 5/07/2017 8:23:27 AM

TipResistance

(MPa)

FrictionRatio(%)

SleeveFriction

(kPa)

PorePressure

(kPa)

Client: Davidson GroupProject: 36a Budge Street

CPT & DPSH TEST LOG

Dep

th (m

)

10 20 30 40 100

200

300

400 0 200

400

600

800 2 4 6 8

Dynamic Probe Super Heavy (DPSH-B)

4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

(Blows / 200mm)

Wat

er

Operator:Piezocone (Rig):

Hole Depth: 9.4mMKJ329 (P001249)Nick McConachieSite Location:

Coordinates:

36a Budge Street, Blenheim

-41.4984,173.96043 (WGS84)Test Date: 26/06/2017

EOH Reason: TargetSupervisor: Leigh McGlynn

36B1Test Label:

17283Job Number:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

EOH: 9.4m

3940

3533

2723

3332

GWL1.51m

Page 1 of 19.4mHole Depth:

RemarksCPTu testing carried out to ASTM Standard D5778-1210cm-sq piezocone used for each CPTu testCPTu refusal at 50MPa on the tip, 500kPa on the friction sleeve or at 2500kPa pore pressureTorque readings taken before the addition of each new DPSH rodDPSH-B refusal at two consecutive increments of 40 blows or over

Average Energy Transfer Ratio for the DPSH-B hammer on each rig:

P 001245: 95%P 001249: 90%

Calibration performed on 4th November 2014

0800 TESTER (837837) www.landtest.co.nz300 Cashel St, Christchurch Central, Christchurch 8011, New Zealand

Gen

erat

ed w

ith C

ore-

GS

by G

eroc

Created: 5/07/2017 8:38:10 AM

TipResistance

(MPa)

FrictionRatio(%)

SleeveFriction

(kPa)

PorePressure

(kPa)

Dep

th (m

)


Hole Depth: 8.08m

10 20 30 40 100

200

300

400 0 200

400

600

800 2 4 6 8

MKJ329 (P001249)Nick McConachieSite Location:

Coordinates:


-41.50520,173.96068 (WGS84)Test Date: 26/06/2017

Wat

er

EOH Reason: Tip RefusalSupervisor: Leigh McGlynn


CPT TEST LOG36B2Test Label:

17283Job Number:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 EOH: 8.08mEOH: 8.08mH

GWL2.63m


RemarksCPTu testing carried out to ASTM Standard D5778-1210cm-sq Pagani piezocone used for each CPTu testCPTu refusal at 50MPa on the tip, 500kPa on the friction sleeve or at 2500kPa pore pressure


P 001245: 95%P 001249: 90%



Gen

erat

ed w

ith C

ore-

GS

by G

eroc

Created: 5/07/2017 8:40:15 AM

TipResistance

(MPa)

FrictionRatio(%)

SleeveFriction

(kPa)

PorePressure

(kPa)

Dep

th (m

)


Hole Depth: 8.1m

10 20 30 40 100

200

300

400 0 200

400

600

800 2 4 6 8


Coordinates:


-41.50495, 173.96124 (WGS84)Test Date: 28/06/2017

Wat

er




17283Job Number:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 EOH: 8.1mEOH: 8.1m

GWL2.10m




P 001245: 95%P 001249: 90%



Gen

erat

ed w

ith C

ore-

GS

by G

eroc

Created: 5/07/2017 8:42:20 AM

TipResistance

(MPa)

FrictionRatio(%)

SleeveFriction

(kPa)

PorePressure

(kPa)


CPT & DPSH TEST LOG

Dep

th (m

)

10 20 30 40 100

200

300

400 0 200

400

600

800 2 4 6 8


4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

(Blows / 200mm)

Wat

er



Coordinates:


-41.50486, 173.96169 (WGS84)Test Date: 28/06/2017


36B4Test Label:

17283Job Number:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2222

1514

911

1511

13

GWL2.21m




P 001245: 95%P 001249: 90%



Gen

erat

ed w

ith C

ore-

GS

by G

eroc

Created: 5/07/2017 8:42:21 AM

TipResistance

(MPa)

FrictionRatio(%)

SleeveFriction

(kPa)

PorePressure

(kPa)


CPT & DPSH TEST LOG

Dep

th (m

)

10 20 30 40 100

200

300

400 0 200

400

600

800 2 4 6 8


4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

(Blows / 200mm)

Wat

er



Coordinates:


-41.50486, 173.96169 (WGS84)Test Date: 28/06/2017


36B4Test Label:

17283Job Number:

EOH: 10.4m14

19




P 001245: 95%P 001249: 90%



Gen

erat

ed w

ith C

ore-

GS

by G

eroc

Created: 5/07/2017 8:45:16 AM

TipResistance

(MPa)

FrictionRatio(%)

SleeveFriction

(kPa)

PorePressure

(kPa)


CPT & DPSH TEST LOG

Dep

th (m

)

10 20 30 40 100

200

300

400 0 200

400

600

800 2 4 6 8


4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

(Blows / 200mm)

Wat

er


Hole Depth: 11mMKJ329 (P001249)Nick McConachieSite Location:

Coordinates:


-41.50457, 173.96239 (WGS84)Test Date: 28/06/2017


36B5Test Label:

17283Job Number:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

3037

2021

GWL2.32m

Page 1 of 211mHole Depth:



P 001245: 95%P 001249: 90%



Gen

erat

ed w

ith C

ore-

GS

by G

eroc

Created: 5/07/2017 8:45:17 AM

TipResistance

(MPa)

FrictionRatio(%)

SleeveFriction

(kPa)

PorePressure

(kPa)


CPT & DPSH TEST LOG

Dep

th (m

)

10 20 30 40 100

200

300

400 0 200

400

600

800 2 4 6 8


4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

(Blows / 200mm)

Wat

er


Hole Depth: 11mMKJ329 (P001249)Nick McConachieSite Location:

Coordinates:


-41.50457, 173.96239 (WGS84)Test Date: 28/06/2017


36B5Test Label:

17283Job Number:

