23711982_6.docx

BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRYPEKA PEKA TO NORTH ŌTAKI EXPRESSWAY PROPOSAL

UNDER the Resource Management Act

1991

IN THE MATTER OF applications for resource

consents and a notice of

requirement in relation to the

Peka Peka to North Ōtaki

Expressway Proposal

BY NZ Transport Agency and

KiwiRail

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF MALCOLM JAMES HUNT

ON BEHALF OF THE KĀPITI COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL

Noise and Vibration

DATE: 9 August 2013

Barristers & Solicitors

D J S Laing / M G ConwayTelephone: +64-4-499 4599Facsimile: +64-4-472 6986E-mail: matt.conway@simpsongrierson.comDX SX11174PO Box 2402Wellington

Page 2

23711982_6.docx

INTRODUCTION

1. My name is Malcolm James Hunt. I am the Principal of my own Wellington-based noise

and environmental consultancy Malcolm Hunt Associates.

2. I hold the degrees of Bachelor of Science from Victoria University and Master of

Mechanical Engineering from the University of Canterbury. I hold other qualifications

with respect to the Environmental Health Officer Qualification Regulations 1975, and

hold a Royal Society of Health Diploma in Noise Control. I have over 25 years direct

experience in the measurement and assessment of noise in the environment. I have

held an interest in the field of traffic noise since 1987 when I attended the University of

Canterbury and subsequently produced a Masters Thesis on the subjective reaction to

traffic noise levels at 32 sites around the Christchurch metropolitan area. I also

examined actions taken by these respondents to reduce noise effects and studied the

acoustic protection provided by typical dwellings. I have also studied ground vibration

caused by road traffic, including within some peaty soils around Christchurch.

3. I am a Member of the Acoustical Society of New Zealand and New Zealand Institute of

Environmental Health Officers. I have held the position of Vice President of the

Acoustical Society of New Zealand.

4. I have been a member of a number of national and international standards committees

and expert working groups regarding environmental acoustics and traffic noise. I have

been an observer member of ISO Working Group 33 working on draft standard ISO/DIS

11819-2 regarding the measurement of the influence of road surface on vehicle and

traffic noise.

5. I have been on a number of past New Zealand Standards committees, including the

New Zealand Standards committees reviewing NZS6808 (Wind Energy Acoustics) the

1991, 1999 and 2008 versions of NZS6801 and NZS6802 (Measurement and

Assessment of Environmental Noise).

6. From 1999 to 2004 I was a member of a working party for the International Institute of

Noise Control Engineering which produced a report entitled Noise Emissions of Road

Vehicles – Effect Of Regulations. This report particularly distinguished between the

factors controlling that portion of roadside traffic noise arising from the vehicles

themselves, and the portion of roadside noise caused by the tyre/road interaction.

Page 3

23711982_6.docx

7. Regarding previous national traffic noise guidelines, I assisted in a minor way on the

development of the Transit New Zealand Draft Traffic Noise Guidelines - "Guidelines for

the Management of Traffic Noise" which are referred to within the evidence below.

Between 2007 and 2010 I was a member of the Standards New Zealand committee that

developed NZS6806 Acoustics – Traffic Noise – Noise from New & Altered Roads.

8. I have completed the ‘Making Good Decisions’ course run by Auckland University for

RMA Practitioners which provides certification for Resource Management Act

Practitioners to undertake a role assisting Consent Authorities with RMA decision-

making processes.

9. In addition, I have carried out traffic noise policy work for the Ministry of Transport

including the environmental effects section of the 1996 Land Transport Pricing Study

work. In 2008 I was commissioned by the Ministry of Transport to assist with policy

development on road noise. I produced a report entitled “Development of Policies For

The Management Of Noise From Road Traffic and Rail Sources”. In more recent times

I have assisted the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) with assessment of reverse sensitivity

effects of placing noise-sensitive developments within noise-affected areas adjacent to

existing state highways.

10. I was awarded the Standards New Zealand ‘Meritorious Service Award’ for 2011 by

Standards New Zealand recognising my involvement in the development of NZ Acoustic

Standards over the last 15 years.

11. I have carried out acoustic assessment work and research for various Councils, the

Ministry of Transport and Land Transport Safety Authority, Transit New

Zealand/Transfund and advised the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) on issues

relating to traffic noise.

12. I have also assisted Auckland Council with assessments of various large scale roading

projects.

13. I have conducted research on various aspects of traffic noise, including on the following

topics:

(a) Traffic noise from interrupted traffic flows;

Page 4

23711982_6.docx

(b) Traffic noise in populated areas (assessment of the numbers of people

affected);

(c) Relationship between metrics used to measure traffic noise levels;

(d) Cost implications of various mitigation methods; and

(e) Quantification of intangible factors in assessment of roading projects.

14. I have conducted noise assessments and reviews on various roading projects in the

Wellington Region including during the early stages of the Transmission Gully Project

where I advised the Regulatory Authorities Technical Advisory Group (RATAG) on noise

and vibration matters, including a “completeness check” of information provided prior to

notification. I was not involved in the actual hearing.

15. I acted as an advisor to the EPA Board of Inquiry in relation to the State Highway 20

Waterview Connection, advising on noise and vibration effects involving a review of

NZTA reports and consultation with local authorities.

16. Prior to this I acted as consultant to Auckland City Council advising on traffic and

construction noise matters associated with the State Highway 1 St Marys Bay & Victoria

Park Tunnel Project.

17. My involvement to date in the proposed Peka Peka to North Ōtaki Expressway Project

(Expressway) dates back to May 2013 and has involved conducting a review of noise

and vibration matters associated with the construction and operation of the Expressway

for the Kāpiti Coast District Council (Council).

18. I visited the site of the proposed Expressway on Wednesday 17 July 2013. I have met

with Council officers and their selected expert advisors to view the route and areas

where noise and vibration effects may be of particular concern. To this extent, I have

been in discussion with landscape expert Julia Williams of Drakeford Williams Limited

regarding the effectiveness of various forms of visible noise reduction structures placed

within the designation limits, or more effectively located closer to dwellings.

19. I am authorised by the Council to present this evidence on its behalf.

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

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

Page 5

23711982_6.docx

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

my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that

might alter or detract from the opinions that I express.

SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

21. My evidence will address the following matters relating to the potential noise and

vibration impacts of the Expressway:

(a) Construction noise and vibration effects;

(b) Expressway operational noise effects;

(c) Expressway operational vibration effects;

(d) Rail operational noise and vibration effects; and

(e) Matters raised in individual submissions.

22. My evidence focuses on effects at sensitive receiver sites. In addressing these matters I

have reviewed noise and vibration matters summarised in the following NZTA documents:

(a) Peka Peka to Ōtaki Expressway: Operational noise and vibration assessment

(Technical Report 14); and

(b) Peka Peka to Ōtaki Expressway: Construction noise and vibration assessment

(Technical Report 15).

23. These technical noise and vibration reports are included in Volume 3 of the Assessment

of Environmental Effects (AEE) report. I have reviewed the Construction Noise and

Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) and the related plan sets and diagrams. I have

considered the noise and vibration matters raised in submissions received following

public notification of the application and comment on these matters in the evidence set

out below. I have also reviewed the evidence prepared by NZTA’s noise and vibration

experts, and the updated conditions attached to the evidence of Ms Rebecca Beals.

Page 6

23711982_6.docx

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

24. On behalf of the Council I have reviewed noise and vibration matters associated with

the construction and operation of the Expressway, including the AEE documentation

and evidence prepared by NZTA’s noise and vibration experts.

25. I have concerns regarding the potential for adverse noise and vibration effects arising

during the construction phase, particularly where works are carried out at night time, as

proposed in some situations. Technical Report 15 (paragraph 2.2) refers to potential

non-compliance with the night time construction noise limits set out within

NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise (NZS6803:1999) at some residential

sites however the actual properties are not identified.

