Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment Applicants' Response to Comments Received 5 March 2021 - EPA NZ
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment Resource Consent Applications under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 Applicants’ Response to Comments Received 5 March 2021
Under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020
Port Marlborough New Zealand Limited
Applicant
and
KiwiRail Holdings Limited
Applicant
and
Marlborough District Council
Applicant
Response to Comments Received
5 March 2021
1INTRODUCTION
1. The following document addresses comments made in respect of the
applications for resource consents relating to the Waitohi Picton Ferry
Precinct Redevelopment (Project), a “listed project” described in
Schedule 2 of the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act
2020 (the CRA).
2. The Project is a joint initiative between Port Marlborough New Zealand
Limited (PMNZ) and KiwiRail Holdings Limited (KiwiRail) alongside the
Marlborough District Council (MDC) and these parties (together, the
Applicants) provide a response to the comments supplied to the
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) on behalf of the Expert
Consenting Panel (Panel) as provided for under clause 19 of Schedule
6 of the CRA.
3. The Applicants welcome the comments received and appreciate the
time and effort taken by submitters to provide comments on the
resource consent applications relating to the Project.
4. The table attached to the end of this document sets out the Applicants’
response to each of the comments received. The Applicants
appreciate the opportunity to provide a response to these comments for
the Panel’s consideration.
Dated 5 March 2021
1Table 1: Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment Comments Received by EPA – Dated 5 March 2021
Date Received Name and Organisation (if relevant) Summary of Comment Received (to provide context only; full comment should be referred to) Applicants’ Response
12 February 2021 Gary Knofflock I am happy for this to be fast tracked. Noted.
Silver Developments Limited
15 February 2021 Bruce Kilgour Concerns around the roading network and Railway lines – does not agree with proposed The proposed cul-de-sac for Broadway is to enable safe and efficient rail operations and
Dublin/Broadway street layout. If the rail way lines remain level from Dublin St to beyond the Waitohi improve safety and efficiency of the Wairau / Auckland St intersection.
Sounds Kitchens
bridge that a second underpass could be established, leaving Picton Roading system with no train
The Dublin St overbridge will provide for east-west connectivity.
crossing. The proposed fast track new layout cut off broadways which cuts an important and busy
connection road from business and residents to town. Dublin St holds up are due to the Auckland St We understand Waka Kotahi and MDC are considering upgrading the Auckland St / Dublin St
interception not trains, the Waitohi Bridge hold ups are caused by trains. Broadway St is the only intersection to address capacity issues under a separate project.
alternative crossing to town when the others are blocked. The proposed route from Broadway to
Market street is going to add frustration and congestion onto local streets instead of improving them.
16 February 2021 Jamie Jacobs The conservation and protection of the Picton Railway Station and the Edwin Fox Hull and Anchor The proposed amendments to conditions 1.3(d) and 2.6 are not accepted for the reasons set
Windlass are not adequately addressed in the proposed conditions for the consent. Therefore, HNZPT out below.
Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga
has recommendations and suggested amendments relating to these built heritage places, as well as the
proposed conditions relating to archaeology.
Recommendations and proposed condition amendments:
Condition 1.3 (d) amendment:
The consent holder shall convene a Design Forum, which shall include a representative from each of
KiwiRail and Port Marlborough, up to two iwi representatives, including at least one nominated by Te
Ᾱtiawa, one representative from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, and one independent design
expert engaged by the consent holder.
Condition 2.6 amendment, additional clauses after (d):
Set out heritage conservation and temporary protection measures for the building and structures which
comprise Picton Railway Station and the Edwin Fox Hull and Anchor Windlass, and implementation and
monitoring plans, as directed by a Heritage Conservation Management Plan for the project created by a
conservation architect;
1. Picton Railway Station The Picton Railway Station is not affected by the works that are authorised by the consents
that are the subject of the applications before the Panel. Railway station platform works are
Picton Railway Station is entered on HNZPT’s New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero (the List) as a
proposed as part of the Project. These works are within the KiwiRail designation and will be
Category 2 historic place (List No.5392). The extent of HNZPT’s listing includes the station building,
managed via an outline plan which has been approved by MDC. Potential effects on the
platform and canopy.
heritage values of the railway station are properly addressed as part of that process.
It is also included in the Marlborough District Council Environment Plan’s (MDC) schedule of significant
Further, the Picton Railway Station Heritage Effects Assessment (dated 20 October 2020)
heritage resources. The station building has been recognised as a notable building on the New Zealand
assesses heritage effects of the proposed platform changes on the Railway Station heritage
Rail Heritage Trust of New Zealand’s register of rail heritage items.
values. This report was provided to MDC as part of the outline plan addressing works in
Picton Railway Station has heritage value because it represented an economically and socially KiwiRail’s designation. This outline plan was accepted by MDC.
important transport asset and is a fine example of a New Zealand railway station of its era. It also has
The Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment at Appendix X identified the railway station
landmark values in its location near the Cook Strait ferry terminal and northern terminus of the South
and addressed vibration risk in Section 4.2. It states:
Island section of State Highway 1.
“The following nearby historic places were identified but disregarded as follows:
Project impacts and considerations
• Picton Railway Station: Heritage attributes are not vibration sensitive, noting that
It was not initially clear from the application documents whether the work specifically relating to the proposed rail yard works would generate similar levels to rail activity and regular
railway station was included in this set of applications. It now appears that the additions to the railway track maintenance.
station will be covered by an Outline Plan of Works under the existing designation.
EPA Comments Received 1Date Received Name and Organisation (if relevant) Summary of Comment Received (to provide context only; full comment should be referred to) Applicants’ Response
HNZPT was provided some information, prior to this application, about potential heritage impacts of the There is therefore no proper basis for the request that a Conservation Management Plan be
proposed project on the Station. HNZPT received a draft Heritage Effects Assessment (WSP, 29 May prepared to address potential effects on this structure. Further, in respect of the railway
2020) as part of this pre-application consultation. HNZPT has been unable to locate this report, or station, the station is privately owned and is not under the control of the Applicants. The
similar heritage assessment/s, in the project documents. As such, HNZPT recommends that the report, consent holder may not be in a position to implement this condition in any case.
or updated version, should be made available to the panel to assist in the decision-making process.
