IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF JOHN MICHAEL BURGESS ON BEHALF OF SERENITY RETREAT LIMITED

Transcription

1 1 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of a land use consent application by Serenity Retreat Limited to establish and operate a travellers accommodation and conference/wedding facility at 206A Silverstream Falls ROW, Tairua Hill. STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF JOHN MICHAEL BURGESS ON BEHALF OF SERENITY RETREAT LIMITED INTRODUCTION 1. My name is John Michael Burgess and I have been a director of Traffic Planning Consultants Ltd, a company which I founded, for the past 26 years. For 13 years I was an Associate and Senior Traffic Planner with Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd, Consulting Engineers in Auckland, responsible for traffic planning work undertaken by the company, and prior to that I was a traffic engineer in local government in the UK. I have a Bachelor of Engineering degree, and I am a Chartered Engineer, a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers and a member of the Institute of Professional Engineers of New Zealand. 2. I appear in support of its application for land use consent to establish and operate a travellers accommodation and conference/wedding facility at 206A Silverstream Falls ROW, Tairua Hill. As background, I was involved in the original Silverstream Falls subdivision in 2005, including the upgrading of the main access on State Highway 25, and so I am generally familiar with the overall subdivision and the access road that now serves the various lots. I also prepared the Traffic Planning Report that accompanied the current application I confirm that, in preparing this statement of evidence, I have read the Environment Court s Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses and agree to comply with it. I also confirm that I have not omitted to consider any material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed in my evidence, and that the issues I address are within my area of expertise. 1 Proposed Travellers Accommodation and Conference/Wedding Facility, Lot 17-DP401573, Silverstream, Tairua Traffic Planning Assessment Ref: r1v3, 29 July 2013

2 2 THE PROPOSAL 4. The location of the proposed development within the Silverstream subdivision is shown in Figure 1. Lot 17 is located towards the end of the main subdivision driveway, which runs from its intersection with State Highway 25 (SH25) at the northern end through the subdivision towards the south. There is a total of 34 lots within the subdivision, but only two lots gain access to the driveway beyond the access to Lot 17. Figure 1 Site Location 5. The proposed layout of the site is shown in Figure It is proposed to construct and operate 14 travellers' accommodation units, spread mainly over the western part of Lot 17 (shown in Figure 2 below). Most will be two-bedroom units with no kitchen facilities, with visitors using a central dining facility for meals. In addition, there will be a function facility that will accommodate weddings and other group activities such as team building, business retreats, family reunions, etc. The facility will accommodate up to a maximum of 120 persons, plus staff. It is proposed to restrict the number of weddings to 24 per year, and the applicant now proposes to add a further limitation of only 12 of those weddings accommodating up to 120 persons and 12 being limited to a maximum of 80 persons. It is anticipated that the general hours of operation will be 7.30am to 12 midnight on Thursday to Sunday, including public holidays, and 7.30am to 10 pm on Monday to Wednesday.

3 Statement of Evidence of John Burgess 3 Figure 2 Proposed Site layout 7. A car parking area is included adjacent to the central building, together with a drop-off area. The applicant's plan show 26 parking spaces in this area, together with a minibus drop-off bay and turning area. Alongside 13 of the accommodation units there will be parking for two cars (26 spaces), which equates to a total on-site parking provision of 52 spaces. 8. Access to the facility will be along the main driveway from SH25, then via a short length of existing right of way (known as Red Rock Drive), followed by an internal driveway that provides access to the central facility and to the various accommodation units. I will discuss access in more detail later in my evidence. TRAFFIC GENERATION AND PARKING 9. The level of traffic generation that will occur as a result of the proposed development will clearly vary considerably from day to day, depending on the activity or function that is occurring. Theoretically, the worst case scenario will occur when a wedding or similar function is being held for the maximum 120 people, and all visitors arrive by private vehicle. At that time the accommodation units will be occupied only by persons attending the function and so will not

4 4 contribute any additional vehicle activity over and above the main activity. At an average occupancy rate of say 2 persons/vehicle, the total vehicle movements to and from the site would equate to 120 vehicles/day, plus staff vehicle movements. 10. It is however proposed that a minibus will be provided to transport at least some of the guests from Tairua and other surrounding places, which will reduce the total vehicle movements to and from the site. If 50% of the guests arrive by private vehicle, total vehicle movements to and from the site will be 60 vehicles/day (at 2 persons/car), plus minibus and staff vehicle movements. 11. During all other times when a wedding or other major function is not occurring, and when only the 14 accommodation units are being used, traffic volumes will be much lower. Based on a typical generation rate of 3 vehicles/day for casual accommodation, the daily traffic generation of the proposal would be 42 vehicles/day, plus some staff movements. This assumes 100% occupancy and for much of the time vehicle flows will be considerably lower. 12. Based on these traffic generation predictions, parking demand during the busiest events (120 persons) can be expected to be in the order of 30 spaces if 50% of the visitors arrive by minibus, and 60 spaces if no minibuses are used. In reality the peak demand is likely to lie somewhere between these two numbers. At most other times, parking demand will be much lower. 13. The on-site parking shown on the applicant's plan includes 26 spaces in the central area and two spaces at 13 of the accommodation units, or 52 spaces in total. Given that the accommodation units will be occupied only by attendees of the function on occasions when a large function occurs, the proposed on-site parking should be adequate to meet all peak demand, and there will be no spill-over effects beyond the site. SITE ACCESS DRIVEWAYS 14. Section 7 of the District Plan sets out the rules applicable to subdivision, including Rule Private Ways which states the following: 1. Maximum number of lots served - there is no limit to the number of lots which may be served by a private way, provided that where more than the specified number of lots to be served as set out in the subdivision standards for the respective zones (see Sections ), the road design and construction standards in Section and shall apply. The private way shall take on the classification of "local road" for the purpose of applying these standards. 15. For Rural zones, Rule 754 Vehicle Access states the following:

