IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991

Transcription

1 BEFORE TAUPŌ DISTRICT COUNCIL RM180023/RM IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of an application for land use and subdivision resource consent by Holmes Corporate Trustee Limited for redevelopment at 25 Te Arahori Street, Turangi Parklands Motor Lodge STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF JAMES BELL-BOOTH ON BEHALF OF HOLMES CORPORATE TRUSTEE LIMITED ACOUSTICS Dated: 15 August 2018 Barristers & Solicitors J G A Winchester / S K Lennon Telephone: Facsimile: james.winchester@simpsongrierson.com DX SX11174 PO Box 2402 WELLINGTON

2 INTRODUCTION Qualifications and experience 1. My full name is James Robert Hugh Bell-Booth. I am a consultant in the acoustical consulting practice of Marshall Day Acoustics (MDA) and manager of its Hamilton office 2. I hold the degree of Bachelor of Building Science from the University of Victoria, Wellington (2005). I am a member of the Acoustical Society of New Zealand. 3. For the past 13 years I have worked in the field of acoustics, noise measurement and control in both New Zealand and Australia. My experience in acoustic advice in New Zealand has included the preparation of noise performance standards for district plans; environmental acoustic modelling of commercial sites; assessment, prediction and acoustic modelling; and the recommendation of mitigation measures when appropriate. I have provided expert evidence on acoustic matters to council hearings on a number of occasions. 4. MDA were commissioned by Holmes Corporate Trustee Limited (Holmes Group) to assess the operational acoustic impact of the proposed service station development and quick service restaurant (QSR), located on the Parklands Motor Lodge site cornering State Highway 1 (SH1) and Te Arahori Street, Turangi. 5. I prepared the report Turangi Service Station Acoustic Assessment dated 17 January 2017 (the MDA Acoustic Report) which assesses the potential site sound emissions from the proposed development against the relevant acoustic performance standards in the Operative Taupō District Plan (District Plan) in the context of the existing acoustic environment. 6. In preparing my evidence, I have reviewed the following documentation: (b) AEE: Resource Consent Application Land Use to establish a service station and quick service restaurant on a site with an existing motel complex; and Subdivision to create three fee simple allotments; all submissions received on land use application to the Council; _1.doc Page 1

3 (c) (d) the Council s section 42A Officer's Report and Appendices (Officer s Report); evidence prepared by: (i) Mr Ryan Holmes (Holmes Corporate Trustee Ltd); (ii) Mr John Chandler (BP Oil); (iii) Mr Andrew Wood (planning); (iv) Mr Mark Apeldoorn (traffic); (v) Mr Tim Heath (property economics); (vi) Mr Bodo Hellberg (stormwater); (vii) Mr Dave Mansergh (landscape architecture, character and amenity); and (viii) Mr John Kofoed (lighting). Code of Conduct 7. I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for expert witnesses contained in the Environment Court of New Zealand Practice Note 2014 and that I have complied with it when preparing my evidence. Other than when I state that I am relying on the advice of another person, this evidence is entirely within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express. Scope of evidence 8. A copy of the full MDA Acoustic Report I prepared and that accompanied the application, and letter I prepared in response to a section 92 (Resource management Act 1990 (RMA)) query on vibration, are appended to the Officer s Report. 9. Except where my evidence relates to contentious matters, I propose to only summarise the conclusions set out in the MDA Acoustic Report. Accordingly, I will not duplicate the assessment that has been provided in respect of the sound emissions from the proposed service station; rather I will cross reference it where appropriate. 10. In this brief of evidence, I will discuss: description of site (in relation to the noise sources); _1.doc Page 2

4 (b) (c) (d) performance standards requirements (Part 4 of the District Plan); key findings and conclusions from the MDA Acoustic Report; and responses to the submissions raising noise as an issue, including those from: (i) Paul Clements & Jane Clements; (ii) Nicola Moore; (iii) Lorraine Wilson; (iv) Graeme Earle Nahkies; (v) Ian Douglas & Frances Rose Jenkins; (vi) Dan & Prue Stevenson and Family; (vii) HG Macdonald & GE Shieff; (viii) Sally Anne Downer; (ix) Tim Edgeler & Roz Thompson; (x) Grants Motels Limited; and (xi) Holmes Proposal Opposition Group Inc. EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT 11. Section 2.3 of the MDA Acoustic Report describes the noise surveys undertaken to establish the character and nature of the existing noise environment. 12. The existing noise environment is dominated by traffic on SH1 and local roads around the site. 13. Other lesser contributors to the existing noise environment include the commercial activities on the opposite side of SH1 to the subject site, operational activities on the subject site and other typical residential activities within the surrounding environment. 14. At the monitoring location which was chosen to represent the potentially quietest location adjacent the subject site (given the distance from SH1 and the screening of SH1 provided by the Parklands Motor Lodge buildings and boundary fences) the average ambient and background sound levels are: (b) (c) 49 db LAeq and 42 db L A90 during daytime; 47 dba LAeq and 39 db LA90 during the evening period; and 44 dba LAeq and 36 db L A90 during the night time _1.doc Page 3

