Appendix E: Consultation Records

Communications records are contained in the communication and consultation plan (CCP).

Community and Business Liaison Group (CLG) comments on this CNV DWP are recorded in Table E-1, the Independent peer review comments are recorded in Table E-2, and comments from Auckland Council are included in Table E-3.

All communications records relating to the two Enabling Works DWPs are attached to those DWPs (refer Section 2.4).

E.1 CLG Comments

Table E-1: CLG review comments

Date

11/05/2020 CLG Member

Kelvin Norgrove

Tim Harding Comment

Just wondered if construction operating hours/days will change to allow catching up on the programme? 7:00pm to low-noise work? What sort of work will it be?

Agile comments on draft (email), dated 29 April 2020

receivers

Agile comments on Rev 000 (CA-09), dated 6 July 2020

effect”. However, descriptions in Appendix C involving timing, relate to overall work hours only. They make no mention of specific times Response Craig Fitzgerald (MDA) Thibaut and I gave a summary of works. Prioritise noisy activities between 7am-7pm Mon - Sat, extending to 10pm where required. Some night works are required to support BOL. Explained the need for these (tunnelling to comply, BOL limited short interval works needed to keep workers safe and train line

Will you limit work after

E.2 Independent peer review Comments

Table E-2: Independent peer review comments

DWP Section Comment

Table 6.2 Clarity sought on extent of night works

GIS maps Errors and comments regarding specific

General comments on the DWP 1. Condition 36.3 (e) requires identification of “The timing of construction activities that are likely to create an adverse noise and vibration operating). Addressed above.

Page 64 Mt Eden Main Works CNV DWP Response

We have been advised that night/weekend work will be required only for craning the bridge platforms. List of receivers at risk from night works has been updated and clarified. (Table 5.1)

GIS maps updated to reflect comments, following a meeting to discuss the details

Refer our response to question 4 below. Night-works are well defined, and the specific timing of works during the daytime period is less important - unless a particular receiver has daytime sensitivity (as identified in their SSCNVMP).

Comments on SSCNVMP’s in relation to condition 37 and 38 when adverse effects or exceedances on the criteria are foreseen. Please also refer to 4 below.

2. Condition 36.3 (k): This condition relates to the methods for monitoring noise and vibration. mitigation measures. The following comments relate to this condition:

I. Current maps only show properties at risk and not predicted vibration levels, these should be provided so as to properly enable determination of the extent of vibration expected and subsequently, appropriate mitigation measures.

II. Table 7.1 indicates that the Down-The-Hole (DTH) piling method is to be used for retaining wall and bulk excavation works, but these are not mentioned elsewhere in the CNV DWP or SSCNVMPs.

III. DTH piling does not have a set back distance listed in 7.1 due to a lack of data, but we understand that MDA have conducted measurements with the DTH method previously. If applicable, this data should be included in 7.1 and in any relevant SSCNVMPs and vibration maps, as the method is understood to be quite vibrationally intensive and a significant noise source.

3. Condition 37.5 (a) relates to the extent to which the noise may exceed the standards in condition 31 and 32. The SSCNVMP’s do not indicate what the blasting noise exceedance is at relevant receivers in relation to condition 32 although there are notes in Section 8 that trial blasts have been used to establish likely performance. It should be confirmed that the The vibration maps don’t show predicted vibration levels because the lack of accuracy doesn’t warrant it. The at source mitigation and management measures are set out in Section 9. The type, location and extent of these works will evolve, so we have used a conservative approach to identify where SSCVMPs are needed. Engagement will inform any further mitigation measures to be included in the SSCVMPs. Monitoring will verify residual levels in Section 11 with feedback loops to ensure updates. The staging of the SSCNVMPs and their provisions to Auckland Council over the next four years will allow the Link Alliance to better define best practice mitigation measures. A recommendation regarding the staged provisions of the SSCNVMPs to Council is expected in the outline plan decision.

