BEFORE THE HEARING PANEL. IN THE MATTER OF the Resource Management Act 1991 AND. for the Palmerston North City Council. Proposed Plan Change 22A-G

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE HEARING PANEL IN THE MATTER OF the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THAT MATTER OF the Proposed Plan Change 22A-G for the Palmerston North City Council Proposed Plan Change 22A-G Statement of Evidence of Nigel Robert Lloyd On behalf of Palmerston North City Council Dated: 6 September 2018

2 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE... 2 CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EXPERT WITNESSES... 2 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE... 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS ON NOISE... 3 TOPIC ONE: DEFINITIONS... 4 TOPIC TWO: VIBRATION... 4 TOPIC THREE: NOISE LIMITS... 4 TOPIC FOUR: NOTIONAL BOUNDARY... 5 TOPIC FIVE: EXCLUSIONS FROM NOISE CONTROL RULES... 7 CONCLUSION

3 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 1. My name is Nigel Robert Lloyd. I have been an acoustic consultant with Acousafe Consulting & Engineering Ltd since I hold a degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Wales, University College Cardiff received in My previous work experience includes five years as the noise control engineer with the New Zealand Department of Labour and three years with the Industrial Acoustics Company in the United Kingdom. Including my time spent with Acousafe as an acoustical consultant this is a total of over forty years direct involvement with noise control and acoustical related work. 3. I am a Member of the Acoustical Society of New Zealand and I have completed a Making Good Decisions course. Australasian Acoustical Consultants. Acousafe is a member of the Association of 4. I have advised Council on a range of noise matters since the mid-1990s and I gave advice at that time on noise issues for the Operative District Plan. I have advised Council on noise matters pertaining to their current round of Sectional District Plan reviews CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EXPERT WITNESSES 5. I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in the Environment Court Practice Note While this is not an Environment Court hearing, I have prepared this evidence in accordance with, and I agree to comply with, that code for this hearing. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed. I confirm that the issues addressed in this brief of evidence are within my area of expertise. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 6. I have been asked to provide evidence in relation to Plan Change 22 regarding noise. 2

4 7. I reviewed the District Plan provisions and, in particular, Section 6.2 General Rules - Noise, which contains the overarching noise provisions for the District Plan. The Section 6.2 review updates the District Plan provisions to the latest noise performance standards. These standards have been progressively reviewed as the various District Plan Changes have taken place. My review report for Plan Change 22 was dated 29 November 2016 and is included as Appendix 5 of the Section 32 Reports. 8. At the time of writing this evidence the outcome of the mediation for Temporary Military Training Activities is still unknown. This may influence the provisions of Section 6.2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9. Plan Change 22 provides for streamlining of Section 6 with regards to the way in which noise is measured and assessed throughout the District Plan. 10. The recommendations in this review bring noise controls in the District Plan in line with the 2008 versions of NZS 6801 and NZS 6802 removing reference to earlier versions of these Standards. ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS ON NOISE 11. Twelve individual submission points in total have been received on the proposed PPC22C - Noise. The topics raised in submissions are as follows: Definitions Vibration Noise Limits Notional Boundary Exclusions from Noise Control Rules 12. A number of the submissions dealt with issues such as the appropriateness of noise performance standards for the various zones. I deal with this generally later in my evidence but the time for submitting on noise performance standards was during the sectional district plan review process for the individual zones when consideration was specifically given to the appropriateness of the noise standards in each case. 3

5 TOPIC ONE: DEFINITIONS 13. Submissions were received on the definition of Exterior A Weighted Aircraft Noise Levels. The submissions sought to retain the definition. 14. I recommend that these submissions be rejected because: a. The words Exterior A Weighted Aircraft Noise Levels are not now used in the District Plan, b. The methodology used within the District Plan relies on Ldn aircraft noise levels as defined by NZS6805:1992, c. The definition in the District Plan refers to an outdated version of Australian Standard AS 2021, d. The methodology used in the District Plan now relies on an ISO Standard to provide for aircraft noise insulation. TOPIC TWO: VIBRATION 15. One submission was received seeking clarification that the District Plan covers the effects of vibration noise on people s health. 16. There have been no complaints about vibration received by Council in recent times. The definition of noise in the RMA includes vibration and, as such, unreasonable or excessive vibration is controlled by the Act. TOPIC THREE: NOISE LIMITS 17. Submissions were received seeking that noise limits contained within the District Plan not be relaxed and submitting that the limits fail to provide an adequate level of protection to people from excessive noise. 18. The noise performance standards have been analysed for each zone in turn as the Section District Plan reviews have been undertaken. The noise limits included within 4

