³

105 Carlton Gore Road, Newmarket, AucklandTel. (09) 355 6000 Fax. (09) 307 0265

www.tonkintaylor.co.nz

DRAWING STATUS: RESOURCE CONSENTORIGINAL IN COLOUR

L:\1003839\W

orkingM

aterial\CAD

\D

WG

\1003839-100-101.dw

g, 101, 15/09/2017 1:56:38 p.m

., haxi

105 Carlton Gore Road, Newmarket, AucklandTel. (09) 355 6000 Fax. (09) 307 0265

www.tonkintaylor.co.nz

DRAWING STATUS: RESOURCE CONSENT

L:\1003839\W

orkingM

aterial\CAD

\D

WG

\1003839-102.dw

g, 102, 20/09/2017 9:20:32 AM

, rbs

24 23

2423

8

19 222120181716151413121110987654321

22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

BA BA

BA BA

P + 64 9 521 5472F + 64 9 521 4632

P.O. Box 55 136Mission Bay, Auckland

BUILDA N DDESI G NE gs@novasteel.co.nzW www.novasteel.co.nz

Scale: 1:WEST ELEVATION

NTS

Scale: 1:EAST ELEVATION

NTS

Scale: 1:NORTH ELEVATION

NTS

Scale: 1:SOUTH ELEVATION

NTS

1212

5

A C

27080

1454

3

13540

10 Ø PITCH

7215

6460 6460 6460

13540

10 Ø PITCH

B

19380

4646040000

1675

8

Stack Height

D E F

6mx6m Roller Door

10 Ø PITCH

6mx6m Roller Door 6mx6m Roller Door6mx6m Roller Door6mx6m Roller Door

1212

5

AC

27080

1454

3

13540

10 Ø PITCH

7215

646064606460

13540

10 Ø PITCH

B

19380

4646040000

1675

8

Stack Height

DEF

10 Ø PITCH

FIRE EXIT

P + 64 9 521 5472F + 64 9 521 4632

P.O. Box 55 136Mission Bay, Auckland

BUILDA N DDESI G NE gs@novasteel.co.nzW www.novasteel.co.nz

Scale: 1:250

FRONT ELEVATION

2

Scale: 1:250

REAR ELEVATION

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

F

4646

0

50000

AB

1354

0

ED

C

5420 8000 8000 8000 8000 8000 4580

FIRE EXITFIRE EXIT

4000

0

6460

1354

064

6064

60

6mx6

m R

olle

r Doo

r6m

x6m

Rol

ler D

oor

6mx6

m R

olle

r Doo

r6m

x6m

Rol

ler D

oor

6mx6

m R

olle

r Doo

r

FIRE EXIT

Control / PanelRoom

CompressorRoom

300020

0040

0070

00

Top Loader 1Dry - Fuel Store

Top Loader 2Dry - Fuel Store

Top Loader 3Dry - Fuel Store

4m High Precast Concrete Panels

4m High Precast Concrete Panels

4m High Precast Concrete Panels

4m High Precast Concrete Panels

4m High Precast Concrete Panels

4m High Precast Concrete Panels

6000

Wal

l to

Wal

l60

00W

all t

o W

all

6000

Wal

l to

Wal

l

3825

1000

384751650

373451650

1.5m high concrete wallbefore conveyor

conveyor

1.5m high concrete wallbefore conveyor

conveyor

7335

4465

7335

Ash Collection

Bag Filter

Air Pre-Heater

HeatExchangerFluidised Bed

FuelFeed

Buffer TankNo. 1

Buffer TankNo. 2

FM

FM

Pump SetNo. 2

Pump SetNo. 1

Ash Collection

Bag Filter

Air Pre-Heater

HeatExchangerFluidised Bed

FuelFeed

17800

P + 64 9 521 5472F + 64 9 521 4632

P.O. Box 55 136Mission Bay, Auckland

BUILDA N DDESI G NE gs@novasteel.co.nzW www.novasteel.co.nz

Scale: 1:250

FLOOR PLAN

1

1212

5

A C

27080

1454

3

13540

10 Ø PITCH

7215

6408 6460 6505

13540

10 Ø PITCH

B

4000

4m High PrecastConcrete Panels

Top Loader 1Dry - Fuel Store

Top Loader 2Dry - Fuel Store

Top Loader 3Dry - Fuel Store

19380

4646040000

1675

5

Stack Height

D E F

6000Top loader

6mx6m Roller Door

10 Ø PITCH

4m High PrecastConcrete Panels

4465

Rol

ling

Face

of

Beam

FFL

6000Top loader

6mx6m Roller Door

6000Top loader

6mx6m Roller Door

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

5420 8000 8000 8000 8000 8000 4580

1212

5 1454

3

CompressorRoom

Fuel Feed

FluidisedBed

HeatExchanger

Air Pre-Heater

Bag Filter

AshCollection

Buffer TankNo. 1

Buffer TankNo. 2

FM

Pump SetNo. 1

1100

0

1675

5

Stack Height

P + 64 9 521 5472F + 64 9 521 4632

P.O. Box 55 136Mission Bay, Auckland

BUILDA N DDESI G NE gs@novasteel.co.nzW www.novasteel.co.nz

Scale: 1:400

SECTION 2

5

Scale: 1:400

SECTION 1

4

Appendix E: Maungaraho Rock values

Landscape Assessment Worksheets Final Version following Council decisions – February 2014

1

Northland Regional Landscape Assessment Worksheet

Unit name – MAUNGARAHO AND ASSOCIATED BUSH

DESCRIPTION AND CHARACTERISATION Component Comment

Land Types (refer to list overleaf)

Volcanic cone (remains).

The unit comprises a highly visible and prominent volcanic feature, being the remains of a volcanic plug.

Geology (including geopreservation sites)

Maungaraho Rock, is a distinctive and nationally significant landform in the area. It comprises a dike of Waitakere Group andesite intruding Mangakahia Complex mudstone and Motatau Complex muddy limestone. The Northland Geopreservation Inventory identifies the feature as being of particular significance as the largest dike in Tokatoka area. It also identifies the Maungaraho intrusive volcanic breccia. As being “a well exposed example of early Miocene volcanic breccia intruding Mahurangi Limestone”. The feautue is also noted as containing examples of the unusual mineral harmotome and is a geopreservation site of national importance. (Kenny & Hayward 1996).

Soil Types

The upper portion of the unit, excluding the bare rock is overlain with Huia steepland soils. Stoney clay and silty stoney clay, whilst the soil types for the balance of the unit comprise Motatau clay, Arapohue clay and Rockvale clay.

Ecology (including protected vegetation / features, PNAP Level 1 and 2 sites)

The Maungaraho Rock Scenic Reserve and Surrounds (P08/034) is identified in the Tokatoka Ecological District PNAP survey as a Level 1 site. It comprises 6.8 ha of forest, and 9.8 ha of shrubland) It is noted as including the following Threatened and At Risk species; Hebe saxicola (Nationally Critical), Daucus glochidiatus (Nationally Critical) (Stanley 1997), Senecio scaberulus (Nationally Critical), Picris burbidgeae (Nationally Endangered, and Korthalsella salicornoides (Naturally Uncommon). In addition, the site is notable for the presence of four nationally Threatened, one At Risk and six Regionally significant plant species. The Nationally Critical Hebe saxicola is only known from Maungaraho Rock Scenic Reserve and is a new hebe species that has recently been described. It was previously thought to be Hebe perbella, a hebe restricted to the west coast of Northland.

Archaeological sites

Not known

Heritage Landscapes

Not known

Landscape characterisation (including the identification of any specific characteristics)

Maungaraho is a very prominent and recognizable feature in the landscape, jutting from the riverine plain with an immediately recognizable form. Viewed from the majority of angles the feature is a symmetrical cone, clad with indigenous vegetation and forms a prominent ridge (200 m high) of resistant exposed rock surrounded by eroded softer sedimentary rocks. Viewed from the south west or north east, the rock displays a strikingly narrow form.

Landscape Assessment Worksheets Final Version following Council decisions – February 2014

2

The rock outcrop sits within a context of native bush, which ‘rises’ up towards the peak. The bush extends to the south west and is fenced to form a rectilinear shape. Viewed from Mititai Road to the east, the contextual pastoral landform rises gradually to the rock peak. The open character, uninterrupted by built development does form a context for the feature, although the modified character of this pastoral landscape has led to its exclusion from the unit. As the viewer moves northwards along Mititai Road, the bush clad ‘dome’, capped by the rock peak is visible and the extent of the feature more evident.

EVALUATION Criteria Rank Comment

Natural Science Factors

Representativeness

Natural landscapes are clearly characteristic of the area, district or region. The key components of the landscape will be present in a way that defines the character of the place and distills its character and essence. Endemic associations.

5

This small but prominent feature is highly representative and a landmark, visible and recognizable from the surrounding landscape. In addition, it engenders a high level of recognition from the community and characterizes the area. The presence of native tree species and native fauna lend the feature a distinct endemic character. In addition, the recognition afforded this feature by the local community ensures that it contributes to the ‘sense of place’ for the community.

Rarity

Natural features are unique or rare in the region or nationally, and few comparable examples exist.

5

Although located in close proximity to Maungaraho, the feature, few other comparable examples exist in the region.

Aesthetic Values

Coherence

The patterns of land cover and land use are largely in harmony with the underlying natural pattern of the landform of the area and there are no significant discordant elements of land cover or land use.

3

The relationship between landform and vegetation, with the feature rising from the surrounding mantle of vegetation, lends Maungaraho a moderate level of coherence. The contextual areas of pasture, which occupy the rising land surrounding the unit tend to detract from its unity, and the regular edges of the rectangular area of remnant vegetation tend to impose an unnatural linearity on the landscape.

Diversity & Complexity The elements contributing to overall landscape character are diverse and complex (particularly in ecological terms) without creating disharmony.

3

The unit is relatively small in area, and isolated within the surrounding landscape. As such its diversity and complexity is constrained.

Vividness

Natural features and landscape are widely recognised across the community and beyond the local area and remain clearly in the memory; striking landscapes are symbolic of an area due to their recognisable and memorable qualities.

5

The form and elevation of the feature contrasts with the surrounding landscape and as such it is a highly prominent and recognisable feature, visible from the surrounding landscape. The feature forms an isolated element within the landscape, but is enveloped within a surrounding area of native vegetation. The relationship between the vegetation and rock peak is contiguous within a defined area and is key to the character of the feature. Although the surrounding open pasture detracts from the naturalness of the unit, it also acts as a foreground and backdrop for the feature and the contrast between the feature and the pasture emphasizes its prominence.

Naturalness

How affected by human activity is the landscape? Does human activity intrude on the landscape? Eg.

• Presence of buildings and associated built

4

Dwellings and agricultural buildings nearby and associated with Mititai Road are evident within the landscape but these do not encroach on the feature. The areas of surrounding pasture do, on the other hand detract from the perception of

Landscape Assessment Worksheets Final Version following Council decisions – February 2014

3

development.

• Presence of infrastructure services.

• Extent of indigenous forest cover.

• Homogeneity of exotic vegetation.

• Presence / extent of modified agricultural land use.

• Strength of natural processes / ecological patterns.

• Unmodified and legible physical relief and landform.

• Presence of water.

naturalness, as does the linearity of the fenced bush edges. Limerock tracks, characteristic of the rural area locally are visible within the surrounding paddocks. With the exception of tracks, and fenced field boundaries, infrastructure services are not evident. Native bush is associated with, and forms an important contextual component of the feature. Although the area is small, it does display a moderate strength of natural and ecological process. The topography of the unit is unmodified and highly legible.

Intactness

Natural systems are intact and aesthetically coherent and do not display significant visual signs of human modification, intervention or manipulation, visually intact and highly aesthetic natural landscapes.

4

Although small in area, the presence of primary growth vegetation with good succession growth and a multi layered structure demonstrates the operation of ecological processes. Natural ecological processes and unmodified character are evident.

Experiential Values

Expressiveness

The ‘legibility’ of the landscape. Natural features clearly demonstrate the natural processes that formed them.

5

The feature is clearly recognizable as a volcanic feature and thus evidences the geological process and the erosive processes through which it was formed.

Sensory qualities (These are landscape phenomena as directly perceived and experienced by humans, such as the view of a scenic landscape, or the distinctive smell and sound of the foreshore).

5

Like the nearby Tokatoka, views to the unit from distant locations experience the feature rising unexpectedly from the surrounding landscape are, whilst from more proximate locations it takes on a more dramatic quality. The view from the summit is spectacular, with the precipitous rock faces heightening the experience.

Transient Values

The consistent and repeated occurrence of transient features that contributes to the character, qualities and values of the landscape; landscapes are widely recognised for their transient features and the contribution that these make to the landscape.

4

Flowering and fruiting of plants coinciding with feeding by native birds. Time of day (sun angle), weather and atmospheric conditions affect the character of the forest area.

Remoteness / Wildness

Does the landscape display a wilderness character, remote from and untouched by human presence? Eg.

• Sense of remoteness

• Accessibility

• Distance from built development

3

The unit is relatively easily accessible via the roading network and nearby scattered dwellings and agricultural buildings detract from the sense of remoteness. The prevailing character is that of a working rural landscape. There is, however, a strong sense of remoteness that can be experienced on the summit, which is accessed by steep walking track.

Shared and recognised values

Natural features and landscape are widely known and valued by the immediate and wider community for their contribution to a sense of place leading to a strong community association with, or high public esteem for the place.

5

The unit is a popular destination for local, regional and national visitors.

Spiritual, cultural and historical associations

Natural features and landscapes can be clearly and widely known and influenced by their connection to the spiritual, cultural and historical valued in the place and includes associative meanings and

5

Consultation was initiated during the mapping process, but has not led to any feedback within the required period. Mythology talks about the mountains Manaia, Maungaraho and Tokatoka, who once stood together in the ancestral land

Landscape Assessment Worksheets Final Version following Council decisions – February 2014

4

associative activities valued by the community. These can include both activities and meanings associative meanings are spiritual, cultural or social associations with particular landscape elements, features, or areas, whilst associative activities are patterns of social activity that occur in particular parts of a landscape, for example, popular walking routes or fishing spots.

Hawaiki. Manaia urged them to travel across the ocean to New Zealand, so they raced across, but as the sun rose they were frozen. Then they were separated, Manaia, the largest travelled furthest and reached Whangarei, whilst Maungaraho, and Tokatoka are now close together on the Wairoa River.

.

Rank scale between 1 (low) and 5 (high)

Photographs of unit

View of Maungaraho from south west

Land Types Coastal cliffs / escarpment

Low escarpment

Bays and headlands

Beach Dune complex

Reefs and islands

Estuarine / inlet

Open harbour

Coastal plain

Rolling hills Steep hills; moderate to high relief

Ranges; high relief

Strongly rolling land

Low rolling land

Valley floors and flats

Plains

Volcanic cones

River mouth

Wetland

Watercourses

Lakes and water bodies

Landscape Assessment Worksheets Final Version following Council decisions – February 2014

5

View of Maungaraho from Maungaraho Road

Appendix F: Permitted activities

Permitted Activities

The development and operation of the farm involves activities which are permitted under the RWSP, RAQP and the KDP, as set out in the following tables.

Table 1.1: Permitted activities under the RWSP

Activity Rule reference Comment

Existing sewage discharges

15.1.2 Any existing discharge, at the date this Plan was notified, of: 1 Sewage effluent (not including

stormwater) into or onto land from on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems; or

2 Primary treated sewage effluent into land via deep soakage or rapid infiltration systems

Each existing dwelling on the site is serviced by an onsite sewage treatment disposal system that discharges to land. Each dwellings sewage effluent discharge is approximately 1m3 per day, which is within the permitted volumes of 3m3 per day. The existing discharges do not result in more than minor contamination of ground or surface water within 20 m from the disposal system. All other permitted activity standards can be complied with. Refer to Civil Preliminary Design Report attached in Volume 2, Technical Report D for further details.

Discharge of sewage (new systems)

15.1.3 The discharge of primary treated sewage effluent (not including stormwater) into or onto land from on-site treatment and disposal systems

The wastewater flows from the proposed dwellings and staff facilities (utility buildings) associated with the poultry farm development have been designed to receive primary and secondary treatment. Primary treatment will be provided for each of the four farms utility buildings and dwellings via a septic tank with a minimum 4,000 L storage volume and a standalone aerated filter system. The wastewater is proposed to then be disposed via drip irrigation to the planted bunds proposed around the perimeter of the site. The discharge volumes are expected to be 1 m3 per day for each dwelling and 0.4 m3 per day for each utility shed. The lowest point of the disposal system is not less than 1.2 m above the winter groundwater table. The disposal area is not located within 20 m of an existing or proposed groundwater bore. The proposed wastewater discharges will meet all the permitted activity standards. Refer to Civil Preliminary Design Report attached in Volume 2, Technical Report D.

