Meeting of the Environmental Management Committee

 

 

Date:                 Wednesday 15 June 2011

Time:                9.00am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

 

Agenda

 

Item       Subject                                                                                                                  Page

 

1.         Welcome/Notices/Apologies 

2.         Conflict of Interest Declarations  

3.         Confirmation of Minutes of the  Environmental Management Committee held on 13 April 2011

4.         Matters Arising from Minutes of the  Environmental Management Committee held on 13 April 2011

5.         Action Items from Environmental Management Committee Meetings

6.         Call for General Business Items

Decision Items

7.         Proposed On Site Wastewater Plan Change

8.         Withdrawal of Air Quality Rules

9.         Navigation Safety Bylaws Review

10.       Dangerous Dams Policy Review - Special Consultative Process

Information or Performance Monitoring

11.       Tukituki High Flow Allocation Modelling

12.       Update on Unwanted Agrichemical Collection Programme

13.       Statutory Advocacy Matters

14.       General Business  

 

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee  

Wednesday 15 June 2011

SUBJECT: Action Items from Environmental Management Committee Meetings        

 

REASON FOR REPORT

1.     All of the items raised at previous Environmental Management Committee meetings that required actions or follow-ups have been completed and reported to the Committee at or prior to the 13 April 2011 meeting, so have been removed from the list. As there were no items for Action arising from that meeting, there is no list of follow-ups.

 

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

2.      Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that as this report is for information only and no decision is required in terms of the Local Government Act’s provisions, the decision making procedures set out in the Act do not apply.

 

RECOMMENDATION

1.      That the Environmental Management Committee receives the report “Action Items from Environmental Management Committee Meetings”.

 

 

 

 

Darryl Lew

Group Manager

Resource Management

 

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.   


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee  

Wednesday 15 June 2011

SUBJECT: Proposed On Site Wastewater Plan Change        

 

REASON FOR REPORT

1.      On 13 April 2011 Council staff were instructed by the Council through this committee to prepare a limited scope plan change to the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) and a variation to the proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan (PRCEP) which would amend rules in those Plans relating to on-site wastewater discharges.

2.      A number of individual plan changes that cover a range of growth management and strategic integration issues, including wastewater, are planned for notification in October 2011.  Staff recommend that an additional limited scope plan change should be notified in early July 2011 to deal with some more pressing, but less contentious, issues with the current on-site wastewater rule framework. This approach has previously been endorsed by the Council.  This paper presents a final draft plan change for consideration and adoption for notification as a proposed plan change.

Consultation on draft changes

3.      In an effort to limit the number of submissions lodged in opposition to the proposed plan changes, consultation was undertaken with a range of stakeholders during the drafting phase.  The draft plan change was also made available to the public for informal comment, over a 3 week consultation period in May.  All relevant information was available on the Council website and a media release was done at the beginning of the consultation period in an effort to make the public aware of their opportunity to comment on the draft changes.

4.      All relevant information was also sent directly to a number of members of the public who are known to have a particular interest in wastewater disposal as well as consultants who regularly lodge resource consent applications with the Council for on-site wastewater discharges.  Written comments were received from 2 members of the public, and 2 consultants.

5.      Meetings were also arranged with relevant staff at each of the territorial local authorities, and Council officers also met with representatives of the Department of Conservation, Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated (NKII) and the Tamatea Taiwhenua.  Efforts were also made to arrange meetings with the other taiwhenua in the region, as well as the public health unit.  Consultation with NKII and the Tamatea Taiwhenua resulted in the information about the proposed plan change was posted on panui ki te iwi which is an email form of communication facilitated by NKII in an effort to ensure information is effectively and quickly communicated with iwi members.  Staff felt that these efforts reflected a reasonable effort to ensure that all iwi were aware of the proposed changed.

6.      A meeting of the Sewage On-Site (SOS) group was also held.  This working group was established by the Council in January 2002 and is comprised of professionals working in the wastewater industry such as plumbers and drain layers, as well as representatives of the public health unit and TLAs.  This meeting was well attended and the concept of a more effects based rule framework was well received.

Key features of plan changes

7.      The general intent of the plan change is to move towards a more refined effects based approach in the wastewater rule framework.  This objective led to a number of proposed amendments.  Some are relatively minor amendments that improve the clarity and consistency of the rules, however the key aspects of the changes are:

7.1.   Inclusion of the Ruataniwha Plains unconfined aquifer in areas where new wastewater discharges are not permitted.

7.2.   Removal of reference to ‘land zoned for residential activity’ (RRMP)/ lot size of 1500 m2 (RCEP) and replacement with slope and ratio conditions.

7.3.   Removal of need for lawfully established low volume wastewater systems to seek replacement consents.

7.4.   Inclusion of condition that requires permitted systems to be designed in accordance with specific design specifications.

Ruataniwha Plains unconfined aquifer

8.      The recommendation to exclude the Ruataniwha Plains unconfined aquifer from areas where wastewater discharges are permitted was based on feedback from iwi as well as the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council. 

9.      Excluding this area from the area where on-site wastewater discharges are permitted is considered to give better effect to Policy 16 of the RPS and is also consistent with policy 75 of the RRMP.

Removal of reference to residential zoning/lot size

10.    The difficulty with interpreting when land is zoned for residential activity, and the consequential need to amend this rule, was one of the key drivers for this limited scope plan change.  While simply removing this condition and not replacing it with anything else would have significantly decreased the number of people that required discharge permits for their on-site wastewater systems, this is likely to result in on-site wastewater discharges in locations where they present a potential risk to the enviorment.

11.    It was considered best to have consistency between the rules of the RCEP and RRMP which is the reason why it is proposed to remove the lot size restriction from the RCEP.

12.    It is proposed to replace these conditions with restrictions on the slope of the ground on which the discharge occurs, and the size of the lot relative to the maximum daily discharge volume.  These two conditions are considered to be more effects based because they focus on site constraints that potentially increase the risk of the proposed discharge having an adverse effect on the environment.  The application of wastewater to slopes at inappropriate application rates can lead to saturation of the soil which significantly increases the risk of slope failure.  Similarly, large daily discharge volumes on small sites, if not appropriately designed, can result in the soil being overloaded and surface ponding occurring.  This could potentially result in adverse environmental and social (health) effects.

Removal of need for replacement consents

13.    One of the other key drivers for this limited scope plan change was the desire to avoid the need to renew discharge permits for lawfully established systems that had been installed since April 2000.  The definitions of the plans considered such systems to be ‘new’ systems, despite the fact many systems have been installed for over 10 years.  The proposed amendments permit discharges from lawfully established low volume wastewater systems, therefore no need to continually renew discharge permits. 

14.    This proposed change results in a cost saving to property owners, and also efficiencies for the Council as the consent authority due to having less permit applications to process.

Design specifications

15.    Previously, people could install an on-site wastewater system as a permitted activity even if the proposed design was not consistent with best industry practice.  At present, the Council has no ability to require the designs be amended to reflect best practice due to the lack of any condition in the rules requiring systems to be designed in accordance with particular specifications.

16.    The proposed modifications to Figure 6 of the RRMP and Schedule J of the RCEP ensure that all new permitted wastewater systems are designed in accordance with industry best practice.  Including design specifications in the plan makes the Council’s expectations clearer with regard to system design.

Timing of effect of rules

17.    In accordance with section 86B(3) of the RMA, by default, rules relating to water or soil have immediate legal effect (i.e. from the date a proposed plan is publicly notified) unless the consent authority, resolves that the rules only have legal effect once the proposed plan change becomes operative.  This decision needs to be made before the proposed plan change is publicly notified, and must be declared in the public notification.

18.    In this particular instance, staff recommend that the legal effect of the proposed rules is delayed until the proposed plan changes become operative.  There are existing provisions in both the Regional Resource Management Plan, and the Regional Coastal Environment Plan relating to on-site wastewater discharges.  If both the existing rules as well as the proposed rules had legal effect for a period of time, there could potentially be a temporary increase in the number of systems that require on-site wastewater discharge permits.  This would result in increased cost to the community, and is not in keeping with the overall intent of the plan change, which is to reduce the cost to the community of regulation associated with on-site wastewater systems.

19.    Delaying the legal effect of the new rules will also make the framework easier for the community to understand during the transitional period.  Discharge permits for on-site wastewater systems are regularly applied for.  It is therefore important that the community and staff continue to have a rule framework that is as easy to understand and work with. 

20.    Continuing to operate under the existing rule framework, which has been in place for over 10 years, will not have an adverse effect on the environment.  The proposed new approach is a more refined one, focusing on on-site wastewater discharges that potentially present a risk to the environment.  The current rule framework requires consents for some properties where such risks do not exist, which results in financial cost to these property owners, but minimal environmental benefit.

21.    One of the disadvantages of delaying the date on which the proposed rules have legal effect is the uncertainty about how long this plan change process will take.  Council has made a concerted effort to consult with, and make as many parties aware of, the plan change as possible.  However, there is no ability to confirm at this stage when the amended rules will become operative.

22.    On balance, it is considered that the benefits of delaying the legal effect of the rules do outweigh the costs, therefore it is recommended that the Council resolve that the proposed rules will only have legal effect when the plan changes become operative.

Section 32 of RMA

23.    In preparing a plan change or variation, local authorities have a duty under s32 of the RMA to evaluate a number of matters:

(3)     An evaluation must examine —

(a)    the extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this Act; and

(b)    whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules, or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives.

(3A)  This subsection applies to a rule that imposes a greater prohibition or restriction on an activity to which a national environmental standard applies than any prohibition or restriction in the standard. The evaluation of such a rule must examine whether the prohibition or restriction it imposes is justified in the circumstances of the region or district.

(4)     For the purposes of the examinations referred to in subsections (3) and (3A), an evaluation must take into account —

(a)    the benefits and costs of policies, rules, or other methods; and

(b)    the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules, or other methods.

24.    The RMA also requires that a report be prepared that summarises the evaluation and gives reasons for that evaluation.  That report must be made available for public inspection at the same time as the change/variation is publicly notified (under s32(6)).

25.    Staff have prepared a document set out in Attachment 1 which meets the requirements of s32(5).  That document is a summary evaluation.  It is not a comprehensive record of all evaluation, Council discussions, staff workshops and assessments undertaken in the course of reviewing the RRMP and PRCEP on-site wastewater provisions.  It should be noted that the report is not part of the plans themselves.

26.    Council now needs to consider whether it should adopt the ‘Section 32 Evaluation Summary Report’ (Attachment 1) and make it publicly available at the same time as the Change and Variation are publicly notified.

Other Council initiatives relating to on-site wastewater

27.    Changes to the on-site wastewater rule framework of the RRMP and PRCEP are only one part of a number of initiatives relating to on-site wastewater currently being developed on across the Council’s various activities.  These are not part of the plan changes per se and will not be open for people to submit on.

28.    The Council’s Compliance team has invested a considerable amount of time into the development of an accreditation scheme for on-site wastewater system manufacturers, designers, installers and service providers.  There will be financial savings for those resource consent applicants who use an accredited provider

29.    The accreditation programme is intended to increase the accountability of the industry, and encourage self regulation.  The programme is also intended to require less Compliance staff time than the current regime, which will give staff more time to monitor the performance of lawfully established systems.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that many older lawfully established systems are not treating wastewater to the required level, however there is little monitoring data that substantiates this. 

30.    As well as changes to compliance monitoring of on-site wastewater systems, a tiered deposit system for replacement consents has been proposed in the 2011-12 Draft Annual Plan.  Category 1 domestic on-site wastewater consents are those systems with a good compliance history, and a verified history of maintenance servicing by an accredited installer/service agent.  Owners of these systems are only required to pay a fixed fee of $260 for the processing of their consent.  Category 2 systems are all other systems.  Owners of a category 2 system must pay a deposit of $260, and will then be charged any further costs resulting from the processing of their consent. 

31.    Previously, all replacement consents had required payment of $1150 deposit at the time of lodgement.  This fee is, for some people, quite unexpected when compared with previous consent processing costs, and for many households, is a large sum of money to find.  The decrease in deposit fees reflects the Council’s desire to reduce the cost of consenting processes where possible.  It is noted that if the plan changes are adopted then there will be significantly less replacement discharge permits required in the region than at present.

32.    In discussions with each of the Hawke’s Bay TLAs about the plan changes, a number of measures have been identified to potentially improve the consistency of the RMA discharge permit process, with the requirements of the Building Act.  Amending the Council’s current discharge application form is one relatively simple way that efficiencies could be gained, and the resource consent process for both the RMA and the Building Act made a more user friendly process.

33.    Staff have also discussed the development of educational resources about on-site wastewater.  Discharge permits are possibly the resource consent type that most public enquiries are received about.  Any printed material available is generic and does not provide good information about the resource consent process, or Council expectations with regard to this.  Given the suite of changes to the way the Council deals with wastewater, it seems to be an opportune time to invest some time and money in the development of good printed and electronic information about on-site wastewater management.

What next?

34.    Assuming the Council agrees to adopt the Changes and publicly notifies them in early July 2011, the RMA’s formal submission, hearing and decision-making process will follow.  The submission period must be at least 20 working days, so submissions would close mid August.  Staff would summarise any submissions received and then invite further submissions that can only be in support or opposition to those original submissions.  After further submissions close, then preparations will be made for a hearing of submissions.  A hearing could be held as early as November 2011.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

35.    Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

35.1.       Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

35.2.       Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

35.3.       The decision does not fall within the definition of the Council’s policy on significance.

35.4.       The persons affected by this decision are those persons who have on-site wastewater treatment systems.

35.5.       The options considered are detailed in the attached s 32 analysis.

35.6.       Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

35.7.       Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision because the Resource Management Act allows people to have an opportunity to submit on the proposed Change and Variation following a decision by Council to publicly notify them.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Environmental Management Committee recommends that Council:

1.    Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision because the Resource Management Act allows people to have an opportunity to submit on the proposed Change and Variation following a decision by Council to publicly notify them.

2.    Adopt the “Section 32 Evaluation Summary:  Change 3 - Regional Resource Management Plan: on-site wastewater/ Variation 3 – Proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan: on-site wastewater” (Attachment 1) and make it available for public inspection.

3.    Adopt Change 3 to the Regional Resource Management Plan (Attachment 2) for public notification in early July 2011.

4.    Adopt Variation 3 to the proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan (Attachment 2) for public notification in early July 2011.

