BAY OF ISLANDS PLANNING LIMITED PO Box 795 Kerikeri
Phone [ 09 ] 4075253 ; Email – [email protected]
District Services Department Far North District Council John Butler Centre Kerikeri
Attention: Ms Liz Jolly.
16 October 2020.
Dear Liz,
Re; Far North Holdings Limited, Disposal of clean fill, State Highway 11 , Opua.
Our client has recently lodged an application to vary certain conditions as it relates to the depositing of material on their land in Opua. The land gaining access of State Highway 11. The application is being processed under RC 2190300-RMAVAR/A. In addition, the application included varying conditions within RC 2170036.
Since lodging the application our client has been in discussion with NZTA and an alternative process has been established. This involves placing the current variation application on hold and then withdrawing that variation upon determination of this application. This new application seeks a new consent for the limited amount of clean material being disposed and at the same time upgrading the existing crossing point. Implementation of a TMP will be retained for this limited disposal activity.
In summary the new application retains all of the existing conditions of consent including the creation of a new access point , but allows the upgrading of the existing crossing point for the initial depositing activity.
Please now find attached the applicable resource consent application. Do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further information.
Yours faithfully,
Jeff Kemp.
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020
Form 9 APPLICATION FOR RESOURCE CONSENT Section 88, Resource Management Act 1991
To the Far North District Council:
We, Far North Holdings Limited, PO Box 7, Opua, apply for the following type of resource consent:
Land Use
The activities to which the application relates are as follows:
The application seeks approval to undertake the following –
Placement of an estimated 8,000m3 of spoil / surplus fill from earthworks and clean fill sourced from activities authorised under RC 2180514-RMACOM; Generation of traffic movements associated with the earthworks operation.
The site at which the proposed activity is to occur is as follows:
The property is located on the western side of Paihia Road [State Highway 11] south of Opua. It has the legal description Lot 12 DP 200225 Blk V Russell contained in CT NA 126B/910 and is 4.5572 hectares in area. [Copy provided in Appendix A of Planning Report]
Consent from the Northland Regional Council is also required in respect of land disturbance activities, discharge and water permits and disturbance of a wetland and these have been approved.
We attach an assessment of the proposed activity’s effect on the environment that – (a) includes the information required by clause 6 of Schedule 4 of the Resource Management Act 1991; and (b) addresses the matters specified in clause 7 Schedule 4 of the Resource Management Act 1991; and (c) includes such detail as corresponds with the scale and significance of the effects that the activity may have on the environment.
Refer to attached Planning Report
We attach an assessment of the proposed activity against the matters set out in Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
Refer to attached Planning Report
We attach an assessment of the proposed activity against any relevant provisions of a document referred to in section 104(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991, including the information required by clause 2(2) of Schedule 4 of that Act.
Refer to attached Planning Report
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 We attach the following further information required to be included in this application by the district plan, the Resource Management Act 1991, or any regulations made under that Act. Supporting information already held by Council in respect of the prior application is also listed within the Planning Report and should be taken into account. These are the supporting documents issued under RC 2190300 -
Document Prepared by: Planning Report, including Assessment of Environmental Bay of Islands Planning Effects Limited Assessment of Ecological Effects of the Proposed Landfill at NZ Environmental State Highway 11 [Paihia Road], Opua Stormwater, Sediment and Erosion Control Report dated 10 Northern Civil Consultant March 2007; Engineers Limited SH11 Paihia Road Sediment and Erosion Management Plan dated 26 June 2007; Plans [Reference 1311, Sheets 2, 3 and 5]: • Finished Ground Contour Plan; • Design Sediment Control Plan; • Sediment Pond Typical Details. Hearing Evidence of Steve Gibson Traffic Report Northern Civil Consultant Engineers Limited Lot 12 DP 200225 and Railway reclamation, Paihia Road, Opua: Clough and Associates Archaeological Assessment Limited
...... Date: 14 October 2020 Jeff Kemp Director Bay of Islands Planning Limited authorised to sign on behalf of Far North Holdings Limited
Address for service: Bay of Islands Planning Limited, PO Box 795, Kerikeri 0245 Telephone: (09) 4075253 email: [email protected]
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020
Resource Consent Application USE OF EXISTING ACCESS FOR DISPOSAL OF FILL MATERIAL.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Our client holds a resource consent for the placement of up to 45,000m3 of dredging spoil, surplus fill from earthworks and clean fill on the land together with associated discharge of stormwater, diversion of drains, flood water and stormwater associated with those activities, and traffic movements.
1.2 The purpose of the original consents was to provide a site to facilitate land based disposal of dredging spoil originating from various maritime activities undertaken by the applicant, the major one being a proposal for extensive improvements to the waterfront facilities at Paihia. That project was put on hold as a result of economic circumstances however is now subject to PGF and is being re programmed into the applicant’s development portfolio.
1.3 Within this intervening period our client has received approval to undertake a residential subdivision and associated land use consent to construct residences on these new sites. This is located within Opua. Implementation of this subdivision and land use approval is moving very quickly and will be well ahead of the Paihia waterfront development.
1.4 The existing approval for the land deposition includes a large number of conditions including the relocation and construction of a new access point onto State Highway 11. The existing approval relative to the new relocated access accommodated intermittent traffic movements onto the site within the prescribed conditions of consent. The situation as it now stands is that the amount of material to be deposited is known and the fill activity would be undertaken within a fixed period.
1.5 While the current variation application sought to vary certain conditions of a resource consent in a manner which allows the use of an existing vehicle crossing to undertake the depositing of material it is proposed to attain the same result through a new consent approval.
1.6 The purpose of this application is therefore to allow –
the depositing of material [ 8000m3 ] from the site associated with implementation of RC 2180514 ; upgrading the existing crossing point to Diagram C standard ; implementation of a TMP as approved by NZTA ; and completing the depositing activity within 6 months.
2.0 SITE AND LOCALITY DESCRIPTION
2.1 The site and locality are detailed within the original application documents. The applicant has not given effect to the approval. Detail of the existing access arrangements is contained with the NCC Traffic Report – Access Proposal September 2020.
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIVITY
3.1 Our client seeks to effectively give effect, in part, to RC 2190300 as it relates to depositing material on the application site. The application seeks approval for –
the depositing of material [ 8000m3 ] from the site associated with implementation of RC 2180514 ; upgrading the existing crossing point to Diagram C standard ; implementation of a TMP as approved by NZTA ; and
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 completing the depositing activity within 6 months of the earthworks commencing and being required to be removed from the applicants site as authorised under RC 2180514 and variations thereto.
3.2 The existing access onto the State Highway would be upgraded in a manner described in the attached report prepared by NCC Engineering. In addition the applicant would be required to implement an approved TMP authorised by NZTA at the time of depositing the fill material. In all other respects the underlying conditions applied to RC 2190300 would remain to the extent they would be applicable to the depositing of the material sought within this application.
4.0 APPLICATION STATUS
4.1 The application draws from the underlaying approval which are reproduced and updated as necessary.
4.2 The site is within the Coastal Living Zone of the Far North District Plan but is not subject to any resource classifications relating to special values or features. The purpose of the zone is to provide an area of transition between residential settlements on the coast and the General Coastal Zone and applies to areas “having an ability to absorb further low density, mainly rural residential development”. Consequently the Zone rules are largely related to bulk and location requirements for residential buildings. In reality the physical characteristics of the site at present render it unsuitable for residential development and the applicant’s long term aims are to provide a platform suitable for development for more appropriate uses such as a commercial building but given the long timeframe sought for this earthworks activity there are no firm proposals at this stage.
4.3 The principal activity on the site is earthworks, more particularly filling, and as such is subject to the rules in section 12.3 of the Plan where it is concluded to be a Discretionary Activity as the proposed deposition exceeds the 2000m3 per 12 month period requirement of the Restricted Discretionary rule. As a discretionary activity it is subject to assessment under the criteria in section 12.3.7.
4.4 Transportation matters are now subject to rules in chapter 15 which has been added into the assessment . In addition there are however some zone rules relating to non-residential activities and these have been assessed for completeness.
4.5 Rules relating to ‘Indigenous Flora and Fauna’ and ‘Lakes Rivers Wetlands and the Coastline’ do not apply as the wetland area is neither indigenous or significant.
4.6 Overall the application is assessed as a Discretionary Activity by reason of the volume involved and traffic movements.
5.0 DISTRICT PLAN ASSESSMENT
5.1 The following table assesses the applicability of the individual rules for the Coastal Living Zone, earthworks and traffic matters.
Table 1 Assessment of Relevant District Plan Rules
PLAN PERMITTED STANDARD APPLICABILITY REFERENCE ZONE RULES: COASTAL LIVING ZONE 10.7.5.1.1 Visual Amenity Not relevant, applies to buildings only. 10.7.5.1.2 Residential Intensity Not relevant.
