31654827:637695

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) AND IN THE MATTER of a direct referral application under section 87G

of the RMA for resource consents for the necessary infrastructure and related activities associated with holding the America’s Cup in Auckland

BETWEEN PANUKU DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND

LIMITED

(ENV-2018-AKL-000078) Applicant AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Regulatory Authority

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF JON STYLES ON BEHALF OF THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL

(NOISE / VIBRATION)

Dated 21 August 2018

BROOKFIELDS LAWYERS M C Allan Telephone No. 09 979 2128 Fax No. 09 379 3224 P O Box 240 DX CP24134 AUCKLAND

1616

2

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 My full name is Jon Robert Styles.

1.2 My evidence is given on behalf of the Auckland Council (the Council) in relation to

the direct referral application filed by Panuku Development Auckland Limited

(Applicant) seeking resource consents for the construction, occupation, use and

maintenance of permanent and temporary infrastructure and undertaking of

activities within the coastal marine area and on land, associated with the America’s

Cup (the Application). My evidence relates to the noise and vibration aspects of

the Application.

2. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

2.1 I am the Director and Principal of Styles Group Acoustic and Vibration Consultants,

employing a total of 6 full time noise and vibration specialist consultants. I hold a

Bachelor of Applied Science majoring in Environmental Health. I am the President

of the Acoustical Society of New Zealand and prior to that I was elected on the

Council of the Society for four consecutive 2-year terms.

2.2 I have 17 years experience in noise and vibration, beginning this experience as the

Auckland City Council's Environmental Health (Noise) Specialist. For just over 13

years I have been the Director and Principal of Styles Group, and over that time

my work has predominantly involved environmental acoustics and vibration, and

mostly in the context of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). I have

worked on numerous projects around New Zealand involving similar noise effects

to this Application, with some recent projects including the Westhaven Marina

Redevelopment, Refining New Zealands Whangarei Harbour Dredging and

Widening Project, numerous large infrastructure projects, (CRL, Northern Corridor

Improvements, Waterview Connection, Waikato Expressway and many others) the

2003 America’s Cup, several Volvo Ocean Races and a large number of

temporary events in the Viaduct and Wynyard areas.

1617

3

3. MY ROLE

3.1 I and Dr Matthew Pine (an employee of Styles Group) were the joint authors of a

report1 to the Council on the noise and vibration aspects of the Application

(Report). The Report was attached as Appendix H to the Council’s section 87F

Report by Nicola Broadbent.

3.2 In the Report, I addressed the airborne noise and vibration issues arising from the

construction, operations and event phases of the proposal, while Dr Pine

addressed the underwater noise issues associated with the construction phase. I

reaffirm the contents and conclusions of the Report relating to airborne noise and

vibration, subject to the matters noted below. Also, while Dr Pine was the author

of the underwater noise aspects of the Report, I confirm that I support and agree

with the discussion and conclusions reached in Dr Pine’s sections of the Report in

relation to underwater noise effects. I participated in expert witness conferencing

on all noise and vibration issues, including underwater noise matters.

3.3 I have visited the site on many occasions and am very familiar with the ‘site’ and

surrounds. I have been involved in the processing, monitoring and enforcement of

many activities subject to various District Plan rules, resource consents for

construction projects and events in the same general area over the last 15-16

years.

3.4 I participated in expert witness conferencing with the Applicant’s acoustic expert,

Craig Fitzgerald, and the acoustic expert retained by The Point Body Corporate,

Richard Finley, and was a signatory to the resulting Joint Witness Statement

(JWS) of noise experts dated 25 July 20182.

3.5 In preparing this evidence I have reviewed the following documents and reports:

(a) The documents listed in paragraph 1.2 of the Report;

(b) The Joint Witness Statement on noise and vibration (E22);

(c) The evidence of Mr Fitzgerald (E11), Mr Cook and Mr Lala (E19), and Mr

Marler (E1) for the Applicant; and

(d) The proposed conditions of consent as attached to the evidence of Mr

Cook and Mr Lala.

