Mr & Mrs Geoffrey & Angela Still Physical: 77b Viv - - PDF document

Geoffrey & Angela Still “Puhoi” Page: 1

Mr & Mrs Geoffrey & Angela Still Physical: 77b Viv Davie-Martin Drive, RD 4, Warkworth 0984 Email: Presentation: Puhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance: Puhoi to Warkworth Section Mr Chairman & members of the board, I am Angela Still, I am here to present on behalf of myself & Geoff Still. Our family lives at 77b Viv Davie-Martin Drive, Warkworth. We are east of the proposed alignment as it heads north & then south of the alignment as it heads east to join the existing State Highway 1, as the crows flies our north western boundary is 130 metres from the designation. Our home is within 200 metres of the designation. This Board Room is certainly not my natural environment, nor do I really even want to be here, it is only because we believe the negative impact to our lives to be so significant, so distressing, that we are here. We Oppose in Full the Proposal to build a new motorway from Puhoi to Warkworth Our opposition is on two levels: Firstly on a basic level, our reasons are as per our submission and raised again in our list of contested issues. We understand we have to rely on the Board of Enquiry to judge the project on its economic benefits, whether the NZTA have considered correctly the alternatives and whether the proposed alignment is the best option available to meet the

• bjectives. Having said that I draw your attention to the two included photos, these are of

the beautiful if wet & sometimes foggy valley north of our property. I’d like to just ask if constructing a motorway through a known flood plain & sometime fog bound gully is the best

• alternative. This proposal is a Road of National Significance, Mr Chairman; you made it clear

at the pre hearing conference, that was not open to debate. Which means there is no point in me addressing urban sprawl, climate change, peak fuel or other more fundamental issues. Since I am not a traffic engineer, town planner, geologist, ecologist, entomologist, economist nor an acoustic engineer my presentation today is more specifically about the personal significant negative impacts the proposed designation will have on our family. Geoff, my husband, grew up in Warkworth attending both Warkworth Primary & Mahurangi College, I grew up on Auckland’s North Shore. Our first home in 1989, was on Auckland’s Penrose Road. Although this allowed proximity to employment in Auckland we found the traffic noise, vibration & pollution unacceptable to us. We moved to Botany Downs in 1996, however there was further development of Ti Rakau Drive and the Eastern Arterial Route was reintroduced as an option for Auckland, the designation was already in place and so rather than stay to wait and see what happened we purchased land in Warkworth in 1994, well out of town, a quiet, peaceful lifestyle block. We made the move to create a quality

Geoffrey & Angela Still “Puhoi” Page: 2

lifestyle environment for our family, by making sacrifices – financial and social, we have created our home and land and a rural lifestyle for our family. We moved to get away from the noise, dirt and intense activity of urban living, to avoid the consultation, disruption & general distress that having a major roading project go in somewhere near us would cause. The additional irony of our situation is that the Eastern Arterial route was never constructed and here we are having our lives wrecked by this

• proposal. You will appreciate then that we feel somewhat hunted, victimised and ripped off

with this current designation being proposed for our back yard which means the loss of being able to enjoy a rural lifestyle and outlook, having to return to an urban environment, noise, pollution and all that it entails. Planning restrictions were imposed to ensure the rural outlook of the area was maintained, yet an enormous ugly four lane motorway will wreck the view. Our approach to our property has been to develop it in a self sustaining, environmentally sensitive way, we have established native plant areas, to encourage bird life. We are self sufficient in water, sewage, semi self self sufficient for food. So we have lived on and by main and busy roads. We have experienced first hand the rubbish they generate... The noise, the dust, the ugly, the vibration and the light and I am confident we will not acclimatise to the new environment NZTA brings to our property. It is not possible to quantify the distress and sense of loss caused by the permanent disruption the construction & operation this proposal ahs already caused & will continue to. Some of this stress is because by being a Road OF National Significance the process has had reduced timing. We all know this application is being fast tracked. You will know that submissions closed on the 13th of December, Patrick Kelly rung to acknowledge the submission and said they would be back in touch. Other than a response to a direct question it was the 13th of February that I heard from Murray Wallis. It is a busy time of year and I know people go on holidays, so do the NZTA therefore I am sceptical of the NZTA’s choice of timing. While I am commenting on that part of our experience, Murray’s call was to discuss having a facilitated meeting. We responded in the positive & gave three times of the week we were able to meet. A meeting for Viv Davie Martin Drive residents was proposed mid March for a meeting on the 25th of March; we were unable to attend but we have noted that the meetings haven’t seen much progress in settling our objections. We have been engaged in the consultation process having attended open days & had several meetings with NZTA to be as informed as possible, while NZTA rely on the science & the standards, there has been no concession to our situation. We can tell the board that we have put in hundreds of hours in reading, meeting, discussing, downloading and trying to understand the massive amount of information, putting together feedback, our submission and now this presentation. Over the last few years we have taken time off work and away from our busy family life to try to protect our family. And this is to put our case against an organisation which has hundreds of people putting in thousands of hours with unlimited resources. An example of this gross imbalance in power is we had thought to provide an expert noise witness. It became clear such an endeavour would be