11EOH: 11m

2114

2218

24




P 001245: 95%P 001249: 90%



Gen

erat

ed w

ith C

ore-

GS

by G

eroc

Created: 5/07/2017 8:48:45 AM

TipResistance

(MPa)

FrictionRatio(%)

SleeveFriction

(kPa)

PorePressure

(kPa)

Dep

th (m

)


Hole Depth: 10m

10 20 30 40 100

200

300

400 0 200

400

600

800 2 4 6 8


Coordinates:


-41.50436, 173.96228 (WGS84)Test Date: 29/06/2017

Wat

er




17283Job Number:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

EOH: 10mEOH: 10mO

GWL2.53m




P 001245: 95%P 001249: 90%



Gen

erat

ed w

ith C

ore-

GS

by G

eroc

Created: 5/07/2017 8:59:34 AM

TipResistance

(MPa)

FrictionRatio(%)

SleeveFriction

(kPa)

PorePressure

(kPa)

Dep

th (m

)


Hole Depth: 10m

10 20 30 40 100

200

300

400 0 200

400

600

800 2 4 6 8


Coordinates:


-41.50447, 173.96198 (WGS84)Test Date: 29/06/2017

Wat

er




17283Job Number:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

EOH: 10mEOH: 10mO

GWL2.05m




P 001245: 95%P 001249: 90%



Gen

erat

ed w

ith C

ore-

GS

by G

eroc

Created: 5/07/2017 9:01:29 AM

TipResistance

(MPa)

FrictionRatio(%)

SleeveFriction

(kPa)

PorePressure

(kPa)

Dep

th (m

)


Hole Depth: 8.01m

10 20 30 40 100

200

300

400 0 200

400

600

800 2 4 6 8


Coordinates:


-41.50419, 173.96127 (WGS84)Test Date: 29/06/2017

Wat

er




17283Job Number:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8EOH: 8.01mEOH: 8.01mH

GWL1.55m




P 001245: 95%P 001249: 90%



Gen

erat

ed w

ith C

ore-

GS

by G

eroc

Created: 5/07/2017 9:02:37 AM

TipResistance

(MPa)

FrictionRatio(%)

SleeveFriction

(kPa)

PorePressure

(kPa)


CPT TEST LOGD

epth

(m)


EOH Reason:Hole Depth:

Tip Refusal9.57m

10 20 30 40 100

200

300

400 2 4 6 8

Nick McConachieSite Location:

Coordinates:


-41.50459, 173.96156 (WGS84)Test Date: 29/06/2017

0 200

400

600

800

Supervisor: Leigh McGlynn

MKJ329 (P001249)

36B9Test Label:

17283Job Number:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

EOH: 9.57m




P 001245: 95%P 001249: 90%



Job NoSheet NoNameDate

P 1 P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 61 11 1 1

1 1 1 1 11 1 21 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 1 21 1 1 1 21 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1

1 11 1 1 1 1 1

11 1 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 12 2 2 1 22 1 1 1 1 22 2 1 1 2 22 1 1 2 1 21 1 1 2 1 22 2 1 1 1 22 1 1 1 2 12 1 1 2 1 11 1 1 2 1 21 2 1 2 2 22 1 1 2 2 11 2 1 2 3 11 2 1 1 21 2 1 1 2 11 2 1 2 2 12 2 1 2 2 22 2 1 2 1 22 1 2 3 2 32 2 1 2 2 22 1 1 2 2 32 2 1 2 2 22 1 2 3 2 22 2 2 2 3 22 2 2 3 2 22 2 11 3 3 22 1 2 3 3 21 1 1 3 3 22 1 2 2 4 22 2 1 3 3 11 1 1 4 4 11 3 2 3 22 2 2 3 22 2 1 3 32 3 2 3 32 2 3 3 22 2 3 3 32 2 3 4 33 3 4 34 3 5 33 3 5 43 4 5 3

PENETRATION IN BLOWS PER 50mm

0 0 0

500

1000

0

1500

0

500 500

1000 1000 1000

500

15001500 1500

3000

2000

2500 2500

2000

3000

SLAP (MARLBOROUGH) 2638938a BUDGE STREET, BLENHEIM 1 0F 2LAND DEVELOPMENT AC & GK

12-09-2017scala penetrometer results

15001500

1000 1000

500 500

0

3000 3000 30003000

2000 2000 20002000

2500 2500 25002500

Job NoSheet NoNameDate

P 7 P 8 P 9 P 10 P P

11 1 1

11 1 11 11 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 12 1 1 11 1 11 1 1

1 1 11 11 1 1 11 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 2 1 12 1 2 12 1 22 1 2 11 2 2 12 2 2 12 1 2 21 1 2 22 1 1 12 1 1 11 1 1 11 2 1 12 1 2 21 2 1 22 1 1 22 2 2 21 2 2 23 3 2 12 1 2 23 2 2 22 2 2 22 1 2 33 2 2 32 2 2 33 2 2 23 2 2 23 1 2 33 2 1 32 2 2 41 3 2 31 2 2 42 2 2 42 3 2 42 2 43 2 23 2 33 3 33 4 34 3 34 4 4

4 54

PENETRATION IN BLOWS PER 50mm

0 0 0

500

1000

0

1500

0

500 500

1000 1000 1000

500

15001500 1500

3000

2000

2500 2500

2000

3000

SLAP (MARLBOROUGH) 2638938a BUDGE STREET, BLENHEIM 2 0F 2LAND DEVELOPMENT AC & GK

12-09-2017scala penetrometer results

15001500

1000 1000

500 500

0

3000 3000 30003000

2000 2000 20002000

2500 2500 25002500

GeoLogismikiGeotechnical EngineersMerarhias 56http://www.geologismiki.gr

Overall Liquefaction Potential Index report

Project title : 26389 SLAPLocation : 26 BUDGE STREET, BLENHEIM

CPTU name

CPTU

001

CPTU

002

CPTU

003

CPTU

004

CPTU

005

CPTU

006

CPTU

007

CPTU

008

CPTU

009

LPI v

alue

17.00

16.00

15.00

14.00

13.00

12.00

11.00

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LPI color schemeVery high riskHigh riskLow risk

