in the matter of the resource management act 1991 a n d … · p.o. box 14-315 wellington 6241, tel...

P.O. BOX 14-315 WELLINGTON 6241, TEL 64-4-388 3407 ACOUSAFE CONSULTING & ENGINEERING LTD

IN THE MATTER OF The Resource Management Act 1991

A N D

IN THE MATTER OF He Ara Kōtahi | Manawatu

Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge

Peer Review of Noise Effects

SECTION 42A NOISE REPORT OF NIGEL ROBERT LLOYD

Introduction

1. My name is Nigel Robert Lloyd. I am an acoustical consultant with Acousafe

Consulting & Engineering Limited, a position I have held for over 30 years.

2. I have a degree in mechanical engineering gained at the University of Wales,

University College Cardiff in 1976.

3. Prior to my current position, I was employed by the Industrial Acoustics

Company in the UK as an acoustical consultant between 1977 and 1980 and then

spent five years as the Department of Labour noise control engineer in New

Zealand, advising the safety inspectorates on occupational noise management and

control. I have a total of 39 years’ experience as a noise control

engineer/acoustical consultant.

4. I am a Member of the Acoustical Society of New Zealand and I have completed

a ‘Making Good Decisions’ course.

5. I have advised Palmerston North City Council on noise matters since the early

1990’s and advised the Council on each of their current Sectional District Plan

reviews.

6. I prepared a section 42A report for the Board of Inquiry for Transmission Gully

and I am currently advising Greater Wellington Regional Council and Wellington

City Council on the review of noise issues for the Wellington Airport Runway

Extension. I have undertaken peer reviews for a wide range of infrastructure

projects including the Wellington Buckle Street Underpass (Arras Tunnel) and,

more recently, for construction noise associated with the Christchurch Southern

Motorway stage 2.

2

P.O. BOX 14-315 WELLINGTON 6241. TELEPHONE 64-4-388 3407 ACOUSAFE CONSULTING & ENGINEERING LTD

7. While I am familiar with vibration terms and assessments I do not consider myself

to be a vibration expert.

8. I confirm that I have read the ‘Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses’ contained

in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014. My report has been prepared to

comply with that Code and I have not omitted to consider material facts known

to me that might alter or detract from the opinions I express.

The Scope of My Report

9. The scope of my report is as follows:

a. A peer review of the Assessment of Environmental Effects and particularly

Appendix J the Noise and Vibration report,

b. Assess the noise and vibration impacts described in the report,

c. Describe the discussions with the applicant’s noise and vibration advisers

and the outcomes,

d. Consider submissions,

e. Liaise with the consultant planner to recommend draft conditions of

consent in the event that consent is granted.

Review of Noise Assessment

10. The documentation that is subject to this review and the request for further

information is as follows:

a. The noise and vibration report (The Opus Report) entitled Manawatū

River Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge Noise and Vibration Assessment by

Opus Research, reference 5-P0843.06 XXX65/XXX66 dated August

2016.

b. Email from Mark St. Clair dated 3 November 2016 requesting further

information.

c. Additional Information Request from the Councils dated 21 December

2016.

d. Response to Request for Further Information (RFI) dated 13 January

2017.

11. I am in agreement with the Opus Report that the use of the bridge by pedestrians

and cyclists (and to carry pipes and cables) will be insignificant in respect of the

3


existing sound environment. The main concerns, therefore, are with construction

noise and vibration impacts, including those from construction traffic.

12. In making my recommendations to Council on what further information should

be sought I was concerned that the environmental noise effects may be more than

minor and that the sparsity of information would cause inadequacy in the ability

to make that assessment. These concerns relate, particularly, to construction

noise effects, including noise from delivery trucks. The need to is have sufficient

information to assess the likely noise impacts (level and duration) and to

determine what mitigation measures are required (if any).

13. As a result of these concerns I contacted the Section 42A consultant planner, Mr

Mark St Clair, to recommend that a meeting be arranged with the applicant’s

noise and vibration advisers to allow me to explain my concerns and to obtain the

further information required to allow the adverse construction noise effects to be

properly understood.

