Agenda of Resource Management Committee

sdclogo

Resource Management Committee

OPEN MINUTES

Minutes of a meeting of Resource Management Committee held in the Committee Room, 15 Forth Street, Invercargill on Friday, 18 March 2016 at 9.00am.

present

Chairperson	Paul Duffy
Councillors	Rodney Dobson
	Julie Keast
	Gavin Macpherson

IN ATTENDANCE

Manager Resource Management, Simon Moran, Senior Resource Management Planner, Jennifer Green, Roading Asset Management Engineer, Hartley Hare, Manager Environmental Health, Michael Sarfaiti and Committee Advisor, Alyson Hamilton.

1 Apologies

Apologies for non-attendance were lodged from Crs Bailey and Douglas.

Moved Cr Dobson, seconded Cr Keast and resolved:

That the apologies for non-attendance lodged by Cr Bailey and Cr Douglas be sustained.

The Resource Management meeting was adjourned at 9.05am and reconvened at 12.45pm

Councillors Duffy (Chairperson), Dobson, Keast and McPherson were present when the meeting reconvened.

2 Leave of absence

There were no requests for leave of absence received.

3 Conflict of Interest

There were no conflicts of interest declared.

4 Public Forum

There was no public forum

5 Extraordinary/Urgent Items

There were no Extraordinary/Urgent items.

6 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution

Moved Cr Keast, seconded Cr Duffy and resolved:

That the minutes of Resource Management Committee held on 23 October 2015 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

7 Reports

7.1	Minor amendments - Proposed Southland District Plan 2012 Record No: R/16/2/2095
	1 Report by Courtney Ellison, Senior Resource Management Planner – Policy seeking Committee approval to make minor changes to the Proposed District Plan, was tabled. Mrs Ellison advised staff have identified a number of minor changes that need to be made to the Proposed District Plan. Mrs Ellison added that these changes do not alter how the plan will be implemented or the rules that apply. Mrs Ellison explained the changes are typically to correct where information has been displayed incorrectly on the maps, to include designations which have already been through the appropriate consultation process, or to correct some grammatical and formatting errors. The meeting noted most of the rules in the Proposed District Plan 2012 now apply, and as staff are implementing the plan they have identified some changes and improvements that could be made to the plan. Mrs Ellison advised most of these have been incorporated into the Variation to the Proposed District Plan currently out for consultation. However there are also some more minor changes to the plan that have been identified, which staff consider could be made to the plan without requiring any further consultation or formal process. Mrs Ellison informed the Resource Management Act provides for changes to be made to a plan where it will have a minor effect, or correct any minor errors (Clause 16(2), First Schedule, RMA). Mrs Ellison explained the proposed changes are outlined in the report and staff consider those changes all meet the requirements of that clause outlined above and could therefore be made without going through the First Schedule process which includes two opportunities for submissions, hearings and then decisions. The meeting was advised there will be a small amount of cost in terms of staff time and printing that will be met by the existing District Plan budgets.

	Resolution Moved Cr Keast, seconded Cr Macpherson and resolved: That the Resource Management Committee: a) Receives the report titled “Minor amendments - Proposed Southland District Plan 2012” dated 7 March 2016. b) Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002. c) Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter. d) Approves staff making the changes to the Proposed District Plan 2012 outlined in Attachment A, without any further process, as provided for in Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act.

7.2	Variation 2 - Proposed District Plan - Late Submission Record No: R/16/3/4096
	Report by Courtney Ellison, Senior Resource Management Planner – Policy seeking the Committee’s acceptance of one submission to the Proposed District Plan Variation 2 that was received after the closing date, was tabled. Mrs Ellison advised Council notified Variation 2 to the Proposed District Plan on 13 February 2016 and submissions closed on Friday 11 March 2016. Mrs Ellison confirmed Council received 10 submissions by the closing date, with one additional submission received on Monday 14 March 2016. Mrs Ellison explained the late submission from Mrs R L Rickard Johnstone covered the amendments to the signage section, building materials in the Visual Amenity Landscape Overlay, and ‘Other Buildings’ definition, as well as the proposed Rural Settlement Areas. The meeting was informed the submission was generally supportive of the changes but provided some additional comments and suggestions. The submission was received only one working day late, and will not affect the progress of the variation or disadvantage any other parties. Mrs Ellison recommended to the meeting that the submission be accepted. Following discussion Members offered no objection to accepting the late submission received from Mrs R L Rickard Johnstone.

	Resolution Moved Cr Dobson, seconded Cr Keast and resolved: That the Resource Management Committee: a) Receives the report titled “Variation 2 - Proposed District Plan - Late Submission” dated 16 March 2016. b) Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002. c) Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter. d) Accept the one submission received from Mrs R L Rickard Johnstone that was received late on the Proposed District Plan Variation 2.

The meeting concluded at 12.55pm CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Resource Management Committee HELD ON FRIDAY, 18 MARCH 2016.

DATE:...................................................................

CHAIRPERSON:...................................................

Resource Management Committee

17 June 2016

Introduction

This report relates to a proposed Council initiated Variation (Variation 1) to the Proposed Southland District Plan 2012. The report has been prepared in accordance with Section 42A of the Resource Management Act [RMA] 1991, to assist the Hearing Committee in its deliberations.

It is important to note that the recommendations outlined in this report do not reflect a decision of the Council. The Hearing Committee is not bound by the recommendations in this report.

Following the consideration of all supporting evidence presented at the hearing, a decision report will be prepared outlining the decisions made by the Hearing Committee in respect of the variation.

Background for Variation 1 to the Proposed District Plan 2012

Landcorp Farming Limited owns land approximately 7 kilometres north of the
Te Anau township which has been subject to a private plan change (Plan Change 9) to the Operative Southland District Plan 2001. This plan change sought to rezone 988 hectares, being a portion of Part Section 14, Block III, Te Anau Survey District and Section 1, Survey Office Plan 11190 (held in CT SL12B/5).

Plan Change 9 was approved in August 2013 and rezoned the land is from “Plains Rural Resource Area” to “Eweburn Resource Area”. A specific set of plan provisions was developed for the area which enabled a future low density rural residential development, with a possible golf course and commercial/conference/retail facilities.

Six submissions were received on the Private Plan Change (three neutral and three opposed) and one further submission was received. Landcorp Farming Limited paid for all costs associated with the Private Plan Change 9.

Due to the timing of Landcorp Farming Limited’s plan change request to the Operative Southland District Plan 2001, it was unable to be incorporated into the Proposed Southland District Plan 2012 process. Accordingly, from a legal perspective the only way of bringing the private plan change into the Proposed District Plan was to undertake a variation and go through the Schedule 1 process again. Council agreed to initiate this process on
Landcorp Farming Limited’s behalf.

Key features of the Eweburn Zone

The Eweburn Zone promotes an Outline Development Plan which directs how the Eweburn Resource Area will be developed. It seeks to establish three “Activity Areas (1, 2 and 3)” for residential and visitor accommodation (small scale Bed and Breakfasts) and two “Activity Clusters (A and B)” for commercial activities such as conference facilities, restaurants and café/bar facilities.

It is proposed that each of the three Activity Areas will have maximum site coverage of 10,000 m² for buildings and structures to create a low density rural residential environment. A maximum of 60 dwellings is proposed within all of the three activity areas.

It is proposed that the two Activity Clusters will have maximum site coverage requirements for buildings and structures of 10,000 m² for Cluster “A” and 5,000 m² for Cluster “B”. The site coverage requirements will allow for a range of building configurations depending on how the future developer may decide to develop each cluster area.

In total, if all of the sites were built on to the maximum levels specified above, a maximum building coverage over all sites would be 4.5 hectares.

It is also proposed by way of the rules included in Variation No. 1 that all buildings within the Eweburn Zone will require a resource consent prior to construction commencing (at a minimum as a controlled activity). The Variation seeks to minimise the built appearance of buildings and structures in the Eweburn Resource Area through building control methods such as height, colour, finish and width of eaves etc.