Section 7.1 notes that we have no data for this activity. Setbacks will be informed by monitoring (Section 11). Section 7.2 notes that this method is proposed in the Fenton St area.

We do not have this data. DTH piling uses a percussive drill bit like a blast hole drilling rig. Blast hole drilling produces high noise levels, but low vibration levels. We expect DTH piling to be similar, and have proposed this to be verified through monitoring in Section 11. We expect the vibration risk zones in this area will be controlled by rock breaking, rather than DTH piling.

Section 8.1 has been updated to include results from recent production blasts. It also advises all blasts will be designed to be fully compliant and that vibration, not noise, has been the controlling factor. Blast noise is successfully mitigated using blast mats and overburden.

Page 65 Mt Eden Main Works CNV DWP

General comments on the SSCNVMP’s blasting plan is expecting compliance with the project criteria.

4. Condition 37.5 (b) relates to the timing and duration of any exceedance. The reference to the term 'duration' when used in conjunction with any exceedances highlighted within the specific SSCNVMP's is vague. We recommend expanding on the specific duration per phase where exceedances occur. We would suggest at least aligning it with 6803 definitions of short, medium- or long-term duration or other classification as appropriate. While we accept it is challenging to commit to a specific number of days or weeks for any specific activity, without guidance of rough duration for an exceedance of the project criteria it is very difficult for a receiver to provide appropriate feedback on what mitigation measure would be suitable. It also seems that without a basic commitment to the rough duration, mitigation measures cannot be meaningfully identified or discussed.

5. Although we are aware that the ‘Mt Eden Main Works’ sections as part of every SSCNVMP still require updating as receivers are communicated with, we recommend that these sections correctly address each sub-condition (a-f), in detail, as per condition 37.5. The currently highlighted sections noted for change do not cover all of these aspects and it would be inaccurate to suggest only the highlighted sections require updating.

6. As for the mitigation measures, we do not feel it sufficient to just state that mitigation measures were considered but are not required as part of the BPO, as was done for the enabling works phase. We recommend that clear reasons are provided as to why the mitigation measures that were applied (and ones that were not) reflects the best practicable option, as per condition 37.7 (f).

Page 66 7. It is noted at several receivers it states that the rock breaking activities will be taking place for short periods (with the mitigation measures assumed to be applied accordingly) and that other utilities works will generally be compliant. The relevant receivers, however, will be affected by at least five of the seven stages of the main works (e.g. Utilities and drainage, Retaining wall construction, Bulk excavation, Pedestrian bridge construction, Pedestrian bridge night works), which we feel is significant.

Mt Eden Main Works CNV DWP NZS 6803 recommends generic noise limits based on overall project duration (e.g. weeks, months, years). It is not appropriate to use this part of the Standard to give context to exceedance duration. The effects of an exceedance relate to the activity duration (e.g. hours, weeks, months). Construction staging is referenced and summarised in 2.3 and the noise maps relate to the timing of each stage. Specific timing for any given receiver will be discussed with that receiver, and their SSCNVMP will be updated accordingly.

Appendix C Table 1 addresses the generic components of a-f. In some cases, also including them in the SSCNVMP adds value (e.g. C12 5 Porters Ave –ADHB SSCNVMP). However, in almost all other cases, it would result in unnecessary repetition and would not improve usability. The SSCNVMPs are outcomes focused.

This placeholder text is highlighted in each SSCNVMP pending engagement. It does not by any means suggest that mitigation measures aren’t required in every case. Details will be provided in each SSCNVMP once the BPO is established on a case-bycase basis. In addition, a recommendation regarding the staged provisions of the SSCNVMPs to Council is expected in the outline plan decision.

Once again, the SSCNVMPs for the Main Works are not complete. Rock breaking will be a key activity that will require mitigation and management. We have provided general mitigation options, which will form the basis of discussions with affected parties. Any other mitigation will be developed after consultation and added to the relevant SSCNVMPs.

