Before Hearing Commissioners
under:
in the matter of:
the Resource Management Act 1991
notices of requirement and resource consent
applications by the NZ Transport Agency and Hamilton
City Council for the Southern Links Project
Second statement of supplementary evidence of Vince Dravitzki (Noise) on
behalf of the NZ Transport Agency and Hamilton City Council
Dated:
28 August 2014
Hearing date: 1 September 2014
REFERENCE:
Suzanne Janissen ([email protected])
Jo Bain ([email protected])
Chapman Tripp
T: +64 9 357 9000
F: +64 9 357 9099
23 Albert Street
PO Box 2206, Auckland 1140
New Zealand
www.chapmantripp.com
Auckland, Wellington,
Christchurch
Tompkins Wake
T: +64 7 839 4771
F: +64 7 839 4855
Westpac House
430 Victoria Street
PO Box 258, DX GP20031
Hamilton 3240
New Zealand
www.tomwake.com
1
SECOND STATEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE OF VINCE
DRAVITZKI ON BEHALF OF THE NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY AND
HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL
INTRODUCTION
1
My full name is Vincent Kevin Dravitzki.
2
I have the qualifications and experience set out in paragraphs 2 to 4
of my statement of evidence in chief, dated 12 June 2014 (EIC).
3
I repeat the confirmation given in paragraph 7 of my EIC that I have
read, and agree to comply with, the Code of Conduct for Expert
Witnesses (Environment Court Practice Note 2011).
4
In this statement of supplementary evidence, I respond to issues
raised in the second supplementary s42A Report dated 14 August
2014 (Second Supplementary Report) prepared by the Reporting
Team, and Appendix G to that Report, which contains a statement of
evidence by Mr Jon Styles of Styles Group, dated 14 August 2014.
Before addressing specific matters I have several general
comments.
GENERAL COMMENTS ON MR STYLES’ EVIDENCE
5
My first general comment is that at the time of the Section 92
information request, the initial s42A report, and the Supplementary
s42A Report, the Reporting Team’s acoustic expert was Mr Vossart.
I have responded to the issues raised by Mr Vossart. Now Mr Styles
has prepared evidence. While in paragraph 3 of his evidence,
Mr Styles states he has worked on this Project with Mr Vossart, I am
unclear as to Mr Styles’ level of involvement in this Project since
August 2013.
6
In reading Mr Styles’ evidence, he appears much less familiar with
my Noise Assessment report and my earlier evidence. For example,
in paragraph 24 of his evidence he states that I have presented a
range of options with no guidance as which is preferred or most
likely to be built. Yet in both my Noise Assessment report (at
page 71) and in my EIC (at paragraph 77), such a list of
recommended mitigation is provided.
7
A further example is that he states1 that no regard has been had to
health impacts, but as noted in paragraph 41 of my EIC, guidelines
and Standards for noise are targeted at protecting health and
reducing the worst of noise effects on amenity and it is clearly
1
Mr Styles’ evidence, paragraphs 17 to 19 and 25.
100059484/3631328
2
stated in section 4.7 of NZS 68062 that the purpose of the criteria of
NZS 6806 is to protect amenity and health. In my EIC (paragraphs
238 to 243), I describe how the noise levels will achieve indoor
levels that are well recognised as minimising health impacts.
8
I see Mr Styles’ lack of familiarity with the Project reflected in
paragraph 26 of his evidence, where he comments that the design
could be potentially very different from the concept design against
which I have assessed potential operational noise effects. I note
that general condition 1 requires the Project to be undertaken
generally in accordance with the Notices of Requirement and
associated documents. Therefore, should the design be very
different (as he suggests), an alteration to the designation may be
needed.
9
My second general comment relates to NZS 6806 and its
development. Mr Styles makes much of its limitations, which plainly
contradicts the agreements reached by Dr Chiles, Mr Vossart,
Mr Styles and myself in the Joint Statement of Expert Witnesses
(dated 7 August 2014), in particular in paragraphs 4 and 5. Indeed,
rather than accept the general application of NZS 6806, Mr Styles
recommends a new condition 4.5a requiring the future noise
assessment be constrained by the resultant noise levels of the
current noise assessment. As I will explain, in my view this is
completely contrary to the approach set out in NZS 6806.
