Application CRC184977

By Te Rūnanga o Ngai Tahu

for a Coastal Permit to erect a structure, disturb and deposit material on the foreshore and seabed, occupy the coastal marine area and reclaim part of the foreshore and seabed

Section 42A Officer’s Report – Rhett Klopper Date: July 2018

INTRODUCTION

1. Te Rūnanga o Ngai Tahu (the applicant) has applied for a coastal permit to: a. Reclaim part of the foreshore or seabed; b. Place, alter or remove structures (deposit substance); c. Erect, reconstruct a structure; d. Disturb the foreshore and seabed; e. Deposit material in the foreshore or seabed; f. Occupy the common marine and coastal area; 2. The applicant proposes to undertake construction works to install a revetment / seawall structure along the access track to Onawe Peninsula, Akaroa Harbour, Banks Peninsula. The works are intended to protect the access track which has been subject to erosion and landslip activity, and which is required to maintain Onawe Pa / Peninsula. 3. The application was prepared by Alisa Wood of Opus International Consultants Limited (the consultant) on behalf of the applicant. 4. A site visit was not undertaken during the processing of this application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY

5. The applicant proposes to erect a revetment (sea wall) structure, disturb and deposit material on the foreshore and seabed, occupy the coastal marine area, and reclaim part of the foreshore or seabed. Refer to Section 3 of the AEE, (Page 9), which accompanied this application for a more detailed description. 6. The applicant is proposing to erect an approximately 20m long revetment on the west side / face of Onawe Peninsula where there is an existing access ramp (for vehicles and walking). The applicant intends for the revetment to protect the track from long term erosion and provide for improved longevity and reduce risk. 7. The applicant will be installing stormwater management subsoil drains to collect water and discharge this water at a point along the rock revetment. 8. In addition, the applicant will be widening approximately 14m of the track at approximately 55m south of the southern ramp. 9. Further work will include moving the existing access gate and landscaping / mitigation works.

s42A report version September 2015

Toe Protection and Buttressing 10. The applicant proposes to install a 20m long rock revetment to consist of imported granular fill and rock, which will extend 20m south of the toe of the ramp. 11. The revetment is designed to have a crest level of +4.5m Chart Datum (CD). The fill is proposed to have an overall thickness of 5m, and the rock revetment a crest width of 1m. 12. In order to construct the revetment, 0.25m excavation for the deep toe embedment trench into underlying bed rock will be required to mitigate the risk of toe scour undermining.

Figure 1: Toe Protection and Buttressing along edge of southern access ramp, rock revetment (blue shading), new fill (lime green), and extended access track (grey). The relocated gate (purple line) and subsoil drain (green line) are also shown. 13. The western face of the ramp will be benched into its side (1m width, 2-3m in depth) before building the new bench and the lower fill behind the rock revetment structure. The upper fill will widen the access ramp to the required 4m width. Stormwater Management 14. An 80 m long subsoil drain along the access track to channel the drain water away from Onawe Pa to a point on the rock revetment structure will be installed. 15. The subsoil drain will necessitate excavation of a trench along the east side of the access track and ramp approximately 0.10m wide and 0.27m deep. Widening of Access Track 16. Further up the access track, it is proposed to widen he track by cutting into a section of the existing bank. A 14m long cut by approximately 1m wide will be required to widen the access track to 3m in width.

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 2 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper

Figure 2: Plan showing the subsoil drain (drain line) and area of cut required to widen access track to 3m (red). Shaded green showing area of slip caused by storm water flow. Construction Methodology 17. In Summary, the applicant proposes construction methodology is as follows: a. Trim existing retaining wall; b. Excavate site and proposed rock revetment; c. Install subsoil drain; d. Place rock along eroded bank; e. Backfill behind rock revetment; f. Remove existing gate; g. Install new gate; h. Undertake landscaping; and i. Reinstate site. 18. The applicant will employ erosion and sediment controls during works in accordance with Environment Canterbury’s Erosion and Sediment Control Toolbox (ESCT). 19. Storage of fuel and hazardous substances will not occur within the foreshore and seabed. 20. The majority of works will be undertaken during low tide to minimise the disturbance of the wetted part of the foreshore and seabed. 21. The applicant has requested a duration of 35 years.

LEGAL AND PLANNING MATTERS

The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) 22. Section 12 of the RMA states that:

“(1) No person may, in the coastal marine area,— (a) reclaim … any foreshore or seabed; or

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 3 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper (b) erect, reconstruct, place, alter, extend, remove, or demolish any structure or any part of a structure that is fixed in, on, under, or over any foreshore or seabed; or (c) disturb any foreshore or seabed (including by excavating, drilling, or tunnelling) in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on the foreshore or seabed (other than for the purpose of lawfully harvesting any plant or animal); or (d) deposit in, on, or under any foreshore or seabed any substance in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on the foreshore or seabed; or (e) destroy, damage, or disturb any foreshore or seabed (other than for the purpose of lawfully harvesting any plant or animal) in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on plants or animals or their habitat; or (f) introduce or plant any exotic or introduced plant in, on, or under the foreshore or seabed; or (g) destroy, damage, or disturb any foreshore or seabed (other than for the purpose of lawfully harvesting any plant or animal) in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on historic heritage—

unless expressly allowed by a national environmental standard, a rule in a regional coastal plan as well as a rule in a proposed regional coastal plan for the same region (if there is one), or a resource consent. (2) No person may, unless expressly allowed by a national environmental standard, a rule in a regional coastal plan or in any proposed regional coastal plan for the same region, or a resource consent,— (a) occupy any part of the common marine and coastal area; or (b) remove any sand, shingle, shell, or other natural material from that area…

23. Section 15(1) of the Act states that no person may, in the coastal marine area, discharge any contaminant or water into water, unless the discharge is expressly allowed by a rule in a regional plan and in any relevant proposed regional plan, resource consent or regulations. 24. The proposal involves the occupation of the foreshore and seabed, the reconstruction, erection and alteration of coastal track and rock revetment. This will result in the erection, and reconstruction of a structure, the disturbance of the foreshore or sea bed, and the deposition of material. These activities are not expressly allowed by a national environmental standard or a rule in a regional plan. Therefore resource consent is required. 25. Sections 89A of the RMA Applications affecting navigation to be referred to Maritime New Zealand applies to this proposal. The activity includes a reclamation and includes building a structure, s89A(1)(a)(i). 26. Section 89A(2) requires a local authority to send a copy of the application to Maritime New Zealand (MNZ), who under section 89A(3) must report on any navigation related matters. 27. Mr Ian Fox, Deputy Regional Harbourmaster, has advised me that he considers that as there is limited encroachment into the tidal zone, that there are not navigational safely issues with the proposal.

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 4 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper 28. Under an agreement with between the Regional Harbourmaster and MNZ it is not necessary to inform MNZ.

Regional Plans

Land and Water Regional Plan (LWRP) 29. If the works are adjacent to the Coastal Marine Area (within the Coastal environment (above Mean High Water Spring /Coastal Hazard Zone 1 & 2 (Chapter 9 of the Regional Coastal Plan), then LWRP applies. Some activities within the Coastal Hazard Zones are covered in the RCEP. 30. As the majority of the works are located within the CMA, I do not consider that the LWRP applies to this proposal.

The Regional Coastal Environment Plan for the Canterbury Region (RCEP) 31. The CMA includes the foreshore, seabed, and the coastal water and airspace above the water between the outer limit of the territorial waters (12 nautical miles) and the line of mean high-water spring tide (MHWS). Given that the works are in the CMA the RCEP applies. 32. The applicant has assessed the activity status of the proposed activities in Section 4.2.1.1 of the AEE (Page 16) which accompanied the application. Erection, reconstruction, placement, extension, removal and demolition of structures fixed in, on under or over any foreshore or seabed 33. I agree with the applicant that Rule 8.4 Non-complying Activities of the RCEP for reconstruction and extension of a structure within the CMA applies to this proposal. 34. Rule 8.4 States “The following are Non-Complying Activities in, on, under, or over any foreshore or seabed:…. (c) the erection or placement of a structure within an Area of Significant Natural Value or within an area listed in Schedule 5.13….” Disturbance of any Foreshore or Seabed 35. I agree with the applicant that Rule 8.9 Non-Complying Activities applies to the proposed activity, for the disturbance of the foreshore and seabed during the construction of the pathway and revetment. 36. Rule 8.9 States, “Any disturbance of the foreshore or seabed by any person, (including by excavating, drilling, or tunnelling), or any removal of sand, shingle, shell, or other natural material, by any person; is a Non-Complying Activity where the disturbance or removal: a. Is within an Area of Significant Natural Value; and b. Is not maintenance Dredging or authorised as a permitted activity by Rule 8.6, or provided for by Rule 8.10; and c. Involves, in any twelve-month period, more than 100 cubic metres of material” Deposition of any substance in, on or under, any foreshore or seabed 37. I agree with the applicant that Rule 8.14 Non-complying Activities applies for the deposition of the rock rip rap and new fill material to create a new seawall. 38. Rule 8.14 States “Except as authorised as a Permitted Activity by Rule 8.11, or provided for by Rule 8.15; the deposition by any person of more than 100 cubic

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 5 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper metres of any material on the foreshore or seabed at any site within an Area of Significant Natural Value, in any twelve-month period, is a Non-Complying Activity.” Occupation of the Coastal Marine Area 39. The applicant has assessed the occupation of the CMA under Rule 8.23 Discretionary Activities as they consider that the extending footprint of the coastal pathway is not provided for as a permitted activity under Rule 8.22 permitted activities. I consider Rule 8.23 Discretionary activities applies as although the occupation will be within an Area of Significant Natural Value, it will not exclude public access from over ten hectares, will not exclude public from more than 316 metres along the length of the foreshore, and does not involve occupation of greater than 50 hectares. 40. Rule 8.23 states “Except as provided for by Rules 8.22, 8.24 or 8.25; the occupation of the Coastal Marine Area is a Discretionary Activity.” Reclamation 41. The applicant was requested to address the potential for reclamation as a result of the proposal within a s92 request for further information. The applicant’s response provided an assessment of the reclamation rules. The applicant’s response considers that reclamation does not apply to this proposal, their response can be viewed in C18C/101540. 42. I disagree with the applicant’s assessment that Rule 8.28 non-complying activities does not apply for the reclamation within an area of significant natural value. The reclamation will involve the deposition of greater than 100m3 (approximately 154m3) of material within the CMA, and will have an average width of 5.5m extending within the CMA. While I agree that the purpose of the revetment is similar to a seawall, and as described in the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011 section 29, seawalls are not considered a reclamation, I consider the infilling behind the seawall will result in a reclamation of land that meets the definition of reclamation as set out in the RCEP. 43. Rule 8.28 states “Except as provided for by Rule 8.29, any reclamation of foreshore or seabed within an Area of Significant Natural Value is a Non- Complying Activity where that reclamation involves the deposition of more than 100 cubic metres of material on the foreshore or seabed.”