Therefore, we consider the amended condition 2.6(d) would be ultra vires.
However, the project documentation shows the proposed work adjacent to the railway station (that is
Condition 1.3(d) relates to a Design Forum. The purpose of this forum is not to address the
covered by this application) would have an impact on the Station (Appendix Ca part 1), in particular
railway station – it is to guide inputs into the design of elements that are the subject of the
potential effects from vibration and dust. As well as adjacent site works, a 12m section of existing
applications before the Panel.
platform would need to be demolished to incorporate the new platform extension. The demolition and
construction of a new canopy on the lengthened platform may have direct effects on the railway station It is further noted that a key positive effect of the Project from a heritage perspective is that the
not covered by a designation (e.g. dust). proposed upgrade to the platform will ensure the railway station remains fit for purpose and
can continue to be used.
It is important that any proposed railway platform additions/extensions and new canopy are compatible
with the character and historic values of the existing historic features. In particular, the new canopy Refer response immediately below for more detail regarding the assessment and
should be of a similar scale, materials and form to maintain compatibility with the existing station management of noise and vibration on heritage buildings and structures.
building, canopy and platform’s heritage values. Our understanding is that this will be dealt with through
the OPW process.
HNZPT has previously recommended that a heritage conservation plan be prepared to guide any
potential works at Picton Railway Station. HNZPT has not seen detailed plans for the proposed works
within the extent of the Picton Railway Station list entry and recommends early and on-going
engagement between the applicant/s and HNZPT about any proposed changes.
The project documents indicate the building immediately north of the station building is to be
demolished/removed as part of the proposed redevelopment. This building does not appear to be
included in the extent of the Picton Railway Station list entry and HNZPT has no comment to make
regarding its removal at this time.
2. Edwin Fox Hull and Anchor Windlass It is not anticipated that there will be any material adverse effects on the Edwin Fox Hull and
Anchor Windlass.
The Edwin Fox Hull and Anchor Windlass is entered on the List as a Category 1 historic place (List
No.7450) and is a MDC scheduled heritage resource. The construction noise and vibration technical assessment undertaken by Marshall Day
Acoustics dated 30 November 2020, and appended to the application as Appendix X has
The Edwin Fox (constructed 1853) has national and international significance as one of the oldest ships
assessed whether there will be noise and vibration effects on the Edwin Fox Hull and Anchor
remaining in the world. The vessel has immense historic value for her involvement in events that
Windlass features. This report notes that the Edwin Fox is clearly a vibration sensitive
shaped the history of England, Australia and New Zealand, including use during the Crimean War and
structure. The vibration threshold routinely applied in New Zealand to historic/vibration
being the most intact remaining ship that carried convicts to Australia and immigrant settlers to New
sensitive structures is 2.5mm/s PPV1, which is highly conservative and ensures avoidance of
Zealand.
cosmetic/superficial damage.
Project impacts and considerations
The Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment addressed vibration risk in Section 4.2. It
The proposed works do not appear to directly affect the Edwin Fox site. However construction activities states:
will be undertaken in close proximity to this site, which is not fully enclosed. Care needs to be taken
“The following nearby historic places were identified but disregarded as follows:
when working in the vicinity of the Edwin Fox Hull and Windlass to avoid any adverse effects on this
significant historic place, such as vibration and dust. - ~
In the consultation document (p.17 of Appendix Q) it is noted that project staff have met with - Edwin Fox: This historic vessel is housed between the museum and cinema. The
vessel is a significant distance from the main piling and rail yard works, across a
representatives of the Museum and the Marlborough Heritage Trust in early July 2020, and that further car park. Vibration from car park resurfacing and maintenance would be a low
engagement is planned. This on-going engagement and consultation is encouraged. HNZPT would also risk residual concern."
appreciate the opportunity to be included in any consultation with regard to the Edwin Fox Hull and
Windlass.
1
Long-term vibration limit from DIN 4150-3:1999 “Structural Vibration - Effects of Vibration on Structures”
EPA Comments Received 2Date Received Name and Organisation (if relevant) Summary of Comment Received (to provide context only; full comment should be referred to) Applicants’ Response
In addition, section 8.0 of the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan sets out
requirements to undertake monitoring at the commencement of activities that generate high
noise and/or vibration levels. The purpose is to validate the predicted levels in Section 5.0.
Short term attended monitoring will also be undertaken in responses to a reasonable
complaint (Section 7.3).
The Applicants are committed to ongoing communication during construction. The draft
Construction Management Plan notes that a Project Communications Plan is to be developed
and implemented by the client stakeholder team and construction team to establish the
Project communications channels and protocols for the wider Project. This will include iwi,
interested parties, the community and residents, and covers all aspects of public and
stakeholder communication for the life of the Project.
3. Archaeology An Archaeological Authority application is to be lodged with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere
Taonga in the coming weeks.
We note that the project site is in close proximity to the location of Waitohi pā and kainga. Pākehā
occupation of the area, both above and below the high water mark, started in the late 1840s. Therefore, Condition 1.8, which sets out the Accidental Discovery Protocol for the Project, has been
there is potential for both Māori and early colonial archaeological material within the proposed included at the request of Te Ātiawa.
redevelopment area because there is known to have been pre-1900 activity there.
Project impacts and considerations
The application includes an Archaeological Management Plan memorandum (Appendix Z). It is our
understanding that an Archaeological Assessment has been drafted and that an application for an
Archaeological Authority will shortly be made to HNZPT. The process for Archaeological Authority can
run concurrently with the application under the Fast Track legislation. The conditions relating to
archaeology are likely to need amending if an Archaeological Authority is granted to avoid any conflict
with the Authority conditions.
