Aotea to NAL- S133a amended

Decision following the hearing of an application for resource consents under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) Proposal Application for resource consents and for a certificate of compliance respectively under sections 88 and 139 of the RMA by Auckland Transport (AT or the applicant) to construct the Aotea Station to North Auckland Line (NAL) section of the City Rail Link (CRL) and provide for the ongoing operation, use and maintenance of the entire CRL route (Britomart to NAL).

Pursuant to sections 104, 104B, 105, 107 and 108 of the RMA these resource consents are GRANTED and pursuant to section 139 of the RMA a certificate of compliance is not issued. The reasons are set out below.

Application Numbers:

R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/2038, R/REG/2016/1900

Site Address:

CITY RAIL LINK Various - Albert Street, Kingston Street, Victoria Street West, Wellesley Street West, Mayoral Drive, Vincent Street, Pitt Street, Greys Avenue, Beresford Square, Poynton Terrace, Karangahape Road, Mercury Lane, Canada Street, Central Motorway Junction, Ian McKinnon Drive, Upper Queen Street, St Benedicts Street, Symonds Street, Newton Road, Mt Eden Road, Basque Road, New North Road, Flower Street, Nikau Street, Shaddock Street, Ruru Street, Ngahura Street, Fenton Street, Porters Avenue, Haultain Street, Boston Road, Nugent Street, Normanby Road, Lauder Road, Water Street, Severn Street, Auburn Street, Wynyard Road, Cross Street

Applicant:

Auckland Transport

Hearing Commenced: Hearing Panel:

9.30am on 17 October 2016 Alan Watson (chair) Rebecca Macky Basil Morrison Michael Parsonson

Appearances:

For the Applicant: Andrew Beatson (legal counsel) Chris Meale (corporate) Dean Ingoe (consenting strategy and consultation) Bill Newns (design and construction: settlement)

R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/203

Alan Pattle (groundwater) Craig Stevenson (structural) Terry Widdowson (contamination) Richard Chilton (air quality) Jeremy Salmond (built heritage) Paul Kennedy (water quality and management) Jennifer Carvill (planning) Carol Greensmith (communications manager) Richard Jenkins (implementation of consent conditions) For the Submitters: Heart of the City represented by Vivienne Beck (chief executive) and Kelvin Norgrove (planning) Michael Fisher Karangahape Road Business Association represented by Michael Richardson and Kelvin Norgrove (planning) Qambi Properties Limited represented by Russell Bartlett (legal counsel) William McKenzie Christopher Browne John Abel-Pattinson Samson Corporation Limited and Sterling Nominees Limited represented by Richard Brabant (legal counsel) For the Council: Andrew Gysberts - team manager Haylee Minoprio - reporting planner Greg Murphy - team leader water allocation Rob Burden - environmental health Philip Kelsey - groundwater/hydrogeology Nick Hazard - groundwater/hydrogeology Aidan Nelson - groundwater and geotechnical Leon Blackburn - stormwater Andrew Kalbarczyk - contaminated land Bryan Bennett - built heritage Myfanwy Eaves - historic heritage Graeme Jamieson - structural engineer Paulette Kenihan - hearings advisor Hearing adjourned

19 October 2016

Commissioners’ site visit

12 October 2016

Hearing Closed:

26 October 2016

R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 2

Introduction 1.

This decision is made on behalf of the Auckland Council (the Council or AC) by Independent Hearing Commissioners Alan Watson , Rebecca Macky, Michael Parsonson and Basil Morrison, appointed and acting under delegated authority under sections 34 and 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA).

2.

This decision contains the findings from our deliberations on the application for resource consents and has been prepared in accordance with section 113 of the RMA.

3.

The application was publicly notified on 15 July 2016 at the request of the applicant, and with submissions closing on 12 August 2016. As part of that process the owners and occupiers of all buildings located within the 5mm ground settlement contour were directly served with notice of the application. A total of 37 submissions were received, with 11 in support, 6 neutral and 20 in opposition. Through the ground settlement peer review process some additional buildings were found to be within the area of predicted ground settlement and accordingly an additional five parties were subsequently served notice on 31 August 2016 with submissions closing on 28 September 2016. One submission was received from those parties.

4.

At the time of hearing the Council had released its decision version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP DV) and the Commissioners heard from the applicant and submitters in terms of the relevant provisions of both, the Auckland Council Regional Plans (Sediment) and (Air, Land, Water) and the PAUP DV.

5.

The Council has since as of 15 November 2016 determined the Auckland Unitary Plan as Operative in Part (AUP OP).The only Regional Plan provisions of the PAUP DV that are subject to challenge by appeal or judicial review to the Environment Court or High Court related to Air Discharge. While all other Auckland Regional Plan consent requirements are now inoperable these have still be listed below for reference in italics.

Summary of proposal and activity status 6.

The applicant proposes to construct the Aotea Station to NRL section of the CRL and provide for the ongoing operation, use and maintenance of the entire CRL route (Britomart to NAL).

The proposal requires resource consents for the following reasons, as adopted from the Council planner’s report. When the application was lodged, resource consents were needed for the following reasons:

Land use consents (NES s9(1) and Regional s9(2)) – R/LUC/2016/1890 National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NES Soil) •

A land use consent to disturb soil pursuant to Regulation 11 (discretionary activity) of the NES (Soil) is sought.

Auckland Council Regional Plan (Sediment Control) •

A land use consent for land disturbing activities including roading and trenching and earthworks greater than 5ha pursuant to Rule 5.4.3.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP (SC) is sought.

Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land and Water) R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 3

•

A land use consent associated with the ITA activities is a controlled activity pursuant to Rule 5.5.14A.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Notified Version) •

A land use consent for earthworks for network utilities and road networks greater than 2,500m2 or 2,500m3 pursuant to Activity Table Rule H.4.2.1.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of the PAUP NV was sought.

•

A land use consent for earthworks greater than 2,500m2 or 2,500m3 within the 100-year ARI flood plain pursuant to Activity Table Rule H.4.2.1.2 (restricted discretionary activity) of the PAUP NV was sought.

•

A land use consent for the redevelopment of existing, high use public roads operated by a road controlling authority with an impervious area greater than 5,000m2 not meeting the permitted or controlled activity controls pursuant to Activity Table Rule H.4.14.3.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of the PAUP NV was sought.

Note: in the original AEE, the applicant sought consent for earthworks within the historic heritage overlay (with and without archaeological controls) under H4.2.1.2 and for above ground infrastructure within flood hazard areas under H4.12.1. However, these rules are district plan provisions not being marked with the [rp] notation which identifies which parts of the PAUP NV are regional plan provisions as stated in Clause A4.4.

Water permit (s14) – R/REG/2016/1892 Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land & Water) •

A water permit for the temporary and permanent diversion of groundwater pursuant to Rule 6.5.77 (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP (ALW) is sought.

•

A water permit for the taking of groundwater for the purposes of temporary and permanent groundwater diversion pursuant to Rule 6.5.43 (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP (ALW) is sought.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Notified Version) •

A water permit for the temporary and permanent diversion of groundwater pursuant to Activity Table Rule H.4.17.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of the PAUP NV was sought.

•

A water permit for the taking of groundwater associated with a temporary and permanent groundwater diversion pursuant to Activity Table Rule H.4.17.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of the PAUP NV was sought.

Stormwater diversion and discharge permit (s15) – R/REG/2016/1897 Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land & Water) •

A discharge permit to discharge stormwater from a combined impervious area (authorised and new) that is less than 10,000m2, and redeveloped existing impervious surface not meeting the permitted activity or controlled activity standards, pursuant to Rule 5.5.3(a) (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP (ALW) is sought.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Notified Version) •

A discharge permit for diversion and discharge of stormwater to land and water from impervious areas existing at the date of notification of the Unitary Plan that does not meet

R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 4

the permitted activity controls pursuant to Activity Table Rule H.4.14.1.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of the PAUP NV was sought.

Discharge permit (contaminated land) (s15) – R/REG/2016/1895 Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land & Water) •

A discharge permit for the discharge of contaminants from disturbing soil on land containing elevated levels of contaminants to land or water pursuant to Rule 5.5.44A (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP (ALW) is sought.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Notified Version) •

A discharge permit for the discharge of contaminants from disturbance of land not meeting the controlled activity controls pursuant to Activity Table Rule H.4.5.1 and Rule H.4.5.2.3.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of the PAUP NV was sought.

Discharge permit (wastewater/washwater - construction) (s15) – R/REG/2016/1896 Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land & Water) •

A discharge permit to discharge contaminants to stormwater during construction from the dewatering and process water from the tunnel boring and trench dewatering pursuant to Rule 5.5.68 (discretionary activity) of the ACRP (ALW) is sought.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Notified Version) •

A discharge permit to discharge wastewater and/or washwater to land or water during construction from the dewatering trenches or other excavations, and associated drilling including washing, construction, removal installation infrastructure, pursuant to Activity Table Rule H.4.18.1 (discretionary activity) of the PAUP NV is sought.

Discharge permit (wastewater/washwater - operation) (s15) – R/REG/2016/2038 Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land & Water) •

A discharge permit to discharge contaminants to stormwater during operation that cannot meet the conditions of the permitted activity rule pursuant to Rule 5.5.68 (discretionary activity) of the ACRP: ALW is sought.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Notified Version) •

A discharge permit to discharge wastewater to water and trench dewatering during operation not otherwise authorised by a rule, pursuant to Activity Table H.4.18.1 (discretionary activity) of the PAUP NV was sought.

Discharge permit (ITA) (s15) – R/REG/2016/1898 Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land & Water) •

A discharge permit to discharge contaminants from land for the purposes of Industrial or Trade Activities (namely concrete batching) pursuant to Rule 5.5.18 (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP (ALW) is sought.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Notified Version) •

A land use consent to discharge contaminants from land for the purposes of Industrial or Trade Activities pursuant to Activity Table Rule H.4.8.1 and Rule H.4.8.2.2.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of the PAUP NV was sought.

R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 5

Air discharge permits (construction) (s15) – R/REG/2016/1899 Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land & Water) •

A discharge permit for the discharge of contaminants to air from earthworks and cement storage pursuant to Rule 4.5.56 (restricted discretionary activity) of the ACRP (ALW) is sought.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Notified Version) •

A discharge permit for discharge of contaminants to air from earthworks and cement storage pursuant to Activity Table Rule H.4.1.1 (restricted discretionary activity) of the PAUP NV was sought.

Air discharge permits (operation) (s15) – R/REG/2016/1900 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Notified Version) •

A discharge permit for the discharge of contaminants to air from tunnels over 220m long that are used for mobile sources pursuant to Activity Table Rule H.4.1.1 (discretionary activity) of the PAUP NV was sought.

Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part Since the application was lodged, the council has notified the PAUP DV on 19 August 2016.

This replaces the PAUP notified version. While this application is afforded the same activity status as when it was lodged (see s88A), resource consents are required under the PAUP DV for the following reasons:

Regional land use consents (s9) - R/LUC/2016/1890 •

A land use consent for earthworks greater than 50,000m2 where land has a slope less than 10 degrees outside the Sediment Control Protection Area pursuant to Activity Table Rule E26.5.3.2 (A103) (restricted discretionary activity) of the PAUP DV is sought.

•

A land use consent for the redevelopment of an existing, high use road not meeting the permitted or controlled activity standards pursuant to Activity Table Rule E9.4.1 (A9) (restricted discretionary activity) of the PAUP DV is sought.

•

Use of land for a new industrial or trade activity listed as high risk in Table E33.4.3 pursuant to Activity Table Rule E33.4.1(A8) (controlled activity) of the PAUP DV is sought.

Water permit (ss14) – R/REG/2016/1892 •

A water permit for the diversion of groundwater pursuant to Activity Table Rule E7.4.1 (A28) (restricted discretionary activity) of the PAUP DV is sought.

•

A water permit for the taking of groundwater pursuant to Activity Table Rule E7.4.1 (A26) (discretionary activity) of the PAUP DV is sought.

Discharge permit (contaminated land) (s15) – R/REG/2016/1895 •

A discharge permit for the discharge of contaminants from disturbance of land not meeting the permitted activity controls pursuant to Activity Table Rule E30.4.1 (A6) and Rule E30.6.2.1 (controlled activity) of the PAUP DV is sought.

Discharge permit (wastewater/washwater - construction) (s15) – R/REG/2016/1896 •

A discharge permit to discharge wastewater and/or washwater to land or water during

R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 6

construction pursuant to Activity Table Rule E4.4.1 (A15) (discretionary activity) of the PAUP DV is sought.

Discharge permit (wastewater - operation) (s15) – R/REG/2016/2038 •

A discharge permit to discharge wastewater to water during operation not complying with relevant standards pursuant to Activity Table Rule E4.4.1 (A15) (discretionary activity) of the PAUP DV is sought.

Discharge permit (ITA) (s15) – R/REG/2016/1898 •

A discharge permit to discharge contaminants from land for the purposes of Industrial or Trade Activities listed as high risk in Table E33.4.3 pursuant to Activity Table Rule E33.4.2 (A24) (discretionary activity) of the PAUP DV is sought.

Air discharge permits (construction) (s15) – R/REG/2016/1899 •

A discharge permit for discharge of contaminants to air from: −

Cement storage pursuant to Activity Table Rule E14.4.1 (A76) (discretionary activity);

−

Demolition of buildings not meeting the general permitted activity standards pursuant to Activity Table Rule E14.4.1 (A81) (discretionary activity);

−

Construction, maintenance and repair of public roads and railways not meeting the general permitted activity standards pursuant to Activity Table Rule E14.4.1 (A82) (restricted discretionary)

of the PAUP DV is sought.

Air discharge permits (operation) (s15) – R/REG/2016/1900 •

A discharge permit for the discharge of contaminants to air from rail tunnels that carry diesel-powered locomotives and mobile sources pursuant to Activity Table Rule E14.4.1 (A119) (restricted discretionary activity) of the PAUP DV is sought.

Status of the applications The proposal involves multiple resource consents under different plans. The consents required are either controlled, restricted discretionary or discretionary. Where there is an overlap between the consents and / or the effects of the activities, and where consideration of one consent application could affect the outcome of another, the appropriate practice is to treat the applications together. The applicant has applied for the relevant resource consents, required under both the operative plans and the proposed plan, as a ‘bundled’ application and Council and ourselves as commissioners, have considered the applications in the same holistic manner.

Under the PAUP DV, the activity status is discretionary. While this would not change the overall activity status, the discretionary activity status when lodged is safeguarded by s88A of the RMA. 7.

Overall the proposal has been considered as a discretionary activity.

Certificates of compliance In addition to the resource consents sought, AT also sought a number of Certificates of R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 7

Compliance (COCs). Since lodgement, and following discussions with AC staff, a number of the COCs have been reassessed as to validity. Following that exercise, it was agreed that the sole remaining COC application is: •

A COC for the discharge of treated sediment-laden water from any land disturbance allowed by a land use consent pursuant to Rule 5.5.1 (iii) of the ACRP: SC and Rule H4.2.1.1 of the PAUP NV is sought.

Procedural matters – late submissions 8.

Under sections 37 and 37A of the RMA, the time limit for the receipt of submissions is waived to accept the late submissions of: •

M and I Fisher and P Tesiron received on 13 August 2016;

•

New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) received on 19 August 2016; and

•

CW and L Lee (76 Albert Street) received on 30 August 2016

for the following reasons: •

the interests of no persons will be adversely affected by the waiver;

•

the matters raised are not dissimilar to those raised in other submissions received during the submissions period;

•

the acceptance of the submissions will be in the interests of the community in achieving adequate assessment of the effects of the proposal; and

•

the acceptance of the submissions will not result in any unreasonable delay in deciding the application.

The parties at the hearing were given the opportunity to comment and in particular the applicant did not oppose the acceptance of these submissions. We note that none of the three parties attended the hearing.

Further, and as stated above, an additional five parties were subsequently served notice on 31 August 2016 with submissions closing on 28 September 2016. One submission was received from those parties. That included a request for a deferment of proceedings whilst the application was reviewed and also discussed with AT and council. There was an opportunity at the commencement of the hearing to consider this but the submitter did not appear and we were therefore unable to discuss the details in order to understand what progress had been made in reviewing the application and discussions and/or what details may be of concern. We accordingly did not agree to defer the proceedings on the basis of this request.

We note that the service of application details related to potential settlement effects on buildings and that was addressed in the applicant’s evidence. Further, the proposed conditions of consent take account of any damage to buildings that may occur.

An Addendum Report dated 7 October 2016 was prepared by the Council to address this additional submission but this report was not able to be circulated to meet the statutory timeframes in section 103B of the RMA which require it be circulated 15 working days prior to the hearing, that is, on 26 September 2016.

Accordingly, in terms of sections 37 and 37A of the RMA we resolve to waive this time period in R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 8

order to allow the acceptance of the Council’s report five working days prior to the hearing for the reasons that: •

the interests of no persons will be adversely affected by the waiver;

•

the interests of the community in achieving adequate assessment of the effects of the proposal are not compromised and the issue of effects on buildings from ground settlement is addressed in the material received for the hearing for our consideration;

•

there will be no unreasonable delay in deciding the application; and

•

the party seeking an adjournment on the basis of this report did not appear at the hearing.

Procedural matters – amendments to the application following notification After the submission period ended, the applicant amended the proposal, and / or provided further information on a number of matters. These changes and extra information form part of the application.

The amendments are considered to be within the scope of the original application, and therefore renotification of the application, apart from the five additional parties that were served notice, was not required.

The changes to the application/additional information are as follows: •

An additional memorandum and supporting plans related to groundwater;

•

Stormwater modelling information;

•

Assessment of the PAUP DV.

Written approvals The applicant did not provide written approval from any parties.

Relevant statutory provisions considered 9.

In accordance with section 104 of the RMA, we have had regard to the relevant statutory provisions including the relevant sections of Part 2 and section(s) 104, 104B, 105, 107 and 108.

Relevant standards, policy statements and plan provisions considered 10.

In accordance with section 104(1)(b)(i)-(vi) of the RMA, we have had regard to the relevant policy statements and plan provisions of the following documents: •

National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NES (Soil))

•

National Environmental Standard for Air Quality (NES (AQ))

•

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (NPSFM)

R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 9

•

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS)

•

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (HGMPA)

•

Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement (RPS)

• •

Auckland Plan Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part (AUP OP) – Chapter B Chapter B of the AUP sets out the strategic RMA framework for the identified issues of significance, and resultant priorities and outcomes sought. These align with the direction contained in the Auckland Plan.

•

Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land & Water)

•

Auckland Council Regional Plan (Sediment Control)

•

Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part (AUP OP)

While the resource consent application was lodged before the PAUP DV was notified on 19 August 2016, and continues to be processed on the activity status when lodged, under section 104(1)(b)(vi) and section 88A(2) RMA the relevant proposed plan is the AUP OP. We agree with the Council’s reporting planner that the outcomes are the same under the operative and the proposed plan frameworks and therefore no weighting is necessary. It is acknowledged that the hearing was held after 16 September 2016 being the close of the period for appeals to provisions of the PAUP DV. From that date any provisions that were not subject to appeal will have had immediate operative effect and their matching provisions in the legacy plan hence made inoperative. In an abundance of caution we considered both sets of relevant rules and plan provisions, knowing that there was no matter of weighting between them. In making the AUP Operative in Part now clarifies the inoperative nature of some rules considered at the time of hearing. However, this has not changed in any manner the conclusions reached in this decision. We do acknowledge that does mean there is no longer a need for some of the consents originally sought, for example the stormwater discharge consent. We have left those matters italicised in the above list of the resource consents needed for clarity in understanding the situation of the consents needed when the application was lodged and when heard compared to those required now.

11.

Other matters that we considered to be relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application in accordance with section 104(1)(c) of the RMA are covered below.

Summary of evidence heard 12.

The Council planner’s recommendation report or section 42A RMA report, was circulated prior to the hearing and taken as read. The planner, and other officers of council, were given the opportunity to address the report and any other matters before the applicant’s right of reply. In addition, prior to the applicant’s right of reply we adjourned the hearing to allow the applicant and the Council officers the opportunity for further discussion regarding the proposed conditions of consent. That resulted in agreement between those two parties on the conditions.

13.

In addition, following the submitters’ presentations we provided the opportunity for AT to comment which was of assistance to the submitters and ourselves, whilst allowing the submitter the final say.

R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 10

14.

The evidence presented at the hearing responded to the issues and concerns identified in the Council planning officer’s recommendation report, the application itself and the submissions made on the application.

15.

The evidence presented by the applicant at the hearing is summarised below.

Applicant The evidence presented by the applicant at the hearing is summarized below, including legal submissions.

Mr Beatson’s legal submissions identified the key issue as relating to the impact that ground settlement will have on adjacent and nearby buildings. In this respect the proposal includes a comprehensive suite of conditions to address these effects and further, the engineering predictions indicate that in all instances effects on third parties are between negligible and minor. He stated that extensive building condition surveys will be undertaken to ensure that settlement effects are minimized and where damage occurs it is identified and can be then be remedied by AT its cost.

Other actual and potential effects arising from the project include air quality, discharge and contaminated soil effects with those all being described in the evidence of the relevant specialists for AT and being shown to be capable of being managed or mitigated.

Mr Beatson commented on the proposal that the Porters Avenue level crossing be closed as part of the upgrade to the Mt Eden Station. He saw it as being inappropriate to delay these regional consents on the basis that submitters are raising matters of concern to them which do not overlap with the current consents. AT is aware of, and accepts, the risk of obtaining regional consents without the relevant land use consents in place. The closure of a level crossing is a land use matter and not a regional consenting matter, the latter generally relating to technical aspects of a proposal.

He then addressed the submissions before concluding that whilst the CRL will result in some adverse effects, particularly in relation to ground settlement, these effects can be appropriately managed by conditions that are acceptable given the scale of the project and the benefit resulting from the CRL. He highlighted that Auckland Council and AT have worked hard to reach an agreed position on the conditions.

Christopher Meale is the project director with overall responsibility for delivering the CRL project, including the planning, design and construction on behalf of AT. He provided details of the project objectives, the proposed works and the timings for it. Mr Meale highlighted the 50/50 funding agreement between Central Government and AC that was now in place for the entire CRL project.

Dean Ingoe is the planning integration manager/property and planning at AT. He provided details of the overall CRL approvals strategy and of the consultation, engagement and communication activities that had been carried out to date.

Bill Newns is a chartered professional engineer. He provided a summary of the engineering design and construction of the project and particular discussion on ground settlement matters given that was a focus for the consideration of the current application. That included the process of investigation, the settlement estimates, monitoring and contingency measures. He then responded to the submissions that had raised concerns in respect to building damage resulting from settlement.

Alan Pattle is an engineer and a specialist in water resources and environmental engineering. His evidence addressed ground water issues with his key findings including his view that the detailed conceptual model developed with the assessment of environmental effects used during previous investigations adequately describes the behaviour of ground water flows in and around the proposed excavations. He noted the works will induce some changes in ground water pressures in the shallow soils in the vicinity of the proposed tunnel alignment with these changes in the shallow and compressible sediments being more significant than changes in the deeper consolidated rocks or R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 11

deeper soils. Mr Pattle saw the associated effects being covered by the proposed consent conditions that require monitoring of the response of ground water levels to the works using existing and new ground water instruments.

Eric Stephenson is a structural engineer. His evidence described his assessment of the combined potential adverse effects on building structures associated with ground settlement along the tunnel alignment. The settlement assessments undertaken had considered the combination of settlement resulting from excavation induced mechanical settlement and consolidation of soil due to ground water draw down.

