hearings commissioner agenda - lu1700100 - gbc winstones · gbc winstone ltd authorisation sheet...

Hearings Commissioner

Notice of Meeting A meeting of the Hearings Commissioner will be held in Forum North, Rust Avenue, Whangarei on:

16 April 2018 10am 17 – 19 April 2018 9am

Application by GBC Winstone Ltd

Authorisation Sheet Environment Planner (Consents) Report Recommendation

Commissioners Mr David Hill

Mrs Bronwyn Bauer-Hunt

Index Page No

Authorisation Sheet ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Environment Planner (Consents) Report ...................................................................................................... 4

Recommendation ........................................................................................................................................ 34

Additional attachments provided:

Attachment 1: Copy of Application including Addendums 1 & 2 ....................................................................

Attachment 2: Submissions received .............................................................................................................

Attachment 3: Written Approvals ....................................................................................................................

Attachment 4: Statement of Evidence from Mr Mike Farrow, Littoralis Landscape Architecture Limited .......

Attachment 5: Statement of Evidence from Mr Peter Runice, SLR Consulting Limited ..................................

Attachment 6: Correspondence regarding Section 92 request for Cultural Impact Assessment……………

Attachment 7: Statement of Evidence from Ms Juliane Chetham, Chetham Consulting ................................

Attachment 8: Proposed District Plan Change 85A Rural Countryside Environment and Proposed District Plan Change 102 Minerals – Decision version of text and maps………………………………………………

Private Bag 9023 | Whangarei 0148 | New Zealand T: 09 430 4200 | 0800 WDC INFO | 0800 932 463 | F: 09 438 7632

W: www.wdc.govt.nz | E: [email protected]

06/337807 October 2010

Requirements and procedures for the conduct of hearings under the Resource Management Act

A General

1 The applicant and every person who has made a submission and stated that they wish to be heard may speak and call evidence. Alternatively they may be represented by an advocate and may call experts or witnesses to give evidence on their behalf.

2 The hearing procedure is to be as informal as possible and where appropriate recognise Tikanga Mãori. If evidence is to be given in Mãori, Council is to be advised at least one week before the hearing so that an interpreter can be arranged.

3 Any person wishing to make a statement at the hearing is requested to make it in writing and provide at least eight (8) copies for use of the commissioner. In line with environmental court practice, it is preferable if written evidence to be presented could be circulated to all parties (including the reporting planning officer) a few days before the hearing. A report on the proposal by Council’s planning staff will be forwarded as soon as it is available.

4 Irrespective of the reporting officer’s recommendation on the application, the commissioner will make his/her decision on the application, based on evidence provided at the hearing and accordingly applicants/submitters are strongly urged to attend to support their case.

B The hearing

1 The commissioner opens the hearing and will ask parties to introduce themselves and their witnesses.

2 The applicant presents his/her case including any supporting evidence from witnesses.

3 Parties making submissions in support of the application then proceed with their evidence and at the same time have the right to comment on any part of the evidence put forward by the applicant.

4 Parties making submissions against the application then proceed with their evidence and at the same time have the right to comment on any part of the evidence put forward by the applicant.

5 Council’s reporting officer(s) speak(s) on his/her report, which having been circulated, is taken as read and is available to answer questions.

6 Only the commissioner may question any of the parties to the application. No cross examination is allowed.

7 Only the applicant is given the opportunity to have a right of reply. This gives him/her the chance to clarify matters raised in submission but not to present new evidence. There is no right of reply to a Section 357 objection hearing.

8 The commissioner adjourns the hearing for a decision. The applicant and any persons who made a submission will be notified in writing of the decision no later than 15 working days after the conclusion of the hearing unless otherwise advised by Council.

Private Bag 9023 | Whangarei 0148 | New Zealand T: 09 430 4200 | 0800 WDC INFO | 0800 932 463 | F: 09 438 7632

W: www.wdc.govt.nz | E: [email protected]

Report to Hearing Commissioners on a Resource Consent Application by GBC Winstone

This land use consent application was lodged by Boffa Miskell Limited on behalf of GBC Winstone, a Division of Fletcher Concrete and Infrastructure Limited, and was reported on by Consultant Planner, Alister Hartstone.

The proposal is to place overburden from the Otaika Quarry onto an adjoining property known as the ‘Pegram Block’ legally described as Lot 2 DP 53728 and Lot 2 DP 363982. The activity will involve the placement of 2.4 million m3 of overburden material consisting of two phases:

1. Enabling works, being preparatory / construction works required to be undertaken prior to thesuccessive overburden campaigns, resulting in approximately 400,000m 3 of earthworks

2. General works, which involves the placement of overburden over a series of campaign. Eachcampaign will involve approximately 300,000m3 of overburden being placed on the site overa period of 6 – 8 months. Each campaign is intended to take place every 3 – 5 years over a35 year period.

It is noted that the applicant has sought and obtained the necessary resource consents from the Northland Regional Council for the proposed activity.

The Whangarei District Council file reference is LU1700100.

This report has been prepared in accordance with Section 42A Reports to Local Authority under the Resource Management Act 1991. In accordance with Section 42A(1A) and (1B), the report is prepared on the basis that it does not repeat information included in the application. Where any information in the application is accepted and adopted under Section 42A(1b)(a) or (b), this will be stated in the report.

Hearing Commissioners Mr David Hill and Ms Bronwyn Bauer-Hunt have been appointed to hear the application. Mr David Hill has been appointed from the Council’s existing appointed pool of Hearing Commissioners. Ms Bronwyn Bauer-Hunt has been appointed specifically to hear this application and her appointment was confirmed by Council resolution of 17th August 2017.

20th March 2018

Alister Hartstone, Consultant Planner Date

This report was peer reviewed by the following signatory:

20th March 2018

Murray McDonald, Manager RMA Consents Date

1

1 S42a report – GBC Winstone – LU1700100 P084242

Statement of staff qualification and experience

Alister Hartstone – Reporting Planner

I am a director of Set Consulting Limited, a company established in early 2016 that provides planning consultancy services to both local government and private clients. I hold a Bachelor of Regional and Environmental Planning with Honours from Massey University. I am a Full Member of the New Zealand Planning Institute.

I have previously worked in local government across Manawatu and Northland, commencing in 1995. During that time, I have dealt with a wide range of planning-related matters. I was a Planner and Section Planner with Far North District Council and became the Resource Consents Manager at Whangarei District Council from 2005 – 2016. I have managed a multi-disciplinary team overseeing the processing of all planning-related applications, as well as being involved in development and review of plan changes, presenting evidence at Environment Court hearings, development contribution policy development and implementation, and strategic projects across the council and community. In addition, I have been involved in several national working groups run by Local Government New Zealand and Ministry for the Environment.

I confirm that I am familiar with the Whangarei District, having lived and worked in Whangarei since 2004. I confirm that the evidence on planning matters that I present is within my areas of expertise and I am not aware of any material facts which might alter or detract from the opinions I express. I have read and agree to comply with the Code of Conduct for expert witnesses as set out in the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note 2014. The opinions expressed in this evidence, are based on my qualifications and experience, and are within my area of expertise. If I rely on the evidence or opinions of another, my evidence will acknowledge that.

Mike Farrow – Landscape Architect

I am a Registered Landscape Architect with 28 years’ experience and hold Diplomas in Horticulture and Landscape Technology, a Bachelor of Science, and a Postgraduate Diploma of Landscape Architecture. My experience includes the preparation of a number of District and Regional-scale landscape assessment studies; most during the early to mid-1990’s when local government were preparing new Plans under the Act. These included assessments of Whangarei District, Far North District, and Kaipara District. More recently, I led the landscape assessment portion of a mapping project for Northland Regional Council’s RPS. I have advised Whangarei District Council through its Plan Change 114: Landscapes.

A portion of my office’s work involves the creation of assessments and landscape / spatial planning studies for urban fringe areas, including much of the periphery of Whangarei’s settled margins. I have been involved in the landscape components and site planning of commercial developments, subdivisions, and utility projects, often on sites of heightened sensitivity where particular care is required to avoid and manage potential effects. My office has prepared numerous reviews and assessments of applications received by statutory bodies from a landscape or natural character basis, particularly for the Whangarei, Far North, and Kaipara Districts.

Peter Runcie – Acoustic Engineer

Peter has a Bachelor of Science degree with honours from the University of Salford in England and is a full member of both the Institute of Acoustics (UK) and the Acoustical Society of New Zealand. He is currently employed as an Associate by SLR Consulting NZ Limited, specialising in the fields of noise and vibration. He has held that position since August 2016 and prior to this was an acoustic specialist at Golder Associates (NZ) Limited. He has worked in the field of acoustic consultancy for over ten years on a range of projects within the United Kingdom, Europe, Middle East, Australia, and New Zealand. During this time, he has been involved in a wide range of acoustic assessments and provided technical peer review services for a number of Councils across New Zealand.

2


Juliane Chetham – Cultural Advisor

(Patuharakeke/ Ngatiwai me Ngati Whatua me Ngapuhi)

Juliane Chetham is an independent consultant with 16 years experience specialising in resource management planning and policy specifically in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi and kaupapa Māori. She has held research, consultation, and advisory roles for a range of industry, local and central government, iwi authorities and community organisations. She is a trustee on Patuharakeke Te Iwi Trust Board, responsible for the environmental and customary fisheries portfolios. Prior to that she managed the Resource Management Unit of the Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust (Environs Holdings Ltd). Juliane holds extensive local knowledge and a significant contact base throughout Te Tai Tokerau. For the past two years she has held the “Making Good Decisions” certification and been a member of Auckland Council’s independent hearing commissioner pool.

Abbreviations used in this Report

RMA Resource Management Act 1991

RPS Operative Northland Regional Policy Statement

NESCS National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health

MEA Mineral Extraction Area

FSA Flood Susceptible Area

NAV Noise and Vibration provisions of the Whangarei District Plan

NRC Northland Regional Council

WDC Whangarei District Council

AEE Assessment of Environmental Effects

QRA Quarry Resource Area

3


Section 42A Hearing Report

1 The Proposal

1.1 The application is described in Section 3.0 of the application prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited dated 24th May 2017 (‘the application’). The application provides background to the establishment and operation of the Otaika Quarry. The application has been prepared on the basis that the existing area within the quarry for disposal of overburden is nearing capacity. An alternative overburden disposal area is now required in order to source suitable aggregate from the quarry in the future.

1.2 The new overburden disposal area is defined on plans provided in the application and is proposed to be located on part of what is known as the Pegram Block (and will be referred to as such in the remainder of this report) adjoining the existing quarry site. As a general description, 2.4 million m3 of overburden, consisting of topsoil, clay, greensand, limestone, and highly weathered greywacke, will be removed from areas within the quarry. That overburden will be transported to and deposited on the Pegram Block. The application sets out the details as to how this is to be managed, and notes two distinct phases involved in undertaking this activity.

1.3 The first phase involves ‘Enabling Works’, and requires specific preparation works to be carried out over two earthworks seasons (October – April) on the Pegram Block, before any overburden is transported onto the site. The detail regarding enabling works is addressed in Section 3.5 of the application.

1.4 The second phase is described as the ‘General Works’ phase, which is a series of campaigns, each taking place for 6 – 8 months, every 3 – 5 years over a period of 35 years. Section 3.6 of the application provides more detail regarding how the general works are to be carried out. A consent period of 5 years is sought.

1.5 The total land area to be covered by the proposed works under both phases is 16.7 hectares.

1.6 The necessary consents from the NRC have been sought and obtained by the applicant for the proposed works. The activity of stripping of overburden from the existing quarry site falls within existing resource consents issued by the NRC and WDC held by GBC Winstone for the operation of the quarry. It is not clear as to whether the existing consents, or conditions contained therein, may require changes to accommodate the proposed activity. However, those are matters for the applicant to address, and are not considered to affect the ability to assess and determine the current application in any way.

1.7 A full copy of the application inclusive of technical reports is contained in Appendix A. It should be noted that an addendum marked as ‘Addendum 1’ dated 1st June 2017 was provided by Boffa Miskell Limited on the 4th July 2017, which should be read in conjunction with the application as it relates to noise and vibration effects.

1.8 A further addendum with supporting information marked as ‘Addendum 2’ was provided by Boffa Miskell on the 13th March 2018. This addendum includes amendments to the AEE addressing cultural effects, a review of objectives and policies of the proposed Whangarei District Plan Changes, and a revised suite of suggested conditions. Several additional technical documents are appended to that addendum, including a document entitled ‘Cultural Report Assessment of Effects on Maori Values’, memorandums addressing dust effects and landscape and visual effects, a geotechnical addendum report, an economic assessment report, and an assessment of alternatives considered for overburden disposal.

4


1.9 For completeness, the report will refer to ‘the application’ which includes the following documents:

• Application for Landuse Consent and Assessment of Environmental Effects prepared for GBC Winstone dated 24 May 2017 prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited, inclusive of the Addendums 1 and 2 provided by Boffa Miskell Limited which record amendments to the AEE, and the updated Appendix 4 plans (pgs 1 – 4) provided in conjunction with Addendum 2.

• Pegram Block Overburden Disposal – Ecological Assessment prepared for GBC Winstone dated 16 March 2017 prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited

• Otaika Quarry – Proposed Overburden Disposal Area Noise Assessment dated 22 May 2017 prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics Limited

• Overburden Placement, Pegram Block Otaika Quarry, Whangarei: Archaeological Assessment dated March 2017 prepared by Clough and Associates Limited

• Overburden Placement, Pegram Block, Otaika Quarry, Whangarei – Landscape and Visual Assessment prepared for GBC Winstone Limited dated 22 May 2017 prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited, inclusive of the Memorandum from Boyden Evans, Boffa Miskell, dated 9th March 2018 provided in conjunction with Addendum 2

• Otaika Quarry – Proposed Overburden Disposal Area – Surface Water Hydrology Assessment dated May 2017 prepared by Tonkin and Taylor Limited

• Otaika Quarry – Proposed Overburden Disposal Area – Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment dated March 2017 prepared by Tonkin and Taylor (inclusive of covering letter from Tonkin and Taylor Limited dated 5 May 2017), and the Geotechnical Addendum Report dated March 2018 provided in conjunction with Addendum 2

• Otaika Quarry – Pegram Overburden Disposal Area - Assessment of Adverse Effects arising from Erosion and Sediment, and Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plan (undated) prepared by Winstone Aggregates

• GBC Winstone Otaika Quarry – Dust Management Assessment - Pegram Block dated 17

March 2017 prepared by AECOM Limited, inclusive of the Memorandums from AECOM Limited

dated 1 May 2017 and 25 September 2017

• Economic Assessment of Overburden Disposal on Pegram Block dated 13 March 2018

prepared by Mike Copeland of Brown, Copeland and Co Ltd, provided in conjunction with

Addendum 2

• GBC Winstone – Pegram Overburden Disposal Area – Overview of Other Options Considered

for Disposal of Overburden at Otaika Quarry prepared by GBC Winstone dated 12 March 2018

provided in conjunction with Addendum 2

• Otaika Quarry – Proposed Overburden Disposal Area – Cultural Report Assessment of

Effects on Maori Values, prepared by Marina Fletcher for Hauauru Trust dated March 2018,

provided in conjunction with Addendum 2

2 Site and Surrounds Description

2.1 Section 2.0 of the application provides a description of the site and surrounding area. Site visits have confirmed the description provided.