16 February 2021 Sharlene Haycock Concerned regarding the increase in traffic volume if Auckland Street becomes a close (traffic from The effects of the increase in traffic volume on Auckland Street as a result of the Project have
people attending church and the skatepark) been addressed in the Integrated Transport Assessment attached as Appendix L to the
application. This assessment concludes that with the recommended mitigation the
transportation related impacts of the Project will be minor. There are no changes to Auckland
Street proposed as part of this Project.
While it is acknowledged that some individuals will be affected more than others as a result of
traffic from the construction and operation of the Project, these impacts will be localised and
will not significantly affect the ability of the overall transport network to fulfil its function.
While not related to the Project, we understand Waka Kotahi is addressing this intersection as
part of their wider work. We will pass these comments on to Waka Kotahi.
Concerns as to how freedom campers will be deterred/prevented from using the area While the concerns relating to freedom campers are noted, they are outside the scope of the
application before the Panel and primarily relate to parking on-street and in public places. It is
more appropriate for these concerns to be addressed by MDC through its bylaw making
process. These comments will be passed on to MDC to ensure MDC is aware of the
submitter’s concerns.
EPA Comments Received 3Date Received Name and Organisation (if relevant) Summary of Comment Received (to provide context only; full comment should be referred to) Applicants’ Response
17 February Dave Ellwood Regarding Appendix Ca Part 1 Queen Charlotte Drive will remain open to the public, with the possible exception of some
minor brief temporary closures for specific large loads, and with temporary traffic management
Drg 6 indicates a traffic route along Queen Charlotte Drive to the construction site for haulage of spoil
where trucks are regularly turning onto and off the public road. All temporary closures will be
and materials to the lay down areas
advertised prior to the event, approved by the Road Controlling Authority, and will be
How will this effect access to our residence? restricted to off-peak times.
Appendix Vb Draft constriction Traffic Management Plan These activities will be managed via the Construction Traffic Management Plan.
The draft TMP does not identify any particular road closures for this project, we currently run a
business in Blenheim and work from home, unfettered access to and from is required
Please advise of access along Kent to 3256 Queen Charlotte Drive will be unimpeded during the
construction activities as a result of these construction activities?
Basically, how can we know what effect these works will have accessing our residence if there is no
plan or indication of road closures / conditional access etc ?
Appendix X Marshall Day Acoustics Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment Response from Marshall Day Acoustics, Authors of the Construction Noise and
Vibration Assessment and the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan,
We reside in the area marked "E" the closest residence on Figure 1: Map of closest receivers to
appended to the application as Appendices X and Y:
portside works. Due to our location, we are currently subjected to both intermittent high noise and
vibration levels from activities on the hardstand areas and the ferries, in particular, Trucks with Mr Elwood notes that there are no comments on the expected construction noise and vibration
refrigerated trailers ... some are quiet others hum all night levels at receivers in the ‘E’ group in the Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment.
Forklift activities, dragging / moving flatbed around Receiver groups E and D are more than 100m from the works, or are screened from the works
areas by other buildings. We have not assessed these groups in detail because noise levels
The Kaitaki when she docs, ever since the new props she rattles the doors and windows
are predicted to comply with the 70 dB LAeq limit (refer Table 1 of the report), and vibration
I have been in the construction industry for 35+ years, I am very concerned the construction activities levels are predicted to be negligible/imperceptible at this distance. It is important to note that
outlined, specifically piling, will result in excessive noise / vibration levels at our residence noise levels below the 70 dB LAeq limit would still be noticeable at times, but they are
generally acceptable for a long-term construction project. Despite predicted compliance, the
There are no comments on expected noise and vibration levels at "E" in the document, other than
application of the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan will ensure any residual
under "other receivers", please comment
effects are reasonable.
As far as I am aware there has been no base line data acquired from our residence, how can you be
The Port Operations Noise Assessment appended to the application as Appendix AA
sure we will not be affected by excessive levels of noise and vibration during the construction phase
addresses operational noise after the construction phase. Section 4.2 states that the future
and after?
port noise levels (in the year 2035) are predicted to be similar to the current noise levels and
would comply with the relevant port noise limits in the Marlborough Environment Plan. The
Marlborough Environment Plan review process included noise monitoring to validate the port
noise modelling. We also note that a draft Port Noise Management Plan2 has been prepared
and will be finalised and uploaded to PMNZ’s website following the resolution of the
Marlborough Environment Plan review process.
The Applicants are committed to ongoing communication during construction. The draft
Construction Management Plan notes that a Project Communications Plan is to be developed
and implemented by the client stakeholder team and construction team to establish the
Project communications channels and protocols for the wider Project. This will include iwi,
interested parties, the community and residents, and covers all aspects of public and
stakeholder communication for the life of the Project.
2
‘Rp 001 20181371 CMF (Port Noise Management Plan)’, dated 20 December 2018
EPA Comments Received 4Date Received Name and Organisation (if relevant) Summary of Comment Received (to provide context only; full comment should be referred to) Applicants’ Response
19 February 2021 John Reuhman I am in favour of the redevelopment project. Responses to each of the submitters’ specific concerns are set out below.
EcoWorld Aquarium & Wildlife I am generally supportive of the development phase of the project, subject to suitable risk mitigation
Rehabilitation Centre, the EcoWorld measures being implemented.
Science
Specific matters about which I have a concern are those relating to the EcoWorld businesses’ right to a
Heritage and Education Trust and Picton “quiet enjoyment” of its occupancy during the construction phase.
Cinemas and Atawhai Cafe
The concerns are generally grouped into possible detrimental effects and Impact on:
(1) EcoWorld’s animals
(2) EcoWorld’s and Picton Cinemas’ visitors and
(3) EcoWorld’s and Picton Cinemas’ earnings.
Water Quality Ross Sneddon, the Project’s water quality expert has attempted to contact the Aquarium to
discuss this matter, however has not been successful in the time provided. The Applicants
The Aquarium takes and returns up to 25,000 litres of seawater daily from and to Picton harbour
agree to work with the Aquarium to ensure that construction activities do not impinge on the
adjacent to EcoWorld’s site. This is about an 8% seawater transfer per day.
