statutory assessment (beca e5) - manawatu-wanganui€¦ · statutory assessment: the pot-...

Report in support of a Regional Resource Consent Application

Statutory Assessment (Beca E5)

Levin Wastewater Land Application Scheme

Prepared for Horowhenua District Council

Prepared by (Beca Ltd)

18 June 2018

Statutory Assessment: Levin Wastewater Land Application Scheme

Beca // 18 June 2018

4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // i

Revision History

Revision Nº Prepared By Description Date

1 Teina Malone Internal draft

2 Hywel Edwards Draft for client review 1 June 2018

3 FINAL 18 June 2018

4

5

Document Acceptance

Action Name Signed Date

Prepared by Teina Malone

18 June 2018

Reviewed by Hywel Edwards 18 June 2018

Approved by Nathan Baker

18 June 2018

on behalf of

© Beca 2018 (unless Beca has expressly agreed otherwise with the Client in writing).

This report has been prepared by Beca on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client’s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Any use or reliance by any person contrary to the above, to which Beca has not given its prior written consent, is at that person's own risk.

Statutory Assessment: The Pot- Wastewater Project


4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // ii

Executive Summary

Horowhenua District Council (HDC) operates the Levin Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located on

Mako Mako Road in Levin. Wastewater undergoes treatment at the WWTP before being piped approximately

7km to an infiltration pond. Treated wastewater from the infiltration pond is applied to surrounding land

planted in pine forestry.

The existing pond and land application scheme, collectively known as “The Pot”, is currently authorised to

operate under the following resource consents:

RC: 6610- Discharge Permit to discharge up to 20,000 m³ of tertiary treated wastewater per day and

10,000m³ of digested sludge per year from the Levin Effluent Disposal System onto and into land situated

on Hokio Sand Road, Levin. This consent is due to expire on 31 December 2018.

RC- 6921- Discharge Permit to discharge emissions to air from the storage and disposal of wastewater

from the storage and disposal of wastewater from the ‘Pot’ to land. This consent expired on 5 June 2018.

This statutory assessment report forms part of a regional resource consent application which seeks to

authorise the continued management of wastewater discharges at the site (the ‘Project’). This report alone

does not constitute the full resource consent application. It relies on a suite of additional reports and

assessments as listed in Section 2 of this report. All reports are to be read in conjunction with each other.

The purpose of this statutory assessment report is to assess the Project against the relevant plans, policies

and documents which constitute the statutory planning framework under the Resource Management Act

1991.

Resource Consents and Permitted Activities

No resource consents are required under the Horowhenua District Plan as The Pot is designated (D119) for

‘sewage treatment and disposal’. The Project is consistent with the purpose of, and contained within the

physical footprint of, the designation.

The following regional resource consents are required, and permitted activities relied on, to establish and

implement the Project:

Rule Activity Activity Status

Regional Council – One Plan

Rule 13-1 Land disturbance pursuant to s9(2) RMA of a total area up to 2500 m2 per property per 12-month period and any ancillary diversion of water or discharge of sediment into water pursuant to s15(1) RMA resulting from the land disturbance.

Permitted

Rule 13-3 Forestry pursuant to s9(2) RMA, and any ancillary disturbance of the bed of a river or lake pursuant to s13(1) RMA by forestry, or diversion of water pursuant to s14(2) RMA on the land (but not within a river) where the forestry is undertaken, or discharge of sediment or slash into water or onto or into land that may enter water pursuant to s15(1) or 15(2A) RMA resulting from the forestry.

Permitted

Rule 14-30 Discharges of water or contaminants to land or water not covered by other rules in the Plan or unable to meet permitted activity standards (human effluent storage and treatment facility and associated discharge of treated wastewater to land which may enter water via the floor and walls of the infiltration ponds).

Discretionary

Rule 14-30 Discharge of treated human wastewater to land (which may enter water) from irrigation.

Discretionary



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // iii

Rule Activity Activity Status

Rule 15-17 Discharge of aerosols and odour to air from storage, treatment and discharge activities at The Pot.

Discretionary

Statutory Assessment

In accordance with Section 104(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Project’s establishment and

on-going operation has been assessed against the provisions of the following documents comprising the

statutory planning framework:

National Environmental Standard for Sources of Drinking Water 2008

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

Health 2012

National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry 2017

National Policy Statement- Freshwater Management 2014 (amended 2017)

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010

the Horizons One Plan 2014

the Horowhenua District Plan 2015

Other Matters:

o Strategic review of Horowhenua District Councils Assets

o the Horowhenua District Council Long Term Plan

o the Horowhenua District Council draft Infrastructure Strategy 2014

the Resource Management Act, including:

o Section 105

o Section 107

o Part 2 (Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8).

Overall, the Project is generally consistent with the statutory framework outlined above. Key factors leading

to this overall conclusion include:

The Project is for the renewal of consents to discharge treated wastewater onto and into land (and

indirectly to water) situated at Hokio Sand Road and to discharge contaminants to air.

The proposal utilises existing regionally significant infrastructure which forms part of a wider wastewater

scheme including the WWTP in Levin (and connecting reticulation) for which long term consents are held.

The upgrading of existing regionally significant infrastructure gains strong support from the One Plan

(RPS provisions for infrastructure).

As confirmed in the Aquanet Consulting report (Section 4.2, Aquanet, 2018:E4), the mitigation measures

included in the application (revised loading rates and irrigation scheduling, increased irrigation area within

The Pot site and the biodiversity trial) will result in material reductions in the amount of nutrients, in

particular nitrogen, reaching surface water. While the actual reductions are as yet not quantified, the

Project is considered to be generally consistent with the National Policy Statement for Freshwater

Management and the One Plan (RPS provisions on water quality) in the context of enhancing water

quality.

The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

and the Regional One Plan in respect of activities in the coastal environment. This conclusion is reached

on the basis that the Project relates to existing coastal infrastructure, has been informed by views from

tangata whenua and is the best practicable option for managing Levin’s wastewater. Chapter 5 of the

resource consent application (E8, HDC: 2018) confirms why the Project is the best practicable option.

The resource consent application does not assess potential effects on the Waiwiri Stream’s outstanding

natural feature and landscape value in the District Plan. The Waiwiri Stream is not classified as an

outstanding natural feature or landscape in the One Plan, under which resource consents are required.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // iv

Further, The Pot (adjacent to the outstanding natural feature and landscape in the District Plan) is a

designated site (long term planning tool) for wastewater treatment and disposal in the District Plan. The

designation and wastewater activity at The Pot pre-dates the landscape classification (by over 20 years)

which may indicate the wastewater activity is not detrimentally impacting values of the Waiwiri Stream.

The proposal has implemented methods and measures which recognise tangata whenua and their

relationship with the land, water and other taonga. The proposed methods and measures include early

consultation, the commissioning of a Cultural Impact Assessment1, the continued adoption of a discharge

regime that avoids a direct discharge to water, riparian planting, reductions in-stream effects via irrigation

management and trials (thereby enhancing water quality and ecological habitat), the offering of Cultural

Health Index Monitoring and the imposition of an Accidental Discovery Protocol.

While not forming part of the resource consent application, it is understood that a range of further mitigation

measures and offsets are being considered. These mitigation measures are outlined in the Resource

Consent and Assessment of Environmental Effects (HDC, June 2018: E8) and the Mitigation Options Report

(LEI, 2017: C3). Some of the measures and offsets identified may require further resource consents to

enable their implementation and as such cannot at the present time be considered or relied on as part of

assessing or making decisions on the application as currently lodged. Broadly speaking, the adoption of the

measures identified will achieve better consistency with the statutory planning framework. An adaptive

management type approach to the mitigation and offset trials could potentially be implemented.

The Project is considered to be generally consistent with the statutory planning framework and constitutes

sustainable management. The Project:

enables people and the community to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and for

their health and safety.

sustains the potential of natural and physical resources for future generations.

enhances the life supporting capacity of the air, water, soil and ecosystems.

avoids, remedies or mitigations adverse effects on the environment.

Ultimately, the Project achieves the sustainable management purpose of the RMA.

1 It is understood that a request for a CIA was made to three separate Iwi. Only one CIA was received and is

referenced in this statutory assessment report - the Cultural Impact Assessment report for three Ngāti

Raukawa hapū – Ngāti Kikopiri, Ngāti Pareraukawa, Ngāti Hikitanga.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // i

Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Project Overview 1

Site Description and Surrounds 2

Current scheme description 2

One Plan Values 3

Proposed Project Overview 4

2.4 Resource Consent Requirements and Activity Status 5

Other Consents and Approvals 6

3 Section 104(1) Assessment 7

Approach in light of Davidson 8

Assessment of Effects on the Environment 8

Offsets and Mitigation Measures 9

National Environmental Standards 10

National Policy Statements 10

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 12

Regional Policy Statement 16

Regional Plan 23

District Plan – Horowhenua District Plan 25

Other Matters 25

Value of Investment 26

4 Section 105: Matters Relevant for Discharge Permits 26

Nature of the Discharge and the Sensitivity of the Receiving Environment 27

Applicant’s Reasons for the Proposed Choice 27

Alternative Methods of Discharge and Any Other Receiving Environment 27

5 Section 107: Restrictions on Certain Discharge Permits 27

6 RMA Part 2 Assessment 28

Section 6: Matters of National Importance 28

Section 7: Other Matters 29

Section 8: Treaty of Waitangi 29

Section 5: Purpose and Principles 29

7 Conclusions 30



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 1

1 Introduction

Horowhenua District Council (“HDC”) operates the Levin Wastewater Treatment Plant (“WWTP”) located on

Mako Mako Road, Levin. Treated wastewater is piped approximately 7km from the WWTP to an unlined

infiltration pond off Hokio Sands Road which acts as an infiltration basin. From the infiltration pond, treated

wastewater is applied to surrounding land planted in pine forestry. The area of land comprising the infiltration

pond and wastewater land application system is commonly known as ‘The Pot’. The Pot has been in

operation for approximately 27 years.

Discharge related activities at The Pot are currently authorised under existing resource consents 6610 and

6921:

Resource Consent 6610 (discharge permit) authorises the discharge of up to 20,000m³ of tertiary treated

wastewater per day and 10,000m³ of digested sludge2 per year form the Levin Effluent Disposal System

onto and into land situated on Hokio Sands Levin. This was granted on 5 June 1998 and is due to expire

on 31st December 2018.

Resource consent 6921 is a Discharge Permit to discharge contaminants to air from the Levin Effluent

Disposal System situated on Hokio Sand Road. This was granted on 5th June 1998 and expired on 5

June 2018.

HDC is seeking resource consent(s) from Horizons to authorise the continued discharge of treated

wastewater from The Pot, inclusive of modifications and refinements to its current operation. These

modifications and refinements are detailed in other reports, namely the Levin Wastewater Discharge, The

Pot: Discharge Description and Assessment of the Effects to Land (Lowe Environmental Impact: October

2017, Project report reference D1/ E1).

