Hearings Commissioner

Notice of Meeting A meeting of the Hearings Commissioner will be held in the Whangarei Library, May Bain Room, Rust Avenue, Whangarei on:

Thursday & Friday

10 & 11 September 2015 10am

Application by New Zealand Transport Agency

Commissioner Alan Withy

Index Page No

Authorisation Sheet ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Environment Planner (Consents) Report ..................................................................................................... 2

Recommendation ........................................................................................................................................ 58

Attachment 1 Application (as lodged – appendices to be tabled)) .......................................................... 61

Attachment 2A Aerial photo ..................................................................................................................... 130

Attachment 2B Locality of Site ................................................................................................................ 131

Attachment 3 District Plan Maps 137

Attachment 4 Submissions Received .................................................................................................... 140

Attachment 5 Wes Edwards Traffic Consultants Peer Review Report (Traffic) .................................... 156

Attachment 6 Styles Group Acoustic Peer Review Report (Noise and Vibration) ................................ 180

Attachment 7 Rebecca Skidmore Urban Design -

Peer Review Report (Urban Design & Landscaping) ..................................................... 188

Attachment 8 Robin Rawson WDC Group Planner Infrastructure & Services Memorandum .............. 199

Hearings Commissioner

Report to the Hearings Commissioner

on a Notice of Requirement by New Zealand

Transport Agency:

An application for a Notice of Requirement under s181 of the RMA has been received by

the New Zealand Transport Agency (“NZTA”) to alter an existing designation (DTNZ1) to

enable construction of a new roundabout at the Kensington Avenue/State Highway 1

intersection, including works on Kensington Avenue; alterations to the intersections of

State Highway 1 and Lower Stanley Street, Kohatu Road, Russell Road and Manse Street;

and widening and safety works along State Highway 1.

This proposed alteration to the designation will have a total length of 800 metres starting

approximately 160m north of Kensington Avenue and extending to approximately 220

metres south of Manse Street, Whangarei.

A copy of the Notice of Requirement Application Report (without appendices) is appended

as Appendix 1 to this report. Hard copies with appendices will be provided at the

hearing.

In accordance with section 176A(2)(b) the requiring authority seeks to incorporate details

of the proposed works into the designation thus negating the need to obtain an Outline

Plan approval and that, pursuant to section 184, the lapse period applying to this NOR be

10 years rather than 5 years.

This Notice of Requirement was lodged by Northern Civil Limited on behalf of the New

Zealand Transport Agency (“NZTA”). This application has been reported on by Council’s

Consultant Planner, Melissa Douché.

This hearing report was written and peer-reviewed by the following signatories:

Consultant

Environmental Planner

(Consents):

Date:

1 September

2015

Melissa Douché

Consents Manager:

Date:

1 September

2015

Alister Hartstone

1

Resource Management Act 1991

Hearing By: Hearings Commissioner for the Whangarei

District Council of a Notice of Requirement

application by NZTA to alter an existing

designation for the widening, construction,

intersection alteration and use of State

Highway 1 in the area described as 160m

north of Kensington Avenue to 220 metres

south of Manse Street, Whangarei and an

application under the National Environmental

Standard for Assessing and Managing

Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human

Health 2011 for works on a piece of land

subject to likely contamination.

In accordance with section 176A(2)(b) the

requiring authority seeks to incorporate

details of the proposed works into the

designation thus negating the need to obtain

an Outline Plan approval and that, pursuant

to section 184, the lapse period applying to

this NOR be 10 years rather than 5 years.

File Ref: RQ1500001 and P119970

Dated: 1 September 2015

1 Introduction

1.1 A requiring authority may at any time give notice to a territorial authority of its

requirement to alter a designation for a project or work. Subject to section 181 of

the Resource Management Act (“the Act”) the NZTA has given notice to

Whangarei District Council (“WDC”), as the relevant territorial authority, of its

requirement for an alteration to an existing designation (DTNZ1), known as State

Highway 1 (“SH1”).

1.2 The existing Designation (DTNZ1) in the WDC District Plan states:

2

1.3 There are no operational conditions relating to DTNZ1 in the District Plan.

1.4 The purpose of the alteration to the existing designation is to alter several key

intersections along State Highway 1 (‘SH1’, also known as Western Hills Drive),

particularly the Kensington Avenue/SH1 intersection but also the SH1 intersections

with Kohatu Road, Russell Road and Manse Street. The reasons for the alteration

are to enable widening and safety improvements, alterations to private vehicle

accesses and associated mitigation works. For the purposes of this report the area

where the designation is being altered is referred to as SH1. However private

property addresses are referred to as Western Hills Drive being the locally known

name for this section of road.

1.5 There is also a section of land owned by NZTA that effectively functions as an

access driveway for several properties on the western side of SH1, just to the

north of the Kensington Ave/SH 1 intersection. NZTA has referred to this driveway

as ‘Lower Stanley Street’ in their application report, although this is not a legal

road name. For the purposes of this report, this driveway will also be referred to

as Lower Stanley Street for consistency.

1.6 In addition to the above, in accordance with section 176A(2)(b) the requiring

authority seeks to incorporate details of the proposed works into the designation

thus negating the need to obtain an Outline Plan approval and that, pursuant to

section 184, the lapse period applying to this NOR be 10 years rather than 5

years.

1.7 The application under the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and

Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health 2011 (‘NES

Contamination’) is required as the corner of Kensington Park forms part of the

proposed works area and is currently located outside of the proposed designation.

Although this corner is currently being used as a landscaping buffer and car park

area, it is uncertain as to whether it has historically been subject to

sprays/pesticide use as part of the use of the wider land parcel as a sports

field/recreation facility. In the absence of either a preliminary or detailed site

investigation report confirming that the land is not a HAIL1 site, pursuant to

regulation 11 of the NES Contaminated Soils, consent is required for a

discretionary activity.

1.8 The Notice of Requirement (“NOR”) application was received by WDC on 22

January 2015 and publicly notified on 26 June 2015, with submissions closing on

1 As per the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) (October 2011)

3

28 July 2015. A total of 6 submissions were received (one late submission). No

submissions raised issues regarding the NES Contamination.

2 The Proposal

2.1 The application forms part of a wider programme of road widening and

improvement works along the SH1 corridor through Whangarei.

Notice of Requirement

2.2 The purpose of this Notice of Requirement (NOR) is to incorporate additional land

into the existing State Highway 1 (SH1) designation DTNZ1 in order to upgrade

four existing intersections; Kensington Avenue, Kohatu Road, Russell Road and

Manse Street. The proposal also includes widening and safety works from 160m

north of the Kensington Avenue/SH1 intersection to 220m south of the Manse

Street/SH1 intersection, a total length of approximately 800m.

2.3 The purpose of upgrading these intersections and the SH1 corridor is to address

existing intersection safety and capacity constraints causing congestion and

reducing instances of rear-end type accidents and delays at peak periods.

2.4 The most significant works involve the construction of a new roundabout at the

Kensington Avenue/SH1 intersection, including providing increased capacity at the

intersection by constructing a dedicated northbound through lane on SH1 and

increasing the number of lanes at the Kensington Avenue arm of the intersection

from two to four. These works involve permanently designating the south western

corner of Kensington Park as state highway (4,457m² of land), as well as private

land at the south western end of Powhiri Avenue and the opposite side of the

Kensington Avenue intersection.

Figure 1 – Design layout of proposed Kensington Avenue roundabout

4

2.5 Upgrading works to the other intersections involve banning right-turn movements

at Manse Street, Kohatu Street and out of Russell Road by extending a median

barrier through these intersections. This measure is intended to address safety

concerns due to restricted sight distances at these intersections while maintaining

safe left turn manoeuvres. Right-turns will still be allowed into Russell Road.

These upgrading works also require permanent designation of some private land

to widen sections of SH1 for safety reasons.

2.6 The proposal involves the alteration of access to private properties on Lower

Stanley Street (existing shared access on NZTA owned land) and some properties

on the eastern side of SH1 between Kohatu Road and Manse Street. The

intersection of Lower Stanley Street and SH1 will be relocated further to the

north, away from the proposed Kensington Avenue roundabout. The private

access points for the properties at 207 and 209 Western Hills Drive (SH1) will also

be altered.

2.7 Construction work for the project includes associated mitigation works, landscape

planting and alterations to private vehicle accesses. Works are also required

within Kensington Park to relocate car parking and remove and relocate trees as a

result of some of the works proposed extending into the Park. The construction

work are intended to take place over approximately 11 months from January to

November 2016.

2.8 More specifically the proposed construction works require:

Earthworks with a volume of approximately 12,417m3 (9,617m3 cut and

2,800m3 fill) over an area of approximately 8,516m2 (0.85ha);

Temporary drainage and sediment detention facilities associated with the

earthworks;

5

Installation of drainage facilities and stormwater control associated with

the on-going operation of the road;

Vegetation removal and replanting;

Establishment of new retaining structures;

Establishment of new road pavement; and

Relocation of services as necessary (including undergrounding).

2.9 To enable the works, the applicant proposes both permanent and temporary

designations. The permanent areas of designation are to cover the slightly

widened carriageway as well as additional land already owned and managed by

NZTA as part of the SH1 corridor that was not previously included in the

designation as shown on WDC planning maps (i.e. Lower Stanley Street and land

to the south of Manse Street2). The permanent designation boundary is overlaid

on aerial photographs in Appendix 2. The temporary areas of designation are to

allow for works along Kensington Ave (WDC road reserve) and within private

properties. These temporary designations will be lifted upon completion of the

works3. The legal descriptions and areas of land proposed to be either

permanently or temporarily designated are described in Section 1.3 of the

applicant’s planning report4.

2.10 In accordance with section 176A(2)(b) the requiring authority seeks to incorporate

details of the proposed works into the designation thus negating the need to

obtain an Outline Plan approval.

2.11 The applicant has sought a consent lapse period of 10 years under section

184(1)(c). The primary reason for this is to ensure there is sufficient time

available to allow for potential delays in the funding programme and land

purchase negotiations which could delay the construction start time, although it is

noted that NZTA are aiming towards a construction start date during the

2015/2016 earthworks season.

NES Contamination Application

2.12 An application has been made under the NES Contamination for 3,430m³ of

earthworks in the south western corner of Kensington Park as this land is

considered to be potentially contaminated in accordance with Item 10 of the

Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) (October 2011) being land subject

to “Persistent pesticide … use including sport turfs …” Land use consent is

required because neither a preliminary or detailed site investigation has been

provided to determine whether persistent pesticides have been used on this piece

of land.

2 New permanent designation boundary shown on plans in Attachment A of the notified application

(Plans DA1 – DA3 R0) 3 Temporary designation areas are shown on the Temporary Occupation Plan (Sheet 02 R2) in

Attachment C of the notified application 4 ‘Notice of Requirement by the New Zealand Transport Agency for Alteration of Designation for SH1N

Kensington Avenue to Manse Street Safety Improvements, Whangarei District’ report p repared by Ian McAlley, dated 19 June 2015

6

3 The Site and the Surroundings

3.1 The section of SH1 that is the subject of this application extends through urban

Whangarei from a point 160m north of the intersection with Kensington Avenue to

a point 220m to the south of the intersection with Manse Street (a total length of

approximately 800m). This section of SH1 is known as Western Hills Drive and it

serves as both the inter-regional route that connects Whangarei to the Far North

and Auckland and the main northern spine road within Whangarei.

3.2 There are four roads that intersect with the subject section of SH1; being

Kensington Avenue, Kotahu Road, Russell Road and Manse Street. Each of these

roads links to the state highway via a T-intersection. Although Powhiri Avenue

abuts the state highway to the east, it is a no exit street with no direct vehicle

access onto SH1.

3.3 The subject section of SH1 is characterised as follows:

Three traffic lanes (two northbound, one southbound) from Manse Street

through to Kensington Avenue, with a central median strip, reducing to

two lanes (one northbound, one southbound) to the north of the

Kensington Avenue intersection;

A posted speed limit of 50km, increasing to 70km to the south of Manse

Street;

Kerb and channel and footpaths along both sides of the carriageway and

three pedestrian crossing places with pedestrian refuges in the centre

median – one on Kensington Avenue to provide access to Kensington

Stadium and two on SH1 (one to the south of the proposed roundabout

and one to the south of Russell Road intersection);

No available roadside parking along the majority of the subject section of

SH1;

Rock walls and vegetation along the eastern side of the carriageway,

separating residential dwellings from direct access onto SH1.

3.4 The land adjacent to the project area is predominantly residential in nature. The

exception to this is the main Whangarei recreational sports park (Kensington Park)

on the eastern side of SH1 at the intersection of Kensington Avenue, which

contains a range of non-residential activities such as a childcare centre, physio

and gym, as well as being a sports venue. Generally properties on the north-

eastern side of SH1 are more elevated than the highway, with houses on the

south-western side generally below the elevation of the highway. In particular,

the properties accessed off Lower Stanley Street (zoned as a ‘road’ in the district

plan but on land already owned by NZTA) are located a significant distance (over

8m) below the SH1 carriageway.

3.5 An aerial photo and map showing the locality of the site is included at Appendix

2 and District Plan maps showing zoning and other resource area notations of

properties in the area are provided at Appendix 3.

7

4 Statutory Matters

Notice of Requirement – RQ1500001

4.1 NZTA is a requiring authority in terms of section 167 of the Resource Management

Act (RMA).

4.2 In terms of section 181 of the RMA a requiring authority (in this instance NZTA)

may give notice to a territorial authority of its requirement to alter a designation.

Section 181 is set out below:

S181 Alteration of Designation

(1) A requiring authority that is responsible for a designation may at any

time give notice to the territorial authority of its requirement to alter

the designation.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), sections 168 to 179 shall, with al l necessary

modifications, apply to a requirement referred to in subsection (1) as

if it were a requirement for a new designation.

4.3 Subsection 3 of Section 181 does not apply because the written notice of the

proposed designation has not been given by every owner or occupier of the land

directly affected; and it involves a more than minor change to the boundaries of

the designation.

4.4 Accordingly, the application is required to be assessed under S181(2) of the RMA,

and sections 168-179 shall apply.

4.5 Section 171 of the RMA (recommendation by a territorial authority) specifically

details matters to be taken into account where the NOR is being made by a

requiring authority (in this instance NZTA). Section 171 states:

(1A) when considering a requirement and any submission received, a

territorial authority must not have regard to trade competition or the

effects of trade competition.

(1) When considering a requirement and any submissions received, a

territorial authority 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) regional policy statement or proposed regional policy

statement:

(iv) a plan or proposed plan; and

(b) whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative

sites, routes, or methods of undertaking the work if—

(i) the requiring authority does not have an interest in the land

sufficient for undertaking the work; or

8

(ii) it is likely that the work will have a significant adverse effect

on the environment; and

(c) whether the work and designation are reasonably necessary for

achieving the objectives of the requiring authority for which the

designation is sought; and

(d) any other matter the territorial authority considers reasonably

necessary in order to make a decision on the requirement.

