christchurch southern motorway proposal - epa · christchurch southern motorway proposal. the...
TRANSCRIPT
Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the
Christchurch Southern Motorway Proposal
Volume 1 of 2: Report and Decision
Produced under Section 149R of the Resource Management Act 1991
Published by the Board of Inquiry into the Christchurch Southern Motorway Proposal
Dated: 8 November 2013
i
BEFORE THE BOARD OF INQUIRY CONCERNING REQUESTS FOR NOTICES OF REQUIREMENT AND APPLICATIONS FOR RESOURCE CONSENTS TO ALLOW THE CHRISTCHURCH SOUTHERN MOTORWAY PROPOSAL
IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the deliberations of a Board of Inquiry appointed under Section 149J of the Act to consider request for notices of requirement and applications for resource consents by New Zealand Transport Agency, in respect of the Christchurch Southern Motorway Proposal.
FINAL DECISION AND REPORT OF BOARD OF INQUIRY UNDER SECTION 149R OF THE ACT
ii
Board: Barry Paterson QC (Chairperson)
Environment Commissioner Owen Borlase (Member)
Mr David McMahon (Member)
Ms Raewyn Solomon (Member)
Legal representations: Ms Jo Appleyard and Madeline Cayford appearing for the New Zealand Transport Agency (The NZTA)
Mr Cedric Carranceja appearing for the Selwyn District Council (SDC)
Mr Hamish Harwood appearing for the Christchurch City Council (CCC)
Mr Aidan Prebble appearing for Southern Horticultural Products Limited and Sheds NZ
Ms Pru Steven appearing for the John and Susan Shanks Family Trust and The Mercantile Trust
Appearances: See Appendices 3 for appearances
Hearing at: Christchurch commencing on 1 July 2013 and ending on
16 July 2013
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
2. Outline of the Project ...................................................................................... 1
2.1 Statutory Applications and Approvals Needed ................................................... 2
2.2 Project History ................................................................................................... 5
3. Background, Reference to Board of Inquiry, and Minister’s
Reasons ........................................................................................................... 8
4. Statutory Framework for Deliberations ........................................................ 10
5. Procedures..................................................................................................... 12
5.1 Section 149G(3) .............................................................................................. 12
5.2 Section 92(1) Requests for Further Information ............................................... 14
5.3 Section 92(2) Requests for Further Information ............................................... 15
5.4 Submissions .................................................................................................... 16
5.5 Pre-hearing Conference .................................................................................. 16
5.6 Evidence ......................................................................................................... 17
5.7 Representations .............................................................................................. 17
5.8 Witness Conferencing ..................................................................................... 17
5.9 Hearing ............................................................................................................ 18
5.10 Parties Withdrawing Submissions and Right to be Heard ................................ 19
5.11 Site Visits ........................................................................................................ 19
6. Statutory Tests .............................................................................................. 20
7. Legal Issues ................................................................................................... 22
8. Principal Issues ............................................................................................. 25
9. Effects on the Environment .......................................................................... 25
10. Construction Period Effects ......................................................................... 26
10.1 Traffic and Transportation................................................................................ 26
10.2 Surface Water Effects ...................................................................................... 28
10.3 Stockwater Supply ........................................................................................... 30
10.4 Groundwater Quality ........................................................................................ 33
10.5 Noise and Vibration ......................................................................................... 34
10.6 Air Quality (Dust) ............................................................................................. 38
10.7 Terrestrial Ecology........................................................................................... 41
10.8 Aquatic Ecology ............................................................................................... 43
10.9 Geotechnical ................................................................................................... 46
10.10 Soil Contamination .......................................................................................... 49
iv
10.11 Cultural, Archaeology and Built Heritage ......................................................... 50
11. Operational Period Effects ............................................................................ 53
11.1 Traffic and Transportation................................................................................ 53
11.2 Landscape, Visual and Lighting ....................................................................... 57
11.3 Stormwater ...................................................................................................... 69
11.4 Noise and Vibration ......................................................................................... 71
11.5 Groundwater.................................................................................................... 82
11.6 Terrestrial Ecology........................................................................................... 90
11.7 Aquatic Ecology ............................................................................................... 91
11.8 Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 92
11.9 Natural Hazards .............................................................................................. 93
11.10 Network Utilities ............................................................................................... 96
11.11 Social ............................................................................................................ 100
11.12 Economics ..................................................................................................... 103
11.13 Individual Submissions (including Direct Property Effects)............................. 105
12. Conditions, Management Plans and Lapse Period .................................. 122
13. Consideration of Key Statutory Instruments ............................................. 128
14. Final Appraisal ............................................................................................. 146
14.1 Major Factual Findings .................................................................................. 146
14.2 Section 171 ................................................................................................... 151
14.3 Section 104D ................................................................................................. 157
14.4 Section 104 ................................................................................................... 159
14.5 Section 105 ................................................................................................... 159
14.6 Section 107 ................................................................................................... 160
14.7 Section 181 ................................................................................................... 160
14.8 Part 2 of the RMA .......................................................................................... 160
14.9 Section 142 Assessment against Minister’s Reasons ................................... 165
14.10 Assessment against information provided by EPA ........................................ 166
15. Confidentialty Order .................................................................................... 167
16. Decision ....................................................................................................... 167
Appendix 1: Map of the Project .............................................................................. 168
Appendix 2: Project Application Documentation ................................................. 170
Appendix 3: Parties Who Filed Evidence .............................................................. 173
Appendix 4: Parties Who Made Representations ................................................. 186
Appendix 5: Management Plan Framework .......................................................... 188
v
Glossary of terms
Abbreviation Meaning
AAIMP Accidental Aquifer Interception Management Plan
ADP Accidental Discovery Protocol
AEE Assessment of Environmental Effects
ANSECC Australian and New Zealand Conservation Council
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
AQNES Air Quality National Environmental Standards
AUSTROADS Association of Australian and New Zealand Road Transport and Traffic Authorities
BCR Benefit Cost Ratio
BPO Best Practicable Option
BS British Standard
CAG Cultural Advisory Group
CAQMP Construction Air Quality Management Plan
CBD Central Business District
CCC Christchurch City Council
CCP Christchurch City Plan
CDHB Canterbury District Health Board
CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan
CERA Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011
CIA Cultural Impact Assessment
CNVMP Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan
CO Carbon monoxide
CP Eng Chartered Professional Engineer
CPW Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme
CRC Canterbury Regional Council
CRETS Christchurch, Rolleston and Environs Transport Study
CRLTS Canterbury Regional Land Transport Strategy
CRPS Canterbury Regional Policy Statement
CRTN Calculation of Road Traffic Noise
vi
CSM1 Christchurch Southern Motorway Stage 1
CSM2 Christchurch Southern Motorway Stage 2
CTMP Construction Traffic Management Plan
dB Decibel (measurement of noise)
DEBs Decanting Earth Bunds
DIN German Standard
DSI Detailed Site Investigation
EiC Evidence in Chief
EMP Ecological Management Plan
EPA Environmental Protection Authority
ESC Erosion and Sediment Control
ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan
GCS General Control Statement
GMP Groundwater Management Plan
GNS GNS Science
GPS Government Policy Statement
GPS LTF Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding
HAIL Hazardous Activities and Industries List
HJR Halswell Junction Road
IntPE International Professional Engineer
IPENZ Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand
LAeq Equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level
LMP Landscape Management Plan
LTMA Land Transport Management Act
LURP Land Use Recovery Plan
l/s Litres per second
MAV Maximum Acceptable Value
MDA Marshall Day Acoustics
MfE Ministry for the Environment
MfE Dust GPG MfE’s Good Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing the Environmental Effects of Dust Emissions
vii
MoC / MoA Memorandum of Counsel / Memorandum of Agreement
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MSRFL Main South Road Four-Laning
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NES AQ National Environmental Standard Air Quality
NES DW National Environmental Standards Sources of Human Drinking Water
NZECP New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances
NPS ET National Policy Statement Electricity Transmission
NES ETA National Environmental Standards Electricity Transmission Activities
NES SOIL National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health Regulations 2011
NPS FM National Policy Statement Freshwater Management
NPS IB National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity
NPS REG National Policy Statement Renewable Electricity Generation
NoR Notice of Requirement
NRRP Natural Resources Regional Plan
NZCE New Zealand Certificate in Engineering
NZCPS New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement
NZHPT New Zealand Historic Places Trust
NZS New Zealand Standard
NZTA The New Zealand Transport Agency
OGPA Open Graded Porous Asphalt
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PCA Prebbleton Community Association
PC1 Plan Change 1
PC12 Plan Change 12
PLWRP Proposed Land and Water Regional Plan
PPF Protected Premises and Facilities
viii
The Project
The NZTA’s proposal to designate land and obtain resource consents to widen and upgrade Main South Road to provide for a four-lane median separated expressway from Park Lane in Rolleston in the Selwyn District to Robinsons Road in Rolleston (MSRFL), and for the construction, operation and maintenance of a motorway between Robinsons Road to the end of the Christchurch Southern Motorway Stage 1 (CSM1) at Halswell Junction Road in Hornby, Christchurch (CSM2)
PRPS Proposed Regional Policy Statement
PSI Preliminary Site Investigation
RAP Recommended Area for Protection
RMA Resource Management Act
RoNS Road of National Significance
RPS Regional Policy Statement
RRO Robinsons Road Overpass
s and ss Section and Sections
SCS Standards for Contaminants in Soil
SEMP Specialised Environmental Management Plans
SH State Highway
SH1 State Highway One
SIA Social Impact Assessment
SDC Selwyn District Council
SDP Selwyn District Plan
SLS Serviceability Limit State
SMP Stormwater Mangement Plan
SRPs Sediment Retention Ponds
SSCNMP Site Specific Construction Noise Management Plans
SSCVMP Site Specific Construction Vibration Management Plans
SSTMP Site Specific Traffic Management Plan
SSUDP Site Specific Urban Design Plan
SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
SWA South-West Area
SWAP South-West Area Plan
ix
SWGAZ Selwyn-Waimakariri Groundwater Allocation Zone
TACP The New Zealand Transport Agency Code of Practice
TR Technical Report
TTM Temporary Traffic management
UDS Urban Development Strategy
ULS Ultimate Limit State (ULS)
WEB Wider Economic Benefits
WHO World Health Organisation
1
1. INTRODUCTION [1] This Report addresses applications by the New Zealand Transport Agency
(NZTA) for Notices of Requirement (NoR) and resource consents for the Christchurch Southern Motorway Proposal. The Report has been prepared by the Board of Inquiry (the Board) in accordance with s 149R(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).
[2] In accordance with s 149R(1) of the RMA this Report states the Board’s final decision and reasons for that decision, includes a statement of the principal issues that were in contention and the main findings on these issues.
[3] In accordance with s 149Q(2) of the RMA a Draft Decision and Report was issued on 13 September 2013. Comments on the Draft Report were sought in accordance with s 149Q(3) of the RMA.
[4] A summary of the comments received and the Board’s decision on those comments appears as Appendix 6 of this Report. Where appropriate, amendments to Volume 1 of the Draft Report have been made in accordance with those comments. For completeness we note that the alterations made relate solely to minor and technical aspects as defined in s 149Q(5) RMA. No alterations have been made to the conditions, which appear in Volume 2 to this Report.
[5] The Project is to establish a new road in the Christchurch region. The details of the Project and why the NZTA wishes to undertake it follows below.
2. OUTLINE OF THE PROJECT [6] The NZTA lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), three
notices of requirement and 15 applications for resource consents (the applications) relating to the construction, operation and maintenance of the Christchurch Southern Motorway Stage 2 (CSM2) and the Main South Road Four Laning (MSRFL) (the Project). The Project is to widen and upgrade Main South Road to provide for a four-lane median separated expressway from Park Lane in Rolleston in the Selwyn District to Robinsons Road south of Templeton (MSRFL); and for the construction, operation and maintenance of a motorway between Robinsons Road to the end of the Christchurch Southern Motorway Stage 1 (CSM1) at Halswell Junction Road in Hornby (CSM2). A map showing the Project is shown in Appendix 1 of this Report.
[7] The Main South Road will be four-laned from just north of the intersection of State Highway 1 and Park Lane, in Rolleston. This section of the Project continues north on Main South Road for approximately 4.5 km to the connection with CSM2 located between Robinsons and Waterholes Road. MSRFL will consist of a four-lane expressway with two lanes in each direction, separated by a median strip and barrier.
[8] The CSM2 part of the Project will leave Main South Road near Robinsons Road and extend for 8.4 km north linking to the end of CSM1 at Halswell Junction Road. The road will comprise a four-lane motorway with two lanes in each direction, separated by a median strip and barrier. Combined with other local road changes, the combined length of the Project is 16 km.
[9] The Project is part of the Christchurch Southern Corridor Motorways, one of three state highway ‘corridors’ around Christchurch which are identified as
2
‘Roads of National Significance’ (RoNS) in terms of the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding 2012 (GPS). This policy identifies roading routes requiring significant development to reduce congestion, improve safety and support economic growth. This Project aims to provide more efficient and safer access between the Port of Lyttelton, the Christchurch city centre and the south of Christchurch for people and freight.
[10] The designation area is approximately 124 hectares, enclosing all necessary construction activities including CSM2 and MSRFL. There will be approximately 405,000 cubic metres of earthworks. The term of construction proposed is three to four years.
2.1 STATUTORY APPLICATIONS AND APPROVALS NEEDED
[11] In accordance with the provision of s 145(3) of the RMA, the NZTA has lodged three NORs with the EPA.
[12] The Project, in addition to the MSRFL and CSM2 construction and operation include:
Alteration to existing roads intersecting with Main South Road, and the alteration of current private property access arrangements;
Rights of way and new local roads on both the west side of State Highway 1 (between Weedons Ross Road and Curraghs Road) and to the east side, to maintain property access (including an overpass of Robinsons Road), and a roundabout each at Weedons Ross Road/Jones Road and Dawsons Road/Waterholes Road;
A full interchange each at Weedons Road and Shands Road;
A road underpass each at Springs Road, Marshs Road, Trents Road, and Waterholes Road; and
A grade separated half interchange (including underpass and roundabout) with east facing ramps at Halswell Junction Road and the re-alignment of John Paterson Drive, to connect the CSM2 west-bound off-ramp with Halswell Junction Road roundabout.
[13] The NZTA has also applied for 15 resource consents to enable the construction operation and maintenance for the Project. These applications have been lodged under s 145(1)(a) of the RMA.
[14] The descriptions of the NORs, as expressed in the NORs themselves are:
NoR 1 - Alteration to designation in the Selwyn District Plan (Designation TR11 and TR42) under ss 145, 168 and 181 of the RMA, for the widening, upgrading, maintenance, operation, use and improvement of a
1 TR1 refers to Designation TR1 for the State Highway (SH) under the Selwyn District Plan. The relevant sections
covered by the Designation for this proposal is SH1: From the intersection of SH1 with the centreline of the Rakaia River. Note: there is a short section of SH1 south of Marshs Road that is within Christchurch City. 2 TR4 refers to Designation TR4 under the Selwyn District Plan for the road widening of SH1 North of Rolleston for 10
metres on the northern side of SH1.
3
state highway (Main South Road Four-Laning Project) and associated works to the local road network, including new rear access roads.
NoR 2 - A designation under ss 145 and 168 of the RMA, for the Project being the construction, maintenance, operation, use and improvement of a state highway (the Christchurch Southern Motorway Stage 2 Project), and associated works of the local network, in the Selwyn District Plan.
NoR 3 - A designation under ss 145 and 168 of the RMA, for the Project being the construction, maintenance, operation, use and improvement of a state highway (the Christchurch Southern Motorway Stage 2 Project), and associated works of the local network, in the Christchurch City Plan.
[15] A summary of the regional resource consent applications is contained in Table 1 of the Assessment of Environmental Effects Report, such table being:
Activity Description NRRP
Summary
PLWRP
Summary
Land use consents (section 9)
Excavation of
land
Excavation over an
unconfined or semi-
confined aquifer
where either deeper
than 5m or deeper
than the highest
groundwater level
and greater than
100m3
Non-complying
activity in
accordance
with Rule WQL36
Discretionary
Activity in
accordance with
Rule 5.156, and
Non-complying
Activity in
accordance with
Rule 5.159
Deposition of
fill
Deposition of more
than 50m3 over an
unconfined or semi-
confined aquifer
where land is
excavated to a depth
of 5m or deeper and
groundwater is less
than 30m below
ground level
Discretionary
Activity
in accordance with
Rule WQL37
Discretionary
Activity
in accordance with
Rule 5.161
The use of land
to store or use
hazardous
substances
Hazardous
substance storage
and use during
construction
Permitted Activity
in accordance with
Rule WQL 38A
Restricted
discretionary
activity
in accordance with
Rule 5.163
Construction
and use of a
bore.
Investigation and
monitoring bores.
Bore/infiltration
facility related to
Robinsons Rd
Overpass and
Halswell Junction
Road ponds.
Domestic and
stockwater bore
relocation
Restricted
Discretionary
Activity to
construct in
accordance with
Rule WQL31
Permitted Activity to
construct and use
in accordance with
Rules 5.78 and
5.79
Earthworks
within riparian
margins
Earthworks within
riparian margin
adjacent to Upper
Permitted Activity
in accordance with
Rule BLR8
Restricted
Discretionary
Activity Rule in
4
Activity Description NRRP
Summary
PLWRP
Summary
Knights Stream accordance
with Rule 5.149
Land use
consent for
works within
stream
bed
Disturbance/
reclamation of
former stream bed
Restricted
Discretionary
Activity
in accordance with
Rule BRL5
Discretionary
Activity
in accordance with
Rule 5.6
Water permits (section 14)
Diversion and
take of water
Diversion of water
races
Restricted
Discretionary
Activity
in accordance with
Rule WQN4
Non-Complying
Activity in
accordance
with Rule 5.100
Taking of
groundwater
Taking of
groundwater
as required
dependant
on groundwater
levels
Non-Complying
Activity in over
allocated
/ no allocation limit
zones in
accordance with
Rules WQN13 and
WQN14
Discretionary
Activity
in accordance with
Rule 5.106
Discharge permits (section 15)
Discharge of
stormwater to
land during
construction
and operation
To discharge
stormwater to land
during construction
and operation
Discretionary
Activity in
accordance with
Rule WQL6
Restricted
Discretionary
Activity in
accordance with
Rule 5.71
Discharge of
stormwater to
water during
construction
and operation
To discharge
stormwater from the
stormwater
treatment facilities
to water during
construction
and operation
Discretionary
Activity in
accordance with
Rule WQL48 for
construction phase
and Permitted
Activity under Rule
WQL7 once
operational
Restricted
Discretionary
Activity in
accordance with
Rule 5.71 for
construction and
operation
Discharge of
water and
contaminants
to water
associated
with dewatering
Discharge of site
dewatering to
surface water
during construction
and operation
Discretionary
Activity in
accordance with
Rule WQL48
Permitted Activity
under Rules 5.92
and 5.77
Discharge of
water and
contaminants
to land
Discharge to land at
Robinsons Road,
associated with
operational
dewatering
Permitted Activity
under Rule WQL2
Discretionary
Activity
in accordance with
Rule 5.6
Discharge of
dust to
air during
construction
To discharge dust
to air from
earthworks and
construction
activities
Discretionary
Activity in
accordance with
Rule AQL57
N/A
5
[16] Two land use resource consents applications were lodged under the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health Regulations 2011 (NES SOIL) for disturbing soil containing contaminants pursuant to Regulation 9 within SDC and CCC jurisdictions.
[17] The suite of resource consents seek approval for controlled activities, discretionary activities, restricted discretionary activities and non-complying activites.
[18] The NZTA advised the Board that a number of supplementary statutory approvals will be sought for the Project under other statutes outside of this RMA approval process. These include:
An Authority from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for works that modify, damage and destroy archaeological sites under the Historic Places Act 1993;
A general authority from the Department of Conservation to disturb (capture and relocate) lizards and for the unintentional killing or injury of lizards protected under the Wildlife Act 1953; and
Approval to modify stockwater races under the Selwyn District Council Water Race Bylaw 2008.
[19] The Board accepts that the NZTA will seek these other statutory approvals after the designations and resource consents which are the subject to this Report have been determined and prior to commencing construction of the Project.
[20] The following information required by the relevant plans and regulations made under the RMA were provided with the NoRs and the applications for resource consents:
(a) Assessment of the Environmental Effects Report;
(b) Technical reports and supporting documents;
(c) Draft conditions
(d) Draft Management plans; and
(e) A plan set.
[21] There were two types of management plans, namely the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Specialised Environmental Management Plans (SEMPs). The summary of the application documentation appears in Appendix 2 to this Report.
2.2 PROJECT HISTORY
[22] The concept of the Christchurch Southern Motorway has been proposed in some form for many years. It can be dated back to the early 1960s through the work of the Christchurch Regional Planning Authority.
[23] 1962 - Christchurch Master Transportation Plan, described the Southern Motorway as a major Project that extended from Waltham Road through to
6
Halswell Junction Road near the intersection of Springs Road, and re-joining SH1 south of Dawsons Road near Templeton.
[24] 1969 - Christchurch Regional Planning Authority commenced a transport study for the region. This transport study noted that both the Southern and Northern Motorways can be extended outwards to meet the long term needs of external growth and inward to distribute traffic to the city centre and beyond.
[25] 1970 - Staged development of the motorway commenced with the first stage involving the State Highway 75 Curletts Road link between Halswell Road and Yaldhurst. This section was opened in 1979.
[26] 1981 - The second stage opened and involved the section from Curletts Road to Brougham Street. This was originally to be a four-lane motorway all the way through to Main South Road, west of Halswell Junction Road. However, this was reduced in scope immediately prior to construction due to funding constraints. Consultation material from the Ministry of Works and Development during the construction period describes an ultimate extension to the Weedons/ Templeton area.
[27] Early 1980s - The remaining unbuilt length of the motorway route was re-designated. The route generally followed the alignment developed in the original 1960s plan, but with a significantly reduced designation width.
[28] In the early 1980s, the remaining CSM2 section with SH1 was also modified from its location near Rolleston to a point just south of Templeton. Further modifications in 1994 saw the CSM2 designation uplifted and the termination point shifted to the western end of Halswell Junction Road.
[29] 1990s - Studies to address the development of Stage 1 of the CSM, leading to an “Investigation and Reporting” phase and the production of a “Scheme Assessment Report” in 2002.
[30] Most recently in 2002 to 2007, it was part of the work done in the “Christchurch, Rolleston and Environs Transport Study” (CRETS) which, looked at the long-term transport needs for areas south and west of Christchurch.
[31] The general route for this new motorway was identified through this study.
[32] The NZTA then investigated a number of alternative alignments for the motorway in a strategic study and consulted with potentially affected parties in 2009. As a result of the strategic study, two alignment options were progressed as potential routes for Stage 2 of the Christchurch Southern Corridor - the Northern Alignment Option and the Southern Alignment Option.
[33] 2009 - Notice of Requirement for CSM1 was made on 20 March 2009. Construction of the duplication and extension commenced in 2010 and has recently been completed.
[34] 2007 - CRETS was commissioned in 2002 and completed in 2007. This study identified possible CSM2 routes and the need to four-lane Main South Road to Rolleston as part of an integrated transport strategy for southwest Christchurch.
[35] 2009 - Following publication of the final CRETS strategy in 2007, the “Christchurch Southern Motorway Extension Stage 2 - Strategic Study” was completed in 2009. Four alignment options were developed for CSM2, with
7
two options being recommended to form the option alignment corridor in the scheme assessment phase.
[36] 2009 - In March 2009 the Government announced the seven RoNS, which included this Project, as part of the Southern Access package of the Christchurch Motorways work. The scheme assessment phase confirmed the alignment for the Project between 2010 and 2012.
8
3. BACKGROUND, REFERENCE TO BOARD OF INQUIRY, AND MINISTER’S REASONS
Background and Lodgement
[37] The applications for the resource consents relate to the plans of the Canterbury Regional Council, Selwyn District Council and Christchurch City Council. Brief details of those applications appear earlier in this Report. The applications comprised NoRs for three designations in the Christchurch City and Selwyn District Plans, and applications for resource consents under the Canterbury Regional Council Regional Plans, the Christchurch City and Selwyn District plans, and the NES SOIL.
[38] The resource consents being sought are for the following components of the Project:
(a) Bulk earth works;
(b) Storage and use of hazardous substances;
(c) Construction and use of a bore;
(d) Diversion of water;
(e) Taking of both surface and ground water during construction operations;
(f) Discharge of stormwater and contaminants during construction and operation; and
(g) Discharge to air during construction (dust).
[39] Following lodgement, the EPA co-ordinated several concurrent processes:
(a) Technical reports TR2-TR9 were reviewed for completeness and adequacy by independent technical experts contracted by the EPA. A number of the relevant Management Plans were also reviewed. The experts provided advice to the EPA regarding any information gaps in the technical reports;
(b) On behalf of the local authorities, CRC, CCC and SDC, an independent technical consultancy reviewed the AEE for completeness against the requirements of their respective plans. Again, any information gaps were provided to the EPA; and
(c) The EPA prepared documentation regarding the recommendation to the Minister for the Environment, potential board of inquiry members, public notification, and submission forms.
EPA Recommendation
[40] When such applications are lodged with the EPA, s 146 of the RMA requires the EPA to seek a direction from the Minister for the Environment (the Minister) under s 147. On 27 November 2012, the EPA recommended to the Minister that the matters be referred to a board of inquiry for a decision.
9
Minister’s Direction
[41] On 2 December 2012, the Minister confirmed that the applications seek to allow works which form part of a proposal of national significance, and directed that these matters be referred to a board of inquiry for determination under ss 104 to 112 and 171 of the RMA. The Minister announced the Board on 15 February 2013. In accordance with s 149C, on 16 February 2013, the applications were publicly notified, calling for submissions. Submissions closed on 15 March 2013.
[42] Section 142(3) of the RMA sets out a number of matters the Minister may have regard to in determining whether or not a matter is, or is part of, a proposal of national significance. The Minister’s reasons for directing the matters to the Board, in accordance with s 142(3) were:
“The matters proposed by NZTA are a proposal of national significance having given regard to the following relevant factors in section 142(3) of the RMA:
The proposal has a total area of 124 hectares, and is likely to result in the significant use of natural and physical resources (section 142(3)(a)(i)). It will require approximately 1,035,000m3 of total fill for its construction. The estimated cost of physical works is $200 million and the proposal requires $100 million of property acquisition.
The proposal “results or is likely to result in or contribute to significant or irreversible changes to the environment (including the global environment)” (section 142(3)(a)(v)), through the addition of a motorway to the largely rural environment with large structural and elevated components.
The proposal “will assist the Crown in fulfilling its public health, welfare, security, or safety obligations or functions” (section 142(3)(a)(viii)). This proposal is likely to assist with opening up and connecting Lyttelton port to the south of Christchurch City and improve access to Christchurch CBD, the International Airport and the Port of Lyttelton. It is expected to contribute to the reduction in congestion and improved road safety in the wider Christchurch Southern Corridor. The proposal provides for an alternative route for through-traffic with direct access to the industrial areas in Hornby, the south of Christchurch and the Port of Lyttelton.
As the proposal traverses the boundaries of Christchurch City and Selwyn District and also falls within the jurisdiction of the Canterbury Regional Council, it “affects or is likely to affect more than 1 region or district” and “relates to a network utility operation that extends or is proposed to extend to more than 1 district or region” (sections 142(3)(a)(ix) and 142(3)(a)(x)).
Two of the local authorities – Selwyn District Council and Christchurch City Council – are of the view that the proposal is of national significance. Canterbury Regional Council does not have a view on the national significance of the proposal.”
10
4. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK FOR DELIBERATIONS
[43] The RMA provides the framework for the Board’s deliberations. Of particular
relevance are provisions detailing the jurisdiction of the Board and the process regarding NoRs and resource consent applications.
[44] The Board must determine the applications in accordance with s 149P of the RMA which specifies the matters that the Board is required to consider in making its decision. Section 149P relevantly provides:
(1) A board of inquiry considering a matter must-
(a) have regard to the Minister's reasons for making a direction in relation to the matter; and
(b) consider any information provided to it by the EPA under section 149G; and
(c) act in accordance with subsection (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), or (9) as the case may be.
(2) A board of inquiry considering a matter that is an application for a resource consent must apply sections 104 to 112 and 138A as if it were a consent authority.
(4) A board of inquiry considering a matter that is a notice of requirement for a designation or to alter a designation-
(a) must have regard to the matters set out in section 171(1) and comply with section 171(1A) as if it were a territorial authority; and
(b) may-
(i) cancel the requirement; or
(ii) confirm the requirement; or
(iii) confirm the requirement, but modify it or impose conditions on it as the board thinks fit; and
(c) may waive the requirement for an outline plan to be submitted under section 176A.
[45] A NoR for an alteration to a designation falls under section 181 of the RMA. Section 181 makes the provisions of s 171 applicable to the alteration.
[46] A NoR for a designation may only be issued by a requiring authority. Section 166 defines a requiring authority as:
(a) A Minister of the Crown; or
(b) A local authority; or
(c) A network utility operator approved as a requiring authority under section 167.
11
[47] The NZTA was approved under s 167(3) of the RMA as a requiring authority by Resource Management (Approval of Transit New Zealand as Requiring Authority) Notice 1994, which was notified in the Gazette on 3 March 1994.
[48] In determining a matter that is a NoR for a designation or an alteration to a designation, in accordance with s 149P(4)(a), the Board must have regard to the matters set out in s 171(1) of the RMA and comply with s 171(1A) as if it were the territorial authority.
[49] In the case of a resource consent application, under s 149P(2) RMA, the Board must apply sections 104 to 112 and 138A of the RMA as if it were a consent authority.
[50] Prior to determining applications for non-complying activities, the decision maker must determine whether the applications satisfy at least one of the limbs of the section 104D threshold test.
[51] In addition to consideration under s 104D, there are further considerations for particular classes of activities:
Controlled, under section 104A;
Discretionary activities, under section 104B;
Restricted discretionary activities, under section 104C;
Non-complying activities, under section 104D; and
Discharge permits under sections 105 and 107.
[52] All of the relevant statutory considerations are subject to Part 2 of the RMA. The relevant provisions of Part 2 will be referred to later.
[53] Sections 43A, 43B and 43D of the RMA apply to the consideration of resource consents under NES SOIL which came into force on 1 January 2012. It sets out a nationally consistent set of planning controls and soil contaminant values to ensure that land affected by contaminants in soil is appropriately identified and assessed before it is developed, and if necessary the land is remediated or the contaminants contained to make the land safe for human use.
[54] Relevant provisions of NES SOIL are:
Regulation 5 of NES SOIL identifies the activities which are covered by the Standard;
Controlled land use consent is required for sampling, disturbance and change of use of land containing contaminated or potentially contaminated soil in accordance with Regulation 9 of NES SOIL; and
The matters over which control is reserved are set out in Regulation 9(2) of NES SOIL.
12
5. PROCEDURES
5.1 SECTION 149G(3)
[55] Section 149G requires the EPA to commission a report from the relevant local authorities on the key issues in relation to the matter. The EPA commissioned reports from the CRC, CCC and SDC which were provided to the Board for its consideration.
[56] Each of these reports responded to a Statement of Work from the EPA which defined the scope of the reports to identify the key issues arising from the Project. The Statement of Work specified that the reports should address the following:
(a) any relevant provisions of a national policy statement, a New Zealand coastal policy statement, a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement, and a plan or proposed plan; and
(b) a statement on whether all required resource consents in relation to the proposal to which the matter relates have been applied for; and
(c) if applicable, the activity status of all proposed activities in relation to the matter.
(d) confirmation of the status, and weighting if proposed, of any relevant regional policy statement, and or relevant plan; and
(e) detail of the permitted baseline and existing environment for the resource consents applied for within the local authority’s jurisdiction. This will include:
The permitted baseline, and details of any relevant consents held in the area that form the existing environment within the local authority’s jurisdiction.
Comment on whether the proposed consents applied for within the local authority’s jurisdiction will affect any relevant existing consent holder’s ability to implement their existing consents, should the proposed consents be granted.
(f) any other matter which is relevant to the key issues associated with the applications.
Canterbury Regional Council
[57] The report from CRC identified a number of objectives and policies that in its view should also be considered. These include “Regional Policy Statement (RPS) - Chapter 10 - Beds of Lakes and Rivers and their Margins”; and “Proposed Regional Policy Statement (PRPS) - Chapter 10 - Beds of Lakes and Rivers”.
[58] The report noted that the NZTA appeared to have applied for all necessary resource consents to give effect to the Project. The report confirmed that the activity status for the proposed activities has been correctly identified.
13
[59] Further, the report identified that there may be a need for additional consent under the National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission Activities (NES ETA) as a result of work undertaken to increase transmission line clearance distances.
[60] The report detailed existing resource consents and applications received within 2000 metres of the proposed Project area. The report also includes a map identifying the location of those consents.
Christchurch City Council
[61] The report from CCC identified a number of objectives and policies that the NZTA had not identified which the CCC considered were relevant.
[62] The report noted that the NZTA appeared to have applied for all necessary resource consents to give effect to the Project. The report confirmed that the activity status for the proposed activities has been correctly identified.
[63] The report also discussed the permitted baseline and existing resource consents relating to properties that are directly affected by the alignment.
[64] The report identified several key issues relating to:
The loss of rural production land;
The protection of land and water from the storage and use of hazardous substances (petroleum) during the construction phase;
The suitable control of stormwater;
The impact on ecological values of waterways;
Emissions from vehicles using the road;
Airborne sediment from construction activities;
Natural hazards including seismic activity;
Liquefiable soils and overland flow;
Landscape impacts;
Construction noise and light effects;
Tangata whenua values;
Transport safety;
Efficiency and connectivity for all road users;
Ability to utilise the existing railway corridor in the future for passenger transport;
Social and economic impacts;
Land severance due to roading;
Amenity values in the LG zone and rural amenity; and
14
Landscape values for rural properties.
Selwyn District Council
[65] The report from SDC identified a number of objectives and policies that the NZTA had not identified which the District Council considered were relevant.
[66] The report noted that the NZTA appeared to have applied for all necessary resource consents to give effect to the Project. The report confirmed that the activity status for the proposed activities has been correctly identified.
[67] The report also detailed the permitted baseline, existing resource consents on and along the proposed designated corridor, existing resource consents relating to properties that are directly affected by the alignment, and provided a map showing the underlying zoning.
[68] The report identified key issues relating to traffic and transport, urban form and function, visual effects and noise effects.
5.2 SECTION 92(1) REQUESTS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
[69] As a result of advice from the EPA, the Board made s 92(1) (further information) requests of the NZTA for the following three matters:
Groundwater, Stormwater, Hydrology and Water Quality
(a) Further information on background groundwater quality in the existing environment into which stormwater will discharge. The request included any results of baseline monitoring to confirm the presence of any contaminants in the existing groundwater in the proximity of proposed stormwater disposal areas;
(b) Clarification of the discharge frequencies of the ponds (dry ponds/detention basins) and provide a description of the existing surface water quality in Montgomery's Drain, Knights Stream and Halswell River. The request noted that if discharges of stormwater to the Halswell River catchment area are likely to occur more frequently than in a 100-year ARI event, a revised ecological assessment of the effects on water quality of the receiving environment should be provided;
(c) Clarification of the treatment efficiencies for the stormwater basins (dry ponds/detention basins and wet ponds);
(d) Clarification of the likely effects of any increased base flows in Upper Knights Stream as a result of the discharge of diverted high groundwater flows (to avoid loss of treatment/storage capacity within ponds);
(e) An assessment of the potential cumulative effects from the taking of water from the over-allocated Selwyn-Waimakariri Groundwater Zone;
(f) Clarification of the length of alignment where there is less than 1m of soil between the base of the stormwater treatment and disposal systems and highest groundwater;
15
(g) Clarification of the type of ponds and basins in relation to each geographic location (for example, dry detention basin, infiltration basin, wet pond, near Robinsons Road etc); and
(h) A description/calculation to show how the critical duration of 24 hours was determined (for the stormwater disposal system) and how the critical storm duration will be determined to suitably size the stockwater and overland flow path crossings.
Visual, Landscape and Urban Design
(a) Visual simulations to first show the proposed motorway at the selected locations after construction without mitigation measures, and then a second simulation showing the completed scheme including mitigation, after a period of five years; and
(b) Visual simulation of the view from in front of 182 Paige Place from the Main South Road (SH1) frontage looking south west along the new alignment towards the Weedons Road Interchange.
Noise and Vibration - Construction
(a) A short commentary setting out how the range of predicted noise levels will be perceived by the affected receivers; and
(b) An update to Tables 7 and/or 8 of the CNVMP to include an additional column headed “Minimum Safety Distance”. The Board requested that this column should contain the distance away from a receiver at which each activity will be at, or louder than the Project noise limits.
[70] The Board received appropriate responses from the NZTA for the above requests.
5.3 SECTION 92(2) REQUESTS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
[71] The Board also commissioned reports under s 92(2) of the RMA. In particular it commissioned:
(a) A planning advisor;
(b) A ground water allocation report; and
(c) A report seeking guidance on NZ Noise Standard NZS 6806:2010.
[72] The Board commissioned Mitchell Partnerships Limited (Mitchell Partnerships) to prepare a gap analysis on the planning reports. Ms L Taylor was the primary author of this report (the Planning Report).
[73] The Planning Report comprised an independent planning report. Part One of the s 92 report identified any gaps and issues in the NZTA’s assessment of key statutory provisions, overview of key issues from submissions and evidence prepared by the NZTA.
[74] A second part of the Planning Report was prepared providing an overview of the submitters’ evidence and the NZTA’s rebuttal evidence.
16
[75] A third part of the Planning Report provided supplementary comment and evaluation of the conditions proposed by the NZTA. This report also describes the key issues that have emerged from the conferencing process which has taken place between the Board and the NZTA’s planning expert.
[76] The Board commissioned an independent report on the potential cumulative effects of the temporary take of water for the Project from the over-allocated Selwyn-Waimakariri Groundwater Zone. In requesting this report, the Board were particularly interested in the following issues:
Quantitative inventory of existing consented water takes in this aquifer;
Commentary about the accuracy of estimated takes by the NZTA for this Project; and
The impact of the proposed take on existing consent holders and availability for future users.
[77] This report was prepared by Tonkin & Taylor Limited with the person responsible for it being Mr T Reynolds.
[78] The Board also commissioned an independent report on construction and operational noise relating to the Project. This report included the background to the New Zealand Noise Standard, NZS6806:2010: “Acoustics - Road traffic noise - New and altered roads”; how this standard has been applied to other roading projects; how this standard was derived, how it works and how it deals with mitigation. The author was Mr C Vossart (Styles Group).
[79] Additionally, the Board had the benefit of legal advice on some issues from Ms K Anderson of DLA Philips Fox.
5.4 SUBMISSIONS
[80] A total of forty-three submissions were received on the various applications.
[81] This included one incomplete submission which was received with further information provided after the close of the statutory submission period. The Board accepted this submission. One late submission was not accepted as the NZTA opposed its acceptance, and the Board therefore had no jurisdiction to accept it.
[82] Of the 43 submissions received:
(a) 19 submitters (44%) opposed the Project either in full or in part;
(b) 17 submitters (40%) supported the Project either in full or in part; and
(c) six submitters (14%) were either neutral in full, in part, or had a mixed position. One submitter chose not to state a position.
[83] The Board considers individual submissions where relevant, on an “issue by issue” approach in Sections 10 and 11 of this Report.
5.5 PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE
[84] A pre-hearing conference was held on 29 May 2013 in the lead-up to the hearing. The purpose of this conference was to outline procedures for the
17
hearing and to allow the NZTA and submitters to raise any issues they had with the hearing procedures and any other procedural matters.
[85] Directions from this pre-hearing conference were provided in a minute of the Board.
5.6 EVIDENCE
[86] The NZTA’s evidence in chief was received by the EPA on 18 April 2013. Expert evidence on behalf of the submitters was received on 21 May 2013. The NZTA provided rebuttal evidence to the EPA on 7 June 2013.
[87] Appendix 3 to this Report includes a list of all evidence received (regardless of whether the author appeared at the hearing or not) and the topics covered by those briefs of evidence.
[88] On 14 May 2013 The John and Susan Shanks Family Trust sought a waiver of compliance to the submitter evidence deadline for their property valuation evidence. They sought an extension to 7 June 2013 and the Board granted that request on 22 May 2013.
[89] The Board excused the attendance of several of the NZTA witnesses as there were no requests to cross-examine them. Those witnesses then provided their evidence in affidavit form.
[90] A list of those exempted is also included in Appendix 3 to this Report.
5.7 REPRESENTATIONS
[91] Representations were received from 14 submitters. A list of those submitters appears as Appendix 4 to this Report.
[92] These submitters appeared at the hearing and spoke in support of their submissions. One of those, Mr Shanks, was without objection from the NZTA, allowed to give his supporting statement as evidence.
5.8 WITNESS CONFERENCING
[93] The Board directed limited expert conferencing. This conferencing related in the main to individual concerns of submitters, although the groundwater conferencing was of general importance to the Board. There was conferencing between experts, which was arranged by the NZTA, and in several cases these experts filed memoranda setting out what had been agreed and not agreed between them.
[94] The NZTA discussed the further issues raised in submitters’ evidence directly with individual submitters. No parties saw the need for expert conferencing at the time of the pre-hearing conference. The Board requested a progress update on any resolution of issues from the NZTA and this was received on 14 June 2013.
18
[95] Following conferencing, two agreed statements of position were received regarding noise (The John and Susan Shanks Family Trust (Trevathan) and the NZTA (Camp); Board’s independent noise expert (Vossart) and the NZTA (Camp)).
[96] Additionally, the Board directed the NZTA and two of the local authorities (CCC and SDC) to undertake conferencing regarding the Halswell Junction Road interchange ramps.
[97] The Board requested that the Board’s groundwater, noise and planning experts participate in conferencing discussions with the respective NZTA experts, and produce joint statements addressing the matters of agreement and disagreement.
[98] Additional statements of position were received for the following:
Groundwater (Reynolds and Utting); and
Planning (Taylor and O’Callahan).
[99] The Board asked CRC to comment on the agreed statement of position and intent for groundwater, and Matt Smith an officer at CRC provided comment on 27 June 2013, outlining the Council’s position on the groundwater issue.
[100] In addition, the Board received a statement of supplementary evidence from Mr Utting, dated 8 July 2013. In that statement of evidence Mr Utting dealt with a range of groundwater issues, including:
Groundwater levels beneath the CSM2 and MSRFL Project (Project) area during the high rainfall event of June 2013;
The role of groundwater in the June 2013 flooding; and
The issue of “underground streams” raised by Mr Doyle when speaking to his submission.
[101] The Board acknowledges that the various groups of experts participated constructively in conferencing, and produced helpful reports as to the facts and issues agreed, facts and issues unresolved and reasons for the latter. The Board has considered these statements along with other submitters’ concerns in its assessment later in this Report.
5.9 HEARING
[102] The hearing was held at Riccarton Events Centre, Christchurch between 1 July 2013 and 16 July 2013 with actual sitting days limited to six days.
[103] All evidence, documents and exhibits produced and referred to at the hearing have been made available on the EPA website, along with a daily transcript of proceedings.
[104] Pursuant to s 37(1)(a) of the RMA the Board extended the time between the close of the submission period and the commencement of the hearing from 40 working days to 71 working days.
19
[105] On 3 July 2013, the Board approved a request by Radio New Zealand (RNZ) to record the hearing. Copies of statements of evidence and transcripts were posted on the EPA website as they became available.
[106] Appendices 3 and 4 of this Report list all parties who filed evidence and gave representations at the hearing.
[107] The hearing was adjourned on 16 July 2013 pending the provision of further information from the NZTA and for additional site visits. By way of a minute, dated 30 July having determined that it had all the necessary information in which to begin its deliberations and make its decision, the Board officially closed the hearing.
5.10 PARTIES WITHDRAWING SUBMISSIONS AND RIGHT TO BE HEARD
[108] The NZTA undertook direct discussions with individual submitters after the close of the submitters’ evidence period. As a result of that the following parties formally withdrew their submissions:
Fulton Hogan Land Development Ltd;
Tall Tree Stud; and
Nelson Odering.
[109] Other parties elected not to appear at the hearing but did not withdraw their submission:
Citadel Limited;
Bak Lee; and
Central Plains Water.
[110] The following parties withdrew portions of their submissions:
Southern Horticultural Products Ltd;
Sheds NZ;
The John and Susan Shanks Family Trust; and
Selwyn District Council.
[111] Comments will be made later in this Report where relevant on the reasons why some of these submissions were withdrawn in full or in part.
5.11 SITE VISITS
[112] A preliminary site visit was undertaken on 28 May 2013, along the route and also at various submitter locations. The Board was accompanied by a person who has knowledge of the Project but is not an employee of the NZTA and did not give evidence at the hearing. EPA staff also accompanied the Board on this site visit as did the Friend of the Submitter.
20
[113] At the opening of the hearing, Mr John Shanks for The John and Susan Shanks Family Trust requested the Board conduct a site visit of the Trust’s property. This occurred on 4 July 2013 in the presence of Mr and Mrs Shanks and representatives of the NZTA and the EPA.
[114] During the hearing the Board, unaccompanied by anyone else, also visited relevant portions of the Project.
6. STATUTORY TESTS [115] The Minister having made a direction under s 142 (2) of the RMA, this Board
is required to comply with the provisions of s 149P of the RMA. In particular, in respect of all applications it must:
(a) have regard to the Minister’s reasons for making the direction; and
(b) consider any information provided to it by the EPA under s 149G of the RMA.
[116] In considering the applications for notices of requirement, the Board must have regard to the matters set out in s 171(1) of the RMA and comply with s 171(1A) as if it were a territorial authority. Section 171 requires this Board to consider the effects on the environment of allowing the requirement, having particular regard to:
(a) Relevant national, regional or district planning instruments;
(b) Whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes or methods of undertaking the work;
(c) Whether the work and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the NZTA for which the designations are sought; and
(d) Any other matter that the Board considers reasonably necessary in order to make a recommendation on the requirement.
[117] Under s 149P of the RMA, the Board when considering the resource consent applications must apply the provisions of ss 104 to 112 and 138A of the RMA.
[118] The relevant statutory provisions for the purposes of the resource consent applications in this case are:
(a) Any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity;
(b) Relevant provisions of national, regional or district planning instruments (similar to the requirement under s 171(1) in respect of a notice of requirement application);
(c) Any other matters relevant or reasonably necessary to determine the application;
(d) Section 104D of the RMA is relevant to one of the resource consents and is relevant to all of them if bundling of those consents is required. The Board may grant a resource consent for a non-complying activity only if it is satisfied that either:
(i) The adverse effects of the activity on the environment will be minor; or
21
(ii) The application is for an activity which will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant statutory/planning instruments.
[119] It is thus necessary for the NZTA if bundling is necessary, to satisfy the Board that the activities in respect of which the resource consents are sought falls within one of the gateways of s 104D.
[120] The matters which the Board must have regard to in respect of both the notice of requirements and resource consent applications are subject to the provisions of Part 2 of the RMA. This part sets out the purposes and principles of the RMA. The purpose of the RMA is expressed as being “to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources” (s 5). Section 6 sets out matters of national importance. The matters which the Board is required to recognise and provide for under this provision are:
(a) The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development; (b) The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development; (c) The protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna; (d) The maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers; (e) The relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga; (f) The protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development; and (g) The protection of protected customary rights.