5.    Resolve that the proposed rules have legal effect only once the proposed change (Change 3 and Variation 3) becomes operative in accordance with clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

 

 

 

Charlotte Drury

Senior Consents Officer

 

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

 

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

 

Darryl Lew

Group Manager

Resource Management

 

Attachment/s

1View

Attachment 1 s 32 Assessment

 

 

2View

Attachment 2 Draft Change to Rules

 

 

  


Attachment 1 s 32 Assessment

Attachment 1

 

Planning_variations


Attachment 1 s 32 Assessment

Attachment 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Change 3 -

Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource Management Plan:

On-site wastewater

 

Variation 3 -

Regional Coastal Environment Plan:

On-site wastewater

 

Section 32 Evaluation Summary

 

 

 

 

Prepared by:

Charlotte Drury, Senior Consents Officer                                                                        

 

Reviewed by:

Gavin Ide, Team Leader Policy

 

Approved by:

Helen Codlin, Group Manager Strategic Development

 

 

 

 

 

 

June 2011

[Insert report number 0603]

HBRC Plan Number[Insert number]

 

 

© Copyright:  Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

 

 


Table of Contents

No table of contents entries found.


Overview

1.    This report sets out a summary of the evaluation behind Hawke's Bay Regional Council’s decision to prepare and notify Change 3 to the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) and Variation 3 to the Proposed Hawke's Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP).


What is a section 32 evaluation?

2.    When preparing plans and plan changes, local authorities have a duty under section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to evaluate a number of matters and to consider alternative ways to achieve environmental outcomes. An analysis of the benefits and costs in deciding which provisions are the most efficient has to be carried out.

3.    Section 32 of the RMA requires councils, when preparing or amending plans, to examine:

 (3)       (a) the extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this Act; and

             (b) whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules, or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives. …

 

(4)        For the purposes of the examinations referred to in subsections (3) and (3)(a), an evaluation must take into account—

             (a) the benefits and costs of policies, rules, or other methods; and

             (b) the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules, or other methods.

 

4.    The RMA also requires that a report be prepared that summarises the evaluation and gives reasons for that evaluation. This report has been prepared to fulfil that requirement (under s32(5)).


What is scope of this section 32 summary report?

5.    This report takes the form of an evaluation summary solely in relation to the Council’s decision to amend rules relating to on-site domestic wastewater discharges.

6.    This summary report does not purport to be the comprehensive s32 record of all evaluation, council discussions, council decisions, staff workshops and assessment undertaken in the course of earlier development of other plan provisions such as objectives and policies relating to wastewater discharges.


‘Problem’ definition

7.    As part of initiatives to continually improve its plans, the Regional Council has identified several issues where the current rules for individual on-site domestic wastewater discharges to land could be improved.  The main areas of difficulties are:

a)   the lack of clarity around interpretation of the existing rules, especially what is “land zoned for residential activity” in Rule 37(d) of the RRMP;

b)   the need for consents to be renewed for any wastewater systems installed since April 2000, even though these are typically well designed and good quality;

c)   inadequate controls to carefully manage wastewater discharges in locations where land slope and property size pose constraints on ongoing operation and effectiveness of some wastewater systems.

Lack of clarity around interpretation

8.    Rule 37(d) of the RRMP currently restricts the discharge of wastewater onto ‘any land zoned for residential activity.’ This terminology has caused considerable debate and confusion for many years.  The Regional Council interprets this condition as restricting discharges on rural residential properties (such as those properties in Poraiti, on the hills above Bay View, the Esk Valley and Waimarama).

9.    The original intent of Rule 37(d) has been debated and redebated, but for now, the rule is still applied to land in Rural Residential Zones[1].  Rural residential properties can be large properties (e.g. 5000m2) with a large amount of land suitable for wastewater discharge, or conversely large lots with a building platform and the remainder of the section steeply sloping land that is unsuitable for on-site wastewater disposal. The current wording of the rule does not provide any definition of what ‘any land zoned for residential activity’ is, and current interpretation of the rule relies on intent and name of the district plan zone that the property is within.

10.  Rule 37(d) was an attempt to adopt a risk-based approach, but is limited in the risk factors it takes into account.  In some instances properties over 3000m2 of flat to rolling topography with well drained soils require resource consent simply because they are zoned rural residential, despite complying with all other conditions of Rule 37 as it is currently stated.  This is an unintended consequence of the rule structure.

11.  The problem definition for the RCEP is slightly different.  At the time the rules for the RCEP were drafted (i.e. 2004-2006), the lack of clarity around the interpretation of ‘land zoned for residential activity’ had been recognised.  Instead a condition was included which restricted discharges on properties with a land area less than 1500m2.  While this condition did not create the same problem with interpretation as Rule 37 of the RRMP, it was still a relatively blunt approach which fails to take into account site characteristics that could increase, or decrease, the risk to the environment that an on-site wastewater discharge presents on a particular site.

Need for consent renewals

12.  In settlements such as Waimarama and Haumoana, the installation of a new wastewater system requires a resource consent simply because of the district plan zoning.  Most existing on-site wastewater systems have no consent as they pre-date the current rules which relate to systems installed since April 2000.  Therefore, the Regional Council has virtually no information about how well those older individual systems are performing.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that many older wastewater treatment systems are not treating wastewater to a suitable standard, however there is little monitoring data that substantiates this.

13.  Until the 2011-2012 Annual Plan is adopted, people have been required to pay a deposit of $1125 (excl GST) when they lodge their replacement resource consent application.  This is a relatively large sum of money and can seem unjustified to an applicant when their neighbour has an older on-site wastewater system that produces effluent of a poorer quality, and has never had to pay to consent the discharge from it, or to pay for monitoring inspections once consented.  The 2011-12 Draft Annual Plan has reduced the initial fixed fee (deposit) for the renewal of an existing on-site wastewater discharge permit to $260 (excl GST), however unless an application is classified as a category 1 system (these systems must have good compliance history, and be able to provide evidence of ongoing maintenance servicing by an accredited installer/service agent) then applicant’s still have to pay actual and reasonable processing costs over and above the initial fixed fee.

14.  Regulation based on pre or post a particular point in time is not consistent with the effects based approach of this plan change.  On-site wastewater systems installed prior to April 2000 do not necessarily produce effluent of an inferior quality to systems installed post 15 April 2000. The 15 April 2000 date does not relate to a significant shift in wastewater treatment technology, but rather the date that the RRMP was notified.  Although wastewater treatment technology is continuously improving, there was a range of systems available in the early 2000’s that treated on-site wastewater to a suitable secondary standard.  At that time the Regional Council was testing annually the effluent produced by every on-site wastewater system in the region that required a resource consent.  The results of this testing indicated that on the whole, the secondary wastewater systems that were being installed were treating effluent to a secondary standard.  The quality of this effluent was better than that produced by standard septic tanks. 

15.  The current rule structure requires resource consent for those systems installed since 15 April 2001 which produce effluent of a known quality, while wastewater systems installed prior to 15 April 2011 that produce effluent of an unknown quality, have in some instances never been required to gain a discharge permit.  Ongoing monitoring of systems installed since 2001 is not really adding anything to the Regional Council’s understanding of the effects of wastewater discharges on the environment.  The quality of effluent produced by such systems is well understood.  Removing the need to replacement consents saves property owners money, and also enables Council’s resources to be redirected to other monitoring programmes such as monitoring to check whether or not systems in high risk areas do actually comply with all conditions of the existing system rules.

Inadequate controls

16.  The current rule structure does contain some effects-based conditions such as a separation distance from waterways, wells that draw water from unconfined aquifers, property boundaries and the winter ground water table.  However there are a number of other site constraints that potentially have a significant effect on the effectiveness of an on-site wastewater system, that are not currently provided for.  There are restrictions on the methods of wastewater distribution that can be used on slopes of greater than 15° (27%), therefore consideration of slope angle is important.  Spacing between irrigation lines needs to be increased on slopes of greater than 15°. Requiring on-site wastewater discharges in sloping locations to obtain resource consent will enable Council to assess the proposed designs and ensure that they are appropriate for the proposed site.

17.  The size of a property, relative to the volume of the proposed discharge is another factor that is currently not addressed by conditions in the permitted activity rule.  Small discharges on large properties present a relatively low risk to the environment, while large discharges on small lots, if not designed appropriately, can result in nuisance effects on neighbours amongst other things.


What do the plan changes not address?

18.  Change 3 and Variation 3 are proposed solutions to the above ‘problems.’  It is important to note that Change 3 and Variation 3 are not ‘silver bullets’ solving every challenge associated with wastewater.  Change 3 and Variation 3 DO NOT:

a)   deal with environmental monitoring programmes for existing and new wastewater systems;

b)   amend objectives or policies in either the RRMP or RCEP relating to on-site wastewater;

c)   modify how industrial and municipal wastewater is treated or regulated;

d)   propose reticulation or decentralised systems for any community;

e)   deal with the accreditation programme for wastewater system manufacturers, designers, installers or service providers;

f)    deal with resource consent processing fees and charges;

g)   differentiate greywater from blackwater, or make special provision for plumbing systems that recycle greywater for irrigation or other on-site uses.

h)   modify how building consents are processed and issued.

19.  The finite scope of Change 3 and Variation 3 will not fully address the inequities between requirements placed on consented and unconsented wastewater systems.  This is part of a separate plan change workstream currently under construction by the Regional Council.  As that separate change progresses in 2011, opportunities will be provided for interested people to make comments on that proposal in due course.


Section 32 Tests

20.  The following is a summarised assessment of the RMA’s requirements in section 32.

s32(3)(a) – Are the objectives the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the Act?

21.  This is not applicable as no new objectives or amended objectives are considered necessary as part of this plan change.  The problem (defined in paragraph 7 above) relates to the certainty and implementation of rules – not objectives or policies in the plans.  Nevertheless, the rules will need to be appropriate for achieving the objectives already stated in the plans and regional policy statement[2].

s32(3)(b) – Are the policies, rules or other methods the most appropriate (with respect to efficiency and effectiveness) for achieving the objectives?

22.  This is not applicable to policies as no new policies or amended policies are considered necessary as part of this plan change.  The problem (defined in paragraph 7 above) relates to the certainty and implementation of rules – not objectives or policies in the plans.  Nevertheless, the rules will need to be appropriate for implementing the policies already stated in the plans and regional policy statement[3].

23.  In general, the amended rules are considered to be more appropriate than the current rules because they adopt a more refined, ‘effects based’ approach.  The amended rules focus on allowing wastewater discharges in locations where they present a minor risk of any adverse environmental effects, and focusing restrictions in locations where a wastewater discharge could present a greater risk to the environment, if not appropriately designed, installed and monitored.  By requiring resource consent for wastewater discharges in locations where site constraints exist, the Regional Council has an opportunity to assess the proposed design, and ensure that it appropriately avoids any adverse environmental effects that could occur as a result of its location.  This approach will more effectively and efficiently achieve the objectives of both plans, and the RPS.

24.  A limited number of alternative approaches are available to undertaking a limited scope plan change now.  The principal alternatives of those approaches are outlined in Table 1.  Table 2 outlines a summary of alternative rules’ respective advantages and disadvantages.

 


Attachment 1 s 32 Assessment

Attachment 1

 

Table 1.  Consideration of alternative approaches

 

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Status quo

§ Avoid cost of plan change process

§ No extra rules or different rules that may cause confusion for Plan users.

 

§ Potential environmental cost of non-reticulated wastewater discharges occurring as permitted activities in inappropriate locations

§ Lawfully established low volume discharge systems installed since April 2000 will still require a discharge permit – economic cost to applicants

§ Industry representatives are supportive of proposed changes.  Support may vanish changes do not occur or long delays encountered.

§ Must continue to work with rules that can, in parts, be difficult to interpret and administer

§ Lack of clarity in some rules remains unresolved

§ No changes would miss opportunity to integrate amendments with wide range of other wastewater-related initiatives (eg: accreditation scheme; streamlined consenting; education materials; etc).

Defer amendments and bundle into upcoming growth management and strategic infrastructure-related changes intended to be notified in late 2011.

§ Avoids consulting with affected parties twice within a relatively short space of time

§ Potential economies of scale in running separate plan change processes in parallel

§ Unknown how long it will take before proposed plan changes become operative

§ Problems identified are not addressed for some time

§ Must continue to work with rule framework that is inconsistent between RRMP and RCEP and sometimes difficult to understand

§ Bundling Changes alongside growth and infrastructure changes may lead Changes being delayed and taking longer to progress to operative state

§ Deferring Changes would miss opportunity to integrate amendments with wide range of other wastewater-related initiatives (eg: accreditation scheme; streamlined consenting; education materials; etc).

 


Table 2. Consideration of alternative rules (where shaded box indicates preferred option proposed in Change 3 / Variation 3)

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Remove reference to ‘land zoned for residential activity’ and

1.   not replace with anything else

 

 

 

 

 

2.   replace with a lot size

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.   replace with other ‘site constraint’ conditions

 

 

 

§ More permissive rule framework – significantly less properties would require discharge permits which would result in an economic saving to those landowners, and time and resource savings for the regional council

 

§ Easy for plan users to interpret and administer

§ Easy to assess compliance with such a condition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

§ Would be consistent with the intent of the plan change to provide a more effects-based approach

§ Potentially less properties would require resource consent.  However, any economic benefit is very difficult to quantify without defining what other site constraints might be.

 

 

 

§ High potential of adverse environmental effects as a result of inappropriately designed and maintained on-site wastewater systems being installed

 

 

§ Relatively blunt approach – is not consistent with intent of plan change to provide a more effects-based rules

§ Raises questions as to what lot size is appropriate. One lot size for all soil types is rather blunt approach, but introducing different lot sizes for different soil types would introduce complexity to the rule

§ Fails to provide for development that is commensurate to the size of a site

 

§ Raises questions as to what site constraints might be necessary. The proposed ratio condition is based on a similar condition in use by the Auckland Council, slope is also used by other local authorities

§ Slope and lot size are considered to be two of the most important site constraints that system design needs to take into account.  To choose other site constraints would not focus on the key risk areas.

