BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O ... · AD-114408-1-3119-V2 BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA ENV-2019-AKL- 000007 IN THE MATTER

AD-114408-1-3119-V2

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA

ENV-2019-AKL- 000007 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 ("RMA") A N D IN THE MATTER of a proposed direct referral of a notice of requirement by

the Minister of Children to alter Designation 3800 ‘Care and Protection Residential Centre – Upper North’ in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

BETWEEN MINISTER FOR CHILDREN

Applicant A N D AUCKLAND COUNCIL

Regulatory Authority

EVIDENCE OF RHYS LEONARD HEGLEY ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTER FOR CHILDREN

NOISE (WEYMOUTH ROAD)

12 April 2019

ELLIS GOULD LAWYERS AUCKLAND REF: Dr Claire Kirman / Alex Devine

Level 17 Vero Centre 48 Shortland Street, Auckland Tel: 09 307 2172 / Fax: 09 358 5215 PO Box 1509 DX CP22003 AUCKLAND

- 2 -

AD-114408-1-3119-V2

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 My full name is Rhys Leonard Hegley. I am a partner at Hegley Acoustic

Consultants.

1.2 I have been engaged by the Minister for Children (“the Minister”) to

prepare and present this statement of evidence addressing matters raised

in the Minister’s Notice of Requirement to alter Designation 3800 (“NOR”)

in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (“Unitary Plan”), which

has been directly referred to the Environment Court.

2. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

2.1 I hold a Bachelor of Engineering from the University of Auckland (1993)

and have attended specialist courses in acoustics in Australia and

America. I am a Chartered Acoustic Engineer and a member of the

Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand. For the last 19 years

I have specialised in the measurement and assessment of noise. This

work has included the preparation of reports for resource consent

applications and notices of requirement and attendance at council

hearings, the Environment Court and Boards of Inquiry.

2.2 I have been involved with a range of projects from the development of

business activities such as service stations and workshops through to

large scale industrial activities such as petrochemical plants, power

stations, dairy factories and roading projects. This has included

assessment of child cares, schools and sports fields.

3. CODE OF CONDUCT

3.1 I confirm that I have read the Expert Witness Code of Conduct set out in

the Environment Court Practice Note 2014. I have complied with the Code

of Conduct in preparing this evidence and agree to comply with it while

giving evidence before the Environment Court. Except where I state that

I am relying on the evidence of another person, this written evidence is

within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts

known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed in this

evidence.

- 3 -

AD-114408-1-3119-V2

4. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

4.1 My evidence addresses the operational noise effects from the activities

relating to the proposed alteration to designation 3800. It is structured as

follows:

(a) Executive summary (section 5);

(b) A description of the proposal identifying the items particular to the

noise assessment (section 6);

(c) The noise criteria adopted for the assessment (section 7);

(d) The prediction of noise from the various activities undertaken on

site with submitters’ concerns specifically addressed, where

appropriate (section 8);

(e) The remaining submitter concerns are addressed (section 9);

(f) Comments on the proposed conditions (section 10); and

(g) Conclusions (section 11).

5. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5.1 Whakatakapokai currently provides residential care for up to 20 children

and young persons on site under designation 3800. As a proposed

alteration to the designation, it is proposed to increase the maximum

number of children and young people on site to 30, increase the age limit

to 19 and to include youth justice as an additional purpose on the site.

While the existing designation contains operational noise limits for

Whakatakapokai, I have adopted the slightly lower residential zone noise

limits of the Unitary Plan for my assessment.

5.2 Analysis has addressed what is considered to be the noisier of the

possible activities undertaken on site and included outdoor play at the

swimming pool and courts as well as indoor activities within the

gymnasium and multi cultural centre. Predictions showed the noise

resulting from these activities would be able to comply with the adopted

limits and that compared to the existing noise from site, there would be

little to no change.

- 4 -

AD-114408-1-3119-V2

5.3 The most common issue raised by the submitters was noise from the night

time use of the car parks, which included both noise from vehicle

movements and from staff talking. I believe that the noise from staff

talking can be controlled to within suitable levels through educating staff

and that management is therefore the key to this current issue.

5.4 With respect to vehicle noise, I have undertaken specific measurements

of vehicles departing the Whakatakapokai car parks. Subsequent

analysis shows that the noise from the proposed ten vehicle departures

will be able to comply with the suggested night time noise limits.

6. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

6.1 While the proposal is well described by the application and in the evidence

of Mr Taylor, Mr Boreham, Mr Hannifin (Oranga Tamariki) and the joint

evidence in Ms Bell and Mr Pollard (Planning), there are several key

points that I consider are relevant to noise from the activities of the

proposal, which I have identified below:

1. The proposal is to include the ability to provide for young persons

under the care of the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki;

2. This includes a proposal to increase the current age limit of the

residents on site from 16 years to 19 years inclusive; and

3. To increase the number of young persons from 20 to 30.

6.2 While there are no fixed times for children and young people to be in for

the night, management typically have them inside by 5.30pm in the winter,

after which it is too dark outside for play, extending to 7.00pm in the

summer. In the mornings, children and young people are able to go

outside from approximately 8.00am onwards. The hours that the children

and young people could potentially be outside is well within the day time

period adopted for the noise assessment, as described in the following

section.

6.3 During the night time, the only activity outside that results in any significant

noise is from the shift changes. When Whakatakapokai is at capacity, the

night shift staff arrive by 10.30pm. There is a hand over of approximately

- 5 -

AD-114408-1-3119-V2

half an hour followed by the departure of up to ten staff from the two over

night car parks adjacent to the southern boundary (Figure 1).

6.4 No other changes are proposed to the operations at the residence and no

new construction is proposed as part of this project in the immediate

future.

7. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

7.1 The current activities on site are controlled by designation 3800, condition

4 of which provides the following noise limits for those activities:

4. Activities (other than construction) on the site shall be so

conducted as to ensure that noise from the site shall not exceed

the following noise limits within the boundary of any neighbouring

residential site:

Monday to Sunday

(inclusive)

7am to 10pm L10 55dBA

10pm to 7am L10 45dBA

10pm to 7am Lmax 75dBA

Noise (other than construction) shall be measured and assessed

in accordance with the requirements of the New Zealand

Standard NZS 6801:2008 “Acoustic Measurement of

Environmental Sound”

7.2 Since the original designation, the Unitary Plan has become effective

which, in terms of noise, has not only resulted in a fully revised suite of

rules, but also an update in noise metric from the L10 of the designation to

LAeq. As such, consideration has been given to updating the designation

noise rule to be consistent with the Unitary Plan.

7.3 The site is zoned Residential within the Unitary Plan as are all surrounding

sites, with the exception of an Open Space – Informal Recreation zone to

the north, as shown in Figure 1 below.

- 6 -

AD-114408-1-3119-V2

Site

Figure 1. Unitary Plan Zoning Map

7.4 Unitary Plan Rule E25.6.2 provides the noise limits between sites within

the residential zone, when measured within the boundary of a site, as

shown below:

Activities (other than construction) on the site shall be so

conducted as to ensure that noise from the site shall not

exceed the following noise limits at any point within the

boundary of any neighbouring residential site:

Time Noise Level

Monday to Saturday, 7am

to 10pm and Sunday 9am

to 6pm

50dB LAeq

All other times 40dB LAeq and 75dB LAFmax

- 7 -

AD-114408-1-3119-V2

Noise levels shall be measured in accordance with NZS 6801:

2008 ‘Acoustics – Measurement of Environmental Sound’ and

assessed in accordance with NZS 6802:2008 ‘Acoustics –

Environmental Noise’.

7.5 A comparison between the two rules shows the Unitary Plan criteria to

require slightly lower levels to the residential neighbours. Based on this,

and that the Unitary Plan rule describes the expectations of those in a

residential environment, I adopted the Unitary Plan rule for my analysis

and note that the Council’s reviewer, Mr Styles, also recommends the

Unitary Plan criteria.

8. OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS

8.1 This section of my evidence is based on my original noise assessment

that was submitted as part of the NoR. However, as a large number of

the submissions referenced operational noise, the relevant submitter

concerns are also addressed within this section. The various areas of

Whakatakapokai referenced in this section are identified on Figure 2

below.

- 8 -

AD-114408-1-3119-V2

NOISE FROM CHILDREN OUTDOORS

8.2 A general theme of the submissions was that the proposed increase in

the number of people on site would result in an increase in noise levels.

While this is theoretically true, I consider that in practice, the change in

level as a result of the proposal is likely to be small, to the point that it

would not be noticed, or barely noticed by the average person. For

example, assuming all children or young people were outside at the same

time and all producing the same level of noise, the effect of increasing

from 20 to 30 children or young people would be an increase of 1.8dB.

When comparing noise levels, a change of 3dB is typically described as

being the smallest that the average person can detect.