Geoffrey & Angela Still “Puhoi” Page: 3

• utside our financial resources; seemingly it would be several thousand dollars just to get the

report desk reviewed. The Assessment of Environment Effects section 26 states “For some near neighbours the changes in environmental amenity will be noticeable, especially during the first few years of

• peration. These effects will lessen for some neighbours after a period of adjustment”

This does not accurately reflect the degree of stress that the process of this application has

• caused. The effects on individually affected persons are understated. These are more than

“minor adverse”. It is very upsetting to know that you really are powerless when dealing with the NZTA; we believe they hide behind the Public Works Act, NZ standards and the plethora

• f reports. We feel we are just collateral damage.

Our family have gone through a range of emotions as we have dealt with this situation, everything from anger, frustration, bitterness and grievance. Many tears and sleepless nights have resulted. Of course not everyone is dealing with issues at the same stage as they come to terms with it so we end up with inter-family tensions which put stress on relationships. The past four years have been very unsettling. We are trying to base life altering decisions

• n a project that has not been sufficiently substantiated, has vague conditions and is still to

be left open for what the NZTA call “innovative design”, we call it “wanting your cake & eating it”. It is our belief that for us these effects will not lessen and we are left with a much reduced quality of life. So then if the nation is to benefit from it the nation can take care to protect our property and our interests. I would like to address issues raised in our submission that require further explanation or comment on points raised during the evidence lodged, rebuttal evidence, cross examination

• r in other representations.
• 1. Landscape and Visual:

The undulating topography means that a large number of homes will loose what is currently a rural outlook to one off traffic, asphalt, bridges and other concrete structures required for extensive cuts & fills. We can not currently see the intersection of Carren Rd & Woodcocks Rd, the site of the Woodcocks Road viaduct as it is surrounded by bush. There has not been a visual simulation done to show us what it may look like from our property. Several times we have been given the “Until the developed design” line which creates uncertainty for us. When Murray Ellis & Robert Pryor visited our property they commented that they weren’t really sure what we would see and suggested we could “just plant some more trees”, yes we could and yes that would provide screening, but it would also impact on our neighbour’s

Geoffrey & Angela Still “Puhoi” Page: 4

morning sun and who would pay for the trees and provide the labour to plant them? I found the dismissive nature of their comments upsetting. The Landscape & Visual Assessment Report acknowledges the project will have “moderate to high impact on the visual & rural amenity values” and “adverse effect on existing rural character”. We don’t think the Assessment of Environment Effects section 26 goes far enough in recognising that this apart of town continues to develop and is therefore out of

• date. Our concern is the AEE under estimates the social impact of the motor way.

In regards to the part of the alignment north of our property we understand mitigation is limited because it is a flood plain our argument is if it can’t be properly mitigated, and I don’t mean just to the minimum standard, then don’t build the motorway there.

• 2. Noise:

Our dwelling is identified in Appendix C of the Operation Noise Assessment Report as being within 200m of the designation. The Construction Noise Assessment acknowledges that “The ambient noise levels adjacent to the project are generally low” and “The existing ambient noise levels for most of the alignment are dominated by natural environmental sounds not road noise”. We believe we will experience significant adverse effects during construction and operation. While we are not noise experts we are very wary of the noise reports For example the nearest noise receptor for the modelling appears to be at 40 Wyllie Road, which is a commercial engineering workshop – we don’t have one of those near us! We support the use of the Open Graded Porous Asphalt as the road surface and a means of noise mitigation, and the use of sound barriers. We also realise that the OGPA won’t be installed until the road has been operational for a year , that being the case we are concerned about what happens for the first year, is the road non compliant? Do we just have to “suck it and see”? Our further concerns around noise are the length of time the Construction Noise will take place for – indicative of 5 years. This is a significant length of time to have to deal with construction noise. And that Construction Noise will take place at night, at both the precast yard in Woodcocks Rd and at the bulk earthworks site in the Carren Road sector. If we assume the Puhoi to Warkworth leg is approved then it would seem to us that the precast yard may be maintained for the Warkworth to Wellsford leg. God forbid that we then have another 5 years of construction activity. The change in character & amenity of noise. We currently mostly hear birds, live stock, insects, lawn mowers, tractors, wind and rain, with the occasional nearby car and very low level day time traffic. Under certain conditions we are exposed to the existing State Highway

