UNDER The Resource Management Act Proposed Natural Resources Plan: STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF DAVID GIBSON

Transcription

1 BEFORE WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL UNDER The Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER Proposed Natural Resources Plan: Spencer Holmes Ltd Submission (Submitter S273); STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF DAVID GIBSON HEARING 4 (Water Quality & Stormwater Management) Dated: 26 th January 2018 S150838

2 EXPERIENCE 1. My full name is Alexander David Gibson and I am a Senior Planner with the firm of Spencer Holmes Limited. I hold a Bachelor of Surveying from the University of New South Wales and I am an Associate member of the New Zealand Planning Institute (NZPI) as well as a Professional Associate of the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors (NZIS). I have worked in the resource management planning field for over twenty years. 2. Spencer Holmes Ltd is a multi-discipline land development company employing civil and structural engineers, surveyors and planners. I have been employed by the firm as a planner for three years. Immediately prior to joining Spencer Holmes, I was employed as a Senior Planner for Cardno (NZ) Ltd for 10 years. Before that I worked with Wellington City Council as a resource consent planner for 8 years. 3. I have experience in residential subdivision, housing and earthworks projects, predominantly in the Wellington Region. These have included a range of subdivision developments from small infill projects, multi-unit housing developments and up to large 100+ lot greenfield subdivision and earthworks projects. CODE OF CONDUCT 4. I am familiar with the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses set out in Section 7 of the Environment Court Practice Note, dated Whilst this is a Council hearing, I agree to comply with the relevant parts of the Code of Conduct. Except where I state that I am relying upon the specified evidence of another person, my evidence in this statement is within my area of expertise as set out above. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express. INTRODUCTION 5. I prepared the original submission for Spencer Holmes Ltd. The submission was not made for a specific client, project or property; but is an overview submission in terms of Spencer Holmes recent project experience working with the current suite of regional plans and the local authority implementation of the PNRP s policy directions. 6. I have reviewed the relevant parts of the s42a reports: Topic: Water Quality by Rachel Pawson dated 12 January Topic: Stormwater by Amber Carter dated 12 January I have separated this evidence into the two topics as reflected by the s42a reports and followed the issues as listed in those reports. S Page 1 of 6

3 ORIGINAL SUBMISSION WATER QUALITY 8. The original submission supported the proposed TSS limits (total suspended solids) of permitted activity rule 42 for minor discharges of contaminants to water. 9. The original submission also supported the proposed TSS limits (total suspended solids) of permitted activity rule 48 for stormwater discharges to water from an individual property. 10. The basis for the submission was that permitted rules 42 and 48 included different TSS limits for the receiving water body depending on the importance of the receiving water body. The TSS limits also included an option for a relative measure, where the receiving waterbody already exceeded the nominal TSS limit. This is considered a positive change from the operative freshwater plan, which has a single specified TSS limit for all water bodies. 11. The higher TSS limit of 100g/m 3 for water bodies that are not listed in a schedule, together with the 33% reduction limit where the existing waterbody exceeds 100g.m 3, are considered to be more realistic and practical. SECTION 42A REPORT (WATER QUALITY) RULEs 42, 48 & NEW RULE 12. The section 42A report Topic: Water Quality addresses the submission points under Issue 10.2 Rule 42 & 69 Minor Discharges at paragraphs 882 to The section 42A report recommends that rules 42 & 69 are combined into one new version of rule 42. I note that rule 69 is in respect of a discharge to land, which is not a water quality matter. Therefore, it may create confusion for users to include the discharge to land rule 69 within the discharge to water chapter of the PNRP. 14. The section 42A report also recommends removal of the zone of reasonable mixing provisions of the TSS limit conditions under rules 42 and 48. I do not agree with this change. It is not reasonable to require a resource consent for a discharge above a certain TSS limit when the receiving water body has a higher TSS limit. The proposed rules as notified provide the flexibility to have a TSS limit for a discharge that is relative to the TSS of the receiving water body. 15. Consequently, I consider that the zone of reasonable mixing provisions of the TSS limit conditions under rules 42 and 48 should be retained as notified. 16. I also note that there is no definition of contaminant in the PNRP. 17. The section 42A report also recommends a new non-complying activity rule to avoid discharge of contaminants to the stormwater network (Issue 10.3 paragraphs 933 to 941). I note that the rule excludes stormwater, which is defined. 18. The proposed new rule also includes a note that stormwater discharges are addressed by rule 48 to 53. I consider that this note should also refer to rule 99 for stormwater and sediment discharges from earthworks areas. S Page 2 of 6

