Hearings Report Section 42A Report - otodc ... - · PDF fileHearings Report Section 42A Report...

RM160079 1 Happy Valley Milk Ltd – Establish Dairy Factory Section 42A Report – Consultant Planner (Otorohanga District Council)

Hearings Report

Section 42A Report

Resource Management Act 1991

A report recommending a decision on Resource Consent application RM160079 Report to: Independent Hearings Panel Report from: Kahurangi Tapsell (Consultant Planner) Application number: RM160079 Lodgement date: 8 November 2016 Pre-notification further information requested: 17 November 2016 Pre-notification further information provided: 22 November 2016 Public notification: 7 December 2016 Submissions closed: 27 January 2017 Pre-hearing further information requested: 9 March 2017 Pre-hearing further information provided: 12 September 2017 Submissions received: Sixty nine (69) J Scott & T Kristensen – Neutral S & J Oliver - Oppose

AJ Derecourt – Support C King – Oppose DJ & CD Eyeington – Oppose (withdrawn) Andra Neeley – Oppose Eric Tait - Support Keith Randle - Support Elizabeth Cowan - Oppose Trevor Walters - Oppose Suzie Walters - Oppose

Kent and Joanne Morrissey - Oppose Vicki Cornelisson - Oppose Peter Cornelisson - Oppose Michelle Blundell - Oppose Phillip Blundell - Oppose Paul Prescott - Support W & L Reekers - Oppose Shaun Kohinga - Support Aria Concrete Pumping - Support John Mildon - Support Allan Pratt - Support


Paul Wood - Support Lance Phillips - Support Aaron Marx - Oppose Lindsay Meredith - Support Ian Robert Gollan - Support Shirley Dianne Meier - Oppose Hugh Earwaker - Oppose Richard Harford - Support Wayne New - Support Amy New - Support Kylie Mouat - Support Scott Mouat - Support Kirsty Fare - Support Rex Fare - Support Andrew Baker - Oppose Otorohanga Timber Company - Support Ian Clark - Oppose Ian Groube - Oppose Marin Walmsley - Oppose Pat Edwards - Oppose New Zealand Transport Agency - Oppose Heather Hammond - Oppose Duncan Coull (Coull Farms Ltd) - Oppose Alan Rogers - Oppose Andrew Moir (Tihiroa Rural Water) - Oppose Veronica Gibson - Oppose Sharryn R Te Atawhai Barton - Neutral Robert Phillips - Support Peter Burton - Support Otorohanga Zoological Society - Oppose Otorohanga District Development Board -

Support Michael & Alison Sellars - Support KG Ferris - Oppose John & Sue Clark - Support Earl Rattray - Neutral QEII National Trust - Neutral Alastair & Shirley Bell - Support Tessa Walker - Support Erin Milne - Support Billie-Ann Gadd - Support Lloyd Tahuroa Rangitaawa - Support Wade Humphries - Support Bayley Campbell - Support Cheryl ? - Support Social Plan Inc - Oppose Nehenehenui RMC - Support Sam Williams & Brooke Rako-Williams -

Oppose


Hearing Date: 22-23 November 2017

Applicant: Happy Valley Milk Limited Application: To establish a purpose-built nutritional infant formula dairy factory

consisting of two eight tonne per hour dryers capable of blending and canning infant formula and manufacturing Anhydrous Milk Fat (AMF).

Site address: 5 Redlands Road, Otorohanga Site Legal Description: Lot 2 DPS 28580 (CFR: SA26C/1263) Site Area: 17.79 ha

Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph of subject site (outlined in yellow).

Figure 2 – Otorohanga District Plan – subject site outlined in red.


Operative District Plan Map: Map M10 Operative District Plan Zone: Rural Effects Area Policy Area: Countryside Living Policy Area (part) Development Setback: Nil Designations: State Highway 31/39 – New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) Archaeological Sites: Nil Sites of Significance: Nil Notable Trees: Nil High Voltage Lines Nil Natural Hazards River Hazard Zone (part) Road Order Redlands Road - Order 3 Road Kawhia Road (SH31/39) - Order 1 Road Road Controlling Authority NZTA (State Highway 31/39 – Limited Access Road) Otorohanga District Council (Redlands Road)

Consent Triggers: Operative Otorohanga District Plan Resource consents for the proposed activity are needed for the following reasons:

1. Rule 5.6 – Discretionary Activity (a) Standard 5A (iii): Proposal involves an area of earthworks exceeding 5,000 m2, being

an area of 33,995 m2.

(b) Standard 5C (ii): Fill height exceeds 2 m and volume of earthworks exceeds 5,000 m3, being 20,000 m3, in the Rural Effects Area.

2. Rule 6.4 – Discretionary Activity (a) Standard 6C: Proposal involves construction of building on land which is proposed to

be filled.

3. Rule 7.6 – Discretionary Activity

(a) Standard 7A: Proposed building coverage will exceed 2%, being 10% (17,600 m2).

(b) Standard 7A: Proposed floor area of non-agricultural buildings exceeds 250 m2, being 16,966 m2.

(c) Standard 7A: Proposed buildings exceed the maximum height of 7 m, being 46.9 m

(including flues).


4. Rule 8.3 – Restricted Discretionary Activity (a) Standard 8C: It has not been demonstrated that on-site wastewater management

complies with permitted activity requirements of the Waikato Regional Plan or a discharge permit granted by Waikato Regional Council (WRC).

5. Rule 9.3 – Restricted Discretionary Activity (a) Standard 9D: While proposals have been put forward by the applicant for how

stormwater may be managed (including extension of and connection to the public stormwater system), it has not been demonstrated that this is an effective stormwater system.

6. Rule 12.2 – Discretionary Activity (a) Standard 12A: Relocated Redlands Road/Kawhia Road intersection will be located

less than 800 m from the Honikiwi Road/Kawhia Road intersection.

(b) Standard 12A: Relocated Redlands Road/Kawhia Road intersection will be located less than 200 m from other existing entranceways serving neighbouring land.

(c) Standard 12A: Proposed entranceway to Redlands Road will be located less than 200

m from the relocated intersection of Redlands Road/Kawhia Road.

(d) Standard 12B: Vehicle movements associated with proposed activity will exceed an average of 50 per day.

(e) Standard 12B: Vehicle movements associated with proposed activity will exceed a

total of 100 vehicle movements per day.

(f) Standard 12B: Vehicle movements associated with proposed activity will exceed a total of 350 vehicle movements per week.

7. Rule 13.2 – Restricted Discretionary Activity

(a) Standard 13B: Parking spaces for vehicles are to be located within the 15 m front yard

setback.

8. Rule 14.4 – Restricted Discretionary Activity (a) Standard 14A: The proposed activity will fail to comply with night time noise levels in

relation to an existing dwelling at 6 Redlands Road.

9. Rule 17.3 – Discretionary Activity (a) Standard 17A. Exterior storage of materials not proposed to be screened by fence or

vegetation.


10. Rule 22.2 – Discretionary Activity (a) Standard 22A: Proposal will involve use and storage of hazardous substances in

excess of permitted activity volumes. Activity Status: Overall the application is considered to be a Discretionary Activity under the Otorohanga Operative District Plan. Consent Triggers: Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 (NESCS) Resource consent for the proposed activity are needed for the following reason:

1. Clause 11 – Discretionary activity

(a) Disturbance of soil, no detailed site investigation provided (preliminary site investigation provided).

Activity Status: Overall the application is considered to be a Discretionary Activity under the NESCS. 1.0 Subject Property The land subject to this application is comprised in one existing certificate of title as set out in the table below.

Lot 2 DPS 28580 (CFR: SA26C/1263)

Land Area: 17.79 ha

Creation Date: 4 February 1981

Registered Proprietor: AP & LD Van Der Poel and Bailey Ingham Trustees Limited

Registered Interests - B597780.1 – Gazette Notice declaring SH31/39 a limited access

road - B626399.1 – Certificate pursuant to Section 91 Transit New Zealand

Act 1989

The site currently accommodates a single dwelling and is used for crop cultivation and grazing. The site is largely flat, but does fall away to the Waipa River flood plain on the eastern boundary. The site is also bound by SH31/39 (Kawhia Road) to the west, Redlands Road to the south and Ripley Jones Reserve to the north (adjoining the Waipa River). The surrounding environment is primarily used for farming activities, with some rural lifestyle uses. Gas transmission lines are located on the western side of SH31/39. The town of Otorohanga is located 500 m to the east of the site, across the Waipa River.


2.0 Application

Figure 3 – Proposed site plan.


Figure 4 – Proposed view of the site from the west.

Figure 5 – Proposed view of the site from 173 Kawhia Road. The proposal is to establish a purpose-built nutritional infant formula dairy factory consisting of two eight tonne per hour dryers capable of blending and canning infant formula and manufacturing Anhydrous Milk Fat (AMF). The following text is taken directly from the application documents and provides a summary of the key points supporting the resource consent application. On 19 April 2017 (following the close of submissions), the applicant requested changes to the application. These changes were not considered extensive enough to warrant re-notification of the application. The changes are also listed here. Figures 3, 4 and 5 above reflect these changes. 19 April 2017 changes

Site buildings have been relocated an additional 5 m from the SH31/39 road boundary. The building now complies with the 15 m front yard setback requirement of Standard 7A (aside from parking spaces located within this setback). The application didn’t meet this standard at the time of notification.

The two drying towers are now combined into one building and moved further back from SH31/39. The building now complies with Standard 7A for height in relation to boundary. The application didn’t meet this standard at the time of notification.

Consistency of curved roofing over the dry store and utility buildings.

Green recessive colour palette.


Additional planting and landscaping on the site boundaries. Proposal Happy Valley Milk Ltd (HVM) seeks to establish a purpose-built nutritional infant formula dairy factory consisting of two eight tonne per hour dryers capable of blending and canning infant formula and manufacturing Anhydrous Milk Fat (AMF). The HVM site is expected to require approximately 30-60 tanker deliveries of milk per day. Milk will arrive on site via bulk tankers before being unloaded into a milk reception area. Within the reception area, milk will be stored in silos prior to separation and pasteurisation. The milk is then pre-heated to cause a controlled denaturation of the whey proteins before progressing to an evaporator. Within the evaporator, preheated milk is concentrated in stages by boiling the milk under a vacuum at temperatures below 72 oC and removing the water as a vapour. The concentrate created through the evaporation process then progresses to a spray dryer, which is the tallest building within the dairy plant. Spray drying involves the atomising of milk concentrate with heated air as it passes through the top of the dryer. The fine droplets of concentrate collect in a fluid bed where hot air is then used to reduce the moisture content to between 2-4%. The dried product will then progress to packaging and storage. The proposed facility will produce three categories of milk powder, being ‘infant formula’ (0-6 months), ‘follow-on’ (6-12 months), ‘GUMP’ (12 months+) and skim milk. Consumer ready packaging will include canning, principally 400 g and 900 g cans, and flexible packaging. Primary output from the dairy factory will be nutritional powders for infant formula, almost all of which will be exported to the overseas Asian markets. In addition, the site will include an AMF line producing products, again primarily for overseas markets. For an initial three years, the site will produce A2 Skim Milk and A2 infant formula. After this initial start-up period, and subject to global demand factors, the site will specialise in A2 milk and organic milk with the addition of the second dryer. The site is expected to generate approximately 100,000 tonnes of infant formula per year. The site will employ approximately 50 staff, 35 of which will operate on a two shift per day, 24 hour basis. The dairy factory is located on the western part of Lot 2 DPS 28580. This is in order to avoid the Waipa River flood plain and for access to the road network. The site has been selected to make use of arterial road corridors outside of urban areas and for access to services or on-site service provision. Site Development Existing structures on the site are to be removed. These include a brick and tile single storey farm house, a small timber shearing shed, stock yards, water tanks and sheds, and post and wire fencing. Specific features of the dairy factory include:

Two dryers within a single tower (to a maximum height of 46.9 m).


Centrally located milk silos.

Dry-store building (part of a total 17,600 m2 footprint, up to a height of 14.5 m outside of the drying tower).

Car parking (34 spaces) and main office building.

Tanker reception compound.

Tanker wash.

Truck loading entrance and exit.

Other smaller buildings, tanks and associated equipment.

Planting on site boundaries.

Steel chain link security fence.

Entry/exit from Redlands Road. Transportation A new section of Redlands Road will be constructed from the new intersection location back to a position approximately 120 m from SH31 and will connect to the existing pavement. Road improvement works to Kawhia Road (SH31) include:

Road widening for left turn entry into Redlands Road.

Left turn exit from Redlands Road onto SH31 (no acceleration lane proposed).

3 m wide right turn bay for traffic entering Redlands Road with stacking length of 20 m.

No changes proposed to eastern side of SH31 at Honikiwi Road.

Advance intersection warning signs, together with truck warning signs. The operational parameters of the site are:

Site to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

50 Staff (35 day shift 6am to 6pm, 15 night shift 6pm – 6am).

Traffic movements dependent on product manufacture and development staging: o Stage 1 dryer (infant formula): 15 trucks per day o Stage 1 dryer (skim milk): 30 trucks per day o Stage 1 and 2 dryers (infant formula): 30 trucks per day o Stage 1 and 2 dryers (skim milk/infant formula): 45 trucks per day o Stage 1 and 2 Dryers (skim milk): 60 trucks per day o Product distribution: 2 trucks per day (8am - 4pm) o Wastewater cartage: 3 trucks per day (off peak periods)

The plant will be closed between June and July (six weeks) for maintenance. Tanker Drivers commence work from 4am. The tanker base is in Otorohanga (south turns after deliveries).

Earthworks Earthworks include:

Construction to create level building platform, trenching of in-ground services, installation of on-site wastewater and stormwater disposal facilities.

Erosion and sediment control plan prepared and resource consent application lodged with WRC.


Cut and fill amounts:

Work description Dimension of work

Cut 9,100 m3

Fill 10,850 m3

Max depth cut 2.0 m

Max depth fill 5.0 m

Earthworks area 33,955 m2 (3.39 ha)

Earthworks volume 19,950 m3

Disturbance of HAIL (Hazardous Activities and Industries List) site

There are a number of potentially contaminating activities located on, or in close proximity to, the site:

Production land – fertiliser application (accumulation of arsenic and cadmium).

Potential asbestos material in existing buildings to be removed.

Hazardous substance storage

Use and storage of hazardous substances associated with dairy factory (see section 4.9 of the application for a complete list).

Stormwater management approach has not been finalised but is likely to include sumps for the collection and diversion of stormwater, spill management for high risk areas which will be permanently connected to site wastewater, oil separation for stormwater collected from roads and hardstands.

Regional consents

The proposal will require resource consents from WRC. This will include consents for:

Discharges to air – driers, boiler, cooling towers, indirect fire heaters

Discharges of stormwater – during and post construction

Abstraction of water (~720 m3/day) – groundwater preferred option

Discharges of wastewater A concurrent application for discharge of stormwater during construction has been lodged with WRC. On-going operational consents will be applied for at a later date when final options for water source and disposal of stormwater/wastewater have been determined. WRC have requested that all operational consents be applied for in a single application. Applicant’s Assessment of Environmental Effects

Amenity

Proposed mitigation measures

Colours of main buildings not to create high level of visual contrast.


Front of site will be planted with small trees, shrubs and grasses.

- Loss of rural productive land

Dairy factory will cover 4.7 ha of subject property.

Very small amount of productive land will be lost.

Effects on local rural character and amenity values

Proposed dairy factory will not be out of keeping with the existing rural development of the area or out of context with the type of development that are anticipated in the rural environments of Otorohanga.

Scale of dry store building and the dryer tower is very large in comparison with existing rural development in the area. In order to reduce the effects of the large scale buildings, a comprehensive mitigation package has been developed, including:

Positioning of dryer tower in the centre of the site. Planting and open spaces. Building colours. Strong landscape planting patters that reflects the local rural

functional plantings. Plantings and colour treatment reduce the overall visibility of the

largest buildings, reducing the scale of the visible development.

