Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DAA-109805-4-351-V1
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND
ENV-2018-AKL-000078
UNDER the Resource Mangement Act 1991
IN THE MATTER of the direct referral of applications for resource consent for the necessary infrastructure and related activities associated with holding the America's Cup in Auckland
BETWEEN PANUKU DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND
Applicant
A N D AUCKLAND COUNCIL
Regulatory Authority
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF JOHN PARLANE ON BEHALF OF VIADUCT HARBOUR HOLDINGS LIMITED
21 AUGUST 2018
ELLIS GOULD LAWYERS AUCKLAND
REF: Douglas Allan
Level 17 Vero Centre 48 Shortland Street, Auckland Tel: 09 307 2172 / Fax: 09 358 5215 PO Box 1509 DX CP22003 AUCKLAND
2020
DAA-109805-4-351-V1
Introduction
1. My name is John Douglas Parlane. I am a traffic engineer and principal of Parlane &
Associates Limited.
2. I hold a Bachelor’s Degree in Civil Engineering and Certificates of Proficiency (Masters
Level) in Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, and Environmental Law from
the University of Auckland. I hold a Bachelor of Applied Economics from Massey
University. I am a member of the Institution of Professional Engineers, New Zealand
(MIPENZ). For the last thirty years I have worked as a specialist Traffic Engineer and
transportation Planner, first as a staff member of Auckland City Council and then North
Shore City Council and then in private practice both in London and Auckland.
3. I have been involved in the transport planning for new infrastructure and in providing
access to developments on busy roads for most of my career.
4. I have read and agree to comply with the Environment Court’s Code of Conduct for
expert witnesses outlined in the Environment Court’s Practice Note 2014. I have
complied with this practice note in preparing this statement of evidence. I also confirm
that my evidence is within my area of expertise except where I state that I am relying
on what I am being told by another person. I also confirm that I have not omitted to
consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from my expressed
opinions. For the reasons discussed below, however, my evidence does not amount
to a full assessment of the proposal and is constrained in scope, focussing mainly on
the traffic and transportation conditions of consent.
5. I am presenting this evidence on behalf of Viaduct Harbour Holdings Limited (VHHL).
I have also prepared a separate brief of evidence on behalf of the Auckland Theatre
Company Limited.
6. I have reviewed the application documents including the Traffic and Transport
Technical Report by Beca and I have read the statements of evidence circulated by
Joe Phillips, the Joint Statement by Karl Cook and Vijay Lala, and the statement by
Kurt Grant. I have looked up specific material in the attachments to Mr Grant’s
statement, but I have not read the attachments in their entirety. I have had access to
all the material exchanged by Panuku but have not read it all as it is voluminous and
much of the evidence and supporting documents does not impact on my area of
expertise.
7. I was present at the mediation held on the 19th, 20th and 30th of August 2018. I attended
the Traffic and Transportation expert conferencing held on 26 July 2018 and I am a
signatory to the Joint Witness Statement. As a result of that process and the mediation
2021
3
DAA-109805-4-351-V1
process, VHHL’s concerns regarding the traffic and transportation issues associated
with the application have been agreed and are dealt with by way of proposed
conditions.
8. Because the parties have reached agreement on the traffic and transportation matters
that were the subject of the original VHHL submissions, my evidence focuses primarily
on the proposed traffic and transportation conditions of consent and the rationale for
the incorporation of those conditions that are particularly important to VHHL. My
evidence is structured as follows:
(a) The Proposed Traffic and Transportation Conditions;
(b) Parking Effects;
(c) Road Closures;
(d) Servicing and Deliveries.
The Proposed Traffic and Transportation Conditions
9. I have based my assessment of the conditions on the annotated version attached to
the evidence of Vaughan Smith for VHHL. Mr Smith has shown in annotated form the
changes sought by VHHL to the conditions proposed by Panuku with its evidence in
chief. My understanding is that the amended traffic conditions in Mr Smith’s evidence
have been agreed between Panuku and VHHL. I understand that the conditions may
change after I have written my evidence and prior to the hearing (most obviously
through the rebuttal process). I understand, however, that the numbering of conditions
will remain the same and if a condition is deleted that number will not be used and if a
condition is added a letter will be inserted with the number so that my discussion of
conditions by number will still make sense.
