Statement of rebuttal evidence of Robert Schofield (Planning) for the NZ

Transport Agency

Dated: 29 October 2012

REFERENCE: John Hassan (john.hassan@chapmantripp.com)

Suzanne Janissen (suzanne.janissen@chapmantripp.com)

Before a Board of Inquiry

MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway Proposal

under: the Resource Management Act 1991

in the matter of: Notice of requirement for designation and resource

consent applications by the NZ Transport Agency for the

MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway Proposal

applicant: NZ Transport Agency

Requiring Authority

1

042590992/1603065

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 4

EVIDENCE OF SUBMITTERS .................................................................... 5

KCDC [682] ............................................................................................ 5

Emily Thomson, Planning ....................................................................... 5

Brad Coombs, Landscape ..................................................................... 12

GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL [684].............................. 12

Richard Percy, Planning........................................................................ 12

Sharon Lee, Parks ............................................................................... 24

Tim Porteous, Indigenous Biodiversity ................................................... 24

NZ HISTORIC PLACES TRUST [647] ...................................................... 26

Sacha Walters, Planning....................................................................... 26

SAVE KĀPITI INC [505]........................................................................ 34

Max Dunn, Planning............................................................................. 34

Dianne Buchan, social impact ............................................................... 36

James Lunday, urban design ................................................................ 37

Graeme McIndoe, urban design ............................................................ 39

RAUMATI SOUTH RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION (RSRA)[707].................. 40

Melanie Dixon, Ecology ........................................................................ 40

HIGHWAY OCCUPANTS’ GROUP (HOG) [542] ....................................... 41

Sarah Lindsay, urban design................................................................. 41

B MCKAY AND T FLATH [654] ............................................................... 42

Grant Birkenshaw, Planning.................................................................. 42

ST HELIERS CAPITAL LIMITED [644].................................................... 42

Gerard Thompson, Planning.................................................................. 42

TRANSPOWER NZ LIMITED [178] ......................................................... 43

Brian Warburton, Planning.................................................................... 43

PROPOSED MITIGATION OF CULTURAL EFFECTS .................................. 43

Background to Development of Mitigation .............................................. 43

Relevant principles .............................................................................. 44

Extent of cultural mitigation currently proposed ...................................... 45

Potential further cultural mitigation through conditions and amendment of

the designation boundary..................................................................... 47

CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 49

Updated Position Concerning Proposed Conditions and Associated

Management Plans .............................................................................. 49

2

042590992/1603065

Structure of Management Plans ............................................................ 50

OUTLINE PLAN WAIVER........................................................................ 55

S42A REPORT ....................................................................................... 55

Summary of Environmental Effects........................................................ 55

Assessment of Conditions..................................................................... 56

Statutory Evaluation............................................................................ 58

ANNEXURE A – PROPOSED DESIGNATION AND RESOURCE CONSENT

CONDITIONS REFERRED TO IN THIS REBUTTAL STATEMENT................ 61

ANNEXURE B – PLAN SHOWING PROPOSED EXTENSION OF

DESIGNATION FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE MITIGATION PURPOSES...... 62

3

042590992/1603065

STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF ROBERT SCHOFIELD FOR THE NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY

1 My full name is Robert John Schofield.

2 I have the qualifications and experience set out at paragraphs 1 to 6

of my statement of evidence in chief (EIC), dated 7 September

2012.

3 I repeat the confirmation given in my EIC that I have read, and

agree to comply with, the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses

(Consolidated Practice Note 2011).

4 In this statement of rebuttal evidence, I respond to the following

evidence:

4.1 Kāpiti Coast District Council (KCDC) [682]:

(a) Emily Thompson, planning,

(b) Brad Coombs, landscape,

4.2 Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) [684]:

(a) Richard Percy, planning,

(b) Sharon Lee, parks,

(c) Tim Porteous, biodiversity,

4.3 New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) [647]:

(a) Sacha Walters, planning,

4.4 Save Kāpiti Inc [505]:

(a) Max Dunn, planning,

(b) Dianne Buchan, social impact,

4.5 Raumati South Residents’ Association [707]:

(a) Melanie Dixon, ecology,

4.6 Highway Occupants Group (HOG) [542]:

(a) Sarah Ann Lindsay, urban design,

4.7 B Mckay and T Flath [654]:

(a) Grant Birkinshaw, planning,

4

042590992/1603065

4.8 St Heliers Capital Limited [644]:

(a) Gerard Thompson, planning,

4.9 Transpower NZ Limited [178]:

(a) Brian Warburton, planning.

5 The fact that this rebuttal statement does not respond to every

matter raised in the evidence of submitter witnesses within my area

of expertise should not be taken as acceptance of the matters

raised. Rather, I rely on my EIC and this rebuttal statement to set

out my opinion on what I consider to be the key planning matters

for this hearing.

6 Consistent with my EIC, I have referred to the MacKays to Peka

Peka Expressway Project as “the Project” in this rebuttal evidence.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7 I have read all of the statements of evidence provided by submitters

in relation to my area of expertise. Except insofar as I accept a

number of further changes to the proposed conditions, that evidence

has not caused me to depart from the opinions expressed in my EIC

and I re-confirm the conclusions reached in my EIC.

8 In my opinion, the submitters’ evidence has not raised any

significant concerns either in regard to the assessment of effects of

the Project, or in regard to my analysis of the Project against the

relevant statutory considerations and the provisions of relevant

planning documents. In my opinion, there is sufficient information

and certainty concerning the actual or potential adverse effects of

the project to be able to form an opinion about its consistency with

statutory requirements and to enable a broad overall assessment to

be determined.

9 Both the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) and Kāpiti

Coast District Council (KCDC) support the proposal, subject to

satisfaction regarding the conditions of the designation and resource

consents. Having reviewed their concerns regarding the conditions

(including management plans), I consider that there are no

significant outstanding issues that cannot be resolved through

appropriate conditions. In particular, I am of the opinion that the

adverse effects of the proposed Expressway will be appropriately

avoided, remedied or mitigated.

10 Where issues have been raised within submitters’ evidence, I remain

of the view that the designation is required to enable to the

achievement of the project objectives in accordance with the

requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) in

regard to Notices of Requirement.

5

042590992/1603065

11 As detailed below, I have accepted a number of amendments to the

proposed conditions suggested by submitters and NZTA witnesses.

The further amendments to conditions which I agree with and now

propose are shown in Annexure A.

EVIDENCE OF SUBMITTERS

KCDC [682]

Emily Thomson, Planning

12 I first note that Ms Thomson identifies that the KCDC supports the

application in part, subject to the resolution of a number of

concerns, listed in paragraph 4.2. To this end, Ms Thomson

welcomes expert conferencing to provide an opportunity to look at

the detailed drafting of the proposed conditions. I would also note

that some of her concerns are addressed by separate agreements

with the KCDC.

Part 2 RMA

13 In paragraph 6.1, Ms Thomson states that she is presently unable to

agree with my assessment of the proposal in relation to Part 2 of

the Act. She states that “the applications as lodged and supported

by NZTA’s evidence do not contain adequate assessments to make a

judgement that all actual and potential effects have been

adequately avoided, remedied, or mitigated” [emphasis added].

14 As I outlined in my EIC,1 the RMA is not ‘no-effects’ legislation – it

does not require all actual or potential adverse effects to be

avoided, remedied or mitigated as all development will inevitably

generate a change in environmental conditions.

15 In my opinion, there has been sufficient assessment of effects to be

able to reach a broad overall judgment of the project against Part 2

RMA. The areas of unresolved disagreement between NZTA and

KCDC (and GWRC) largely relate to the management of effects

during final design, construction and immediate stage of operation.

I note that the majority of Ms Thomson’s evidence relates to

changes to or addition of conditions.

16 In relation to paragraph 6.3 of Ms Thomson’s evidence, in my

opinion, the technical assessments undertaken for the AEE have

adequately addressed:

16.1 Social and traffic effects in terms of section 5 of the RMA;

16.2 Preservation of natural character of the coastal

environment under section 6(a);

1 Paragraph 68, Schofield EIC.

6

042590992/1603065

16.3 Outstanding natural features and landscapes under s6(b),

and

16.4 Significant indigenous vegetation of habitats under s6(c).

17 I understand that the expert and other evidence of the NZTA in

respect of these matters supports my opinion on the adequacy of

assessment of those matters. I return to discuss my differences of

opinion with Ms Thomson regarding social impact assessment later

in my evidence.

18 In particular, in her rebuttal evidence, Ms Julie Meade Rose

disagrees with Ms Thomson’s view (and that of Ms Mary Jane Rivers)

that greater assessment is required in regard to the social effects of

the proposal to assist in making a determination that the SIA

undertaken for the project address the key potential social impacts.

Kāpiti Coast District Plan

19 I note Ms Thomson generally agrees with my assessment of the

relevant planning documents.2 In paragraph 7.4, Ms Thomson

refers to the provisions of the Town Centre zone in respect of its

goals for having good multi-modal access to the town centre, and its

integration with the wider district through an efficient transport

network and good east/west connectivity. Based on the evidence of

Mr Marc Baily, Mr Munro and Mr Wignall, Ms Thomson is satisfied

that the proposal is not inconsistent with the provisions for the town

centre. I would concur with Ms Thomson in this regard.

NZCPS

20 Based on the evidence of Mr Coombs, Ms Thomson disagrees with

my assessment that the proposal is not within the coastal

environment.3 As I outline below, that remains a point of difference

between us.

21 However, notwithstanding this disagreement, I have reviewed the

proposal against the relevant policies of the New Zealand Coastal

Policy Statement,4 and agree with Ms Thomson’s conclusions that

the proposal is not inconsistent with the relevant policies of the

NZCPS.5 I also agree with her conclusions regarding the coastal

environment provisions of the Kāpiti Coast District Plan.6

Proposed Wellington Regional Policy Statement (PWRPS)

22 In paragraphs 7.10-11, Ms Thomson states that she considers that

further assessment is required to determine whether the proposal is

2 Paragraph 7.2, Thomson evidence.

3 Paragraph 7.5, Thomson evidence.

4 NZCPS Policies 6, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 21 and 22.

5 paragraph 7.6, Thomson evidence.

6 Paragraphs 7.7-7.9, Thomson evidence.

7

042590992/1603065

consistent with the PWRPS, referring to social and traffic effects,

and effects on outstanding natural features and landscapes.

23 In regard to Part 2 of the RMA, I consider there is sufficient

information through the relevant technical reports, the AEE and the

NZTA’s evidence to be able to reach a conclusion on these matters

in regard to the PWRPS.

24 On the matter of outstanding natural landscapes, I note that the

proposed Expressway traverses only one identified in the Kāpiti

Coast District Plan, the Waikanae River corridor. As outlined in the

evidence-in-chief of Mr Boyden Evans, the potential adverse

effects of the proposed Expressway on the Waikanae River corridor

were assessed in Technical Report 7: Landscape and Visual Effects.

This assessment, and the evidence-in-chief of Mr Evans on this

aspect, has not been contested, and therefore I consider that there

is sufficient basis on which a conclusion can be made in relation to

s6(a) RMA.

Effects’ Assessment

25 In paragraphs 7.12-13, Ms Thomson states that she accepts that my

EIC provides a summary of the relevant effects of the proposal.

However, Ms Thomson disagrees with the paragraphs of my effects’

assessment where there is a point of difference between the

technical experts for the NZTA and KCDC. These points of

difference appear to be primarily focused on social effects, traffic

effects and effects on outstanding natural features and landscapes

(drawing on paragraph 7.10). However, Ms Thomson considers that

the differences between technical experts are not reasons to decline

the applications, but should be resolved through conditions

(paragraph 7.13).

26 I would agree with Ms Thomson that it is likely that many of the

outstanding differences can be resolved through conditions and are

not of sufficient degree or magnitude to warrant declining the

applications. Therefore, I disagree with Ms Thomson that the points

of difference in the technical assessments mean that a conclusion

cannot be made as to whether the Project satisfies the relevant

statutory requirements. I consider that an assessment of whether a

project satisfies the relevant statutory requirements should be

predicated on the basis that the project is assessed subject to

compliance with conditions of consent and/or designation. In my

opinion, the technical assessment of effects of the Project, in

conjunction with compliance with the proposed conditions, enables

an overall broad judgement to be made in regard to the purpose

and principles of the RMA.

27 In terms of the points of difference to which Ms Thomson refers, in

light of the rebuttal evidence, I prefer the opinions of the NZTA’s

relevant witnesses in regard to the assessment of effects of the

Project. In particular, I refer to the rebuttal evidence of Ms Meade

8

042590992/1603065

Rose and Dr David Black in relation to social and public health

impacts, Mr Andrew Murray and Mr Stephen Hewett in relation

to traffic effects, and Mr Evans in relation to effects on natural

character and landscape.

Conditions

28 The remainder of Ms Thomson’s evidence discusses the proposed

conditions of the designation (including the proposed management

plans) and regional consents, seeking changes to those currently

proposed or additional conditions. The rebuttal statements of

evidence of various NZTA experts have addressed the suggested

changes or new conditions. I do not intend to address all of these in

any detail in my rebuttal, as conferencing on the matters is likely to

reduce the areas of differences to put before the Board.

29 However, I have some concerns about a number of the new

conditions and amendments that Ms Thomson has recommended.

Network Utility Management Plan

30 In paragraph 9.17, Ms Thomson recommends revising the proposed

Network Utility Management Plan (NUMP) condition (DC.52), so that

the District Council certifies that “appropriate liaison with

infrastructure providers has occurred, and that their concerns have

been taken into account...” She also recommends a number of

further conditions relating to managing the effects of the

construction and operation of the proposed Expressway on existing

or relocated network utilities.

31 With respect, I do not consider that this certification purpose or the

other suggested conditions would serve any resource management

purpose. Necessarily, where construction of the proposed

Expressway requires changes to be made to network utilities the

NZTA will have to liaise with and obtain the agreement of network

utility providers (including KCDC) on how such work will be

undertaken. As Mr Andrew Quinn points out, these things are

governed by legislation and a national code of practice.7

32 Ms Thomson’s condition would also create some uncertainty in

terms of enforcement issues. In particular, it is unclear how KCDC

would determine and enforce a condition that NZTA has given

“reasonable notice” and has made “reasonable endeavours to liaise

with all relevant network utility operators”.

33 I acknowledge that there could be some value in a condition whose

purpose was to provide KCDC with information on the outcomes of

liaison with network utility operators.

7 Andrew Quinn rebuttal, paragraph 30.

9

042590992/1603065

Ngā Manu Access and Future East-west Link Road

34 In paragraph 9.38, Ms Thomson recommends a condition in regard

to the proposed connection to Ngā Manu Nature Reserve. As

outlined in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Noel Nancekivell, the

proposed design of this road serves two purposes: to replace the

current access to the Reserve which will be affected by the proposed

Expressway, and to provide connection to the end of Smithfield

Road( which would also be severed by the Expressway). The Project

design includes provision, in liaison with KCDC, to allow for the road

to extend beyond Ngā Manu to provide the basis for a future east-

west link road.

35 As currently worded, Ms Thomson’s condition would require NZTA to

construct the connection road to Ngā Manu to a standard that is

suitable for the road to act as a future local connector road. While I

understand NZTA is in general agreement with KCDC to the

construction of the road to such a standard, that agreement is on

the basis that the District Council funds the difference in

construction cost imposed by building the road to a higher standard.

However, the commitment to provide such funding has yet to be

established through the District Council’s annual planning process. I

do not consider they would be for a valid resource management

purpose in a condition that obliged the NZTA to fund a future KCDC

project. I support rewording of the condition to reflect what has

been agreed with KCDC.

Amendments to layout and design of the Expressway

36 In paragraph 9.46, Ms Thomson recommends a condition that seeks

a number of amendments to the layout and design of the proposed

Expressway, drawing on the evidence of Messrs Wignall and Munro.

These have been addressed in the rebuttal evidence of Messrs

Baily and Murray. In brief, it is premature to prescribe the final

design and/or use of traffic signals at these three places, as the final

design process will resolve the most appropriate form and

management method for these roads, undertaken in liaison with the

KCDC. The final design of these places will be addressed through

the proposed Network Integration Plan (NIP) that is now proposed

to be introduced through conditions of the designation (as outlined

in the evidence-in-chief of Mr Murray). The site specific urban

design plans that are also proposed to be certified for all

interchange and bridging points along the proposed Expressway

would also address the urban design issues associated with

pedestrian and cyclist crossing points (refer to the rebuttal evidence

of Mr Baily).

Wayfinding Signage

37 In paragraph 9.50, Ms Thomson recommends a new condition that

would require NZTA to submit to KCDC for certification “wayfinding

signs” on the proposed Expressway to indicate access to the town

10

042590992/1603065

centres and other major facilities and attractions. Mr Baily

addresses this in his rebuttal evidence.

38 While I understand NZTA agrees in principle to establishing such

signs near the interchanges (such signs are used elsewhere where

new sections of State highway bypass town centres and attractions),

it is not appropriate for the District Council to certify such signs, as

the design of wayfinding and directional signage along State

highways is the responsibility of NZTA. However, I accept that a

process for the design of such signs that requires the input of the

KCDC is appropriate, and could be required by way of condition.

39 However I think the better approach, in terms of signage on local

roads at or near interchanges, is for this to be addressed through

the proposed SSUDPs as outlined in Mr Baily’s rebuttal evidence.

Social Impact Assessment

40 At paragraph 9.54, Ms Thomson recommends a new condition to

follow DC.14 as follows:

The requiring authority shall undertake a social impact

assessment, which considers the following potential operational

and construction effects:

a) severance,

b) connectivity,

c) noise,

d) vibration,

e) dust,

f) visual amenity and disruption,

g) the ability of vulnerable groups to use the Kapiti Road and Te

Moana Road interchanges safely and confidently.

h) ability to access services,

i) heavy vehicle movements in relation to activity nodes

including:

- schools;

- sports venues;

- Paraparaumu Town Centre (Coastlands, Community Centre,

Aquatic Centre, Library, Civic Buildings); and

- Waikanae Town Centre and effects on human health.

The assessment shall be undertaken for the entire route to

determine the key indicators of social wellbeing which are

potentially adversely affected by the project. A social monitoring

and adaptive management package will then use these indicators

to monitor social wellbeing, and require action to be taken when

pre-agreed thresholds of effect are reached.

11

042590992/1603065

41 The need for such a condition is refuted by Ms Meade Rose in her

rebuttal evidence, and I would concur with her opinion. The

information listed in the condition has either been provided through

the assessments undertaken for the Project, or will be suitably

addressed through the relevant Management Plans. For example, in

terms of vulnerable groups (children, elderly and disabled persons),

these aspects were articulated through feedback during

consultation, and these considerations informed the design decision-

making process. In terms of construction effects, the detailed

attention identified by Ms Rivers (paragraph 6.12) in respect of land

uses would be covered in the preparation of the Site Specific Traffic

Management Plan (SSTMP) – refer to proposed DC.18-19.

42 The level of impact monitoring would pose some difficulties in terms

of distinguishing any changes occurring as a result of the Project

that might also be affected by a range of other socio-economic

factors.

43 More importantly, it is unclear as to what measures or responses

may be considered under an adaptive management framework for

social impacts that would not otherwise be addressed through the

various monitoring and management plan processes. Neither

Ms Thomson nor Ms Rivers explain how how such a regime would

work including as to their proposed indicators and what responses

they would see as being available to NZTA to address any adverse

social effects.

44 I remain satisfied, in relation to social impacts, that sufficient

assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the scale and

nature of the effects, and that the proposed conditions will address

the areas of social effects that could reasonably and practicably

managed in the construction of the Project.

45 More importantly, Ms Meade Rose considers that appropriate

provision has been proposed through the designation conditions for

monitoring and responding to the social effects from the

construction of the proposed Expressway. These conditions include:

45.1 An appointment of an NZTA liaison person for the

duration of construction and 12 months afterwards;

45.2 A Stakeholders and Communications Management Plan;

45.3 The establishment of two Community Liaison Groups (for

north and south of the Waikanae River) to provide a

regular forum for the exchange of information, issues and

concerns;

45.4 Various management plans that will, inter alia, address

the potential effects on social and community wellbeing

(such as traffic management, landscape and visual

mitigation, and noise management).

12

042590992/1603065

46 The latter is addressed in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Hewett, Mr

Evans and Ms Siiri Wilkening. In his rebuttal evidence, Dr Black

addresses the health impacts of the proposal, and reconfirms his

opinion that the potential public health effects have been thoroughly

considered in the development of this project.

47 However, in her rebuttal, Ms Meade Rose has suggested making

one change for the proposed Community Liaison Groups, ensuring

the Groups are resources with “at least one person appropriately

qualified in community development and social assessment”. I

recommend modifying the condition (DC.14) accordingly.

Brad Coombs, Landscape

48 Mr Evans and Mr Stephen Fuller address Mr Coombs’ evidence in

detail in regard to the matter of whether the area could be defined

as being part of the coastal environment. Having read Mr Coombs’

evidence, and Mr Evans’ and Mr Fuller’s EIC and rebuttal, I agree

with Mr Evans and Mr Fuller that the Project area should not be

regarded as being within the ‘coastal environment’.

49 I note Mr Coombs refers to the delineation of the coastal

environment in the Combined Wairarapa District Plan. I was

responsible for preparing that District Plan on behalf of the three

territorial local authorities. From my experiences in that role and

my familiarity with the coastline of the Wairarapa, I would not agree

that the two coastlines are readily comparable.8

50 I would also note that the proposed extent of the coastal

environment as recommended by Mr Coombs has yet to go through

the statutory processes when the reviewed Kāpiti Coast District Plan

is notified.

51 However, notwithstanding this disagreement, I have reviewed the

Project against the relevant policies of the New Zealand Coastal

Policy Statement,9 and agree with Ms Thomson’s conclusions that

the proposal is not inconsistent with the relevant policies of the

NZCPS.10

GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL [684]

Richard Percy, Planning

52 Overall, as Mr Percy notes in paragraph 1 of his evidence, GWRC

generally supports the Project due to the overall benefits to the

Region’s transport network. However, Mr Percy cites what I

8 For example, the planning map of the Cape Palliser area in South Wairarapa

shown on page 3 of his Appendix 2 shows the coastal environment generally extending less than 1 km inland, whereas Mr Coombs’ recommended inland boundary for the Kāpiti Coast is generally 3 to 6km in width.

9 NZCPS Policies 6, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 21 and 22.

10 Ms Thomson EIC, paragraph 7.6.

13

042590992/1603065

consider to be a small number of outstanding concerns around the

level of effects and proposed mitigation, primarily in regard to

ecological management and mitigation and conditions regarding

monitoring.

53 While a small number of Mr Percy’s concerns relate to additional

information and differences in interpretation of statutory documents,

many of his concerns relate to clarifications and changes to the

proposed conditions to monitor, manage and mitigate effects. In

this regard, I consider that most of Mr Percy’s concerns can be

addressed by minor modifications to consent conditions and I do not

intend to address each point in my rebuttal.

54 In paragraph 2, Mr Percy states that, in his opinion, it is premature

to draw the conclusion that the application is entirely consistent with

all of the relevant provisions of the applicable policy and planning

documents. I will address this point below in response to a similar

opinion Mr Percy expresses in his paragraph 31.

55 To assist the Board, I address the outstanding matters raised by Mr

Percy in the same order as his evidence.

Resource consents sought

56 Firstly, in paragraph 3, Mr Percy states he is comfortable that the

majority of the necessary resource consents have been sought for

the proposal. I agree with Mr Percy that there are some additional

‘secondary’ consents that are required and these can be applied for

at a later given the effects will be contained within the designation

boundary.

57 Similarly, the rebuttal statements of evidence of Mr Matiu Park, Mr

Fuller, Dr Vaughan Keesing, Ms Ann Williams, Mr Graeme

Ridley and Mr Graham Levy also confirm that that there is

sufficient area within the designation for any additional mitigation

requirements that may stem from potential effects occurring outside

the designation footprint (for example, potential hydrological effects

on wetlands). Whether additional consents would be required for

any additional mitigation would depend on the nature of the

mitigation. If consents are required, they would be sought at that

time (as the RMA allows). Such consents would be of a minor

nature, and would largely relate to ensuring appropriate conditions

of consent are imposed.

58 As I stated in my EIC (paragraph 44), it is not unusual that

additional consents need to be sought, once the final design and

construction phase occurs, for a roading project of this scale. In

regard to ecological mitigation, as Mr Fuller outlines in his rebuttal

evidence, whether consents are required or not will not be known

until the final design stage.

14

042590992/1603065

Consistency with policy and planning documents

59 In paragraph 28, Mr Percy explains that the PWRPS cannot yet be

treated as fully operative because of a number of draft consent

orders. However, he explains that he considers that significant

weight should be given to the provisions of the PWRPS when

considering the Project.

60 I agree with Mr Percy on this matter and I consider the application is

consistent with this approach.

61 Later in my rebuttal, I discuss a number of matters raised

concerning specific PWRPS policies (at paragraphs 124 to 130, I

address Policies 22 and 46 regarding significant habitats and, at

paragraphs 151 to 156, I address Policy 45 regarding effects on

activities in historic heritage values).

62 At paragraph 29, Mr Percy agrees with the GWRC Key Issues Report

that a number of relevant policies in the PWRPS, RFP and RAQMP

were not addressed in the application documents. However, I note

Mr Percy’s position (at paragraph 31) that the relevant provisions of

the regional and national planning and policy documents have now

been identified as outlined in my EIC. Nonetheless, Mr Percy opines

that, pending satisfactory resolution of GWRC’s concerns as to the

level of effects and mitigation, it is not appropriate to conclude that

the proposal is entirely consistent with the provisions of all of these

documents.

63 Based on my review of various rebuttal statements of the NZTA’s

experts, I consider that the level of effects and associated mitigation

have been considered as far as is reasonably practicable for a

project of this scale. I agree with Mr Percy that there remain a

number of potential effects that cannot be fully understood until the

results of the recommended detailed monitoring are available (for

example, wetland hydrology and sedimentation). However, as these

effects have been assessed on a precautionary basis (i.e., the worst

case likelihood), and there is general acceptance of the adaptive

management approach proposed to be used to monitor and avoid

adverse effects, I do not consider this is sufficient justification to

conclude that the Project is inconsistent with the statutory

provisions. I reiterate the advice of the experts, including GWRC

experts, that the adaptive management approach to monitor and

manage potential effects on these areas of uncertainty is

appropriate.

64 I would also highlight that it is not necessary to demonstrate that a

proposal is fully consistent with all relevant planning provisions: the

RMA directs that decision be made ‘in the round’, and an overall

balancing exercise being undertaken. Further, and as I discussed in

relation to Ms Thomson’s evidence, if it is considered that a proposal

would be consistent with policies and statutory requirements if it is

15

042590992/1603065

subject to conditions, then one should be able to reach a conclusion

in regard to statutory consistency on that basis.

Other relevant regulations and matters

65 I note Mr Percy accepts that most relevant ‘other matters’ have

been fully identified in my EIC (paragraph 32). The specific points

in relation to some of these documents by GWRC experts are

addressed by relevant NZTA experts.

Part 2 RMA assessment

66 At paragraph 36, although Mr Percy does not disagree with my

position that the Project will not be contrary to Part 2 of the RMA.

However, he states that, until GWRC’s collective concerns have been

addressed satisfactorily, it would be premature to conclude that the

proposal will achieve the purpose of the RMA. In this respect, his

opinion appears similar to Ms Thomson’s, and my response is the

same (refer to paragraphs 26 and 63 to 64 above).

67 I would note that the number of matters considered to be

outstanding is relatively confined, and are likely to be clarified or

resolved through additional meetings and conferencing.

Resource consents sought

68 I note Mr Percy’s statement (paragraph 39) that he is comfortable

that additional land use consent and water permit associated with

damming and the installation of a weir structure can be sought at a

later date. While I agree with Mr Percy that this consent could be

sought at a later date, in my opinion, the Board has all of the

relevant information before it related to this specific activity and its

effects to be able to grant the consent.

69 I concur with Mr Percy’s acknowledgement at paragraph 40 that it is

highly likely secondary consents will be required as detailed design

and construction occurs (given the scale of the Project). However, I

am uncertain why Mr Percy goes on to state in the same paragraph

that “any additional consents that may be required to implement

remedial and mitigation measures warrant closer scrutiny at this

point in the decision making process”.

70 As I have outlined at paragraph 63 above, for some aspects of the

Project, there will remain some uncertainty as to the exact scale and

magnitude of potential effects within and outside of the designation

(particularly in regard to sedimentation and wetland hydrology).

This is not unusual for a major project of this scale, particularly

given the complexity of ground hydrology along the Kāpiti Coast.

Given this uncertainty, an adaptive management approach is

proposed to provide greater certainty that any effects can be

addressed if they occur. The purpose of this adaptive management

regime will be to avoid or adequately mitigate any effects, primarily

through hydrological management methods. I would emphasise

16

042590992/1603065

that GWRC would have a key compliance role throughout this

process to ensure ongoing involvement in the monitoring process

and decision-making, including potential consenting, remedial

and/or mitigation requirements.

71 At paragraph 42, Mr Percy agrees that no land use consent would be

required to deposit peat in the former Waikanae Oxidation Ponds.

However, Mr Percy still considers other consents for the restoration

works may be required, such as a water permit to divert surface

water or a discharge permit. Mr Percy therefore considers that

further information should be provided by the NZTA regarding the

construction methodology so that the need for, and potential

complexity of, other consents can be considered. As outlined in

Technical Report 26, the intention of the restoration of this area is

to improve the pond’s ecological values in a manner that is

consistent with the regionally significant wetlands at either end. In

his rebuttal evidence, Mr Park states that any restoration

undertaken in the ponds would be consistent with KCDC’s recent

(2011) ecological restoration of this area.

72 At paragraph 43, Mr Percy notes Mr Park’s opinion that no resource

consents will be required for the intended restoration work in the

Ngarara and Central Otaihanga wetlands. I concur with Mr Park

that the nature of the work intended is restorative and unlikely to

require consents. However, the final nature and form of such work

will not be known fully until the final design work is undertaken and

the EMP is finalised. Again, any resource consents would be minor

in nature.

73 At paragraph 44, Mr Percy goes on to state Mr Callandar’s position

that some of the mitigation measures described in the Groundwater

(Level) Management Plan may require resource consents. While I

agree with Mr Percy that it would be preferable if all consents

required for mitigation works were applied for as part of the overall

consent package for the Project, I do not understand that to be

legally required and, as outlined above, there are very good reasons

for some consents not having been applied for. I reiterate that

GWRC’s own experts highlight the uncertainty that exists in relation

to some of these systems, particularly groundwater and wetlands.

Until greater certainty is obtained during construction, the exact

nature of any mitigation measures cannot be provided.

74 At paragraph 45, Mr Percy states that the need to seek further

resource consents to enable delivery of mitigation measures could

create uncertainty as to delivery of the mitigation in the fashion

envisaged by the NZTA and others involved in the process, if the

application is approved. In response, I would reiterate that the

purpose of the proposed adaptive management regime is to avoid

the need for mitigation – i.e., to prevent or remedy any hydrological

effects, and thus avoid effects on downstream ecosystems.

17

042590992/1603065

75 At paragraph 46, Mr Percy considers it would be useful to have

further information about the nature of the wetland restoration and

any other mitigation works that might trigger the need for additional

resource consents. Mr Percy also considers that the NZTA should

confirm their intentions around applying for any additional

mitigation related consents, including the proposed timing of such

applications. As discussed in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Park, it

would be problematic at this stage to provide such timing, given the

hydrological complexities and the difficulty of predicting when any

changes become manifest. As outlined in the rebuttal statements of

Ms Williams and Messrs Levy and Park, more detailed knowledge

of these wetland hydro-systems is required before any mitigation

options for these areas can be understood and developed through

the management plans.

76 For those reasons, I consider that it is premature to develop

mitigation and thus consider potential consenting issues at this

stage.

77 I would emphasise that all of the proposed ecological mitigation is

contained within the proposed designation or, in the case of

restoration work on Kakariki Stream, on land controlled by the

NZTA. If part of the former Waikanae Oxidation Ponds is used for

ecological restoration (in the same methodology as that undertaken

by Kiwirail and consistent with the Management Plan for that

Reserve), then that would occur on land owned by KCDC with the

effects contained to that site.

78 In summary, any additional consents that are or may be required at

a later stage would be of minor scale and/or are limited to land

within the proposed designation or under the control of NZTA or

KCDC.

Consent conditions: general

79 Mr Percy states that GWRC has an interest in ensuring that consent

conditions are clear, certain and enforceable, with appropriate

performance standard and feedback loops where adaptive

management is proposed (paragraph 47). I agree.

80 Mr Percy goes on to suggest a number of amendments and

additions to address the adverse effects of the proposal, including

matters raised in the submission and evidence of GWRC (paragraph

48 and Appendix 1).

81 After reviewing his suggested amendments, I would agree with

many of his suggested minor amendments and modifications. For

the purposes of this rebuttal statement, I do not specifically

comment on these amendments, other than to agree with Mr Percy

that wording would be more appropriately addressed during expert

witness conferencing by relevant witnesses, including planners

(paragraph 48).

18

042590992/1603065

82 Finally, I agree with Mr Percy that some refinements are needed to

the proposed conditions to define minimum outcomes and

parameters (paragraph 49) and ensure appropriate language is used

to determine the scope of effects authorised by the consent,

particularly with respect to ‘contingency’ conditions (paragraph 50).

Conversely, however, I note that some degree of flexibility is also

required in some contingency conditions to reflect major rainfall

events, and the uncertainty of some natural systems (for example,

wetland hydrology and plant establishment).

Consent conditions: purpose descriptions

83 I agree with Mr Percy (at his paragraph 47) that it is important that

the purpose for which a consent has have been granted is clear,

certain and enforceable. To that end, the team who assisted me in

the preparation of the resource consent applications was guided by

the GWRC’s consent adviser at that time. However, I agree with

Mr Percy that the opportunity to now achieve further clarification

should be taken. I note that if the NZTA proposes to alter

construction methodology at a later stage, then it will be the NZTA’s

responsibility to seek additional consents if required. Again, this is

not unusual for a project of this scale and nature.