He concluded that the assessment of the potential effects on existing buildings and structures had been undertaken in accordance with industry practice and is appropriate for the purposes of consenting. Effects of ground settlement along the project alignment will be limited to superficial damage only, with no damage that exceeds the Serviceability Limit, as defined in the applicant’s suggested consent conditions. Any significant effects can be mitigated through good design and workmanship and in the unlikely event that minor damage does occur, this can and will be rectified by AT at no cost to the building owner.

Mr Stephenson noted that the proposed resource consent conditions require building condition surveys and that those conditions were appropriate for this purpose including the recommendations made in the Council planner’s report. He also commented on the individual submissions which raised concerns in respect to building damage resulting from settlement in concluding that the potential effects of the project on built structures associated with construction excavation and groundwater draw down induced-settlement will be acceptable and be capable of being satisfactorily managed.

Jeremy Salmond is an architect with specific experience in conservation architecture. His findings in relation to the effects on built heritage included: • Any potential effects on the heritage values of identified scheduled buildings being considered to be minor.

• The focus of the built heritage assessment relates to the identification of potential effects from earthworks undertaken both within two identified scheduled historic heritage places (the Bluestone Wall and Mt Eden Prison) and in proximity to a further 20 buildings located within the vicinity (20m) of the project during construction, and in addition, the potential for adverse ground settlement effects on 39 buildings with identified heritage value. He found that any potential effects on identified built heritage resulting from earthworks and ground settlement can be appropriately managed through proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, including ground settlement monitoring, pre and post condition surveys, and the rectification of any damage.

Terry Widdowson is a contaminated land specialist. A key finding from his investigations was that there would be potential contamination effects associated with the proposed soil disturbance activities but mitigation of these effects can be achieved through excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soils and adherence to the Contaminated Soils Management Plan.

Richard Chilton is an air quality scientist. He stated he expected the suite of dust mitigation measures and monitoring that he had recommended, and which had been incorporated into the recommended conditions, would control dust emissions to acceptable levels. He pointed out that the electric trains will not give rise to combustion emissions but there would be particulate matter emissions generated through brake, rail and electrical contact wear. This particulate matter would be vented into the ambient air via the tunnel vents associated with each station. His assessment of these operational effects had determined that the predicted cumulative 24-hr average concentrations may approach, but not exceed, the assessment criteria for fine particulate matter.

In relation to concerns raised through submissions regarding dust effects from construction works and operational air quality effects, he commented that these effects had been addressed by his assessment and/or the proposed mitigation and monitoring and recommended conditions of consent.

He stated the Council officer’s report concurs with the findings of his assessment that the potential air R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 12

quality effects should be no more than minor.

Paul Kennedy is an environmental consultant engaged to consider the water quality effects arising from the works associated with the resource consent application. His evidence was that stormwater runoff within the construction support areas and water generated within the active construction zones could be appropriately managed with measures including monitoring and management during construction to ensure that the quality discharged is as it is expected to be. There was the option of discharging any water entering the tunnels and stations which would be collected in sumps, that being discharged either to trade waste (the preferred option) or to the stormwater system. As the trade waste permit is not in place, a permit was sought in this application to discharge to the stormwater system. Mr Kennedy pointed out there was nothing raised by submitters or in the Council officer’s report that required a specific response in his evidence.

Jennifer Carvill is a planning and resource management consultant who has advised AT on regional consenting planning and resource management matters and other resource consent applications associated with the CRL. Her evidence effectively, and usefully, brought together the evidence of the other experts and provided a statutory assessment of the relevant planning documents. Ms Carvill highlighted the changes that she and the other AT experts saw as being needed to the proposed conditions of consent noting in evidence that the conditions relating to settlement form an integral part of the proposal.

Ms Carvill’s evidence provided a response to all the submissions that had been received following which she noted her view that the relevant issues raised in those submissions had been addressed by the assessments carried out and by the recommended conditions of consent, subject to the amendments which she discussed.

In relation to the Council officer’s report she commented on the withdrawal of all but one of the nine COC applications, stating that to be inconsequential and that she was in agreement with the officer in this regard. She noted the sole remaining COC application is for the discharge of treated sediment laden water from any land disturbance allowed by a land use consent and provided the details in evidence. Further, the duration of the resource consents and lapse periods were also agreed with the officer.

Submitters The evidence presented by the submitters is summarised as follows.

Heart of the City provided a comprehensive statement along with photographs from Vivienne Beck which included highlighted the role of her organisation. Ms Beck addressed the actual impacts of the CRL works to date which she said had not been sufficiently addressed by the applicant and which the process, including consent conditions, similarly did not sufficiently address. Heart of the City sought a Business Liaison Group be established as a condition of consent as an adjunct to the Community Liaison Groups (CLGs) with that to lead to a Business Disruption Plan that could respond to their members’ concerns.

Michael Fisher spoke to concerns expressed regarding impacts on the building at 6-12 Kingston Street which had heritage qualities. His particular concern was the proposed location of a vent structure for the CRL which was proposed opposite the building. With it being proposed to replace an on-street car park, together with its size and height, it would be particularly prominent in the streetscape and, apart from the impact on the building it also had urban design considerations that needed to be addressed.

Michael Richardson together with Kelvin Norgrove appeared for the Karangahape Road Business Association and through a written statement and photographs expressed similar concerns to the Heart of the City representatives. They had concerns for business disruption, along with residential R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 13

disruption in their area but also supported the Heart of the City submission. They did not consider the CLG involvement to be entirely satisfactory given there were other considerations more appropriately addressed by a Business Liaison Group. Mr Richardson provided details of the diverse interests in this part of the city which needed to be addressed through such a group facilitating discussion.

Russell Bartlett represented Qambi Properties Limited, the owner of 14B Haultain Street, Eden Terrace. In his written legal submissions he expressed particular concerns about the proposed closure of Porters Avenue that was not contemplated at the time the designations were approved and which will seriously affect the commercial premises in Haultain Street. He referred to the need to hear all related matters together, as per section 91 RMA, those being the variation of the designation, the resource consent and the road stopping. He submitted that the applicant in this case was not being prepared to engage on the topic of the effect of the proposed closure and was leaving that to later proceedings. Mr Bartlett sought that consent for any works that would have a consequence of causing Porters Avenue to be unusable should be declined.

William McKenzie presented a written statement in which he referred to cost-benefit analysis and real-options analysis as decision-making tools and being of relevance to decisions on the CRL. His earlier submission was concerned about a second pair of tunnels in the cut and cover section of the project and provision for a second passenger platform to provide for additional services. There was an opportunity for Mr Newns to point out the physical limitations of the available space to achieve another pair of tunnels.

Christopher Patrick Browne provided a written statement of evidence and photographs regarding his property at 22 The Stables. He had two issues. Firstly, the monitoring, intervention and remediation and in that respect the lack of engagement with him as owner of a building directly above part of the proposed works. Secondly, the long term loss of amenity that will result from the project.

In discussion with Mr Browne there was an acknowledgement that the proposed conditions of consent could be amended to make information available to building owners on request but that otherwise there was ample opportunity for engagement through the conditions that had been proffered. The potential for loss of amenity and measures to address that issue had been covered in the designation process and a set of those conditions would be provided to Mr Browne.

John Abel-Pattinson presented a written statement along with photographs regarding concerns for impacts on his property at 4 Kingston Street and upon the street and its users. He described the changes in Kingston Street as a result of the closure of the Court’s lobby area meaning the northern side of the street was now used for that purpose in a less than desirable manner. The location of a proposed ventilation stack structure on that side of the street and opposite his property needed to take account of this situation and not provide any sheltered or private areas for additional anti-social behaviour. The location and design of the vent should be carried out in conjunction with a plan to modernise and pedestrianize Kingston Street.

Richard Brabant presented legal submissions for Samson Corporation Limited and Stirling Nominees Limited. The concern was with potential settlement effects on a number of buildings within the areas that were identified as subject to settlement and the single focus of the submissions was on the consent conditions. He had carried out a review of the proposed conditions and tabled and spoke to a set of the conditions on which he had highlighted various concerns and amendments. The concerns included the need to closely align the conditions for the two stages of the project.

Submitters who did not appear at the hearing

R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 14

The following was received from submitters who did not appear at the hearing.

DLA Piper New Zealand provided a written statement through Stephen Quinn on behalf of NDG Asia Pacific (NZ) Limited that related to its site at 106-108 Albert Street and the current resource consents for the construction of a 51 level mixed-use building at the site. The written statement highlighted the support in principle to the project but left two matters for consideration as part of the conditions of consent. Firstly, their inclusion in the list of sites adjacent to construction sites as part of conditions (Appendix 4) and secondly, that the Construction Environmental Management Plan be specifically required to address the impacts on the consented NDG development.

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) provided a written statement through Rebecca Vertongen which stated there was ongoing consultation between AT and HNZPT regarding both built heritage and archaeology in relation to the CRL. AT intend to apply for an archaeological authority for network utility investigations associated with the CRL works, followed by a further authority application for the construction of the main works. Accordingly HNZPT did not believe that archaeological conditions were necessary as part of the resource consent as that would create unnecessary duplication. However, if the Panel did consider an accidental discovery protocol should be added then Ms Vertongen provided an example and an advice note which stated what is required.

Brown and Company Planning Group provided a written statement through Richard Campion on behalf of the Pitt Street Methodist Trust. They reported on a meeting with the applicant at which the matters raised in its submission were discussed, particularly the location of the ventilation shafts and above ground structures immediately outside the Methodist Church at 78 Pitt Street and the planning process for the CRL in general. On the basis of that meeting the Trust did not consider it needed to attend the hearing. It did however record matters that included the location of the shafts not being “locked in” at this time noting that these and related heritage issues would be dealt with in detail in the upcoming notice of requirement to alter the CRL designation. The Trust did however reiterate that concerns contained within its submission remained to be considered.

Trevor Daya-Winterbottom provided a letter on behalf of CJM Investments Ltd and Tram Lease Ltd which advised a meeting had been held with AT and as a result its submission had been satisfactorily addressed by AT. As a result they now amended their submission from opposition to support of the grant of resource consent.

During the submitters’ presentations Andrew Beatson called Carol Greensmith and Richard Jenkins from AT to provide information relating to how the current designation conditions were working, particularly those relating to the CLG(s) and the delivery work plans.

The Council Andrew Gysberts provided some final remarks including that seismic resilience, which had been raised as a consideration, was not for RMA analysis but rather is a building consent matter. This was confirmed by Nick Hazard who pointed out it was referenced in the proposed conditions of consent.

Leon Blackburn and Haylee Minoprio also provided some final remarks.

Right of reply Mr Beatson submitted that the primary issues relate to effects on buildings from ground settlement and that further, discussions during the hearing have resulted in agreement between AT and the Council on all matters in the conditions that were tabled. He provided comments on all the submitters’ presentations and concluded the application should be granted subject to the conditions agreed between AT and the Council.

R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 15

The hearing was adjourned to receive a final copy of the conditions as agreed between AT and the Council and also to allow the Panel to check it had all it needed to decide the application.

Principal issues in contention After analysis of the application and evidence (including proposed mitigation measures), undertaking a site visit, reviewing the Council planning officer’s recommendation report, reviewing the submissions and concluding the hearing process, the proposed activity raises a number of issues for consideration.

The principal issues in contention are: • •

• • • •

The effects of ground settlement resulting from the construction of the project on buildings along and neighbouring the proposed route of the CRL. The extent of the actual or potential adverse effects on the environment and whether these effects can be avoided, remedied or mitigated to be minor, or avoided or mitigated to an acceptable level.

Whether the proposal is consistent with the relevant statutory planning documents.

Whether the proposal is consistent with Part 2 of the RMA. The conditions agreed between the applicant and the Council and whether there is a need for changes as a result of hearing from submitters and/or from our considerations.

Approval of the COC for the discharge of treated sediment laden water.

These principal issues are addressed in the decision that follows. In addition, the submissions are addressed, where these are not otherwise covered in the decision report relating to effects and plans, along with other matters that are reasonably necessary to determine the application are addressed.

Main findings on the principal issues in contention Our main findings on the principal issues that were in contention are.

What is the environment for the purposes of considering the actual and potential adverse effects of the proposal?

The existing environment comprises a busy, high-density built-up urban area with a range of land uses and including busy traffic routes and heritage buildings. It ranges from a part of the Auckland central business district through to areas peripheral to it with the various land uses all being sensitive to varying degrees to the potential effects associated particularly with the proposed construction works.

We note those potential effects include the effects of ground settlement, particularly upon buildings along the route and further, traffic disruption, noise and vibration.

The permitted baseline approach to the assessment of effects on the environment is of limited value in relation to this application. This is because adverse effects are to be mitigated as far as is practicable through the use of management plans rather than seeking compliance with the controls in the District Plan. These latter controls are however used as a basis for consideration of the effects but given compliance will not, and cannot, be achieved at all times the management plan approach provides for some flexibility in the approach to managing such effects.

Groundwater diversion and discharge settlement effects Predicted Effects Mr Newns, in his primary evidence dated 3 October 2016, his supplementary statement dated 17 October 2016, and through responses to questions, addressed matters relating to the potential extent R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 16

and effects of ground settlement. His evidence and responses were supported by the technical assessments and evidence presented by Mr Pattle and Mr Stevenson. These matters were also usefully described by Mr Hazard in his technical assessment for AC, supported by the peer reviews provided by Mr Kelsey and Mr Nelson of Earthtech Consulting Limited.

It is significant to our consideration of potential settlement effects that at the commencement of the hearing, the applicant and AC had established a set of conditions that were largely agreed on and, by the adjournment of the hearing, all conditions were agreed between those two parties. As Mr Newns noted, that agreement reflected the evolution of understanding between the parties that had developed during the Stage 1 resource consents granted for the northern section of the project and for the relocation of the Albert Street stormwater pipe, and as advanced through the assessment of the sections we are now considering. We have not received any evidence that challenges the technical aspects of the modelling or predicted settlement effects. Consequently, our discussion herein is limited to the few matters of contention raised by submitters or through our questioning.

The project requires resource consent for dewatering during construction and long term dewatering of tunnels and below-ground stations. AT and the peer reviewers have considered the potential settlement effects of excavation and dewatering that may occur from: • • • •

mechanical settlement due to movement of excavation walls (deflection); mechanical collapse around the tunnel after excavating and lining; consolidation settlement due to groundwater drawdown; and a combination of the above.

These potential settlement types will be potentially triggered to varying degrees by the range of construction techniques to be employed, including cut and cover trenching, tunnelling, and subsurface mining. The causes and effects of these mechanisms of settlement were addressed in detail in the supporting technical reports and evidence, and are not contested.

As noted, buildings specifically identified for detailed consideration were those that were modelled to be within the 5mm ground settlement contour. Owners of those buildings were served notice of the consent applications and a number of those persons submitted on the applications.

Messrs Pattle, Stevenson and Newns consider their assessments provided to be conservative. Mr Newns confirmed that it is the expectation and intention of the project team to avoid adverse effects on most, if not all buildings within the 5mm settlement contours. Beyond those contours no adverse effects are expected, but additional control in this regard is provided through Condition 84, as discussed below.

Consistent with the previous CRL consent applications, the project has relied on the Burland Building Damage Classification (Burland scale) to guide the type and scale of effects to be provided for by the consent. However, because the Burland scale was developed to describe damage to masonry buildings, a modification of the descriptors was developed to reflect all buildings within the project area. This is consistent with the approach adopted in the previous Stage 1 CRL groundwater consent.

The proposal is to limit damage to Aesthetic Damage, which is equivalent to ‘negligible’ to ‘slight’ on the Burland scale. That damage will not adversely affect the serviceability / use of a building.

Modelling predicts that the project will avoid Serviceability Damage, which equates to damage that is greater than ‘slight’ on the Burland scale. Messrs Newns, Pattle and Stevenson confirmed their expectation that the project will not result in damage greater than Aesthetic Damage.

The classifications described above have been incorporated into consent conditions, with a Serviceability Limit defined that represents the interface between Aesthetic Damage and Serviceability Damage. The relationship between the Burland scale, Aesthetic Damage, Serviceability Damage and the Serviceability Limited are provide in Table 1 of the groundwater conditions. Like those imposed in the Stage 1 CRL resource consents, limits to the extent of potential damage that is authorised by the consent are provided in Conditions 83 and 84. Condition 83 limits damage to buildings within the R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 17

predicted 5mm settlement contours to no more than the Serviceability Limit. Condition 84 seeks to limit any damage to masonry buildings located outside of the predicted 5mm settlement contours to no more than ‘negligible’ on the Burland scale. The applicant considers that other buildings will not be subject to any potential damage beyond the 5mm contours. Thus, these conditions limit the authorised maximum level of damage to that within the predicted range.

As in the Stage 1 consents, conditions require detailed monitoring of builds before, during and after construction. Conditions also require any damage that is attributable to the project is to be repaired at AT’s cost.

We accept the predictions of settlement contours and effects as agreed between AT and AC, and the way those effects will be limited, managed and responded to through the agreed conditions.

Serviceability Limit During the hearing, AT proposed a modification of the term Serviceability Limit and subsequently established an agreed definition with AC. We generally accept the agreed definition but do not consider that it adequately reflects the relationship between building effects and the concepts of Aesthetic Damage and Serviceability Damage, as provided in Table 1 of the conditions. On that basis, we provide a modification of the defined term to provide a direct link to Table 1, which establishes that relationship. Our intention is to minimise to the greatest extent possible any differences in interpretation of Serviceability Limit.

Serviceability Limit As detailed in Table 1, it is the limit beyond which Serviceability Damage may occur. It represents the limit of structural deflections (caused by ground settlement or lateral displacement) beyond which structural, as opposed to non-structural (aesthetic) damage may occur, including: i. reduction of operational functionality ii. reduction in weathertightness or service life iii. reduced durability .

In determining serviceability limits for a given building structure or service, the predicted and actual response to deflection must be considered in relation to the existing conditions of the building, structure or services (and parts thereof).

Seismic Resilience Mr Bennett raised a query regarding the potential for the project to reduce the seismic resilience of buildings, with specific reference to historic structures and buildings of heritage value. Mr Hazard confirmed that such matters are addressed through the building consent process, and that the relevant provisions under which the resource consents are assessed to do allow that to be considered. Mr Hazard was satisfied that seismic resilience would be appropriately considered through the building consent process prior to the commencement of works. We accept Mr Hazard’s advice on that matter and do not comment further.

Submitters Samson Corporation and Stirling Nominees Mr Brabant provided detailed comments on various conditions, including those relating to the groundwater diversion and discharge. Those are responded to as follows: •

Serviceability Limit

R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 18

Mr Brabant sought the inclusion of “any” at the start of sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of the definition. AT and AC did not agree that to be necessary, but the Commissioners accepted this suggestion.

•

Alert Levels Mr Brabant preferred the wording of the Stage 1 consents, which are more descriptive of effects and responses. His concern was that the current wording is based on predicted effects at consent stage, which may change during design and construction. AT and AC do not agree with his view. We accept AT’s position on this that the proposed wording, which links the levels to 80% and 100% of the design prediction, achieves the same outcome as the Stage 1 wording i.e. it does not devalue the protection afforded to building owners. The current version of the definitions reflects the ground conditions of the route between Aotea Station and Mt Eden, the proposed construction methodologies and the modelled effects, including the stated conservatism in the modelling.

•

Performance Standards Mr Brabant sought the insertion of a condition consistent with Condition 109 of the Stage 1 consent, which limited settlement to that expressed on specified drawings. AT did not support that request and indicated that Condition 109 of Stage 1 reflected the specific position between AT and AC at that time. The ground conditions, construction methodologies and modelling undertaken for the next stage is better reflected by the limits imposed by Conditions 83 and 84. We accept AT’s position on this.

•

Condition 90 Mr Brabant sought to amend Condition 90 to be consistent with Condition 116 of the Stage 1 consents. ATs response was that the Stage 1 Condition 116 related to works in the vicinity of Britomart. Regardless, we find that the additional element of the previous condition, which addressed long term settlement from post-construction dewatering, is appropriately addressed through other conditions and does not need to be included in Condition 90.

•

Condition 96 Mr Brabant did not support the transfer of the first two sentences of Condition 96 from later condition, being: During construction the Consent Holder shall implement procedures that will appropriately respond to the information received from the monitoring system, including assessment at each excavation stage of the actual retention and building response against the predictions determined from the detailed design.

In his view, the requirement of those sentences should stand alone. In response to our suggestion, AT has modified Condition 96, with agreement from AC, which better establishes the requirements of the sentences as a component of the Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GSMCP). We are satisfied that the requirement of those sentences sits best within the modified condition and accept the agreed wording provided by AT.

•

Conditions 120 and 125 Mr Brabant raised concern that the proposed wording of Conditions 120 and 125 lacked specificity in terms of a time limit for the duration of post construction monitoring and liability for repair of project-related settlement damage. He preferred the originally stated three year period.

In response, AT proposed an additional sentence for Condition 120 that states that “monitoring durations and the process for cessation of monitoring shall be specified in the post construction monitoring plan”. Having considered this matter carefully, we are satisfied that the wording of the conditions proposed by AT does not limit the period by

R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 19

which AT will be responsible for repairing damage that results from project-related settlement. Condition 125 requires AT to repair any damage identified in the time periods specified in the condition and that is attributable to the project. It does not limit the timing of the repair to the periods stated in the condition i.e. any damage identified in the monitoring period must be repaired, regardless of the cessation of monitoring.

The amended Condition 120 requires the post construction monitoring period and cessation process to be approved by the Independent Building Assessor and certified by AC. We find that the proposed conditions provide greater flexibility for building owners than the arbitrary imposition of the three year time limit.

Christopher Patrick Browne Mr Browne did not challenge the technical analysis, modelling and predicted settlement effects.

However, he sought greater direct inclusion in the distribution of monitoring data and, if necessary, the development of responses to identified damage. His concern was particularly triggered by the specific characteristics of his property, which is an unreinforced, two storey masonry dwelling that has undergone extensive renovations. Mr Newns indicated that in practice, Mr Browne would be included in the monitoring and response processes. Mr Newns also reiterated that the modelling suggested that Mr Browne’s property would not be affected by the project. AT offered the specific inclusion of Mr Browne as a party listed in the Communication and Consultation Plan. We find that this will appropriately address Mr Browne’s request and have accordingly added Condition 17(f) (membership of the CLG) in addition to his inclusion by AT in Condition 28(h).

Summary Overall, we find that the potential adverse settlement effects that may result from the diversion and discharge of groundwater during and post-construction will be negligible to minor. Any damage to buildings or services that does occur will be minimised to an acceptable level, monitored and, where necessary, repaired. The conditions proposed, with minor modification by ourselves, will provide an appropriate level of protection for buildings within and beyond the predicted settlement contours.

Earthworks The main effects associated with earthworks relate to erosion and sediment runoff. The earthworks are expected to be some 722,900m3 of cut and 71,400m3 of fill. This total volume of earthworks is distributed between five Active Construction Zones (ACZs) of which two are the main tunnelling sections which will not result in any exposed earth at the ground surface. While most of the spoil will be disposed of off-site, some material may be handled/processed within the Construction Support Areas (CSAs). These CSAs have been considered as a potential source of sediment run-off because they also containing the wheel-wash areas and storage of machinery.