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 PLAN PERMITTED STANDARD APPLICABILITY REFERENCE 10.7.5.1.3 Scale of Activities Allows 1 non-resident person per 2,000m2 of site area to be engaged in activities on the site, which equates to 22 people. With people present on site comprising an occasional truck driver and 1 or 2 persons grading or compacting material, the activity will be permitted in this regard. 10.7.5.1.4 Building Height: Not relevant. 10.7.5.1.5 Sunlight: Not relevant. 10.7.5.1.6 Stormwater Management Not relevant, applies only to buildings and impermeable surfaces. 10.7.5.1.7 Setback from Boundaries Not relevant, applies only to buildings. 10.7.5.1.8 Screening for Neighbours Non-Residential Activities As the filling operation on the site will Except along boundaries adjoining a Commercial or Industrial resemble a construction activity there is zone, outdoor areas providing for activities such as parking, no permanent need or significant demand loading, outdoor storage and other outdoor activities associated for such activities and no need for with non-residential activities on the site shall be screened from screening, particularly as there are no adjoining sites by landscaping, wall/s, close boarded fence/s or dwellings close to the boundaries and the trellis/es or a combination thereof. length of the perimeter boundary is significantly greater than would be considered the norm in this zone. 10.7.5.1.9 Transportation Replaced by Rule 15.1.6A.2.1 in District Wide Rules – see below. 10.7.5.1.10 Hours of Operation Non-Residential Activities The conditions applied to the previous (a) The maximum number of hours the activity shall be open to consent allowed the site to be ‘open’ for visitors, clients or deliveries shall be 50 hours per week; and some 66 hours per week but this would (b) Hours of operation shall be limited to between the hours: only occur for short periods of time with 0700 - 2000 Monday to Friday intervening stages of ‘dormancy’. This 0800 - 2000 Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays application seeks to operate within the Provided that this rule does not apply: threshold of the Rule. The TMP will (i) where the entire activity is located within a building; and include the operational characteristics. (ii) where each person engaged in the activity outside the above hours resides permanently on the site; and (iii) where there are no visitors, clients or deliveries to or from the site outside the above hours. 10.7.5.1.11 Keeping of Animals Not relevant. 10.7.5.1.12 Noise The activities within the zone are not (a) All activities within the zone shall be conducted so that noise anticipated to generate noise exceeding measured at any point within any other site in the zone or at any these limits at the boundaries of other site in the Residential, Russell Township, or Coastal Residential sites. Zones, or at or within the notional boundary of any other rural or coastal zone shall not exceed: 0700 to 2200 hours 55 dBA L10 2200 to 0700 hours 45 dBA L10 and 80 dBA Lmax (b) All activities within the zone shall be conducted so as to ensure that noise measured at any point within any site in the Residential, Coastal Residential or Russell Township Zones or at or within the notional boundary of any other dwelling in any other rural or coastal zone shall not exceed: 0700 to 2200 hours 55 dBA L10 2200 to 0700 hours 45 dBA L10 and 70 dBA Lmax DISTRICT WIDE RULES:
EARTHWORKS 12.3.6.1.2 Excavation and Filling Assessed to be discretionary as the fill Permitted if does not exceed 300m3 in any 12 month period and operations exceed 2000m3 and there does not involve cut or filled face exceeding 1.5m in height. could be more than one individual Restricted discretionary up to 2000m3 per 12 month period, operation in a 12 month period. otherwise discretionary.
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 PLAN PERMITTED STANDARD APPLICABILITY REFERENCE 12.3.6.1.4 Nature of Filling Material The material is clean fill being mainly clay Permitted if meets following standards: or material of the same nature. (a)(a) the fill material shall not contain putrescible, pollutant, inflammable or hazardous components; and (b) (b) the fill shall not consist of material other than soil, rock, stone, aggregate, gravel, sand, silt, or demolition material; and ©( (c) the fill material shall not comprise more than 5% vegetation (by volume) of any load.
WATER SETBACKS 12.7.6.1.3 Preservation of indigenous wetlands The District Plan adopts the definition of Land use activities within indigenous wetlands of more than indigenous wetland used in the Regional 200m2 in area are permitted if no change to the natural range of water and Soil Plan. The Ecological water levels or to the ecosystem it supports. Reference is made Assessment Report adopted for the to the provisions of the Regional Water and Soil Plan. underlying approval concluded the wetland affected by the proposal does not meet the WSP definition of an indigenous wetland so this rule does not apply. TRAFFIC, PARKING AND ACCESS Traffic Intensity 15.1.6A.2.1 Traffic Intensity: The Traffic Intensity threshold value for a site With a maximum of 100 movements per shall be determined for each zone by Table 15.1.6A.1 above. day the proposal is discretionary. For the Coastal Living Zone, up to 20 movements are permitted, Normally construction traffic is exempt 21 to 40 is restricted discretionary and over 40 is discretionary. from this rule but no allowance is made in the Plan for construction traffic moving between two sites. Whilst the 100 is sought the reality is this may not be achieved and would in reality be established in working through the TMP process. Parking 15. 1.6B.1 .1 On-Site Car Parking Spaces There is no equivalent category in Where: Appendix 3C. As there will only be a (i) an activity establishes; or limited number of persons based on the (ii) the nature of an activity changes; or site at any one time to operate machinery (ii) buildings are altered to increase the number of persons for spreading or compacting the provided for on the site; deposited material the number of the minimum number of on-site car parking spaces to be vehicles to be parked will be minimal as provided for the users of an activity shall be determined by well as temporary. reference to Appendix 3C, unless an activity complies with the On that basis the other rules related to exemptions below. parking and loading have not been Exemption: addressed for obvious reasons. (a) In the Commercial Zone, no additional on-site car parking spaces are required where the nature of a legally established activity changes, provided that: (i) the gross business area of the site is not increased; and (ii) activities are not identified as residential or casual accommodation in Appendix 3C. Vehicle Access 15.1.6.1.2(e)(i) Vehicle access shall not be permitted onto a State Highway or a The concept and proposed access limited access road unless authorised by the New Zealand arrangements have been discussed with Transport Agency or Council, as appropriate, pursuant to Rule NZTA and their written response has 15.1.6.1.7. been received and attached.
5.2 In summary, consent is required under the District Plan for earthworks and traffic intensity.
5.3 As identified previously, the matters for which consent is required are earthworks, including the nature of the fill material, traffic movements and hours of operation. The relevant assessment
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 matters are addressed in the following tables.
Table 2 Assessment Criteria for Earthworks [Section 12.3.7}
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA PERFORMANCE the degree to which the activity may cause or With the application of the measures contained in the approved exacerbate erosion and/or other natural Sediment and Erosion Management Plan [SEMP], the proposal hazards on the site or in the vicinity of the site, prevents erosion and manages potential flood hazards to an acceptable particularly lakes, rivers, wetlands and the level. coastline; any effects on the life supporting capacity of the The proposal affects an area of poor quality wetland which can be soil; mitigated by measures proposed within the application. The deposition of fill has short term effects on life supporting capacity but the temporary dormant periods with grass cover where practicable affords some mitigation. any adverse effects on stormwater flow within This has been addressed in the SEMP. There is a minor increase in the the site, and stormwater flow to or from other extent of flooding on neighbouring properties during extreme rainfall properties in the vicinity of the site including events but the drainage system and fill levels have been designed to public roads; minimise it and no buildings or access tracks are affected. The proposed system of drains and sediment pond together with the flexibility to introduce additional measures depending on the source material for each phase of the operation will ensure good stormwater management. Operation and management of the downstream floodgate will also result in better control of the duration and level of flood events. any reduction in water quality; The stormwater management measures and the sediment pond in particular will minimise any potential effects on water quality. any loss of visual amenity or loss of natural The site has been given a coastal zoning in the District Plan and hence character of the coastal environment; is part of the ‘Coastal Environment’ as used in that document. In the wider policy framework, coastal environment boundaries in the context of the NZ Coastal Policy Statement have been mapped in the Regional Policy Statement. Only a small portion of the site near the south-east corner has been included in that classification. Although the origins of the site are undoubtedly coastal, the cutting off of the site from the coast as a result of constructing the road and the railway have markedly lessened its relationship with the coast. At its nearest point the site is some 60 metres from the shoreline but as there are no views of the coast from the stretch of road passing the site, its relationship with the coast is far from obvious and would appear tenuous to most people. The amenity of the locality derives not from its proximity to the coast but from its openness as a foil to the more visually pleasing ridgeline above which is the feature most casual viewers would be drawn to. With respect to natural character, the only loss is that of the wetland area which is not a coastal wetland. In terms of the CPS and RPS, only a small portion of the site falls within the coastal environment and it was not classified in the RPS as having high or outstanding natural character. In terms of the coastal environment in the District Plan, the site is zoned Coastal Living which anticipates low density residential development, which one assumes would not be applied to areas with significant natural character. effects on Outstanding Landscape Features These classifications do not apply to the site. and Outstanding Natural Features (refer to Appendices 1A and 1B in Part 4, and Resource Maps); the extent to which the activity may adversely As described previously, the proposal removes an area of wetland but affect areas of significant indigenous the adopted Ecological Assessment Report concluded the wetland is vegetation or significant habitats of indigenous neither indigenous or significant. fauna; the extent to which the activity may adversely The Archaeological Report commissioned for the earlier application did affect heritage resources, especially not identify any archaeological sites. archaeological sites; the extent to which the activity may adversely The site has not been identified as a site of Cultural Significance or affect the cultural and spiritual values of Maori, waahi tapu in the District Plan and no issues were raised in the especially Sites of Cultural Significance to processing of the previous application. Maori and waahi tapu (as listed in Appendix 1F in Part 4, and shown on the Resource Maps); any cumulative adverse effects on the Refer to AEE which follows. environment arising from the activity;
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA PERFORMANCE the effectiveness of any proposals to avoid, Refer to AEE which follows. remedy or mitigate any adverse effects arising from the activity; the ability to monitor the activity and to take The previous consents embodied comprehensive monitoring conditions remedial action if necessary; and the applicant is happy to have similar conditions applied in the new consents. the criteria in Section 11.20 Development This only applies to mining and quarrying. Plans in Part 2 the criteria (p) in Section 17.2.7 National Grid The proposal is not in proximity to any part of the National Grid. Yard.
Table 3 Assessment Criteria for Traffic Intensity [Section 15.16A.7]
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA PERFORMANCE (a) The extent by which the expected traffic There is no comparable activity in Appendix 3A which would provide a intensity for a proposed activity exceeds the theoretical daily traffic intensity factor to compare to the 20 movements assumed value set by the Traffic Intensity allowed as a permitted activity under the rules of the Plan. Factor contained in Appendix 3A in Part 4 of the The original proposal assumed for assessment purposes a maximum daily Plan. peak figure of 100 movements which could be interpreted as 80 additional movements. It could be argued however that the Traffic Intensity Threshold of 20 is an average daily figure whereas the 100 movements figure is an anticipated peak figure used for assessing effects on the State Highway in the original Traffic Report. Completion of the original project was expected to take about 40 weeks in total over a ten year period involving perhaps 8 to 10 individual phases. It was assuming the peak is met on every day of the 40 weeks and would give an average of 5 movements per day over the 10 year period. It was also noted the site could theoretically be subdivided as a controlled activity into 5 sites of 8000m2 each permitted to generate 20 movements or a total of 100 on every day of the year. (b) The time of day when the extra vehicle The movements associated with the fill deposition will be spread through out movements will occur. the day and the turnaround time between loads. (c) The distance between the location where the The traffic report has assessed the use of the existing crossing point as vehicle movements take place and any adjacent being acceptable. properties. (d) The width and capability of any street to be This has been previously assessed by NZTA . able to cope safely with the extra vehicle movements. (e) The location of any footpaths and the volume There are no footpaths in this locality and very few pedestrians, if any. of pedestrian traffic on them. (f) The sight distances associated with the This has been addressed in the traffic report. vehicle access onto the street. (g) The existing volume of traffic on the streets As a State Highway the existing volumes of traffic are high as detailed in the affected. traffic report. As already noted NZTA has been consulted. (h) Any existing congestion or safety problems The State Highway has relatively low traffic volumes at this point with a low on the streets affected. proportion of heavy vehicles and there are no apparent congestion problems. (i) With respect to effects in local The access has been considered for this specific activity as being suitable. neighbourhoods, the ability to mitigate any adverse effects through the design of the access, or the screening of vehicle movements, or limiting the times when vehicle movements occur. (j) With respect to the effects on through traffic The is assessed in the traffic report. on arterial roads, strategic roads and State Highways, any measures such as right-turn bays, flush medians, left turn deceleration tapers, etc. proposed to be installed on the road as part of the development to accommodate traffic turning into and out of the site.
