Ostern Quarries (1993) Ltd - Waikato · Property (Lot 1 DPS 89595 and Lot 2 DP396441) has been withdrawn. This change to the application has not substantially altered my assessment

Ostern Quarries (1993) Ltd

Resource Consent

Applicant’s Evidence Part 1

Item Page

1 D Mansergh – Landscape and Visual 2‐44

2 N Henry’s – Acoustic 45‐57

3 N Robbins ‐ Traffic 58‐64

IN THE MATTER OF the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”)

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Osterns Quarries Ltd (Swap

Group Company) to continue quarrying at Ostern Quarry until 2050.

PRIMARY EVIDENCE OF DAVID GRAHAM MANSERGH ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT

Dated: 22 March 2017

2

Evidence of David Mansergh Page 2

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 My name is David Graham Mansergh. I am a qualified Landscape Architect and Recreation

Planner. I am a Registered Member of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects

and a Director of Mansergh Graham Landscape Architects Ltd. My qualifications include a

Dip P&RM (Diploma in Parks and Recreation Management with Distinction) completed in

1988, a BLA Hons (Bachelor of Landscape Architecture with Honours) completed in 1990

and an MLA (Master of Landscape Architecture) completed in 1992, from Lincoln

University, Canterbury.

1.2 I have been a Director of Mansergh Graham Landscape Architects Ltd since 1996. Prior to

1996, I was employed by the company as a landscape architect (1992 - 1996). I have also

worked for the Department of Conservation (1986 – 1988) and before that, the Department

of Lands and Survey (1985).

1.3 During my career I have been involved in the preparation of a large number of visual and

landscape assessments, and the peer review of landscape assessments for a range of

activities and developments in rural and urban landscapes, including quarries, commercial

and industrial buildings within the urban and rural environment, rural-residential and urban

subdivisions, wind farms, power transmission lines, substations, power stations, hydro

dams, major port facilities, telecommunication masts, canal housing, marinas, coastal

infrastructure, dairy factories and poultry farms.

1.4 I have prepared several district-wide landscape studies, and have provided advice to a

number of councils on the preservation of landscape character, urban design and growth

strategies in both rural and urban areas.

1.5 I was involved in the NZILA Landscape Planning Initiative, tasked with developing the 'best

practice' approach for landscape and visual assessment in New Zealand.

1.6 I have presented evidence at resource management hearings before councils, the (then)

Planning Tribunal and the Environment Court. I have acted as an Independent

Commissioner for the Rangitikei District Council in relation to its District Plan hearings

where I was tasked with considering the various landscape and amenity provisions

contained within the (then) proposed district plan. I have provided landscape planning

advise to Otorohanga District Council.

1.7 I was engaged by Osterns Quarries Ltd (Swap Group Company) to assess the landscape

and visual effects of the proposed Ostern Quarry expansion in 2015. The findings of my

2015 report on the proposed quarry expansion forms the basis of my evidence.

3


Site Visit

1.8 I visited the site on the 16th of January and the 30th of September 2015, in order to

undertake field investigations into the potential landscape and visual effects of the proposed

quarry expansion on the site and its immediate surroundings. Since this time I have also

observed the quarry on a number of times during my travels in and around the District.

Background Documents Reviewed

1.9 I have read and considered the following documents in preparing this evidence:

(a) Ostern Quarry. Assessment of Effects on the Environment to support Resource

Consent Application to Waikato Regional Council and Otorohanga District Council

prepared by AECOM New Zealand Limited.

(b) Notification Report. Sections 95A to 95G; prepared by Otorohanga District Council.

(c) Submissions received in response to the notification of the proposal.

(d) The Operative Otorohanga District Plan

(e) The combined s42 report from the District and Regional Councils.

1.10 I have also reviewed relevant publicly available GIS data for the site and its surroundings,

including aerial photography in order to assist my assessment of the landscape character of

the area.

Visual and Landscape Assessment Report

1.11 I am the principal author of the report entitled Ostern Quarry Expansion, State Highway 3,

Otorohanga – Landscape and Visual; Assessment Report (Version R2/061115 November

2015).

1.12 Since the preparation of my report, the proposal to place overburden within the Hungerford

Property (Lot 1 DPS 89595 and Lot 2 DP396441) has been withdrawn. This change to the

application has not substantially altered my assessment and I confirm the contents and

findings of my report and associated tables except for where amended in this evidence.

Primarily this affects my assessment from view locations D and E with deletions from the

original assessment table shown as strikeouts and insertions shown in square brackets.

Expert Code of Conduct

1.13 I have read the Expert Witness Code of Conduct set out in section 7 of the Environment

Court's Practice Note 2014 and I agree to comply with it. My qualifications as an expert are

set out above. I confirm that the issues addressed in this statement of evidence are within

4


my area of expertise, except where I state I am relying on the specified evidence of another

person. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract

from my expressed opinion.

2. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

2.1 My evidence will address the landscape and visual effects of the proposal under the

following headings:

(a) Assessment approach;

(b) Key elements of the proposal;

(c) Site context and surrounding landscape character;

(d) The landscape and visual effects of quarrying;

(e) Analysis of effects on key attributes and landscape features;

(f) Assessment of visual effects;

(g) Mitigation;

(h) Consideration of the relevant planning instruments;

(i) Comments on submissions;

(j) Conclusions; and

(k) Recommended conditions of consent.

2.2 I intend to provide a précis of the relevant findings of my report in my evidence rather than

repeat the contents (of my original report) in every detail.

3. ASSESSMENT APPROACH

3.1 I have used a standard assessment approach to identify the existing landscape character of

the site and its surroundings and to assess the potential effects of the proposed quarry

expansion on landscape and visual amenity including:

(a) Identification of the key elements or attributes of the proposed development;

(b) Identification of the landscape values, character, key attributes and social

preferences within the context of biophysical, associative and visual landscape

interpretation; and

5


(c) Identification of relevant assessment criteria within the context of the relevant

statutory framework.

3.2 I have used a combination of GIS view shed analysis and field assessment to identify the

potential visibility of the development from surrounding areas. This has informed my

identification and rating of the likely effects of the proposed development on visual amenity

values.

3.3 I have prepared a 3D digital model of the existing quarry and the full extent of proposed

works, which illustrate the scale and visual character of the activity within the context of

existing surrounding topography and vegetation. I have used this model to simulate views

of the proposed works from surrounding locations and inform the visual effects section of

my evidence.

3.4 This model is accessible to the Commissioner and submitters at the following link:

http://www.mgla.co.nz/webviewer/ceviewer.html?3dWebScene=webscenes/Ostern_Quarry.3ws

4. KEY ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL

4.1 As outlined in previous evidence, J Swap Contractors currently operate the Ostern quarry

on the south eastern flanks of Tokanui Hill and seek resource consents to continue existing

quarrying activities at the site until 2050.

4.2 The key components of the application that have the potential to effect landscape and

visual amenity derived from this area include:

(a) Changes to the form and extent of the quarry pits and working faces and their effect

on the existing Tokanui Hill landform; and

(b) Movement of plant (machinery) within the quarry.

4.3 A map illustrating the existing and proposed quarry is found attachment 1 of my graphic

evidence.

4.4 A detailed description of the proposed quarry expansion and associated processes has

already been presented in the evidence of Mr Clemens. I took this information into

consideration in my original analysis and the findings of my evidence. A more detailed

description is contained within my original report.

6

http://www.mgla.co.nz/webviewer/ceviewer.html?3dWebScene=webscenes/Ostern_Quarry.3ws


5. SITE CONTEXT AND SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE CHARACTER

The surrounding landscape context

5.1 In summary, the rural land use surrounding the quarry influences the character and visual

amenity of the wider landscape. Pastoral grazing (with some small blocks of horticulture) is

the predominant land use and imparts the wider landscape with a largely open spatial

character. Some compartmentalisation of the landscape occurs where hedgerows, (e.g.

Hawthorne) and exotic shelter planting, (e.g. Poplar, and Pine) has been established along

paddock and property boundaries. Where these occur, they enclose and restrict views

across the broader landscape.

5.2 Key landscape features that influence perceptions of the overall character of the wider

landscape surrounding the quarry site include:

(a) The transition between the low lying, flat - gently undulating topographical features

to the more steeply incised hill country to the south;

(b) The key landscape features of Mount Pirongia, Kakapuka, Te Kawa and (to a lesser

extent) Mount Maungatautari and the Rangitoto Range; and

(c) The rivers/streams and gullys in the surrounding landscape.

5.3 These features are also influenced by land use, land management and development

patterns including:

(a) State Highways 3;

(b) Productive land use (primarily pastoral with some horticultural and mixed cropping);

(c) Scattered and clusters of rural and rural residential buildings;

(d) Rural settlements (Kihikihi, Otorohanga and Waikeria).

5.4 A more detailed description is contained within my original report.

The site

5.5 Viewed from SH3, the subject site is characterised by Tokanui’s steep undulating southern

ridgeline located approximately 200m west of the road. This ridgeline, already modified by

the existing quarry, runs parallel with SH3, before it curls towards the northwest.

5.6 The two active working pits (Osterns I & Osterns II), which are separated by a stockpile

and storage yard area, occupy an area of the site between the road and this ridgeline.

While a patchy cover of grass has establishing on faces of the quarry that have not been

7


worked recently, the shear slopes and areas of exposed rock visually contrast with the

surrounding rolling pastoral landscape.

5.7 Clusters of shelter planting line the southern boundary of the site, with gaps at the

entrances to the quarry. At the main entrance, as one approaches the site from the north,

the benched profile of Osterns I and the processed stockpiles form the most noticeable

visual features of the quarry operation. As one approaches the site from the south, the

quarry faces are more prominent, particularly where there is no foreground screening and

SH3 orients viewer attention towards the site.

5.8 The three high points along the Tokanui ridgeline (at the eastern end of the quarry) are the

former Pa sites, Whiti Te Marama, Tokonui and Pukerimu. These sites are protected from

quarrying by an existing agreement. While predominantly covered in pasture these high

points are flanked by remnant and regenerating native bush.

5.9 With the exception of remnant clusters of vegetation, which are also present on northern

parts of the property, the site has a largely open spatial character due to the predominant

pastoral land cover.

5.10 Site offices and storage buildings are located centrally within the quarry site, adjacent to the

site access off SH3.

5.11 Photographs of the site are found in attachment 2 of my graphic evidence.

6. THE LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL EFFECTS OF QUARRYING

Types of Effect

6.1 Visual effects within the quarry can be categorised as being obstructive, that is an effect

that results in the blocking a pre-existing view; intrusive, that is an effect that introduces a

new element into a view; or r subtractive, the removal of an existing element from view.

6.2 In this situation, the quarry has been in operation for a considerable length of time and,

while it visually contrasts with the surrounding pastoral landscape, it can be considered as

part of the existing landscape and contributes to its character at a local level.

6.3 In my opinion, the proposed development will not result in either a large obstructive or

intrusive effect, largely due to the fact that the application involves the expansion of the

type of activity already present. However, the expansion will result in the excavation of the

containing ridge, which will reveal views to the landscape beyond and alter the skyline

profile of Tokanui from some nearby locations.

6.4 This is a subtractive effect which may adversely affect amenity derived from views of the

Tokanui landform.. However, given the views of largely rolling rural land it will reveal, I

8


consider that effects will be low-moderate due to the gradual, cumulative nature of the

change and that a rural outlook will be maintained.

