Dominion Road Mixed-use Development Brent Murdoch
13 September 2021
Dominion Road Expert Consenting Panel By email: [email protected].
Dear Panel,
Dominion Road Mixed-use Development
1. I refer to the Dominion Road Mixed-use Development application for consent.
2. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft conditions the Panel could impose in the event consent is granted.
3. The proposed condition 93 states:
“The consent holder shall satisfy Conditions 94 – 110 prior to any building being occupied.”
4. The proposed Condition 94 states:
"Signalisation of the Prospect Terrace/Burnley Ave/Dominion Road intersection, and the associated works to the Prospect Terrace/Burnley Terrace/Dominion Road and Grange 29 Road/Dominion Road intersections, shall be implemented, as described in, and illustrated on the plans attached as Attachment 5 to, the evidence of Todd Langwell, dated 13 August 2021."
5. The onus is on the applicants to demonstrate that the adverse effects on the environment of the proposed development are minor or less than minor. The applicants have failed to establish that. There are significant actual and potential adverse effects on the environment of allowing the proposed activity. Therefore, the proposed condition 94 is not appropriate or lawful.
6. The Panel must decide whether the actual and potential adverse effects on the environment of the proposed development are more than minor. Where the effects of the applicants’ proposal have not been evaluated and reported on the Panel is unable makes this assessment and any condition requiring the proposal’s implementation would be inappropriate and invalid.
7. The simple fact is that the actual and potential adverse effects of the proposed development on the safe, efficient and effective operation of the transport network have not been fully or properly evaluated and reported on. Therefore, the Panel is unable to properly assess whether the actual and potential adverse effects on the environment of the applicants’ proposal are more than minor and any condition requiring the proposal’s implementation would be inappropriate and invalid.
The actual and potential adverse effects on the environment of the applicants’ proposal have not been fully evaluated and reported on
8. The proposed Condition 94 does not reflect the final traffic and transportation proposal. In particular, the ‘conclusion’ from expert conferencing was that, in addition to the Prospect Terrace intersection being signalised, either the Grange Road intersection or the mid-block (King Edward) pedestrian crossing will need to be signalised.
9. The actual and potential effects of the final intersection design at both Grange Road and Prospect Terrace, including retention of the mid-block (King Edward) crossing have not been evaluated and reported on. A condition, such as condition 94, that is subject to future evaluation and reporting of its effects would be uncertain and invalid.
10. There are other actual and potential adverse effects on the environment of the applicants’
proposal that have not been evaluated and reported on, including:
(a) Northern bus lane: effects on journey times on Dominion Road and delays and queues on the side roads resulting from the implementation of a Northern bus lane have not been assessed/modelled.
(b) The applicants’ proposal requires rat-running: because the site is unsuitable for a large New world supermarket, the proposed development relies on rat-running to achieve a workable solution. The ITA and Langwell’s evidence predicts significant volumes of traffic will travel to and from the site via rat-running routes. The effects of this rat-running on residential Mt Eden streets and the wider transport network have not been assessed.
(c) Impact on GR/Mt Eden Rd or PT/Valley Rd intersections: despite predicting that 34% of the inbound supermarket trips and 40% of the outbound trips or 100-130vph will go to and come from the east in the Weekday PM peak, no assessment has been made as to the effect of the development traffic passing through the GR/Mt Eden Rd intersection or PT/Valley Rd intersection, including the increase in number of vehicles turning-right on Valley Rd and Mt Eden Road.
(d) Wider Network Effects: are not assessed in the ITA or Langwell’s evidence/ignored even though an assessment of wider network effects is required under the Unitary Plan (E27.
Transport).
(e) Pedestrian refuge island on Grange Road and limitation to single lane of traffic on the approach to the intersection: these measures are necessary for pedestrian safety but the applicants have not agreed to them and have not evaluated and reported on the effects on traffic/road network performance of implementing these measures.