• ne traffic from about where the Motorway terminates. The noise from this increased several

years ago when the road was resealed. While the Construction Noise Assessment advises

Geoffrey & Angela Still “Puhoi” Page: 5

decibel readings are within acceptable levels and the Operation Noise Assessment advises the noise level will be unchanged from existing levels it is the quality of the noise which concern us. We have lived by heavily trafficked roads previously and find it distributive and distressing. In discussion with the NZTA noise consultant I was advised that the concrete barriers on the Woodcocks viaduct will lift the noise up, as our property appears to be higher than the viaduct we are concerned that there will be no benefit to us from the proposed concrete barriers. In the same discussion I was advised that the projected decibel readings are those of a normal suburban home. We are not a normal suburban home, we are a quiet rural home and I tell you we are of the “people highly annoyed by road traffic noise” group. Ms Wilkening also commented “you will get used to it” and that we were “lucky” there is an incline north of our residence. Frankly I found both comments offensive. From Siri Wilkening’s Rebuttal Evidence she states that she “Considers that the criteria set out in the Standard are reasonable in a residential context, providing appropriate

protection for noise sensitive activities”

I reiterate we are not a in a residential context, we do not just sit inside watching television. Her rebuttal evidence states “Reasons against barriers in this area included issues with storm water flows, visual and cost implications, and the fact that only relatively minor noise level reductions (less than 5 decibels for individual dwellings) could be achieved with the use of high and long barriers “ For us even a realatively minor noise level reduction would be better than nothing. The use of NZS6808:2010 allows NZTA to discount the effects of noise on dwellings more than 200 m from the highway. The road alignment was moved westward in the Carran Road sector, in part, so that those houses on Viv Davie-Martin Drive that overlooked the proposed highway did not have to be considered. This is convenient for NZTA but overlooks the fact that these properties will still be negatively affected by the project, noise, dust, light etc, even probably more than other residences, as they are elevated. NZTA have been selective and insensitive to the impact of the highway on us & our neighbors people. Noise, dust & light does not magically stop at 200 meters. The reporting all seems to refer to average noise rather than the maximum noise. It is the maximum noise that will be the most distressing. While our hearing may deteriorate as we get older, I think it is the quieter sounds that will go first so we won’t be able hear the birds instead we will hear the traffic. Our main argument is as it can’t be fully mitigated, and I don’t just mean to the minimum standard, and then don’t build the motorway there.

• 3. Air Quality:

The NZTA have not applied for approval for their inevitable discharge of motorway particulates/pollutants e.g. soot, dust, grit that will be created and will settle onto adjacent properties and notably onto the land they will acquire but also beyond that land onto adjoining properties.

Geoffrey & Angela Still “Puhoi” Page: 6

Our most recent experience of construction dust is that on the corner of Mason Heights & Woodcocks road a construction site was operating late last year. It is about 1 kilometre south

• f our home and we experienced a dust increase on the southern side of our home.

Our home is 200m from the designation; we collect water from our roof for our household use, for our stock & for irrigation of fruit & vegetables. Due to our concerns around construction & operational dust and emissions finding their way into our water supply, particularly our drinking water, we requested a condition of the designation that the NZTA will identify homes that collect roof water for drinking that will be affected by dust and they will protect the quality of the water, if this protection can not be done at the source i.e. on the designation the NZTA will fund water filters for our home prior to start of construction or provide alternative water supply. The proposed NZTA condition 45 includes an offer of tank water replacement for dwellings within 200 metres; I have had confirmation that we are to be included in that condition. That is only during the construction period. At first that seemed appropriate but now . . . we believe that to be problematic & even wasteful. Should our collected water supply become contaminated we will have to dispose of the whole tank load. That is 25,000 litres of water. The properties below us would not thank us for emptying our tank, we do not know if that is permitted under council regulations. Further we have a moderate estimate our consumption, calculated at 15,000 litres per month. 20000 litres every four months will not meet our needs if there is earth works undertaken that contaminates our water supply. We maintain that if the quality of our water can not be protected at the source of contamination i.e. on the designation, the NZTA should fund water filters for our home prior to start of construction or provide complete alternative water supply. Life is busy enough without having to fuss around with disconnecting down pipes, emptying water tanks & liaising to get replacement water. Many homes grow fruit & vegetables for their families; it is a concern that dust and emissions from the motor way will reduce the quality of these. We also raise sheep & cattle, the dust and emissions will also affect their grazing. We request the board of enquiry to make it a condition of the designation that there are rigorous dust mitigation procedures in place. 4 Light Pollution: To enjoy the peace & quiet under a star lit night is one of the true pleasures of our move north, I don’t know if the proposal goes far enough to protect that. 5 Construction Traffic: The Construction Traffic Assessment Report has identified the safety concern we have regarding traffic movements around Mahurangi College and agree with the recommendation that it is desirable to schedule heavy vehicle movements not to use Woodcocks Road during the start and end of the school day. Our concern is around the identification of alternative

• routes. We acknowledge that the elimination of Falls road as an alternative is the one

concession NZTA have made towards us in their proposal.