(2) The territorial authority may decide to—

(a) confirm the requirement:

(b) modify the requirement:

(c) impose conditions:

(d) withdraw the requirement

(3) The territorial authority must give reasons for its recommendation under

subsection (2).

4.6 In addition, the applicant has sought to incorporate the details of the works within

the designation hence negating the need to submit an Outline Plan of Works prior

to the construction of the proposed works. Therefore the application is required to

be assessed in accordance with Section 176A (3) of the RMA. Section 176A(2)(b)

states:

An outline plan need not be submitted to the territorial authority if –

(b) the details of the propose public work, project, or work, as referred to in

subsection (3), are incorporated into the designation;

Section 176A(3) states:

An outline plan must show –

(a) The height, shape, and bulk of the public work, project or work; and

(b) The location of the site of the public work, project or work; and

(c) The likely finished contour of the site; and

(d) The vehicular access, circulation, and the provision for parking; and

(e) The landscaping proposed; and

(f) Any other matters to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects

on the environment.

4.7 Section 171(1) requires the NZTA to establish that the work meets the purpose of

the Act under Part 2, particularly in terms of section 5 that outlines the purpose of

the Act as to “promote the sustainable management of natural and physical

resources”. 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

9

wellbeing and for their health and safety while avoiding, remedying, or mitigating

any adverse effects of activities on the environment”.

4.8 Sections 172 and 173 of the Act specify the processes that apply following NZTA’s

receipt of the Council’s recommendat ion. NZTA has 30 working days to advise the

Council whether it accepts or rejects the recommendation in whole or in part, and

give reasons for its decision if it rejects the recommendation in whole or in part.

The Council is then required to serve on all submitters a copy of the decision and

publicly notify it within 15 working days. The NZTA decision is then open to

appeal under section 174 of the Act from the Council and all submitters.

4.9 A designation (including an alteration to) lapses on the expiry of five years after

the date on which it is included in the district plan unless the designation is given

effect to before the end of the period, the Council fixes a longer period in

accordance with section 184(1)(b) of the Act, or the designation specified a

different period when incorporated within the plan. The applicant has requested a

10 year lapse period in this instance.

4.10 In terms of Section 176(1) (Effect of designation) of the Act, a designation has

three main purposes, as summarised in Quay Property Management Ltd v Transit

NZ W28/2000:

1 It removes any requirement to obtain resource consents under the district

plan;

2 It gives the requiring authority consent to do anything in accordance with the

designation;

3 It prevents any use of the land subject to the designation that would prevent

or hinder the work without written permission of the requiring authority.

(Quay Property Management Ltd v Transit NZ W28/2000.)

4.11 The requiring authority is therefore able to undertake activities on land it has

designated, giving primacy to the designation over the district plan and not

requiring it to obtain resource consents for works within the scope of a

designation. In addition, ‘protection’ is given to the designated land, in favour of

the requiring authority, with any person wishing to do anything on designated

land that might prevent or hinder the work needing to first obtain written consent

from the requiring authority.

4.12 Section 176(2) states: ‘The provisions of a [district] plan [or proposed district

plan] shall apply in relation to any land that is subject to a designation only to the

extent that the land is used for a purpose other than the designated purpose’.

National Environmental Standards

4.13 The National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminant s in

Soil to Protect Human Health 2011 (NES Contamination’) took effect on 1 January

2012. Council is required by law to implement this NES in accordance with the

Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The standards are applicable if the land in

question is, or has been, or is more likely than not to have been used for a

hazardous activity or industry and the applicant proposes to subdivide or change

the use of the land, or disturb the soil, or remove or replace a fuel storage

system.

10

4.14 Earthworks with an estimated volume of 3,430 m³ are proposed in the south

western corner of Kensington Park for the construction of the new roundabout

and adjustments to the alignment of SH 1 and Kensington Avenue to link to the

roundabout. The area of the proposed works is currently in grass, road pavement

and car parking, although the wider site is predominantly used as a sports venue,

including grassed playing fields.

4.15 None of the land subject to this application is listed as being a HAIL site according

to both NRC and WDC records. However these records are continually being

updated as new information comes to light and should not be considered as a

finite record of all potentially contaminated sites.

4.16 Item 10 of the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) (October 2011)

includes land subject to “Persistent pesticide … use including sport turfs …”

Although the proposed earthworks do not involve land currently being used for

sports fields, it is possible that this portion of the site has historically been the

subject of persistent pesticide use. Given the close proximity of the site to the

existing sports fields and lack of evidence to the contrary, it is considered ‘more

likely than not’ that the site has been used for an item included on the HAIL list.

4.17 Under regulation 5(4)(a) of the NES Contaminated Soils “disturbing soil of the

piece of land for a particular purpose” is considered an ‘activity’ and (in particular)

the volume of disturbance of soil proposed is greater than 25 m³ per 500 m²

(regulation 8(3)(c) NES Contaminated Soils), as such the proposal is not

considered to be a permitted activity. A detailed site investigation has not been

undertaken; therefore the activity does not meet the controlled activity or

restricted discretionary activity standards included in regulations 9 and 10

respectively. The proposal is assessed to be a discretionary activity in accordance

with regulation 11.

5 Consultation, Public Notification and Submissions

5.1 The applicant began consultation on this project in 2012. A summary of the

consultation and a list of key issues to arise from the consultation is contained in

Section 7 of the applicant’s planning report.

5.2 Both the notice of requirement and application under the NES Contamination were

publicly notified in the ‘Whangarei Leader’ on 26 June 2015, with the period for

receiving submissions closing on 28 July 2015. These applications were publicly

notified in conjunction with three regional consent applications submitted to the

Northland Regional Council5.

5.3 A total of 6 submissions were received on the proposed Notice of Requirement

while no submissions were received on the application under the NES

Contamination. All submissions except for one were received within the statutory

timeframes. Copies of the submissions received are included at Appendix 4.

5 APP.037417.01.01 Land Use Consent: To undertake approximately 12,417 cubic metres of cut and fill

earthworks. APP.037417.02.01 Discharge Permit: To discharge stormwater to land and the Waiarohia Stream from

land disturbance activities. APP.037417.03.01 Water Permit: To divert stormwater associated with land disturbance activities

11

5.4 The submissions are summarised in Table 1 below. It is noted that no submissions

were received from residents living on Kensington Avenue, Kohatu Road, Russell

Road or Manse Street.

12

Table 1: Summary of Submissions

Name Address Alteration of

Designation and or NES

Application

Support

/Oppose

Issues Relief Sought Wish to

be heard Yes/No

Heritage

New

Zealand

PO Box 105 291 Auckland City 1143

NOR Neutral - Agree with Geometria

archaeological assessment which

concludes there are no recorded archaeological sites within the

project area.

- Project should be subject to

accidental discovery protocols

should an unrecorded site of archaeological and/or cultural

significance be uncovered during the works.

- Supports on-going consultation

with iwi / hapu groups including but not limited to

Ngati Kahu o Torongare, Te Parawhau and Ngatiwai.

No

Table

Tennis Northland

PO Box 597

Whangarei 0112

NOR Support N/A N/A Not stated

Stuart Burt 2/36

Powhiri Avenue,

Whangarei

NOR Oppose - Kensington Avenue works will

prevent the formation of a vehicle access directly onto Kensington

Avenue, which will reduce development options and

subsequent property value.

- Increased construction and

operational noise at the submitter’s

property has not been properly considered or mitigated. Will

permanently impact on enjoyment of property and reduce property

- No specific relief requested in

relation to the potential vehicle access onto Kensington

Avenue.

- NZTA to install noise reduction

measures prior to construction starting to mitigate both

construction and operational

noise increases.

- Restrict construction hours to

8am – 5.30pm Monday to Saturday (no work on

Yes

13

Name Address Alteration of

Designation and or NES

Application

Support

/Oppose

Issues Relief Sought Wish to

be heard Yes/No

value.

- Construction hours of 7am-7pm

Monday to Saturday are

unreasonable and will provide little relief from construction effects

(noise and dust).

- Proposed construction period

(beginning January 2016) will prevent windows being opened at

the hottest part of the year.

- Inadequate consultation with submitter prior to lodgement of

application.

Sundays/public holidays).

- Resolve noise and dust issue

relating to the need to open

windows during summer 2016 prior to granting consent (relief

to resolve this issue not specified).

Wendy Langland/

Whangarei Physio

445 Kamo Road,

Whangarei (Physio is

located at Kensington

Stadium)

NOR Oppose - Loss of parking outside Kensington

Stadium as a result of roundabout

construction. Car parking is already oversubscribed, particularly during

heavy use periods (i.e. Saturday mornings) and further parking

reductions will adversely impact

their business.

- Specific parking spaces are allocated for Whangarei Physio

clients

Yes (request to

be heard withdrawn

via email on 20

August

2015)

Delwyn

House-

Tane

152

Western

Hills Drive, Whangarei

(accessed from Lower

Stanley

NOR Oppose - Agrees that the Kensington Ave/SH1

intersection upgrades are necessary

to improve safety.

- Safety concerns as proposed hairpin

bend as part of the Lower Stanley Street realignment will be directly

- Move hairpin bend so it adjoins

the communal driveway

currently used by 140 – 148 Western Hills Drive. If this is

too steep, locate the road further to the left with two

Yes

14

Name Address Alteration of

Designation and or NES

Application

Support

/Oppose

Issues Relief Sought Wish to

be heard Yes/No

Street) opposite their property, with potential for vehicles to come from

three different directions (left, right

and down the hill).

- 50% more traffic will pass by their

property due to the Lower Stanley Street alteration, increasing noise

levels and pollution.

- Headlight wash from vehicles

coming downhill on Lower Stanley

Street will shine into master bedroom and lounge. Using a fence

to mitigate headlight glare may create additional safety issues in

terms of vehicles having to stop on

driveway to get through gate and reduced sightlines.

- Loss of mature vegetation which currently provide a visual barrier

between property and SH1 with perceived noise reduction. Visual

appearance of leafy green

vegetation is preferable to proposed concrete wall.

- Increased noise of labouring and braking trucks at the roundabout.

- Concerned that existing vegetation

and fencing on their property will

hairpin bends to accommodate the steep gradient, which

would also encourage drivers to

drive slowly down the drive.

- Replant or re-landscape the

concrete wall to restore the leafy green appearance of the

area, potentially with a ‘living green wall’.

- Use asphalt as opposed to chip

seal at roundabout to reduce noise.

- Reinstate vegetation and fencing at front of property to

the satisfaction of the

submitter.

15

Name Address Alteration of

Designation and or NES

Application

Support

/Oppose

Issues Relief Sought Wish to

be heard Yes/No

not be reinstated after works complete.

- Lower Stanley Street alteration will

decrease resale and rental opportunities for their property.

Sarah Botur (late

submitter

but recommend

that submission

be

accepted)

168 Western

Hills Drive,

Whangarei

NOR Support - Proposed roundabout will improve

the safety of vehicle movements

from the submitter’s property

(currently cannot turn right onto SH1, have to turn left and do a U-

turn).

- Proposed median strip will double

as a pedestrian refuge and the

roundabout will help slow traffic, improving safety for persons

crossing the road near Kensington Stadium.

- Design could be further improved by ensuring that the

median can accommodate

people in wheelchairs and those pushing prams.

No

16

5.5 The matters raised in submissions are discussed in the Assessment of Effects

section of this report.

6 Assessment of Effects

6.1 Section 3 of the RMA defines the term ‘effect’ as including –

a) “Any positive or adverse effect; and

b) Any temporary or permanent effect: and

c) Any past, present or future effect: and

d) Any cumulative effect which arises over time or in conjunction with

other effects – regardless of scale, intensity, duration or frequency of

the effect, and also includes –

e) Any potential effect of high probability; and

f) Any potential effect of low probability which has a high potential

impact.”

6.2 The effects of this proposal are assessed in relation to the following:

Traffic Effects;

Noise and Vibration Effects;

Effects on Residential Character and Amenity;

Stormwater, Groundwater and Water Quality Effects;

Earthworks, Contamination and Geotechnical Matters;

Landscape, Urban Design and Visual Impact Effects;

Archaeological Effects.

6.3 It is noted that one of the matters that submitters have raised is the possible

impact of the proposal on property values. Impacts upon property values are not

considered an “effect” in terms of Section 3 of the RMA. There is the potential

that property values may be negatively impacted due to environmental effects and

there is a duty to “avoid, remedy and mitigate” environmental effects, however,

the possible impact of a proposal on property values per-se is not an effect that

can be considered in this process, rather it is a property valuation matter.

Traffic

6.4 The traffic effects can be split into the following categories and are addressed in

turn below:

Effect of vehicle traffic on SH1

Effect on vehicular traffic on side roads

Effect on detour routes

17

Pedestrians and cyclists

Effect on Kensington Park

Effect on private properties

Construction traffic effects

Effect of vehicle traffic on SH1

6.5 The Scheme Assessment Report (SAR) submitted with the application in

Attachment G has stated that this section of SH1 (or Western Hills Drive) carried

an estimated 21,500 vehicles per day in 2010 with a projected growth rate of 2%

annually. Wes Edwards, Traffic Consultant, has corroborated this figure with 2014

information from the notified application in his independent Traffic assessment

undertaken on behalf of WDC. Mr Edward’s report confirms that the section of

SH1 between Percy Street and Selwyn Avenue (which contains the full length of

SH1 that is the subject of this application) carries an estimated 22,580 vehicles

with an adopted annual growth rate of 3%. Mr Edward’s Assessment is included at

Appendix 5.

6.6 SH1 through Whangarei currently provides 4 lanes (2 vehicle lanes in each

direction) in some parts however along the section of SH1 subject to this

application there are only three vehicle lanes (two northbound and one

southbound). Mr Edwards, advises that a traffic volume of 20,000 vehicles per day

is a common threshold for the provision of 4 lanes on urban arterial routes such

as this section of SH1.

6.7 The SAR identifies a number of safety issues along the SH1 route and

intersections. The SAR has highlighted the following benefits of an alteration to

the existing designation in comparison with retaining the existing situation.

Allowing free traffic flow and increasing capacity at the Kensington Avenue

intersection with SH1, with reductions in travel time for the majority of

road users;

Reducing the likelihood of accidents and driver frustration at key

intersections with SH1, particularly at Kensington Avenue and Manse

Street, by restricting right turn manoeuvres from side roads and private

properties and installing a roundabout at Kensington Avenue intersection;

Provides four lanes along a section of SH1 where vehicle numbers and

growth forecasts indicate an increase in capacity is warranted;

Reduction in fuel consumption for vehicles travelling along SH1, which in

turn results in reduced operating costs for the public.

6.8 The subject alteration to an existing designation forms part of a wider programme

of improvement works by NZTA along the SH1 corridor and road connections

within Whangarei.

