before the independent hearing comissioners on …€¦ · (recommendations) from the s42a report....
TRANSCRIPT
1
BEFORE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING COMISSIONERS ON BEHALF OF THE NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL (COUNCIL)
IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)
AND
IN THE MATTER of applications by members of the Motutangi-
Waiharara Water Users Group for new
groundwater takes from the aupouri aquifer
subzones: houhora, motutangi and waihara
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF MARTELL LETICA
26 MARCH 2018
2
1. QUALIFCATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
1.1. My full name is Martell Letica.
1.2. I am the Planning Team Leader at WSP-Opus in Whangarei, a firm of strategic advisors
including engineers, technicians, scientists, planners, surveyors, environmental specialists,
as well as other design, program and construction management professionals.
1.3. I hold the qualifications of Bachelor of Sciences (Geography) and a Bachelor of Arts
(Political Studies) from the University of Otago. I have 12 years professional experience in
planning and resource management, which includes 7 years in local government (Otago
and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council) and 5 years in consultancy in Otago, Southland, South
Canterbury and now Northland.
1.4. During this period, I have been involved in a range of resource consent matters from both
a regulatory and consultancy viewpoint. I have attended numerous Council resource
consent hearings as both the reporting officer for Council and as a consultant planning
expert. While the range of consenting applications heard have been varied, I have
predominantly been involved in the field of water abstractions and use.
1.5. In this matter, I have been engaged by the Motutangi-Waiharara Water Users Group
(MWWUG) to prepare and present planning (evaluative) evidence.
3
2. CODE OF CONDUCT
2.1. I acknowledge that we are not before the Environment Court. However, I had read the Code
of Conduct for Expert Witnesses within the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note
2014 and I agree to comply with that Code. This evidence is within my area of expertise,
except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person. To the best of my
knowledge, I have not omitted to consider any material facts known to be that might alter or
detract from the opinions expressed in this evidence.
4
3. EVIDENCE STRUCTURE
3.1. In forming my opinions, I have relied on the expert evidence of hydrogeologist and water
engineer, Mr Jonathan Williamson, who has been engaged by the MWWUG in relation to
these Applications. Where relevant, I have made a reference to specific submissions where
these identify matters that I consider require specific mention.
3.2. To avoid repetition, my evidence has been structured to address the key areas of planning
concern raised in the 56 submissions received and the s42A report. To do this, I turn my
attention to;
a. the reasons for the applications,
b. details of the applications and amendment after notification,
c. a description of the receiving environment
d. submissions received
e. s42A report
f. remaining issues in contention
g. statutory considerations
h. Part 2 Matters
i. Mitigation and monitoring
3.3. Council’s planning framework is quite prescriptive and therefore has a large bearing on both
consideration of the merits of the submissions as well as the analysis in the s42A report.
3.4. Consequently, I have structured my evidence similarly to the s42A where I firstly summarise
both the submitters concerns and the main points of the s42A report. I follow this with a
combined assessment of the principal issues that are in contention and a full work-up of the
relevant provisions of documents stated in Clause 2(1)(g) Schedule 4, s104(1)(b) and
s113(1)(ab) RMA.
3.5. I have included a separate section for addressing recommended consent conditions
(Recommendations) from the s42A report.
5
4. REASONS FOR APPLICATIONS FOR RESOURCE CONSENT
4.1. Section 14(2) of the RMA restricts the taking and use of water (other than coastal water),
unless allowed under Section 14(3) of the RMA.
4.2. ‘Water’ is defined in s2 of the RMA as ‘(a) means water in all its physical forms whether
flowing or not and whether over or under the ground:…’
4.3. Pursuant to s14(3) RMA, an individual is not prohibited to take and use groundwater
where it is expressly allowed by a national environmental standard, a rule in a regional
plan as well as a rule in a proposed regional plan for the same region (if there is one), or a
resource consent. It is also not prohibited to take and use fresh water for an individual’s
reasonable domestic needs or the reasonable needs of a person’s animals for drinking
water, and the taking or use does not, or is not likely to, have an adverse effect on the
environment.
4.4. There are no national environmental standards which expressly allow the taking and use
of groundwater.
4.5. The operative regional plan is the Regional Water and Soil Plan for Northland August
2004 (RWSP). The RWSP contains permitted activity rules for taking and using
groundwater. However, the proposed takes are not able to comply with permitted rules as
they are not for domestic or stock watering use (Rule 25(A)) and exceed the daily volume
of 10 m3/day and/or instantaneous rate of 5 L/s per bore (Rule 25.01.01).
4.6. Discretionary Activity Rule 25.03.01 of the RWSP states that the taking, use or diversion
of groundwater from an aquifer, and any associated discharge of groundwater onto or into
land or into water, which does not meet the requirements of the permitted, controlled or
non-complying activity rules is a discretionary activity.
4.7. In this regard, resource consent for a Discretionary Activity is required for all 17 proposed
activities under the RWSP.
4.8. The Council released a consultation draft Regional Plan for Northland for public feedback
on 8 August 2016 with comment from the public due by 23 September 2016. This
consultation draft document did not constitute a ‘Proposed Plan’ under s43AAC of the
RMA. The Proposed Regional Plan for Northland (PRP) was subsequently notified on 6
September 2017 and this document has the status of a ‘Proposed Plan’ under s43AAC
RMA.
4.9. The rules in the PRP have immediate legal effect from notification in accordance with
s86B(3) RMA. However, pursuant to s88A(1) of the RMA, the applications must continue
to be processed, considered and decided as an application for the type of activity that it
was for, or was treated as being for, at the time the application was first lodged which was
a period between May 2016 and June 2017. Regardless, an assessment of the rules of
the PRP is provided below given that regard must still be had to the relevant provisions of
the PRP under s104(1)(b) RMA.
6
4.10. Rule C.5.1.10 of the PRP states that the taking and use of freshwater that is not a
permitted, controlled, non-complying or prohibited activity is a discretionary activity. The
proposed applications to take and use groundwater exceed permitted activity thresholds.
4.11. Under the PRP, it is a non-complying activity to take and use freshwater which does not
exceed a default allocation limit for an aquifer by more than five percent of the annual
average recharge. A take which causes the default allocation to be exceeded by more
than five percent of the annual average recharge is a prohibited activity.
4.12. Technical evidence from Mr Williamson demonstrates that these 17 proposals are
Discretionary Activities under Rule C.5.10 of the PRP as no allocation limit for an aquifer
will be exceeded. Council have reached the same conclusion in their s42A report.
4.13. The 17 applicants require resource consent to take and use groundwater because they are
not allowable activities under s14(3) of the RMA.
Timing of the Applications
4.14. Although the Council issued a request for further information pursuant to s92(1) of the RMA
to all 17 applicants, letters were issued to applicants from Council with the dates set out
below in Table 1 acknowledging receipt of their applications prior to the requests for further
information.
Table 1: Application receive dates taken from Council letters.
Application No. Applicant Name Acknowledgement Letter Date
APP.038328.01.01 Bernard Kim & Sheryl Dianne Shine 5/04/2016
APP.038380.01.01 Damien & Katherine Holloway 28/04/2016
APP.038410.01.01 Georgina Tui & Mate Nickolas Covich 16/05/2016
APP.038420.01.01 Largus Orchard Partnership 20/05/2016
APP.038454.01.01 Elbury Holdings Ltd 2/06/2016
APP.038471.01.01 Honey Tree Farms Ltd 14/06/2016
APP.038513.01.01 Te Runanga o Ngai Takoto 24/06/2016
APP.038589.01.01 Neil & Alma Thompson & Steven & Josephine Thompson
19/07/2016
APP.038591.01.01 Cypress Hills Ltd 19/07/2016
APP.038610.01.01 Mapua Avocados Ltd 21/07/2016
APP.027391.01.02 Ivan Anthony Stanisich 25/07/2016
APP.038650.01.01 Tony & Diane Hewitt 10/08/2016
APP.038732.01.01 Kathy Valadares 13/09/2016
APP.039244.01.01 Kevin & Dani Thomas 5/05/2017
APP.039332.01.01 LJ King Ltd (ex Candy Corn) 8/06/2017
APP.039345.01.01 Ian McLarnon & Jason McLarnon of Ongare Trust
19/06/2017
APP.039381.01.01 Johno & Carol Brien 28/06/2017
4.15. In my experience, the term ‘received’ is taken to mean that the application is complete under
s88(2) RMA while the term ‘lodged’ is the term used to explain that, while your application
7
has been lodged, it is being assessed for completeness under s88(2) and may be returned
under s88(3) RMA.
4.16. The timing at which the applications were received is important when applying the correct
law and relevant rule status due to subsequent amendment, change or review.
The applicable law
4.17. The applicable law regarding this matter is the RMA, however, both minor and major
amendments have been made to the RMA since receipt of these applications. Of the
amendments, only those incorporated through the Resource Legislation Amendment Act
2017 (herein referred to as the ‘RLAA’) have effect on those parts of the RMA that are
particularly relevant to resource consents.
4.18. The RLAA took royal assent on 18 April 2017 and while some of the changes took
immediate effect other changes have transitional periods specified in the RLAA. However,
the majority of changes to the resource consent process came into force six months after
enactment, on 18 October 2017.
4.19. Consequently, the applicable law is the RMA as it was prior to the RLAA as the changes
did not take effect until after all the applications were received for processing.
Planning Documents
4.20. At the time these applications were received by Council, the following planning documents
would have been relevant within an assessment;
• National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (amended August 2017)
(herein referred to as ‘NPSFM’);
• New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (herein referred to as ‘NZCPS’);
• Proposed National Environmental Standard for Ecological Flows and Water Levels
2008 (herein referred to as ‘pNES);
• The Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes)
Regulations 2010 (herein referred to as ‘Regulations’);
• The Regional Policy Statement for Northland 6th May 2016 (herein referred to as ‘RPS);
• NgāiTakoto Claims Settlement Act 2015 - Statutory Acknowledgement Area Lake
Waikaramu as shown on OTS-073-04.
• Regional Water and Soil Plan for Northland 2004 (herein referred to as RWSP);
• Far North District Plan 2009 (herein referred to as ‘FNDP’); and
• Pukenui/Houhora Community Development Plan (herein referred to as ‘PHCDP’).
8
4.21. As only 2 applications were acknowledged as reeived by Council before 6th May 2016, I
have only considered the provisions of the RPS throughout my evidence and not the prior
Regional Policy Statement for Northland.
4.22. Although the PRP was not a relevant consideration at the time of lodging these application,
it must now be given regard under s104(1)(b) RMA.
4.23. The RPS and PRP have linkage with Waiora Northland Water (WNW). WNW is a Council
project to implement the NPSFM national objectives framework including the establishment
of freshwater objectives for national values and any other values that is nationally consistent
and recognises regional and local circumstances.
4.24. There is a clear indication through all of these documents and through WNW that catchment
plans will be the main mechanism used to implement the NPSFM. Catchment plans may
be both non-statutory or statutorily binding if they are given effect to within a statutory
planning document. Currently, statutory weight has been given to five catchment plans
through the PRP. There are no such statutory or non-statutory catchment plans developed
for the Aupouri Peninsula shellbed aquifer.
Overview of Applications
4.25. Seventeen applications (the Applications) to take and use groundwater from the deep shell
bed aquifer in the Houhora, Motutangi and Waiharara areas of the Aupouri Peninsula were
received individually by Council between the period beginning 5th April 2016 and 28th June
2017. They varied in content when formally received by Council under Section 88 of the
RMA.
4.26. According to the information that has been made available to me by Council, requests for
further information pursuant to section 92(1) of the RMA were issued to six of the seventeen
applicants on 14th June 2016, one request was issued on 8th July 2016, another five
requests on 22nd August 2016, one on 13 September 2016 and the last official record of a
further information request was made on 5th May 2017.
4.27. The further information sought, in summary, was the preparation of a comprehensive
assessment of the effects on the environment of taking groundwater both individually and
cumulatively by a suitably qualified groundwater expert.
4.28. As per paragraph 4.26 above, the fourteen applicants who were issued with formal further
information requests combined to form the Motutangi-Waiharara Water Users Group
(MWWUG) and contracted Jon Williamson of Williamson Water Advisory (WWA) to prepare
an assessment of environmental effects (AEE) to fulfil the request for further information
issued by Council. By this time, another three applications to take and use groundwater
from the shell bed aquifer had been lodged and had already affiliated themselves with the
MWWUG awaiting the outcome of the WWA report (as per email advice from Ms Stride,
dated 5th February 2018).
4.29. According to advice from Council (requested meeting with Angela Stride, 8th February
2018), the first version of the AEE report and supporting technical assessment (numerical
groundwater analysis of pumping effects) from the WWA was issued to Council in May
2017. The Council contracted Mr Brydon Hughes of Land, Water, People (LWP) to be
9
technical peer reviewer of the AEE and model report. As a result of Mr Hughes technical
peer review, revisions to the AEE and model report took place during a period between May
2017 and September 2017. At meeting on the 8th February 2018 that I had organised to
familiarise myself with the applications, Ms Stride advised me that the AEE was only
deemed to be sufficient for the purposes of closing-off the further information request toward
the end of September 2017.
4.30. I was not responsible for the preparation of the Applications nor the AE) that formed part of
the applications for resource consent submitted to the Council.
Amendments
4.31. To my knowledge, the applications are proceeding forth on the detail as provided in
Annexure 3.
4.32. Some detail provided in Annexure 3 differs from the notified application information as
shown through track-changes.
4.33. General amendments have been made to the notified legal descriptions to correct errors
and to ensure that property legal descriptions are provided.
4.34. Also, generally, I have included a statement at the end of each description of the use areas
to allow other land parcels to be added to those specifically identified. The statement
specifically reads;
“…and other parcels to be approved by Council upon receipt of
Computer Freehold Register title or landowner written evidence
confirming interest in the land.”
4.35. This statement has been included to future-proof the consents should subdivision of land
or land purchase occur. Furthermore, it ensures that water is able to be utilised efficiently
by enabling the use of water to occur more dynamically without procedural constraint. For
example, if an applicant finds that they are not utilising all of their allocated volumes, and
land purchase is possible, they can then spread the use of water to new productive land
areas without having to seek a change of conditions under s127 RMA as a discretionary
activity.
4.36. The addition of this statement does not in any way shape or form give express permission
to consent holders to consequently increase their allocated amounts by identifying new use
areas. An advice note has been proposed to ensure that it is clear to consent holders that
any increase in amounts of consented allocation would require an application for either a
change to the current consent or a new consent, depending on the scale and nature of the
changes to allocation sought.
4.37. Specific application changes are explained as follows
4.38. APP.038471.01.01 (Honeytree Farms Ltd), APP.038589.01.01 (AV Thompson, JS
Thompson, N Thompson, S Thompson), APP.038650.01.01 (AW & DE Hewitt),
APP.0338591.01.01 (Cypress Hills Ltd), APP.039345.01.01 (Ian & Jason McLarnon);
10
a) Reductions in annual volumes sought (refer to Annexure 3 below).
4.39. APP.038471.01.01 (Honeytree Farms Ltd)
a) Reduction in land area from 110ha to 93 ha with consequent reduction in
annual volume.
4.40. APP.039332.01.01 (LJ King Ltd)
a) When lodged, the application was made under the name Candy Corn Ltd.
However, Fiona King notified Council of a change of applicant from Candy
Corn Ltd to LJ King Ltd due to the purchase of this property by the King
family Trust (Logan King Trustee Ltd) (email from Fiona King to Angela
Stride, dated 07/09/2017). Jan Gemmell on behalf of Bryan Candy also
wrote to Council to confirm that the property situated at 3167 Far North
Road, Kaitaia had been sold to LJ King Ltd (email from Jan Gemmell to
Angela Stride, dated 12/09/2017). It is therefore necessary to reflect the
consent holder as LJ King Ltd.
b) The applicant seeks a further 1.5 ha to be added to the area of irrigable area
of land notified which was 20 ha. No change is sought to the notified
application volumes.
4.41. APP.038328.01.01 (BK & SD Shine)
a) This applicant was granted subdivision consent 2180189-RMASUB on 11th
November 2017 to subdivide Lot 3 DP 22761 and amalgamate balance Lot
2 with Pt Lot 1 DP 13971 and that one Computer Freehold Register title be
issued to include both parcels (attached as Annexure 1). This subdivision
has resulted in further land being available to the applicant to plant and
irrigate. Consequently, they have sought to amend their application to
increase the irrigable area by 2.5 ha, giving a total irrigable area of 12.5 ha.
b) Amendment to subsequently increase the application annual volume of
abstraction is also presented to the hearing commissioners for
consideration. The numerical changes are illustrated in Annexure 3.
c) Mr Williamson informs me that this increase does not have any effect on the
results of his modelling and analysis and he will be elaborating on this
further in his evidence. From a planning perspective, there is no resultant
change in activity status and when compared to the quantities notified for
this sub-aquifer (Waiparera), the increase is able to be absorbed by
decreases implemented by other applicants in this sub-aquifer
Furthermore, the cumulative quantities presented to the hearing
commissioners now remain below those notified for this sub-aquifer, I refer
you to Table 4 below.
4.42. APP.038732.01.01 (KY Valadares)
a) In her original application, Mrs Valadares identified land to be irrigated that
is owned by her father, Norman Ashley Bryan. She did so in a map attached
to her application. The area depicted in Mrs Valadares application was
around 43 ha in total.
11
b) Mrs Valadares was, at the time of preparing her application, unsure of the
exact allocation amounts available and so made application for water to
irrigate a small area of land, being 8 ha.
c) Since learning more about the availability of allocation, Mrs Valadares has
sought to amend her application as she had initially intended to prepare it,
including a sufficient volume of water to irrigate 12 ha. This has resulted in
an increase of both her weekly and annual allocations (see Annexure 3 for
numerical changes).
d) The amendment does cause the overall cumulative notified application
allocation from this sub-aquifer to increase from 374,983 m3/year to 394,833
m3/year (increase of 19,850 m3/year). Mr Williamson informs me that this
increase does not have any effect on the results of his modelling and
analysis and he will be elaborating on this further in his evidence. From a
planning perspective, there is no resultant change in activity status and the
cumulative quantities presented to the hearing commissioners across the
WWA model domain remain below those notified.
12
5. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Regional Policy Statement
5.1. Figure 1 below shows RPS mapped features in the surrounding area of the application sites.
Figure 1: RPS map features within the application area.
5.2. The Council has, for the purposes of Policy 1 of the NZCPS recognised the landward extent
of the coastal environment as being up to the blue line depicted. This is of particular
importance when applying the correct level of regard when considering these applications.
5.3. The east beach backing onto the Kaimaumau-Motutangi wetland has been identified in the
RPS mapping exercise as being part of the Coastal Environment. This back-dune area is
also identified as an area of High Natural Character in the RPS.
