CRL-Resource Consent-Britomart to Wyndham - s133A version - 22 October 2015 (3) (1)

Decision following the hearing of an application for resource consents under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)

Section 133A of the RMA 1991 Amended Version dated 22 October 2015

Application for resource consents under section 88 of the RMA by Auckland Transport necessary to construct the Britomart Station to Wyndham Street section of the proposed City Rail Link.

Pursuant to sections 104, 104B, 105, 106, 107 and 108 of the RMA these resource consents are GRANTED. The reasons are set out below.

Application Numbers: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

Site Address:

Britomart Station, Lower Queen Street, Customs Street West, Wolfe Street, Victoria Street West, Albert Street, Wyndham Street, Auckland Central

Applicant: Auckland Transport (“AT” or “the applicant”)

Hearing Dates: 6, 7, and 8 July 2015

Hearing Panel: Mr Alan Watson

Mr Michael Parsonson

Ms Rebecca Macky

Mr Basil Morrison

City Rail Link

Application Nos : R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

1

Appearances:

For the Applicant:

Andrew Beatson – Legal Counsel

Scott Elwarth – Corporate

Dean Ingoe – Consenting Strategy & Consultation

Bill Newns – Design & Construction

Alan Pattle – Groundwater

Bill Newns – Settlement

Craig Stevenson – Building Settlement

Bruce Petry – Built Heritage

Andrew Hart – Contamination

Richard Chilton - Air Quality

Paul Kennedy – Water Quality & Management

Jennifer Carvill – Planning

Carol Greensmith – Communications Manager

For the Submitters:

Noel Playle - Body Corporate Committee 095035

Gordon Nelson - Endean’s Scheme Committee

Amanda Stoltz – Legal Counsel, Stamford Residences Owners Corp

Vicki Morrison-Shaw – Legal Counsel, Cooper & Company NZ

Vijay Lala – Resource Management Planning consultant

Application

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

Richard Brabant – Barrister, for 148, 153 Quay Street Body Corp, Mercure Hotel/Pandy, 8 Customs Street

Gavin Alexander- Technical Director Beca

Duncan McKenzie – Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga

For Council:

Andrew Gysberts - Team Manager Major Infrastructure Projects

Fritha Witton - Senior Planner

Aidan Nelson - Groundwater Engineers, Earthtech Consulting Ltd

Philip Kelsey - Groundwater Engineers, Earthtech Consulting Ltd

Nick Hazard - Groundwater Specialist

Leon Blackburn - Water Quality, Discharges of contaminants to stormwater

John Brown - Built Heritage

Patrick Shorten - Fraser Thomas Limited

Barry Brown - Fraser Thomas Limited

Peter Goldsmith - Fraser Thomas Limited

Tania Bonsall - Democracy Advisor - Hearings

Hearing adjourned 8 July 2015

Commissioners’ site visit

As the Commissioners are all generally familiar with the site, it was left to individual Commissioners to undertake any site visit he or she considered necessary.

Hearing Closed: 29 July 2015

INTRODUCTION

Commissioners’ appointment

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

2. Mr Parsonson was unable to attend Day 1 of the hearing due to illness. With the agreement of all parties, the hearing proceeded with the issues other than groundwater and settlement, which were addressed on Day 2.

3. Throughout the hearing, and whilst the formal proceedings continued, experts representing the applicant, the Council and at times, some submitters, met in conference and conferred in an endeavour to narrow and resolve outstanding points of difference

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

Information

5. As the Commissioners, we were provided with copies of the application details, further information provided by the applicant and the submissions. The Council officer’s section 42A RMA report was provided to all interested parties before the hearing and the applicant’s evidence was pre-circulated before the hearing

6. On 3 July 2015, Council’s reporting planner circulated a memorandum to the Hearings Commissioners outlining the interactions which had taken place between AC and AT following the pre-circulation of evidence and to state AC’s position relating to the Burland methodology used by the applicant; changes in AT’s methodology; the level of total and differential settlement that could cause damage; and conditions of consent

Notification and submissions

7. The application was publicly notified on 5 February 2015 at the request of the applicant and notice of the application was also served that day on those persons identified as being potentially adversely affected by the proposal As part of this process, the interested Mana Whenua groups were directly notified of the application (via the identified RMA administrative addresses) and invited to make a submission.

8. At the close of the submission period, submissions had been received as follows: 1 in support, 2 in support subject to conditions, 2 neutral and 21 in opposition

H.

I.

foundations, structure and fabric, and which will require full remediation/repair place reinstatement at the cost of the consent holder in the event that avoidance of any adverse effects is not possible or does not occur

J. Conditions be included covering the following effects or concerns:

- control quantities of groundwater to be pumped, diverted or dammed

- continuous monitoring programme, including buildings potentially at risk from adverse effects

- comprehensive groundwater control and monitoring network and programme including appropriate groundwater alert levels

- contingency plan, including measures to be implemented if trigger levels are exceeded including a response plan

- continuous monitoring and reporting

- post construction monitoring programme

- if damage, complete and full remediation at the cost of the Consent Holder

- further conditions as required to address the potential for adverse effects

- avoid adverse effects from vibration

- all earthworks are managed to minimise any discharges beyond the site to either land or stormwater drainage systems

- erosion and sediment control plan

- inspection of sediment control measures

- prompt mitigation or rectification if a discharge of debris, soil, silt, sediment or sediment-laden water occurs

- covering of material during transportation

- prescribe maximum levels of dust concentrations in the air

- methods to ensure exposed surfaces remain damp and to minimise dust emissions

- control vehicle speed limits

- require appropriate number of wheel washes

- measures for handling of cement products

- procedure for responding to continuous dust monitoring

- operate and maintain mobile continuous dust monitors

- avoid, or if not reasonably practicable, minimise disruption of access to by the owners tenants or visitors to buildings in the area

Specify circumstances and terms and conditions upon which Tyler Street could be temporarily used for access or temporarily

N. Prior to works commencing and at the expense of the Consent Holder (and as a minimum) a pre-construction condition survey of Endeans Building (corner of Quay and Queen Streets) with suitable terms and conditions

O. Prior to works commencing and at the expense of the Consent Holder (and as a minimum) a pre-construction condition survey of Harbour View Building at 152 Quay Street with suitable terms and conditions

P. Prior to works commencing and at the expense of the Consent Holder (and as a minimum) a pre-construction condition survey of the building at 148 Quay Street with suitable terms and conditions.

Q. Prior to works commencing and at the expense of the Consent Holder (and as a minimum) a pre-construction condition survey of the Mercure Hotel building (corner Customs and Queen Streets) with suitable terms and conditions

Ensure 24/7 access to the Mercure Hotel building (corner Customs and Queen Streets) loading dock, and the hotel valet parking

U. Specify circumstances and terms and conditions upon which Galway Street could be temporarily used for access or temporarily occupied

Z. Consent applications are placed on hold until such time as:

- Obtained either a district land use consent to authorise works under and in the vicinity of the CPO site or a variation to the designation to allow such works in relation the CPO site

- Obtained the consents necessary to authorise the construction of the remainder of the CRL line and the operation of the entire line - Further information which sets out the precise scope and extent of the proposed underpinning works including earthworks and groundwater effects

Pre and post construction structural condition assessment, regular monitoring prior to and during construction, and expedient remediation of any damage to Stamford Residences’ Building at 22-26 Albert

OO. Prior to works commencing and at the expense of the Consent Holder (and as a minimum) a pre-construction condition survey of building in which McDonald’s Restaurant is located, with suitable terms and conditions.

PP. Cleaning of the building in which McDonald’s Restaurant is located (corner of Customs, Galway and Queen Streets) to remove dust

Pre and post construction structural condition assessment, regular monitoring prior to and during construction, and expedient remediation of any damage to 17 Albert St

Excavated contaminated land material be immediately encapsulated and secured until AT’s remediation plan is drafted, consulted and implemented

Late submissions

9. Submission 26, from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, was received late on the 6 March 2015 (the submission period closed at 5:00pm on 5 March 2015). Pursuant to section 37 of the RMA, the Commissioners accepted the reporting planner’s recommendation and extended the time for the receipt of submissions to accept the late submission.

Written approvals

10. The applicant has not obtained written approval from any persons.

Amendments to the application following notification

11. After the submission period ended, the applicant provided further information on a number of matters

12. That information formed part of the application and was considered by the Commissioners The Commissioners accepted that the further information provided was to be within the scope of the original application and, therefore, renotification of the application was not required

13. All submitters were contacted on 29 May 2015 (by email or letter) and were made aware that further information was provided to Council pursuant to section 92 of

the RMA. The further information was uploaded onto the Council website alongside the original application material for review and consideration by submitters. This information was available for viewing on the Council website from 2 June 2015.

THE PROPOSAL, THE SITE, AND BACKGROUND

The Proposal

14. The resource consent package (called Package 1) applied for includes resource consent applications associated with the construction of the CRL infrastructure from the existing Britomart Station to a point just south of the Wyndham and Albert Streets intersection in Auckland City This includes resource consents for the following matters:

 earthworks, including within a heritage overlay and within an identified floodplain;

 activities in and on contaminated land, including under the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health;

 groundwater take and diversion;

 air discharges; and

 various discharges to land or water.

15. The operational resource consents that are required for the operation of the CRL will be applied for as part of Resource Consent Package 2 (as defined at paragraphs 27 and 28 of this report).

16. The Britomart Station to Wyndham Street section includes the following construction works:

 cut and cover tunnels from Britomart Station to a point just south of the Albert and Wyndham Streets intersection (approximately 610m in total length);

 underpinning of the Chief Post Office (CPO) building;

 excavating tunnels that extend into Queen Elizabeth II Square (QE2S) and the Downtown Shopping Centre Site; and

 excavating tunnels across Customs Street West and along Albert Street to Wyndham Street

17. The applicant has divided the proposed construction work into five distinct Active Construction Zones (ACZs), labelled A-E. In addition, six Construction Support Areas (CSAs) are required, labelled 1-6. The CSAs will provide for general activities such as site offices, machinery, parking, construction material storage, wheel washing areas and waste storage and collection. A jet grout pump and

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

mixing plant is proposed at CSA 2 and 4 and stormwater and groundwater treatment tanks are proposed at all CSAs with the exception of CSAs 5 and 6. The applicant has stated that storage of up to 24m3 of spoil, engineering fill, drainage material or demolition debris will be provided for at all CSAs with the exception of CSA 6.

18. The applicant has provided a description of the works that are proposed to take place within each ACZ: in summary, the table below describes these works.

B – Lower Queen Street Tunnels Cut and cover

up Construction of two tunnels (approximately 43m in length) from CPO building at Britomart Station to a location west of the pedestrian underpass stairs and lift with QE2S

C - Downtown Shopping Centre

D – Customs Street West

Street

trench Construction of two tunnels merging to one tunnel from QE2S to the south west corner of the DSC site (approximately 112m of tunnelling within this ACZ).

of one tunnel with two tracks approximately 330m in length

Site, locality, catchment and environs description

4, 5 and 6

19. The applicant has provided a description of the site, locality, catchment and surrounding environment in the AEE report

20. In summary, the proposed works are within Auckland’s Central Business District which is a highly modified, intensely developed urban environment The surrounding land uses include high density office buildings, residential and visitor accommodation, retail, restaurants and bars. As such, the area is highly pedestrianised and is classified as a pedestrian orientated area in the Auckland Council District Plan - Central Area Section 2005

21. The CRL route in this area has a sloping alignment from north to south, with Albert Street located on the edge of the Queen Street valley and near the ridgeline of Hobson Street. As such, adjoining streets (such as Swanson Street and Wyndham Street) that run down the valley slopes to Queen Street are relatively steep. Britomart Station is located on the route’s lowest point, approximately eight metres below sea level There are various flood hazards that traverse the works sites, including the CSAs.

Background

CRL Notices of Requirement (NoRs)

22. AT gave notice on 23 August 2013 to Auckland Council of its requirement to designate land in the Auckland Council District Plan (Operative Auckland City Central Area Section and Operative Auckland City Isthmus Section) for the construction, operation and maintenance of the CRL. A total of six NoRs were publicly notified on 25 January 2013 and submissions closed on 19th March 2013.

23. The hearing for the six NoRs was held between August and November 2013 In March 2014 the independent commissioners who heard submissions recommended that the designations be confirmed subject to a range of conditions. There were six appeals lodged and the one outstanding appeal was heard in the Environment Court in June 2015

Contractor Procurement Process

24. AT is progressing an Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) procurement process in relation to the CRL construction works for the Britomart to Wyndham section The ECI procurement is broken into two packages known as Enabling Works Contract 1 and Contract 2 The construction of the proposed works that are the subject of this report falls within both Contracts 1 and 2. In more detail:

 Contract 1 – includes the building modification works at the western end of Britomart Station, underpinning of the CPO building, and the construction of tunnels and a reinstated pedestrian subway that extends into QE2S.

 Contract 2 – includes the cut and cover works from the Customs Street West/Albert Street intersection up to Wyndham Street. This contract also includes a major stormwater diversion between Wellesley Street and Swanson Street, labelled the Albert Street Stormwater Main Realignment

Britomart Station Designation

25. AT lodged an alteration to the Britomart Transport Centre Designation 314 on 29 May 2015 This alteration includes specific conditions that will apply to the construction and modifications associated with the CRL and ongoing operation and maintenance of the transit centre described in the Auckland Council District Plan (Operative Auckland City Central Area Section) as the Britomart Transport Centre.

26. AT has confirmed that the works being proposed to support the alteration to designation are consistent with those proposed as part of this application.

Other consents

Resource Consent Package 2 – Aotea Station to the North Auckland Line (NAL)

27. AT has stated that this package will include resource consent applications for the CRL from Aotea Station to the NAL, including the construction of Aotea Station,

City Rail Link Application Nos : R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

Karangahape Road Station, key utility diversions at the NAL end, as well as the Mt Eden Station extension and connections to the NAL. Package 2 will also seek the necessary resource consents required for the operation of the entire CRL from Britomart Station to the NAL.

28. Package 2 is due to be lodged with the Council for processing in December 2015

Albert Street Stormwater Main Realignment

29. The Albert Street Stormwater Main Realignment project is part of Enabling Works Contract 2 and was granted resource consent by Independent Commissioners for the Council on 20 May 2015. No appeals have been received by the Environment Court on the decision to grant resource consent

Precinct Properties Ltd – Downtown Shopping Centre Redevelopment

30. Precinct Properties Ltd (PPL) has recently been granted resource consents for the re-development of the Downtown Shopping Centre site The resource consents for the “below ground” works, which include the CRL running tunnels through their proposed basement, were granted on 5 May 2015 on a non-notified basis The land use consents for the “above ground” works were granted on 10 June 2015 on a non-notified basis

Certificates of Compliance

31. AT has applied for several Certificates of Compliance (CoCs) for the Britomart to Wyndham section, which are being assessed by the Council

RESOURCE CONSENTS REQUIRED AND ACTIVITY STATUS

32. The proposal requires resource consent for the following reasons.

Land use consents (s9) – R/REG/2014/5430

Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control (ACRP:SC)

 The total area of excavation within the Sediment Control Protection Area is 4,200m2 or 0.42 ha which exceeds the 0.25ha permitted threshold and the trenching proposed is greater than 100m. This requires a restricted discretionary activity resource consent pursuant to Rule 5 4.3.1 of the ACRP:SC.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)

 The total earthworks for network utilities and road networks within the Business: City Centre zone in excess of 2,500m2 or 2,500m3 that cannot meet the permitted activity standards, specifically the development alters the configuration of an overland flow path, is within 20m of a scheduled historic heritage place and various scheduled sites and places of significance to mana whenua, requires restricted discretionary resource consent pursuant to Rule G.2.3.2 of the PAUP.

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

Land use consents (s9) – R/LUC/2014/5428

PAUP

 Earthworks greater than 2,500m2 or 2,500m3 for network utilities and road networks within the Historic Heritage Overlay, specifically the Chief Post Office (CPO) building (reference: 02021), requires a discretionary activity resource consent pursuant to Rule H.4 2.1.2 (activity table). The total amount of earthworks within the CPO totals approximately 20,000m3 of cut and 12,000m3 of fill

 Earthworks greater than 2,500m2 or 2,500m3 for network utilities and road networks within the 100-year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) flood plain requires a restricted discretionary resource consent pursuant to Rule H.4.2 1.2 (activity table). A section of the proposed earthwork will occur within the 100 year ARI floodplain.

NES for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health

(NES:soil)

 The proposed volume of soil disturbance exceeds 25m3 per 500m2 and the volume of soil proposed to be removed from the site will exceed 5m3 per 500m2 The applicant has stated that it cannot be concluded at this time that the soil contamination will not exceed the applicable standards in Regulation 7 and, as such, the soil disturbance requires a discretionary activity resource consent pursuant to Regulation 11 of the NES:soil

Water permits (s14) – R/REG/2014/5432

Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land & Water (ACRP:ALW)

 The temporary and permanent diversion of groundwater as a result of the proposal may result in potential adverse effects on buildings, structures and services. This requires a restricted discretionary activity resource consent pursuant to Rule 6.5.77 of the ACRP:ALW

 The taking of groundwater for the purposes of a groundwater diversion under Rule 6.5.77 of the ACRP:ALW requires a restricted discretionary activity resource consent pursuant to Rule 6.5.43 of the ACRP:ALW.