The Outline Development Plan identifies that a “State Highway Planting Strip” will be set aside from development, planted in natives to provide vegetation screening to the Eweburn Zone from State Highway 94. Further, a 460 to 880 metre wide “Eweburn View Corridor” is proposed, which will provide a buffer between State Highway 94, a key tourist thoroughfare, and any future structures in Activity Areas and Clusters. It is proposed that the View Corridor would be owned by the future developer, maintained free of structures (apart from existing farm buildings), and remain as open space for rural and recreational activities such as a golf course or farming purposes.

How to read this report

The following section of this report outlines some minor amendments to the variation, and provides a recommendation to the Committee.

The final section of this report is a copy of the relevant sections of the plan with amendments to reflect the recommendations made in this report.

Submissions and recommended changes

This section of the report would normally discuss the matters raised and decisions requested in submissions and make recommendations as to how the Committee can respond to these. However, due to the fact that no submissions were received on the Variation, the Committee only needs to consider matters relating to staff changes.

When this variation was notified, I accidently amended and notified an out-dated version of the Eweburn Zone provisions. The result is that an incorrect version of the provisions has been notified and gone through the public consultation process.

Clause 16(2) of Schedule 1 enables a Local Authority to make amendments to information that has a minor effect. Considering this, I have suggested some minor amendments shown as tracked changes in the appended version to rectify my notification error. The key amendments are as follows:

Amendment 1

A new subsection (4) to Rule EWB.4 as follows:

(4) The installation of an entranceway at Crossing Point 39 or 41. Matters over which control is reserved are:

(a) Size and character

(b) Design, appearance (including colours, materials and lighting)

Rule EWB.4 is the controlled activity rule requiring a resource consent. Accordingly Council will be required to approve any application for an entranceway but it does have control over the size, character, design and appearance of the structure.

I consider that the addition of an entranceway structure is a minor amendment to the Eweburn Zone as the sign will outline what is located on the site. Entranceway signs are relatively commonplace in other similar scale development sites in Southland and Otago and Council has the ability to control the visual appearance of the structure during the consent process.

Amendment 2

New Subsections (6) and (7) to Rule EWB.6 which were previously in Rule EWB.7

Rules EWB.6(6) and (7)

6. The construction of new buildings or structures within Activity Cluster “A” prior to an Ecological Management Plan for the Ecological Enhancement Area in Activity Areas 1 and 3, as identified on the Outline Development Plan, being prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist and provided to the consent authority.

7. The construction of new buildings or structures within Activity Cluster “B” prior to an Ecological Management Plan for the Ecological Enhancement Area in Activity Area 2, as identified on the Outline Development Plan, being prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist and provided to the consent authority.

Subsections (6) and (7) have been changed from Rule EWB.7 (prohibited) to Rule EWB.6 (non-complying). This suggested amendment was approved in the Private Plan Change 9 Decision and is relatively minor in effect. By making these two subsections non-complying it enables the future developer to apply for a resource consent if they wish to construct new buildings or structures prior to the provision of the relevant Ecological Management Plan. Non-complying status means that such approval is not guaranteed.

Amendment 3

Rule EWB.8 - Performance Standards

Amendments are suggested to the performance standards to set a limit of 20 dwellings per Activity Area (1-3) and set limits on site coverage. Further, one dwelling has been provided for in each of the two Activity Clusters (A-B). The total number of dwellings in the Zone will be 62. These Changes are outlined on the Outline Development Plan which correctly show what is intended in each Cluster and Area.

All amendments are also outlined below with tracked changes (there are some inconsequential amendments that are not mentioned above which are outlined in the attached version. For the Committee’s information the comments (outlined in red) are from Landcorp Farming Solicitor, Jane Walsh, who has reviewed the notified variation with the private plan change decision. All amendments suggested in the attachment were approved by the Resource Management Committee when the private Plan Change 9 was approved and made Operative.

Overall it is recommended that the Committee approve the minor amendments to enable the progression of the variation which attracted no public submissions.

Marcus Roy

SENIOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNER

Resource Management Committee

17 June 2016

SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT HEARING

13 - 18 NOVEMBER 2015

Minutes of the meeting to consider the application lodged by Southland Serpentine Limited seeking a Limited Notified Resource Consent to extract 150,000 m³ of mineral serpentine per annum from the site at 214 Hillas Road, Acton, Mossburn before the Southland District Council Resource Management Committee held on Friday, 13 November 2015 in the Southland District Council Chambers, 15 Forth Street, Invercargill commencing at 9.00 am.

FRIDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 2015

PRESENT Cr P Duffy (Chairperson)

Cr J Douglas

Cr G Macpherson

Cr R Dobson

Cr J Keast

IN ATTENDANCE Council Staff

Mr Simon Moran (Manager - Resource Management)

Mr Marcus Roy (Senior Resource Management Planner and

Section 42A Reporting Officer)

Mr Hartley Hare (Road Asset Management Engineer)

Mrs Alyson Hamilton (Committee Secretary)

For the Applicant

Mr A Hitchcock (Applicant’s Solicitor)

Mr J Engel (Planner)

Mr R Pearson

Mr R King

Mr M Moore

Submitters

R and S Hillas

G Stevens

B Gilmour (Northern Southland Transport)

S Heenan (M D Heenan Family Trust and D W Heenan Trust)

D Heenan

C and V Finlayson

G Gilder (Environment Southland)

1.0 APOLOGIES

An apology was received from Cr Bailey

Moved Cr Douglas, seconded Cr Keast and resolved

That the apology from Cr Bailey be accepted.

2.0 WELCOME AND ADDRESS

Cr Duffy welcomed those present to the Southland Serpentine Limited - Limited Notified Resource Consent Submission Hearing and explained the Committee would hear submissions received on the application lodged by Southland Serpentine Limited seeking resource consent to extract 150,000 m³ of mineral serpentine per annum from the site at 214 Hillas Road, Acton.

Cr Duffy outlined the requirements in the event of an evacuation of the building and other housekeeping details.

Cr Duffy introduced the Committee members and Council staff and explained the order of speakers with the applicant’s consultant and representatives first, followed by the submitters. They were also reminded of granted speaking times.

Cr Duffy informed that Council endeavoured to make its hearings as relaxed and informal as possible however there were still legal requirements and protocols that must be followed. He added the hearing procedure did not permit cross-examination however the Chair of the Committee may allow a question to be asked of the staff members present to clarify something within the recommending report, or to advise on any technical or statutory matters.

Cr Duffy noted the Resource Management Committee has visited the site.

3.0 STAFF REPORT

Mr Roy, Section 42A Processing Planner, proposed that the report circulated to all parties be taken as read and outlined that in his opinion visual effects, reinstatement and traffic effects were the key issues of this application.

4.0 APPLICANT

9.30 am - Mr Hitchcock

Mr Hitchcock presented his opening legal submission as Legal Counsel for the Applicant.

Mr Hitchcock advised Southland Serpentine Limited (SSL) has applied to increase the scale of an existing Serpentine quarrying activity on land at 214 Hillas Road, Acton, Mossburn.

Mr Hitchcock gave an overview of the resource consent application outlining the preferred quarrying method mineral extraction on the site.

Mr Hitchcock explained that the suggested extraction methodology outlined in the Planner’s report was not going to work in this instance due to the nature of the mineral and on-site constraints and it has been suggested that working down the hilltop in a set of benches or ledges would be more practical.

The Committee noted that the pre-hearing meeting with submitters resulted in some changes to the application which is outlined in the pre-circulated evidence (reduction in volume, consent duration and hours of operation).

In his opinion Mr Hitchcock felt the scale of effects were minor and that a significant amount of investment was required to undertake the mineral extraction, although the current scale of extraction would likely continue for another three to five years.

In conclusion Mr Hitchcock advised the proposed development represents continuing and increasing an existing quarrying activity. He added the quarrying activity is the most appropriate use of the resource, which will produce benefits locally and nationally.

He added the proposed quantity, mining method, duration and lapse period of the consent represent the most appropriate way to quarry Serpentine.