5.4. Parts of the properties owned by Elbury Holdings Limited and BK & SD Shine are included
within the area identified as coastal environment also.
5.5. The inner Kaimaumau-Motutangi wetland has been mapped as an Outstanding Natural
Landscape because areas outside the internal unit have suffered repeated fires and are
now dominated by exotic, fire tolerant species and have therefore lost most of their
indigenous character. Some other areas of the wetland, including Lake WaiWaikaramu,
have also been excluded from RPS mapping exercise toward the southern edge of the unit
as they have recently been cleared and drained1.
1 https://www.nrc.govt.nz/contentassets/42f72aba3b23432ba3fbc8cfce46f976/inner-kaimaumau-wetland.pdf
13
RWSP & PRP: Groundwater Resource
5.6. Under the RWSP, the groundwater resource is not identified in any Schedules for the taking
and use of groundwater. The Aupouri Aquifer is identified in Schedule F as an aquifer
sensitive to bore construction however there is no allocation limit set in the RWSP for
groundwater in this area.
5.7. Under the PRP, the groundwater resource is identified as the Aupouri aquifer management
unit. Sub-aquifer units have been identified within this aquifer management unit. The sub-
aquifer relevant to these 17 applications are the Houhora, Motutangi and Waiharara sub-
aquifer units.
5.8. The available allocation in accordance with Policy D.4.17 of the PRP as at the date these
17 applications were formally received under section 88 of the RMA is presented in Table
3.
Table 2: PRP allocation limits.
Table Sub-aquifer Allocation Limit
m3/year % annual average recharge
Aupouri-Houhora 2,141,300 11
Aupouri-Motutangi 1,069,600 10
Aupouri-Waiparera 2,312,200 10
TOTAL 5,523,100
RWSP & PRP: Surface Water Resources
5.9. There are no surface waterbodies which have been recognised as significant or outstanding
in the RWSP, PRP or the RPS in the model domain area. Schedule E of the RWSP contains
a list of dune lakes in Northland, included in the model domain are Lake Waiparera and
associated lakes, Bacica Road Lake and Turks Lake.
NgaiTakoto Statutory Acknowledgement Area
5.10. Lake Waikaramu, is an area which the Crown acknowledges statements of NgaitTakoto
association through the NgaiTakoto Claims Settlement Act 2015. Council must have regard
to the statutory acknowledgement when deciding, under s95E RMA, whether the trustees
are affected persons in relation to an application for resource consent within, adjacent to or
directly affecting the area.
Current Consented Groundwater Allocation
5.11. Table 3 presents a summary of the current allocation status in the three sub-zones relevant
to the MWWUG applications.
14
Table 3: Assessment of consented allocation (Source: WWA Expert Evidence).
Table Sub-aquifer Current Allocation Status1
m3/year %
Aupouri-Houhora 1,045,494 49
Aupouri-Motutangi 374,497 35
Aupouri-Waiparera 288,445 12
TOTAL 1,708,435 -
1. According to NRC's allocation maps at http://gis.nrc.govt.nz/LocalMaps-Viewer/?map=895e0785f7054d47b10a72edc38022dc
Actual Water Use
5.12. Mr Williamson simulated actual water use within the predictive modelling exercise. Council
has carried out an assessment of selected water use records for the purposes of
rationalising application water volumes. No further assessment of actual water use has
been made as there is insufficient data.
Land Use
5.13. Land to the west of the applications is described as being dominated by exotic plantation
forestry with pockets of low-producing grassland, gorse and broom, and dune lakes.
Central and eastern areas are described as high-producing exotic grassland interspersed
with indigenous kanuka/manuka shrubland. There are pockets of land described as
orchard, vineyard or other perennial crop. 2
2 Land Care Research land cover database, version 4.1.
15
6. SUBMISSIONS
Overview
6.1. The Council limited notified the 17 applications on 27 October 2017 with the submission
period closing on 24 November 2017, allowing for the standard submission period of 20
working days.
6.2. Notification was limited to potentially affected parties including; bore owners, groundwater
and surface water permit holders, mandated mana whenua representatives, Department of
Conservation (DoC), and the territorial authority (Far North District Council (FNDC)).
6.3. As all submitters did not serve copies of their submissions on the applicant’s representative
at the time, (Mr Ian Broadhurst), the MWWUG representatives information regarding
submissions differs slightly to what the Council has noted in their s42A report.
6.4. The applicant’s representatives were provided with a dropbox link to the accepted
submissions on 6 December 2017 from Council. The information in the dropbox included
a collated PDF document of all submissions accepted at that time as well as a spreadsheet
with summary information (location, depth of bore etc) on water takes.
6.5. Additions to this list of accepted submissions were made by Council where submitters
provided the necessary information to Council to meet their s96(4) RMA criteria, such as a
map or sketch of the location of the bore/well or surface water take. I was made aware of
five of these additions including Ada Hobson, H Cook, P & JD Matijevich, A Thompson on
21 February 2018 and K Te Arani Kerr on 6 March 2018.
6.6. In contrast to the PDF information noted in paragraph 6.4 and the notification of further
accepted submissions mentioned in paragraph 6.5 of my evidence, Attachment 1 of the
s42A report contains 4 submissions which the MWWUG were not made aware of. These
are NC Rouse & CAH Madrid (#17), Te Taumata Kaumatua o Ngati Kuri Research Unit
(#21), Croydon & Dianne Thompson (#28 and/or #55) and Mr A Burgoyne (#56).
6.7. Since receiving the Council’s' s42A report on 2nd March 2018, I am now familiar with Mr A
Burgoyne’s submission (paragraph 37 of the s42A report), however, I can find no mention
of Te Taumata Kaumatua o Ngati Kuri Research Unit submission and have no copy of this
submission.
6.8. While there have been delays and some remaining uncertainty about the contents of some
of the submissions noted in the s42A report, I have been able to make sense of the
submitter information for the most part. However, due to the confusion surrounding
accepted submissions, I present to the hearing commissioners a copy of all submissions
which were served on MWWUG in Annexure 3.
6.9. In conclusion, I believe there are 56 submissions in total, 10 submissions in support, 7
neutral and 39 in opposition.
16
Summary of submissions
6.10. The submissions received crossed many themes, including both procedural and
assessment of effects. In chief, I have identified that the key issues or concerns raised by
submitters - whether in support, neutral or opposition, included;
Procedural Matters
• Consultation by applicants;
• Regional Council consultation practices and process; and
• Decision to limited notify.
Effects Assessment
• Sustainability of allocation framework;
• Efficient use of the water (appropriate volumes);
• Saline intrusion;
• Drawdowns (bores);
• Drawdowns (surface water bodies);
• Water quality effects (discharges from change in land use);
• Ecology (water quality and contaminants);
• Cultural (lack of consultation, no Part 2 RMA assessment);
• Inadequacy of assessment and monitoring (scientific uncertainty, no statutory
analysis);
• Socio-economic effects (no Part 2 RMA assessment);
• Competing demand for water/appropriate use of water; and
• Effects of climate change.
6.11. I attach a full breakdown of issue against submitter in Annexure 2.
6.12. An issue specifically raised by seven submitters (S Simpkin, H Exley, D.E Woodcock, Te
Runanga Nui o Te Aupouri Trust, R.L Dension, J Wright and G.J Stanisich) that I consider
to be outside of the scope of applications for a discretionary activity to take and use
groundwater was in relation to the use of agrichemicals. The Regional Air Quality Plan for
Northland (RAQPN), RWSP and PRP currently regulate discharges to air, land and water
in relation to agricultural practices including the use of agrichemicals. I consider that the
abovementioned planning instruments contain policies, rules and standards for the use of
agrichemicals which achieve the sustainable management of these resources, which
includes people and the communities. However, I have amended the ‘Recommendations’
to include an Advice Note which informs consent holders about their overall resource
management responsibilities should other approvals be required.
17
7. S42A REPORT
7.1. Council’s Consultant Planner and Consultant Hydrogeologist have noted that their
assessment and analysis in their s42A report relies on the relevant planning documents to
provide them with guidance as to the appropriateness of effects and the matters to be
considered when assessing applications to take and use groundwater. The report attends
only to those matters which the consent authority must consider under s104 RMA.
7.2. Section 3 of the s42A report addresses the submission process, including a summary of the
basis for the decision to limited notify and decision-making surrounding acceptance of
submissions received.
7.3. The key effects raised by Council’s Consultant Planner and Hydrogeologist in the s42A
report, are repeated as follows;
• Adequacy of information submitted;
• Demonstrated need for water;
• Water conservation and mitigation measures;
• Long-term aquifer storage;
• Effects on other water users of resource;
• Likelihood of saltwater intrusion;
• Other water quality effects;
• Ground subsidence;
• Social and economic effects;
• Cultural, heritage and archaeological effects;
• Ecological (including recharging of wetlands from aquifer and Natural Character);
• Effects of climate change; and
• Assessment of alternatives.
7.4. I am in agreement with most of the assessment and conclusions contained in the s42A
report. However, where I am not in agreement or have decided that further analysis is
warranted, I provide this in Section 8 (Principal Issues in Contention) of my evidence.
7.5. I have also discussed the following matters raised by Council’s Consultants in the s42A
report under their own separate headings:
18
• Relevant statutory provisions;
• Part 2 of the RMA
• Mitigation and monitoring (precautionary principal and adaptive management)
19
8. PRINCIPAL ISSUES IN CONTENTION
Procedural
8.1. As noted above, submitters raised three areas of concern which relate to process. I have
observed that the s42A report addresses the matter of consultation by applicants and the
decision to limited notify only. I expand on these two procedural concerns and also address
the concern regarding Council’s consultation on the matter as follows.
Consultation by applicants
Planning Document Directly Relevant Objectives, Policies, Assessment Criteria, Methods
(other than Rules)
RPS Method 8.1.7
The regional and district councils shall:
(a) Actively encourage resource consent applicants to consult with tangata
whenua as early in the process as possible prior to lodging consent
applications for proposals that are likely to impact on tangata whenua
and their taonga; and
(b) Refer resource consent applicants to any relevant iwi or hapū planning
document lodged with the respective council that has been authorised
by the iwi or hapū for public availability.
RWSP Method 6.5.1
1. To encourage applicants for resource consents for activities that may
have an adverse effect on the taonga of tangata whenua to consult
with the tangata whenua prior to their application being processed.
General Information Requirements 35.2.1
The information supplied with a water permit application should include:
[…]
(i) A report outlining the consultation undertaken, the information
supplied and any response to the views of those consulted.
Consultation by the applicant is encouraged with the following where
they have an interest in or are affected by the proposal:
(i) the local iwi;
(ii) the Department of Conservation;
(iii) landowners and occupiers adjoining the site of the proposed
activity;
(iv) any downstream users of the water who may be affected by
the proposal;
(v) other affected groups;
the local authority for the territorial district to which an application relates.
PRP Policy D.1.1 (18 specific submissions received)
A resource consent application must include in its assessment of
environmental effects an analysis of the effects of an activity on tangata
whenua and their taonga(1) if one or more of the following is likely:
1) adverse effects on mahinga kai(2) and access to mahinga kai(3), or
2) any damage, destruction and loss of access to wāhi tapu, sites of
customary value and other ancestral sites and taonga which Māori
have a special relationship with(4), or
3) adverse effects on indigenous biodiversity where it impacts on the
ability of tangata whenua to carry out cultural and traditional
activities(5) , or
4) the use of genetic engineering and the release of genetically
modified organisms to the environment, or
5) adverse effects on tāiapure, mataitai or Māori non-commercial
fisheries(6), or
20
6) adverse effects on protected customary rights(7), or
7) adverse effects on Sites and Areas of Significance to Tangata
Whenua mapped in the Regional Plan (refer I 'Maps').
Note: The continued inclusion of clause 4 in this policy depends on the
outcome of the appeals on the matter in the Regional Policy Statement. 1 A analysis of effects on tangata whenua and their taonga may be necessary in circumstances not outlined
in this policy - it will depend on the circumstances
2 Food and places for obtaining natural foods and resources. The work (mahi), methods and cultural
activities involved in obtaining foods and resources
3 This includes, for instance, kai awa (river food) kai repo (swamp food) and kaimoana (sea food).
4 This includes, for instance, impacts on the quality of water used for ceremonial purposes.
5 This includes, for instance, use of rongoa (medicinal) plants, and uses for raranga (weaving).
6 Māori non-commercial fisheries are defined in the Fisheries Act 1996 7 As defined by the Marine and
Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011
Policy D.1.2 (23 specific submissions received)
An analysis of the effects of an activity on tangata whenua and their taonga
in a resource consent application must:
1) […], and
2) have regard to (but not be limited to):
a) […], and
b) the outcomes of any consultation with tangata whenua with
respect to the consent application, and […]
AEE Form 2 C.5 Consultation
Written approvals regarding your proposal are normally required from the
adjoining land owners/occupiers and neighbouring water users. Please see
attached information requirement booklet for details of who needs to be
consulted. Any letters of concern/support or comment from persons
consulted should be attached to this application form. The Northland
Regional Council can supply you with written approval forms to aid you with
the consultation. Have you consulted with any of the following potentially
affected parties:
Neighbours, other nearby water users, Department of Conservation, Local
iwi, Other
8.2. Applicants are under no obligation to consult with those affected by their proposal (Clause
6(1)(f) Schedule 4 RMA, and s36A(1)(a) RMA). However best practice suggests that there
can be advantages to doing so prior to lodging applications, including gaining written
approval, understanding issues better and efficiency gains once lodged with the consenting
authority.
8.3. From the information I have received from Council (email communications with some
applicants), nine applicant’s sought out written approval from persons whom were identified
as potentially affected by Council. This request by Council was issued prior to the request
for further information and prior to a decision to limited notify the applications. The
remaining eight applicants were alternatively instructed that their applications required
further information before a decision on affected persons could be made.
8.4. Regarding consultation with tangata whenua, the local framework set-down by Council is
confusing. On one hand, the RPS states that Council will actively encourage applicants to
consult tangata whenua, while the RWSP, PRP and Application Forms (AEE Form 2) fall
back to the language within the RMA that an applicant is not obliged to consult. The AEE
Form 2 only asks if consultation has been undertaken with any of the identified parties which
I do not interpret as being ‘active encouragement’.
8.5. I was not in receipt of any information or advice issued by Council which can be seen to be
actively encouraging applicants to consult with tangata whenua either. However, Council
21
did circulate the initial 12 applications to Iwi groups who had registered with the Council as
having an interest in the general location of the proposed activities. Comments on the
applications from these Iwi groups were invited through this correspondence that was
circulated by Council. Some responded and this has been noted and considered by Council
in Section 3.1.3 of the s42A report.
8.6. I consider that the applicants have acted in accordance with the requirements of the RMA,
the RWSP and PRP in relation to consultation when preparing and lodging their applications
for resource consent, including the use of best practice.
Regional Council consultation practices and process
Planning Document Directly Relevant Objectives, Policies, Assessment Criteria, Methods
(other than Rules)
RMA In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and
powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and
protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide
for the following matters of national importance:
[…]
(e) the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their
ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga:
[…]
NPSFM Objective D1
To provide for the involvement of iwi and hapū, and to ensure that tangata
whenua values and interests are identified and reflected in the management
of fresh water including associated ecosystems, and decision-making
regarding freshwater planning, including on how all other objectives of this
national policy statement are given effect to.
Policy D1
Local authorities shall take reasonable steps to:
a) involve iwi and hapū in the management of fresh water and
freshwater ecosystems in the region;
b) work with iwi and hapū to identify tangata whenua values and
interests in fresh water and freshwater ecosystems in the region;
and
c) reflect tangata whenua values and interests in the management of,
and decision-making regarding, fresh water and freshwater
ecosystems in the region.
RPS Policy 8.1.4 (Method 8.1.5)
Relevant Māori concepts, values and practices will be clarified through
consultation with tangata whenua to develop common understandings of
their meaning and to develop methodologies for their implementation.
8.7. There are no specific mandatory statutory obligations requiring that a consenting authority
consults with affected parties with regard to applications for resource consent. There is
however an expectation that the consenting authority carries out a thorough assessment
before deciding whether to process applications notified, limited notified or non-notified and
I elaborate on this later.
8.8. Section 6(e) of the RMA requires that all persons exercising functions and powers under it
recognise and provide for the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their
ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga. Sitting under this is the NPSFM
22
which requires that local authorities establish reasonable steps to involve tangata whenua
in the management of fresh water.
8.9. My interpretation of the relevant planning matters of the RPS, RWSP and PRP is that these
documents prescribe the ways in which the Council will give effect to both s6(e) of the RMA
and the NPSFM for the Northland region.
8.10. From the information I received from Council (a USB stick from Angela Stride on 9th
February 2018), including that 12 applications were circulated to Iwi groups and that
applicants were advised to obtain written approvals from persons deemed affected prior to
a notification decision being made, I conclude that the Council has legitimately carried out
its duties and functions as statutorily obliged with regard to this matter. This does not in
any way mean that I conclude that a duty to consult on the preparation of the PRP does not
exist for Council or that a Plan collaborative process (i.e., Catchment Management Group)
would not be possible should consents be granted.
8.11. Mana Whakahono a Rohe (MWR) provisions have been mentioned in the documents titled
‘Intervention: Motutangi-Waiharara Water Users Group (MWWUG): Part 1’ prepared by
Catherine Murupaenga-Ikken as a new approach with respect to ‘protecting and
progressively realising Māori rights and interests’ (in freshwater management). Relief
sought from this submitter with regard to MWR included;
• Giving significant weight these developments; and
• Showing good faith by recognizing the imperative for better Māori engagement […].
8.12. None of these applications are affected by these amendments given they were accepted
under Section 88 of the RMA prior to these provisions coming into force. Also, as noted by
Ms Murupaenga-Ikken, there has been no invitation to form a MWR by either the iwi
authority, hapū or Council to initiate MWR provisions. The Ministry for Environment
Resource Legislation Amendments 2017 – Fact Sheet 3 confirms that the MWR process
does not stop any other RMA process from starting or continuing.
Decision to limited notify
Planning Document Directly Relevant Objectives, Policies, Assessment Criteria,
Methods (other than Rules)
RMA Assessed below
RPS Method 8.1.6
Within two years of the Regional Policy Statement for Northland
becoming operative, the regional council will initiate the development of
a protocol with iwi authorities to:
a) Determine when the regional council will:
(iv) notify tangata whenua of resource consent applications and
confer affected party status to tangata whenua; and […]
RWSP Resource Consent Application Procedures 37.2.3
When processing applications for discretionary or non-complying
activities, the Council must determine whether the application can be dealt
with as a non-notified application. An application for a discretionary or
non-complying activity can only be non-notified if it meets the tests
contained in [sic] s.93 to s.94D of the Act, specifically
[sic] ss.93(1):
23
(b) The consent authority is satisfied that the adverse effects of the
activity on the environment will be minor.