Summary 44. The applicant requires resource consent for the following activities: a. Erection, reconstruction, placement, extension, removal and demolition of fixed structures in, on under or over the foreshore and seabed as a Non-Complying Activity b. Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed as a Non-Complying Activity c. Deposition of any substance in, on or over the foreshore and seabed as a Non-Complying Activity d. Occupation of the coastal marine area as a Discretionary Activity e. The reclamation of the foreshore or seabed as a Non-Complying Activity

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 6 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper 45. Taking into account the related construction nature of the above activities, the most conservative approach is taken and therefore the proposal is considered to be a Non-Complying Activity. 46. I do not consider any other resource consents are required.

ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED PARTIES

47. The applicant discussed their proposal with a number of parties. Refer to Section 5 of the AEE, (Page 17), which accompanies this application for their details. 48. The applicant has consulted with both Onuku and Wairewa Rūnanga, who have expressed support of the proposal (Appendix J). In addition, Te Ngai Tūāhuriri has expressed their support of the proposal (C18C/74318). 49. I agree that the applicant has identified all potentially adversely affected people. Written approval has been provided by all people and as such we must not consider them as potentially adversely affected. The applicant has also undertaken the consultation with Customary Marine Title applicant groups as required under Section 62 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. 50. The Canterbury Regional Council advised the following parties of the proposal on 20 April 2018: a. Christchurch and North Canterbury District Health Board; b. Department of Conservation; c. Forest and Bird; d. Fish and Game North; e. Harbour Master; f. NZ Beekeeping Inc; g. Christchurch City Council; h. Avon Heathcote Estuary Groups; i. Ōnuku Rūnanga; and j. Wairewa Rūnanga 51. A response was requested by 27 April 2018, as of writing this report, no response has been received.

DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

52. The applicant has provided a description of the affected environment in Section 1.4 of the AEE (Page 3) which accompanied the application. 53. In summary the applicant states a. Onawe Pa is located in Barrys Bay and Duvauchelle Bay, as an elongated pear-shaped peninsula connected to the north coast of the harbour by a narrow neck at the head of the harbour; b. The site is a narrow vehicle access track that runs down to the intertidal zone on the western edge of the peninsula, there is a low point between

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 7 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper the first section of the razor back ridge and the next in which the sea flows during king or spring tides; c. A series of photographs in section 1.4.2 of the AEE provides a clear view of the proposed area of works and the peninsula as a whole; d. Vegetation on Onawe Pae is limited to the lower slopes around the coastline and on the southern face; e. There is no built development; f. Onawe Peninsula is identified as a sacred site of great significance to Ngai Tahu; g. The surrounding waters are identified as an area of significant natural value under the RCEP; (Schedule 1, Oanwe Peninsula, Protected Areas, Marine Mammals and Birds, Ecosystems, Flora and Fauna Habitats, Scenic Sites, Historic Planes, coastal landforms and associated processes); h. There is limited recreational activity on Onawe Pa, with predominantly walking through various track; i. Onawe Peninsula is maintained by the applicant; 54. The site is within the following: a. Area of High Natural, physical, Heritage or cultural value (Schedule 2); b. Area of Value to Tangata Whenua (Silent File no. 025); c. Coastal Statutory Acknowledgement Area; d. Akaroa Harbour Taiāpure; e. Silent file area; f. Rūnanga Sensitive Area; g. Treaty Settlement Area, Onawe Pa Historic Reserve; and h. The water quality status under the RCEP is SG Shellfish Gathering

ASSESSMENT OF ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS

55. Refer to Section 7 of the AEE, (Page 18), which accompanied this application for the assessment of effects that may arise from this proposal. 56. I have audited the applicant’s assessment and their conclusions in regards to the following potential effects: a. Potential adverse effects on coastal water quality and ecosystems and biosecurity values b. Potential adverse effects on Coastal Processes c. Potential Adverse effects on Archaeological and Cultural values d. Potential adverse effects on Amenity and natural character e. Potential adverse effects on Navigational and Safety

57. Further discussion is provided below for those effects where I do not agree with the applicant’s assessment or conclusions, or where I consider further discussion is required.

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 8 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper Potential adverse effects on Coastal Water Quality and Ecosystems and marine biosecurity values 58. Water quality and ecology have the potential to be affected by the construction, disturbance and ongoing occupation of the coastal marine area. 59. The applicant has assessed the potential effects on the following: a. Construction effects on: i. Habitat disturbance; ii. Spills and contamination; iii. Stormwater and sedimentation; iv. Disruption to bird; and b. Operational effects on: i. Loss of habitat; and ii. Stormwater. Construction Effects 60. The applicant considers that disturbance of the intertidal beach habitat adjacent to the revetment would be localised and temporarily result in the loss of intertidal benthic habitat. It is anticipated that there is low ecological value and the magnitude of disturbance will be low. 61. Given the works will be undertaken during low tide, the applicant considers that suspension of substrate and the impacts of such disturbance will be negligible. The applicant proposes to leave the habitat in similar condition to that existing. 62. The applicant proposes that given machinery will be used and there is a potential for a hydrocarbon spill, that spills be handled in accordance with the construction management plan, which details procedures for containing, managing, cleaning and disposing of any spill or leak, or contaminated material. 63. The applicant considers that with adequate response procedures in place, the magnitude of effects is likely to be very low. 64. I do not disagree that with appropriate spill procedures that the potential for adverse effects as a result of machinery or hydrocarbons spills is likely to be low. I have reviewed the applicants spill procedures and consider them to be adequate. I have however recommended that the CMP be approved prior to works being undertaken. 65. During construction works there is likely to be an increased sedimentation risk due to the disturbance of bed material and sediment. The applicant considers that this is best managed through an erosion and sediment control plan, and has proposed that this will be developed in accordance with Ecan’s Erosion and Sediment Control Toolbox for Canterbury. I have recommended that an ESCP is provided as part of the conditions of this consent. Dr Lesley Bolton- Ritchie (Senior Scientist, Surface Water Science) who has provided advice on the applicant’s proposal, agrees that an ESCP should be provided and reviewed prior to works. 66. The applicant considers that any potential adverse effects on birds is likely to be low given the construction area is small and temporary in relation to the wider habitat, and existing birds will be able to adequately seek out alternative habitat.

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 9 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper 67. Dr Bolton-Ritchie has recommended that prior to works being undertaken the area needs to be surveyed to determine if there are any nesting birds in proximity to the construction site. Works should either be delayed until chicks have fledged or should be timed to occur outside the nesting season of the threatened and at-risk bird species that occur in the area. 68. I agree with Dr Bolton-Ritchie and have recommended Dr Bolton-Ritchie’s comments above as conditions of this consent. 69. Dr Bolton-Ritchie has reviewed the applicant’s ecological assessment, and while she considers that the assessment is poor for several reasons (see C18C/101537 for Dr Bolton-Ritchie assessment of ecological report) that based on her knowledge of the intertidal rocky shore biota of Akaroa Harbour that it is highly unlikely that threated or at risk intertidal species will occur in this area of rocky shore. Operational effects 70. The applicant’s ecological assessment considers that the marine fauna and habitat in the revetment area does not have significant value in comparison to wider Akaroa Harbour. The epifauna and substrate are found on both sides of the project site, and therefore the effects of the revetment will be low. 71. The report notes that there is ecological value of threatened shore birds considered to be moderate, with a high effect if there is event of injury or mortality. 72. The applicant states that appropriate mitigation measures for avoiding impacts on birds and nesting areas (i.e contamination and spill management) and given available habitat available within the peninsula, that the magnitude of disturbance will be low, resulting in low effects. 73. I do not disagree with the applicant given the wider available habitats for bird species within the peninsula, and note that the observed birds are from wider Barry’s Bay, and not specific to the construction area on Onawe Peninsula. 74. As discussed above, I consider the measures proposed by Dr Bolton-Ritchie will be appropriate to mitigate the potential adverse effects of the loss of habitat. 75. Dr Bolton-Ritchie has stated that she agrees with the assessment of both construction effects and operational effects (5.2 and 5.3 of the ecological report). Summary 76. While I consider there is the potential for some effects as a result of the construction works and ongoing operation of the revetment, the applicant has proposed adequate mitigation measures, and I consider the recommendations on Dr Bolton-Ritchie will ensure the potential adverse effects on water quality and ecology are likely to be no more than minor.