6 the District Plan for Rural and Residential are equal to or (normally) stricter than the recommended maximum guidelines in the New Zealand Standards. Inside Business Zones, the outside noise limits are teamed with noise insulation standards to provide appropriate internal noise levels. 19. There are no noise limits within the Industrial Zone (as noise sensitive activities are actively avoided here) but the noise limits at the interface of Industrial and Business Zones with Residential Zones have been set at the maximum guideline limits in New Zealand Standard NZS 6802:2008 Acoustics Environmental noise. People living adjacent to Industrial Zones and Business Zones cannot expect to be provided with the same level of aural amenity as a person residing in a quiet suburban area for example. TOPIC FOUR: NOTIONAL BOUNDARY 20. Submissions were received from Mercury Energy (S7/002), NZ Wind Energy Association (S24/001) and Radio New Zealand (S12/003) that concerned the information contained within Section Setting Noise Limits, that describes the application of noise limits within the Rural Zone at the site boundary, rather than the notional boundary. The notional boundary is defined by NZS 6808:2010 Acoustics Wind farm noise as a line 20 metres from any side of a dwelling or other building used for a noise sensitive activity, or the legal boundary where this is closer to such a building. 21. Mercury Energy and NZ Wind Energy Association oppose the proposed changes to Section as they consider that they do not reflect all circumstances for setting noise limits within the Rural Zone, and in particular is inconsistent with noise assessments set out in some NZ Standards and rules within the Plan. They provide an example of NZS 6808:2010 Acoustics Wind Farm Noise, where noise limits are applied at a noise sensitive location which includes land zoned for a residential use and a notional boundary of a residential property. Another example is in the Rural Zone rules R9.8.6 Wind Farms and R9.8.6A Turitea Wind Farm, where standards on these rules establish noise limits to be applied at the notional boundary. 5

7 22. Mercury Energy and NZ Wind Energy Association request that the text in Section Setting Noise Limits is amended to read; 23. Noise limits within the Rural Zone are applied at or within the boundary of any land zoned for residential purposes or at or within the boundary of any land in the Rural Zone (other than land from which the noise is emitted or a road). Analysis 24. A fundamental principle and duty imposed by the Resource Management Act 1991 is to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on the environment arising from an activity. In practice, this requires any activity to internalise their adverse effects as much as reasonably possible. This concept was explored by the Environment Court at length in the decision of Winstone Aggregates Limited v Papakura District Council (A049/02). That decision clarified earlier decisions of the Court relating to any requirement under the RMA to internalise adverse effects. I consider that the use of notional boundary as a future planning control disregards this fundamental principle. 25. By submitting that noise should be measured at the notional boundary of a dwelling is arguing that a noise maker has the right to contaminate adjoining land with their noise and that the neighbour should then be prevented from encroaching on the noise maker by applying reverse sensitivity controls. 26. I consider that this approach wrongly gives the upper hand to the noise maker and removes the existing right of the neighbour to construct their dwelling on their land free of noise contamination. In Palmerston North the construction of a dwelling in the Rural Zone is a permitted activity. 27. Because a person may also introduce a noisy activity onto land as a permitted activity (or as a discretionary activity but meeting the permitted baseline) then applying the noise assessment at the notional boundary causes a direct conflict between the right to generate the noise and the right to be protected against it. 28. The development of a new dwelling closer to the noise maker will impose a new noise control, which would have serious ramifications. 6

8 29. With the site boundary assessment location, then if a new noisy activity exceeds the noise limits at the site boundary, then this allows an assessment of the sensitivity of the adjoining land to be made. In the very least it would normally provide for the neighbour to be notified about the application, which is only fair if the noise is going to spill onto that person s land. 30. Wind farms are treated differently in the District Plan in that there are reverse sensitivity controls that provide for a 1.5 km separation distance between any new dwellings and any wind turbine on any site for which a wind farm resource consent application has been granted. This controls the development of new dwellings closer to the wind farm and as such it is appropriate to use the notional boundary of existing (or consented) dwellings as the control point for wind farm noise for receivers in the Rural Zone. 31. For this reason, I recommend that the submissions be accepted with respect to measuring and assessing wind farm noise at the notional boundary for noise sensitive activities in the Rural Zone but rejected for other noise generators. TOPIC FIVE: EXCLUSIONS FROM NOISE CONTROL RULES 32. Submissions were received from Aokautere Land Holdings Limited (S3/001), Radio New Zealand (S12/002 and 003), Kiwirail (S11/012) and NZ Wind Energy Association (S42/004) in relation to the provisions contained within Rule Exclusions from Noise Control Rules. 33. Kiwirail (S11/012) and NZ Wind Energy Association (S42/004) supported R as notified. 34. Aokautere Land Holdings Limited (S3/001) seek amendments to R (h) to ensure that the Rule provides for construction noise associated with earthworks, given that it is an essential part of subdivision and building activity. The submitter seeks that R (h) is amended to read; 7