Geoffrey & Angela Still “Puhoi” Page: 7

The Construction traffic through the dreaded Hill Street Intersection has been extensively discussed, I have one comment, the reason there are so few injury accidents at that site is because the intersection is so difficult very few drivers are stupid enough to get up any speed, personally I treat that intersection with great caution, as I would a temperamental Dowager; unless you’d all like to get the Hill Street discussion again I’ll say “enough said”. However I am not sure enough attention has been drawn to the Construction Traffic Assessment Report identifying Carren Road & Kaipara Flats Road as an alternative route for Construction traffic to and from Sites 11, 12, 13 & 15. The northern end of Carran Road is has steep inclines, is unstable, has blind corners & is narrow. I raise the same concern as was early on in the proceedings regarding two opposing construction trucks and a horse or pedestrian, for this road as well as Moirs Hill road.

• 6. Property Devaluation:

We believe that the proposed alignment devalues our property. We believe that our property will be less valuable with the designation in its current position; we would certainly not buy it! However until it is built there is uncertainly for us and prospective buyers. It will certainly be less attractive during the construction period which means we are either tied to staying here for at least five years or to take a financial loss on

• ur investment. We have also been reluctant to proceed with further capital investment in
• ur property, for example solar power, a calf raising shed and a DVS system, because we

may not recover the outlay. Should the project go ahead, the severance of the Civil property will further affect us, It may be just the odd cattle truck but it may also leave the opportunity for some speculator to purchase the land, carve it up & by using the right of way across our northern boundary turn our street into a main road. This proposal has put our lives into abeyance. We have no certainty and do not feel that we can make progress on our future plans. And it’s not possible to put a dollar value on the distress and loss caused by such permanent

• disruption. But what I would suggest is that the NZTA take responsibility for the devastation

this project is causing & provide compensation to more than just those parties whose property they buy. Further suppose the designation is approved, five years of construction and one year of

• peration without noise mitigation on the surface, and then NZTA start on the next

Warkworth – Wellsford leg. There is still no certainly for us regarding that in this proposal. We moved into our home in April 2006. The first Newsletter from the NZTA regarding the RONS Puhoi to Wellsford came out in April 2010, we have been living with the stress of the uncertainty ever sine. Anecdotally one of our neighbours ended up selling at a financial loss just to be done with it; sadly he died shortly after.

Geoffrey & Angela Still “Puhoi” Page: 8

When we first found out about the indicative route we were devastated to imagine it might come through our lounge, now we find that actually that would be a blessing because we could have had our property acquired at its full amenity value and been able to move on. NZTA acting group manager of highways and network operations Neil Walker said "We view property acquisition as much more than simply a project cost; it is a process in which we are impacting significantly on people's lives” I say to you every thing about this project impacts significantly on our lives and it is all negative. When we bought our land there was discussion of an upgrade to the Hill Street Intersection and on the ten year plan a Western Collector Route, it was also a condition of the resource consent that the culvert north of us on Falls Road be upgraded. Neither of these has

• happened. Now there is the Puhoi – Warkworth Proposal.

Two things, firstly NZTA, Rodney District Council, Auckland Transport, who ever, don’t do the things they say they will and do things they didn’t. This provides a very uncertain future for

• ur family.

Secondly the proposed route, the Western Collector Route & the suggestion of a northern link road will surround the subdivision we live in with busy roads. This area is zoned countryside living. The proposal turns a portion of western Warkworth into a road network negatively impacting on the quality of life of residents The Assessment of Environment Effects section 24.5 states “Traffic moved away from the densely populated areas of Warkworth Township to sparsely populated areas. The modest decrease noise in noise level from traffic reduction on SH1 will benefit many residents” We would suggest to the board of Enquiry that residents in the densely populated areas choose to live there, we and our neighbours chose to live in a more sparsely populated area, i.e. Countryside Living not motorway side living . Some people will say you have to break eggs to make omelettes; well these are our very precious eggs the NZTA propose to smash to bits & splatter over the countryside. We have stated we request the board decline the application, should they see fit to approve it we want the certainty that the NZTA will build it doing everything possible, that is not the best practicable option, that is not in just in accordance with standards, that is not just what complies, that is every thing possible, to return our lives to the quality and certainty our family deserves. And to those that suggest we are just “NIMBYS” I’d say, exactly, NOT IN MY BACK YARD. Thank you for the opportunity to present and for your understanding. .

Geoffrey & Angela Still “Puhoi” Page: 9