22
7. LEGAL ISSUES
Bundling and Section 104D of the RMA
[121] Section 104D of the RMA applies to applications for resource consent for a non-complying activity. The Board may only grant such an application if satisfied that either:
(a) The adverse effects of the activity on the environment will be minor; or
(b) The application is for an activity that will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant plan or proposed plan.
[122] Ms O’Callahan gave planning evidence on behalf of the NZTA. She identified five non-complying activities for which resource consent were being sought. She considered each of those activities against the above two ‘gateway’ provisions in s 104D and expressed the opinion that those activities complied with both of the tests.
[123] Mitchell Partnerships in its Planning Report to the Board, noted that in its experience where non-complying activities for which consents are being sought cannot occur separately, the common practice is to bundle these resource consent applications such that the most restrictive activities status is applied for all of the consents sought. Thus, the advice to the Board from Mitchell Partnerships was that if this practice is to be followed, it is necessary for the Board to apply the s 104D tests to all 15 resource consent applications.
[124] The NZTA considered its position on the basis of the bundling proposal suggested by Mitchell Partnerships. Ms O’Callahan updated her evidence and opined that if the bundling practice were to be followed, both gateway tests in s 104D were satisfied.
[125] The Board notes that s 104D on the face of it does not mandatorily require bundling. In the light of the suggested practice the Board has considered the applications both on a bundled and unbundled basis.
Section 42 of the RMA
[126] One submitter, the Shanks Family Trust, provided valuation evidence in support of its submissions. This valuation evidence was based on the financial accounts of the Shanks Family Trust’ wedding business, and a copy of those accounts was attached to the valuation. The submitter sought an order under s 42 of the RMA that the part of the hearing at which this information was to be referred to be held with the public excluded, and that the publication or communication of the information should be prohibited.
[127] The Board’s power to make an order under s 42 is subject to it being “satisfied that the order is necessary... to avoid the disclosure of a trade secret or unreasonable prejudice to the commercial position of the person who supplied ... the information”.
[128] Additionally, it is necessary for the Board to determine in the circumstances of the particular case, that the importance of avoiding disclosure or prejudice outweighs the public interest in making the information available.
[129] The Board was satisfied that there is no public interest in the commercial accounts of the Shanks Trust. The Board therefore determined that the
23
importance of avoiding disclosure or prejudice in this case outweighs any public interest that there may be in making that information available to members of the public.
[130] The Board consequentially made an order that the public be excluded from that portion of the hearing during which the valuer gave evidence.
[131] The Board now makes an order that the accounts of the Shanks Family Trust, which were produced at the hearing, and the evidence of Mr Saunders not be published or communicated to any person other than the NZTA and the Board, and that this order is a permanent order.
Valuation evidence and the Public Works Act
[132] Some submitters raised issues as to the effect the Project is likely to have on the value of their properties. In some of these cases, the Project will lead to land being acquired by the NZTA. The compensation issues in those cases will need to be addressed under the Public Works Act. Compensation is not a matter in respect to which this Board has jurisdiction.
[133] The Shanks Family Trust tendered evidence from a valuer giving his opinion as to the effect the Project would have on the value of both the Trust’s property and the wedding business which it operates from that property. The NZTA challenged the admissibility of this evidence. Ms Appleyard for the NZTA submitted that a reduction in property value was simply another way of measuring the adverse effect on other values. She referred to the Environment Court case of Foot v Wellington City Council (ENVC W073-98) which determined that the adverse effects, having already been considered, it would be to “double-weigh” these factors to place separate weight on the valuation evidence.
[134] Ms Steven for the Shanks Family Trust responded by referring to other cases where valuation evidence has been considered. One of these cases was Re Meridian Energy Limited [2013] NZE NVC 59. The Environment Court in that case noted the difficulties in treating a potential reduction in value as a separate effect. Nevertheless, evidence was given and considered in that case.
[135] The Board is of the view that the correct position is that valuation evidence is relevant insofar as it will assist the Board to quantify adverse effects on the environment. Loss of value is not an effect in its own right and it is necessary to avoid “double-counting” of effects.
[136] The Board determined that it would admit the evidence of the valuer so that it could assess whether the evidence provided a reliable indication of the extent of the adverse noise effects on the Shanks’ Trust property. The purpose of hearing the evidence was not to consider any likely loss of value as an additional or separate effect, but to see whether it confirmed the submitted opinion of the scale of the effect that it would have on the relevant property and business.
Alteration of Alignment
[137] Some of the submitters requested that the Board consider altering the alignment of the carriageway. G Blokland produced a plan, which if accepted, means that one of the local access roads which is to be formed (Berketts Drive) will be constructed outside the designation corridor for that access road,
24
as proposed in the original NOR application. His proposal was supported by the NZTA and Mr C Warren, the only other landowner who could possibly be affected by the proposed realignment.
[138] The NZTA agreed to amend its designation accordingly, and filed amended plans to accommodate the suggestion. This raises the issue of the Board’s power to alter the designation to include additional land, not included in the original NOR application.
[139] This Board has the power under s 149P(4)(b)(iii) of the RMA to confirm the requirement, but modify it as the Board thinks fit. In doing so, it is required to have regard to the provisions of s 171(1) of the RMA. These are the same requirements which have already been referred to in respect of the NOR application as such.
[140] The RMA gives this Board the power to modify the requirement. The issue is on what grounds the Board should exercise this power. Counsel for the NZTA relied upon the principles summarised in Atkins v Napier City Council [2009] NZRMA 429. This case did not involve the altering of a designation, but rather whether an application was a nullity because it had not disclosed all relevant issues. However, in the Board’s view, the principles applied in that case are relevant when considering its power to modify the requirement.
[141] Wild J, in that case, said:
[20] “... I consider the test, as developed by the Environment Court and Court of Appeal through a series of cases, is whether the activity for which [the amended] resource consent is sought, as ultimately proposed to the consent authority, is significantly different in its scope or ambit from that originally applied for and notified (if notification was required) in terms of:
The scale or intensity of the proposed activity; or
The altered character or effects/impacts of the proposal.
[21] Whether there might have been other submitters, had the activity as ultimately proposed to the consent authority been that applied for and notified, is a means of applying or answering the test. But it is not the test itself.”
[142] In this case the only other property owner who could have possibly been affected by the change to the designation was Mr C Warren. He filed a submission agreeing to the change in the designation. The NZTA also agreed to it, and after the application was filed, altered its plans accordingly. Thus not only are there no possible submitters who may have been interested in the change to Berketts Drive, but the change is not significantly different in its scope or ambit from that originally applied for and notified in the application. For these reasons, the Board determines that it will approve the modification to the designation.
[143] The same principles apply to the modification to the designation corridor adjoining the Shanks’ property on Trents Road. That modification of designation, which is a minor reduction in the land area to be designated, is also approved.
25
8. PRINCIPAL ISSUES [144] It is necessary to deal under both s 171 and s 104 with the effects on the
environment and the relevant statutory instruments. The provisions which apply to these matters will apply to both sections. It is also necessary to consider s 181 in respect of the alteration sought in NoR1 but the provisions of s 171 apply under s 181 and the same considerations apply to both sections.
[145] The issues will therefore be considered in the following order:
(a) The effects on the environment; (b) Conditions, management plans and lapse period; (c) The statutory instruments; (d) The alternative route; (e) Are the works and the designation reasonably necessary; (f) Any particular requirements relating to the resource consents; (g) Any other matters; (h) Part 2 requirements; (i) The Minister’s reasons; and (j) EPA information.
9. EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT [146] There is considerable evidence provided by the NZTA on the environmental
effects. Much of this evidence from the NZTA was uncontested. The Board received a full set of submission notices from all submitters. It received evidence/representation from some of those submitters. The Board also had the benefit of the reports it commissioned from its three independent experts. During the hearing, the Board raised issues of concern with the evidence of some witnesses and experts and requested further evidence and reports.
[147] The views that the Board has come to on environmental effects, which are set out below, are a result of the consideration of all relevant evidence and reports.
[148] In approaching this task the Board has grouped concerns raised by submitters into common issues, and assessed such issues based on the information provided by all parties. Concerns raised by individual submitters will be considered where appropriate under each issue, although separate submitters concerns are also considered under the topic of direct property effects.
[149] For convenience the Board has grouped the issues into the following divisions:
a) Those effects arising during the construction period; and
b) Effects associated to the on-going operation of the Project.
26
10. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD EFFECTS [150] At three to four years duration, the construction period has the potential to give
rise to a variety of physical effects on the environment and individuals. These effects will be considered under the following headings:
Traffic and Transportation;
Surface Water Effects;
Stockwater Supply;
Groundwater Quality;
Noise and Vibration;
Air Quality (dust);
Terrestrial Ecology;
Aquatic Ecology;
Geotechnical;
Soil Contamination; and
Cultural, Archaeological and Built Heritage.
10.1 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Issues
[151] There are two issues for consideration. They are:
(a) The potential disruption caused to road users on the existing network during the construction period. That period will be between 3-5 years and will involve the construction of a new motorway, the widening of an existing state highway, new local roads, and constructions of interchanges and an underpass. There will be obvious disruption to traffic during the construction period; and
(b) The Christchurch Little River Rail Trail Trust (the Rail Trust) raised two matters:
The retention for historical purposes of a portion of the original rail track near the Marsh Road deviation; and
Whether the impact on cyclists of increased traffic along Springs Road during the construction stage, has been adequately addressed in the planning.
Submissions and Evidence
[152] Mr Bailey, a project-contract manager for GHD Limited (the consultant) gave evidence for the NZTA. The Project during its period of construction is to be broken down into five zones and then into sections within those zones to allow the disruption caused by the construction to be manageable. He acknowledged that there would be short periods of up to 24 hours where
27
significant delays may occur. This would be necessary for installing detours, closing roads, and intersection layout changes; but it is anticipated that these delays will be infrequent over the period of the construction. The delays will occur until the Site Specific Traffic Management Plan (SSTMP) has been fully installed and/or until the road user becomes familiar with the new layout.
[153] Mr Bailey told the Board that there will be a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) prepared to provide for the management of traffic during the construction stage. Each construction site will have its own SSTMP to manage specific effects arising from that site.
[154] Mr Bailey reviewed the draft CTMP which has been prepared to support the CEMP; the latter having been prepared to provide the framework, methods and tools for avoiding, remedying or mitigating environmental effects of the construction phase of the Project. He explained that the CTMP is to be continually reviewed and updated throughout the duration of the Project. It sets the minimum standards required for the implementation of temporary traffic management to be utilised on the Project. These minimum standards and any practices and procedures created from them aim to eliminate, mitigate or isolate the risks to the environment.
[155] Mr Bailey noted that the majority of the construction will be undertaken away from the existing roads. Key traffic control activities and mitigation may include shoulder and lane closure, temporary speed limits, property access relocation and closure of the existing access ways, diversion routes and detours. There will be public communication and the timing of the construction works will be taken into account. It was Mr Bailey’s evidence that disruption will be manageable and can be minimised through good planning. Infrequent significant delays may occur for short periods of time, during times of actually setting up the traffic management and also at the times of joining into the existing road works.
[156] Ms O’Callahan explained that there are four conditions which are being suggested which relate to traffic management in the construction phase:
DC.25 requires the Requiring Authority to finalise the CTMP and provides for consultation and the timing of this consultation;
DC.26 requires the CTMP to set out minimum standards to be adopted for the implementation of temporary traffic management. There are certain requirements, which are not exhaustive, which must be in the CTMP;
DC.27 requires SSTMPs to be prepared in consultation with the Road Controlling Authority and in accordance with the CTMP. SSTMPs are to be certified by an independent approving engineer; and
DC.28 requires the CTMP and the SSTMPs to generally be consistent with the NZ Transport Agency Code of Practice (TACP) for Temporary Traffic Management (TTM).
[157] The Rail Trust raised the second issue. The Rail Trust’s concerns were expressed by Mr Babe, the Chair of the Rail Trust. The Rail Trust is a fundraiser for the project of a cycle trail from Christchurch to Little River using part of the historic rail corridor. The Rail Trust is happy that the cycle path on CSM1 is to be extended and to cross to the other side of the proposed motorway and connect to the existing trail through the railway corridor. It sees
28
the extension as valuable for recreational cyclists. It does however have concerns that, which it accepts are probably only minor, during the construction of CSM2.
[158] Mr Aldridge was recalled to give evidence on these concerns and on other matters. In respect of the first concern, Mr Aldridge advised that the works which were of concern will be over 300 metres away from the old rail corridor and thus the short section of historical rail track on that section of the rail trail will not be affected by the proposed works on Marsh Road.
[159] In respect of the Rail Trust’s concern about the safety of commuter cyclists who will use Springs Road during the construction period, Mr Aldridge’s evidence was that it is possible that work may be undertaken on the Springs Road underpass at the same time as on the Marsh Road and Shands Road underpasses. Consequently, Spring Road is unlikely to be seen as an attractive alternative route to avoid the construction works. He doubted whether Mr Babe’s concern that the volume of traffic on Springs Road during this period “could as much as double”, was likely to occur.
[160] Further, Mr Aldridge advised that the Springs Road underpass site will have a SSTMP developed prior to any work being started. The SSTMP will be fully developed after detailed design of the Project has been finalised, and will accommodate cyclists as this is a requirement of the Code of Practice of Temporary Traffic Management with which SSTMPs must comply.
Evaluation and Findings
[161] It is inevitable that there will be disruption of traffic during the construction of a major motorway project. Although a good portion of the construction will be away from existing roads, there will undoubtedly be delays caused on the existing roads as is acknowledged in the evidence of the NZTA. The Board is satisfied that the construction disruption is manageable.
[162] It is noted that the only submitter who presented at the hearing and gave evidence of traffic disruption was the Rail Trail. The Board is satisfied with the response given in the evidence of Mr Aldridge and believes that any adverse effects arising from the construction can and will be adequately mitigated.
[163] The Board accepts that the conditions referred to above, and which are set out as an attachment to this decision are appropriate and adequate to mitigate the disruption to traffic which will occur during construction. There will be adverse effects on the traffic environment for limited periods during the construction. This is inevitable, but in view of the overall benefits of the Project, and the other matters which the Board is required to take into account, it determines that the effects on the environment during the construction stage are acceptable and will be adequately mitigated.
10.2 SURFACE WATER EFFECTS
Issue
[164] The issue is the possible adverse effects of sediment generation arising from the construction of the Project on the quality of surface water (particularly stockwater quality). The issue of stockwater supply is dealt with in the next Section.
29
[165] The source of these effects is primarily the discharge of sediment-laden stormwater, including stormwater containing contaminated soil.
Submissions and Evidence
[166] Mr Cain gave evidence for the NZTA on the potential effects of erosion and sediment discharge arising during the construction of the Project. Mr Cain was the author of the Draft Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) for the Project which is included in the CEMP in Volume 4 of the application documents (SEMP002).
[167] Given the relatively low level of annual rainfall that typically falls within the Project area, the general flat gradient of the topography, the proposed construction staging and the appropriate ESC measures being in place prior to construction activity taking place, Mr Cain considered that overall any adverse sediment generation effects on the receiving environment as a result of the Project will be no more than minor.
[168] Some submitters including SDC, CRC and Mr and Mrs Doyle in their submissions on their stockwater concerns refer particularly to erosion and sediment runoff. Mr Cain responded to these comments.
[169] Specifically these concerns are as follows:
SDC is specifically concerned with adverse effects from discharge of surface water to stockwater races and the resulting water quantity and quality risks;
The CRC submission seeks monitoring of water quality during construction and management actions in the event that sediment-laden water is discharged to surface water. The management actions sought include notifying the Council and carrying out works to prevent future discharges; and
The concern raised in the Doyle submission is the potential contamination of surface water (stockwater races).
[170] Mr Cain was comfortable with the request made by CRC and agreed that some further monitoring and reporting requirements be incorporated in Conditions DP.4 and DP.5.
[171] Mr Cain responded to the other submissions as follows:
There are a number of stockwater races which cross the proposed route and will require diversion; and
The diversion channels, siphons and culverts will be constructed off-line from the existing stockwater races and only once the stockwater race channel has been fully stabilised would the diversion of flows occur. This method will be used as a protection to all stockwater races adjacent to the proposed alignment.
[172] Mr Cain therefore considered that the above submitters’ concerns are all able to be satisfactorily resolved. He suggested changes to conditions to provide increased assurance in relation to these comments.
30
Evaluation and Findings
[173] The Board acknowledges that erosion and sediment control for the Project is primarily based on the control of erosion through the minimisation of the amount of bare earth exposed, timely stabilisation of exposed areas as construction progresses, and secondly through minimising sediment and contaminant-laden discharges to the receiving environment through the provision of sediment control devices.
[174] The Board also records that the Draft ESCP discusses various areas of the Project and makes recommendations as to the ESC measures that can be provided to manage erosion and sediment generation during construction. The draft ESCP also recommends that future site specific erosions and sediment control plans are developed, which will allow for further discussion, contractor innovation and input from the regional council prior to construction activity taking place.
[175] The Board finds that the NZTA will have in place mechanisms through maintenance (and operational) procedures to effectively maintain the stormwater management works to assure their long term performance.
[176] The Board agrees with Mr Cain that it is essential that the ESC measures installed during the construction of the Project are monitored to ensure their operation and effectiveness during the construction period.
[177] Conditions DP.1 to DP.6 inclusive place controls on the discharge of sediment and contaminant-laden stormwater, and state when ESC measures are to be monitored and cleared of retained sediment. They also describe the action to be taken in the event of a discharge of sediment-laden water to a surface waterway.
[178] The Board is satisfied with the provisions made in the ESCP and the conditions for the control and remedy of any adverse effects that might arise during the construction of the Project, and accordingly finds that any adverse sediment and contaminant discharges to surface water in the receiving environment as a result of the Project can be expected to be no more than minor.
10.3 STOCKWATER SUPPLY
Issues
[179] The issue is whether the construction of the Project will affect the quantity of stockwater available to adjoining owners.
Submissions and Evidence
[180] L & S Manion, G & E Doyle, M O'Malley, J Shanks, G Blokland and SDC made submissions on this issue, and particularly expressed concern that the Project would affect water supply from stockwater races.
[181] The water supply to the Manion property at 57 Weedons Ross Road is adjacent to the stockwater race on that same road. The Project will involve changes to the race system and shut-downs of the system will be required during construction.
31
[182] G & E Doyle at 782 Weedons Road (corner of Weedons Road and SH1) have a series of concerns regarding:
(a) Lack of water;
(b) Excessive take may have negative effect on water supply; and
(c) The stockwater races should be not left dry for more than 48 hours.
[183] M O’Malley has a property on Trents Road and is concerned that the construction of the Trents Road underpass and its associated embankments may lead to a diversion of water resulting in a lack of adequate supply of water to his property.
[184] The Shanks property at 150 Trents Road has a race being fed from the Trents Road race. The Trents Road race is subject to relocation. The concern is that during the construction of the race diversion there will be insufficient water to maintain existing flow.
[185] G Blokland has a property on Robinsons Road and there are proposed changes to the race system servicing his property during the construction of the Robinsons Road overpass. His concern is a lack of water caused by these works during the construction period.
[186] The SDC submission raised the issue of proposed changes to the stockwater race along Marshs Road. In their submission SDC stated that "Any stockwater race closures are required to go through a formal stock water race closure process for which there is no guaranteed outcome."
[187] Mr Millar gave evidence for the NZTA in this topic. He stated that he had reviewed the SDC submission and concluded that if permission is denied to allow for stockwater race closure, then there is an engineering solution that will allow for Project discharges to be catered for without discharge to the race system. He recommended that the NZTA apply for a water race closure downstream of Shands Road. In his view, this application should allow for the continuation of the function of the race for land drainage.
Evaluation and Findings
[188] In considering the matters raised in the above submissions, the Board accepts that the effects on stockwater supply will be temporary and limited in duration and frequency. It notes that similar effects could occur through the normal day-to-day operation of the SDC stockwater races.
[189] The stockwater race network is managed by SDC under the Water Race Bylaw 2008. The Board acknowledges that the SDC advised that stockwater races can be closed for up to 24 hours without notice and for longer periods with the prescribed notice. The Board also is aware that it is intended to construct the realigned sections of race offline. The connection process can be done in less than 24 hours. If this cannot be achieved for any reason, the SDC water race policy requires affected landowners approval must be sought at least 14 days in advance. In this situation, an alternative water source would be provided. This position also applies during the operational phase.
[190] In relation to the specific concerns, the Board notes the following:
In respect of L & S Manion’s concerns, the Board notes the advice of the NZTA that based upon the preliminary design, new works to the race will
32
be constructed off-line with only short periods of race shut down to be required at the changeover from the old to the new race. This changeover work is expected to be completed within 24 hours, so effects on Mr Manion and other users are expected to be minimal;
In response to G & E Doyle’s first submission, whilst there will be a series of changes to the race network around Weedons Road SH 1, these changes will not result in any decreased capacity of the race network and the volume of stockwater able to be supplied to the Doyle's property. The Board agrees that the construction methodology can be managed such that any shut downs are completed in less than 24 hours;
In respect of G & E Doyle’s second submission, the Project will not involve any additional consumptive takes of water. The Project will involve replacing existing bores to be closed because of their proximity to the Project. The Board accepts that the proposed groundwater intervention takes are not expected to affect the Doyles or any other users;
In respect of M O’Malley’s concern, no works are proposed on this property or in the adjacent road reserve. The race that passes this property continues at least another 3 km into Prebbleton. As such the Project has a requirement to maintain existing flows in the Trents Road race. The Project works involve the construction of the Trents Road underpass and its associated embankments. This involves diversion of the race to accommodate this. This is an essential element to the works. The NZTA is not proposing to permanently take water from the race;
In respect to the Shanks’ submission, the Trents Road race is subject to relocation as stated above. During construction, it is proposed to construct the new race diversions offline (i.e. in the dry) and once complete, the water will be diverted into the relocated race once the works are complete. The works involved in this change over would normally require a race closure of less than 24 hours in length;
In respect to G Blokland’s submission, it is expected that the new open race piped system would be constructed offline and the change over to the new system completed within 24 hours. Thus the expected shut down can be managed and would have minimal effect on race users; and
In respect to SDC’s submission, the Board notes that at the hearing Mr Carranceja for SDC advised that SDC had no outstanding concerns.
[191] In summary the Board is satisfied that the disruption to the supply in the stockwater race will be avoided to the greatest extent possible and where there are adverse effects they will be adequately mitigated. In arriving at this conclusion, the Board has placed considerable weight on the advice of SDC in their capacity as the administrative body of the water races in the district.
33
10.4 GROUNDWATER QUALITY
Issue
[192] The issue is the possible adverse effects from sediment generation arising from the construction of the Project on the quality of groundwater (particularly, but not limited to, wells and drinking water).
[193] The source of these effects is primarily the discharge of sediment-laden stormwater, including stormwater containing contaminated soil.
Submissions and Evidence
[194] G and E Doyle, J Newfield, A Holton and the Canterbury District Health Board expressed concern that groundwater quality could be affected by the Project. Some of their concerns relate to the construction period.
[195] G and E Doyle were specifically concerned about contamination of sub-surface water (drinking water) - in relation to storage of hazardous substances and stormwater discharges, along with earthworks.
[196] In response to all the above submissions Mr Cain for the NZTA advised that stormwater discharges during construction will soak to ground via sediment control measures including swales, SRPs and DEBs to remove sediment from the stormwater runoff prior to discharge to ground. Accordingly contamination of nearby groundwater used for drinking water is not expected.
[197] On the general matter of ground water contamination, the NZTA’s response was that contamination could possibly affect groundwater during construction which will be controlled by a number of the proposed conditions. These include:
Clean fill only to be used in excavations;
Spill kits to absorb oil and petroleum products, storage requirements for hazardous substances, surface controls to prevent discharge of contaminants to excavated land; and
A plan to manage the accidental interception of artesian aquifers that also includes managing the effects of intercepting large quantities of groundwater flowing into excavations in unconfined aquifers.
Evaluation and Findings
[198] The Board notes that possible contamination by infiltration of stormwater has been appropriately assessed through the Groundwater Quality Report contained in the application. This assessment identified stormwater runoff contaminants of concern and their likely concentrations, and then used these in a conservative, risk-based assessment that indicated wells more than 30 metres from the Project infiltration structures would not have adverse water quality effects.
[199] Conditions based on this analysis include identifying those wells within 30 metres of the infiltration structures and then either replacing them or moving the infiltration structure. Refer Condition DP.15.
[200] In respect to the SDC submissions outlined above, the Board notes that this issue is only a groundwater issue in that groundwater pumped from the RRO
34
would be diverted to the stockwater race along Robinsons Road where it becomes surface water.
[201] The Board finds that any adverse effects of sediment generation on groundwater quality during the construction of the Project will be negligible and should any potential effects become apparent they can be appropriately mitigated through the provisions of the CEMP, the consent conditions and the mitigation measures proposed by the NZTA. Other issues pertaining to groundwater quality during the operation of the Project are considered later in this Report.
10.5 NOISE AND VIBRATION
Issues
[202] The issue is to whether noise and vibration levels will comply with relevant national and international noise and vibration standards for construction activities associated with the Project in order to minimise adverse effects on the health and safety of nearby residents.
Submissions and Evidence
[203] Several submissions were received that raised issues relating to noise and of these the Board addresses below those submissions which specifically raised an issue with construction noise and/or vibration:
M & A Harcourt own a property at 19 John Paterson Drive and their concerns relate to both construction noise and noise from traffic once operational. The submitter anticipates adverse impacts on livestock, and loss of enjoyment of the property. The construction of the new section of John Paterson Drive will come within around 30 metres of the submitter's dwelling and their concern is that there will be potential effects from both construction noise and vibration;
P Dellaca & P & P Lee submitted that the construction and operational phases of the Project will have adverse effects to their properties at 312 and 314 Springs Road;
SDC raised a concern with the wording of conditions to manage construction noise. The Council request that the word "should" in Draft Condition DC.18 is replaced with "shall". The Board notes that the NZTA was agreeable to this change and is discussed no further in this Report.
[204] Mr Camp gave evidence for the NZTA on the subject of noise and vibration which referenced the NZTA TR 83 and TR 94 November 2012, which were prepared under his direction.
3 CSM2 & MSRFL Technical Report No. 8. Assessment of Operational Noise Effects (Rp008 RO2 2010286c) Marshall
Day Acoustics, November 2012.
35
[205] Mr Camp described how construction noise levels at dwellings along the Project had been predicted based on an outline construction methodology that is set out in Chapter 5 of the AEE and that an appropriate mechanism had been provided in the CNVMP for any deviations from the predicted noise levels. He stated that for assessment the Project was split up into 12 sectors based on groupings of nearby dwellings and ease of presentation. The source noise levels for construction equipment used for earthworks, piling, bridge construction and so on, have been taken from New Zealand Standard NZS 6803:1999 "Acoustics - Construction Noise" (NZS 6803). This data being consistent with levels measured by MDA over many years.
[206] According to Mr Camp, NZS 6803 is the current and most widely adopted standard in New Zealand for the assessment of noise from construction activities. It is referenced in many district plans and forms the basis of numerous designations and consents, and allows for higher noise levels during normal working hours for construction noise received in residential areas on the basis that noise effects are relatively short duration. Noise limits prescribed in NZS 6803 for night-time and on Sundays are consistent with district plan noise limits for residential areas and dwellings in rural zones. In addition NZS 6803 requires contractors to adopt the best practicable option to minimise construction noise.
[207] Mr Camp explained that the construction noise predictions were compared to the recommended criteria in NZS 6803 for "long term" duration construction5, and subsequent noise control recommendations informed the preparation of the draft CNVMP. Mr Camp was of the view that compliance with the recommended noise limits in NZS 6803 in conjunction with appropriate noise management techniques, will result in acceptable noise effects. Further details of NZS 6803 analysis and noise control is provided in TR 9.
[208] In TR 9, construction vibration for the Project was evaluated based on historical measurement data from several construction processes. This data was compared to both building damage and human response criteria taken respectively from:
German Standard DIN 4150-3:1999 "Structural vibration - Part 3: Effects of vibration on structures" (DIN 4150); and
BS 5228-2:2009 "Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites - Part 2: Vibration" (BS 5228).
[209] It was Mr Camp’s opinion that in the absence of any New Zealand standards relating to vibration, both DIN 4150 and BS 5228 are commonly used in New Zealand for vibration assessments and are appropriate for use on this Project. The NZTA draft "State Highway Construction and Maintenance Noise and Vibration Guide" references these standards6.
4 CSM2 & MSRFL Technical Report No. 9. Assessment of Construction Noise and Vibration (Rp009 RO1 2010286c)
Marshall Day Acoustics, November 2012. 5 Long term means construction work at any one location with a duration exceeding 20 weeks.
6 See http://acoustics.nzta.govt.nz/management/construction
36
[210] It was the witness’s opinion that potential construction noise and vibration effects are best mitigated through an effective CNVMP for the Project incorporating the above standards7.
Evaluation and Findings
[211] The Board acknowledges that the NZTA’s construction noise predictions indicate that a wide range of noise levels can be generated by the Project depending on the construction activity and the construction equipment being used.
[212] In terms of mitigation, the Board notes that the following two key mechanisms are proposed:
A draft CEMP, which is required to be certified, has been prepared to provide the framework, methods and tools for avoiding, remedying or mitigating environmental effects of the construction phase of the Project8. The CEMP is supported by one of the six SEMPs including the CNVMP9 relating to Construction Noise and Vibration; and
The CNVMP and SEMP 003 identify the noise and vibration performance standards that will where practicable, be complied with and set the framework for the development and implementation of particular noise and vibration management and control methodologies, to be implemented when triggered in order to minimise adverse effects on the health and safety of nearby residents.
[213] The critical elements of the CNVMP are appropriate noise and vibration criteria, a community/stakeholder liaison process, staff training, and a means of managing significant activities at critical construction locations such as those close to dwellings.
[214] The Board also notes that significant noise and vibration generating activities will be managed through a process of schedules10 which will include the proposed construction methodology, identification of potentially affected receivers and noise predictions to assist the development of noise mitigation as required.
[215] The Board accepts that consent conditions relating to construction noise and vibration (DC.16 to DC.20 inclusive) require that noise is managed such that it complies with the relevant standard, and where it does not the alternative mitigation strategies are specifically identified in the conditions.
[216] In particular, the Board acknowledges that Condition DC.17 sets out that construction noise will meet the noise criteria set out in Condition DC.19 (NZS 6803:1999). While NZS 6803 is not a legal requirement the Board accepts it is an appropriate guideline in this instance. Where it is not practicable to achieve
7 SEMP 003, Section 4.3 Table 5, Page13.
8 CSM2 and MSRFL, Technical Reports Volume 4.
9 CSM2 and MSRFL, Technical Reports Volume 4, Appendix C.
10 Refer Section 8 of SEMP 003 - Draft CNVMP.
37
the criteria in NZS 6803, “alternative strategies must be described to address the effects of noise on neighbours”.
[217] The Board notes the critical role that the CNVMP plays in the management and mitigation of construction noise and vibration. It provides a detailed breakdown of predicted construction noise and their sources in twelve sectors over the length of the alignment11. In addition the Board notes:
By implementing effective management techniques as outlined in the CNVMP, daytime construction activities will generally meet the NZS 6803 recommended noise limits. Care will need to be taken close to a small number of dwellings and in situations where specific noisy activities such as pile driving are required. Some activities such as general earthworks, could occur at night provided that appropriate buffer distances are maintained to dwellings.
In general, the construction activities and their associated noise emissions will move along the alignment with the road formation. However, there will be relatively stationary activities occurring at contractor's yards and laydown areas.
Construction activities will typically be limited to daytime hours but there may be a requirement to conduct some work at night for logistical or traffic management reasons. It is night-time work that has the greatest potential for adverse noise effects.
DIN 4150 and BS 5228 have been adopted for use in the CVNMP for measurements of construction vibration. The methodology for complying with these criteria and for NZS 6803 is set out in the CNVMP (SEMP 003) and the designated Condition (DC.20).
[218] In respect to individual submissions the Board finds:
In respect to P Dellaca and P & P Lee the Board accepts that construction noise and vibration effects for these dwellings will be appropriately managed through the implementation of the CNVMP; and
In respect to M & A Harcourt the Board accepts that the implementation of the CNVMP through proposed Condition DC.17, and specifically the requirement to prepare schedules containing site specific information, will appropriately control potential construction noise effects at this dwelling.
[219] The Board finds that the effects from construction noise and vibration have been properly identified and assessed by the NZTA and that appropriate measures are in place to achieve reasonable levels in order to comply with the standards for construction vibration adopted in the CVNMP, and NZS 6803 for construction noise in accordance with the requirement in section 16 of the RMA.
11
Appendix E Noise Mitigation. SEMP 003 CNVMP.
38
[220] Overall, the Board considers that the Project can be constructed such that adverse noise and vibration effects can generally be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
10.6 AIR QUALITY (DUST)
Issues
[221] The following aspects of construction have the potential to cause adverse air quality effects:
Dust from earthworks and road construction; and
Construction vehicle exhaust emissions.
[222] Potential sources of dust which can be a nuisance beyond the site boundary, during adverse weather conditions if adequate controls and mitigation measures are not in place include:
Dust from roads generated by truck and other vehicle movements during dry and windy conditions;
Excavation and disturbance of dry material;
Loading and unloading of dusty materials; and
Stockpiling of materials including its replacement and removal.
[223] Wind can transport dust mobilised from dry surfaces by machinery or truck movements or mechanical disturbance. Unpaved roads and yards can be very dusty during dry weather and are aggravated when surfaces get muddy during wet weather, since these eventually dry out and then become ground up by vehicle movements.
Submissions and Evidence
[224] The following submissions mentioned air quality effects during construction:
G Doyle raised a concern “that air pollution will bring a number of health issues”. Dust discharges are usually large particle sizes (greater than 20 microns) which tend to settle onto the ground or surfaces rather than being inhaled. Smaller particles can cause respiratory or eye irritation. Consequently the management of dust has been a key focus in the assessment;
G and E Mockford and G Blokland. These two submitters supported the application in part subject to (non-specific) dust controls;
A Holton and KiwiRail Holdings. These two submitters supported the application on the basis the construction effects will be appropriately controlled and adverse effects are likely to be minimal;
M & A Harcourt. This submission addressed general adverse effects to their property at 19 John Paterson Drive;
39
John and Susan Shanks Family Trust. This submitter requested a condition be imposed that “in the event of strong northwest winds being predicted during the above periods, watering trucks dampen the construction works over the same distance, defined above, 2900m to 330m, in order to lower the potential for dust clouds”; and
P Dellaca and P & P Lee’s concerns were with general adverse effects of construction dust.
[225] There were no submissions nor evidence on vehicle exhaust emissions during the construction stage. For completeness we deal with the effects of emissions from vehicles during operation later in this Report.
[226] The NZTA’s response, as given by Ms Needham, was that the construction will entail relatively large scale earthworks. Where contaminated sites are excavated during construction there is a risk that wind-blown dust from such a site may contain hazardous materials. The route of the Project passes over fields and orchards and adjacent to railway and landfill sites. A soil contamination investigation was carried out which concluded that contamination arising from the known historic land use would have little or no measurable effect on human health or the environment (TR 17). If contaminated land is discovered during construction of the Project, contingency measures for managing the potential risk from dust will be identified in the CAQMP.
[227] Based on the above, Ms O’Callahan advised the Board that a dust monitoring programme will be implemented during the construction and earthworks phases of the development, which form part of the SEMP 002 and titled Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and will include but not be limited to the following:
Visual inspections of land adjacent to the site, construction exits and adjoining roads for the presence of dust deposits;
Checking weather forecasts for strong winds and rainfall;
Visual inspections of all unsealed surfaces (including earthworks) for dampness and to ensure that surface exposure is minimised;
Visual inspections of all sealed surfaces to ensure that they are clean and all spillages have been cleared;
Visual inspections of exposed earthwork sites, stockpiles and other dust generating activities to ensure they have been dampened, enclosed, covered or stabilised. Ensure stockpile height is less than 3m;
Inspecting watering systems (sprays and water carts) to ensure equipment is maintained and functioning to effectively dampen all exposed areas; and
Inspecting wheel wash equipment to ensure effective operation.
[228] Ms O’Callahan also advised that the recommended method of monitoring deposited dust is visual monitoring. She noted that in the instance of strong winds, emissions and dust offsite or following a complaint, additional monitoring may be required.
40
Evaluation and Findings
[229] In considering this matter, the Board acknowledges that air quality is influenced by the prevailing meteorological conditions of an area, particularly wind speed and direction. Wind directions in the Project area are highly variable with the prominent wind direction being from the northeast. The AEE presents a summary of wind speed and direction that is representative of the Project area and was derived from meteorological data from the Christchurch Airport (where conditions are expected to be similar to the Project area). The information was then used in subsequent dispersion modelling for the Project.
[230] The Board acknowledges that the effects of dust emissions will be largely determined by the nature of the receiving environment. In this respect the Board notes and accepts the following descriptions of the receiving environment:
The easternmost end of CSM2 between Halswell Junction Rd and Springs Rd is within the Christchurch Clean Air Zone 2 under the NRRP. Christchurch Clean Air Zone 1 is located further towards Christchurch city than the Project area and has been gazetted as an air-shed under the NES for Air Quality (NES AQ);
Most of the Project runs through essentially rural areas with the exception of the southernmost part of MSRFL on the northern edge of Rolleston, immediately adjacent to a residential area, therefore the Lincoln monitoring site is considered to be the most representative of ambient air quality in the Project area. In contrast both the Hoon Hay and Hornby monitoring sites are located in established residential area with the Christchurch Clean Air Zone 1 and are likely to be more impacted by emissions from solid-fuelled home heating;
There are no schools, pre-schools, residential healthcare or retirement accommodation within 200m of any part of the Project, although a number of residential dwellings are located within 100m of several sections of the Project; and
All residential premises identified from the rates database within 200m of the Project were considered in the assessment, excluding those properties identified for complete purchase by the Crown for this Project, for reasons other than air quality effects. Locations of sensitive receptors in the vicinity of each road section have been considered.
[231] The Board notes the approach recommended in the MfE’s Good Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing the Environmental Effects of Dust Emissions (MfE Dust GPG) has been followed, which is to focus on the design and development of effective dust control measures.
[232] The Board also records that in line with this approach a draft CAQMP has been prepared which identifies areas close to the Project that are particularly sensitive to dust emissions, significant dust generating activities that will take place during construction, suitable control measures and key monitoring requirements.
[233] The Board accepts the evidence of Ms Needham for the NZTA that a thorough assessment had been undertaken of the potential air quality effects of the Project including the construction phase in accordance with the relevant
41
Ministry of the Environment guide. This included atmospheric dispersion modelling.
[234] In response to the submissions described above, the Board finds as follows:
The construction issues are covered to a significant degree in the provisions of the draft CAQMP (SEMP 001), together with the proposed consent Conditions (DC.14 and DC.15);
It is agreed that dust management activities should be related to weather conditions, in particular in the event of forecast high winds during summer (e.g. nor-westerlies). Proposed Condition DC.15 (vi) includes that the CAQMP provide for “checking weather forecasts and observing weather conditions”; and
The management approach specified in the CAQMP is based on controlling dust so that adverse effects do not occur. These measures include water sprinklers on haul roads, stockpiles or spoil heaps at all times during dry weather.
[235] The Board notes that:
the assessment conducted by the NZTA estimates that only premises within approximately 100m of significant dust sources would be considered as potentially impacted by the effects of construction dust.
Active management will be undertaken to prevent (if possible) or otherwise minimise the effects of dust emissions on these premises.
Compliance with proposed mitigation measures to be implemented through the CAQMP will mitigate construction effects of the Project to an acceptable level.
[236] The Board accepts that as with any construction project of this size, there may be times when there is potential for dust impacts to occur. As noted earlier a draft CAQMP has been prepared which is designed to form the basis of the final CAQMP to be prepared by the contractor. It details methods to be used to mitigate discharges of contaminants into air from construction of the Project. At locations where construction occurs in close proximity to sensitive receptors, a high standard of emissions control and management will be employed to adequately avoid or mitigate the effects of discharges of construction dust.
10.7 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
Issues
[237] It is necessary to assess whether there are adverse environmental effects relating to terrestrial ecology; particularly in relation to birds, lizards and vegetation.
[238] The potential effects on terrestrial ecology will be most significant during construction. The two direct impacts are:
Loss of habitat through clearance and earthworks; and
42
Disturbance, displacement, injury and mortality of birds and lizards.
Submissions and Evidence
[239] There were no submissions suggesting adverse environmental effects. The NZTA witness, Ms Robertson, addressed this matter in her evidence and the relevant facts are as follows:
Bird species observed included the indigenous species silvereye, fantail, grey warbler, Australasian harrier, spur-winged plover and southern black back gulls. Other indigenous species which have been recorded in the vicinity include those associated with wet pasture and waterways and include; paradise shelduck, pukeko, white faced heron, black billed gull (threatened-nationally endangered critical), NZ oystercatcher (at risk-declining), pied stilt and NZ kingfisher. Habitats for these species are restricted to the footprint of the water races and ponded areas;
One lizard species, the common skink, was found during the more recent lizard surveys by Mr Trent Bell. On the basis of this survey work, it would appear that the only lizard species present with the Project footprint is the common skink. Although the common skink (Oligosoma polychroma) is currently classified as ‘not threatened’ (Hitchmough et al 2010), this status is now being upgraded to ‘at risk - declining’ (Hitchmough - pers comm). This change in conservation status has been taken into account in the assessment and recommended mitigation; and
The terrestrial invertebrate fauna (including soil fauna) inhabiting the Project area, is dominated by introduced species typically encountered on farmland and suburban gardens. The range of vegetation types in this area provides habitat for a variety of invertebrates such as bees, dragonflies and damselflies, moths, beetles, spiders and a diverse range of beetles, arthropods and amphipods.
[240] The above evidence was uncontested.
Evaluation and Findings
[241] In considering this matter the Board firstly acknowledges that with the majority of the Project footprint consists of pasture, shelterbelts, rural/residential gardens, grassland road verges; all which have low ecological value as follows:
Indigenous vegetation within and in the vicinity of the Project footprint, is limited to amenity plantings including shelter belts and gardens and naturally occurring species along stock-water race margins;
The riparian area of water races is dominated by rough grassland and occasionally includes areas of common indigenous species of sedges and shrubs; and
Some remnants of indigenous dry-land grassland communities occur at golf courses and quarry sites within the Project footprint due to intensive agricultural development.
43
[242] Loss of habitat in conjunction with disturbance, as a result of construction activities will lead to displacement of bird populations into the surrounding countryside and could lead to mortality and injury to lizards due to their sedentary nature. Native and introduced insects will be similarly affected.
[243] An increase in competition in the surrounding areas by displaced individuals with resident populations will occur, however this is considered low scale due to the large area of similar habitat that exists beyond the motorway footprint and the adaptability of the affected species.
[244] There are low populations of freshwater birds due to the absence of any naturally occurring waterways and lack of suitable riparian vegetation. It is a highly modified but, existing environment therefore the Project will not further adversely affect the existing populations of pukeko, white faced heron, kingfisher and waterfowl to any significant degree during construction.
[245] Habitat loss will result in a minor loss of connectivity or ecological functionality at the local level due to the small amount of woody and grassland area that would be lost, compared to the extent of similar habitat that exists in the surrounding area.
[246] The Board accepts the unchallenged evidence that it is only in respect of the common skinks that there are terrestrial ecology effects requiring mitigation. The proposal to put in place a lizard management plan includes the type of habitat to be created and the process of trapping transferring and monitoring lizards both common and McCann lizard is adequate and appropriate mitigation for the only terrestrial ecology adverse effect. The NZTA is required by Condition DC.36 to produce a Lizard Management Plan.
10.8 AQUATIC ECOLOGY
Issues
[247] The construction will involve piping of water races, realignment and temporary closure of the race system to enable sections of the network system to have pipes, siphons and culverts installed. There will be an extensive area of open earthworks that will generate sediment runoff that will be treated in the stormwater and erosion and sediment control devices. These activities have the potential to affect the freshwater ecosystem via stormwater runoff which may cause contamination (including nutrients, heavy metals and hydrocarbons), habitat disturbance and sediment effects on the ecosystem.
[248] The issue to be considered is the potential of the construction works to affect the freshwater ecosystem. The three areas potentially affected are the Knights Stream with its headwaters situated to the south of Halswell Junction Road just downstream of Springs Road, the Halswell River catchment and the stockwater races.
Submissions and Evidence
[249] The two submissions received on this issue supported the enhancement of ecological values as follows:
A Holton supported the water diversions because any adverse effects will be mitigated through riparian enhancement and realignments that
44
will be developed in such a way as to support native habitats for indigenous birds, lizards, invertebrates, fish and aquatic life over and above what currently exists; and
The SDC submission, while supporting the Project over all, was concerned with the proposed choice of species for riparian situations particularly with regard to the water races and the level of detail within the landscape management plan and maintenance regimes and monitoring.
[250] For the NZTA, Dr Hack’s evidence in summary was:
While water races are typically not considered to be an aesthetic or amenity feature, the presence of macrophytes at each site was assessed in order to provide a complete appraisal of the aquatic environment;
The selected methods to measure the physical habitat were based on recognised techniques developed by CRC. These methods are promoted as a ‘national protocol’. It is considered that the parameters used provide a comprehensive description of the physical habitat; and
A reach of approximately 60 metres at each of the five sites (Sites 1 – 5) was sampled following reasonably stable weather conditions on 5 and 6 July 2011.
[251] As a result of these assessments, Dr Hack’s evidence was:
Baseline water quality sampling assessments were used to assess the sensitivity of the receiving environment and then used to compare changes in the future. Baseline monitoring was carried out in July 2011 to collect water samples from each of the five sampling sites. Results were compared against the Australian and New Zealand Conservation Council (ANSECC) (2000) guidelines for fresh and marine water quality which outline default trigger values for slightly disturbed New Zealand lowland river ecosystems;
An ESCP will be prepared by the contractor as part of the CEMP. The principle behind the ESCP is to control erosion and dust across the construction site, to manage any sediment-laden storm-water runoff and prevent unacceptable discharges of sediment into the receiving environment. The receiving environment is groundwater. The protection of the groundwater aquifer is also required;
The management of stormwater during construction expressly requires resource consent. The options for disposal are limited by the absence of suitable surface water disposal points, as regular disposal to stock-water races is not permitted by SDC. Key issues for stormwater control are:
Control of stormwater and isolating runoff from the stock-water network;
Keeping clean water separate from sediment laden construction runoff;
Protecting adjacent landowners from surface discharge from construction runoff;
45
Minimise sediment leaving the site; and
Disposal of excess water to land.
Further details are provided in Draft CEMP and the Draft ESCP which have been prepared in accordance with the CRC Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines 2007, and the NZTA Stormwater Treatment Standard for State Highway Infrastructure May 2010.
[252] The NZTA’s investigations and assessments (which involved desk top reviews, site walkovers, sampling of the five water race systems and electro- fishing) identified areas of aquatic ecological value (e.g. significant waterways, fish and other fauna species) within the Project area.