Potential adverse effects on Coastal Processes, including Coastal Erosion 77. The introduction of the revetment and associated pathways has the potential to have adverse effects on coastal processes including erosion and hazards such as inundation or tsunami. 78. An assessment of coastal hazards and processes has been undertaken by Tonkin and Taylor on behalf of the applicant. 79. I have relied on the expertise of Mr Bruce Gabites (Senior Scientist, Environmental Science and Hazards) for the assessment of potential adverse

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 10 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper effects on Coastal Processes. Mr Gabites has reviewed the applicant’s proposal in regard to coastal processes and hazards, including the assessments outlined above. 80. The applicant states that the project site is on the western side of Barrys bay, Akaroa Harbour, lying in the lee of the Onawe Peninsula. Barry’s bay is characterised by a sheltered low energy environment, with limited climate and currents due to shielding effect that the peninsula provides from the central axis of the main harbour. 81. The vehicle access track is exposed to localised coastal erosion as well as natural landslip, in combination such erosion and removal of slip toe prevent an equilibrium state of slop stability being achieved, resulting in further soil slippage from above, the applicant expects this to worsen with future sea level rise (SLR). 82. The proposed revetment and embankment works are expected to restore the land losses and provide erosion protection from wave and tidal action during storm events. 83. The revetment crest and rock armour sizing has been designed for the current 1 in 100 year storm surge vent and a lower bound sea level rise scenario (+0.5m by 2100) in accordance with the Council design standard. The applicant considers that there is no risk of coastal flooding to occupied properties, neighbours or businesses from the protection works, and as such the lower bound scenario was used. 84. Mr Gabites has agreed that the revetment structure crest height and rock armour size has been selected for a 1 in 100 year storm event, and a depth limited wave height an increase of sea level of +0.5m by 2100. It is Mr Gabites opinion that these design parameters are appropriate for this location and are likely to ensure that the revetment will function as designed into the future. 85. The side slope of the revetment has been designed to a steepness of 1V:1.5H to minimise the footprint of the revetment on the foreshore. To minimise the footprint the revetment toe detail for mitigating the risk of future scour undermining, the toe is to be keyed into a shallow trench in the bedrock, rather than widening the surface area of the toe. 86. The applicant states that the revetment will follow the natural curvature of the existing MHWS tide mark and embankment toe, and not be linear. The above, and tie-in detailing will reduce the erosive end effects or outflanking. 87. Mr Gabites considers that from the information provided, the revetments designed of being bedded into the bedrock and curving up and around the path will likely result in a small degree of scouring at the ends of the revetment, and minimal scouring along the toe edge. 88. Mr Gabites does however consider that given the scale and design features, low wave and tidal energy environment that the impacts of the revetment on the adjacent shoreline have been minimised, and are likely to be small and highly localised. 89. It is Mr Gabites opinion that given the construction method, design, size and composition of materials used in the revetment, and the location, that the revetment will be resistant to coastal erosion. 90. While the applicant has not commented on coastal inundation and flooding, Mr Gabites has stated that given the location of the revetment and area of steep

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 11 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper terrain, it is Mr Gabites opinion that there will be no change in the susceptibility of any surrounding properties as a result of the proposed structure. 91. The applicant summarises that the revetment is designed to consider the extent of the local coastal processes, and the intention is to only mitigate current and future localised toe erosion at risk of extreme sea conditions and future sea level rise. The proposal results in an overall positive effect in terms of security of the vehicle track, while reducing the potential for unintended end erosive effects. 92. I consider that given the assessment of the applicant, and the review of Mr Gabites, that the potential adverse effects of the construction and occupation of the revetment structure are likely to be no more than minor, and the proposal will result in positive benefits in providing continued access to the Onawe Peninsula.

Potential adverse effects on Archaeological and Cultural values 93. Onawe Peninsula is culturally and historically significant to Ngai Tahu, and is within the rohe of Ōnuku Rūnanga and Wairewa Rūnanga. Onawe Peninsula is listed as a Rūnanga Sensitive area, Silent File Area, and Treaty Settlement area. 94. The applicant states that the works will assist Ngai Tahu to continue to exercise their kaitakitangi over Onawe peninsula which is wāhi tapu. The kaitiaki responsibility of Ngai Tahu is to set an example of best practice on the land, the applicant considers the proposal is fulfilling this responsibility. 95. The applicant has commissioned a Maori Heritage Value Statement (MHVS)(C18C/55932-6) to support the archaeological authority application. In addition, a Cultural Values Statement has also been commissioned and will form part of the Archaeological Authority Application. 96. I note that within the MHVS that the track upgrade is taking place along the traditional access route and stops before any remnants of the historic pa and any culturally sensitive areas within the peninsula (natural features, lying of tūpāpaku, urupā). The works are not within areas where they may destroy, damage or modify the key traditional features of the site. Onawe Pa as a Wāhi Tapu is unlikely to be negatively impacted. 97. The applicant has undertaken consultation with Ōnuku Rūnanga and Wairewa Rūnanga who have both provided their written approval of the proposal (C18C/55932-5). 98. The applicant’s archaeological assessment has identified the potential for sub- surface features and deposits to have survived, which may be disturbed by works such as digging for the sub-soil drain and embankment works. The applicant considers that the works will have a minor effect on the overall archaeological values identified. 99. The applicant has stated that they will be applying for an archaeological authority, and all works will be undertaken within the scope of this authority, under this authority they expect an archaeologist should monitor ground excavation works and record any evidence of pre-1900 archaeological remains. 100. Given the applicant will be applying for and working under an Archaeological Authority Granted under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, and that works are to be monitored by an archaeologist, I consider that the

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 12 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper potential adverse effects are likely to be no more than minor, and will be adequately dealt with by the application for Archaeological Authority. 101. I have recommended as a condition of this consent that the applicant adhere to an accidental discovery protocol, and that the Rūnanga is informed prior to works in order for a representative to be onsite. 102. Given the applicants assessment above, and approval from Ōnuku Rūnanga, Waerewa Rūnanga, and Tūāhuriri Rūnanga I consider that the potential adverse effects from the proposed works are likely to be less than minor.

Potential adverse effects on Amenity Values (including visual), Natural Character, Landscape, People and Communities 103. Works within the coastal marine area can impact on landscape values of coastal spaces, affect recreation uses and change the enjoyment of the public coastal space. The RCEP identifies the area of works as having significant natural value. 104. The applicant has undertaken a landscape and visual effects assessment as part of their application, prepared by David McKenzie, Technical Principal: Landscape Architecture of WSP-Opus consultants. 105. In summary, the applicant states the following: “The proposed works will result in a localised change to landform and landcover, but not to landuse. The existing slope will be ‘built out’ to support the track widening and this ‘build out’ will be somewhat exaggerated by the placement of the rip-rap toe protection. The existing, partial grass cover of the slope will be removed and replaced, in part, by the vegetation cover on the ‘triangle’ of the ‘sand bag’ facing on the upper part of the reinforced slope. The access ‘landuse’ of the track will be enhanced by increasing the track’s width and therefore, it’s safe use. The potential landscape effects of the proposed works will be obvious relative to the immediate area of the western flank of the outer section of the section of Ōnawe Peninsula, but will be insignificant relative to the full extent of the peninsula from the carpark to southern point of the peninsula. Once the placed rock has weathered and the grass and planting has become well established, the change to the landscape will become indistinct and the potential landscape effects will be no more than minor. In terms of how visible the changes to the landscape will be, the relatively isolated and localised nature and the contained extent of the proposed works will have a direct bearing on this. The use of local volcanic rock for the main visible component of the works will result in the rip-rap being of a colour that is common to areas of grey, less weathered rock outcrop at the tidal edge. The rip-rap will, however, have a large, granular texture that will contrast with the rounded forms and surfaces of the intertidal rock. Spraying the ‘Flex MSE’ facing above the rip-rap with hydro-seeding will ‘green’ this artificial slope from the outset, given that it is the norm to include a green dye in the sprayed-on grass seed and fertiliser mix. The planting of locally common, spreading native species will then establish both colour and texture on this slope that will replicate the natural vegetation cover to the south of the works. … Ōnawe Peninsula is visible from much of the upper Akaroa Harbour, however, the proposed works have a much smaller ‘visual catchment’ given the contained location of the works, close to the tidal margin on the western flank of the peninsula. The proposed works will not be visible from areas to the

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 13 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper immediate north and east of the peninsula, such as the crest of the inland ‘half’ and eastern flank of the peninsula, Duvauchelle and Robinsons Bays and land between and above. There will be a short period of time when machinery involved in constructing the works will be visible from viewpoints to the west. Seeing earthmoving machinery moving between the public car park and lower section of the access track and working on the latter will be novel and in contrast to the natural setting. However, the short duration of the works and the distance from viewpoints will limit the effect of this activity to no more than minor”. 106. A review of the applicants Landscape and visual effects has been undertaken by Jenny Moore, Christchurch City Council Senior Landscape Architect. 107. Ms Moore has noted that as a distinctive landform the Onawe Peninsula is visible from multiple viewpoints such as Hilltop car park and SH75. Ms Moore agrees with the applicant in that the key viewpoint would be from SH75 at Barry’s Bay, and that the distance (1.3km) diminishes the view from the site. A more immediate view is available from Onawe Flat Road. 108. Ms Moore has recommended that in order to reduce the overall visual impact of the stabilisation works the applicant proposes to integrate the work into the landscape by: a. Using rock, that is volcanic in origin, from a local quarry for the rip-rap; and b. Revegetating the top of the rip rap with plants planted in to dark grey soil filled bags 109. Ms Moore agrees that the rock proposed for the rip rap is a suitable color and size, as shown within the examples of rock (photo 11 of the landscape assessment). Ms Moore has recommended that a darker grey would also be suitable closer to the tidal shelf, closer to grey basalt. 110. Ms Moore has stated that it is important that the vegetation become well established, as the dark grey soil bags may become a dominant rectilinear line across the top of the slope if not well vegetated. 111. Given the expert advice received above, I am of the opinion that the potential adverse effects of the proposal are likely to no more than minor. I consider that the applications mitigation will be appropriate. 112. The temporary nature of the works, isolated location of the works, small scale, and distance to nearby potential viewers (with the nearest dwelling over 600m from the site) that there is unlikely to be any directly affected persons by this proposal. 113. I consider that provided the applicant adhere to the recommended conditions, that the site is vegetated and suitable rock armouring is chosen, that the potential adverse effects are likely to be no more than minor, and no persons are likely to be affected by the proposed works.

OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NPS) Objective 1 “Safeguard the integrity, form, function and resilience of the coastal environment…;”

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 14 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper 114. The applicant has demonstrated above that the potential adverse effects of the proposal are likely to be no more than minor, and have proposed mitigation measures to reduce the potential adverse effects of the proposal. On this basis it is considered that the integrity, form, function and resilience of the coastal environment will be safeguarded. 115. Objective 2 “To preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and protect natural features and landscape values…” 116. The proposed works, as described above, have been designed to recognise the natural character, features and landscape and to take into account the existing coastal environment, protecting the natural features and landscape values of Onawe Peninsula. Objective 3 “To take account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, recognise the role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki and provide for tangata whenua involvement in management of the coastal environment….” 117. The applicant has undertaken significant cultural engagement, and has received the approval of Ōnuku, Wairewa and Tūāhuriri Rūnanga. In addition I note that the applicant is Ngai Tahu and are proposing the works to improve access to a culturally significant site. Objective 4 “Maintain and enhance public open space qualities and recreation opportunities, including recognising the CMA is an area of public space for the public to use and public walking access should be maintained enhanced, including in circumstances where climate change has the potential to restrict access in the future…;” 118. I consider that the proposal will be consistent with the intent of this policy. The reclamation that takes place will be for the purposes of improving public access to the coastal marine area and the applicant’s proposal will ultimately benefit public access to Onawe Peninsula by reinstating public access and providing a wider, safer and alternative pathway for access of both public, and the contractors that maintain the peninsula. The design of the revetment is also consistent with this policy in that it will maintain and enhance public access for future generations as it has been designed to take into account future sea level rise and climate change. Objective 5 “ensuring that coastal hazard risks taking account of climate change, are managed by: locating new development away from areas prone to such risks: • Considering responses, including managed retreat, for existing development in this situation; and • Protecting or restoring natural defences to coastal hazards…” 119. The applicant’s proposal has taken into account the potential consequences of sea level rise. The revetment will protect existing infrastructure and access to the Onawe Peninsula. Objective 6

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 15 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper “To enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and their health and safety, through subdivision, use and development…” 120. The applicant’s proposal will provide for better social, economic and cultural wellbeing of communities and people by protecting and improving access to Onawe Peninsula. The revetment will enable the existing contractor access to be protected into the future, allowing continued maintenance and protection of a culturally significant area. While the construction of the revetment may result in temporary habitat loss, mitigation measures such as pre-works surveys for nesting birds or conducting works outside of nesting season have been proposed as conditions of this consent, the improved revetment structure and mitigation measures such as native vegetation may provide for improved future habitat. Policy 2 “The Treaty of Waitangi, tanagata whenua and Maori heritage- kaitiakitanga, in relation to the coastal environment….” 121. The proposed works are considered to be consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi, and have extensively involved local rūnanga. Approval was provided from Ōnuku, Wairewa and Tūāhuriri Rūnanga. Policy 3: Precautionary Approach

“(1) Adopt a precautionary approach towards proposed activities whose effects on the coastal environment are uncertain, unknown, or little understood, but potentially significantly adverse. (2) In particular, adopt a precautionary approach to use and management of coastal resources potentially vulnerable to effects from climate change, so that:

122. As assessed above, the proposal is considered to have no more than minor effects on natural character, public access and amenity as the proposal will provide natural character through the use of native vegetation and rock armouring that will blend into the surrounding land and seascape. The pathway will also allow for improved public access to and along Onawe Peninsula. In protecting the pathway and existing infrastructure with a revetment that is designed for future climate change, the proposal is taking a precautionary approach that will avoid potential future social and economic loss to the local Rūnanga, who hold significant value in Onawe Pa. 123. Policy 6 Activities in the Coastal Environment…. 124. The applicant’s development of the revetment and seawall will be consistent with other similar seawalls and revetments that have been constructed throughout Canterbury and Christchurch, including those within the Avon / Heathcote Estuary environment. The seawall will also be replacing an existing concrete structure. I consider that this development is consistent with the existing infrastructure at the site (existing concrete protection structure) and when developed will result in an improvement in character over the existing structure. 125. The structure will provide for social and economic wellbeing to the community, as it enables safe and improved access to the coastal marine area and Onawe Peninsula in the form of a redeveloped access track. The access track has a

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 16 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper functional need to be within the CMA due to being the sole and historic access to Onawe Peninsula, and to maintain safe vehicle access. Policy 10 Reclamation and de-reclamation… “(1) Avoid reclamation of land in the coastal marine area, unless: (2) Where a reclamation is considered to be a suitable use of the coastal marine area, in considering its form and design have particular regard to:

(3) In considering proposed reclamations, have particular regard to the extent to which the reclamation and intended purpose would provide for the efficient operation of infrastructure, including ports, airports, coastal roads, pipelines, electricity transmission, railways and ferry terminals, and of marinas and electricity generation. (4) De-reclamation of redundant reclaimed land is encouraged where it would…”

126. Policy 10 provides for exemptions under (1)(a) to (1)(d). With regard to the availability of land, the reclamation is inherently linked to the existing access track and only extends into the CMA for a section of approximately 90m2. The pathway is adjacent to the existing access track which runs alongside the cliffside, meaning there is unlikely space to move the pathway inland without greater disturbance of significant cultural land. 127. The reclamation is the result of the new revetment structure which is required in order to protect the access track. The revetment will provide protection against sea level rise and climate change within this area and allow the continued access to Onawe Peninsula. I therefore consider that given the structure and access track is unable to be located further inland, and that the structure is required to protect the surrounding existing access track, that it is necessary for this revetment to be placed in this location. 128. The alternative methods would include reduction in the access track, which may prove unsafe to contractors who need vehicle access, or relocating the track. It is considered that even a reduction in the access track width would result in reclamation as a result of the revetment structure required to protect and support the track. The revetment structure as outlined above, is required to protect existing access and the main access way to Onawe Peninsula, in order to protect against sea level rise and future climate change. 129. With regard to regional benefit, while I do not consider that the access track revetment provides significant regional benefit, improved access provides cultural and social benefits for the community, as they are able to continue to access Onawe Peninsula, and Ngai Tahu is able to continue to exercise their customary rights over Onawe Pa. 130. Part (2) considers whether the reclamation is suitable use and what the form and design have had particular regard to. 131. Part (2) (a) requires that the effects of climate change and sea level rise be taken in to account over no less than 100 years. I note the applicant has only designed the revetment structure to a standard of 0.5+m of sea level rise by 2100. Mr Bruce Gabites has reviewed the proposal and has considered that the design of the structure will be suitable to prevent coastal inundation. Mr Gabites considers given the location of the structure, that the design parameters used are appropriate for the location and purpose, including a 1 in

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 17 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper 100-year storm surge event coupled with a 0.5m rise in sea level by 2100. Further, the monitoring and maintenance recommended as conditions is considered to be appropriate to ensure continued maintenance of the structure. 132. I consider that the applicant has met the rest of Part (2) of Policy 10 as assessed above in the assessment of adverse effects. And note that the proposal has received approval from Onuku, Wairewa and Tūāhuriri Rūnanga. 133. Part (3) of Policy 10 relates to the extent of the reclamation and intended purpose. With regard to this part of Policy 10 I consider that the proposal while not consistent, is not contrary to this policy. The proposal will provide for efficient use of the access track for maintenance of Onawe Peninsula, and will not affect any operation of infrastructure. 134. Based on the above assessment, I consider that the proposal as a whole meets the purpose of Policy 10. Policy 11: Indigenous biological diversity (biodiversity) “To protect indigenous biological diversity in the coastal environment…” 135. The proposal will result in the temporary loss of habitat during construction. However, given the scale and temporary nature of the habitat loss, as well as with the overall net benefit and likely improved habitat and native planting, consider that the temporary impact will not be significant. Mitigation to avoid potential effects during construction have been recommended as conditions. Policy 14: Restoration of Natural Character “Promote restoration or rehabilitation of the natural character of the coastal environment…” 136. The applicant has provided a range of mitigation measures that are designed to improve the restoration of natural character. The instatement of appropriate native vegetation will allow for an improved naturalised edge. The works have been designed to blend in and compliment surrounding coastal environment. Policy 15: Natural Features and Landscapes “To protect the natural features and natural landscapes (including seascapes) of the coastal environment from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development…” 137. The vehicle access track is an existing track to Onawe Peninsula, and the proposed works only seek to protect the access track and improve safety of its use. The applicant considers without proper vehicle access Onawe Peninsula will become overgrown with weeds and grasses. Further, as noted above mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce the potential impact of the development on natural character and landscapes. Policy 17: Historic heritage identification and protection “Protect historic heritage in the coastal environment from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development by…” 138. Onawe Peninsula is identified as a historically and culturally significant site. The works will enhance Maori heritage values by providing continued access and opportunities to exercise kaitiakitanga. Policy 18: Public open space