Basic statisticsTotal CPT number: 9100.00% low risk0.00% high risk0.00% very high risk

CLiq v.2.0.6.103 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 1Project file: S:\FILES\_26000\26389 SLAP\4 Design\26389 CLiq.clq

SER C B L T L M T ST TE (SLS) ama 9g M 6 2


Overall Liquefaction Severity Number report


CPTU name

CPTU

001

CPTU

002

CPTU

003

CPTU

004

CPTU

005

CPTU

006

CPTU

007

CPTU

008

CPTU

009

LSN

valu

e

12.0011.5011.0010.5010.009.509.008.508.007.507.006.506.005.505.004.504.003.503.002.502.001.501.000.500.00

0.005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Basic statisticsTotal CPT number: 9100.00% little liquefaction0.00% minnor liquefaction0.00% moderate liquefaction

LSN color schemeSevere damageMajor expression of liquefactionModerate to severe exp. of liquefactionModerate expression of liquefactionMinor expression of liquefactionLittle to no expression of liquefaction

0.00% moderate to major liquefaction0.00% major liquefaction0.00% severe liquefaction




Overall vertical settlements report


CPTU name

CPTU

001

CPTU

002

CPTU

003

CPTU

004

CPTU

005

CPTU

006

CPTU

007

CPTU

008

CPTU

009

Vert

ical

set

tlem

ent (

cm)

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.003

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




Overall lateral displacements report


CPTU name

CPTU

001

CPTU

002

CPTU

003

CPTU

004

CPTU

005

CPTU

006

CPTU

007

CPTU

008

CPTU

009

Late

ral d

ispl

acem

ent (

cm)

0.600.580.560.540.520.500.480.460.440.420.400.380.360.340.320.300.280.260.240.220.200.180.160.140.120.100.080.060.040.020.00

0.535

0.005

0.091 0.088

0.005 0

0.118

0.070.089




Overall Probability for Liquefaction report


CPTU name

CPTU

001

CPTU

002

CPTU

003

CPTU

004

CPTU

005

CPTU

006

CPTU

007

CPTU

008

CPTU

009

Ove

rall

Prob

abili

ty (%

)

4.804.604.404.204.003.803.603.403.203.002.802.602.402.202.001.801.601.401.201.000.800.600.400.200.00

4.344 4.344 4.344 4.344 4.344 4.344 4.344 4.344 4.344Probability color scheme

Very High ProbabilityHigh ProbabilityLow Probability

Basic statisticsTotal CPT number: 9100.00% low probability0.00% high probability0.00% very high probability




Overall Liquefaction Potential Index report


CPTU name

CPTU

001

CPTU

002

CPTU

003

CPTU

004

CPTU

005

CPTU

006

CPTU

007

CPTU

008

CPTU

009

LPI v

alue

17.00

16.00

15.00

14.00

13.00

12.00

11.00

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

8.8649.351

5.801

7.275

9.148 9.021

6.961

5.575

11.401

LPI color schemeVery high riskHigh riskLow risk

Basic statisticsTotal CPT number: 90.00% low risk100.00% high risk0.00% very high risk


ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE (ULS) amax = 0.35g, Mw = 6.3


Overall Liquefaction Severity Number report


CPTU name

CPTU

001

CPTU

002

CPTU

003

CPTU

004

CPTU

005

CPTU

006

CPTU

007

CPTU

008

CPTU

009

LSN

valu

e

20.00

19.00

18.00

17.00

16.00

15.00

14.00

13.00

12.00

11.00

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

9.906

11.224

6.413

9.956

14.625

10.448

8.477

6.12

13.999 Basic statisticsTotal CPT number: 955.56% little liquefaction44.44% minnor liquefaction0.00% moderate liquefaction

LSN color schemeSevere damageMajor expression of liquefactionModerate to severe exp. of liquefactionModerate expression of liquefactionMinor expression of liquefactionLittle to no expression of liquefaction

0.00% moderate to major liquefaction0.00% major liquefaction0.00% severe liquefaction


LT M TE L M T ST TE ( LS) ama 35g M 6 3


Overall vertical settlements report


CPTU name

CPTU

001

CPTU

002

CPTU

003

CPTU

004

CPTU

005

CPTU

006

CPTU

007

CPTU

008

CPTU

009

Vert

ical

set

tlem

ent (

cm)

8.50

8.00

7.50

7.00

6.50

6.00

5.50

5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

5.8136.181

3.919

4.999

6.335

6.812

5.053

3.861

7.857



TC2

TC1


Overall lateral displacements report


CPTU name

CPTU

001

CPTU

002

CPTU

003

CPTU

004

CPTU

005

CPTU

006

CPTU

007

CPTU

008

CPTU

009

Late

ral d

ispl

acem

ent (

cm)

230.00

220.00210.00

200.00190.00

180.00170.00

160.00150.00

140.00130.00

120.00110.00

100.0090.00

80.0070.00

60.0050.00

40.0030.00

20.0010.00

0.00

186.8

102.239

55.278

129.883

207.47

71.30962.124

25.599

121.188



TC2

TC3

SPECIALIST


Overall Probability for Liquefaction report


CPTU name

CPTU

001

CPTU

002

CPTU

003

CPTU

004

CPTU

005

CPTU

006

CPTU

007

CPTU

008

CPTU

009

Ove

rall

Prob

abili

ty (%

)

40.00

38.00

36.00

34.00

32.00

30.00

28.00

26.00

24.00

22.00

20.00

18.00

16.00

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00

23.872

25.857

13.856

18.151

25.016 24.5

17.158

13.278

35.285

Probability color schemeVery High ProbabilityHigh ProbabilityLow Probability

Basic statisticsTotal CPT number: 90.00% low probability100.00% high probability0.00% very high probability