Replacement consents

1.   Continue to require them but issue for a longer period

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.   Make replacement consents a controlled activity

 

 

 

3.   Introduce (through the annual plan) a fixed fee for processing for all replacement consents

 

 

§ Monitoring results would ensure that the quality of effluent produced by the system is known

§ Economic cost to property owners concerned is decreased as frequency of consent renewal process is less

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

§ Increased certainty for applicant

§ Systems could be required to be monitored which would result in additional information about performance of such systems

§ Reduced scope of consenting process

 

§ Reduced cost to applicants

§ Would likely result in stream-lined consenting process in an effort to ensure time spent was equal or lesser than fixed fee

 

§ Consent processing charges for obtaining replacement consents is not avoided

§ Does not enable Council’s compliance monitoring resources to be redirected to other monitoring programmes such as monitoring on lawfully established systems

§ Does not address inequity issue that exists between those systems that are required to seek replacement consent and those older systems that have never been required to seek resource consent

 

§ Economic cost to property owners affected

§ Absorbs Council’s consenting and compliance resources for limited environmental gain

§ Does nothing to address inequity issue

 

 

§ Potential cost to ratepayers if fixed cost does not cover costs of processing

§ Limited environmental benefits result from consent replacement process as few systems are changed as a result

 


Attachment 1 s 32 Assessment

Attachment 1

 

s32(4)(a) – What are the benefits and costs of the policies, rules or other methods?

25.  In broad terms, the key benefit of the proposed rule changes is a more refined effects based approach.  The proposed changes are intended to only require those sites where an on-site wastewater discharge may present a risk to the environment to have discharge permits.  The need for replacement consents for low volume non-reticulated wastewater systems has been removed, because the value of the consent replacement process has decreased over time, as wastewater system design has improved.  Replacement consents also place a financial burden on applicants, and require a significant portion of Council’s Compliance staff time, which would be better utilised undertaking compliance checks on lawfully established systems that have never been subject to resource consent, and the quality of wastewater produced by those systems is not known.

26.  Table 3 outlines a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of proposed changes to the rules.

 


Attachment 1 s 32 Assessment

Attachment 1

 

Table 3.  Advantages and disadvantages of proposed changes to rules

 

Change

Advantages

Disadvantages

Inclusion of ancillary discharge of contaminants to air in rule

· Rule previously had a condition relating to offensive and objectionable odour beyond the boundary but technically, consent was only issued for a discharge to land. Inclusion in the activity definition makes it clear that these rules do relate to both discharges to land, and ancillary discharges to air, from wastewater systems and consequently both discharges will be authorised by resource consent if necessary

· Improves clarity and certainty of rules and subsequent discharge permits

· Will not result in any change of conditions of discharge permits

· Improves consistency of rules with policies and objectives relating to air quality

 

RRMP only

Deletion of reference to “land zoned for residential activity” in Rule 37(d)

· Improved clarity and certainty for Plan users implementing and administering rule

· Removes a relatively blunt approach and if replaced with other site constraints (eg: slope and site area to wastewater volume ratio), then proposal would provide a more effects-based approach

· Addresses one of the key problems identified as driver for this plan change

· Avoids reliance of RRMP on zoning specified in district plans.  Would make regional rules stand alone resulting in ease of interpretation and understanding

· In 2010, the Regional Council issued 68 discharge permits for on-site wastewater systems with maximum discharge volumes less than 2 m3/day.  51 of those consents were required solely because the discharge occurred on “land zoned for residential activity”.  Alone, deleting the reference would remove the need for significant numbers of resource consent applications.

 

RCEP only

Deletion of 1500 m2 lot size restriction

· Removes a relatively blunt approach and if replaced with other site constraints (eg: slope and site area to wastewater volume ratio), then proposal would provide a more effects-based approach

· Would re-introduce consistency between wastewater rules of RRMP and RCEP

· Lot size is relatively easily understood and measurable by Plan users

· Conditions proposed which would effectively replace this condition are slope and ratio conditions which are not as easy to measure

Inclusion of condition specifying a maximum slope angle of land

· Improved effects-based approach based on risk – slope requires specific design considerations.  Systems that are not appropriately designed for the topography in which they are installed can result in the soil becoming saturated, which significantly increases the risk of slope failure (slips etc).

· Ensures any discharges on a slope greater than 15° will not be permitted and require a resource consent

· Many on-site wastewater systems in region’s settlements are on flat to gently undulating land so 15° slope factor will not apply in those settlements.

· Consideration of slope is recognised as ‘best management practice’ for system design, assessment and installation.  Applying condition on slope reinforces that best practice approach.

·   Will require some discharges in rural areas to obtain resource consent where they are currently permitted by existing rules.

·   Will be inconsistency in some subdivisions/properties where some discharges are on flat ground and others are on steep slopes.

·   Relies on applicants (or their agents) accurately measuring slope angle

·   In 2010 the Council issued 65 permitted activity letters to property owners whose proposed on-site wastewater systems complied with all conditions of the relevant wastewater rules, and were therefore permitted.  Potentially up to 23 of those properties would require resource consent under the proposed rules solely because the slope on which the discharge occurred was greater than 15°.[4]

·   Not consistent view on appropriateness of proposed slope angle.  Some people consider it to be too steep, while others consider it to be too restrictive and believe it should be steeper.

Inclusion of a site area to wastewater volume ratio condition

· Provides opportunity for site size compared with discharge volume to be taken into account

· Improved effects-based approach. Smaller sections with large discharges potentially present a greater risk to the environment and vice versa

· Encourages appropriate development on sites (eg. small site should only accommodate a small dwelling due to wastewater treatment and disposal limitations)

· An assessment of where this condition might require consents has indicated that lots within the coastal communities such as Waimarama, Te Awanga, Haumoana, Bay View and Whirinaki are smaller and therefore may require consent because of this condition.  Jervoistown also has some relatively small sections.  These settlements are ‘zoned for residential activity’ therefore require discharge permits under the current rule structure – there is likely to be little change in how many people require resource consent in these areas

· Requiring size of property to be relative to volume of discharge would address historical issues with multiple discharges on one property.  Current rules do not address this, however proposed changes would mean sufficient area must be provided for each discharge.

 

· May be difficult for people to understand, at least initially.

· Does not address inequity issue of some properties within communities requiring resource consent and not others

· Alone, is unlikely to cause significant decrease in the number of properties that require resource consent to discharge on-site wastewater

Removal of need for existing systems to seek replacement consents

· Reduction of costs on consent holders

· Avoids creating a ‘sub-group’ of consents that constantly need to be reviewed and renewed (currently those systems installed since 2000 are considered to be ‘new’ systems and need to continually reapply for replacement consents)

· Addresses one of the key problems identified as a driver for this plan change

· Rarely have changes been required to existing systems as a result of poor compliance grading. Compliance staff time could be redirected to other tasks such as monitoring effects of older unconsented systems

 

· Less systems will be subject to resource consent therefore the Council would no longer have an ability, via consent conditions, to regularly monitor the performance of those systems – potentially some may not be as well maintained because the frequency of any compliance checks would be less frequent

RRMP only

Inclusion of Ruataniwha Plains unconfined aquifer in areas where discharges are not permitted

· Inclusion of additional area was requested by iwi and relevant TLA

· Would give better effect to Policy 16 of the RPS which requires the regulation of existing and new domestic sewage disposal systems located over the Ruataniwha Plains unconfined aquifer

· Existing Schedule can be used to identify location of Ruataniwha Plains unconfined aquifer

· Consistent with RRMP Policy 75

· Enhanced ability for Council to control effects of activities that may impact on groundwater quality

·   Will require property owners to obtain a discharge permit where current rules do not require this

·   It is not known how many lawfully established non-reticulated wastewater systems are already located over the Ruataniwha Plains unconfined aquifer.

·   Inappropriate to impose this restriction retrospectively on systems already installed and located over the Ruataniwha Plains unconfined aquifer.  This will lead to disparity between lawfully established and new wastewater systems over the aquifer

For new and high volume lawfully established systems depth to groundwater must be at least 600 mm to highest seasonal groundwater table

· The highest groundwater level does not necessarily occur in winter.  Although this is likely to be the case in most instances, referring to highest seasonal groundwater table provides for those sites where spring may be when the groundwater table is the highest.

· This change reflects a more effects-based approach

· Improved consistency with Policy 18(b) which refers to “discharges where the water table is likely to be within 600 mm of the point of discharge at any time” – the policy does not state winter, change to seasonal encompasses intent of policy better

· Will enable greater protection of groundwater quality

· 600mm separation applies uniformly across all soil types.  This is a relatively blunt approach which ideally would be refined for different soil types, however this would be inconsistent with RRMP Policy 18(b)

· Doesn’t address separation distances for lawfully established wastewater systems.  Very difficult to check compliance of lawfully established systems with an amended condition.

· Can be difficult to measure highest groundwater level

New condition relating to discharges into raised beds

· Will require all systems that require the construction of a raised bed to seek resource consent

· Requirement for resource consent will enable Council’s compliance officers to inspect all new raised beds which in-turn, will assist to ensure beds and systems are regularly maintained and operating effectively

· Raised beds require specific design therefore it is appropriate that these go through the consent process to enable proposed designs to be carefully assessed

· Inclusion of such a condition was supported by TLAs and the Council’s compliance staff based on their previous experiences of raised bed designs, construction and functioning.

· Will enable better protection of groundwater quality.  Change improves consistency of rules with RPS Objectives 21 and 22

· Potential public health benefits as a result of appropriately constructed raised beds

· Does not require existing systems that utilise raised beds to seek consent.  Applying this condition retrospectively would be problematic.

· For example, in the rural settlement zone of Jervoistown there are currently 119 lots.  There are 25 lots that have current discharge permits.  All but one of those consents discharge wastewater into a raised bed.  Of the remaining 94 properties, it is likely that a significant number of them (up to 96% if the current consents are an accurate indication) would require resource consent because they use or technically require a raised bed.

Removal of option for primary treatment for new wastewater systems installed on properties over 2500m2

· The addition of an outlet filter to a septic tank improves the quality of wastewater discharged from it

· Outlet filters are a cost effective way of improving the quality of wastewater discharged to the environment

· Better quality wastewater is discharged to the environment – this provides for better protection of existing groundwater and surface water quality

· Additional costs of purchasing and installing a filter

· There are a significant number of existing septic tanks that do not have outlet filters in place – the proposed change applies only to new systems, not lawfully established systems

Changes to Figure 6 (RRMP) and Schedule J (RCEP)

· Current versions of Figure 6/Schedule J are not regularly used by Council officers as instead, more recently produced publications are referenced

· Proposed Figure 6/Schedule J would incorporate relevant content of joint Australia/New Zealand Standard for on-site wastewater management (AS/NZS:1547)

· Would clearly specify Council’s expectations for system design in Plans.  Clear design specifications would make plan easier for system designers to use and understand

· Currently, Council consent officers apply AS/NZS 1547:2000 as a benchmark when assessing system design. Expressing relevant content from AS/NZS1547:2000 this in the plans would improve decision-making transparency

· Clearly specifies some measures and assumptions (such as 2 people per room) that have previously been common Council practice, but was not prescribed anywhere in Plans

·   AS/NZS 1547:2000 is due to be updated.  Design best practice may change, so any revisions would need to be incorporated into Figure 6/Schedule J by way of a Plan Change process in future.

Inclusion of condition requiring new systems to be designed in accordance with Figure 6 (RRMP) and Schedule J (RCEP)

· Ensures those systems that are permitted are designed in accordance with recommendations of AS/NZS 1547:2000.  Previously there was no reference to design standards in permitted activity rules which meant that systems could be permitted, but not designed in accordance with industry recommendations.  Proposed change would enable improved management of environmental effects of wastewater treatment and disposal methods.

· Will improve consistency of systems installed

· Would clearly specify Council’s expectations for system design in Plans.  Clear design specifications would make plan easier for system designers to use and understand

· Currently, Council consent officers apply AS/NZS 1547:2000 as a benchmark when assessing system design. Expressing relevant content from AS/NZS1547:2000 this in the plans would improve decision-making transparency

·   Over time, industry ‘best practice’ may change, so any revisions would need to be incorporated into Figure 6/Schedule J by way of a Plan Change process in future.

Introduction of a condition requiring resource consents for new systems constructed in category 5 or 6 soils

· Systems installed in category 5 or 6 soil require site specific design.  Such designs should be reviewed by a design expert.  Requiring such systems to seek resource consent will enable designs to be properly assessed

· Appropriate design of systems located in such soils will ensure that they can operate effectively and do not have an adverse effect on the environment.

· Reflects improved effects-based approach for wastewater management.

·   Requires Plan users and resource users to understand definition of category 5 or 6 soil

·   Uncertainty about how many additional properties this will mean needing resource consent. Considered unlikely to be high

Changes to maintenance condition

· Clearly identifies the expectations for maintenance – it must either be done in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, or AS/NZS 1547:2000.

· Ongoing maintenance of non-reticulated wastewater system is crucial to their continued effective and efficient operation

· Better quality wastewater discharged to the environment – positive environmental effect

· Owners of previously unmaintained wastewater systems will now incur costs for maintenance work to be completed

Inclusion of condition requiring all discharges (other than pit privies) to be into specifically designed land treatment fields

· This addresses an issue Council Compliance staff have experienced with existing wastewater systems that do not actually have a land treatment field.  Wastewater simply discharges from the tank into the ground

· Positive environmental effect will result from all discharges being treated to a higher degree via a specifically designed land treatment field

· It is unknown how many existing wastewater systems do not have a specifically designed and constructed land treatment field. 

· Costs on owners of systems which must have a land treatment field ’retro-fitted’ to existing wastewater treatment plant

New condition relating to spray irrigation

· Spray irrigation is no longer considered to be a safe way of discharging wastewater from non-reticulated wastewater systems

· Historically any existing system that still uses spray irrigation as a method of discharge has been required through the consent replacement process to change to a subsurface method of discharge.