The applicant has prepared a draft Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCMP) and has also provided a series of conditions that relate to the management of earthworks activities. These details as included in the application have been peer reviewed by Council’s Senior Earthworks and Streamworks Advisor, Mr Byrne, in his assessment of the potential erosion and sediment run-off effects associated with the earthworks. He notes that as the majority of the earthworks will take place in confined areas, and adjacent to traffic lanes, sediment generation is anticipated to be low. In addition, the project is to be carried out in a staged manner within an existing stabilized built environment which means that sediment-laden waters can be easily anticipated and therefore managed accordingly. We note Mr Byrne’s assessment essentially confirms the details included with the application.

Mr Bill Newns provided details in evidence regarding the methodologies and measures to be included in the ESCMP which are directed at avoiding or mitigating the effects associated with earthworks which we find to follow a standard approach for projects of this nature.

We find the actual and potential effects from earthworks can be managed during the construction R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 20

period to ensure adverse effects are appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated.

On the matter of the COC sought for the discharge of treated sediment laden water, we do not consider that issuing such a COC is appropriate or necessary. Ms Carvill for AT acknowledged that the rules under which the COC is sought is an “unusual rule� and AT is not concerned if the COC is not issued. We note that the rule is a section 15 RMA catch-all to support the section 9 RMA land use earthworks rules of ACRP: SC and the PAUP. Compliance with the rules is dependent on the performance of the project on any given day, and cannot be reasonably predicted ahead of construction. Provided that the project complies with the relevant consent conditions and approved erosion and sediment control methodologies for the duration of the project, the rules will be complied with and a COC will not be necessary. Accordingly, there was agreement that the application for the COC would not be pursued.

Surface Water Quality During construction the potential sources of water that could have an effect on surface water bodies and which need to be managed include stormwater generated in the CSAs, including areas of industrial or trade activities (ITA); stormwater and groundwater in the ACZs; and water-wash off vehicles prior to leaving the CSAs and ACZs. Mr Paul Kennedy for AT addressed the details in evidence explaining the collection, treatment and discharge arrangements that are to be implemented to ensure discharge quality is to an appropriate standard. The Council’s officer Mr Blackburn has assessed the proposed management of stormwater and its potential impacts upon groundwater and found that the various water discharges during construction will be appropriately managed with any effects on the receiving environment being no more than minor.

During operation, the CRL will also result in water from both groundwater seepage and from maintenance/cleaning of the tunnels that will need to be discharged. The preferred option is that this water is discharged to the trade waste system. However, an agreement with Watercare is yet to be reached in that respect and therefore an alternative option of discharge into the stormwater system has been considered in the application. Again, the conditions of consent, including particularly monitoring, will mean the water discharges are appropriately managed, and that any effect on the receiving environment will be no more than minor.

Redevelopment of Impervious Surfaces There will be no net increase in impervious surfaces as a result of the project although the nature of the impervious surfaces will be changed. This will be by the removal of old roofs from buildings and replacement with new roofs and the reinstatement of Albert Street once the cut and cover section of the route is complete. The former would see the removal of some contaminant yielding material such as galvanized steel. The latter would be expected to see stormwater treatment being provided for Albert Street consistent with the framework set out under both the notified and decisions version of the PAUP. Conditions have been included that will require treatment that will provide the best practicable option (BPO). Overall the effects will be less than minor and it is more likely there will be an improvement in the quality of the discharge into the receiving environment.

Stormwater diversion and flooding The design for the CRL has incorporated a range of stormwater diversion methods at the Mt Eden end to prevent the entry of stormwater into the tunnel. Flood modelling has also been undertaken which identified that there is the potential for additional flooding effects downstream of the project as a result of downstream stormwater infrastructure being sized to a lower level storm event than that required of the CRL. Management of effects within the project footprint are imposed through the performance standards required by Condition 197. These will ensure that the project does not result in adverse flooding R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 21

effects within the project area and its immediate vicinity.

AT has undertaken initial modelling of downstream effects, in conjunction with AC Healthy Waters. As a result of that, possible works have been identified that would ensure that the project does not result in an increase in downstream flooding effects beyond the existing pre-development scenario. No design details have been provided but the project will be subject to the performance standard imposed

by Condition 196, which states: The Consent Holder shall ensure that the design of stormwater drainage systems does not result in any increase in flooding beyond the pre-development scenario within the immediate adjacent areas of the Project footprint and or the downstream receiving environment.

Some of the works identified will occur within AC Parks. We are satisfied that the process of obtaining approval for the detailed design to achieve compliance with Condition 196 will be achieved through Condition 201. This will necessitate engagement with the relevant AC departments, including Healthy Waters and Parks. We also recognise that the flood modelling undertaken requires further refinement and may subsequently identify that additional downstream works are not necessary to comply with Condition 196.

Air quality The main potential for air quality effects during construction is as a result of dust particulate matter.

The associated nuisance created by dust is a matter raised by a number of submitters. In evidence for AT, Richard Chilton pointed out the potential for dust impacts from earthworks and construction activities given the very close proximity of sensitive activities. He was of the view that dust management and mitigation measures, together with monitoring, will ensure that potential adverse effects are no more than minor. The detailed framework is included in the draft Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) provided by the applicant. Mr Crimmins, the Council’s Air Quality Officer, has reported that the proposed management and mitigation measures in that Plan represent the BPO to mitigate dust emissions.

We note there is also a draft Contaminated Soils Management Plan (CSMP) provided in the application that includes mitigation measures if odorous contaminated soils are encountered.

During the operation and maintenance of the CRL there will be the discharge of fine particulate matter through ventilation systems near to the proposed stations produced as a result of the wearing of rails, brakes and electrical conductors along with exhaust emissions from the use of diesel vehicles from within the tunnels as part of maintenance activities. As the CRL will be permanently located underground, the air discharges will occur through a number of vents. The modelling results demonstrate there will be localized minor effects arising from the discharges of particulate matter but, as Mr Crimmins has commented, the modelling inputs are particularly conservative and actual off-site concentrations of particulate matter are likely to be lower in reality. He highlights the most effective mitigation measures as being routine maintenance and cleaning of the tunnels and vents to avoid build-up of particulate. A consent condition in that respect has been included accordingly.

We concur with the evidence from Mr Chilton, supported by Mr Crimmins’ assessment that the longterm air discharges will result in effects that are no more than minor.

Contaminated land disturbance The proposed controls and mitigation measures in the application include those set out in the draft CSMP and the Water Quality Assessment (WQA) which are intended to manage any potential for adverse effects on human health or upon the environment. These provide a robust mechanism for ensuring adverse effects are appropriately managed and mitigated. This application material has been considered by Council officers Messrs Burden and Kalbarczyk and found to be satisfactory.

R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 22

At the hearing evidence from Terry Widdowson for AT addressed the relevant considerations. He concluded that there are potential contamination effects associated with the proposed soil disturbance activities but that mitigation of those effects can be achieved through excavation and off-site disposal of any contaminated soils and adherence to the CSMP. We agree with the conclusions of the experts in these respects.

Cultural effects Any concerns regarding cultural effects and the need for consultation are addressed in the on-going processes that were initiated as part of the original Notice of Requirement relating to the CRL project.

Other construction-related effects A number of the submitters raised construction-related effects, those being noise, vibration, traffic and general disruption as part of their submissions to these regional consent applications. These matters are however principally district plan matters which were addressed through the NoR stage and managed through the conditions of the designation.

Conclusion on adverse effects The CRL project will give rise to a range of temporary adverse environmental effects during construction but these are able to be avoided, remedied or mitigated to be minor or to an acceptable level through the implementation of consent conditions. On-going effects from the operation of the CRL will be associated with air discharges, potential water discharges and ground settlement from dewatering. These effects will be appropriately monitored in accordance with the consent conditions and avoided, remedied and mitigated to an acceptable level.

Positive Effects The applicant has identified a range of potential adverse effects that will result from the project as well as the broader positive effects from the wider CRL project. In these respects the CRL will assist in: • • • • • •

Realising the potential of the existing infrastructure and unlocking the Auckland rail network through Britomart so that it becomes a through-station rather than a terminus.

The ability for people to better access the city centre area by train through the provision of the stations proposed along the CRL between Britomart and the NAL. Increases in rail patronage.

Promoting and supporting intensification of land uses around stations, a key proponent of the Auckland Plan and the City Centre Masterplan 2012.

Increasing the resilience of the Auckland rail network.

Providing a sustainable transport system and reducing greenhouse gases.

We agree with this identification of positive effects that will arise from the CRL project.

Statutory planning documents There are a number of planning documents that are relevant to the consideration of this project as have been listed above. We agree with the conclusions of Ms Carvill and of Ms Minoprio the Council’s reporting officer in their evidence and reporting on the application that the proposal is in accordance with these documents, including the incorporation of the conditions we have adopted.

Those provisions include considerations of regionally significant infrastructure; engagement with mana whenua; water quality and air quality; urban growth and form; heritage buildings; and transport.

R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 23

We find that the proposal is consistent with these planning documents in providing for a public work with benefits to the City while also appropriately managing the potential adverse effects arising from its construction and operation. The benefits include: • • • • •

Increased train movements on the Auckland rail network by developing Britomart as a through station and unlocking the current capacity constraint.

Improved commuter access to the city centre.

Building on the benefits of existing investment in the electrification of Auckland’s rail network.

Freeing up road space for freight and other trips.

Creating new transport hubs around the underground railway stations with complementary opportunities for a range of land use activities.

The evidence of the experts providing input to the project, and evidence provided by others, demonstrated to us that the potential adverse effects can be appropriately managed. In particular measures included as conditions will ensure, where necessary, that any effects on structures resulting from ground settlement are dealt with appropriately.

In all of the above respects, we find the proposal to be consistent with the relevant planning documents.

Submissions A range of matters are raised in the submissions and are responded to in various parts of this decision report. However, the following addresses some of the specifics.

Proposed Closure of Porters Avenue The proposed closure of Porters Avenue was raised by a number of submitters. This is however a designation matter, requiring an alteration to the recently confirmed designation for this section of the CRL. AT confirmed at the hearing that a NoR is currently being prepared to address these design changes and that it would be requesting that NoR be publicly notified so that submitters will have an opportunity to submit and be heard through that process. The concerns of submitters include the NoR being heard at the same time as this resource consent application or any associated road stopping application.

We acknowledge the legal submissions of Mr Bartlett in this respect but we do not find agreement with him on some of the details he raised regarding designation and road stopping in relation to a level crossing. We do not consider there are sufficient reasons supporting the current resource consent application being delayed nor that there is a need for it and the designation matter to be heard at the same time. We do emphasise that our finding on this matter should not be read as providing any predetermination on the alteration to designation that will be required to give effect to the works approved by the resource consents. We note the separate process that will follow and also AT’s acknowledgement and acceptance of any risks to itself in pursuing separate resource consent application and NoR timeframes.

Communication and consultation Two submitters (being the Karangahape Business Association and Regional Facilities Auckland) have highlighted general support for the project, but sought ongoing consultation and communication. AT has agreed for both parties to be included in the CLG condition. That will satisfy this aspect of these submissions, and will enable the groups to be a part of ongoing communication and consultation as the project design progresses and during construction.

R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 24

Design of stations / other project elements Several submissions relate to the design of the stations and other project elements (such as the location of the air vents). Such issues are designation matters and that these will require to be addressed through the Outline Plan of Works component of the designations process, or future NoRs as applicable.

Impacts on businesses Several submissions relate to the impact on businesses during construction, one suggesting a number of additional consent conditions. These are also designation matters.

Submitters also sought a Business Liaison Group or Groups rather than reliance on the CLG(s) that can be set up in accordance with consent conditions. We understand their concerns but are of the view that there is a process set up to deal with them. That is by way of the Pre-Construction Communication and Consultation Plan, the Communication and Consultation Plan and the CLGs which are included as consent conditions. We have amended the definition of the CLG specifically to include businesses and point out the effectiveness of these plans and groups does depend on the participation of the parties affected by the project. The Heart of the City and the Karangahape Road Business Association representatives need to participate through the processes that are set up to assist them and in this respect we recommend initial contact with Ms Greensmith as the Communications Manager for AT. We would be concerned, as would the Council, if it was to be found these processes were not effective for businesses in the City. If problems did arise then the review conditions provide some assistance but as we say the Council would seek to become involved if there was evidence of a substantive nature supporting concerns for undue business disruption.

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga The applicant has confirmed, at section 1.6 of the Assessment of Effects on the Environment (AEE) report, that an archaeological authority from HNZPT will be sought concurrently to resource consent for the CRL project. The application is expected to be lodged around December 2016 after the draft is tabled with iwi at the Mana Whenua forum.

The submission from HNZPT (Rebecca Vertongen) is acknowledged and is of assistance in confirming that the archaeological authority will deal with the discovery of previously unrecorded or unknown archaeology encountered during works and as such HNZPT does not consider archaeological conditions are necessary as part of a resource consent.

Any other matters – section 104(1)(c) RMA Section 104(1)(c) requires that any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application be considered. In this case the following is considered relevant.

Auckland Plan The Auckland Plan was adopted in March 2012. One of the three components identified in the Plan to address current traffic congestion problems, accommodate future business and population growth, and move to a single transport system, is to improve and complete the existing road and rail network.

The CRL is identified as a major component for achieving this vision. As such, the proposal to construct a piece of the CRL infrastructure directly supports the vision contained in the Auckland Plan to improve and complete the existing road and railway network.

R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 25

Other relevant RMA provisions Matters relevant to discharge and coastal permits – section 105 RMA The proposal requires a consent to discharge contaminants under section 15. Under section 105, regard must be had to additional matters for any application for a discharge permit or a coastal permit that would contravene s15 or s15B of the RMA. This requires regard to the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects, the applicant’s reasons for the proposed choice, and any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge into any other receiving environment.

We find that the proposal satisfies the matters set out in section 105 for the following reasons: •

The Council’s officers have reviewed the discharge proposals (discharges to air, contaminated land discharge and wastewater/wastewater discharge) and have concluded that the adverse effects on the environment from the proposed discharges will be appropriately managed.

•

The applicant has considered alternative methods of discharge and alternative locations (addressed at section 3.14 of the AEE report with the application) and has provided valid reasons for the proposed method of discharge and locations which we accept.

•

The provisions of section 105 are met subject to the consent conditions to ensure there is no significant adverse effect on the receiving environment.

These matters were addressed in the evidence from Messrs Chilton, Widdowson and Kennedy and from Ms Carvill for AT. We accept their conclusions that the adverse effects on the environment from the discharges will be appropriately managed and be no more than minor.

Restrictions on discharge permits – section 107 RMA Section 107 restricts the granting of certain discharge permits, including permits for the discharge of contaminants to land or water. Section 107 states that a consent authority shall not grant a discharge permit to do something that would otherwise contravene section 15 or 15A allowing the discharge of a contaminant or water into water or onto or into land, if, after reasonable mixing, the contaminant or water discharged is likely to give rise to all or any of a range of potentially adverse effects in the receiving waters.

This section is relevant to the discharge permits for the discharges to stormwater, discharges to land and water from contaminated land and to the permit for the disturbance of contaminated land.

The Council officers are of the view that the proposal satisfies the provisions of section 107 and that the proposed discharges will not result in the production of conspicuous materials or changes in colour or visual clarity, objectionable odours, or significant adverse effects on aquatic life. This view, and the material provided in the application, was supported by the evidence of Messrs Widdowson and Kennedy. They referred to the control mechanisms included in the application details and in the proposed conditions.

We accept that these measures provide that the provisions of section 107 of the RMA restricting the grant of certain discharges permits are met and that the requested discharge permits can be granted.

Duration of resource consents – section 123 RMA We agree with the applicant and the Council officers that a 15 year duration on all of the ‘construction’ related consents is appropriate, noting this is the same duration that was granted for the resource consents for Stage 1 of the CRL. In addition, it provides for flexibility for unexpected delays. Also, R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 26

that the duration on all ‘operational’ consents of 35 years is appropriate. The conditions (including review conditions on the groundwater and air discharges) will adequately address effects on future receiving environments and the water discharge permits will require ongoing monitoring of discharges to ensure that they do not exceed baseline trigger levels or performance standards.

Lapsing of resource consents – section 125 RMA We similarly agree that a 10 year lapse period, rather than 5 years, is appropriate for all the resource consents in order to allow reasonable time to give effect to the consents if unexpected delays occur.

Certificate of compliance – section 139 RMA We find that the COC is no longer necessary, a point that was acknowledged by Ms Carvill at the hearing. The details regarding this matter is included in our above commentary on Earthworks.

Conditions We have thoroughly checked the proposed conditions of consent and have made the amendments necessary to reflect our decision. We have also renumbered the conditions in an endeavour to ensure that each condition refers to one obligation on the part of the consent holder, without making substantive changes except as indicated above.

Part 2 RMA We find that the proposal is consistent with the purpose and principles at Part 2 of the RMA because: •

The completed CRL will provide for the social and economic wellbeing of people and communities in Auckland by improving transport access into and around the city centre, improving the efficiency and resilience of the transport network of urban Auckland, contributing to increasing Auckland’s economic growth and providing a sustainable transport solution that minimizes environmental impacts.

•

The consent conditions will ensure the adverse effects on the environment will appropriately be avoided, remedied or mitigated. In particular, a range of construction mitigation measures will be implemented through an approved CEMP, along with a range of key management and monitoring plans.

•

The matters raised by submitters have been given particular attention through the discussion during the hearing regarding the inclusion of conditions of consent that have regard to submitters’ concerns.

•

The proposal will ensure that the natural character of streams are maintained as the drawdown will not affect the through flows into the streams by any significant level.

Scheduled heritage buildings will also be monitored during construction to ensure that any historic heritage near, within and adjacent to the 5mm predicted ground settlement will be monitored to ensure these are protected. In addition, the effects of climate change have been taken into consideration in the flood modelling carried out.

•

The construction techniques and practices, coupled with conditions on the consent, will appropriately minimize potential and actual adverse effects on the environment. As such, the project represents an efficient use and development of natural and physical resources and serves to maintain and enhance both amenity values and the quality of the environment.

•

Consultation has been undertaken with Mana Whenua, and is ongoing during the CRL project, so that the requirements of sections 6(e), 7(a), 7(aa), and 8 of the RMA have been provided for and had regard to in relation to it.

R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 27

Decision on resource consent application 16.

In exercising our delegation under sections 34 and 34A of the RMA and having regard to the foregoing matters, sections 104, 104B, 105, 107 and 108 and Part 2 of the RMA, we determine that the resource consents for the construction of the Aotea Station to NAL section of the CRL, and for the ongoing use, operation and maintenance of the entire CRL route are granted for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out below.

Reasons for the decision on the resource consent application The reasons for this decision are: •

Overall, the project enables people to provide for their economic and, in turn, social wellbeing as the CRL will improve transport access into and around the city centre, improve efficiency and resilience of the transport network of urban Auckland, contribute to increasing Auckland’s economic growth and provides a sustainable transport solution that minimises environmental impact;

•

The adverse effects associated with the CRL during construction, such as dust, sediment, contamination, ground settlement, water quality, earthworks are considered temporary in nature and can be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated through implementation of the conditions of consent;

•

The adverse effects as a result of ongoing air and water discharges, and ongoing dewatering will be avoided, remedied or mitigated through the conditions of consent;

•

The particular concerns of submitters have been taken account of through consent conditions;

•

The project is consistent with the relevant provisions and policy statements, plans and proposed plans prepared under the RMA;

•

Other matters including the Auckland Plan 2012 and the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 have been taken into account; and

•

The project achieves the purpose of the RMA and meets the associated principles.

R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038

Page 28

Decision on certificate of compliance The application for the certificate of compliance is refused. It was found that provided the project construction complies with the relevant consent conditions and approved erosion and sediment control methodologies then the permitted activity rule for the discharge of sediment laden water will be met and a certificate will not be necessary.

Conditions Attached

Alan Watson Chairperson 17 November 2016 s133A amendment to decision in order to rectify errors made in the referencing to plans.

Updated conditions attached (ref: s133A Conditions amended - 8 November 2017).

Laura Laurenson Senior Project Lead Premium Resource Consents

s133A Conditions amended - 8 November 2017 CONDITIONS Definitions ACZ – Active Construction Zone AEE - Assessment of Environmental Effects prepared by Aurecon New Zealand Limited/ Golder Associates (NZ) Limited, dated 13 May 2016 AQMP - Air Quality Management Plan CCP - Communication and Consultation Plan CEMP - Construction Environmental Management Plan CLG - Community and Business Liaison Group Commencement of construction or construction works – in all conditions which refer to ‘commencement of construction’, construction has the same meaning as the Construction Contracts Act 2002 and includes work such as site clearance, earthmoving and earthworks, excavation, tunnelling, and boring; and the construction, erection, installation, carrying out, alteration, repair, restoration, renewal, maintenance, extension, demolition, removal, or dismantling of any building or structure; and all other matters referred to in section 6 of that Act. CRL – City Rail Link CSA – Construction Support Areas CSMP - Contaminated Soils Management Plan EMP - Industrial and Trade Activities Environmental Management Plan ESC – Erosion and Sediment Control ESCP - Erosion and Sediment Control Plan FTMP – Flocculent Treatment Management Plan GSMCP - Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan IBA - Independent Building Assessor – The person engaged under Condition 91 to make recommendations to Council on building serviceability and damage matters and otherwise carry out the functions ascribed to the IBA under these conditions.

Key contacts - are identified in the CEMP and are a “key contact” person representing the Consent Holder and a “key contact” person representing the contractor team to work with the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring). Refer Condition 30 Management Plan/s means one or all of the following: •

Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)

•

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

•

Contaminated Soils Management Plan (CSMP)

•

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP)

In Consent: REG/2016/1892

1

Address: Wyndham Street, Auckland Central to NAL, Mt Eden Station

•

Flocculent Treatment Management Plan (FTMP)

•

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GSMCP)

•

Industrial and Trade Activity Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and

Mana Whenua - Ngati Maru, Ngati Paoa, Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, Ngati Te Ata Waiohua, Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngati Whatua o Orakei, Te Akitai, and Ngati Tamaoho NAL – North Auckland Line PCCP - Pre-Construction Communication and Consultation Plan Plan – any Management Plan or other plan prepared under these conditions including any plan applicable to a stage of the works Project – the CRL Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Section, or any stage of the Project.

Referee – the independent and appropriately qualified senior person to whom a dispute is referred under Condition 8.

Senior Qualified Person - means a person with a post-graduate degree in environmental science, chemistry, biology, geology (including a Chartered Professional Engineer (CPEng)) or similar field; or having sufficient technical experience that is at least equivalent; and having at least five years’ professional experience.

Services – includes including gas, water, sewerage, telecoms, stormwater, fibre optics and power.

SVR - Site Validation Report TP90 - Auckland Council Technical Publication No. 90, Erosion & Sediment Control: Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region, and any amendments to TP90 See also definitions specific to resource consents, namely, Water Permit R/REG/2016/1890 Take and Diversion of Groundwater.

General Conditions These conditions apply to all resource consents.

Activity in accordance with application 1.

The scope and extent of works envisaged by this project shall be carried out in general accordance with the plans and all information submitted with the application, detailed in Appendix 5, and all referenced by the Council as consent numbers R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038.

Advice note: Relevant plans may be updated as part of the Management Plan process referred to in these conditions.

2.

If there is any conflict between the application documents and the conditions of these resource consents, the conditions of the resource consents will prevail.