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA PERFORMANCE (k) The extent to which the activity may cause or It is unclear how the traffic intensity associated with the proposal will impinge exacerbate natural hazards or may be on natural hazards. Suffice it to say that the design of the stormwater system adversely affected by natural hazards, and and associated control of floodwaters aim to avoid adverse effects on the therefore increase the risk to life, property and State Highway. the environment. (l) Whether providing or having access to Definitely not. Surprisingly, trucks are still considered the most effective bicycle parking, shower/changing facilities or means of transporting fill material! alternative transportation would reduce the number of vehicle movements associated with the proposed activity. (m) the provision of safe access for pedestrians There will be no provision for pedestrians moving within or exiting the site. moving within or exiting the site.
Summary
5.4 The analysis of the requirements of the various plans has shown that a good level of compliance with the criteria and standards can be achieved.
6.0 STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Section 104 of the RMA states that when considering an application for a resource consent, “the consent authority must, subject to Part II, have regard to –
any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and
(ab) any measure proposed or agreed to by the applicant for the purpose of ensuring positive effects on the environment to offset or compensate for any adverse effects on the environment that will or may result from allowing the activity; and (b) any relevant provisions of – a national environmental standard: other regulations: a national policy statement: a New Zealand coastal policy statement: a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement: a plan or proposed plan; and (c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.”
6.2 The only NES of potential relevance is the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011. This would apply if the site has or is being used for an activity listed in the Hazardous Activities Industries List [HAIL]. None of the listed activities have been undertaken on the site so the NES does not apply.
6.3 There are no other relevant national standards or regulations. As a minor portion of the site is within the coastal environment as identified in the Regional Policy Statement, the relevant policy statements are the NZ Coastal Policy Statement, the Regional Policy Statement for Northland and the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management. The provisions have been addressed within the underlying approval granted by the Northland Regional Council. With respect to 'Other Matters', the previous consent is considered relevant.
6.4 The matters to be addressed under s.104 are discussed below under the headings Environmental Effects, Policy Statements, and assessment of Part II matters as they apply to the considerations. Regional and District Plan considerations have already been assessed in the preceding sections.
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 6.5 The following Table 4 provides a ‘check list’ of those requirements and a reference to where they are addressed, if applicable, within this document.
Table 4 Revised Fourth Schedule Requirements
FOURTH SCHEDULE REFERENCE & REQUIREMENTS COMMENTS & PAGE/PARAGRAPH REFERENCE
2 (1) Information required in all applications:
a) a description of the activity: Refer to preceding paragraphs above.
(b) a description of the site at which the activity is to occur: Refer to Form 9.
(c) the full name and address of each owner or occupier of the site: Refer to Form 9.
d) a description of any other activities that are part of the proposal There are no other activities within the proposal. to which the application relates
e) a description of any other resource consents required for the Consent from the NRC has already been proposal to which the application relates attained.
f) an assessment of the activity against the matters set out in Part This is provided within the application. 2
g) an assessment of the activity against any relevant provisions of The relevant documents have been identified in a document referred to in section 104(1)(b). the following paragraphs and assessed subsequently as listed below.
2(2) Assessment under 2 (1) (g) against:
a) any relevant objectives, policies, or rules in a document; Thee are assed as only applying to the Far North District Council District Plan.
b) any relevant requirements, conditions, or permissions in any Not applicable rules in a document; and
c) any other relevant requirements in a document (for example, in Not applicable. a national environmental standard or other regulations).
2(3) An assessment of the activity’s effects on the environment that:
a) includes the information required by clause 6; Included within the application.
b) addresses the matters specified in clause 7; Included within the application.
c) includes such detail as corresponds with the scale and Refer to two previous items significance of the effects that the activity may have on the environment.
3 Additional information required in some applications:
a) if any permitted activity is part of the proposal to which the Vegetation removal and dust emissions are application relates, a description of the permitted activity that considered to be permitted activities. demonstrates that it complies with the requirements, conditions, and permissions for the permitted activity (so that a resource consent is not required for that activity under section 87A(1)):
b) if the application is affected by section 124 or 165ZH(1)(c) Not applicable. (which relate to existing resource consents), an assessment of the value of the investment of the existing consent holder (for the purposes of section 104(2A)):
c) if the activity is to occur in an area within the scope of a planning Not applicable. document prepared by a customary marine title group under section 85 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011, an assessment of the activity against any resource management matters set out in that planning document (for the purposes of section 104(2B)).
4 Additional information required in application for subdivision consent:
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 FOURTH SCHEDULE REFERENCE & REQUIREMENTS COMMENTS & PAGE/PARAGRAPH REFERENCE
Not applicable.
5 Additional information required in application for reclamation:
Not applicable.
6 Information required in assessment of environmental effects:
1) An assessment of the activity's effects on the environment must include the following information:
Items (a) to (h) Refer to following section of this report.
7 Matters that must be addressed by assessment of environmental effects:
1) An assessment of the activity's effects on the environment must address the following matters:
Items (a) to (f) Refer to following section of this report.
7.0 ASSSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
7.1 This assessment is set out in accordance with the contents of clauses 6 and 7 of Schedule 4 of the RMA. Before assessing the effects it is useful to determine what the particular environment of the site encompasses. The definition of environment provided in the Resource Management Act is: “environment includes— (a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; and (b) all natural and physical resources; and (c) amenity values; and (d) the social, economic, aesthetic, and cultural conditions which affect the matters stated in paragraphs (a) to (c) or which are affected by those matters”.
7.2 This particular site is unusual as although in its current form it appears rural in nature it is zoned Coastal Living in the Far North District Plan, this being a zone intended to provide for low density lifestyle residential use on the fringes of coastal settlements. Lifestyle development has not proliferated since the zoning was applied except for the string of lots fronting onto Oromahoe Road on the top of the ridge to the west of the site where their elevation may afford sea views and separation from the State Highway which is not a sympathetic neighbour for a lifestyle development. The attractiveness of the site and its environs for such use is limited by its floodplain character, the steepness of the flanks of the ridge, the lack of sea views due to the intervening higher ground such as Marina Rise and the proximity of the State Highway.
7.3 In considering potential effects use is made of the plan provisions requiring consent and the matters over which control is reserved to identify the factors to be addressed, but the starting point for the assessment is the likely effects, not the responsibilities of the individual Councils, as some components of the application require consent from both and some effects are influenced by others.
Clause 6, Information Required in Assessment of Environmental Effects
Item (a)
If it is likely that an activity will result in any significant adverse effect on the environment, a description of any possible alternative locations or methods for undertaking the activity:
The activity has already been considered sustainable by virtue of the previous resource consents and this application concentrates on implementing part of the underlying approval as a separate entity. None of those considerations have identified any matters likely to give rise to significant adverse effects and consideration of alternative locations is not therefore warranted. It should also
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 be noted that it is extremely difficult to find suitable sites for disposal of clean fill. With respect to methods, the measures proposed within the application are based on best practice so that the filling operation is managed to suit the timing and nature of fill operation. Given the short time frame allowed for completion of the operation the proposal is considered to be capable of providing a sustainable outcome.
Item (b)
An assessment of the actual or potential effect on the environment of the proposed activity:
As the factors determining the need for consent, the principal potential effects to be addressed under this item are those relating to the earthworks activities, prevention of erosion, management of stormwater and sediment, discharge of contaminants, traffic movements and access. With effects on the coastal waters of the Kawakawa River, and effects related to flooding plus removal of an area of wetland is an actual effect addressed within the existing Northland Regional Council approvals.
Earthworks Activities
The basic earthworks generate two types of effects, operational effects which include noise, emission of dust, odour, tracking of mud onto the road surface, and traffic, and those physical effects related to the positioning of the material such as runoff and sediment effects which are considered separately.
Operational Factors
The operational factors relate to the scale and nature of the project generating the material to be deposited.
Traffic Movements
Management of traffic movements is subject to consent from the Far North District Council but does have implications for the other effects discussed above. The original application assumed that the total fill operation over a ten year time frame would require around 5,600 truckloads using trucks with a capacity of 8m3. Individual phases would necessitate concentrated deliveries over relatively short periods of time [generally 1 to 2 weeks but with a potential maximum of 12 weeks] and were considered likely to incur a peak intensity of 50 loads per day or 100 vehicle movements. At 50 loads per day the total quantum of material would be delivered over 112 days but activities undertaken at lower intensities would require a longer time. As earthworks and dredging operations are usually preludes to some other construction activities and the costs of having the necessary equipment on site are usually high, there is a ‘push’ factor for minimising the time taken. Even if the total number of active days were to double or treble, over a ten year period the number of working days is likely to remain low.
This application would result in less traffic movements.
The zone standards for the Coastal Living Zone permit 20 movements per day with 40 as a restricted discretionary activity. This is however predicated on the purpose of the zone being lifestyle development at lower densities than what would be expected in a coastal settlement. Theoretically a site of this size could be subdivided as a controlled activity to provide 4-5 lifestyle blocks at what is considered the appropriate size for the zone which would then be permitted to generate 80 to 100 movements per day, every day of the year. Compared to 100 movements on 112 days in short duration phases, the traffic generation does not appear excessive in comparison to the zone standards.