10. The conditions that are relevant to traffic and transportation matters that I wish to
discuss are as follows:
Proposed
Conditions
What the conditions do Comment
103 to 105 These conditions require a
Construction Traffic Management
Plan (CTMP), set the objectives for
The draft CTMP has been
agreed as part of the expert
conferencing. These conditions
ensure the matters we agreed
2022
4
DAA-109805-4-351-V1
the CTMP and specify some items
that must be included.
in the JWS are included in the
final CTMP.
106 to 108B Require a Construction Staff Travel
Plan
This will manage the impacts of
construction workers travelling
to the sites.
180 to 182 Require an Event Management Plan This Management Plan and its
subsidiary event plans define
the scale and intensity of the
event.
183 and 183A These conditions require an Event
Transport Management Plan (ETMP),
set the objectives for this plan and
specify matters that must be included.
These conditions are the most
important matters required to
ensure the traffic effects of the
event are mitigated in the
manner that the applicant has
suggested in the draft ETMP.
183F and
183G
Specific Traffic and Parking
Management Measures (TPMM)
These detailed matters are
required to ensure traffic effects
are mitigated.
Construction Traffic Conditions (Conditions 103 to 108B)
11. Condition 103 requires a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) which is now
standard for major projects. Condition 104 sets out the objectives of the CTMP. I have
reviewed the proposed objectives set out in condition 104 (a) to (h) and I consider that
each objective is necessary and as a whole these conditions are sufficient to define
the purpose of the CTMP.
12. In essence these objectives are required to manage construction traffic effects and in
particular:
(a) Ensure safety;
(b) Maintain access and minimise disruption;
(c) Protect amenity;
2023
5
DAA-109805-4-351-V1
(d) Prevent full road closures and minimise Partial of Managed Road Closures
(being defined terms);
(e) Ensure the AC32 construction works are managed with respect to other
construction projects;
(f) Provide for a means of feedback from affected parties and ensure their
complaints are heard.
13. Condition 104 (b) is particularly important to VHHL as it addresses the maintenance of
access to properties in the Wynyard and Viaduct Harbour Precincts. VHHL seeks
refinements to the text (marked below), firstly to ensure that access is maintained at
all times and, secondly, to ensure that access to on-street loading zones is also
maintained.
104(b) Ensure maintenance of access at all times for all modes of transport to
/ from properties in Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct Harbour Precinct and any on
street loading zones in or adjacent to those Precincts at all times;
In my view the inclusion of on-street loading zones in the condition is important as
many of the businesses that could be affected by the construction activity rely on on-
street loading, particularly for courier deliveries. Loss of those facilities would in my
view be an adverse effect that would be difficult to mitigate. Where a site does not
have its own loading dock then the on-street loading space is just as important to them
as access to the building’s driveway. I understand these changes have been agreed
with Panuku.
14. Condition 105 sets out matters that need to be included in the CTMP. I have read the
draft CTMP attached to the evidence in chief by Mr Phillips. In my view this CTMP
should not require much, if any, change in order to deal with the potential adverse
effects of the construction projects. It is therefore important to define the matters that
are largely already agreed into the conditions to ensure they are retained in the final
document. Equally it is important to set out those not yet agreed so that the Court can
understand the issues. I understand items 105(a) to 105(e) have been agreed and I
support them being included as conditions.
