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
|
|
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
|
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:
o No further
discharge of stormwater will be accepted into the Jervois Drain, and
o 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:
o 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.
o 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.
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