5 15. In addition to this monitoring location, a subsequent noise survey was conducted to confirm that the properties closer to SH1, particularly 24 Te Arahori Street (the Settlers Motel site) are subject to higher sound levels from SH1. At these sites the measured sound levels were 53 dba LAeq and 43 db L A90, during the night-time period survey. 16. It was noted during the noise survey that distant traffic was quite audible and lasts a long time before dropping down to background levels which were predominantly from mechanical services and idling vehicles at the existing service station. The noise survey also noted that intermittent sound sources such as birds, reverse beepers from trucks in the existing service station, dogs barking, and pallet stacking at the existing supermarket. 17. As such, the acoustic character of the existing noise environment is typical of a residential area near a main arterial road. The noise levels measured indicate to me that compliance with the District Plan will ensure that noise is controlled to an appropriate level. PERFORMANCE STANDARD REQUIREMENTS 18. I have reviewed the relevant noise performance standards contained within Section 4 of the District Plan. 19. The rules relevant to this project are reproduced in section 3.0 of the MDA Acoustic Report. In summary operational noise generated with the subject site must not exceed the following at any other residential zoned site: (b) (c) 50 db LAeq between 7.00am 7.00pm; 45 db LAeq between 7.00pm 10.00pm; and 40 db LAeq and 70dB LAmax 10.00pm 7.00am. 20. In my opinion, these noise limits are appropriate and provide a good degree of residential amenity adjacent to a commercial/retail activity. 21. The District Plan also stipulates the use of New Zealand Standard NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics Construction Noise, and that Standard s recommended upper limits for construction noise received in residential zones _1.doc Page 4

6 22. I also consider this to be an appropriate standard for balancing the noise of construction, its limited duration, and residential amenity. THE PROPOSAL Operational Noise 23. Section 4.0 of the MDA Acoustic Report provides the predicted level of sound emissions from the proposed development to the nearby residential receivers. 24. The receivers considered have been chosen to represent those potentially affected by all noise sources associated with the proposed development and are generally located in the immediate vicinity of the site. 25. Four properties have provided written approval for the development and are not considered in the noise assessment, namely: (b) (c) (d) 24 Te Arahori Street (The Settlers Motel); 13 Te Arahori Street; 11 Te Arahori Street; and 9 Te Arahori Street. 26. The operational site sound emissions have been predicted based on the contribution from each of the following sources: (b) (c) Service station, QSR and Parklands Motor Lodge customer vehicle movements (light and heavy vehicles); and Mechanical services; and A refrigeration plant. 27. The numbers of vehicles assumed in the assessment is detailed in section 4.1 of the MDA Acoustic Report. The vehicle numbers are based upon information provided by Traffic Design Group. The predicted sound levels based on the vehicle numbers assume: (b) 70% of the traffic will use the SH1 slip lane; The sound power level assumed for heavy vehicles traveling at a speed not exceeding 15km/hr is 106 db LAeq; and _1.doc Page 5

7 (c) The sound power level assumed for vehicles traveling at a speed of 15km/hr is 86 db LAeq. 28. I have assumed in my prediction that mechanical services, such as air conditioning, will be mounted on the roofs of the buildings. 29. The calculation of site sound emissions considers acoustic screening which will be provided by: (b) (c) The retained Parklands Motor Lodge buildings; A 1.8m high barrier which will be constructed around the boundary of the site, where the site boundary is adjacent a Residential Zone (where any existing boundary fence is not acoustically acceptable); and A 2.5m high barrier along the boundary dividing 11 and 13 Te Arahori Street from 9 Te Arahori Street. 30. No acoustic barrier is proposed between the site 11 & 13 Te Arahori Street however, the existing fence will remain. 31. It is understood that some of the written approvals include an agreement with Holmes Corporate Trustee Ltd to provide an acoustic barrier. These barriers are also accounted for in my calculations and are described in the figures in the MDA Acoustic Report. 32. Screening of the service station from the Parklands Motor Lodge is also considered via the proposed earth bunds (shown bright green in Figure 2 of the MDA Acoustic Report). This screening is provided primarily for the benefit of the Parklands Motor Lodge units. 33. The site sound emissions have been calculated at the boundary of each property, in accordance with the New Zealand Standard NZS 6801:1999 Acoustics Measurement of Environmental Sound and NZS 6802:1991 Assessment of Environmental Sound as defined in the District Plan. 34. I note that the New Zealand Standard NZS 6802:1991 Assessment of Environmental Sound, allows for averaging of sound levels during the day-time period provided that the level during any one interval does not exceed the noise limit by more than 5 decibels _1.doc Page 6