To determine whether the effect of the activity will be minor, the Council
will consider the activity as submitted in the application, including any
further information that the Council may request under s.92 of the Act, and
will apply the appropriate assessment criteria listed in Section 36 of this
Plan. It must also consider s.94B of the Act regarding approval from
persons who would otherwise be "affected". In assessing the level of
effect on the environment, the Council will also consider how practicable
any mitigation measures proposed by the applicant would be, and the
long-term management and monitoring requirements of the proposed
activity.
[…]
Where there is doubt about whether the effects will be minor, the
application will be notified. Where it can be demonstrated that an
application does meet the tests for non-notification, but the Council
considers special circumstances exist in relation to the proposal, the
application may be notified. While those special circumstances are
specific to the application, the following proposed activities will be
considered for notification:
[…]
2. Any activity which may adversely affect the wider community
including any socio-economic and cultural effects; and
[…]
Persons who may be adversely affected can only be identified on an
application specific basis. Where written approvals are required in order
for an application for a resource consent for a controlled, restricted
discretionary, discretionary or noncomplying activity to be non-notified,
the written approval must clearly identify the information provided to the
affected person, upon which the assessment of the effects and
subsequent approval was made.
8.13. The provisions of s93 and 94 of the RMA were repealed on 1 October 2009 by s76 of the
Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009.
8.14. A decision to notify is now mandatory under s95A(2) RMA (pre-Resource Legislation
Amendment Act 2017) where (a) adverse effects of an activity will have or is likely to have
adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor; or (b) the applicant requests
public notification of the application; or (ba) the application is made jointly with an application
to exchange recreation reserve land […]; or (c) a rule or national environmental standard
requires public notification […].
8.15. Neither s95A(2)(b), (ba), or (c) apply to these applications, as such Council was only
required to qualify notification against sub-paragraph (a).
8.16. In making its decision to limited notify, I can see how Council has used the procedure
established in Administrative Procedure 37.2.3 of the RWSP as it still is relevant, even
though it refers to now repealed legislation.
8.17. It is my opinion that Council followed the correct statutory procedure when turning its
attention to s95A(2)(a) RMA, implementing good practice regarding the assessment of
24
whether an effect will be or is likely to be more than minor. Although Administrative
Procedure 37.2.3 refers to s93 and 94 RMA, including;
• The applications are for a common resource, however, this does not automatically deem
a whole community to be affected. An application need not be notified where the overall
effects of the proposal on the broader environment is no more than minor, even where
the effect on a neighbouring bore owner/water take might be more than minor; and
• The RMA states that a consent authority must consider someone an affected person if
the activity’s effects on them are minor (but not less than minor). Minor has developed
to be an assessment of fact and degree which is qualified through thorough assessment
of effects on the broader environment as it exists presently; and
• Considers mitigating factors proposed as part of the application, in this case, the
Proposed Consent Monitoring Conditions offered in Section 4 of the AEE prepared by
WWA.
8.18. The consenting authority has the discretion as to whether special circumstances exist in
relation to applications for resource consent. Council’s Consultant Planner has clearly
explained that, as groundwater abstraction and use is an anticipated activity through the
relevant Plans, and that no special circumstance exists.
8.19. There are no other statutory provisions for which a consenting authority has discretion to
decide to notify these applications.
8.20. As noted by Keith J in Discount Brands Ltd v Westfield (New Zealand) Ltd, the purpose of
these processes is to recognise and protect the particular rights of those who are affected
and to enhance the quality of the decision making.
8.21. Dissatisfaction with a notification decision can be elevated by seeking judicial review
through the High Court.
25
Effects Assessment
Receiving Environment
8.22. The term ‘environment’ in s2 of the RMA is reasonably easy to distinguish with components
that are tangible. However, the term ‘effect, as defined in s3 of the RMA, is more difficult to
apply in real-terms as it has dimensionless application without further refinement. The
terms receiving environment and existing environment are not defined within the RMA they
are concepts developed to assist practitioners to prepare appropriate assessment of effects
on the environment. Consequently, ‘environment’ is taken to mean;
• the environment as it actually exists now, including the effects of past resource use (by
whomever);
• the environment as it is likely to be in the future taking into account the permanent and
non-transitory effects of use of the resource; and
• the environment as it is likely to be from time to time, taking into account further effects
of past activity and further effects of existing consented activity.
8.23. The submission received from T Burkhardt and A Macrae commented on the absence of
assessment of permitted activity takes within the modelling. I have interpreted this to mean
that the submitter is concerned that an assessment of the effects did not consider the
possible future state of the environment as it might be modified by permitted activities. This
is the application of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Queenstown Lakes District Council v
Hawthorn Estate Limited [2006] NZRMA 424 (CA). Per Hawthorn, an assessment of effects
on the receiving environment would include consideration of:
• the rights to carry out permitted activities under a plan prepared in accordance with the
RMA; and
• implementation of resource consents which have been granted at the time a particular
application is considered, where it appears likely that those resource consents will be
implemented;
8.24. Also in terms of the future environment overlay, applying the Foodstuffs3 decision, it should
be determined whether regard should be had to any operative plan provisions (and
proposals to implement those provisions) applying to any of the subject site or surrounding
area for the purpose of assessing what activities are envisaged in the future for the site/area.
8.25. Establishing a baseline for what the foreseeable future environment could be is difficult to
quantify given that abstraction of ground water may be permitted in the ‘environment’ by
both s14 RMA and the regional plan. In the Pukenui/Houhora community, land use
development in the area is undergoing a significant change as noted in the PHCDP.
Consequently, in this fast-changing environment, applying Hawthorn to water should be
moderated by reasonableness of such an undertaking. In fact, I note that some submitters
have noted multiple uses of the water taken from their bores including for supply to 20
houses, and commercial and public facilities. Cumulatively, such an abstraction would likely
exceed the permitted thresholds in the RWSP and PRP, however, removing the 20
3 Queenstown Central Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council and Foodstuffs (South Island) Limited [2013] NZHC 815
26
households from the equation may reduce the volume of water considered to be available,
‘as of right’. It is this uncertainty that limits any prediction on future permitted water
abstractions.
8.26. The modelling exercise did not include a scenario which included permitted activities per
se. However, Scenarios 3a, 3b and 3c did include additional abstraction from ‘fictitious’
bores distributed across the model domain. I consider this work to be sufficient and
reasonable with regard to assessment of the effects of the activity on the receiving
environment. It is also important to highlight that when setting an allocation framework in a
regional plan, the allocation amount is additional to activities permitted by a Plan. The onus
therefore lies with Council to establish the level of permitted activity abstraction which is
possible over and above the currently notified allocation framework under Policy D.4.17 of
the PRP.
8.27. The physical environmental setting of the Aupouri Aquifer was extensively described by
WWA and in Council’s s42A report, as well as the LWP review.
8.28. Simulation of the environment as it is likely to be in the future was conducted through the
WWA modelling exercise. The simulation of the environment included the proposed
application volumes as well as modelled groundwater abstraction by current consent
holders. Modelling using the SMWBM Irrigation Module was required due to the lack of
actual use data available for the current consented abstraction.
8.29. The calibrated numerical model was utilised to run a range of predictive scenarios
representing existing and potential future use. There was no distinguishing between
consented allocation and allocation which may be discontinued through expiry therefore,
the model is conservative in this respect.
Aquifer Sustainability & saline intrusion
Planning Document Directly Relevant Objectives, Policies, Assessment Criteria, Methods (other than Rules)
NPSFM Objective B2 To avoid any further over-allocation of fresh water and phase out existing over-allocation.
Policy B2 By every regional council making or changing regional plans to the extent needed to provide for the efficient allocation of fresh water to activities, within the limits set to give effect to Policy B1.
Policy B5 By every regional council ensuring that no decision will likely result in future over-allocation – including managing fresh water so that the aggregate of all amounts of fresh water in a freshwater management unit that are authorised to be taken, used, dammed or diverted does not over-allocate the water in the freshwater management unit.
Policy B7 and direction (under section 55) to regional councils By every regional council amending regional plans (without using the process in Schedule 1) to the extent needed to ensure the plans include the following policy to apply until any changes under Schedule 1 to give effect to Policy B1 (allocation limits), Policy B2 (allocation), and Policy B6 (overallocation) have become operative: 1. When considering any application the consent authority must have regard to
the following matters: a. the extent to which the change would adversely affect safeguarding the
life-supporting capacity of fresh water and of any associated ecosystem and
27
b. the extent to which it is feasible and dependable that any adverse effect on the lifesupporting capacity of fresh water and of any associated ecosystem resulting from the change would be avoided.
2. This policy applies to: a. any new activity and […]
3. This policy does not apply to any application for consent first lodged before the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 took effect on 1 July 2011.
Objective CA1 To provide an approach to establish freshwater objectives for national values, and any other values, that: a) is nationally consistent; and b) recognises regional and local circumstances.
Policy CA1 By every regional council identifying freshwater management units that include all freshwater bodies within its region.
Policy CA2 By every regional council, through discussion with communities, including tangata whenua, applying the following processes in developing freshwater objectives for all freshwater management units: a) considering all national values and how they apply to local and regional
circumstances; b) identifying the values for each freshwater management unit, which
i. must include the compulsory values; and ii. may include any other national values or other values that the regional
council considers appropriate (in either case having regard to local and regional circumstances);
[…] e) formulating freshwater objectives:
[…] ii. in those cases where the attribute is not listed in Appendix 2, in
numeric terms where practicable, otherwise in narrative terms; f. considering the following matters at all relevant points in the process
described in Policy CA2(a)-(e): […] iab. how to enable communities to provide for their economic well-being,
including productive economic opportunities, while managing within limits;
i. the current state of the freshwater management unit, and its anticipated future state on the basis of past and current resource use, including community understandings of the health and well-being of the freshwater management unit;
ii. the spatial scale at which freshwater management units are defined; iii. the limits that would be required to achieve the freshwater objectives; iv. any choices between the values that the formulation of freshwater
objectives and associated limits would require; v. any implications for resource users, people and communities arising
from the freshwater objectives and associated limits including implications for actions, investments, ongoing management changes and any social, cultural or economic implications;
vi. the timeframes required for achieving the freshwater objectives, including the ability of regional councils to set long timeframes for achieving targets; and vii. such other matters relevant and reasonably necessary to give effect to the objectives and policies in this national policy statement, in particular Objective AA1 and Objective A2.
NZCPS Policy 7 1. In preparing regional policy statements, and plans:
a. consider where, how and when to provide for future residential, rural residential, settlement, urban development and other activities in the coastal environment at a regional and district level; and
b. identify areas of the coastal environment where particular activities and forms of subdivision, use, and development: i. are inappropriate; and
28
ii. may be inappropriate without the consideration of effects through a resource consent application, notice of requirement for designation or Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act process; and provide protection from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development in these areas through objectives, policies and rules.
2. Identify in regional policy statements, and plans, coastal processes, resources or values that are under threat or at significant risk from adverse cumulative effects. Include provisions in plans to manage these effects. Where practicable, in plans, set thresholds (including zones, standards or targets), or specify acceptable limits to change, to assist in determining when activities causing adverse cumulative effects are to be avoided.
RPS Policy 4.1.1 Catchment Specific Objectives and Limits (Method 4.3.5) a) Identify the values of water in catchments and receiving estuaries and
harbours; b) Provide for these values by establishing catchment-specific objectives and
set water quality limits and environmental flows and / or levels, and where necessary targets; and
c) Establish methods to avoid, and where necessary phase out, overallocation.
Policy 4.3.2 Avoiding over-allocation (Method 4.3.5) Establish regulatory methods to avoid or phase out the over-allocation of region-wide ecological flows and water levels.
RWSP Objective 10.4.1 The sustainable use and development of Northland’s groundwater resources while avoiding, remedying or mitigating actual and potential adverse effects on groundwater quantity and quality.
Policy 10.5.1 (Method 10.6.1, 10.6.2) To ensure the sustainable use of groundwater resources, by avoiding groundwater takes that exceed recharge which result in any of the following:
a) Saltwater intrusion or reduced groundwater quality; b) A lowering of the groundwater table below existing efficient bore takes; c) A lowering of the temperature of geothermal waters in geothermal
aquifers and springs; d) Adverse effects on surface water resources in terms of Policy 10.05.07.
PRP Policy D.4.17 1) The allocation limits in Clause 2 apply to:
a) rules in this plan that permit any activity involving the taking and use of fresh water from aquifers, and
b) applications for water permits for the taking and use of fresh water from aquifers, but do not apply to applications for water permits for the taking and use of fresh water under rules C.5.1.7 'Takes existing at the notification date of the plan - controlled activity' and C.5.1.9 'Takes existing at the notification date of this plan - discretionary activity'.
2) The quantities of fresh water that can be taken from aquifers must not exceed: a) for the Aupouri aquifer, the catchment-specific allocation limits in Table
12 'Allocation limits for the Aupouri aquifer management unit', and […]
8.30. Aquifer sustainability is a descriptor used to encompass many functional aspects of a
groundwater resource. I assess many of the functions of aquifer sustainability individually
within my evidence below, as does Mr Williamson in his evidence. The main component of
this part of my evidence regarding aquifer sustainability is the allocation framework which
exists (or doesn’t).
8.31. There are no specific allocation limits set in the RWSP for abstraction from aquifers in
Northland. The groundwater takes are immediately deemed discretionary under Rule
25.01.01 of the RWSP as they exceed permitted activity thresholds.
29
8.32. Rule C.5.1.10 of the PRP states that the taking and use of freshwater that is not a permitted,
controlled, non-complying or prohibited activity is a discretionary activity. The applications
to take and use exceed permitted activity thresholds.
8.33. Under the PRP, it is a non-complying activity to take and use of freshwater which does not
exceed a default allocation limit for an aquifer by more than five percent of the annual
average recharge. A take which causes the default allocation to be exceeded by more than
five percent of the annual average recharge is a prohibited activity.
8.34. Through the PRP, the Council proposes to adopt allocation limits for the Aupouri aquifer
through Table 12 of Policy D.4.17. The Council, in their supporting s32 RMA report for the
PRP states that while other aquifers in the region would be limited by the default limits in
the pNES, the Aupouri aquifer has been assigned a specific allocation framework to
manage the risk of saltwater intrusion into the aquifer along the coast. This is consistent
with the NPSFM that requires certain compulsory national values to be met, in this instance
the allocation limit seeks to maintain a healthy ecosystem by avoiding adverse changes in
freshwater chemistry. Other national values and uses for freshwater that would be
maintained through an allocation framework which seeks to manage the effects of saline
intrusion include natural form and character; irrigation, cultivation and food production;
animal drinking water; and water supply.
8.35. Table 12 of Policy D.4.17 of the PRP splits the Aupouri aquifer into sub-aquifer units. The
basis for the allocation volume limits as specified in Table 12 of the PRP is set out most
succinctly in the Lincoln Agritech report (Lincoln 2015 report), although there are many prior
technical reports that have been prepared on the Aupouri Peninsula aquifer4.
8.36. The Lincoln 2015 report clearly states that allocation management limits have been
recommended for each sub-region to avoid seawater intrusion only.
8.37. According to the calculations and spatial modelling by Mr Williamson, the volumes proposed
to be abstracted by the 17 applications will not exceed default allocation limits within the
three subject sub-aquifers. As can be seen in Table 4 below, the applications will not
exceed the default sub-aquifer allocation limits either by up to 5 percent or by more than
five percent of the set limits.
Table 4: Application volumes against PRPN allocation limits.
Table Sub-
aquifer
Allocation Limit Current Allocation
Status1
MWWUG
Proposal
New Allocation Status
(if these consents
granted)
m3/year
% ann.
average
recharge
m3/year % m3/year m3/year
% of
current
allocation
limit
Aupouri-
Houhora 2,141,300 11 1,045,494 49 374,983 1,420,477 66
Aupouri-
Motutangi 1,069,600 10 374,497 35 666,067 1,040,563 97
4 See Section 32 Analysis Report for the PRPN dated September 2017, page 123.
30
Aupouri-
Waiparera 2,312,200 10 288,445 12 1,405,300 1,693,745 73
TOTAL 5,523,100 1,708,435 2,446,350 4,154,785 75
1. According to NRC's allocation maps at http://gis.nrc.govt.nz/LocalMaps-Viewer/?map=895e0785f7054d47b10a72edc38022dc
8.38. The proposals are therefore discretionary activities, not non-complying or prohibited
activities. The consenting authority may therefore grant or decline the applications under
s104B RMA and does not need to turn its attention to s104D RMA in relation to non-
complying activites.
8.39. Overall, I consider that the applications are not contrary to the relevant operative or
proposed objectives or policies of any relevant statutory document with regard to aquifer
sustainability. Consequently, there is no planning reason as to why consent would be
declined on the basis of aquifer sustainability.
Efficient use of the water (appropriate volumes), alternative water sources & competing local demand
Planning Document Directly Relevant Objectives, Policies, Assessment Criteria, Methods (other
than Rules)
NPSFM Objective B3
To improve and maximise the efficient allocation and efficient use of water.
Objective B5
To enable communities to provide for their economic well-being, including
productive economic opportunities, in sustainably managing fresh water quantity,
within limits
Policy B3
By every regional council making or changing regional plans to the extent needed
to ensure the plans state criteria by which applications for approval of transfers of
water take permits are to be decided, including to improve and maximise the
efficient allocation of water.
Policy B4
By every regional council identifying methods in regional plans to encourage the
efficient use of water.
Policy B8
By every regional council considering, when giving effect to this national policy
statement, how to enable communities to provide for their economic well-being,
including productive economic opportunities, while managing within limits.
RPS Objective 3.5
Northland’s natural and physical resources are sustainably managed in a way that
is attractive for business and investment that will improve the economic wellbeing
of Northland and its communities.
Objective 3.8
Manage resource use to:
(a) Optimise the use of existing infrastructure;
(b) Ensure new infrastructure is flexible, adaptable, and resilient, and meets the
reasonably foreseeable needs of the community; and
(c) Strategically enable infrastructure to lead or support regional economic
development and community wellbeing.
Objective 3.10
Efficiently use and allocate common natural resources, with a particular focus on:
(a) Situations where demand is greater than supply;
(b) The use of freshwater and coastal water space; and
(c) Maximising the security and reliability of supply of common natural resources
for users.
31
Policy 4.3.3
Allocate and use water efficiently within allocation limits.
Policy 4.3.5 (Method 4.1.3 and 4.3.6)
(1) The regional council will change relevant regional plans to:
(c) Include policies and methods to improve the efficient allocation of water,
including by:
(i) Requiring that the intended rate and quantity of water is reasonable
and justified for the proposed use;
(ii) Providing for the efficient transfer of water permits;
(iii) Promoting water user groups; and
(iv) […].