“Recognise the need for public open space within and adjacent to the coastal marine area, for public use and appreciation including active and passive recreation, and provide for such public open space…”

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 18 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper Policy 19: Walking Access Recognise the public expectation of and need for walking access to and along the coast that is practical, free of charge and safe for pedestrian use. 139. The existing vehicle access track provides walking access for general public onto Onawe Peninsula. Walking tracks on the peninsula are only accessible via this track, and are maintained via contractors who require the vehicle access track in order to undertake maintenance (lawnmowers etc). The revetment will improve and continue to provide safe vehicle and public access to Onawe Peninsula. Policy 21: Enhancement of water quality: “Where the quality of water in the coastal environment has deteriorated so that it is having a significant adverse effect on ecosystems, natural habitats, or water based recreational activities, or is restricting existing uses, such as aquaculture, shellfish gathering, and cultural activities, give priority to improving that quality by…” 140. The applicant has proposed to undertake works in accordance with a Construction Management Plan and has agreed to develop an erosion and sediment control plan. There are measures put in place to avoid sedimentation and spills of hazardous substances and contaminants. The applicants stormwater discharge will occur into the revetment and is therefore unlikely to stir up sediment as it is slowly released. Policy 25: Subdivision, use and development in areas of coastal hazard risk “In areas potentially affected by coastal hazards over at least the next 100 years…” 141. The proposed revetment structure will reduce the potential social and economic harm of coastal hazards, protecting the access track. As this access track is currently the only main accessways to Onawe Peninsula it is considered an appropriate use and development. The works are appropriate for the protection, restoration and enhancement of the natural defences that protect Onawe Peninsula, which is a site of significant cultural and historic heritage from coastal hazards.

Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (RPS) Objective 8.2.4 seeks to preserve, protect or enhance the coastal environment: “In relation to the coastal environment…” Policy 8.3.4 states: “to preserve and restore the natural character of the coastal environment…”

142. As assessed above the revetment structure is to result in a benefit on natural, cultural, amenity and recreational values, and therefore unlikely to result in significant impacts. I consider that the proposal is consistent with the above objective and policy as assessed within this application and will not have a significant impact on natural character or the values in the above objective and policy. Objective 8.2.5 seeks to provide access: ‘Maintenance and enhancement of appropriate public and Ngāi Tahu access to and along the coastal marine area to enhance recreational opportunities and

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 19 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper to enhance the ability of Ngāi Tahu as tāngata whenua to access kaimoana and exercise tikanga Māori.’ Policy 8.3.5 states: “To maintain and enhance public and Ngāi Tahu access to and along the coastal marine area” 143. This propose meets the above objective and policy as it seeks to maintain and enhance Ngai Tahu and public access to Onawe Peninsula, a culturally and historically significant Pa site. Objective 8.2.6 seeks to protect and improve coastal water: ‘Protection of coastal water quality and associated values of the coastal environment, from significant adverse effects of the point and non-point discharge of contaminants; and enhancement of coastal water quality where it has been degraded.’ Policy 8.3.7 states: ‘To improve the quality of Canterbury’s coastal waters in area where degraded water quality has significant adverse effects on natural, cultural, amenity and recreational values’. 144. The above assessment of effects has determined that the potential adverse effects on coastal water quality will be no more than minor, the applicant will employ robust erosion and sediment control and measures in accordance with a construction management plan to manage the potential discharge of contaminants. I therefore consider as assessed that the proposal meets the above objective and policy. Objective 11.2.1 seeks to avoid increased risks associated with natural hazards: ‘New subdivision, use and development of land which increases the risk of natural hazards to people, property and infrastructure is avoided or, where avoidance is not possible, mitigation measures minimise such risks.’ Objective 11.2.3 addresses climate change and natural hazards: ‘The effects of climate change, and its influence on sea levels and the frequency and severity of natural hazards are recognised and provided for.’ Policy 11.3.1 states: ‘To avoid new subdivision, use and development (except as provided for in Policy 11.3.4) of land in high hazard areas, unless the subdivision, use or development:…’ 145. The above assessment of coastal processes has been undertaken and reviewed by Mr Gabites. It was considered the potential adverse effects from natural hazards on coastal processes would be less than minor, and that the revetment structure had been designed to take into account sea level rise, inundation and climate change. I therefore consider that the applicant has taken into account the above objectives and policies and is therefore consistent. The works are fit for purpose and will protect the vehicle access track from coastal hazards, there is no infrastructure or built environment, other than the access track, behind the revetment structure. Policy 11.3.7 Physical mitigation works “New physical works to mitigate natural hazards will be acceptable only where:

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 20 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper a. The natural hazard risk cannot reasonably be avoided; and b. Any adverse effects of those works on the natural and built environment and on the cultural values of Ngāi Tahu, are avoided, remedied or mitigated.” 146. The works cannot be avoided as the vehicle access track is existing, and it is not reasonable to consider relocating it. The works are proposed by Ngai Tahu and the cultural effects have been considered. The applicant has received approval from Onuku, Wairewa and Tūāhuriri Rūnanga. Objective 12.2. Identification and protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes Outstanding natural features and landscapes within the Canterbury region are identified and their values are specifically recognised and protected from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development. Objective 12.2.2 Identification and management of other landscapes The identification and management of other important landscapes that are not outstanding natural landscapes. Other important landscapes may include natural character, amenity, historic and cultural heritage. Policy 12.3.1- Identification of outstanding natural features and landscapes Policy 12.3.2- Management methods for outstanding natural features and landscapes ‘To ensure management methods in relation to subdivision, use or development, seek to achieve protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.’ Policy 12.3.3 – Identification and management of other important landscapes Identifying and managing other important landscapes that are not outstanding natural landscapes, for natural character, historic cultural, historic heritage and amenity purposes. 147. The proposal is keeping with the existing landscape and has taken into account the surrounding natural land and seascape, amenity values and recreational values. These values have formed the basis for inclusion of a wider access track, rock armouring choice and native vegetation to keep with the existing landscape and reduce the potential impacts on the above values. Objective 13.2.1 — Identification and protection of significant historic heritage ‘Identification and protection of significant historic heritage items, places and areas, and their particular values that contribute to Canterbury’s distinctive character and sense of identity from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.’ Objective 13.2.2- Historic cultural and historic heritage landscapes ‘Recognition that cultural and heritage values are often expressed in a landscape setting and to make provision for the protection of such landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.’ Policy 13.3.1 — Recognise and provide for the protection of significant historic and cultural heritage items, places and areas ‘To recognise and provide for the protection of the historic and cultural heritage resource of the region from inappropriate subdivision, use and development…’ Policy 13.3.2 – Recognise places of cultural heritage significance to Ngāi Tahu

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 21 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper ‘To recognise places of historic and cultural heritage significance to Ngāi Tahu and protect their relationship and culture and traditions with these places from the adverse effects of inappropriate subdivision, use and development.’ 148. Policy 13.3.3 (Historic cultural and historic heritage landscapes) ‘Significant historic cultural and historic heritage landscapes are to be protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. When determining the significance of values of historic cultural or historic heritage landscapes…’ 149. The applicant has assessed the archaeological and historical values associated with Onawe Peninsula, and has undertaken an archaeological assessment. The applicant recognises the cultural and historic significance of the site and has sought an archaeological authority alongside their application. The works will be monitored and will not negatively impact the site as wāhi tapu. 150. Approval has been provided from Ōnuku, Wairewa and Tūāhuriri Rūnanga.

Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP) Objective 6.1 seeks to protect and where appropriate enhance areas, sites and habitats of high natural, physical, heritage or cultural value… Policy 6.1(a) states: (a) Within the Coastal Marine Area Environment Canterbury will:

(i) Control activities and development to remedy or mitigate adverse effects… (ii) Control activities and development to avoid any significant adverse effects.. (iii) Adopt a precautionary approach when considering applications for resource consents where the effects, including cumulative effect, are as yet unknown or little understood, or where the functioning of marine ecosystems and coastal processes is poorly understood. 151. The above assessment of the proposal in terms of coastal water quality and ecology has been determined to have no more than minor effects. The assessment of coastal processes has been reviewed and considered to be no more than minor, and unlikely to have a significant impact. However, the area is considered to be an ASNV which is sought to be protected or enhanced. I consider that although there will be loss of ecology and habitat, that this will be temporary and very small in scale in the wider context of the bay and Akaroa Harbour. I therefore consider that the proposal is not contrary to the above objectives and policies. 152. Objective 8.1 seeks to enable people to use the CMA and its resources while avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects: 153. As assessed above there will be a net benefit in natural character values as a result of the proposed revetment and improvements to people’s access to the Coastal Marine Area at Onawe Peninsula. Policy 8.3 states: ‘In considering applications for resource consents to undertake activities in the Coastal Marine Area, Environment Canterbury will have regard to: a) the existing level of use and development in the area and the national priority in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement to preserve the natural character of the coastal environment; and b) the need to protect characteristics of the coastal environment of special value to Tangata Whenua; and