14. A Skype meeting took place on 25 January 2017 between myself, the Section 42A

consultant planner and the applicant’s advisers, including Mr Peter Cenek, who

co-authored the vibration part of the Opus report. Mr Igor Kvatch, the noise

adviser, was unavailable.

15. The discussions were specifically directed at the applicant’s response to the RFI

dated 13 January 2017. In that response, the applicant chose to rely on a future

Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) to address the

issues that I have raised. To provide some certainty in what such a future plan

would contain Opus agreed to provide a draft CNVMP. This plan has now been

provided and provides me with much greater confidence that the construction

noise and vibration can be appropriately managed.

16. My main issues where set out in the request for further information dated

3 November 2016 and I propose to discuss the RFI response dated 13 January

2017 and the matters raised in the Skype meeting.

Construction Noise Limits

17. The specific noise questions and responses are included in Appendix A.

4


18. Question 31 seeks confirmation that the noise emitted during construction will

be managed and controlled by reference to NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics

construction noise using the limits in Table 2 for “long-term duration”.

19. The response in the RFI is that section 4.2.2 sets out the limits for “typical

duration”.

20. The meaning of these terms is set out in Table 7.2.1 of NZS 6803:1999 with

a. “Short term” means construction work at any one location for up to 14

calendar days;

b. “Typical duration” means construction work at any one location for

more than 14 calendar days but less than 20 weeks; and

c. “Long-term” means construction work at any one location with a

duration exceeding 20 weeks.

21. The works are expected to take up to a year at one general location and, on that

basis, they are categorised as “long-term”.

22. I understand, from the Skype meeting, that Opus tentatively accepts that the

construction works are long-term in nature and that the “long-term” limits in

Table 2 of NZS 6803:1999 should apply. I would expect this matter to be

confirmed by the applicant at the hearing.

23. Question 32 seeks the background (LA90) sound levels to be provided. The

reason for this request was that NZS 6803:1999 provides (7.2.6) for the

background plus approach to be used where background sound levels are high.

Opus has now provided their measured background sound levels. These are low

and should not be used to justify higher construction noise levels than are set out

in Table 2 of the Standard.

24. Question 33 seeks to reconcile the distances used in the Opus Report with the

distances set out in the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE). During the

Skype meeting Opus were provided with plan and section references

(Appendix D to the Application) which show significant earthworks being

required closer to the dwellings at 22 Ruha Street and 131 Dittmer Drive than

inferred in the Opus Report.

25. Question 34. In my experience earthworks of this nature will struggle to comply

with the noise limits in NZS 6803:1999 when undertaken this close to dwellings.

5


During the Skype meeting Mr Cenek was adamant that the operation would be

able to comply with the limits.

26. It is tempting to accept Mr Cenek’s recommendation and adopt the construction

noise limits in the conditions. However, I consider that such an approach could

frustrate the consent (if granted) because the construction works will not be able

to be undertaken in compliance with the consent conditions. I understand that

from a legal perspective a condition of consent cannot negate the consent

granted.

27. I therefore recommend that the draft conditions require that the construction

works are to be complied with where practicable and to provide for a higher

standard of noise management, by way of a CNVMP, where this cannot occur.

28. This allows construction works to take place close to the dwellings albeit for a

short period of time.

29. Question 35 flags the fact that no assessment has been undertaken of the noise

of trucks on the road during the construction phase. The draft CNVMP provides

me with confidence that construction vehicle noise can be appropriately

managed.

30. Questions 36 & 37 identify that no laydown or truck manoeuvring areas have

been identified. This makes it impossible to make an assessment of the noise

impacts of this element of the work. It is envisaged that the laydown area will

be used for a significant period during the construction project. Resulting noise

needs to be carefully controlled and this aspect of the work dictates that the long-

term duration is appropriate (as defined by NZS 6803:1999) when applying the

noise limits.