9 Sounds generated by construction, including housing, road construction and associated earthworks, and maintenance and demolition activities, and, additionally, sounds generated by soil conservation and river control works carried out or supervised by the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council in the Flood Protection Zone, shall be assessed, predicted, measured, managed and controlled by reference to New Zealand Standard NZ6803:1999 Acoustics Construction Noise. 35. Radio New Zealand (S12/002 and 003) seek an additional clause to R and its explanation to provide for the Operation and testing of emergency generators by Lifeline Utilities as defined in the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act Analysis 36. In response to the submission of Aokautere Land Holdings Limited (S3/001), I do not consider that construction works need to be further defined in the manner sought by this submitter. Each of the further activities provided are, in my mind, clearly construction works and thus excluded by the generic terms used in R (h). If the submitter can provide evidence that there are aspects of housing or road construction that would not be covered by R (h) then I would further consider this but it is dangerous to add this sort of further prescription because it may influence the rule for other types of construction activity that are not mentioned i.e. there could be unintended consequences. 37. I consider that housing, road construction and associated earthworks would already be covered by NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics- Construction noise. 38. Turning to the submission of Radio New Zealand (S12/002 and 003) I appreciate their reasons for the need to provide for operation and testing of emergency generators by Lifeline Utilities. 39. Lifeline Utilities are defined within the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002 (and this is expanded upon in the reporting officer s evidence). 40. I consider that it is appropriate to allow emergency generators for Lifeline Utilities to exceed noise levels when required or tested, without the need to comply with noise 8

10 limits because the testing can be undertaken at a reasonable time and would be of short duration i.e. for one or two hours every month. The generators would not otherwise generate noise except in emergency situation when exceedences would be justified. The alternative would be that the Lifeline Utility would be faced with high costs for noise insulation to offset an otherwise short-term inconvenience for neighbours. Recommendations 41. I recommend that the submissions of Radio New Zealand (S12/002 and 003) are accepted in part and that Rule is amended to include a new clause (i) to read: Operation and testing of emergency generators between 8am and 6pm by Lifeline Utilities as defined in the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act CONCLUSION 42. I have undertaken a review of section 6.2 of the General Rules and recommended how these rules should be updated and made relevant. 43. I have considered the relevant submissions concerning the retention of the definition of A-weighted Aircraft Sound levels, the control of vibration, assessment and monitoring at the notional boundary of a dwelling and the exclusions in R I recommend that submissions regarding the notional boundary monitoring should only be accepted for Rural Zone receivers with wind farm noise assessment and that exclusions should include the testing of emergency generators by Lifeline Utilities at reasonable hours. Nigel Robert Lloyd DATED this 6 th Day of September

11 PC22B Signs: Statement of Evidence of David Charnley 10 Sept 2018 BEFORE THE HEARINGS PANEL In the Matter of: And The Resource Management Act 1991 Proposed Plan Change 22A-G: B: Signs Application By: Palmerston North City Council STATEMENT OF URBAN DESIGN EVIDENCE BY DAVID REGAN CHARNLEY Dated: 10 September

12 PC22B Signs: Statement of Evidence of David Charnley 10 Sept 2018 INTRODUCTION 1) My name is David Charnley. I am a landscape architect and the urban designer for Palmerston North City Council having practiced as a design professional in both local government and as a private consultant for 16 years. I have a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture with Honours from Lincoln University and I am a registered member of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects. 2) I have previous experience in private practice advising and leading private and public realm design projects around New Zealand and overseas from masterplan and detailed design to construction and project management including private residences, commercial developments, educational, institutional, streetscape and public open space projects. 3) My current position is as urban designer for Palmerston North City Council. 4) I was involved in the development of PC22B (Section 6.1 Signs), preparing the Urban Design Sign Audit for Palmerston North May 2017 (technical report) to support the review of Section 6.1 Signs. 5) I confirm that I have read and am familiar with the Environment Court s Code of Conduct Practice Note I agree to be bound by that Code of Conduct and confirm that I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express in the following evidence. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 6) My evidence addresses issues raised by submissions received regarding the effects of signs on visual amenity and character of urban areas on the notified version of PNCC District Plan Change 22B: Signs. SUBMISSIONS Evidence or basis requiring council control of the location and design of signs in the City. 7) Submitters S27/015 & S28/050 raise the question of what body of evidence or basis has informed the control of the location and design of signs. 8) My technical report sets outs both a theoretical basis and methodology to assess and determine any visual effects on amenity and character from commercial signage throughout the city of Palmerston North. 3

13 PC22B Signs: Statement of Evidence of David Charnley 10 Sept ) The technical report is grounded in the theory of imageability or city image and a context sensitive approach to signage. That is: Complex city form is made legible to the individual through the continual building of city images through space and time. City image provides identity and structure by which to move and navigate through the development of a mental map. Studied collectively mental maps reveal five common city image elements Path, Node, Edge, District, Landmark. Common city image elements provide for the open-ended and variable existence, change or disappearance of other lesser, temporal physical elements. Signs being one of these. Signs can visually signal a perceived change in city form or give heightened awareness of distinctive character through an increase in sign density or typology. For commercial reasons signs can be subject to frequent change often without disruption to the structure and identity of basic city elements. The primary role of a sign is to provide identity. They are a key component in supporting successful movement and wayfinding through city form. Signs assist viewers to navigate and recognise they have arrived at the right location or trigger an impulse to purchase services or goods. A context sensitive approach to signage considers both the physical surroundings and the viewer audience to ensure clear recognition of location, efficient processing of information, clear decision making, safe execution of vehicle movement and strong promotion of commercial activity. Consideration of sign type, locality, visibility and physical design being the basic design principles of a good sign strategy. 10) The following methodology was then applied to visually assess commercial signage across the city: Preliminary scoping of where signage typically occurs throughout the city form. Confirm sample areas (Refer Appendix I) that displayed one attribute of each of the following main criteria: District Plan Zone - Business, Industrial, Residential, Institutional, Heritage & Culture Road Typology Major Arterial, Minor Arterial, Collector or Local Road City Image Element Path, Edge, Node, District & Landmark 4