(d) Require the efficient use of water in permitted and consented
consumptive takes to the extent that is reasonable based on the level of
existing allocation and likely future demand pressure in the catchment.
(2) […]
(4) To improve the efficient allocation and use of water the regional council will
amend its relevant regional plans to include direction on metering
requirements for consented takes of less than five litres per second, which are
not covered by the Resource Management (Measuring and Reporting of Water
Takes) Regulations 2010.
RWPS Method 10.6.5
Include a rule which requires the measurement of the volume of groundwater taken
where takes are likely to adversely affect surface water resources, where the
average annual recharge of the aquifer is more than 50% allocated, or where the
volume to be taken exceeds 200 cubic metres per day.
PRP Policy D.4.20
An application for a resource consent to take water for irrigation purposes must
include an assessment using a field-validated water balance model that considers
land use, crop water use requirements, on-site physical factors such as soil water
holding capacity, and climate factors such as rainfall variability and potential
evapotranspiration. The model must reliably predict annual irrigation volume within
an accuracy of 15 percent. The annual volume calculated using the model must
meet the following criteria:
1) an irrigation application efficiency of at least 80 percent, and
2) demand conditions that occur in nine out of 10 years
Policy D.4.23
Water permits must include conditions that:
1) clearly define the take amount in instantaneous take rates and total
volumes, including by reference to the temporal aspects of the take and
use, and
2) require that the water take is metered and information on rates and total
volume of the take is provided electronically to the regional council, and
3) for water permits for takes equal to or greater than 10 litres per second,
require the water meter to be telemetered to the regional council, and
4) […]
6) specify when and under what circumstances the permit will be reviewed
pursuant to Section 128(1) of the RMA, including by way of a common
review date with other water permits in a catchment.
8.40. The RPS promotes the management of water in a way that enables continued access to
suitable water, ensuring communities can provide for their social, cultural and economic
wellbeing, now and for the future. It does this by requiring that consideration of whether the
take and use is efficient, if there are alternative water sources and the wider benefits to the
community of resource allocation is had.
32
8.41. From the submissions received, there is some concern about ‘water banking’ and denying
others an ability to access freshwater for their needs into the future. I have taken this to
mean that there is a concern about access to and competing demand for a common
resource.
8.42. The s42A report has identified the relevant case authority regarding how resource consent
applications will be considered when seeking permission to use and develop the same
common resource, however, it does not identify competing demand in the context as it was
raised by submitters, including that allocation of water needed to be justified as reasonable
for the use intended and that other values or uses should have priority over applications for
irrigation or commercial purposes. The s42A report also did not mention the mechanisms
which Council has at its disposal to address resource allocation in an ongoing capacity nor
does it address the national direction set through the NPS relating to the values which must
be provided for or which could be provided for depending on local context. I address these
matters as follows.
8.43. Compulsory national values stated in the NPS that must be included in regional freshwater
objectives for all freshwater management units are ecosystem health and human health for
recreation. There is no need to deliberate on allocation of water based on an argument that
one use is more appropriate than another given that the NPS recognises irrigation needs of
a freshwater management unit as an ‘other national value’ alongside other national values
such as animal drinking water, water supply and commercial and industrial use.
8.44. Further, as per the relevant planning provisions stated above, the Council has a range of
mechanisms at its disposal should it wish to address freshwater allocation in over-allocated
situations, including the review of consent conditions and the efficient transfer of ownership
or site of taking to utilise water where and when it is needed most.
8.45. Mr Williamson provides evidence on application volumes, including the background to the
original application volumes and method used to calculate these. Mr Williamson also audits
the assessment made by Council as presented in the s42A report (Section 4.2 and Table 2
of Attachment 2). From his assessment and analysis, amendment has been made to
application volumes where these were in excess of an annual requirement of
400mm/ha/year. This is consistent with s42A report and is also not contrary to the NPSFM,
RPS or PRP.
8.46. From an evaluative perspective, the RWSP is silent on efficiency of use and allocation of
groundwater which is in stark contrast to its treatment of surface water. The proposals are
consistent with the only RWSP requirement for measurement of the volume of water taken,
but more importantly, that they are consistent with the Regulations. However, I do note that
the Recommendations are more stringent than the Regulations. There is no explanation or
rationale in the s42A report to acknowledge the environmental effect to be avoided,
remedied or mitigated by applying more stringent criteria than the Regulations require. For
this reason, I have made amendment to Condition 3 of the Recommendations to omit takes
under 5 L/s from being measured and reported on.
8.47. Mr Williamson provides further evidence and explanation as to a point of contention
regarding supply of water use data via telemetry as per Policy D.4.23(4) of the PRP. I
concur with Mr Williamson and would suggest that, while this Policy is still subject to
submission, deliberation and potentially appeal, the Regulations are the appropriate starting
33
point for these applications. The Council may review any consent issued should Policy
D.4.23(4) continue into the operative version of the PRP.
Water level drawdown (existing bore takes)
Planning Document
Directly Relevant Objectives, Policies, Assessment Criteria, Methods (other than Rules)
RPS Policy 4.1.1 Catchment Specific Objectives and Limits (Method 4.1.2) (a) Identify the values of water in catchments and receiving estuaries and
harbours; (b) Provide for these values by establishing catchment-specific objectives and
set water quality limits and environmental flows and / or levels, and where necessary targets; and
(c) […]
RWSP Objective 10.4.1 1. The sustainable use and development of Northland’s groundwater resources
while avoiding, remedying or mitigating actual and potential adverse effects on groundwater quantity and quality.
Policy 10.5.1 (Method 10.6.18 & 10.6.19) To ensure the sustainable use of groundwater resources, by avoiding groundwater takes that exceed recharge which result in any of the following:
a) Saltwater intrusion or reduced groundwater quality; b) A lowering of the groundwater table below existing efficient bore takes; c) A lowering of the temperature of geothermal waters in geothermal
aquifers and springs; d) Adverse effects on surface water resources in terms of Policy 10.05.07.
36.2.6 Assessment Criteria for Groundwater Takes (b) The extent to which the proposed groundwater take may adversely affect
other groundwater and surface water users, and the adequacy of any pump test analysis to confirm those effects.
8.48. The use and development of resources can have the potential to conflict with existing lawful
activity, including where drawdowns of groundwater levels occur in existing lawfully
established bores.
8.49. The inability for lawfully established abstractions to be exercised is an effect on abstractors.
This value is identified in the relevant planning documents as a value which shall be
safeguarded when managing the taking and use of freshwater.
8.50. With regard to the magnitude and identification of effect on other groundwater users, Mr
Williamson’s evidence describes calculated levels of drawdown under varying scenarios. I
understand these calculated drawdowns to be no more than minor and highly conservative.
Mr Williamson’s evidence also contains current case authority with regard to the
fundamental question as to whether water users have a right or expectation of access to
water and in what capacity. I therefore do not elaborate further on case authority.
8.51. Turning to the relevant planning matters, the RWSP makes a distinction in Policy 10.5.1
that sustainable use of groundwater resources will be achieved by promoting ‘efficient bore
takes’ and extensive explanation as to what this means is provided in this policy. These
applications to take groundwater are consistent with Policy 10.5.1.
8.52. The PRP has been developed to respond to the directions of both the NPSFM and the RPS
regarding the setting of allocation and water levels that match the values for specific
resources (referred to as catchments (see Objective 3.1 of the RPS)). Currently, an
allocation limit has been set for the Aupouri aquifer in the application area through the PRP.
The PRP itself is silent as to the values which will be sustained when taking water within
34
these default allocation limits, however, the supporting s32 RMA report notes that the
allocation limit is to manage effects of saline intrusion as does the Lincoln 2015 report. In
this respect, the quantity of abstraction is managed to achieve water quality outcomes for
the community by limiting water quantity.
8.53. Policy 13.4.1 is in the RWSP for the sole purpose of establishing a framework for response
to significant conflicts between the use and development of a catchment’s natural and
physical resources and uncertainty as to long-term effects of use and development.
However, no such catchment management plan exists for Aupouri and instead, integrated
management in the absence of a ‘catchment specific’ regional plan is the default position
under the RWSP (Policy 13.4.3 RWSP). The RWSP goes onto explain that ensuring
specific catchment review dates are consistent means that Council can evaluate the
pressures on that resource and can ‘call-in’ consents. The PRP does not contain any
policies of the same nature as Policy 13.4.3 of the RWSP but this is likely due to a transition
to local community catchment planning which Council is encouraging through policies of the
RPS, implementing through the WNW project. It is unclear how new catchment plans would
be given statutory weight through a regional plan without undertaking a plan change under
Schedule 1 of the RMA however.
8.54. Overall, aside from the NPSFM which identifies irrigation, cultivation, food production,
animal drinking water, and water supply as other national values, none of the regional
planning documents identify other user’s as a matter which will be given particular priority
or protection, with the exception of efficient bore takes in the RWSP.
8.55. I can therefore find no objective which would be satisfied by the level of protectionsought
by submitters, including compensation in the form of money, developing new bores or
installing water tanks. Rather, in contrast, the objectives and policies of the RPS, RWSP
and PRP, in particular Objective 3.5 RPS, promote the sustainable development of
Northland’s natural and physical resources in a way that is attractive for business and
investment.
8.56. Further, the assessment is conclusive that adverse effect on efficient bore takes will be no
more than minor, thereby sustaining the potential of the resource to meet the reasonably
foreseeable needs of all efficient bore takes.
Drawdowns (surface water bodies) & ecological effects
Planning Document
Directly Relevant Objectives, Policies, Assessment Criteria, Methods
(other than Rules)
NPSFM Objective B4
To protect significant values of wetlands and of outstanding freshwater bodies.
Policy B1
By every regional council making or changing regional plans to the extent
needed to ensure the plans establish freshwater objectives in accordance with
Policies CA1-CA4 and set environmental flows and/or levels for all freshwater
management units in its region (except ponds and naturally ephemeral water
bodies) to give effect to the objectives in this national policy statement, having
regard to at least the following:
a) the reasonably foreseeable impacts of climate change;
b) the connection between water bodies; and
c) the connections between freshwater bodies and coastal water.
Policy B2
35
By every regional council making or changing regional plans to the extent
needed to provide for the efficient allocation of fresh water to activities, within
the limits set to give effect to Policy B1.
Objective C1
To improve integrated management of fresh water and the use and development
of land in whole catchments, including the interactions between fresh water,
land, associated ecosystems and the coastal environment.
Policy C1
By every regional council:
a) recognising the interactions, ki uta ki tai (from the mountains to the sea)
between fresh water, land, associated ecosystems and the coastal
environment; and
b) managing fresh water and land use and development in catchments in an
integrated and sustainable way to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse
effects, including cumulative effects.
Policy C2
By every regional council making or changing regional policy statements to the
extent needed to provide for the integrated management of the effects of the use
and development of:
a) land on fresh water, including encouraging the co-ordination and sequencing
of regional and/or urban growth, land use and development and the
provision of infrastructure; and
b) land and fresh water on coastal water.
NZCPS Objective 1
To safeguard the integrity, form, functioning and resilience of the coastal
environment and sustain its ecosystems, including marine and intertidal areas,
estuaries, dunes and land, by:
• maintaining or enhancing natural biological and physical processes in
the coastal environment and recognising their dynamic, complex and
interdependent nature;
• protecting representative or significant natural ecosystems and sites of
biological importance and maintaining the diversity of New Zealand’s
indigenous coastal flora and fauna; and
maintaining coastal water quality, and enhancing it where it has deteriorated
from what would otherwise be its natural condition, with significant adverse
effects on ecology and habitat, because of discharges associated with human
activity.
Policy 11
To protect indigenous biological diversity in the coastal environment:
a. avoid adverse effects of activities on:
i. indigenous taxa4 that are listed as threatened5 or at risk in the New
Zealand Threat Classification System lists;
ii. taxa that are listed by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources as threatened;
iii. indigenous ecosystems and vegetation types that are threatened
in the coastal environment, or are naturally rare6;
iv. habitats of indigenous species where the species are at the limit of
their natural range, or are naturally rare;
v. areas containing nationally significant examples of indigenous
community types; and
vi. areas set aside for full or partial protection of indigenous biological
diversity under other legislation; and
c. avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy or mitigate other
adverse effects of activities on:
i. areas of predominantly indigenous vegetation in the coastal
environment;
36
ii. habitats in the coastal environment that are important during the
vulnerable life stages of indigenous species;
iii. indigenous ecosystems and habitats that are only found in the
coastal environment and are particularly vulnerable to modification,
including estuaries, lagoons, coastal wetlands, dunelands,
intertidal zones, rocky reef systems, eelgrass and saltmarsh;
iv. habitats of indigenous species in the coastal environment that are
important for recreational, commercial, traditional or cultural
purposes;
v. habitats, including areas and routes, important to migratory
species; and
ecological corridors, and areas important for linking or maintaining biological
values identified under this policy.
RPS Objective 3.1
Integrate the management of freshwater and the subdivision, use and
development of land in catchments to enable catchment-specific objectives for
fresh and associated coastal water to be met.
Objective 3.3
Maintain flows, flow variability and water levels necessary to safeguard the
lifesupporting capacity, ecosystem processes, indigenous species and the
associated ecosystems of freshwater.
Objective 3.4
Safeguard Northland’s ecological integrity by:
a) Protecting areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats
of indigenous fauna;
b) Maintaining the extent and diversity of indigenous ecosystems and habitats
in the region; and
c) Where practicable, enhancing indigenous ecosystems and habitats,
particularly where this contributes to the reduction in the overall threat status
of regionally and nationally threatened species.
Objective 3.14
Identify and protect from inappropriate subdivision, use and development;
(a) The qualities and characteristics that make up the natural character of the
coastal environment, and the natural character of freshwater bodies and
their margins;
(b) The qualities and characteristics that make up outstanding natural features
and outstanding natural landscapes;
(c) The integrity of historic heritage.
Policy 4.3.1 (Method 4.3.5)
Establish interim region-wide ecological flows and water levels for water bodies
outside of priority catchments to give effect to Objective 3.3 of this Regional
Policy Statement.
Policy 4.4.1 (Method 4.4.3)
(1) In the coastal environment, avoid adverse effects, and outside the coastal
environment avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of subdivision, use
and development so they are no more than minor on:
(a) Indigenous taxa that are listed as threatened or at risk in the New
Zealand Threat Classification System lists;
(b) Areas of indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna, that
are significant using the assessment criteria in Appendix 5;
(c) Areas set aside for full or partial protection of indigenous biodiversity
under other legislation.
(2) In the coastal environment, avoid significant adverse effects and avoid,
remedy, or mitigate other adverse effects of subdivision, use and
development on:
(a) Areas of predominantly indigenous vegetation;
37
(b) Habitats of indigenous species that are important for recreational,
commercial, traditional or cultural purposes;
(c) Indigenous ecosystems and habitats that are particularly vulnerable
to modification, including estuaries, lagoons, coastal wetlands,
dunelands, intertidal zones, rocky reef systems, eelgrass, northern
wet heathlands, coastal and headwater streams, floodplains,
margins of the coastal marine area and freshwater bodies,
spawning and nursery areas and saltmarsh.
(3) Outside the coastal environment and where clause (1) does not apply,
avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of subdivision, use and
development so they are not significant on any of the following:
(a) Areas of predominantly indigenous vegetation;
(b) Habitats of indigenous species that are important for recreational,
commercial, traditional or cultural purposes;
(c) Indigenous ecosystems and habitats that are particularly vulnerable
to modification, including wetlands, dunelands, northern wet
heathlands, headwater streams, floodplains and margins of
freshwater bodies, spawning and nursery areas.
(4) For the purposes of clause (1), (2) and (3), when considering whether there
are any adverse effects and/or any significant adverse effects:
(a) Recognise that a minor or transitory effect may not be an adverse
effect;
(b) Recognise that where the effects are or maybe irreversible, then they
are likely to be more than minor;
(c) Recognise that there may be more than minor cumulative effects from
minor or transitory effects.
(5) For the purpose of clause (3) if adverse effects cannot be reasonably
avoided, remedied or mitigated then it may be appropriate to consider the
next steps in the mitigation hierarchy i.e. biodiversity offsetting followed by
environmental biodiversity compensation, as methods to achieve Objective
3.4.
RWSP Objective 10.4.2
The sustainable management of groundwater resources in conjunction with the
sustainable management of surface water resources.
Policy 10.5.1 (Method 10.6.5)
To ensure the sustainable use of groundwater resources, by avoiding
groundwater takes that exceed recharge which result in any of the following:
[…]
(d) Adverse effects on surface water resources in terms of Policy 10.05.07.
Policy 10.5.7 (Method 10.6.21 & 10.6.22)
To ensure the springflows to associated surface water bodies, and water levels
in lakes and wetlands, which may be affected by groundwater takes,
are sufficient to:
(a) Maintain the life supporting capacity of the surface water resource;
(b) Protect the natural character of the surface water body and the habitats of
aquatic flora and fauna;
(c) Maintain any associated or dependent values, such as amenity or
recreational values; and
(d) Protect the water supply of any existing authorised user of the surface
water resource.
Policy D.2.7
Manage the adverse effects of activities requiring resource consent on
indigenous biodiversity by:
[…]
2) recognising damage, disturbance or loss to the following as being adverse
effects:
a) connections between areas of indigenous biodiversity, and
38
b) the life-supporting capacity of the area of indigenous biodiversity, and
c) flora and fauna that are supported by the area of indigenous biodiversity,
and
d) natural processes or systems that contribute to the integrity of the area
of indigenous biodiversity, and
3) assessing the potential adverse effects of the activity against the identified
values of indigenous biodiversity, including by:
a) taking a system-wide approach to large areas of indigenous biodiversity
such as whole estuaries or widespread bird and marine mammal
habitats, recognising that the scale of the effect of an activity is
proportional to the size and sensitivity of the area of indigenous
biodiversity, and
b) recognising that discrete, localised or otherwise minor effects not
impacting on the ecological area may be acceptable, and
c) recognising that activities with transitory effects may be acceptable,
where they can demonstrate the effects are not long-term and/or
irreversible, and
4) recognising that methods of avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse
effects may include:
a) careful design, scale and location proposed in relation to areas of
indigenous biodiversity, and
b) maintaining and enhancing connections within and between areas of
indigenous biodiversity, and
c) considering effect minimisation during sensitive times such as
indigenous freshwater fish spawning and migration periods, and
d) providing adequate setbacks, screening or buffers where there is the
likelihood of damage and disturbance to areas of indigenous biodiversity
from adjacent use and development, and
e) maintaining the continuity of natural processes and systems contributing
to the integrity of ecological areas, and
f) reversing previous damage or disturbance to areas of indigenous
biodiversity, and
g) improving the public use, value or understanding to areas of indigenous
biodiversity, and
h) the development of ecological management and restoration plans, and
5) recognising that biodiversity offsetting and environmental compensation (as
defined in the Regional Policy Statement for Northland) may be appropriate
after consideration of the methods in (4) above.