Discharge of sewage

15.1.4 The discharge of secondary treated sewage effluent (not including stormwater) into or onto land from on-site treatment and disposal systems

The proposed wastewater effluent systems have been designed to provide secondary treatment. Secondary treatment will be provided via two aerated filter systems (or similar approved) each servicing the proposed utility blocks. The dwellings will also each have a 4,000 L septic tank with a standalone aerated filter system. The wastewater will then be disposed via drip irrigation to the bunds. The discharge volumes are expected to be 1 m3 per day for each dwelling and 0.4 m3 per day for

each utility shed. The lowest point of the disposal system is not less than 0.6 m above the winter groundwater table. The discharge quality will comply with the biochemical oxygen demand standard and total suspended solids. The proposed disposal areas are located 15 m from any surface water and more than 20 from an existing or proposed groundwater take. The effluent treatment systems has been appropriately designed for the sites soil types and will not result in more than minor contamination of ground or surface water beyond 20 m of the discharge point. The discharges will meet all of the permitted activity standards. Refer to Civil design report attached in Volume 2, Technical Report D for further details.

Discharge of washwater

15.1.5 The discharge of sullage water into or onto land from a disposal system

The sullage water from the dwellings and utility sheds is proposed to be combined with the sewage and discharged into the planted bund, as specified above. The sullage water treatment process has been designed to comply with all of the permitted activity standards. The proposed discharge location is not within 20 m of any surface water or existing or proposed groundwater bore. The proposed sullage water discharge will not result in minor contamination of ground or surface water beyond 20m of the discharge point. The discharge will meet all of the permitted activity standards. Refer to Civil Preliminary Design Report attached in Volume 2, Technical Report D for further details.

Discharge of washwater

16.1 The discharge of the following effluents: i animal effluent; ii water containing animal

effluent; and/or

iii farm wastewater

The poultry litter is proposed to be collected from the poultry sheds, transported to the energy centre building, where it is then proposed to be burnt to generate heat. Once the sheds have been cleared, they will be washed down with water that will contain low levels of poultry effluent. This washwater is proposed to be collected, treated and then irrigated in the hilly area of the site to the east (refer to Drawings, Volume 1, Appendix D). It will not be discharged directly to groundwater, surface water or within 20 m of any watercourse, bore head, or neighbouring property, or within 50 m of any dwelling. The effluent treatment facility and irrigation method has been designed to comply with the permitted activity standards and will not cause more than minor contamination of ground or surface water beyond 20 m of the discharge point or result in offensive or objection odour. The discharge will meet all of the permitted activity standards. Refer to Civil Preliminary

Design Report attached in Volume 2, Technical Report D for further details.

Discharge of stormwater

21.1.2 The diversion and discharge of stormwater, not otherwise permitted by Rule 21.01.01, by way of an open constructed stormwater collection system or piped stormwater collection system into water or onto or into land where it may enter water

Stormwater within the developed site is proposed to be managed in a similar way as the existing situation. Where stormwater is passed through the site via open channels and discharged to the same location. Stormwater flows are ultimately controlled by river levels within the Wairoa River and storage is provided upstream of SH12 for both the existing and developed situation. The proposed storage of hazardous substances will be appropriately bunded and the stormwater collection system has been designed to avoid hazardous substance areas (refer to Hazardous Substances Assessment report attached in Volume 2, Technical Report F for further details). The proposed stormwater system has not been designed to drain an industrial trade premise. The stormwater collection and conveyance for the proposed site has been designed for a 10 % AEP rainfall event and provides for overland flow up to the 1 % AEP rainfall event. The discharge has been to comply with the water quality standards of permitted activity 21.1.2(e). The velocity of runoff conveyed within the site and discharging off site is expected to be low due to the flat grades on site (0.1-0.2 %) and backwater effects during high tide. There is therefore minimal potential for scour or erosion. Erosion protection will be provided at the outlet to the pumps to minimise the risk of scour. The pumps will be operated only during large flood events. The proposed strormwater systems will not cause flooding of adjacent properties (refer to Flooding Assessment attached in Volume 2, Technical Report B for further details).

Discharge of stormwater

22.1.1 The diversion and discharge of stormwater into water or onto or into land where it may enter water from any land disturbance activity, which is permitted under a land disturbance activity rule in this plan

The stormwater discharges subject to this application are proposed to be diverted and discharged within the catchment from which it originates. Appropriate water and sediment controls measures will be installed throughout construction (refer to the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Volume 2, Technical Report K). The diversion and discharge will not result in more than minor adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems or neighbouring or downstream landowners (refer to Flooding Assessment attached in Volume 2, Technical Report B for further details).

Discharge of stormwater from road

22.1.3 The diversion and discharge of stormwater, not otherwise permitted by Rule 22.01.02 from

Stormwater from the internal roading networks will be discharged to the grass areas either side of the road. The proposed internal

any road or track into water or onto or into land where it may enter water

roading does not form part of a stormwater collection system that is designed to divert or discharge stormwater from any of the sources otherwise regulated by rules contained in Section 21 of this Plan. Appropriate water and sediment controls measures will be installed and maintained to minimise sediment discharges to any adjacent water bodies and coastal water (refer to the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Volume 2, Technical Report K). The diversion and discharge will not result in more than minor adverse effects on neighbouring properties and has been designed to cater for a 10 % AEP rainfall event and provides for overland flow up to the 1 % AEP rainfall event (refer to Flooding Assessment, Volume 2, Technical Report B for further details). The quality of the stormwater discharges has been designed to comply with the standards set out in permitted activity rule 22.1.3 (e) and (f).

Construction of road

23.1.3 The discharge of contaminants associated with the construction and maintenance of roads and tracks and other sealed areas onto or into land

Any discharge of contaminants associated with the construction and maintenance of the internal road onto land will only consist of material topsoil and compact fill that is normally used for the maintenance and construction of roads. The material proposed to form the roads will not contain any contaminants likely to cause more than minor effect on the receiving environment. Refer to the Civil Preliminary Design Report (Volume 2, Technical Report D) for further details.

Maintenance of bores

26.1.2 The maintenance of a bore Both the existing and proposed bores will be maintained in accordance with all requirements set out in the New Zealand Standard Environmental Standard for Drilling of Soil and Rock (NZS 4411:2001) to prevent groundwater contamination.

Discharge of water for bore construction

26.1.3 The discharge of water or contaminants (drilling fluids) into groundwater for bore construction, maintenance or alteration purposes

Any drilling fluid will be removed from the bore during bore development to prevent groundwater contamination.

Land drainage 27.1.2 The taking, diversion and discharge of drainage water associated with the drainage of land, other than public drainage networks within Drainage Districts and Flood Control Schemes, established after 27 April 1995

Land drainage is proposed to be installed in the proposed poultry shed range areas to keep the ranges suitably drained for the birds to roam. The proposed land drainage and associated stormwater and groundwater discharge will not result in flooding or adverse over-drainage effects on any property owned or occupied by another person (refer to Flooding Assessment, Volume 2, Technical Report B for further details). The discharge will not cause accelerated erosion or result in seasonal annual range in water level to any

wetland. The quality of the discharge will comply with all of the water quality standards set out in 27.1(d) and will not result in concentrations of contaminants which have or are likely to have an adverse effect on aquatic life. The discharge will occur in the same catchment as that to which the water will naturally flow. The groundwater dewatering discharge will not exceed 7 days in duration, will not result in erosion of the banks of any water body and will comply with the water quality standards set out in 25.2(d). The proposed discharge will not lower the water level of any surface water that is used for water supply purposes or change the water level regime or direction of flow of an aquifer. The discharge will also not result in settlement effects on buildings, structures or services. Overall, the proposed land drainage complies with the relevant permitted activity standards.

Construction of a culvert crossing

29.1.3 The use, placement, replacement, repair or alteration of a culvert crossing on the bed of a river or lake and any associated excavation or disturbance of the bed, and diversion of water through the structure

Approximately 46 culvert crossings are proposed across the site. Only one of the proposed culverts are proposed on the bed of a river. All of the other culverts are proposed across farm drainage canals. The one culvert proposed across a river is less than 25 m in length and is of sufficient size to contain the bank full flow without causing flooding on neighbouring properties (refer to the Civil Preliminary Design Report, Volume 2, Technical Report D). The river is traversing through the middle of the site and is without the proposed bunded area. Therefore, an overland flow path on the same property is provided to ensure the safe passage of a 1 in 100 year period flood flow event from the subject river. During the short term disturbance of the river bed, a temporary diversion will be put in place to maintain the upstream flow of up to a one in five year return period storm event. The subject river is not a river deemed to have outstanding values. The works will be undertaken in accordance with Environmental Standards in 29.01.11.

Table 1.2: Permitted activities under the RAQP

Activity Rule reference Comment on compliance

Quarrying 9.1.4 The discharge of dust into the air arising from: 1 Quarrying operations,

earthworks, clean fill operations; or

All land disturbance activities, including the proposed quarrying, will be managed to ensure there will be no offensive or objectionable dust deposition beyond the boundary of the site.

2 Road construction and maintenance, or the use of unsealed roads

3 The loading, unloading and on-site movement of materials having dust producing capacity

Earthworks 10.1.2 Discharge of dust to air from activities associated with earthworks, road and rail construction or maintenance

Effective dust control procedures will be put in place to ensure that the proposed earthworks will not result in offensive or objectionable dust deposition beyond the boundary of the site.

Table 1.3: Permitted activities under KDP

Activity Rule reference Comment

Construction of dwellings

12.10.3a Dwellings The applicant is seeking a total of four new dwellings, which will be clustered on one title (NA40C/224) in the elevated south-eastern portion of the site. The dwellings have been clustered in one area as this portion of the site has suitable ground and is elevated, minimising the risk of settlement and flooding. Additionally, the proposed dwelling locations are considered appropriately setback from the energy centre and poultry sheds. Across the whole site, this will make the total number of dwellings to be nine. The Plan allows for one dwelling per 12 ha on each allotment (performance standard b), or across several allotments where the sites are subject to a covenant protected by a first ranking encumbrance (performance standard (c)(i) and (c)(ii)). The minimum density requirements are met using the method of performance standard (c).

Construction of dwellings

12.10.3b Dwelling floor levels The four new dwellings on site will be located in the elevated portion of the site and will meet the minimum floor level requirements.

Construction of shed and dwellings

12.10.5 Height The apex of the sheds will not exceed 5 m in height and the proposed dwellings will also comply with the height limits. The maximum height of the proposed energy centre from natural ground level is 10 m.

Construction of buildings

12.10.6 Height in Relation to boundary

All buildings (excluding the bund) will be located at least 45 m from the site boundary and will therefore comply with height in relation to boundary. The bund is proposed to be setback 10 m from the site boundary and will slope away from the boundary with a maximum height of 4mRL.

Therefore, the proposed bund also complies with the height in relation to boundary control.

Construction of impermeable surfaces

12.10.8 Permeable surfaces The water that is collected from any impermeable surfaces on site shall be discharged to land or captured and conveyed to watercourses located within the site.

Noise 12.10.14 General Noise The proposed poultry farm development will comply with the noise standards set out in Rule 12.10.14. Refer to the Noise report attached in Volume 2, Technical Report I for further details.

Construction noise 12.10.15 Construction Noise and Temporary Activities

The proposed construction activities will be undertaken in accordance with the construction noise and temporary activities standards. Refer to the Noise report attached in Volume 2, Technical Report I for further details.

Vibration 12.10.17 Vibration The proposed poultry farm development will not result in vibration above the standards set out in section 12.10.17.

Traffic movements 12.10.18 Traffic Intensity Once operational, the proposed farm development shall produce approximately 41 one way movements per day, which complies with the permitted traffic volumes. Refer to the Integrated Transport Assessment attached in Volume 2, Technical Report G for further details.

Lighting 12.10.23 Lighting and Glare The lighting on site will not exceed 10 lux (measured from the notional boundary).

Signage 12.10.24 Signage (including signs on and adjacent to roads and on buildings)

The applicant is not proposing to erect any signs within the road reserve or on the site that exceed 3 m2.

Driveway 12.10.25 Vehicle Access and Driveways

The proposed access to the site has been designed in accordance with the performance standards for this rule, as specified in section 3.3.1 of the Integrated Transport Assessment attached in Volume 2, Technical Report G.

Fire Safety 12.10.26 Fire Safety Access to the site has been design to provide access for fire service vehicle and equipment. Details of the firefighting water capacity for the proposed development is provided in Section 7.5 of the Civil Preliminary Design Report attached in Volume 2, Technical Report D.

Parking 12.10.27 Parking Sufficient parking spaces are provided around the farm and have been designed in accordance with the performance standards for this rule.

Loading 12.10.28 Loading There are no loading spaces required under the KDP for an intensive farming activity. However ample loading space is provided for

all anticipated vehicles at strategic locations around the site.

Construction of buildings / structures

12.10.30 Electricity Transmission Corridor Assessment Area: Buildings and/or Structures

The electricity transmission lines on the site are low voltage to supply the milking shed and below what is provided for in the plan. Therefore consent is not required.

Appendix G : Existing consent

Appendix H : Proposed conditions of consent

Conditions:

Under section 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991, these consents are subject to the following conditions:

General Conditions for all consents:

1 The poultry farm and associated activities shall be carried out in general accordance with the plans and all information submitted with the application, detailed and referenced by Council as *****.

Lapse Period

2 Under section 125 of the RMA, this consent lapses five years after the date it is granted unless the consent is given effect to or the Council extends the period after which the consent lapses.

Review condition

3 The conditions of this consent may be reviewed by the Council pursuant to section 128 of the RMA, by the giving of notice, pursuant to section 129 of the RMA every 5 years. The purpose of the review is to deal with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent.

General

4 Access to the relevant parts of the property shall be maintained and be available at all reasonable times to enable the servants or agents of the Council or other authorised persons to carry out reviews, monitoring, inspections whilst adhering to the consent holder’s health and safety policy.

Farm Management Plan

5 The consent holder shall prepare and maintain, a Farm Management Plan, which shall outline the operational practices of the farm. The plan shall address the following:

a. Traffic management b. Monitoring procedures c. Odour management d. Community liaison e. Emergency procedures f. Environmental management g. Stormwater monitoring h. Noise management

Built structures

6 The external colours of the buildings and structures shall have a light reflectance value of less than 40%. The external colours shall be recessive hues which complement the rural setting of the site and ensure that the buildings blend into the landscape.

Planting

6 Large clusters of existing vegetation and large trees (including existing pines), are to be retained.

7 Within 6 months of the grant of this consent, the consent holder shall submit to Council and have approved a Landscape Mitigation Plan. This plan shall form part of the consent and shall be consistent with the recommendations set out in Boffa Miskell Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapahoe, Landscape and Visual Amenity Effects Assessment dated 29 August 2017.

Noise

8 Noise levels shall be measured and assessed in accordance with New Zealand Standards NZS 6801: 2008 “Acoustics – Measurement of Environmental Sound” and NZS 6802: 2008 “Acoustics – Environmental Noise”. Construction noise shall be measured and assessed in accordance with NZS 6803: 1999 “Acoustics – Construction Noise”.

Parking and Access

9 The consent holder shall provide 40 parking spaces on site as described in the Integrated Traffic Assessment report. The spaces may be progressively provided as each stage of the development is completed.

10 The proposed access to the site is to be constructed and located in accordance with the design described in drawing ** and in the Integrated Traffic Assessment that forms part of the consent. The existing primary access onto SH12 shall be closed off upon completion of the new access.

Construction Traffic Management

11 Prior to the commencement of any building work, the consent holder shall submit to Kaipara District Council and have approved a Construction Traffic Management Plan. In particular this plan shall explicitly address parking, access and loading issues for the construction related traffic.

Dust

a. Effective dust control procedures shall be implemented at the site to ensure that beyond the boundary of the site there shall be no dust caused by discharges from the site which in the opinion of an enforcement officer, is noxious, offensive or objectionable.