14 PC22B Signs: Statement of Evidence of David Charnley 10 Sept 2018 Individual commercial activities within each identified sample areas were visited with all signage types employed for each site recorded and quantified. All signage types for each activity were collectively assessed against the varying attributes of the basic design principles of a good sign strategy: Location where the signs are physically located on site Visibility conspicuity, density, spreading of information, compatibility with architecture, blocking of public views, reinforcement of business type, dominance of surrounding environment, enhancement of surrounding character, conveys heritage Design size, scale, form, information, text, graphics, colour and contrast A visual score of either Poor (1), Fair (2), Good (3), Very Good (4), Excellent (5) was assigned to each attribute to determine a total score for each principle. An overall score was then determined for each commercial activity assessed. An overall score was then determined for each sample area assessed. An overall score of Fair-Good (56) was determined as the minimum threshold value of a displaying a good signage strategy. 11) The results for all sample areas visually assessed are as below: SAMPLE AREA OVERALL LOCATION OVERALL VISIBILITY OVERALL DESIGN OVERALL SCORE MEETS THRESHOLD OVERALL VISUAL WEIGHTING A GOOD GOOD GOOD 58.2 YES GOOD B FAIR FAIR FAIR 50.8 NO FAIR C FAIR FAIR FAIR 54.8 NO FAIR D FAIR FAIR FAIR 37.1 NO POOR - FAIR E FAIR FAIR FAIR 48.5 NO FAIR F FAIR FAIR POOR 38.7 NO FAIR G FAIR FAIR POOR 36.9 NO POOR -FAIR H FAIR FAIR FAIR 40.3 NO FAIR I GOOD GOOD GOOD 58.0 YES GOOD Signage types employed differed between the sample areas reflecting the type of viewer audience in each sample area being targeted by the commercial activity. For example, dominance of ground floor, veranda edge (fascia) and hanging veranda signage within the Inner Business Zone where pedestrian movement is high. 5

15 PC22B Signs: Statement of Evidence of David Charnley 10 Sept 2018 Overall the signage of each of the samples area assessed weighted as being between Poor-Fair to Good with only two sample areas meeting the set visual threshold. No sample areas weighted Very Good or Excellent. Individually some sites weighted higher or lower than the overall scores of the sample area they were located. Only two individual properties assessed across all sample areas achieved a score of Very Good. A high rate of the sample areas assessed scored below the set threshold indicating there is room for improvement in how commercial activities best communicate to their target audiences through signage. 12) Reasons for a poor or good signage score included amongst others: Suitability of sign type to target viewer audience; The level of sign density and spreading of information; Consideration of the architecture to which the sign is fixed; Spatial competition from secondary signage and other surrounding signage; Sign design and construction; and Level of importance placed on signage by the business owner of the site. 13) Issues to emerge from all sample areas audited (Pages 5, 52-54) were: Adverse visual effects of secondary signage on residential areas fronting commercial or institutional activities. Dominance of large ancillary and non-ancillary billboards over residential dwellings and some city centre buildings. Visual clutter from a high density of unnecessary or ineffective signage. Visual blocking of above ground floor architecture from the street level, especially on heritage and character buildings within heritage areas of the city-centre. 6

16 PC22B Signs: Statement of Evidence of David Charnley 10 Sept 2018 Disruption of skyline view from the street level, especially heritage and character buildings within the city centre. Spatial competition of available onsite space between ancillary & non-ancillary signage. Spatial creep of non-ancillary signage on residential boundaries and city-centre buildings. Ineffective use of signs to the needs of the target viewer audience. Physical obstruction to the safe and efficient movement of the walking viewer. Incompatible size, scale and form of bylaw signs. Incompatible size, scale, form of sign design to the architecture that the sign is located onto. Poor use of text font, text size, colour and contrast in sign design. Poor use of graphics and icons in sign design. 14) The findings of my technical report indicate that the current approach to commercial signage throughout the city is leading to negative effects on visual amenity and city character, especially on individual buildings, adjoining properties and their surrounding areas. 15) An increased control on sign design and location will have a positive impact in reducing such effects in particular with regard to: Increasing effective communication with the target viewer audiences. Reducing unnecessary visual clutter to improve legibility and increase safety for the viewer navigating and moving through city form. Integrating with architectural form to retain city form character. Managing visual blocking to reveal architectural form and skyline above the street level. Managing non-ancillary spatial creep and dominance over top of any commercial activity. Managing non-ancillary spatial creep and dominance over individual buildings or city form character. 16) Based on the assessment and findings of my technical report, I recommend that the provisions relating to design and location be retained. 7