3.

The requirements of these conditions, including requirements for Management Plans and reports, shall relate to the Project or any stage of the Project (as applicable).

2

4.

5.

Under section 125 of the RMA, this consent lapses 10 years after the date it is granted unless: a.

The consent is given effect to; or

b.

The Council extends the period after which the consent lapses.

The Consent Holder shall pay the Council an initial consent compliance monitoring charge of $8000 (inclusive of GST), plus any further monitoring charge or charges to recover the actual and reasonable costs incurred to ensure compliance with the conditions of these consents.

Advice note: The initial monitoring deposit is to cover the cost of inspecting the site, carrying out tests, reviewing conditions, updating files, etc., all being work to ensure compliance with the resource consents. In order to recover actual and reasonable costs of monitoring conditions in excess of those covered by the deposit, costs shall be charged at the relevant hourly rate applicable at the time. The Consent Holder will be advised of further monitoring charges. Only after all conditions of the resource consents have been met, will the Council issue a letter confirming compliance at the request of the Consent Holder.

Copies of Resource Consents 6.

All personnel working on the Project shall be made aware of, and have access to, at least one copy of these resource consents, associated reference documents and plans, and the certified Management Plans.

Site Access 7.

Subject to compliance with the Consent Holder's health and safety requirements and provision of reasonable notice, servants or agents of the Council shall be permitted to have access to relevant parts of the surface construction sites controlled by the Consent Holder at all reasonable times for the purpose of carrying out inspections, surveys, investigations, tests, measurements and/or to take samples.

Dispute Resolution 8.

In the event of any dispute, disagreement or inaction arising from the implementation of these resource consents, including a.

any Council certification required by these conditions, or

b.

implementation of, or monitoring required by, these conditions, the disputed matter shall be referred in the first instance to the Consent Holder and Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring), to determine a resolution process.

If a resolution process cannot be agreed, then the matter shall be referred to an independent and appropriate Senior Qualified Person (‘the referee’), agreeable to both parties (such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld by either party).

The referral shall set out in writing the details of the matter to be referred for determination and the reasons why the parties have not agreed.

The referee shall be appointed within 10 working days of the Consent Holder or the Council giving notice to the other of its intention to seek an expert determination.

3

Following the appointment, the referee shall issue a written decision on the matter, including the reasons for his or her decision.

In making the decision, the referee shall be entitled to seek further information and to hear from the parties as he or she sees fit in his or her sole discretion.

The reasonable fees of the referee shall be paid equally by both disputing parties.

Advice Note: The dispute resolution process provided for by this condition does not prejudice any parties’ right to take enforcement action in relation to implementation of these conditions. However, the dispute resolution process will be applied before any formal enforcement action is taken by the Council, except in urgent situations.

The Auckland Transport contact for this resolution process is the Manager Planning and Integration, Property and Planning Team, Capital Development Division Pre-Construction Communication and Consultation Plan (PCCP) 9.

Immediately following the grant of these consents, the Consent Holder shall prepare a PCCP, the purpose of which is to set out a framework to ensure appropriate communication and consultation is undertaken with the community, stakeholders, affected parties and affected in-proximity parties.

10.

The PCCP shall be submitted to Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring), within 40 working days of the grant of these consents, with a request for certification that the PCCP has been prepared in accordance with these conditions of consent.

11.

The PCCP shall set out recommendations and requirements (as applicable) that shall be adopted by and/or inform the development of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and other Plans.

12.

The PCCP shall also set out how the Consent Holder will: a.

Inform the community of Project progress and the likely commencement of construction, and the programme;

b.

Engage with the community in order to foster good relationships and to provide opportunities for learning about the Project;

c.

Obtain (and specify reasonable timeframes for) feedback and input from stakeholders, directly affected and affected in-proximity parties regarding the development of the CEMP and other Plans;

d.

Respond to queries and complaints by providing as a minimum the following information: i) Who is responsible for responding to the query / complaint; ii) How responses will be provided; iii) The timeframes within which responses will be provided.

e.

13.

Where feedback (in accordance with this condition) is provided, the PCCP shall articulate how that feedback has informed the development of the CEMP and other Plans and where it has not, the reasons why it has not.

The PCCP shall be prepared in consultation with stakeholders, directly affected parties and affected in-proximity parties including, but not limited to: 4

14.

a.

All property owners and occupiers of the sites that are identified in Appendix 4, and adjacent to the Project’s construction sites;

b.

Mana Whenua unless any of those named advise the Consent Holder of a different liaison process;

c.

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (Heritage NZ);

d.

NZ Transport Agency / Auckland Motorway Alliance (AMA);

e.

KiwiRail;

f.

Department of Corrections;

g.

Ministry of Justice;

h.

Network Utility Operators; and

i.

The Community and Business Liaison Group (refer Conditions 16-24).

In addition to the requirements of Conditions 11 and 12 above, the PCCP shall, as a minimum, include: a.

A communications framework that details the Consent Holder’s communication strategies, accountabilities, frequency of communications and consultation, the range of communication and consultation tools to be used (including relevant communication methods, newsletters or similar, advertising etc.), and any other relevant communication matters;

b.

Details of the Consent Holder’s Communication and Consultation Manager for the pre- construction period including 24 hour contact details (phone, email and postal address);

c.

The 0800 CRL TALK phone number;

d.

The methods for identifying, communicating and consulting with stakeholders, directly affected parties and affected in-proximity parties and other interested parties. Such methods shall include but not be limited to: i)

Newsletters;

ii)

Newspaper advertising;

iii)

Notification and targeted consultation with stakeholders, affected parties and affected in-proximity parties; and

iv)

The use of the Project website for public information.

e.

The methods for communicating and consulting with the Community and Business Liaison Group (refer Conditions 16-24);

f.

How communication and consultation activity will be recorded; and

g.

Methods for recording reasonably foreseeable future planned network utility works so that those works can be considered and incorporated, where appropriate, into the Project design.

5

The PCCP shall be advertised on the Project website as being publicly available once finalised for the duration of the Project’s pre- construction period.

Advice Note: At the time these resource consents were granted, the Communication and Consultation Manager for the Project was Carol Greensmith, phone 0800 CRL TALK. 15.

The certified PCCP shall be implemented and complied with within 60 working days from the resource consent decision until the commencement of construction.

Community and Business Liaison Group (CLG) 16.

Within 60 working days of the resource consent decision, the Consent Holder shall, in consultation with Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring), establish a Community and Business Liaison Group in the construction area (Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Section).

Advice Note: It is not the intention to set up a new CLG, but to invite those identified in Condition 17 to join one of the already established CLGs set up under the terms of the CRL Designation (refer to Condition 7 of the CRL Designation conditions). These existing CLGs include (and are known as): Aotea Station; Karangahape Station; and Mt Eden Station.

17.

18.

The Consent Holder shall ensure that membership of the CLG shall include representative(s) of the Consent Holder and be open to all directly affected and affected in-proximity parties to the Project including, but not limited to the following: a.

Representative(s) for and/or directly affected and affected in-proximity property owners and occupiers identified in Appendix 4, and are adjacent to the Project’s construction sites;

b.

Karangahape Road Business Association Inc;

c.

Regional Facilities Auckland;

d.

CBD Residents Advisory Group;

e.

Heart of the City;

f.

If not already included under (a), Mr C P Browne, 22 Stable Lane, Eden Terrace; and

g.

Mana Whenua unless any of those named advise the Consent Holder of a different liaison process.

In addition to involvement in the PCCP (refer Conditions 9-15), the Consent Holder shall ensure that the CLG shall: a.

Receive regular updates on Project progress;

b.

Enable the effects of constructing the Project on the community and businesses to be monitored by providing a regular forum through which information about the Project can be provided to the community;

c.

Enable opportunities for concerns and issues to be reported to and responded by the Consent Holder; and

6

d.

Be provided with feedback on the development of, and any material changes to the CEMP and other Management Plans.

e.

Raise with the consent holder any issues raised by group members in regard to business disruption.

f.

Provide to the consent holder details of any request by a landowner or tenant at his/her request, for any information specific to that landowner’s or tenant’s property.

19.

The Consent Holder shall consult with the CLG in respect of the development and review of the CEMP and other Management Plans.

20.

Prior to preparation of the PCCP under Condition 9, the Consent Holder shall appoint one or more persons appropriately qualified in community consultation as the Community Consultation Advisor(s) to: a.

Provide administrative assistance to the CLG;

b.

Ensure the CLG is working effectively (including the development of a Code of Conduct and appropriate procedures for the CLG); and

c.

Act as a community consultation advisor to the CLG.

21.

The Consent Holder must use its best endeavours to ensure that the CLG meets at least annually until the commencement of construction and then at least once every three months or as otherwise required once construction commences.

22.

Once construction has commenced, the Consent Holder shall provide an update at least every three months (or as otherwise agreed) to the CLG on compliance with resource consent conditions, including the CEMP and other Management Plans, and any material changes to these Plans.

23.

The Consent Holder shall provide reasonable administrative support for the CLG including organising meetings at a local venue, inviting all members of the CLG, and taking responsibility for keeping and disseminating meeting minutes.

24.

The CLG shall continue for the duration of the Project and for six months following completion of the Project and an additional six months if a majority of the members of the CLG agree.

Communication and Consultation Plan (CCP) 25.

At least 3 months prior to the commencement of construction, the Consent Holder shall prepare a CCP the purpose of which is to set out a framework to ensure appropriate communication and consultation with the community, stakeholders, affected parties and affected in-proximity parties during the construction of the Project.

26.

[blank]

27.

The CCP shall be based on and, where appropriate, incorporate the provisions of the PCCP, and shall set out how the Consent Holder will:

7

28.

a.

Inform the community and business of construction progress and future construction activities and constraints that could affect them;

b.

Provide early information on key Project milestones;

c.

Obtain and specify a reasonable timeframe (being not less than 10 working days), for feedback and inputs from directly affected and affected in-proximity parties regarding the implementation and review of the CEMP or other Management Plans;

d.

Respond to queries and complaints including but not limited to: i)

Who is responsible for responding;

ii)

How responses will be provided; and

iii)

The timeframes within which responses will be provided.

The CCP shall (as a minimum) include: a.

A communications framework that details the Consent Holder’s communication strategies, accountabilities, frequency of communications and consultation, the range of communication and consultation tools to be used (including relevant communication methods, newsletters or similar, advertising etc.), and any other relevant communication matters;

b.

The Communication and Consultation Manager for the Project including 24 hour contact details (phone, email and postal address);

c.

The 0800 CRL TALK phone number;

d.

The methods for identifying, communicating and consulting with persons affected by the project including but not limited to:

e.

i)

All property owners and occupiers of the sites that are identified at Appendix 4, and adjacent to the Project’s construction sites;

ii)

Mana Whenua unless any of those named advise the Consent Holder of a different liaison process;

iii)

Heritage NZ;

iv)

NZ Transport Agency/ Auckland Motorway Alliance (AMA);

v)

Kiwirail;

vi)

Department of Corrections;

vii)

Ministry of Justice;

viii)

Network Utility Operators; and

ix)

The Community and Business Liaison Group (refer Conditions 16-24)

How stakeholders and persons affected by the Project will be notified of the commencement of construction, the expected duration of the activities and works, and who to contact for any queries, concerns and complaints; 8

f.

How stakeholders and persons affected by the Project will be consulted in the development and review of the CEMP and other Management Plans, including specifying reasonable timeframes for feedback;

g.

A list of stakeholders, directly affected and affected in-proximity parties to the construction works with whom the Consent Holder will communicate;

h.

A requirement that the Consent Holder shall make any information that is relevant to 22 Stable Lane available to the owner of that property (Christopher Patrick Browne) on request, and advise that owner in the event that any alert or alarm trigger levels are exceeded that are relevant to 22 Stable Lane. In addition, the CCP shall state the method by which Christopher Patrick Browne can make such a request and the anticipated timeframe within which it will be provided;

i.

A summary of communication and consultation undertaken between the Consent Holder and parties as required by the PCCP. The summary shall include any outstanding issues or disputes raised by parties;

j.

How communication and consultation relating to construction activities and monitoring requirements will be recorded; and

k.

How opportunities to interpret and display archaeological finds within the Project area will be identified and implemented, including how Heritage NZ will be involved in this process.

Advice Note: At the time this resource consent was granted, the Communication and Consultation Manager for the Project was Carol Greensmith, phone 0800 CRL TALK. 29.

The CCP shall also include (as relevant) linkages and cross-references to the CEMP and other Management Plans.

30.

The CCP shall be reviewed six monthly for the duration of construction and updated if required. Any updates to the CCP shall be provided to the “key contacts” and the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for review and agreement on any further action to be undertaken.

31.

Any further action recommended as a result of the review under Condition 30 shall be undertaken by the Consent Holder’s Communication and Consultation Manager for the Project and confirmation of completion shall be provided to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring).

32.

If, in the course of amendments undertaken as part of the review process under Condition 30, a material change to the CCP is made, the Consent Holder shall notify those parties affected by the change within 20 working days of the material change occurring.

33.

The CCP shall be implemented and complied with for the duration of the construction of the Project.

Pre-Construction Meetings and Notification

9

34.

Prior to commencement of any stage of construction, the Consent Holder shall arrange a pre-construction meeting with Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring in conjunction with relevant technical specialists, as required) as well as the site contractor and shall invite Mana Whenua to attend. a.

The meeting shall be located on the Project site unless otherwise agreed;

b.

The meeting shall be scheduled no less than five working days before the anticipated commencement of construction;

c.

The meeting shall include representation from the contractor who will undertake the works;

d.

The following information shall be made available by the Consent Holder at the pre- construction meeting: i)

Conditions of consent;

ii)

Approved (signed/stamped) construction plans for that stage;

iii)

Timeframes for key stages of the works authorised under these consents;

iv)

Contact details of the site contractor, site stormwater engineer and other key contractors;

v)

All certified Management Plans; and Advice Note: by this stage, all of the Management Plans should have been certified, given the plans are required to be lodged 20 working days prior to commencement of construction.

vi) e.

A copy of the Corridor Access Request from Auckland Transport.

Appropriate provision to the extent sought by Manu Whenua, or their nominated representative(s), shall be made for a cultural induction of the contractor's staff.

Advice Note: To arrange the pre-construction meeting required by Condition 34 please contact Steve Pearce, Team Leader Central Monitoring at steve.pearce@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz, or 09 301 01 01. The conditions of consent should be discussed at this meeting. All information required by the Council should be provided no later than two days prior to the meeting.

Construction Management 35.

Prior to the commencement of construction of the Project, the Consent Holder shall prepare a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) including all certified Management Plans which form part of these conditions to ensure compliance with the resource consents.

36.

The CEMP shall include details of: a.

Final project details and staging of works to illustrate that the works remain within the limits and standards approved under these resource consents and that the construction activities avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment.

10

b.

The site or project manager and the Communication and Consultation Manager, including their contact details (phone, email and physical address);

c.

The “key contacts”;

d.

Communication and consultation procedures for ensuring that residents, road users and businesses in the immediate vicinity of construction areas are given prior notice of the commencement of construction and are informed about the expected duration and effects of the work. In particular, the procedures shall provide for the following in relation to residents, road users and businesses potentially affected by the construction works: i)

consultation prior to the commencement of construction;

ii)

notice periods for changes to pedestrian and vehicle access;

iii)

regular updates on construction progress;

iv)

key dates for major milestones such as road closure and re-opening; and

v)

communication on any other matters potentially affecting residents or business operations in the vicinity of the works.

e.

Notice boards that clearly identify the Consent Holder and the Project name, together with the name, telephone number and email address of the Site or Project Manager and the Communication and Consultation Manager;

f.

General site layout and management;

g.

An outline of the Project’s construction programme, including construction hours of operation;

h.

Means of ensuring the safety of the general public;

i.

Certified Management Plans referred to in these conditions;

j.

Water Discharge Quality Monitoring Programme; and

k.

Identification of the suitably independent, qualified Chartered Professional Engineer, or member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, who will be undertaking the condition surveys required by the conditions of consent.

37.

The CEMP shall be provided to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification at least 20 working days prior to the commencement of construction.

38.

The Consent Holder shall request the Council’s (Team Leader Central Monitoring) determination, in writing, as to whether the CEMP can be certified as per the requirements of these consent conditions within 10 working days of receipt of the CEMP. Construction shall not commence until written certification is obtained from Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring).

39.

The CEMP required by Condition 35 shall be implemented and maintained throughout the entire construction period for the Project, or relevant Project stage, to manage potential adverse effects arising from the construction and shall be updated as necessary (or as required by the review process in Condition 42).

11

40.

Any change to the CEMP shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification and no activity reliant upon a change to the CEMP can be undertaken until the change has been certified.

The Consent Holder shall request the Council’s (Team Leader Central Monitoring) determination as to whether the proposed change can be certified, in writing, within 10 working days of submission of the change.

Construction Traffic 41.

The Consent Holder shall, so far as is it is reasonably practicable, avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of construction on transport, parking and property access.

This is to be achieved through the following objectives: a.

managing the road transport network for the duration of the construction by adopting the best practicable option to manage congestion;

b.

maintaining pedestrian access to private property at all times; and

c.

providing on-going vehicle access to private property to the greatest extent possible.

Advice Note: Condition 41 refers to objectives to be achieved. The requirement to provide mechanisms to achieve these objectives is included in the relevant CRL designation conditions.

Review Process for CEMP and other Management Plans 42.

43.

The Consent Holder shall review the CEMP and other Management Plans at least annually or a.

as a result of a material change to the Project;

b.

to address unforeseen or materially greater adverse effects arising from construction or

c.

to address unresolved complaints.

A review pursuant to Condition 42 may be initiated by either the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) or the Consent Holder and shall take into consideration: a.

Compliance with resource consent conditions, the CEMP, other Management Plans and any material changes to these Plans;

b.

Any changes to construction methods;

c.

Key changes to roles and responsibilities relating to the Project;

d.

Relevant changes in industry best practice standards;

e.

Relevant changes in legal or other requirements;

f.

Results of monitoring and reporting procedures associated with the management of adverse effects during construction;

12

44.

g.

Any comments or recommendations received from Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) or as a result of the CCP process regarding the CEMP and other Management Plans; and

h.

Any complaints and any response to complaints and remedial action taken to address the complaint as required under Conditions 45-49.

A summary of the review process shall be kept by the Consent Holder, provided annually to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring), and advised to and made available to the CLG.

Concerns and Complaints Management 45.

46.

47.

Upon receiving a concern or complaint during construction of the Project, the Consent Holder shall instigate a process to address the concern or complaint. This shall: a.

Identify of the nature of the concern or complaint, and the location, date and time of the alleged event(s);

b.

Acknowledge receipt of the concern or complaint within 24 hours of receipt;

c.

Respond to the concern or complaint in accordance with the relevant Management Plan, which may include (for example) monitoring of the activity by a suitably qualified expert, and implementation of mitigation measures; and

d.

Provide the person raising the concern or complaint with details of the response.

A record of all concerns and / or complaints received shall be kept by the Consent Holder. This record shall include: a.

The name and address of the person(s) who raised the concern or complaint (unless they elect not to provide this or do not want the information recorded) and details of the concern or complaint;

b.

Where practicable and relevant, weather conditions at the time of the concern or complaint, including wind direction and cloud cover if the complaint relates to air quality;

c.

The relevant known construction activities being undertaken at the time and in the vicinity of the concern or complaint;

d.

Any other activities in the area unrelated to the Project that may have contributed to the concern or complaint such as non-related construction, fires, traffic accidents or unusually dusty conditions generally;

e.

Remedial actions undertaken (if any) and the outcome of these, including monitoring of the activity and any proposed changes to any Management Plan; and

f.

the response of the person who raised the concern or complaint to the remedial actions undertaken.

This record shall be maintained on site, be available for inspection upon request, and shall be provided every two months (or as otherwise agreed) to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring).

13

48.

49.

Where a complaint remains unresolved or a dispute arises, the Consent Holder will provide to Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) a copy of all records of the complaint and advice as to a.

how it has been dealt with and addressed; and

b.

whether the Consent Holder considers that any other steps to resolve the complaint are required.

In addition to Condition 48, the Consent Holder shall also request the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) to determine whether a review of the CEMP and/or Management Plan(s) is required under Condition 42 to address the unresolved complaint or dispute. The Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) will be asked to advise the Consent Holder of its recommendation within 10 working days of receiving the records of complaint.

Specific conditions – land use consent R/LUC/2016/1890 Earthworks Duration 50.

Consent R/LUC/2016/1890 shall expire 15 years from the date it is granted unless it has been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the RMA.

Completion or abandonment of works 51.

Upon completion or abandonment of earthworks on the subject site all areas of bare earth shall be permanently stabilised against erosion to the satisfaction of the Team Leader Central Monitoring.

52.

The Consent Holder shall manage the on-going monitoring of the measures taken under Condition 51 and for that purpose, should discuss any potential measures with Council’s (Team Leader Central Monitoring), with reference to TP90.

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) 53.

At least 20 working days prior to the commencement of construction within a CSA or ACZ, the Consent Holder shall submit to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification an ESCP which provides for the management of all bulk earthworks to minimise any discharge of debris, soil, sediment or sediment-laden water beyond the site to either land and/ or stormwater drainage systems.

54.

The Consent Holder shall request the Council's (Team Leader Central Monitoring) determination as to whether the ESCP can be certified, in writing, within 10 working days of receipt of the ESCP. No construction activity shall commence until certification from Council is provided.

55.

An ESCP shall include, but is not limited to, the following matters: •

identification of construction zones and construction support areas;

14

•

specific erosion and sediment control works for each Active Construction Zone (location, dimensions, capacity supporting calculations and design drawings), which should be in line with Industry Best Practice that will meet or exceed the performance of measures detailed in TP90;

•

catchment boundaries;

•

the timing and duration of construction and operation of control works (in relation to the staging and sequencing of earthworks);

•

details relating to the management of exposed areas;

•

reference to the Flocculent Treatment Management Plan and confirmation of erosion and sediment control measures necessary to give effect to that plan;

•

reference to the Contaminated Soils Management Plan and confirmation of erosion and sediment control measures necessary to give effect to that plan; and

•

monitoring and maintenance requirements, including information on complaint investigation and response procedures, training, and roles and responsibilities.

56.

Any change to an ESCP shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification.

57.

The Consent Holder shall request the Council's (Team Leader Central Monitoring) written determination as to whether the proposed change can be certified, to be provided within 10 working days of submission of the change. No activity reliant upon a change to the ESCP can be undertaken until the change has been certified.

58.

The Consent Holder shall comply with the ESCP for the duration of the earthworks associated with the Project.

Flocculent Treatment Management Plan (FTMP) 59.

At least 20 working days prior to the commencement of construction, the Consent Holder shall submit to Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification an FTMP which confirms the measures that will be taken to ensure that the construction of the Project or Project Stage will be generally consistent with the Water Quality Assessment and the Industrial and Trade Activities Assessment prepared by Golder Associates (NZ) Limited, both dated December 2014.

60.

The Consent Holder shall request the Council's (Team Leader Central Monitoring) written determination as to whether the FTMP can be certified, within 10 working days of receipt of the FTMP. No construction activity shall commence until certification from Council is provided.

61.

The FTMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following matters: •

Specific design details of the flocculent treatment system based on a batch dosing methodology for the site's settlement tanks, including the potential for use of non – chemical flocculants (e.g. chitin based flocculants);

15

•

Monitoring, maintenance (including post-storm) and contingency programme (including a record sheet);

•

Details of optimum dosage (including assumptions);

•

Results of initial flocculent treatment trial;

•

A spill contingency plan; and

•

Details of the person or bodies who will hold responsibility for the long-term operation and maintenance of the flocculent treatment system and the organisational structure which will support this system.

62.

Any change to the FTMP shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification.

63.

The Consent Holder shall request the Council's (Team Leader Central Monitoring) written determination as to whether the proposed change requested under Condition 62 can be certified, to be provided within 10 working days of submission of the change. No activity reliant upon a change to the FTMP can be undertaken until the change has been certified.

64.

The Consent Holder shall comply with the FTMP for the duration of construction of the Project.

As Built certification 65.

Prior to the commencement of bulk earthworks, a certificate signed by a Senior Qualified Person shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) to certify that the erosion and sediment controls (including diversion bunds, silt fences and sumps) have been constructed in accordance with the certified ESCP(s) as required by Condition 53 of this consent.

66.

The certification from the Senior Qualified Person for these measures shall be supplied to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) immediately upon completion of construction of those measures. Information supplied, if applicable, shall include: •

The contributing catchment area;

•

The shape of structure (dimensions of structure);

•

The position of inlets/outlets; and

•

The stabilisation of the structure.

General Performance Standards 67.

The Consent Holder shall ensure that there shall be no deposition of earth, mud, dirt or other debris on any road or footpath resulting from bulk earthworks on the subject site. In the event that such deposition does occur, it shall immediately be removed.

In no instance, shall roads or footpaths be washed down with water without appropriate erosion and sediment control measures in place to prevent contamination of the stormwater drainage system, watercourses or receiving waters.

16

68.

The operational effectiveness and efficiency of all erosion and sediment control measures specifically required as a condition of resource consent, including the certified ESCP referred to in Condition 53, shall be maintained throughout the duration of earthworks, or until the Project site is permanently stabilised against erosion.

69.

The site shall be progressively stabilised against erosion at all stages of earthworks activity, and shall be sequenced to minimise the discharge of contaminants to groundwater or surface water.

70.

The Consent Holder shall ensure that the erosion and sediment control measures are constructed and maintained in accordance with TP90, except where a higher standard is detailed in an ESCP/FTMP, in which case the higher standard shall apply.

71.

Sediment control measures shall be inspected on a weekly basis and after a significant storm event to ensure effective operation.

72.

The Consent Holder shall ensure that all material removed from or delivered to the Project site shall be covered during transportation.

Review Condition for regional land use (earthworks) consent R/LUC/2016/1890 73.

Pursuant to section 128 of the RMA the conditions of this consent may be reviewed by the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) at the Consent Holder's cost, by giving notice pursuant to section 129 of the Act within six months after commencement of bulk earthworks and subsequently at intervals of not less than one year thereafter in order to achieve the following: a.

To deal with any adverse effects on the environment which may arise or potentially arise from the exercise of this consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage;

b.

To alter erosion and sediment control requirements as a result of previous monitoring outcomes, and/or in response to changes to the environment and/or hydro-geological knowledge, and/or changes to industry best practice;

c.

If, at any time, it is found that the information made available to the Council in the application contained inaccuracies which materially influenced the decision and the effects of the exercise of the consent are such that it is necessary to apply more appropriate conditions; and

d.

If, at any time, CRL-related works being undertaken under a designation providing for aspects of the Project, or a separate resource consent, leads to an inconsistent approach to the management of effects.

Stormwater quality (redevelopment of Albert Street - high use road) 74.

Management of stormwater from the redevelopment of Albert Street that is necessitated by the Project shall achieve the following performance standard, and measures to achieve that standard shall be implemented prior to completion of the Project: Works

Device catchment

Design guideline

17

75.

A a treatment device(s) Via 17,300 m2 Best Practicable Option, t meets the design that designed in accordance with the guideline requirements principles of TP10/75% TSS l removal east 30 days prior to the commencement of construction of the stormwater devices on the site, the Consent Holder shall submit a final detailed design of the stormwater management system required to comply with Condition 74 to the Team Leader Central Monitoring for certification.

The information shall include, but not be limited to: a.

A site drainage plan;

b.

Catchment area details (and associated water quality volume calculations) for stormwater treatment device(s);

c.

Plans and engineering drawings for the stormwater treatment(s); and

d.

Design calculations for the stormwater treatment device(s) demonstrating the treatment efficiency.

As builts 76.

The Consent Holder shall provide As-Built certification and plans of the stormwater management works, which are certified (signed) by a suitably qualified registered surveyor as a true record of the stormwater management system constructed in accordance with the design approved under Condition 75, to the Team Leader Central Monitoring.

77.

The As-Built plans shall display the entirety of the stormwater management system, and shall include

78.

a.

location, dimensions and levels of any overland flow paths including cross sections and long sections;

b.

plans and cross sections of all stormwater management devices, including confirmation of the Water Quality Volume, storage volumes and levels of any outflow control structure;

c.

documentation of any discrepancies between the design plans and the As-Built plans approved by the Modifications Approval condition.

A post-construction meeting shall be held by the Consent Holder, within 20 working days of completion of the stormwater management works, that: a.

is located on the subject area;

b.

includes representation from the Team Leader Central Monitoring; and

c.

includes representation from the site stormwater engineer or contractors who have undertaken the works and any other relevant parties.

Operation and Maintenance Plan

18

79.

The Consent Holder shall provide an Operation and Maintenance Plan for the stormwater management system to the Team Leader Central Monitoring 5 days prior to the post-construction meeting required by Condition 78.

80.

The Operation and Maintenance Plan shall set out how the stormwater management system is to be operated and maintained to ensure that adverse environmental effects are minimised. The plan shall include:

81.

a.

details of who will hold responsibility for long-term maintenance of the stormwater management system and the organisational structure which will support this process;

b.

a programme for regular maintenance and inspection of the stormwater management system;

c.

a programme for the collection and disposal of debris and sediment collected by the stormwater management devices or practices;

d.

a programme for post storm inspection and maintenance;

e.

a programme for inspection and maintenance of the outfall;

f.

general inspection checklists for all aspects of the stormwater management system, including visual checks and

g.

a programme for inspection and maintenance of vegetation associated with the stormwater management devices.

The stormwater management system shall be managed in accordance with the Operation and Maintenance Plan (see Condition 79).

Specific conditions – water permit (groundwater diversion/discharge) R/REG/2016/1892 DEFINITIONS: Commencement of Dewatering:

Means Commencement of Bulk Excavation and/or the commencement of the taking or diversion of groundwater, other than for initial state monitoring purposes.

Completion of Excavation

Means the stage when all Bulk Excavation has been completed.

Completion of Dewatering:

Means when the tunnel and associated shafts and access-ways within a construction zone have been constructed and no further groundwater is being extracted for the construction of the railway and utility infrastructure.

Completion of Construction

Means when the Consent Holder advises the Council in writing that construction is complete in relation to the consent.

Serviceability Limit/s

As detailed in Table 1 Building Damage Classification, it is the limit beyond which Serviceability Damage may occur. It represents the magnitude of structural deflections (caused by ground settlement) or 19

lateral displacement) beyond which structural, as opposed to nonstructural (aesthetic) damage may occur, including: i. any reduction of operational functionality ii. any reduction in weathertightness or service life or iii. any reduced durability.

In determining Serviceability Limits for a given building, structure or service, the predicted and actual response to deflection must be considered in relation to the existing conditions of the building, structure or services (and parts thereof).

Damage

Includes aesthetic and structural (serviceability) damage.

Alert Level

= 80% design prediction.

Alarm Level

= 100% design prediction

Manager:

Means the Team Leader Water Allocation, NRSI, AC, or nominated Auckland Council staff acting on the Team Leader’s behalf.

RL:

Means Reduced Level.

Consent duration 82.

The Dewatering and Diversion consent and water permit 46500 shall expire 35 years after the consent commences unless it has been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the RMA.

Performance standards 83.

Within the 5mm settlement contours on the drawings in Appendix 1, all excavations, dewatering systems, retaining structures and associated works (including backfilling) for the CRL construction must be designed, constructed and maintained so as to avoid any damage that exceeds the Serviceability Limits of buildings, structures and services.

84.

Beyond the 5mm settlement contours on the drawings in Appendix 1, the Consent Holder must ensure that the damage to masonry buildings due to the Project works, including excavations, dewatering systems, retaining structures and associated works (including backfilling), does not exceed the “negligible damage� category extent detailed in Table 1 below and has only negligible effects on piled buildings, structures and services.

20

Category of Damage

Normal Degree of Severity

Description of Typical Damage

0

Negligible

Hairline cracks.

1

Very Slight

Fine cracks easily treated during normal redecoration. Perhaps isolated slight fracture in building. Cracks in exterior visible upon close inspection. Typical crack widths up to 1mm.

2

Slight

Cracks easily filled. Redecoration probably required. Several slight fractures inside building. Exterior cracks visible, some repainting may be required for weather-tightness. Doors and windows may stick slightly. Typically crack widths up to 5mm.

3

Moderate

Cracks may require cutting out and patching. Recurrent cracks can be masked by suitable linings. Brick pointing and possible replacement of a small amount of exterior brickwork may be required. Doors and windows sticking. Utility services may be interrupted. Weather tightness often impaired. Typical crack widths are 5mm to 15mm or several greater than 3mm.

4

Severe

Extensive repair involving removal and replacement of walls especially over door and windows required. Window and door frames distorted. Floor slopes noticeably. Walls lean or bulge noticeably. Some loss of bearing in beams.

Utility services disrupted. Typical crack widths are 15mm to 25mm but also depend on the number of cracks.

5

Very Severe

Major repair required involving partial or complete reconstruction.

Beams lose bearing, walls lean badly and require shoring.

Windows broken by distortion. Danger of instability.

(Building Damage Classification after Burland (1995), and Mair et al (1996))

General Category

CRL Consent

(after Burland – 1995) Aesthetic Damage

Negligible effects for <5mm predicted ground settlement Aesthetic Damage Effects – to be mitigated

Serviceability Damage

Serviceability Limit (interface between Damage Category 2 “Slight” and Damage Category 3 “Moderate”)

Serviceability Damage Effects – to be avoided

Stability Damage

Stability Damage Effects – to be avoided

Planner’s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners R/LUC/2016/1890, R/REG/2016/1892, R/REG/2016/1895, R/REG/2016/1896, R/REG/2016/1897, R/REG/2016/1898, R/REG/2016/1899, R/REG/2016/1900 and R/REG/2016/2038 Page 21

Typical crack widths are greater than 25mm but depend on the number of cracks.

Table 1: Building Damage Classification Note: ‘Description of Typical Damage’ applies to Masonry buildings only. The ‘General Category’ applies to all buildings.

22

85.

The maximum bulk excavation depths, including shafts shall not exceed the specified depth in Schedule A below in the respective construction zones by more than 2 metres without approval from the Manager: Schedule A: Construction Zone

Design Component

Design Depth

ACZ A

Aotea Station

6.5 mRL

ACZ A

Wellesley Street Entrance

5.5 mRL

ACZ A

Victoria Street Entrance

6.5 mRL

ACZ-K

Karangahape Station

30 mRL

ACZ-K

Pitt Street Shaft

ACZ-K

Mercury Lane Shaft

30 mRL

ACZ-M

Newton Grade Separation Structure

54 mRL

26.5 mRL

86.

The design tunnel alignment shall not be raised by more than 4m without approval from the Manager.

87.

The Consent Holder shall ensure that the following underground structures are sealed from groundwater ingress following construction:

88.

i.

ACZ A – Aotea Station.

ii.

ACZ N – North Tunnels.

iii.

ACZ K – Pitt Street and Mercury Lane shafts between the ground surface and the top of the unweathered rock.

iv.

ACZ S – South Tunnels excluding Newton Y-Junctions.

v.

ACZ M – Mt Eden Station trench, cut and cover tunnels and Newton Grade Separation Structure.

The Consent Holder shall ensure that: a.

the North and South Tunnels (excluding the Vincent Street, Upper Queen Street and Symonds Street tunnel cross passages and Newton Y-Junctions) are sealed within one month of excavation, and

b.

the three tunnel cross passages are sealed within three years of excavation, unless it is demonstrated by monitoring results submitted to and agreed by Council that potentially adverse effects of settlement will not occur, in which case the tunnel cross passages shall be sealed prior to Completion of Construction.

23

89.

After Completion of Construction, with the exception of permanent groundwater drawdown in the vicinity of Aotea Station (perched groundwater), Karangahape Station and the Newton Y-junctions, groundwater levels shall not be reduced by the CRL project below pre-existing seasonal low levels or rise above seasonal high levels measured during pre-construction monitoring in accordance with Condition 105.

90.

The Consent Holder shall ensure that there is no long-term mounding due to damming of groundwater by the proposed rail infrastructure.

Appointment of Independent Building Assessor (IBA) 91.

Prior to the Consent Holder submitting the GSMCP under Condition 97, the Consent Holder shall request that Council engage, at the cost of the Consent Holder, a suitably qualified independent specialist, agreed to by the Consent Holder, to fill the role of Independent Building Assessor (IBA).

The Consent Holder shall acknowledge that the IBA can, at the expense of the Consent Holder, engage other independent specialists, but only in consultation with the Consent Holder.

92.

The IBA required by Condition 91 shall report to the Manager on building damage matters and how these matters may be addressed by the Consent Holder. The IBAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s report shall have regard to the following: a.

that site-specific assessments are undertaken to an appropriate level of detail;

b.

monitoring data is collected, interpreted and assessed in regard to limiting effects to avoid Serviceability Damage (refer Table 1);

c.

Alert and Alarm limits; and

d.

any matters referred to in Conditions 109, 115, 124 and 125.

Pre-Dewatering services survey 93.

Prior to the Commencement of Dewatering, and following the identification of potentially affected Services, the Consent Holder shall, in consultation with the relevant service provider, undertake a condition survey of all such Services. This condition does not apply to any Service where written evidence is provided to the Manager that the owner of that Service has confirmed they do not require a condition survey.

94.

The monitoring of any settlement effects on those potentially affected Services shall be in accordance with Conditions 120 and 121.

95.

In the event that the Servicesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; trigger levels listed in Appendix 2 are breached, the Consent Holder must carry out remedial actions in accordance with Conditions 125 and 128.

24

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GSMCP) 96.

During construction, the Consent Holder shall implement procedures that will appropriately respond to the information received from the monitoring system, including assessment at each excavation stage of the actual retention and building response against the predictions determined from the detailed design.

97.

The procedures referred to in Condition 96 shall be set out in a GSMCP, prepared and submitted by the Consent Holder at least 20 working days prior to the Commencement of Dewatering, together with a statement from the IBA confirming its adequacy, to the Manager for certification.

98.

The Consent Holder shall request Council’s (The Manager) determination as to whether the GSMCP can be certified, in writing within 10 working days of receipt of the GSMCP.

99.

No dewatering on the subject site shall commence until certification from the Manager is provided.

100.

The GSMCP required by Condition 97 shall include the requirements of this resource consent including, but not limited to, the following: a.

An “as built” survey plan of all monitoring locations based on approximate positions located on the plans entitled: •

A02502731, Figure 39, Rev B dated May 2016 and ET Table 7.1 (Appendix 3); and

•

The plans referred to in Appendix 1 and any further building-specific monitoring requirements determined from the detailed pre-construction building condition assessment.

b.

Full details (frequency and scope) of groundwater (including construction logs), ground surface, building, retaining wall, building façade, inclinometer monitoring programme and conditions surveys, and frequency and scope of visual inspections required by this consent;

c.

A bar chart, such as a Gantt chart, showing the timing and frequency of the condition surveys and monitoring required by this consent relative to the Commencement of Dewatering and the Completion of Dewatering;

d.

Groundwater alert triggers, defined as 90% of predicted drawdown below seasonal low groundwater levels;

e.

Details of all alert and alarm triggers (including any necessary horizontal and vertical displacements), the frequency of monitoring and the criteria to cease monitoring for each ground, building and retaining wall deformation marks and inclinometers, extensometers. The alert and alarm triggers shall be an update of the provisional triggers provided on drawings CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG2640 Rev 4. dated 14 October 2016 and CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2642 Rev 3. dated 11 October 2016;

25

101.

f.

Details of the contingency measures to be implemented if alert or alarm triggers are exceeded, including a Response Plan;

g.

Identification of any adjacent Services susceptible to damage and details of any pre and post construction monitoring or inspection;

h.

Details of monitoring proposed to ensure the effects of any ground settlement adjacent to shafts proposed for the installation of new utilities near Mt Eden Station are adequately monitored;

i.

Details of the monitoring proposed to be undertaken to protect the issued groundwater diversion consents listed below against cumulative settlement effects: i.

Consent No. 45735, 46 Upper Queen Street

ii.

Consent No. 44531, 224 Hobson Street

iii.

Consent 44857, 106 Vincent Street

iv.

Consent No. 45635, 210 Federal Street

v.

Consent No. 44571, 58 Albert Street

vi.

Consent No. 43162, 26 Poynton Terrace

j.

Identification of existing basements which could be subject to potential flooding from post-construction groundwater mounding; details of monitoring of longterm groundwater mounding effects; and details of groundwater drain construction to prevent groundwater mounding; and

k.

The review of the proposed alarm and alert trigger levels in Appendix 2, approved by the IBA, following the pre-construction building condition surveys (required by Condition 109) that confirms they are set to ensure Serviceability Limits will be not be exceeded and whether the monitoring frequency is adequate, possibly requiring further site investigation work where sensitive structures are identified as part of Condition 112.

The GSMCP may be varied, including frequency of monitoring, subject to the certification of the Manager, which is contingent on approval of the IBA. Advice Note: The Manager will endeavour to determine whether the change can be certified, in writing, within 10 working days of submission of the change.

102.

Once certified, the GSMCP shall be implemented for the periods specified in conditions of this consent.

103.

The Consent Holder shall advise the Manager, in writing, of the date of the proposed Commencement of Dewatering.

26

Monitoring - Groundwater 104.

The Consent Holder shall install, maintain and replace if necessary, groundwater monitoring boreholes listed in Appendix 3 of this consent and shown on drawing A02502731, Figure 39, Rev B dated May 2016 (Appendix 3) and ET Table 7.1 (Appendix 3) of this consent, for the period required by the conditions of this consent.

105.

The Consent Holder shall measure and record groundwater levels at the monitoring boreholes specified in drawings and ET Table 7.1 attached to these conditions (Appendix 3) at the frequency specified in Schedule B.

Schedule B: Bore Name

Location

As per list in As per Appendix 3 Plans in Appendix 3

Groundwater level monitoring frequency and duration (to an accuracy of 10mm, calibrated by the instrument supplier)1 From bore construction for at least three months prior to Commencement of Dewatering

Commencement of Dewatering until either six months after the Completion of Dewatering, or until such time following the completion of dewatering that monitoring of settlement and building monitoring marks has ceased under Condition 120.

Weekly

At least three times Weekly1

Note 1: The monitoring frequency and duration may be changed if approved by the Manager.

Any change shall be specified in the GSMCP. 106.

These records, reported in reduced level, shall be compiled and submitted to the Manager at monthly intervals.

107.

The groundwater alert trigger level criteria is listed in Schedule C below for the monitoring boreholes.

Schedule C: Provisional Alert Trigger Level Criteria Alert Trigger Low Level

108.

90% of predicted drawdown response in all units

Where groundwater alert trigger levels are exceeded, as identified from monitoring data obtained pursuant to Condition 105, the Consent Holder shall undertake the actions set out in the certified GSMCP; a.

notify the Manager within 2 working days, advising the trigger exceedance, the risk of settlement causing damage to buildings, and details of the actions taken; and

27

b.

send a copy of the material notified to Council to the relevant building owner.

Building Inspection 109.

Prior to the submission of the GSMCP, the Consent Holder shall employ an independent Senior Qualified Person to undertake, subject to the approval of the property owner, a detailed pre-construction condition survey of all buildings specified in Appendix 2 in order to confirm their existing condition.

The survey and assessment shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a.

any information about the type of foundations;

b.

existing levels of damage considered to be of an aesthetic or superficial nature;

c.

existing levels of damage considered to affect the serviceability of the building where visually apparent and without recourse to intrusive or destructive investigation;

d.

a professional opinion as to whether observed damage may or may not be associated with actual structural damage;

e.

susceptibility of the building or structure to further movement;

f.

specific assessment of building damage with reference to the trigger levels identified in Appendix 2;

g.

review of proposed alarm and alert trigger levels to confirm they are appropriately set; and

h.

photographic evidence of (b) and (c).

110.

Where the Consent Holder is required to access property (including buildings or structures) owned by a third party to undertake monitoring, surveys or inspections and that access is declined or subject to what the Consent Holder considers to be unreasonable terms, the Consent Holder shall notify the Manager of that circumstance, and provide an alternative monitoring plan which includes the matters stated in Condition 100.

111.

Any condition survey undertaken in accordance with Condition109, or any other condition surveys undertaken by the Consent Holder, shall be undertaken as follows: a.

The Senior Qualified Person shall be identified in the CEMP to undertake the condition surveys (see Condition 36);

b.

The Consent Holder shall contact owners of those buildings and structures where a condition survey is to be undertaken to confirm the timing and methodology for undertaking a pre-construction condition survey;

c.

The Consent Holder shall record all contact, correspondence and communication with owners and this shall be available on request for the Manager;

28

d.

The Consent Holder shall provide the building condition survey or structure condition survey report to the relevant property owner and the Manager within 15 working days of the survey being undertaken;

e.

The Consent Holder shall undertake a visual inspection during construction if requested by the building or structure owner where a pre-construction condition survey has been undertaken and monitoring data and observations note any changes from the pre-construction condition survey report.

f.

The Consent Holder shall develop a system of monitoring the condition of existing buildings or structures which is commensurate with the type of the existing building or structure and the proximity of the Project works in order to assess whether or not construction activities are compromising the structural integrity of the building or structure.

112.

Should the pre-construction building condition survey and assessment highlight greater sensitivity of buildings than envisaged by the application, and should this increased sensitivity mean that the Serviceability Limit for the building may be exceeded, then the Consent Holder shall, at its cost, implement additional measures (that may include modifications to the design of the retention systems or further geotechnical investigation).

113.

The Consent Holder shall carry out a visual inspection of the surrounding ground and external building facades of the listed buildings in Appendix 2 adjacent to the tunnel/trench and station alignment to monitor for any deterioration or movement of any pre-existing cracks at a frequency to be specified in the GSMCP.

114.

The Consent Holder shall keep a record of the time, date and any observations for each inspection. This record is to be maintained and submitted to the Manager in accordance with Condition 128.

115.

No earlier than six months after Completion of Dewatering and within six months of Completion of Construction, a detailed condition survey all previously surveyed buildings, structures and water, stormwater and wastewater services, shall be prepared by a suitably qualified engineering professional.

This condition survey report shall address all matters reviewed in the pre-dewatering condition survey. It shall also identify any new damage (if any) that has occurred since the pre-dewatering condition survey was undertaken and include a determination of the cause of any such damage and steps to repair it as provided for in Condition 125.

The requirements of this condition need not be fulfilled for any particular building where the Consent Holder can provide written evidence to the Manager that the current owner of that building has advised they do not require such a condition survey.

29

116.