2.2 It should be noted that the ‘site’ is defined by the certificates of title on which the activity will occur. That is defined as Lot 2 DP53728, containing 37.4258 hectares, and Lot 2 DP363982 containing 3.3250 hectares. A copy of the titles is contained in Appendix 3 of the application. The majority of works will be carried out on Lot 2 DP53728.

5


3 District Plan Assessment

3.1 Section 4.0 of the application provides an assessment of the Operative Whangarei District Plan provisions that relate to the proposal. The subject site is split in terms of zoning – the southwestern two-thirds of the Pegram Block is zoned Countryside, while the balance is zoned Living 3. In addition, an overlay known as the Mineral Extraction Area (‘MEA’) covers part of the site. The MEA boundary does not align with any zoning boundary, but rather is described in the District Plan as ‘the area within which the effects of mineral extraction activities will generally be contained, although some effects such as noise, vibration and visual impacts may be evident beyond the boundary of the Mineral Extraction Area.’1 The MEA extends approximately 300 – 350 metres over the Pegram Block from the south-western boundary with the quarry site.

3.2 In addition, confined areas of the subject site are identified in the District Plan as Flood Susceptible Areas (‘FSA’), although some of these are better described as overland flow paths or existing water courses, given the topography of the area.

3.3 The application provides commentary regarding the definition of ‘mineral extraction’ in the District Plan, which is relied on in undertaking an assessment of the relevant Plan provisions. While not explicit, the Plan definition is read as including the activity of deposition of overburden as part of the activity of mineral extraction, and the application is lodged on that basis. An alternative interpretation, whereby deposition of overburden was not considered to be part of the activity of mineral extraction, would result in the deposition of overburden (as ‘earthworks’) being a permitted activity under the Whangarei District Plan.

3.4 Therefore, as a starting point for assessment, all proposed works under this application fall under the definition of ‘mineral extraction’. The activity of mineral extraction will be carried out in both the Countryside Environment and MEA area. Works associated with both the enabling and general phases will take place both within and outside the MEA boundary, and within areas defined as FSA.

3.5 For the purposes of providing a complete and concise assessment of the proposed activity against the Operative District Plan rules, the following table is provided.

Rule – Mineral Extraction Area Compliance Status

Rule 64.3.1 Mineral Extraction Proposal won’t comply with Clause 3 of the Rule

Restricted discretionary

Rule 64.3.4 Traffic Movements Proposal won’t comply with Clauses a) – c)


Rule 64.3.5 Building Height Permitted

Rule 64.3.6 Setbacks Permitted

Rule – Countryside Environment Compliance Status

Rule 38.3.1 Activities Generally Permitted

Rule 38.3.2 Hazardous Substances Permitted

Rule 38.3.3 Mineral Extraction Proposal won’t comply with Clause a) limiting excavation to 500m3 of material in any 12 month period


Rule 38.3.4 Network Utility Services

Permitted

Rule 38.3.5 Provision of Parking Spaces

Permitted

Rule 38.3.6 Traffic Movements Proposal won’t comply with Clause b) limiting traffic movements to 30 in any 24 hour period


Rule 38.3.7 Signs Permitted

Rule 38.3.9 Artificial Lighting Permitted

Rule 38.3.14 Electromagnetic Radiation

Permitted

Rule 38.3.16 Outdoor Storage Subject to Clauses b) requiring prevention of dispersal of dust beyond the site, and e) minimise

Permitted

1 Chapter 64 Mineral Extraction Area Rules, pg 1, Operative Whangarei District Plan

6


contaminants from stockpiles entering watercourses or water bodies

Rule 38.3.17 Aerials and Other Support Structures

Permitted

Rule 38.3.18 Indigenous Vegetation Clearance and Indigenous Wetland Disturbance

As per ecological assessment provided with the application.

Permitted

Rule 38.4.1 Residential Units Permitted

Rule 38.4.2 Minor Residential Units Permitted

Rule 38.4.3 Building Height Permitted

Rule 38.4.4 Building Coverage Permitted

Rule 38.4.5 Building Setbacks Permitted

Rule 38.4.6 Building Setbacks from Water Bodies

Permitted

Rule 38.4.7 Building to Access Setbacks

Permitted

Rule 38.4.8 Landscaping Permitted

Rule 38.4.9 Coastal Minimum Floor Level

Permitted

Rule 38.4.10 Building Daylight Angles

Permitted

Rule - Noise and Vibration Compliance Status

NAV.6.1 Noise Arising from Activities Within Environments

Technical report identifies minor infringement at 5-7 Grove Lane and 11 Grove Lane for general works

Discretionary activity

NAV.6.2 Construction Noise Technical report confirms compliance as part of enabling works

Permitted

NAV.6.15 Vibration Permitted

Rule – Natural Hazards Compliance Status

Rule 56.2.1 Coastal Hazards Permitted

Rule 56.2.2 Earthworks Permitted

Rule 56.2.3 Flooding Subject to engineering report activity is designed to accommodate the flood hazard and will not create any adverse effects upstream or downstream nor endanger human life

Permitted

Rule 56.3.4 Mining Subsidence Permitted

3.6 As a result, the application is assessed as a discretionary activity, noting that this is due solely to an infringement of NAV.6.1 (as detailed in the addendum provided by Boffa Miskell Limited dated 4th July 2017).

3.7 For the purposes of assessment, Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 of the application set out the applicable rules relating to mineral extraction in both the MEA and Countryside Environments. Rule 64.3.1.3 Mineral Extraction in the Mineral Extraction Area (Buffer Area), and Rule 38.3.3 Mineral Extraction in the Countryside Environment, both require the proposed activity to be assessed as a restricted discretionary activity. The matters that discretion is reserved over are listed for each rule below.

Rule 64.3.1.3 Mineral Extraction in the Mineral Extraction Area (Buffer Area)

Rule 38.3.3 Mineral Extraction in the Countryside Environment

i. The extent to which off-site effects (such as dust, odour and glare), which are not managed by other rules in the Plan, adversely affect the amenity values of sites in the vicinity;

i. Effects of noise, dust and other nuisances; ii. Methods and duration of excavation or processing,

and trucking activities; iii. Hours of operation of the activity; iv. Effects on existing residences and reserves;

7


ii. The extent to which off-site effects, which are not managed by other rules in the Plan, will inhibit the use of surrounding land for the carrying out of other

activities; iii. The extent of adverse visual impacts on significant landscapes, significant natural areas or natural

features; iv. The extent of any adverse effects on land stability; v. The extent of any adverse effects on ecological

values or water quality, arising from the land use; vi. The extent of any adverse effects on historic and

cultural heritage; vii. The extent to which landscaping proposals protect

the amenity of land adjoining the Mineral Extraction Area;

viii. The extent to which any rehabilitation programme will enable the land to be returned to a state suitable for use by other activities

v. Effects of road traffic on the amenity, health and safety in the locality;

vi. Effects of increased traffic on road safety, maintenance and efficiency;

vii. Effects on landscape and conservation values of the site and locality;

viii. Restoration and rehabilitation of the site; ix. Effects of disturbance and stockpiling of topsoil,

and measures to conserve and preserve topsoil; x. Effects of excavation, mineral extraction, transport

and processing (including the effects of dust) on any water body or indigenous vegetation;

xi. Effects on coastal land stability and natural coastal processes;

xii. Quality of storm runoff; xiii. Effects of land use on heritage sites, buildings and

areas; xiv. Effects of land use on the relationship of tangata

whenua with their ancestral lands, sites, water, waahi tapu and other taonga;

xv. Effects of mineral extraction, processing and transport on the natural character of the coastal environment, wetlands, lakes and rivers.

3.8 As addressed further in this report, when considering the matter of scope, the extent to which the WDC has control over some of the matters listed above is limited by the NRC Regional Plan provisions.

3.9 Overall, the proposal requires consideration as a discretionary activity due to the assessed noise

infringement. In all other respects, the proposed activity requires consideration as a restricted

discretionary activity. Given the extensive list of matters that discretion is restricted to, compliance

with the permitted noise provisions would make little difference to the extent of effects requiring

assessment as part of the application.

4 Notification, Submissions, and Written Approvals

4.1 The application was subject to public notification, with submissions closing on the 9th August 2017. The following table summarises the submissions received (in no particular order):

Name Postal Address Submission Summary Position

Barry Charles

Povey & Suzanne

Ruth McQuade

P.O. Box 6099,

Otaika, Whangarei,

0147

Loss of Buffer zone for quarry, Effects on land

scape and visual amenity, Acoustic effects –

noise, Dust, Hydrology, Loss of quality of life,

Change of landuse

Oppose/Wish to

be heard

Deborah and Ian

Coates

3 Gastein Road,

London, W6 8LT,

United Kingdom

Dust and associated health effect, noise Oppose

Ray Tonkin PO Box 5762

Wellesley St,

Auckland 1141

Use of adjacent buffer land is inappropriate.

Increased dust and associated health concerns,

and noise

Oppose/Do not

wish to be

heard

Mr & Mrs Gavin &

Jane Edge

1 City View Lane,

Acacia Park,

Raumanga,

Whangarei 0110

Applicant willing to do everything required to

make work go as quickly and efficiently as

possible. Without quarry there is no metal for

driveways, roads, etc. Quarry was there before

Acacia Park

Support/Do Not

Wish to be

heard

Mere Kepa 337 Takahiwai Rd,

RD 1, Whangarei

0171

No acknowledgement of the ancient sacred

sites of Rua-ngaio son of Tamangana,

grandson of Torongare. Effects on existing

buffer

Oppose/Do not

wish to be

heard

Mrs Christine

Halliwell

4 Omaikao Rd, RD3,

Whangarei, 0173

Acacia Park residents enjoy rural outlook,

views, peace and quiet. Height and amount of

overburden will drastically alter these and cause

Oppose/Do not

wish to be

heard

8


noise and visual disturbance – not fair to

residents

Northport Ltd PO Box 44,

Ruakaka, 0151

Positive for economic growth and employment

on Northland

Support/ Do not

wish to be

heard

Firth Concrete Private Bag 99904,

Newmarket, 1149

Aggregate is significant resource for Northland

and essential for continued development.

Limiting the operation will reduce supply and

increase transport and construction costs, and

make it difficult to supply concrete to Northland

Support/Do not

wish to be

heard

Don & Judy Mosley 5 Teal Lane,

Raumanga

Dust, noise, changes to landscape Oppose/Do not

wish to be

heard

Damon & Marama

Keyte

2 Wattle Lane,

Acacia Park,

Raumanga,

Whangarei, 0110

No business should be able to put children’s

health at jeopardy. Overburden will be dumped

at entranceway to our city. No attempt to look

elsewhere to dump overburden as this is

cheapest option

Oppose/Wish to

be heard

SW & CC Roland P.O. Box 6090,

Otaika, Whangarei,

0147

Need to expand quarry operation to ensure

District is supplied with high quality aggregates

for roading and future subdivision development.

Resource needed to grow and expand District

and Northland

Support/Do not

wish to be

heard

Debbie Linda

Dalton

185 Otaika Rd,

Whangarei

Dust nuisance and potential health issues,

noise

Oppose/Do not

wish to be

heard

Colin Thomas 29 Acacia Dr,

Whangarei




Change of landuse

Oppose/Wish to

be heard

Margaret Thomas 1 Clark McConachy

Place

No comments provided Oppose/Do not

wish to be

heard

Northland District

Health Board

Private Bag 9742,

Whangarei, 0110

Concerns about air quality, particularly potential

adverse health and amenity effects. There is a

lack of separation between the activity and

adjacent residences, and a need to comply with

standards and guidelines for particulate matter.

Oppose/Wish to

be heard

Jasmine Lowe-

Arrol & Carson

Arrol

10 Acacia Dr,

Raumanga

Potential health hazards from dust, son has

asthma as do others in the area, noise, and

disturbance of historical Maori caves

Oppose/Do not

wish to be

heard

Peter Martin Doel 8 Toetoe Rd, RD10,

Whangarei, 0170

Proposal will destroy rural outlook of

approximately 25% of view and reduce property

value. GBC Winstone have provided assurance

previously that all overburden movement would

remain in the MEA

Oppose/Do not

wish to be

heard

Murray John Elmes 33 Acacia Dr,

Raumanga,

Whangarei, 0110

Dust and noise. Change of landuse will add to

these issues. Given project over 35 years, when

selling property won’t get full value and will be

harder to sell

Oppose/Do not

wish to be

heard

Christine M

Johnston

10 Wattle Lane,

Raumanga,

Whangarei, 0110

Professional advice is very sparse. Concerns

regarding dust and associated health risk,

noise, high degree of uncertainty regarding

actual stability of land and additional run-off,

climate change, reverse sensitivity, landscaping

and precedence. Require surety of an amenity

buffer. Loss of fair and equal entitlement to

quiet enjoyment of our home and land.

Concerns regarding caves and should be

upheld, protected, and preserved.

Oppose/Wish to

be heard

9


Aggregate &

Quarry Association

of New Zealand Inc

P.O. Box 32019,

Maungaraki, Lower

Hutt, 5050

Aggregate is a significant resource for

Northland. Many parts of NZ will be facing

shortfalls in medium term future. Secure and

ongoing supply is essential.

Support/Do not

wish to be

heard

G Barton and M

Barton-Boots

P.O. Box 11-057

Whangarei

Concerns about extent of information, noise and

dust nuisance and health concerns, need for a

long term quarry plan, visual amenity / large

scale earthworks, devaluing property, use of

buffer for quarrying activity, concerns regarding

geotechnical information and land stability,

concerns regarding NRC consents

Oppose/Wish to

be heard

Catherine & Lee

Sawyer

3 Grove Lane,

Raumanga,

Whangarei

Dust and health issue, noise and visual amenity

effects

Oppose/Do not

wish to be

heard

Acacia Park

Landowners

Association Inc

P.O. Box 6046,

Otaika, Whangarei,

0147




Change of landuse

Oppose/Wish to

be heard

Caitlin Sawyer &

Brent Scott

3 Grove Lane,

Raumanga,

Whangarei

Dust and associated health hazard, noise and

visual amenity effects

Oppose/Do not

wish to be

heard

Chamber of

Commerce and

Industry Northland

Inc

P.O. Box 1703,

Whangarei, 0140

Aggregate is a significant resource for

Northland, Otaika Quarry extremely important

resource, declining consent may reduce

availability of important resource for Northland

and affect current and future projects in

Northland

Support/Wish to

be heard

Taipari Munro 15 West View

Crescent, Onerahi,

Whangarei, 0110

Concerns for geographical nature of the area

involving underground streams, caverns,

sinkholes and limestone outcrops. Area has

strong cultural and spiritual significance to local

Maori – located near Ruarangi burial reserve

but known that burials have also taken place

outside of the reserve area. Consideration of

alternatives, dust effects. As chairperson of

Ruarangi Trust, unaware of CIA provided by

Trust to applicant or NRC

Oppose/Wish to

be heard

Andrew Craig

Norman & Francis

Charles Spencer

52 Acacia Dr,

Whangarei, 0110

Only residential property sharing full boundary

with existing quarry. Change in land use will

bring unreasonable interference to activities

associated with residential activities and health

and well-being. Application not an accurate

appraisal of effects.

