appendix 1 summary of submissions and recommended...

88

Appendix 1

Summary of Submissions and Recommended Decisions

T a u r a n g a Gty

83

Summary of Submissions and Further Submissions to the

2009 Proposed Tauranga City Plan

Submitter Sect ion: Definit ions fSi

Sub ID & Point P o s n

topic: uerirr iTiorre^^ ^ • • • •

Issue: Hazardous Substance Facility [HAZSUBFAC]

Horticulture New 859.44 O Zealand & NZ Kiwifruit Growers Inc (

I Issue: Potentially Contaminated Land [POTCONTLAN]

Horticulture New Zealand & NZ Kiwifruit Growers Inc Powerco Limited

The Oil Companies (Shell NZ Ltd, BP Oil NZ Ltd, Mobil Oil NZ Ltd & Chevron NZ) : Horticulture New | Zealand & NZ Kiwifruit .Growers Inc

859.45 O

452.101

469.32

FS 1132.1 (469.32)

Sect ion: Hazardous Subst [9]

J\ \ t . \JXSl \ \S\G\

Summary

The definition of 'Hazardous Substance Facility' includes vehicles for their transport. This could include a vehicle used for agrichemical spraying, making the whole farm or orchard a hazardous substance facility.

The Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) includes orchards and market gardens and so all land that is being used for horticultural activity could be classed as potentially contaminated land.

Decision Requested Recommended Decision

Amend the definition of 'hazardous substance facility' by Reject adding "...but excludes vehicles or applicators being used to apply diluted agnchemical substance in a manner consistent with their intended use."

Powerco would support the application of rules based on Environment Bay of Plenty's contaminated land register (which is based on Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL)), but not on the generic basis of the HAIL itself. The Oil Companies would support the application of rules based on Environment Bay of Plenty's

Amend the definition of 'potentially contaminated land' to exclude horticultural land unless the land is being used for residential purposes. Delete the reference to the HAIL list from the definition of 'Potentially Contaminated Land' by deleting the last sentence of the definition.

Accept in part

Reject

Delete the reference to the HAIL list from the definition of contaminated land register (which is based on Hazardous Activities and Industhes List (HAIL)), but not 'Potentially Contaminated Land' by deleting the last on the generic basis of the HAIL itself. sentence of the definition.

As per original submission. Allow the submisison point.

Reject

Reject

Issue: Management of Hazardous Substances & Contaminated Land [MANAGEMENT]

Benton, Barry & Kay

Issue: Odour Levels [ODOURLEV]

Goldthorpe Sons Properties Limited

414.9 0

2.6

Environment Bay of Plenty has the responsibility and expertise to make these lists and they are doing it well. Their information is on Tauranga City Council's (TCC) building files and it is a waste of TCC resources to be doing it all over again.

Restrict Development in the green belt (Council Reserve at 29 Waihi Road and 21 Takitimu Drive) on the eastern side of the Judea Cutter Channel (K Valley Stream Outlet) and open spaces. Negative effects on the environment may include odour levels. Old sewage pipeline may be a risk to human health.

Let Environment Bay of Plenty deal totally with hazardous substances and contaminated land.

Amend Rule 9.4.6 by adding a new clause "(c)' "smell odour levels must be recorded."

to read

Reject

Reject

"ffifgre LIS^OUO ffiW ce? Issue: Purpose of the Hazardous Substance Provisions [9.1]

IHorticulture New 859.28 O Zealand & NZ Kiwifruit l I j Growers Inc

Issue: Rule - Permitted Activity Rules - Hazardous Substances [9.4]

The Purpose section does not clearly identify the split of functions between regional and local authorities as should be described in the Regional Policy Statement.

Clearly identify the reponsibility split between local and Accept in part regional agencies. j

[The Oil Companies '(Shell NZ Ltd, BP Oil NZ Ltd, Mobil Oil NZ Ltd & Chevron NZ)

469.5 It is not considered approphate that activities that comply with Rules 9.4.2.1(a) and 9.4.2.1(b) also be subject to compliance with the ordinary permitted activity standards, other than Rule 9.4.6 (Underground Storage Tanks). It is widely accepted, by central government and by other regional and terhtohal authorities, that the potential adverse environmental effects and hsks to the natural and physical environment, or to public health and safety, presented by service station facilities, such as that proposed, is addressed to an acceptable level by the current practices of the Oil industry. The intent of requiring compliance with the relevant Code of Practice (Rule 9.4.6) is that it covers the matters addressed in the standards in a manner appropriate to the specific activity.

Ensure that activities that comply with Rules 9.4.2.1(a) and Accept in part 9.4.2.1(b) (retail sale and storage of Petrol, Diesel and LPG) are only required to comply with Rule 9.4.6 (Underground Storage Tanks) not the other permitted activity standards under Rule 9.4.

Page 1 of 11

90

Submitter Sub ID & Point P o s n Summary Issue: Storage Use, Transportation or Disposal of Hazardous Substances [9.4.2.1]

Horticulture New Zealand & NZ Kiwifruit j Growers Inc

859.29 s 1 1

Supports Rule 9.4.2.1 provision for certain activities to be exempt from the Hazardous Facilities j Screening Procedure (HFSP)


Retain provision for Rule 9.4.2.1 to exempt certain activities Accept from the HFSP assessment. i |

Issue: Rule - Retail Sale and Storage of Petrol and Diesel [9.4.2.1 A]

The Oil Companies | (Shell NZ Ltd, BP Oil NZ Ltd, Mobil Oil NZ Ltd & Chevron NZ)

iTauranga City Council

469.3 1

492.82

0

0

The threshold requirements for petrol and diesel no longer cater for industry needs. A typical retail site might have 3 x 40,000 or 3 x 50,000 litres of gasoline tanks, giving total storage of 120,000 to 150,000 litres, and this may increase in the future to 3 x 60,000 litre tanks giving a total of 180,000 litres. Similarly, a large retail site or truckstop may have 2 x 50,000 litre diesel tanks giving 100,000 litres of diesel storage.

Amend the wording of Rule 9.4.2.1 a) to also refer to the HSNO Act, and to be consistent with the format of 9.4.2.1 b) and c)

Amend Rule 9.4.2.1(a) such that the gasoline storage threshold be increased from 100,000 litres to 200,000 litres , and the diesel threshold be increased from 50,000 litres to 120,000 litres.