In reality, the effects of the traffic generation depend on the volumes of traffic on the State Highway rather than the effects on land zoned Coastal Living as it would be difficult to argue that the land is a typical Coastal Living site. Maximum movements of around 100 per day are not considered significant for a Highway carrying a relatively low annual average daily traffic [AADT] and a low
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 proportion of heavy vehicles as demonstrated below.
The Traffic Report presented with the original application assessed the AADT to be in the order of 3000 vehicles and the heavy vehicle percentage as between 4.1 to 5.9% based on 2004 data. This application seeks the same number of movements which would be established with the TMP.
Other recently proposed development in the locality which was not anticipated at the time of the original application will also influence the traffic ‘environment’. Consent has recently been granted for the construction of a terminus for the Bay of Islands Vintage Railway on land directly opposite the application site. This area, known as Colenso Triangle, is currently used as a storage depot by the applicant, with low levels of traffic movements. The conditions of consent for the Railway Terminus involve the construction of a new access point which will also serve the upper level development on Beaufort Street and Marina Rise.
This application has no effect upon those conditions of consent by reason the requirements of RC 2190300 are still in force.
NZTA have been consulted on this application.
Noise
With respect to noise, there will be traffic noise generated by the trucks delivering the material, and noise from machinery spreading or compacting material, all of which are anticipated to comply with standards for construction noise. The activity will operate in terms of the approved noise condition within the current RC 2190300 conditions.
Dust
Dust is only likely to be generated from the filling process and movement of vehicles in dry windy conditions in the summer months and is considered unlikely to travel far enough to affect dwellings and their associated outdoor areas although there is a risk of adverse effects on the State Highway. Apart from weather conditions, the risk of dust generation is also dependent on the nature of the fill material and the extent of the area exposed at any one time. The fill material is known and with careful management of the factors affecting dust generation, significant adverse effects are not anticipated to arise and if periods of dry and/or windy weather do result in dust emissions the applicant will use water carts or jet sprays to dampen the source material and haul roads to reduce such emissions. Effects of dust are therefore expected to be less than minor.
Odour
The fill material is clean and has no contaminant that would generate odour.
Tracking of Mud
NZTA has previously expressed concern over the potential for truck tyres to track mud onto the State Highway which could have adverse effects on road safety, generate dust if allowed to dry on the road surface or discharge contaminants through the road drainage system. The applicant would implement the appropriate condition to mitigate this effect.
Amenity
The topography of the site makes it visible from the State Highway and potentially from houses on higher ground to the west and east. As an area of pasture and wetland with a backdrop of trees on the slopes of the ridge up to Oromahoe Road, the site is a relief from the ‘enclosed’ winding uphill section of the highway to the north with its steep banks and tall vegetation and the more varied land use pattern to the south which includes glimpses of the coastal waters, mangroves, the cycle track on the old railway line, and built development including Carters building materials yard and other
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 commercial activities in a small enclave to the south.
In reality, the visual and amenity characteristics of this particular stretch of State Highway are best described as ‘underwhelming’ as there is nothing which would appeal to a lay person as overtly scenic given the limited views of coastal waters, the untidy appearance of much of the roadside vegetation and the somewhat eclectic mix of land uses making it neither town nor country.
The dwellings in the locality are situated on higher ground. Depending on their orientation and the intervening vegetation within their curtilage and downslope of their position, they may have views over the site. Owners of those dwellings are more likely to focus on their own gardens and any distant sea views they may enjoy rather than be overly concerned about this area which has limited attractiveness in its current state other than as an open area contributing to a rural setting for the lifestyle dwellings.
Closer views of the site are obtained from the highway which is generally elevated above the existing ground level. South of the site at a point just north of the culvert under the road, the highway is at RL 6.1 dropping to 3.47 near the existing crossing point then rising again to 3.7 and above to the north. The finished level of the completed works will be at RL 4 making it level with the highway in the centre of the site. While the works while in progress could not be considered ‘attractive’ in visual terms they need not be unsightly if managed appropriately with revegetation while ‘dormant’, use of appropriate colours for geotextile fabrics, and a high standard of general maintenance. It is not uncommon in an agricultural context to view heaps of soil alongside drains during drain digging or clearing operations and ploughed fields display bare soil for short periods.
The applicant appreciates that some effects on landscape and visual amenity are inevitable during active phases of the operation but is of the view that these will either mimic some agricultural practices or be no different from any other construction site. As noted earlier there could in theory be four or five houses on the land each with their own construction phase. If there are long periods of ‘dormancy’ between the fill operations, the deposited material will be grassed over or otherwise covered which will ameliorate any perceived unsightliness.
The conditions of consent applied previously required a progressive re-vegetation plan for both roadside planting and revegetation after individual phases. These will continue to be implemented.
In summary, there will be periods with short term adverse effects on visual and amenity values but these will be no more than minor.
Physical Effects of Earthworks
Prevention of Erosion
On a flat low lying site potential erosion problems would arise from wind-blown dust, which has already been discussed as being unlikely to be a major effect and one which can be effectively managed, and loss of sediment in run-off. This is avoided in this proposal by the stormwater management measures discussed in more detail below and by separating the natural drainage system of the site’s catchment from the fill area by the construction of an earth bund around the perimeter of the works area.
The phased nature of the original proposal necessitates especial care to be taken during the periods of the fill operations. That scale of operation is not applicable to this application but the principles can still be incorporated in the conditions of this consent so they can be applied.
With such measures in place potential erosion effects are considered to be minimal.
Water Quality
The management of sediment is satisfactorily achieved as three sides of the works are contained by the external earth bund with a silt fence on the fourth side. ‘Natural’ stormwater drainage from
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 the catchment around the site is diverted to clean water drains outside the bund. All stormwater drainage from the fill area is directed to a sediment pond for settling out of solid material. These measures are expected to achieve a high level of sediment control with less than minor effects on the ‘downstream’ environment.
With respect to contaminants, the only material likely to be a potential source is storm water contamination of silt during high rainfall events.
With application of suitable measures in the management procedures for this activity, potential discharges of contaminants can be managed to ensure that adverse effects are no more than minor.
Flooding
The potential effects of heavy rainfall events in terms of flooding were examined in detail in the original application in relation to effects on neighbouring properties and the State Highway resulting is applicable conditions of consent. On that basis the adverse effect is not considered to be more than minor.
Wetland Removal
The effects of the proposal on terrestrial ecological values have been previously assessed by NZ Environmental Limited with the conclusion that an area of wetland is affected and that the wetland has “low – moderate ecological value” with the majority of species being exotic. The applied conditions of consent would remain as applicable to this application.
Socio-economic Benefits
The activity creates social and economic benefits for both the Far North District and for Northland as it facilitates implementation of projects. As the commercial trading and asset management arm of the Far North District Council, the applicant’s projects often involve development and improvement of community infrastructure, particularly maritime assets such as wharves and boat ramps as wells as the larger Opua port, marina and boat yard facilities. These application falls with a land based development being undertaken by the applicants. This activity is considered to generate significant economic benefits at all levels from local to national.
Cumulative Effects
The concept of cumulative effects has been described as effects which combine with other effects to reach a stage where the combined level of adverse effect becomes unsupportable. A perhaps classic example would be where a succession of small water extractions, each in themselves innocuous, combine so that the source is depleted to the extent that flows in the lower stretches of the river are reduced and downstream users are disadvantaged.
Adverse cumulative effects are not considered likely to occur as the activity sits within the umbrella of an approved consent.
Summary
With implementation of the proposal as detailed in the application and supporting documents, particularly advising both Council and NZTA prior to the commencement of each phase of the timing, source of the material and the management measures to be adopted, the proposal can be implemented without any adverse effects of a more than minor nature.
Item (c)
If the activity includes the use of hazardous substances and installations, an assessment of any risks to the environment that are likely to arise from such use:
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020
This proposal does not involve the use of hazardous substances or materials.
Item (d)
If the activity includes the discharge of any contaminant, a description of - (i) The nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the proposed receiving environment to adverse effects; and (ii) Any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge into any other receiving environment:
This has been addressed in Item (b) above with the conclusion that the potential effects will be no more than minor.
Item (e)
A description of the mitigation measures (including safeguards and contingency plans where relevant) to be undertaken to help prevent or reduce the actual or potential effect:
Those mitigation measures considered necessary have been described under 1(d) above and in the Sediment and Erosion Management Plan.
Item (f)
Identification of the persons affected by the proposal, the consultation undertaken, if any, and any response to the views of any person consulted.
The applicant has not undertaken specific consultation on this consent other than with NZTA. Their written support is provided. Council did not consider any other party affected by the underlying approval.
Item (g)
If the scale or significance of the activity’s effects are such that monitoring is required, a description of how and by whom the effects will be monitored if the activity is approved:
Monitoring is an integral part of the implementation of this proposal. Similar conditions of consent to those in the original consent will achieve effective monitoring particularly when backed up by a review condition.
Item (h)
If the activity will, or is likely to, have adverse effects that are more than minor on the exercise of a protected customary right, a description of possible alternative locations or methods for the exercise of the activity (unless written approval for the activity is given by the protected customary rights group).
Protected customary rights do not apply to the site or to land in the vicinity.
Clause 7, Matters that must be Addressed by Assessment of Environmental Effects
Item (a)
Any effect on those in the neighbourhood and, where relevant, the wider community including any social, economic or cultural effects:
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 The socio-economic effects have been considered in Item 9b) of Clause 6 with the conclusion that the social and economic effects generated by the proposal is a significant positive effect.
Item (b)
Any physical effect on the locality, including any landscape and visual effects:
Physical effects have already been addressed in the discussion of potential effects in Item (b) of Clause 6.
Item (c)
Any effects on ecosystems, including effects on plants or animals and any physical disturbance of habitats in the vicinity:
This has already been addressed In Item (b) of Clause 6.
Any effect on natural and physical resources having aesthetic, recreational, scientific, historical, spiritual, or cultural value, or other special value, for present or future generations:
The site is not known to possess any of these particular values as established previously during assessment of the original application.
Item (e)
Any discharge of contaminants into the environment, including any unreasonable emission of noise, and options for the treatment and disposal of contaminants:
The discharge of contaminants including noise effects has been addressed above under items (b) and (d) of Clause 6.