Oppose/Wish to

be heard

Civil Contractors

NZ Inc

P.O. Box 133257,

Eastridge, Auckland,

1146

Ongoing supply of aggregate crucial to

contractors. If proposal was declined would

result in loss of significant resource with no

obvious replacement in near future

Support/Wish to

be heard

Robert George

Lyall

3/94 Mill Rd,

Whangarei, 0110

No comments provided Oppose/Do not

wish to be

heard

Rhondda Taylor 40 Acacia Drive,

Raumanga,

Whangarei

Concerns re noise, vibration, dust, and weight

of overburden could upset existing hydrology

(aquifers) in the area. Block should be

permanent benign green belt between two

incompatible activities

Oppose/Wish to

be heard

Fulton Hogan Ltd Private Bag 11900,

Ellerslie, Auckland,

1542

Main supply of aggregate is from Otaika Quarry.

Without supply would struggle to construct and

maintain infrastructure. Proposed disposal of

overburden is most practicable option. Viability

of quarry would be severely limited and closure

inevitable if no ability to dispose of overburden

Support/Wish to

be heard

R Mira Norris 36 Otaika Valley Rd,

Whangarei

No sites of significance to Maori will be

damaged. Applicant agreed to develop a joint

Support/Wish to

be heard

10


management plan with Ruarangi Trustees to

protect sites of significance as identified in

archaeological report

Fred Petersen –

Branch Manager

Broadspectrum

P.O. Box 48,

Whangarei

Supply of base-course for construction of local

road and infrastructure. Minimising cartage

costs and wear to road network. Very important

for the construction industry, having products

close to area of works to minimise cartage on

roads.

Support/Wish to

be heard

Otaika Marae

Komiti

Mira Norris (Chair)

36 Otaika Valley Rd,

Whangarei

As tangata whenua ahi ka we worked with

Winstone to bring this application. Site surveyed

to ensure sites of significance not destroyed.

Concern regarding water from the caving

system will be addressed in Joint Management

Plan

Support/Wish to

be heard

Graham Barton &

Mia Barton-Boots

P.O. Box 11057,

Whangarei

Insufficient information provided with the

application, concerns regarding noise levels

and dust nuisance, GBC Winstone should have

a long term plan, overburden is an ‘active’

product, health effects, visual amenity, large

scale, property devaluation – DVD included

Oppose/Wish to

be heard

Lucas Connew &

Stacey Lemon-

Connew

16 Wattle Lane,

Raumanga

Health hazard caused by dust, noise,

disturbance and negligence of whenua tapu and

maori caves

Oppose/Do not

wish to be

heard

Andrew Wyon

Barclay

45 Acacia Dr,

Whangarei, 0110

Increased nuisance and health issues from

dust, long term nature of proposal – too long,

visual and noise disturbance on local amenity

values

Oppose/Do not

wish to be

heard

Southern

Whangarei Action

Group

P.O. Box 11057,

Whangarei

Otaika Quarry and residents both need certainty

by managing incompatible land uses – buffer

zone separates conflicting land uses and should

therefore remain. Effects being socialised,

disposal is excessive, timeframe too long.

Would like WDC to showcase entrance to

Whangarei

Oppose/Wish to

be heard

Opania George 65 ToeToe Rd,

RD10, Otaika,

Whangarei

Meet all consultation requirements agreed to by

Te Parawhau and Winstone. Sites need to be

monitored at all times by Te Parawhau kaitiaki

Support/Wish to

be heard

Sarah & Robin Brill 43 Acacia Dr,

Raumanga

Dust and health issues, loss of views Oppose/Do not

wish to be

heard

D R McKenzie

(McKenzie

Earthmoving

Limited)

405 Taiharuru Road,

R.D.1, Onerahi 0192

Aggregate is significant resource for Northland

and essential for continued development.

Limiting the operation will reduce supply and

increase transport and construction costs, and

make it difficult to supply concrete to Northland

Support / Do not

wish to be

heard

4.2 Full copies of submissions received are contained in Appendix B. There were no late submissions received that require consideration.

Written approvals

11


4.3 The application was initially supported by a number of written approvals from owners / occupiers of properties located on Grove and Wattle Lanes, Acacia Drive, and Awatea Street. Several of these approvals have been withdrawn during the processing of the consent. Those written approvals that remain valid at the time of preparing this report, along with a map showing their location, are contained in Appendix C.

Scope of Submissions Received

4.4 It is noted that a number of submissions raised matters and issues that may fall outside the scope of this application, and ultimately the matters that the Commissioners can consider in making any decision. Those issues are generally as follows:

• Property values and any effects on them

• Land stability and stormwater effects

• Dust and air discharge

4.5 It has previously been determined that the RMA requires consideration of environmental effects only. The loss of property value due to any resource consent decision is not an environmental effect. However, it is recognised that adverse effects on the amenity of a property does have the potential to affect property value.

4.6 NRC has issued resource consents as contained in Appendix 13 of the application on a non-notified basis. Those consents include specific provision for management of surface and groundwater, land stability and geology, and erosion and sediment control associated with all works. With specific regard to dust, the application includes a Dust Management Assessment in Appendix 12 of the application. That assessment confirms that the proposal will comply with the permitted activity standard under Section 9.1.4 of the Regional Air Quality Plan for Northland2. That permitted activity standard requires that:

‘(a) The discharge shall not result in any offensive or objectionable dust deposition, or any noxious or dangerous levels of airborne particulate matter, beyond the boundary of the subject property.’

4.7 The District Plan includes provisions to address dust nuisance and land stability as matters of discretion under Rules 64.3.1.3 and 38.3.3. However, the scope of applying that discretion is limited by the Regional Plan provisions, and the resource consents issued to the applicant by NRC.

4.8 It is apparent that there has been interaction between GBC Winstone and various land owners surrounding the quarry site over many years. Some submissions reference historical matters and previous discussions and assurances by the applicant regarding various buffers and possible setbacks to address concerns associated with the quarry operation and depositing of overburden.3

4.9 As it stands, the District Council has been presented with a resource consent application. That application is required to be assessed in accordance with relevant statutory documents and the RMA. While some of the comments in submissions may usefully provide background, or inform the assessment of effects, they are not binding on the Council or the applicant in the absence of either a legal agreement between the applicant and any person, or provisions incorporated directly into the District Plan. In short, there is no impediment to GBC Winstone lodging the application and having it considered on its merits.

2 The discharge of dust into the air arising from….quarrying operations, earthworks…. (pg 56) 3 G Boots and M Barton-Boots, P M Doel, Acacia Park Landowners Association Inc

12


5 Procedural Matters

5.1 The resource consent application was received by the Council on the 25th May 2017. The application is therefore not subject to the Resource Management Amendment Act 2017 provisions, particularly those that came into force from the 18th October 2017. The majority of changes resulting from the Amendment Act affect decision-making on notification of applications. As this application was publicly notified there is minimal impact resulting from the introduction of the Amendment Act provisions.

5.2 Council has sought technical advice to review information provided in the application. Mr Mike Farrow and Mr Peter Runcie have been engaged to review the landscape and visual effects assessment and noise assessment reports respectively. They have done so on the basis that the Council does not have its own internal landscape architect and noise expert to review the information. Their assessment on their respective areas of expertise are contained in Appendices D and E, and are relied on in informing the effects assessment in this report.

5.3 Additional information has been provided in the form of two addendums with supporting information as addressed previously in this report. That information has been circulated and/or been made available to submittors in accordance with the requirements of the RMA.

5.4 Subsequent to the close of the submission period for public notification, the Council issued a Section 92 request under cover of a letter dated 14th August 2017. That letter stated that ‘The Council has yet to receive the Cultural Impact Assessment referred to in the application. On that basis, it is considered necessary to formally request the Assessment pursuant to Section 92(1) of the Resource Management Act.’

5.5 In response to that request, the Council received a letter from Matthew F McLelland QC dated 21st August 2017 acting for the applicant. That letter advised that the applicant is not in a position to provide the requested assessment, stated reasons as to why, and requested that the Section 92 request be withdrawn. The Council sought legal advice as to its options in response. An e-mail response from the Council to Matthew F McLelland QC was sent on the 14th September 2017, advising that ‘….it is accepted that the applicant cannot provide the CIA on the basis that a third party is preparing and providing it. However, rather than withdrawing the Section 92 request, the Council will accept the response in your letter as providing additional information regarding consultation undertaken by the applicant to address cultural issues.’ In addition, the letter advised that ‘….the Council will commission a consultant to prepare a report pursuant to Section 42A of the Resource Management Act to assist it in assessing cultural effects associated with the proposal. Council is of the view that the submissions received are not sufficiently detailed to assist in assessing the extent of cultural effects. In the absence of any CIA provided by the applicant and any detailed submissions, some form of evidence is necessary to assist both the Council and Commissioners in clarifying the extent of these effects.’ Copies of that correspondence are

contained in Appendix F.

5.6 As a result, the Council engaged Ms Juliane Chetham as a cultural advisor, pursuant to Section 42A, to prepare a report addressing cultural values and effects. That report was prepared and provided to Council. The applicant then formally requested that the application be placed on hold on the 16th October 2017, pursuant to Section 91A.

5.7 The applicant then formally requested that processing of the application recommence on the 13th March 2018, in conjunction with provision of Addendum 2 and associated information received.

5.8 For completeness, the three technical experts engaged by the Council have prepared their statements of evidence based on all the relevant information, including information included with Addendums 1 and 2, provided by the applicant, as well as submissions received.

13


6 Proposed District Plan Changes – Statutory Implications

6.1 The receipt and processing of the application has taken place at a time when the WDC is reviewing a large portion of its operative District Plan provisions. This has included a wide-ranging review of the various rural and resource provisions. This has resulted in a series of plan changes that affect the objectives, policies, and rules for the wider rural environment and inter alia mineral resources. These plan changes have been notified with submissions and further submissions received, a hearing held, and a subsequent Council Decision notified on the 17th January 2018. The period for lodging appeals against the Decision on various Plan Changes closed on the 1 March 2018.

6.2 It is acknowledged that a number of submittors to this resource consent application and GBC Winstones have been involved in the Plan Change process as submittors, and some confusion has arisen about how the plan change and resource consent process interact at this time. The following is intended to assist in providing some guidance on how any decision-maker is required to reconcile these matters in determining the application.

6.3 Two plan changes in particular are relevant to the subject site and proposal as follows:

• Plan Change 102 Minerals, which includes specific provisions relating to Quarrying Resource Areas (‘QRA’s’), which are intended to ‘….identify established mineral extraction activities primarily aggregates, which are, at a volume, among other factors, that qualify these as nationally and/or regionally significant mineral resources (refer QRA Appendix 1). Currently the mapped QRAs contain quarrying activities involving extraction and processing mineral resources.’ The Plan Change provisions, including QRA’s, are intended to replace the Mineral Extraction Area provision contained in the operative District Plan. The Otaika Quarry is identified as QRA3 in the Plan Change

• Plan Change 85A Rural Countryside Environment, which is a wide-ranging rural zone intended to cover the majority of productive rural land in the District. To a large extent, it replaces the Countryside Environment provisions in the operative District Plan.

6.4 Copies of the Decision version of the Plan Changes, inclusive of the maps relating to the site, are contained in Appendix I. It should be noted that GBC Winstones have lodged an appeal with the Environment Court against various parts of the Decision, including parts relating to Plan Change 102 Minerals and Plan Change 85A Rural Countryside Environment.

6.5 Given the breadth of appeals lodged on the Decision version of the Plan Changes, there are currently no rules that can be considered operative (i.e. beyond challenge) pursuant to Section 86F of the RMA. No specific consideration can be given to the rules contained in the proposed Plan provisions, and there is no applicable permitted baseline that can be established using the proposed Plan rules.

6.6 Because the application was lodged before the notification of the decision on the plan changes, the application retains the activity status as assessed under the Operative District Plan rules at the time of lodgement, being a discretionary activity. This is by virtue of Section 88A of the Act. However, at the time of considering an application under Section 104 in order to make a decision, Section 104(1)(b)(vi) requires specific consideration of ‘…a plan or proposed plan…’ Therefore, an assessment of the relevant objectives and policies of both the operative Plan and proposed Plan Changes is required to be carried out in assessing the application.

6.7 If that assessment concludes that a similar decision can be reached under objectives and policies of both the operative and proposed Plans (ie. either a decision to grant can be supported by both Plans or a decision to decline can be supported by both Plans), then no further assessment is required. However, if a different conclusion is reached under the objectives and policies of each Plan (ie. a decision to grant under one Plan and a decision to decline under the other Plan), then further consideration of the relative weighting to be given to the Operative and proposed District Plans is required. The exercise of determining the weighting to be given to the respective Plan provisions is one largely guided by case law.

6.8 In summary:

• The proposal is required to be processed, considered, and decided on as a discretionary

activity pursuant to Section 88A of the RMA

14


• An assessment of the objectives and policies of both the Operative District Plan and relevant

proposed Plan Changes is required under Section 104(1)(b)(iv).

• Where that assessment determines that both the Operative and proposed Plan provisions

leads to the same decision, no further assessment is required.

• Where that assessment determines that a different decision will be reached under the

Operative and proposed Plan provisions (ie. grant vs decline), an assessment of weighting to

be given to the Operative and proposed Plan provisions is required.

7 Resource Management Act 1991- Section 104 Considerations

7.1 The proposal is subject to Section 104 which sets out the matters that the Council must have regard to when considering an application for resource consent and any submissions received. As a discretionary activity, Section 104B sets out a consent authority’s discretion in determining a decision.

7.2 With regard to Section 104(3)(a)(i), there are no known issues raised in the consent application or as a result of the submission process that raise questions of trade competition or the effects of trade competition.

7.3 With regard to Section 104(3)(a)(ii), the consent authority must not have regard to the effects on those persons who have given written approval to the application, as identified in Appendix C.

7.4 With regard to Section 104(6), it is considered that there is adequate information available on which to make a decision on the application.

7.5 For the purpose of this application, the remainder of this report will address the following matters under Section 104, which a decision maker must have regard to in making a decision.

7.6 Under Section 104(1)(a), the actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity must be assessed. This includes an assessment of the existing environment, and consideration of matters that may fall under Section 104(2) as adverse effects that may be disregarded where they are permitted by a national environmental standard or plan (‘permitted baseline’).