26. I note a number of public submissions refer to potential noise and vibration effects. My

evidence identifies measures that address potential noise and vibration matters and that

support the outcomes identified within the Council’s submission. I make

recommendations below to improve outcomes in noise and vibration terms for affected

parties and for the Council in terms of its statutory duties and responsibilities for

managing the effects of noise and vibration in the district.

CONSISTENCY WITH M2PP PROJECT

27. At the outset I note the following differences in the way this project has approached

operational noise compared to the Mackays to Peka Peka (M2PP) project:

(a) PP2NO has applied NZS6806 differently than that applied for the earlier M2PP

Project. PP2NO has mainly applied the "altered road" criteria of

NZS6806:2010 to all dwellings - the M2PP project mainly adopted "new road"

criteria (except where the project joins to existing network). This has lowered

the standard of mitigation recommended under NZS6806:2010. There are

other aspects of NZS6806:2010 that came into effect for PP2NO which were

not commonly found within areas affected by the M2PP project (for example

many isolated dwellings and lack of clustering of dwellings found for the

PP2NO project). See paragraphs 71 to 83 below for further discussion of this

point and its significance.

(b) PP2NO has no operational vibration limits that are included within the

proposed designation conditions. M2PP had a duty for NZTA to investigate

Page 7

23711982_6.docx

complaints regarding road vibration and applied the Norwegian standard to

assess whether vibrations were significant or not. See paragraph 100 below

for further discussion of this point and its significance.

28. In relation to construction noise and vibration I note the following:

(a) For PP2NO the CNVMP is not proposed to be certified by the Council. Only

Site-specific Environmental Management Plans (SSEMP's) are proposed to be

certified by the Council - these are submitted much closer to the time of works

taking place (20 days) and can be amended 5 days ahead of works. See

paragraphs 38 to 42 below for further discussion of this point and its

significance.

(b) For PP2NO, the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is

submitted to the Council "for information" not certified as it was for M2PP. See

paragraph 36 below for further discussion of this point and its significance.

CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION EFFECTS

29. Construction noise and vibration will arise from bulk earthworks, transporting fill, grading

and levelling, and compaction. I agree with the central premise of the construction

noise and vibration assessment set out in Technical Report 15 which is that that

construction of the Expressway will create significant noise and vibration at certain times

and places, however these effects can be minimised, in accordance with the duty to

avoid unreasonable noise in section 16 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)

by effective management during this project. In my opinion, amendments to the

proposed conditions are needed in order to give confidence that these effects will be

managed effectively.

Bridges

30. Work will be required on nine bridges along the route, the most significant being the

Rahui Road Underpass in Ōtaki where the nearest Protected Premises & Facilities (PPF

– see paragraph 65 below) is at the former Rahui Milk Transfer Station which I note is

located only 25 metres from the earthworks boundary. The Construction Noise section

of the AEE (at paragraph 22.4.3) refers to bridge piles being bored piles rather than

driven which is an effective noise and vibration mitigation measure.

Page 8

23711982_6.docx

Night-time Construction Noise

31. The Construction Noise AEE refers to most work being carried out during daytime

however the report also refers to night works being required in some cases where

activities interact with live roads and rail for safety or operational reasons. Technical

Report 15 (at paragraph 3.2) refers to night works (of limited duration) being needed at

the following locations:

(a) Ch 0000 to Ch 0600 - SH1 widening/Ōtaki northern gateway construction;

(b) Ch 1500 and Ch 1800 - SH1 realignment tie in and County Road north tie in;

(c) Ch 2100 - Rahui Road/SH1, Rahui Road County Road south tie in;

(d) Ch 3900 - SH1/Ōtaki Gorge Road Roundabout tie in;

(e) Ch 4300 - Ōtaki Gorge Road/Old Hautere Road tie in;

(f) Ch 5300 - Old Hautere Road tie in;

(g) Ch 7400 - Te Horo Beach Road tie in;

(h) Ch 7900 - School Road / Gear Road intersection;

(i) Ch 8600 - Gear Road tie in;

(j) Ch 9500 - New local road connection to SH1; and

(k) Ch 12250 - Peka Peka Interchange, Expressway and local connection.

32. The management of noise and vibration during night time works adjacent to residential

sites is a key concern, however I recognise road safety issues are paramount,

especially where works are conducted near the existing State Highway 1 (existing

SH1).

33. Technical Report 15 (at paragraph 2.2) refers to potential non-compliance with the night

time construction noise limits set out within NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction

Noise (NZS6803:1999) at some residential sites.

Page 9

23711982_6.docx

34. I confirm NZS6803:1999 is the relevant Standard for assessing construction noise

(including during night time) under the Proposed Kāpiti Coast District Plan (Proposed

Plan). Under the Proposed Plan, construction activities not able to comply with

NZS6803:1999 would require a resource consent to ensure the exceedance was for

reasons consistent with the RMA and that effects are mitigated. Technical Report 15

(paragraph 3.2) states that where exceedance of the night time limit set out within

NZS6803:1999 is expected “these works will be scheduled to avoid periods of maximum

sensitivity, for example not working past midnight unless continuous operations are

required.” However no details have been provided regarding which of the night work

site(s) identified by NZTA this possible exceedance would occur at.

35. I am concerned residential buildings and noise sensitive properties will receive high

levels of noise where non-compliance with NZS6803:1999 occurs. I am concerned that,

adopting conditions as proposed, the Council’s involvement will be limited to being

“advised” of the extent of this expected non-compliance where the contractor has

prepared a CNVMP and NZTA has undertaken construction noise and vibration

predictions based on this detailed information from the contractor.

36. To ensure the effects are managed in accordance with RMA duties, measures to

address high levels of noise and vibration effects of the Expressway construction need

to be to be clearly set out within the CNVMP. As a minimum, such a Plan, which forms

part of the CEMP, should in my view expressly set out:

(a) a list of PPF locations identified as likely to receive significant levels of noise

and vibration; and

(b) a description of the specific mitigation measures proposed to minimise noise

and vibration at these locations.

37. At the end of my evidence I recommend certain amendments to the Designation

Conditions, based on the draft wording provided in the evidence of Ms Rebecca Beals,

on behalf of NZTA. One of my recommendations is to incorporate the above (a) and (b)

requirements into the CNVMP which would appear to require amendment of proposed

Condition 36 and/or Condition 37.

38. I understand NZTA proposes SSEMPs to confirm final details, staging of work, and

engineering design information (proposed Conditions 23 to 25). According to Condition

Page 10

23711982_6.docx

24(a), the level of detail provided is supposed to be sufficient to ensure that “the Project

remains within the limits and standards approved under this designation, and that the

construction activities appropriately avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects on the

environment in accordance with the conditions of this designation”.

39. There does not seem to be any connection between the potential for exceedance of

NZS6803:1999 (which would likely be associated with any types of night works taking

place in the vicinity of dwellings) and the matters to be included within the SSEMPs.

However, SSEMPs cover a full range of matters including project staging and

environmental effects during construction including hazardous materials, ecology,

stormwater and a range of associated engineering issues.

40. Measures designed to assess and apply additional noise mitigation measures at sites

where construction noise limits are exceeded could be included as a chapter within

SSEMP’s, however in my view, noise and vibration effects exceeding guideline levels

are sufficiently important that it would preferable to set out the necessary actions under

these circumstances within site specific noise and vibration plans, covering the requisite

actions and processes and certified by an independent expert on behalf of the Council.

41. I recommend noise and vibration matters be appropriately identified and assessed on a

site-by-site basis on behalf of the Requiring Authority via “Site Specific Construction

Noise Management Plans” (SSCNMPs) and Site Specific Construction Vibration

Management Plans” (SSCVMPs) implemented via designation conditions where

exceedances occur or where complaints arise, as have been adopted for the M2PP

Expressway Project.