6.9 Wes Edwards has confirmed that the proposed widening and alterations to the

intersections along this section of SH1 will have a mixture of positive and negative

effects on traffic flows on SH1. While there will be slight delays for southbound

traffic passing through the Kensington Avenue roundabout compared to the

18

existing situation, there will be minor improvements to flows elsewhere due to the

reduction in turning movements directly onto SH1. He has stated that:

‘The introduction of a roundabout at the intersection of Kensington Avenue

will result in some additional delay for traffic travelling along Western Hills

Drive. Northbound traffic in the kerbside lane will be largely unaffected as

a result of the roundabout bypass. Traffic in the centre lane would

need to give way to any traffic turning right out of Kensington Avenue, but

traffic turning right into Kensington Avenue would no longer need to give

way to southbound through traffic. Southbound traffic passing through the

intersection will need to give way to any traffic turning right into

Kensington Avenue so will experience an increase in delay at the

intersection. Elsewhere the removal of turning movements in and out of

driveways and side roads will result in a minor improvement to the

efficiency of through movements.’

6.10 No questions have been raised through submissions as to whether the capacity

and safety improvements are required along this section of SH1.

6.11 In terms of safety improvements, Mr Edwards comments that:

‘The removal of turning movements would reduce the exposure to conflict

which would provide safety benefits along this section of road; and the

introduction of the roundabout at Kensington Avenue is expected to result in

a significant reduction in the severity of crashes at this location .’

6.12 Two submitters raised the issue of traffic safety along this section of SH1,

commenting that ‘the proposed alterations to Kensington Avenue/State Highway 1

are necessary as currently this intersection is unsafe’6 and ‘adding a median to

stand on [between the northbound and southbound lanes] and a roundabout to

slow traffic will make this safer’7. This supports the view that the proposed

upgrades to SH1 are both necessary and would be an improvement on the current

situation.

6.13 Overall the proposed widening of SH1 and the intersection improvements will

result in a positive effect in terms the capacity of SH1 and improved traffic safety

with minimal impact on traffic flows. This will have a beneficial effect in terms of

traffic flow through Whangarei.

Effect on vehicular traffic on side roads

6.14 The proposal involves the removal of right turns (both in and out) onto SH1 from

Kohatu Road and Manse Street, as well as the removal of right turns out of

Russell Road. This will result in longer travel distances for those accessing local

streets and there may also be some additional delay incurred when turning in or

out of alternative intersections to or from SH1 (such as Kensington Avenue) due

to the displacement of traffic.

6.15 The following assessment focuses on the impact of these changes for each of the

four intersecting roads (Kensington Avenue, Kohatu Road, Russell Road and

Manse Street) as well as addressing the impact of detour routes on the local road

6 Submission of D House-Tane 7 Submission of S Botur

19

network. It should be noted that no submissions have been received in opposition

to changes to these intersections.

Kensington Avenue

6.16 The primary change experienced by vehicles using the Kensington Road

intersection will be following the road rules at a roundabout as opposed to a ‘stop’

controlled intersection. Mr Edwards summarised the changes as follows:

‘Traffic turning left out of Kensington Avenue will need to give way to

southbound traffic as they do at present; however the need for southbound

traffic to give way to traffic turning right into Kensington Avenue will result in

gaps being created in the southbound traffic stream providing opportunities

for traffic to turn left out of Kensington Avenue. A similar improvement will be

provided to traffic turning right out of Kensington Avenue with the added

benefit that those vehicles will no longer need to give way to northbound

traffic or traffic turning right into Kensington Avenue, resulting in a significant

reduction in delay. The safety benefits, particularly for traffic turning right out

of Kensington Avenue, are expected to be significant.’

6.17 Given the delay reductions and safety improvements, the effects on vehicle users

of the Kensington intersection will be positive. Two submissions have also been

received in support of changes to the Kensington Avenue/SH1 intersection 8.

Kohatu Road

6.18 As Kohatu Road is a cul-de-sac road off SH1, the only affected road users will be

the three properties that have vehicle access off Kohatu Road (being 2, 4 and 6

Kohatu Road; all other properties have their main access off either Powhiri

Avenue, Oranga Road or Lupton Avenue. The primary change is the removal of

right hand turn movements (both in and out), resulting in detours being required

in order to enter the road from the south and exit the road to drive north.

6.19 Mr Edwards has identified the most direct detour routes in Figure 1 below:

8 Submissions of D House-Tane and S Botur

20

Figure 1: Detour routes for Kohatu Road

6.20 Mr Edwards makes the following comments in relation to these detours:

‘The most efficient detour for the right turn entry movement is likely to be

continuing northbound along Western Hills Drive, performing a U-turn at the

new roundabout, and then turning left into Kohatu Road. The additional travel

distance is approximately 360m (0:26 minutes @50km/hr plus delay at the

roundabout). The sometimes-difficult right-turn manoeuvre is replaced by a U-

turn at a roundabout and a left-turn.

The most efficient detour for traffic currently turning right out of Kohatu Road

would be to turn left into Western Hills Drive, left into Manse Street, left into

Lupton Avenue, left into Kensington Avenue, and then right into Western Hills

Drive at the new roundabout for an additional travel distance of approximately

1.8km (2:10 minutes @ 50km/hr plus delays at intersections). There are

alternate routes depending on the final destination, including the use of Kamo

Road. The right turn out of Kohatu Road could currently be difficult at times,

particularly as the sight distance to the north is constrained. That

movement is replaced by a longer and more circuitous route; however no

right turns are required except at the new roundabout.

The proposal is expected to lead to improved road safety for users of

Kohatu Road.’

6.21 The greatest inconvenience will be the additional 2 minute travel time for drivers

wishing to drive directly north or access their properties from the north, as the

changes to driving routes in an east, west or south direction are minimal (less

than 30 seconds). However, given the existing safety concerns at this intersection

with SH1 (and the associated delays with trying to make a right hand turn

manoeuvre out of the road with limited sightlines), the improvement to the safety

21

of the intersection is considered to balance out the slightly longer journey times

when driving to or from the north. The redesign of this intersection is appropriate.

6.22 No submissions have been received in relation to the changes to this intersection.

Russell Road

6.23 The Russell Road intersection with SH1 is the only road intersection on the

western side of SH1 to be altered as part of this proposal. Initially the applicant

proposed to prevent right turn manoeuvres both in and out of Russell Road. After

consultation feedback the applicant amended the proposal to allow for right turns

in. As such the only change proposed is preventing right turns out for vehicles

exiting to drive south.

6.24 Mr Edwards has identified the most likely detour routes as follows:

‘The proposal will result in right turns out of Russell Road being removed at

Western Hills Drive. The additional travel distance required to detour around

the turn restriction will depend on the origin of the journey, and for example a

trip originating at the northern end of Russell Road is likely to use Douglas

Street in any case (no change) and a trip originating near the southern end is

likely to undertake a U-turn around the new roundabout for an additional 630m

(45 seconds @ 50km/hr plus delay at roundabout).

The proposal is expected to lead to improved road safety for users of Russell

Road.’

6.25 Given the relatively short delay resulting from the detour (45 seconds), the

improved safety of the intersection and the restricted number of affected

residents (southern half of Russell Road) the adverse effects resulting from the

detour will be minimal and are an appropriate response to address the existing

safety issues.

6.26 No submissions have been received in relation to the changes to this intersection.

Manse Street

6.27 Manse Street is a key east/west connection route through Whangarei, which links

three of the main north/south routes through the city. Mr Edwards has also

highlighted its importance as a transport route to three schools – Whangarei Girls

High School, Whangarei Boys High School and Whangarei Primary School.

6.28 Similarly to Kohatu Street, the proposal involves restricting right turn manoeuvres

in and out of Manse Street to resolve existing safety concerns relating to

sightlines, particularly when looking north turning right out of the intersection.

6.29 Mr Edwards has summarised the required detours as a result of the proposal as

follows (also shown in Figure 2):

The proposal will result in right turns in and out of Manse Street being

removed at Western Hills Drive. The additional travel distance required to

detour around the turn restrictions will depend on the origin of the journey,

and for example a trip originating at the eastern end of Manse Street will

have a shorter detour than a trip originating at the western end.

22

The most efficient detour for the right turn entry movement is likely to be

continuing northbound along Western Hills Drive, performing a U-turn at the

new roundabout, and then turning left into Manse Street. The additional

travel distance is approximately 700m (50 seconds @50km/hr plus delay at

the roundabout). The sometimes-difficult right-turn manoeuvre is replaced by

a U-turn at a roundabout and a left-turn.

The most efficient detour for traffic currently turning right out of Manse

Street is likely to be along Lupton Avenue, left into Kensington Avenue, and

then right into Western Hills Drive at the new roundabout for an additional

travel distance of approximately 1.45km if starting at the west end of Manse

Street (1:41 minutes @ 50km/hr plus delays at intersections) or about 200m

(14 sec) if starting at the east end. There are alternate routes depending on

the final destination, including the use of Kamo Road. The right turn out of

Manse Street is currently difficult at times. That movement is replaced by a

longer and more circuitous route; however no right turns are required except

at the new roundabout.

The proposal is expected to lead to improved road safety for users of Manse

Street.

Figure 2 – Detour Routes for Manse Street

6.30 The longest detour route will be required for residents at the western end of

Manse Street wishing to drive directly north (additional travel time of 1.41

minutes). Although this is a longer distance to drive, the inconvenience needs to

be balanced against the existing delays when attempting to turn right out of

23

Manse Street plus the safety risks associated with this manoeuvre when sightlines

are restricted. Turning in to Manse Street will require a shorter detour with the

added advantage of a safer U-turn at a roundabout as opposed to a right hand

turn across a lane of downhill driving traffic.

6.31 Overall, the increased travel time and distance for residents and users of Manse

Street as a result of this proposal is considered to be balanced by the safety

improvements to the intersection with SH1 and the safety improvements at the

Kensington Avenue intersection (as the alternative link to SH1).

6.32 It is understood that NZTA has undertaken pre-lodgement consultation with all

three schools in the vicinity of Manse Street, including a presentation at

Whangarei Boys High School, in relation to school traffic being redirected onto

Kensington Avenue as opposed to Manse Street. Whangarei Boys and Girls High

Schools were directly notified of the application (as part of the wider public

notification process) and no submissions were received.

6.33 No other submissions have been received in relation to the changes to this

intersection.

Effects on Detour Routes

6.34 The changes to the way people access SH1 via Kensington Avenue, Kotahu Road,

Russell Road and Manse Street will have an impact on other surrounding local

roads as they will be used as detour routes. Mr Edwards comments on this issue

as follows:

The addition of the roundabout at Kensington Avenue may make the use of

that intersection more attractive to some drivers who would otherwise choose

to use an alternate route to avoid the difficult right turn into Western Hills

Drive; however any change to overall traffic volumes is likely to be relatively

small and not generally noticeable from casual observation.

…

The detours required as a result of the removal of right turn movements on

Western Hills Drive are expected to result in some additional traffic using

streets such as Lupton Avenue or Kamo Road and Kensington Avenue. The

additional traffic would result from diverted traffic that would otherwise make

a right turn out of Kohatu Road or Manse Street and during the after-school

period this traffic volume could be moderate although that peak period is of

relatively short duration.

The additional volume using Lupton Avenue (or other streets) is unlikely to be

sufficient to warrant any changes to those streets in order to cater for the

higher traffic volumes.

6.35 This assessment is concurred with. At peak periods some drivers may already be

using these detour routes as an alternative to attempting difficult right turns out

of or into Kohatu Road and Manse Street. Increases in traffic using side roads

such as Lupton Avenue are likely to be small or focused during specific peak

periods (i.e. after school traffic) and Mr Edwards has confirmed that the local road

network is able to cope with the additional vehicles. As such the associated

effects of increased traffic volumes on these streets is considered to be

acceptable and does not require any specific mitigation.

24

Effects on Pedestrians and Cyclists

6.36 Wes Edwards has advised that the proposed widening will have little if any effect

on the volume of traffic and that the proposal would be neutral in regard to the

effects of additional traffic volumes on pedestrians and cyclists. Only the physical

form of the proposed changes to the road and footpaths have been considered.

6.37 There are three key effects to consider: the impact of the proposed changes on

pedestrians using altered footpaths, pedestrians crossing roads and the impact on

cyclists using SH1.

6.38 1.8m wide footpaths will be provided in very similar locations to existing

footpaths, on both the western and eastern sides of SH1 (except for the western

side of SH1 south of Russell Road, where there is not currently a footpath) . A

footpath width of 1.8m is generally sufficient to allow two wheelchairs to pass

each other and is considered to be an appropriate width in this context. The only

significant change to pedestrian route alignments occur at the end of Powhiri

Avenue, where a new walkway link further away from SH1 is proposed. Mr

Edwards notes that the walkway will have a flatter gradient, which improves

accessibility, however pedestrians walking from the south wishing to access

Powhiri Avenue will need to walk to the corner of Kensington Avenue and SH1 to

access the new footpath. As this is only likely to affect a small number of

pedestrians, the inconvenience is considered to be minimal.

6.39 The effects of the pedestrian crossing roads as a result of the new layout have

also been assessed. The main change is the introduction of raised median strips,

which have been designed to provide crossing places and narrow areas of refuge

for pedestrians at three locations – east and south of the roundabout on

Kensington Avenue and further south on SH1 near Russell Road. I concur with Mr

Edward’s assessment that providing a crossing point to the north of the

Kensington roundabout would be unsafe due to the merging of the northern

bypass lane with northbound traffic from Kensington Avenue.

6.40 The impact of these medians has been assessed by Mr Edwards who has stated

that:

At the Kensington Avenue intersection crossing the roads as a pedestrian is

difficult due to the high volume of traffic, and the absence of any central

islands. The introduction of the roundabout results in the provision of some

traffic islands that allow the crossing movement to be divided into sections

which would make the task easier; however crossing these roads in close

proximity to the roundabout would remain somewhat difficult when crossing the

departure side of the road due to the difficulty of predicting where vehicles will

come from and the more continuous flow pattern at the exits of the

roundabout.

6.41 Although the volumes of traffic and multiple traffic lanes mean crossing SH1 and

Kensington Avenue will still have an element of risk, the provision of pedestrian

refuges and designated crossing points is seen as an improvement on the current

situation.

6.42 The issue of being able to cross SH1 safely (particularly to access Kensington Park

and associated facilities) was raised by Sarah Botur in her submission. She stated

that the proposal will improve pedestrian safety for her family when accessing

25

Kensington Park. In response to her request to design the pedestrian crossing

points to accommodate prams and wheelchairs, Mr Edwards notes that the

crossing ramps and gaps in the islands around the Kensington Avenue roundabout

will allow for wheeled vehicles (i.e. wheelchairs) to cross SH1 at these points.

6.43 Along this section of SH1 there is currently no dedicated cycle lane, although the

lane width is such that this provides space for cyclists. Under the proposal SH1

would be marked with 1.5m wide shoulders on each side of the road; these

shoulders will not be demarcated as dedicated cycle lanes but in practice they

would serve that function. It is also noted that less confident cyclists could take

advantage of the pedestrian refuges in the median islands to navigate Kensington

roundabout if necessary.