17 PC22B Signs: Statement of Evidence of David Charnley 10 Sept 2018 Design adding unassessed additional cost to applicants 17) Submitters S27/015 & 019 & S28/050 & 055 consider that design requires aesthetic judgement and will result in additional unassessed costs to an applicant in consenting, requiring expert Architect, Landscape Architect and/or Urban Design assessments. 18) I agree that by controlling design additional costs may be incurred by the applicant, however one may argue that there could be a different cost to the city if not controlled. That is a continued increase of: negative effects on visual amenity and character of city form. poor identity and structure (legibility) by which the viewer navigates and moves through city form. 19) I consider aesthetic judgement as being subjective. Being about beauty and the judgement of the beautiful. Not of the object itself but the way it is perceived by the subject. It can be considered that aesthetics rest on feelings, are free of all ends and purposes and are ends in themselves. They neither seek to rest on or generate any reason, concept, purpose or goal. They are full and complete in themselves 1. 20) It would appear from my technical report that aesthetic judgement is already being applied by many business owners, sign makers and designers leading to the adverse effects identified on visual amenity and character of city form currently caused by commercial signage. For signage design to be effective in addressing adverse effects on visual amenity and character and to improve identity and structure of movement for the viewer an objective and purposeful design approach needs to be applied. 21) To control location and design of signs is an objective response with a purpose to address the issues raised within my report. Location to target audience and the application of design attributes - size, scale, form, information, text, graphics, colour and contrast offer a high degree of design flexibility and variation for commercial activities. These attributes can be applied by either the applicant, a sign maker or a design professional. 22) I recommend that the use of the term design is retained. Signs above veranda requiring resource consent 1 Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgement, 1790 Translated by Meredith, J.C Revised, edited, and introduced by Walker,N. Oxford University Press

18 PC22B Signs: Statement of Evidence of David Charnley 10 Sept ) Submitter S10/005 opposes the requirement for above veranda signs to have resource consent in the Inner Business Zone as long as these signs pose no hazard to people using the footpath below. 24) The submitter s opposition to Rule is considered a safety issue and not a design issue. This rule should be retained. 25) Submitter 32/009 seeks the deletion of Rule (c) (vi) considering the rule to be overly onerous and not recognising the nature and intention of signage within the city-centre. 26) Signs above the height of the veranda within the Inner Business Zone of the city-centre are highlighted within my technical report as a visual effects issue on the amenity and character of individual buildings, adjoining properties and the localised area. 27) The negative effects on visual amenity and character highlighted in the report stem from design decisions made by business owners, building owners and/or their representatives to the sign type employed, its physical location to the building and sign design itself. 28) The primary target viewer audience of the inner business zone within the city-centre is that of the walking pedestrian. This is confirmed in the technical report by the high number of ground floor, veranda edge (fascia), veranda hanging and street sandwich boards found within in sample areas A, B, F, G & H as opposed to the low number of above veranda signs present. 29) However, where signs are present on top of the veranda or above the height of the veranda they contribute to visual blocking of the above ground floor building facade when viewed from the street level especially on heritage and character buildings (Refer to Figures 1, 2 & 3). Disruption of building skyline can also occur when signs placed high on a building parapet or roofline are out of scale or form to the building (Refer to Figure 5 & 6). 30) These and other non-ancillary signs were found to be located over building windows (Refer to Figure 4) restricting the opening of the window for airflow, access to solar gain and city-centre outlook for internal users of these buildings above the ground floor. 31) Other non-ancillary signs above the veranda were also found to restrict the useable sign space of the ground floor commercial activity directly below with most visually dominating the existing signage of the ground floor activity. These signs also crowd out effective building space and legibility for other signs ancillary to the activity at the ground floor (Refer to Figure 7) 9

19 PC22B Signs: Statement of Evidence of David Charnley 10 Sept 2018 Figures 1. Examples of above veranda signage blocking views of the above ground floor architecture of heritage buildings. This group of buildings are located within the North-West Square Heritage Area. Figures 2. Examples of above veranda signage blocking views of the above ground floor architecture of buildings. 10

20 PC22B Signs: Statement of Evidence of David Charnley 10 Sept 2018 Figures 3 & 4. Examples of above veranda signage blocking views of the above ground floor architecture of buildings (street character buildings located within North West Square Heritage Area.) and non-ancillary signage blocking windows and outlook views. Figure 5. Example of above veranda sign blocking views of the above ground floor architecture and disrupting skyline view 11

21 PC22B Signs: Statement of Evidence of David Charnley 10 Sept Figure 6. Example of above veranda digital signage poor location and scale, disrupting skyline view Figure 7. Example of non-ancillary signage above veranda restricting useable sign space of the ground floor activity as well as blocking views of above ground floor architecture. 32) If one was to look wider across the Inner Business Zone beyond the sample areas, there are examples of signs above the height of the veranda where sign type, location and design responds well to its context with less than minor visual effect on the surrounding visual amenity and character (Refer Figures 8 & 9). This includes a large proportion of signage located on the submitters property fronting The Square. In fact, this north facing edge of the Plaza is a 12