10
NZS 6806 was published in April 2010. A committee worked on its
development for more than two years before its publication. This
committee encompassed a wide range of stakeholders including a
representative of the New Zealand Acoustics Society (Society).
Members of the Society were able to input into the draft Standard
and comment on drafts via the Society’s representative. There were
also other acoustics experts available to the committee, who acted
as advisors to other stakeholders in the committee.
11
All acoustics specialists (as well as the public) were also able to
comment directly when drafts for public comment were circulated. I
submitted some proposed changes, some of which were
incorporated in the Standard, but a number were not. However, I
accepted this because I recognised that NZS 6806 does not
represent the views of one person. Rather, it is the consensus view
of a committee of stakeholders and technical experts.
12
My view is therefore that acoustic specialists, including Mr Styles,
have had ample opportunity to help shape NZS 6806 and they
should therefore avoid attempting to revise NZS 6806 through the
‘back door’ via designation conditions for a specific roading project.
2
New Zealand Standard NZS 6806:2010 Acoustics – Road – traffic noise – New
and altered roads.
100059484/3631328
3
13
One of the difficulties I have with Mr Styles’ evidence is that it
contains considerable conjecture on the possibilities of how
NZS 6806 could be applied so as to produce quite different noise
impacts to those identified by my Noise Assessment. Here I am
referring to his comments that the design could be markedly
different (paragraph 26), and that the mitigation options are so
uncertain (paragraph 26). In fact those options are rather straightforward and clear. By that I mean where quieter surfaces are
recommended, they are uncontentious and where noise barriers are
recommended, they are fully compatible with a rear fence setting
for the affected properties. His overall tone, which I strongly
disagree with, is that there is so much uncertainty as to the noise
effects of the final design. He then proposes modifications as to
how NZS 6806 could be applied to ensure that these conjectural
possibilities do not occur.
14
In paragraph 25 of his evidence, Mr Styles refers to paragraphs 13
and 16 of the Joint Witness Statement, making much of the
difficulties for submitters in finding information in the Noise
Assessment report. However, having read all the submissions
relating to noise, my impression is that the submitters had no
difficulty in understanding the noise levels of the Project. Many had
a good knowledge of the predicted noise at their properties. Most
submitter concerns were with regard to specific forms of mitigation,
and some advanced an argument for mitigation, even though the
report said that it is not warranted, which in my experience is
normal for roading projects.
15
I do not agree with the thread of Mr Styles’ argument. I consider
that he is being alarmist and is painting NZS 6806 as a totally new
context of assessing noise effects within which we should exercise
great caution. I have previous experience with applying NZS 6806
in four major projects.3 In three of these projects, I undertook the
noise assessment, together with my colleague, Ms Lester, and for
the Peka Peka to Otaki Section, I was engaged as the peer reviewer.
Prior to this, I assessed many roading projects using Transit New
Zealand’s Noise Guidelines (Noise Guidelines). From this
experience, it is my opinion that much of the process and outcomes
of assessments using either approach (NZS 6806 or the Noise
Guidelines) is similar.
16
I consider that if NZS 6806 did not exist and I had undertaken this
assessment using the Noise Guidelines, Mr Styles would have had
little concern. The Noise Guidelines have a 13 year history of
application and until 2010, were widely applied and accepted at
3
The Cambridge Section of the Waikato Expressway; SH1 in Caversham Valley in
Dunedin; the Basin Bridge project in Wellington; and Peka Peka to Otaki Section,
Wellington.
100059484/3631328
4
hearings and were the basis for the noise conditions on roading
designations.