1 CB143, page 3724 onwards. 2 E22, page 1282 onwards, Noise and Vibration JWS.

1618

4

4. CODE OF CONDUCT

4.1 I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses (Code) outlined in the

Environment Court's Consolidated Practice Note 2014 and have complied with it in

preparing the evidence. I also agree to follow the Code when presenting evidence

to the Court. I confirm that the issues addressed in this brief of evidence are within

my area of expertise, except where I state that I rely upon the evidence of other

expert witnesses. I also confirm that I have not omitted to consider material facts

known to me that might alter or detract from my opinions.

5. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

5.1 This statement of evidence covers the following:

(a) A summary of my evidence (Executive Summary);

(b) An assessment of the Application, including an overview of the key points

from the Report (Assessment of the Application);

(c) An update following expert witness conferencing, referring to the JWS

where appropriate, and a response to the Applicant’s evidence (Update

Following Expert Witness Conferencing / Response to Applicant’s

Evidence);

(d) Comments on draft conditions and proposed mitigation (Conditions /

Mitigation); and

(e) Conclusions.

6. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

6.1 Overall, I support the currently proposed conditions attached to the evidence of Mr

Cook and Mr Lala (aside from the change to condition 1 suggested in paragraph

9.10 below) as they relate to event noise, non-event operational noise,

construction noise and vibration and underwater construction noise effects.

6.2 I consider that the mediation and expert conferencing process has led to a

refinement of conditions and a general lessening of effects overall. The

1619

5

construction noise and vibration effects in particular will be lesser, with the

conditions providing a greater degree of certainty for the stakeholders, along with

better communication and consultation provisions, as well being clearer and more

readily enforceable if required.

6.3 There remain only three matters of disagreement between the experts, being the

inclusion of low frequency noise limits for Noise Events, the inclusion or control of

crowd noise during Noise Events, and the measurement results from underwater

noise measurements. Only the first two issues need to be resolved for decision

making purposes and for the final drafting of conditions. The underwater noise

measurement results need not be resolved, as the conditions and assessment of

effects are not dependent on the data.

6.4 With the removal of the Maritime Museum from the assessment of the effects, the

construction noise and vibration events will range from noticeable to annoying and

disruptive, with the worst of the effects generally limited to short periods and will be

followed by adequate notice for the receivers. I consider that the proposal is now

consistent with Objective E25.2 (4) of the AUP.

6.5 I consider that the noise from Noise Events will be very similar to what is

anticipated and provided for in the Wynyard and Viaduct Harbour precincts,

notwithstanding that some of the controls and limits in those precincts are modified

by the proposed conditions of consent. The noise from these events will be

audible and disruptive at times, but not appreciably greater (if at all greater) than

the level of effect permitted by the AUP.

7. ASSESSMENT OF THE APPLICATION

7.1 The Report assessed the potential effects of the Application under four main

subheadings:

(a) Airborne Construction Noise Assessment;

(b) Construction Vibration Assessment;

(c) Underwater Construction Noise Assessment; and

(d) Event noise.

7.2 I provide a brief summary of the assessment contained in the Report below.

1620

6

Airborne Construction Noise

7.3 The assessment of airborne construction noise is contained in section 2 of the

Report. The CNV Report included in the Application states that the noise

generated by the works will comply with the CNV standards for most of the time,

but that some activities are predicted to exceed for brief periods, only during the

day. With reference to section 8.3 of the Report, we3 generally agreed with the

noise level predictions and the assumptions they are based on.

7.4 Given the significant number of residential receivers and hospitality receivers with

open facades and outdoor dining areas close to the works, and the fact that rule

E25.6.27 of the AUP4 (with lower noise limits) applies to all works that affect

receivers not in the City Centre zone, we considered that a lower set of Project

Standards than that proposed by the Applicant would provide a more appropriate

set of controls for the proposal. We recommended a set of Project Standards that

we considered to be more appropriate, and similar to those applied to a number of

other large projects in already reasonably noisy areas.

7.5 We considered that the Application did not contain sufficient detail as to the effects

that would be experienced by the receivers close to the various work areas. At

paragraph 2.4.4, we stated our opinion that a more detailed description of the way

that people will react to construction noise levels up to and above the CNV

standards was necessary. To that end, we prepared a table setting out the

approximate nature of the subjective effect at various noise levels.