Amend Rule 9.4.2.1 a) to read as follows: "a) Involves the retail sale and storage of Petrol (up to 100,000 litres), Diesel (up to 50,000 litres) and complies with: i) The Code of Practice for Design, Installation and Operation of Underground Petroleum Storage Systems: 1992, and Supplement 1 -1995) ii) The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act)"

Accept in part j

Accept 1

Issue: Rule - Retail Sale and Storage of LPG [9.4.2.1 B]

The Oil Companies (Shell NZ Ltd, BP Oil NZ Ltd, Mobil Oil NZ Ltd & Chevron NZ)

469.4 0 The LPG threshold requirements no longer cater for industry needs. It is now common to store LPG in underground tanks having a capacity up to 12 tonnes, and this should be reflected in the provisions.

Issue: Storage Use, Transportation or Disposal of Hazardous Substances [9.4.2.1011]

Horticulture New Zealand & NZ Kiwifruit Growers Inc

859.30 0 HSNO Regulations should also be listed as specific requirements relating to aghchemicals are .addressed in the regulations.

Amend Rule 9.4.2.1(b) such that LPG storage be set at 12 Accept in part tonnes when stored underground and 6 tonnes when stored 1 aboveground. , 1

Amend 9.4.2.1 c) ii) by adding "and regulations" to read Accept j "HSNO Act and regulations". |

Issue: Rule - Self Contained Electrical Equipment [9.4.2.1G]

Transpower New Zealand Limited

1 Powerco Limited

383.102

452.99

0

0

Not clear why the threshold of 1,000 litres has been adopted. Within the industry it is standard to utilise sealed or self-contained equipment containing less than 1,500 litres.

Not clear why the threshold of 1,000 litres has been adopted. Within the industry it is standard to utilise sealed or self-contained equipment containing less than 1,500 litres.

i s s u e : Spill Containment System [9.4.4]

[Transpower New Zealand Limited

Powerco Limited


383.103 0

1 452.100 0

j 859.31 i °

I

1

The occurence of leakage or spillage from sealed or self contained electrical equipment is low and it is inappropriate to require it to be bunded.

i The occurence of leakage or spillage from sealed or self contained electhcal equipment is low and it is inapprophate to require it to be bunded.

Rule 9.4.4 does not cleahy refer to approphate provisions for spill containment in NZS 8409:2004 Management of Agrichemicals as being a permitted spill containment system.

Amend Rule 9.4.2.1(g) such that it exempts, from the calculation ofthe Hazardous Facilities Screening Procedure, activities involving sealed or self-contained electncal equipment containing less than 1,500 litres of oil.

Amend Rule 9.4.2.1(g) such that it exempts, from the calculation ofthe Hazardous Facilities Screening Procedure, activities involving sealed or self-contained electrical equipment containing less than 1,500 litres of oil.

Accept ;

Accept

1

Exempt activities involving sealed or self-contained electhcal equipment containing less than 1,500 litres of oil from the requirement in Rule 9.4.4 to provide a spill containment system.

Exempt activities involving sealed or self-contained electhcal equipment containing less than 1,500 litres of oil from the requirement in Rule 9.4.4 to provide a spill containment system.

Reject

Reject

Clearly identify that spill containment systems compliant with Accept in part 1 the relevant provisions of NZS 8409:2004 Management of | Agrichemicals are permitted activities. 1 \

pssue: Rule - Underground Storage Tanks [9.4.6]

Page 2 of 11

91

S u b m i t t e r Sub ID & Point P o s n I S u m m a r y 1 D e c i s i o n R e q u e s t e d R e c o m m e n d e d D e c i s i o n The Oil Companies , (Shell NZ Ltd, BP Oil NZ Ltd, Mobil Oil NZ Ltd & Chevron NZ)

469.1 0 1

Issue: Waste Management of Hazardous Substances [9.4.8


859.32 0

The Plan fails to make provision, as a permitted activity, for the maintenance, removal and \ replacement of Underground Petroleum Storage Systems (UPSS). As part of their normal ongoing activities, the Oil Companies are required to maintain, remove and replace their UPSS from time to time. The Oil Companies each have nationally standardised procedures, which are very similar.

] ! Rule 9.4.8 does not cleahy refer to the approphate provisions for disposal of aghchemicals in NZS 8409:2004 Management of Agrichemicals as being a permitted and appropriate agrichemical disposal method.

1 Issue: Rule - Waste Management of Hazardous Substances [9.4.BBH]


469.7 s Support leaving the control of discharges to Environment Bay of Plenty (Rule 9.4.8(b)(il)).

nclude in Chapter 9 of the Plan and not subject to any other Rules in that Chapter, a specific rule permitting UPSS j removal as follows (or to the same effect): "The removal of underground petroleum storage systems and associated mpacted soil is a permitted activity subject to: i) The area of j works shall not exceed 250m2 and no more than 30m3 of associated impacted soil in aggregate per tank shall be removed. The Rules in Section 4.3 of the plan (earthworks) shall not apply, unless the site is in a Plan Area; ii) Removed soil shall be disposed of at a facility consented to receive j such waste; iii) Work shall be completed in accordance with an Environmental Management Plan submitted to Council one week phor to the commencement of the works and to show how compliance is achieved with the permitted activity standards for noise and lighting; iv) Associated temporary i health and safety signage shall be removed from the site following the completion of operations, and the Rules in Section 4.4 of the plan (signage) shall not apply; v) The ground shall be reinstated to a standard and state consistent

Clearly identify that disposal of aghchemicals compliant with the relevant provisions of NZS 8409:2004 Management of Agrichemicals are permitted activities.

Retain Rule 9.4.8(b)(ii)

Accept 1

Accept 1

Accept 1

Issue: Separation from Water Resources [9.4.9] '


859.33 o If a storage facility is bunded then a setback provision should not be required. The 30 metre setback is not effects based. Uncertainty as to how the rule will be applied to known groundwater resources.

ijssue: Rule - Restricted Discretionary Activities - Matters of Discretion & Conditions [9.5.2]

Ford Land Holdings Pty [Limited

Te Tumu Landowners Group

TeTumu Kaituna 14 j Trust

JTeTumu Kaituna 11B2 Trust

1 TeTumu Kaituna 7B2 Trust

Amend Rule 9.4.9 - to read " All storage facililties containing hazardous substances should be bunded or setback..." - Amend the setback distances to 20 metres -Delete "or point of access to known aquifers."

Reject j

1 1

519.130 0 The general nature of Objectives and Policies and other general items do not represent a specific Amend 9.5.2 Resthcted Discretionary Activity - Matters of Reject 1 1 matterof discretion or provide approphate guidance as to Council's requirements. Discretion and Conditions, by deleting a)-e) and replacing . 1 ! them with chteha that clearly indicate the matters that 1

Council will resthct its discretion to. | |

520.150 0

521.126

522.90

1073.82

0

0

1 0

The general nature of Objectives and Policies and other general Items do not represent a specific Amend 9.5.2 Restricted Discretionary Activity - Matters of matter of discretion or provide appropriate guidance as to Council's requirements. Discretion and Conditions, by deleting a) - e) and replacing

1 them with criteria that cleariy indicate the matters that ' Council will resthct its discretion to.