The purpose of this report is to assess the Project against the relevant plans, policies and documents which

constitute the statutory planning framework under the Resource Management Act 1991.

2 Project Overview

Descriptions of the application site and surrounds, the proposed discharge system and technical

assessments of effects of that discharge are provided in other reports which form part of the resource

consent application for the Project. These include the following reports which have also been used to inform

the content of this report:

Resource Consent and Assessment of Environmental Effects: Horowhenua District Council: June 2018:

E8, inclusive of the summary on the best practicable option.

Levin Wastewater Discharge, The Pot: Discharge Description and Assessment of the Effects to Land

(Lowe Environmental Impact: October 2017: D1/E1).

The Pot Levin WWTP Groundwater Assessment (GHD Ltd: December 2017: E2).

Assessment of Ecological Values (Boffa Miskell Ltd: May 2018: E3).

2 Resource consent is not being sought in relation to the continued discharge of digested sludge.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 2

Technical Memo: Levin WWTP Land Application at The Pot- Assessment of Effects on water quality and

ecology (Aquanet Consulting Ltd: June 2018: E4).

Cultural Impact Assessment report for three Ngāti Raukawa hapū (Waiwiri Lake, Stream & Environs: He

Taonga 2018:D4).

Consultation Summary (Appendix B of E8, Application and AEE).

Site Description and Surrounds

A full description of the application site is included within the Resource Consent application and Assessment

of Environmental Effects (HDC, 2018:E8) and the Levin Wastewater Discharge, The Pot Discharge

Description and Assessment of the Effects to Land report (LEI, 2018:D1/E1), and is not repeated here. The

application site comprises a total area of 110.5ha and encompasses the following Computer Freehold

Registers:

Legal Description Area Landowners

Horowhenua XIB41 South P Block 43.2634ha Muaupoko Land Trust

Horowhenua XIB41 N1 Blk 19.5061ha Muaupoko Land Trust

Horowhenua XIB41 South X Block 10.9543ha Horowhenua District Council

Lot 1 DP 59628 36.614ha Horowhenua District Council

Key features of the site and surrounds can be summarised as:

The site is located approximately 7km west of the Levin Township.

The Tasman Sea is located approximately 600m from the most western boundary, and the Waiwiri

Stream (the stream between Lake Papaitonga and coastal waters) running immediately along the

southern boundary. Lake Papaitonga and the Waiwiri Stream is classed an Outstanding Natural Feature

and Landscape in the Horowhenua District Plan 2015.

Vegetation at the site has been mixed grass and pine plantation forestry with isolated patches of natives,

swamp species and undeveloped vegetation. The site also includes a ‘kanuka forest’ and ‘carex sedge

wetland’ (3.1ha) which are defined as a regionally threatened habitat in accordance with Schedule F of

the Horizons One Plan.

The site contains a number of surface tributary drains which intercept shallow groundwater and thereafter

discharge to the Waiwiri Stream.

Groundwater flow is generally towards the west (i.e. towards the coast).

The Waiwiri Stream, and the connection with Lake Papaitonga, is culturally sensitive due to the long

association of iwi and hapu to the area as outlined in the Cultural Impact Assessment report for three

Ngāti Raukawa hapū (Collins 2018: D4).

Surrounding land use activities being rural in nature, with the nearest rural dwelling some 125m away

from The Pot site boundary to the north (and some 145m away from the nearest irrigation area).

Current scheme description

Treated wastewater is pumped approximately 7km from the WWTP to the ‘Pot’. The infiltration pond into

which treated wastewater is discharged comprises a natural basin in sand country, the sides of which have

been retained using approximately 2.5km of treated timber retaining walls. The infiltration pond is up to 5m

deep at its deepest point. The infiltration pond is approximately 7ha in area and has a infiltration capacity of



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 3

425,000m³. The infiltration pond was originally designed as an infiltration basin and so is not lined (LEI,

2017:D1).

It is estimated that approximately 420,000m³ of water is lost to ground via infiltration per year which is

composed mostly of treated wastewater (LEI, 2018:D1). Approximately 1,900,000m³ of treated wastewater is

applied to land via spray irrigation every year (LEI, 2018:D1). The infiltration pond is used to buffer incoming

treated volumes from the WWTP so that land application rates can be matched to weather and soil condition.

The infiltration pond level is lowered by land application activity over the generally drier summer and autumn

months, giving it a greater capacity to store treated wastewater over the winter.

Two mainlines service the land application areas known as the ‘Ringmain’ and the ‘Bare Sand’. A series of

49 irrigated zones run off these main lines. These are discussed in detail in LEI, 2018:D1. The total area of

land irrigated (both forestry and grazed pasture) as part of the current scheme is 40.5ha. Land application is

generally carried out in the evening and overnight, with ground surface and irrigation equipment (e.g. pipes

and nozzles) being checked the following day.

The operation of the irrigation system currently occurs on a seven day cycle with five days of irrigation

occurring and two without.

One Plan Values

The site adjoins the Waiwiri Stream which is identified within the Horizons One Plan as being within the Lake

Papaitonga (West 8) Water Management Zone. The West_8 Water Management Zone has the following

zone wide values:

LSC: Life-supporting Capacity (Lowland Sand)

AE: Aesthetics

CR: Contact Recreation

Mau: Mauri

IA: Industrial Abstraction

I: Irrigation

SW: Stockwater

EI: Existing Infrastructure

CAP: Capacity to Assimilate Pollution

The Waiwiri stream is has the following reach specific values:

Site of Significance: Aquatic (SOS-A) (banded kokupo) which applies from the confluence with Lake

Papaitonga and Waiwiri Stream at approx. NZMS: 260 S25: 977-600 to source.

Inanga spawning (IS) value which applies from the cross-river CMA boundary to a point 500m up the

Waiwiri Stream at approx. NZMS 260 S25:939-618 (below The Pot and irrigation area).

Whitebait migration (WM) value which applies from the cross-river CMA boundary to a point 500m up the

Waiwiri Stream at approx. NZMS 260 S25:939-618 (below The Pot and irrigation area).

Domestic Food Supply (DFS) value (vegetable production) which applies to Lake Papaitonga catchment

and the Waiwiri Stream.

Flood Control and Damage (FC/D) value which applies from approximately NZMS 260 S25: 935-620 to

source).

Schedule F of the Horizons One Plan includes a list of habitats classed as being “Rare”, “Threatened” or “At-

risk”. The report prepared by Boffa Miskell (Boffa Miskell, 2018:E3) confirms there are two regionally

threatened habitat types on the site according to the Horizons One Plan Schedule F. These areas are the

kanuka forest on the northern Pot lake-edge and a carex sedge wetland in the north-western portion of the



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 4

site. The Boffa Miskell report (2018: E3) also identified the following threatened, at-risk or locally uncommon

species within / around the project site:

Long fin eel: At Risk- Declining. Found in the Waiwiri Stream, but also highly likely within the drains in the

project site.

Inanga: At Risk- Declining. Found in the Waiwiri Stream, also likely to be in some of the drains within the

project site.

Proposed Project Overview

The Project is best described in the Resource Consent Application report (HDC, 2018:E8) and the Levin

Wastewater Discharge, The Pot Discharge Description and Assessment of the Effects to Land (LEI,

2018:D1).

No changes are proposed to the infiltration pond itself which will continue to work as an infiltration basin as

originally designed. It is estimated that approximately 420,000m³ of treated wastewater will continue to be

discharged via infiltration from the bottom and walls of the pond. Table 1.1 contained in the Conceptual

Design Report (LEI, 2018:D1) (re-created below) provides a summary of the discharge parameters for the

current and future operations at The Pot.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 5

The proposed operational changes can be summarised as:

An increase in the total volume of wastewater to The Pot from 2,314,469m³/y to 2,661,530m³/y (taking

into account anticipated population growth over a 35 year period).

An increase in the total irrigated area from 40.5ha to 60ha.

An increase in the area irrigated per event from 8ha to 20ha.

A decrease in the application depth from 100mm to 20mm.

A decrease in the return time between applications from once weekly to twice per week.

An increase to the total annual volume of wastewater discharge to land via spray irrigation.

A decrease in the annual application depth of wastewater from 4,667mm to 3,593mm.

A change in the distribution of discharge through the year to take advantage of high use by plants and

lower water table in up-gradient position.

An increase in the number of days that the irrigation regime can operate for from 5 days a week to 6.

Upgrading of the irrigation infrastructure.

An increase in vegetation on the site from 30.5ha of pinus radiata and 10ha of pasture to 50ha of pinus

radiata and 10ha native Manuka/ Kanuka.

In respect of contaminant discharges, the proposed operational changes will deliver:

A decrease the nitrogen load from 1,820 to 1,442 kg N/ha/y.

A decrease in the phosphorous load from 261 to 207 kg/ P/ha/y.

2.4 Resource Consent Requirements and Activity Status

The table below identifies the activities and operations that trigger the need for resource consent under the

operative Regional One Plan as well as those activities which are permitted under the One Plan.

Rule Activity Activity Status Comment

Long term consents

Rule13-1 Land disturbance up to

2,500m2

Permitted Only small scale earthworks, if any, will be

required as the existing reticulation system can

largely be relied on.

Rule 13-3 Forestry Permitted The permitted activity standards can be

complied with.

Rules 13-8

and 9

Activities within at risk, rare and

threatened habitats

N/a These rules are not considered to apply / trigger

as the specific planting and irrigation of 10ha of

manuka / kanuka will create the habitat. The

activity will protect and enhance the habitat in

this context.3

Rule 14-

25

Discharges of contaminants to

a reach of river with Schedule B

Values – Sites of Significance -

Aquatic

N/a The rule is not considered to apply / trigger as

there is no direct discharge to the Waiwiri

Stream (a Site of Significance – Aquatic).

Rule 14-

30

Human effluent storage and

treatment facilities and

consequential discharge to land

Discretionary

The following permitted activity standards of

Rule 14-16 will be exceeded:

3 It is understood that if Rule 13-9 is triggered (and subsequently a non-complying activity status is impose on the Project

overall), the manuka / kanuka trial will not commence and the area will likely be planted in pine.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 6

Rule Activity Activity Status Comment

(which may enter water) via the

floors and walls of the ponds

The existing Pot pond is not lined and the

permeability of the sealing layer exceeds

1x10-9 m/s4.

Rule 14-

30

Discharge (land application /

irrigation) of treated human

wastewater to land (which may

enter water)

Discretionary

The activity is not specifically provided for and

therefore defaults to requiring consent under the

catch–all Rule 14-30.

Rule 15-

17

Discharge of aerosols and

odour to air (applied for on a

pre-cautionary basis)

Discretionary

The discharge is not provided for in the rule

framework and therefore defaults to requiring

consent under catch-all Rule 15-17. This applies

to discharges from The Pot pond and the land

application area.

The suite of proposed activities are therefore assessed as a Discretionary Activity under the Horizons One

Plan.