5 5.2 Private ways serving up to four lots 2.1 minimum legal width: 6m 2.2 minimum carriageway width: 3.5m 2.3 maximum gradient: 1 in passing bays 1 per 100m or bend.3 Private ways serving more than four lots Section (Road Design Standards) and Section (Road Construction Standards) shall apply. 16. Rule Road Design Standards, Terms and Conditions includes Table 2 Rural Roading Standards which sets out the roading standards for different classifications of roads and various traffic volumes. For a Local Road, the minimum carriageway width is 5.5m when carrying less than 50 vpd, 6.0m when carrying vpd, and 7.0m when carrying more than 300 vpd. As I described earlier, the predicted traffic flows that will be generated by the proposed activities are likely to be in the vpd range during the busiest events, and so a carriageway width of 6.0 metres is appropriate to meet the District Plan standards. 17. The main driveway from the SH25 intersection has been constructed to accommodate two-way traffic flow, up to a point some 300 metres short of the Red Rock Drive right of way and the proposed access to Lot 17. Between this point and SH25, it has a carriageway width that is generally about 6 metres or more, and I conclude that the existing driveway is already adequate and appropriate to carry all expected vehicle movements from both the proposed activities and the remaining residential lots. 18. Over the last 300 metres up to the access to Lot 17, the existing carriageway width is in the order of m in width, and will need to be widened to meet the above standards. In Figure 3 I have indicated the length of existing driveway over which widening will be required to achieve a 6 metre wide carriageway (between points A and B). Beyond the entry to Lot 17, the existing carriageway is about 3 metres in width, and this will remain appropriate and sufficient to serve the two lots that gain access to the driveway beyond this point. 19. The existing driveway is shown in Figures 4, 5 and 6.

6 6 Figure 3 Length of existing driveway that will require widening Figure 4 Looking south from the 6m driveway towards Point A

7 7 Figure 5 Looking east along narrow section of driveway Figure 6 Looking south from Point B, Lot 17 access on left 20. With this widening in place, I consider that the driveway that runs between Lot 17 and the main SH25 intersection will be able to accommodate additional traffic flows generated by the proposed activities. Clearly existing traffic flows will increase significantly at times when the proposed facility is being used, but the existing driveway will be able to accommodate the traffic movements with less than minor effect on its continuing safe and efficient operation.

8 8 21. Within the site itself, the proposed driveway between the entry to Lot 17 and the central parking area should be constructed to accommodate two-way traffic flow, with a width of 6 metres to comply with the District plan standard. I consider however that the driveways that serve the accommodation units can be constructed to a width of 3.5 metres, provided passing bays are constructed at any points where forward visibility is restricted. STATE HIGHWAY 25 INTERSECTION 22. The existing intersection with SH25 is shown in Figures 7 and 8. Figure 7 SH25 intersection looking to the south Figure 8 SH25 intersection looking to the north

9 9 23. At the time of establishing the Silverstream subdivision, I undertook extensive consultation with the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to ensure that the appropriate standard of access was established to enable NZTA to grant its approval to the subdivision. In terms of NZTA's Planning Policy Manual, the existing access was established on the basis that the potential traffic flows to and from the site at this point were likely to exceed the threshold of 100 ecm/day (equivalent car movements per day), beyond which simple localised road widening becomes insufficient. This resulted in extensive widening of the road to enable the provision of a painted flush median and right turn pocket along the centre of the road, together with a deceleration splay to enable vehicles slowing to make a left turn into the site to pull clear of following northbound traffic. 24. The overall outcome is that the existing intersection is appropriate for accommodating well in excess of 100 ecm/day, and I conclude that no further upgrading of the intersection is necessary in relation to the proposed development and activity. I understand that NZTA agrees with this conclusion. Beyond the immediate vicinity of the site, the additional traffic flows will have less than a minor impact on the traffic environment. SUBMISSIONS 25. I have read the various submissions received by the Council in response to this application. Aside from the aspects of increased noise, which I will leave to the noise consultant to address, the submissions include general concerns of increased traffic, roading and safety issues. As I have set out in my evidence, my conclusion is that the driveway between SH25 and Lot 17 (with appropriate widening to fully meet the Council s standards as set out in the District Plan) is able to accommodate the likely additional traffic with less than minor impact on its continuing safe and efficient operation. COUNCIL REPORT AND DRAFT CONDITIONS OF CONSENT 26. I have also read the Council s Report, which recommends that consent should be granted, subject to certain conditions. In particular, the report notes that the Council s Development Engineer has confirmed that the roading aspect of the proposed development required no further work in order for the proposed development to proceed, and that all right of ways will need to be formed in line with rural standards contained in the Council s Engineering Code of Practice. 27. In this regard, draft conditions 9 to 11 deal with Access, Traffic and Parking, including the requirement to widen the existing driveway as recommended in my assessment and in line with the standards required in the Council s Code of Practice. I agree with these proposed conditions.

10 10 CONCLUSIONS 28. Overall, with the appropriate widening of the length of the existing driveway identified in my traffic assessment, in line with the Council s rural roading standards, I conclude that the proposed development and activity will be acceptable from a traffic planning point of view, and will have less than a minor effect on the immediate and wider traffic environments. The Council s Development Engineer clearly supports that conclusion. John Burgess 27 April 2016