7.6 At paragraph 8.3.4 of the Report, we summarised the airborne construction noise

effects as ranging from being no greater than the current level of noise effects

experienced in the area, to periods of up to several weeks for many receivers

where the effects will be significant for considerable periods of time. Even with

good management and the application of BPO, we considered that the effects on

the Maritime Museum and its associated facilities will be significant.

7.7 I note that Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA), have since provided full written

approval to the application, (as the owner of the Maritime Museum) so the effects

on their facilities must be disregarded. I provide an updated view on the overall

effects, (without the Museum as a receiver) further on in my evidence.

3 I.e. Dr Pine and I, as joint authors of the Report. 4 CB182, page 4447.

1621

7

Construction Vibration

7.8 At paragraph 3.1.1 of the Report, we referred to the statement in the CNV Report

that the activity likely to give rise to most or all of the vibration effects will be piling.

At paragraph 3.3.4, we set out a table to assist with determining the likely nature

and extent of vibration effects and understanding the subjective perceptions of

vibration for the range of levels that could be expected to arise from this proposal.

7.9 We summarised the construction vibration effects at paragraph 3.3.6 as being at

the level that will be perceivable and potentially annoying to most receivers

throughout several weeks or months of the project for each receiver, with shorter

periods where it may become disruptive at the closest receivers.

7.10 At the time of writing the Report, approval from RFA (owners of the Maritime

Museum) had only been provided in principle. We considered that the effects on

the Maritime Museum will generate significant disruption to its activities, and very

careful attention would be required to ensure the effects are managed as best they

can be. As set out above, RFA has since provided the Applicant with

unconditional approval of the Application, and therefore the effects on the Maritime

Museum can be disregarded.

Underwater Construction Noise

7.11 As detailed in section 4 of the Report, an underwater noise assessment dealing

with the potential effects of the underwater noise generated by vibratory piling and

dredging noise on marine animals is contained in the CNV Report. We generally

agreed with the assessment of the species of interest and the frequency

weightings adopted for the assessment.

7.12 In relation to the Applicant’s ambient underwater noise measurements, we

considered them to be too high and our own measurements showed a

considerably quieter environment. In our report, we produced Figure 2 on page 17

which showed the Applicant’s underwater noise measurement data with ours

overlaid to show the difference. Unfortunately when that document was published,

the overlay process was inadvertently adjusted, and became inaccurate. I have

reproduced Figure 2 of our Report as it should appear below, with the thin trace

sitting well below the Applicant’s measured data.

1622

8

7.13 We disagreed with the way that the behavioural effects had been assessed and

following discussions with the Applicant’s team, the Applicant produced an

assessment of behavioural effects prepared jointly by their acoustics and marine

ecology advisors. In our report, this is referred to as the Underwater Effects

Response5. The Underwater Effects Response sets out a more detailed

assessment of the effects of underwater construction noise on marine mammals

with which we generally agree.

7.14 We otherwise generally agreed with the modelling methods used in the CNV

Report and as modified by the Underwater Effects Response and although some

technical issues remain, we stated that we expected the outputs to be sufficiently

accurate for purpose.

7.15 The CNVMP provides provisions for the monitoring of underwater noise inside the

zones of influence identified in Underwater Effects Response. As stated in

paragraph 8.5.6 of the Report, overall we agreed with the methods specified in the

CNVMP for the management of underwater noise effects.

7.16 In this case the potential adverse effects can be broadly categorised as ranging

from:

5 CB50, page 2659 onwards.

1623

9

a. No effects where the noise levels from piling becomes inaudible outside of

the Waitemata Harbour;

b. A range of behavioural effects including changes to feeding, breathing,

nursing, vocalisation and navigation and avoidance of the area generally in

the area from Bean Rock / North Head to within a few hundred metres of

the piling activity;

c. Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) at close proximity to the piling as defined

by the solid and dashed orange contours in Figures 6 and 7 of Appendix D

to the CNV Report (this is the primary zone from which marine mammals

must be excluded during piling works); and

d. Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) or injury in the small area defined by the

red contours in Figures 6 and 7 of Appendix D to the CNV Report.