Potential Visual Detractors that Give Rise to Adverse Visual Effects

6.5 Potential visual detractors within the quarry include:

(a) Quarry landforms such as the pits, working benches and faces, overburden sites

and rock stockpiles;

(b) Plant and machinery; and

(c) Other miscellaneous or ephemeral features such as dust emissions, and mud and

sand deposits on adjacent public roads.

7. ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS ON KEY ATTRIBUTES AND LANDSCAPE FEATURES

7.1 I have assessed the effect of the proposed quarry expansion on key landscape attributes

and features in order to determine how the proposed expansion will affect rural and natural

character. A summary table identifying these effects is appended to my written evidence as

Table 1.

7.2 I note the site is not contained within an identified Outstanding Natural Feature or

Landscape or an area of High Amenity Landscape Value within the Operative Otorohanga

District Plan or the Regional Policy Statement.

7.3 In my opinion, the gradual expansion of the quarry will not unduly affect amenity values

associated with existing rural character. Pastoral land use will continue to have a

predominant influence on existing visual amenity. The quarry is an existing landmark in this

area and as such, the expansion will not adversely affect existing rural character or rural

amenity values.

7.4 While small pockets of existing vegetation to the north of Tokanui will need to be removed

due to the placement of overburden sites, the proposed expansion will not require the

removal of existing indigenous vegetation adjacent to the pa sites. I therefore consider

adverse effects on natural character values associated with these features to be low.

7.5 In addition, the existing agreement to avoid quarry expansion into the three pa sites will aid

in reducing the advers effects on existing landscape character. In my opinion, overall the

proposed quarry expansion will have a very-low effect on the rural character of the

surrounding landscape.

7.6 Rating definitions are attached to my written evidence as Table 2.

9


8. ASSESSMENT OF VISUAL EFFECTS

8.1 With regard to the potential of the site to visually absorb the proposed expansion, I

evaluated the following factors as part of the visual effects assessment.

Visual Catchment

8.2 I have used GIS software to identify where the quarry will likely to be visible from in the

surrounding landscape (zone of theoretical visibility or ZTV analysis). This has allowed me

to identify areas located within private and non-accessible properties where the proposed

quarry expansion could potentially be seen from. My analysis was based on a fully

excavated quarry and takes into consideration the screening effect of shelterbelts and large

areas of vegetation surrounding the site.

8.3 The maps found attachment 3 of my graphic evidence show the relative of visibility of the

quarry within the immediate surrounding landscape (unscreened). Map 1 shows the extent

of the existing quarry visible, Map 2 shows the theoretical extent of the proposed extension

and Map 3 shows a comparison between the two. These maps indicate that, even though

the quarry itself will change in appearance, its overall visibility will not increase significantly.

8.4 Site inspection confirmed that views of the extended quarry will largely be restricted to the

rural land south and west of the site with surrounding undulating topography, hedgerow and

shelterbelts providing some additional screening in places. This typically means that as one

approaches the quarry along Puketarata or Otorohanga Roads, the quarry face comes into,

and goes out of view relatively frequently.

Visual Absorption Capability

8.5 I have considered the ability of the landscape to visually absorb the quarry without

significantly affecting existing visual character. This is called Visual Absorption Capability or

VAC analysis. The factors taken into consideration are identified in my original report.

8.6 The VAC ratings for the proposed quarry expansion range between poor and good. Good

ratings were typically recorded for view locations where intervening topography and/or

vegetation prevented clear views of the existing quarry. Poor ratings were typically

recorded for locations with more open views, from close proximity to the south and west of

the site. This rating is increased due to the fact that the application involves the expansion

of an existing quarry. I note that if quarrying was proposed on a green-field site, the VAC

rating would change to Very Poor. During winter, when some of the trees surrounding the

site are not in leaf some VAC ratings may reduce.

8.7 VAC rating definitions are attached to the end of my written in Table 3.

10


Viewer Distance and Atmospheric Conditions

8.8 I consider notable views of the subject site to be generally restricted to within two

kilometres of the site. Views of the quarry from locations in excess of this distance diminish

to the point at which they become negligible or are less frequent due to intervening

vegetation or topography.

8.9 Where the quarry is visible, the size of the operation, when seen within the context of the

wider landscape, ambient light levels and atmospheric conditions will all influence the

conspicuousness of the quarry on any particular day. Foggy, hazy or rainy conditions may

lessen the conspicuousness of the quarry. However, on clear days, with direct sunlight

highlighting machinery or the exposed quarry face, the extraction activity may be more

discernible. As viewers approach the site, atmospheric conditions become less influential in

determining the visibility of the site and activities.

Viewing Audience

8.10 The potential viewing audience is likely to comprise the following two main groups:

(a) Residents and motorists on Ouruwhero, Te Kawa, Puketarata and Burr Roads

(outlying viewer locations);

(b) Residents and motorists on Otorohanga Road (State Highway 3);

8.11 I have identified all the representative view locations on the theoretical view shed maps in

attachment 4 of the graphic evidence. I visited all publically accessible view locations and

photographed the site. I assessed view locations on private property with the aid of a

digital model. Numbered view locations represent those visited during my initial

assessment. Lettered view locations are those visited in response to the s92 request from

Council

9. ANALYSIS OF VISUAL EFFECTS

9.1 I identify 16 (1-11 & A-E) view locations in my assessment. These represent the views

from surrounding private dwellings, public roads and the historic Pa site on Tokanui. A map

showing these locations is found in attachment 4 of my graphic evidence.

9.2 In general, the quarry expansion will result in an increased visibility of the working faces

which will contrast in form and colour with adjacent pastoral areas. Effects will be most

pronounced from nearby locations south of the quarry.

9.3 The expanded quarry will result in a consistent benched profile along the entire southern

eastern face of Tokanui. This will result in a more uniform appearance along the south-

eastern face of the quarry where presently it has a varied, albeit modified form.

11


9.4 Views of existing overburden areas on the north western (SH3) side of Tokanui and partial

views of the Osterns I quarry face will provide the context for the overburden expansion on

the south western side of the hill.

9.5 The removal of the southern toe of Tokanui will notably alter the skyline from surrounding

locations; the nature of the effects of this will differ depending on the orientation of the view.

From the south the removal of this containing ridge will reveal rural, pastoral views, while

from the west views of the quarry face to the north will be revealed.

9.6 The removal of some of the existing trees on the Tokanui skyline will have affect the

complexity of the vista and its rural character.. However, within the context of this highly

modified landscape, the loss of these trees represent only a minor cumulative change with

low adverse visual effects.

9.7 While the movement of quarry plant and machinery is a potential source of adverse visual

effect, it will only be present during the operational life of the quarry and will not occur past

decommissioning. The elevation of the upper working benches will mean that diggers and

loaders working in these areas will be visible from some surrounding locations. However,

given that the quarry is set back from SH3, these vehicles and machines will be relatively

small in comparison to the quarry face and are unlikely to be highly conspicuous unless

operating when attention will be drawn to their flashing safety lights

9.8 In summary, visual effects from the representative view locations will range from moderate,

in close proximity locations to the south of the quarry, to negligible from more outlying

locations such as Ouhuwhero Road.

9.9 A detailed analysis of effects from each view location is found in the Table 4 at the back of

my written evidence.

9.10 Photomontages from view locations 7 and 10 on SH3 north and south of the quarry can be

found in attachment 5 of my graphic evidence. Other site photographs and images are

contained in my original report.

10. MITIGATION

10.1 While there will be some adverse visual effects associated with the proposed quarry

expansion from nearby locations, partial visual screening from SH3 will be provided by the

existing shelterbelt on the southern boundary of the site. Screening will also be provided by

hedgerow and shelterbelt vegetation in the surrounding landscape and amenity planting

around private dwellings.

12


10.2 To minimise the effects of dust emissions and mud and sand deposits on adjacent public

roads the applicant keeps a water cart on site at all times and a road sweeper is on contract

when required.

10.3 Long-term, the following rehabilitation approach will aid in integrating the site with the

surrounding landscape:

(a) All overburden material will be available for rehabilitation purposes. Stored topsoil

will be spread over as much surface as is practical and grassed. Trees will be

planted on overburden tiphead batters to reduce land slippage where possible.

(b) Progressive establishment of native vegetation on the benches and top batters will

be carried out as and when possible on a progressive basis during the life of the

quarry and completed at the cessation of quarry activity.

(c) A predator and weed control programme will be undertaken prior to planting,

followed by regular maintenance.

(d) Batters and benches will be hydro-seeded and hay-mulched at the end of each

earthworks season (around May). This greening of the batter surfaces will

somewhat reduce the prominence of the quarry face during the winter months.

10.4 While the rehabilitated quarry will have a noticeably modified form, characterised by a

regular faceted face, rehabilitation planting will soften this appearance. The use of locally

appropriate indigenous plant species in conjunction with re-grassing will help the quarry to

visually integrate with adjacent pockets native plants and open pastoral grassland as

viewed from surrounding locations.

11. RELEVANT PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

11.1 In this section of my evidence I will review the relevant planning instruments only as they

relate to landscape, visual and amenity matters. I do not provide a balanced assessment of

all the relevant provisions. That is a role for Mr Harkness, the planning witness.

11.2 Planning documents that have been taken into consideration include the Resource

Management Act and subsequent amendments (RMA), the Operative Waikato Regional

Policy Statement (WRPS), and the Operative Otorohanga District Plan (ODP).

Resource Management Act

11.3 Section 6(b) requires the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from

inappropriate subdivision, use, and development. In the case of this application, the subject

site is not contained within or adjacent to any identified outstanding natural features or

landscapes.

13


11.4 Section 7(c) & 7(f) require that particular regard to be given to the maintenance and

enhancement of amenity values and the quality of the environment, respectively.

11.5 In the case of this application, the subject site is not contained within or adjacent to any

High Amenity landscape Areas (HLAV) identified by the District Plan. In my assessment of

visual and landscape effects I have identified that adverse effects of the quarry expansion

on existing rural amenity values will range between negligible and moderate. The quarry is

an existing feature of the landscape and effects associated with the proposed expansion

are related to a change in the ratio of existing elements, rather than the introduction of a

new element. From most locations surrounding the quarry, the landscape will remain

predominantly influenced by rural pastoral landuse; however, from some locations in close

proximity of the quarry to the south, the quarry will increasingly become a focal feature.

11.6 In the long term, the comprehensive rehabilitation plan will return native vegetation to the

retired quarry surface, which will help the site to visually integrate with neighbouring

pockets of native vegetation within, and adjacent to, the pa sites.

I consider that in this regard, the application is consistent with the above requirements of

sections 6 and 7 of the RMA. Operative Otorohanga District Plan

11.7 Issue 3 of the plan, addresses Rural Character matters. Objectives 3.2 – 3.2.4 seek to

retain rural character and amenity values through managing the effects of land use and

development, including cumulative effects.

11.8 I consider that the gradual expansion of the quarry will not unduly affect amenity values

associated with existing rural character. Pastoral landuse will continue to have a

predominant influence on existing amenity values. The quarry is an existing landmark in

this area, the most common public views of which are afforded from SH3. As I have

addressed in the visual effects section of this report, the proposed expansion will be

noticeable from close proximity locations along SH3 and some dwellings, however, given

the highly modified form of the existing quarry, the proposed expansion will represent only a

moderate cumulative change related to a change in the ratio of existing visual elements

from these locations. From further out, the quarry expansion will not be overtly obvious and

the ratio of existing visual elements will not change significantly.

11.9 Policy 3.3.5 requires that the scale and intensity of development is managed so they are

compatible with the rural character of the area in which they are to be located. The visual

scale of the quarry will increase from close proximity locations due to the currently separate

quarries being seen as a whole (once the existing toe is removed between Osterns I and

Osterns II quarry sites), this will only be noticeable from close proximity locations along

SH3 and some nearby dwellings and will occur gradually.