STAT

E H

IGH

WAY

1

LOT 2DP 3327

LOT 1DP 11413LOT 1

DP 328

Pt LOT14 DP 514

LOT1DP 1802

Pt LOT 56DEEDS 8

LOT 2DP 2972

LOT 1DP 2972

LOT 1DP 6247

LOT 2DP 6247

PTDP 349

LOT 1DP 6439

LOT 1DP 8769

PT LOT 1DP 756

LANE

STR

EET

OPAOA RIVER

PT LODPDD

T 17577 66

PDPPPD

PDT L

755757T L

7OT

6OT 11

MAI

N N

OR

TH L

INE

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

SSSS

SS

WW W

SS

WW

W

SWSW

SW

MH - 1180 DEEP, 150PIPE TOWARDS HOUSE

W

NOTES:

1. THIS DRAWING IS PREPARED FROM INFORMATIONPROVIDED BY AYSON SURVEY +

2. HEIGHT DATUM NELSON VERTICAL 1955

0mm 100mmAPCDES

DATE ORIGINAL SIZE

DRN CK

SHEETDRAWING No.

REF

ISSUE

THIS DRAWING IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF DAVIDSON GROUP LTD AND MAY ONLY BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE IT WAS PREPARED

SLAP (MARLBOROUGH) LTD.36A BUDGE STREET, BLENHEIMGEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONsite plan

06/17 A3 26389 C1 BGAK

KEY:

LATERAL SPREAD < 500 mm (TC3)(STANDARD FOUNDATION SOLUTIONS AVAILABLE)

LATERAL SPREAD > 500 mm(STANDARD FOUNDATION SOLUTIONS NOT AVAILABLE,SPECIALIST DESIGN NEEDED)

LATERAL SPREAD VECTOR

CONE PENETRATION TEST LOCATION

SCALA PENETROMETER TEST LOCATION

OPAOA RIVER

CPT

4

CPT

9

CPT

8

BOU

ND

ARY

BOU

ND

ARY

0.26 m 1.21 m 1.30 m

NOTES:

1. THIS DRAWING IS PREPARED FROM INFORMATIONPROVIDED BY AYSON SURVEY +

2. HEIGHT DATUM NELSON VERTICAL 1955

0mm 100mmAPCDES

DATE ORIGINAL SIZE

DRN CK

SHEETDRAWING No.

REF

ISSUE

THIS DRAWING IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF DAVIDSON GROUP LTD AND MAY ONLY BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE IT WAS PREPARED

SLAP (MARLBOROUGH) LTD.36A BUDGE STREET, BLENHEIMGEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONlong section

06/17 A3 26389 C2 BAPC

SANDS, SILTY SANDS AND SANDYSILTS (DETERMINED AS LIQUEFIABLE)

GROUND WATER TABLEEXISTING GROUND PROFILE(RL 4.6 m APPROX.)

GRAVELS

'TC3' TYPE FOUNDATIONSSPECIALIST FOUNDATIONASSESSMENT REQUIRED

From: John Reelick [mailto:[email protected]]Sent:Wednesday, 6 December 2017 9:24 a.m.To: Ed Chapman Cohen <[email protected]>Cc:M a weston ([email protected]) <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Site plan

Hi Ed

Photos of a job in CHCH that is very similar to the propose works to stop lateral movementWe have done this on numerous Transit jobs also

The photos show three rows of piles vibrated 7.0m deep at 1.2m centres in a triangle pattern

We use an vibrating head that is quite and does not affect the neighbouring propoteriesWe use this technique a lot especially for heritage buildings that are very sensitiveWe have our own vibration monitoring equipment to confirm any doubts

We would propose to use three rows of piles approx. 10.0m long at 1.2m centresThese would be installed to below existing ground levelsSo once the topsoil is replaced the piles will not be visible

The job would take approx. 6 days to install

Regards

John Reelick

November 2017 SEASONAL LABOUR ACCOMODATION PROVIDERS (MARLBOROUGH) LIMITED

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN

RSE WORKER MANAGED RESIDENTIAL FACILITY

1. Background 1.1 The site is located at 36A Budge St, Blenheim, being; Pt Lot 1 DP 756. 1.2 The facility is a managed residential complex consisting of 10 standalone

residences and supporting pastoral care facilities for accommodating casual and/or long term workers who are part of the recognised seasonal employer (RSE) scheme.

1.3 The facility is hereinafter referred to as ‘the facility’. 1.4 RSE workers accommodated at the facility are hereinafter referred to as ‘residents’. 1.5 The land and buildings are owned by Seasonal Labour Accommodation Providers

(Marlborough) Limited hereinafter referred to as ‘the owner / s’. 1.6 The facility is to be managed by Seasonal Solutions Co-Operative Ltd (or other) or

their representative who will operate an office and administration hub on the site and are hereinafter referred to as ‘the manager / s’.

2. Scope 2.1 The purpose of this management plan is to ensure the facility is managed and

resided in a manner that achieves and maintains a high standard of RSE accommodation and pastoral care whist ensuring there is no more than minor effects beyond the property boundaries.

2.2 This management plan describes the responsibilities of the owners and managers

in relation to the facility. 2.3 This management plan is a working document and is subject to review and change

by the owner and manager at least annually or sooner as required by matters arising.

2

3. General 3.1 The conditions of Resource Consent UXXXXX, shall be complied with in all

respects at all times. 3.2 The facility will be maintained in a clean / tidy and safe condition at all times. 3.3 The facility shall be managed and operated in a way that does not conflict,

interfere, or disturb residential and permitted rural activity on adjacent property. 3.4 The facility shall be constructed, managed and operated in a way that recognises

and caters for the different nationalities and cultural requirements of the RSE workers / residents.

4. Property Ownership Responsibilities 4.1 The general responsibilities of the property owner shall be to ensure the premises

are in a safe, sound and well maintained condition for the purpose it has been designed for.

4.2 Specifically the owner shall be responsible for the following:- 4.2.1 Ensuring maintenance of the buildings is to a satisfactory standard in

accordance with the Building Act 2004. 4.2.2 Ensuring maintenance of the building, landscaped areas, and car parks

around the building is undertaken to a standard in keeping with the neighbouring properties.