Specific consent conditions for permit number **** -discharge contaminants to air

Limits

1 The discharges into air shall be only:

a. Odour and dust from a 32 shed broiler chicken farm operation; and b. Discharges to air from the combustion of used chicken litter and liquefied petroleum

gas to provide energy for the poultry farm operation

2 The combined net thermal output capacity of litter combustion appliances shall be no greater than 4.0 MW.

3 The combined net thermal output capacity of LPG shall be no greater than 4.0 MW.

4 The maximum mass density of birds on site shall not exceed the welfare requirement of 34kg per m2.

5 The discharges from the broiler poultry sheds while being used to house chickens shall be via ventilation systems:

a. Passive ventilation via side wall popholes; or b. Active ventilation via roof mounted chimney vents. There shall be no less than 12

roof vents per shed, each fitted with a dedicated ventilation fan. Each roof vent shall discharge at least 2 metres above the roof apex, be directed vertically into the air and not be impeded by any obstruction above the stack which would decrease the vertical efflux velocity.

6 The consent holder shall ensure that:

a. all personnel working on the construction site are made aware of, and have access to the contents of this consent document; and

b. all personnel working at the poultry farm operation are made aware of, and have access to the contents of this consent document, including the Farm Management Plan as required by Condition 5.

7 The discharges of contaminants into air shall not cause:

a. deposited or suspended particulate material which is offensive or objectionable beyond the property boundary; or

b. odour which is offensive or objectionable beyond the property boundary; or c. noxious or dangerous effects on people, animals or the environment.

Operational Management

8 The consent holder shall undertake the following measures to minimise the discharge of contaminants to air from the free range broiler poultry farm operation:

a. Removal of all animal waste and litter from the broiler poultry sheds at the end of each growing cycle;

b. Daily checks of the broiler poultry sheds for dead birds and feed spillages;

c. Daily visual checks of the litter moisture in each broiler poultry shed and undertake any remedial action required to maintain optimal litter moisture levels;

d. Establishment and maintenance of a 3.8m RL high vegetated bund, in general accordance with Plan ****** attached to and forming part of this consent; and

e. Regular maintenance and monitoring of the ventilation systems.

9 The consent holder shall keep records of all inspections and monitoring undertaken in accordance with Condition (*), and at the start and end dates of each growing period. These records shall be provided to the Northland Regional Council on request.

10 This consent shall be exercised in accordance with an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) which will form part of the overall Farm Management Plan. The objective of the AQMP shall be to avoid adverse effects on the environment from the discharge of contaminants to air from the establishment and operation of the broiler poultry farm. The AQMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

a. Details of how the shed ventilation systems will be operated to minimise odour, including volumetric flow rate and temperature control;

b. Details of routine and contingency inspections of the sheds, chickens and litter; c. Details of how the litter will be managed to minimise odour and dust; d. Details of how dead chickens and feed spills will be dealt with to minimise odour and

dust; e. Details of how chicken feed will be stored to minimise dust emissions; f. Details of the monitoring and removal of accumulated dust from around the sheds; g. Details of cleaning of the inside of the sheds and removal of litter to the litter burner

following the removal of each batch of chickens; h. Contingency measures that will be taken in the event of odour or dust becoming

offensive or objectionable beyond the boundary of the property on which the consent is exercised; and

i. Response measures that will be taken in the event of a poultry disease occurring at the facility that may be transmitted from the site via discharges to air.

11 The Air Quality Management Plan prepared in accordance with Condition (9) shall be submitted to the Northland Regional Council, at least ten working days prior to the commencement of the operation of the poultry farm.

12 The Air Quality Management Plan may be amended at any time. Any amendments shall be:

a. Only for the purpose of improving the efficacy of any measures to minimise air discharges from the site and shall not result in reduced air quality;

b. Be consistent with the conditions of this resource consent; and c. Submitted in writing to the Northland Regional Council, prior to any amendment

being implemented.

13 A record of any complaints relating to the discharge of contaminants to air generated from the broiler poultry farm shall be maintained and shall identify:

a. The location where the contaminant(s) was detected by the complainant; b. The date and time when the contaminant(s) was detected; c. A description of the wind speed and wind direction when the contaminant(s) was

detected; d. The most likely cause of the contaminant(s) detected; and

e. Any action taken by the consent holder to minimise or cease the contaminant(s) detected by the complainant.

The record of complaints shall be provided to the Northland Regional Council on request.

14 The lapsing date for the purposes of Section 125 of the Resource Management Act 1991 shall be five years after the grant of consent.

15 The duration of consent for the purposes of Section 123 of the Resource Management Act 1991 shall be 35 years after the grant of consent.

Specific consent conditions for Permit **** - discharge stormwater and washdown

water containing chicken effluent onto land

1 The discharges to land shall only be:

a. Washdown water originating from poultry broiler sheds; b. Sediment laden stormwater from exposed areas during site construction; and c. Developed phase stormwater generated from roofs, sealed hardstand areas, and

gravelled roads and yards;

2 A maximum of ***** cubic metres of washdown water may be discharged to land per year.

3 The discharge of washdown water shall only occur within the area labelled "Primary irrigation area", as shown on Plan 1003839-091.

4 The discharges of washdown water:

a. Shall not be discharged into the stormwater system; and b. Shall not enter, or be discharged onto land within 20 metres of any wetland, surface

water; and body, artificial watercourse, bore or soakhole.

5 The discharge of washwater shall not:

a. b. exceed an average long term loading rate of four millimetres per day; c. result in runoff of washdown water from the discharge area; or d. result in washdown water ponding on the land surface.

Construction Stage Stormwater

6 Prior to the works described in Condition (1) the consent holder shall ensure that all personnel working on the site are made aware of and have access to the contents of this consent document, and all associated erosion and sediment control plans and methodology.

7 The discharge of stormwater during the construction phase shall occur in accordance with an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP).

a. The ESCP shall detail the sediment control measures that will be taken to ensure compliance with this consent.

b. The ESCP shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Northland Regional Council.

8 The ESCP shall include, but not be limited to:

a. A map showing the location of all works; b. Detailed plans showing the location of sediment control measures, on-site

catchment boundaries, and sources of runoff; c. Drawings and specifications of designated sediment control measures; d. A programme of works, which includes but is not limited to, a proposed timeframe

and staging for the works; e. Inspection and maintenance of the sediment control measures;

f. The details of best practicable options to be applied to mitigate sediment discharge beyond the site boundary;

g. The methodology for stabilising the site if works are abandoned; and h. The methodology for stabilising the site and decommissioning erosion and sediment

control measures after works have been completed.

9 The ESCP shall be submitted to the Northland Regional Council, at least five working days prior to construction commencing, for certification that it complies with GD05 and the conditions of this consent.

a. The Works shall not commence until the consent holder has received the certification from the Northland Regional Council that it consistent with the ESCG and the conditions of this consent.

b. Notwithstanding Condition (10)(a) if the consent holder has not received the certification within ten working days of the RMA Monitoring and Compliance Manager receiving the ESCP, the works may commence.

10 The ESCP may be amended at any time. Any amendments shall be:

a. Only for the purpose of improving the effectiveness of the erosion and sediment control measures and shall not result in reduced discharge quality; and

b. Consistent with the conditions of this resource consent; and c. Submitted in writing to the Northland Regional Council, prior to any amendment

being implemented.

11 The consent holder shall adopt the best practicable options and any amendments to that document, to:

a. Minimise soil disturbance and prevent soil erosion, including the size of exposed surfaces and the length of time surfaces are exposed; and

b. Prevent sediment from flowing into any surface water body; and c. Avoid placing cut or cleared vegetation, debris, or excavated material in a position

such that it, or any leachate derived from it, may enter surface water; and d. Prevent mobilisation of sediment beyond the boundary of the site.

12 On completion of works all disturbed areas shall be stabilised and/or re-vegetated as soon as practicable.

Developed Phase Stormwater

13 Developed phase stormwater shall be discharged onto land within the boundary of the site as follows:

a. Stormwater from the roofs of the chicken sheds shall discharge to open cut drains and then into existing drainage canals or pump stations for discharge from site..

b. Stormwater from the chicken shed hardstand areas shall discharge via a sump to open cut drains and then into existing drainage canals or pump stations for discharge from site.

c. Stormwater from all other hardstand areas, including gravel roading and yard areas shall discharge to the adjacent land via overland flow;

as shown on Plan ******, which forms part of this consent.

14 The sumps located adjacent to the farm sheds shall have a valve to separate wastewater from stormwater during dry litter removal and subsequent washdown.

15 The open cut drains shall:

a. Be designed to convey the 10% AEP event ; b. Be stabilised with either grass, planted vegetation or other approved stabilisation

methods

Design Plans and Certification

16 Within 10 working days of the installation of the stormwater system a certificate signed by a suitably qualified person, shall be submitted to the Northland Regional Council, to certify that the stormwater system is constructed in accordance with this consent.

Inspections and Maintenance

17 The stormwater system shall be inspected and maintained at least once every twelve months as follows:

a. Removal of any visible hydrocarbons, accumulated sediment, debris or litter likely to adversely affect the operation of the system, within ten working days of the maintenance visit;

b. Removal of any blockage which may adversely affect the drainage or receiving environment, within ten working days of the maintenance visit;

c. Ensure that vegetation or grass in the open cut drains are in a healthy and uniform state with the exception of seasonal browning off;

d. Replant vegetation where erosion or die-off has resulted in bare or patchy soil cover; and

e. Repair of any scour or erosion, within ten working days of the maintenance visit.

Hazardous Substances Management

18 The consent holder shall take all practicable measures to avoid spills of fuel or any other hazardous substance within the site.

a. In the event of a spill of fuel or any other hazardous substance during site construction, the spill shall be cleaned up as soon as practicable, any contaminated soils shall be removed, and measures shall be taken to prevent a recurrence;

b. In the event of a spill of fuel or any other hazardous substance onto hardstand areas within developed stage site, the spill shall be cleaned up as soon as practicable, the stormwater system shall be inspected and cleaned, and measures taken to prevent a recurrence;

c. In the event of a spill of greater than 10 litres occurring, the Northland Regional Council, Attention: RMA Monitoring and Compliance Manager, shall be informed within 24 hours of a spill event and the following information provided:

i. The date, time, location and estimated volume of the spill; ii. The cause of the spill;

iii. The type of hazardous substance(s) spilled; iv. Clean up procedures undertaken; v. Details of the steps taken to control and remediate the effects of the spill on

the receiving environment; vi. An assessment of any potential effects of the spill; and

vii. Measures to be undertaken to prevent a recurrence.

19 The lapsing date for the purposes of section 125 of the Resource Management Act (1991) shall be five years.

20 The duration of the consent for the purposes of section 123 of the Resource Management Act (1991) shall be 35 years.

Earthworks

1 The excavation of land shall occur in general accordance with the plan submitted and titled *****.

2 The Northland Regional Council shall be notified no less than two working days prior to the commencement of the works.

3 Any material removed off site in accordance with the exercising of this consent shall be disposed of at a facility authorised to receive such material.

4 All erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed prior to the commencement of any earthworks.

5 In the event of any discovery of archaeological material:

a. the consent holder shall immediately: i. Cease earthmoving operations in the affected area and mark off the

affected area; and ii. Advise the Northland Regional Council of the disturbance; and

iii. Advise the Heritage New Zealand of the disturbance. b. If the archaeological material is determined to be Koiwi Tangata (human bones) or

taonga (treasured artefacts) by Heritage New Zealand, the consent holder shall immediately advise the New Zealand Police and Te Roroa of the discovery.

c. Work may recommence if the Heritage New Zealand (following consultation with Te Roroa) provides a statement in writing to the Northland Regional Council that appropriate action has been undertaken in relation to the archaeological material discovered. The Northland Regional Council shall advise the consent holder on written receipt from Heritage New Zealand that work can recommence.

Advice Note: This condition may be in addition to any agreements that are in place between the consent holder and the Papatipu Runanga (Cultural Site Accidental Discovery Protocol). Under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 an archaeological site is defined as any place associated with pre-1900 human activity, where there is material evidence relating to the history of New Zealand. For sites solely of Maori origin, this evidence may be in the form of accumulations of shell, bone, charcoal, burnt stones, etc. In later sites, artefacts such as bottles or broken glass, ceramics, metals, etc., may be found or evidence of old foundations, wells, drains, tailings, races or other structures. Human remains/koiwi may date to any historic period. It is unlawful for any person to destroy, damage, or modify the whole or any part of an archaeological site without the prior authority of the Heritage New Zealand. This is the case regardless of the legal status of the land on which the site is located, whether the activity is permitted under the District or Regional Plan or whether a resource or building consent has been granted. The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 provides for substantial penalties for unauthorised damage or destruction.

Specific consent conditions for Permit **** - groundwater take and bore

construction

Bore construction

1 Up to five (5) investigation bores may be constructed across the site for groundwater investigation purposes in accordance with the following:

a. Investigation bores shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the requirements set out in the New Zealand Environmental Standard for Drilling of Soil and Rock (NZS4411, 2001).

b. Investigation bores are decommissioned and permanently closed within 1 year from the completion of bore construction.

c. The regional council’s compliance manager shall be notified of the decommissioning (in writing or by email) within one month after the work is completed and forward any water quality or bore log records relating to investigation bores.

2 Up to three (3) groundwater production bores may be installed on site for the abstraction of groundwater in accordance with the following:

d. Production bores shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the requirements set out in the New Zealand Environmental Standard for Drilling of Soil and Rock (NZS4411, 2001).

e. Within 3 months of completion of production bores on site, bore logs and any water quality records shall be forwarded to regional council’s compliance manager (in writing or by email).

f. All production bores shall be fitted with back-flow prevention and easy access for a water level probe shall be provided and maintained at the well head to enable the measurement of static water levels in the bore.

Groundwater take

3 The total quantity of water taken shall not exceed: a. 350 cubic metres per day within any consecutive 24 hour period; nor b. 63,250 cubic metres within the 12 month period between 1 July to 30 June.

4 The Consent Holder shall install a meter with an accuracy of 5% to measure the volume of water taken in cubic metres. The meter shall be operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. The Consent Holder shall, at all times, provide safe and easy access to the meter for the purposes of undertaking visual inspections of the meter and water take measurements.

5 The Consent Holder shall keep a record of the volume of water taken daily in cubic metres, using the meter required by Condition 4 including nil abstractions.

6 A copy of these records for the period 1 July to 30 June (inclusive) shall be forwarded each year to the Council’s Monitoring Manager by the following 31 July. In addition, a copy of this record shall be forwarded immediately to the Council’s Monitoring Manager on written request by that Manager. The records shall be in an electronic format that has been agreed to by the Council’s Monitoring Manager.

7 The reticulation system and components shall be maintained in good working order to avoid or minimise leakage and wastage.

8 The Council may, in accordance with Section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, serve notice on the Consent Holder of its intention to review the conditions annually during the month of May for the following purpose:

a. To deal with any adverse effects on the environment that may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage, or

b. To review Condition 1 to ensure the efficient allocation of the resource.

The Consent Holder shall meet all reasonable costs of any such review.

Advice Note: The Council may, in accordance with Section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, serve notice on the Consent Holder of its intention to review the conditions any time for the following purposes:

(i) To provide for compliance with rules relating to maximum or minimum levels or flows or rates of use of water, or minimum standards of water quality in any regional plan that has been made operative since the commencement of the consent; or

(ii) To provide for compliance with any relevant national environmental standards that have been made; or

(iii) Where there are inaccuracies in the information made available with the application that materially influenced the decision on the application and where the effects of the exercise of consent are such that it is necessary to apply more appropriate conditions.

Appendix I: Assessment of objectives and policies

Objectives and Policies Assessment

1 Regional Policy Statement

Reference Objective / Policy reference Comment

Objective 3.5 Northland’s natural and physical resources are sustainably managed in a way that is attractive for business and investment that will improve the economic wellbeing of Northland and its communities.

The proposed farm will provide increased employment in the Northland region, resulting in approximately 64 construction jobs during the peak of the construction period over a three year construction period. Construction of the proposed farm will inject tens of millions dollars into the construction and contracting industry, with the overall capital cost of the project estimated to be approximately $80 million. Once operational, the farm will employ approximately 32 full time staff.

Objective 3.10 Efficiently use and allocate common natural resources, with a particular focus on: a Situations where demand is

greater than supply; b The use of freshwater and coastal

water space; and

c Maximising the security and reliability of supply of common natural resources for users.

The proposal includes the use of groundwater which is natural resource. As indicated in the Groundwater Assessment Report (Volume 2, Technical Report C), it has been assessed that there is over 1,200 m3/day of groundwater available for allocation within the two identified water catchments. The proposed poultry farm will require a maximum take of 350 m3/day, as a supplement to rainwater harvesting. This enables groundwater to completely service the farm in the event of low rainfall. It is also noted that there are no current groundwater or surface water take consents recorded in the two surface water catchments and there is ample availability within the catchment. The Groundwater Assessment Report also sets out Tegel’s water consumption model for the proposed poultry farm, which is based on efficient use.