31. It is important that the laydown and unloading area for the bridge construction

be located as far from the dwellings as is reasonable practical. One possibility is

to locate a laydown area on the opposite side of the river during at least part of

the bridge construction, which would have benefits for the residential neighbours

to the proposed bridge during the construction phase. Obviously, some bridge

construction and piling works will need to take place on the city side of the river

requiring access from that side.

6


32. Question 38 identifies that construction noise could exceed ambient sound levels

by more than 3dBA without causing unreasonable noise to neighbours. There

was some confusion as to this point in the Opus Report.

33. There was a general agreement during the Skype meeting that the limits in the

construction noise standard allow noise levels to increase by significantly more

than 3dBA (up to 70 dB LAeq). This is considerably more than is allowed for by

the District Plan residential zone limits.

34. Usually construction noise cannot be kept within the residential zone limits.

Although this may mean that the noise is undesirable, it is not necessarily

unreasonable when all the relevant factors are taken into consideration.

Construction noise is an inherent part of the progress of society1.

35. While the noise limits in Table 2 of NZS6803:1999 may seem high, they take

account of the temporal changes that generally occur with construction activities.

Construction works are transitory in nature in that they alter as the contract

progresses. The overall noise levels tend to decrease over the span of the project.

This should be the case with the proposed pedestrian bridge construction with

noise levels at the nearest dwellings reducing after the earthworks stage, and then

again after the piles are driven.

36. The city side laydown area will be proximate to the dwellings on Dittmer Drive

and Ruha Street for most of the construction period and the activities taking place

there have been identified in the draft CNVMP as requiring special mention.

Submissions

Submission #2 Dr Chris Teo-Sherrell

37. This submitter holds concerns for nearby residents in terms of adverse effects on

the integrity of their homes, and considers that vibrational effects should be

strongly mitigated and a guarantee of remediation given should any damage

occur to those buildings as a result of the construction work.

38. In addition to the vibration impacts the submitter considers that a construction

plan should be put in place that limits the construction work to 7am to 7pm

Monday to Friday.

1 Foreword to NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics Construction Noise.

7


39. With respect to hours of operation, it is recommended that there are restrictions

on noisy operation to between 7.30am and 6pm Monday to Saturday with no

work on Sundays or Public Holidays. This corresponds with the

recommendations of NZ 6803:1999 where it sets out the times when noisier

activities can take place.

40. The vibration effects are otherwise covered by recommended conditions and the

CNVMP to ensure that damage to buildings is avoided. The draft CNVMP

provides for management strategies for vibration including consultation with the

residents and monitoring.

Submission #9 Iola Haggerty

41. This submitter resides in Buick Crescent and opposes the project on the basis

that it ‘does not take into account the “quiet enjoyment” of the area’. The

submitter considers that common law provides for ratepayers to be able to rely

on this concept.

42. It is reasonable to expect some adverse noise impacts resulting from the

construction of infrastructure, such as the cycleway and pedestrian bridge,

particularly where this has significant benefits to the wider community.

43. The area will return to its former peaceful environment after the bridge has been

constructed. It is not expected that the use of the bridge and surroundings will

impact significantly on general noise levels in this area.

Submission #26 Kenneth C. Baird

44. This submitter resides in Dittmer Drive some 700 metres from the subject site.

45. The wide ranging submission includes specific mention of the Opus Report and

raises a number of issues:

a. Concerns about liquefaction;

b. That the residential zone noise limits do not apply to construction

activities;

c. Seeking clear rules that should be applied should consent be granted;

d. Discussion of ambient sound levels and the benefits of road surfacing;

e. Suggested requirements for construction noise monitoring;

f. What recourse exists if Council does not action a complaint;

g. Control of early morning (6.30am to 7.30am) noise limits;

h. How heavy vehicle activity will be controlled;

8


i. Wind noise from bridge railings;

j. Lack of information on the piling technology to be used.

46. There is a lack of information in the application about the details of the

construction works and this is due to the fact that the contract for the works has

not yet been let. Some of this information will follow once the contractor is

known.