4.2.3 Ensuring provision of a pleasant environment for quiet enjoyment by

residents, including onsite recreational facilities. 4.2.4 Ensuring compliance with all relevant building, environmental health, and

health and safety standards that apply to the premises. Including provision of smoke alarms, escape plans, and provision of fire extinguishers and fire blankets where required.

4.2.5 Ensuring that outdoor areas are appropriately lit and visible. 4.2.6 Ensuring services including rubbish collection are provided and maintained

to an adequate standard. 4.2.7 Ensuring that connections for telecommunications and internet access are

available for residents. 4.2.8 Provision of appropriately sized and located kitchen and laundry facilities

on the premises. 4.2.8 Provision of a secure location / s for storing residents valuables.

3

5. Manager Responsibility 5.1 The managers shall oversee day to day management of the facility, including the

land and grounds, the provision ancillary services, and the residents. 5.2 The managers shall be responsible for the following:- 5.2.1 Ensuring maintenance of the facility, including the grounds, is physically

undertaken to a standard consistent with neighbouring properties. 5.2.2 Being the point of contact for maintenance issues and notifying the owner

of maintenance requirements. 5.2.3 Being the point of contact for any dispute resolution between residents. 5.2.4 Being the point of contact for any complaints arising from persons outside

the facility. 5.2.5 General overview and on-site management including setting the standard

for tidiness and cleanliness of the premises. 5.2.6 Enforcing reasonable behavioural standards, including standards of noise. 5.2.7 Vetting potential residents for suitability for ongoing occupancy. 5.2.8 Eviction of residents who are a nuisance to other tenants or neighbouring

property owners or occupiers. 5.2.9 Ensuring that all drivers who regularly operate motor vehicles to and from

the facility are aware that access to the site is via a busy street and vigilance is required.

5.2.10 Ensuring that all vehicle pick-ups and set downs of residents, management

or any other person associated with the facility occurs on site to avoid vehicle parking and turning on Budge Street.

5.2.11 Ensuring an appropriate system of site security that restricts / prevents

outside visitors unless they have a requirement to visit as agreed by the managers.

4

Induction 5.3 In addition the managers shall be responsible for ensuring that all residents and

management staff are thoroughly briefed and inducted on arrival at the facility. Induction training shall specifically include:

5.3.1 Health and safety procedures including emergency and disaster procedures. 5.3.2 Ensuring residents are aware of property boundaries. 5.3.3 Ensuring that residents are briefed on safe pedestrian routes to town and

supermarkets, including any crossing of Grove Road / State Highway 1. 5.3.4 Ensuring that residents are aware of neighbours rights with regard to privacy

and amenity. 5.3.6 Ensuring that residents have clear guidelines as to what is acceptable

behaviour and unacceptable behaviour, both within the facility and as members of the wider community.

5.3.7 Ensuring that residents have a clear understanding that unacceptable

behaviour has consequences and will not be tolerated. 5.3.8 Ensuring that residents have a clear understanding of the facility rules

relating to alcohol and drug use. 5.3.9 Ensuring that residents have a clear understanding of the facility rules

relating to noise. 5.3.10 Ensuring that residents understand the security / visitor rules and the

reasons for them.

5.3.11 Ensuring that residents understand that they have a responsibility for keeping their rooms, and the grounds around them in a clean and tidy condition, and for maintaining acceptable standards of behaviour at all times.

5.3.12 Ensuring that residents understand that they have a responsibility to notify

the managers of any repairs or maintenance required to the buildings or grounds or any ancillary services related to the facility.

5.3.13 Ensuring that residents understand and individually sign the Code of

Conduct, refer to Appendix A.

5

Appendix A:

DRAFT RSE Worker Code of Conduct

All staff are required to abide by rules and regulations set by management. Failure to do so will result in disciplinary action in accordance with the misconduct. We reserve the right to dismiss any employee guilty of serious misconduct or who fails to adhere to our rules and procedures. Examples of Misconduct: Lateness to work, Not following instructions. Racism. Sexism. Harassment of any other person. Not following rules and regulations set in the accommodation rules, health and safety, food safety. Failure to report accidents, near misses, incidences that can endanger others and damage to

property. Examples of Serious Misconduct: Abuse or assault of anyone. Consumption of alcohol within the RSE Accommodation facility or grounds. Consumption of drugs. Showing up to work under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Intentional damage to property and machinery, including other staff and visitor property. Theft of any kind. Breaking of any laws.

Conduct at Work: 1. Pay attention when you are being given instructions. 2. Take care of any equipment that you are issued with. Remember, if you lose or damage equipment

that is given to you, you will have to pay for replacement equipment. 3. Be respectful towards your superiors and fellow workers. 4. Take your litter home. Do not leave it lying around the vineyards. We will expect the rules and regulations imposed by Seasonal Solutions Cooperative Limited (SSCL) or other, to be followed, and they are as follows: Conduct within Workers Accommodation 1. Respect other people’s privacy and property. Have consideration for your fellow guests. 2. Only enter other guest’s rooms if you are invited. 3. Leave common areas (grass area, laundry etc.) as you found them. Always tidy / clean up when

you have finished cooking or eating. 4. Put rubbish in the bins provided. 5. Keep your rooms clean and tidy - they will be inspected periodically. 6. Do not cover or tamper with the smoke alarms installed in the rooms. 7. Smoking is only permitted outside - do not smoke inside. 8. Noise must be kept at a respectable level for other tenants. 9. Drunken, abusive or noisy behaviour will not be tolerated.