Other Consents and Approvals

This section of the report identifies those consents / approvals which will be required in addition to those

currently being sought to operate the scheme. The consents / approvals identified below are to be applied for

at a later date, and are able to be assessed independently from the current suite of consents being sought.

2.5.1 Outline Plan (District Council)

The site is designated (D119) for ‘sewage treatment and disposal’ in the Horowhenua District Plan. The

physical extent of the designation is illustrated in Figure 1 overleaf (rough rectangular dashed line). The

Project will be contained within the physical footprint of the designated site and will be consistent with the

designated purpose. Unless a waiver is secured, an outline plan may need to be submitted to Horowhenua

District Council (as regulator) should any proposed works not be deemed to be provided for under the

existing designation.

2.5.2 National Environmental Standards for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to

Protect Human Health (District Council)

The need for resource consent under the National Environmental Standards for Assessing and Managing

Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health will be confirmed with Horowhenua District Council

(regulatory) at a later date. Due to the ability to rely on the existing reticulation, it is unlikely that earthworks

will be required which exceed the permitted Regulations in the NES – Contaminated Land. Detailed design

will inform and confirm the nature and extent of any consent requirements.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 7

Figure 1: D119 – Horowhenua District Plan Designation

2.5.3 National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry

The National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry 2017(NES-PF) sets a framework for managing

forestry activities under the RMA. The NES-PF regulates eight core plantation forestry activities:

afforestation, pruning and thinning to waste, earthworks, river crossings, forest quarrying, harvesting,

mechanical land preparation and replanting.

Harvesting of the existing pine plantation forestry does not form part of this consent application. Replanting is

understood to be able to comply with permitted activity standards (Regulations 78 and 79).

3 Section 104(1) Assessment

Section 104(1) of the RMA sets a framework for decision makers to assess and determine the outcome of

resource consent applications. The matters listed in Section 104(1) are assessed in the section below and

comprise:

(a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and

(ab) any measure proposed or agreed to by the applicant for the purpose of ensuring positive effects on the

environment to offset or compensate for any adverse effects on the environment that will or may result

from allowing the activity; and



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 8

(b) any relevant provisions of—

(i) a national environmental standard:

(ii) other regulations:

(iii) a national policy statement:

(iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement:

(v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement:

(vi) a plan or proposed plan; and,

(c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the

application.

In addition to having regard to the above listed matters, the assessment and determination of the application

is subject to Part 2 of the RMA. Part 2 of the RMA establishes the purpose and principles of the RMA.

Approach in light of Davidson

Traditionally, an analysis of the consistency of applications with Part 2 of the RMA has been fundamental to

the overall assessment of applications for resource consent. Section 104 of the RMA requires that

consideration of applications for resource consents be ‘subject to Part 2’. The phrase ‘subject to Part 2’ has

until recently, been considered to require an 'overall broad judgement' approach in the form of a full Part 2

assessment.

The High Court decision (currently under appeal) in RJ Davidson Family Trust v Marlborough District

Council5 (Davidson) has called this traditional approach into question. In summary, the decision held that the

words ‘subject to Part 2’ do not give a specific direction to apply a Part 2 assessment in all cases, but to do

so only where there is ‘invalidity, incomplete coverage or uncertainty of meaning in the statutory planning

documents’.

This statutory assessment proceeds on the basis that the Project is not subject to the overall broad

judgement approach, but instead is only applied where there is ‘invalidity, incomplete coverage or uncertainty

of meaning’. However, for completeness, and also taking into account that the Davidson case is under

appeal and subject to change, a high level Part 2 assessment has been undertaken.

Assessment of Effects on the Environment

The following reports provide technical assessments of land and air discharges, surface water, groundwater

and terrestrial ecology effects for the Project:

Levin Wastewater Discharge, The Pot: Discharge Description and Assessment of the Effects to Land

(Lowe Environmental Impact: October 2017: D1/E1).

The Pot Levin WWTP Groundwater Assessment (GHD Ltd: December 2017: E2).

Assessment of Ecological Values (Boffa Miskell Ltd May 2018: E3).

Technical Memo: Levin WWTP Land Application at The Pot- Assessment of Effects on water quality and

ecology (Aquanet Consulting Ltd, June 2018: E4).

The Resource Consent Application (LEI, 2018 E8) summarises these technical assessments at Section 7.5,

concluding some of the contaminants / sources have high potential risks, but that the effects are less than

minor through effective management. The Aquanet report (Aquanet 2018: E4) confirms that water quality (in

5 RJ Davidson Family Trust v Marlborough District Council [2017] NZHC 52.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 9

particular nitrogen) will be enhanced overall, although the extent of the enhancement is not yet known (i.e.

without further monitoring).

The resource consent application also provides assessments of cultural effects, landscape and amenity

effects, infrastructure effects and social and economic effects. With mitigation measures adopted, the

assessments confirm that adverse effects generated by the Project will be suitably avoided, remedied or

mitigated, and furthermore the Project will generate significant positive effects through enabling people and

the community to provide for their well-being and health and safety.

The Cultural Impact Assessment report for three Ngāti Raukawa hapū (Waiwiri Lake, Stream & Environs: He

Taonga, Collins 2018:D4) provides an assessment of the cultural impacts of the Project. The CIA signals the

cultural significance and importance of the Waiwiri Stream and recommends The Pot be moved elsewhere.

The CIA concludes it is not acceptable that human contaminants are entering the Waiwiri Stream which is a

source of spiritual sustenance for the hapu and a valued food basket. The CIA notes The Pot is only one

contributor to the degraded ecological habitat.

It is also of note that Muāupoko Land Trust has leased The Pot site to HDC for many years. This lease has

recently been renewed for a 40 year term which indicates that the iwi owners consider the cultural effects

may be acceptable overall, to the extent that an agreement between MLT and HDC has been reached to

continue to apply treated wastewater to their land.

The technical reports and assessment of effects in the resource consent application (HDC, 2018 E8) have

been relied upon to inform this statutory planning assessment.

Offsets and Mitigation Measures

HDC is proposing to implement the following range of mitigation measures as part of the application:

Revised loading rate and irrigation scheduling.

Increased irrigation area within The Pot.

Biodiversity trial through the planting of 10ha of manuka and kanuka for nitrogen sequestration6.

Riparian planting along the lower reach of the Waiwiri Stream to provide stream shading to retard

macrophyte growth.

These measures are relied upon to ensure the adverse effects of the Project are overall acceptable and

suitably managed.

Other mitigation and offsets are being considered by HDC as set out in the Mitigation Options Report (LEI,

2017: C3). These mitigation measures and options have not been considered in this statutory assessment

report as they do not form part of the application. Notwithstanding this, the adoption of these further

mitigation measures and offsets would likely achieve better consistency with the statutory planning

framework, particularly in relation to cultural and water quality provisions and outcomes. An adaptive

management type approach to the mitigation and offset trials could potentially be implemented,

notwithstanding that further consents may be required to implement this.

6 Subject to the trial not triggering the need for a non-complying activity under Rule 13-9 of the One Plan.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 10

National Environmental Standards

3.4.1 National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water 2008

The National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water (“NES – Human Drinking

Water”) came into effect in June 2008 and seeks to reduce the risk of human drinking water sources

becoming contaminated. Specifically, regional councils are required to:

decline discharge or water permits that are likely to result in community drinking water becoming unsafe

for human consumption following existing treatment; and

place conditions on relevant resource consents that require notification of drinking water suppliers if

significant unintended events occur (e.g. spills) that may adversely affect sources of human drinking

water.

The report prepared by GHD report (GHD, 2018:E2) contains the location of groundwater wells within the

vicinity of the site, none of which are for community supply. Notwithstanding this, the GHD report confirms

that given the action of surface drains to intercept groundwater, it is unlikely that that discharge will affect

existing groundwater users in the area.

3.4.2 National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect

Human Health 2012

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

Health (“NES – Contaminated Land”) came into effect on 1 January 2012. The NES – Contaminated Land

provides a nationally consistent set of planning controls and soil contaminant values and ensures that land

affected by contaminants in soil is appropriately identified and assessed before it is developed (and if

necessary the land is remediated or the contaminants contained to make the land safe for human use). The

focus of the NES – Contaminated Land is on protecting human health.

‘Wastewater treatment’ is listed on the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) and therefore the NES

– Contaminated Land is applicable. For the Project, the need for a consent application under the NES –

Contaminated Land is unlikely to be triggered as the Project is able to utilise the existing reticulation system

and only surface laterals will be needed to extend to additional irrigation areas.

In the knowledge that resource consent under the NES – Contaminated Land is more procedural focused

(e.g. application of techniques to protect human health as opposed to environmental effects), this consent

can be considered at a future date, if required at all.

3.4.3 National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry 2017

Harvesting of the existing pine plantation forestry does not form part of this consent application. No consents

are understood to be required in association with replanting activities as the activity is able to comply with

permitted activity standards for regional councils (Regulations 78 and 79).

National Policy Statements

3.5.1 National Policy Statement

The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (“NPS – Freshwater”) came into effect on 1

August 2014. The NPS – Freshwater directs regional councils to establish objectives and sets limits for fresh

water in their regional plans. Recent amendments to the NPS – Freshwater give regional councils specific

direction on how this should be done.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 11

At a high level, the NPS - Freshwater recognises the national significance of freshwater for all New

Zealanders and Te Mana o te Wai. It includes key objectives of safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of

freshwater and avoiding over-allocation of water. On a more detailed level, the NPS for Freshwater

Management provides for a 'National Objectives Framework' relating to water quality, under which each

regional council is required to:

(a) identify 'freshwater management units' ("FMUs") that include all waterbodies in its region;

(b) for each FMU, provide for the compulsory national values – the health and mauri of water, and the

health and mauri of the people – which are identified in the NPS 2014, and identify other values that

the council considers to be appropriate;

(c) identify relevant attributes pertaining to each identified value;

(d) assign an 'attribute state' to each attribute (at or above 'bottom lines' identified in the NPS 2014); and

(e) formulate freshwater objectives to achieve those attribute states.

Decision makers are required to have regard to the provisions of the NPS – Freshwater when making

decisions on resource consent applications. The Regional One Plan and its provisions give effect to the NPS

- Freshwater.

Objective A2 of the NPS – Freshwater requires that the overall quality of freshwater within a region is

maintained or improved while, protecting the significant values of outstanding freshwater bodies (a) and

improving the quality of fresh water in water bodies that have been degraded by human activities to the point

of being over-allocated (c). The term over-allocation is defined and relied on freshwater objectives being set

for management units (in the Regional Plan). Objective A3 is that the quality of fresh water within a

freshwater management unit is improved so it is suitable for primary contact more often.

Policy A2 seeks that where freshwater management units do not meet the freshwater objectives made

pursuant to Policy A1, regional councils are to specify targets and implement methods (either or both

regulatory and non-regulatory), to assist the improvement of water quality in the freshwater management

units, to meet those targets, and within a defined timeframe.