· Number of people still using spray irrigation in Hawke's Bay is small, therefore any costs to operators is limited

· Public health benefits due to lower risk of subsurface, or at least covered, surface irrigation lines

 

· Cost of consent process and upgrade of system to those consent holders who are still using spray irrigation.  In practice, the Council has given consent holders a lead-in period before an upgraded system has to be installed

New condition relating to proximity to registered drinking water supplies

· Required to be inserted by regulations 10 and 14 of the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007

· Will reduce the risk of on-site wastewater discharges contaminating drinking water sources

· Public health benefits

· The NES does not provide any definition of what ‘upstream’ of a drinking water supply is, therefore this condition is difficult for the public to understand.  To assist, Council’s Consents Team intend identifying areas that are ‘upstream’ of each of the 32 (31 groundwater + 1 surface water source) drinking water supplies in Hawke’s Bay that supply over 501 people with drinking water where a discharge may have an effect on a drinking water supply.  The extent of these areas will be influenced by the aquifer characteristics.  Once compiled, this information will be a useful reference for Plan users.

 

Additional matters for discretion added to restricted discretionary activities:

1.   Proximity to registered drinking water supplies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.   Monitoring of the discharge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.   Maintenance of the system

 

 

 

· Will ensure that NES for drinking water sources is taken into account when making decisions on resource consent applications. A consent authority must consider whether a proposed discharge may have a significant adverse effect on the quality of drinking water at any abstraction point.  If it considers that a risk exists, and it grants resource consent, a condition must be included on the consent that requires the consent holder to notify the registered drinking-water supply operator and consent authority if an event that may adversely affect the drinking water supply occurs

 

· High volume discharges have the potential to have adverse effects on the environment if they are not appropriately monitored and operations altered as necessary.  Allowing discretion to be exercised over the monitoring of high volume wastewater systems (both existing and new) will ensure that appropriate monitoring conditions can be included in resource consents

 

· Ongoing maintenance of wastewater systems is key to their ongoing effective operation.  Having the ability to exercise control over the maintenance of a system will assist ensuring new reticulated and existing high volume non-reticulated systems are maintained on a regular basis, which will mean that they last longer and produce wastewater of a higher quality.  This results in positive economic and environmental effects

· Provides the Council and community with greater certainty that wastewater systems are maintained regularly which has a consequential positive effect on the quality of effluent that is discharged from them

All:

·   Applicants have less certainty over the consent conditions that could be included on their discharge permits

·   Regular monitoring and maintenance requirements may impose additional costs on consent holders

 

RCEP only

Deletion of Rule 27(e)

· Was almost exactly the same as Rule 27(d).  Has often been perceived as a drafting error.

· Provide greater clarity and certainty for Plan users

 

Additions and amendments to terms in Glossary

· Provide greater clarity and certainty for Plan users

· Assists Plan users to interpret and implement rules in consistent manner.

· Standardises terminology used within each Plan and across the RRMP and RCEP.

 

 


Attachment 1 s 32 Assessment

Attachment 1

 

s32(4)(b) – What is the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules or other methods?

27.  There currently exists rule frameworks in both the RRMP and RCEP that deal with wastewater discharges.  The Council’s Compliance team has collected a significant amount of information about the performance of consented wastewater systems in recent years.  Although anecdotal evidence suggests that many older wastewater systems are not treating wastewater to a suitable level, very little monitoring has been undertaken on those systems, therefore the contribution those systems make to groundwater and surface water degradation is unknown.

28.  The risk of not acting, and continuing to operate under the existing rule frameworks is that new wastewater systems continue to need resource consent, and are subsequently monitored, while little continues to be known about the state of the existing systems.  The onerous controls on new and renewed systems does not fairly relate to the associated risk of environmental impacts of those systems.


Attachment 2 Draft Change to Rules

Attachment 2

 

 

Regional Resource Management Plan

 

Rule

Activity

Classification

Conditions/Standards/Terms

Matters for Control/Discretion

Non-notification

35

Lawfully established[5] existing domestic non-reticulated wastewater sewage systems 

Except as provided for by Rule 36, Tthe discharge of contaminants onto or into land, and any ancillary

discharge of contaminants into air,  from any existing lawfully established domestic non-reticulated wastewater sewage system. which existed prior to notification of this Plan

Permitted

 

a.     The rate of discharge shall not exceed 2 m3/d, averaged over any 7 day period.

b.     The discharge shall not occur over the Heretaunga Plains unconfined aquifer as shown in Schedule Va.

c.   There shall be no surface ponding as a result of the discharge, or direct discharge into any water body.

d.   There shall be no increase in the concentration of pathogenic organisms in any surface water body as a result of the discharge.

e.     Either:

i. The point of discharge shall be no less than 600 mm above the winter groundwater table; or

ii. The discharge shall not result in, or contribute to, a breach of the “Drinking Water Quality Standards for New Zealand” (Ministry of Health, 2005 (Revised 2008) 1995) in any groundwater body after reasonable mixing.

f.      The discharge shall not cause any emission of offensive or objectionable odour, or release of noxious or dangerous gases (including aerosols) beyond the boundary of the subject property.

g.   Either:

i.  For  discharges from pit privies the privy shall be from privy’s constructed in soil with an infiltration rate not exceeding 150 mm/h; or

      ii. all other discharges shall be into a specifically designed and constructed land treatment field.

h.    Compliance with any conditions of a resource consent held for the activity.

i.     The wastewater treatment and land application system shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions, or if no manufacturer’s instructions exist, in accordance with the best management practice as described in AS/NZS 1547:2000 .  A schedule of maintenance shall be kept, and this schedule shall be available for inspection by the Regional Council upon request.

A schedule and/or record of maintenance undertaken shall be forwarded to the HBRC on request.

i.a    The discharge shall not be disposed of by way of spray irrigation.

i.b.  The discharge shall not be located upstream of a registered drinking water supply that provides at least 501 people with drinking water.

 

 

 

36

Lawfully established1 existing high discharge volume large scale domestic non-reticulated wastewater sewage disposal systems

Refer to POL 16, 17, 18, 71, 75

The discharge of contaminants onto or into land, and any ancillary

discharge  of contaminants into air,  from any lawfully established domestic non-reticulated wastewater sewage disposal system with a discharge volume exceeding 2m3/day averaged over any 7 day period, which existed prior to notification of this Plan, unless the discharge is allowed by Rule 35.

Restricted discretionary

a.   The discharge shall not occur over the Heretaunga Plains or Ruataniwha Plains unconfined aquifer as shown in Schedule IVa.

b.   There shall be no surface ponding as a result of the discharge, or direct discharge into any water body.

c.   There shall be no increase in the concentration of pathogenic organisms in any surface water body as a result of the discharge.

d.     Either:

i. The point of discharge shall be no less that 600 mm above the highest seasonal winter groundwater table; or

ii. The discharge shall not result in, or contribute to, a breach of the “Drinking Water Quality Standards for New Zealand” (Ministry of Health, 2005 1995 (Revised 2008)) in any groundwater body after reasonable mixing, or

e.  The discharge shall not cause any emission of offensive or objectionable odour, or release of noxious or dangerous gases (including aerosols) beyond the boundary of the subject property.

 

a. Method of treatment.

b. Method of disposal.

c. Effluent application rate.

d. Need for reserve area.

e. Buffer zone requirements.

f. Proximity to registered drinking water supplies

g. Duration of consent.

h. Review of consent conditions.

i. Compliance monitoring of discharge

j. Maintenance of system

 

ADVISORY NOTE:

Soil infiltration rate – For the purpose of Rule 35 t(g) he soil type should not comprise gravels, coarse/medium sands, scoria, fissured rock, or other such materials likely to permit free travel of excreta residues away from the vault chamber.

Non compliance with rules - If all conditions of Rule 35, 36, 37 or Rule 37A cannot be complied with then the activity is a discretionary activity under Rule 52.


 

Rule

Activity

Classification

Conditions/Standards/Terms

Matters for Control/Discretion

Non-notification

37

New[6] domestic non-reticulated wastewater sewage disposal systems , including greywater disposal

 

 

Refer POL

16, 71, 75

 

 

Except as provided for in Rule 35 or Rule 36, the discharge of contaminants (including greywater) onto or into land, and any ancillary

discharge  of contaminants^ into air, from a domestic non-reticulated wastewater system.  The discharge of contaminants onto or into land from any domestic sewage including greywater established after notification of this Plan.

Permitted

 

a.   Where the wastewater receives no more than primary treatment, or advanced primary treatment, the discharge shall be onto or into a property with a land area of no less than 2500 m2.

b.   The rate of discharge of domestic sewage (including greywater) shall not exceed 2 m3/d, averaged over any 7 day period.

c.   The treatment and disposal system shall be designed to cater for the peak daily loading.

d.   The discharge shall not occur over the Heretaunga Plains or Ruataniwha Plains unconfined aquifer as shown in Schedule Iva nor on any land zoned for residential activity in any Proposed or Operative District Plan,.

e.   The discharge and land treatment field shall not be  within 20 m of any surface water body (including any stormwater open drain or roadside drain), or any tile drain or within 1.5 metres of any property boundary.

e.a The discharge shall not occur on land with a slope of greater than 15 degrees (from the horizontal).

e.b The proportion of net site area to discharge volume shall not be less than 1 m2 per litre per day per discharge [7].

f.    There shall be no surface ponding as a result of the discharge, or direct discharge into any water body.

g.   The discharge shall be distributed evenly over the entire disposal area.

h.   There shall be no increase in the concentration of pathogenic organisms in any surface water body as a result of the discharge.

i.    At the time of installation and commencement, the discharge shall not occur within 30 m of any bore drawing groundwater from an unconfined aquifer into which any contaminant may enter as a result of the discharge.

j.    The point of discharge shall be no less than 600 mm above the highest seasonal winter groundwater table.

k.     The discharge shall not result in, or contribute to, a breach of the “Drinking Water Quality Standards for New Zealand” (Ministry of Health, 2005 1995 (Revised 2008)) in any groundwater body after reasonable mixing.

l.    The discharge shall not cause any emission of offensive or objectionable odour, or release of noxious or dangerous gases (including aerosols) beyond the boundary of the subject property or on any public land.

m.  For discharges using the long-drop method:

i.    the long-drop shall be constructed in soil with an infiltration rate not exceeding 150 mm/h, and

ii.   the long drop shall not be the primary wastewater system for any permanently occupied dwelling.

n.  The system shall be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner which ensures that there is no clogging of the disposal system or soils.

n.a. The system shall be designed and installed in accordance with the requirements specified in Figure 6.

 

n.b The discharge shall not be into a trench or bed disposal system constructed in category 5 or 6[8] soil.

o.  Where the wastewater receives secondary treatment or better, the discharge shall not exceed 20 g/m3 of BOD, and 30 g/m3 of suspended solids.

p.  The wastewater treatment and land application system shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions, or if no manufacturer’s instructions exist, in accordance with the best management practice as described in AS/NZS 1547:2000 .  A schedule of maintenance shall be kept, and this schedule shall be available for inspection by the Regional Council upon request.

The treatment and disposal system shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions and a schedule of maintenance shall be forwarded to the HBRC upon request.

q.    The discharge shall not be disposed of by way of spray irrigation.

q.a  The discharge shall not be into a raised bed.

q.b. The discharge shall not be located upstream of a registered drinking water supply that provides at least 501 people with drinking water.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Attachment 2 Draft Change to Rules

Attachment 2

 

 

FIGURE 6 (RRMP)/Schedule J (PRCEP): Requirements for domestic non-reticulated wastewater systems

 

Design Flow Allowances for non-reticulated wastewater systems

 

Source

Typical wastewater flow allowance in L/person/day

On-site roof water tank supply

Reticulated community/bore water supply

Households

140

180

Households (blackwater only

50

60

Households (greywater only

90

120

Motels/hotels

- Guests, resident staff

- Non-resident staff

- Reception rooms

- Bar trade (per customer)

- Restaurant (per diner)

 

140

30

20

20

20

 

180

40

30

25

30

Community halls

Banqueting

meetings

 

20

10

 

30

15

Restaurants (per diner)

Dinner

lunch

 

20

15

 

30

25

Tea rooms (per customer)

Without restroom facilities

With restroom facilities

 

10

15

 

15

25

School (pupils plus staff)

Rural factories, shopping centres

30

30

40

50

Camping grounds

Fully serviced

-recreation areas

 

100

50

 

130

65

 

Note:  For the purposes of determining building occupancy, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council adopt an occupancy of 2 people per room, excluding bathrooms, kitchens, laundries and any other room that cannot feasibility be used as a bedroom

 

 


Attachment 2 Draft Change to Rules

Attachment 2

 

 

Irrigation Systems

 

Recommended design loading rates for irrigation systems

Soil category

Soil texture

Design irrigation rate

(mm/week)

1

Gravels and sands

35 mm/wk

(5 mm/d)

2

Sandy loams

35 mm/wk

(5 mm/d)

3

Loams

28 mm/wk

(4 mm/d)

4

Clay loams

25 mm/wk

(3.57 mm/d)

5

Light clays

20 mm/wk

(2.86 mm/d)

6

Medium to heavy clays

15 mm/wk

(2.14 mm/d)

 

Design specifications for Irrigation systems

·       Irrigation lines placed on the surface shall be pinned to the surface and covered with at least 100 mm depth of cover

·       Subsurface irrigation lines shall be installed at a maximum depth of 200 mm below ground level

·       Minimum spacing at least 600 mm in sand and 1000 mm in all other soil types

·       Wastewater shall be applied evenly across the entire land treatment field

                                                                                                                                                                         


Trenches or Beds

 

Recommended design loading rates for trenches and beds

Soil category

Soil texture

Structure

Design loading rate

Primary treated effluent

Secondary treated effluent

(mm/d)

Conservative rate (mm/d)

Maximum rate (mm/d)

1

Gravels and sands

Structureless

20

(see note 1)

35

(see note 1)

50

(see note 1)

2

Sandy loams

Weakly structured

Massive

20

15

35

25

50

50

3

Loams

High/mod structure

Weakly structured/massive

15

10

25

15

50

30

4

Clay loams

High/mod structure

Weakly structured

Massive

10

6

4

10

10

5

30

20

10

5

Light clays

Strongly structured

Mod structured

massive

Consent required – see Rule 37 (nb)

Consent required – see Rule 37 (nb)

Consent required – see -  Rule 37 (nb)

6

Medium to heavy clays

Strongly structured

Mod structured

massive

Consent required – see Rule 37 (nb)

Consent required – see  Rule 37 (nb)

Consent required – see.  Rule 37 (nb)

 Note 1: The treatment capacity of the soil and not the hydraulic capacity of the soil or the growth of the clogging layer govern the effluent loading rate of category 1 soils.

