Resource Consent (Land Use) 61.4.817 – Application

Application For Land Use Consent – Creswell New Zealand Limited RESOURCE CONSENT (LAND USE) 61.4.817 – APPLICATION TO CHANGE TO CONDITIONS OF CONSENT APPLICATIONS FOR LAND USE CONSENT: Subject: TO UNDERTAKE EARTHWORKS WITHIN 60M OF THE TARAWERA RIVER STOPBANK TO DISTURB SOIL ON AN IDENTIFIED HAIL SITE 57 JOHNSON ROAD, OTAKIRI To: HEARINGS COMMISSIONERS Hearing Date: MONDAY 30 APRIL – FRIDAY 4 MAY 2018 Written by: CONSULTANT PLANNER – ANN NICHOLAS File Reference: LV-2017-2077-02 & LN 2017-2077-03

1 APPLICATION DETAIL

1.1 Applicant’s Name Creswell NZ Limited

1.2 Address/Location 57 Johnson Road, Otakiri

1.3 Legal Description Lot 4 DPS 27652

1.4 Zoning Rural Plains Zone

1.5 Designations/ Constraints No special notation under the District Plan. The site is identified on BOPRC’s HAIL register.

2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 My name is Ann Lloyd Nicholas. I have a Bachelor of Arts in geography from the University of Canterbury and a Bachelor of Town Planning from the University of Auckland. I have been a member of the New Zealand Planning Institute since 1980. I have more than thirty-five years’ experience as a planning consultant in the Bay of Plenty and Central North Island. I am a principal of Sigma Consultants Ltd, Rotorua.

2.2 For many years, I have reported to the Whakatāne District Council on a range of applications within the Whakatāne District. I am therefore very familiar with the Whakatāne District and the Operative District Plan.

2.3 I was been engaged by Whakatāne District Council to report on this application for resource consent after the application had been notified and the period for submissions closed. I have visited the site and I am generally familiar with the surrounding environment.

2.4 I can confirm that I have read and that I understand the code of conduct for expert witnesses contained within the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and that I agree to comply with it. I can confirm that I have considered the material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed here. I also confirm that the opinions that I have expressed in my evidence are mine, unless I have specifically stated that I have relied on others in forming my opinions. However, I note that I may amend my opinion and subsequent

1 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 recommendation in whole or in part as a result of any evidence, information or other matters that are raised during the course of the hearing that I am not aware of at the time of writing this report.

2.5 This report provides a summary of the proposed activity and the issues raised by submitters, it identifies the relevant District Plan provisions, assesses the environmental effects of the proposal, and evaluates the proposal against the relevant statutory considerations. The purpose of this report is to provide a recommendation with respect to the decision required under Section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991, to grant or refuse land use consent.

3 DECISION ON SUBMISSION 3.1 The Commissioners’ decision is required in relation to one submission which was received within the submission period but from a person who was not served notice. As is explained in section 8 below, the application was limited notified under section 95B of the RMA. It should be noted that the application was lodged prior to the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 came into effect on 18 October 2017. Therefore, the previous RMA sections apply.

3.2 The notification decision was made by Dr Phil Mitchell, Independent Commissioner, under delegated authority on 15 November 2017. (Refer Attachment A). The list of parties to be served notice is set out in section 4 of that decision. It included “persons with property on Johnson Road (...) and Hallett Road (between the railway crossing and the end of Hallett Road near the Tarawera River)”. 3.3 A submission was lodged within the submission period by Mr Ralph McCorkindale who is the father of a submitter, Sarah van der Boom. Mr McCorkindale did not reside at the affected property, 410 Hallett Road, at that time and he was not served notice. 3.4 Under section 96(4), “a person served with notice of the application may make a submission.” The requirement of the wording is clear. I consider that accepting the submission would set an expectation that other parties could make submissions on future applications. This would not be consistent with fair and transparent processes and natural justice. 3.5 Nevertheless, it would be appropriate to allow Mr McCorkindale to speak to the Commissioners about his submission. I note that Mr McCorkindale may still be able to speak in support of the submissions lodged by his daughter and son-in-law, who may call any party to speak at the hearing in support of their submission. 3.6 The Commissioners’ decision is requested.

4 BACKGROUND 4.1 Whakatāne District Council granted resource consent (land use) to Robertson Farms on 10 December 1991 to “establish a mineral bottling plant” on Lot 4 DPS 27652. An extension to the existing buildings was proposed as part of the application. The application had been publicly notified and 3 submissions were lodged. The main issues identified at the time were noise, visual impact and dust on the road. The limited hours of operation, the small number of truck movements and staff and the fact that all activities would take place inside the building were noted in the planner’s report at the time. 4.2 The consent was granted subject to 5 conditions which I summarise as follows: (a) The site to be developed generally in accordance with the application and plans. (b) The hours of operation to be Monday to Sunday 6am to 10pm (c) Noise levels to be complied with.

2 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 (d) Regular monitoring to be undertaken and Council to be advised of any major expansion or updating of plant and machinery, introduction of a second shift, number of staff exceeding 8 or more than 4 truck movements in a day on a regular basis. (e) Refuse and waste water to be disposed of to the satisfaction of Council. The existing consent is attached to this report as Attachment B. 4.3 The number of buildings on site has more than doubled over time to provide for storage and workshop expansion. Condition (d) required that Council was informed of “any major expansion or updating of plant and machinery”. In July 2016 Council wrote to the consent holder advising that the activity was potentially no longer “in general accordance with” the 1991 resource consent and a variation was required. 4.4 The existing site layout is shown below.

4.5 The current application effectively seeks the redevelopment of the whole site.

5 SITE AND SURROUNDS 5.1 The site has an area of 6.3ha and is generally flat. It contains the existing Otakiri Springs water bottling plant and a kiwifruit orchard of approximately 5.5ha. The existing water bottling plant that has operated from the site since the early 1990s is located in the north eastern corner of the site and is accessed from Johnson Road. The kiwifruit orchard occupies most of the balance of the site and the perimeter has a generally well established shelterbelt around it. These are cryptomeria on the western and southern boundaries and casuarina on the northern and eastern boundaries, with internal shelter belts dividing the orchard into 6 blocks.

5.2 Within the site there is a collection of linked buildings for the existing water bottling plant and they are up to 8.4m high. There is an unsealed vehicle access to and around the buildings. Parking is not marked and vehicles park on the adjoining grassed areas.

5.3 The site has frontage to Johnson and Hallett Roads and backs on to the Tarawera River. Hallett Drain follows the eastern boundary of the site. The Tarawera River runs along the western boundary of the property at the rear of the site, with a stopbank being immediately adjacent to the property.

5.4 Access to the site is from the frontage on Johnson Road, approximately 670m from the intersection of Johnson and Hallett Roads. Johnson and Hallett Roads are both no-exit roads. At the northern end of Hallett Road there is a level crossing 30m west of SH34.