Policy A3(a) relates to regional councils imposing conditions on discharge permits to ensure the limits and

targets specified pursuant to Policy A1 and Policy A2 can be met. Where permissible, Policy A3(b) seeks

that regional councils (in preparing their regional plans) make rules requiring the adoption of the best

practicable option (BPO) to prevent or minimise any actual or likely adverse effect on the environment of any

discharge of a contaminant into fresh water, or onto or into land in circumstances that may result in that

contaminant (or, as a result of any natural process from the discharge of that contaminant, any other

contaminant) entering fresh water.

Policy A6 relates to regional councils developing regional targets to improve the quality of fresh water in

specified rivers and lakes and contribute to achieving the national target in Appendix 6.

Objective D1 concerns tangata whenua roles and interests, and talks of providing for the involvement of iwi

and hapu to ensure tangata whenua values and interests are identified and reflected in freshwater

management. While Objective D1 and Policy D1 appear to relate more to decision-makers and plan

content, there are parallels which apply to applicants.

The ability to assess the Project against the NPS – Freshwater predominantly relies on the Aquanet

Consulting Report (Aquanet 2018, E4). With the mitigation measures proposed as part of the consent

application, the Project is generally consistent with the NPS – Freshwater on the basis that:



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 12

The Project applies treated wastewater to land, with the contaminants only entering surface water once it

has passed through land (via the floors and walls of the infiltration pond and the land application activity).

The assessment against the NPS – Freshwater (2017) numeric attribute states contained in the Aquanet

report (Aquanet, 2018:E4) confirms all sites on the Waiwiri Stream (i.e. upstream and downstream of The

Pot) are within band A in respect of E. coli attribute state, and that in respect of nitrate-nitrogen, of the

three monitoring sites on the Waiwiri Stream adjacent to, or downstream of The Pot:

o Stream 4 essentially sits on the threshold between Band B and C for median nitrate-nitrogen

concentrations (2.4mg/L) and has exceeded the Band B threshold for 95th percentile

concentrations (3.5mg/L) on one of the four years of monitoring. The Aquanet report confirms

some modest reductions in in-stream nitrate-nitrogen reductions would be required to bring

Site 4 into Band B.

o Streams 3 (adjacent to the land irrigation area) and 5 (stream mouth) were in Band B in all

years.

The Project represents the best practicable option for managing wastewater discharges, as confirmed in

Chapter 5 of the resource consent application, HDC, 2018:E8 and LEI, 2018:C5.


natural feature and landscape value as classified in the District Plan. This is because the Waiwiri Stream

is not classified as an outstanding natural feature or landscape in the One Plan, under which resource

consents are required. Further, The Pot (adjacent to the outstanding natural feature and landscape in the

District Plan) is a designated site (long term planning tool) for wastewater treatment and disposal in the

District Plan. The designation and wastewater activity pre-dates the District Plan landscape classification,


Tangata whenua values and interests have been identified and have informed Project design. The

Consultation Summary (Appendix B of HDC, 2018:E8), lists those stakeholders with cultural interests

(being Muaupoko Tribal Authority (MTA), Ngati Pareraukawa, Ngati Kikopiri, Ngati Hikitanga, Raukawa

Taio, Ngati Huia ki Poroutawhao, Muaupoko Cooperative Society (MCS), and Muaupoko Land Trust

(MLT)), as well as confirmation of the dates Iwi and hapu were consulted with. It is acknowledged the

Waiwiri Stream, and the connection with Lake Papaitonga, is culturally sensitive due to the long

association of iwi and hapu to the area while at the same time iwi (MLT) have agreed to a long term lease

of the site for wastewater management purposes. Iwi and hapu have been involved in discussions about

the Project and have raised many issues, some of which are wider catchment related and extend beyond

the remit of the Project. Tangata whenua concerns in particular have influenced Project outcomes to the

extent it:

o Continues to adopt a discharge regime that avoids a direct discharge to water.

o Reduces in-stream effects through proposed mitigation measures, thereby enhancing water

quality and ecological habitat overall.

o Will offer Cultural Health Index Monitoring and the inclusion of an accidental discovery

protocol.

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (“NZCPS”) took effect on 3 December 2010 and guides

local authorities in their day to day management of the coastal environment. Local authorities must ‘give

effect’ to relevant provisions of the NZCPS in planning documents and resource consent authorities must

have ‘regard to’ relevant provisions when considering consent applications.

3.6.1 Applicability of the NZCPS

The NZCPS does not define the term ‘coastal environment’, but Policy 1(2) confirms that the term includes:



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 13

(c) areas where coastal processes, influences or qualities are significant, including coastal lakes,

lagoons, tidal estuaries, saltmarshes, coastal wetlands, and the margins of these;

(e) coastal vegetation and the habitat of indigenous coastal species including migratory birds;

(f) elements and features that contribute to the natural character, landscape, visual qualities or

amenity values;

(g) items of cultural and historic heritage in the coastal marine area or on the coast;

(h) inter-related coastal marine and terrestrial systems, including the inter-tidal zone.

The Horowhenua District Plan landscape classifications delineate The Pot as within the Coastal Environment

overlay. On that basis, the Project has been assessed as being within the ‘coastal environment’, and

therefore subject to the provisions of the NZCPS.

3.6.2 Assessment of the Objectives and Policies of the NZCPS

Key policies of the NZCPS in the context of the Project have been identified and assessed below. The policy

provisions of the NZCPS include both pro-development and protective provisions.

Policy 2: the Treaty of Waitangi, tangata whenua and Māori heritage

Policy 2(a) recognises that tangata whenua have traditional and continuing cultural relationships with

coastal environments. Policy 2(d) seeks to provide opportunities in appropriate circumstances for Maori

involvement in decision making, including when a consent application or notice of requirement deals with

cultural localities or issues of cultural significance where Maori may have knowledge otherwise not available.

Policy 2(f) seeks to provide for opportunities for tangata whenua to exercise kaitiakitanga over waters,

forests, lands, and fisheries in the coastal environment. Policy 2(g) recognises that tangata whenua have

the right to choose not to identify places or values of historic, cultural or spiritual significance or special value

and also specifically mentions the important role of cultural impact assessments.

The Project has recognised tangata whenua relationships with the stream within the coastal environment,

and has sought to include tangata whenua in the Project at its initiation to understand cultural values. One

Cultural Impact Assessment has been received from three Ngāti Raukawa hapū (Waiwiri Lake, Stream &

Environs: He Taonga Collins 2018:D4) and has been used to inform and support the system design (LEI,

2018:D1). The CIA received clearly signals the cultural significance and importance of the Waiwiri Stream. It

recommends The Pot be moved elsewhere (and the landfill be closed), concluding it is not acceptable that

human contaminants are entering the Waiwiri Stream which is a source of spiritual sustenance for the hapu

and a valued food basket. The CIA acknowledges wider catchment pollution issues (i.e. up-catchment land

use activities), but that The Pot is a contributor to the degraded ecological habitat. However, in addition to

this, the land on which The Pot is located and operates has been leased on a long term basis from the

Muāupoko Land Trust for the continuation of wastewater management purposes.

Specifically, the Project:


o Reduces in-stream effects through the implementation of mitigation measures, thereby

enhancing water quality and ecological habitat.

o Applies a 25m irrigation buffer distance to known cultural sites.

o Will offer Cultural Health Index Monitoring (enabling the exercise of kaitiakitanga) and apply

an Accidental Discovery Protocol.

Policy 3: Precautionary approach

Policy 3(1) is to adopt a precautionary approach towards proposed activities whose effects on the coastal

environment are uncertain, unknown or little understood, but potentially significantly adverse. The effects of



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 14

the Project are considered to be well understood based on the 27 year discharge history and the monitoring

regime implemented over many years. It can reasonably be assumed that all and any adverse effects would

have materialised by now. However, the receiving environment is complex in the sense that contaminants

from land use activities upstream are known to influence water quality adjacent the Waiwiri Stream.

Continued monitoring is therefore recommended to be imposed as a condition of consent.

Policy 6: activities in the coastal environment

Policy 6(1)(a) recognises that the provision of infrastructure is an activity which is important to the social,

economic and cultural well-being of people and communities. Policy 6(1)(f) considers where development

that maintains the character of the existing built environment should be encouraged, and where development

resulting in a change in character would be acceptable. Policy 6(1)(h) considers how adverse visual impacts

of development can be avoided in areas sensitive to such effects and as far as practicable and reasonable

apply controls or conditions to avoid those effects. Policy 6(1)(j) introduces the notion of buffer areas in the

context of significant indigenous biological diversity or historic heritage value. Buffer distances from

waterways and known archaeological sites have been incorporated into the Project’s design. In summary,

the Project is considered to adopt appropriate upgrade changes to an existing regionally significant activity

within the coastal environment.

Policy 13: preservation of natural character and Policy 15: natural features and natural landscapes

Policy 13(1) seeks to preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and protect it from

inappropriate use and development. It directs avoidance of adverse natural character effects in coastal areas

with outstanding natural character and avoidance of significant effects and avoidance, remediation or

mitigation of other adverse effects of activities on natural character in all other areas of the coastal

environment.

Policy 15 directs the protection of coastal natural features and natural landscapes from inappropriate use

and development. It directs the avoidance of adverse effects of activities on outstanding natural features and

landscapes in the coastal environment; and avoidance of significant adverse effects and avoidance,

remediation, or mitigation of other adverse effects of activities on other natural features and natural

landscapes in the coastal environment.






designation and wastewater activity pre-dates the District Plan landscape classification (by in excess of 20

years), which may indicate the wastewater activity is not detrimentally impacting values of the Waiwiri

Stream.

Policy 17: historic heritage identification and protection

Policy 17 seeks to protect historic heritage7 from inappropriate use and development by means including

identifying and assessing historic heritage, providing for integrated management of such sites (including iwi

authorities and kaitiaki) and imposing review conditions on consents. Irrigation separation distances are

7 RMA definition includes historic sites, structures, places, and areas; archaeological sites; sites of significance to Māori,

including wāhi tapu; and surroundings associated with the natural and physical resources.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 15

proposed to be implemented from known heritage sites, and furthermore an accidental discovery protocol is

proposed to be implemented as a condition of consent.

Policy 21: enhancement of water quality

Policy 21 seeks to give priority to improving coastal water quality where it has deteriorated to the point it is

having a significant adverse effect on ecosystems, natural habitats or water based recreational activities, or

is restricted existing uses. Overall, the Project delivers positive water quality outcomes to the extent that the

mitigation measures proposed as part of the consent will result in a material reduction in the amount of

nutrients, in particular nitrogen, in surface water (Aquanet 2018: E4, Section 4.2).