Overall only a small proportion of the buildings and development will be visible from the main residential viewing locations to the west, from Kawhia Road and from Otorohanga due to the extensive site planting.

Topography to the west at Honikiwi Road is a bold backdrop to the building and provides a strong landform context, visually accommodating the scale of the proposed buildings.

Existing rural planting will be enhanced by the integration of mitigation planting around the boundary of the site.

The introduction of the dairy factory to this landscape would be consistent with the local working rural landscape around the outskirts of Otorohanga.

Visual Effects

Due to the nature of views available to passing motorists and the direct connection between the proposed buildings and activities on site to the surrounding rural production character of the dairy farming area, the visual effects of the proposal on public locations will be less than minor.

The proposal will form a significant part of the views from some properties. The dairy factory development is not necessarily out of keeping with the nature of the views as buildings and activities are directly associated with the surrounding dairy production of the western Waikato region.

Due to the overall scale of the development and the extent of private views that it will occupy, the dairy factory could have medium to medium/high adverse effects on a number of properties on the western side of the proposal site.

Noise


Noise from the site will be audible at the notional boundary of the existing adjacent receivers when considered in the context of the existing background environment, although will comply with the relevant noise controls in the District Plan. As such, the residual effects from the proposed dairy manufacturing site are considered to be no more than minor.

Earthworks

Provided recommended mitigation measures are adopted, the impact from the proposed earthworks will be no more than minor.

Disturbance of HAIL (Hazardous Activities Industry List) site

The likely impacts from the disturbance of a HAIL site are considered to be no more than minor.

Traffic

Refer traffic impact assessment.

Subject to implementation of mitigation measures.

Hazardous substances storage

Where there are any non-compliances with the Otorohanga District Plan, the storage facilities will be designed in accordance with HSNO Act requirements. Consequently, the potential effects arising from the storage of hazardous materials will be no more than minor.

Socio-economic

Creation of additional employment opportunities.

Positive impact on local economy. 3.0 Specialist Reports The application contains the following specialist reports prepared in relation to the proposal:

Integrated Transport Assessment (Aurecon)

Noise Assessment (Marshall Day Acoustics)

Preliminary Site Investigation Report (Aurecon)

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Holmes Consulting)

Landscape and Visual Assessment (Isthmus) The following additional information has also been provided:

Landscape and Visual Effects Update (Jasmax) – 11 September 2017

Cultural Impact Assessment (Nehenehenui Regional Management Committee) – 19 October 2017


A summary of each report is set out below. Integrated Transport Assessment (Aurecon)

Figure 6 – Proposed intersection layout.

Proposal

Access to the site is proposed from Redlands Road.

It is intended to relocate the Redlands Road intersection further north, to increase separation between Redlands Road and Honikiwi Road, while achieving site distance in each direction appropriate for the speed limit.

The factory access on Redlands Road is to be at least 60 m from SH31 providing good separation from SH31 to accommodate heavy commercial vehicles.

Proposed intersection upgrade schematic provided (refer figure 6).

A standard left turn (from Redlands into SH31) is preferred as it requires drivers to stop or give way and select an appropriate gap in which to turn. Through traffic will have clear visibility of a slower vehicle in front of them and will have plenty of time to slow as the other vehicle decelerates.

A 3 m right turn bay from traffic entering Redlands Road from SH31 with a stacking bay of 20 m is recommended.

The Austroads Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) for 100 kph speed environment is 285 m. This is achieved in both directions as indicated on the intersection schematic. Lines of sight cross private property. To the north this is contained within the HVM site and will be protected to ensure that the sight line is not blocked in the future. To the south


HVM have an agreement in place with the property owner, Mr Tait to ensure that the sight line will be maintained.

No changes are proposed to the eastern side of SH31 at Honikiwi Road. Sufficient shoulder width is proposed to allow for a southbound vehicle to pass, in the event that there is a vehicle waiting to turn right into Honikiwi Road. Advance intersection warning signs are proposed, together with truck warning signs.

During construction, a construction management plan will need to be implemented for the internal site development and construction activities, to manage arriving and departing traffic related to the works. Preparation of the CMP is generally prepared by the contractor undertaking the work and is submitted for approval prior to commencement of construction which is a condition imposed by the Road Controlling Authority.

It is proposed to set aside an area on the northern side of Redlands Road close to SH31, specifically for site offices, ablutions, safety briefing rooms and secure storage of construction material. A separate carpark for construction vehicles is to be located east of the site and an internal walkway will be provided to enable construction workers to access the construction village and work site internally without having to walk on Redlands Road.

Conclusions/Recommendations

The report concludes as follows:

“From a transportation perspective we consider that the application can be supported with no more than a minor impact on the surrounding road network for the following reasons:

- The day to day traffic generated from the proposed dairy activity is evenly distributed

throughout the day with staff arrivals and departures outside of the peaks.

- The access to the site is off Redlands Road and not directly onto SH31. Sight distance requirements can be met and turning facilities provided.

- Traffic generated by the dairy activity will have minimal impact on crash rates and

severity.

- Alternative access for pedestrians and cyclists can be provided via Old Golf Road.

The following recommendations are made with respect to this proposal: - That the construction management plan form part of the consenting requirements.

- Detailed construction drawings of the proposed intersection improvements on SH31 at

Redlands Road and McCready Road intersection be submitted for approval to NZTA prior to construction.

- That this transport assessment report be submitted to NZTA as an affected party and to enable any specific conditions of consent to be set.

- That the NZTA review the location of the 50/100 speed threshold and relocate it north

of McCready Road.


- That NZTA review the speed limit on SH31 north of Otorohanga from a safe speed

perspective with a view to a reduction to 80kph from the urban limit to a location north of Redlands Road, covering the section of SH31 with loss of control crashes. Lowering of the speed limit would need to be accompanied by other improvements such as a threshold treatment to provide visual environmental difference.

- Detailed construction drawings of the proposed Redlands Road realignment and site

access be submitted to the Otorohanga District Council for approval prior to construction.

- That HVM provide a culvert crossing on Redlands Road to allow connection for

vulnerable road users from Old Golf Road to Redlands Road.” Noise Assessment (Marshall Day Acoustics) The noise assessment report prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics identifies that

Based on long-term noise monitoring, the ambient acoustic environment at the site is typical of a rural setting adjacent to a state highway and is considered to be representative of adjacent residential receivers.

The noise limits set out in the district plan are considered appropriate for this development.

Operational noise levels have been predicted for the proposed dairy manufacturing site based on the preliminary noise budget detailed in this report. The site is predicted to comply with the recommended project noise limits during daytime and night time periods.

A 3 m high noise bund is proposed to be located in the ‘triangle’ of land formed by the realignment of Redlands Road. The bund will practicably mitigate noise from early morning tanker departures from the site.

It is concluded that noise from the site will be audible at the notional boundary of existing adjacent receivers when considered in the context of the existing background environment, although will comply with the relevant noise controls in the District Plan. As such the residual effects from the proposed dairy manufacturing site are considered to be slight.

Conditions of resource consent have been recommended for the activity:

1. Any noise emitted by the operation of the dairy manufacturing site shall not exceed the following noise performance standards when measured at the boundary of any dwelling existing as at the date of granting consent Receiver Zone Monday to Friday (7am – 10pm);

Sundays and Public Holidays 8am – 5pm)

At all other times

Rural Effects Area 50db LAeq 50db LAeq, 70db LAFmax


2. Noise levels shall be measured in accordance with the provisions of the New Zealand Standard NZS 6801:2008 “Acoustics – measurement of environmental sound” and assessed in accordance with the provisions of the New Zealand Standard NZS 6802:2008 “Acoustics – Environmental Noise”.

3. Noise from construction activities shall not exceed the limits recommended in, and shall be measured and assessed in accordance with New Zealand Standard NZS 6803:1999 “Acoustics Construction Noise”

4. An operational noise management plan (NMP) shall be prepared for the site by a

suitably qualified and experienced acoustic expert. The NMP shall outline the operational procedures to practicably control noise as well as process for receiving and handling noise complaints. The NMP shall be submitted to Council prior tom the commencement of the consented activity.

Preliminary Site Investigation (Aurecon) The preliminary site investigation report provides the following recommendations

While on the basis of evidence obtained to date risk to human health and the environment is considered to be low, the presence of unexpected contamination could not be ruled out.

While we currently do not consider a Detailed Site Investigation necessary to assess ongoing human health or environmental risk, further testing of soils may be appropriate to confirm disposal suitability, where required.

Residual risks to construction site workers and environment are best managed through implementation of a contaminated site management plan (CSMP).

We recommend all buildings are subject to a Hazardous Materials Assessment by a qualified asbestos surveyor in accordance with the Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016.

Where evidence of further contamination is identified by HAZMAT or during further investigation or earthworks, a Suitably Qualified and Experienced Practitioner should be engaged to provide guidance on need for further investigation or additional management.

Landscape and Visual Assessment (Isthmus) The report makes the following conclusions:

When assessed against the elements that make up local rural character and amenity of the Otorohanga District, the proposed dairy factory can be integrated into the existing working rural environment.

The key potential landscape and visual effects arising from the proposal relate to the scale and size of the drying tower and the dry-store building.

The dairy factory is a large building but is consistent with the context of the existing rural development and primary rural production that is anticipated to occur within rural


environments and on the edge of rural service towns. It will be a feature along the way, but will not change the overall character or nature of the journey through the rural environment.

When assessed from a range of publicly accessible viewing locations, representing views on all sides of the site, the proposal to build the dairy factory is appropriate to the local character and the receiving environment. This is due to large setbacks to the site boundaries, the design and colouring of buildings and the rural landscape plantings recommended as mitigation.

The dairy factory development will have less than minor effects on the local public environment, due to the nature of the development and how it will be experienced.

A limited number of local residents to the west have views of the site and would have views of the proposed development from dwellings and properties. Due to the viewing distances and the existing landscape context, the visual effects of the proposal on the majority of local residents will be less than minor.

For some residents the dairy factory will be a prominent feature within the view over Otorohanga and the surrounding rural environment, however it will not be out of keeping with the working rural character of the areas surrounding Otorohanga or the western Waikato dairy production area. For a limited number of local residents the proposed dairy factory is likely to have adverse visual effects that are medium to medium high, or more than minor in RMA assessment terms.

Mitigation is recommended in the form of:

- Design and layout of the development including setbacks from the road and the internal location of the dryer tower to break up the scale of the development and to internalise the effects of the additional height of the towers.

- Colouring of the drying tower building will help to integrate it into the range of likely visual backdrops, including pastoral and planted land and cloudy and fine skies.

- A framework of large scale rural tree planting is recommended to create a functional rural planted edge to the west boundary. Native vegetation is proposed to the north and east of the site and a strong pattern of amenity planting is recommended at the site entrance and around amenity spaces for staff.

It is noted that changes were subsequently made to the application as detailed in section 2.0 of this report.


View Locations

Figure 7 – Isthmus assessment viewpoint locations.

VL1 – Introduction of dairy factory to this view would be consistent with the local working rural character. While the scale of the development is large and noticeable, a rural service element such as a dairy factory, with associated rural style planting would be consistent with the pastoral landscape. Due to the passing nature of visitors to this intersection and the utility structures and plantings already present, the visual effects of the proposal would be less than minor.

VL2 – The mitigation planting will provide a strong vegetated context for the dairy factory development, providing both a foreground and background to the development. The overall visible scale of the dairy factory and in particular the dryer towers and the dry store buildings will be reduced by the mitigation planting. Due to the passing nature of visitors to this intersection and the very limited viewing audience utilising Redlands Road, the visual effects of the proposal on this location would be less than minor.

VL3 – Due to the viewing distances, the limited public viewing audience, the angle of view, away from the general orientation of the houses the complexity of the broader view and the nature of the foreground of this view, the potential adverse visual effects on this location will be less than minor.


VL4 – The introduction of the dairy factory to this view would be consistent with the local working rural character. While the scale of the development is large and noticeable, a rural service element such as a dairy factory would be consistent with the working rural landscape.

VL5 – Due to the elevated viewing location, the proximity of the proposal site and the scale of the development, the potential adverse effects on 173 Kawhia Road will be medium to medium / high, or more than minor in RMA assessment terms.

VL6 - Due to the nature of the viewing location and the extent of the view that will be occupied by the dairy factory, even with the mitigation plantings in place, the potential adverse visual effects on this location would be medium to medium/ high, or more than minor in RMA assessment terms.

VL7 – Due to the open views down into the site, the potential adverse visual effects of the proposal on this location will be medium, or more than minor in RMA assessment terms.

Landscape and Visual Effects Update (Jasmax) This report identifies differences between the design of 19 April 2017 and the original design used to inform the landscape and visual effects assessment prepared by Isthmus. Four visualisations have been produced to show the design changes. The Jasmax update concludes that the design changes will result in reduced landscape and visual effects. The reasons for the reduction in adverse effects include:

A refined (visually recessive) colour palette demonstrates that building’s visual presence can be reduced considerably where the building is below the skyline from certain viewpoints.

Drier stacks are set further back into the middle of the site.

Greater building setback-backs adjacent SH31 together with building and roofline articulation and smaller scale building units such as the cannery and admin areas reduce the apparent scale of the overall composition. Although these benefits are offset with a view of the canopy between the drier stack and site entrance.

The tops of the silos are generally contained within a three sided courtyard in the dry store building and below the skyline.

The revised design has switched the internal vehicle circulation from the east side of the building to the west, adjacent the SH31 and this has enabled larger and more significant building offsets from the SH31 boundary.

The SH31 boundary planting has changed from a single row of poplar trees to a tall ‘informal hedge’ (as described in the new landscape design statement). However, although the informal hedge is lower than the fastigiated deciduous poplar trees it is evergreen and therefore provides visual benefit all year round, breaking up views of internal site traffic and reducing the overall mass of visible building.

There is no change to the local working character impacts, vegetation loss/replacement at Redlands Road and the nature of fleeting motorist views.


Cultural Impact Assessment (Nehenehenui Regional Management Committee)

Nehenehenui RMC is a Regional Management Committee which was constituted in the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board Order 1988. Nehenehenui RMC represents Maniapoto marae, tāngata whenua, whānau, hapū and iwi interests where there is a proposal for the development of natural and physical resources. Nehenehenui RMC has been engaged by the applicant to complete this cultural impact assessment (CIA). Of particular interest in this proposal is its situation beside the Waipa River.

For tāngata whenua the Waipā River is critically important as a tūpuna (ancestor) and taonga (treasure), a food source, transport corridor, a place of healing with its own mana (integrity) and spiritual integrity. From a Ngāti Maniapoto perspective, the tipua/taniwha, Waiwaia, is the mauri (essential life force) and waiora (health and wellbeing essence) of the Waipā River.

Nehenehenui RMC is largely supportive of the proposal by HVM, although with the caveat that this support does not extend to any regional consent applications required for wastewater discharge and water take and use.

Key findings of the CIA include:

Mitigation in relation to wastewater discharge and water taken and use will be further discussed for the regional consent applications.

Nehenehenui RMC proposes to be involved in the development of the construction management plan, particularly in relation to monitoring.

Multiple sites of significance have been identified within close proximity to the plant.

Nehenehenui RMC expects ongoing consultation to occur with HVM, including in relation to consent conditions.

4.0 Further Information Requested Prior to Notification A request for further information was sent by ODC to the applicant on 17 November 2016. A response to the further information request was received on 21 November 2016. The information required by ODC related to water supply, wastewater, stormwater, the tanker fleet base, construction traffic, noise generation, shading/icing of road pavement, WRC consents, the Countryside Living Policy Area, and the District Plan Assessment Criteria. The specific information requested and a summary of the information provided by the applicant in response to ODC’s request is set out below:

Matter Information requested Information provided by the applicant in response

Water supply a) Why have concurrent resource consents not been sought from WRC for groundwater take?

b) Is there potential that reticulated supply would be required to

Likely volume of water required is 2000 m3 per day.

1200 m3 accessible from ground water.