The general nature of Objectives and Policies and other general items do not represent a specific Amend 9.5.2 Restricted Discretionary Activity - Matters of matter of discretion or provide appropriate guidance as to Council's requirements. Discretion and Conditions, by deleting a) - e) and replacing

them with criteha that cleahy indicate the matters that Council will restrict its discretion to.

Reject

i Reject

i iThe general nature of Objectives and Policies and other general items do not represent a specific Amend 9.5.2 Restricted Discretionary Activity - Matters of Reject j matter of discretion or provide approphate guidance as to Council's requirements. Discretion and Conditions, by deleting a) - e) and replacing

them with criteria that cleariy indicate the matters that 1 Council will restrict its discretion to. j

f he general nature of Objectives and Policies and other general items do not represent a specific Amend 9.5.2 Restricted Discretionary Activity - Matters of matter of discretion or provide appropriate guidance as to Council's requirements. Discretion and Conditions, by deleting a) - e) and replacing

j them with criteria that clearly indicate the matters that 1 _Council will restrict its discretion to.

Reject

Page 3 of 11

92

Submitter Sub ID & Point Posn Summary issue: Rule - Non-Notification [9.5.2.1]

Property Council of New 1 Zealand (Bay of Plenty Branch) ]

St Michaels Limited ]

Carmichael, AJ & PG | Family Trust

1 1

491.195 0 1

i 710.64 0

712.27 0 I

Unless there are specific circumstances applications for resource consent should be dealt with on a non-notified basis. j

Oppose Rule 9.5.2.1 unless there are special circumstances which apply under the Resource Management Act 1991 to trigger public notification. Consider that applications for resource consent i should be dealt with non notified and without the need for written approvals. i

i i Oppose Rule 9.5.2.1 unless there are special circumstances which apply underthe Resource Management Act 1991 to trigger public notification. Consider that applications for resource consent should be dealt with non notified and without the need for written approvals. j

Issue: Appendix 9 0 - i5omestic Scale Quantity Based Hazardous Substances Table [APPEND90]

Tauranga City Council 492.83 0 Reduce permitted quantity for Sodium Hypochlorite to be consistent with other substance quantities in Appendix 9C


Delete subsections (a) and (b) of Rule 9.5.2.1. Reject 1

Amend Rule 9.5.2.1 by deleting clauses "a)" and "b)". Reject

1 Amend rule 9.5.2.1 by deleting clauses "a)" and "b)" Reject 1

i 1

Amend Appendix 9C by reducing quantity in Domestic Scale Accept 1 Trigger Level column for Sodium Hypochlorite from 200 | litres to 150 litres 1 |

^ s u e : Hazardous Facilities Screening Procedures [HFSP]

Benton, Barry & Kay

Property Council of New •Zealand (Bay of Plenty Branch) Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited

414.644 0

491.194 S

1 644.1 0

Horticulture New FS 1132.12 S Zealand & NZ Kiwifruit . (644.1) Growers Inc St Michaels Limited 710.63 S

Oppose the proposed use and application of the Hazardous Facility Screening Procedure (HFSP) to Amend Chapter 9 wording to ensure that land use consents land use consents for existing uses, including the addition, alteration or modification of existing uses, associated with existing uses do not thgger a requirement sites and activities. for assessment of existing uses under the HFSP provisions

j of the Proposed Plan.

The Hazardous Facilities Screening Procedure and associated rules are supported.

Reject j

Retain the Hazardous Facilities Screening Procedure rules. Accept 1

Oppose the proposed use and application of the Hazardous Facility Screening Procedure (HFSP) to 'Amend the wording of Chapter 9 of the Proposed Plan to Reject j land use consents for existing uses, including the addition, alteration or modification of existing uses, ensure that land use consents associated with existing uses sites and activities. do not trigger a requirement for assessment of existing uses

under the HFSP provisions of the Proposed Plan. |

For the reasons given by the submitter. j Allow the submission point. Reject 1

The Hazardous substances rules are based on the Hazardous Facility Screening Procedure (HFSP) Retain the Hazardous Substance rules. Hazardous Facility Accept and effects ratio and are supported. Screening Procedure (HFSP) and effects ratio provisions.

Issue: LPG Domestic - Domestic Use and Storage [LPGDOMUS]

i LPG Association 180.1 U Seeks that the Council consider altering its Plan to provide for the domestic use and storage of up to 600 litres (300 kg) of LPG as a permitted activity. For the storage and use of quantities of more than 200 litres (100 kg) of LPG on site, a Location Test Certificate , in accordance with the HSNO Act 1996, would still be required.

pssue: LPG HFSP - Hazardous Facilities Screening Procedure Requirements [LPGHFSP]

jLPG Association 180.2 0 For clahty and ease of use, LPG storage ought to be excluded from HFSP provisions in a District Plan and simple quantity guide be used. HFSP is an ineffective method for assessing permitted quantities of LPG because its properties are quite different to other hazardous substances.

Issue: Manufacture of Hazardous Substances [MANUHAZSUB]

Tauranga City Council 492.84 0 The term manufacture only appears in policy, and should also be used where use, storage, transportation ... of hazardous substances appears in the Plan.

Issue: Regulatory Responsibilities [REGRESPON]

Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited

644.2 0 It appears possible that the proposed use and application of the Hazardous Facilities Screening Procedure (HFSP) may create duplication in regulatory controls between the functions of the City Council and Regional Council.

tissue: Table 9.SB - Activities Exempt from Undertaking a HFSP Assessment [TABLE9.3B]

Permit 'as of right' 600 litres (300 kg) of LPG for domestic use and storage in residential and rural zones or in residential dwellings in any other zone.

Exclude LPG storage from HFSP provisions in a District Plan and use a simple quantity guide.

Include the term 'manufacture' in Chapter 9 where rules make reference to the 'use, storage, transportation'... etc 'of hazardous substances.'

Clarify within the Proposed Plan the responsibilities of both Territohal and Regional Councils with respect to land use controls associated with hazardous substance management following the application of the HFSP.