16.1 As I explained in paragraphs 22 to 25 of my first
supplementary statement of evidence, the approach of
undertaking a preliminary assessment based on a concept
design, and then requiring a future assessment is nothing
new. This is exactly the process that I followed for the
recently completed Te Rapa Bypass, the Tamahere Section of
the Waikato Expressway, and the Hamilton Section of the
Waikato Expressway. For all three projects the Noise
Guidelines were applied throughout the process. When the
effects of the Notices of Requirement for those projects were
first assessed using the Noise Guidelines, the road design
used was only a concept design. The noise assessments
identified that the effects were likely to be reasonable
provided some mitigation was in place. That pre-construction
assessment identified mitigation possibilities, without
determining a definite form of mitigation. This approach
corresponds to the process being promoted for Southern
Links, using NZS 6806 as the noise criteria.
16.2 For those projects, the practicability of mitigation was still
considered. While NZS 6806 is more explicit in how
practicability is identified (as noted in Section 6.3 of
NZS 6806), the criteria for determining what is practicable
existed under the Noise Guidelines. Typical conditions under
the Noise Guidelines would require that there be a future
assessment just prior to construction. That assessment
would identify the ambient noise levels existing at that time,
reset the design noise limits, where necessary, then
determine the mitigation required. This is exactly the process
that I followed in my assessment in 2009 to 2010 when the
Te Rapa Bypass design was being finalised. That route has
now been completed.
17
Therefore, my view is that the approach promoted by the Requiring
Authorities here, that is, a preliminary noise assessment using
NZS 6806 for identification of likely mitigation, followed by a future
noise assessment closer to the time of construction to finalise the
mitigation - closely matches a well-established practice that has
been in place since at least 1991, when the Noise Guidelines were
published. In my opinion, this process will ensure that the roadtraffic noise effects of the Project will be acceptable. There is no
need for the excessively cautious approach or the modifications that
Mr Styles has proposed.
100059484/3631328
5
MR STYLES’ RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
18
19
As I will explain, I see no need for the modification to the Requiring
Authorities’ conditions prepared by Mr Styles. I wish to comment on
his new conditions 4.5(a) and 4.5(b).
Condition 4.5a
In condition 4.5a, Mr Styles recommends that the noise criteria be
57dBA or the lowest noise level from the structural mitigation in my
noise assessment, whichever is higher. I have a number of
concerns with this condition 4.5a.
20
His condition fails to recognise that a large number of Protected
Premises and Facilities (PPFs), especially in the northern portion, are
already adjacent to a busy road, in particular, Cobham Drive, as
well as other parts near Ohaupo Road Airport Road and SH1
Cambridge Rd. Those PPFs are therefore in an ‘altered road’
situation, and under NZS 6806, the appropriate criteria for altered
roads is Category A of 64 dB and Category B of 67 dB. The existing
environment as is explained in both section 3 of my noise
assessment and in paragraphs 27 to 31 of my EIC is already well
above the 57 dB recommended as a noise limit by Mr Styles’
condition.
21
In my opinion it would be very difficult to achieve such a low level
near an existing road in some areas, as barriers in a fully urban
setting would be needed, blocking entranceways. It would also
mean that the Project would be markedly improving existing
ambient noise levels. That is why the 64 dBA for altered road
situations as contained in NZS 6806 is a much more appropriate
criteria.
22
I am also concerned that Mr Styles’ alternative noise limit in
condition 4.5a(b), which is that noise should not exceed predictions
of the original noise report for “… the most effective Structural
Mitigation measure”. Such a requirement would totally miss the
purpose of the Noise Assessment report. I did not prepare that
report with a view to setting design limits, but to show effects and
that mitigation options to meet the criteria of NZS 6806 are, in
general, readily available.
23
I also consider that Mr Styles’ recommended condition 4.5a seeks to
set de facto rigid limits for noise that are totally contrary to the
purpose of NZS 6806, which is to find the Best Practicable Option.