Aquarium’s ability to give effect to its water permit.
The quality and unrestricted access to this seawater is critical to the health and wellbeing of the
animals at EcoWorld Aquarium.
Noise and Vibration Response from Marshall Day Acoustics, Authors of the Construction Noise and
Vibration Assessment and the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan,
EcoWorld’s animals and equipment at the aquarium are sensitive to noise and vibration. Picton
appended to the application as Appendices X and Y:
Cinemas digital projection equipment is particularly sensitive to vibration and although protected by
isolators may be damaged if there is any excessive vibration. Our response has focussed on piling works – other works are predicted to be lower in
noise/vibration levels and shorter in duration.
Picton Cinemas and EcoWorld’s visitors expect quiet enjoyment during their visit.
EcoWorld
The EcoWorld building is approximately 50m from the closest piling works and is partially
shielded by the Maritime Museum building as stated in Table 2 of our Construction Noise and
Vibration Assessment. Noise levels are predicted to be below the 70 dB LAeq limit, but they
would still be noticeable during the closest piling works both outside and inside the building.
We visited the EcoWorld building on 10 December 2019 and noted that the walls appear to be
of relatively solid construction, but the roof was profiled metal with lightweight ceiling tiles.
Based on these constructions, we expect that the façade would provide a reduction of 20
decibels. This means that internal noise levels could be up to 50 dB LAeq inside which is
typically acceptable – i.e. noticeable but not likely to interfere with speech intelligibility.
The outdoor bird breeding area is likely the most affected space. Noise levels are predicted to
be up to 65 dB LAeq during the closest piling as stated in Table 2 of our report. This is
compliant with the noise limit but would be clearly noticeable while the piles are being driven
(around 1 hour per pile). We expect this would be higher than ambient levels typically received
in this area, but note that port activities such as maintenance works, loading/unloading
vessels and machinery operations can generate comparable noise levels.
Vibration may be perceptible at EcoWorld but is predicted to be well below potential building
damage thresholds and at an acceptable level for amenity with prior notification.
Picton Cinema
We also visited the cinema during our site visit on 10 December 2019. We were informed that
the cinemas had isolated walls and ceilings, and therefore we expect that most construction
EPA Comments Received 5Date Received Name and Organisation (if relevant) Summary of Comment Received (to provide context only; full comment should be referred to) Applicants’ Response
works will be inaudible. However, the closest piling and potentially the carpark works may be
audible due to the very low background noise levels in the theatres.
As with EcoWorld, vibration may be perceptible but would be at an acceptable level with prior
notification.
Dust might reduce the quality if the visitor experience. Dust is potentially very damaging to Picton Dust management will be addressed via the Construction Management Plan. The application
Cinemas’ projection equipment. documentation contains a draft Construction Management Plan at Appendix Va. This outlines
a process for minimising dust in accordance with best practice dust control methods and
where significant dust emissions are encountered will ensure that measures are put in place
to deal with and minimise those effects.
The Applicants have not applied for consents in relation to dust emissions from the site, so is
bound to comply with the district plan performance standards. These provide ‘bottom line’
protection in that they cannot cause dust nuisance or noxious or offensive effects beyond the
Project site boundary.
For example, Rule 13.1.52 permits the discharge of dust, subject to the following performance
standard:
Dust. Standard 13.2.8.1.
There must be no objectionable or offensive discharge of dust to the extent that it causes an
adverse effect (including on human health) at or beyond the legal boundary of the site.
Note 1: For the purpose of this performance standard, an offensive or objectionable discharge
of dust is one which can be detected and is considered to be offensive or objectionable by a
Council officer. In determining whether dust is offensive or objectionable, the “FIDOL” factors
must be considered (the frequency; the intensity; the duration; the offensiveness (or
character); and the location). For the purposes of this performance standard, the "site”
comprises all that land owned or controlled by the entity undertaking the activity causing the
dust.
Note 2: This performance standard shall not apply if the discharge of dust is authorised by an
air discharge permit.
Power Supply is required 24/7 to run EcoWorld’s life support systems (pumps, filters, lighting, aircon Noted.
etc.). Power is required to run Picton Cinemas projection equipment, air con and lighting.
Security must be maintained throughout construction.
The Edwin Fox hulk is propped against the side of the Aquarium building. I was told in February 2020 As set out above in response to Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga’s submission, the
that an archaeological architect had assessed that the Edwin Fox structure had deteriorated to the construction noise and vibration technical assessment undertaken by Marshall Day Acoustics
extent that any significant move would result in it falling to pieces. Significant vibration could increase dated 30 November 2020 and appended to the application at Appendix X, has assessed
the risk of the ship collapsing or leaning over more on to the EcoWorld Aquarium building. whether there will be noise and vibration effects on the Edwin Fox Hull and Anchor Windlass
features. This report concludes that the vessel is a significant distance from the main piling
and rail yard works and that vibration from car park resurfacing and maintenance is only a low
risk residual concern.
Monitoring will occur at the commencement of high noise/vibration activities to validate the
predictions in the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan.
EPA Comments Received 6Date Received Name and Organisation (if relevant) Summary of Comment Received (to provide context only; full comment should be referred to) Applicants’ Response
Visitor Flows, as evidenced by other longer period construction developments (Auckland’s Britomart, The draft Construction Management Plan includes a process for communicating with
Christchurch CBD. Gold Coast light rail) etc. visitor flows will be detrimentally affected during interested parties through the implementation of a separate Project Communications Plan.
construction leading to loss in revenue. Dialogue with the community will continue throughout the construction period. The Applicants
are committed to communication with all stakeholders during this construction process.
“Forewarned is forearmed”. Adequate advance notice may assist EcoWorld and Picton Cinemas to
mitigate some adverse effects of some aspects of construction. In the Covid-19 era, with earning
impaired and uncertain it would be preferable to minimise construction effects during public and school
holidays.