7.7 Under Section 104(1)(b), the following relevant provisions require consideration:

• National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NESCS) under Section 104(1)(b)(i)

• Operative Northland Regional Policy Statement (RPS) under Section 104(1)(b)(v)

• Northland Regional Water and Soil Plan and Northland Regional Air Quality Plan under Section 104(1)(b)(vi)

• Proposed Northland Regional Plan under Section 104(1)(b)(vi)

• Whangarei District Plan under Section 104(1)(b)(vi)

• Proposed plan changes 102 and 85A to the Whangarei District Plan under Section

104(1)(b)(vi)

7.8 Under Section 104(1)(c), any other matters that may be relevant or reasonably necessary to determine the application require consideration.

8 Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment (S104(1)(a))

Existing Environment

8.1 Section 5.1 of the application provides a description of the existing environment. That description is accepted and adopted for the purpose of this report, subject to the following comments.

15


8.2 It is noted that there are several vacant residential sections located within the adjacent Acacia Park subdivision. Advice has been provided from the Council’s Building Department confirming that, at the time of preparing this report, there are no building consents that have been issued for new dwellings that have yet to be constructed within that part of the Acacia Park development that adjoins the site.

8.3 There are no consented but as yet unimplemented resource consents either on or in the vicinity of the site that are considered to form part of the existing environment.

Permitted Baseline

8.4 Section 5.2 of the application sets out an assessment of a permitted baseline that may be applicable in assessing any adverse effects of the proposal. It is accepted that there is a permitted standard for earthworks that can be undertaken within the MEA and Countryside Environment.

8.5 In the MEA, Rule 64.3.1 Mineral Extraction allows a maximum of 5,000m3 of material to be disturbed or removed in any 12 month period on a site. If it is accepted that deposition of overburden is disturbing or removing material, then depositing 5,000m3 of material on the Pegram Block within the MEA annually would be permitted. There is no limit on the number of years this permitted activity may be carried out.

8.6 In the Countryside Environment, there is no rule limiting earthworks, either in volume and/or over time, where it is not associated with mineral extraction. Reliance is placed on the current Regional Water and Soil Plan rule which requires consent for earthworks exceeding 5,000m3 in any 12 month period.

8.7 Earthworks undertaken within a FSA are permitted under Rule 56.2.3, subject to provision of ‘A report or certificate from a suitably qualified and experienced professional is provided to the Whangarei District Council which indicates that the activity is designed to accommodate the flood hazard and will not create any adverse effects upstream or downstream nor endanger human life.’ The application includes a document entitled ‘Assessment of Adverse Effects on Flood Risk’ dated 22 May 2017 prepared by Tonkin and Taylor Limited, which is sufficient to meet this condition. Therefore, earthworks within the FSA on the site is permitted.

8.8 With regard to vegetation removal and wetlands, the evidence provided in the ecological assessment provided with the application indicates that the proposed works would meet the permitted activity standards under Rule 38.3.18 Indigenous Vegetation Clearance and Indigenous Wetland Disturbance.

8.9 In terms of undertaking the activity of earthworks, rules relating to noise and traffic movements would apply to both the MEA and Countryside Environment.

8.10 For a council to apply its discretion under Section 104(2) and adopt any permitted baseline, the permitted activity must be non-fanciful and realistic. The deposition of soil is not an uncommon activity in the District, noting that large scale earthworks and deposition of material (approximately 1 million m3) associated with subdivision development has occurred in locations such as Ruakaka / One Tree Point. Much smaller scale soil deposition and farm quarry activities do occur on a more regular basis, mainly in rural areas.

8.11 On this basis, a realistic and non-fanciful permitted baseline can be adopted as follows:

• Depositing of 5,000m3 of soil in any 12 month period on the Pegram Block where it is not mineral extraction (noting that the block constitutes a ‘site’ by definition). That soil can be deposited anywhere on the site, either inside or outside the defined MEA, and within any Flood Susceptible Area defined on the site.

• Within the MEA, a maximum of 100 traffic movements in any 24 hour period

16


• Within the Countryside Environment, a maximum of 30 traffic movements in any 24 hour period

• Operation of machinery and vehicles in compliance with noise rules which, based on the information provided, could be achieved depending on the location of works on the site.

8.12 This level of activity constitutes a realistic level of permitted activity that might be expected on the site. However, it does not readily compare to the scale or duration of the proposal, noting that it would take around 480 years of continuous activity at the permitted level to deposit 2.4 million m3 of material on the site.

Amenity Effects

8.13 The operative District Plan provides guidance as to the definition of amenity values associated with the Countryside Environment in Chapter 5 as follows:

The Countryside Environment tends to be used predominantly for primary production, but is also used for low-density residential purposes. When choosing to live in a rural area, people must expect and accept a certain level of odour, noise and other effects which are characteristic of primary production, recognising the scale and intensity of these activities which contribute to rural character. Rural areas do, however, tend to have high amenity values, due primarily to the following characteristics:

• The intermittent nature of most agricultural activities;

• Open landscapes and views;

• A low intensity of development;

• Feelings of remoteness and community;

• Low noise levels, particularly at night;

• A high degree of privacy;

• Daylight and sunlight access;

• Low levels of vehicular traffic;

• Green 'unspoiled' landscape with indigenous vegetation.

8.14 The subject site is considered to exhibit many of these characteristics to an extent that reflects a high level of rural amenity. This is tempered by the existence of Quarry Road serving the existing quarry site, State Highway 1 to the east, and the existing residential development associated with the Acacia Park and Smeatons Drive areas. There is a clear contrast in characteristics between the existing residential development and rural context of the Pegram Block. The submissions received make it clear that residential properties looking over and/or having a view of the Pegram Block place value on the ability to enjoy the rural outlook, and general peace and quiet ambience associated with it. The importance of those values is emphasised by the separation it provides from the existing quarry operation. It is apparent that the characteristics of the Pegram Block have not changed markedly over time – it was used for rural purposes and stock grazing before both the establishment of the quarry and before the establishment of adjacent residential development.

8.15 In the wider environment (being Smeatons Drive, Toetoe Road, and State Highway 1 and beyond) the extent of adverse effects on amenity arising from the proposal are considered to be less than minor. However, the localised environment mainly consisting of residential landowners on Acacia Drive and Grove and Wattle Lanes overlooking the site will or are likely to experience the following (based on information provided with the application):

• Prior to any site works, the fencing off and planting of a 10 metre wide area along the boundary of the site with the Acacia Park properties with three offset rows of fast-growing trees to act as screen planting for amenity purposes,

• Heavy vehicle operation for the enabling works between the hours of 7.30am - 6pm Monday – Friday and 7.30am - 2pm Saturday over two earthworks seasons (October – April) with a proposed noise limit of 70dB LAeq and 85dB LMax (as ‘construction noise’) during the period that enabling works are carried out,

17


• Heavy vehicle operation consisting of a single bulldozer and a maximum of five trucks making 16 trips per hour for the general works between the hours of 7.00am - 6pm Monday – Friday and 7.00am – 2.30 pm Saturday, where the noise levels will comply with the District Plan requirements for the MEA and Countryside Environment,

• A view down onto or across a large area of disturbed soil, stockpiles of topsoil, and a gradual accumulation of overburden material with intermittent periods of re-establishment over a period of 35 years,

• Potential dust nuisance, depending on the growth of the strip of trees to be planted and on-site management.

8.16 The intermittent nature of the activity means that adjacent residents will initially experience two successive earthworks seasons of enabling works. The general works will then involve intermittent ‘campaigns’ of intensive activity over a period of 6 – 8 months every 3 - 5 years for 35 years. It is understood that when there is no active campaign, there will be no machinery operating on the site, and any exposed overburden (other than the haul road and any stored topsoil) will be spread with topsoil and hydro-seeded.

8.17 During periods of enabling and general works being undertaken on the site as proposed, there are likely to be adverse effects on the amenity of the adjoining residential owners. The proposal will introduce a significant and on-going change to the existing rural amenity characteristics. The scale and nature of the works is not characteristic of a normal or expected rural activity and will introduce noise and activity on a site that is not readily accounted for by any permitted baseline. However, there will be significant periods of time where there is no disturbance and the site will resemble a rural landscape.

8.18 The applicant has provided detailed information that addresses the effects of noise and dust, being the two amenity-related effects of the proposal that will be intermittent over time. More particularly, the applicant has provided additional information to address concerns expressed in submissions, most notably by the Northland District Health Board, regarding potential health concerns related to dust. It is accepted on the basis of evidence provided that adverse effects of dust can be avoided and/or mitigated through active on-site management, and can comply with the NRC air discharge rules

8.19 Noise effects are discussed in further detail below under Noise and Vibration Effects.

8.20 The effects associated with noise and dust will only occur when works are carried out on site. If they can be managed when they occur such that any off-site adverse effects comply as permitted activities, or can be considered reasonable and acceptable, then those adverse effects on the amenity of surrounding landowners may be considered as minor and acceptable. However, the extent of landscape and visual effects will develop from the continued depositing of material over time. Those landscape and visual effects are assessed in more detail further in this report.

Landscape and Visual Effects

8.21 The application is supported by a Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited dated 22 May 2017, and subsequent information received as part of Addendum 2. That assessment, along with the submissions received, has been reviewed by Mr Mike Farrow of Littoralis Landscape Architecture, and his statement is provided in Appendix D.

8.22 Mr Farrow records that he has visited the site and viewed it from various perspectives. Subject to some reservations, he is of the view that the assessment provides ‘a reasonable summary of the effects of the proposal.’ Paragraphs 3.19 – 3.21 of Mr Farrow’s evidence highlight matters of specific concern mainly in terms of mitigation. These are largely carried through into Mr Farrow’s evidence under Section 4 Potential Conditions of Consent. The comments and concerns raised in these paragraphs do warrant a response from the applicant. Depending on the substance of any response from the applicant, changes to draft conditions of consent as they relate to landscape rehabilitation may be required.

18


8.23 In conclusion, Mr Farrow states that ‘I consider that the effects of the proposal upon the wider visual catchment of the proposal are relatively contained. In my opinion, the landscape-related impacts of the proposal are particularly focused on those who live in the south-western sector of Acacia Park, to the west of the mid-point of Wattle Lane, where adverse visual effects in the range of high to very high will endure over a period of decades.’

8.24 Where the adverse visual effects are considered to be high to very high, this is considered to constitute a significant and more than minor adverse effect. The catchment defined by Mr Farrow as experiencing this level of visual effect is identified in paragraph 3.20 of his statement. Of those identified properties within that catchment, written approvals have been obtained from the owners of 1, 5, 6, 7, and 11 Grove Lane. Therefore, any adverse effects on those property owners must be disregarded under Section 104(3)(a)(ii). There is no obvious means of avoiding or mitigating these visual effects on the remaining properties within that identified catchment given the nature of the proposal.

8.25 Mr Farrow makes specific comments in paragraphs 2.23 and 5.3 of his evidence regarding a possible alternative backfill area where aggregate has already been fully extracted from the quarry. It is noted that this may be addressed by way of the additional information addressing alternative options provided in conjunction with Addendum 2.

Noise and Vibration Effects

8.26 The application is supported by a Noise Effects Assessment prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics Limited (MDA) dated 22 May 2017, inclusive of the information included in Addendum 1 regarding the activity status. That assessment, along with the submissions received, has been reviewed by Mr Peter Runcie of SLR Consulting Limited, and his statement is provided in Appendix E.

8.27 Mr Runcie notes that the approach adopted by MDA in the application allows for the use of construction noise limits to apply to the enabling works component of the proposed activity. This would allow for a maximum noise level of 70dBLAeq for the entirety of the enabling works phase (being two successive earthworks seasons). In Mr Runcie’s opinion, this approach would ‘…likely result in adverse noise effects at the surrounding receivers over the extended duration of the works, and would not be considered reasonable in the context of Section 16 of the RMA’ (para. 5.13).

8.28 Mr Runcie concludes that noise limits to apply across the site for both enabling and general works should meet those limits specified for the MEA area in the District Plan, being:

• 55dB LAeq between 06:30 and 21:30 hours at the notional boundary of properties zoned Living 3 and the site boundary of properties zoned Living 1;

• 45 dB LAeq and 70 dB LAFmax between 21:30 and 06:30 hours at the notional boundary of properties zoned Living 3 and the site boundary of properties zoned Living 1.

8.29 The approach taken by Mr Runcie in addressing the noise limits is considered reasonable in the circumstances, and should ensure residents do not endure an unreasonable level of noise at any time, particularly during the initial period of enabling works. The applicant is invited to comment on the viability of this noise limit for the enabling works or offer an alternative approach that may address the effects.

8.30 The effects of vibration associated with the proposed activity have been assessed by MDA and the proposed vibration limit of 1mm/s PPV at surrounding dwellings as recommended is accepted by Mr Runcie. This proposed limit can be adopted as a reasonable means to avoid any adverse vibration effects associated with the proposed activity.

8.31 Noise forms a significant part of the wider amenity issues raised by submittors. Mr Runcie has recommended noise limits that may be imposed on the operation. Therefore, subject to the imposition of the suggested conditions, any adverse effects arising from noise and vibration generating activities associated with the proposal will be minor and therefore acceptable.

19


Traffic Effects

8.32 Section 3.8 of the application addresses effects associated with traffic. Any infringement of the Traffic Movements rule is required to be assessed as a restricted discretionary activity. The rules relating to traffic movements address vehicle movements on and off a site. The Pegram Block is a separate site from the Otaika Quarry site. Movements are therefore counted as vehicles cross from one site to another, rather than vehicle movements crossing on and off public road.

8.33 The application states that traffic circulation will be largely internal, moving between the areas where stripping of overburden and deposition of overburden is occurring. The crossing point between the quarry site and Pegram block will be in the northwestern corner of the Pegram Block, as detailed in Appendix 4 of the application. It is therefore expected that additional traffic generated on public roads will have no discernible effect. Quarry Road, which provides access from State Highway 1 to the Pegram Block and quarry site, is a private road owned by GBC Winstone.

8.34 It is noted that New Zealand Transport Agency, as the agency responsible for managing the state highway, have not made a submission on the proposal.

8.35 Any adverse effects associated with off-site traffic movements are considered to be less than minor and therefore acceptable.

Ecological Effects

8.36 The application is supported by an Ecological Assessment prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited dated 16 March 2017. That report identifies the terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic (freshwater) values currently on the site, as well as herpetofauna. The effects of the proposal on those values is assessed. The conclusion of the report is that the existing ecological values within the Pegram Block are of low value. The proposal will result in the loss of 1.47ha of bush area, 0.25ha of low value wetland, and 500 metres of permanent stream. Some minor mitigation by way of riparian planting and future stock exclusion from water courses is proposed. It is understood that the Regional Council consent issued for the works includes specific provision for the construction of the stream diversion but does not require the riparian planting or stock exclusion identified in the report as a condition.

8.37 No submission has been received from the Department of Conservation regarding any specific ecological values associated with the site that may be affected by the proposal.