Page 67 The descriptions at the receivers should, therefore, be updated to reflect the significance as well as more emphasis placed on relevant mitigation due to the significant effect. This scenario is relevant to a number of receivers where the phases overlap, especially along either side of Fenton and Haultain Street.

8. Piling is said to only occur between 7am-7pm unless the BPO demonstrates that it can occur outside if these hours. However, no assessment has been presented to support a decision to carry out the activities outside of the mentioned hours as part of the BPO. If such an assessment were to be completed, the mitigation methods would also need to be updated as the BPO would likely change to reflect the effects on recipients.

9. A frequent comment for areas that are significantly exceeding the 75 dB LAeq noise limit, is “the levels will reduce rapidly as works migrate away”. This statement is not sufficient on its own as a means of mitigation. As well as the benefits of physical distance being of limited benefit in dense urban settings due to reflections of surrounding building, there is also significant uncertainty about how long the works will remain in close proximity. Refer also to item 4 above.

10. The night works noise effects are not mentioned at any of the receivers in Appendix C which are listed as being exceeded by night works in the DWP (Table 5-1). The night time noise effect should be included at the following receivers:

- 3 Porters Avenue; - 5 Porters Avenue; - 6 Porters Avenue; - 11 Fenton Street; - 140 New North Road; and - 22-24 Normanby Road

11. Where the limits of cosmetic damage due to vibration are proposed to be exceeded, an expected vibration level and likely effects

Mt Eden Main Works CNV DWP Correct. Special cases occur, and the framework of the CNV DWP has retained enough flexibility to enable adoption of the BPO. For example, C6 sheet piling was undertaken on Sundays in Boston Rd at the request of neighbouring businesses. The businesses were closed on Sunday, so avoided significant amenity effects. This opportunity was identified through the engagement process and implemented as the BPO following Council approval. In general, where pilling is expected outside of these hours and during the Block of Line, it is considered the BPO due to health and safety requirements relating to works in close proximity to the railway corridor.

The statement is intended to highlight that the predicted levels are worst-case. It is important for receivers to understand that they will not receive 75dB+ for months at a time. We aim to provide process certainty, not level certainty. Refer response to item 4. With the staged development of the SSCNVMPs, we will be able to advice affected parties the anticipated duration of works and determine the appropriate mitigation measures through the engagement process.

These SSCNVMPs contain placeholders only. They will be updated once consultation occurs. The only night works identified to date are cranes - refer Section 9.2 and descriptions in 6.2.6 and 6.2.7.

Accurate predictions of vibration are not possible. We have adopted an effects envelope approach. Discussing the

Page 68 should be provided to accurately inform occupants of the extent of any vibrations and effect.. BS 5228-2 2009 may assist here. Without some quantification of effects, occupants may not be prepared for or understand the extent of the impact.

12. Numerous SSCNVMPs mention that they have only been prepared per condition 37 when the construction is predicted to exceed the standards in CRL designation conditions 31 and 33. Condition 37 only sets requirements for SSCNMPs, this should be updated to include condition 38, which outlines requirements for SSCVMPs. The receivers requiring amending are: - 2 Porters Avenue; - 3 Porters Avenue; - 4 Porters Avenue; - 6 Porters Avenue; - 3 Fenton Street; - 5a Fenton Street; - 5 Fenton Street; - 11 Fenton Street; and - 32 Normanby Road.

13. SSCNVMPs indicate that communication is only to take place where noise limits are exceeded. This should be changed to reflect exceedances on vibration criteria as well.

14. Vibration stand-off distances listed in Section 7.1 are inconsistent, specifically in relation to the difference in set back distances listed for sheet piling and vibrated pile casings. As these activities are similar in vibratory nature, they would typically be expected to have similar attenuation rates.

15. SSCNVMP’s makes reference to “cosmetic damage” when discussing vibration effects. This does not accurately represent the meaning of the DIN 4150-3 Standard which refers to “minor damage” and at no point mentions “cosmetic damage”. The standard also defines partitions becoming detached from loadbearing walls or floors as “minor damage”, which does not seem consistent with the use of “cosmetic”. This terminology should be corrected so as not to be misleading to receivers.