[253] The NZTA’s investigations disclosed:
Aquatic flora (in-stream plant life) includes macrophytes (either emergent or submergent), and periphyton (fungi, bacteria, protozoa and algae). The diversity of the aquatic flora affects the visual aspect and amenity values and habitat for fish and other organisms such as aquatic fauna and birds. All sites were assessed to have an overall rating of ‘marginal’ according to the respective habitat feature assessed;
Only three species of fish have been observed within the Project area; the native common bullies, upland bullies and brown trout. Both common and upland bullies are found New Zealand upland bullies and short-fin eels being the most common in a survey associated with CSM1 and within the SWAP ecological area;
Macro-invertebrate species diversity was reasonably high however all sites were dominated by pollutant-tolerant species. This indicates environmental stress affecting the macro-invertebrate community; and
No rare or threatened species were identified in any of the water races.
[254] It is Dr Hack’s opinion that in the already highly modified and controlled environment with a limited aquatic ecosystem the recommended mitigation measures will mean the construction will have a minor effect on the environment. These will be implemented through the CEMP and associated ESCP, and the remaining are recommended to be included as conditions of consent and include:
Prior to construction – develop and implement a CEMP including ESCP and undertaking detailed design so that the alignment of the piped sections will be consistent with the water race environment and should not include any steep drops or perched sections;
During construction – to implement the CEMP and ESCP so as to avoid where practicable excavation of soils adjacent to freshwater environments during heavy rainfall and flood events; in addition this will include a range of other measures such as establishing appropriate access corridors and ensure employees and vehicles do not leave the designated corridors; and stabilising impacted riparian margins; and
A range of site-specific mitigation measures aimed at riparian planting to enhance stream habitats and to mitigate effects associated with habitat loss and disturbance are proposed.
46
Evaluation and Findings
[255] The Board accepts the Project will result in the permanent modification (to varying degrees) of some water races within the Project area. Some sections will be terminated, realigned or piped. These piped sections will result in a reduction in light and riparian vegetation and may reduce spawning habitat, reduce bank stability, increase suspended sediments, alter the existing biological communities and reduce availability of food sources. Associated loss of riparian vegetation may impact upon water temperature and flow regimes (volumes and velocities).
[256] The Board accepts that long term effects on aquatic ecology primarily relate to habitat modification associated with the closure, piping and realignment of water races and occasional stormwater discharges once the Project is operational. Fish passage will be maintained within the altered water races and stormwater will be treated prior to discharge which will not be to surface water, minimising any effects on aquatic ecology.
[257] The most significant habitat loss will occur with the piping of the race along SH1. However, the water races within the Project area provide a low value aquatic habitat that supports pollutant tolerant macro-invertebrate species and limited fish species. However the Board is satisfied that the mitigation measures outlined above will provide for aquatic ecology within the Project area.
[258] The Board also notes that the Project provides an opportunity to enhance terrestrial and aquatic ecology through appropriate mixed indigenous and exotic plantings, including planting the riparian margins of water races. These plantings will enhance habitat quality for indigenous birds, lizards, invertebrates, fish and aquatic life and will assist in offsetting the loss of habitat arising from the Project.
[259] The Board concludes that because of the temporary nature of these construction effects, the relictual nature of the species affected and evidence received, it considers the overall enhancement of ecology in the Project area will improve over and above that, which already exists and therefore the mitigation measures proposed are supported.
10.9 GEOTECHNICAL
Issues
[260] The key geotechnical and geo-hazard considerations that were identified for the Project and addressed during the investigations and reporting stage were:
Heightened regional seismicity and the possibility of further aftershocks;
Ground shaking due to the high ground accelerations experienced during recent events;
Ground deformation and rupture as a consequence of further seismic events generating lateral and horizontal movement;
Liquefaction of susceptible, discrete horizons within the soil profile of the Project area; and
47
Slope stability, settlement, bearing capacity and permeability.
[261] The issue for the Board is the extent to which the Project accounts for the geotechnical and geo-hazard constraints.
Submission and Evidence
[262] No submissions were lodged in respect to this issue.
[263] On behalf of the NZTA, Dr P Forest gave evidence on geotechnical engineering and geo-hazard issues as they relate to the Project. Dr Forest has overall responsibility for the design and implementation of the geotechnical investigations to ensure they met with the structural, hydrological, environmental and consenting requirements for the Project.
[264] Dr Forest considered that with the implementation of suitable management and mitigation measures, activities associated with the actual construction phase that disturb the ground such as piling, earthworks and excavation can be managed appropriately. Nothing raised in the submissions caused him to depart from the technical conclusions reached in his technical assessment of the Project.
[265] Dr Forest’s evidence also covered the following matters:
In order to address the key hazards identified above, appropriate seismic design criteria was determined from NZS1170 in order to determine the Seismic Importance Level particular to any structure being considered12. In addition, Table 3.5 of this Standard was used to determine the Annual Probability of Exceedance in terms of Ultimate Limit State (ULS) and Serviceability Limit State (SLS). The ULS is the level of design performance required that would allow for a structure to accommodate a seismic event but not collapse to the extent to cause injury. The structure would however be non-operative thereafter. SLS design requirements would allow for the structure to remain serviceable after an event albeit with repair13.
Based on observations and mapped areas of "liquefaction affected areas" for the Canterbury region, post the February 2011 earthquake, the Project area did not suffer from liquefaction or lateral spreading14 mainly because the ground accelerations through the Project area were too low, the groundwater was too deep and the dominate geology of the area comprises sands and gravels which are less susceptible to liquefaction.
The site investigation did however identify discrete liquefiable horizons (silts and fine sands) within the general geological sequence that could impact on the main structures. An assessment of these layers for their ability to liquefy under ULS was made, with the conclusions that there is
12
Each structure along the proposed alignment for the Project was assessed individually and reported in the interpretive reports
for Main South Road and Christchurch Southern Motorway. GHD/Beca October 2011. 13
NZS 1170.5 - 2004 Sections 2.1.4 a) and b) provides a definition of the ULS and SLS and their design requirements. 14
Section 6.3.2 TR 11.
48
low risk of liquefaction to major structures that could not be mitigated through appropriate engineering design, given that most structures will benefit from shallow foundation solutions15. Further investigation and assessment of liquefaction would be required if deeper foundation solutions are deemed necessary at the detailed design stage. For example if piled solutions are considered necessary and are required at depths beyond 12 metres, below which the discrete horizons of liquefiable materials exist.
Evaluation and Findings
[266] The Board is satisfied by the evidence that:
Because of the flat topography of the site, natural slope instability issues (landslides) do not pose a risk to this Project. Stability of embankments has been appropriately assessed using the same approach and methodology as for structures. Slope stability is assessed for each of the structures as presented in their relevant sections of the interpretive reports16;
The recorded ground conditions do not pose any significant problem with respect to bearing capacity (the ability of the ground to accommodate the load associated with the structure) and settlement (the consolidation of the soil as a result of the loading placed on the ground from the structure); and
The permeability of the soils encountered generally allows for stormwater to be discharged to ground.
[267] Based on the uncontested evidence the Board finds as follows:
From a geotechnical and geological perspective, the design and construction of the Project is relatively straightforward, with few inherent risks due to ground conditions. This is due to the predominantly flat topography and relatively homogenous geology. The geology comprises granular materials that can accommodate seismic induced loading, are not prone to liquefaction and provide adequate shear strength for the carrying of structural loads;
Mitigation of risks and effects associated with ground conditions and geological hazards will be largely addressed through detailed and commensurate investigation for the detailed design of the structures and adoption of appropriate geotechnical parameters to effectively 'design out' the residual risks (i.e. cognisance of the updated NZS1170); and
Effects of the Project that relate to the ground conditions may arise during the actual construction period as a result of the methodology and plant used during construction. For example, vibration and noise effects may be caused by driven piles, if required for deeper foundations for
15
Section 9 TR 11. 16
Each structure along the proposed alignment for the Project was assessed individually and reported in the interpretive reports
for Main South Road and Christchurch Southern Motorway. GHD/Beca October 2011.
49
structures and air-borne dust effects may arise from trafficking on dry haulage roads and from earthworks.
[268] The Board concludes that engineering and construction management practice will mitigate or control the effect of any geotechnical and/or geo-hazard constraints on site, their measure of compliance being recorded through management plans and monitoring regimes that will be developed by the Contractor undertaking the particular element of work.
10.10 SOIL CONTAMINATION
Issues
[269] The presence of contaminated land can potentially pose a risk to the environment and to workers during the construction period. The issue for the Board relates to what presence of soil contamination exists within the Project alignment and how the likely impacts of encountering such contamination can be appropriately mitigated so as to avoid any adverse effects.
Submissions and Evidence
[270] Two submissions were received regarding contamination:
SDC requested a SEMP be developed to incorporate more detail on controls and management of any unidentified contaminated land encountered during construction. The NZTA will accommodate this and is no longer an issue; and
A Holton’s submission supported the provisions proposed to manage the contamination aspects of the Project.
[271] The NZTA’s evidence was given by Mr Udema. His evidence was:
Several locations along the Project route are identified as Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) sites. Concentrations of contaminants in all soil samples collected within the designated route were less than the Rural Residential SCS (health) of the NES SOIL for assessing and managing contaminants in soil to protect human health:
The contaminated land assessment for the Project comprised a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) completed in November 2010 and a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) in accordance with Ministry for the Environment‘s Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 1 (2003); and
Potentially contaminated sites were identified during the PSI and further investigated during the DSI:
Agricultural land throughout the alignment;
The former Applefields Orchard (Aberdeen subdivision);
The Southbridge Branch Railway Line; and
The former Springs Rd Quarry site.
50
[272] The assessments undertaken showed that there is no unacceptable risk to human health (for rural residential and construction workers) or the environment, posed by contaminants in soil.
[273] The NZTA advised that some concentrations at certain locations exceed background concentrations. The disturbance of soil is a controlled activity under the NES SOIL, therefore a site management plan is required. It is intended that a SEMP will be prepared to satisfy this requirement.
[274] The Board was advised that water quality in water races has the potential to be adversely impacted by contamination. Modification of the races will likely cause issues with regard to contaminated laden silt and sedimentation being stirred up and transported along the race, similar to when heavy machinery is being used for maintenance of the water races. In respect to this matter the Board notes that approval will need to be sought from SDC under the SDC Water Race Bylaw 2008. During construction, the SEMP 002 will outline erosion and sediment control measures to minimise sediment within water. No further consideration on this is required.
Evaluation and Findings
[275] In considering this issue, the Board accepts that most of the land that will be disturbed for this Project comprises of open flat paddocks used for pasture, cropping and other agricultural activities. There are four locations where the proposed route intersects or is in close proximity to potentially contaminated land. These include agricultural land (greenfield), former Southbridge Railway Line, former Springs Road Quarry and former Applefields Orchard.
[276] Given that the sites above are located outside of the Project designation boundaries and no works relating to the motorway construction are needed for these areas, the relevance of low levels of soil contamination encountered is considered to be minor.
[277] The Board notes that whilst the likelihood of encountering contaminated soils is considered to be minimal along the Project route, contingency planning is required in the event that contamination may be discovered particularly adjacent to the Quarry site. In this respect the Board acknowledges proposed Condition CL.4 that require the production of SEMP 008 by a suitable qualified and experienced person.
10.11 CULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE
Issues
[278] There is a history of both Māori and European land use around the Project area. Therefore there is the potential for unidentified archaeological sites to be exposed during construction earthworks for the Project. The issue for the Board is the risk of such finds being made and the extent to which the appropriate protocols will be used to manage this risk.
[279] In addition to the protection of cultural heritage, further issues identified by Ngāi Tahu with regards to the potential adverse effects on tangata whenua values were:
Water quality;
Effects on native bird, fish and aquatic species and their habitat;
51
Effects on waahi tapu and waahi taonga; and
Effects on the cultural landscape.
Submissions and Evidence
[280] There were no submissions specifically dealing with these topics. Rather the Board received evidence from the NZTA in respect to both cultural values (Ms O’Callahan) and archaeological/ built heritage (Ms Watson).
[281] The Board acknowledges the relationship between tangata whenua (Ngāi Tahu) and South-West Christchurch is culturally and historically significant. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is the Iwi authority for that area that encompasses a significant portion of the South Island including the Project area (Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Act 1996).
[282] Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu recognises and provides for those who hold tangata whenua and/or mana whenua status in local and regional areas, by mandating the relevant Papatipu Rūnanga (Te Taumutu Rūnanga and Te Ngāi Tuahuriri Rūnanga) to respond to development proposals. Accordingly Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga has mandated its legal entity, Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd (MKT), to engage in the consultation process on its behalf.
[283] The evidence establishes that during the consultation process, Ngāi Tuahuriri is recognised as having kaitiaki status for resources in those areas affected by the Project.
[284] The NZTA explained that a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) is to be prepared in consultation with MKT and consultation has commenced.
Evaluation and Findings
[285] In respect to archaeological sites, the Board accepts that it is possible that such sites not identified during the Project assessment could be exposed during construction earthworks. However, the Board notes that an Authority to destroy damage or modify any archaeological sites will be sought from the NZHPT prior to earthworks commencing.
[286] The Board is satisfied that this will not only avoid any delays during construction but will also minimise the risk of any archaeological site being unduly destroyed. The Board also notes that an Accidental Discovery Protocol will be put in place to manage the possibility of exposing a previously unrecorded archaeological site.
[287] In respect to built heritage, the only identified heritage building associated with the Project area is the Trent’s Chickery Kiln, which is listed as a heritage building in Map 13 of the Selwyn District Plan. This building is listed as a Category II by the NZHPT. However the Board notes that the land required for the Project and its construction is not in close proximity to this building. Therefore the Board concludes there will be no adverse effects to this heritage item.
[288] The Board notes there are no other built heritage items noted in either the CCC Plan or the SDC Plan as being potentially affected by the Project.
[289] In respect to wider cultural values, the Board accepts that consultation has been, and will continue to be, undertaken with Ngāi Tahu. The consultation that has occurred to date has resulted in a draft CIA being produced which
52
contains recommendations aimed at avoiding remedying and mitigating adverse effects on tangata whenua values.
[290] These include but are not limited to:
Implementation of the Accidental Discovery Protocol;
Adoption of the Ngāi Tahu Kōiwi Tangata Policy 1993;
Adoption of a planting regime within the Project area;
Consideration of the Ngāi Tahu Freshwater Policy Statement; and
Installation of interpretative features to inform pedestrian and other non-vehicular users of the area such as the Ngāi Tahu whānui traditional use of, and on-going relationship with the natural environment.
[291] On the above basis, the Board concludes that the effects of the Project on tangata whenua values and archaeological/built heritage will be less than minor, and acknowledges the measures to mitigate these effects have been incorporated into the Project by way of conditions.
53
11. OPERATIONAL PERIOD EFFECTS [292] The effects that will need to be considered during the operational period are
as follows:
Traffic and transportation;
Landscape, visual and lighting;
Stormwater;
Noise and vibration;
Groundwater;
Terrestrial ecology;
Aquatic ecology;
Air quality (dust);
Natural hazards;
Network utilities;
Social;
Economics; and
Direct property effects.
[293] The Board records that some of the above topics traverse both construction and operational effects and in such instances the Board has considered those topics together. These are: landscape, visual and lighting, stormwater and social.
11.1 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Issues
[294] It is necessary to assess the traffic effects associated with the operation of the Project. It is necessary to look at the Project as a whole and then to look at the effects of the proposed transportation arrangements on individual owners who have made submissions.
Submission and Evidence
[295] There were individual submitters who sought to retain access to the Main South Road which is proposed to be affected by the MSRFL. These submissions are dealt with specifically later in Section 11.13 of this Report.
[296] The principal submitters in relation to this topic were the two local authorities, SDC and CCC. There were other submissions received in support of the Project by the Port of Lyttelton and Christchurch Airport Limited.
54
[297] CCC, SDC and the Prebbleton Community Association (PCA), made submissions relating to the inclusion and retention of full access ramps at Halswell Junction Road. CCC wanted these ramps to be retained to provide full vehicle access. SDC and the PCA were concerned about the increase in traffic through Prebbleton as a result.
[298] Counsel for CCC Mr Harwood, made submissions to the Board on behalf of CCC. He advised that CCC supports the Project and had resolved its concerns on the retention of full access ramps at Halswell Junction Road. Mr Blair, a senior planning officer with CCC, gave evidence. He confirmed that CCC, SDC and the NZTA had signed a memorandum of understanding that addressed the parties’ concerns for the ramps. He had read the NZTA’s evidence which supports full access ramps at Halswell Junction and advised that he agreed with it.
[299] SDC was represented in the hearing through its counsel, Mr Carranceja. He advised that SDC had been concerned about the proposal to include full access ramps at Halswell Junction Roads/Springs Road because of the potential adverse traffic effects full ramps may have on Springs Road, particularly through Prebbleton. He advised that the concerns had been addressed through the exchange of further information, and reaching a mutual understanding between SDC, the NZTA and CCC regarding the identification of desired outcomes and priorities for the wider transport network of the South West area of Greater Christchurch, which the Halswell Junction Road interchange would form part of.
[300] The PCA elected not to give evidence. In its submission it advised of its concern relating to the traffic effects on Springs Road that will adversely affect Prebbleton Village. It submitted that the inclusion of the full access routes of the Halswell Junction Road/Springs Road will have a major adverse traffic effect on the Prebbleton Township.
[301] Mr Murray gave detailed evidence on behalf of the NZTA in respect of traffic and transportation. He referred to what he saw as both the positive effects and the negative effects of the Project. He referred to the history of the Project and this has been summarised in Section 2.2 above. The Project was included in CRETS which commenced in 2002 and has undergone several reviews. A strategic study was completed in 2009 following publication of the CRETS strategy in 2007. At that time there were four alignment options. In March 2009 the Government announced seven RoNS which included the Project.
[302] As of necessity, the projections included in Mr Murray’s evidence were based on modelling and methodologies which he explained in the evidence. The projections are based on an expectation of significant growth south-west of Christchurch, the expectation that present congestion and journey time problems will be exacerbated and on safety issues arising from a safer road environment.
[303] The studies show the Project is expected to give a reduction in road congestion, a reduction in travel times at non-peak periods of up to 40%, and a 40% reduction in vehicle crashes in the area surrounding the Project.
[304] Mr Murray expects that the most significant impact on traffic patterns will be to divert traffic onto the new motorway that would otherwise use SH1 and local roads through Hornby and Templeton to get from the current motorway termination at Halswell Junction Road back onto SH1 north of Rolleston. Other expected changes are a shift in north-south traffic from Springs Road
55
(including through Prebbleton) to Shands Road, as well as an increase to the connecting roads at either end of the Project, namely on the CSM1 section to the north and to SH1 north of Rolleston. Mr Murray said he did not anticipate that the increased traffic movements will have a detrimental impact on the surrounding areas and other users of the road, as the increase will either be on state highways or on access roads to the motorway.
[305] Mr Murray spoke to an expectation that there will be substantial reductions in traffic on SH1 between Templeton and Islington with lesser reductions through to Sockburn, and on Halswell Junction Road north of Springs Road. He said a reduction in traffic is also expected on Springs Road south of CSM2, Selwyn Road and Lincoln Rolleston Road. In his view there will be improved traffic conditions in these areas.
[306] There has also been an assessment made of the interchanges with the local road network both to inform the design process and to assist the assessment of effects. Mr Murray opined that in the long term some form of management of the motorway onramps is likely to improve the efficiency of the motorway mergers.
[307] Mr Murray also gave evidence on the effects of the Project on freight movements, public transport, pedestrians and cyclists. He concluded that freight movements will gain improved connectivity and capacity on key routes. In some areas such as Templeton and Hornby, public transport will be improved and in the main, the effect on pedestrians and cyclists will be positive through new access routes and a reduction in potential vehicles conflicts.
[308] A negative aspect of the Project, acknowledged by the NZTA, is the loss of direct access from properties to SH1. This matter was also addressed by submitters. The issues relate to both sides of SH1 as follows:
There are 28 properties on the western side of SH1 which will be affected, and the majority of these will be provided with new access by a new road running parallel to the railway providing rear access to their properties. These new access arrangements will result in longer distances to travel, accessing those properties. In Mr Murray’s view, this will be offset by the improved safety and significant reduced travel times when travelling on the new route or through areas such as Templeton and Hornby.
There will also be negative effects on some properties on the eastern side of the Main South Road. For these properties alternative access will be provided by an extension of Berkett Drive and via rights-of-way. Forty-two properties are affected, although 14 of these have been acquired by the NZTA in order to give effect to the designation. It will take greater time to travel to some of these properties. Mr Murray considers this negative effect will be offset by other time savings offered by the Project, or other movements including in particular travelling to Christchurch.
[309] In respect of the negative effects expected for all properties on both sides of SH1 whose current direct access to the Main South Road is to be removed, Mr Murray gave his view that the new access provisions being provided will mitigate the effect for the majority of properties. However, four of those properties will have longer access times for specific movements, and his view
56
is that the effect on these four properties is at the outer limit of what is acceptable.
[310] Mr Murray noted that the CRETS identified the need to balance the conflict between the need for arterial function and local access function on Springs Road through Prebbleton. An initiative adopted to reduce future traffic growth on Springs Road through Prebbleton was to place the motorway access at Shands Road rather than at the Springs Road/Halswell Junction Road. Mr Murray agreed that with access ramps at Halswell Junction Road, the Project is predicted to have higher traffic flows on Springs Road through Prebbleton when compared to a scenario that excluded the ramps. However, he concluded that when the Project is assessed against the baseline it results in lower traffic flows on Springs Road through Prebbleton. It therefore followed in his view, that the Project with the ramps will not generate an adverse effect on Prebbleton. Further, the ramps provide a net transport benefit and it is therefore reasonable for the NZTA to include them in the Project.
Evaluation and Findings
[311] The Board accepts that there are traffic and transportation benefits from the Project at a national, regional and local level. These benefits have increased since the Christchurch earthquake which has led to a greater anticipated increase in population in the area serviced by the Project. The benefits include:
Travel time reduction;
Connectivity from Lyttelton Port, the City Centre, and industrial areas to the south of Christchurch;
Improved freight costs and increase freight reliability, important for export and import prices, arising from the better access to the Christchurch International Airport and Lyttelton;
The reduction in the number of vehicles on State Highway 1 and local roads around Templeton, Hornby and Prebbleton will give safety benefits to local residents including children and the elderly; and
The predicted reduction in fatal and serious injury crashes due to the high safety design standards to be implemented on the new motorway. These standards include medium and safety barriers on the main south road. Vehicles will be prevented from turning across the median which will eliminate the risk of head on collisions.
[312] Apart from the concerns of the individual property owners (dealt with in Section 11.13 of this Report), the only substantive submission questioning the traffic arrangements related to the Halswell Junction ramps. The Board notes this matter has been resolved by agreement and accepts that these ramps are no longer an issue. Traffic and transport considerations are obviously in the forefront of the support given to the Project by CCC, SDC, the Port of Lyttelton and the Christchurch International Airport. The Board accepts that considerable benefits will arise from the Project.
[313] The Board acknowledges that there are the negative aspects referred to above relating to access arrangements for individual owners. It is satisfied that in most of these cases the alternative access arrangements being made are adequate and do not result in an adverse effect on the environment. There are
57
four properties which will have longer access times for specific movements and in respect of which Mr Murray considers the effects to be on the outer limit of what is acceptable. The owners of these four properties did not make submissions. When the benefits are weighed against the negative aspects, the Board is of the view that the adverse effects on the environment are minor.
[314] Another adverse effect is the economic impact on some businesses arising from the inability of some submitters and other owners to access the MSRFL directly from their properties, rather than from the alternative accesses which are to be provided. They are concerned that the lack of direct access and the increased travelling time to get to their properties will have an adverse economic impact on their businesses. The Board is of the view that the issues raised by the NZTA particularly those relating to safety are benefits which arise from the Project and outweighs this adverse effect. This is discussed later in this Report (Section 11.13).
11.2 LANDSCAPE, VISUAL AND LIGHTING
Issues
[315] In this Section of the Report the Board discusses the effects of both the construction and operation of the Project on the existing landscape character and visual amenity of the area. This includes amenity effects arising from lighting of the route.
[316] The topography within the proposed Project area is described as flat alluvial plains. Being rural in character, the landscape is dominated by open space, pastures and shelterbelt vegetation, with intermittent rural residential areas. Recent developments have included rural-residential subdivisions at Aberdeen and Claremont. In order to establish the perceived impact on this landscape, the Board considers effects to be “…derived from changes in the physical landscape, which may give rise to changes in its character and how it is experienced[17]”. Whilst amenity values, and in particular visual amenity is considered to be the overall appeal, pleasantness and aesthetic coherence of an area or view is inextricably linked with the landscape character, and is considered to be greater in areas of higher rural and natural character.
[317] The aspects of the Project that will impact the natural and rural landscapes, as well as visual amenity, are as follows:
Removal of existing rural pastoral land;
Removal of vegetation;
Scale of earthworks;
Introduction of hard surfacing and engineering structures; and
[17]
The Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002), Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, second edition, Spon Press - AEE pg 296.
58
Lighting.
[318] The perceived audience to be effected by the changes include:
Local residents who will view parts of the MSRFL and CSM2 corridor from their dwellings;
Road users on adjacent and intersecting local roads;
Users of the surrounding industrial and commercial areas; and
Users of the State Highway, motorway and link roads (including pedestrians and cyclists).
[319] Mitigation measures, such as planting and screening have been proposed by the NZTA to reduce the impact of the changes through both the construction and operational phases of the Project. Many of these measures are (or are proposed to be) incorporated into the proposed Landscape Planting Plans from Appendix A of Technical Report 7: Landscape Context Report incorporated into the AEE. It is understood that these planting measures may take time to establish and the Board notes that case law in the Environment Court considers that mitigation measures should be assessed on the ability for these to establish over a 5 to 7 year period.
Submissions and Evidence
[320] 16 submissions were received that address landscape and visual effects of the MSRFL and CSM2 Project, including submissions on light pollution. 44% of total submissions received are related to landscape and visual amenity, and were either in full opposition of the Project or in partial opposition.
[321] Before evaluating these submissions, the Board believes it is useful to cover some of the agreements reached prior to the hearing. These agreements resulted in many of the submissions (as they relate to landscape and visual) either being withdrawn (Tall Tree Stud), or resolved to the satisfaction of the submitters (NZ Sheds, Southern Horticultural Products Limited, Manion, Harcourt, Sissons, Christchurch City Council, Selwyn District Council) and the NZTA. In the case of the former situation, although visual and landscape issues were initially raised by the submitter concerned, these issues are not discussed further. In the case of the latter the Board records that mitigation agreed although negotiated outside of the consenting process, was nevertheless presented to the Board in an RMA capacity.
[322] The Board also notes at this point that in relation to those submissions that were withdrawn and those that were resolved, the Board is aware that the NZTA and the relevant submitters have entered into agreements/memoranda of understanding (MoU). The Board was not advised of the content of such agreements but merely that the issues were no longer “live” and that unless volunteered by the NZTA, there is no requirement for the Board to reflect those agreements in conditions. For the record, the Board notes that some agreements are nevertheless reflected in the changes to conditions proposed by the NZTA.
[323] Additionally a number of submitters did not wish to be heard. The only evidence on landscaping before the Board was the evidence of Mr Milne, landscape expert for the NZTA and author of the Landscape and Visual amenity section of the AEE. The Board refers to Mr Milne’s report in further detail later in this Section.
59
[324] In the meantime, a brief outline of submitters and their issues is outlined below prior to the Board’s evaluation of those issues later in this Section:
Southern Horticultural Products Limited, Sheds NZ Ltd, Timbercore Ltd, and Canterbury Timber and Hardware Ltd, were concerned over losing commercial exposure to their businesses due to the additional vegetation proposed by the NZTA which would screen their properties from the Highway. The Board was advised that these submitters had entered into MoU with the NZTA and that apart from vehicle access issues they would not be pursuing other matters such as landscaping which were listed in their submission notices. Notwithstanding this, the Board was advised by counsel for the NZTA that the landscape plans listed in the Plan Set contained in Condition DC.1 affecting these properties have been modified, to the satisfaction of submitters and the NZTA, and that this has generally involved the deletion of landscaping along the frontage of these properties for the specific purpose of increasing exposure to these businesses. On this basis, the Board does not take this matter any further in its evaluation;
L J and C M Manion also expressed concern over the loss of visual exposure of their Weedons Ross Road property to the new highway. Mr Manion, presenting on behalf of this submitter, focused almost exclusively on access and subdivision matters in his twin presentations to the Board and there was no substantive discussion by him of landscaping concerns. The evidence of Mr Milne considered that the location of grouped planting will draw attention to this property and that there would be no significant reduction in exposure. The Board having visited the site understands Mr Milne’s evidence and agrees that in the absence of any contrasting evidence from this submitter, accepts Mr Milne’s assessment and again do not assess this further;
G & E Mockford submitted on the effects of dust, landscaping and their level of privacy at their Main South Road property. Mr Milne has visited the site and concluded that chip seal proposed will not present a dust issue, and additional shelter planting is not required as the property is setback from the road and is sufficiently private. Given the distance between the site and the roading corridor (greater than 200m) and without any further evidence from the submitter, the Board accepts Mr Milne’s assessment. The Board does not recommend any further planting;
M & A Harcourt and R & C Sissons expressed concern regarding the adverse effects on amenity, visual effects and privacy on their properties adjoining John Paterson Drive, Halswell. Although R Sissons attended the hearing, he spoke principally about the effects of the designation corridor on his property values and use and presented the Board with information on alternatives to both the horizontal and vertical alignments for the corridor in proximity of his property. The Board records that R Sissons did not address landscaping and visual considerations per se; nor did he address any mitigation proposal per se other than the different alignments. M & A Harcourt did not attend the hearing. From
60
the evidence of Mr Milne and Mr Cooke (landscape and landscape design experts) the Board notes that an earth bund of 1.5–2.0 metres in height to be constructed inside the designation corridor and to be planted in its entirety, is the agreed mitigation strategy and has been added to Landscape Planting Plan 62236-B-L022[18];
M O’Malley, O’Malley Family Trust and P Bennett all requested a bund to further screen their properties from visual effects. Existing shelterbelts and additional screening proposed by the NZTA were considered by Mr Milne to provide sufficient screening, as (in his view) bunding is not in keeping with the flat landscape of the area. The Board agrees particularly given the existing screening afforded on these properties and the absence of further information by the submitters to refute Mr Milne’s view and thereby justify such additional mitigation;
J Stafford, as the closest submitter property to the motorway at 70 metres had some concern over the potential for visual impacts on her dwelling located on Blakes Road. Having viewed the site, Mr Milne concluded that substantial existing screening, in combination with proposed planting proposed in Landscape Planting plan 62236-B-L018 will provide a level of certainty around the mitigation of visual effects. The Board heard no evidence to refute this;
CCC mentioned the South West Christchurch Area Plan (SWAP) in their submission, which is concerned with amenity planting within road corridors for the PC54 industrial zone. CCC submitted that the screening provided along the PC54 industrial zone boundary is not sufficient to screen that area as is recommended in the SWAP. Mr Milne considered that there are constraints, in particular the amount of available land for planting large trees, and that the proposed mitigation by the NZTA is a suitable compromise given the constrains. In any event, the Board was subsequently advised by counsel for CCC that this issue has been resolved with CCC officers and that they were not pursuing the matter further in this forum;
SDC initially held concerns over the choice of plants identified for some of the mitigation planting. The Council considered that extensive use of native species is not appropriate, as they do not establish quickly and require more maintenance than exotic species. Additionally, in the view of SDC native planting does not reflect the existing rural character of the area. Mr Milne and Mr Cooke agreed with some of these concerns and suggested poplar, alder and eucalyptus species are added to the planting list. Concerns over the effects of lighting in otherwise rural areas were also raised by SDC, and it was confirmed to the Board by both SDC and the NZTA during the hearing that this issue and the planting matter have both been resolved without any further changes being necessary; and
P Dellaca and P & P Lee submitted with concerns over the loss of visual amenity to their properties, which are in close proximity to the Springs
[18]
This plan was previously drawn on 62236-B-L023.
61
Road flyover. Additionally, P Dellaca read from a written submission at the hearing however he did not comment further on visual amenity.
[325] For the NZTA, evidence relating either specifically or generally to landscape and visual matters (including lighting) was presented at the hearing by:
Mr Tony Milne, Landscape and Visual;
Mr Kevin Brewer, Urban Design;
Mr Dave Aldridge, Engineering Design;
Mr Jeremy Cooke, Landscape Design;
Mr Tim Johnson, Visual Simulation (landscaping);
Mr Stephen Muir, Lighting Design; and
Ms Mary O’Callahan, Planner.
[326] The evidence presented at the hearing by the NZTA’s landscape expert Tony Milne considers that landscape and visual effects are unavoidable with a project of this scale in close proximity to rural and rural-residential properties. The evidence from this source was that the perceived effects on natural and rural character and visual amenity will be suitably mitigated using the proposed methods of planting, bunds and acoustic fencing, within the scope of operational constrains. Statements from other experts, and in particular Mr Cooke supported this evidence.
[327] As already illustrated above in the outline of submissions, Mr Cooke and Mr Milne also provided a response to the concerns raised by each of the submitters, and advised that in some cases modifications had been made to the landscape plans to further address the visual and landscape concerns of these submitters.
[328] A limited number of submitters had outstanding concerns with landscape and visual amenity that are specific to their properties. These have been addressed below in the evaluation of direct property effects.
Evaluation and Findings
[329] The Board’s evaluation of issues relating to landscape and visual effects is presented in the three categories proposed by Mr Milne in both the AEE and his statement of evidence namely:
Natural Character;
Rural Character; and
Visual Amenity.
[330] Where appropriate, the Board has also evaluated these effects in terms of both construction and during operation of the Project.
62
Natural Character
[331] No submissions were received in relation to the Natural Character issue. On that basis the Board does not need to adjudicate on this issue from a submitter perspective. However in terms of the legal tests outlined earlier in this Report, the Board is still required to have regard to the effects on the environment and this includes effects on natural character of the landscape from the Project. To this extent the Board have been reliant on the assessment by the NZTA (Landscape Architect and Planner) and the advice contained in the Planning Report commissioned by the Board.
[332] Mr Milne’s assessment of the existing natural character of the area concluded that:
“The receiving environment has been significantly modified, and therefore is considered to be of moderate and in some cases low natural character;
The impacts relating to natural character will not be negative; and
That “Natural Character ….. will, overtime, be improved by the substantial amount of native vegetation and habitats proposed as mitigation.”
[333] As noted previously, there was no credible challenge to this assessment from any submitter including the two local authorities, and therefore the Board adopts that evidence.
[334] Ms O’Callahan’s assessment of the actual and potential environmental effects from a planning perspective identified both positive and negative aspects. Although Ms O’Callahan considered that the removal of vegetation is a negative effect of the Project, she concurred with Mr Milne that the planting proposed as part of the mitigation strategy will benefit the natural character of the area.
[335] The Planning Report provided to the Board by Mitchell Partnerships considered that the assessment of effects presented by the NZTA provides a comprehensive assessment of properly identified effects and generally agreed with the conclusions drawn in respect to natural character effects.
[336] On the above basis, the Board concurs with the evidence provided that the impact on the natural character of the area will be minor, and that in some instances, the establishment of planting and habitat will provide additional benefit.
Rural Character
[337] As with natural character, no submissions were received that were specifically concerned with the impacts of the Project on the rural character of the area. As stated above however, the requirement to have regard to the effects on the environment remains. For the following assessment of effects on rural character the Board further relies on the assessment of the NZTA and the advice contained in the Planning Report commissioned by the Board.
[338] Mr Milne considered that the rural character of the area is dominated by pastoral landscape, broken by shelterbelts and occasional rural dwellings and
63
ancillary buildings. In his opinion, rural character is diminished by the presence of industrial/commercial buildings and increased density of residential development. Hence Mr Milne’s evaluation of the rural character considered that some of the Project area is of low to moderate rural character. Where this is the case he considered the effects of the Project are low.
[339] In other areas, in particular those where the Project acquires pastoral land, Mr Milne identified that effects on the rural character are likely to be potentially substantial. For example, he highlighted that the interchange at Shands Road and underpass at Trents Road will significantly alter the landform and be visually recognisable built elements in the area. As the flat character of the existing landscape does not allow for visual integration of barriers such as embankments, overbridges and intersections, integration of such structures and components associated with the Project will rely on the planting of rural amenity trees of exotic species that are common to the area to be sufficient mitigation to maintain a level of rural character.
[340] However, it was Mr Milne’s view that this area of substantial impact is in a relatively narrow band, and that the planting of rural amenity trees of the species chosen by Mr Cooke will “maintain a level of rural character”. Additionally, it is considered by Mr Milne that the maintenance of this level of rural character may not occur under private ownership.
[341] Ms O’Callahan relied on Mr Milne’s evidence to conclude that the extent of the proposed mitigation is appropriate for a Project of this nature. In addition, Ms O’Callahan noted that the removal of vegetation and proposed earthworks have been kept to a minimum in order to reduce the adverse effects of the Project on rural character.
[342] The Board notes that the Planning Report produced by Mitchell Partnerships for the Board opined that the use of management plans such as the Landscape Management Plan (LMP) coupled with conditions are appropriate in this circumstance. The Landscape Management Plan (SEMP 005) will comprise an important aspect of this mitigation strategy. The Board discusses the LMP in more detail in the Section on conditions and management plans later in this decision (Section 12).
[343] The Board acknowledges that there will be potentially significant changes to the rural character of the landscape during the construction period, however it agrees with the evidence of Mr Milne, and considers that the area of effect is limited spatially and that the mitigation measures will maintain the rural character of the area in the post construction/operational period.
Visual Amenity
[344] The visual amenity of the Project requires evaluation from a number of standpoints, as over 40% of submissions received were in relation to this issue. In the RMA, amenity value is defined as “those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people's appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes[19]”. In this respect, and as signalled earlier, the Board has
[19]
Section 2 Interpretation, Resource Management Act 1991.
64
considered the effects arising from the project under both the construction period and the post construction (operation) period.
During Construction
[345] The starting point for this matter is an acceptance that the initial removal of vegetation during construction, where this cannot be retained has the potential to expose properties and have a high level of impact on the visual amenity outlook to the motorway. The submissions from G & E Mockford, M & A Harcourt, R & C Sissons, M O’Malley, J Stafford, P Dellaca and P & P Lee above potentially fall into this category. However, and apart from submitters R & C Sissons, P Dellaca & P & P Lee, the Board did not have the benefit of hearing from these submitters on this matter at the hearing.
[346] For R & C Sissons, P Dellaca and P & P Lee, the Board comments as follows:
R & C Sissons
This submitter expressed concern that the adverse effects on amenity, visual effects and privacy on their property but did not request any specific relief such as fencing or bunding. Notwithstanding this, the Board notes that Mr Milne states in his evidence an earth bund approximately 1.5-2.0m high is to be integrated into the embankment and includes planting[20]. Landscape Planting Plans are subject to Condition DC.1, which specifies the Project is to be undertaken in general accordance with these plans.
P Dellaca and P & P Lee
P Dellaca (representing himself and P & P Lee) read from a written submission at the hearing however he did not comment further on visual amenity matters. The Board notes that Mr Milne’s assessment predicts a moderate visual effect on this property which he considered to be inevitable within 150m of CSM2. He advised that amenity planting ranging from 1–4 metres in height following the embankment of the Springs Road overpass has been proposed to mitigate these effects, though planting will require time to establish. Additionally, an acoustic fence is proposed in this area, which according to Mr Milne will also provide immediate screening of visual effects.
[347] On the above basis, the Board accepts the evidence of Mr Milne and does not propose any further mitigation by way of landscaping in respect to the Sissons and P Dellaca and P & P Lee properties. For the record, the Board notes that these two submitters did not request additional landscaping mitigation in any event.
[348] For the submitters who were not represented at the hearing, the Board has relied on the content of their submission notices and the expert material before it, particularly the AEE and expert landscape evidence. The key evidence from the landscape expert was as follows:
[20]
See plan 62236-B-L022.
65
It is recognised by Mr Milne that the construction phase will potentially have a significant effect on visual amenity. This is not extensively considered in the AEE or the evidence, as there has been a greater focus on the operational amenity, and how vegetation and screening will reduce these impacts long term;
The evidence from experts before the Board was that 5-7 years is considered by the Environment Court to be a reasonable period for the establishment of landscaping;
Evidence from Mr Milne addressing the construction phase states mitigation measures are the retention of existing vegetation, location and treatment of stockpiles and hardfill and measures to be undertaken for dust, outlined in SEMP 001 Air Quality Management Plan;
Visual effects of lighting during construction are covered under Condition DC.13 which requires that all lighting comply with the relevant District Plan during construction; and
Construction areas have been located and designed so as to minimise visual impact.
[349] In this respect, the Board notes that in order to mitigate visual effects during construction, the NZTA proposes to retain existing vegetation wherever possible, and will also commence planting prior to construction commencing. The Board supports these initiatives and believes these measures are essential to address the potential visual aspects of construction. To this end, the Board notes the inclusion of Conditions DC.29, DC.30 and DC.31 which collectively include the finalisation and certification of the Landscape Management Plan. Additionally, the Board notes the inclusion of Condition DC.13 which reflects the lighting requirements during the construction period.
Post–Construction/Operation
[350] Views to the new road were a primary concern of submitters in relation to visual amenity in the post construction period. Landscaping plans and a preliminary Landscape Management Plan have been presented that demonstrate the level of planting and on-going maintenance proposed to mitigate visual effects of the permanent structures and corridors with CSM2.
[351] The assessment undertaken by Mr Milne evaluated the effects of the CSM2 on properties from distances of 100m, 200m and 500m measured from the outer edge of the motorway. He noted that outside of the 500m distance houses and public roads are not considered to be visually effected, though it is acknowledged that no public perception study was undertaken as part of that evaluation.
[352] The effects identified by Mr Milne represent a significant change to the existing landscape due to the removal of buildings and vegetation, and through the introduction of hard surfacing and increased prominence of infrastructure. Mr Milne considered that the visual effects will be considerably reduced in five to seven years. Also, he proposed that the effects will not necessarily be adverse as they are not widespread, impact few dwellings, and will be adequately mitigated by landscape planting.
[353] For the record the Board also notes that during the hearing Mr Milne suggested two modifications to conditions focused on visual impact post construction. They were:
66
At DC.21 - Acoustic fences are to be constructed using timber palings consistent with the most commonly used fencing materials within the Project area; and
At DC.30 - With the exception of the oak trees that will be removed to construct the northern Weedons Road off ramp, the existing oak trees on the south side of MSRFL, identified on Sheet 24, are to be retained and protected during the construction phase according to best horticultural practice.
[354] Mr Milne and Ms O’Callahan additionally consider that the visual amenity from
the perspective of the road will be positive. The Project will increase view lines of important landscape, such as the Port Hills and Southern Alps, and will still enable an overall maintained view of open space and areas of rural character. These experts consider that a positive visual amenity for the road user, and in particular those not familiar with the area, will create a “gateway experience” and sense of place when entering Christchurch.
[355] On the above basis the Board concludes that on-going effects of operation of the new motorway on visual amenity will not be more than minor.
Direct Property Effects (Visual Amenity)
[356] This Section considers individual submitters with “live” issues regarding the landscape and visual effects on their properties. Two submitters are identified here, along with a brief summary of the issues raised, both in their notice of submission, and during the hearing. Expert evidence presented to the Board at the hearing addressed these submissions and identified mitigation measures that these experts consider appropriate.
G Olive
[357] G Olive expressed concern in his submission notice over the loss of visual amenity to his property, including light pollution from the proposed lighting at the Halswell Junction off-ramp. During the hearing G Olive provided a further commentary that focused on subdivision and vehicle access considerations affecting his Living G zoned property, and did not further address landscaping. However he did revisit visual amenity issues in the form of light pollution from the motorway off-ramp and associated roundabout.
[358] G Olive spoke of his concern over light pollution and when questioned over the environmental effects on his property. He considered the lack of bunding and landscape treatment as being insufficient to mitigate the adverse effects, particularly the removal of large trees. Mr Milne responded to the original landscape concerns raised in the submission in his statement of evidence where he expressed his view that the proposed landscaping is adequate to address the visual effects on the property concerned.
[359] Although Mr Muir did not specifically address G Olive’s submission in relation to light pollution, he however considered that lighting for the Project has been designed to limit the effects of light spill on rural dwellings. Additionally, the Board notes that Condition DC.13 requires compliance with the relevant District Plan Standards for construction lighting and Condition DC.35 requires that operational lighting is designed so as to comply with AS/NZ1158 (Lighting for Roads and Public Spaces).
67
[360] The Board concurs with the evidence of Mr Milne and notes the evidence of Mr Muir. Accordingly, the Board accepts that the proposed landscaping is sufficient to address the visual effect of the proposed development on the submitter’s property given the level of retained vegetation and the time taken for the establishment of planting mitigation.
John and Susan Shanks Family Trust
[361] The John and Susan Shanks Family Trust (“the Trust”) expressed concern over the visual impact of the road development on their property. The Trust also raised a principal concern with potential noise effects from the operation of the motorway on both their dwelling and the commercial wedding venue. Those acoustic issues are considered separately in this Report (Section 11.4).
[362] The Trust’s initial visual concerns raised were both the effects on their dwelling which they submitted had not been fully recognised by the NZTA, and additionally the impact on the wedding venue operated on the same site, which the NZTA consider is not negatively impacted. Before traversing this matter further the Board notes that during the hearing J Shanks, speaking on behalf of the Trust, clarified that the visual concerns were solely related to the potential impact on their dwelling and not on the wedding venue. The Board has recorded this and notes that the proposed motorway corridor runs parallel to the northwest boundary of their site for a distance of approximately 800m. The corridor is approximately 200m from their property boundary and is circa 212 and 283 metres from their dwelling and the wedding venue respectively.
[363] Mr Milne addressed the Trust’s submission concerning his evidence in chief, and has stated that having visited the site in question he recommended visual screening for the dwelling. As a result a hedge screening is to be provided by the NZTA along the southern side of the CSM2 between two existing shelterbelts21. Mr Milne referred to the Visual Simulations in the appendix of the evidence of Mr Johnson which demonstrates the level of screening provided by the proposed hedge.
[364] At the hearing a legal submission was presented on behalf of the Trust by Ms Steven. This submission detailed that the Trust agreed that there are minimal visual effects on the wedding venue, however she stated that they consider the visual impact on their home and balance land has not been sufficiently addressed.
[365] A bund is proposed as an alternative screening measure by the submitter. The Trust considers that a bund would provide immediate screening, whereas the proposed hedge will take up to 15 years to establish, and that a hedge presents an unnecessary fire risk. Additionally, the Trust suggested that as other submitters have reached a consensus with the NZTA which includes the introduction of bunding, then this should be considered as a relevant solution in their case. The Trust does not accept the argument by Mr Milne that bunding is incompatible with the Canterbury Plains landscape.
[366] At the request of the submitter and in order to gain an understanding of the issue, the Board visited the site on two separate occasions. Having
[21]
Shown in Landscape Planting Plans 62236-B-L015 and 62236-B-L016.
68
considered all the evidence, (including the visual simulation evidence in support of this, provided by Mr Johnson), the Board finds that factors such as the distance to the motorway and the existence of current planting on the Trust’s property (which they have ultimate control over) combined with the mitigation proposed by Mr Milne, is sufficient to address the visual concerns raised by the Shanks Family Trust. Based on this evaluation of visual impacts the Board does not recommend any further mitigation such as an earth bund. The Board considers the need (or otherwise) for a bund for acoustic mitigation separately later in this Report (Section 11.4).