8.38 The ecological assessment provided with the application, and the finding contained therein, is accepted and adopted for the purpose of this report. Subject to the inclusion of conditions addressing riparian planting and stock exclusion as part of any decision to grant consent, the adverse effects on any ecological values will be minor and therefore acceptable.

Archaeological Effects

8.39 The application is supported by an archaeological assessment prepared by Clough and Associates dated March 2017. That report provides an overview of the archaeological history of the site, an assessment of effects of the proposal on archaeological sites, and concludes that the works will have only a minor adverse effect on archaeological values of Whangarei.

8.40 No submission has been received from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga regarding historic heritage associated with the site.

8.41 The report and its conclusion is accepted and adopted for the purpose of this report.

20


Historic Heritage and Cultural Effects

8.42 The application is supported by evidence of consultation with local tangata whenua, most notably members of the Ruarangi Trust responsible for administering the Ruarangi Block, which is directly adjacent to the Otaika Quarry and subject site. This has culminated in a document entitled Cultural Report Assessment of Effects on Maori Values, prepared by Marina Fletcher for Hauauru Trust dated March 2018 (‘the Cultural Report’). It is understood that the applicant has commissioned this report to support the application, and has been prepared by the author on behalf of the Hauauru Trust and Te Parawhau ki Tai. The Cultural Report has been reviewed by Ms Juliane Chetham on behalf of the Council and her statement of evidence is provided in Appendix G.

8.43 The findings of the Cultural Report have been incorporated into the AEE document provided as part of Addendum 2. This includes suggested conditions of consent that provide on-going engagement and involvement of Te Parawhau ki Tai in the development and on-site management of management documents and monitoring regimes. The conclusion reached in the AEE is that ‘Te Parawhau ki Tai as tangata whenua, holding mana whenua over the Pegram Block have advised the disposal of overburden is generally supported by Te Parawhau, and that subject to proposed mitigation and additional consent conditions, and that [sic] they consider the cultural effects have been mitigated to an acceptable level. It is also considered that the consultation process that GBC Winstone has undertaken, the information now provided on effects on tangata whenua and the revised proposal including these mitigation measures discussed above, are consistent with Part 2 of the RMA and the relevant objectives and policies in the statutory planning documents assessed above.’

8.44 Submissions have been received from various individuals that identify specific concerns regarding the existing cultural landscape and associated values and potential adverse effects on those values. Others have indicated that the extent of consultation is adequate and support the proposal. The variance in views expressed in submissions has not consolidated a position on what the cultural values are and what the effects may be, noting that they precede receipt of the Cultural Report.

8.45 The significance of the historic heritage associated with the Ruarangi Block is evident in the information provided with the application and confirmed in Ms Chetham’s evidence. However, there is a divergence of views on the extent of potential adverse effects on those historic heritage values extending onto and across the Pegram Block. Ms Chetham’s evidence summarises those differences in her evidence. She provides a useful description of a cultural landscape in Section 3.2 of her evidence under the heading ‘Ruarangi Cultural Landscape’. She then concludes in Section 7 that ‘This analysis of cultural effects indicates that the proposal will result in significant adverse effects on the Ruarangi cultural landscape that are essentially unavoidable in the proposal’s current form.’

8.46 Having found that the adverse effect on cultural values will be significant and unavoidable, Ms Chetham concludes that ‘Overall, it is considered that the proposal by GBC Winstones is inconsistent with Section 6(e) of the RMA as it does not recognise and provide for the relationships between Maori, their culture and their traditions and ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga that might be affected by the proposal.’

8.47 Given this conclusion, the proposed activity will give rise to adverse effects on historic heritage, and notably the cultural landscape associated with Rurangi Block and surrounds, that are unavoidable and unacceptable. However, it is expected that further information provided prior to or at the hearing may assist in further clarifying the divergence of views on this matter.

Positive Effects

21


8.48 Positive effects associated with any proposal require consideration under Section 104(1)(a). Section 5.14 of the application sets out positive effects of the quarry operation. While it does not directly address positive effects associated with the proposed overburden disposal, it is understood that the on-going provision of aggregate from a local quarry such as Otaika will be secured by allowing the disposal of overburden. Several submissions provided in support of the proposal emphasise the need for suitable cost-effective construction materials, the value of aggregate as a significant resource, and suggest that declining the application would place the quarry operation and a significant resource at risk.

8.49 As part of the information provided with Addendum 2, a report entitled ‘Economic Assessment of the Overburden Disposal on Pegram Block’ has been provided. That report helpfully provides a context to the economic assessment in terms of the RMA. Section 4 of the report sets out conclusions regarding the importance of the continued operation of the Otaika Quarry as a significant regional resource, and states that ‘If the consents to dispose of overburden on the Pegram Block are not obtained, this would result in the early closure of the quarry. If the Otaika Quarry were to close, aggregate prices would rise, increasing costs for consumers, ratepayers and taxpayers. To the extent local and central government budgets for new and improved infrastructure are fixed, higher aggregate prices may delay the delivery of infrastructure projects.’(para 4.4).

8.50 In making an overall decision on the application, a decision maker must have regard to these positive effects. These positive economic effects are acknowledged as significant in the wider Whangarei district and Northland regional context.

Consent Period

8.51 The applicant has confirmed that the default 5 year consent period as provided for under Section 125(1) is sought for the proposed activity.

Conclusion on Effects Assessment

8.52 In conclusion, it is considered that the majority of effects arising from the granting of consent to the proposal will either be minor, can meet permitted standards, or can be avoided or mitigated such that they will not result in adverse effects on the environment that would be unacceptable.

8.53 Positive effects associated with the granting of consent are identified and acknowledged. Given the identification of the Otaika Quarry as a regionally significant mineral resource in the RPS, the ability for the quarry to operate into the future is of significant economic and social benefit to the district and wider Northland region.

8.54 However, the evidence provided in relation to landscape and visual effects suggests that a defined catchment of properties within the Acacia Park development will experience significant visual effects. Evidence provided on cultural values and effects on the Ruarangi cultural landscape indicates that the proposal will have unavoidable and unacceptable effects on those values.

9 Relevant Policy Statements, Plans, or Proposed Plans (s104

(1)(b))

National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to

Protect Human Health (NESCS) under Section 104(1)(b)(i)

9.1 The NESCS is a Regulation that is triggered by inter alia activities that disturb soil being undertaken on any site that is currently or has previously been used for any activity on the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (‘HAIL’).

9.2 There is no evidence presented that suggests the site contains or has contained any activity on the HAIL. Therefore, the NESCS does not apply to this activity.

22


Operative Northland Regional Policy Statement under Section 104(1)(b)(v)

9.3 The RPS was declared operative in May 2016, and identifies the region’s resource management issues, and provides high level policy guidance on managing Northland’s natural and physical resources.

9.4 The RMA requires that district plans must “give effect to” the regional policy statement of a region. Plan Change 102 Minerals, which has been heard and is now pending a recommendation and decision, has been promulgated as a response to the RPS provisions to ensure the District Plan ‘gives effect to’ the RPS, as required under Section 73(4).

9.5 Section 6.4 of the application identifies the relevant provisions of the RPS that are relevant to the proposal. For the avoidance of repetition, the following is a summary of the RPS provisions:

• Objectives 3.5 and 3.6 of the RPS refer to enabling economic wellbeing and addressing reverse sensitivity and sterilisation associated with economic activities

• Objective 3.6 in particular refers to the protection of land and activities important for Northlands economy from negative impacts of new subdivision, use and development. It emphasises protecting existing mining activities, and land with regionally significant mineral resources, from reverse sensitivity effects sterilisation.

• Policy 5.1.3 directs that reverse sensitivity effects of new subdivision, use and development, particularly residential development, should be avoided on inter alia the use and development of regionally significant mineral resources

• Policy 5.1.4 sets out what constitutes regionally significant mineral resources

9.6 Otaika Quarry is defined as a regionally significant mineral resource under Policy 5.1.4. The existing environment includes existing residential development which introduces potential for reverse sensitivity effects that Objective 3.6 is intended to address. It is arguable as to whether the existence of residential development adjoining the Pegram block constitutes sterilisation of land with significant mineral resources, as the Pegram Block itself is not identified as containing a mineral resource. There is no guidance in the RPS addressing the current situation of an existing quarry and existing residential development in proximity to one another, nor any specific direction regarding the use and protection of buffer areas or similar approaches to address the policy direction.

9.7 As a suite of provisions, the RPS places emphasis on the protection of regionally significant mineral resources so that they can be utilised to their full extent without impediment. In terms of addressing the current proposal, at best it may be said that the objectives and policies are weighted towards protecting the quarry and associated operations from the reverse sensitivity effects of and encroachment by residential development, rather than the converse position of protecting residential development from quarry operations.

9.8 Objective 3.12 Tangata Whenua role in decision-making states the following:

‘Tangata whenua kaitiaki role is recognised and provided for in decision-making over natural and physical resources.’

9.9 Part 8 of the RPS addresses policies and methods associated with tangata whenua. Policy 8.1.2 is the most relevant provision and states as follows:

‘The regional and district councils shall when developing plans and processing resource consents under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA):

(a) Recognise and provide for the relationship of tangata whenua and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites wāhi tapu, and other taonga;

(b) Have particular regard to kaitiakitanga; and

(c) Take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi including partnership.’

23


9.10 Based on the consideration of matters contained in Ms Chetham’s evidence, the role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki has been recognised and provided for in the decision-making process for this consent. However, the proposal will not meet the direction set under Policy 8.1.2(a) of the RPS.

Proposed Northland Regional Plan under Section 104(1)(b)(vi)

9.11 The NRC has released a proposed Regional Plan which, as a single document, encapsulates several previous Regional Plans, including the Water and Soil Plan and Air Quality Plan. Submissions on the proposed Regional Plan close on the 15 November 2017.

9.12 Given the NRC has already issued resource consents for those matters requiring consent under the operative Regional Plans, the proposed Regional Plan is not considered relevant to the proposal.

Whangarei District Plan under Section 104(1)(b)(vi)

9.13 The relevant District Plan provisions requiring consideration are as follows:

• Chapter 5 Amenity Values

• Chapter 7 Tangata Whenua

• Chapter 11 Riparian and Coastal Margins

• Chapter 13 Heritage Buildings, Sites, and Objects

• Chapter 16 Landscape

• Chapter 17 Indigenous Vegetation and Habitat

• Chapter 18 Minerals

• Chapter 19 Natural Hazards

• NAV – Noise and Vibration

9.14 These provisions have been identified and assessed in the application. The comments relating to Chapters 11, 13, 17, and 19 are accepted and adopted for the purpose of this report. The position in relation to those Plan provisions is that the proposal will not be contrary to, and will be consistent with, the objectives and policies of each of those Chapter. The balance of this assessment considers in detail the provision contained in Chapters 5, 7, 16, 18, and NAV.

Chapter 5 Amenity Values

9.15 The provisions contained in Chapter 5 focus on the characteristics that make up the amenity values expected in any zone, and ensuring that those characteristics are maintained and enhanced, and/or are compatible with existing levels of amenity in any environment. Whether any proposal is consistent with these provisions depends largely on the assessment of effects on amenity. The relevant provisions are as follows:

Objective 5.3.1 The characteristic amenity values of each Environment are maintained and, where appropriate enhanced.

Objective 5.3.2 Adverse effects on amenity values do not result in a reduction of amenity value below that which is desirable for people’s health and safety.

24


Policy 5.4.1 Effects on the Local Environment

To ensure that activities do not produce, beyond the boundaries of the site, adverse effects that are not compatible with the amenity values characteristic of the surrounding and/or adjacent environment unless, such effects are authorised by a district plan, a designation, a resource consent or otherwise. The following effects should be given particular consideration in this respect:

• Noise and effects;

• Shading;

• Glare;

• Light spill;

• Dust;

• Smoke;

• Odour;

• Vibration;

• Spray drift;

• Visual amenity.

Where internalisation of effects cannot be wholly achieved, the Council will consider a Best Practicable Option approach.

Policy 5.4.2 Character and Timing of Activities

To allow activities where their nature, timing and duration do not result in adverse effect on amenity values beyond the extent compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding and/or adjacent Environment/s.

Policy 5.4.5 Countryside Environments

To ensure rural amenity values in the Countryside Environments are protected from subdivision, use or development that is sporadic or otherwise inappropriate in character, intensity, scale or location.

9.16 It has been determined that noise, as a component of amenity, can be managed by conditions of any consent. The planting of trees along the Acacia Park development boundary will assist in providing a vegetative buffer to assist in mitigation so any off-site adverse effects such as dust will be minor. However, as per Mr Farrow’s evidence, a catchment of residents within the Acacia Park development will experience significant visual amenity effects, and it may be seen as an inappropriate scale and location of activity in close proximity to existing residential development.

Chapter 7 Tangata Whenua

9.17 The following objectives and policies of the Plan are relevant:

Objective 7.3.1 Within the respective domains of the exercise of rangatiratanga and kawanatanga, ensure that priority is afforded to the act of protection of taonga of tangata whenua, and to the relationship of tangata whenua and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga.

Objective 7.3.2 To enable tangata whenua to exercise rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga over their ancestral lands, waters, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga in the District. Policy 7.4.1 Interests of Tangata Whenua To ensure that in the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources, the views and interests of the tangata whenua are fully represented at every stage of the process, including the preparation and implementation of the District Plan.

Policy 7.4.2 Sites of Significance to Maori To ensure that land use, subdivision and development does not adversely affect Sites of Significance to Maori, or other taonga identified in the District Plan or Hapu Environmental Management Plans. Policy 7.4.4 Consultation

25


To ensure effective consultation with, and participation of tangata whenua in resource management processes by:

• Fostering partnerships and relationships with the tangata whenua of the area;

• Avoiding unnecessary conflict on resource management issues;

• Recognising and respecting iwi authority and affiliations;

• Acknowledging and providing for historical circumstances and their impacts on resource needs;

• Respecting tikanga Maori;

• Acknowledging the rights of hapu and whanau to speak and act on matters that affect them;

• Allowing tangata whenua time for informed assessments of proposals and to determine their responses, consistent with the time constraints in the Resource Management Act 1991;

• Encouraging applicants to consult tangata whenua, where appropriate.

9.18 Careful consideration of cultural values associated with the site is required. Evidence provided indicates that the applicant has spent a considerable amount of time and effort consulting with tangata whenua. However, there remains a divergence of views on the values associated with the Pegram Block, and what the extent of adverse effects may be resulting from the proposed activity.

9.19 Based on Ms Chetham’s statement, the proposal does not find support from Objectives 7.3.1 or 7.3.2, particularly in terms of relationship between tangata whenua and the features that form part of the cultural landscape of Ruarangi.

9.20 Policy 7.4.1 is considered to be met by the manner in which the proposal has progressed, such that the interests of tangata whenua (regardless of views) have been represented for the purpose of considering the application.