Mt Eden Main Works CNV DWP managing of potential effects with receivers is much more relatable and relevant to them than saying the vibration level will be X mm/s PPV. BS 5228-2 does not assist as it provides no guidance on effects for levels between 1 mm/s and 10 mm/s PPV. However, it does provide guidance on amenity effects, which are summarised in Section 12.2.

Updated references in the identified SSCNVMPs.

Updated references in the identified SSCVMPs.

We have used the extensive data set from BS 5228-2 and our own measurements to establish these values. The data is valid. To address the concerns though, we note that sheet piling is often undertaken until refusal, at which point vibration levels are often significantly higher. Casings are usually vibro driven to a certain depth, and refusal is not so common.

We responded to this question in the Normanby Rd Early works CNV DWP. The word ‘cosmetic’ is routinely used to avoid confusion with structural building damage. British Standard BS5228-2:2009 says “In some circumstances, however, it is possible for the vibrations to be sufficiently intense to promote minor damage. Typically this damage could be described as cosmetic and would amount to the initiation or extension of cracks in plasterwork, etc., rather than

Appendix C (5 Porters Ave)

Appendix C (25-27 Enfield St) 16. Notwithstanding the above, Condition 38.4 only permits works to exceed the building damage limits “for a building, structure or infrastructure that has been assessed by a suitably qualified and experienced structural engineer”. No such assessment is provided in the DWP and needs to be for any site where there is an expectation of breaching the building damage limits –regardless of whether MDA deem the effect to be minor, cosmetic or otherwise.

Vibration levels are predicted up to >10mm/s, which would be highly likely to cause disturbance to occupants of the building, especially due to the nature of the building. No mitigation measures are proposed for these vibration levels as per condition 38.5e. Relocation may be necessary if an alternative significantly less vibrationally intensive method cannot be found.

Styles Group comments on draft, dated11 May 2020

for safety reasons, and that is understood and explained in this section. Are night works are required for any other reason? Please see comments for Section 6. parts need to be completed. Piling will only occur 7am –7pm Monday –Saturday, unless the BPO demonstrates that it is required outside of these hours. At what stage will the BPO be confirmed?

No SSCVMP despite being highlighted in the bulk excavations and retaining walls works. the onset of structural distress. In more severe cases, falls of plaster or loose roof tiles or chimney pots can occur”. The quote from the DIN Standard relates to damage to non-load bearing partitions, consistent with a cosmetic effect.

This is incorrect. Condition 38.4 is not about exceedances of the vibration limit. It is about relaxing the limit to permit higher levels for particular receivers. In order for this to happen, a structural engineer must say it is safe to do so. An example of this is the CPO in Britomart. It is a heritage building, so would normally be categorised line 3 for vibration sensitivity. However, a structural engineer assessed the building and categorised it line 1, except line 2 for the west façade. A heritage expert was also involved with this process for this building.

Section 9 sets out general vibration mitigation strategies –including “less vibrationally intensive methods” –which will be put in place for this receiver as much as practicable. This SSCNVMP has not been completed yet, and more specific mitigation will be addressed at the appropriate time.

E.3 Auckland Council

Table E-3: Council peer review comments

DWP Section Comment

Section 2.3.1 Night and weekend work may be required

Section 6

Section 6 Risk Assessment is still in draft form and Section 6 repeatedly advises that:

Refer C28: 25 Enfield SSCNMP. Response

We have been advised that night/weekend work will be required only for craning the bridge platforms.

Section 6 has been completed.

This level of certainty cannot be provided. BPO will change as construction methods and site conditions vary.