Item (f)
Any risk to the neighbourhood, the wider community, or the environment through natural hazards or the use of any hazardous substances or hazardous installations:
The use of hazardous substances has been addressed in Item (b) of Clause 6.
Conclusion on Effects
Based on the above analysis, all but one of the actual and potential adverse effects of the proposal on the environment are considered to range from minimal to no more than minor and a number of positive beneficial effects also arise in terms of socio-economic factors. The one adverse effect relates to the loss of the wetland area, mitigation for which in ecological terms was assessed as requiring significant improvement of a wetland on another site. As this cannot be achieved because of a prior commitment to enhance this wetland in relation to the Vintage Railway proposal, some other mitigation options are proposed as previously described. The existing consent conditions attain an acceptable result.
8.0 POLICY STATEMENTS
NZ Coastal Policy Statement and NRC Regional Policy Statement
8.1 The provisions of the 2010 CPS would technically apply as part of the site is within the ‘coastal environment’ . While this term was not previously defined, it was a requirement of the document that regional councils identify areas within the coastal environment where certain activities
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 would be appropriate and in the case of natural character, actually map at least areas of outstanding natural character.
8.2 The portion of the site within the coastal environment is therefore minimal, about 2 % in the south-eastern corner next the Highway. Works in this area include the south-eastern tip of the earth bund and the drainage pipe from the sediment pond to the culvert under the State Highway. Adopting the underlying approval and by reason the nature and scale of this application sits within the underlying approval no further assessment of these two documents is undertaken.
Source: NRC Maps Online, Regional Policy Statement
9.3 Whilst no commentary is provided in this application the assessment contained within the underlying RC 2190300 is adopted.
9.0 PLANS
Water And Soil Plan
9.1 The objectives and policies of the operative Water and Soil Plan were addressed in the original application and the decision found that the proposal to be consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of that document. These matters are not considered again here.
Proposed Regional Plan
9.2 Similarly in terms of the PRP there is nothing to suggest the same consideration which applied in assessing the application under RC 2190300 does not apply. This reproduced below –
D.2.2 Social, cultural and economic benefits of activities When considering resource consents, regard must be had to the social, cultural and economic benefits of the proposed activity.
As already discussed in the AEE, the purpose of the application is to provide a site within which the applicant can dispose of surplus material from other projects which may encompass land development generating excess excavated material or marine dredging activities. Given the applicant’s status as the trading arm of the Far North District Council, the ‘source’ projects will benefit the community either directly through provision or maintenance of maritime infrastructure or indirectly through economic spin-off from the use of various facilities, such as overseas yachts staying at the marina or cruise ship passengers coming ashore in Paihia and Russell. Securing local disposal facilities with flexibility on timing of use and of quantity adds considerably to timing and cost efficiencies of projects undertaken by the applicant.
D.2.7 Managing adverse effects on indigenous biodiversity Manage the adverse effects of activities requiring resource consent on indigenous biodiversity by:
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 1) recognising the following layers in I 'Maps' as showing areas of significant indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna in the coastal marine area, in accordance with the assessment criteria of Appendix 5, Regional Policy Statement for Northland: a) Significant Ecological Areas, and b) Significant Bird Areas, and c) Significant Marine Mammal and Seabird Areas, and 2) recognising damage, disturbance or loss to the following as being adverse effects: a) connections between areas of indigenous biodiversity, and b) the life-supporting capacity of the area of indigenous biodiversity, and c) flora and fauna that are supported by the area of indigenous biodiversity, and d) natural processes or systems that contribute to the integrity of the area of indigenous biodiversity, and 3) assessing the potential adverse effects of the activity against the identified values of indigenous biodiversity, including by: a) taking a system-wide approach to large areas of indigenous biodiversity such as whole estuaries or widespread bird and marine mammal habitats, recognising that the scale of the effect of an activity is proportional to the size and sensitivity of the area of indigenous biodiversity, and b) recognising that discrete, localised or otherwise minor effects not impacting on the ecological area may be acceptable, and c) recognising that activities with transitory effects may be acceptable, where they can demonstrate the effects are not long-term and/or irreversible, and 4) recognising that methods of avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects may include: a) careful design, scale and location proposed in relation to areas of indigenous biodiversity, and b) maintaining and enhancing connections within and between areas of indigenous biodiversity, and c) considering effect minimisation during sensitive times such as indigenous freshwater fish spawning and migration periods, and d) providing adequate setbacks, screening or buffers where there is the likelihood of damage and disturbance to areas of indigenous biodiversity from adjacent use and development, and e) maintaining the continuity of natural processes and systems contributing to the integrity of ecological areas, and f) reversing previous damage or disturbance to areas of indigenous biodiversity, and g) improving the public use, value or understanding to areas of indigenous biodiversity, and h) the development of ecological management and restoration plans, and 5) recognising that biodiversity offsetting and environmental compensation (as defined in the Regional Policy Statement for Northland) may be appropriate after consideration of the methods in (4) above.
The assessment of ecological effects concluded that the wetland is not an indigenous wetland so this policy would not apply.
D.2.8 Precautionary approach to managing effects on significant indigenous biodiversity Where there is scientific uncertainty about the adverse effects of activities on: 1) species listed as threatened or at risk in the New Zealand Threat Classification System, or 2) the values ranked high in the: a) Significant Ecological Areas, and b) Significant Bird Areas, and c) Significant Marine Mammal and Seabird Areas, then the greatest extent of adverse effects reasonably predicted by science, must be given the most weight.
The effects of the removal of the at risk species Thyridia repens from the wetland area are uncertain as its ‘naturally uncommon’ status means that there is no accurate knowledge of how many occurrences there are nor what the population numbers are. The most recent revisions to the threat
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 classification 1 have added the qualifier ‘PD’ [partial decline] to its status description but this is described as meaning it is trending to the next category of ‘At Risk – Relict’ rather than declining to extinction. 2 While decline may be occurring over the majority of the taxa’s range, there are still “one or more secure populations’. Given the poor quality of the wetland area and the predominance of exotic species including weeds, together with the dependence of the plants on periodic inundation, which would not occur when the floodgate is used, the existing wetland cannot be viewed as providing good habitat for this plant. Preserving it on its current site would mean sterilising not just the fill operation and the longer term development but would also curtail agricultural use of the land. A more pragmatic approach is to translocate the plant to a more appropriate location in the vicinity, possibly at the south-east corner of the site and to use it for propagating plants to provide a local source for use in other projects within the district.
D.3.3 Dust and odour generating activities When considering resource consent applications for discharges to air from dust and/or odour generating activities: 1) require a dust and/or odour management plan to be produced where there is a likelihood that there will be objectionable and offensive discharges of dust and/or odour across the property boundary of where the activity is to take place. The dust and/or odour management plan must include: a) a description of dust/odour generating activities, and b) adjacent dust sensitive areas and/or odour sensitive areas, and c) details of good management practice that will be used to control dust and/or odour to the extent that adverse effects from dust and/or odour at the boundary of the site are managed, and 2) take into account any proposed use of low dust generating blasting mediums when assessing the effects of fixed or mobile outdoor dry abrasive blasting or wet abrasive blasting
While it is not considered necessary to seek resource consent for discharges of dust and odour as previously discussed in the assessment of consent requirements, the policy has been included to show that the proposed use of good management practices, which can be tailored for specific phases depending on the timing and nature of the source material, allow this potential issued to be addressed as the Plan intends.
D.4.3 Coastal water quality standards A discharge of a contaminant into coastal water or any surface water flowing to coastal water must not cause any of the following coastal water quality standards to be exceeded:
D.4.4 Coastal sediment quality standards A discharge of a contaminant into coastal water or any surface water flowing to coastal water must not cause any of the following benthic sediment quality standards to be exceeded in the coastal marine area:
Although these policies are known to be under review as part of the submission process, the earlier discussion of how discharges of contaminants will be managed on site demonstrates the applicant’s commitment to maintaining water quality.
D.4.27 Wetlands – requirements Activities affecting a wetland must: 1) maintain the following important functions and values of wetlands: a) water purification, and b) contribution to maintaining stream flows during dry periods, and c) peak stream flow reduction, and
1 ‘Conservation status of New Zealand indigenous vascular plants, 2017 ‘de Lange et al , Department of Conservation May 2018 2 ‘New Zealand Threat Classification System manual’ Townsend et al, 2008, Department of Conservation
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 d) habitat for indigenous flora and fauna, and 2) avoid, remedy, or mitigate effects, or provide biodiversity offsetting or environmental biodiversity compensation, so that residual adverse effects are no more than minor.
D.4.28 Wetland – values When considering resource consents for activities in wetlands, recognise: 1) the benefits of wetland creation, restoration and enhancement of wetland functions, and 2) the values of induced wetland or reverted wetland are likely to relate to: a) the length of time the wetland has been in existence (ecological values are generally lower in newly established wetlands), and b) whether long-term viability of the wetland relies on maintenance works to maintain suitable hydrological conditions (wetlands that don't require maintenance are of greater value), and 3) that the consent duration should be as long as the time it takes for the wetland to reach its expected end state.
The Assessment of Ecological Effects concludes that these policies cannot be met and only off-site mitigation measures can be applied such as improving the coastal wetland on the Vintage Railway terminus site across the road. The inability to meet these policies is reflected in the status of the application which is discretionary because the wetland does not meet significance criteria. The PRP’s approach to wetlands is discussed in the accompanying section 32 Report which differentiates between the treatment of significant wetlands and other wetlands through the consent status and the degree to which mitigation is required.
With respect to D.4.27(1), it is difficult to maintain the listed items as the wetland is unlikely to make a significant contribution to those functions and values in any event. Improving the coastal wetland is already committed as mitigation for effects caused by the railway proposal, but the applicant, as landowner of that site, proposes to integrate the work on that wetland with the management and treatment of the southern area of the application site around the floodgate and to explore creation of a new smaller wetland in that location. Together with translocation of the affected at risk plant and potential establishment of a propagated stock which would constitute an eco-source for use in other projects, these measures could achieve a satisfactory ecological outcome. Managing the two areas together makes sense as the application site essentially receives the water from the catchment before discharging it through the coastal wetland to the coastal marine area.