9.21 Ms Chetham directly addresses matters under Policy 7.4.2 in Section 3.2 of her evidence, noting that Plan Change 100 instigated by Council to record Sites of Significance to Maori has stalled. This does not preclude adverse effects on the significant values associated with Ruarangi from being considered. The conclusion reached in the report is that there will be significant adverse effects on the Ruarangi cultural landscape that cannot be avoided and are unacceptable.

9.22 The extent of the relationship between the applicant and tangata whenua has been explained in the application and through submissions. This is considered to be consistent with Policy 7.4.4 but does not reconcile the extent of adverse effects of the proposal.

Chapter 16 Landscapes

9.23 The RPS is currently the only operative planning document that defines the location of Outstanding Natural Landscapes and Natural Features for the Whangarei District. It is noted that the Pegram Block is not identified as containing any such notation in the RPS, Operative District Plan, or the proposed District Plan Changes.

9.24 The relevant objective and policies under Chapter 16 states as follows:

16.3.4 The preservation of natural features significant to Maori and their culture and traditions, with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga.

16.4.9 Earthworks To ensure that adverse visual effects of earthworks scarps on outstanding natural features and landscapes are avoided and that the adverse visual effects on notable landscapes, coastal landscapes and other landscapes are avoided, remedied or mitigated far as practicable, by encouraging re-vegetation of earthworks scarps.

16.4.12 To identify for protection and, where possible, enhance natural features that are significant to Maori and their culture and traditions, with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga and to ensure that these natural features are not adversely affected by inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

26


9.25 Objective 16.3.4 and Policy 16.4.12 reflect other provisions in various Chapters of the District Plan and RPS, particularly as they relate to preservation of natural features and cultural matters. Based on the evidence provided, this objective and policy will not be met by the proposal as no preservation or protection of the landform and identified values associated with the Ruarangi cultural landscape forms part of the proposal.

9.26 Policy 16.4.9 directly addresses the need to ensure that adverse visual effects of earthworks scarps on ‘other’ landscapes are avoided, remedied, or mitigated as far as practicable. The proposal does include significant detail regarding the means of managing adverse visual effects by screening and revegetation, particularly when the site is not active during any campaign. The practicality of avoiding or mitigating the visual effects associated with 2.4 million m3 is effectively addressed by minimising visual effects on the wider landscape. However, a catchment of residents within Acacia Park will experience significant visual effects as a result of the proposal.

Chapter 18 Minerals

9.27 The following objective and supporting policies are relevant to the proposal.

Objective 18.3.1 Exploration, extraction and processing of minerals occurs in a manner that avoids, remedies or mitigates any adverse effects on the environment and community, and on the relationship of tangata whenua with their ancestral lands, sites, water, waahi tapu and other taonga.

Policy 18.4.1 Adverse Effects To avoid, remedy or mitigate to the extent practical, the adverse effects of mineral extraction on the ecological, landscape, heritage and amenity values of surrounding areas and on the amenity values of existing residential areas. Policy 18.4.3 Rehabilitation To rehabilitate sites used for mineral exploration and extraction.

9.28 Objective 18.3.1 and Policy 18.4.1 place emphasis on the need to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects arising from mineral extraction activities. The conclusion regarding the extent of adverse effects arising from the proposal therefore largely determines whether the proposal will be consistent with these provisions. Notably, the policy does specifically refer to avoiding, remedying, or mitigating effects on the amenity values of existing residential areas ‘to the extent practical’. Notably, there is no specific guidance in the objectives or policies as to the identification, extent, or primacy to be given to the identified buffer areas. Chapter 64 Mineral Area Extraction Rules provides an explanation of the intention of the buffer area, noting that it is intended as a reverse sensitivity buffer. In the absence of any directive objectives or policies, the specific purpose and intended integrity of the defined buffer area is not clear.

9.29 It has been assessed that the wider adverse visual effects will be minor and therefore acceptable. However visual effects (being a component of both landscape and amenity) have been assessed as significant and more than minor on an existing residential area within the Acacia Park development. In my view, the mitigation measure of providing screening by way of trees along the northern boundary of the Pegram Block to reduce the visibility of works is a practical mitigation measure, but of itself is not adequate to mitigate effects to a minor level for an identified catchment of residents

9.30 Based on the evidence provided, the adverse effects on the cultural values associated with Ruarangi will be significant and cannot be avoided. On that basis, Objective 18.3.1 cannot be met by the proposal as presented. Policies 18.4.1 and 18.4.3 can be met by the proposal, with reliance placed on conditions of consent offered by the applicant to minimise adverse effects such as dust and noise.

NAV – Noise and Vibration

9.31 The following objective and supporting policies are relevant to the proposal.

Objective 1. To enable a mix of activities to occur across a range of Environments, while ensuring that noise and vibration is managed within appropriate levels for the health and wellbeing of people and communities, and for the amenity and character of the local environment.

27


Policy 1. To establish reasonable noise and vibration limits and controls that enable appropriate activities to operate while maintaining the characteristic amenity values of each Environment.

Policy 2. To avoid reverse sensitivity effects by: a. Requiring suitable acoustic design standards for noise sensitive activities located in or

adjacent to areas anticipating high noise levels. b. Restricting noise sensitive activities in Environments where they could unduly compromise

the continuing operation of appropriate business activities. c. Considering the use of other mechanisms, such as noise control boundaries, buffer areas or

building setbacks, as appropriate tools to protect existing or future activities.

Policy 3. To ensure that high noise generating activities located in noise sensitive areas maintain the characteristic amenity values of each Environment by: a. Establishing noise limits that are consistent with anticipated noise and vibration levels in

each Environment. b. Requiring high noise generating activities to provide suitable mitigation measures to maintain

appropriate noise levels for the health and wellbeing of people and communities, and for the amenity and character of the local environment.

Policy 4. To avoid restricting primary production activities by providing provisions that acknowledge their seasonal characteristics, transitory periods of noisiness and the effects of reverse sensitivity.

9.32 As per the evidence provided by Mr Runcie, a suitable limitation on the noise levels associated with both the enabling and general works will ensure that noise generated by the operation of machinery on the site will be appropriate and acceptable within the receiving environment. Any adverse effects arising from vibration will be minor and can be managed by a condition of consent. Subject to the suggested limitations, the proposal is considered consistent with the provisions contained in the NAV chapter.

Proposed Whangarei District Plan Changes under Section 104(1)(b)(vi)

9.33 Plan Change 85A Rural Countryside Environment and Plan Change 102 Minerals have been instigated by the Whangarei District Council as part of a suite of plan changes addressing rural land and development, landscapes, and the coastal environment. One of the underlying drivers for the preparation of these plan changes is the need to be consistent with the operative RPS provisions, noting that it became operative in May 2016. A Decision has been issued by the WDC on the Plan Changes, and a number of appeals have since been lodged with the Environment Court.

9.34 The subject site is identified as having an underlying proposed zoning of Rural Countryside Environment. As a Resource Area layer, the identification of Quarry Resource Areas (QRAs) that form part of the proposed Mineral Resources Chapter overlay the underlying zoning. In this application, some of the proposed works are located outside the QRA that provides for Otaika Quarry and fall within the underlying Rural Countryside Environment.

9.35 The applicant has provided an assessment of the proposed Plan provisions as part of Addendum 2 provided with the application. Having reviewed that assessment, some of the content is concurred with. In other respects, it is not concurred with. The assessment records that no weighting should be given to those provisions that are subject to appeal. That approach does not align with the manner in which proposed Plan objectives and policies should be considered as set out in Section 6 of this report. On that basis, the following is intended to provide a full assessment of all relevant provisions in the Decision version of Plan Change 102 and Plan Change 85A respectively. Copies of the Decision version of the text for these chapters is contained in Appendix H.

9.36 As a starting point for considering Plan Change 102 Minerals, the definition of ‘mineral extraction’ has been amended to specifically include ‘the placement of overburden’. This is recorded in the Consequential Amendments section of the Plan Changes decision.

9.37 Plan Change 102 Minerals includes MIN.1.1 Description and Expectations section. Included in that section is the following comment:

28


‘The Whangarei District contains mineral deposits that are of considerable social and economic importance to the district, region and the nation, but in some cases can be constrained by conflicting land uses. Mineral development and associated land restoration can provide an opportunity to enhance the land resource and landscape, and has done so in the past. However the development of mineral resources has the potential to have significant adverse effects upon soil, water and air resources, and landscape and historic heritage values if not appropriately controlled.’

9.38 There are two layers of objectives and policies for Minerals. The first layer under MIN.1.2 Objectives and MIN.1.3 Policies addresses the broad approach to mineral exploration, extraction and processing across the District. These objectives and policies allow for the existing Otaika Quarry to operate in its current form, and highlights the social and economic benefits of being able to do so. However, Objectives MIN.1.2.3 and MIN.1.2.4 address the need to ensure adverse effects associated with quarrying activities are avoided, remedied or mitigated. Objective MIN.1.2.4 places emphasis on avoiding, remedying or mitigating ‘…any adverse effects on the relationship of tangata whenua with their ancestral lands, sites, water, waahi tapu and other taonga.’

9.39 Policy MIN.1.3.1 applies, given that Otaika Quarry is identified as a Quarry Resource Area (QRA). Policies MIN.1.3.2 and MIN.1.3.3 address the need to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects. While MIN.1.3.2 highlights the breadth of adverse effects to be considered, including historic heritage, MIN.1.3.3 specifically focuses on cultural effects, and directs that a cultural impact assessment be provided for all resource consent applications for mineral extraction.

9.40 Notably, Policy MIN.1.3.4 refers to avoiding adverse effects by avoiding mineral extraction within identified Sites of Significance to Maori. At this time, the Ruarangi Block is not identified as a Site of Significance to Maori in the District Plan, and the Council has not finalised a plan change that amends and updates provisions relating to Sites of Significance to Maori. The lack of recognition in the District Plan context does not diminish the significance of the Ruarangi Block and associated cultural values considered as part of the proposed activity.

9.41 Policy MIN.1.3.10 requires adequate information to be provided addressing the establishment and operation of any new mineral extraction activity. A significant amount of information has been provided which addresses the requirements under clauses (a)-(d), save for clauses (c)(vi) and (vii) as they relate to historic heritage and maintaining the relationship of tangata whenua with their ancestral lands, sites, water, waahi tapu and other taonga.

9.42 QRA.1 Quarrying Resource Areas (QRA) is read as a sub-section of the Minerals Chapter, and directly relates to those areas identified within the District as QRAs. Section QRA.1.1 Description and Expectations includes the following comment:

‘The QRAs identify established mineral extraction activities primarily aggregates, which are, at a volume, among other factors, that qualify these as nationally and/or regionally significant mineral resources (refer QRA Appendix 1). Currently the mapped QRAs contain quarrying activities involving extraction and processing mineral resources.

The extent of the QRA shows the area of mineral extraction where the effects of the activities will generally be contained. However, some effects such as noise, vibration and visual effects may be evident beyond the boundary of the QRA.

Within each QRA there is a Mining Area where the full range of mineral extraction activities may be undertaken. In some cases, the QRA also contains a Buffer Area beyond the Mining Area where effects such as noise and vibration cannot reasonably and economically be contained within the Mining Area.

Beyond the mapped QRA area, a Setback Area is also identified. This Setback Area has rules associated with it and are contained within the underlying Environment adjacent to the mapped QRA.’

29


9.43 Otaika Quarry and the accessway (Quarry Road) are specifically identified and listed as QRA3. QRA3 incorporates a QRA Buffer Area, the outer boundary of which appears to align with the existing Mineral Extraction Area boundary defined in the Operative District Plan. Unlike the operative District Plan provisions, the provisions do encapsulate the identification and purpose of the identified buffer area. Objectives QRA.1.2.1 and QRA.1.2.2 when read together enable mineral extraction to occur in QRAs, while ensuring that adverse effects arising from such activities are avoided, remedied, or mitigated.

9.44 The objective of enabling mineral extraction in a QRA is tempered by Policy QRA.1.3.3 which states as follows:

‘3. To identify a Buffer Area within a QRA to:

a. Ensure that reverse sensitivity effects are avoided on the Mining Area.

b. Ensure noise effects associated with the Mining Area of the QRA do not create adverse

effects beyond the Buffer Area.

c. Maintain a separation between incompatible land uses by limiting mineral extraction in

the buffer area to ensure that adverse effects on adjoining land uses, particularly existing

sensitive land uses, are first avoided and otherwise remedied or mitigated

9.45 Policy QRA.1.3.5 specifically addresses avoiding, remedying, or mitigating the adverse effects of mineral extraction within QRAs on the ecological, landscape, historic heritage and amenity values of surrounding areas.

9.46 Proposed Plan Change 85A introduces a new zone entitled Rural Countryside Environment, which includes the following comments under RCE.1.1 Description and Expectations:

‘The interplay of historical land use and values has resulted in the environmental character that exists in the RCE today. This character is made up of the varied natural landforms and natural features, openness as well as an existing subdivision and development pattern. It is mostly characterised by a working/living environment, with the noises, odours and visual effects associated with a wide range of farming, horticultural, forestry and mineral extraction activities. There is an expectation that rural production activities will be able to continue to operate without onerous or restrictive intervention in the RCE.’

9.47 The objectives and policies contained under RCE.1.2 and RCE.1.3 generally provide for the continued operation and establishment of rural activities, with some provision for commercial and industrial activities. At best, the provisions when read together set an expectation that rural activities that recognise, maintain, and where appropriate protect rural character and amenity of the Rural Countryside Environment are provided for. Policy RCE.1.3.5 sets a threshold for maintaining rural amenity, but only as it relates to new building and rural landuses. The proposed activity is not considered to be a rural landuse, particularly as it is an activity associated with mineral extraction within a defined QRA. QRAs have been defined to set different standards to allow for a higher threshold of effects. A landuse activity such as that proposed, where a substantial portion of it falls outside the QRA, is unlikely to achieve an expected and appropriate level of rural amenity.

Conclusion on Consistency with District Plan Provisions

9.48 There are two themes that inform both the Operative and Proposed Plan provisions. The first theme identifies the importance of the existing mineral resources in Northland and the Whangarei District, and the need to ensure that those resources are specifically identified, managed, and protected such that the ability to utilise them efficiently is not compromised. The second theme is recognition that mineral extraction creates adverse effects, and the need to avoid, remedy, or mitigate those adverse effects on the environment.

9.49 The approach adopted in the Operative District Plan is to identify an MEA resource layer inclusive of a buffer area, that is intended to address both of these themes. The objectives and policies in all cases rely heavily on avoiding, remedying and mitigating adverse effects. In other words, if the effects can be adequately addressed so as to be considered acceptable, it falls that the objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan can be met.

30


9.50 The proposed Plan Changes, and in particular Plan Change 102, sets more specific and directive objectives and policies addressing mineral extraction and QRAs. This is a reflection of the RPS provisions that are required to be given effect to by the plan change. The identification and purpose of buffer areas is defined, and both the positive and adverse effects of mineral extraction activities are clearly accounted for. The provisions contained in Plan Change 85A are considered to be of limited assistance and relatively ‘neutral’ in assessing that part of the proposed activity in the Rural Countryside Environment.