22 PC22B Signs: Statement of Evidence of David Charnley 10 Sept 2018 good example of both a poor and good approach to signage above the height veranda (Refer Figure 10). Figures 8 & 9. Good examples of above veranda signage within the inner business zone. Consideration given to sign type, location (integrated into building architecture). Sign design of good size, scale, form, font, colour, contrast and graphic. Creates clear identity and structure for viewer movement and navigation. Figure 10. The Plaza. An example of both good and poor above veranda signage within the city centre. Most ancillary above veranda signage is well located and integrated to architecture of building façade with good employment of sign design attributes. Non-ancillary signage located over window fenestrations with no regard to scale, form and architecture of available building façade. Sign design attributes poor. 13

23 PC22B Signs: Statement of Evidence of David Charnley 10 Sept ) These good examples are the result of a context sensitive approach to signage with sign type, location and design considering the existing usable space of the building and surrounding city form. Some of these examples are large of size but have a sense of fit to the building and surrounding city form. Views from the street level of the building architecture above the ground floor is retained as is the outlook and access to solar gain from within the building. It is these good urban design outcomes that the performance standard seeks to promote. I recommended the Controlled Activity status for above veranda signage is retained. Permitted size of digital or illuminated signs restricted to 2.5m 2 34) Submitter 32/010 seeks the deletion of Rule (f) (iii) considering the rule to be overly onerous in restricting the size of any illuminated or digital sign within business areas, or not recognising the nature and intention of signage within the City Centre. 35) The 2.5m 2 area proposed for digital or illuminated signs under R (f) iii) is a conservative measurement and has been recommended as a precautionary size due to: The impact large signs have on visual amenity and character especially the citycentre as evidenced in my technical report. The emerging and increasing presence of digital and illuminated signage at street level within the city-centre and adverse effects on visual and character of the citycentre (Refer to Figs 6, 11 & 12). The pace at which digital technology and lighting systems are changing, especially vividness and sharpness of LED illuminated signs. 36) I recommend that Rule (f) (iii) (a) be retained. 14

24 PC22B Signs: Statement of Evidence of David Charnley 10 Sept 2018 Figure 11. Increasing presence of freestanding digital signs at the street level within the city-centre. Figure 12. Increasing presence of freestanding digital signs at the street level within the city-centre. 15

25 BEFORE THE HEARING PANEL IN THE MATTER OF the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THAT MATTER OF the Proposed Plan Change 22A-G for the Palmerston North City Council Proposed Plan Change 22A-G Statement of Evidence of Andrew Philip Collins On behalf of Palmerston North City Council Dated: 6 th September 2018

26 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE... 2 CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EXPERT WITNESSES... 2 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 4 TOPIC 1: IMPACT OF ILLUMINATED SIGNS ON RESIDENTAL AMENITY... 5 TOPIC 2: SIZE OF ILLUMINATED SIGNS... 7 TOPIC 3: DISTANCE OF ILLUMINATED SIGNS FROM INTERSECTIONS... 7 CONCLUSION

27 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 1. My full name is Andrew Philip Collins. 2. I am a Technical Principal Lighting Design, working for WSP-Opus within the Design Centre North Buildings Group based in Auckland, with over 26 years experience in lighting. 3. In this role, I regularly advise on street lighting, including relevant standards, policies and specifications, and design responses to these requirements. My primary role is advising Auckland Transport whose inventory of 115,000 street lights represents a third of those in New Zealand. I also advise the NZ Transport Agency Head Office, the Auckland Motorway Alliance, which has responsibility for the strategic transport corridors through the greater Auckland Region, and several local authorities across New Zealand. 4. I have provided evidence on behalf for the NZ Transport Agency for the Board of Inquiry for the Basin Bridge proposal, Wellington. I have also reviewed a number of sport field lighting designs with reference to their impact upon the State Highway network and Auckland Transport network with regard to the impact of both Glare and Light Spill. 5. I have a Higher Diploma in Electronics and completed the Lighting Technology Course Levels 1 4 under the tutelage of the Institution of Lighting Engineers (ILE) UK. I am a NZ Transport Agency Independent Professional Adviser (IPA) for Highway Lighting, a member of the M30 Panel (Specification and Guidelines for Road Lighting Design), and an Associate Member of the Illuminating Engineer Society of Australia and New Zealand. CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EXPERT WITNESSES 6. I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in the Environment Court Practice Note While this is not an Environment Court hearing, I have prepared this evidence in accordance with, and I agree to comply with, that code for this 2

28 hearing. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed. I confirm that the issues addressed in this brief of evidence are within my area of expertise. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 7. I have been asked to provide evidence in relation to the illuminated signage provisions proposed within Plan Change 22C -Signs. 8. The main documents referenced in formulating my evidence are detailed below: a) Palmerston North City Council Section 32 Evaluation: Plan Change 22B Section 6.1 Signs: Report dated November b) Palmerston North City Council District Plan Section 6: General Rules, Sub- Section 6.1 Signs c) OPUS International Consultants Report dated 13 October 2017 Palmerston North City Council Illuminated Signage Section District Plan Review d) The Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) Operation in Part. Refers to Auckland Council Signs Bylaw 2015 e) The Institute of Lighting Professionals (ILP) Professional Lighting Guide 05 (PLG05) The Brightness of illuminated Advertisements. f) New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) Traffic Control Devices Manual Part 3 Advertising Signs g) AS4282:1997 The Control of the Obstructive Effects of Outdoor Lighting 9. In consideration of the Submissions raised, namely S10/004, S23/018, S23/019, S32/010 and subsequent comments from NZ Transport Agency namely FS9002/006/007, discussion has occurred with Luke Steggles, Team Leader Lighting 3