14


11.10 The proposed quarry expansion will avoid the prominent peaks of Tokanui and associated

existing pockets of indigenous vegetation, ensuring that the expansion is sympathetic to the

physical qualities and characteristics of the site.

11.11 Policy 3.3.11 requests that applicants specify and apply subdivision and development

control standards, assessment criteria and other methods to manage adverse effects

arising from the use, development and subdivision of land within the Rural Effects Area

including the Countryside Living Policy Area. To address this policy, I recommend that if

consent is granted, a long term landscape mitigation and rehabilitation plan be prepared. I

have included this as a recommended consent condition, which I will address later in my

evidence.

11.12 With regards to Section 24, Assessment Criteria for Restricted Discretionary and

Discretionary Activities, I consider that the application is consistent with the objectives and

policies outlined in the table below as addressed in the landscape and visual effects section

of my evidence.

Issue Objectives Policy Issue 1 – Natural Landscapes and Features, Indigenous Vegetation, Mineral and Soil Resources

1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.8.1, 1.8.3, 1.8.4,

1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4(a), 1.3.4(d), 1.3.4(e), 1.9.1, 1.9.3, 1.9.4

Issue 3 – Rural Character 3.2.1 3.3.7(k) Issue 4 – Natural Hazards 4.2.1 4.3.2 Issue 5 – Neighbourhood Character 5.2.1 5.3.2(p) Issue 11 – Network Utilities 11.2.2 11.3.10

11.13 Because the proposed quarry expansion will only require the removal of some small

patches of regenerating indigenous vegetation within overburden areas and will not require

the removal of indigenous vegetation adjacent to the existing pa sites, the proposal meets

the rules and standards of Section 4: Indigenous Vegetation of the Land Use Chapter.

12. SUBMISSIONS

12.1 I have reviewed the submissions received, which relate to landscape and visual amenity

effects. I recognise that adverse effects on existing visual amenity is of concern to some

submitters, however, I also note that, of the 8 submissions received, only 2 submissions

raise this issue.

12.2 In addition to addressing the submissions that raise visual amenity issues, I will also briefly

comment on the submission from the Ruakawa Charitable Trust, which concerns cultural

landscape issues.

15


Okawa Ltd and Wilson Joint Submission

12.3 This submission raises the following concerns:

(a) Change of current views from rural/pastoral to busy industrial zone

(b) Loss of privacy and quality of life

(c) Lack of private on-site areas for living purposes-dwelling aspect (kitchen, dining

room, lounge, bedrooms, decks) situated front on to proposed expansion zone

(d) House on an elevated site

(e) Screen/shelter belt proposal, unrealistic as these will be newly planted trees, not

mature shelter belt

(f) Maintaining characteristics and features of the area which contribute to how we,

who already live here, appreciate and value it

12.4 With reference to the visual effects section of my report, VL 4 is representative of the view

from the Wilson Property at 44 Ngahape Road. The primary effect from this location will be

related to the removal of the southern toe of the face to be quarried. Due to the oblique

nature of this view the working face of the quarry will not be highly visible. The gradual

removal of the toe of the hill and consequent increase in the view of a pastoral hillside in

the background will have very-low (provisional) effects on visual amenity.

12.5 View location 2 is representative of the view from this submitters address for service (893

Otorohanga Road). From this location the south-western toe of the containing ridge will

recede and lower and the expansion will create a uniform, steep working face on the

southern side of the Tokanui landform, where presently it has an irregular form created by a

combination of worked and unworked areas. Because of the elevated location of the

dwelling at 893 Otorohanga Road, and its orientation towards the site, the expansion of the

quarry face will be highly noticeable, albeit gradual. Given the highly modified nature of the

existing view I consider that visual effects will be moderate (provisional) from this view

location, with adverse effects primarily related to the increase in the extent of the working

face visible relative to views of hill under a pastoral land-cover.

12.6 With regards to the submitters comments that the living areas of their property front on to

the proposed expansion zone, I note that the dwelling itself is surrounded by existing

vegetation which will help to screen views of the quarry expansion, reducing potential

adverse visual effects.

16


M & B Weld

12.7 The Weld’s submission raises concern over the visual impact of the quarry expansion, but

does not go into specifics. The effects on the Weld property will be similar to those

identified for view locations D and E. The effect ratings from these locations have

decreased slightly with the withdrawal of the use of the Hungerford property for overburden

disposal from the application.

12.8 I note that from their residential address at 137 Te Kawa Road, the proposed works will not

be visible. As shown in the ZTV analysis maps, the existing protected ridgeline will prevent

views of the proposed works from locations to the north in the vicinity of the Welds

residence.

The Ruakawa Charitable Trust

12.9 The Ruakawa Charitable Trust seeks the protection of Whiti Te Marama, Tokonui and

Pukerimu Pa sites from any further damage. To achieve this they seek to ensure that

quarry activities remain outside a buffer area illustrated on the plan attached to their

submission.

12.10 As addressed in Section 7.8 of the application AEE, the applicant proposes to avoid direct

impacts on the Pa sites by avoiding work that encroaches on the boundaries of the listed

heritage items. From a landscape perspective, proposed extent of quarrying would avoid

effects on the existing topography and existing landscape character of the three Pa sites.

Commentary on the effect on the cultural values of these sites of significance to Iwi have

been addressed in the archaeological report and are outside of my area of expertise.

S42A Report

12.11 I have read relevant sections of the combined s42A report prepared by the District and

Regional Council’s where it relates to landscape and visual effects. The Regional Council

does not address issues related to landscape and visual effects in its section of the s42A

report. This analysis is undertaken by the District Council.

12.12 I note that the conclusions reached in my original report are generally accepted by the

District’s Council’s planner except where they relate to the removal of the ridge between

Osterns I and II and that the s42A report raises concerns about the removal of the remnant

ridge on identified submitters (Okawa Ltd and Wilson) and wider rural amenity.

12.13 I note at paragraph 7.11 of the ODC section the s42A report, the planner identifies the

issue as being one that potentially affects the relationship of the Tokanui Historic Area with

the surrounding area and landform.

17


12.14 The ODC planner appears to be concerned that the visual connection between the top of

Tokanui and the land below will be “severed” from a landscape perspective and

recommends that this portion of the, already highly modified landform remains unquarried.

12.15 My concern with this recommendation is that it will result in what is termed a “redundant

landform” being retained. That is a remnant part of a former landform which no longer

makes sense from either a visual or a landscape formative process perspective. Best

practice approach to landform restoration has generally been to require the removal of

redundant landforms and has been the requirement of conditions for a number of quarry

applications I have been involved with in the past.

12.16 In my opinion, the landscape severance concerns raised by the planner can be addressed

through the quarry closure and restoration process. Issues relating to rural amenity can be

addressed through the establishment of a screen bund and planting along the road

boundary.

12.17 I note that this relief is not directly raised in submissions and I am therefore unclear why

this recommendation has been made. I also note that the ODC planner acknowledges that

traffic safety improvements provide sufficient positive effects to justify the removal of the

ridge1 and that …the visual effects arising from the removal of the ridge will be localised

and restricted to the immediate area2.

12.18 I note that both Councils have recommended that consent be granted subject to a set of

conditions, including landscape rehabilitation conditions.

12.19 I generally support the conditions of consent as they relate to landscape and visual matters,

with the exception of ODC condition 4b) and 11a) (maintenance and planting of the

remnant ridge) for the reasons previously outlined. I note that in combination, the WRC

landscape and rehabilitation conditions and ODC visual mitigation conditions address the

issues raised in my draft recommended conditions (as follows).

12.20 Should the planner’s version of the landscape consent condition be preferred, I would

recommend the following amendments to the wording of clause 11 (additions underlined).

11. That within five years of the commencement of this resource consent, the consent holder shall commence and complete the landscaping of the areas identified on the plan appended in Schedule 5 to this resource consent, including.

a) Planting of the ridgeline protection area consistent with existing indigenous vegetation below Tokanui Pa.

ba) Roadside planting and earth bunds to screen plant, machinery, internal vehicle access, storage and stockpile areas.

1 S42A Report - Paragraph 7.20 on page 159. 2 S42A Report – Appendix 3 – Objectives and Policy Assessment: page 215

18


13. CONCLUSIONS 13.1 A number of factors associated with the physical environment in and around the subject site

in combination with the nature of the activity itself will influence the potential effects of the

proposed development on landscape and visual amenity values. As outlined in my

evidence, these factors combine to determine the potential level of effects in different ways

from different locations.

13.2 In my opinion, the proposed expansion of the quarry will not result in a significant loss of

rural amenity values or result in an unacceptable change in landscape or rural character.

The quarry is an existing feature of the visual catchment surrounding the site. As such, an

expansion in the size of the quarry will result in a moderate cumulative change to the

already highly modified land form within the site.

13.3 I consider that the effect of the proposed quarry expansion on the visual character of the

quarry meets the intent of the relevant objectives, policies and rules of the ODP and is

consistent with the requirements of sections 6(b), 7(c) and 7(f) of the RMA.

13.4 In summary, I consider that the gradual cumulative nature of the proposed expansion will

mean effects on existing landscape character and rural amenity will be low overall. Effects

of visual amenity will be low-moderate from close proximity locations along SH3 and

moderate from some close proximity locations within adjacent private property. I note,

however, that views of the quarry expansion from in and around the nearby dwellings will

be screened by existing intervening vegetation which will reduce adverse visual effects.

14. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF CONSENT 14.1 In the event that consent to the proposal is to be granted, I would recommend the inclusion

of the following condition. In my opinion, this condition will assist in ensuring that the

effects of visual amenity remain at acceptable levels.

X.X Landscape

Should consent be granted, it is recommended that the following condition be imposed:

1) That within five years of the commencement of this resource consent the consented extraction period, the consent holder shall prepare and submit to the satisfaction of the Environment Services Manager, Otorohanga District Council, a Landscape Mitigation and Rehabilitation Plan (hereafter referred to as the quarry rehabilitation plan). The quarry rehabilitation plan shall detail the nature and extent of works to be undertaken to mitigate the visual and landscape effects of the quarry. The landscape plan shall comprise:

(a) An implementation strategy that clearly identifies the timing of all mitigation and restoration

works within the quarry site (including overburden stockpile areas and earth bunds for

screening purposes).

(b) Identification of the botanical name, common name, numbers, size at planting and mature

height of any mitigation and restoration planting.

19


(c) Identification of existing landscape features and landforms to be retained within the quarry

site;

(d) Identification of methods to be employed to ensure slope stability and erosion control

during plant establishment;

(e) Identification of management and restoration procedures to be adopted in the handling and

storage of topsoil, subsoil and overburden materials to ensure their continued viability for a

growing medium for mitigation and restoration planting.

(f) Identification of contingency measures should planting fail to establish; and

(g) An indicative maintenance programme.

Dave Mansergh

20


Table 1: Effects on Key Attributes and Landscape Features

Feature Scale Key Attributes Potential Effect

1 Mount Pirongia , Kakapuka , Te kawa and (to a lesser extent) Mount Maungatautari and the Rangitoto Range

Large Formative processes overtly obvious. • Contiguous mature

indigenous vegetation. • Patches of remnant mature

and regenerating indigenous vegetation.

• Open pastoral grassland. • Natural in appearance.

No Effect due to buffer distance and landscape context.