1

Accept 1

Accept in part

1

i

Accept j

Accept in part

Page 4 of 11

Submitter |Sub ID & Point Posn! Summary Decision Requested Recommended Decision The Oil Companies (Shell NZ Ltd, BP Oil NZ Ltd, Mobil Oil NZ Ltd & Chevron NZ)


469.2 S

469.6 S

Supports the provision in Table 9.3B (Activities exempt in all Plan Zones from undertaking an HFSP Retain the exemption in Table 9.3B for the retail sale and Assessment to Determine Consent Status) as a permitted activity for the retail sale and storage of storage of petrol, diesel and LPG from undertaking a HFSP petrol, diesel and LPG, pursuant to Rule 9.4.2.1. assessment pursuant to Rule 9.4.2.1.

Supports the provision, in Table 9.3B (Activities Exempt in all Plan Zones from undertaking an HFSP Assessment to Determine Consent Status) as a permitted activity for the storage, use, transportation or disposal of hazardous substances in the Port Operational Area of the Port Industry Zone.

Retain without modification the provision as a permitted activity, in Table 9.3B (Activities Exempt in all Plan Zones from undertaking an HFSP Assessment to Determine Consent Status) for the storage, use, transportation or disposal of hazardous substances in the Port Operational Area of the Port Industry Zone.

Accept 1

Accept

1

Contaminated S H H H H H H H H Land '''""™'™"™ ' ' "' ""'" """ " ' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ H ^ B ^ l ^ ^ B H ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ H ^ B Issue: 195 Maungatapu Road - Inclusion of Site TGA Benton, Barry & Kay

Benton, Jason

Issue: 40C Maleme Street - Inclusio John Meldrum

414.1

498.54

n of Site TGA 2? 20.1

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 115 on Selected Land Use Register [195MAUNGAT] 0

0

195 Maungatapu Road is a Service Station so it is reasonable to be listed on the hazardous Property use list. A tank pull report shows readings are safe to be used for residential so the property should not be listed as contaminated. This site is a service station so would be reasonable to include on the list of hazardous sites. A report shows that the site is safe to be used for residential purposes and so the site should be removed from the list of contaminated properties.

)3 on Selected Land Use Register [40OMALEME] 0 Object to the inclusion of 40C Maleme Street (TGA 293) on the Selected Land-Use Register without

any evidence being advanced that the land is "contaminated land" or has an activity on it which has the "potential" to cause contamination.

issue: Purpose of Contaminated Land Provisions [9.7] Ford Land Holdings Pty Limited


TeTumu Kaituna 14 Trust

i 'Te Tumu Kaituna 11B2 Trust

iSt Michaels Limited

Carmichael, AJ & PG Family Trust Horticulture New Zealand & NZ Kiwifruit Growers Inc Te Tumu Kaituna 7B2 Trust

I

519.131

520.151

521.127

522.91

0

0

0

0

710.66 0

712.3 0

859.34 O

There is inadequate justification in the Section 32 Analysis for these requirements. There Is significant duplication with the Regional Council requirements, and how this is to be managed has not been addressed in the Plan. There is inadequate justification in the Section 32 Analysis for these requirements. There is significant duplication with the Regional Council requirements, and how this is to be managed has not been addressed in the Plan. There is inadequate justification in the Section 32 Analysis for these requirements. There is significant duplication with the Regional Council requirements, and how this is to be managed has not been .addressed in the Plan. Ithere is inadequate justification in the Section 32 Analysis for these requirements. There is significant duplication with the Regional Council requirements, and how this is to be managed has not been addressed in the Plan. Oppose as Section 32 analysis is inadequate, and unreasonable onus on landowner to provide histohcal use information and to prove that contamination hazard does not exist.

1 Oppose as Section 32 analysis is inadequate, and unreasonable onus on landowner to provide historical use information and to prove that contamination hazard does not exist. The purpose section (9.7) does not clearly identify the split of functions between regional and local authorities as should be described in the Regional Policy Statement.

1073.83 0 There is inadequate justification in the Section 32 Analysis for these requirements. There is significant 1 1 duplication with the Regional Council requirements, and how this is to be managed has not been

addressed in the Plan.

Issue: Objectives & Policies - Contaminated Land [9.8] Ford Land Holdings Pty 519.132 Limited Te Tumu Landowners 520.152 Group 1 TeTumu Kaituna 14 Trust TeTumu Kaituna 11B2 Trust

521.128

522.92

0 iThere is significant duplication with the Regional Council requirements, and how this is to be managed has not been addressed in the Plan.

Remove 195 Maungatapu Road (Site TGA 115) from the list Reject | of contaminated properties.

..„ „ ...̂ _ i Remove this site from the list of contaminated land. Reject 1

Remove site 40C Maleme Street (TGA 293) from the Selected Land Use Register.

Reject

Prepare a new Section 32 Report addressing the issues Accept in Part raised and redraft section 9.7 i i

Prepare a new Section 32 Report addressing the issues Accept in Part raised and redraft section 9.7 i

Prepare a new Section 32 Report addressing the issues Accept in Part raised and redraft section 9.7 i

Prepare a new Section 32 Report addressing the issues Accept in Part raised and redraft section 9.7 , i

Delete the provisions of Rule 9.7 and deal with Reject contaminated land under the Regional Water and Land Plan. 1 Delete Rule 9.7 provisions in their entirety. Reject

Cleariy identify the responsibility split between local and regional agencies.

Accept j

Prepare a new Section 32 Report addressing the issues Accept in part 1 raised and redraft section 9.7 j

Prepare a new Section 32 Report addressing the issues Accept in part 1 raised and redraft section 9.8. |

0 There is significant duplication with the Regional Council requirements, and how this is to be managed Prepare a new Section 32 Report addressing the issues lAccept in part 1 i has not been addressed in the Plan. raised and redraft section 9.8. | j

0

0

There is significant duplication with the Regional Council requirements, and how this is to be managed Prepare a new Section 32 Report addressing the issues Accept in part i has not been addressed in the Plan. raised and redraft section 9.8. | j

There is significant duplication with the Regional Council requirements, and how this is to be managed Prepare a new Section 32 Report addressing the issues Accept in part has not been addressed in the Plan. raised and redraft section 9.8. ; |

Page 5 of l i

S u b m i t t e r | Sub ID & P o i n t ' P o s n [ St Michaels Limited |

Carmichael, AJ & PG j Family Trust I

710.67 O j

712.31 0 T i j

1 Summary (Decision Requested Recommended Decision !Oppose as Section 32 analysis is inadequate, and unreasonable onus on landowner to provide -Delete the provisions of Rule 9.8 and deal with Reject 1 histohcal use information and to prove that contamination hazard does not exist. contaminated land under the Regional Water and Land i i

Plan. ! 1 Oppose as Section 32 analysis is inadequate, and unreasonable onus on landowner to provide 'Delete Rule 9.8 provisions in their entirety. Reject 1 historical use information and to prove that contamination hazard does not exist. ; |