6

10. There is ZERO TOLERANCE shown to illegal drugs being in the facility. 11. You are welcome to have visitors, but they must have respect for the property and abide by the

same rules. 12. Lighting of fires within the accommodation is prohibited. In addition, if SSCL (or other) requires anyone who seriously breaches their accommodation rules to vacate the premises, SSCL (or other) reserves the right to terminate their employment and to seek their removal back to their country of origin if appropriate. Many nationalities are seasonal workers in the Marlborough region, and they bring their own cultural traits and behaviours with them. In the interest of making seasonal workers accepted by our host community, we highlight the following as a list of behaviours which will be unacceptable and will be deemed to have brought disrepute to SSCL (or other) and to the employee’s country of residence: Spitting in public places. Urinating in public places. Discarding rubbish in public places. Breaking the smoking bans in public places. Drinking alcohol or being drunk and disorderly in public places. Hanging around shopping centres or the township in large groups and creating a commotion. Going into the pub or hotel in large groups and being disorderly. Arguing, shouting and fighting in public. Sexist behaviour such as wolf-whistling at women. Laughing or mocking people who are disabled or in unfortunate circumstances. Failure to offer assistance to anyone who is in need. Any behaviour which will bring disrepute to SSCL (or other) and your home country.

Disciplinary Procedures: The following procedures will be followed in the event of an allegation of serious misconduct or misconduct. Serious Misconduct The company may suspend you on pay to carry out a full and independent investigation. Your will be given all the facts and allegations and an opportunity to respond to each or any

instance of serious misconduct. You will be given reasonable time to decide whether you need any representation or support. Upon hearing your responses, we shall take whatever time is necessary to consider your

responses, and if necessary, interview others. Any new issues will be shared with you and a chance given to respond after giving you the change

to first obtain representation. After weighing up all the facts, a decision will be made and communicated to you.

INTEGRATED TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

36A Budge Street Resident Scheme Employment Workers Accommodation

Prepared By: Antoni Facey, Traffic Engineer and Director [email protected]

www.avanzar.co.nz

For SLAP (Marlborough) Ltd 1 October 2017

Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Site location ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Traffic environment ........................................................................................................................... 2

Proposed development ..................................................................................................................... 3

Traffic Generation ............................................................................................................................. 3

Traffic Effects .................................................................................................................................... 4

Parking on site ................................................................................................................................... 5

Pedestrians and cyclists ..................................................................................................................... 5

Road safety ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 7

ITA 36A Budge St Resident Seasonal Employment Scheme Workers Accommodation - 1/10/2017 1

Integrated Transport Assessment

36A Budge Street Resident Seasonal Employment Scheme Workers Accommodation

Introduction This report addresses the issues related to the transport effects of a proposed accommodation facility for Resident Seasonal Employment (RSE) scheme workers at 36A Budge Street, Blenheim.

The proposal is to develop a comprehensive site that will accommodate the RSE workers and includes passive and active recreational areas for the workers to use during their spare time. All of the basic needs of the workers will be taken care of on site.

Up to 240 workers will be accommodated on site at any time.

Site location The site location is highlighted in yellow in Figure 1 below. It is currently an undeveloped urban site within a well developed urban area. The site is on the fringe of the Blenheim Central Business District. The main trunk railway is directly adjacent to the site and light industrial properties separate the railway and SH 1. The Opaoa River is on the south eastern border of the site.

Directly opposite the site on Budge Street is a large backpackers operation.

The Budge Street railway crossing limit line is some 18 metres from the closest edge of the existing vehicle crossing for 36A Budge Street. The railway crossing is controlled by barrier arms.


Figure 1: Site location with the site highlighted in yellow

Traffic environment Budge Street is a collector road in the current Wairau/Awatere Resource Management Plan. Marlborough District Council advise the traffic count for Budge Street is 5,000 vpd.

The speed limit on Budge Street is 50 km/hr.

Budge Street is a typical urban road but with variable road reserve width. At the applicant site, the reserve width is 18 metres. There is a road widening designation on 38 Budge Street to the east of the site which will take the road reserve width to 20 metres. However, there is no designation on 27 Budge Street so the road reserve width in this section will remain at 18 metres. This has no practical effect.

The carriageway is approximately 12 metres wide between kerbs with 6 metre traffic lanes. This is consistent along the length of Budge Street relevant to the application.

Budge Street is part of the Marlborough public transport network. However, the timing of the bus service is unlikely to meet the needs of transport to work sites for the RSE workers.

The limit line for the railway crossing is approximately 18 metres from the nearest edge of the vehicle crossing. This is sufficient to allow for vehicles to turn left from the site and queue behind the barriers if the barrier arms are down to allow a train to pass.

Budge Street is flat and although the railway is raised above the road level, there is clear visibility across the railway.


The land uses along Budge Street are mostly residential. But there is a backpackers accommodation opposite the proposed site.

Proposed development The development proposes to completely redevelop the site. All buildings will be removed other than the house on the entrance to the site. The existing house is being retained for use by an onsite manager who will be available at all times when the proposed facility is occupied.

The proposed facility will comprise of 10 single level, purpose designed and self-contained buildings to accommodate a total of up to 240 RSE workers (24 workers per unit).

The proposed layout includes:

• Extensive and professional landscaping and native planting, particularly along the boundaries and adjacent to the Opaoa River.

• Indoor and outdoor areas for active and passive recreation. • Areas for vegetable garden beds and a small orchard. • 34 onsite vehicle parking spaces.

Workers will be transported to their rural worksites in vehicles that have an occupancy of 10 people per vehicle. These vehicles will be parked on site overnight and driven by a suitably licensed team leader. The vehicles will be available for the temporary workers to be taken to events off site during off peak, non-work periods.

The Applicant proposes to use the existing vehicle access to the site. Due to the existing house being retained, the access width will be restricted to about 4 metres width at the narrowest point. Widening to 6 m will be provided at the entrance to provide a two lane section where an incoming vehicle can stop on the entrance to allow a vehicle to exit the site if necessary.

Being close to town, it is expected that the temporary workers will often walk into town.

It is assumed that there will be 6 off site staff to assist the managers with cooking, cleaning and general maintenance.

Traffic Generation It is difficult to assess the traffic generated by the site since there are no known local or international studies of these activities. A first principles approach is therefore required.

There are up to 240 RSE workers on site at any time plus and onsite manager. There will also be a requirement for other services to be provided on a daily basis. These include cooks and cleaners, refuse trucks, fresh food delivery vehicles and dry goods supplies.