Category 1 soils require special design

 

Design specifications for Trenches or beds

·       Trenches must be at least 400 mm deep and 300 mm wide.

·       They should be no longer than 25 m long, and there must be a spacing of at least 1000 mm between adjacent trench walls

·       Beds must be at least 1000 mm wide, with a minimum spacing of 1000 mm between adjacent trench walls

·       Multiple distribution lines to be included where beds are more than 1.5 metres in width.

·       Both trenches and beds must be backfilled with distribution media and covered with a minimum 150 mm of topsoil

·       The discharge shall be pumped, or dosed in fixed quantities so that the wastewater is applied evenly across the entire land treatment field


Attachment 2 Draft Change to Rules

Attachment 2

 

 

 

 


Attachment 2 Draft Change to Rules

Attachment 2

 

 

 

Proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan (Version 2.3, 21 April 2011)

 

Rule

Activity

Classification

Conditions/Standards/Terms

Matters for Control/Discretion

Non-notification

Rule 26

 

Existing Lawfully established

domestic non-reticulated wastewater disposal systems[9]

 

 

The discharge of contaminants onto or into land, and any ancillary

discharge of contaminants into air,  in the Coastal Margin from any lawfully established domestic non-reticulated wastewater disposal system. which existed prior to 15 April 2000

Permitted

 

a.   The rate of discharge shall not exceed 2m3/d, averaged over any 7 day period.

b.   There shall be no surface ponding as a result of the discharge, or direct discharge into the coastal marine area or any water body.

c.   There shall be no increase in the concentration of pathogenic organisms or faecal indicator bacteria in the coastal marine area or any surface water body as a result of the discharge.

d. Either:

i.   The point of discharge shall be no less than 600 mm above the winter groundwater table, or

ii.  The discharge shall not result in, or contribute to, a breach of the ‘Drinking Water Quality Standards for New Zealand’ (Ministry of Health, 2005 2000 (Revised 2008)) in any groundwater body after reasonable mixing.

e.     The discharge shall not cause any emission of offensive or objectionable odour, or release of noxious or dangerous gases (including aerosols) beyond the boundary of the subject property.

f.      Either:

i. discharges from pit privies shall be from privy’s constructed in soil with an infiltration rate not exceeding 150 mm/h; or

      ii. all other discharges shall be into a specifically designed and constructed land treatment field.

 

For discharges from pit privies, the privy shall be constructed in the soil with an infiltration rate not exceeding 150 mm/h.

g.      Compliance with any conditions of a resource consent held for the activity.

h.    The wastewater treatment and land application system shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions, or if no manufacturer’s instructions exist, in accordance with the best management practice as described in AS/NZS 1547:2000 .  A schedule of maintenance shall be kept, and this schedule shall be available for inspection by the Regional Council upon request.

A schedule and/or record of maintenance undertaken shall be forwarded to the HBRC on request.

h.a    The discharge shall not be disposed of by way of spray irrigation.

h.b    The discharge shall not be located upstream of a registered drinking water supply that provides at least 501 people with drinking water.

 

 

 

Rule 27

 

New[10] domestic non-reticulated wastewater systems

 

Except as provided for by Rule 26 or Rule 28, the discharge of contaminants (including greywater) onto or into land, and any ancillary

discharge  of contaminants into air,  in the Coastal Margin from any new[11] domestic non-reticulated wastewater disposal treatment system (including greywater) established after 15 April 2000.

Permitted

 

b)   The rate of discharge of domestic sewage (including greywater) shall not exceed 2 m3/d, averaged over any 7 day period.

c)  The discharge shall not be onto or into a property with a land area less than 1500 m2 except:

Where the wastewater receives no more than primary treatment or advanced primary treatment, the discharge shall not be onto or into a property with a land area less than 2500 m2.

d)   The discharge and land treatment field shall not be occur within:

i)     20 m of any surface water body ( including any stormwater open drain or roadside drain) or

ii)    20 m of any tile drain or

iii) 20 m of the coastal marine area or

iv)   iv)        1.5 m of any property boundary.

d.a At the time of installation and commencement, the discharge shall not occur within 30 m of any bore drawing groundwater from an unconfined aquifer into which any contaminant may enter as a result of the discharge.

d.b The discharge shall not occur on land with a slope of greater than 15 degrees (from the horizontal).

d.c  The proportion of net site area to discharge volume shall not be less than 1 m2 per litre per day per discharge [12].

e.     Deleted Disposal fields must not be located within:

i) 20 m of any surface water body (including any stormwater open drain or roadside drain) or

ii) 20 m of any tile drain or

20 m of the coastal marine area or

iv) 30 m of any bore drawing groundwater from an unconfined aquifer into which any contaminant may enter as a result of the discharge or

v) 1.5 metres of any property boundary

f.      There shall be no surface ponding as a result of the discharge, or direct discharge into the coastal marine area or any water body.

g.  The discharge shall be distributed evenly over the entire disposal area.

h.    There shall be no increase in the concentration of pathogenic organisms or faecal indicator bacteria in the coastal marine area or any surface water body as a result of the discharge.

i. The point of discharge shall be no less than be able to infiltrate through at least  600 mm above the highest seasonal groundwater table of unsaturated soil.

j.    The discharge shall not result in, or contribute to, a breach of the ‘Drinking Water Quality Standards for New Zealand’ (Ministry of Health, 2005 2000 (Revised 2008)) in any groundwater body after reasonable mixing.

k.    The discharge shall not cause any emission of offensive or objectionable odour, or release of noxious or dangerous gases (including aerosols), beyond the boundary of the subject property or on any public land.

l. For discharges using the long-drop method:

i) the long-drop shall be constructed in soil with an infiltration rate not exceeding 150 mm/h  and

ii) the long drop shall not be the primary wastewater system for any permanently occupied dwelling.

m.  The system shall be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner which ensures that there is no clogging of the disposal system or soils.

m.a The system shall be designed and installed in accordance with the requirements specified in Schedule J.

m.b The discharge shall not be into a trench or bed disposal system constructed in category 5 or 6[13] soil.

n.    Where the wastewater receives secondary treatment or better, the discharge shall not exceed 20 g/m3 of BOD, and 30 g/m3 of suspended solids.

o.  The wastewater treatment and land application system shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions, or if no manufacturer’s instructions exist, in accordance with the best management practice as described in AS/NZS 1547:2000 .  A schedule of maintenance shall be kept, and this schedule shall be available for inspection by the Regional Council upon request.

The treatment and disposal system shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and a schedule of maintenance shall be forwaded to the HBRC upon request.

p.    The discharge shall not be disposed of by way of spray irrigation.

p.a  The discharge shall not be into a raised bed.

p.b   The discharge shall not be located upstream of a registered drinking water supply that provides at least 501 people with drinking water.

 

 

 

Rule 28

 

Existing Lawfully established high discharge rate volume domestic non-reticulated wastewater disposal systems4

 

The discharge of contaminants onto or into land, and any ancillary

discharge of contaminants into air,  in the Coastal Margin from any lawfully established domestic non-reticulated wastewater disposal system which existed prior to notification of this Plan, with a rate of discharge exceeding 2m3/day averaged over any 7 day period.

Restricted  discretionary

a)   There shall be no surface ponding as a result of the discharge, or direct discharge into the coastal marine area or any water body.

b)   There shall be no increase in the concentration of pathogenic organisms or faecal indicator bacteria in the coastal marine area, any groundwater system or any surface water body as a result of the discharge.

c)   Either:

      i)  The point of discharge shall be no less than 600mm above the winter groundwater table above the highest seasonal groundwater table, or

 ii) The discharge shall not result in, or contribute to, a breach of the ‘Drinking Water Quality Standards for New Zealand’ ( Ministry of Health, 2005 2000 (Revised 2008)) in any groundwater body after reasonable mixing.

d) The discharge shall not cause any emission of offensive or objectionable odour, or release of noxious or dangerous gases (including aerosols), beyond the boundary of the subject property.

a)         Method of treatment

b)         Method of disposal

c)          Effluent application rate

d)         Need for reserve area

e)         Buffer zone requirements

f) Proximity to registered drinking water supplies

g)         Matters in Chapter 26.4

h)         Maintenance of system

Except where an applicant requests or where special circumstances exist, an application will not be publicly notified, but HBRC will require notice of an application to be served on all affected persons (if any), unless all affected persons have provided their written approval.

 

 

 

 


Glossary of RRMP

 

Additions:

 

Advanced primary treatment

In relation to the treatment of wastewater, means primary treatment with the addition of an effluent outlet solids control device (outlet filter)

 

Lawfully established

refers to an activity established lawfully either before or after this Plan was publicly notified and

a)    either            i) was a permitted activity or otherwise could have been lawfully carried out without a resource consent under this Plan or an earlier regional plan and

         ii) the effects are the same or similar in character, intensity and scale to the effects that existed before this Plan was publicly notified and

         iii) the activity has not been discontinued for a continuous period of more than 6 months since the Plan was publicly notified or

b)    was granted a resource consent and that resource consent has now expired.

 

Net Site Area

Means a single contiguous  area of a property set aside for the exclusive use of its owners, leasees or tenants and shall exclude all common use areas, access lots or access strips and entrance strips.

 

Non-reticulated wastewater system

Means a system for the collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater.  Treatment systems include basic septic tank units, alternative septic tank units, dry vault units (e.g. pit privvies), wet vault (e.g. septic closet) systems for blackwater with separate greywater disposal (e.g. sullage tanks), aerated wastewater treatment systems, sand media and alternative filters, wetlands etc.  Disposal systems include soakage trenches and beds, modified trench and bed systems relying in full or in part on evapo-transpiration, subsurface and surface irrigation systems, absorption wells/infiltration pits, and above ground treatment/disposal (fill and mound) systems. 

 

See also definitions of ‘blackwater’, ‘greywater’, ‘septic tank’ and ‘sewage’.

 

Point of discharge

In relation to non-reticulated and reticulated wastewater systems, means the depth below or above ground level that a distribution line is placed, or if a trench or bed is used, the base of that trench or bed (not the depth at which the distribution line is placed within the trench or bed)

 

Raised bed

In relation to non-reticulated wastewater systems, means an area that wastewater is discharged into/onto that has been raised above ground level by the importation of additional soil/fill

 

Reticulated wastewater system

means a system for the collection, conveyance, treatment and disposal of wastewater that is owned and operated by a network utility operator.  It includes sewers; trunk mains; pumping stations; milliscreening facilities; and other facilities for the collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater, but does not include an on-site wastewater disposal system or a non-reticulated wastewater system.

Wastewater

Means all water or other liquid including waste matter in solution or suspension from any source which is to be discharged into a wastewater system.  Wastewater includes sewage, greywater and blackwater.Deletions and Amendments:

On-site sewage treatment system

A system used for sewerage collection, treatment and disposal.  Treatment systems include basic septic tank units, alternative septic tank units, dry vault units (e.g. pit privvies), wet vault (e.g. septic closet) systems for blackwater with separate greywater disposal (e.g. sullage tanks), aerated wastewater treatment systems, sand media and alternative filters, wetlands etc.  Disposal systems include soakage trenches and beds, modified trench and bed systems relying in full or in part on evapo-transpiration, subsurface and surface irrigation systems, absorption wells/infiltration pits, and above ground treatment/disposal (fill and mound) systems. 

 

See also definitions of ‘blackwater’, ‘greywater’, ‘septic tank’ and ‘sewage’.

 


Glossary of PRCEP

Additions:

 

Advanced primary treatment

In relation to the treatment of wastewater, means primary treatment with the addition of an effluent outlet solids control device (outlet filter)

 

Net Site Area

Means a single contiguous area of a property set aside for the exclusive use of its owners, leasees or tenants and shall exclude all common use areas, access lots or access strips and entrance strips.

 

Point of discharge

In relation to non-reticulated and reticulated wastewater systems means the depth below or above ground level that a distribution line is placed, or if a trench or bed is used, the base of that trench or bed (not the depth at which the distribution line is placed within the trench or bed)

 

Raised bed

In relation to non-reticulated wastewater systems means an area that wastewater is discharged into/onto that has been raised above ground level by the importation of additional soil/fill

 

Deletions and Amendments:

Non-reticulated wastewater system

Means a system for the collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater.  Treatment systems include basic septic tank units, alternative septic tank units, dry vault units (e.g. pit privvies), wet vault (e.g. septic closet) systems for blackwater with separate greywater disposal (e.g. sullage tanks), aerated wastewater treatment systems, sand media and alternative filters, wetlands etc.  Disposal systems include soakage trenches and beds, modified trench and bed systems relying in full or in part on evapo-transpiration, subsurface and surface irrigation systems, absorption wells/infiltration pits, and above ground treatment/disposal (fill and mound) systems. 

 

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee  

Wednesday 15 June 2011

SUBJECT: Withdrawal of Air Quality Rules        

 

REASON FOR REPORT

1.      This paper proposes withdrawing two rules from regional plans relating to discharges of PM10 from existing industrial and trade premises within the Napier and Hastings Airsheds.  Withdrawing these rules is proposed as a consequence of amendments to Ambient Air Quality (PM10) National Environmental Standards which came into force on 1 June 2011.

Background

2.      The two specific rules being recommended for withdrawal are Rule 18a in Change 2 to the Regional Resource Management Plan and Rule 63A in Variation 2 to the proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan.  Rule 18a has been reprinted in full in Attachment 1 and is virtually identical to Rule 63A in the proposed coastal plan.

3.      Both Rule 18a and Rule 63A permit existing discharges of PM10 into air from any industrial or trade premises located within the Napier or Hastings Airsheds.  There are no appeals outstanding on these rules.

Why withdraw these rules?

4.      From 1 June, the revised National Environmental Standards now mean these rules are virtually redundant. Both of these rules would only have real effect for the period 1 September 2013 to 1 September 2020.  The rules were originally introduced to protect existing industries, schools and hospitals etc. permitting them to continue operating if, after 1 September 2013, ambient air quality concentrations of PM10 in the Napier Airshed or Hastings Airshed continued to exceed National Environmental Standard limits.

5.      The original National Environmental Standard would have prevented the Council from granting any consents (including renewals of existing consents) for discharges of PM10 if Airsheds continued to breach the National Environmental Standard. Rules 18a and 63A were necessary and appropriate at the time when set against the original National Environmental Standard’s ‘penalty’ for ambient Airshed quality non-compliance.