 The new bores for the proposed dewatering system will be in place for longer than the three month permitted activity standard period and, as a result, a controlled activity resource consent is required pursuant to Rule 6.5.26 of the ACRP:ALW.

PAUP

 The temporary and permanent groundwater diversion from the proposed tunnel excavations will be greater than 1m in diameter. This activity requires a restricted discretionary resource consent pursuant to Rule H.4.17.1 (activity table).

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

 The dewatering associated with a groundwater diversion that requires a restricted discretionary resource consent also requires a restricted discretionary resource consent pursuant to Rule H.4.17.1 (activity table).

 New bores for the proposed dewatering system for purposes not otherwise specified (all zones) requires a controlled activity resource consent pursuant to Rule H.4.17.1 (activity table).

Discharge permits (s15) – R/REG/2014/5435

ACRP:ALW

 The findings of the site investigation report state that soil contamination has not been identified above permitted activity criteria However, the investigations were limited in scope due to site constraints and, as such, there is potential for contaminated fill to be present within the project footprint. As such, the discharge of contaminants to land and water from the proposed land disturbance requires a restricted discretionary activity resource consent pursuant to Rule 5.5.44A of the ACRP:ALW

PAUP

 The findings of the site investigation report state that soil contamination has not been identified above permitted activity criteria. However, the investigations were limited in scope due to site constraints and, as such, there is potential for contaminated fill to be present within the project footprint. As such, contaminated land discharges from the proposed land disturbance require restricted discretionary activity resource consent pursuant to Rule H.4.5.1 (activity table).

Note: The applicant originally applied for resource consent for the ongoing discharge of contaminants to land or water pursuant to H 4.5.1 (activity table) and Rule 5 5.43 of the ACRP: ALW In response to this, although an undefined amount of passive discharge of contaminants may be occurring from this material (given the widespread placement of fill material throughout this are of the CBD), Auckland Council has confirmed that a long term consent for the discharge of contaminants will not be required following the completion of the construction works.

Discharge permits (s15) – R/REG/2014/5436

ACRP:ALW

 The proposed discharge of wastewater and/or washwater to land or water is subject to the “other” discharge provisions and can be considered a permitted activity pursuant to Rule 5.5.54 and 5 5.55 if the applicable standards can be met The applicant has stated that there remains uncertainty regarding the quality of discharges as a result of potential unknown ground contamination As such, the proposed discharges to land or water requires a discretionary activity resource consent pursuant to Rule 5.5.68 of the ACRP:ALW

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

PAUP

 The proposed discharge of water or wastewater can be considered a permitted activity pursuant to Rule H.4.18.1 (activity table) if the permitted activity standards can be met at section H.4.18.2.1.1. The applicant has stated that there remains uncertainty regarding the quality of discharges as a result of potential unknown ground contamination. As such, the discharge of water or wastewater requires a discretionary activity resource consent pursuant to Rule H.4.18.1 (activity table).

 Discharges for the purpose of dewatering trenches or other excavations can be considered a permitted activity pursuant to Rule H.4 18.1 (activity table) if the permitted activity standards can be met at section H.4.18.2 1.5. The applicant has stated that there remains uncertainty regarding the quality of discharges as a result of potential unknown ground contamination As such, the discharge for the purpose of dewatering trenches or other excavations requires a discretionary activity resource consent pursuant to Rule H.4.18.1 (activity table).

Discharge permits (s15) – R/REG/2014/5437

ACRP:ALW

 While the applicant has stated that it is their intention to manage the works to ensure compliance with the permitted activity rule standards (Rule 4.5.49), because of the very close proximity and high sensitivity of the receiving environment the applicant has applied for a restricted discretionary resource consent is required pursuant to Rule 4.5.56 of the ACRP:ALW.

PAUP

 While the applicant has stated that it is their intention to manage the works to ensure compliance with the permitted activity rule standards (section H.4.1.3 1.1), because of the very close proximity and high sensitivity of the receiving environment the applicant has applied for a restricted discretionary resource consent is required pursuant to Rule H.4.1.1 (activity table) of the PAUP.

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

Overall the proposal has been considered as a discretionary activity

Representations at the hearing

34. The section 42A report prepared by the Council’s reporting planner had been precirculated and was taken as read.

35. Mr Beatson presented opening legal submissions for the applicant and called a range of expert witnesses to present summaries of their evidence and respond to questions.

36. We then heard from submitters and from Council officers and consultants.

37. Mr Beatson completed his right of reply verbally, except for the final set of draft conditions which were circulated on 8 July 2015 for comments by 10 July 2015

Relevant statutory provisions considered

38. When considering an application for resource consent for a discretionary or noncomplying activity we must have regard to Part 2 (“purpose and principles” –sections 5 to 8), and sections 104 and 104B and, where relevant, sections 105, 107 and 108

39. When considering any actual or potential effects, we may disregard any adverse effects that arise from permitted activities in a NES or a plan (the permitted baseline); we have a discretion whether to apply this permitted baseline

Relevant standards, policy statements and plan provisions considered

40. In accordance with section 104(1)(b)(i)-(vi) of the RMA, we have had regard to the relevant policy statements and plan provisions of the following documents, noting that no national policy statements are relevant to this application.

 National Environmental Standard – s104(1)(b)(i)

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

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

 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement – s104(1)(b)(iv) (NZCPS)

 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 – s104(1)(b)(iv) (HGMPA)

 Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement – s104(1)(b)(v)

 Part 1 of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – s104(1)(b)(v)

 Plan or Proposed Plan – section 104(1)(b)(vi)

o Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land & Water

o Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control (ACRP:SC)

o Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Weighting

41. The Commissioners agree with the reporting planner that as the Project is not contrary to the objectives and policies under both the operative plans and the proposed plan And as the outcomes are the same under the operative and the proposed plan frameworks, no weighting is necessary

Summary of evidence heard

42. The Council planning officer’s recommendation report was circulated prior to the hearing and taken as read.

43. The evidence presented at the hearing responded to the issues and concerns identified in the Council’s section 42A report, the application itself and the submissions made on the application.

Applicant

44. The evidence presented by the applicant at the hearing is summarised below, including legal submissions presented by Mr Beatson which addressed the following:

 Confirmation that the current application seeks resource consents for construction of the Britomart to Wyndham Street section of the CRL (the Project) and that consents for the remainder of the CRL from Wyndham Street to the North Auckland Line at Mt Eden Station are due to be lodged in late 2015.

 The key issues, being groundwater and settlement effects, and the impact that those effects will have on surrounding buildings; and the use of alert, alarm and stop work levels to ensure that no more than ‘slight’ damage will be caused to buildings (as defined by Burland)

 The proposal to engage an independent buildings specialist to assist in determining and avoiding damage to buildings caused by settlement.

 The need for the CRL; construction sequencing in the five active construction zones (ACZs); and the key effects of the consent package.

 A response to the Council section 42A report, and in particular the degree of conservatism applied in predicting groundwater and settlement effects; the adaptive management technique and the ability to rely on conditions

 A response to submissions and statutory matters, including Part 2.

All the expert evidence of the applicant had been pre-read by the Commissioners, enabling the applicant’s witnesses to summarise their statements and respond to questions.

Scott Elwarth, AT’s Construction Manager, advised that the cut and cover construction of this section of the CRL is critical to the Project; that the proposed strategy of CRL enabling works contracts will mitigate disruption and enable other developments to proceed; and completing the enabling works ahead of other planned projects will avoid disruption to newly established operations and potential damage to newly built infrastructure

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

Colin Ingoe, of AT’s Infrastructure Division, observed that the rationale for the adopted CRL consenting strategy is robust and appropriate to enable the CRL Project, and outlined the consultation and engagement undertaken, stating that it was appropriate, given the scale and nature of the Project.

Bill Newns, Chartered Engineer, presented three statements

 In the first statement, relating to design and construction, Mr Newns summarised the proposed works and construction methodology – engineering design and indicative construction methodologies including work site and construction support area locations and activities, design constraints and alternatives considered, and an indicative construction programme, referring to a draft Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan and the draft Environmental Management Plan

 In his second statement, Mr Newns commented on ground settlement matters - the technical assessment methodology, settlement estimates, assessment of the effects on utilities, roads and infrastructure, monitoring and contingency measures, and proposed conditions, concluding that

“Whilst adverse construction effects and in particular ‘damage’ can and should be mitigated as far as reasonably practicable, they cannot in all instances be subject to a requirement that they be avoided as there are always elements of uncertainty in geotechnical engineering and the costs of ‘avoiding’ the potential effects may be disproportionate to the costs of rectification. Very few of the buildings along the CRL Enabling Works corridor are subject to these very small risks .In the most unlikely event of such risks occurring, and where it is demonstrated to be a result of the works …. Such damage will in all cases be repaired by AT 1”

 In his supplementary statement of evidence, Mr Newns updated the position following further discussions with AC and responses to submitters, concluding that

“The potential effects of settlement associated with the construction of the Britomart Station to Wyndham Street section of the City Rail Link will be less than minor and are able to be managed through the conditions proposed 2”

Alan Pattle, an engineer with a recognised speciality in water resources (including groundwater flow) and environmental engineering, addressed groundwater issues, conditions and effects, expected cumulative impacts of the Project with the Downtown Shopping Centre Re-development, conditions and other relevant matters. He advised that groundwater levels would be monitored and alert trigger levels established to provide a check that the measured levels are within modelled predictions, noting that groundwater response is an indicator of potential ground settlement

Eric Stevenson, Structural Engineer, provided two statements of evidence:

 In the first, he addressed the combined potential adverse effects on building structures associated with construction excavation induced settlement along the tunnel alignment and advised that potential adverse effects on buildings can be avoided by good design and workmanship; implementation of pre-construction building assessments; and construction phase monitoring of buildings If any adverse

1 Second statement of evidence of Bill Newns dated 19 June 2015, paragraph 85

2 Supplementary statement of evidence of Bill Newns dated 6 July 2015, paragraph 55

City Rail Link Application Nos : R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

effects do occur, in Mr Stevenson’s opinion, these would be acceptable, in terms of being negligible to slight, with regard to potential structural damage to all the buildings within the Project’s zone of influence. That is, any damage would only be of a superficial or aesthetic nature.

 In his supplementary statement of evidence, Mr Stevenson updated his evidence in chief and provided a memorandum setting out building settlement assessment calculations. He confirmed his opinion that the potential effects of excavation-induced mechanical settlement and settlement resulting from consolidation of the soil due to groundwater drawdown on built structures would generally be acceptable and able to be managed through conditions, detailed design and construction

Bruce Petry, Heritage and Conservation Architect, advised that the potential construction effects on heritage values of identified scheduled buildings will be minor; and confirmed that any potential effects on identified built heritage resulting from ground settlement could be appropriately managed through monitoring and mitigation measures, including pre- and post-condition surveys, and the rectification of any damage

Andrew Hart, Senior Environmental Scientist, provided evidence on the assessment and management of contaminated land in the Project area. Key findings of his evidence were that there are potential contamination effects associated with proposed soil disturbance; and that mitigation of these effects can be achieved through excavation and disposal methods, and by following the relevant management plan

Richard Chilton, Senior Air Quality Scientist, noted that without mitigation, the Project has the potential to generate offensive or objectionable dust effects in the sensitive receiving environment; but that with the proposed mitigation and monitoring effectively implemented, these effects will be no more than minor.

Sarah Sutherland, Senior Environmental Scientist, addressed water management aspects of the Project, identifying stormwater runoff discharge measures from the CSAs to the stormwater system, and that all water generated within the ACZs will be collected and treated onsite prior to discharge to the stormwater system

Jennifer Carvill, Planner and Resource Management Consultant, provided two statements of evidence:

 In the first, Ms Carvill gave comprehensive evidence of the proposal, the existing environment, reasons for consent, assessment of effects, the statutory assessment, a response to submissions and the Council section 42A report, and then discussed the proposed conditions. Ms Carvill found that the Project is consistent with relevant objectives and policies; that any adverse effects can be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated; and that the Project is in accordance with Part 2 of the RMA

Ms Carvill provided a set of conditions and identified those areas in respect of which discussions with relevant Council officers were ongoing

 In her supplementary statement, Ms Carvill updated her evidence in chief in relation to conditions of consent.

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

Submitters

45. The evidence presented by the submitters at the hearing is summarised below

Duncan McKenzie, Heritage Advisor Planning, for Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, provided a statement of evidence relating to effects on heritage buildings and archaeology, and further notes dated 7 July 2015 Mr McKenzie spoke to his written evidence at the hearing and responded to questions from the Hearing Panel Mr McKenzie confirmed that Heritage New Zealand’s concerns relating to built heritage are met to the extent that he has no further concerns, and that given the archaeological authority sought by the applicant, no accidental discovery protocols would be required Mr McKenzie did request that the project take the opportunity to provide public education on the history of the site and any archaeological material identified or recovered during the works

Richard Brabant, Legal Counsel, appeared for 152 Quay Street (Harbour View Building) Body Corporate 107678; 148 Quay Street Body Corporate 164980; and Pandy Hotel Corporation (building owner of the hotel building on the corner of Custom and Queen Streets). He expressed his clients’ concerns relating to ground settlement and commented on conditions of consent.

Gavin Alexander, Technical Director Beca, provided two statements of evidence in support of Mr Brabant’s clients:

 In his first statement, Mr Alexander addressed the buildings at 148 Quay Street, 152 Quay Street and 2-8 Customs Street, all in the vicinity of the CPO and Lower Queen Street (LQS) portion of the CRL Project Mr Alexander expected these structures to be relatively resistant to the effects of settlement occurring in the soils overlying the Waitemata Group rock at this location However, he did express reservations regarding the level of certainty inherent in the applicant’s groundwater drawdown predictions. Mr Alexander promoted the inclusion of alarm and stop-work limits for groundwater drawdown, in addition to the applicant’s proposed triggers for ground settlement

 His supplementary statement responded to Mr Newns’ supplementary statement and commented on updated conditions following discussions held with the applicant’s team

Noel Playle and Gordon Nelson appeared for the Endeans’ Building, Body Corporate 095035, 2 Queen Street, noting their concerns and the lack of consultation with the applicant in respect of their heritage building

Mr Playle stressed the building’s age (100 years’ old) and the recent substantial repair and upgrade that had been carried out He raised issues relating to access to the building during construction; noise levels and hours of operation; dust, safety and security

Mr Nelson provided details of the building’s construction and foundation piles, raising concerns about construction-related settlement, particularly given the recent building upgrade to a high standard. Noise was also raised as an issue Mr Nelson also sought certainty that access would be maintained to complete the building maintenance works that must be completed within the CRL construction period

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

The applicant and the submitters took the opportunity during the hearing to remedy the perceived lack of consultation and the airing of the submitters’ concerns was taken on board by the applicant.

Amanda Stoltz, Legal Counsel, appeared on behalf of the Stamford Residences’ Owners Corporation, 22-26 Albert Street. Her client sought a site-specific management plan for the property or alternative conditions to address her client’s concerns through the proposed Construction Environmental Management Plan and the Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan Air discharge concerns were also raised

Vicki Morrison-Shaw, Legal Counsel, appeared for Cooper and Company NZ, identifying that her client’s key remaining areas of concern related to other approvals necessary; affected party liaison group; review and groundwater / settlement.

Vijay Lala, resource management planning consultant, gave evidence in support of Ms Morrison-Shaw’s client. Mr Lala advised that subject to the adoption of Council’s recommended conditions, and the submitter’s concerns identified by Counsel being adequately addressed through conditions, potential adverse effects could be avoided, remedied or mitigated

Trevor Wilkinson, who resides in the Quay West Apartments, Albert Street, tabled evidence seeking that his genuine concerns relating to health and safety are safeguarded

Catherine Reaburn, planning consultant, tabled evidence on behalf of Precinct Properties Ltd (which has an interest in 1, 7 and 21 Queen Street and 23 Albert Street and did not appear at the hearing Ms Reaburn expressed support for the Council’s recommended conditions in relation to construction management and groundwater monitoring and contingency

46. For the Council, Mr Gysberts advised that discussions with the applicant and interested submitters was ongoing and useful, resulting in refinements to the conditions.

47. Following Mr Beatson’s partial right of reply, the hearing was adjourned as at midday on Wednesday 8 July 2015, to provide the opportunity for discourse between the parties attending the hearing regarding the draft conditions.

48. Subsequent to the hearing, AT and AC officers met and agreed on a draft set of conditions, which was forwarded to all parties attending the hearing for comment by Friday 10 June 2015.

49. Feedback was received, and the Commissioners then met on Tuesday 28 July 2015 to consider the latest set of conditions and the feedback from various submitters Following that meeting, they determined that they had sufficient information to close the hearing and the hearing was declared closed on 29 July 2015.

PRINCIPAL ISSUES IN CONTENTION

50. The parties were in agreement over most aspects of the Project and no party appearing at the hearing was opposed to the Project occurring, subject to appropriate conditions.

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

51. At the commencement of the hearing, Auckland Council had held reservations about the applicability of the Burland Stage 2 method for the calculation of tensile strain, and as a consequence expressed uncertainty regarding the reliability of the predicted actual and potential effects on buildings and services. At that time, Auckland Council was not satisfied that building damage would be limited to the ‘slight’ (Burland Class 2) category, based on the information provided by the applicant.