Consent conditions: Management plans and adaptive

management

84 In paragraph 54, Mr Percy states that “GW acknowledges that

management plans are commonly used and can be an appropriate

tool, coupled with adaptive management, to deal with effects that

are uncertain at the time the decision is made on a resource consent

application”. Mr Percy notes that there is useful guidance around

the structure and content of management plan conditions provided

in the Transmission Gully decision.11 I agree: to that end, in

preparing the conditions, the current structure and content of the

proposed management plans was informed by the Transmission

Gully decision.

85 At paragraph 55, Mr Percy states that where there is a heavy

reliance on management plans and adaptive management, the full

extent and magnitude of potential adverse effects should be

understood at the time the decision is made on a resource consent.

Mr Percy also states that the applicant should have adequate

measures available to avoid, remedy or mitigate those potential

effects should they eventuate, citing in particular the availability of

adequate areas for offset mitigation.

86 I have addressed this matter at paragraph 70 earlier in my rebuttal

statement, noting that it is not always possible to know the full

extent of potential effects given the complexity of the systems

involved. In respect of management plans, these are a common

11 Paragraphs 183 – 187, Volume 1 of Final Report and Decision of the Board of

Inquiry into the Transmission Gully Proposal dated June 2012.

19

042590992/1603065

tool for responding to effects when a greater level of understanding

is achieved through final design and site investigations, particularly

for large projects constructed on a staged basis. Transmission Gully

is a recent example.

87 To the extent that Mr Percy is suggesting this, I would not agree

that there is an undue reliance on adaptive management, in

managing effects. Adaptive management approaches are proposed

to be applied in areas where full knowledge of the effects cannot be

ascertained at this stage. In particular, this is the case for

groundwater changes because of the complexities of the geo-

hydrological systems. Where there are areas of certainty, the

technical assessments have been undertaken on a conservative

basis, and thus provide a scale of effects that are likely to tend to

overestimate the effects. In my opinion, however, drawing on the

NZTA rebuttal evidence, I consider that there there is sufficient

information at this stage about the actual and potential adverse

effects to enable an overall understanding about the effects of the

Project and hence determine appropriate controls by conditions.

88 As is addressed in the rebuttal evidence of Messrs Park and Fuller,

all proposed ecological mitigation is to occur within the proposed

designation or, in the case of restoration work on the Kakariki

Stream, on land controlled by the NZTA. While the final details of

the mitigation cannot be determined at this stage, the general

nature of the mitigation has been outlined in the draft EMP

(Appendix M of the CEMP) and in Section 11 of the Ecological

Impact Assessment (TR26), and involves accepted ecological

restoration, transplanting and planting techniques. The nature of

the planting is outlined in the Assessment of Landscape and Visual

Effects (TR7). The rebuttal evidence of Mr Park confirms that there

is more than adequate potential opportunity for further ecological

mitigation within the designation should a need arise.12

Consent conditions: Management plan structure

89 Mr Percy seeks clarification (at paragraph 58) regarding the intent

around the two tiers of management plan for the Project to assist in

drafting appropriate conditions. In particular, he refers to his

understanding that there may be ‘third tier’ management plans,

citing the Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Plans

(CESCPs) and Chemical Treatment Plans (CTPs) as examples.

Mr Percy seeks to clarify the role of these.

90 In my opinion, these plans are best described as elements of the

overall Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP). However, I

confirm that the intended approach is that the CESCP for each stage

becomes an amendment to the overall Erosion and Sediment

Control Plan.

12 Paragraphs 62-64, Park rebuttal evidence.

20

042590992/1603065

91 Linked to this point, Mr Percy seeks clarification that each of the

second tier management plans will be updated as necessary as each

stage is developed, and that any amendments for certification will

be submitted to GWRC prior to implementation of the amendments

(paragraph 59).

92 I agree that this is the intention and suggest that this be clarified

via conditions as recommended by Mr Percy.

Consent conditions: certification vs approval

93 At paragraphs 62-64, Mr Percy states that he is generally

comfortable with the decision on the Transmission Gully proposal on

what ‘certification’ entails. 13 Mr Percy asks for clarification in

whether this is what the NZTA expects for this Project.

94 I confirm that this is consistent with my expectations of certification.

Consent conditions: responsibilities for certification of

management plans

95 At paragraph 66, Mr Percy states his general agreement with the

division of responsibilities for certification between KCDC and GWRC

proposed and outlined in my EIC. However, he has a number of

comments that I will now address in relation to certification for the

following management plans:

95.1 Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP);

95.2 Ecological Management Plan (EMP);

95.3 Contaminated Soils and Groundwater Management Plan

(CSGMP); and

95.4 Sediment Effects Management Plan (SEMP).

96 Firstly, I respond concerning the CEMP.

97 Mr Percy suggests that, given the overlap of matters covered, the

CEMP should be certified by KCDC as well. Mr Percy observes that

the Transmission Gully Board of Inquiry decided that dual

certification was appropriate and argues that the same rationale

applies in that the CEMP contains matters that impinge on the

jurisdiction of both the territorial and regional authorities.14

98 Alternatively, if sole certification by GWRC is preferred, Mr Percy

suggests that GWRC will need sufficient time to seek KCDC’s input

into relevant aspects of the CEMP during that certification process.

13 Refer to paragraph 197, Volume 1 of the final report and decision of the Board of

Inquiry into the Transmission Gully Proposal dated June 2012.

14 Refer to paragraph 1058 of Volume 1 of the final report and decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Transmission Gully Proposal dated June 2012.

21

042590992/1603065

99 It is my preference to avoid having two local authorities certify

management plans, due to the overlapping jurisdictional issues this

would raise. In my opinion, it is important that there be one

certifying authority that is subsequently responsible for compliance

and enforcement. Dual certification is not necessary and creates

confusion as to responsibility for compliance and enforcement, as

well as potential unjustified cost and delay. For instance, this could

occur where there is disagreement between the authorities over the

methods proposed under a management plan.

100 The proposed allocation of certification authority has been based on

the relevant RMA functional responsibilities and the consenting

authority to which the management plans relate: i.e., the principal

RMA matter to which the Management Plan relates.

101 While I acknowledge there are some overlapping interests, I

consider that it is important that there be one primary authority

responsible for certifying, compliance and enforcement. What is

proposed is, in my view, appropriately accord with the RMA. Any

interests of the other council can be accommodated through the

proposed consultation process set out in the proposed conditions.

102 Furthermore, the matters for certification are generally sufficiently

enough separated that they are able to be distinguished according

to the most appropriate local authority. Where there is value having

the other local authority having input into a Management Plan (such

as KCDC having input into the Ecological Management Plan), it is

intended to provide that local authority with the ability to provide

input into the draft management plan through a consultation

process. In my opinion, this process is adequate to address

overlapping interests.

103 As to the certification of the EMP, I disagree with Mr Percy

(paragraph 70) that there is sufficient overlap between both

regional and territorial jurisdictions to require dual certification.

104 The matters which the EMP addresses concern the regional council’s

responsibilities under s30(1)(ga)15 for managing indigenous

biodiversity. The proposed ecological mitigation is in direct

response to aspects of the Project that require regional consents,

again the administrative and enforcement responsibility of GWRC.

For those reasons, I consider that the GWRC is the most appropriate

certifying authority for the EMP. Such areas of mitigation are

relatively discrete and well delineated (refer to the EIC of Mr

Fuller).

105 The position is the converse with the Landscape Management Plan

(LMP).

15 S30(1)(ga): the establishment, implementation, and review of objectives,

policies, and methods for maintaining indigenous biological diversity.

22

042590992/1603065

106 The primary purpose of the proposed landscape treatment under the

LMP is to address matters that are the primary responsibility of the

territorial local authority (KCDC) in regard to the mitigation of visual

and amenity effects. Requiring and enforcing landscape treatment

to mitigate the effects of subdivision and land development is a

standard element of the role of the territorial local authority in

managing subdivision and development. To this end, I consider that

the KCDC is the appropriate certifying authority for the LMP, not the

GWRC. Again, the ecological benefits of landscape planting are a

secondary purpose, and the interest of the GWRC on this aspect is

proposed to be provided for through a consultation process on the

draft LMP.

107 At paragraph 71, Mr Percy expresses his opinion that the CSGMP

should be certified by both GWRC and KCDC given that it covers

contaminated soils and groundwater management and these

matters are of functional relevance to both councils. As outlined in

the evidence of Dr Kerry Laing, it is proposed to require a separate

Contaminated Soils Management Plan (CSMP(HH)) in relation to the

responsibilities of the KCDC under the NES (viz human health).

108 Mr Percy notes that the KCDC consent for contaminated soil

disturbance requires preparation of a Contaminated Soils

Management Plan (Human Health) (CSMP(HH)). A draft of that Plan

is attached to the rebuttal evidence of Dr Laing.

109 Again, the certification process is aligned to the RMA functional

responsibilities: the CSGMP is related to the regional consents

required under the Discharges to Land Regional Plan, and addresses

the potential environmental effects of the discharge of contaminants

arising from the construction of the proposed Expressway. The

certification of the CSMP(HH) is related to the land use consent that

comes under the jurisdiction of the KCDC under the NES, and

addresses the potential risks to human health.

110 The other plan which Mr Percy questions the matter of certification

is the SEMP.

111 At paragraph 72, Mr Percy suggests that further discussion is

required with KCDC regarding responsibilities for certifying the SEMP

and enforcing ground settlement resource consent conditions E.12 –

E.23.

112 In regard to this management plan, I acknowledge there is some

overlap in jurisdictional interests: the GWRC was identified as the

most appropriate certifying authority, given that the Management

Plan derives from regional consents in relation to groundwater and

the GWRC has the technical expertise required to address this

aspect. However, the effects of potential settlement relate to

properties near the designation, and may therefore be better

addressed by KCDC. Ultimately, some agreement could be obtained

23

042590992/1603065

from the two local authorities as to which Council should be the

most appropriate certifying authority.

Effects’ assessment and mitigation

113 At paragraphs 73 to 87, Mr Percy reiterates statements made by

other witnesses on behalf of GWRC that he considers of concern as

they relate to of the assessment of effects and mitigation. The

relevant NZTA experts address these concerns through their rebuttal

evidence. However, there are two key points I make in response to

Mr Percy’s evidence on these matters.

114 Firstly, Mr Percy cites Mr Porteous’ position that, as a result of

applying inappropriate criteria for assessing ecological significance,

the application has underestimated the total area of ecologically

significant wetlands directly and potentially affected (paragraphs 75

and 76). Mr Percy also reiterates Mr Porteous’ position that the

proposed mitigation and offsetting regime is not based on current

best practice and, as a result, a lesser area than might otherwise be

the case is proposed for mitigation and offsetting.

115 I consider these matters have been sufficiently canvassed in the

rebuttal evidence of Mr Park, Mr Fuller, Dr Keesing,

Ms Williams, Mr Ridley and Mr Levy, including clarification that

there is sufficient mitigation available within the designation to

address potential wetland loss (in relation to paragraphs 77 and 78

of Mr Percy’s evidence). In particular, Messrs Park and Fuller

respond to Mr Porteous’ criticism in some detail in their rebuttal

statements of evidence, identifying the main sources of differences

between the areas calculated for affected wetlands and for

ecological mitigation.

116 However, I will take this opportunity to reiterate my opinion that the

Project does not trigger a requirement for biodiversity offsetting.

This is in view of the highly modified nature of the terrestrial habitat

potentially affected by the Project and the assessment of the NZTA’s

ecologists that there is sufficient mitigation for potential habitat loss

within the proposed designation. Consistent with the Transmission

Gully decision, a range of environmental compensation ratios were

used to determine mitigation that reflected the value of the habitat

being lost.

117 On this matter, I also note that a core focus of the MCA and

alignment selection process was the avoidance of significant

indigenous vegetation and habitat. Most of the wetland directly

affected by the proposal is degraded or in a highly modified state

(for example, wet grazed pasture).

Discharges - section 107 RMA

118 At paragraph 89, Mr Percy states that the s107 assessment should

not be limited to the two restrictions of relevance to the discharges

proposed. Mr Percy suggests that other effects on the receiving

24

042590992/1603065

environment listed under s107(1) may also eventuate if not

appropriately managed – and cites those under s107(1)(c) - the

production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scums or foams,

or floatable or suspended materials. I understand that the design of

the proposed stormwater management systems would meet this

statutory requirement.

119 At paragraph 91, Mr Percy seeks clarity as to my reference at

paragraph 290.3 of my EIC to a ‘1 in 10 year event’ compared to

the draft Erosion and Sediment Control Plan requirement that

sediment control devices have been designed to treat runoff up to

the 1 in 2 year event. This was simply an error and I accept

Mr Percy’s correction.

Sharon Lee, Parks

120 In paragraphs 7 to 9 of her evidence, Ms Lee outlines her opposition

to the proposed temporary designation of the area currently used by

Goodman Contractors Limited as a clean fill operation in accordance

with a licence to occupy with the GWRC.

121 As outlined in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Andrew Goldie, it is

proposed to use this area during the construction of the southern

end of the proposed Expressway in conjunction with the main site

yard adjoining the proposed Poplar Avenue Interchange. I

understand that it is intended that, once construction is complete,

the site would be contoured, topsoiled and restored to pasture land,

in the same manner as is required under the licence conditions to

Goodman Contractors Limited in regard to its cleanfill operations.

122 The designation is necessary to authorise such work to occur as part

of the Project and therefore I consider that it satisfies the RMA’s

purposes and should be retained. However, there is an opportunity

to reduce the total area of this part of the designation to what would

be actively used during construction (i.e. the worked area shown on

the aerial photograph in Appendix 1 of Ms Lee’s evidence, and the

access from Poplar Avenue to that area).

123 I would support the imposition of a condition on this part of the

designation in terms of ensuring that the land is restored to

pastureland upon completion of activity on the site.

Tim Porteous, Indigenous Biodiversity

124 Mr Porteous addresses the effects of the proposed Expressway on

indigenous biodiversity, including the significance of the affected

wetlands, with reference to Policy 22 of the PWRPS.

125 Dr Keesing, and Messrs Park and Fuller address Mr Porteous’

evidence in their rebuttal evidence. In particular, they explain why

they do not consider that there has been an underestimation of the

area of significant indigenous ecosystems and habitats adversely

25

042590992/1603065

affected by the proposal or an underestimation of the total area

required for mitigation as a result of their application of Policy 22.

126 I address the matter Mr Porteous raises in relation to PWRPS Policy

22 from a planning perspective. Drawing on the expert rebuttal

evidence, I am satisfied that all areas of significant indigenous

biodiversity and habitat potentially affected by the proposal have

been identified and appropriately assessed, and the level of

mitigation is appropriate.

127 I would first note that Policy 22 (as appended to Mr Porteous’

evidence) has not yet been confirmed – I understand a draft

consent order is currently before the Environment Court.

Furthermore, at the time the ecological assessments were

undertaken, there was uncertainty as to the final outcome of the

appeals on this policy.

128 Policy 22 is directed at the preparation of district and regional plans.

It is not intended to apply to specific projects and development

proposals or to apply to a particular regulatory mechanism (i.e., the

criteria are not associated with a particular rule(s)). However,

Policy 22 has relevance to the consideration of this Project because

of Policy 46.

129 Policy 46 sets out the matters to be considered in managing the

effects on indigenous ecosystems and habitats with significant

indigenous biodiversity values when considering a resource consent

application, a Notice of Requirement or change to a Plan. Policy 46

itself does not refer to Policy 22 – indeed it is silent on that.

However the associated explanation to Policy 46 states that “in

determining whether an activity may affect significant indigenous

biodiversity values, the criteria in Policy 22 should be used” (page

165). In other words, this explanatory text includes a strong

directive to use Policy 22, but it is not a mandatory requirement of

the Policy itself. The explanation further states that “this policy

shall cease to have effect once policies 22 and 23 are in place in an

operative district or regional plan”.

130 The purpose of Policy 22 is to provide a broad directive to local

authorities in preparing their plans. In their rebuttal evidence,

Mr Fuller, Mr Park and Dr Keesing identify a number of issues

with using Policy 22 as a basis for ecological assessment, including

its coarseness for determining significance. Aside from issues

relating to the criteria themselves as appropriate identifiers of

significance, other factors would need to be applied to provide some

further direction. In particular, given my experience with the

interpretation issues of ecological assessment criteria in statutory

plans under the RMA to date, I would expect that the process for

identifying ecological significance in a Plan would set some further

guidance or thresholds to assist in the assessment of habitat types,

size and other factors. Accordingly, Policy 22 is a very blunt tool to

determine significance, and does not greatly assist in considering

26

042590992/1603065

the effects of this Project, nor the mitigation required to address

such effects. The rebuttal evidence of Mr Fuller, Mr Park and Dr

Keesing also addresses this matter in greater detail.

131 The second key point in respect of Mr Porteous’ evidence is in

regard to his contention that the NZTA should be providing

ecological mitigation for every wetland within 200m of the proposed

Expressway. Putting aside the point that these wetlands vary

considerably in the vegetation communities present (as outlined by

Mr Park), the purpose of applying the adaptive management

approach to wetlands (which is supported by the GWRC) is to avoid

or remedy adverse effects on wetlands through monitoring

hydrological conditions, primarily by responding to any potential

adverse changes “at source” – i.e., by modifying hydrological

processes as necessary. Given the inherent uncertainty in potential

Project related groundwater effects on these wetland systems

(which is acknowledged by GWRC), this monitoring and adaptive

management approach is, in my opinion, a reasonable and

appropriate response.

132 In addition, while hydrological and groundwater conditions upstream

or downstream may be altered by the proposed Expressway, such

changes need not be adverse. This is particularly if the changes are

of a minor scale (and such changes will reduce with distance from

the Expressway) and can be suitably remedied or avoided through

adaptive management.

133 For these reasons, I consider it would be unreasonable to require

the mitigation of potential adverse hydrological effects on wetlands

that may be suitably managed under the proposed adaptive

management regime. I would accept, however, a process for

determining appropriate mitigation in conjunction with GWRC,

should any permanent adverse effects on wetlands occur that

cannot otherwise be avoided or remedied. There is considerable

scope within the designation to identify further areas for ecological

enhancement if necessary. Mr Park addresses this in his rebuttal

evidence.

NZ HISTORIC PLACES TRUST [647]

Sacha Walters, Planning

134 In paragraph 12, Ms Walters describes the responsibilities of her

employer, the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, under the HPA “to

promote the identification, protection, preservation, and

conservation of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand”.

Her description appears to be a distillation of the five functions of

the Trust under s39 of the Historic Places Act 1993, which include

“(b) to advocate the conservation and protection of wāhi tapu, wāhi

tapu areas, historic places, and historic areas”.

135 In this respect, in reading Ms Walters’ evidence in its entirety, it

would appear that her evidence is focused on addressing these

27

042590992/1603065

particular functions, rather than providing an overall consideration

and weighing of all relevant matters under the RMA. This focus has,

in my opinion, resulted in her evidence giving undue weight to

cultural heritage aspects over other considerations that are relevant

to assessing the Project under Part 2 of the RMA.

Effects and alternative routes assessment and proposed

mitigation

136 In paragraph 19, Ms Walters asserts that “the proposed mitigation is

not commensurate to address the effects of the proposed

Expressway on the Takamore wāhi tapu area,” but she does not

explain what kinds of measures she would consider as being

commensurate. This contention is repeated later in her evidence in

regard to mitigation (for example, paragraphs 51 and 67).

137 In paragraphs 39-45, Ms Walters briefly discusses the process that

was undertaken by the NZTA in assessing other route options

between MacKays Crossing and Peka Peka. She concludes (in

paragraph 44) that she is not convinced that NZTA took into account

the matters of national significance in sections 6(e) and (f) of the

RMA.

138 In this respect, as the manager of the alternative routes assessment

process, I can confirm that all potential matters of national

significance were taken into account in determining the appropriate

criteria to use in the MCA process, including any effects in regard to

sections 6(e) and (f). Dr James Bentley and Mr Amos Kamo also

address Ms Walters’ contention in their rebuttal evidence.

139 I would emphasise that the purpose of the MCA was to provide a

means by which a comprehensive and explicit assessment of the

options could be made against all the relevant RMA considerations,

including all relevant section 6 matters.

Matters of national importance

140 In relation to section 6, it is important to recognise that each

individual matter is not an ‘absolute’, but instead is a consideration

to be recognised and weighed in a broad assessment of a proposal

under Part 2 RMA.

141 I would make this same comment in relation to Ms Walters’

criticisms of the statutory assessment provided in the AEE

(paragraphs 117 to 130).

142 I would also note that many of the matters under section 6 are not

absolutes in relation to ‘protection/preservation’, but must be

considered having regard to the appropriateness of any particular

development proposal.

143 Appropriateness must be determined having regard to a range of

factors, including the benefits of a proposal and the options

28

042590992/1603065

available for avoiding or mitigating adverse effects. In relation to

this Project, I would highlight that, along the route between

MacKays Crossing and Peka Peka, there are several sections where

alignment choices have been severely constrained by residential

development that has occurred on either side of the roading corridor

established in the 1950s, including the Te Moana Road – Waikanae

River sector. Ms Walters has not addressed this wider consideration

in her evidence, but rather concludes that, because the proposed

Expressway will have adverse effects on the cultural heritage values

of the Takamore wāhi tapu and wider area, it is therefore, by

default, inappropriate.

Extent of efforts to avoid effects

144 In paragraphs 46-48 of her evidence, Ms Walters discusses the

statement in the AEE that "NZTA has sought, as far as practicable,

to avoid affecting sites of significance to tangata whenua in

developing the final alignment and the design of the proposed

Expressway". Ms Walters states that the phrase ‘as far as

practicable’ “infers that compromises have to be made, which are

not in favour of the subject resource” (paragraph 48).

145 Ms Walters is correct to the extent that the process of making

decisions on the route, alignment and design of roads inevitably

does involve making choices that will affect one area or resource.

In accordance with the project objectives, every effort was made

throughout the option development process to avoid sites/areas of

identified cultural value, as it was in relation to other resources or

values of significance under Part 2 within the corridor between the

coastal and inland communities; but there are practicable limits to

the ability to avoid all impacts on all resources and areas of

significant values.

146 In paragraph 49, Ms Walters states that “in my opinion, NZTA has

placed more weight on the economic and social concerns than

cultural concerns when making its decision on the final alignment of

the proposed Expressway”. As outlined in the rebuttal evidence of

Dr Bentley on this aspect, the decision-making on the final

alignment in this sector of the proposed Expressway gave weight to

all relevant matters, including the potential adverse effects on

cultural heritage values of the Takamore wāhi tapu area.

147 Ms Walters’ states (in paragraph 51) that she does not “believe all

of the effects [of the proposal] on the Takamore wāhi tapu area and

wider cultural precinct will be mitigated”. With respect, I do not

consider that, in relation to effects on cultural heritage values, there

is any measurable means of ascertaining whether the effects have

been ‘fully mitigated’. The concepts of recognising and providing for

the relationship (s6(e) and of giving particular regard to

kaitiakitanga are necessarily matters of degree. It is for this reason

that the AEE specifically does not state that all of the effects on

cultural heritage values can or ever would be fully mitigated.

29

042590992/1603065

148 As Ms Walters observes in her paragraph 64, I accept that some of

the effects of the proposed Expressway will not be able to be fully

avoided, notwithstanding the proposed mitigation. For example,

while it is proposed to use OGPA and bunds in this vicinity to

mitigate the effects of traffic noise, the introduction of a greater

level of traffic noise into this vicinity would be unavoidable. In this

respect, there are practicable limits to the ability to provide full

mitigation to directly address all effects, particularly in regard to the

intangible effects on cultural heritage values.

149 As Ms Walters outlines in her following paragraphs, a range of

measures have been proposed, many of which have been part of

discussions with the Takamore Trust. While a number of measures

are a confirmed part of the form and design of the proposed

Expressway (in particular, ecological restoration and landscape

treatment), other measures have been the subject of discussions

with the Takamore Trust. Dr Bentley confirms in his rebuttal

evidence that the NZTA is committed to providing appropriate

outcomes for the Takamore Trust. The key purpose of these

measures is to address the relationship of the Trust (and wider iwi)

with the wāhi tapu, in recognition of section 6(e). I will discuss

cultural mitigation and how it can be achieved through the

designation process later in my evidence.

Comparison with WLR

150 In paragraphs 68 to 74, Ms Walters provides a comparison between

the proposed Expressway and the Western Link Road designations in

regard to their alignment through the Takamore wāhi tapu area.

While I accept that there are some key differences between the two

projects, I consider that Ms Walters underestimates the effects of

constructing an arterial road through the core of the wāhi tapu, a

concern that was clearly articulated to the NZTA by the Takamore

Trust.

Proposed Wellington Regional Policy Statement

151 In paragraphs 75 to 95, Ms Walters outlines what she considers to

be deficiencies in the statutory assessment of the Project in respect

of the proposed Wellington Regional Policy Statement (PWRPS), in

regard to objective 15 and Policy 45. Objective 15 is that “historic

heritage is identified and protected from inappropriate modification,

use and development”, while Policy 45 sets out criteria for

considering the effects of activity on historic heritage values for

resource consent applications, notices of requirement and plan

changes.

152 Policy 45 is set out below with an analysis of the Project [in

brackets] against its provisions [underlined]:

Policy 45: Managing effects on historic heritage values –

consideration

30

042590992/1603065

When considering an application for a resource consent, notice of

requirement, or a change, variation or replacement or review of a

district or regional plan, a determination shall be made as to

whether an activity may affect a place, site or area with historic

heritage value [an assessment was undertaken, concluding that

the Project will have effects on the area], and in determining

whether an activity is inappropriate particular regard shall be

given to [i.e., the criteria listed are factors to be given regard to

in determining appropriateness but are not themselves

determinative of the question]:

(a) the degree to which historic heritage values will be lost,

damaged or destroyed [this has been assessed insofar as it is

realistically possible – it is acknowledged that the cultural

heritage values of the area will be damaged, and that the

archaeological resource is largely unknown];

(b) the irreversibility of adverse effects on heritage values [the

irreversibility of the adverse effects on the area’s heritage

values is acknowledged, noting that such effects would occur

for any roading option through this area];

(c) the opportunities to remedy or mitigate any previous damage

to heritage values [the alignment chosen sought to reduce

the effects on the area compared with previous roading

alignments];

(d) the degree to which previous changes that have heritage

value in their own right are respected and retained [not

relevant];

(e) the probability of damage to immediate or adjacent heritage

values [taken into account in terms of the effects on cultural

heritage values from the presence of the proposed

Expressway in the area, and in terms of the mitigation

proposed, including the mitigation proposals that I discuss

later];

(f) the magnitude or scale of any effect on heritage values [the

magnitude/scale of the effects identified through the Cultural

Impact Assessment];

(g) the degree to which unique or special materials and/or

craftsmanship are retained [not relevant];

(h) whether the activity will lead to cumulative adverse effects on

historic heritage [the effects of the proposed Expressway

would be cumulative on the overall cultural heritage values of

the area, given the development of the area, including the

natural gas pipeline, roading and residential development and

subdivision; the alignment chosen sought to reduce the

potential cumulative effects]; and

31

042590992/1603065

(i) whether the relationships between distinct elements of an

historic place, site or area will be maintained [although the

alignment chosen sought to minimise disrupting the

relationship between the different ‘elements’ of the wāhi tapu

area, the proposed Expressway will lessen the relationship of

between the various ‘elements’ of the area; the proposed

mitigation I discuss later seeks to offset this].

153 It is not clear what Ms Walters means when she states her view that

the Expressway does not meet the ‘intent’ of Policy 45 of the PWRPS

(paragraph 84). The Policy is a guide to decision-makers as to the

effects of activities on historic heritage values and whether such

activities may be inappropriate. This policy cannot and should not be

considered in isolation of other matters that are relevant in

determining the appropriateness or otherwise of an activity that

affected historic heritage values; otherwise any effects on historic

heritage values could be deemed inappropriate. That would not be

the intent of this policy.

154 However, even if I were to accept Ms Walter’s view (which I do not),

this policy is but one of many objectives and policies that must be

considered, in weighing and coming to an overall balanced

consideration of the proposal. For example, Policies 6 and 38 of the

PWRPS seek to recognise the benefits from regionally significant

infrastructure, which includes State highways. The benefits of the

proposed Expressway should contribute towards any consideration

of the appropriateness of the activity. The limited options for

determining an appropriate alignment through this area should also

be a consideration, bearing in mind that the decision needs to take

into account a wide range of factors, as occurred under the MCA

process.

155 In relation to paragraph 80 of Ms Walters evidence, while the

Takamore wāhi tapu was not specifically identified in regard to

Policy 45, the Takamore wāhi tapu is clearly identified as being

registered/scheduled by both NZHPT and KCDC in the final

paragraph of s.13.2.1 Maori occupation and settlement (pg.361) of

the AEE, and reference made to the potential impacts and

associated mitigation in Chapter 14 – Tangata Whenua Cultural

Heritage. The area is also specifically identified in s.14.2.2.3 –

Schedule of significant sites and places (pg.372). The effects on the

historic heritage values of the Takamore wāhi tapu are also

specifically addressed on page 760 of the AEE in relation to section

6(f) RMA.

156 In regard to paragraphs 94-95 of Ms Walters’ evidence, the

statutory assessment in the AEE (at some 59 pages) is, by

necessity, relatively brief, given the numerous plans, policies and

strategies that need to be considered. Such brevity does not, in my

opinion, alter the overall conclusions when all the objectives and

policies of relevance to the Project are considered ‘in the round’. As

outlined in the rebuttal of Dr Bentley and Mr Kamo, the effects on

32

042590992/1603065

the cultural heritage values of the wāhi tapu area were clearly not

“ignored” in the assessment of the Project.

Kāpiti Coast District Plan objectives and policies

157 In paragraphs 96 to 116 of her evidence, Ms Walters addresses the

provisions of the Kāpiti Coast District Plan. In regard to paragraph

102, I note that, although protection of wāhi tapu sites and taonga

is not specifically mentioned in the AEE relation to Policy C6.1.1.4,

measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate effects on tangata whenua

are outlined in section 14.4 (page 382) of the AEE.

158 In paragraph 106, Ms Walters refers to the assessment criteria set

out in Policy 2 in Section C.8.2 of the District Plan (page C8 – 2)

when considering the destruction, demolition, alteration,

modification or removal of any heritage feature recorded in the

Heritage Register (including wāhi tapu). In my opinion, it is

problematic to determine whether any proposal is consistent or

otherwise with Policy 2, as it is simply a list of criteria to take into

account. However, in determining the alignment and design of the

Project in the Takamore wāhi tapu area, I can confirm that the

relevant matters in Policy 2 were taken into account, including the

necessity for carrying out the work, the degree to which the activity

detracts from the integrity/value of the Takamore wāhi tapu area

and whether the Project could be altered to preserve its integrity.

159 In paragraphs 107 to 113, Ms Walters also makes reference to

Objective C8.2 and Policy C8.2.1, which relate to managing the

effects of subdivision and development on the heritage values of

adjacent heritage resources. I would highlight that Policy C8.2.1

relates to the subdivision of heritage sites, and that no subdivision is

proposed under the application before the Board. Notwithstanding

that matter, the relationship of the proposed Expressway with areas

and items of historic heritage value within the vicinity of the road

was recognised and addressed throughout the MCA and subsequent

assessments. Accordingly, I disagree with Ms Walters’ opinion that

the proposed Expressway is contrary to this objective and policy.

Matters of national importance and Part 2

160 Paragraphs 117 to 130 of Ms Walters’ evidence address matters of

national importance under Part 2 of the RMA. In paragraphs 125-

126, Ms Walters states that she is not convinced NZTA’s final route

selection took into account and explicitly provided for the matters of

national importance in section 6(e) and (f). As I outlined above (in

paragraph 137) in regard to a similar point made in paragraph 44, I

can confirm that section 6(e) and (f) matters were addressed during

route selection through the assessment of RMA related outcomes

that formed a core component of the MCA process. A description of

these outcomes is set out in Table 9.1 of the AEE (page 229), with

the outcome of the assessment process outlined in Table 9.7 –

Effects outcomes (page 233). The scores set out in Table 9.7 were

subject to further sensitivity testing, the results of which are

33

042590992/1603065

outlined in s.9.4.6.10 (page 234). These results are supplemented

by the information contained in Vol.1 of the Alternative Route

Options Report.

161 In paragraph 128, Ms Walters makes an assertion that “recognising

and providing for matters of national significance under s6 often

becomes a ‘rubber stamp’ exercise, where planners simply allude to

the fact that it has been considered in the assessment of effects” (a

similar assertion is made in paragraph 132). She then helpfully

outlines what decision-makers should do when assessing Māori

relationship with an area, and contends that NZTA failed to fully

identify think about and recognise the relationship of Māori with the

area and that NZTA did not go far enough to provide for this

relationship.

162 As the principal planner involved with the MCA process and as

author of the statutory assessment, I can also confirm the

relationship Māori have with the area was fully recognised from the

start of the Project, and taken into account throughout route,

alignment and design development phases. I would note that, in

1997-1998, I was engaged by the KCDC to assist in assessing and

reporting on the Notice of Requirement for the Western Link Road. I

was therefore very familiar with the cultural heritage values

associated with the Takamore wāhi tapu area.

163 In regard to providing for the relationship, I consider that NZTA’s

commitment to carrying out cultural mitigation (as I discuss later) is

a significant and practical measure for recognising the relationship.

Cultural well-being benefits

164 In paragraphs 134 to 139 of her evidence, Ms Walters states that no

benefits of the Project in respect of cultural well-being have been

identified. While such benefits were not specifically listed on page

758 of the AEE (in regard to s5 RMA), the improved accessibility and

connectivity that would be brought about by the Project would assist

the wider community in engaging in social activities. The proposed

mitigation will enable iwi to provide for their cultural well-being

through improvements to water quality, native planting and

wetland/stream restoration, cultural heritage/ecological

interpretation and the provision of legal access to the Takamore

urupā.