Objective 3.12 Tangata whenua kaitiaki role is recognised and provided for in decision-making over natural and physical resources.

During initial consultation with Margaret Mutu (Chair of Kāpehu marae), the primary concern was that there were no proposed discharges to the Wairoa River. Tegel is not proposing to discharge wastewater or stormwater directly into the River to align with both mana whenua values and environmental outcomes. Margaret’s intention was to discuss the proposed poultry farm development with her hapū and recommended to Tegel to undertake consultation with Te Roroa, who are mana whenua to the area. Consultation between Tegel and Te Roroa is currently ongoing. Taoho Tanoe, General Manager of Te Roroa, and Dawn Birch, Te Roroa Archaeology Assistant, undertook a site visit on 11 September 2017 and have provided a Cultural Impact Assessment to assess the potential

cultural effects of the proposed development (refer to Appendix M of Volume 1). The Cultural Impact Assessment recommends for all infrastructure to be located a minimum of 50m from the recorded archaeological sites, an Accidental Discovery Protocol to be put in place and occasional cultural monitoring. These recommendations have been suggested as consent conditions included as Appendix H to Volume 1. Tegel will continue to consult with the mana whenua of the area to ensure they have involvement in monitoring the use, development and protection of resources within the area.

Objective 3.13 The risks and impacts of natural hazard events (including the influence of climate change) on people, communities, property, natural systems, infrastructure and our regional economy are minimised by: a Increasing our understanding of

natural hazards, including the potential influence of climate change on natural hazard events;

b Becoming better prepared for the consequences of natural hazard events;

c Avoiding inappropriate new development in 10 and 100 year flood hazard areas and coastal hazard areas;

d Not compromising the effectiveness of existing defences (natural and manmade);

e Enabling appropriate hazard mitigation measures to be created to protect existing vulnerable development; and

f Promoting long-term strategies that reduce the risk of natural hazards impacting on people and communities.

g Recognising that in justified circumstances, critical infrastructure may have to be located in natural hazard-prone areas.

a The natural hazard events considered for the site is flooding. The types of flooding assessed on the site include coastal, fluvial, pluvial and groundwater flooding. In the assessment and design of the proposed flooding mitigation scheme, an allowance has been made for sea level rise within the Wairoa River over the design horizon and climate adjusted rainfall depths as per District and Regional guidelines. The results obtained have enhanced the understanding of the flood hazard.

b A desktop assessment has been undertaken for each flooding mechanism to understand current and future flood levels on the existing site. For coastal inundation the desktop assessment considers the Tonkin and Taylor report “Coastal Flood Hazard Zones for Selected Northland Sites” May 2016. A hydrological assessment of the 1% AEP flood event on both the existing and developed site has also been undertaken. This has provided an understanding of expected flood levels that has informed a mitigation design to better prepare against potential flooding.

c It is considered that the development is appropriate for the type of land on the site and that suitable mitigation measures are proposed to ensure the proposed farm is able to be accommodated on site. This is because the proposed development is suitably resilient to the flood hazard and associated risks.

d Existing defences have not been compromised.

e The subject site does not include existing vulnerable development.

f The developed site is within private property and does not impact on people and communities

Policy 4.3.4 Recognise and promote the benefits of water harvesting, storage, and conservation measures.

The majority of the poultry farm operations will be serviced by rainwater harvesting and supplemented by groundwater abstraction. This will reduce the volume of groundwater required on the farm, which ensures that there is sufficient groundwater available within the catchment.

Policy 5.2.1 Encourage development and activities to efficiently use resources, particularly network resources, water and energy, and promote the reduction and reuse of waste.

Tegel intend to use sustainable and innovative technology for the proposed poultry farm. This includes the use of solar panel roofing to provide electricity for the farm; an energy centre to generate the heating to the poultry sheds from the combustion of litter; and rainwater harvesting to reduce the volume of groundwater abstraction required. The energy centre provides opportunity for the efficient use of waste, as the burning of litter provides better environmental outcomes, as opposed to spreading the poultry litter to land. Tegel believes that through investing in innovative technology such as the proposed litter burner, this will not only help Tegel to achieve the company sustainability initiatives but will also set a precedent for the poultry industry encouraging other New Zealand poultry producers to adopt similar innovations to maintain the quality of the environment.

Policy 5.4.1 Recognise and provide for the national significance of renewable electricity generation activities, including the national, regional and local benefits and support the sustainable use and development of Northland’s renewable energy resources.

Policy 7.1.1 Subdivision, use and development of land will be managed to minimise the risks from natural hazards by: a Seeking to use the best available

information, including formal risk management techniques in areas potentially affected by natural hazards;

b Minimising any increase in vulnerability due to residual risk;

c Aligning with emergency management approaches (especially risk reduction);

d Ensuring that natural hazard risk to vehicular access routes and building platforms for proposed new lots is considered when assessing subdivision proposals; and

e Exercising a degree of caution that reflects the level of uncertainty as to the likelihood or consequences of a natural hazard event.

a The assessment of potential flood hazards on the site is based on the latest reports available to NRC and KDC and current design guidelines accounting for climate change and sea level rise. Risk management techniques include providing adequate freeboard to building floor levels, bunding the site to mitigate against coastal inundation, and including the option to further protect the site from floodwater by installing dewatering pumps.

b There is no increase in vulnerability due to residual risk for a coastal inundation event that overtops the bund. The depth of floodwater for this event will not be changed as a result of the bund being in place, and the frequency of such events remain unchanged.

c Under extreme flood conditions the main access to the site is likely to be impassable. However, safe egress to adjacent high ground is provided as part of the development outline.

d It is noted that the development is not a subdivision proposal. However, flood risk to

vehicular access routes and building platforms has been considered as part of the flooding assessment. Building platforms will be constructed 300 mm above the 1 % AEP flood level. Vehicular access routes are generally raised above surrounding ground, culverted for the 10 % AEP event and provide designated low points to allow overland flow.

e To allow for a level of uncertainty in the design coastal inundation level the crest of the bund has been set 500 mm higher that the predicted level for the design event.

f 300 m of freeboard to building floor levels has also been allowed for, above the predicted the 1% AEP flood level which will allow for a level of uncertainty.

Policy 7.1.2 New subdivision, built development (including wastewater treatment and disposal systems), and land use change may be appropriate within 10-year and 100-year flood hazard areas provided all of the following are met: a Hazardous substances will not be

inundated during a 100-year flood event.

b Earthworks (other than earthworks associated with flood control works) do not divert flood flow onto neighbouring properties, and within 10-year flood hazard areas do not deplete flood plain storage capacity;

c A minimum freeboard above a 100-year flood event of at least 500mm is provided for residential buildings.

d Commercial and industrial buildings are constructed so as to not be subject to material damage in a 100 year flood event.

e New subdivision plans are able to identify that building platforms will not be subject to inundation and / or material damage (including erosion) in a 100-year flood event;

f Within 10-year flood hazard areas, land use or built development is of a type that will not be subject to material damage in a 100-year flood event; and

g Flood hazard risk to vehicular access routes for proposed new lots is assessed.

a Any hazardous substances on site will be stored within bunded areas or appropriate enclosed containers. The floor level for all buildings of site have a 300 mm freeboard above the 1 % AEP flood event.

b The only earthworks within the flood prone areas of the site (other than earthworks associated with the bunding) are some filling to raise the building floor levels 300 mm above the 1 % AEP flood level. This will not deplete the flood plain storage within the bunded site.

c This is provided for residential buildings within the site

d Industrial buildings on site are constructed so that the floor level is 300 mm above the 1 % AEP flood level

e Refer to (d) f Refer to (d) g N/A.

Vehicular access routes are generally raised above surrounding ground, culverted for the 10% AEP event and provided with designated low points to allow overland flow.

Policy 7.1.6 When managing subdivision, use and development in Northland, climate change effects will be included in all estimates of natural hazard risk, taking into account the scale and type of the proposed development and using the latest national guidance and best available information on the likely effects of climate change on the region or district.

The 2 % AEP coastal inundation level in the design is based on the Tonkin and Taylor report “Coastal Flood Hazard Zones for Selected Northland Sites” May 2016. The level allows for a sea level rise of 0.4 m over a 50 year planning horizon (2065). The 1% AEP flood level in the design allows for climate adjusted rainfall depths over a 100 year planning horizon (2090) as per the Kaipara District Council Engineering Standards (2011).

Policy 7.2.2 Priority will be given to the use of non-structural measures over the use / construction of hard protection structures when managing hazard risk. New hard protection structures may be considered appropriate when: a The level of hazard risk reduction

that the proposed structural asset is seeking to achieve is appropriate and cannot reasonably be achieved through non-structural options; OR

b They will provide protection for concentrations of vulnerable existing development and the works form part of a long-term hazard management strategy that represents the best practicable option for the future; and

c The financial costs of non-structural measures (compared to the costs of the hard protection structure that will achieve the desired level of hazard risk reduction) are too high for the community; and

d It can be demonstrated that the benefits of mitigation outweigh the adverse effects and that the form and location of the hard protection structure is such that any adverse effects on the environment are minimised. Hard protection structures, when considered necessary to protect private assets, should not be located on public land unless there is significant public or environmental benefit in doing so.

The bunding proposed would be classified as “hard protection structures” and is used to reduce risk to the buildings and grazing areas on site during a 2 % AEP coastal inundation event. This level of protection cannot be achieved through non-structural options. The existing stopbank along the Wairoa River and SH12 are likely to be overtopped during a 2 % AEP coastal inundation event and therefore cannot be relied on to adequately manage risk to the site. However the bund when completed will have a natural appearance as it will be planted and landscaped to have a “soft” appearance.

2 Regional Water and Soil Plan for Northland

Reference Objective / Policy Comment

Objective 6.3.1 The management of the natural and physical resources within the Northland region in a manner that recognises and provides for the traditional and cultural relationships of tangata whenua with the land and water.

During initial consultation with Margaret Mutu (Chair of Kāpehu marae), the primary concern was that there were no proposed discharges to the Wairoa River. The proposed poultry farm development seeks to minimise discharges to land through burning the poultry litter to generate heat to supply the poultry sheds. All other discharges will be to the proposed planted bund or land. There are also no wastewater, stormwater or potable water supply discharges directly to water. This is consistent with Mana Whenua values. Consultation with with Te Roroa, who are mana whenua to the area is ongoing (refer Section 8 of the AEE). In addition, there are no works proposed within 50 m of the identified pa sites on the property, in order to maintain the archaeological values of this land.

Policy 6.4.1 To recognise and, as far as practicable provide for the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with respect to the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources in the Northland region.

Policy 6.4.3 To have particular regard for kaitiakitanga and consider options for the involvement of tangata whenua in monitoring the use, development and protection of resources within the Northland region.

During initial consultation with Margaret Mutu (Chair of Kāpehu marae), the primary concern was that there were no proposed discharges to the Wairoa River. Tegel is not proposing to discharge wastewater, washwater or stormwater directly into the River to align with both mana whenua values and environmental outcomes. Margaret’s intention was to discuss the proposed poultry farm development with her hapū and recommended to Tegel to undertake consultation with Te Roroa, who are mana whenua to the area. Consultation between Tegel and Te Roroa is currently ongoing. Taoho Tanoe, General Manager of Te Roroa, and Dawn Birch, Te Roroa Archaeology Assistant, undertook a site visit on 11 September 2017 and have provided a Cultural Impact Assessment to assess the potential cultural effects of the proposed development (refer to Appendix M of Volume 1). The Cultural Impact Assessment recommends for all infrastructure to be located a minimum of 50m from the recorded archaeological sites, an Accidental Discovery Protocol to be put in place and occasional cultural monitoring. These recommendations have been suggested as consent conditions included as Appendix H to Volume 1. Tegel will continue to consult with the mana whenua of the area to ensure they have involvement in monitoring the use, development and protection of resources within the area.

Objective 8.6.1 The effective treatment and/or disposal of contaminants from new and existing discharges in ways which avoid, remedy or minimise adverse effects on the environment and on cultural values.

All new and existing discharges of sewage will be treated within wastewater treatment systems that comply with NZ Standards and then disposed of to the planted bund and will not be disposed of to any watercourse or within 20 m of any watercourse or bore. This is consistent with mana whenua values and will also ensure that there are no adverse effects on the quality of surface water or groundwater.

Policy 8.7.1 To require all new discharges of sewage or discharges with a high organic content to be: a By land disposal; or b To water, if after reasonable

mixing: i it does not cause a discernible

adverse change in the physio-chemical and/or microbiological water quality of the receiving water at the time of discharge; and

ii It is the best practicable option (as defined by Section 2 of the Act).

Policy 8.7.3 To ensure there are adequate separation distances between water bodies and discharges to land to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on water quality.

Policy 8.7.4 To promote effective effluent treatment and disposal systems which are: a Low maintenance and low risk;

b Land based, where the soil types, available disposal areas, back-up facilities and pumping systems are adequate.

The wastewater flows from both the dwellings and utility sheds are proposed to receive primary and secondary treatment, to suit disposal by drip irrigation. This effluent treatment and disposal is considered to be low maintenance, low risk and suitable for the site. The effluent will also act as a fertiliser for the planted bund.

Policy 8.9.1 To avoid the cumulative adverse effects of sewage discharges, particularly in areas subject to concentrated development, a high water table, poorly draining soils, very free draining soils, or in areas which are ecologically and/or culturally sensitive.

Each farm (comprising of eight sheds) and dwelling will have their own disposal field areas of 200 m2 and 500 m2 respectively. Each of these will also have additional reserve field areas. This will assist in the avoidance of cumulative adverse effects resulting from the sewage discharges. In addition, the effluent will be discharged to the planted bund, where the lowest point of the disposal system is not less than 1.2 m above the winter groundwater table. This disposal system will ensure that groundwater quality is maintained.

Policy 8.11.1 To require the best practicable option for point source and non-point source discharges from agriculture that maintain and enhance surface water and groundwater quality.

The proposed poultry sheds will be washed down at the end of each chicken growing cycle. The washwater is expected to include some residual chicken waste, litter solids and other contaminants. The majority of chicken waste and solid material will have been removed as solid waste prior to washing the sheds.

The washwater will be conveyed through pipes and disposed of by spray irrigation to a grassed field. An area of 3,500 m2 is proposed for the primary irrigation field, alongside 1,750 m2 of reserve field. The disposal of washwater over this large area will ensure no surface ponding occurs on site. These areas also have gradients of less than 10 % which will reduce the risk of overland flow. In addition, the irrigation systems will be set back a minimum of 20 m from any water body or water bores to reduce the risk of groundwater and surface water contamination.

Policy 8.17.1 To manage the diversion and discharge of stormwater in a way that provides safeguards against flooding and maintains or enhances water quality.

Stormwater will be conveyed on site via a network of new and existing farm drainage canals. In addition, stormwater pump stations are proposed in both the northern and southern bunded areas. This will assist the gravity drainage system to remove the stormwater volume from the site catchment during a rainfall event to provide safeguards against flooding. The stormwater will be disposed of into the existing downstream network. The proposed development will increase impervious surfaces across the site. The water from the roofs of the structures will be captured as part of the proposed rainwater harvesting system. However, stormwater from the internal roading network will be discharged to land before entering into waterways. Whilst land infiltration will provide some form of treatment, the proposed development will see an increase in impervious surfaces which will result in minor contamination from stormwater.

Policy 8.17.6 To encourage activities to operate in accordance with industry standards and/or environmental guidelines where these are intended to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of stormwater contamination.

The stormwater network has been designed in accordance with both Kaipara District Council Engineering Standards 2011 and the rules in the RWSP. See comments above in regards to stormwater quality.

Policy 9.5.15 To encourage water users to: a Undertake rainwater collection

and storage, including rainfall runoff.

b Efficiently use and minimise the wastage of surface water taken and used for any purpose.

c Investigate alternative water sources and water use strategies for use during low flow periods.

The majority of the poultry farm operations will be serviced by rainwater harvesting and supplemented by groundwater abstraction. This will reduce the volume of groundwater required on the farm as well as reducing stormwater volumes, which ensures that there is sufficient groundwater available within the catchment. The Groundwater Assessment Report (Volume 2, Technical Report C) sets out Tegel’s water consumption model for the proposed poultry farm, which is based on efficient use. Tegel is not proposing to take any surface water.