Policy 23: discharge of contaminants

Policy 23 addresses the discharge of human sewage to the coastal environment and is prescriptive in

respect of not allowing the discharge of untreated human sewage without treatment. Policy 23(1) is to have

particular regard to a range of matters when considering discharges of contaminants in the coastal

environment. These matters are the sensitivity of the receiving environment (a), the nature of the

contaminants to be discharged, the particular concentration of contaminants needed to achieve the required

water quality in the receiving environment, and the risks if that concentration of contaminants is exceeded

(b), the capacity of the receiving environment to assimilate the contaminants (c); the avoidance of significant

adverse effects on ecosystems and habitats after reasonable mixing (d), use the smallest mixing zone

necessary to achieve the required water quality in the receiving environment (e) and minimise adverse

effects on the life-supporting capacity of water within a mixing zone (f).

Policy 23(2)(b) does not enable the discharge of treated human sewage to water (including indirectly) in the

coastal environment unless:

(i) there has been adequate consideration of alternative methods, sites and routes for undertaking the

discharge; and

(ii) informed by an understanding of tangata whenua values and the effects on them.

The Aquanet report (Aquanet, 2018:E4) considers the effects on water quality and ecology, as well as

aquatic life under Section 107(1)(g) of the RMA. In respect of water quality, the report concludes that

activities at The Pot are having an effect on some, but not all, water quality determinands in the Waiwiri

Stream. Nitrate-nitrogen, SIN and TN do increase significantly in the Waiwiri Stream between upstream and

downstream of The Pot however the risk of actual toxic effects associated with nitrate toxicity is low once a

correction is made for site specific water hardness. In respect of ecological effects, the report confirms there

is no significant effect on macroinvertebrate communities or fish species (with a larger number of fish species

and macroinvertebrate communities slightly healthier downstream). The Aquanet report also confirms the

excessive macrophyte growth sometimes observed downstream of The Pot are unlikely to be a direct cause

of The Pot, and in any case this will be reduced through riparian planting proposed. Based on the

assessment in the Aquanet report, The Pot does not appear to be having a consequential impact on the

ecosystem or habitat. The receiving environment is also noted in the One Plan as having assimilative

capacity.

The Project has been informed by an adequate consideration of alternative methods and sites, as set out in

the Resource Consent Application (HDC, 2018:E8). The Project represents the best practicable option as

confirmed in the Resource Consent Application (HDC 2018, Section 5). The Project has been informed by an

understanding of tangata whenua values and resultant effects, to the extent that the Project:


o Reduces in-stream effects through the implementation of mitigation measures, thereby enhancing

water quality and ecological habitat.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 16

o Will offer Cultural Health Index Monitoring (enabling the exercise of kaitiakitanga) as a condition of

consent.

Regional Policy Statement

The Regional Plan (One Plan) was made operative on 19 December 2014 and comprises both the RPS and

Regional Plans. The RPS section of the One Plan sets out the regionally significant resource management

issues and outlines the objectives, policies and methods that will be used to address the issues. The One

Plan identifies water quality as one of the four big issues into which environmental enhancement efforts will

be focused. The One Plan’s approach for addressing this issue is to set water quality targets for ecosystems,

recreational, cultural and water-use values in catchments known as Water Management Zones and sub-

zones.

3.7.1 Key One Plan RPS Policies

Key policies in the context of the Project have been identified and assessed below. The policy provisions of

the RPS guide applicants and decision makers when assessing resource consent applications.

Te Ao Maori

Objective 2-1 is to have regard the mauri of natural and physical resources to enable hapū and iwi to

provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing, and for particular regard to be had to kaitiakitanga

and for the relationship of hapū and iwi with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga

(including wāhi tūpuna) through resource management processes.

Policy 2-1 directs the regional council (as opposed to applicants) to enable and foster kaitiakitanga and the

relationship between hapū and iwi and their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga

(including wāhi tūpuna) through increased involvement of hapū and iwi in resource management processes.

Policy 2-1(i) requires the regional council to advise and encourage resource consent applicants to consult

directly with hapū or iwi where it is necessary to identify:

(i) the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga (including wāhi tūpuna), and

(j) the actual and potential adverse effects of proposed activities on those relationships.

Policy 2-2 sets out measures to protect wāhi tapu, wāhi tūpuna and other sites of significance (disclosed and

undisclosed) from potential damage or disturbance, including that caused by inappropriate subdivision, use

or development. Horizons is tasked with facilitating hapu and iwi recording locations of wāhi tapu, wāhi

tūpuna and other sites of significance to Maori in an appropriate publicly available database (2-2(b)).

Through Policy 2-2(c), potential damage or disturbance to wāhi tapu, wāhi tūpuna and other sites of

significance to Maori not identified (for confidentiality or sensitivity reasons) by hapu or iwi must be minimised

by Horizons facilitating the compilation for databases by hapu and iwi to record locations which need to

remain confidential.

Policy 2-4 identifies the issues of significance to the Region’s hapū* and iwi*, provides explanations in the

context of Māori belief and demonstrates how the Regional Council must address these matters. The issues

in Table 2.4 of the policy are that:

(a) Management of water quality and quantity throughout the Region does not provide for the special

qualities significant to Māori – an issue addressed in Objective 2-1 and Policy 2-3, Objective 5-1 and

Policy 5-1 and rules in Chapter 14 discharges to land and water.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 17

(b) Access to and availability of clean water^ to exercise cultural activities such as food gathering and

baptismal rituals have diminished – an issue addressed in Objective 5-2 and Policies 5-2 to 5-11.

(h) Sewage disposed to water, in treated form or otherwise, is culturally abhorrent. Land-based

treatment is preferred – an issue addressed in Objective 5-2, Policy 5-11 and rules in Chapter 14

discharges to land and water.

(i) More riparian retirement and planting is needed to protect river^ banks from erosion. Several iwi

believe harakeke (flax) would provide the most desirable outcome – an issue addressed in Objective

5-2, Policy 5-8 and rules in Chapter 14 - discharges to land and water and water quality standards in

Schedule D.

The Project has engaged and consulted with Iwi and hapu throughout the pre-application process. The level

and extent of consultation is confirmed in the Consultation Summary, Appendix B of the Resource Consent

Application (HDC, 2018:E8). A Cultural Impact Assessment from Ngāti Raukawa hapū has also been

received, the contents of which have provided insight into potential cultural effects of the proposal and

possible mitigation and remediation measures. Key issues identified and considered in a cultural context

have been:

Early engagement - this has been undertaken and is documented the Consultation Summary.

Effects on the Awa - the Raukawa CIA raises concerns regarding effects on the awa, but conversely iwi

(MLT) have agreed to a long term lease of the site for the continued management of wastewater. In

respect of water quality, the Aquanet report (Aquanet 2018: E4) confirms that with mitigation measures

imposed, water quality will be enhanced (in particular nitrogen) although the degree of enhancement is

not yet able to be confirmed without further monitoring. Furthermore, riparian planting is proposed which

will protect the river bank from erosion (which is consistent with Policy 2-4(i)). The Project will reduce

contaminant loads into the Waiwiri Stream.

Mauri of water – the Project proposes to continue with a 100% land discharge system with all

wastewater from the Pot passing through water prior to entering surface water. Sewage disposal direct to

water is a culturally abhorrent, and land based treatment is preferred (which is consistent with Policy 2-

4(h)). This is a significant issue for Iwi and hapu in the region.

Archaeological sites: a 25m irrigation buffer distance has been applied to known archaeological sites.

An accidental discovery protocol is also proposed as a consent condition.

Kaitiakitanga: the imposition of a condition in relation to cultural health index monitoring will enable the

exercise of kaitiakitanga.

Infrastructure

Objective 3-1 is to have regard to the benefits of infrastructure and other physical resources of regional or

national importance by recognising and providing for their establishment, operation, maintenance and

upgrading.

Policy 3-1(a) recognises public or community sewage treatment plants and associated reticulation and

disposal systems as a physical infrastructure resource of regional significance while Policy 3-1(c) requires

the Regional Council to have regards to the benefits derived from the establishment, operation,

maintenance, or upgrading of such infrastructure.

Policy 3-3 directs that in managing any adverse environmental effects arising from the establishment,

operation, maintenance and upgrading of infrastructure or other physical resources of regional or national

importance, the Regional Council and Territorial Authorities must:

(a) Recognise and provide for the operation, maintenance and upgrading of all such activities once they

have been established



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 18

(b) Allow minor adverse effects arising from the establishment of new infrastructure of regional

importance

(c) Avoid, remedy or mitigate more than minor adverse effects arising from the establishment of new

infrastructure of regional importance, taking into account:

i) the need for the infrastructure or other physical resources of regional or national

importance,

ii) any functional, operational or technical constraints that require infrastructure or other

physical resources of regional or national importance to be located or designed in the

manner proposed,

iii) whether there are any reasonably practicable alternative locations or designs, and

iv) whether any more than minor adverse effects that cannot be adequately avoided,

remedied or mitigated by services or works can be appropriately offset, including through

the use of financial contributions.

The term ‘upgrade’ is defined in the One Plan as:

‘bringing a structure, system, facility or installation up to date or to improve its functional

characteristics, provided the upgrading itself does not give rise to any significant adverse

effects, and the character, intensity and scale of any adverse effects of the upgraded structure,

system, facility or installation remain the same or similar’.

The Project is an upgrade of an existing piece of regionally significant infrastructure as its functional

characteristics are being improved and the upgrade element of the scheme itself (or any element as

assessed in the technical assessment reports and the Resource Consent application (HDC, 2018 E8)) does

not give rise to any significant effects. Furthermore, the character, intensity and scale of the discharges and

associated adverse effects will be less than the current system. Taking the above into account, the Project

compares favourably with Policy 3-3a), and as such gains particularly strong support in the sense that the

proposed activity (as an established activity) must be recognised and provided for.

As the Project relates to the upgrade of existing infrastructure, sub policies b) and c) do not strictly apply.

Water

Objective 5-1 is that surface water bodies and their beds are managed in a manner which safe guards their

life supporting capacity and recognises and provides for the values in Schedule B1. Objective 5-2(a) is to

ensure surface water quality:

(i) is maintained in those rivers and lakes where the existing water quality is at a level sufficient to

support the Values in Schedule B.

(ii) is enhanced in those rivers and lakes where the existing water quality is not at a level sufficient to

support the Values in Schedule B.

Objective 5-2(b) is that groundwater quality is managed to ensure that existing groundwater quality is

maintained or where it is degraded/over allocated as a result of human activity, groundwater quality is

enhanced.

Policy 5-1 establishes water management zones and sub-management zones. The Project relates to water

management zone West_8. The West_8 Water Management Zone has the following zone wide values:



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 19

LSC: Life-supporting Capacity (Lowland Sand)

AE: Aesthetics

CR: Contact Recreation

Mau: Mauri

IA: Industrial Abstraction

I: Irrigation

SW: Stockwater

EI: Existing Infrastructure

CAP: Capacity to Assimilate Pollution

The Waiwiri Stream has the following reach specific values:

Site of Significance: Aquatic (SOS-A) (banded kokupo) which applies from the confluence with Lake

Papaitonga and Waiwiri Stream at approx. NZMS: 260 S25: 977-600 to source.