3 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318

5.5 The surrounding land on both sides of the Tarawera River is a mix of pasture, orchards, and lifestyle blocks. Immediately across the road from the entrance is the Whakatāne District Council water bore for public supply. There are 16 dwellings located within 300m of the site boundaries, 4 of which are within 100m. 5.6 The site is listed on the BOPRC HAIL register as it has been used as an orchard since the mid 1980s. In addition old equipment including old fuel/ oil drums are stored on the ground on the western side of the existing buildings. The HAIL register therefore identifies the site as: A10 – persistent pesticide bulk storage or use including sport turfs, market gardens, orchards, glass houses or spray sheds. A17 – Storage tanks or drums for fuel, chemicals or liquid waste. Elevated concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, copper and zinc were detected at levels above the background levels. Elevated arsenic was detected in one location (240 mg/kg compared with the guideline level of 70mg/kg)

6 PROPOSAL 6.1 Creswell NZ Limited has applied to expand the existing Otakiri water bottling plant. Consent is sought to vary existing land use consent 61.4.817 to enable the expansion of the plant. New land use consents are sought to undertake earthworks within 60m of the toe of the Tarawera River stopbank and to disturb soil on an identified HAIL site under the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health 2012. The proposed site development is described in section 3 of the application. The key points are summarised in this section. 6.2 In addition to the consents sought from Whakatāne District Council, Creswell NZ Limited has also applied to the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC) to take a maximum of 5,000m3 of groundwater per day (1,100,000m3 per year) for commercial water bottling, to undertake earthworks, to discharge stormwater and treated process wastewater to water and to discharge treated sanitary wastewater to land. These applications are addressed in the BOPRC report and are not covered in this report. 6.3 The purpose of the application is to authorise an increase in the maximum capacity of the plant from 8,000 bottles per hour to a maximum total capacity of 146,000 bottles per hour over two development stages. This is proposed in two stages, with the building and site development, upgrade of the existing bottling line and the addition of the first high speed bottling line as Stage 1. Stage 2 will be the addition of the second high speed bottling line. At full capacity the plant will employ up to 60 full time staff with a maximum of 30 people on site at any one time.

6.4 The existing bottling plant building has an area of 1,340m2 and this building will be retained. An additional new two storey building will be constructed to provide for the water bottling process, plastic bottle blow moulding, packaging storage and utilities with a footprint of approximately 16,800m2 and a maximum height of 12.9m (also stated as 13m in the response to the Request for Further Information). It is noted that the chimney stack will be 700mm wide and up to 3m high ie 16m total height. The buildings will not comply with the 25m setback from boundaries: parts of the main building, truck canopy, the gatehouse, acoustic fence, switchroom, fire pump room and other structures will be located up to 8m from the boundary.

6.5 There will be a service area of up 30% of the site. There is also an additional 30% of the site in hard stand, parking and circulation area. The total site coverage will therefore increase to a total of 69%. Containers will be stored on a more or less continuous basis, stacked 2 or 3 high (5.6m or 8.4m high).

4 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 6.6 Truck movements will increase from the current 4 movements per day to a maximum of 190 truck movements per day (95 trucks entering and leaving the site). Staff and service vehicle movements (light vehicles) will be additional and are expected to be a maximum of 120 movements per day. Widening Johnson Road and Hallett Road to SH34, upgrading the intersection with SH34 and providing a footpath along Johnson and Hallett Roads are proposed as part of the application.

6.7 At the northern end of Hallett Road there is a level crossing 30m west of SH34. A Level Crossing Safety Impact Assessment was undertaken in March 2018 and this makes recommendations to improve the design and address the limited stacking length. A copy is attached to this Agenda.

6.8 The hours of operation will be 24 hours per day 7 days a week. Truck movements will be limited to 9am to 7pm. Use of external areas will be limited to 7am to 10pm for the container area and 7am to 7pm in the waste compound area.

6.9 Noise will result from the operation, including the use of external areas between the hours of 7am and 10pm. During these hours the roller doors servicing the loading docks on the south side of the building may be open, resulting in noise generated from inside the building. A 2.4m high acoustic wooden fence is proposed along the southern and western sides of the sealed hardstand (container) area to reduce noise emissions. An acoustic report was provided as Appendix I to the application, supplemented by an addendum report, dated 17 December 2018. (Refer Attachment C) This report provides an evaluation of construction and operational noise. The report states that there will be little noticeable change to daytime noise levels for dwellings around the site with the acoustic fence and at night time “there will not be any adverse noise effects for neighbours”. The proposed activity has been evaluated as achieving compliance with the District Plan noise levels. 6.10 Earthworks are proposed as part of the site redevelopment within 60m of the toe of the Tarawera River stopbank. Work within this area will involve removing some 300mm of topsoil and backfilling to 500-800mm for the internal road and hardstand. 6.11 As the site is listed on BOPRC’s HAIL register, a Detailed Site Investigation has been undertaken and is provided, together with a Contaminated Soils Management Plan, as part of the application. Appendices J and K set out the results of testing and the Contaminated Soils Management Plan is proposed as appropriate to the intended development of the site.

5 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 6.12 It is noted that a future application will be made in relation to the use and storage of hazardous substances on the site.

7 ACTIVITY STATUS

7.1 The site is zoned Rural Plains in the District Plan. This zone is described in Chapter 3 of the Plan as “land which has the potential for high value production due to the inherent characteristics of the land including high ratings for versatility under the New Zealand Land Resources Inventory System. The purpose of this zone is to retain the characteristics of the finite soil resource and protect the rural production potential and economic growth of the District”.

7.2 The process for an application for a change to conditions of consent is set out in section 127 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Such applications are considered as a discretionary activity and only the effects of the change on the environment and on parties may be considered. Therefore, the change to conditions must be considered as a discretionary activity. 7.3 In relation to the other activities, the status of activities is set out in the table in 3.4.1.1. Activity 58 relates to activities on the site of a natural hazard which are considered under chapter 18. Activities on contaminated land are considered under Chapter 19. 7.4 Under rule 18.2.2, removal of soil from within 20-60m of the toe of the Tarawera River stopbank is only permitted subject to compliance with listed conditions. These include the written approval of the BOPRC. As this has not been obtained and no default status is given, the activity must be considered as a discretionary activity under rule 3.4.1.1. 7.5 The works proposed on a HAIL site must be considered as a .... activity under the NES Soil Contamination. 7.6 I have considered the status of the activity as the Commissioners may conclude that it is more appropriate to assess the application as relating to a new activity, rather than the expansion of an existing activity and an application to change conditions of consent. I consider that the potential expansion of the water bottling plant was not anticipated in the existing consent which requires any development of the site to be in general accordance with the plans and application. Condition (d) has been interpreted as enabling unlimited expansion and I agree that it is not clearly expressed. However, I do not concur that it anticipated the increase in footprint and scale proposed. The word “expansion” is part of, and should be read with the rest of the phrase “and upgrading of the plant and machinery”, rather than being separable. This is reinforced by the planning evaluation report which refers to “a second shift could be added” (5.2(c)), “1 or two truck and trailer units per day, approximately” and the activity being within the existing consented water take.

