Transcription

1 294

2 295

3 296

4 297

5 298

6 299

7 300

8 301 NOTIFICATION / NON-NOTIFICATION DECISION (Only to be used for consent applications received on or after 18 October 2017) Recommendation and Decision Template See LINK for more specific guidance in the use of this template. Application Number (s): APP File Number: RC/Fin Project Code: Project/Site/Applicant Name: A RC24116 Van Den Brink 2844 Ltd Date Application was Lodged: 9 January 2018 Background and Description of Proposal The Applicant, Van Den Brink 2844 Ltd, proposes to establish and operate a new commercial free-range meat chicken farm comprising up to ten rearing sheds, on an 89 hectare rural property located at 2844A State Highway 2, south-east of Maramarua. To authorise the establishment and operation of the facility, The Surveying Company has applied, on behalf of the Applicant, to the Waikato Regional Council for resource consents to undertake earthworks, divert a farm drain, and install culverts in association with the development of the facility (refer to Doc# ). In addition the Applicant has applied for consent to discharge odour and dust to air from the operation of the meat chicken farm. The proposed activities also trigger a requirement for land-use consents under the Waikato District Plan. The land-use consent application is being processed by the Waikato District Council concurrently, in a joint process. Earthworks are required to form appropriate building platforms for the new poultry sheds and associated outdoor areas and access ways, and to install drainage controls to service the proposed development. It is proposed to undertake a total of 84,500m 3 of earthworks of cut to fill over approximately 7.7 hectares of the site. The proposed diversion of surface water involves the realignment of the existing drains that traverse the building platform and outdoor areas of the ten rearing sheds. The existing drains will be realigned around the building platform via new stormwater drains. The proposal will also involve the placement of two culverts within the main drain to allow for the new access way to be constructed. The rearing sheds will be located on the western portion of the farm (see Figure 1 below). Doc #

9 302 Figure 1: Site Lay-out The farm will have a production capacity of approximately 360,000 birds per rearing cycle. There will be approximately seven rearing cycles per year. The chickens will be raised using industry standard practice. Day old chickens will be delivered to site and raised indoors on a bed of wood shavings. After fourteen days, the birds will be able to access free range outdoor areas adjacent to the sheds, during favourable weather conditions. The chickens are harvested in three stages with a quarter of the birds harvested at Day 32, a further quarter at Day 37 or 38, and the remaining half of the intake at Day 42. On completion of the rearing cycle, the sheds are cleaned and sanitised and stood-down for seven days, whereupon the next intake of chickens is placed. The sheds will be designed and mechanically ventilated in accordance with current industry practice. Each shed will have ten roof-mounted chimney fans and six extraction fans spaced along the side of each shed. The ventilation system will be computer controlled to optimise rearing conditions and to ensure optimal moisture content in the litter so as to minimise odour and dust. The chickens will be fed a commercial formula and water will be dispensed via demand-style drinkers. Doc # Page 2