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 22 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper c) effects on the public use and enjoyment of the coast, including public access to and along the Coastal Marine Area, and the contribution of open space to the amenity value of the coast…’ 154. Temporary restriction in access may occur as works are completed, but I consider this is likely to be less than minor as it will be restricted and short term, and will be for the benefit of improved health and safety for the contractors and the public. There will be a positive effect of improving access to Onawe Peninsula. Policy 8.4 states: “In considering applications for resource consents to reclaim the Coastal Marine Area, or for the removal of natural materials for commercial purposes, Environment Canterbury will have regard to: (a) available alternative sites for the reclamation or the removal of natural materials and the reasons for the applicant’s choice of site for the reclamation or the removal of natural materials; and (b) the need to ensure that material used to create and form a reclamation or material sited on a reclamation, does not include contaminants that are likely to, or have the potential to, adversely affect the Coastal Marine Area; and (c) the effects of the reclamation or removal of materials on natural processes.” 155. The revetment is adjacent to the access track which runs alongside the cliffside, meaning there is no room to move the pathway inland. The access track is existing and historic and is the only available track onto Onawe Peninsula. 156. The reclamation is the result of the new revetment structure which is required in order to protect the access track. The revetment will provide protection against sea level rise and climate change within this area and allow the continued access to Onawe Peninsula. I therefore consider that given the structure and track is unable to be located further inland, and that the structure is required to protect the surrounding track and provide access to the peninsula, that it is necessary for this structure to be placed in this location. Further, the structure has been assessed to have no more than minor effects on coastal processes, water quality and ecology. 157. The alternative methods would include reduction in the access track width, or relocating the track. It is considered that even a reduction in the pathway width would result in reclamation as a result of the revetment structure required to protect and support the track. 158. I consider the material used, based on the assessment above, will not result in significant impact on coastal waters. 159. Policy 8.7 states: ‘Activities in the Coastal Marine Area should not take place where they have, or have the potential to have, a significant or irreversible adverse effect on the natural or cultural values of an Area of Significant Natural Value, or on the natural or cultural values of areas of the coastal environment adjacent to an Area of Significant Natural value, unless…’ 160. I consider that the applicant has demonstrated that any effects on indigenous vegetation or significant habitats will be less than minor, and further mitigation is proposed to reduce the potential effects that may occur.

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 23 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper 161. Policy 8.15 states: ‘(1) Areas of Banks Peninsula listed in Schedule 5.13 and Areas of Significant Natural Value should be maintained in their present natural states; free of additional structures, including marine farms; unless it can be established for those areas that the structures and their use will have no more than minor adverse effects on: (a) the natural character of the area including its overall landscape and seascape; and (b) the marine, foreshore and seabed ecology; and (c) the water quality; and (d) the use of enjoyment of the area by recreational, tourist or other users of the marine environment who do not require authorisations for exclusive occupancy. (2) Exceptions to (1) should only be made for:… (b) intake or outfall structures;…’. 162. As assessed above within the assessment of effects, I consider the potential adverse effects will likely be no more than minor.

Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan 163. An assessment of the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan was undertaken by Ms Jemma Hardwick-Smith of Mahaanui Kuraitiaio Limited, I have adopted Ms Hardwick-Smiths assessment (C18C/65118). Of note Ms Hardwick-Smith addressed the following objectives and policies which are related to this proposal. P11.1 To assess proposals for earthworks with particular regard to: (a) Potential effects on wāhi tapu and wāhi taonga, known and unknown;

(d) Potential effects on natural landforms and features, including ridge lines;

(e) Proposed erosion and sediment control measures; and

(f) Rehabilitation and remediation plans following earthworks. 164. Ms Hardwick-Smith has recommended to avoid the potential adverse effects, a cultural monitor should be allowed to monitor works, native plantings should be included. Overall, she considers the proposal to be consistent with this policy. CL3.8 – “To require, where a proposal is assessed by tāngata whenua as having the potential to affect wāhi tapu or wāhi taonga, one or more of the following: a. …(iii) Archaeological assessment, by a person nominated by the Papatipu Rūnanga…” 165. The applicant has prepared an archaeological assessment, a cultural monitor has bee recommended to be present for earthworks, and an accidental discovery protocol has been included in the conditions of this consent. I therefore consider the proposal is consistent with this policy. P11.6 To avoid damage or modification to wāhi tapu or other sites of significance as opposed to remedy or mitigate.

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 24 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper 166. Ms Hardwick-Smith has recommended a cultural monitor in order to mitigate the potential loss of Taonga. A8.1 To consider structures in the coastal marine area on a case by case basis, considering: (a) Purpose of the structure (e.g. private or community); (b) Effects on mahinga kai; (c) Effects on the marine environment; and (d) Cumulative effects 167. Ms Hardwick Smith notes that there may be some potential impact on mahinga kai as a result of a sedimentation. She however notes that the upgrade of the existing ramp has been deemed to be necessary by the Papatipu Rūnanga. ESCP will be in place to present the release of sediment, and prepared in accordance with Ecan’s ESCT. A12.1 To manage Ōnawe Pa in a manner that reflects the importance of the site as a wāhi tapu. 168. Ms Hardwick Smith notes the long term results of the works will preserve this site as a whole, the Ōnuku and Wairewa rūnanga have been consulted and support the application, and cultural monitoring will protect the Taonga of the site. 169. The assessment provided by Ms Hardwick-Smith identifies that the proposal is largely consistent with the objectives and policies of the Mahaanui Iwi Management plan, and mitigation measures have been proposed to ensure that the potential adverse effects are minimised. Ms Hardwick-Smith notes that the Papatipu Rūnanga have been consulted and consider that the proposed works are necessary. Ōnuku and Wairewa Rūnanga support / approval of this proposal has been provided.

RECOMMENDATION FOR NOTIFICATION – (SECTION 95A AND 95B) 170. Section 95A of the RMA 1991 specifies the steps the Council is to follow to determine whether an application is to be publicly notified. These steps are addressed in the statutory order below in accordance with s95A RMA 1991 in the attached ‘Appendix 2: Section 42a Addendum’: a. Step One: Mandatory public notification is not required (s95A(2) RMA 1991); b. Step Two: Public notification is not precluded (s95A(4) RMA 1991); c. Step Three: Public notification is not required in certain circumstances (s95A(7) RMA 1991); and d. Step Four: Special circumstances do not exist which require the application to be publicly notified (s95A(9) RMA 1991). 171. I have assessed the public notification requirements above in the order given and consider that public notification of this application is not required. 172. If the application is not publicly notified under section 95A RMA 1991, the Council must follow the steps set out in section 95B to determine whether to limited notify the application. These steps are addressed below in statutory order in accordance with s95B RMA 1991 in the attached ‘section 42a Addendum Appendix 2’:

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 25 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper a. Step One: There are no protected customary rights groups or customary marine title groups affected by the proposed activity (s95B(2) RMA 1991). The proposed activity is not on or adjacent to, or may affect, land that is subject of a statutory acknowledgement under schedule 11 (s95B(3) RMA 1991); b. Step Two: Limited notification is not precluded (s95B(5) RMA 1991); c. Step Three: There are no affected persons in accordance with s95B(7) and (8) of the RMA 1991; d. Step Four: Special circumstances do not exist which require the application to be limited notified (section 95B(10) RMA 1991). 173. I have assessed the limited notification requirements in the order given and consider that limited notification of this application is not required. 174. In conclusion, I recommend that this application be decided on a non-notified basis.

RECOMMENDATION FOR GRANT OR REFUSE

Consideration of Application (Section 104(1)(a) –(c)) 175. The assessment of adverse effects undertaken for the purpose of notification determination concluded that adverse effects were no more than minor. I consider that this assessment is also relevant to the assessment required under s104(1)(a). 176. In summary, in accordance with Section 5 of the RMA I consider that any adverse effects will be acceptable and are able to be avoided, remedied or mitigated subject to an appropriate set of conditions. 177. In accordance with section 104(1)(b) of the RMA, I have had regard to all relevant objectives and policies for this application. The relevant objectives and policies are identified above. The addendum also includes a list of the purpose and principles of the RMA which I have taken into consideration when making my recommendation. I consider this application is / these applications are consistent with the objectives and policies of the relevant planning provisions. 178. In accordance with section 104(1)(c) I have had regard to any other matters relevant to this application including: a. Canterbury Water Management Strategy The proposal is located within the area managed by the Banks Peninsula Zone Committee. The committee have generated Zone Implementation Programme (ZIPs) for this zone. ZIPs are non-statutory documents that are being completed by each of the Zone Committees within the Canterbury region. ZIPs contain zone-specific recommendations for water management to achieve the CWMS targets. The ZIP does not contain any specific recommendations that relate to the CMA. Mahaanui Iwi management plan I have discussed the potential adverse effects on Cultural Values above and have assessed the Mahaanui Iwi Management plan in the assessment of objectives and policies. I therefore consider I have had regard to the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan.

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 26 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper

Determination of applications for discretionary or non-complying activities (Section 104B) 179. After considering an application for a resource consent for a non-complying activity, a consent authority: a. May grant or refuse the application; and b. If it grants the application, may impose conditions under section 108 of the RMA. 180. I have considered s104B of the RMA and have outlined in the section titled “Grant or Refuse” that this application be granted subjected to recommended conditions under s108 of the RMA.