10.00 am - Mr R Pearson

Mr Pearson read the summary of his Statement of Evidence (attached hereto and marked Appendix 1).

Mr Pearson proceeded to give a brief description of the existing quarry operations and the use of Serpentine as an agricultural fertiliser.

Questions and Clarification

The following questions and points of clarification were sought by the Committee:

Mr Hitchcock requested Mr Pearson respond to Mr Roy’s suggestion of the pit extraction method. Mr Pearson responded that the pit extraction methodology suggested in the Planner’s Report was not viable due to the crumbly and soft nature of the mineral, battering angle and steepness of the quarry road.

In response to a query regarding location of storage facilities for the Serpentine in Bluff Mr Pearson responded the company did not currently have a storage facility in Bluff, however were not anticipating any issues in securing a building and were possibly looking towards constructing one in Awarua in the future.

Cr Duffy queried the difficulty of reinstatement of the site following the extraction work. Mr Hitchcock replied that reinstatement of the site would be difficult due to the lack of overburden on the site.

Cr Macpherson queried the number of truck movements on the road. Mr Pearson advised it is anticipated 25 - 30 movements per day, however this would be weather dependant. He added current serpentine production from the site is approximately 25,000 tonnes per annum.

Mr Moran queried the steepness of the road; in response Mr Pearson advised the grade of the forestry road running down the main ridge was approximately 1:10.

Mr Moran sought clarification on the mining method. Mr Pearson confirmed the extraction methodology would be to start at the top and work down and the height of the benches would not exceed 5 m.

Mr Hare sought confirmation that trucks at full capacity will weigh 35 tonnes. Mr Pearson advised that this was correct.

Mr Pearson concluded his submission at 10.30 am.

The Hearing adjourned for morning tea at 10.30 am and reconvened at 10.50 am.

10.50 am - Mr R King

Mr King took his evidence as read (attached hereto and marked Appendix 2) and proceeded to highlight the key points.

Mr King outlined his experience and involvement in the mining industry and his suggested method of mining of this project which included:

• Extracts benches from the bottom up, and having multiple benches open at a time.

• Extraction faces should face west or southwest so the sun and wind can dry the mineral prior to extraction.

• The quarry regulations set out the height of benches and steepness of access roads.

Mr King drew a plan view of the quarry site and suggested method of extracting benches. He also drew a cross section of the ridge indicating the profile of the ridge before and after mining.

Questions and Clarification

The following questions and points of clarification were sought by the Committee:

Mr Moran sought clarification on the proposed lower limit of extraction work. In his response Mr King stated that mining could go below the 360 m contour as the serpentine mineral was likely to be lower than the contour.

Mr King concluded his submission at 11.20 am.

11.23 am - Mr M Moore

Mr Moore took his evidence as read (attached hereto and marked Appendix 3) and proceeded to highlight the key points;

Mr Moore outlined his amendments to the application particularly that the mining methodology and lack of progressive reinstatement meant that he had changed some opinions on the visual effect of the proposal which were outlined in his original landscape report.

Questions and Clarification

The following questions and points of clarification were sought by the Committee:

Cr Duffy commented that in view of Mr King’s suggestion of changing the benching direction enquired whether this will have an effect to the visual aspect. Mr Moore responded the benches running north west to south east as suggested by Mr King would face south west which is an exposed view of the site. The shoulders of the site would help to screen the extraction works.

Cr Duffy queried whether the vegetation on the fenceline is to be left intact and whether manuka plantings would be considered a plantings option. Mr Moore responded that the vegetation was to be retained around the edges of the extraction site to soften the appearance of the ridgeline and that manuka plantings would be a good rehabilitation species but for a start grass would provide a relatively quick vegetation cover.

He added that reinstatement trials and an adaptive management approach would provide some certainty for future reinstatement after all of the extraction has been undertaken.

Mr Moran sought clarification on whether the area to be mined is to be totally opened and worked. In response Mr Moore advised it is a progressive type of mining that goes from top to bottom and then restart.

Cr Duffy queried the visual effects associated with the establishment of a concrete wall, whether a wooden wall would be more effective to mitigate noise from the mining. Mr Moore responded advising his understanding was that a timber fence would not provide the same level of noise attenuation as concrete due to the density, and suggested that this question should be put to a noise expert, however noise levels could be mitigated with pittosporum plantings on each side.

Mr Moore concluded his submission at 11.55 am.

11.56 am - Mr J Engel

Mr Engel took his evidence as read (attached hereto and marked Appendix 4) and proceeded to highlight the key points;

Mr Engel explained his amendments to the original application have been made following a pre hearing meeting and the Planner’s Report being released. He added a report had also been submitted by the applicant in relation to the site being habitat for native falcons.

Questions and Clarification

The following questions and points of clarification were sought by the Committee:

Cr Duffy queried where the water for dust suppression is to be stored. Mr Engel responded the use of water from the sediment ponds is to dampen down tracks and dusty areas and would be a permitted activity. The applicant would also seek consent from Environment Southland if necessary. He added oil has not been considered for dust suppression due to run-off going into creeks/rivers.

Mr Engel confirmed the trigger for dust suppression would be when it becomes objectionable and it would likely be the vehicle tracks and crushing machinery that would cause the most dust.

Cr Duffy queried if fuel is to be stored on site or brought in daily. Mr Engel responded in terms of fuel it was likely that depending on the amount of machinery being used, the fuel storage on site would be permanent as opposed to a mobile tank.

Cr Keast queried effects on the Acton Stream in regard to water quality. Mr Engel advised the clarity of the Acton Stream had historically been good during extractions and the applicant was not averse to monitoring the Acton Stream for discharges.

Mr Moran queried effects of the solid concrete block wall. Mr Engel confirmed noise reflection off the concrete wall could cause effects on the dwelling south of the access track, and he would ask his noise expert to provide some comments on potential effects.

Cr Macpherson queried the proposed hours for transporting of serpentine and would the company give consideration to the timing of the school bus run. In his response Mr Engel advised the applicant had reduced the intended hours sought for transporting serpentine to 7.00 am - 7.00 pm Monday to Friday and 7.30 am to 5.00 pm Saturday. The Company was agreeable to avoiding the transport of material during the hours the school bus would be operating.

Cr Duffy queried the proposed speed limits for trucks. Mr Engel advised speed limits (20 km/hr) would be imposed initially on the access track until it was sealed and heavier vehicles could be a possibility in the future, if the necessary permits were issued.

Cr Douglas queried the method of identifying the tonnage removed from the site. Mr Engel responded the weigh bridge in Mossburn would be used to identify the amount of serpentine transported from the site and that annual monitoring would occur with a report back to Council with volumes extracted.

The Committee sought clarification from Mr Hare in regard to the roading contribution:

Mr Hare confirmed the roading contribution as outlined in the report would not alter if heavy vehicles were proposed as the strength of the road would be sufficient to cope with any extra weight. He stated that the bridge on Hillas Road was approximately 20 years old and thought it would not have any issues with strength.

Mr Engel concluded his submission at 12.30 pm.

The Hearing adjourned for lunch at 12.30 pm and reconvened at 1.15 pm.

5.0 SUBMITTERS

1.15 pm - Mr and Mrs Hillas

Mr and Mrs Hillas introduced themselves and read from their submission.

Mr Hillas highlighted a safety issue regarding the road width which he felt should be increased to improve safety and the speed of vehicles should be reduced.

Mr Hillas expressed concern that the expiry of the consent was not necessarily the end of the extraction works as there was more mineral there and new consents would be sought to continue extraction.

Mr Hillas also commented that the colour of the buildings on site should be grey as opposed to dark green.

Cr Douglas sought clarification from Mr Hare regarding the status on widening the road. Mr Hare responded that the Hillas Road sealed carriageway was currently approximately 5.8 m in width and the upgrading works required would bring this up to 7 m with a 1.5 m gravel shoulder.

Mr and Mrs Hillas concluded their submission at 1.20 pm.