4 19. I would note that under this new rule, the hosing down of mud or bird droppings from a vehicle on the street or driveway into the street kerb and channel may require a resource consent as a non-complying activity. ORIGINAL SUBMISSION STORMWATER 20. The original submission sought amendments to policies 73, 74, 75 and 79 that are to do with water sensitive urban design (WSUD), local authority stormwater networks and stormwater management for new development. 21. The basis for the submission on these policies was that implementing WSUD in steep topography is not usually practical, and that managing post-development flows to be the same as pre-development flows requires specific engineered solutions and is a significant cost addition to new development. 22. The original submission sought clarification of how subdivision would be treated in terms of permitted stormwater discharge rule 48 for stormwater from an individual property. 23. The original submission opposed the controlled activity rule 50 for stormwater discharges from a local authority network. 24. The original submission opposed the discretionary activity rule 51 for stormwater discharges from a local authority network. SECTION 42A REPORT (STORMWATER) POLICY The section 42A report Topic: Stormwater addresses submissions on policy 73 under Issue 2.3 starting at paragraph The section 42A report notes at paragraph 153, that Wellington City Council, Porirua City Council and Best Farm Ltd / Hunters Hill Ltd / Stebbings Farmlands Ltd also seek amendment to policy 73 with respect to implementing WSUD on steep sites. 27. The section 42A report justifies WSUD on steep sites by reference to the WCC guideline document Water Sensitive Urban Design Guide published in I note that this document is not adopted by WCC as an official policy and is not utilised by Wellington Water when assessing and approving stormwater systems. The document has little information on engineering guidance or cost implications. My understanding is that the document was not prepared with input from engineers with experience in stormwater disposal. 28. It is notable that WCC seek changes to policy 73 despite publishing the Water Sensitive Urban Design Guide that the section 42A report relies upon to justify the practicality of the policy. 29. The WCC Water Sensitive Urban Design Guide is considered to be aspirational and not appropriate as a basis to justify a regional policy to implement WSUD. S Page 3 of 6

5 30. I note from experience that the local authorities are very unwilling to take over ownership of WSUD systems as public infrastructure. 31. Policy 73 also seeks progressive improvement of public stormwater and wastewater infrastructure. However, it has become apparent through experience with Wellington Water on development projects, that improvement of public infrastructure is not a preferred option. Instead, they require private ownership of stormwater systems and alternative methods that demonstrate the development has no impact / effect on local infrastructure, which manifests in a barrier to land development and new housing. SECTION 42A REPORT (STORMWATER) POLICY The section 42A report Topic: Stormwater addresses submissions on policy 79 under Issue 2.4 starting at paragraph It is notable that Wellington Water have also submitted on this policy seeking clarification, yet from recent practical experience, this policy has resulted in Wellington Water insisting on stormwater neutrality for all new developments. The result is that on-site detention has become the norm, primarily though underground storage tanks. 34. These on-site retention systems are private infrastructure, which requires ongoing maintenance. The concern is that such private infrastructure may not be maintained in the public interest and is very likely to lead to failures in the future with risk to property and overall water quality. SECTION 42A REPORT (STORMWATER) STORMWATER FROM NEW URBAN AREAS 35. The section 42A report Topic: Stormwater addresses submissions on stormwater discharges from subdivision under Issue 5 starting at paragraph The section 42A report opines at paragraphs 368 to 374 that there are risks of policies 73 and 79 not being implemented by local authorities in a timely fashion. However, as I have noted previously, Wellington Water are currently requiring stormwater neutrality on new development and thus essentially implementing policy 79. Hence the concerns in the section 42A report would appear to be unfounded in practice. 37. The recommendation in the section 42A report to address the perceived time delay to implement policies 73 & 74 is to introduce new rules (48A and 48B) for stormwater discharges from new urban development. The trigger for consent under the proposed new rules is subdivision or development that also involves earthworks over 3,000m 2 or is in an area where there is no stormwater management strategy adopted. 38. Given that local authorities have submitted applications seeking their stage 1 global consents under rule 51, and that Wellington Water are actively implementing the relevant stormwater policies of the PNRP (as they interpret them), I consider that the concerns expressed in the section 42A report, and the consequential need for the S Page 4 of 6

6 proposed additional rules, are unfounded. As expressed at paragraph 364 in the section 42A report, the intent of the PNRP was not to require additional consents for stormwater networks in new subdivisions, but rather that the new stormwater networks should come under the local authority s global consent. 39. Therefore, I consider that the recommended rules 48a and 48B should not be accepted by the commissioners. NPS ON URBAN DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY 40. I am concerned that the section 42A report makes no assessment of the PNRP and stormwater matters in terms of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity. Section 30(ba) of the RMA requires a regional authority to ensure there is sufficient development capacity for housing and business land when implementing and reviewing their objectives, policies and methods. 41. I consider that some policies of the RPS and many of the policies now proposed in the PNRP will significantly hinder the development of urban land, which is contrary to Section 30(ba) of the Act. This is particularly in respect of policies 73 & As I have noted, the interpretation of policies 73 & 79 by Wellington Water has resulted in a virtually mandatory requirement not to increase pre-development stormwater flows. This means that new urban areas cannot be developed to achieve efficient yields or may not be able to be developed at all. Thereby contributing to the housing affordability crisis and reducing the long term sustainability of Wellington. 43. Consequently, we seek changes to policies 73, 74, 75 & 79 that recognise the need to development urban land efficiently, and request the committee to require the regional council to undertake an assessment of the whole of the PNRP in light of section 30(ba) and the NPS on Urban Development Capacity. OUTCOMES SOUGHT & CONCLUSIONS 44. I consider that the PNRP should be amended to avoid the ambiguities and issues as identified in the original submission by Spencer Holmes Ltd. 45. I do not agree with the S42A report recommendations to alter the conditions relating to TSS in rules 42 & 48. The rules should remain as notified as the TSS limits are practical and realistic. 46. I do not agree with the S42A report recommendations to introduce new rules 48A and 48B. 47. I seek amendments to policies 73, 74, 75 & 79 to recognise the importance of urban land and the need to develop urban land efficiently. S Page 5 of 6

7 48. I consider that the Commissioners must carefully consider the content and potential outcomes of the PNRP in terms of the development potential of the urban areas of the region as now required under section 30(ba) RMA. David Gibson Planning Consultant 26 January 2018 S Page 6 of 6