10 303 Drinking water and water for the shed washdown will be sourced from a bore on the property. Washwater will be collected into sumps and irrigated onto pasture. At the end of each production run, spent litter will be trucked off site for application elsewhere as an organic fertiliser. The Applicant has provided a Site Management Plan (SMP) that described the day-to-day farming operation and protocols to be put in place to ensure that the discharge of odour and dust is minimised. The SMP complies with current industry practice. 1 Status of Activities under the Plans Rule provides for Soil Disturbance, Roading and Tracking, and Vegetation Clearance outside a High Risk Erosion Area that does not comply with the conditions of permitted activity Rule as a discretionary activity. In this case, the proposal meets the majority of the conditions for permitted activity Rule , however is unlikely to meet the suspended solids standards where the suspended solids concentration of the discharge shall not exceed 100 grams per cubic metre. Under Rule Stopbanks, Diversions and any Associated Discharges of Water, consent for a discretionary activity is required for the diversion of water (farm drains) where the diversion and subsequent discharge of water does not comply with Rules , , , , or Consent for a controlled activity is required under Rule Culverts for Catchment Areas not exceeding 500 Hectares, for the placement of culverts within a farm drain for a catchment area exceeding 100 hectares but not exceeding 500 hectares upstream of the culvert. In this case, the proposal involves the placement of two culverts located within a catchment area of 120 hectares and designed to meet the standards under The discharge of contaminants into air from the proposed meat chicken farm is a restricted-discretionary activity, pursuant to Rule Restricted Discretionary Activity Rule - Discharges from Intensive Indoor Farms. The rule restricts Council s discretion to the following matters: i. Location of the buildings on the site, relative to prevailing winds, climatic conditions and neighbouring properties. ii. Emission control equipment. iii. Information and monitoring requirements. iv. Visual or nuisance effects on neighbours. v. Application of Best Practicable Option. vi. Measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects on neighbouring dwelling places or properties. vii. Measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of contaminants on neighbouring dwelling places or properties. viii. Contents of a management plan. Under Rules and , the discharge of meat chicken effluent and wastewater and stormwater is a permitted activity (subject to compliance with performance standards). Water is to be derived from a bore in accordance with permitted activity Rule and the exclusion for stock water in Section 14 RMA. Overall, the above activities will be assessed as a discretionary activity. Assessment of Environmental Effects Section 104(1)(a) provides that when considering a consent application, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to the actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity. Case law has determined that the "environment" must be read as the environment which exists at Doc # Page 3

11 304 the time of the assessment, and as the environment may be in the future modified by the utilisation of permitted activities under the Plan and by the exercise of resource consents which are being exercised, or, which are likely to be exercised in the future. It does not include the effects of resource consents which might be sought in the future. 3 2 ) Figure 2: Receiving Environment Section 104(2) provides that when forming an opinion about the actual or potential effects of the activity, the consent authority may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if the regional plan permits an activity with that effect. This is often referred to as the "permitted baseline" and calls for a discretionary decision to be exercised by the consent authority as to whether or not to discount such permitted effects. Having considered the nature and scale of the proposal, there are no permitted baseline effects which have been discounted. I consider the following to be the key potential environmental effects that require assessing; Water quality degradation Dust Doc # Page 4

12 305 Exotic weed invasion Historical/cultural aspects Odour Provided that appropriate conditions are imposed, if consent is granted, effects associated with water quality degradation, dust generation during earthworks, and exotic weed invasion can be managed to be no more than minor and to be internalised within the Applicant s site so that no parties are considered to be affected by these proposed activities. Therefore these activities are of no further consequence in making the decision regarding notification of the application. The discharge of dust and odour from the chicken rearing activity is considered to be the activities that have the greatest potential to result in adverse effects beyond the boundary of the site. These activities are therefore of primary interest in assessing the notification requirements for the application, and identifying the parties who may be affected by the Applicant s proposal. The AEE includes a technical air quality assessment prepared in support of the application, by Golder Associates ( Golder Report ). In regard to the discharge of dust from the chicken rearing activity, the Golder Report asserts that dust particles associated with meat chicken farming are generally coarse and settle out of the air stream in close proximity to the extraction fans. Therefore Golder considers that the off-site effects associated with dust generation at the meat chicken farm will be negligible. Based om my experience at similar meat chicken farms using similar ventilation systems, I concur with Golder s opinion and recommend that the WRC can accept that off-site dust effects will be less than minor and that no parties will be affected by the discharge of dust from the proposed facility. In regard to the assessment of odour effects Golder has undertaken odour modelling using CALMET/ CALPUFF dispersion modelling for a range of scenarios. Using the worst-case scenario, Golder s model predicts that odour concentrations discharged from the proposed farm will be less than 4 OU/ m 3 (1-hour 99.5 th percentile) at all the nearby houses. Where odour concentrations higher than 4 OU/ m 3 (1-hour 99.5 th percentile) are predicted to occur beyond the site boundaries (i.e. predominantly within forestry land) Golder considers that those areas will have low sensitivity to odours because people are likely to be present infrequently in those locations. On this basis Golder asserts that odour effects associated with the Applicant s proposal are very unlikely to result in offensive or objectionable odour effects, provided that the proposed mitigation and monitoring is carried out. WRC has requested Jason Pene, an air quality expert from Tonkin and Taylor, to review the Golder Report and its findings, and to advise on whether there could be confidence that off-site effects could be managed so as not to be objectionable, and if so whether neighbours, while not receiving objectionable odour, may be affected by odour in a minor way. During his review, Jason Pene requested and Golder provided further information and assessment additional dispersion scenarios. In the interim, the Applicant also provided the written approval of the owners (G & H Cole/ Claret Ash Ltd) of the neighbouring farm to the west and north-west of the site (see Figure 2). The information requested by Jason Pene and the response provided by the Applicant are set out in the following , with documents numbers for the most significant documents: Letter from Tonkin & Taylor dated 9 March 2018 (Doc# ); Response from Golder dated 27 July 2018 (Doc# ); Letter from Tonkin & Taylor dated 24 August (Doc# ); The from Cathy Nieuwenhuijsen to Mathew Van den Brink attached to the from Glenn Wilson dated 3 September 2018; Doc # Page 5