9.51 Overall, the proposal finds support from both the Operative and proposed Plan provisions that support economic well-being generated by use of mineral resources, and management of adverse effects where those effects have been found to be acceptable. However, the evidence provided indicates that the proposal is contrary to the provisions relating to protection of cultural values, and avoiding or remedying adverse effects on visual amenity. More emphasis is placed on the identification and integrity of buffer areas in the proposed Plan. Put simply, it is considered that the first theme informing the Operative and proposed Plan provisions can be met, while the second theme cannot. On that basis, the application generally cannot be supported by either of the plans for similar reasons.

9.52 Given the finding that the proposal falls to be assessed in a similar manner under both the operative District Plan and proposed District Plan Changes Decision, no weighting assessment is required to be undertaken.

Overall Conclusion on Consistency with Planning Provisions under Section 104(1)(b)

9.53 Section 104(1)(b) requires a consent authority to have regard to relevant provisions of various statutory planning documents. Having reviewed the relevant documents, it is considered that the proposal will generally meet objectives and policies contained in the RPS as they relate to the identification and on-going operation of the Otaika Quarry as a regionally significant mineral resource. The Council’s proposed District Plan Change 102 Minerals has been prepared in accordance with the RPS provisions and reflects the need to allow mineral extraction to operate as an important resource for the Whangarei district and wider Northland region.

9.54 However, the objectives and policies in the RPS and Operative and proposed District Plans are tempered by consideration of the adverse effects created by mineral extraction activities. All the relevant planning provisions recognise the actual and potential effects created by such activities. In particular, consideration of effects on rural amenity and historic heritage and, more particularly, effects on tangata whenua and their ancestral lands, sites, water, waahi tapu and other taonga are of importance. Until now, suitable provision has been made for an identified buffer area to be established which has been adequate to largely avoid any such effects. The integrity of this buffer, and therefore the ability to adequately manage adverse effects, has the potential to be significantly eroded by the proposed activity.

9.55 It is difficult to reconcile the active protection of valuable resources such as minerals from the effects of surrounding activities and areas of cultural value by using a buffer area, with a proposal that may extensively compromise that buffer area.

9.56 Overall, the proposal is considered to be consistent with objectives and policies that protect and promote quarries and the activity of mineral extraction, but is not consistent with those objectives and policies that require adverse effects to be avoided, remedied or mitigated. In that respect, it is finely balanced. The provisions do not allow for a situation where mineral extraction can be undertaken ‘at any cost’, and this does not allow the positive effects to outweigh the identified adverse effects. It is considered that the proposal is contrary to those objectives and policies of the identified documents addressing cultural matters and historic heritage, where adverse effects on cultural values are unacceptable and unavoidable. On that basis, the proposal is not supported by the RPS, Operative District Plan, or proposed District Plan.

31


10 Other Matters

10.1 Section 104(1)(c) requires the Council to have regard to ‘….any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.’

Otaika, Raumanga and Toe Toe Structure Plan

10.2 The Council has previously prepared and adopted the Otaika, Raumanga and Toe Toe Structure Plan in 2009, which sets out an overall land use plan for growth of the area, incorporating the ‘four well-beings’ and considering provision of servicing. The Plan is a non-statutory document that is used to inform strategic decision and plan changes prepared by the Council. The Summary of Development Issues contained in the Plan refers to concerns about reverse sensitivity associated with the existing quarry operation. It is noted that several submissions reference the contents of the structure plan and more particularly the intention to establish the Otaika area as the southern gateway to Whangarei city.

10.3 As the Structure Plan is a non-statutory document, it is not reasonably necessary to consider the contents in determining the application.

Consideration of Alternatives

10.4 The consideration of alternatives is a matter that can be considered when determining a decision, where the extent of actual and potential adverse effects may be significant. A number of submittors in opposition have questioned the need to deposit the overburden on the Pegram Block, and either questioned what other alternatives might exist, or have suggested alternatives. Given the finding in terms of adverse effects, consideration of alternatives is relevant and reasonably necessary in determining the application.

10.5 The assessment provided highlights the difficulty in finding a suitable location to dispose of such a large quantity of overburden over an extended period of time. While it is appreciated that the starting point for considering alternatives includes looking for sites that have sufficient capacity to accommodate 35 years worth of overburden disposal amounting to 2.4 million m3 of material, there does not appear to be any explicit consideration of a staged consent approach. Splitting the consent process such that an initial consent might be obtained for a lesser amount of overburden material, with potentially a reduced level or avoidance of adverse effects as a first stage, may allow a more appropriate level of activity to be undertaken at this time. Recognising that the proposed activity is likely to span over a 35 year period, this would equate to at least 3 revisions of the District Plan (and likely regional planning provisions) under current statute. The actual and potential effects associated with the incremental effects of overburden placement may be better understood and anticipated over this time. The applicant is invited to comment on this possible alternative.

11 Part 2 Matters

11.1 Section 6.1 of the application provides an assessment of the relevant provisions of Part 2 of the RMA. While there is current case law suggesting that an assessment of an application against Part 2 is not required unless certain circumstances apply, in this case there are Section 6 matters that require particular consideration. An assessment of Part 2 matters is therefore provided.

11.2 Having assessed the effects of the proposal (both adverse and positive), the proposal will find support from a majority of relevant Section 6 and 7 matters. However, the evidence provided concludes that the proposal is inconsistent with Section 6(e) of the RMA as the proposal does not recognise and provide for the relationships between Maori, their culture and their traditions and ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga that might be affected by the proposal.

32


11.3 The significant adverse effects associated with visual amenity and landscape are contained to a catchment of residents in the Acacia Park development. Section 7(c) requires the decision-maker to have particular regard to the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values. In this case, the amenity values of existing residents within this catchment will not be maintained or enhanced.

11.4 It is considered that the matter is finely balanced in terms of achieving sustainable management being the purpose of the RMA stated in Section 5. On the one hand, recognising and providing for the economic and social well-being associated with a significant district and regional mineral resource is an important consideration. Providing for the on-going efficient management and supply of that resource is central to the development of the district and wider Northland region. Balanced against that are the significant adverse effects associated with visual amenity and landscape, and cultural values and effects on the Ruarangi cultural landscape.

11.5 It is often stated that the RMA is not a ‘no effects’ statute. Invariably, a proposal of any significant scale such as that proposed will result in some form of lasting effect. In the absence of the cultural concerns, it is considered that the balance would tip in favour of the wider economic benefits associated with the ongoing ability to source minerals from the quarry. While it may seem incongruous to allow a buffer area intended to largely avoid adverse effects from existing mineral extraction activities to be used for mineral extraction, both the RPS and District Plan provisions place primacy on the importance of quarries and associated activities. In a wider context, those adverse visual and landscape effects may be countered by the wider public good associated with the ongoing access to mineral aggregate from the quarry. On that basis, the purpose of the RMA may be better served by the granting of consent.

11.6 Taking into account the significant cultural effects, and conclusion that the proposal is not consistent with Section 6(e) as a Matter of National Importance that must be recognised and provided for, it is considered that the purpose of the RMA will not be achieved by the granting of consent to the proposal as presented.

11.7 Having reached this conclusion, the consideration of other alternatives that may allow the appropriate disposal of overburden while appropriately addressing adverse effects on the identified cultural values is important. While the current proposal is likely to be the best option available for the applicant, it may not be the only viable option. An alternative that minimises or avoids adverse effects on the cultural values may be more appropriate in achieving the purpose of the RMA.

12 Conclusion & Recommendation

12.1 The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of Section 104. Section 104B states that

‘After considering an application for a resource consent for a discretionary activity or non-complying activity, a consent authority—

(a) may grant or refuse the application; and

(b) if it grants the application, may impose conditions under section 108.’

12.2 Based on the evidence presented by both the applicant and experts commissioned by the Council, sufficient information has been provided to assess all potential effects that may be generated by the proposal. On balance, it is considered that consent cannot be granted to the proposal as presented. A recommendation to decline the application with reasons as to why that recommendation is made is provided below.

12.3 In the event that a finding is made that consent can be granted, a set of draft conditions are appended to this report. It is acknowledged that the applicant has provided a set of suggested conditions, and many of these conditions have been incorporated into those provided. However, the structure and linkage between the conditions has been significantly altered to provide a better administrative approach in the event that consent is granted and conditions are imposed. As recorded in this report, some conditions may require further refinement depending on evidence that may be provided prior to or at the hearing.

33


Recommendation

THAT pursuant to sections 104 and 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991, it is recommended that

the land use consent application lodged by GBC Winstone a Division of Fletcher Concrete and Infrastructure

Limited, to place overburden from the Otaika Quarry onto an adjoining property known as the Pegram Block,

legally described as Part Lot 2 DP 53728 and Part Lot 2 DP 363982, be declined.

Reasons for the Recommendation:

That pursuant to section 113 of the Resource Management Act 1991 the reasons for this decision are as

follows:

1. Sufficient information has been provided to assess the extent of effects that will be generated by the

proposal under Section 104(1)(a). Based on that information, it is considered that the majority of

effects, particularly those associated with dust, noise, traffic, ecology, and historic heritage are

considered to be acceptable in the receiving environment.

2. Evidence has been presented that finds that a defined catchment of properties within the Acacia Park

development will experience significant visual and landscape effects that cannot be avoided or

mitigated.

3. Evidence has been presented that finds that the he proposal will result in significant adverse effects

on the Ruarangi cultural landscape that are unacceptable and unavoidable.

4. In considering the relevant planning provisions under Section 104(1)(b), the proposal finds support

from provisions that support economic well-being generated by use of mineral resources, and

management of adverse effects where those effects have been found to be acceptable. However, the

evidence provided indicates that the proposal cannot comply with the provisions relating to protection

of taonga of tangata whenua, and visual amenity and landscape.

5. In making an overall assessment under Part 2 of the RMA, it is considered that the matter is finely

balanced. However, as the proposal is not considered to be consistent with Section 6(e) as a Matter

of National Importance, and no alternatives have been identified that may assist in avoiding effects

on cultural values associated with the Ruarangi cultural landscape, the purpose of the Act is best

served by declining the application.

Advice Notes

1. The applicant shall pay all charges set by Council under Section 36 of the Resource Management

Act 1991. The applicant will be advised of the charges as they fall.

2. Section 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991 provides a right of appeal to this decision.

Appeals must be in writing, setting out the reasons for the appeal, and lodged with the Environment

Court within 15 working days after the decision has been notified to you. Appellants are also required

to ensure that a copy of the notice of appeal is served on all other relevant parties.

Attachments

34


Appendix A – Copy of application including Addendums 1 and 2

Appendix B – Submissions Received

Appendix C – Written Approvals

Appendix D – Statement of Evidence from Mr Mike Farrow, Littoralis Landscape Architecture Limited

Appendix E – Statement of Evidence from Mr Peter Runcie, SLR Consulting Limited

Appendix F – Correspondence regarding Section 92 request for Cultural Impact Assessment

Appendix G – Statement of Evidence from Ms Juliane Chetham, Chetham Consulting

Appendix H – Proposed District Plan Change 85A Rural Countryside Environment and Proposed District

Plan Change 102 Minerals – Decision version of text and maps

Draft Conditions

General conditions

1. The overburden disposal activity shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and all

information submitted with the application, as detailed below:

• Document entitled ‘Application for Land use Consent and Assessment of Effects Prepared

for GBC Winstone’ dated 1 June 2017, prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited, inclusive of the

Addendum dated 1 June 2017 prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited

• Document entitled ‘Pegram Block Overburden Disposal - Ecological Assessment prepared

for GBC Winstone’ dated 16 March 2017 prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited, inclusive of the

document entitled ‘Memorandum: Otaika Quarry: Pegram Block Overburden Disposal –

Ecological Assessment, Land Use Consenting Matters’ dated 10 May 2017 prepared by

Boffa Miskell Limited

• Document entitled ‘Otaika Quarry – Proposed Overburden Disposal Area’ Acoustic Report

dated 22nd May 2017 prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics Limited

• Document entitled ‘Overburden Placement, Pegram Block Otaika Quarry, Whangarei:

Archaeological Assessment’ dated March 2017 prepared by Clough and Associates

• Document entitled ‘Overburden Placement, Pegram Block, Otaika Quarry, Whangarei –

Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment’ dated 22 May 2017 prepared by Boffa Miskell

Limited, inclusive of revised Figure 16 provided to Whangarei District Council on 12 July 2017

• Document entitled ‘Otaika Quarry – Pegram Block Overburden Disposal: Assessment of

Adverse Effects on Flood Risk’ dated 22 May 2017 prepared by Tonkin and Taylor Limited

• Document entitled ‘Otaika Quarry – Pegram Block Overburden Disposal: Assessment of

Adverse Effects of Land Stability’ dated 5 May 2017 prepared by Tonkin and Taylor Limited,

inclusive of the appended Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment dated March 2017 prepared

by Tonkin and Taylor Limited

• Document entitled ‘Memorandum: Otaika Quarry, Pegram Block Geotechnical Drilling’ dated

28 September 2017 prepared by Tonkin and Taylor Limited

• Document entitled ‘Memorandum: Assessment of off-site effects associated with Overburden

Placement on the Pegram Block’ dated 25th September 2017 prepared by AECOM New

Zealand Limited

35


2. Given the likely timeframe during which all works approved under this consent are to be carried

out, it is anticipated that the conditions of this consent, and the requirements therein, may evolve

over time depending on changes in management techniques, technology, and demand for quarry

material. Any changes to certified documents provided under the following conditions shall be

made by advising the Councils Compliance Officer in writing of the changes.

Conditions to be met prior to commencement of all physical works

3. The consent holder shall prepare and submit the following documents to the Whangarei District

Council’s Compliance Officer for certification, prior to commencement of any physical works

approved under this consent taking place on the site:

a) an Overburden Management Plan that shall be to set out the practises and procedures to be

adopted by the consent holder to ensure compliance with the conditions of this consent. The

Plan shall clearly identify those matters and works that relate to the Enabling Works Phase,

and those matters and works that relate to the General Works Phase, for the purpose of

compliance with conditions further in this consent. The Overburden Management Plan shall

include the following information:

• A plan showing the boundaries of the overburden placement area with the Mineral

Extraction Area (ME3 - Winstone Aggregates – Otaika Quarry and access way) and

Countryside Living Zone as defined in the Operative District Plan, at the time of the

approval of this land use consent;

• A plan showing topography, drainage, natural watercourses, existing vegetation cover

and any other significant landforms or features within the Overburden Disposal Area;

• The anticipated life span of Overburden Disposal operation;

• The estimated volume of overburden material to be placed within the Overburden

Disposal Area;

• The location and dimensions of the enabling works, including indicative haul roads and

internal circulation routes, shear key and toe bunds, toe buttress and placement of any

mattressed foundation material, filling of gully systems and watercourses and creation of

new stream channels;

• The location, dimensions including the heights and volumes of overburden material to be

placed in the general works phase, including details of overburden material into placed

within the Overburden Disposal Area, including any staging of the overburden disposal

operation, and noting that the maximum active working area fully exposed at any one

time shall be 3 hectares excluding haul roads, batter slopes, and topsoil mounds;

• Details of proposed setbacks of any enabling works and overburden disposal operations

from site boundaries, and landscaping and screening measures;

• The number of people proposed to be employed, and parking spaces provided on-site;

• A description of the proposed methods of any enabling works or overburden disposal

operations including stripping and placement of material;

• A description of the methods by which the environmental effects of the operation will be

managed and controlled, to comply with the conditions of consent of this consent;

• A description of future proposed rehabilitation programme required for completion of

each stage, and description of the rehabilitation programme to be undertaken on

completion of disposal of all overburden as approved under this consent.