Findings
[367] The Board has considered the impacts of the Project against the Natural Character, Rural Character and Visual Amenity of the area. With a roading project of this scale, the Board considers that there will be unavoidable changes to the rural character and visual amenity of the affected environment.
[368] In determining the significance of those landscape changes, the Board has adopted in the most part those findings of Mr Milne in relation to Natural Character, Rural Character and Visual Amenity. In this respect the Board finds that:
The effects are limited in spatial extent in that they are physically confined to a narrow band associated with the highway corridor; and
A landscape management strategy involving careful location and design of construction areas, minimising landscape removal, and planting early and strategically will assist in mitigating these effects in both the construction and post construction periods.
[369] The Board records that this mitigation is appropriately organised through three avenues, namely:
The raft of landscape and planting plans that form part of the details defining the Project (Condition DC.1);
Conditions controlling lighting during both construction and operational periods (Conditions DC.13 and DC.35); and
The production and certification of a Landscape Management Plan (Conditions DC.29 and DC.30).
[370] Whilst in some instances the Board acknowledges that there will be significant change to the Rural Character and Visual Amenity of the receiving environment, the Board also records that there will be moderate benefits to the Natural Character, assisted by increased native and exotic planting.
[371] Overall, the Board concludes that where possible the perceived negative changes have been avoided or mitigated by the proposed measures proposed by the NZTA. Accordingly, the Board concludes that the outcome for the landscape and visual amenity of the area is not significantly adverse.
69
11.3 STORMWATER
Issues
[372] The key stormwater issues arising during both the construction and operational phases of the Project are addressed through the proposed stormwater design. These issues involve the collection and disposal of stormwater generated within the Project, the passage of stockwater race flows (considered earlier in Section 10.3) beneath the Project, and the passage of overland flows generated in the upstream catchment, beneath the Project22. The potential for erosion and sediment laden stormwater discharges during construction of the Project is also an associated key issue (discussed earlier in Sections 10.2 and 10.4).
Submissions and Evidence
[373] The only submission received on this issue was from CCC which raised issues with respect to the Owaka Detention Basin. The submission states "Plans for the CSM2 stormwater system in this area, provided to Council staff in 2012, showed significant conflict with the form and function of Owaka stormwater basin as designed and already formed by the Council".
[374] Since this time, further work has been undertaken to resolve these conflicts, as described in the evidence of Mr Millar who considers that this issue has been substantially addressed as shown in the revised Drawing 62236-B-C425 attached to the evidence of Mr Aldridge. Mr Harwood, counsel for CCC confirmed at the hearing that this matter was no longer an issue.
[375] Given the above the Board has not considered the issue again and has concentrated on the environmental effects of stormwater during the operational phase.
[376] In his evidence Mr Miller details the key elements of the stormwater design philosophy that has been adopted for the Project, this includes:
Separation of the Project drainage system from the surrounding surface water and stormwater systems, and from stockwater races;
Stopping overland flows from entering the Project drainage system and flooding of the carriageway;
Designing for the 100 year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) event;
The Project vertical alignment has only two sag or low points with considerable contributing area, located at Weedons Ross Road and Halswell Junction Road;
Treatment of stormwater will be achieved primarily via sheet flow over grassed verges and treatment swales; and
22
Refer to section 19 of the AEE.
70
Detention ponds.
[377] Based on the evidence of Mr Miller, the Board’s understanding of the proposed collection and disposal system is that it will typically consist of:
Roadside swales and stormwater disposal points at regular intervals along the Project.
Additional first flush basins will be required at the eastern end of the Project. There will be two pond areas adjacent to Halswell Junction Road (the Maize Maze Pond and the Ramp Ponds) to collect stormwater from the Project in the immediate vicinity.
The stockwater races will be conveyed beneath the Project via inverted siphons. The siphons will consist of a smaller diameter pipe to convey dry weather or ‘typical’ flows, with a second larger diameter pipe to pass flood flows beneath the Project.
The Project alignment also crosses a number of adjacent stream channels and depressions. In extreme rain events these have the ability to convey large overland flow.
A second series of siphon pipes will convey this flow under the motorway to the downstream side of the motorway.
[378] Mr Miller said that the Project has been designed to avoid adverse effects arising as a result of the proposed stormwater runoff as far as practicable and to mitigate any residual effects. The measures in this regard include:
The swale system has been designed to convey all runoff for up to the 1% ARI event without inundation of the pavement and without adverse effects on adjacent land;
The stormwater disposal system will, in general dispose all runoff to ground rather than surface water systems;
Redundancy in design will allow for areas to spill into the next infiltration area downstream without an adverse effect;
The design has been undertaken to avoid Project runoff discharge to the stockwater race network for all but extreme rainfall events; and
Where the Project alignment is below adjacent ground level, inverted siphons have been used to convey waters in races beneath the Project alignment.
[379] Mr Miller explained that the runoff from the Project has been designed to be captured and treated within the Maize Maze, Ramp and Mushroom Ponds. However following a significant rainfall event when these ponds are full, as well as when CCC Wilmers Quarry/Owaka Basin systems are full, there is also a need to allow for the controlled discharge of these ponds to Montgomery’s Drain in a manner that does not have an adverse effect of increased flow rates on the downstream receiving environment being the Halswell River.
[380] Mr Miller notes that adverse effects could arise if this flow is within a 60 hour period following a major storm event. He confirms that the ponds have sufficient capacity to contain all runoff from events up to the 1% ARI 60 hour event without overtopping. The release of water will therefore be controlled to
71
occur after this time, and a consent Condition (DP.27) is proposed in this regard.
[381] Mr Miller said that the Project crosses an area where stormwater is managed by CCC. This is referred to as the South West Area (SWA). A Stormwater Management Plan is in place for this area. He notes that as part of the CSM1, works were carried out to implement parts of the SWA Stormwater Management Plan and that further works have been identified as part of this Project that will enable further sections of this stormwater infrastructure plan to be implemented.
Evaluation and Findings
[382] Based on the above, the Board concludes that the stormwater disposal design has addressed the potential effects of the Project discharging stormwater to land disposal areas, diverting stockwater races and conveying overland flow paths beneath the Project alignment, and lowering groundwater levels when they become too high.
[383] The Board finds that the NZTA have in place mechanisms through maintenance and operational procedures to effectively maintain the stormwater management works to assure their long term performance.
11.4 NOISE AND VIBRATION
Issues
[384] The key issue before the Board is the nature and magnitude of the operational noise effect from the Project on the surrounding environment including residential properties. In considering this issue the Board has also had to address the differences between the existing and future receiving environments and the appropriateness of different standards for measuring noise. In this respect the Board has divided its consideration between general noise amenity issues and specific effects on identified properties. In this case it proposes to deal with the standards issue before considering concerns from individual submitters.
Submissions and Evidence
[385] There was evidence and information from the NZTA on the assessment and standards applied in considering the adverse effects of noise and vibration.
[386] Marshall Day Acoustics (MDA) provided TR8 in support of the AEE for the CSM2 and the MSRFL Project23. The report provided an assessment of traffic noise and vibration effects associated with the operation of the Project.
23
CSM2 & MSRFL Technical Report No. 8. Assessment of Operational Noise Effects (Rp008 RO2 2010286c) Marshall Day Acoustics, November 2012.
72
[387] The assessment followed the procedures set out in NZS 6806:2010 "Acoustics - Road-traffic noise - New and altered roads" which provides noise level criteria for noise sensitive locations.
[388] A noise model was developed to predict traffic noise levels and to evaluate the reduction in noise provided by various noise mitigation options. NZS 6806 provides a framework by which each of these noise mitigation measures is assessed in line with the best practicable option (BPO) approach of the Resource Management Act.
[389] This approach resulted in a number of selected noise mitigation measures for each of the route sections (1 to 7)24 which include low noise road surface and noise barriers. Comprehensive design of the noise mitigation will occur during the detailed design stage of the Project.
[390] Existing ambient noise levels at dwellings along the proposed route are dependent on their proximity to existing roads. Away from busy roads traffic noise levels are in the order of 50 dB LAeq(24h). Dwellings close to Main South, Shands and Springs Roads currently experience noise levels of around 70 dB LAeq(24h).
[391] A detailed assessment of traffic noise level generation and noise control was conducted in line with the requirements of NZS 6806 "Acoustics - Road-traffic noise - New and altered roads". NZS 6806 provides a framework by which a number of noise mitigation measures are assessed in line with the BPO approach of the RMA. This assessment process by the design team has resulted in a number of preferred mitigation options for the various sections of the Project.
[392] The preferred noise control measures include the use of low noise road surface and noise barriers. An Open Graded Porous Asphalt (low noise) surface is proposed as part of the "Do-Minimum" design along the majority of the scheme.
[393] The noise assessment identified that, through the application of the BPO, all Protected Premises and Facilities (PPFs) along the route will meet the Category A (quietest) noise criteria for new and altered roads. An assessment of effects has been conducted based on the predicted change in traffic noise level at each PPF.
[394] At Trents Estate Winery, a noise level below 53 dB LAeq is predicted in the MDA report, which the NZTA considered to be appropriate for normal use of the Winery's buildings and grounds for functions.
[395] While no detailed assessment of potential operational vibration effects has been conducted, the NZTA evidence was that vibration levels generated by traffic are low, and will be sufficiently well managed as a result of the NTZA's on-going maintenance requirements for a road.
[396] Appendix E of TR 8 provides a table showing the anticipated change in noise level at each PPF in the assessment area resulting from the Project.
24
TR 8, Appendix C.
73
[397] Through consideration of only the highest change in traffic noise level received by two storey dwellings25 and by excluding the dwelling at 108 Trents Road which is to be purchased by the Crown, the following summary was provided by the NZTA:
Of the 41 PPFs assessed, 29 (approximately 71%) will experience an insignificant change in noise level of less than ±2 dBA. The resulting noise effects are considered to be negligible;
A further 10 dwellings (approximately 24%) will experience a perceptible or appreciable decrease in traffic noise level of between 3 and 11 dBA. The NZTA considered this to be a minor to significant positive noise effect for these dwellings; and
There will be a 4 dB LAeq(24h) increase at two dwellings in Section 6 of the alignment at 883 Waterholes Road (first floor) and 904 Waterholes Road. This is a perceptible change in noise level resulting in a minor noise effect for these dwellings. However, the 57 dB LAeq(24h) Category A noise criterion will be achieved at both locations. No submissions were received in respect of these two properties.
[398] Section 7.0 of TR 8 addresses potential vibration generation from the road once it is operational. The preferred noise control measures include the use of low noise road surface and noise barriers. An Open Graded Porous Asphalt (low noise) surface is proposed as part of the "Do-Minimum" design along the majority of the scheme. It is expected that vibration generation will be negligible at residences adjacent the Project through regular maintenance of the road surface.
[399] Overall, the MDA report concluded that the CSM2 and MSRFL can be operated such that adverse noise effects from traffic will at worst be no more than minor. In general, noise effects will be slightly positive or less than minor for the majority of PPFs. These effects have been achieved through the utilisation of the best practicable option approach to noise mitigation. The assessment showed that significant noise effects can be avoided, remedied or mitigated by utilising the best practicable mitigation option approach and the achievement of compliance with the relevant criteria of NZS 6806.
[400] Mr Camp a Principal in MDA gave evidence on the subject of operational noise and vibration. The NZTA TR 826 and TR 927 November 2012 were prepared under his direction. He described his assessment process methodology (as described in the AEE) as follows:
The operational traffic noise assessment is based on analysis of the Project in accordance with New Zealand Standard NZS 6806:2010.
25
A two storey dwelling has two assessment points (ground floor and first floor) under assessment to NZS
6806. Appendix E of TR 8 lists both the ground and first floors of three two-storey dwellings at 979 Robinsons
Road, 260 Blakes Road and 318 Springs Road.
26
CSM2 & MSRFL Technical Report No. 8. Assessment of Operational Noise Effects (Rp008 RO2 2010286c) Marshall Day Acoustics, November 2012. 27
CSM2 & MSRFL Technical Report No. 9. Assessment of Construction Noise and Vibration (Rp009 RO1 2010286c) Marshall Day Acoustics, November 2012.
74
"Acoustics - Road traffic noise - New and altered roads" (NZS 6806). The NZS 6806 process is outlined in detail in Section 2.1 of TR 8.
Under NZS 6806 the criterion applicable to a Project is dependent on the predicted future traffic volume once the Project is implemented and whether the Project consists of a new or altered road. The noise criteria have three levels as follows:28
Category Altered Roads dB LAeq(24h)
New Roads dB LAeq (24h) 29
A (primary external noise criterion)
64 57
B (secondary external
noise criterion) 67 64
C (internal noise criterion)
40 40
The fundamental basis of compliance with the Standard is the application of the BPO to achieve one of three noise criteria categories (A, B or C). The criteria are applied progressively, i.e. with criterion B only considered if criterion A is not practicably achievable and so on. For this Project, a total of 15 mitigation options were evaluated by the design team to determine the best practicable option. From this appropriate noise mitigation measures have been selected.
The NZS 6806 assessment process requires the prediction of traffic noise levels at sensitive locations along the extent of the Project without any specific noise mitigation (called the "Do-minimum scenario" in the Standard), and the development of noise mitigation options to achieve various design criteria.
The process determines which noise criteria category would apply to each assessed PPF30 following the implementation of the selected mitigation option. The committee developing NZS 6806 considered these noise criteria categories to result in reasonable noise levels "taking into account health issues associated with noise, the effects of relative changes in noise levels on people and communities, and the potential benefits of new and altered roads to people and communities"31.
28 Only those criteria relevant to the Project are set out. For a full table, refer to the Standard, Section 6.1.2, Table 2.
29 New Roads with a predicted traffic volume of 2,000 – 75,000 AADT4 at the design year. AADT means "annual
average daily traffic", i.e. the daily traffic flow averaged over a year. 30
PPF is defined in Section 1.4 of NZS 6806 as being "Protected Premises and Facilities". For this Project,
the terms PPF and dwelling can be used interchangeably. 31
Section 1.1.4 of the Standard.
75
For ease of presentation, the noise mitigation requirements were spilt across seven sections covering the full extent of the Project. NZS 6806 defines different assessment areas at distances of 10 metres and 200 metres from the alignment for "urban" and "rural" areas respectively. The classifications for "rural" and "urban" are as defined by Statistics New Zealand. However, in this Project, the majority of dwellings along CSM2 are characterised by similar noise environments even though they may have different "urban" or "rural" categorisations. Therefore, to provide a more consistent approach, the NZS 6806 assessment areas were extended out to 200 metres in those "urban" areas.
A computer based noise model was used to assess several mitigation options for consideration as the BPO. The selected noise mitigation option would achieve compliance with the NZS 6806 Category A criteria (quietest), with external noise levels at or below 57 or 64 dB LAeq (24h), for dwellings next to "new" (e.g. CSM2) and "altered" (e.g. MSRFL, Shands, Springs, Marshs) roads respectively.
For this Project, there are no PPFs with a Category B noise criterion. More importantly, no PPFs fall into the "back stop" Category C, where the focus is on internal noise levels and which only apply in circumstances where the external noise levels cannot practicably be reduced sufficiently. No building modification noise mitigation is required to any PPF as a result of this Project.
41 PPF's were evaluated against the NZS 6806 noise criteria categories as described in sections 5.2 to 5.6 of TR 8. (The total number of PPFs assessed is incorrectly stated as 34 in section 4.4 of TR 8).
[401] Based on the above the NZTA proposes Open Porous Graded Asphalt (OGPA) as the "Do-minimum" road surface for the majority of the Project which means that traffic noise levels will be relatively low, compared with other surfacing options such as chipseal. OGPA reduces noise directly at the source (i.e. car tyres interacting with the road surface). Therefore it is a very effective road traffic noise mitigation measure as it benefits the widest possible surrounding area.
[402] Mr Camp stated that because this low noise road surface will be used over almost the entire length of the Project, specific noise mitigation is required at only four dwellings in order to achieve the Category A criteria at all PPFs. The selected mitigation options for these four dwellings use 1.8 metre high noise barriers. The mitigation measures are described in full in section 5.0 and Appendix C of TR 8. (Refer also to DC.21).
[403] Mr Camp also noted that the noise assessment does not include dwellings located on Crown owned land or those which the Crown intends to purchase. These properties are identified in Appendix C of TR 8. Although Crown ownership does not automatically exclude PPFs from assessment under NZS 6806, it is understood that these properties will be removed or further mitigation investigated, to achieve compliance with NZS 6806.
[404] Ms O’Callahan outlined the specific designation conditions relating to Operational Noise and Vibration; they are Conditions DC.21 to DC.24 inclusive.
[405] Styles Group (Acoustic and Vibration Consultants) were commissioned by the EPA on behalf of the Board to provide guidance on the New Zealand Noise
76
Standard NZS 6806:2010 Acoustics - Road Traffic Noise - New and altered road, under section 91(2) of the RMA.
[406] The Styles Group Report dated 28 May 2013 and amended on 12 June 2013, was prepared by Mr Vossart and reviewed by Mr Styles. They reported that other boards of inquiry involving the application of the Standard have levelled varying degrees of criticism at its provisions. In their reports the boards consider the Standard has a heavy focus on the determination of the BPO for the mitigation of road traffic noise based on the achievement of noise level criteria set out within the standard that it deems to be “reasonable”.
[407] The Styles Group Report (Mr Vossart) stated that the other boards of inquiry have asserted that the Standard internalises the assessment of what noise levels are deemed to be reasonable in the assessment of road traffic noise, (see sections 6.1.1 and C6.1.1 of the Standard). That is, the noise criteria (Table 2) are deemed by the Standard to be reasonable; for all circumstances where the BPO is met. Where the noise level criteria are exceeded, the Standard prescribes that noise mitigation measures are undertaken to achieve attenuation to the extent that is practicable in the particular circumstance subject to numerous other non-acoustic considerations. The Standard itself does not share a process for or require a traditional assessment of effects for each PPF or cluster thereof as required by Schedule 4 of the RMA.
[408] Mr Vossart and Mr Camp met to discuss the Styles Group Report and produced a Statement of Agreed Position and Intent dated 28 June 2013. They agreed that the Styles Group Report identifies the key issues that have been raised by previous Boards of Inquiry with respect to the application of NZS 6808 and that the Project has been designed to achieve Category A noise levels defined in the standard; being 57 db LAeq(24hr) for new roads and 64 dB LAeq(24hr) for altered roads and that there are no Category B or C dwellings. They agreed that these criteria are less onerous than World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines, namely that of 55dB LAeq(16hr)
and also that the limits defined in the standard are a compromise based on a wide range of factors, not just noise.
[409] Amongst other considerations, the experts identified four dwellings (883 and 904 Waterholes Road, 260 Blakes Road and 108 Trents Road) along the CSM2 alignment where predicted noise levels comply with the new road criterion in the Standard, but exceed the WHO guideline.
[410] With the Project completed, all dwellings along the altered road sections will be exposed to the same or lower noise levels as they would be without the Project, with the exception of one house at 1300 Main South Road, which will experience a 2 dB increase. When questioned by the Board the owner of this property, Mr Barron (Sheds NZ), did not have any issues with noise.
[411] Mr Vossart was of the view that the WHO criterion is the point above which adverse effects may occur. Whilst a change of up to 4 dB is generally perceived as minor, adverse noise effects may be generated by virtue of the resultant noise level exceeding the WHO guidelines. Mr Camp disagreed and said he is satisfied that the 57 dB limit set in the standards is reasonable.
[412] On day five of the hearing Mr Vossart proposed amendments to the noise conditions. These were not conditions related to Trents Winery, but more
77
broadly to the Project as a whole and sought to include a 55 dB limit in DC.22 and remove the words “to the extent practicable” from Condition DC.24.
[413] In response, Ms Appleyard submitted that there are only five properties that would be affected by the change. Two are owned by the NZTA and the remaining three were not submitters to the Project. Due to the small impact that the change in condition would have, it should not be changed to fit the WHO Standards rather than NZS 6806 - the Standard against which the technical reports, evidence and current conditions were assessed. It would also not meet the Newberry32 test for conditions in terms of being for a resource management purpose not an ulterior one, fairly and reasonably relate to the development authorised by the resource consent; and not be so unreasonable that a reasonable planning authority, duly appreciating its statutory duties could not have approved it.
[414] Under questioning by Ms Appleyard Mr Vossart stated:
“I can see Mr Camp's point. I don't wish to make the draft condition impracticable. The reason I have suggested the striking of those words was actually in line with something that had been said by a previous Board. But on reflection, I can see the practicality of Mr Camp's point”.
[415] Dr Trevathan gave evidence on behalf of the Shanks Trust and this will be referred to later.
Evaluation and Findings
General Findings
[416] The Board has considered Ms Appleyard’s submissions and accepts them for the reasons she gave, in respect of NZS 6806 remaining the guideline to be used for the Project. In coming to this conclusion the Board has considered Ms Steven’s submission that NZS 6806 is not a legal standard. The Board accepts that Ms Steven is correct but is of the view that it is an appropriate guideline which can be considered as it has been in this case. Accordingly the Board finds that there should be no change to Conditions DC.22 and DC.24 as proposed by Mr Vossart.
[417] The Board accepts that the mitigation measures including acoustic fences at four properties and the comprehensive design adequately mitigates the adverse noise effect in all but five properties. Two of these are owned by the NZTA and the other three owners did not submit. Overall the adverse noise effects from the operational phase of the Project are not significant having regard to NZ 6806.
Individual submitters’ concerns
[418] Ten submissions were received that raised issues relating to noise and of these the Board addresses below those seven submissions which specifically raised an issue with operational noise and/or vibration.
32
Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578 at pages 599-600, 607-608, 618-619, as applied by Waitakere City Council v Estate Homes Ltd [2007] 2 NZLR 149, at para [66].
78
Lamond Poultry Ltd
[419] This submitter requested a "soundproof fence" for chickens. Mr Camp predicted that there will be a negligible change in noise level across this property as a result of the Project and considered that a noise control fence was not required. The Board agrees that a noise control fence is not required and understands that business effects including site layout and fencing will be considered through the property acquisition process under the Public Works Act as described in the evidence on Mr Knaggs.
P & D Bennett
[420] This submitter requested a bund to reduce traffic noise. This dwelling at 273 Blakes Road was specifically assessed in Appendix E of Technical Report 8. Mr Camp predicted no change in noise level at this dwelling as a result of the Project, the predicted traffic noise level of 52 dB LAeq (24h) being significantly below the NZS 6806 Category A criteria. On this basis the Board accepts Mr Camp’s evidence that the noise effects will be negligible and consider bunding or other methods not to be required to mitigate traffic noise.
J Newfield
[421] In respect of noise, this submitter requested that bunding to the motorway is installed to mitigate noise.
[422] This dwelling at 226 Blakes Road is outside the NZS 6806 assessment area. Mr Camp predicted that the traffic noise level at this dwelling will be 48 dB LAeq
(24h) which is significantly below the NZS 6806 Category A criterion of 57 dB LAeq (24h). The Board considers that no further noise mitigation is required.
M & A Harcourt
[423] The property reference in this submission is located at 19 John Paterson Drive and concerns relate to both construction noise and noise from traffic once operational. The submitter anticipates adverse impacts on livestock, and loss of enjoyment of the property.
[424] Mr Camp advised that once the Project is operational the vehicle usage of the realigned John Paterson Drive is expected to be in the order of 200 vehicles per day and the estimated traffic noise levels are expected to be around 40 dB LAeq (lhr) at the dwelling.
[425] This compares with the estimated existing noise level at this property of around 50 dB LAeq (24h). Therefore noise of 40 dB LAeq (lhr) from CSM2 and the realigned John Paterson Drive will not significantly change the existing noise environment, and noise effects will therefore be negligible.
[426] The submitter did not produce evidence or make a representation at the hearing. The Board accepts the evidence of Mr Camp that operational noise effects on the submitter’s property from the Project will be negligible and that no mitigation is required.
J Stafford
[427] Whilst this submission primarily relates to a planning issue regarding minimum lot size, the basis for the submitter's concerns is related to an increase in traffic noise generation at the dwelling.
79
[428] Mr Camp confirmed that the traffic noise level at this property has been assessed in TR 8 as being 53 dB LAeq (24h) which is below the NZS 6806 Category A criteria. He therefore considered that the resultant noise environment at this dwelling will be reasonable. The Board agrees that no mitigation measures are required.
G Olive
[429] G Olive made a representation to the Board at its hearing on 10 July 2013. During the representation the NZTA produced, with G Olive’s permission, a letter from the NZTA to G Olive dated 5 June 2013.
[430] This letter addressed several concerns, relating to noise mitigation and noise levels in potential dwellings as shown on subdivision plans.
[431] The letter advised G Olive that a valuation process has commenced and that the NZTA do not propose any noise mitigation at his property and that discussions will continue through the detailed design stage. The letter indicated that property compensation is being considered under the Public Works Act.
[432] There was evidence from the NZTA that the Project will lead to a negligible change in noise level at his house. The existing traffic noise level is dominated by Halswell Junction Road traffic and the addition of CSM1 has added about 0.5dB. The evidence suggests that adding CSM2 will not increase overall noise levels. The NZTA has also indicated that it will discuss fencing and landscaping concerns as part of the property compensation which will be payable under the Public Works Act. The Board accepts the NZTA evidence and does not consider noise mitigation is required.
John and Susan Shanks Family Trust (Trents Winery)
[433] Mr and Mrs Shanks are the trustees of the Shanks Family Trust. They operate Trent’s Estate Vineyard at 150 Trents Road which is a function centre and wedding venue at the site. They were concerned that no acoustic mitigation is planned along the entire 650 metre length adjoining their property apart from the road surface selection. They submitted that the acoustic impacts were significantly understated in the NZTA application and that the negative consequences of the acoustic levels generated by road noise will have a substantial adverse effect on the wedding venue operated on the Trust property. At the hearing Mr Shanks submitted that the only effective mitigation was a 650 metre long bund, measuring 4 metre in height running parallel to the motorway.
[434] Dr Trevathan, a qualified acoustic engineer prepared evidence on behalf of J and S Shanks. Dr Trevathan explained that his clients have concerns about adverse noise effects on the function centre (in particular outdoor wedding ceremonies) and the increase in noise levels at the residential dwelling which is located onsite arising from the Project.
[435] Dr Trevathan undertook noise measurements at the vineyard which recorded ambient noise levels for individual days ranging from 42 to 44 dB LAeq(24). This compares with levels recorded by Mr Camp (MDA) of 47 dB LAeq(24). Dr Trevathan concluded that MDA had overstated the quietest day ambient noise level by 5 dB and the highest day by 3 dB. Dr Trevathan also concluded that the ambient environment at the site will increase between 9 dB and 11 dB as a result of the CSM2 Project.
80
[436] Mr Camp and Dr Trevathan met to discuss their findings of noise effects on the Wedding Venue and produced a Statement of Agreed Position and Intent dated 13 June 2013. They said they were in general agreement regarding the acoustic effect which the CSM2 Project will have. In particular the increase in noise level due to CSM2 will be more significant on some days than others. Measurements to date show the change will range from 3 dB to 11 dB (LAeq24hr).
[437] They agreed that:
The use of a sound system for outdoor weddings will become more essential once CSM2 is operational;
A bund (or acoustic fence) would reduce noise levels at the wedding venue provided it was located close to the source (road) or receiver (wedding venue), mid way between would be less effective; and
There will be a significant acoustic effect on the wedding venue, however they expect that a range of non-acoustic factors will also be relevant in determining whether this translates into a significant impact on the use of the venue overall.
[438] There were no substantive areas of disagreement between the witnesses.
[439] Ms Appleyard produced a map which had been prepared by the NZTA showing the Trents dwelling and the wedding venue to be respectively 212 and 283 metres from the nearest edge of the motorway, and Trents Road to be 400 metres from the wedding venue. Dr Trevathan agreed that these distances were in accordance with his understanding. Dr Trevathan marked on the map the position, in front of the Trents dwelling where he and Mr Camp did their noise monitoring. He also agreed that these distances were outside the area to be considered by NZS 6806.
[440] In his supplementary evidence Mr Aldridge helpfully provided a cross-section diagram of an envisaged 4 metre high bund showing it to extend approximately 30 metres beyond the notified boundaries of the designation on land purchased by the NZTA under the Public Works Act 1981. This diagram shows a 20 metre desirable clear zone width which the NZTA have agreed as an acceptable clear zone width under their Safe Systems philosophy, from the edge of the carriageway to the base of the bund.
[441] In a memorandum to the NZTA dated 20 June 2013 Mr Camp advised that the potential noise reduction that would be provided by a 4 metre earth bund, with a 4:1 slope above the CSM2 road surface located 39 metres from the edge of the nearest lane to the ‘peak’ of the bund, had been investigated. Calculations had been conducted in SoundPlan33 using the full CSM2/MSRFL road model in accordance with the calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) standard. The results showed the calculated reduction in noise level to be 1 dB at a distance of 250 metres from the wedding venue to the edge of the nearest motorway lane for a standard bund. The Board understands from Dr
33 SoundPlan – Environmental Noise Modelling and Planning Software
81
Trevathan that the standard bund referred to “extends the full length of the Trents boundary”.
[442] Dr Trevathan agreed with Ms Appleyard that with noise levels going up 9 dB to 11 dB the bund is not going to eliminate the effect but it would improve the situation in the order of 4 dB to 5 dB for a bund 3 metres high closer to the motorway, based on ISO9613, but he had not done any measurements. He had compared Mr Camp’s assumption that the crest of the bund would be 39 metres from the motorway which he observed to be further than 16 metres for a 4 metre bund with a 1 to 4 slope. He acknowledged that as someone not working closely with part of the Project team he had no understanding of what parameters may be involved. It appears to the Board that Dr Trevathan did not allow for a 20 metre “Safe Systems” clear zone in his calculations.
[443] The Board also observes that Dr Trevathan changed his evidence that related to the increased level of noise from the motorway from 9 dB to 11 dB (LAeq 24hr) in his evidence to 3 dB to 11 dB (LAeq24hr ) in the Joint Statement34.
[444] In response to a question from the Board, with reference to section 16 of the RMA, Mr Vossart expressed his view that the best practicable option is to ensure a reasonable noise level of up to 51 dB for 1 hour LAeq or 53 dB for 24 hour LAeq. He considered that those levels were reasonable and would not negatively impact on the functioning of the venue. The Board notes that the 53 dB level is the same as predicted by MDA earlier.
[445] Ms Steven appeared for the Shanks and said that she agreed with all of what is said in the Styles Group Report. However for reasons advanced in this Report her submission was that the NZTA’s approach to its assessment of effects is not correct as a matter of law. The NZTA having applied NZS 6806 as though the application of that Standard addresses the full extent of its obligations under the RMA. Ms Steven advanced considerable argument in support of her submission, and also referred to a number of passages in other boards of inquiry reports.
[446] Ms Appleyard in reply, stated that Mr Camp had in fact carried out an effects assessment and appropriately used NZS 6806 as a guideline under which he had evaluated whether noise levels are or are not appropriate. In this respect counsel for Shanks appears to have overlooked the evidence, rebuttal evidence, TR 8 and the Joint Statement, all of which Mr Camp was involved with. Furthermore the fact that Mr Camp assessed the Shanks property despite it falling outside of the area required by NZS 6806 is evidence of the Standard being used only as a guideline.
[447] Mr Shanks in his representation to the Board and through his Counsel stated that the bunding solution is the only reasonable proposal that the Board should consider imposing.
[448] The Board has considered Mr Shanks’ representation, the expert evidence and the submissions by Ms Steven and Ms Appleyard. Mr Camp’s evidence shows that a 4 metre high bund, with its base positioned approximately 20 metres from the edge of the motorway carriageway in
34
Joint Statement Nr Camp Dr Trevathan 13 June 2013 Paragraph 5 (b).
82
accordance with the NZTA “Safe Systems” philosophy, would reduce sound levels by 1 dB 250 metres from the motorway.
[449] The Board therefore agrees with Ms Appleyard’s closing submission which confirms the position of Mr Camp and which is supported by Mr Vossart that no noise mitigation is required for the Shank’s property as the noise levels which will be received after CSM2 is operating whilst unarguably an increase, are not adverse to the extent that they impact on the overall functioning of the wedding venue. Amplification facilities exist at the venue if users choose to use it.
[450] Accordingly, the Board finds that with CSM2 in operation noise levels at the wedding venue are likely to increase by 3 dB to 11dB above ambient and that a 4 metre high bund will not eliminate or substantially alleviate this effect. Having considered the range of the experts measurements as they relate to ambient levels and their assessment of increased noise effects with the motorway in operation and without a bund in relation to the distance of the proposed motorway from the wedding venue, the Board finds that any increase in noise effects from the motorway will be acceptable in terms of the applicable New Zealand Noise Standard for New Roads and the requirements of section 16 of the RMA.
11.5 GROUNDWATER
Issues
[451] The issues are the potential effects of the Project during the operational phase on groundwater levels and groundwater quality arising from:
An increase in groundwater levels beneath stormwater infiltration devices installed as part of the Project and related local changes to groundwater flow conditions;
A decrease in groundwater level beneath drains or adjacent to well pumping systems, installed as part of the Project to limit groundwater rise during periods of high groundwater levels; and
Any introduction of contaminants to the groundwater system from the motorway or draw-in of contaminants as a result of pumping or drains.
Submissions and Evidence
[452] Several submitters raised concerns with respect to adverse effects on groundwater levels and groundwater quality:
SDC is concerned about the discharge of surface water and groundwater to stockwater races and the resulting water quantity and quality risks.
CPW is concerned with water level rises and states that they do not want to be held accountable for localised mounding effects arising as a result of the Project.
G Doyle, A Mactier, J Newfield and G Blokland raised general concerns in respect to general contamination to groundwater; and
83
Canterbury District Health Board expressed concerns about the swales and the ponds providing habitats for mosquitos.
Groundwater Quantity
[453] In opening submissions for SDC Mr Carranceja said that as advised in the Joint Memorandum dated 21 May 2013 filed on behalf of the NZTA and SDC, an understanding had been reached regarding how the issues raised in the SDC’s submission can be resolved. Accordingly he advised that SDC supports the NZTA’s position on CSM2.
[454] Since then SDC had become aware of a disagreement between experts in relation to the risks of higher frequency and severity of flooding at Robinsons Road. This particularly concerns the rate of discharging groundwater into the stockwater race that would be necessary to avoid flooding on Robinsons Road. The issue was determining the additional volume of water that the stockwater race can handle without flooding. Mr Carranceja suggested that the situation could be dealt with by a review condition administered by the consent authority CRC.
[455] In his evidence Mr Utting for the NZTA noted that a key focus in the AEE was the expected changes in water levels in the area that would occur with natural variation and changes likely with the consented CPW. He explained that there were two key areas along the proposed route where the assessment was focussed - these being Robinsons Road (RRO) and the Halswell Junction Road (HJR):
RRO was a focus because of the design option of constructing the carriageway of Robinsons Road more than 6m below current ground level and the associated need to remove stormwater runoff from the sub-grade portions of the carriageway, in an area that could have under extreme events groundwater levels at or above the design level of the carriageway; and
The HJR was an area of focus because of the combination of (a) several ponds planned to store (detain) and to an extent infiltrate stormwater collected from nearby portions of the Project, and (b) relatively high groundwater levels that could limit infiltration of stormwater or cause liners to lift from the bottom of the lined retention ponds.
[456] Mr Utting concluded that any potential increases to groundwater levels will be controlled through occasional pumping at the RRO structure and passive under drains at the HJR ponds. Disposal of the removed groundwater will be primarily through the diversion to the stockwater race along Robinsons Road for pumped groundwater from RRO and to Upper Knights Stream via a culvert at the end of John Paterson Drive for groundwater from HJR. Mr Utting does not consider there to be significant adverse drawdown effects arising as a result of the proposed pumping on either existing groundwater resources or surface water, nor will there be any adverse effects arising on surface water systems arising from the discharge of groundwater to such areas. Overall he concludes that the effects of the Project on groundwater levels would not be noticeable and will be less than minor. Mr Utting also set out the monitoring that is required to ensure that this will be the case, both prior to construction and then operationally.
[457] The Tonkin and Taylor Ltd Report on groundwater commissioned by the Board under section 92(2) of the RMA raised two matters of importance:
84
Whether the groundwater take and subsequent discharge for dewatering in times of high groundwater at Robinsons Road comprises a non-consumptive or a consumptive take, which is important as the Selwyn-Waimakariri Groundwater Allocation Zone (SWGAZ) is over allocated; and
The implications, if the groundwater levels are higher than predicted by the NZTA's advisors, thereby resulting in a greater take and higher rate of discharge than anticipated with a higher risk of Robinsons Road flooding at the RRO.
[458] The Tonkin and Taylor Report (the report) concluded that if it could be shown that the proposed taking of groundwater by the Project amounts to a “take and divert” then it may be possible to regard it as a non-consumptive use, however the NZTA did not provide an assessment on this basis. The report also concluded that the potential maximum groundwater levels at RRO and HJR are higher than those adopted by the NZTA. The report considered that a more comprehensive evaluation of alternatives should be undertaken than flooding or raising of Robinsons Road at the RRO.
[459] The following table summarises the maximum groundwater levels described in the application, the levels assessed in the Tonkin and Taylor Ltd Report and the maximum control level required by the NZTA.
Site Application Review Target
groundwater
level Pre-CPW Post-CPW Pre-CPW Post-CPW
HJR 18.1 19.4 18.7 20 18.5
RRO 37.1 39.6 40.2 42.7 38
[460] These tabulated data show that maximum groundwater level estimated from the report are higher than those adopted by the NZTA. The primary reason for the difference results from the selection of the period of historical record.
[461] The report estimated that there is potential for a much higher pumping rate (220 L/s) to be required at RRO than has been assessed by the NZTA (100 L/s). However at HJR the reviews assessment is similar to the NZTA's at up to 50L/s.
[462] The report noted that there is no assessment of potential changes in timing of peak groundwater levels as a result of the installation of the CPW. That is it is possible that the timing of groundwater peaks may be altered by the effect of the CPW. For example there may be a peak in late summer as a result of recharge from the CPW and then again following winter rainfalls.
85
[463] The report further identified that based on Weirs35 predictions and allowing for the effect of the CPW, the maximum predicted water level at RRO may be up to 44 metres RL which is some 4.4 metres higher than predicted by the NZTA and 6 metres higher than the level at which groundwater is to be maintained beneath the infiltration trench, requiring much higher pumping rates to maintain the design water levels below the RRO.
[464] Following expert conferencing a joint statement was provided which sets out matters of agreement and those matters not agreed between Mr Reynolds and Mr Utting. The statement also reflects comments made by Mr Smith (CRC)36. The maximum groundwater levels were a matter of disagreement between Mr Reynolds and Mr Utting.
[465] The joint statement reflects that both parties now agree that the dewatering take and proposed disposal method at the Robinsons Road overpass is a non-consumptive use of water. Mr Smith also agrees with this position. Given this there are no over allocation implications in the SWGAZ.
[466] Mr Reynolds and Mr Utting have used different data and methods to calculate the likely groundwater levels post CPW irrigation commencing. As a result Mr Reynolds considers it likely that groundwater levels will be higher than Mr Utting, resulting in a potentially larger take and discharge being required when dewatering is occurring. Both witnesses acknowledge that they can estimate only and that the exact quantity of pumping required will be determined over time. The implication of this difference is to ensure the resource consents as sought provide sufficient flexibility to enable the required groundwater take when dewatering is necessary and that the discharge of this groundwater does not give rise to adverse environmental effects.
[467] During the course of the hearing the Board issued a Notice dated 4 July 2013 advising the NZTA, SDC, CCC and CRC that the Board wishes to consider the potential for the severity and frequency of flooding at RRO and will be addressing questions to Messrs Utting and Reynolds on Monday 8 July 2013.
[468] At the hearing on 8 July 2013 Messrs Utting and Reynolds were joined in the witness box by Mr Aldridge from the NZTA. Mr Utting produced a Supplementary Statement of Evidence dated 8 July 2013 which addressed groundwater levels beneath the CSM2 and MSRFL Project area during the high rainfall event of June 2013.
[469] The groundwater level plots in Mr Utting’s evidence indicated that groundwater levels rose approximately 2 metres beneath the northeast end of the Project and approximately 4 metres beneath the south-western end of the Project as a
35 Weir, J.J. Evidence on the matter of application for resource consents to construct and operate the Central Plains
Water Enhancement Scheme. 2007 and Weir, J.J. "Supplementary Evidence on the matter of application for
resource consents to construct and operate the Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme and a notice of
requirement by Central Plains Water Limited for designation ofland for works associated with the construction and
operation of the Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme” 2009.
36
Principal Consents Advisor CRC, who attended the 18 June conference via telephone.
86
result of the heavy rain of 16-23 June 2013. The observed rises resulted in groundwater levels 1.1 metres (to 36.0mRL) below the predicted maximum groundwater levels near the RRO. Mr Utting estimated the ARI for the storm to be in excess of 1 in 20 years and possibly higher. He concluded that the rainfall of 16-23 June was unusually high but did not indicate that the stormwater infiltration system designed for RRO needs alteration or modification to accommodate higher groundwater flows.
[470] Mr Utting explained that he had been over conservative and had estimated higher rates of groundwater pumping at RRO than would occur and as a result he had agreed with Mr Reynolds a rate of 100 litres per second as he had earlier estimated. Therefore the design does not need to be altered.
[471] Mr Reynolds said one of the areas he now agreed with Mr Utting was the maximum water level prior to CPW coming into operation which will be approximately 31 metres RL. With the CPW in operation water level will rise another 2.5 metre to 41.4 metre RL and he was quite comfortable with that. Mr Reynolds also referred to the step and constant rate testing of boreholes beside the infiltration structure that would be carried out37 and a review Condition (DP.29) that SDC and the NZTA had proposed.
[472] By way of further explanation Mr Reynolds said he was comfortable in terms of coming closer to the same level as Mr Utting and it was now his view that the maximum level is around 43 metres rather than the 45 metres modelled by Mr Weir at well number M36/0217, which was the well previously used to help calculate maximum groundwater levels beneath RRO.
[473] When presenting supplementary evidence on the last day of the hearing Mr Aldridge produced a Drawing 62236-SK837 Exhibit 7 showing a cross-section of the RRO. In earlier evidence he had referred to Drawing 62236-B-C115 showing a plan view and long section of Robinsons Road beneath the RRO. Mr Aldridge explained how the underground stormwater soakage system would work before and after CPW comes into operation and how groundwater submersible pumps in bores, one each side of the carriageway would keep groundwater levels low.
[474] Following questions from the Board in relation to the design of the RRO and whether it might be reviewed at the final design stage Ms Appleyard said there was a Memorandum of Understanding between SDC and the NZTA that was not before the Board that is going to relate to SDC when the NZTA gets to its final design stage.
[475] Mr Mazey the Asset Manager Transportation at SDC said that he had no outstanding concerns in terms of the level of flooding protection that the NZTA has suggested for the RRO. He appreciated the additional work by the NZTA and the evidence that has been given that basically encapsulates a lot of the discussions that have been had between the SDC and the NZTA experts over the last week and he is a lot more comfortable from his perspective that there is a practical and efficient solution in terms of being able to manage and mitigate the flooding issues associated with the overpass. It was his expectation that the early warning monitoring system would be independently
37
Refer Regional Consent conditions.
87
powered to mitigate the risk of the pumps not working and the water level rising in the event of a power failure. He also agreed with the latest set of consent conditions which the NZTA put before the Board including a review condition (Condition DP.29).
Groundwater Quality
[476] In respect of groundwater quality, in addition to the Technical Reports accompanying the application the Board also received evidence from both Mr Utting and Mr Shaver. The Board also requested and received a section 92(1) report referred to below.
[477] TR3 provides the results of groundwater quality investigations that have assessed the effects of stormwater discharge from the Project alignment on groundwater abstraction wells within the vicinity of the alignment. Stormwater discharge from the alignment is collected in swales and ponds which are designed to treat this water by allowing it to infiltrate into the underlying soils.
[478] In the Groundwater Quality Effects Report attached to TR3, it was assumed that the background concentrations of contaminants identified as representative of motorway runoff would be "effectively 0" given the absence of any existing major roading network. The four contaminants used in the analyses were: copper, zinc, fluoranthene and pyrene. These were identified as likely to be present in roadway runoff and would be appropriate for characterising runoff from CSM2 and MSRFL.
[479] In response to the Board’s section 92(1) request for further information on general background groundwater quality, Mr Shaver provided further information on the contaminant removal potential of dry ponds and Mr Utting provided the results of further background groundwater quality testing including results of other background contaminants not previously included in their analyses. These contaminants are: total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) representative of non-compound-specific motorway runoff contaminants (identified in Appendix F), the full suite of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC’s) included in the analyses for fluoranthene and pyrene, additional “trace” metals, major cations and general water quality parameters.
[480] Mr Utting considered that there is a risk that the proposed stormwater infiltration could potentially affect the quality of groundwater for existing wells located within 30 metres of any stormwater infiltration device associated with the Project. Mr Utting identified that the potential mitigation for this includes moving the proposed location of the stormwater runoff infiltration devices lying within 30 metres of existing wells, or by replacing the potentially affected well with a new well situated at a location more than 30 metres from any stormwater runoff infiltration structure. The Board notes that Condition DP.15 is proposed to manage this.
[481] Mr Utting has also considered the effects on groundwater during construction of the Project. He notes that as part of the CEMP, an Accidental Aquifer Interception Management Plan (AAIMP) is proposed. This is set to manage the potential effects on artesian aquifers that might be encountered during construction activities. Mr Utting also recommends monitoring of groundwater levels within 100 metre of areas where planned construction activities are likely to penetrate the water table. Condition G.17 is recommended in this regard.
88
[482] In addition to his evidence on hydrogeology, Mr Utting gave evidence on the modelling of typical motorway/highway runoff contaminants to assess water quality effects on nearby wells.
[483] Mr Utting advised that the analysis of water quality samples collected from selected wells during March 2013 indicate that petroleum contaminant concentrations (indicated by total petroleum hydrocarbons) (TPH) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) are all below detection limit. TPH concentrations in the three reported ranges (by carbon number38) would be had they been detected, generally indicative of the presence of petrol, diesel and lubricating oils, although each petroleum product includes a wider range of carbon numbers than those of the three categories. The PAH compounds can also indicate petroleum and diesel contamination. Fluoranthene and pyrene both have carbon numbers of 16, midway within the typical diesel range of C8-C24. As TPH and PAH are all below the detection limit, pre-construction background concentrations of motorway-type hydrocarbon contamination can therefore be considered to be "effectively 0", as assumed in the analyses presented in the Groundwater Quality Effects Report.
[484] Mr Utting also advised that the laboratory results indicate that concentrations of copper and zinc (metals identified as indicative of motorway runoff) are below detection limits in all samples except for the sample obtained from one well (2010 CTI 0). Although the reported zinc concentration from this well is above the detection limit, it is still approximately 300 times less than the drinking water guideline value of 1,500 pg/I used in the original analysis in the Groundwater Quality Effects Report. The measured zinc concentration is therefore low enough to be "effectively 0" when considered in the risk-based analysis presented in the Groundwater Quality Effects Report.