2 Flat plains, shallow basins, and gently rolling ridges of the rural landscape.

Large • The subdivision of the rural pastoral landscape into a mosaic of paddocks and crops.

• Established shelter rows and planting.

• Mix of rural-residential development within pastoral/horticultural landscape.

• Cultural influences (formative processes) obvious.

Very-low adverse effects on the rural landscape, as the proposed quarry expansion will be largely contained by existing vegetation and topography and the quarry is an existing feature within the rural landscape. The extent of change between the existing and proposed quarry extent will not be widely noticeable.

3 Tokanui Hill Medium • Highly modified by quarrying practices.

• Patches of remnant mature and regenerating indigenous vegetation.

• Open pastoral grassland.

Low additional adverse effects due to exiting high level of modification of Tokanui Hill.

21


Table 2: Visual Effects Rating Definitions

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL AMENITY EFFECT - RATING SYSTEM Effects Rating

Use and Definition

Extreme Use The development/activity would: a. Result in an extreme change on the characteristics or key attributes of the receiving environment and/or the

vista within which it is seen; and/or b. Have an extreme effect on the perceived amenity derived from it. Oxford English Dictionary Definition Extreme: adjective 1 utmost. 2 reaching a high or the highest degree.

Very High Use The development/activity would: c. Have a very high level of effect on the character or key attributes of the receiving environment and/or the vista

within which it is seen; and/or d. Have a very high level effect on the perceived amenity derived from it. Oxford English Dictionary Definition Very: adverb 1 in a high degree. 2 with superlative or own without qualification: the very best quality. High: adjective 1 extending above the normal level. 2 great in amount, value, size, or intensity. 3 great in rank or status. 4 morally or culturally superior.

High Use The development/activity would: e. Have a high level of effect on the character or key attributes of the receiving environment and/or the vista

within which it is seen; and/or f. Have a high level of effect on the perceived amenity derived from it. Oxford English Dictionary Definition High: adjective 1 extending above the normal level. 2 great in amount, value, size, or intensity. 3 great in rank or status. 4 morally or culturally superior.

Moderate Use The development/activity would: g. Have a moderate level of effect on the character or key attributes of the receiving environment and/or the vista

within which it is seen; and/or h. Have a moderate level of effect on the perceived amenity derived from it. Oxford English Dictionary Definition Moderate: adjective 1 average in amount, intensity, or degree.

“Minor” Threshold Under the RMA. Ratings above this threshold are “More than Minor”. Ratings below this threshold are “Less than Minor”. Low-Moderate ratings are “Minor”. Low Use

The development/activity would: i. Have an low level of effect on the character or key attributes of the receiving environment and/or the vista

within which it is seen; and/or j. Have a low level of effect on the perceived amenity derived from it. Oxford English Dictionary Definition Low: adjective 1 below average in amount, extent, or intensity. 2 lacking importance, prestige, or quality; inferior.

Very Low Use The development/activity would: k. Have an very low level of effect on the character or key attributes of the receiving environment and/or the vista

within which it is seen; and/or l. Have a very low level of effect on the perceived amenity derived from it. Oxford English Dictionary Definition Very: adverb 1 in a high degree. 2 with superlative or own without qualification: the very best quality. Low: adjective 1 below average in amount, extent, or intensity. 2 lacking importance, prestige, or quality; inferior.

Negligible Use The development/activity would: m. Have an negligible effect on the character or key attributes of the receiving environment and/or the vista

within which it is seen; and/or n. Have a negligible effect on the perceived amenity derived from it. Oxford English Dictionary Definition Negligible: adjective that need not be considered.

Detectable Effect Threshold No Effect The development/activity would have no effect on the receiving environment. Note: Ratings may be positive (e.g. high level of enhancement) or negative (e.g. high adverse effect).

22


Table 3: Visual Absorption Capability Ratings

Visual Absorption Capability Definition Ratings VAC Rating Use Very Good The proposed development/activity would be completely screened, almost completely screened

or completely absorbed by existing landscape features. Any views of the development would be either unidentifiable or at a great distance, and/or; The development/activity would not affect the existing character of the surrounding landscape or view in which it is seen, and/or; The development/activity would introduce a visual element into the landscape or view which may be viewed very frequently or continuously in that or similar landscape types.

Good The proposed development/activity would be mostly screened or visually absorbed by existing landscape features, but still be identifiable. The development/activity may act as a tertiary focal attraction within the landscape or view in which it is seen, and/or; The development/activity would not affect the existing character of the surrounding landscape or view in which it is seen, and/or; The development/activity may introduce a visual element into the landscape or view which may be viewed frequently in that or similar landscape types.

Neutral The proposed development/activity would neither be screened nor become a visual intrusion or focal attraction within the landscape or view in which it is seen. The proposed development/activity may act as a minor focal attraction from some locations, and/or; The development/activity would alter the existing character of the surrounding landscape or view in which it is seen, and/or; The development/activity would introduce a visual element into the landscape or view which may be viewed occasionally in that or similar landscape types.

Poor The proposed development/activity would be clearly visible but would not act as a primary focal attraction, and/or; It would be expected that the proposed development/activity would alter the existing character of the surrounding landscape or view in which it is seen, and/or; The development/activity may introduce a new visual element into the landscape or view. The development/activity may be viewed infrequently in that or similar landscape types.

Very Poor The proposed development/activity will be highly visible and may act as a primary focal attraction or feature. It would also be expected that the proposed development/activity will significantly alter the existing character of the surrounding landscape or view in which it is seen, and/or; The development/activity will introduce a new visual element into the landscape or view, which will be significantly different in appearance, or scale from the landscape elements surrounding it, and/or; The development/activity would be found very rarely in that or similar landscape types.

23

2017-004 DM Evidence Page 23

Table 4: View Locations and Visual Effect Ratings

No. Name Type VAC Rating and Notes Key Attributes of the View Potential Effects/Mitigation Effect Rating

VL1 Dwelling South on SH3

Private Neutral VAC enhanced due to considerable distance from quarry. Quarry seen through foreground trees, in context of wider rural view and existing quarry face.

Broad view across rolling pastoral land, interspersed with shade trees towards quarry. Benched face of quarry visible.

The extent of benched quarry face visible will increase from this view location. While it will create a noticeable change to the form of the existing hill to be quarried, it will not notably affect the ridgeline from this location. While the quarry expansion will noticeably alter the proportion of existing elements in the view, it will remain predominantly characterized by rural pastoral elements. Some distantly visible trees will be removed, but due to the limited number, this will not noticeably affect amenity values associated with them (given large number of more close proximity trees unaffected by quarrying).

Low

VL2 Dwelling opposite quarry

Private Poor Limited screening by either topography or vegetation. Relatively close proximity view, elevated above level of SH3. Quarry forms part of the existing view.

View across SH3 towards quarry site, including existing benched faces. Native bush remnant on gully slopes within quarry site.

Expansion of quarry face will be seen in the context of existing view of quarry. The face of Osterns I area will recede noticeably, altering the ridgeline of the quarry from this location (which forms the skyline). Exotic shelter trees to be removed are largely obscured from view from this location.

Moderate

VL3 Dwelling east of quarry

Private Good Oblique view of quarry. Some foreground screening by vegetation Quarry forms part of the existing view.

View across pastoral land and SH3 towards quarry. Shelter planting on southern boundary of site in foreground of view.

The face of Osterns I area will recede noticeably, altering the ridgeline of the quarry and revealing background rural views from this location. Due to the oblique nature of this view the extent of cut face will not increase to a large extent. Some existing trees on site will be removed

Low

VL4 Dwelling northwest of quarry

Private Good Oblique view of quarry. Quarry forms part of the existing view.

View across pastoral land and SH3 towards quarry. Shelter planting on southern boundary of site in foreground of view.

The face of Osterns I area will recede noticeably, altering the ridgeline of the quarry and revealing pastoral hill country in the background, which will form the skyline. Due to the oblique nature of this view the extent of cut face will not increase to a large extent.

Very-Low

24


Some existing trees on site will be removed

VL5

Puketarata Road dwelling.

Private Poor Limited screening provided by foreground vegetation. Relatively close proximity location Quarry forms part of the existing view.

Largely unimpeded views of the southern extent of the quarry beyond foreground pastoral land. Hill to be quarried forms existing skyline.

Quarrying of Osterns I will noticeably alter the existing ridgeline in this view (which forms the skyline). The extent of cut face visible from this location will not increase to a great extent. Some existing trees seen in the middle distance will be removed.

Moderate

VL6

Approaching quarry from south on SH3.

Public Neutral Some screening provided by foreground vegetation Quarry forms part of the existing view.

SH3 is oriented towards the quarry at this point. As such it is a focal feature of the existing view. Peripherally, rural pastoral views provide context. Hills to remain unquarried and native gully vegetation form background.

Quarrying activities in Osterns I will recede back from this location, altering the profile of the ridgeline, but not increasing the extent of benched face visible greatly. The newly quarried face will have a lower profile revealing a glimpsed view of high country in the background. Some existing trees seen in the middle distance will be removed.

Low

VL7

Opposite southern end of quarry on SH3

Public Poor Limited screening provided by foreground vegetation. Relatively close proximity location Quarry forms part of the existing view.

Largely unimpeded views of the southern extent of the quarry beyond foreground pastoral land. Existing quarry face forms skyline.

Quarrying of Osterns I will noticeably alter the existing ridgeline in this view (which forms the skyline). The extent of cut face visible from this location will not increase to a great extent. Some existing trees seen in the middle distance will be removed.

Low -Moderate

VL8 Close proximity on SH3

Public Very Good Extensive screening provided by foreground vegetation.

Shelter planting along the southern boundary of the site. Glimpsed view of ridgeline (not quarried) above shelterbelt,

The glimpsed view of the ridgeline will disappear once quarried. Otherwise no change from this location.

Low

25


VL9 Opposite northern end of quarry on SH3

Public Neutral Some screening provided by foreground vegetation Quarry forms part of the existing view.

View along SH3 towards toe of hill to be quarried. Quarry shelterbelt on quarry boundary. Rural pastoral views to the southeast.

The profile of the hill currently visible within the quarry site will change noticeably as quarrying proceeds in a northerly direction. Views of the quarry face will be largely obscured due to the oblique nature of the view. The removal of the toe of this hill will reveal background views to rural hill country.

Low

VL10 Approaching quarry from north on SH3.

Public Neutral Limited screening provided by foreground vegetation Distance enhances VAC Quarry forms part of the existing view.

View along SH3 towards toe of hill to be quarried. Quarry shelter trees on quarry boundary. Rural pastoral views to the southeast.

Similar to VL9, the profile of the hill currently visible within the quarry site will change noticeably as quarrying proceeds in a northerly direction. From this location there will be less screening provided by the existing shelterbelt, however, as a more distant view effects will be largely similar to VL9. Views of the quarry face will be largely obscured due to the oblique nature of the view. The removal of the toe of this hill will reveal background views to rural hill country.

Low

VL11 View from former Pa site within quarry.

Private Very Good Extensive screening provided by foreground topography.

Broad, elevated view overlooking rural landscape.

Views of the quarry face are largely obscured from this location. Negligible

VLA View from Ouhuwhero Road

Public Very Good Some screening provided by foreground vegetation Distance enhances VAC Existing Osterns I quarry face and area of overburden forms part of the existing view.

Broad, elevated view overlooking rural landscape. Sparse clusters of farm buildings, specimen trees and shelterbelts within predominantly pastoral landscape.