• The consent holder shall maintain and keep a Complaints Register for complaints

regarding all aspects of the overburden disposal operations at the site related to the

exercise of this consent received by the consent holder. The register shall record;

The date time and duration of the event / incident that has resulted in a complaint;

The location of the complainant when the event/ incident was detected (if possible

specify the nature of the incident e.g. noise)

36


The possible cause of the event/incident

The weather conditions and wind direction at the site when the event/ incident

allegedly occurred

Any correction action undertaken by the consent holder in response to the complaint

Any other relevant information.

The register shall be available to Whangarei District Council on request.

Note: Where the Council receives complaints directly from any person, it shall direct

those complaints to the consent holder in the first instance.

The Overburden Management Plan shall be consistent with all provisions contained in the

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan approved under the consent issued by the Northland

Regional Council dated 27th April 2017.

b) An Ecological Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist that conforms with

the content and conclusions contained in the document entitled ‘Memorandum: Otaika

Quarry: Pegram Block Overburden Disposal – Ecological Assessment, Land Use Consenting

Matters’ dated 10 May 2017 prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited. The Plan shall clearly identify

those matters and works that relate to the Enabling Works Phase, and those matters and

works that relate to the General Works Phase That Plan shall include the following

information:

• Details regarding the timing of all proposed works, noting that some activities such as

relocation of fish downstream is required to be undertaken and completed before

physical works commence.

• Details of the proposed riparian planting associated with the stream diversion and lower

Te Waiiti Stream, inclusive of all stock control measures and maintenance measures (3

– 5 years) required to ensure planting success

• Details of a pest and weed programme, including implementation timeframes and

monitoring criteria that can be used to measure success

c) A Dust Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified professional prepared in

accordance with the document entitled ‘Memorandum: Assessment of off-site effects

associated with Overburden Placement on the Pegram Block’ dated 25th September 2017

prepared by AECOM New Zealand Limited. The purpose of the Plan is to manage the

overburden placement activity so as to ensure there is no dust nuisance beyond the subject

site. The Plan shall clearly identify those matters and works that relate to the Enabling Works

Phase, and those matters and works that relate to the General Works Phase. The Dust

Management Plan required by this condition shall include:

• Description of the methods of mitigation and operating procedures including monitoring

equipment and procedures;

• Procedures for responding to accidental dust nuisance discharges;

• Procedures for the use of water suppression to minimise dust emissions;

• Procedures for the operation, maintenance and calibration of any meteorological monitor

including any meteorological exceedance alert thresholds and contingency measures;

• Procedures for the operation, maintenance and calibration of any Total Suspended

Particulate (TSP) trigger levels including any TSP exceedance alert thresholds and

contingency measures; and

• Records of any complaints recorded and investigated during any previous overburden

placement campaign.

The Dust Management Plan shall ensure, as a minimum, that any discharge of dust complies

with the air discharge requirements of the Northland Regional Council.

d) A Landscape Rehabilitation Plan prepared by a suitably qualified landscape architect

prepared in accordance with the document entitled ‘Overburden Placement, Pegram Block,

Otaika Quarry, Whangarei – Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment’ dated 22 May 2017

prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited. The Plan shall clearly identify those matters and works

37


that relate to the Enabling Works Phase, and those matters and works that relate to the

General Works Phase. The plan shall detail:

• Configuration of the Overburden Disposal Area footprint and its overall shape and form,

including completed landform profiles indicated by the cross-sections of Figures 12-14

of the Assessment.

• Tree planting, specifically the format and composition of the screen planting along the

boundary of the Pegram Block with Acacia Park to be undertaken at the outset and prior

to the commencement of any earthworks.

• Site rehabilitation, inclusive of planting regimes, timeframes, and maintenance

measures, to be implemented at the end of each earthworks campaign that takes place

during the General Works Phase, with specific details regarding the rehabilitation works

to be undertaken on completion of the General Works Phase

• The location of tree planting carried out on the overburden slopes commencing at the

completion of the enabling works phase and continuing through the general works phase.

• Maintenance regimes, inclusive of timeframes, for all boundary and amenity planting to

be implemented for the duration of the consent.

4. On approval of the documents identified in Conditions 4(a)-(d) above, the consent holder shall

hold a pre-start meeting to facilitate the implementation of approved management plans. The

meeting(s) shall: a) Be located on the subject site;

b) Be scheduled not less than five working days before the anticipated commencement of any

physical works taking place on the site;

c) include an invitation to Whangarei District Council officer/s and Ruarangi Trust members;

d) includes representation from the contractors (if appropriate) who will undertake the works.

The meeting shall discuss measures and methodologies to be implemented to ensure

compliance with the conditions of this consent and shall ensure all relevant parties are aware of

and familiar with the necessary conditions of this consent.

The following information shall be made available by the Consent Holder at the pre-start meeting,

as appropriate:

a) Timeframes for key stages of all enabling works

b) Copies of the documents certified under Condition 4(a)-(d) above

c) Copies of the Northland Regional Council consent/s

The consent holder shall be responsible for ensuring that minutes of any meeting is provided to

Whangarei District Council’s Compliance Officer within 5 working days of the meeting taking

place.

6. The Whangarei District Council’s Compliance Officer shall be notified in writing at least five (5)

working days prior to any physical works associated with the Enabling Works Phase commencing

on the subject site.

Implementation of ‘Enabling Works’ Phase

7. All works identified as required to be undertaken during the Enabling Works Phase in the

certificated documents under Condition 4(a)-(d) above are to be undertaken and completed in

accordance with the approved Plans. On completion of any/all works, the consent holder shall

provide suitable written confirmation to verify that compliance has been achieved in all respects

with Conditions 4(a)-(d). That written confirmation shall be supported by suitable evidence

(photographs and formal certification) to verify completion of works.

8. All activities carried out on the site during the Enabling Works Phase shall comply with the

following:

38


a) All machinery shall not operate outside the hours of Monday – Friday 7.00am – 6pm, and

Saturdays 7.30 am – 2.30 pm. No works are to be undertaken on Sundays and public

holidays.

b) Noise generated by activities to secure the site and construct noise bunds/barriers noise shall

not exceed the limits in NZS 6803: 1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise.

c) Noise levels not exceeding 55dB LAeq between 6.30am to 9.30pm at the notional boundary

of properties zoned Living 3 and the site boundary of properties zoned Living 1.

d) Noise levels not exceeding 45dB LAeq and 70 dB LAFmax between 9.30pm and 6.30am at the

notional boundary of properties zoned Living 3 and the site boundary of properties zoned

Living 1.

e) All stockpiles of topsoil material shall not exceed 3 metres in height and shall be setback at

least 5 metres from any side boundary and shall be set back at least 20 metres from any

watercourse.

9. To ensure compliance with Condition 8(b), (c), and (d) above, within three (3) months of the

Enabling Works commencing, the consent holder shall submit to Whangarei District Council’s

Compliance Officer a noise report with noise measurement results to confirm compliance with

the noise limits set in the referenced conditions.

10. Within three (3) months of completion of all Enabling Works, the consent holder shall provide to

the Councils Compliance Officer written certification from a suitably qualified and experienced

Chartered Professional Engineer to verify that all works, inclusive of the construction of the shear

key and toe buttress, and placement of mattressed material, have been completed generally in

accordance with the document entitled ‘Otaika Quarry – Pegram Block Overburden Disposal:

Assessment of Adverse Effects of Land Stability’ dated 5 May 2017 prepared by Tonkin and

Taylor Limited, inclusive of the appended Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment dated March

2017 prepared by Tonkin and Taylor Limited.

Implementation of ‘General Works’ Phase 11. All works identified as required to be undertaken during the General Works Phase in the

certificated documents under Condition 4(a)-(d) above are to be undertaken and completed in

accordance with the approved Plans. On completion of any/all works, the consent holder shall

provide suitable written confirmation to verify that compliance has been achieved in all respects

with Conditions 4(a)-(d). That written confirmation shall be supported by suitable evidence

(photographs and formal certification) to verify completion of works.

12. Councils Compliance Officer, all residents within 250 m of the Pegram Block, and the Ruarangi

Trust, shall be given written notice at least 1 month prior to works commencing for each and

every earthworks campaign, and shall be provided with the following minimum details:

a) Start and completion dates of the works;

b) The nature of the works;

c) Contact name for any queries or concerns regarding operations. The contact details shall

accord with the information provided as part of the complaints register forming part of the

certified Overburden Management Plan under Condition 4(a) above

Confirmation that written notice has been provided to the residents in accordance with this

condition shall be provided to the Council’s Compliance Officer before works commence.

In the event that any details provided above change during any campaign, the consent holder

shall advise the Councils Compliance Officer and notified residents accordingly in writing.

Note: This condition will be used to formalise the commencement and completion dates for each

earthworks campaign and will inform compliance with Conditions 13, 15, 16 and 17.

13. Within 6 months of completion of each and every earthworks campaign, the consent holder shall

provide the following to the Councils Compliance Officer:

39


a) Certification from a suitably qualified landscape architect to verify that compliance has been

achieved with the details contained in the certified Landscape Rehabilitation Plan certified

under Condition 4(d) above regarding site rehabilitation to be implemented after each

earthworks campaign.

b) Certification from a suitably qualified and experience Chartered Professional Engineer to

verify that the placement of overburden has been undertaken in accordance with sound

engineering practice, and in general accordance with the document entitled ‘Otaika Quarry –

Pegram Block Overburden Disposal: Assessment of Adverse Effects of Land Stability’ dated

5 May 2017 prepared by Tonkin and Taylor Limited, inclusive of the appended Preliminary

Geotechnical Assessment dated March 2017 prepared by Tonkin and Taylor Limited.

14. All material imported onto the site shall be restricted to overburden material which has been

removed from the adjoining Otaika Quarry, except for any topsoil that may be required for site

rehabilitation purposes.

15. All activities carried out on the site during the General Works Phase shall comply with the

following:

a) All machinery shall not operate outside the hours of Monday – Friday 7.00 am – 6pm and

Saturdays 7.00 am – 2.30 pm. No works are to be undertaken on Sundays and public

holidays.

b) Noise generated by activities to secure the site and construct noise bunds/barriers noise shall

not exceed the limits in NZS 6803: 1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise.

c) Noise levels not exceeding 55dB LAeq between 6.30am to 9.30pm at the notional boundary

of properties zoned Living 3 and the site boundary of properties zoned Living 1.

d) Noise levels not exceeding 45dB LAeq and 70 dB LAFmax between 9.30pm and 6.30am at the

notional boundary of properties zoned Living 3 and the site boundary of properties zoned

Living 1.

e) All stockpiles of topsoil material shall not exceed 3 metres in height and shall be setback at

least 5 metres from any side boundary and shall be set back at least 20 metres from any

watercourse.

f) The maximum active working area that will be fully exposed at any one time shall not exceed

3 hectares, excluding haul roads, batter slopes, and topsoil mounds

g) All vehicles including trucks operating within 200 metres of the site boundary adjoining

properties in the Acacia Park, shall limit their speed to 20 km/hr or less. To ensure this occurs,

suitable signage shall be erected on the site limiting speed to 20 km/hr, and such signage is

to be erected and visible for the duration of each earthworks campaign.

h) Reversing alarms on all vehicles on the site shall be the broad band “hissing” type and not

the high pitched ‘pip’ unless the safety case precludes this substitution of devices.

16. To ensure compliance with Condition 15(b), (c), and (d) above, within three (3) months of each

and every earthworks campaign commencing as part of the General Works Phase, the consent

holder shall submit to Whangarei District Council’s Compliance Officer a noise report with noise

measurement results to confirm compliance with the noise limits set in the referenced conditions.

17. On completion of the last earthworks campaign to be undertaken during the General Works

phase, the consent holder shall provide to the Council Compliance Officer written confirmation

from a suitably qualified landscape architect that the rehabilitation works identified in the certified

Landscape Rehabilitation Plan certified under Condition 4(d) have been completed and

maintenance measures are in place to ensure long term success of the final rehabilitation works

including all planting. The written confirmation shall be provided within 12 months of the date of

completion of all physical works associated with the last earthworks campaign, that date of

completion being as advised under Condition 12 above.

40


Advice Notes

1. Prior to the commencement of the overburden disposal works (including any enabling works and

general works) an Authority must be applied for under Section 44(a) of the Heritage New Zealand

Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (‘HNZPTA’) and granted by Heritage NZ. The Authority should cover

all proposed works in case additional unidentified subsurface remains are exposed during

preparation works for overburden disposal works.

2. In the event of koiwi tangata (human remains) being uncovered, work should cease immediately

in the vicinity of the remains and tangata whenua, Heritage NZ and the NZ Police should be

contacted so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

3. If any urupa, traditional sites, taonga (significant artefacts), koiwi (human remains) or other

artefact material is discovered during vegetation clearance, overburden removal, or quarry

activities, the consent holder shall adopt the following procedure: a. work in the immediate vicinity of the sites that has been exposed shall cease;

b. the site supervisor shall immediately secure the site in a way that ensures that any remains

or artefacts are untouched;

c. the site supervisor shall notify iwi representatives of the Ruarangi Trust Board, Heritage

New Zealand, Northland Regional Council and Whangarei District Council.

The notification in (c) above shall allow the notified persons a reasonable time to record and, if

necessary, recover archaeological or cultural features discovered before excavation work may

recommence at the exposed site.

4. Prior to disturbance of vegetation or soil disturbance in new areas, the consent holder shall

ensure that all site managers, operators, contractors and other relevant personnel receive a

briefing and detailed explanation of the consent holder’s obligations under the Accidental

Discovery Protocol specified by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga.

5. Section 357 of the Resource Management Act 1991 provides a right of objection to this decision.

An objection must be in writing, setting out the reasons for the objection and delivered to Council

within 15 working days of the decision being notified to you. A fee may be payable to cover the

costs of processing any objection.

6. A copy of this consent should be held on site at all times during the Enabling and General Works

Phases approved under this consent.

7. The consent holder shall pay all charges set by Council under Section 36 of the Resource

Management Act 1991, including any administration, monitoring and supervision charges relating

to the conditions of this resource consent. The applicant will be advised of the charges as they

fall.

41

hearings commissioner agenda - lu1700100 - gbc winstones · gbc winstone ltd authorisation sheet...

Documents