1.23 pm - Mr G Stevens

Mr Stevens introduced himself and read from his submission.

Mr Stevens advised noise, dust effects would be evident during windy conditions for both vehicle movements and extraction.

Mr Stevens commented that the baseline water testing (flow and clarity) should be undertaken at the commencement of the project so that these measures can be maintained throughout the consent timeframe.

He suggested power could be brought on site via overhead lines as opposed to running a generator for on-site electricity generation. This he felt would reduce
on-site noise.

Mr Stevens felt that for rehabilitation, local expertise should be used and that wilding trees grew slowly but provided good timber.

Questions and Clarification

The following questions and points of clarification were sought by the Committee:

Cr Duffy queried if Mr Stevens had personally witnessed dust issues from the road and a noise factor at the current mining work. Mr Stevens responded that the north west was the prevailing wind direction and historically a crusher could be heard up to 1 km from the site during strong winds.

He added blasting used to be very loud and noted that blasting was not proposed in this application.

Mr Stevens concluded his submission at 1.30 pm.

1.33 pm - Mr B Gilmour

Mr Gilmour introduced himself advising he is speaking on behalf of Northern Southland Transport and presented his verbal submission.

Mr Gilmour advised that it is anticipated there will be 27 vehicles per day up to 40 tonnes which would be used to transport the extracted serpentine to Bluff. He added it is anticipated each truck would undertake four movements per day.

Further to this he added noise from empty trucks would be minimal as the trucks have bath tub bins and air suspension.

The Committee was informed that during winter conditions drivers would be more cautious about safe driving practices with darkness and weather conditions.

Questions and Clarification

The following questions and points of clarification were sought by the Committee:

Cr Douglas queried the four truck movements. Mr Gilmour confirmed each truck would do four movements and there would not be any HPMV initially used during the transportation.

He added that the company would need to apply to Council for a permit to use these heavier vehicles.

Mr Moran sought clarification from staff regarding change of classification of the road for heavier vehicles. Mr Hare responded the bridge would need to be assessed regarding the weight capacity at the time a permit was lodged.

Mr Moran queried if class of road was changed would the road or bridge be affected if heavier truck HPMV used. Mr Hare responded that that there will not be any more damage to the road.

Cr Douglas queried whether four truck movements per day were viable. In his response Mr Gilmour advised travelling to Bluff possibly not, however if a plant was established at Awarua this could be possible by splitting shifts.

Cr Dobson directed a question at staff querying the bridge age expectancy. Mr Hare responded the bridge should last for a lengthy period.

Cr Duffy queried if Mr Gilmour was aware this particular road is part of the school bus route. Mr Gilmour responded that drivers can work around the school bus timetable.

Mr Gilmour concluded his submission at 1.40 pm.

1.40 pm - Mrs S Nicol

Mrs S Nicol introduced herself advising she is speaking on behalf of M D Heenan Family Trust and D W Heenan Trust and read her tabled submission (attached hereto and marked Appendix 5).

Mrs Nicol commented that the serpentine extraction needs to be of a scale and intensity that works in harmony with the existing environment.

Questions and Clarification

The following questions and points of clarification were sought by the Committee:

Cr Duffy noted the submitters proposed working hours being 7.00 am to 5.30 pm. Mrs Nicol stated that shorter evening hours would enable the residents to enjoy summer evenings without vehicle noise.

Cr Duffy noted the submitters request for regular water testing for the Acton and Dilston Streams to ensure no adverse effects arise.

Cr Douglas queried the submitters concern at the number of heavy traffic movements on this road stating dairy tankers and logging trucks currently use this road. In response Mrs Nicoll advised milk tankers and logging trucks are maybe
one-two per day and that in terms of this project it is anticipated 27 truckloads per day.

Cr Duffy queried the submitters concerns at speed limits. In response Mr Hare stated that speed limits are set nationally as opposed to being set by Council.

Mrs Nicol concluded her submission at 2.05 pm.

2.05 pm - Mr D Heenan

Mr Heenan introduced himself and read his tabled submission (attached hereto and marked Appendix 6).

Mr Heenan explained the main issues of the application for him were the hours of operation, noise, timeframes, landscape and visual impacts, number of vehicle movements, dust management, water management and loss of amenity.

Questions and Clarification

The following questions and points of clarification were sought by the Committee:

Cr Duffy queried the submitter if he can hear the operation working at present from his property. Mr Heenan responded noise from the existing quarrying operations was audible from the dwelling and it was likely to increase with the proposed up-scaling.

Cr Duffy queried the submitter if the current extraction works are visible from his dwelling. Mr Heenan confirmed the current extraction works are visually prominent from the dwelling.

Mr Moran queried the submitter’s opinion on the trigger point of 60,000 tonnes. Mr Heenan responded the trigger point for sealing the accessway (60,000 tonnes) was appropriate.

Mr Heenan concluded his submission at 2.17 pm.

2.18 pm - Mr and Mrs Finlayson

Mr Finlayson introduced himself and read his tabled submission (attached hereto and marked Appendix 7).

Mr Finlayson outlined his concerns regarding:

· increase of dust due to increase of trucks

· hours of operation

· increase of noise levels

· proposed concrete wall will not mitigate noise levels

· increase of vehicle numbers

· concerns for children’s safety during the school bus run

· width of Hillas road is not sufficient for the increase in heavy vehicles

· management of stormwater

· native falcons are present in the vicinity and could be nesting on the site

· a negative effect on property prices.

Upon request Mr Finlayson pointed out on the site plan the location of the Black Shag Rookery.

Questions and Clarification

The following questions and points of clarification were sought by the Committee:

Mr Roy clarified to the Committee that effectively his recommendation provided set vehicle movements per day at 27 regardless whether product tonnage is available or not.

Mr Finlayson expressed concern at the inconsistency in the application with tonnage and cubic metres. The application in various places indicates the extraction of 250,000 tonnes annually and others 250,000 m³. The density of the serpentine is 1.7 tonne per cubic metre so there is a vast difference in the amount extracted depending on the units you use. Mr Hitchcock responded advising it is clear that the application has been recorded at 150,000 m³.

Mr Finlayson concluded his submission at 3.10 pm.

The Hearing adjourned for afternoon tea at 3.10 pm and reconvened at 3.30 pm.

3.30 pm - Mr G Gilder

Mr Gilder (speaking on behalf of Environment Southland) presented his written submission (attached hereto and marked Appendix 8).

Mr Gilder advised of uncertainty regarding the effects generated by the serpentine extraction on landscape character and visual amenity raised in Mr Moore’s report and evidence. He advised of potential long term visual effects with the delayed remediation.

The Committee noted Mr Gilder’s support for suggested Conditions (8) and (16) which relate to water quality and discharges. Further amendments are suggested to these conditions.

Questions and Clarification

The following questions and points of clarification were sought by the Committee:

Cr Duffy sought clarification on Mr Gilder’s reference to pest plants. In his response Mr Gilder advised of his support for Condition 12 relating to the management of pest plants that may establish on the site.

Mr Gilder concluded his submission at 3.40 pm.

3.40 pm - Mr and Mrs Metherell

Mr Roy tabled written evidence (attached hereto and marked Appendix 9) from Mr and Mrs Metherell which was taken as read.

6.0 APPLICANT’S CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr Hitchcock

Mr Hitchcock stated that the quarrying limits would not exceed the outlined illustrated on Figure 11 of Mr Moore’s report.

Mr Hitchcock advised that the applicant supported Condition (5) of the Planner’s Report with respect to getting an expert to prepare a reinstatement planting plan. He added that it was intended to preserve the perimeter of land whilst continuing to work.

Mr Hitchcock advised that the quarry location was fixed due to the location of the Serpentine and the property boundary.

Further he advised that there was a significant investment involved and achieving a scale of works and an adequate timeframe to undertake the works was key to any resource consent decision.

Mr Hitchcock stated that a pit methodology of extraction as suggested in the Planner’s Report was not viable for the reasons previously outlined.

Mr Hitchcock confirmed at the point when the 20 year period of the contract is completed there is no right of renewal.