Page 69 Mt Eden Main Works CNV DWP

Section 6

Section 6

Section 8

Section 8

Section 9.5

Sections 9.6, 9.7, 9.8 and 9.10 The risk assessment states that the following receivers are at risk of night works 8, 10-12 and 71 Boston Road, 5-7 Water Street, 25 Enfield Street, 22-24, 26, 32, 51- 63 Normanby Road How will night works be decided (BPO) and will the SSCNVMP’s be updated? Does the noise at risk system mean receivers are at risk of exceedance of a determined amount of noise, such as 5dB, 10dB, 15dB above the limit? It is noted that the vibration risk system is clear: buildings at risk of cosmetic building damage from the construction. Please provide more information on the noise risk system Section 8 states that: The work will be done by a blasting contractor. It is their responsibility to design and carry out the blasting programme so that vibration and air overpressure comply with the limits in CRL designation condition 32. The blasting contractor has prepared a Blasting Management Plan (BMP) –does the BMP also need review?

Section 8 states that: Trial blasts were carried out by Red Bull Powder Company Ltd on 5 February 2020 in order to measure the way vibration propagates through the basalt in the Mt Eden works area. The findings are summarised in Red Bull’s report ‘Link Alliance –97 Mt Eden Rd Seed Hole Analysis’, - does this report need review Section 9.5 states that Temporary noise barriers will be used where a construction noise limit is predicted to be exceeded and the barriers would noticeably reduce the construction noise level. Could a plan be provided to show the location of the temporary noise barriers

Sections 9.6, 9.7, 9.8 and 9.10 outline mitigation to be used where practicable. SSCNMP’s directly refer the user (contractor) back to the DWP, so either the CNV DWP or SSCNVMP’s need updating once it is known if the mitigation is practicable. We recommend that specifics are included in the SSCNVMP’s as these are live documents that can be amended when the BPO is identified. Or will the CNVDWP be updated once it is known if the mitigation is practicable or not?

Page 70 Mt Eden Main Works CNV DWP We have been advised that night/weekend work will be required only for craning the bridge platforms. List of receivers at risk from night works has been updated and clarified. (Table 5.1)

GIS noise maps show receivers where noise is expected to exceed 75 dBA, for each stage of works and the predicted levels. SSCNMPs have been generated for all these receivers and will be updated with predicted levels as they are developed further

No comment from us. Link Alliance can provide the BMP.

No comment from us. Link Alliance can provide the BMP.

Temporary noise barriers are most effective when they are located close to the noise source. They won’t be at fixed positions , and will move with the noise source (e.g. the breaker)

Any mitigation measures that relate to the source will be shown in the DWP. Mitigation that relates to the receivers will be shown in their SSCNVMP. If changes are made, the appropriate document will be updated

12.3

12.1

Appendix C Temporary relocation will be considered for sensitive receivers where all practicable noise and vibration management and mitigation measures have been implemented and significant adverse noise effects and vibration are predicted. This will be in exceptional cases only, and an SSCNVMP will have been prepared. Advice from the Acoustics Specialist will be incorporated as part of the SSCNVMP process (refer Sections 5.1.2 and 5.2.3). Have any receivers been identified as potentially having significant adverse noise or vibration effects that could require temporary relocation?

The noise effects matrices in tables 12-1 and 12-2 provide effects up to 85 dB LAeq external and 65 dB LAeq internal. Are any receivers predicted to received levels 5 dB or more higher than the levels in tables 12-1 and 12-2?

The draft SSCNVMP’s provided do not meet this objective. “We have previously agreed that where activity-specific BPO measures are implemented at source, rather than at the receiver, they are described in the CNV DWP only and not reproduced in each SSCNVMP. The reason LA want to take this approach is to avoids repetition and ensures that when BPO is updated, it only needs to be updated in the CNV DWP. However, the CNV DWP’s are not specific on the whether or not the mitigation will be implemented. This is addressed in Q7 above. Decisions on temporary relocation will come about following consultation and will be shown in their SSCNVMP. We have not foreshadowed the need for relocation at this stage.

There are instances where external levels are predicted to exceed 85 dB L Aeq . However, they are worst case, brief and infrequent (based on the closest point of works with no screening). Readers can see from the colour pattern that levels higher than 85 dB would be coloured red.