8 35. The sound emissions from on-site vehicle movements associated with the proposed development, at the receiver locations described in the MDA Acoustic Report, are calculated to range between: (b) (c) db L Aeq averaged over the daytime period, and db L Aeq during the busiest 15 minute period; db L Aeq averaged over the evening period, and db L Aeq during the busiest 15 minute period; and db L Aeq during the busiest 15 minute period in the night time. 36. The predicted levels from on-site vehicle movements all comply with the District Plan noise limits for all potentially affected receivers in all of the prescribed time periods. Therefore, it is my opinion that the proposed activity should be considered permitted with respect to noise. 37. The detailed design of the mechanical services for the service station and QSR has not yet been undertaken. This is typical at this stage for a development of this nature. 38. Mechanical services are likely be limited to building air conditioning, refrigeration and kitchen extraction fans. 39. I have assumed that the services utilities will operate both day and night, and therefore I recommend they are designed to achieve the night-time limits as this is the most stringent criteria. 40. It is my experience that with appropriately designed attenuation, such as barriers and silencers, it is practicable to design and locate the mechanical plant such that it generates a level of sound low enough to ensure the cumulative sound level (from on-site vehicles and mechanical plant) complies with the District Plan limits during the most stringent night-time period. 41. I have been involved in a number of supermarket designs where the plant platform is located closer to the boundary with a similarly stringent noise limit. I am therefore confident, that the mechanical plant can be designed to ensure overall site compliance with the District Plan noise limits is achieved at all times _1.doc Page 7

9 42. It is common to include a condition of consent, should consent be granted, that requires a suitably qualified and experienced acoustic consultant to review the proposed mechanical services equipment and certify that the noise emission from that equipment has been adequately attenuated to ensure compliance with the relevant noise limits at all times. 43. In summary, with respect to operational noise, the predicted sound levels from site vehicle movements and mechanical services (mitigated to 30 db LAeq or less at the nearest affected receivers) are calculated to comply with the District Plan noise performance standard at all receiver locations during the daytime, evening and night-time periods. Construction Noise 44. I have considered noise from conventional construction methods operating within normal operating hours and found they can readily comply with the NZS 6803:1999 recommended noise limits between 7:30 am and 6:00 pm Monday to Saturday, with no construction on Sunday unless supported by a Construction Noise Management Plan (CNMP). 45. I consider that general compliance with the criteria of the NZS 6803:1999 is an adequate control of construction noise effects. Further, the sound levels from construction can be effectively managed by the imposition of conditions on any resource consent granted. 46. Based on the predicted sound levels from construction activities, which consider the site separation distances to receivers, conventional construction methods operating within normal operating hours can comply with these noise limits for most activities. Vibration 47. I did not address potential vibration effects in the MDA Acoustic Report. However, Taupō District Council requested an assessment of potential effects of vibration via a section 92 RMA request for further information. 48. In my experience the vibration effect of truck movements across a curb dropdown is insignificant to the extent that neither myself, nor colleagues within MDA, _1.doc Page 8

10 have never found this to be an issue from any of the numerous developments of a similar nature (such as supermarkets, retail developments, fast food outlets, and other service stations). 49. As a frame of reference, other colleagues within MDA have previously measured compliance with Class A of NS at a dwelling within 20m of heavy vehicles traversing a speed table at km/h. Class A is considered to represent high quality amenity under the standard, whereas Class C is generally adopted as acceptable for general amenity. The speed at which a heavy vehicle is likely to traverse the curb drop-down is anticipated to be less than km/h, and the height differential to the road, and the gradient of a curb drop-down is much less than that of a speed table. 50. The closest potentially affected dwelling is approximately 75m from the site cross-over. Given the significantly larger distance than the example given above, I consider that potential vibration caused by trucks using the cross-over will be insignificant. SUBMISSIONS 51. I have read the submissions pertaining to noise. A total of eleven submissions have general and/or specific concerns. I have grouped together common concerns and comment on these collectively. I also comment on submitterspecific matters raised. Submissions on adverse effects of noise 52. Most of the submissions pertaining to noise express concern that the proposed activity will result in adverse noise effects 53. In my evidence above, I state that my predictions show that the activity would comply with the District Plan noise limits. Therefore, the noise would be controlled to an appropriate level and the activity should be considered permitted with respect to noise. 1 Norwegian Standard NS 8176.E:2005 Vibration and Shock Measurement of vibration in buildings from landbased transport and guidance to evaluation of its effects on human beings _1.doc Page 9