During the working week, the workers will be taken to their work site each day by vehicle and return in the evening. One of the workers (a suitably licensed team leader) will drive the vehicle which will stay at the work site for the day then return in the evening. It is assumed that a minimum average of 10 temporary workers will be in each vehicle. Hence, there will be a need for 24 vehicles to park on site overnight resulting in 24 movements leaving the site in the morning and 24 movements returning in the evening on a typical week day.

It is unlikely that RSE workers would own their own vehicles and would rely on those provided by their employer for transport.

The manager lives on site so is assumed to require only perhaps 4 vehicle movements per day. This could be to take children to school and pick them up again and associated domestic shopping at the same time for example.

It is assumed that there will be 6 off site staff to assist the managers with cooking and cleaning and general maintenance. This will generate 12 vehicle movements, 6 movements in in the morning peak and 6 movements out in the evening peak per day.

It has been assumed that there will be up to 5 vehicles servicing the site per day to deliver goods and remove refuse for a total of 10 vehicle movements per day.

In addition to these movements, an allowance has been assumed for pastoral care and other recreational uses by the temporary workers. It is conservatively assumed that a further 20 trips (10 in and 10 out) will be required for these needs daily.

Hence, adding these traffic generations suggests that approximately 94 vehicle movements (47movements to and 47 movements from the site) can be expected in a typical week day. The peak hours are likely to generate 24+2+6 trips. This is the RSE workers, managers trips and staff trips. 25 trips would leave and 7 would arrive in the morning peak hour and the reverse in the evening peak hour. The servicing vehicles will arrive randomly through the day.

Traffic Effects It is unlikely that traffic generated from the site would drive to east along Budge Street. This is typically residential and does not provide vehicle access to rural areas although some staff may live in the residential area to the east. The State Highway will be the main intersection for distribution of traffic. The distribution of traffic movements to the left or right along the State Highway will vary throughout the season depending on which vineyards are requiring work each day. Therefore, it is likely that the traffic will be distributed equally to the left and right along the State Highway.

All traffic will cross the railway crossing when accessing the site from the State Highway. The available length of Budge Street for storage between the railway crossing and the site vehicle access is about 16 metres. There is sufficient space between the vehicle crossing for the site


and the railway crossing for at least 3 vehicles to wait if necessary when entering the site. Given the residential nature of Budge Street, traffic will be strongly tidal with most traffic driving west along Budge Street in the morning and east in the evening. Hence, when vehicles are returning to the site in the evening, they are unlikely to often be held up by opposing westbound vehicles so any potential queuing will be minimal and can be managed within the available space.

Note that there is a length of “No Stopping” restriction on the northern side of Budge Street and this will assist by allowing eastbound vehicles on Budge Street to pass any potential queues entering the site.

Typically, if a vehicle is intending to exit the site and has not yet passed the house on the vehicle access, it would be expected to stop and wait for a vehicle to enter the site. If the vehicle has passed the house, the entering vehicle will be expected to stop and wait before continuing. Hence, only a single vehicle would be expected to wait when entering at any time.

Because the workers transport vehicles will be parked on site overnight and typically be leaving the site in the morning and returning in the evening, there will seldom be conflicting vehicles. However, when the conflict does occur, it is considered that this can be adequately managed with appropriate instructions to drivers.

Although a vehicle entering the site will partially block the footpath if it has to stop, the conflict will be for a short time only and will not occur often. During the site inspection, no pedestrians were observed and pedestrian volumes are expected to be low. Hence, it is considered that this will be an acceptable solution.

Once off site, the vehicles will be on the public road network which is well developed and can accommodate the additional 94 vehicle movements per day.

Parking on site The Applicant proposes to construct and mark 34 parking spaces. Since only 24 spaces will be needed to accommodate the required vans to transport the workers, there will be more parking available on site than is required. Additional staff parking is not required because of the spare parking available.

The parking spaces and aisles would be suitably sized to accommodate the high percentage of larger vans using the site.

Pedestrians and cyclists The managers of the site are responsible for pastoral care of the temporary workers. For some off site activities, they may need to drive the workers to their destination. Being close to town, many of the activities they want to visit would be within walking distance and they would have


the option of walking. The footpaths on Budge Street are well defined and provide connectivity to the wider pedestrian network.

Almost all of the RSE workers will come from a foreign country. It is unlikely they would have bicycles with them or that they would purchase one while they are here. Therefore, cyclists are not expected to be generated by the site in any significant numbers.

Road safety A search of the CAS database was undertaken for the 5 year period from 2012 to 2016 inclusive. The results are appended.

There was a non injury crash on Budge Street near the site. This was caused by a driver turning right from the backpackers site onto Budge Street colliding with an eastbound vehicle.

A further 2 non injury crashes occurred generally in the area of the site but had no obvious causes that could be affected by traffic generated from the site.

Two minor injury crashes and 5 non injury crashes occurred at the SH1 intersection with Budge Street. The crashes had no consistent factors or crash types. The number of crashes is low given the traffic volumes that use the intersection each day. Hence, it is not considered that there are any underlying safety problems with the intersection. It is not expected that the additional 94 vehicle movements will create any additional safety concerns at the intersection.


Summary The proposed temporary workers accommodation for 240 residents on Budge Street will generate a small amount of traffic that can be accommodated within the existing carriageway without any capacity concerns. The existing road network is well developed with pedestrian facilities provided.

Temporary workers are unlikely to own bicycles so should not generate cycle traffic.

The vehicle access will be well designed and will provide for a passing opportunity on the entrance when required.

An excess of parking will be supplied on site.

Vehicles will be available for the temporary workers when they need to go off site for recreational or other reasons.

Road safety should not be compromised by the activity generated from the site.

Therefore, the effects of granting this consent for a 240 bed accommodation facility at 36A Budge Street are no more than minor.