7.17 The CNVMP will ensure that the effects described in (c) and (d) above will not

occur by ensuring that works do not occur when marine mammals are inside those

zones.

Event Noise

7.18 Section 5 of the Report addressed event noise. Details of the nature and location

of the events was not detailed in the Application. Our assessment was therefore

on the basis that events could be held in any location and on any day subject to

compliance with the relevant controls in the AUP, except for the exclusion of crowd

noise and omission of low frequency limits that have been proposed.

Crowd noise

7.19 In relation to crowd noise, we agreed at paragraph 5.3.3 that it is reasonable to

exclude crowd noise from the controls in this case, taking into account the

following factors:

a. Crowd noise would be very unlikely to generate non-compliance with the

proposed Event Noise conditions either on its own or in combination with

amplified sound; and

b. The difficulties associated with measuring and assessing crowd noise to

determine compliance with the relevant noise limits.

1624

10

7.20 Crowd noise was a topic of discussion at expert witness conferencing, which I

discuss further in section 8 below.

Low frequency noise

7.21 In relation to low frequency noise limits being replaced with a set of broadband

noise controls (in terms of dBA, or LAeq) to control the overall Event noise levels,

we considered (paragraph 5.4.2) that such an approach is reasonable, except that

the low frequency controls should only be removed for events where the PA

system is outdoors.

7.22 Low frequency noise was a topic of discussion at expert witness conferencing,

which I discuss further in section 8 below.

Calibration of sound system

7.23 We considered that the proposed conditions should include calibration of the

disturbed loudspeaker and Noise Event sound systems to ensure that compliance

with the noise limits will be achieved at all times.

Overall effects during events

7.24 The noise effects arising from events associated with AC36 and any legacy

America’s Cup event would be substantially similar to any event that is permitted

by the existing AUP provisions, despite the minor modifications to the controls

suggested by the proposed conditions. The events would generate noise levels

that are audible throughout the entire area at levels that may be well above the

standard day-to-day noise controls in the AUP. For the closest receivers the noise

levels would be up to 75-80dB LAeq at times throughout the events, which is high

enough to be disruptive to many activities.

Submissions

7.25 Section 7 of the Report assessed the submissions that raised issues relating to

vibration, underwater and airborne noise arising from constructions works, and

events noise. We considered that the matters raised by the submitters had been

adequately addressed or described in either the Application reports or our Report.

We recommended some amendments to the proposed conditions in response to

issues raised by submitters.

1625

11

Conditions

7.26 We recommended a number of amendments and additions to the set of consent

conditions originally proposed by the Applicant. A marked up version of the

proposed conditions was included in Appendix A to the Report, which was

incorporated into the set of conditions attached as Appendix U to Ms Broadbent’s

s87F Report.

8. UPDATE FOLLOWING MEDIATION, EXPERT WITNESS CONFERENCING / RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE

8.1 Although we recorded broad agreement with much of the Applicant’s assessment

in our Report, the subsequent expert conferencing and mediation resulted in

considerable refinement of the proposed conditions and also resolution of a

number of matters of disagreement, including with Mr Finley for The Point Body

Corporate BC199318.

8.2 There are three areas of disagreement remaining, being:

a. Low frequency noise limits for events;

b. Inclusion of crowd noise in Noise Event noise limits; and

c. The measured underwater noise levels.

8.3 Matters (a) and (b) are agreed between myself and Mr Fitzgerald, but not agreed

with Mr Finley. Matter (c) is a disagreement between Mr Fitzgerald and myself

only and does not need to be resolved in order for a decision to be made or to

finalise conditions (I note that Mr Finley has no concern with the underwater noise

assessment).

Low Frequency Noise Limits

8.4 As set out in section 4.3 of the JWS6, Mr Finley is of the view that the noise limits

for Noise Events should contain low frequency noise limits to control the effects,

and that those limits should be 76dB Leq at 63Hz and 125Hz for High Noise Events

and Medium Noise Events, regardless of the dBA limit that applies.