Cr Duffy queried whether the Company was aware of ships arrival schedule to port and whether neighbours could be advised when the trucks are to be operating. Mr Hitchcock responded this could be arranged.

Cr Douglas queried whether reinstatement work to the area is to be undertaken when the mining has ceased. Mr Hitchcock confirmed that the perimeter is to be maintained, however require each step to access the next step.

Cr Duffy queried the timeframe for sealing of the road. Mr Hitchcock stated that the sealing of the access road would be undertaken even if the first shipment goes to the North Island.

Mr Engel

Mr Engel stated that in his opinion the effects of the extraction activity on water quality would be minor as sediment ponds would be installed to capture any sediment laden water prior to it entering the Acton Stream. Further he outlined that the company are prepared to undertaking monitoring of the Acton Stream.

Mr Moran queried whether the monitoring condition can be included in the consent. Mr Engel confirmed that it can be included in the consent.

Moved Cr Dobson, seconded Cr Keast

and resolved that the Committee adjourn the hearing at 5.30 pm for further clarification to be obtained from the applicant regarding the following points:

· The effect that noise reflection off the proposed concrete wall will have on the Heenan’s dwelling (which is located to the south of the private access).

· The mining methodology. Will two benches starting at the top be worked at a time to exhaustion or will there be multiple benches open with only two benches worked at any one time.

The meeting to be reconvened on Wednesday, 18 November 2015 at 9.00 am in Council Chambers, Southland District Council, 15 Forth Street, Invercargill.

Resource Management Committee

17 June 2016

WEDNESDAY, 18 NOVEMBER 2015

SOUTHLAND SERPENTINE LIMITED - LIMITED NOTIFIED RESOURCE CONSENT TO EXTRACT 150,000 M³ OF MINERAL SERPENTINE PER ANNUM FROM THE SITE AT 214 HILLAS ROAD, ACTON

The Hearing reconvened in Council Chambers, Southland District Council Offices,
15 Forth Street, Invercargill on Wednesday, 18 November 2015 at 9.05 am to discuss further information as requested by the Hearing Committee.

PRESENT Cr P Duffy (Chairperson)

Cr J Douglas

Cr G Macpherson

Cr R Dobson

Cr J Keast

APOLOGIES Cr Bailey

Moved Cr Douglas, seconded Cr Keast and resolved

That the apology be accepted.

IN ATTENDANCE Council Staff

Mr Simon Moran (Manager - Resource Management)

Mr Marcus Roy (Senior Resource Management Planner and

Section 42A Reporting Officer)

Mr Hartley Hare (Road Asset Management Engineer)

Mrs Alyson Hamilton (Committee Secretary)

1.0 FURTHER EVIDENCE

Mr Roy presented to the Committee evidence received from Marshall Day regarding noise reflection and Mr John Engel regarding mining methodology to the Committee (attached hereto and marked Appendix 10).

This concluded submissions on the Southland Serpentine Limited seeking a Limited Notified Resource Consent to extract 150,000 m³ of mineral Serpentine per annum from the site at 214 Hillas Road, Acton.

The hearing adjourned at 9.15 am to enable the Committee to move into Public Excluded to undertake deliberations on the submissions it had received. Deliberations commenced at 9.15 am on Wednesday, 18 November 2015.

EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC

Moved Cr Dobson, seconded Cr Keast and resolved

That pursuant to Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 that the public be excluded from the meeting so that the Committee can undertake deliberations on the submissions that it had received on the Southland Serpentine Limited - Limited Notified Resource Consent to extract 150,000 m³ of mineral Serpentine per annum from the site at 214 Hillas Road, Acton

and that the reason for the passing of the resolution is that it would be likely to result in disclosure of information which would:

7(2)(f) maintain the effective conduct of public affairs arising directly from the need to protect members and staff from improper pressure or harassment;

7(2)(l) enable the council to carry out negotiations without prejudice or disadvantage (including commercial and industrial negotiations);

7(2)(j) prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or advantage;

EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC - STAFF

Moved Cr Dobson, seconded Cr Keast and resolved

That the Council officers listed below be permitted to remain at the meeting after the public have been excluded because of their knowledge of (a) meeting procedure and/or (b) the subject matter under consideration.

Manager - Resource Management

Senior Resource Management Planner

Roading Asset Management Engineer

Committee Advisor

RETURN TO OPEN MEETING

Moved Cr Duffy, seconded Cr Macpherson and resolved

That the Resource Management committee resume in open meeting.

Cr Duffy closed the hearing on the application of Southland Serpentine Limited seeking a land use consent to extract and process up to 150,000 m³ per annum of mineral serpentine for an unlimited timeframe at 214 Hillas Road, Acton. The activities will include extraction, crushing, screening and transportation of material on 18 November 2015 at 10.20 am.

C O N F I R M E D:

C H A I R P E R S O N:

D A T E:

Resource Management Committee

17 June 2016

SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT HEARING

PAUL S AND KAREN R WEBB

14 OCTOBER 2015

Minutes of a Resource Management Hearing of the Hearing Commissioner held on Wednesday, 14 October 2015 at the Southland District Council Chambers, 15 Forth Street, Invercargill at 2pm.

PRESENT Mr Allan Cubitt (Hearing Commissioner)

IN ATTENDANCE Council Staff

Mr Simon Moran (Manager Resource Management)

Ms Jennifer Green (Senior Resource Management Planner)

Mr Joe Findley (Contracts Administrator Water and Waste)

Mrs Veena Lal-Boon (Environmental Health Officer)

Mrs Alyson Hamilton (Area Officer, Riverton)

Applicants and Submitter

Mr P S and Mrs K R Webb (Applicant)

Mr J Webb (on behalf of the Applicant)

Mr T and Mrs W Holder (Submitter)

1.0 APOLOGIES

No apologies were recorded.

2.0 WELCOME AND ADDRESS

Mr Cubitt welcomed those present to the Hearing of Paul S Webb and Karen R Webb Subdivision and Land Use Consent - 32 Kiwi Burn Place, Te Anau hearing, introducing himself and gave an outline of his role as Commissioner. He advised of his site visit and confirmed Mr Paul Webb only pointed out the proposed building platform location in regards to the application.

Mr Cubitt went over the requirements in the event of an evacuation of the building and other housekeeping details.

Mr Cubitt introduced the Council staff and explained the order of speakers with the Applicant first followed by the Submitter.

Mr Cubitt requested the Submitter and Applicant introduce themselves and advise of an estimate time for their submissions.

Mr Josh Webb introduced himself as spokesperson on behalf of his parents
Mr Paul and Mrs Karen Webb (the Applicant) and advised their submission will take 10 to 12 minutes.

Mrs Wendy Holder introduced herself and her husband Mr Tom Holder (the Submitter) and advised their submission will take 25 to 40 minutes.

Mr Cubitt informed that Council endeavoured to make its hearings as relaxed and informal as possible however there were still legal requirements and protocols that must be followed. The hearing procedure did not permit cross-examination. Mr Cubitt advised he, as the Chair, may allow a question to be asked of the staff members present to clarify something within the recommending report, or to advise on any technical or statutory matters.

Mr Cubitt explained that at the conclusion of the hearing of submissions, the hearing would be closed. Mr Cubitt explained he would then exclude the public during his deliberations, as provided by the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and that if required he may request further information from those staff present.

Mr Cubitt informed all parties would be notified in writing of the decision of his decision as soon as possible, in accordance with Sections 113 - 115 of the Resource Management Act 1991, within 15 working days of the hearing.

3.0 STAFF REPORT

Ms Green (Senior Resource Management Planner) gave a brief overview of the consent process advising that she is the processing planner for this application.

Ms Green explained that a Hearing Commissioner has been appointed to hear and determine this application to ensure an objective process as Mr Josh Webb is a Southland District Council staff member.

Ms Green advised that she along with Simon Moran (Manager, Resource Management) have visited the site, surrounds and are familiar with the setting within which the subdivision and dwelling are proposed. It was noted Mrs Lal-Boon has also inspected the site.