13 306 The response from Jason Pene to Glenn Wilson dated 5 September 20128; The reply from Dharmesh Chhima to Jason Pene dated 11 September 2018; The from Jason Pene to Dharmesh Chhima dated 17 September 2018 confirming that the s92 request has been satisfactorily completed. On 19 September 2018 WRC staff requested Jason Pene to consider the air dispersion modelling and the review and further information provided by the Applicant and to provide an evaluation of the discharges to air related to the application, to inform staff s notification recommendation. On 25 September 2018, Jason Pene provided his advice (Doc# ) with specific reference to: The scale of the effects of discharges to air from the proposed farm and whether those effects may be more than minor ; Persons that may be affected by the proposed discharges; and: Qualitative comment in relation to the certainty of the scale/extent of odour effects on which the above consideration has been based. In regard to the scale of effects, Jason Pene agrees with the Golder assessment that the effects of the discharge will be localised within the adjoining area and on this basis that the effects will not be more than minor. In regard to the affected parties, Jason Pene considers that the updated modelling investigation provided by Golder in the course of the review is robust and caters for the uncertainties that are inherent in poultry odour modelling investigations. Jason Pene also considers that the results of dispersion modelling provide the most appropriate means of identifying affected parties for a new discharge to air and that the identification of affected parties should be based on a consideration of activities with a high sensitivity to odour effects (residential dwellings). Having considered all of the model predictions, Jason Pene recommends that owners and occupiers of dwellings/ future dwellings where an odour concentration of 3OU/m 3 (99.5 th percentile 1-hour average) or more are predicted under any one of more of the selected scenarios should be deemed affected. On this basis, Jason Pene recommends that the receptors at H2, H3, H7, and H9 as shown in Figure 3 below, should be deemed affected. For H9, the owners of both Part Lot DPS 986 and Lot 3 DP adjoining the Applicant s site to the east should be deemed affected. In relation to the certainty with which the above recommendation is made, Jason Pene states that T & T consider that the use of the lower identification criterion when compared with the model predictions of all the model scenarios presented by the Applicant conservatively caters for the uncertainty contained in the odour assessment information provided by the Applicant. Overall it is likely that some of the parties listed above will not be subject to odour nuisance effects that exceed the less than minor threshold but that their identification as such will cater for the potential for effects of that scale to occur. Doc # Page 6

14 307 Figure 3: Affected Parties Tonkin & Taylor Recommendation I understand from a discussion with Cameron Aplin (Waikato District Council) that, as in the case of Receptor 9 on the map, there is potential for a dwelling(s) to be constructed on the forestry land to the south of the Applicant s site. Therefore I recommend that Matariki Forests North Island Ltd who holds the forestry lease over this neighbouring land should also be deemed affected. In addition, I note that the owner of the farm on which H7 is located, has provided written approval (Doc# ). Therefore confirmation that the owner of H7 is also the occupier is required or if the occupier is different, then the occupier must be deemed affected. In summary, Jason Pene s advice is that the conservative application of the results of the robust odour modelling can in this instance be accepted as providing a more reliable basis for the identification of affected parties, as compared to the generic separation guideline standards (refer to Figure 2) typically used by WRC staff where specific modelling has not been undertaken, and as a comparison to the modelling. Doc # Page 7