6.      The ‘penalties’ have now been removed from the National Environmental Standard.  Consequently, there is no longer a need for the protection that Rules 18a and 63A offer.  If these rules remain in place, then they are likely to add confusion to air discharge consent applications because all aspects of air discharges require a resource consent, apart from PM10 which is treated separately in the rules.

7.      Consent holders and would-be consent applicants who might be affected by withdrawal of the rules are required to have a consent to discharge all other contaminants to air.  Without Rules 18a and 63A, resource consents would have to authorise the discharge of PM10 and it is likely that the PM10 related conditions in the resource consent would be similar to the permitted activity conditions in Rules 18a and 63A.

8.      Withdrawing Rules 18a and 63A is also likely to bring improved clarity and certainty to other rules for air discharges.  Withdrawing the rules would reduce the need to separately assess PM10 discharges and all other contaminants; and reduce ambiguity of different or duplicated requirements under the rules relative to consent conditions.

Can a Council withdraw parts of plans?

9.      In a word, yes.  Clause 8D of the Resource Management Act 1991 contains a power for local authorities to withdraw a plan, variation, or plan change before the provision is approved to be operative.  While Clause 8D only refers to withdrawing whole plans, the High Court[14] has held that Clause 8D does implicitly include a power to withdraw parts of a plan, so long as the withdrawal does not amount to a variation of another part of that plan.

10.    Clause 8D(2) of the RMA requires the Council to give public notice after the Council has made a decision to withdraw a plan or part of a plan.  The public notice must state reasons for the withdrawal.  There is no public submission process on a council’s decision to withdraw a plan or parts of a plan.  Nonetheless, in early May, Council staff invited holders of air discharge consents in the Napier and Hastings Airsheds to comment on the suggestion to withdraw Rules 18a and 63A.  No comments in opposition (or support) were received, but a few requested further clarification of implications.

What would happen after the rules are withdrawn?

11.    Withdrawal of these rules would not change any consents currently held.  Rules 18a and 63A only had relevance for the period 1 September 2013 to 1 September 2020, so the impact on existing industrial activities is not immediate.

12.    Withdrawing these rules will not alter other rules of air discharges from industrial activities.  A resource consent is still needed for most other contaminants discharged to air from industrial activities.

13.    If the Council does decide to withdraw these rules, then the effect of the decision is immediate.  Regional plans are amended without delay.  There is no submission process.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

14.    Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

14.1.       Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

14.2.       Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

14.3.       The decision does not fall within the definition of the Council’s policy on significance.

14.4.       The persons affected by this decision are current consent holders and would-be consent applicants for discharges of contaminants to air from industrial and trade premises located within the Napier Airshed or Hastings Airshed.

14.5.       The options considered are to retain Rule 18a and Rule 63A as is, or to withdraw those rules.

14.6.       Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

14.7.       Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others having given due consideration to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be effected by or have an interest in the decisions to be made.

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Environmental Management Committee recommends that Council:

1.    Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

2.    Withdraw Rule 18a in Change 2 to the Regional Resource Management Plan and Rule 63A in Variation 2 to the proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan; and give notice of the withdrawal for the following principal reasons:

2.1.    The rules are no longer necessary now that that penalties have been revised and removed from the original National Environmental Standard for ambient PM10 air quality for ambient airshed quality non-compliance.

2.2.    Withdrawing the rules will reduce potential confusion and uncertainty for assessing PM10 contaminants alongside all other contaminants in discharges to air from industrial and trade premises.

 

 

 

 

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

 

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

 

Attachment/s

1View

Rule 18a - air quality

 

 

  


Rule 18a - air quality

Attachment 1

 

Rule 18a – in full from Change 2 Regional Resource Management Plan.

 

   NOTE: Rule 63A in the proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan is the equivalent of Rule 18a set out above.

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee  

Wednesday 15 June 2011

SUBJECT: Navigation Safety Bylaws Review        

 

REASON FOR REPORT

1.      Through monitoring of the navigation and safety bylaws, and feedback from the community, a number of safety issues have been identified that staff believe should be managed through bylaw review.

2.      The current the Navigation and Safety Bylaws are required to be reviewed by December 2012. However staff believe it is prudent to review these bylaws prior to December 2012 and recommended a review be done now so that new bylaws can be in place before the peak of the summer.

 

Background

3.      A number of issues have been identified by and brought to staffs attention, that are  considered important to address as soon as possible to ensure the Council manages public risk in relation to its navigation safety. 

4.      The key areas that have been identified as needing to be assessed for review are:

4.1.   Unintended consequences resulting from the wording of the bylaws. Currently the bylaws allow passive craft to pass through the Clive ‘C’ regulated area while being used by high speed craft, with no obligation for any party to create a separation distance or reduce speed.    

4.2.   The conduct of high speed craft on the Clive River.

4.3.   The location of the speed uplifting area on the Porangahau River and its close proximity to an area used by swimmers.

4.4.   Unnecessary risk caused by boats launching and recovering on Te Paehari Beach, Porangahau, in amongst the popular swimming and surfing area in front of the toilet block, when there is plentiful launching/recovery areas either side of the swimming area.

4.5.   The practice of vessels moving amongst swimmers at the sandy beach beside the Port of Napier creating unnecessary risk to the public and especially children in the water.

4.6.   The lack of lights displayed by non-motorised vessels after dark and whether or not the bylaws should explicitly require non-motorised vessels to display appropriate lights.

4.7.   The lack of accountability for cargo or anything discharged or dropped into navigable waters and recovery of associated costs.

4.8.   Defining the requirements for use of distress signals for training purposes.

4.9.   Whether the bylaws should require carriage of communication equipment by all vessels.

4.10.       Management of the speed of inflatable rescue boat’s (IRB) operated by Surf Lifesaving NZ during non-emergency use, such as training, and patrols within 200m of the shore and swimmers in the water. At present these vessel cannot legally operate at more than 5 knots within 200m of the beach except in emergencies. 

4.11.       Identification of vessels – should vessels be marked on both sides with identification?.

5.      This list is not a complete list of potential changes to the bylaws. It is a list of issues that have been identified already for discussion during the proposed informal consultation phase. The informal consultation phase may result in this list having additions and subtraction of issues in any redraft of the bylaws.

6.      It is intended to undertake informal consultation across the region in respect of the review prior to drafting any changes to the bylaws. This has already commenced with requests to Honorary Boat Advisors, the Napier Sailing Club, fishing clubs and commercial marine suppliers for their views. Moving forward additional consultation will be undertaken with the canoe, multisport, surf lifesaving, and waka ama clubs, commercial fishers, the Port of Napier, Coastguard, the Police and iwi.

Further detail around the issues previously identified, and those issues that arise through the informal consultation will be included in the ‘statement of proposal’ as covered in paragraph 11, if the Council decides an earlier review of the bylaws should occur as recommended by staff.

Process

7.      The review of navigation safety bylaws must be done using the special consultative procedure specified with section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

8.      The special consultative procedure will include:

8.1.   The preparation of a statement of proposal (an outline of the proposed changes to the bylaws)

8.2.   The statement of proposal in a Council agenda

8.3.   Public notification and consultation of the proposal

8.4.   Submissions from the public on the proposal

8.5.   A hearing, which includes the opportunity for submitters to be heard, before the Councils issues its decision on the final wording of the bylaw. 

9.      Staff suggest that the ‘statement of proposal’ which will include the redrafted bylaw, could be included as decision item at the August Environmental Management Committee meeting, then ratified at the Council meeting on 24 August. If agreed, staff recommend notification and consultation take place during September and October. If submitters wish to be heard, a hearing could take place at the end of a Council or committee meeting in November 2011. 

10.    This special consultative process would occur in conjunction with the mandatory special consultative process for the review of the Dangerous Dams Policy as recommended in next agenda item.

 

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

1.      Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

1.1.      Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

1.2.      Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

1.3.      The decision does not fall within the definition of the Council’s policy on significance.

1.4.      The persons affected by this decision are the users of Hawke’s Bay navigable waters.

1.5.      The options considered are to initiate a bylaw review in June 2012 or June 2011.

1.6.      Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

1.7.      Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others having given due consideration to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be effected by or have an interest in the decisions to be made.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Environmental Management Committee recommends that Council:

1.      Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

2.      Commence a special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act 2002 for reviewing the Hawke’s Bay Navigation Safety Bylaws 200, with the aim of having new bylaws produced November 2011.

 

 

 

Bryce Lawrence

Manager Compliance

 

 

Phil Norman

Harbourmaster

 

Darryl Lew

Group Manager

Resource Management

 

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee  

Wednesday 15 June 2011

SUBJECT Dangerous Dams Policy Review - Special Consultative Process        

 

REASON FOR REPORT

1.      The Council’s Dangerous Dams Policy was adopted by Council in September 2006. The Building Act requires that a dangerous dams policy must be reviewed every 5 years using a special consultative process. 

Background

2.      In September 2006 each regional authority adopted a policy on dangerous dams, as required under the Building Act, and did so in the absence of government regulations defining what a dangerous dam is.  This has created difficulties for stakeholders as they could not meaningfully engage in the special consultative procedure required under the Act.  This situation is reoccurring as regional authorities review and publicly consult on their policies during the first five-yearly review as required under the Building Act. The government (via DBH) has not altered the provision within the Act relating to the five-yearly review despite having the opportunity to do so with any one of the three Amendment Acts considered by parliament over the past three years.

3.      The independent review of the dam safety scheme undertaken by the government early last year recommended substantial changes to the powers given to regional authorities in relation to dangerous, flood-prone and earthquake-prone dams.  It is not clear whether and to what degree the Department of Building and Housing will act on those recommendations.  Regional authorities must therefore consult on the basis of the status quo and be aware they will probably have to review their policies again and to re-consult if and when the DBH introduce the regulations.

4.      Last year the Department of Building and Housing indicated that the regulations defining “dangerous dam” would be promulgated this year, however the regulations have not been forthcoming and staff are not aware of any proposed timeframe.  At present a regional authority can only act if “immediate danger is likely to people or property”.  This is a very narrow range of powers, and raises the issue of the practicality (and liability) of a regional authority delaying intervention until a dangerous situation becomes immediate.

Process

5.      The review of the Dangerous Dams Policy must be completed using the special consultative procedure specified with section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

6.      The special consultative procedure will included:

6.1.   The preparation of a statement of proposal (an outline of the proposed changes to the bylaws)

6.2.   Include the statement of proposal in a Council agenda

6.3.   Public notification and consultation of the proposal

6.4.   Submissions from the public on the proposal

6.5.   A hearing, which includes the opportunity for submitters to be heard, before the Councils issues its decision on the final wording of the bylaw. 

 

7.      Staff consider that the ‘statement of proposal’ which will include the draft policy, could be presented as a decision item at the August Environmental Management Committee meeting. If agreed, staff recommend notification and consultation take place during September and October. If submitters wish to be heard, a hearing could take place at the end of a Council or committee meeting in November 2011. 

8.      This special consultative process would occur in conjunction with the recommended special consultative process for the Navigation and Safety Bylaw review as recommended in previous agenda item.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

9.      Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

9.1.   Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

9.2.   Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

9.3.   The decision does not fall within the definition of the Council’s policy on significance.

9.4.   The persons affected by this decision are dam owners.

9.5.   The options considered are to either review the policy or not review the policy.

9.6.   Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

9.7.   Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others having given due consideration to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be effected by or have an interest in the decisions to be made.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Environmental Management Committee recommends Council:

1.    Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

2.    Commence a special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act 2002 for reviewing the Dangerous Dams Policy, with the aim of having a new policy produced by the end of November 2011.

 

 

 

 

Bryce Lawrence

Manager Compliance & Harbours

 

Darryl Lew

Group Manager

Resource Management

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee  

Wednesday 15 June 2011

SUBJECT: Tukituki High Flow Allocation Modelling        

 

REASON FOR REPORT

1.      This paper provides a summary of the high flow allocation modelling work undertaken for the Tukituki River catchment.

Background

2.      Water resources in Hawke’s Bay are facing increasing pressure from consumptive abstraction.  The region is characterised by a warm dry climate with long dry periods with low rainfall and low river flow conditions.  The core allocation in many Hawke’s Bay catchments is now full or over-allocated and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is currently exploring different water management options for the region.

3.      One method used to mitigate the interruption of water supply during periods of low flow conditions (reducing the exposure to abstraction bans) is by sustainably harvesting and storing water during periods when river flows are high.

4.      High flow abstractions are an intrinsic component of water storage solutions.  High flow allocation provides access to water for purposes such as water harvesting and storage at times when river flows are high enough to provide adequate instream habitat.

5.      A generalised picture of how high flow allocation can be managed within existing water allocation practices is presented in the following figure:

Idealised River Flow Allocation on a Flow Duration Curve

6.      Minimum flows and core allocation have been established on rivers throughout Hawke’s Bay in accordance with the RRMP.  However, no high flow thresholds have been set as numerical standards in the RRMP.

7.      There are a number of approaches that have been adopted to set high flow allocation in New Zealand rivers including the use of high flow allocation minimum flows (thresholds), allocation blocks and implementing flow sharing arrangements.  A high flow allocation threshold (HFA threshold) is required so that water harvesting only occurs when the river flow is above this level.  A flow sharing approach for high flow allocation (e.g. a 1:1 flow share ratio where 50% of river flow is allocated for abstraction and 50% remains in the river) would seek to maintain flow variability in the river and not unduly impact on ecological values such as flushing or disturbance flows that are essential to maintaining the instream ecosystem and channel structure.

8.      High flow allocation should ideally occur during winter and spring when river flows are higher, so that harvesting of flow has only a small proportionate effect on reducing river flows.

9.      High flow allocation is also referred to in other regions as supplementary allocation or B/C block allocation.

10.    Two reports on high flow allocation modelling have previously been undertaken for the HBRC on the Ngaruroro River by MWH (Harkness 2008 & 20101).  This report focuses and builds on the principles contained in these reports.

Outline

11.    This report assesses the effect of different potential methods of water allocation during high river flows within the winter and spring months of June to November, from four established hydrological sites on rivers in the Tukituki Catchment: Tukipo River at State Highway 50, Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd, Waipawa River at RDS and Tukituki River at Red Bridge.