(f) No staff parking on-site: the effects of the proposal on resident car parking in the roads proximate to the site have not been evaluated and reported on. The applicants confirmed in the expert conferencing that their proposal is that staff from the supermarket would be parked off-site. The applicants confirmed there will be approx. 120 supermarket staff, with not all 120 total staff on-site simultaneously. The effect on the side roads of supermarket
staff parking off-site has not been assessed or reported on and consequently the effects are unknown. Clearly the effects will be adverse and any condition requiring the proposal’s implementation would be inappropriate and invalid;
(g) No right turn into Burnley Tce – 8 minute delay: no assessment has been made of the intersection performance or safety issues arising from the effect of additional vehicles using either Bellwood Ave or King Edward Street, which are both priority-controlled intersections.
The actual and potential adverse effects on the environment of the applicants’ proposal have not been properly evaluated and reported on
11. In addition, the proposed condition 94 is not a valid condition because the actual and potential adverse effects on the environment of the applicants’ proposal that have not been properly evaluated and reported on.
12. Several elements indicate the applicants’ evaluation of its proposal is unreliable or incomplete:
(a) Langwell's evidence for the effects in the Weekday PM Peak is implausible: Langwell's evidence that adding the development traffic and traffic signals at the PT/DR will shorten journey times along Dominion Road and reduce queues on Prospect Tearrace, compared to the Base Case is implausible and suggests significant inaccuracies in the model.
(i) Langwell’s evidence is inconsistent with the increases in journey times resulting from additional traffic from already consented developments – compared to the consented developments, the proposed development adds approx. 50% more new trips.
Table 1: General Traffic Travel Time (s) on Dominion Road – Thursday PM Peak Existing
(sec)
Existing + consented
% change Scenario D - Refined
% change
Northbound 176 303 72% 286 -6%
Southbound 459 554 21% 456 -18%
(ii) The applicants concur that the results are implausible. In the Memorandum of Counsel dated 3 September 2021, the applicants stated:
"Paragraph 14
(a) (iii) In reality there will always be a need for “red lights” on Dominion Road to accommodate safe pedestrian crossings. It is not realistic to expect achievement of a similar travel time along Dominion Road to the modelled base case."
(iii) I understand that during the expert conferencing the applicants explained the implausible results were due to the delays being redistributed as a result of removal of the mid-block crossing and inclusion of the Prospect Tce signals. This ex post rationalisation/load of old codswallop is contradicted by the large discrepancy between the results in the Saturday MD Peak (significant additional delays) and the
Thursday PM Peak (improvements), both modelled based on exactly the same traffic plan (i.e. removal of the mid-block crossing and inclusion of the Prospect Tce
signals).
(b) Latent demand - unreleased vehicles: the travel time and delay from large volumes of additional unreleased vehicles - 120 to 360 vehicles p/hr more than the Base Case - relative to the predicted 386 trips - is not captured, potentially significantly understating the adverse traffic impacts.
(c) Applicants have used the wrong baseline for their assessment: Langwell’s evidence assesses the effects of the development on the safe, efficient and effective operation of the transport network by comparing the Scenario D - Refined proposal to Scenario B. This is not the correct comparator for testing and quantifying the traffic effects of the proposed development. The correct comparator is the applicant’s Base Case (existing plus consented) and the applicants’ assessment is flawed.
(d) The reduction in trip generation rates is unjustified: there is no actual reliable evidence to support the reduction in trip generation rates from 15 in the ITA to 11 and 12 in the new proposal. The following factors all contradict it:
• ‘click and collect’ offer, which will drive significant traffic generation
• larger than average parking provision (see Table 3 below)
• rapid growth in the number of private vehicles on the road network
• the applicant’s stated strategy to draw customers from a 5km radius
• consumer behaviour – overwhelming use of vehicles for grocery shopping, more frequent store visits
(e) Impact of shortening cycle times at the DR / PT signalised intersection: appropriate mitigation of the safety concern with an overall cycle time of 120 seconds by shortening cycle times, will increase travel times along Dominion Road and congestion, which needs to be factored into the model to get accurate results.
(f) Incorrect attribution of ‘random incidents’: invalid claim that the increase in travel time for southbound vehicles is due to coding in the base model that allows for ‘random incidents’
and the effects of parking activity on DR.