PRP Policy D.2.8
Where there is scientific uncertainty about the adverse effects of activities on:
1) species listed as threatened or at risk in the New Zealand Threat
Classification System, or
2) the values ranked high in the:
a) Significant Ecological Areas, and
b) Significant Bird Areas, and
c) Significant Marine Mammal and Seabird Areas,
then the greatest extent of adverse effects reasonably predicted by science,
must be given the most weight.
8.57. Mr Williamson has conducted a thorough examination of the relevant scientific thresholds
which apply in this circumstance, including relational data from pumping in deeper bores to
that of shallower bores and effects on surface water features. He has also calculated the
magnitude of effect on ecological flows to be low. The main thrust of his evidence is the
physical limitations to interaction of pumped bores to surface water features in the domain
area, including the Kaimaumau wetland, and dune lakes Lake Waiparera and associated
lakes, Bacica Road Lake and Turks Lake.
39
8.58. Where scientific uncertainty remains, monitoring has been proposed in Council’s
Recommendations. However, I do seek clarification from Council as to the nature of
charging.
Water quality effects (discharges from change in land use)
Planning Document
Directly Relevant Objectives, Policies, Assessment Criteria, Methods
(other than Rules)
NPSFM Objective C1
To improve integrated management of fresh water and the use and development
of land in whole catchments, including the interactions between fresh water,
land, associated ecosystems and the coastal environment.
Policy C1
By every regional council:
a) recognising the interactions, ki uta ki tai (from the mountains to the sea)
between fresh water, land, associated ecosystems and the coastal environment;
and
b) managing fresh water and land use and development in catchments in an
integrated and sustainable way to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects,
including cumulative effects.
Policy C2
By every regional council making or changing regional policy statements to the
extent needed to provide for the integrated management of the effects of the use
and development of:
a) land on fresh water, including encouraging the co-ordination and sequencing
of regional and/or urban growth, land use and development and the provision of
infrastructure; and
b) land and fresh water on coastal water.
NZCPS Objective 1
[…]
maintaining coastal water quality, and enhancing it where it has deteriorated
from what would otherwise be its natural condition, with significant adverse
effects on ecology and habitat, because of discharges associated with human
activity.
Policy 23
4. In managing discharges of stormwater take steps to avoid adverse effects of
stormwater discharge to water in the coastal environment, on a catchment by
catchment basis, by:
• avoiding where practicable and otherwise remedying cross
contamination of sewage and stormwater systems;
• reducing contaminant and sediment loadings in stormwater at source,
through contaminant treatment and by controls on land use activities;
• promoting integrated management of catchments and stormwater
networks; and
• promoting design options that reduce flows to stormwater reticulation
systems at source.
RPS Objective 3.2
Improve the overall quality of Northland’s fresh and coastal water with a
particular focus on:
[…]
(e) Protecting the quality of registered drinking water supplies and the
potable quality of other drinking water sources.
RWPS Objective 12.5
2. The safeguarding of the life-supporting capacity of water and ecosystems from
the adverse effects of unsustainable land uses and land use practices.
40
3. People and communities are informed about sustainable land management
and the impacts of their activities on soil and water resources.
Policy 8.11.1
To require the best practicable option for point source and non-point source
discharges from agriculture that maintain and enhance surface water and
groundwater quality.
Policy 12.5.1
To avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of land use activities on water
bodies and their margins, particularly on water quality, water flows and levels,
aquatic ecosystems and riparian habitats.
Policy 13.4.1
Regional catchment management plans will be prepared for a specific
catchment, where there is:
[…]
(b) A use of land or water that has, or is likely to have, actual or potential
adverse effects on soil conservation, air quality or water quality;
[…]
PRP D.4.8
When determining what constitutes a reasonable mixing zone, use the smallest
zone necessary to achieve the required water quality in the receiving water and
ensure that the mixing zone is free from contaminant concentrations and levels
of dissolved oxygen that cause acute toxicity.
8.59. Submissions have been received which consider either that there is inadequate information
on water quality issues to enable Council to grant the applications or that the effect of non-
point source discharges from agricultural activity will be adverse on receiving environments.
As noted earlier, I consider that discharges of agrichemicals are sufficiently provided for in
the RAQPN, RWSP and PRP and therefore outside of the scope of these applications. My
consideration as to water quality effects therefore only relate to the potential of effect on
water quality from diffuse discharges from land use activity initiated through a change in
land use. These include potential for nutrient leaching and sedimentation.
8.60. The Council, through their s42A report, has adopted monitoring as a means of identifying
any actual water quality issue caused by the exercise of consent to take and use
groundwater. There is recognition in the s42A report that such monitoring may not be the
best form of determining a water quality effect pertinent to these applications alone and that
periodic review is necessary to determine value.
8.61. Many other Regional Council’s have set about establishing nutrient load limits in drainage
or have categorised land use activities to identify risk and their potential to cause a water
quality limit to be exceeded. Only water quality concentration limits are present in the
RWSP and PRP. However, the PRP recognises these concentrations are temporary and
will be replaced with other numerical standards under the WNW programme to implement
the NPSFM.
8.62. The monitoring programme proposed in the Recommendations does not identify any limits
or thresholds which the monitoring would be assessed against and only seems to seek
monitoring for trend analysis perhaps. It is assumed also that a baseline sampling period
would need to be undertaken for ongoing sampling to be comparable.
41
8.63. Overall, the effects on the water quality can be adequately remedied through adaptive
management processes should activity-specific monitoring exhibit a declining trend in water
quality such that a limit or threshold would be exceeded.
Cultural
Planning Document
Directly Relevant Objectives, Policies, Assessment Criteria, Methods
(other than Rules)
NPSFM Objective AA1
To consider and recognise Te Mana o te Wai in the management of fresh water.
Policy AA1
a) By every regional council making or changing regional policy statements
and plans to consider and recognise Te Mana o te Wai, noting that:te
Mana o te Wai recognises the connection between water and the
broader environment – Te Hauora o te Taiao (the health of the
environment), Te Hauora o te Wai (the health of the waterbody) and Te
Hauora o te Tangata (the health of the people); and
b) values identified through engagement and discussion with the
community, including tangata whenua, must inform the setting of
freshwater objectives and limits.
Objective D1
To provide for the involvement of iwi and hapū, and to ensure that tangata
whenua values and interests are identified and reflected in the management of
fresh water including associated ecosystems, and decision-making regarding
freshwater planning, including on how all other objectives of this national policy
statement are given effect to.
Policy D1
Local authorities shall take reasonable steps to:
a) involve iwi and hapū in the management of fresh water and freshwater
ecosystems in the region;
b) work with iwi and hapū to identify tangata whenua values and interests
in fresh water and freshwater ecosystems in the region; and
c) reflect tangata whenua values and interests in the management of, and
decision-making regarding, fresh water and freshwater ecosystems in
the region.
NZCPS Objective 3
To take account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, recognise the role of
tangata whenua as kaitiaki and provide for tangata whenua involvement in
management of the coastal environment by:
• recognising the ongoing and enduring relationship of tangata whenua
over their lands, rohe and resources;
• promoting meaningful relationships and interactions between tangata
whenua and persons exercising functions and powers under the Act;
• incorporating mātauranga Māori into sustainable management
practices; and
• recognising and protecting characteristics of the coastal environment
that are of special value to tangata whenua.
Policy 2
In taking account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi),
and kaitiakitanga, in relation to the coastal environment:
a. recognise that tangata whenua have traditional and continuing cultural
relationships with areas of the coastal environment, including places where
they have lived and fished for generations;
b. involve iwi authorities or hapū on behalf of tangata whenua in the
preparation of regional policy statements, and plans, by undertaking
effective consultation with tangata whenua; with such consultation to be
42
early, meaningful, and as far as practicable in accordance with tikanga
Māori;
c. with the consent of tangata whenua and as far as practicable in accordance
with tikanga Māori, incorporate mātauranga Māori in regional policy
statements, in plans, and in the consideration of applications for resource
consents, notices of requirement for designation and private plan changes;
d. provide opportunities in appropriate circumstances for Māori involvement
in decision making, for example when a consent application or notice of
requirement is dealing with cultural localities or issues of cultural
significance, and Māori experts, including pūkenga, may have knowledge
not otherwise available;
e. take into account any relevant iwi resource management plan and any
other relevant planning document recognised by the appropriate iwi
authority or hapū and lodged with the council, to the extent that its content
has a bearing on resource management issues in the region or district; and
i. where appropriate incorporate references to, or material from, iwi
resource management plans in regional policy statements and in
plans; and
ii. consider providing practical assistance to iwi or hapū who have
indicated a wish to develop iwi resource management plans;
f. provide for opportunities for tangata whenua to exercise kaitiakitanga over
waters, forests, lands, and fisheries in the coastal environment through
such measures as:
i. bringing cultural understanding to monitoring of natural resources;
ii. providing appropriate methods for the management, maintenance
and protection of the taonga of tangata whenua;
iii. having regard to regulations, rules or bylaws relating to ensuring
sustainability of fisheries resources such as taiāpure, mahinga
mātaitai or other non-commercial Māori customary fishing;
g. in consultation and collaboration with tangata whenua, working as far as
practicable in accordance with tikanga Māori, and recognising that tangata
whenua have the right to choose not to identify places or values of historic,
cultural or spiritual significance or special value:
i. recognise the importance of Māori cultural and heritage values
through such methods as historic heritage, landscape and cultural
impact assessments; and
ii. provide for the identification, assessment, protection and
management of areas or sites of significance or special value to
Māori, including by historic analysis and archaeological survey and
the development of methods such as alert layers and predictive
methodologies for identifying areas of high potential for
undiscovered Māori heritage, for example coastal pā or fishing
villages.
RPS Objective 3.12
Tangata whenua kaitiaki role is recognised and provided for in decision-making
over natural and physical resources.
Policy 4.5.3 (Method 4.6.4)
Historic heritage resources (areas, places, sites, buildings, or structures either
individually or as a group) are identified taking into account one or more of the
following criteria:
[…]
(i) Tangata whenua: the resource place or feature is important to tangata
whenua for traditional, spiritual, cultural or historic reasons; and
[…]
Policy 8.1.1 (Methods 8.1.5 – 8.1.8)
The regional and district councils shall provide opportunities for tangata whenua
to participate in the review, development, implementation, and monitoring of
43
plans and resource consent processes under the Resource Management Act
1991.
Policy 8.1.2 (Methods 8.1.5 – 8.1.8)
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.
Policy 8.1.4 (Methods 8.1.5 – 8.1.8)
Relevant Māori concepts, values and practices will be clarified through
consultation with tangata whenua to develop common understandings of their
meaning and to develop methodologies for their implementation.
Policy 8.1.3 (Methods 8.1.5 – 8.1.8)
The regional and district councils shall provide opportunities for the use and
incorporation of Mātauranga Māori into decision-making, management,
implementation, and monitoring of natural and physical resources under the
Resource Management Act 1991.
RWPS Objective 6.3.1
The management of the natural and physical resources within the Northland
region in a manner that recognises and provides for the traditional and cultural
relationships of tangata whenua with the land and water.
Policy 6.4.1 (Method 6.5.1)
To recognise and, as far as practicable provide for the relationship of Māori and
their culture and traditions with respect to the use, development and protection
of natural and physical resources in the Northland region.
Policy 6.4.3 (Method 6.5.4)
To have particular regard for kaitiakitanga and consider options for the
involvement of tangata whenua in monitoring the use, development and
protection of resources within the Northland region.
Policy 10.5.8
When allocating groundwater, to recognise, and as far as practical, provide for
the cultural and spiritual values held by the tangata whenua for the groundwater
resources and associated surface water resources.
Method 10.6.23
Encourage applicants for water permits to include information regarding the
effects of the groundwater take on cultural values. Where necessary, the Council
will commission report from the appropriate tangata whenua (as defined in
Section 41) on the effects of the activity on their cultural values. The
commissioning of such reports shall be subject to prior discussion with the
applicant and shall be deemed to be a report coming within the scope of Section
92 of the Act.
PRP Policy D.1.1
A resource consent application must include in its assessment of environmental
effects an analysis of the effects of an activity on tangata whenua and their
taonga(1) if one or more of the following is likely:
1) adverse effects on mahinga kai(2) and access to mahinga kai(3), or
2) any damage, destruction and loss of access to wāhi tapu, sites of
customary value and other ancestral sites and taonga which Māori have
a special relationship with(4), or
3) adverse effects on indigenous biodiversity where it impacts on the ability
of tangata whenua to carry out cultural and traditional activities(5), or
4) the use of genetic engineering and the release of genetically modified
organisms to the environment, or
44
5) adverse effects on tāiapure, mataitai or Māori non-commercial
fisheries(6), or
6) adverse effects on protected customary rights(7), or
7) adverse effects on Sites and Areas of Significance to Tangata Whenua
mapped in the Regional Plan (refer I 'Maps'). 1 A analysis of effects on tangata whenua and their taonga may be necessary in circumstances not
outlined in this policy - it will
depend on the circumstances
2 Food and places for obtaining natural foods and resources. The work (mahi), methods and cultural
activities involved in obtaining
foods and resources
3 This includes, for instance, kai awa (river food) kai repo (swamp food) and kaimoana (sea food).
4 This includes, for instance, impacts on the quality of water used for ceremonial purposes.
5 This includes, for instance, use of rongoa (medicinal) plants, and uses for raranga (weaving).
6 Māori non-commercial fisheries are defined in the Fisheries Act 1996
7 As defined by the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011
Policy D.1.2
An analysis of the effects of an activity on tangata whenua and their taonga in a
resource consent application must:
1) include such detail as corresponds with the scale and significance of the
effects that the activity may have on tangata whenua and their taonga,
and
2) have regard to (but not be limited to):
a) any relevant planning document recognised by an iwi authority
(lodged with the council), and
b) the outcomes of any consultation with tangata whenua with respect
to the consent application, and
c) statutory acknowledgements in Treaty Settlement legislation, and
3) follow best practice, and
4) specify the tangata whenua community on whose behalf the
assessment is being made, and
5) be evidence-based, and
6) incorporate, where appropriate, mātauranga Māori, and
7) identify and describe all the cultural resources and activities that may be
affected by the activity(8) , and
8) identify and describe the adverse effects of the activity on the cultural
resources and cultural practices (including the effects on the mauri of
the cultural resources, the cultural practices affected, how they are
affected, and the extent of the effects), and
9) identify, where possible, how to avoid, remedy or mitigate the cultural
effects of the activity that are more than minor, and
10) include any other relevant information. 8 The full range of effects defined in Section 3 of the RMA need to be considered.
D.1.5
For the purposes of this plan, a Place of Significance to Tangata Whenua in the
coastal marine area or a water body:
1) is:
a) a historic heritage resource, or
b) ancestral land, water, site, wāhi tapu, or other taonga, and
2) is either:
a) a Site or Area of Significance to Tangata Whenua, which is a single
resource or set of resources identified, described and contained in a
mapped location, or
b) a Landscape of Significance to Tangata Whenua, which is a collection
of related resources identified and described within a mapped area, with
the relationship between those component resources identified (11), and
3) has one or more of the following attributes:
a) historic associations, which include but are not limited to:
i. stories of initial migration, arrival and settlement, or
45
ii. patterns of occupation, both permanent and temporary or seasonal
occupation, or
iii. the sites of conflicts and the subsequent peacemaking and rebuilding of
iwi or hapū, or
iv. kinship and alliances built between areas and iwi or hapū, often in terms
of significant events, or
v. alliances to defend against external threats, or
vi. recognition of notable tupuna, and sites associated with them, or
b) traditional associations, which include but are not limited to:
i. resource use, including trading and trading routes between groups (for
instance – with minerals such as matā/obsidian), or
ii. traditional travel and communication linkages, both on land and sea, or
iii. areas of mana moana for fisheries and other rights, or
iv. use of landmarks for navigation and location of fisheries grounds, or
v. implementation of traditional management measures, such as rāhui or
tohatoha (distribution), or
c) cultural associations, which include but are not limited to:
i. the web of whanaungatanga connecting across locations and
generations, or
ii. the implementation of concepts such as kaitiakitanga and manākitanga,
with specific details for each whanau, hapū and iwi, or
iii. respect for authority, such as rangatiratanga, and respect for
relationships, such as tuakanatanga, or
d) spiritual associations which pervade all environmental and social
realities, and include but are not limited to:
i. the role of the atua Ranginui and Papatūānuku, and their offspring such
as Tangaroa and Tāne, or
ii. the recognition of the wairua of those with us and those who have
passed away, or
iii. the need to maintain the mauri of all living things and their environment,
and
4) must:
a) be based on traditions and tikanga, and
b) be endorsed for evidential purposes by the relevant tangata whenua
community, and
c) record the values of the place for which protection is required, and
d) record the relationship between the individual sites or resources
(landscapes only), and
e) record the tangata whenua groups determining and endorsing the
assessment, and
f) geographically define the areas where values can be adversely effected. 11 A Landscape of Significance to Tangata Whenua may include Sites and/or Areas of Significance
to Tangata Whenua.
8.64. In giving evaluative evidence on cultural effects, I advise the hearing commissioners that I
am not a cultural impact advisor. I apply particular skills in policy interpretation and resource
management matters only.
8.65. The body of policy on the matter of tangata whenua inclusion, partnership and decision-
making capacity is quite large within the relevant statutory planning documents. However,
there is a theme that runs throughout all of these documents and that is the prior work which
Council has committed both itself and district councils to in order to provide opportunities
for tangata whenua to meaningfully participate in resource management processes. I
understand that the Council has completed part of this commitment through the RPS
mapping exercise recognising Outstanding Natural Landscapes and Features and areas of
46
High Natural Character. I also conclude that the Hearing commissioners may utilise the
mapping approach suggested under Policy D.1.5 of the PRP when determining Places of
Significance to tangata whenua in the coastal marine area or a waterbody. The FNDP may
also be utilised to further enhance knowledge of places of significance to Māori on land in
the local area also.
8.66. Having operated under this Council’s consenting process previously, in my experience
Council assesses individual applications on a case by case basis and, while some
applications may be formally notified to Iwi authorities (i.e., as a s95E party), many other
applications are merely sent to Iwi authorities to inform. This was the process initially
implemented by Council upon receipt of these 17 applications as can be seen in
correspondence from Council to applicants (application acknowledgement letters).
However, it became increasingly obvious that, cumulatively, these applications required
further information to identify actually or potentially affected parties.