Inanga spawning (IS) value which applies from the cross-river CMA boundary to a point 500m up the

Waiwiri Stream at approx. NZMS 260 S25:939-618 (downstream of The Pot and irrigation area).

Whitebait migration (WM) value which applies from the cross-river CMA boundary to a point 500m up the

Waiwiri Stream at approx. NZMS 260 S25:939-618 (downstream of The Pot and irrigation area).

Domestic Food Supply (DFS) value (vegetable production) which applies to Lake Papaitonga catchment

and the Waiwiri Stream.

Flood Control and Damage (FC/D) value which applies from approximately NZMS 260 S25: 935-620 to

source).

Policy 5-2 sets water quality targets for each water management sub zone (Schedule E of the Regional

Plan). The water quality targets are used to inform the management of surface water quality is directed by

other policies, including Policies 5-3 and 5-4. The Aquanet report (Aquanet, 2018:E4) assesses whether the

water quality targets of the One Plan are met in the Waiwiri Stream and whether the activities at The Pot are

having a significant or measurable impact on each water quality or ecological determinands. The Aquanet

report confirms the targets for SIN, DRP and chlorophyll a in the Waiwiri Stream (both upstream and

downstream of The Pot) are not met.

Policy 5-3 requires on-going compliance where water quality targets are met. The Aquanet report confirms

the water quality targets for Ammoniacal nitrogen, E.coli, water clarity and QMCI are currently met, and will

continue to be met.

Policy 5-4 requires enhancement where water quality targets are not met. Policy 5-4 directs that activities

must be managed in a manner to meet the water quality targets in Schedule E and / or the relevant Schedule

B values and management objectives that the water quality target is designed to safeguard. The Aquanet

report (Aquanet, 2018:E4 as well as Aquanet’s 2015 and 2016 technical reports) assesses whether the

water quality targets from Schedule E of the One Plan are met in the Waiwiri Stream (both upstream and

downstream of The Pot. In summary, SIN, DRP and Chlorphyll a are not met upstream and downstream of

The Pot. Policy 5-4 therefore directs water quality within that sub-zone to be managed in a manner that

enhances existing water quality in order to meet:

(i) the water quality target for the Water Management Zone in Schedule E, and/or

(ii) the relevant Schedule B Values and management objectives that the water quality target is

designed to safeguard.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 20

The Aquanet Report (Aquanet 2018, E4, Section 4.2) confirms that the various mitigation measures aiming

at reducing contaminant losses to and within groundwater8 will result in a material reduction in the amount of

nutrients, in particular nitrogen, reaching surface water from groundwater recharge. However, the Aquanet

report also confirms that the exact degree of enhancement in the context of Policy 5.4 cannot be quantified

at this stage on the basis of the information currently available, and suggests on-going monitoring to confirm

this. On that basis, while the Project is considered to be generally in accordance with Policy 5-4 in that water

quality enhancement will be achieved, it is unknown at this stage whether The Pot mitigation measures will

make a material difference in respect of meeting Schedule E targets.

Policy 5-6 relates to the maintenance of groundwater quality and directs that:

a) Discharges and land use activities must be managed in a manner which maintains the existing

groundwater quality, or where groundwater quality is degraded/over allocated as a result of human

activity, it is enhanced.

b) An exception may be made under (a) where a discharge onto or into land better meets the purpose

of the RMA than a discharge to water, provided that the best practicable option is adopted for the

treatment and discharge system.

The GHD Report (GHD 2018, E2) confirms that groundwater quality has been, and will continue to be,

influenced by The Pot’s infiltration pond (as per its design). The report also confirms the proposed changes

to the irrigation regime is unlikely to have a significant impact on the local groundwater system. The report

confirms that the proposed irrigation regime changes will result in an initial decrease in the mass nitrogen

flux to groundwater, but that these enhancements will be offset by increased wastewater flows in the longer

term. The report also confirms it is reasonable to conclude that concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen will likely

be reduced by dilution and dispersion. Through the dilution and dispersion of nitrate-nitrogen concentrations

in groundwater, as well as the resultant conclusions drawn in respect of surface water effects, the Project will

be generally consistent with Policy 5-6(a) to the extent that the degraded water quality will likely be

enhanced overall through the mitigation measures (notably the change in the irrigation regime and expanded

irrigation area).

Notwithstanding the above, Policy 5-6(b) provides an exception to enhancing water quality where a

discharge to land better meets the purpose of the RMA, provided the option is the best practicable option.

The Project is a discharge to land scheme, albeit the pond has been designed to be an infiltration basin

through which treated wastewater will pass before reaching groundwater. The best practicable option for the

discharge, which has been determined to be a continuation of the scheme with modifications and

refinements, has been utilised as confirmed in the Resource Consent Application (HDC, 2018:E8, Section 5).

The Project is consistent with Policy 5-6(b).

Policy 5-7 relates to land use activities with diffuse discharges (The Pot infiltration pond) affecting

groundwater and surface water quality. The policy directs that these activities must give effect to the strategy

for surface water quality set out in Policies 5-2 - 5-5, and the strategy for groundwater quality in Policy 5-6,

by managing diffuse discharges of contaminants. The matters listed in the sub-policies relate to identifying in

the regional plan targeted Water Management Sub-zones where, collectively, land use activities are

significant contributors to elevated contaminant levels in groundwater or surface water. The water

management zone including the Waiwiri Stream (West_8) is a targeted water management zone (Table 14-1

of the One Plan). The remainder of the sub-policies relate to intensive agriculture land uses, which the

8 Revised loading rate and irrigation scheduling, increased irrigation area within The Pot and the biodiversity trial through

the planting of manuka and kanuka for nitrogen sequestration (subject to that measure not being deemed an at-risk,

threatened or rare habitat).



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 21

Project is not. In the context of the policy, the Project needs to enhance water quality (Policy 5-4) in order to

be consistent with the overall water quality strategy. The Aquanet report (Aquanet 2018: E4) confirms that

with mitigation measures proposed as part of the consent, there will be a material reduction in the amount of

nutrients (in particular nitrogen) reaching surface water. On that basis, and while the degree of enhancement

cannot be confirmed at this stage, the Project is generally consistent with the water management strategy.

Policy 5-10 manages point source discharges to land (irrigation activities9) and direct that such discharge

must be managed in a manner which:

(a) does not result in pathogens or other toxic substances accumulating in soil or pasture to levels that

would render the soil unsafe for agricultural, domestic or recreational use.

(b) has regard to the strategies for surface water quality management set out in Policies 5-3, 5-4 and 5-

5, and the strategy for groundwater management set out in Policy 5-6.

(c) maximises the reuse of nutrients and water contained in the discharge to the extent reasonably

practicable.

(d) results in any discharge of liquid to land generally not exceeding the available water storage capacity

of the soil (deferred irrigation).

(e) ensures that adverse effects on rare habitats, threatened habitats and at-risk habitats are avoided,

remedied or mitigated.

As detailed in the Assessment of Environmental Effects to Land, (LEI, 2018:D1), the Project will not result in

pathogens or other toxic substances accumulating in soil or pasture to unsafe levels and furthermore the

Project proposes a loading rate which maximises the reuse of nutrients and water in the discharge to the

extent reasonably practicable. Other land uses are understood to be able to uptake more nutrients however

policy directions in the One Plan, particularly in regard to land intensification, create limitations for adopting

these other land uses. This issue is addressed in LEI (2018:C5) which discusses the conundrum of

removing more nutrients with alternative land uses, but being restricted to do so because of current One Plan

policy. The discharge of treated wastewater will exceed the available water storage capacity of the soil to the

extent it will pass through irrigated areas to groundwater and therefore is not consistent with sub policy (d).

The Project proposes irrigation buffer distances form the identified at-risk habitats identified in the Boffa

Miskell Report (BML, 2018: E3).

Policy 5-11 is not directly relevant to the Project as there is no proposed direct discharge of treated human

sewage into a surface water. The discharge of treated wastewater to water is an issue of significant concern

to iwi in the region and the Project avoids this through applying it to land, after which is enters surface water

via groundwater.

Indigenous biological diversity, landscape and historic heritage

Chapter 6 addresses indigenous biological diversity, landscape and historic heritage. Objective 6-1 is to

protect areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna and maintain

indigenous biological diversity, including enhancement where appropriate.

Policy 6-2 directs that the Regional Council must protect rare habitats, threatened habitats and at-risk

habitats by regulating activities through its regional plan and through decisions on resource consents. The

9 Notwithstanding the irrigation activity over a large area may potentially relate more to a diffuse discharge.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 22

Project area contains two areas of threatened / at-risk habitat as identified in the Boffa Miskell report (BML,

2018, E3) and will be protected by the imposition of separation from irrigation areas. The biodiversity trial

through planting of manuka / kanuka habitat has not been deemed an at-risk habitat for the purpose of this

statutory assessment.

Objective 6-2(a) is to protect the Region’s outstanding natural features and landscapes, including those

identified in Schedule G, and the natural character of the coastal environment, wetlands, rivers and lakes

and their margins from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. Objective 6-2(b) directs that

adverse effects, including cumulative adverse effects, on the natural character of the coastal environment,

wetlands, rivers and lakes and their margins, are:

(i) avoided in areas with outstanding natural character, and

(ii) avoided where they would significantly diminish the attributes and qualities of areas that have high

natural character, and

(iii) avoided, remedied or mitigated in other areas.

Policy 6-6 explicitly refers to Schedule G of the One Plan. Schedule G does not apply to the Project as the

Waiwiri Stream is not listed in Schedule G Table G.1 of the One Plan and therefore the policy is not

applicable. Policy 6-7 provides a framework for assessing outstanding natural features and landscapes and

adding or deleting those listed in Schedule G, Table G.1.

Policy 6-8(a) directs that the natural character of the coastal environment, wetlands, rivers and lakes and

their margins must be preserved and these areas must be protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and

development while Policy 6-8(b) directs that the natural character of these areas must be restored and

rehabilitated where this is appropriate and practicable. Policy 6-9 provides clarity on what may be

appropriate use and development in relation to natural character in the coastal environment and in wetlands,

rivers, lakes and their margins. The policy confirms that use or development must generally (but without

limitation) be considered appropriate if it:

c) is compatible with the existing level of modification to the environment.

d) has a functional necessity to be located in or near the component of the coastal environment which

is not coastal marine area (CMA), wetland, river or lake and no reasonably practicable alternative

locations exist.

e) is of an appropriate form, scale and design to be compatible with the existing landforms, geological

features and vegetation.

f) will not, by itself or in combination with effects of other activities, significantly disrupt natural

processes or existing ecosystems.

g) will provide for the restoration and rehabilitation of natural character where that is appropriate and

practicable.