Takamore wāhi tapu registration

165 In paragraph 142, Ms Walters states that the AEE does not

specifically recognise the registration of the Takamore wāhi tapu as

an ‘other matter’ under section 104(1)(c), which relates to the

considerations of resource consent applications. Unlike section

74(2) of the RMA (matters to be considered in preparing District

Plans), there is no specific reference in s104 to having regard to

relevant entries in the Historic Places Register. Equally, section

104(1)(c) provides consent authorities with a discretion as to the

34

042590992/1603065

nature of any additional matters they consider to be relevant and

necessary to determining an application. The registered wāhi tapu

was a factor that was considered, although more directly in relation

to section 6 matters rather than specifically section 104(1)(c) as an

“other matter”.

166 In her concluding paragraph (147), Ms Walters states that, in her

view, the proposed Expressway “passing through the registered

Takamore wāhi tapu is incompatible with its values as a wāhi tapu

area registered under the HPA”. In my opinion, while it would be

preferable to be able to fully avoid the registered wāhi tapu, I would

not agree that the proposed Expressway is incompatible with the

wāhi tapu. Roads coexist with wāhi tapu in other parts of the

country (for example, the Waikato Expressway passes through the

Rangiriri vicinity, an area of significant cultural heritage values).

More importantly, I would highlight that the currently registered

Takamore wāhi tapu was established at the time (1995) a motorway

designation had traversed the area for 40 years, while the proposed

extension of the wāhi tapu includes both the WLR designation and

the proposed Expressway designation.16

Conclusion

167 I am satisfied that the proposed alignment, through the corner of

the registered wāhi tapu, is the most practicable having regard to all

considerations, noting that the wāhi tapu covers the area between

the coastal and inland residential suburbs of Waikanae. The

alignment seeks to reduce the total footprint of the Expressway in

the wāhi tapu (compared to the WLR), while avoiding directly

impacting on the key cultural features.

SAVE KĀPITI INC [505]

Max Dunn, Planning

168 In paragraph 21 of his evidence, Mr Dunn expresses concern that

the other expert evidence cited in my EIC at paragraph 55 “does not

actually ‘demonstrate’ how the designation ‘achieves’ the NZTA

objectives”. My reference to paragraph 67 of Mr Roderick James’

EIC was specifically to avoid repeating the project objectives, which

are fully outlined in Mr James’ evidence.

169 I then set out in the following sub-paragraphs the particular ways in

which the designation would deliver the Project Objectives. In

paragraph 56, drawing on those outcomes, I conclude that the

proposed designation would enable the construction and operation

of this section of State Highway 1 to expressway standards as well

as the ancillary work.

16 This was acknowledged by the NZHPT in a letter to the NZTA in regard to the

review of the registration of the Takamore wāhi tapu area; attached as Annexure 1 in Mr James’s rebuttal evidence.

35

042590992/1603065

170 In paragraphs 28-40 of his evidence, Mr Dunn addresses the section

171(1)(b) provision requiring an adequate consideration of

alternatives, and then refers to the evidence of the NZTA that

addresses this consideration. I do not disagree with most of his

points, but observe that Mr Dunn appears to be relying on the EIC

of the NZTA’s experts rather than also referring to the AEE and

associated technical reports. For example, in paragraph 37 he

refers to a lack of detail in my EIC in regard to the non-cost

advantages of the proposed route over the other route options that

were considered – this information is contained within Chapter 9 of

the AEE (pages 229-234). More detailed information is provided in

the Alternative Route Options Assessment report.17

171 Mr Dunn concludes (in paragraph 40) that, drawing on the evidence

of Messrs Lundy, McIndoe and Pekol, in his opinion, an adequate

analysis of alternatives has not been carried out by the NZTA. The

rebuttal evidence of Messrs Baily, Nancekivell and Murray

confirms my opinion that the consideration of alternative routes,

sites and methods that has been undertaken was robust and

adequate.

172 In paragraph 56, Mr Dunn comments that he was unable to find in

my EIC any particular consideration of the PWRPS provisions in my

paragraph 275. However, I noted in paragraph 265 that I had

undertaken a thorough assessment of the key relevant statutory

provisions in Chapter 35 of the AEE.

173 In paragraphs 65 to 79, Mr Dunn addresses the Kāpiti Coast District

Plan. In paragraph 65, he states that there was an omission in

regard to considering the Notice of Requirement against the relevant

provisions of the District Plan. However, in paragraph 265 of my

EIC, I refer generally to having assessed the Project (and not just

the resource consent applications) against the relevant objectives

and policies of the planning documents set out in paragraph 261,

which includes the District Plan. In paragraphs 370-373, I re-

address the Project against the provisions of the District Plan,

concluding that I see no reason to alter my overall conclusion

regarding the Project in respect of the District Plan.

174 In paragraph 69, Mr Dunn sets out a number of ‘key’ District Plan

issues that were identified in the KCDC Key Issues report. I note all

these issues have been addressed by the AEE and associated

technical reports, as well as by the relevant experts in their EIC. I

would also note that the KCDC supports the proposal in part subject

to the inclusion of further information refinements, or conditions

that deliver the outcomes sought in its submission.

17 MacKays Crossing to Peka Peka Expressway Alternatives Route Options Report,

Volume 1 (dated 11 November 2011) and supporting volumes 2 and 3 (dated 27 January 2011).

36

042590992/1603065

175 In paragraph 86 of his evidence, Mr Dunn states his view that the

negative “provisions” of the Project are of an “overriding nature” in

terms of a Part 2 RMA analysis. In paragraph 87, he refers to the

matters in section 7(b), (c) and (f), stating that the Save Kāpiti

evidence identifies several significant gaps and shortcomings. He

observes that in his view the “‘shortcomings’ are collectively of a

nature whereby the project will not give rise to ‘efficient’ transport

networks and economies, along with the ‘maintenance and

enhancement’ of ‘amenity values’ and ‘environmental quality’ of the

Kapiti coast area”.

176 Having reviewed the evidence of submitters, and having regard to

the rebuttal evidence of the NZTA’s experts, particularly Messrs

Murray, Evans and Baily, I am satisfied that the Project is

consistent with the purpose and principles of the RMA under Part 2,

and that the Project will deliver significant benefits, while avoiding

remedying or mitigating the adverse effects on the environment.

Dianne Buchan, social impact

177 Ms Meade Rose addresses Ms Buchan’s evidence in detail.

However, I respond to paragraph 32 of her evidence, where

Ms Buchan refers to the second phase of the alternatives routes

assessment that was undertaken in late 2010, stating that:

“Having announced and defended the preferred route in the press

for more than a year I find it hard to believe that the relative

environmental effects of each of the options (including the option

submitted by KCDC) were assessed with an open mind during

these exercises.”

178 As the planning manager of the MCA process that was applied to the

route options, I refute her assertion, for which she offers no factual

basis.

179 The purpose of the second phase of the alternative routes

assessment sought to ensure that the team of experts had

themselves the opportunity to review the route options, taking into

account the refinement of the Expressway concept (to have two

interchanges to service Paraparaumu and Waikanae, rather than

central interchange) as a result of traffic modelling. The team of

independent experts who participated in the MCA process18

undertook the analysis of the relative effects of each of the four

options without any reference to the previous work undertaken in

2009.

18 The assessment team included experts in such areas as archaeology, ecology,

landscape/visual assessment, traffic/transportation, water/air quality, cultural, noise, hydrology/stormwater, geotechnical, urban design, land contamination and vibration.

37

042590992/1603065

180 I am satisfied that this phase of the assessment was robust and

independent from previous decisions.19

James Lunday, urban design

181 In paragraphs 14 to 20 of his evidence, Mr Lunday sets out his

position statement, opposing the Expressway proposal, and noting

that he cannot support the Expressway project in its current location

“or indeed the concept of an expressway through the Kāpiti urban

district” (paragraph 19). In his rebuttal evidence, Mr Murray

addresses Mr Lunday’s evidence in respect of alternative

Expressway route options, while Mr Baily addresses Mr Lunday’s

evidence in respect of urban design matters.20

182 In paragraphs 52 to 59 of his evidence, Mr Lunday sets out a

summary of historical traffic studies, concluding that “the selection

of route and subsequent design appear to be driven entirely by

engineering concerns and a pre-determined preference for one of

the Options that does not meet the stated objectives of the Alliance,

nor does it meet the stated objectives of the GPS and NZTS”

(paragraph 59).

183 I would disagree with Mr Lunday in this regard, as the route,

alignment and design development process was driven by a

multidisciplinary design team which included urban design and

planning expertise, as well as traffic and roading engineers.

Engineering expertise provided input into the identification of

options that were feasible and complied with design standards,

which were challenged and tested by other experts as part of the

design process. The lead engineer for the route options assessment

was involved in supplying KCDC with engineering advice on route

options in 2009, contrary to Mr Lunday’s claim that the NZTA

consultant team did not “avail themselves of the benefit of that

work” (paragraph 58).

184 The objectives of the GPS and NZTS to which Mr Lunday refers (at

his paragraph 54) were integrated into the assessment process in

terms of developing the criteria that were used to assess the

options.

185 I would note that Mr Lunday makes no reference to the Project

Objectives that express the specific outcomes sought for the Project,

consistent with the overall RoNS objectives for Wellington’s northern

corridor. I would also reiterate that the WLR, to which much of Mr

Lunday’s evidence relates, does not meet the Project Objectives in

terms of upgrading the State highway to Expressway standards.

19 A summary of the alternative routes assessment process is provided in section

9.4 of the AEE.

20 Mr Kevin Brewer’s (NZTA’s urban design peer reviewer) rebuttal evidence was not available to me at the time of writing my rebuttal.

38

042590992/1603065

186 In paragraphs 99-102 of his evidence, Mr Lunday refers to an option

of upgrading State highway 1, in conjunction with the WLR. The

option of upgrading the existing State highway 1 to expressway

standards (in line with the Project Objectives) was considered in

developing feasible alternative routes in the assessment of

alternative route options, and several of the options included the

upgrade of the southern end of State Highway 1 to an expressway

level. However, the ability to upgrade the State highway to

Expressway standards is severely inhibited by the large number of

properties along the road and rail corridor, which would have to be

either acquired or would have to have alternative access roads

constructed.

187 In paragraph 111, Mr Lunday asserts that “residential sections of

the Highway in Waikanae have already anticipated a four-lane

National Arterial by being set back in preparation for the widening.”

He then contends that “a route can be struck through Paraparaumu

that avoids almost all dwellings. Whilst effects go beyond the road

requirement itself, but these are properties that already sit within

the effects area of a national road and rail corridor” (paragraph

112).

188 I disagree. As I outlined in paragraph 63 of my EIC, there was a

significant difference in the numbers of properties that were

estimated to be directly affected by the route options, including the

road rail/corridor to which Mr Lunday refers. The impact ranged

from 83 properties (with 19 buildings affected) for the route of the

proposed Expressway, compared with between 209 and 368

properties affected for the other route options (with between 127

and 241 buildings directly affected).

189 Mr Lunday appears to underestimate the property impacts arising

from the requirement to provide separate legal road access to

properties that currently have access to State highway 1. He may

also not take into account the property impacts arising from the

need to provide interchanges at Paraparaumu and Waikanae to

provide suitable access to local roading network (notwithstanding

that the concepts that were developed as part of the route options

assessment sought to locate and design interchanges that had the

minimal property impacts).

190 Furthermore, the ability to mitigate the effects of upgrading State

highway 1 to expressway standards, particularly visual and noise

impacts, would have created some major challenges without

widening the footprint to provide a buffer corridor as is provided

with the proposed Expressway. If a 100m wide corridor were to be

applied along the existing State highway 1, a considerably greater

number of properties would be required compared to the other route

options.

39

042590992/1603065

191 Overall, I remain satisfied that the alternative route options

assessment was robust and that the most appropriate option has

been chosen.

Graeme McIndoe, urban design

192 Mr Baily addresses Mr McIndoe’s evidence in more detail.21

However, there are a number of points I make in regard to Mr

McIndoe’s evidence.

193 In overall terms, Mr McIndoe’s evidence appears to be a critique of

expressways from an urban design perspective: he does not appear

to acknowledge the function and role of expressways as national

strategic highways. For example, in paragraph 19, Mr McIndoe

observes that roads in urban areas should be connectors not

dividers, stating that “the expressway precludes informal and formal

cross-connections, restricts potential for local centres to be located

at intersections where they benefit from the movement economy,

and can be expected to contribute to community severance due to

constraints on physical access across the route.”

194 In paragraph 16 of his evidence, Mr McIndoe asserts that a further

19 to 37 additional east-west connection roads are required to

ensure good level of connectivity. I would note that such

connectivity does not currently exist and, if were to be implemented

as part of the proposed Expressway project, it would require the

further acquisition of multiple properties to connect to the existing

road network, with changes to the local roading network and

consequent changes in road traffic patterns. Mr McIndoe does not

address this aspect in his evidence.

195 I would agree with Mr McIndoe that it is sound urban planning

practice to locate any high speed limited access regional arterial

close to or at the edge of urbanised areas. However, as I outlined

in my EIC (paragraph 325), there are significant topographical

constraints that effectively prevent any feasible option that would

route the proposed Expressway around to the east, and the Tasman

Sea prevents a western periphery option. From sound planning

practice, one purpose of routing major new grade separated limited

access arterial roads on the edge of urban areas is to avoid routing

arterials through town centres, which usually develop on historic

main roads.

196 I would also observe that, in rapidly growing urban areas where

expressways or motorways have been built on the periphery of

existing urban areas, often urban growth will ‘jump over’ and

continue to expand on the other side, as has happened at Manurewa

and Papakura in Auckland.

21 As noted, Mr Brewer’s rebuttal evidence was not available to me at the time of

writing my rebuttal

40

042590992/1603065

197 In paragraphs 143 to 152 of his evidence, Mr McIndoe addresses

the consideration of alternatives, concluding that he identifies

“potentially significant flaws in the option assessment” (paragraph

149). In his rebuttal evidence, Mr Baily addresses Mr McIndoe’s

comments. In addition, I would make the following points:

197.1 Many of the matters he lists as absent from the MCA

findings in paragraph 145 were considered in the

assessment of the options if they were pertinent – the table

to which he refers was a summary table and therefore

inevitably brief.

197.2 The evaluation of the level of service on local roads was

based on the existing local road network and any impact on

the current patterns of travel.

197.3 In regard to his suggestion that the visual relationship with

town centres is addressed in two different criteria (I

presume he refers to 2.1 visual impact and 2.2 built form):

the visual impacts of the proposed Expressway were

considered under 2.1. As part of the MCA process, all

assessments were scrutinised for the potential to ‘double-

count’ any evaluation.

198 Overall, none Mr McIndoe’s concerns appear to represent a

significant flaw in the MCA findings. Accordingly, I remain satisfied

that the alternative route options assessment was robust and that

the most appropriate option has been chosen.

RAUMATI SOUTH RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION (RSRA)[707]

Melanie Dixon, Ecology

199 On behalf of the RSRA, Ms Dixon’s statement of evidence addresses

the effects of the proposed Expressway on the wetlands contained

within the Raumati South area: Poplar Avenue wetland (south of

Poplar Avenue, opposite Matai Rd), Raumati Peatlands (north of

Poplar Avenue, encompassing the Te Ra School), and Raumati

Manuka wetland (to the rear of 200-240 Main Rd (SH1)). Only the

latter wetland is in the designation footprint. Mr Park’s rebuttal

evidence addresses Ms Dixon’s evidence in detail. However, there is

one matter that I wish address. I would first note that Ms Dixon’s

evidence confirms the ecological importance of the cited wetlands.

200 In paragraph 52, Ms Dixon questions whether the designation of the

Raumati Manuka Wetland “is the right legal mechanism to ensure its

protection”. While Mr Park also addresses this point, I would

highlight the principal purpose of the designation in this area is to

accommodate and ensure the ongoing flood retention area proposed

adjoining this wetland. Any work or activity that affected the

wetland would be contrary to the designation, and therefore would

be able to be the subject of enforcement action. NZTA is not

obliged to impose any further protection beyond the designation. I

41

042590992/1603065

would note that the condition Ms Dixon refers to, in the

Transmission Gully decision (NZTA.55), relates to vegetation

restoration areas that fall outside the designation.

HIGHWAY OCCUPANTS’ GROUP (HOG) [542]

Sarah Lindsay, urban design

201 Ms Lindsay refers to Policy 1 under Chapter C.1.1 of the Kāpiti Coast

District Plan, which outlines a list of criteria for protecting the

amenity values of the District’s residential environments. I would

note that this Policy is clearly not intended to address new roads, in

that the Policy requires that activities “shall display a residential

appearance and be at a density which enables the existing character

to be maintained...” However, many of the matters listed under this

Policy were taken into account in the design of the proposed

Expressway: for example, generation of noise, changes to natural

processes and landform, and overshadowing of neighbouring

residential properties.

202 At paragraph 3.12, Ms Lindsay refers to the need for

multidisciplinary teams to be involved at all stages of the design,

with urban design to be addressed in the early planning stages. I

can confirm urban design issues and requirements have been

included within the multidisciplinary teams that have worked on the

proposal from the early stages. Mr Baily addresses these points in

regard urban design aspects in his rebuttal evidence.

203 In section 6 of her evidence, Ms Lindsay discusses the MCA process

used to evaluate alternative route, alignment and design options. I

would note that the descriptions of the criteria that she highlights

(page 32) were, by necessity, brief, and many of the matters she

raises were part of the aspects considered through the planning

process. For example, in regard to Built Form, “relationship and

integration with urban form” included consideration of established

residential communities such as the Leinster/Poplar Avenue

neighbourhood (re her paragraph 6.4).

204 Ms Lindsay then critiques the scores resulting from the MCA for the

alignment and interchange options at the southern end. In

particular, Ms Lindsay questions the weighting given to the effects of

the alternative alignment at the southern end,22 stating that the

adverse effects of “utilising a small portion of undeveloped and

unused land are minimal when compared to inserting such a

significant piece of infrastructure into an established residential

area” (paragraph 6.21). As I stated in my EIC (paragraph 74) the

MCA process is an analytical tool, used to assist the decision-making

process. I note that it does not compare one factor with another.

22 The principal alternative alignment ran to the west of the Leinster Avenue,

crossing Poplar Avenue at about Te Ra School, and across the northern part of Queen Elizabeth Park to connect with the existing State Highway 1 north of Mackays Crossing.

42

042590992/1603065

The criteria took into account matters of national importance under

Part 2, including natural character and significant indigenous

habitats (including wetlands).

205 I would note the evidence of Ms Lee (GWRC), who outlined the

importance of Queen Elizabeth Park, including that it is “one of the

only remaining of coastal and inland dune systems along the Kāpiti

Coast that is intact and undeveloped” (paragraph 11).

B MCKAY AND T FLATH [654]

Grant Birkenshaw, Planning

206 In 4.2, Ecological/Social considerations, Mr Birkinshaw states that

“an unreasonable weight is given in the NZTA documentation to the

protection of a “wetland area” in deference to residents and

families” (page 4). The effects of the two principal alignment

options at the southern end of the proposed Expressway on local

wetlands were only one of many factors that were taken into

consideration in determining the final choice of alignment. Under

the RMA, the effects on significant natural habitats (including

wetlands) is a matter of national importance under section 6(c), as

is the preservation of wetlands and their margins from inappropriate

subdivision, use, and development, notwithstanding that “many

local residents may be unaware that the wetlands even exist”.

207 In section 5 of his evidence, Mr Birkinshaw refers to a lack of

specific consideration of individual properties and landowners,

particularly those of 28 Leinster Avenue. While I accept that the

assessments, including the statutory assessments were not

undertaken on a property-by-property basis, the effects of the

proposed Expressway and its alignment at the southern end on

residents and properties were fully considered through the MCA

process, and subsequent assessments.

208 Under the relief sought (page 7), Mr Birkinshaw seeks that, if the

designation is confirmed, the interchange revert to Sub-Option S1

Ciii, commencing south of Poplar Avenue, or that appropriate

compensation is provided to the submitters. Sub-option S1Ciii

refers to the alignment option that would run between Leinster

Avenue and Matai Road and cut across the north-eastern corner of

Queen Elizabeth Park. This would be a significant change in

alignment.

ST HELIERS CAPITAL LIMITED [644]

Gerard Thompson, Planning

209 Mr Thompson’s planning evidence addresses the proposal to use

approximately 8.4 hectares of land to the south of the proposed

Kāpiti Road interchange for stormwater treatment purposes

(referred to as ‘Wetland 4’). St Heliers owns 32 hectares of land to

the south of the proposed Expressway adjoining 77 to 109 Kāpiti

43

042590992/1603065

Road, which is currently zoned town centre. According to Mr

Thompson, St Heliers is proposing to develop the land for

commercial purposes but has yet to determine the exact form that

the development might take. St Heliers’ submission seeks to

relocate the stormwater treatment area to the rear of its land, so

that it retains the opportunity to develop that part of its Kāpiti Road

frontage for commercial purposes. An option that is being

considered by St Heliers is large format retail, although that is a

non-complying activity under the District Plan.23

210 Based on the rebuttal evidence of Messrs Levy, Evans and Baily, I

am satisfied that the current proposal to utilise this land for

stormwater treatment purposes is appropriate and that no changes

to the proposed extent of designation are required in this sector of

the Expressway. While Mr Thompson outlines a number of reasons

for keeping this land available for commercial development

(paragraph 34), the NZTA experts consider that it is preferable to

have this area used for stormwater treatment and open space rather

than for commercial development.

TRANSPOWER NZ LIMITED [178]

Brian Warburton, Planning

211 I have reviewed the evidence of Mr Warburton for Transpower,

noting that in paragraph 6.8, he states: “I have reviewed the

conditions NZTA has suggested and agree with Mr Scholfield [sic]

that these conditions, with some modifications, would adequately

mitigate or avoid effects that are of concern to Transpower.”

212 As stated in paragraph 389 of my EIC, I agree that a more specific

condition addressing all work conducted under or near the high

voltage transmission lines would assist in ensuring no compromises

are made to the operation and maintenance of these lines.

PROPOSED MITIGATION OF CULTURAL EFFECTS

Background to Development of Mitigation

213 At paragraphs 162-169 of my EIC, I explained how the potential

effects on cultural values were a key concern during the

investigation and route selection process. The NZTA acknowledges

that the proposed route goes through the Takamore cultural

precinct and cannot entirely avoid adverse cultural effects. In my

EIC, I describe the mitigation offered by the proposed conditions

and refer to an ongoing engagement process between the NZTA and

Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and the Takamore Trust.

214 At the time of writing my EIC, the NZTA and Te Āti Awa ki

Whakarongotai and the Takamore Trust were involved in

negotiations on an appropriate mitigation package to recognise the

23 Paragraph 11, Thompson evidence.

44

042590992/1603065

adverse impact of the Project on the Takamore cultural precinct.

This ongoing dialogue was also referred to in the evidence in chief of

Mr Kamo. The NZTA was hopeful that an agreement could have

been reached in time to be presented to the Board as part of the

mitigation for the Expressway. At the time of writing this evidence,

however, the offer remains live but has not been accepted by the

Takamore Trust.

215 The conceptual details of the mitigation proposals (Restoring the

Mauri and the Takamore Masterplan) are discussed in the rebuttal

evidence of Mr Kamo, and a copy of the offer that has been put to

the Trust is attached to the rebuttal evidence of Dr Bentley.

216 The mitigation proposals relate to land surrounding the Takamore

urupā. The land is within the registered wāhi tapu area.

Importantly, all this land is currently owned by the Crown and

KCDC, and KCDC supports the NZTA in what it is proposing as

mitigation in relation to the land.

217 In relation to the proposed mitigation for the effects on the cultural

heritage values of the Takamore wāhi tapu area, I acknowledge the

concerns raised in the evidence of:

217.1 Mr Ben Ngaia on behalf of the Takamore Trust, who states

that if the Expressway goes ahead, it will cause adverse

effects to the wāhi tapu, the exercise of rangatiratanga, and

kaitiakitanga; and

217.2 Ms Sacha Walters on behalf of the NZHPT who considers

there is not sufficient mitigation for effects on cultural

heritage values in this area (I note that Ms Walters refers to

the Restoring the Mauri proposal in her evidence and

questions why it was not specifically indentified in the

application and evidence-in-chief).

Relevant principles

218 I have considered the question of how matters in sections 6(e), 7(a)

and 8 can best be addressed in a context where part of what is

proposed for mitigation is the subject of an offer which, at this time,

has not been accepted (and may or may not be accepted in due

course).

219 I found it instructive to read a recent decision of the High Court on a

matter concerning harbour works in Tauranga, Ngati Ruahine v Bay

of Plenty Regional Council.24 By way of background, the Port of

Tauranga was seeking to dredge a deeper and wider channel in the

harbour to allow larger container vessels passage. The Environment

Court initially criticised the Port for inadequate consultation with

tangata whenua and adjourned the case for 6 months to allow for

24 [2012] NZHC 2407.

45

042590992/1603065

consultation to occur.25 Ultimately, the Environment Court

determined that consent should be granted stating that:26

“...the provisions of Part 2 of the Act dealing with Maori

interests were well founded in the evidence, give no veto

power over other developments under the Act. Rather, these

interests must be balanced against the other matters listed in

Part 2 and the over-riding purpose of the Act under section 5

to promote the sustainable management of natural and

physical resources.”

220 The Environment Court’s decision was appealed to the High Court,

by Ngati Ruahine. The High Court upheld the Environment Court’s

decision, and said, at paragraph [64], the following on section 6(e):

“But the mandatory s 6 requirement “to recognise and

provide” does not operate in a vacuum. It is one of many

factors to be considered under the Act in achieving, in the

context of the exercise of the Act’s statutory powers, its

purpose of promoting the sustainable management of natural

and physical resources.”

221 I consider there are some analogies here. In particular, this case

demonstrates to me that the Board is able to make a judgment on

what it considers to be the appropriate extent of mitigation as ought

to be required through conditions of the designation and consents

sought, to address issues concerning Takamore Trust’s kaitiaki

responsibilities for, and its relationship, with the Takamore cultural

precinct, even in the absence of the Trust’s agreement to that

mitigation. This is in the sense that sections 6(e), 7(a) and 8 are

not intended to operate as a veto.

Extent of cultural mitigation currently proposed

222 Much of the cultural mitigation currently proposed is capable of

being implemented in the absence of agreement with the Trust, and

I consider that designation conditions are an appropriate means of

ensuring this.

223 The NZTA’s previous proposed conditions lodged with the

Environmental Protection Authority addressed the following

elements of mitigation:27

25 Paragraph [27] of the High Court decision.

26 Referred to at Paragraph [75] of the High Court decision.

27 These are discussed in detail in the evidence in chief of Mr Kamo andMs O’Keeffe.

46

042590992/1603065

Condition Cultural Mitigation Purpose

DC.54 Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust

shall be consulted in the development of the

Landscape Management Plan.

DC.60 The development of an Accidental Discovery Protocol

(ADP) to govern the accidental discovery of cultural

or archaeological artefacts. The ADP shall be

prepared in consultation with Te Āti Awa ki

Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust and shall

provide for appropriate tikanga where discoveries are

made.

DC.61 Where investigative work is undertaken the NZTA

shall consult with Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and

Takamore Trust and develop fixed and portable

interpretive signs, booklets and hold open days.

DC.62 The NZTA will offer Takamore Trust the opportunity

to have a geophysical survey of the Takamore urupa.

G.11 Contractors will be briefed on Te Āti Awa ki

Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust cultural

ceremonies to occur before commencement of

works.

G.29 Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust

shall be consulted in the finalisation of the

Groundwater (Level) Management Plan, including

their specific role in monitoring methods.

G.32 Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust

shall be consulted in the finalisation of the

Contaminated Soils and Groundwater Management

Plan, including specific role in monitoring stormwater

treatment devices.

G.34 Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust to

be consulted in the finalisation of the Ecological

Management Plan. Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and

Takamore Trust to have role in observing all

monitoring and in particular will be involved in

monitoring culverts and fish passage during

construction.

G.39 All ecological monitoring results to be provided to Te

Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust.

E.2 Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust to

be consulted in the preparation of the Construction

Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (CESCPs).

E.3 CESCPs to include a role for Te Āti Awa ki

47

042590992/1603065

Condition Cultural Mitigation Purpose

Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust in monitoring.

E.9 If there is a failure of an erosion and sediment

control device, or a storm event exceeding the

design volume of the device, Te Āti Awa ki

Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust shall be

consulted in the preparation of a report on the

effects of the failure and the recommended

measures to remedy the effects.

Potential further cultural mitigation through conditions and

amendment of the designation boundary

224 I believe it would be possible and appropriate to expand upon these

proposed conditions, in a manner that will advance what is intended

in the associated offer to the Trust, but which would not need to rely

upon agreement with the Trust.

225 In particular, I think the following measures would be possible for

constructively advancing the intentions of the offer:

225.1 The designation boundary could be expanded so that it

encompassed the land held by the Crown and KCDC and

which the NZTA has offered to the Trust to be set aside as a

historic reserve. This would see the designation providing

added protection of the subject land in a manner that would

be consistent with, and advance, the intention of

subsequently establishing an historic reserve over this land

(should the Trust so wish) – I have attached a Plan as

Annexure B showing the proposed extension of the

designation to cover the area of the proposed cultural

mitigation;

225.2 New designation conditions could be included in the

designation, as I have proposed in the updated condition

set attached to this rebuttal evidence (conditions DC.62B to

E). These would be to the following effect:

(a) To identify the area to be designated specifically for

cultural heritage mitigation;

(b) To establish a Cultural Heritage Liaison Group, the

purpose of which shall be to determine the appropriate

cultural mitigation measures, based on the proposals

the NZTA has put before the Trust to date;

(c) To protect the cultural mitigation land from earthworks,

construction, vegetation clearance or other use that

48

042590992/1603065

could prejudice the capacity of the Cultural Heritage

Liaison Group to achieve its purpose; and

(d) To establish the basis on which the obligations under

the conditions would be deemed satisfied.

226 This approach would not, of course, assure delivery of the entire

offer package: in particular, it would not ensure establishment of

the historic reserve. In my view it would, however, provide a forum

for partnership between the NZTA and the Takamore Trust to work

towards an agreed outcome for the land.

227 I consider that these amendments allow the Board to be satisfied

that the statutory requirements in Part 2 are met. I consider the

NZTA’s obligations under Part 2 would be fully met by going as far

as is practicable in mitigation, and also giving opportunity to go

further should Takamore Trust so wish.

228 The conditions proposed, together with the expansion of the

designation over the land, would:

228.1 Provide for the mitigation of adverse effects that cannot

otherwise be avoided, and are caused by the Expressway

going through the Takamore cultural precinct;

228.2 Provide an opportunity for the Takamore Trust to exercise

their kaitiaki over their ancestral lands;

228.3 Acknowledge the NZTA’s role as a Crown agent to take into

account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, including

active protection and rangatiratanga; and

228.4 Be consistent with the achievement of the Project

Objectives in regard to managing the immediate and long-

term cultural impacts of the Project.

229 I note that the NZTA is not proposing that the designation would

authorise the specific works (such as the wharenui or the wetland

restoration) shown in the mitigation proposals. These structures or

works would be required to comply with the relevant district and

regional rules or seek resource consent.

230 Given that the designation extension is in essence to enhance the

protective effect of the designation for cultural purposes, and is over

land where the landowners are supportive of its expansion, I

understand there are no jurisdictional impediments to these

proposals.

49

042590992/1603065

CONDITIONS

Updated Position Concerning Proposed Conditions and

Associated Management Plans

231 In my rebuttal evidence, I have acknowledged the merit of some of

the suggestions made by submitter witnesses concerning conditions.

In addition, some of the experts for the NZTA have recommended

some changes to conditions in their rebuttal statements.

232 Drawing on these recommendations, I have prepared an updated

set of proposed conditions so this is available for planning

conferencing. The updated conditions show those proposed

amendments (in red) derived from the evidence-in-chief of the

NZTA witnesses and from the rebuttal evidence (in green). The

evidential sources of the changes have also been identified, other

than those which I have outlined in my rebuttal evidence.

233 In relation to the recommended changes to the conditions that I

have identified, I do not address every single proposed amendment

(many relate to minor corrections or details of processes); rather, I

focus on the key changes proposed through rebuttal evidence.

234 In particular, I address:

234.1 How the proposed structure of management plans and the

associated certification process is recommended to be

clarified through the conditions;

234.2 The proposed use of site specific management plans during

the construction stages; and

234.3 The proposed process for addressing the urban design

aspects of the Project through Site Specific Urban Design

Plans.

235 In preparing these recommended changes, I have had the benefit of

discussing the implementation of conditions, including management

plans, associated with the Waterview Connection Project28 in

Auckland with the environmental management planner on that

Project. The management plan framework for the M2PP Project,

based on an overarching Construction Environmental Management

Plan (CEMP), was largely based on the CEMP framework developed

for the Waterview Project.

28 The Waterview Connection project involves the construction of a new 4.8km

section of 6-lane motorway through and beneath Auckland’s western suburbs, linking State Highways 16 and 20 to complete the motorway ring route around the City. Construction on this 4 year project recently commenced.

50

042590992/1603065

Structure of Management Plans

236 I have prepared a diagram to further clarify the proposed structure

of the construction management plans – this is shown below:

51

042590992/1603065

Certification Roles

237 In responding to the evidence of the GWRC’s planner, Mr Percy, in

paragraphs 89 to 104, I outline the reasons why I prefer to have

each management plan certified by the local authority with the

appropriate RMA functional responsibilities and consenting role.

Quite aside from the jurisdictional and enforcement concerns I have

with dual certification, it is important to highlight the timeframe

constraints involved with the construction process. Dealing with two

local authorities over the same Management Plan will, in my

opinion, unnecessarily complicate the process and increase the risks

of delays.

238 The certification role is also based on the primary purpose of the

respective management plan, and the appropriate local authority for

managing that aspect of construction. I acknowledge that aspects

of some management plans will have a secondary purpose or

benefit, but in my opinion, that does not necessitate the

introduction of a second certifying authority.

239 In particular, the ecological mitigation arising from the various

works requiring resource consent from the Regional Council (for

example, for stream diversion, and works in waterbodies) is

prescribed in the Ecological Management Plan (EMP). This

mitigation will have a secondary albeit important benefit in respect

of landscape and visual mitigation; hence the District Council has a

reasonable interest in the outcomes from that mitigation. Similarly,

the landscape planting to be prescribed through the Landscape

Management Plan (LMP) will have a secondary albeit important

ecological benefit, in which the Regional Council has an interest.