7.7 My conclusion about the status is that it would fall under the category of activities not specifically provided for, which are a discretionary activity under rule 3.4.1.1. I do not consider the activity to be an industrial activity (as defined), or a rural processing activity. 7.8 I have considered carefully the definition of a rural processing activity which is defined as “an operation that processes, assembles, packs and stores products from primary productive use”. Primary productive use is also defined and refers to “rural land use activities that rely on the productive capacity of land or have a functional need for a rural location such as agriculture, pastoral farming, dairying, poultry farming, pig farming, horticulture, forestry, quarrying and mining. Also included in this definition are processing and research facilities that directly service or support those rural land use activities”. 7.9 The definition of primary productive use relies on the words “rural land uses”. While it may be suggested that water bottling could be aligned with mining and quarrying, taking water is not reliant on the resource in or under a specific site in the same way as mineral resources are. In

6 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 addition it is not purely a rural land use. I do not consider that water bottling falls discretely under “Primary productive use” and therefore I consider that it is more appropriately identified as an activity not specifically provided for. This does not change the status of the activity.

7.10 Overall therefore the activities are all to be assessed as Discretionary Activities.

8 PROCESSING BACKGROUND

8.1 Activity Status The proposal is assessed as a discretionary activity under the RMA and the District Plan, as set out above.

8.2 Joint Process Resource consents are also required from BOPRC. To avoid duplication, this report primarily focuses on the assessment of the proposed activity in relation to effects on amenity, noise, vibration, traffic, landscape and visual effects, cultural and archaeological values. In addition, the effects on the stopbank and disturbance of contaminated soil are within the scope of this report. The water take and discharge of contaminants to land through stormwater, treated wastewater and process water are not addressed as they are primarily BOPRC responsibilities.

8.3 Notification The application was received on 26 September 2017. A request for further information was sent to the applicant on 28 September 2017 and a partial response was received on 19 October 2017. Notice was served on 35 properties and 7 parties on 17 November 2017 and the period for submissions closed on 19 December 2017.

8.4 Submissions Thirteen submissions were received during the submission period: one neutral, one conditional, and eleven in opposition. The submissions are summarised as follows and are included in this agenda. Submitter Support/Oppose Issues raised in Submissions Heard /Conditional Deborah Southall Oppose Decision sought: reject in entirety Yes Safety and wellbeing of rural environment Cumulative impact – on stopbank, flooding, water table, horticulture Relationship of Maori to the resource Inconsistent with rural character and amenity Traffic and safety on the road Air discharges/ contaminated site disturbance Limited access to information Robert & Coral Neutral Neutral Yes Evans Traffic - vehicle movements, noise and vibration Road widening - effect on water main, proximity of footpath to road Service relocation Request:

7 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 Submitter Support/Oppose Issues raised in Submissions Heard /Conditional Screening for noise Consideration of water main at edge of road Placement of walkway Kathryn Herewini Oppose Decision sought: reject Yes Large scale industrial operation will undermine peace, safety, rural characteristics Interpretation of existing consent extreme Positive effects overstated/ inconsistent with WDP Opposes hours of operation Traffic strongest objection - movements, safety, noise, vibration, emissions Inadequate mitigation – shelter belt, road widening, footpath Shelterbelt (14m) too high for mechanical trimming Noise – change from short term and infrequent during the daytime Lighting – not comparable to lighting from rural activities Water extraction opposed Effect on flood protection Lack of iwi consultation Kelvin McCartie Oppose Decision sought: reject No Traffic – increase in movements, Noise – traffic (especially trucks leaving the site) and plant – 24 hour operation Flooding/ effect on stopbank Effect on quiet rural environment Lesley McKeown Oppose Decision sought: decline or impose conditions Yes requiring mitigation of traffic volumes and noise Large scale industrial operation will undermine peace, safety, rural characteristics Interpretation of existing consent extreme Positive effects overstated/ inconsistent with WDP Opposes hours of operation Traffic strongest objection - movements, safety, noise, vibration, emissions Inadequate mitigation – shelter belt, road widening, footpath Shelterbelt (14m) too high for mechanical trimming Noise – change from short term and infrequent during the daytime Lighting – not comparable to lighting from rural activities Water extraction opposed Effect on flood protection

8 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 Submitter Support/Oppose Issues raised in Submissions Heard /Conditional Lack of iwi consultation Malcolm Helyar Oppose Decision sought: decline or consider effects of Yes increased traffic, including the effects on Matata. Re-notify to allow input from Whakatāne District community Inconsistent with rural environment and WDP Excavation near stopbank Height of building Shelterbelt height (10m) Noise levels – inadequate mitigation Health effects - topsoil excavation and traffic fumes Traffic volumes – limiting hours insufficient Noise and vibration Pollution from traffic, noise, light, runoff, plastics Inadequate roading effects identified Social effects – stress, safety, noise, restriction on safe use of roads, footpaths etc Loss of visual amenity Maureen Fraser Oppose Decision sought: decline Yes Location not ideal Better road access needed Volume of water take Noise effect on home not included Mitigation of noise not accepted – separates road from site noise Earthworks near stopbank Contaminated soils disturbance Building height/ outlook – shelterbelt inadequate Reduced setbacks Reduce hours of operation Lighting effect Traffic – truck noise Michael van der Oppose Decline or if consent is granted impose Yes Boom conditions on enclosure of site including trucks noise baffling speed reduction intersection upgrade hours of operation no outside lights Expansion inaccurate Traffic increase Operating hours Light and noise pollution Rural character Inconsistency with WDP Visual effects

9 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 Submitter Support/Oppose Issues raised in Submissions Heard /Conditional Scale of development Community costs Hazardous waste removal Glen Fraser Oppose Decision sought – decline NS/ Large scale industrial proposal joint Inconsistent with agricultural area Traffic movements too high Noise nuisance not in keeping with rural area – continuous rather than intermittent noise from trucks Potential effect on horticulture and viability Should be treated as a new activity Sarah Jane Van der Oppose Decision sought – decline Yes Boom Inconsistent with WDP framework New activity not expansion Loss of rural character and land Landscape impacts/ stacking containers Shelterbelt - replacement of trees Buffers should be kept clear Loss of productive land Reverse sensitivity Site noise Lighting Hours of work Stormwater and wastewater disposal Social impacts Traffic volumes Road and rail safety Pedestrian safety Road design Dust Effect on stopbank Kiwirail Oppose in part Decision sought: reject or require LCSIA and Yes condition upgrading railway level crossing with Hallett Road intersection Transportation effects - increase in truck movements from existing Level crossing/ intersection effects Stacking issue not addressed – lack of LCSIA NZTA Conditional Decision sought - does not oppose if conditions No imposed as attached, including traffic monitoring plan and intersection lighting/ upgrade Traffic Lighting Effects on road network Hours of operation/ shift work Noise exposure from traffic BOPRC Oppose / Decision sought – decline unless geotechnical Yes Conditional requirements are satisfied and a condition imposed to require stormwater mitigation

10 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 Submitter Support/Oppose Issues raised in Submissions Heard /Conditional Lack of geotechnical information Need to stormwater mitigation