800 m3 from Council supply or


supplement any groundwater take? c) If supplementary take is required:

What would the daily intake of water likely be?

When would this demand be on any given 24 hour cycle?

What size storage tanks would be used to mitigate peak flow requirement?

d) What would the response of the applicant be if resource consent for groundwater take is declined by WRC or the water permitted to be taken by any consent granted is less than daily operational requirements?

other means (early discussions with ODC have indicated that there is capacity within Council’s reticulation to meet this demand).

2000 m3 storage tank to be constructed to ensure 1 days’ supply available at all times. Tank would be filled overnight or at a rate of 9.3 l/s over a 24 hour period.

Wastewater a) What wastewater is intended to be discharged into the Otorohanga reticulated wastewater system and does this include water from the truck wash?

b) What is the likely daily volume of wastewater to be discharged into the Otorohanga reticulated wastewater system?

c) What is the nature and volume of wastewater that is proposed to be disposed of via other means? How is this waste proposed to be disposed of (including where and how often)?

d) Will wastewater be stored on-site? If so what will the volume and means of storage be?

e) What measures are proposed to avoid any milk spills from entering the Waipa River and the reticulated wastewater system?

Wastewater generation of 3000 L per day.

In event that unable to connect to ODC reticulated wastewater system, space exists for an on-site wastewater treatment plant and disposal field, located in proposed planting area to the north east of the administration block.

If on-site system used would require discharge consent from WRC.

Stormwater a) Is it intended to use the Otorohanga reticulated stormwater system?

b) What methodology is proposed to manage Stormwater associated with the site buildings and hardstand areas?

Proposed dairy factory does propose to connect to the Otorohanga District Council reticulated stormwater system.

Detailed design for the stormwater system yet to be designed but based on Golders concept design for the site.

-

Tanker fleet base

a) How many tankers (stage 1 and 2 full capacity) will be based in Otorohanga?

Operation of tanker fleet to be contracted to a third party supply.

Until contractor has been


b) Has the site for the tanker base been identified and if so where is it to be located?

c) How big will the site be and what other operational activities will be associated with the tanker base (e.g. offices, refuelling, maintenance etc.)?

appointed, unable to advise the location of the tanker fleet base.

It may or may not be in Otorohanga.

It may or may not be housed within an existing facility.

The contractor will be responsible for ensuring that the appropriate permits and consents are in place for their operations.

Construction traffic

a) What vehicle movements are proposed during construction and where will vehicle access be obtained from for construction traffic?

b) When is construction of the new road and intersection upgrades intended to take place?

c) What traffic management is to be employed during the construction phase?

Level of construction traffic will depend on how construction contractor wishes to manage the work phases. Will be part of overall construction management plan.

All access to site to be off Redlands Road.

Existing intersection and alignment of Redlands Road to be used during construction.

Any pavement repairs resulting from turning traffic, that needs to be undertaken to rectify any damage that has resulted, can then be undertaken at the same time as the upgrade works.

All temporary Traffic Management Plans will need to be prepared by a suitably qualified STMS and submitted to the relevant road controlling authorities together with the corridor access requests, for approval prior to commencement of physical work.

Noise generation

The acoustic report does not appear to explain the reasons for the predicted noise direction. Please provide: a) An explanation of the contour

maps; and b) An explanation of the predicted

noise emission direction and identify whether a change in wind direction would result in a different spatial distribution of noise from the factory

c) Reasoning for why higher noise levels of 45 dB LAeq and 50 dB LAeq

Provision of additional information from Marshall Day Acoustics.

The dryer buildings and storage warehouse (tall structures) block / reduce noise propagation to the west and this explains why the 45 and 40 dB LAeq noise contours are predicted not to extend further westwards beyond the extent of the factory.

We do not expect the contour to be significantly worse for a given prevailing wind direction, and in fact, for a given wind direction, the


are not predicted to extend beyond the western extent of the factory.

noise contour is expected to be appreciably reduced for upwind receiver locations.

Shading/icing of road pavement

Shading diagrams which identify shading of the road surface and neighbouring land which may occur: a) On shortest day of the year

between 7am and 2.30pm. b) On the longest day of the year

between 7am and 2.30pm. Assessment of effects of shading in terms of: a) Potential for icing of the road

surface during frosty conditions. b) Potential for loss of

daylight/sunlight on neighbouring land taking into account the existing effect of topography on receipt of afternoon sun.

No adjacent properties will be adversely affected by shading during the times that have been assessed using the shading diagrams.

The shading generated by the dairy factory development will be similar to what could be expected from a typical rural roadside planting, as is already illustrated in the local area.

Regional Council consents

a) The application documents identify regional council consent requirements and that operational consents will be applied for at a later date.

b) Please provide an assessment of the provisions of section 91 of the RMA and reasoning for why, in your opinion, section 91 of the RMA should not be applied in this instance.

As mentioned in the consent application, HVM has initiated discussions with WRC regarding the staging of the regional consents. They have agreed to process the site establishment consents separately from the operational consents. They do not consider that the operational consents are necessary to better understand the nature of the consent applications currently before them. Further, the effects of the various consents are discrete do not overlap.

The regional resource consent that will be required for the project but have not been applied for are as follows:

Discharge of contaminants to air. The potential impacts of the discharge to air are discrete and do not aid in the understanding of plant construction or the way in which it operates. For this reason it is not necessary to consider the air discharge in conjunction with the applications currently before ODC.


Discharge of manufacturing wastewater to land. The manufacturing wastewater will not discharge to land at Redlands Road. Instead another site will be identified and the appropriate consents applied for. The application describes six wastewater treatment tanks on site and the traffic assessment details the number of truck movements required to transport the material off site. There are no other matters relevant to the consent applications currently before ODC. Consequently, this consent does not need to be considered in conjunction with the applications currently before ODC.

Abstraction of ground water. As with the discharge to air, the effects arising from the abstraction of groundwater are discrete. The location of bores and associated facilities will not have an impact on the on the visual or noise environment of the site. Preliminary investigations have been undertaken by Golders which demonstrate that groundwater is available. Further WRC have indicated that there is no impediment to sourcing water east of the blue line depicted in the following snip. Consequently this consent does not need to be considered in conjunction with the applications currently before ODC.

Countryside Living Policy Area

a) Please provide an assessment on the likely effect of establishment of the factory on the ability for adjoining land to be subdivided as rural residential developments taking into account the matters to which Council has restricted the exercise of its discretion in terms of Rules 2.1 and the assessment criteria of Rule 20.2 as contained in the subdivision section of the

The minimum lot size under Rule 2.1 is 5,000 m2 and so only one additional lot could be added to the identified sites. The design of any potential subdivision would need to be developed in order to address the matters of discretion and rural effects criteria regardless of whether a dairy factory is located at 5 Redlands Road. The only matters that could potentially


Otorohanga District Plan. be impacted are:

Reverse Sensitivity

Provision and management of wastewater and stormwater

District Plan Assessment Criteria

a) Please provide an assessment of the proposed in terms of section 24 of the Land Use Chapter. The relevant rules within this section are:

Rule 24.5 – Earthworks

Rule 24.7 – Building Construction, Alteration or Relocation

Rule 24.8 – Wastewater, Stormwater, Water Supply

Rule 24.9 – Planting of Trees or Crops

Rule 24.10 – Vehicle Access and Traffic Generation

Rule 24.13 – Storage of Materials

Rule 24.14 – Outside Lighting/Reflective Building Materials

Rule 24.17 – Hazardous Substances

Building Construction, Alteration or Relocation

Once established on-site, the plant has been designed to minimise any impacts off-site.

As outlined in the landscaping assessment, a dairy factory is a land use anticipated in a rural environment, particularly in close proximity to the Otorohanga Township.

The landscaping has been designed to minimise the bulk and scale of the buildings. A handful of residences in close proximity to the buildings are affected visually and discussion is on-going regards to further mitigation measures.

5.0 Peer Reviews and Further Information A peer review of the noise assessment was completed by Hegley Acoustic Consultants. Marshall Day Acoustics then provided additional information, prior to Hegley Acoustic Consultants completing a final review. A peer review of the Isthmus and Jasmax landscape and visual assessments has been completed by Mansergh Graham Landscape Architects Ltd. Noise Peer Review (Hegley Acoustic Consultants) This peer review considered the following matters:

Operational noise criteria.

Construction noise criteria.

Noise sensitive receivers.

Operational noise assessment.

Construction noise assessment.


In addition, the peer review identified the following matters requiring further assessment:

Confirmation of the night time noise assessment being undertaken in accordance with NZS 6802:2008.

Exceedance of the night time limit at 6 Redlands Road.

Noise budget used for the dryers.

Increased tanker activity from the operation of two dryers on the noise levels of receivers to the south west.

Noise assessment of likely plant to comply with construction noise standard NZS 6803:1999.

Marshall Day Acoustics responded to this request, with Hegley Acoustic Consultants sufficiently satisfied to recommend consent conditions:

1. The site shall be designed and operated to ensure the noise does not exceed the following limits within the notional boundary of any rural dwelling:

Monday-Friday 7:00am–10:00pm 50 dB LAeq Saturday 7:00am–7:00pm 50 dB LAeq Sunday and public holidays 8:00am–5:00pm 50 dB LAeq At all other times 40 dB LAeq and 70 dB LAmax

2. The noise shall be measured in accordance with the requirements of NZS6801:2008 Acoustics - Measurement of Environmental Sound and assessed in accordance with the requirements NZS6802:2008 Acoustics – Environmental Noise.

3. Construction noise shall comply with the long term noise limits of NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise.

4. Prior to issuing a building permit an acoustic design shall be provided by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant to the satisfaction of Council demonstrating how the plant will be designed and operated to ensure compliance with the requirements of condition (1).

5. Prior to commencing any construction work a Construction Noise Management Plan (CNMP) shall be prepared. The CNMP shall set out how the site will be managed to comply with the requirements of condition (3). As a minimum the CNMP shall address the requirements of Annex E of NZS6803.

6. Mitigation in the form of an operable roller door located at the southern end of the milk reception area as set out in the letter from Marshall Day Acoustics dated 2 May 2017 shall be included in the noise mitigation.

7. The minimum height of the earth bund shown on Attachment 1 of the letter from Marshall Day Acoustics dated 2 May 2017 shall be 3 m.

8. Within three months of commissioning the plant the noise shall be measured to demonstrate that the requirements of condition (1) are complied with.


Landscape and Visual Effects Peer Review (Mansergh Graham Landscape Architects Ltd) The purpose of this peer review was to identify whether the plans, and landscape and visual assessments, provided with the application (the HVLVA reports) reach a set of clear and concise conclusions, supported by an appropriate methodological framework within the context of the relevant planning instruments and New Zealand case law. The peer review concludes that while the HVLVA reports are weighted towards identifying the visibility of the proposal from the surrounding landscape, at the expense of identification of how the proposal affects existing visual and landscape amenity, it has followed an acceptable methodological approach. Review of the documentation, within the context of a site inspection and consultation with the authors of the HVLVA reports, has found that while the nature of the effect has been identified, the magnitude of effects on existing rural character and visual amenity have (in the reviewer’s opinion) been underestimated. The peer review concludes that the proposed dairy factory is inconsistent with the rural character and amenity provisions of the Otorohanga District Plan. The proposal will result in more than minor adverse effects on the rural character and visual amenity of a number of properties within 500 m of the site. The peer review does include draft consent conditions should the Hearings Commissioners deem these appropriate. 6.0 Consultation Undertaken The AEE document identifies that the applicant has undertaken consultation with:

Iwi

Neighbours

NZTA

Otorohanga District Council (ODC)

Waikato Regional Council (WRC) Iwi The applicant made contact made with Gabrielle Morgan of Maniapoto Trust. Ms Morgan advised that consultation would be required with Nehenehenui Resource Management Committee as holding mana whenua over the rohe. A hui was held with Nehenehenui on 20 October 2016 and an information pack was presented and discussed. An agreement was reached that a cultural impact assessment should be completed for the site and a programme for completing that work is currently under discussion. This CIA is summarised in Section 3.0 of this report in support of the land use aspects of the proposal. Neighbours Initial consultation was conducted between 8 and 16 September 2016 with residents identified in Figure 8 below. The applicant identifies that issues raised to date by neighbours include noise, lighting, views and property values. The applicant anticipates that consultation process will be ongoing throughout


the consent processing, tendering and construction phases. No outcomes of this consultation have been provided to Council. No written consents have been received from the neighbours detailed below in Figure 8.

Figure 8 - Initial consultation with neighbours. NZTA The applicant provided preliminary information to NZTA and has had a discussion with a Senior Resource Planner and a Senior Safety Engineer for NZTA. NZTA raised a number of issues and made a submission on the application when it was notified. The submission raised a number of issues:

The height and location of the buildings and whether they could be shifted further back to avoid shading issues on State Highway 31.

The effect of shading on the safety of SH31, as well as the potential for long term maintenance issues.

The layout of Redlands Road intersection as discussed to ensure that ‘rolling’ stops are avoided.

The form and feasibility of the proposed cycle path as discussed.


The Redlands Road and Honikiwi Road intersection layouts to avoid adverse effects on the safety of Honikiwi Road.

The applicant then provided further information satisfy NZTA’s concerns. The applicant has altered the layout of the site to minimise shading issues on the state highway; changed the Redlands Road intersection design to prevent the potential for ‘rolling’ stops by left turning vehicles; and provided an alternative layout for Honikiwi Road which includes the provision of a right turn bay. NZTA is not opposed to the consent and has provided conditions of consent that will mitigate/avoid an adverse effects on the transport network. These conditions reflect the changes to the application outlined above, including the requirement for a road safety audit. The applicant has agreed to these conditions. ODC The following discussions have taken place between the applicant and ODC:

Initial meetings held with the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer.

Subsequent meetings with Chief Executive Officer in relation to potable water supply for the site as well as waste and stormwater disposal have also been held. Discussions are on-going.

Meeting with Roading Manager to determine transport issues and options. Applicant and ODC are determining alternative access for active transport modes via Redlands Road.

Meeting with Consultant Planner to discuss consenting requirements and information needs.

WRC Meetings held with WRC officers to:

Introduce the project;

Discuss the consenting strategy and information requirements;

Agree approach to lodge site establishment consents ahead of operational consents.

The erosion and sediment control plan subsequently forwarded to WRC for review and has been updated to reflect comments received. WRC is not opposed to the staged approach in obtaining regional consents following the ODC consent process. WRC would like to see all operational consents applied for in one application to allow for comprehensive assessment. 7.0 District Plan Assessment (Otorohanga Operative District Plan) An assessment of the proposal in terms of the Otorohanga Operative District Plan (District Plan) is attached to this notification report as Appendix 1.


This assessment identifies that the application for resource consent is a Discretionary Activity, due to non-compliances with various standards in the District Plan relating to:

Earthworks area and volume;

Natural hazards;

Development control standards for buildings;

Wastewater and stormwater management;

Vehicle access and vehicle movements;

Location of parking spaces;

Noise;

Exterior storage of materials; and

Hazardous substances. The activity is also a discretionary activity under the NESCS for the disturbance of soil. The subject property is located within the Rural Effects Area and also forms part of the Countryside Living Policy Area surrounding Otorohanga. The subject property is identified as having frontage to State Highway 31 (Limited Access Road) which is designated under the district plan by NZTA. The low lying area surrounding the Waipa River is within the River Hazard Zone (see Figure 2). Also appended to this hearings report are the District Plan objectives, policies and assessment criteria which are considered to be relevant for consideration of the proposal. The following points are made to the policy direction of the District Plan which is relevant to determining whether adverse effects on the environment are acceptable or otherwise:

1. The rural character of the area immediately adjoining the subject property is predominated by rural residential land use activities and areas of open pastureland.

The built form of the area is dominated by small scale interspersed dwellings.

There are no significant agricultural buildings, industrial or commercial activities in the immediate area.

The natural features of the area are the Waipa River forming the eastern boundary of the subject property and a ridgeline to the west of the subject property.