Objective 10.4.1 The sustainable use and development of Northland’s

As indicated in the Groundwater Assessment Report (Volume 2, Technical Report C), it has

groundwater resources while avoiding, remedying or mitigating actual and potential adverse effects on groundwater quantity and quality.

been assessed that there is over 1,200 m3/day of groundwater available for allocation within the two identified water catchments. The proposed poultry farm will require a maximum take of 350 m3/day, as a supplement to rainwater harvesting. This means there is a sufficient amount of groundwater available for additional users. It is also noted that there are no current groundwater or surface water take consents recorded in the two surface water catchments. Based on the pump test data from the site, it has been assessed that the likelihood of saline upconing or saline intrusion into the proposed pumping bores is unlikely to occur. In addition, any future effluent disposal fields and site water supply bores are proposed to be installed at least 20 m apart, to reduce the risk of groundwater contamination. Tegel is not proposing to take any surface water.

Objective 10.4.2 The sustainable management of groundwater resources in conjunction with the sustainable management of surface water resources.

Objective 10.4.3 The management of groundwater resources so that the potential adverse effects of land subsidence are avoided.

Given the expected stiffness of the andesite rock, the amount of land subsidence caused by pumping groundwater from the andesite intrusions is considered negligible over the alluvial floodplain and beneath the areas of andesite. Effects off-site are also not expected to be observed.

Policy 10.5.1 To ensure the sustainable use of groundwater resources, by avoiding groundwater takes that exceed recharge which result in any of the following: a Saltwater intrusion or reduced

groundwater quality; b A lowering of the groundwater

table below existing efficient bore takes;

c A lowering of the temperature of geothermal waters in geothermal aquifers and springs;

d Adverse effects on surface water resources in terms of Policy 10.05.07.

Refer Objective 10.4.1 and 10.4.2 We are not expecting there to be any geothermal springs beneath the site at a depth that we will be intercepting. In reference to Policy 10.05.07, Tegel is not proposing to take any surface water.

Policy 10.5.4 When allocating groundwater resources, to take into account any reduction in recharge that may occur in time, as a result of land uses over groundwater recharge areas

The main impervious areas proposed for the site will be located on the alluvial flood plains. The amount of impervious surfaces proposed is minimal in terms of the amount of recharge that we can expect for the site.

Policy 10.5.8 When allocating groundwater, to recognise, and as far as practical, provide for the cultural and spiritual values held by the tangata whenua for the groundwater resources and associated surface water resources.

As specified above, the volume of groundwater abstraction proposed is within the sustainable limits of the aquifer. Yet, Tegel is seeking to limit groundwater by supplementing through rainwater harvesting to align with tangata whenua values and environmental outcomes. In

addition, there will be no discharges of groundwater into surface water. Tegel is also not proposing to take any surface water.

Policy 10.5.9 To avoid, remedy or mitigate any ground subsidence as a result of groundwater takes, use or diversion, where this is likely to cause adverse flooding, drainage problems, or building damage.

Refer Objective 10.4.3 – no ground subsidence is expected to occur from the proposed groundwater takes.

Policy 10.5.10 To ensure bore construction, maintenance, alteration and closure is undertaken in a manner which prevents: a The contamination of

groundwater in one aquifer from another aquifer, or from contaminated or potentially contaminated sites;

b The loss of pressure in confined aquifers;

c Water wastage in flowing artesian conditions;

d Uncontrolled release of geothermal pressure and fluids;

e As far as practicable, other adverse effects on groundwater quality and quantity.

It is proposed to only intercept one aquifer for the construction of the proposed bores and the construction and maintenance of the bores will be in accordance with the New Zealand Standard Environmental Standard for Drilling of Soil and Rock (NZS 4411:2001). In addition, there are no known contaminated sites in the area. We are not expecting there to be any geothermal springs beneath the site at a depth that we will be intercepting.

Objective 11.4.2 Flood control of floodplains that protects individuals, communities and their properties.

The proposed flood defences for the site have been designed to ensure the safety of people and to reduce the flood hazard risk of property (including the site and adjacent properties) and the environment. The proposed defences are considered critical to the development, as the area is susceptible to flooding – particularly from the Wairoa River and during heavy rainfall events.

Policy 11.5.5 To promote structures and works that are effective in controlling floodwaters and in mitigating the effects of flooding and minimising erosion whilst avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse environmental effects.

The proposed bunding and stormwater pumps are considered an effective method of controlling floodwaters on the site. Without these methods the development of the farm would not be able to occur.

Policy 11.5.9 To encourage land uses on floodplains that do not result in adverse environmental effects or increased risks to people, properties or communities arising from the passage of floodwaters across floodplains.

The development of the proposed farm will provide a productive land use on the site, which will bring significant economic benefits and employment opportunities for the Northland Region. The proposed flooding protection for the site will ensure the safety of people and buildings within the site. We expect no increase in peak flood levels to surrounding properties during a coastal flooding event due to the bunding of the sites.

Policy 12.6.2 To avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of land use activities on water bodies and their margins, particularly on water quality, water flows and levels, aquatic ecosystems and riparian habitats.

An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) has been prepared for the site (refer Volume 2, Technical Report K). The ESCP outlines general mitigation measures to avoid the discharge of sediment to surface water on the site and maintain water quality. On the advice of NRC, this has been designed in accordance with Auckland Council Guideline Document 2016/005 (GD05): Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region. All earthworks will also be setback appropriately from existing surface water. A Construction Management Plan (CMP) shall be prepared prior to works commencing, which shall outline specific measures to be put in place for the duration of works. The site is not identified as erosion prone land in the RWSP.

Policy 12.6.3 To avoid or reduce the discharge of sediment to all surface waters and to minimise soil losses from land use activities, particularly on erosion prone land.

Policy 12.6.12 To have regard to the cultural and spiritual values held by the tangata whenua for the resource when considering applications for land disturbance activities.

No land disturbance on site shall occur within 50 m of the identified pa sites in order to maintain any archaeological values. In addition an ESCP has been prepared (refer Volume 2, Technical Report K) to ensure sediment is managed to avoid discharges to watercourses as far as practicable.

3 Regional Air Quality Plan for Northland

Activity Objective / Policy reference Comment

Objective 6.6.1 The sustainable management of Northland's air resource including its physical, amenity and aesthetic qualities by avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment from the discharge of contaminants to air.

The proposed poultry farm and associated litter burners will generate discharges to air from their operation. These discharges are amenity based discharges that have the potential to alter the way people experience their environment. The discharges are not the type that will cause adverse health effects or environmental effects. While there is the possibility that the discharges may alter the rural amenity of the area, the farm has been designed utilising the latest technology in regards to shed design and operation, which mitigates and remedies adverse discharge effects on the environment. . Furthermore a Farm Management Plan will be adopted at the site which will include provisions to manage odour. This plan will enable the site to always be operating using the most appropriate industry standards to ensure Northland’s air resource is sustained.

Objective 6.6.2 The maintenance and, where necessary, enhancement of the quality of the environment so that it is free from noxious, dangerous, offensive or objectionable adverse

The operation of the poultry farm will result in discharges to air. These discharges result from both the housing and rearing of chickens and the combustion of litter in the burners housed within the energy centre building. In regards to

effects associated with discharges to air, such as odour, dust, smoke and poor visibility.

dust and smoke emissions, these are anticipated to be negligible and while they won’t enhance the air quality of the area, they are not expected to cause any noticeable depreciation. In regards to potential odour discharges, odour dispersion modelling predictions indicate that the risk of odour impacts at most locations in the receiving environment is low but will be elevated at four dwellings located in close proximity to the site (aside from those that have given their written approval). On this basis there is a risk of offensive or objectionable odour at these sensitive locations. Mitigation measures have been included in the farm design and will be put in place during operation of the farm to mitigate the extent of odour effects.

Policy 6.7.2 To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects generated by discharges of contaminants to air including cumulative or synergistic/interactive effects.

As outlined, the proposed farm includes the adoption of new poultry technology to better manage effects. These features help to manage overall cumulative air discharge effects from the farm by incorporating technology to manage discharges from all sources.

Policy 6.7.5 Where the effects of activities are unknown or not well understood, to adopt a precautionary approach to the granting of resource consent applications for the discharge of contaminants to air where it is considered that the effects of such discharges on the environment may be significant.

While there are no free range broiler farms of this size presently in NZ, Tegel has been in the poultry business since 1961 and therefore the effects of intensive poultry farming are generally well understood including from free range operations. With the proposed farm Tegel will be employing modern techniques to minimise and manage environmental effects including in relation to discharges to air. The odour modelling predictions and qualitative assessment indicate that the technology proposed for the site will enable the farm to operate without significant odour discharge effects on the majority of the surrounding environment. However there will be occasions when significant odour may be experienced at four dwellings located in close proximity to the site to the south. The applicant has been in consultation with these parties.

Policy 6.7.6 Where necessary, apply the best practicable option to discharges of contaminants to air, while complying with the other policies in this Plan.

Tegel is proposing to develop this poultry farm with the latest most advanced technology available in the poultry farming industry. These innovations in both shed design, heating, waste disposal and operating methods will help to manage discharges of contaminants to air to achieve the best practicable option (BPO).

Policy 6.15 To ensure that the discharge of contaminants to air should not result in offensive or objectionable odours that could adversely affect people and communities.

Refer to Objective 6.6.2 The site is part of a wider rural community. Rural airsheds are generally expected to have a lower amenity expectation than town centres due to the presence of rural smells and activities. The odour dispersion modelling predictions indicate that the proposed farm will

result in low levels of odour for the majority of the receiving environment but there is a risk for significant odour discharges at four dwellings located in close proximity to the site (aside from those that have provided their written approval). Appropriate measures will be put in place at these sensitive locations with particular care and attention being paid to manage odour emissions from the farm to minimise odour effects at these locations. With appropriate management of the farm it is considered that the farm can be operated to be consistent with this accepted rural amenity for the majority of the surrounding environment.

4 Proposed Regional Plan

Reference Objective/policy Comment

Objective F.0.1

Manage the use, development, and protection of Northland's natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while: 1 sustaining the potential of natural

and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations, and

2 safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems, and

3 avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

Refer to Section 7.1.1 of the AEE, which provides an assessment against Part 2 of the RMA.

Policy D.2.2 When considering resource consents, regard must be had to the social, cultural and economic benefits of the proposed activity.

Policy D.2.5 When considering a resource consent application: 1 have particular regard to issues,

uses, values, objectives and outcomes identified in an operative plan or strategy adopted by council that has followed a consultation process carried out in accordance with the consultative

An assessment of the operative regional plans (RWSP and RAQP) is contained within this AEE. Tegel has consulted with Margaret Mutu (Chair of Kāpehu marae) and Taoho Tanoe, General Manager of Te Roroa regarding the proposed development, as outlined in Section 8 of the AEE. A Cultural Impact Assessment outlining Te Roro recommendations is attached in Appendix M of Volume 1. Tegel will continue to undertake

principles and procedures of the Local Government Act 2002, and

2 have regard to the values of the local community and tangata whenua.

mana whenua consultation throughout the project.

Policy D.3.1 When considering resource consent applications for discharges to air: 1 apply the best practicable option

when managing the discharge of contaminants listed in the National Environmental Standards Air Quality, and

2 consider applying the H.3 'Chimney height requirements' when assessing the best practicable option for stack discharges, and

3 consider the use of air dispersion modelling where the effects of a discharge are likely to be significant on the surrounding environment, and

4 take into account the New Zealand Ambient Air Quality Guidelines 2002 when assessing the effects of the discharge, and

5 take into account the cumulative effects of air discharge and any constraints that may occur from the granting of the consent on the operation of existing activities, and

6 recognise that discharges to air may have adverse effects on natural character, and

7 take into account the current environment and surrounding zoning in the relevant district plan including existing amenity values, and

8 consider the following factors when determining consent duration:

a scale of discharge including effects, and

b regional and local benefit, and c location including proximity to

sensitive areas, and d) alternatives available, and

9 use national guidance produced by the Ministry for the Environment, including:

a Good Practice Guidance on Odour, 2016, and

The proposed poultry farm will result in discharges to air from the sheds and the litter burner combustion. As discussed the proposal includes the use of new technology for poultry operation, which ensures that the farm is adopting BPO. The proposal includes the use of air dispersion modelling. This modelling demonstrates that at four adjacent properties, the odour units experienced will be a minimum of 5. The site falls within a rural amenity area and therefore odours associated with normal rural activities are present within the locality. As fundamentally the proposal is a farming activity, the potential odours generated are rural in nature and as long as they are able to be managed they should be consistent with the existing rural character.

b b) Good Practice Guidance on Dust, 2016, and

c Good Practice Guidance on Industrial Emissions, 2016.

Policy D.3.2 When considering resource consent applications for the burning of waste or burning associated with an energy generation process: 1 avoid outdoor burning of waste

materials in urban areas unless: a there is a significant public benefit,

or b alternative options have been

explored, are demonstrated to be impractical and adverse effects are no more than minor, and

2 recognise that air discharges from crematoria and the cremation of human remains can be culturally sensitive to tangata whenua, and

3 recognise the need for the security of supply of energy in the region, which may include non-renewable sources, and

4 require that a smoke management plan is produced as part of any resource consent where there is a likelihood that there will be objectionable and offensive discharges of smoke across the property boundary of where the activity is to take place. The smoke management plan must include:

a a description of adjacent smoke sensitive areas, and

b details of materials to be burnt, and

c expected weather conditions, and d approximate length of time the

burn will take, and e how the burn will be attended, and

f details of good management practice that will be used to control smoke to the extent that adverse effects from smoke at the boundary of the site are managed.

The poultry farm includes an energy centre which houses litter burners. These burners are established on site as a waste disposal system. This system is leading edge technology in the poultry industry and is very clean burning. It is also a renewable energy centre, as the combustion of the litter generates heat which is then captured and sent back to the sheds to warm them rather than utilising power. This technology is beneficial both to the operation of the farm and to reducing NZ’s reliance on non-renewable energy sources.

Policy D.3.3 When considering resource consent applications for discharges to air from dust and/or odour generating activities: 1 require a dust and/or odour

management plan to be produced

The proposal will include an odour management plan within the overall Farm Management Plan. In addition there is comprehensive information on the discharges to air contained within the AEE and the Air Quality Assessment (Volume 2, Technical Report E).

where there is a likelihood that there will be objectionable and offensive discharges of dust and/or odour across the property boundary of where the activity is to take place. The dust and/or odour management plan must include:

a a description of dust/odour generating activities, and

b adjacent dust sensitive areas and/or odour sensitive areas, and

c details of good management practice that will be used to control dust and/or odour to the extent that adverse effects from dust and/or odour at the boundary of the site are managed, and

2 take into account any proposed use of low dust generating blasting mediums when assessing the effects of fixed or mobile outdoor dry abrasive blasting or wet abrasive blasting.

Policy D.4.13 Manage the taking, use, damming, and diversion of fresh water so that: 1 the life-supporting capacity,

ecosystem processes and indigenous species including their associated ecosystems of fresh and coastal water are safe-guarded, and

2 the natural hydrological variation of outstanding freshwater bodies and natural wetlands are not altered, and

3 rivers have sufficient flow variability to maintain habitat quality, including to flush rivers of deposited sediment and nuisance algae and macrophytes, and

4 flows and water levels support sustainable mahinga kai, and

5 saline intrusion in, and land subsidence above, aquifers is avoided, and

6 recreational and amenity values associated with fresh water are maintained

Stream depletion as a result of the groundwater take is expected to be minimal as assessed in the Groundwater Assessment Report (Volume 2, Technical Report C). In regards to point 5, based on the pump test data from the site, it has been assessed that the likelihood of saline upconing or saline intrusion into the proposed pumping bores is unlikely to occur. In addition, no ground subsidence is expected to occur from the proposed groundwater takes.

Policy D.4.17 1 The allocation limits in Clause 2 apply to:

a rules in this plan that permit any activity involving the taking and

It is not proposed to take any water from the sub-aquifers within the Aupouri management unit or within a coastal aquifer.

use of fresh water from aquifers, and

b applications for water permits for the taking and use of fresh water from aquifers, but do not apply to applications for water permits for the taking and use of fresh water under rules C.5.1.7 'Takes existing at the notification date of the plan - controlled activity' and C.5.1.9 'Takes existing at the notification date of this plan - discretionary activity'.