8.5 Submission – Status to be Confirmed One submission was received from a party who was not served notice. This submission is included here for the sake of completeness subject to the Commissioners’ decision discussed in section 3 above. Name Support/ Issues raised in Submissions Wish to be Oppose Heard Ralph McCorkindale Conditional Decision sought - impose conditions on Yes retain boundary trees reduce plant size increase bunded storage capacity/ review pollutant removal reviewed use electric vehicles only Removal of trees exposes building – visual effects Noise and lighting Pollutants Effect on stopbank integrity Bunding capacity Lack of neighbourliness Wastewater and stormwater treatment Volume of wastewater and stormwater Inadequate design of capacity

8.6 Request for Further Information As indicated above, a request for further information was sent to the applicant dated 28 September 2017. It requested: copies of Cultural Impact Assessments and confirmation of the “envelope of effects” in relation to traffic effects, building height and construction noise effects. A geotechnical assessment of the effects of the earthworks on the Tarawera River stopbank was also being undertaken in parallel to the section 92 request. The further information was received on 19 October 2017, with the exception of the Cultural Impact Assessments, which were not required prior to notification. Following the receipt of submissions, the geotechnical assessment and a Level Crossing Safety Impact Assessment were provided by the applicant on 13 March 2018 in response to issues raised by submitters or through consultation. The further information is appended to this report as Attachment C.

8.7 Pre Hearing Meeting No pre-hearing meeting was held.

11 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 9 STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS

9.1 Relevant Sections of the Resource Management Act 1991 As the application was received prior to the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 came into effect, the statutory framework is the pre amendment wording. In relation to decision making, subject to Part 2 of the Act, section 104 requires Council to have regard to:

(a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and (b) any relevant provisions of – i) a national environmental standard: i) other regulations: ii) a national policy statement: iii) a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement: iv) a regional policy statement of a proposed regional policy statement: v) a plan or proposed plan; and (c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.

9.2 Section 104B Under section 104B of the RMA, consent to a discretionary activity may be granted or refused and (if granted) the consent authority may impose conditions under section 108.

9.3 Permitted Baseline Section 104(2) states: “When forming an opinion for the purposes of subsection (1) (a), a consent authority may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if a national environmental standard or the plan permits an activity with that effect”.

This is generally known as the permitted baseline. The permitted baseline refers to the effects of activities in the existing environment and of any permitted activities. Activities should not be fanciful but realistic in the environment. Therefore, the Council has the discretion to exclude adverse effects if they are similar to the effects of permitted activities.

The activities permitted as of right in the Rural Plains zone include rural production activities, one dwelling, one accessory building for habitation, places of assembly for 10-50 people, emergency services, home occupations, catteries and kennels, accommodation facilities for up to 5 paying guest, rural contractor’s depot (accessory to the farming activity and up to 7 staff) and small scale rural enterprise activities. Apart from places of assembly they are typically small scale activities. In addition, they must comply with the performance standards for the zone and other standards in the Plan.

The site already contains a water bottling plant. However, it occupies a minor proportion of the site and the buildings, being relatively small in footprint and height and of varied appearance, are consistent with the anticipated rural character and amenity for the locality. The application contains a permitted baseline assessment in section 5.3 and elsewhere in the AEE. I consider that the scale of the main building and the cumulative scale of buildings on the site is not typical of the rural environment for buildings permitted as of right.

I do not consider there to be a relevant permitted baseline comparison given the scale of the proposed development on the site.

12 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 10 DISTRICT PLAN PROVISIONS

10.1 Introduction The relevant objectives, policies and rules in the Operative District Plan are set out and evaluated in this section.

10.2 Objectives and Policies of the Operative Whakatāne District Plan 10.2.1 The following Objectives and Policies in Chapter 2 are relevant to this proposal: A Strong Rural Base Strategic Objective The rural character of the District is retained and rural productive 4 capacity is provided for.

Policy 1 To ensure that rural zones continue to be utilised for rural production activities, while giving effect to national policy statements on renewable electricity generation and electricity transmission and national environmental standards for telecommunication facilities and electricity transmission.

Policy 2 To enable primary productive use in the Rural Plains Zone and to protect land in that zone from further subdivision, development and activities that could detract from its primary production focus.

Policy 6 To ensure that subdivision, use and development of rural areas does not compromise the efficient operation of rural production activities or result in reverse sensitivity effects on lawfully established activities.

Comment: The proposed development will result in the loss of over 5 ha of land from primary productive use, namely horticulture. The application identifies that this loss will be negligible. However, the wording of Policy 2 is “to protect” which gives a strong direction when considering applications which result in the loss of productive land. While 5ha may be minimal on its own within the Plains, it adds to the ongoing cumulative loss of land from primary production, and is inconsistent with this objective and policies. 10.2.2 The following Objectives and Policies in Chapter 7 Rural are relevant to this proposal:

Objective To sustain the productive potential of rural land and provide for Rur1 rural production activities.

Policy 1 To protect land in the Rural Plains Zone, which include versatile land, for primary productive use and to maintain the productive land resources for future generations.

Policy 2 To provide for the growth and efficient operation of primary productive use and rural production activities in the Rural Zones.

Policy 3 To require the sustainable use and development of rural land in a manner that does not reduce existing primary productive use or compromise existing and future primary production use options.

Comment:

13 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 As discussed above, the cumulative loss of land from productive use is inconsistent with the sustainable use of rural land and not compromising future options for primary production use. The loss of over 5 ha of land from horticulture is inconsistent with this objective and policies which give strong direction to “protect land” and “require” sustainable use.

Objective To maintain and where appropriate, enhance rural character. Rur2

Policy 1 To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse visual effects of structures (including signs) in terms of location, size, height, bulk and materials.

Policy 3 To maintain and, where appropriate, enhance rural amenity values including natural light and buffers to boundaries, within and around dwellings in the rural zones.

Comment: The proposed new building will occupy nearly 30% of the site, with other smaller accessory buildings and structures. They will not comply with building setbacks and maximum height. The existing shelterbelts will be retained and additional planting added to reduce the visual impact of the building. However, it will remain a very large bulky building in a visual environment that is otherwise characterised by small scattered buildings of a rural, not industrial scale. The proposed planting and limiting the buildings and structures to low reflectivity colours and finishes will mitigate the potential adverse effects to an extent. However, the scale of the single large main building will remain out of character in the rural environment and I consider this to be inconsistent with the objective and policies.

Objective To ensure that development is located and operated to enable Rur3 people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and for their health and safety, while ensuring that adverse effects including cumulative effects on the rural environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Policy 1 To enable rural activities such as farming, intensive farming, production forestry and mining to continue and prosper as part of the rural environment, whilst avoiding significant adverse and/or cumulative effects on the surrounding environment.

Comment: The proposed expansion of the water bottling plant will provide for employment and bring economic benefits, which are described in the application, and this is consistent with helping to achieve this objective and policy. However, the cumulative effects of the scale of the building and the activity and the loss of rural land will not achieve the outcomes sought through the Plan.

10.2.3 The objectives and policies in Chapter 11 relevant to this application are:

Objective Maintain and enhance the health and safety of people and Gen1 communities from nuisance effects and adverse effects on the

14 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 environment.

Policy 1 To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of intrusive noise, odour, glare or vibration.