6.44 To further improve safety options for cyclists, Mr Edwards recommends making

the footpaths at the north eastern and south eastern corners of the

Kensington/SH1 intersection ‘Shared Paths’ to enable cyclists to use the footpath

legally. NZTA has already widened the footpaths in these locations so they are a

sufficient width to be used by both cyclists and pedestrians. Thi s recommendation

is concurred with.

Effects on Kensington Park

6.45 The only transport related effects on Kensington Park relate to the relocation of

65 car parks (primarily from the south western corner of the park to a new

parking area at 87 Western Hills Drive9) and the relocation of the driveway access

to the park from Kensington Avenue.

6.46 In terms of the parking spaces, there will be no net loss of available parking

spaces for users of Kensington Park (and the associated businesses that have set

up inside the stadium complex). The only change will be the location of the

parking spaces, with the majority of spaces moving from the south of the stadium

to the north of the stadium. Although the new parking area at 87 Western Hills

Drive is slightly further away from the stadium building all of the parking spaces

are contiguous and easily accessible from the stadium. The potential traffic effects

of the parking relocation are negligible.

6.47 Mr Edwards has commented that the effect of relocating the Kensington Park

access driveway on Kensington Avenue further to the east is also considered to be

negligible.

Private Property Access

6.48 The proposal will impact on private property accesses from properties on the

eastern and western sides of SH1. Changes in respect of traffic include right turn

restrictions due to the proposed median islands, altered location and/or alignment

of vehicle crossings and driveways and changes to required manoeuvring within

properties and driveways.

6.49 Mr Edwards has broken down his assessment into groups of properties that will

experience similar effects as follows:

9 59 existing parking spaces are lost from the southern end of Kensington Park and 6 will be lost from

adjacent to 87 Western Hills Drive as a result of the new carpark formation (a total of 65 existing parks lost). These car parks will be replaced with 19 new parks at the southern end of Kensington Park and 46 new parks at 87 Western Hills Drive - a total of 65 new parks.

26

130-158 Western Hills Drive (currently accessed via Lower Stanley Street

but will experience new alignment of shared driveway)

160-172 Western Hills Drive (closure of individual crossings with access

diverted to Lower Stanley Street, with new alignment of shared driveway)

174-206 Western Hills Drive (properties on western side of SH1 with

proposed restricted right turns)

207-209 Western Hills Drive (properties on eastern side of SH1 with

proposed restricted right turns)

6.50 The effects on private property access have been assessed by Mr Edwards as part

of his traffic assessment. Specific consideration has been given to visibility,

manoeuvrability, constrained right hand turns and increased travel

times/distances.

6.51 The most significant changes will be experienced by those properties that will use

Lower Stanley Street for SH1 access (both current and proposed users). The

proposal involves relocating the intersection of Lower Stanley Street and SH1 to a

position further to the north, away from the proposed roundabout to avoid conflict

with the northern bypass and northern roundabout exit lanes. Mr Edwards has

confirmed that sight distances at the proposed intersection location comply with

the Austroads design guideline by a narrow but acceptable margin.

6.52 This relocation will mean that users of Lower Stanley Street will have a slightly

longer travel distance when travelling south (approximately 120m) but the

relocation means that right turn manoeuvres do not have to be restricted.

6.53 The redesigned Lower Stanley Street layout involves two new turns to navigate the

relatively steep topography in this area. This has been assessed by Mr Edwards in

respect of the manoeuvrability of medium and large rigid trucks (MRT and LRT

respectively):

The MRT design vehicle generally represents urban delivery trucks, rubbish

trucks or fire appliances. The diagrams show that a MRT vehicle turning into

Lower Stanley Street would occupy the full width of the carriageway. Any

vehicle exiting the street would need to wait for the truck to pass through the

bend, or a queue of vehicles waiting to exit the street could prevent a truck

from entering. The MRT vehicle would need to undertake a three-point turn to

enter the lower part of the street.

The LRT design vehicle generally represents furniture removals trucks such as

used when people move house. The provided diagrams10 show that truck

entering the street via a right turn. A left turn entry is likely to be too difficult

and impractical for such a vehicle. This truck could not enter the street if a car

was waiting to turn right into Western Hills Drive and could only enter at slow

speed with minimal clearances on either side of the vehicle. This vehicle is also

shown reversing into the lower part of the street as the hairpin turn would be

too tight for this truck. This truck would need to turn around at some point in

order to avoid reversing into Western Hills Drive however there is no place

where a simple turn could be executed. The most likely location for a turn, at

the T-intersection within the street, would require multiple manoeuvres.

10 Contained in Attachment Ba of the notified application

27

6.54 Although these manoeuvres for MRT and LRT will be difficult, I agree with both

Mr Edwards and NZTA that the existing layout of Lower Stanley Street has similar

manoeuvring issues and that the steep topography of this portion of the SH1

carriageway make alternative designs largely impractical. One submitter

suggested two alternative designs11 for Lower Stanley Street to move the

proposed hairpin bend away from their property at 152 Western Hills Drive. Mr

Edwards has responded that neither of these alternatives are practical as follows:

The requested relief of relocating the T-intersection to the extension of the

shared driveway to #140-148 would result in a steep gradient and is not

considered to be practical. The alternative, of providing two hairpin bends to

descend the grade is also not practical as there is insufficient space to

accommodate two such turns and such an alignment would also preclude

truck access.

6.55 The alternatives suggested above were in response to the submitter’s safety

concern regarding additional traffic using the hairpin bend outside their property,

which would conflict with their driveway access. Mr Edwards responded to this

concern as follows:

In my view there would be additional conflict at this location, and the traffic

volumes in the street would be higher as a result of additional properties

needing to use the street; however the volume of traffic in the street would

continue to be low and as a result I do not consider the effect on safety at

this location to be high.

6.56 It is understood that NZTA have been in contact with this submitter regarding her

submission but that no changes to the design of Lower Stanley Street are

proposed as a result of these discussions at the time of writing.

6.57 Given the topographical constraints in the area, the existing environment to be

considered as a baseline and lack of viable alternatives, I consider that the

proposed alignment of Lower Stanley Street to be the best practicable option from

a traffic safety perspective. It will still allow all current and proposed users of the

shared driveway to access SH1 without right turn restrictions and all properties

will be able to manoeuvre onto Lower Stanley Street in a safe manner.

6.58 In respect of the other private properties affected by the proposal (174-206, 207

and 209 Western Hills Drive), the main effects are associated with restricted right

turn manoeuvres and increased trip times/distances. I concur with Mr Edward’s

assessment that increased trip times/distances will be similar to those experienced

due to the closure of right turn manoeuvres at intersections with SH1. In the case

of 174-206 Western Hills Drive, the changes will result in maximum additional

travel distance of 1.15 to 1.45km (1:23 to 1:44 minutes plus delays at

intersections), while the properties at 207 and 209 Western Hills Drive will need

to take detours similar to those residents living at the western end of Manse

Street.

6.59 In the same manner as the right turn intersection changes were assessed, it is

considered that the inconvenience experienced by residents of these properties is

acceptable given the safety improvements that a central median island and

reduced turning conflicts will have on this section of SH1.

11 Submission from D House-Tane

28

Vehicle Access to 2/36 Powhiri Avenue

6.60 A submission was received from the owner of 2/36 Powhiri Avenue in relation to

property access12. 36 Powhiri Avenue is a cross leased site, with both dwellings

(one of which is owned by the submitter) gaining vehicle access from Powhiri

Avenue. The submitter opposes the upgrades to Kensington Avenue on the basis

that it will prevent him from ever forming a vehicle crossing onto Kensington

Avenue as his property has dual frontage. There is currently pedestrian access

onto Kensington Avenue from the property, which will be maintained.

6.61 Mr Edwards has considered whether a vehicle crossing is likely to be approved

onto Kensington Avenue – both before and after the proposed works. A full

assessment of this issue is contained in Appendix 5, however to summarise it is

considered unlikely that WDC would grant approval for a second vehicle access

onto Kensington Avenue based on the current situation for the following reasons:

WDC’s engineering standards requ ired that dual frontage properties form

vehicle accesses onto the lower class of road unless the higher class can

be shown to be more appropriate – in this case Powhiri Avenue is a local

road and Kensington Avenue is an arterial road.

The frontage of the site to Powhiri Avenue is wide enough to allow for two

separate vehicle crossings from both dwellings on site, so there is no

practical reason to split the crossings across both frontages.

The location of the property is too close to the intersection of Kensington

Avenue and SH1 (61m where 70m separation is required). WDC would

likely decline the application on the grounds of traffic safety.

6.62 Based on this assessment I concur with Mr Edwards that the submitter would be

unlikely to gain approval for a secondary vehicle access onto Kensington Avenue,

with or without NZTA’s proposed upgrades to SH1 and Kensington Avenue. As

such the proposal is not reducing the development opportunities of the property

at 2/36 Powhiri Avenue.

Temporary Traffic Effects during construction

6.63 Wes Edwards has advised that any adverse effects from the proposed road

widening would be similar to other road works that could currently be undertaken

within the existing SH1 designation. Similarly the works within Kensington Park

could also be undertaken by WDC under their parks designation. Construction

traffic effects such as traffic delays and contractors parking vehicles would be

experienced if NZTA undertook upgrading work to SH1 within the existing

designation boundaries.

6.64 The proposal does involve changes to individual driveways within private

properties, the demolition and removal of fences and the construction of new

fences. The scale of those effects is considered to be relatively minor and on an

individual property basis should be of a short duration.

6.65 A Construction Management Plan has not been submitted with the application,

however a construction programme has been submitted, which indicates the sort

of construction sequence. It confirms that SH1 can be kept open during the

12 Submission from S Burt

29

construction period from January to November 2016 by reducing three lanes to

two during the entire construction period. Replacement parking is currently being

constructed and will be provided prior to works beginning in Kensington Park

resulting in the loss of carparks. Finally the construction of the realigned Lower

Stanley Street will occur prior to the main roundabout works to maintain access

from these properties to SH1. It is recommended that a detailed Construction

Traffic Management Plan be prepared and submitted for the approval of Council

officers as a condition should the application be recommended for approval.

Summary of Traffic Effects

6.66 Any adverse traffic effects are considered to be minor. I am in agreement with the

traffic analysis and assessment undertaken by Wes Edwards and his conclusions that

any adverse effects to individual properties would be minor. I also concur with the

assessment that any adverse effects will be sufficiently outweighed by the wider

benefits (positive effects) as a result of the road improvements. I generally concur

with the following conclusions from Wes Edwards’ in respect of traffic:

The NZTA proposal includes changes to intersections and widening of the road

that would provide significant benefits to motorised traffic travelling on State

Highway One as a result of reductions in delay and a reduction in crash risk due

to a reduction in movements at intersections.

Right turns at some side roads and a number of individual properties will be

prevented by the proposed changes and this will require motorists to undertake

detours to circumvent the prevented turns. This will incur a cost due to the

added travel distance and time but will provide a benefit from improved safety

resulting in fewer crashes. The NZTA material does not provide an economic

analysis of these costs and benefits. The NZTA and Council could implement

turn restrictions at the affected side roads at any time without a change to the

designation, and NZTA could conceivably introduce a median island preventing

right turns at driveways within the current designation, potentially by removing

the marked shoulders. As a result the effects of the turn restrictions could be

considered to be within a permitted baseline. In any case the expected

improvement to the poor crash record at the Manse Street intersection

expected as a result of the proposal is considered to be a considerable benefit,

and it is expected that benefits would also arise from the implementation of the

other turn restrictions.

The diversions would result in increased volumes on some local streets and at

some intersections. The local streets are considered to have adequate capacity

to accommodate the increased traffic volumes.

…

The intersection of Lupton Avenue and Kensington Avenue is likely to

experience an increase in delays exiting Lupton Avenue during peak periods.

The effect on individual properties has been evaluated and in most cases

results in a minor adverse effect, principally as a result of the detours required

to deal with the restricted turns.

The transport-related effects arising during construction are considered to be

restricted to construction work being closer to dwellings than it might be if the

designation were not altered, and the reconstruction of fences and driveway

30

crossings. In each case the transport-related effects are considered to be minor

given appropriate construction and traffic management and liaison with

property owners.

The proposal is considered to have substantial benefits for motor vehicle traffic

using the State Highway and the adjacent road network. Cyclists would

experience some beneficial and some adverse effects and the overall effect on

cyclists is considered to be slightly beneficial. Pedestrians would receive some

benefit from the provision of informal crossing points with central islands.

Motorists in the local area would need to travel increased distances as a result

of the removal of turning movements from the side road intersections and

private property accesses.

There are numerous other effects that will be assessed by others, but from a

traffic viewpoint the proposal would have significant benefits for through motor

vehicle traffic at the expense of minor adverse effects for users of driveways

and side roads. At this point, prior to hearing the outcome of further

consultation and the presentations of NZTA, Council and submitters; in my

opinion the adverse effects of the proposal have been sufficiently mitigated to

the point where the overall benefits sufficiently outweigh the overall adverse

effects. I recommend that the Notice of Requirement be supported.

Noise and Vibration

6.67 The potential noise and vibration effects from the alteration to the SH1

designation and upgrading of intersections require consideration in respect of

operational and construction effects. The applicant relies on expert noise reports

prepared by Hegley Acoustic Consultants (HAC) which have been peer reviewed

by Jon Styles from Styles Group. Mr Styles ’ assessment is included at Appendix 6

to this report.

6.68 The following assessment is divided into three sections – operational noise;

construction noise and operational and construction vibration.

Operational Noise

6.69 Traffic noise is normally assessed differently from other environmental noise

because of its largely continuous nature and because it is generally tolerated to a

somewhat greater degree than other noise. In respect of this proposal there are

differing opinions between the HAC reports and Mr Styles as to the degree of

operational noise change likely to be experienced by properties adjacent to the

SH1 corridor, particularly with respect to properties on the western side of the

corridor adjacent to the steepest section of gradient.

6.70 It is my understanding that the root of this disagreement stems from a degree of

uncertainty as to the reliability of the HAC noise modelling and noise testing.

Although numerous attempts were made through s92 requests and meetings to

resolve the discrepancy, at the time of writing this report Mr Styles is still of the

firm opinion that the HAC noise reports are not able to be relied upon.

6.71 The HAC noise reports rely on a combination of noise modelling supported by

onsite testing to form a current operational noise baseline. The latest written

response from HAC confirms that they are confident that the combination of

31

modelling and testing provides an accurate picture of the likely operational noise

for the Design Year. This confidence in their modelling is important as it

underpins two important assumptions made by NZTA in their proposal:

That the modelling/testing shows noise levels reducing for a number of

Protected Premises and Facilities (PPFs) as a result of the proposed

changes; and

Based on this modelling/testing, none of the properties adjacent to the

relevant section of SH1 corridor breach the thresholds for full acoustic

assessment under NZS6806:2010 Acoustics – Road-traffic Noise – New

and Altered Roads (the ‘Standard’)13.