12.    The most suitable methods for each site have been selected based on the results of hydrological, ecological and security of water supply analyses.  High flow allocation methods have been selected to provide a sustainable flow (HFA threshold) above which high flow allocation is made available, combined with a sustainable allocation limit (allocation cap) allowing for abstraction without adversely impacting on flow variability and instream ecological requirements, while providing an optimum security of supply.

13.    Eight different high flow allocation scenarios were developed for each site which use HFA thresholds set as either mean or median flow combined with either of two selected allocation caps for each site.  A flow sharing approach has been used in all scenarios where either 50% or 33% of flow above the HFA threshold up to the allocation cap is allocated for abstraction, with the rest (50% or 67% respectively) remaining in the river.

Results

14.    Hydrological analyses identified minor variations between the naturalised and modelled flow records for each high flow allocation scenario.

15.    The average volume of water available for abstraction provided by each allocation scenario was assessed.  All high flow allocation scenarios with the lower allocation caps were found to provide less water available for abstraction than the current core allocation (in terms of volume and rate for every month from June to November) for each site whereas scenarios with the higher allocation caps provided more water for abstraction on average than the core allocation.

16.    The potential security of supply to water users provided by each high flow allocation scenario was assessed in terms of the percentage of time water is available for abstraction.  All scenarios with median flow HFA thresholds provide water available for abstraction for a greater percentage of time than scenarios with mean flow HFA thresholds.  Therefore all scenarios with median flow HFA thresholds provide high flow allocations with the greatest security of supply to water users.

17.    An example of the difference in security of supply for four of the Tukituki River at Red Bridge scenarios is shown in the following figure:


Abstraction Availability for Red Br Scenarios with 2000l/s Allocation Cap

 

18.    The FRE3 analyses (a hydrological index identified by Clausen & Biggs (1997) as the most ecologically relevant for characterizing hydrological regimes in New Zealand streams and rivers) showed that all modelled scenarios for each site alter the FRE3 by less than 10 percent and were therefore supported as potential high flow allocation regimes.

19.    An analysis based on the Range of Variability Approach (RVA) developed by Richter et al. (1997), investigated the degree of hydrologic alteration between the naturalised and modelled flow records.

20.    The investigation highlighted that it is essential to first establish the key river values that require protection and identify the level of change to the natural flow regime or degree of hydrologic alteration that must not be exceeded in order to maintain and sustain the required protection of river values.

21.    Until establishing the degree of hydrologic alteration and the level of change to the natural flow regime that will sustain and maintain the protection of key values for rivers in the Tukituki Catchment, a conservative approach to selecting the most preferable allocation methods from those modelled in this investigation was necessary.  In terms of hydrologic alteration, scenarios which produced the lowest average percentage of hydrologic alteration (≤10%) were considered as potentially suitable allocation methods.  This study is a vital input into the current plan change on water allocation and it is hoped that the various consultation processes required by this plan change will help refine and select a high flow abstraction regime following at Part II RMA analysis.

Conclusion

22.    Based on the results of the hydrological and ecological analyses and the assessment of security of supply to water users, the most suitable high flow allocation scenarios for each site have been selected in terms of those which produced the least amount of change to the natural flow regime (where the disturbance to the structure and function of the riverine ecosystem is minimal) while providing a high flow allocation with the greatest security of supply to water users.

23.    The following table presents the high flow allocation scenarios selected as the most suitable for each site:


The Selected High Flow Allocation Scenarios

24.    The following graph presents some of they key results from the range of analyses for the selected high flow allocation scenarios.  The four selected scenarios produced an average percentage of hydrologic alteration of less than or equal to 10 percent.  All scenarios have an HFA threshold set at median flow.  River flows at all four sites during June to November were above the median flow for greater than 65 percent of time and for all scenarios, the full high flow allocation (100%) was available for abstraction more than 53 percent of time.

Key Results for the Selected Scenarios

25.    The high flow allocation scenarios modelled in this investigation are all based on a 50% flow share approach.  A flow sharing approach enables water to be abstracted from a river whilst maintaining a level of flow variability in the river.  The practicalities of implementing high flow allocation methods based on a flow sharing approach need to be carefully considered.  One possible approach could be to issue global water take consents to water user groups (instead of the current allocation process which issues consents to individual water users) whereby the abstraction is managed collectively by the group, employing measures such as rationing and rostering to ensure abstraction complies with any abstraction restrictions.

26.    Alternative approaches to high flow allocation which do not include any flow sharing arrangements may pose fewer difficulties to management practices.  Further work would be required to assess the impact on natural river flow regimes of any alternative approaches.

27.    Before undertaking further hydrological and ecological analyses on any alternative high flow allocation methods, the regulatory tools that are currently available to implement and manage high flow allocation need to be identified and assessed to ultimately determine what type of high flow allocation methods can realistically be implemented and managed effectively.

 

Report Recommendations

28.    This report presents a conservative assessment.  It must be determined if the high flow allocation caters for the present and near future demand.  If further water is required in the catchment at high river flows, a ‘management team’ or ‘expert panel’ could be established to determine the acceptable degree of hydrologic alteration to each IHA parameter and the acceptable level of change to all relevant key hydrological and ecological indices before assessing any potential high flow allocation regimes in the future.

29.    To further develop the high flow allocation methodology, a values assessment could be undertaken to establish the key river values that require protection in the Tukituki catchment (plus any catchments where water is or has the potential to be allocated for abstraction) and identify the level of change to the natural flow regime that must not be exceeded in order to maintain and sustain the required protection of river values.

30.    Further combinations of high flow allocation regimes could be modelled and assessed to find the scenario for each Tukituki site that provides the optimum level of sustainable allocation (that does not adversely impact on flow variability and instream ecological requirements) with an optimum security of water supply.

31.    Detailed security of water supply analyses are recommended to be undertaken in conjunction with future allocation regime modelling to aid in the selection of optimum allocation regimes.

32.    The current water allocation plan change is critical and taking this work forward into the RMA process and the various consultative processes used to to determine what type of high flow allocation methods can realistically be implemented and managed effectively.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

33.    Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

 

RECOMMENDATION

1.      That the Environmental Management Committee receives the report.

 

 

 

 

Rob Waldron

Resource Analyst

 

Rob Christie

Team Leader - Hydrology

 

Graham Sevicke-Jones

Manager Enviromental Science

 

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee  

Wednesday 15 June 2011

SUBJECT Update on Unwanted Agrichemical Collection Programme        

 

REASON FOR REPORT

1.      The purpose of this agenda item is to update the Committee on the unwanted agrichemical collection (“Operation Spring-clean”) and to outline the overall costs and quantities of unwanted agrichemicals collected over the seventeen year period from June 1994 to May 2011

Background

2.      In March 1994 the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council initiated a region wide agrichemical collection named “Operation Spring-clean”.  The purpose of the collection was twofold:

2.1        To reduce environmental, health and economic risks posed by accumulated unwanted, unidentifiable, unusable, deregistered and leaking agricultural chemical by collecting and disposing of them safely:

 

2.2        To provide education on the safe storage and disposal of agrichemicals and their containers and reduce the need for future collections.

 

3.      The main intensive collection was completed in October 1994 with 27 tonnes of unwanted agrichemical collected. Of the total quantity collected 19.6 tonnes was disposed of in New Zealand and 7.4 tonnes shipped overseas for disposal by high temperature incineration.

4.      The policy was reviewed in 1999 and again in 2001. The Council resolved to continue ‘Operation Spring-clean” in accordance with the following policy:

 

4.1        that a collection service be offered within the region not less than three times per year, and that the timing of collections shall be publicly notified in the area;

4.2        That collections shall be prearranged and take place subject to conditions being met;

4.3        that a collection be limited to agricultural chemicals that are deregistered, intractable, unidentifiable, contaminated or no longer able to be used for reasons of industry standards, with other materials such as fuel, household chemicals, industrial chemicals and laboratory wastes not accepted;

4.4        that advice be prepared for and disseminated to landowners on the safe disposal of chemicals that are not accepted under item 3 above;

4.5        that where persons request one-off collection of chemicals between advertised collection runs, the full costs of collection shall be recovered;

4.6        that no chemicals be accepted at Council’s offices and depots except by special arrangement;

4.7        that except for item 5 above, the project continue to be public good funded in recognition of the risks that these unwanted agrichemicals  pose to the environment.

 

 

 

 

Quantities Of Unwanted Agrichemical Collected

5.      In the seventeen year period from June 1994 to May 2011, a total of 105 tonnes of unwanted agrichemicals have been collected, this being made up of 44 tonnes of intractable shipped overseas and 61 tonnes of agrichemicals disposed of in New Zealand.

6.      For the ten year period from July 2000 to May 2011, the average yearly collection quantity has been 6.7 tonne, with a high of 10.3 tonne during 2003/04 and a low of 3.8 tonne for 2008/09.

7.      The quantity collected for the current 2010/11 financial year is 4.5 tonne.

Costs Of Unwanted Agrichemical Collection

8.      In the seventeen year period from June 1994 to May 2011 the Council’s unwanted agrichemical collection has cost $1,663,362.

9.      The initial intensive Operation Springclean collection during the period March to October 1994 cost $434,000. This cost is included in the above figures.

10.    During the 2003/04 financial year the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) introduced a programme in which they agreed to fund the disposal of selected unwanted agrichemicals for a two year trial basis and HBRC was one of the Councils chosen for the trial due to our having an established agrichemical collection programme in place.

11.    MfE funded the disposal costs of our unwanted agrichemical via two one-off contracts, being for the November 2003 and March 2004 collections respectively, with Council being refunded costs totaling $20,154.

12.    For the 2004/05 and 2005/06 financial years MfE contracted with Council whereby MfE paid for the disposal of up to a maximum of eight tonne of collected unwanted agrichemical for each financial year.

13.    The approximate disposal costs paid by MfE for 2004/05 was $57,450 (8.7 tonne) and $57,100 (7.5 tonne).

14.    The total disposal costs paid by MfE was $134,704.

Factors Affecting Unwanted Agrichemical Collections

15.    From 1999 onwards there have been key developments in the horticultural industry that have resulted in an increased range of agrichemicals being unable to be used by growers which in turn has caused the quantity of agrichemicals collected to remain constant due, in part, to the following factors:

22.1      Organic certification - the increase in growers changing to organic production in Hawke’s Bay, with the result that strict audits by organic certifying organisations require the removal of all non-organic chemicals from the properties;

 

22.2      Agrichemical Use Restrictions – due to increasing pressure from overseas buyer groups, ENZA, (along with the newly established pipfruit export organisations that resulted from the deregulation of the pipfruit industry), has, with increasing frequency, reduced the range of agrichemicals that could be applied

22.3      While this has been good for the environment in the long term it has meant that much of the bulk quantities purchased at the end of each financial year, in preparation for the following season, could not be used so remained unused and forgotten in sheds

22.4      Grower audits - overseas buyer groups such as Tesco’s, Natures Choice, Sainsbury’s and the expanding Global-gap audit requirements have resulted in on-site auditing of grower properties requiring the removal of an increasing range of agrichemicals which are no longer approved for application.

 

16.    In hindsight it is now realised that there was far more agrichemical out on orchard/farm properties than was originally estimated due to the practice, now discontinued, of the rural sector buying up large quantities of agrichemicals at the end of each financial year for taxation reduction purposes.

17.    In September 2004 the NZ Government ratified the international Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) which requires all parties to commit themselves to a long term international effort to reduce or eliminate health and environmental risks from chemicals specified in the convention.

18.    The chemicals that the convention focuses on includes PCPs (polychlorinated biphenyls), dioxins and furans, and nine organochlorine pesticides.

19.    As party to the convention, New Zealand has banned the manufacture and use of the toxic chemicals covered by the convention.  Future efforts will focus on reducing dioxin emissions, cleaning up industrial sites and on collecting and disposing of hazardous pesticide waste.

20.    Other rural sectors are also having to meet overseas buyer group requirements, e.g. cattle and sheep farmers being more intensively audited by meat processing companies and the kiwifruit industry being required to meet Globalgap audit requirements for export

Acknowledgement Of Support For Unwanted Agrichemical Collection

21.    The main form of advertising of the collection is by the distribution of flyers through the Hawke’s Bay Fruitgrowers Association magazine.  Council staff would like to acknowledge the consistent support given to the collection programme over the years by Diane Vesty, HB Fruit Growers Association.

22.    Flyers are also distributed to clients by Farmlands, PGG Wrightson and Skeltons via their outlets in Hawke’s Bay.

23.    Ray McGregor (R & S McGregor Ltd) has carried out the collections in a highly professional manner over the years and his knowledge of the collection and disposal of agrichemicals is outstanding.

Annual Hazmobile (Household Hazardous Waste) Collection

24.    The annual Hazmobile collection, held in November each year, also receives unwanted agrichemicals from the urban areas of Napier and Hastings.   HBRC contributes $10,000 annually to the collection to defray the costs of disposing of the agrichemical collected.

25.    Hazmobile collections are not held in Wairoa or Central Hawke’s Bay.

Benefits Of The Unwanted Agrichemical Collection To Hawke’s Bay

26.    The Hawke’s Bay economy is heavily dependent on its primary industries and the resulting export of produce to overseas markets.

27.    The misuse of agrichemicals in the past has resulted in temporary trade bans on exports, in particular where the misuse has been due to banned/deregistered agrichemical being used.

28.    In 2007 NZ beef exports to Korea were suspended when endosulfan (a newer organochlorine insecticide licensed for use on plants) was detected in a consignment of beef.  Endosulfan is now banned for use in NZ.

29.    On a national basis, NZ uses our “clean, green” image as a key marketing tool for our primary exports, however, this image is at risk due to the quantities of older deregistered agrichemicals that remain stored and unsecured on rural land, often in rusting and deteriorating containers.

30.    As our primary exports impact on the local growers in our key overseas markets, there is concern that our legacy of quantities of banned agrichemicals remaining on production land could result in trade barriers being applied to our exports. The NZ wine industry has particular concerns over this and Hawke’s Bay vintners are becoming increasingly proactive with disposing of unwanted agrichemical.

SUMMARY

31.    In the seventeen year period from June 1994 to May 2011 the Council’s management of the agrichemical collection programme has resulted in the collection of 105 tonne of unwanted agrichemical at a cost of $1,663,362.