Comment: The information supporting the application, and subsequent amendments to the management of lighting on site, identify that the adverse effects of the proposed development can be managed to a level that will comply with the District Plan standards. However, there will be changes to the noise and visual environment through the introduction of a 24 hour operation, the large building and the associated traffic, noise and lighting. While the standards may be met, I am aware that residents can find otherwise compliant levels of noise and increased levels of lighting to be intrusive by comparison with the existing environment.

10.2.4 The objectives and policies in Chapter 13 relevant to this application are:

Objective TS1 A safe, efficient, sustainable integrated land transport network.

Policy 1 To consider benefits derived from improved transport infrastructure and connectivity and to ensure that any adverse effects on the physical transportation network resources are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Policy 2 To ensure that adverse effects on traffic movement, safety, sustainability, network capacity and the environment from the location, construction, maintenance and operation of activities are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Policy 3 To ensure the transportation mitigation meets the demands of the activity while maintaining the safe, sustainable and efficient function of the transport network.

Policy 5 To ensure that activities do not adversely affect the function, including the safe and efficient operation, of the transport network.

Policy 7 To provide a connected road, cyclist and pedestrian network and where necessary physically separate vehicle, cyclist and pedestrian movements.

Policy 8 To encourage an effective and efficient functioning of the transport network, ensuring that the ease of movement for pedestrians, cyclists, disabled people, the elderly, children, motor vehicles, and public transport is not unduly compromised.

Objective TS2 Roads that are safe for all road users and designed to the context of their environment.

Policy 1 To ensure that transportation networks are planned to respond to the land use context using design to encourage appropriate traffic speeds and provide amenity for all users.

15 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 Policy 2 To ensure that the street network enables traffic to flow freely and is appropriate for its purpose, and promotes safety of all users.

Policy 3 To encourage and facilitate sustainable modes of transport including walking, cycling and public transport.

Objective TS4 The safe movement of traffic and pedestrians entering, leaving and within sites.

Policy 2 To avoid poorly located and inadequately constructed access points on to roads and/or across rail lines.

Comment: Traffic generation and the potential adverse effects on the transport network, including the rail corridor, and safety for local residents are a significant issue for submitters. The proposed design of upgrades to the local road network and to the level crossing have been considered by Council’s Transportation Team. The upgrade to the rail crossing is supported by the Transportation Team subject to amended conditions, but at the time of writing this report comments on the road network upgrading are outstanding. Therefore additional evaluation will be provided at the hearing or through an addendum report. Subject to confirmation by Council’s Transportation Team, the outcome appears to be consistent with these objectives and policies.

10.2.5 The objectives and policies in Chapter 16 relevant to this application are:

Objective Land affected by contaminants in soil is appropriately managed HS2 to minimise the risk to human health in accordance with the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NES).

Policy 1 To require soil testing to confirm at the time of subdivision and development of sites that have a history of landuse that could have resulted in contamination of the soil that the land is fit for the intended use.

Policy 2 To ensure that any subdivision and development on contaminated land is managed so that significant risk to human health and the environment is avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Policy 3 To require management measures for contaminated land that provide for remediation, containment, disposal of contaminated soil, or other suitable measures so the level of contamination is appropriately managed for its current or proposed use.

Comment: Testing has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the NES and a management plan proposed to ensure that the potential risk to human health is avoided or minimised. The objective and policies will be achieved. 10.2.6 Overall, I consider that the proposed development will be consistent with and will achieve some of the outcomes sought in the objectives and policies of the District Plan. However, the scale of the activity and its associated visual and amenity effects will result in cumulative

16 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 off-site effects on the character and amenity of the surrounding area. With the loss of rural land, these are inconsistent with the outcomes sought in the Plan.

10.3 Assessment Criteria As a Discretionary Activity, the Council has listed assessment criteria for assessing the proposal under Rule 3.5. The Assessment Criteria for land use activities relevant to this application are considered in section 11, Assessment of Environmental Effects.

11 ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS 11.1 In considering the actual and potential effects on the environment under section 104(1) (a), the Act requires consideration of: x All positive and adverse effects; x Temporary or permanent effects; x Past present or future effects, cumulative effects potential effects of high probability; and x Potential effects of low probability, but high potential impact. 11.2 From my assessment of the application, the existing environment, the issues raised by the submitters, and the District Plan provisions, I consider that the effects on the environment relevant to this proposal are as follows. Visual Noise Traffic, including traffic generation Social and economic effects Cultural effects Contaminated site remediation Versatile land used for non-rural purposes Amenity Values and Rural Character Reverse sensitivity Earthworks and site restoration (including earthworks within 60m of the toe of the stopbank Tarawera River) Hazardous substances Construction As an application for a change of conditions, section 127 of the RMA requires that the effects are considered only in relation to the changes sought. However, as the proposed activity relates to the development of the whole site and will change the use of the site from a small bottling plant within a horticulture block to an industrial scale activity, the activity is evaluated in full.

11.3 Landscape and Visual Effects The proposal is described in section 3 of the application and the landscape and visual effects are assessed in section 5.6. The AEE is supported by a Visual Assessment in Appendix H. The assessment notes that the building will be designed to be sympathetic to the rural landscape and blend into the landscape. Photomontages are provided from 5 viewpoints and the visual effects assessment concludes that: “... any adverse visual effects of the proposal will be less than minor, and furthermore from some viewpoints are considered to be negligible”.

17 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 Mitigation proposed includes the existing shelterbelts, to be supplemented with additional planting, the timber acoustic fence, and the use of low reflectivity colours.

In relation to landscape effects, the assessment concludes that there will be moderate to high landscape effects within the site, but for the wider landscape, the buildings will be largely screened from views and will not be out of scale or context with rural activities.

Many of the submitters identified the large scale of the activity and the ability to adequately mitigate its visual effects as a concern.

The District Plan lists in Chapter 3 (3.7.1) the following criteria for consideration: the visual backdrop including ridgelines, skylines and headlands from public places (including roads) and the general landscape character; design elements in relation to the locality, with reference to the existing landscape character of the locality and amenity values; the scale of the activity; height, cross-sectional area, colour and texture of structures; degree of compatibility with surrounding properties; site location in terms of the general locality, topography, geographical features, adjoining land uses proposed planting, fencing, shelterbelts, artificial screening and other landscaping treatments as detailed in a submitted landscape plan; the intensity of lighting when viewed from a distance; the directional spill and location of lights, and whether light adversely affects the use and enjoyment of adjoining properties; whether the new activity integrates into existing landscape features; and whether there are technical limitations on the location of the activity.

The scale, compatibility and integration of an activity and associated buildings are key considerations in relation to the proposal. Although the site is currently used for a bottling plant, the current buildings are small and compatible with the scale and appearance of buildings accessory to rural land uses, and with those found in the surrounding landscape. The buildings are relatively small scale and scattered on nearby sites.