42. For the above reasons I consider the methods proposed within the designation

conditions by NZTA to manage noise and vibration effects during the most noisy and

disruptive periods of the construction phase may not be adequate in relation to dealing

with potential non-compliance with NZS6803:1999. I have recommended amendments

to the noise and vibration conditions I consider will improve their effectiveness.

Certification of management plans

43. Another key reason for my concern about the effectiveness of the proposed methods is

that the management plans proposed by NZTA are not proposed to be certified by an

expert on behalf of the Council. Under NZTA’s proposed conditions, the CNVMP is

Page 11

23711982_6.docx

submitted to the Council for information purposes only (Designation Condition 16) and

will not be certified.

44. I have indicated the importance of the SSCNMPs and SSCVMPs setting out which PPF

locations are likely to receive significant levels of construction noise and vibration

(including, any sites where any non-compliance occurs), and set out the specific

mitigation measures proposed to minimise noise and vibration at these locations in

order that construction noise is properly managed in accordance with the RMA. An

independent review of that information on behalf of Council would, in my view, provide a

robust process for ensuring construction effects are adequately managed.

45. I recommend this because I understand that the Council is charged with overall

responsibility for the control of noise in its district (RMA Section 31(1)(d)) and must act

to prevent any noise or vibration effects that may be injurious to health (Health Act 1956

sections 23(c) and 29(ka)).

46. I therefore support amendments to conditions to ensure the Council has a more

supervisory certification role as this would ensure that the methods set out within the

CNVMPs or SSEMPs are independently checked which will provide a more robust

management plan in each case, in my view. Requiring council certification of CNVMPs

and SSEMPs is also consistent with the conditions in the Mackay's to Peka Peka

Expressway designation and with best practice in my experience.

47. I support any improvements to the conditions that not just require certification of

CNVMPs or SSEMPs by Council, but also involves Council in early and continuing

engagement in the development of the plans so that the Council has input but also so

that there are fewer surprises for NZTA when the plans are submitted for certification. .

Rail Re-Alignment

48. The North Island Main Trunk (NIMT) railway line will be diverted west of the existing

alignment in Ōtaki to allow for the Expressway. The realignment is from the Ōtaki

Railway Station to north of the bridges carrying the existing SH1 over the proposed

Expressway/rail corridor. Rail works will consist of earthworks which are similar in

nature to those required for the roads. These construction works will take place close to

sensitive receiver sites such as 230 Main Highway and the Ōtaki Motel that are located

only 60-80 metres from the realigned NIMT railway. It is at locations such as these I

Page 12

23711982_6.docx

consider construction noise will need to be carefully managed via certified noise and

vibration plans, amended in the manner I have described above.

Construction Yard

49. A construction yard (or site compound) for the construction of the Expressway is

possibly to be located at the existing quarry adjacent to the Ōtaki River. Concrete

batching and pre-casting may also be undertaken at this site. Winstone Aggregates

Limited (Winstone) have a consent for quarrying and materials transport operations at

the Ōtaki Ballast Plant1 which stipulate certain limits on the hours of operation and on

vehicle numbers.

50. I have been involved on behalf of the Council in assessing compliance with the

Winstone consent. Based on that involvement and my knowledge of the site, I consider

that the conditions of the Winstone consent set important safeguards in relation to noise

emissions from the quarry site.

51. In my view the CNVMP and SSEMP for this section should set out methods that ensure

the use of the Winstone site as an Expressway construction yard is operated as far as

practicable in accordance with the conditions of Winstone's existing consent which are

considered important for controlling potential adverse noise effects.

Vibration

52. An assessment of vibration due to construction activities is also set out within Technical

Report 15 (at paragraph 3.4). This report refers to two of the more significant sources of

construction vibration (vibratory compaction and bored piles) and sets out expected

vibration emission levels which indicate any annoyance from vibration is unlikely to

extend beyond 100 metres from the activity. There appear to be no special vibration

effects that need to be considered for this project, such as the effects due to the ‘peaty

soils’ found in the M2PP Expressway project area.

53. The proposed CNVMP is important for managing vibration and will need to set out

precise measures to protect receivers located, in some cases, less than 100 metres

from the works. The contents of the CNVMP stipulated in Condition 36(b) appear to

require a two-tiered approach based on two guideline vibration limits, Category A and

Category B. I support the proposed approach whereby works must comply with

1 See RM960128. Condition 2, for example, limits truck movements between 22.00hrs and 06.00hr Monday to Saturday [inclusive] from the site to no more than no more than 6 truck movements per hour.

Page 13

23711982_6.docx

Category A vibration criteria set out in Condition 39, where practicable. Where it is not

practicable to achieve Category A, a suitably qualified expert shall be engaged to

assess and manage construction vibration. If predicted construction vibration exceeds

the Category B criteria, then construction activity should, where practicable, only

proceed if approved by the Manager and if there is appropriate monitoring by suitably

qualified experts of vibration levels and effects on those buildings identified as being at

risk of exceeding the Category B criteria.

54. In my view, measures to avoid potential night time impacts are a priority including

methods for receiving, recording and responding to complaints from nearby residents

during the construction works. Condition 10 sets out a process for receiving and

handling complaints received during the construction period. I generally support this

approach. However:

(a) I recommend that the wording is amended to include a duty for a Contractor or

anyone acting on the Requiring Authority’s behalf to act swiftly to reduce the

effect complained of, as soon as the complaint is found to be based on

reasonable grounds.

(b) I consider a period of 10 days too long to respond to a complaint.

55. Proposed Conditions 36 and 37, stipulating the contents of the CNVMP, make no

mention of the need for night time activities to be minimised. Such a requirement is

considered best practice for projects of this type. For example, page 5 of NZTA’s State

Highway Construction And Maintenance Noise And Vibration Guide2 refers to support

for procedures used on the Victoria Park Project which included SSCNMP procedures

which ensured responsibility for construction noise management was shared by all of

the project team. It is noted “Prior to any night works being undertaken, the engineer

overseeing the works submitted a noise request to the environment manager for review.

This ensured that the engineers were considering construction noise impacts when

planning night works”.

56. I recommend the Expressway conditions be amended to include a duty on contractors

to only undertake night works in the vicinity of any PPF where it is necessary (for

example for worker safety reasons) and that measures are included to limit night time

noise and vibration effects received at any PPF.

2 State Highway Construction And Maintenance Noise And Vibration Guide Version 0.7 NZ Transport Agency. October 2012. ISBN 978-0-478-38065-1 (online)

Page 14

23711982_6.docx

EXPRESSWAY OPERATIONAL NOISE EFFECTS

57. The Operative Kāpiti Coast District Plan (Operative Plan) refers to controlling road

traffic noise by adopting noise limits based on the previous Transit New Zealand noise

guidelines3. Technical Report 14 provides some information on compliance with these

limits, however these guidelines are not always able to be complied with as most PPFs

for the Expressway lie within areas experiencing significant existing sound due to the

existing SH1. Under the District Plan only a 3 dBA increase in daily noise is permitted in

medium noise areas.

58. The focus of the AEE is on noise mitigation developed and designed in accordance with

NZS6806:2010 Acoustics – Traffic Noise - New And Altered Roads (NZS6806:2010). A

discussion of the provisions of this Standard is set out below.

59. The Proposed Plan refers at Policy 12.12 to the design and development of the

transport network to ensure that adverse effects of transport on the inhabitants of

existing residential accommodation and on noise sensitive activities are minimised or

mitigated. Policy 12.13 is also relevant, which states that noise sensitive activities in

close proximity to the transport network shall be protected from adverse effects of noise,

through the adoption of acoustic mitigation measures.