29 Design WSP-Opus (formerly Opus International Consultants) the Reviewer of the report identified in c) above. 10. Research into LED technology and potential adverse effects from LED light sources are still relatively new. As a result, current lighting standards are based largely on older, traditional lighting technologies. Australian and New Zealand standards, such as AS/NZS 1158 Lighting for Roads and Public Spaces and AS 4282 are now under review and are expected are to become more relevant to LED Lighting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11. The revision of District Plan Section 6: General Rules, Section 6.1 Signs details new requirements based on current industry best practice for illumination. 12. The use of LED technology for advertising signs is creating new challenges for Council in terms of controlling small and direct light source technologies and managing their dynamic functions. Historically, concerns have been centred around the size and placement of illuminated signage in relation to traffic. In recent years more importance has been placed on environmental factors such as glare and spill light which is consistent with other aspects of the lighting industry. 13. The review of the existing Section 6.1 of the PNCC District Plan identified that it was mute in a number of key areas, presenting a risk to Council as applicants currently had a very open framework to erect illuminated signage. As such, the control of any new installation would either be a permitted activity, or if it failed to meet other performance standards would require consent and be subject to the specific assessment against the operative the policies the Plan that are silent in relation to illuminated signage. 14. Industry best practice, mainly from; Auckland Council, The United Kingdom and WSP-Opus own project experience, identified certain areas on which Council based the revised Section 6.1 These involved establishing a framework of technical parameters that govern the environmental impact of illuminated signage, relative to the zone in which the installation is proposed. 4

30 TOPIC 1: IMPACT OF ILLUMINATED SIGNS ON RESIDENTAL AMENITY Response to submissions; S10/004 Chris Teo-Sherrell S23/018 Oil Companies (Z Energy, Mobil and BP) FS9/002 NZ Transport Agency 15. Submission S10/004 raised concern that both Illuminated and Digital Signs are likely to have an excessive adverse effect on neighbouring residential properties should the signs be directly facing adjacent properties. 16. In the case of Illuminated Signs the concerns are addressed by the requirements defined in (f).i. 17. For Digital Signs, the Luminance level (or brightness) emanating from a sign are governed by the requirements of (f).v which are related to the time of day. As such for night time use the level of brightness is significantly reduced to a maximum of 5% of the daytime level to mitigate any potential adverse effects on adjacent properties. 18. The levels are taken from the Auckland Unitary Plan Section E24.6 that establishes criteria for the assessment of adverse effects of sign luminance and adaption considering the ambient luminance zones. This subsequently refers to the Australian Standard AS Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting. 19. Submission S23/018 raised concern in relation to the inclusion of a time restriction in Rule (f).ii. NZ Transport Agency, in Submission FS9/002 seeks to avoid the adverse effects that Illuminated Signs can have in terms of motorists attention to the visual task of driving. 5

31 20. As detailed in the Submission S23/018, the Luminance controls outlined in (f).iv are included to limit any potential adverse effects on adjacent properties. The maximum Luminance values are based on industry best practice and are taken from Auckland City Signs Bylaw 2015 Areas without Street Lighting. This was selected to be an appropriate Luminance value for the ambient background illumination level for Palmerston North in general, compared to a far denser urbanised area ie Auckland. 21. As such a change to the proposed wording to Rule (f).ii as detailed in Submission S23/018 would be acceptable as there controls in place in both (f).iv and (f).v to minimise any potential adverse effects on adjacent properties. Response to submissions; S27/018 Mountain Productions Limited S28/053 Heritage Estates Limited FS9/006 and FS9/007 oppose S27/018 and S28/053 NZ Transport Agency 22. Submissions S27/018 and S28/053 both oppose Policy 1.2, and in so doing so, submitting an amendment to the Policy. NZ Transport Agency opposes the change and seeks to retain the wording. 23. No issues have been raise in either Submissions with reference to illumination requirements by the changes proposed by Council. As detailed, the Luminance controls outlined in (f).iv and v are included to limit any potential adverse effects on adjacent properties. 6

32 TOPIC 2: SIZE OF ILLUMINATED SIGNS Response to submissions; S32/010 Kiwi Property Group 24. Submission S32/010 raised concern that Rule (f).iii was too onerous by restricting the size of any illuminated or digital sign. 25. The size of the sign is identified in (f).iii.a), with b) to g) identifying requirements on location and potential driver distraction. No issues have been raised with reference to illumination requirements by the Rule changes proposed by Council. As detailed in the Submission, the Luminance controls outlined in (f).iv are included to limit any potential adverse effects on adjacent properties. TOPIC 3: DISTANCE OF ILLUMINATED SIGNS FROM INTERSECTIONS Response to submissions; S23/019 Oil Companies (Z Energy, Mobil and BP) 26. Submission S23/019 raised concern over the restriction imposed by Rule (f).iii.b in relation to location and potential driver distraction of Illuminated signs. Like Submission S32/010, no issues have been raise with reference to illumination requirements by the Rule changes proposed by Council. As detailed in the Submission, the Luminance controls outlined in (f) are included to limit any potential adverse effects on adjacent properties. 7