Determination of applications for non-complying activities (Section 104D) 181. Further to section 104B, for non-complying activities section 104D applies: 1. Despite any decision made for the purpose of section 95A(2)(a) in relation to adverse effects, a consent authority may grant a resource consent for a non- complying activity only if it is satisfied that either— a. the adverse effects of the activity on the environment (other than any effect to which section 104(3)(a)(ii) applies) will be minor; or b. the application is for an activity that will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of— i. the relevant plan, if there is a plan but no proposed plan in respect of the activity; or ii. the relevant proposed plan, if there is a proposed plan but no relevant plan in respect of the activity; or iii. both the relevant plan and the relevant proposed plan, if there is both a plan and a proposed plan in respect of the activity. 182. As discussed above in the assessment of effects, the potential adverse effects are considered to be no more than minor, and no persons are considered to be affected by the proposal. 183. I have reviewed the objectives and policies and consider that while the proposal is not fully consistent, it is not contrary to the above objectives and policies. 184. I therefore consider that the proposal has met the requirement of section 104D.

Section 105(1) – Matters relevant to certain applications 185. In accordance with section 105, I have had regard to: a. the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects; and b. the applicant’s reasons for the proposed choice; and c. any possible alternative methods of discharge including discharge into any other environment. These have been described by the applicant as:

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 27 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper i. The applicant considers the only alternative is to do nothing, which may result in the erosion of the existing track and increased health and safety risk to maintenance workers. The applicant considers this option unacceptable as the safety of those visiting the site is important, and the continued maintenance of the site is important to maintain cultural and historic significance. 186. I have had regard to section 105 and consider the applicants choice is most practical for the site, and that the alternative would result in significant cultural and historical effects, as well as loss of recreational space and access to the peninsula.

Part 2 Matters (Purpose and Principles of the RMA) 187. Under section 104(1) of the RMA, the consent authority must consider applications "subject to Part 2" of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), specifically sections 5, 6, 7 and 8. 188. The Purpose of the RMA (Section 5) is to: “promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.” 189. The purpose is achieved by the guidance provided by the Principles of the RMA (i.e. s.6, s.7, and s.8). 190. I have considered Part 2 of the RMA. 191. The following identification of Part 2 matters that are relevant to this application is provided. 192. Section 6 of the Act requires the consenting authority to recognise and provide for a number of matters of national importance: “(a) the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment, 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 with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wahi tapu, and other taonga. (f) the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development (g) the protection of recognised customary activities. (h) the management of significant risks from natural hazards”: 193. Section 7 of the RMA requires particular regard to be had to ‘Other Matters’ of relevance to this proposal is the following: (a) kaitiakitanga. (aa) the ethic of stewardship. (b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources. (c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values. (d) intrinsic values of ecosystems. (f) maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment. (g) any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources. (i) the effects of climate change 194. I do not consider the proposal is likely to result in the long-term degradation of the values in s6 and s7 of the RMA, and I consider that these have been

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 28 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper provided for in the recommended conditions below. I consider the proposal will provide for improved ability for Ngai Tahu to exercise kaitiakitanga over Onawe Peninsula. 195. Section 8 of the Act requires the Council to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi when making a decision on an application. The Court of Appeal has identified four major principles: partnership; active protection of Maori people in the use of their resources and other guaranteed taonga; Maori to retain chieftainship rangatiratanga over their resources and taonga; and cessation by Maori of sovereignty in exchange by the Crown of Maori rangatiratanga. 196. The applicant has supplied a draft Maori Heritage Values Statement, and approval from Onuku, Wairewa and Tūāhuriri Rūnanga. 197. I consider the above assessment of cultural values, consultation with Mahaanui Kuraitiao and assessment of the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan takes into account the Treaty of Waitangi. 198. Given this, I consider that this activity will achieve the purpose of the RMA.

Conditions of resource consent (Section 108) 199. I recommend including the conditions attached (Appendix 1), which have been adopted by the applicant as mitigation measures for their proposal (C18C/113152).

Duration (Section 123) 200. The applicant has sought a consent duration of 35 years. 201. In considering the requested duration I have had regard to the following matters: a) the nature and sensitivity of the affected environment, including i) the degree to which the sensitivity of the affected environment may become more sensitive over time; and ii) the probability of future adverse effects arising from the consented activity; and iii) the level of knowledge about the affected environment; and b) the nature of the activity. 202. I have taken into consideration these matters, and I am satisfied a duration of 35 years is appropriate. DECISOIN 203. Having considered all relevant matters under sections 104 – 104D, 105 and part 2, I recommend granting resource consent CRC184977 subject to the conditions attached (Appendix 1) and a duration of 35 years.

Signed: Date: 30/07/2018 Name: Rhett Klopper Consents Planner

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 29 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper

Reviewer’s comments:

Signed: Date: 30/07/2018 Deepani Seneviratna Name: Team Leader Consents Planning

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 30 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper REFERENCES

Canterbury Regional Council, 2013. Canterbury Regional Policy Statement, including all amendments: Chapter: 8 – The coastal environment. Canterbury Regional Council, 2015. Regional Coastal Environment Plan for the Canterbury Region, including all amendments. Canterbury Regional Council, 2017. Erosion and Sediment Control Toolbox. Department of Conservation. 2010. New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010. Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd. Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan 2013. The Resource Management Act 1991. Consolidated version incorporating all the amendments to that Act including the Resource Management Amendment Act 2017.

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 31 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper APPENDIX 1: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

Consent Holder: Te Rūnanga o Ngai Tahu CRC184977: Coastal Permit Recommended Duration: 35 Years LIMITS

1 The activity shall be limited to:

a. the disturbance of the foreshore and seabed, deposition of material, and the demolition, placement and construction of structures on the foreshore and seabed; b. the reconstruction, repair, and extension of a structure on the foreshore and seabed; c. the occupation of the Coastal Marine Area; and d. Reclamation of 90 square metre of foreshore and seabed;

associated with the extension of the access track and construction of a revetment on Onawe Peninsula located at 67 Onawe Flat Road, Duvauchelle, Christchurch City.

Advice Note: Consent holder should take all practicable measures to naturalise the area to support the growth of new habitats for a range of plants and animals on rocky shorelines.

2 The works carried out in accordance with condition (1) shall be located within Onawe Peninsula in the area marked on the attached plan CRC184977A which forms part of this consent.

3 The revetment shall be constructed in general accordance with the design Plan CRC184977A, Plan CRC184977B, and Plan CRC184977C which are attached to, and form part of this consent.

4 The 90-square metre area to be reclaimed shall be located in between the existing access track and the new revetment toe as shown on Plan CRC184977B.

5 The activities carried out in accordance with conditions (1)(a), (b) and (d) shall cease 5 years from the exercising of this consent.

PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 32 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper

6 The consent holder shall provide to the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: Regional Leader, Monitoring and Compliance, Ōnuku Rūnanga, and Wairewa Rūnanga written notification at least ten working days prior to the commencement of works under this consent.

7 The consent holder shall ensure that all personnel undertaking activities authorised by this consent are made aware of, and have access to, the contents of this consent document, and the contractor’s Construction Management Plan prepared in accordance with condition (9) below, prior to the commencement of the works.

8 At least 10 days prior to the start of construction, the consent holder shall erect a sign at the site explaining the nature of the work, time frames expected for the completion of the works and a contact name and telephone number.

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN

9 The Consent Holder shall prepare a Construction Management Plan (CMP) which clearly sets out the measures to be undertaken to comply with the conditions of this consent. The CMP shall be submitted to the Canterbury Regional Council: Attention: Regional Leader Monitoring and Compliance, at least ten working days prior to construction works commencing and shall be adhered to by the Consent Holder. The CMP shall include but not be limited to:

a. A map showing the location of all works; b. Detailed plans showing the location and design of sediment control measures, on-site catchment boundaries and sources of run-off; c. Procedures for managing contaminants used on site; d. An erosion and sediment control plan including drawings and specifications of designated sediment control measures which may include a sediment curtain to be installed in the Coastal Marine Area; e. A programme of works including an indicative timeframe; f. Inspection and maintenance for sediment control measures; g. The methodology for stabilising the site if works are abandoned; and h. The methodology for stabilising the site and decommissioning erosion and sediment control measures after works have been completed; i. Specific measures to avoid adverse effects on nesting birds at Onawe Peninsula, including: i. Carrying out a pre-construction survey to ensure nesting birds are not present in the construction area which is to be

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 33 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist/ornithologist immediately prior to construction works; and ii. If nesting birds are found to be present during the pre- construction survey required by condition (9)(i)(i) then works shall be avoided until a suitably qualified ecologist/ornithologist has determined that it is suitable to undertake works. j. Mitigation/contingency measures for the use of machinery over soft substrates including means to distribute loads for the avoidance of machinery becoming lodged in the intertidal substrate.

10 The CMP shall be certified by an independent, suitably qualified and experienced person(s), at least 10 working days prior to the commencement of works. If changes are requested by the certified experienced person these changes shall be made before the certification is confirmed.

11 The CMP may be amended at any time. Any amendments shall be:

a. Only for the purpose of improving the efficacy of the proposed works including erosion and sediment control measures; b. Consistent with the conditions of this resource consent; and c. Submitted in writing to the Canterbury Regional Council: Attention: Regional Leader Monitoring and Compliance prior to any amendment being implemented.

DURING CONSTRUCTION

12 The consent holder shall ensure that erosion and sediment control measures are constructed and maintained in accordance with the Environment Canterbury Erosion and Sediment Control Toolbox for Canterbury (http://esccanterbury.co.nz/)

13 There shall be no construction related machinery or plant located on the seabed or foreshore of Onawe Peninsula, at times when construction work is not occurring on the seabed or foreshore.