11 54. In my evidence above, I also state that the predicted level from operational activity will be at or below the existing measured ambient sound levels. Submissions on fence detail and adequacy 55. Two submissions refer to the details and effectiveness of the acoustic screening. 56. I have appended a table to my evidence (refer to Appendix A ) which lists some common constructions. The specific details of the acoustic barriers will be prepared by the applicant s architect. 57. I note that an acoustic barrier in layman s terms is simply a well designed and constructed fence which has certain physical attributes which enable it to reduce the propagation of sound. An acoustic barrier works by forcing sound to travel a greater distance to reach a given location and by simply blocking part of the sound from propagating in a given direction. For a barrier to be effective it must be free from holes and gaps, including at its base. It also must have a minimum surface density performance to adequately reduce the sound passing through the barrier material. 58. It is my opinion that where the site boundary fence is constructed in accordance with the table in Appendix A of this evidence, that it will function as an adequate acoustic barrier. 59. It is common that a condition of consent be imposed, requiring that the barrier be certified by an suitably qualified and experienced acoustic consultant prior to building consent being issued by Council. Submission on frequency spectrum of noise sources 60. I can confirm that the basis of my calculations includes consideration of the frequency spectrum of proposed activity noise sources. I can confirm that this has been considered in deriving the predicted noise level in accordance with NZS6802: _1.doc Page 10

12 Submission on vibration 61. In my evidence above, I paraphrase my response pertaining to potential vibration effects. I also state that I consider that potential effects caused by vibration from trucks will be insignificant. Submission on refrigeration on vehicles 62. In calculating the site sound emissions, it is assumed that all heavy goods vehicles are refrigerated units. 63. I consider this is a suitably conservative approach as reliable information on the proportion on refrigerated units is not readily available. Submission on people talking / yelling 64. I note that in the Noise Report I did not predict noise from people talking because I consider the act of talking in a Residential Zone to be a permitted activity. 65. Regarding anti-social behaviour such as yelling, I consider this is best addressed via an Operational Noise Management Plan which will typically include signage requesting that as a courtesy to neighbours no music is to be played within the forecourt and car park area during night time. I also note that there is provision for a review to require the use of security guards. Submission on rubbish collection 66. I consider the mitigation of noise associated with waste collection can be achieved through a condition of consent stipulating that waste collection can only occur during the daytime period between 7.00am 7.00pm Submission on adverse noise effects on operation of Settlers Motel 67. The calculated level of site sound emissions at 24 Te Arahori Street are: 33 db L Aeq averaged over the daytime period, and 44 db L Aeq during the busiest 15 minute period; _1.doc Page 11

13 (b) (c) 33 db L Aeq averaged over the evening period, and 44 db L Aeq during the busiest 15 minute period; and 42 db L Aeq during the busiest 15 minute period in the night-time. 68. The existing ambient sound levels measured during the night-time noise survey at 24 Te Arahori Street ranged between dba LAeq (15 minutes) with a period Average of 53 db LAeq (9 hours). 69. I consider that, given the calculated level of site sound emissions in the busiest 15 minutes (in any time period) is significantly less than the existing ambient sound level (such that the proposed activity will be barely audible), the site sound emissions are no more than minor in the context of existing ambient noise. Submission on the impact on quality of sleep for guests / managers of Settlers Motel 70. I consider that the level of site sound emissions is not likely to cause an impact upon sleep for the occupants of the motel. 71. The predicted level of sound at the boundary of 24 Te Arahori Street is 44 db L Aeq, therefore the level of sound incident upon the building envelope will be no greater than 44 db L Aeq. 72. I refer to the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2107:2016 Acoustics - Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors which recommends sound levels of 35 to 40 db L Aeq inside motels near major roads. 73. In my experience, a building with windows partially open for ventilation provides a sound level reduction of approximately 15 decibels, which suggests a noise level of up to 55 decibels outside is acceptable under the guidance of AS/NZS The predicted noise level outside the manager s window of 44dB L Aeq is significantly below the guidance of up to 55dB L Aeq provided by AS/NZS2107. Furthermore, an external noise level of 44dB L Aeq suggests an internal noise level of around 29dB L Aeq which is well below the AS/NZS2107 limit of 40dB L Aeq _1.doc Page 12