Te Tumu Kaituna 7B2 j 1073.84 0 1 There is significant duplication with the Regional Council requirements, and how this is to be managed Prepare a new Section 32 Report addressing the issues Accept in part 1 Trust ' ! has not been addressed in the Plan. raised and redraft section 9.8. |

Issue: Objective - Managing Risks of Potentially Contaminated Land [9.8.1.1] Powerco Limited

IFord Land Holdings Pty Limited TeTumu Kaituna 14 Trust Te Tumu Kaituna 11B2 Trust Te Tumu Landowners Group The Oil Companies (Shell NZ Ltd, BP Oil NZ Ltd, Mobil Oil NZ Ltd & Chevron NZ)

452.103

FS 1190.131 (452.103)

FS 1191.131 (452.103)

FS 1192.131 (452.103)

FS 1193.129 (452.103)

469.16

Horticulture New FS 1132.6 Zealand & NZ Kiwifruit (469.16) Growers Inc Horticulture New Zealand & NZ Kiwifruit Growers Inc

859.35

0 j

S

S

S

Objective 9.8.1.1 should refer to testing and investigation being undertaken at the time of land use Amend Objective 9.8.1.1 to refer to testing and investigation change, and not simply in association with a general requirement for resource consent. being undertaken at the time of land use change, and not

simply in association with a general requirement for resource consent. This could be achieved by revising the objective to read as follows: "9.8.1.1 Objective - Managing Risks of Potentially Contaminated Land Significant hsks to human health and the environment posed by potentially

[contaminated land are identified and addressed where land use change is proposed and as part of the subdivision or development process."

Reject

Reference should refer to a change in land use not simply any subdivision or development. > Allow the submission point. Reject 1

Reference should refer to a change in land use not simply any subdivision or development. Allow the submission point. Reject

Reference should refer to a change in land use not simply any subdivision or development. ; Allow the submission point. Reject 1

S Supports the submission pointon the grounds that Objective 9.8.1.1 should refer to a change in land Allow the submission point. Reject 1 ; use not simply any subdivision or development |

0

S

o

Objective 9.8.1.1 should be amended to refer to testing and Investigation being undertaken at the time of land use change, not simply in association with a general requirement for resource consent.

j This objective should be clarified to focus on where there is a change in land use presenting a risk of i contamination.

1 The term "development" is not cleariy defined and may capture rural production activities inapprophately

Amend Objective 9.8.1.1 to refer to testing and investigation being undertaken at the time of land use change, and not simply in association with a general requirement for resource consent. This could be achieved by revising the objective to read as follows: "9.8.1.1 Objective - Managing Risks of Potentially Contaminated Land Significant hsks to human health and the environment posed by potentially contaminated land are identified and addressed where land use change is proposed and as part of the subdivision or development process."

Allow the submisison point.

Delete the term "development" from Objective 9.8.1.1 and make consequential amendments through Chapter 9, with the purpose of providing a more appropnate and effects based assessment and risk containment procedure for primary production land activities, OR, define "development" and provide an exemption for phmary production activities within the definition.

Reject

Reject 1

Accept in part

yssue: Policy - Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Land [9.8.1.1.1] ^ ^

Page 6 of 11

95

Submitter Powerco Limited

Sub ID & Point Posn ~ 452.104" " b

Summary Policy 9.8.1.1.1 should be amended to referto testing and investigation being undertaken at the time of land use change, not simply in association with a general requirement for a resource consent.

Decision Requested Amend Policy 9.8.1.1.1 to refer to testing and investigation being undertaken at the time of land use change, and not simply in association with a general requirement for a resource consent. This could be achieved by revising the policy to read as follows: "9.8.1.1.1 Policy- Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Land By requiring subdivision and/or development sites that have a history of land use that could have resulted in contamination of the soil to undertake soil testing to confirm, when land use change is proposed, whether that land is fit for the new purpose for which the land is proposed to be used."

Recommended Decision Reject

Ford Land Holdings Pty Limited _ TeTumu Kaituna 14 i

Trust feTunnu Kaituna i l B Y Trust Te Tumu Landowners Group The Oil Companies (Shell NZ Ltd, BP Oil NZ Ltd, Mobil Oil NZ Ltd & Chevron NZ)

FS 1190.132 (452.104)

FS 1191.132 (452.104)

FS 1192.132 (452.104)

FS 1193.130 (452.104)

469.17

S

S

"s~

S

o

Reference should refer to a change in land use not simply any subdivision or development.

Reference should refer to a change in land use not simply any subdivision or development.

Allow the submission point.


Reject

Reject

Reference should refer to a change in land use not simply any subdivision or development. Allow the submission point , Reject

Supports the submission point on the grounds that Policy 9.8.1.1.1 should refer to a change in land Allow the submission point. use not simply any subdivision or development. Policy 9.8.1.1.1 should be amended to refer to testing and investigation being undertaken at the time of land use change, not simply in association with a general requirement for resource consent.

Amend Policy 9.8.1.1.1 to refer to testing and investigation being undertaken at the time of land use change, and not simply in association with a general requirement for

I resource consent. This could be achieved by revising the policy to read as follows: "9.8.1.1.1 Policy- Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Land By requiring subdivision and/or development sites that have a history of land use that could have resulted in contamination of the soil to undertake soil testing to confirm, when land use change is proposed, whether that land is fit for the new purpose for which the land is proposed to be used."

Reject

Reject

Horticulture New FS 1132.7 Zealand & NZ Kiwifruit (469.17) Growers Inc Issue: Objective - Managing Risks for Contaminated Land [9.8.1.2] Horticulture New 859.36 O Zealand & NZ Kiwifruit Growers Inc

The focus should be on where there is a land use change presenting a risk of contamination.

The term "redevelopment" is not clearly defined and may capture rural production activities inappropriately

Allow the submission point. Reject

Delete the term "redevelopment" from Objective 9.8.1.2 and Accept in Part smake consequential amendments through Chapter 9, with the purpose of providing a more appropriate and effects based assessment and risk containment procedure for

iphmary production land activities, OR, define :"redevelopment" and provide an exemption for primary 'production activities within the definition.

issue: General Provisions for Subdivision & All Land-use Consents [9.9] Ford Land Holdings Pty Limited


519,133 O

TeTumu Kaituna 14 Trust

520.153

521.129

There is significant duplication with the Regional Council requirements, and how this is to be managed has not been addressed in the Plan. There is no clahty, certainty or criteria as to how it will be determined whether a site comes under the provisions of Section 9.9 and to what scale of subdivision and development they will apply. There is significant duplication with the Regional Council requirements, and how this is to be managed has not been addressed in the Plan. There is no clarity, certainty or critena as to how it will be determined whether a site comes under the provisions of Section 9.9 and to what scale of subdivision land development they will apply. there is significant duplication with the Regional Council requirements, and how this is to be managed has not been addressed in the Plan. There is no clarity, certainty or criteria as to how it will be determined whether a site comes under the provisions of Section 9.9 and to what scale of subdivision and development they will apply.