14 All practicable measures shall be undertaken to minimise the presence of vehicles and machinery on Onawe Peninsula foreshore and seabed, including but not limited to:

a. Operating machinery above the water line; and b. Limiting vehicle access to within the footprint of the proposed works area

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 34 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper ADVICE NOTE: The water line shall be defined as the current tidal level at the time of works

15 If the construction activities create any underwater obstruction, a clear marker (such as a buoy) shall be positioned as a warning for any marine movements.

16 All material excavated from Onawe Peninsula shall be reused on site, or removed from the site and disposed of off-site at a facility authorised to receive such material.

17 All practicable measures shall be undertaken to prevent oil and fuel leaks from vehicles and machinery or spills of any other contaminant within the site, including not storing fuel or refuelling machinery within 20 metres of the Coastal Marine Area unless:

a. A drip tray is positioned underneath the filling point; or b. Fuelling is carried out within a bunded area created for all refuelling operations.

18 The consent holder shall ensure that spill management measures and equipment, as necessary to contain, manage, and remove spilled hazardous substances and contaminated material, are retained on site at all times. These measures shall include but not be limited to:

a. Retaining a spill kit on-site that is capable of absorbing the quantity of oil and petroleum products that may be spilled on site at any one time; and b. Preparing and providing a written spill response plan to all persons undertaking activities authorised by this consent. A copy of this response plan shall be kept on site at all times.

19 In the event of a spill of fuel or any other hazardous substance with the potential to enter the coastal marine area, the consent holder shall:

a. Clean up the spill as soon as practicable, inspect and clean the spill area, and take measures to prevent a recurrence. b. Inform the Canterbury Regional Council, Attention: Regional Leader: Monitoring and Compliance, within 24 hours of a spill event and provide the following information: a. the date, time, location and estimated volume of the spill; b. the cause of the spill; c. the type of hazardous substance(s) spilled; d. clean up procedures undertaken; e. details of the steps taken to control and remediate the effects of the spill on the receiving environment;

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 35 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper f. an assessment of any potential effects of the spill; and g. measures to be undertaken to prevent a recurrence.

20 Machinery shall be free of plants and plant seeds prior to use in the coastal marine area.

REMEDIATION

21 The consent holder shall remove all spoil and other waste material from the site on completion of works.

POST CONSTRUCTION

22 All structures erected, extended, or placed in or on the foreshore or seabed during the exercise of the consent shall be positioned to ensure that they do not cause erosion or exacerbate flooding.

23 All structures erected, extended, or placed in or on the foreshore or seabed during the exercise of the consent shall be maintained to a standard where they will continue to function as designed for the duration of the consent.

24 The consent holder shall complete visual inspection of the structural integrity of all structures erected, extended or placed in or on the foreshore or seabed during the exercise of this consent at the following minimum frequency:

a. at least once every five years after completion of the structure supporting the access track along Onawe Peninsula; and b. Within one month of any extreme coastal storm event, defined as 1:100 year storm event or greater.

25 The results of the visual inspections carried out in accordance with condition (24), and any proposed maintenance, including proposed timeframes, identified as a result of the inspection, are to be advised to Canterbury Regional Council within one month of the completion of undertaking the inspection.

ACCIDENTAL DISCOVERY PROTOCOL

26 Should any archaeological material or sites be discovered during the course of work on the site, work in that area of the site shall stop immediately and

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 36 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper the appropriate agencies, including Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and the Mana Whenua, shall be contacted immediately, in accordance with the Accidental Discovery Protocol set out in Appendix 3 of the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan: http://www.mkt.co.nz/wp- content/uploads/2016/05/Mahaanui-IMP-web_Part32.pdf

ADMINISTRATION

27 The Canterbury Regional Council may, once per year, on any of the last five working days of May or November, serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of this consent for the purposes of:

a. Dealing with any adverse effect on the environment that may arise from the exercise of the consent or b. Requiring the adoption of the best practicable option to remove or reduce any adverse effect on the environment.

28 If this consent is not exercised before the 30 September 2023, the consent shall lapse in accordance with section 125 of the Resource Management Act.

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 37 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper

s42A report version September 2015

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 39 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 40 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper APPENDIX 2: S42A ADDENDUM

95A Public notification of consent Determination of whether to publicly applications notify an application for resource (1) A consent authority must follow the consent. steps set out in this section, in the order given, to determine whether to publicly notify an application for a resource consent.

Step 1: mandatory public notification in Is public notification mandatory? certain circumstances Yes, publicly notify the application No, got to step 2 (2) Determine whether the application meets any of the criteria set out in subsection (3) and,— (a) if the answer is yes, publicly notify the application; and (b) if the answer is no, go to step 2. (3) The criteria for step 1 are as follows: (a) the applicant has requested that the application be publicly notified: (b) public notification is required under section 95C: (c) the application is made jointly with an application to exchange recreation reserve land under section 15AA of the Reserves Act 1977.

Step 2: if not required by step 1, public Is public notification precluded? notification precluded in certain Yes, go to step 4 (step 3 does not circumstances apply) No, go to step 3 (4) Determine whether the application meets either of the criteria set out in subsection (5) and,— (a) if the answer is yes, go to step 4 (step 3 does not apply); and

s42A report version September 2015 (b) if the answer is no, go to step 3. (5) The criteria for step 2 are as follows: (a) the application is for a resource consent for 1 or more activities, and each activity is subject to a rule or national environmental standard that precludes public notification: (b) the application is for a resource consent for 1 or more of the following, but no other, activities: (i) a controlled activity: (ii) a restricted discretionary or discretionary activity, but only if the activity is a subdivision of land or a residential activity: (iii) a restricted discretionary, discretionary, or non- complying activity, but only if the activity is a boundary activity: (iv) a prescribed activity (see section 360H(1)(a)(i)). (6) In subsection (5), residential activity means an activity that requires resource consent under a regional or district plan and that is associated with the construction, alteration, or use of 1 or more dwellinghouses on land that, under a district plan, is intended to be used solely or principally for residential purposes.

Step 3: if not precluded by step 2, public Is public notification required in notification required in certain certain circumstances? circumstances Yes, publicly notify the application No, go to step 4

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 42 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper (7) Determine whether the application meets either of the criteria set out in subsection (8) and,— (a) if the answer is yes, publicly notify the application; and (b) if the answer is no, go to step 4. (8) The criteria for step 3 are as follows: (a) the application is for a resource consent for 1 or more activities, and any of those activities is subject to a rule or national environmental standard that requires public notification: (b) the consent authority decides, in accordance with section 95D, that the activity will have or is likely to have adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor.

Do special circumstances exist that Step 4: public notification in special circumstances warrant the application being publicly notified? (9) Determine whether special Yes, publicly notify the application circumstances exist in relation to the No, do not publicly notify the application that warrant the application application but determine whether to being publicly notified and,— give limited notification of the (a) if the answer is yes, publicly application under section 95B RMA notify the application; and 1991 (b) if the answer is no, do not publicly notify the application, but determine whether to give limited notification of the application under section 95B.

95B Limited notification of consent Determination of whether to limited applications notify an application for resource consent. (1) A consent authority must follow the steps set out in this section, in the order given, to determine whether to give limited notification of an application for a

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 43 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper resource consent, if the application is not publicly notified under section 95A.

Step 1: certain affected groups and Are there certain affected groups and affected persons must be notified affected persons that must be notified? (2) Determine whether there are any— Yes, notify each affected group and (a) affected protected customary each affected person rights groups; or No (b) affected customary marine title groups (in the case of an application for a resource consent for an accommodated activity). (3) Determine— (a) whether the proposed activity is on or adjacent to, or may affect, land that is the subject of a statutory acknowledgement made in accordance with an Act specified in Schedule 11; and (b) whether the person to whom the statutory acknowledgement is made is an affected person under section 95E. (4) Notify the application to each affected group identified under subsection (2) and each affected person identified under subsection (3).

Step 2: if not required by step 1, limited Is limited notification precluded in notification precluded in certain certain circumstances? circumstances Yes, got to step 4 (step 3 does not apply) (5) Determine whether the application No, go to step 3 meets either of the criteria set out in subsection (6) and,— (a) if the answer is yes, go to step 4 (step 3 does not apply); and (b) if the answer is no, go to step 3. (6) The criteria for step 2 are as follows:

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 44 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper (a) the application is for a resource consent for 1 or more activities, and each activity is subject to a rule or national environmental standard that precludes limited notification: (b) the application is for a resource consent for either or both of the following, but no other, activities: (i) a controlled activity that requires consent under a district plan (other than a subdivision of land): (ii) a prescribed activity (see section 360H(1)(a)(ii)).

Step 3: if not precluded by step 2, certain Are there certain other affected other affected persons must be notified persons that must be notified? Yes, notify each affected person (7) Determine whether, in accordance identified under subsections (7) and with section 95E, the following persons (8) are affected persons: No (a) in the case of a boundary activity, an owner of an allotment with an infringed boundary; and (b) in the case of any activity prescribed under section 360H(1)(b), a prescribed person in respect of the proposed activity. (8) In the case of any other activity, determine whether a person is an affected person in accordance with section 95E. (9) Notify each affected person identified under subsections (7) and (8) of the application.

Step 4: further notification in special Do special circumstances exist that circumstances warrant the application being limited notified to any other persons not already determined to be eligible for

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 45 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper (10) Determine whether special limited notification under this circumstances exist in relation to the section? application that warrant notification of Yes, notify those persons the application to any other persons not No, do not notify anyone else already determined to be eligible for limited notification under this section (excluding persons assessed under section 95E as not being affected persons), and,— (a) if the answer is yes, notify those persons; and (b) if the answer is no, do not notify anyone else.

Consent Number: CRC184977 Page 46 of 46 Consent Planner: Rhett Klopper