We cannot provide certainty on whether or not mitigation measures are practicable until site conditions and/or exact methodologies are established. As these elements change, and so will these “living” documents. This is the purpose of a management plan, and the purpose of the regular review process (Section 1.6).

Page 71 Mt Eden Main Works CNV DWP

Appendix C

Appendix C

Appendix C The SSCNVMP’s re-direct the user to the mitigation methods in the DWP. This is an approach we agreed LA could use but only for at source mitigation (e.g. enclosures around a concrete saw, or screening of rock breaking, etc) and not for mitigation at receiver, which needs to be in the SSCNVMP. The SSCNMP’s for the Main Works refer the user back to various other CNVDWP’s. For example, SSCNVMP C12 refers the user back to the Mount Eden Enabling works CNVDWP and SSCNMP C28 refers the user back to the Normanby Road early works CNVDWP. Our concern here is that the user (contractor) will need to have 3 or 4 DWP’s and if they are all 65 pages long this could affect how well the system will work for the user (contractor). Can we clarify if the Main Works CNVDWP should be stand alone document, or is suitable that multiple references are made to the previous DWP’s for the Early Works and Enabling Works? This is partly answered in section 6.2.1: The relevant content will be brought across into this section of the main works CNV DWP prior to the DWP being confirmed as part of the Outline Plan process, to ensure the content is up to date.

Q11: Table 1 shows the SSCNVMP components. To address conditions 37.5 and 38.5 the table shows: CNV DWP Section 6 identifies predicted noise and/or vibration exceedances using the modelling outputs in Sections 6.2 and 7.2. It identifies the need for an SSCNVMP. Each SSCNVMP summarises the consultation undertaken with individual receivers regarding the predicted exceedances. Section 6 does not provide predicted noise levels or the exceedances, but does provide set back distances for various activities. Could the SSCNMP’s provide the set back distances so we can get an approximation of the potential exceedance? SSCNVMP’s 2 –27, 31 Refer to both Mt Eden Main Works CNV DWP and Mt Eden Enabling Works CNV DWP SSCNVMP’s 28 –30 Refer to both Mt Eden Main Works CNV DWP and Mt Eden Early Works CNV DWP SSCNVMPs updated to remove references to previous DWPs

Table 5.1 will provide expected levels at each receiver for each works stage. Levels are also shown on the noise maps.

References removed

Page 72 Mt Eden Main Works CNV DWP

Appendix C

Appendix C SSCNVMP’s incorrect references and assessments. Some of the SSCNVMP’s seem to have incorrect references and assessments. For example, C2 (12-14 Nikau Street) states that the south façade is predicted to be exposed to noise levels up to 93 dB LAeq during the closest demolition and bored piling activities. This is a significant exceedance exceeding the 75 dB LAeq noise limit. C2 states that The predicted construction noise effects from Table 10-1 in Section 10.1 are predicted to be typically acceptable, but with the potential for some disturbance. Table 10.1 in the Main Works CNV DWP refers to communication. Assuming that the reference should be made to is to 12.1? This table shows that the predicted noise levels of 93 dB LAeq will result in Difficulty holding a normal conversation and reduction in work efficiency, which is not consistent with the comments in the SSCNMP. Please confirm if the predicted noise level of 93 dB LAeq is correct and what the correct CNVDWP reference should be.

SSCNVMP’s 34 –81 have not been completed yet.

Styles Group comments on Rev 000, dated10 July 2020

Section 6 (Night Works) If the BPO is not known at this stage (when SSCNVMP’s are being reviewed) then will there be time to review the BPO and is a further review of SSCNVMP required if the BPO triggers the need for unplanned night works?

Section 6 (Night Works) We agree with the steps for night works, but it is still not clear what the actual process if/when the need for unplanned night works is identified. We assume that this will go back though compliance for review. Please confirm. SSCNVMPs updated

The framework for SSCNVMP 32 to 82 has now been completed. Each SSCNVMP will be finalised when consultation with the individual landowners has been completed and mitigation options agreed.