Prepare a new Section 32 Report addressing the issues Accept in part raised and redraft section 9.9 of Chapter 9 accordingly.

Prepare a new Section 32 Report addressing the issues raised and redraft section 9.9 of Chapter 9 accordingly.

Prepare a new Section 32 Report addressing the issues raised and redraft section 9.9 of Chapter 9 accordingly.

Accept in part

Accept in part

Page 7 of 11

96

^ u b m i t t e r _ Te Tumu Kaituna 11B2 Trust

Sub ID & Point Posn " 522.93 O

St Michaels Limited

Carmichael, AJ & PG Family Trust

710.68

712.32

Horticulture New Zealand & NZ Kiwifruit Growers Inc Te Tumu Kaituna 7B2 Trust

859.37

O

O

O

Summary There is significant duplication with the Regional Council requirements, and how this is to be managed has not been addressed in the Plan. There is no clarity, certainty or criteria as to how it will be determined whether a site comes under the provisions of Section 9.9 and to what scale of subdivision and development they will apply. Oppose as Section 32 analysis is inadequate, and unreasonable onus on landowner to provide historical use information and to prove that contamination hazard does not exist.

Oppose as Section 32 analysis is inadequate, and unreasonable onus on landowner to provide historical use information and to prove that contamination hazard does not exist. The provisions of 9.9 should not apply to Land use consents required for primary production activities and an exemption should be provided within the Rule.

Decision Requested _ Prepare a new Section 32 Report addressing the issues raised and redraft section 9.9 of Chapter 9 accordingly.

Recom mended Decision Accept in part

Delete the provisions of Rule 9.9 and deal with contaminated land under the Regional Water and Land Plan.

Reject

Delete Rule 9.9 provisions in their entirety. Reject

Amend 9.9.1 to specifically exclude primary production Accept in part activities.

1073.85 There Is significant duplication with the Regional Council requirements, and how this is to be managed Prepare a new Section 32 Report addressing the issues has not been addressed in the Plan. There is no clarity, certainty or criteria as to how it will be raised and redraft section 9.9 of Chapter 9 accordingly, determined whether a site comes under the provisions of Section 9.9 and to what scale of subdivision and development they will apply.

Accept in part

Issue: Rule - Applicability to Subdivision and Land Use [9.9.1] Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited

644.4 O Oppose the proposed application of the contaminated land provisions of the Proposed Plan to all future land use consents as stated in Chapter 9.9 - including additions, alterations or modifications of existing sites/ activities. As currently proposed, land use consent requirements (including those for additions, alterations or modifications of existing sites/ activities) as a contaminated, or potentially contaminated site, would require measures of remediation, containment, or disposal of any contaminated soil as conditions of territorial authohty consent that are considered appropriate for an existing use activity.

Amend the wording of Chapter 9 of the Proposed Plan to Accept in part ensure that remediation, containment, or disposal measures associated with contaminated soil are not applied to all future land use consents, so as to avoid the inclusion of existing uses sites and activities.

Horticulture New FS 1132.8 S Zealand & NZ Kiwifruit (644.4) Growers Inc

Issue: Rule - Specific Requirements for Subdivision and Use of Powerco Limited 452.105 O

Primary production activities should be excluded from 9.9.1. Allow the submission point. Accept in part

Powerco Limited


452.108 O

FS 1129.2 (452.108)

Potentially Contaminated Land [9.9.2] It is unreasonable to require all sites where the known historical use of the site could have resulted in contamination to be investigated in accordance with Rule 9.9.2. As a general phnciple, the Oil Companies support this type of Rule pertaining to land use change. It is not appropriate for this type of Rule to be triggered, however, by minor or maintenance type activities that do not effectively change the use of the site.

At present, the general provisions for subdivision and all land-use consents require that the known historical use of a site be reported on and , where there is potentially contaminated land, that soil testing be undertaken to confirm that the land is fit for increased exposure to humans and the environment. This assumes that there will be increased exposure as a result of subdivision or land development. In some cases, for example where land is already sealed or capped, there may not be an increased hsk, for example where the contaminants are not being disturbed and/or where the intensity of the use is not increasing. In such cases the requirement for soil testing (and possible remediation) is extremely onerous, to the point of being unreasonable, and is not cleahy linked to risk, or degree of effect.

Amend Rule 9.9.2 to require an investigation of potentially Accept in part contaminated land only where the primary land use is changing and where the important criteria for assessment is whether or not the land is suited to the proposed (new) use. •

Do not require soil testing where there is unlikely to be an increased risk of contaminated land exposure to humans and the environment through subdivision or land development.

Accept in part

Supports not having soil testing carried out on potentially contaminated land, where there is unlikely to Allow the submission point, be an increased hsk of exposure to humans and the environment through subdivision or land development Tauranga City Council should further consider the recently proposed National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil, with regard to addressing Chapter 9 of the Proposed City Plan.

•Ford Land Holdings Pty Limited TeTumu Kaituna 14 Trust TeTumu Kaituna 11B2 Trust Te Tumu Landowners Group

FS 1190.133 (452.105)

FS 1191.133 (452.105)

FS 1192.133 (452.105)

FS 1193.131 (452.105)

S

S

S

S i

The requirement for investigation should be limited to a change in land use not simply any subdivision Allow the submission point. or development. The requirement for investigation should be limited to a change in land use not simply any subdivision Allow the submission point. or development. The requirement for investigation should be fimited to a change in land use not simply any subdivision Allow the submission point. or development.

j Supports the submission point on the grounds that in Rule 9.9.2 the requirement for investigation should be limited to a change in land use not simply any subdivision or development.

Accept in part

Accept in part

Accept in part

Support the submission point.

Accept in part

Accept in part

Page 8 of 11

97

Submitter The Oil Companies (Shell NZ Ltd, BP Oil NZ Ltd, Mobil Oil NZ Ltd & Chevron NZ)

IThe Oil Companies (Shell NZ Ltd, BP Oil NZ Ltd, Mobil Oil NZ Ltd & Chevron NZ)

Sub ID & Point 469.10

469.8

Ballance Agri-Nutrients FS 1129.1 Limited (469.10)

j

Horticulture New FS 1132.9 Zealand & NZ Kiwifruit (469.8) Growers Inc Carrus Corporation i 661.31 Limited j

Issue: Rule - Historical Use of Site j John Meldrum

Posn 0

0

s

s

o

Summary At present, the general provisions for subdivision and all land-use consents require that the known histoncal use of a site be reported on and , where there is potentially contaminated land, that soil testing be undertaken to confirm that the land is fit for increased exposure to humans and the environment. This assumes that there will be increased exposure as a result of subdivision or land development. In some cases, for example where land is already sealed or capped, there may not be an increased risk, for example where the contaminants are not being disturbed and/or where the intensity of the use is not increasing. In such cases the requirement for soil testing (and possible remediation) is extremely onerous, to the point of being unreasonable, and is not cleariy linked to risk, or degree of effect.