The Project reduces the level of modification to the environment on the basis that it reduces in-stream and

habitat effects with limited physical modifications beyond the existing regime. The term functional need is not

defined in the One Plan and it is assumed there is no fundamental reason why The Pot must be located in

the coastal environment. However, the original design as an infiltration pond selected suitable soils for this

activity and the Project has been confirmed as being the best practicable option (HDC 2018, Section 5). The

continued discharge of contaminants will disrupt natural processes (i.e. introduce elevated contaminants),

however the effect of that disruption has been determined to be acceptable from an effects perspective

(Aquanet 2018, E4). The Project will not disrupt existing ecosystems. The proposed riparian planting will

assist to restore natural character. On balance, the Project compares favourably with the matters listed, and

is therefore considered appropriate use and development in the context of natural character.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 23

Air

Objective 7-1 requires a standard of ambient air quality to be maintained which is not detrimental to amenity

values, human health, property or the life-supporting capacity of air and meets the national ambient air

quality standards.

Policy 7.1 directs that the National Environmental Standards set out in Table 7.1 (contained within Policy

7.1) be adopted as ambient air quality standards for the Region and ambient air quality must be maintained

or enhanced within those areas which meet the standards and enhanced in those airsheds which do not

meet the standards. Policy 7-2 requires that in addition to the National Environmental Standards set out in

Policy 7-1, ambient air quality must be managed in accordance with the regional standards set out in Table

7.3. In regard to odour this requires that a discharge must not cause any offensive or objectionable odour

beyond the property boundary.

The Resource Consent Application (HDC, 2018, E8) assesses the potential odour and air quality effects and

concludes that any adverse will be less than minor and able to be suitably managed. The existing operation

of The Pot as a wastewater scheme has not generated odour complaints and it is considered that such an

occurrence will be unlikely.

3.7.2 Summary of One Plan (RPS) provisions

In summary, the Project gains strong support from the infrastructure provisions in Chapter 3 of the RPS

(notably Policy 3-3 a)) to the extent that upgrades to existing regionally significant infrastructure must be

recognised and provided for. The Project, through early consultation with iwi, commissioning of a CIA to

better understand cultural issues, implementation of mitigation measures and imposition of proposed

conditions of consent (e.g. cultural health index monitoring) generally aligns with the outcomes of the policies

in Chapter 2. The avoidance of a direct discharge of human wastewater direct to water and riparian planting

contribute to this. The Project is generally consistent with the Chapter 5 policies to the extent that the Project

proposes a best practicable option discharge to land as opposed to surface water (which better serves the

purpose of the RMA), and enhances water quality in the receiving waters of the Waiwiri Stream (although the

degree of enhancement is unable to be confirmed without additional monitoring). The Project is also

considered to be consistent with the policies in Chapters 6 and 7.

Regional Plan

3.8.1 Regional Plan – One Plan

The Regional Plan component of the operative One Plan specifies the controls on the use of natural and

physical resource through objectives, policies and rules. It is the rules of the Regional Plan that trigger the

need for resource consents from the regional council.

3.8.1.1 Key Regional Plan Policies

Key policies in the context of the Project have been identified and assessed below.

Land Use Activities and Indigenous Biological Diversity

Objective 13-2 is the regulation of resource use activities to protect areas of significant indigenous

vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna or to maintain indigenous biological diversity^,

including enhancement where appropriate. The Project site contains two at-risk / threatened habitats as

determined in the Boffa Miskell report (BML, 2018E3). Land application activities will avoid these at-risk /

threatened habitats, rendering the Project generally consistent with the policies of Chapter 13.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 24

Discharges to Land and Water

Objective 14-1 is the management of discharges onto or into land (including those that enter water) or

directly into water and land use activities affecting groundwater and surface water quality in a manner that:

(a) safeguards the life supporting capacity of water and recognises and provides for the Values and

management objectives in Schedule B,

(b) provides for the objectives and policies of Chapter 5 as they relate to surface water and

groundwater quality, and

(c) where a discharge is onto or into land, avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse effects on surface

water or groundwater.

When making decisions on resource consent applications, and setting consent conditions, for discharges of

contaminants onto or into land, Policy 14-2 directs the Regional Council to have regard to:

(a) the objectives and policies of Chapter 5 regarding the management of groundwater quality and discharges,

(b) where the discharge may enter surface water or have an adverse effect on surface water quality, the degree of compliance with the approach for managing surface water quality set out in Chapter 5,

(c) avoiding as far as reasonably practicable any adverse effects on any sensitive receiving environment or potentially incompatible land uses, in particular any residential buildings, educational facilities, churches, marae, public areas, infrastructure and other physical resources of regional or national importance identified in Policy 3-1, wetlands, surface water bodies and the coastal marine area,

(d) the appropriateness of adopting the best practicable option to prevent or minimise adverse effects in circumstances where:

(i) it is difficult to establish discharge parameters for a particular discharge that give effect to the management approaches for water quality and discharges set out in Chapter 5,

(ii) the potential adverse effects are likely to be minor, and the costs associated with adopting the best practicable option are small in comparison to the costs of investigating the likely effects on land and water,

(e) avoiding discharges which contain any persistent contaminants that are likely to accumulate in the soil or groundwater, and

(f) the objectives and policies of Chapters 2, 3, 6, 9 and 12 to the extent that they are relevant to the discharge.

The Project is generally consistent with the objectives and policies of Chapter 5 to the extent that the Project

will maintain those water quality determinands where the targets are met and will enhance those

determinands where the water quality targets are not met upstream and downstream of The Pot (SIN, DRP

and chlorophyll a). The Project has selected the best practicable option in relation to discharges from the

site, as confirmed in HDC, 2018:E8, Section 5. There will be no discharge of persistent contaminants that are

likely to accumulate in the soil or groundwater (LEI, 2018, D1 / E1). The objectives and policies of Chapters

2, 3, 6 and 9 have been assessed elsewhere in this report, and the Project is generally consistent with those

provisions.

Discharges to Air

Objective 15-1 is the management of air quality in a manner that has regard to:



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 25

(a) maintaining or enhancing ambient air quality in a manner that safeguards the health of the Region’s

community,

(b) meeting the regional ambient air standards (Table 7.3) and National Environmental Standards (Table

7.1),

(c) managing air quality so that it is not detrimental to amenity values, and

(d) managing fine particle (PM10) levels to ensure that they are reduced in unacceptable airsheds and

managed in other areas to ensure compliance with the national ambient air quality standard for

PM10.

Policy 15-2 states that when assessing resource consent decisions regarding discharges to air, regard must

be given to the degree of compliance with Policy 7-1 of the RPS, national regulations and the location of the

discharge in relation to residential buildings, public places, waahi tapu sites, surface water bodies, water

supply, recreation and other sensitive environments. Partly due to its isolated location, the proposed land

application regime (loading rates and evening irrigation) and also due to the nature of the activity, discharges

at The Pot will be acceptable in the context of surrounding land uses and features. A degree of confidence is

able to be placed on this conclusion in the knowledge that no odour complaints directly attributable to the

existing Pot operation are known to have been received by the regional council to date.

3.8.1.2 Summary of One Plan (Regional Plan) implications for FWWTP

The focus of the discharge solution on utilising land based discharges (as opposed to discharges to surface

water), means that the Project generally compares favourably with the policies of the Regional Plan. Overall,

the Project enhances water quality as confirmed in the Aquanet report (Aquanet 2018, E4) and in the context

of discharges, the policy framework promotes the application of the best practicable option for the purpose of

mitigating adverse effects.

District Plan – Horowhenua District Plan

The Horowhenua District Plan (“District Plan”) was made operative on 1 July 2015 and is the primary

document that manages land use development in the district. As previously noted, The Pot is designated

(District Plan reference D119) in the District Plan for sewage treatment and disposal activities. As such, this

is a land use activity that is provided for in the District Plan, including a general acceptance that the

designation may generate some adverse effects but is an essential activity. Resource consents are not

required to enable the Project under the District Plan.

Other Matters

3.10.1 Strategic Review of Horowhenua District Council Assets

In 2011 HDC undertook a strategic review of the water and wastewater schemes throughout the district to

address challenges in those systems10. The review signalled a more strategic approach to the management

of its wastewater (and water supply) assets. The recommendations from the strategic review formed the

basis of the scheduled upgrades to wastewater plants across the district, including the WWTP and The Pot.

3.10.2 Long Term Plan 2015 – 2025

The Long Term Plan 2015-25 (LTP) was adopted 24 June 2015 and sets out proposed priorities, projects

and activities that HDC will focus on over a 10 year period and how those services will be funded. The

10 Report on Strategic Water and Wastewater Review”, GHD, December 2011.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 26

budgets set within the LTP confirm a realistic and affordable expenditure for the community for a particular

asset / activity. The LTP was informed by the Infrastructure Strategy (refer below) which confirms the

necessary works required to achieve the goals of the strategy. HDC has committed a capital spend of $1.6

million over the next 5 years on The Pot upgrade.

HDC has recently consulted on a new Long Term Plan 2018-38. Deliberations on the LTP 2018-38 are

currently occurring.

3.10.3 Infrastructure Strategy 2015

A new requirement for local authorities resulting from the 2014 amendments to the Local Government Act

requires the preparation of a 30 year Infrastructure Strategy. This takes a longer view of the core

infrastructure context than the 10 years of the Long Term Plan and the 20 years of the Asset Management

Plans.

The key purpose of the Infrastructure Strategy is to provide a plan for maintaining the current ‘Levels of

Service’ provided by Council’s core infrastructure of water, wastewater, stormwater and roading. It also helps

Council identify and close any gaps in these Levels of Service. The Infrastructure Strategy is critical to a

sustainable future and the achievement of the Community Outcomes.

The Infrastructure Strategy was adopted by Council on 24 June 2015. The Goals for this Strategy are:

Goal 1 – Ensure adequate infrastructural capacity to meet the demands of current and future generations

whilst being affordable to the Community;

Goal 2 – Increase the reliability and resilience of the existing and future infrastructure; and,

Goal 3 – Ensure sustainable use of resources and protection of critical environmental values.

The Project aligns with the goals of the Infrastructure Strategy.

Value of Investment

Under Section 104(2A), the value of the investment of the consent holder must be had regard to when

considering an application affected by Section 124 of the RMA. The resource consent application has been

lodged 6 months prior to the expiry of the existing discharge consent and on that basis is applicable.

The value of the investment at The Pot, inclusive of the pipeline from the Levin WWTP, is approximately $18

million.

4 Section 105: Matters Relevant for Discharge Permits

Section 105(1) sets out matters a consent authority must have regard to when considering a resource

consent application for a discharge permit. The consent authority must have regard to:

a) the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects; b) the applicant's reasons for the proposed choice; and, c) any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge into any other receiving

environment.