The proposed development will change the site from a predominantly horticultural activity to a predominantly built industrial-type environment, with at least 69% building and hard surface coverage. The main building of 16,800m2 together with the ancillary buildings and structures, and stacked containers, is not in my opinion consistent with the existing or anticipated scale of buildings in the rural landscape. While recessive colours and screening may reduce the visual effect, the buildings are likely to be visible through vegetation and are unlikely to enable the building to blend into the landscape as stated. The criteria also refer to the technical limitations on the location of the activity. The applicant seeks consent from BOPRC to use the existing bores on the site. Therefore, the outcome of the application process will inform a conclusion as to whether the water take is supported on this site, and whether there are technical limitations that require this site to be developed. Overall, it is my opinion that the landscape and visual effects of the proposed development will be incompatible with the scale and character of the rural environment.

18 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 11.4 Traffic Effects The proposed development will result in an increased number of truck movements from the existing consented 4 truck movements per day to 190 truck movements per day. In addition, staff movements at full production are projected to be 120 vehicle movements per day.

The application provides an assessment of traffic effects in section 5.11, and a Transport Assessment Report in Appendix G. This was supplemented by the clarification in the response to the request for further information, and the provision of a Level Crossing Safety Impact Assessment report. The adverse effects on the road network, pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders are considered and recommendations made to upgrade Johnson and Hallett Roads, including a separate footpath and the intersection with SH34. The Level Crossing SIA also recommends improvements to address safety issues.

The traffic assessment identifies that the existing roading network will be improved and states that “the proposal will not result in any adverse effects on the operation or access of the surrounding rural activities and properties.” The concerns of nearby residents resulted in restrictions being placed on truck movements to between 9am and 7pm Monday to Saturday. Overall, the AEE concludes that the effects will be less than minor. Traffic volumes and the effects on safety of the local roading and State Highway network, as well as the rail crossing, are identified as an issue by nearly all submitters. Both NZ Transport Agency and KiwiRail are submitters and will be able to respond to the proposed upgrades at the hearing. The District Plan lists in Chapter 3 (3.7.17) the following criteria for consideration: traffic volumes and traffic mix relative to existing and future traffic patterns, access, parking and loading on-site; pedestrian and cyclist safety; hours of operation relative to the existing and future neighbourhood amenity; construction traffic volumes, traffic mix and hours of operation; the ability of the site to accommodate the traffic anticipated and the nature of the adjacent roading pattern, including the position of the road in the roading hierarchy; design (including gradient or slope) and location of deceleration and acceleration lanes on to roads, including state highways; formation of the road or location and formation of the access; the total land area proposed to be used for access, parking and loading in the Rural Plains Zone; aspects of the proposal that could compromise the safety and convenience of pedestrians as well as the avoidance of individual and cumulative adverse effects associated with traffic movements; effects of the activity on the function and the safe and efficient operation of the transport network

Subject to confirmation from the Council Transportation Team, the proposed upgrades to the road network are considered to address the safety and capacity issues appropriately. Therefore, at the time of writing this report, I concur with the conclusion of the AEE that the effects on road users will be less than minor. However, I discuss the amenity effects of traffic volumes and construction effects below, as I consider that the level of heavy vehicle traffic generated will not consistent with what would be anticipated on the local road network in this location. I acknowledge that the hours of operation have been restricted in response to residents’ concerns, and that this goes some way towards reducing noise on site at night and on Sundays.

19 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 Overall, I conclude that the traffic effects of the activity on the road and rail network will be less than minor, subject to compliance with appropriate conditions to achieve necessary upgrade works.

11.5 Noise Effects The application provides an assessment of the noise effects of the bottling plant on nearby residents, in section 5.8. An Acoustic Assessment is provided in Appendix I to the application, and a supplementary letter was provide in relation to one dwelling omitted from the assessment. The acoustic assessment evaluates the proposed activity against current noise standards, and concludes that the permitted noise standards will be met. Therefore, the adverse effects of noise generated from the site will be less than minor and acceptable in the rural receiving environment, subject to a timber acoustic fence being constructed on the southern and western sides of the complex.

The assessment of noise effects identifies and considers noise in relation to construction activities and operational noise. It notes that the proposal will be similar to the activities already occurring on site and concludes that the change in existing daytime noise level at the notional boundary of nearby dwellings will be minor. In relation to night time noise there will not “be any adverse noise effects for the neighbours”. This is based on there being no outside activity during night time. Any changes are identified as being just noticeable. Noise from the activity and from traffic accessing the site is identified by nearly all submitters resident near the site. The loss of peace is noted. The District Plan lists in Chapter 3 (3.7.10) the following criteria for consideration: the nature of the zone within which the noise generating activity is located and the activity’s compatibility with the expected environmental results for that zone; existing ambient sound levels; the length of time for which specified sound levels will be exceeded, particularly at night, with regard to likely disturbance that may be caused; the potential for cumulative noise effects to result in an adverse outcome for receivers of noise; the likely adverse impacts of noise generating activities both on and beyond sites, on a site, on visitors, users of business premises, or on public places in the vicinity; the maximum sound level likely to be generated, its nature, character and frequency, and the disturbance this may cause to people in the vicinity; whether the noise generated would be of such a level as to create a threat to the health or well-being of persons living or working in the vicinity; the proposals made by the applicant to reduce noise generation. This may include guidance provided by a suitably qualified and experienced acoustic consultant; the level of involvement of a suitably qualified and experienced acoustic consultant in the assessment of potential noise effects and/or mitigation options to reduce noise emissions; The noise assessment was prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced acoustic consultant and identifies that the noise levels will be compliant with the levels set in the District Plan. Recommendations are made for mitigating the noise through an acoustic fence, and the containment of noisy plant such as compressors, and relies on external doors being closed at night time. In addition conditions are recommended for construction activities. These recommendations are supported to be included in conditions. The conclusion that the adverse effects will be minor is therefore accepted. The Plan criteria include consideration of the nature of the environment in which the activity is to be located, and the consistency with the environmental results expected. The Plan does not set out the environmental results expected but amenity expectations expressed by submitters

20 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 include acceptable levels of noise. The extension of the bottling plant into a large scale 24 hour operation will introduce a new source of night time noise, albeit compliant with noise standards. This can be intrusive for nearby residents as it represents a change to the character of the environment. This is discussed in relation to amenity and rural character below.

11.6 Lighting Effects An evaluation of the lighting effects is provided in section 5.7 of the application. This concludes that the adverse effects of light emissions from the site will be less than minor. Restrictions on lighting are proposed between 10pm and 7am, and design parameters are proposed to minimise lighting affecting adjacent sites. The applicant states compliance with the District Plan standards for lighting and glare.

I note that some submitters have identified light pollution and the differentiation from typical rural scale lighting as an issue.

The District Plan lists in Chapter 3 (3.7.28) the following criteria for consideration, under Amenity Values and Rural Character: the intensity of lighting when viewed from a distance; the directional spill and location of lights, and whether light adversely affects the use and enjoyment of adjoining properties;

It is accepted that the proposal will comply with the standards in the District Plan in relation to lighting and glare, and that the adverse effects are likely to be minor. Activities in the rural environment will typically provide security lighting and must be anticipated. The scale of the activity is likely to result in a change in general rural amenity for nearby residents. Compliance with appropriate conditions is recommended.