2. The transport environment of the area is characterised by Kawhia Road (SH31) which is a

limited access road with a posted speed environment of 100 km/h. There are two local road intersections to Honikiwi Road and Redlands Road which are separated from each other by approximately 70 m. There are a number of private property accesses onto Kawhia Road and Redlands Road. Kawhia Road in this location is a high speed environment.

3. The District Plan seeks to:

Retain rural character;

Provide development and subdivision opportunities in the Countryside Living Policy Area;

Recognise, provide for and enable the continuation of lawfully established activities and the establishment of rural and agricultural land use activities;


Discourage commercial and industrial activities from locating in areas where they have effects incompatible with rural residential activities in the Countryside Living Policy Area;

Locate and design buildings and development to: - Have bulk and location consistent with buildings in the neighbourhood - Avoid buildings and structures dominating natural features, adjoining land or

public places - Maintain adequate daylight and direct sunlight to buildings - Ensure adequate supply of potable water - Enable the continued operation and maintenance of existing lawfully

established activities

Ensure that the volume of traffic generated by any activity does not adversely affect road safety or the efficient operation of the transport network;

Ensure that the safety and function of the transport network is not adversely affected or compromised by:

- Inappropriate location and inadequate design of road intersections and vehicle entranceways

- The location of trees or structures in relation to vehicle entranceways and roads

Prevent the use or storage of hazardous substances in locations where accidental release will result in adverse effects on the health and safety of people or water bodies;

To separate activities involving the use or storage of hazardous substances from other sensitive activities.

8.0 Assessment of the application against Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)

notification criteria An assessment of the application in terms of Section 95A and 95B of the application has previously been undertaken. This assessment concluded that full public notification of the application under Section 95A was required because adverse effects on the environment arising from the proposal were considered to be more than minor, specifically in relation to rural character, traffic safety and efficiency, infrastructure and the use/storage of hazardous substances. The application was publicly notified and specific notification was sent to the following parties:

Name Address Owner/occupier

GM Menzies and JR Oliver 193 Kawhia Road Owner/occupier

DJ & JCD Eyeington 191 Kawhia Road Owner/occupier

TF & SE Walters 189 Kawhia Road Owner/occupier

KP & JF Morrisey 187 Kawhia Road Owner/occupier

AM Marx 177 Kawhia Road Owner/occupier

PJ & ML Blundell 30 Honikiwi Road Owner/occupier

AD & SD Meier 29 Honikiwi Road Owner/occupier

CJ King 18 Honikiwi Road Owner/occupier

PJ & VC Cornelisson 26 Honikiwi Road Owner/occupier

DEA Bree 27 Honikiwi Road Owner/occupier

GK Mansell and J Aspinall 3 Honikiwi Road Owner/occupier


JR Barlow 75A Honikiwi Road Owner/occupier

RC Te Whare 6 Redlands Road Owner/occupier

ES Tait Redlands Road Owner (unoccupied)

CE Anso 36 Redlands Road Owner/occupier

CC & BH Baker 54 Redlands Road Owner/occupier

LS Gibson 26 Old Golf Road Occupier

NS Berry 40 Old Golf Road Owner/occupier

GJ & J Rose and D Bailey 5 Ouruwhero Road Occupier

MR Gibson 23 Ouruwhero Road Owner/occupier

Taare Waanga Marae Ouruwhero Road Owner/occupier

Maniapoto Maori Trust Board

Nehenehenui RMC

NZTA

New Zealand Fire Service

WRC

New Zealand Fish and Game Council

The location of these affected parties is shown in Figure 9 below.

Figure 9 - Affected parties.


9.0 Submissions Received A total of 69 submissions were received in relation to the proposed dairy factory. These submissions included 34 in support, four neutral and 30 in opposition. One submission has been withdrawn. These submissions are located in Appendix 2. The submitters are listed as follows: Support

AJ Derecourt

Eric Tait

Keith Randle

Paul Prescott

Shaun Kohinga

Aria Concrete Pumping

John Mildon

Allan Pratt

Paul Wood

Lance Phillips

Lindsay Meredith

Ian Robert Gollan

Richard Harford

Wayne New

Amy New

Kylie Mouat

Scott Mouat

Kirsty Fare

Rex Fare

Otorohanga Timber Company

Robert Phillips

Peter Burton

Otorohanga District Development Board

Michael & Alison Sellars

John & Sue Clark

Alastair & Shirley Bell

Tessa Walker

Erin Milne

Billie-Ann Gadd

Lloyd Tahuroa Rangitaawa

Wade Humphries

Bayley Campbell

Cheryl?

Nehenehenui RMC Neutral

J Scott & T Kristensen

Sharryn R Te Atawhai Barton


Earl Rattray

QEII National Trust Oppose

S & J Oliver

C King

Andra Neeley

Elizabeth Cowan

Trevor Walters

Suzie Walters

Kent and Joanne Morrissey

Vicki Cornelisson

Peter Cornelisson

Michelle Blundell

Phillip Blundell

W & L Reekers

Aaron Marx

Shirley Dianne Meier

Hugh Earwaker

Andrew Baker

Ian Clark

Ian Groube

Marin Walmsley

Pat Edwards

NZTA

Heather Hammond

Duncan Coull (Coull Farms Ltd)

Alan Rogers

Andrew Moir (Tihiroa Rural Water)

Veronica Gibson

Otorohanga Zoological Society

KG Ferris

Social Plan Inc

Sam Williams & Brooke Rako-Williams Withdrawn

DJ & CD Eyeington The location of these submitters is illustrated in Figure 10 below.


Figure 10 – Location of submitters (opposed in red, in support in green). AJ Derecourt May wish to be heard and supports the application due to additional business and growth opportunities. Eric Tait Wishes to be heard and supports the application for the following reasons:

Otorohanga is a rural town needing rural product production.

Noise, dust and visual effects are part of development.

Vehicle movements on SH31 could be caused by development elsewhere. Keith Randle May wish to be heard and supports the application for the following reasons:

Financial benefits for local businesses and farmers.

New job opportunities.


Paul Prescott Does not wish to be heard and supports the application for the following reasons:

Economic benefits, including employment, housing, accommodation and increased spending.

Shaun Kohinga May wish to be heard and supports the application due to additional employment opportunities. Aria Concrete Pumping Does not wish to be heard and supports the application due to additional employment opportunities and business development. John Mildon Does not wish to be heard and supports the application due to additional employment opportunities and business development. Allan Pratt Does not wish to be heard and supports the application for the following reasons:

Increased employment opportunities.

Keep local people within the community.

Increase in revenue for farmers, local business and the region. Paul Wood Wishes to be heard and supports the application, subject to all heavy vehicles associated with the activity not using the main street of Otorohanga as a thoroughfare. Lance Phillips Does not wish to be heard and supports the application for the following reasons:

Additional employment opportunities.

Competition within the dairy industry for farmers to choose their milk processor. Lindsay Meredith Does not wish to be heard and supports the application for the following reasons:

Employment opportunities.

Economic growth for Otorohanga.


Ian Robert Gollan Wishes to be heard and supports the application, though notes the following:

Impact of taking 1,000 m3 from the ground on neighbouring properties.

Water surplus usage requirements may be sold.

Less water available may restrict neighbouring development.

Seeks assurances that any allocated water not used shall not be transferred. Richard Harford Does not wish to be heard and supports the application for the following reasons:


Economic growth for Otorohanga. Wayne New Does not wish to be heard and supports the application for the following reasons:


Economic growth for Otorohanga. Amy New Does not wish to be heard and supports the application for the following reasons:


Economic growth for Otorohanga. Kylie Mouat May wish to be heard and supports the application for the following reasons:


Economic growth and sustainability for Otorohanga.

Attraction of people to Otorohanga. Scott Mouat May wish to be heard and supports the application due to the increased economic growth and sustainability for Otorohanga. Kirsty Fare May wish to be heard and supports the application for the following reasons:


Economic growth and sustainability for Otorohanga.

Environmental effects can be mitigated.


Rex Fare May wish to be heard and supports the application for the following reasons:


Economic growth for Otorohanga. Otorohanga Timber Company Does not wish to be heard and supports the application for the following reasons:

Progressive development.

Community benefits. Robert Phillips Does not wish to be heard and supports the application for the following reasons:

Additional employment opportunities.

Competition within the dairy industry for farmers to choose their milk processor. Peter Burton May wish to be heard and supports the application due to the economic benefits. Otorohanga District Development Board Does not wish to be heard and supports the application (no reasons given). Michael & Alison Sellars Wishes to be heard and supports the application, with modifications related to:

Intersection design.

Traffic and access.

Wastewater disposal.

Regional consents. John & Sue Clark Does not wish to be heard and supports the application for the following reasons:

Employment benefits.

Infrastructure and retail gains.

Betterment of the Otorohanga community.


Alastair & Shirley Bell Does not wish to be heard and supports the application for the following reasons:

Competition within the dairy industry for farmers to choose their milk processor.

Positive for the community and businesses.

Employment benefits.

Keep people in the town.

Positives outweigh the negatives. Tessa Walker Does not wish to be heard and supports the application. Erin Milne Does not wish to be heard and supports the application (no reasons given). Billie-Ann Gadd Does not wish to be heard and supports the application due to development being good for the district. Lloyd Tahuroa Rangitaawa Does not wish to be heard and supports the application (no reasons given). Wade Humffreys Does not wish to be heard and supports the application (no reasons given). Bayley Campbell Does not wish to be heard and supports the application (no reasons given). Cheryl? Does not wish to be heard and supports the application (no reasons given). Nehenehunui RMC (Gabrielle Morgan-Logan and Derek Kōtuku Wooster) Wishes to be heard and supports the application given the existing relationship with HVM. Nehenehenui Regional Management Committee (RMC) comprises representatives from marae and papakainga, including Kahotea Marae. Nehenehenui notes the following matters of primary importance in relation to potential adverse environmental effects:

HVM to commission Nehenehenui RMC to produce a cultural impact assessment to assist with final recommendations and conditions for the consenting process.


Application for water take and use yet to be lodged with WRC.

Any adverse effect on the quantity and quality of air, water and land resources.

Any adverse effects on sites of cultural significance.

Mitigation measures to address and potential environmental effects during commencement of construction, construction and the operation of the proposed milk plant.

Procedures for discovery of artefacts, taonga and, or koiwi discovery during earthworks and construction (already agreed).

Protocols for monitoring activities undertaken on the site including commencement of construction, construction and operation of the proposed milk plant.

Nehenehenui RMC comments on the mitigation raised in the application:

Cover exposed surfaces – use local supplier.

Control runoff and prevent sediment from leaving the site – concern with how sediment laden water is treated and the location of the discharge point.

Appointment of iwi monitors.

Protocols regarding taonga, artefacts or koiwi discovery during earthworks. Submission does not speak to water take and water use given the application information provided. J Scott & T Kristensen Does not wish to be heard and is neutral towards the application. The submitter has questions related to:

The lack of a specific wastewater management plan.

Traffic movements at main intersections in Otorohanga, safety risk at South School.

Noise levels.

Light pollution. The submitters seeks the following relief:

Proper waste management plan tabled and explained.

Speed restrictions at SH31 by the plant.

Engine brakes prohibited.

No burden on Otorohanga DC ratepayers.

Screen planting from the main road. Sharryn R Te Atawhai Barton Wishes to be heard and is neutral towards the application, for the following reasons:

Employees at the diary factory should be locally sourced or from the Waipa District if unavailable.

Industry standards maintained for employees.

Support the growth of social and economic wellbeing in the Waipa District and surrounds.

Inclusion of the community.


Earl Rattray May wish to be heard and is neutral towards the application, for the following reasons:

Ratepayer exposure needs to be limited.

Concern that the applicant has a limited background in the dairy industry. QEII National Trust Does not wish to be heard and is neutral towards the application, for the following reasons:

Potential impact of site development, infrastructure and water extraction on ecosystem, and flora and fauna values in seven QEII covenants registered on adjacent titles to protect 6.5 ha of lowland forest and wetlands.

The proposed development may alter ground water levels within existing covenants and affect wetland health through increased runoff and silt loads, compromising surrounding QEII covenants.

S & J Oliver May wish to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Water supply – draw off of groundwater from HVM could affect other users.

Wastewater – no consent application has been made for the disposal of wastewater.

Site suitability – small area of high ground surrounded by a floodplain.

Traffic movements – major increase in heavy traffic and associated safety issues. C King Wishes to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Non-compliance with District Plan provisions, specifically in relation to rural character.

Site is located adjacent to a protected wetland area.

Nuisance – residues onto land, stormwater and wastewater discharge to the river, rural scenery.

Traffic safety, significant increase in traffic volumes.

Factory operation - water supply, noise, shading/sunlight loss.

Little detail available on accommodation for employees arriving from outside Otorohanga.

All resource consents have yet to be applied for. Andra Neeley Does not wish to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Traffic impacts – construction of a bypass around Otorohanga to provide for heavy traffic is recommended.

Elizabeth Cowan Does not wish to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:


No clarity in the application as to the disposal of wastewater and water supply to the site, information provided is not sufficient.

Contradictory information given in the application in relation to dryer sizes and wastewater treatment.

Regional consents have not be applied for.

Milk volumes and related tanker fleet numbers do not match. Trevor Walters Wishes to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Air pollution from the drying towers in proximity to the submitter’s property.

Impact of air pollution on roof collected water – health issues.

Noise pollution – hasn’t been measured from different distances/elevations around the dairy factory.

Precedent for additional industrial activities to be built in the vicinity, impact on rural character.

Traffic volumes provided are incorrect. Traffic safety issues related to vehicles queuing on SH31/39. Shading issues causing icing.

Lighting effects – no information provided.

Lack of information in relation to wastewater disposal and water supply.

Effects on the Waipa River.

Economic and social effects. Suzie Walters Wishes to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Air pollution from the drying towers in proximity to the submitter’s property.

Impact of air pollution on roof collected water – health issues.

Noise pollution – hasn’t been measured from different distances/elevations around the diary factory.

Precedent for additional industrial activities to be built in the vicinity, impact on rural character.

Traffic volumes provided are incorrect. Traffic safety issues related to vehicles queuing on SH31/39. Shading issues causing icing.

Lighting effects – no information provided.

Lack of information in relation to wastewater disposal and water supply.

Effects on the Waipa River.

Economic and social effects. Kent and Joanne Morrissey Wishes to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Water availability, water quality, air pollution

Views

Noise


Road safety

Wastewater

Alternative sites

Flooding and pollution

Shading

Setting a precedent

Economic environment

Insufficient information

Lifestyle and financial outcome Vicki Cornelisson Wishes to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Air pollution from the drying stacks which may affect roof collected water.

Traffic safety. Increased traffic flows and safety effects for vehicles turning into and out of Kawhia Road or Honikiwi Road. Shading of trees icing the road.

Noise pollution for factory operating 24 hours a day, seven days per week.

Land zone – effects on rural character.

Water supply and wastewater – no certainty on how this is managed/supplied. Peter Cornelisson Wishes to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Air pollution from the drying stacks which may affect roof collected water.

Traffic safety. Increased traffic flows and safety effects for vehicles turning into and out of Kawhia Road or Honikiwi Road. Shading of trees icing the road.

Noise pollution for factory operating 24 hours a day, seven days per week.

Land zone – effects on rural character.

Water supply and wastewater – no certainty on how this is managed/supplied. Michelle Blundell Wishes to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Site is adjacent to the Waipa River, wetlands and floodable area.

Traffic effects. The supplied traffic assessment underestimates ski field related traffic and alternative access routes.

Effects on water table.

Wastewater solution not demonstrated.

No noise monitoring has been completed at the submitter’s property.

Visual effects.

Rural Character. Phillip Blundell Wishes to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:


Water supply.

Wastewater disposal

Air pollution from dryer stacks, may affect roof collected drinking water.

Visual effects from the large scale of the development.

Traffic, heavy vehicle movements and safety effects of planting on roadside (icing).

Noise.