15 308 To compare the affected parties identified by the guideline standards with the parties identified as being affected by the modelling exercise, the following figure shows that only one party has not been identified as affected by the modelling. This is shown in Figure 4 below as ID 6, the property owned by LI and KM Heaven. Figure 4: Affected parties as identified by the Guidelines (map shown in Figure 2) The closest dwelling on the Heaven s property is located approximately 1.2 km from the closest proposed shed wall (refer to Figure 5 below). It is labelled as Receptor H4 in the Tonkin & Taylor report table and 4 on the accompanying map, also shown below. Figure 5: Closest dwelling to the proposed sheds owned by LI and KM Heaven. The worst-case prediction for odour at H4 is 1.8 OU. This is well below the 3 OU that has been used as the threshold for deeming a party to be affected. On this basis the party LI and KM Heaven is considered to not be an affected party. Doc # Page 8

16 309 In the context of the above discussion and in relying on Jason Pene s advice, and the level of certainty implicit in his advice, I make the following recommendation in regard to the notification requirements for this application: S95A Determining whether the application should be publicly notified. Step 1(a): Has the applicant requested public notification? (s95a(3)(a)) Yes Publicly notify. (No further notification assessment necessary. Go directly to Recommendation panel). Identify docs ref indicating request # No continue through Step 1 Doc # Page 9

17 310 Step 1(b): Prior to determining notification, has a s92(1) request (further information) or a s92(2) notification (commissioning a report) been made and the applicant has failed to respond by the deadline specified or refused to provide the information or refused to agree to the commissioning of a report? (s95c) Yes Publicly notify. (No further notification assessment necessary. Go directly to Recommendation panel) No - go to Step 2 Step 2(a): Does a rule or an NES preclude public notification? (s95a(5)(a)) Yes - Go to Step 4 (omit Step 3) Identify rule/nes No continue through Step 2 Step 2(b): Is the activity for one or more controlled activity or residential activity which is a discretionary or restricted discretionary activity? (s95a(5)(b)(i) and (ii)) Yes Go to Step 4 (omit Step 3) No Go to Step 3 Step 3(a): Is there a rule or NES that requires public notification? (s95a(8)(a)) Yes Publicly notify. application.(no further notification assessment necessary. Go directly to Recommendation panel). No continue through Step 3 Step 3(b): Will the activity have adverse effects on the environment that will be, or are likely to be, more than minor? (s95a(8)(b)) In forming this opinion (a) to (e) apply: (a) we must disregard any effects on persons who own or occupy the land on which the activity will occur or any land adjacent to that land (s95d(a)) (b) we may disregard an adverse effect of the activity if a rule or NES permits an activity with that effect (s95d(b)) Identify any effects so disregarded (Note the discretion to disregard any effects should consider whether it is consistent with the purpose of the RMA to do so). (c) for controlled or restricted discretionary we must disregard any effects that fall outside the matters over which we reserve control or restrict discretion (s95d(c)). Identify whether this is a controlled activity or RDA and specify relevant rule: (d) (e) we must disregard trade competition and the effects of trade competition (s95d(d)) we must disregard any effect on a person who has given written approval (s95d(e)) Taking account of all of the above, and Advice Note 5, identify the reasons why we are satisfied that the adverse effects on the environment will be, or are likely to be, Doc # Page 10