14 75. I therefore consider that the internal sound level within the bedrooms of the motel will be comfortably compliant with the recommended levels in AS2107 and would provide a reasonable amenity for sleep. OFFICER S REPORT AND CONSENT CONDITIONS 76. I have read the Officer s Report (released 7 August 2018) and note it concludes that: adverse effects associated with exceeding the noise limits and the associated noise nuisance effects of the overall proposed development will be limited to those immediately adjoining properties on Te Arahori Street; (b) given written approval has been obtained from the landowners/ occupiers of 9, 11 and 13 Te Arahori Street, and occupier of 24 Te Arahori Street, the effects on them cannot be considered; (c) there are adverse effects associated with exceeding the noise limits and the associated noise nuisance effects on the landowner of 24 Te Arahori Street (who has not provided written approval) as the predicted level of site sound emissions, with the proposed acoustic fence on the boundary, exceed the District Plan Noise night-time limits; and (d) without having the information on the acoustic fence and potential mitigation, the extent of the effects upon the landowner of 24 Te Arahori Street cannot be determined. 77. I address the primary point of the conclusions- the noise effects upon the landowner of 24 Te Arahori Street. 78. In my evidence above, I have responded to two submission points from the landowner of 24 Te Arahori Street pertaining to the noise effects and its impact on the quality of sleep. In summary, I consider that with the proposed acoustic fence, in the context of the existing environment, the effect of the site sound emissions would be no more than minor and that the internal sound level within the bedrooms of the motel will be compliant with the recommended levels in AS2107 and would provide a reasonable amenity for sleep _1.doc Page 13

15 79. The proposed barrier is calculated to provide a reduction of 5 decibels. Therefore, without the barrier the predicted sound levels at 24 Te Arahori Street would increase by 5 decibels to: 38 db L Aeq averaged over the daytime period, and 49 db L Aeq during the busiest 15 minute period; (b) 38dB L Aeq averaged over the daytime period, and 49 db L Aeq during the busiest 15 minute period; and (c) 47 db L Aeq during the busiest 15 minute period in the night-time. 80. The predicted sound levels without the proposed acoustic fence show that the activity would comply with the Taupo District Plan daytime and evening noise limits are therefore be controlled to an appropriate level and the activity should be considered permitted with respect to noise in these periods. 81. The predicted sound levels without the proposed acoustic fence show that the activity would exceed the Taupo District Plan night-time noise limit by 7 decibels. 82. I establish in my evidence above that the existing ambient sound levels measured during the night-time noise survey at 24 Te Arahori Street ranged dba LAeq (15 mins) with a period Average of 53 db LAeq (9 hrs). 83. I consider that given the calculated level of site sound emissions in the busiest 15 minutes, in any time period, is less than the existing ambient sound level and by an amount such that the proposed activity will be occasionally audible. The site sound emissions are considered no more than minor in the context of existing ambient noise. 84. I will address separately each source of noise nuisance effects on the land owner of 24 Te Arahori Street identified. 85. I consider that noise from braking, accelerating, decelerating vehicles as they enter and exit the application site and travel along Te Arahori Street will have no appreciable noise effect. Traffic volumes would not change as a result of the establishment of the service station. The implementation of the roundabout may result in changes in noise environment due to increased breaking and acceleration on SH1 when approaching or leaving the roundabout. In my experience, this change would generally add approximately 1-2 decibels, a subjectively imperceptible amount, to the overall noise level generated by traffic _1.doc Page 14

16 on the road. However, no change in character of the noise is anticipated at the Te Arahori Street/ SH1 intersection approach. 86. I disagree that the noise of engines is a nuisance in the context of the application site and the existing noise environment. Engine noise is a component of existing traffic. Further, the predicted site sound emissions from vehicles includes engines and has been calculated to be no more than minor at 24 Te Arahori Street. 87. I consider that noise within the application site from stereos and general noise of people talking within the parking areas is best addressed with an operational noise management plan as discussed in my response to submissions in my evidence above. 88. I consider that noise within the application site from doors slamming will comply with the requirements of the Taupo District Plans night-time 70 L max noise limit CONCLUSION 89. In my opinion, with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, to be included in the Conditions of Consent, the proposed activities will comply with the Residential Zone noise limits. 90. The acoustic amenity of the surrounding community will not be adversely affected and that noise from the operation of the site can and will be appropriately controlled. James Bell-Booth 15 August _1.doc Page 15

17 Appendix A Acoustic Barrier Construction Options

18