Employment – opportunities for locals overstated. W & L Reekers May wish to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Too close to the Waipa River.

Heavy traffic will be a hazard for locals and tourists.

The dairy factory is incompatible with the Healthy River Plan.

Alternative sites are available. Aaron Marx Wishes to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Impact on property values.

Aesthetic effects of being opposite the dairy factory.

Dairy factory is out of character with the rural area.

Noise, odour, consistent volume of heavy vehicles entering and leaving the site.

Height of the dairy factory. Shirley Dianne Meier Does not wish to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Unsightly and visually intrusive building.

Narrow road will become congested with heavy vehicles, increased safety concerns for adjoining intersections.

Risk of contamination to roof supplied water.

Wastewater – no details.

Noise effects. Hugh Earwaker Wishes to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Water supply, wastewater and stormwater are undefined.

No iwi, neighbour or NZTA consents provided.

Inconsistency with Countryside Living Policy Area.

Proximity to river – risk of hazardous substance discharge and flooding.

Other resource consents not held.


Andrew Barker Wishes to be heard and opposes the application as water supply and wastewater disposal provision are undefined. Ian Clark May wish to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Water supply and wastewater provision.

Noise effects.

Consent should be delayed until WRC consents obtained. Ian Groube Wishes to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Water take – risk of ongoing cost to ratepayers to supply water to the dairy factory.

Effluent disposal.

Traffic safety.

Lack of information in application. Marin Walmsley Wishes to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Groundwater abstraction.

Discharge of wastewater and possible spills.

Integrated transport assessment – increase in heavy traffic.

Stormwater management system. Pat Edwards Does not wish to be heard and opposes the application as a new dairy factory is not required and the applicant is not experienced in building a dairy factory. NZTA Wishes to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Shading – height of proposed buildings and planting of trees adjacent to the road.

Safety impact of the Redlands Road intersection design on the operation of the Honikiwi Road intersection.

Intersection control at Redlands Road, ‘rolling stops’ for the two lane intersection.

Sightline protection agreement with the owner of 6 Redlands Road to the south – needs to be registered in the Certificate of Title for this property.

No connection between Redlands Road and Old Golf Road.

Tanker depot location is unknown.

More information on the cycle route between the dairy factory and Otorohanga is required.


However, since this submission was made NZTA has come to an agreement with the applicant in relation to the matters raise above (see section 6.0 of this report). NZTA is no longer opposed to the proposal. Heather Hammond Wishes to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

No consideration given to the Ripley Jones Reserve.

Air pollution.

Noise pollution.

Zoning.

Water supply.

Flooding and pollution.

Discharge. Duncan Coull (Coull Farms Ltd) Wishes to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Water supply – effects on the aquifer and surrounding users.

Wastewater – no detailed documentation on the treatment and disposal of wastewater.

Increase in traffic volume and traffic management issues. Alan Rogers Wishes to be heard and opposes the application given potential effects of water take on the aquifer and surrounding users. Andrew Moir (Tihiroa Rural Water) Wishes to be heard and opposes the application given potential effects on water users and a reduction in drinking water quality standards. Veronica Gibson May wish to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Location.

Noise.

Visual effects.

Wastewater disposal.

Water supply.

Traffic movements and related noise. Otorohanga Zoological Society May wish to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:


No effects of groundwater drawdown considered, including effects on the flora, fauna and water resources of the adjoining Ripley Jones Reserve.

Wastewater disposal – no details.

Noise – effects on the fauna within Ripley Jones Reserve.

Light – effects on the fauna within Ripley Jones Reserve, e.g. long tailed bats.

Traffic and road safety – risk to visitors and staff to Ripley Jones Reserve. Risk of contaminant spillage from heavy vehicles.

Flooding and pollution risk from chemical spills. KG Ferris Wishes to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Volume of water – effects on water allocation.

Variation 6 to the Waikato Regional Plan is incomplete.

Potential pollutant risk to Waipa River and Waitomo Stream. Social Plan Inc. Represents 15 local residents that live on Honikiwi Road, SH31, Kawhia Road and other areas of the local community. Wishes to be hard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Contrary to Part 2 of the RMA – adverse effects cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated. Neighbouring property owners will not be able to provide for their social and economic wellbeing of for their health and safety.

Loss of rural amenity and outlook arising from the industrial activity. This loss includes restricted outlook and views; and inappropriate size, height, location and use of buildings.

Adverse visual and landscape effects.

Precedent effect for future industrial activities to establish in the area.

Adverse traffic effects from additional heavy traffic.

Adverse noise effects, particular on homes elevated above the factory.

Reverse sensitivity effects.

Conflict with the amenity anticipated within the Countryside Living Policy Area.

No certainty around water supply.

Treatment of wastewater not considered.

Traffic volumes during construction not considered.

Traffic volumes anticipated are inconsistent with the volumes of milk to be processed.

Contradictory information provided around the size of dryers and wastewater treatment facilities.

Applicant should be required to apply for all necessary consents concurrently so that all effects can be addressed.

Air pollution.

Flooding and pollution.

Shading. Sam Williams & Brooke Rako-Williams


Wishes to be heard and opposes the application for the following reasons:

Traffic management – high risk to road user safety from the increase in heavy traffic volume, particular at intersections.

Location of tanker fleet depot unknown. Solution may be to continue Old Golf Road into Redlands Road.

Wastewater – against the use of the Otorohanga wastewater scheme. Risk of flood water infiltration.

Water use – against use of the Otorohanga scheme. Uncertain as to whether groundwater allocation is possible.

10.0 Consideration of Application Under Section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) Council when considering an application for resource consent and any submissions received must, subject to Part 2, have regard to: (a) Any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and (b) Any relevant provisions of:

(i) A National Environmental Standard (ii) Other regulations (iii) A National Policy Statement (iv) A New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (v) A Regional Policy Statement or Proposed Regional Policy Statement (vi) A Plan or Proposed Plan

(c) Any other matter that Council considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application

When forming an opinion on the actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity Council may disregard an adverse effect if a National Policy Statement or the District Plan permits an activity with that effect. Council must not have regard to trade competition or the effects of trade competition or to any effect on a person who has given written approval to the application. Council may decline an application for resource consent on the grounds that it has inadequate information to determine the application. 10.1 Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment The actual and potential effects on the environment associated with the proposed activity, as relevant to the functions of the Otorohanga District Council relate to:

Socio-economic effects

Landscape and visual effects, rural character and amenity

Loss of productive land

Noise

Exterior lighting/glare

Construction effects

Transportation effects


Flood hazard risk

Wastewater disposal

Stormwater management

Water supply

Use and storage of hazardous substances

Historic heritage

Cultural effects

Ecological effects

Soil contamination Under the RMA the term effect is defined to include:

Any positive or adverse effect

Any temporary or permanent effect

Any past, present or future effect

Any cumulative effect that arises over time or in combination with other effects

Any potential effect of high probability

Any potential effect of low probability which has a high potential impact Socio-economic effects The applicant has listed the creation of additional employment opportunities and the positive impact of the dairy factory on the local economy as positive socio-economic effects. The majority of submitters in support of the application also mention these specific positive socio-economic effects, as well as the positive effect of people staying in Otorohanga for employment. The dairy factory will provide additional competition within the dairy industry by giving local farmers an additional avenue to supply their milk. Submitters in opposition in relation to socio-economic effects state that there is no guarantee that employment will be available to members of the Otorohanga community. Submitters in opposition to the proposal within close proximity of the site also raise the negative impact on their property values as an adverse effect. The applicant has stated that the demand for nutritional dairy products to the Asian market is strong. Additional employment opportunities will be available during the construction and operation phases of the dairy factory. Specifically, up to 50 full time employees will be required to operate the facility, primarily drawn from the Otorohanga and King Country areas. Other businesses in the local area will generate employment opportunities to support the factory. The increased employment opportunities will create additional spend within the Otorohanga economy. No analysis has been provided by submitters in relation to a decrease in property values. However, it is reasonable to assume that a dairy factory within close proximity to a neighbouring property would have a negative effect on property values, given the risk of reduced rural character and amenity. This is further discussed below in relation to effects on rural character and amenity. No analysis has been provided by the applicant or submitters in relation to additional employment opportunities within the local area or the impact on the local economy, beyond a general statement that demand for nutritional products 'remains strong’. Similarly, there is no analysis in the application as to the positives/negatives to additional competition in the local dairy processing


industry. There are no reasons given as to why 50 full time employees are needed at the plant, or that they will need to be locally sourced. There is also no analysis as to other supporting industries that will require additional employment needs. In summary, I consider that socio-economic effects for Otorohanga are likely to be positive, aside from those owners/occupiers of property across SH31/39 from the site and on the elevated ridge off Honikiwi Road, who are likely to experience negative effects, as detailed below in the assessment of effects on rural character and amenity. Overall, these socio-economic effects are acceptable; however, a lack of detailed economic data and assessment leaves a conclusion of positive socio-economic effects undetermined. Landscape and visual effects, rural character and amenity Submissions on landscape, visual and amenity effects raise the following matters:

Adverse effects on rural character and amenity/loss of rural outlook;

Incongruent scale of development within the rural environment;

Contrary to the amenity provisions of the District Plan (Rural Effects Area and/or Countryside Living Area);

Shading (of property and dwelling only); and

Unspecified generic visual or landscape effect (presumed adverse). These submissions points relate to the original application. However, I do not consider that these submission points have become redundant as a result of the amended proposal. The application includes various documents and plans that are relevant to the assessment of landscape and visual effects, and rural character and amenity. These include (in date order):

Landscape and visual assessment (including attachments), prepared by Isthmus Group Ltd;

Revised plans prepared by Chibnall Buckell Marovic Team Architects;

Design update prepared by HVM; and

Landscape design statement, visualisations, and landscape and visual effects assessment prepared by Jasmax Ltd.

The landscape and visual effects peer review completed by Mansergh Graham Landscape Architects Ltd collectively refers to these as the HVLVA reports (see section 5.0 of this report). Potentially adverse landscape and visual effects, and rural character and amenity associated with the proposal relate to:

Building coverage in relation to nett site area exceeding 2 per cent, being 10 per cent (17,600 m2);

Proposed floor area of non-agricultural buildings exceeding 250 m2, being 19,966 m2;

Proposed buildings exceeding the maximum height of 7 m, being 46.9 m (including flues);

Earthworks;

Exterior storage of materials;

Parking spaces within the front yard setback; and

Proposed hours of operation.


Proposed hours of operation for the site are 24 hours a day, seven days per week. The plant will be closed between June and July (six weeks) for maintenance. Tanker Drivers commence work from 4AM. It is common for rural activities (for instance dairy farming) to be in operation during the night and early morning. However, the proposed dairy factory will create an intensity of use that is out of character with this existing environment. In particular, early morning heavy vehicle movements at the volume proposed are out of character in this environment. As a comparison, the permitted maximum volume of traffic movements in Standard 12B of the District Plan is 100 total vehicle movements per day, with an average of 50 vehicles per day. The proposed dairy factory will generate an average of 230 vehicle movements per day (section 5.1 of the Integrated Transport Assessment). In relation to visual effects, disturbance of the soil as proposed will temporarily alter the nature and form of the land. This will be preparatory for establishing a building platform for the proposed development and is not considered to give rise to adverse effects on the environment which would be unacceptable. Parking spaces are to be located within the front yard setback of the subject property. The car park and vehicle using it (including headlights) are appropriately screened from users of Kawhia Road by a proposed evergreen hedge. Accordingly, any adverse effects resulting from this non-compliance on road safety and neighbourhood amenity values are acceptable. The proposal is industrial in nature and will involve the exterior storage of materials. The key consideration is the ability for visual effects to be avoided through the provision of screening. This can be achieved through the imposition of conditions and as such adverse effects on the environment associated with exterior storage of materials are acceptable. The local rural character consists of open pastoral farming with scattered trees and shelter belts. The site is typical of this rural character. The key landscape features adjoining the site are the Waipa River to the north and the elevated escarpment (approximately 70 m above the site level). Properties off Honikiwi Road are located at the top of this escarpment. The key built elements of this proposal are listed in section 2.0 of this report and include: an evaporator and dryer tower (maximum height of 46.9 m RL); dry store, canning area, office and gallery building (maximum height of 14.5 m RL); tanker circulation and loading areas; car park; 2 m high chain link fence; silos and tanks; and noise bund and mitigation planting. It is expected that the diary factory will need to be illuminated at night. The application is silent on this matter as to its impact on rural amenity, meaning that no conclusions can be drawn as to this effect. These buildings will serve to significantly alter the existing and anticipated rural character of the area. The proposed dairy factory is akin to an industrial activity regardless of the fact that the building will be processing a rural product. The peer review completed by Mansergh Graham Landscape Architects Ltd considers that the HVLVA reports place to much emphasis on building design, location of the dryer tower away from the road, and proposed mitigation planting, which enable the development to integrate into the surrounding landscape. The peer review states that whilst these measures are appropriate for mitigating any adverse effects for road users, for surrounding viewers there is little to be gained from the proposed mitigation. For these viewers, there will be a greater than minor effect on rural amenity through the placement of the buildings within the landscape. The Isthmus assessment assesses effects on visual amenity, with these effects determined to be medium to medium-high for persons with dwellings within 222 m of the site. No update of adverse


visual amenity effects has been provided in the subsequent Jasmax assessment. These adverse effects reduce with distance from the site, to be less than minor 500 m to 1.5 km away. The Mansergh Graham Landscape Architects Ltd peer review does not agree with the Isthmus assessment, in that the adverse effects on rural character and amenity have been underestimated. I agree with this peer review, particularly given that it is the only landscape and visual assessment that has been completed based on the amended proposal. These effects are likely to be more than minor, for the following properties specified in the Isthmus assessment:

6 Redlands Road

16 Honikiwi Road

26 Honikiwi Road

30 Honikiwi Road

173 Kawhia Road

177 Kawhia Road

187 Kawhia Road

189 Kawhia Road A key conclusion of the peer review in relation to the Isthmus assessment is ‘the statement that the proposed factory is not out of scale or context with existing rural uses and activities (refer above) is not supported’. The size and form of the proposed building will dominate its surroundings and is not considered to be consistent with the requirement for aesthetic coherence with the rural characteristics and amenity values propagated by the District Plan. This is primarily due to the extreme contrast between form, size and intensity of development between the proposal and surrounding land use, despite the close proximity of the Otorohanga urban area. The Countryside Living Area of the District Plan is directed towards rural residential land use rather than industrial activities, even if they are associated with primary production. Key findings of the peer review include:

The rural characteristics and visual amenity associated with the maintenance of existing vistas, from both properties within Otorohanga to the east and rural/residential dwellings on elevated terrain to the west and south, will be adversely affected. From some locations the level of effect will be more than minor, as identified in the HVLVA reports.

The main effects of the proposal relates to its size and location within the rural environment. While the amended design and configuration of the site will help reduce the adverse effects on rural character and amenity (when compared to the original design), the reduction will be small. This is supported by the HVLVA documentation which identified effect levels that are greater than the minor threshold of the RMA for a number of locations close to the site.

At night, any illumination of the dairy factory or its exterior service areas may affect the existing night time characteristics (dark) of the rural environment (when seen from some locations). No assessment of this effect has been undertaken by the applicant.

The proposed planting concept will provide significant restorative benefits from a landscape ecological perspective within the Waipa River flood plain. However, the species recommended are unlikely to grow tall enough to sufficiently screen the proposed dairy factory to mitigate the effects associated with visual intrusion into the rural view from the


elevated properties to the south, east and west. The planting, in combination with earth mounding, will provide effective screening for road users.

The proposal will affect existing rural character and associated amenity and is not entirely consistent with the requirements of the various rural character and amenity provisions of the Otorohanga District Plan. However, it is noted that other development of similar size and intensity can be found in the broader (Waikato) landscape. Proximity to Otorohanga and the site’s location within the Countryside Living Policy area suggests that, in the future, more residential subdivision and development will occur in and around Otorohanga, resulting in the increased urbanisation of the landscape. However, this is not to say that industrial development is appropriate within the context of the future urbanisation of the Rural Effects Area, through the implementation of the District Plan’s Countryside Living Policy.