2 The quantities of fresh water that can be taken from aquifers must not exceed:

a for the Aupouri aquifer, the catchment-specific allocation limits in Table 14 'Allocation limits for the Aupouri aquifer management unit', and

b for coastal aquifers, an allocation limit of whichever is the greater of:

i a default allocation limit of 10 percent of the average annual recharge, or

ii the quantities authorised to be taken by:

1 permitted rules in this Plan, and 2 resource consents at the date of

public notification of this Plan less any resource consents subsequently surrendered, lapsed, cancelled or not replaced, and

3 resource consents for unauthorised takes that existed at the notification date of this Plan, and

c for other aquifers, an allocation limit of whichever is the greater of:

i a default allocation limit of 35 percent of the average annual recharge, or

ii the quantities authorised to be taken by:

1 permitted rules in this Plan, and 2 resource consents at the date of

public notification of this Plan less any resource consents subsequently surrendered, lapsed, cancelled or not replaced, and

As assessed in the Groundwater Assessment Report (Volume 2, Technical Report C), the allocation limit has been assessed using a 35% average annual recharge rate.

3 resource consents for unauthorised takes that existed at the notification date of this Plan

Policy D.4.18 Apply minimum flows, minimum levels and allocation limits set for rivers, lakes and natural wetlands to water takes from aquifers that are directly or highly connected. An application to take water from an aquifer with direct or high hydraulic connectivity to a fully allocated river or which would result in flows or levels to be reduced below a minimum flow or minimum level will generally not be granted. A resource consent may be granted under D.4.19 'Exceptions to minimum flows or levels'.

It has not been identified that there is a direct hydraulic connection between the river and the production aquifer. As indicated in the Groundwater Assessment Report (Volume 2, Technical Report C), the Northland Regional Council (NRC) indicates that the Wairoa River has a mean annual low flow (MALF) of 12 m3/sec1. The allocation limit for the Wairoa River is reported by NRC as 50 % of the MALF and therefore up to 6 m3/sec may be allocated.

Policy D.4.22 A resource consent application to take water for any other use of water must include an assessment of reasonable and efficient use by demonstrating that water will not be wasted and identify any opportunities for re-use or conservation.

Refer to Section 4 of the Groundwater Assessment Report (Volume 2, Appendix D) which sets out Tegel’s water consumption model for the proposed poultry farm, which is based on efficient use.

Policy D.4.23 Water permits must include conditions that: 1 clearly define the take amount in

instantaneous take rates and total volumes, including by reference to the temporal aspects of the take and use, and

2 require that the water take is metered and information on rates and total volume of the take is provided electronically to the regional council, and

3 for water permits for takes equal to or greater than 10 litres per second, require the water meter to be telemetered to the regional council, and

4 clearly define when any restrictions and cessation of the water take must occur to ensure compliance with freshwater water quantity limits set in this plan, and

5 require the use of a backflow prevention system to prevent the backflow of contaminants to surface water or ground water from irrigation systems used to

The applicant shall accept conditions of consent for the water permit. A set of proposed conditions are attached in Appendix H and we would appreciate the opportunity to comment on any draft conditions.

1 Northland Regional Council (2017). GIS viewer: Indicative Surface Water Allocation by Catchment – 8 August 2016. Accessed 25 August, 2017.

apply animal effluent, agrichemical or nutrients, and

6 specify when and under what circumstances the permit will be reviewed pursuant to Section 128(1) of the RMA, including by way of a common review date with other water permits in a catchment.

Policy D.4.31 Earthworks, vegetation clearance and cultivation must: 1 be done in accordance with

established good management practices, and

2 avoid significant adverse effects, and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects on:

a human drinking water supplies, and

b areas of high recreational use, and

c aquatic receiving environments that are sensitive to sediment or phosphorus accumulation.

An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) has been prepared for the site (refer Volume 2, Technical Report K). The ESCP outlines general mitigation measures to avoid the discharge of sediment to surface water on the site and maintain water quality. On the advice of NRC this has been designed in accordance with Auckland Council Guideline Document 2016/005 (GD05): Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region. All earthworks will also be setback appropriately from existing surface water. A Construction Management Plan (CMP) shall be prepared prior to works commencing, which shall outline specific measures to be put in place for the duration of works.

Policy D.6.1 New hard protection structures may be considered appropriate when: 1 alternative responses to the

hazard (including soft protection measures, restoration or enhancement of natural defences against coastal hazards and abandonment of assets) are demonstrated to be impractical or have greater adverse effects on the environment, or

2 they are the only practical means to protect existing or proposed:

a regionally significant infrastructure, or

b core local infrastructure (district parks and reserves, network infrastructure and local roads), or

c concentrations of existing vulnerable development, and

d they provide a better outcome for the local community, district or region, compared to if the hard protection structure was not built, and the works form part of a long-term hazard management strategy, which represents the best practicable option for the future.

The bunding proposed would be classified as “hard protection structures” and is used to reduce risk to the buildings and grazing areas on site during a 2 % AEP coastal inundation event. However it is noted that the bunds will be landscaped and therefore will have a “soft” appearance. This level of protection cannot be achieved through non-structural options. The existing stopbank along the Wairoa River and SH12 are likely to be overtopped during a 2% AEP coastal inundation event and therefore cannot be relied on to adequately manage risk to the site.

Policy D.6.2 New hard protection structures must: 1 be located as far landward as

possible in order to retain as much of the existing natural defences as possible, and

2 be designed and constructed by a suitably qualified and experienced professional, and

3 incorporate the use of soft protection measures where practical, and

4 be designed to take into account the nature of the coastal hazard risk and how it might change over at least a 100-year time-frame, including the projected effects of a sea level rise of one metre by 2115 (100 years).

The existing stopbank along the Wairoa River and SH12 are likely to be overtopped during a 2 % AEP coastal inundation event and therefore cannot be relied on to adequately manage risk to the site. The proposed bunding has been located as far landward as practically possible to be able to develop the site. The proposed bunding option has been designed and will be constructed by a suitably qualified and experienced professional. The 2 % AEP coastal inundation level in the design is based on the Tonkin and Taylor report “Coastal Flood Hazard Zones for Selected Northland Sites” May 2016. The level allows for a sea level rise of 0.4 m over a 50 year planning horizon (2065). The 1% AEP flood level in the design allows for climate adjusted rainfall depths over a 100 year planning horizon (2090) as per the Kaipara District Council Engineering Standards (2011).

Policy D.6.4 Recognise the significant benefits that flood defences play in reducing flood hazard risk to people, property and the environment.

The proposed flood defences for the site have been designed to ensure the safety of people and poultry and to reduce the flood hazard risk of property (including the site and adjacent properties) and the environment. The proposed defences are considered critical to the development, as the area is susceptible to flooding – particularly from the Wairoa River and during heavy rainfall events. The design of the proposed flood defences have taken these probable flood mechanisms into account.

Policy D.6.5 Development in flood hazard areas and rivers (including high risk flood hazard areas) must not increase the risk of adverse effects from flood hazards on other property or another person's use of land or property.

The natural hazards that have been identified for the site include coastal flooding from the Wairoa River; fluvial flooding, which occurs from rainfall offsite but is conveyed to the site by the Wairoa River; pluvial flooding, where rainfall at the site is unable to be effectively drained; and groundwater flooding. The volume of water available for inundation in a coastal flooding event is essentially limitless. Therefore any loss in floodplain storage volume from developing and bunding the site will not exacerbate the peak flood levels able to be achieved on adjacent flood prone land. During a 1 % AEP rainfall event we expect a small increase in peak flood level of approximately 10 mm, over a short period of time over land between SH12 and the Wairoa River. The short term duration and small increase in peak flood levels is considered to be less than minor, therefore consistent with this objective.

5 Kaipara District Plan

Reference Objective / Policy Comment

Transport Network

Objective 11.5.1 To maintain a safe and efficient Transport Network that enables the District to communicate, connect and do business with minimal conflicts between the environment, adjoining land uses, traffic and people.

The access to the site has been improved to ensure the safety of the road environment is maintained. In addition, the implementation of a right turn bay into the site will reduce conflict and delays between turning vehicles and traffic on SH12, which will maintain the efficiency of the Transport Network.

Policy 11.6.1 By managing the design and construction of the Transport Network to avoid, remedy or mitigate effects on the environment.

A construction management Plan (CMP) will be prepared prior to works commencing to ensure that any adverse effects on the environment will be mitigated during construction.

Rural Zone

Objective 12.5.2 To maintain the rural character and amenity, including the: Sense of openness; Low dominance of built form; Pasture and Commercial Forest Areas; Areas of indigenous vegetation and significant fauna; and Unmodified natural landforms

The proposed poultry farm development will result in a change to the character of the site and the immediately adjoining environment. This is due to the introduction of built structures onto a site which is currently largely free of buildings and is characterised by open pasture. While the character has been altered, it is considered that the overall sense of being in a rural area has been retained and that the character is still rural in nature. This is through the use of structures and buildings that are rural in appearance, the retention of large areas of open pasture and the use of planting, including the planted bund and recessive materials and colours to reduce the dominance of the structures in the landscape. Furthermore existing vegetation on site will be largely retained. The odour dispersion modelling predictions indicate that there is the risk of an adverse effects on amenity at four dwellings located in close proximity to the site (aside from those that have provided their written approval). These dwellings may experience a reduced level of amenity.

Objective 12.5.5 To avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the quality of the rural environment without unduly restricting productive rural activities eg. Farming and forestry.

The rural environment by nature is a working environment. The proposed poultry farm is consistent with this, establishing a productive rural activity. Part of the by-product of productive rural uses is that they can produce environmental effects that need to be managed. The poultry farm will be operated in a way to avoid, remedy or mitigate these effects as outlined in the technical reports accompanying this application. This includes measures such as the treatment of wastewater, the capture and combustion of litter and the establishment of planting. These measures and others will ensure

that the farm can operative as a productive rural activity whilst managing its effects.

Objective 12.5.6 To provide for a range of activities in the Rural Zone which are located, designed and operated in such a way as to avoid, remedy or mitigate reverse sensitivity effects on existing land uses in the vicinity.

The proposed poultry farm is a legitimate rural use that can significantly benefit the local economy and community. It is an alternative rural use to that which currently dominates within the local rural zones. Based on years of experience operating poultry farms and with the benefit of new technology the farm has been designed and will be operated in a way that avoids, remedies or mitigates effects and internalises its own effects on site as much as possible.

Objective 12.5.7 To recognise farming, forestry, mineral extraction and processing, renewable energy generation, industrial and commercial activities and network utilities that enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing.

The proposed poultry farm will allow people to provide for their social and economic wellbeing. The proposed farm will provide increased employment in the Northland region, resulting in approximately 64 construction jobs during the peak of the construction period over a three year construction period. Construction of the proposed farm will inject tens of millions dollars into the construction and contracting industry, with the overall capital cost of the project estimated to be approximately $80 million. Once operational, the farm will employ approximately 32 full time staff.

Policy 12.6.9 By avoiding, remedying, or mitigating adverse effects on the environment by requiring the landowner or developer to provide roading and on-site services for water supply, wastewater disposal or stormwater disposal for sites in the Rural areas, unless the provision of reticulated services is identified as an alternative to on-site systems.

There are no reticulated services available on site for water supply, wastewater or stormwater and the applicant proposes to include provision for these services, as outlined in the Civil Preliminary Design Report (Volume 2, Technical Report D). The proposed disposal areas for wastewater and washwater will be located at least 15 m from any surface water and at least 20 m from any groundwater bores. This will ensure water quality is maintained. Stormwater will be disposed of into existing downstream network. The proposed development will increase impervious surfaces across the site. The water from the roofs of the structures will be captured as part of the proposed rainwater harvesting system. However, stormwater from the internal roading network will be discharged to land before entering into waterways. Whilst land infiltration will provide some form of treatment, the proposed development will see an increase in impervious surfaces which will result in minor contamination from stormwater.

Policy 12.6.11 By requiring activities locating in the Rural Zone to be sited and designed to avoid, remedy or mitigate reverse sensitivity effects on existing adjoining land uses.

The sites directly adjoining the subject site are low intensity dairy or cropping operations. The proposed poultry farm is not introducing sensitive elements onto the site that would result in reverse sensitivity effects to neighbouring properties.

Policy 12.6.13 By ensuring that where sites are not connected to a public water supply,

The site is not connected to a public water supply, wastewater disposal system or

wastewater disposal or stormwater disposal system, suitable provision can be made on each site for an alternative water supply or method of wastewater disposal or stormwater disposal, which can protect the health and safety of residents and can avoid any significant adverse effects on sensitive receiving environments.

stormwater disposal system. As indicated in the Civil Preliminary Design Report (Volume 2, Technical Report D) suitable provision can be made for wastewater, washwater and stormwater disposal, and there is sufficient groundwater available (to supplement rainwater harvesting) to use for the water supply to the site. The wastewater from both the dwellings and utility sheds are proposed to receive primary and secondary treatment, which will be disposed by drip irrigation to the planted bund. Washwater will be disposed of by spray irrigation to a grassed field. Stormwater will be conveyed through new and existing farm drainage canals which will then be disposed of into the existing downstream network. The proposed disposal areas for wastewater and washwater will be located at least 15 m from any surface water and at least 20 m from any groundwater bores. This will ensure water quality is maintained and will protect the health and safety of residents.

Policy 12.6.15 By requiring site and building development to demonstrate how adverse visual amenity effects will be addressed over the duration of the development.

As outlined in the Visual Assessment report (Volume 2, Technical Report J) – the proposed poultry farm development will introduce built structures in the landscape which will change the currently open pastoral appearance of the site. This has the potential to have some level of adverse visual effects when viewed from particular viewpoints. However as outlined in the Visual Assessment, the angle and position of the proposed sheds, the materials and recessive colours of the buildings, the establishment of the planted bund and the existing topography which forms a natural backdrop all work together to ensure that these effects are addressed and mitigated.

Policy 12.6.16 To control land use and subdivision activities on and adjacent to roads and prevent adverse effects on the Transport Network.

The change in land use at the site will result in an increase in the ADT count of SH12 by approximately 67 veh/day. The vehicles will be staggered over 24 hours (as catching occurs at night time). It is considered that SH12 has capacity to support this increase in traffic as the majority of traffic do not share the same travel times. In addition, the nearest occupied dwelling (outside of the site) is located 750 m north of the entrance, and as vehicles will be travelling at highway speed at this point, it is considered the effects on this dwelling from the increase in traffic will be indistinguishable from existing background traffic.

Policy 12.6.17 By requiring the provision of safe and practicable vehicular access from a public road to each site.

The site’s main access onto SH12 will be relocated 25 m north along the State Highway. This has been designed to improve safety and practicality for both SH12 road users and users

of the site. In particular, the proposed access includes a right turn bay on SH12, a give-way sign at the exit of the site, widening of the road and a guard rail around the existing box culvert.

Natural Hazards

Objective 7.5.1 To control subdivision and development so that it does not induce natural hazards or exacerbate the effects of natural hazards.

The natural hazards that have been identified for the site include coastal flooding from the Wairoa River; fluvial flooding, which occurs from rainfall offsite but is conveyed to the site by the Wairoa River; pluvial flooding, where rainfall at the site is unable to be effectively drained; and groundwater flooding. The volume of water available for inundation in a coastal flooding event is essentially limitless. Therefore any loss in floodplain storage volume from developing and bunding the site will not exacerbate the peak flood levels able to be achieved on adjacent flood prone land. During a 1 % AEP rainfall event we expect a small increase in peak flood level of approximately 10 mm, over a short period of time over land between SH12 and the Wairoa River. The short term duration and small increase in peak flood levels is considered to be less than minor, therefore consistent with this objective.

Policy 7.6.1 By considering the potential for development, subdivision and land use activities including: a vegetation clearance; b draining of wetlands; c changes in overland flow paths

and stormwater; d changes to riparian margins; e earthworks; f buildings and building setbacks;

and g land reclamation;

h to exacerbate any natural hazard on-site or off-site, and avoiding such activities, unless it can be demonstrated that the adverse effects can be mitigated, remedied or avoided.

The changes in stormwater disposal at the site aim to avoid increasing peak flows from the site area and minimise ponding on new grassed areas. Where practicable, the design will utilise the existing drainage network of open channel drains and culverts. The only earthworks within the flood prone areas of the site (other than earthworks associated with the bunding) are some minor filling to raise the building floor levels 300 mm above the 1% AEP flood level. This will not deplete the flood plain storage within the bunded site.

Objective 7.5.4 To consider natural hazards at the time of any subdivision, land use or development or when there is a significant change in land use proposed (for example a new Growth Area).

The consideration of flooding hazards has influenced the design of the proposed poultry farm. Mitigation measures that will be implemented include; Bunding of the poultry sheds; Installation of channel drains between the poultry sheds to convey flows; and

Installation of stormwater pump stations which will pump stormwater directly into the existing channel outside of the bund. It is considered that these mitigation measures are appropriate for the proposed development of the farm.