Views of existing overburden area on the northern side and Osterns I quarry face on the western side of Tokanui Hill provide context for proposed overburden expansion and additional areas of overburden, aiding in reducing adverse effects. Views of the Osterns I quarry face are partially obscured by intervening topography and vegetation from this location. This, in combination with buffer distance will mean that the changes to the quarry face and overburden areas will not be highly noticeable, reducing adverse effects.

Negligible

26


VLB View from Ouhuwhero Road


Broad, elevated view overlooking rural landscape. Sparse clusters of specimen trees and shelterbelts within predominantly pastoral landscape.

Views of existing overburden area on the northern side and partial views of Osterns I quarry face on the western side of Tokanui Hill provide context for proposed overburden expansion and additional areas of overburden, aiding in reducing adverse effects. Partial views only of the Osterns I quarry face are available due to viewing angle. This, in combination with buffer distance will mean that the changes to the quarry face and overburden areas will not be highly noticeable, reducing adverse effects.

Negligible

VLC View from Te Kawa Road


Pastoral grassland with post and wire fences seen in foreground of view. Clusters of specimen trees and shelterbelts seen in mid-ground of view. Hill to be quarried forms existing skyline.

Views of existing overburden area on the northern side and Osterns I quarry face on the western side of Tokanui Hill provide context for proposed overburden expansion and additional areas of overburden, aiding in reducing adverse effects. Partial views only of the Osterns I quarry face are available due to viewing angle. Although a reduction in the ridgeline of Osterns I may be noticeable, buffer distance and intervening vegetation (which will partially obscure views of Osterns I quarry face from this location) will reduce adverse effects. Existing vegetation will screen the majority of additional overburden sites from view. This, in combination with buffer distance will mean that the changes to the quarry face and overburden areas will not be highly noticeable, reducing adverse effects.

Negligible

VLD View from Te Kawa Road

Public Very Good Extensive screening provided by foreground vegetation Distance enhances VAC Existing area of overburden forms part of the existing view.

Broad, elevated view overlooking rural landscape from adjacent to residential dwelling. Extensive foreground vegetation and post and rail fences associated with rural residence. Background views of pastoral landscape with clusters of specimen trees and shelterbelt planting. Hill to be quarried forms existing skyline.

Views of existing overburden area on the northern side of Tokanui Hill provide context for proposed overburden expansion and additional areas of overburden. Existing intervening vegetation will largely obscure views of proposed overburden areas, reducing adverse effects from this view location. Views of the quarry face are largely obscured from this location. Changes to the ridgeline may be noticeable, although the ridgeline is partially screened by intervening vegetation from this location, reducing adverse effects.

Negligible-Low

27


VLE View from Te Kawa Road

Public Neutral - Good Some screening provided by foreground vegetation Distance enhances VAC Existing area of overburden forms part of the existing view.

Broad, elevated view overlooking pastoral grassland of the rural landscape. Several clusters of large exotic specimen trees located within the mid-ground of the view. Background views of further clusters of specimen trees and shelterbelts. Hill to be quarried forms existing skyline.

Views of existing overburden area on the northern side of Tokanui Hill provide context for proposed overburden expansion and additional areas of overburden. Proposed areas of overburden will be largely screened by existing intervening vegetation. Views of the quarry face are largely obscured from this location. Reduction in the Osterns I ridgeline may no longer be seen against the skyline and alter views by revealing views of landscape beyond Tokanui Hill.

Low [Negligible]

VLF View from Puketarata Road


View overlooking rural pastoral and horticultural landscape with clusters of specimen trees within the mid-ground of the view. Hill to be quarried forms existing skyline.

Views of the quarry face are largely obscured from this location due to intervening vegetation and topography. Proposed changes to the Osterns I quarry face will therefore be difficult to discern from this location, reducing adverse effects.

Negligible

VLG View from Puketarata Road


View overlooking rural pastoral landscape with clusters of specimen trees and several rural-residential dwellings seen within the mid-ground of the view. Hill to be quarried forms existing skyline.

Views of the quarry face are largely obscured from this location due to intervening vegetation and topography. This, in combination with the visual complexity of the view will mean that the proposed changes to the Osterns I quarry face will be difficult to discern from this location, reducing adverse effects.

Negligible

VLH View from Burr Road


Broad, elevated view overlooking rural landscape. Post and wire fences and farm buildings visible within the fore to mid-ground of the view. Shelterbelts and clusters of exotic specimen trees within the mid-ground and background of the view Hill to be quarried as well as Maungatautari forms existing skyline.

Views of existing overburden area on the northern side of Tokanui Hill provide context for proposed overburden expansion and additional areas of overburden. Views of the quarry face are largely obscured from this location.

Negligible

28

IN THE MATTER OF the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”)

AND

IN THE MATTER OF an application by Osterns Quarries Ltd (Swap Group Company) to continue quarrying at Ostern Quarry until 2050.

GRAPHIG EVIDENCE OF DAVID GRAHAM MANSERGH ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT


29

ATTACHMENT 1: Existing and Proposed Quarry Map

30

Ostern QuarryScale at A4 . April 2015 . Map No-4 Rev-1

Proposed Quarry Contours1:7,500

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

LegendHouse Sites

Proposed Contours (1m)

31

DP1

Revision

Status

Drawing Number

DateCheckedDrawn Approved

Sheet

Scales

Original Size

Revision Description

Rev

Th

is d

esig

n is b

ase

d o

n g

en

era

lly a

cce

pte

d p

ra

ctice

s a

nd

sta

nd

ard

s a

t th

e tim

e it w

as p

re

pa

re

d. N

o o

th

er w

arra

nty, e

xp

re

sse

d o

r im

plie

d, is m

ad

e. It is p

re

pa

re

d in

a

cco

rd

an

ce

w

ith

th

e sco

pe

o

f w

ork a

nd

fo

r th

e p

urp

ose

o

utlin

ed

in

th

e co

ntra

ct d

ate

d:

Designed

No

re

sp

on

sib

ility is a

cce

pte

d fo

r u

se

o

f a

ny p

art o

f th

is d

esig

n in

a

ny o

th

er co

nte

xt o

r fo

r a

ny o

th

er p

urp

ose

. T

his d

ra

win

g is su

bje

ct to

co

pyrig

ht.

This Drawing is to be read in conjunction with the complete project documentation set including the specification. All dimensions in Millimetres unless noted otherwise.

AECOM Ltd. New Zealand

273 Cashel Street Christchurch 8011, New Zealand

TELEPHONE: +64 3 374 8500 FAX: +64 3 377 0655

OSTERNS QUARRY AREAS I, II AND III

D:\URS-DATA\Works\42040584\Current Dwgs\C001.dwg Printed by: Sergey Sokolov 3-Jun-15

C001

C001

A

DRAFT

SITE LAYOUT

A1 AS STATED

A3 1/2 AS STATED

A1

A DRAFT - BP - - -

- - - - - - -

- - - - - - -

- - - - - - -

- - - - - - -

DRAFT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES

1:3000 (A1)

30024018012060060

NNOTES

K

I

H

I

K

I

H

I

O

T

O

R

O

H

A

N

G

A

S

H

3

R

O

A

D

LEGEND

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

WATERWAYS

OVER BURDEN

WHITI TE MARAMA PA

TOKONUI PA

PUKERIMU PA

WATER TAKE 1 & 2

DISCHARGE POINT 1, 2, 3 & 4

OSTERNS I

OSTERNS II

OSTERNS III

DP1

DP3

(Image Source: Google Earth Pro, Licensed edition).

M

A

N

G

A

K

A

E

O

S

T

R

E

A

M

PROPERTY TITLES

OWNER PLOT REF. LOT NO. CFR

SINGH, GURPAL KAUR

SINGH, KABAL

01LOT 1 DPS 39237 40D/249

HUNGERFORD, BARBARA

LORRAINE

HUNGERFORD, JOHN

WILLOUGHBY

FMS TRUSTEES LIMITED

02 LOT 2 DPS 396441 384427

03 LOT 1 DPS 89595 384427

OSTERN QUARRIES (1993)

LIMITED

04 LOT 3 DPS 39237 63B/843

04a

Sec 1 (SO 56321)

63B/843

DALESWORTH PROPERTIES

LIMITED

05 LOT 2 DPS 39237 40D/251

TE KAWA QUARRIES LIMITED

06Pt C8B TOKANUI 944/101

06a

Sec 11 (SO 29376)

911/101

07 LOT 3 DPS 89595 70D/850

OTOROHANGA DISTRICT

COUNCIL

08LOT 2 DPS 89595

70D/849

(MULTIPLE TITLE HOLDERS)

09 Pt C9B TOKANUI 47515

OKAWA LIMITED

10 LOT 1 DPS 29735 27C/1260

11

Pt C9B ML 424641

TOKANUI

462226

PAREKURA, WAHO11 468/164

OKAWA LIMITED

11a

Pt Sec 24 (SO 29378)

462226

11b

Pt C9B ML 424641

462226

PAREKURA, WAHO11b 468/164

OKAWA LIMITED 11c

Sec 23 (SO 29376)

462226

(MULTIPLE TITLE HOLDERS)

12

C9A TOKANUI (ML 8319)

469574

WILSON, ANTHONY JAMES13

Pt C8B TOKANUI

(ML 8982)

995/54

GILLING, LILLIAN MARGARET14

Sec 12 (SO 29376)

781/222

WILSON, RUSSELL GARTH

WILSON, KELVIN ROSS

15 LOT 3 DP 11186 1003/211

WILSON, ANTHONY JAMES

WILSON, TRUDY ROSMARIE

16 LOT 1 DP 11186 266/130

WILSON, RUSSELL GARTH

WILSON, KELVIN ROSS

17 LOT 2 DP 11186 1003/211

WILSON, ANTHONY JAMES

WILSON, TRUDY ROSMARIE

18

Pt C13B1 TOKANUI

(ML 9920)

266/52

02

03

08

07

06

04

05

01

10

11

12

13

15

16

18

06a

11b

11a

04a11c

14

17

APPROX. LOCATION OF

PROPOSED INTERNAL

ACCESS TRACK

DP2

09

POTENTIAL NEW

SITE ENTRANCE

EXISTING

ACCESS TRACK

EXTRACTION AREAS

WT2

WT1

WT1

WT1

1

2

3

1

2

3

OVERALL OSTERNS QUARRY

SITE BOUNDARY

NEW STOCKPILE & STORAGE

YARD AREA

APPROX. LOCATION OF

OVERBURDEN ACCESS TRACK

APPROX. LOCATION OF

OVERBURDEN ACCESS TRACK

DP4

OVERBURDEN AREA FROMHUNGERFORD PROPERTIES NOWREMOVED FROM APPLICATION

B

32

ATTACHMENT 2: Existing Site Photographs

33

View of surrounding farmland from pa site.

View of surrounding farmland from the top of Osterns I pit face.

34

View of Ostern Quarry, looking north from along SH3.

View of Ostern Quarry, looking south from along SH3.