8.67. The Council determined, after receipt of the further information, that there may potentially
be adverse cultural effects from the applications on Māori and their relationship, culture and
traditions with the area and I am in agreement with this decision. Five Iwi Authorities and
four Marae were deemed affected and served notice of these applications which is
somewhat consistent with the policies of the RPS, RWSP and PRP.
8.68. The subsequent transactions with these entities is documented in paragraphs 34-36 and
130-136 of the s42A report. There has been some disagreement about the adequacy of
consultation noted in paragraphs 37 and 137 of the s42A report. The Council in their
request for further information only sought an assessment of the effects of the takes by a
suitably qualified groundwater expert. There was no request for any other assessment to
be made or information to be provided, such as a cultural impact assessment. The
applicants conducted themselves in accordance with the instructions from Council.
Therefore, on this matter, I find it is appropriate to put the issue of consultation aside and to
deal with the evidence at hand (Genesis Power Limited v Manawatu-Wanganui Regional
Council [2006] NZRMA 536 HC and [2009] NZRMA 312 CA).
8.69. Regarding cultural effects relating to water quantity and quality, jurisprudence has
established that there must first be biophysical adverse effects, established on evidence,
before metaphysical effects might be taken into account under s6(e) of the RMA. I respect
that there are spiritual associations which pervade scientific evidence and believe that
tangata whenua are best placed to elaborate on what these are in order to give full attention
to s6(e) RMA and also to be consistent with the relevant statutory provisions within lower
order planning documentation, including mātauranga Māori. However, in my opinion these
associations are unlikely to negate the finding of fact that the technical analysis conducted
by both Mr Williamson and Mr Hughes disproves the likelihood of a manifestation of more
than minor biophysical adverse effect, while minor effects as established were not to the
degree that resource consents should be refused.
8.70. Council has considered that the principles of whanaungatanga and kaitiakitanga may be
encouraged through the recommended conditions 20 and 21 to establish a Water User
Liaison Group. I seek changes to proposed Conditions 20 and 21 of NRC’s
‘Recommendations’ and I give reasoning in Annexure 3 and paragraphs in Section 11
below. However, I interpret that the RPS and RWSP policies and methods promote a high-
level of commitment by Council to partner with tangata whenua. Consequently, this
47
suggests that Council will be taking a ‘top-down’ approach and that to initiate an alternative
approach without prior indepth consultation with tangata whenua is contrary to Council’s
policy commitments.
8.71. Where uncertainty has been identified in technical analysis, monitoring is supported by the
applicants provided it is fair and reasonable in the context of the overall sustainable
management of the resource. In this respect, there is a duty for Council to gather
information and undertake or commission such research as is necessary to carry out its
functions under the s35 of the RMA. I discuss this further in paragraphs under Section 11
below.
Socio-economic effects
Planning Document
Directly Relevant Objectives, Policies, Assessment Criteria, Methods
(other than Rules)
NPSFM Objective B5
To enable communities to provide for their economic well-being, including
productive economic opportunities, in sustainably managing fresh water
quantity, within limits.
Policy B8
By every regional council considering, when giving effect to this national policy
statement, how to enable communities to provide for their economic well-being,
including productive economic opportunities, while managing within limits.
RPS Objective 3.5
Northland’s natural and physical resources are sustainably managed in a way
that is attractive for business and investment that will improve the economic
wellbeing of Northland and its communities.
Objective 3.7
Recognise and promote the benefits of regionally significant infrastructure, (a
physical resource), which through its use of natural and physical resources can
significantly enhance Northland’s economic, cultural, environmental and social
wellbeing.
Method 4.1.2
(2) In establishing catchment-specific objectives and setting water quality
limits and environmental flows and levels and targets, the regional
council will collaborate with catchment communities, iwi and hapū, key
stakeholders and other councils to:
[…]
(d) Assess the likely impacts of each option on environmental, economic,
social and cultural well-being;
[…]
Method 4.1.3
The regional council will obtain information necessary for establishing and
reviewing progress towards achieving catchment-specific objectives, water
quality limits and environmental flows and levels, and targets. This includes
information on:
[…]
(I) Economic considerations.
Policy 5.2.3 (Method 5.2.5)
Promote the provision of infrastructure as a means to shape, stimulate and direct
opportunities for growth and economic development.
PRP Policy D.2.2
When considering resource consents, regard must be had to the social, cultural
and economic benefits of the proposed activity.
48
8.72. The value of the proposed water use has been queried by a number of submitters. On this
matter, I inform the commissioners that I am not an economist nor social impact assessor.
I have however interrogated the relevant planning documents to identify an appropriate and
regionally relevant method of weighing up social, economic and cultural well-beings.
8.73. The Northland Strategic Irrigation Infrastructure Study5, completed in 2015 by a consortium
led by Opus International Consultants on behalf of Council and the Ministry for Primary
Industries, identified that there was almost 200,000 ha of irrigable land in Northland.
8.74. The study states “The main economic benefit to Northland from increased irrigation is a
significant increase in employment opportunities. Any increase in area of land converted
into irrigated horticultural production generates a major increase in the direct employment,
due to the high amount of labour per hectare required in the production process.”
8.75. From this study, it can be derived that an irrigated area close to 7,200 ha is possible in the
Far North. Of this area 4,100 ha was assumed to be horticulture of which almost 2,000 ha
was assumed to be avocado or tamarillos. The Far North was assumed to make up
approximately a third of the potential new avocado/tamarillo plantings. Given the study
indicated for the whole of northland avocado/tamarillo plantings an increase in Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) of $35.7 million and an increase of 782 Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
employees this has been rationalised down to $12 million and 260 FTE respectively for the
Far North area by WSP-Opus Rural advisors.
8.76. Given the applicants making up the MWWUG are seeking to develop in the order of 603 ha
of new avocado orchards this is almost a third of the area the study completed in 2015
assumed. This would, based upon the numbers above, indicate an increase in GDP in the
order of $11 million and increase in FTE jobs of 245. Whilst this is considerably less than
that numbers derived from the 2015 study this is due to the market outlook being
significantly better and a better understanding of the density of plating systems being
implemented. This is documented in section 13.1 of the report.
8.77. The advantages of irrigation are able to be quantified. In this situation, the quantification is
at a macro level so synergies with social improvements can only be derived at a macro
level. The experience of local orchardists operating in the area would provide micro-level
factual evidence of social improvements including wage-earning potential, employment
opportunity, and training opportunities. Vocationally, the employment goes beyond a short-
term wage-earning situation. Skills are acquired and work experience gained, these are
qualities that can be translated and applied on other orchards in Northland, New Zealand
or overseas.
8.78. This multitude of opportunity is likely what is envisioned through the planning provisions
which promote economic advancement as a means of achieving social betterment.
5 https://www.nrc.govt.nz/contentassets/95ecead9408f4873b35b5e3f781dac6d/northland-strategic-irrigation-infrastructure-study-excludes-app-web.pdf
49
Effects of climate change
Planning Document
Directly Relevant Objectives, Policies, Assessment Criteria,
Methods (other than Rules)
NPSFM Policy B1
By every regional council making or changing regional plans to the extent
needed to ensure the plans establish freshwater objectives in
accordance with Policies CA1-CA4 and set environmental flows and/or
levels for all freshwater management units in its region (except ponds
and naturally ephemeral water bodies) to give effect to the objectives in
this national policy statement, having regard to at least the following:
a) the reasonably foreseeable impacts of climate change;
[…]
RPS Method 4.1.3
The regional council will obtain information necessary for establishing
and reviewing progress towards achieving catchment-specific objectives,
water quality limits and environmental flows and levels, and targets. This
includes information on:
[…]
(h) Climate change predictions and likely impacts on water quality
and environmental flows and levels.
[…]
8.79. Mr Williamson’s evidence provides rationale regarding the non-utilisation of climate change
predictions in the modelling.
8.80. From a planning perspective, only the RPS makes reference to climate change predictions.
The NPSFM requires that regard must be had to at least the reasonably foreseeable
impacts of climate change.
8.81. While the RPS mentions climate change, it is mentioned in the context of Methodology.
This Method (4.1.3), relates to how Council will obtain information to review progress
towards achieving catchment-specific objectives, water quality limits and environmental
flows and levels, and targets. It does not relate to assessment of environmental effect of
activities.
8.82. Weighing up the rationale provided by Mr Williamson and the reliability of the information
which was utilised (i.e., the driest point in a 60-year record), it is my opinion that the
assessment utilisation of climate data is not contrary to the NPSFM which seeks for
reasonably foreseeable impacts of climate change to be had regard to.
Inadequacy of assessment and monitoring (scientific uncertainty)
Planning Document Directly Relevant Objectives, Policies, Assessment Criteria, Methods
(other than Rules)
NZCPS Objective 2
To preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and protect
natural features and landscape values through:
[…]
• identifying those areas where various forms of subdivision, use, and
development would be inappropriate and protecting them from such
activities;
[…]
50
Policy 3
1. Adopt a precautionary approach towards proposed activities whose
effects on the coastal environment are uncertain, unknown, or little
understood, but potentially significantly adverse.
2. In particular, adopt a precautionary approach to use and management
of coastal resources potentially vulnerable to effects from climate
change, so that:
a. avoidable social and economic loss and harm to communities does
not occur;
b. natural adjustments for coastal processes, natural defences,
ecosystems, habitat and species are allowed to occur; and
c. the natural character, public access, amenity and other values of
the coastal environment meet the needs of future generations.
RWSP Policy 10.5.3
To improve understanding of groundwater aquifer systems.
Method 10.6.2
Continue to monitor the effects of land use changes on the groundwater
resource in the Aupouri Peninsula.
Method 10.6.13
Where aquifers are under pressure from development, carry out investigations
to better understand the resource. Proposals for relevant investigations will be
publicised through the Annual Plan process.
PRP Policy D.2.8
Where there is scientific uncertainty about the adverse effects of activities on:
1) species listed as threatened or at risk in the New Zealand Threat
Classification System, or
2) the values ranked high in the:
a) Significant Ecological Areas, and
b) Significant Bird Areas, and
c) Significant Marine Mammal and Seabird Areas,
then the greatest extent of adverse effects reasonably predicted by science,
must be given the most weight.
8.83. I am in support of evaluation provided in the Council’s s42A report regarding the adequacy
of the assessment and monitoring in Section 3.3.6 of the s42A report.
8.84. I have given evidence above as relates to information requirements outside of those of a
scientific nature, including statutory and Part 2 analysis noting that this was not information
that was sought from the applicants by Council in order for them to be able to consider the
applications under s104 and 104B RMA.
8.85. I address monitoring and mitigation in relation to precautionary approach regarding
remaining scientific uncertainty in Section 11 below.
51
9. STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS
9.1. I have considered the environmental effects identified by Mr Williamson against the relevant
provisions of a document referred to in Section 104(1)(b) of the RMA. Regard has been
given to these documents only to provide evaluative evidence on the significance of the
effects identified by the technical expert.
9.2. The provisions of the NPSFWM, RPS, RWSP and FNDP have to be given full weight, as
they are operative documents. Some weight can be afforded to the provisions of the PRP,
but this is tempered by the fact that the entire document is subject to significant challenge
through submissions. I have included specific mention to this throughout my evidence and
have sought alternative conditioning where Council has made recommendation on the basis
of a particular provision of the PRP. Further, the PRP relies heavily on non-regulatory
approaches including Catchment Management Groups to implement the NPSFM
objectives.
9.3. In concluding, I find that the applications are consistent with the relevant planning
documents as per the conclusions made under each issue above.
52
10. PART 2 OF THE RMA
10.1. Part 2 of the RMA sets out the purpose and principles of the RMA. The purpose of the RMA
is sustainable management of natural and physical resources.
10.2. In achieving the purpose of the RMA, consent authority must recognise and provide for
matters of national importance set out in Section 6 of the RMA and must have particular
regard to relevant other matters set out in Section 7 RMA.
10.3. I do not add any further evaluative evidence to that of the s42A report in respect of Sections
5-7 RMA specifically.
Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi
10.4. I seek to enter further evaluative evidence with regard to Section 8 of the RMA.
10.5. Section 8 of the RMA requires all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in
relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical
resources, to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).
10.6. Te Tiriti o Waitangi has three articles and these are very broadly summarised as follows;
• The first article cedes sovereignty to the Crown given the Crown the right to govern
(kawanatanga).
• The second article confirmed and guaranteed Maori full and undisturbed possession of
their land and estates, forests and fisheries and other taonga so long as they wished
to do so. There is also an ability for the Crown to purchase land from Maori.
• The third article gives Maori all the rights and privileges as British citizens.
10.7. The principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi have evolved through societal changes. In this current
day, I understand that the core principles of active protection and partnership apply but that
these have been refined to entail actions such as;
• A duty to act in good faith
• Duty to make informed decisions through consultation
• Principle of redress and a duty not to create new grievances
• Principal of reciprocity
• Principle of mutual benefit
10.8. The principle of active protection has been taken into account by WWA in the original AEE
in the form of monitoring and this is agreed in paragraph 188 of the s42A report. I do find
that I am at odds with s42A report conclusion that the core principle of partnership will be
encouraged through a water liaison group however. This principle of partnership can only
be delivered at the authority level first, not at a consent holder level, this is how I have
interpreted paragraph 2.5 from Te Runanga Nui o Aupouri submission. There is also no
policy which supports the establishment and operation of a water liaison group, however,
there is for Catchment Management Groups and Water User Groups. The applicants would
be willing to commit to these more formal organisations that have recognition throughout
53
the RPS as this ensures that the facilitation, operation and decisions of such Groups are
consistent between resource users and stakeholders to apply the principles of Te Tiriti.
10.9. The applicants have acted in good faith to the best of their abilities, taking every instruction
from Council and subsequently fulfilling their obligations as directed by Council. It cannot
be overlooked that the applications were accepted for processing under s88 RMA and no
cultural impact assessment was requested as part of the request for further information.
10.10. In this matter, I have taken into account the principles of Te Tiriti and find that the granting
of consents would not be contrary to them.
Overall Assessment of Part 2 Matters
10.11. When considering the facts and predictions in the light of the relevant provisions of the
planning documentation, I have made the following findings;
• The applications to take groundwater from sub-aquifer units of the Aupouri aquifer
would have considerable potential benefit to the applicants and local community
through local spending, increased GDP and employment;
• The applications are within the sub-aquifer proposed allocation limits;
• Effects on ecological flows are predicted to be of low magnitude by Mr Williamson,
even under conservative model conditions;
• There is inadequate justification in the planning documents that require
compensation to other water users from resource use by others;
• There is inadequate justification in the planning documents that would require these
applications to be declined.
10.12. The 17 applications comply with the relevant provisions of the planning documents which
have given substance to the purpose and principles of Part 2 RMA.
10.13. Given the specific credence given to economic development in the Northland region through
the RPS and indicated through the PRP, I do not believe that there is any invalidity,
incomplete coverage or uncertainty to meaning when considering whether the use and
development of the groundwater achieves the purpose of the RMA when weighing up the
evaluative and technical evidence.
10.14. Weighing those matters and all the relevant considerations with all the other evidence in the
light of the relevant objectives and policies in the statutory instruments it is my opinion that
it is appropriate to grant these consents.
54
11. MITIGATION AND MONITORING
Precautionary principle and adaptive management
11.1. There are no policies in either the RWSP or PRP which require the adoption of a
precautionary approach towards the activity of taking and using groundwater. However,
Policy D.2.8 of the PRP states that where there is scientific uncertainty about the adverse
effects of activities on significant ecological areas (i.e., the Kaimaumau Wetland) the
greatest extent of an adverse effect reasonably predicted by science must be given the
most weight. Mr Williamson has explained the science behind the actual or potential effect
on the Kaimaumau wetland and has provided assessment conclusion under the most
conservative of model scenarios (Scenario 2 – leaky aquifer). Furthermore, Mr Williamson
conducts similar precautionary assessment across the potentially affected environment in
the absence of a policy direction in either regional plans.
11.2. Section 104(6) RMA gives the hearing commissioners the power that they may decline the
applications on the basis of inadequate information. However, it is widely accepted that the
consent authority may grant consent even if it lacks sufficient information to do so
particularly if adaptive management is proposed to respond to uncertainties (i.e. the Sustain
Our Sounds v New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd criteria are met).
11.3. Proposed consent monitoring conditions were included in Section 4 of the WWA AEE,
specifically a Groundwater Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GCMP) was promoted.
11.4. Conditions envisioned by Mr Williamson in summary involved (see pages 16 and 17 of the
WWA AEE);
• Groundwater level monitoring of the production bores to ensure that steady decline in
groundwater levels does not occur.
• A network of three sentinel bores on the coast adjacent to key development areas
which would be used as monitoring points to establish triggers for the determination of
saline intrusion. Indicative sentinel bore sites are shown in Figure 42 of the
Groundwater Modelling Report prepared by WWA in support of the AEE. Actual sites
would be agreed with Council and the MWWUG.
• Groundwater level and chemistry to be monitored in the sentinel bores as a means of
identifying risk of saline intrusion.
• Establishment of water level and quality trigger thresholds within the sentinel bores that
if triggered would require remedial action to be undertaken by the MWWUG.
• A series of escalation actions to be implemented if trigger thresholds continue to be
breached, including notification and reporting to Council (see page 17 of the WWA
AEE).
• Remediation potentially in the form of a series of incremental reductions in the daily
quantities taken, as a percentage of the average daily pumped.
55
11.5. The conclusions in Section 6.2 of the s42A report identifies a number of monitoring
conditions that seek to address residual scientific uncertainty around a number of matters,
including the effect on the Kaimaumau wetland.
11.6. Council may fix charges in respect of the monitoring and supervision of resource consents,
and potentially state of the environment monitoring pursuant to s36 of the RMA. The
Council may also charge additional costs where a fixed charge is inadequate for the Council
to recover its actual and reasonable costs in respect of the matter concerned under s36(5)
RMA. A local authority must, on request by a person liable to pay a charge under s36 RMA,
provide an estimate of any additional charge likely to be imposed under ss(5).
11.7. In a phone conversation with Stuart Saville from Council on 7th March 2018, I was advised
that consent monitoring and supervision costs would likely be based on actual and
reasonable for additional supervision of the consents on top of the fixed administration fee.
Mr Saville advised me that there had been no consideration as to what annual charge would
be set for consent monitoring and not to rely on Council’s Charging Policy 2017/18 as this
document would be subject to change in the near future. An estimate of the annual charge
and what this would consist of would have been beneficial to understanding the nature of
consent monitoring for the applicants and myself. On the basis of the information I received
from Council, I can only assume that all costs associated with installation, management,
data collection and analysis required under the Recommendations will be borne by the
consent holders on top of an annual charge that reflects the scale and nature of the activities
and an administration fee.