NZS 6806 requires that as a first step, noise is managed within the
noise criteria as far as is practicable. However, structural mitigation
measures, such as noise barriers, also have environmental impacts
that must be managed. For example, urban design, landscape and
social severance and accessibility are all potential impacts of noise
barriers or bunds. NZS 6806 therefore strives to achieve a balance
100059484/3631328
6
between the noise reductions that barriers provide, and keeping any
adverse effects of the barriers themselves to an acceptable level.
As a result the “most effective Structural Mitigation measure” may
not ultimately be the Best Practicable Option. That is why NZS 6806
does not set rigid limits. Rather, it allows some variability in noise
levels above the target Category A criteria to accommodate this
balancing, while recognising that there is little, if any, change in
noise effects.
24
The consequence of the rigid noise limits that Mr Styles
recommends is that noise becomes the dominant criteria and areas
could be, for example, blighted with unsightly barriers. Mr Eccles’
supplementary evidence provides an example of the Hamilton Ring
Road (R1) designation conditions that set specific noise levels, which
resulted in the requirement for noise barriers that some affected
land owners did not want.
25
I also emphasise comments I made in my first supplementary
evidence4 regarding the difference between noise levels and noise
effects. They are not the same thing. Noise effects increase more
slowly than noise levels. In my opinion, for most of the Project
area, noise levels could change by 4 to 5 dBA with no measureable
change in noise impacts.5 This relationship of noise increases and
noise effects is recognised in NZS 6806 as there are a number of
situations where some flexibility in noise levels is allowed,
recognising that effects will be the same (e.g. mitigation must be
worthwhile and achieve at least 3 dBA reduction for a cluster of
houses).6
Condition 4.5b
In his condition 4.5b(a), Mr Styles recommends that a set of noise
measurements be made of the existing environment. I agree with
the intent of this part of the condition, as this is the appropriate way
to establish the existing and “Do Nothing” noise environment for
parts of the Project area. However, I do not consider that the
addition of condition 4.5b(a) is necessary, as it is already implicitly
required by condition 4.2. Section 5 of NZS 6806 adequately sets
out where the noise should be modelled and where it should be
measured from. NZS 6806 also requires that the “Do Nothing”
noise environment be assessed. Therefore, the future noise
assessment undertaken to comply with condition 4.2 will include the
noise measurements referred to in condition 4.5b(a), making the
latter redundant.
26
27
In the remaining parts of Mr Styles’ recommended condition 4.5b(b)
to (d), he proposes that measurements be repeated post4
Paragraph 17, which in turn referred to paragraphs 219-225 of my EIC.
5
Mr Dravitzki’s first supplementary evidence, para 17.
6
NZS 6806, section 8.2.2.
100059484/3631328
7
construction at the same sites to “verify” the computer noise model.
If the noise monitoring shows that the predicted levels are
exceeded, further mitigation is to be provided.
28
While I agree with the concept of some post-construction
verification, and I recognise that conditions of this type have been
commonplace under the Noise Guidelines, I disagree with the form
Mr Styles proposes because as I will explain, noise measurements
are subject to variation due to a number of factors.
29
Several years ago, I undertook a research project with one of my
former colleagues Mr Richard Jackett into the variability of road
traffic noise, particularly in the context of noise conditions for
designations. Our research is reported in NZTA Research
Report 446.7
30
In this research, we analysed traffic flows for their day by day, day
of week, holiday and seasonal variation and translated this into the
variation in noise that this variation in flow may cause. We also
reviewed the literature where other researchers had reported on
factors - such as wind conditions, degree of cloud cover (which
affects solar heating), temperature, type and extent of vegetation which all worked to influence the transmission of noise from the
road to the receiver. We also reviewed other factors, such as
instrument precision, as an influence on measurement variation.
31
Our findings included that traffic variations can affect noise by
plus/minus 1 to 3dBA depending on the road type.8 Weather factors
had a major influence and could alter noise by plus/minus 2dBA
close to the road (e.g. within 30 metres), while between 100 to 200
metres, the variability of noise could be as much as 4 to 6dBA. In
some circumstances, noise can vary as much as 10 to 13 dBA.9
Even factors such as whether pasture was damp and long, or dry
and closely grazed, had an influence on noise over the longer
distance.10
32
While it is possible to identify the conditions influencing the
variability in noise measurements, and make some adjustment to
the readings, the complexity of making this adjustment for the
range of situations that occur within a 24 hour period make such
adjustment impracticable and unreliable.