At the reasonable request of the Manager, the Consent Holder shall, without delay, undertake an additional condition survey of any building within the area defined by the groundwater monitoring, deformation monitoring and modelling undertaken pursuant to the conditions of this consent potentially affected by excavation, for the purpose of checking for damage and follow up with a report of damage to that building.

117.

Subject to Condition 125, the requirement for any such condition survey will cease six months after the Completion of Construction, unless the requirements of Condition 115 have not been met and subject to a consistent pattern of deformation records having been obtained in this period in which no evidence of adverse effects is apparent.

118.

[condition moved to Condition 96]

Ground Surface and Building Monitoring 119.

120.

The Consent Holder shall establish and maintain a settlement monitoring network of ground settlement monitoring marks and building movement monitoring marks to detect any deformation (vertical and/or horizontal movement) for the period required by the conditions of this consent, as follows: a.

The minimum scope of settlement monitoring is shown on the drawings in Appendix 1;

b.

Subject to the ownersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; approval, at least two sets (minimum of three pins) of building movement monitoring marks shall be located on each building listed in Appendix 2; and

c.

The final location and number of building movement monitoring marks shall take into account the building type and size, accessibility to survey the marks and risk of damage from ground settlement, as determined by requirements of conditions of this consent, and the effects of differential settlement from the predicted settlement contours on the drawings in Appendix 1 as modified by the detailed design and reflected in the GSMCP.

The Consent Holder shall survey and record each ground and building movement mark in accordance with the following Schedule D; and records of the baseline monitoring shall be compiled and submitted to the Manager prior to the Commencement of Dewatering.

30

Schedule D: Ground settlement and building movement monitoring mark measurement Frequency 1 and Duration Monitoring Station name and type

Frequency All settlement marks, PreCommenceme nt of Dewatering (baseline monitoring)

All settlement marks, Commenceme nt of Dewatering to Completion of Dewatering

All ground and building settlement monitoring marks within 50 metres of the excavations during excavation and dewatering

Post-Completion of Dewatering

Postcompletion of constructio n

All settlement and building monitoring 1 mark

Three times to a horizontal and vertical accuracy of +/2mm (achieved by precise levelling)

Monthly

Daily for two weeks and weekly thereafter

Monthly for six months after the completion of dewatering, or until such time following the completion of dewatering that measurements have stabilized.

See Condition 121

Note 1: The monitoring frequency and duration may be changed if approved by the Manager and subsequently specified in the GSMCP.

121.

Where groundwater drainage is proposed at (a)

Karangahape Station;

(b)

Newton Y Junctions; and

(c)

The perched groundwater system at Aotea Station

and consolidation settlement risks are identified at Completion of Construction that could cause building damage, the Consent Holder shall prepare a post construction monitoring plan to be approved by the IBA and certified by the Manager.

The post construction monitoring plan shall specifically address (a)

the potential for delayed consolidation settlement effects resulting from long term groundwater drainage; and

(b)

Monitoring durations and the process for establishing cessation of monitoring.

31

Retaining Wall Monitoring 122.

For the measurement of vertical and lateral wall movement, the Consent Holder shall install retaining wall deflection pins as near to the top of the wall as practicable, with inclinometers installed either in a retaining pile or immediately behind one and extending to the base of the retaining pile for the monitoring of wall deflection.

123.

Monitoring of the retaining wall pins and inclinometers shall be undertaken and recorded in accordance with Schedule E below unless otherwise specified and agreed in the GSMCP:

Schedule E: Frequency Baseline

Active Excavation

Post Excavation

Pre-Commencement of Dewatering

Commencement of Dewatering to one month after Completion of Excavation

One month after Completion of Excavation to Completion of Dewatering

Retaining wall pins

Retaining wall pins

Inclinometer

Retaining wall pins

Inclinometer

Twice to a horizontal and vertical accuracy of +/2mm

Once for every 2 metres depth (on average) of excavation, and, in any case, at a minimum of once weekly.

Once for every 6 metres depth (on average) of excavation, and, in any case, at a minimum of once weekly.

Minimum of three sets of readings at fortnightly intervals

Minimum of three sets of readings at monthly intervals

Contingency

124.

In the event that monitoring of ground or building settlement, differential settlement, or horizontal movement associated with the construction works identifies movement which exceeds the vertical and horizontal movement triggers detailed in Appendix 2 or any revised trigger levels subject of this consent, then the Consent Holder shall instigate the Response Plan detailed in the GSMCP and undertake the following procedures: a.

Notify the Manager and the IBA within 24 hours;

b.

If measurements exceed any of the alert values, then a Senior Qualified Person engaged by the Consent Holder or the Consent Holder’s contractor shall reassess the works constructed up to that time to confirm – •

that works’ progress against the design predictions are within expectations;

32

â&#x20AC;˘

whether additional measures (if any) are required to restrain further increases in movement; and

â&#x20AC;˘

that possible ensuing effects will exceed Serviceability Limits.

Measures (if any) to be implemented, identified in the Response Plan in the GSMCP or as agreed with the IBA, may include an increase in the frequency of monitoring, or additional support measures.

c.

The Senior Qualified Person shall prepare and submit a written report to the Manager, within one week of alert level exceedance, which provides analyses of all monitoring data relating to the exceedance of any of the trigger levels and any actions taken;

d.

If measurements exceed any of the alarm values the Consent Holder shall:

e.

125.

i)

Follow the process identified in Condition 124(b);

ii)

Commission and submit a written report, prepared by the Senior Qualified Person engaged in accordance with Condition 124(b) to the Manager, within one week of alarm level exceedance, which provides analyses of all monitoring data, relating to the exceedance of any of the trigger levels and any recommendations for remedial actions, if required, in order to avoid damage that will affect building Serviceability and which may also allow Completion of Construction; and

iii)

Implement the recommendations of the report. In the instance that the recommendation is to stop work, pursuant to Conditions 124(b) and (d)(ii), the remedial action(s) that have been recommended shall be undertaken before the works recommence.

In relation to alarm level exceedance, the recommendations of the IBA (refer Condition 92), which may include remedial actions up to and including stopping the works, if that is (in the opinion of the IBA) in the best interests of preventing building serviceability damage, shall be implemented by the Consent Holder (unless the building owner(s) request in writing that the construction works are to be completed in accordance with the report prepared under Condition124 (d)(ii).

If any damage to buildings, structures or services is caused wholly or in part by the exercising of this consent, the Consent Holder shall: a.

notify the Manager and the asset owner as soon as practical;

b.

engage a Senior Qualified Person to prepare a report as soon as practical, describing the damage and identifying methods to avoid and mitigate the potential for Serviceability damage and to remedy any damage caused wholly or in part by the exercising of this consent; and provide a copy of the report to the Manager and the asset owner; and

33

c.

thereafter promptly undertake (at the entire cost of the Consent Holder) all necessary repairs to fully remedy the damage caused by the exercise of this consent, with timing to be agreed with the asset owners. “Entire cost” includes all design and consenting costs as well as all construction costs.

This obligation as a condition of the resource consent shall apply to all Damage that is identified during the latest of the periods listed below: i)

Two years after Completion of Dewatering; or

ii)

One year after groundwater levels have stabilised; and

iii)

The completion of post construction monitoring required to be carried out under Condition 121; and

iv)

Six months after any completion of any other works associated with the project which have the potential to cause settlement.

Reporting 126.

The Consent Holder shall advise the Manager, in writing within ten working days of Completion of Dewatering.

127.

The Consent Holder shall advise the Manager, in writing within ten working days of Completion of Construction.

128.

All data collected as required by conditions of this consent from Commencement of Dewatering to completion of monitoring are to be compiled, compared with the relevant trigger levels and submitted to the Manager at two monthly intervals, unless otherwise specified in this consent, setting out the previous results, providing an explanation for any trends and providing a construction progress timeline.

Review Condition – Water Permit R/ REG/2016/1892 129.

The conditions of this consent may be reviewed by the Manager pursuant to Section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, by the giving of notice pursuant to Section 129 of the Act, within six months after Commencement of Dewatering and subsequently at intervals of not less than one year thereafter in order to vary the monitoring and reporting requirements, and performance standards in order to take account of information, including the results of previous monitoring and changed environmental knowledge, on: a.

Ground conditions

b.

Aquifer parameters

c.

Groundwater levels and

d.

Ground surface deformation.

Advice Note: Under section 128 of the RMA the conditions of this consent may be reviewed by the Manager at the Consent Holder’s cost in the following circumstances:

34

At any time, if it is found that the information made available to the Council in the application contained inaccuracies which materially influenced the decision and the effects of the exercise of the consent are such that it is necessary to apply more appropriate conditions.

Specific conditions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; discharge permit (contaminated land) R/REG/2016/1895 and land use consent R/LUC/2016/1890 (Contaminated Land and Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011) Duration 130.

Consent R/REG/2016/1895 shall expire 15 years from the grant date, unless it has been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991.

Advice Note: this condition does not apply to R/LUC/2016/1890

Contaminated Soils Management Plan (CSMP) 131.

At least 20 days prior to the commencement of construction (earthworks), the Consent Holder shall provide a Contaminated Soils Management Plan (CSMP) to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification. The CSMP shall be prepared by a Contaminated Land Professional in accordance with the Contaminated Land Management Guidelines, No.1 - Reporting on Contaminated Sites in New Zealand, Ministry for the Environment (revised 2011).

132.

The Consent Holder shall request that Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) provide a determination to the Consent Holder, in writing, within 10 working days of receipt of the CSMP, whether the CSMP can be certified as per the requirements of the Condition 134.

133.

No earthworks shall commence until a. certification is provided from the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) that the CSMP satisfactorily meets the requirements of Schedule 13 (A4) of the ACRP:ALW, and b. all measures identified in that plan as being required to be established prior to the commencement of earthworks have been established.

134.

The CSMP shall address the following matters: a.

The areas within the project site designated for the excavation works, including depths and extent of the proposed works, and an updated map/s showing the land disturbance activity areas

b.

Excavation, management, and disposal procedures for soil, sediment, dust, surface run-off water, perched groundwater, and groundwater, if encountered

c.

Temporary containment, treatment, and testing procedures for any water getting in contact with the contaminated material if the disposal option is to the stormwater system or the marine environment is considered

35

d.

Contingency measures for unexpected discovery of contamination

e.

Proposed sampling and analysis, if applicable; and

f.

Any proposed works summary reporting.

Advice Note: The Council acknowledges that the CSMP is intended to provide flexibility of for the management of the works and contaminant discharge.

Accordingly, the Plan may need to be further updated. Any updates must be limited to the scope of this consent and consistent with the conditions of this consent. If you would like to confirm that any proposed updates are within scope, or have any other queries, please contact the Council (Team Leader Earth and Stream Works, Trees, and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input) on (09) 301 0101.

135.

The Consent Holder shall notify the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) at least two working days prior to any earthworks activity on the site and provide the following details: a.

Name and telephone number of the project manager and the site owner

b.

Site address to which the consents relate

c.

Activity to which the consents relate and

d.

Expected duration of the works.

136.

All disturbance of contaminated and potentially contaminated soil shall be carried out in accordance with the certified CSMP required by Condition 131 and any changes to the plan shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification prior to the change being implemented.

137.

The Consent Holder shall ensure that all disturbance of contaminated soil shall be supervised by a suitably qualified and experienced Contaminated Land Professional, whose responsibilities shall include making sure that the soil management and disposal procedures, the contingency measures outlined in the certified CSMP required by Condition 131, and all relevant consent conditions are adhered to.

138.

The Consent Holder shall ensure that regular inspections of the works area shall be carried out by a suitably qualified and experienced Contaminated Land Professional.

These inspections shall be documented and the relevant records retained and provided to Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) in the Site Validation Report (SVR) required by Condition 149.

139.

The Consent Holder shall manage all soil disturbance works to minimise any discharge of debris, soil, silt, sediment or sediment-laden water from the subject site to either land, stormwater systems or the receiving marine environment. The implementation of erosion and sediment controls shall be in accordance with the ESCP required by Condition 53.

Advice Note: Measures such as covering the excavations overnight and during heavy rainfall, diverting overland flow around the works area, and appropriate treatment of any water collected in an excavation prior to the disposal may be required to comply with this condition.

36

140. The Consent Holder shall manage all soil disturbance works to avoid the potential for cross-contamination of materials to occur, in particular, movement of contaminated soil around the site and/or deposition of contaminated soil on other parts of the site shall be avoided. Where soils are identified for off-site disposal, they shall be loaded directly for removal, where possible, and all material shall be covered during transportation off site.

141. To minimise the spread of contaminated material, any temporary stockpiles of the excavated contaminated material shall be located within the catchment of erosion and sediment controls for the site. All stockpiles shall be covered with either polythene or an equivalent impermeable material when the site is not being worked and during periods of heavy rain.

142. At all times, dust shall be controlled in accordance with the publication titled Good Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing the Environmental Effects of Dust Emissions, Ministry for the Environment (2001).

143. Excess soil or waste materials removed from the subject site shall be deposited at a disposal site which holds a consent to accept the relevant level or type of contamination.

Advice note: Where it can be demonstrated that the soil has been fully characterised and meets the definition of ‘clean fill’ material in Section J1 of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part), the removal of such material to a consented disposal facility is not required. In such circumstances, a record of the location, depth, and volume of the material removed as ‘clean fill’ should be kept for the purpose of being included in the SVR required by Condition 149).

144. The Consent Holder shall implement the procedures for the management, treatment, temporary containment, testing, and disposal of groundwater and surface run-off water via the stormwater system in accordance with the report titled Auckland City Rail Link: Resource Consent Package 2: Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Construction and CRL Operation: Draft Erosion & Sediment Control Management Plan, dated 13 May 2016, prepared by Aurecon New Zealand Limited, and provided with the application.

145. Any perched groundwater, or surface run-off water, encountered within the excavation area requiring removal shall be considered as potentially contaminated, and shall either: a.

be disposed of by a licensed liquid waste contractor; or

b.

pumped to sewer, providing relevant permits are obtained; or

c.

discharged to the stormwater system, provided testing demonstrates compliance with 50 times the Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC) Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (2000) for the protection of 95 percent of marine water species, and is free from petroleum hydrocarbons.

37

146.

Where contaminants which have not been anticipated by the application are identified, works in the area containing the unexpected contamination shall cease until the contingency measures outlined in the certified CSMP required by Condition 131 have been implemented, and have been notified to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring).

Any unexpected contamination encountered during the works and contingency measures implemented shall be documented in the Site Validation Report required by Condition 149.

Advice Note: In accordance with Condition 146, any unexpected contamination may include separate phase hydrocarbons, contaminated soil, perched water or groundwater. The Consent Holder is advised that where unexpected contamination is significantly different in extent and concentration from that anticipated, handling the contamination may be outside the scope of this consent. Advice should be sought from the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) prior to carrying out any further work in the area of the unexpected contamination to check this is within the scope of this consent.

147.

All imported fill shall: a.

comply with the definition of of clean fill material in Section J1 of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part); and

b.

be solid material of an inert nature; and

c.

not contain hazardous substances or contaminants above recorded natural background levels of the receiving site.

Advice Note: Background contamination levels for the site receiving clean fill can be found in Technical Publication No. 153, Background concentrations of inorganic elements in soils from the Auckland Region, Auckland Regional Council (2001).

148.

All sampling and testing of contamination on the site shall be overseen by a suitably qualified and experienced Contaminated Land Professional. All sampling shall be undertaken in accordance with Contaminated Land Management Guidelines, No.5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Site Investigation and Analysis of Soils, Ministry for the Environment (revised 2011).

Advice Note: All testing and analysis should be undertaken in a laboratory with suitable experience and ability to carry out the analysis. For more details on how to confirm the suitability of the laboratory please refer to Contaminated Land Management Guidelines, No.5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Part 4: Laboratory Analysis, Ministry for the Environment (revised 2011).

Site Validation Report (SVR) 149.

Within three months of the completion of earthworks on the site, the Consent Holder shall provide a Site Validation Report (SVR) to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring). The SVR shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Contaminated Land Professional in accordance with the Contaminated Land Management Guidelines, No.1 - Reporting on Contaminated Sites in New Zealand, Ministry for the Environment (revised 2011).

38

150.

The SVR required by Condition 149 shall address the following matters: a.

a summary of the works undertaken, including a statement confirming whether the excavation of the site has been completed in accordance with the certified CSMP required by Condition 131;

b.

the location and dimensions of the excavations carried out, including the relevant site plan;

c.

a summary of soil, groundwater, and surface run-off water testing undertaken, if applicable, including tabulated analytical results, and interpretation of the results in the context of the Contaminated Land Rules of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part);

d.

copies of the disposal dockets for the contaminated soil and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;clean fillâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; material removed from the site;

e.

records of any unexpected contamination encountered during the works and contingency measures undertaken, if applicable;

f.

details regarding any complaints and/or breaches of the procedures set out in the certified CSMP required by Condition 131 and the conditions of this consent;

g.

results of testing, if required, of any spoil disposed offsite; and

h.

results of testing of any imported fill material to ensure compliance with the definition of clean fill material in Section J1 of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Specific conditions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; discharge permit (other) R/REG/2016/1896 and discharge permit (ITA) R/REG/2016/1898 (CONSTRUCTION) 151.

This consent shall expire 15 years after the consent commences unless it has been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991.

Baseline Receiving Environment Monitoring 152.

Prior to the commencement of construction, the Consent Holder shall undertake baseline monitoring of water quality and freshwater ecology in Motions Creek. The monitoring shall be undertaken to identify the pre-construction condition of Motions Creek against which to measure construction effects and possible remedial or mitigation measures if required.

153.

At least 20 working days prior to any baseline monitoring commencing, the Consent Holder shall submit a programme for the baseline monitoring as required by Condition 152 to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification. The programme shall include, but not be limited to: a.

Sampling locations (at Auckland Council flow monitoring site);

b.

Methods and procedures for water quality (minimum bi-monthly samples for a 12 month period) and freshwater ecology sampling; 39

c.

d.

Water quality monitoring parameters for analysis, which shall include: •

pH

•

Total Suspended Solids

g/m3

•

Total recoverable copper

g/m3

•

Dissolved copper

g/m3

•

Total recoverable zinc

g/m3

•

Dissolved zinc

g/m3

•

Ammoniacal nitrogen

g/m3

•

Nitrate nitrogen

g/m3

•

Nitrite nitrogen

g/m3

•

Total nitrogen

g/m3

•

Dissolved reactive phosphorus

g/m3

Ecological monitoring, which shall include: •

Algal (periphyton) and macrophyte growth

•

Macroinvertebrate assessment.

Baseline Receiving Environment Reporting 154.

The Consent Holder shall provide to the Council (Team Leader – Central Monitoring) the results of the baseline monitoring undertaken in accordance with Conditions 152 and 153 within 60 working days of the final baseline monitoring being undertaken.

155.

As part of the results required by Condition 153, the Consent Holder shall provide a programme for ongoing monitoring of Meola Creek, following the commencement of construction, including the reporting of results. The same testing regime and approach as set out in baseline monitoring conditions shall be used unless otherwise agreed between the Consent Holder and the Council.

Pre-Commencement of construction support areas and zones 156.

The Consent Holder shall notify the Council (Team Leader – Central Monitoring) in writing at least 10 working days prior to the commencement of construction of each CSA or ACZ.

157.

The CSAs shall be generally confined to the area and boundaries shown on plans CRL-SYE-RME-000-DRG-2001, Rev 1.0 dated 13/05/2016 and 2002, Rev 1 dated 13/05/2016 and 2003, Rev 1 dated 13/05/2016 and 2004, Rev 1 dated 13/05/2016 and 2005, Rev 1 dated 13/05/2016 and 2006, and Rev 1 dated 13/05/2016 and submitted as part of the application.

40

158.

In the event that material modifications to the CSA boundaries are required, the following information shall be provided: a.

Plans and drawings outlining the details of the modifications; and

b.

Supporting information that confirms how the proposal does not affect the stormwater management system;

This information shall be to the satisfaction of the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) and be made available at the preconstruction meeting required by Condition 34.

Site Management (ACZ and CSAs) 159.

At least 20 working days prior to the commencement of construction, a final Industrial and Trade Activities Environmental Management Plan (EMP) shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification.

160.

The Consent Holder shall request the Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (Team Leader Central Monitoring) determination as to whether the EMP can be certified, in writing, within 10 working days following receipt of the EMP.

161.

The EMP shall be prepared by a Senior Qualified Person and shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a.

identification of the specific activities conducted on the site;

b.

the identification of potential contaminants associated with these activities;

c.

methods used to prevent identified contaminants contacting stormwater runoff as far as practicable and methods to manage environmental risks from site activities;

d.

an Emergency Spill Response Plan (which includes the provision that all spills over 20 litres, or any spill of Environmentally Hazardous Substances that has entered the stormwater system, a water-body or has contacted unsealed ground, shall be reported immediately to the Auckland Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 24 Hour Pollution Hotline (09-377-3107));

e.

an up-to-date and accurate site drainage plan showing the location of all site catch pits and the final discharge point(s) of the site stormwater system;

f.

an appropriate auditing programme to ensure all components of the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s EMP are implemented;

g.

methods for providing and recording staff training; and

h.

a monitoring programme as outlined in Conditions 173 and 174.

162.

The Consent Holder shall ensure that the CSAs and ACZs are operated and managed in accordance with the certified EMP to ensure the risks from the site are managed appropriately.

163.

The Consent Holder shall ensure that a copy of the Council certified EMP is kept on site and accessible at all times.

41

164.

Following any change to the EMP, the Consent Holder shall submit details of the change to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification and shall request Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (Team Leader Central Monitoring) determination as to whether the change can be certified in writing within 10 working days of submission of the change.

No activity reliant upon a change to the EMP pursuant to Condition 164 can be undertaken until the change has been certified.

165.

The EMP shall be reviewed and updated annually from the date of granting of this consent, to ensure all components of the EMP remain relevant.

Structural Controls 166.

167.

168.

The Industrial Trade and Activity area for each of the Construction Support Areas shall not exceed the following: CSA

Exposed Area not to exceed (m2)

1

25,000

2

9,000

3

9,000

4

36,000

5

6,500

In the event that any CSA requires an increase in area, the following information shall be provided to the Team Leader â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Central Monitoring whose certification shall be requested prior to implementation: a.

Plans and drawings outlining the details of the modifications; and

b.

Supporting information that confirms how the proposal does not affect the capacity or performance of the existing structural and procedural controls.

The Consent Holder shall ensure that the following structural controls are constructed for the following catchment areas and design standards and they are completed prior to discharges commencing from the site: Works/controls

Device catchment area

Design requirements

2 x Settlement Tanks Activity area of grout Settlement Tanks sizing to be based on located on CSA 4 plant (400m2), and 2% of the contributing catchment segment storage yard (2660m2) on CSA 4

42

Inlet protection measures

On all catch pits within Design in accordance with Auckland CSA areas Council Best Management Practice: Catch pit Protection Area (AC 2011).

2 x Settlement Tanks All Active Construction Settlement Tank sizing to be based on located in CSA 1, CSA Zone (ACZ) 2% of the contributing catchment 2, CSA 3, CSA 4 and CSA 5

Bunding of Environmentally Hazardous Substances

169.

As required

110% largest container

In the event that any minor modifications to the structural system are required, the following information shall be provided to the Team Leader â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Central Monitoring whose certification shall be requested prior to implementation: a.

Plans and drawings outlining the details of the modifications; and

b.