Ms Green explained as outlined in her report this application was limited notified and one submission in opposition has been received. The matters raised by the Submitter have been discussed in the report and were taken into consideration in reaching the recommendation.

Ms Green informed that given the progression of the Proposed District Plan and the fact that both the Operative and Proposed Plans require consent as discretionary activity she felt it is appropriate to assess the proposal with more weight being given to the Proposed District Plan. She notes that matters that would be considered are the same in any regard, regardless of the plan.

Ms Green reported key issues which she felt are associated with this development include:

· The separation distance between dwellings - breach of the 150 metre setback requirement between dwellings and the ability of the environment to absorb another dwelling on this site.

· The Visual Amenity Landscape Overlay and amenity related effects, including the maximum height of the dwelling above natural ground level and external building materials.

Ms Green advised technical staff from Council’s Water and Waste and Environmental Health Departments are present to assist the Commissioner and respond to any queries.

At this point Ms Green confirmed that the report on the application has been circulated previously to all parties and proceeded to read the summary of her report.

Ms Green explained that whilst her report recommends that approval be granted subject to conditions this is a recommendation only and that the decision will be made by the Commissioner.

4.0 APPLICANT

2.10pm - Mr Josh Webb - Representative for the Applicant

Mr Webb tabled and read his submission on behalf of the Applicant Mr Paul and
Mrs Karen Webb (attached hereto and marked Appendix 2).

Mr Webb informed that his parents Mr and Mrs Webb are seeking resource consent for a two lot subdivision and land use consent to establish a 30 x 25 metre building platform on their property situated 32 Kiwi Burn Place, Te Anau.

Mr Webb advised it is intended to subdivide the existing property into two lots.
Lot 1 to contain 1.599 hectares of rural-residential land containing an existing dwelling which will be retained by Mr and Mrs Webb. Lot 2 to contain 1.116 hectares or just over 11,000 m² of rural-residential land subject to survey.

Mr Webb explained that any adverse effects to the environment of granting consent to this application are expected to be minor. He added that as part of this limited notified consent extensive consultation has been undertaken with the adjoining landowners and apart from the Submitter no other objections have been received.

Mr Webb proceeded to address and respond to some of the concerns the Submitter had raised in the submission. These included:

· Adverse effects of privacy and shading

· On-site wastewater disposal

· Stormwater/drainage run-off

· Inadequate reticulated water supply

· Amenity

Mr Webb commented that a report from Mrs Lal-Boon, Council’s Environmental Health Officer, stated that following her on-site visit in regards to on-site wastewater disposal confirmed that any adverse environmental health effects from a system specifically designed and installed as per the RELAP or AS/NZS 1547 taking into account the required separation distances, topography and soil type with good soil depth will be minor.

Mr Webb advised that Mr Joe Findley, Council’s Contracts Administrator, Water and Waste Services commented that in regard to concerns raised regarding the water supply, the existing water reticulation within the subdivision and the new pump station have sufficient capacity to service the proposed additional allotment without affecting the existing properties. In response Mr Findley added that Council has not received any complaints of “no water” since installing the pumps.

Questions.

Mr Cubitt queried what adverse effects of privacy and shading the proposed dwelling would have on the Holder property, noting the existing plantings situated on the northern boundary.

Mr Webb responded that the building platform has been selected to sit behind the Holder’s dwelling and away from their south west outlook, there are semi-mature plantings on Mr and Mrs Holder’s northern boundary that provide a robust screen, these are double fenced and established.

Mr Webb added this existing screening is likely to provide more shading than the proposed dwelling situated 32 metres away.

Mr Cubitt queried where the maximum height level of the proposed dwelling is to be measured from.

Mr Webb responded that the Webb’s existing dwelling’s concrete floor could be used as the baseline for the height restriction, thereby taking away any issues with what is natural ground level. He added the Webb’s dwelling is single level and confirmed the height at 5 metres.

Mr Moran pointed out that in relation to the height query the suggested conditions recommend that the proposed residence is not to exceed 6.5 metres above natural ground level and that a recommended condition of this consent is that the natural ground level of the building platform shall be established by a registered surveyor and the results submitted to Council prior to any earthworks occurring.

Mr Cubitt queried the location of the waste disposal location of the Webb’s existing dwelling and the proposed dwelling.

Mr Webb advised the waste disposal location for the Webb’s dwelling is behind the house and the area alongside the proposed dwelling is to be used for the waste disposal location.

In regards to stormwater disposal Mr Moran confirmed stormwater is dealt with in the building consent process and is to be discharged as on-site soakage.

Mr Cubitt questioned the restricted water supply and whether residents collect their own water.

In response Mr Webb advised it is a condition of the consent that at the time of construction of any new dwelling a minimum of 14,000 litres of water shall be provided and reserved for fire fighting purposes. He added that the future lot owner is required to supply an on-site water pressure pump to supply water pressure to the future dwelling.

Mr Cubitt queried staff of any known issues with the existing water reticulation within this subdivision.

In response Mr Findley advised since the upgrade of the pump station Council has not received any complaints of “no water” since installing the pumps.

Mr Webb concluded his submissions at 2.25pm.

5.0 SUBMITTER

2.27pm - Mrs Wendy Holder

Mrs Holder tabled and read her submission on behalf of her and her husband Mr Holder (attached hereto and marked Appendix 2).

Mrs Holder addressed the meeting advising the Patience Bay subdivision lies adjacent to Lake Te Anau and consists of two stages, stage one and two.

Stage one being the establishment of a rural-residential area ie. the allotments are primarily used for residential purposes and may be associated with small scale farming and/or lifestyle activity.

Mrs Holder advised stage two comprises allotments which offer views to the north and west over Lake Te Anau, the surrounding mountains and the Patience Bay subdivision.

Mrs Holder advised the subdivision was developed with considerable insight in order to create allotments maintaining an open rural and natural character within the landscape, whilst maintaining outstanding vistas over Lake Te Anau and the mountains of Fiordland.

Mrs Holder advised that the original proposal for the subdivision layout clearly states the intent of the subdivision. The pattern and extent of the development was determined after considering the maximum amount of activity which could be reasonably sustained without diminishing community amenity values. The building sites were identified to areas where buildings can be visually recessive and to ensure the best possible use of each site.

Mrs Holder explained in order to maintain this character, legally binding covenants were placed on the titles of the allotments, which she felt was binding to the property holder.

Mrs Holder informed the covenant clearly states:

3(iii) the title holder shall not erect or allow to be erected any other than one family dwellinghouse and garages, carports and other such buildings as would normally be appurtenant thereto.

3(iv) the title holder shall not erect any dwelling outside the building envelopes as shown on Deposited Plan 1687.

Mrs Holder advised that Council staff had acknowledged there is an existing private covenant established on the site, however whilst the covenant identifies building and planting restrictions, staff have advised that enforcement of the covenant is not within Council’s jurisdiction, rather it is a private contractual agreement imposed by the developer at the time of the Patience Bay subdivision.

Mrs Holder raised and spoke to concerns relating to the resource consent application. These being:

· Limited notification and submissions

· Proposed Southland District Plan 2012

· Amenity

· Privacy and shading dust/smoke

· Visibility from public places

· On-site wastewater disposal

· Stormwater/drainage run-off

· Inadequate reticulated water supply

· Access.

Mrs Holder informed support has been received from neighbours who also have expressed concern at the height level of the building platform which Mrs Holder advises is quite high and felt this is a major issue.

Further to this Mrs Holder advised she had engaged Cruickshank Pryde in relation to an opinion on the restrictive covenant. This opinion advised it was considered the restrictive covenant would prevent Mr and Mrs Webb from giving effect to any resource consent to erect a second dwelling on the subdivided land outside the original building envelope described in Deposited Plan 14687.

Mr Cubitt noted the comments from Cruickshank Pryde advising Council was aware of the covenant; however Ms Green reiterated that the covenant is a private contractual agreement and is not enforced by Council.