33
It is possible that in the past, acoustic professionals may have
tailored their measurements to particular weather conditions and
7
www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/446/.
8
NZTA Research Report 446, Table 4.1.1, page 41.
9
NZTA Research Report 446, Table 5.6, page 54.
10
NZTA Research Report 446, Section 5.1.1.
100059484/3631328
8
time periods and some variability was minimised because the focus
under the Noise Guidelines was often on those houses close to the
road.
34
In this research paper, we also found that there was no agreed
methodology on how to allow for the variability and acceptance of
results.11 We also noted that there are a number of factors that
road controlling authorities do not control nor are responsible for,
that impact on measurements.12 These factors include other noise
sources, or factors that reduce noise, such as a building that could
be removed, a plantation cut down or a field of corn harvested, that
could all be altered between the before and after measurements.
35
Overall the report demonstrated that the form of condition for road
traffic noise condition requiring proof by “before and after
measurements” was therefore unsound because it did not recognise
the inherent variability of noise.
36
Given that NZS 6806 requires PPFs within 100 or 200 metres to be
assessed, distances at which noise variability could be significant,
the process of proof by measurement now promoted by Mr Styles is
even more unsound.
37
Our research paper also noted that studies researching the response
to traffic were usually based on long periods of exposure
(i.e. months and years).13 Modelling is good at calculating the long
term average noise level, especially as the traffic input is the
Average Annual Daily Traffic flow (AADT) and the neutral weather
condition is modelled.
38
Our research paper therefore recommended that proof of
compliance should be by modelling; by verifying that the noise
model represented the as-built condition and by measurements
used, as NZS 6806 proposes, to calibrate the model. This
recommended process based on that research aligns very closely
with the new condition 4.13 proposed by Dr Chiles in his second
supplementary statement of evidence, and therefore I fully support
that proposed condition.
39
In summary, I strongly advise against accepting the condition 4.5b
proposed by Mr Styles, which is based on proving compliance by
“before and after” measurement, and instead, consider that the
Commissioners should prefer Dr Chiles’ condition 4.13 instead.
11
NZTA Research Report 446, section 2.3 and 2.4, pages 18 to 22.
12
NZTA Research Report 446, section 7.1, page 61.
13
NZTA Research Report 446, Page 21.
100059484/3631328
9
PPF LISTS – CONDITION 4.2(b)
40
My Noise Assessment included a list of the Protected Premises and
Facilities14 that were assessed (PPF List).15 The PPF List included all
properties that are situated within 100 metres from the edge of the
designation, and up to 200 metres from the edge of the designation
where the surroundings are of a rural character.16
41
Condition 4.2(b) (which I note is agreed as between the Reporting
Team and Requiring Authorities), confirms that the future noise
assessment shall only consider those PPFs that exist on the date of
public notification of the NORs (being 29 January 2014). Since the
future noise assessment will not be undertaken for some
considerable time, I consider it will provide greater certainty to
affected landowners and the Requiring Authorities, if the
condition includes reference to those PPFs which should be assessed
at that time.
42
Therefore, I recommend that condition 4.2(b) be amended to crossreference the PPF List that I have since checked and split across the
four separate NORs for the Project,17 as follows (additions shown as
underline):
4.2 b) The Noise Assessment shall only consider those PPF’s existing on
the date the Notice of Requirement was publicly notified
(29 January 2014), including PPF’s at the properties set out in the
attached PPF list (Annexure 1 to these conditions). 18
43
As part of this exercise, I have added several properties, where in
my EIC, I recommended that they be assessed in the future.19
44
I note that some entries in the original PPF List were annotated, and
those annotations have been resolved as follows:20
14
As defined in NZS 6806.