35

ATTACHMENT 3: Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) Maps

36

VL 4

VL 1

VL 3

VL 9

VL 2VL 8

VL 7

VL 6

VL 5VL 10

VL11 (Pa Site)


Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) - Existing Quarry1:12,000

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Legend

View Location Points

House Sites

ZTV (Existing)Highly Visible

Not Visible

37

VL 4

VL 1

VL 3

VL 9

VL 2VL 8

VL 7

VL 6

VL 5VL 10

VL11 (Pa Site)


Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) - Proposed Quarry1:12,000

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Legend


House Sites

ZTV (Proposed)Highly Visible

Not Visible

38

VL 4

VL 1

VL 3

VL 9

VL 2VL 8

VL 7

VL 6

VL 5VL 10

VL11 (Pa Site)


Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) - Comparison1:12,000

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Legend


House Sites

ZTV (Existing)Not Visible

Visible

ZTV (Proposed)

Not Visible

Visible

39

ATTACHMENT 4: View Location Map

40

TE KAWA ROAD

POKU

RU ROAD

PUKETARATA ROAD

WAIKERIA ROAD

KAKE

PUKU

ROAD

HINE

WAI

RO

AD

FAR

M R

OAD

ELLI

S R

OAD

MAR

TIN

ROAD

SETTLERS ROAD

TE KAWA ROAD

OTO

RO

HA

NG

A R

OAD

NGAHAPE ROAD

OURUWHERO ROAD

PUKETARATA ROAD

WAIKERIA ROAD

KAKE

PUK

U R

OAD

POKUR

U ROAD

ELLI

S R

OA

D

GALLAGHER ROAD

CRUICKS

HANK

ROAD

PEACOCK ROAD

BLACKETT ROAD

ANSO ROAD

BURR ROAD

HEN

DE

RS

ON

RO

AD

A

E

H

DC

B

GF

VL 4

VL 1

VL 3VL 9

VL 2VL 8VL 7

VL 6

VL 5

Sourced from the LINZ Data Service and licensed for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 NewZealand licence

Ostern QuarryScale at A4 . November 2015 . Map No-5 Rev-1

View Location Map1:50,000

0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25KilometersLegend

Outlying View Location Points


House Sites

41

ATTACHMENT 5: Photomontages

42

VL7. SH3 Travelling North – Existing View

VL7. SH3 Travelling North – Proposed View

43

VL10. SH3 Travelling South – Existing View

VL10. SH3 Travelling South – Proposed View

44

1

BEFORE A JOINT HEARING: WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL AND OTOROHANGA DISTRICT

COUNCIL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management

Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER of Waikato Regional and

Otorohanga District Councils

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by Ostern

Quarries Limited (a Swaps

Group Company) for a quarry

operation on land legally

described as Lot 3 DPS 39237;

Pt C8B Tokanui; Lot 3 DPS

89595; and Lot 2 DPS 39237,

fronting onto State Highway 3,

Otorohanga.

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF NICHOLAS ROY HENRYS

ON BEHALF OF OSTERN QUARRY LIMITED 27 March 2017

INTRODUCTION 1. My name is Nicholas Roy Henrys. I am a Senior Acoustics Engineer at AECOM New

Zealand Limited (AECOM). 2. I hold a Bachelor of Engineering with Honours in Civil and Environmental Engineering from

the University of Auckland. I am a member and elected Council Member of the Acoustical Society of New Zealand.

3. I have over five years’ experience in the field of acoustic engineering consultancy. Prior to

being employed at AECOM I worked for two years as an acoustic engineer for Acoustic Engineering Services Limited (AES) in Christchurch.

4. During my career I have been involved in the preparation and peer review of a large number

of environmental noise assessments for a range of activities including quarries, aggregate

45

2

processing facilities, mines, concrete batching plants, roads and railways, dairy factories, substations, wind farms, and other noise sources.

CODE OF CONDUCT 5. I have read and agree to abide by the "Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses" issued by the

Environment Court of NZ, Practice Note, 2014. This evidence has been prepared in accordance with that Code. I confirm that I have not omitted to consider material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express and that this evidence is within my area of expertise. The evidence I am giving is within my area of expertise, except where I state I am relying on the opinion or evidence of other witnesses. I understand it is my duty to assist the Commissioner(s) impartially on relevant matters within my area of expertise.

BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 6. I was engaged by Osterns Quarries Ltd (Swap Group Company) to assess the construction

and operational noise effects of the proposed Osterns Quarry expansion in 2015. The findings of my 2015 report on the proposed quarry expansion, entitled Osterns Quarry – Assessment of Environmental Noise Effects (Revision 1, dated 9 April 2015) forms the basis of my evidence.

7. I am familiar with the subject site and surrounding area, having visited for the purpose of undertaking noise measurements of the existing quarry operation and ambient noise environment in February 2015.

8. I have read and considered the following documents in preparing this evidence:

(a) Ostern Quarry. Assessment of Effects on the Environment to support

Resource Consent Application to Waikato Regional Council and Otorohanga

District Council prepared by AECOM New Zealand Limited.

(b) Notification Report. Sections 95A to 95G; prepared by Otorohanga District

Council.

(c) Submissions received in response to the notification of the proposal.

(d) The Operative Otorohanga District Plan

(e) The combined s42 report from the District and Regional Councils.

9. My evidence covers the following areas:

(a) Key elements of the proposal;

(b) Environmental noise criteria;

(c) The existing ambient noise environment;

(d) Noise prediction methodology and results;

(e) Assessment of noise effects;

(f) Mitigation;

(g) Comments on submissions and s42A report;

(h) Conclusions; and

46

3

(i) Recommended conditions of consent.

PROPOSAL 10. As described in previous evidence, J Swap Contractors seek resource consents to continue

existing quarrying activities at the site until 2050. A detailed description of the proposed activities has been presented in the evidence of Mr Clemens. In the following sections I will focus on the key components of the application which may have the potential for noise effects including:

(a) Overburden removal and placement

(b) Extraction and blasting

(c) Manufacturing, processing and stockpiling

(d) Product load-out and dispatch

(e) Site rehabilitation

11. The proposed hours of operation are:

(a) Monday to Friday 6:00am to 10:00pm

(b) Saturday 7:00am to 7:00pm

(c) Sundays 8:00am to 5:00pm;

With the exception that limited loader and product load-out and dispatch activities may occur prior to 6:00am on occasion to satisfy demand.

12. For safety reasons quarry activities (with the exception of product load-out) cannot occur outside of daylight hours. The actual hours of operation will therefore be significantly less than those proposed above for a substantial portion of the year.

ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CRITERIA 13. Section 14 of the Operative Otorohanga District Plan (ODP) applies the following limits to

noise measured at the notional boundary of any dwelling within the Rural Effects Area (a) Daytime 50 dB LAeq

(b) Night time 40 dB LAeq and 70 dB LAmax

14. Daytime is defined as:

(a) Monday to Friday 7am to 10pm

(b) Saturday 7am to 7pm

(c) Sunday and Public holidays 8am to 5pm

15. Rule 14.7 requires that sound levels are measured and assessed in accordance with NZS

6801:2008 “Acoustics – measurement of environmental sound”, and NZS 6802:2008 “Acoustics – Environmental Noise”

16. The above limits do not apply to noise from construction, maintenance or demolition

activities. The ODP requires that noise from these sources complies with NZS 6803:1999 “Acoustics – construction noise”.

47

4

17. Whether any of the components of the proposal could be defined as “construction activities” should be given some consideration. NZS 6803:1999 states that construction work includes “any work in connection with any excavation, site preparation, or preparatory work”. The standard excludes “sound emission from an ongoing land use activity”. On this basis I consider that preparatory work including overburden removal and placement, earthworks for site rehabilitation, and construction of any noise mitigation bunds should be considered construction activities. Other activities including extraction and processing of materials are part of the ongoing land use.

18. The recommended limits in NZS 6803:1999 for construction noise received in rural areas are

as follows:

Time of

Week

Time

Period

Duration of work

Typical duration

Short-term duration

Long-term duration

dB LAeq dB LAmax dB LAeq dB LAmax dB LAeq dB LAmax

Weekdays

0630-0730 60 75 65 75 55 75

0730-1800 75 90 80 95 70 85

1800-2000 70 85 75 90 65 80

2000-0630 45 75 45 75 45 75

Saturdays

0630-0730 45 75 45 75 45 75

0730-1800 75 90 80 95 70 85

1800-2000 45 75 45 75 45 75

2000-0630 45 75 45 75 45 75

Sundays

and public

holidays

0630-0730 45 75 45 75 45 75

0730-1800 55 85 55 85 55 85

1800-2000 45 75 45 75 45 75

2000-0630 45 75 45 75 45 75

19. The overall duration of preparatory overburden removal and placement work may exceed 20

weeks, meaning the long-term duration limits are appropriate.

20. I note that the ODC noise rules do not specifically exclude noise from blasting. Noise limits expressed in dB LAeq do not adequately address the potential effects of blasting, including airblast overpressure, which may not be audible but can cause vibration in buildings giving rise to audible sound such as windows rattling. The limited duration and frequency of blasts are also not taken into account. A widely accepted noise limit for blasting which is part of an ongoing activity is 120 dB LZpeak, measured 1m from the façade of any occupied building. This assumes that occupants are given adequate notice of the blast times.

21. When assessing the effects of noise from proposed quarrying activities against the above noise limits, the nature of the existing ambient noise environment has been considered, as described in the following section.

EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE ENVIRONMENT 22. In broad terms the existing ambient noise environment in the vicinity of the site is dominated

by existing quarry activities, and in some locations traffic on Otorohanga Road (State

48

5

Highway 3). Intermittent noise from typical rural sources, for example livestock and farm vehicles is also present.

23. I measured existing ambient noise levels at several locations on and around the site, between 11:30am and 1:30pm on the 13

th of February 2015. Further continuous

measurements were conducted by AECOM between Wednesday 18th of January and

Wednesday 25th of January 2017, in order to gain an understanding of the noise environment

throughout the entire proposed operating hours.

24. On the basis of these measurements it is concluded that traffic noise levels (adjusted for distance to the road) at the nearest neighbouring dwellings to the south of the site (829 and 893 Otorohanga Road) are likely to exceed 55 dB LAeq for the entire daytime period as defined in the ODP. Traffic noise levels throughout the night time period remain relatively high, in particular during the period between 6am and 7am on weekdays when measured traffic noise levels also exceeded 55 dB LAeq when adjusted for distance to these dwellings.

25. At neighbouring dwellings more distant from State Highway 3, including 888 Otorohanga

Road and dwellings to the north of the quarry on Te Kawa Road, existing ambient noise levels during the daytime are in the order of 50 dB LAeq. Measured night time noise levels were relatively low, generally less than 40 dB LAeq.

26. Based on these measurements a daytime noise limit of 55 dB LAeq for operational quarry

noise received at 829 and 893 Otorohanga Road is expected to ensure that noise is generally less than from other sources (namely road traffic) and therefore adequately protects amenity values. I consider than an extension to the daytime hours as defined in the ODP, to include the period from 6am to 7am on weekdays is also unlikely to result in adverse amenity effects at these locations.

27. At all other locations I consider that the noise limits and daytime hours in the ODP are

appropriate for operational noise.

NOISE PREDICTIONS

28. Noise emissions from proposed quarrying activities have been predicted using the ISO 9613-

2:1996 “Acoustics – Attenuation of sound outdoors – Part 2: general method of calculation” prediction algorithm, implemented in SoundPLAN computational modelling software. The following factors and assumptions have been incorporated in the model:

(a) Receivers located at the notional boundary of the nearest dwellings, 1.5m above ground level

(b) Shielding and reflections from buildings

(c) Ground and atmospheric absorption

(d) Site topography

(e) Worst-case downwind conditions

29. The quantity and location of various quarry noise sources were input into the model based on details of the proposed operation provided by the applicant. Modelled noise emissions are based on a scenario where all of the relevant mobile plant items for each activity are operating simultaneously at the closest point to each neighbouring dwelling. Predicted noise levels are therefore conservative and actual noise levels are likely to be lower for the majority of the time.

30. Noise source levels were determined based on measurements I conducted of existing quarry equipment at the site, or measurement of comparable equipment at other sites undertaken by AECOM.