Figure 2. Whakatakapokai Site Plan

1

2

4 5

6

8

7

3

KEY

1. Main car park 2. Multicultural centre

3. Outdoor court 4. Outdoor pool

5. Gymnasium 6. Residential block

7. Current overnight carpark 1 8. Current overnight car park 2

3

3

- 9 -

AD-114408-1-3119-V2

8.3 In reality, what is more likely to happen is that rather than all children and

young people being outside at the same time resulting in a small increase

in noise level, an increase in the number of children and young people

would mean a minor increase in the total duration of noise from the site.

In other words, the level of noise from children and young people would

appear unchanged but it would be present over a slightly longer period.

8.4 In addition to the submitters’ concerns about a change in level, I have also

considered the actual level of noise from the children and young people.

As with any residential facility, the children and young people at the

residence could potentially undertake anyone of a number of activities.

Rather than attempt to address them all, several generic activities were

considered to demonstrate that they will be able to comply with the

proposed criteria and thereby demonstrate that it will be practicable to

manage the activity in accordance with the suggested criteria. For

children and young people playing outside, the activities I selected for

consideration were the use of the outdoor pool and the outdoor courts. I

based my analysis on adults shouting, which I consider applies equally to

the up to 16 year olds that are currently on site and the up to 19 years

olds of the proposal. Based on the distance of the pool and court from

the nearest of the surrounding neighbours, the upper level expected from

each is 50dB and 47dB LAeq respectively, both of which comply with the

50dB LAeq day time criterion.

NOISE FROM CHILDREN INDOORS

8.5 Noise from children and young people playing sports within the

gymnasium has been calculated to the closest residential properties using

measurements of children and young people playing basketball at another

gym. Based on the observed construction of the gym during a site visit,

the predicted level to the closest residential property will be 40dB LAeq,

which readily complies with the 50dB LAeq day time limit.

8.6 Submissions 40 and 50 identified crying at night as a particular issue.

Notwithstanding that such crying was, and would likely remain, from the

younger children that are permitted under the current designation, I have

considered this issue.

- 10 -

AD-114408-1-3119-V2

8.7 As the crying was reported at night, it must have been indoors which, for

security reasons means closed windows. This being the case, it is

estimated that the façade would comfortably provide a 25dB reduction to

internal activities. When combined with the attenuation resulting from the

38m between the closest point of the residential block to the residential

neighbour and adding the 5dB penalty of NZS 6802 to the 40dB LAeq night

time criterion for special audible characteristics1, crying could be up to

98dB LAeq internally whilst still complying with the adopted criteria. It is

unlikely that children and young people crying could reach such high

levels and, even if they could, they could not be maintained for any length

of time. As such, while neighbours may at times be aware of internal

activities, the resulting levels are considered to be within a reasonable

range.

8.8 In terms of management, there is a full night staff on hand to address any

issues that arise, including upset children and young people.

MUILTCULTURAL CENTRE

8.9 Events at the multicultural centre will vary, as will the noise levels. As with

any residential situation, activities with high levels of amplified music have

the potential to exceed the limits of the adopted criteria and would

therefore be prohibited. Loud activities associated with cultural events,

such as Kapa Haka, would also have to be conducted so as to limit noise

levels to the neighbours. Some activities may have to be amended to

reduce noise and they may not be able to occur at night time.

1 NZS 6802: 2008 ‘Acoustics –Environmental noise’ notes that the intrusiveness of a

sound is a function of both its level and character. Sound that has special audible

characteristics is likely to cause adverse community response at lower sound levels than

sound without such characteristics.

- 11 -

AD-114408-1-3119-V2

NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CAR PARKS

8.10 Noise associated with the use of the car park during the night time is the

largest single issue raised by submitters who identify departing vehicles

and noise from staff talking within the car park as the major issues with

one submitter2 identifying the use of the gate as an issue.

8.11 With respect to staff talking, I consider that noise from this activity can be

controlled to a compliant level through the education of staff to make them

aware of their obligations to their neighbours. I note that proposed

condition 15B requires a Noise Management Plan (“NMP”), which I

consider would be an appropriate document in which to detail the

education of staff about their responsibilities around noise and to detail

procedures to ensure ongoing compliance.

8.12 I have discussed the use of the two overnight car parks with Mr Styles

and we agreed that in principle that the car parks can be used during night

time. To determine the exact solution, we agreed that I would visit

Whakatakapokai to undertake field measurements of vehicles leaving the

two overnight car parks at the end of the night shift. I completed this work

on the evening of Tuesday 9 April 2019. During the period on site, no

Whakatakapokai vehicles arrived in the overnight car parks and only two

left. To supplement the measurements of these two vehicles, I had a co-

worker in my vehicles replicate vehicles departing the two car parks and

driving along the accessway to ensure I obtained a good sample for my

analysis.