60. NZS6806:2010 sets criteria for road traffic noise and provides a consistent methodology

for the assessment and mitigation of that noise that aligns well with NZTA’s own

cost/benefit analysis techniques used to justify funding of mitigation measures. While I

appreciate NZS6806:2010 is the most appropriate criteria to apply under current

circumstances, I consider the Expressway project has stretched the capabilities of this

Standard to provide a fully balanced outcome in noise mitigation terms where the design

of the new road lies close to the existing route for the majority of the route. Most

roading projects would only consider the “altered road” criteria at the start and ends of

the project, where connecting with the existing network.

Ambient Sound Levels

61. NZS6806:2010 states that the purpose of measuring ambient sound levels is to

quantify, in acoustical terms, the existing noise environment at a location of interest.

This will include typical variations in sound levels throughout the day and night, taking

3 Transit New Zealand’s Guidelines for the Management of Road Traffic Noise, 1999.

Page 15

23711982_6.docx

into account the existing sound sources. NZS6806:2010 recommends that

measurements of ambient sound should be undertaken for all new or altered roads.

62. Technical Report 14 refers to measurements performed at 8 locations along the route,

with data being collected over 7 day periods at two locations. The results are heavily

influenced by sounds from the existing SH1, given the close proximity of the

Expressway alignment with respect to the existing SH1.

63. The measurement information includes measurements of rail noise. However

measurements are displayed in terms of 1-hour time-average noise level (LAeq [24h])

which prevents a direct comparison with the 24 hour measure of ambient sound

(including noise from existing road traffic). Only if one assumes one movement per hour

over the whole 24 hour day would the 1 hour Leq value fairly represent the 24 hour Leq

value, however no information on daily frequency of rail movements has been provided.

Quantifying future rail and traffic noise levels in terms of LAeq [24h] would assist in

assessing potential cumulative noise effects of the Expressway.

64. Apart from this concern that future rail and traffic noise levels should be quantified on a

24 hour basis, I consider that information provided on the existing environment is

adequate for the purposes of establishing the sensitivity of the receiving environment, in

accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the RMA.

Protected Premises and Facilities

65. Assessment of traffic noise under NZS6806:2010 is undertaken at locations referred to

as Protected Premises & Facilities (PPFs). The AEE has assessed traffic noise effects

at PPFs. The definition of a PPF in NZS6806:2010 includes buildings used for

residential activities, including:

(a) Boarding establishments;

(b) Homes for elderly persons;

(c) Retirement villages;

(d) In-house aged-care facilities;

Page 16

23711982_6.docx

(e) Buildings used as temporary accommodation facilities in residentially zoned

areas, including hotels and motels, but excluding camping grounds;

(f) Marae;

(g) Spaces within buildings used for overnight patient medical care; and

(h) Teaching areas.

66. PPFs do not include:

(a) Residential accommodation in buildings which predominantly have other uses

such as commercial or industrial premises;

(b) Garages and ancillary buildings; and

(c) Premises and facilities which are not yet built other than premises and facilities

for which a building consent has been obtained which has not yet lapsed.

67. NZS6806:2010 does not consider effects of noise other than at PPF’s such as open

space areas such as areas of native bush. There are potential noise impacts on amenity

within public and open space areas which are not considered by NZS6806:2010 and

these effects must be appropriately assessed and mitigated if necessary. For example,

there are no methods employed to assess traffic and rail noise impact on the Pare-o-

Matangi reserve which I consider will receive significant noise from both sources. There

does not seem to be any assessment of whether these effects will undermine the

usefulness of the site for a public reserve or whether noise and / or vibration effects will

undermine the user experience in that environment.

68. Regarding the actual mitigation criteria, Section 6 of NZS6806:2010 describes the noise

criteria applied to road traffic noise from new and altered roads. NZS6806:2010 sets out

criteria for three categories of effects on PPFs:

(a) Category A, which provides the best option for reducing noise, and

(b) Categories B and C, which allow higher levels of noise.

69. NZS6806:2010 requires that, wherever possible, Category A should be achieved.

Page 17

23711982_6.docx

70. In designing mitigation under NZS6806:2010, achieving Category A criteria should

always be the aim. Where this is not possible then Category B should be achieved, and

where achievement of neither Category A nor B is possible, then Category C should be

achieved.

71. The Project involves PPFs affected by a combination of traffic noise associated with

new and modified roads. Altered roads occur in the vicinity of linkages to the existing

roading network. NZS6806:2010 recommends Category A noise criteria of 64 dB LAeq

[24h] for PPF’s affected by noise from “altered roads” while the Category A noise criteria

for PPF’s exposed to noise from “new roads” is 57 dB LAeq[24h].

72. Technical Report 14 (at paragraph 2.4.4) states that for PPFs near the existing State

Highway the less lenient “altered road” criteria are appropriate, even though the

Expressway is a new road. I note the “new road” criteria has been applied to PPF’s

located in Area F. The authors of Technical Report 14 justify the approach to adopting

“altered road” criteria by reference to Section 6.2.2 of NZS6806:2010, which states that:

“Where PPFs are affected by noise from an existing road, mitigation is only required for

road traffic noise generated on the new or altered road”.

73. Section 6.2.1c of NZS6806:2010 states that for PPFs which are significantly affected by

noise from another existing road in the vicinity, it may be appropriate to apply different

criteria (ie this is not mandatory under the Standard).

74. Section 2.2.2 of Technical Report 14 states that the Expressway does not fit cleanly

within the NZS6806:2010 definitions of new and altered roads, which determine which

noise criteria apply from within the Standard. The reason is that new roads are typically

formed in greenfield areas, where the existing environment is not dominated by

significant road-traffic noise which is mostly the case here. However it is noted at

Section 2.4.3 of Technical Report 14 that all PPFs considered in the qualitative

assessment of effects where the predicted Project noise level at that location was found

to be greater than 57 dB. Figures 2-3 to 2-7 of Technical Report 14 show how PPFs

have been assessed. As noted above, some PPF’s are classified under the “new road”

criteria (Area F) but by far the majority of PPF’s are classified under the less onerous

“altered road” noise criteria. I note even though a “qualitative assessment” has included

dwellings exceeding the “new road” criteria, this does not appear to have resulted in any

additional noise mitigation measures being recommended.

Page 18

23711982_6.docx

75. The approach adopted by the Requiring Authority to assessing traffic noise under

NZS6806:2010 for the previous M2PP project was to mainly apply “new road” noise

criteria4 (57 dB LAeq [24h]) which is seven (7) dB more stringent than the 64 dB LAeq [24h]

“altered road” criteria mainly adopted for the current project. This has a significant effect

on determining which PPF’s should be considered eligible for noise mitigation under

NZS6806:2010.

76. Noise mitigation measures recommended under NZS6806:2010 are also affected

depending upon whether PPF assessment locations are grouped geographically into

“clusters” (where the PPF assessment locations are located within 100 metres of each

other) or whether they are spaced at more widely intervals. The reason for this is to

ensure that only the most cost-effective mitigation options are considered. Clause 8.2.2

of NZS6806:2010 states that mitigation should only be implemented if the mitigation

measures used would achieve the following:

(a) an average reduction of at least 3 dB LAeq [24h] at the relevant assessment

positions of all PPFs that are part of a cluster; and

(b) a minimum reduction of 5 dB LAeq [24h] at any assessment position(s) for each

PPF that is not part of a cluster.

77. This has a significant effect on the way traffic noise mitigation measures have been

selected for this project, especially in the Te Horo area and other areas where scattered

dwellings are present but are not established within 100 metres of each other (being the

NZS6806:2010 definition of a “cluster”).

78. It may be understandable that the above 5 dB threshold for mitigation effectiveness is

employed within NZS6806:2010 to avoid detailed consideration of mitigation where the

benefit is limited, with a likely low benefit-cost ratio, however the near-effectiveness of

clustering at 100 to 200 metre spacing appears to have been overlooked in the NZTA

analysis. Small reductions in noise level can result in worthwhile benefits for the

individuals concerned however NZS6806:2010 only takes these reductions into account

where a large number of PPFs derive mitigation benefit.