49

6

31. Based on the above, predicted noise levels at the notional boundary of the nearest neighbouring dwellings are as follows:

Address

Predicted Noise Level, dB LAeq

Overburden removal /

Rehabilitation Extraction

Manufacturing, processing and

stockpiling

Product load-out and dispatch

829 Otorohanga Rd 58 53 44 39



32. Noise levels at more distant dwellings are expected to be considerably lower. 33. Noise levels from blasting depend largely on the type and size of the charge used, and the

location (including bench level) within the quarry. These details are not known at this stage, therefore blasting noise levels cannot be predicted to an appropriate degree of accuracy.

34. However, providing blasting is carried out by a competent operator using an appropriate

methodology, it is expected that noise levels will comply with the proposed limit of 120 dB LZPeak, and therefore not be unreasonable assuming adequate notice is provided to neighbours prior to any blasts.

ASSESSMENT OF NOISE EFFECTS

35. Worst case noise levels from overburden removal and placement, and site rehabilitation are

expected to comply with the long term duration noise limits in NZS 6803:1999 at the nearest neighbouring sites, provided they are undertaken during the hours of 7:30am to 8:00pm Monday to Friday, and 7:30am to 6:00pm Saturday. Noise levels from these construction activities are not expected to be significantly greater than operational quarry noise from other activities. Given their limited overall duration, and the likelihood that the highest prediction noise levels will be present for only a short time at each neighbouring property, in my opinion noise from this activity is not expected to have a significant adverse amenity effect.

36. Noise emissions from extraction are predicted to comply with the proposed daytime noise

limits at all neighbouring sites. This activity will not be undertaken during the night time period.

37. Noise emissions from manufacturing, processing and stockpiling are also predicted to comply

with the proposed daytime noise limits. This activity will not be undertaken during the night time period, other than occasional, use of loaders and trucks to transport product within the site and for dispatch prior to 6:00am. This may occur on an as-required basis to meet demand.

38. Without the contribution of crushing and screening plant, noise levels from loader and truck

operation are predicted to be 44 dB LAeq or less at the notional boundary of the nearest neighbouring dwellings on the southern side of Otorohanga Road. This noise is expected to be of a generally similar character and level as existing ambient noise due to traffic.

39. Notwithstanding the above, noise mitigation bunds are proposed to reduce night time noise

levels from this activity further. With the implementation of 3m high bunds in the locations shown in Appendix A, noise levels from loader and truck activity are predicted to be less than 40 dB LAeq at the notional boundary of all neighbouring dwellings.

40. Based on the above, and taking into account additional noise management measures as

described in the following section, I consider that overall noise emissions from the activity are

50

7

reasonable in the context of the existing ambient noise environment, and are expected to have an effect on health and amenity which is no more than minor.

NOISE MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT 41. Noise mitigation measures as described above include a reduction in the proposed hours of

operation for most activities (starting a 6:00am on weekdays rather than 5:00am as originally proposed); and the use of noise mitigation bunds along the southern boundary of the site.

In addition to the above, the applicant is committed to preparing and implementing a noise management plan (NMP) to ensure that quarry noise is minimised as far as practicable. The noise management plan could include, but is not limited to:

(a) Designation of persons responsible for implementing noise mitigation measures

and responding to any complaints;

(b) Procedure for receiving and responding to complaints;

(c) The applicable noise limits;

(d) Hours of operation;

(e) Blasting early warning procedure;

(f) Blasting noise and vibration management measures;

(g) Any other practicable noise mitigation measures;

(h) Procedure for updating the NMP as necessary to respond to any changes in

operation;

SUBMISSIONS 42. I have reviewed the submissions received, which relate to noise amenity effects. I recognise

that adverse effects on the noise environment and amenity are of concern to some submitters. Two submissions raised noise as an area of concern.

Okawa Ltd and Wilson Joint Submission

43. This submission raises the following concerns in relation to noise:

(a) It is implied that noise from a variety of existing quarry sources including crusher

plant; dump trucks; loaders; and blasting are detracting from rural amenity and

quality of life.

(b) Dump trucks dumping into crusher; loader use (including reversing beeper) and

excessive revving outside of current operation hours; and trucks - banging deck

bins with rubber mallets outside operational hours are specifically mentioned.

(c) Proposed relocation of the site entrance will present it directly opposite existing

dwellings.

(d) Blasting noise effects are frightening even with phone notification; blasts are not

always on time; and warning sirens are either not used or inaudible

51

8

(e) Proposed hours of operation of 5am to 10pm are unreasonable and not in line

with the District Plan

(f) Extensions to blasting hours (9am to 5pm Monday to Saturday) poses a danger

to farmers during milking times

(g) Communication with quarry management has been inconsistent to date

44. The noise controls sought by this submission are as follows:

(a) Stringent monitoring process established

(b) Open lines of communication between quarry management and neighbours

(c) Complaints register

(d) No blasting before 9am or after 3pm

(e) Strictly no operation outside of operational hours

(f) Operational hours of 6:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday; 7:00am to 6:00pm

Saturday; and no operation on Sunday and public holidays

45. I note that the existing and predicted noise levels from most quarry activities are similar or

less than ambient traffic noise levels at the nearest dwellings to the South on State Highway 3, and are expected to be less than the permitted noise levels under the ODP at all other locations.

46. The proposed site entrance location is approximately the same distance from the dwelling at 893 Otorohanga Road as the existing entrance.

47. A procedure for communicating with neighbours and documenting and responding to noise

complaints will be implemented as part of the quarry NMP.

48. The NMP may also contain provision for additional mitigation measures in response to neighbour concerns, for example broadband (not tonal) reversing beepers, if these are found to be practicable.

49. The hours of operation now proposed by the applicant are now more consistent with the

hours sought by this submission, in particular the start time for the majority of activities is now 6:00am rather than 5:00am as originally proposed. The only exception to this will be loader operation and truck movements, which are expected to comply with the ODP night time noise limit of 40 dB LAeq provided noise mitigation bunds are constructed.

50. The finishing time of 6:00pm Monday to Saturday is not consistent with the ODP, which sets

more restrictive noise rules after 10:00pm Monday to Friday; 7:00pm Saturday and 5:00pm Sundays and Public Holidays. The proposed hours of operation are generally in line with the ODP daytime hours, and are expected to ensure that neighbours are adequately protected from adverse sleep disturbance effects, and also afford neighbours a higher degree of amenity on weekend evenings.

51. The concern regarding blasting noise during milking time has been noted and the proposed

blasting hours have been revised to 9:00am to 3:00pm as sought in this submission.

52

9

Weld Submission 52. This submission raises similar concerns to the Okawa Ltd and Wilson Joint Submission

around noise and hours of operation, albeit less specific. These points have been addressed in detail above.

S42A REPORT 53. I have read the relevant sections of the combined s42A report prepared by the District and

Regional Council’s where it relates to noise effects. The conclusions reached in my noise assessment have been accepted, other than comments made with respect to acceptable noise levels between 5:00am and 7:00am.

54. Having now undertaken more extensive measurements of the ambient noise environment in the vicinity of the site, including the period from 5:00am to 7:00am, I agree with the assessment of the report author, that a start time of 6:00am on weekdays is more appropriate for most quarrying activities.

55. The report also recommends that a noise management plan is prepared to reduce noise

emissions as far as practicable, and an acoustic fence is suggested as a possible noise mitigation measure. I generally agree although a bund is the preferred noise mitigation option, and is predicted to achieve similar levels of noise reduction to an acoustic fence of the same height.

56. I consider the proposed conditions relating to noise and blasting are appropriate for the

activity, with a number of minor exceptions.

57. I note that condition 16 requires noise from construction activities to be managed and controlled in accordance with NZS 6803:1999. This standard contains noise limits depending on the time of day and duration of the activity as described above. I therefore consider the application of an additional condition (Condition 17) defining the night time hours and noise limit to be unnecessary, and potentially gives rise to a false impression that there is no daytime noise limit for construction activities.

58. Condition 17 also imposes a night time construction noise limit of 40 dB LAeq, which is 5 dB

more stringent that that recommended in NZS 6803:1999, without any justification provided for this deviation in the s42A report. I recommend that condition 17 is deleted.

59. I consider site rehabilitation works and noise bund construction to be construction activities

rather than part of the ongoing operation of the quarry. I therefore recommend that the wording of Conditions 16 is amended to include site rehabilitation and bund construction alongside topsoil stripping, and overburden extraction and placement.

60. Whilst I agree with the intent of conditions 18 to 20, I consider that they are ambiguous with

the respect to the hours and days that various noise limits apply; that they do not extend protection to any sites other than 829, 888 and 893 Otorohanga Road; and that use of the word “may” in condition 18 is potentially misleading. I recommend that these conditions are reworded.

61. I also recommend that a Noise Management Plan is required to be prepared as a condition of

consent.

62. As noted above I do not consider the general operational noise limits to be an appropriate control for noise due to blasting. I recommend a separate condition requiring that noise from blasting is limited to 120 dB LZpeak.

53

10

CONCLUSIONS 63. I have assessed noise emissions from all sources associated with the proposed operation

and expansion of the Osterns Quarry in Otorohanga. As outlined in my evidence above, the assessment takes into account the context of the existing ambient noise environment, which includes noise from the existing quarry operation, and relatively high levels of traffic noise at some locations.

64. Noise emissions are expected to comply with the daytime noise limits in the ODP, with the

exception of noise from extraction, manufacturing, processing and stockpiling activities received at the notional boundaries of the nearest two dwellings to the south of the site. Predicted quarry noise levels at these locations are generally in the same order or less than existing ambient noise levels due to traffic on Otorohanga Road.

65. Proposed hours of operation are generally the same as those defined as ‘daytime’ in the

ODP, with the exception that quarry operations may begin at 6:00am Monday to Friday rather than 7:00am. Furthermore, loader and truck operations may begin before 6:00am; however with proposed noise mitigation bunds, noise from these sources is predicted to comply with the ODP night time noise limits at all locations.

66. A noise management plan is proposed to document complaints procedures, blasting

methodology, and any additional noise mitigation measures to ensure that noise effects are minimised where practicable.

67. In summary, I consider that the noise effects associated with the proposal are reasonable,

and are not expected to result in significant adverse health or amenity effects for neighbours, when considered in the context of the existing noise environment.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF CONSENT

68. Should consent be granted I recommend the following conditions of consent: NOISE

1. Construction noise due to topsoil stripping, overburden extraction and placement, site

rehabilitation, and construction of noise bunds shall be managed and controlled in accordance with NZS6803:1999 ‘Acoustics – Construction noise’.

2. Nosie emissions due to operational activities on the site (with the exception of

blasting) shall not exceed the following limits when measured in accordance with NZS 6801:2008 ‘Acoustics – Measurement of environmental sound’ and assessed in accordance with NZS 6801:2008 ‘Acoustics – Environmental noise’:

(a) At the notional boundary of 829 Otorohanga Road and 893 Otorohanga Road:

Monday to Friday 6:00am to 10:00pm 55 dB LAeq

Saturday 7:00am to 7:00pm 55 dB LAeq

Sunday 8:00am to 5:00pm 55 dB LAeq All other times 40 dB LAeq and 70 dB LAmax

(b) At the notional boundary of any other site:

Monday to Friday 6:00am to 10:00pm 50 dB LAeq

Saturday 7:00am to 7:00pm 50 dB LAeq

Sunday 8:00am to 5:00pm 50 dB LAeq All other times 40 dB LAeq and 70 dB LAmax

54

11

3. Within three months of the commencement of this resource consent, the consent holder shall submit a Noise Management Plan to Otorohanga District Council for approval. The Noise Management Plan shall contain the following:

(a) Person(s) responsible for implementing noise management measures

(b) A procedure for receiving, documenting and responding to any noise complaints

(c) Blasting early warning procedure and methodology

(d) Timing and location of bund construction as per AECOM drawing ‘Noise Bund

Plan’ dated 27 March 2017

(e) Any other practicable noise mitigation measures as necessary

(f) Procedure for updating the NMP as necessary to respond to any changes in

operation

BLASTING 4. Noise due to blasting shall not exceed 120 dB LZPeak when measured at 1m from the

façade of any occupied building.