The purpose of the certification process is to ensure the management framework is fit for purpose. It is a living document that will evolve with the works. It includes feedback loops to verify predicted levels as representative and response protocols as BPO.

In addition, a recommendation regarding the staged provisions of the SSCNVMPs to Council is expected in the outline plan decision.

Section 9.2 sets out construction hours and approach for necessary night works. Review would be required if there is a material change in accordance with Section 1.6. External review/re-certification of the CNV DWP and/or SSCNVMPs is triggered by the matters set out in Section 1.6.

Page 73 Mt Eden Main Works CNV DWP

Section 6 GIS Maps

Section 7 (Risk assessment –Vibration) Section 8 (Blasting) Section 9 (Mitigation and Management) Section 11 (Monitoring) Appendix C Appendix C Appendix C Appendix C How do we access the portal for the GIS noise maps (if it is required)?

Please provide more detail on the use of the hydraulic splitter instead of rock breaking. Has the hydraulic splitter been considered

for use in any other stages of rock breaking? We do not have a copy of the BMP. If the BMP is provided we can review the blasting effects. We appreciate that the barriers will be temporary but are there locations where you already know they will be needed. Can you provide a plan showing the locations of temporary noise barriers (if the locations are known)? This plan will assist the contractors and the council monitoring officer. In section 11.1 of the DWP, part of the process for dealing with a noise exceedance is to prepare (or update) a SSCNMP. When this is required will Councils compliance officer be notified? We recommend this is included in the step diagram figure 11-1. Same with vibration in section 11.2 and figure 11-2. This would be in line with the LA process set out in section 1.6.

A further review will be required when the mitigation measures are known (the site conditions and/or exact methodologies are

established). Table 5.1 does not provide the expected levels at each receiver and there are no noise maps included in the documents for review. Please confirm which the details in table 12- 1 are correct and that they are consistent with the comments in the SSCNVMP’s (e.g.

C2 (12-14 Nikau Street). Is there an update on the following proposed building modifications for 5

Page 74 Mt Eden Main Works CNV DWP PDF versions of the maps have been provided. We are still working to enable external access to the GIS maps. The hydraulic splitter was proposed by Link Alliance for the Station Platforms stage only. Section 7.2 states that it should be considered in other locations too, but we note that it may not be practicable in all instances.

BMP has been provided by Link Alliance.

Map has been developed and provided.

The DWPs and SSCNVMPs are living documents and must have the freedom to be updated as necessary. The purpose of the certification process is to ensure the management framework is fit for purpose. External review/re-certification of the CNV DWP and/or SSCNVMPs is triggered by the matters set out in Section 1.6.

The purpose of the certification process is to ensure the management framework is fit for purpose.

A recommendation regarding the staged provisions of the SSCNVMPs to Council is expected in the outline plan decision. Any subsequent external review/re-certification of the CNV DWP and/or SSCNVMPs is triggered by the matters set out in Section 1.6.

Noise levels are provided on the maps. PDFs have been provided.

Table 12-1 provides general guidance for the initial screening by the contractor and affected parties. Conversations with each receiver involve more context (e.g. sensitivity, façade performance, duration of works) so we don’t constrain the discussion just to the descriptions in Table 12-1. These upgrades have been reflected in their SSCNVMP.

Appendix C Porters Avenue?: - Secondary glazing to north and north-east facing windows. Note –secondary glazing involves retro-fitting an acrylic pane inside the existing glazing, with an airgap of 50mm or more. It does not change the existing glazing - Upgrading the sound insulation of the lintels (above ceiling level) to reduce sound entering offices via the ceiling path. When will the SSCVMP’s be completed? Engagement to inform the Main Works SSCNVMPs is due to commence. This may prioritise receivers near early works to ensure necessary SSCNVMPs are complete prior to the works commencing. There is no set end date.

E.4 Mana Whenua

The CNV DWP was issued to Mana Whenua in May 2020 for review.

Page 75 Mt Eden Main Works CNV DWP