These three matters as discussed below.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 27

Nature of the Discharge and the Sensitivity of the Receiving Environment

The Waiwiri Stream is considered sensitive in the sense that it is degraded both upstream (i.e. up-catchment

land use contributors of contaminants) and downstream of The Pot. The site also incorporates two

threatened / at-risk habitats. Further, it is also acknowledged the Waiwiri Stream, and the connection with

Lake Papaitonga, is culturally sensitive due to the long association of iwi and hapu to the area,

notwithstanding the recently agreed long term lease of the land for wastewater activity between MLT and

HDC. The land based discharge system recognises the sensitivities of the site through the avoidance of

surface water discharges and imposition of land application buffer distances from at-risk sites. The Waiwiri

Stream is a defined outstanding natural feature and landscape in the District Plan, however that value has

been placed on the stream after a long history of wastewater management activities at The Pot and

furthermore The Pot is designated in the District Plan for sewage treatment and disposal adjacent the

Waiwiri Stream. It is noted the Waiwiri Stream is not listed as an outstanding natural feature or landscape in

the One Plan (Schedule G).

Applicant’s Reasons for the Proposed Choice

The proposed long term solution to sustainably discharge wastewater to land has been influenced by the

following factors:

Preference from a cultural perspective to avoid wastewater discharges direct to surface water.

Utilisation of a designated site for wastewater treatment and disposal.

Utilisation of an existing resource.

The ability to implement meaningful mitigation measures.

Adherence to directions of the One Plan.

Provision of a long term wastewater solution that is affordable to HDC and the district’s ratepayers.

Demonstrating a commitment to improving the environmental, cultural and social effects of the discharge

on The Pot and the Waiwiri Stream, whilst balancing the economic impact on the community.

Alternative Methods of Discharge and Any Other Receiving Environment

The process through which HDC has selected the long term discharge site and design is documented in

more detail in HDC, 2018:E8, Section 5. In summary, the use of The Pot with refinements to the discharge

regime is the best practicable option for managing Levin’s wastewater and takes into account land suitability

and availability, water quality and other environmental effects, social values, cultural values, the use or

abandonment of existing infrastructure, and financial implications for HDC’s ratepayers.

5 Section 107: Restrictions on Certain Discharge Permits

Section 107(1) sets out particular restrictions on the granting of discharge permits. Except as provided for by

Section 107(2), a consent authority shall not grant consent for a discharge permit for a contaminant that

would likely give rise to any of the following effects in the receiving waters:

(c) the production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scums or foams, or floatable or suspended materials:

(d) any conspicuous change in the colour or visual clarity: (e) any emission of objectionable odour: (f) the rendering of fresh water unsuitable for consumption by farm animals: (g) any significant adverse effects on aquatic life.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 28

The Aquanet report (Aquanet, 2018:E4) examines whether some of the Section 107(1) standards are met in

the Waiwiri Stream and surface water drains. The report concludes that standards 107(1)(c), (d), (f) and (g)

are being met.

In respect of Section 107(1)(e) and odour, the Resource Consent Application (HDC, 2018:E8) assesses

odour effects and concludes that there will be no discharges of objectionable odour beyond the boundary of

the site.

6 RMA Part 2 Assessment

Section 6: Matters of National Importance

Section 6 of the RMA outlines matters of national importance that need to be recognised and provided for by

persons exercising functions and powers under the RMA.

Section 6a relates to the preservation of the natural character of lakes and rivers and their margins and

protection from inappropriate use and development. The Waiwiri Stream is an environment which has been

modified and influenced by human activity. The planning framework establishes parameters, including

through the District Plan designation, which render the Project an appropriate land use in the context of the

values of the area.

Section 6b seeks to protect outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use,

and development. The site and surrounds are not identified as an outstanding natural feature of landscape in

Schedule G of the One Plan. The District Plan overlay was established after the wastewater activities

commenced at The Pot (in excess of 20 years), meaning that the values of the Waiwiri Stream were

considered outstanding with the wastewater activity occurring. Furthermore, the District Plan designates the

adjoining Pot for wastewater treatment and disposal which is a long term planning tool. In this context, but

noting a technical landscape assessment has not been undertaken, it is assumed activities at The Pot are

considered appropriate.

Section 6(c) relates to the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of

indigenous fauna. The two areas of at-risk habitat have been avoided, thereby protecting those

environments.

Section 6e relates to the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands,

water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga. This relationship has been provided for through early consultation

to understand values and the subsequent commissioning of a Cultural Impact Assessment which has had

direct influences on the Project. The CIA clearly signals the cultural significance and importance of the

Waiwiri Stream and recommends The Pot be moved elsewhere. It concludes it is not acceptable that human

contaminants are entering the Waiwiri Stream which is a source of spiritual sustenance for the hapu and a

valued food basket. The Project does not propose to relocate The Pot, but rather refine and modify its

operation to recognise and provides for this relationship by:

o Continuing to adopt a discharge regime that avoids a direct discharge to water.

o Reducing in-stream effects through the imposition of mitigation measures, thereby enhancing

water quality and ecological habitat.

o Introduction of riparian planting along the lower reaches of the Waiwiri Stream.



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 29

o Offering Cultural Health Index Monitoring (enabling the exercise of kaitiakitanga) and

application of an Accidental Discovery Protocol.

Section 6f seeks to protect historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development. The

Project applies a 25m operational irrigation buffer distance from known historic heritage.

The Project has recognised and provided for the matters of national importance listed in Section 6.

Section 7: Other Matters

Section 7 of the RMA outlines other matters to which all persons exercising functions and powers under it

shall have particular regard.

Section 7a ‘Kaitiakitanga’ is a broad notion which invokes guardianship, protection and preservation and

refers to the exercise of custodianship by an Iwi or hapu over land and other taonga. Consultation and

engagement with tangata whenua has had direct influences on the Project in this context, including through

ensuring consultation was initiated early (and has been ongoing), physical effects on the Awa and effects on

the mauri of the water have been provided for. Furthermore, the proposed conditions facilitate ongoing

involvement through cultural health index monitoring.

The Project system represents an efficient use and development of both natural and physical resources

(Section 7b), in that it utilises the existing physical infrastructure at The Pot, and continues to utilises soils

through land application to removed contaminants from waterbodies. The discharge scheme also represents

an efficient use of resources by managing loading and application rates.

In respect of Section 7(c), The Pot site will maintain amenity values to the extent the site will resemble a rural

land use activity.

Similarly, the intrinsic values of the ecosystem (Section 7d) and the quality of the environment (Section 7f)

will be maintained in the long term.

The Project has particular regard to the relevant matters listed in Section 7.

Section 8: Treaty of Waitangi

Section 8 of the RMA requires the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) to be taken into

account by all persons exercising functions and powers under it.

HDC has meaningfully consulted with tangata whenua from an early stage in the Project. Tangata whenua

have continued to be a part of the discharge design process, including through the commissioning of a

Cultural Impact Assessment (Cultural Impact Assessment report for three Ngāti Raukawa hapū, 2018:D4).

The Ngāti Raukawa CIA and consultation with other iwi has had a direct influence on the discharge design.

Section 5: Purpose and Principles

Section 5 of the RMA states that the purpose of the RMA is ‘to promote the sustainable management of

natural and physical resources’. ‘Sustainable management’ is defined by the RMA as:

… managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while—



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 30

(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and (c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

The Project will enable the Levin community to provide for their well-being in a way that will:

Sustain the potential of natural and physical resources for future generations. This includes improving the

overall quality of the receiving environment, its ecology and associated values and attributes as well as

ensuring the establishment and operation of the proposed discharge system is economically sustainable

in the longer term.

Maintain the life-supporting capacity of the air, water, soil and ecosystems in the receiving environment.

Remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment, including through implementing a range of

mitigation measures.

Overall, it is considered that the Project is consistent with Part 2 of the RMA. The Project provides the

framework for sustainable management.

7 Conclusions

HDC operates The Pot which receives treated wastewater from the Levin WWTP. HDC is applying for

resource consents from Horizons to continue to use The Pot for the long term management of Levin’s

wastewater and the application of treated wastewater to land. The existing regime is proposed to be refined

and modified.

This report has:

Identified the resource consents required to establish and operate the Project from Horizons.

Assessed the Project against the relevant plans, policies and documents which constitute the statutory

framework.

Overall, the Project is generally consistent with the statutory framework outlined above. Key factors leading

to this overall conclusion include:

The Project is for the renewal of consents to discharge treated wastewater onto and into land (and

indirectly to water) situated at Hokio Sand Road and to discharge contaminants to air.

The proposal utilises existing regionally significant infrastructure which forms part of a wider wastewater

scheme including the WWTP in Levin (and connecting reticulation) for which long term consents are held.

The upgrading of existing regionally significant infrastructure gains strong support from the One Plan

(RPS provisions for infrastructure).

The proposed amendments to the existing land application activity have been modified and refined. As

confirmed in the Aquanet Consulting report (Section 4.2, Aquanet, 2018:E4), the mitigation measures

included in the application (revised loading rates and irrigation scheduling, increased irrigation area within

The Pot site and the biodiversity trial) will result in material reductions in the amount of nutrients, in

particular nitrogen, reaching surface water. The Project is therefore considered to be generally consistent

with the the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and the One Plan (RPS provisions on

water quality) in the context of enhancing water quality.

The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

and the Regional One Plan in respect of activities in the coastal environment. This conclusion is reached

on the basis that the Project relates to existing coastal infrastructure, has been informed by views from



4262328 // NZ1-15432605-5 0.5 // page 31

tangata whenua and is the best practicable option for managing Levin’s wastewater. The Project being

the best practicable option is confirmed in Chapter 5 of the resource consent application (E8, HDC:

2018).






designation and wastewater activity at The Pot pre-dates the landscape classification (by over 20 years)


The proposal has implemented methods and measures which recognise tangata whenua and their

relationship with the land, water and other taonga. The methods and measures include through the

commissioning of a Cultural Impact Assessment, the continued adoption of a discharge regime that

avoids a direct discharge to water, riparian planting, reductions in-stream effects via irrigation

management and trials (thereby enhancing water quality and ecological habitat), the offering of Cultural

Health Index Monitoring and the imposition of an Accidental Discovery Protocol.

While not forming part of the resource consent application, it is understood that a range of further mitigation

measures and offsets are being considered. These mitigation measures are outlined in the Resource

Consent and Assessment of Environmental Effects (Horowhenua District Council, June 2018: E8) and the

Mitigation Options Report (LEI, 2017: C3). It is noted that some of the measures and offsets identified may

require further resource consents to enable their implementation and as such cannot at the present time be

considered or relied on as part of assessing or making decisions on the application as currently lodged.

Broadly speaking, the adoption of the measures identified will achieve better consistency with the statutory

planning framework. An adaptive management type approach to the mitigation and offset trials could

potentially be implemented.

The Project is considered to be generally consistent with the statutory planning framework and constitutes

sustainable management. The Project:

enables people and the community to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and for

their health and safety.

sustains the potential of natural and physical resources for future generations.

enhances the life supporting capacity of the air, water, soil and ecosystems.

avoids, remedies or mitigations adverse effects on the environment.

Ultimately, the Project achieves the sustainable management purpose of the RMA.

statutory assessment (beca e5) - manawatu-wanganui€¦ · statutory assessment: the pot-...

Documents