240 To provide for this secondary role, I have proposed a consultative

process for the relevant draft management plans prior to the

lodgement of the final management plan for certification.

Identification of the Certifiable Elements of the CEMP

241 As outlined in paragraphs 126 to 129 of my EIC, the CEMP is a

composite document, containing a short high-level outline of

internal environmental management procedures, supplemented by a

range of sub-plans on specific aspects of environmental

management during construction and post-construction. The

proposed conditions as lodged required the certification of the entire

CEMP prior to construction commencing, creating an unnecessary

overlap between the certification roles of GWRC and KCDC.

242 The CEMP itself contains some 50 pages outlining background

information about the project, including the proposed construction

activities, internal management structure and responsibilities,

internal compliance monitoring and reporting procedures,

environmental auditing and a number of other internal procedures.

The purpose of this information is to document the Project Alliance’s

best practice and procedures by way of background to the

52

042590992/1603065

management plans: this information is not therefore required to be

certified. A number of the appendices to the CEMP also provide

background generic information on internal procedures and are

therefore not ‘certifiable’ in any practicable sense.

243 The certifiable elements of the CEMP are those management plans

contained with the appendices that relate to the need to develop

project-specific methodology for avoiding, remedying or mitigating

the actual and potential adverse effects arising from the

construction of the proposed Expressway. These management plans

are themselves relatively high level in that they provide the broad

approach and methodology for various aspects of environmental

management during construction: they do not address the

methodology within the 14 construction sectors along the route of

the proposed Expressway.

244 It is proposed that the final draft CEMP management plans will be

lodged together to the relevant certifying authority at least 15

working days before the commencement of work on the

Expressway. The purpose of lodging all certifiable management

plans at the same time is to ensure the local authority is able to

consider all plans on an integrated basis.

Site Specific Management Plans

245 The site specific methodology for environmental management during

construction will not be known until the final design and site

investigations are completed, and a detailed knowledge is obtained

on exactly how the construction will proceed within the various

sectors of the Project. The site specific management plans (SSMPs)

will be lodged and certified as construction progresses, prior to the

commencement of the next stage of work. The methodology to be

used at each sector of the construction route will need to be

consistent with the general methodology certified within the relevant

Management Plan contained within the CEMP. If, for whatever

reason, a fundamental change in methodology is required, then the

relevant CEMP Management Plan will need to be revised and such

changes certified.

246 Importantly, the SSMPs do not constitute part of the CEMP, as they

will need to be lodged on a staged process over the course of

construction, unlike the CEMP which will be required to be lodged

and certified at the beginning, prior to the commencement of

construction work on the proposed Expressway.

247 Furthermore, whereas the methodology, procedures and principles

set out in the certified CEMP management plans are anticipated to

remain unchanged throughout the duration of construction, the

SSMPs may need to be revised if required as construction proceeds

(for example, due to weather conditions or unexpected site

conditions).

53

042590992/1603065

248 Prior to the commencement of works in each of the 14 construction

sectors, it is proposed that the SSMPs for that sector will be lodged

for certification. Most of the SSMPs will be lodged at least 5 or 10

working days before the commencement of works (depending on

the scale of the Management Plan).

Non-Certifiable Management Plans and Other Documents

249 In addition to the management plans that would require certification

as part of the CEMP, there are a number of other plans that would

be lodged as part of the CEMP that would not require certification:

(a) The Resource Efficiency and Waste Management Plan – which

outlines the internal procedures on these matters; and

(b) The Stakeholders and Communications Management Plan –

which outlines the proposed framework for engaging and

communicating with stakeholders during construction.

250 Outside the CEMP are a number of other documents that form part

of the overall framework for managing the final design and

construction of the Project. These include:

(a) the Urban and Landscape Design Framework (ULDF);

(b) the Network Integration Plan (NIP);

(c) The Network Utilities Management Plan (NUMP); and

(d) The Accidental Discovery Protocol (ADP).

251 These documents direct the final design and construction process in

the following ways:

Urban and Landscape Design Framework

251.1 The ULDF was submitted as part of the application to the

EPA. As outlined in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Baily, in

response to the evidence of Mr Munro and Ms Thomson for

KCDC, it is proposed to introduce a condition that would

require the production of Site Specific Urban Design Plans

(SSUDPs). These Plans would outline the final design for

the main structural elements of the proposed Expressway,

those points at which the local community would interact

with the Expressway by crossing under/over the

Expressway or at interchanges. The SSUDPs would seek to

implement the principles set out in the ULDF.

251.2 SSUDPs will be submitted for certification by KCDC on a

sectoral basis in the same manner and within the same

timeframe as the site specific environmental management

plans arising out of the CEMP.

54

042590992/1603065

Network Integration Plan

251.3 As outlined in the EIC of Mr Murray, the purpose of the NIP

would be to finalise how the proposed Expressway would

integrate with the local road network. In response to the

evidence of GWRC, in his rebuttal, Mr Murray is

recommending the purpose of the NIP be expanded to

include how the proposed Expressway would be integrated

with public transport networks and facilities.

251.4 The NIP would be submitted at the time the CEMP is lodged

for certification. As outlined in Mr Murray’s rebuttal, the NIP

would confirm details regarding matters such as whether

the intersections on Te Moana Road would be signalised or

have roundabouts. The condition for the NIP has been

amended to allow its staged development and certification

on a construction sector approach.

Network Utility Management Plan

251.5 The purpose of the NUMP would be to provide the KCDC

with details on how the proposed Expressway would be

constructed in a manner that address the effects on existing

network utilities. It would include the requirements to

address the high voltage transmission lines at the northern

end of the Expressway. The condition for the NUMP has

been amended to allow its staged development and

certification on a construction sector approach.

Accidental Discovery Protocol

251.6 The final ADP will be lodged prior to the commencement of

any work in accordance with condition DC.60.

Changes to Conditions

252 Accordingly, I recommend the conditions be amended to clarify:

252.1 The submission of a programme of the anticipated

sequencing of construction and lodging of plans for

certification, which is able to be updated monthly – as this

programme is for information, it is unnecessary to have it

certified (Condition DC.15);

252.2 Which elements of the CEMP require certification by the

appropriate local authority, which all have a minimum 15

working days for certification; and

252.3 The staging of the management plans and other plans

according to the construction sectors.

55

042590992/1603065

OUTLINE PLAN WAIVER

253 A Board of Inquiry considering a NoR for a designation has the

ability to waive the requirement for an outline plan under section

149P(4)(c) RMA. In section 3.5 of the AEE, because of the level of

information that has been provided as part of the application, a

waiver for the requirement to lodge an outline plan for the Project

was sought, with the exception of the two proposed cycleway/

walkway bridges over the proposed Expressway: one in the Poplar

Avenue to Raumati Road section and another in the Kāpiti Road to

Mazengarb Road section. As the exact location and design of these

bridges, and their connectivity to local streets, has not yet been

determined, it was proposed that the outline plan process would

address these aspects of the proposed Expressway at a late stage.

254 As outlined in paragraphs 28 to 33 of Mr Baily’s rebuttal evidence, it

is recommended to address the location and design of the two

proposed pedestrian overbridges as part of the process of

developing and certifying Site Specific Urban Design Plans

(SSUDPs). In my opinion, given this proposed process, it would

appropriate for the Board to consider a full waiver of the

requirement to lodge an outline plan.

255 However, it is proposed to introduce a designation condition that

would allow the NZTA to utilise the Outline Plan process should the

certification process for any one plan remain unresolved for a period

of three calendar months or with the agreement of the District

Council.

S42A REPORT

256 The Section 42A report was not available to the other NZTA

witnesses before they finalised their rebuttal evidence. However, I

have had an opportunity to review it, and wish to respond to several

matters contained within it.

257 I first note that I am mostly in agreement with the assessment and

with the conclusions contained within this report. Many of the

outstanding concerns raised in this report (which was prepared in

the absence of the NZTA’s rebuttal evidence) have either been

addressed in the rebuttal evidence, or, as indicated in the report,

will be matters more appropriately addressed through expert

conferencing.

Summary of Environmental Effects

Effects on tangata whenua and cultural heritage

258 On page 24, it is noted that most of the mitigation measures in

regard to the effects on cultural heritage values had not yet been

transcribed into the conditions of designation.

56

042590992/1603065

259 In paragraphs 213 to 230 above, I explain why, at the time of

preparing my EIC, the full range of measures to mitigate the effects

on cultural heritage values had not be finalised (in that negotiations

with the Takamore Trust has not been concluded). I then provide

an outline of the proposed mitigation measures to address the

effects on cultural heritage values, including a number of

recommended conditions to establish a mechanism by which

agreement on the final measures can be reached through a joint

working group with the Takamore Trust under the ‘umbrella’ of an

extended designation footprint. These conditions are included in an

updated set of proposed conditions, attached as Annexure A.

Economic Effects

260 On page 34, the authors states that “in our view, issues relating to

the benefit-cost ratio are primarily matters for the NZTA in

determining whether construction of the proposed Expressway

represents a “good” investment for it in carrying out its functions.”

I fully agree.

Effects on Freshwater Ecology and Water Quality

261 I note that, on page 42, the authors agree that the use of

management plans to guide construction and operation of the

Expressway on freshwater ecology values, coupled with more

specific conditions, is an appropriate approach. The authors also

state that the Board will, however, first need to satisfy itself that the

level of assessment and mitigation proposed is sufficient to address

the effects identified.

262 I agree, and note that the rebuttal evidence of the relevant NZTA

witnesses address this matter in some detail (particularly that of Dr

Keesing, Mr Park and Mr Fuller).

Assessment of Conditions

Management plans

263 On page 50, the authors agree in general to the use of management

plans to guide the construction and operation of the proposed

Expressway, noting “when drafting conditions that require the

preparation of management plans that appropriate care is taken to

ensure there is sufficient certainty in prescribing the desired

outcome within the condition itself.”

264 I agree, and have made a range of recommended changes to the

conditions, as set out in Annexure A of my rebuttal evidence. I

further note that expert conferencing is likely to provide further

direction on the conditions relating to the proposed management

plans.

265 On page 52, the authors agree that an adaptive management

regime is an appropriate approach to deal with complex effects

57

042590992/1603065

within dynamic systems. They then note that, if possible, the

specification of triggers should be made in conditions to indicate

when it is necessary to adopt adaptive management actions. The

matter of triggers has been addressed in rebuttal evidence; in

particular, in the rebuttal evidence of Dr Keesing, Ms Williams

and Mr Park.

Construction Environmental Management Plan

266 On pages 52-53, the authors express some concern about the

clarity around the contents of the CEMP and its certification.

267 I have addressed these matters earlier in my rebuttal (paragraphs

236 to 252), and recommend a number of changes to the conditions

to clarify the structure of the CEMP, and to more clearly identify the

certifiable elements of the CEMP. As I stated above (paragraph

242), the contents of the CEMP itself are largely provided to give

background information about the internal procedures and

responsibilities relating to environmental management during the

construction; as such, these provisions are not appropriate matters

for certification. Details on matters such as compliance monitoring

and environmental reporting are intended to be set out in the

relevant management plans, which are to be certified.

268 A number of specific comments and concerns expressed in the

report relating to the key aspects of construction environmental

management are appropriate matters for conferencing to address.

Cultural Effects

269 On page 58, the authors suggest that the conditions should provide

for consultation with Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and the Takamore

Trust as appropriate to help shape the proposed mitigation

measures and management plans of interest to those parties.

270 I agree, and note that, in his EIC, Mr Kamo outlined a range of

changes to the conditions to ensure the involvement of these parties

as appropriate. I also note that, through this rebuttal, I have

recommended a number of additional conditions to establish a

process for finalising the cultural heritage mitigation measures in

the Takamore wāhi tapu area.

Groundwater

271 On page 60, I note the authors do not take issue with the potential

need to obtain consents at a later stage for any remediation or

mitigation relating to water takes and wetlands,. They do, however,

suggest an advice note be incorporated within the conditions to

indicate that any additional consents for groundwater remediation

purposes may be necessary. I agree with this approach.

58

042590992/1603065

Statutory Evaluation

Consents Sought and Activity Status

272 On page 63, I note and agree with the following statements:

In our view once the detailed design plans have been finalised

there may be minor activities identified that will necessitate

additional consents. This is not unusual in a project of this scale

and the effects of such applications can be assessed at that time.

In relation to consents that may be necessary for mitigation

purposes, we have no particular difficulty with the fact that some

of these may need to be deferred to a later stage.

Relevant Statutory Documents

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

273 On page 69, the authors discuss whether the project route is located

within the coastal environment for the purpose of addressing the

objectives and policies of the NZCPS. I note that the authors state

that they are inclined to agree with the NZTA and GWRC on this

matter, in that they “do not consider the land area affected by the

Expressway to be, in its strictest sense, part of the coastal

environment”. They further state the view that “the land subject to

the NOR does not outwardly exude a predominance of the

characteristics described in Policy 1(2) of the NZCPS". This opinion

concurs with my own, as well as those of Mr Fuller and Mr Evans.

274 The authors conclude that the relevance of the New Zealand Coastal

Policy Statement is limited. The authors, however, did consider the

relevant policies of the NZCPS, and conclude that the Project is

generally consistent with the relevant matters (page 70).

Operative and Proposed Regional Policy Statement

PWRPS – Indigenous Ecosystems

275 On page 73-74, I note the authors consider the work undertaken in

regard to indigenous ecosystems and habitats of significant

biodiversity values appears to be consistent with the requirements

of Policy 22.

PWRPS – Cultural and Heritage

276 On page 76, the authors consider Objective 15 and Policy 45 of the

PWRPS and conclude that:

In our view the extent of consultation, assessment and mitigation

proposed in relation to known areas of cultural or heritage

significance has been robust to the extent necessary to be

consistent with the relevant objectives and policies in the RPS.

59

042590992/1603065

277 I have addressed these provisions earlier in my rebuttal in relation

to the evidence of Ms Walters’ for the NZHPT (paragraphs 151 to

156).

Kāpiti Coast District Plan

278 I note that, on pages 84-85, the authors agree with my view

(expressed in my EIC) that, as one of the purposes of designations

is to provide for a public work that is not necessarily provided for or

anticipated by a District Plan that therefore a notice of requirement

need not be fully consistent with the Plan’s objectives and policies:

“Whilst the consent authority must have particular regard to any

relevant provisions of the Kapiti Coast District Plan, it is not

necessary for a Requiring Authority to demonstrate that a project

or work is entirely consistent with each of the objectives and

policies inherent in a District Plan.”

279 On page 87, the authors question why the structure plan for the

Ngarara development did not factor in the WLR designation, which

traverses several significant wetlands in this vicinity.

280 As the principal consultant planner on the privately requested Plan

change that introduced the Ngarara Zone into the District Plan, I can

clarify that the Structure Plan sought to realign the WLR within the

Ngarara area to minimise its impacts on wetlands and dunes, and to

provide a better fit with the proposed location of the various

neighbourhoods envisaged by the Plan. With the agreement of

KCDC, the intention was that, at the time the development

proceeded and the new roads built (including the extension of the

WLR through the Ngarara area), the WLR designation would be

uplifted.

Alternatives

281 On page 93, the authors address whether adequate consideration of

alternative sites, routes and methods has been given, pursuant to

section 171(1)(b) of the Act.

282 I note and agree with the following statements:

In undertaking assessment of alternatives under section 171 of

the Act, it is our understanding that it is not incumbent upon a

Requiring Authority to demonstrate that it has considered all

possible alternatives, or that it has selected the best of all

available alternatives. Moreover, it is our understanding that it is

for the Requiring Authority to establish an appropriate range of

alternatives and properly consider them. In our experience,

Requiring Authorities review those alternatives that are potentially

viable for the achievement of its stated objective in undertaking

the designation in the first place. This is because there is little to

be gained from assessing an array of alternatives that are

60

042590992/1603065

effectively nugatory on the basis that they would not meet the

stated designation objective.

Given this, it is our view that the NZTA has adequately assessed

alternatives in preparing the subject NoR. ... The assessment in

our view demonstrates that the NZTA went through a fulsome and

systematic selection basis before finally coming to a conclusion

about a preferred route.

_______________________

Robert Schofield

29 October 2012

61

042590992/1603065

ANNEXURE A – PROPOSED DESIGNATION AND RESOURCE

CONSENT CONDITIONS REFERRED TO IN THIS REBUTTAL

STATEMENT

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 1

1 Proposed designation conditions

32.1 Guide to reading the conditions

The proposed suite of conditions to manage effects of the Project has been numbered in order to eliminate confusion, specifically to avoid multiple ‗Condition 1‘ and so forth. The numbering format is as follows:

Set of proposed conditions Numbering format

NZTA designation conditions DC.1, DC.2. and so on

The table below provides explanation to a number of the acronyms and terms used in the conditions.

Definitions

AEE Means the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway Assessment of Effects on the Environment Volumes 1 to 5 dated April 2012

CEMP Means the Construction Environmental Management Plan

Commencement of Work Means the time when the work that are the subject of these designations commence

Council Means the Kāpiti Coast District Council

District Means the Kāpiti Coast District

District Plan Means the Kāpiti Coast District Plan

Existing network utilities Means all network utilities existing at 15 August 2011 (the date of lodgement of this Notice of Requirement). Network utility has the same meaning as in section 166 of the RMAResource Management

Act 1991

GWRC Means the Wellington Regional Council

KCDC Means the Kāpiti Coast District Council

Manager Means the Regulatory Manager of the Kāpiti Coast District Council

NZTA Means the New Zealand Transport Agency/the Requiring Authority

Outline Plan (OP) Means an Outline Plan prepared in accordance with section 176A of the RMA

Project Means the construction, maintenance and operation of the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway

Requiring Authority Means the New Zealand Transport Agency

RMA or ‗the Act‘ Means the Resource Management Act 1991

Road Asset Manager Means the Kāpiti Coast District Council‘s road asset manager Road Asset Manager

Stage Means a stage of the Project as nominated by the Requiring Authority

Work Means any activity or activities undertaken in relation to the Project

32.2 Proposed NZTA designation conditions

Ref Draft conditions (following rebuttal)

General Conditions and Administration

DC.1 a) Except as modified by the conditions below, and subject to final design, the Project shall be undertaken in general accordance with the information provided by the Requiring Authority in the Notice

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 2

Ref Draft conditions (following rebuttal)

of Requirement dated [insert date] and supporting documents being:

i) Assessment of Environmental Effects report, dated [insert date]

ii) Plan sets:

1. CV-SP -100 – 160: Scheme plans;

2. CV-GP-101-136: Geometric plans;

3. CV-SC-001-004: Cross sections;

4. CV-EW-100-232: Earthwork;

5. CV-BR-100-970: Bridges;

6. CV-GE-100-140: Structural - General;

7. GI-PR-01-18: Land Requirement Plans;

8. CV-MF-100-132: Lighting, Marking and Signage;

9. CV-CM-101-412: Construction Methodology;

10. Urban & Landscape Design Framework (Technical Report 5);

11. Landscape & Visual (Technical Report 7)- Appendix A & B;

12. Stormwater & Hydrology (Technical Report 22) – Appendix 22.A;

13. Erosion & Sediment Control (CEMP Appendix H) – Appendix H.B, H.C, H.D, H.E, H.F, H.H, H.I, H.R.

14. Proposed Mitigation Sites and Treatments (Plan Set XXX).

b) For the avoidance of doubt, none of these conditions prevent or apply to work required for the ongoing operation or maintenance of the Project following construction such as changes to street

furniture or signage over time. Depending upon the nature of such work, outline plans or outline plan waivers may be required.

c) Where there is conflict between the documents listed above and these conditions, these conditions shall prevail.

DC.2 As soon as practicable following completion of construction of the Project, the Requiring Authority shall:

a) Review the width of the area designated for the Project;

b) Identify any areas of designated land that are no longer necessary for the on-going operation or maintenance of the State Highway or for on-going mitigation measures; and

c) Give notice to the Council in accordance with Section 182 of the RMA seeking the removal of those parts of the designation identified in D.2 (b) above.

DC.2A In relation to that part of the designation located in the northeastern corner of Queen Elizabeth Park, sited next to the Poplar Avenue Interchange, the requiring authority shall, in consultation with

GWRC, restore any land thereof that is used for Project construction purposes (for example, as a laydown area) to its previous condition to the satisfaction of the Manager within 6 months of the

completion of the interchange.

DC.3 The designation shall lapse if not given effect to within 15 years from the date on which it is included in the District Plan under Section 175 of the RMA.

DC.4 The Requiring Authority shall reimburse the Council for its actual and reasonable costs incurred in carrying out its functions pursuant to Section 36(1)(d) of the Act.

Outline Plans

DC.5 a) An Outline Plan of Work shall be prepared for the pedestrian cycleway and footbridge (and the associated connections) between:

Between Leinster Ave and Raumati Road (in the general location as shown in the Scheme Plan SV-SP-106); and

Between Kāpiti Road and Mazengarb Road (in the general location as shown in the Scheme Plan SV-SP-113).

b) The OP shall be prepared in accordance with Section 176A of the RMA and submitted to the Manager.

Advice Note: An Outline Plan may be prepared and submitted for any work not covered by Condition DC.1 in accordance with the requirements of s176A of the RMA.

Pedestrian /Cycle bridges

DC.6 The two pedestrian/cycle bridges and associated accesses referred to in condition DC.5 shall be constructed and completed by the time the Expressway is fully operational.

Management Plans - General

DC.7 All work shall be carried out in general accordance with the applicable any of the management plan(s) required by these conditions. The draft management plans lodged with the Notice of Requirement

that are listed below in this condition shall be updated and finalised by the contractor and submitted to the Manager for certification at least 15 working days prior to the commencement of

construction of the relevant stage or stages:

a) Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan

b) Construction Air Quality Management Plan

Comment [CTSY1]: Stephen Fuller

at [111] of his evidence.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 3

Ref Draft conditions (following rebuttal)

c) Construction Traffic Management Plan

d) Hazardous Substances Management Plan

e) Landscape Management Plan.

f) Network Integration Plan.

Advice Note: Relationship of Management Plans with the Construction Environmental Management Plan

These management plans are part of a suite of plans that are required to manage the effects of construction of the Project on the environment, and that come under an overarching Construction

Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The CEMP will confirm final Project details, staging of Work, and detailed engineering design to ensure that the Project remains within the limits and standards

approved under this designation and that the construction and operation activities avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment in accordance with the conditions of this designation,

and any resource consents granted to assist the Requiring Authority in constructing the Project.

The CEMP will also provide details of the responsibilities, reporting framework, coordination and management required for Project quality assurance; final detailed design; construction methodologies;

timeframes and monitoring processes and procedures.

The site specific management plans provided in the conditions are not deemed to be part of the CEMP but shall be consistent with the principles, objectives and methodologies of the relevant

management plan.

The CEMP is required to be certified by the Greater Wellington Regional Council only, in accordance with the conditions of regional resource consents. Under those conditions, the CEMP is to be

supplied to the Kāpiti Coast District Council for an initial consultation process, and then the final document is required to be supplied for information, and displayed in any site office.

DC.7A Site Specific Management Plans (SSMPs) are required for the purposes of providing additional detail to the management plans listed in DC.7. The Requiring Authority shall lodge SSMPs, in accordance

with the timeframe outlined in the relevant conditions, for certification by the Manager prior to the construction Work commencing. SSMPs are to be prepared in accordance with the purpose, objectives

and methodology outlined in the relevant CEMP management plan.

Advice Note:

The SSMPs are not part of the CEMP as they will be lodged in a staged manner throughout the course of the Project.

The Management Plans specified in Condition DC.7 may not include all details for every stage of work at the time the plan is submitted for certification to the Manager. If further details are to be

provided for alter stages of construction, the management plan shall specify which stages require further certification at a later date. Further details shall be submitted to the Manager at least 10

working days prior to work commencing in the relevant construction stage. Any changes to the relevant Management Plan at least 10 working days prior to work commencing in the relevant

construction stage in accordance with the relevant condition(s).

The further details submitted shall be consistent with the original purpose and objectives as outlined in the relevant conditions.

DC.8 Where a management plan is required to be prepared in consultation with any third party, the Mmanagement Pplan shall demonstrate how the views of that party (or parties) have been incorporated,

and, where they have not, the reasons why.

DC.9 a) In the event of any dispute, disagreement of inaction arising as to any certification / approvals required by the designation conditions, or as to the implementation of, or monitoring required by the

conditions, matters shall be referred in the first instance to the Manager and to the NZTA‘s Regional State Highway Manager to determine a process of resolution.

b) If a resolution cannot be agreed within 6 months of lodging the particular management plan, the matter may be referred to an independent appropriately qualified expert, agreeable to both parties,

setting out the details of the matter to be referred for determination and the reasons the parties do not agree.

c) The qualified expert shall be appointed within 10 working days of the NZTA or Kāpiti Coast District Council giving notice of their intention to seek expert determination. The expert shall, as soon as

possible, issue a decision on the matter.

Advice note: the dispute resolution process above does not prejudice any party‘s right to take enforcement action in relation to the implementation of the designation conditions. However, the dispute

resolution process will be applied before any formal enforcement action is taken by the Council, except in urgent situations.

DC.10 The Requiring Authority may request amendments to any of the management plans required by these conditions by submitting the amendments in writing to the Manager for certification at least 10

working days prior to any changes taking effect. Any changes to management plans shall remain consistent with the overall intent of the relevant management plan.

DC.11 a) The management plans shall be made available for public viewing at one or more of the Project site offices. on the Project‘s website.

b) Where practicable, electronic copies of the management plans shall be made available upon request.

DC.11A Where any condition requires that a management plan or other plan be certified, if the plan has not been certified within 3 months of lodgement, or with the agreement of the Council, the Requiring

Authority may elect as an alternative to submit the management plan to the Council as an Outline Plan in accordance with Section 176A of the RMA and compliance with Section 176A will be deemed to

satisfy that condition.

Comment [CTSY2]: Responds to

Boyden Evans‘ evidence at

paragraph [252].

Comment [ALL13]: Consistent with

regional consent conditions.

Comment [CTSY4]: Andrew Goldie

at [94.2] of his evidence.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 4

Ref Draft conditions (following rebuttal)

Communications and Public Liaison – Construction

DC.12 A liaison person shall be appointed by the Requiring Authority for the duration of the construction phase of the Project and for 12 months following completion of the Project to be the main and readily

accessible point of contact at all times for persons affected by the construction work and operation of the Project. The Requiring Authority shall take appropriate steps to seek to advise all affected

parties of the liaison person‘s name and contact details. If the liaison person will not be available for any reason, an alternative contact person shall be nominated, to seek to ensure that a Project

contact person is reasonably available by telephone during the construction phase of the Project and for 12 months following completion of the Project.

DC.13 a) Prior to the commencement of construction and/or enabling work, the Requiring Authority shall prepare and implement, a Stakeholder and Communications Management Plan (SCMP) that sets out

procedures detailing how the public and stakeholders will be communicated with throughout the construction period. As a minimum, the SCMP shall include:

i) Details of a contact person available on site at all times during work. Contact details shall be prominently displayed at the entrance to the site(s) so that they are clearly visible to the public at

all times.

ii) Methods to consult on and to communicate the proposed hours of construction activities outside of normal working hours and on weekends and public holidays, to surrounding residential

communities, and methods to deal with concerns raised about such hours.

iii) Methods to record concerns raised about hours of construction activities and, where practicable, methods that, insofar as it is so far as is practicable avoid particular times of day which have

been identified as being particularly sensitive for neighbours.

iv) Any stakeholder specific communication plans required.

v) Monitoring and review procedures for the SCMP.

vi) Details of communications activities proposed including:

1. Publication of a newsletter, or similar, and its proposed delivery area.

2. Newspaper advertising.

3. Notification and consultation with individual property owners and occupiers with dwellings within 20 metres of construction activities.

b) The SCMP shall include linkages and cross-references to methods set out in other management plans where relevant. The SCMP shall be provided at least 15 working days prior to construction

commencing, to the Manager and Community Liaison Group.

DC.14 a) The NZTA shall establish a Community Liaison Group(s) at least 30 working days prior to construction commencing in each of the following key construction areas:

(i) Northern Project area

(ii) Southern Project Area

b) The Requiring Authority will ensure that the Community Liaison Group(s) are resourced with at least one person in the Group(s) appropriately qualified in community development and social

assessment.

c) The purpose of the Community Liaison Group(s) shall be to provide a regular forum through which information about the Project can be provided to the community, and an opportunity for concerns

and issues to be raidsed with the Requiring Authority.

d) Membership of the The Community Liaison Group shall be open to all interested organisations within the Project area including, but not limited to the following groups:

(i) Kāpiti Coast District Council

(ii) Educational facilities within the project area (including schools, kindergartens, childcare facilities)

(iii) Community / environmental groups

(iv) Business groups

(v) Community Boards

e) The Community Liaison Group(s) hold meetings at least once every three months throughout the construction period so that ongoing information can continue to be disseminated.

DC.15 The Requiring Authority shall submit to the Manager 2 months prior to the start of the anticipated construction work a detailed programme outlining:

i) The proposed staging of the construction Work;

ii) The anticipated submission dates of the CEMP management plans as required by DC.7 and any other plans;

iii) The anticipated submission dates of site specific management plans are to be submitted for certification prior to the commencement of Work at each stage of construction.

This programme is to assist KCDC in planning for resources to certify these management plans within the appropriate timeframes.

The Requiring Authority will provide the Manager with an updated programme schedule of construction sequencing activities at monthly intervals and/or SSMPs if changes occur in the programme. The

updated programme shall be submitted at least one month before any changes in sequencing occurs during the construction of the Project.

Complaints Register

DC.16 a) At all times during construction work, the Requiring Authority shall maintain a permanent register record of any complaints received alleging adverse effects from, or related to, the exercise of this

Comment [CTSY5]: Julie Meade

Rose at [172] and [174] of her

evidence.

Comment [CTSY6]: Julie Meade

Rose at [172] of her evidence.

Comment [CTSY7]: Julie Meade

Rose at [172] and [174] of her

evidence.

Comment [ALL18]: Julie Meade

Rose rebuttal evidence.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 5

Ref Draft conditions (following rebuttal)

designation. The register record shall include:

i) the name and address (as far as practicable) of the complainant;

ii) identification of the nature of the complaint;

iii) location, date and time of the complaint and of the alleged event;

iv) weather conditions at the time of the complaint (as far as practicable), and including wind direction and approximate wind speed if the complaint relates to air quality;

v) the outcome of the Requiring Authority‘s investigation into the complaint;

vi) measures taken to respond to the complaint; and

vii) Aany other activities in the area, unrelated to the Project that may have contributed to the compliant complaint, such as non-Project construction, fires, traffic accidents or unusually dusty

conditions generally.

b) The Requiring Authority shall also include keep a record of any remedial actions undertaken.

c) A copy of the Complaints Register This record shall be maintained on site and shall be made available to the Manager and Greater Wellington Regional Council, upon request. The Requiring

Authority shall notify the Manager and Greater Wellington Regional Council in writing of any such complaint within 5 working days of the complaint being brought to the attention of the Requiring

Authority. provided to the Manager and GWRC with a copy of the complaints Register every month.

DC.16A The complaints process outlined in DC.16 shall continue for 6 months following the opening of the Project. Any complaints received after this period shall be managed by the Requiring Authority in

accordance with its standard complaints procedures.

Construction Traffic Management Plan

DC.17 a) The Requiring Authority shall submit draft the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) submitted with the application (dated XXX 2012) shall be updated, finalised and submitted to the

Manager for certification, at least 15 working days prior to commencement of construction of the Project.

b) The certified CTMP shall confirm the procedures, requirements and standards necessary for managing the traffic effects during construction of the Project so that safe, adequate and convenient

facilities for local movements by all transport modes (pedestrian, cycle, vehicle) are maintained throughout the construction period.

Work shall not commence until the Requiring Authority has received the Manager‘s written certification of the CTMP.

DC.18 a) The Requiring Authority shall prepare Site Specific Traffic Management Plans (SSTMP) shall be prepared in consultation with the Kāpiti Coast District Council and provided to the Kāpiti Coast District

Council nominated person at least 5 working days for a ―minor‖ SSTMP and at least 10 working days for a ―major‖ SSTMP prior to the commencement of construction Work work in that area, and

shall describe the measures that will be taken to manage the traffic effects associated with the construction of specific parts of the Project prior to construction of the relevant part(s) of the Project

commencing. In particular, SSTMPs shall describe, where appropriate:

i) Temporary traffic management measures required to manage impacts on road users during proposed working hours;

ii) Assessment of delays associated with the proposed closure/s and detour routes;

iii) The capacity of any proposed detour route(s) and their ability to carry the additional traffic volumes likely to be generated as a result of the construction of the Project and any known safety

issues associated with the detour route, including any mitigation measures the Requiring Authority proposes to put in place to address any identified safety issues;

iv) Measures to maintain existing vehicle access to adjacent properties and businesses;

v) Measures to maintain safe and clearly identified pedestrian and cyclist access on roads and footpaths adjacent to the construction work. Where detours are necessary to provide such access

the Requiring Authority shall provide for the shortest and most convenient detours which it is reasonably practicable to provide, having regard to safety;

vi) Measures to maintain passenger transport services and facilities;

vii) Any proposed temporary changes in speed limit;

viii) Provision for safe and efficient access of construction vehicles to and from construction site(s);

ix) The measures that will be undertaken by the Requiring Authority to communicate traffic management measures to affected road users and stakeholders.

b) For the purposes of this condition, a ―minor‖ SSTMP means a SSTMP in relation to construction shall be defined as involving work of 5 or fewer days in duration, and a ―major‖ SSTMP means a SSTMP

in relation to construction shall be defined as involving work of more than 5 days in duration.

Work shall not commence until the requiring authority has received the Manager‘s written certification for the SSTMP.

DC.19 a) SSTMP(s) shall be prepared following consultation with the following key stakeholders:

i) Emergency services (police, fire and ambulance).;

ii) Public health services;

iii) Schools, childcare centres and other educational activities with frontage or access to roads where construction which work in relation to the Project will take place.

b) Results of this consultation and responses from key stakeholders to any matters should be specified in the relevant SSTMP.