52. However, and as noted above, parties took the opportunity during the hearing to conduct parallel, side-bar discussions on matters of concern and the wording of conditions to address those concerns. As a result, the Commissioners were presented with an agreed set of conditions with which to work. Consequently, in addition to the broader considerations under the RMA and the relevant planning documents, our attention was focused on:

 The extent of actual or potential adverse effects on the environment and whether these effects can be avoided, remedied or mitigated to be minor, or avoided or mitigated to an acceptable level;

 Whether the various management plans proposed would effectively address the matters of concern; and

 The wording of the agreed conditions.

53. We comment on these principal issues below in the discussion on adverse effects

FINDINGS ON PRINCIPAL ISSUES – ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT

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

54. The existing environment comprises a busy, high-density built-up urban area with a range of land uses and including busy traffic routes and heritage buildings. The land uses are all sensitive to varying degrees to the potential effects associated with the proposed construction works, including traffic disruption, noise and vibration.

Effects that must be disregarded

Any effect on a person who has given written approval to the application No person has given their written approval to the application.

Trade competition

There are no trade competition effects that must be disregarded

Effects that may be disregarded – Permitted

Baseline assessment

55. The permitted baseline approach, which refers to permitted activities on the subject site, is of limited value for this application, and the Commissioners have not relied on it to discount adverse effects from permitted activities. However AT’s applications for CoCs for various aspects of the Project do constitute the permitted baseline for this project.

Nos : R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

Assessment of Effects

Positive Effects

56. In the AEE, the applicant identified potential positive effects that will result from the Project as well as the broader positive effects from the wider CRL project. The Commissioners agree with the applicant’s assessment of positive effects

Effects from Earthworks

57. The proposal is for approximately 143,000m3 of cut and 82,000m3 of fill along the route, over a cumulative area of approximately 11,000m2 The main methods of sediment and erosion control include clean water diversions, settlement tanks, stormwater inlet protection, chemical treatment and progressive stabilisation. The immediate receiving environment for any generated runoff will be to the stormwater network and subsequently the Waitemata Harbour, discharging near the ferry terminal. All of these methods are in accordance with the industry best practice and Auckland Council’s Technical Publication 90 – Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region (TP90).

58. We accept that the applicant’s assessment and evidence adequately identify the potential adverse effects resulting from the earthworks and that the proposed mitigation measures are appropriate given the relatively small volume and area of earthworks and the receiving environment.

59. The final Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) will be submitted to Council for certification prior to any earthworks commencing as part of the overall Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). This will be supported by a Chemical Treatment Management Plan (CTMP) that will outline the procedures for chemically flocculating sediment laden water prior to being discharged from the site. We agree with the Council’s specialist for earthworks, Stephanie Benucci, that subject to the measures included in these plans being implemented correctly, adverse effects relating to the discharge of treated sediment laden water from the proposed earthworks will not be significant and will be appropriately mitigated We find the adverse effects from earthworks on the environment will be minor.

60. We note that the conditions provided to us, as agreed between the applicant and Auckland Council, could better reflect the degree of integration necessary between the ESCP, the CTMP and the Contaminated Soils Management Plan (CSMP) Consequently, we have made minor changes to those conditions to reflect the inter-related function of those management plans.

Effects on Existing Flood Plains

61. Relatively small, isolated areas of 1% AEP flood plain (localised ponding) are identified at several locations along the proposed route, as denoted on the PAUP maps. Works within these areas trigger restricted discretionary activity rule infringement under Chapter H4.2 of the PAUP Potential adverse effects from flooding were not raised by submitters and we accept the assessment by Council’s specialist, Scott Paton, that finished levels around the shafts will be

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

similar to the pre-existing condition and will not alter floodwater characteristics. We find that the works will not have an adverse effect on flooding within or beyond the site

Air Quality Effects

62 Air quality effects from the potential discharges of contaminants to air from construction and earthworks associated with the Project were assessed by Paul Crimmins, Senior Consents and Compliance Advisor, Air Quality Team in AC’s Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit.

63. Mr Crimmins concurred with the applicant that any potential dust effects can be adequately mitigated through the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) so that adverse effects arising from these discharges are not significant.

64. We accept the unanimous opinion of the experts that the mitigation measures proposed in the draft AQMP – including the monitoring regime – represent the Best Practicable Option (BPO) for minimising discharges of contaminants to air, in particular, the most significant contaminant, which is dust.

65. Any odorous discharges which may arise from excavations, particularly if soils which have been contaminated by hydrocarbons are encountered, will be addressed through a specific Contaminated Soils Management Plan (CSMP).

Cultural Effects

66. The Cultural Impact Assessment (“CIA”) information requirement in the PAUP is triggered by the proposal, in order for Council to assess the adverse effects on Mana Whenua values. Whilst AT’s engagement with Manu Whenua groups has been appropriate, no CIAs have been prepared to date.

67. One submission was received from Mana Whenua, being Ngāti Maru, but to date, no determination has been provided to Council as to whether Ngāti Maru wishes to prepare and submit a CIA The issues raised are that the proposal compromises the interests of Ngāti Maru protected by the RMA and that the consultation on the proposal is incomplete. The Commissioners reject the latter issue, as we find that the consultation undertaken to date by the applicant has been thorough and extensive.

68. The applicant has emphasised the areas where Mana Whenua interest relating to this project has been identified, being earthworks, stormwater and groundwater and the corresponding discharges to the environment; the protection of the Hauraki Gulf from contaminants such as stormwater; and improving water quality outcomes in the catchment We are satisfied that the applicant is proposing to use best practice methods to ensure the receiving environment is not compromised by the proposed discharges

69. The Commissioners accept that the actual and potential effects on cultural values have been adequately addressed.

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

Contaminated Land Discharge Effects

70. The effects from the discharge of contaminants to land and water from the disturbance of contaminated land have been addressed in the evidence of Andrew Hart and Sarah Sutherland and covered in the draft Contaminated Soils Management Plan (CSMP), which provides management procedures and measures relevant to handling and disposal of contaminated material to mitigate potential adverse effects on the environment and human health. The measures include erosion and sediment controls, measures for monitoring groundwater quality and alternative disposal procedures, and procedures for the excavation, handling and disposal of contaminated and potentially contaminated soil. These details have been assessed by the Council’s in-house expert for contaminated land, Andrew Kalbarczyk and consultant expert Rob Burden, who have reported that with implementation of the CSMP, adverse effects can be appropriately mitigated and managed. Only one submission was received on these matters, that being from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service. Mr Burden is satisfied that the proposed conditions will adequately address the matters raised in that submission

71. The Commissioners agree with Mr Kalbarczyk and Mr Burden, and the evidence presented on behalf of the applicant. Given the concentrations of contaminants are low and are isolated occurrences, the proposed mitigation measures will appropriately address excavation and disposal of soil and groundwater. The submission of the final CSMP as part of the overall CEMP for certification by Council, and its implementation, will ensure that the adverse effects on the environment from the disturbance and handling of potentially contaminated soil and groundwater will be minor. Again, we have made minor changes to the agreed conditions to better link the CSMP with the ESCP.

Effects from the Discharge of Wastewater and/or Washwater on Water Quality

72. The effects from the discharge of wastewater and/or washwater to land and water during construction have been assessed There are a number of potential sources of water that require management during construction, and in addition to the treatment of discharges, source controls are proposed to reduce sediment loadings in the discharge The use of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) will manage the CSAs, ensuring that structural controls are installed and implemented

73. The applicant proposes an ongoing monitoring regime to ensure that the anticipated water quality standards are met and has included options if limits are exceeded.

74. The Commissioners accept that given the proposed site and wastewater and/or washwater management measures, any adverse effects of the proposed discharge activity on the environment will be less than minor.

Transport Network Effects

75. The Commissioners have adopted the view that construction related effects on the transport network associated with the earthworks activity is a matter that should be considered.

76. Through the assessment of the NoRs, the effects from construction traffic associated with the proposal were assessed and it was found that adverse temporary effects to the existing road transport network and property accesses during the construction of the CRL will be significant; that the establishment of various construction areas will generate additional traffic in the form of construction vehicles; and that the level of service on the Quality Transit Network in the City Centre can be expected to be low to moderate

77. The actual and potential construction related effects on the transport network were assessed under the NoRs and various conditions were subsequently confirmed by AT The Commissioners accept that the construction traffic related conditions for the NoRs are generally appropriate to avoid, remedy or mitigate the actual and potential effects from construction traffic. Specifically, the Transport, Access and Parking Delivery Work Package, monitoring requirements, the specific requirements for the Britomart Station to Mayoral Drive section and the communication and consultation requirements required in the confirmed conditions will achieve this outcome.

Construction Noise Effects

78. Construction noise is a district plan land use matter and has been addressed through the NoR process; however, as it is currently drafted, the PAUP suggests that construction noise effects associated with the earthworks activity is a matter that should be considered by Council.

79. The actual and potential construction noise effects were assessed by an independent Hearing Panel for the NoRs and various conditions were recommended and subsequently confirmed by AT. The confirmed conditions seek to avoid, remedy or mitigate specific construction noise effects and include specific construction noise project standards for various construction activities and for various types of receivers. A Site Specific Construction Noise Management Plan (SSCNMP) must be developed in specified circumstances and a Construction Noise and Vibration Delivery Work Package (CNVDWP) must also be submitted to Council

80. Whilst various submitters have raised concerns with respect to construction noise, the Commissioners accept that the condition framework in the CRL NoRs appropriately avoids, remedies or mitigates the adverse construction noise effects from the proposal

Effects on Utilities

81. The applicant has identified the existing services in the project area and the Council’s assessment is that any effects from ground settlement can be avoided,

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

remedied or mitigated subject to the recommended conditions of consent. Damage can also result from uncovering services in unknown locations but such events can be managed by ensuring contact with utility operators and suitable measures being taken to ensure that services are adequately supported or managed once exposed

82. On that basis we agree that any adverse effects on existing infrastructure will be appropriately managed so that the effects will be minor.

Dewatering/settlement, takes and diversion of groundwater

83. Potential settlement effects on buildings, structures and utilities is a key matter raised in submissions and was the main point of conjecture between the applicant and Auckland Council at the commencement of the hearing, noting that those parties have subsequently agreed on all recommended conditions.

84. In brief, technical reports and evidence relating to the potential effects of the proposal on buildings, other structures and services was focussed on the following elements:

 The extent to which groundwater levels will be altered during excavation and post excavation;

 The likely ground response (consolidation and mechanical settlement) that will occur as a result of groundwater changes; and

 The potential effects that ground responses will have on various buildings in the vicinity of the works.

85. Leading into the hearing, Auckland Council indicated acceptance of the Burland Stage 1 method for categorising levels of effects of ground settlement on buildings. However, it expressed concern about the application of the Burland Stage 2 method for the calculation of tensile strain, and consequently held uncertainty on the likely actual and potential effects on buildings and services. At that time the Auckland Council was not satisfied that building damage would be limited to the ‘slight’ (Burland Class 2) category, based on the information provided by the applicant.

86. Submitters representing building owners along the route could be grouped into those within the predicted settlement contours, and those immediately beyond those contours. The former included buildings along Albert Street (including Stamford Residences represented by Ms Stoltz), the Precinct Properties Building at 23 Albert Street and 7 Queen Street (addressed by Ms Reaburn), and the Chief Post Office Building (CPO) leased by Cooper & Co (addressed by Mr Lala and represented by Ms Morrison-Shaw). The latter groups include the body corporates represented by Mr Brabant, the Endeans Building (represented by Messrs Playle and Nelson), and the Precinct Properties buildings at 1 and 21 Queen St (addressed by Ms Reaburn).

87. For submitters, those within the predicted settlement contours sought assurance that effects would be within the predicted range (no more than ‘slight’ on the Burland scale), and that an appropriate extent and duration of monitoring, and responses to repair effects would be undertaken.

88. Submitters representing owners of buildings outside the predicted settlement contours sought assurance that the effects of the works would be no more than ‘negligible’ on the Burland scale, and that an appropriate extent and duration of monitoring, and response would be undertaken Those submitters sought a clear separation in consent conditions between their properties and those within the predicted settlement contours

89. The predicted building responses were influenced by the variability of ground conditions along the route as well as the foundation conditions of various buildings, with newer buildings being founded on unweathered East Coast Bays Formation (ECBF) rock.

90. The final set of conditions presented to us during the adjournment provided an agreed position between the Auckland Council and the applicant. They also accommodated many changes sought by submitters. In summary, those conditions:

 Distinguish between buildings inside and outside the predicted settlement contours;

 Include identified buildings located outside the predicted settlement contours in the list of buildings to be subject to pre-construction surveys and to be monitored during and post-construction (Appendix 1).

 Include specific building movement alarm and trigger levels for the identified buildings located outside the predicted settlement contours (Appendix 4).

 Require that the project be monitored and managed to ensure that building damage within the predicted settlement contours does not exceed the “slight” category of Burland Class 2 (Condition 88)

 Require that the project be monitored and managed to ensure that building damage outside the predicted settlement contours does not exceed the “negligible” category of the Burland Class 1 (Condition 88).

 Provide additional building monitoring marks on 2-8 Customs Street (Mercure Hotel)

91. The applicant also included a detailed condition that specifically requires that any damage to buildings, structures or services that is caused wholly or in part by the exercising of the consent shall be remedied at the consent holder’s expense.

92. In considering the potential groundwater and settlement effects of the proposal, we must be satisfied that the predictions of settlement and effects on buildings presented to us is appropriately reliable and conservative to the extent that adverse effects are generally avoided and, where not avoided, within the predicted scale of effects that have been considered by submitters

93. Mr Pattle described additional modelling undertaken in response to Auckland Council feedback, and the level of conservatism he anticipated in the model outputs He considered likely groundwater drawdowns and informed the predictions of consolidation of compressible soils provided by Mr Newns. Mr Pattle’s modelling was based on cut-off walls and soldier pile walls extending to the top of the un-weathered ECBF rock, and the cut-off walls under the CPO building extending 2m into the un-weathered ECBF.

94. With respect to Britomart Station and the CPO, he considered effects to be within the range experienced during the previous development of the Britomart Station and within seasonal variations, which provided a level of confidence regarding likely effects in that location Continuous pile walls will be constructed in the vicinity of the CPO building and lower Queen Street, and a consent condition has been offered and included limiting groundwater egress in that area to “no visible seepage”. ACZA and sheet piles and temporary soldier pile walls are proposed along the route of the cut and cover tunnels for the Britomart Station to lower Albert Street A condition has also been included to reinforce the requirement for temporary perimeter cut-off walls from the CPO to chainage 300m (lower Albert Street) to achieve no more than 0.3m3/day ingress (though the wall) of groundwater per 10m of wall

95. Along Albert Street Mr Pattle predicts that the most significant groundwater changes will occur within the shallower, perched water tables in the upper horizons of soil and fill These changes are predicted to be limited in lateral extent and will have been influenced by previous building construction

96. Post-construction, Mr Pattle predicted that groundwater levels will return to the pre-construction state

97. In addition to their evidence in chief, Messrs Newns and Stevenson provided supplementary evidence to address ground settlement predictions and building responses respectively Mr Newns provided further background to the Burland method for assessing building damage risk They both re-affirmed their confidence in the Burland method (Stage 1 and 2) as being appropriate for use in the context of this project

98. Mr Stevenson explained the output of additional modelling undertaken that reassessed mechanical settlement effects utilising the method preferred by the Auckland Council technical reviewers. This modelling particularly sought to address the Auckland Council concerns regarding the predictions of tensile strain and subsequently suitability of Burland Stage 2 Mr Stevenson also reiterated and explained his confidence in his earlier modelling. Mr Stevenson and Mr Newns reported on a reassessment of consolidation settlement, based on revised data provided by Mr Pattle, and a reassessment of combined mechanical and consolidation induced settlements These calculations indicated a potential increase in settlement predictions. However, Mr Stevenson reaffirmed that the predicted building damage within the predicted settlement contours would be no more than the ‘slight’ range under Burland Class 2, as originally predicted

99. Mr Newns explained that the detailed design of the project will be subject to the building consent process, which will ensure that the design achieves the performance criteria of the resource consent conditions. Mr Hazard, on behalf of Auckland Council, confirmed that this process is successfully occurring on other infrastructure projects and expressed confidence that the appropriate level of integration between the resource consent compliance and building consent functions of the Council would be achieved in this instance

100.A key element of the set of conditions now agreed between the applicant and Auckland Council is the linkage between imposed performance standards, the establishment and implementation of a Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan (“GSMCP”), pre-construction building condition assessments, ongoing building assessments (based on specific criteria), and responses to identified damage. Building inspections are to be undertaken by an independent senior qualified person, whose role will include inspecting and reporting on any identified damage that is attributable to the project, and methods to remedy such damage The independent senior qualified person shall also assess and advise on mitigation measures that may be necessary to avoid damage in the event that ground or building monitoring alert levels are triggered The role of the independent senior qualified person will be independent of, and will not diminish, the Auckland Council’s compliance monitoring and enforcement function

101.We are now satisfied that the applicant has undertaken an appropriate level of investigation and has achieved the necessary level of certainty regarding the likely effects of the works, and how those effects will be minimised and mitigated. Further, we are satisfied that the agreed conditions provide an appropriate range of performance standards, monitoring and response processes that will ensure that the effects of the project remain within the predicted levels. We are also satisfied that the agreed conditions accommodate the matters sought by submitters to an appropriate extent, and correctly distinguish between the anticipated maximum building damage effects anticipated by submitters within, and outside, the predicted settlement contours.