11.8. Consent conditions must be fair and reasonable. The monitoring contained in the
Recommendation is not disputed, but where data will provide for the benefit of others as
well as the applicants, careful consideration is needed as to how such an investment is
managed and paid for. For monitoring of the scale proposed to be fully funded by the
applicants is not reasonable nor is it fair.
11.9. This expectation of burden of cost by consent holders is also not consistent with the RPS,
nor the PRP which both support minimisation of the cost of compliance (see Policy 6.1.1 of
the RPS and Policy D.2.1 PRP). The RPS recognises that, “Poor quality regulation and
high compliance costs can act as a brake on business growth, investment and job creation.
Councils need to be mindful of the impact of regulation on the economy – good quality
regulation can be used to stimulate economic growth. The Ministry of Economic
Development has identified that compliance costs can act as a brake on business growth.”
11.10. Therefore, to achieve the outcomes anticipated by the RPS and PRP, I instead propose
alternative considerations for the Hearing commissioners, including;
• A monitoring programme that distributes responsibility and cost burden to the
MWWUG and other resource users through the establishment of a catchment group
to be developed under the umbrella of WNW. This catchment group is best placed
to discover and apply regulation around monitoring to equitably distribute cost
burden to users where it directly relates to resource use and development or where
monitoring contributes to an overall understanding of the state of the resource and
associated values. Such monitoring in relation to an overall understanding of state
of a resource should be carried out by Council within the gambit of their functions
under the RMA (i.e., s35 RMA) and a proportion of the cost to implement allocated
56
to all resource users. I have added an additional review condition on the
Recommendations so that once a catchment group has been established, the
Council may review the consents to operate in accordance with directions set-down
by a Catchment Management Plan; or
• A condition requiring financial contribution to be made by consent holders
commensurate to the scale of their activities and which recognises an equitable
distribution with state of the environment (SoE) monitoring. This is supported by
Objective 38.2.2 and Policy 38.2.3(2) of the RWSP and Administrative Matter G.3 of
the PRP; or
• An pro-offered condition of a financial contribution that Council may not otherwise
be able to impose. Contribution is to be made by consent holders commensurate to
the scale of their activities and which recognises an equitable distribution with SoE
monitoring; or
• MWWUG retains monitoring data as their intellectual property. Council may be
invited to view this data but does not hold the information. The report required by
Condition 22 of the Recommendations can be the conduit of information submitted
to the Council and other entities confirming compliance with thresholds and values
and advising on any contingency planning or actions undertaken for the monitoring
period. It would be a compliance issue and situation for enforcement if the consent
holders falsely report on the data they hold.
11.11. These alternative options all recognise the need to continue to collect and analyse data
regarding the resource. However, there needs to be a distinction made between data for
resource management purposes and data for resource use. Council requires data to make
informed resource management decisions while consent holders need to collect data to
ensure that they are complying with the conditions of their consents.
11.12. I seek for the commissioners to direct the MWWUG further on their preference of alternative
options stated above (if any) before developing specific conditions.
11.13. Unfortunately, s6 and s7 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act
1987 are not robust enough protections for information of a highly commercial nature to be
withheld should a challenge be made under this Act. This is why the MWWUG are seeking
careful consideration by the commissioners with regard to the management and storage of
data.
57
Annexure 1 - 2180189-RMASUB
58
Annexure 2 – Copy of submissions received by MWWUG (and representatives) and my interpretation of issues
59
Annexure 3 – Recommendations (track-changed)
1. RECOMMENDATION REQ-581172 Limited Notified New and change (Stanisich)
CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CONSENTS: To take groundwater on (for respective legal titles of individual applicant properties Refer Table 2Appendix 1 of “Groundwater Take Consent Application – Motutangai Waiharara Water User Group” dated 30 August 2017), for the purpose of horticultural irrigation on that property: Water Extraction Volumes 1 The rate of taking shall not exceed the limits set out in the following table:
Consent Holder Annual Limit
(m³), being 1 July to 30 June:
Daily rateWeekly volume of taking
(m³/dayweek), being any 7 24 -
consecutive hoursdays:
APP.038328.01.01 Bernard Kim & Sheryl Dianne Shine 40,00050,184 2681,879
APP.039332.01.01 Candy Corn Ltd, C/- Bryan CandyLJ King Limited C/- Fiona King
80,000 5373,758
APP.038471.01.01 Honeytree Farms Limited, C/- Tony Hayward
200,000380,000372,000
2,20024,500
APP.038589.01.01 Neil & Alma Violet Thompson and Steven & Josephine Suzanne Thompson
39,35036,00039,350
3202,240
APP.039345.01.01 Ongare23 Trust, C/- Ian McLarnon & Jason McLarnon
23,37024,000 2001,400
APP.038610.01.01 Mapua Avocados Ltd, C/- Murray Forlong
624,000745,000 500035,000
APP.038591.01.01 Cypress Hills Ltd, C/- Alan Anderson & Carolyn Dawn Smith
41,72036,00041,720
2801,960
APP.038650.01.01 Tony and Diane Hewitt 40,23040,00040,23
0 2701,890
APP.027391.01.02 Ivan Anthony Stanisich 64,070* 1150*3,010
APP.038454.01.01 Elbury Holdings Limited, C/- Kevin and Fiona King
113,700 7635,342
APP.038380.01.01 Daimen & Katherine Holloway 14,900 100700
APP.039381.01.01 Johno and Carol Brien (Lamb Road) 14,900 100700
APP.039244.01.01 Kevin and Dani Thomas 59,600 4002,800
APP.038420.01.01 Largus Orchard Ltd Partnership, C/- Murray Forlong (Changed from Matijevich)
193,700 1,3009,100
APP.038513.01.01 Te Rūnanga o Ngai Takoto, C/- Rangitane Marsden
193,700 1,3009,100
APP.038410.01.01 Georgina Tui and Mate Nickolas Covich 223,500 1,50010,500
APP.038732.01.01 Kathy Valadares 22,35048,000 1501,050
*Note to Commissioners – Stanisich application was for a change to an existing consented take to increase the
existing authorized volume from 720 m³/day to 1,150 m³/d (a change of 430 m³/day), while keeping the annual volume the same as existing (120,000 m³/annum). The volumes expressed in the application documents for the annual equivalent reflect the implied annual change associated with the daily increase for the purposes of the model in the AEE assessment.
For comparison
STAFFREP SEPTEMBER 2016 (REVISION 7) 2 A1040709
Consent Holder Annual Limit Weekly volume
of taking
(m³), being 1
July to 30 June: (m³/week),
being any 7-consecutive
days:
APP.038328.01.01 Bernard Kim & Sheryl Dianne Shine 50,184 1,879
APP.039332.01.01 LJ King Limited 80,000 3,758
APP.038471.01.01 Honeytree Farms Limited, 372,000 24,500
APP.038589.01.01 Neil & Alma Violet Thompson and Steven & Josephine Suzanne Thompson
39,350 2,240
APP.039345.01.01 Ongare23 Trust, 24,000 1,400
APP.038610.01.01 Mapua Avocados Ltd, 745,000 35,000
APP.038591.01.01 Cypress Hills Ltd, 41,720 1,960
APP.038650.01.01 Tony and Diane Hewitt 40,230 1,890
APP.027391.01.02 Ivan Anthony Stanisich 64,070 3,010
APP.038454.01.01 Elbury Holdings Limited, 113,700 5,342
APP.038380.01.01 Daimen & Katherine Holloway 14,900 700
APP.039381.01.01 Johno and Carol Brien (Lamb Road) 14,900 700
APP.039244.01.01 Kevin and Dani Thomas 59,600 2,800
APP.038420.01.01 Largus Orchard Ltd Partnership, 193,700 9,100
APP.038513.01.01 Te Rūnanga o Ngai Takoto, 193,700 9,100
APP.038410.01.01 Georgina Tui and Mate Nickolas Covich 223,500 10,500
APP.038732.01.01 Kathy Valadares 48,000 1,050
Notification of Irrigation 2 The Consent Holder shall advise the council’s assigned Monitoring Officer in writing
when irrigation is to commence for the first time each season, at least five days beforehand.
Metering and Abstraction Reporting 3 Excluding a take below 5 litres per second, Tthe Consent Holder shall install a meter
to measure the volume of water taken, in cubic metres, from each production bore. Each meter shall:
(a) Be able to provide data in a form suitable for electronic storage;
(b) Be sealed and as tamper-proof as practicable;
(c) Be installed at the location from which the water is taken; and
(d) Have an accuracy of +/-5%.
STAFFREP SEPTEMBER 2016 (REVISION 7) 3 A1040709
The Consent Holder shall, at all times, provide safe and easy access to each meter installed for the purposes of undertaking visual inspections and water take measurements.
Reason for insertion: Paragraph 65 of the s42A report only provides comment that takes be monitored in accordance with the Regulations. A requirement to install meters for takes equal to or greater than 5 litres per second would be consistent with this recommendation. That is unless the NRC has initiated Regulation 12(2). Suggest NRC clarifies this.
4 The Consent Holder shall verify that the meter required by Condition 3 is accurate.
This verification shall be undertaken prior to 30 June:
(a) following the first taking of water from each production bore; and
(b) at least once in every five years thereafter.
Each verification shall be undertaken by a person, who in the opinion of the council’s Compliance Manager, is suitably qualified. Written verification of the accuracy shall be provided to the council’s Assigned Monitoring Officer by 31 July following the date of each verification.
5 The Consent Holder shall, using the meter required by Condition 3, keep a record of
the daily volume of water taken from each production bore in cubic metres, including all nil abstractions.
Reason for deletion: See Mr Williamson’s evidence.
6 If the instantaneous rate of taking is equal to or greater than 10 litres per second, then
the water meter required by Condition 3 shall be telemetered so that council can freely access the information at any point in time. The telemetry connection shall be agreed to by the council’s Hydrology Manager[ML1].
76 The Consent Holder shall measure, and keep a record of, the static water level in each
production bore at least once each month. This measurement shall be taken at least 12 hours after cessation of pumping.
87 A copy of the records required to be kept by Conditions 5 and 7 for the period 1 July to 30 June (inclusive) shall be forwarded each year to the council’s assigned Monitoring Officer by the following 31 July. In addition, a copy of these records shall be forwarded immediately to the council’s assigned Monitoring Officer on written request. The records shall be in an electronic format that has been agreed to by the council. Advice Note: If no water is taken during the period 1 July to 30 June (inclusive) then
the Consent Holder is still required to notify the council’s Monitoring Manager in writing of the nil abstraction. Water use record sheets in an electronic format are available from the council’s website at www.nrc.govt.nz/wur.
98 Easy access for a water level probe shall be provided and maintained at the production
bore well head to enable the measurement of static water levels in the bore. Water Use Efficiency
STAFFREP SEPTEMBER 2016 (REVISION 7) 4 A1040709
109 The Consent Holder shall prepare an Irrigation Scheduling Plan (ISP) which outlines how irrigation decisions will be made. The ISP shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person and submitted to the council’s Compliance Manager for written approval. The ISP shall, as a minimum, address:
▪water balance and crop water requirements;
▪subsurface drainage; and
▪overall irrigation strategy. For each irrigation area, the ISP should include: (a) a description of how water requirement for each irrigation cycle is calculated;
(b) method(s) for assessing current soil moisture levels;
(c) method(s) for assessing potential evapotranspiration (PET) and rainfall to date;
(d) assessment of other inputs such as effluent irrigation and effect on irrigation requirement;
(e) soil moisture target to be maintained in each zone by irrigation;
(f) how measured data will be used to assess irrigation requirements over the next irrigation cycle; and
(g) a description of proposed method(s) for remaining within consent limits at each borehole or group of boreholes.
Advice Note: The ISP seeks to ensure that an irrigation efficiency of a minimum 80%
is achieved.
1110 The Consent Holder shall not exercise this consent until approval for the ISP required
to be prepared in accordance with Condition 10 has been approved by the council’s Compliance Manager.
1211 The ISP approved in accordance with Condition 11 shall be implemented prior to the
first irrigation season, unless a later date has been approved in writing by the council’s Compliance Manager.
1312 The Consent Holder shall, within six months of the first exercise of this consent, undertake an audit of the irrigation system using a suitably qualified and experienced person. The irrigation system audit shall be prepared in accordance with Irrigation New Zealand’s “Irrigation Evaluation Code of Practice” (dated 12 April 2010), including recommendations on any improvements that should be made to the system to increase water efficiencies. The results of the audit and its recommendations shall be submitted in writing to the council’s assigned Monitoring Officer within one month of the audit being undertaken.
1413 The Consent Holder shall, within three months of notification in writing by the council’s
Compliance Manager, implement any recommendations of the audit referred to in Condition 13.
1514 The reticulation system and components shall be maintained in good working order to minimise leakage and wastage of water.
STAFFREP SEPTEMBER 2016 (REVISION 7) 5 A1040709
1615 There shall be no significant ponding of irrigated water within any irrigated area, or significant runoff from either surface or subsurface drainage to a water body, as a result of the exercise of these consents.
Monitoring and Contingency Measures 1716 Prior to first exercise of this Consent, the Consent Holder shall submit a Groundwater
Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GMCP) to the Northland Regional Council. The GCMP shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person and submitted to the council’s Compliance Manager for written approval review. The GCMP shall be generally in accordance with Schedule 1 of this consent and address the following matters: ▪ The location and physical details of individual monitoring sites.
▪ Specific details of monitoring to be undertaken at each site including the parameters to be measured and the frequency (and/or duration) of monitoring.
▪ Methods/procedures/standards to be adopted for the collection, management, archiving and reporting of monitoring results.
▪ Details of any arrangements in place for the collection, analysis and reporting of monitoring results by third parties.
▪ The form, content and frequency at which monitoring results will be reported to the council.
▪ Specific triggers for groundwater level and/or groundwater quality at each individual monitoring site. Multiple triggers may be specified for individual sites, each linked to a specific set of mitigation actions.
▪ Requirements for the reporting of trigger level exceedances to the council.
▪ Specific details of mitigation to be initiated in the event of a trigger level exceedance including:
- Review/evaluation of monitoring data (particularly with respect to the magnitude of anticipated environmental effects).
- Increases in the frequency and location of monitoring.
- Changes to parameters being monitored.
- Further hydrogeological, hydrological or water quality investigations to identify the potential causes of the trigger level exceedance.
- Specific reductions in the rate/volume of groundwater abstraction.
▪ Development of strategies to avoid future trigger level exceedances.
▪ A process for reviewing and summarising monitoring results to support the staged development approach.
▪ A timeline and procedure for periodic review and updating of the GCMP to account for future water use, variations to prevailing environmental conditions and changes in access to monitoring sites.
Advice Note: It is anticipated that a single GCMP will be prepared and submitted on
behalf of all consent holders within the Motutangi-Waiharara Water Users Group.
1817 The exercise of this consent shall not prevent any other person who has consent to
take groundwater, which was issued prior to 26 October 2017, from fully exercising
STAFFREP SEPTEMBER 2016 (REVISION 7) 6 A1040709
that consentlower the groundwater table below existing efficient bore takes whether a consented or permitted activity.
Reason for insertion: Proposed condition does not distinguish in accordance with Policy 10.5.1(b) RWSP. Paragraphs 103-105 of s42A report support this change.
Advice Note: The date specified in Condition 18 is the date that the application for
this consent was notified.
18 To prevent saline contamination, the council may require the Consent Holder to cease
the exercise of this consent at all such times as the trigger levels specified in the approved GCMP are exceeded. 19
Community Liaison Group and Meetings 20 The Consent Holder shall, for the purpose of discussing matters relating to this
consent, including the results of monitoring and input into any review of conditions, form and maintain (including providing all administrative support) a water user group (hereafter referred to as the Aupōuri Water User Liaison Group (AWULG). The AWULG shall invite representatives of consent holders/groundwater users; mandated representatives from Te Aupōuri, Ngai Takoto, Ngāti Kuri, Te Rarawa, Ngāti Kahu, Te Potahi Marae, Kaimaumau Marae, Paparore Marae and Waiora Marae; the Department of Conservation; Far North District Council; and the Northland Regional Council.
21 The Consent Holder shall hold a meeting of the AWULG not less than once every year in August. Prior to the meeting, the Consent Holder shall provide a copy of the Annual Monitoring Report required to be prepared in accordance with Condition 22 and a summary of the water use records and static water level monitoring result for the same period as the report to each representative of the group. The meeting shall be held at a time and venue convenient for the majority of the AWULG members.
Reasoning for deletion: (1) A requirement to form a liaison group and to meet to discuss consents is impractical and
the need is not evident given that whatever information is submitted to NRC in relation to consent activity reporting is discoverable by the public, including these particular parties.
(2) Aside from Te Aupouri and DoC, none of these other parties submitted on the applications so how can a third party be included in a consent condition that hasn’t considered themselves affected?
(3) There are no supporting policies or methods in the relevant plans that would require this type of condition to be carried through consistently on ALL activities of this nature in the area. There is a need to have a robust framework in place so that new applications are required to address this upfront in their applications to be considered complete under s88 RMA. Furthermore, there is a stronger case for NRC should conditions be objected or appealed both for current and future proposals or if they wish to review existing consents to incorporate this as a condition on their consents seeing as the effect of abstraction is cumulative.
(4) NRC have reserved their ability to review consent to deal with any adverse effects on the environment that may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage; or to review the allocation of the resource. This is sufficient.
I also disagree that such a condition encourages whanaungatanga or kaitiakitanga unless tangata whenua have asked for this to occur.
STAFFREP SEPTEMBER 2016 (REVISION 7) 7 A1040709
Reporting 2219 The Consent Holder shall prepare an Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) for the period
1 July to 30 June (inclusive) and forwarded a copy to the council’s assigned monitoring officer and mandated representatives from Te Aupōuri, Ngai Takoto, Ngāti Kuri, Te Rarawa, Ngāti Kahu, Te Potahi Marae, Kaimaumau Marae, Paparore Marae and Waiora Marae; the Department of Conservation; Far North District Council by the following 31 July. The AMR shall include, but not be limited to, the results, update and summary report of the monitoring undertaken as required by the GCMP.
Reasoning for insertion: Monitoring reports supplied to Iwi, hapu and marae gives effect to the requirements of the RMA in relation to Maori. Te Tiriti principles are best addressed at the consent authority level rather than at the consent holder level.
Advice Note: It is anticipated that a single Annual Monitoring Report will be prepared
and submitted on behalf of all consent holders within the Motutangi-Waiharara Water Users Group.
Review Condition 2320 The council may, in accordance with Section 128 of the Resource Management Act
1991, serve notice on the Consent Holder of its intention to review the conditions annually during the month of June for any one or more of the following purposes: (a) To deal with any adverse effects on the environment that may arise from the
exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage; or
(b) To review the allocation of the resource. The Consent Holder shall meet all reasonable costs of any such review.