Comment [CTSY9]: Typographical.

Comment [CTSY10]: Andrew Goldie

at [105] of his evidence.

Comment [SH11]: Stephen Hewett

Rebuttal Evidence. Paragraph 40.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 6

Ref Draft conditions (following rebuttal)

DC.20 The CTMP and SSTMP(s) shall be consistent with the version of the NZ Transport Agency Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management (COPTTM) which applies at the time the CTMP or the

relevant SSTMP is prepared. Where it is not possible to adhere to this standard, the COPTTM‘s prescribed Engineering Exception Decision (EED) process will be followed, which will include appropriate

mitigation measures agreed with the Road Asset Manager.

DC.21 The CTMP and SSTMP(s) shall be reviewed, by a suitably qualified independent person, prior to being submitted to the Council for certification. Any comments and inputs received from the independent

reviewer shall be clearly documented, along with clear explanation of where any comments have not been incorporated and the reasons why.

DC.22 The Requiring Authority shall appoint an independent party to carry out random auditing of temporary road closure/s in accordance with COPTTM at regular intervals throughout the construction of the

Project. The intervals shall be stated in the CTMP. A copy of the findings of each audit shall be provided to the Manager.

DC.23 Prior to the commencement of the Project, or any enabling work, the Requiring Authority shall undertake a pre-construction condition survey of the carriageway/s along those local roads affected by

the Project for which the Council is the road controlling authority and submit it to the Manager and the Roading Asset Manager. The condition survey shall consist of a photographic or video record of

the carriageway, and shall include roughness, rutting defects and surface condition.

DC.24 The Requiring Authority shall contribute fair and reasonable costs toward the maintenance of Otaihanga Road caused by the increased heavy vehicle movements related to the construction of the

Project. The Requiring Authority shall carry out regular inspections of the road network affected by the Project during construction to ensure that all potholes and other damage resulting from the

construction of the Project are identified as soon as practicable.

DC.24A The Requiring Authority shall carry out regular inspections of the road network affected by the Project during construction to ensure that all potholes and other damage resulting from the construction

of the Project are identified as soon as practicable. The Requiring Authority shall contribute fair and reasonable costs towards repair and maintenance of potholes and other damage resulting from the

construction of the Project.

Advice note: Prior to construction commencing the Requiring Authority will agree with the Council Road Asset Manager the nature, extent and frequency of the inspections.

DC.25 As soon as practicable following completion of construction of the Project the Requiring Authority shall, at its expense, conduct a post-construction condition survey of the road network affected by the

Project. The results of the pre and post construction surveys will be compared and where necessary, the Requiring Authority shall at its expense arrange for repair of any damage to the carriageways

and footpaths (and associated road components), for which the Council is the road controlling authority, where that damage has resulted from the impacts of construction of the Project.

Construction Dust Management

DC.26 a) At least 15 working days prior to Work being undertaken the Requiring Authority NZTA shall submit finalise and implement, through the CEMP, the a Construction Air Quality Management Plan

(CAQMP) to the Manager, for review and certification. submitted with the application. The purpose of the CAQMP shall be to establish procedures for monitoring the discharge of particulates into

the air during construction, methods to be used to limit dust and odour nuisance, and procedures for responding to any complaints and events.

b) The CAQMP shall be provided to the Manager, at least 15 working days prior to bulk earthwork being undertaken for review and certification that tThe CAQMP shall includes the following details:

i) Visual monitoring of dust emissions;

ii) Methods to be used to limit dust and odour nuisance;

iii) Procedures for responding to process malfunctions and accidental dust discharges;

iv) Criteria, including consideration of weather conditions and procedures for use of water sprays on stockpiles and operational areas of the site;

v) Continuous Monitoring of Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) concentrations and meteorology;

vi) Monitoring of the times of offensive odour emissions from the ground;

vii) Procedures for responding to discharges of odour (including in the event of excavation of contaminated sites);

viii) Monitoring of construction vehicle maintenance;

ix) Process equipment inspection, maintenance, monitoring and recording;

x) Complaints investigation, monitoring and reporting; and

xi) The identification of staff and contractors‘ responsibilities.

c) Work shall not commence until the Requiring Authority has received the Manager‘s written certification of the CAQMP.

DC.27 The Requiring Authority NZTA shall review the CAQMP at least annually and as a result of any material change to the Project. Any consequential changes will be undertaken in accordance with Condition

DC.10.

DC.28 Unless expressly provided for by conditions of this designation, there shall be no odour, dust or fumes beyond the site boundary caused by discharges from the site which, in the opinion of an

enforcement officer, is noxious, offensive or objectionable.

DC.29 Beyond the site boundary there shall be no hazardous air pollutant caused by discharges from the site that causes, or is likely to cause, adverse effects on human health, environment or property.

Noise and Vibration Management – Construction

DC.30 a) The Requiring Authority shall submit a Construction Vibration Noise Management Plan (CNVMP) to the Manager for certification 15 working days prior to construction work commencing.

The Requiring Authority shall implement the noise management and mitigation measures identified in the certified CVNMP. Construction noise shall, as far as practicable, be made to comply with the

Comment [CTSY12]: Moved to

DC.24A

Comment [CTSY13]: Stephen

Hewett (split from DC.24) at [114]

of his evidence.

Comment [CTSY14]: Andrew Goldie

at [102] of his evidence.

Comment [JW15]: James Whitlock,

paragraph 10, 19 and 35 of rebuttal

evidence.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 7

Ref Draft conditions (following rebuttal)

following criteriain accordance with NZS6803:1999:

Residential receivers

Time of week Time period dB

LAeq(T)

dB

LAmax

Weekdays 0630-0730 55 75

0730-1800 70 85

1800-2000 65 80

2000-0630 45 75

Saturdays 0630-0730 45 75

0730-1800 70 85

1800-2000 45 75

2000-0630 45 75

Sundays and public holidays 0630-0730 45 75

0730-1800 55 85

1800-2000 45 75

2000-0630 45 75

Industrial and commercial receivers

Time period

dB LAeq(T)

0730-1800

70

1800-0730 75

(T) means a duration between 15 minutes and 60 minutes, in accordance with NZS6803:1999.

Where the criteria set out above cannot be met, the process of Condition DC.32 shall be followed.

b) The CNVMP shall, as a minimum, address the following:

(i) Description of the work, anticipated equipment/processes and their scheduled durations;

(ii) Hours of operation, including times and days when construction activities causing noise and/or vibration would occur;

(iii) The construction noise and vibration criteria for the Project;

(iv) Identification of affected houses and other sensitive locations where noise and vibration criteria apply;

(v) Monitoring requirements, including relevant times (i.e. critical phases of construction, e.g. at the first use of high-noise or high-vibration machinery,) when possible exceedance of the Project

criteria is anticipated (e.g. night work etc.), or in response to any reasonable complaint.

c) Work shall not commence until the requiring authority has received the Manager‘s written certification for the CNVMP.

DC.30A Construction noise shall, as far as practicable, be made to comply with the following criteria in accordance with NZS6803:1999:

Residential receivers

Comment [JW16]: James Whitlock

Rebuttal Evidence, paragraph 10, 20

and 35.

Comment [JW17]: James Whitlock

Rebuttal Evidence, paragraph 10, 19

and 35.

Comment [ALL118]: Also included

in Siiri‘s rebuttal.

Comment [JW19]: James Whitlock

Rebuttal Evidence, paragraph 10

and 20 and 35

Comment [ALL120]: Also included

in Siiri‘s rebuttal.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 8

Ref Draft conditions (following rebuttal)

Time of week Time period dB

LAeq(T)

dB

LAmax

Weekdays 0630-0730 55 75

0730-1800 70 85

1800-2000 65 80

2000-0630 45 75

Saturdays 0630-0730 45 75

0730-1800 70 85

1800-2000 45 75

2000-0630 45 75

Sundays and public holidays 0630-0730 45 75

0730-1800 55 85

1800-2000 45 75

2000-0630 45 75

Industrial and commercial receivers

Time period

dB LAeq(T)

0730-1800

70

1800-0730

75

(T) means a duration between 15 minutes and 60 minutes, in accordance with NZS6803:1999.

Where the criteria set out above cannot be met, the process of Condition DC.32 shall be followed.

DC.31 The Requiring Authority shall implement the vibration management and mitigation measures identified in the certified CVNMP. Construction vibration shall, as far as practicable, be made to comply

with the following criteria: in accordance with the draft NZTA State highway construction and maintenance noise and vibration guide, July 2012 / version 0.5 DRAFT vibration guide (or any subsequent

revision of this document):

Receiver Details Category A Category B

Occupied dwellings Night-time 2000h - 0630h 0.3 mm/s PPV 1 mm/s PPV

Daytime 0630h - 2000h 1 mm/s PPV 5 mm/s PPV

Comment [JW21]: James Whitlock

Rebuttal Evidence, paragraph 10

and 20.

Note* Deletion of this table was not

specifically mentioned in Annexure

A of evidence

Comment [ALL122]: Also included

in Siiri‘s rebuttal.

Comment [CTSY23]: James

Whitlock at footnote 46 of his

evidence.

Comment [JW24]: James Whitlock

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 10, 22

and 35.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 9

Ref Draft conditions (following rebuttal)

* ‗Other occupied buildings‘ is intended to include daytime workplaces such as offices, community centres etc., and not industrial buildings. Schools, hospitals, rest

homes etc. would fall under the occupied dwellings category.

** This line addresses ‗continuous‘ or ‗long-term‘ vibration as there are no construction machinery proposed which produces transient vibration.

a) Measurements of construction vibration shall be undertaken in accordance with German Standard DIN 4150-3:1999 ―Structural Vibration Part 3: Effects of vibration on structures‖.

b) If measured or predicted vibration levels exceed the Category A criteria then a suitably qualified expert shall be engaged to assess and manage construction vibration and to comply with the

Category A criteria, and the Manager shall be notified. If the Category A criteria cannot be practicably achieved, the Category B criteria shall be applied.

c) If measured or predicted vibration levels exceed Category B criteria, then construction activity shall only proceed if there is continuous monitoring of vibration levels and effects on buildings at risk

of exceeding the Category B criteria, by suitably qualified experts.

d) Where the Category B criteria set out above cannot be met, the process of Condition DC.33 shall be followed.

Other occupied buildings* Daytime 0630h - 2000h 2 mm/s PPV 5 mm/s PPV

All other buildings Vibration – continuous** 5 mm/s PPV 50% of Line 2 values in Table B.2 of BS 5228-

2:2009

DC.32 a) Where the criteria of Condition DC.30DC.30A cannot practicably be met, the Requiring Authority shall prepare Site Specific Construction Noise Management Plans (SSCNMPs) in accordance with the

CVNMP. The SSCNMP shall describe site specific noise management and mitigation measures required, which shall be in addition to the general mitigation measures noted in the CVNMP.

b) Each SSCNMP shall be submitted to the Manager for certification at least 5 working days prior to the relevant construction activity commencing. A decision will be provided by Council within 3

working days of receipt of the SSCNMP.

DC.33 a) Where the Category B criteria of Condition DC.31 cannot practicably be met, the Requiring Authority shall prepare Site Specific Construction Vibration Management Plans (SSCVMPs) in accordance

with the certified CNVMP. The SSCVMP shall describe site specific vibration risks and mitigation measures required, which shall be in addition to the general mitigation measures specified notes in

the certified CVNMP.

b) Each SSCVMP shall be submitted to the Manager for certification at least 5 working days prior to the relevant construction activity commencing.

DC.34 Prior to the commencement of Project construction operations, a detailed pre-construction building condition survey of at-risk buildings, services and structures (as identified in the certified CNVMP)

shall be conducted by a suitably qualified engineer. A report of each survey shall be forwarded to the Manager within one week of the assessment.

DC.35 a) At least 2 5 working days prior to commencement of work within any construction area, the Requiring Authority shall seek to ensure that:

i) If night work (work between the hours of 2000h and 0630h) areis proposed to be undertaken, the occupiers of properties within 100m 200m of the construction area (are provided with written

notification of the scheduled work, including any advice for reducing internal noise levels);

ii) the occupiers of properties within 100m of the construction area are provided written notification of the scheduled work;

iii) the occupiers of properties within 50m of the construction area are provided individual written notification of the scheduled work with the opportunity offered for discussions on a case by case

basis, if requested.

b) Reasonable attempts are to be made by the Requiring Authority to directly engage with the occupiers of properties within 20m of the construction area to discuss the proposed construction Work.

DC.36 The detailed design of any structural construction noise or vibration mitigation measures (e.g. temporary construction noise barriers) as identified in the certified CVNMP shall be undertaken by a

suitably qualified acoustics specialist, and shall be implemented prior to commencement of construction in within 100m of such mitigation.

DC.37 Where practicable, permanent (traffic) noise barriers, required as Detailed Mitigation Options for operational noise following completion of the Project (in accordance with Conditions DC.39 - DC.40),

shall be erected prior to noise generating construction wWork commencing within 100 metres of the relevant PPFs (as defined in Condition DC.38). Where this is not practicable, temporary noise

mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the CNVMP as set out in Condition DC.36 above.

Noise and Vibration Management – Operation

DC.38 For the purposes of Conditions DC.39 – DC.48, the following terms will have the following meanings:

BPO – means Best Practicable Option

Building-modification Mitigation – has the same meaning as in NZS6806:2010

Habitable space – has the same meaning as in NZS6806:2010

Comment [JW25]: James Whitlock

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 10, 26

and 35

Comment [CTSY26]: Siiri Wilkening

(Construction Noise) at [126] of her

evidence.

Comment [CTSY27]: Typographical

Comment [JW28]: James Whitlock

Rebuttal notes these same changes

to DC.33, Annexure A.

Comment [CTSY29]: Typographical

Comment [ALL130]: Siiri‘s rebuttal

evidence, p.36 in response to Emily

Thomson.

Comment [CTSY31]: Typographical

Comment [CTSY32]: Typographical

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 10

Ref Draft conditions (following rebuttal)

Noise Criteria Categories – means groups of preference for time-averaged sound levels established in accordance with NZS6806:2010 when determining the selected mitigation option considered to

be the BPO; i.e. Category A – primary noise criterion, Category B – secondary noise criterion, Category C – internal noise criterion.

NZS6806:2020 – means NZS 6806:2010 Acoustics – Road-traffic noise – New and altered roads.

PPFs – has the same meaning as in NZS6806:2010, and are generally identified in green, yellow or red in Appendix B of Technical Report 15.

Sector – means Sectors 1 to 4 of the Project as set out in the AEE.

Structural Mitigation – has the same meaning as in NZS6806:2010, which includes bunds and low noise road surfaces;

Traffic Noise Assessment – means Technical Report 15 submitted as part of the AEE for this Designation.

DC.39 The detailed design of any structural mitigation measures shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified acoustics specialist prior to construction of the Project, and, subject to Condition DC.40, shall

include, as a minimum, the following:

a) The location, length and height of noise barriers in general accordance with Appendix B of the traffic noise assessment; and

b) A requirement that Open Graded Porous Asphalt ("OGPA") or equivalent low-noise generating road surface be used in general accordance with Appendix B of the tTraffic nNoise aAssessment.

DC.40 a) Where the design of the Detailed Mitigation Measures identifies a need to revise the noise mitigation measures as identified in Technical Report 15the Traffic Noise Assessment, EN-NV-020 to EV-

NV-094 EN-NV-001 to EN-NV-012 (for example, because it is not practicable to implement a particular mitigation in the same location, length, or height), the Requiring Authority shall submit the

revised Detailed Mitigation Measures to the Council to certify either:

i) If the design of the Structural Mitigation could be changed and the measure would still achieve the same Identified Category at all relevant PPFs, that the changed Structural Mitigation would be

consistent with adopting the BPO in accordance with NZS6806:2010, the Detailed Mitigation Options may include the changed Structural Mitigation measures, or

ii) If the changed design of the Structural mMitigation would change the Noise Criteria Category at any PPF to a less stringent Noise Criteria Category, that the changed Structural Mitigation

measure would be consistent with adopting the BPO in accordance with NZS6806:2010.

b) The information submitted with the Detailed Mitigation Measures shall include information to demonstrate that:

i) The Best Practicable OptionBPO process was followed, involving acoustic, landscape, urban design, and other relevant expertise; and

ii) The principles of the Landscape and Urban Design Framework (Technical Report 5) were applied.

DC.41 a) The Requiring Authority shall implement the traffic noise mitigation measures identified as the ―Selected Mitigation Options‖ in Appendix B of the Traffic Noise Assessment as part of the Project, in

order to achieve the Noise Criteria Categories indicated in Appendix B (―Identified Categories‖), where practicable and subject to Conditions DC.39 - DC.40 above.

b) The Detailed Mitigation options shall be implemented prior to completion of construction of the Project.

c) Prior to the Project becoming open for traffic, the Requiring Authority shall engage a suitably experienced acoustics specialist that shall inspect the ―as built‖ structural noise mitigation measures

and issue a signed certificate to the Manager that the noise mitigation measures identified within DC.39 to DC.40 have been properly installed and constructed. The certificate is to be provided to

the Council at least 15 working days before the opening of the Project for traffic.

DC.42 Prior to construction of the Project, a suitably qualified acoustics specialist shall identify those PPFs which, following implementation of all the structural mitigation measures included in the Detailed

Mitigation Options, are not in Noise Criteria Categories A or B and where Building-modification Mitigation in accordance with NZS 6806:2010 may be required to achieve 40 dB LAeq(24h) inside habitable

spaces (―Category C Buildings‖).

DC.43 a) Prior to commencement of construction of the Project in the vicinity of a Category C Building, the Requiring Authority shall write to the owner of each Category C Building seeking access to such

building for the purpose of measuring internal noise levels and assessing the existing building envelope in relation to noise reduction performance.

b) If the owner(s) of the Category C Building approve the Requiring Authority‘s access to the property within 12 months of the date of the Requiring Authority‘s letter (sent pursuant to Condition

DC.43a), then no more than six months prior to commencement of construction of the Project in any Sector, the Requiring Authority shall instruct a suitably qualified acoustics specialist to visit the

building to measure internal noise levels and assess the existing building envelope in relation to noise reduction performance.

DC.44 a) Where a Category C Building is identified, the Requiring Authority shall be deemed to have complied with Condition DC.43 above where:

i) The Requiring Authority (through its acoustics specialist) has visited the building and has carried out the assessment specified in DC.43; or

ii) The owner of the Category C Building consented to the Requiring ement Authority‘s request for access, but the Requiring Authority could not gain entry for some reason (such as entry being

denied by a tenant); or

iii) The owner of the Category C Building did not approve the Requiring Authority‘s access to the property within the time period set out in Conditions DC.43(b) (including where the owner(s) did

not respond to the Requiring Authority‘s letter (sent pursuant to Condition DC.43(a) within that period)); or

iv) The owner of the Category C Building cannot, after reasonable enquiry, be found prior to completion of construction of the Project.

b) If any of (ii) to (iv) above apply to a particular Category C Building, the Requiring Authority shall not be required to implement any Building-modification Mitigation at that Category C Building.

DC.45 Subject to Condition DC.44, within six months of the assessment required under Condition DC.43(b), the Requiring Authority shall give notice to the owner of each PPF identified under Condition

DC.42:

Comment [CTSY33]: Siiri Wilkening

(Operational Noise) at [196] of her

evidence.

Comment [ALL134]: Siiri‘s rebuttal

p.35.

Comment [CTSY35]: Siiri Wilkening

(Operational Noise) at [194] of her

evidence.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 11

Ref Draft conditions (following rebuttal)

a) Advising of the options available for Building-modification Mitigation to the building; and

b) Advising that the owner has three months within which to decide and advise the Requiring Authority whether to accept Building-modification Mitigation for the building, and if the Requiring

Authority has advised the owner that more than one option for Building-modification Mitigation is available, to advise the Requiring Authority which of those options the owner prefers.

DC.46 Once an agreement on Building-modification is made between the Requiring Authority and the owner of an affected building, the mitigation shall be implemented in a reasonable and practical

timeframe agreed between the Requiring Authority and the owner.

DC.47 Subject to Condition DC.46, where Building-modification Mitigation is required, the Requiring Authority shall be deemed to have complied with DC.43(b) above where:

a) The Requiring Authority has completed Building-modification Mitigation to the Category C Building; or

b) The owner(s) of the Category C Building did not accept the Requiring Authority‘s offer to implement Building-modification Mitigation prior to the expiry of the timeframe stated in Condition

DC.43(b) above (including where the owner(s) did not respond to the Requiring Authority within that period); or;

c) The owner of the Category C Building cannot, after reasonable enquiry, be found prior to completion of construction of the Project.

DC.48 The Requiring Authority shall manage and maintain the Detailed Mitigation Options to ensure that, to the extent practicable, those mitigation measures retain their noise reduction performance.

DC.49 The NZTA system for monitoring and maintaining the condition of State Highway pavements and road surfaces policy for road roughness shall be applied in order to minimise the risk of operation

vibration issues.

DC.49A If following a complaint concerning traffic vibration from the Project when operational, the Manager so requests in writing, the Requiring Authority shall engage a suitably qualified expert to measure

and assess traffic vibration levels for compliance with the Class C criteria of Norwegian Standard NS 8176.E:2005 ―Vibration and shock – Measurement of vibration in buildings from land-based

transport and guidance to evaluation of its effect on human beings‖. A report describing the findings shall be provided to the Manager within one month of the assessment being completed.

DC.50 a) Prior to construction, the Requiring Authority shall arrange for a suitably qualified and experienced acoustics specialist approved by the Manager to undertake a minimum of 8 (eight) representative

measurements of ambient noise levels. Measurements shall be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of section 5.2 of NZS6806:2010. Monitoring sites shall be determined in

consultation with KCDC the Council.

b) Following completion of the work, the NZTA shall arrange for a suitably qualified and experienced acoustics specialist approved by the Manager to undertake traffic noise monitoring at the same

sites surveyed in Condition DC.50a) above, within 2 to 3 years following completion of construction of the Project. Measurements shall be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of

section 5.2 of NZS6806:2010.

c) The results of the noise level monitoring undertaken in accordance with Conditions DC.50a) and b) above shall be used to verify the computer noise model of the Detailed Mitigation Options. A

report describing the findings of the verification shall be provided to the Manager within one month of it being completed.

Hazardous Substances Management Plan

DC.51 a) The Requiring Authority shall finalise, submit and implement through the CEMP, the Hazardous Substances Management Plan (HSMP) to be submitted to the Manager for certification at least 15

working days prior to work commencing.

b) The purpose of HSMP is:

i) to provide information to the contractor in regard to acceptable management methodologies to incorporate during construction; and

ii) to provide information to the Regional Council and Kāpiti Coast District Council to demonstrate that the risks of storing and using hazardous substances within the Project area will be

appropriately managed by the Requiring Authority.

c) The HSMP shall include information relating to:

i) implementation and operating procedures including the keeping of a hazardous substances register and preparation of a spill response plan;

ii) monitoring requirements; and

iii) review procedures

d) Work shall not commence until the requiring authority has received the Manager‘s written certification of the HSMP.

Network Utilities Management Plan

DC.52 The Requiring Authority shall prepare and implement a Network Utilities Management Plan (NUMP) so that enabling work, design and construction of the Project adequately take account of, and include

measures to address, the safety, integrity, protection or, where necessary, relocation of, existing network utilities.

DC.53 The NUMP shall be prepared in consultation with the relevant infrastructure providers who have existing network utilities that are directly affected by the Project and shall include:

a) Measures to be used to accurately identify the location of existing network utilities,

b) Measures for the protection, relocation and/or reinstatement of existing network utilities;

c) Measures to seek to ensure the continued operation and supply of infrastructure services which may include, but not be limited to, any new or relocated gas pipes being made operational prior to

Comment [CTSY36]: James

Whitlock at [53] of his evidence.

Comment [JW37]: James Whitlock

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 10, 31

and 42

Comment [ALL138]: Robert

changed to make consistent with

definitions.

Comment [ALL139]: Siiri –

Operational Noise. P.36.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 12

Ref Draft conditions (following rebuttal)

the termination of existing gas lines;

d) Measures to provide for the safe operation of plant and equipment, and the safety of workers, in proximity to live existing network utilities;

e) Measures to manage potential induction hazards to existing network utilities;

f) Earthwork management (including depth and extent of earthwork), for earthwork in close proximity to existing network utility;

g) Vibration management for work in close proximity to existing network utility; and

h) Emergency management procedures in the event of any emergency involving existing network utilities.

DC.53A The NUMP shall include specific consideration of means to avoid or mitigate effects on Transpower‘s high voltage infrastructure, including:

a) methods and measures to ensure that the existing high voltage infrastructure can be accessed for maintenance at all reasonable times, or emergency work at all times, during and after construction

activities.

b) methods and measures to ensure that changes to the drainage patterns and runoff characteristics do not result in adverse effects from stormwater on the foundations for any high voltage

transmission line support structure.

c) confirmation that the vertical separation between the overhead conductors and the finished road surface will be equal to, or greater than, the following distances:

i) 10.5 metres for the expressway; and,

ii) 7.5 metres for any new local road.

(d) confirmation that new planting and maintenance of vegetation will:

i) comply with the New Zealand Electricity (Hazard from Trees) Regulations 2003, including, but not limited to, the provisions of the Schedule (Growth Limit Zones) to those regulations;

ii) be setback by a horizontal distance of at least 12 metres either side (total of 24 metres) from the centre line of the high voltage transmission lines where it is able to grow higher than two

metres; and,

iii) not be able to fall within 5 metres of the said transmission lines.

(e) Sufficient detail to confirm that the work will comply with the New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances (NZECP 34:2001), including, but not limited to, the provisions of:

i) Clause 2.2 with respect to excavations near overhead support structures;

ii) Clause 2.4 with respect to buildings near overhead support structures;

iii) Section 3 with respect to minimum separation between buildings and conductors;

iv) Section 5 with respect to minimum safe distances for the operation of mobile plant; and,

v) Table 4 with respect to minimum safe separation distances between the ground and the overhead conductors.

Advice Notes: Alterations or modification to the high voltage infrastructure that may be required to comply with Condition DC 53(b) and Conditions DC53(A)(c) and DC53(A)(e)(v). This work may

require additional consent and as the work will relate to an existing transmission line owned and operated by Transpower the required activity must be assessed with reference to the National

Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission Activities.

With respect to DC53(A)(e)(iii) specific consideration must be given to the height and location of temporary structures (such as project offices and other construction site facilities) and permanent

structures (such as lighting poles, signage, gantries and acoustic barriers). This may require a specific electrical engineering assessment as provided for by Section 3.4 of NZECP34:2001.

Landscape Management Plan

DC.54 a) The Requiring Authority shall submit revise and finalise the Landscape Management Plan (LMP) for the Project to the Manager for certification 15 working days prior to work commencing.

b) The purpose of the LMP is to outline the methods and measures to be implemented during the construction phase and for a defined period thereafter to avoid, remedy and mitigate adverse effects

of the permanent work on landscape amenity. The LMP shall document the permanent mitigation measures, as well as the the necessary monitoring and management required to successfully

implement those measures during the construction phase and the transition to the operational phase of the Expressway.

c) The LMP shall be prepared in consultation with:

(i) Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust;

(ii) Te Rūnanga O Toa Rangātira Inc, where the work are within or directly affect Queen Elizabeth Park;

(iii) the Greater Wellington Regional Council where works are within or directly adjacent to Queen Elizabeth Park, or Waikanae River corridor and the Waimeha Stream;

(iv) As relevant, Friends of Queen Elizabeth Park, Friends of Wharemauku Stream, Friends of Waikanae River; and

(v) the KCDC Council.

This consultation shall commence at least 30 60 working days prior to submission of the finalised LMP to the Council. Any comments and inputs received from the parties listed above shall be

clearly documented, along with clear explanation of where any comments have not been incorporated and the reasons why.

Comment [ALL140]: In response to

Transpower‘s evidence. Outlined in

Andy Quinn‘s rebuttal.

Comment [ALL141]: Boyden Evans

rebuttal evidence p.54.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 13

Ref Draft conditions (following rebuttal)

d) The LMP shall provide information how the following outcomes will be achieved:

i) The integration of the Project‘s permanent work, including earthworked areas, structures and noise attenuation measures, into the surrounding landscape and topography, including the

restoration of dune landforms, including but not limited to the restoration of areas used for temporary work and construction yards, and reinstatement with an appropriate vegetation type.

ii) The mitigation of the visual effects of the Expressway on properties in the immediate vicinity through landscape work, generally within land acquired for the Project (but also including on

private properties, where appropriate, and where the relevant owner consents);

iii) The retention or relocation of significant existing trees, or their replacement of if their retention or relocation is not practicable;

iv) The retention of areas of regenerating indigenous vegetation;

v) The proposed maintenance of plantings, including the replacement of unsuccessful plantings; and

vi) Coordination of landscape work with ecology work, including those required for stream diversion and permanent stormwater control ponds.

d) Work shall not commence until the requiring authority has received the Manager‘s written certification of the LMP.

DC.55 a) The LMP shall be prepared by suitably qualified and experienced landscape architect, and shall implement:

i) the principles and outcome sought by the Landscape and Urban Design Framework (Technical Report 5); and

ii) the landscape plans submitted as part of the Visual And Landscape Assessment (Technical Report 7).

and shall be prepared in accordance with:

iii) Transit New Zealand‘s Guidelines for Highway Landscaping (dated September 2002) – or any subsequent updated version;

iv) Transit New Zealand‘s ―Urban Design Implementation Principles (2006)‖ – or any subsequent updated version; and

v) AUSTROADS standards where these are relevant to pedestrian and cycle paths.

b) The LMP shall be consistent with the Ecological Management Plan (EMP) that is required to be certified under the regional consent conditions.

DC.56 The Requiring Authority shall submit a copy of the draft LMP LandscapeManagement Plan required by Condition DC.54 to the GWRC Regional Council for comment at least 15 working days before it is

submitted to the Manager for certification. Any comments received shall be supplied to the Manager when the LMP Landscape Management Plan is submitted, along with a clear explanation of where

any comments have not been incorporated and the reasons why.

DC.57 The LMP shall include details of landscape design, including the following matters:

a) Identification of vegetation to be retained, including retention of as many as practicable significant trees and areas of regenerating indigenous vegetation;

b) Protection measures for vegetation to be retained, and make good planting along cleared edges;

c) Proposed planting including plant species, plant/grass mixes, spacing/densities, sizes (at the time of planting) and layout and planting methods including trials;

d) Planting programme – the staging of planting in relation to the construction programme which shall, as far as practicable, include provision for planting within each planting season following

completion of work in each stage of the Project;

e) Detailed specifications relating to (but not limited to) the following:

(i) Vegetation protection (for desirable vegetation to be retained);

(ii) Weed control and clearance;

(iii) Pest animal management;

(iv) Ground preparation;

(v) Mulching; and

(vi) Plant supply and planting, including hydroseeding and grassing - which shall require:

1. Any planting to reflect the natural plant associations of the area;

2. Where practicable, the use of mixes of plant which are of a suitable richness and diversity to encourage self-sustainability once established; and

3. Any native plants to, so far as practicable, be genetically sourced from the relevant Ecological District;

f) A maintenance regime including the control of pest animals (including possums, rabbits and hares) and pest plants, including monitoring and reporting requirements, which is to apply for the

three years two years for terrestrial and four years for wetland and riparian vegetation following that planting being undertaken;

g) Landscape treatment for noise barriers;

h) Landscape treatment for pedestrian and cycle facilities;

i) Consideration of:

(i) The landscape character of the area;

(ii) The integration of the work into the natural environment, including streams; and

(iii) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles in urban areas.

Comment [ALL142]: Boyden Evans

rebuttal p.52.

Comment [CTSY43]: Boyden Evans

at [219] and [247] of his evidence.

Comment [CTSY44]: Boyden Evans

at [219] and [247] of his evidence.

Comment [ALL145]: Boyden Evan‘s

rebuttal p.58.

Comment [CTSY46]: Boyden Evans

at footnotes 23, 47, 67 and 124 of

his evidence.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 14

Ref Draft conditions (following rebuttal)

DC.58 In order to confirm that the LMP is consistent with the ecological management measures in the EMP, the certified EMP required under the regional resource consents shall be submitted to the Council

for information at the same time.

DC.59 The Requiring Authority shall submit the LMP Landscape Management Plan to the Manager for certification in respect of Conditions DC.54 and DC.58 at least 15 working days before the

commencement of construction.

Site Specific Urban Design Plans

DC.59A a) The Requiring Authority shall prepare Site Specific Urban Design Plans (SSUDPs) for the Project. The purpose of the Plans shall be to help ensure detailed design of the Project in sensitive locations

accords with the principles set out in the Urban and Landscape Design Framework (Technical Report 5).

b) The SSUDPs shall implement the Landscape Management Plans and the Network Integration Plan.

c) The SSUDP shall be prepared by a suitably qualified urban designer and with appropriate inputs from other experts. SSUDPs will be prepared for the locations specified below where the Expressway

interacts with local vehicular and non-vehicular movement:

(i) Poplar Avenue

(ii) Leinster Ave pedestrian bridge

(iii) Raumati Road

(iv) Ihakara extension/Wharemauku Stream

(v) Kāpiti Road

(vi) Makarini Street area pedestrian bridge

(vii) Mazengarb Road

(viii) Otaihanga Road

(ix) Te Moana Road

(x) Ngarara Road

(xi) Smithfield Road.

d) The SSUDPs will specifically address the detailed design of the Project in these locations for the benefit of pedestrians, cyclists and others using the local road network, including:

(i) Lighting, for the benefit of pedestrian and cyclists;

(ii) Footpath and on-road cycle lane design on road (provision for minimum dimensions of 1.5m on road cycle lanes, and 2m footpaths);

(iii) Intersection of cycleway/walkway/bridleway (CWB) paths and the local roads to provide safe crossings;

(iv) Retaining wall structures, in terms of their scale and materiality and noise mitigation structures and landforms in terms of their fit in the landscape and visual treatment;

(v) Local property access to provide for existing and future needs;

(vi) Landscape treatment, in conjunction with the Landscape Management Plans;

(vii) Bridge piers and abutments design to address the location of piers and the treatment of abutments to address their scale and materiality;

(viii) Location of highway directional signage, so as to avoid obstructing pedestrian and cycling movement and coordinate the provision of signage to avoid visual clutter.

e) A SSUDP will also be prepared for the Cycleway/Walkway/Bridleway (CWB). This will include:

(i) minimum dimensions for the Expressway network (parallel with Expressway 3m two way path);

(ii) locations for connections (immediate and future potential connections);

(iii) locations of boardwalks to address ecological values; lighting, safety provisions for crossings of local roads;

(iv) a CPTED review, as described in (f) below.

f) The SSDUP process will also include a CPTED review by a suitably qualified independent expert. This includes a preliminary review (at the outset of the SSUDP process) and a review of the draft

SSUDP to check how considerations have been addressed.

g) Specific matters to be considered at the locations in (c) are as follows:

(i) Poplar Avenue:

1. Legibility of the cycle and walking network, recognising the location adjacent to Queen Elizabeth Park and the start of the Expressway CWB.