Decision Requested Do not require soil testing where there is unlikely to be an increased risk of contaminated land exposure to humans and the environment through subdivision or land development. !

It is unreasonable to require all sites where the known historical use of the site could have resulted in Amend Rule 9.9.2 to require an investigation of potentially contamination to be investigated in accordance with Rule 9.9.2. As a general principle, the submitter contaminated land only where the primary land use is supports this type of Rule pertaining to land use change. It is not approphate for this type of Rule to be changing and where the important chteha for assessment is triggered, however, by minor or maintenance type activities that do not effectively change the use of whether or not the land is suited to the proposed (new) use. the site.

Supports not having soil testing carried out on potentially contaminated land, where there is unlikely to be an increased risk of exposure to humans and the environment through subdivision or land development. Tauranga City Council should further consider the recently proposed National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil, with regard to addressing Chapter 9 of the Proposed City Plan.

The focus should be on where there is a change of land use presenting a risk of contamination.



The burden of proof of contamination of a site should be on the Council. The unreliability of the Delete rule 9.9.2(b). information held by TCC and the Regional Council makes 9.9.2(b) create uncertainty for a developer 1 and the potential for significant additional cost. '

Recommended Decision Accept in part ]

Accept in part [

Accept in part I

Accept in part

Reject 1

9.9.2A] 20.2 0 How can a landowner provide details "on the histohcal use of the site" when the site may have been in Council should be required to provide information on the Accept in part i

European occupation in excess of 150 years. If anybody has this historical information it will be the historical use of a site not the landowner. , 1 Council. If not, how can the landowner provide it? 1

ilssue: Rule - Cost of Soil Investigations [9.9.20] [John Meldrum

Environment Bay Of Plenty

20.3

760.33

0

SA

If Council is concerned with the historical contamination which may have occured decades before If the Council has concerns it should pay for the costs of its Reject i being owned by the present owner, why should the present owner bear the full cost of soil concerns. investigations? | [ The investigation of a potentially contaminated site is not limited to scientists. ' Instead of using the term 'suitably qualified scientist', use the Accept

term 'suitably qualified professional' or 'experienced contaminated site inspector'. i

pssue: Rule - Restricted Discretionary Resource Consent Requirement [9.9.3] [John Meldrum

[Powerco Limited


St Michaels Limited


iDNZ Property Fund Limited Property Council of New Zealand (Bay of Plenty Branch)

Ford Land Holdings Pty Limited

20.4 0

452.106 S

469.13

710.69

s

0

712.28 0

The requirement for a Restricted Discretionary resource consent is an expensive impost on the Remove the requirement to apply for a Restricted Reject landowner from which there is no practical appeal given the commercial imperatives. Discretionary resource consent. ; j As part of an approach supported by Powerco for managing contaminated sites, Restricted Retain Rule 9.9.3 which requires the use, development or Accept 1 Discretionary activity status could/ should be applied. subdivision of contaminated land to be considered a

j Restricted Discretionary Activity. j I

As part of an approach supported by the Oil Companies for managing contaminated sites, Restricted Retain Rule 9.9.3 which requires the use, development or Discretionary activity status could/ should be applied. subdivision of contaminated land to be considered as a

i Restricted Discretionary Activity.

'Accept j

Oppose the requirement for Resthcted Discretionary activity resource consent even for subdivisions Subdivision of land known to be contaminated be provided Accept in part 1 that do not propose any physical works to be undertaken. for as a Controlled Activity. [ Oppose the requirement for Restricted Discretionary activity resource consent even for subdivisions Subdivision of land known to be contaminated be provided , Accept in part that do not propose any physical works to be undertaken. for as a Controlled Activity. | |

763.37 S i i Proposed Rule 9.9.3, which provides for the development or subdivision of potentially contaminated Retain Rule 9.9.3 - Restricted Discretionary Activity Rules. Accept i land as a restricted discretionary activity, is supported. |

491.196 , 0

! FS 1190.134 S (491.196)

The provisions for subdivision require a resource consent even where physical works are not Subdivision should be provided for as a controlled activity, proposed. |

1 Rules 9.4.10 & 9.5 - Subdivision where no physical works are required should not require a Resource Allow the submission point. 1 jConsent and should be provided for as a Controlled Activity. j

Accept in part 1

1 Accept in part I

Page 9 of 11

98 Submitter Sub !D & Point Posn 1

TeTumu Kaituna 14 • FS 1191.134 S i Trust (491.196) j

Summary Decision Requested | Recommended Decision Rules 9.4.10 & 9.5 - Subdivision where no physical works are required should not require a Resource ; Allow the submission point. Accept in part Consent and should be provided for as a Controlled Activity. | 1 |

TeTumu Kaituna 1162 [ FS1192.134 S i Rules 9.4.10 & 9.5 - Subdivision where no physical works are required should not require a Resource Trust (491,196) | Consent and should be provided for as a Controlled Activity. Te Tumu Landowners Group

, St Michaels Limited j


FS 1193.132 (491.196)

710.65

712.29

1

S [

0 1

0

Supports the submission point on the grounds that subdivision where no physical works are required should not require a Resource Consent and should be provided for as a Controlled Activity.

Oppose the requirement for Restricted Discretionary activity resource consent even for subdivisions that do not propose any physical works to be undertaken. Oppose the requirement for a Restricted Discretionary activity resource consent even for subdivisions that do not propose any physical works to be undertaken.

Allow the submission point. Accept in part j

Allow the submission point Accept in part !

Subdivision of land where Hazardous Substance Rules Accept in part 1 apply be provided for as a Controlled Activity. Subdivision of land where Hazardous Substance Rules Accept in part 1 apply be provided for as a Controlled Activity.