D.4.31 Managing the effects of land-disturbing activities Earthworks, vegetation clearance and cultivation must: 1) be done in accordance with established good management practices, and 2) avoid significant adverse effects, and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects on: a) human drinking water supplies, and b) areas of high recreational use, and c) aquatic receiving environments that are sensitive to sediment or phosphorus accumulation.
The use of good management practices with tailor made solutions being adopted for each individual phase of the filling operation has been described in earlier sections of this report. The proposal does not affect human drinking water or areas of high recreational use and the measures for controlling discharges of contaminants and sediment will result in no more than minor adverse effects on receiving waters.
D.5.19 Disposal of dredge spoil material Discourage the disposal of dredge spoil and other waste in the coastal marine area, unless: 1) it is for beach replenishment or ecological restoration, or 2) it is for restoration or enhancement of natural coastal defences that provide protection against coastal hazards, or
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 3) it is associated with a reclamation. The disposal of dredge spoil or other waste that is inconsistent with clauses 1 -3 above may be appropriate, if it is demonstrated that the location is the best practicable option, given the type of material to be disposed of.
Although this policy covers disposal of dredging spoil in the coastal marine area, it has been included in this analysis to reinforce the fact that land based disposal can offer another option which can be more sustainable than disposal at sea.
Summary
9.3 Although the reproduced commentary was primarily in reference to dredging material it is considered fanciful this application, which only seeks to dispose of clean fill, would undermine the policy framework. In other words would it be “ worse of ?” . As such the performance of the application is assessed as being consistent with the relevant items.
Far North District Plan
9.4 Relevant policy considerations in the Far North District Plan comprise the objectives and policies of the Coastal Environment, the Coastal Living Zone, Soils and Minerals and Transportation. All of these factors have been assessed within the umbrella of RC 2190300. As such, by reason this application is a sub set of the overall land fill operations already authorised, it is again fanciful to conclude the activity in this application would not be supported by the applicable objectives and policies.
Overall Conclusion on Policy Context
9.5 The application draws upon the determination of the underlaying approval. As noted the proposal is a component of the overall activity being undertaken on the site. That overall activity has been subject to the same policy assessment and this application does not implant any different effects not already assessed.
10.0 PART II MATTERS
General
10.1 With regard to the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991, the following considerations are of relevance to this application. Drawing from the original application in italics -
Sustainable Management [Section 5]
The purpose of the RMA as stated in section 5 of the Act is the sustainable management of natural and physical resources through managing their use, development and protection in a way that enables people and communities to provide for their social, cultural and economic well-being while sustaining those resources for future generations, protecting the life supporting capacity of ecosystems, and avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment.
The definition of natural and physical resources encompasses land, water, air, soil, minerals, energy, all plants and animals whether native or not, and structures. This cannot however mean that sustainable management of their use, development and protection is achieved for all at the same time, it is extremely difficult for example to extract minerals without disturbing vegetation or soils.
With regard to social and economic well-being, the applicant, as the trading arm and asset manager for the Far North District Council, is responsible for projects and infrastructure which not only serve the local community but also cater for visitors from other parts of New Zealand and from overseas. Consequently the contribution of those projects to the economy of both the district and the region is
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 significant. Facilitating development and maintenance projects through having a local ‘in house’ disposal site for excavated material and dredging spoil allows the applicant to undertake its projects economically and efficiently through reduced costs, ease of transportation of material and flexibility of timing while retaining management responsibilities for the disposal site. This means that use of this site as proposed contributes to sustainable management of other environmental components beyond the site boundary.
The main resource of the site is the land itself but its ability to contribute to sustainable resource management is limited in its current state. Created many years ago by impounding a coastal creek, it has been used in the past for agriculture and filling activities with some drainage and flood control measures applied. None of these have achieved any sustainable outcome, filling has not progressed to a state where development can be achieved, farming use is constrained by drainage issues and the existing wetland is of poor quality. There is an expectation from the past filling operations and the current District Plan zoning that the land will be subject to some form of development. Although the wetland is classed as ‘natural’ in the Proposed Regional Plan, to a layman it appears somewhat artificial as the original creek was ‘lost’ when the railway was built in the early 1880s and further affected by the later construction of the road. The life supporting capacity of the wetland as an ecosystem, which is the “primary responsibility” of the scheme of the RMA in relation to indigenous biodiversity3, is already at risk of being unsustainable given its low value and predominance of exotic species. If consent was not granted and the land remained in farming use the condition of the wetland area is likely to deteriorate further.
Looking at a wider environment than just the application site the applicant’s proposal represents an overall sustainable solution but in terms of the most recent changes to the planning regime, requires mitigation for the loss of a wetland area. The question then becomes what level of mitigation is sufficient.
The Ecological Assessment recommends enhancement of the coastal wetland on the opposite side of the State Highway as appropriate mitigation, but this is already required as a condition of the consent for the Vintage Railway terminus. Although not the consent holder for that consent, the applicant is the landowner of the wetland area and has assisted the Vintage Railway with their proposal. It makes sense therefore to address the mitigation measures for the loss of the wetland on this site in conjunction with the enhancement proposals for the coastal wetland as the two sites are linked and in common ownership. The assessment and management plan can consider the feasibility of translocating the at risk species Thyridia repens and the possibility of creating a smaller wetland area on the applicant’s site outside of the bunded area together with how management of both sites can be integrated. This is considered a pragmatic approach avoiding the costs and time consuming activities associated with a formal offsetting process to mitigate the loss of the existing low quality wetland.
The application gives effect to this commentary which has been reflected within the approval under RC 2190300. This commentary being required to be assessed in regard to this defined and specific land fil operation.
Matters of National Importance [Section 6]
The s.6 matters which, prima facie, appear to be of potential relevance to this application are the preservation of the natural character of the costal environment and of wetlands from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. Other items are not relevant as the site has no significant indigenous habitats, no outstanding features or values, is subject to limited coastal influences, does not provide public access to the coastline or the wetland edges, and has no cultural or heritage values. As already discussed the part of the site within the coastal environment is very small and unaffected by the development other than use of the floodgate to control flood levels in heavy rain events. The Act requires protection of the coastal environment and wetland from “inappropriate” subdivision, use and development. Given that the proposed use and development
3 Jackson J. Environment Court Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC 84 [Proposed Invercargill District Plan] Director-General of Conservation et al vs Invercargill City Council
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 engender environmental benefits in a wider environment beyond the site and the expectations that development of the site will occur, the proposal is considered appropriate and does not conflict with section 6 requirements.
Section 7 Matters
The items of relevance in this section of the Act are efficient use and development of natural and physical resources, and maintenance and enhancement of the overall quality of the environment. The discussion of sustainable management under section 5 has already addressed efficiency in the context of a wider environment than just the site and the beneficial effects achieved in that wider environment will help to compensate for any residual effects of the loss of the wetland.
Treaty of Waitangi [Section 8}
As this section is more directly relevant to the processing of the consent, during which it is anticipated Councils will seek views of iwi representatives. No cultural issues were identified in the processing of the original application.
Summary
The proposal is considered to achieve the purpose and principles of the RMA when considered in relation to the wider environment
10.2 Turning to Sections 6, 7 and 8 this application continues to give effect to these matters being the initial implementation authorised under RC 2190300.
11.0 SECTION 104 SUMMATION
11.1 As noted earlier determination of discretionary consent applications is subject to consideration under section 104 of the RMA, the matters to which council must, subject to Part 2, have regard being:
any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and (ab) any measure proposed or agreed to by the applicant for the purpose of ensuring positive effects on the environment to offset or compensate for any adverse effects on the environment that will or may result from allowing the activity; and (b) any relevant provisions of – (i) a national environmental standard: (ii) other regulations: (iii) a national policy statement: (iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement: (v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement: (vi) a plan or proposed plan; and (c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.”
11.2 The application is effectively the initial stage of implementing RC 2190300 as to allow the applicant to give effect to another resource consent approval. In seeking this initial implementation of the underlying approval the key effect falls on the access onto the State Highway. In this regard NZTA have provided their support to this application. The Assessment of Environmental Effects for this application does not raised any different or scope of effects from those which have already been assessed. Similarly the reduced nature and scale of the activity does not raise issues in regard to the applicable objectives and policies which have not otherwise been addressed.
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 11.3 Analysis of the performance of the proposal against the policy hierarchy shows good consistency with the majority of the provisions with one exception, the policies relating to wetlands in the Proposed Regional Plan. However these factors have been addressed through the NRC approvals.
11.4 With respect to item (c) the applicant requests that the previous consents be taken into account.
12.0 CONCLUSIONS
12.1 This application seeks approval to undertake filling on a site on Paihia Road [State Highway 11] south of Opua for the disposal of clean fill arising from other development projects undertaken by the applicant, Far North Holdings Limited.
12.2 This application proposes to deposit material of a defined volume over a defined period on the same basis as previously consented. The applicant continues to rely on the information provided in the previous application and asks that the material relating to the determination of those consents be taken into account.
12.3 While the activity is essentially the same elk as that for which consent was previously granted, the proposal is at a significantly reduced scale. The approach taken in this application has therefore been one of concentrating on the implications of the assessment changes while relying on the original proposal as previously submitted and approved.
12.4 Overall the proposal achieves the same degree of compliance with the relevant objectives and policies of those documents as assessed in the underlying approval.
12.5 The applicant anticipates that conditions of consent should largely follow those of the previous application with the following additions. In this regard NZTA are advised of the likely traffic implications of the proposed activity for which the applicant must receive and implement a TMP along with upgrading the existing access point to Diagram C. A set of draft conditions follows.
13.6 On the basis of the above, the application is considered to meet the requirements of section 104 of the Act and can be favourably determined.
Jeff Kemp MNZPI.
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020
Suggested Conditions of Consent
1. That subject to incorporating any changes required by the following conditions of consent, the land use shall be undertaken in general accordance with the application prepared by Bay of Islands Planning and the technical information/reports supporting the proposal, including the approved plans attached to this consent with FNDC’s ‘approved’ stamp affixed to them. In particular, the work shall be carried out generally in accordance with various reports (including extracts) and plans prepared by Northern Civil, Consulting Engineers Ltd, (Northern Civil) which have been included and/or referred to in the application for RC2190300.