47. The submitter raises a good point about potential wind noise (harmonics) being

generated by the bridge structure. Orifices in bridge railings or vortices from

regular rails or balusters can be a nuisance but this can be avoided during the

bridge design. The bridge itself is some distance from the nearest dwellings and

any such noise generation would need to be unusual for any problems to be

generated.

48. I agree with the submitter about the need for rules and monitoring requirements.

These need to be designed specifically for the different stages of the construction

works and are best included in a CNVMP. The applicant has now provided a

draft CNVMP which gives me confidence that the matters of concern to this

applicant can be properly managed to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse noise

effects.

Recommended Draft Conditions

49. I consider that noise conditions are only required for the construction phase of

the project. Subsequent to the construction phase the bridge will be used by the

general public in a similar way to the pavement, paths and roads in the area. The

noise from such use is not expected to cause a nuisance to neighbours, except for

any unsociable behaviour that might arise, which would be controlled by the

public nuisance provisions of the law. This would be no different to controlling

nuisance in any other public place in the city and the bridge is not expected to

cause issues in this respect.

50. I have consulted Mr St Clair on the recommended draft noise condition that are

included in his S42A report and I support these. The matters that I consider need

to be included in the conditions include:

a. Restrictions on hours of operations, particularly of high noise generating

activities. I am comfortable with early morning set up to take place as

long as this does not cause a noise nuisance.

9


b. Setting out the construction noise limits. I recommend that these should

be based on the long-term limits found in Table 2 of NZS 6803:1999.

c. The two tier vibration limits required to limit noise to avoid complaint

in the first instance and avoid damage in buildings. I recommend that

the “daytime” vibration activities be married to those recommended by

NZS 6803:1999 i.e. 7.30am to 6.00pm.

d. A CNVMP which shall describe:

i. The works, laydown areas and equipment/processes,

ii. Hours of operation,

iii. The noise and vibration criteria established by the consent

conditions,

iv. Affected persons,

v. Mitigation options, particularly where the noise and vibration

criteria cannot practicably be met,

vi. Site specific noise and vibration management schedules

including schedules for construction traffic and for pile driving,

vii. Methods and frequency of monitoring and reporting,

viii. Consultation,

ix. Operator training,

x. Key contact numbers,

xi. Complaints procedures and register, and

xii. An audit and review programme.

51. The CNVMP should require certification prior to works commencing and the

works should be undertaken in accordance with the CNVMP.

Conclusions

52. Once the pedestrian and cycle bridge has been constructed then the activity noise

will not cause the existing quiet aural environment to significantly alter.

53. The construction works will take approximately one year to complete and there

will be occasions when the nearest residents in Ruha Street and Dittmer Drive

will inevitably experience high levels of noise and vibration from earth moving

equipment, construction traffic, pile driving and bridge construction.

54. There might be times when activities take place very close to the dwellings when

the recommended construction noise limits may be exceeded. The need is to

10


identify these times prior to the event to allow the noise to be managed to ensure

a minimum disruption to neighbours. This is brought about by ensuring the noise

and vibration is as low as practicable and by undertaking the works at the most

convenient time. The proposed Construction Noise and Vibration Management

Plan puts the mechanism in place to allow this to happen, including providing

for liaison with the neighbours about the best time to undertake the works.

55. The combinations of the recommended draft conditions for construction noise

and vibration management will ensure that any temporary adverse effects will be

appropriately managed.

Nigel Lloyd

Acousafe Consulting & Engineering Limited

30 January 2017

Appendix A

EXTRACT OF NOISE AND VIBRATION QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

13 JANUARY 2017

P.O. BOX 14-315 WELLINGTON 6241, TEL 64-4-388 3407 ACOUSAFE CONSULTING & ENGINEERING LTD

Appendix A page 2


Appendix A page 3


in the matter of the resource management act 1991 a n d … · p.o. box 14-315 wellington 6241, tel...

Documents