102.Overall, we find that the groundwater, settlement and potential building damage effects from the project will be negligible to minor, and will be appropriately managed and mitigated through implementation of conditions.

Effects from Earthworks on Built Heritage

103.The proposed works are within the Heritage Overlay for the CPO (12 Queen Street) and are also within close proximity of several other scheduled historic places. The applicant has provided a Built Heritage Risk Assessment Summary concerning each of these buildings, which have been assessed to fall within the “Negligible” to “Slight” damage classifications under the Burland damage classification categories which corresponds to aesthetic damage only

104.As a result of strengthening work carried out on the CPO, and given the recommended conditions of consent, differential movement and settlement in this

area is very unlikely; in addition, post-construction monitoring will be undertaken for a minimum of three months after completion of construction.

105.The Commissioners accept that the effects from the proposed earthworks on identified heritage buildings within 20m of the Heritage Overlay in the PAUP will be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated subject to the recommended consent conditions.

106.Specific heritage issues raised by submitters have been addressed by the applicant.

Adverse Effects – Summary and Conclusion

107.In summary, construction of the Project will give rise to a range of temporary adverse environmental effects; some may be more than minor for a limited or longer period However, when considered overall and in the context of their temporary nature, we agree that the revised and finalised conditions of consent agreed by the applicant, Council officers and those submitters present at the hearing, and, in particular the monitoring and mitigation measures, will ensure that actual and potential effects can be avoided, remedied or adequately mitigated.

108.In conclusion, we find that the actual and potential effects from this project, including dust, sediment, contamination, ground settlement, water quality, public health, built heritage effects from earthworks, construction traffic and noise effects are temporary in nature and can be avoided, remedied or mitigated through implementation of the consent conditions.

109.The positive effects from the proposal must not be overlooked, particularly realising the potential of the existing infrastructure and unlocking the Auckland rail network by enabling Britomart to become a through station rather than a terminus station.

110.The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the relevant planning documents in the application details, in the section 42A report and in the evidence of Ms Carvill In the latter statement it is pointed out the project requires resource consent pursuant to the following regional plans and unitary plan:

 Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land, Water 2013 (ACRP: ALW);

 Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control 2001 (ACRP: SC);

 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 2013 (PAUP).

111.In addition, resource consent is required pursuant to the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants and Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 (NESSoil). The resource consents required are land use consents, water permits and discharge permits and, in addition, the land use consent pursuant to the NESSoil to disturb soil.

112.It is also relevant to note, as is covered in another part of this decision, that the area surrounding the project corridor is occupied by a number of identified heritage buildings that are potentially affected and works are also proposed within

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

a scheduled historic heritage place (the Chief Post Office). Further, part of the project corridor runs through a scheduled site of significance to mana whenua (Ngahu Wera) and within 20m of another scheduled site of significance (Nga Wharau a Tako).

113.We note that in applying the most restrictive activity status, which was the common approach of the Council’s reporting officer and the expert witnesses at the hearing, that when bundled, the overall activity status for the resource consent applications is discretionary

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

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

 Improved commuter access to the city centre

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

 Freeing up road space for freight and other trips.

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

115.The range of potential adverse effects arise out of earthworks, flooding, ground settlement and associated effects on heritage values, contaminated land, groundwater quality, stormwater quality, dust, and effects on cultural values. The evidence of the experts providing input to the project, and evidence provided by others, demonstrated to us that these potential effects can be appropriately managed In particular, standard and specific mitigation measures will be implemented through a range of management plans, and remediation is proposed where necessary to address effects on structures resulting from ground settlement.

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

Any other matters

117.We also considered the following other matters to be relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application in accordance with section 104(1)(c) of the RMA:

 The Auckland Plan sets out the vision for Auckland over the next 30 years and seeks to address relevant issues. The Commissioners accept that the proposal to construct a piece of the CRL infrastructure directly supports the vision contained in the Auckland Plan to improve and complete the existing road and railway network.

 Submissions have all been reviewed by the Commissioners and considered in the assessment of the Project

 No comments were received from the Waitemata or the Albert-Eden Local Boards.

 The applicant has confirmed that an Archaeological Authority will be sought from Heritage NZ pursuant to the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014.

Other relevant RMA provisions

Matters relevant to discharge and coastal permits – s105

118.The proposal requires consents to discharge contaminants to air and to land and water under s15. Under section 105, regard must be had to additional matters for any application for a discharge permit or a coastal permit that would contravene s15 or s15B of the RMA. The Commissioners agree with the reporting planner that the proposal satisfies the matters set out in section 105 for the reasons set out in her report.

Restrictions on discharge permits – s107

119.Regard must be had to the restriction on the granting of certain discharge permits that would contravene sections 15 or 15A Section 107 states that a discharge permit cannot be granted to do something that would otherwise contravene section 15 allowing the discharge of a contaminant or water into water, if, after reasonable mixing, the contaminant or water discharged is likely to give rise to all or any of stated effects in the receiving waters. The Commissioners are satisfied that the proposal satisfies the provisions of section 107.

Conditions of resource consents – s108

120. Conditions of consent have been set out below

PART 2 RMA – PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES

121. We find that the proposal is consistent with Part 2 of the RMA because:

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

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

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

 There are no identified outstanding natural features and landscapes, areas of significant vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna that must be protected in the project area

 The applicant has supplied a supporting Heritage Impact Assessment and additional information that has been reviewed by Council’s Principal, Built Heritage Specialist who has concluded that the potential effects on the scheduled structures will be minor subject to appropriate conditions of consent We agree with that assessment and review and with the evidence presented for the applicant and Heritage New Zealand. Conditions are accordingly included as part of this decision and as such, the protection of historic heritage will be ensured.

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

 Given the extent of consultation undertaken with Mana Whenua, the requirements of sections 6(e), 7(a), 7(aa), and 8 of the RMA have been provided for and had regard to. In particular, there has been engagement with eight Mana Whenua groups who have self-identified an interest in the project and that engagement has been on-going via the CRL Mana Whenua Forum and targeted hui Accidental discovery protocols and consent conditions will enable the relationship of Mana Whenua with any unidentified archaeological sites within the project site to occur In addition, the applicant has stated that on-going consultation and engagement will continue through all stages of planning and construction

Decision

122.In exercising our delegation under sections 34 and 34A of the RMA and having regard to the foregoing matters, sections 104, 104B, 105, 106, 107 and 108 and Part 2 of the RMA, we determine that the resource consents be granted subject to the conditions set out below The resource consents granted by this decision are collectively a discretionary activity and provide for the construction of the Britomart Station to Wyndham Street section of the proposed City Rail Link The respective resource consents are land use consents, water permits and discharge permits which are referenced as R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436 and R/REG/2014/543. The location is the lower part of the central business district of Auckland City comprising the Britomart Station and parts of Lower Queen Street, Customs Street West, Wolfe Street, Victoria Street West, Albert Street and Wyndham Street.

Rail Link

Nos : R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

Reasons for the decision

123.The reasons for this decision are covered in the discussion above in this decision report but can be summarised as follows:

 Overall, the proposal enables people to provide for their economic and, in turn, social wellbeing as the CRL will improve transport access into and around the city centre and improve the efficiency and resilience of the transport network of urban Auckland. It will therefore contribute to increasing Auckland’s economic growth and further, provide a sustainable transport solution that minimizes environmental impacts.

 The effects associated with the project, including dust, sediment, contamination, settlement, water quality, earthworks with respect to heritage, construction, traffic, construction noise, utility disruption and flood capacity changes are found to be temporary in nature and can be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated through implementation of a certified CEMP. That includes the specific certified management plans and other conditions of the consent.

 The particular concerns of submitters have been addressed through conditions of consent that address matters potentially impacting on identified properties

 The project has been found to not be contrary to the relevant provisions and policy statements, plans and proposed plans that are relevant and as prepared under the RMA

 The proposal has been assessed with regard to the relevant Part 2 matters and found to be consistent with the purpose and principles of the RMA as included as this part of it.

Conditions

General Conditions

These conditions apply to all resource consents

Definitions

AEE - Assessment of Environmental Effects prepared by Aurecon New Zealand Limited/ Golder Associates (NZ) Limited, dated 19 December 2014

AQMP - Air Quality Management Plan, based on the draft Air Quality Management Plan – Britomart to Wyndham dated December 2014 prepared by Golder Associates (NZ) Limited

CCP - Communication and Consultation Plan

CEMP - Construction Environmental Management Plan

CLG - Community Liaison Group

Commencement of construction – in all conditions which refer to ‘commencement of construction’ , construction has the same meaning as the Construction Contracts Act 2002 and includes work such as site clearance, earthmoving and earthworks, excavation, tunnelling, and boring; and the construction, erection, installation, carrying out, alteration, repair, restoration, renewal, maintenance, extension, demolition, removal, or dismantling of any building or structure; and all other matters referred to in section 6 of that Act.

CPO - Chief Post Office

CRL – City Rail Link

CSMP - Contaminated Soils Management Plan

CTMP - Chemical Treatment Management Plan

EMP - Industrial and Trade Activities Environmental Management Plan

ESCP - Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan

ESC – Erosion and Sediment Control

GSMCP - Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

IBA - Independent Building Assessor – The person engaged under Condition 120. The role of the Independent Building Assessor shall be to make recommendations to Council on building serviceability and damage matters.

Key contacts - are identified in the CEMP and are a “key contact” person representing the Consent Holder and a “key contact” person representing the contractor team to work with the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring). Refer Condition 29

Mana Whenua Groups - Ngati Maru, Ngati Paoa, Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, Ngati Te Ata Waiohua, Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngati Whatua o Orakei, Te Akitai, and Ngati Tamaoho

PCCP - Pre-Construction Communication and Consultation Plan

Rail Link Application Nos : R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

Project – the City Rail Link Britomart Station to Wyndham Street Section

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

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

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

Upper Albert Street zone – the zone defined as that part of Albert Street between Swanson Street and Wyndham Street

See also definitions specific to water permit R/REG/2014/5432 Take and Diversion of Groundwater

1. The scope and extent of works envisaged by this project shall be carried out in general accordance with the plans and all information submitted with the application, detailed below, and all referenced by the Council as consent numbers R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5430, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436 and R/REG/2014/5437

 Application Form, and Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) prepared by Aurecon New Zealand Limited/Golder Associates (NZ) Limited, dated 19 December 2014, including the following:

Report title and reference

Design and Construction Report (Appendix B)

Groundwater Effects Assessment (Appendix C)

Assessment of Settlement Effects (Appendix D)

Contaminated Land Assessment (Appendix E)

Water Quality Assessment (Appendix F)

Industrial and Trade Activities Assessment (Appendix G)

Air Quality Assessment (Appendix H)

Draft Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Appendix I)

Heritage Impact Assessment (Appendix J)

City Rail Link

Author Rev Dated

Aurecon New Zealand Limited December 2014

Pattle Delamore Partners Limited December 2014

Aurecon New Zealand Limited December 2014

Golder Associates (NZ) Limited December 2014

Golder Associates (NZ) Limited December 2014

Golder Associates (NZ) Limited December 2014

Golder Associates (NZ) Limited December 2014

Aurecon New Zealand Limited December 2014

Salmond Reed Architects Limited December 2014

Application Nos : R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

Plan title and reference Author

LOCATION PLAN AND EXTENT OF WORKS

CRL-BTM-RME-000-DRG-0001

DR6A ALIGNMENT CRL DOWN (MC20) PLAN AND LONGSECTION SHEET 1

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0001

DR6A ALIGNMENT CRL DOWN (MC30) PLAN AND LONGSECTION SHEET 1

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0002

CPO PLAN, DEMOLITION, SLAB PROPPING AND TEMPORARY DECK

CRL-BTM-RME-000-DRG-1021

CPO PLAN, BASEMENT WITH UNDERPINNING

CRL-BTM-RME-000-DRG-0123

CPO LONGSECTION

CRL-BTM-RME-000-DRG-0191

CPO CROSS SECTION WITH UNDERPINNING GRID 1

CRL-BTM-RME-000-DRG-0231

CPO CROSS SECTION REINSTATEMENT WORKS GRID 1

CRL-BTM-RME-000-DRG-0241

CPO AND QUEEN ST TUNNEL BOX REINFORCEMENT AND WATERPROOFING DETAILS

CRL-BTM-RME-000-DRG-0305

CPO MONITORING LOCATIONS AT COLUMN UNDERPINNING

CRL-BTM-RME-000-DRG-0452

CPO FAÇADE MONITORING LOCATIONS CRLBTM-RME-000-DRG-0453

QUEEN ST AND QUEEN ELIZABETH SQUARE –QUEEN STREET - TYPICAL SECTIONS

CRL-BTM-RME-000-DRG- 0535

QUEEN ST AND QUEEN ELIZABETH SQUARE QUEEN ST LONG SECTION UP TRACK

CRL-BTM-RME-000-DRG-0551

QUEEN ST AND QUEEN ELIZABETH SQUARE- TYPICAL DETAILSGROUNDWATER DRAINAGE SHEET 1 OF 2

CRL-BTM-RME-000-DRG-0621

QUEEN ST AND QUEEN ELIZABETH SQUARE PUMP STATION SUMP AND CROSS PASSAGEWAY SECTIONS

CRL-BTM-RME-000-DRG-0661

PRECINCT - OVERALL LAYOUT PLAN

CRL-BTM-RME-000-DRG-0009

ENABLING WORKS CONTRACT 1 WORKSITES WITH PLANT BRITOMART TO QE SQUARE STAGE 2 OF 4

CRL-BTM-RME-000-DRG-0102

ENABLING WORKS CONTRACT 1 WORKSITES WITH PLANT BRITOMART TO QE SQUARE STAGE 3 OF 4

CRL-BTM-RME-000-DRG-0103

ENABLING WORKS CONTRACT 2 WORK SITE WITH PLANT AND TRAFFIC INTERFACE BETWEEN PRECINCT AND CONTRACT 2 IN LOWER ALBERT ST

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0114

CUSTOMS ST TUNNEL CROSS SECTION AND DETAIL OF TYPICAL TUNNEL IN CUSTOMS ST

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0171

ALBERT ST TUNNEL PLAN SHEET 1 OF 5

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0201

ALBERT ST TUNNEL PLAN SHEET 2 OF 5

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0202

ALBERT ST TUNNEL PLAN SHEET 3 OF 5

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0203

ALBERT ST TUNNEL PLAN SHEET 4 OF 5

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0204

ALBERT ST TUNNEL PLAN SHEET 5 OF 5

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0205

ALBERT ST TUNNEL STRUCTURAL LONGSECTION (MC30) SHEET 1 OF 5

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0211

ALBERT ST TUNNEL STRUCTURAL LONGSECTION (MC30) SHEET 2 OF 5

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0212

ALBERT ST TUNNEL STRUCTURAL LONGSECTION (MC30) SHEET 3 OF 5

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0213

ALBERT ST TUNNEL STRUCTURAL LONGSECTION (MC30) SHEET 4 OF 5

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0214

ALBERT ST TUNNEL STRUCTURAL LONGSECTION (MC30) SHEET 5 OF 5

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0215

ALBERT ST TUNNEL TYPICAL SECTION – CH 440 TO CH 465 (MC20)

17/10/2014

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0252

ALBERT ST TUNNEL TYPICAL SECTION – CH 465 TO CH 580 (MC20)

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0253

ALBERT ST TUNNEL TYPICAL DETAILS –PILE WALL SUPPORT STRUCTURE

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0301

ALBERT ST WORKSITE AND TEMPORARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION PHASING SHEET 2 OF 5

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0053

ALBERT ST WORKSITE AND TEMPORARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION PHASING SHEET 3 OF 5

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0054

ALBERT ST WORKSITE AND TEMPORARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION PHASING SHEET 4 OF 5

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0055

ALBERT ST WORKSITE AND TEMPORARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION PHASING SHEET 5 OF 5

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0056

ENABLING WORKS CONTRACT 2 CUSTOMS ST INTERSECTION CONSTRUCTION STAGING FOR CONSENTING SHEET 1 OF 3

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0111

ENABLING WORKS CONTRACT 2 CUSTOMS ST INTERSECTION CONSTRUCTION STAGING FOR CONSENTING SHEET 2 OF 3

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0112

ENABLING WORKS CONTRACT 2 CUSTOMS ST INTERSECTION CONSTRUCTION STAGING FOR CONSENTING SHEET 3 OF 3

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0113

ENABLING WORKS CONTRACT 2 ENVISAGED WORKSITE AND TRAFFIC INTERFACE ALBERT ST SOUTH FOR CONSENTING

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0104

ENABLING WORKS PROPOSED AND EXISTING GROUNDWATER MONITORING LOCATIONS

CRL-SYW-GEO-000-DRG-0007

ALBERT STREET MONITORING LOCATIONS

CRL-PAT-STR-000-DRG-0401

QUEEN STREET MONITORING LOCATIONS

CRL-PAT-STR-000-DRG-0404

ENABLING WORKS MONITORING NOTES

19/12/2014

19/12/2014

19/12/2014

19/12/2014

1.0 01/11/2014

02/07/2015

CRL-PAT-STR-000-DRG-0400

NOTES ON SCOPE AND METHOD SHEET 3 OF 4

CRL-SYW-STR-000-DRG-0053

NOTES ON SCOPE AND METHOD SHEET 4 OF 4

CRL-SYW-STR-000-DRG-0054

GEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTION CUSTOMS STREET

CRL-SYW-GEO-000-SKE-0021

GEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTION GALWAY STREET CRL-SYW-GEO-000-SKE-0022

GEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTION TYLER STREET CRL-SYW-GEO-000-SKE-0023

GEOLOGICAL LONG SECTION SHEET 0 EXTENSION OF MC20 LONG SECTION -300 TO 180M CRL-SYW-GEO-000-SKE-0024

GEOLOGICAL AND HYDROGEOLOGICAL MODEL MC20 LONG SECTION SHEET 1

CRL-SYW-GEO-000-SKE-0025

COMPARISON OF MC20 LONG SECTION (PART) WITH SECTION THROUGH MODFLOW MODEL AT ROW 26 CRL-SYWGEO-000-SKE-0026

SETTLEMENT CONTOURS DUE TO CUT AND COVER AND PIPEJACK SHEET 1 OF 2

CRL-SYW-CIV-000-DRG-0030

BRITOMART TO WYNDHAM GROUNDWATER AND SETTLEMENT MONITORING AND CONTINGENCY PLAN SHEET 1 OF 3 CRLPAT- RME- 000- DRG- 0403

BRITOMART TO WYNDHAM GROUNDWATER AND SETTLEMENT MONITORING AND CONTINGENCY PLAN SHEET 2 OF 3 CRLPAT- RME- 000- DRG- 0404

BRITOMART TO WYNDHAM GROUNDWATER AND SETTLEMENT MONITORING AND CONTINGENCY PLAN SHEET 3 OF 3 CRLPAT- RME- 000- DRG- 0405

17/11/2014

09/07/2015

09/07/2015

03/07/2015

Other additional information Author Rev Dated

 Further Information Letter, including attachments (Attachments A-G) except for Attachment E Damien McGahan from Aurecon New Zealand Limited

 Further Information Addendum Letter, including attachments (Attachments A-C) Damien McGahan from Aurecon New Zealand Limited

 Further Information Addendum 2 Letter

Damien McGahan from Aurecon New Zealand Limited

06/05/2015

22/05/2015

28/05/2015

 Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan Resource Consent Package 1 Britomart Station to Wyndham Street Section

Evidence provided prior to and at the Council hearing: Author Rev Dated

Statement of Evidence of Sarah Louise Sutherland

Statement of Evidence of Richard Leslie Chilton

Statement of Evidence of Andrew Thomas Hart

Statement of Evidence of Bruce Mitchell Petry

Statement of Evidence of Colin Dean Ingoe

Statement of Evidence of Jennifer Marie Carvill

Statement of Evidence of William Russell Newns

Sarah Louise Sutherland of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd

Richard Leslie Chilton of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd

Andrew Thomas Hart of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd

Bruce Mitchell Petry of Reverb Consultancy Ltd

Colin Dean Ingoe of Auckland Transport

Jennifer Marie Carvill of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd

William Russell Newns of Aurecon New Zealand

William Russell Newns of Aurecon New Zealand

Statement of Evidence of Scott Elwarth

Statement of Evidence of Alan David Pattle

Statement of Evidence of Eric Craig Stevenson

Supplementary Statement of Evidence of William Russell Newns

Supplementary Statement of Evidence of Jennifer Marie Carvill

Supplementary Statement of Evidence of Eric Craig Stevenson

Scott Elwarth of Auckland Transport

Alan David Pattle of PDP Ltd

Eric Craig Stevenson of Aurecon New Zealand 19 June 2015

William Russell Newns of Aurecon New Zealand

Jennifer Marie Carvill of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd

Eric Craig Stevenson of Aurecon New Zealand

If there is any conflict between the application documents and the specific conditions which follow, the specific conditions will prevail.

All Charges Paid

2. These consents (or any part thereof) shall not commence until such time as the following charges, which are owing at the time the Council's decision is notified, have been paid in full:

a. All fixed charges relating to the receiving, processing and granting of these resource consents under section 36(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA); and

b. All additional charges imposed under section 36(3) of the RMA to enable the Council to recover its actual and reasonable costs in respect of this application, which are beyond challenge.

3. The consent holder shall pay any subsequent further charges imposed under section 36 of the RMA relating to the receiving, processing and granting of these resource consents within 20 days of receipt of notification of a requirement to pay the same, provided that, in the case of any additional charges under section 36(3) of the RMA that are subject to challenge, the consent holder shall pay such amount as is determined by that process to be due and owing, within 20 days of receipt of the relevant decision

Compliance Monitoring Charge

4. The consent holder shall pay the Council an initial consent compliance monitoring charge of $8,000 (inclusive of GST), plus any further monitoring charge or charges to recover the actual and reasonable costs that have been incurred to ensure compliance with the conditions attached to these consents.

Advice Note: The initial monitoring charge is to cover the cost of inspecting the site, carrying out tests, reviewing conditions, updating files, etc, all being work to ensure compliance with resource consents. In order to recover actual and reasonable costs, inspections, in excess of those covered by the base fee paid, shall be charged at the relevant hourly rate applicable at the time The consent holder will be advised of the further monitoring charge or charges as they fall due Such further charges are to be paid within one month of the date of invoice. Only after all conditions of the resource consent have been met, will Council issue a letter confirming compliance on request of the consent holder.

Lapse Date

5. Under section 125 of the RMA, these consents or any one of these consents lapse 10 years after the consent commences unless:

a. The consent is given effect to; or

b. The Council extends the period after which the consent lapses.

Copies of Resource Consent

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

Site Access

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

Dispute Resolution

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

 any Auckland Council certification required by these conditions, or

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

If a resolution process cannot be agreed, then the matter shall be referred to an independent and appropriate senior qualified person (‘the referee’), agreeable to both parties (such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld by either party). The referral shall set out in writing the details of the matter to be referred for determination and the reasons why the parties have not agreed.

The referee shall be appointed within 10 working days of the Consent Holder or the Council giving notice to the other of its intention to seek an expert determination. Following appointment, the referee shall issue a written decision on the matter, including the reasons for his or her decision In making the decision, the referee shall be entitled to seek further information and to hear from the parties as he or she sees fit in his or her sole discretion. The reasonable fees of the referee shall be paid equally by both disputing parties.

Advice Note 1: The dispute resolution process provided for by this condition does not prejudice any parties’ right to take enforcement action in relation to implementation of these conditions. However, the dispute resolution process will be applied before any formal enforcement action is taken by the Council, except in urgent situations.

Advice Note 2: The Auckland Transport contact for this resolution process is the Central and Joint Initiatives Team Lead, Property and Planning Team, Capital Development Division

Pre-Constr uct ion Communication and Consult at ion Plan (“ PCCP” )

9. In order to set out a framework to ensure appropriate communication and consultation is undertaken with the community, stakeholders, affected parties

and affected in-proximity parties prior to the commencement of construction, the Consent Holder shall prepare a PCCP.

10. The PCCP shall be submitted to Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring), within 40 working days of the resource consent decision, for confirmation that the PCCP has been prepared in accordance with the conditions of consent.

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

12. This PCCP shall set out recommendations and requirements (as applicable) that should be adopted by and/or inform the development of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (“CEMP”) and other management plans.

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

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

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

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

d. Respond to queries and complaints by providing as a minimum the following information:

i) Who is responsible for responding to the query / complaint;

ii) How responses will be provided;

iii) The timeframes within which responses will be provided.

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

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

a. All property owners and occupiers of the sites that are identified at Appendix 5, adjacent to the Project’s construction sites (Britomart Station to Wyndham Street Section (as defined by the Britomart Transport Centre Designation 314 and CRL NoR 1));

b. Heritage New Zealand (Heritage NZ);

c. Network Utility Operators; and

d. The Community Liaison Group (refer Conditions 16 to 24).

15. The PCCP shall, as a minimum, include:

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

b. Details of the Communication and Consultation Manager for the preconstruction period including contact details (phone, email and postal address);

c. The 0800 CRL TALK phone number;

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

i) Newsletters;

ii) Newspaper advertising;

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

iv) The use of the project website for public information.

e. The methods for communicating and consulting with the Community Liaison Group (refer Conditions 16 to 24);

f. How communication and consultation activity will be recorded; and

g. Methods for recording reasonably foreseeable future planned network utility works so that it can be considered and incorporated, where appropriate, into the Britomart Station to Wyndham Street Section design

The PCCP will be publicly available once finalised for the duration of the Project’s preconstruction period

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

Community Liaison Group ( “ CLG ”)

16. Within 60 working days of the resource consent decision the Consent Holder shall, in consultation with the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring), establish a Community Liaison Group in the construction area (Britomart Station to Wyndham Street Section, as defined by the Britomart Transport Centre Designation 314 and CRL NoR 1).

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

a. Representative(s) for and/or directly affected and affected in-proximity property owners and occupiers;

b. CBD Residents Advisory Group;

c. Heart of the City; and

d. Mana Whenua (any or all of Ngati Maru, Ngati Paoa, Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, Ngati Te Ata Waiohua, Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngati Whatua o Orakei, Te Akitai and Ngati Tamaoho) unless any of those named advise the Consent Holder of a different liaison process.

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

a. Receive regular updates on Project progress;

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

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

d. Be provided with feedback on the development of, and any material changes to the CEMP and other management plans.

19. The Consent Holder shall consult with the CLG in respect of the development and review of the CEMP and other management plans

20. Prior to preparation of the PCCP under Condition 10, the Consent Holder shall appoint one or more persons appropriately qualified in community consultation as the Community Consultation Advisor(s) to:

a. Provide administrative assistance to the CLG;

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

c. Act as a community consultation advisor to the CLG

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

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

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

24. The CLG shall continue for the duration of the Project and for six months following completion of the Project

Communication and Consult ation Plan ( “ CCP” )

25. In order to set out a framework to ensure appropriate communication and consultation with the community, stakeholders, affected parties and affected in-proximity parties during the construction of the Project, the Consent Holder shall prepare a CCP which shall be implemented and complied with for the duration of the construction of the Project.

26. The CCP shall set out how the Consent Holder will:

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

b. Provide early information on key Project milestones; and

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

d. Respond to queries and complaints including but not limited to:

i) Who is responsible for responding;

ii) How responses will be provided; and

iii) The timeframes within which responses will be provided.

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

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

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

c. The 0800 CRL TALK phone number;

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

i) All property owners and occupiers of the sites that are identified at Appendix 5, adjacent to the Project’s construction sites (Britomart Station to Wyndham Street Section (as defined by the Britomart Transport Centre Designation 314 and CRL NoR 1));

ii) Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (Heritage NZ); and

iii) The Community Liaison Group (refer Conditions 16 to 24).

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

f. How stakeholders and persons affected by the project will be consulted in the development and review of the CEMP and other management plans, including specifying reasonable timeframes for feedback;

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

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

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

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

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

28. The CCP shall also include (as relevant) linkages and cross-references to the CEMP and other management plans.

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

30. Any further action recommended as a result of the review under Condition 29 shall be undertaken by the Consent Holder’s Communication and Consultation Manager for the Project and confirmation of completion shall be provided to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring)

31. If, in the course of amendments undertaken as part of the review process under Condition 29, a material change to the CCP is made, the Consent Holder shall notify those parties affected by the change within 20 working days of the material change occurring

Pre-Construction Meetings and Notification

32. Prior to commencement of any stage of construction, the Consent Holder shall arrange a pre-construction meeting with Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring in conjunction with the relevant technical specialists, as required) as well as the site contractor and shall invite the following Mana Whenua groups to attend: Ngati Maru, Ngati Paoa, Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, Ngati Te Ata Waiohua, Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngati Whatua o Orakei, Te Akitai, and Ngati Tamaoho (“the Mana Whenua Groups”).

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

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

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

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

i) Conditions of consent;

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

iii) Timeframes for key stages of the works authorised under this consent;

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

v) All certified management plans; and

Advice note: by this stage, all of the management plans referred to in Condition 33(i) should have been certified, given the plans are required to be lodged 20 working days prior to commencement of construction).

vi) A copy of the Corridor Access Request from Auckland Transport.

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

Advice Note: To arrange the pre-start meeting required by Condition 32 please contact Steve Pearce, Team Leader Central Monitoring to arrange this meeting on steve.pearce@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz, or 09 301 01 01 The conditions of consent should be discussed at this meeting. All additional information required by the Council should be provided two days prior to the meeting.

Construction Management

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

The CEMP shall include details of:

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

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

c. the “key contacts” referred to in Condition 29;

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

i) consultation prior to the commencement of construction;

ii) notice periods for changes to pedestrian and vehicle access;

iii) regular updates on construction progress;

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

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

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

f. general site layout and management;

g. an outline of the Project’s construction programme, including construction hours of operation;

h. means of ensuring the safety of the general public;

i. certified management plans which form part of these conditions, being:

i) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan;

ii) Chemical Treatment Management Plan;

iii) Air Quality Management Plan;

iv) Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan;

v) Contaminated Soils Management Plan; and

vi) Industrial and Trade Activity Environmental Management Plan

j. Water Discharge Quality Monitoring Programme; and

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

34. The CEMP shall be provided to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification at least 20 working days prior to the commencement of construction. The Consent Holder shall request the Council’s (Team Leader Central Monitoring) determination, in writing, as to whether the CEMP can be certified as per the requirements of the consent conditions within 10 working days of receipt of the CEMP

Construction shall not commence until written certification is obtained from Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring).

Advice note: The Consent Holder may provide CEMPs in a staged manner to Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification

35. The CEMP required by Condition 33 shall be implemented and maintained throughout the entire construction period for the Project, or relevant Project stage, to manage potential adverse effects arising from the construction and shall be updated as necessary (or as required by Conditions 37 and 38).

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

Any change to the CEMP shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification and no activity reliant upon a change to the CEMP can be undertaken until the change has been certified. The Consent Holder shall request the Council’s (Team Leader Central Monitoring) determination as to whether the proposed change can be certified, in writing, within 10 working days of submission of the change.

Construction Traffic

36. The Consent Holder shall, so far as is it is reasonably practicable, avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of construction on transport, parking and property access. This is to be achieved through the following objectives:

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

b. maintaining pedestrian access to private property at all times; and

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

Advice Note 1: Condition 36 refers to objectives to be achieved. The requirement to provide mechanisms to achieve these objectives is included in the relevant CRL or Britomart Transport Centre designation conditions.

Advice Note 2: This resource consent does not provide approval to close or occupy temporarily Tyler or Galway Streets. If such actions are required they will be sought and managed under the CRL designation and / or an application to vary the Britomart Transport Centre designation.

Review Process for CEMP and other Management Plans

37. The Consent Holder shall review the CEMP and other management plans at least annually or

 as a result of a material change to the Project; or

 to address unforeseen adverse effects arising from construction or unresolved complaints.

Such a review may be initiated by either the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) or the Consent Holder and shall take into consideration:

a. Compliance with resource consent conditions, the CEMP, other management plans and material changes to these plans;

b. Any changes to construction methods;

c. Key changes to roles and responsibilities relating to the Project;

d. Changes in industry best practice standards;

e. Changes in legal or other requirements;

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

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

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

h. Any complaints and any response to complaints and remedial action taken to address the complaint as required under Conditions 39 to 42

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

Concerns and Complaints Management

39. Upon receiving a concern or complaint during construction, the Consent Holder shall instigate a process to address concerns or complaints received about adverse effects. This shall:

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

b. Acknowledge receipt of the concern or complaint within 24 hours of receipt; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

e. Remedial actions undertaken (if any) and the outcome of these, including monitoring of the activity

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

42. Where a complaint remains unresolved or a dispute arises, the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) will be provided with a copy of all records of the complaint and advice as to

 how it has been dealt with and addressed; and

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

Upon receiving records of the complaint the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) may determine whether a review of the CEMP and/or management plans is required under Condition 37 to address the complaint. The Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) will be asked to advise the Consent Holder of its recommendation within 10 working days of receiving the records of complaint

Specific conditions – land use consent R/LUC/2014/5428

Contaminated Land and Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011

43. Works shall cease immediately in the vicinity of any contamination not previously identified and the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) shall be advised immediately

Specific conditions – land use consent R/REG/2014/5430

Earthworks

Consent Duration

44. This resource consent shall expire 15 years after the consent commences unless it has been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the RMA.