[485] The report from the laboratory also included other dissolved trace metals not targeted in the motorway runoff analysis presented in the Groundwater Quality Effects Report. These metals include arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and nickel. All sample results were below detection limits except for a duplicate sample from well 2010 CT04 which indicated chromium at 0.6 pg/I, just above the detection limit of 0.5 pg/I. Chromium concentrations reported for the primary sample from well 2010 CT04 were below the detection limit. These values suggest no significant metals contamination.
[486] Nitrate-N values from wells 2010 CT04 and 2010 CT07 were reported at 6.1 and 7.9 mg/I respectively. Concentrations at these levels (>1 mg/I) typically indicate the influence of agricultural activities and/or septic drainfield discharge. These reported concentrations are within the Maximum Acceptable Value (MAV) of 11.3 mg/I in the Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2008).
[487] Mr Shaver gave evidence on the impacts of the Project from a water quality perspective to determine whether there will be any adverse water quality impacts to surface or groundwaters or to downstream receiving systems including macro invertebrate communities. He concluded that if the Project is designed, constructed and operated according to the approach being
38
The carbon number is the number of carbon atoms in an organic compound. Generally, the smaller the carbon number, the lighter and more volatile the compound.
89
promoted by the NZTA, stormwater contaminants should not adversely impact on aquatic resources due to the high level of removal expected with delayed discharge and overall protection of receiving waters can be expected, any impacts should be less than minor.
[488] Mr Shaver also reviewed the proposed conditions of consent and provided comments along with suggested word changes where appropriate. His suggested changes are incorporated in Conditions DP.7 to DP.17 inclusive.
Evaluation and Findings
[489] The potential effects of the Project on groundwater levels and groundwater quality largely arise from stormwater runoff infiltrated though infiltration structures.
Groundwater Quantity
[490] The analyses conducted by Mr Utting indicate that with the proposed design features the effects on groundwater levels, flow directions and water quality caused by the construction and operation of the Project will be less than minor.
[491] Groundwater level rises will be controlled through pumping at the RRO structure and passive (gravity drainage) under drains at the HJR ponds. Disposal of the removed groundwater will be primarily through diversion to surface water - the stockwater race along Robinsons Road for pumped groundwater from RRO and to Upper Knights Stream via a culvert at the end of John Paterson Drive for groundwater from HJR. Because the pumped and drained groundwater will be returned to surface water within the catchment, the take will be considered non-consumptive.
[492] When groundwater levels are at their highest (after the effects of CPW are fully realised), groundwater levels could rise above the low points of Robinsons Road if no groundwater level control system is implemented. If pumping is implemented to keep the roadway from flooding, the maximum pumping rate needed to control groundwater level rises is expected to be no more than 100 I/s.
[493] Because of the lower permeability of the soils in the near-surface beneath the HJR ponds, a passive (gravity drainage) underdrain system has been designed to avoid groundwater rising above the base of the storage ponds. The underdrain system will:
Limit groundwater levels by removing groundwater when it rises to its peak levels (after the full effects of the CPW enhancement scheme are fully realised); and
Help to drain stormwater from the proposed infiltration ponds. The water from the underdrain system will be transferred to Upper Knights Stream when a culvert or pipeline is connected to the underdrains. Modelled flow rates from the underdrains are in the order of 10 I/s to 30 I/s or less.
[494] Increases in water level caused by the infiltration of stormwater away from the Project coupled with the groundwater level control systems are expected to be much smaller than the natural variations in groundwater levels and therefore the effects of the Project would not be noticeable, and will be less than minor.
90
[495] The Board’s initial concerns about the effects of the frequency and severity of potential flooding of Robinsons Road at the RRO have been resolved after hearing evidence from Messrs Utting, Reynolds and Mazey (on behalf of SDC) and submissions from Mr Carranceja.
[496] The Board finds that the conditions of consent, amended as they were during the hearing and which now include a review condition relating to the capacity of the stockwater race along Robinsons Road (Condition DP.29), provide SDC with the ability to manage and mitigate any flooding issues associated with the overpass.
Groundwater Quality
[497] With regard to groundwater quality the Board is satisfied from the further information provided to the Board by the NZTA in response to its section 92(1) request, that the results of sampling indicate that shallow groundwater in the vicinity of the Project shows no indication of contamination from highway runoff or contaminants that might be associated with motorway/highway runoff. The assumptions of no motorway type runoff contaminants used in the risk-based analyses of groundwater quality effects, is supported by these water quality results. In addition, the other measured constituents indicate no groundwater contamination beyond that of general agricultural or septic drainfield contaminants (nitrate) that are typical of the region.
[498] The Board accepts that if the Project is designed, constructed and operated according to the approach suggested by NZTA, stormwater contaminants should not adversely impact on receiving waters and aquatic habitats.
Overall
[499] The Board therefore finds that in respect of both groundwater quality and groundwater quantity the adverse environment effects arising from the operation of the Project will be negligible. Should any potential effects become apparent they can be appropriately mitigated through the application of consent conditions and the mitigation measures proposed.
11.6 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
Issues
[500] The issue is the effect on the terrestrial ecology arising from the operation of the Project; particularly the displacement and/or long term loss of habitat for resident birds, lizard populations and invertebrates. The on-going threat of mortality to bird life from the changed traffic environment is also an issue for the Board’s consideration.
Submissions and Evidence
[501] It is noted that no evidence apart from that led by the NZTA was given on this issue. The evidence for the NZTA given by Ms Robertson, was that most of the indigenous vegetation of the Canterbury Plains has been removed and the remaining is classified as ‘acutely threatened’ under the Threatened Environment Classification. The nearest areas of indigenous vegetation administered by DOC (protected for conservation purposes), are around the
91
shores of Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere, a small dryland kanuka remnant at Bankside Scientific Reserve (20km southwest of the Project Corridor) and in valleys and on the slopes of Banks Peninsula.
[502] There is also a Recommended Area for Protection (RAP) encompassing an area of flax and swamp kiokio (Blechnum minus) by a water race adjacent to Marshs Road but is more than 1km from the designation and will not be affected by the Project.
[503] The Project also traverses land in Christchurch City and Selwyn District. A Christchurch City Council Ecological Heritage Site (EH 15.06) also exists on the corner of Wilmers and Springs Road within 500 meters of the Project Corridor.
Evaluation and Findings
[504] The main effects are likely to occur during the construction period and these have already been addressed (Section 10.7).
[505] The on-going effects on terrestrial ecology from the operation of the Project are relatively limited and considered to be minor. The potential and actual effects are limited to the direct impacts on terrestrial fauna from the road and vehicular traffic for instance pukeko and introduced mammals that naturally forage over a wide area are most vulnerable to being injured or killed by vehicles using the Project. This includes brush-tailed possums, hares and rabbits. Other birds at risk are the Australian Harrier and Southern black-backed gull as these birds regularly scavenge road killed animals.
[506] The Board accepts that the adverse effects on the terrestrial ecology are minor during the operational period.
11.7 AQUATIC ECOLOGY
Issue
[507] Long term effects on aquatic ecology primarily relate to habitat modification associated with the closure, piping and realignment of water races; and occasional stormwater discharges once the Project is operational. The issue for the Board is whether there is sufficient mitigation in place to avoid adverse environmental effects on the aquatic ecology.
Submissions and Evidence
[508] Apart from the submissions already summarised in respect to the construction effects on aquatic ecology, there were no specific submissions addressing the on-going long term effects of the Project on aquatic ecology.
[509] The key evidence led by the NZTA was by Dr Hack. Her evidence was that:
The Project will result in permanent modification of some water races within the Project area. This will involve the piping of some sections of the race and will result in a reduction in light and riparian vegetation along those sections. The proposed piping whilst representing a net loss to the aquatic habitat within the Project area is compensated in other areas where new sections of race are being created. These areas
92
provide an opportunity to enhance the riparian and in-stream habitat thus mitigating losses. With recommended mitigation it is considered that the effects will be minor;
The piping of water races is likely to form a barrier to fish passage. However it has also the potential to create a safe haven for fish on the upstream side of the barrier. Also there are numerous alternative routes up and down the race network to provide fish habitat; and
There will be no direct discharge of stormwater to any water race or drain except during an exceedance of a 100 year ARI design storm event. As such the water quality is expected to be of a quality that will not impact on the receiving environment for fish.
Evaluation and Findings
[510] The Board notes that there was no challenge to the evidence presented by Dr Hack. It accepts that evidence, and notes that the proposed mitigation referred to by the witness is to be implemented through conditions of consent and in particular the SEMP 005 Landscape Management Plan.
[511] In the circumstances the Board determines that any adverse environmental effects to the aquatic resource will be minor.
11.8 AIR QUALITY
Issues
[512] The issue is the environmental effects arising from the vehicle exhaust pollutants once the Project is operational.
Submission and Evidence
[513] There were no submissions received on this topic.
[514] The evidence from the NZTA advised that a thorough assessment has been undertaken of the potential air quality effects of the Project in accordance with the relevant MfE Guide (Good Practice Guide for Assessing Discharges to Air from Land Transport MfE May 2008 - MfE GPG). This has included atmospheric dispersion modelling.
[515] The air quality assessment considered the potential effects of discharges from vehicle exhausts of carbon monoxide (CO), fine particles (PM10 and PM25), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and benzene. It is considered they are appropriate indicators of potential health effects from vehicle emissions.
[516] The assessment shows that all of the relevant air quality standards and guidelines would be complied with.
Evaluation and Findings
[517] The Board is of the view that the Project is likely to result in some wider, network-related improvements in air quality due to heavy vehicles re-routing away from Main South Road through Templeton and Hornby (which are urban areas) and onto CSM2. This will reduce the population who might be exposed
93
to the emissions and also improves traffic flows, maintains a steady flow of traffic and will produce fewer contaminants than typical urban traffic flows.
[518] The Board acknowledges that people living close to the proposed CSM2 alignment or the existing Main South Road corridor which is proposed to be widened, will have a slightly increased exposure to vehicle related contaminants than without the Project.
[519] However the air quality assessment shows that with the Project in place, exposure levels in all areas will comply with the NES AQ, designed to protect human health to the most vulnerable individuals in the community.
[520] In the Board’s view, the overall effects on air quality from the operation of the Project are assessed as being very minor, although maximum ground level concentrations of all pollutants are predicted to increase between each of the modelled years (2016, 2026), as a consequence of increasing vehicle numbers. It can be inferred that discharges of air pollutants caused by vehicles using MSRFL and CSM2 are unlikely to cause more than minor adverse effects on human health or the environment in the surrounding areas.
[521] As such the Board finds that the effects are minor and that no monitoring or mitigation is proposed.
11.9 NATURAL HAZARDS
Issues
[522] The key natural hazards relevant to the Project area relate to seismic activity, liquefaction, slope stability and climatic hazards (flood risks). The issue for the Board is the extent to which the Project has recognised these potential hazards and the Project has been designed so as to avoid and/or mitigate the risks associated with such hazards.
Submissions and Evidence
[523] Evidence on this topic was confined to that presented by the NZTA. Concerns as they relate to flooding have been addressed in other sections of this Report.
[524] The NZTA’s seismic evidence given by Dr Forrest in summary covers:
Seismic activity including ground shaking and liquefaction is a significant geological hazard in the Canterbury region;
The route lies within the Canterbury Region south of the Marlborough Fault Zone and to the east of the Alpine Fault. The September 2010 Darfield Earthquake was centred on the previously unmapped Greendale Fault located to the west of the route. The earthquakes that have occurred since September 2010 lie within a localised region centred around Christchurch and to the west of the city. The Greendale Fault has been mapped with its eastern end terminating approximately 1km north of Rolleston. Propagation and extension of this fault eastwards would result in the active fault crossing the Project area east of Weedons and trending towards Prebbleton. However recently
94
generated data and interpretation from GNS is indicating that seismic activity is moving eastwards and north, away from the Project area;
Ground movement associated with the recent earthquake events commencing in September 2010 have recorded horizontal movements up to 900mm and vertical movements of up to 320mm in the Project area. No liquefaction was recorded in the Project area in the recent earthquake events, however geological studies have proven that liquefiable soils do exist in the area; and
Based on the site investigation data obtained, the observed effects and data from the recent earthquakes, the susceptibility of the soils within the Project area to liquefaction is low and limited to particular horizons of silt and fine sand rich material.
[525] With the relatively flat topographical relief of the Project area and natural slope stability, general land instability issues do not pose a significant constraint to construction or long term serviceability of the motorway.
[526] The NZTA evidence relating to flooding was provided by Mr Miller:
The Halswell River has a history of flooding. The South West Area Plan (SWAP) and its associated Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) have considered limiting the effects of flooding through a series of stormwater storage facilities. These include ponding and detention basins and a recommendation to encourage discharge to land. Events below the design storm event should be completely contained within the Project corridor reducing potential flooding effects downstream. The stormwater design will reduce the contributing area to any existing flooding locations (through re-contouring land and the creation of embankments and bunds), thereby reducing flooding to adjacent landowners. The AEE states that there will be a slight increase in total volume to land but a negligible change during and immediately after a large storm event;
Events in exceedance of the design ARI event39 have the potential to cause flooding upstream of the Project and of the Project itself. These events will also result in the spilling of flood water into Montgomery's Drain. These flows will eventually reach the Halswell River (via Upper Knights Stream). It is anticipated that there will be an increase in base and flood flows in Upper Knights Stream and Halswell River. The increase in flows in these water bodies will be a result of the new highway impervious area increasing, and as such there will be more runoff water that would otherwise be soaking directly to land (ignoring the effects of evaporation and evapotranspiration);
During future periods of high groundwater, the expected base flow and flood flows are likely to increase. The time of elevated flow in the HaIswell River is currently expected to occur over a period up to 60 hours in length following a storm. However during the recession curve,
39
The design standard for the highway drainage system is the 100 year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) rainfall event including an allowance for climate change as recommended by MfE in the local body guidance manual.
95
the River and Upper Knights Drain are expected to have some surplus capacity. Overland flows in excess of the notional full capacity of the stockwater race have the potential to arrive upstream of the Project alignment. The extent of development immediately adjacent to the proposed alignment is currently limited, therefore effects on flooding of habitable floors are likely to be less than minor. However, the current extent and frequency of inundation of pasture upstream of the alignment is not known;
On the downstream side of the Project alignment, siphons will discharge stormwater. This is also aided by distance between the Project alignment and the downstream properties. Natural dispersion of flows is likely to occur in the distance between the siphon outlets and the downstream properties;
There may be overland flood flow exceedance events at Halswell Junction Road. The Owaka Basin has been designed to accommodate overflows from Halswell Road detention basin (which collects flows from the Hornby Industrial Area). The outlet from the Owaka Basin is to the old quarry pit on Wilmers Road. However, when this is full or there is insufficient hydraulic gradient, an overflow discharge from the basin will discharge to Montgomery's Drain and on to Upper Knights Stream via a pipe and open channel system. It will be necessary to maintain the connectivity and capacity of this overflow through the construction sequence of CSM2; and
A network of drainage measures under the ponds that discharge to Upper Knights Stream will operate when groundwater rises above RL 17.5m. This will create a new groundwater equilibrium and maintain current flow rates to Upper Knights Stream and Halswell River.
Evaluation and Findings
[527] The above consideration of natural hazards has relied heavily on the information contained in the Project AEE Volume 2 Chapter 21. The Board has carefully considered this information much of which is reflected in the evidence of the witnesses for the NZTA.
[528] Mitigation of risks associated with natural hazards is addressed by the NZTA through detailed and commensurate investigation, and implemented during the design of Project works and structures. As a result of the Board’s considerations and its knowledge of the Project, it finds that overall the Project has appropriately considered natural hazard effects and identified a number of mitigation measures which will be further considered at the detailed design stage of the Project.
96
11.10 NETWORK UTILITIES
Issue
[529] There are a number of existing network utilities and network utility operators[40] that have been identified by the NZTA as being potentially impacted by the proposed Project. The affected utilities and parties are detailed in the AEE. According to that document, the NZTA have undertaken consultation with the network utility operators in order to identify and address the potential adverse effect on these networks, and appropriate methods for avoiding, remedying and mitigating these effects.
[530] The networks that the NZTA advised the Board that they anticipated to be potentially affected by the Project are;
Electricity transmission;
Electricity distribution;
Water supply, wastewater and stormwater disposal utilities;
Stockwater races;
Telecommunications facilities; and
Railways.
[531] For completeness, the Board has listed the effects identified by the NZTA in the AEE, and submitters as including the following:
Proposed alignment of motorway passes under transmission lines, requiring time modification to achieve clearance standards;
Dust generated during construction could potentially settle on transmission lines and affect their integrity;
The presence of existing transmission lines near the proposed alignment are a potential safety hazard for contractors during the construction period;
One transmission tower on the BRY-ISL. A line is located in close proximity to the proposed motorway and may require barrier protection due to the proximity of the proposed motorway;
Damage to transmission lines from use of machinery;
Excavations close to the transmission line support structures (steel lattice towers) in excess of the limits specified in Clause 2.2.3 of New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances (NZECP34:2001);
[40]
Transpower New Zealand Limited, Orion, Chorus, Telstra Clear, Selwyn District Council, Christchurch City Council
and KiwiRail Holdings Limited.
97
Ensuring Transpower has access to its assets for emergency and maintenance work;
Preventing concentration of runoff that might cause structure destabilisation due to erosion or subsidence;
Adverse impacts from planting vegetation without adequate consideration being given to its location and eventual height relative to the transmission line;
Potential telecommunications cables requiring relocation;
Protection of sewer pipes;
Closure and rerouting of stockwater races;
Impact on water quality in stockwater races; and
Dust interfering with railway infrastructure.
[532] In addition to the above primary issue, certain utilities have been identified through the AEE and by the Board during the hearing, which are owned/operated by SDC and which could be potentially impacted by the Project, namely:
The existing stockwater races; and
The local road network.
[533] These utilities have been covered elsewhere in this Report.
Submissions and Evidence
[534] In considering these matters, the Board notes that there was no mention of this topic in the opening and closing submissions of counsel for the NZTA. Also and apart from attendance from SDC Asset Manager Transportation (Mr Mazey) on the last day of the hearing (in relation to the potential for flooding risk associated with the Robinsons Road Overpass), the Board did not hear from any network utility operator submitters. Accordingly for this topic the Board has relied on the notices of submission, the evidence of Ms O’Callahan and the reports of Ms Taylor as planning advisor to the Board.
[535] Four submissions were received in relation to the impact of the Project on Network Utilities. The submitters concerns as listed in the submission notices were as follows:
KiwiRail Holdings Limited (KiwiRail) submitted in relation the designated railway corridor owned by the Crown and administered by KiwiRail. They feel that the land proposed to be designated as a rear-access road within the rail corridor between Curraghs and Weedons Ross Road can be achieved whilst maintaining a railway corridor to provide for future double tracking. They stated in the submission, a willingness to work with the NZTA to resolve detailed interface and property issues with regards to railway corridor designation;
Transpower New Zealand Limited submitted that they are not opposed to the designations or granting of consents provided appropriate
98
measures to avoid or mitigate potential adverse effects on electricity infrastructure are incorporated into the Project. Transpower’s submission also introduced a number of matters, mostly present in the AEE, which they required to be addressed by conditions. Transpower noted that these issues are mostly included in the schedules of conditions proposed but suggested that “appropriate conditions are imposed” by the consenting authority without quantifying what they might be;
SDC’s submission expressed concern over the on-going maintenance required for the proposed infrastructure including interchanges, ramps, roundabouts, water race assets, pipes and siphons within corridor, and seeks that the management and maintenance remain the NZTA's responsibility. Additionally, they expressed concern over inadequate consideration for the relocation and protection of sewer pumping mains; and
CCC’s submission raised concerns over the Owaka stormwater detention basin.
[536] The Board records the following matters of agreement provided to the Board during the course of the hearing:
Mr Harwood for CCC advised the Board that the design of the Owaka stormwater detention has been resolved to CCC’s satisfaction. This was also recorded in the evidence of Mr Blair, and in the Planning Report prepared by Ms Taylor;
Mr Carranceja for SDC advised the Board that the Council and the NZTA have reached an understanding presented in a joint memorandum dated 21 May 2013. Also as noted earlier Mr Mazey confirmed his satisfaction with the revised condition framework that was produced by the NZTA to deal with the potential flooding issues at the Robinsons Road overpass. Ms Taylor also stated in her report that a MoU has been reached by SDC and the NZTA on how issues may be resolved and a set of amendments to the designation and resource consents (Attachment A to the agreement);
Mr Knaggs stated that consultation between KiwiRail and the NZTA has resulted in an agreement that the Project can be designed to avoid adversely impacting current and future rail operation requirements. The Board did not hear directly from KiwiRail but note that their submission supports the Project; and
The Board did not hear directly from Transpower, but Ms O’Callahan in her evidence stated that discussions between Transpower and the NZTA have been on-going throughout the design and application process. On that basis, and in the absence of a representation to the contrary the Board has assumed that Transpower issues have been resolved or that at least Transpower has no dispute with conditions volunteered by the NZTA. (Subsequent to the publication of the Draft Report, Transpower confirmed that it is satisfied that the conditions included in the Draft Report will ensure appropriate measures have been adopted to avoid or mitigate the potential adverse effects on the electricity transmission infrastructure.)
[537] As there were no outstanding concerns from submitters in relation to network utilities, no detailed evidence was presented to the Board at the hearing. Ms
99
O’Callahan did in her summary of the AEE, identify that the alignment of the CSM2 Project falls within the envelope of Transpower’s Islington to Springston A 50/66kV transmission line. She stated that the preferred solution will be confirmed at the detailed design stage. If at this point RMA approvals are required, they will be sought prior to construction commencing.
[538] Additionally Ms O’Callahan stated that the Project is consistent with the NPS ET objectives as sought by Transpower. Transpower in its submission had stated that it felt the conditions proposed did not sufficiently address the NPS ET as it had further raised potential effects, and active management was required by the NTZA and the relevant local authority with regards to these effects.
[539] As stated above Transpower did not specify conditions that could assist in this management. Ms Taylor initially aligned with the comments of Transpower, however she did not elaborate on this issue, and in her final presentation to the Board confirmed that there were no outstanding issues between her and Ms O’Callahan. (Subsequent to the publication of the Draft Report, Transpower confirmed that it is satisfied that the Project is not inconsistent with the NPS ET, particularly Policy 10.)
Evaluation and Findings
[540] It is understood by the Board that most if not all submitters have come to an agreement with the NZTA regarding the concerns raised in their submissions. The Board was advised that such agreements have either been detailed in a MoU between the NZTA and the utility owner/operator, or by other arrangement. The Board is not privy to the information contained in these documents, though where possible it has identified the understandings of which it is aware.
[541] As the Board is aware of three submitters who have entered into agreements with the NZTA and it has heard no further from Transpower, it considers that there are no specific “live” matters relating to the utilities network that require its consideration. However and as the legal tests outlined earlier in this Report apply to all matters, the Board is still required to evaluate the topic, and to this end and in the absence of information to the contrary from submitters, the evaluation undertaken relies on the NZTA’s assessment of the environmental effects and the advice from the Board’s Planning Advisor.
[542] In this respect and according to the evidence of Ms O’Callahan, the Board notes that the NZTA’s contractor will be required to prepare a General Control Statement (GCS) on utilities management as a requirement of the CEMP. The Board notes and accepts that this document will account for the safety, integrity and protection, or where necessary relocation of existing network utilities.
[543] In addition to the GCS, the Board also was advised that a number of management plans are relied upon by the NZTA to mitigate any adverse effects on network utilities that may arise during the Project, and in particular during the construction phase. An evaluation of this management plan is to be undertaken in a further section of this Report, however the proposed management plans and associated proposed conditions are identified here. Those that apply to the avoidance and mitigation of effects associated with network utilities are as follows:
Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP);
100
Air Quality Management Plan (SEMP 001) (addresses dust management);
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (SEMP 002);
Designation Conditions DC.7 and DC.8 (Management Plans), DC.12 and DC.13 (CEMP), DC.14 and DC.15 (Air Quality Management Plan - Construction) and DC.34 (Electricity Transmission Management);
Resource Consent General Conditions G.6 and G.7 (CEMP and SEMP’s), G.10 and G.11 (CEMP), G.12 and G.13 (Air Quality Management Plan), G.14 and G.15 (Erosion and Sediment Control Plan), G18 (Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan);
Resource Consent Conditions for the temporary and permanent diversion of stockwater races; and
New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice NZECP 34:2001, referred to in proposed Condition DC.34.
[544] It is understood as indicated by the Board’s Planning Report and the evidence presented at the hearing, that a number of additional conditions have been agreed by the NZTA and the submitters in relation to their concerns over network utilities. The Board considers that as these have been resolved to the approval of all parties, the proposed conditions are adequate to address issues raised.
[545] The Board considers that the agreements between the NZTA and utility network providers will provide sufficient avoidance and mitigation of the adverse effects of the Project on these utilities.
[546] In this matter the Board concludes that there are sufficient management plans to address the issues that may arise in relation to utilities networks, as identified above.
11.11 SOCIAL
Issues
[547] Planning, construction and operation of the Project could potentially cause social effects on people throughout the impact area. Social impacts include the ‘human’ experiences of other effects, individually or in combination. As such there are other overlaps with other AEE specialist assessments and these have been acknowledged where relevant. The issue for the Board is whether these effects are adverse and if so have they been adequately remedied or mitigated both in the construction and operational phases of the Project.
Submissions and Evidence
[548] There were several submissions that have social implications but these were submissions in respect of individual properties (and particularly related to landscape and property access matters), and there were no submissions made by the public or wider interest groups on the social effects of the Project.
101
The individual submissions have been dealt with in appropriate sections of this Report.
[549] The NZTA’s evidence on this topic was presented by Ms McLeod and Mr Taylor. This evidence suggested the following:
From a social perspective the communities of the Project area have experienced increasing population growth, particularly post-earthquake displacement of residents from Christchurch City, increasing housing demand in the main settlements and for small allotments in other rural and peri-urban development in Templeton, Prebbleton, Lincoln and more particularly Rolleston by extending the commuter belt and metropolitan labour market, creating demand for further rural subdivision;
From the perspective of the people and identifiable communities in the Project area, MSRFL and CSM2 should bring significant social benefits. These include reduced congestion, improved travel times and greatly enhanced safety along an otherwise dangerous stretch of main highway;
In addition there will be improved access to work and a range of services including education, health and emergency services, retail and commercial services; and
Active transport, considered an important component of social wellbeing, will be enhanced through proposed links through CSM2 and the Little River Trail which has been achieved through design features. While the cycleway will not extend along all of the CSM2, there is still likely to be an increase in commuter cycling to Lincoln, and there is the opportunity for a new cycling commuter route between Rolleston and Hornby.
[550] Mr Taylor’s evidence was that there are policies for the social and environmental management in planning, constructing and operating state highway projects which require the following to be addressed:
Access and mobility, the ability of state highway projects to connect users to community education, health and recreational facilities;
Community cohesion, particularly effects from accessibility and severance;
Environmental externalities, including air quality, noise and vibration;
Effects on culture and heritage, e.g. archaeological sites and people’s customs;
Visual quality and urban design, the aesthetics of the build environment; and
Public health.
[551] A Social Impact Assessment (SIA) was the approach used to assess impacts, which typically involves scoping the assessment, developing a profile of the affected area, assessing effects and considering ways to mitigate negative effects and enhance the Project benefits from a social perspective.
[552] The SIA was informed by:
Records of consultation undertaken by the NZTA;
102
Preliminary SIA findings;
Site visits and observations at meetings; and
Interviews with key stakeholder groups.
[553] A planned approach to consultation was developed in accordance with the principles and requirement set out in the RMA, the Land Transport Management Act 2003 and Amendment Act (2008) and the relevant consultation policies of the NZTA. Similarly the NZTA’s Public Engagement Policy 2008 includes a commitment to good practice public engagement by;
Providing genuine opportunities for public contributions;
Ensuring people are informed;
Adopting an inclusive and representative approach to public engagement; and
Maintaining high professional public engagement standards.
[554] The first phase of public consultation about the Project, occurred between October 2010 and December 2010, its purpose was to generally provide information on the Project to a broad audience.
[555] There were further phases of consultation including consultation on the preferred route, intersection designs and other aspects of the Project. This was done by way of distribution of several newsletters, references in the newsletters to the NZTA website, invitation for on-line feedback, Project updates, community meetings and one-to-one meetings with directly affected property owners.
[556] Each directly affected party has had multiple opportunities to meet the NZTA and/or a representative. For the majority of parties this has been on at least four occasions and in some cases more. The NZTA have also responded to requests for more detailed design information and follow up meetings.
Evaluation and Findings
[557] In terms of the evidence the Board notes that from a social perspective the communities of the Project area have experienced increasing population growth (particularly post-earthquake displacement of residents from Christchurch City), increased housing demand from the main settlements and for small allotments in other rural and peri-urban areas. The Board accepts the Project will add to these changes currently underway and will encourage further urban development.
[558] The Board accepts that the Project has been designed to mitigate a number of negative social effects, including property access and displacement effects on individuals which it has discussed earlier. Many of the negative social effects will occur during construction and involve temporary amenity effects such as noise and vibration, dust and visual/lighting.
[559] The Board particularly notes that social severance has been carefully considered by the NZTA and in this respect notes that even in the short term (post construction) community severance is unlikely to be a significant issue for any of the existing rural communities in the Project area. In addition, in the long term, it is anticipated that the Project will reinforce the identity of
103
Prebbleton and Rolleston as the focus of urban development. The State Highway will cut through the Weedons area, however change in social boundaries of small communities is common and existing social boundaries are notably blurred.
[560] The Board is satisfied that any adverse effects of the proposed Project on the social wellbeing of the district will be temporary and can be appropriately mitigated. In this respect the Board notes that communication will be a key tool to manage social effects and acknowledges that the Project will include a community liaison group and a Project Liaison person, a communications plan, a public reporting/feedback mechanism and associated information systems. These mechanisms will be enforced by way of conditions.
11.12 ECONOMICS
Issues
[561] It is necessary to consider the economic impacts of the Project in the context of the RMA. These impacts are relevant to the Part 2 assessment that the Board conducts later in this Report.
[562] The purpose of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in a manner which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing (s 5 RMA). Under s 7 of the RMA it is necessary to have particular regard to certain matters including the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources.
Submissions and Evidence
[563] Some of the submitters raised economic issues particular to their property interests. These will be dealt with later in this Report, and this section deals with the economic impacts of the Project.
[564] The evidence on the economic impact was given on behalf of the NZTA by Mr Butcher. His evidence concentrated on the expected benefit to cost ratios and the net financial benefits. He noted that the key points of the Project are that it aims to improve links through the city including to the port and the airport, reduces vehicle operating costs and travel times, and increases safety. The operating costs with travel times, and the reduction of accidents all have a value attached to them.
[565] Mr Butcher utilised a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) which measured the ratio of measurable benefits to measurable costs. If the ratio exceeds one, then this indicates that benefits exceed costs, and the Project is an efficient use of resources, although account then needs to be taken of any non-measurable benefits and costs including environmental effects. Estimates of Wider Economic Benefits (WEB) have been made for RoNS, because they lead to faster growth and higher productivity.
[566] On the methodology used by Mr Butcher, the BCR is about 1.5 rising to 2.1 if more rapid development in the south-west is achieved. On the base case, Mr Butcher expected the benefits to be $353 million and the cost $231 million, giving a net present value of $123 million. The benefits will therefore be greater than the costs by about 50%, so that from a financial perspective, the
104
Project is an efficient use of resources. If the WEBs are added in, the net present value increases to $350 million, and the BCR increases to 3.6%.
[567] The WEBs are to do with agglomeration. The benefits of an agglomeration are faster economic growth, higher employment, and other similar matters.
[568] The Project will not be an efficient use of resources if the intangible costs exceed the net present value. Possible intangible costs are noise, community severance (although in some areas the evidence suggests there would be less severance), and visual and landscape amenity effects.
[569] In summary it was Mr Butcher’s evidence that the Project should deliver some significant benefits particularly once the WEBs are taken into account, and if there is more rapid growth in the south-west than predicted the benefits will be greater. There will be a downside for some residents, but the benefits in terms of faster access to central Christchurch area and/or less traffic on local roads will partly offset that. The faster access and lower traffic volumes will be reflected in increases in property values.
[570] Mr Butcher acknowledged that some businesses will be affected, and that in part their loss will be others’ gain. That loss will be reflected in compensation to the extent that property is taken for the Project. An estimate of the property acquisition costs was included in the BCR assessment, but obviously this was an estimate as compensation had not been determined at that stage. It was Mr Butcher’s view that potential losses seem unlikely to be significant in the context of the overall Project benefits. Thus from an economic perspective the Project would be an efficient use of resources.
[571] The Mitchell Partnerships’ Planning Report did not consider the BCR was particularly relevant in assessing the economic efficiency of the Project under the RMA. The primary use of the BCR is for the NZTA to determine whether construction of the Project represents a good investment for it in carrying out its functions. This Report casts doubts on the relevance of the BCR in providing a useful indicator of economic effects under the RMA with respect to the Project.
Evaluation and Findings
[572] The Board accepts that the potential positive economic effects will be:
The efficient movement of goods and people will help to facilitate economic growth and lead to wide-reaching economic benefits;
Efficient access to from and between the Christchurch International Airport and the Port of Lyttelton;
The increased importance economically to greater Christchurch of the transportation improvements in the southern corridor, particularly after the earthquake;
Better access to central Christchurch;
A reduction in the number of fatal and dangerous injury accidents leading to reduced costs;
The expected reduction in traffic on the Main South Road through townships which will also have the benefit of encouraging people to stop; and
105
A likely accelerated growth trend for Rolleston from the reduction in commuter time to the city, particularly as Mr Butcher believes that the trend population forecasts and therefore the traffic modelling which he has carried out based on these forecasts understates the potential growth, and therefore benefits of the Project.
[573] The potential adverse economic effects will be:
Individual adverse effects specifically to those businesses with frontage on the Main South Road, which will either be bypassed or have their access removed;
Additional travel costs for those on minor roads who will no longer have direct access onto the Main South Road; and
Costs to households from restricting access onto Main South Road.
[574] The Board accepts Mr Butcher’s view that the increased costs to households would be offset to varying degrees by improved access to central Christchurch. His view is that the increased costs to households will be comparatively minor and are expected to be less than 1% of net benefits. There is also an offset by the reduction of accidents on the Main South Road.
[575] The Board notes that the Mitchell Partnerships report has raised the issue of whether because of the capital costs involved, removing access to properties to the east and Main South Road may be an efficient use of resources.
[576] The Board has taken into account the reservation raised by the Mitchell Partnerships and has also considered the overall benefits and intangible costs of the Project. In doing so the Board is of the view that when the intangible costs are balanced against the potential positive economic effects, the adverse effects are minor. The Board accepts that there are benefits relating to safety, reduced costs arising from accidents, less congestion, and time improvement in restricting access onto a motorway.
11.13 INDIVIDUAL SUBMISSIONS (INCLUDING DIRECT PROPERTY EFFECTS)
[577] The foregoing describes the environmental effects on a regional or project basis. This has involved aggregating individual submitters’ concerns under the relevant issue or topic (e.g. landscape, noise and groundwater) which have been generally divided between construction effects and operational effects. It is now necessary to address some individual submissions relating to particular concerns and properties.
Christchurch City Council
[578] The CCC supports the Project, but initially had concerns over four matters which it raised in its submission. By the date of the hearing, three of those concerns had been resolved.
[579] The three matters which had been resolved were:
(a) The retention of full access ramps at Halswell Junction Road; (b) The provision of landscaping within the proposed designation through
106
the Private Plan Change 54 area; and (c) The design of the Owaka stormwater detention basin.
[580] As a result of the resolution of the concerns, the Council sought no relief in relation to those three matters.
[581] The fourth matter concerned part of the advice note to Condition DC.1. In addition, the Council through its evidence, briefly addressed the issue of certification of management plans.
[582] Mr Blair, a senior planner for CCC advised that the three matters of concern which had been resolved, were resolved as follows:
(a) In regard to the full access ramps of Halswell Junction Road, CCC, SDC and the NZTA have entered into a tripartite memorandum of understanding in relation to those ramps that has satisfactorily resolved the matter as raised in both CCC and SDC’s submissions;
(b) In regard to the landscaping issue a new landscaping plan has been prepared and was presented to the hearing by the NZTA and included in the designation documents; and
(c) In regard to the design of the Owaka stormwater detention basin, CCC has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the NZTA in relation to the future design of the basin and this process has satisfactorily resolved the matter for CCC.
[583] CCC opposed the advice note to DC.1 because it considered part of the application lacked sufficient detail. It no longer opposes the advice note and does not seek relief in relation to that note. It does however, raise issues as to the status of the advice note and wishes to have recorded CCC’s position on the outline plan and section 176A of the RMA.
[584] CCC withdrew its objection and is no longer necessary to discuss the objection. The advice note is referred to in Section 12 of this Report.
Selwyn District Council
[585] In its submission, SDC raised several issues. Its counsel, Mr Carranceja, made submissions on SDC’s present position.
[586] Prior to the hearing, counsel for the NZTA and SDC filed a joint memorandum relating to SDC’s submissions. It noted that there had been a number of discussions between the NZTA and SDC, and as a result of these, the two parties had reached an understanding regarding how the issues raised in SDC’s submissions, might be resolved. Included in these understandings was one relating to the use of future monitoring and triggers to guide future investigation, design and construction to the traffic network influenced by CSM2.
[587] The NZTA and SDC agreed to support a set of amendments to the proposed conditions for the CSM2 designation and resource consents. As a consequence of this agreement, the NZTA agreed to prepare and present a case to the Board that was consistent with amended conditions which the parties had agreed to. Consequently, SDC determined it would no longer file evidence. However, on the last day of the hearing Mr Mazey, an officer of
107
SDC was called to give evidence on a groundwater issue, which is referred to elsewhere in this Report.
[588] The issues on which the parties had come to an understanding, as advised by SDC’s counsel, and confirmed by counsel for the NZTA, are:
(a) “Issues relating to the Halswell Junction Road interchange have been addressed through the exchange of further information, and reaching a mutual understanding between the Council, NZTA and the Christchurch City Council regarding the identification of desired outcomes and priorities for the wider transport network of the South West Area of Greater Christchurch, which the Halswell Junction Road interchange forms part of;
(b) Issues relating to the CSM2 termination north of Rolleston have been addressed through an understanding between NZTA and the Council regarding the achievement of desired outcomes for the wider Rolleston Area traffic network, which the CSM2 termination will form part of;
(c) Understandings have also been reached for NZTA and the Council to work together to address (amongst other things):
i) Management, maintenance and renewal issues;
ii) The accommodation of the Council's water assets;
iii) Landscaping; and
iv) Optimisation of lighting design.
(d) Further discussions and information sharing between experts have satisfied the Council's concerns relating to addressing contaminated land, construction noise and hazardous substance issues;
(e) An agreement that NZTA would prepare and present a case before the Board in support of amended consent conditions which are intended to:
i) Ensure that any works on existing Council utilities are designed and constructed in accordance with Council engineering specifications;
ii) Ensure that access to, maintenance of, and the operation of Council utilities are not adversely affected;
iii) Ensure that consultation occurs with the Stockwater Race Controlling Authority when preparing a Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan; and
iv) Provide additional protection against possible flooding of the Council's stockwater race system.”
[589] Notwithstanding the accommodation reached between the NZTA and SDC, the latter’s counsel commented further on the following issues:
(a) It accepted the revised alignment to the eastern rear access as proposed by the NZTA and as requested by Messrs Warren and Blokland. It accepted that the Board had authority to agree to this alignment and submitted that Coull v Banks Peninsula District Council C77-2006 set out the principles on which the Board could determine whether the amendment fell within the scope of the applications. These principles are
108
similar to those identified earlier in this decision arising from the Atkins v Napier City Council case.
(b) SDC has no issues with the slight realignment so that no portion of the Shanks property is now required.
(c) SDC agrees that management plans can be certified by a suitably qualified and experienced independent expert. It was noted that SDC would have to engage an independent certifier to consider the management plans in any case, in the absence of having in-house expertise.
(d) It was noted that the proposed Condition DP.28 as presented to the Board, differed from the condition which was attached to the memorandum of 21 May 2013 referred to above. It accepted both of the alterations made to proposed Condition DP.28, but did request an amendment to proposed Condition GT.4. This will be discussed in another section of this Report.
[590] When Mr Mazey gave his evidence he confirmed that SDC had no problem with the proposed conditions except that it had suggested a minor modification to Condition DP.29. (This modification was accepted and adopted by the NZTA). Aside from the conditions that have been altered no decision is required in respect of the SDC submissions.
Canterbury Regional Council
[591] CRC filed a written submission but did not appear at the hearing, nor did it lead evidence. On one or two matters the Board requested input from CRC and where relevant, this input is referred to elsewhere in this Report.
[592] In its submission, CRC advised that it supported the Project in principle, including the NoRs intended to give effect to it.
[593] The submission advised that CRC sought that the Project be approved by the Board subject to the proposed conditions for the regional consent, as amended in Appendix 1 to the submission. The submitter noted that CRC did not wish to be heard in support of its submission.
[594] Where appropriate, approval was sought from CRC to any change to the conditions. On 26 July 2013 the CRC confirmed in writing to the NZTA that it agreed with the wording of proposed Condition DP.29.
Sheds NZ Limited
[595] In its submission, Sheds NZ opposed the Project in full and requested that the applications be declined.
[596] The basis of the opposition was that the proposed designation would result in the loss of any access to the Main South Road, which will result in considerable adverse effects to the submitter’s lawfully established business, located at 134 Main South Road. Three businesses operate from the site, namely Sheds NZ Limited, Timbercore Limited and Canterbury Timber and Hardware Limited.
109
[597] Mr Barron, the owner of the property, filed a statement of evidence. A summary of his evidence is:
(a) His businesses moved to the site in 2007 and the sole reason for the move was the exposure that the Main South Road gave to his business. His evidence was that this exposure was essential to his business;
(b) Currently there is direct access to his property from those travelling both north and south on the Main South Road;
(c) It is inevitable that the removal of direct access will have a detrimental effect on his business;
(d) The initial economic report of Mr Butcher for the NZTA suggests that the economic impact on the business would be trivial. Mr Butcher has since revised this report to suggest that the effect could be significant. Mr Barron’s position is that Mr Butcher has not obtained details of the business or the importance of the access to it;
(e) The effect of losing access will mean that those travelling south will have approximately 3.2 kilometres further to travel to reach his business, while those travelling north with have an additional 6.5 kilometres to travel. His position is that these distances “makes it very unlikely that they will bother making the effort”;
(f) In response to the NZTA’s concern over safety, he noted there have been no safety problems since the businesses established themselves there in 2007. He acknowledged, however, that once the four lanes were completed, those travelling south could not have direct access to the business; and
(g) The options he sought in order of preference were:
(i.) For northbound traffic, the NZTA installed a left-in access-way to the property with the exit onto the service road at the rear of the property;
(ii.) If the first option is not acceptable, the NZTA to install a left-turn exit at Curraghs Road to provide a shorter route to the service road; and
(iii.) If neither of the two options are acceptable, compensation was sought to enable relocation.
Plans were produced to show the proposed routes for the first two options.
[598] Mr Barron also gave oral evidence at the hearing and was cross-examined. He re-confirmed the first two options noted above and also stressed the exposure and access which the Main South Road gave to retail businesses operating from the site. He was aware when he purchased the property of proposals to widen the road, which would extend inside the boundaries of the property, but understood he would be permitted a left-in/left-out only access. The present proposal requires 22 metres of his property and no left-in or left-out access. He acknowledged that he was in favour of the Project and the benefits offering to the wider community, but asked that the Board consider the impact it would have both on his business and the community. Mr Barron expressed concern that the dialogue over the last two years had not resolved the problems. Mr Barron accepts that his third option is a matter for a claim under the Public Works Act and not one that can be addressed by this Board.
110
[599] At the hearing the Board was advised that Sheds NZ and the NZTA have entered into a memorandum of understanding which records an agreement to address Sheds NZ’s concerns regarding landscaping and signage and it is not necessary for the Board to go further into these aspects of the submission. The issue for the Board is solely one of access.
[600] At the request of the Board, Mr Aldridge responded to Mr Barron’s evidence. He noted:
(a) The road safety audit recommended that Main South Road property accesses should be closed and replaced with a rear access road. This is a safer solution than the earlier left-in/left-out design and has been endorsed and adopted by the NZTA. All Main South Road accesses between Weedons interchange and Robinson Road are proposed to be closed as part of the Project;
(b) The Sheds NZ property is located midway between Weedons interchange and Robinson Road and he is therefore one of the landowners with the greatest increase in travel distances due to the closure of the Main South Road access;
(c) Mr Barron’s first option requires a segregated left turn deceleration lane along the Main South Road that would also require specific storm-water design and insulation of roadside safety barriers, due to the minimal clearance to the designation boundary. If this were allowed for Sheds NZ, many other landowners and businesses along Main South Road would want a similar layout, which cannot be safely provided. In Mr Aldridge’s view, the safest option was to remove all property access along Main South Road; and
(d) The second option would also require a deceleration lane with modifications to the stormwater design and inclusion of roadside safety barriers. The stockwater race is proposed to be piped in this area and would require modification if the road link was to proceed. This option would require considerable modification to the existing design, would involve added costs, extra land purchase, and modifications to an existing building.
[601] The Board accepts for the reasons given by Mr Aldridge, that access from the Main South Road should be closed, and that neither of the other two options are acceptable alternatives.
Southern Horticultural Products Limited
[602] This submitter (Southern Hort) operates a business from 1394 Main South Road. There is also a residence on the property. In its original submission, it requested that the Project be declined or alternatively the existing access from the site to the Main South Road be retained by provision of a left-in/left-out access. In addition, it sought the removal of any proposed tall landscaping along the Main South Road boundary of the site and that adequate business advertising for the site along that boundary be allowed.
[603] Southern Hort’s submission referred to the commercial effect, the loss of retail business, and the residential effects which will arise from the Project. Evidence was lodged from a director, a business consultant, and a planner, in support of this submission. The thrust of the evidence was that the removal of
111
the property access to the Main South Road together with the loss of both the 22 metre strip to be designated and a lease of land at the rear of the site will have significant adverse effects on the operations and viability of Southern Hort’s business.
[604] Prior to the hearing, an agreement was reached with the NZTA on Southern Hort’s concerns regarding landscaping and signage. A memorandum of understanding was signed. The Board is not required to address these issues and the remaining issue is one of access.
[605] The Board has been advised that the memorandum of understanding sets out a process for agreement between the parties on issues required to be resolved outside of this Board’s process.
[606] The access issue raises the same issues which were raised by Sheds NZ Limited. The comments made elsewhere in this Report on limiting access onto a state highway are applicable. Access will be provided by the local road which forms part of the Project. The Board has come to the view that the safety considerations override the adverse effect of customers having to travel greater distances.
[607] The rear access road which is being provided is a safer solution and is consistent with all property accesses onto the Main South Road between the Weedons interchange and Robinsons Road, being replaced with alternative rear access. Further, both of the alternative arrangements suggested by Mr Odering on behalf of Southern Hort cannot be geometrically accommodated within the present design. To provide an appropriate deceleration lane and access to the property would result in the deceleration lane overlapping the Weedons interchange northbound on-ramp. The Board therefore is not prepared to grant Southern Hort the particular relief it seeks in respect to access.