I agree with these conclusions. Because of the nature, scale and location of the proposed buildings and the extent to which the existing rural character of the area will be altered I consider that, despite proposed mitigation measures, adverse effects on the environment arising from the construction of the buildings in the proposed location will be inappropriate.

Loss of productive land The loss of productive land as a result of the dairy factory has not been raised specifically by submitters. The applicant has stated that 4.7 ha of the 17.79 ha site will be used for the dairy factory, or 26 per cent. The surrounding area is predominantly rural, so in terms of the loss of productive land in Otorohanga District, this volume is small. A theme within the District Plan for the Rural Effects Area and Countryside Living Policy Area is the protection of the productive and/or life-supporting capacity of the soil resource, specifically in relation to high quality soils. No data has been supplied with the application as to whether the site contains high quality soils; nevertheless, the eastern part of the site in located within the River Hazard Zone (see Figure 3), which may impact soil quality and productivity. The surrounding farming environment and the specific site constraints (being bounded by Redlands Road, SH31/39 and the Waipa River) limit the use of this property. Accordingly, I consider that any adverse effects arising from the loss of productive land are acceptable. Noise Adverse noise effects can prevent people from going about their normal activities, create health problems, limit the use of properties, and reduce the amenity values of public and private areas. Over time the noise generated by activities can combine to increase the background level of noise in an area. Submitters with a neutral opinion towards the application and submitters in opposition raise concerns with noise levels associated with the proposal. These concerns related to: the method of measurement, including no recognition of noise at different distances/elevations around the dairy factory; noise pollution on a 24 hours a day, seven days per week factory operation; traffic volumes; and effects on fauna within Ripley Jones Reserve. The noise effects on fauna are considered in the assessment of ecology later in this report. The matters of discretion in Rule 14.4 of the District Plan related to noise include:


(a) nuisance effects associated with noise; (b) hours and/or duration of operation; (c) effects on private amenity values and neighbourhood character; (d) effects on neighbouring properties causing health related problems; (e) impacts on amenity values and/or neighbourhood character; and (f) whether noise generation unreasonably limits the use and/or enjoyment of other

properties. These matters are discussed below, and also earlier in this report in relation to effects on rural character and amenity. The applicant has provided an acoustic assessment prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics. Background noise levels are deemed to be representative of a rural setting. The acoustic assessment calculated noise emissions from sources associated with the activity, including: dryer operation; milk reception; truck movements on site; heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), steam generation and services pad. This assessment also took into account prevailing wind direction. The height and expanse of the building limit noise emissions to the west across SH31/39. This assessment concludes that noise generation can comply with District Plan noise limits in the daytime and night time noise periods, when received at the notional boundary of any adjoining rural site. A 3 m high noise bund is proposed to be located within the area of land remaining following the realignment of the Redlands Road intersection. The purpose of this bund is to mitigate noise from early morning tanker departures from the site. The Marshall Day assessment and provision of further information was peer reviewed by Hegley Acoustic Consultants. The peer review agreed that the assessment of operational and construction noise criteria was correct. The most noise sensitive receivers are located to the south of Redlands Road, to the west of Kawhia Road (SH31/39) and to the south west of Honikiwi Road. Marshall Day Acoustics responded that this noise level is considered acceptable given the background noise from SH31/39 between 5AM and 8AM. The night time noise limit of 40 dB LAeq at 6 Redlands Road will be exceeded by 1 dB LAeq. Furthermore, the owner/occupier of 6 Redlands Road was directly notified of this application and no submission was received. Construction noise levels will comply with the NZS 6803:1999. Hegley Acoustic Consultants are not convinced that compliance with day time or night time noise limits had been adequately demonstrated. Uncertainty remained around noise levels associated with the dryer stacks and traffic movements. Noise levels received by neighbours at various distances and elevations have not been quantified. However, Hegley Acoustic Consultants has proposed conditions that will adequately mitigate any adverse noise effects, particularly those related to truck noise (through appropriate screening or truck routes). These conditions include appropriate noise limits for surrounding properties and demonstration of compliance with these limits prior to obtaining building consent. I agree with this conclusion and I consider effects of noise are acceptable.


Exterior lighting/glare The applicant has stated that light emissions will meet Rule 18.1 of the District Plan, namely that light emissions will not exceed a measurement of 10 lux at 1.5 m above ground level at the site boundaries. No structure will be finished in a manner which could create a glare nuisance to road users or neighbouring properties. Lighting was raised an issue by neighbouring submitters in relation to rural amenity, namely T Walters and S Walters. Artificial lighting or glare can create a nuisance for neighbouring property owners or a hazard for road users. The application is limited in detail as to how the dairy factory will meet these glare and lighting requirements, aside from general statements regarding glare such as ‘General colours have been deliberately toned with green colours to blend in with the surrounding landscape’. The matters of discretion in Rule 18.2 in relation to lighting/glare of the District Plan include:

(a) nuisance effects associated with glare and light spillage; (b) effects on private amenity values and neighbourhood character; (c) hours and/or duration of operation; and (d) effects on the safety of the road and railway network users.

The detail provided with the application makes it difficult to assess these matters, particularly nuisance effects and effects on private amenity values. The dairy factory will be a 24/7 operation. NZTA has not raised any concerns in relation to lighting or glare for the safety of road users on SH31/39. Adverse effects on rural character and amenity are specifically addressed above in that section. Whilst is may be possible for effects associated with lighting and glare to be controlled through consent conditions that reflect Standards 18A and 18B of the District Plan, I have not been provided the technical assurances that these standards can be met. I am therefore unable to provide a thorough assessment of adverse effects arising from lighting and glare and accordingly, I am unable to conclude that they are acceptable Construction effects An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by Holmes Consulting has been supplied with the application. During construction, exposed soil will be minimised at all times and stabilised as soon as possible following the completion of earthworks. Stockpiles will be minimised. These measures will be detailed in an application for earthworks consent to WRC. It is not anticipated that dust generated during construction will leave the site. Other details of the erosion and sediment control plan include:

Control run on water through minimising the amount of sediment laden water that needs to be treated, by keeping water out of active earthworks areas.

Separate ‘clean’ from ‘dirty’ water. Diversion channels for clean water and sediment laden water to a settling pond.

Prevent sediment from leaving the site. Capture and treat all sediment-laden discharges generated on the site. Never discharge sediment-laden water off the site. Prevent dust by watering stockpiles as required in dry, windy conditions.


Specific devices: o Runoff diversion bunds or channels around work areas with appropriate use of

geotextile lining or rock dams to reduce flow velocity. o Sediment pond designed for the correct storage volume. o Stabilised construction entrance with wheel wash-down facilities. o Specific area for stockpiling soils on site, to be earth bunded and out of any

overland flow paths. o Measures to protect stockpile under dry and wet weather conditions should be

applied. The proposed mitigation measures during construction outlined above are considered appropriate. Transportation effects associated with construction are considered to be appropriate, subject to the mitigation measures outlined below in relation to transportation effects. The effects of noise during construction are discussed earlier in this report. Overall, I consider that any construction effects associated with the development will be appropriately mitigated and will be acceptable. Transportation effects Transport related features of the application include:

Site access from Redlands Road and realigned Redlands Road/Kawhia Road intersection to increase the separation distance to the Honikiwi Road/Kawhia Road intersection.

Carriageway widening for left turn entry from Kawhia Road into Redlands Road.

A right turn turning bay for vehicles leaving Kawhia Road into Redlands Road. This bay will accommodate the length of a truck and trailer unit.

An increase in traffic volumes of seven per cent on SH31/39 to the south of the proposed dairy factory.

The integrated transport assessment submitted with the application concludes that ‘the application can be supported with no more than a minor impact on the surrounding road network’. No written approval was provided with the application by NZTA. The majority of submitters in opposition to the proposal also raised traffic safety as a significant concern. The concerns were associated with the increased traffic volume (particularly heavy vehicles), intersection design (given the close proximity of the Redlands Road and Honikiwi Road intersections) and icing arising from buildings and trees on the dairy factory site. NZTA raised the following specific concerns in their submission:

Shading – height of proposed buildings and planting of trees adjacent to the road.

The effect of shading on road safety and the potential for long term maintenance issues.

Intersection control at Redlands Road and the potential for ‘rolling stops’.

Information on the cycle route between the dairy factory and Otorohanga is limited.

Safety impact of the Redlands Road intersection design on the operation of the Honikiwi Road intersection.

Discussions then followed between the applicant and NZTA. NZTA is no longer opposed to the proposal, given the further information provided by the applicant. These additional details include:

Alteration of the site layout to minimise shading issues on the state highway.


Amended the Redlands Road intersection design to prevent the potential for ‘rolling stops’ by left turning vehicles.

Provision of an alternative layout for Honikiwi Road which includes the provision of a right turn bay.

The applicant has agreed to conditions proposed by NZTA, which relate to the design and construction of the Redlands Road intersection and realignment; design and upgrading of the Honikiwi Road intersection; and closure of the existing vehicle entrance way to the site (located approximately half way along the site’s frontage to SH31/39). The changes to the proposal mitigate any adverse effects arising from intersection separation, reduced sight lines, shading of the state highway, heavy vehicle traffic volume and any overtaking safety risk around heavy traffic. The application introduces the concept of a satellite base for up to 60 trucks that ‘may or may not be located in Otorohanga’. This is not discussed in the application documents or the transport assessment. I consider this to be outside the scope of this report and likely subject to a separate resource consent process once this ‘truck depot’ site is known. The volume of parking on site is considered to be appropriate for the intended use and in accordance with District Plan requirements. I consider any adverse effects on the transport network, including safety and efficiency, to be acceptable, given the mitigation measures outlined above. NZTA, as the operator of the state highway network, has raised no opposition to the proposal and I have no reason to disagree with this assessment. Flood hazard risk The dairy factory will be located outside the River Hazard Zone. However, a small part of the site within the River Hazard Zone is to be filled. The risk to people and property is not exacerbated through the construction of the dairy factory and the associated earthworks. In relation to additional stormwater generated by the development, this is discussed further below under stormwater management. Wastewater disposal The application states that the site will be connected to the Otorohanga public wastewater reticulation system. However, there is no public reticulation in this location and no plans have been provided to show if it could be extended to the site. The applicant has also not demonstrated that on-site wastewater management complies with the permitted activity requirements of the Waikato Regional Plan or a discharge permit granted by WRC. WRC have stated that all operational consents can be applied for as a single application at a later date. I am comfortable with this approach subject to the all regional consents being obtained prior to any works commencing on site. A number of submitters in opposition to the proposal raised concerns with the lack of detail on wastewater disposal, particularly in relation to impacts on the Waipa River. Rule 8.3 of the District Plan includes the following items as matters of discretion:

‘(a) suitability of proposed alternative means of wastewater management;


(b) whether existing public infrastructure can be upgraded or an alternative system put in place;

(c) whether the efficient functioning existing infrastructure will be adversely affected; and (d) compliance with Councils Engineering Design Standards.’

Without any specific information on wastewater disposal, no conclusions on these matters can be drawn. The detail that has been proposed involves a combination of on-site, off-site and public reticulation options, some of which will require submission and consideration of other resource consent applications to WRC before final proposals can be confirmed by the applicant. Council’s Engineers are concerned with the potential adverse impacts on the capacity and efficiency of public infrastructure arising from the development. A second concern is that the strategy of the applicant to stagger and delay consent applications for operational aspects of the proposal may generate additional demand and expectation for utilisation of public reticulated services in the event that WRC consents for wastewater management cannot be obtained. Council officers are comfortable with the concept of relatively small quantities of human-sourced wastewater being discharged to the relevant public systems. However, it is not clear why the applicant is proposing substantial extension to public reticulated wastewater infrastructure when the quantities involved are comparatively small and would appear to be able to be dealt with via on-site management. The lack of specific and credible detail of how the large volume of process wastewater will be disposed of on a sustainable basis creates a concern that pressure could be placed on Council to accept quantities of such wastewater to the public reticulated system at levels that would compromise the effective operation of that system. In summary, no details have been provided as to: the suitability of alternative wastewater management; whether public infrastructure can be upgraded; whether existing infrastructure will be affected; or, compliance with Council’s Engineering Design Standards. Without detailed and comprehensive design in the applicant’s proposals for bulk wastewater management there is a clear risk that Council’s wastewater infrastructure network will be compromised. However, appropriate conditions can be imposed to ensure that this does not occur. I therefore conclude that in terms of wastewater, any effects will be acceptable, subject to a robust set of conditions. Stormwater management It has not been demonstrated that the dairy factory can be served by an effective stormwater disposal system, as required by District Plan Standard 9D. While proposals have been put forward by the applicant for how stormwater may be managed (including extension of and connection to the public stormwater system), it has not been demonstrated that this is an effective stormwater system. Submitters raised concerns with the method of stormwater management and potential run off into the Waipa River. Rule 9.3 of the District Plan as matters of discretion:

(a) suitability of proposed alternative means of stormwater disposal; (b) whether existing public infrastructure can be upgraded or an alternative system put in

place; (c) whether the efficient functioning of existing infrastructure will be adversely affected; and (d) compliance with Councils Engineering Design Standards.


Without any specific information on stormwater disposal, no conclusions on these matters can be drawn. The detail that has been proposed involves a combination of on-site, off-site and public reticulation options, some of which will require submission and consideration of other resource consent applications to WRC before final proposals can be confirmed by the applicant. Council’s Engineers are concerned with the potential adverse impacts on the capacity and efficiency of public infrastructure arising from the development. Council officers are comfortable with the concept of relatively small quantities of uncontaminated storm water being discharged to the public relevant public systems, though such a stormwater discharge may also require approval from WRC. However, it is not clear why the applicant is proposing substantial extension to public reticulated stormwater infrastructure when the quantities involved are comparatively small and would appear to be able to be dealt with via on-site management. Of greater concern to Council staff is the lack of clarity and certainty regarding how the required large quantities of process and cleaning water will be disposed of. In summary, no details have been provided as to: the suitability of alternative stormwater management; whether public infrastructure can be upgraded; whether existing infrastructure will be affected; or, compliance with Council’s Engineering Design Standards. Without detailed and comprehensive design in the applicant’s proposals for bulk wastewater management there is a clear risk that Council’s stormwater infrastructure network will be compromised. However, appropriate conditions can be imposed to ensure that this does not occur. I therefore conclude that in terms of wastewater, any effects will be acceptable, subject to a robust set of conditions. Water supply The property is not in an area serviced by a public reticulated water supply system. The detail that has been proposed involves a combination of on-site, off-site and public reticulation options, some of which will require submission and consideration of other resource consent applications to WRC before final proposals can be confirmed by the applicant. A number of submitters in opposition raised concerns with how water will be supplied to the site, particularly in relation to any groundwater drawdown for neighbouring properties. Council’s Engineers are concerned with the potential adverse impacts on the capacity and efficiency of public infrastructure arising from the development. A secondary concern is that the strategy of the applicant to stagger and delay consent applications for operational aspects of the proposal may generate additional demand and expectation for utilisation of public reticulated services in the event that WRC consents for on-site water supply are not able to be obtained. Of greater concern to Council staff is the lack of clarity and certainty regarding how the required large quantities of process and cleaning water will be obtained. The further information provided by the applicant suggests that the ability to obtain the required quantities of water for even the proposed first stage of development from on-site sources is uncertain, on both technical and regulatory grounds. The possibility that adequate quantities cannot be obtained from these sources on a sustainable basis creates potential for pressure to be applied to Council to make up any shortfall of supply from public reticulation, the capacity of which is limited as a result of increasing growth and demand in existing urban areas. The issue would become even more acute at a possible second stage of project development. Whilst there may be potential for Council to develop an additional water source to enhance supply, this is currently subject to too much uncertainty for it to be considered as a potential solution to the needs of the proposal.