33 CONCLUSION 27. The proposed changes detailed in the Palmerston North City Council District Plan Section 6: General Rules, Section 6.1 Signs with reference to Illumination of Signs under (f), have been derived from industry best practice, mainly from; Auckland Council, The United Kingdom and WSP-Opus own project experience. 28. The Maximum Luminance ((cds/m2) outlined for Illuminated Signs in (f)iv are taken from Auckland City Signs Bylaw 2015 Areas without Street Lighting. This was selected to be an appropriate Luminance value for the ambient background illumination level for Palmerston North in general, compared to a far denser urbanised area ie Auckland, thus making more representative of the local environment. 29. For Digital Signs, the maximum values are taken from the Auckland Unitary Plan Section E24.6 that establishes criteria for the assessment of adverse effects of sign luminance and adaption considering the ambient luminance zones. This subsequently refers to the Australian Standard AS Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting. These are governed by the time of day with a significant reduction between day and night time use 30. No issues have been raised by the Submissions received in terms of the Luminance controls outlined in (f).iv and v, which provide a means by which to limit any potential adverse effects on adjacent properties. 31. Submission S23/018 proposed a change to the text to Rule (f).ii. This is considered acceptable as there are controls in place in both (f).iv and (f).v to minimise any potential adverse effects on adjacent properties. SIGNED DATED this 6 th September

34 BEFORE THE HEARING PANEL IN THE MATTER OF the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THAT MATTER OF the Proposed Plan Change 22A-G for the Palmerston North City Council Proposed Plan Change 22A-G Statement of Evidence of Harriet Barbara Fraser On behalf of Palmerston North City Council Dated: 11 September 2018

35 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 1. My name is Harriet Barbara Fraser. I am a Chartered Professional Engineer and a Chartered Member of Engineering NZ. I hold a Bachelor of Civil Engineering degree from Imperial College, University of London and a Masters degree of Science in Transportation Planning and Engineering awarded with distinction by the University of Leeds. My background of experience includes over 25 years consultancy experience in traffic and transportation matters. From August 1998 to August 2012 I worked as a Transportation Planner in the firm of Traffic Design Group Limited practicing as a transportation planning and traffic engineering specialist throughout New Zealand. Since September 2012 I have been working as a sole practitioner in the field of transportation planning and traffic engineering. 2. I am a certified Hearing Commissioner, having completed the MFE Making Good Decisions training and have also been appointed as a Development Contribution Commissioner. CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EXPERT WITNESSES 3. I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in the Environment Court Practice Note While this is not an Environment Court hearing, I have prepared this evidence in accordance with, and I agree to comply with, that code for this hearing. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed. I confirm that the issues addressed in this brief of evidence are within my area of expertise. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 4. I have been asked by Palmerston North City Council to provide evidence in relation to Proposed Plan Change 22E (PPC22E) being Section 20 Transportation of the District Plan. Along with Glenn Connelly, previously a traffic engineer at Council and now working as a consultant, I provided a technical report which is included in 1

36 Appendix 6 of the Section 32 report for this Plan Change. I have continued to work alongside Glenn Connelly in preparing this evidence. 5. I have previously assisted Council with Plan Change 1 while I was employed by Traffic Design Group and more recently Plan Change 21. I have assisted Council on another of other projects and have also provided transportation assessments for Applicants seeking resource consent from the Council. As such, I have a good working knowledge of both the transportation elements of the District Plan and the particular traffic characteristics of Palmerston North. 6. In preparing this evidence I have read the transportation related submissions and further submissions. The transportation related submissions have been grouped into the following topics which are each addressed in turn in my evidence: 1 Rail 1.1 Rail Level Crossings 1.2 Reverse Sensitivity Effects on Transport Network 1.3 Signage Effects on Train Drivers 2 Cycle 2.1 Threshold for Cycle Facilities 2.2 Type of End of Trip Cycle Facilities 2.3 Design of Cycle Parks and Stands 2.4 Customer Cycle Parking 2.5 Residential Cycle Parking 3 Car Parking Provisions 3.1 Maximum Parking Space Provisions 2

37 3.2 Car Parking Requirement for Dwellings 3.3 Trigger for Assessing Parking Provision 4 Car Park Design 4.1 Pedestrian Routes in Carparks 4.2 Landscaping in Carparks 5 Loading 5.1 Loading Facilities for Multiple Tenancies 5.2 Minimum Loading Provision 6 Other 6.1 Limited Access Roads 6.2 Fitzherbert Avenue Southbound 6.3 Rule Legibility 6.4 Restricted Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria 6.5 Definitions 6.6 Consistency with Earlier Plan Changes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7. The submissions and further submissions have been divided into topics which have then been discussed. Table 4 at the end of this evidence provides a summary of my recommendations and where relevant includes proposed wording for inclusion in Section 20 Land Transport. Key matters arising in the submissions, further submissions, review and recommendations are summarised as follows: 3