6.72 These two assumptions have influenced NZTA’s approach to designing the road

corridor as they have concluded that no further work is required in terms of

physical noise mitigation measures, including acoustically effective fences, low

noise surfacing, median barriers or any other mitigation. NZTA have confirmed

that the only noise fence included in the application is a fence along the eastern

boundary of 36A Powhiri Avenue, which is necessary to meet the design noise

levels due to the loss of the existing house at 38 Powhiri Avenue.

6.73 Mr Styles has set out in his report why he considers the HAC reports cannot be

relied upon for the purposes of determining compliance with the Standard

(including subsequent s92 responses, all contained in Attachments L, La and Lb to

the notified application):

Concentrating only on PPFs 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 (refer HAC Report Appendix

A and Table 3) the noise levels are predicted to increase by 1dB for the do-

nothing scenario, and decrease by 0-2dB for the do-minimum. The increase

of 1dB for the do-nothing correlates well with no change to the road surface

or alignment and only a small increase in the traffic flow.

However, the predicted reduction in noise level for these receivers is not

consistent with the design and traffic predictions when considering that:

i. The HAC Response states that the surface will remain the same so this

can effectively be ignored with respect to the change in noise level;

ii. The predicted traffic flow for SH1 (for the design year) is greater than

existing which will increase the noise level;

iii. The northbound through lane will be closer to the PPFs than the current

lane, and the through lane will carry a greater percentage of HCVs

which will increase the noise level; and

iv. There is no other physical mitigation proposed for those receivers

including fences or embankments and the new elevation is

approximately the same as the existing. Although the western

embankment will shift west it is to accommodate a footpath (mostly)

and will not therefore provide any extra appreciable screening of the

13 The threshold test being either:

(a) the Do-minimum level predicted at a PPF is 64dB LAeq(24hr) or greater and the Do-minimum level exceeds the Do-nothing level by 3dB or more; or

(b) if the Do-minimum option is greater than or equal to 68dB LAeq(24h)

32

road surface or truck exhausts. No reduction in noise level can be

therefore assumed from physical measures.

Taking these factors into account, it is only possible that the noise level will

increase at these receivers as a result of the project.

6.74 It is understood that NZTA are confident that the reduction in noise shown by the

model for the receivers on the western side of SH1 adjacent to the steepest part

of the incline can be explained by noise reductions from the southbound lane,

effectively offsetting any noise increases from the closer northbound lane. More

specifically that the southbound (downhill) lane further away from the receivers

will be better screened by the altered alignment of the design and a median

barrier along some of its length.

6.75 Mr Styles disagrees with this explanation on the basis that:

The northbound lane is immediately adjacent to the receivers identified above

and they are located along the section of the alignment comprising a

relatively steep grade leading to the proposed roundabout and through-lane.

Throughout this section of road, both light and heavy vehicles will be

generating more noise as they ascend the slope (particularly heavy vehicles).

An increase in noise level of 0.3dB per percent of gradient is normally applied

to upward slopes, which in this case results in an increase to the predicted

noise level of up to 3.3dB compared to a flat section of road or a downhill

slope.

As above, the Third HAC Response states that the design will yield an

increase in the screening between the western receivers and the southbound

lanes, and this will result in the overall noise level reducing by 2dB in the

Design Year, despite traffic flows increasing, no change to the surfacing and

no physical mitigation being applied to the noise from the northbound lane.

Simple mathematics shows that even the hypothetical elimination of noise

from the southbound lane, (i.e. no traffic at all) would not give the reductions

predicted in the HAC reports for the Design Year. It is therefore not

reasonable to suggest that an improvement in screening for the southbound

lane only would yield a reduction in noise level. The reason for this is

because the northbound lane is much closer to the affected dwellings and by

virtue of the steep slope the traffic using it generates noise levels

approximately 3dB higher than the southbound lane. When considering the

much shorter separation distance between the northbound lane and the

receivers, and the higher noise level generated within it, the noise generated

by traffic in the southbound lane has an almost negligible effect on the

exposure of the western receivers.

Given the physical circumstances of the design, traffic flows and road

conditions I consider that the noise level at the western receivers must

increase in the design year, contrary to the HAC advice.

6.76 This discrepancy between the acoustic experts in this regard raises doubt as to

whether the proposal breaches the threshold of the Standard and whether a full

assessment under the Standard is required to properly understand the operational

noise implications of the proposal. Mr Styles is of the opinion that the only way to

ensure appropriate noise mitigation is being undertaken is to undertake a detailed

33

acoustic assessment under the Standard prior to construction, particularly as the

Best Practicable Option (BPO) may indicate design changes to the road itself:

Relying simply on post-construction noise measurements to determine what

mitigation measures might be necessary precludes the multidisciplinary

assessment to determine what constitutes the BPO for road noise mitigation.

It is very important to note that the BPO might not be limited to tall fences

on the residential property boundaries (which will in any case be limited in

their effectiveness by the gaps needed for driveways). It might be that

surfacing, solid median barriers and /or modifications to the dwellings

themselves could be the most practicable options.

6.77 While I appreciate the position of both acoustic experts, the focus of my

assessment from an effects perspective is ‘what level of noise mitigation is likely

to be required if it is accepted that the model is inaccurate?’ i.e. what properties

are most at risk of requiring noise mitigation in order to appropriately mitigate the

effects of operational noise? I do not consider that the uncertainty over the level

of noise effects is a fatal flaw to the proposal – even if a full assessment was

undertaken at this stage of the proposal it is highly unlikely that it would show

that the operational noise is unacceptable and unable to be appropriately

mitigated. However I agree that the risk to proceeding with this application

without undertaking a full assessment under the Standard is that road mitigation

options such as surfacing or solid median barriers are off the table. Monitoring

effects after the road opens effectively limits mitigation options to changes to

private properties, i.e. noise fences or mechanical ventilation, which can only be

undertaken with landowner consent.

6.78 In the interests of working on a pragmatic condition, Mr Styles has narrowed

down the number of properties that he feels are ‘at risk’ of breaching the

thresholds, i.e. the modelled design year results are close enough to the

thresholds that a degree of error in the modelling would likely cause a breach.

There are clearly some receivers who are not at risk of breaching the thresholds

of the standard, even allowing for a degree of error in the noise modelling, i.e.

rear sites where the dwelling is a significant distance from the carriageway, the

users of Kensington Park and properties on the eastern side of SH1 not

immediately fronting the carriageway.

6.79 These ‘at risk’ properties are similar to the list provided by NZTA’s planning

consultant when similarly asked for pragmatic condition wording. If it is accepted

that the model has a higher degree of inaccuracy than typically allowed for, NZTA

has identified the properties at 160, 172, 174 and 190 Western Hills Drive and 2

Kohatu Street as being the most ‘at risk’ of requiring specific noise mitigation. Mr

Styles has identified three additional properties at 162 and 192 Western Hills

Drive and 36 Powhiri Avenue (this includes both dwellings on cross leased titles)

that he would see as being part of this high risk group.

6.80 If the Hearing Commissioner is of a mind to recommend approving the NOR, it

would be essential to recommend a noise condition that required monitoring along

the entire length of the realigned SH1 corridor, with particular emphasis on

testing at the ‘at risk’ properties. This condition would then need to require that

whatever BPO was necessary to mitigate noise effects to an acceptable level was

offered in writing to affected dwelling owners, to be implemented at NZTA’s cost.

Provided such a condition was included in the designation, it is considered that

34

the effects of operational noise could be mitigated to an acceptable level,

although the implementation of any BPO relating to road design would not be able

to be achieved.

6.81 Work is currently being undertaken with NZTA’s planning consultant to agree on

the wording of a workable condition, which will be tabled at the hearing.

Construction Noise

6.82 The District Plan contains specific rules related to construction noise. The same

rule related to construction noise occurs in all Environments:

Any activity is a permitted activity if:

a) Noise from construction, maintenance and demolition work, meets the

limits in NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Work; and

b) Sound levels are to be measured in accordance with NZS 6803:1999.

Any activity that does not comply with a condition for a permitted activity is a

discretionary activity.

6.83 It is stated within the application that the entire project is likely to take around 11

months, however the fact that the exact construction schedule is not finalised

(and to a large extent relies on the contractors awarded the project) makes it

difficult to assess the effects of construction noise in relation to specific

properties.

6.84 It is predicted that construction noise levels in excess of those allowed for as a

permitted activity are likely to occur at many of the buildings adjacent to the

proposed works area. The applicant has confirmed that the majority of the

proposed road widening would be undertaken between 7am – 7pm Monday to

Saturday, however some night time works will be necessary (anticipated to be 9

nights over the course of 11 months, in two blocks of 4 nights and 5 nights).

6.85 The applicant has also stated that a noise ‘management approach’ will be taken to

continually monitor the impact of construction noise and reduce the extent and

duration of effects where possible as follows:

Limiting night works (duration and extent) as far as practicable;

Communication with landowners, with procedures put in place to advise

adjacent occupiers individually and mitigate any issues that arise on a

case-by-case basis;

Providing a minimum one-week separation between any night works; and

If complaints are received and measured noise is found to be an excess of

the required standards then residents should be offered alternate

accommodation.

6.86 Mr Styles has undertaken an independent assessment of the construction noise

effects associated with the proposed works. Although he considers that the HAC

assessment should have provided more detail with respect to construction noise,

he was satisfied with the further information provided by NZTA’s engineering

team. With regard to construction noise he has stated:

35

Response point 24 of the s92 response prepared by Northern Civil

Consulting Engineers (NCC) provides a commentary on the construction

noise issues and proposes a set of conditions to manage the effects.

Response 27 also sets out that a Construction Management Plan is

proposed and that this will deal with construction noise issues. Whilst the

conditions that NCC have recommended could be considered be considered

comprehensive for the management of construction noise, I am of the

view that they will suffice for the nature and scale of this project…

I consider that given the nature and scale of the works proposed and if

compliance with the conditions proposed by NCC is achieved, the

construction noise effects will be reasonable.

Construction and Operational Vibration

6.87 Rule 36.3.13 of the District Plan contains the Living Environment rules for both

construction and operational vibration, with standards outlined in Appendix 10.

6.88 Potential effects from vibration during construction will be generated from a

number of sources, including:

Hydraulic hammers/rock breakers;

Vibratory rollers and compactors;

Jackhammers; and

Heavy construction vehicle traffic travelling over a rough surface.

6.89 It is stated within the application that some residences may be impacted more

than others at certain times, depending on the exact location of the works in

relation to each residence but that no specific mitigation is required or proposed,

other than monitoring vibration effects in accordance with a Construction

Management Plan.

6.90 Mr Styles has considered the construction and operational vibration effects and

has stated:

I consider that the likelihood of any construction vibration issues arising

that might generate more than a minor adverse effect is unlikely.

6.91 He has not provided comments regarding operational vibration but it is

understood that adverse vibration effects post construction are also considered to

be unlikely and will comply with the permitted standard for adjacent residential

properties. As such, no specific conditions relating to vibration are proposed.

Submissions

6.92 One submitter (Stuart Burt) raised the issue of operational noise as the SH1

corridor is going to be closer to his property than the current alignment. Mr Styles

has assessed his concerns as follows:

The HAC Report states that if the requirements of the Standard are met at

the very closest dwellings then the requirements will be met at all other

dwellings also. Whilst often this assumption can be valid there are times

when it does not hold true because of topography and proximity to

36

intersections. In these circumstances, PPF’s further from the road should be

included in the assessment. 2/36 Powhiri Avenue is within 100m of the

nearest lane and according to the Standard it should be included as a PPF.

The submission of S Burt is technically correct in that it should have been

included as a PPF when the HAC Report has ignored it.

As detailed earlier in this advice, I recommend that a completely revised and

technically correct assessment is prepared that would include this property as

a PPF. In the absence of such a report, and given the uncertainties with the

HAC Report (and the revised HAC predictions) I consider it necessary that

2/36 Powhiri Avenue is included in the noise monitoring requirements and

subsequent assessments required by the operational noise conditions

proposed by NZTA (with my amendments).

6.93 It should also be noted that the property at 36A Powhiri Avenue, which is

between SH1 and Mr Burt’s property, required a noise fence in order to meet the

Standard. As such it is not unreasonable that operational noise at Mr Burt’s

property may require specific noise mitigation (pending the outcome of

monitoring).

6.94 For these reasons it is recommended that 36 Powhiri Avenue (which would include

2/36 Powhiri as part of that cross leased section) be specifically included as a

property requiring specific noise monitoring.

6.95 A second submitter (Delwyn House-Tane) raised the issue of truck engine braking

at the proposed new roundabout and associated noise effects. The requested

mitigation was the use of asphalt at the roundabout, being a relatively quiet

surface material for a road. Mr Styles has made the following comment , which I

concur with:

The House-Tane submission is concerned with the increase in traffic on Lower

Stanley Street, engine braking the paving surface for the roundabout. In my

opinion, the increased traffic on Lower Stanley street will generate less noise

overall than traffic on the state highway and would not generate a noise level

high enough to warrant any further detailed assessment. The submission

seeks that the roundabout is paved with asphalt for noise reasons and I

understand that the design incorporates this. In my experience the issue of

engine braking is difficult or impossible to control through the resource

management process and that it is best dealt with through the Local

Government Act in the form of a bylaw.

Summary of Noise Effects

6.96 There is general agreement between Jon Styles and HAC with respect to the

effects of operational and construction vibration and construction noise. These

effects can be effectively mitigated through the introduction of Construction

Management and Construction Noise Management Plan conditions, which will

be tabled at the hearing.

6.97 While there is still fundamental disagreement as to the level of acoustic

assessment that should be undertaken upfront prior to construction of this

project, a ‘worst case scenario’ noise condition may be a pragmatic way

forward for this application. Provided a condition is included that requires post

construction noise monitoring along the entire 800m of SH1 corridor, with

37

specific onsite monitoring at the properties identified by Mr Styles as being

most likely to require noise mitigation, the Hearing Commissioner cou ld

recommend that the application be approved with respect to operational noise.

Effects on Residential Character and Amenity

6.98 The proposed road widening will result in the highway boundary being located in

closer proximity to some residential sites. Potentially this may create adverse

effects on the residential amenities currently enjoyed by sites adjacent to the

highway corridor. It will also result in slightly larger number of vehicles using local

roads, particularly Kensington Avenue, Lupton Avenue and Kamo Road, due to the

intersection changes proposed.

6.99 Residential sites located along SH1 already experience some adverse effects from

the proximity of SH1. However due to the scale of the proposed road widening

and the proximity of SH1 to adjacent dwellings the application has the potential to

exacerbate these effects. Matters regarding noise and vibration have been

discussed in the previous sections of this report.