It should also be noted that Council has made an offer to supply the development 300m3 of water per day. Council has not received a response on this matter and no formal agreement in relation to the supply of water to the development has been entered into with the applicant. The applicant is not required to demonstrate water supply where the property is not in an area serviced by a public reticulated water supply system (District Plan Standard 10C). However, the applicant has stated that reticulated supply may be needed, which has significant issues as outlined above. In summary, firstly, I am comfortable with the applicants approach with regard to regional consenting, subject to the all regional consents being obtained prior to any works commencing on site. However, I am concerned that without detailed and comprehensive design in the applicant’s proposals for water supply there is a clear risk that Council’s water supply infrastructure network will be compromised. Notwithstanding this, appropriate conditions can be imposed to ensure that this does not occur. I therefore conclude that in terms of water supply, any effects will be acceptable, subject to a robust set of conditions. Use and storage of hazardous substances The proposal involves the use and storage of hazardous substances in volumes which exceed permitted activity thresholds of the Operative District Plan. Section 6.6 of the assessment of environmental effects supplied by the applicant identifies that ‘the risks posed to off-site parties will be managed in accordance with the requirements of the HSNO Act and Appendix 18 of the District Plan’. The application provides no specific assessment of the hazard risks posed by the use and storage of the proposed hazardous substances, which is also a concern raised by submitters. The proposed activity will be located in close proximity to the Waipa River and to neighbouring dwellings. The potential risks associated with the proposed activities relates to:

Accidental release of hazardous substances or contaminated fire water into the Waipa River; and

Potential fire risks and exposure of neighbours to hazardous fumes. Compliance with the requirements of the HSNO Act and Appendix 18 of the District Plan does not necessarily translate that there will be no potential effect arising from the use and storage of hazardous substances in this location. The meaning of effect includes any potential effect of low probability which has a high potential impact. In this instance, it is considered that the proximity of the Waipa River may mean that despite a low probability of occurring, any accidental release of any hazardous substances into the river could have a high potential impact. Adverse effects of that, were it to occur, would likely be unacceptable. Historic heritage No known archaeological sites are located on the property. The closest recorded sites are sites B184 and B420, which are located at least 250 m from the site on the ridgeline to the north and west of the property.


The discovery of any unidentified archaeological remains on the property during site construction is subject to accidental discovery protocols with Heritage NZ. The applicant has not confirmed if a general authority has been applied for with Heritage New Zealand. Cultural effects The Nehenehenui RMC supports the application given their existing relationship with HVM. Nehenehenui RMC comprises representatives from marae and papakainga, including Kahotea Marae. A cultural impact assessment (CIA) has been supplied from the RMC. This CIA is summarised in section 3.0 of this report. The CIA is supportive of this application, although this does not include any support as yet for any water take and use, or wastewater discharge, consents from WRC. The RMC suggests mitigation measures to address and potential environmental effects during the construction and operation of the dairy factory. The RMC has also agreed with HVM for monitoring and procedures around the discovery of any taonga or kōiwi. The RMC noted that runoff and sediment need to be prevented from leaving the site – there is concern with how sediment laden water is treated and the location of the discharge point. The concerns with stormwater discharge from the site are considered above in stormwater management. Any adverse cultural effects are considered to be acceptable given the submission from Nehenehenui RMC. Ecological effects Ecological matters have been raised in a number of submissions. The applicant has stated that the areas of indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna in the local area will not be affected by the proposal. There is no indigenous vegetation within the footprint of the dairy factory of the development platform. The landscape proposal for the site includes additional plantings of indigenous species within the site, including around the edges of the dairy factory and adjacent to the drain to the east of the development. This landscape and visual mitigation treatment will improve the overall pattern of indigenous vegetation in the area by connecting it to the indigenous planting on the edge of the river to the north of the site (Ripley Jones Reserve). The Ripley Jones Reserve is subject to QEII covenants. The QEII National Trust submission raises the risk of site development and water extraction on flora and fauna, and wetland health. The Otorohanga Zoological Society also raises this concern in relation to Ripley Jones Reserve. Furthermore, the lack of wastewater disposal information for the site makes it difficult to assess any effects on local ecology. The Otorohanga Zoological Society also raises concerns with the noise levels and light emissions from the dairy factory and the effect on fauna within Ripley Jones Reserve (specifically long tailed bats). The applicant has not provided an ecological assessment in this regard. Accordingly, given these concerns above, as well as the related lack of certainty around wastewater and stormwater management and water supply provision, I cannot conclude that ecological effects are acceptable.


Soil contamination A preliminary site investigation has been prepared by Aurecon and included with the application, though not detailed site investigation has been provided. Historical titles indicate the site has been predominantly used for farmland since 1901. No evidence of historical earthworks or burning of waste materials has been identified. The use of asbestos containing materials (ACM) within the existing dwelling on site or other buildings is unknown, although there is no evidence of ACM transfer to soil. No evidence of sheep dips was seen on site. The overall risk to human health is considered to be low, with the principal overall risks identified on site to be the health of site construction workers who may be involved with demolition of existing structures, or the excavation of land contaminated through fertiliser use. Site development works may also increase the ability of contamination to migrate off site more readily (increased dust, odour or surface water infiltration) unless appropriately managed during construction. A Construction Site Management Plan has been developed. Given that the proposed dairy factory will be largely sealed around principal areas of work/occupation following completion of construction works with a concrete impermeable layer, it is considered unlikely that a complete ‘source-pathway-receptor’ to future site users can be established. Accordingly, any adverse effects arising from soil contamination are acceptable. 10.2 Relevant Policy Provisions There are no other regulations or national policy statements relevant to the proposed dairy factory. Resource consents are to be sought for operational matters from WRC. WRC has indicated that these be applied for together, but are not dependent on the outcome of this consent with ODC. An assessment of the proposal under the provisions of the Otorohanga Proposed District Plan – Decisions Version has been undertaken (see Appendix 1). This has determined that resource consent for a discretionary activity is required to be obtained. It is considered that granting consent to the proposal by Happy Valley Milk Ltd will be inconsistent with the relevant discretionary activity assessment criteria and objectives and policies of the Otorohanga Proposed District Plan – Decisions Version. The proposal is not inconsistent with the Maniapoto Environmental Management Plan, as outlined in the submission by Nehenehenui RMC and the CIA. However, both of these documents note that an assessment of WRC consents cannot be completed as these applications are unavailable. It is considered that there are no other matters over and above those discussed above that are relevant to or reasonably necessary to determine the application. 10.3 Part 2 - RMA It is considered that granting consent to the proposed dairy factory will compromise the sustainable management of natural and physical resources on the subject site and adjoining properties. Primarily, the proposal generates adverse effects in relation to ecology, landscape and


visual effects and rural character and amenity. The economic and social benefits of the proposed dairy factory have not been demonstrated to any measureable degree. The proposed dairy factory will not:

compromise any identified outstanding natural features or landscapes;

impact on areas of significant indigenous vegetation or significant habitats of indigenous fauna;

compromise the maintenance or enhancement of public access to or along the coastal marine area, rivers, lakes or their margins;

impact on the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu or other taonga; or

impact on known historic heritage values. However, the proposed dairy factory will compromise the rural character and amenity values of the surrounding environment, as shown in this report. The consultation undertaken with and the CIA received from Nehenehenui RMC confirms that the proposed development will not impact on the principles of the treaty of Waitangi. 11.0 Recommendation It is recommended that resource consent be declined as a discretionary activity to the application by Happy Valley Milk Limited to establish a purpose-built nutritional infant formula dairy factory consisting of two eight tonne per hour dryers capable of blending and canning infant formula and manufacturing Anhydrous Milk Fat, on land legally described as Lot 2 DPS 28580 (CFR: SA26C/1263), located at 5 Redlands Road, Otorohanga. Recommended: __________________________________ Date: 1 November 2017 Kahurangi Tapsell (Consultant Planner) Decision: That the above recommendation be adopted. Approved: _______________________________ Date: 1 November 2017 Andrew Loe (Environmental Services Manager)

APPENDIX 1

District Plan Assessment – Operative Otorohanga District Plan

The subject property is located within the Rural Effects Area and Countryside Living Policy Area of the Otorohanga District Plan and has frontage to Kawhia Road – State Highway 31/39). The site also has a partial overlay of River Hazard Zone. RULE ASSESSMENT Section 1 District Wide Rules

Rule 1.1 The activity is for the construction of a dairy factory. It is considered that the effects on the environment associated with the proposal are: (i) Effects that are provided for/referred to by the district plan; and (ii) Effects which existed elsewhere in the Otorohanga District before 16

September 2010 (specifically in relation to electricity generation activities and associated infrastructure).

Resource consent is not required to be obtained under Rule 1.1.

Rule 1.2 Not Applicable. The activity is not for a temporary activity as defined by the Otorohanga District Plan.

Rule 1.3 Not Applicable. The proposal does not involve the operation, upgrading or maintenance of a lawfully established network utility.

Rule 1.4 Not Applicable. The proposal is not provided for as a permitted activity under the NES for Electricity Transmission.

Rule 1.5 Not Applicable. The proposal is not for a telecommunications facility provided for as a permitted activity under the NES for Telecommunications Facilities.

Rule 1.6 Not Applicable. The proposal is not for a telecommunications facility within road reserve.

Rule 1.7 Not Applicable. Proposal is not expressly provided for by any regulations gazetted under any National Environmental Standard.

Rule 1.8 Not Applicable. The subject land does not form part of the McDonalds Lime Ltd – Lime Processing Site at Old Te Kuiti Road.

Rule 1.9 Not Applicable. The subject land does not form part of the Waipapa Core Site – Renewable Electricity Generation Policy Area.

Rule 1.10 Not Applicable. The proposal does not involve electricity, gas or telecommunications infrastructure.

Rule 1.11 Not Applicable. The proposal does not involve electricity, gas or telecommunications infrastructure.

Section 2 Landscape Policy Area

Not Applicable.

Section 3 Coastal Policy Area

Not Applicable.

Section 4 Indigenous Vegetation

Not Applicable.

Section 5 Earthworks

Standard 5A (i) Earthworks will not be undertaken within 5 metres of a natural waterbody. (ii) Earthworks will be undertaken more than 12m from centreline of existing

high voltage electricity line/support structure identified on planning maps.

(iii) Proposal involves an area of earthworks exceeding 5,000 m2, being an area of 33,995 m2.

(iv) Subject property not located within Te Tahi Water Catchment Area.

Standard 5B Not Applicable.

Standard 5C Subject property is located within Rural Effects Area (Outside any Policy Areas) and fill height exceeds 2 m and volume of earthworks exceeds 5,000 m3, being 20,000 m3.

Standard 5D Not Applicable. Earthworks are not for the purpose of constructing a firebreak, fence line or survey line; or for reconstructing/maintaining any road or track

Standard 5E Not Applicable. Subject property not located in Coastal Policy Area or Outstanding Landscape Area.

Standard 5F Not Applicable. Subject property not located within a Landscape of High Amenity Value (Coastal).

Rule 5.6 Proposal fails to comply with Standards 5A (iii) and 5C (ii) and in accordance with Rule 5.6 defaults to consideration as a discretionary activity.

Section 6 Natural Hazards

Standard 6A Floor levels of proposed buildings will be located above 1% AEP flood level.

Standard 6B On-site wastewater disposal to be undertaken on areas of the subject property which are not liable to flooding in accordance with WRC regional plan rules.

Standard 6C The proposal involves the construction of buildings and the land on which these are to be sited is proposed to be filled.

Standard 6D The land on which the buildings are to be constructed is not subject to damage by erosion, subsidence, falling debris or slippage.

Standards 6E, 6F No existing or proposed buildings are located within the River Hazard Zone.

Standards 6G, 6J, 6K The subject property is not located within a Coastal Development Setback.

Standard 6H The subject property is not located within the Kawhia Township Hazard Risk Area.

Standard 6I Proposal does not involve the construction of sea control structures.

Standards 6L, 6M, 6N The subject property is not located within the Hazard Risk Areas at Aotea Township.

Rule 6.4 Proposal fails to comply with Standard 6C and defaults to consideration as a discretionary activity in accordance with Rule 6.4.

Section 7 Buildings

Standard 7A – Front Yard Setback The proposed buildings will not be located within the 15.0 m front yard setback requirement.

Standard 7A – Other Yard Setback The proposed buildings will be setback in excess of 15.0 m from all other boundaries.

Standard 7A – Floor Area Ratio Not Applicable.

Standard 7A – Esplanade Yard Esplanade Yards – Proposed buildings will be located in excess of 25 metres from

the natural shoreline margin and the margin of any river (with a bed width of 3m or more) or lake.

Standard 7A – Site Coverage Proposed building coverage will exceed 2%, being 10% (17,600 m2).

Standard 7A – Maximum Building Floor Area – Non Agricultural Buildings Proposed Building Floor Area exceeds 250 m2, being 16,966 m2.

Standard 7A - Height in Relation to Boundary Proposed buildings do not encroach recession plane of 3m + 33°.

Standard 7A – Maximum Height Proposed Buildings/Structures exceed 7.0 metres height, being 46.9 m (including flues).

Standard 7A – Setback From Buildings On Adjoining Properties The proposed buildings will be setback in excess of 30 metres from other existing buildings on adjoining properties.

Standard 7A – Buildings for Intensive Indoor Farming Not Applicable.

Standard 7A – Buildings Used to Hold or Process Animals Not Applicable.

Standard 7A – Setback from Existing High Voltage Electricity Lines Proposed buildings in excess of 32m from existing high voltage electricity lines which cross subject property.

Standard 7A – Railway Setback Not Applicable.

Standard 7B – Number of Dwellings Not Applicable. No additional dwellings proposed.

Standard 7C – Buildings in Airspace Above Roads Not Applicable.

Standards 7E, 7F, 7G – Internal Noise Levels Not Applicable. Proposed buildings not for noise sensitive activities.

Standard 7H – Relocated Buildings Not Applicable.

Rule 7.6 Proposal fails to comply with Standard 7A (Building Height, Site Coverage and Floor Area of Non-Agricultural Buildings) and defaults to consideration as a discretionary activity in accordance with Rule 7.6.

Section 8 Wastewater

Standard 8A A new habitable building is not proposed to be constructed.

Standard 8B Not Applicable. No reticulated public wastewater system.

Standard 8C It has not been demonstrated that on-site wastewater management complies with permitted activity requirements of the Waikato Regional Plan or a discharge permit granted by Waikato Regional Council (WRC).

Rule 8.3 Proposal fails to comply with Standard 8C and in accordance with Rule 8.3 defaults to consideration as a restricted discretionary activity.

Section 9 Stormwater

Standard 9A New buildings and impermeable surfaces proposed to be constructed.

Standards 9B, 9C Not Applicable. Subject property not located in Urban Effects Areas.

Standard 9D While proposals have been put forward by the applicant for how stormwater may be managed (including extension of and connection to the public stormwater system), it has not been demonstrated that this is an effective stormwater system.

Rule 9.3 Proposal fails to comply with Standard 9D and in accordance with Rule 9.3 defaults to consideration as a restricted discretionary activity.

Section 10 Water Supply

Standard 10A Not Applicable. Property not located within urban area at Otorohanga.

Standards 10B, 10C Not Applicable. No reticulated water supply serves subject property.

Standards 10D, 10E Not Applicable. Subject property not located within urban area at Kawhia.

Section 11 Planting of Trees/Crops

Standard 11A Landscaping is proposed and will grow higher than 1 m

Standard 11B Landscaping proposed will grow higher than 1 m and will not be within vehicle entrance splay area or railway crossing sightline area.

Standard 11C Landscaping proposed will grow higher than 1 m and will be located where it will not cause icing of any road pavement.

Standard 11D The landscaping proposed will not endanger the safe/efficient functioning of any public road, footpath, public space, network utility service or existing building.

Standard 11E The landscaping proposed:

(i) Will not shade any dwelling located on a neighbouring property. (ii) Will not shade any existing floricultural or horticultural venture on

neighbouring properties.