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (“ ESCP”)

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

46. No construction activity shall commence until certification from Council is provided.

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

48. The ESCP shall include, but not be limited to, the following matters:

a. identification of construction zones and construction support areas;

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

performance of measures detailed in Auckland Council Technical Publication No. 90, Erosion & Sediment Control: Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region (TP90);

c. catchment boundaries;

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

e. details relating to the management of exposed areas;

f. reference to the Chemical Treatment Management Plan and confirmation of ESC measures necessary to give effect to that plan;

g. reference to the Contaminated Soils Management Plan and confirmation of ESC measures necessary to give effect to that plan; and

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

49. Any change to the ESCP shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification No activity reliant upon a change to the ESCP can be undertaken until the change has been certified The Consent Holder shall request the Council’s (Team Leader Central Monitoring) determination as to whether the proposed change can be certified, in writing, within 10 working days of submission of the change.

Chemical Treatment Management Plan (“ CTMP” )

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

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

52. The CTMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following matters:

a. Specific design details of the chemical treatment system based on a batch dosing methodology for the site’s settlement tanks, including the potential for use of nonchemical flocculants (e.g. chitin based flocculants such as Haloklear);

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

c. Details of optimum dosage (including assumptions);

d. Results of initial chemical treatment trial;

e. A spill contingency plan; and

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

f. Details of the person or bodies that will hold responsibility for the long term operation and maintenance of the chemical treatment system and the organisational structure which will support this system

53. Any change to the CTMP shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification No activity reliant upon a change to the CTMP can be undertaken until the change has been certified The Consent Holder shall request the Council’s (Team Leader Central Monitoring) determination as to whether the proposed change can be certified, in writing, within 10 working days of submission of the change

As-built Certification

54. Prior to construction (bulk earthworks) commencing, a certificate signed by a senior qualified person shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) to certify that the erosion and sediment controls have been constructed in accordance with the certified ESCP(s) as required by Condition 45 of this consent.

55. Certified controls shall include diversion bunds, silt fences, and sumps The certification for these subsequent measures shall be supplied immediately upon completion of construction of those measures Information supplied, if applicable, shall include:

a. contributing catchment area;

b. shape of structure (dimensions of structure);

c. position of inlets/outlets; and

d. stabilisation of the structure.

General Performance Standards

56. The Consent Holder shall ensure that there shall be no deposition of earth, mud, dirt or other debris on any road or footpath resulting from bulk earthworks on the subject site In the event that such deposition does occur, it shall immediately be removed. In no instance shall roads or footpaths be washed down with water without appropriate erosion and sediment control measures in place to prevent contamination of the stormwater drainage system, watercourses or receiving waters.

57. The operational effectiveness and efficiency of all erosion and sediment control measures specifically required as a condition of resource consent, including the certified ESCP referred to in Condition 45, shall be maintained throughout the duration of bulk earthworks, or until the Project site is permanently stabilised against erosion.

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

59. The Consent Holder shall ensure that the erosion and sediment control measures shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with Auckland Council’s Technical Publication 90: Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Soil Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region, and any amendments to this document, except where a higher standard is detailed in the documents referred to in conditions above, in which case the higher standard shall apply.

60. Sediment control measures shall be inspected on a weekly basis and after a significant storm event to ensure effective operation In the event that a discharge of debris, soil, silt, sediment or sediment-laden water occurs, the activity which resulted in the discharge shall cease immediately and the discharge shall be mitigated and/or rectified to the satisfaction of the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring)

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

62. Upon completion or abandonment of bulk earthworks on the Project site all areas of bare earth shall be permanently stabilised against erosion to the satisfaction of the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring)

Review Condition for land use consent R/REG/2014/5430

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

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

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

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

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

Specific conditions – discharge permit R/REG/2014/5437

Discharge to Air

Consent Duration

64. This resource consent shall expire 15 years after the consent commences unless it has been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the RMA

65. The Consent Holder shall ensure that all processes on the Project worksite shall be implemented, operated, maintained, supervised, monitored and controlled so that any emissions authorised by this consent are maintained at the minimum practicable level.

66. Unless provided for by Condition 67, there shall be no dust or odour beyond the boundary of the Project worksite caused as a result of on-site processes which, in the opinion of Council, is noxious, offensive or objectionable.

67. All offensive or objectionable dust or odours beyond the boundary of the Project worksite caused as a result of construction and earthworks activities associated with the Project shall be mitigated as soon as practicable in accordance with the requirements of the certified Air Quality Management Plan as required by Condition 69

68. The Consent Holder shall ensure that beyond the boundary of the Project worksite, there shall be no hazardous air pollutant, caused as a result of construction and earthworks activities associated with the Project that causes, or is likely to cause, adverse effects on human health, environment or property

Air Quality Management Plan (“ AQMP” )

69. The Consent Holder shall review the draft Air Quality Management Plan – Britomart to Wyndham dated December 2014 (“draft AQMP”), prepared by Golder Associates (NZ) Limited and submit to Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) a final AQMP(s) which is (are) generally consistent with the draft AQMP provided in support of the application material.

70. The final AQMP(s) shall be prepared by a senior qualified person, provided to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification at least 20 working days prior to the commencement of construction and shall include:

a. a clear identification of the type and location of the controls proposed;

b. a detailed framework for the management, mitigation and monitoring of construction and earthworks activities associated with the Project;

c. a focus principally on the sources of dust discharges, and

d. an assessment of the risk of discharges from each Active Construction Zone and the associated Construction Support Areas.

71. The final AQMP(s) shall also provide detailed methods including, but not limited to, the following matters:

a. methods to ensure the exposed surfaces remain dampened to minimise dust emissions (possible examples include a suspended water spray system or other suitable system, water carts and other suppression methods);

b. a 20 km/hr vehicle speed limit within the Active Construction Zones and Construction Support Areas;

c. installation of wheel washes;

d. regular sweeping of public roads around the exit points of Active Construction Zones and Construction Support Areas and sealed vehicle accessways within these areas;

e. measures for dampening any temporary stock piles (which are to be limited to no more than 24 m³ of spoil at any one time in each Active Construction Zone);

f. measures for the handling of cement associated with forming of cement stabilised columns, including filter systems and high level alarms where a silo is used;

g. covering of loads of material being delivered and removed from the site;

h. instrumental monitoring of dust concentrations (identification of a monitoring methodology, monitoring network and appropriate alert thresholds) to ensure that any significant dust effects arising from the Active Construction Zones or Construction Support Areas are identified and remedied as soon as practicable throughout the Project;

i. the locations of instrumental dust monitoring sites, including one re-locatable monitor to be associated with Active Construction Zones A to D and fixed monitors associated with Active Construction Zone E;

j. measures for responding to continuous instrumental dust monitoring trigger alarms, including contingency measures to reduce measured concentrations below the trigger thresholds and provisions for responding after standard operating hours;

k. measures for undertaking meteorological observations and visual inspections of dust or other air discharges from the Project, to be completed at least on a daily basis, with all relevant information logged; and

l. information regarding complaint logging, investigation and response procedures, training and roles and responsibilities.

72. The Consent Holder shall request the Council’s (Team Leader Central Monitoring) provides its determination as to whether the AQMP(s) can be certified, in writing, within 10 working days of receipt of the AQMP(s).

73. Any change to the AQMP(s) shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification No activity reliant upon a change to the AQMP can be undertaken until the change has been certified The Consent Holder shall request the Council’s (Team Leader Central Monitoring) determination as to whether the change can be certified, in writing, within 10 working days of submission of the change.

74. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with the certified AQMP(s).

Monitoring Requirements

75. Prior to construction commencing, and for the duration of excavation and construction associated with the Project which have the potential for significant dust emissions, the Consent Holder shall install, operate and maintain mobile instrumental continuous dust monitors for the purposes of monitoring Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) and/or fine particulate matter (PM10). The monitors shall be operated at locations and according to methods detailed in the certified AQMP(s) required by Condition 69

76. The instrumental dust monitoring equipment shall be fitted with an alarm system that, when dust concentrations exceed alert levels specified by the certified AQMP(s), send a warning to the responsible person identified by the AQMP(s). The Consent Holder shall ensure that the responsible person, or other nominated person, is available at all times to take immediate action to reduce dust emissions from the site.

Specific conditions – discharge permit R/REG/2014/5435

Contaminated Land

Consent Duration

77. This resource consent shall expire 15 years after the consent commences unless it has been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the RMA

Contaminated Soils Management Plan (“ CSMP” )

78. At least 20 working days prior to the commencement of construction, a final CSMP shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input and Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification. The CSMP shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Contaminated Land Professional in accordance with Schedule 13 (A4) of the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (ACRP:ALW). The Consent Holder shall request the Council’s (Team Leader Central Monitoring) determination as to whether the CSMP can be certified, in writing, within 10 working days of receipt of the CSMP

79. No construction shall commence until certification is provided from the Council (Team Leader Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input and Team Leader Central Monitoring) that the CSMP meets the requirements of Schedule 13 (A4) of the ACRP:ALW

80. All measures identified in that CSMP must be established prior to the commencement of bulk earthworks.

81. The CSMP shall address the following matters:

a. Identification of mitigation measures to ensure that discharges from the construction support areas to land or water are minimised, and to ensure that

potential effects on the health of workers on the site and nearby sites can be appropriately managed

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

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

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

e. Contingency measures for unexpected discovery of contamination;

f. Proposed gas monitoring in the Lower Queen Street area, and any other proposed sampling and analysis, if applicable; and

g. Proposed Works Summary Reporting

Advice Note: The Council acknowledges that the CSMP is intended to provide flexibility of the management of the works and contaminant discharge Accordingly, the plan may need to be further updated Any updates must be limited to the scope of this consent and be consistent with the conditions of this consent. If you would like to confirm that any proposed updates are within scope, please contact the Council (Team Leader Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input) on (09) 301 0101

82. All disturbance of contaminated and potentially contaminated soil as part of the bulk earthworks activity shall be carried out in accordance with the certified CSMP required by Condition 78 and any changes to the plan shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input and Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification prior to the change being implemented. No activity reliant upon a change to the CSMP can be undertaken until the change has been certified. The Consent Holder shall request the Council’s (Team Leader Central Monitoring) determination as to whether the proposed change can be certified, in writing, within 10 working days of submission of the change.

Notification of Works

83. The Consent Holder shall notify the Council (Team Leader Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input and Team Leader Central Monitoring) at least two working days prior to the commencement of bulk earthworks on the subject site

Advice Note: Condition 83 requires the consent holder to notify the Council of their intention to begin works in contaminated areas a minimum of two working days prior to commencement of construction Please contact the Team Leader, Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input at david hampson@aucklandcouncil govt.nz to advise of the start of works The following details should also be provided:

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

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

 Site address to which the consents relate;

 Activity to which the consents relate; and

 Expected duration of the works.

84. All disturbance of contaminated soil shall be supervised by a suitably qualified and experienced Contaminated Land Professional who shall ensure that soil management and disposal procedures, contingency measures outlined in the certified CSMP required by Condition 78, and all relevant consent conditions are adhered to.

Regular inspections of the works area shall be carried out by the Contaminated Land Professional These inspections shall be documented and the relevant records shall be retained and provided to Council (Team Leader Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input) as part of the Works Summary Report required by Condition 93.

85. All land disturbance works shall be managed to avoid the potential for crosscontamination of materials to occur In particular, movement of contaminated soil around the site and/or deposition of contaminated soil on other parts of the site shall be avoided. Soils that are identified for off-site disposal must be loaded directly for removal where possible, and all material shall be covered during transportation offsite.

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

87. Excess soil or waste materials removed from the Project worksite shall be deposited at a disposal site that holds a resource consent to accept the relevant level and type of contamination.

88. Where it can be demonstrated that the soil has been fully characterised and meets the definition of ‘cleanfill’ in accordance with the Ministry for the Environment’s publication ‘A Guide to the Management of Cleanfills’ (2002), the removal of such material to a consented disposal facility is not required In such circumstances, a record of the location, depth, and volume of the material removed as ‘cleanfill’ shall be kept for the purpose of being included in the Works Summary Report required by Condition 93

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

a. be disposed of by a licensed liquid waste contractor; or

b. pumped to sewer, providing relevant permits are obtained; or

c. discharged to the stormwater system, provided testing demonstrates compliance with 50 times the Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

(ANZECC) Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (2000) for the protection of 95 percent of marine water species.

90. Where contaminants are identified that have not been anticipated by the application, works in the area containing the unexpected contamination shall cease until the contingency measures outlined in the certified CSMP required by Condition 78 have been implemented, and have been notified to the Council (Team Leader, Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input). Any unexpected contamination encountered during the works and contingency measures implemented shall be documented in the Works Summary Report required by Condition 93

Advice Note: In accordance with Condition 90 any unexpected contamination may include separate phase hydrocarbons, contaminated soil, perched water or groundwater. The consent holder is advised that where unexpected contamination is significantly different in extent and concentration from that anticipated, handling the contamination may be outside the scope of this consent. Advice should be sought from the Council (Team Leader Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input) prior to carrying out any further work in the area of the unexpected contamination to ensure this is within the scope of this consent.

91. All imported fill shall:

a. comply with the definition of 'cleanfill' in the Ministry for the Environment publication 'A Guide to the Management of Cleanfills’ (2002);

b. be solid material of an inert nature; and

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

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

92. All sampling and testing of contamination on the site shall be overseen by the Contaminated Land Professional and shall be undertaken in accordance with Contaminated Land Management Guidelines, No 5 – Site Investigation and Analysis of Soils, Ministry for the Environment (revised 2011).

Advice Note: All testing and analysis should be undertaken in a laboratory with suitable experience and ability to carry out the analysis For more details on how to confirm the suitability of the laboratory please refer to Part 4: Laboratory Analysis, of Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No 5.

93. Within three months of the completion of bulk earthworks on the site, a Works Summary Report shall be provided to the Council (Team Leader Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input and Team Leader Central Monitoring) The Works Summary Report shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Contaminated Land Professional in accordance with Schedule 13 (A5) of the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water and Contaminated Land Management Guidelines, No.1 - Reporting on Contaminated Sites in New Zealand, Ministry for the Environment (revised 2011).

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

94. The Works Summary Report shall address the following matters:

a. a summary of the works undertaken, including a statement confirming whether the excavation of the site has been completed in accordance with the certified CSMP required by Condition 78;

b. the location and dimensions of the excavations carried out, including a site plan;

c. a summary of soil, perched water and groundwater testing undertaken (if applicable) including tabulated analytical results, and interpretation of the results in the context of the Contaminated Land Rules of the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan;

d. copies of the disposal dockets for the contaminated soil and ‘cleanfill’ material removed from the site;

e. records of any unexpected contamination encountered during the works and contingency measures undertaken (if applicable);

f. details regarding any complaints and/or breaches of the procedures set out in the certified CSMP required by Condition 78 and the conditions of this consent;

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

h. results of testing of any imported fill material to ensure compliance with the definition of 'cleanfill', as per 'A Guide to the Management of Cleanfills’ , Ministry for the Environment (2002).

Specific conditions – discharge permit R/REG/2014/5436 Washwater and Wastewater Discharges

Consent Duration

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

Site Management

96. At least 20 working days prior to the commencement of construction, a final Industrial and Trade Activities Environmental Management Plan (“EMP”) shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification The Consent Holder shall request the Council’s (Team Leader Central Monitoring) determination as to whether the EMP can be certified, in writing, within 10 working days following receipt of the EMP

The EMP shall be prepared by a senior qualified person and shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

a. identification of the specific activities conducted on the site;

b. the identification of potential contaminants associated with these activities;

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

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

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

f. an appropriate auditing programme to ensure site performance with all components of the sites EMP;

g. methods for providing and recording staff training; and

h. a monitoring programme as outlined in Condition 101

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

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

Structural Controls

99. The Consent Holder shall ensure that the following structural controls are constructed for the following catchment areas and design requirements and they are completed prior to discharges commencing from the site

Works

Settlement Tanks (2x 12,000l tanks), located in CSAs 2 and 4

Bunding of Environmentally Hazardous Substances

Device catchment area Design requirements

All ACZs

As required

Discharge levels as per monitoring Condition 101

110% of largest container

100. In the event that any minor modifications to the structural controls system are required, the following information shall be provided to Council:

a. Plans and drawings outlining the details of the modifications; and

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

All information shall be submitted to, and the proposed modifications certified by the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring), prior to implementation

Discharge Monitoring

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

101. Within 30 days of the installation of the water treatment system, and prior to operation, a discharge monitoring programme, to assess the ongoing adequacy of all management practices, shall be developed and submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification The monitoring programme shall include, but not be limited to:

a. sampling location for final discharge from the site(s);

b. sampling locations on site (i e swale inlets, outlets etc);

c. methods and procedures for discharge sampling on a quarterly basis;

d. monitoring parameters for analysis, which shall include:

Daily

 Turbidity(NTU)

 pH

Weekly

 Total Suspended Solids mg/L

 Copper (total) mg/L



 Zinc (total) Lead (total) mg/L mg/L

 TotalPetroleum Hydrocarbons mg/L

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

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

102. The discharge monitoring programme shall be implemented upon completion of works set out in Condition 99.

Reporting

103. Within five working days of receipt of sample results showing contaminants exceeding the agreed trigger levels (Condition 101(e)):

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

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

104. Within eight weeks following the start of the monitoring required by Conditions 101 and 102, a monitoring report shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring). The monitoring report shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

a. a summary of the monitoring results to date;

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

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

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

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

Specific conditions – water permit R/REG/2014/5432

Take and Diversion of Groundwater

DEFINITIONS:

Commencement of Dewatering: Means commencement of bulk excavation and/or commencing taking any groundwater from the tunnel excavation and/or any dewatering prior to excavation.