In conclusion Mrs Holder advised the meeting the Submitter remain opposed to this resource consent for Subdivision and Land Use that is being sought by
Mr and Mrs Webb.

Questions

Mr Cubitt commented in relation to loss of open space amenity and queried the vistas on the Holder dwelling, given that the proposed dwelling will be situated to the northeast of the Holder property.

Mrs Holder responded advising they have three decks with views to the north.

Mr Moran sought confirmation from staff regarding the on-site wastewater disposal on the proposed allotment.

Mrs Lal-Boon confirmed that all waste water generated from the proposed allotment will be disposed via a specific design on-site wastewater treatment system. Further site and soil investigations will be required at the building consent stage and an appropriate system design will be assessed at that time.

Mr Cubitt sought comment from staff in regards to any issues with the water supply.

Mr Findley advised that in 2014 Council purchased a booster pump and subsequently no complaints regarding water supply issues have been received.

Mr Findley advised that the pump was such that if there are pressure issues it can be adjusted accordingly.

Mr Moran queried the original design of the water system.

Mr Findley responded that the system was designed in regard to the size of the Patience Bay subdivision and that it was only ever supposed to provide a limited amount of water on a daily basis to each household.

Mrs Holder queried the Rule within the Southland District Plan 2012 regarding the requirement for a separation distance of 150 metres from existing dwellings when this Rule is not being adhered to in this application.

Mr Cubitt responded that this is the distance to adhere to in order to avoid having to go through the resource consent process. Mr and Mrs Webb have sought a reduction in this 150 metre separation by applying for a resource consent and are going through the resource consent process.

Mrs Holder concluded her submission at 3.23pm.

The Hearing convened for afternoon tea at 3.25pm.

The Hearing reconvened at 3.40pm.

Mr Cubitt sought staff clarification on platform and height levels.

Ms Green advised in her report Condition 7 highlighted the maximum height of any dwelling on Lot 2 shall not exceed 6.5 metres above natural ground level. The natural ground level of the building platform shall be established by a registered surveyor and the results submitted to Council prior to any earthworks occurring on the site.

Mr Webb in his closing address responded to Ms Green’s comment, advising Mr and Mrs Webb accepted Condition 7 as outlined in the report and agreed to obtain the services of a surveyor as requested.

Mr Webb advised he accepted the staff comments from:

· Area Engineer, Nick Lewis in relation to the upgrade to the accessway and water run-off associated with a future driveway.

· Water and Waste Services, Joe Findley in relation to water reticulation.

· Environmental Health Officer, Veena Lal-Boon in relation to wastewater.

Mr Cubitt questioned Mr Webb whether an alternative building platform location would be considered.

Mr Webb responded that Mr and Mrs Webb felt they had been fair to all parties regarding the platform location.

At the conclusion of evidence Mr Cubitt thanked those present for presenting their evidence and closed the hearing.

Mr Cubitt said he would reserve his decision and deliberate the issues at hand in private. His decision would be circulated to all parties in due course.

The Hearing concluded at 3.51pm.

Resource Management Committee

17 June 2016

SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT HEARING

18 MARCH 2016

Minutes of the meeting to consider the application lodged by Farmlands Co-operative Society Limited seeking a Limited Notified Resource Consent for a Land Use Consent to Establish a Rural Supplies Store at 10 Otautau Wreys Bush Road, Otautau before the Southland District Council Resource Management Committee held on Friday, 18 March 2016 in the Southland District Council Chambers, 15 Forth Street, Invercargill commencing at 9.05 am.

FRIDAY, 18 MARCH 2016

PRESENT:	Cr P Duffy	Chairperson
	Cr R Dobson
	Cr J Keast
	Cr G Macpherson

IN ATTENDANCE:	Council Staff
	Mr Simon Moran	Manager – Resource Management
	Jennifer Green	Senior Resource Management Planner - processing officer for this application
	Mr Hartley Hare	Road Asset Management Engineer
	Mr Michael Sarfaiti	Manager Environmental Health
	Mrs Alyson Hamilton	Committee Advisor

	For the Applicant
	Lisa Poynton	Applicant’s Consultant Planner
	Ross Patching	Applicant’s representative

	Submitters
	Ian Watson
	Andrew Ward	Solicitor, Ward Adams Bryan-Lamb
	Chris Ward	Solicitor, Ward Adams Bryan-Lamb

1.0 APOLOGIES:

Apologies were received from Cr Bailey and Cr Douglas

Moved Cr Dobson, seconded Cr Keast and resolved:

That the apologies from Crs Bailey and Douglas, be accepted.

2.0 WELCOME AND ADDRESS:

Cr Duffy welcomed those present to the Farmlands Co-Operative Society Limited – Limited Notified Resource Consent application and explained the Committee would hear a submission received on the application lodged by Farmlands Co-Operative Society Limited seeking resource consent to establish and operate a rural supplies store at 10 Otautau Wreys Bush Road, Otautau.

Cr Duffy outlined the requirements in the event of an evacuation of the building and other housekeeping details.

Cr Duffy commented that the Resource Management Committee has visited the site.

3.0 STAFF REPORT:

Ms Green, Senior Resource Management Planner, proposed that the report circulated to all parties be taken as read and advised this is a limited notified consent and one submission has been received.

Ms Green stated that in her opinion the key issues in regards to this consent are; storage of hazardous substances, appropriateness of size of signage on the property and amenities values and adverse effects on traffic safety.

4.0 APPLICANT:

Lisa Poynton - Introduction

Ms Poynton introduced herself to the Committee advising of her role as Consultant Senior Planner (Proarch Consultants Limited) for the applicant.

Ms Poynton advised Farmlands Co-operative Society Limited (Farmlands) has applied for land use consent at a site at 10 Otautau Wreys Bush Road, Otautau.

Ms Poynton explained consent is sought to establish and operate a rural supplies store, providing rural property and stock agent services to farmers and also supplying agriculture products and equipment.

Ms Poynton advised the site subject to this application is located within the Plains Rural Resource Area under the Operative Southland District Plan 2001 and Rural Zone under the Proposed Southland District Plain 2012.

Ms Poynton advised the application has been dealt with as a limited notified application and confirmed one submission in opposition was received.

Ross Patching - Introduction

Mr Patching introduced himself to the Committee advising of his role as National Property Manager for Farmlands and proceeded to outline the history and activities of Farmlands within Rural Southland and New Zealand.

Mr Patching explained to the Committee the existing outlet within the Otautau Township is too small with limited outdoor storage and accessibility for vehicles.

The Committee noted there is no opportunity to expand onto adjoining sites.

Mr Patching informed the current store has operated for eleven years with eight staff and a base of five hundred shareholders, with 90% of transactions are shareholder transactions.

Lisa Poynton/Mr Patching

Ms Poynton and Mr Patching presented a power point presentation to the Committee. (attached hereto and marked “Appendix A”) Items covered included;

§ Resource consent application process

§ Proposed siting of the building

§ Aerial view of proposed site on the Otautau-Wreys Bush Road

§ Description of proposed development

§ Site plan of development, noting the main access is off the Otautau Wreys Bush Road with parking to be situated behind the building

§ Various 3-D aerial photos of the proposed building

§ Effects of the Proposal, noting the District Plan allows for Commercial Developments in the Commercial Overlay Area of which there are 46 sites within the Otautau Township zoned Commercial Overlay.

§ Signage

§ Minimum Floor Height of the Building, noting that following consultation with Environment Southland the proposed floor level has been amended from 49.5 to 49.25

§ Hazardous Substances, noting the chemical store is located within the bunded area of the yard.

§ Traffic and Parking

§ Shading and Intrusion, noting the plan indicates no shading on the Watson’s property

§ Visual Effects of the Building

§ Earthworks, noting works will only be carried out during hours allowed under Construction Noise Standard

At the conclusion of the presentation Ms Poynton advised Farmlands is committed to remaining in Otautau however a larger building site is required.

Ms Poynton added this proposal is suitable for the site and the effects of the proposal are no more than minor, including effects on the Watsons property.