18 311 more than minor or; minor or less than minor: The effects on the environment will be, or are likely to be: More than minor - PUBLICLY NOTIFY (No further assessment required. Go directly to Recommendation panel). Minor or less than minor - go to Step 4 Step 4: Are there special circumstances that warrant public notification (s95a(9))? Yes PUBLICLY NOTIFY (No further assessment required. Go directly to Recommendation panel). Identify special circumstances/matters No Determine whether limited notification is required under s95b. S95B: Determining whether the application should be limited notified. Step 1: Is the activity on, or adjacent to, or might it affect, any land that is the subject of a statutory acknowledgement and is the person to who the statutory acknowledgment is made, considered affected under s95e? (s95b(5)(a)) Yes serve notice on person affected Identify parties No Go to Step 2 Step 2: Is there a rule or NES that precludes limited notification? (s95b(2)) Yes - Go to Step 4 (omit Step 3) Identify rule/nes No - Go to Step 3 Step 3: Are there persons who are affected to a minor or more than minor extent? (s95b (8)) In forming an opinion as to who may be an affected person: (a) We may disregard an adverse effect on the person if a rule or NES permits an activity with that effect. (s95e(2)(a)) Identify any effects so disregarded (Note the discretion to disregard any effects should consider whether it is consistent with the purpose of the RMA to do so). (b) For controlled or restricted discretionary we must disregard any effects on the person that fall outside the matters over which we reserve control or restrict discretion (s95e(2)(b)) Identify whether this is a controlled activity or RDA and specify relevant rule: Doc # Page 11

19 312 (d) We must decide that a person is not affected if the person has given written approval and has not withdrawn the approval in writing before the authority has decided whether there are any affected persons. (s95e(3)(a)) (NB: beware of conditional approvals). Identify any parties who have given their written approval (e) We must decide that a person is not affected if it is unreasonable in the circumstances to seek the person s written approval. (s95e(3)(b)) Identify any persons whose approval is unreasonable to seek Taking account of all of the above, and Advice Note 5, identify any persons who we consider to be affected persons : (NB this excludes anyone who has given written approval). Are there any persons affected to a minor or more than minor extent? Yes serve notice on persons affected Identify persons: I recommend that the parties be limited notified as shown in the table below. Note that WRC Map No. 2 (Claret Ash Ltd) and WRC Map No.3 (Cole HD and GA) (refer to the map below) have provided affected party approvals. They are believed to be owner occupiers. Receptor Parties WRC Map No. H2 H3 H9 Not numbered forest to south of site Owners and occupiers of the dwellings at 2841, 2853, and 2897 SH 2. Owner and occupier of the dwelling at 2811 SH 2. Owner & Occupier of the land (TCJ Van Brecht) comprised in Lot 3 DP with access at 2876C SH2. Owner & Occupier of the land comprised in Part Lot 1 DPS 986 (FS & KP Barker) with access at 48 McWatt Road Matariki Forests (Leasehold CT for Crown Land) Location 5 Gielens Orchard Ltd State Highway 2, Maramarua (Two dwellings) State Highway 2 MARAMARUA N/A 2876 C State Highway 2 MARAMARUA N/A 48 McWatt Road MARAMARUA Postal Gielens Orchard Ltd 2841 STATE HIGHWAY 2 RD 1 POKENO 2471 D & N Meredith, 2811 STATE HIGHWAY 2 RD 1 POKENO 2471 T & B Van Brecht, 2002 STATE HIGHWAY 2 RD 1 POKENO 2471 K & F Barker, 48 MCWATT ROAD RD 1 POKENO 2471 N/A Lot 1 DPS Peter Spencer Rayonier, PO Box 9283 Newmarket Auckland 1149 Doc # Page 12

20 Doc #

21 Doc # Page

22 315 No Go to Step 4 Step 4: Do special circumstances exist that warrant notification to any other persons not already determined to be eligible for limited notification? (s95b(10)). (Note that this consideration only applies to persons excluded from notification by Step 2 i.e. it is not applicable to any person who has been excluded from notification under Step 3). Yes - Serve notice on those persons Identify persons and reasons No - PROCESS NON NOTIFIED Where the notification decision is contrary to the decision sought by Waikato-Tainui or Raukawa (for applications within the relevant areas), please summarise below how you have considered and weighed those matters in the recommendation: Recommendation In accordance with the above assessment I recommend that the application be: (delete those not applicable) LIMITED NOTIFIED Marius Rademeyer Resource Management Consultant For: Resource Use Group Date: 8 November 2018 Reviewed by: Date: 8 November 2018 Jennifer Matthys Resource Officer Resource Use Group Decision The application is to be processed in accordance with the above recommendation. Doc #