79. The approach of NZS6806:2010 for assessing noise at PPF’s (not forming clusters)

seems to disadvantage PPF’s distributed as isolated dwellings. This is because the

limited width of the road and rail corridor places limitations on where structures can be

4 See Section 19.4.1.1,Page 446, NZTA AEE report, Chapter 19: Noise and Vibration, MacKays to Peka Peka Project.

Page 19

23711982_6.docx

placed. In such circumstances it would appear noise barriers are hardly ever selected

as the preferred option as it is hard to deliver the required acoustic reduction (5 dB)

particularly given limitations on where such barriers could be placed within the relatively

narrow designation corridor. However I would consider that if the designation were more

generous in width or if the barriers could otherwise be placed outside the current

designation boundary, closer to the affected dwellings, these barriers would achieve a

reduction at the dwelling of at least 5 dB in many cases.

80. I make these comments specifically in relation to 13 Old Hautere Road (south of Ōtaki

and west of the alignment)5 which is expected to experience a 6 dB increase in road

noise as a result of the Expressway, which is noticeable and will appreciably increase

noise levels currently experienced on the site. Other than noise, the site has potentially

high outdoor amenity being adjacent to native bush with a substantial, well cared-for

garden. I consider current noise would be likely to have a negative effect on amenity,

however the increase in noise as a result of the Expressway will be significant.

81. The concept of the best practicable option (BPO) for design is used within

NZS6806:2010 to identify the most efficient noise mitigation option. The bases of the

assessment are cost-benefit procedures set out in Appendix D NZS6806:2010. These

procedures are said to provide a consistent basis for NZTA to calculate the costs and

benefits of mitigation for various engineering designs for projects across New Zealand.

82. Guidance on the costs of noise affecting dwellings for determining the benefits of noise

mitigation is provided in the NZTA Economic Evaluation Manual (EEM) and

NZS6806:2010. The monetised benefit of reducing road noise, per decibel, is valued at

1.2% of the market value of the national median house price. The median house price

in New Zealand is $390,500 (as at April 2013).6

83. As a result of the Project, this residence is predicted to experience a 6 dB increase,

which using the NZTA EEM imposes a theoretical cost of $28,115 ($390,500 x 1.2% x

6). This would fund a substantial fence capable of reducing noise significantly in my

view.

84. Decisions around the selection of the BPO should not place great weight on visual

amenity effects on road users in my view beyond those necessary to ensure a safe and

efficient journey. This is because, for this group these effects would only occur

5 Technical Report 14 refers to this property as 14 Old Hautere Road, however the property is clearly labeled as number 13 on its letterbox.6 See https://www.reinz.co.nz/reinz/public/reinz-statistics/reinz-statistics_home.cfm

Page 20

23711982_6.docx

fleetingly, and do not deserve to be ranked ahead of noise mitigation methods that may

deliver significant amenity improvements for residents in their homes on an on-going

basis. I support the adoption of well designed and effective noise mitigation measures

which, in some cases can be vertical walls or earth bunds or mounds which I agree

have visual effects for residents and visitors alike. However I do not consider the

placement and acoustic design in accordance with the BPO process should be overly

influenced by whether or not vehicle drivers or passengers can see some mountains or

a patch of native bush.

85. NZTA’s analysis of the BPO for mitigation options referred to within Appendix A to

Technical Report 14 appears to have ruled out the use of noise barriers in some cases

due, in part it appears, to visual effects on road users. If these effects are important

design considerations I note the “State Highway Noise Barrier Design Guide” published

by NZTA7 sets out guidance on how to form effective noise barriers that minimise

effects on road users. It would therefore seem the BPO selection process has not

looked at refined noise barrier options that could address visual effects on road users

and remain effective as acoustic screens.

Overall Noise Mitigation Requirements

86. Figures 5-2 to 5-6 of Technical Report 14 show NZTA’s selected noise mitigation

option(s). There are very few PPFs that will receive noise reductions as a result of

mitigation measures purposefully inserted into the Expressway apart from the urban

portion of the Expressway over which a low noise road surface is proposed and within a

small number of dwellings proposed for acoustic treatment. No measures to reduce

noise are recommended to be applied to the route as a whole in Technical Report 14.

87. The open graded porous asphalt [PA-10] low noise road surface is proposed to be laid

over a short 1,050 metres stretch of the new road through the Ōtaki township [from

chainage 01300 to 02350]. The benefit-cost ratio for this low-noise surface was

calculated by NZTA to be 1.4 in this area and was supported by the feedback from the

workshop held with affected parties and various experts.

88. Where noise is proposed to be mitigated by reliance on a porous low noise road

surface, I recommend that Designation Conditions be amended to require the adoption

of this surface over the length of route indicated in Technical Report 14. Proposed

7 Published by NZTA August 2010 ISBN 978-0-478-36480-4 (Print)

Page 21

23711982_6.docx

Designation Condition 63 is the only condition mentioning a low noise surface, and no

specific lengths of the route are identified for this surface treatment.

89. Overall, the introduction of the Expressway and modifications to local roads will increase

noise levels at some locations, and decrease it at others. Technical Report 14 (at

section 6.11) contends that these changes “will not significantly change the aural

character of the environment” however this statement is not supported in a factual

sense.

90. The changes in traffic noise levels are considerable at some locations, with the average

increase 3-7 dB where the road is moving closer to PPFs. A summary of the changes in

noise level in each assessment area is presented as follows (Technical Report 14 table

6-1):

91. Figures 2-3 to 2-7 of Technical Report 14 set out the application of the new and altered

roads criteria to each PPF along the route, and show those PPFs where the altered

road criteria have been applied. Technical Report 14 sets out the number of PPF’s

overall that fit into mitigation Categories A, B and C based on NZS6806:2010. The

overall distribution of PPFs was found to be as follows;

Category A Category B Category C

132 PPFs 15 PPFs 1 PPFs

Page 22

23711982_6.docx

92. Noise levels in compliance with Category A should generally result in acceptable noise

effects, however as I discussed above, this is based on noise criteria for PPF’s affected

by “altered roads”. Technical Report 14 (at section 6.2) contends that, as the existing

environment is heavily influenced by road-traffic noise, compliance with Category B may

also represent acceptable noise levels. This is particularly so for the new road criteria

where Category B is the same road-traffic noise level as Category A for altered roads.

As shown in the copy of table 6-1 I set out above, there is one Category C PPF for the

do-minimum scenario (at 13 Old Hautere Road, discussed above).Technical Report 14

(at section 6.6) states that this property may require building-modification mitigation in

order to comply with the NZS6806:2010 mitigation requirements. In my

recommendations below, I recommend NZTA’s BPO assessment of mitigation options

be re-evaluated under NZS6806:2010 but with the following changes to reflect the

particular circumstances of the PP2NO project:

(a) all PPF’s located closer to the proposed Expressway than the current SH1 are

to be classified under the “new road” noise criteria of NZS6806:2010;

(b) for all PPF’s to the east of the Expressway alignment are to be considered as

part of a cluster where they are located within 250 metres of another PPF; and

(c) noise mitigation options shall be included in the mix of options considered

providing they are likely to reduce noise levels by 3 dB reduction at any PPF.

93. My final comment regarding the selection of the BPO treatment option, is that I agree

with the finding of Ms Julia Williams (the Council’s landscape expert) at her paragraph

34 where she considers the designation boundary to the east of the Expressway

appears to be quite narrow in the area south of the Ōtaki River.

94. Although I understand the challenges posed if activities are required beyond the

designation boundary, I agree locations for noise barriers or bunds for optimum acoustic

effect may lie outside the designation boundary in some cases.