Mr Patching confirmed Otautau is important to Farmlands who are committed to the Township and have a good rapport with shareholder and the public in general.

Questions and Clarification

The following questions/points of clarification were sought by the Committee:

Cr Dobson queried if the main entrance/exitway to the building is to be situated off the Otautau Wreys Bush Road as opposed to Lieman Street?

Mr Patching confirmed it was however it is expected that heavy vehicles will make a right turn out of the site onto Liemen Street and back onto the Otautau Wreys Bush Road.

Cr Dobson queried the hours of illumination of the proposed signage.

Mr Patching advised illumination of the signage is to cease at 7.00pm, however he added this does not include the building security lighting.

Cr Macpherson pointed out the site appears to be quite low and queried whether build-up work is required.

Mr Patching advised the building platform is to be built up to road height with the car parking area to a lower level with a swale to eliminate stormwater issues.

Cr Duffy queried in regards to heavy rainfall would the swale hold the stormwater. Mr Patching advised it is anticipated the swale would be sufficient as it is a lesser effected area than Otautau.

Cr Duffy questioned if the area is to be completely fenced.

Mr Patching confirmed the site is not completely fenced off however the area fenced is 1.8 metre high.

Cr Duffy queried the chemical storage and any possible effects.

Mr Patching responded hazardous substances are only sorted in retail containers, no mixing or decanting of chemicals onsite.

Mr Patching confirmed chemicals are stored within the bunded area in the yard and that the site will be certified in accordance with HASNO legislation.

Cr Duffy enquired as to extra parking requirements i.e. Christmas functions etc.

Mr Patching responded in the event of extra parking required an approach is to be made to the adjoining property owner to utilize his paddock for car-parking if required. The property owner has indicated he has no objection to this request.

Mr Moran queried whether the unloading of heavy vehicles is to take place during working hours only.

Mr Patching confirmed unloading is to take place Monday to Friday and Saturday during working hours only.

The hearing adjourned for morning tea at 9.55am and reconvened at 10.16am.

5 SUBMITTER:

Ian James Watson represented by Mr Andrew and Chris Ward, (Solicitors from Ward Adams Bryan-Lamb)

Mr Chris Ward tabled and read his further submission on behalf of Mr Ian Watson (attached hereto and marked “Appendix B”).

Mr Ward submitted to the Committee that ribbon development is generally undesirable when it lengthens the main street of a rural township at a time when the population is shrinking.

In addition Mr Ward stated that the Watson’s believe that due to a large proportion of traffic travelling south on Main Street turns up Liemen Street towards Winton between 7.00am and 9.00am that frost caused by the proximity of the building will be a problem at that time of day and wished this comment to be noted.

The Committee noted the Watson’s do not oppose the establishment of a Farmlands type operation in Otautau however Mr Ward stated the Watsons concerns lie with the loss of the rural character of the area to the north of Liemen Street, the de facto extension of the existing Otautau town boundary, the ribbon development along the main highway and the potential for further businesses to want to establish nearby.

Mr Ward explained the Watsons simply want the committee to maintain the integrity of the town limits and the integrity of the District Plan.

Questions and Clarification

The following questions/points of clarification were sought by the Committee:

Cr Macpherson queried whether the speed limit currently at 100kms can be changed in the event of ribbon development.

Mr Hare informed of a set of guidelines used to calculate speed limits which can be reviewed at any time, however it is a lengthy process.

Cr Keast enquired if the road is currently wide enough for a safe turn-off into the building.

Mr Hare advised extensions are to be undertaken to both sides of the road to mitigate safety issues.

Cr Duffy asked if staff agreed that the maps highlighting shading of the road are correct.

Mr Hare commented that the diagrams are based on worst case scenarios and advised the area is not in constant shade.

Mr Moran queried that in regards to the Watsons concerns of preferring the “rural look rather than a view of the building” would appropriate beautification suffice.

Mr Ward responded “not to the Watsons”.

6 APPLICANT’S CLOSING COMMENTS:

Ms Poynton commented that she will specifically address the issues raised by Mr Watson.

Ms Poynton explained the site for this building/business was chosen as being the most suitable as opposed to the Central Business District (CBD). Ms Poynton reported on a meeting with the Otautau Community Board, Chairman, Mr Bekhuis to discuss suitable sites within the (CBD) however it was found that many sites have historical issues, possible soil issues or are not available for purchase.

Ms Poynton advised that the preferred site has a rural outlook and there is sufficient area for parking and heavy vehicle usage.

Ms Poynton pointed out there are other commercial activities further out the road.

Ms Poynton advised in regards to reduction of speed limit, frost issues and stormwater issues have been dealt with by the appropriate Council staff.

Ms Poynton completed her summary.

There were no points of clarification sought.

11.15am this concluded the submission on the application of Farmlands Co-Operative Society Limited seeking a Land Use Consent to establish and operate a rural supplies store, Providing Rural Property and Stock Agent Services to Farmers and also Supplying Agricultural Products and Equipment at 10 Otautau Wreys Bush Road, Otautau.

The hearing adjourned at 11.20am to enable the Committee to move into public excluded to undertake deliberations on the submission it had received. Deliberations commenced at 11.25am on Friday 18 March 2016.

7 EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC:

Moved Cr Dobson, seconded Cr Keast

and RESOLVED THAT PURSUANT TO SECTION 48(1) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987 THAT THE PUBLIC BE EXCLUDED FROM THE MEETING SO THAT THE COMMITTEE CAN UNDERTAKE DELIBERATIONS ON THE SUBMISSION THAT FARMLANDS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED - LAND USE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A RURAL SUPPLIES STORE AT 10 OTAUTAU WREYS BUSH ROAD, OTAUTAU.

AND THAT THE REASON FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION IS THAT IT WOULD BE LIKELY TO RESULT IN DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION WHICH WOULD:

7(2)(f) MAINTAIN THE EFFECTIVE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ARISING DIRECTLY FROM THE NEED TO PROTECT MEMBERS AND STAFF FROM IMPROPER PRESSURE OR HARASSMENT;

7(2)(i) ENABLE THE COUNCIL TO CARRY OUT NEGOTIATIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE (INCLUDING COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL NEGOTIATIONS);

7(2)(j) PREVENT THE DISCLOSURE OR USE OF OFFICIAL INFORMATION FOR IMPROPER GAIN OR ADVANTAGE;

8 EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC - STAFF

Moved Cr Macpherson, seconded Cr Keast

and RESOLVED THAT THE COUNCIL OFFICERS LISTED BELOW BE PERMITTED TO REMAIN AT THE MEETING AFTER THE PUBLIC HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED BECAUSE OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF (a) MEETING PROCEDURE AND/OR (b) THE SUBJECT MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION.

MANAGER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

SENIOR Resource MANAGEMENT Planner

ROADING ASSET MANAGEMENT ENGINEER

MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

COMMITTEE ADVISOR

9 RETURN TO OPEN MEETING

Moved Cr Keast, seconded Cr Dobson

and RESOLVED THAT THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE RESUME IN OPEN MEETING.

Cr Duffy closed the hearing on Farmlands Co-Operative Society Limited seeking a Land Use Consent to establish and operate a rural supplies store at 10 Otautau Wreys Bush Road, Otautau. At 12.45pm on Friday, 18 March 2016.

CONFIRMED:……………………………………….

DATE:...................................................................

CHAIRPERSON:..................................................

Submitter No.	Submitter Name
1	Ross Houliston
2	Green Ocean Ltd
3*	Porpoise Bay Ltd
4*	New Zealand Fire Service Commission
5*	Fat Hippo Design Group Limited
6*	TrueSouth Survey Services Limited
7*	Wendy Joy Baker
8	Orepuki CDA Subcommittee
9*	Brian McGrath
10*	Clark Fortune McDonald & Associates
11	R L Rickard Johnston

Senior Resource Planner - Policy	Courtney Ellison
Sennior Resource Planner – Resource Planning	Rebecca Blyth
Committee Advisor	Alyson Hamilton