23 316 Signed: Date: 8/11/18 David Stagg Team Leader Resource Use Group Acting under authority delegated subject to the provisions of the RMA 1991 which at the time of decision had not been revoked. Doc # Page 16

24 317

25 In reply please quote: APP IRIS Document No: File No: A April 2018 Van Den Brink (2844) Limited PO Box Orakei 1745 Dear Sir/Madam Request for Further Information under Section 92(1) of the RMA I refer to the application received on 9 January 2018 Application No. APP139105) for the following: Reference Id AUTH AUTH AUTH AUTH Activity Description Discharge odour and dust to air from a free range chicken broiler farm comprising up to 10 sheds Undertake site earthworks for the building platforms and the discharge of soil to land, sediment to Install culverts in a farm drain and the associated diversion and discharge of water and discharge Divert a farm drain involving the diversion and subsequent discharge of water. I advise that, in accordance with s92(1) of the RMA, I request further information in relation to the application. Overall, while we consider the methods used to assess the potential adverse effects of odour and dust emissions from the proposed farm are appropriate, we consider that further information is required before the scale of potential odour nuisance effects can be ascertained. Please provide the following information to better understand those effects: 1. A consideration of the potential for future residential development at adjacent properties environment and what this would mean for the sensitivity of the receiving environment and the assessment of odour impacts. 2. Further information describing the derivation of the odour estimation method used in the Odour Assessment. 3. Further information to support the relationship between ambient temperature and odour emission rates used in this odour estimation method in a New Zealand context. 4. A copy of the 2007 conference paper describing the original derivation of the odour assessment criterion. 5. Updated dispersion model predictions incorporating the following modifications: a. Inclusion of a discrete receptor to represent the second dwelling at the adjacent property to the west of the site (approximately 190 m east of House Receptor 5).

26 b. Inclusion of additional emission sources to represent chimney and side vents located toward the end of each shed. c. Efflux velocities modified to either realistically account for periods of low efflux velocity or to represent a conservatively low constant efflux velocity. d. Dispersion options set to MDISP=2 and MPDF=1. e. Odour emissions estimated via the EPA Victoria method described in Appendix B. f. Tabulated predictions at each discrete receptor. 6. Details of the methods proposed to the heat the sheds (including a confirmation of whether combustion exhaust will be discharged internally within sheds). The RMA requires that, within 15 working days of receiving this request, you must respond to the Waikato Regional Council in one of three ways, as follows: 1. Provide the information requested; or 2. Advise in writing that you agree to provide the information; or 3. Advise in writing that you refuse to provide the information. Should you agree to provide the information, please confirm this in writing. The date for the supply of this information is on or before 9 May Please advise the Waikato Regional Council of any delay to the provision of this information prior to this date. Should you refuse to provide the information or not provide it within the period specified, I advise that Waikato Regional Council is required to publicly notify the application and that following public notification, we may decline your application if we consider we have insufficient information to enable us to make a decision on your application. I advise that processing of your application will be placed on hold from the date of this letter to the date of receipt of the information requested, or if you refuse to provide the information, the date of receipt of that advice. Should you require any further information with regard to the above, please contact me on or at jennifer.matthys@waikatoregion.govt.nz. If responding in writing, please quote application number APP Yours faithfully 319 Jennifer Matthys Resource Officer Resource Use

27 320

28 321

29 322

30 323

31 324

32 325

33 326

34 327

35 328

36 329

37 330

38 331

39 332

40 333

41 334

42 335

43 336

44 337

45 338

46 339

47 340

48 341

49 342

50 343

51 344

52 345

53 346

54 347

55 348

56 349