95. I can confirm the acoustic benefits Ms Williams refers to at paragraph 35 of her

statement, where she states well designed mounding and planting within the property of

an affected resident may mitigate a range of amenity effects with the potential to create

some localised outdoor acoustic screening, and reduce noise levels inside the house.

Page 23

23711982_6.docx

96. I consider the dwelling at 13 Old Hautere Road would have benefitted from a noise

barrier placed closer to the dwelling (such as a planted earth mound). Sensitively

placed this mound could provide a locally screened area for the residents to enjoy as

well as reduce noise within the dwelling. I understand methods to achieve such

outcomes are not well developed within the proposed designation conditions to deal

with this, and I would support any process for improving the design of the Expressway

by allowing noise mitigating structures to be sensitively placed at effect positions to

protect dwellings, whether within or outside the extents of the designation boundary.

Relief On Existing Route

97. The benefit-cost analysis referred to in NZS6806:2010 takes into account the benefit

received by those PPFs which experience a reduction in noise due to a reduction in

traffic on an existing road. Specifically, Appendix D.4 of NZS 6806:2010 states that

“Where there is a reduction in the annual average daily traffic [AADT] of 50% or more on

that existing road [at the design year of the new/altered road relative to the current

year], the benefit-cost analysis should also take into account the benefit received by

those PPFs affected by noise from the existing road experiencing the reduction in

traffic.”

98. An analysis of the reductions in traffic flow on the existing SH1 route has been carried

out using the traffic data provided in Appendix D of Technical Report 13 (air quality).

Using this data, the reduction in the annual average daily traffic (AADT) on the existing

SH1 at the design year of the new/altered road relative to 2010 is as follows:

Reduction in the annual average daily traffic [AADT] at the design

year of the new/altered road relative to 2010

SH 1[Mill Road - Arthur Road]

73.8%

SH 1[Arthur Road - Waerenga Road]

67.6%

SH 1[Waerenga Road - Riverbank Road]

58.7%

SH 1 North of Te Horo Beach Road 83.9%

SH 1 South of Te Horo Beach Road 77.2%

Page 24

23711982_6.docx

99. As these traffic reduction values all exceed 50%, the NZTA benefit-cost analysis in my

view should have taken into account the benefit received by those PPFs affected by

noise from the existing road experiencing the reduction in traffic. Technical Report 14

does not appear to have included these benefits which may have a significant effect on

the project design and selection of the preferred route.

EXPRESSWAY OPERATIONAL VIBRATION EFFECTS

100. In contrast to the designation for the M2PP expressway, no operational vibration limits

are included within the proposed designation conditions. Although it is true that a new

road will present a smooth surface to moving vehicles (resulting in negligible vibration),

the surface condition could deteriorate over time.

101. I recommend traffic induced vibration to be investigated and reported by NZTA, upon

receipt of any reasonable complaint during the operation of the Expressway. I

recommend a new condition be included which requires NZTA to:

(a) maintain the road pavement to avoid vibration effects on adjacent buildings;

and

(b) achieve Class C of Norwegian Standard NS8176.E:2005 (Vibration and Shock

– Measurement of vibration in buildings from land-based transport and

guidance to evaluation of its effects on human beings) (NS8176.E:2005)

through an expert report that would be prepared if any complaints are received

as a result of discernible vibration attributable to traffic on the Expressway.

RAIL OPERATIONAL NOISE AND VIBRATION EFFECTS

Rail noise effects

102. Technical Report 14 states that rail noise and vibration criteria have been proposed

based on KiwiRail’s “reverse sensitivity guidelines”. However, no reference to these

guidelines is provided and there is no statement regarding the degree to which these

guidelines are reasonable or have been widely consulted on. My understanding is that

these guidelines are in their initial formative stages, and have not been widely accepted

in District Plans or other local authority documents involving wide public consultation.

Page 25

23711982_6.docx

Accordingly I would be reluctant to rely on them as ensuring protection from rail noise

and vibration without a careful review of their effectiveness.

103. Section 4.4 of Technical Report 14 sets out the results of rail noise modelling. Changes

in noise levels are expected due to the changes in separation distance from the PPFs to

the NIMT railway. Increased speed due to the improved vertical and horizontal rail

alignment has also been factored in. The receivers that will be located further from the

rail track will receive a noise level lower than the existing level.

104. Two locations (Ōtaki Motel and 230 Main Highway) are expected to receive significant

increases in rail noise due to the alignment coming closer to these receivers. Technical

Report 14 states that no significant effects at other locations are anticipated due to the

potential increase in train speed. However, it is not clear whether these other locations

are PPFs only (as per the traffic noise assessment) or whether the other locations

include a wider range of noise sensitive premises and facilities (such as flats and

apartments associated with commercial properties).

105. Section 5.6.1 of Technical Report 14 refers to mitigation for increased rail noise. No

specific measures have been recommended, however the section refers to achieving

indoor noise criteria for the Ōtaki Motel and 230 Main Highway based on building-

modification mitigation such as mechanical ventilation, and potentially updated glazing.

However, no information is provided justifying an alternative option such as a noise

barrier. These mitigation works are said to be subject to detailed design and agreement

with the landowners. This section also notes that there is some scope for providing a

noise barrier (fence) to shield the east and northeast façade of the Ōtaki Motel however

no such opportunity has been identified for 230 Main Highway. Justification for this

difference in treatment needs to be explained in my view.

Rail vibration effects

106. There is limited comment in Technical Report 14 about the number of properties

affected by ambient vibration currently existing in the area. Section 6.9.1 (page 58) of

Technical Report 14 report states “the occupants of these buildings could readily feel

vibrations from traffic and trains but were generally not disturbed by them, having

become somewhat habituated” however these comments are not supported by a

factual basis and may discount the severity of potential vibration effects at sensitive

receiver sites.

Page 26

23711982_6.docx

107. In my opinion, an AEE should set out proposed mitigation measures where project

criteria levels are exceeded both as identified by the model and those that may come to

light during works due to the inaccuracy of the vibration prediction model. It is unclear

whether there will be exceedances here, and no mitigation has been proposed.

108. Regarding rail vibration, Technical Report 14 (section 4.4.2) outlines how vibration

generation from the existing rail track will decrease due to the new track alignment and

ballast, however this will be partly offset by the NIMT railway being closer to two PPFs

(Ōtaki Motel and 230 Main Highway) which will receive higher levels of rail-induced

vibration.

109. As mentioned above, rail-induced vibration levels for a given distance are predicted to

be lower with the realigned NIMT railway. However, no assurances are given regarding

compliance with the nominated rail vibration criterion which is set out in Table 2-3 of

Technical Report 14 as 0.3 mm/s vw,95 Class C limits from NS 8176E:2005. There are

no conditions proposed for rail vibration and this should be rectified. While Technical

Report 14 (at section 5.6.2) states the new alignment will meet the vibration criteria in

Table 2-3 without the need for mitigation, I recommend that the vibration criteria in Table

2-3 of Technical Report 14 are set as conditions to ensure rail vibration effects remain

reasonable at all locations that will end up closer to the rail alignment.

MATTERS RAISED IN INDIVIDUAL SUBMISSIONS

110. A number of submissions raise noise and vibration issues. The EPA Summary of

Submissions Report states that 16 submitters (28%) noted concerns about increases

in noise and vibration from both road and rail.

111. Parties submitted that noise will increase because the road will be closer to their

properties, because there will be more traffic, and because of tree removal. A number of

submitters requested that the Expressway be paved with a “low noise” or “smooth”

surface and that bunding and planting is used to further reduce impacts. Submitters

also stated that noise and vibration need to be monitored and mitigation provided

where necessary.

112. One submitter (submission 102901) mentioned that the submitter may experience

additional noise upon removal of the shelter belts as part of the Expressway project.

Kāpiti Cycling Inc (submission 102873) mentioned the negative vibration effects for

riders over coarse chip seals and requested smooth riding surfaces along the route.