Appendix 1

Crash data

Plain English report, run on 27-Sep-2017 Page 1

First Street

Distance

Second street

or landmark

Crash

Number

Date Day Time

DD/MM/YYYY

Description of Events

DDD HHMM (ENV = Environmental factors)

RoadCrash Factors Natural

Light

Weather Junction Cntrl Tot Inj

F S MA E IT R N

D

I

R

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

201631360 23/01/2016 Sat 2200 DarkCAR1 WBD on BUDGE ST hit parked veh, CAR1 hit Parked Vehicle

CAR1 too far left/right Dry Fine Unknown N/A40EBUDGE ST BUDGE RLY XING

201655335 11/12/2016 Sun 1453 OvercastCAR1 EBD on BUDGE ST hit CAR2 turning right onto BUDGE ST from the left, CAR1 hit Parked Vehicle

CAR2 failed to give way at driveway Wet Light Rain

Driveway Nil90EBUDGE ST GROVE ROAD

201630140 02/01/2016 Sat 1100 OvercastCAR1 WBD on BUDGE ST hit SUV2 parking/unparking

CAR1 misjudged intentions of another party SUV2 Did not check / notice another party behind

Wet Light Rain

Unknown N/A20WBUDGE ST GROVE ROAD

201442976 03/09/2014 Wed 0840 OvercastCAR1 WBD on BUDGE ST hit rear end of CAR2 stop/slow for cross traffic

CAR1 failed to notice car slowing Dry Fine X Type Junction

Give Way Sign

5EBUDGE ST SH 1S

201533652 05/04/2015 Sun 2128 DarkCAR1 EBD on BUDGE ST lost control; went off road to left, CAR1 hit Fence, Parked Vehicle, Other

CAR1 too fast on straight, lost control, overseas/migrant driver failed to adjust to NZ road rules and road conditions

Dry Fine Unknown N/A80EBUDGE ST SH 1S

201350967 20/04/2013 Sat 1610 OvercastSUV1 WBD on BUDGE ST hit CAR2 reversing along road

SUV1 alcohol suspected CAR2 Did not check / notice another party behind

Wet Fine T Type Junction

NilIBUDGE ST GROVE ROAD

201354162 31/10/2013 Thu 1538 OvercastCAR1 NBD on SH 1S hit CAR2 crossing at right angle from right, CAR2 hit Traffic Sign

CAR2 Failed to give way At a priority traffic control, Did not check / notice another party

Dry Fine X Type Junction

Give Way Sign

I1S/18/9.443 BUDGE ST

201549126 13/11/2015 Fri 0545 TwilightCAR1 NBD on SH 1S hit CAR2 merging from the right

CAR2 failed to give way when turning to non-turning traffic


Give Way Sign


201631685 10/02/2016 Wed 1940 Bright CAR1 WBD on BUDGE ST hit SUV2 turning right onto BUDGE ST from the left

CAR1 Failed to give way At a priority traffic control, attention diverted by driver dazzled by sun/lights, Did not check / notice another party ENV: dazzling sun


Give Way Sign


201637572 23/04/2016 Sat 0935 Bright CAR1 NBD on SH 1S hit CAR2 crossing at right angle from right

CAR2 Approaching a traffic control, failed to give way when turning to non-turning traffic


Give Way Sign


201410716 13/03/2014 Thu 1846 Bright 1VAN2 turning right hit by oncoming VAN1 NBD on SH 1S

VAN2 failed to give way when turning to non-turning traffic, Did not check / notice another party


Give Way Sign


201211411 22/03/2012 Thu 0825 Overcast 1VAN1 SBD on SH 1S GROVE hit CAR2 crossing at right angle from right

CAR2 Failed to give way At a priority traffic control, Did not check / notice another party, medical illness (not sudden eg flu)


Give Way Sign

I1S/18/9.45 GROVE BUDGE ST

201448305 18/12/2014 Thu 1338 Bright CAR1 SBD on SH 1S hit rear end of CAR2 stop/slow for queue

CAR1 failed to notice car slowing, attention diverted

Dry Fine Unknown Nil20S1S/18/9.463 BUDGE ST

SUBMISSION ON APPLICATION FOR A RESOURCE CONSENT

1. Submitter Details

Name of Submitter(s) in full

Address for Service (include post code)

Email

Telephone (day) Mobile Facsimile

Contact Person (name and designation, if applicable)

2. Application Details

Application Number U

Name of Applicant (state full name)

Application Site Address

Description of Proposal

3. Submission Details (please tick one)

I/we support all or part of the application

I/we oppose all or part of the application

I/we are neutral to all or part of the application

The specific parts of the application that my/our submission relates to are (give details, using additional pages if required)

To: Marlborough District Council PO Box 443 Blenheim 7240

ISO 9001:2008 Document Number: RAF0010-CI1220

The reasons for my/our submission are (use additional pages if required)

The decision I/we would like the Council to make is (give details including, if relevant, the parts of the application you wish to have amended and the general nature of any conditions sought. Use additional pages if required)

4. Submission at the Hearing

I/we wish to speak in support of my/our submission

I/we do not wish to speak in support of my/our submission

OPTIONAL: Pursuant to section 100A of the Resource Management Act 1991 I/we request that the Council delegate its functions, powers, and duties required to hear and decide the application to one or more hearings commissioners who are not members of the Council. (Please note that if you make such a request you may be liable to meet or contribute to the costs of commissioner(s). Requests can also be made separately in writing no later than 5 working days after the close of submissions.)

5. Signature

Signature Date

Signature Date

6. Important Information

Council must receive this completed submission before the closing date and time for submission for this application. The completed submission may be emailed to [email protected]

You must also send a copy of this submission to the applicant as soon as reasonably practicable, at the applicant’s address for service.

Only those submitters who indicate that they wish to speak at the hearing will be sent a copy of the hearing report.

7. Privacy Information

The information you have provided on this form is required so that your submission can be processed under the Resource Management Act 1991. The information will be stored on a public file held by Council. The details may also be available to the public on Council’swebsite. If you wish to request access to, or correction of, your details, please contact Council.

O:\Templatesforms\RegQualitySystems\1ResourceMgmtControlChapter(R)\AF Application Forms\RAF0010-CI1220-Submission on Application for Resource Consent-1.doc

geotechnical investigation slap (marlborough) ltd …

Documents