Supporting information that confirms how the proposal does not affect the capacity or performance of stormwater management system.

Certification of structural controls 170.

Within 30 days of implementation, As-Built certification and plans of the stormwater management works, certified (signed) by a suitably qualified registered surveyor or a Chartered Professional Engineer as a true record of the stormwater management system, shall be provided to the Team Leader â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Central Monitoring.

171.

The As-Built plans shall include, but not be limited to: a.

The surveyed location (to the nearest 0.1m) of the discharge points, with coordinates expressed in terms of NZTM and LINZ datum;

b.

Location, dimensions and levels of any major overland flow paths including cross sections and long sections;

c.

Plans and cross sections of all stormwater management devices, including confirmation of the Water Quality Volume, storage volumes and levels of any outflow control structure

d.

Documentation of any discrepancies between the design plans and the As-Built plans.

43

172.

A meeting shall be held on site after the implementation of structural controls and the provision of As-Built documentation, and prior to the commencement of construction activities at each of the CSA/ACZs. The meeting shall include representation from the Team Leader Central Monitoring and the site stormwater engineer/contractors who have undertaken the work and shall confirm compliance with the relevant consent conditions.

Discharge monitoring: 173.

Within 30 days of the installation of the water treatment systems, and prior to operation, the Consent Holder shall develop and submit to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification a discharge monitoring programme.

174.

The water quality monitoring programme shall include, but not be limited to: a.

Sampling locations (to include the final discharge from the treatment system located in CSA 1, CSA 2, CSA 3, CSA 5 and CSA 4);

b.

Methods and procedures for discharge sampling; and

c.

Monitoring parameters for analysis, which shall include: Daily •

Water clarity (black disc)

cm

•

Turbidity

(NTU)

•

pH

Weekly (in addition to the above) •

Total Suspended Solids

g/m3

•

Total recoverable copper

g/m3

•

Dissolved copper

g/m3

•

Total recoverable zinc

g/m3

•

Dissolved zinc

g/m3

•

Total petroleum hydrocarbons g/m3

•

Ammoniacal nitrogen*

g/m3

•

Nitrate nitrogen*

g/m3

*only in discharge from treatment systems in CSA 3 and CSA 4

175.

d.

identified trigger levels for each of the above parameters. These trigger levels shall be developed with reference to the ANZECC Guidelines for water quality where applicable; and

e.

the methods and procedures for investigating and reporting stormwater discharge monitoring results to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring).

The discharge monitoring programme shall be implemented upon completion of works set out in Condition 168.

44

176.

Within five working days of receipt of sample results showing contaminants exceeding the agreed trigger levels in Condition 174(d): a.

An investigation shall be undertaken to determine why exceedances were detected and to identify any additional source controls or treatment required; and

b.

The results of the investigation shall be reported to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring).

Discharge Reporting Requirements 177.

Within eight weeks following the start of the monitoring required by Condition 173 a monitoring report shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring). The monitoring report shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a.

a summary of the monitoring results to date;

b.

an interpretation of those results and suggestions for improvement to the site operations;

c.

a programme for ongoing monitoring including the reporting of results; and

d.

a programme for the ongoing maintenance of the discharge water management and treatment system.

178.

For the duration of the construction stages of the Project, the Consent Holder shall forward a report annually from the date of granting of this consent to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) evaluating the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s environmental performance for the year to date.

179.

The Annual Report required by Condition 178 shall include but not be limited to: a.

all aspects of the performance of the EMP relating to this consent;

b.

a summary of all revisions and revised sections of the EMP;

c.

details of all inspections and maintenance of the stormwater system for the preceding 12 months;

d.

details of and changes to the person(s) or body responsible for the maintenance of site and the organisational structure supporting this process;

e.

results and analysis of the preceding 12 months of stormwater monitoring, along with an interpretation of those results and suggestions for improvement to the site operations; and

f.

records of any spills or incidents which occurred within the previous 12 months and the response which was undertaken.

Specific conditions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; discharge permit (other) R/REG/2016/2038 (OPERATIONAL) Advice note: Should the Consent Holder obtain approval for the discharge of operational wastewater to the trade waste system, this consent can be surrendered or cancelled.

45

180.

This consent shall expire 35 years after the consent commences unless it has been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991.

Dewatering Treatment devices 181.

The treatment device/s for the removal of contaminants of concern from tunnel water discharge shall be constructed for the operational tunnel ground water seepage catchment area/s, and design requirements shall be completed in accordance with design guidelines to meet baseline monitoring levels in Condition 187(d).

182.

At least 20 working days prior to the installation of treatment devices required by Condition 181, the Consent Holder shall submit detailed designs, including relevant drawings, cross sections, plans and calculations to the Team Leader â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Central Monitoring for certification at the same time as the application for Engineering Plan Approval.

As-Built Plans 183.

Within 30 days of practical completion of the treatment device works, As-Built plans, which are certified (signed) by a Chartered Professional Engineer as a true record of the stormwater management system, shall be provided to the Team Leader - Central Monitoring.

184.

The certified As-Built Plans shall also be provided to the Team Leader â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Central Monitoring 5 days prior to the post-construction meeting required by Condition 205.

185.

The As-Built plans shall display the entirety of the stormwater management system, and shall include: a.

the surveyed location (to the nearest 0.1m) and level (to the nearest 0.01m) of the discharge points to the stormwater system with co-ordinates expressed in terms of NZTM and LINZ datum;

b.

plans and cross sections of all treatment devices, including confirmation of the Water Quality Volume, storage volumes and levels of any outflow control structure; and

c.

documentation of any discrepancies between the design plans and the As-Built plans approved by the modifications approval referred to in Condition 202.

Discharge Monitoring 186.

Prior to operation of the CRL, the Consent Holder shall develop and submit a discharge monitoring programme to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification.

The monitoring programme shall include start up monitoring for the first month of operation of the treatment system, and regular on-going monitoring.

187.

The discharge monitoring programme shall include, but not be limited to:

46

a.

Sampling locations (to include samples of water from the main station sumps (untreated water), and the final discharge from the treatment system (treated water) at each station);

b.

Methods, frequency and procedures for discharge sampling

c.

Monitoring parameters for analysis, which shall include: •

pH

•

Turbidity

NTU

•

Total Suspended Solids

g/m3

•

Total recoverable copper

g/m3

•

Dissolved copper

g/m3

•

Total recoverable zinc

g/m3

•

Dissolved zinc

g/m3

•

Total petroleum hydrocarbons

g/m3

d.

Identified trigger levels for each of the above parameters in the final discharge, developed with reference to the ANZECC Guidelines for water quality where applicable; and

e.

The methods and procedures for investigating and reporting discharge monitoring results to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring).

188.

The discharge monitoring programme shall be implemented for the duration of the discharge of operational tunnel groundwater seepage.

189.

Within five working days of receipt of sample results showing contaminants exceeding the agreed trigger levels: a.

An investigation shall be undertaken to determine why exceedances were detected and to identify any additional source controls or treatment required;

b.

Methods will be implemented to meet trigger levels, and the timing for their implementation shall be noted; and

c.

The results of the investigation shall be reported to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring).

Start-up Reporting 190.

A monitoring report shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) following the completion of the first month of sampling. The monitoring report shall include, but not be limited to the following: a.

A summary of the first months monitoring results (10 samples);

b.

An interpretation of those results and suggestions for improvement of the treatment system as required; and

c.

Confirmation of the programme for regular on-going monitoring.

47

Operation and Maintenance Plan 191.

The Consent Holder shall submit an Operation and Maintenance Plan to the Team Leader - Central Monitoring for certification, 5 days prior to the post-construction meeting referred to in Condition 205.

The Plan shall include: a.

details of who will hold responsibility for long-term maintenance of the stormwater management system and the organisational structure which will support this process;

b.

a programme for regular maintenance and inspection of the stormwater management system;

c.

a programme for the collection and disposal of debris and sediment collected by the stormwater management devices or practices;

d.

a programme for post storm inspection and maintenance; and

e.

general inspection checklists for all aspects of the treatment system, including visual checks.

192.

The stormwater management system shall be managed in accordance with the certified Operation and Maintenance Plan.

193.

Any amendments or alterations to the Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be submitted to, and certified by the Team Leader â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Central Monitoring, in writing prior to implementation.

Routine monitoring 194.

The Consent Holder shall submit an annual monitoring report to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring).

The monitoring report shall include, but not be limited to the following: a.

A summary of the monitoring results for the previous year;

b.

An interpretation of those results and suggestions for improvement/s to the treatment system if relevant; and

c.

A programme for the on-going maintenance of the discharge treatment system.

Stormwater diversion and discharge (related to works at the Mount Eden end) Advice note: these conditions relate to stormwater management works at the Mount Eden end of the project. The conditions do not relate to any of the specific consents authorised 195.

[Blank]

48

Stormwater drainage system design 196.

The Consent Holder shall ensure that the design of stormwater drainage systems does not result in any increase in flooding beyond the pre-development scenario within the immediate adjacent areas of the Project footprint and the downstream receiving environment.

Stormwater management works

197.

The following stormwater management works shall be constructed for the following catchment areas and design requirements, and shall be completed prior to construction of any barriers (e.g., earth bunds or retaining structures along the edge of the rail corridor) that would modify existing overland flow paths: Works to be undertaken

Catchment location

Design requirement(s)

Additional pipe capacity, OLFP

Fenton street

Underground drainage

Shaddock Street

Inlet upgrade, scruffy domes

West of Mt Eden Road

Capacity for 10 year ARI, reducing flooding up to 100 year ARI, provision for OLFP for flows in excess of the 100 year, and designed to meet at least 50% blockage

Sump and superpits

Water Street

Megapits, inlet, connections to existing network

Normanby Road

Super pit

Boston Road

New inlets, underground drainage

Rail Corridor

198.

The stormwater management works shall be installed in general accordance with those listed in Condition 197, unless otherwise approved by Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring).

199.

If changes to the Stormwater management works in Condition 197 are requested, the Consent Holder must provide details of flood modelling, and alternative mitigation measures, including how these have been selected and will be managed, to the Healthy Waters Department (see Condition 202).

49

Detailed Design Guidelines 200.

The Consent Holder shall ensure that all stormwater management devices, as required to achieve Condition 196, are designed in accordance with Auckland Council Technical Publication 10 (TP10).

201.

The Consent Holder shall ensure that the detailed designs, including drawings, plans and calculations for the stormwater management devices required to achieve Condition 196 are submitted to Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification at the time of application for Engineering Plan Approval and in any event, at least 30 days prior to construction of the proposed stormwater works.

Modifications approval 202.

In the event that any modifications to the stormwater management system design implemented under Conditions 196 and 197 of this consent are required, the following information shall be provided: â&#x20AC;˘

Plans and drawings outlining the details of the modifications; and

â&#x20AC;˘

Supporting information that confirms compliance with the performance standards of Conditions 196 and 197.

All information shall be submitted to, and approved by the Team Leader â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Central Monitoring, prior to implementation.

Advice Note: All proposed changes should be discussed with the Team Leader Central Monitoring, prior to implementation. Any changes to the proposal which will affect the capacity or performance of the stormwater management system may require an application to Council pursuant to Section 127 of the RMA. An example of a minor modification within the scope of this consent could be a change to the location of a pipe or slight changes to the site layout but if there is a change of device type (even proprietary), the consent may have to be varied under section 127.

Pre-construction meeting 203.

A pre-construction meeting shall be held by the Consent Holder prior to commencement of the construction of any stormwater devices onsite, and must: a.

be arranged five working days prior to initiation of the construction of any stormwater devices on the site;

b.

be located on the subject area;

c.

include representation from the Team Leader - Central Monitoring; and

d.

include representation from the site stormwater engineer [or] contractors who will undertake the works and any other relevant parties.

Advice Note: To arrange the pre-construction meeting required by this consent, please contact the Team Leader - Central Monitoring [monitoring@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz].

50

Information required for Pre-construction meeting 204.

The following information shall be made available prior to, or at the pre-construction meeting: a.

timeframes for key stages of the works authorised under this consent;

b.

erosion and sediment control measures during construction activities;

c.

contact details of the site contractor and site stormwater engineer; and

d.

construction plans approved signed or stamped by an Auckland Council Development Engineer.

Post-construction meeting 205.

A post-construction meeting shall be held by the Consent Holder, within 20 working days of completion of the stormwater management works, that: a.

is located on the subject area;

b.

includes representation from the Team Leader - Central Monitoring; and

c.

includes representation from the site stormwater engineer or contractors who have undertaken the works.

Certification of stormwater management works (As-Built Plans) 206.

As-Built certification and plans of the stormwater management works, which are certified (signed) by a Chartered Professional Engineer as a true record of the stormwater management system, shall be provided to the Team Leader - Central Monitoring for approval, 5 days prior to the post-construction meeting required by this consent.

207.

The As-Built plans shall display the entirety of the stormwater management system, and shall include: a.

the surveyed location (to the nearest 0.1m) and level (to the nearest 0.01m) of the discharge structure, with co-ordinates expressed in terms of NZTM and LINZ datum;

b.

location, dimensions and levels of any overland flow paths including cross sections and long sections;

c.

plans and cross sections of all stormwater management devices, including confirmation of the Water Quality Volume, storage volumes and levels of any outflow control structure; and

d.

documentation of any discrepancies between the design plans and the As-Built plans approved by the modifications approval process of Condition 202.

51

Operation and Maintenance Plan 208.

An Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be provided to the Team Leader - Central Monitoring for certification 5 days prior to the post-construction meeting required by this consent and shall set out how the stormwater management system is to be operated and maintained to ensure that adverse environmental effects are minimised.

The plan shall include: a.

details of who will hold responsibility for long-term maintenance of the stormwater management system and the organisational structure which will support this process;

b.

a programme for regular maintenance and inspection of the stormwater management system;

c.

a programme for the collection and disposal of debris and sediment collected by the stormwater management devices or practices;

d.

a programme for post storm inspection and maintenance;

e.

general inspection checklists for all aspects of the stormwater management system, including visual checks; and

f.

a programme for inspection and maintenance of any vegetation associated with the stormwater management devices.

209.

The stormwater management system shall be managed in accordance with the approved Operation and Maintenance Plan.

210.

The Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be updated and submitted to the Team Leader â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Central Monitoring upon request.

Capture and diversion of stormwater 211.

Roading, kerbs and channels constructed across overland flow paths shall be set at a level that maximises the capture of water by road cesspits. Other than at designated overland flow paths, driveway crossings shall be constructed in order to minimise the overflow of water from the road into private properties.

212.

For stormwater flows in excess of the capacity of the primary drainage systems, overland flow paths shall be provided and maintained to allow surplus stormwater from critical storms (up to the 100 year ARI event), to discharge with the minimum of nuisance and damage.

213.

Overland flow paths and secondary flow paths shall be kept free of all obstructions, including buildings and solid fences.

Maintenance Report 214.

The Consent Holder shall maintain a record of the details of all inspections and maintenance for the stormwater management system, for the preceding three years.

215.

A copy of the records referred to in Condition 214 shall be provided to the Team Leader - Central Monitoring in a maintenance report on request.

52

Contents of Maintenance Report 216. The maintenance report shall include the following information: a.

details of who is responsible for maintenance of the stormwater management system and the organisational structure supporting this process;

b.

details of any maintenance undertaken; and

c.

details of any inspections completed.

Specific conditions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; discharge permit (air â&#x20AC;&#x201C; construction) R/REG/2016/1899 217.

This resource consent shall expire 15 years after the consent commences unless it has been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the RMA.

218.

The Consent Holder shall ensure that all processes on the Project work site shall be implemented, operated, maintained, supervised, monitored and controlled so that any emissions authorised by this consent are maintained at the minimum practicable level.

219.

Unless provided for by Condition 220, there shall be no dust or odour beyond the boundary of the Project work site caused as a result of on-site processes which, in the opinion of Council, is noxious, offensive or objectionable.

220.

Any noxious, offensive or objectionable dust or odour beyond the boundary of the Project work site caused as a result of construction and earthworks activities associated with the Project shall be mitigated as soon as practicable in accordance with the requirements of the certified Air Quality Management Plan as required by Condition 222.

221.

The Consent Holder shall ensure that beyond the boundary of the Project worksite, there shall be no hazardous air pollutant caused as a result of construction and earthworks activities associated with the Project that causes, or is likely to cause, adverse effects on human health, environment or property.

Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) 222.

The Consent Holder shall review the draft Air Quality Management Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Aotea Station to North Auckland Line dated May 2016, and submit to Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) a final AQMP/s which is generally consistent with the draft AQMP provided in support of the application.

223.

The final AQMP/s shall be prepared by a Senior Qualified Person, provided to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification at least 20 working days prior to the commencement of construction and shall include: a.

a clear identification of the type and location of the controls proposed;

b.

a detailed framework for the management, mitigation and monitoring of construction and earthworks activities associated with the Project;

c.

a focus principally on the sources of dust discharges, and

53

d.

224.

an assessment of the risk of discharges from each ACZ and the associated CSA.

The final AQMP/s shall also provide detailed methods including, but not limited to, the following matters: a.

methods to ensure exposed surfaces remain dampened to minimise dust emissions (possible examples include a water spray system or other suitable system, water carts and other suppression methods);

b.

ensuring a 20 km/hr vehicle speed limit within the ACZs and CSAs;

c.

operation of wheel washes;

d.

regular sweeping of public roads around the exit points of ACZs and CSAs and sealed vehicle accessways within these areas;

e.

measures for supressing dust from any temporary stock piles (demonstrating how they are to be limited to no more than 24 mÂł of uncovered spoil at any one time in each ACZ);

f.

measures for the handling of cement associated with the forming of cement stabilised columns, including filter systems and high level alarms where a silo is used;

g.

covering of loads of material being delivered and removed from the site;

h.

instrument monitoring of dust concentrations (including identification of a monitoring methodology, monitoring network and appropriate alert thresholds) to ensure that any significant dust effects arising from the ACZs or CSAs are identified and remedied as soon as practicable throughout the Project;

i.

the locations of instrument dust monitoring sites, including at least three re-locatable and/or fixed monitors to be associated with each of ACZs A, K and M, and the duration of this monitoring;

j.

measures for responding to continuous instrument dust monitoring trigger alarms, including contingency measures to reduce measured concentrations below the trigger thresholds and provisions for responding after standard operating hours;

k.

measures for undertaking meteorological observations and visual inspections of dust or other air discharges from the Project, to be completed at least on a daily basis, with all relevant information logged; and

l.

information regarding complaint logging, investigation and response procedures, training and roles and responsibilities.

The Team Leader Central Monitoring shall be requested to respond to the AQMP/s with any suggested changes within 10 working days from receipt of the AQMP; otherwise the AQMP may be considered by the Consent Holder to be certified by the Council.

54

225.

Any change to the AQMP/ shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification. No activity reliant upon a change to the AQMP can be undertaken until the change has been certified.

The Team Leader Central Monitoring shall be requested to respond to the proposed change within 10 working days from receipt of the change; otherwise the AQMP may be considered by the Consent Holder to be certified by the Council.

226.

All works shall be undertaken in accordance with the certified AQMP/s.

Monitoring Requirements 227.

Prior to the commencement of construction, and for the duration of excavation and construction associated with the Project which have the potential for significant dust emissions, the Consent Holder shall install, operate and maintain continuous dust monitoring undertaken using mobile instruments for the purposes of monitoring Total Suspended Particulates (TSP).

The locations, durations and methods of TSP monitoring at each of ACZs A, K and M shall be in accordance with the details in the certified AQMP(s) required by Condition 222.

228.

The dust monitoring instruments shall be fitted with an alarm system that sends a warning to the responsible person identified by the AQMP/s when dust concentrations exceed alert levels specified by the certified AQMP/s.

The Consent Holder shall ensure that the responsible person, or other nominated person, is available at all times to take immediate action to reduce dust emissions from the site.

Specific conditions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; discharge permit (air â&#x20AC;&#x201C; operational) R/REG/2016/1900 229.

This consent shall expire 35 years after the consent commences unless it has lapsed, been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

Limit Conditions 230.

All processes within the CRL operations areas shall be operated, maintained, supervised, monitored and controlled to ensure that emissions authorised by this consent are maintained at the minimum practicable level.

231.

Beyond the boundary of the CRL operations, there shall be no dust and/or odour caused by discharges from the tunnels which, in the opinion of an enforcement officer, is noxious, offensive or objectionable.

232.

No discharges from any activity from the CRL operations shall give rise to visible emissions, other than water vapour and clean steam, to an extent which, in the opinion of an enforcement officer, the discharges are noxious, dangerous, offensive or objectionable.

55

233.

Except as authorised by this consent, beyond the boundary of the CRL operations, there shall be no hazardous air pollutant, caused by discharges from the CRL operations, which is present at a concentration that causes, or is likely to cause adverse effects to human health, the environment or property.

234.

Only electric-powered locomotives shall operate within the CRL rail tunnels, with the exception of any vehicles associated with construction or maintenance activities.

Process Conditions 235.

At least 20 working days prior to the commencement of the operation of the CRL, the Consent Holder shall prepare and submit to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification procedures that address the cleaning of the rail tunnels and tunnel vents to minimise the build-up of particulate matter.

These procedures may form part of an operations and maintenance plan, or equivalent.

The Team Leader Central Monitoring shall be requested to respond to the proposed procedures with any suggested changes within 10 working days from receipt of the procedures; otherwise the procedures shall be considered to be certified by the Council.

236.

Cleaning of the rail tunnels and tunnel vents shall be undertaken in accordance with the plan certified in accordance with Condition 235 so that discharges of particulate from the vents are minimised in accordance with Condition 230.

Reporting Conditions 237.

The Consent Holder shall notify the Team Leader Central Monitoring as soon as practicable in the event of any significant discharge to air, which results, or has the potential to result, in a breach of these conditions.

238.

The Consent Holder shall record all air quality complaints that are received including: a.

The date, time, location and nature of the complaint;

b.

The name, phone number and address of the complainant, unless the complainant elects not to supply these details;

c.

Any remedial actions undertaken; and

d.

The response provided to the person making the complaint.

Details of any complaints received shall be provided to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) within one working day of receipt of the complaint.

Review Condition 239.

The conditions of this consent may be reviewed by the Team Leader Central Monitoring pursuant to section 128 of the RMA, by the giving of notice in accordance with section 129 of the RMA, in October 2017 and annually thereafter in order to:

56

a.

Deal with any significant adverse effect on the environment arising from the exercise of the consent that was not foreseen at the time that the application was considered;

b.

Consider the adequacy of conditions that prevent nuisance beyond the boundary of the site, particularly if complaints have been received on a frequent basis and have been validated by an enforcement officer;

c.

Consider developments in emission control technology and management practices that would enable the Best Practicable Option in reducing discharges to air; or

d.

To take into account any act of parliament, regulation, national policy statement or relevant regional plan that relates to limiting, recording or reducing emissions authorised by this consent.

Advice notes 1.

Any reference to number of days within this decision refers to working days as defined in s2 of the RMA.

2.

For more information on the resource consent process with Auckland Council see the councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz. General information on resource consents, including making an application to vary or cancel consent conditions can be found on the Ministry for the Environmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website: www.mfe.govt.nz.

3.

If you disagree with any of the above conditions, or disagree with the additional charges relating to the processing of the application, you have a right of objection pursuant to sections 357A or 357B of the Resource Management Act 1991. Any objection must be made in writing to the council within 15 working days of notification of the decision.