2. A copy of this consent shall be provided to the contractor/s undertaking the work prior to commencement of any work/s on site. All personnel working on the site shall be made aware of and have access to at least one copy of the resource consent, associated reference documents and management plan/s for the duration of the project. This includes the sediment controls, traffic management plan and the site management plan. This condition shall apply to the various stages of development throughout the consent period and any updated information supplied throughout the consent period.
3. Prior to the site works commencing, the consent holder shall: i) Establish and mark the location of the boundary pegs and mark all property boundaries adjacent to the proposed earthworks. This condition shall apply to the various stages of development throughout the consent period. ii) Install the clean water diversion drains around the periphery of the site in accordance with the plans prepared by Northern Civil to the satisfaction of FNDC’s resource consents engineer or designate. This will require written certification from a suitably qualified and experienced engineering professional.
Note: The drains shall be checked prior to the work commencing and maintained as per the plans for the duration of work. iii) Supply FNDC’s principal planner or designate a copy of the sediment controls approved by Northland Regional Council (NRC) as per the conditions of consent relating to AUT.018351.01.02, AUT.018351.02.02, AUT.018351.03.02, AUT.018351.04.02 and AUT.018351.05 as applicable to the work being undertaken. In the instance that the approved controls are amended, the amended copy shall be forwarded to FNDC’s principal planner or designate within five working days of its approval or five working days prior to works commencing/continuing (whichever occurs first). iv) Supply FNDC’s principal planner or designate a copy of the ecological enhancement plan approved by NRC as per the conditions of consent relating to AUT.018351.01.02, AUT.018351.02.02, AUT.018351.03.02, AUT.018351.04.01 and AUT.018351.05.01 as applicable to the work being undertaken. In the instance that the approved plan is amended, the amended copy shall be forwarded to FNDC’s principal planner or designate within five working days of its approval or five working days prior to works commencing/continuing (whichever occurs first).
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 v) Provide a detailed progressive re-vegetation plan to reduce the visual impact of the proposed activity as viewed from the State highway and surrounding sites and address adverse effects upon local amenity as applicable to the work being undertaken. To be submitted for the approval of FNDC's principal planner or designate. The plan is to identify the species of plants/vegetation to be used, their numbers and locations on the site, the timeframe for implementation and the means of maintaining these plants for the following aspects: a. Road side planting consistent with NZTA’s requirements for sightline visibility, while ensuring sufficient vegetation to provide screening along the road boundary. (Refer to condition 3 viii) below.)
b. Re-vegetation of fill areas following completion of work as applicable. This shall have regard to the conditions of consent imposed by NRC relating to AUT.018351.01.02, AUT.018351.02.02, AUT.018351.03.02, AUT.018351.04.02 and AUT.018351.05. These conditions of consent require the following:
▪. All work areas of the site shall be effectively stabilised during this period to prevent erosion and sediment loss in accordance with the requirements of the condition below. ▪ All bare areas of land created by the exercise of this consent shall be effectively stabilised against erosion and sediment loss; within two months of their construction for the outside face of all earth bund areas, and by 30 June 2021. Stabilisation measures shall include top-soiling and establishing with suitable vegetation, to achieve not less than an 80% groundcover, the placement of rock aggregate, or covering with mulch or other erosion protection material. vi) Provide a copy of the traffic management plan for the activity and the construction drawings for the upgrading of the existing crossing point to a Diagram C , as approved by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). The existing access road from the State Highway shall be metalled for the first 20 metres to minimise the transfer of spoil onto the Highway. vii) Provide evidence to the satisfaction of FNDC’s resource consents engineer or designate that existing crossing point and access has been formed as per the above construction drawings. viii) Remove sufficient vegetation to the north (towards Paihia) and to the south (towards Kawakawa) of the relocated crossing to achieve sight distances of at least 185 metres and 155 metres respectively.
Note: These sightlines shall be checked prior to commencing and maintained whilst the works are in progress. ix) Prepare and submit a site management plan (SMP) for the written approval of FNDC’s principal planner or designate. It shall set out the methodologies, practices and procedures to be adopted in order to manage the operational aspects of the proposed work. No works shall be undertaken until this approval has been given in writing.
As a minimum the SMP shall include the following: (a) Restrictions upon the hours of operation to between 7.00 am and 18.00 pm Monday to Saturday, with no work to occur on Sundays or public holidays; (b) A dust management plan including dust suppression measures for the works areas and cartage;
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 (c) A wheel wash facility shall be provided on site and used to keep the highway clear of any fill material. (d) Construction methodology and timetable; (e) Environmental emergency response procedures; (f) Processes to be followed in wet weather; (g) Procedures for addressing any potential impacts on archaeological sites; (h) A vibration management plan to identify the sources of vibration and instances whereby vibration may have an adverse effect upon properties outside of the site, recommending where necessary the avoidance of equipment producing excessive or unnecessary vibration, and addressing limitations upon the hours of operation where vibration causing machinery is used.
(i) Traffic management; (j) A noise management plan. It shall require all on-site works to be undertaken in compliance with the following thresholds: ▪ Formation of the access, bunds and sediment control pond
Construction noise shall meet the limits recommended in, and shall be measured and assessed in accordance with NZS 6803P:1984 “The Measurement and Assessment of Noise from Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Work”.
▪ All other works
All activities shall be so conducted as to ensure that noise from the site shall not exceed the following noise limits at or within the boundary of any other site in this zone, or at any site zoned Residential, Russell Township or Coastal Residential, or at or within the notional boundary of any dwelling in any other rural or coastal zone: 0700 to 2200 hours 55 dBA L10 2200 to 0700 hours 45 dBA L10 and 70 dBA Lmax Noise Measurement and Assessment: Sound levels shall be measured in accordance with NZS 6801:1991 “Measurement of Sound” and assessed in accordance with NZS 6802:1991 “Assessment of Environmental Sound”. The notional boundary is defined in NZS 6802:1991 “Assessment of Environmental Sound” as a line 20 metres from any part of any dwelling, or the legal boundary where this is closer to the dwelling.
(l) A record/complaints procedure to enable contractors to respond to and record public queries/complaints in a timely and efficient manner. (m) A programme for the education and control (with respect to the environment) of employees and subcontractors to ensure that all personnel are briefed on environmental issues prior to commencing work. (n) Mitigation and contingency measures for (but not limited to) the following: i) Erosion control and construction material loss; ii) Spills (including oils, hydraulic fluids, concrete washings); iii) Occurrences of non-compliance; iv) Failure of protection works or earthworks; v) Water collection management
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020
The SMP shall be consistent with the management plan prepared by Northern Civil, dated 26 June 2007. It shall be updated throughout the course of the project to reflect changes to components of the project and the sediment controls approved by NRC.
The SMP shall be reviewed and revised as necessary prior to construction, at the commencement and at the completion of work.
No earthworks activity on the subject site shall commence/recommence until written confirmation is provided by Council that the SMP or any revisions have been approved.
4. The consent holder shall provide at least ten working days’ notice in writing to the area engineer Northland of NZTA and FNDC’s resource consent monitoring officer that the clean-fill operations are to commence. With respect to FNDC, this shall also include confirmation of the source of the material being transported to the site . If requested, the consent holder and/or contractor shall be available for a site meeting with FNDC’s resource consent monitoring officer prior to works commencing. These notifications shall be required for each stage of the operation.
5. The work shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved traffic management plan. In the instance that the approved plan is amended to the satisfaction of NZTA, the amended copy shall be forwarded to FNDC’s monitoring officer at least five working days prior to works commencing.
6. The consent holder shall undertake the activities authorised by this consent in accordance with the approved SMP.
7. The sediment control system shall be established and maintained throughout the site works in accordance with the sediment controls approved by NRC.
8. The consent holder shall construct the earth bund around the perimeter of the site from clean fill which contains sufficient clay content to provide a non-porous barrier. This shall prevent the horizontal movement of clean water into the fill and/or the movement of potentially contaminated silt laden stormwater into the adjacent stormwater drain. This shall be completed to the satisfaction of FNDC’s resource consents engineer or designate prior to fill being transported to the site. This will require written certification from a suitably qualified and experienced engineering professional.
9. The roadside planting approved under condition 3. v) a. shall be implemented by the end of the first planting season (May-August) immediately following construction of the earth bund and shall be maintained for the duration of the activity to the satisfaction of FNDC’s principal planner or designate. Written confirmation shall be provided from a suitably experienced person to FNDC’s principal planner or designate within two weeks of implementation, including advice of the maintenance requirements that shall be fulfilled by the consent holder.
10. Following the works, the fill areas shall be revegetated and maintained as per the planting approved under condition 3. v) b. to the satisfaction of FNDC’s principal planner or designate. Written confirmation shall be provided from a suitably experienced person to FNDC’s principal planner or designate within two weeks of implementation, including advice of the maintenance requirements that shall be fulfilled by the consent holder.
11. If spoil/detritus being transferred to the site is deposited onto the State highway or a local road, such that it becomes a safety hazard (as identified by either the consent
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 holder, the NZTA or FNDC), then the activity shall cease until measures are taken, as detailed in the application, to ensure that the potential hazard is rectified to the satisfaction of the NZTA or FNDC. This shall be at the expense of the consent holder.
12. Upon completion of the work, the consent holder shall: i) Provide an as-built plan showing the area, depth of fill material. ii) Provide written confirmation (PS4) from a suitably qualified chartered professional engineer that the fill material has been properly compacted and the site is suitable for future development. The confirmation shall specify the type of development applicable for the site and any specific foundation design parameters.
13. All bare areas of land created by the exercise of this consent shall be reinstated/ stabilised as per the Northland Regional Council’s conditions of consent relating to AUT.018351.01.02, AUT.018351.02.02, AUT.018351.03.02, AUT.018351.04.01 and AUT.018351.05.01. Evidence shall be made available to FNDC upon request.
14. Upon request, the consent holder shall provide evidence that the ecological enhancement plan approved by NRC has been successfully implemented and/or established as per the conditions of consent relating to AUT.018351.01.02, AUT.018351.02.02, AUT.018351.03.02, AUT.018351.04.01 and AUT.018351.05.01, as applicable to this work.