Policy 7.6.3 By considering the potential adverse impacts of development on flood flow paths of rivers and the efficient functioning of natural drainage systems in subdivision, land use and development.

The existing drains on the site have limited capacity to convey flood flows due to their flat grade and high tailwater levels within the Wairoa River. Therefore, the development of the proposed poultry farm has incorporated new land drainage systems to provide effective drainage of the site.

Policy 7.6.4 By taking into account climate change and sea level rise, as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change or Royal Society of NZ, when assessing development in areas potentially affected.

In considering design options for a flood control scheme for the site, both climate change and sea level rise have been taken into account. It has been assumed an appropriate level of protection is to prevent damage from occurring in response to an event having a 2 percent probability of occurrence in any one year. It is recognised that sea level rise may influence coastal flooding and groundwater flooding at the site, as specified in the Flooding Assessment (Volume 2, Technical Report B). NRC has endorsed allowance of 0.4 m of sea level rise by 2065 and 1.0 m by 2115. This allowance has influenced the design and height of the bund. It is noted that an increase in groundwater levels and potential groundwater flooding (due to sea level rise) is a gradual process over a number of years. The installation of stormwater pumps will manage the effects of groundwater flooding and the frequency may have to be increased in the future, in accordance with sea level rise.

Hazardous facilities

Objective 8.5.1 To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of the use, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous substances on human health and safety, and on physical resources and property.

All hazardous substances will be stored in bulk in secure storage areas within the energy centre building, with LPG being stored in bulk tank away from other hazardous substances. In addition, secondary containment will be in place around the energy centre building and water treatment plant. Any storage at individual farms will be bunded through the use of portable plastic spill pellets or trays within small sheds with a bunded base. A spills kit will be located at the dangerous goods store, which will include booms and equipment to contain a spill. Staff will also be appropriately trained in the procedures for storage and handling hazardous substances, including managing chemical spills and fires. It is considered that any potential adverse effects on human health and safety and the environment can be mitigated through the proposed management procedures above.

Objective 8.5.2 To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of the use, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous substances on land, air, water and natural ecosystems.

Policy 8.6.1 By ensuring that activities involving the use or storage of hazardous substances are designed, constructed and managed to avoid the risk of unintended fire and explosion, protect human and environmental health and adverse effects on the environment.

Storage of LPG will comply with the requirements under HSNO and will be separated from occupied areas and other hazardous substances to reduce the risk of unintended fire and explosion. An emergency response plan will also be developed and implemented should an emergency occur on site.

Policy 8.6.2 By ensuring that the storage and transportation of hazardous substances is undertaken in a manner that reduces the risk of accidental leaks and spills.

All hazardous substances will be stored in bulk in secure storage areas to reduce the risk of accidental leaks and spills. Cleaning chemicals and sanitising agents will be moved around the site on a small truck or tractor and trailer to individual farms as required. Any quantities greater than 20 L will be secured during on-site transit.

Policy 8.6.3 By requiring that hazardous substances are appropriately disposed of at specialist facilities to avoid any adverse effects on the environment.

Should the disposal of any hazardous substances be required, they will be disposed of at an appropriate facility.

Policy 8.6.4 The appropriate identification and assessment of both activity specific and possible cumulative risks with other activities involving hazardous substances.

A risk assessment has been included in the Hazardous Substances Assessment report (Volume 2, Technical Report F). The hazards identified in the report are considered to be low to moderate. No hazards have been identified that cannot be mitigated through the proposed site control measures.

Tangata Whenua Strategy

Objective 5.5.2 To recognise the importance of providing for the relationship of Maori, including their culture and traditions, with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga.

There are two recorded Pa sites that have been identified on the property. The proposed four dwellings and water supply infrastructure proposed to be constructed within the hilly area to the east will be situated at least 100 m away from P08/32. The proposed bores will also be located at least 50 m away from either pa sites. No land disturbance associated with the construction of the poultry farm development will be located within 50 m of the identified pa sites or within 150 m of the urupa on adjacent land. Consultation has been undertaken with Margaret Mutu (chairperson of Kāpehu marae) and consultation with Te Roroa is ongoing.

Policy 5.6.1 Recognising the partnership with Tangata Whenua by:- 1 Consultation is undertaken with

Te Uri o Hau and Te Roroa on those matters that may affect their taonga, or their use, development and protection of the natural and physical environment (recognising Kaitiaki); and

Tegel has undertaken initial consultation with Margaret Mutu of Ngāti Kahu, Te Rarawa, Ngāti Whātua, Chair of Kāpehu marae on 16 August. Consultation with Te Roroa is ongoing and details of the consultation are outlined in Section 8. In addition, there are no wastewater, stormwater or potable water supply discharges proposed directly to water. The proposed poultry farm development seeks to minimise

2 Ensuring that active consideration is given to the impacts of development on taonga. This includes Tangata Whenua involvement in consent processing / hearings.

discharges to land through burning the poultry litter to generate heat to supply the poultry sheds. All other discharges will be to the proposed planted bund or land. This is consistent with Mana Whenua values.

Appendix J : Assessment criteria

Assessment Criteria

1 Regional Water and Soil Plan for Northland

Reference Relevant criteria Assessment

Under Rule 25.1.1 of the RWSP, the take of groundwater is a discretionary activity and is assessed against the following criteria

36.2.1 General Assessment Criteria for application to take, use, dam and divert water:

a The adequacy of the Assessment of Environmental Effects, in terms of the Fourth Schedule of the Act;

b The adequacy of information substantiating the applicant’s need for water;

c The extent to which the taking of water from the proposed source will impact on the resource, and on other users, including any cumulative effects of the takes on the resource;

d The adequacy of the assessment of any alternative water sources considered, or other water management strategies and the reasons for selecting the proposed water source;

e The adequacy of any water conservation and mitigation measures for the proposed system;

f The number, location and type of point source discharges which could contribute nutrients and organic material to the river, and the effect of the water take on the ability of the water body to assimilate those contaminants;

g The extent to which the natural character of the environment is maintained;

h The extent to which amenity, cultural, recreational and social values and economic well-being are adversely affected; and

i The adequacy of any proposed monitoring programme to monitor the effects of the taking, use, damming or diverting of water.

Refer to the Groundwater Assessment Report attached as Technical Report A to Volume 2 for assessment against matters a-f and i. Five production/investigation bores will be installed to confirm the three bore sites required for production purposes. No other ground monitoring programmes are proposed as the groundwater assessment effect concludes that there are unlikely to be any adverse effects on the groundwater source outside of the andesite found within the subject site.

The take of groundwater is also assessed against the additional criteria for groundwater take in the RWSP.

36.2.6 Assessment criteria for groundwater takes:

a The cumulative effects of the proposed groundwater take and existing groundwater users in relation to the average annual recharge of the aquifer.

b The extent to which the proposed groundwater take may adversely affect other groundwater and surface water users, and the adequacy of any pump test analysis to confirm those effects.

c The proximity to the freshwater/seawater interface and the likelihood of any seawater intrusion affecting groundwater users.

d The proximity of the bore and the standing groundwater level to any effluent disposal field and the likelihood of contaminants being drawn into the aquifer as a result of pumping.

Refer to Section 8 of the Groundwater Assessment Report attached as Technical Report A to Volume 2.

Under Rule 33.1.3 of the RWSP earthworks is a discretionary activity and is assessed against the following criteria

36.4 Assessment criteria for land disturbing activities:

a The scale, method and timing of the land disturbance activity and the nature of the surrounding catchment;

b The proximity of the land disturbance activity to any water body, the nature and sensitivity of the water body and any associated values and the likely effects on that water body;

c The proximity of the land disturbance activity to any areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna that meet the criteria in Appendix 13B, any outstanding or significant natural feature identified in a regional or district plan, any known archaeological site or historic feature, waahi tapu or urupa; and any effects on them;

Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures will be put in place during the proposed earthworks. These measures will mitigate any erosion or sediment discharges into nearby streams. The proposed land disturbing activities will be located a minimum of 50 m away from the recorded pa sites and all works will be undertaken in accordance with an accidental discovery protocol. No native vegetation removal is proposed. The material required to construct the bund and internal roads will be sourced on site from the limestone quarry. The alternative methods considered for obtaining the necessary material included sourcing the material from offsite which will result in additional truck movements during the three year construction period. This alternative was discounted as it would result in increased traffic and noise distribution to the local community.

d The expected efficiency of sediment control measures and any other mitigation measures;

e The removal and/or any retention of vegetation and the expected efficiency of any revegetation and/or rehabilitation programme;

f The adequacy of any proposed monitoring programme to assess the effects of the activity on the environment; and

g The practicality of alternative methods to undertake the activity and their likelihood of having reduced environmental effects.

Under Rule 26.3.1 of the RWSP construction or alteration of a bore that is not within any area identified in Schedules A, B, C or F is a restricted discretionary activity and is assessed against the following criteria

26.3.1 Groundwater bore construction assessment criteria:

a The location of the bore including the proximity to other bores;

b The proximity of the bore to any contaminated site or potentially contaminated sites, including any effluent disposal field existing at the time of drilling;

c Compliance with the New Zealand Standard NZS 4411:2001: Environmental Standard for the Drilling of Soil and Rock; and

d The bores design, construction, operation and maintenance requirements.

Refer to Section 8 of the Groundwater Assessment Report attached as Technical Report A to Volume 2.

2 Regional Air Quality Plan for Northland

Reference Relevant criteria Assessment

Under Rule 10.1.7 and 9.3.2 of the RAQP, the discharge of contaminants to air is a discretionary activity and is assessed against the following criteria

Rule 12.2 Assessment criteria for air discharge permit applications: e Whether the applicant has

proposed the best practicable option to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment and whether the applicant has considered a range of alternative options for mitigation;

f Whether the applicant has proposed good management practices to avoid, remedy or

Refer to the Air Quality Impact Assessment (Volume 2, Technical Report E) for assessment against matters a, b, k, and m. A Farm Management Plan will be prepared outlining the operational practices of the farm, including odour management and monitoring procedures. The proposed poultry farm and associated litter burners will generate discharges to air from their operation. These discharges are amenity based discharges that will not cause adverse health or environmental

mitigate adverse effects arising from discharges;

g The adequacy of any proposed monitoring programme to assess the effects of the discharge;

h Any actual or potential adverse effects on human health, safety and wellbeing;

i Any actual or potential adverse effects on the health and functioning of ecosystems and plants and animals, including those of commercial significance;

j Any actual or potential adverse effects on cultural, scenic, amenity, recreational or heritage values of any areas, places, sites or features;

k Any actual or potential adverse effects on other receiving environments;

l Where technically possible the extent to which the proposal will add to the synergistic, interactive or cumulative adverse effects of discharges on ambient air quality;

m Whether there are sensitive adjoining land activities or features such as public places, water bodies, dwellings.

n Any effects of low probability but high potential impact;

o Surrounding environmental conditions that may affect the frequency, duration, intensity and degree of environmental effects, including topography, wind speed and direction, and other climatic conditions;

p The extent to which the proposal provides compensating environmental benefits;

q The degree to which the discharger adopts the best practicable option; and

r The extent to which the proposal contributes or may contribute to economic, social and cultural wellbeing of the people and the communities.

effects. As a result of the proposed poultry farm development, the air dispersion modelling shows that at times some neighbouring dwellings could experience odour effects. As mentioned in Section 6.2 of the AEE, the proposed development will significantly contribute to the local communities’ economy through job creation during construction and operation of the proposed poultry farm. Through the adoption of innovative technologies the farm will be significantly reducing the farms carbon footprint and reliance on non-renewable energy sources, having an overall positive effect on the environment.

Under Rule 10.1.7 of the RAQP, the discharge of odour to air is a

Rule 12.7 Additional criteria for odour discharges:

Refer to the Air Quality Impact Assessment (Volume 2, Technical Report E).

discretionary activity and is assessed against the following criteria

s Whether the activity complies with the relevant national regulations, standards and codes of practice.

t Whether there are sufficient buffer areas and/or screening from adjacent land uses.

u Whether measures have been taken to ensure that there will be no discharge of odour which is offensive or objectionable at or beyond the property boundary.

v The frequency, intensity, duration and offensiveness of the odour associated with the discharge.

3 Kaipara District Plan

Reference Relevant Criteria Assessment

Under Rule 12.10.1a of the KDP the earthworks proposed is a restricted discretionary activity and is assessed against the following criteria

i Whether building consent has been issued and has already assessed the proposed earthworks (in such cases the matters considered under the Building Act 2004 will not be reconsidered here);

ii Machinery to be used and hours of operation;

iii Effects on the locality, particularly the character and amenity values of adjoining sites/land uses;

iv Effects on ecological values and in particular any Sites of Ecological Significance as defined by the criteria listed in Appendix 25G;

v Effects of excavation related traffic on the safety and efficiency of the road network and on the amenity of dwellings on adjoining land;

vi Effects on landscape and heritage values;

vii The extent to which the proposal will affect the values of any Outstanding Natural Landscape identified in Map Series 2;

viii The extent to which the works meet the requirements of the performance standards in Rule 12.10.1 or the Kaipara District Council Engineering Standards 2011 ;

ix Effects of dust and noise on sensitive receivers;

The subject site is not located within any Outstanding Natural Landscapes or Overlays identified on the KDP Planning Maps. The proposed construction activities will be undertaken in accordance with the construction noise standards to avoid any potential amenity effects on the adjoining land uses. The majority of the proposed earthworks will be carried out within the site boundaries, with the exception of earthworks for the proposed access formation. A Construction Management Plan shall be prepared to minimise any associated effects on the road network. The proposed earthworks will be undertaken in a manner to ensure there will be no dust discharges beyond the site boundary. The proposed earthworks are located more than 50 m away from the recorded pa sites and will be undertaken in accordance with an accidental discovery protocol. The proposed earthworks will not affect the integrity of the electricity transmission lines traversing through the site. An assessment of the proposed earthworks against the relevant KDP objectives and policies in Appendix I. Appropriate erosion

x If located in an Overlay, the extent to which the values identified in the Objectives and Policies for Overlays (Chapter 4) are present on the site, and the extent to which the proposal is compatible with those values;

xi Effects on cultural and heritage values (as defined in Chapter 17), including any consultation has been undertaken with Tangata Whenua as appropriate;

xii The consistency of the proposal with relevant Objectives and Policies contained in Part A and Part C of the Plan with managing the values of the District including but not limited to those outlined in Chapters 2, 6,7,8 and 17;

xiii Any effects on the integrity of the electricity transmission line; and

xiv The volume, area and location of the works, including temporary activities such as:

Stockpiles; Timing of the works; Site remediation; The use of mobile machinery

near transmission line which may put the line at risk;

Compliance with New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice 34:2001; and

Outcomes of any consultation with any relevant network operator.

and sediment control measures will be put in place and maintained throughout the duration of the proposed earthworks. These measures are in accordance with the KDC engineering standards 2011.

Under Rule 12.10.4 of the KDP the commercial and industrial buildings proposed are a restricted discretionary activity and is assessed against the following criteria

i Building location, including alternatives considered;

ii Size and shape of the site; iii Extent of visual intrusion of the

building from beyond the site, particularly from the road and public places including the Coastal Marine Area and the effect on skylines and ridgelines;

iv Proposed landscaping in accordance with any Council adopted Design Guidelines;

v Effects on the locality, particularly the rural character and amenity values;

A landscape assessment is included as Technical Report J in Volume 2. This assesses the natural character, landscape and visual effects of the proposed development. This assessment concludes that the proposed poultry farm will result in less than minor adverse landscape and visual effects. Several farm layout designs were considered, including alternative shed locations. The proposed farm layout was intentionally designed to limit the visual intervention of the sheds and Energy Centre from the surrounding landscape. As a result of this, as well as site constraints and operational

vi If located within an Overlay, the extent to which the values identified in the objectives and policies for Overlays (Chapter 4) are present on the site, and the extent to which the proposal is compatible with those values; and

vii Effects on Landscape and heritage values;

viii viii) The extent to which the proposal will affect the values of any Outstanding Natural Landscape identified in Map Series 2 and if applicable the extent to which the subdivision, use or development meets the additional assessment criteria contained in Appendix 18B;

ix Effects on the safety and efficiency of vehicles and pedestrians using the site and affected roads and private ways;

x Safety of the building and people using it during flood events or tidal inundation including possible egress during flood events or tidal inundation;

xi The extent to which the development complies with the requirements of the relevant performance standards or the Kaipara District Council Engineering Standards 2011;

xii The extent to which the stormwater generated from impermeable surfaces associated with the building may contribute to erosion or a reduction in the water quality of the receiving environment;

xiii Whether a sustainable potable water supply is able to be provided to service the development;

xiv Effects on natural character; xv The functional requirements of the

building and activity; and

xvi The extent to which the activity will affect any heritage values identified in Appendix 17.1 and 17.2 of the Plan.

requirements, the proposed location of the three sheds (which do not meet the setback requirements) was considered the only practical option for the site. The proposed planted bund will also further provide visual screening of the proposed buildings. The proposed development flood mitigation scheme has been design to maintain the safety of building and people during a 2 % AEP coastal inundation event and 1 % AEP rainfall flood event. Stormwater generated from the proposed impermeable surfaces will be discharges to land or collected and discharged to water within the same catchment. The proposed development will not result in adverse erosion effects or reduction in water quality of the receiving environment.