15. VHHL seeks an amendment to Condition 105(f) to ensure that access is maintained
throughout the construction phase to the marina and berthage managed by VHHL on
the southern side of the Eastern Viaduct . These are permanent activities that require
convenient land based access. I do not consider that it is necessary to remove this
access during the construction phase as although the draft CTMP shows the Eastern
2024
6
DAA-109805-4-351-V1
Viaduct being used as a fenced layover area (page 0619), the evidence by Mr Grant,
the construction advisor to Panuku, does not indicate this area is required. I therefore
support the VHHL proposed condition, which reads as follows:
105(f) For Hobson Wharf base, include specific construction site traffic
management measures to ensure that continued vehicle access is provided to
the Eastern Viaduct and to Te Wero and that provision is made at all times for
a vehicle loading zone on the Eastern Viaduct for the purpose of servicing the
marina and berths on the Eastern Viaduct.;
16. I support the inclusion of Conditions 105(g) to 105(y) as these are necessary and
appropriate in my view to mitigate adverse effects throughout the construction phase.
In particular:
(a) Condition 105(l) is necessary in order to ensure that heavy traffic does not
simply avoid limits on the use of intersections on Fanshawe Street by diverting
to Customs Street West and Viaduct Harbour Avenue.
(b) I support condition 105(y) as the application did not specifically seek to prevent
reverse manoeuvring on public streets on in public spaces but I understand
that that was the intent. The Auckland Unitary Plan -Operative in Part has
specific rules that limit and control reversing of trucks within public streets.
Inclusion of 105(y) is in my view consistent with those principles.
17. Conditions 106 to 108 require a Construction Staff Management Plan which I consider
to be a desirable outcome.
Event Management Plan (EMP) (Conditions 180 to 182)
18. Conditions 180 and 181 require an EMP and set out matters to be included. VHHL
seeks an amendment to condition 181(g) similar to the change to condition 104(b)
discussed above, so that it reads:
181(g) Ensure maintenance of access at all times for all modes of transport to
and from properties in Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct Harbour Precinct (including
fishing industry berthage areas, to the extent any such areas remain in use by
the fishing industry) and any on street loading zones in or adjacent to those
Precincts at all times, noting that managed access may be required for safety or
operational reasons;
2025
7
DAA-109805-4-351-V1
Once again, I support the inclusion of on street loading into the proposed condition as
there are many on-street loading spaces in the area and in my view these are well
utilised. Not having these loading spaces available during the AC36 event itself would
create serious adverse traffic effects as it would prevent convenient deliveries to some
buildings and in some cases make it difficult to remove refuse. These loading bays
may also be needed to serve the syndicates, entertainment activities and commercial
activities that are involved participating or involved in the AC36 event itself.
Event Transport Management Plan (Conditions 183 & 183A)
19. Condition 183 requires an Event Transport Management Plan (ETMP) with the
Condition 183A setting out the objectives of the ETMP. In my view the objectives set
out in proposed condition 183A are the crucial elements that will ensure the final ETMP
adequately avoids, remedies or mitigates effects.
20. In the JWS we agreed as part of the traffic and transport expert conferencing, we noted
that conditions would be required in order to give effect to the issues we had agreed
on. In my view it is the matters contained in proposed condition 183A that are vital to
ensure the matters we agreed on are achieved.
21. VHHL seeks an amendment to condition 181A(ka) similar to the change to condition
105(f) discussed above. My advice to the Court is that this condition is necessary to
ensure that, during the AC36 event when berthed vessels are likely to be used a great
deal, berth-holders on the Eastern Viaduct are able to service their boats and VHHL is
able to service and maintain the marina. I support the wording below.
183A(ka) At all times provide vehicle access onto the Eastern Viaduct and a
loading zone on the Eastern Viaduct for the purpose of servicing the marina and
berths on the Eastern Viaduct;
Traffic and Parking Management Measures (TPMM) (Conditions 183F and 183G)
22. Specific traffic engineering measures are proposed in conditions 183F and 183G for
incorporation into the TPMM. These detailed matters are required in order to mitigate
effects of the event and to achieve the outcomes agreed in the JWS. I support these
conditions subject to the amendments below to address servicing issues. These
amendments are consistent with the changes discussed above:
183F(b) Ensure maintenance of access at all times for all modes of transport to
and from properties in Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct Harbour Precinct and any
2026
8
DAA-109805-4-351-V1
on street loading zones in or adjacent to those Precincts, noting that managed
access may be required for safety or operational reasons;
183G(l) At all times provide vehicle access onto the Eastern Viaduct and a
loading zone on the Eastern Viaduct for the purpose of servicing the marina
and berths on the Eastern Viaduct;
Parking Effects
23. I understand that VHHL currently has the use of 20 parking spaces which are normally
located on the Eastern Viaduct that are used to service the 22 berths in the marina. I
understand that these 20 spaces will be dealt with by the parties as a property matter
outside of this current Resource Management Act process.