The applicants are unable to mitigate the adverse effects of the proposed development on bus journey times along Dominion Rd
13. Condition 94 would require the implementation of a proposal that will result in unacceptable adverse effects on bus journey times along Dominion Rd in the Saturday MD Peak. The applicants are unable to mitigate these adverse effects.
14. The applicants propose that a third party, Auckland Transport implement a Northern bus lane in the weekend peak, to mitigate the delays. Implementing a Northern bus lane would require the removal of parking on Dominion Road, adversely impacting businesses on Dominion Road and requiring consultation.
15. However, the legal requirement is that the applicants' proposal must be based on the transport network as it exists at the time consent for the development is sought, as stated by Fisher J in Westfield (New Zealand) Limited v Hamilton City Council [2004] NZRMA 556:
“I agree with the Environment Court that a developer has to tailor his or her development to the environment as it exists at the time consent for the development is sought” [64].
16. Accordingly, the applicant’s proposal must be assessed based on the current road network and the adverse effects on bus journey times are unmitigated by the applicants. Therefore, the proposed condition 94, requiring the applicant to implement Scenario D – Refined, would not be an appropriate and lawful condition.
Condition 94 would result in obstruction of the road and obstruction of vehicle driveways
17. The applicants' proposal involves obstructing the road and obstructing driveways.
18. Todd Langwell’s evidence (Tables 5 & 6) confirms that applicants' proposal requires obstructing public roads, including large scale obstructing of entry and exit from driveways on the side roads proximate to the development.
19. It is also likely that the predicted queues from the development will obstruct Dominion Road, including obstructing buses travelling along Dominion Road, as cars queue on Dominion Road while they wait to enter the site.
20. Obstructing entry and exit from driveways is an offence under section 40 of the Land Transport Act 1998. The Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 states: -
“6.9 Obstructing vehicle entrances and exits
(1) A driver or person in charge of a vehicle must not stop, stand, or park the vehicle so as to obstruct entry to or exit from any driveway…”
Under the Land Transport Act – Section 40 Contravention of ordinary rules
(1) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes a provision of an ordinary rule and the contravention of that provision is for the time being prescribed as an offence by regulations made under section 167.
(2) If a person is convicted of an offence referred to in subsection (1), the person is liable to the applicable penalty set out in the regulations.
21. It is also a tortious nuisance under common law to obstruct the road and/or vehicle entrances and exits.
22. It would clearly be inappropriate for the Panel to approve a proposal that is predicted by the applicants themselves to involve large scale offending.
Table 2: Obstructing public roads and entry and exit from driveways on the side roads*
Obstructing of entry/exit from driveways
Scenario D - Optimised Scenario D - Refined
Prospect Terrace (metres) (metres)
Average Queue Thurs PM Peak 35 27
Saturday MD Peak 75 75
Maximum Queue Thurs PM Peak 115 63
Saturday MD Peak 217 192
Grange Road
Average Queue Thurs PM Peak 58 33
Saturday MD Peak 38 33
Maximum Queue Thurs PM Peak 120 80
Saturday MD Peak 91 82
*the information is extracted from Tables 5 & 6 of Langwell’s evidence
23. The evaluation and reporting of the proposal, including the sensitivity modelling (Scenario D - Optimised), shows long queues back past both the entry and exit point and the site that will obstruct the side roads, driveways and likely Dominion Road.
24. The figures in red in Table 2 above are all queue lengths that would extend past driveways, including residential driveways, proximate to the development on the side roads, resulting in large scale obstructing of entry and exit from driveways.
25. For example, my driveway is approx. 56 metres from Dominion Rd. Scenario D optimised shows average queues of 58m and maximum queues of 120m in the Thurs PM. Scenario D - Refined shows maximum queues on Grange Road of 80m and 82m. So, if the proposed development is consented my driveway and other driveways proximate to the development will be obstructed by development traffic. This is unacceptable and (as set out above) illegal.