As evidenced by other longer period construction developments (Auckland’s Britomart, Christchurch
CBD. Gold Coast light rail) etc. earnings will be detrimentally affected during construction leading to
loss in overall revenue.
19 February 2021 Philippa Waters and Dave Watson Own 3256a Queen Charlotte Drive. Would like to remain informed throughout the process. The Applicants will continue to keep the community informed through regular newsletters and
other methods in accordance with the Project Communications Plan.
19 February Robert Morton All redevelopment’s and construction proposed for Picton must proceed for the town’s future. Along Noted.
with the advent of the new interisland ship and increase in rail freight into the future.
2021
21 February 2021 Carol Dauber 1. Waitohi Stream has significant historical and cultural values, and the mauri and mana of the stream These comments are noted. The consent holder will keep local iwi involved, as per the
must be preserved and taken into consideration in planning the retaining wall and any resulting requirements of the proposed conditions of consent.
Peter Rivers
changes to water flow. We believe local iwi should be involved in any decisions around the stream.
2. Our concerns are for the health of the awa, the fish stocks in it and the wildlife depending on it. The These comments are noted. Ecological effects will be carefully managed and mitigated as
stream is home to the native longfin eel, which is a protected species, and also to smaller silver and described in the application materials and proposed consent conditions.
grey eels. On a single evening In January 2021 we counted seven large longfin eels in the stream
behind our property. We have also seen whitebait in the stream and we believe it should be kept as a
safe and healthy habitat for these species.
3. We are aware of welcome swallows nesting annually in the bank under the railway lines and These comments are noted. Ecological effects will be carefully managed and mitigated as
kingfishers, shags, paradise and mallard ducks using the stream, and we ask that the proposed described in the application materials and proposed consent conditions.
retaining wall should have places for birds to nest and rest. It should also have recesses at or below
the water line for the eels to frequent as this is the shady side of the stream where they normally hide.
4. We understand from the information provided that the stream will not be covered and that there is no The draft Construction Management Plan includes a process for communicating with
plan to interfere with the land and vegetation on the Market Street side of the stream. We would expect interested parties through the implementation of a separate Project Communications Plan.
to be informed and consulted regarding any variation to the plan. Dialogue with the community will continue throughout the construction period. The Applicants
are committed to communication with all stakeholders during this construction process.
21 February 2021 Clare Pinder 1. The proposed ships are too big for the harbour and to safely navigate Tory Channel Entrance. The operation of ships within the National Transportation Route is a permitted activity within
both the Operative Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan and the Proposed
Guardians of the Sounds Incorporated The Guardians of the Sounds (Guardians), is very concerned about the length, tonnage and sheer size
Marlborough Environment Plan. There is no requirement for a resource consent for new ships
of the proposed new ferries being affected by extreme weather we are experiencing possibly due to
to be brought into operation within Marlborough.
climate change. Guardians have read various papers on the safety management of the new ferries and
this throws up many other questions around the operation of these new vessels. The community needs Regardless, we set out below our responses to the Guardians’ concerns related to ships’
answers and certainty of how the obvious issues will be dealt with. operational matters.
The Picton Precinct is just one part of a complex jigsaw that cannot be assessed separately from other KiwiRail is confident that the new Interislander ferries will comply with all applicable safety
issues such as the size of the proposed new ferries, air quality in Picton, navigational risks in entering regulations and be able to continue to operate safely. This includes meeting any new
and leaving Tory Channel entrance, safety of the new ferries and cruise ships and other users of Picton operating parameters put in place as part of the safety review now being undertaken by the
harbour, the environmental effects of cruise ships, traffic in the precinct area and beyond the risk assessment group and led by the Marlborough Harbourmaster.
EPA Comments Received 7Date Received Name and Organisation (if relevant) Summary of Comment Received (to provide context only; full comment should be referred to) Applicants’ Response
designated precinct area, vibration noises in town from ship engines, and the lack of consultation with KiwiRail confirms that the new ferries will not be turned around in Picton Harbour; they will be
the community. turned around off Tukurehu/Mabel Island and backed into berth. This gives them more room
to turn and is safer as it is away from the busy marina area. KiwiRail demonstrated this
Let’s take a couple of scenarios:
manoeuvre through a marine simulation exercise in late 2020. The simulation was attended by
1. It is deemed unsafe for 50,000 tonne ships to use Tory Channel entrance. The ships have to use the MDC’s Harbourmaster and Deputy Harbourmaster, PMNZ’s Marine Manager,
longer route through Queen Charlotte Entrance and cannot meet the proposed shipping schedule Representatives of Maritime NZ and Te Ᾱtiawa as well as most of the Interislander Masters.
making the new ferries uneconomical. Guardians of the Sounds were invited to attend but declined.
2. Closing off the harbour to other users when large ships are berthing is unworkable in a tiny harbour.
There are hundreds of ship movements a day in Picton Harbour.
3. The proposed cruise ship wharf cannot be used because of air quality regulations.
4. Picton is bottlenecked because the Precinct Project has only considered getting the cars and trucks
off the ferries, not what happens when a much larger stream of trucks and cars converge on the small
town of Picton and beyond.
Guardians assessment is that the decision made to build 2 huge ships instead of 3 smaller ferries
carrying tonnages that meet the needs of the local population, navigational safety, roading
infrastructure, traffic flow, air quality, marine mammals, benthic environment, water quality at Waitoia
Stream, and engine vibration affecting town residents is a flawed management decision that needs to
be strategically peer reviewed and reassessed. Picton harbour is too small for these very large vessels.
The ferry size should be restricted to 30,000 tonnes and three ferries built to maintain a viable schedule
for freight and passengers. New Wharf, Cruise Ships and air quality
2. The impact of the ferry wash, wave energy and height has not yet been modelled and may not While larger, the new ferries will produce less wake energy than the Interislander ferry Kaitaki
meet current regulations. does currently. The new ferries are being designed to comply with the wave energy
requirements of the Operative Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan and the
Proposed Marlborough Environment Plan. The wave energy modelling methodology has been
accepted by MDC.