Lapsing Condition 2421 This consent shall lapse on the 30 April 2023, unless before this date the consent has
been given effect to. Advice Note: An application can be made to the council in accordance with Section
125 of the Act to extend the date after which the consent lapses. Such an application must be made before the consent lapses.
EXPIRY DATE: ALL EXCEPT STANISICH 30 NOVEMBER 2033
EXPIRY DATE: STANISICH 30 NOVEMBER 2025 General Advice Notes
I. The parcels of land identified on this consent where water may be used for the purpose of irrigation of horticultural and/or agricultural land may be added or changed by providing Council with Computer Freehold Register title confirming ownership of land by the consent holder or written approval from the landowner for the consent holder to use water for irrigation of horticultural and/or agricultural crop on their land. This
STAFFREP SEPTEMBER 2016 (REVISION 7) 8 A1040709
change does not give express permission or a right to increase consented allocation amounts on this consent.
Reasons for insertion: This advice note supports the addition of wording allowing for more flexibility to identify and use other land areas (see Appendix 1) whilst ensuring that it is clear to consent holders that any increase in amounts of consented allocation would require an application for either a change to the current consent or a new consent, depending on the scale and nature of the changes to allocation sought.
II. Increases to consented allocated amounts will require an application for resource
consent to be lodged with the Council to assess the sustainability of the changes sought. Dependent on the scale and nature of the effects of the changes sought, Council may receive and consider the application as a change of conditions or as a new consent application. Pre-application discussions with Council are recommended in this situation.
Reasons for insertion: Supports consent holders by outlining their obligations in relation to any change to increase consented allocation amounts and also provides an educational pathway to best approach a potential change of consent.
III. It is the responsibility of the consent holder to assess whether any other resource
consents may be necessary for activities associated with the exercise of this consent and to obtain resource consent if necessary.[ML2]
Reason for insertion: Helps consent holders by pointing out that there may be other resource consents necessary to exercise this consent, such as the use of pesticides and herbicides.
STAFFREP SEPTEMBER 2016 (REVISION 7) 9 A1040709
SCHEDULE 1: REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AND CONTINGENCY PLAN (CONDITION 17)
NOTE: Alternative conditions will be tabled at the hearing.
1. INTRODUCTION Extensive environmental monitoring is required to ensure the effects on the environment [ML3]are no greater than those anticipated to support the proposed ‘adaptive management’ approach involving a staged increase of extraction. The purpose of the GCMP is to formalise specific monitoring requirements, establish groundwater level and groundwater quality monitoring triggers and outline a process for implementation of appropriate mitigation measures in the event that nominated trigger values are exceeded. The GCMP is intended to allow the early detection of any impact to the Motutangi-Waiharara groundwater system associated with the exercise of groundwater take consent(s), by: ▪ Ensuring regular monitoring of the groundwater system both on and off-site;
▪ Setting monitoring criteria to indicate potential impact on the groundwater system;
▪ Informing the Northland Regional Council when changes in the pumping regime are required;
▪ Reviewing monitoring data after a step level increase in pumping rate;
▪ Ensuring that the monitoring data is available for regular review by the Northland Regional Council; and
▪ Detailing a Contingency Plan to be implemented if an unanticipated impact(s) is identified. The Groundwater Management Plan will also provide information as to the actual effects of the abstraction on the groundwater resource and enable validation of the numerical model by the Consent Holders for any replacement application of the consent to take groundwater. This schedule sets out the requirements to be addressed in the GCMP required by Condition 17. Any deviation from this schedule must be in response to additional technical information provided to NRC by the consent holder, including baseline monitoring results. Additional information supporting any change to the recommendations in this schedule must be provided with the GCMP for approval by NRC under Condition 17 prior to the commencement of groundwater abstraction.
2. SENTINEL BORES Sentinel bores will be utilised as the primary reference sites for regional groundwater levels and quality. Sentinel bores will be continuously monitored for water levels and electrical conductivity in individual piezometers to provide an indication that water groundwater levels are approaching a threshold where the risk of saline intrusion is increased and identify any variation in water quality that could indicate the landward migration of the saline interface.
STAFFREP SEPTEMBER 2016 (REVISION 7) 10 A1040709
Details of the location of the new sentinel bores as set out in Table 1 below will be required as part of the GCMP. TABLE 1: Sentinel Monitoring Bores
Monitoring Bore/
Bore Number Indicative Depth/
Piezometer ID Parameter
Indicative Trigger level3
NRC Waterfront 1 Water Level 2.0 m asl
200210 2 Water Level 2.0 m asl
3 Water Level 1.5 m asl
4 Water Level 1.5 m asl
NRC Kaimaumau Shallow (<10 m) Water Level 1.0 m asl
(LOC.315766) Electrical Conductivity 60 mS/cm
>x departure from baseline
Deep Water Level 2.0 m asl
(LOC.316222) Electrical Conductivity 60 mS/cm
>x departure from baseline
Motutangi1 Shallow (<10m) Water Level 1.0 m asl
Electrical Conductivity 60 mS/cm
>x departure from baseline
Deep (shellbed) Water Level 2.0 m asl
Electrical Conductivity 60 mS/cm
>x departure from baseline
Norton Road2 Shallow (<10m) Water Level 1.5 m asl
Electrical Conductivity 60 mS/cm
>x departure from baseline
Deep (shellbed) Water Level 2.0 m asl
Electrical Conductivity 70 mS/cm
>x departure from baseline
1 New sentinel monitoring bore comprising shallow (<10 metres) and deep (shellbed) piezometers, constructed in the Motutangi sub-area. The bore will be located:
- east of Far North Road
- as close to the margin of Kaimaumau wetland as practicable
- >1 kilometre from any existing/proposed groundwater abstraction
2 New sentinel monitoring bore comprising shallow (<10m) and deep (shellbed) piezometers, constructed in the Norton Road area:
- within 500 m of the coastal marine area
- as far as practicable from any existing/proposed abstraction
3 Groundwater level and electrical conductivity triggers for individual monitoring bores/piezometers will be established on the basis of an analysis of background values at each site and agreed with the NRC. Triggers may include numerical triggers for individual parameters as well as thresholds for departure from a reference baseline (expressed in terms of numerical values or x% of the baseline).
STAFFREP SEPTEMBER 2016 (REVISION 7) 11 A1040709
3. SALINE INTRUSION MONITORING Quarterly monitoring of key salinity indicators in new or existing bores at key locations around the northern margin of Rangaunu Harbour is required. This area is adjacent to the largest concentration of proposed abstraction, in an area where the potential for saline intrusion is elevated due to a flat hydraulic gradient (particularly toward Kaimaumau settlement where groundwater is used for potable and farm water supply). Reference to the existing NRC state of the environment monitoring sites at Houhora and Kaimaumau which are monitored quarterly is also required. Proposed monitoring sites include: - the existing Fishing Club bore at Houhora (monitored quarterly by NRC).
- the existing shallow and deep Kaimaumau sentinel bores (monitored quarterly by NRC).
- a new or existing bore in or near the Kaimaumau settlement accessing the shallow sand aquifer (<20 metres).
- a new or existing bore in or near the Kaimaumau settlement accessing the shellbed aquifer (>50 metres).
- proposed production bores in the Norton Road area located within 1 km of the coastal marine area.
Salinity indicators monitored shall include: - Electrical conductivity.
- Chloride.
- Sodium.
- Total Dissolved Solids. The GCMP shall specify additional monitoring and contingency measures to be undertaken in the event that any nominated trigger is exceeded in an individual monitoring bore/piezometer. A recommended monitoring schedule is set out in Table 2 below. Any deviation from this schedule must be in response to additional technical information including baseline monitoring results, and provided with the GCMP for approval by NRC under Condition 17 prior to the commencement of groundwater abstraction. TABLE 2: Proposed Monitoring Schedule – Saline Intrusion
Monitoring Bore Area Parameter Frequency Indicative Trigger
Level1
Fishing Club (NRC) Houhora Salinity Indicators + major ions
Quarterly ▪ EC > 60 mS/cm
▪ Chloride >100 mg/L
▪ Departure of any individual parameter >x from baseline
NRC Kaimaumau sentinel (shallow)
Kaimaumau Salinity Indicators + major ions
Quarterly
NRC Kaimaumau sentinel (shallow)
Kaimaumau Salinity Indicators + major ions
Quarterly
Kaimaumau Settlement - shallow (<20 metres)
Kaimaumau Salinity Indicators Quarterly
Kaimaumau Settlement - deep (>50 metres)
Kaimaumau Salinity Indicators Quarterly
STAFFREP SEPTEMBER 2016 (REVISION 7) 12 A1040709
Monitoring Bore Area Parameter Frequency Indicative Trigger
Level1
APP.038328.01.01 Norton Road Salinity Indicators Quarterly
APP.038380.01.01 Norton Road Salinity Indicators Quarterly
APP.038454.01.01 Norton Road Salinity Indicators Quarterly
1 Specific triggers for individual monitoring bores will be agreed with the NRC once baseline data is available to characterise water quality at each monitoring site
4. WATER LEVEL MONITORING Monthly water level monitoring is required in all MWWUG production bores during the winter months (nominally May to September) to provide information to identify any inter-annual variations in aquifer storage which may be anomalous compared to regional trends. No specific triggers will be established for this monitoring. Water level monitoring is also required in a shallow observation bore adjacent to the APP.038471.01.01 production bore to quantify any localised drawdown effects in the shallow sand aquifer in the vicinity of a relatively large abstraction proximal to Kaimaumau Wetland. This monitoring information will enable comparison of shallow water levels in the vicinity of a significant concentration of abstraction (within the area of maximum in the shallow aquifer modelled in the AEE), with those recorded in the shallow piezometers in the four sentinel bores distributed across the wider Aupōuri Aquifer. TABLE 3: Proposed Monitoring Schedule – Water Levels
Monitoring Bore Area Parameter Frequency
All MWWUG production bores Houhora, Motutangi, Waiparera
Water Level Monthly
APP.038471.01.01 shallow observation bore
Motutangi Water Level Continuous
5. WATER QUALITY MONITORING Water quality monitoring shall be established in shallow piezometers located down-gradient [ML4]of representative orchard areas in the Motutangi and Waiparera sub-areas. Piezometers shall be sampled on a six-monthly basis for major ions and nutrient concentrations.
Reason for deletion: Outside of scope as addressed through RWSP, RAQPN and PRPN as permitted activities. Included advice note above.
. It is also recommended that annual sampling is undertaken for any pesticides identified in the GCMP which exhibit characteristics which increase the potential to leach to groundwater (e.g. persistent, soluble, mobile).[ML5] It is recommended the GCMP include provision for periodic review of groundwater quality monitoring results as well as the nature and scope of continued monitoring. TABLE 5: Proposed Monitoring Schedule – Water Quality
STAFFREP SEPTEMBER 2016 (REVISION 7) 13 A1040709
Sub-area Location Parameter Frequency
Motutangi
Shallow piezometers down-gradient of two representative planted areas
- Electrical Conductivity
- Major ions
- Dissolved reactive phosphorus
- Nitrate
- Ammoniacal Nitrogen
- Total Nitrogen
- Annual pesticide screen (targeting any persistent, leachable compounds identified in the GCMP which are identified as being in widespread use)
Six monthly, with a review of monitoring results after five years (to assess value of continued monitoring)
Waiparera
Reason for deletion This condition did not distinguish whether it applies to an efficient bore take only. All assessment concludes that efficient bore takes would not be affected in a more than minor manner yet there are extensive conditions requiring;
(a) Staff time to investigate a complaint (b) Staff time to review monitoring and SoE (c) Staff time to come to an opinion (d) Staff time to inform consent holder (and complainant?) of their opinion
This does not conform to Policy D.2.1(6) as it does not focus on the effects and it is unclear how Policy D.2.1(4) of the PRP would be achieved as NRC were unable to provide me with a range of potential compliance monitoring costs for such a condition.
6. IMPACT ON EXISTING USERS In the event that there is a query or complaint as to potential effects [JW6]of exercise of the consent, the Consent Holder and the council’s Monitoring Manager shall be notified of the receipt of the complaint/query. The complaint/query will be registered on the Northland Regional Council Incident Database and processed in accordance with the procedures set out in the “Northland Regional Council Incident Procedure Manual”. Staff of the Northland Regional Council will carry out an investigation as soon as is practicably possible to assess if the water level decline is likely to be attributable to the exercise of the consent. This investigation will review the Consent Holder’s monitoring records and the SOE monitoring results. If, in the opinion of the council’s Monitoring Manager the water level decline may be attributable to the exercise of the consent, the Consent Holder will immediately initiate the Mitigation Plan as detailed in Section 7. In accordance with Northland Regional Council policy, in the event that an investigation determines that the effects are attributable to the exercise of one or more of the consents held by members of the Water Users Group, the relevant Consent Holder(s) shall meet the actual and reasonable costs of the investigation.
7.6. MITIGATION PLAN The GCMP shall set out a Mitigation Plan to be initiated immediately upon the relevant Consent Holder(s) receiving notification from the council’s Monitoring Manager, and/or any of the trigger levels set out in the GCMP being exceeded.
STAFFREP SEPTEMBER 2016 (REVISION 7) 14 A1040709
Mitigation measures shall include: - Review/evaluation of monitoring data (particularly with respect the magnitude of
anticipated environmental effects).
- Increases in the frequency and location of monitoring.
- Changes to parameters being monitored.
- Further hydrogeological, hydrological or water quality investigations to identify the potential causes of the trigger level exceedance.
- Specific reductions in the rate/volume of groundwater abstraction.
- Development of strategies to avoid future trigger level exceedances.
Appendix 1 – Legal Descriptions of Use Areas.
Application No. Applicant Name Legal descriptions of use areas
APP.038610.01.01 Mapua Avocados Ltd Lot 1 Deposited Plan 349598, Lot 2 Deposited Plan 373078, Section 47-48, 53, 66-67, 79, 87, 89-91 Block XV Houhora East Survey District, Part Section 13 & 51 Block XV Houhora East Survey District and other parcels to be approved by Council upon receipt of Computer Freehold Register title or landowner written evidence confirming interest in the land.
APP.038471.01.01 Honeytree Farms Ltd Lot 2 Deposited Plan 497050 & Section 53-55 Block IV Opoe Survey District and other parcels to be approved by Council upon receipt of Computer Freehold Register title or landowner written evidence confirming interest in the land.
APP.038410.01.01 Georgina Tui Covich & Mate Nicholas Covich
Section 5, 9-10, 16, 19, 27, 30-32, 34, 39-40 Block IV Opoe Survey District and other parcels to be approved by Council upon receipt of Computer Freehold Register title or landowner written evidence confirming interest in the land.
APP.038420.01.01 Largus Orchard Ltd Partnership Part Section 38, Sections 52-53, 60, 118 & 129ɸ Block V Opoe Survey District and other parcels to be approved by Council upon receipt of Computer Freehold Register title or landowner written evidence confirming interest in the land.
APP.039332.01.01 LJ King Ltd ʈ Lot 2 Deposited Plan 452703 and other parcels to be approved by Council upon receipt of Computer Freehold Register title or landowner written evidence confirming interest in the land.
APP.038454.01.01 Elbury Holdings Ltd Lot 2 Deposited Plan 13971, Lot 1 & 4 Deposited Plan 22761 and other parcels to be approved by Council upon receipt of Computer Freehold Register title or landowner written evidence confirming interest in the land.
APP.038328.01.01 Bernard Kim Shine & Sheryl Dianne Shine
Part Lot 1 Deposited Plan 13971 and other parcels to be approved by Council upon receipt of Computer Freehold Register title or landowner written evidence confirming interest in the land.
APP.0327391.01.02 ƀ Ivan Anthony Stanisich ƀ Sections 47, 50, 55 & 61 Block V Opoe Survey District, Part Sections 101 & 41 Block V Opoe Survey District, Lot 1 Deposited Plan 129554, Lot 1 Deposited Plan 322899 and other parcels to be approved by Council upon receipt of Computer Freehold Register title or landowner written evidence confirming interest in the land.
APP.038589.01.01 Alma Violet Thompson, Josephine Suzanne Thompson, Neil Thompson, Steven Thompson
Lot 2 Deposited Plan 178824 and other parcels to be approved by Council upon receipt of Computer Freehold Register title or landowner written evidence confirming interest in the land.
APP.038650.01.01 Anthony William Hewitt & Diane Eleanor Hewitt
Lot 1 & 2 Deposited Plan 194160 and other parcels to be approved by Council upon receipt of Computer Freehold Register title or landowner written evidence confirming interest in the land.
APP.0338591.01.01 Cypress Hills Ltd Ƃ Lots 8 & 10 Deposited Plan 178824, Lot 1 Deposited Plan 336507 and other parcels to be approved by Council upon receipt of Computer Freehold Register title or landowner written evidence confirming interest in the land.
APP.039345.01.01 Ongare Trust Lot 1 Deposited Plan 101943 and other parcels to be approved by Council upon receipt of Computer Freehold Register title or landowner written evidence confirming interest in the land.
APP.038732.01.01 Katherine Yvonne Bryan Valadares Ƈ
Lot 3 Deposited Plan 477138 and other parcels to be approved by Council upon receipt of Computer
STAFFREP SEPTEMBER 2016 (REVISION 7) 16 A1040709
Freehold Register title or landowner written evidence confirming interest in the land.
APP.038380.01.01 Katherine Holloway & Damien Holloway
Lot 1 Deposited Plan 193935 and other parcels to be approved by Council upon receipt of Computer Freehold Register title or landowner written evidence confirming interest in the land.
APP.038513.01.01 Caroline Nadine Carr & Jonathan Charles Brien
Lot 3 Deposited Plan 425051 and other parcels to be approved by Council upon receipt of Computer Freehold Register title or landowner written evidence confirming interest in the land.
APP.038513.01.01 Te Runanga o Ngai Takoto Lot 6 Deposited Plan 405064 and other parcels to be approved by Council upon receipt of Computer Freehold Register title or landowner written evidence confirming interest in the land.
APP.039244.01.01 Danielle O’Connor & Kevin Wayne Thomas
Lot 1 Deposited Plan 505956 and other parcels to be approved by Council upon receipt of Computer Freehold Register title or landowner written evidence confirming interest in the land.
NOTES: ʈ Have noted in application that a shed and household are supplied with water from the subject bore. ƀ Change of condition (s127(1) RMA) to current Water Permit CON027391.01.01 (expires 30 November 2025)
which authorises 720 m3/day up to 120,000 m3/12-month period 1 July to 30 June. Quantities in this table represent the total amounts to be shown in amended permit noting that the applicant did not seek an increase in the annual volume specified on CON027391.01.01.
Ƃ Have noted in application that 3 dwellings are also supplied with water (approx. 2m3/day/house) from subject bore.
Ƈ Have noted in application that 1 household is supplied with water from the subject bore.