26. The applicants predict that the proposal will cause gridlock on the side roads. The proposed Level 00 access on Prospect Terrace is 50 metres from the Dominion Road intersection. As set out in Table 2 above, the average queues are predicted to extend well past the Level 00 access and the maximum queues well past the site. In the ITA, in relation to Scenario D, TPC confirmed that queues extending back to and past the site would render it unable to function:
“The model shows large increases in delays and queue lengths on both Prospect Terrace and Grange Road, extending back to, past and within the site, to the point where the site would effectively be unable to function.” (ITA page 37, Section 6.2.4) 27. Scenario D being unworkable, due to excessive queuing, was the reason the applicants proposed
Scenario B but it failed on safety grounds. The above conclusion in the ITA indicates that the applicants were cognisant of the fact that they cannot obstruct entry and exit from driveways on the side roads or obstruct Dominion Road, including buses travelling along Dominion Road.
28. It would be inappropriate to consent to a proposal that is predicted by the applicants’ evidence to obstruct the road and vehicle entrances and exits on the side roads and potentially obstruct Dominion Road, including buses travelling along Dominion Road. A condition requiring the implementation of such a proposal would be invalid, obviously. Therefore, the proposed condition 94, requiring the applicant to implement Scenario D - Refined is not an appropriate and lawful condition.
Condition 94 would result in excessive delays and queuing on Prospect Terrace
29. The applicants’ evidence confirms that implementing the proposal in the proposed condition 94 would render the site unable to function in the Weekend MD Peak due to excessive delays and queuing on Prospect Terrace. The effects are almost certainly understated due to evaluation deficiencies (see out above above).
30. There would be excessive delays:
• delays of 5 min (320 seconds) turning right out of Prospect Terrace compared to the Base Case (existing + consented)
• delays of 3 minutes (178 seconds) turning left out of Prospect Terrace
31. There would be excessive queues:
• average queue on Prospect Terrace is 75 metres, 25 metres past the Level 00 access, so queues will extend well past the entry & exit point for long periods.
• maximum queue of 192 metres will go well past the site boundary.
32. Queues extending well past the entry and exit point will result in queuing cars will block exiting vehicles from making a right turn out of the development and likely block cars from turning into the development, exacerbating the excessive queuing and delays. Queues will build within the site.
33. Queuing cars will interfere with general traffic on Prospect Terrace, obstruct residents’
driveways and may negatively impact on the performance of Dominion Road as a result of traffic not being able to access the site and queues extending to Dominion Road.
34. TPC confirmed in the ITA, in relation to Scenario D, that queues extending back to, past and within the site would render the site unable to function:
“The model shows large increases in delays and queue lengths on both Prospect Terrace and Grange Road, extending back to, past and within the site, to the point where the site would effectively be unable to function.” (ITA page 37, Section 6.2.4)
35. Therefore, the proposed condition 94, requiring the applicant to implement Scenario D – Refined, is not an appropriate and lawful condition because the proposal will result in excessive delays and queuing on Prospect Terrace rendering the site unfunctional and adversely effecting Dominion Road.