Under Rule 12.10.7 of the KDP the setback of the buildings are a restricted discretionary activity and is assessed

i The outlook and privacy of adjacent and adjoining neighbours;

ii Extent of visual intrusion and dominance of any buildings from

Three of the proposed 32 poultry sheds don’t comply with the 300 m setback requirement from SH12 and Whakahara Road. The bund is also considered a building under the KDP

against the following criteria

beyond the site, particularly from the road and public places including the Coastal Marine Area and the effect on skylines and ridgelines;

iii Whether proposed landscaping is in accordance with any relevant Council adopted Design Guidelines;

iv Whether the proposed landscaping is in accordance with the design principles of the Mangawhai Structure Plan (pages 46 - 49) for Policy Area Three;

v Effects on the locality, particularly the rural and natural character and amenity values;

vi If located within an Overlay, the extent to which the values identified in the objectives and policies for Overlays (Chapter 4) are present on the site, and the extent to which the proposal is compatible with those values; and

vii The extent to which the proposal will affect the values of any Outstanding Natural Landscape identified in Map Series 2 and if applicable the extent to which the subdivision, use or development meets the additional assessment criteria contained in Appendix 18B;

viii Effects on landscape and heritage values;

ix Effects on ecological values and in particular any Sites of Ecological Significance as defined by the criteria listed in Appendix 25G;

x Effects on public access; xi Effects on natural hazards,

including the design and construction of hazard protection works on land adjacent to the Coastal Marine Area, rivers and lakes;

xii Protection of the conservation, ecological, recreation, access and hazard mitigation values of Esplanade Reserves or Strips;

xiii Where buildings are located in close proximity to State Highways or Rail (level crossings) whether the approval of the respective roading or rail control authority has been provided and the extent

and also does not comply with this standard. All other buildings and structures comply. The proposed planted bund will effectively screen the proposed sheds and the potential dominance of the southern sheds from the immediately surrounding area. The proposed poultry farm development will not result in adverse privacy effects but will disrupt the outlook of some of the adjoining properties located along Mititai and Whakahara Road due to their elevated views towards the site. As discussed in the Flooding Assessment (refer Volume 2, Technical Report B), the proposed development has been designed to mitigate against coastal hazards. Consultation with NZTA regarding the proposed development is ongoing.

to which the placement of the building affects traffic and/or rail safety;

xiv The functional requirements of the building and activity; and

xv The extent to which the activity will affect any heritage values identified in Appendix 17.1 and 17.2 of the Plan.

Under Rule 12.10.21 of the KDP the storage of hazardous substances is a discretionary activity and is assessed against the following criteria

i The proposed site and layout, with a description of the nature and scale of the proposed facility and associated operations;

ii Location, type and quantities of hazardous substances involved;

iii Site drainage and off-site infrastructure (e.g. drainage type and capacity);

iv Identification of on-site hazards, failure modes and exposure pathways from the proposed facility including a description of the environment potentially affected;

v Transport of hazardous substances on and off the site, mode and route selection;

vi The sensitivity of the surrounding human, natural and physical environment, and proposed measures to protect them (including wildlife habitats and water bodies);

vii Separation distances from water bodies, coastal water, neighbouring activities and people potentially at risk from the hazardous facility, including consideration of the proximity to people oriented activities (e.g. child care, education facilities, rest homes, hospitals);

viii Potential cumulative or synergistic effects, within the site and the locality;

ix The presence or otherwise of natural hazards which could adversely influence the inherent risks from a hazardous facility to the environment;

x The extent to which alternative locations and methods have been considered;

Refer to Section 7 of the Hazardous Substances Assessment report (Volume 2, Technical Report F).

xi Hazard and risk analysis; xii Management of wastes containing

hazardous substances; xiii Proposed contingency measures

and emergency plans; xiv Proposed monitoring and

maintenance schedules; and

xv Any consultation, assessment or responses received from the New Zealand Fire Service.

Under Rule 11.10.2 of the KDP, works undertaken on SH12 is a restricted discretionary activity and is assessed against the following criteria

i Whether the works adversely affect sight distances or road safety;

ii Whether the works prevent a previously possible turning movement to or from a vehicle crossing, frontage of an underdeveloped site with no alternative access or intersection;

iii Whether the works will result in a change in the number of through lanes within a road;

iv Whether the works will involve altering the level of the road by more than 150mm;

v Whether the works will involve earthworks of 1000m³ or more;

vi Whether the works will involve reductions in the capacity of storm water systems present within the road or road reserve; and

vii Whether the works comply with all other provisions relating to activities within the Transport Network and the Kaipara District Council Engineering Standards 2011.

The relocated access complies with minimum sight distance requirements under the Austroads requirements as specified in the Integrated Transport Assessment (Volume 2, Technical Report G). The works will not prevent a previously possible turning movement. The addition of the right turn bay into the site will create a safer road environment. The works will not result in a change in the number of through lanes. Earthworks are likely to exceed 1,000 m3.

The capacity the stormwater network will be maintained within the road reserve.

Appendix K : Consultation

To: m.mutu@auckland.ac.nz

Cc: Emma Coote

Retention Policy: Tegel_Level2_RDP (5 Years) Expires: 8/22/2022

You forwarded this message on 8/23/2017 2:40 PM.

Reply Reply All Forward

Tegel proposed development at 5763 SH12, Arapohue

Jessica Urquhart

Wednesday, August 23, 2017 1:54 PM

Kia Ora Margaret,

Thank-you for meeting with Emma and me last Wednesday, we appreciated your time and advice.

Please don’t hesitate to contact Emma or I if you have any further questions or if one of your cousins would like to meet with us. As discussed, Tegel would welcome the opportunity to attend the next meeting held at K pehu marae to discuss the proposed poultry farm development.Ng Mihi,Jess

Jessica UrquhartPlanning and Compliance Advisor

A: 100 Carlton Gore Road, Private Bag 99927, Newmarket, Auckland 1023, New Zealand T: +64 (9) 977 9324 | M: 021 0268 7222| E: Jessica.Urquhart@tegel.co.nz | W: www.tegel.co.nz

Page 1 of 1Tegel proposed development at 5763 SH12, Arapohue

31/08/2017https://exch.tegel.co.nz/owa/?ae=Item&a=Open&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABSbQyS...

1

Charlotte MacDonald

From: Emma Coote <Emma.Coote@tegel.co.nz>Sent: Wednesday, 20 September 2017 7:14 a.m.To: Charlotte MacDonaldCc: Andrea BrabantSubject: FW: Site Visit

FYI

Emma Coote | Environmental Manager | Tegel Foods Ltd A: 100 Carlton Gore Road, Private Bag 99927, Newmarket, Auckland 1023, New Zealand T: +64 (9) 977 9088 | F: +64 (9) 836 4247 | M: +64 (21) 574 547 | E: Emma.Coote@tegel.co.nz | W: www.tegel.co.nz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Snow Tane [mailto:opm@teroroa.iwi.nz] Sent: Wednesday, 20 September 2017 7:12 a.m. To: Emma Coote <Emma.Coote@tegel.co.nz> Subject: RE: Site Visit Hi Emma, The visit went well thanks and we will provide a report hopefully by the end of the week or early next week. The registered sites on the property were reviewed initially by our archaeo team prior to the farm visit with other sites of interest identified. These are mainly on the hill country so we may need to visit these area’s when it is drier as the roading and farm is extremely wet currently. From an historical point of view, there is more information that we need to collect to get a rounded opinion of the areas of interest. I don’t envisage this as having an impact on the application but we still need to seek this information. If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate in contacting me. Regards, Snow

From: Emma Coote [mailto:Emma.Coote@tegel.co.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 10:05 PM To: Snow Tane <opm@teroroa.iwi.nz> Subject: Site Visit Hi Snow I hope your visit to site went well yesterday. Any queries please don’t hesitate to call. Kind Regards Emma

2

Emma Coote Environmental Manager

A: 100 Carlton Gore Road, Private Bag 99927, Newmarket, Auckland 1023, New Zealand T: +64 (9) 977 9088 | F: +64 (9) 836 4247 | M: +64 (21) 574 547 | E: Emma.Coote@tegel.co.nz | W: www.tegel.co.nz

Attention: The information contained in this message and or attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any system and destroy any copies. Please note that the views or opinions expressed in this message may be those of the individual and not necessarily those of Tegel Foods Ltd. If you do not wish to receive further commercial electronic messages from Tegel Foods Ltd, please opt out by forwarding a copy of this message to optout@tegel.co.nz.

Scanned by MailMarshal - Marshal8e6's comprehensive email content security solution.

Attention: The information contained in this message and or attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any system and destroy any copies. Please note that the views or opinions expressed in this message may be those of the individual and not necessarily those of Tegel Foods Ltd. If you do not wish to receive further commercial electronic messages from Tegel Foods Ltd, please opt out by forwarding a copy of this message to optout@tegel.co.nz.

Scanned by MailMarshal - Marshal8e6's comprehensive email content security solution.

Thanks for information Jess. I’m back in the office on Tuesday so will send information to you then.

Nga mihi

Snow

From: Jessica Urquhart [mailto:Jessica.Urquhart@tegel.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, 30 August 2017 5:46 PMTo: Snow Tane <opm@teroroa.iwi.nz>Cc: Emma Coote <Emma.Coote@tegel.co.nz>Subject: RE: Proposed free range poultry farm development

Kia ora Snow,

Thanks for your time on the phone today. As discussed, Tegel is proposing to develop a 32 shed free range broiler chicken farm at 5763 State Highway 12, Arapohue, Dargaville. Attached is a draft site plan. As discussed, at this stage the project is still confidential.

A brief summary of the proposed works (as discussed on the phone) is below.

The construction of the proposed poultry farm will include the development of 32 free range poultry sheds on the site that will be clustered in two groups of eight and one group of 16. Each shed’s dimensions will be approximately 20 m long x 138 m wide x 4.5 m in height. The sheds are proposed to be located on the flat, western portion of the site. Developing the proposed farm will require earthworks, the construction of the foundations and sheds, installation of infrastructure, including an energy centre building powered by litter combustion, stormwater management devices, wastewater treatment and disposal, rainwater storage tanks, installation of groundwater bores, water reticulation and a water treatment plant. In addition, the proposed poultry farm development will require construction of associated facilities, such as workers’ accommodation, utility sheds and vehicle tracks around the sheds connecting to a new access off SH12. A planted bund is proposed to be constructed around the sheds to mitigate against flooding and provide screening.

There are two recorded pa site on site. Both are located to the east of the site, up in the hills. No works are proposed within 50m of the pa sites. A copy of the Archaeology assessment we have had undertaken is attached. When we meet with Margarete Mutu, we asked her if she knew anything about these sites but wasn’t able to help. Tegel would appreciate any local knowledge on these sites and the cultural values of the area.

The proposed poultry farm development presents an exciting opportunity to construct a sustainable farm using innovative technology. Tegel is proposing to install solar panel roofing and a litter burner to generate the farm’s heating requirement. Tegel is also proposing to construct a rain water harvesting scheme to supply the majority of the farm water supply, supplemented with a groundwater take.

During the peak of construction the proposed farm will employ approximately 64 construction staff. Once operational, the farm will employ approximately 32 full time staff.

If you are able to get back to me with a fee proposal to undertake a site visit and provide a cultural assessment of the development, that would be helpful. We are currently preparing the resource consent application and are hoping to lodge late next week. We are keen to work with you throughout the project with the hope of developing a relationship for any potential future projects in the Northland Region.

Page 1 of 4

31/08/2017https://exch.tegel.co.nz/owa/?ae=Item&a=Open&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABSbQyS...

Ng Mihi,Jess

Jessica Urquhart | Planning and Compliance Advisor | Tegel Foods LtdA: 100 Carlton Gore Road, Private Bag 99927, Newmarket, Auckland 1023, New ZealandT: +64 (9) 977 9324 | F: | E: Jessica.Urquhart@tegel.co.nz | W: www.tegel.co.nz--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Snow Tane [opm@teroroa.iwi.nz]Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 3:21 PMTo: Jessica UrquhartSubject: RE: Proposed free range poultry farm development

FYI

Taoho (Snow) Tane

From: Jessica Urquhart [mailto:Jessica.Urquhart@tegel.co.nz] Sent: Friday, 25 August 2017 3:09 PMTo: Snow Tane <opm@teroroa.iwi.nz>Cc: Emma Coote <Emma.Coote@tegel.co.nz>Subject: RE: Proposed free range poultry farm development

Thanks Snow for getting back to me.

Could you please let me know the best number to contact you on?

Regards,Jess

Jessica Urquhart | Planning and Compliance Advisor | Tegel Foods LtdA: 100 Carlton Gore Road, Private Bag 99927, Newmarket, Auckland 1023, New ZealandT: +64 (9) 977 9324 | F: | E: Jessica.Urquhart@tegel.co.nz | W: www.tegel.co.nz--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Snow Tane [opm@teroroa.iwi.nz]Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 1:24 PMTo: Jessica UrquhartSubject: RE: Proposed free range poultry farm development

Kia ora Jess,

Thank you for making contact with me regarding a proposed poultry farm south of Dargaville. I am interested in firstly, discussing this development and secondly, see what relationship Te Roroa could initiate with Tegel.

Page 2 of 4

31/08/2017https://exch.tegel.co.nz/owa/?ae=Item&a=Open&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABSbQyS...

I look forward to your response.

Nga mihi

Snow

From: Jessica Urquhart [mailto:Jessica.Urquhart@tegel.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, 24 August 2017 6:08 PMTo: Snow Tane <opm@teroroa.iwi.nz>Subject: Proposed free range poultry farm development

Hi Snow,

Your contact details were passed on to me from Kaipara District Council. I am wanting to talk to a Te Roroa representative regarding a proposed poultry farm development south of Dargaville. I have been trying to get in touch with Walter Nesbit, Chair of Te Houhanga Mare but have had no luck.

Are you able to please let me know if you would be interested in discussing a proposed development south of Dargaville. If so, please email me back with your contact phone number or call me on 021 026 87222.

Nga Mihi,Jess

Jessica Urquhart | Planning and Compliance Advisor | Tegel Foods LtdA: 100 Carlton Gore Road, Private Bag 99927, Newmarket, Auckland 1023, New ZealandT: +64 (9) 977 9324 | M: 021 0268 7222 | E: Jessica.Urquhart@tegel.co.nz | W: www.tegel.co.nz--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attention:The information contained in this message and or attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any system and destroy any copies.Please note that the views or opinions expressed in this message may be those of the individual and not necessarily those of Tegel Foods Ltd.If you do not wish to receive further commercial electronic messages from Tegel Foods Ltd, please opt out by forwarding a copy of this message to optout@tegel.co.nz.Scanned by MailMarshal - Marshal8e6's comprehensive email content security solution.

Attention:The information contained in this message and or attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any system and destroy any copies.Please note that the views or opinions expressed in this message may be those of the individual and not necessarily those of Tegel Foods Ltd.If you do not wish to receive further commercial electronic messages from Tegel Foods Ltd, please opt out by forwarding a copy of this message to optout@tegel.co.nz.Scanned by MailMarshal - Marshal8e6's comprehensive email content security solution.

Attention:The information contained in this message and or attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any system and destroy any copies.Please note that the views or opinions expressed in this message may be those of the individual and not necessarily those of Tegel Foods Ltd.If you do not wish to receive further commercial electronic messages from Tegel Foods Ltd, please opt out by forwarding a copy

Page 3 of 4

31/08/2017https://exch.tegel.co.nz/owa/?ae=Item&a=Open&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABSbQyS...

Appendix L : Written approval forms