2. Signage locations to recognise the likely scale and number of signs necessary to identify and regulate movement around the intersection

(ii) Leinster Ave pedestrian bridge:

1. Integration with the CWB and its link to the southern connection to Queen Elizabeth Park, to SH1 and any future connection to Matai Road.

Comment [ALL147]: Marc Bailey

rebuttal p.33.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 15

Ref Draft conditions (following rebuttal)

2. Location and design of bridge to minimise vertical ramping and address relationship to potential future vehicle bridge connection.

(iii) Raumati Road:

1. Pier locations given bridge skew to Raumati Road

(iv) Ihakara extension/Wharemauku Stream

1. Safety of pedestrian and cycle crossing at the future local road Ihakara Street Extension.

2. Provision for future road connection in relation to stream and CWB.

3. Gradient and direction of CWB in relation to the slope up to the Milne Drive level.

(v) Kapiti Road

1. Development of a distinctive gateway in terms of the bridge form, and legibility of connections to the future town centre development.

2. Utilisation of wetland and designated land on Kapiti Road to be integrated with this gateway design as a transitional space between the Expressway and town centre.

3. Future upgrades to Kapiti Road and the safety and convenience of the walking and cycling crossings.

4. Provision of a walking link between Kapiti Road and Makarini Street (via pocket park) in terms of its safety and convenience.

(vi) Makarini Street area pedestrian bridge:

1. Location and design to minimise vertical ramping.

2. Location of connections to Te Roto Drive and Makarini Street.

(vii) Mazengarb Road:

1. Design of retaining walls to reduce dominance and maintain openness of approach.

(viii) Otaihanga Road:

1. Safety and convenience of pedestrian and cycle crossing at the local road, including for horse riders.

(ix) Te Moana Road:

1. Safety and convenience of pedestrian and cycle crossing at the local road, including for horse riders.

2. Any additional network analysis required to consider the implications of the changes to the intersection design.

3. Future connection points to the Ngarara development areas.

4. Utilisation potential of the Waimeha Stream as an alternative (optional) route to crossings at Te Moana Road.

(x) Ngarara Road and Smithfield Road:

1. Horse use, including appropriate footpath widths and surfacing and dismounting area.

h) The SSUDPs shall be prepared in consultation with:

(i) Te Ati Awa ki Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust.

(ii) Te Rūnanga O Toa Rangātira Inc, where the works are within or directly affect Queen Elizabeth Park.

(iii) the GWRC where works are within or directly adjacent to Queen Elizabeth Park or Waikanae River corridor.

(iv) Where the site relates to the open spaces of Queen Elizabeth Park, Wharemauku Stream or Waikanae River, consultation is to be undertaken with Friends of Queen Elizabeth Park, Friends of

Wharemauku Stream, Friends of Waikanae River respectively; and

(v) KCDC.

i) This consultation shall commence at least 30 working days prior to submission of the finalised SSUDP to the Council. Any comments and inputs received from the parties listed above shall be clearly

documented, along with clear explanation of where any comments have not been incorporated and the reasons why.

j) The Requiring Authority shall submit each SSUDP to the Manager for certification at least 15 working days before the commencement of construction of that section of the Expressway.

Advice Note: The Requiring Authority has arrangements with the GWRC to construct a CWB within Queen Elizabeth Park in a manner that will integrate with the Project CWB.

Archaeology and Heritage

DC.60 The Requiring Authority, in consultation with, Te Rūnanga o Ati Awa ki Whakarongotai Inc, Takamore Trust, the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, and, in respect of Queen Elizabeth Park, Te Rūnanga O

Toa Rangātira, shall prepare an Accidental Discovery Protocol to be implemented in the event of accidental discovery of cultural or archaeological artefacts or features during the construction of the

Project in areas of swamp or wetland not covered by archaeological authorities obtained under Part 1 of the Historic Places Act 1993. This protocol shall be submitted to the Manager at least 15

working days prior to any construction or enabling Work commencing on the Project. The protocol shall include, but need not be limited to:

a) Training procedures for all contractors regarding the possible presence of cultural or archaeological sites or material, what these sites or material may look like, and the relevant provisions of the

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 16

Ref Draft conditions (following rebuttal)

Historic Places Act 1993 if any sites or material are discovered;

b) Parties to be notified in the event of an accidental discovery shall include, but need not be limited to Te Rūnanga o Ati Awa ki Whakarongotai Inc, Takamore Trust, Te Rūnanga O Toa Rangātira (in

respect of Queen Elizabeth Park), the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, GWRC, KCDC and, if koiwi are discovered, the New Zealand Police;

c) Procedures to be undertaken in the event of an accidental discovery (these shall include immediate ceasing of all physical work in the vicinity of the discovery); and

d) Procedures to be undertaken before work under this designation may recommence in the vicinity of the discovery. These shall include allowance for appropriate tikanga (protocols), recording of

sites and material, recovery of any artefacts, and consulting with Te Rūnanga o Ati Awa ki Whakarongotai Inc, Takamore Trust, Te Rūnanga O Toa Rangātira (in respect of Queen Elizabeth Park) and

the New Zealand Historic Places Trust prior to recommencing work in the vicinity of the discovery.

Advice Note: The Requiring Authority will be seeking separate archaeological authorities from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust under section 12 of the Historic Places Act 1993, prior to the

commencement of construction. The authorities are likely to include requirements for detailed investigations and monitoring effects and are also likely to require the preparation of an HMP (or an

Archaeological Management Plan).

DC.61 Following completion of construction work the Requiring Authority shall, in consultation with Te Rūnanga o Ati Awa ki Whakarongotai Inc, the Takamore Trust, the Kāpiti Coast District Council and the

New Zealand Historic Places Trust and where any investigations have been undertaken in accordance with any archaeological authorities granted under Part 1 of the Historic Places Act based on the

information obtained as part of those investigations, undertake for public information and educational purposes;

a) The preparation of a series of fixed interpretive signs and the placement of those signs at culturally and/or archaeologically significant or strategic locations adjacent to the combined pedestrian

footpath/cycleway;

b) The preparation of a complimentary complementary set of portable interpretive panels to be supplied to the Kāpiti Coast District Council for use and distribution;

c) The preparation of a booklet that provides an overview of the history of occupation on the Kāpiti Coast;

d) A series of open days associated with any archaeological field investigations.

Cultural Heritage

DC.62 Prior to the Expressway becoming operational, the Requiring Authority shall write to the Takamore Trust offering to commission a detailed geophysical survey of the extent of the Takamore urupa. If

the Takamore Trust confirms to the Requiring Authority that it agrees to them undertaking the survey within 1 year of the Requiring Authority making the written offer to the Trust, the Requiring

Authority shall undertake the survey and supply the Takamore Trust with a copy of the information derived from the survey as soon as reasonably practicable following completion of the survey.

DC.62A Prior to the commencement of construction in the Raumati South section of the Project, the Requiring Authority shall relocate the ‗Wind Rain House‘ at 224 Main Road (State Highway 1), Raumati, to a

suitable location, in accordance with a conservation report that shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced conservation architect. The report shall include the selection criteria for an

appropriate location and an assessment of how the moving and re-establishment of the structure is to be achieved to minimise the potential for adverse effects on it.

DC.62B a) The area shown in Scheme Plan CV-SP-119a (the Land) has been designated for the purpose of providing cultural heritage mitigation through the implementation of those

concepts which the Requiring Authority has proposed in the ―Restoring the Mauri‖ and ―Takamore Masterplan‖ documents, including the possible establishment of a Historic

Reserve over the Land.

b) No earthworks, construction, vegetation clearance or other work shall occur on the Land that could prejudice the capacity of the Land to achieve the purpose described in

condition (a), without the prior written approval of the Takamore Trust

DC.62C a) Prior to the commencement of construction, the NZTA shall establish a Cultural Heritage Liaison Group.

b) The purpose of the Cultural Heritage Liaison Group shall be to provide a regular forum between the Requiring Authority and the Takamore Trust for the purposes of assisting the Requiring

Authority and the Trust to jointly identify and agree measures to be implemented by the Requiring Authority with respect to the Land in order to implement concepts which the Requiring Authority

has proposed in the ―Restoring the Mauri‖ and ―Takamore Masterplan‖ documents.

c) The Cultural Heritage Liaison Group shall be comprised of representatives from the NZTA and trustees of Takamore Trust.

d) The NZTA will arrange for the Cultural Heritage Liaison Group to meet at least once every three months throughout the Project‘s construction period and once every six months after the completion

of the construction of the Project (subject to arrangements the members of the Group may otherwise make).

e) The NZTA shall be responsible for funding and obtaining statutory approvals required for and carrying out any works as may be agreed by the Group pursuant to this condition.

The NZTA shall provide the Manager with a report if the Manager so requests (at intervals no more frequent than 6 monthly) confirming the occurrence of meetings of the Cultural Heritage Liaison

Group and reporting on developments agreed by the Group.

DC.62D The NZTA‘s obligations in Conditions DC.62A and DC.62B shall be deemed to be met if, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Manager, the NZTA has invited the Trust in writing to join the Cultural

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 17

Ref Draft conditions (following rebuttal)

Heritage Liaison Group and the Manager is satisfied that, following sufficient time, the Trust has not joined the Group.

DC.62E The NZTA‘s obligations in Conditions DC.62A and DC.62B shall cease to apply upon the occurrence of any of the following circumstances (whichever occurs first):

a) The Trust terminates its membership of the Group (to the reasonable satisfaction of the Manager),

b) The Land is set aside as a Historic Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977, or

c) The second anniversary of the completion of construction of the Project occurs.

Lighting

DC.63 Lighting shall be designed and screened to minimise the amount of lighting overspill and illumination of residential areas, and shall demonstrate that:

a) All motorway lighting shall be designed in accordance with "Road lighting Standard AS/NZS1158"; and

b) All other lighting shall be designed in accordance with the relevant rules of the District Plan.

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions

Conditions – Transport (Operational)

DC.X1 As part of the Project, a pedestrian crossing facility (a refuge island or similar) should shall be provided to assist pedestrians to cross Park Avenue (near Number 87) where the existing footpaths swap sides of

the road. This shouldfacility shall be constructed and completed by the time the Expressway is fully operational.

A post-construction survey within 12 months of the commissioning of the Expressway shall one year after commissioning should be undertaken determine if any further traffic calming measures are

warranted to manage traffic speeds. This should shall be based on an analysis of pre and post-construction surveys of vehicle speeds and volumes on Park Avenue.

DC.X2 As part of the Project, traffic calming measures shall should be provided at the southern end of Tutanekai Street, to manage vehicle speeds and conflicts with the parking provided with the RSA and

Paraparaumu Reserve. This shouldThese traffic calming measures shall be constructed and completed by the time the Expressway is fully commissioned operational.

Comment [CTSY48]: Andrew

Murray at [127], [283] and [296] of

his evidence.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 18

DC.X3 a) The Requiring Authority NZTA shall prepare in collaboration with KCDC, and GWRC for the public transport elements, a Network Integration Plan (NIP) for the Project, or relevant Project phases, to

demonstrate how the Project integrates with the existing local road network and with future improvements planned by KCDC. The NIP shall include details of proposed physical work at the interface

between the State highway and the local road and public transport network, and shall address such matters as pedestrian/ cycleway design detail (including lighting), lane configuration, traffic signal co-

ordination and operational strategies, signage and provision for bus stops.

b) In addition, the NIP will address:

(i) How the work required for the Project at the Kāpiti Interchange will interface with the upgrades to intersections on Kāpiti Road at Milne Drive and Te Roto Drive proposed by KCDC (in particular lane

configurations to two continuous traffic lanes in each direction between the eExpressway intersection and Milne Drive).

(ii) Design details of where the shared pedestrian/cycleway proposed as part of the Project will interact with the local network, especially where it uses parts of the local road network at Mazengarb

Road, Otaihanga Road, Kauri Road, Ngarara Road, and the realigned Smithfield Road. This shall should include the details of the form and dimensions of the facility.

(iii) Details of the agreed protocols for operating the traffic signals on Kāpiti Road at and immediately adjacent to the Expressway interchange. This shall should include priorities for queue management

and targets for pedestrian crossing times.

(iv) Details of work (including design details) to be carried out to provide Design work carried out to finalise detail for alternative access to properties on Kāpiti Road whose existing access is affected by

the Project.

(v) Details of work (including design details) to be carried out to Detailed design work undertaken to replace bus stops on Kāpiti Road and at Peka Peka.

(vi) Details of work (including design details) to be carried out to provide for Design details for provision of the pedestrian and traffic calming facilities referred to in condition DC.X1 and DC.X2.

(vii) Arrangements for a design workshop with KCDC to confirm the preferred intersection control and concept design for the Te Moana Interchange.

c) Work identified in the NIP which are the responsibility of the NZTA, including any work associated with the relocation of bus stops, will be undertaken as at the time of construction work for the Project.

Comment [ALL149]: Andrew

Murray rebuttal evidence

Comment [ALL150]: Keith Gibson

p.22 accepts Emily‘s

recommendation to include

reference to Lighting Standards in

DC.X3.

Comment [ALL151]: Andrew

Murray‘s rebuttal

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 19

2 Proposed resource consent conditions

2.1 Guide to reading the conditions

The proposed suite of conditions to manage effects of the Project has been numbered in order to eliminate confusion, specifically to avoid multiple ‗Condition 1‘ and so forth. The numbering format is as follows:

NZTA regional resource consent condition s

G General conditions applying to all relevant consents and permits

WS Conditions applying to consents and permits for work in watercourses

E Conditions applying to consents and permits for earthwork and erosion and sediment control activities

BC Conditions applying to consents and permits for the construction of boreholes

GT Conditions applying to consents and permits for the taking of groundwater

The table below provides explanation to a number of the acronyms and terms used in the conditions.

Definitions

AEE

Means the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway Assessment of Effects on the Environment Volumes 1 to 5 dated April 2012

CEMP Means the Construction Environmental Management Plan

Commencement of Work Means the time when the work that are the subject of these designations commence

Existing network utilities Means all network utilities existing at 15 August 2011 (the date of lodgement of this Notice of Requirement). Network utility has the same meaning as in section 166 of the RMAResource Management Act

1991.

GWRC Means the Greater Wellington Regional Council

KCDC Means the Kāpiti Coast District Council

Manager Means the Consents Manager of the Greater Wellington Regional Council

Project Means the construction, maintenance and operation of the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway

Project Environmental

Manager

Means the person responsible for environmental management during construction, as nominated in the Construction Environmental Management Plan

Work Means any activity or activities undertaken in relation to the Project

Water body Means fresh water or geothermal water in a river, lake, stream, pond, wetland or aquifer, or any part thereof, that is not located within the coastal marine area.

2.2 Proposed NZTA resource consent conditions

2.2.1 Proposed application of conditions

Except as specified otherwise, the General Conditions shall apply to all resource consents as relevant. In addition, a number of resource consents are proposed to have specific conditions apply.

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 20

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions

General

G.1 The Project shall be undertaken in general accordance with the plans and information submitted with the application as documented as consent numbers [INSERT GWRC REFERENCE NUMBERS HERE], subject to

such amendments as may be required by the following conditions of consent.

The plans and information include:

a) Assessment of Environmental Effects report, dated [XXXX] April 2012

b) Plan sets:

i. CV-SP -100 – 160: Scheme plans;

ii. CV-GP-101-136: Geometric plans;

iii. CV-SC-001-004: Cross sections;

iv. CV-EW-100-232: Earthwork;

v. CV-BR-100-970: Bridges;

vi. CV-GE-100-140: Structural - General;

vii. GI-PR-01-18: Land Requirement Plans;

viii. CV-MF-100-132: Lighting, Marking and Signage;

ix. CV-CM-101-412: Construction Methodology;

x. Urban & Landscape Design Framework (Technical Report 5);

xi. Landscape & Visual (Technical Report 7)- Appendix A & B;

xii. Stormwater & Hydrology (Technical Report 22) – Appendix 22.A;

xiii. Erosion & Sediment Control (CEMP Appendix H) – Appendix H.B, H.C, H.D, H.E, H.F, H.H, H.I, H.R.

xiv. Proposed Mitigation Sites and Treatments (Plan Set XXX).

Where there is conflict between the documents lodged and the conditions, the conditions shall prevail.

G.2 Subject to the consent holder holding or obtaining appropriate property rights to enable it to do so, the consent holder shall permit the servants or agents of the GWRC to have access to relevant parts of the

respective properties at all reasonable times for the purpose of carrying out inspections, surveys, investigations, tests, measurements and/or to take samples.

Pre-construction Administration

G.3 The consent holder shall seek to arrange a pre-construction site meeting between the GWRC and any other relevant party nominated by the GWRC, including the primary contractor, at least 10 working days prior

to commencement of any stage (as identified in the staging plan submitted under condition G.12.

In the case that any of the invited parties, other than the representative of the consent holder, does not attend this meeting, the consent holder will have been deemed to have complied with this condition,

provided the invitation requirement is met.

The consent holder shall ensure that additional site meetings are held between the consent holder, the Manager and any other relevant party nominated by the Manager, at appropriate internalsintervals, and not

less than annually.

G.4 The consent holder shall ensure that a copy of this consent and all documents and plans referred to in this consent, are kept on site at all times and presented to any GWRC officer on request.

Consent Lapse and Expiry

G.5 Pursuant to section 125(1) of the Act, this consent referenced [INSERT GWRC REFERENCE NUMBERS HERE] shall lapse 15 years from the date of its commencement (pursuant to Section 116(5) of the Act) unless it

has been given effect, surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date.

G.6 Pursuant to section 123(c) of the Act, this consent referenced [INSERT GWRC REFERENCE DISCHARGE PERMIT AND WATER PERMIT NUMBERS HERE] shall expire 35 years from the date of its commencement

(pursuant to Section 116(5) of the Act).

Review Condition

G.7 The Manager may review any or all conditions of this consent by giving notice of their intention to do so pursuant to Section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, at any time within six months of the first,

third and fifth anniversaries of the date of commencement of the work authorised by this consent for any of the following purposes:

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

b) To review the adequacy of any monitoring plans proposed and/or monitoring requirements so as to incorporate into the consent any monitoring or other requirements which may become necessary to deal

with any adverse effects on the environment arising from the exercise of this consent.

Complaints

Comment [CTSY52]: Stephen Fuller

at [111] of his evidence.

Comment [CTSY53]: Typographical

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 21

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions

G.8 During construction Work, the consent holder shall maintain a permanent record of any complaints received alleging adverse effects from, or related to, the exercise of this consent. The record shall include:

a) the name and address (as far as practicable) of the complainant;

b) identification of the nature of the complaint;

c) location, date and time of the complaint and of the alleged event;

d) weather conditions at the time of the complaint (as far as practicable), including wind direction and approximate wind speed if the complaint relates to air discharges;

e) the outcome of the consent holders investigation into the complaint;

f) measures taken to respond to the complaint; and

g) any other activities in the area, unrelated to the project that may have contributed to the compliant complaint, such as non-project construction, fires, or unusually dusty conditions generally.

The consent holder shall also keep a record of any remedial actions undertaken.

This record shall be maintained on site and shall be made available to the Manager and the Territorial Authority, upon request. The consent holder shall notify the Manager and Greater Wellington Regional

Council in writing of any such complaint within 5 working days of the complaint being brought to the attention of the Requiring Authority. provide the Territorial Authority and the Manager with a copy of the

complaints register every month.

G.8A The complaints process under condition G.8 shall continue for 6 months following the opening of the Expressway to traffic. Any complaints received after this period shall be managed by the Consent Holder in

accordance with its standard complaints procedures.

Incidents

G.9 a) The consent holder shall immediately notify the Manager and the KCDC Territorial Authority if any contaminants (including sediment) or material are released in the undertaking of the Work and entersenter

any water body course due to any of the following:

i) discharges from non-stabilised areas that are not treated by erosion and sediment control measures required under this consent; and/or

ii) failure of any erosion and sediment control measures; and/or

iii) any other incident which either directly or indirectly causes, or is likely to cause, adverse ecological effects in any water body course that is not authorised by a resource consent held by the consent

holder.

b) If any of these incidents occuroccurs, the consent holder shall notify the Manager as soon as practicable after the incident being identified, and shall:

i) establish control measures where these have failed or have not been implemented in accordance with the CEMP as soon as practicable;

ii) liaise with the Manager to establish what remediation or rehabilitation is required and whether such remediation or rehabilitation is practical to implement;

iii) carry out any remedial action as required by and to the satisfaction of the Manager; and

iv) maintain a permanent record of the incident at the site, which shall include the date and time of the incident, the nature, manner and cause of the release of the contaminants, weather conditions at the

time of the incident and the steps taken to contain any further release and to remedy any adverse ecological effects on the water body course.

c) This notification shall be either by telephone or email, or via an alternative electronic method as agreed with the Manager.

d) For the purpose of this condition, ‗incident‘ shall refer to any discharge of contaminants that either directly or indirectly causes, or is likely to cause, adverse ecological effects in any water body course that is

not authorised by a resource consent held by the consent holder.

G.10 The consent holder shall, if requested by the Manager in response to a complaint, incident or other reasonable request that relates to managing an adverse effect that is directly related to the construction of the

pProject, carry out a review of any management plan required by these conditions. The consent holder shall submit the reviewed management plan to the Manager for certification that:

a) The reason(s) for requiring the review have been appropriately addressed; and

b) Appropriate actions and a programme for implementation are provided for if required.

Staff Training

Comment [CTSY54]: Typographical

Comment [CTSY55]: Andrew Goldie

at [105] of his evidence.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 22

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions

G.11 The consent holder shall ensure that earthwork contractor‘s personnel responsible for supervising earthwork site staff (i.e. foremen, supervisors and managers) shall undergo environmental awareness training,

required by the CEMP. This training shall occur at least five working days week prior to the commencement of any earthwork or earthwork stage and shall be given by a suitably qualified and experienced person

certified by the Manager to deliver a practical on-site training session. Specifically, contractors shall be briefed as follows training shall include but not be limited to:

a) Contractors likely to be involved in the construction and maintenance of erosion and sediment control devices shall receive training on the performance standards Design details for to be achieved by the

erosion and sediment control devices and associated methodologies; and

b) Contractors likely to be involved in the construction Details of any stream diversions or other in-stream work or wetlands, shall be briefed briefing on the values of the streams and wetland, the objectives of

for stream and culvert design and construction erosion and sediment control measures, the requirements of native fish for fish passage, and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to sediment

discharges.

c) Contractors For supervisory and management personnel likely to be involved in any wWork involving vegetation clearance shall be briefed briefing on the values of any significant areas of vegetation that are

to be retained, and the methods that shall be used to identify and protect them during construction; and

d) All contractors shall be briefed Briefing on the requirements of Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust for cultural ceremonies to occur before the commencement of Work.

The environmental awareness training shall include a process and programme for training of new staff members joining the Project team, and for any staff moving to a new CESCP area within the Project. This

environmental awareness training shall continue for the duration of the Project earthwork.

Staging and Programme Conditions

G.12 The consent holder shall prepare an overall staging plan for the whole project for certification by the Manager at least 15 working days prior to the commencement of any Work authorised by this consent. The

staging plan shall set out the proposed total construction period and demonstrate how the project will be staged.

Certification of the overall staging plan required under this above is necessary prior to the submission of the CEMP) required under Condition G.20.

Advice Note: Condition G.17 below provides for the updating and certification of any Management Plan for which details of various stages of work may not be known at the time the Management Plan is

submitted for original certification. In particular, more detailed area specific staging plans are to be prepared and submitted for certification as part of the CEMP under condition G.20. In addition, Construction

Erosion and Sediment Control Plans for specific sites along the route are provided under Condition G.28.

The Consent Holder shall submit to the Manager 2 months prior to commencement of the anticipated construction Work a detailed programme outlining:

i) The proposed staging of the construction Work;

ii) The anticipated submission dates of the CEMP management plans as required by G.19 and any other plans;

iii) The anticipated submission dates of Site Specific management plans that will be submitted for certification prior to the commencement of work at each stage of construction.

This programme is to assist GWRC in planning for resources to certify these management plans within the appropriate timeframes.

The Consent Holder will provide the Manager with an updated programme of construction sequencing and/or site specific management plans if changes occur in the programme. The updated programme shall

be submitted at least one month before any changes in sequencing occurs.

G.13 The consent holder shall provide the Manager with an updated schedule of construction activities for the Project at monthly intervals throughout the construction phase of the entire Project. Each monthly update

schedule shall demonstrate how it fits into the overall staging plan required by Condition G.12.

Annual Report

G.14 The consent holder shall provide to the Manager by the [XXth of XXXX] each year (or on an alternative date as otherwise agreed), an annual monitoring report. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview

of the monitoring and reporting work undertaken, and any environmental issues that have arisen during the construction of the Project. As a minimum, this report shall include:

a) all monitoring data required in accordance with the conditions of this consent;

b) any reasons for non-compliance or difficulties in achieving compliance with the conditions of these resource consents;

c) any work that have been undertaken to improve the environmental performance of the site or that are proposed to be undertaken in the up-coming year;

d) recommendations on alterations to the monitoring required; and

e) any other issues considered important by the consent holder.

Management Plans - General

G.15 All wWork shall be carried out in general accordance with the management plans required by these conditions.

G.16 Any changes to management plans specified in Condition G.15 that may be sought by the consent holder shall remain consistent with the overall intent of the relevant management plan and shall be submitted to

the Manager for certification at least 10 working days prior to any changes taking effect. Work shall not commence until the consent holder has received the Manager‘s written certification of the relevant

Comment [CTSY56]: Andrew Goldie

at [115] of his evidence.

Comment [CTSY57]: Amos Kamo at

[114] of his evidence.

Comment [GR58]: Graeme Ridley

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 94.

Comment [CTSY59]: Andrew Goldie

at [118] of his evidence.

Comment [CTSY60]: To come.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 23

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions

management plan(s).

G.17 The management plans may not are not required to include all details for every stage of wWork at the time the plan is submitted for certification to the Manager. If further details are to be provided for later

stages of construction, the management plan shall specify which stages require further certification at a later date. Further details shall be submitted to the Manager at least 10 working days prior to work

commencing in the relevant construction stage. Any changes to the relevant Management Plan that may be required as a result of further design details shall be submitted to be certified by the Manager at least

10 working days prior to wWork commencing in the relevant construction stage in accordance with the relevant condition(s).

The further details submitted shall be consistent with the original purpose and objectives as outlined in the relevant conditions below. Work shall not commence until the consent holder has received the

Manager‘s written certification of the changes.

G.18 Where a management plan is required to be prepared in consultation with any third party, the management plan shall demonstrate how the views of that party (or parties) have been incorporated, and where they

have not, the reasons why.

G.19 The management of key environmental effects associated with the construction phase of the Project shall be detailed within environmental management plans that are included in the appendices to the CEMP

(draft Plans were submitted with the applications). The finalised management plans shall be submitted to the Manager for certification at least 15 working days before the commencement of construction. Work

shall not commence until the consent holder has received the Manager‘s written certification for the management plan(s). The CEMP shall identify how the management plans have been integrated with each

other to manage ecological, groundwater, settlement and contamination effects.

This suite of management plans consist of:

a) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

b) Groundwater (Level) Management Plan

c) Settlement Effects Management Plan

d) Contaminated Soils and Groundwater Management Plan

e) Ecological Management Plan

G.19A Site Specific Management Plans (SSMPs) are required to provide additional detail to the management plans listed in G.19. SSMPs will be lodged for certification by the Manager prior to the construction Work

commencing in accordance with the timeframe outlined in the relevant conditions and will be prepared in accordance with the purpose, objectives and methodology outlined in the relevant CEMP management

plan.

Advice Note:

The SSMPs are not deemed to be part of the CEMP as they will be lodged in a staged manner throughout the course of the Project.

Construction Environmental Management Plan

G.20 The consent holder shall update and finalise the draft CEMP submitted with the application (dated XX 2012), which shall include the suite of Mmanagement Pplans listed under condition G.19. The finalised CEMP

shall be submitted to the Manager for certification information at least 15 working days before the commencement of construction.

G.21 The certification) shall confirm that the CEMP (and its appendices) shall confirm that the CEMP gives effect to the relevant conditions and thatshall includes details of:

a) Staff and contractors‘ responsibilities;

b) Training requirements for employees, sub-contractors and visitors;

c) Environmental incident and emergency management (including the procedures required under condition G.9);

d) Communication and interface procedures;

e) Environmental complaints management (required under Condition G.8);

f) Compliance monitoring;

g) Environmental reporting;

h) Corrective action;

i) Environmental auditing; and

j) CEMP review.;

k) Resource Efficiency and Waste Management Plan; and

l) Stakeholder and Communication Management Plan.

The CEMP shall also confirm construction methodologies and construction timeframes, including staging.

G.22 The CEMP shall confirm final project details, staging of wWork, and sufficient engineering design information to ensure that the Project remains within the limits and standards approved under this consent and

Comment [ALL161]: Matiu Park

rebuttal p.124 & 125 in response to

Thomson & Myers.

Comment [CTSY62]: To come.

Comment [CTSY63]: Typographical

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 24

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions

that the construction activities avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment in accordance with the conditions of this consent. The CEMP shall identify where design information for a particular

stage will be submitted at a later stage(s), in accordance with condition G.17.

G.23 At least 15 working days before submitting the CEMP to GWRC for certification the consent holder shall submit a copy of the draft final CEMP required by Condition G.20 to KCDC for comment. Prior to

submission of the CEMP to GWRC, a workshop will be held with KCDC to enable comments to be provided. A draft copy of the CEMP shall be provided to KCDC 5 working days prior to the date of the workshop.

Any comments received shall be supplied to the Manager when the CEMP is submitted, along with a clear explanation of where any comments have not been incorporated and the reasons why.

G.24 The CEMP shall be implemented and maintained throughout the entire construction period, and updated if further design information is provided.

G.25 A copy of the CEMP shall be held on each construction site at all times and be available for inspection by GWRC.

G.26 If the CEMP (including any of its constituent management plans) (excluding any certifiable management plans) is required to be revised as a result of any updated or new design information, the changes shall be

certified by the Manager in accordance with the relevant condition the revisions shall be submitted to the Manager.

Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan

G.27 The consent holder shall finalise, submit and implement through the CEMP, an Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan (ESCP) to be submitted to the Manager for certification at least 15 working days

prior to wWork commencing in accordance with Condition E.1. The purpose of the ESCP is to describe the methods and practices to be implemented to minimise, avoid, remedy and mitigate the effects of

sediment generation and yield on the aquatic receiving environments associated with the Project. In addition, the ESCP shall:

a) Outline the principles that the ESCP shall seek to adhere to;

b) Be developed in accordance with the objectives outlined in NZTA‘s Environmental Plan, including:

c) Ensuring Ensure construction and maintenance activities avoid, remedy or mitigate effects of soil erosion, sediment run-off and sediment deposition.

d) Identify areas susceptible to erosion and sediment deposition and implement erosion and sediment control measures appropriate to each situation with particular emphasis on high-risk areas, including

El Rancho Wetland (Weggery), Raumati Manuka Wetland (between Poplar Avenue and Raumati Road), Southern Otaihanga Wetland and the Northern Otaihanga Wetland (adjacent to Otaihanga Landfill); and

e) Use bio-engineering and low-impact design practices where practicable.

Work shall not commence until the consent holder has received the Manager‘s written certification for the ESCP.

[Advice Note: This ESCP shall follow the principles and practices as outlined within the ESCP, Appendix H of the CEMP].

G.28 The consent holder shall prepare, submit and implement through the CEMP, site specific Construction [stage] Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (CESCP), for all land disturbing activities including streamwork,

to be submitted to the Manager for certification at least 5 10 days prior to wWork commencing in that site, in accordance with Condition E.2. The purpose of the CESCP is to allow the consent holder and GWRC to

further develop methodologies to be implemented throughout the duration of the pProject to address the specific characteristics of various sites along the route. In addition, the CESCP shall:

a) The CESCP will Be consistent with the CEMP as required for G.20 and the ESCP as required for G.27 and E.1.

b) Ensure that any more than minor Any changes to the CESCP shall be approved certified by the Manager prior to the amendment being implemented in accordance with Condition E.2.

The CESCP will be consistent and in accordance with the CEMP as required for G.20 and the ESCP as required for G.27 above. Reference should also be made to Condition E.3 for CESCP details.

Work shall not commence until the consent holder has received the Manager‘s written certification of the CESCP.

Advice Note: These CESCPs will be developed within the context of the principles and practices of the ESCP and will allow for innovation, flexibility and practicality of approach to erosion and sediment control.

The CESCPs will also ensure ongoing adaption to changing conditions throughout the pProject lifetime. Where activities may be repeated throughout the site, such as peat replacement, then one CESCP may be

developed which will cover the ongoing implementation of such activities and without the need to develop ongoing and repeat CESCPs for certification.

Groundwater (Level) Management Plan

G.29 The consent holder shall finalise and submit and implement through the CEMP, the Groundwater (Level) Management Plan (GMP) to be submitted to the Manager for certification at least 15 working days prior to

wWork commencing. The purpose of the GMP management plan is to address the minimum standards, outline set out the best practicable options for groundwater monitoring and management and procedures

to minimise the effects on changes in groundwater levels.