15
Noise Assessment (Appendix G to the AEE), Appendix B.
16
A cautious approach has been taken where it is unclear whether a property will
require noise assessment. As was stated in my EIC, the assessment was wider
than is required by a strict application of NZS 6806.
17
I note that there are no PPFs in the Transport Agency’s s168 Hamilton NOR.
18
The PPF List for each of the four NORs is now provided with the proposed
designation conditions attached to the Reply submissions for the Transport
Agency and HCC.
19
For example, 157A Tamahere Drive (Martin and Deborah Swann (50)) and 35
Middle Road (Paul Le Miere (69)) – see Mr Dravitzki’s EIC, at paragraphs 184 and
199 respectively.
20
The review involved desktop studies of aerial photos received in early 2012.
Google Maps was also used, which has been updated, since the original PPF List
was compiled. QuickMaps was also used for information on property addresses.
100059484/3631328
10
44.1 Properties that may be acquired and removed as a result of
the Project are still included;
44.2 Where there remains uncertainty as to whether the usage of
a property falls within the “noise-sensitive” criteria in
NZS 6806, these properties have been retained;
44.3 Those properties originally noted as “further away” and
“project extent?” have been re-checked in relation to the
designation boundary and the spread of noise indicated by
the noise contours in the Noise Assessment. Several
properties have been removed as they fall outside of the area
that would be affected by Project road-traffic noise.21
44.4 Those properties on the eastern side of the Waikato River,
where the Ring Road extension meets Cobham Drive (Flynn
Road, Fox Lane, Fox, Dey and Brookfield Streets), which were
previously assessed, are included where they fall within 100
metres of the designation boundary.
CONCLUSIONS
45
Overall, I consider that Mr Styles is being alarmist in painting a
picture of NZS 6806 as a Standard that is unreliable in managing
the noise effects of roading projects.
46
It is my opinion that what is proposed by the Requiring Authorities
matches almost exactly a practice established and accepted over the
last 13 years. However, for this Project, the noise criteria used is
NZS 6806, rather than the Noise Guidelines. This established
practice is that at the time of designation, a noise assessment
identifies noise effects and indicative mitigation, based on the
concept design. The conditions then require a future noise
assessment to determine the final design mitigation. Because I
have first-hand experience from working on a number of projects
that this process works well in practice, I do not share Mr Styles’
concerns and have confidence in the operational noise condition 4,
as proposed by the Requiring Authorities.
47
Furthermore, I consider that the Commissioners can have
confidence in both the level of assessment I have undertaken for the
Project, and the conclusions in my Noise Assessment and evidence
that, subject to the Requiring Authorities’ proposed conditions, the
Project will have acceptable impacts. I wish to remind the
Commissioners of the following additional factors:
47.1 I consider that the scale of mitigation required in some areas
along the alignment would be modest. That is, mainly quiet
21
For example, 2/22 Rukuhia Road, 1/3746, 2/3746, 3763 and 3767 Ohaupo Road.
100059484/3631328
11
road surfaces and barriers of a height blending into an urban
environment;
47.2 That general condition 1 will constrain the future design of the
Project so that there would not be considerable changes in
design and noise levels from that already assessed; and
47.3 As required by the Requiring Authorities’ proposed condition
4.2(a), for the future noise assessment, for each PPF the
design category (that is “new road criteria” or “altered road
criteria”) under NZS 6806 will be the same as it is now.
48
I consider that there is no need for condition 4.5(a) proposed by
Mr Styles and that the approach of setting noise level limits in that
condition conflicts with the process to be undertaken in NZS 6806.
49
While I agree with the general intent of some form of postconstruction confirmation of acceptable noise levels, I strongly
disagree with Mr Styles’ condition 4.5(b). I consider this condition
to be very unsound, as it does not recognise the variability of noise
measurements. I consider that the intent of Mr Styles’ condition is
much better provided for by condition 4.13 as proposed by
Dr Chiles.
Vince Dravitzki
28 August 2014
100059484/3631328