Section 12 Vehicle Access/Traffic Generation

Standard 12A Relocated Redlands Road/Kawhia Road intersection will be located less than 200 m from other existing entranceways serving neighbouring land. Proposed entranceway to Redlands Road will be located less than 200 m from the relocated intersection of Redlands Road/Kawhia Road.

Standard 12B Vehicle movements associated with proposed activity will exceed an average of 50 per day. Vehicle movements associated with proposed activity will exceed a total of 100 vehicle movements per day. Vehicle movements associated with proposed activity will exceed a total of 350 vehicle movements per week.

Standard 12C No vehicle access is proposed from a state highway.

Rule 12.2 Standards 12A and 12B are not complied with and resource consent is required for a discretionary activity in accordance with Rule 12.2.

Section 13 Vehicle Parking and Loading

Standard 13A There is sufficient space on-site to enable the provision of on-site parking spaces in accordance with the district plan requirements.

Standard 13B (i) Proposed car parking spaces are located within the 15.0 m front yard

setback requirement. (ii) Parking and loading spaces are located to avoid reverse manoeuvring of

vehicles onto/from a public road. (iii) Proposed vehicle access not located within 250 m of any dwelling on a

neighbouring site and is not required to be sealed.

(iv) The proposed parking/loading areas will accommodate tracking curves of relevant vehicles.

(v) All parking/loading spaces will have ready access to a road at all times.

Rule 13.2 Proposal fails to comply with Standard 13B and in accordance with Rule 13.2 defaults to consideration as a restricted discretionary activity.

Section 14 Noise

Standard 14A The proposed activity will fail to comply with night time noise levels in relation to an existing dwelling at 6 Redlands Road.

Standard 14B Noise associated with the dairy factory does not originate from farm animals or agricultural vehicles. No exemption from standards provided.

Rule 14.4 Proposal fails to comply with Standards 14A and 14B and in accordance with Rule 14.4 defaults to consideration as a restricted discretionary activity.

Section 15 Odour

Standard 15A The nature of the activity and its setback from property boundaries is such that objectionable odour beyond site boundaries will not occur.

Standard 15B Not Applicable. Proposed land use activities not associated with the day to day operation of farming activities. Any odour associated with the dairy factory does not originate from farm operations. No exemption from standards provided.

Section 16 Dust Generation

Standard 16A Dust generation is likely to occur from earthworks activities during construction. It is considered that the location of the site in relation to property boundaries is such that it is unlikely that there will be any deposition of dust beyond site boundaries which would be objectionable.

Section 17 Storage of Materials

Standard 17A Exterior storage of materials not proposed to be screened by fence or vegetation.

Standard 17B No exterior storage of materials to be undertaken within 50 m of dwellings on neighbouring properties.

Standard 17C Not Applicable. The site is located within the Countryside Living Policy Area.

Rule 17.2 Standard 17A is not complied with and resource consent is required for a restricted discretionary activity in accordance with Rule 17.2.

Section 18 Outside Lighting/ Reflective Building Materials

Standard 18A No specific information has been provided to address what exterior lighting if any would be associated with the night time operation of the dairy factory. No specific assessment of effects associated with the introduction of lighting has been addressed in the application.

Section 19 On-Site Signs

Standards 19A – 19H The AEE submitted with the application states that the dairy factory will comply with these standards.

Section 20 Off-Site Signs

Standards 20A – 20K The AEE submitted with the application states that the dairy factory will comply with these standards.

Section 21 Historic Heritage

Standard 21A Not Applicable. The proposed building and earthworks activities will not be carried out:

(i) Within 100m of any category A archaeological site identified on the planning maps

(ii) Within 100m of any category B archaeological site identified on the planning

maps (iii) Within an area identified on the planning maps as being a site of

significance

Standards 21B, 21C Not Applicable. There are no registered historic sites, places or areas are identified on the planning maps as being located on the subject property.

Standard 21D, 21E, 21F Not Applicable. No notable trees are identified on the planning amps as being located on the subject property.

Section 22 Hazardous Substances

Standard 22A The AEE submitted with the application identifies that the proposal involves the use and storage of hazardous substances at volumes in excess of permitted activity quantities in Appendix 17.

Standard 22B Not Applicable. No service station proposed.

Standard 22C The application documents confirm that the use and storage of hazardous substances will be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Appendix 18.

Standard 22D Not Applicable. No bulk transportation of hazardous substances within the Urban Effects Areas is proposed.

Standard 22E Not Applicable. No disposal of hazardous substances is proposed.

Rule 22.2 Standard 22A is not complied with and resource consent is required for a discretionary activity in accordance with Rule 22.2.

Section 23 Use of Surface Water

Not Applicable.

OBJECTIVES / POLICIES ASSESSMENT The following issues are relevant to discussion in relation to the proposal:

Issue 1 – Mineral and Soil Resources

Issue 3 – Rural Character

Issue 4 – Natural Hazards

Issue 8 – Safety of Road Users

Issue 9 – Hazardous Substances

Issue 10 – Contaminated Land Issue 1 – Mineral and Soil Resources

Objective 1.8.2 To maintain the productive capacity of high quality soils and the life supporting capacity of the Districts soil resource.

Policy 1.9.2 To encourage the use of the soil resource within the Rural Effects Area for agricultural purposes.

Policy 1.9.3 To ensure earthworks are managed so as to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on existing sensitive land use activities on adjoining and/or adjacent properties.

Comment In the context of the wider Otorohanga District, the loss of productive soil resources is small. No data has been supplied as to the quality of the soils on the site of the proposed dairy factory. Earthworks are to be managed in accordance with WRC erosion and sediment control guidelines. Overall, I consider the application to be consistent with the relevant objective and policies for Mineral and Soil Resources.

Issue 3 – Rural Character

Objective 3.2.1 To retain the rural character and amenity values of an area through managing land use and development and controlling subdivision.

Objective 3.2.3 To ensure that land use, subdivision and development activities in the Rural Effects Area avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects including cumulative effects, upon the rural character of the area where they are located, or the amenity values which constitute this character. Rural Character includes: (a) small scale and low density and intensity of development; (b) scenic vistas; (c) high proportion of natural open space; (d) areas of indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna; (e) natural features, including rolling hills, mature vegetation and water bodies; (f) agricultural working landscapes; (g) lawfully established activities and structures.

Objective 3.2.5 To ensure that land use and subdivision activities do not compromise the relationship of Maori cultural values to, and with, their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga.

Policy 3.3.1 Rural character is retained by managing activities in a way which: (a) restricts inappropriate development and subdivision in the wider Rural Effects Area; (b) provides development and subdivision opportunities in the Countryside Living Policy

Areas around Otorohanga and Kawhia; (c) recognises, provides for and enables the continuation of lawfully established activities

and the establishment of rural and agricultural land use activities.

Policy 3.3.2 To control development and subdivision in the Rural Effects Area so that rural land is not fragmented to the extent that existing lawfully established activities and potential future rural land use activities are constrained or subjected to unrealistic amenity expectations.

Policy 3.3.5 To manage the scale and intensity of activities so they are compatible with the rural character of the area in which they are to be located.

Policy 3.3.7 In the Rural Effects Area, avoid, remedy or mitigate against the adverse effects, including cumulative effects, on rural character associated with: (a) density / intensity of development; (b) altering visual amenity values from public places including roads; (c) loss of privacy; (d) loss of daylight; (e) built form, building site and coverage, building setbacks, height and design; (f) Deleted; (g) traffic generation and insufficient roading capacity; (h) excessive noise and vibration; (i) objectionable odour; (j) objectionable dust generation; (k) earthworks; (l) glare and light spillage; (m) signs; (n) compromising the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their

ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga; (o) damage or removal of notable trees; (p) damage or modification to any items and sites of historic or cultural heritage; (q) stormwater and/or wastewater management; and (r) reverse sensitivity concerns associated with existing lawfully established activities.

Policy 3.3.9 To discourage commercial and industrial activities from locating in areas where they have effects that are incompatible with: (a) rural residential activities in Countryside Living Policy Areas; or (b) existing sensitive land use activities in the Rural Effects Area.

Policy 3.3.10 Subdivision, building and development should be located and designed to:

(a) be sympathetic to and reflect the natural and physical qualities and characteristics of the area;

(b) ensure buildings have bulk and location that is consistent with buildings in the neighbourhood and the locality;

(c) avoid buildings and structures dominating natural features, adjoining land or public places;

(d) encourage retention and provision of trees, vegetation and landscaping; (e) arrange allotments and buildings in ways that avoid ribbon development; promote the

clustering of building platforms; and enables outlooks to views and open space, where appropriate, to be shared;

(f) maintain adequate daylight and direct sunlight to buildings; (g) promote the use of energy efficient design, orientation and layout, where appropriate; (h) ensure adequate supply of potable water; (i) enable the continued operation and maintenance of existing lawfully established

activities; (j) provide noise attenuation measures within buildings used for noise sensitive land use

activities along state highway and railways.

Comment I consider that as a result of the proposal, rural character and amenity values cannot be maintained. This is primarily due to the visual impact of the proposed buildings. Notably, the proposed dairy factory will impact on scenic vistas, given that the proposal cannot be considered to be small scale. The proposed dairy factory is in effect an industrial activity (albeit used for processing agricultural products), which is incompatible with rural residential activities in the Countryside Living Policy Area. Overall, I consider the application to be inconsistent with the relevant objectives and policies for Rural Character.

Issue 4 – Natural Hazards

Objective 4.2.1 To ensure that land use, development or subdivision activities do not contribute to, or accelerate, natural hazards.

Objective 4.2.2 To ensure land use, development and subdivision activities are not adversely affected by existing or potential natural hazards in the District.

Objective 4.2.3 To manage development and to restrict further subdivision on sites identified as being at significant risk to human life and / or damage by natural hazards.

Policy 4.3.1 To manage development and avoid subdivision activities in areas of high natural hazard risk by: (a) Assessing the suitability of proposed buildings and locations where they are proposed to be erected within hazard areas through the resource consent process. (b) Requiring buildings in hazard areas, in particular at Aotea to be relocatable. (c) Prescribing minimum floor levels for habitable buildings and useable floor area ratios. (d) Enabling the establishment of new buildings and the construction of additions to existing buildings subject to assessing the potential of land on which buildings are to be built to be subject to material damage by erosion, subsidence, falling debris, slippage, inundation and flooding.

Policy 4.3.2 That land use, development or subdivision shall be located, designed and managed so that it is not adversely affected by, and does not contribute to or accelerate natural hazards so as to cause material damage to land or buildings, or pose a risk to human life.

Comment I consider that the small amount of filling required within the River Hazard Zone will not accelerate natural hazards or cause a risk to human health or property. Overall, I consider the application to be consistent with the relevant objectives and policies for Natural Hazards.

Issue 8 – Safety of Road Users

Objective 8.2.1 To ensure that the volume of traffic generated by land use, development and subdivision activities does not adversely affect road safety or the efficient operation of the transport network.

Objective 8.2.2 To ensure that the safety and function of the transport network is not adversely affected or compromised by:

(a) inappropriate location and inadequate design of road intersections and vehicle entranceways;

(b) the location of trees and crops, or structures in relation to vehicle entranceways, roads, and railway level crossings;

(c) the design, location and lighting of signs; (d) glare or light spillage from artificial lighting; (e) dust drift; (f) the design and location of parking and loading spaces; and (g) Insufficient provision of on-site parking, loading and manoeuvring areas.

Policy 8.3.2 The traffic generated by an activity does not overload the transport network to the extent that the existing function, design and safety of the road, State Highway, or railway level crossing is compromised or adversely affected.

Policy 8.3.3 That safe access to and from roads and State Highways is maintained by requiring that entranceways, rights-of-way and roads are constructed to a standard that is appropriate for their intended use.

Policy 8.3.4 The efficiency of the transport network is ensured by appropriate location, spacing, construction and use of property entranceways and intersections in a manner which does not significantly disrupt traffic or adversely impact on the safe and efficient operation of a railway level crossing.

Policy 8.3.5 The safety of users of the transport network should not be adversely affected by: (a) the planting of trees and crops that reduce visibility at road or State Highway

intersections, railway crossings, entranceways or rights-of-way; (b) the planting of trees that result in the icing of any road pavement; (c) signs located in a manner which reduces visibility at road or State Highway

intersections or entranceways, or at a railway level crossing; (d) signs that are distracting or confusing for drivers, including temporary or advertising

signs that conflict with, or reduce the effectiveness of, official signs; (e) the intensity, design, orientation and nature of lighting, including illuminated signs,

where this is likely to cause distraction to drivers vision; (f) the potential for reflective surfaces to cause temporary impairment of driver vision; (g) dust drift which creates visibility problems for road users or train drivers; (h) insufficient sight visibility from entranceways, road intersections, and railway level

crossings; and (i) inadequate provision of on-site car parking, loading and manoeuvring areas.

Policy 8.3.6 The location and design of car parking and loading spaces shall not: (a) create a nuisance for adjoining land users; and (b) create a road safety hazard.

Comment The proposed volume of traffic generated by the activity will not adversely affect road safety or the efficient operation of the transport network. The applicant, in consultation with NZTA, has altered the site design to minimised shading onto the state highway; changed the Redlands Road intersection design to prevent ‘rolling’ stops by left turning vehicles; and provided an alternative layout for Honikiwi Road, which includes a right turn bay. NZTA is satisfied that the volume of traffic proposed can be incorporated into the state highway network. Car parking within the front yard setback will be screened from road users. Overall, I consider the application to be consistent with the relevant objectives and policies for the Safety of Road Users.

Issue 9 – Hazardous Substances

Objective 9.2.1 To control land use, development and subdivision activities for the purpose of preventing or mitigating any adverse effects associated with the storage, use, disposal or transportation of hazardous substances.

Policy 9.3.1 Adverse effects on the environment associated with the use, storage or disposal of hazardous substances shall be prevented or mitigated.

Policy 9.3.2 The use, storage or disposal of hazardous substances should be prevented in locations where accidental release will result in adverse effects on the health and safety of people or

water bodies within the District.

Policy 9.3.3 Land use activities involving the use, storage and/or disposal of hazardous substances shall be separated from other sensitive activities so that adverse effects on them arising from accidental release are able to be prevented.

Policy 9.3.5 Activities involving the use, storage and transportation of hazardous substances should be designed and operated so as to: (a) avoid harm to people, property and the environment; (b) minimise the potential for accidental release; and (c) protect the community and people from potential contamination.

Comment Accidental release of hazardous substances in this location may result in adverse effects on the health and safety of people and the Waipa River. It has not been demonstrated as to how this will be mitigated or avoided. Overall, I consider the application to not be consistent with the relevant objectives and policies for Hazardous Substances.

Issue 10 – Contaminated Land

Objective 10.2.1 To ensure land that contains or potentially contains, contaminated land and which is proposed to be developed or subdivided is safe for human use.

Objective 10.2.2 To prevent or mitigate any adverse effects on human health arising from the use, development or subdivision of contaminated land.

Policy 10.3.1 To require the provision of information, including preliminary and detailed site inspections, at the time land is proposed to be used, developed or subdivided where land is or has previously been used for any activity identified on the Hazardous Activities and Industries List.

Policy 10.3.2 To use soil guideline values to determine the concentrations of contaminants in the soil at which risk to human health is considered acceptable.

Comment The overall risk to human health is considered to be low, with the principal overall risks identified on site to be the health of site construction workers who may be involved with demolition of existing structures, or the excavation of land contaminated through fertiliser use. The proposed dairy factory will also be sealed upon completion from soil. The site is therefore considered to be safe for the intended use. Overall, I consider the application to be consistent with the relevant objectives and policies for Contaminated Land.

APPENDIX 2

Submissions

Hearings Report Section 42A Report - otodc ... - · PDF fileHearings Report Section 42A Report...

Documents

Transcript of Hearings Report Section 42A Report - otodc ... - · PDF fileHearings Report Section 42A Report...