3. It takes 6 – 12 months for a new ship to undergo tests for “teething issues” and it may not be safe KiwiRail confirms the new ships will be safe and certified to operate in accordance with
for them to operate using current routes. international and national rules from the day they arrive. While teething issues could occur
during the preparation period prior to the ferries beginning service, there is no reason to
believe that this could take 6 to 12 months.
4. Safety cases have not yet been completed by the various operators with responsibilities for the Safety cases are currently being progressed by MDC, KiwiRail and Bluebridge in preparation
new ferry operation. of the new ferry operation. These will be completed prior to the operation of the new ferries.
5. Air quality in Picton has not been addressed. A scientific report due at the end of March must be As previously noted, the operation of ships within the National Transportation Route is a
considered in the planning process. permitted activity within both the Operative Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan
and the Proposed Marlborough Environment Plan. There is no requirement for a resource
A scientific air quality assessment has recently been completed by the Marlborough District Council
consent for new ships to be brought into operation within Marlborough.
(MDC) and is currently being assessed by NIWA. This report is due at the end of March 2021. From
there the Picton Air Quality group will convene to work on priorities, outcomes, resources, further However, in response to this concern, we note that the new ferries will reduce the
investigations, and future funding for air quality work. The documentation provided 2A Port Interislanders’ carbon emissions by approximately 40 per cent. As the new ferries will enter
Marlborough 5.4.2 NES Air Quality 2004. States that resource consent is not required as the Air Quality Waitohi/Picton under battery power and use battery or shore power while berthed, they are
Act is in place. Picton has a serious air quality problem because of an inversion layer. Pollution from expected to achieve an improvement in air quality at the Port.
one cruise ship is equivalent to the emission from 200,000 cars.
There must be a consent condition that all ships including cruise ships must meet NES Air Quality
standards and that the provisions of the MDC report are considered and implemented. The heavy fuel
EPA Comments Received 8Date Received Name and Organisation (if relevant) Summary of Comment Received (to provide context only; full comment should be referred to) Applicants’ Response
oil that these existing ships burn in the confines of the Sounds and Picton harbour are perceived by the
Picton Community to be a serious health risk.
6. Traffic issues have not been considered beyond the limited area of the Precinct and even then new Detailed consideration has been given to the traffic effects of the Project. The Integrated
routes pass by a school which has not been consulted. Transport Assessment concludes that the transportation-related impacts of the Project, with
recommended mitigations, will be minor and acceptable within the context of the scale of
traffic generated by the ferries within Picton township.
It is noted that some individuals will be more affected by changes to and increases in traffic
flows than others, but these impacts will be localised and will not significantly affect the ability
of the overall transport network to fulfil its function.
As evidenced in the consultation report, Picton School and the Ministry of Education have
been consulted regarding the traffic effects of the Project. The Waka Kotahi Single Stage
Business Case process has also received significant input from these parties.
7. The use of the harbour by other users has not been addressed. The operational use of the ships in the harbour is not part of the consent applications before
the Panel.
The size of the proposed new ferries at 50,000 tonnes, and cruise ships, means that large ships will be
manoeuvring in the area used by the public and small commercial vessels, resulting in the closure of Responsibility for navigation of the harbour is the jurisdiction of the Harbourmaster and
the harbour during these times. Maritime NZ.
This would give ferries and cruise ships the exclusive right to the harbour. This is public water space A Navigational Safety Plan has been included as part of the resource consent application.
and New Zealanders have a right to free public access to our towns and essential services. Ferry This plan will be used to manage the use of harbour by other users during construction works.
companies and cruise ship operators are just one user group, they cannot expect exclusivity at the
expense of commercial boat traffic that have schedules or water taxis that work on demand, fishing
boats who time their departure to suit the tides, or the hundreds of recreational craft that traverse the
harbour all hours of the day. The proposal would also prevent the Picton Yacht Club hosting its small
craft sailing regattas.
Closing off the harbour is not acceptable - A plan needs to be in place for access at all times not only
for emergencies but other recreational and commercial users.
8. Dredging and reclamation has not been properly researched and assessed. We note that a significant amount of dredging can be carried out as of right as a permitted
activity in the Port Zone, limited not to a set volume but to the amount necessary to maintain
Huge amounts of dredging is required. Probably a fatal blow to the harbour ecology now that Kaiana
water depth levels (rule 13.1.25 of the Proposed Marlborough Environment Plan, permitted
lagoon is filled in and the marina lagoon is a boating parking lot. The documentation merely states that
standard 13.3.13.2).
the effects are minor. A comprehensive dredging assessment needs to be done.
A comprehensive assessment has been undertaken in relation to the effects of dredging
The fill is expected to be used for reclamation even though it does not meet clean fill standards. There
required for the Project in the context of effects on both coastal processes (Appendix H) and
is no provision that says the fill should be tested and approved for reclamation. Just that it’s Ok to use it
effects on ecology (Appendix K).
as it has been deemed safe. Without testing!
The ecology report concludes that while the longer-term changes resulting from the dredging
will see an extension of the present area of scoured substrate south-eastwards, potentially to
the edge of the dredging footprint, due to the widespread nature of the existing sheltered mud
habitat and its current status as slightly to moderately disturbed, the ecological consequences
of this will be less than minor at the scale of the inner Sounds area. Further, based on both
historical and current survey information, there is no indication that habitats or communities
lost or displaced by the proposed construction activities will include any of special
conservation importance or that are significantly limited in distribution in the wider
Marlborough Sounds area.
In relation to coastal processes the report concludes that construction activities, particularly
with regard to dredging, piling and demolition of the existing infrastructure, are likely to disturb
the seabed of the Coastal Marine Area within the Project area and may result in the risk of
EPA Comments Received 9Date Received Name and Organisation (if relevant) Summary of Comment Received (to provide context only; full comment should be referred to) Applicants’ Response
contaminant discharge to the Coastal Marine Area. The risk of these occurrences is limited to
the construction period and can be managed through compliance with industry standard
guidance and protocols, as set out in the draft conditions of consent and management plans
forming part of the application for resource consents. Compliance with these protocols will
mitigate the risks of contamination so that effects are less than minor.