Page 27

23711982_6.docx

113. In addition to those noted above, I have identified the following sample of submissions

raising substantive noise and vibration issues:

(a) Donovan Kelly and Lill Jarrod (102887);

(b) Jarvis Wayne (102869);

(c) Lorax Partnership (102896);

(d) McLean Josephine (102886);

(e) Morris Wendy (102874);

(f) Ōtaki Community Board (102894);

(g) Parkinson Chris (102901);

(h) Sygrove Christopher and Robyn (102854);

(i) Sharpe Don and Juliet (102864);

(j) W and M Stevens Family Trust (102866); and

(k) Lonsdale Simon (102867)

114. Submitters identified both noise and vibration issues as a concern, for both road and rail

sources. Some submissions covered both increased noise and vibration, while others

covered either noise or vibration.

115. Regarding noise and vibration matters raised, most requested non-specific

improvements or that a greater account be taken of so-called “noise pollution”. I

consider the range of noise and vibration issues raised in submissions have been

addressed in the evidence above.

116. While I agree that recommending more extensive noise mitigation measures applied

more widely along the Expressway as sought by some submitters would enhance the

environment, I am also aware that the NZS6806:2010 process has been developed by

experts and should be followed where it is reasonable to do so. However, in the current

Page 28

23711982_6.docx

project I would support a modified process that could treat single PPFs as if they were a

cluster, and that would properly deal with the effects on road users (if any) of any

vertical noise barrier in the design of the structure.

117. Should the Expressway be approved, designation conditions amended along the lines I

recommend above would be generally consistent with submitter requests to better

manage noise and vibration issues both during construction and once operational.

CONCLUSIONS

Construction Noise and Vibration

118. The project involves significant earthworks and construction of bridges and other

structures, some of which will take place close to noise-sensitive dwellings and other

noise-sensitive buildings. The information provided confirms construction noise will

generally remain within reasonable limits determined by NZS6803:1999, which is

referred to in the Proposed District Plan. I consider NZS6803:1999 is a reasonable

measure for controlling the effects of construction noise. Vibration effects during the

construction phase are included, with potential sources identified including piling

associated with bridge construction.

119. The Expressway applies construction noise management controls which involve less

Council input than other major infrastructural projects such as Transmission Gully and

the M2PP Expressway project. While there are fewer noise sensitive receiver sites

affected by the works, this does not give rise in my mind to a reduction in the scope of

management plans or in the process of certifying such plans particularly if this involves

watering down requirements for effective communication with occupiers of affected

residences. It appears that construction vibration effects are more limited in extent for

this Expressway however I recommend amendments to conditions so that the Council

has a meaningful role in certifying the scope of noise and vibration management

methods, particularly if there is a risk that the project criteria for noise and vibration are

likely to be exceeded (which appears to be the case in some situations).

120. I have also commented on possible noise effects if the Winstone quarry were used as a

construction yard and the need to operate that facility in accordance with existing

consent conditions in order to ensure effects of the construction yard are acceptable.

Page 29

23711982_6.docx

121. I have commented on the risk of adverse noise and vibration effects of constructing the

realigned NIMT railway line in Ōtaki due to its proximity to noise sensitive sites.

122. Overall the issues identified at the construction phase are limited and relate to the

management of the project through the critical phases of the project. Below I

recommend amendments to the designation conditions to address these concerns,

primarily by requesting that the CNVMP is certified by an expert acting on behalf of

Council.

Operational Noise and Vibration

123. Generally the effects of noise and vibration are lower once the new road and re-aligned

rail route become operational, however these operational effects are enduring

compared to the temporary effects during construction.

124. Technical Report 14 assesses potential traffic noise effects of the Expressway using

NZS6806:2010 which is the appropriate standard for the assessment of traffic noise.

125. This Standard recommends that mitigation of traffic noise effects is applied by the “best

practicable option” consistent with the approach of section 16 of the RMA. However I

have identified an imbalance whereby visual concerns for road users appear to have

been placed above the needs of nearby residents to avoid unreasonable or excessive

noise from vehicles operating on the realigned road or rail route. I would support a more

comprehensive examination of the BPO, especially in Area F and especially if the

designation corridor were widened so that noise barriers could be located closer to the

dwelling.

126. The following summary issues have been identified in relation to operational noise and

vibration from rail and traffic sources:

(a) The NZTA documentation includes information on ambient sound levels

present in the area enabling an assessment of the current traffic noise

environment, however rail noise has only been assessed in terms of a noise

level time-averaged over 1 hour (LAeq[1h]) which prevents a direct comparison

with the 24 hour measure of ambient sound (including noise from existing road

traffic). I recommend that the noise assessment be enhanced by inclusion of

estimated 24 hour rail noise levels for the future design year, for relevant

Page 30

23711982_6.docx

receiver locations by including information on actual and forecast potential

future frequency of rail movements on the NIMT railway line. The assessment

of cumulative transportation noise effects in the future requires the inclusion of

additional future rail noise included as a 24 hour Leq noise level. Only when

the future rail effects have been considered in combination with expected

future traffic noise can it be said that cumulative noise effects have been

adequately assessed.

(b) To some extent, the Expressway is not a comfortable fit with NZS6806:2010

owing to the noise effects of the existing highway which will remain significant in

many situations. The approach of Technical Report 14 has been to

predominantly assess noise from the proposed Expressway as an “existing

road” rather than as a “new road”, as provided for within the recommendations

of NZS6806:2010. While the Technical Report states there has been some

attempt to consider effects on existing dwellings expected to experience noise

levels exceeding the lower “new road” criteria level of 57 dB LAeq [24h], very few

mitigation measures have been finally recommended.

(c) The approach of NZS6806:2010 is to take account of the economic benefits of

the “cluster” effect which discounts effects on isolated dwellings which only

qualify for mitigation where these receivers are located near to each other, in so-

called “clusters”. Whilst ensuring value for money for NZTA, this approach

appears to discriminate against the occupiers of dwellings developed in low

density patterns, such as in rural fringe areas or lifestyle areas, compared to

urban environments. While I acknowledge the NZTA consultants have merely

been following the recommendations of NZS6806:2010, I recommend two

further assessment items:

(i) The requirement of NZS6806:2010 to achieve a 5 dB reduction is a

harsh requirement for a project involving many distributed (isolated)

dwellings. I recommend the evaluation of BPO mitigation options be

based a broader consideration of barrier designs, such as designs

achieving only a 3 dB minimum reduction at affected PPF’s. While

such barriers may only reduce noise by a small degree, these barriers

would be not need to be so tall or long, thereby reducing their visual

and other non-acoustic effects on the environment.

Page 31

23711982_6.docx

(ii) I recommend that in order to work up further noise barrier options for

BPO assessment, further discussions take place on preferred noise

mitigation measures with affected parties and Council to find possible

further noise barrier options that can be included with the BPO

assessment. As signalled above, one option may be to install noise

reducing bunds on land outside the designation where this is an

effective noise mitigation measure where this can be agreed to.

(d) Noise effects in public spaces and open areas has not been adequately

assessed in terms of impact on amenity and on users of these spaces. As a

minimum, I would expect the Board to be appraised of the significance of noise

and vibration effects on visitors to the Pare-o-Matangi reserve.

(e) I recommend that the benefits of reduced traffic along the existing route should

be included in the assessment of effects, in accordance with NZS6806:2010.

Traffic reductions on the existing SH1 route due to the Expressway exceed

50%. Thus, NZTA benefit-cost analysis of the selected route should take into

account the benefit received by those PPFs affected by noise from the existing

road experiencing the reduction in traffic. If so, this information would aid the

process. It is not clear from Technical Report 14 whether these benefits have

been adequately considered in the project design and selection of the

preferred route. This needs to be clarified by NZTA.