Completion of Excavation: When all bulk excavation has been completed

Completion of Dewatering:

Completion of Construction

Significant damage

Damage

Alert Level

Alarm Level

Manager:

Means when the tunnel has been constructed, all backfilling has been completed and effectively no further groundwater is being taken for the construction of the tunnel.

Means when the Certificate of Completion is issued by AC.

When damage is considered to affect serviceability or structural integrity.

Includes aesthetic, serviceability and significant damage.

Monitoring reaches a level close to, or equal to the design value, which is below the level where damage could occur unless movement continues unchecked, and requires review to assess the future trend

Monitoring reaches the value, and/or level close to which damage could occur, and requires immediate action including the cessation of ground dewatering and other construction activities that may have an effect on ground deformation

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

RL: Means Reduced Level

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

Services:

Includes for example fibre optic cables, sanitary drainage, stormwater pipes, gas and water mains, power and telephone, road infrastructure assets such as footpaths, kerbs, catch-pits, pavements and street furniture, settlement monitoring stations and groundwater monitoring bores.

Consent Duration

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

Performance Standards

106. The Consent Holder shall ensure that all excavations, dewatering systems, retaining structures and associated works (including backfilling) for the tunnel construction and associated works shall be designed, constructed and maintained so as to avoid any damage that affects serviceability of structures and services.

107. Within the settlement contours on drawings CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0403, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0404, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0405, Rev 2.0 dated 03/07/2015 attached to these conditions in Appendix 2, the Consent Holder must ensure that the damage to buildings from the Project does not exceed the “slight damage” category extent detailed in the table below.

108. Beyond the settlement contours on drawings CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0403, Rev 3 0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0404, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0405, Rev 2.0 dated 03/07/2015 attached to these conditions in Appendix 2, the Consent Holder must ensure that the damage to buildings from the Project does not exceed the “negligible damage” extent detailed in the table below

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

109. The Consent Holder shall not exceed the maximum extent and magnitude of total settlement as defined by the settlement contours presented on drawings CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0403, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0404, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0405, Rev 2.0 dated 03/07/2015 attached to these conditions in Appendix 2.

110. The Consent Holder shall construct the CRL trench no deeper than 1.2m below the base of tunnel design invert levels shown on Plan: CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG0001-1.0 dated 17 October 2014 The maximum excavation depth for the CRL trench is RL-8 5m.

111. The Consent Holder shall design, construct and continuously maintain the temporary perimeter cut-off walls to achieve no more than 0.3m3/ day ingress (through the wall) of groundwater per 10m of wall for both the Chief Post Office Excavation Ch50m to Ch95m (“CPO”) and the CRL Trench Excavation Ch95m to Ch300m.

112. There shall be no visible seepage of water through the walls of the excavations at the CPO and Lower Queen Street area throughout construction Any visible leakage shall be caulked, or otherwise sealed, as soon as is practicable.

113. The Consent Holder shall ensure that the cut-off walls within the CPO shall be installed a minimum of 2m into unweathered East Coast Bays Formation.

City Rail Link Application Nos : R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

114. The cut off walls within the CRL trench excavation between Ch95 and Ch300 shall be installed to the top of the unweathered East Coast Bays formation bedrock

115. After completion of construction, groundwater levels adjacent to the tunnel alignment shall not reduce below pre-existing seasonal low levels or rise above seasonal high levels measured during pre-construction monitoring in accordance with Condition 130.

116. The Consent Holder shall ensure that there is no long term ground settlement caused by post construction dewatering or long term mounding by the tunnel alignment damming.

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan ( “G SMC P” )

117. At least 20 working days prior to the commencement of dewatering, the Consent Holder shall prepare and submit a GSMCP to Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) for certification.

118. The Consent Holder shall request:

a. Certification by Council be undertaken by an independent peer reviewer; and

b. Council’s (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) determination as to whether the GSMCP can be certified, in writing, within 10 working days following receipt of the GSMCP.

119. No dewatering on the subject site shall commence until certification from Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) is provided.

120. Prior to the Consent Holder submitting the GSMCP under Condition 117, the Consent Holder shall request that Council engage, at the cost of the Consent Holder, a suitably qualified independent specialist, agreed to by the Consent Holder, to fill the role of Independent Building Assessor (“IBA”).

121. The Consent Holder shall ensure that the IBA, required by Condition 120, provides a written report to Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) prior to commencement of construction and at no less than monthly intervals following commencement of construction and at key construction stages The report may include recommendations to Council on building serviceability and damage matters, and how these matters may be addressed, having regard to the following:

a. displacement and damage predictions of the affected buildings;

b. monitoring methodology and the results of that monitoring;

c. alert and alarm limits; and

d. any monitoring reports prepared in accordance with Conditions 135, 136, 157, 158 and 159

122. The GSMCP, required by Condition 117, shall include the requirements of this resource consent including, but not limited to, the following:

a. an “as built” survey plan of all monitoring locations based on approximate positions located on the plans entitled CRL-PAT-RME000-DRG-0403, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0404, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0405, Rev 2 0 dated 03/07/2015 (Appendix 2) and any further building-specific monitoring requirements determined from the detailed pre-construction building condition assessment;

b. full details of groundwater (including construction logs), ground surface, building, retaining wall, inclinometer monitoring programme and conditions surveys required by this consent;

c. a bar chart, such as a Gantt chart, showing the timing and frequency of the condition surveys and monitoring required by this consent relative to the commencement of dewatering and the completion of dewatering;

d. groundwater alert and alarm triggers, including methodology for their determination The Consent Holder shall use existing groundwater level data and the groundwater levels measured as required by Condition 129, to establish seasonal low groundwater levels;

e. details of all alert and alarm triggers for each ground, building and retaining wall deformation marks and inclinometers as determined by conditions of consent or as revised by further detailed design;

f. details of the contingency measures to be implemented if alert or alarm triggers are exceeded including a Response Plan (required by Condition 158). In particular, in relation to groundwater alarm triggers, contingency measures must include actions to prevent further groundwater drawdowns or rise;

g. identification of any adjacent services susceptible to damage and details of any pre and post construction monitoring or inspection;

h. details of the monitoring proposed to be undertaken to protect 35 Albert Street (Consent No. 43669) and Downtown Precinct Development (Consent No. 43792) consent holders against cumulative settlement effects;

i. identification of existing basements which could be subject to potential flooding from post-construction groundwater mounding Details of monitoring of long-term groundwater mounding effects. Details of groundwater drain maintenance to prevent groundwater mounding; and

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

j. review following the construction building condition surveys (required by Condition 133) the proposed alarm and alert trigger levels in Appendix 4 to confirm they are appropriately set to ensure the “slight” damage category will not be breached and whether monitoring frequency is adequate.

123. The GSMCP may be varied, including frequency of monitoring, subject to the certification of the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit).

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

Upper Albert Street Building Assessment Conditions

125. Additional site investigations shall be carried out at the detailed design stage to confirm the preliminary design assumptions for soil stiffness affecting the upper Albert Street zone.

The additional site investigations will consist of a minimum of two additional Cone Penetrometer Tests on the eastern side of the upper Albert Street zone The predicted total settlement contours shown on drawings CRL-PAT-RME-000DRG-0403, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0404, Rev 3 0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0405, Rev 2.0 dated 03/07/2015 shall be modified to take the site specific data into account.

126. Detailed building condition surveys shall be carried out, predesign and preconstruction, to determine the existing damage category of each building in the upper Albert Street zone and their sensitivity to any further settlement.

127. Should the pre-construction building condition survey and assessment highlight greater sensitivity of buildings to settlement than envisaged by the application, additional design measures ( that may include modifications to the design of the retention system or further geotechnical investigation) shall be undertaken

128. The Consent Holder shall prepare a report which shall include the outcomes from the assessment required to be undertaken by Conditions 125, 126 and 127 and any design modifications made The Consent Holder shall submit the report to the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) for certification Certification must be obtained prior to commencement of dewatering within a minimum 30m chainage distance from any particular building

Monitoring - Groundwater

129. The Consent Holder shall install, maintain and replace if necessary, groundwater monitoring boreholes listed in Appendix 3 of this consent and shown on drawings CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0403, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0404, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0405, Rev 2.0 dated 03/07/2015 of this consent, for the period required by the conditions of this consent.

Nos : R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

130. The Consent Holder shall measure and record groundwater levels at the monitoring boreholes specified in drawings CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0403, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0404, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0405, Rev 2.0 dated 03/07/2015 (Appendix 2):

a. at a minimum of weekly intervals for a period of at least 3 months before commencing dewatering (to establish baseline groundwater variability), and then

b. at least three times weekly for all monitoring boreholes during dewatering until either the completion of dewatering, or until such time following the completion of dewatering that stable measurements are demonstrated and certification is provided by the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit)

All water level data shall be recorded to an accuracy of at least ± 10mm (to be calibrated by the instrument supplier). These records, reported in reduced level, shall be compiled and submitted to the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) at monthly intervals.

131. The provisional groundwater alert trigger level criteria are listed in Schedule B and Schedule B.1 below for the monitoring boreholes. The GSMCP, when lodged for certification by Council as required by Condition 117, may amend the provisional groundwater alert and alarm trigger levels below:

Alert Trigger High Level

high level in fill, Tauranga marine sediments and Tauranga Alluvium

Alert Trigger Low Level – ECBF 90% of predicted drawdown response in ECBF (EU & ER)

Note 1: Schedule B applies to the area from chainage 300 to 610, being the area other than that defined as “Britomart” in Schedule B 1

metre below seasonal low in fill, Tauranga marine sediments and Tauranga Alluvium Alert Trigger Low Level – ECBF

Alarm Trigger Low Level

Alarm Trigger High Level

of predicted drawdown response in ECBF (EU & ER)

1.0 metre below seasonal low in fill, Tauranga marine sediments and Tauranga Alluvium

Seasonal high level in fill, Tauranga marine sediments and Tauranga Alluvium

Note 2: Schedule B.1 applies to the Britomart area only, being that area from chainage 50 to 300.

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

132. Where groundwater alert and alarm trigger levels are exceeded, as identified from monitoring data obtained pursuant to Condition 130, the actions set out in the certified GSMCP shall be undertaken and the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) shall be notified within 2 working days and advised of the trigger exceedance, the risk of settlement causing damage to buildings, and details of the actions taken.

Building Inspection

133. Prior to the commencement of perimeter piling adjacent to the relevant structure and/or commencement of dewatering (whichever is the sooner), the Consent Holder shall employ an independent senior qualified person to undertake a detailed pre-construction condition survey, of all buildings specified in Appendix 1 to confirm their existing condition, subject to the approval of the property owner.

The survey shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

a. any information about the type of foundations;

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

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

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

e. susceptibility of the building or structure to further movement;

f. specific assessment of building damage from the predicted total settlement contours showing on drawings CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0403, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0404, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0405, Rev 2.0 dated 03/07/2015 and with reference to the trigger levels identified in Appendix 4;

g. review of proposed alarm and alert trigger levels to confirm they are appropriately set and movement less than trigger levels set will not exacerbate damage, and whether the monitoring frequency and locations of monitoring points are adequate; and

h. photographic evidence of (b) and (c).

134. Where the Consent Holder is required to access property (including buildings or structures) owned by a third party to undertake monitoring, surveys or inspections and that access is declined or subject to what the Consent Holder considers to be unreasonable terms, the Consent Holder shall notify the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) of that circumstance, and provide an alternative monitoring plan which includes the matters stated in Condition 122.

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

135. Any condition survey undertaken in accordance with Condition 133, or any other condition surveys undertaken by the Consent Holder, shall be undertaken as follows:

a. The Consent Holder shall employ an independent senior qualified person to undertake the condition surveys and that person shall be identified in the CEMP (required by Condition 33);

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

c. The Consent Holder shall record all contact, correspondence and communication with owners and this shall be available on request for the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit);

d. The Consent Holder shall provide the building condition survey or structure condition survey report to the relevant property owner and the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) within 15 working days of the survey being undertaken;

e. The Consent Holder shall undertake a visual inspection during construction if requested by the building or structure owner where a pre-construction condition survey has been undertaken Where a condition survey has been undertaken by the building or structure owner, the Consent Holder shall continue to undertake monthly visual inspections until the Completion of Dewatering of the project; and

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

136. The Consent Holder shall carry out a visual inspection of the surrounding ground and external building facades of the listed buildings in Appendix 1 adjacent to the tunnel trench to monitor any deterioration or movement of any pre-existing cracks.

Unless otherwise agreed to by Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit), after consultation with the relevant building owner, this is to be carried out at least twice per week from the commencement of dewatering until completion of excavation and then at least weekly until completion of dewatering.

A record is to be kept of the time, date and any observations for each inspection This record is to be maintained and submitted to the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) in accordance with Condition 159.

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

137. The Consent Holder shall ensure that no earlier than 6 months after completion of dewatering and within 6 months of completion of construction, a postconstruction condition survey covering the matters identified in Condition 133 be completed of any building that had a pre-construction survey as identified in Appendix 1.

The condition survey report shall include a determination of the cause of damage identified (if any) since the pre-construction condition survey or previous survey and steps to repair it as provided for in Condition 157.

The requirements of this condition need not be fulfilled for any particular building where the Consent Holder can provide written evidence to the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) that the current owner of that building has agreed they do not require such a condition survey

138. The Consent Holder shall, without delay, at the reasonable request of the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) undertake an additional condition survey on any building within the area defined by the groundwater monitoring, deformation monitoring and modelling undertaken pursuant to the conditions of this consent potentially affected by the excavation for the purpose of checking for damage and for following up on a report of damage to that building

The requirement for any such condition survey will cease 6 months after the completion of construction unless the requirements of Condition 137 have not been met and subject to a consistent pattern of deformation records having been obtained in this period in which no evidence of adverse effects is apparent.

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

For the Albert Street excavations and in particular the upper Albert Street zone, should the actual response exceed those predicted for the first stages of excavation, contingency measures pre-determined from the detailed design and detailed in the Response Plan required by Condition 158 shall be implemented to increase the effective stiffness of the retention system and reduce wall deflections during subsequent excavation stages

140. The Consent Holder shall include potential cumulative settlement effects from the basement excavation of the development at 35 Albert Street, Auckland Central, as authorised by Consent 42859 and from the Albert Street Stormwater Main Realignment Consent as authorised by Consent 43669, detailed in the respective consent conditions, for the assessment of ground and building settlement trigger levels on and adjacent to 12 to 26 Swanson Street and 41 Albert Street, Auckland Central until the completion of ground and building settlement monitoring at 35 Albert Street, Auckland Central.

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

141. The Consent Holder shall include potential cumulative settlement effects from the basement excavation of the re-development of the Downtown Shopping Centre site, Auckland Central, as authorised by Consent 43792, and detailed in the respective consent conditions, for the assessment of ground and building settlement trigger levels on the Zurich Building (21 Queen Street), the HSBC building (1 Queen Street) and the Old Customs House building (12-32 Customs Street West) until the completion of ground and building settlement monitoring required by Resource Consent 43792

Ground Surface and Building Monitoring

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

a. The minimum scope of settlement monitoring is shown on Drawings CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0403, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0404, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0405, Rev 2.0 dated 03/07/2015 (Appendix 2);

b. Subject to the owners’ approval, at least two sets of building movement monitoring marks shall be located on each building listed in Appendix 1; and

c. The final location and number of building movement monitoring marks shall take into account the building type and size, accessibility to survey the marks and risk of damage from ground settlement and the effects of differential settlement from the predicted settlement contours on drawings CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0403, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0404, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0405, Rev 2.0 dated 03/07/2015

143. The Consent Holder shall survey and record each ground settlement and building movement monitoring mark at least three times prior to the commencement of dewatering to establish a baseline elevation.

144. All settlement and building monitoring mark surveys shall be to a horizontal and vertical accuracy of at least ± 2mm or as otherwise achieved by precise levelling These records shall be compiled and submitted to the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) prior to the commencement of dewatering

145. The Consent Holder shall survey and record the readings at each ground settlement and building monitoring mark on a monthly basis, until either the completion of dewatering, or until such time following the completion of excavation/ dewatering that stable measurements are demonstrated and certification is provided by the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit)

City Rail Link Application Nos : R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

146. The Consent Holder shall survey and record the readings at each ground settlement and building monitoring mark within 50m of trench excavations during excavations/dewatering on a daily basis, until either the completion of dewatering, or until such time following the completion of excavation that stable measurements are demonstrated and certification is provided by the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit).

Retaining Wall Monitoring

147. The Consent Holder shall ensure that retaining wall deformation pins are installed along the top of the boundary walls of the tunnel excavation at a distance of approximately 6.0 metre intervals to monitor both vertical and lateral wall movement.

148. Baseline monitoring before commencement of dewatering shall be undertaken three times to a horizontal and vertical accuracy of +/-2mm achieved by precise levelling and the results of monitoring shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit), prior to the commencement of dewatering

149. Alert and Alarm trigger levels for retaining pin monitoring as required in Condition 147 shall be confirmed and/or revised following the completion of the preconstruction building surveys and assessments required in Conditions 125, 126, 127 and 128 The final trigger levels shall take into account the building type and potential risk of damage from ground settlement quantified from these surveys and assessments

150. From the commencement of excavation to one month after completion of excavation the Consent Holder shall measure the monitoring marks at an average of each 2 metres depth of excavation, at a maximum frequency of weekly intervals.