Bromac Lodge Limited
[608] Bromac Lodge Limited (Bromac) made a submission and Mr McArdle, a director, appeared at the hearing. Bromac is a horse breeder and the submission was that with the Halswell Junction Road realignment it may no longer be able to operate its business on its present site.
[609] The Bromac property is situated on John Paterson Drive, a dead-end street which runs off Springs Road and ends in a cul-de-sac. The Project includes closing the access to John Paterson Drive from Springs Road and creating a new access onto Halswell Junction Road. This new access will skirt or go through a Fulton Hogan subdivision.
[610] The basis of the Bromac concern is that it will change the character of the area and the property will cease to be in a rural community area. The influx of people with domestic animal, which will chase the horses that Bromac runs on its property, will cause injuries and death to those horses. Further it would turn the area into a parking/drinking haven. The Project will bring change of lifestyle and the possibility that the property would become a haven for ‘boy racers’. Mr McArdle has always known there would be a motorway in the area, but in his view the proposal to close John Paterson Drive will change the nature of the area forever. If the Project proceeds in its present form, and Mr McArdle is fully supportive of the motorway, he saw the only alternative
112
was to have the area re-zoned so that the present occupants who want a quiet rural lifestyle, can sell.
[611] Mr McArdle could not suggest any mitigating factors apart from his facetious suggestion that the only answer would be a 12 foot fence.
[612] Mr Taylor on behalf of the NZTA gave evidence on the social effects of the Project. He accepted there was a potential for some localised negative social effects experienced by a number of individual property owners, but considered that for a major infrastructure project the number of people affected will be small. His evidence was that he believes that for identifiable communities in the area the Project should bring significant net social effects. He noted that apart from the concerns mentioned above, Bromac had a concern that heavy and agricultural machinery will be diverted past a residential area with reduced safety for children. Mr Taylor noted that there had been mitigation steps taken in the Project as a whole and believed that the residual negative effects on people are relatively minor, while the net social benefit will be significantly positive.
[613] Evidence given by Mr Murray on behalf of the NZTA was that in terms of traffic safety and efficiency, the new access to the Bromac property by way of an appropriately designed road and a roundabout intersection with the Halswell Junction Road, should be at least as safe and convenient as the existing access to Springs Road. He did not see the relatively low volume of heavy vehicles from properties on John Paterson Drive raising an unusual or significant safety risk. One of Mr McArdle’s concerns was that the farm traffic would clash with an urban park area which is to be accessed off the new proposed road joining the present John Paterson Drive to Halswell Junction Road.
[614] The Board accepts that the net social effects of the Project when considered as a whole are likely to exceed the minor adverse effects which will be experienced by some landowners. It is inevitable in a project of this nature, that there will be adverse effects on some owners. The Board does not accept that there will be a substantial increase of traffic on that portion of John Paterson Drive fronting the Bromac property. The Board does not see the minor adverse effects as being a reason to decline the applications. In addition the Board was not made aware of any mitigation measures which may alleviate the concerns of Bromac Lodge.
R & C Sissons
[615] R and C Sissons whose property is on John Paterson Drive filed a submission which opposed that part of the plan which tracks part of the motorway over R and C Sissons’ land. They do not believe it necessary as the land corridor can accommodate the motorway without traversing their land. Their position is that there is alternative adjacent land owned by the NZTA which should be used instead.
[616] R and C Sissons also requested that an earth bund suitably landscaped be included so as to shelter the motorway from their land whatever proposal proceeds.
[617] Other issues raised in the written submission were that the proposed land acquisition will leave them with a parcel of land that under current zoning is
113
below the minimum size for anyone as of right to erect a dwelling, their land will be effectively surrounded by housing and they would expect their land to be similarly zoned but the greater encroachment onto their land will restrict their ability to proceed in this way until the motorway is finished in 2017 at the earliest.
[618] Finally they noted that if one of the reasons for the present alignment was because it was more cost-effective because the motorway is now planned at ground level rather than as a fly-over in a previous plan, that cost saving comes at their expense and they request that they be suitably recompensed in the acquisition price if the current plan goes ahead.
[619] R Sissons appeared at the hearing and read from a further written submission. His further written submission was in two parts, the first giving background information, the second commenting on the routing of the motorway. It is not necessary at this stage to go into the background information as to the extent that this information includes matters which are relevant to the Board’s consideration, they will be taken into account in the appropriate sections of this Report. To the extent that they relate to compensation under the Public Works Act, that is not a matter which this Board can address.
[620] At the hearing, R Sissons gave a detailed outline of the history of the Project. When the CRETS was published in 2006 the alignment was not over R and C Sissons’ land. The steps taken to finalise the alignment are referred to elsewhere in this Report. When in October 2010 the NZTA presented two proposed alignments, one did not affect the subject property but the other, in R Sissons’ words did “just clip our land”. At that stage R and C Sissons wrote requesting that the motorway be moved north to avoid their land. In August 2011 the final alignment was advised and this is the alignment that R and C Sissons object to.
[621] One of the grounds of R and C Sissons’ objection is that under s 171(1)(b) of the RMA the NZTA is required to consider alternative routes if it does not have an interest in the land sufficient for undertaking the work. In their view it does have adjoining land and therefore the requirement of that section is not met. It is R and C Sissons’ position that cost is the only factor which has led the NZTA to align the motorway over their land and that in doing so it is not complying with the provisions of the RMA. They refer to provisions in the AEE report including a map which shows an elevated motorway aligned entirely over the NZTA land. They maintain that an elevated motorway in that position is viable when coupled with the realigned John Paterson Drive/Halswell Junction Road round-about.
[622] A late written statement from R Sissons commenting on a further affidavit of Mr Aldridge was received and considered by the Board after the hearing had been adjourned.
[623] The NZTA evidence in response was given by Mr Aldridge. In summary the evidence was:
(a) The map which Mr Sissons refers to shows an option which was rejected as being disadvantageous to freight vehicles travelling to the Hornby industrial area. Traffic modelling after that alignment had been suggested indicated that the operation of the intersections required for this option would be very poor. That proposal did impact on the northern most corner of Mr and Mrs Sissons’ property albeit to a lesser extent than the present proposed alignment;
114
(b) An alternative alignment would require a different option of connecting Halswell Junction Road to Springs Road. Due to geometric constraints and the reluctance to reconstruct too much of the recently completed CSM1 carriageway, Halswell Junction Road cannot be retained on the present alignment with one of these options for local connectivity. Any realignment will still have a severe impact on R and C Sissons’ property;
(c) To push the motorway further north as requested and therefore avoid the Sissons’ land would require a major realignment to the end of the existing CSM1 (due to vertical and horizontal design curves). It would also necessitate major reworking of the existing stormwater detention system in this area. Other land owners would then be adversely affected along the route;
(d) The cost and footprint of the realignment and its fill requirement in comparison to the current proposal would be significantly larger and more costly than the current proposal given that the motorway is to comprise four lanes; and
(e) In summary the proposed alignment, in Mr Aldridge’s view, has far less impact on the Sissons and other land and the surrounding environment than the alternative of pushing the motorway north. It is Mr Aldridge’s belief that the current design and alignment is the most appropriate and efficient option that best mitigates environmental effects.
[624] The latest landscape drawings include a bund that spans between Springs Road and Halswell Junction Road embankments. The Board accepts that this provides good visual screening of the proposed motorway traffic for the John Paterson Drive area.
[625] It is noted that s 171(1)(b) does not only require adequate consideration to be given to alternative sites if the requiring authority does not have an interest in the land sufficient for undertaking the work, but alternatively applies if it is likely that the work will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Elsewhere in this Report the Board has considered whether adequate consideration was given to alternative sites and has determined that it was. The NZTA was required to give this consideration because of the significant adverse effects on the environment. The Board is of the view that the NZTA did give adequate consideration to the alternative alignment and was entitled to determine that the proposed alignment was the preferred option.
[626] The Board notes that cost was a factor in determining the proposed alignment however it was not the sole factor. The NZTA was entitled to avoid a major realignment of the end of the existing CSM1 and to avoid major reworking of the existing stormwater detention system in this area. It was also entitled to mitigate effects on other land owners.
[627] The Board confirms the alignment of the motorway as proposed by the NZTA and does not order a realignment of the motorway onto the NZTA’s own property as requested by R and C Sissons.
The Mercantile Trust
[628] The Trust owns land holdings at the end of John Paterson Drive. Its concerns are similar to those of Bromac Lodge. It is concerned that the realignment of John Paterson Drive associated with the encroaching urban development and
115
the establishment of an urban park will change the character of the area. It sees an increased reverse sensitivity issue arising from the movement and carriage of horses, bailage and stock.
[629] Ms Steven, counsel for the Trust, acknowledged that the Trust had considered whether it could seek relief from the Board, and had determined that it could not. It merely wanted its concerns noted in this Report and this has occurred.
G Olive
[630] G Olive, the owner of a property at 419 Halswell Junction Road filed a submission requesting that the Board decline the applications. He appeared in support of that submission. His opposition to the Project included that it would lead to a loss of sub-divisional potential for his land, and stall the progress of the land development for himself and other parties. He submitted that the Project would remove 15 much needed residential lots in favour of supplying access to four or so existing properties. Further the design layout and proximity of the proposed roundabout on Halswell Junction Road removed the ability to enter or exit the residence on the property in a safe and convenient manner.
[631] When appearing in support of his submission, G Olive concentrated on the sub-divisional aspects and a perceived inability to link a possible subdivision to the adjoining subdivision of Fulton Hogan. He says the Project will take 13 or 14 sections from a possible 27 section subdivision of his property, which contains approximately two hectares. He has not yet had a subdivision plan prepared. In response to comments made by Mr Olive on the Draft Report, the Board accepts that a concept subdivision plan was produced to the hearing but the evidence was that a subdivisonal plan has not been prepared or lodged with the Christchurch City Council.
[632] G Olive also raised issues relating to noise and landscaping. Whilst these matters have been dealt with in more detail in earlier sections (landscaping and operational noise), the Board notes the following:
On the matter of noise, there was evidence from the NZTA that the Project will lead to a negligible change in noise level at his house. The existing traffic noise level is dominated by Halswell Junction Road traffic and the addition of CSM1 has added about 0.5dB. The evidence suggests that adding CSM2 will not increase overall noise levels; and
The NZTA has also indicated that it will discuss fencing and landscaping concerns as part of the property compensation which will be payable under the Public Works Act.
[633] Some of the concerns expressed by G Olive are similar to those expressed by Bromac Lodge and the Mercantile Trust. The character of the area will change. That change appears to be inevitable. G Olive’s own proposal to subdivide into 27 sections, if the Project does not proceed, indicates this.
[634] Compensation issues are not within the province of this Board. On the other issues raised, the Board is satisfied that the adverse effects can all be mitigated to a reasonable extent. It does not uphold the submission.
116
J Lapsley
[635] J Lapsley lives on Waterholes Road, Templeton and supports in principle the Project. However he submits that his local district needs access to the motorway at the Waterholes Road Junction. The reason is safety.
[636] J Lapsley submitted that there is a significant population living in the area and that there would be an explosion of subdivisions in the Rolleston, Templeton, Prebbleton and West Melton areas. Under the present Project a person travelling from Christchurch will be encouraged to exit the motorway at the Shands Road interchange and to run the gauntlet of cross-roads to get to the Waterholes Road area. Shands Road is a small country road and is near capacity at peak times. In J Lapsley’s view a simple off-ramp from the motorway onto the Hampton/Waterholes Road intersection is the answer.
[637] The second concern is accessing the motorway to travel from the area into Christchurch. There are three alternatives suggested by J Lapsley two of which would require travelling down Shands Road which he considers to be dangerous and the other require going back 5 km and entering the motorway at the Weedons Ross Road interchange. To avoid these problems and in his view at little extra cost he suggests a slip road from Waterholes Road onto the motorway.
[638] Another point made by J Lapsley is that AUSTROADS41 recommends that interchanges in rural areas can be as little as 5 km apart. He notes that the distance between Shands Road and Weedons Ross Road is over 8 km without any access to or from the city.
[639] The NZTA’s response is that AUSTROADS design standards specify that in rural areas the minimum desirable spacing of interchanges is 5 km to 8 km. If ramps were included at Waterholes Road it would result in a 3.4 km separation to the Shands interchange which is outside the AUSTROADS interchange spacing for rural environment standard. AUSTROADS is less definite about the desirable maximum spacing of rural motorway interchanges but suggest 12 km. The distance between the Shands interchange and the Weedons interchange is 8.1 km.
[640] The NZTA also notes that SDC sees no need to create ramps at Waterholes Road as sufficient access to the motorway is available close by as provided by the current proposal. Further SDC would not wish to take over the additional infrastructure to operate and maintain these in addition to other commitments associated with the motorway for the wider public benefit.
[641] Another factor is that additional land would be required to be designated on each side of the motorway if ramps were to be included. For a north-eastern property adjacent to CSM2 this would result in the loss of or significant impact on an existing residential dwelling. It is the view of the NZTA that there is a very small catchment of traffic that would benefit from the inclusion of an east facing ramp.
41
AUSTROADS is the association of Australian and New Zealand road transport and traffic authorities. AUSTROADS promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes by providing expert technical input to national policy development on road and road transport issues.
117
[642] The Board is not satisfied that the installation of the ramps is required or justified. The need to obtain additional land and possibly the need to remove a dwelling together with the absence of any evidence as to the adverse effect of the absence of the ramps and the fact that such ramps would be outside the AUSTROADS recommendations leads the Board to this view.
LJ and CM Manion
[643] LJ and CM Manion have a property on Weedons Ross Road which will be affected by the Weedons Road interchange. Because of the effect on that property they oppose the Project.
[644] In their written submission LJ and CM Manion gave the following substantive grounds for their opposition:
A loss of high profile main accessway, seriously impacting on any future development and the value of the land;
They will be left with only one very narrow accessway adjacent to a substation and railway land;
A major loss of traffic movements, going from two to one accessway. SDC and the NZTA will have restrictions on traffic movements from any one accessway onto local and arterial roads; and
Loss of stockwater supply from Weedons Ross Road.
[645] LJ and CM Manion requested a redesign to address the above issues and to give the same benefit to the south side of Weedons Ross Road which is given to the north side of that road with regard to exposure and quality of access. This would involve the repositioning of the round-a-bout, the formation of a legal road and an accessway to their property in a different position from that which will be available under the Project. The retention of the existing stockwater supply from Weedons Ross Road is also sought.
[646] LJ and CM Manion requested that this Board stipulate that the NZTA agree to the following before the Board would give its approval to the Project:
“The NZTA agrees to implement all proposals in the letter and proposed drawing no. 62236-SK828 dated 17/5/2013 from NZTA presented at this hearing. This includes the easement of 55 square metres via Orion land (not only facilitated), but agreed to before EPA signs off; and
The Selwyn Council and the NZTA designate and form this accessway into a legal public road to our three titles along the railway line. If necessary acquire land from Orion’s landscape area on their northern boundary, and/or railway land to form a legal road, also agreed to before EPA signs off.”
[647] By way of background LJ and CM Manion subdivided a 35 acre block which is in three titles and therefore lost three limited accessways onto State Highway 1. The new central accessway was halfway between an Orion substation on a lot on their north-eastern boundary and the Main South Road. A second accessway for heavy-duty traffic was developed on the other side of the substation in between the substation and the railway line. As part of the
118
subdivision the NZTA required that there be a no-build zone on the corner of Weedons Ross Road and SH1.
[648] The letter of 17 May 2013 referred to, to which drawing number 62236-SK828 was attached, related to proposals to improve the access to the property.
[649] The NZTA’s position is that when the central access is closed the only access to the property will be that access north of the Orion substation adjacent to the railway lines on Weedons Ross Road.
[650] The NZTA has confirmed that it will comply with the primary access designs illustrated in the plan attached to its letter of 17 May 2013, but notes that this is related to property access and is more appropriately dealt with under the Public Works Act.
[651] In respect of the second request, namely the upgrading and conversion to a legal road of the access north of the substation, the NZTA position is that it is not required. The NZTA will upgrade the existing entrance but not extend it any further south than the current paved access as part of the property negotiations under the Public Works Act. The NZTA is not prepared to designate and form the access easement into a legal public road. Its position is supported by the SDC.
[652] The first stipulation requested by LJ and CM Manion is more conveniently handled under the Public Works Act and is not a matter for this Board. The second issue, namely the designation and forming the accessway into a legal public road for three titles, is not in the Board’s view a stipulation which can or should be made. The current accessway is adequate and LJ and CM Manion are able to subdivide their property into three sections and give legal access through that right of way.
[653] The Board notes the assurances given by the NZTA in respect of the first stipulation and makes no order in respect of the second stipulation.
G Doyle
[654] G Doyle has a property at 782 Weedons Road in close proximity to the proposed Weedons Road interchange. In his original submission notice he expressed concern about the water race and water supply. By the time of the hearing, he advised that he had resolved his concerns on these two matters with the NZTA.
[655] When addressing his submission at the hearing, G Doyle referred to three additional matters. First, possible problems with the concrete substrata of the Main South Road; secondly, noise in part caused by the previous raising of the motorway in the vicinity of his property; and lastly, a plea that tussock grass not be used on the side of the motorway because it leads to rat infestation. He also raised an issue about the water table and underground streams. Although not required to do so, the Board considered these further matters. Mr Doyle, in commenting on the Draft Report, reiterated his concerns on noise, tussock grass and groundwater.
[656] The operational noise issue is dealt with generally elsewhere in Section 11.4 of this Report. Whilst that section did not specifically address operational noise in respect to Mr Doyle’s property, it does however contain a comprehensive assessment of the noise effects from the operation of the road and concludes
119
that other than for a limited number of specific properties, no additional mitigation of noise is required. Specifically in response to Mr Doyle’s comments, the Board cannot take any action in respect of the substrata of the existing road, except to the extent to record Mr Doyle’s comment in this Report.
[657] The Board does not have any evidence which would suggest it should impose any conditions restricting the use of tussock grass.
[658] In respect to the groundwater issue as raised by Mr Doyle, the Board notes that the NZTA filed supplementary evidence from Mr Utting with respect to the underground stream position. This noted the geology of the area. The Project test wells constructed to identify groundwater, indicated groundwater at levels that are consistent across the Project, and the contrast between the high and low permeability regions within the aquifer, is insufficient to cause areas with groundwater flow rates that are so much higher in localised areas to be considered “underground streams”.
[659] The groundwater issue is dealt with elsewhere in this Report. The Board is satisfied that if a groundwater problem is discovered during construction it will be dealt with under the Accidental Aquifer Interception Management Plan referred to in Section 12 of this Report.
P Dellaca and P & P Lee
[660] These submitters own adjoining properties at 312 and 314 Springs Road. Their submission related to the Springs Road over-bridge and its associated infrastructure. They do not oppose the flyover on Springs Road but are concerned that access to and from their properties will pose safety risks, to not only people entering or leaving the property, but also to other road users.
[661] Their concern was that the flyover tie-in starts and terminates in front of the two properties, and as vehicles leave the properties they have to back out onto Springs Road. This places the vehicles directly into the path of traffic travelling in both directions. They submit that this problem will get worse as the traffic increases as more subdivisions are approved in the area. At present during peak travelling times it is virtually impossible to either exit or enter both properties unless a vehicle allows the car to be backed into the road.
[662] The submitters have been offered a potential solution by the NZTA which they find acceptable. It is that the speed limit on this stretch of Springs Road be reduced to 70kph. On the basis of this reduction, the Springs Road approach and embankment incline will start about 30 metres north of 312 Springs Road.
[663] The Board notes that the letter from the NZTA which includes CCC's officers' view that a reduction of the speed limit to 70kph is appropriate and supports the submitters' expectation that the speed limit will be so reduced and that subject to a satisfactory safety audit, the flyover tie-in will start in the indicated position..
G Blokland
[664] G Blokland owns a property at 971 Robinsons Road. His submission opposed the extension of the rear access road between Berketts and Robinsons Roads
120
(known as Berketts Drive). His concern has been addressed by the NZTA and the NZTA has agreed to a new alignment of Berketts Drive which still cuts across G Blokland’s property.
[665] The new alignment is now shown on an amended plan which is one of the many plans listed in Condition DC.1. The proposed new alignment veers further to the east as it crosses a neighbouring property owned by C Warren and meets Robinsons Road in the far south-east corner of G Blokland’s property. As noted elsewhere in this Report, both G Blokland and C Warren agree to this modification and prefer it to the original alignment.
[666] As noted earlier the Board has power to agree to the modified alignment and as the only persons affected namely G Blokland and C Warren both agree to it, the Board approves the realignment.
Christchurch Little River Rail Trail Trust
[667] The concerns of the Christchurch Little River Rail Trail Trust (the Rail Trust) have been set out earlier in this Report (under the heading of Construction Traffic). The first concern related to the retention of a portion of the original rail track near the Marsh Road deviation. This portion is being retained and is not a matter of concern.
[668] The second concern related to the impact on cyclists of increased traffic along Springs Road during the construction stage. The reply evidence from Mr Aldridge on behalf of the NZTA suggested that the phasing of the construction stages was unlikely to cause increased traffic on Springs Road during the construction stages. The Board accepts this explanation and in particular notes the NZTA assurance that this detail can be worked through in the detail design phase of the Project. On the above basis it is the Board’s view that this is a satisfactory response to this possible concern. It believes that the adverse effects arising from the construction can and will be adequately mitigated.
The Shanks Submission
[669] J and S Shanks are the trustees of the Shanks Family Trust (“the Trust”). Their company Trents Estate operates a Wedding Venue business on a 140 year old building on their property at Trents Road. Their submission stated that no acoustic or visual mitigation is planned for CSM2 along the entire 650 metre length adjoining their property, apart from road surface selection. They believe that the acoustic and visual impacts of CSM2 were significantly understated in the NZTA application and that the negative consequences to their livelihood, lifestyle and property values will be very serious.
[670] In their original submission J and S Shanks suggested conditions and amendments. These included a redesign of the motorway to effectively mitigate their acoustic and visual concerns, the prohibition of construction during certain hours from mid-September to mid-May, that water-trucks dampen the construction works during those hours in the event of a strong north-west wind, that a water race that supplies landscape features within the venue be uninterrupted during the construction period, that certain trees be relocated or replaced, and that the boundary fence along the eastern side of CSM2 over the 650 metre length be built as a deer fence.
121
[671] The Trust’s concerns, as expressed by Ms Steven their counsel at the hearing, are in relation to the on-going viability of their wedding reception business activities as they believe it would be significantly jeopardised primarily due to the impact of increased noise associated with traffic. The new motorway will detract from the quiet rural amenity of the lawn and gazebo areas where approximately 70 wedding ceremonies are held each year.
[672] J and S Shanks also express concerns relating to their residence which will be in line of site of the proposed motorway and also raised issues relating to a potential subdivision. J and S Shanks and the NZTA have reached agreement on some of the matters raised in the original submission. These relate particularly to the construction noise mitigation, dust issues during construction, water race continuity, front boundary specimen tree relocation (which is no longer relevant) and boundary fencing. The only issue before this Board is whether it should impose mitigation measures to address noise and visual effects on the Trust’s property.
[673] The issues before the Board related to noise and visual effects and these have been addressed elsewhere in this Report. In those sections the Board has determined that it is not necessary to make any mitigation orders in respect to an acoustic or visual bund. Further as noted elsewhere the Board has considered Ms Steven’s submission on NZS 6086 and the need to consider the submission against Part 2 of the RMA. The Board accepts that NZS 6086 is a guideline and does not have legal status and has considered the submissions against the provisions of Part 2 of the RMA.
[674] For the sake of completeness the Board notes that it considered the opinion evidence given by Mr Saunders as to the likely economic effect on the Trust’s business. As noted earlier in this Report the only relevance that this evidence could have had was to quantify adverse effects on the environment. Loss of value is not an effect in its own right and is necessary to avoid “double-counting” of effects. The Board was not assisted by the valuation evidence because in its view it was largely speculative and based on subjective assessments of the potential loss of business. The valuation figures were not in the Board’s view based on accepted proven facts.
122
12. CONDITIONS, MANAGEMENT PLANS AND LAPSE PERIOD
Introduction
[675] The Board has previously indicated its satisfaction that the nature and scale of effects in relation to the key effects categories of the Project are able to be effectively mitigated. As is the case with most major infrastructure projects of this nature, conditions are an essential method to ensure that adverse environmental effects are sufficiently managed. The Board considers this is particularly true where adaptive management techniques are to be used, as is the case with the Project.
[676] This section of the Report canvases the issues germane to the Board’s consideration of appropriate conditions, including:
Background information on the overall suite of conditions for the various resource consents and NoRs;
The role of management plans and their certification;
The need (or otherwise) for an Outline Plan(s);
Effects categories that require specific detailed consideration in relation to appropriate conditions; and
The lapse period for the various authorisations.
[677] The Board’s power to impose conditions is set out under s 108 of the Act. Ms Appleyard reminded the Board that it has broad discretion in exercising this power, though it is ultimately bounded by the established Newbury42 principles. These principles set out that conditions are to:
Be for a resource management purpose, not an ulterior one;
Fairly and reasonably relate to the development authorised by the resource consent; and
Not be so unreasonable that a reasonable planning authority, duly applying its statutory duties could not have approved it.
[678] The Board has borne these principles in mind in reviewing, testing and revising the suite of conditions that it considers should ultimately be applied to the Project. The Board considers that the final group of conditions has satisfied the principles, and are robust in terms of certainty and enforceability.
42
Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578 at pages 599-600, 607-608, 618-619, as applied by Waitakere City Council v Estate Homes Ltd [2007] 2 NZLR 149, at para [66].
123
This conclusion established, the Board now turns to the more detailed matters outlined above.
Suite of Conditions
[679] The Board notes that the conditions have been organised such that some apply in a more wholesale manner (as is the case with the three NoRs), whereas others are specific to individual consents. Specifically, the conditions are sorted as follows:
DC.1 to DC.39 apply to all NoRs;
G.1 to G.21 apply to all resource consents (except where otherwise specified);
E.1 to E.6 apply to the consent application for excavation of land and deposition of fill over an unconfined or semi-confined aquifer;
B.1 to B.7 apply to the consent application for the construction of bores;
GT.1 to GT.8 apply to the permit for the taking of groundwater;
D.1 to D.8 apply to the permit for the temporary and permanent diversion of stockwater races;
DP.1 to DP.29 apply to the permits for the discharge of water (including stormwater); and
CL.1 to CL.7 apply to the consent applications to sample and disturb soil and change the land use within land identified as contaminated or potentially contaminated.
[680] The conditions on the NoRs are also linked to the general conditions applying to the consent applications insofar as all works are subject to the CEMP.
[681] The Board notes that the conditions evolved from their original state as lodged. The second iteration of the conditions was tabled by Ms O’Callahan in response to submissions and expert conferencing. This was followed by a third iteration at the close of the hearing. The Board notes its appreciation for Ms O’Callahan’s willingness to comprehensively outline the changes arising at both stages. This review exercise also afforded the Board an opportunity to monitor the evolution of the management plan requirements, which the Board discusses in further detail now.
Management Plans
[682] As alluded to above, the Project relies to a large extent on adaptive management plans for the avoidance, remediation and mitigation of adverse environmental effects and to ensure the Project remains within the limits and standards authorised by this application process. The primary management plan, the CEMP acts as the “umbrella” document under which all other management plans proposed for the NoRs and consents will be produced and considered. The CEMP will align the designation works with the consented works, and contain a wide array of information relating to general environmental management as well as more specific matters (such as the handling of hazardous substances and the management of lighting). The CEMP is supported by SEMPs including:
124
Air Quality Management Plan;
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan;
Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan;
Construction Traffic Management Plan;
Landscape Management Plan;
Accidental Aquifer Interception Management Plan;
Lizard Management Plan; and
Soil Contamination Discovery, Investigation and Excavation Management Plan (yet to be provided).
[683] There is an additional “tier” to the management plan structure, with the Construction Traffic Management Plan and Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan also to be subject to more site specific management measures known as Site Specific Management Plans (SSMPs). In addition, management plans will be prepared for the operational phase of the Project, including for the operation and maintenance of stormwater management systems. Ms O’Callahan provided a useful diagram of the management plan structure, which the Board has attached as Appendix 5 to this Report.
[684] This diagram also illustrates that the management plan structure is ‘split’ to cover the construction effects relevant to the respective jurisdictions of the regional and local authorities. That said the CEMP coordinates all of the management inputs in an interrelated manner.
Issues Arising
[685] Over the course of the hearing, the Board was made aware of concerns relating to two procedural matters associated with:
The Outline Plan process; and
The future certification of management plans.
[686] Addressing these matters in turn, the Board records Ms Taylor’s query as to whether or not an Outline Plan would be provided for future works associated with the NoRs. Ms Taylor quoted s 176(A) of the RMA, signalling that an Outline Plan should be required.
[687] Ms Appleyard reminded the Board that the Act also enables exemptions to the Outline Plan process, including under s 176(A)(2)(b) which sets out that Outline Plans need not be prepared where the proposed works/Project are incorporated into the designation itself. It was her submission that the information that would be required to be provided with an Outline Plan has been incorporated within the NoRs and supporting documents, particularly on the drawings included in Volume 5 of the AEE. The Board notes that both CCC and SDC signalled their agreement with this approach.
[688] CCC expressed some initial concern in its original submission over the absence of an Outline Plan. However, it was subsequently clarified that the only recourse CCC seeks from the Board is to have it formally recorded in the Board’s decision that no Outline Plan is required, in accordance with section
125
176A(2)(b) of the RMA. The CCC clarified that in the event that there is an alteration to the Project they may expect an Outline Plan to be lodged in order for those alterations to be assessed by the appropriate territorial authorities.
[689] The Board agrees with these parties that the level of detail codified in the NoRs and supporting documents is sufficient such that the 176(2)(b) exemption applies. That said, it notes that any deviation from the detailed works may require an Outline Plan be prepared. In questioning from the Board, Ms O’Callahan confirmed that an advice note existed clarifying that Outline Plans may be required in the future if there are changes within the internal alignment. The Board accepts the advice note as an acceptable tool to signal to the NZTA that future authorisation may be required.
[690] Turning to the second matter the Board illustrated above, it notes that the Board’s planner originally raised concerns over the ability of the Council to delegate to third party the right to certifiy management plans.
[691] Following conferencing with Ms O’Callahan, Ms Taylor advised that the two planners had considered the matter of independent certification of the management plans further, and were generally comfortable with the approach proposed particularly given they understood the three Councils were all supportive of this method.
[692] From a legal perspective, Ms Appleyard submitted that a local authority can ‘delegate’ its functions, powers or duties to ‘any person’ under section 34A(2) of the RMA, which (when referenced to the limited exceptions provided in the section) extends to certification. She amplified the interrelationship of ss 34A(4) and 34(10), noting that a delegation to an independent certifier does not preclude a local authority from undertaking enforcement action against the consent holder if it is in breach of its consent conditions.
[693] In light of the acceptance of the independent certification approach from the three Councils, and given that this approach enables sufficient ‘checks and balances’ by each Council in terms of enforcement, the Board considers that the approach is sound.
Conditions of Particular Note
[694] In addition to the more general comments the Board has made about conditions above, it also records that there were two particular matters related to conditions that require some additional attention. Specifically, these matters relate to:
Review Condition DP.29; and
A new noise condition proposed by Mr Vossart.
[695] In respect of the former, the Board records Mr Carranceja’s suggestion of a possible “review condition” in relation to groundwater levels at Robinsons Road. In his words:
“Well, what I would suggest sir, is this could be dealt with by a review condition
because the council acknowledges that if groundwater levels are as predicted by
NZTA’s expert, then it would be an inefficient use of resources to over engineer
the road by say raising those levels et cetera to avoid flooding, it would not be an
economic use of resources.
126
So perhaps in the circumstances that there may be uncertainty regarding ground
levels here, sir, I think a review condition could deal with that so that in the event
that the groundwater levels are higher than predicted and cause flooding,
unexpected flooding, then the review could ensure that the unanticipated flooding
could be dealt with by some other means. And we could defer that mechanism to
a future date, it might be say, the use of stormwater retention ponds or the like, I
am not qualified to predict, sir, what the solution would be, if there is indeed a
problem.”
[696] Following this suggestion, Ms O’Callahan, drafted a review condition to address this issue. At that time SDC confirmed that it was happy with the wording of the proposed Condition DP.29. Subsequently, CRC indicated that it was satisfied with the wording of DP.29, but further revisions have been made since that time to provide sufficient certainty of possible outcomes of a review in line with the original wording provided to the Board. The Board requested that final confirmation be obtained from CRC that the revised condition was also sufficient. Confirmation was subsequently provided in writing by Ms Appleyard.
[697] Turning to the issue of noise, the specific matter the Board addresses here are the matters of disagreement between Messrs Vossart and Camp discussed at the hearing. The first difference in opinion between these expert, existed on a “theoretical level”. Mr Vossart indicated that the World Health Organisation (WHO) standard of 55 dB is an appropriate noise level for assessing effects, while Mr Camp prefers NZS 6806 which sets 57 dB as an appropriate noise level. The difference in opinion would affect five properties along the alignment, two of which are owned by the NZTA.
[698] As Ms Appleyard submitted that the impact of adopting Mr Vossart’s preferred approach would be small, and further that Mr Vossart’s suggested condition would not meet the Newbury43 test for conditions.
[699] There was also some disagreement as to whether or not the words “to the extent practicable” should be removed from Condition DC.24. Mr Vossart initially indicated that the term should be deleted for certainty, however Mr Camp illustrated that the phrase was more a reflection that some pragmatism should be applied in order for the Project to be able to adapt to “real life,” rather than a method to get around the performance measures required in the condition.
[700] In response to Mr Camp’s testimony, Mr Vossart clarified that his position was aligned with a similar approach adopted by a previous Board, but that (upon reflection) he accepted the practicality of Mr Camp’s view.
[701] For completeness and as discussed in the section on operational noise effect, the Board resolved not to add the two additional Conditions DC.22 and DC.24 recommended by Mr Vossart for the reasons discussed above.
43
Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578 at pages 599-600, 607-608, 618-619, as applied by Waitakere City Council v Estate Homes Ltd [2007] 2 NZLR 149, at para [66].
127
Findings
[702] On the above basis, the Board is satisfied that any potential adverse effects on the environment will either be avoided, or where this is not possible appropriately remedied or mitigated to the extent that is practical for a major roading project. This is partly achieved through the Project design that incorporates an integrated package of mitigation measures to address the visual, noise, stormwater and other effects.
[703] In addition, the proposed consent and designation conditions specify various standards, controls and requirements for the management of effects. Central to effects management is a suite of management plans. These together with the proposed consent and designation conditions, will ensure that effects on the environment of both the construction and operation of the Project are appropriately managed.
Lapse Period
[704] At the hearing, the Board was interested in better understanding why a lapse period of 15 years was sought for the NoRs. Ms O’Callahan indicated in questioning that this lapse period is sought due to the scale of the Project and the need to secure funding. The lapse period provides some ability for the necessary government processes required to secure this funding. In closing submissions, Ms Appleyard confirmed that this was similar to other RoNS projects, with the lapse period for CSM1 and Waterview being 10 years, and for MacKays to Peka Peka and Transmission Gully at 15 years.
[705] Section 184(1)(c) enables a lapse period to be specified at the time a designation is incorporated into a District Plan, over and above the ‘default’ period of 5 years established by subsection (1). Based on the evidence heard, the Board see no reason why a 15 year lapse period should not apply should the various applications be granted.
128
13. CONSIDERATION OF KEY STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Context
[706] The Board as the relevant authority is required under s 104(1) of the RMA, when considering an application for resource consent and any submissions received, to “have regard to:
(b) any relevant provisions of-
(i) a national environmental standard:
(ii) other regulations:
(iii) a national policy statement:
(iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement:
(v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement:
(vi) a plan or proposed plan; and
(c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.
[707] In addition, under 171(1) when considering a NoR and any submissions received, the Board must, subject to Part 2, consider the effects on the environment of allowing the requirement, having particular regard to-
(a) any relevant provisions of-
(i) a national policy statement:
(ii) a New Zealand coastal policy statement:
(iii) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement:
(iv) a plan or proposed plan; and
(d) any other matter the territorial authority considers reasonably necessary in order to make a recommendation on the requirement.
[708] In this matter, the Board is required to consider a range of statutory instruments that apply to both the applications for resource consent, and the notices of requirements for designation. Taking into consideration the similarities of the two tests under section 104(1) and 171(1), (i.e. having regard to and having particular regard to essentially the same range of national, regional, district and “other” statutory instruments and plans), the Board finds it is appropriate to evaluate these matters as a whole “project” rather than repeat the assessment for the resource consent applications and requirements for designation independently.
[709] Accordingly, the relevant statutory instruments will be considered in the four categories set out below, which are then discussed in the following sub-sections:
129
National policy statements (previously referred to as NPS);
Regional documents;
District documents; and
Other statutory plans.
[710] The Board has had regard/particular regard to each of these matters, as demonstrated by the following evaluation.
National Policy Statements (NPS)
NPS Freshwater Management 2011 (NPS FM)
[711] The NPS FM came into effect on 1 July 2011. It sets out objectives and policies in relation to the management of freshwater quality and quantity. This document is relevant for aspects of the Project that affect freshwater, such as the discharge of stormwater, diversions and the abstraction of groundwater. The provisions of the NPS FM addressing water quality and quantity in terms of groundwater are considered to be of importance, given that this is an issue that has been raised in submissions and by the Board with respect to its further information request. The Board accepts that the NPS FM is of direct relevance to this inquiry.
[712] The NPS FM contains eight objectives and 13 policies. In summary the objectives/policies relate to:
Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of freshwater;
Maintaining or improving the overall quality of freshwater;
Sustainably managing the taking, using, damming, or diverting of freshwater;
Avoiding further over allocation of freshwater;
Maximising the efficient allocation and use of freshwater;
Protecting significant values of wetlands;
Integrated management of freshwater and the use and development of land; and
Ensuring that the values and interests of tangata whenua are identified and reflected in the management of freshwater.
[713] The key provisions of the NPS FM that relate to this Project are Water Quality and Water Quantity.
[714] The Board has considered the actual and potential effects of both the construction and operation of the Project on both water quality and water quantity matters earlier in this decision document under the topics of Aquatic Ecology, Erosion and Sediment Control, Stormwater and Groundwater. The Board concluded in these assessments that the actual and physical effects on aquatic and groundwater environments would be largely avoided or mitigated in relation to water quality aspects of the Project and mitigated/remedied to a satisfactory level in terms of the water quantity aspects. It is from this basis that the Board now have regard to how the Project relates to the NES FM.
130
[715] In terms of water quality, Ms O’Callahan both in the AEE and her evidence identified the discharge of stormwater during construction and operation of the Project to be the principal source of effect. The Board agree and note that evidence presented to the Board by Mr Miller (stormwater) and Mr Shaver (stormwater treatment and surface water quality effects) for the NZTA which comprehensively described the proposed treatment of stormwater through sheet flow over grassed verge and treatment swales, as well as first flush basins and treatment ponds where required by NRRP[44]. These experts concluded that the effects of the Project on water quality will be minor.
[716] In addition, the Board notes that expert evidence provided by Mr Utting (Hydrogeology) and Dr Hack (Aquatic ecology) of the adverse effects of water quality to groundwater and aquatic ecosystems concluded that such potential effects will be sufficiently mitigated, and are evaluated as minor. The Board accept that there are no water bodies or wetlands of outstanding quality in the vicinity of the Project, hence specific objectives of the NPS FM relating to these do not require consideration.
[717] In the matter of water quantity concerns and the relationship to the NPS FM the Board notes that these have been identified by Ms O’Callahan as including the temporary and permanent diversion of water from stockwater races, the ecological effects of piping stockwater races, and the taking of groundwater for the dewatering of the Project site. The Board also note that the aspects of water quantity were subsequently addressed in the evidence of Mr Utting and Dr Hack, as well as by Mr Reynolds the Board’s independent expert, and were determined to be no more than minor with which the Board concur.
[718] On the above basis, Ms O’Callahan considered that the Project is consistent with policies A4 [45] and B7 [46], and the overall intent of the NPS in relation to water quality. The Board also notes that the Key Issues Report provided by CRC concluded that the NZTA have adequately considered the NPS for Freshwater Management, as does the report provided by Ms Taylor.
[719] The Board has had regard to NPS FM and considers, based on the above evidence that the Project is not inconsistent with the objectives and policies relating to the management of freshwater quality and quantity.
NPS Electricity Transmission 2008
[720] The NPS ET 2008 addresses the need to operate, maintain, develop and upgrade electricity transmission networks. It recognises the national benefits of electricity transmission, and works to manage the environmental effects as well as third party effects on the network.
[721] The NPS ET contains one objective and 14 policies. In summary these provisions relate to:
Facilitating the operation, maintenance and upgrade of the existing transmission network;
[44]
National Resource Regional Plan. [45]
Water quality policy providing direction on discharge. [46]
Water quantity policy providing direction on change of quantity.
131
Establishing new transmission resources to meet the present and future needs;
Managing the adverse environmental effects of the network; and
Managing the adverse effects of other activates on the network.
[722] There was consensus amongst the planning experts that the principal relevant policy in the NPS ET is Policy 10 which states:
“In achieving the purpose of the Act, decision-makers must to the extent reasonably possible manage activities to avoid reverse sensitivity effects on the electricity transmission network and to ensure that operation, maintenance, upgrading, and development of the electricity transmission network is not compromised”.
[723] The Board has considered the actual and potential effects of both the construction and operation of the Project on electricity transmission and the existing network earlier in this decision document under the topic of Network Utilities. The Board concluded in this assessment that the actual and physical effects on the electricity transmission network operated by Transpower and Orion, would be mitigated and remedied to a satisfactory level by using a number of management plans and with on-going consultation with these network providers. It is from this basis that the Board now have regard to how the Project relates to the NPS ET.
[724] The NPS is particularly relevant to this Project on the basis that the proposed CSM2 alignment passes under an existing 220kV transmission line just south of Marshs Road and under the 66kV line to the west of Shands Road. The standard clearance envelope required under the NZECP34:2001 from these lines is not achieved where CSM2 passes under the 66kV Line.
[725] As set out in the AEE, in evidence, and under the Network Utilities topic in this document, the Board accepts that the NZTA is working with Transpower and Orion to rectify the clearance violation under NZECP34:2001[47]. The Board were advised by the NZTA that this may involve relocating the transmission line which in turn would require an application by Transpower. This is further discussed under the National Environmental Standards Electricity Transmission Activities (NES ETA) section of this decision. The Board records that whether this solution is adopted or not was not certain (and neither is the outcome of any resultant application under the NES), therefore it still falls to it to consider the issue raised by Transpower in terms of the NPS ET. (Subsequent to the publication of the Draft Report, Transpower confirmed that it is working with the NZTA on investigating changes to the existing transmission lines to ensure compliance is achieved with NZECP34:2001. Transpower advised that it anticipated an acceptable solution between both parties will be reached.)
[726] In terms of the above the Board notes that:
[47]
New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances.
132
The planning witnesses and the submission from Transpower have stated that Policy 10 for the NPS (Managing the adverse effects of third parties on the transmission network) is of most relevance in relation to the Project;
Whilst Ms O’Callahan considered in the AEE and in her evidence that the Project is consistent with the NPS ET document, the submission received from Transpower does not concur. Transpower considered that the imperative of Policy 10 of the NPS amounts to more than just liaising with Transpower as the transmission line owner, and in order to achieve the outcome sought by Policy 10 active management of the potential effects is required by the NZTA and the decision maker.
Ms O’Callahan’s response to Transpower’s submission in her evidence reiterated the position of the NZTA that the Project is consistent with the NPS ET document; and
Ms Taylor, in her Planning Report for the Board aligned with the views of the Transpower Submission but noted that greater specificity, and therefore consistency with the NPS can be secured via appropriate conditions attaching to the designation.
[727] Transpower did not appear at the hearing. As there has been a change in Condition DC.13 which relates to the protection of network utilities, including electricity transmission, and Ms Taylor has stated that she has no further concerns with conditions the Board has assumed that this matter has been resolved in planning terms. The non-appearance from Transpower at the hearing has contributed to this assumption. (Subsequent to the publication of the Draft Report, Transpower confirmed that the Project is not inconsistent to the NPS ET which confirms the assumption made by the Board).
[728] On the above basis the Board has had particular regard to the NPS ET and concludes that the Project is not inconsistent with the relevant objectives and policies relating to the operation, maintenance and development of electricity transmission networks contained within that NPS.
NPS Renewable Electricity Generation
[729] The NPS REG came into effect on 13 May 2011. It seeks to ensure that a consistent approach is undertaken to planning for renewable electricity generation in New Zealand. It gives clear government direction on the benefits of renewable electricity generation and requires all councils to make provision for it in their plans.
[730] The Board accepts the planning evidence of both Ms O’Callahan and Ms Taylor that the NPS REG is not directly applicable to the Designation or Resource Consent Applications before it. Accordingly, no further assessment of this matter is required.
New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement
[731] The Board was advised that the NZCPS came into effect on 3 December 2010. It provides a guide for local authorities in their management of coastal environments. Local authorities must give effect to relevant provisions of the NZCPS in planning documents, and resource consent authorities must have regard to relevant provisions when considering consent applications.
133
[732] The area impacted by the Project is not considered coastal and there are no obvious downstream impacts into the coastal marine area. Accordingly, the Board does not consider the NZCPS relevant to this Project and no further assessment of this matter is required.
Proposed NPS Indigenous Biodiversity
[733] The Board notes that the NPS IB is proposed only, and not yet gazetted. We acknowledge that it is intended to provide clearer direction to local authorities on their responsibilities for managing and enhancing indigenous biodiversity under the RMA.
[734] The Board accepts the AEE considers the effects of the Project on indigenous biodiversity per se in regard to the selection of the proposed Project alignment and design, and in developing appropriate measures to avoid, remedy and mitigate adverse ecological effects arising from the Project. However as this NPS is proposed only, the Board do not give any weight or further consideration to the NPS IB.
National Environmental Standards (NES)
NES Air Quality
[735] The National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NES AQ) came into force in 2004 and are intended to protect public health and the environment of New Zealand. Amendments have been made to the NES AQ with the most recent being in 2011.
[736] The AEE sets out that no consents relating to this NES are required for the Project, as the operational pollutant concentration is below the NES AQ standards. This is confirmed in the evidence of Ms Needham, who also advised that a discharge permit application to discharge contaminants to air (being dust from construction) forms one of the 13 regional resource consent applications lodged for this Project. Mr Needham and Ms O’Callahan also both advised that adherence to dust management measures[48] during construction will suitably avoid and manage adverse air quality effects. We considered this matter in more detail earlier in this decision under the dust aspects of construction effects and with this assessment.
[737] As noted by Ms Taylor, the Key Issues Report prepared by CRC considers this NES has been appropriately considered. Having had regard to the Project in relation to the NES AQ, the Board concurs that there are sufficient measures proposed to ensure that the Project will not cause dust effects and therefore not compromise the aspirations of the NES regarding the protection of public health and the environment of New Zealand.