9. Marine mammal assessments have not been adequately addressed. Appendix J sets out the assessment of effects on marine mammals undertaken by Cawthron.
This assessment concludes that acoustic mitigation is required given the potential for adverse
population level effects for endangered species. The mitigation required will be developed
through the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan by marine mammal and
underwater acoustic experts in consultation with the Department of Conservation to ensure
that the most appropriate measures are in place prior to proposed commencement of
construction.
10. Is there really no alternative to putting a huge new wharf right smack in the middle of the harbour? All proposed infrastructure is contained within the Port Zone. Infrastructure layout within the
It is often quoted that 1.2 million passengers travel on our ferries. It’s time to rethink the rebuild and overall port is consistent with PMNZ’s long term port development plan and with the provisions
place the new wharves to the west of the existing wharves (or at the very least in their existing of the Port Zone within both the Operative Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan
position). and the Proposed Marlborough Environment Plan.
Cruise ships The use of the harbour by cruise ships is discussed above, and noted as being a matter for
the Harbourmaster, being matters beyond the scope of these consents.
A major issue in Picton Harbour is that the new wharf called (long arm no1) is “proposed” to be used to
be a cruise ship wharf when the ferry wharves are completed. The location of the cruise ship wharf is to Power for the cruise ships is not part of the consent applications before the Panel. However,
the east of the existing wharves. for information we note that effective 1 January 2020, all cruise ships visiting New Zealand
(including Picton Harbour) have voluntarily complied with the MARPOL Annex VI conditions
There has been no assessment of the impact of cruise ships using Picton harbour. There is no shore
for fuel use and emissions.
power available and the cost of provision is huge. The majority of cruise ships do not have the facilities
to use shore power or have batteries to keep their engines running.
While it is documented that the new ferries will use battery power in port there is no such provision for
cruise ships to use battery power. Shore power must be part of the Picton Precinct development.
All ships must also meet MARPOL standards on clean fuel which is a provision the NZ Govt. has
signed but it is not being implemented in Picton Harbour.
Consultation At Project commencement, the Project team committed to a detailed consultation strategy and
engagement plan, and despite the unique challenges presented by the national response to
An impressive 117 page report (Appendix Q) has been written on the superb consultation undertaken.
the COVID-19 pandemic, inputs have been received from a wide array of affected parties, iwi,
This report is full of errors. The Guardians has NOT been consulted. The only areas that the Guardians
stakeholders and interested parties. Various consultation techniques were used to ensure that
has been consulted on is air quality and navigation. The organisation has not had any meetings or
as many people as possible could be consulted on the Project. These included the use of a
consultation on the Precinct Project.
website, Social Pinpoint, email and a 0800 number, meetings with groups and organisations
Leaflet drops described in the report did not reach some effected streets such as Kent Street. (including specifically with Guardians of the Sounds representatives), social media, public
Guardians has been told that the leaflets ran out. open days, brochures and feedback forms. Appendices Qa and Qb set out the comprehensive
consultation that has taken place as part of the Project.
The website was not working for a period of time and there is still no information on the project in the
Picton Library or at the MDC on their website or offices. Facebook is not public consultation. The Applicants’ understanding is that the Panel invited a range of organisations to comment
on the applications.
There have been no public meetings. (Individual meetings are not public meetings). COVID obviously
had an impact during March and April 2020 but instead of rescheduling public consultation the time
was spend writing a lengthy report that tries to justify a poorly executed process dressed up as public
consultation.
EPA Comments Received 10Date Received Name and Organisation (if relevant) Summary of Comment Received (to provide context only; full comment should be referred to) Applicants’ Response
GOS is an active group of residents focusing on community issues for the past 20 years and is the only
community organisation that has been invited by the Government to put forward a submission for the
FAST TRACK process in place for Picton Harbour.
While Guardians is pleased to be asked to comment on the proposal as a representative of the
community we are not the voice of Picton. Guardians of the Sounds (GOS ) are proposing to host a
public meeting to hear the communities feeling on the impacts of the redevelopment on the Picton
community and harbour users.
23 February 2021 Don Gurteen The Dublin Street access is the main, and only viable entrance to the above mentioned complex. The 49 Auckland Street townhouses off Dublin Street currently enjoy dual accesses on
Auckland Street and Dublin Street. Residents use both accesses for either entry or exit.
This entrance will be closed off by the proposed road bridge over the existing level crossing. The
entrance is at the northern end of the garage and parking area. Each of the dwellings have a northwest The existing access from Dublin Street will be blocked as a result of the proposed new
facing aspect which means, if this access is blocked off any vehicle wishing enter or leave their overbridge.
respective garage or parking area, has to proceed to the northern end of the parking area, do a three
The Applicants propose to provide a new access arrangement by widening the existing
point turn, before exciting via a steep and narrow two way, wholly unsatisfactory and dangerous
vehicle crossing at Auckland Street (subject to agreement with the neighbour to do so) and
southern access way.
creating a manoeuvring area using part of KiwiRail’s designated land. Vehicles will then be
During the so called consultation period, KiwiRail have presented no less than nine different solutions able to enter and exit the site by the widened crossing off Auckland Street.
to this problem, on the pretext of offering alternatives. In fact all the “alternatives” were the same, the
Please refer to Appendix Q Consultation Summary Report Figure 2: Proposed Auckland
only difference being the presentation. All except one bizarre and entirely impractical version which had
Street Access for a diagram of this proposed alternative access arrangement.
an electrically operated vehicle turntable at the northern end of the car park. Despite strong
representations about the lack of consideration for such thing as the difficulty of manoeuvring a vehicle The Applicants have actively engaged with all the 49 Auckland Street property owners over
and trailer. Plus the impossibility of getting vehicle any larger than a small van (B99) through the gap the last year to gain their feedback on the Project. There are a number of restrictions that are
between flats 49F and “G” and the KiwiRail signal control building. These concerns have been totally impacting the property in terms of providing a safe and functional entry and egress. For the
ignored. Reference Drawing sheet number; C-1631 Version N. In short KiwiRail have shown most part, the residents were agreeable with the proposed approach.
considerable intransigence with regard to finding a real, practical and long lasting solution to this
The consultative process has led to numerous property access design options being
problem.
developed in response to owner feedback and suggestions. It is the Applicants’ intention to
provide a design solution that best mitigates any adverse effects of the proposed works on the
properties.