(f) The main mitigation measure proposed entails laying open graded porous

asphalt (PA-10) low noise road surface over a limited stretch of the new road

(1,050 metres of the new route through the Ōtaki township, from chainage

01300 to 02350). There are concerns regarding longevity of the noise-reducing

capabilities of porous road surfaces. I recommend that this porous road

surfaces be clearly specified within conditions including reference to chainage

distances.

(g) Regarding potential traffic-induced vibration effects associated with new and

upgraded roads, the NZTA assessment suggests that while this vibration may

be perceptible in close proximity to the proposed Expressway, it will be

received at only low levels that do not represent a potential adverse effect.

Technical Report 14 indicates that vibration will not interfere with any normal

domestic activities in PPFs. This assessment is difficult to justify as no

quantitative assessment has been included in the Technical Reports.

Page 32

23711982_6.docx

(h) No operational vibration limits are included within the proposed designation

conditions. This omission should be rectified with a requirement for traffic

induced vibration to be investigated and reported upon where these effects

arise during the operation of the Expressway. It is recommended a new

condition be included which requires NZTA to:

(i) maintain the road pavement to avoid vibration effects on adjacent

buildings; and

(ii) achieve Class C of NS8176.E:2005 through an expert report that

would be prepared if any complaints are received as a result of

discernible vibration attributable to traffic on the Expressway.

(i) Regarding rail noise, two locations (Ōtaki Motel and 230 Main Highway) are

expected to receive significant increases in rail noise due to the alignment

coming closer to these receivers. No specific mitigation package has been

recommended. However, the report refers to achieving indoor noise criteria for

the Ōtaki Motel and 230 Main Highway based on building-modification

mitigation such as mechanical ventilation, and potentially updated glazing.

The use of buffer areas and vertical structures would provide at least some

limited outdoor areas that may also be protected. I recommend that the

advantages of noise barriers be further explored as a reduction in outdoor

noise levels would enhance the area in my view. In addition, noise barriers

reduce levels of noise levels experienced indoors.

(j) Regarding vibration from rail, Technical Report 14 adopts rail vibration criteria

based on KiwiRail’s reverse sensitivity guidelines. These include reference to

NS8176.E:2005 for vibration criteria which is the same standard as adopted for

vibration from road traffic. Technical Report 14 (section 4.4.2) states that due

to improved vertical alignment and new ballast, rail-induced vibration levels for

a given distance are predicted to be lower with the realigned railway.

However, no assurances are given regarding compliance with the nominated

rail vibration criteria which is set out in Table 2.3 as 0.3 mm/s vw,95 Class C

limits from NS8176E:2005. There are no conditions proposed for rail vibration

and this should be rectified.

Page 33

23711982_6.docx

RECOMMENDATIONS

123. Based on the matters discussed above, I make the following recommendations:

(a) The following are issues I consider require further assessment or information

before the Expressway can be confirmed:

(i) The use of NZS6806:2010 as the basis of the assessment of traffic

noise needs to be further evaluated in order to determine whether or

not operational noise effects have been adequately assessed, and

whether the proposed mitigation is appropriate, particularly the rather

harsh requirement for a barrier to provide at least 5 dB attenuation

and the cluster effect which discounts effects arising at single,

isolated dwellings. I recommend that NZTA re-evaluate the selection

of preferred noise mitigation options under NZS6806:2010 with the

following changes to reflect the particular circumstances of the

PP2NO project:

all PPF’s located closer to the proposed Expressway than the

current SH1 are to be classified under the “new road” noise

criteria of NZS6806:2010;

for all PPF’s to the east of the Expressway alignment are to be

considered as part of a cluster where they are located within

250 metres of another PPF; and

noise mitigation options shall be included in the mix of options

considered providing they are likely to reduce noise levels by 3

dB reduction at any PPF.

(ii) NZTA should explain how the benefits of reduced noise on the

existing alignment have been factored into the assessment of effects.

This should include a full description of the nature and scale of the

potential reductions in noise from the existing State Highway.

(iii) Consideration needs to be given to the Operative District Plan

provisions relating to noise from new roads which recommends noise

limits based on the older “Transit Guidelines” which are, nonetheless,

applicable and may be more appropriate than NZS6806:2010 in

certain circumstances. Locations where the Transit Guidelines would

Page 34

23711982_6.docx

recommend significant noise mitigation above that recommended to

achieve the NZS6806:2010 criteria should be clearly identified.

Ideally, mitigation measures to satisfy the Transit guidelines should

have been fully evaluated within NZTA’s BPO assessment of

mitigation options however this seems to have only occurred in areas

F and G (ref Table 4.1 of Technical Report 14). I recommend the

BPO assessment to achieve compliance with Transit Guidelines also

be conducted for areas A to E (inclusive).

(iv) The assessment of rail effects should be based on estimated 24 hour

rail noise levels for the future design year for relevant receiver

locations by including information on actual and forecast potential

future frequency of rail movements on the NIMT line.

(v) The noise assessment methods adopted in the application are based

around protecting PPFs as distinct from residential sites and ignore

effects in open space areas such as areas of native bush. There are

potential noise impacts on amenity within public and open space

areas which are not considered by NZS6806:2010. Where these

effects are considered significant, such as may arise within parts of

the Pare-o-Matangi reserve due to rail noise and vibration effects in

particular, these should be appropriately mitigated where practical.

(b) Conditions requiring more detail in order to deliver the Proposal’s anticipated

outcomes:

(i) Conditions 36 and 37 setting out matters to be addressed within the

CNVMP should in my view be amended to expressly include:

(a) a list of PPF locations identified as likely to receive

significant levels of noise and vibration; and

(b) a description of the specific mitigation measures proposed to

minimise noise and vibration at these locations.

(ii) The Winstone Quarry has been the focus of community noise

concerns in the past, including effects associated with heavy vehicles

entering and leaving the site at night time. It is recommended that

Page 35

23711982_6.docx

designations conditions limit the use of the site in a manner

consistent with Consent RM960128.

(iii) Proposed designation conditions should be amended to require the

CNVMP in addition to any SSEMP to be prepared in consultation with

the Council and certified by the Council to ensure these plans contain

appropriate methods and will adequately mitigate the effects they are

designed to address.

(iv) A new designation condition is required to ensure the road pavement

is maintained in a smooth condition to avoid vibration effects on

adjacent buildings.

(v) Appropriate provision should be made in conditions to mitigate the

significant rail noise effects on the Ōtaki Motel and 230 Main Highway

by the method which delivers the greatest environmental benefits.

This should include an evaluation of different designs of noise

barriers.

(vi) The mitigation of future traffic noise at 13 Old Hautere Road requires

further consideration. The BPO assessment of the selected traffic

noise mitigation option undertaken by NZTA needs to be re-

calculated with adjusted parameters as I set out above in my

Recommendations at paragraph 123(a)(i). The outcome of this

modified method for determining the BPO would place measures

such as noise barriers and screening by mounds of multiple PPF’s on

a more equal footing against acoustic insulation of the dwelling. This

is considered appropriate given the range of benefits over and above

the reduction of indoor sound levels which can be achieved via

screening.

(vii) Class C of Norwegian Standard NS8176.E:2005 (Vibration and Shock

– Measurement of vibration in buildings from land-based transport

and guidance to evaluation of its effects on human beings) should be

achieved at any existing PPF in relation to any expert report prepared

following any complaints being received as a result of discernible

vibration attributable to rail movements or traffic on the Expressway.

Page 36

23711982_6.docx

(viii) Monitoring of noise and vibration at properties up to 200 metres from

the alignment should be undertaken once the Expressway is

operational, with mitigation to be provided where a need is identified.

(ix) Proposed conditions need to be modified where any shortcomings in

the Expressway's management of noise are identified through the

further assessments sought.

Malcolm James Hunt 9 August 2013