6.100 Where existing fences, gardens and trees are required to be removed on

residential sites, then replacement of such will be undertaken in accordance with

the relevant provisions of the Public Works Act on a case by case basis. This

would be agreed between the applicant and individual property owners and form

part of the compensation process under the Public Works Act. Further

recommendations as to which properties should be contacted directly to discuss

landscaping and fencing mitigation are made in the landscape and visual effects

sections to follow.

Headlight wash

6.101 The issue of headlight wash has been raised by the owner of 152 Western Hills

Drive in relation to vehicles driving along the reconstructed Lower Stanley Street.

Of particular concern is headlight glare shining into the master bedroom and

lounge windows at the front of the house. At the time of writing it is understood

that NZTA is in discussions with this submitter to find a solution to this issue,

potentially in the form of fencing/other screening in the front yard. No agreed

solution has been provided at this point so it is suggested that the applicant

address this at the hearing.

6.102 Further information on headlight wash was also provided by the applicant in

response to a s92 request, particularly as to whether the proposed roundabout

would create or exacerbate glare from headlights into residential properties.

6.103 The headlight sweep diagram provided14 shows that the anticipated wash of

headlights from vehicles navigating the proposed roundabout will be less than the

existing glare from vehicles using the T-intersection. Particularly in the case of

properties to the south of Kensington Avenue, headlight glare should reduce as

the alignment of Kensington Avenue is moved further away from these properties.

The only exception is the property at 156 Western Hills Drive, where the proposed

headlight wash is shown extending slightly further into the property. However the

change in level between the dwelling and SH1, combined with the proposed

14 Attachment Be of the notified application

38

fencing and landscaping along the footpath will screen this property from any new

headlight glare effects.

Construction effects

6.104 The effects of construction on the amenity of adjacent residents, businesses and

users of the road corridor have the potential to be significant, especially over an

11 month construction period. The construction effects in relation to traf fic, noise

and vibration have been addressed in the sections above and visual impacts will

be addressed below, however other construction effects resulting in reduced

amenity also need to be considered.

6.105 The applicant has proposed conditions requiring a Construction Management Plan

(in addition to a Construction Traffic Management Plan and Construction Noise

and Vibration Management Plan) as a way to ensure effects during construction

do not reduce amenity levels beyond what is necessary to undertake the works in

an efficient manner. These conditions are considered to be appropriate in the

context of waiving the requirement for an Outline Plan of Works for a reasonably

lengthy construction project.

6.106 Construction effects have been raised as a concern by one submitter15 at 2/36

Powhiri Avenue, particularly with regard to the proposed construction hours (7am-

7pm Monday to Saturday with no work on Sundays or public holidays) and the

timing of the works over summer 2016.

6.107 NZTA has provided an indicative construction programme, included as Attachment

H of the notified application. According to this programme the works adjacent to

the submitters property will not be undertaken immediately – the construction of

walls between Kensington Avenue and Manse Street are scheduled between April

and July 2016 and the realignment of Kensington Avenue in September 2016. As

such, the works most likely to impact on the submitters property will be

undertaken in September 2016 and are only likely to take 4-6 weeks.

6.108 Open window ventilation is not considered to be critical during the cooler and

wetter spring months. Furthermore, 7am-7pm Monday to Saturday works are not

considered to be unreasonable given that the works are to be staged along the

800m section of road corridor. The proposed construction programme is

considered to be appropriate for the scale of the project.

Summary

6.109 Overall it is considered that the effects of the proposal on residential character

and amenity will be minor.

Stormwater, Groundwater and Water Quality Effects

6.110 A small portion of the proposed designation (in the vicinity of the Manse Street

intersection with SH1) is identified as being Flood Susceptible. This is a result of

flooding from the Waiarohia Stream channel. The flood susceptibility, together

with the stormwater runoff arising from the designated area has been reviewed by

WDC Development Engineer, Mr Dean Murphy and no specific concerns were

raised provided appropriate construction management plans were in place .

15 Submission of S Burt

39

6.111 Although the impervious area of SH1 will increase as a result of this proposal, the

main impervious area increases will be in the vicinity of Kensington Park. The

proposed works area within the park is not noted as being flood susceptible and

any additional runoff will be discharged to the Waiarohia Stream via existing

outlets.

6.112 A stormwater discharge permit and stormwater diversion permit were applied for

from NRC concurrently with this NOR application16. It is understood at the time of

writing that NRC intend to grant this permit subject to standard stormwater

management conditions on the basis that proposed State Highway road safety

improvements will have negligible impact to current stormwater volumes

discharged and the capacity of the existing receiving stormwater culvert outlets

will be sufficient.

6.113 NZTA intend to undertake the works in accordance with the NZTA Erosion and

Sediment Control Guidelines for State Highway Infrastructure (2014) and an

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (draft included as Attachment N) . Furthermore

the conditions of the NRC consents are understood to require a finalised Erosion

and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) as a condition of the approval17. Compliance

with both the guidelines and an ESCP approved by NRC will ensure that water

quality effects arising from potential sedimentation will be managed appropriately

during construction.

6.114 No groundwater was encountered during the preliminary investigations, although

NZTA has identified the potential to encounter groundwater during works in

Kensington Park. It is considered that any potential effects on groundwater as a

result of the works can be managed by following NZTA’s Erosion and Sediment

Control guidelines and operating in accordance with an approved Construction

Management Plan and ESCP.

6.115 Overall, potential adverse effects on stormwater, groundwater and water quality

are considered to be minor and able to be mitigated through conditions.

Earthworks, Contamination and Geotechnical Matters

6.116 The area subject to the proposed works is shown as being in a mixture of low,

medium and high hazard stability on the land stability maps and information held

by the Council (see Figure 3 below).

Figure 3: Stability Risk Layer from WDC GIS

16 APP.037417.02.01 Discharge Permit: To discharge stormwater to land and the Waiarohia Stream from

land disturbance activities. APP.037417.03.01 Water Permit: To divert stormwater associated with land disturbance activities 17 Final consent was not available at the time of writing but draft conditions were reviewed relating to

the ESCP requirement.

40

Red: High Risk, Orange: Moderate Risk, Yellow: Low Risk

6.117 The NOR proposes earthworks with a volume of approximately 12,417m3 (9,617m3

cut and 2,800m3 fill) over an area of approximately 8,516m2 (0.85ha). A regional

earthworks consent has also been applied for from NRC18.

6.118 A geotechnical interpretation report19 has been provided in support of the

application given the complex geological constraints, namely the potential for

debris to be caught in a historic lava flow which is difficult to anticipate. The

geotechnical interpretation report considers that the investigated soils form a

mixture of fill and volcanic soils which are relatively stable due to the high friction

between boulders and gravel. However the alluvial soils encountered are more

susceptible to instability.

6.119 The report goes on to state that the proposed construction works are geo-

technically feasible provided the recommendations of the report are followed,

particularly with respect to the retaining walls. Only routine geotechnical

inspections are recommended for this project.

18 APP.037417.01.01 Land Use Consent: To undertake approximately 12,417 cubic metres of cut and fill

earthworks. 19 Attachment I of the notified application

41

6.120 This assessment is concurred with – provided the recommendations in the

geotechnical interpretation report are incorporated into the detailed design,

potential adverse effects associated with land instability will be minimal.

6.121 The proposed measures to manage potential erosion, soil loss and sedimentation

of surrounding property and waterways have been covered in Paragraphs 6.110 to

6.115 of this report in respect of effects on groundwater and water quality.

Provided the requirements of an ESCP approved by NRC and the Construction

Management Plan are followed, the adverse effects associated with bulk

earthworks can be appropriately managed.

6.122 The applicant has applied for consent under the NES Contamination given the

likelihood of contamination on land currently being used as part of Kensington

Park. I concur with the applicant’s assessment of the contamination risks in

Section 8.9 of the planner’s report – the contamination risk primarily occurs

during the construction works as the ultimate land use as a road is less sensitive

than the current land use as a park. As such, any potential contamination risk can

be addressed through the Construction Management Plan as an appropriate way

of mitigating this risk.

Landscape, Urban Design and Visual Impact Effects

6.123 The roundabout construction and widening of SH1 will result in the removal of

vegetation within frontages of private properties, the local road network and

Kensington Park, including trees that currently have ‘heritage’ status under the

District Plan but will not have this status in the event the designation is

confirmed.

6.124 The application also requires the construction of a number of retaining walls, on

both the western and eastern sides of SH120. The tallest retaining walls are

required to reconstruct Lower Stanley Street (up to 5.7m in height), with other

retaining walls constructed to support SH1 west of Powhiri Avenue and between

Kohatu Road and Manse Street (all up to 4.4m in height) . Other low masonry rock

walls (less than 1m in height) are required in various other locations along SH1.

6.125 The potential adverse effects of these changes will be assessed under the

following headings below:

Urban design effects

Landscape effects

Visual impact effects

Urban Design Effects

6.126 The application will result in changes to the character of the SH1 corridor,

Kensington Park and the wider neighbourhood through the removal of existing

vegetation and construction of retaining walls. Ms Rebecca Skidmore has been

engaged by WDC to provide a peer review of the urban design, landscape and

visual assessments prepared on behalf of the applicant by Mr Simon Cocker21

(peer review report attached in Appendix 7).

20 Referenced as Walls 1, 2, 3, 4 and 4a on the design plans in Attachment B of the notified application 21 Attachments M, Ma and Mb of the notified application

42

6.127 With respect to the impact of the SH1 corridor on the urban form, this section of

State highway is already an intensively used through route for both local traffic

and vehicles travelling further north or south through Whangarei. As such it

already forms a barrier between the residential areas to the east and west of the

corridor. The changes to the physical form of the road layout (new roundabout,

central median islands and traffic barriers) may decrease connectivity for vehicle

traffic seeking to cross SH1 but will have some positive benefits for pedestrians

and cyclists crossing both SH1 and Kensington Avenue as they will have safer

places to cross at median island refuges.

6.128 Ms Skidmore has identified the intersection of Kensington Avenue and SH1 as an

existing urban ‘node’. She makes the following comments:

The introduction of a roundabout will expand this node. The expansion will

result in a more prominent and expansive node. The loss of vegetation, and

particularly the specimen trees located in the south western corner of

Kensington Park will reduce the amenity of the intersection. However,

extensive re-planting is proposed. The formal arrangement will result in a

change of character. As it matures, the specimen trees proposed will

reinforce the intersection as an important node and make a positive

contribution to the local amenity. The planting proposed on the northern side

of Kensington Avenue will provide a strong visual cue to a new entrance into

Kensington Park.

6.129 With respect to the physical changes to Kensington Park, Robin Rawson, Council’s

Group Planner (Infrastructure & Services) has confirmed that the proposed land

taking, driveway relocation and vegetation removal is consistent with WDC’s

Reserve Management Plan for Kensington Park (comments in Appendix 8).

Although the proposed roundabout will be closer to the sports fields and stadium

building, the proposed mitigation planting in the south western corner of the park

will continue to reinforce the Kensington Avenue/SH1 intersection as a key node,

while providing a formal planting arrangement as a buffer.

6.130 There will be changes to the neighbourhood character of the SH1 corridor,

particularly related to the loss of vegetation and introduction of new retaining

walls. The loss of vegetation is primarily a landscape and visual effect, however

the more restrained planting plan will likely result in a more formal roading

environment, which will take time to soften. Ms Skidmore makes the following

comments with respect to the retaining walls:

An existing character feature of this portion of the corridor is the stone-

faced retaining walls. In particular, high walls on the eastern side of the

southern portion of the corridor create an enclosure to the st reet

environment. Rather than continuing this stone finish, a concrete

‘Stonestrong’ finish is proposed. A description of the wall finish proposed

is set out in Point 16 of the Section 92 response letter from Simon Cocker

(dated 9 April 2015). I agree that the colour finish should be a dark,

recessive colour to avoid a harsh, glaring appearance. Ficus vines are

proposed at the base of the retaining walls. In time these will soften the

appearance of the high retaining structures.

6.131 I agree with Ms Skidmore that the existing stone faced retaining walls are a

prominent feature of the existing corridor. While maintaining this stone

43

appearance would be preferable, it is acknowledged that the Stonestrong finish

combined with climbing vegetation will achieve a similar appearance over time. As

such, the design of the retaining walls and associated planting is an acceptable

solution.

6.132 Landscape Effects

6.133 I concur with Ms Skidmore that the level of replanting proposed along the SH1

corridor will not fully mitigate the extensive vegetation to be removed. The

proposed roading design has limited space available for replanting, presumably in

an effort to reduce the amount of public and private land required for the

designation. With this constraint in mind, the level of replanting within the SH1

corridor is considered to be acceptable, with landscaping effects reducing over

time as the vegetation fully establishes.

6.134 One of the most significant changes to vegetation will occur in the south western

corner of Kensington Park, with 55 trees requiring removal (some of which have

heritage value) and 30 replacement trees proposed. Similar to the replanted

vegetation along the SH1 corridor, it will take time for the replacement trees to

partially mitigate the loss of a significant cluster of mature trees, however the

level of replanting is acceptable in light of the need to retain car parks and the

fact that all trees capable of relocation (13 in total) will be replanted elsewhere in

Kensington Park. Ms Rawson has confirmed that the planting plan for Kensington

Park was prepared in consultation with WDC Parks and has been approved. No

submissions have been received in respect of the loss of trees within Kensington

Park.

6.135 The end of Powhiri Avenue is an area where changes to the proposed planting are

considered necessary to more fully mitigate adverse landscape effects. A large

Liquidambar tree is to be removed in order to construct retaining Wall 3 . Ms

Skidmore outlines the impact of the loss of this tree as follows:

Of particular note is the loss of a large and prominent Liquidambar tree

located at the western end of Powhiri Avenue. The tree makes a positive

contribution to the amenity of both the immediate street and the wider

environment. Point 20 of the Section 92 response letter from Simon Cocker

(dated 9 April 2015) provides an assessment of the value and effect of loss of

this tree. The report notes that it assesses the tree as meeting the criteria

set out in the District Plan for identifying heritage trees. In my opinion, as it

matures, the revegetation planting proposed at the top of the bank adjacent

to Powhiri Avenue will mitigate the loss of this tree to a certain extent.

However, the planting mix proposed (Tall Native Mix B) includes few species

that would attain any scale or stature. In my opinion, the mix and scale of

plants to be used, should be amended to include a number of specimen trees

that would better achieve a scale and stature that provides a suitable

termination to Powhiri Avenue, while maintaining the amenity of adjacent

properties.

6.136 I concur that a selection of larger scale species would be appropriate in this

location given the significant amenity benefits the Liquidambar tree currently

provides. Species that are likely to achieve more significant height and presence

over time are more likely to form a strong landscaping buffer that mimics the

44

amenity levels currently experienced by residents of Powhiri Avenue. A condition

to this effect would be appropriate.