The GMP shall be finalised in consultation with Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust,

The GWMP shall include information regarding:

i. the schedule of groundwater monitoring bores identifying piezometer depth, screen length and geological unit;

ii. the locations of groundwater monitoring bores shown on plans;

iii. the locations of monitoring stations on the Wharemauku Stream and Drain 5;

iv. a summary of understanding of the hydrological regime in each high-value wetland at the time of preparation of the GMP;

Comment [CTSY64]: Andrew Goldie

at [94.3] of his evidence.

Comment [GR65]: Graeme Ridley

Rebuttal Evidence, Grammar

Changes, Paragraph 104 (response

to Percy).

Comment [GR66]: Graeme Ridley

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 35

Comment [GR67]: Graeme Ridley

Rebuttal Evidence.

Comment [CTSY68]: Graeme Ridley

at [136] – [138] of his evidence.

Comment [GR69]: GR Rebuttal

Evidence, Paragraph 104. Percy

Comment [GR70]: GR Rebuttal

Evidence Paragraph 96 Handyside

Comment [CTSY71]: Graeme Ridley

at [136] – [138] of his evidence.

Comment [CTSY72]: Graeme Ridley

at [136] – [138] of his evidence.

Comment [GR73]: GR Rebuttal

Evidence, General Grammar,

Paragraph 107.

General mention of this condition in

paragraph 79.

Comment [AW74]: Ann Williams

Rebuttal Evidence suggests changes

made in green.

Note not specifically referred to in

text. General mention in paragraph

45 and 46.1

Comment [CTSY75]: Amos Kamo at

[109] of his evidence.

Comment [AW76]: Ann Williams

Rebuttal Evidence suggests changes

made in green.

Note not specifically referred to in

text. General mention in paragraph

45 and 46.1

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 25

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions

v. monitoring frequency;

vi. monitoring methods including the role of Te Ati Awa ki Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust;

vii. reporting requirements;

viii. alert and action programmes;

ix. response management; and

x. review procedures.

Work shall not commence until the consent holder has received the Manager‘s written certification of the GMP.

G.30 At least 15 working days before submitting the GMP to GWRC the Manager for certification the consent holder shall submit a copy of the draft GMP required by Condition G.29 to KCDC for comment. Any

comments received shall be supplied to the Manager when the GMP is submitted, along with a clear explanation of where any comments have not been incorporated and the reasons why.

Settlement Management Plan

G.31 The consent holder shall finalise, submit and implement through the CEMP, the Settlement Management Plan (SEMP) to be submitted to the Manager for certification at least 15 working days prior to work

commencing. The purpose of the SEMPmanagement plan is to address the potential ground settlements (settlements) associated with construction and operation of the Expressway, and the effects of these

settlements on existing buildings, services and transport infrastructure.

The SEMP shall include information regarding:

i. implementation and operational procedures;

ii. estimated total settlements

iii. monitoring methods;

iv. monitoring locations set out on a plan;

v. monitoring frequency;

vi. reporting requirements;

vii. alert and action programmes; and

viii. review procedures.

Work shall not commence until the consent holder has received certification of the SEMP.

Contaminated Soils and Groundwater Management Plan

G.32 The consent holder shall submit finalise, submit and implement through the CEMP, the Contaminated Soils and Groundwater Management Plan (CSGMP) to be submitted to the Manager for certification at least 15

working days prior to wWork commencing. The purpose of this Plan the CSGMP is to identify contamination levels found during investigations, to highlight the minimum, standards and to identify the best

practicable option, for management of contaminated soil and groundwater for the Project.

The CSGMP shall be finalised in consultation with Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust.

The CSGMP shall include information regarding:

a) implementation and operational procedures including:

i. roles and responsibilities of the Contaminated Land Specialist;

ii. management of as yet un-investigated potentially contaminated sites;

iii. management of areas of known contamination;

iv. risk register records and

v. a contingency action plan for unexpected discoveries.

b) soil and groundwater contamination monitoring requirements and testing and disposal procedures;

c) site validation report;

d) consent monitoring requirements (including the role of Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust in monitoring stormwater treatment devices); and,

e) review procedures.

Work shall not commence until the consent holder has received the Manager‘s written certification of the CSGMP.

G.33 The consent holder shall undertake appropriate investigations into the four areas of potentially contaminated land that are proposed to be used for stormwater treatment (identified in Technical Report 23 –

Assessment of Land and Groundwater Contamination Effects) to identify the level of contamination and what measures may be required to manage potential effects from the discharge of contaminants on the

environment and human health. These areas are located at 16 Leinster Ave, 150 Raumati Road, 58 Kiwi Road and 109 Kāpiti Road. A report outlining detailing the findings of this investigation and a revised

CSGMP shall be submitted to the Manager at least 15 working days prior to wWork commencing. Once certified, the revised CSGMP shall be implemented.

Comment [CTSY77]: Amos Kamo at

[109] of his evidence.

Comment [AW78]: Ann Williams

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 44

and 46.1

Comment [AW79]: Ann Williams

Rebuttal Evidence.

Note* Not specifically stated in text

but alluded to in Paragraph 45.

Comment [KL80]: Kerry Laing

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 40

Comment [KL81]: Kerry Laing

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 47

Comment [KL82]: Kerry Laing

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 40

Comment [CTSY83]: Amos Kamo at

[109] of his evidence.

Comment [CTSY84]: Amos Kamo at

[109] and [129] of his evidence.

Comment [KL85]: Kerry Laing

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 55.

Comment [CTSY86]: Dr Kerry Laing

at [99] and [112.1] of his evidence

(NB: omitted from his Annexure A).

Comment [KL87]: Kerry Laing

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 52

Comment [KL88]: Kerry Laing

Rebuttal Evidence, No Paragraph

mentions this.

Comment [KL89]: Kerry Laing

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 54.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 26

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions

Ecological Management Plan

G.34 a) The consent holder shall finalise, submit and implement through the CEMP, the Ecological Management Plan (EMP). The EMP shall be submitted to the Manager for certification at least 15 working days prior

to wWork commencing. The purpose of the PlanEMP is to:

i. oOutline the ecological management programme to avoid, remedy and mitigated protect, reduce and remediate impacts on the environment during the construction phase of the Project.;

ii. This EMP shall also d Document the permanent mitigation measures, such as restoration planting, and the mechanisms by which to develop relevant mitigation and restoration plans for terrestrial and

freshwater habitat.;

iii. Ensure through post-construction monitoring that mitigation has been achieved; and

iv. Ensure through post-construction monitoring that any long-term effects are remediated through adaptive management or mitigated.

b) The EMP shall be finalised in consultation with Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust.

c) The EMP shall detail the monitoring to be undertaken pre-construction, during construction and post-construction as outlined below in Condition G.38-G.40. The EMP shall detail the role that Te Āti Awa ki

Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust will have observing monitoring.

d) The EMP shall provide information on how the following outcomes will be achieved:

i. Avoid, remedy and mitigate Minimise loss of valued vegetation and habitats;

ii. Avoid, remedy and mitigate Minimise construction effects on freshwater and the marine environments;

iii. Avoid, remedy and mitigate Minimise effects on identified wetlands resulting from hydrological changes to water tables;

iv. Minimise effects on fish during stream work;

v. Minimise disturbance of nationally threatened or at-risk birds (as listed by the most up to date Department of Conservation threat classification lists) during breeding periods;

vi. Develop a Lizard Management Plan specifying that, prior to any construction in the vicinity of the El Rancho wetland, a series of tracks shall be cut through the scrub within the Project footprint to allow

the area to be searched for arboreal lizards. The Lizard Management Plan shall also specify mechanisms to capture and move lizards from the El Rancho area, including (obtaining the necessary Wildlife

Act 1953 permits), as well as mechanisms for re-establishing Re-establish affected lizard habitat and minimising lizard mortality resulting from construction of the Project;

vii. Carry out monitoringEnsure that monitoring is carried out in a manner that will confirm that adverse effects are as predicted; any exceedance is identified; and appropriate actions are undertaken to

rectify;

viii. Ensures that mitigation requirements are undertaken and monitored to ensure success is achieved; and

ix. Carry out monitoringEnsure monitoring is carried out in a manner that confirms that mitigation meets objectives.

x. TheAvoid adverse effect on the North Island fernbird population is not adversely affected byfrom construction or operation of the Project;

xi. The monitoring ofProvide for monitoring of culverts and fish passages by Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust during construction.

xii. Ensure that in the event of additional vegetation or habitat loss outside of the Project footprint, including Project-related hydrological changes to wetlands mitigation calculations are consistent with the

Environmental Compensation Ratios outlined in the EMP.

Work shall not commence until the consent holder has received the Manager‘s written certification of the EMP.

G.35 The EMP shall be prepared by suitably qualified and experienced ecologist, and shall implement the principles and outcomes recommendations of sought by the Ecological Impact Assessments (Technical Reports

26 – 31). The EMP shall be prepared in accordance with:

a) NZTA‘s Environmental Plan;

b) The Conservation Management Strategy for the Wellington Conservancy; and

c) The Greater Wellington Pest Management Strategy (2009)

G.36 The EMP shall be consistent with the Landscape Management Plan (LMP) that is required to be certified by KCDC under the designation conditions.

G.37 At least 15 working days before submitting the EMP to GWRC the Manager for certification the Consent Holder shall submit a copy of the draft EMP required by Condition G.34 to KCDC for comment. Any

comments received shall be supplied to the Manager when the EMP is submitted, along with a clear explanation of where any comments have not been incorporated and the reasons why.

Ecological Monitoring – General

G.38 Monitoring shall be carried out in accordance with the EMP as required by Condition G.34 in order to:

a) collect baseline information and develop appropriate management triggers for on vegetation, wetlands, freshwater and marine ecology and fernbird for 1 year prior to construction wWork starting;

b) collect monitor ecological information on vegetation, wetlands, freshwater and marine ecology and fernbird during construction wWork in accordance with the pre-construction baseline management

triggers;

c) collect monitor ecological information on vegetation, wetlands, freshwater and marine ecology, and fernbird for a minimum of 2 years post construction wWork completion to confirm mitigation requirements

Comment [ALL190]: Mat Park

rebuttal evidence p.130 & 131 in

response to Thomson & Death.

Comment [CTSY91]: Amos Kamo at

[115] of his evidence.

Comment [CTSY92]: Amos Kamo at

[115] of his evidence.

Comment [CTSY93]: Stephen Fuller

at footnote 81 in reference to Dr

Bull‘s evidence; Leigh Bull at [135]

of her evidence.

Comment [CTSY94]: Amos Kamo at

[115] of his evidence.

Comment [CTSY95]: Stephen Fuller

at footnote 82 in reference to Mr

Park‘s evidence; Matiu Park at [121]

and [145] of his evidence.

Comment [ALL196]: Mat Park‘s

evidence – included in Annex 1 but

not referenced in the text.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 27

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions

outlined in G.34 are achieved; and

d) undertake monitoring for adaptive management as detailed in Condition G.40.

G.38A Monitoring of water quality is required in perennial or intermittent waterways downstream of potential earthwork discharge areas as follows:

a) Monitoring will be of turbidity (NTU) and suspended sediments (TSS);

b) Continuous turbidity loggers:

i. Continuous logger turbidity monitoring shall be used to establish a base line turbidity state in the Waikanae River, Wharemauku Stream, and Kakariki Stream.

ii. Continuous logger monitoring shall continue for the duration of open earthwork.

c) Grab samples

i. In addition to the continuous logger monitoring, where a monitoring trigger established by the ESCP is exceeded resulting in a discharge from Work, water quality will be sampled by grab samples for TSS

(as well as clarity by hand meter), or Turbidity (NTU) by hand meter.

ii. This sampling will be carried in 2 hours of the exceedence;

iii. Sampling will be carried out upstream and downstream within 100m of the potential earthwork discharge area.

Advice Note: Monitoring of streams turbidity is required in addition to the monitoring of sediment control devices.

G.39 a) All ecological monitoring required under the EMP shall be managed undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist.

b) The results of all monitoring carried out pursuant to the EMP shall be:

(i) available for inspection during normal office hours where such data is available;

(ii) provided to Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust;

(iii) submitted to the Manager at quarterly intervals for certification that the appropriate monitoring has been undertaken;

(iv) submitted to the Director-General of Conservation and KCDC for information; and

(v) summarised and submitted as part of the annual report required under Condition G.14.

G.40 An Adaptive Management approach shall be taken to responding to ecological effects as outlined in the EMP. The Adaptive Management monitoring shall seek to:

a) Provide a level of baseline information of pre-construction vegetation, wetlands hydrology, freshwater and marine habitats, and distribution of fernbird, in order to develop ‗management trigger‘ levels

(where practicable) for each environment being monitored;

b) Undertake monitoring during construction to observe whether ‗management trigger‘ levels are exceeded and to determine the effectiveness of the environmental management methods; and

c) In the event that management trigger levels are exceeded during or post-construction an Adaptive Management approach shall be enlisted undertaken in consultation with GWRC that will seek to:

i. Investigate a plausible cause-effect association with the Project;. sShould the event be linked to the project the following steps will be undertaken:

A. Identify the on-site practice that is generating the effect;

B. Seek to Alter the operational measure in consultation with GWRC;

C. Undertake further monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the altered on-site practice remedy Project-related effects;

D. In the event that changes to operational actions are unsuccessful, in consultation with GWRC agree appropriate remedial actions and necessary consenting requirements to manage effects;

E. In the event that remedial actions are unsuccessful, in consultation with GWRC agree appropriate mitigation actions and necessary consenting requirements to mitigate effects;

F. Undertake further monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.

ii. If the management trigger level exceedance developed in clause a) above is not deemed by a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist to be attributable to wWork associated with the Project, the

consent holder shall not be held liable for any remediation or mitigation work;

iii. Management trigger level exceedances during construction should be treated as management triggers and not compliance triggers in the first instance.

Ecological Mitigation

G.41 In order to avoid, remedy or mitigate minimise the extent of effects on any area of indigenous natural vegetation and on habitats of indigenous flora and fauna located within the Project designation, the

Consent Holder shall engage a suitably qualified ecologist to prepare detailed maps identifying all those areas listed in (c) and (d) below and other indigenous habitats not identified as high value, (including

areas of wetland), with information on their relative values and protection requirements.

The maps shall be completed as part of detailed design and shall be used to inform staff and contractors of the following inform:

a) The ecological implications (including mitigation and consent requirements) of any design changes that result in the extent of wWork varying from the footprint provided in the application drawings; and

b) The purpose and mechanisms for ensuring the protection of sites of ecological value during construction.

Comment [CTSY97]: Leigh Bull at

[135] of her evidence; Stephen

Fuller at footnote 83 in reference to

Dr Bull‘s evidence.

Comment [ALL198]: Matiu Park

rebuttal evidence, included in

Annex but not directly referenced in

body of evidence.

Comment [ALL199]: From Dr

Keesing‘s rebuttal evidence.

Comment [ALL1100]: Matiu Park

rebuttal evidence, included in

Annex but not directly referenced in

body of evidence.

Comment [CTSY101]: Amos Kamo

at [115] of his evidence – NB he

references G.38 in his evidence,

should be G.39.

Comment [CTSY102]: Leigh Bull at

[135] of her evidence; Stephen

Fuller at footnote 84 of his evidence

in reference to Dr Bull‘s evidence.

Comment [ALL1103]: Matiu Park‘s

rebuttal evidence, p.58

Comment [ALL1104]: Matiu Park‘s

rebuttal evidence, p.135.

Comment [CTSY105]: Automatic

numbering (as set out in Stephen

Fuller‘s Annexure A corrected).

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 28

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions

For the purposes of this condition, areas of natural vegetation and habitats of indigenous flora and fauna are:

c) Valued terrestrial vegetation and habitats:

(i) Kanuka forest and mahoe south of Raumati Road;

(ii) Mahoe vegetation along Drain 7;

(iii) Dry vegetation in Otaihanga;

(iv) Kanuka remnant in Otaihanga;

(v) Riparian vegetation;

(vi) Riverside plantings;

(vii) Waikanae River riparian vegetation;

(viii) Large area of regenerating broadleaved low forest of Tuku Rakau Forest Village;

(ix) Large area of regenerating broadleaved low forest on Ngarara Farm between Te Moana Road and Smithfield Road; and

(x) Kakariki Stream and associated riparian vegetation.

d) Valued wetland vegetation and habitats:

(i) Raumati Manuka Wetland;

(ii) Northern and Southern Otaihanga Wetlands;

(iii) Otaihanga Central Wetland and associated Landfill Drain;

(iv) New wetland created to mitigate permanent loss of wetlands;

(v) El Rancho;

(vi) Tuku Rakau Village wetland and regenerating mahoe forest;

(vii) Te Harakeke / Kawakahia wetland;

(viii) Kawakahia swamp forest;

(ix) Ti Kouka wetland; and

(x) Ngarara wetland.

e) The extent of adverse effects shall be minimised by, as a minimum:

(i) Developing detailed designs which avoid or minimise the extent of effect on areas identified under (c) and (d above as far as practicable;

(ii) Developing mechanisms to ensure that the areas, or parts of areas, to be avoided are clearly marked on the ground (e.g. through fences) and that contractors are required to avoid them; and

(iii) For those areas which cannot be avoided, but where complete loss of the ecosystem, vegetation or habitat is not required, developing mechanisms to reduce the impact on the area as far as

practicable.

G.42 The Consent Holder shall undertake work necessary to ensure that a combined total of at least 161 ha of land is dedicated to the active or passive restoration of vegetation, wetlands, and streams for the

purposes of landscape and ecological mitigation.

For ecological mitigation, this shall be comprised of the following components;

a) Approximately 7.6 ha of planted indigenous comprising revegetation of terrestrial habitat;

b) Approximately 5.4 ha of landscaped and planted indigenous comprising formation and revegetation of wetland habitat; and

c) Approximately 17.7 ha comprising planting of riparian habitat;

dc) Within the above areas, at least 5,240 linear metres of stream mitigation including naturalisation of channels and 17.7 ha of enrichment of riparian habitat and enhancement of fish passage.

For landscape and visual mitigation, this shall be comprised of the following components:

a) Approximately 49.6 ha comprising of planted indigenous revegetation of terrestrial habitat;

b) Approximately 15.7 ha of landscaped and planted indigenous comprising formation and revegetation of wetland habitat (including flood storage areas and stormwater treatment wetlands);

c) Approximately 65.6 ha comprising landscape treatments including grass, medians, specimen trees, and visual screening.

These areas shall closely correspond to the maps entitled Plan Set 11. ―Landscape and Visual‖; and Plan Set []XXX ―Proposed Ecological Mitigation Sites‖, unless otherwise agreed with the Manager.

For each ecological mitigation area, a SSEMP shall be developed by a suitably qualified ecologist.

G.43 The final operational designation area shall fully incorporate the above areas of ecological mitigation (with the exception of the riparian mitigation in the Kakariki Stream, which is outside the designation and is

to be protected through Certificate of Title mechanisms) to ensure that these ecological mitigation work continue to function and be able to be maintained on an on-going basis by the consent holder. The

Comment [CTSY106]: Stephen

Fuller at [110.1] and [148] of his

evidence.

Comment [CTSY107]: Stephen

Fuller at [110.2] and [148] of his

evidence.

Comment [ALL1108]: Matiu Park‘s

rebuttal evidence, p.108.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 29

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions

mechanisms to achieve ongoing protection of the above ecological mitigation areas shall be set out within the EMP and shall as a minimum cover:

a) The felling, removal, burning or taking of any native trees, shrubs or plants or native fauna;

b) The planting of trees, shrubs or plants with a preference for specimens sourced from the ecological district within which the land is situated;

c) The introduction of any noxious substance or substance otherwise injurious to plant life except in the control of pests;

d) The installation and maintenance of fences and gates, except when the provisions of the Fencing Act 1978 apply;

e) The control of deer, goats, pigs, and weeds to levels that are necessary to achieve the conditions imposed on the relevant designation and associated consents, and to prevent significant loss of existing

natural values;

f) Compliance with the provisions of, and any notices given under, the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the Wild Animal Control Act 1977; and

g) Timing of inspections and reporting on requirements.

Archaeology and Heritage

G.44 The Consent Holder, in consultation with, Te Rūnanga o Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai Inc, Takamore Trust, the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, and, in respect of Queen Elizabeth Park, Te Rūnanga O Toa

Rangātira, shall prepare an Accidental Discovery Protocol (ADP) to be implemented in the event of accidental discovery of cultural or archaeological artefacts or features during the construction of the Project in

areas of swamp or wetland not covered by archaeological authorities obtained under Part 1 of the Historic Places Act 1993. This protocol shall be submitted to the Manager at least 15 working days prior to any

construction or enabling Work commencing on the Project. The protocol shall include, but need not be limited to:

a) Training procedures for all contractors regarding the possible presence of cultural or archaeological sites or material, what these sites or material may look like, and the relevant provisions of the Historic

Places Act 1993 if any sites or material are discovered;

b) Parties to be notified in the event of an accidental discovery shall include, but need not be limited to Te Rūnanga o Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai Inc, Takamore Trust, Te Rūnanga O Toa Rangātira (in respect of

Queen Elizabeth Park), the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, GWRC, KCDC and, if koiwi are discovered, the New Zealand Police;

c) Procedures to be undertaken in the event of an accidental discovery (these shall include immediate ceasing of all physical work in the vicinity of the discovery); and

d) Procedures to be undertaken before work under this designation may recommence in the vicinity of the discovery. These shall include allowance for appropriate tikanga (protocols), recording of sites and

material, recovery of any artefacts, and consulting with Te Rūnanga o Ati Awa ki Whakarongotai Inc, Takamore Trust, Te Rūnanga O Toa Rangātira (in respect of Queen Elizabeth Park) and the New Zealand

Historic Places Trust prior to recommencing work in the vicinity of the discovery.

Advice Note: The Consent Holder will be seeking separate archaeological authorities from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust under section 12 of the Historic Places Act 1993, prior to the commencement of

construction. The authorities are likely to include requirements for detailed investigations and monitoring effects and are also likely to require the preparation of an HMP (or an Archaeological Management

Plan).

Comment [ALL1109]: Matiu Park‘s

rebuttal evidence, p.114 in

response to Robert van Bentum

(KCDC).

Comment [CTSY110]: Stephen

Fuller at [110.3] and [148] of his

evidence.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 30

2.3 Proposed consent conditions for earthwork and discharges to land

Land Use Consent – Earthwork (NSP 12/01.003) to disturb soil to construct roading and tracking for the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway;

Land Use Consent – Earthwork (NSP 12/01.004) to disturb soil in areas identified as being erosion prone, and undertake large scale vegetation clearance for the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway.

Discharge Permit to land (NSP 12/01.005) to discharge sediment and chemical flocculant in treated stormwater runoff to water, and to land where it may enter water, in association with bulk earthwork for the MacKays to Peka Peka

Expressway.

Discharge Permit to land (NSP 12/01.029) to discharge treated cement contaminated water to water, and to land where it may enter water, associated with the construction of the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway.

Discharge Permit to land (NSP 12/01.030) to discharge contaminants to land from the Otaihanga Construction Yard.

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions

E Earthwork Conditions

Erosion and Sediment Control

E.1 The consent holder shall finalise, submit and implement through the CEMP, an Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan (ESCP) to be submitted to the Manager for certification at least 15 working days prior to

wWork commencing. The purpose of the ESCP is to describe the methods and practices to be implemented to minimise the effects of sediment generation and yield on the aquatic receiving environments associated

with the Project. In addition, the ESCP shall:

a) Outline the principles that the ESCP shall seek to adhere to;

b) Be developed in accordance with the objectives outlined in NZTA‘s Environmental Plan, including:

d) Ensuring construction and maintenance activities avoid, remedy or mitigate effects of soil erosion, sediment run-off and sediment deposition.

e) Identify areas susceptible to erosion and sediment deposition and implement erosion and sediment control measures appropriate to each situation with particular emphasis on high-risk areas.

f) Use bio-engineering and low-impact design practices where practicable.

Advice Note: Erosion and sediment control measures shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the NZTA‘s Draft Erosion and Sediment Control Standard for State Highway Infrastructure and Draft Field

Guide for Contractors (and any subsequent amendments to that document that occur after this consent is granted and prior to the commencement of construction), except where a higher standard is detailed in the

ESCP referred to in Condition G.27 and E.1, in which case the higher standard shall apply.

E.2 a) The consent holder shall prepare, submit and implement through the CEMP, a site specific Construction [stage] Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (CESCPs) to be submitted to the Manager for certification at

least 10 5 days prior to wWork commencing in that site.

b) Where a more than minor change to the CESCP is required, the consent holder may request amendments to any CESCP by submitting the amendments in writing for the certification of the Manager. Any

amendments to a given CESCP shall ensure that it will continue to meet the purpose and objectives as outlined in G.28 to the satisfaction of the Manager.

Work shall not commence until the consent holder has received the Manager‘s written certification of the CESCP.

The CESCPs shall be prepared in consultation with Te Ati Awa ki Whakarongotai and Takamore Trust. The purpose of the CESCP is to allow the consent holder and GWRC to further develop methodologies to be

implemented throughout the duration of the project to address the specific characteristics of various sites along the route. In addition, the CESCP shall:

a) The CESCP will be consistent with the CEMP as required for G.20 and the ESCP as required for G.27 and E.1 above.

Any changes to the CESCP shall be approved by the Manager prior to the amendment being implemented.

E.3 The CESCPs shall meet the purpose in Condition E.2 G.28 and include, but need not be limited to:

a) Contour information at suitable intervals;

b) Erosion and sediment control measures including specific pond design (including calculations supporting pond sizing);

c) Determination of the requirement for chemical Chemical treatment and, if required, the associated design and details;

d) Catchment boundaries for the erosion and sediment control measures;

e) Location of the Work, and cut and fill operations;

f) Details of construction methods to be employed, including timing and duration;

g) Design details including:

i. Contributing catchment area;

ii. Retention volume of structure (dead storage and live storage measured to the top of the primary spillway);

Comment [ALL1111]: Graeme

Ridley deleted. P.108 rebuttal in

response to Percy.

Comment [CTSY112]: Graeme

Ridley at [136] – [137] of his

evidence.

Comment [ALL1113]: Graeme

Ridley in response to Handyside

p.98.

Comment [ALL1114]: Graeme

Ridley in response to Percy, p.108.

Comment [CTSY115]: Amos Kamo

at [113] of his evidence.

Comment [ALL1116]: Graeme

Ridley deleted.

Comment [CTSY117]: Graeme

Ridley at [136] – [137] of his

evidence.

Comment [CTSY118]: Graeme

Ridley at [137] of his evidence –

(this is a flow-on effect/referencing

change).

Comment [ALL1119]: Graeme

Ridley in response to Handyside,

p.98.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 31

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions

iii. Shape of structure (dimensions of structure);

iv. Location of flood waters;

v. Safety and access;

vi. Position of inlets/outlets;

vii. Stabilisation of the structure; and

viii. Maintenance.

h) A programme for managing non-stabilised areas of earthwork, including progressive stabilisation considerations;

i) The identification of appropriately qualified and experienced staff to manage the environmental issues onsite;

j) The identification of staff who have clearly defined roles and responsibilities to monitor compliance with the Consent Conditions and the ESCP;

k) The role of Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and the Takamore Trust in monitoring;

l) Provision of details of a chain of responsibility for managing environmental issues and details of responsible personnel; and

m) Methods and procedures to be undertaken for decommissioning of erosion and sediment control measures including chemical treatment devices.

n) Methods, design details and procedures for managing the discharge of contaminants with a particular focus on that associated with cement contamination.

Advice Note: For the purpose of this condition stabilisation shall mean making an area resistant to erosion. This may be achieved by using indurated rock or through the application of basecourse, grassing is used

on a surface that is not otherwise resistant to erosion, the surface is considered stabilised once 80% vegetative ground cover has been established over the entire area. ―Non-stabilised‖ areas area those which do not

meet the definition of ―stabilised‖.

E.4 Prior to any earthwork commencing within a site each area of Work (other than those required to establish erosion and sediment control measures), a certificate signed by an appropriately qualified and experienced

sediment control practitioner shall be submitted to GWRC the Manager to certify that the erosion and sediment control measures (including clean and dirty water diversion channels, silt fences, decanting earth bunds,

sediment retention ponds, sediment retention ponds, rock filters and chemical treatment systems) for that sitearea have been constructed in accordance with the relevant CESCP.

The certificate is to be provided to the Manager 2 working days prior to the commencement of construction in that area of Work.

E.5 A copy of the ―as-built(s)‖ and the certified CESCPs shall be kept on site, and all erosion and sediment control measures (including staging boundaries and particularly the extent of exposed areas) shall be updated as

soon as practicable as changes are made. As-built plans shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and shall be accompanied by text detailing the relevant earthwork methodology, constraints and likely

progressions, and shall be revised as required to enable clear interpretation as to the day-to-day operation and management of erosion and sediment control measures, provided that such revisions are in general

accordance with the CESCPs.

E.6 All necessary perimeter controls for a site or stage shall be operational before earthwork (or relevant stage of earthwork) within the site or stage commence.

E.7 No sediment retention ponds, chemical treatment systems or perimeter controls erosion and sediment control measures shall be removed or decommissioned from a site, or stage before the entire area is stabilised,

unless such removal and decommissioning is in accordance with the CEMP or a CESCP, and the Manager has been informed not less than 2 working days prior.

Erosion and Sediment Control Monitoring

E.8 The Consent Holder shall carry out monitoring in accordance with the ESCP and the certified CESCP and which will seek to shall ensure that:

a) The proposed erosion and sediment control measures have been installed properly in accordance with the certified CESCP;

b) Methodologies are carried out properly; and

c) Erosion and sediment control measures are functioning in accordance with the certified CESCP effectively throughout the duration of construction of the pProject;and

d) The sediment discharge implications of any impeded drainage to ground, such as by deposition of fine sand, are a particular focus of site control monitoring, with appropriate remedial action taken as required.

E.9 In the event of either a failure of erosion and sediment control devices or where a storm event exceeds the design volume of the device, and where the discharge is to a perennial or intermittent freshwater body,

wetland or estuarine/marine environment, a suitably qualified ecologist(s) shall be notified within 24 hours, who shall then inspect the relevant area to determine whether significant adverse effects on the affected

area‘s ecological values have occurred.

The Project‘s Environmental Manager shall,(in consultation with Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai and the Takamore Trust), prepare a report on the effects of the failure and any recommended measures that may be

required to remedy the effects; . tThe report shall be submitted to the Manager for approval within 5 working days of the event.

The remedial measures shall be implemented within 10 working days of the approval of the Manager.

E.10 The consent holder shall carry out weekly inspections at a minimum frequency of weekly, of all site haul roads working areas of the site in order to ensure they are well maintained and that erosion and sediment

control devices remain effective.

Comment [CTSY120]: Amos Kamo

at [113] of his evidence.

Comment [ALL1121]: Graeme

Ridley unknown paragraph.

Comment [ALL1122]: Graeme

Ridley p.117 in response to Percy

comments about cement

contaminants‘.

Comment [ALL1123]: Graeme

Ridley unknown paragraph.

Comment [ALL1124]: Graeme

Ridley p.110 in response to Percy.

Comment [ALL1125]: Graeme

Ridley rebuttal p.111 in response to

Percy.

Comment [CTSY126]: Note that c)

is different to the wording in GL

rebuttal – error in reproducing the

condition.

Comment [ALL1127]: Graeme

Ridley rebuttal p.112 in response to

Percy.

Comment [CTSY128]: Amos Kamo

at [110] and [113] of his evidence.

Comment [ALL1129]: Graeme

Ridley rebuttal, p.114 in response

to Percy.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 32

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions

Chemical Treatment (Flocculation)

E.11 a) Prior to the commissioning of chemical treatments for sediment management purposes, the Consent Holder shall submit to provide GWRC the Manager with a Chemical Treatment Plan (CTP) for each site, or stage

of the work, or in association with an CESCP, at least 10 working days before the commencement of flocculation work.

b) The CTP shall be submitted to the Manager for certification that the proposed use of chemical flocculation will assist in achieving appropriate sediment removal efficiencies in accordance with the principles of the

ESCP.

c) Each CTP shall include, but need not be limited to:

i) Specific design details of the chemical treatment system;

ii) Monitoring, maintenance (including post-storm) and contingency programme (including a Record Sheet);

iii) Details of optimum dosage (including catchment specific soil analysis and assumptions);

iv) Procedures for carrying out an initial treatment trial;

v) A spill contingency plan;

vi) A performance monitoring plan; and

vii) Details of the person or bodies that will hold responsibility for the maintenance of the chemical treatment system and the organisational structure which will support the system.

d) Any amendments to a CTP shall be approved by submitted to the Manager at least 10 5 working days prior to implementation.

Work shall not commence until the consent holder has received the Manager‘s written certification of the CTP.

Advice Note: The CTP will demonstrate the nature of soils within which the wWork areis to occur and, through the necessary bench testing and settleability analysis, will determine the need for chemical treatment or

not. This will be reflected within the CESCPs submitted for certification to the Manager.

Settlement Conditions

E.12 The consent holder shall establish a series of ground settlement monitoring marks to monitor potential settlement that might occur as a result of construction of embankments and drawdown of the groundwater

table. The survey marks will be generally located as follows:

a) 2 to 4 marks, established in cross-sections along the length of the Expressway as set out in Appendix D of the SEMP (as required by Condition G.31);

b) adjacent to stormwater features where groundwater drawdown of more than 0.1 m has been predicted;

c) at the KCDC wastewater treatment plant; and

d) structures identified close to the Expressway where settlement of more than 12.5 mm is predicted.

The locations of each type of settlement monitoring marks shall be confirmed in the SEMP.

E.13 The consent holder shall survey the settlement monitoring marks at the following frequency:

a) Pre-construction - vertical at monthly intervals starting at least 12 months prior to construction commencing;

b) During construction:

i. vertical at 3 monthly intervals;

ii. within 500 m of active construction – vertical at monthly intervals;

iii. within 50 m of excavation in front of retaining walls – vertical at monthly intervals.

c) Post-construction:

i. Vertical at 3 monthly intervals for 6 months;

ii. Vertical at 6 monthly intervals for a further period of at least 2 years.