Road Closures
24. The America’s Cup event has the potential to generate very large numbers of
pedestrians in the area not just on the days of major races but also when other related
events are held such as concerts of festivals. The application material had no clear
indication of what the actual events would entail. However once the draft Event
Management Plan was made available I was able to understand better the scale of
what is proposed and the duration of what is proposed.
25. My understanding of the recent documents is that most of the significant impacts will
occur on days that have been classified as Scenario 1 or 1+. At these times it may be
necessary to close Jellicoe Street. My understanding is that this will be the only full
road closure as indicated in Figure 5-1 of the Event Transport Management Plan and
as agreed in paragraph 5.2.7
26. The partial closure of Quay Street at the northern end of Lower Hobson Street has the
potential to create severe adverse effects if it limits the ability of trucks and vans to use
the existing loading space on the western side of Lower Hobson Street. In my view
the proposed conditions (including the amendments discussed above) are now
adequate to ensure that this area can still be accessed. I discuss this matter in more
detail below.
2027
9
DAA-109805-4-351-V1
Servicing and Deliveries
Servicing the Marina and 22 Berths
27. As noted above, VHHL manages a marina on the Eastern Viaduct that has 22 berths
for large boats. Servicing is required both for the berths and for the maintenance of
the marina itself. Access will be required to service the marina and berths right through
the duration of the consent from construction until the consent period ends. In my view
the proposed conditions 183K(ka) and 183G(l) put forward by VHHL will adequately
address this issue.
Servicing the Building at 204 Lower Hobson Street
28. Many of the businesses within the Viaduct Harbour area do not have their own off
street loading facilities and rely on on-street loading spaces, or they have a loading
dock at the rear but still need on-street loading spaces to enable them to receive
courier deliveries.
29. The former Harbour Board building at 204 Lower Hobson Street which is located on
the corner of Quay Street and Lower Hobson Street has no on-site loading facilities for
trucks or vans. All of the tenants of this building (which include restaurants) have their
goods delivered via a small on-street loading space on the western side of Lower
Hobson Street as shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1- 204 Lower Hobson Street showing the On-street loading area with a bus stop in front.
2028
10
DAA-109805-4-351-V1
30. The current parking controls on this part of Lower Hobson Street provide for a long
length of bus stop (8am to 6pm) that becomes a taxi stand between 6pm and 8am.
The green and white truck shown in the photo is actually parked on the bus stop.
Behind that truck there is a short section of P5 loading zone (8am to 6pm) that also
becomes a taxi stand in the evenings and at night. Behind that there is a short section
of taxi stand that operates at all times and finally just north of the Customs Street West
intersection there is a bus stop for tour buses.
31. The only suitable loading space for trucks to service 204 Lower Hobson Street is the
short section of loading provided midway along Lower Hobson Street which only
operates between 8am and 6pm. This area is regularly used and often loading
vehicles spill over onto other parts of the street as shown in the enlarged photo in
Figure 2 below.