Visual Effects

6.137 Both Ms Skidmore and the applicant’s landscape architect Simon Cocker agree

that there are eight groups of ‘viewing audiences’ who will experience visual

changes as a result of this proposal and are generally in agreement as to the

likely visual effects on these groups. These eight groups are identified as follows:

Group 1: occupants of dwellings on the western side of SH1 below the

carriageway (primarily residents accessing SH1 from Lower Stanley Street)

Group 2: occupants of dwellings on the western side of SH1 south of

Group 1 in alignment with the SH1 carriageway (between Lower Stanley

Street and Waiarohia Stream)

Group 3: occupants of dwellings on the southern side of Kensington

Avenue

Group 4: occupants of dwellings on the eastern side of SH1, accessed

from Powhiri Avenue, Oranga Road, Kohatu Road and Manse Street

Group 5: users of the road network

Group 6: pedestrians

Group 7: users of Kensington Park

Group 8: occupants of flat adjoining the new parking area at 87 Western

Hills Drive

6.138 With respect to Groups 1 and 2, the main visual impacts are a result of the

proposed retaining walls. In the case of Group 1, the retaining walls of up to 5.7m

in height will be directly in front of private properties, while Group 2 properties

will view retaining walls of up to 4.4m in height from the opposite side of SH1.

6.139 In both cases Ms Skidmore and Mr Cocker agree that mitigation planting and

appropriate retaining wall construction materials are essential to ensuring visual

effects reduce from high during construction, to moderate post construction and

finally to low-moderate within 5 years of construction. Provided the mitigation

planting adjacent to the retaining walls is undertaken in accordance with the plans

and the retaining walls are constructed of Stonestrong concrete, the adverse

visual effects on Groups 1 and 2 are considered to be acceptable and will improve

over time.

6.140 One submitter living at 152 Western Hills Drive (in Group 1) has raised general

concerns about loss of vegetation along the SH1 corridor, as well as the removal

of two Cypress trees at the front of their property22. The combination of taller

natives, hedging and shrubs along the retaining walls adjacent to 152 Western

Hills Drive is likely to mitigate the visual impact of the walls over time. It is

understood that NZTA is currently in discussions with this submitter regarding the

replanting of their front yard but at the time of writing no specific agreement had

been reached. It is recommended that similar offers of mitigation planting within

22 Submission of D House-Tane

45

private properties are made to the owners of 138, 150, 154, 156 and 158 Western

Hills Drive in order to reduce the visual impact of the walls to ‘low’ within 5

years23.

6.141 Finally, there is the potential for a number of the properties in this group to agree

to the erection of noise fences (pending the outcome of monitoring and

landowner agreement). This could result in 1.8m high fences in a continuous row

along the western side of SH1 adjacent to the steepest part of the incline. The

visual effect of these fences should be considered against the permit ted baseline,

i.e. all of these property owners could erect solid 1.8m high fences along their

front property boundaries as of right. In this context the adverse visual effects of

potential noise fences will be negligible, although I agree with Ms Skidmore that a

coordinated approach to fencing would be appropriate.

6.142 The visual effects on Group 3 primarily relate to changes proposed to Kensington

Avenue, although the property at 36A Powhiri Avenue will also lose the buffer of

the existing house at 38 Powhiri Avenue from SH1 (to be demolished). Ms

Skidmore and Mr Cocker agree that these properties will experience low to

moderate visual changes once construction is complete, particularly as the

alignment of Kensington Avenue will be moving further away and kowhai planting

will be used as a visual buffer.

6.143 Ms Skidmore and Mr Cocker agree that the visual effects on the Group 4

properties are a result of the SH1 carriageway moving closer to their properties

and the loss of existing vegetation. Although some mitigation planting has been

proposed at the end of Powhiri Avenue, the other properties in this group at the

end of Kohatu Road and Manse Street have no specific mitigation planting

proposed for their properties. It is recommended that offers of mitigation planting

within private properties are made to the owners of 2, 4 and 6 Kohatu Street, 207

and 209 Western Hills Drive and 46 Manse Street if sufficient planting within these

properties cannot be maintained.

6.144 Group 5 consists of road users (i.e. vehicles), whose impression of the visual

impact of the proposed changes will be affected by the fact they will view the

altered SH1 corridor in transit. Ms Skidmore summarised the effects on this group

as follows:

I consider the proposal will result in an increased dominance of roading

infrastructure and that the replanting proposed will not fully mitigate the loss

of vegetation that requires removal. In my opinion, the proposal will result in

some adverse visual effects when viewed by this group, particularly in

relation to the loss of vegetation at the margins of the corridor. If high noise

walls are required along a portion of the corridor, this will further diminish

the amenity and character of the street environment. Careful consideration

of the detailed design of the walls would be required.

6.145 I agree that the level of replanting proposed will not fully mitigate the adverse

visual effects on road users, however given the transient nature of the road users

and the established visual character of the area as a road corridor, the level of

mitigation is considered to be acceptable.

23 As recommended on Page 15 of the Landscape Visual Assessment in Attachment M of the notified

application

46

6.146 Group 6 consists of pedestrians, including users of Coronation Walkway near the

intersection of SH1 and Russell Road. The visual effects on these users are largely

influenced by the final road edge treatment agreed to between NZTA and

landowners, particularly if 1.8m high fences are requested by landowners or

required for noise mitigation. The wider footpaths proposed are a positive change

for pedestrians but the amenity of the footpath environment will be reduced if

high fences are erected in continuous lengths. However, assessed against the fact

that private property owners could erect such fences as of right, the potential

adverse visual effects on pedestrians are acceptable. I agree with Ms Skidmore

that larger tree species planted at the end of Powhiri Avenue would improve the

visual amenity for pedestrians walking between Powhiri Avenue and Kensington

Avenue.

6.147 Group 7 are the users of Kensington Park who will be affected by the loss of

vegetation and land in the south western corner of the park and the movement of

the roundabout closer to the amenities of the park. Ms Skidmore has assessed the

visual effects on this group as follows:

I consider that the removal of the cluster of trees in the south western corner

of the Park together with an increased dominance of roading in close

proximity to the activity hub of the stadium will result in a moderate adverse

visual effect for park users in this area. This adverse visual effect will be

mitigated to a certain extent by the proposed formal landscape strategy

proposed. However, the planting proposed will not achieve a scale or have a

presence that is similar to the existing specimen trees and the adverse visual

effects will not be fully mitigated.

6.148 Given the operational need to take land to form the Kensington Avenue/SH1

intersection roundabout and the need to retain carparks, it is considered

unrealistic in this case to expect the replanted vegetation in a narrower land area

to fully mitigate the loss of an established, mature group of trees. As such, the

proposed landscaping is considered to be sufficient mitigation.

6.149 Finally Group 8 are the residents of flats adjacent to 87 Western Hills Drive, which

is proposed to be converted into a new parking area for Kensington Park. Mr

Cocker provided a landscaping plan for the new carpark, which includes 1.8m

fences along boundaries with residential properties and additional landscaping to

provide some amenity. Ms Skidmore agrees with Mr Cocker’s assessment that the

combination of fencing and landscaping plus the orientation of most of the units

away from the carpark will result in acceptable effects when considered against

the permitted baseline of 1.8m fences along property boundaries.

Submissions

6.150 Only one submission was received in respect of landscaping/visual matters, which

has already been addressed in Paragraph 6.140 of this report. No other issues

were raised in relation to visual or landscaping changes to the SH1 corridor,

Kensington Park or private properties.

Summary

47

6.151 It is acknowledged that this existing section of SH1 dominates the immediate

environment and forms part of the character of the surrounding area.

Furthermore this part of SH1 is already subject to an existing designation that

needs to be taken into account as part of any assessment. The existing

designation contains a significant amount of existing vegetation that has blended

with rock retaining walls to form a road corridor with a reasonable level of visual

amenity. Although the level of landscaping proposed by the applicant goes a

considerable way to mitigate the loss of vegetation along the SH1 corridor, there

are areas where additional landscaping would be beneficial. As such, a condition

requiring further landscape mitigation will ensure the existing environmental

quality is maintained and potentially enhanced.

6.152 It is acknowledged that any mitigation planting and/or fence construction for

visual or noise reasons is subject to agreement between NZTA and individual land

owners. To further improve on the amenity of the road corridor and private

properties adjoining it, it is recommended that an Urban Design and Landscape

Mitigation Plan, prepared by a suitably qualified expert, be submitted prior to any

works commencing. This would assist in mitigating any adverse effects in respect

to the visual impact and landscape effects on individual sites within a satisfactory

timeframe, and would ensure the highway does not become an overly dominant

urban feature.

Archaeological Effects

6.153 No archaeological sites or areas of interest are identified on the District Plan

Maps. Heritage New Zealand (HNZ), have advised through their submission that

there are no historic heritage items at significant risk from the project, which is

consistent with the archaeological assessment provided by the applicant24. HNZ

have recommended that all earthworks proceed under an accident discovery

protocol (which has already been offered by the applicant) and for this reason a

condition is recommended.

Overall Assessment of Effects

6.154 The actual and potential effects of the proposed activity on the environment have

been evaluated and it is concluded that the adverse effects can be mitigated and

overall the potential effects of the proposal on the environment are minor,

recognising that some matters will be dealt with as conditions, if confirmed.

7 Relevant Objectives and Policies

7.1 The following objectives and policies are considered to be relevant in the

assessment of the proposed works:

7.2 Chapter 5 Amenity Values

o Objective 5.3.1

o Objective 5.3.2

o Objective 5.3.5

o Policy 5.4.1

24 Report by Geometria Limited, Attachment K of the notified application

48

o Policy 5.4.3

o Policy 5.4.10

o Policy 5.4.12

Comment:

In summary the relevant objectives and policies contained within Chapter 5 of the

District Plan seek to maintain and enhance the amenity values of the District and

to avoid conflict between incompatible activities.

The proposal would generally maintain the amenity values of the adjacent Living

Environment. It is considered that this would be achieved through a series of

mitigation measures such as landscaping within individual sites as well as

enhancement landscaping along the road corridor and at intersections.

Levels of noise or quietness are an important part of amenity values, particularly

where people are living in close proximity to one another. The enjoyment of

property, or the ability to effectively function in an area, can be affected by glare,

odour, light spill and other adverse amenity effects from activities that are not

characteristic of the particular locality. It is considered that adverse effects as a

result of dust, vibration and noise can be appropriately mitigated through

conditions which will ensure that there is no reduction of amenity value below that

which is desirable for people’s health and safety.

Increases in traffic, or changes to the character of roads, can result in significant

adverse effects on the safe and efficient functioning of these streets and on the

amenity values of the locality. Particular regard has been given to the effects of

noise and vibration from the proposed alteration, the proximity of the highway to

residential properties as well as the additional traffic on local roads. These

assessments have concluded that, subject to particular mitigation measures being

applied, the effects of the proposed works will not adversely impact upon the

amenity values of the surrounding environment to a more than minor extent and

that amenity values will generally be maintained.

Having regard to Policy 5.4.3, it is considered that the application would be

generally consistent with this policy. This section of SH1 is located through a

predominately residential area, which provides high traffic volumes. The traffic volumes

along SH1 are projected to increase. In this instance the application provides for an

alteration to an existing designation and any adverse effects as a result of the widening

can be appropriately mitigated.

In respect to Policy 5.4.12 the proposal will provide for an overall improvement to the

traffic flow and safety. A key characteristic of the existing environment is the presence

of SH1, which bisects the western and eastern part of Whangarei. Whilst the width of

the highway would be extended it has been assessed that this would not adversely

affect the amenity of the surrounding environment to a more than minor extent.

Overall, it is concluded that the proposal is in keeping with the relevant objectives

and policies of the District Plan related to amenity values.

7.4 Chapter 22 – Road Transport

49

o Objective 23.3.1

o Objective 23.3.2

o Policy 22.4.3

o Policy 22.4.4

o Policy 22.4.6

Comment:

The road transport network is considered to be important to the wider community,

however it is also recognised that roads can potentially create many adverse

effects. More specifically roads can detract from the visual character of an

environment and can result in adverse effects on neighbouring residential

properties.

The proposed alteration to an existing designation and associated intersection

upgrades will contribute towards establishing and maintaining a safe and efficient

road network within Whangarei. As previously set out in this report, SH1 serves a

dual function for Whangarei by firstly providing the main link from Auckland to

Whangarei and secondly serving as a main route connecting residential areas of

Whangarei with the central business area. The application will result in significant

improvements to the overall functioning of the highway which will be of benefit to

both residents within the immediate environment and the wider community. In

this regard the proposal is considered to be wholly consistent with objective

22.3.1.

The proposed widening will require amendments to existing intersections with

SH1, with safety improvements proposed to reduce the potential for conflict with

side roads and individual driveways. In this regard the application will be

consistent with policy 22.4.3 (New Roads and Intersections).

The potential effects of this proposal on amenity values have been commented on

above and it is specifically noted that the alignment of this alteration will broadly

follow the existing road alignment albeit that this will be widened to improve

existing capacity and safety. Where adverse effects on the surrounding

environment have been identified, these have been appropriately mitigated or can

be mitigated through conditions. The proposal will be consistent with objective

22.3.2.

The proposed works also include design methods to ensure that amenity values

are maintained and also to maintain and enhance the safety of pedestrians and

cyclists achieving policies 22.4.3 and 22.4.6.

Overall it is considered that the proposal will meet the relevant objectives of

policies contained within Chapter 22 of the District Plan relating to road transport.

8. Regional Policy Statement

Proposed Regional Policy Statement for Northland

8.1 The proposed Regional Policy Statement for Northland was notified in October

2012. Council Decisions on submissions were issued in September 2013 and the

document is now subject to appeal. The majority of relevant provisions have not

50

been appealed and are therefore considered operative for the purpose of this

assessment25.

8.2 Section 3.7 – Regionally Significant Infrastructure and Section 3.8 – Efficient and

Effective Infrastructure are both relevant to this application and are not subject to

appeals. Section 3.7 recognises that regionally significant infrastructure, such as

State highways, often has significant regional benefits including attracting

investment, improving competitiveness and providing social and economic

connectivity. However these benefits need to be balanced against the potential

adverse effects of a proposal plus the recognition that not all effects may be able

to be mitigated or internalised. Section 3.8 recognises that a well-functioning and

effective transport system can improve business efficiency, innovation,

competition and trade, support concentrations of economic activities and facilitate

mobile and flexible work force. The proposal is considered to be consistent with

the intention of both sections as increasing the capacity and safety of the State

highway will provide regional benefits to Whangarei and will support the

anticipated growth along this corridor. The proposed NOR conditions will ensure

adverse effects are mitigated to an acceptable level.

8.3 The relevant policies are 5.2.1 – Managing the use of resources, 5.2.2 – Future-

proofing infrastructure; 5.3.2 – Benefits of regionally significant infrastructure and

5.3.3 – Managing adverse effects associated with regionally significant

infrastructure. All of these policies are beyond challenge, with the exception of

Policy 5.3.3 which has been appealed by NZTA.