NES Sources of Human Drinking Water
[738] The Board was advised that the NES DW came into effect on 20 June 2008 with the intent of reducing the risk of contaminating drinking water sources
[48]
SEMP 001 Air Quality Management Plan (DC. 8, 14 and 15) during construction will suitably avoid and manage adverse air quality effects. This management plan is required to be certified by an independent, suitably qualified and experienced person, at least 40 working days prior to the commencement of construction of the relevant stage of work.
134
such as rivers and groundwater. The NES DW requires regional councils to ensure that effects on drinking water sources are considered in decisions on resource consents and regional plans.
[739] The Board notes that the AEE states that no consents relating to this NES are required for the Project. According to the AEE the potential effects of the Project on the district’s groundwater resources that are used for water supply have been considered. The AEE confirms that stormwater discharge points are not located within any Community Water Supply Protection Zone and additional, the closing of any wells adjacent to the Project area will minimise any potential effects on domestic water supplies.
[740] Ms Taylor noted however that some submitters, including the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) had raised concerns about the potential contamination of groundwater for consumption purposes as a result of the Project. In this respect the Board notes that the evidence of Mr Shaver who concludes that groundwater contamination issues arising from this Project should be less than minor. Additionally the evidence of Mr Utting addressed submissions relating to water quality and noted that the NZTA has adopted the CDHB relief relating to a modification of the Condition DP.15 to include the field identification of potentially affected wells, in addition to those that appear on the CRC register. The Board supports this change.
[741] The above aside, the Board records that it has addressed the issue of water quality in more detail earlier in this decision and simply note here that there are a number of conditions that apply to this issue, such as those relating to Bore Construction (Conditions BC.1 to BC.7) and under the umbrella of the CEMP, which requires activity specific requirements for Hazardous Substances. The intent of these management plans is to minimise the potential environmental risks, including the risk of groundwater contamination.
[742] On the above basis, the Board has had regard to the NES DW and concludes that the aforementioned management plans and conditions intend to achieve an environmental outcome which is not inconsistent with the provisions of the NES regarding reducing the risk of contamination of drinking water sources such as rivers and groundwater in the district.
NES Electricity Transmission Activities (NES ETA)
[743] The NES ETA sets out a national framework for the operation, maintenance, upgrade, relocation or removal of existing transmission lines and permits or controls these activities. As set out under the NPS ET, there is one section of the Project where the proposed CSM2 alignment passes beneath the Islington to Springston 50/66 kV transmission line to the southwest of the Shands Road and Marshs Road intersection. The NES is relevant to this matter as the proposed road alignment does not achieve the specified clearance distances under NZECP34:2001 and hence may require minor work.
[744] As mentioned earlier, and as covered in the AEE, that consents under this NES standard may be required for the potential minor works and will be sought at the time this determination is made. This has been further detailed in the Network Utilities section of this Report. Ms Taylor commented that this presents no particular difficulty.
[745] On the above basis and in having regard to the NES ETA, the Board merely notes that the Project is likely to trigger a need for a consenting process under
135
the NES ETA. That is something that the Board does not need to comment further on.
NES Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NES SOIL)
[746] This Standard came into effect on 1 January 2012. The NES SOIL contains regulations aimed to protect human health by ensuring land affected or potentially affected by contaminants in the soil is identified and assessed prior to soil disturbance and land development activities taking place. The Board notes that two resource consents have been sought under the NES SOIL for soil disturbance and change in use from SDC and CCC, as the relevant territorial authorities.
[747] The Board has considered this matter under the topic of Contamination in the section on construction effects where it noted the following:
As a component of the application documents Technical Report 16 -Contaminated Land Assessment contains reference to the relevant NES standard and confirms a number of locations within the vicinity of the Project are identified as HAIL sites[49]. The evidence of Mr Udema (Soil Contamination) concluded that these sites do not exceed the applicable standards and hence comply with the NES;
As identified in the AEE and SDC Key Issues Report, the disturbance of soil within proposed designation boundary will be a controlled activity in accordant with Clause 9 of the NES as soil contamination recorded within the HAIL sites does not exceed the applicable standards; and
The CEMP which has been prepared in draft form contains mitigation measures against the effects of accidental discovery of contaminated soil on human health. Additionally the Board note that the CEMP will contain all information relevant for the preparation (and subsequent certification of) a site management plan dealing with contamination.
[748] On the above basis the Board has had regard to the NES SOIL, and concludes that the Project has lodged the appropriate consents required under the NES and that the condition framework is sufficient to mitigate potential effects of disturbing contaminated soil.
[749] The Board therefore concludes that the Project is not inconsistent with the outcomes sought by the NES SOIL relating to the protection of human health in respect of disturbance of potentially contaminated soil.
Board’s Overall Findings With Respect To National Policy Statements and National Instruments
[750] Based on the preceding assessment and evaluation, the Board concludes that:
[49]
Hazardous Activities and Industries List, Wellington, Ministry for the Environment – The Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) is a compilation of activities and industries that are considered likely to cause land contamination resulting from hazardous substance.
136
The Board has had particular regard to the relevant national policy statements and national instruments, when considering the proposed Project; and
There are no issues of inconsistency between the Project application and any relevant national policy statements and national instruments. This includes any National Policy Statement, National Environmental Standard and the NZCPS.
Regional Documents
Canterbury RPS 2013 (operative)
[751] The Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (CRPS) became operative on 15 January 2013 and provides an overview of the significant resource management issues facing Canterbury, including those that relate to tangata whenua, and reflects the purposes and principles of the RMA. The Board accepts that the CRPS is a key statutory instrument for promoting the sustainable management of the Canterbury region’s natural and physical resources.
[752] At this point the Board notes that the AEE and the Key Issues Reports referred to the 1998 version of the RPS as being the operative document at the time the Project application was prepared and lodged. The Proposed RPS referred to in the lodgement documents became operative three months after the application was produced, and was the current operative document at the time of the hearing. On that basis the planning experts agreed at the hearing that the 1998 RPS is no longer relevant. The Board concurs.
[753] The operative CRPS contains the following objectives and policies that are relevant:
Land use and Infrastructure (Chapter 5);
Development of Greater Christchurch (Chapter 6);
Freshwater (Chapter 7);
Ecosystems and Indigenous Biodiversity (Chapter 9);
Bead of Lakes and Rivers and their Riparian Zones (Chapter 10);
Natural Hazards (Chapter 11);
Landscape (Chapter 12);
Historic Heritage (Chapter 13);
Air Quality (Chapter 14);
Soils (Chapter 15);
Energy (Chapter 16);
Contaminated Land (Chapter 17); and
Hazardous Substances (Chapter 18).
[754] In relation to the above chapter the Board particularly notes the following:
137
Chapter 6 of the CRPS which provides direction for the Development of Greater Christchurch, is the subject of Plan Change 1, addressed in the following section. The recent Land use Recovery Plan (LURP), which the Board were advised will ultimately replace the PC1 once it is gazetted by the Minister, also concerns the development of Greater Christchurch and has been set out under “other matters” in the consideration of statutory documents; and
The evidence of Ms O’Callahan included an evaluation of Chapter 10 of the CRPS, which was not provided in her initial considerations under the AEE. The Board has read that CRC considered Chapter 10 relevant in their Key Issues Report, and hence Ms O’Callahan’s further evidence relating to this chapter.
[755] Ms Taylor noted in the Planning Report for the Board a number of objectives[50] and policies [51] in the CRPS not identified by Ms O’Callahan in her evidence which Ms Taylor considered relevant to the Project. These were subsequently reviewed by Ms O’Callahan and Ms Taylor, as the expert planners in conferencing. A joint statement (dated 21 June 2013) identified further the objectives and policies considered relevant, and a supplementary assessment was provided by Ms O’Callahan. We acknowledge and appreciate those updates.
[756] Ms O’Callahan and Ms Taylor considered the Project to be generally consistent with the objectives and policies of the Canterbury RPS. This was not disputed by any submitters including (notably) the CRC the author of the CRPS. The Board agrees and having had regard to the CRPS concludes that the Project does align well with it policies and objectives particularly those relating to Land Use and Infrastructure (Chapter 5) and Development of Greater Christchurch (Chapter 6).
Proposed Change 1 to RPS
[757] PC1 was made operative (as Chapter 12A) in October 2011 by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery under section 27 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011. It transpires that the Minister’s decision was then successfully challenged by judicial review and as a result, the Minister’s decision has been set aside and the previous “Decision Version” of the proposed PC1 (which is subject to appeals to the Environment Court) is the current relevant document.
[758] The current version of PC1 contains objectives and policies that guide the future growth of Greater Christchurch, including the expansions of Lincoln, Prebbleton and Rolleston. As noted earlier, once operative PC1 was intended to form Chapter 6 of the RPS. To this end the Board note that Ms O’Callahan (in her evidence) considered the Project will facilitate the development of the aforementioned areas and improve traffic flow and safety. This statement is consistent with the evidence of Mr Murray (Traffic and transportation) for the NZTA.
[50]
Objective 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 7.2.3, 9.2.2, 15.2.2. [51]
Policies 5.3.2, 5.3.8, 5.3.9, 7.3.1, 13.3.3, 14.3.5,15.3.2.
138
[759] In addition to the above the Board recorded that during questioning at the hearing, Ms Appleyard usefully clarified that whilst the decision version of PC1 does not contain plans or maps showing the route of the Project (as did the Minister’s now redundant version), PC1 does nevertheless contain specific policies relating to CSM2 including its role in relation to servicing the future growth planned for Greater Christchurch particularly in the south.
[760] No further evidence was provided by either Ms Appleyard or Ms Taylor in relation to PC1, therefore the Board adopts the position of Ms O’Callahan, who considers the Project consisted with the relevant provisions of PC1.
[761] On the above basis, the Board has had regard to PC1 and concludes that the Project accords well with its urban growth framework.
Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP)
[762] Made operative on 11 June 2011, the NRRP includes key objectives, policies and rules that relate to the Project under the following Chapters;
Ngāi Tahu and the Management of Natural Resources (Chapter 2);
Air Quality (Chapter 3);
Water Quality (Chapter 4);
Water Quantity (Chapter 5);
Beds of Lakes and Rivers (Chapter 6); and
Earthworks and Vegetation Clearance Activities (Chapter 8).
[763] The starting point for the Board’s consideration of the NRRP is that 13 of the 15 resource consent applications lodged by the NZTA have been triggered by the provisions of the NRRP in relation to matters such as:
Taking and diversion of water;
Discharge of contaminants (including stormwater) to water and land (and associated dewatering);
Discharge of contaminants to air;
Earthworks (including those in a riparian margin); and
Storage of hazardous substances.
[764] Most of these consents are for the construction phase of the Project but some also relate to the on-going operation of the Project such as permanent stormwater runoff from the road surface.
[765] The Board notes that there was a full agreement between the parties that all the necessary consents required under the NRRP had been lodged by the NZTA. Having established that, it then considered how the activities subject to the applications relate to the relevant policies and objectives of the Plan. Before doing so it notes that this is one of the threshold tests of section 104 that the regional resource consents must be judged against and the Board notes that it has considered this matter in more depth elsewhere in this decision.
139
[766] In terms of Chapter 2 of the NRRP and as previously discussed in the Cultural section of this decision, the Board notes that a draft CIA has been produced, however was not available at the time of the hearing. The recommendations of this report are unknown and may have an effect on the conditions, which are discussed in further detail in that section. However and as Ms Taylor noted in her report, the Board records that no submissions were received from iwi representatives in relation to the Project, and no cultural issues were addressed in the submission of others. On this basis, it comments no further on the Chapter 2 provisions of the NRRP.
[767] In respect of the remaining chapters of the NRRP and further to Ms O’Callahan’s consideration in the AEE and her evidence, additional evaluation was provided with the planning conferencing report which addressed the provisions of the NRRP that Ms Taylor felt were absent from the initial evaluations. Of primary concern to Ms Taylor initially were the matters relating to groundwater abstraction and dewatering. The Board notes that water topics have been evaluated by the Board previously in this decision (under Stormwater and Groundwater) and refer to the evidence received by both the NZTA and Mr Reynolds as the expert for the Board. As previously stated it has been concluded that these hydrological effects have been sufficiently avoided, remedied or mitigated.
[768] Ms Taylor concluded that, having considered the additional policy analysis by the NZTA, the consideration of provisions relating to the NRRP by the NZTA is sufficient and more importantly that there is no gulf between the Project and the policy framework of the NRRP. Having had regard to this matter the Board adopts this position also.
Proposed Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan (PLWRP)
[769] The Proposed Land and Water Regional Plan (PLWRP) was publicly notified on 11 August 2012, with submissions closing 5 October 2012. This proposed plan is intended to replace Chapters 4 to 8 of the NRRP, which relate to land and water resources. Further, the provisions currently in Chapter 2 relating to Ngāi Tahu and the management of natural resources are imbedded by this Project throughout the plan.
[770] The Board notes that both Ms O’Callahan and Ms Taylor have addressed the objectives and policies of the plan, and consider it should be afforded only limited weight as it is currently in the midst of being heard by independent commissioners and decision are yet to be released. The Board concurs with this statement.
District Documents
Selwyn District Plan
[771] Part of the CSM2 alignment from Main South Road to Marshs Road, and the entire Main South Road Four-laning is located within the Selwyn District. The Selwyn District Plan (SDP) which is relevant to this area, was made partially operative on June 10, 2008. The underlying zoning for the Project under the SDP is Inner Plains (Rural).
[772] Within proximity to the proposed designation corridor, the AEE identifies existing road designations within the Selwyn District as well as a Railways Corporations and a Gravel Reserve designation.
140
[773] In addition to the proposed designations, an application for resource consent under the NES SOIL has been made to SDC for this Project.
[774] In considering both the designation and the NES resource consent, the Board are required under section 104 and 171 to have regard to the policies and objectives within the SDP. In this respect the Board notes that the AEE identified several policies and objectives of relevance. Of particular note are the policy provisions in Plan Change 12 (PC12) in relation to Integrated Transport Management. PC12 was made operative on 22 April 2013 following the lodgement of the AEE. The Board also records that a number of provisions not identified in the AEE have been included in the SDC Key Issues Report, which have since been assessed by Ms O’Callahan. The key provisions of this plan considered by Ms O’Callahan are as identified below:
Transport Networks (including PC12);
Water; and
Quality of the Environment.
[775] Ms Taylor is of the view that all provisions contained in the SDP have been properly identified by the NZTA. The Board is in agreement with Ms Taylor, and consider that regard has been given to the appropriate provisions of the SDP.
Christchurch City District Plan (The Christchurch City Plan)
[776] The Christchurch City Plan (CCP) was made partially operative on 21 November 2005. The Project is subject to the provisions of the CCP as the portion of the Project between Marshs Road though to the CSM2 merger with CSM1 falls within Christchurch City. Additionally a resource consent application lodged in terms of the NES SOIL has been made to CCC in relation to the Project.
[777] The relevant underlying zoning traversed by the proposed Project have been identified by the AEE, the evidence of Ms O’Callahan, and the CCC Key Issues Report, with some additions by Ms Taylor considered in conferencing by both expert planners.
[778] The Board considers that the relevant provisions of the CCP have been identified by the NZTA, and further that the Board has given proper regard to these provisions as they relate to the proposed Project.
Other Matters
[779] Pursuant to section 104(1)(c) and section 171(1)(d) the RMA requires the Board to have regard to any “other matter” considered reasonably necessary in order to make a determination on resource consent applications and on the NoRs.
[780] Other matters put to the Board by the NZTA, and considered relevant by the Planning Report for the Board are considered below.
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (CERA)
[781] The purpose of the CERA which came into effect on 19 April 2011, is to set out extraordinary powers, processes and roles to ensure impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes are responded to and recovered from, by greater
141
Christchurch, the councils and the community. The following Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch and the Land Use Recovery Plan are to be read together with, and form part of the Board’s consideration of all statutory documents.
[782] As the Board is required to function “as if it was the territorial authority” under section 149 of the RMA, section 23 of the CERA requires that any decision or recommendation must not be “inconsistent” with the aforementioned documents.
Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch 2012
[783] The Canterbury Earthquake (Recovery Strategy Approval) Order in Council made by the Governor-General, approved the Recovery Strategy which was notified in the New Zealand Gazette No. 61 on 31 May 2012. The Board was advised by both Ms O’Callahan and Ms Taylor as to the role that strategy has as an “other matter” as follows:
The Recovery Strategy is a statutory document under section 15 of the CERA, to be read with, and to form part of the RMA plans and policy for Canterbury. We note this and understand the role of the Recovery Strategy in setting out the way forward for the rebuilding and recovery of greater Christchurch following the earthquakes; and
Regional policy statements, regional plans, regional land transport strategies and programmes must not be interpreted or applied in a way that is inconsistent with the Recovery Strategy.
[784] The question for the Board is how the Strategy (and the Recovery Plan considered next) under it relate to the Project and vice versa. In terms of this it heard from Ms O’Callahan, who set out the following matters in which the Project responds to the provisions of the Recovery Strategy:
The Project would contribute to the economy and community during the recovery;
Provide greater accessibility for areas identified for greenfield development;
Accommodate freight demand between Lyttelton Port to the south of Christchurch and the growing industrial areas of Hornby and Rolleston; and
Provide a strategic transport route connecting people to the city.
[785] The evidence of Ms O’Callahan concludes that the Project is consistent with the provisions of the Strategy. The Board concurs with this assessment and consider the Project as having an important infrastructural contribution to the Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch.
Land Use Recovery Plan
[786] The Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) is currently in “draft” stage, and was publically notified on 6 July 2013 by Minister Brownlee for public comment. The previous version of the LURP (“preliminary draft”) was released in March 2013. As a result the LURP was not considered in the AEE, and only briefly in the evidence of Ms O’Callahan and the Planning Report of Ms Taylor. Subsequently the consideration of the Board to this matter relies on the
142
closing of Ms Appleyard. It should be noted again that the CERA requires that any decision or recommendation by the Board must not be inconsistent with the LURP once gazetted.
[787] As set out in Ms Appleyard’s closing, there is no statutory requirement in the CERA for the Minister to have regard to public comment in deciding whether or not to approve the draft LURP nor is there any avenue to appeal his decision, there is little potential for the final document to differ radically from the current form. Therefore the NZTA’s submission to the Board was that the LURP be given significant weight. Additionally, Ms O’Callahan and Ms Taylor agree that the Board should have consideration of the LURP under section 140(1)(c) and 171(1)(d) of the RMA, regardless of the status of the LURP at this time.
[788] The relevance of the LURP to this Project, as Ms Appleyard sets out is threefold as follows:
Firstly via the existence of CSM2 (referred to as “State Highway Potential”) on the relevant planning maps, and in the strategic network included as Figures 8 and 14 in the LURP;
Secondly, the growth of the city to the south is predicated on the basis that improved transportation links and connectivity in this direction (such as that provided by this Project and other CRETS[52] initiatives), along with the provision and operation of core infrastructure is a priority; and
Finally, Ms Appleyard also identified several relevant policies in the LURP which are consistent with the Project. For example Priority 10 - Maintain and enhance access for key freight movements [53].
[789] On the above basis, the Board agrees that significant weight should be afforded to the LURP and that in doing so the Board considers that the evidence submitted by the NZTA demonstrates that the Project is not inconsistent with the LURP’s recovery aspirations.
Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS)
[790] The UDS is a 35-year development plan adopted by the respective Councils, CRC and the NZTA in 2007. This strategic document provides high level direction for addressing future land use change, development and population growth in the wider Christchurch area out to the 2041 planning horizon.
[791] The Board was advised by the NZTA that the UDS was critical in informing PC1 to the RPS and (to a slightly lesser extent) the LURP. In this respect many of the provisions and themes contained in the UDS have already been canvassed by the Board albeit indirectly, in its consideration of PC1 and the LURP. Notwithstanding this, the Board is still required to consider this as an “other matter” in its own right and do so now.
52
CRETS : Christchurch, Rolleston and Environs Transportation Study. 53
Other policies listed by Ms Appleyard involved the topics of infrastructure and service delivery to support land use development.
143
[792] As established by Ms O’Callahan in the AEE, one of the key issues recognised in the UDS is Transport. Goals identified to achieve the transport vision are set out by Ms O’Callahan as:
The principles of sustainability, integration, safety, responsiveness and targeted investment underpin all activities in the transport system;
Protect and secure the future strategic transport corridors for the continued efficient operation of road and rail transport;
Develop and manage key inter and intra-regional corridors to manage the transport network;
Provide transport infrastructure and services to ensure a multi-modal transport system that enable a range of transport mode choices; and
Develop transport modes based on their ability to meet functional objectives - to meet levels of demand and travel patterns in an affordable and sustainable manner.
[793] Additionally the UDS identifies an efficient transport connection between the city centre, Lyttelton Port and Christchurch International Airport as key economic hubs for the region. Ms O’Callahan states the proposed Project is essential infrastructure to facilitate this. The Board concurs with the assessment undertaken by Ms O’Callahan in relation to this statutory document.
[794] Having had regard to the UDS, the Board considers that it is relevant to and supportive of the proposed Project. It also notes importantly, that the high level goals of the UDS are being promoted through both the RPS (including PC1) and the LURP, and that (as already discussed) the Project is also consistent with those documents.
Transportation Documents considered in Other Matters
[795] There are a number of transport related documents that do not have any regulatory function under the RMA, however they are also identified as relevant to the Project as “other matters” under sections 104(1)(c) and 171(a)(d). These include:
Land Transport Management Act 2003;
Connecting New Zealand 2011;
Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding (GPS LTF)
National Infrastructure Plan 2011;
National State Highway Strategy 2007;
New Zealand Cycling and Walking Strategy - Getting There On Foot By Cycle 2005;
Canterbury Regional Land Transport Strategy 2012–2042 (CRLTS);
Canterbury Regional Land Transport Programme; and
Draft Christchurch Transport Plan 2012–2042.
144
[796] Ms Appleyard and several the NZTA witnesses54 observed that the above documents provide long-term strategy and funding for the on-going development of land transport both across New Zealand, and specifically for the Christchurch Region.
[797] Furthermore the Board notes that a detailed consideration of all these documents was undertaken by the NZTA in sections 6.7 and 28 of the AEE and in Technical Report 20 - Statutory Provisions Report. Additionally Mr Knaggs and Mr Blyleven addressed these various transportation strategies in their evidence.
[798] As a RoNS identified in the GPS LTF, Mr Knaggs identifies that the CSM2 is linked to the economic prosperity of New Zealand as a tool to enable economic growth. Similarly Mr Blyleven sets out that the CSM2 is a key strategic component for ensuring the efficiency of the South Island freight transport network, as an element of New Zealand exports and imports. Additionally Mr Blyleven referred to the CRLTS, which provides strategic direction to ensure that “Canterbury has an accessible, affordable, integrated, safe, resilient and sustainable transport system”[55]. This includes the identification of the CSM2 as key infrastructure in the region’s transport system.
[799] The Planning Report for the Board considers that the documents identified as “other matters” are to be considered in relation to this Project.
[800] Taking all the above into account, the Board has had regard to these transportation documents and finds the Project is not inconsistent with the provisions contained within them. Moreover it concurs with the NZTA that this Project is both directly and indirectly identified by these documents in a range of matters including through strategic policy, funding and infrastructure programing.
Further Documents
[801] Several other documents have been considered under section 104(1)(c) and 171(1)(d) of the RMA. These include:
New Zealand Urban Design Protocol (2005);
The NZTA Environmental Plan (2008);
Wildlife Act 1953;
Selwyn District Council Water Bylaw;
Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983; and
South-West Christchurch Area Plan 2009
[802] The AEE provides an evaluation of the relevant provisions included in these documents and concludes that the Project is consistent or not inconsistent
54
Mr Knaggs, Mr Blyleven and Ms O’Callahan. [55]
Canterbury Regional Land Transport Strategy 2014 –2042, page 2.
145
with these other statutory planning documents. Ms Taylor is in agreement with the NZTA’s consideration of “other matters”. Therefore the Board aligns with the views of Ms Taylor and accepts that the NZTA has had appropriate regard to all relevant “other matters” as required under the RMA.
146
14. FINAL APPRAISAL
14.1 MAJOR FACTUAL FINDINGS
[803] The Board records and now makes the following factual findings in terms of Project significance and benefits, construction and operational effects, and relationship to statutory instruments.
[804] These findings form the basis for the Board’s final statutory considerations under sections 104D, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 171 and 181 of the Act.
Findings on the Project Significance and Benefits/Positive effects
The Project is an integral part of the Regional State Highway Network and as such forms part of the one of the seven RoNS which the Government has identified in the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding (GPS) as being linked to NZ’s economic prosperity.
The Project is seen by the Government as coming within the primary objective of its land transport expenditure proposals, which are focused on increasing economic growth and productivity (evidenced in GPS 2012/13 – 2021/22).
A series of studies by the relevant territorial authorities spanning several years have recognised the need for a Christchurch southern motorway. Such a motorway is necessary to satisfy the long term transport needs of areas south and west of Christchurch.
The Project when completed will enable the economic development in Christchurch and the surrounding areas, and will link the Port of Lyttelton and the Christchurch CBD to both south-west Christchurch and the southern and western parts of the South Island.
The Project when completed will assist with the safe and efficient movement of freight. This will be particularly important in the rebuild of Christchurch currently being undertaken.
The three territorial authorities, CCC, SDC, and CRC, all support the Project.
The Project will improve traffic flows and reduce peak hour traffic congestion, reduce journey times, enhance travelling efficiency and time reliability, and will link major sea and air ports to the State Highway Network. In doing so, it will improve critical economic links for New Zealand businesses.
The improved access will deliver agglomeration benefits to business in improved transport links, access to suppliers, knowledge and skills.
The increased freight reliability will be a key element of export and import prices, ensuring that goods are competitively priced.
There are measurable safety benefits arising from the Project.
There are adverse environmental effects arising from both the construction and operational phases of the Project.
147
Findings on Construction Phase Effects
There will be traffic disruptions particularly during the construction of the MSRFL, and where road construction crosses or interferes with existing roads. The phased construction proposed and the CTMP and SSTMPs will allow this disruption to be appropriately mitigated.
The construction will cause sediment generation, including contaminated soil onto the receiving environment. This adverse effect will be addressed through the minimisation of the amount of bare earth exposed, timely stabilisation of exposed areas during construction, and the use of sediment control devices to minimise sediment and contaminant laden discharges to the receiving environment. The ESCP proposed is an important element in mitigating these effects. There will be sufficient monitoring of the measures taken to ensure that the mitigation is effective. There are appropriate conditions imposed which will place controls on the discharge of sediment and contaminated laden stormwater.
The quantity of stockwater available to some adjoining owners will be affected during the construction phase. These effects will be temporary and limited in duration and frequency. The disruption to the supply in the stockwater races will be avoided to the greatest extent possible and the Project will not disrupt the supply of water for unduly long periods.
The possibility of contamination of groundwater through the infiltration of stormwater run-off has been addressed. Measures to reduce this risk include clean fill only to be used in excavations and spill kits to absorb oil and petroleum products, storage requirements for hazardous substances, surface controls to prevent discharge of contaminants to excavated land, and a plan to manage the accidental interception of artesian aquifers. The adverse effects on water quality during the construction will be negligible and those that exist will be appropriately mitigated through the provisions of the CEMP.
Adverse environmental effects will always arise from noise and vibration associated with the construction of a motorway. The adverse noise and vibration effects associated with the Project will be avoided, remedied or mitigated by the application of the provisions in the CEMP and the supporting six SEMPs including the CNVMP. The framework for the development and implementation of particular noise and vibration management and control methodologies to be implemented are set out in these documents. These measures will minimise adverse effects on the health and safety of residents. The consent conditions proposed relating to construction noise and vibration require that these matters are managed in accordance with the relevant standards.
There will also be adverse effects from dust arising from construction and vehicle exhaust emissions during that period. The proposed CAQMP identifies the areas which will be particularly sensitive to dust and provides for active management to prevent (if possible) or otherwise minimise the effects of dust emissions on those premises in close proximity. The CAQMP will contain appropriate measures to ensure that the discharge of contaminants into the air from construction of the Project will be appropriately mitigated.
148
The adverse effects to the terrestrial ecology will be caused by loss of habitat through clearance, earthworks and disturbance, displacement, injury and mortality of birds and lizards. A good portion of the Project footprint is covered by pastures, shelter belts, gardens, and verges which the experts agree have low ecological value. Loss of habitat will lead to a displacement of bird populations but the availability of similar habitats in the vicinity and the adaptability of the birds means that this effect is negligible. It is only in respect of the common skinks that ecological effects require mitigation. The proposed Lizard Management Plan will adequately mitigate this adverse effect.
Stormwater run-off which may cause contamination, habitat disturbance and sediment effects on the eco-system will have an adverse effect on the aquatic ecology of the receiving environment. There will be a permanent modification of some water races within the Project area. Some of the waterways will be piped which will result in a reduction in light and riparian vegetation. Loss of riparian vegetation may impact upon water temperature and flow regimes. The mitigation measures proposed in the CEMP and the ESCP will provide for aquatic ecology within the Project area. There will be appropriate mitigation of these adverse effects.
There are no known contaminated areas along the Project alignment. The prospects of encountering contaminated soils are minimal. An appropriate contingency plan has been included in the Project CEMP.
No archaeological sites are known to be along the alignment but if such sites are discovered earthworks on those sites cannot commence until an authority to destroy, damage or modify the sites has been sought and obtained from the NZHPT. Further an Accidental Discovery Protocol is to be put in place to manage the possibility of exposing an unrecorded archaeological site.
Appropriate consultation has begun and will continue with Ngāi Tahu to complete a CIA.
Findings on Operational Phase Effects
There will be both adverse and positive effects on traffic movements during this on-going phase. A possible negative effect arising from the Halswell Junction ramps ceased to be an issue when provision was made between the NZTA and SDC to monitor the effects on traffic of these ramps and to take mitigating steps if required.
The adverse effects arising from traffic on owners are two-fold. First, there are those, particularly businesses, which will be affected by the lack of access to the Main South Road. Secondly, there are the distance and timing consequences for those who are now required to use alternative accesses to the Main South Road.
In the majority of cases the alternative access arrangements are adequate. In some cases there will be adverse effects because of these alternative arrangements. In the interests of on-going traffic safety along the MSRFL section of the Project, this inconvenience to certain properties/business is unavoidable.
149
The wider traffic benefits include a reduction in travel time for many who will use the new motorway connectivity with the Port of Lyttelton, the CBD, the industrial areas to the south of Christchurch and to southern and western parts of the South Island; reduction of vehicles on State Highway 1 and local roads around Templeton, Hornby and Prebbleton; and safety on the new motorway particularly with median barriers and limited access onto the motorway.
There will be unavoidable changes to the rural character and visual amenity of the environment. These are appropriately and largely mitigated through landscape and planting plans, conditions controlling lighting and the production and certification of a Landscape Management Plan. The appropriate conditions apply to these mitigation measures. Consequently the effects on the landscape and visual amenity are not significantly adverse.
Possible adverse effects arising from on-going stormwater disposal have been appropriately addressed by a stormwater disposal design. There are appropriate mechanisms proposed which will effectively maintain the stormwater management works and ensure their long-term performance.
There will be adverse effects arising from operational noise on the surrounding environment and in particular on some residential properties/businesses. These effects need to be considered against the adverse effects which already apply in respect of noise.
NZS 6806 is an appropriate guideline to be used for the Project albeit that it is not a legal requirement. Applying that guideline represents best practice and there is no need to change proposed Conditions DC.22 and DC.24.
Apart from mitigation measures proposed in the Project such as bunds and acoustic fences, there is no need for any further mitigation in respect of any particular property.
Stormwater run-off infiltration through infiltration structures has a potential adverse effect on groundwater levels and quality. There is a potential flooding adverse effect at the Robinson Road overpass. The proposed review Condition DP.29 relating to the capacity of the stockwater race alongside Robinson Road gives SDC the ability to manage and mitigate any flooding issues associated with the overpass.
There will be no adverse effects other than negligible, on the quality of the groundwater.
The on-going effects on terrestrial ecology from the operation of the Project are limited and minor.
Any potential adverse aquatic ecological effects arising from the on-going operation of the Project will be minor and adequately controlled through the conditions of consent and in particular SEMP 005 Landscape Management Plan.
The overall effects on air quality are very minor although they will increase as traffic flows increase.
150
The adverse effects on and of natural hazards have been identified, and appropriate mitigation measures which will be fully considered at the detailed design stage of the Project are adequate.
There are no issues relating to network utilities which the Board was asked to address. The contractor will be required to prepare a GCS on utility management as a requirement of the CEMP. This requirement ensures the safety, integrity and protection or where necessary relocation of existing network utilities. In addition numerous management plans will mitigate any adverse effects on network utilities, both during the construction and operational periods.
There will be both positive and adverse social effects, some of which will occur notwithstanding the Project because of the increased population growth and the subdivision of land into smaller allotments in the areas to be serviced by the Project. Some of those changes will be exacerbated by the Project.
One negative social effect relates to alternative access arrangements which have been noted above.
Another possible adverse social effect is severance caused by the new motorway. However, this severance is not seen to be a significant issue for the existing rural communities after the motorway has been constructed. There are several steps proposed in the Project which will mitigate the severance and social effects. These include a community liaison group, a communication plan, and a public recording/feedback mechanism.
There will be positive economic effects arising from the on-going Project. Those relating to movement of goods and people, more efficient access, improvement in transport, safety considerations and the saving of costs relating therefrom, the expected reduction in traffic on some portions of the Main South Road and through townships, and a reduction in commuter time, have already been noted in other findings.
The adverse economic effects arising from the Project relate to those individual properties which will lose access to the Main South Road, the additional travel costs for those on roads which no longer have access to the Main South Road, and the costs of households from restricting access onto the Main South Road.
When balanced against the potential positive economic effects, the adverse effects of the Project are minor.
Findings on the Project’s Relationship with Statutory Instruments
The Board has had particular regard to the relevant national, regional, local and ‘other” policy statements and statutory instruments, when considering the proposed Project.
There are no issues of inconsistency between the Project and any relevant national, regional, district or “other” policy statements or statutory instruments. This includes any National Policy Statement, National Environmental Standard, the NZCPS, the Regional Policy Statement (including PC1) and the various regional and district plans. In
151
addition, the Project is anticipated by and supported by documents such as the Land Use Recovery Plan for Greater Christchurch.
The Board has had regard to a range of national transportation documents including Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding (GPS LTF), National State Highway Strategy 2007, and regional strategies including Canterbury Regional Land Transport Strategy 2012-2042 (CRLTS), Canterbury Regional Land Transport Programme, and the Draft Christchurch Transport Plan 2012-2042.
The Board has found that the Project is not inconsistent with the provisions contained within those transportation strategies. Moreover it concurs with the NZTA that this Project is both directly and indirectly identified by these documents in a range of manners including through strategic policy, funding and infrastructure programing, and that the Project will assist improving for the on-going development of land transport both across New Zealand and specifically for the Christchurch Region.
[805] The above findings together with other findings made earlier in this Report, form the basis of the Board’s decision which is stated below.
[806] In coming to its decision the Board has weighed the positive effects against the adverse effects. Those positive effects are also relevant in considering whether the designations are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the NZTA for which the designations are sought.
14.2 SECTION 171
[807] The Board is required to have regard to certain matters set out in section 171(1) of the RMA. Those particular matters which the Board is required to have regard to in respect of the Project have been previously set out.
[808] The statutory instruments referred to in section 171(1)(a) of the RMA are similar to the statutory instruments which the Board is required to consider under section 104(1) of the RMA. These have been jointly considered in Section 13 above.
[809] In this section the Board considers the two other relevant provisions of section 171(1), namely:
(a) Whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative routes; and
(b) Whether the working designations are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the NZTA for which the designations are sought.
[810] Any other matter which the Board considers reasonably necessary in order to make a recommendation on the NORs is covered elsewhere in this Report.
Alternative Routes
[811] Section 171(1)(b) of the RMA requires the Board to have particular regard to whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative routes of undertaking the work if:
152
(a) The NZTA does not have an interest in the land sufficient for undertaking the works; or
(b) It is likely that the work will have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
[812] The NZTA does not own all the land in respect of which the designations are sought. It is also necessary to consider whether the Project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
[813] Some of the submitters have submitted that the route should be altered because of the adverse effect on their properties. Those individual submissions have been considered previously in this Report. This section deals with the Project as such.
[814] The history of the consideration of the alternatives is set out in Part E of the AEE Report. It was also commented upon by Mr Aldridge in his evidence.
[815] The AEE Report details the alternatives that were assessed as part of the process to select an alignment and design for the Project. There were three stages during which the option was assessed. Namely the CRETS work (2002-2007); a scoping investigation for each of MSRFL and CSM2 to investigate and narrow down various options; and a scheme assessment phase to identify a preferred option for the Project.
[816] In considering the route for the Project, the NZTA considered:
The alignment, design, and methodology for the Project;
Alternative routes (as appropriate);
Alternative alignments and interchanges/connections to the wider transport network;
Alternative designs and measures to avoid, remedy and mitigate identified adverse effects on the environment; and
Alternative methods of discharge.
[817] The overview to Part E of the AEE Report notes that the selection process applied was highly iterative, and involved on-going refinement of the Project on the basis of information derived from desktop studies, field work, community and stakeholder consultation and detailed technical investigation. The process was also informed by the requirements of Part 2 of the RMA, the objectives of the NZTA and relevant national and regional policy directors.
[818] In the view of the NZTA the process satisfies the requirements of s 171 and Schedule 4 of the RMA. Schedule 4 of the RMA sets out the matters that should be included in an assessment of the effects on the environment and matters to be included in such an assessment.
[819] Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 provides:
Subject to the provisions of any policy statement or plan, any person preparing an assessment of the effects on the environment should consider the following matters: (a) any effect on those in the neighbourhood and, where relevant, the
wider community including any socio-economic and cultural effects;
153
(b) any physical effect on the locality, including any landscape and
visual effects;
(c) any effect on ecosystems, including effects on plants or animals and
any physical disturbance of habitats in the vicinity;
(d) any effect on natural and physical resources having aesthetic, recreational, scientific, historical, spiritual, or cultural, or other special value for present or future generations;
(e) any discharge of contaminants into the environment, including any reasonable emission of noise and options for the treatment and disposal of contaminants;
(f) any risk to the neighbourhood, the wider community, or the environment through natural hazards or the use of hazardous substances or hazardous installations.
[820] Many of the matters which are to be considered have been canvassed elsewhere in this Report.
[821] The CRETS study was completed over five years from 2002 to 2007. It included two full rounds of public consultation. During this period there were 11 options considered and these were analysed against social and environmental effects, transportation effectiveness and economic efficiency. Four of the 11 options were taken forward for further analysis.
[822] After consultation an MSRFL Scoping Report was completed in December 2010. An assessment workshop was held in December 2010. A preferred option was recommended from this workshop.
[823] The NZTA commissioned a strategic study in 2008, one of the purposes being to identify the corridor to link CSM1 to the Main South Road. Four main alignment options were considered in that study. Three of those options were carried forward to a full option analysis and as a result of that analysis, two options were taken forward for further investigation in the scheme assessment stage. The option which was not carried forward had a greater impact on the Claremont Subdivision, potential industrial land west of the railway line, adjacent properties and their access, and greater impact on existing power poles. The route was also less desirable from a design standards perspective, in that it had a more winding alignment.
[824] At the scheme assessment stage the two options considered were a northern alignment and a southern alignment. The northern alignment reduces the impact on existing businesses and new buildings, and increases separation from the Aberdeen Subdivision. The southern alignment maximises the land available for industrial development in the Shands Road/Marshs Road/Springs Road/Halswell Junction Road block. These two options were presented to the community during the first round of consultation for CSM2 in October 2010.
[825] The consultation process identified a preference for the northern alignment. This option was developed with the philosophy of pushing the alignment as far north as possible. The more northerly option developed had the advantages of the alignment avoiding a transmission line, requiring a simpler bridge structure at the Shands Road interchange, and allowing the motorway to remain at-grade with Shands Road passing over the top.
154
[826] The NZTA held an option assessment workshop with its consultants in May 2010. That workshop assessed the two alignments against the criteria of cost, engineering, accessibility, physical environmental impacts, social environmental impacts and strategic alignment. The most significant difference between the two alignments was the cost of property and the strategic alignment with regional policy.
[827] The most northerly alignment was estimated to cost between $14 million and $34 million more than the best-fit alignment which was south of the proposed northern option. This best-fit option was selected as the preferred alignment on the basis of cost and being consistent with the strategic land use policy outlined in the RPS. The assessment noted that the more northerly option which was rejected, was preferable in regards to visual, community and residential amenity parameters, but it was assessed that any adverse impacts associated with the best-fit option could be adequately mitigated.
[828] A draft scheme assessment for both MSRFL and CSM2 was issued in October 2011. Because of future capacity issues on Main South Road, south of Templeton, which will be exacerbated by the introduction of CSM2 with consequential delays in queuing associated with the compression of the three lanes of traffic travelling south bound on CSM2 and Main South Road into a single lane, it was recommended in the scheme assessment report that both MSRFL and CSM2 should be progressed simultaneously. Thenceforth the Project combined both MSRFL and CSM2.
[829] The AEE Report covers relevant matters which led to development and selection of the final alignment. These include the vertical alignment, interchanges at four locations, a change to the alignment of John Paterson Drive, local road crossings in seven positions, the Weedons intersections, Main South Road rear access roads, the Hornby Rail siding, walking and cycling facilities, stormwater, air and noise.
[830] Mr Aldridge gave evidence for the NZTA. In his view, the chosen alignment is the best fit and has been chosen because of key constraints. These key constraints which have influenced the alignment are: established dwellings and businesses located immediately on the north side of Weedons Road/Weedons Ross Road, the Claremont Subdivision located north of Waterholes Road, Trents Vineyard located between Hamptons and Trents Roads, the Aberdeen Subdivision located north of Blakes Road, the high voltage overhead transmission lines located near Marshs and Shands Roads, the PC54 industrial zone land located north at Marshs Road, the Hornby industrial rail siding north of Marshs Road, and the recently constructed CSM1.
[831] Some submitters in opposition to the Project, suggest that there could be “better alternatives” to what is proposed. These alternatives include different alignments to avoid industrial properties and a reduction in rural traffic in urban areas as well as the positioning of interchanges.
[832] The requirement under s 171(1)(b) of the RMA is to determine whether adequate consideration has been given to the alternative routes where it is likely that the work will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. In this respect it is noted at this stage that the Board in considering whether adequate consideration was given, is of the view that the individual submission suggesting other alignments do not establish that adequate consideration was not given.
155
[833] On the basis of the information provided in the AEE Report, and the largely uncontested evidence from several witnesses of the NZTA, including in particular Mr Aldridge’s evidence, this Board is of the view that adequate consideration has been given to the alternatives for the following reasons:
There were several alternatives considered, there was public consultation, and the matters taken into account in coming to the final determination were appropriate factors to be considered;
The selected alignment is in accordance with the NZTA’s Project objectives. In considering those objectives, it considered alternative routes, alternative alignments and interchanges, alternative designs, which included construction methods and alternative measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects and alternative methods of discharging contaminants; and
The NZTA undertook a detailed and systematic evaluation process before finally coming to its conclusion on the alignment it required, particularly for CSM2, but also for MSRFL and the new local roading pattern.
[834] On the above basis the Board finds that the NZTA complied with its requirements under s 171(1)(b) of the RMA.
Reasonably Necessary
[835] Section 171(1)(c) of the Act requires the Board to have regard to whether the works are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the NZTA for which the three designation requirements are sought.
[836] The Board heard from Ms Appleyard that this test is in two parts; namely whether:
(a) the works to be authorised by that notice (as a “work”); and
(b) each notice of requirement (as a planning tool),
are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the requiring authority for which the designation is sought (as listed in section 171(1)(c)).
[837] The Board has adopted this approach in its own considerations of the matter.
Works reasonably necessary (section 171(1)(c))
[838] This particular test requires the Board to have regard to whether the works are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the NZTA for which the three designation requirements are sought.
[839] The NZTA’s stated Project objectives are:
“To contribute to Canterbury’s critical transport infrastructure and its land use and transport strategies by providing greater connections between stage one of the Christchurch Southern Motorway and Rolleston, for both people and freight;
To improve accessibility from Christchurch to the Port of Lyttelton to the South and West for individuals and businesses while improving local access to work, shops and social amenity in Templeton and Hornby;
156
To align traffic types and movements with the most appropriate routes by separating through traffic from local traffic to the South West of Christchurch and promoting other routes for passenger transport;
To improve network resilience and safety by providing a transport route with increased safety standards; and
To manage the social, cultural, land use and other environmental impacts of the Project in the Project area and its communities by so far as practicable avoiding, remedying or mitigating any such effects through route and alignment selection, design and conditions.”
[840] The evidence of the NZTA witnesses Mr Knaggs, Mr Blyleven and Mr Murray all addresses these objectives and described (from national, regional and local perspectives) how the proposed roading works relate to those five objectives. From its consideration of that uncontested evidence the Board is assured of the following:
The State Highway Network which this Project will form part of, is a fundamental component of the transport system in southwest Christchurch. The population and economic growth in southwest Christchurch and beyond will generate growing demands on the state highways that support these areas. There are a range of strategic expectations on the state highways in this area to provide excellent travel times, travel reliability and safety, so as to achieve key government objectives such as supporting productivity and economic growth. This growing travel demand will progressively cause these key metrics for the state highway operation to deteriorate, and major network improvements are required to respond and maintain the state highway performance to expectations;
The Christchurch Southern Motorway Project has been identified through a range of strategic transport studies over recent years (such as CRETS), and is recognised in many strategy documents that seek to manage and assist the growth of greater Christchurch as well as its recovery post-earthquakes. These strategies include the South Island Freight Plan, the Regional Land Transport Strategy, the draft Land Use Recovery Plan, the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy, and the Greater Christchurch Transport Statement. The Project and its objectives are aligned with these documents, and the Project is identified in many of these documents as one of the key infrastructure improvements in greater Christchurch that will assist in delivering the strategies; and
The Project is (an important) part of wider network development packages and plans. It is not a standalone project, and has been developed on a ‘One Network Approach’ as an integrated element of wider, long term programmes to achieve as many of the transport and wider objectives as possible of many key partners such as the local Councils.
[841] Therefore it was clear to the Board that the Project will have detailed aspects which whilst perhaps not meeting the full aspirations of all parties, represents the best balance for achieving its strategic objectives and performing its expected role in the strategic transport network in southwest greater Christchurch.
157
[842] Before leaving this topic the Board also notes that key infrastructure providers in Christchurch have also submitted in support of the Project, including Christchurch International Airport Limited and the Lyttelton Port of Christchurch. Those submissions focused on the Project benefits of increased connectivity, greater network resilience, and an improved freight network. The “positive effects” of the Project as shown in these submissions reflect the Project objectives of the NZTA.
[843] To conclude therefore the Board finds that the Project meets the “reasonably necessary” test under section 171(1)(c) of the RMA in achieving the stated objectives of the NZTA as it enables the widening of an existing section of SH1 built to expressway standards, and construction and operation of a new section of state highway built to motorway standards, as well as the ancillary works including new rear access roads, a shared cycle/walkway, stormwater treatment, noise attenuation and landscaping.
[844] The Board therefore finds that in respect to the first of the “necessity” tests, that the evidence demonstrates that the Project is reasonably necessary to assist the NZTA to achieve its wider objectives as well as the objectives of the Project.