15. If any historical, cultural or archaeological material (including any artefact) of Maori origin or likely to have significance to Maori, is found or uncovered in the course of giving effect to the consent, then all activities within a minimum radius of 20 metres of the discovery shall cease immediately. The consent holder shall give written notice of the find to FNDC’s principal planner or designate within two working days, outlining the measures proposed to protect the material found. Works shall only recommence upon the consent holder receiving FNDC’s written approval to do so. (Please note, prior to issuing any written approval, FNDC will likely undertake consultation with Te Runanga o Ngati Hine and the Waikare Maori Committee, unless the consent holder has provided their written advice that the proposed protection measures are adequate. (Refer to advice note 9.)
16. Written notice shall be provided to FNDC’s principal planner or designate at least five working days prior to the removal of any erosion and sediment control works required by by this consent.
17. FNDC may, in accordance with section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, serve notice on the consent holder of its intention to review the conditions of this consent. The review may be initiated for any one or more of the following purposes:
(a) To deal with any adverse effects on the environment that may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage, or to deal with any such effects following assessment of the results of the monitoring of the consent and/or as a result of the FNDC's monitoring of the state of the environment in the area. (b) To require the adoption of the best practicable option to remove or reduce any adverse effect on the environment. (c) To provide for compliance with rules in any district plan that has been made operative since the commencement of the consent. (d) To deal with any inadequacies or inconsistencies FNDC considers there to be in the conditions of the consent, following the establishment of the activity the subject of the consent.
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020 (e) To deal with any material inaccuracies that may in future be found in the information made available with the application (notice may be served at any time for this reason). This includes, but is not limited to, noise and traffic.
The consent holder shall meet all reasonable costs of any such review.
FNHL Land Fill Opua RC 2190300 New RC Existing Access October 2020
Colenso Triangle
Access Proposal September 2020
Parua Bay Waste Transfer Station 1 22/09/2020
This document has been prepared for the benefit of Far North Holdings. No liability is accepted by this company or any employee or sub-consultant of this company with respect to its use by any other person.
This disclaimer shall apply notwithstanding that the report may be made available to other persons for an application for permission or approval to fulfil a legal requirement.
NCC - Consulting Engineers David Spoonley, CEng, CIHT, MICE, BEng (Hons) 20A Commerce Street PO Box 11045 Whangarei 0148 Phone 09 438 3345 Fax 09 438 3375 E-mail: [email protected]
© Northern Civil Consulting Engineers Limited This document is and shall remain the property of Northern Civil Consulting Engineers Limited. The document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.
Document Status
Rev Project Author Reviewer Approved for Issue No. No.
Name Signature Name Signature Date
A David Clint David September Spoonley Hanger Spoonley 2020
B
C
D
E
F
Colenso Triangle Access Proposal 1 22/09/2020
Contents
1. Proposal ...... 3 2. Site ...... 3 3. Road network ...... 5 4. Crash History ...... 5 5. Traffic generation ...... 5 6. Visibility ...... 6 6.1.1. Sight line analysis ...... 6 6.1.2. Sight Distance Conclusions ...... 7 6.1.3. Sight Distance Vector Photographs ...... 7 7. Access ...... 10 7.1. Existing access ...... 10 7.2. Proposed access ...... 10 7.3. Temporary Traffic Management ...... 11 7.4. Parking and manoeuvring ...... 11 8. Conclusions ...... 12
Colenso Triangle Access Proposal 2 22/09/2020
1. Proposal
Far North Holdings has been granted a consent to deposit up to 90,000m3 of material in a section of land in their ownership adjacent to State Highway 11, Opua; Legal Description Lot 12 DP200225 (‘The Colenso Triangle’).
The primary purpose of this consent was to deposit dredgings from the Opua Marina.
As a condition of this consent ta right turn bay was to be constructed on SH11 to facilitate this access. The condition also stated that this right turn should be constructed prior to the depositing of any material.
Far North Holdings now intend to use this land for the depositing of excess material from a number of their developments in the area. As such this material will be deposited during discrete earthworks operations with long periods of dormancy in between.
It is considered that as this is a sporadic operation that access is best gained using the existing accessway upgraded to NZTA Planning and Policy Manual (PPM) Diagram C, with access being carried out under and approved Traffic Management Plan rather than the permanent Right Turn Bay.
2. Site
The site is located off SH11 at Opua (Lot 12 DP200225), refer to Figure 1 and is owned by Far North Holdings.
The site is currently accessed by an unsealed accessway and a gate (refer to Figure 2).
Colenso Triangle Access Proposal 3 22/09/2020
State Highway 11
Lot 12 DP200225
Figure 1: Site Location
Figure 2: View of the site frontage on State Highway 11
Colenso Triangle Access Proposal 4 22/09/2020
3. Road network
The site is located adjacent to State Highway 11 with the access approximately 100m south of the intersection of State Highway 11 and Beaufort Street (refer to Figure 1).
State Highway 11 Road is an Primary Collector under the One Network Road Classification. The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) is 2048 vehicles per day (vpd), estimated by the Mobile Roads Website in December 2018.
The speed limit is 80 km/h, with an estimated speed environment of 70km/h. This speed environment was observed on site.
State Highway 11 is a two-lane road with a sealed width of approximately 7.2 m. The sealed width is separated into two 3.4m traffic lanes and two 0.1-0.3m wide sealed shoulders.
4. Crash History
NZSTA’s CAS database indicates that there have been no recorded crashes with 250m of the site access in the last 5 years 2015-2019. 5. Traffic generation
It is proposed to deposit material at this site during discrete operations, in between these operations the assess will be closed, locked and not used.
During these operations material will arrive in truck and trailer units with the number of vehicle movements estimated to be 40-60 per day.
Colenso Triangle Access Proposal 5 22/09/2020
6. Visibility
NZTA PPM Table App 5B/1 gives the requirements for visibility at accesses.
Measured visibility are as outlines in Table 3
Table 3: Access sight distances at Sate Highway 11
Access Sight distance NZTA Planning Policy Manual Vector AC Vector AD Vector BC Vector BD Minimum Sight (opposite (opposite (from (from access Distance access to access to access to to left) required right) left) right)
State Highway 11 155m(P) 185m(P) 155m(P) 185m(P) 140 m
(P) Passes NZTA PPM requirement (F) Fails NZTA PPM requirement
6.1.1. Sight line analysis The above indicates all sightlines pass the requirements of the NZTA PPM. However a further analysis has been undertaken using the Austroads standards, particularly Parts 3 and 4A. These standards prescribe three tests for an intersection, Stopping Sight Distance, Safe Intersection Sight Distance and Minimum Gap Sight Distance.
6.1.1.1. Stopping Sight Distance Austroads Part 3 (Geometric Design) defines Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) as:
‘the distance required for a normally alert driver, travelling at the design speed on a wet pavement, to perceive, react and brake before reaching a hazard on the road ahead’.
Using a design speed of 70km/h, a Reaction Time of 2.0 seconds and Coefficient of Deceleration of 0.46 the required Stopping Sight Distance is 81m.
Colenso Triangle Access Proposal 6 22/09/2020
6.1.1.2. Safe Intersection Sight Distance Austroads Part 4A (Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections) defines Safe Intersection Sight Distance as:
‘provides sufficient distance for a driver of a vehicle on the major road to obverse a vehicle on the minor road approach moving into a collision situation’.
Using a design speed of 70km/h, a Reaction Time of 2.0 seconds the required Safe Intersection Sight Distance is 151m.
6.1.1.3. Minimum Gap Sight Distance Austroads Part 4A (Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections) defines Minimum Gap Sight Distance as:
‘allows the driver of an entering vehicle to see a vehicle in the conflicting streams in order to safely commence the desired manoeuvre’
Using a design speed of 60km/h and a critical acceptance gap of 4 seconds for traffic crossing a traffic flow (i.e. turning right across a traffic flow coming from the right) the required Minimum Gap Sight Distance is 78m. For traffic joining a flow of traffic (i.e. turning left to join a traffic flow coming from the right) the critical acceptance gap is 5 seconds and gives a Minimum Gap Sight Distance of 97m.
6.1.2. Sight Distance Conclusions From the above the following may be concluded there are no issues of visibility, all criteria are met,
6.1.3. Sight Distance Vector Photographs Figures 3 to 6 overleaf show the visibility in the various vectors.
Colenso Triangle Access Proposal 7 22/09/2020
Figure 3 : Right from access 155m visibility
Figure 4 : Left from access 185m visibility
Colenso Triangle Access Proposal 8 22/09/2020
Figure 5 : Right from opposite access 155m visibility
Figure 6 : Left from opposite access 185m visibility
Colenso Triangle Access Proposal 9 22/09/2020
7. Access 7.1. Existing access The existing access is a simple farm gate constructed to no PPM standard and is unsealed. Figure 7 shows the existing access
Figure 7 : Existing access 7.2. Proposed access It is proposed to upgrade the access to NZTA PPM Diagram C standard. The width of the access will be such that and exiting vehicle will be able to pass an entering vehicle at the access. Turning radii will be 15m and the access will be sealed to the boundary. The culvert under the access will be lengthened and provided with traversable headwalls. When not in use the access will be closed off with double locked gates.
Figure 8 shows the NZTA PPM Diagram C layout.
Colenso Triangle Access Proposal 10 22/09/2020
Figure 8 : NZTA PPM Diagram C Layout 7.3. Temporary Traffic Management When being used for arisings deposition the access will be controlled under a temporary traffic management layout erected under a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) as approved by the Traffic Management Coordinator (TMC). 7.4. Parking and manoeuvring There is more than adequate manoeuvring space in the site, at no time will vehicles reverse out onto State Highway 11.
Colenso Triangle Access Proposal 11 22/09/2020
8. Conclusions
Given the change in the proposed operation of this site the provision of a right turn bay for a sporadic operation is considered unnecessary and no warranted.
It is therefore proposed to upgrade the existing access to a NZTA PPM Diagram C standard. The width of the access will be such that and exiting vehicle will be able to pass an entering vehicle at the access.
When being used for arisings deposition the access will be controlled under a temporary traffic management layout erected under a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) as approved by the Traffic Management Coordinator (TMC).
The above measures will ensure that the access can be operated in a safe and sustainable way.
Colenso Triangle Access Proposal 12 22/09/2020