36. The proposed condition 94, requiring the applicant to implement Scenario D – Refined, is not an appropriate and lawful condition because implementing the proposal is unsafe:
(a) The increased risk of right-turning vehicle crashes on Dominion Road arising from the development, identified by Auckland Transport, Harrison Grierson, Stantec, Eden We Love and residential submitters, remains under the applicant’s new proposal;
(b) Unreleased vehicles: significant numbers of unreleased vehicles indicate the delays and congestion are being underestimated. Greater delays and congestion are a safety risk to pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users, including right-turning traffic;
(c) Rat-running: the proposed development relies on rat-running to achieve a workable solution. Rat-running increases safety risk to pedestrians and cyclists;
(d) Increase in number of Vehicles turning-right on Valley Rd and Mt Eden Road: these roads are major arterial roads. The intersections are currently priority controlled and the proposal will likely increase the number of right turning vehicles onto these busy arterial roads, which is a significant safety concern, which has not been assessed;
(e) Safety of pedestrians crossing Grange Road:
• existing curb extensions will be removed to widen the road by 2.5m to
accommodate trucks, increasing the crossing distance and removing the protection
• no pedestrian island is proposed
• a speed table is proposed but this is literally designed to reduce vehicle speed and reduce the impact or likelihood of a Collison - it is not designed to assist pedestrians to cross the road
(f) Two vehicles queuing next to each other out of GR: HG has identified a risk to safety arising from two vehicles (a left-turning and a right-turning vehicle) queuing next to each other out of GR and the need for a pedestrian traffic island – the applicants have not adopted this proposal;
(g) Pedestrian phasing at the DR / PT signalised intersection - the hold time of a “few
seconds” of pedestrian protection is insufficient given the high volumes of pedestrians that would be expected along Dominion Road as a result of the development;
(h) Overall cycle time of 120 seconds is a safety concern -pedestrians crossing PT and BT are unlikely to wait close to two minutes to cross the road, increasing the probability of pedestrian jay-walking/red light running. This is a safety concern as there will be a high volume of pedestrians accessing the site;
(i) Removal of the pedestrian crossing at the DR / PT signalised intersection: is unsafe.
(j) The excessive delays and queuing at PT are unsafe.
Parking provision
37. I note the proposed conditions do not address the proposed developments parking provision.
The parking provision is excessive, promoting private vehicle usage and higher trip generation and should be reduced. It is higher than the average parking provision for New World
Supermarkets in Auckland.
Table 3:
GFA Car parks
available
Parking Ratio (1 parking per m2 GFA)
Weekend Midday Peak 2,495 164 15.2
Weekday Evening Peak 2,495 148 16.9
Average – Auckland NWs 18*
*Langwell’s evidence
38. The applicants stated in the traffic experts’ joint statement that Supermarket car parking will be available for 110 spaces. The provision of 177 car parking spaces on level 0, with a fixed allocation of 110 car parking spaces to the supermarket, would result in 37 surplus car parking spaces in peak demand - see Table 4 below. There is no other demand for these spaces - resident parking is on level 1 and there will be no on-site staff parking.
Table 4:
Peak Parking Demand – Weekday Evening Peak
Trips Vehicles Parking Spaces required
Car parking Spaces Provided
Surplus
Supermarket 1101
Small
retail/commercial
252 13 13
Commercial Offices
332 17 17
Total 140 177 37
Notes:
1. Stated fixed allocation for supermarket customers
2. Langwell’s evidence, Attachment 3: Flow Transportation Memorandum, page 4, Section 4.1 Table 2 - in the Weekday Evening Peak there will be 25 small retail/commercial trips and 33 commercial office trips. This equates to 30 vehicle visits.
39. With the supermarket car parking capped at 110 parking spaces, the number of car parking spaces on level 0 should be reduced to 140 to remove the surplus. These caps should be a condition of consent.
Conclusions:
The proposed condition 94, which requires implementation of the applicants’ traffic and transportation proposal, is not appropriate or lawful because:
(1) the applicants have not established that implementing the proposal will properly mitigate the proposed development’s actual and potential adverse effects on the environment;
(2) the Panel must decide whether the actual and potential adverse effects on the environment of the proposed development are more than minor but the Panel is unable to make this assessment because the effects of the applicants’ proposal have not been evaluated and reported on or have not been properly evaluated and reported on. Therefore, the proposed condition 94, requiring the proposal’s implementation, would be inappropriate and
unlawful;
(3) implementing the applicants’ proposal would not mitigate the adverse effects of the proposed development on bus journey times along Dominion Rd;
(4) the applicants' proposal requires obstructing public roads, including obstructing of entry and exit from driveways on the side roads proximate to the development and obstructing Dominion Road, including obstructing buses travelling along Dominion Road, which is an offence;
(5) The proposed condition 94, requiring the applicant to implement Scenario D – Refined, will result in excessive delays and queuing on Prospect Terrace rendering the site unfunctional and adversely effecting Dominion Road;
(6) The proposed condition 94, requiring the applicant to implement Scenario D – Refined is unsafe.
Yours faithfully,
Brent Murdoch