E.14 a) Immediately following each monitoring round, the consent holder shall use the settlement monitoring results (together with the results of groundwater monitoring where they may provide an earlier indication of

future settlements) to reassess the building damage categories and compare them to those estimated in Technical Report 35 - Assessment of Ground Settlement Effects, as included in Condition G.1(a)-(b).

b) If the reassessment indicates that a building or structure has increased its damage category, this shall be considered to be an Alert Level and additional specific assessment of the structure shall be carried out by

the consent holder to confirm this reassessment within 72 hours.

c) If the additional assessment confirms the increase in damage category, this shall be considered an Action lLevel and the owner and occupier of the structure shall be notified within 72 hours.

d) Following consultation with the property owner and occupier, subsequent actions may include increased frequency and/or extent of monitoring, modification to the construction approach or mitigation work to

the affected structure.

E.15 The consent holder may reduce the frequency of settlement monitoring required by Condition E.13:

a) Once the active construction stage has passed; and

Comment [ALL1130]: Graeme

Ridley rebuttal, p.115 in response

to Percy

Comment [ALL1131]: Graeme

Ridley rebuttal, p.115 in response

to Percy

Comment [CTSY132]: Graeme

Ridley at [140] of his evidence.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 33

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions

b) 3-monthly monitoring has been carried out for a minimum of 6 months; and

c) The monitoring indicates that any potential settlement effects are within a satisfactory range as specified in the SEMP; and

d) The criteria in E.15(a)-(c) has been certified by GWRC.

E.16 The consent holder shall collate the results of the settlement monitoring (undertaken pursuant to Conditions E.12-E.15) and prepare a report that shall be made available to GWRC.

A settlement monitoring report shall be prepared:

a) prior to the commencement of construction; and

b) at 3-monthly intervals throughout the construction period; and

c) following completion of construction, a settlement monitoring report shall be prepared following each round of settlement monitoring undertaken (i.e. 3 monthly and then 6 monthly).

The purpose of the reports is to highlight any Alerts or Actions and provide a full interpretation and/or explanation as to why these occurred, the likely effects and any mitigation measures initiated as a result.

E.17 The consent holder shall review and update the schedule of buildings and structures considered to be at risk in accordance with the criteria of the SEMP and maintain this schedule for review by GWRC. This schedule

shall include but not be limited to, the following properties:

a) KCDC wastewater treatment plant;

b) The Waikanae Christian Holiday Park (El Rancho); and

c) Specific buildings identified during the course of detailed design where the total settlements are estimated to be greater than 25 mm.

E.18 The consent holder shall consult with owners of buildings and structures identified in Condition E.17(a)-(c) and, subject to the owner‘s approval of terms acceptable to the consent holder, shall undertake a pre-

construction condition assessment of these structures in accordance with the SEMP.

E.19 The consent holder shall employ a suitably qualified person to undertake the building assessments required pursuant to Condition E.18 and identify this person in the SEMP.

E.20 The consent holder shall undertake monthly visual inspections of the following properties during active construction:

a) Dwellings where the total settlements are estimated to be greater than 25 mm;

b) Dwellings where the predicted Building Damage category is greater than ‗negligible‘ (noting that there are none in this category at this stage);

c) KCDC wastewater treatment plant; and

d) All other specifically identified buildings in Condition E.17.

Active construction shall be defined as starting when earthwork commence within 500m of a particular location and ending when pavement construction is complete at that location.

E.21 a) The consent holder shall, subject to the owner‘s approval, undertake a post-construction condition assessment covering the matters identified in the SEMP and provide a copy to the owner. The assessment

report shall include a determination of the cause of damage identified (if any) since the pre-construction condition assessment.

b) The consent holder shall agree with the owner appropriate remedial work (if any) in conjunction with arrangements for implementation and/ or compensation. The requirements of this condition need not be

fulfilled for any particular building with the written approval of the current owner of a building or where the NZTA can provide reasonable evidence to GWRC that the current owner of the building has agreed they

do not require such a survey.

E.22 The consent holder shall provide a copy of the pre, post-construction and any additional building condition assessment reports for each building be forwarded to the respective property owner within 15 working days

of completing the reports. The consent holder shall notify GWRC that the assessments have been completed.

E.23 Prior to construction commencing, the consent holder shall undertake CCTV surveys of services identified in the SEMP as being susceptible to damage or particularly critical. The consent holder shall monitor these

services by undertaking additional CCTV surveys throughout the construction period. If damage is determined in relation to the Project, the consent holder shall undertake remedial action as required in consultation

with the service provider.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 34

2.4 Proposed consent conditions for earthwork and discharges to land

Land use consent and water permits for activities within the Whareroa Stream Catchment (NSP 12/01.006 – NSP 12/01.008);

Land use consent and water permits for activities within the Wharemauku Stream Catchment (NSP 12/01.009 – NSP 12/01.011);

Land use consent and water permits for activities within the Waikanae River Catchment (NSP 12/01.012 – NSP 12/01.014);

Land use consent and water permits for activities within the Waimeha Stream Catchment (NSP 12/01.015 – NSP 12/01.017);

Land use consent and water permits for activities within the Ngarara Creek Catchment (NSP 12/01.018 – NSP 12/01.020);

Land use consent and water permits for activities within the Hadfield/Te Kowhai Stream (NSP 12/01.021 – NSP 12/01.023).

For each of the affected watercourses in the above catchments the following consents and permits are sought:

Land Use Consent – to remove an existing culvert and to divert and reclaim a section of, and place structures (culverts, rip rap and stormwater outlets) in, the bed of the watercourse, including the associated disturbance of, and deposit

of material on, the watercourse bed.

Water Permit – to temporarily divert the flow of the watercourse during construction of the culvert and associated structures in the bed of the watercourse.

Water Permit – to permanently divert the full flow of the watercourse.

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions Comments

General Conditions

WS.1 The consent holder shall use natural rock and soil material, where practicable, to reclaim the stream bed. All fill material shall be placed and compacted so as to minimise

any erosion and/or instability insofar as it is practicable.

WS.2 The consent holder shall seek to ensure that all construction wWork authorised by this permit to be undertaken in the dry bed of the stream, and are completed before the

flow of the stream is diverted back into the stream bed.

WS.3 The consent holder shall design and construct all permanent diversions in a manner that seeks to maintain stream flows (both volume and velocity) in a similar state to its

natural state at the time of commencement of Work.

WS.3A Culverts and bridges on watercourses with permanent flow shall be designed to facilitate fish passage, in accordance with GWRC publication Fish Friendly Culverts and Rock

Ramps in Small Streams or equivalent industry standard methods. Ephemeral and intermittent watercourses do not require fish passage.

WS.4 The wWork shall be regularly inspected and maintained by the consent holder so that:

a) the waterway within the culverts remains substantively clear of debris;

b) any erosion of the stream banks or bed that is attributable to, and is within 20m up or downstream of, the stream wWork authorised by this consent are remedied as

soon as practicable by the consent holder; and

c) fish passage through the structure is not impeded.

Explanatory Note: Maintenance does not include any wWork outside the scope of the application. Any additional wWork (including structures, reshaping or disturbance to the

stream bed) following completion of the construction wWork as proposed in the application may require further resource consents.

WS.5 The consent holder shall prepare and implement a revegetation and mitigation strategy for the stream modifications and structures authorised by this consent. The strategy

shall be submitted to the Manager at least 15 working days prior to any Work commencing. The revegetation and mitigation strategy shall include, but not be limited to:

a. details, methods, timing and responsibilities for revegetation of all exposed areas of stream bank or dewatered channel or culvert fill slopes as a result of this consent,

including the methods for the protection of such areas;

b. planting plan and schedules; and

c. monitoring and maintenance processes and procedures, including for replacement of dead plants, for a period of three years from completion of construction.

Flow monitoring stations shall be established at the approximate locations on the Wharemauku Stream and Drain 5 identified in Appendix A of the Groundwater Management

Plan (CEMP, Appendix I). The exact location of the gauges shall be determined based on stream bed conditions such that they record the full range of flows as far as

practicable.

Comment [CTSY133]: Graham Levy

at [159] of his evidence.

Comment [CTSY134]: Ann Williams

at [175] and [178] of her evidence

(the previous WS.5 has been

renumbered WS.8).

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 35

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions Comments

WS.6 Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Manager, all temporary stream crossings shall be removed within not more than two years of their installation.

The flow monitoring required by Condition WS.5 shall record in-stream flows at 15 minute intervals (if feasible) for a period of:

a) 12 months prior to commencement of excavation of flood offset storage areas 2, 3A and wetland 3;

b) During construction of flood offset storage areas 2, 3A and wetland 3; and

c) Up to 12 months following completion of flood offset storage areas 2, 3A and wetland 3, or a shorter period if no effects on base flows are recorded.

WS.7 Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Manager, upon removal of any temporary

crossing, the consent holder shall reinstate the stream bed to, as far as practicable, a

natural state to closely match the upstream and downstream riparian and instream

habitats and visual appearance.

The consent holder shall, within 10 working days of completion of flood offset storage areas 2, 3A and wetland 3, advise GWRC in writing, of the date of completion.

Pre-construction Conditions

WS.8 The consent holder shall prepare and implement a revegetation and mitigation strategy for the stream modifications and structures authorised by this consent. The strategy

shall be submitted to the Manager at least 15 working days prior to any Work commencing. The revegetation and mitigation strategy shall include, but not be limited to:

a) The quantum in total of stream mitigation required (at least 5.25km), the target SEV scores of the final enhancements and a plan of the location and lengths of

waterways to be enhanced;

b) details, methods, timing and responsibilities for revegetation of all exposed areas of stream bank or dewatered channel or culvert fill slopes as a result of this consent,

including the methods for the protection of such areas;

c) planting plan and schedules; and

d) monitoring and maintenance processes and procedures, including for replacement of dead plants, for a period of three years two years for terrestrial and four years for

wetland and riparian vegetation from completion of construction.

Conditions During Construction

WS.9 Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Manager, all temporary stream crossings shall be removed within not more than two years of their installation.

WS.10 Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Manager, upon removal of any temporary crossing, the consent holder shall reinstate the stream bed to, as far as practicable, a

natural state to closely match the upstream and downstream riparian and instream habitats and visual appearance.

WS.11 The structures erected as part of the Work shall be regularly inspected and maintained by the consent holder in accordance with NZTA‘s operational and maintenance manual

and maintenance programme, so that:

a) the waterway within or over the culverts and fords remains substantively clear of debris;

b) any erosion of the stream banks or bed that is attributable to the stream work authorised by this consent are remedied as soon as practicable by the consent holder; and

c) fish passage through culverts is not impeded.

WS.12 The EMP shall require that for any wWork that will occur within the wetted channel of any stream outside of the period from 1st March to 31st July, the consent holder shall,

in consultation with the Council, develop a specific programme and methodology to manage migration of native fishes. The programme and methodology shall be

developed with reference to the Freshwater Fish Spawning and Migration Calendar (Hamer 2007) and the programme shall be certified by the Council prior to the relevant

work occurring.

Proposed new sStormwater cConditions

SW.1 Operational stormwater discharge from the Expressway shall meet the following performance criteria:

a) Expressway stormwater shall be treated before discharge to the receiving environment in accordance with the NZTA publication Stormwater Treatment Standard for

State Highway infrastructure, 2010, or equivalent industry standard methods.

b) The peak rate of stormwater discharge from the Expressway at any point shall not exceed 80% (urban areas) or 100% (rural areas) of the pre Expressway peak discharge

from the same footprint, in each of the 50%, 10% and 1% AEP critical duration storm events.

SW.2 The effects of the Expressway embankment, water crossing and stormwater discharge on flood risk shall be addressed in the following manner:

a) Any loss of flood plain storage due to the fill embankment shall be offset by:

i. provision of equivalent alternative flood storage volume; or

ii. attenuating runoff; or

iii. removing downstream constraints; or

Comment [CTSY135]: Ann Williams

at [175] and [178] of her evidence

(the previous WS.6 has been

renumbered WS.9).

Comment [CTSY136]: Ann Williams

at [175] and [178] of her evidence

(the previous WS.7 has been

renumbered WS.10).

Comment [CTSY137]: Ann Williams

(was previously WS.5).

Comment [CTSY138]: Vaughan

Keesing at [223] and [227.1] of his

evidence (proposed change to WS5).

Comment [CTSY139]: Boyden

Evans at footnotes 23, 47, 67 and

124 of his evidence (proposed

change to WS.5).

Comment [CTSY140]: Ann Williams

(was previously WS.6).

Comment [CTSY141]: Ann Williams

(was previously WS.7).

Comment [CTSY142]: Ann Williams

(was previously WS.8).

Comment [CTSY143]: Vaughan

Keesing at footnote 102 and

paragraph [200] and [234] of his

evidence. NB his reference is to

WS.9 (numbering change after

edits).

Comment [CTSY144]: Graham Levy

at [77], [149] and [163] of his

evidence.

Comment [CTSY145]: Graham Levy

at [77], [149] and [163] of his

evidence.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 36

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions Comments

iv. a combination of the above.

b) Flood risk shall be assessed against the 1% AEP storm, with climate change to 2090 (mid range) estimated.

c) Culvert and bridge waterway crossings shall be designed so that any increase in flood risk in the 1% AEP storm is either contained within the designation, or is localised

within the flood plan, minor, and no more than 50mm above existing flood levels.

d) The combined effects of filling, waterway crossings and Expressway stormwater discharge shall be assessed through the use of hydrological and hydraulic modelling.

e) The stormwater management design and flood risk modelling shall be independently peer reviewed by a suitably qualified and experienced hydrologist (at the cost of the

consent holder) to ensure that the hydraulic modelling is appropriate and that the stormwater design and flood risk management meets the performance criteria set out in

SW.1, SW.2 and SW.3. The results of the peer review shall be provided to the Manager.

SW.3 The design of waterway crossings shall also meet the following performance criteria:

a) The design of the Waikanae River Bridge shall provide at least 5m clearance to the beam soffit across all parts of berm where required for operation of maintenance

machinery. At least 4.5m minimum clearance shall be provided for the El Rancho access road.

b) The top surface of berm riprap under the Waikanae River Bridge shall be no higher than existing berm level, and shall retain existing berm drainage patterns.

c) Freeboard for Waikanae River Bridge above modelled level for the 1% AEP flood plus climate change to 2090 shall be at least 2.2m.

d) The following allowance shall be made for future services to pass under the Waikanae River Bridge in between the Super Tee beams with oversize sleeves in the

abutments and crosshead beams.

i. 6-Ø100mm duct for telecommunications below northbound outer shoulder.

ii. 5-Ø100mm ducts, 4 for telecommunications and 1 for gas below southbound outer shoulder.

iii. 2-Ø300mm water pipes.

e) The Waikanae River Bridge configuration shall consist of 5 spans, with twin-column piers, and with all piers being clear of the permanent waterway. The main river

channel shall have a clear span at berm level of no less than 35m.

f) For the final design for all culverts, a culvert blockage risk assessment shall be undertaken to confirm that the following criteria are met:

i. There shall be a safe secondary flow path that does not endanger habitable buildings; or

ii. There shall be provision at the culvert inlet for debris management such that culvert inlet blockage is avoided.

Comment [CTSY146]: Graham Levy

at [77], [149] and [163] of his

evidence.

Comment [GL147]: Graham Levy

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 18

Comment [GL148]: Graham Levy

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 17

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 37

2.5 Proposed consent conditions for borehole construction and groundwater takes

Land Use Consent – Borehole Construction (NSP 12/01.024) to construct boreholes for groundwater extraction and the formation of holes for bridge piles that may intercept groundwater.

Water Permit – Groundwater Take (NSP 12/01.025) to take water for bore testing, dewatering of excavations, dust suppression and construction purposes associated with the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway.

Water Permit – Groundwater Diversion (NSP 12/01.026) to divert groundwater from wetlands adjacent to the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway.

Explanatory note: these are global consents relating to all bores that intercept groundwater.

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions Comments

General Conditions – Borehole Construction

BC.1 The location, design, implementation and operation of the monitoring bore(s) shall be in general accordance with the resource consent application and

theits associated plans and documents, and outlined in Condition G.1.contained in the Groundwater Management Plan (CEMP, Appendix I).

BC.2 Within one month after completion of all monitoring bore installations, the consent holder shall submit to the Manager a copy of the borehole logs and

details of the piezometer installations.

BC.3 Within one month after completion of each water supply well, the consent holder shall submit to the Manager a copy of the driller‘s bore log form as

completed by the driller who constructed the bore(s) and details of the well installation.

BC.4 The bore(s) shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the New Zealand Environmental Standard for Drilling of Soil and Rock (NZS 4411:2011).

BC.5 In the event of a bore(s) being decommissioned or abandoned, the bore will be backfilled in accordance with NZS 4411:2011.

BC.6 If so requested by the Manager, the permit holder shall make their bore available for the monitoring of water levels and water quality.

General Conditions – Groundwater Take

GT.1 The location, design, implementation and operation of the groundwater takes shall be in general accordance with the consent application and its associated

the plans and documents, and outlined in Condition G.1. contained in the Groundwater Management Plan (CEMP, Appendix I).

GT.2 The rate at which water is taken from each water supply bore shall not exceed 275,000 m3/year at 800 750 m3/day and a maximum pumping rate of 35

litres/sec. The rate of pumping shall not exceed 1990 m3/day in total from any group of bores pumping at any one time.

GT.3 The consent holder shall undertake the following:

a) iInstall and maintain a water meter on each water supply bore take prior to the commencement of the take and for the duration of the abstraction from

the point of take. The water meter shall measure both cumulative water abstraction and the instantaneous rate of take, and be capable of providing a

pulse counter output;

b) The water meter shall be calibrated to ensure that the error does not exceed +/- 5%. The water meter shall be installed in accordance with

manufacturer‘s specifications;

c) The permit holder shall install and maintain a water meter on the point of take XXX by XX (for existing takes with no meters) or prior to the

commencement of the take (for a new take), The water meter shall measure both cumulative water abstraction and the instantaneous rate of take, and

be capable of providing a pulse counter output.

The permit holder shall ensureCalibrate the water meter shall be calibrated to ensure so that the error does not exceed +/- 5%. The water meter shall

be installed and maintained in accordance with manufacturer‘s specifications.

GT.4 A stepped rate pumping test shall be carried out in each new water supply bore to determine the volume of water that can be abstracted from the bore. The

stepped rate test shall be followed by a constant rate pumping test of at least 8 hours duration at the desired pumping rate. Monitoring of water levels in at

least one observation bore shall be carried out during the constant rate test.

GT.5 Within 3 months of the completion of each pumping test, the consent holder shall submit a report to the Manager, which contains but need not be limited

to, the following information:

a) Presentation of and analysis of the collected pumping test data;

b) Use results to simulate drawdown at any potentially affected neighbouring boreholes;

Comment [CTSY149]: Ann Williams

at Annexure B.

Comment [CTSY150]: Ann Williams

at Annexure B.

Comment [CTSY151]: Ann Williams

at Annexure B.

Comment [CTSY152]: Ann Williams

at Annexure B.

Comment [CTSY153]: Ann Williams

at Annexure B.

Comment [CTSY154]: Ann Williams

at Annexure B.

Comment [AW155]: Ann Williams

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 38

Comment [CTSY156]: Ann Williams

at Annexure B.

Comment [CTSY157]: Ann Williams

at [179.1] of her evidence.

Comment [AW158]: Ann Williams

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 39

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 38

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions Comments

c) An assessment of the potential effect on nearby streams / wetlands; and

d) An assessment on the risk of saline intrusion.

GT.6 If so requested by the Manager, the consent holder shall make its bores available for monitoring of water levels and water quality.

Conditions – Groundwater Diversion

G.1-G.40 The effects will be managed under the relevant General Conditions applicable to the Project.

GD.1 The location, design, implementation and operation of the activity shall be in general accordance with the consent application and its associated plans.

GD.2 The consent holder shall:

a) Install and maintain the groundwater monitoring boreholes shown in Appendix A of the Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) (CEMP, Appendix I) for the

period of monitoring specified in this consent;

b) Monitor groundwater levels in the groundwater monitoring boreholes shown in Appendix A of the GMP (CEMP, Appendix I) and keep records of the water

level measurement and corresponding date in accordance with the GMP. These records shall be compiled and submitted to GWRC the Manager at three

monthly intervals, or upon request.

c) Monitor groundwater levels monthly in existing boreholes and in newly installed monitoring boreholes shown in Appendix A of the GMP (CEMP, Appendix

I) (required as part of this consent) for a period of at least 12 months (where practicable) before the commencement of construction that may affect

groundwater levels in the area of monitoring. The consent holder will report the variability in groundwater levels recorded over this period, together

with the monitoring trends obtained during the investigation and detailed design phases, will be used and use these to establish seasonal groundwater

level variability and establish triggers levels. The proposed alert triggers and supporting data shall be submitted to the Manager for certification 15

days prior to submission of the GMP.

d) Develop actions for mitigation should alert levels (as determined in the GMP) be exceeded. These actions shall include provision for the accidental

interception of artesian or spring flows in the area immediately adjacent to wetland 9 (located between the Waimeha Stream and Waikanae River).

GD.3 Prior to the commencement of construction, and then At 3 monthly intervals during construction, and for at least 12 months following completion of

construction, the consent holder shall review and report the results of monitoring as compared with expected effects on groundwater levels assessed from

groundwater modelling and the established range of groundwater levels determined from groundwater monitoring prior to the Work. This review will

consider the final construction methodology and progress at the time of the review. In addition, an annual report will be prepared and submitted to the

Manager that describes:

a) The groundwater monitoring that has been undertaken since the outset of the Project;

b) The actual and potential effects arising from the groundwater level changes;

c) Any mitigation measures that have been implemented;

d) Any changes to proposed mitigation measures; and;

e) Any changes proposed for the future monitoring programme. Any changes to future monitoring and mitigation must be certified by the Manager before

they can be implemented.

The frequency of reporting may be extended to 6 monthly following completion of construction on receipt of written advice from the Manager.The output of

the first review shall be used to define the expected range of groundwater levels at each borehole and check the potential for damage to structures due to

ground settlement. A factor for natural seasonal variability shall be allowed for in this review based on the monitoring completed under Condition GD.2.

GD.4 From the commencement of construction, the consent holder shall monitor groundwater levels in each borehole listed in Appendix A of the GMP at a

minimum of monthly intervals and records shall be kept of each monitoring date and the corresponding water level in each borehole. In addition, all

boreholes listed in Appendix A of the GMP located within 200 metres of the advancing construction face shall be monitored twice weekly. These records

shall be compiled and submitted to GWRC the Manager at 3 monthly intervals or upon request. In the event of an exceedance, the consent holder shall

increase the frequency of monitoring to daily. If the exceedance continues for 3 consecutive days, the consent holder shall notify the Manager within 2

working days, advising of the exceedance, the risk of adverse effects on wetlands or ground settlement that might cause damage to structures, details of

the actions undertaken and initiate the Actions set out in the GMP.

GD.5 Monitoring bores installed in or adjacent to wetlands and water level monitoring posts installed in wetlands shall be reviewed on a monthly basis to

Comment [CTSY159]: Ann Williams

at [175] of her evidence.

Comment [AW160]: Ann Williams

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 26,

64, 44

Comment [CTSY161]: Ann Williams

at [175] of her evidence.

Comment [AW162]: Ann Williams

Rebuttal evidence, Paragraph 26,

27, 33, 95, 45

Comment [AW163]: All changes in

green come from Ann Williams

Rebuttal Evidence.

Comment [AW164]: Ann Williams

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 45,

46.3 and 37

Comment [CTSY165]: Ann Williams

at [175] of her evidence.

Comment [AW166]: Ann Williams

Rebuttal Evidence.

General Statement made in

Paragraph 45

Comment [CTSY167]: Ann Williams

at [175] of her evidence.

Comment [AW168]: Ann Williams

Rebuttal Evidence. Mentioned

generally in paragraph 45 and 46.4.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 39

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions Comments

determine if there is any effect of the work on water levels within themchange in water levels. The results shall be jointly reviewed by a suitably qualified

hydrogeologist and a suitably qualified fresh water ecologist and included in the 3 monthly groundwater monitoring reports provided to GWRC. In the event

that water level changes occur that exceed Alert levels for a wetland, the consent holder shall notify the Manager and initiate the Actions set out in the GMP.

GD.6 Monitoring data obtained pursuant to Condition GD.4 shall be compared to the expected groundwater levels for each borehole. Where groundwater level

triggers are exceeded the appropriate actions as set out in the GMP shall be undertaken and the GWRC notified advising of the exceedance, the risk of

adverse effects on wetlands or ground settlement that might cause damage to structures, and details of the actions undertaken.

The consent holder shall implement mitigation measures described in the GMP to ensure that existing groundwater users (consented users or those

identified in Condition GD.2(e) who cannot use their own water supply as a result of the Project receive a replacement water supply.

The consent holder shall avoid adversely affecting KCDC‘s public water supply bores shall ensure access to the bores for maintenance and servicing is

maintained throughout the Project.

GD.7 The consent holder shall continue to monitor groundwater levels in each borehole listed in Appendix A of the GMP at monthly intervals for a period for up to

12 months following completion of Expressway construction, then and 3 monthly thereafter for a further 24 months, or a lesser period (except in the case

of piezometers in or adjacent to high value wetlands in proximity to the Project which shall continue to be monitored for 48 months following the initial 12

month period), if groundwater levels in any particular borehole show either:

a) Recovery of the groundwater level to within 0.3 m of the pre-construction groundwater level as recorded in accordance within Condition GD.3

b) A trend of increasing groundwater level in at least 3 consecutive monthly measurements; or

c) An equilibrium in the groundwater level, allowing for the seasonal variation, has been reached

In which case monitoring at that borehole may cease, subject to written approval of GWRC the Manager.

GD.8 The consent holder shall, within 10 working days of completion of the Project construction, advise the GWRC Manager in writing, of the date of completion.

GD.8A The consent holder shall undertake surface and shallow groundwater monitoring in the vicinity of the Otaihanga Landfill as follows:

a) Surface water at one location upstream and three locations downstream of the Expressway alignment to check that construction Work does not

materially alter overall surface water quality draining from the site; and

b) Shallow groundwater sampling from the existing two bores (BH306 and BH307) located near the toe of the landfill and two additional boreholes

(BH10 and BH11) to determine representative effects on groundwater quality in the absence of a strong vertical hydraulic gradient.

c) Samples of both groundwater and surface water shall be collected every 6 months (initial surface water sampling at one monthly intervals) and

should be analysed for a representative range of cations, anions, nutrients and (dissolved) metals.

d) Monitoring shall commence at least 12 months (where practicable) in advance of construction Work commencing that has the potential to affect

surface water and groundwater quality in this area in order to provide a baseline (additional to that of the routine monitoring undertaken on behalf

of KCDC) to determine any post-construction effects, and shall continue for a period of 1 year following construction.

e) If sampling indicates any significant departure from the baseline, which is not consistent with the results and trends of the baseline or historical

monitoring and which can be attributed to Expressway construction, NZTA shall undertake one of the following actions, depending on the

significance of the departure:

(i) If the concentration of several test parameters is confirmed (through repeat sampling) to be at least 3 times the maximum value recorded in

the last 3 years for NZTA monitoring or the routine KCDC monitoring, NZTA shall increase the frequency of testing to once every 2 months.

(ii) If the concentration of several test parameters is confirmed (through repeat sampling) to be at least 10 times the maximum value recorded in

the last 3 years for NZTA monitoring, or the routine KCDC monitoring, it may be necessary to provide additional treatment to surface runoff or

shallow groundwater throughflow before exiting the landfill site boundary. NZTA shall consult with GWRC and KCDC to determine whether

additional treatment is necessary and develop an appropriate treatment option, if necessary.

Comment [CTSY169]: Ann Williams

at [175] of her evidence.

Comment [AW170]: Ann Williams

Rebuttal Evidence. Paragraph 46.4,

45 and 64

Comment [CTSY171]: Ann Williams

at [175] of her evidence.

Comment [AW172]: Ann Williams

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 46.4,

35, 63 and 45.

Comment [CTSY173]: Ann Williams

at [124] of her evidence.

Comment [AW174]: Ann Williams

Rebuttal Evidence, paragraph 45

and 46.5

Comment [CTSY175]: Ann Williams

at [175] of her evidence.

Comment [AW176]: Ann Williams

Rebuttal Evidence, paragraph 45

Comment [KL177]: Kerry Laing

Rebuttal Evidence, Paragraph 32.

Proposed Conditions- Rebuttal Evidence V3- Page 40

2.5.1 Proposed consent conditions for wetland reclamation and vegetation clearance

Land Use Consent – Wetland Reclamation (NSP 12/01.027) for the partial reclamation of wetlands in the vicinity of the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway alignment, including the associated disturbance of their beds.

Land Use Consent – Vegetation Clearance (NSP 12/01.028) to remove vegetation in the beds of various watercourses and wetlands, including the associated disturbance of their beds.

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions Comments

Conditions – Wetland Reclamation

G.1-G.40 The effects will be managed under the relevant General Conditions applicable to the proposed wetland reclamation.

Conditions – Vegetation Clearance

G.1-G.40 The effects will be managed under the relevant General Conditions applicable to the proposed clearance of vegetation.

2.7 (New) Proposed consent condition for disturbing soil containing

contaminants which may be a risk to human health

Land Use Consent – Disturbance of soil containing contaminants NSP 12/01.002: The site to which the consent application relates is at 55 Rata Road, Paraparaumu. Land use consent for disturbing soil containing contaminants where

there is a risk to human health and changing the use of land containing contaminants where there is a risk to human health pursuant to Regulation 10 of the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and

Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 (SR 2011/361).

Reference Wording of Draft Conditions Comments

Conditions – Contaminated Soils Management Plan (Human Health)

NES.1 The consent holder shall finalise, submit and implement through the CEMP, a Contaminated Soils Management Plan (Human Health) (CSMP(HH)) to be submitted to the Regulatory

Manager, Kāpiti Coast District Council, for certification at least 15 working days prior to work commencing on any site identified as posing a risk to human health from the

disturbance of contaminated soil. The purpose of this Planthe CSMP (HH) is to identify the following:

a) the approach to the remediation or ongoing management of the piece of land, including—

(i) the remediation or management methods to address the risk posed by the contaminants to human health;

(ii) the timing of the remediation;

(iii) the standard of the remediation on completion;

(iv) the mitigation methods to address the risk posed by the contaminants to human health;

(v) the mitigation measures for the piece of land, including the frequency and location of monitoring of specified contaminants.

b) the adequacy of the site management plan or the site validation report or both, as applicable; and

c) the transport, disposal, and tracking of soil and other materials taken away in the course of the activity.

NES.2 Should the further investigations required to be undertaken by Condition G.33 result in levels of contaminants that exceed the limits in the National Environmental Standard for

Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health, then these sites will be included in the CSMP (HH) as required by NES.1.

Comment [CTSY178]: Dr Kerry

Laing at [91] and [113] of his

evidence.

62

042590992/1603065

ANNEXURE B – PLAN SHOWING PROPOSED EXTENSION OF

DESIGNATION FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE MITIGATION

PURPOSES

T

L

4

T

L

4

T

L4

T

L4

T

L

4

T

L

4

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<<

<

<

<<<<<<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<<<

<<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<<

<

<

<

<

<

<<

<<

<<

<<<<<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

< <

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

< < << <

< << < <

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<<

<

<

<

T

L

4

T

L

4

T

L

4

TL4

TL4

TL4

TL4

TL4

T

L

4

T

L4

T

L

4

T

L

4

TL4

TL4

TL4

T

L4

T

L4

TL4

T

L

4

T

L

4

T

L

4

TL4

TL4

TL4

T

L

4

T

L

4

T

L

4

T

L

4

T

L4

T

L4

TL4

TL4

TL4

TL4

1.1

T

L

4

T

L

4

T

L4

T

L4

T

L

4

T

L

4

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<<

<

<

<<<<<<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<<<

<<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<<

<

<

<

<

<

<<

<<

<<

<<<<<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

< <

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

< < << <

< << < <

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<<

<

<

<

T

L

4

T

L

4

T

L

4

TL4

TL4

TL4

TL4

TL4

T

L

4

T

L4

T

L

4

T

L

4

TL4

TL4

TL4

T

L4

T

L4

TL4

T

L

4

T

L

4

T

L

4

TL4

TL4

TL4

T

L

4

T

L

4

T

L

4

T

L

4

T

L4

T

L4

TL4

TL4

TL4

TL4

1.1

10700

10800

10900

11000

11100

11200

11300

11400

11500

11600

11700

11800 11900

M2PP AEE DWG

CV-SP 119a 1

PROPOSED EXPRESSWAYSCHEME PLAN

SHEET 19a

Title:

Document ID: Rev.

Drawing Plotted: 25 Oct 2012 09:45 a.m.

Project::

-Document created for NZTA by M2PP Alliance, Level 2, 17-21 Whitmore St, WELLINGTON

NOTES:

Status: -

MACKAYS TO PEKA PEKA EXPRESSWAY

Revision. Approved.Amendment. Date.

Drawing No:

- -

Scale (A3)Original

1:2000

LEGEND: SCHEME PLANS (CV-SP)PROPOSED DESIGNATION

SHARED CYCLE / WALKWAY

PROPOSED NOISE BUND

NOISE WALL HEIGHT (m)

PROPOSED NOISE WALL

PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS / BRIDGES

STORMWATER WETLAND

OFFSET FLOOD STORAGE AREA

CHIPSEAL ROAD PAVEMENT

OGPA ROAD PAVEMENT

ASPHALT ROAD PAVEMENT

SITES OF SIGNIFICANCE TO IWI

NZHPT WAHI TAPU AREA

QEII COVENANT LAND

CULTURAL MITIGATION

2.0

NOTE: FOR ADDITIONAL FEATURE INFORMATION READ INCONJUNCTION WITH "MAIN FEATURE LEGEND", SEE ZZ-GE-001.

1 AEE LODGEMENT NRN 15.03.12

FOR CONSENTING1:1500