8.5 I am of the view that the controls suggested by Mr Finley would effectively

preclude the kind of events that are proposed, especially in respect of the High

Noise Events. Noise limits of 76dB Leq in the 63Hz and 125Hz 1/1 octave bands

6 E22, page 1286.

1626

12

for High Noise Events will be so low as to result in the sound from the event being

‘tinny’ or ‘harsh’ and generally less pleasurable to listen to. In practice these

adverse qualities will be avoided in favour of reducing the noise level overall to the

point where the bass (low frequency) component becomes sufficiently prominent

again. It is likely that the overall noise level will need to be reduced to

approximately the same level as a Medium Noise Event to achieve this, thereby

effectively precluding a High Noise Event.

8.6 In my view, no low frequency controls are necessary for Noise Events held

outdoors as recorded in section 4.3 of the JWS.

8.7 However, if low frequency controls were to be imposed for outdoor Noise Events,

the limits in the 63Hz and 125Hz bands should be set at 5dB above the LAeq noise

limits. The resulting limits would then become:

a. High Noise Events

82dB LAeq;

90dB LA01; and

87dB Leq at 63Hz and 125Hz 1/1 octave bands

b. Medium Noise Events

72dB LAeq;

80dB LA01; and

77dB Leq at 63Hz and 125Hz 1/1 octave bands

8.8 I consider that these limits would provide protection against the kind of effects that

Mr Finley is concerned about by limiting the generation of unnecessarily high

levels of low frequency sound. However, I also consider that they will add

considerable complexity to the sound system calibration process and to the

monitoring and enforcement procedures that will be undertaken.

8.9 The limits set out in paragraph 8.7 above are drawn from the third paragraph in

section 4.3 of the JWS. I note that the Applicant has now proposed a condition

addressing low frequency sound: condition 183Q in Attachment A to the evidence

of Mr Cook and Mr Lala. The numerical values in condition 183Q and my

paragraph 8.7 above are the same, except that my low frequency limits are 1dB

higher (and consistent with the JWS). I do not know why the limits in condition

183Q are 1dB lower, other than it might simply be to align the numbers with the

1627

13

limits in the Viaduct Harbour Precinct. I consider that the 1dB difference will not be

noticeable to any receiver and if a condition were to be imposed, I take no issue

with the values in condition 183Q.

Crowd Noise

8.10 As set out in section 4.2 of the JWS, Mr Finley considers that crowd noise during

Noise Events needs to be controlled in some way, and does not agree with the

exemption of crowd noise from the noise limits in the proposed conditions for

Noise Events.

8.11 Mr Fitzgerald and I consider that the noise from crowds attending a Noise Event

(and under the control of the event organiser) will not be likely to generate noise

levels so high above the music noise that it would result in noncompliance with the

limit for Noise Events (where the music itself is compliant) and nor would it

constitute such an effect itself that specific controls are required.

8.12 It is important to note that crowd noise from people gathered in and around the

Viaduct and Wynyard precinct areas and not specifically attending a Noise Event

is outside the control of the event organiser and their noise output cannot be

controlled by any conditions. The controls that Mr Finley would like to see would

therefore be only in relation to people in attendance at the Noise Event and who

would be under the control of the organiser.

8.13 I do however consider that managing the noise of crowds late at night is important

where it is practicable to do so, and that the Event Management Plan would be the

appropriate place to include methods to ensure that crowd noise is minimised after

11pm, perhaps by dispersing people out of the area and/or finishing events slightly

earlier.

Underwater Noise Levels

8.14 As recorded in section 4.4 of the JWS, Mr Fitzgerald and I rely on different

underwater noise level measurements in our assessments. We have not been

able to fully determine the difference in our measurements and whether they arise

from a real difference in the underwater noise environment at the time of

measurement or otherwise. Notwithstanding, the difference does not need to be

resolved as the data is not required to complete the assessment of effects, make a

decision or finalise conditions.

1628

14

8.15 The results of the measurements I have undertaken are overlaid on those set out

in the Applicant’s noise and vibration assessment report, and show considerably

lower levels.