Several design options have been discussed and considered by the property owners. Owner
design input has been welcomed throughout the consultation process. As a result of feedback
from the owners, the proposed design was further developed whereby additional rail corridor
land was provided to enable better vehicle manoeuvrability for the owners.
One design included retaining the Dublin Street access via construction of a new on/off ramp
from the proposed overbridge. This option was discounted by the owners due to the adverse
effects it would have on the 49 Auckland Street units particularly those closest to Dublin
Street. It was also acknowledged this option did not represent a functional or practical
solution.
We note that the proposed new access and driveway design has been reviewed and found
acceptable by Fire and Emergency NZ.
We consider the proposed current design that intends to close the properties’ Dublin Street
access, together with an improved Auckland Street access, other driveway improvements and
a compensation package, to be the best possible solution considering the surrounding
limitations.
On a purely personal perspective, the proposed bridge will completely block out the view of Waitohi The Applicants are continuing discussions with all of the owners of the 49 Auckland Street
Reserve and the hills behind from my lounge window and balcony. properties. We acknowledge the difficult circumstances and trust that a design solution
EPA Comments Received 11Date Received Name and Organisation (if relevant) Summary of Comment Received (to provide context only; full comment should be referred to) Applicants’ Response
It will bring the road traffic up to the level of my windows, with the added disadvantage of increased developed alongside the affected property owners, will ultimately achieve a satisfactory
noise and night time headlights shining straight into my living area. Not to mention, two years of noise, outcome for the unit owners and the wider community.
dirt and disruption during the building process.
The Project and it’s Effect on Picton, Blenheim and the Surrounding Area. The effects of the increase in traffic volume on Picton roads as a result of the Project have
been addressed in the Integrated Transport Assessment. This assessment concludes that
The picturesque town of Picton is sited in the centre of a narrow valley. From the entrance to the
with the recommended mitigation the transportation related impacts of the Project will be
harbour, to the exit via the Elevation and on to State Highway 1. The space for expansion is severely
minor.
restricted. How is it then, that to double the size of the ferries coming into this can even be considered.
A senior member of KiwiRail staff told me personally, these proposed ships could carry five hundred While it is acknowledged that some individuals will be affected more than others, these
and fifty cars, or a mix of cars, trucks and railway wagons. So let us consider for ease of explanation impacts will be localised and will not significantly affect the ability of the overall transport
that we have a ship which disgorges four hundred cars, never mind trucks and trailers etc, into the network to fulfil its function.
town. If the average car length was four and a half meters, that would amount to a convoy of cars one
point eight kilometres long plus the gaps between each vehicle. When this convoy reaches the end of
Kent Street it has to turn right, that in it’s self would severely restrict all traffic entering and leaving
Picton for a considerable length of time. Of course it does not end there will be serious congestion
when the convoy eventually reaches the Springs Junction Roundabout.
Plus when it arrives in Blenheim the whole town will be at a standstill from the new road bridge
(Another ill-conceived project.) to the Riverland’s industrial estate entrance in the south. None of this I
have to point out, even begins to consider the effect of the potential increase in north bound traffic
travelling to the North Island. The road safety aspect of these actions will be felt all the way down to
Christchurch, especially through the centre of Kaikoura, where there is a very narrow and difficult
junction. Not to mention the frustration generated when confronted with slow trucks climbing the narrow
and winding Weld Pass and likewise when the convoy reaches the Hunderlee Hills south of Kaikura.
The very large, proposed replacement vessels will be forced into manoeuvring in the very restricted The use of the harbour by ships is discussed above, and noted as being a matter for the
confines of Picton harbour. Recent events show that high wind conditions can make docking Harbourmaster, being matters beyond the scope of these consents.
impossible for ships of half the size and by inference much more manoeuvrablability. Very large high
However, KiwiRail confirms that the new ferries will not be turned around in Picton Harbour;
sided vessels find high winds and a lack of available manoeuvring room, a very difficult situation. There
they will be turned around off Tukurehu/Mabel Island and backed into berth. This gives them
has always been the risk of a ferry going aground in Picton harbour. This risk will only be exacerbated
more room to turn and is safer as it is away from the busy marina area.
by increasing the size of the ferries.
While larger, the new ferries will be easier to manoeuvre than the current older fleet.
KiwiRail is confident that the new Interislander ferries will comply with all applicable safety
regulations and requirements of the Operative Marlborough Sounds Resource Management
Plan and Proposed Marlborough Environment Plan and be able to continue to operate safely.
This includes meeting any new operating parameters put in place as part of the safety review
now being undertaken by the risk assessment group and led by the Marlborough Harbour
Master.
In conclusion it is difficult to understand how this project ever got off the ground considering the The Government commissioned extensive investigations into the Clifford Bay option, which
detrimental effect it will have on the environment and well being of Picton and it’s people. In fact on all ultimately led to the Government’s decision in 2013 to keep the ferry terminal in Waitohi
the other small towns on State Highway, in Marlborough and North Canterbury. In fact the Clifford Bay Picton.
proposal of 2009 – 2011 was a far more practical and environmentally sustainable option. Perhaps it
would be better to scrap the current poorly conceived plan and consider resurrecting the Clifford Bay
option, before it is too late.
EPA Comments Received 12You can also read