11.7 Amenity Values and Rural Character The applicant assesses the change in amenity and rural character and notes that it is “an overarching qualitative feeling that cannot necessarily be distilled from the assessment of physical effects”. The AEE concludes in 5.17.3 that “Rural character as it currently exists will be maintained in the vicinity as it is anticipated that the expansion water bottling facility will not detract from, or change, the surrounding rural environment and activities.” and “will not affect the amenity or the character of the area to a degree that is beyond less than minor except for the increased ‘busy-ness’ along Johnson and Hallett Roads from the site to SH34”. The overall conclusion in relation to Amenity and Rural Character is that the effects will be less than minor and those properties directly affected by the traffic on the access roads will be adversely affected to a degree that is minor.

Submitters resident in the area identify adverse effects on amenity and their wellbeing as issues, including traffic movements and noise, effect on peace and rural characteristics. The District Plan lists in Chapter 3 (3.7.28) the following criteria for consideration: the likelihood that the proposed activity will contribute to cumulative adverse effects on rural character, general amenity values; the nature and degree of adverse effects from the proposed activity upon the existing and future amenities of the locality, including recreational values, and on the health and safety of the community;

21 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 the nature and extent of any planting including the replacement of specimen trees; the cumulative visual effect of the length and height of building bulk in relation to applications for Non-Compliance with any bulk and location or lot size requirements, site characteristics such as; aspect, shape, substandard area or frontage; topographical constraints; the location of existing buildings or mature specimen trees on site; potential risk from a natural hazard, and potential adverse effects on people such as neighbouring property owners or the immediate community through increased overshadowing or loss of visual privacy; the compatibility with the existing character and pattern of land development in proximity to the site; any adverse effect from vehicles entering or leaving the site Amenity is defined in the RMA as “those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes”. Rural character is defined in the District Plan as including a high ratio of open space relative to the built environment, a working rural production environment as well as “noises, odour, landscape changes and effects associated with rural production activities and lawfully established activities”. The proposed activity will replace the existing small scale bottling plant set in a kiwifruit orchard with a large scale operation that will require the establishment of large buildings and increased areas of hard surface. It will introduce a high number of truck movements as well as light vehicles along roads leading to the site, and add compliant but noticeable noise on a 24 hour basis, as well as noise from trucks on the roads. While the mitigation proposed by the applicant will reduce the effects to an acceptable level in some cases, I do not consider that the change to the rural character and amenity is acceptable or consistent with the pattern of activities and effects anticipated in the rural environment.

11.8 Cultural Effects The application sets out in section 5.13 an assessment of cultural effects. The application also contains a statement of consultation undertaken in section 6 and appends in Appendix O Iwi responses. Cultural impact assessments were to be provided by the applicant and were requested as further information. They have not been provided to date.

When notice was served on parties, Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau and Ngāti Mākino were also served notice. No submissions were received to this application but submissions were lodged in relation to the applications to BOPRC. Therefore, it is anticipated that evidence will be presented at the hearing and this will inform the Commissioners’ decision.

Any issues relating to cultural values will be addressed at the hearing and amendments may be recommended to include appropriate conditions on the basis of evidence at that time.

11.9 Earthworks and Site Restoration The profile of soils across the Rangitāiki Plain is such that there is a history of seepage along stopbanks and drains. The most recent even resulted in the 2017 breach of the Rangitāiki Stopbank at Edgecumbe. BOPRC has a Floodway and Drainage Bylaw to control activities that affect flood protection works throughout the region. In addition, rules are included in the Natural Hazards section of the District Plan. The District Plan lists in Chapter 3 (3.7.43) the following criteria for consideration:

22 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 any temporary adverse effects of earthworks on land uses in the vicinity of the site, including noise, dust, vibration, traffic movement or cultural impact; any increased risk associated with a natural hazard event that may arise from undertaking earthworks. For example, the undermining of the integrity of a stopbank or lowering frontal dunes.

The applicant provides a description and evaluation of the earthworks proposed within 60m of the toe of the Tarawera River stopbank in section 5.19.2. This concludes that the adverse effects of earthworks on the site will be less than minor. As there was no detailed geotechnical report provided as part of the application, a report was requested. It was provided on 13 March 2018 and has been subject to a peer review. The peer review was received on 29 March 2018 and has identified that there are no specific outstanding concerns. Therefore, conditions are recommended should consent be granted.

11.10 Social and Economic Effects The application sets out an assessment of the economic and social effects of the proposed activity in section 5.12 and in Appendix F to the application. The proposed activity will create additional employment, both directly and indirectly, and will result in a significant increase in local spending by the company. Submitters identify local adverse social effects on the community through the disturbance to their living environment and the increased risk to safety within the transport network. The District Plan lists in Chapter 3 (3.7.19) the following criteria for consideration: the impacts on surrounding activities and access to the respective sites; economic effects including growth opportunities and employment opportunities that are anticipated to be provided or reduced; The economic benefits of the proposal are understood and accepted. However, I also consider that there will be a degree of social disruption to the local community as a result of the adverse effects on amenity and rural character and disruption through increased traffic and noise.

11.11 Versatile Land The applicant addresses the effect of the proposal on versatile land within the site in section 5.16. The positive economic benefits are noted and the loss of 5.5ha of kiwifruit is concluded to be negligible. Loss of productive land is identified as an issue by a submitter. The District Plan lists in Chapter 3 (3.7.27) the following criteria for consideration: the degree to which versatile land on the site is already compromised or has lost its life-supporting capacity; constraints on the ability to use the soil. For example, stability of slopes, climatic conditions, drainage, topography, gradient of land, need for irrigation or the location of small isolated pockets of higher quality soil; how the proposal facilitates or sustains the use and inherent versatility of high quality soils; the effect of the proposal on soil structure and health, including physical, chemical or biophysical changes such as compaction or removal of soils, or degradation of soil through a loss of moisture or sunlight; the loss of future productive rural land use options resulting from the proposal; the requirements of the land use to be located on versatile land, including technical or logistical requirements.

23 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 The site is currently predominantly used for growing kiwifruit and has no apparent constraints for horticultural use. The proposed development will result in the loss of the site from horticulture and productive use. While the area may be considered small in the context of the Plains as a whole, the District Plan requires protection of versatile land through a strong policy direction. The gradual loss of productive land through subdivision and development results in a cumulative loss that may be significant. Therefore I consider that it is inconsistent with the requirement to protect the versatile land to allow the development of the site for the bottling plant.

11.12 Reverse Sensitivity The applicant addresses potential reverse sensitivity effects of the proposal in section 5.18. The District Plan lists in Chapter 3 (3.7.41) the following criteria for consideration: the sensitivity of the proposed activity to any lawfully existing activities including customary activities; the noise environment of the locality; the compatibility with the existing character and pattern of development within 300m of the site I concur with the applicant that reverse sensitivity effects are likely to be less than minor.

11.13 Construction Effects The applicant has provided a description of the proposed construction works in section 3 and an evaluation of the potential effects in section 5.21. An erosion and sediment control plan is contained in Appendix L to the application. The applicant’s conclusion is that the adverse effects will be less than minor.