8.4 I concur with the applicant’s planner’s assessment of the proposal against the

operative policies 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and 5.3.2, as set out in Section 10.2 of the

applicant’s planning report. As policy 5.3.3 is still subject to appeal by the

applicant it is not appropriate to give it full weight at this stage. However I

consider that the proposal is consistent with this policy insofar as the proposed

NOR conditions will mitigate effects to a ‘no more than minor’ degree; there are

no significant water quality or cultural impacts; alternatives and constraints have

been appropriately taken into account and the positive benefits of the proposal

can be balanced against the adverse effects.

Operative Northland Regional Policy Statement (NRPS)

8.5 The Northland Regional Policy Statement (NRPS) is the Regional Policy Statement

relevant to this application. The NRPS seeks to provide a policy framework and

direction for resource management in the Northland Region. It sets out the

significant natural resource issues, acknowledging Northland’s diverse

geographical features and differing social, cultural and economic needs. It

contains long term policy based strategies for sustainable management of natural

and physical resources in the region including transportation networks.

8.6 Given that all relevant objectives and policies in the Proposed Regional Policy

Statement (except for Policy 5.3.3) are not subject to appeals and can therefore

be considered operative for the purposes of this application, more weight has

been given to the Proposed Regional Policy Statement in this case, however the

25 Section 86F of the RMA

51

applicant’s planning assessment of the proposal against Section 29 of the NRPS is

concurred with26.

9. National Policy Statement, New Zealand Coastal

Policy Statement

9.1 There is no national policy statement applicable to the application and given the

separation of the proposed designation from the coastal environment the New

Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has not been regarded as relevant.

10 Part 2 Assessment, Resource Management Act 1991

Section 5 – Principle and Purpose of the Act

10.1 Part 2 of the Act sets out the Purpose and Principles. Section 5 of the Act sets out

the overriding purpose, which is the sustainable management of natural and

physical resources.

10.2 The Act states that 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”.

10.3 It is considered that the proposal “enables people and communities to provide for

their … economic … wellbeing and for their health and safety”. In particular, it is

considered that the proposal will assist the public in providing a better traffic and

transportation network and improving the safety of for both vehicular and

pedestrian road users. It is assessed that the proposal will adequately avoid,

remedy and/or mitigate all potential adverse effects on the surrounding

environment (in some instances subject to the application of mitigation measures)

and the proposal is considered to be consistent with the principa l of sustainable

management of natural and physical resources.

Section 6 – Matters of National Importance

10.4 Section 6 of the Act sets out the Matters of National Importance:

26 Section 10.2 of the applicant’s planning report

52

(a) The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment

(including the coastal marine area), wetland, 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 Maori 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.

(g) The protection of recognised customary activities

10.5 In this particular instance there are no matters of national importance that are of

relevance to the assessment of these applications. In terms of historic heritage,

the submission from the Heritage New Zealand concurred with the applicant’s

archaeological assessment27 that there are no archaeological sites located within

the project area and that an accidental discovery protocol condition will address

any potential adverse effects on unknown historic remains (if any).

Section 7 – Other Matters

10.6 Section 7 of the Act details those matters that a consent authority shall have

particular regard to in the assessment of an application. With regard to this

application the following matters as outlined below are considered to be relevant

to this application:

(b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources;

(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values;

(f) Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment.

10.7 The alteration to an existing designation and associated land use consent

application will provide an efficient use of an existing resource. This will be

achieved through the widening of SH1 and upgrading four existing intersections to

provide safety improvements and improve the efficiency and capacity of the

highway.

10.8 In respect to this application, it has been assessed that the potential effects of

this proposal can be avoided, remedied and/or mitigated. Therefore on this basis

the application as presented is considered to satisfy the requirements of Section 7

of the RMA.

27 Attachment K of the notified application

53

Section 8 – Treaty of Waitangi

10.9 Section 8 requires that, in achieving the purpose of the 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).

10.10 There are no known relevant matters in terms of section 8 of the Act, which relate

to the Treaty of Waitangi.

11 Alternative Sites, Routes and Methods that have

been considered

Section 171(1)(b) - Whether adequate consideration has been given to

alternative sites, routes, or methods of undertaking the work.

11.1 The route of the proposed alteration to the designation is indicated on the plans

forming part of the NOR application.

Section 171(b) of the Act states that:

Whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes or

methods of undertaking the work if –

(i) The requiring authority does not have an interest in the land sufficient for

undertaking the work; or

(ii) It is likely that the work will have a significant adverse effect on the

environment.

11.2 In this instance NZTA does not have an interest in the land sufficient for

undertaking the works and the works have been considered by the applicant to

have a significant adverse effect on the environment. For these reasons

alternative sites, routes and methods are required to be considered.

11.3 The application relates to an alteration to an existing designation and for this

reason the applicant has not considered other alternative routes. The applicant

has stated:

“Complete realignment/relocation of the Highway was not an option

considered because overall the project focus is to provide for safety

improvements, which do not require a realignment/relocation of the

Highway. In this instance, realignment/relocation of the Highway would

be impractical due to its geographically constrained corridor and the

strategic necessity for the corridor and the works proposed to link into the

existing SH 1 corridor which has recently been improved both north and

south of the section under consideration”.

11.4 The applicant has however considered a number of alternative designs along the

existing corridor to improve intersection safety and provide greater capacity at the

Kensington Road/SH1 intersection. The alternatives considered are set out in the

54

SAR report28 and in addition to a ‘do minimum’ option, three main options were

considered, with three alternative versions of those options also assessed29,

bringing the total number of considered options to six. Different layouts have

varying social/community, environmental, amenity, visual and cultural

costs/benefits; the positive and negative features are set out in the summary for

each option within the SAR report.

11.5 The applicant has also stated that further changes to the design have been

incorporated as a result of public feedback during the consultation period;

particularly the relocation of the Lower Stanley Street intersection to 100m north

of the current location to maintain right turn manoeuvres and the introduction of

a right turn bay from SH1 into Russell Street.

11.6 Overall it is considered that possible alternatives to the proposal have been

adequately considered, particularly in light of the wider traffic and transportation

issues affecting Whangarei. It is further noted that the proposed works are part of

a wider road upgrading programme already commenced by NZTA for SH1 through

Whangarei.

12 Necessity for the designation

Section 171(1)(c) whether the work and designation are reasonably

necessary for achieving the objectives of the requiring authority for

which the designation is sought

12.1 The NOR seeks to alter an existing designation (DTNZ1) for the purpose of

widening this section of State Highway 1, also known as Western Hills Drive. This

application forms part of a wider programme of improvement works along SH1

through Whangarei.

12.2 The present limited capacity of SH1 and safety concerns with several key local

road intersections creates congestion, therefore increasing delays on the State

Highway and surrounding network and resulting in a high instance of rear end and

loss of control vehicle crashes. Traffic delays also adversely impact the

environment through the inefficient operation of vehicles and associated emission

discharges to the environment.

12.3 As Whangarei continues to grow, State Highway 1 is being placed under

increasing pressure from traffic movements both across and along the State

Highway. This congestion is further compounded by growth in the areas both

north and south of Whangarei and the strategic importance of Whangarei in terms

of the port, logging, farming, tourism and inter-regional movements.

12.4 NZTA’s stated objective is to “undertake its functions in a way that contributes to

an affordable, integrated, safe, responsive and sustainable land transport

system.” (Land Transport Management Act 2003.)

12.5 It is stated within the application that the NZTA’s specific objectives for this

project are to:

28 Attachment G of the applicant’s planning report 29 These three alternative versions of Options 1, 2 and 3 all relate to incorporating Lower Stanley Street

into the SH1/Kensington Avenue intersection as a fourth leg (whether signalised or at a roundabout) as per Section 6.2 of the applicant’s planning report

55

o Improve the safety of the Manse Street intersection;

o Improve the safety of the State Highway between Kensington Ave and

Manse Street;

o Improve the capacity of the Kensington Avenue intersection;

o Reduce the current crash rate;

o Identify a safe solution for all road users, including pedestrians and

cyclists; and

o Minimise any adverse effects on the environment or where this is not

achievable adopt means to mitigate30.

12.6 The proposed intersection upgrades of Kensington Ave, Manse Street, Kohatu

Road and Russell Road, plus the provision of four lanes through the Kensington

Ave/SH1 roundabout are reasonably necessary to achieve the desired safety and

capacity improvements, as detailed in Section 3.1.2 of the applicant’s planning

report. It is also necessary to alter the existing designation boundaries of DTNZ1

to include the additional land required for this project.

12.7 Overall taking into account the project objectives which relate to improving the

capacity and safety of SH1, it is considered the alteration to the designation is

reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the requiring authority as set

out in the NOR Application.

13 Other Matters

13.1 Section 171(1)(c) of the RMA requires that:

”when considering a requirement and any submissions received, a territorial

authority must, subject to Part 2, consider the effects on the environment of

allowing the requirement, having particular regard to—

(d) any other matter the territorial authority considers reasonably

necessary in order to make a decision on the requirement.”

13.3 In this instance it is assessed that there are no other matters that require

assessment with regard to the NOR Application applied for.

14 Outline Plan

14.1 Section 176A of the Act– “Outline Plan” – requires that an outline plan for work on

designated land is to be submitted to allow the territorial authority to request

changes before construction commences.

14.2 An Outline Plan is required to show:

• The height, shape, and bulk of the public work, project, or work; and

30 Form 18 – NOR application, section 5 dated 19 June 2015

56

• The location on the site of the public work, project, or work; and

• The likely finished contour of the site; and

• The vehicular access, circulation, and the provision for parking; and

• The landscaping proposed; and

• Any other matters to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects on the

environment.

14.3 However, this requirement does not apply in a case where:

• The proposed public work, project, or work has been otherwise approved

under the Act; or

• The details of the proposed public work, project, or work, as referred to in

subsection (3), are incorporated into the designation; or

• The territorial authority waives the requirement for an outline plan.

14.3 The Outline Plan process in the Act is one that involves the Council and the

requiring authority, in this instance NZTA. There is no legislative provision for

Outline Plans to be publicly notified or for interested parties to be consulted prior

to their lodgement with Council.

14.4 The Applicant has sought as part of the NOR Application to include the level of

detail typically required by an Outline Plan of Works so that the details of the

public work are incorporated into the designation; this would negate the need to

lodge an Outline Plan of Works are a later date.

14.5 In this instance the adverse effects of the proposed works are generally

understood to the point where the design plans provided with the NOR application

are final and unlikely to be changed as a result of ongoing conversations wi th

landowners. The only uncertainty at this point is the extent of noise mitigation

that may be offered to affected property owners if post construction noise

monitoring deems mitigation necessary. Any such mitigation would be restricted

to works on private property in agreement with landowners and is not likely to

trigger any reasons for consent. As such, it is appropriate to recommend

management plan conditions that can be approved by WDC in lieu of NZTA

applying for an Outline Plan.

15 Lapse Period

15.1 S184(1) of the Act states that:

A designation lapses on the expiry of 5 years after the date on which it is included

in the district plan....unless -

(c)The designation specified a different period when incorporated in the plan.’

15.2 The applicant has sought a consent lapse period of 10 years under section

184(1)(c). The primary reason for this is to ensure there is sufficient time

available in the event that delays occur in the funding programme.

57

15.3 It is considered given the requirement to obtain the necessary funding and the

nature of the works that a 10 year lapse period is reasonable in this instance.

16 Conclusion and Recommendation

16.1 Overall the adverse effects as a result of proposed works are considered to be

sufficiently outweighed by the wider benefits as a result of the improvements to

the road network and on balance the overall effects on the environment are

acceptable.

16.2 The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant objectives and

policies of the Plan and Part 2 of the Act. Further, the proposal is considered

appropriate and necessary for achieving the objectives of the requiring authority

of which the designation is sought.

16.3 Having considered the applications against the relevant provisions of the Act, it is

recommended that pursuant to Sections 104, 104B and 108 the discretionary

consent under the NES Contamination is granted, subject to appropriate

conditions, and that pursuant to Section 171 the Notice of Requirement to alter an

existing designation be confirmed also subject to appropriate conditions. It is

intended that a draft set of conditions for both applications be tabled at the

hearing.

16.4 It is also recommended that the request for an Outline Plan of Works waiver be

granted, subject to appropriate conditions requiring management plans to be

provided to WDC for authorisation prior to beginning works.

Recommendation

That pursuant to Section 171(2) and Section 181 of the Resource Management Act 1991

the application for a Notice of Requirement by New Zealand Transport Agency to alter an

existing designation for the construction and use of a road (State Highway 1) between

land located 160m north of Kensington Avenue to 220 metres south of Manse Street,

Whangarei be confirmed and that conditions be imposed on the designation.

Reasons for the Recommendation:

1. Adverse effects are considered to be sufficiently outweighed by the wider benefits

(positive effects) as a result of the improvements to the road network. On balance

the overall effects on the environment are acceptable. Where more than minor

adverse effects have been identified these effects can be appropriately mitigated as

outlined in the Notice of Requirement and recommended conditions.

2. The alteration to the designation widens an existing road designation identified in

the Operative District Plan. The alteration to the designation is not contrary to the

relevant provisions of the Whangarei District Plan and other relevant Plan

provisions.

3. The proposal is assessed to satisfy the relevant matters contained in Part 2 of the

RMA and achieves the overall sustainable management of natural and physical

resources.

58

4. Adequate consideration has been given to alternative highway alignments.

5. The alteration to the designation is reasonably necessary for achieving the

objectives of the NZTA to operate the highway in a way that contributes to an

integrated, safe, responsive and sustainable land transport system. The Notice of

Requirement would enable the widening of SH1 to provide 4 vehicle lanes at a key

intersection with Kensington Avenue, which will assist in the better management of

traffic and the relief of congestion within the Whangarei urban area.

Conditions:

CONDITIONS TO BE TABLED AT HEARING

Recommendation

That pursuant to Sections 104, 104B and 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991 the

application by NZTA to undertake land use change and associated soil disturbance as a

discretionary activity under regulation 11 of the NES Contamination be granted and that

conditions be imposed.

Reasons for the Recommendation:

1. Any actual or potential effects on the environment are considered to be minor and

able to be adequately mitigated through appropriate monitoring conditions.

2. The proposal is considered consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of

the operative District Plan.

3. There are no other relevant matters relevant to the consideration of this

application.

4. The proposal is consistent with Part 2 of the Act.

Conditions:

CONDITIONS TO BE TABLED AT HEARING

Appendices:

One Copy of NOR application (without appendices)

Two Aerial photo and Locality of the Site

Three District Plan Planning Maps

Four Submissions Received

Five Wes Edwards Traffic Consultants Peer Review Report (Traffic)

Six Styles Group Acoustic Peer Review Report (Noise and Vibration)

Seven Rebecca Skidmore Urban Design Peer Review Report (Urban Design and

Landscaping)

59

Eight Robin Rawson Group Planner, Infrastructure & Services Memorandum (Impact

on Kensington Park)

NB: The Hearings Commissioner has also been forwarded a full copy of the

Application Report including Appendices.

60