8.13 Based on my measurements, I consider that the noise from the ten

vehicles departing Whakatakapokai at the end of a capacity day shift

would comply with the suggested night time limits of 40dB LAeq and 75dB

LAFmax without any specific mitigation.

8.14 The remaining issue associated with the car park is that of the operation

of the gate in the fence about Whakatakapokai. Having observed its

operation, I consider that with appropriate maintenance, the operation of

the gate will not result in a noise nuisance.

2 Submission 23, Kalpana Kirti Naidu of 24 Tutuwhatu Crescent.

- 12 -

AD-114408-1-3119-V2

SUBMISSIONS

8.15 While I address the majority of the submitters’ concerns in section 6, those

remaining are considered below.

CONSTRUCTION NOISE

8.16 Several submissions discuss the noise from any construction required as

a result of the proposed alteration to designation. In response, I note that

no construction is currently proposed. Should construction be required at

some point in the future, it would be no different to any other construction

activity within Auckland City and, as such, would be undertaken in

accordance with the construction noise rules of the Unitary Plan.

ABSCONDER PROTOCOL

8.17 Several submissions are concerned with any noise that would be

generated as a result of any absconders, particularly at night time.

8.18 Whakatakapokai have procedures for dealing with absconders.

Generally, children or young people look to distance themselves when

absconding, often making their way to friends or relatives. I understand

the procedure is that staff contact the police before conducting a search

of the immediate area by foot and visiting the places that a particular

absconder may make their way to.

8.19 There are no sirens at Whakatakapokai and the police Eagle helicopter

has not been used to date.

9. PROPOSED CONDITIONS

9.1 Council’s report on the application proposes conditions 15A and 15B for

noise. I generally agree with the two conditions, subject to the following.

9.2 The Table of proposed condition 15A shows a night time limit of 46dB

LAeq. This appears to be a typographical error and it is recommended that

it be reduced to 40dB LAeq to match the night time limit of the Unitary Plan,

as discussed in paragraphs 7.4 and 7.5 above.

- 13 -

AD-114408-1-3119-V2

9.3 Condition 15B suggests a NMP, which I am supportive of. I believe it

could be strengthened by inclusion of a complaints management

procedure and suggest the following bullet point is added to the condition:

(f) Receiving, logging, actioning and responding to noise complaints.

9.4 I also understand the following two minor amendments are proposed to

Condition 15B by Ms Bell and Mr Pollard for clarification, which I support:

b) The minimisation of noise from all activities occurring between

10pm and 7am that may be audible beyond the site boundaries,

including any curfews;

…

The NMP shall be submitted to the Council for certification by 1

July 2019 within 3 months of operation of the facility for youth

justice purposes, and shall be implemented and complied with

thereafter, as certified

9.5 While suggested condition 29 relates to transport, it also relates to noise.

I suggest moving the start of the night time period suggested by the

condition from 7.00pm to match the 10.00pm of the Unitary Plan noise

rule. I also recommended that the Parking Management Plan (“PMP”)

suggested by the condition include a method of limiting nigh time

departing vehicles to no more than ten per 15 minute period. My

suggested amendments are as follows:

29. A PMP shall be prepared for the site and lodged with the Council for

certification by 1 July 2019. The objective of the PMP is to manage

the use of parking areas located immediately adjacent to the

residential boundary during the hours of 7pm 10pm and 7am to

minimise noise and amenity impacts on neighbours. Included in the

PMP shall be a system by which traffic movements are limited to no

more than ninie vehicles per 15 minute period during the period of

10pm to 7am. The PMP shall be implemented, as certified.

10. CONCLUSIONS

10.1 It proposed to assess the noise from the operational activities at

Whakatakapokai against the Unitary Plan noise rules for the residential

- 14 -

AD-114408-1-3119-V2

zone. This approach results in slightly more stringent noise limits for

Whakatakapokai than are required of it by the current designation

condition. Analysis of noise from children engaged in activities both

indoors and outside shows that the resulting levels can comply with the

suggested noise limits. The largest area of concern identified by the

submissions was the use of the car parks at night time where both staff

talking and vehicle noise were identified as issues. In my view, the noise

from staff can be controlled through appropriate management. In respect

of vehicle noise, specific on site measurements have shown that the noise

from the vehicles of the night time staff departing the car park can comply

with the suggested assessment criteria.

Rhys Leonard Hegley

12 April 2019