5. Blast detonation shall occur within the hours of 9:00am to 3:00pm only.

Nicholas Roy Henrys

Senior Acoustic Engineer

AECOM New Zealand Limited

27 March 2017

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A: Noise bund plan

55

12

ATTACHMENT A – NOISE BUND PLAN

56

Sourc e: Esri, Digita lGlob e, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographic s, CN ES/Airb us DS, USDA, USGS, AEX , Getm a ppin g, Aerogrid, IGN , IGP, swisstopo, a n d the GISUser Com m un ity

© Copyright AECOM New Zealand Limited, 2015. This map is confidential and shall only be used for the purposes of this project. The signing of this title block confirms the design and drafting of this project have been prepared and checked in accordance with the AECOM Quality Assurance system certified to AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008.

Sc a le: (A3 size)1:2,50020 0 20 4010

Meters

Filename: \\nzham1fp001\projects\602X\60269339\4. Tech work area\4.8 Acoustics\GIS\02_Maps\MASTER.mxd

ISO A3 297mm x 420mm

PROJECT CLIENT

CONSULTANT

Ostern s Quarry,Otoroha n ga

Ostern s Quarry Ltd

AECOM N ew Zea la n d Lim itedAECOM HOUSE, 8 MAHUHU CRESCEN TAUCKLAN D 1010+64 9 967 9200 tel +64 9 967 9201 fa xwww.a ec om .c om

SHEET TITLEN oise Bun d Pla n

PROJECT NUMBER60269339

KEY PLAN

Last saved by: HENRYSN (2017-03-22) Last Plotted: 2016-04-15

!I

Ma p fea tures depic ted in term s of N ZTMprojec tion .Data Sourc es:Ca da stra l Boun da ries – LIN Z N Z Ca da stra lData set 2016

SPATIAL REFERENCE

Date: 27/03/2017

57

henrysn

Callout

3 METRE HIGH BUNDS TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF RESOURCE CONSENT COMMENCEMENT

henrysn

Callout

3 METRE HIGH BUND CONSTRUCTED OR RETAINED DURING RIDGE REMOVAL

henrysn

Callout

3 METRE HIGH BUNDS TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE USE OF OSTERNS II FOR ANY STOCKPILING, LOAD-OUT AND DISPATCH ACTIVITY

henrysn

Arrow

henrysn

Arrow

IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to the

Resource Management Act 1991 for a

quarry operation on land legally

described as Lot 3 DPS 39237, Pt C8B

Tokanui, Lot 3 DPS 89595, and Lot 2

DPS 39237, fronting onto SH3 in

Otorohanga District …

BETWEEN Osterns Quarry Limited

Applicant

BETWEEN THE OTOROHANGA DISTRICT COUNCIL

AND WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL

Consent Authorities

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF NORMAN KENNETH ROBINS


58

1

Witness Introduction, Qualifications and Experience

1. My full name is Norman Kenneth Robins. I am a Principal

Transportation Engineer with AECOM New Zealand Ltd. In the following

paragraphs I have set out my relevant qualifications and experience.

2. I hold the following relevant qualifications:

i. B Eng (Hons) Civil & Structural

ii. CP Eng

3. I have the following relevant experience:

i. I have over 35 years’ experience in transportation engineering

comprising traffic engineering, transport planning and design of roads

and traffic facilities. Sixteen years of that experience has been

working for a consultancy with the balance being with local authorities,

and 28 years of that experience being in New Zealand.

ii. Of particular relevance to this application, my experience covers

preparation of numerous Traffic Impact Assessments/Integrated

Transportation Assessments for a wide range of projects including

Quarries and sand extraction operations

A sawmill on SH25

Rural subdivisions

A light industrial park on SH23

Road safety audits for rural road realignments, passing lanes, and

intersections

4. I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the

Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and have complied with that

practice note in preparation of this evidence. I agree to comply with it in

presenting evidence at this hearing. The evidence that I give is within my

area of relevant expertise, except where I have stated my reliance on

59

2

other identified evidence. I have considered all material facts that are

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

this evidence.

Scope and Summary of Evidence

5. My involvement in this project started in December 2014 with a site visit

and meeting to discuss the Applicant’s proposals and to assess the

options for access to the quarry operation.

6. This was followed by an initial meeting with the NZ Transport Agency in

January 2015 and preparation of a draft traffic impact assessment (TIA)

issued to the NZ Transport Agency for consideration in March 2015. The

TIA was finalised in May 2015 and subsequently became an Appendix to

the resource consent application. My discussions with the NZ Transport

Agency re-commenced in May 2016 and continued through to July 2016,

seeking the Agency’s approval as an affected party.

7. This Statement of Evidence address the following topics:

i. A summary of the key issues of the TIA and the reasoning behind the

proposed access arrangements for the quarry;

ii. Responses to issues raised in the NZ Transport Agency’s submission

and the Raukawa Charitable Trust submission;

iii. Responses to issues raised in the Council’s s42A report

Summary of key traffic impact issues and access proposals:

8. Three accesses have historically been used for quarrying, with the activity

historically being three separate operations. In recent times only one

access has been used, referred to as the Ostern I access. All three

accesses comply with the District Plan standards but fall short of what

would be considered best practice for the potential volume of traffic

movements.

60

3

9. Whilst the existing accesses are serviceable, the alignment of SH3

makes it impractical to upgrade any of them to meet the desirable

geometric standards. The proposal is therefore to create a new access at

a location where the best geometry can be achieved, and to cease day to

day use of the other accesses (Ostern II and Ostern III).

10. The re-arrangement of the quarry operation and creating a new access

does not have a bearing on the volume of traffic generated by the quarry,

that will depend on the market for the quarry’s product.

11. Whilst there are three formed accesses, there are in fact six licensed

crossing points on SH3 which is a limited access road. The Applicant has

proposed to cede two of these licensed crossing points which are

unformed, with the third unformed crossing to become the proposed new

central crossing.

Evidence in response to issues raised in the NZ Transport Agency’s

submission

12. The NZ Transport Agency supports the construction of a new centralised

access and licensed crossing point to serve the quarry operation and is

not opposed to the quarry’s continued operation and/or expansion. The

Agency in its submission has proposed 10 conditions should consent be

granted.

13. There is agreement between the Applicant and the NZ Transport Agency

on most of these conditions but there were three issues on which

agreement between the Applicant and the Agency had not been reached

at the time of the Transport Agency’s submission. These were :-

The timeframe in which the proposed access arrangements are to

be realised. The Applicant had proposed 5 years and the Agency 3

years. I am informed that the Applicant has now accepted the 3

year timeframe.

The manner of closure of the existing vehicle crossing points. The

Applicant has proposed that these be physically closed by way of a

fence or locked gate but should legally remain. The Agency has

61

4

proposed that the construction of the Ostern II and Ostern III

crossings be removed as well as being fenced off and that the

crossings be legally closed.

The Agency has requested that a wheel wash be installed for

trucks exiting the quarry whereas the Applicant does not consider

this necessary.

Closure of existing accesses

14. The condition which was proposed to the Agency by the Applicant was

that ‘The existing access points shall remain physically closed to all traffic

movements from SH3 except for situations involving an emergency,

Health and Safety requirements, or unforeseen/unexpected

circumstances.’

15. The reasoning behind this is that by avoiding any day to day use of these

accesses in favour of use of the proposed central access (which will be of

a higher standard), the potential adverse effects of using the lower

standard existing accesses are effectively avoided. Retaining the physical

ability to use the accesses in emergencies and exceptional

circumstances gives more resilience to the operation. Scenarios under

which this could be utilised include an accident or incident which blocked

access to the new crossing, and maintenance of the new crossing or

internal access roads.

16. Looking to the longer term, when the quarry is worked out or ceases to be

economical to operate then it is likely that it will be rehabilitated, most

likely returned to agricultural use. Retention of the authorised crossing

points means that the separate titles involved will be able to be sold as

separate legal entities, as they currently are, with each having a legal

access.

17. In addition, I understand that it would not be lawful for a condition to be

imposed as part of a resource consent which removed the Applicant’s

statutory right to an access which was created under different legislation.

62

5

Wheel wash

18. The Applicant does not believe it is necessary to install a wheel wash

facility. A least 40m of sealed roadway will be provided within the site

prior to exiting onto SH3 and this, in conjunction with sweeping of that

length of roadway, is considered adequate to guard against tracking of

material onto SH3. This is consistent with the Transport Agency’s

suggested condition 1 h) in its submission.

Evidence in response to the Raukawa Charitable Trust Submission

19. The Raukawa Charitable Trust has sought a condition that ‘signs

providing identification and interpretation of the pa sites for the public are

erected’.

20. For these signs to be erected where they were safely accessible by the

public, there would need to be some form of rest area created with

appropriate advance signage, visibility for access and egress and

possibly some road widening to safely accommodate turning traffic. The

proposed quarry access is being located at the optimum place on the

Applicant’s frontage to SH3 for a safe access, but it would not be safe to

combine a rest area facility with this quarry access. A rest area anywhere

on SH3 at which to locate a public information sign could not be created

without the NZ Transport Agency’s permission and would require some

private land to accommodate it. Whilst the decision would lie with the

Transport Agency, in my opinion I cannot envisage another location on

the Osterns Quarry Ltd frontage which would be considered suitable.

Evidence in response to Section 42A report

21. The Consultant Planner’s Section 42A (S42A)report has recommended

that the Ostern II access be closed to normal operation by way of a

locked gate. It has recommended that the Ostern I access be closed by

means of a permanent fence. A similar condition to that proposed for

Ostern II would seem more appropriate for the Ostern I access to make

allowance for emergencies and exceptional circumstances.

63

6

22. The S42A report has also recommended that the Ostern III access be

physically closed immediately. I am advised that the Applicant is prepared

to close this access. However, my advice would be to close it just by way

of a fence and to leave the formation of the crossing as it is, rather than to

excavate it out, remove the culvert, and re-instate a table drain. The

reason for this advice is that the leaving the formation of the crossing up

to the road boundary provides somewhere for a car driver turning right

into the farm entrance opposite to pullover and wait for a gap in the traffic,

rather than having to slow down and wait in the start of the passing lane.

23. The S42A report is silent on the legal closure of any of the vehicle

crossings. This is presumably for the reasons given in paragraph 17 of

my evidence.

24. The S42A report has supported with the Transport Agency’s request for a

3 year time frame and this has now been accepted by the Applicant.

Recommended Conditions of Consent

25. The S42A report proposes conditions 21 to 31 in relation to traffic. If

consent is granted, my recommendation is that these conditions be

imposed with the following amendments.

26. Condition 26

i. Item a) be deleted and the first sentence of item b) be amended to

read ‘Crossing Places CP17-177 and CP 17-181 shall be gated,

permanently locked and not be used for the day to day operation of

the quarry.’

ii. Item c) be amended to read ‘Crossing Place CP17-184A shall be

physically closed by means of a boundary fence.

27. Delete Condition 27


Norman Kenneth Robins

64