9. CONDITIONS / MITIGATION

9.1 The expert conferencing and mediation process has resulted in a number of

changes to the proposed conditions, including setting clear and measurable

objectives for the CNVMP and Noise Event Management Plan (NEMP). Aside

from the change suggested in paragraph 9.10 below, I support the currently

proposed conditions for all noise and vibration aspects of the proposal, including

event noise, non-event operational noise, construction noise and vibration and

underwater construction noise effects.

9.2 Through the process, the Applicant has also modified or refined its proposal in

several areas to deal with the concerns of submitters, which generally result in

effects that are either lesser in degree, or better managed by way of conditions

and certainty for those affected.

Construction Noise and Vibration Effects

9.3 I consider that overall, the construction noise and vibration effects are less than we

had concluded in paragraph 8.4.4 of our Report. That section stated:

The construction vibration effects can be summarised as being at level that

will be perceivable and potentially annoying to most receivers throughout

several weeks or months of the project for each receiver, with short periods

where it may become disruptive at the closest receivers. It is our opinion that

the effects on the Maritime Museum will generate significant disruption to its

activities, and very careful attention will be required to ensure the effects are

managed as best as they can be, including through communication,

monitoring, securing loose or fragile items and scheduling of work.

9.4 As already stated, RFA have provided written approval to the proposal so the

effects on the Maritime Museum can be disregarded. That leaves the effects on all

other receivers, which have generally been lessened by additional certainty

through the refinements and improvements to the proposed conditions.

9.5 I remain of the view that there will be times when the construction activities will

generate noise and vibration effects that are disruptive and annoying, but these

will generally be of a short duration and will follow adequate notice being given to

1629

15

the receivers. The consultation and communication aspects of the conditions have

been improved and with greater certainty on the timing of high noise and / or

vibration works (e.g. impact and vibratory piling) the receivers will be able to plan

around the activities to avoid them or minimise the effects where appropriate and

desired.

9.6 Objective 4 in E25.2 of the AUP states the following:

E25.2 (4) Construction activities that cannot meet noise and vibration

standards are enabled while controlling duration, frequency and timing to

manage adverse effects.

9.7 I consider that with the refinements and improvements to the conditions, the

proposal is now consistent with this objective. I note that Ms Broadbent deals with

this issue in her evidence also.

Limitation of CNVMP to “Infrastructure”

9.8 I note that the Applicant’s proposed condition 110 has been updated such that it

applies only to “infrastructure construction”, where infrastructure is defined in the

proposed condition 1 as excluding base construction.

9.9 I have seen no technical analysis or evidence to suggest that excluding the

construction of the base buildings from the control of the CNVMP and associated

conditions is appropriate or necessary. I therefore do not agree with this change,

and I consider that the CNVMPs and construction noise and vibration conditions

generally should include all construction authorised by this consent, including the

construction of the base buildings.

9.10 I recommend that proposed condition 1 is therefore amended to ensure that

‘infrastructure’ includes the base buildings.

10. CONCLUSIONS

10.1 Overall, I support the currently proposed conditions (aside from the change to

condition 1 suggested in paragraph 9.10 above) as they relate to event noise, non-

event operational noise, construction noise and vibration and underwater

construction noise effects.

1630

16

10.2 I consider that the mediation and expert conferencing process has led to a

refinement of conditions and a general lessening of effects overall. The

construction noise and vibration effects in particular will be lesser, with the

conditions providing a greater degree of certainty for the stakeholders, along with

better communication and consultation provisions, as well being clearer and more

readily enforceable if required.

10.3 With the removal of the Maritime Museum from the assessment of the effects, the

construction noise and vibration events will range from noticeable to annoying and

disruptive, with the worst of the effects generally limited to short periods and will be

followed by adequate notice for the receivers. I consider that the proposal is now

consistent with Objective E25.2 (4) of the AUP.

10.4 I consider that the noise from Noise Events will be very similar to what is

anticipated and provided for in the Wynyard and Viaduct Harbour precincts,

notwithstanding that some of the controls and limits in those precincts are modified

by the proposed conditions of consent. The noise from these events will be

audible and disruptive at times, but not appreciably greater (if at all greater) than

the level of effect permitted by the AUP.

Jon Styles

21 August 2018

1631