32.    The Hawke’s Bay economy is heavily dependent on the export of primary produce to overseas markets and it is of increasing importance that the quantities of banned/deregistered agrichemical remaining on rural properties is reduced to avoid possible future trade barriers being imposed by overseas markets.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

33.    Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

 

RECOMMENDATION

1.    That the Environmental Management Committee receives the report.

 

 

 

 

Fred King

Hazardous Substances Advisor

 

Darryl Lew

Group Manager

Resource Management

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee  

Wednesday 15 June 2011

SUBJECT: Statutory Advocacy Matters        

 

REASON FOR REPORT

1.      This paper reports on proposals considered under Council’s statutory advocacy project and the Resource Management Act 1991 for the period 30 March 2011 – 31 May.

Background

2.      The proposals on which Council has an opportunity to make comments or lodge a submission include, but are limited to:

2.1    Notified Resource Consent Applications

2.2    Plan Changes

2.3    Private Plan Change Requests

2.4    Notice of Requirement

2.5    Non-statutory Strategies and Structure Plans.

3.      The summary attached included an actual list and description of the proposals, whether submissions were lodged in support or opposition, and the reasons for lodging a submission.  A location map is also attached.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

 

RECOMMENDATION

1.      That the Committee receives the Statutory Advocacy Update report.

 

 

 

Esther-Amy Bate

Planner

 

 

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

 

Attachment/s

1View

Update Stat Ad

 

 

2View

Stat Ad Map

 

 

  


Update Stat Ad

Attachment 1

 

Statutory Advocacy Update (as at 31 May 2011)

Received

TLA

Map Ref

Activity

Applicant/ Agency

Status

Current Situation

6 May 2011

WDC

8

Resource Consent – Subdivision

The applicant seeks to subdivide Town Section 32 Mahia Township into two (2) Lots.  The subject site sits immediately below Mokotahi hill on Newcastle Street, Mahia Beach.

Dardie Ormond

 

Consultant – Dagg & Thorn

Non-notified

31 May 2011

·  WDC has asked for comments from HBRC on the geo-technical report supplied by the applicant; the location of the proposed building in Coastal Hazard Zone 3; and if the Council perceived any issues with the proposed wastewater solution.

·  The Engineering team reviewed the geo-technical report and found that the report appeared satisfactory though highlighted the fact that this Council’s engineers are not experts in geotechnical matters.

·  There are no rules in the RCEP that restrict construction of dwellings in CHZ3, such controls and regulation is exercised under the Building Act and Building Code.

·  Wastewater is able to be serviced from both proposed lots.  A reticulated sewerage scheme is to be provided to the settlement in the near future.  The Council commented that conditions should be included in the Consent to require connection to the scheme once it becomes available.

10 March 2011

NCC

7

Resource Consent – Subdivision

The applicant seeks to subdivide subdivision of 16 McElwee Street, Jervoistown Certificate of Title HBD3/994 into two separate Lots.  Proposed Lot 1 includes 1876m2 and the existing dwelling and garage.  Proposed Lot 2 includes 2315m2 a travellers’ accommodation building and the ability to construct a new dwelling onsite.  Land use consent is also sought to increase permitted site coverage from 10% to 20%

Glenn Bowman

 

Consultant – Consult Plus

Notified Restricted Discretionary

31 May 2011

·  Council staff attended a hearing held on 12 May 2011 at the NCC.  Currently waiting on Napier City Council Commissioners’ decision.

 

25 March 2011

·  The application proposes to store stormwater in underground tanks in rain event then discharge into the Jervois Drain when the drains levels subside.

·  The Council has submitted in opposition as the while the stormwater solution is technically feasible it is not failsafe in the long term.

31 January 2011

CHBDC

6

Resource Consent – Subdivision

The applicant seeks to subdivideLot2 DP 382037 at Pourerere Beach Road to create Lot1 of 9730m2 and Lot 2 of 12.293ha.

CHBDC

DRAFT Pre Application

31 May 2011

·  No further information has been received to date.

 

16 February 2011

·  The applicant has asked for comments from HBRC before CHBDC has made any decision regarding notification.

·  Information provided to this Council shows the proposed subdivision boundary line will separate the effluent field (proposed Lot 1) from the septic tank and outlet (proposed Lot 2).  Council has provided comment to the applicant suggesting that either the boundary line is moved to include the wastewater system or an easement is lodged against the Title of proposed Lot 2.

·  It also appears that the system will not comply with Rule 27(e)(v) of the RCEP.

5 November 2010

NCC

 

Notice of Requirement – Te Awa Structure Plan

Notice of requirement for designation to allow for the construction of public works in the Te Awa Structure Plan area by Napier City Council.

NCC

Notified by NCC

31 May 2010

·  No further information has been received to date.

 

6 December 2010

·  The Council’s Engineering Team has provided comment.  The Engineering Team believes that the proposed second pump station is unnecessary due to sufficient infrastructure already available in that there is scope to utilise infrastructure previously built for the Cross Country drain.

·  Council’s submission made in general support for the related structure plan but provide further comments on the above.

5 November 2010

NCC

5

Plan Change 6 – Te Awa Structure Plan

The purpose of the plan change is to rezone the area from Main Rural to Main Residential and incorporate the outcomes sought in the Te Awa Structure Plan into the District Plan.

NCC

Notified by NCC

31 May 2010

·  No further information has been received to date.

 

6 December 2010

·  The Engineering Team has provided comments.  The proposed stormwater solution does not consider Low Impact Urban Design principles.  Structure Plan presents an opportunity for enhancement works to provide social, recreational, cultural and environmental improvements in multi-purpose stormwater design.

·  Council’s submission made in general support for the structure plan but provide further comments on the above.

9 September 2010

NCC

3

Resource Consent - Subdivision

The applicant seeks to undertake a 2 Lot subdivision to create one (1) 0.178 hectare residential Lot (being proposed Lot 1) and a balance Lot which will be 3.31 hectares (being proposed Lot 2).  The address for the subdivision is 45 Rogers Road, Bay View, legal description Lot 4 DP 7344.

Cindy McKinnie

 

Consultant –

Consult Plus

NCC Decision subject to appeal

 

31 May 2011

·  Mediation between the applicant and NCC was held on 24 May.  HBRC did not receive notification of the mediation from the Environment Court (due to Court error) and so were not in attendance at mediation session.  Council staff were able to speak with the mediator and have ascertained that the applicant will apply for certificate of compliance for wastewater disposal.

 

21 February 2011

·  Council joined as Party to Proceedings with the Environment Court opposing the applicant’s appeal that the NCC decision be overturned.

 

7 December 2010

·  Application Hearing held on 24th November, Application declined by NCC.  Decision appealed by Applicant.

 

8 October 2010

·  HBRC lodged submission opposing application.  Consent should be declined unless the proposed 2 residential lots are fully serviced or sufficient information is provided to show that adverse effects of on-site wastewater discharges (particularly in combination with the proposed soak-pit means of stormwater disposal), will be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated. 

·  Submission stated installation of a reticulated sewage system for the Bay View community to be a sustainable long-term solution for the treatment and disposal of wastewater.

·  Submission also seeks clarification of floor level for flooding risk also requested.

23 August 2010

NCC

2

Resource Consent – Subdivision

The application seeks to subdivide 58 McElwee Street, Jervoistown Certificate of Tile HBM2/1351 into two separate lots.

Mr B. Joseph

 

Consultant –

Consult Plus

NCC Decision subject to appeal

31 May 2011

·  Mediation with the applicant and NCC held on 24 May.

·  Council’s position is that:

No further discharge of stormwater will be accepted into the Jervois Drain, and

The option of discharging stormwater via the ‘Claudatos scheme’ is only viable if a number of conditions are met.

·  Mediation stalled between NapierCC and Appellant:  There are other matters at odds which the Council has not expressed an interested in.

 

27 January 2011

·  Council has become a party to the appeal lodged by the applicant under Section 274 of the Resource Management Act 1991.  The Council is interested in all of the proceedings but in particular is interested in issues relating to the effects of increased site coverage and stormwater collection, treatment and disposal.

 

17 November 2010

·  Application was declined at Hearing held 17 November 2010 as it was decided that the creation of two 2000m2 lots was contrary to the intent of the Napier District Plan.  Decision appealed by Applicant.

 

20 September 2010

·  HBRC lodged submission opposing application.

·  Reasons include:

No provision for stormwater disposal and will likely result in adverse conditions in terms of flood levels and duration of flooding at a local level and the wider Jervoistown community. 

Proposal to increase maximum site coverage from 10% to 25%.  Concern that this will also increase adverse conditions in terms of flood levels and duration of flooding.

·  A 2009 report prepared by this Council (Jervoistown Drainage Analysis, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, April 2009) outlines the drainage issues and provides the conclusion that incremental development at Jervoistown will continue to result in reduced drainage standard for the existing houses.  A copy of this report was provided to Napier CC shortly after its publication.

24 May 2010

NCC

1

Resource Consent - Subdivision

The application seeks to subdivide an area of land currently zoned as main rural on Franklin Road, Bay View into 6 lots and undertake earthworks.

Gerald Howe

 

Consultant – Alan Petersen

Notified Restricted Discretionary

31 May 2011

·  No recent activity.

 

2 August 2010

·  Policy staff have met with the applicant’s consultant.  Options and scenarios for wastewater consenting and servicing are under consideration.

 

14 July 2010

·  Council submitted in opposition to the application seeking that the application be declined unless all of the 6 Lots were fully serviced.

 

12 June 2010

·  Comment has been sought from the Regulation and Engineering teams.  The stormwater solutions for the site are acceptable due to the free draining nature of the soils.  The same soil types present an issue with on-site wastewater disposal and insufficient treatment.  Coupled with the proximity of the subdivision to the coastal marine environmental it is likely that the Council will submit against the application.  Submissions close 24 June 2010.

 


Stat Ad Map

Attachment 2

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 15 June 2011

SUBJECT: General Business        

 

INTRODUCTION:

This document has been prepared to assist Councillors note the General Business to be discussed as determined earlier in Agenda Item 6.

Item

Topic

Councillor / Staff

1.   

 

 

2.   

 

 

3.   

 

 

4.   

 

 

5.   

 

 

6.   

 

 

7.   

 

 

8.   

 

 

9.   

 

 

10. 

 

 

11. 

 

 

12. 

 

 

13. 

 

 

14. 

 

 

15. 

 

 

16. 

 

 

 

    



[1]  A case is currently before the Environment Court which may lead to a clearer interpretation of RRMP Rule 37(d) and its relevance to land in Rural Residential Zones.

[2] Relevant objectives include: RRMP: 38 (land); 39 (air quality); 40 (surface water quality); 42 and 43 (groundwater quality); RCEP: 8-1 (land); 9-1 (surface water quality); 11-1 and 11-2 (groundwater quality); 14-1 (air quality); 16-1 (discharge of contaminants into CMA); RPS: 21 and 22 (groundwater quality); 27 (surface water resources).

[3] Relevant policies include:  RRMP: 67 (land); 69 (air quality); 71 and 72 (surface water quality); 75 and 76 (groundwater quality); RCEP: 8-1 (land); 9-1 and 9-2 (surface water quality); 11-1 and 11-2 (groundwater quality); 14-1 and 14-2 (air quality); 16-1, 16-2 and 16-3 (discharge of contaminants into CMA); RPS: 8 (conflicting land uses); 15, 16, 17 and 18 (groundwater quality); 47 (surface water resources).

[4] NOTE: The Council’s current discharge permit application form does not ask for information about slope of the proposed discharge area, therefore this is a very approximate number.

 

[5]  Any lawfully established domestic non-reticulated wastewater system that is modified or replaced after 1 January 2012 is considered to be a ‘new’ system and must be assessed in accordance with Rule 37.

NOTE: Rule 35 means that once the system has been lawfully established, the system’s continued operation is permitted under this rule.  No ongoing consent is required for the operation of lawfully established discharges provided the conditions of this rule are met.

Advisory note:

[6]New” domestic non-reticulated wastewater systems include those systems installed after this Plan becomes operative, as well as those lawfully established domestic non-reticulated wastewater systems that have been modified or replaced since 1 January 2012.

[7] The proportion of net site area to discharge volume can be calculated by dividing the net site area by the expected daily wastewater volume. If the answer is less than 1, the discharge does not comply with this condition. E.g. Three bedroom home with maximum daily discharge volume of 1200 L (6 people at 200 L/p/d) on a 1000 m2 property has a ratio of 0.83 (1000/1200). This discharge would not comply with this condition.

[8] A category 5 soil is a light clay, permeability (Ksat) can range generally between 0.5 m/d (strongly structured) and <0.06 m/d (weakly structured or massive) and the soil is poorly drained.  Clay content of approximately 35-40%.  Category 6 soils are medium to heavy clays that are very poorly drained.  The permeability of category 6 soils is generally less than 0.06 m/d.  Clay content of over 40%. 

[9] Any lawfully established domestic non-reticulated wastewater system modified or replaced after 1 January 2012 is considered to be a ‘new’ system and must be assessed in accordance with Rule 27.

NOTE: Rule 35 means that once the system has been lawfully established, the system’s continued operation is permitted under this rule.  No ongoing consent is required for the operation of lawfully established discharges provided the conditions of this rule are met.

[10]New” domestic non-reticulated wastewater systems include those systems installed after this Plan is operative, as well as those lawfully established domestic non-reticulated wastewater systems that have been modified or replaced since 1 January 2012.

 

 

[12] The proportion of net site area to discharge volume can be calculated by dividing the net site area by the expected daily wastewater volume. If the answer is less than 1, the discharge does not comply with this condition. E.g. Three bedroom home with maximum daily discharge volume of 1200 L (6 people at 200 L/p/d) on a 1000 m2 property has a ratio of 0.83 (1000/1200). This discharge would not comply with this condition.

 

[13] A category 5 soil is a light clay, permeability (Ksat) can range generally between 0.5 m/d (strongly structured) and <0.06 m/d (weakly structured or massive) and the soil is poorly drained.  Clay content of approximately 35-40%.  Category 6 soils are medium to heavy clays that are very poorly drained.  The permeability of category 6 soils is generally less than 0.06 m/d.  Clay content of over 40%. 

 

[14]  In West Coast Regional Council v Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc [2007] NZRMA 32.