Construction effects have the ability to cause noise, dust and traffic disturbance to adjacent properties. There are well defined standards for controlling earthworks, hours of operation, noise and dust which are typically applied through conditions of consent and drawn together in a construction management plan.

The Council requested further information about the construction noise levels for Saturdays given the proximity of dwellings to the site. The applicant agreed in its response under Section 92 to adopt a more stringent noise control on Saturday afternoon than those provided under NZS:6803:1999. The applicant proposes to provide a construction management plan and construction noise management plan as consent conditions. In addition, there would be regular communication and feedback with the adjacent property owners.

I concur with the applicant’s assessment that the adverse construction effects would be less than minor.

11.14 Effect on Council Water Supply A concern raised by Council’s Three Waters Team related to the potential adverse effect of the activity on the nearby Council water supply bore, located across Johnson Road from the entrance.

The applicant concluded that any discharge from the on-site effluent disposal area would not adversely affect the domestic water supply because of the depth of the bore and the nature of the aquifer into which the bore is drilled.

The Council Three Waters Team has now been satisfied that the adverse effects can be reduced or avoided through management under BOPRC consent conditions.

24 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 11.15 Summary Overall, the actual and potential adverse effects on many aspects of the proposal, including potentially significant adverse effects on the transport network can be managed through appropriate conditions. The significant scale of the operation and buildings and activities associated with the bottling plant will have cumulative adverse effects on the amenity and rural character of the surrounding environment which, based on current information available, in my opinion cannot be adequately mitigated or avoided. In addition, it is drawn to the Commissioners’ attention that cultural impact assessments are outstanding and the hearing will provide the opportunity to identify whether there are cultural effects which must be addressed.

12 REGIONAL PLANS

12.1 There are four relevant BOPRC documents: the Operative Regional Policy Statement (RPS), the Regional Natural Resources Plan, the Tarawera River Plan, and the Regional Air Plan. The site is not located in the coastal marine area and the Regional Coastal Environment Plan does not have to be considered. 12.2 The Regional Council staff report reviews and considers the consistency and appropriateness of the proposal in relation to these documents. Rather than duplicate the assessment of the relevant provisions in the regional policy statement and plans, I defer to their conclusions.

13 NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS 13.1 Only the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NES) is considered relevant to this proposal. The NES controls the following activities: 1. Removing or replacing all, or part of, a fuel storage system. 2. Sampling the soil. 3. Disturbing the soil. 4. Subdividing the land. 5. Changing the land use.

13.2 The proposed activity will disturb land that is a piece of land described under Regulation 5(7) where an activity described in the HAIL is being undertaken or was undertaken. The site is identified on BOPRC’s HAIL register.

13.3 The application contains a description of the soil contamination in section 3.9 and an assessment of effects in section 5.15. A Detailed Site Investigation is contained in Appendix J and a Contaminated Soils Management Plan in Appendix K of the application which address the management of the contaminated soils during earthworks appropriately.

13.4 Comments were received from BOPRC which identify approval of the Contaminated Soil Management Plan and recommending conditions of consent. 13.5 Conditions of consent are recommended in Attachment D to ensure that the contaminated soil is managed in accordance with the application.

25 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 14. CONDITIONS 14.1 Should consent be granted, conditions can be imposed to avoid, remedy or mitigate some of the adverse effects on the environment. Draft conditions were provided as part of the application. These have been amended and are attached to this report as Attachment D. 14.2 Amendments may be tabled at the hearing, in response to information provided prior to or at the hearing.

15. OTHER MATTERS 15.1 Any other matter that is relevant and reasonably necessary may be considered in making a decision. There are no other matters relevant to consider.

16. PART 2 ASSESSMENT

16.1 Section 5 Applications for resource consents must be considered subject to Part 2 of the Act. Section 5 states the Purpose of the Act as being the “sustainable management of resources”. Subsection (2) defines sustainable management as meaning: “managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while – (a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonable foreseeable needs of future generations: and (b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems; and (c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.”

I consider that the proposal for a large scale water bottling plant on the site is not consistent with the purpose of the Act in relation to the potential adverse effects on the rural environment, as set out in section 11 above.

16.2 Section 6 Section 6 of the Resource Management Act states:

“In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance: (a) The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use and development; (b) The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use and development; (c) The protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna; (d) The maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes and rivers; (e) The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions and their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga

26 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 (f) The protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development. (g) The protection of recognised customary activities.

The site has no outstanding features or habitat or heritage values identified in the district plan. However, cultural impact assessments are outstanding and these may identify sites of cultural value that need to be considered under section 6. There are no other matters of national importance raised in relation to this application.

16.3 Section 7 Section 7 of the Act also contains other matters which must be taken into consideration.

(a) Kaitiakitanga: (aa) The ethic of stewardship: (b) The efficient use and development of natural resources: (c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values: (d) Intrinsic values of ecosystems: (e) Recognition and protection of the heritage values of sites, buildings, places or areas: (f) Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment: (g) Any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources: (h) The protection of the habitat of trout and salmon. (i) The effects of climate change (j) The benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy.

The proposal has been identified as having potentially adverse effects in relation to the amenity values (7(c)) and the quality of the environment (7(f)). Any concerns relevant to sections 7(a) and 7(f) may be addressed at the hearing when additional information is to be presented by submitters to the BOPRC application.

16.4 Section 8 Section 8 requires the Council to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Te Runanga o Ngati Awa has identified the consultation process was not adequate. However, additional consultation has, I understand, been undertaken and information has now been provided which may have allowed some of the issues to be addressed.

17. CONCLUSIONS 17.1 The proposed water bottling plant on the site at 57 Johnson Road would provide economic and social benefits to the Whakatāne community through the creation of employment directly and indirectly. However, it would have a potentially significant adverse effect locally on nearby properties through cumulative effects on amenity, rural character and visual effects. 15.2 While the site is located in a modified environment, it is a rural farming and lifestyle area where traffic volumes are generally low and there is an absence of night time noise from plant and machinery. The large scale building is inconsistent with the pattern of development and the scale of building typical of the rural environment. In addition, the number of heavy vehicle movements would increase from 4 per day to 190 per day. While the effect of traffic on the transport network can be addressed through recommended upgrades, the amenity effects cannot be avoided.

27 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318 15.3 While conditions can be imposed to require appropriate management of some aspects of the proposal, the adverse effects on amenity and rural character cannot, in my opinion be adequately addressed. 15.4 It is my opinion at this time that on balance the proposal does not promote the outcomes sought in the relevant objectives and policies of the Operative Whakatāne District Plan. 15.5 I note that there is outstanding information in relation to cultural values and the potential impact of the proposal on cultural values. I understand that these matters may be addressed by evidence at the hearing. 15.6 Should the Commissioners be satisfied in relation to the effects on rural character and amenity then I consider that appropriate conditions are required to carefully manage the activity in relation to the environment and nearby activities.

Report Authorisation

Report writer: Ann Nicholas Consultant Planner

Approved: Shane McGhie Principal Planner

28 Creswell NZ Ltd Whakatane District Council Section 42A Draft Report 280318