Issue: HAIL - Hazardous Industries and Activities List [HAIL] Powerco Limited


I

452.102

469.9

IHorticulture New FS 1132.10 Zealand & NZ Kiwifruit (469.9) Growers Inc

Issue: Management Approach [MAh The Oil Companies (Shell NZ Ltd, BP Oil NZ Ltd, Mobil Oil NZ Ltd & Chevron NZ)

0

0

s

Powerco would support the application of rules based on Environment Bay of Plenty's (EBOP's) Use EBOP's contaminated land register (and not the HAIL) contaminated land register (which is based on the HAIL), but not on the generic basis of the HAIL to trigger the application of potentially contaminated land j itself. rules in both Chapter 9 and in the Earthworks rules.

Environment Bay of Plenty (EBOP) has already developed a register based on the Hazardous Use EBOP's contaminated land register (and not the HAIL) Activities and Industries List (HAIL). That distinguishes between known contaminated sites and those to trigger the application of potentially contaminated land that have had some sort of historical association with hazardous substances. The Oil Companies rules in both Chapter 9 and in the Earthworks rules, would support the application of rules based on EBOP's contaminated land register (which is based on the HAIL), but not on the generic basis of the HAIL itself.

Accept in part

Accept in part j

For the reasons given. Allow the submission point. Accept in part 1

4AGEMENT] 469.18 0 The approach to contaminated land that has been taken in the decisions version of Wellington City

Council's Plan Change 69 (as appended to the submission) is supported by the Oil Companies.

Issue: PIM and LIM Process [PIMLIMPROO] Powerco Limited


452.109

469.11

0

0

As part of an approach supported by Powerco for managing contaminated sites, the City Council should provide appropriate information on sites (off the HAIL register) through the Project Information Memorandum (PIM) and Land Information Memorandum (LIM) process. As part of an approach supported by the Oil Companies for managing contaminated sites, the City Council should provide appropriate information on sites (off the HAIL register) through the Project Information Memorandum (PIM) and Land Information Memorandum (LIM) process.

Adopt the approach to contaminated land that has been taken in the decisions version of Wellington City Council's Plan Change 69 - Contaminated Land (as appended to submission 469).

Accept in part [

The City Council should provide appropriate information on Accept in part j sites (off the HAIL register) through the PIM and LIM process. [ [ The City Council should provide appropriate Information on Accept in part 1 sites (off the HAIL register) through the PIM and LIM | process. I

Issue: Regulatory Responsibilities [REGRESPON] Powerco Limited


Benton, Jason


452.112 SA

I

469.15 SA

498.51 0

644.3 0

'Horticulture New FS 1132.11 S Zealand & NZ Kiwifruit (644.3) Growers Inc

As part of an approach supported by Powerco for managing contaminated sites, EBOP should EBOP should continue to control activities that have the continue to control activities that have the ability to remobilise contaminants on a site, for example into ability to remobilise contaminants on a site, ground water, air or surface water. As part of an approach supported by the Oil Companies for managing contaminated sites, EBOP EBOP should continue to control activities that have the should continue to control activities that have the ability to remobilise contaminants on a site, for ability to remobilise contaminants on a site, example into ground water, air or surface water.

Accept 1 I

Accept

The Regional Council have the skills and expertise to deal with contaminated land and should deal "T le t Regional Council deal with contaminated land. i Accept in part | with it completely. 1 | City Council land use consent conditions for contaminated, or potentially contaminated sites , creates inappropriate duplication in regulatory controls between the functions of the City Council and the Regional Council.

For the reasons given by the submitter.

Amend the Proposed Plan to ensure that City Council land use consent conditions for contaminated, or potentially contaminated sites , does not create inappropriate duplication in regulatory controls between the functions of the City Council and the Regional Council.


Accept in part

jAccept in part

[issue: Rapid Hazard Assessment Process [RHAP]

Page 10 of 11

fi

j jSubmitter Powerco Limited


Sub ID & Point Posn 452.110

469.12

Issue: Section 32 [SECTION32] Property Council of New , 491.197 Zealand (Bay of Plenty j Branch)

Issue: Site Management Plan [SITEMANPLA] Powerco Limited i 452.111

O

O


469.14

i Decision Requested Summary __ As part of an approach supported by Powerco for managing contaminated sites, a rapid hazard -Use a rapid hazard assessment process to target those assessment process (e.g. using relevant guidelines and/or MFE Rapid Hazard Assessment) should be sites on the database of greatest risk and to avoid

Recommended Decision Reject

used to target those sites on the database of greatest risk and avoid expensive investigation on all sites. The information base will allow the "due diligence" process to operate in terms of land use responsibilities. The requirement for a consent should only be triggered by land use change, in which case the important criteria for assessment is whether or not the land is suited to the proposed (new) use.

As part of an approach supported by the Oil Companies for managing contaminated sites, a rapid hazard assessment process (e.g. using relevant guidelines and/or MFE Rapid Hazard Assessment) should be used to target those sites on the database of greatest risk and avoid expensive investigation on all sites. The information base will allow the "due diligence" process to operate in terms of land use responsibilities. The requirement for a consent should only be triggered by land use change, in which case the important criteria for assessment is whether or not the land is suited to the proposed (new) use.

Oppose the provisions for contaminated land on the basis that the Section 32 analysis is inadequate.

expensive investigation on all sites.

Use a rapid hazard assessment process to target those sites on the database of greatest risk and to avoid expensive investigation on all sites.

Reject

Provisions are deleted in their entirety and dealt with under Reject [the Regional Water and Land Plan. |

As part of an approach supported by Powerco for managing contaminated sites, for known Introduce Site Management Plans to manage known contaminated and remediated sites (where an assessment has been undertaken and contamination contaminated and remediated sites (where an assessment confirmed) a regulatory regime is considered appropriate and the City Council and Environment Bay of has been undertaken and contamination confirmed)

Accept

Plenty should determine with the landowner on a case by case basis an appropriate programme of remediation, management and monitoring, which would be encapsulated in a site management plan.

determined with the landowner which would include an appropriate programme of remediation, management and monitohng. Any specification of an appropriate land use would be recorded and retained on a property file. Access to this information could be appropriately triggered via ;appropriate statements on PIM/LIMs.

As part of an approach supported by the Oil Companies for managing contaminated sites, for known Introduce Site Management Plans to manage known contaminated and remediated sites (where an assessment has been undertaken and contamination contaminated and remediated sites (where an assessment confirmed) a regulatory regime is considered appropriate and the City Council and Environment Bay of has been undertaken and contamination confirmed)

Accept

Plenty should determine with the landowner on a case by case basis an approphate programme of remediation, management and monitoring, which would be encapsulated in a site management plan.

determined with the landowner which would include an appropriate programme of remediation, management and monitoring. Any specification of an appropriate land use would be recorded and retained on a property file. Access to this information could be approphately triggered via appropriate statements on PIM/LIMs.

Page 11 of 11

appendix 1 summary of submissions and recommended...

Documents