Figure 2 Loading Vehicles on Lower Hobson Street (the existing loading space is too short and
trucks spill over into the bus stop ahead)
32. One of the major issues facing the owners and tenants of the site at 204 Lower Hobson
Street is the potential loss of this on-street loading space. Throughout the application
2029
11
DAA-109805-4-351-V1
process we have discussed the importance of this loading area with other parties and
that has resulted in the agreement in the JWS at paragraph 5.3.1 as follows:
33. I have reviewed the draft Event Transport Management Plan attached to Mr Phillips’
evidence in chief. At Figure 5-1 it shows that for Scenario 1 and 1+ events Quay Street
will need to be closed off between Lower Hobson Street and Commerce Street with
‘Vehicle Marshalling’ shown at the northern end of Lower Hobson Street. I consider it
vital to the operation of the businesses at 204 Lower Hobson Street that this loading
area remains in place and available for use by trucks and vans delivery goods to the
tenancies. My advice is that conditions 104(b), 181(g) and 183F(b) are required to
achieve this.
34. Finally, I wish to raise a practical issue that, while outside the scope of the Panuku
application, has significant implications for it and for the efficient use of the Viaduct
Harbour land and buildings during the AC36 event:
(a) I am aware that Auckland Transport, through a separate process, has been
consulting on a proposal to remove all of the Lower Hobson Street on-street
loading discussed above, so that they can install a cycle lane.
(b) In my view that will create major issues for the on-going operation of these
businesses both prior to and throughout the America’s Cup. However
throughout the discussions we have been unable to agree that this loading area
should be kept. Auckland Transport has taken the view that it is going to be
removed and Panuku and Auckland Council advisors have suggested that the
removal of this loading space actually forms part of the baseline for the
assessment of this current application.
(c) I am concerned by that approach. My hope is that council entities (ie: Auckland
Transport and Panuku) would work constructively and cooperatively,
endeavouring to minimise effects on the general public. It appears in this case,
however, that the organisations are effectively working independently and in a
way that compounds adverse effects that would be generated by their separate
activities. Thus, as I understand it, the Panuku consultants are asserting that
adverse effects on the Lower Hobson Street loading bay arising from the
America’s Cup event can be disregarded because Panuku’s sister organisation
2030
12
DAA-109805-4-351-V1
is proposing to introduce changes to this critical road layout and loading bay,
without consideration of the implications for the Event. It appears from the
evidence that the America’s Cup event will require the closure of Quay Street
and that closure will only be able to occur with the cooperation of Auckland
Transport.
(d) I consider it unsatisfactory that Auckland Transport could seek to remove a
necessary loading facility without considering the impacts that will have on a
significant adjacent commercial building and how the building will operate
during this event and afterwards. From a traffic and transport viewpoint we
need to know and understand the effects of both the event that Panuku has
applied for and how the rest of the Auckland Council organisations will seek to
deliver their responsibilities in the context of that event.
35. While I understand that the proposed cycleway is not a part of the Panuku application
I consider it is worth looking at how that project fits with the overall strategy put forward
by Auckland Council. The City Centre Master Plan produced by Auckland Council
presents their 20-year vision of the CBD.
36. Figure 3 below from the City Centre Master Plan shows the location of Cycleways
within the CBD and clearly it does not require a cycle lane on Lower Hobson Street.
Figure 3- Cycle Lanes, City Centre Master Plan, Auckland Council, 2012, from Page 53.
2031
13
DAA-109805-4-351-V1
37. Throughout their consultation process on the proposed cycleway Auckland Transport
has consulted on a number of options including Option 3 below which would allow the
loading area to remain where it is.
Figure 4 Option 3 Cycle Lanes from AT Consultation Documents
38. In my view this option would enable the tenancies of the building at 204 Lower Hobson
Street to remain open both with and without the AC32 event. While this Court cannot
impose a condition regard Auckland Transport’s cycleway proposal, I consider that it
would be desirable for it to identify this issue and encourage the Council entities to
work cooperatively to minimise and reduce traffic effects rather than compound them.
Conclusions
39. Most of the traffic and transport issues relating to the event have been agreed. In my
view the traffic and transportation effects of the resource consent application can be
dealt with adequately through the imposition of conditions. I have reviewed the
proposed set of conditions put forward by Mr Smith and I consider that these will
adequately address the potential traffic and transportation effects.
DATED at Auckland this 21st day of August 2018
John Douglas Parlane
2032