4.

The Consent Holder is responsible for obtaining all other necessary consents, permits, and licences, including those under the Building Act 2004, and the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. This consent does not remove the need to comply with all other applicable Acts (including the Property Law Act 2007 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015), regulations, relevant Bylaws, and rules of law.

This consent does not constitute building consent approval. Please check whether a building consent is required under the Building Act 2004.

5.

The Consent Holder shall be advised that any works, structures (including groundanchors) or access required to facilitate the excavations/retaining/foundation construction both permanent and temporary on adjacent properties or land may require the written consent of the effected property owner to be submitted with building and/or resource consent application(s). For more advice the Consent Holder shall contact Auckland Council town planning and building control help desks.

6.

The Resource Consent Holder is advised that the date of the commencement of this consent will be as determined by Section 116 of the RMA, unless a later date is stated as a condition of consent. The provisions of Section 116 of the RMA are summarised in the covering letter issued with this consent.

7.

The Resource Consent Holder is advised that, pursuant to Section 126 of the RMA, if this resource consent has been exercised, but is not subsequently exercised for a continuous period of five years, the consent may be cancelled by the AC unless other criteria contained within Section 126 are met.

57

8.

The Consent Holder is advised that the quality of the pumped groundwater that is to be discharged to the stormwater system or indirectly to stream meets the ANZECC (2000) guidelines for the protection of 95% freshwater species.

58

APPENDIX 1:

Total Ground Settlement Contours and Monitoring Station Locations

CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2610, Rev 3.0, dated 14/10/2016 CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2611, Rev 3.0, dated 14/10/2016 CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2612, Rev 3.0, dated 30/09/2016 CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2613, Rev 4.0, dated 14/10/2016 CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-2614, Rev 1.0, dated 13/5/2016 CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-2615, Rev 1.0, dated 13/5/2016

59

APPENDIX 2: Provisional Building and Structures and Services Trigger Levels and Buildings requiring Detailed Pre-Condition Survey CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2640, Rev 4.0, dated 14/10/16 CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2642, Rev 3.0, dated 11/10/16

60

APPENDIX 3:

Groundwater Monitoring Bores

PDP A02502731, Figure 39, Rev B, dated May 2016 and Earthtech Consulting Table 7.1, (Appendix 4).

Groundwater Monitoring Bores: CRL Stage 2 Construction Location Zone ACZ A

ACZ N

ACZ K

ACZ S

ACZ M

BH 210 Wellesley Street West and Elliot Street Intersection BH 209 Wellesley Street West BH411 BHA BH206B BH423 BH266 BH 268 Vincent Street BH 213 Vincent Street BH 316 Karangahape Road BH 319 Karangahape Road BH274 BH324 BH325 BH218 BH425 BH320 EB312 BH 223 Upper Queen Street BH 225 Symonds Street BH285 BH M1 Upper Shaddock

Eastings mE (NZTM)

Northing mN (NZTM)

Screen Depths

Unit

(A) At 5m depth (new)

(A) Fill (soft clay)

(A) At 8m depth (existing) (B) At 25m depth (existing) At 6.7m depth

(A) EW (B) EU

At 10.9m depth At 5.0m depth (A) At 5m depth (existing) (A) At 10m depth (existing) (A) At 14m depth (existing) (A) At 6m depth (existing) (B) At 17m depth (existing) At 8.0m depth At 6.0m depth At 3.5m depth

At 6.0m depth At 1.7m-7.0m depth (A) At 7m depth (new)

ER TA ER ER ER (A)ER (A) EU (A) EW

(A) EW (B) EW

ER ER ER EW Fill/TA ER Fill/TA (A) TA

(A) At 11m depth (new)

(A) TA

At 7.8m depth (A) At 6m± depth (new)

VA/TA (A) TA/ER

61

Street BH M2 Ruru Street BH323 BH426 BH427

(A) At 6m± depth (new) At 5.5m depth

(A) TA/ER ER TA/ER ER

62

APPENDIX 4: Sites”

Plans titled “Location Plan Showing Sites Adjacent to Construction

•

CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2901, revision 1;

•

CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2902, revision 1;

•

CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2903, revision 1;

•

CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2904, revision 1;

•

CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2905, revision 1;

•

CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2906, revision 1.

63

APPENDIX 5: a.

Information from Application

Application Form, and Assessment of Environmental Effects prepared by Aurecon NZ Ltd, dated 13 May 2016, including:

Report title and reference

Author

Rev

Dated

Assessment of Environmental Effects Resource Consent Package 2 Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Construction and CRL Operation CRLSYW-RME-000-RPT-0047

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

13 May 2016

Design and Construction Report CRLSYW-RME-000-RPT-0006

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13 May 2016

Auckland City Rail Link (CRL) Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Construction and CRL Operation: Groundwater Technical Report

Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd

Assessment of Settlement Effects ReportCRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045

Aurecon NZ Ltd

Auckland City Rail Link Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Construction and CRL Operation Contaminated Land Assessment 1378206325-067

Golder Associates 0

May 2016

Auckland City Rail Link Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Construction and CRL Operation Water Quality Assessment 1378206325-069

Golder Associates 0

May 2016

Auckland City Rail Link Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Construction and CRL operation Air Quality Assessment1378206325

Golder Associates 0

May 2016

Auckland City Rail Link Aotea Station To North Auckland Line Construction and CRL Operation Built Heritage Impact Assessment CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT0046

Reverb Ltd

0

13 May 2016

Draft Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; CRL-SYW-RME-000RPT-0059

Aurecon NZ Ltd

3

13 May 2016

Auckland City Rail Link Aotea Station to

Golder Associates 0

12 May 2016

3.0

30 June 2016

May 2016

64

North Auckland Line Construction and CRL Operation Industrial and Trade Activities Assessment- 1378206325-070 Geotechnical Engineering Report CRLSYW-GEO-000-RPT-0006

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

02.06.2015

City Rail Link Project: Archaeological Assessment

Clough & Associates Ltd

5.0

10.12.2012

Line Construction and CRL Operation Contaminated Land Assessment- South Pacific Timber 1378206325-076

Golder Associates 0

July 2016

Plan title and reference

Author

Rev

Dated

Location Plan Overall- CRL-SYW-RME000-DRG-2000-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Location Plan Aotea Station- CRL-SYWRME-000-DRG-2001-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Location Plan North Tunnels- CRL-SYWRME-000-DRG-2002-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Location Plan Karangahape Station- CRLSYW-RME-000-DRG-2003-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Location Plan South Tunnels- CRL-SYWRME-000-DRG-2004-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Location Plan Mt Eden Station East- CRLSYW-RME-000-DRG-2005-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Location Plan Mt Eden Station WestCRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2006-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Alignment Plan and Long Section CRL Down (MC20) Sheet 1 of 4- CRL-SYWRME-000-DRG-2010-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Alignment Plan and Long Section CRL Down (MC20) Sheet 2 of 4- CRL-SYWRME-000-DRG-2011-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Alignment Plan and Long Section CRL Down (MC20) Sheet 3 of 4- CRL-SYWRME-000-DRG-2012-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Alignment Plan and Long Section CRL Down (MC20) Sheet 4 of 4- CRL-SYWRME-000-DRG-2013-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

65

Aotea Station Roof Slab Overall PlanCRL-AOT-RME-000-DRG-2110-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Aotea Station Elevation- CRL-AOT-RME000-DRG-2111-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Aotea Station Cross Section Grid 2- CRLAOT-RME-000-DRG-2118-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Aotea Station Cross Section Grid 9- CRLAOT-RME-000-DRG-2119-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Aotea Station Cross Section Grid 13 Victoria St Entrance- CRL-AOT-RME-000DRG-2120-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Aotea Station Cross Section Grid 14 Victoria Street Entrance- CRL-AOT-RME000-DRG-2121-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Aotea Station Cross Section Grid 25CRL-AOT-RME-000-DRG-2122-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Aotea Station Cross Section Grid S3CRL-AOT-RME-000-DRG-2123-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Aotea Station Cross Section Grid S3CRL-AOT-RME-000-DRG-4023-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

08.07.16

Karangahape Station Plan General Arrangement Street Level CRL-KRDRME-000-DRG-2142-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Karangahape Station Overall Street Level Plan CRL-KRD-RME-000-DRG-2130-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Karangahape Station Overall Street Level Plan CRL-KRD-RME-000-DRG-2132-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Karangahape Station North Zone Sections Sheet 1 CRL-KRD-RME-000-DRG-21361.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Karangahape Station South Zone Sections Sheet 1 CRL-KRD-RME-000DRG-2138-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Karangahape Station Platform Level Tunnel Sections Sheet 1 CRL-KRD-RME000-DRG-2139-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Karangahape Station Platform Level Tunnel Sections Sheet 2 CRL-KRD-RME-

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

66

000-DRG-2140-1.0 Karangahape Station Platform Tunnel and Central Passenger Tunnel and Escalator Tunnel-Setout CRL-KRD-RME-000-DRG2143-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Mt Eden Station Plan Newton Grade Separation Structure CRL-MTE-RME-000DRG-2150-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

04.04.16

Mt Eden Station Section 1 Newton Grade Separation Structure CRL-MTE-RME-000DRG-2151-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

04.04.16

Mt Eden Station Cross Sections Newton Shaft CRL-MTE-RME-000-DRG-2152-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

04.04.16

Mt Eden Station Isometric of Permanent Structure Newton Grade Separation Structure CRL-MTE-RME-000-DRG-21531.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Mt Eden NAL Plan And Sections- Ruru Street Bridge Sheet 1 of 1 CRL-MTERME-000-DRG-2158-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Mt Eden NAL Plan And Sections – Western Flyover Sheet 1 of 2 CRL-MTERME-000-DRG-2160-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Mt Eden NAL Plan And Sections- Mt Eden Road Bridge Sheet 1 of 2 CRL-EFC-RME000-DRG-2166-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Mt Eden NAL Elevation- Mt Eden Road Bridge Sheet 2 of 2 CRL-EFC-RME-000DRG-2167-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Mt Eden NAL Plan And SectionsNormanby Road Bridge Sheet 1 of 3 CRLEFC-RME-000-DRG-2170-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Mt Eden NAL Plan And Sections – Normanby Road Bridge Sheet 2 of 3 CRLEFC-RME-000-DRG-2171-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Structural Geological Long Section MC20 West Sheet 1 of 1 CRL-MTE-RME-000DRG-2173-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Structural Geological Long Section MC30

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

67

West Sheet 1 of 1 CRL-MTE-RME-000DRG-2174-1.0 Mt Eden NAL Cross Sections West Sheet 1 of 2 CRL-MTE-RME-000-DRG-2176-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Mt Eden NAL Cross Sections West Sheet 2 of 2 CRL-MTE-RME-000-DRG-2177-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Mt Eden NAL Structural Geological Long Section MC50 East Sheet 1 of 1 CRLEFC-RME-000-DRG-2178-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Mt Eden NAL Structural Geological Long Section MC60 East Sheet 1 of 1 CRLEFC-RME-000-DRG-2179-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Mt Eden NAL Cross Sections East Sheet 1 of 2 CRL-EFC-RME-000-DRG-2180-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Mt Eden NAL Cross Sections East Sheet 2 of 2 CRL-EFC-RME-000-DRG-2181-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Mt Eden NAL Structural Geological Long Section MC10 and MC40 NAL Sheet 1 of 2 CRL-EFC-RME-000-DRG-2182-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Mt Eden NAL Structural Geological Long Section MC10 and MC40 NAL Sheet 2 of 2 CRL-EFC-RME-000-DRG-2183-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Mt Eden NAL Structural Geological Long Section MC10 and MC40 NAL Sheet 1 of 1 CRL-EFC-RME-000-DRG-2184-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Mt Eden NAL Cross Sections NAL Sheet 1 Aurecon NZ Ltd of 1 CRL-EFC-RME-000-DRG-2185-1.0

1.0

13.05.16

South Tunnels Plan- Southern Junction CRL-NJT-RME-000-DRG-2190-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

South Tunnels Section- Southern Portal CRL-NJT-RME-000-DRG-2191-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

South Tunnels Section- Southern Junction CRL-NJT-RME-000-DRG-2192-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

North And South Tunnels Segmental Lining General Arrangement CRl-SYWRME-000-DRG-2196-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

North and South Tunnels Cross Passage CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2197-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

68

Aotea Station Construction Support Area 1 Aurecon NZ Ltd (Indicative Layout) Aotea Station CRLAOT-RME-000-DRG-2951-1.0

1.0

13.05.16

Karangahape Station Construction Support Area 2 (Indicative Layout) Beresford Square CRL-KRD-RME-000DRG-2961-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Karangahape Station Construction Support Area 3 (Indicative Layout) Mercury Lane CRL-KRD-RME-000-DRG2962-A

Aurecon NZ Ltd

A

13.05.16

Mt Eden NAL Construction Support Area 4 Aurecon NZ Ltd (Indicative Layout) Tunnelling Phase CRLMTE-RME-000-DRG-2971-1.0

1.0

13.05.16

Mt Eden NAL Construction Support Area 5 Aurecon NZ Ltd (Indicative Layout) Station and Tie Into NAL CRL-MTE-RME-000-DRG-2972-1.0

1.0

13.05.16

Settlement Contours Mechanical Settlement Plan Sheet 1 of 6 CRL-SYWRME-000-DRG-2601-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Settlement Contours Mechanical Settlement Plan Sheet 2 of 6 CRL-SYWRME-000-DRG-2602-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Settlement Contours Mechanical Settlement Plan Sheet 3 of 6 CRL-SYWRME-000-DRG-2603-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Settlement Contours Mechanical Settlement Plan Sheet 4 of 6 CRL-SYWRME-000-DRG-2604-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Settlement Contours Mechanical Settlement Plan Sheet 5 of 6 CRL-SYWRME-000-DRG-2605-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Settlement Contours Mechanical Settlement Plan Sheet 6 of 6 CRL-SYWRME-000-DRG-2606-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Settlement Contours And Building Assessment Mechanical And Consolidation Settlement Sheet 1 of 6 CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2610-3.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

3.0

14.10.16

69

Settlement Contours And Building Assessment Mechanical And Consolidation Settlement Sheet 2 of 6 CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2611-3.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

3.0

14.10.16

Settlement Contours And Building Assessment Mechanical And Consolidation Settlement Sheet 3 of 6 CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2612-3.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

3.0

30.09.16

Settlement Contours And Building Assessment Mechanical And Consolidation Settlement Sheet 4 of 6 CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2613-4.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

4.0

14.10.16

Settlement Contours And Building Assessment Mechanical And Consolidation Settlement Sheet 5 of 6 CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2614-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Settlement Contours And Building Assessment Mechanical And Consolidation Settlement Sheet 6 of 6 CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2615-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

13.05.16

Aotea To NAL Trigger Levels Table And Notes Sheet 1 of 2 CRL-SYW-RME-000DRG-2640-4.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

4.0

14.10.16

Aotea To NAL Trigger Levels Table And Notes Sheet 2 of 2 CRL-SYW-RME-000DRG-2642-3.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

3.0

11.10.16

Geological Longsection Aotea Station Sheet 1 of 2 CRL-AOT-GEO-000-DRG0011-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

25.05.16

Geological Longsection Aotea Station Sheet 2 of 2 CRL-AOT-GEO-000-DRG0012-1.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1.0

25.05.16

Ground Investigation Locations CRL And Non-CRL (Detailed) 3 of 15 CRL-SYWGEO-000-DRG-0029-3.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

3.0

24.06.16

Ground Investigation Locations CRL And Non-CRL (Detailed) 4 of 15 CRL-SYWGEO-000-DRG-0030-3.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

3.0

24.06.16

Ground Investigation Locations CRL And Non-CRL (Detailed) 5 of 15 CRL-SYW-

Aurecon NZ Ltd

3.0

24.06.2016

70

GEO-000-DRG-0031-3.0 Geological and Hydrogeological Cross Section Wellesley Street CRL-SYW-GEO000-SKE-0017-4.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

4.0

05.07.2016

Geological and Hydrogeological Cross Section Victoria Street CRL-SYW-GEO000-SKE-0018-4.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

4.0

05.07.2016

Geological And Hydrogeological Cross Section DR6MC30 Chainage 1750-2100 CRL-SYW-GEO-000-SKE-0028-5.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

5.0

05.07.2016

Geological and Hydrogeological Cross Section Beresford Square CRL-SYWGEO-000-SKE-0029-3.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

3.0

05.07.2016

Geological and Hydrogeological Cross Section Cross Street CRL-SYW-GEO000-SKE-0030-3.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

3.0

05.07.2016

Ground Investigation Locations CRL And Non-CRL (Detailed) 1 of 15 CRL-SYWGEO-000-DRG-0027-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

23.06.2016

Ground Investigation Locations CRL And Non-CRL (Detailed) 2 of 15 CRL-SYWGEO-000-DRG-0028-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

23.06.2016

Ground Investigation Locations CRL And Non-CRL (Detailed) 3 of 15 CRL-SYWGEO-000-DRG-0029-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

23.06.2016

Ground Investigation Locations CRL And Non-CRL (Detailed) 4 of 15 CRL-SYWGEO-000-DRG-0030-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

23.06.2016

Ground Investigation Locations CRL And Non-CRL (Detailed) 5 of 15 CRL-SYWGEO-000-DRG-0031-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

23.06.2016

Ground Investigation Locations CRL And Non-CRL (Detailed) 6 of 15 CRL-SYWGEO-000-DRG-0032-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

23.06.2016

Ground Investigation Locations CRL And Non-CRL (Detailed) 7 of 15 CRL-SYWGEO-000-DRG-0033-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

23.06.2016

Ground Investigation Locations CRL And Non-CRL (Detailed) 8 of 15 CRL-SYW-

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

23.06.2016

71

GEO-000-DRG-0034-2.0 Ground Investigation Locations CRL And Non-CRL (Detailed) 9 of 15 CRL-SYWGEO-000-DRG-0035-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

23.06.2016

Ground Investigation Locations CRL And Non-CRL (Detailed) 10 of 15 CRL-SYWGEO-000-DRG-0036-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

23.06.2016

Ground Investigation Locations CRL And Non-CRL (Detailed) 11 of 15 CRL-SYWGEO-000-DRG-0037-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

23.06.2016

Ground Investigation Locations CRL And Non-CRL (Detailed) 12 of 15 CRL-SYWGEO-000-DRG-0038-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

23.06.2016

Ground Investigation Locations CRL And Non-CRL (Detailed)13 of 15 CRL-SYWGEO-000-DRG-0039-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

23.06.2016

Ground Investigation Locations CRL And Non-CRL (Detailed)14 of 15 CRL-SYWGEO-000-DRG-0040-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

23.06.2016

Ground Investigation Locations CRL And Non-CRL (Detailed)15 of 15 CRL-SYWGEO-000-DRG-0041-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

23.06.2016

Geological Long Section DR6MC30 Chainage 2750-3100m CRL-SYW-GEO000-SKE-0033-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

07.07.16

Geological and Hydrogeological Long Section DR6MC20 Chainage 3050-3400 CRL-SYW-GEO-000-SKE-0034-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

07.07.16

Geological Cross Section At DR6MC50 Chainage 625 CRL-SYW-GEO-000-SKE0042-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

05.07.16

Geological And Hydrogeological Cross Section At DR6MC20 Chainage 3185 CRL-SYW-GEO-000-SKE-0045-2.0

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2.0

05.07.16

Geological Cross Section At DR6MC20 Aurecon NZ Ltd Chainage 3312 CRL-SYW-GEO-000-SKE0046-2.0

2.0

05.07.16

Queen Street Plumbing And Drainage Services Permanent Works Foul Water-

A

18.11.2015

Aurecon NZ Ltd

72

Ground Level CRL-BTM-DRN-000-DRG1310-A Queen Street Plumbing And Drainage Aurecon NZ Ltd Services Permanent Works Surface Water- Ground Level CRL-BTM-DRN-000DRG-1610-A

A

18.11.2015

Aotea Station Station North Drainage Layout CRL-AOT-DRN-000-DRG-1101-3

Aurecon NZ Ltd

3

22.06.16

Aotea Station Station South Drainage Layout CRL-AOT-DRN-000-DRG-1102-2

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2

21.03.16

Karangahape Station Station North Drainage Layout CRL-KRD-DRN-000DRG-1101-2

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2

08.04.16

Karangahape Station Station South Drainage Layout CRL-KRD-DRN-000DRG-1102-2

Aurecon NZ Ltd

2

05.07.16

Location Plans Showing Sites Adjacent to Construction Sites CRL-SYW-RME-000DRG-2901

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1

13.05.16

Location Plans Showing Sites Adjacent to Construction Sites CRL-SYW-RME-000DRG-2902

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1

13.05.16

Location Plans Showing Sites Adjacent to Construction Sites CRL-SYW-RME-000DRG-2903

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1

13.05.16

Location Plans Showing Sites Adjacent to Construction Sites CRL-SYW-RME-000DRG-2904

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1

13.05.16

Location Plans Showing Sites Adjacent to Construction Sites CRL-SYW-RME-000DRG-2905

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1

13.05.16

Location Plans Showing Sites Adjacent to Construction Sites CRL-SYW-RME-000DRG-2906

Aurecon NZ Ltd

1

13.05.16

Proposed Monitoring Bore Location Plan PDP-A02502731 Figure 39

Pattle Delamore Partners

B

May 2016

73

Other additional information

Author

Rev

Dated

Stakeholder Meeting Minutes: Nikau Street Aurecon NZ Ltd 1950mm dia. Stormwater Diversion

0

22 January 2016

Mana Whenua Forum

Auckland Transport

-

10 December 2015

Section 92 Response Groundwater

Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd

-

29 June 2016

CRL Monthly Mana Whenua Forum

Auckland Transport

-

19 May 2016

Section 92 Response Groundwater Figures

Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd

-

29 June 2016

Section 92 Response Contamination

Golder Associates -

30 June 2016

Cone Penetrometer test Karangahape Station

Aurecon NZ Ltd

-

14.06.2016

Section 92 Response

Aurecon NZ Ltd

-

30.06.2016

Aotea Station PLAXIS analysis â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Bluestone wall sections

Aurecon NZ Ltd

-

29.06.2016

Further S92 Response

Aurecon NZ Ltd

-

08.07.2016

Ground Settlement question 89 answer

Aurecon NZ Ltd

-

05.07.2016

Further s92 Response Groundwater

Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd

-

08.07.2016

Further S92 Response Question 88 answer

Aurecon NZ Ltd

-

01.07.2016

Earthtech Memo Ref m3256-1

Aurecon NZ Ltd

-

22.08.16

CRL-MTE-UTI-000-MEM-0012 Preliminary Flood Assessment Results and Mitigation Measures

Aurecon NZ Ltd

-

31.08.16

Hydrological and Hydraulic Review of the CRL Southern Connection Modelling

Richard Smedley â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Senior Stormwater Specialist, Healthy Waters Department

01.09.2016

Preliminary Flood Assessment: Consenting Analysis of potential downstream mitigation requirements

Aurecon NZ Ltd

9.09.2016

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Decision

Golder Associates

September 2016

74

Version) assessment tables: b.

Earthworks

c.

Groundwater diversion and take

d.

Water Quality

e.

Contaminated land

f.

Air Quality

g.

Stormwater

h.

Industrial and Trade activities

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Auckland Council Decisions Version 2016 (CRLMTE-UTI-000-MEM-00XX)

Aurecon / Golder Associates

20 September 2016

75