151. From one month after completion of excavation to the completion of dewatering, monitoring shall be at fortnightly intervals. Monitoring carried out shall be reported and submitted to Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) in accordance with Condition 161

152. Inclinometers shall be installed along the excavation within the zones shown on the drawings CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0403, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0404, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0405, Rev 2.0 dated 03/07/2015 either within a retaining pile or immediately behind one and extending to the base of the retaining pile. The specific locations will be confirmed following detailed design and will be confirmed in the final GSMCP Measurement accuracy shall be to best practice.

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

153. The Consent Holder shall survey, record and report the readings of the inclinometer as per Schedule C below:

Schedule C: Inclinometer Surveys

Baseline: Pre Construction

Frequency:

Reporting:

Best practice

Submitted to the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, NRSI) prior to the Commencement of Dewatering

Commencement of excavation to one month after Completion of Excavation unless otherwise agreed under Condition 123

Inclinometer

Daily intervals unless a different frequency has been agreed to in writing by Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit)

As per Condition 161

154. The Inclinometer Deformation Alert Levels of deflection and the Inclinometer Deformation Alarm levels of deflection are as follows:

a. Adjacent to existing buildings – as specified in the GSMCP; and

b. Precinct Properties Ltd building – Downtown Shopping Centre redevelopment - alarm levels are subject to cumulative effects and require consultation in accordance with Condition 141 Services

155. The Consent Holder shall identify potentially affected services and, prior to the commencement of dewatering, undertake a condition survey of all such services in consultation with the relevant service providers.

The monitoring of any settlement effects on those potentially affected services shall be in accordance with Conditions 142, 145 and 146. In the event that the services trigger levels listed in Appendix 4 are breached, remedial actions must be in accordance with Conditions 157 and 158

156. A condition survey of potentially affected services shall be completed by the Consent Holder no earlier than 6 months after completion of dewatering and no later than completion of construction, to confirm in writing to the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) and the asset owner the results of the survey

The survey shall include a determination of the cause of any damage identified (if any) since the condition survey provided for in Condition 155. The post- condition survey need not be completed where the Consent Holder has written evidence that a post-condition survey was not required by the service provider.

City Rail Link Application Nos : R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

Contingency

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

a. notify the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) and the asset owner as soon as practical;

b. engage a senior qualified person to prepare a report as soon as practical describing the damage and identifying methods to avoid and mitigate the potential for further damage and to remedy any damage caused wholly or in part by the exercising of this consent and provide a copy of the report to the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) and the asset owner; and

c. thereafter promptly undertake (at the entire cost of the Consent Holder) all necessary repairs to fully restore and remedy the damage caused by the exercise of this consent. “Entire cost” includes all design and consenting costs as well as all construction costs. This obligation as a condition of the resource consent shall enure until:

i) Two years after completion of dewatering, or

ii) In the case of the Lower Queen Street area, two years after extraction of sheet piles;

iii) One year after groundwater levels have stabilised; and

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

158. The Response Plan, included in the GSMCP, shall be prepared in accordance with drawings CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0403, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0404, Rev 3.0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0405, Rev 2.0 dated 03/07/2015 (Appendix 2), and shall be implemented in the event that differential settlement between any two ground settlement monitoring marks exceeds the identified triggers, or total settlement exceeds the identified triggers in Appendix 4. The Appendix 4 trigger levels are to be revised, in accordance with Condition 133(g), if recommended by the building and structure condition surveys carried out in accordance with Conditions 133 and 138

159. In the event of any Alert or Alarm trigger level exceedance at any of the ground surface and building monitoring stations associated with the construction works, then the Consent Holder shall undertake the following activities:

a. Notify the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) and the Independent Building Assessor within 24 hours;

b. If measurements exceed any of the alert values then a senior qualified person engaged by the Consent Holder or the Consent Holder’s Contractor shall reassess the works constructed up to that time to identify the reasons for higher

movements and confirm whether measures (if any) are required to restrain further increases in movement and confirm that possible ensuing effects will not adversely impact building serviceability Measures (if any) to be implemented are to be as identified in the GSMCP, and may include an increase in the frequency of monitoring, or additional support measures

c. The senior qualified person shall prepare and submit a written report to the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit), within one week of alert level exceedance, which provides analyses of all monitoring data, relating to the exceedance of any of the trigger levels and any actions taken;

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

i) Follow the process identified in Condition 159(b);

ii) Commission and submit a written report, prepared by the senior qualified person engaged in accordance with Condition 159(b) to the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit), within one week of alarm level exceedance, which provides analyses of all monitoring data, relating to the exceedance of any of the trigger levels and any recommendations for remedial actions if required in order to complete construction so as to avoid damage that will affect building serviceability; and

iii) Implement the recommendations of the report. In the instance that the recommendation is to stop work pursuant to Conditions 159(b) and (d), the remedial action(s) that have been recommended shall be undertaken before the works recommence.

e. In relation to alarm level exceedance, recommendations of the IBA (refer Condition 120), which may include remedial actions up to and including stopping the works if that is in the best interests of preventing building serviceability damage, shall be implemented (unless the building owner(s) request in writing that the construction works are to be completed in accordance with the report prepared under Condition 159(c)(ii)).

Advice Note: Condition 159 operates independently from and does not detract from, but may assist to inform, Council’s role in relation to monitoring, and ensuring compliance with conditions of consent, including Condition 106

Reporting

160. The Consent Holder shall advise the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit), in writing, of the date of the proposed commencement of dewatering.

161. All data collected as required by conditions of this consent from commencement of dewatering to completion of monitoring are to be compiled, compared with the relevant trigger levels and submitted to the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) at two monthly intervals, unless

Rail Link

Nos : R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

otherwise specified in this consent, setting out the previous results, providing an explanation for any trends and providing a construction progress timeline.

Review Condition – Water Permit R/REG/2014/5432

162. The conditions of this consent may be reviewed by the Council (Team Leader Water Allocation, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit) pursuant to Section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, by the giving of notice pursuant to Section 129 of the Act, within six months after commencement of dewatering and subsequently at intervals of not less than one year thereafter in order:

a. to vary the monitoring and reporting requirements, and performance standards in order to take account of information, including the results of previous monitoring and changed environmental knowledge, on:

i) ground conditions;

ii) aquifer parameters;

iii) groundwater levels; and

iv) ground surface deformation

b. to deal with any adverse effect on the environment arising or potentially arising from the exercise of this consent, and in particular effects on buildings, structures and services.

Advice notes

1. If you disagree with any of the above conditions, or disagree with the additional charges relating to the processing of the application, you have a right of objection pursuant to sections 357A or 357B of the Resource Management Act 1991 Any objection must be made in writing to Council within 15 working days of notification of the decision

2. The Consent Holder is responsible for obtaining all other necessary consents, permits, and licences, including those under the Building Act 2004, and the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 This consent does not remove the need to comply with all other applicable Acts (including the Property Law Act 2007), regulations, relevant Bylaws, and rules of law. This consent does not constitute building consent approval Please check whether a building consent is required under the Building Act 2004

3. This development involves undertaking construction work to Watercare’s wastewater network. The Consent Holder will be responsible for ensuring all necessary approvals are obtained from Watercare. See Watercare’s website (www watercare co.nz) for more information

4. If any archaeological features are uncovered on the site, it is recommended that works cease and council’s representative monitoring your application is notified immediately. For guidance and advice on managing the discovery of archaeological features contact the Team Leader Cultural Heritage Implementation on 09 301 0101. Please note in the event of a discovery, contacting Heritage New Zealand, as well as the local Mana Whenua is recommended.

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

5. The Consent Holder shall be advised that any works, structures (including ground-anchors) or access required to facilitate the excavations/retaining/foundation construction both permanent and temporary on adjacent properties or land may require the written consent of the affected property owner to be submitted with building and/or resource consent application(s) For more advice the Consent Holder shall contact Auckland Council town planning and building control help desks

6. It is unlawful to modify or destroy an archaeological site without the prior authority of Heritage New Zealand issued under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. That authority will include a comprehensive set of conditions in respect of archaeological evidence that may be encountered

7. The Consent Holder shall be advised that any works authorised under this consent, which rely on the alteration to the Britomart Transport Centre designation, shall not commence within the Britomart Transport Centre designation area until the alteration to the Britomart Transport Centre designation has been approved.

8. The Consent Holder will prepare an Air Quality Management Plan in compliance with the requirements under both the conditions of this resource consent and the CRL designation conditions.

Pursuant to Section 133A of the Resource Management Act 1991, a minor correction has been made to Condition 159 and this decision now replaces the decision dated 28 August 2015. The date of the original decision still stands.

Alan Watson Chair of the Commissioners

Date: 28 August 2015

Appendix 1 to Resource Consent Conditions

Conditions 133 to 138 of this resource consent require building condition surveys to be undertaken prior to commencement of dewatering. In accordance with Conditions 133 to 138, at a minimum, building condition surveys shall be undertaken for the following buildings:

Appendix 2 to Resource Consent Conditions

Plans (three in total):

CRL-PAT-RME-000-DRG-0403, Rev 3 0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0404, Rev 3 0 dated 09/07/2015 and 0405, Rev 2 0 dated 03/07/2015

City Rail Link

Application Nos : R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

Appendix 3 to Resource Consent Conditions

BH34-1 (Fill/TL)1

BH34-2 (ER /TA)1

BH34-3 (EU)1

BH35-1 (Fill/TL)1

BH35-2 (ER /TA)1

BH35-3 (EU)1

QS1-1 (Fill/TL)1

QS1-2 (ER/TA)1

QS1-3 (EU)1

QS2-1 (Fill/TL)1

QS2-2 (ER /TA)1

QS2-3 (EU)1

BH32-1 (Fill/TL)1

BH32-2 (ER /TA)1

BH32-3 (EU)1

BH43-1 (Fill/TL)1

BH43-2 (ER /TA)1

BH43-3 (EU)1

BH52-1 (Fill/TL)1

BH52-2 (ER /TA)1

BH52-3 (EU)1

BH45-1 (Fill/TL)1

BH45-2 (ER /TA)1

BH45-3 (EU)1

EB301 (Fill/TL)

EB302 (Fill/TL/EU) EB302 (Fill)

BH23 (EU)1

BH401-1 Fill/TL

BH401-2 ER /TA

BH401-3 EU

BH402 (EU)

BH202A (EU)

BH202B (EU)

BH251 - A (EU)

BH251 - B (EU)

BH403 Fill/TA

BH404 Fill/TA

BH405 Fill/TA

BH203 (EU)

BH255 EU

BH204-1 (ER/EW

BH204-2 EU

EB305 ER/EW

EB306 ER/EW

EB307 ER/EW

BH205 ER

BH205 EU

BH406 A ER

BH406 B Top of EU

BH407 A Top of EU

BH407 B ER

BH408 A TA

BH408 B ER

BH409 A TA

BH409 B ER

BH409 C Top of the EU

BH410 TA

BH411 A TA

BH411 B ER

BH411 C Top of EU

BH412 A Top of the TA

BH412 AA Base of the TA

BH412 B ER/EW

BH412 C Top of EU

BH413 - A Fill/TL

BH413 - B TA/ER

BH413 - C EU

Application

: R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

BH414 - A TA

BH414 - B ER

BH Endeans Base of TL

Note 1:

Installed as part of Britomart Station investigation and monitoring conditions. These historic holes proposed for monitoring have not yet been assessed for accessibility or functionality.

Note 2:

Could be combined with Swanson Shaft-specific groundwater monitoring well.

City Rail Link

Application Nos : R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

Appendix 4 to Resource Consent Conditions Deformation Limits – Buildings

Note: Further detailed design may modify the trigger levels presented below Any revisions based on further design shall not increase the number of properties affected nor increase the potential building damage impacts above the aesthetic levels presented by the application This appendix relates to Conditions 122(j), 133(f), 126, 155 and 158

City Rail Link

Application Nos : R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

1 12 QUEEN STREET REFER TO NOTE 6 ON DRAWING CRL-PAT-STR-000-DRG-0400 [5 0] 2 21 QUEEN STREET

DISPLACEMENT MONITORING TRIGGER LEVELS SPECIFIC TO ZURICH BUILDING ARE OUTLINED ON DRAWING CRL-SYW-STR-000-DRG-0054

3 23-29 ALBERT STREET

4 12-26 SWANSON STREET

5 35 ALBERT STREET

HORIZONTAL AT FACE OF BUILDING3 7mm 9mm VERTICAL AT FACE OF BUILDING3 14mm 18mm DIFFERENTIAL VERTICAL SLOPE ACROSS BUILDING2 (I

ACROSS ZONE 2)

HORIZONTAL AT FACE OF BUILDING3 14mm 18mm VERTICAL AT FACE OF BUILDING3

DIFFERENTIAL VERTICAL SLOPE ACROSS BUILDING2 (I E. ACROSS ZONE 2) 1/950 1/750

HORIZONTAL AT FACE OF BUILDING3

VERTICAL AT FACE OF BUILDING3 DIFFERENTIAL VERTICAL SLOPE ACROSS BUILDING2 (I E.

ACROSS ZONE 2)

6 37 ALBERT STREET

7 39 ALBERT STREET

8

ZONE 21 : GROUND SURFACE MOVEMENT

ACROSS BUILDINGS (INCLUDING ROADS INTERSECTING ALBERT STREET)

HORIZONTAL AT FACE OF BUILDING3 VERTICAL AT FACE OF BUILDING3 DIFFERENTIAL VERTICAL SLOPE ACROSS BUILDING2 (I E.

ACROSS ZONE 2)

HORIZONTAL AT FACE OF BUILDING3

VERTICAL AT FACE OF BUILDING3 DIFFERENTIAL VERTICAL SLOPE ACROSS BUILDING2 (I E.

ACROSS ZONE 2)

VERTICAL SLOPE ACROSS BUILDING

DEMOLISHED LIMITS FOR NEW BUILDING TO BE CONFIRMED

City Rail Link Application Nos : R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

EXISTING BUILDING

EXTERNAL COLUMN/FACADE

BUILDING MOVEMENT

17 63 ALBERT STREET

ALL OTHER PROPERTIES

ALL PROPERTIES

148 QUAY STREET

152 QUAY STREET 2-8 CUSTOMS STREET EAST 10-12 CUSTOMS STREET EAST 14-18 CUSTOMS STREET EAST 20 CUSTOMS STREET EAST 2 QUEEN STREET

ACROSS ZONE 2)

HORIZONTAL AT FACE OF BUILDING3 6mm 8mm

VERTICAL AT FACE OF BUILDING3 14mm 18mm

DIFFERENTIAL VERTICAL SLOPE ACROSS BUILDING2 (I E.

ACROSS ZONE 2)

HORIZONTAL AT FACE OF BUILDING3 8mm 10mm VERTICAL AT FACE OF BUILDING3 8mm 10mm

DIFFERENTIAL VERTICAL SLOPE ACROSS BUILDING2 (I E. ACROSS ZONE 2)

DIFFERENTIAL HORIZONTAL IN PLANE WITH THE COLUMN/FACADE

HORIZONTAL AT FACE OF BUILDING 3mm 4mm VERTICAL AT FACE OF BUILDING 5mm 8mm

DIFFERENTIAL HORIZONTAL IN PLANE WITH THE COLUMN/FACADE

Application Nos : R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

Deformation Limits – Services and Infrastructure Trigger Levels Table

Note: Applies to ground surface movement within Albert Street and Lower Albert Street and roads intersecting Albert Street (includes footpaths, verge and road), Customs Street West, Fanshawe Street, lower Queen Street, Tyler Street, Galway Street

SERVICES MOVEMENT

ALL SERVICES WITH A DIAMETER GREATER THAN 200mm1

ALL RIGID SERVICES WITH A DIAMETER LESS THAN 200mm

NON-RIGID2 SERVICES WITH A DIAMETER LESS THAN 200mm1

IDENTIFIED CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTUR E3

DIFFERENTIAL VERTICAL GROUND MOVEMENT WITHIN ALBERT STREET4

DIFFERENTIAL VERTICAL GROUND MOVEMENT WITHIN ALBERT STREET4

DIFFERENTIAL VERTICAL GROUND MOVEMENT WITHIN ALBERT STREET4

TRIGGER LEVELS [+/-] ALERT5 ALARM STOP

DIFFERENTIAL VERTICAL GROUND MOVEMENT WITHIN ALBERT STREET4 1/200 1/160 1/140

Rail Link Application Nos : R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

Appendix 5 to Resource Consent Conditions

Plan: CRL-BTM-RME-000-DRG-0004, revision 1, titled: “Location Plan Showing Sites

Adjacent to Construction Sites” , dated 18.08 2015

City Rail Link

Application Nos : R/REG/2014/5430, R/LUC/2014/5428, R/REG/2014/5432, R/REG/2014/5435, R/REG/2014/5436, R/REG/2014/5437

REFERTOALIGNMENTANDCIVILDRAWINGS FOREXACTLOCATIONOFWORKEXTENTS.