The Notice Of Requirement as a Planning Tool
[845] The second test here is whether each notice of requirement (as a planning tool) is reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the requiring authority for which the designation is sought (as listed in section 171(1)(c)).
[846] As a planning tool, the NZTA submitted that the notices of requirement are reasonably necessary as:
They will be shown on the relevant District Plans (CCC and SDC) (section 175), and therefore alert those intending to buy or develop property nearby of the Project’s existence. Therefore it is preferable to achieve the objectives of the NZTA through designations, rather than through resource consents;
They assist with the on-going requirement for construction, operation and maintenance of the road as it remains in place irrespective of changes to the local planning rules; and
On a practical level they are needed to enable the compulsory acquisition of land should this be required.
[847] The Board concurs with these advantages of the designation mechanism and in particular agree that these aspects of the designation would not (or not as readily) accrue under a resource consent process/approach.
[848] Accordingly the Board finds that the designations as a planning tool are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the requiring authority for which the designation is sought (as listed in section 171(1)(c)).
14.3 SECTION 104D
[849] Section 104D of the RMA applies and has been discussed in Sections 6 and 7 above. This Board may grant a resource consent for a non-complying activity only if it is satisfied that either:
158
(a) The adverse effects of the activity in the environment will be minor; or
(b) The application is for an activity that will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant plan or proposed plan.
[850] In terms of the above, the Board specifically notes that Ms O’Callahan and Ms Taylor met and agreed that an assessment would be undertaken against the gateway tests of section 104D on all anticipated effects along with objectives and policies relevant to the regional consent. Ms O’Callahan provided such an assessment.
[851] In terms of the first limb of the gateway test, the Board notes the following:
In respect to the construction effects, the AEE and the evidence presented assessed the effects of the construction phases of the Project on the excavation of land, the deposition of fill, use of land to store or use hazardous substances, construction and use of bores, earthworks within riparian margins, land use consent for work within stream beds, diversion and take of water, taking of groundwater, the discharge of stormwater to land during construction (and operation), the discharge of water and contaminants to water associated with dewatering, the discharge of water and contaminants to land and the discharge of dust to air during construction; and
In respect to the operational effects, the AEE and the evidence presented assessed the effects of the post construction/operational phase of the Project on matters such as the natural environment (ecology, landscape etc) and built/cultural environment (infrastructure, people the community and their social and economic wellbeing).
[852] Accordingly the Board records that it has fully considered these various adverse effects of the construction and operational aspects of the Project earlier in this Report. It determined that the adverse effects on the activity on the environment in each case will be minor. It considers that even when the activities are bundled, the adverse effect of those activities on the environment will still be minor. On that basis the Board determines that the first limb of section 104(1) is satisfied.
[853] In terms of the second limb of the gateway test, the Board has also considered both Ms Taylor’s and Ms O’Callahan’s assessment of the various activities against the objectives and policies of the District and Regional Plans of the relative authorities and determine that:
Those relevant plans are principally the Canterbury Regional Policy statement (freshwater, eco-systems and indigenous by diversity, air quality, and soils), the Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan (water quality), the Proposed Land and Water and Regional Plan (activity and resource policies) and the two district plans (CCC and SDC); and
The various objectives and policies have been taken into account in considering the adverse effects earlier in this Report. The Board concurs that the activities will not be contrary to the said objectives and policies.
[854] As noted in Section 7 of this Report, Ms Taylor suggested that bundling should apply and the provisions of section 104D should therefore be considered in respect of all the resource consent applications. It is the Board’s view that whichever alternative of section 104D is applied, all consents when
159
considered individually fall within both provisions and whether considered on a bundled or unbundled basis the adverse effects of the activity in respect of which the resource consent is sought on the environment will be minor. Alternatively having had regard to the uncontested evidence Ms O’Callahan and Ms Taylor, the Board accepts that each activity will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant plans of the territorial authorities.
[855] On the above basis the Board has determined that the second (and therefore both) limbs of section 104(1) are met.
[856] Having come to this conclusion it is unneccesary to consider sections 104(A), 104(B) and 104(C). The criteria in these three sections, where relevant, have been considered in the Board’s consideration of the requirements of section 104(D).
14.4 SECTION 104
[857] Having considered and decided that the resource consent applications meet the gateway test the Board is required to have regard to certain matters set out in section 104 of the RMA. The relevant matters have been set out previously.
[858] The first requirement is to consider the actual and potential effects on the environment if the activity is allowed. These have been considered in Sections 9 to 13 above and require no further discussion at this stage.
[859] The need to consider the relevant provisions of national, regional, or district planning instruments, particularly the relevant policies and objectives of plans has already been considered in Section 13 above.
[860] The Board does not consider any other provision of section 104 relevant to the decision which it is required to make.
14.5 SECTION 105
[861] Section 105 applies in respect of applications for discharge permits. Five of the resource consent applications are in respect of applications to discharge either stormwater to land or to water, discharge of water and contaminants to water associated with dewatering, discharge of water and contaminants to land and discharge of dust to air during construction.
[862] Under section 105 of the RMA, it is necessary for the Board to have regard to:
(a) The nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects;
(b) The applicant’s reason for the proposed choice; and
(c) Any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge into any other receiving environment.
[863] In its consideration of adverse effects in respect of stormwater, groundwater and air quality, the Board took into account these three matters.
[864] Also having considered the statutory requirement and the steps which will be taken to avoid or mitigate the effects of the discharge both during construction and operation, the Board is of the view that the section 105 requirements do not prevent it from granting consent to the applications.
160
14.6 SECTION 107
[865] The Board is required to have regard to the restrictions on the granting of certain discharge permits that would contravene ss 15 or 15A of the RMA. The discharge permits cannot be granted if they contravene the provisions set out in ss 107(1)(c) to (g).
[866] The Board considers that Project will not give rise to any of the effects listed in the relevant statutory provisions.
14.7 SECTION 181
[867] The NORs give notice of alterations to designations. Section 181 of the RMA provides that sections 168 to 179 of the Act, with all necessary modifications apply to such applications.
[868] Relevantly the provisions of section 171 of the RMA apply. The Board has applied the provisions of that section when considering the applications to alter the designation and its decision is made with this consideration in mind.
14.8 PART 2 OF THE RMA
Context
[869] Section 171(1) of the RMA provides that the Board when considering the NoRs and any submissions must, subject to Part 2 consider the effects on the environment of certain matters. Section 104 relating to resource consent applications is also expressed to be subject to Part 2.
[870] Part 2 contains four sections as follows:
(a) The first sets out the purpose of the Act (Section 5);
(b) The second requires the Board to recognise and provide for specified matters of national importance (Section 6);
(c) The third details “other matters” which the Board must take into consideration (Section 7); and
(d) Finally, it is necessary for the Board to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Section 8).
Section 5
[871] Part 2 identifies the purpose and principles of the Act. In deciding these applications it is necessary for the Board to determine whether or not confirming the requirements and granting the resource consents achieves the purpose of the Act.
[872] Section 5 of the RMA defines its purpose in these terms:
5 Purpose
(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.
161
(2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while –
(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and
(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and
(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.
[873] In order to inform the Board’s considerations under s 5, it is obliged to consider the provisions of ss 6, 7 and 8 of the RMA. The Board considers those provisions sequentially and then returns its overall judgment under section 5.
Section 6
[874] Section 6 of the RMA provides:
6 Matters of National Importance
In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and
powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development and
protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide
for the following matters of national importance:
(a) The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment
(including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers
and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate
subdivision, use, and development;
(b) The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from
inappropriate subdivision, use, and development;
(c) The protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and
significant habitats of indigenous fauna;
(d) The maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along
the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers;
(e) The relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their
ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga;
(f) The protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision,
use, and development; and
(g) The protection of protected customary rights.
[875] The Board is required to consider the matters identified in section 6(a)-(g) as
matters of national importance. It is the Board’s view that Project recognises and provides for the matters of national significance set out in s 6 of the RMA for the following reasons:
The Project avoids outstanding natural features and landscapes;
The Project will not affect any noticeable areas of indigenous vegetation;
162
Bio-diversity within the Project area will be enhanced through establishment of various numerous planting, and the only indigenous fauna adversely affected by the Project (lizards) will be mitigated through relocation to lizard recovery sites within the Project landscape area;
The relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga, were taken into account in the design of the Project and through the preparation of the draft cultural impact assessment. The development of a Cultural Advisory Group (CAG) for the detailed design and construction phase of the Project will also assist;
The protection of archaeological and historic heritage has been recognised in the route selection process; and
The Project does not impact on any protected customary activities as there are no known activities taking place within the Project area.
[876] On the above basis, the Board finds that the Project does not run counter to any of the provisions of s 6 of the RMA.
Section 7
[877] Section 7 of the RMA requires the Board to have particular regard to “other matters”. Section 7 states:
In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and
powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and
protection of natural and physical resources, shall have particular regard
to –
(a) Kaitiakitanga:
(aa) The ethic of stewardship:
(b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical
resources:
(ba) The efficiency of the end use of energy:
(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:
(d) Intrinsic values of ecosystems:
(e) Repealed:
(f) Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment:
(g) Any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources:
(h) The protection of the habitat of trout and salmon:
(i) The effects of climate change:
(j) The benefits to be derived from the use and development of
renewable energy.
[878] To the extent that these other matters are relevant to the applications, the
Board’s findings are:
The kaitiaki ingoa o tangata whenua has been recognised in the preparation of a draft CIA and the on-going involvement of local iwi through the proposed CAG;
The ethic of stewardship has been recognised through participation of tangata whenua early in the development of the Project;
163
Community groups who have a specific interest in, and who have exercised stewardship over particular resources of relevance to the Project have been involved in the scheme assessment plans of the Project and considered in the design of the Project;
The Project will improve the efficient use of the Canterbury State Highway Network as a physical resource and improve the use and function of the wider road network;
The selective alignment and design seeks to mitigate the effect of the Project and local amenity values by largely avoiding urban areas and residential communities. Mitigation has been proposed in respect of noise, air quality, lighting, landscape and visual effects, and ecology;
The alignment and proposed mitigation avoids any adverse effects on intrinsic values and eco-systems;
In general terms the development and use of a state highway that connects a large and growing urban area with the wider region is in keeping with the existing and anticipated urban form of the Greater Christchurch area; and
The effects of climate change have been taken into account in the stormwater modelling, and the design has responded to relevant natural hazards.
[879] Accordingly the Board finds that having regard to the range of other matters prescribed in Section 7, that the Project is substantially in accord with the provisions of that section of the RMA.
Section 8
[880] Section 8 of the RMA addresses Treaty of Waitangi issues. It provides:
In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and
powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and
protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the
principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).
[881] The Board was not advised of any Treaty issues that arose in this context.
[882] The Board does note and record the NZTA’s position, namely that it has acknowledged the requirements of s 8 by taking into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi through its partnership with local iwi. The Project reflects the Treaty of Waitangi principles through the retention by Māori of rangatiratanga over their resources and taonga in the surrounding area. The draft CIA has been prepared for the Project in consultation with the body on behalf of Ngāi Tahu, and this considers relevant Treaty principles at a project-specific level.
[883] The Board has taken these matters into account in its deliberations.
Overall Judgment under Section 5/Part 2
[884] In exercising it broad judgment under section 5/part 2, the Board notes that the AEE Report contained a Part 2 assessment. It noted:
164
“The promotion of sustainable management often requires balancing competing values placed on resources, and the benefits and adverse effects associated with a project. The overall assessment under Part 2 of the RMA is particularly important for a major public project where there is a need for careful consideration of the balance between the regional or national benefits that accrue from the project, and the more localised adverse effects that the project might have on the environment, including effects on local people, communities, natural resources and values.”
[885] The Board also notes that the NZTA’s planner, Ms O’Callahan acknowledged that the Project will have adverse effects in some areas, particularly for those people who live adjacent to the Project. It was her evidence that on balance, the management and mitigation methods proposed (and which are reflected in the designation and consent conditions) and given the positive effects of the Project, it will achieve sustainable management of natural and physical resources and is consistent with the purpose and section of the RMA.
[886] In respect of the sustainable management purpose of the RMA expressed in s 5, the Board notes that the Project will meet this purpose through:
Supporting the economic growth of the Canterbury region;
Improving accessibility and connectivity between Christchurch and the wider Canterbury region, including the Port of Lyttelton;
Facilitating residential industrial and business development to the south of Christchurch;
Completing a significant portion of the southern corridor project with its recognised economic benefits;
Provide improved resilience in the transport networks;
Improve travel time reliability and more efficient movement;
Improve reliability for freight movements with the result in economic and social benefits;
Improve health and safety for road users;
Allow for the improvement to public transport and walking and cycling routes; and
Will help safeguard the life supporting capacities of natural resources, specifically air (by reducing traffic congestion), water (some water discharges will be treated and there will be overall long-term benefits arising from re-vegetation and planting), soils (by the management of construction works within a confined area), and eco-systems (by avoiding, remedying and mitigating the adverse effects on ecological values).
[887] The Board agrees that the preceding objectives will meet the s 5 requirements of the RMA by:
Enabling people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety;
165
Providing significant community, social and transport benefits; and
Providing significant infrastructure which will help meet the future transportation needs of the region.
[888] The Board acknowledges that there will be adverse effects but accepts the position of the NZTA that they can be avoided, remedied and mitigated, both during construction and operation, through the design and the identification of specific mitigation measures which are to be included in the conditions for the designations and consent applications.
[889] The Board’s overall conclusion in respect of Part 2 matters, is that approval of the notices of requirement and resource consents to enable the Project to proceed will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. In the Board’s view providing for a four-lane median separated expressway from Rolleston to Robinsons Road (MSRFL) and for the construction, operation and maintenance of a motorway between Robinsons Road to the end of the Christchurch Southern Motorway Stage 1 (CSM1) at Halswell Junction Road in Hornby, will enable people and communities to provide for their social and economic wellbeing and for their health and safety.
[890] Although there are a number of adverse effects, the Board do not consider that the scale of those effects outweighs the undisputed benefits which have been identified. The Project has avoided adverse effects on the environment to the greatest extent possible and where avoidance is not completely possible, the Project proposes remedial or mitigatory measures which in some instances constitute environmental gains.
[891] On balance the Board determines that the management and mitigation methods proposed, the conditions to be imposed, and the positive effects of the Project will achieve sustainable management of the natural and physical resources, and thus the Project is consistent with the purposes and principles of the RMA set out in Part 2.
.
14.9 SECTION 142 ASSESSMENT AGAINST MINISTER’S REASONS
[892] The Minister’s reasons for making the direction are set out in paragraph 37 above. In summary, the reasons based on section 142(3) of the RMA are:
(a) The proposal is likely to result in the significant use of natural and physical resources;
(b) The proposal is likely to result in or contribute to significant or irreversible changes to the environment (including the global environment);
(c) The project will assist the Crown in fulfilling its public health, welfare, security or safety obligations or functions. In particular:
(i.) It will open up the Port of Lyttelton to the south of Christchurch city;
(ii.) It will improve access to the Christchurch CBD, the Christchurch International Airport, and the Port of Lyttelton;
(iii.) It will reduce congestion and improve road safety in the wider Christchurch southern corridor; and
(iv.) It provides alternative routes for through traffic with direct access to the industrial areas in Hornby, the south of Christchurch, and
166
the Port of Lyttelton. (d) It affects, or is likely to affect, more than one district in the area, and
relates to a network utility operation that extends, or is proposed to extend to more than one district or region. In this respect it is noted that SDC and CCC are of the view that the proposal is of national significance. The CRC has not expressed a view.
[893] The Project will result in the significant use of natural and physical resources. It will also contribute to significant or irreversible changes to the environment. The Board has in this Report, in accordance with its obligations under section 171(1) of the RMA, considered the effect on the environment including the effect arising from the use of natural and physical resources. The effects on the environment during the construction stage will in the Board’s view, be appropriately mitigated by the CEMP and the various management plans arising from the CEMP. The adverse effects during the construction period will be either eliminated, or alternatively appropriately mitigated during the construction period.
[894] The Board has concluded that the adverse effects on the environment during the operational period have been mitigated to the extent possible. There will be minor adverse effects.
[895] In respect of the principles in Part 2 of the RMA, the natural character of the environment will be preserved to a large extent. The evidence suggests there are no outstanding natural features and landscapes which will not be protected during the construction and operation of the Project. There is little indigenous vegetation and few significant habitants of indigenous fauna. To the extent that there are, the effects will be appropriately mitigated. Appropriate steps have been taken to liaise and cooperate with Māori, in respect of their culture and traditions.
[896] In summary, the significant use of natural and physical resources will result in irreversible changes to the environment, but these changes will not have adverse environmental effects which are more than minor.
[897] The Project will help the Crown to fulfil many of its obligations. The Project is part of the RoNS and is supported by the three local authorities in the area, the Port of Lyttelton, and the Christchurch International Airport. It will have a beneficial effect in opening up the south-west of Christchurch to the Christchurch CBD. It will improve transport access to the Port of Lyttelton from the south of Christchurch. It will remove congestion on parts of the Main South Road which traffic travelling south will now be able to by-pass, and the four-lane highway with its median strips will improve road safety. Consideration was given to alternative routes.
[898] It is the Board’s view that when the reasons for the Minister giving the direction are taken into account, the beneficial factors are balanced against the minor adverse effects, and the conditions which will apply if approval is given, there is no reason why the applications should not be granted.
14.10 ASSESSMENT AGAINST INFORMATION PROVIDED BY EPA
[899] The Board is required to consider any information provided to it by the EPA under section 149G of the RMA.
167
[900] Under section 149G(2) of the RMA the EPA has provided to the Board the application and all supporting documentation (in five volumes), and all the preliminary reports which it received and considered before making its recommendation to the Minister. It has also provided all submissions received on the applications. The Board has considered all this material in coming to its conclusion.
[901] The EPA obtained reports under section 149G(3) of the RMA from the CRC, CCC, and SDC. These reports are commented on in this Report. All three have been considered, and all matters raised therein addressed.
[902] The Board has considered all the information provided to it by the EPA under section 149G and taken into account the matters raised therein, in coming to its conclusions.
15. CONFIDENTIALTY ORDER [903] The Board orders that the accounts of the Shanks Family Trust, which were
produced at the hearing, and the evidence of Mr Saunders not be published or communicated to any person other than the NZTA and the Board, and that this order is a permanent order.
16. DECISION [904] When regard has been had to all of the matters above, including Part 2
considerations, the Board has determined that it is appropriate that the notices of requirement sought by the NZTA, as modified during the hearing, be confirmed and that the resource consents applied for be granted subject to the imposition of appropriate Conditions as contained in Volume 2 of this Report.
DATED this 8th day of November 2013
168
APPENDIX 1: MAP OF THE PROJECT
169
170
APPENDIX 2: PROJECT APPLICATION DOCUMENTATION
171
Project documentation
The Project application documentation comprised a suite of five volumes as set out below –
Volume 1: Resource Management Act 1991 forms;
Volume 2: Assessment of Environmental Effects report;
Volume 3: Technical reports and supporting documents;
Volume 4: Management Plans;
Volume 5: Plan Set.
Twenty technical reports (TR) were included in Volume 3. These were:
TR1: Design philosophy statement
TR2: Traffic and transportation effects report
TR3: Assessment of stormwater disposal and water quality
TR4: Landscape and visual effects
TR5: Assessment of effects urban design
TR6: Urban and landscape design framework
TR7: Landscape context report
TR8: Assessment of operational noise effects
TR9: Assessment of construction noise & vibration
TR10: Assessment of air quality effects
TR11: Geotechnical engineering and geo-hazards assessment
TR12: Assessment of archaeological effects
TR13: Social impact assessment
TR14: Economic impact assessment
TR15: Cultural impact assessment
TR16: Contaminated land assessment
TR17: Aquatic ecology assessment
TR18: Terrestrial ecology assessment
TR19: Lighting assessment
TR20: Statutory provisions report
172
The following Draft Management Plans were included in Volume 4:
Appendix A. SEMP 001 Air Quality Management Plan
Appendix B: SEMP 002 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Appendix C: SEMP 003 Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan
Appendix D: SEMP 004 Construction Traffic Management Plan
Appendix E: SEMP 005 Landscape Management Plan
Appendix F: SEMP 006 Accidental Aquifer Interception Management Plan
Appendix G: CEMP Risk Assessment & Risk Register
Appendix H: CEMP Construction programme
Appendix I: Accidental Discovery Protocol
Appendix J: CEMP Environmental Feedback Form
Appendix K: CEMP Environmental Non Conformance Form
Appendix L: CEMP Environmental Corrective Actions log
Appendix M: CEMP Environmental Training Form (ETF) Template
173
APPENDIX 3: PARTIES WHO FILED EVIDENCE
174
The following parties presented evidence at the hearing:
Applicant – The NZTA (represented by Jo Appleyard and Madeline Cayford) provided
evidence from:
Name Topic
Colin Knaggs Mr C Knaggs regarding overview of Project. Mr Knaggs is NZ Regional State Highways Manager, the NZTA for the Canterbury and West Coast regions.
His evidence covers the role and statutory authority of the NZTA, the ability of RoNS to reduce congestion and bring business benefits, the uniqueness on this RoNS, the range of submissions in support of the Project and the Public Works Act 1981 process.
Michael Blyleven Mr M Blyleven regarding the strategic fit of the Project in relation to the wider network. Mr Blyleven is the Canterbury Transport Planning Manager, the NZTA and has over 25 years’ experience in transport planning, analysis, modelling, strategy development, policy development and transport network operations in New Zealand and Australia. Mr Blyleven has a Bachelor of Engineering (Hons) degree and a member of the IPENZ Transportation Group.
His evidence covers South Island connectivity to Christchurch, transport outcomes (efficiency, reliability and safety), the fit of this Project within a wider strategy and policy context and the links between national, regional and local networks.
Stephen Cottrell Mr S Cottrell regarding land and property acquisition. Mr Cottrell is the Principal Property Manager for the Southern Region for the NZTA and its predecessor organisation Transit New Zealand, for over seven years. He is a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors with over 35 years’ experience in land and property acquisitions, in both the public and private sectors in New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
His evidence covers an outline of the Crown acquisition process under the Public Works Act 1981, the general process and procedure for acquisition, how entitlements are assessed and different levels of compensation available.
175
Name Topic
David Aldridge Mr D Aldridge regarding design. Mr Aldridge is a senior civil engineer for Beca Limited and has 28 years technical experience in planning, design and management of roading projects in New Zealand and the UK. Mr Aldridge has a New Zealand Certificate in Engineering (Civil) and has been a Registered Engineering Associate with the Engineering Associates Registration Board and also an Associate member of the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand.
His evidence covers the general background of the Project, development of the design, factors influencing the design, key design features to give consideration to, local communities, business and landowners. Road safety audit items have been incorporated into the design.
Tony Milne Mr T Milne regarding landscape and visual effects. Mr Milne holds a Bachelor of Arts degree and a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture degree. He has been practising as a landscape architect for over 18 years.
His evidence covers methodology regarding the identification of landscape character areas, the existing landscape setting, changes to the landscape during and after construction, the way changes on the landscape and assessed, and landscape matters raised in submissions.
Jeremy Cooke Mr J Cooke regarding landscape design. Mr Cooke is the South Island Planning and Design Manager for Beca Ltd, with landscape architecture as his area of expertise. He has a Diploma of Parks and Garden Technology and a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture (Hons). He is a current member of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects and over 17 years of technical experience in master planning and urban design projects throughout New Zealand.
His evidence covers the methodology to developing the landscape design, the landscape design vision, landscape concepts associated with motorways, an outline of landscape integration with other technical disciplines, review of landscape related submissions and plant selection criteria.
176
Name Topic
Ainsley McLeod Ms A McLeod regarding consultation. Ms McLeod is a Technical Director of Planning at Beca Limited. She has practiced as a planner for over 17 years and holds a Bachelor of Arts (Geography and Anthropology) and a Master of Regional and Resource Planning. She is also a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute.
Her evidence covers the approach taken to consultation, the parties who have been consulted, the feedback received and the outcomes and results of consultation.
Steve Muir Mr S Muir regarding lighting. Mr Muir is a lighting design manager of Connetics Ltd and has over 30 years’ experience in the electrical industry in road, precinct and flood lighting, public activity spaces and building services design. His qualifications include NZCE (Electrical), Illumination Engineering Endorsed Certificate, Advanced Illumination Course Grade 1 and New Zealand Institute of Highway Technology (NZIHT) Lighting Course. He is a member of the Illumination Society of Australia and New Zealand and also one of two Registered Lighting Practitioners within the Illumination Society of Australia and New Zealand living in New Zealand.
His evidence covers lighting considerations and solutions to provide for adequate safety for road users, minimising lighting effects on the environment, lighting compliance with territorial authority standards and existing and new road lighting.
Geoff Butcher Mr G Butcher regarding economics. Mr Butcher is a Director of Butcher Partners Limited, an economic consulting company in Christchurch.
His evidence covers the cost ratios and net financial benefit with key points around links between the port and the airport, reduced travel times and increased safety.
177
Name Topic
Richard Bailey Mr R Bailey regarding construction traffic management. Mr Bailey is a project/contract manager for GHD Ltd, currently leading the roading design group for the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructural Rebuild Team. He has nearly 30 years civil engineering experience and holds New Zealand Engineering Technical Certification Roading, New Zealand Certificate of Engineering, Intermediate (Civil), STMS L2/3 NP and National Certificate in Competitive Pricing Procedure.
His evidence covers project construction in the vicinity of the exciting road network, traffic control activities, proposed mitigation and construction vehicle movement.
Stuart Camp Mr S Camp regarding noise. Mr Camp is a Principal of Marshall Day Acoustics. He has worked in the field of acoustics for over 30 years and holds a Science degree in Mathematics and Acoustics.
His evidence covers operational noise levels and effects, construction noise levels and effects and construction vibration.
Ben Hayward Mr B Hayward regarding constructability. Mr Hayward has a Bachelors degree (Hons) and Masters degree in Civil Engineering (Transportation) from the University of Canterbury. He has eight years’ experience in the construction industry and is employed by Fulton Hogan as a pavement design engineer and a construction engineer and manager.
His evidence covers construction of earthworks embankments, bridge structures, drainage, pavements and roadside furniture and consideration of construction around existing roads using traffic management.
Andrew Murray Mr A Murray regarding traffic and transportation. Mr Murray has a Bachelor of Engineering degree from the University of Auckland. He is a member of the Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand Transportation Group and a committee member for the New Zealand Modelling User Group. Mr Murray has 21 years’ experience in traffic and transportation engineering both in New Zealand and overseas. He is currently a technical director of transportation in Auckland for Beca Limited.
His evidence covers transportation, congestion, growth and traffic planning, effects on the transportation system and traffic and transport issues raised in submissions.
178
Name Topic
Camilla Needham Ms C Needham regarding air quality. Ms Needham is an associate in environmental engineering of Beca Ltd. She has 16 years’ experience in air quality consulting and environmental engineering and a member of the Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand. She holds an Honours Degree in Chemical and Process Engineering and is a Chartered Chemical Engineer.
Her evidence covers existing air quality, sensitivity of the receiving environment, operational air quality effects and construction air quality effects.
Tony Miller Mr T Miller regarding stormwater. Mr Miller is a Principal Water Engineer currently employed by GHD and has 36 years’ experience in construction and water engineering. Mr Miller holds a Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) specialising in hydrology and hydraulics. He is a Chartered Professional Engineer (CPEng) and International Professional Engineer (IntPE). He is affiliated to Water NZ and is a member of IPENZ.
His evidence covers the existing environment in relation to water disposal and quality, proposed design and mitigation for managing water disposal and quality and summary assessment of stormwater and water quality effects.
Mark Utting Mr M Utting regarding hydrogeology. Mr Utting is a senior hydrogeologist of Beca Ltd. He has over 30 years’ experience in hydrogeology and groundwater consulting. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Geology and a Master of Science in Geology. He is a member of the National Ground Water Association and a Registered Professional Geologist in the US states of Arizona and Idaho.
His evidence covers groundwater level effects from stormwater infiltration, groundwater quality effects from stormwater infiltration and the accidental aquifer interception management plan.
179
Name Topic
Mary O’Callahan Ms M O’Callahan regarding statutory planning analysis. Ms O’Callahan is a Principal Planner and Service Group Manager at GHD Limited. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree and a Bachelor of Planning degree. Ms O’Callahan is a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute and has over 18 years’ experience in planning and resource management.
Her evidence covers the statutory context governing the Project, the relevant planning documents, the assessment of environmental effects, comments of issues raised in submissions and proposed conditions.
The Board directed ten the NZTA witnesses to provide their evidence by affidavit, as they were not required to be present at the hearing. They are:
Name Topic
Nick Taylor Dr N Taylor regarding social impacts. Dr Taylor is a principal and director of Taylor Baines and Associates. Dr Taylor is a consultant and research in the field of applied social research and social assessment for 29 years. He holds a Bachelor of Arts, a Masters of Science and Resource Management and a Doctor of Philosophy in sociology.
Mr Taylor is the author of the Social Assessment Report (TR 13) His evidence covers, social impact assessment, the methodology used in social impact assessment and the details of the positive and negative social effects of the Project.
Kevin Brewer Mr K Brewer regarding urban design. Mr Brewer is a director of Brewer Davidson, a consultancy providing architectural and urban design services. He holds a Bachelor of Architecture with Honours and is an Associate of the New Zealand Institute of Architects. Mr Brewer has worked as an urban design consultant on various transport projects for the NZTA and also local authorities in New Zealand.
Mr Brewer is the author of the Assessment of Effects Urban Design (TR 5). His evidence covers relevant urban design principles, methodologies used in evidence, summary of assessment of urban design effects, comment on urban design relevant submissions and proposed conditions.
180
Name Topic
Diana Robertson Ms D Robertson regarding terrestrial ecology. Ms Robertson is a Senior Principal Ecologist at Boffa Miskell Limited with 23 years’ experience. She holds a Bachelor of Horticultural Science Honours in Ecology and Masters of Horticultural Science Honours in Ecology. Ms Robertson is also a Certified Environmental Practitioner and a member of the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand, the New Zealand Ecological Society, the Ornithological Society of New Zealand and the Canterbury Botanical Society.
Her evidence covers the methodologies used to assess the terrestrial ecology values and effects, the terrestrial ecological values nearby and within the Project corridor, effects on those values and recommended mitigation and enhancements that the Project will provide.
Katherine Watson Ms K Watson regarding archaeology. Ms Watson is an archaeologist and director of Underground Overground Archaeology Limited. She holds a Masters in Anthropology and has 12 years’ experience as an archaeological consultant. She is a member of the New Zealand Archaeological Association and Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology.
She is the author of the Archaeological Assessment Report and her evidence covers the methodology and assessment of archaeological effects.
Timothy Johnson Mr T Johnson regarding visual simulations. Mr Johnson has a Bachelor of Architectural Studies degree. He has 9 years’ experience in surveying, aerial mapping, computer programming and visualisation.
His evidence covers the visual simulation methodology, the further information request relating to visual simulations and responses to submissions.
181
Name Topic
Dr Lisa Hack Dr L Hack regarding aquatic ecology. Dr Hack is a Senior Environmental Scientist with over 9 years’ experience as an aquatic scientist, currently employed by GHD Ltd. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree, a Bachelor of Forestry degree, a Master of Science (Hons) degree and a Doctorate in Philosophy in Environmental Toxicology.
Her evidence covers the methodology that was used to assess aquatic ecology values, the potential impacts the Project will have on the aquatic ecology of the water races, outcomes of the aquatic ecology assessment including impacts of the Project and mitigation measures.
Earl Shaver Mr E Shaver regarding stormwater treatment and surface water quality effects. He has over 38 years’ experience in stormwater management and erosion and sediment control. Mr Shaver authored a variety of technical guidelines that are being used in New Zealand. He is currently consultant with Aqua Terra International Ltd. Mr Shaver holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Agricultural Engineering and a Master of Science Degree in Civil Engineering.
His evidence covers the methodology used in the calculation of contaminant loads from the Project, groundwater discharge and potential impacts to groundwater, pond contaminant removal efficiencies, water quality issues and potential effects on stream macro invertebrate communities.
Tony Cain Mr T Cain regarding erosion and sediment control. Mr Cain is a Senior Water Engineer and Team Leader of GHD’s Northern Stormwater and Asset Planning Service Group. He has 15 years’ experience in the engineering field and holds a Higher National Certificate in Civil Engineering Studies. He is a Member of Engineers Ireland and holds the grade of Associate Engineer.
He is the author of the Draft ESCP for the Project and his evidence covers the methodology used in the development of the Draft ESCP, potential effects of erosion and sediment discharge, the ESCP approach, comments on submissions and proposed conditions.
182
Name Topic
Dr Peter Forrest Dr P Forrest regarding geotechnical engineering. Dr Forrest is a technical director for the ground engineering team for Aurecon New Zealand Limited. He holds an Honours degree in Geology and a PhD in Engineering Geology. Dr Forrest is a Fellow of the Geological Society of London, a member of the New Zealand Geotechnical Society (IPENZ affiliated) and a member of the International Association of Engineering Geology and the Environment. Dr Forrest has worked for over 16 years as a consulting engineering geologist for multi-disciplinary engineering consultants both in New Zealand and in the UK.
His evidence covers the geology assessment for the Project, current seismic setting for Canterbury Region, geotechnical design regime and overview of risks, effects and mitigation.
Wijnand Udema Mr W Udema regarding contaminated land. Mr Udema is a Principal Environmental Scientist for GHD Limited with 12 years consulting experience in contaminated land assessment and remediation. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree (Earth Sciences) and a Master of Science Degree in Environmental Technology. He is also an active member of the Australasian Land and Groundwater Association and the Sustainable Remediation Forum.
His evidence covers the contaminated land assessment for CSM2 and MSRFL which identified any risks to human health or the environment posed by the assessed contaminants in soil.
183
Parties – the following parties filed evidence:
Submitter Name
Represented by Witness Topic
Warren, Chris Representation
Blokland, Geoff Representation
Lyttelton Port of Christchurch56
Peter Davie Chief Executive
Christchurch International Airport Ltd57
Rhys Boswell General Manager
The John and Susan Shanks Family Trust
Pru Steven Jeremy Trevathan Noise
John Shanks58 Statement
Errol Saunders Business evaluation
Fulton Hogan Land Development Limited59
Greg Dewe Land Development Manager
Andy Carr Traffic
Daniel Thorne Planning
Tall Tree Stud60
David Pedley Kevin Williams Owner
Rebecca Reid Equine Veterinarian
Ken Spicer Horse farmer
Gary Allen Client
Susan Wakefield Client
Sheds NZ Ltd, Timbercore Ltd and Canterbury timber and Hardware Ltd
Aidan Prebble Kevin Barron Owner of site of three business
56
Party did not attend the hearing and witness not called to give evidence. 57
Party did not attend the hearing and witness not called to give evidence. 58
Board allowed J Shanks to give his statement as evidence. 59
Submitter subsequently withdrawn from proceedings. 60
Submitter subsequently withdrawn from proceedings.
184
Submitter Name
Represented by Witness Topic
Christchurch City Council
Hamish Harwood Adam Scott Blair Planning
Southern Horticultural Products Ltd61
Aidan Prebble Nigel Odering Managing Director
Samuel Flewellen Planning
Paul Coughlan Business consultant
61
Witness not called to give evidence.
185
Parties who appeared for the Board
As noted previously, the authors of s 92 reports to the Board appeared at the hearing. They spoke to their reports and were questioned on them. For the sake of completeness, their experience and qualifications are set out below.
Witness Topic
Louise Taylor - Planning
Louise Taylor holds a Bachelor’s degree in Geography and a Master’s degree in Regional and Resource Planning from the University of Otago (completed in 1996). Louise is a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute. Louise is also a Ministry for the Environment accredited Resource Management Act hearings Commissioner with a Chair endorsement. Louise has been engaged in the field of resource and environmental management for 16 years and is extensively experienced in carrying out resource consents, assessments of environmental effects, designations and plan changes, duties as an expert planning witness, and submissions on regional and district plans.
Tony Reynolds - Groundwater
Tony Ian Reynolds is employed as a hydrogeologist in the Environmental Group of Tonkin & Taylor Limited. He holds the qualifications of BE in Engineering Science and MSc in Hydrology for Environmental Management. He is a member of the New Zealand Hydrological Society and the National Groundwater Association (USA). He has been employed as a hydrogeologist at Tonkin and Taylor since 2005. His previous experience has been as a hydrogeologist with the Environment Agency in England, Greater Wellington Regional Council and Gisborne District Council, commencing in 1987.
Christian Vossart - Noise
Christian Vossart has a BSc (Hons) in Environmental Technology Management and a Diploma in Acoustics and Noise Control. He is also a full Member of the Institute of Acoustics (MIOA) UK and a full member of the Acoustical Society of New Zealand (MASNZ). Christian has over 10 years of post-graduate experience in environmental noise and architectural/buildings acoustics within the UK and NZ. He authored the ‘State Highway Guide to the Acoustics Treatment of Buildings’ as well as involvement in both the extension of State Highway 20 Hillsborough to Maioro Street and the Tauranga Eastern Highway Link. He has significant experience assisting local government with the processing of resource consent applications.
186
APPENDIX 4: PARTIES WHO MADE REPRESENTATIONS
187
Representations
14 submitters made representations speaking to their submissions at the hearing. These submitters have been categorised into the following groups:
Local Authorities and Government;
Businesses and business groups;
Community and interest groups; and
Individual submitters.
Two Local Authorities and Government groups made representations:
Christchurch City Council; and
Selwyn District Council.
Four businesses and business groups made representations:
Southern Horticultural Products Limited;
Sheds NZ;
Bromac Lodge Limited; and
The John and Susan Shanks Family Trust.
One community and interest groups made a representation:
Christchurch Little River Rail Trust.
Seven submitters made representations:
Gary Doyle;
LJ and CM Manion;
James Lapsley;
Geoff Blokland;
P Dellaca and P & P Lee;
Richard John and Carolyn Beverly Sissons; and
Greg Olive.
188
APPENDIX 5: MANAGEMENT PLAN FRAMEWORK
189
190
APPENDIX 6 : SUMMARY OF COMMENTS MADE UNDER S 149Q(5)
191
The table on the following pages sets out our summary of comments on the Christchurch Southern Motorway Proposal Draft Decision and Report; and our response thereto.
We received comments from 7 parties. Some of the comments were within scope, but others were outside the statutory constraints. To address those outside the statutory constraints would mean revising our decision. This we cannot do.
We have addressed comments in the order received by the EPA.
s 149Q(5) of the RMA defines minor and technical comments as:
"(5) Comments on minor or technical aspects of the report -
(a) include comments on minor errors in the report, on the wording of conditions specified in the report, or that there are omissions in the report (for example, the report does not address a certain issue); but
(b) do not include comments on the board's decision or its reasons for the decision."
191
Date comments received
Party Name Summary of comments from parties Specific amendment sought
Accept/Reject
Board's response
16-Sep-13 Gary and Elizabeth Doyle
Gary Doyle
I do not see any comment on the raised southern side of the road immediately outside our residence, if the road is not lowered to its original level then I believe we should be offered some form of noise reduction.
Noise reduction measures sought in the vicinity of his residence.
Reject The issue of noise has not been raised by Mr Doyle in his submission notice although he did comment on it when addressing his submission at the hearing.
Notwithstanding this, the Board did address the wider issue of operational noise in section 11.4 of the Draft Report and specifically addressed the issue of the raised road in paragraphs 653 and 655.
In finalising the Report the Board has cross referenced their conclusions on Operational noise in respect to the assessment of Mr Doyle's submission (para [656]).
On the evidence the Board did not believe mitigation measures were required.
Further the relief sought is outside the scope of s 149Q(5) RMA.
192
Date comments received
Party Name Summary of comments from parties Specific amendment sought
Accept/Reject
Board's response
Gary Doyle
I have been unable to see that any notice has been placed on our wish not to have tussock grasses used due to a possible rat infection, given that planting on our property and strict vermin controls we have instituted have resulted in a return of the bell birds and even the occasional wood pigeon we do wish to see this placed in jeopardy.
Prohibition on tussock grass planting in proximity to his property.
Reject The issue of tussock grass was addressed in para [655] of the Draft Report, (para [657] of the Final Report).
Outside scope of s 149Q(5) RMA.
193
Date comments received
Party Name Summary of comments from parties Specific amendment sought
Accept/Reject
Board's response
Gary Doyle
I also note that Mr Utting has made a definitive statement without bothering to check the local conditions. Approximately 80 to 100meters diagonally across the Main Road from our property is an old spring, this has come to life in extremely wet weather and will lie immediately under the over bridge. This spring was so well know that it had a pipe which ran across Weedons Ross Road, under the water race and then ran parallel to the race to the Main South Road from where it was piped into our property at the head of the pond. To the east of this spring there had been another stream which also has a culvert under the highway which comes out onto our property. This stream had in years past been a very significant flow. In the 1860's a well was put down between these two steams and from this a well was constructed and supplied the premises know as Halfway House. This well has since been capped but can be opened and if Mr Uttley had taken the trouble to test the depth he would have found it to be considerably higher than the surrounding land. He is more than welcome to come and test the depth himself if he would take the trouble,
Further testing of groundwater by the NZTA.
Reject The issue of groundwater was addressed in paras [654] and [655] of the Draft Report, and the Final Report reinforces the role of the Accidental Aquifer Interception Management Plan (paras [658] and [659] of the Final Report).
Outside scope of s 149Q(5) RMA.
194
Date comments received
Party Name Summary of comments from parties Specific amendment sought
Accept/Reject
Board's response
this water has caused considerable trouble in the past for Fulton Hogan when they had the road maintenance contract. It should be pointed out that if the planned Central Plains Water Scheme goes ahead then there will be a vastly reduced groundwater take, in fact more water will end up in the aquifer this will mean a rise in the water levels. I would contend that this could easily lead to a constant undermining of the highway at this point. As for underground streams I would suggest that the contractors who undertook the traffic lights at Rolleston might be able to shed some light on the problems with water
3-Oct-13 Transpower Mike Hurley
Confirm that Transpower is satisfied that the conditions included in the draft decision would ensure appropriate measures have been adopted to avoid or mitigate the potential adverse effects on the electricity transmission infrastructure. Specifically, Transpower supports the imposition of the following conditions: Designation Conditions DC.7 and DC.8 (Management Plans), DC.12 and DC.13
No relief sought
N/A No action required.
The Board has made some consequential amendments to the Section 11.10 Network Utilities and Section 13 Consideration of Key Statutory Instruments
195
Date comments received
Party Name Summary of comments from parties Specific amendment sought
Accept/Reject
Board's response
(CEMP), DC.14 and DC.15 (Air Quality Management Plan - Construction) and DC.34 (Electricity Transmission Management); and Resource Consent General Conditions G.6 and G.7 (CEMP and SEMP’s), G.10 and G.11 (CEMP), and G.12 and G.13 (Air Quality Management Plan).
Mike Hurley
For the Board’s information, Transpower is working with NZTA on investigating changes to the existing transmission lines to ensure compliance is achieved with NZECP34:2001. It is anticipated that an acceptable solution for both parties will be reached.
No relief sought
N/A No action required.
The Board has made some consequential amendments to the Section 11.10 Network Utilities and Section 13 Consideration of Key Statutory Instruments
Mike Hurley
In relation to the National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission (NPSET), having considered the measures proposed, Transpower agrees with the statement of the Board in paragraph 724 that the project is not inconsistent with the NPSET, in particular, Policy 10.
No relief sought
N/A No action required.
The Board has made some consequential amendments to the Section 11.10 Network Utilities and Section 13 Consideration of Key Statutory Instruments
7-Oct-13 Minister for the Environment
Amy Adams
no comment No relief sought
N/A No action required.
196
Date comments received
Party Name Summary of comments from parties Specific amendment sought
Accept/Reject
Board's response
10-Oct-13 Christchurch City Council
David Punselie
no comment No relief sought
N/A No action required.
10-Oct-13 Greg Olive Greg Olive
I am seeking clarification of statement Chpt.11.13 paragraph 629. It reads He has not yet had a subdivision plan prepared. In applicants evidence David Aldridge submitted plans being exhibit E and subsequent plan drawings reference no. 62236-sk831 exhibit F. Should this be amended to reflect this?
Clarification of status of his subdivision plan.
Accept The Board accepts that a concept subdivisonal plan was produced at the hearing and its comment in the Draft Report has been clarified in this Report by noting that a concept plan was produced at the hearing but was not prepared or lodged with the Christchurch City Council.
10-Oct-13 NZTA Jo Appleyard
Page 75 [408] refers to "Mr Barron (Southern Hort)". This is a minor error, and should instead read "Mr Barron (Sheds NZ)".
Correct minor error
Accept The Board accepts there is an error which is now been amended in this Report.
Page 117 [649] references the "Property Works Act", this reference is incorrect, and should instead be to the "Public Works Act".
Correct minor error
Accept The Board accepts there is an error which is now been amended in this Report.
[659] on page 118 contains a factual error. The clause states "The Board notes that the agreement with the NZTA which includes CCC's agreement to reduce the speed limit to 70kph…". The use of the word agreement is factually incorrect. While CCC agrees that a speed limit of 70kph is appropriate, this is subject to
Correct minor error
Accept The Board accepts there is an error which is now been amended in this Report.
Para [659] amended and is now para [663] in the Final Report.
197
Date comments received
Party Name Summary of comments from parties Specific amendment sought
Accept/Reject
Board's response
Council approval as well as a safety audit that has not yet been carried out. This caveat was communicated to Leee and Dellaca in the attached letter from NZTA dated 17 May 2013.
198
Date comments received
Party Name Summary of comments from parties Specific amendment sought
Accept/Reject
Board's response
10-Oct-13 John & Liz Veix
John & Liz Veix
We had made a late submission on the Southern Motorway and it was not considered because it was outside the timing for submissions.
Our submission centered around access for heavy machinery for the contractors that grow crops and graze sheep on our 10 acres near the Park Lane side of the Motorway. In addition to the contractor, my home-based company also has deliveries from large vehicles that require access from the road.
Because our submission was outside the “window of opportunity” - is there any other recourse for us to be heard.? At the time of notification for submissions, we would have been fully occupied both with our company and planning for my sisters visit from overseas – we have not had a Christmas together for over 50 years and we had to make bookings all around the country for accommodation and other bookings for what is the busiest time of year.
And because of our total isolation from any neighbours, we did not hear of any other activity going on around us. Our
Request to consider submission made out of time
Reject The Board was unable to consider the late submission because s 37A(5) RMA only gives the Board power to grant a waiver of the date for lodging a submission if the NZTZ consents to the waiver. Because of the lateness of the submission, the NZTA did not consent to the waiver and therefore the Board cannot consider it.
The comments by Mr & Mrs Veix cannot be considered under s 149Q(5) RMA.
199
Date comments received
Party Name Summary of comments from parties Specific amendment sought
Accept/Reject
Board's response
lives are very focussed on our renewable energy company, and our families and grandchildren. And although it is no excuse, the only people contact we have ever had from anyone to do with the Motorway was at the very beginning of the process, a few years ago it seems.
I understand that this e-mail could be our last resort and hopefully there will be some consideration giving to our situation. It just seems extremely harsh that there is no means of being heard just because we missed the official timing period for submissions.
Sincerely, John & Liz Veix, 1528 Main South Road